Float and Velocity and Equipment Choices

[jim-ratliff]

Interesting that JB cross posted this thread starter on the PMTS forum.  Should be interesting to see how it progresses over there.  Last season's rocker threads were deleted usually. 

High Angles:  What's your thoughts on the use of rocker with PMTS movements, and why have rockered skis become so popular?

[Liam]

Most of the Rocker threads last season on the PMTS forum were started by Harald himself and were baiting and confrontationally polemical to begin with.  If by 'confused' you meant that there were too many fairly persuasive and pointed responses to Harald's bombast...I agree.  The banning and censoring that ensued was weak.  I wouldn't expect any meaningful responses to JBotti's thesis over on the PMTS forums these days as that place has been culled of all dissenters of any stripe (heck, you can't even poke fun at facebook without deletion over there anymore).

I think Jbotti's post over here got a pretty good discussion with fairly passionate and interesting opinions expressed on all sides.  On the PMTS forum you're pretty much preaching to the choir-you'll get a couple of enthusiastic 'Amens!", but any real discussion will be curtailed by those who don't want to get banished.

[jim-ratliff]

confrontationally polemical

WOW.  I think of myself as having a good vocabulary and use of the English language, but that made me hesitate to see if I could assimilate.   

I think Jbotti's post over here got a pretty good discussion with fairly passionate and interesting opinions expressed on all sides.  On the PMTS forum you're pretty much preaching to the choir-you'll get a couple of enthusiastic 'Amens!", but any real discussion will be curtailed by those who don't want to get banished.

I agree, and it was both entertaining and informative (and passionate but not personal).  What more can you ask for.  I can wish that Harald's online persona was more like his on-the-snow teaching persona, but he has never pulled any punches about his perception of the raison de'etre for that forum as a forum for his thoughts and opinions on things he perceives of interest to his "clientele".

[HighAngles]

High Angles:  What's your thoughts on the use of rocker with PMTS movements, and why have rockered skis become so popular?

I think that the "why are rockered skis so popular?" question has been adequately answered.  Enough said.

Here are my thoughts on current rocker design and what I would like to see more of.

I think that where the manufacturers are leading skiers down a scary path is with the early rise designs.   Rather than going back to the drawing board and creating a ski that incorporates rocker intelligently they cater to the terminal intermediates and just bend the tip of the ski.  Until about 2009 we all called those skis with bent tips "broken" - now they call them early rise.  The problem stems from the fact that all they've done is bend up the tip without adjusting the sidecut position, tip/tail taper profiles, or the binding mount position.  The claim is that once the ski is on edge it works just like any traditional ski, but where they are trying to fool everyone is that they're skipping the discussion about the all important transition in the release when moving to the new set of edges.  Good PMTS skiers are skilled at really making a ski work at the top of the turn with early edge engagement without direction change due to pivoting or skidding.  What the early rise designs lack is that early initial tip engagement that puts the power into the top of the turn and brings that energy into the apex.  For skiers who really aren't on their edges until the apex of the turn I guess this isn't a big deal and they like the "forgiveness" of an early rise ski since it reduces the edge catching that probably plagues them.

So for me these early rise designs are frustrating to the point of hatred (and I don't consider myself a highly skilled PMTS skier yet).  Even after testing quite a few of these designs over the past couple years I still decided to experiment myself last season with the purchase of a Palmer P02 ski.  This is a narrow front-side carver that has a rockered tip.  I tried 3 or 4 different binding positions on those skis and never could get comfortable with the "fishy" feel and loss of precision those skis have at the top of the arc.  They're just missing that tip engagement feedback that I want to have in my turns.  Once they're in a nice carve they're fine, but they sure don't reward good technique as PMTS defines skiing.

