# (half)Rockered skis: Bogus?



## thinnmann (Jan 14, 2012)

It was demo day today at Belleayre, so I skied those most of the day.

I wanted to try this half-rockered construction - it isn't really full rockered like for powder skis.

I think the skis I demoed were Elan Waveflex xTi Fusion.  

They didn't really wow me.  I like slalom race skis, and the radius was right, but they skied too easily.  Didn't feel like I was "on rails", but instead felt like I was "on rail".

My conclusion about this "Rockered" thing: it is pretty bogus.  Unless you have not learned to carve yet.  I imagine a non-carver could carve pretty quickly with those.  They feel like beginner skis, but can still be skied hard.

They skied well in bumps, because the outside edge would not get in the way, ever.

I said to the Elan rep after I skied them, "If I just detuned about 4 inches of my outside edge, I would effectively have a rockered ski." He agreed.

O, and the newer Atomic Nomads can't hold a candle to the older Metrons.  Too damp to be much fun.  Is everybody dumbing down their skis just to be able to call them "all mountain"?

Top skis of the day for me were Elan SLX slalom racers.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 14, 2012)

There is no comparing a race SL ski to a rockered all mountain ski.  They are designed for totally different users.  I have a race ski that carves amazing turns, but sucks trying to throw them through trees or natural terrain.  My Blizzard Bushwacker can carve decently, but is so much fun in the trees, or the sides of trails.

And you are correct the Nomad, cant be skied like the old Metrons.  Different style of ski.  If you want a great carver from Atomic get on the D2 series, not the Nomads.  The Nomad is a very fun all around ski.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2012)

The main benefit would be for soft, natural snow. There is an unbeleivable benefit to a rockered ski with little to no camber for me anyway in soft natural snow. I still keep a traditional cambered pair for firm conditions but I can assure that fat rockered skis have changed a whole lot for me and many others.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 15, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> It was demo day today at Belleayre, so I skied those most of the day.
> 
> I wanted to try this half-rockered construction - it isn't really full rockered like for powder skis.
> 
> ...



If you liked the old atomic metrons (I LOVED my 3 pairs of B5's that I owned over the years), forget about the Nomads and give their DF 75's a try!  Just a sweet, 14M radius front side power carver (and my replacement for my beloved Metrons).

AS for the rocker concept and short radius front side power carving,  well one of the owners of the shop where I buy the majority of my gear at (including my new DF 75's a few weeks ago), whose a big time racer, out it to me this way when I told him that I wanted a new front side power carver and asked about rockered options: "Do you see any world cup racers on rockered skis?"  End of story on front side power carvers and rocker for now atleast in my book!


----------



## thinnmann (Jan 15, 2012)

Not sure if you guys are getting what I am saying for the HALF rockered design.  The skis are designated "Left" and "Right".  The inside edge is traditionally cambered, and the outside edge is also cambered, but there is an alleged "rockered" component to the tip.  What it comes down to, is this: the cambered outside edge is 5 inches shorter.  When you put the skis together, base to base, and look at the inside edge side, they touch just about at the finish of the curve in the shovel.  But when you look at the outside edge side, they touch about 5 inches further down the ski.  This is why I think it is sort of bogus.  All anyone has to do is detune 5 inches of the outside edge of a traditional ski to get the same effect.  Remember detuning?  We did it with straight skis before we started beveling the bottom edges on shaped skis....


----------



## snoseek (Jan 16, 2012)

sounds like a gimmick then


----------



## jaja111 (Jan 16, 2012)

snoseek said:


> sounds like a gimmick then



Ginnicks in ski equipment? No way! Never happens. All ski technology is meticulously developed through empirical methodology and ineffective technologies are never ever sold to the public. No ski manufacturer would ever lie or cheat to make a profit.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 16, 2012)

I've skied rockers on every terrain I could.  They handle awesome in pow and have the short feel of a snow blade everywhere else.  For beginners and intermediates, this "snow blade" feel promotes easy turning and is probably a welcome change on soft groomers, bumps or in the trees.

Expert skiers beware once you leave the pow.  They're too soft for any sort of grip on hard pack and at speed they're almost unpredictable when the tips and tails are bouncing off any surface that isn't pristine.  Here again, think of how a snow blade would handle on ice or at speed.

