21/22 Gear Rumors

[waxloaf]

The discontinued the daemon and the Navis at the same time and created the Justis. The Justis is full rocker. I have one. It skis really well. But it’s a different animal then the daemon. It’s faster. More stable. Carves better. Tighter radius. Pivots better.

BC site says Justis has camber, did they change it at some point? I thought its only been out for a season or two

[SoVT Joey]

BC site says Justis has camber, did they change it at some point? I thought its only been out for a season or two

It has only been out this year. There are the profile pics. And that’s a Corvus next to it. The 2020 black and white and pink




I dunno. They do drink a lot in France.

[glademaster]

I dunno. They do drink a lot in France.

That ski has camber underfoot to my eye. It certainly doesn't have a single continuous rocker line along the length of it.

[SoVT Joey]

Ya. If my bench was perfectly flat. Maybe a mm of camber. But it’s not traditional camber like they claim



I guess my nocta has camber too...

[MD12]

I picked up next years enforcers 104s. Mounted with forza pivots. Best graphics they’ve had on the skis. Last two years were lame as hell.

[turnfarmer]

Full rocker seems to have been a short lived 'fad' (apart from 4fnt, but I don't get on with their mount points), which is a shame as I really like how full rocker ski in pretty much any off piste snow. Volkl have all but abandoned it, with the Katana as the only exception. Black crows have the Corvus, but not the freebird version, which is strange.


Any other companies offering full, long/low rocker?

Edit to add WDR or however you spell the damn 'name'

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Most of the Freeride Volkls camber is a mm or two and soft, ski basically flat.

SoVTJoey's Justice look similar.

[undertow2]

I picked up next years enforcers 104s. Mounted with forza pivots. Best graphics they’ve had on the skis. Last two years were lame as hell.

I am kind of digging this years and regardless of looks I am completely digging this ski... Fun as shit but can still get after it...!



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Wow... that rocker profile looks WAAAY different to the ones on either the BC website or Blister!

Any comments on the profile or a little review on the skis?

They look intriguing from the blister review but the rocker profile you've posted seems too drastic to me.

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

All of my alpine skis are full rocker. I think companies are realizing that it’s a specialty ski when you get out of something powder specific. My nocta is a floppy dog Dick full rocker if you ask me, but it is too soft to ski on hard pack. My Corvus is not that enjoyable for a lot of people. I love it. My Justis is too turny for 100 underfoot and I’d rather have a little camber at 100 because that’s my narrowest ski that I use for ice on the east coast.

But there is a pattern if you look around. Corvus, Cochise, and Katana. All three skis rip. All three skis are also driven towards a specific market and it’s not the average gaper and it’s a fairly small market as well. There aren’t a lot of 25-55 year old people that ski at Mach 10 every single day and can justify the ski.

So for recap- full rocker good for powder and good for seek and destroy ski with two sheets of metal. But beyond that camber is more friendly and more sellable to the general public.

Companies like to sell chef knives, something for good all around work. The full rocker skis are more comparable to a cleaver. They will cut and chop everything, but you have zero precision without tons of practice.

I have the Corvus(193) as a daily driver and the Raven(190) as a dedicated touring ski. Great complement for each other. Similar stiffness.

It took me a bit at first to adjust to the progressive mount and more upright stance. I find it less fatiguing. I find the precision on anything but hard groomers very good. I’m considering a 195 Hoji as a deep snow ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Self Jupiter]

(Blog alert) Not sure why it took me years to figure this out, but If I’m on skis are above 110 under foot then I want a full rocker ski and around a -6cm from center mounting point. Moment Chipotle Banana is another full rocker ski on the market, I mounted them -1cm from rec. In soft snow I do not like side cut or a big tip that can feel unwieldy at 5’7’’ ~175lbs.

Praxis piste Jibs (99uf)and MVPs retain a lot of what I like about full rocker skis but they have a little camber. IMO they have a little more bite and return more energy at the expense of being a touch less effortless to smear in and out of carved turn. Then I’ve got a full camber, 85 under foot half pipe ski for really firm snow. I don’t feel I have to adjust my ski style between any of these setups fwiw.

[Bandit Man]

He’s the only guy to ever screw me over on a gear swap transaction. Provided partial payment with some sob story about being a poor instructor and paying me the full amount in two weeks. When I pinged him for the rest of the payment, he acted surprised and said since I had gone silent he thought I was cool with a partial payment. It was like $50 or so, but ever since then, I figured he was a less than reputable guy.




Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

So, I don’t want to set back the thread, but Josh Bushwacka reached out to me and wanted to settle up. He sent me $50 and cleared his debt.

Props to him for stepping up. Is rehabilitation possible on TGR? I guess I will leave that up to the collective.

BTW - did anyone else catch the Blister Boys reference to our Salomon Blank turn radius debate in their most recent Cochise 106 review. It wasn’t overt but very much sounded like us! [emoji23]

[Benneke10]

Jonathan E lurks here and he wishes we thought of him as more of an objective reviewer

[SoVT Joey]

Wow... that rocker profile looks WAAAY different to the ones on either the BC website or Blister!

Any comments on the profile or a little review on the skis?

They look intriguing from the blister review but the rocker profile you've posted seems too drastic to me.

Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk

I made some comments up above about them. They are good. Not give me a hard on amazing though. Stable. Fast. Any turn shape. It’s like a little narrower softer Cochise that does less crud and more groomers. And ya. They are way different in person then they are listed on either place. I ordered them pre-order and site unseen, if I had them in hand before buying, I honestly don’t know if I would own them. The profile is aggressive.

But ya that’s why I threw the pictures up. I only speak from experience

[MD12]

Agreed, great skis. I mounted -1.5 for a little more directional ski and find it increased stability and didn’t lose any pivot ability. Then again I’m 6 2 and 200 lbs and on the 186.

[kid-kapow]

BTW - did anyone else catch the Blister Boys reference to our Salomon Blank turn radius debate in their most recent Cochise 106 review. It wasn’t overt but very much sounded like us! [emoji23]

This part?

Sidecut numbers are mostly fake and definitely a stupid thing that spreadsheet skiers (as I affectionately like to call them) like to argue about on the internet. Again, rule #1: don’t ever only focus on one element of ski design. Because if you do, you are oversimplifying things and will almost certainly be wrong. Especially since many sidecut numbers are made-up approximations.

What is it that makes Jonathan think that the people who was puzzled by the Blank's geo and Blister's review are not aware of this and do not look at the whole picture? Because, you know - it is possible to debate points without loosing track of the whole. Especially if a factor seemingly influence how the whole is to be understood.

Sure, the obvious reply "just ski the damned ski before getting all hot and bothered" is valid. But still, lots of folks have been on lots and lots of skis and read lots of lots of reviews, and can get a pretty good understanding of how something will ski based on the sum of specific input (numbers, mount point, shape/taper/rocker lines/splay). That a lot of those folks go "huh" is not necessarily indicative of them being idiots narrowly focusing on one factor at the expense of all others - but that something indeed could be a bit unusual. That is not the end all be all, but that no debate should take place just seems like an odd sentiment from a site that thrives because of the very same, broader debate. That is, unless I completly misunderstand something here?

Also, ad hominem arguments nearing straw man status is less than conducive to effective communication. Yes, written communication is hard. Writing in a way where one minimizes ones downside (stuff people can misunderstand and be angry about) could just make you more likely of being listened to no? Isn't that why the content is created in the first place?

FWIW, I'm not sure where the "Camry" analogy comes up from our review + our Deep Dive? I'd personally take the Blank over most ~112mm-wide skis currently on the market. The Blank has some guts and some weight to it, and if people buy it thinking they're getting a Wailer 112RP or a Rossi S7, they'll be mistaken. Anyway, I certainly don't care at all what ski you buy, but wanted to clarify that the 3 of us who've skied this so far don't think that the Blank is some milk toast ski.

I dunno - this post just had me so thoroughly unimpressed that I didn't even bother to comment on it at the time - that was just a can of worms that could be left unopened by me at least. That people deferred to it instead of calling it out is indicative of the respect people have for Blister, but where some constructive feedback could have been in order and could also have been helpful for their future reviews as well (more so as fodder for ridicule in future reviews).

If I can give one constructive critism though; if Blister can write a review with as many hedges and so much time spent specifying what something is not, then it is a bit odd that the bolded part above does not come forward more clearly. You would think that that kind of "key take away message" is what a lot of people read the reviews to get no? (cue: "we want people to make up their own minds" comeback)

But what do I know eh. I guess I should start publishing more reviews online on other platforms than forums for all the skis I try so that perhaps one day I can ascend being a spreadsheet skier and become a reviewer.