So what I would like to see more of are skis that are designed more as traditional skis when used on the hard pack, but "transform" themselves into excellent deep snow/mixed condition skis when it goes 3D.  So imagine your typical 165cm SL ski and then just extend the tip and tail in a low rocker profile until you have a ski with an extra 5-10cm on each end (of course it would be wider too).  The real key though is the tip and tail taper.  Compare a DPS 112RP, Moment PB&J, or Armada JJ to skis like the Rossi Experience 98 or any ski where the tip/tail continues to get wider as they rise off the ground.  The Rossi Experience series aren't bad skis, but I have a pretty good idea that they are going to have problems in crud and deeper 3D snow due to their shape.  When I demoed them I didn't get to ski them in cruddy conditions, but skis with early taper tips/tails reduce the grabbiness when the going gets tough.  Go hit global.skipass.com and review all their ski shots taking note of the shape of the ski designs.  IMO, the better newer rocker designs all use early taper tips/tails.  They also have adjusted the position of their sidecuts (married well to the rocker profile) and considered the binding mount point carefully.  I want a mount position that is ideal for when the ski is on a groomer.  The only time the longer tip comes into play is in deep snow and then it's actually an advantage to have more ski out in front of you.  This is exactly how the DPS Wailer 112RP skis.  The flex pattern on that ski is also stiffer through the tip and tail so that they don't flop around so much when they're just hanging in the air when you're on hard pack.

So that's what I'm thinking at the moment.  Of course more testing and more skiing will keep this an ever evolving opinion.  So don't shoot me when I hit some other new revelation a few months down the line.

[Gary]

I don't profess to be one in the total scientific knowledge of "the making of skis"..

Skis have evolved not becuase the wedge skier likes the way the "pizza" works. Its through the years of trial and efforts of pros, ski store mangers, on snow testing from a variety of ski abilities.

I hope for HighAngles (as I do for all of us) that there will always be a ski that satisfies his ski ability and ski performance feedback.

I can remeber when shaped skis first came out and I tried one and thought they totally "sucked"!....BUT I got on the bus and learned more effective ways (PMTS) to precisly ski the skis. My ski evolution continues with learning new ski techniques and how they best work along with my current ski skills married to fatter and rockered and non rockered skis.

It's a fantastic bus ride....eyes wide open...no pre formed opinion.....and for me...I've found an opportunity to enhance my "fun" experience on the mountain.

Having such a great variety of product to choose from...some skis here today and gone tomorrow will ultimatley leave we skiers with the best choices out there...

HOLY MOLY....just take a look at the evolution of ski boots....the biggest powehouse of better skiing!
AND for sure....the revelations keep coming!

[jim-ratliff]

I hope for HighAngles (as I do for all of us) that there will always be a ski that satisfies his ski ability and ski performance feedback.

I'm pretty sure that there will always be a ski that satisfies our ski ability and ski performance feedback.
It just isn't likely to be one that we currently own. 

Doesn't the Star Trek mantra "to go where no man has gone before" echo deep inside all of us.  It is that desire for exploring the unknown that really drives our (ski, golf club, bike, spaceship) purchases.  We want not to be satisfied, but to experience the unknown (and then to share that with others). Kirk was always posting to his "Captain's Log" forum so other Captain's would know what new ski he tested that day.

I bought a new road bike last week (even after Snow Hot warned us all that only a sucker buys a new bike just because of a great deal).  Did I need a new road bike -- No.  Why did a I get a new road bike -- I convinced myself that I wanted to experience larger and stiffer frame (and slightly better components). Will I be a better rider on the new bike - Marginally.    It's our built-in appetite for different experiences, not whether or not the current ski/bike is satisfactory. (of course, we always justify it to others in terms of the current ski/golf club/bike/spaceship not being quite satisfactory).

   Lynn's response to my getting a new bike?  "Wow, there's no end to your attempts to catch up with me, is there?" 

[jbotti]

A very wise man once asked me if I knew the most important part on a road bike. I paused and thought and then responded the cranks? He said wrong. I then said the wheels and he quickly said wrong. When I was out of guesses he said "By far the most important part of any bike is the engine!!" And at that moment the light bulb went off for me. I own some great carbon fiber bikes with high end compnents and an SRM power meter on every one. None of them make me go faster than good bikes that cost a lot less. What I will tell you about bikes is that fit is really important. I no longer choose bikes by what I have read about the brand. I buy them solely base upon fit and after many years I know the exact specs that work for my body.