In all my years of skiing, "*There has never been an all mountain ski.*"  Rocker technology hasn't changed that statement either.  Add a pair to your quiver, but keep those GS and SL skis tuned and ready.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 16, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I've skied rockers on every terrain I could.  They handle awesome in pow and have the short feel of a snow blade everywhere else.  For beginners and intermediates, this "snow blade" feel promotes easy turning and is probably a welcome change on soft groomers, bumps or in the trees.
> 
> Expert skiers beware once you leave the pow.  They're too soft for any sort of grip on hard pack and at speed they're almost unpredictable when the tips and tails are bouncing off any surface that isn't pristine.  Here again, think of how a snow blade would handle on ice or at speed.
> 
> In all my years of skiing, "*There has never been an all mountain ski.*"  Rocker technology hasn't changed that statement either.  Add a pair to your quiver, but keep those GS and SL skis tuned and ready.



+1 

I got a pair of Nomads that I could use in the powder, glades and bumps, and even in the parks. However if it's all hardpack conditions I still use my Elan race skis. The Atomics do hold a decent edge on the hardpack, just not as good as the older racing skis. I've learned to tame the Atomics at high speeds and on hardpack, it was just some getting used to. But still, I'll always throw the Elans in the truck when I leave.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 16, 2012)

Another good adage that i've heard said many times over by industry reps, shop owners and ski instructors, "good technique always trumps ski design" ;-)

In no way do I mean this to turn into a flame war and/or am making any assertations about anyone, but for many of the general skiing public looking to expand their quiver, the best thing they could do is put that $$ they'd spend on quiver expansion towards some lessons


----------



## vdk03 (Jan 16, 2012)

drjeff said:


> Another good adage that i've heard said many times over by industry reps, shop owners and ski instructors, "good technique always trumps ski design" ;-)
> 
> In no way do I mean this to turn into a flame war and/or am making any assertations about anyone, but for many of the general skiing public looking to expand their quiver, the best thing they could do is put that $$ they'd spend on quiver expansion towards some lessons



I agree that lessons are never a bad idea, but you need to have the right equipment. Its tough to become an aggressive tree skier if your stuck on downhill racing skies.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 16, 2012)

My ski of choice is a flat camber ski with rockered tip and tail. It's 190 cm and stiffer than most all mountain skis. It definately doesn't ski like snowblades and is much more stable at speed that my rossi phantom 95's (I truly don't like these skis). Without all the gimmick bs they are also super light making them a great touring ski. They are 108 in the middle so they're fine on packed powder.

If its hard and a little icy i will always opt to ski a traditional ski, I see no advantage to a rocker at all. They are however a serious game changer in fresh snow, especially less than perfect fresh snow. And yeah lessons are good if you don't know how to ski powder.


----------



## Glenn (Jan 16, 2012)

Cheese said:


> Expert skiers beware once you leave the pow.  They're too soft for any sort of grip on hard pack and at speed they're almost unpredictable when the tips and tails are bouncing off any surface that isn't pristine.  Here again, think of how a snow blade would handle on ice or at speed.
> 
> I



That's very similar to what I experienced when I demo'd a pair last year; quite a bit of chatter. I saw my wife literally bounce through a few turns. I do with I had to chance to try them in softer/fresh snow.


----------



## thinnmann (Jan 16, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I've skied rockers on every terrain I could.  They handle awesome in pow and have the short feel of a snow blade everywhere else.  For beginners and intermediates, this "snow blade" feel promotes easy turning and is probably a welcome change on soft groomers, bumps or in the trees.



Cheese: My original post was about _*half*_-rocker skis.  Not fully rockered skis meant for the powder.  Not questioning those.

It is the half-rocker thing that I am saying seems pretty bogus.

The half-rocker name is even not true, since there actually is camber on the "rocker" outside edge!


----------



## bigbog (Jan 17, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> Cheese: My original post was about _*half*_-rocker skis.  Not fully rockered skis meant for the powder.  Not questioning those.
> 
> It is the half-rocker thing that I am saying seems pretty bogus.
> 
> The half-rocker name is even not true, since there actually is camber on the "rocker" outside edge!



Do you notice anything different or enhanced in deep powder with these?   To be honest I don't think I have the experience to label them positively or negatively....just seems like some marketing to me....fwiw.  Someone else might love em'...


----------



## Cheese (Jan 17, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> Cheese: My original post was about _*half*_-rocker skis.  Not fully rockered skis meant for the powder.  Not questioning those.
> 
> It is the half-rocker thing that I am saying seems pretty bogus.
> 
> The half-rocker name is even not true, since there actually is camber on the "rocker" outside edge!



