Bigger Bro Model

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little)

---

Having read this thread again, it sounds from this like as a COMMERCIAL project, the next ski will likely be something a bit more floaty floaty pow pow, rather than a BM Charger, so as to be more of a compliment to the current Bro, rather than an overlap.

If this is the case I would just be careful, personally, of going too much bigger than the 110 mark IF you are going to go with a traditional shaped ski.

Having skied the Fatypus this winter, and the Zag skis previously, I’ve tried both super fat, and tip rocker style designs.
My feelings regarding the super fat style of the Fatypus can be found here (search for it), but long story short, was that the extra width didn’t make up for the lack of length up in the front of the ski - 180 seemed too short, and the shovel too short and abrupt to really let fly. Also, you have to adjust your stance when you get to firmer stuff and want to edge, which takes some getting used to.
Having skied the Zags on firmer conditions, the one thing that becomes apparent is that although on paper, the long nose and pintail make for awesome performance in soft conditions, they suck in anything firm or worse. The long nose basically shortens the length by such an amount, that trying to load the shovel to carve a turn when you want to, they wash out, and the pintail behind just lets it happen as it doesn’t grab at all, but releases as you would expect from a pintail.

As a floaty pow ski, your not going to be using this to run gates on ice, so some of these points are not ones that are initially considered, but realistically, we all have to ski some hard pack to get around to the good stuff, and there are people here who will want to ski it every day - points that need to be considered.

Sooo, if up to me, I’d say:
- 135-115-125mm,
- 192cm,
- Camber would be 5mm under the foot, just a little to aid grip, when having to hit the firm.
- Flex wise, as a floaty pow ski, I’d say the regular and stiff bro flexes, as the power of the FKNA stiff shouldn’t be needed for this type of quiver ski, to be used more often in pow than all mtn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

alright, I gotta admit I laughed at that one.

---

If you're gonna go with bloody starter jackets, at least throw some cheap hookers and mounds of blow on as well.

Cross-posted and edited from the Factory Tour thread....

I vote for a Lotus 138-ish shape, but less symmetrical front to back -- a bigger tip, but not as big as the 'Toons -- with conventional camber underfoot to match the slight conventional sidecut, reverse camber in the tip and tail. I originally said how 'bout a swallowtail, too, for shits and giggles, by Ty implied that it would be useless, pics or not.

The profile would almost look like a bow -- of the -and-arrow variety. Thus, we'd have the Bro Model and the Bow Model.

The marketing just writes itself: "Your quiver is useless without a Bow."

never having skied the w105's, please make me the 193 monster 103, only 110-115 in the waist and in a 197

fun ski right there.:biggrin:

Can Metal go into these?
Or will it still be wood/ glass/carbon weave like the current bro's?

I'm not an expert, but I'd buy anyway if you made a ski similar to what Bullet was talking about, but with a nice long, gradual-rise, pointy nose similar to what you see on swallowtail snowboards. A lot of taper would be nice too. If the nose was long enough and there was enough taper, even I would feel confident riding it through the trees in a length of 200cm.

rocker, n:
5. An object having a curved form, as the keel of a ship or a skate blade sharpened in a curve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Cross-posted and edited from the Factory Tour thread....

I vote for a Lotus 138-ish shape, but less symmetrical front to back -- a bigger tip, but not as big as the 'Toons -- with conventional camber underfoot to match the slight conventional sidecut, reverse camber in the tip and tail. I originally said how 'bout a swallowtail, too, for shits and giggles, by Ty implied that it would be useless, pics or not.

The profile would almost look like a bow -- of the -and-arrow variety. Thus, we'd have the Bro Model and the Bow Model.

The marketing just writes itself: "Your quiver is useless without a Bow."