Having said all this there appears to be a direct correlation between new bikes and the amount that people ride. And since this is the case for most, it's a really good thing!!

Now somewhere in here is a lesson for us skiers. My skiing got to a level last year where I could ski the most difficult terrain at my home mountain in all conditions and on a variety of different skis. What I noticed was that technique had a lot more to do with how I skied it than what ski I was on.

Of cousre this forum was founded as an equipment forum. No one is more guilty that I am for buying new skis that I don't need. So who ami I to tell anyone they shouldn't be buying new skis or that new skis might not help in certain conditions. To some degree they will but never as much as improved technique!!

[jim-ratliff]

Max:  I absolutely agree about the role of marketing hooking internal motivations. 

But I do think that most people posting on this forum agree that the ski won't make them better, and yet we all own several (and some own many) pair of skis?  And so the question is why do we? 

Similarly, I'm not even sure that a majority of skiers want to "get better" (or maybe they do and don't have the knowledge to really implement the desire).  Maybe they buy blindly because the store reps push them, or maybe they just want skiing to be easier (without them taking on the burden of truly getting better).

[Gary]

Ok....Sensation feedback, float, lightness, effortless, grip, flex, release, ....

What do different skis do for me....geez guys....I'm not saying different make us better skiers but they sure as heck provide a different and if you've got the right one....a hugely better experience. HUGELY!

Me skiing knee high pow with 67 underfoot or 98 underfoot,

me skiing eastern blue ice on 98 underfoot or 78 undefoot,

Me skiing bumps on stiff boards as opposed to a softer board....

ARE YOU KIDDING ME.....swithching the tools DOES make a difference.!

Making your experience as enjoyable as possible, more effective and positive results, less sweating, lower heart rate, bigger smile, .....for any intermediate or above....the right tool......makes all the difference in the world...

I don't buy into all the marketing bla bla but I am of mind to see what's working out there for like kind skiers and give it a try....cause at the end of the day....I want the best positive exerience I can have on the mountain.

AND I'm always working on improved ski technique on the mountain no matter whatever I have underfoot!

[jim-ratliff]

Here are my thoughts on current rocker design and what I would like to see more of.

HA:  Well written and pretty interesting.  Thanks.

[bushwacka]

High Angles:  What's your thoughts on the use of rocker with PMTS movements, and why have rockered skis become so popular?

I think that the "why are rockered skis so popular?" question has been adequately answered.  Enough said.

Here are my thoughts on current rocker design and what I would like to see more of.

I think that where the manufacturers are leading skiers down a scary path is with the early rise designs.   Rather than going back to the drawing board and creating a ski that incorporates rocker intelligently they cater to the terminal intermediates and just bend the tip of the ski.  Until about 2009 we all called those skis with bent tips "broken" - now they call them early rise.  The problem stems from the fact that all they've done is bend up the tip without adjusting the sidecut position, tip/tail taper profiles, or the binding mount position.  The claim is that once the ski is on edge it works just like any traditional ski, but where they are trying to fool everyone is that they're skipping the discussion about the all important transition in the release when moving to the new set of edges.  Good PMTS skiers are skilled at really making a ski work at the top of the turn with early edge engagement without direction change due to pivoting or skidding.  What the early rise designs lack is that early initial tip engagement that puts the power into the top of the turn and brings that energy into the apex.  For skiers who really aren't on their edges until the apex of the turn I guess this isn't a big deal and they like the "forgiveness" of an early rise ski since it reduces the edge catching that probably plagues them.

So for me these early rise designs are frustrating to the point of hatred (and I don't consider myself a highly skilled PMTS skier yet).  Even after testing quite a few of these designs over the past couple years I still decided to experiment myself last season with the purchase of a Palmer P02 ski.  This is a narrow front-side carver that has a rockered tip.  I tried 3 or 4 different binding positions on those skis and never could get comfortable with the "fishy" feel and loss of precision those skis have at the top of the arc.  They're just missing that tip engagement feedback that I want to have in my turns.  Once they're in a nice carve they're fine, but they sure don't reward good technique as PMTS defines skiing.