1. Years ago we were taught to ski on one ski.  All the weight was on the downhill ski and the uphill ski was nothing more than a balancing aid.  More recently, it's been decided that we're better suited to widen our stance and balance the weight on both edges as equally as possible.  This would require both edges to be identical.  Given that change, it seems to me that "half rocker" technology is many years too late.

2. A turn happens when a ski is flexed into an arc from tip to tail.  A straight ski requires a lot of forward pressure to flex and form the arc.  A shape ski has a wider tip and tail forming a void at the waist of the ski.  This void means the weight of a skier can actually cause the ski to flex without as much forward pressure and therefore makes it easier to turn.  A rockered ski is designed pre-flexed so that no effort is required to flex the ski into the required arc.  I don't understand where Elan feels their half-rocker technology does anything to change the skis ability to form an arc easier or harder.


----------



## thinnmann (Jan 17, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I don't understand where Elan feels their half-rocker technology does anything to change the skis ability to form an arc easier or harder.



The idea is that it is a lot easier to transition from one turn to another when the tip of the uphill ski (which will soon be the downhill ski) is already off its edge.  Or the outside edge does not get in the way in deeper snow.  I could kinda tell that was the effect.  But, as I said, detuning 5 inches of the outside edge of any ski should do the same thing.  Maybe... 

_"Now featuring both camber and rocker, this innovative technology enhances further the already proven benefits of Elan's WaveFlex technology. Put these powerful technologies together and you'll get the best optimization of the bottom and top skis in every turn. It's like driving a Formula 1, without ever fearing of losing control."_

See page 4 of http://www.elanskis.com/docs/consumer_brochure_us_1112.pdf


----------



## Cheese (Jan 17, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> The idea is that it is a lot easier to transition from one turn to another when the tip of the uphill ski (which will soon be the downhill ski) is already off its edge.



Maybe I'm naive, but I consider turn transition issues as a beginner/intermediate problem.  If the skier can link parallel turns, purchasing equipment to make that easier seems rather irrelevant.


*Regular rocker profile provides easy turning but lacks full edge grip on steep and icy terrain due to shorter edge contact.*

As I mentioned in the previous post, the ski is flexed to form an arc on the snow.  This arc is the full length of the ski so there is no "shorter edge contact".  However, a rocker ski is often soft so very responsive to the uneven surface of snow.  This response will cause the tip and tail to flex at different shaped arcs meaning the amount of ski making a steady arc is limited and I imagine this is what Elan's trying to say is the "shorter edge contact."  Removing the action from the tip and tail is done in two ways.  Stiffening up the ski will make it less responsive to inconsistencies in the snow and reverse cambering the ski will increase the speed in which the ski can react or correct from inconsistencies in the snow.  Elan doesn't mention stiffness so they're apparently trying to correct a problem using only the camber method.  I consider stiffness to be equally as important so I'm going come out an say it's not going to work as good as they advertise.

Further, you'll have a tough time convincing me that having two skis operating differently on the snow is a good idea.  In Elan's scenario the downhill ski is holding rock solid and the uphill ski is gripping and slipping throughout the turn as the rockered tip and tail are bouncing essentially out of control.  When would this be a good idea?

When I ski the competition line of a mogul field, I have very few movements that aren't identical left and right.  My wrists are flicking in opposite directions as I plant a pole on the tip of each mogul but my shoulders are across the hill, my knees are locked together, my boots are locked together and I am hoping that my skis move identically from the rapid inputs I give them.  This would be no place for one ski acting differently from the other.

When I ski powder, only the tips of my skis are visible.  Again, from the waist down my knees are locked together, my boots are locked together and I'm hoping my skis move identically beneath the powder as any deviation will cause bad things to happen.

When I'm racing, again the last thing I want is to have one ski dancing around while the other is holding a good edge through the turn.

So, beyond the advertising hype that Elan is spouting, where do you think this pair of skis would be better than what is already out there?


----------



## Cheese (Jan 17, 2012)

drjeff said:


> Another good adage that i've heard said many times over by industry reps, shop owners and ski instructors, "good technique always trumps ski design" ;-)
> 
> In no way do I mean this to turn into a flame war and/or am making any assertations about anyone, but for many of the general skiing public looking to expand their quiver, the best thing they could do is put that $$ they'd spend on quiver expansion towards some lessons



Before I disagree, let me agree fully that lessons are a great investment.

Now I'll move on to this statement, "good technique always trumps ski design".