[nickel]

I just came here to say it's spelt milquetoast.

[Harry]

I am kind of digging this years and regardless of looks I am completely digging this ski... Fun as shit but can still get after it...!



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Beautiful skis.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[lrn2swim]

Ya. If my bench was perfectly flat. Maybe a mm of camber. But it’s not traditional camber like they claim



I guess my nocta has camber too...

Your pair of Justis's are fucked up then. Was in a shop the other day and they had several sets, all with a decent amount of camber

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[roQer]

Advocatus diaboli regarding radius discussion:
Modern ski design seems to make large radius somewhat obsolete. Mantra 102 or Katana 108 with their 3-radius sidecut are best examples. Stated radius underfoot < 20 but can be skied completely naturally with huge turns. BTW same for camber profile. Both have a healthy amount of camber but pivot in 3D snow like full rocker skis. Same accounts for the Mfree 108/118 with their unbelievable amount of rocker.
Radius/camber spreadsheet fetishist getting truly hard times nowadays.

[gaijin]

The M102 camber is not healthy by any means. It’s 1mm.




But yeah, the underfoot radius is only relative at low speeds skied from center, where it zooms around like a short GS ski. At speeds it behaves like you’d hope— long radius and very minimal camber. Surfy and stable.

The M102 is mind-blowing in its versatility. But strong “healthy” camber it is not.

[SoVT Joey]

The M102 camber is not healthy by any means. It’s 1mm.

I guess this is where we have to define what camber is. When I think of camber I think of a cm of camber. Not 1mm.

Could someone enlighten me to what their idea of decent and healthy amounts of camber are.

[gaijin]

We don't have to define camber. The definition is understood industry-wide.

It's traditional or it's reverse... or it's flat. That's it.

Race skis will have 1cm or so and will require some fairly major flex to get into a carve. That's what makes them stable, and damp. They stick to the snow.

Head are notorious for being among the most damp skis on the planet. Tons of camber yet feel like sponges. Damp skis ripple as they go over bumps in the snow. They're glued to the snow.

Reverse camber skis lack any suspension, and will not ripple over anything. This is why stiff is better with reverse camber (for 3d snow.)

Because of this conflict-of-directives, ski manufacturers are trying to find the unicorn... the ski that is damp at speed in a carve, yet supple and loose in a pivot. Then they're trying to find the width that allows it to be a powder ski, and a carving ski... aka= the One Ski Quiver.

The M102 is pretty fucking close.

Frankly I don't need a unicorn. Skiing in Japan is two different sports. It's groomers or forests.

[buttahflake]

So, I don’t want to set back the thread, but Josh Bushwacka reached out to me and wanted to settle up. He sent me $50 and cleared his debt.

Props to him for stepping up. Is rehabilitation possible on TGR? I guess I will leave that up to the collective.

BTW - did anyone else catch the Blister Boys reference to our Salomon Blank turn radius debate in their most recent Cochise 106 review. It wasn’t overt but very much sounded like us! [emoji23]

Good on JM for making it right.

[MD12]

I’m new to this forum but given the shit poured on that guy in this thread the past few days and then him making it right sounds like he did the right thing despite being crapped all over.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

We don't have to define camber. The definition is understood industry-wide.

It's traditional or it's reverse... or it's flat. That's it.

Race skis will have 1cm or so and will require some fairly major flex to get into a carve. That's what makes them stable, and damp. They stick to the snow.

Head are notorious for being among the most damp skis on the planet. Tons of camber yet feel like sponges. Damp skis ripple as they go over bumps in the snow. They're glued to the snow.

Reverse camber skis lack any suspension, and will not ripple over anything. This is why stiff is better with reverse camber (for 3d snow.)

Because of this conflict-of-directives, ski manufacturers are trying to find the unicorn... the ski that is damp at speed in a carve, yet supple and loose in a pivot. Then they're trying to find the width that allows it to be a powder ski, and a carving ski... aka= the One Ski Quiver.

The M102 is pretty fucking close.

Frankly I don't need a unicorn. Skiing in Japan is two different sports. It's groomers or forests.

Don’t know about the WC Rebels but the Head Supershape line doesn’t have much camber.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums