Printable View
I don't really have much insight on this ski other than what I've seen on Instagram, but it looks like Hoji's next ski is going to be a carbon ski with a flat tail. My guess is it that it will have the Reflect Tech like the HOJI and Renegade. Looks narrow-ish. Probably a long tour, big trip type ski.
Attachment 139435
When can I buy? Such a tease.
hoji will be demoing it this winter (13/14) and will be production 14/15.
Dimensions?
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...d=139449&stc=1
No carbon. Tail art reminds me a little of the Völkl Nunataq.
Should be nice, fully rockered touring skis around 100-115mm are not a bad idea. ;-)
Maybe 4FRNT is gearing up to do a whole line of Edgar Allan Poe themed skis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuGZ_wp_i9w
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Just give it a big radius and that's not a pintail.
What do you consider a big radius? And while you're at it, what do you consider to be a pintail?Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
I think ehp/renegade are ideal, so 30+. I would say in your skis the cd3 would be that, but the tip - mid delta = 20mm and mid - tail delta = 7mm. So kinda pinny. The cd6 is not pinny with a tip - mid delta = 20mm and the mid - tail delta = 14mm, but that's got a tighter radius, also missing straight sections in tip and tail :( . EHP, in comparison, is tip - mid = 13mm and mid - tail = 7mm. So I guess I would call a ski "kind of" a pintail if the tip-mid/mid-tail delta ratio is greater than 2/1.
4frnt just holds the distinction of making a straight ski, with modern rocker, and that's not a pin. They just need to make a lighter one. PM's got the kusula, but it needs to be skinnier to be a really all around touring option, imo. So who else comes up to bat. Niche design, but people love the ehp/renie/hoji for reason.
Sounds like a promising ski. The graphics do look a lot like the Nunatuq/Nanuq. I've really liked this sort of design for a spring ski: skinny fully rockered.
I've found the Bushwacker to actually be pretty damn good in that role, IMO. Even though it has camber, it feels a lot like a fully rockered ski in soft snow. But then has camber when you really need it. Good for the days when hucks aren't on the agenda (when more width would be REALLY nice).
Attachment 139455
JRainey - what's the requirement for your touring ski, weight or width?
Just curious if everyone wants narrower skis for the skintrack...
I think your thoughts are interesting, absolutely. The idea with the straight sections in the tip and tail is to improve float without getting any hookiness (which works very well IMO), yet the actual difference when compared to the tip shape of the CountDown 2 is very minimal. The 2 and 3 were designed together, both with pow/everyday in mind, but the 3 tilted more towards higher speeds and deeper pow.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
I see that there is an undercurrent of pretty symmetrical freeride pow skis with forward mounts going on, but have yet to spend significant time on any of them so my experience is limited in this regard.
Still a fun time to work on ski designs, even if things have calmed down significantly during the last couple of years, there seem to be interesting ideas hiding everywhere.
Simple, just take the black EHP with 112 mm waist, add a bit more tiptocker and make it 1800 g in 186 = very good pow touring ski. IMO the longer radius (above 35 m) makes for a ski that handles variable pow conditions with ease (of course among other things, but a lot of good skis like the DPS charger is "ruined" by a short radius).
Lighter narrower long radius pow skis for touring in variable soft? Surely some Kid Woold have thought of this already?
Are others just catching on, like 2 years later?
Bluehouse had that like 4 years ago. Credit where credit is due.Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
Hey Moralkaka, What'd you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
Ding Ding Ding! That's exactly what I would have said. Well, 110 under foot, but that's just keeping it clean. I think 110/112 is where you could still keep the float of the ehp, but save some weight and make it a little better for harder snow. EHP shape with really mellow full rocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moralkaka
That's why I like the kusula's rocker profile, because it's a full curve, but looks like less than the renegade. I've got a pair of ehp's with really mellow reverse camber skied into them, and I've seen the light.
