Printable View
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?
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.
Isn't what you describe the EHP - rocker in tip and none in tail?
Rockering the tail does make the ski very easy to pivot and enjoyable in powder tree skiing though.
Also though, does the tail really wash out if you are landing in deep powder?
yup. totally agree. i would love a 138 shape/rocker in the front half of the ski, and a 120 type shape (5mm more tail width, flat camber) in the tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
more pop off the lip, more stompy, and still smear turns like a champ.
the EHP is not rockered. it just has a long shovel.
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
"washing out" was a bad term I suppose. But when you land something, if it decides to push you backseat (bigger hits or flatter landings) you could "rocker out" if the tail is rockered. No support. Hard to explain but kinda see what im sayin here?
Yeah, I understand what you mean. I've only taken small hits on the Praxis (12 feet max) into pow, so I haven't really experienced that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
So your "dream" ski you are describing - do you actually edge them or pivot them? I'm trying to imagine how one actually skis the 138 or something similiar. Maybe I'm not asking the question correctly. Do you know what I mean?
Yeah, you do. But let's convince him to make it something other than 138 white or 120 purple. I'm already sold on the design, let's discuss topsheets. How about something that blends from 138 white at the tips to a true flat black underfoot and back to 138 white again at the very end of the tail, representing the merger of the 138 and 120 design? The red stripe goes through the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
Badass.
So what's advantage of the Hellbent? Is it just a Maiden with reverse camber?
I agree with Z/Marshal but FWIW what I have hit on the Praxis (reverse camber) has been easier to land than on a conventional ski. I like being able to stay on top of the ski whereas normally I'd be worried about going over the bars.
where do you draw the line between tip rocker and a loooong shovel ala dp120 and ehp193s?
edit: not that I agree with this statement, but for arguments sake, one could say that the spat has an extended tip\tail.
^^That's in deep powder landings though, right?^^ Hucking onto hardpack wouldn't be easier, although I have not tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyJim
rockered tail is a nice feature to have in places like the EC where in the trees you don't want the tail to bite, you want it to wash out so you can pivot the ski side to side
I can see what Z is saying though
What does this mean? I guess I'm getting confused about the term differences between "reverse camber", "rockered", "Long Shovel". Can someone help my jongness?Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
you want the solomon rocker...
Edge. I don't pivot and I have no desire to. Carving turns and getting the G's is where it's at in pow. For me obviously, just a preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
And yeah, there is no real difference between long shovel and rocker. It's all about how much there is. Big difference between a 138 rocker and an 120s rocker..
How does that ski? What are the specs?Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
Rocker=Flat underfoot then turned up some point before a traditional tip or tail
Long Shovel=Same thing in reference to tip
Reverse camber=no point of being flat
^^OK. I have been using the term "rockered in the tip and tail" as the same thing as "reverse camber", but if you say "rockered in the tip and tail" that implies there is a flat spot under the ski, correct?
For example...
Pontoon=Rockered tail tip
Spatula=Reverse Camber
er, you mean "...same thing as 'reverse CAMBER,' but if you say..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
Otherwise, yes.
That is, regular tips and tails << rockered tips and tails <<< reverse cambered.
Ski shape (side cut, etc) is a different, albeit related issue.
To confirm: rockered basically means super long turned up ski fronts and/or backs, more than a regular tip or tail, but with a flat spot underfoot so that it isn't fully "reverse cambered."
^^yeah, that's what I meant, reverse camber. oops^^
sw pow landings
192 cm long, big shovel, 120 at the waist, rockered tip, normal camber tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
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
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
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?"
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 couloirman
I want to revive this thread to get more input on this question...Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
you are very close to describing the 2006/07 Big Daddy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyJim
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.
How do you think a flat tail performs in grabby windcream? I imagine it can catch... unless it is truly pintailed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Z
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...
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Below Zero
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.