I measured the UC's.? 6.5" of tip in front of the snow contact point.? 5.5" of tail behind the rear contact point.
And I agree.? The first 3" of the UC looked very much like the Howitzer and Watea, a gradual rise (but it keeps on curling another 3").? Same comment for the tail.
But like you said, I also don't know enough about why skis? are a certain way.? Seems to me they could cut the really turned up 3" off the tip and the same with the tail and have a ski 5" shorter with the same skiing characteristics??? But I don't know if that is really true, or whether the extremes of the tip rise actually have some positive function?? It is the case that most twin tips look just like this, and maybe it is ONLY style and not function.
But I imagine that I (not a jib/park skier) would not be able to tell the difference if the UC178 was tip/tail bobbed to be a UC 174 (retaining all of the rest of the ski as is).
And we have seen slalom and other skis (Atomic B5) get very short and still have excellent stability, so don't agree with the freakishly short part.
And much of the attraction of the UC is that it has the sidecut on a shorter running length.? If you just look at tip/waist/tail numbers for similar length UC and Watea the Watea actually has more sidecut.? But because of the twin tips (and therefore the running length and where the wide parts of the ski actually are) you get a desirably short turn radius and (evidently from the reviews) at no loss of stability.? And I imagine that there will be times and places where that fact that it skis like a shorter ski with less tip/tail might be an asset.
From the pictures, I was surprised at how much the tip of the Watea looks like the Howitzer, what you described as a more gradual rise.? I agree that a ski with "gradual rise" like the The Howitzer looks to me like a more functional tip shape even without the rocker.
I do know that with too much abrupt tip rise, they can get knocked around in variable snow, they will float up better in powder of course but these aren't really powder skis. Where too much side cut effects the ski is again in vaible 3-d snow, they can get hooky less sidecut allows them to cut through easier with less chance for catching, Of course this is more of an issue with longer radius turns or straightlining. Its a matter of preference I guess. I say freakishly short because theres a diminshing return on the long lenght and short running lenght, for instance, a 188 ski with a RL of like 1450 in tight spots is really a waste, you don't want the added length of the ski to throw around although the short RL is a good thing. This is why I ended up with the Bent chelter, at 183, it is short and has a short RL like 105-110, but it's proportional to the ski. Does that make sense?
Yes. And your definition of freakishly short also makes sense in the context of off-piste skis.
Ok, you can get too short for groomed as well, you start to loose out on stability; think about Super G skiers who are on 203's still.
True.? But a similar extreme was WC slalom skiers on skis so short (and still stable and quick) that the WC imposed an artificial minimum length.
However, not real clear how much either of those extremes apply to average skiers.? I still agree with you that at least 1/2 of the upturned part of a twin-tip seems to be wasted ski material weight.? I'll have to do some googling on the origin of twin tips and why.
And I still like my UC's, one of the most complete and versatile skis I've ever anticipated skiing on.? ?
A "meet me in the middle" ski, say low to mid 20's is more for mortals; rippin a groomer at 50mph is not out of the question for sure.
You guys are discussing the issue that I have had for years with twin tips. Ubfortunately because so many of the under 30 crowd are getting airborne and landing switch (even sometimes when they can hardly ski) tiwn tips are becoming a bit of a necessity for ski companies. They just don't wnat to rule out some growing percentage of the buying public. Since none of us needs them we end up having to go much larger in actual size than we would need with a flat tailed ski (as the running length shortens a lot with twin tips). You end up carry the extra weight and length but you actually get no benefit from it with regard to stability (running length is what makes a ski more stable at speed with regard to fore aft balance). I still love hardtails especially on powder skis. They are so much more confidence inspiring in the steeps, in chutes and in tight spots as I can feel my tail pretty much anytime I want by getting back slightly and I can dial in my exact fore aft position from this constant feedback.
With the advent of the terrain park, twin tips are here to stay and they have quickly become standard on all big mountain, freeride skis. But if you watch Jeremy Nobis or Scot Schmidt or a few others with a racing background (guys that don't land switch but will do super G turns in steeps at mach schnell speeds) they are all skiing with hardtails.
Having said all this, there are some awesome twin tipped skis, and we are for the most part convinced that the chariots are in that category!!
I think I've also heard that some believe a little bit of upturn in the tail facilitates the release out of the turn.? Maybe that's only for the non Jeremy Nobis's of the world, those whose technique is a bit weak?? The ability to go mach schnell on soft snow has about as much application to me as World Cup downhill racers.? I would imagine that I couldn't even bend the skis either group likes (but SKI magazine would give them a great review and recommend them to the masses).
If you flex to release you do not need the upturned tali. I can live with twin tips but this is why I hate tail rocker. The tails will wash out and come around with any pressure on the ski. They just want to pivot whether you want them to or not. And you can bring the skis around when your weight is back , which just will not happen with a flat/hard tail. I guess it is not surprising that the public loves rocker and tail rocker. If you are focused on just getting them turned when you want and need to (and not on how you accomplish this) they definitely get them turned and sideways faster and from positions (riding the tails) that would never work on traditional skis.
I think it is exactly 4 weeks from today that I will be demoing the Chariots!!
I have to agree with all you have said however.... the TT wont make the ride any worse or better for the most part, it will release easier so you can be a bit more relaxed when skiing the which isn't a bad thingh athough I have found that with the Kastles at least I a just very comfortable on them. So this season I am hopeful the mx98 will be my everyday ski, traditional camber and profile. As far as tail rocker goes, there is definitely a solid group that doesn't like them and we are seeing this reflected in a lot of the indie brands making far less prononced tail rocker profiles. There are a lot of skis I am very interested in demoing and early word from Icelantic is look for a rockered version of the nomad or a new model very similar. and no , you can't quote me on this........