---

I give this idea my officail thumbs down. I don't think this is meant to be a powder ski as much as it is meant to be a big mountain ski. I think the design should be geared more towards stability rather than float. Skrew float, you get a bit of speed and anything with this much surface area will float. Do give it a rockered tip and make it burly as hell though.

wi der!

wi der!


wi der!

some of us are heavy.

seriously mangs, joo gotsta making us big ski for fast pow.

edit: at least make me a Yeti-sized prototype...:redface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Sooo...spatula-like?

---

if you talk about the ski rocker as a whole, then yes. a ski's rocker is the opposite of camber (actually the term most often used is "reverse camber"). the term "rocker" is used mostly in water skis, where the bigger the rocker the lower the turn radius on water.

you asked about "tip rocker" however, which defines the curve and lift of the ski's tips from the ground. in the original image in the beginning of the thread the ski's tip rocker is 60mm in front and 30mm in the back. the ski in that image has neither rocker nor camber as it lays flat across its length.

i'm sure this terminology may be disputed, so fire away if you don't like my explanation.

I won't argue the terminology, but I, personally, figure when most people say 'tip rocker', they're talking about the reverse camber or 'lift' in either the tip or tail, speaking spatulaistically, if you will. If there is another interpretation, please advise me before I make a fool of myself.

Nonetheless, putting tip rocker in a snow ski also makes it turn shorter in most cases, depending, of course, on the sidecut. Schmearability increases with reverse sidecut or a Lotus-like forward-of-the-toe wide spot design. Beyond that, we'd be looking at a somewhat traditional sidecut behind a slightly rockered tip for a combination of floaty and carvy.

Is this concept acceptable for youz guyz that have voiced your opinions?
Is the design overplayed in the market right now?
Is there anything we have missed?
Is this my beautiful wife?

you're the ski maker, splat, i'm sure your interpretation is the correct one! i'm only familiar with the term from water skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

I won't argue the terminology, but I, personally, figure when most people say 'tip rocker', they're talking about the reverse camber or 'lift' in either the tip or tail, speaking spatulaistically, if you will. If there is another interpretation, please advise me before I make a fool of myself.

Nonetheless, putting tip rocker in a snow ski also makes it turn shorter in most cases, depending, of course, on the sidecut. Schmearability increases with reverse sidecut or a Lotus-like forward-of-the-toe wide spot design. Beyond that, we'd be looking at a somewhat traditional sidecut behind a slightly rockered tip for a combination of floaty and carvy.

Is this concept acceptable for youz guyz that have voiced your opinions?
Is the design overplayed in the market right now?
Is there anything we have missed?
Is this my beautiful wife?

---

Sounds good to me. Just two questions, 1) what is the point of a square tail (doesn't it just make the ski hook up in soft snow?) 2) can you please make the ski alittle shorter like 195?. Great work. Nick

and you may tell yourself..MY GOD, WHAT HAVE I DONE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountain_man

Sounds good to me. Just two questions, 1) what is the point of a square tail (doesn't it just make the ski hook up in soft snow?) 2) can you please make the ski alittle shorter like 195?. Great work. Nick

---

A square tail makes a pair of boards ski more like their true (stated) length. Twin tips make the ski ride shorter, as there is less effective edge -- you lose some of the length to the tip.

I would think you could design a twin to have the same effective edge as a similar square-tailed ski, but the twin would be longer (/heavier) to achieve that same effective edge length.

When you see a ski that is a 205 with a twin, you can pretty much bet it skis shorter than a 205 square-tailed ski, all else equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

I won't argue the terminology, but I, personally, figure when most people say 'tip rocker', they're talking about the reverse camber or 'lift' in either the tip or tail, speaking spatulaistically, if you will. If there is another interpretation, please advise me before I make a fool of myself.

Nonetheless, putting tip rocker in a snow ski also makes it turn shorter in most cases, depending, of course, on the sidecut. Schmearability increases with reverse sidecut or a Lotus-like forward-of-the-toe wide spot design. Beyond that, we'd be looking at a somewhat traditional sidecut behind a slightly rockered tip for a combination of floaty and carvy.

