Advantages to more rocker?

i take it as:


long shovel: the only change in the ski's shape is the line where the shovel kicks up, and the camber is consistently flat and/or cambered through the ski. see also: 120, EHP, sanouk

rocker: the ski is bent (ie. a change in the camber, from flat or positive underfoot, to a negative camber mid shovel and/or tail), and then ALSO has a shovel. see also: 138's, hellbents, ARG, rocker

reverse camber: basically the rocker line is at boot center, and is not really flat anywhere along the length. see also: praxis, spatulas

so rocker would mean that its curved from flat/positive camber to reverse camber, while long shoveled means its just straight bent

right?

This is way to confusing. We need to stop saying Reverse Camber. It's an oxymoron. There is just rocker. Spats have rocker, hellbents have rocker, rockers have rocker, etc.

To properly describe a ski like a Pontoon (flat spot underfoot, with rise in tip and tail) you'd say "three-stage rocker" or "rocker in the tip and tail, flat underfoot", which is more lenghty. When wakeboards came out, just like surfboards, their curve was called rocker. Then wakeboards began to have a "three stage rocker", which achieved more pop off the wake.

In conclusion, it's all just called rocker. Rocker by default is a curve like the spat has. To describe a pontoon, ARG, Hellbent, EHP, EP Pro, etc--you need to throw in a qualifying statement.

*golf clap*

Wait...whats rocker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z

My personal dream ski is rocker like the new 138s, but with NO rocker in the tail. Stiff flat tail for support landing drops. Why rocker the tail? It could just cause you to wash out on landings.

---

I could not agree more. I just took my 138's out for their first day at loveland pass right when it opened, and the tail has a tad too much rocker for stomping landings any higher than around 20 feet unless there is a runout that you can just straightline. If you have to bust a quick turn after a decent drop, its way too easy to wash out and go to your ass(although this is coming from someone who has never skiied rocker skis before so maybe I just need more practice). The front rocker lets me stay in aggressive forward position instead of leaning back in the pow which is great, but I just dont like the way the 138s huck so far. Other than that... most fun ski ever.

I ski with a handful of guys who consistently stomp 30-40 footers on spats no problem. I haven't consistently skied a rocker ski until this season...was on pontoons for the first few months of this season and found the tail too soft so i switched them out for a pair of praxis. We're getting 2 feet through Thursday, so I'll let you know how these fair soon.

Alright, can we get back to the question of...."What's the advantage of more rocker?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by couloirman

I could not agree more. I just took my 138's out for their first day at loveland pass right when it opened, and the tail has a tad too much rocker for stomping landings any higher than around 20 feet unless there is a runout that you can just straightline. If you have to bust a quick turn after a decent drop, its way too easy to wash out and go to your ass(although this is coming from someone who has never skiied rocker skis before so maybe I just need more practice). The front rocker lets me stay in aggressive forward position instead of leaning back in the pow which is great, but I just dont like the way the 138s huck so far. Other than that... most fun ski ever.

---

x 2...so far. 15 footers and less I have down now, but still washing out over that. Maybe I'm just too used to my seths, which let you get away with a little back seat. Even back slapping is hard w/ 138's, as soon as you lean rearward at all, your washed out and on your ass. Again, so far...just a matter of getting dialed maybe, ive seen 30 footers stomped with spats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Below Zero

Alright, can we get back to the question of...."What's the advantage of more rocker?"

---

I want to revive this thread to get more input on this question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

For the record my perfect ski would be...

120 under foot, very little sidecut
190CM+
heavily rockered tip
normal tail (flat, maybe twin)
Stiffer than my Praxis but not much
Damp
Light

---

you are very close to describing the 2006/07 Big Daddy's.

light is relative. but they are a helluva lot lighter than the gen 1 big daddy's. but obviously heavier than my Janak's with Fritsche's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z

Yeah. The ehps just have a long slow SOFT rise in the tip. Except mine, those have rocker.;)

IMO the EHPs and 120s are good idea that doesn't really do anything super well. Yeah they ski pow great, but a rockered ski does it better. And they ski cutup pow well, but a traditional stiff ski, or rockered ski that is STIFF throughout does it better. See what im getting it?

The only thing ehp/120s rule at is stomping to pow. And that's because you can't get the tip to sink and the flat stiff tail rules. Give me more stiffer rocker up front and the same EHP tail and I would buy em...

ps. I think i need to talk to stephan...

---

How do you think a flat tail performs in grabby windcream? I imagine it can catch... unless it is truly pintailed...

You don't think the 120's do anything great?

I only put a few ones on a pair but I thought that they were close to a Spat for pow/chop performance (dunno about windbuff) but definately lacked for tree power performance... but you could definately tour well on the 120s

You cannot throw out the tail on a flat tailed ski like a 120 to scrub speed... not the same way that you can with a full rocker.

We have quivers but all skis perform more than one task for most of us... unless we have speed skis...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Below Zero

but why have more rocker in the tail?

It would seem that having just enough rocker in the tail to allow the ski to pivot would be enough.

Thoughts?

---

I believe its for landing switch in powder and such. Its designed as more of a BC jib type ski. But then you get the flipside that people complian about being that its easy to "wheelie" on landings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Below Zero

So I'm standing in line at Abasin and I see a guy on a pair of Hellbents. I noticed that they have way more rocker in the tip and tail than the Praxis.

I can possibly see the advantage of having more rocker in the tip to prevent tip dive and keep you floating in the deep stuff, but why have more rocker in the tail?

It would seem that having just enough rocker in the tail to allow the ski to pivot would be enough.

Thoughts?

---

The point of having that much rocker in the TAIL is that when all is said and done, its more of a backcountry jib ski than a powder ski, with one of the primary goals/objectives of the skiers/pros using that ski being to ski switch and land switch in deep powder. That being the case, they need a lot of rocker to make sure the tails do not dig in or get caught. So if there is a a lot of rocker in the tail, almost as much as in the tip, if not an equal amount, then landing switch or skiing switch essentially feels like landing forward. That is also why a lot of those guys mount that ski at true center.

Whereas a ski like the pontoon, praxis pow, ehp, spat, etc. are designed primarily as directional, forward skiing, charging type skis where the tip rocker is designed create float and prevent tip dive and the tail rocker is designed to add smearability, and that is why it is more subtle than on a ski like the hellbents.