I think the key is symmetrical and straight, or else you run the risk of the "pool cover" effect (feet sink, tip/tail float). The benefit of being more symmetrical, rather than pin, is that you don't have that tails down, tips up sort of soft snow ride (think motor boat with heavy engine in the rear). When you try to slide across the fall line on a pin, the tail has less resistance so it wants to finish the turn more quickly. Where a straighter, symmetrical ski will let you slide for longer with your tips angled downhill, as there is more equal amounts of drag on the tip, tail and underfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSt
Fully straight sections vs taper performance is also interesting. So much energy has been put into taper design in the last few years. All about how tapered tips ski bad snow the best, allowing you to slice through the crust/mank/whatever, but you give up usable edging area.
I'm not talking about hard snow edging, but snow snow edging. Any sort of denser/wind buffed soft snow, with enough speed, you can bend the ski and generate energy out of your turns. Tapered sections can't be used for edging in this way. They won't hook up, whether you want them too or not, where straight sections can be used to bend the ski.
The benefits of taper is that it slices through bad snow, but I think a bullet nosed tip, followed by a fully straight section has almost same hydrodynamic(soft snow = fluid) properties as full tapered tip. Without the downsides.
Most skis try to dictate/aid your technique. Sidecut wants to turn, pintails want to sink and keep the tips up. A straightish, near symmetrical ski won't do anything until you tell it to, but it won't do weird stuff in weird places. It's a neutral ride, but if you put in the input, you get what you want.
I think the CD1 has the most appealing shape from Down, just shave 2cm off the width and tone down the rocker.
As much as I would have liked the Wootest to be a light ski that skis similar to the EHP, it is most certainly nothing like it. Like I talked about above with the lack of edge contact in tapered sections, there's just not enough edge to work with. So in soft snow you can't juice the ski, and on hard snow they're just sketchy. I haven't found a ski that is as good on sastrugi as the ehp. The edge is all there, but it's not trying to make you do anything. Also, the woo's ski like a pin in powder with even a forward mount and they don't want to drift across the fall line, they just want to finish the turn. Unless you make big, flowy, low energy turns, just riding the rails.Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
The last point I want to make is that the concept of flotation has been focused on a bit too much in ski design.
Why do we have fat tips and skinny waists/tails, whether achieved through lots of side cut or a pintail? Ski makers and skiers want the tips to float, and be above the snow almost all the time. So big tips, big tip rocker or rearward mounting points rein. Skiers wanted to surf on the snow, and they can do it.
But let's have the pendulum come back to the middle. I think how a ski behaves as a foil rather than a boat is more important. Skis that want to come up for air, but don't drag under the surface.
To make a straight, symmetrical ski float, it has to be fat or have lots of tip rocker. To make one with more moderate width and tip rocker, one has to accept the fact that it won't float all of the time, but it can be relatively drag free under the snow. The EHP beats the renegade in this regard. When you really get forward over the Rens at the apex of a turn, and the tips go in, you get a good amount of drag from the the stiff, quite upturned tips. The EHP's go in, keep slicing, the softer tip bends and then they come up for air. It doesn't slow down your turn.
The best ski I've had in this regard was the Surface LL1, with 4 degree kink rocker and basically no tip. You couldn't hardly feel when the tips went in, and if the tip had been less fat relative to the waist, it would have been the optimal knife.
Food for ski designer thought.
I will not get dragged into a technical debate I will not understand, but sometimes it's nice to have a slightly twitchy ski, once you get used to it and how to keep it under control it reacts faster in variable terrain or for example when a tree jumps out of nowhere. (like planes that are, aerodynamically unstable but more maneuverable because of it)Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
Fully agree on the tip front; high, hard tips suck when they're cranked over.
I will let someone with far more knowledge argue the rest of that post... now get back to work, stop procrastinating!
By twitchy I'm guessing you mean a smaller turn radius. Most recovery turns are slides/pivots and not carves so I'd rather have something that is consistent in a slid turn. Being flat or slightly reverse camber also helps with the quick swivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
A cambered ski on edge is actually more stable in the direction it's traveling than a reverse camber ski not on edge. So the plane analogy favors the straighter, RC ski IMO.
but really guys, WHATEVER hoji makes we will all buy.... does it matter ;)
He could also mean pintailed, which I agree with 100%. I like and don't like a pintail. In the trees and pillows I like them, but throw me on a steep wide open uncut face and I don't like them as much. They work, but you have to put some mental effort in managing the tail and making sure it doesn't slide out in a long high speed turn (actually it feels more like the tip aggressively pulls you into a sharp turn). Add lots of oppurtunity for small air, though, and I like it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
Another thing you don't address is a ski's balance point. I found the Renegade to be pretty unforgiving fore/aft. This made it a pretty bad hucking ski - quite unpredictable. I've heard the Kusula is a lot better in this regard so I picked up the blems in gear swap to put em to the test. I also think camber has it's place here. If you add a modest amount of camber, the fore/aft contact points can help.
Just to clarify terms and perhaps set a guideline (take it or leave it) as this discussion gets detailed on design aspects...the tails of the standard old school skis run +/- 1cm narrower than the tips, usually 2 cm narrower in the waist. With that in mind and allowing for the numerous shape variations, a ski that runs +/- 2cm narrower in the tail would be a semi-pintail (I consider the Lhasas a semi-pintail) and anything more than 2 cm narrower would be true pintail (pontoon). I have come to the conclusion the best setting, yet easily releasing tail for slarvy washing out and pow turns would run about 16mm narrower than the tips, given a standard type design.
I personally like the Renegade's balance point. I like that it's touchy fore - aft and allows you to feather the ski forward or backward in a nuanced way. But it can mess with you if you get off kilter. It's my favorite stomping ski, air wise.Quote:
Another thing you don't address is a ski's balance point. I found the Renegade to be pretty unforgiving fore/aft. This made it a pretty bad hucking ski - quite unpredictable. I've heard the Kusula is a lot better in this regard so I picked up the blems in gear swap to put em to the test. I also think camber has it's place here. If you add a modest amount of camber, the fore/aft contact points can help.
That said, if the tip goes under while skiing, it will put you forward a bit. Less of an issue with airs as you're already bracing for impact.
I think the Kusala profile looks great though.
I think camber can help make the balance sweet spot bigger, but if you do get back on the tails it's more abrupt than just rolling back. Flat camber as a compromise?
just remember, only comparing tip width to tail width is almost meaningless unless you know the ratio of tip length and tail length @ the wide points.Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
if you draw the wide point of the tail closer to the midsole, then the wide point reads like its a pintail, but the radius curve itself may be far more round than you expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattD
You're right. I loose tail in the powdery trees is really nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
I wasn't trying to say that EHP and like designs are the best for every type of conditions and skiing, but they just tick the most boxes for me all around. In a day, I cruise through so many different types of snow, that I'll take versatility and consistency over pure performance in one or two settings.
I guess my spew/rant stems from the fact that I feel like the shape has proven merit, but no one makes it in a light, versatile width, that I can ski/tour well into the spring, without feeling pressure to take out my much lighter "touring" skis. As these handle the bad snow usually associated with spring skiing, not as well.
How do you reconcile this with the Kusula, which by my calculations has the on of the smallest tip - tail deltas out there, at about 5mm? Do you feel that you prefer something slightly skinnier in the tail for powder and something like the Kusala for it's consistent edging?Quote:
Originally Posted by Splat
I'm just curious what you prefer, because at a certain point it all preference. Like you said before, everyone has an idea of their ideal ski. At least Moralkaka's on my team :yourock:
Hey Jrainy, ignoring weight, which skis do you think best meet your shape requirements? Doesn't have to be perfect, but in that general direction of shape and performance you described.