So what I would like to see more of are skis that are designed more as traditional skis when used on the hard pack, but "transform" themselves into excellent deep snow/mixed condition skis when it goes 3D.  So imagine your typical 165cm SL ski and then just extend the tip and tail in a low rocker profile until you have a ski with an extra 5-10cm on each end (of course it would be wider too).  The real key though is the tip and tail taper.  Compare a DPS 112RP, Moment PB&J, or Armada JJ to skis like the Rossi Experience 98 or any ski where the tip/tail continues to get wider as they rise off the ground.  The Rossi Experience series aren't bad skis, but I have a pretty good idea that they are going to have problems in crud and deeper 3D snow due to their shape.  When I demoed them I didn't get to ski them in cruddy conditions, but skis with early taper tips/tails reduce the grabbiness when the going gets tough.  Go hit global.skipass.com and review all their ski shots taking note of the shape of the ski designs.  IMO, the better newer rocker designs all use early taper tips/tails.  They also have adjusted the position of their sidecuts (married well to the rocker profile) and considered the binding mount point carefully.  I want a mount position that is ideal for when the ski is on a groomer.  The only time the longer tip comes into play is in deep snow and then it's actually an advantage to have more ski out in front of you.  This is exactly how the DPS Wailer 112RP skis.  The flex pattern on that ski is also stiffer through the tip and tail so that they don't flop around so much when they're just hanging in the air when you're on hard pack.

So that's what I'm thinking at the moment.  Of course more testing and more skiing will keep this an ever evolving opinion.  So don't shoot me when I hit some other new revelation a few months down the line.

first rockered skis predate 2009 by quite a bit. Spatula, tabla Rasa, DPS, Hellbent, Pontoon, people bending their old Powder Pluses. Heck I notice my Gotama got better at skiing powder after the tips were smashed up from 200+ days of skiing them. Anyone with an understanding of physics can tell you why these things are better in soft snow.

The main stream manufactors have finally figured out how to build a rockered skis that rips the whole mountain pretty well and gives every level of skier options. Where I ski not pivoting or skidding will lead to injury or death.

PMTS is a limiting system of skiing in the fact it says some movements are 'bad' not only that its says the skis that allow to you do those movements 'are bad". I got news for the General skiing public does not care whether they carve every turn or ski dynamically, they just want to have fun. At Stowe and MRG and Snowbird(the 3 places I ski the most)  you now see Rockered skis pretty much on every rippers and not so rippers foot. Simply because they work better for more people than non rockered skis.

You guys can keep buying skis that wont let you pivot or skid easily in soft snow and you guys can keep doing your fancy little turns in open areas, but when you want to see what the real locals are doing I suggest you get off your high horse and get on mine.

[ToddW]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME.....swithching the tools DOES make a difference.!

G,

It's all relative.  For roughly the price of a nice pair or two of skis, you have in the past attended PMTS All Mountain and Clendenin camps.  I suspect that upgrading technique had an even bigger effect on your skiing than switching the tools for about the same money.   Size does matter.  Of course, most of us don't have our gear "baptised" in your special way, so we may be missing out on something    (Have you filed a patent on that btw?  Is it a novel composition of matter patent or more a method and apparatus patent for accelerating ski performance?  Either way, it passes the basic patentability test of being unobvious to a practitioner skilled in the art  )

If we could only figure out how to have UPS and FEDEX deliver top instructors to our door as they do with skis!  You could order one HH and a pair of Movement Jams delivered to your condo for your next trip out west...

Why stop with one upgrade?  Updated technique, skis, boots, and midwif-approved color scheme ... that's the ticket!

[Gary]

Hey Todd...had me falling off my chair....sounds like you could write my life story! 

You are right...it's truly all relative..

I think I'm just trying to be the "Voice of Reason"....

Equipment today can be versatile and/or specific. Technique can be versatile and/or specific.

Finding what works best for you to enjoy where and what you ski in is the optimal goal.

I feel the best skiers are versatile enough to use their tools to maximize their fun and saftey factors wherever they ski.

Best, G