Panel Discussion of Rockered Ski Design (John B., Ron C., Phil P.)

[jbotti]

I had another light bulb go off when I was skiing in 2-3 feet of fresh at Loveland on Friday. On several consecutive lifts I saw the same guy coming down the hill. He was on a rockered Tip and Tail ski and from the look of it from afar, it was much more rockered than my Lhasa Pows. What was distinct and disturbing was the fact that it was clear that this guy could ski, but in the chop he was way back on the skis. This is the weak link in rockered skis. They do not handle chop anywhere near as well as a traditional tip and cambered ski. I think the Lhasa pows are the best of the ones that I have tried at limiting this issue, but the tips still get deflected in chop. I was on IM 78's in a 177, and they wre actually perfect for the conditions (2-3 feet of fresh over sone big ass bumps!!). As I mentioned on a previous post, the high flexion, tip and counter turn was just what the doctor ordered.

So anyway, back to my original question, I am thinking that for when I ski tahoe I am better off with a non rockered ski. It gets skised out so fast that one spends the rest of the day skiing crud, chop? and bumps. My all time favorite ski fior this is the Head IM 88. I was thinking the Nomad might be a perfect fat ski for deep stuff that will handle the criud well. Who has skied it. Is it a stiff ski or more on the soft side. Any and all thoughts appreciated.

BTW, I was skiing with Diana Rogers and and she sends her best to all those that I mentioned (the ones I was pretty sure she knew) from this site, Jim, Lynn and Gary.

[Philpug]

Personally, I didn't like the Pontoon when I skied it, put me too far back.

As far as the Nomad, I like the skis NeverSummer produce. I want to try more rockers, I really like my PBR's a 10/20 Rocker with traditional camber.

[Ron]

The nomad is one of my favorite skis! I have reviewed and posted about them several times. I will say I agree with Phil and even though the Nomad is coming out in a soft version I am hoping to see a 10/20 icelantic Nomad, I can't think of a better setup. The Nomad measures at 146-112-131 (ish) and with that tip/tail rocker, it would be a fantastic soft snow ski. The normal Nomad is fairly stiff, the new "soft" will most likely have a softer tip/tail but fairly stiff underfoot.


Not sure about the "in the back seat" thing with rockered skis; are you referring only to reverse camber skis or all orckered skis even those with some or no camber? I didn't feel I was in the back seat or felt knocked into the back seat on the bent's and I know Phil isn't on his PBR's. My thought is that many folks are mounting them too far back and this is the culprit. The other thing that occurs is a lot of folks who ski piled stuff tend to sit back a little and this exacerbates the issue on rockered tip[ed skis. You can drive the tips hard and not get tips dive. It's another advantage as far as I am concerned. I know It was a mental thing to go ahead and driver the Bent's as hard as I wanted.  FWIW- I loved the Bent's in the slushy stuff at Vail. No issues

what ski are you referring to?

[Ron]

http://skidoctors.com/Angulation.html

John, check this article out! I think you will agree

[jbotti]

No dounbt , I agree on starting thngs with the feet.

On getting in the back seat on Rockered skis, I notice this often looking at others on them at resorts. Some of this is just the way some people ski. But one of the things that I hated about the DP Lotus 138's was the fact that the skis naturally put me further in the back seat, and one could easiy ski from that position. As well, in chop, I find rockered tips get deflected. The deflection tends to put me futher back. There is not that firm feeling up front that I can push my weight into. Some of this may just be user error. I am not saying that one can't ski rockered tips in chop while being forward, only that the the tip deflection has a tendency to put one back some. The other way to say it is that I have to really work to stay forward on them in chop, and staying forward is not confidence inspiring becuse of the deflection and displacement.

I continue to weigh the pros and cons of fat vs. thinner and rockered vs traditional in powder and chop. Whereas 2-3 months ago I was convinced that fatter and rockered was better, right now I really see that whenever you alter the design, you may gain some in one area (like float) but you will surely lose in another area. This I think has been Phil's point on rockered skis. At the end of the day, float above a reasonable level is very overrated. Especially for resort skiing, where bottomless lasts for an hour or two at best, and the rest of the day one is skiing bumps, chop and crud, where the ability to tip and manuever is infinitely more important than float.

All of these are my recent thoughts and clearly they may not be in sync with what others are experiencing.

[Philpug]

I have questioned rockers from the word go because IMHO no one has gotten it right. What I would look at as much as the rocker is the sidecut (or lack of) in the design along with tip profile. Personally what I like with what K2 has done with theirs is they kept a good amount of shape to their skis and a real nice tip that will initiate a turn when put up on edge. Many of the big skis/let alone rockered ones are too straight (at least for me) and designed for not turning and straight lining. I have tried a few of next years rockers, not in the deeps but on groomers and I like some that are coming that still have some versatility. The Volkl Gotama, Palmer P01 and Obsethed are a couple that come to mind. Quite frankly I still like my PBR's (10/20 Rockered Maiden AK's) the best.

Maybe this thread title should be changed,,it has little to nothing to do with the Nomad.

[Ron]

Since no one is posting but us 3.....

Yes, I have to agree about the sidecut, it's one of the reasons why I liked the HB so much. It was a lot of fun on the groomers. That PBR you have is a fantastic ski. As I learn more about the technology, its apparent that there is going to be several new categories of skis, A full rocker and reverse camber, no sidecut ski like a Pontoon is one type and you have others like the JJ's with 4-6 sidecuts (scalloped) and more to come for sure. I think the next 2 seasons will be pivotal with the progression. It's almost like a tradtional ski with 10/20 is already passe' . I would like to take a day and just ride a bunch back-2-back. I am sold on it though. Not sure of some of the comments I read about them, I think many aren't understanding that there isn't a one kind of "rockered" ski. One thing I don't seem to like is reverse camber (underfoot), I don't know if that will survive the evolution.

[jim-ratliff]

Y'all may be the only three posting, but I'm certainly enjoying the reading.  I just don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.

per Phil's suggestion, I did change the title.

[Ron]

Jim, you always provide intelligent thoughts and questions... Now that's the last time I say that!

[SnowHot]

Add fuel to the discussion...
I had the great pleasure of skiing a 05-06 Gotama in some amazing powder at Big Sky, and Bridger.
When I was looking to get? a Kiku which is supposed to be the most similar to that year in a Goat, but with a slightly different tail, I got really intrigued by the 2010 version which is supposed to be rockered.


I really don't think its worth it for me to own a rockered ski, but I'd love to demo the 2010 kiku in comparison to the 2009

[Ron]

The valiue of a rocker, especially a limited amount like a 10/20 is simply the ease of skiingi in pow/soft, the ability to drive the tips more without worry of tip dive/hook. If you liked what you were on, just imagine it a little easier, a little more fun and playful.