Is this concept acceptable for youz guyz that have voiced your opinions?
Is the design overplayed in the market right now?
Is there anything we have missed?
Is this my beautiful wife?

---

you managed to design the bro-model without any of my input, so i have every confidence in you ski designing skills, all i ask is that there be a porn star graphic option, something that has been missed by the ski industry for a while now. the only other advice i can give is to err on the side of caution if you are making a charging ski. For a company such as PM gear, it may be wise to build a ski that will sell out rather than one that is a true balls to the wall ski, but we all expect one of those in the future anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

all i ask is that there be a porn star graphic option

---

wtf? :cussing:

here's where to find porn, if you're that desperate: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7

are you trying to rub one off on the chairlift or something?

for a ripping ski such as discussed above, we need blood and destruction. an abomidable snowman with blood running down his chin, sporting a FKNA t-shirt and holding aloft the decapitated body of some fur-bogner ski-bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjabirdman

are you trying to rub one off on the chairlift or something?

---

I don't know about soul skier, but that sounds good to me.

and the panty-tree isn't inspiration enough?

if there's gonna be a naked girl on my skis, i won't stand for anything less than bklytrayc's avatar. she can replace the abomidable snowman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upallnight

A square tail makes a pair of boards ski more like their true (stated) length. Twin tips make the ski ride shorter, as there is less effective edge -- you lose some of the length to the tip.

I would think you could design a twin to have the same effective edge as a similar square-tailed ski, but the twin would be longer (/heavier) to achieve that same effective edge length.

When you see a ski that is a 205 with a twin, you can pretty much bet it skis shorter than a 205 square-tailed ski, all else equal.

---

Yeah sorry i know what a 'square tail' i was sort of refering to the second plan for the bigger Bro posted as it looks like the sidecut ends before it reaches the tail. So when someone said square i thought it was refering to a ski which has its sidecut finished before the tail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountain_man

Yeah sorry i know what a 'square tail' i was sort of refering to the second plan for the bigger Bro posted as it looks like the sidecut ends before it reaches the tail. So when someone said square i thought it was refering to a ski which has its sidecut finished before the tail.

---

The way I read the plans, the first one has a tail width of 125, with the "tip" turning up starting at 60mm from the end; the second plan has that same width of 125, but the slight kick starts at 30mm.

Since the "125mm" is in exactly the same spot on both designs, I think (*assume*) it means that it was just convenient to put the "125mm" label a bit more toward the center of the ski.

(For reference it makes sense that they indicate the widths at key points -- just as they show the measurement from the front of the ski for the max tip width and the location of the center for the waist width. In other words, just because they didn't nudge the indicator for the tail width a little closer to the back doesn't mean that the sidecut ends in a spot other than where the tail starts to lift from the snow--and the measurement is listed (60mm/30mm for the first and 2nd designs, respectively.)

Speaking of big skis... Biglines is saying that the Legend Pro XXL will be coming in a 200 and 194. I thought it was a 194 only... can anyone else confirm that there will be a 200?

That settles it. The Bro XXXXXXXXL it is!

nice hijack. The pro xxls I saw last season were indeed 200s (or maybe 201?). They seem a fair amount softer flex (shop flex) than the legend pros as well so may be a little more pow friendly. As for the monster bro, I'm glad someone's doing it Splat. Pisses me off that I'm forced to ride 19Xs. I would love a 205-210 personally, making a mid 190s ski would not set it apart at all.

Porn topsheet and a name like pow sluts would be golden, something to scare little kids and create uneasy silence in gondolas is totally the way to go. If you get banned from resorts there's free publicity right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by addict

I would love a 205-210 personally, making a mid 190s ski would not set it apart at all. .

---

Nobody's ever going to make it, but if I could find it and afford it I think I would buy a wide 210. I mean, seriously, can you imagine the unbridled shenanigoats that could take place on a 115 underfoot 210...:D :D :D