I've already dropped a few posts in this thread describing that flexing a ski into an arc is how skis are designed to turn.  When I say turn, I mean a powerful carve.  That doesn't mean that skiers won't skid the tails around and call that a good turn.  In fact a rather large number of experts I know that promote the ease of shape skis turn in this sloppy manner.  Manufacturers could fool them easily as combined with increased side cut was a shorter ski length which was easier to skid around and call a turn.  Carvers could perform arcs easier and non carvers could slip the short tails around quickly.  Win win!

It is nearly impossible to flex a ski in powder.  If you add the required amount of forward lean to flex a ski in deep snow the tips will submerge and it's all over from there.  So, no one was ever carving in powder.  Everyone was sliding their tails to perform a turn.  Even as skis got wider underfoot, the end result was still a skidded turn.  Could that be considered good technique?  I suppose yes, but only because we were skiing beyond the capability of our equipment.

Along comes the Rocker.  This ski assumed that there was no way to flex the ski with forward lean so the ski had to be designed already curved into an arc.  All the skier needs to do is angle the ski and it carves in powder.  So, all I'm saying is in that in powder, technique wasn't as important as the release of the Rocker.

Fast forward to today and you have the manufactures pushing Rocker as an all mountain ski.  Talk about history repeating itself.  Those same "experts" who were sliding their tails to turn, now have a ski design where the tips and tails no longer have reverse camber and bend out of the way when sliding turns.  Win!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm not a tech junky so I don't know much about different ski designs. I've been skiing for over 50 years & consider myself a pretty good all mountain, all conditions skier. Strictly recreational & have no interest in racing, never did. I ski for my own pleasure. This year I purchased a pair of Dynastar Outland 80 XT which is supposed to be a mixed rocker & traditional camber ski which the OP is asking about. I've found these ski's to handle all conditions favorably. They are very easy turning ski's that handle hard pack & soft snow equally well. I haven't skied them yet in soft spring conditions but I'm sure I will be impressed with the way they handle in these conditions also. They also track well on long fast run outs & are very quiet under foot. I give them a big thumbs up. Just my $.02.


----------



## thinnmann (Jan 22, 2012)

steamboat1 said:


> I'm not a tech junky so I don't know much about different ski designs. I've been skiing for over 50 years & consider myself a pretty good all mountain, all conditions skier. Strictly recreational & have no interest in racing, never did. I ski for my own pleasure. This year I purchased a pair of Dynastar Outland 80 XT which is supposed to be a mixed rocker & traditional camber ski which the OP is asking about. I've found these ski's to handle all conditions favorably. They are very easy turning ski's that handle hard pack & soft snow equally well. I haven't skied them yet in soft spring conditions but I'm sure I will be impressed with the way they handle in these conditions also. They also track well on long fast run outs & are very quiet under foot. I give them a big thumbs up. Just my $.02.



Did you demo anything else before purchase and what were you skiing previously?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> Did you demo anything else before purchase and what were you skiing previously?



Yes I took demo runs on several different ski's, (Salomon, Vokl, Rossignol etc) don't remember the exact models.

Previously I skied on Dynastar Legend 8000's & loved them so I was a little biased towards the Dynastar brand to begin with.

The new ski's are even nicer.


----------



## thinnmann (Jan 22, 2012)

steamboat1 said:


> Previously I skied on Dynastar Legend 8000's & loved them so I was a little biased towards the Dynastar brand to begin with.
> 
> The new ski's are even nicer.



Cool.  Do you still have the 8000's and would you like to sell them?  :-D


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2012)

:smile:





thinnmann said:


> Cool.  Do you still have the 8000's and would you like to sell them?  :-D



Lol, yes I do but they've been tuned so many times that the base is worn out. That's the only reason I purchased new ski's to begin with. They are now my brand new rock ski's.:smile:

I think I've had them for about 7 years. They're the old ones with the orange & black tops.

The new ski's are supposed to be rockered both in the tip & also the tail with a traditional camber in the center of the ski.


----------



## bigbog (Jan 22, 2012)

thinnmann said:


> ....All anyone has to do is detune 5 inches of the outside edge of a traditional ski to get the same effect.  Remember detuning?  We did it with straight skis before we started beveling the bottom edges on shaped skis....



Maybe for the resort crowd that has no time to detune?....LOL.  The only thing I can think of thinnmann.   I've YET see anyone in my life....with the gummystone? in hand....:-o  Granted at resorts I usually ski the groomed intermediates and trees.


----------

