Aight so ive got a proposition about pow skis and skiing... insight?

thefilmerguy

thefilmerguy

Active member
so, everyone loves skiing the light fluffy softness we like to call powder. ive come to a few realizations over the past few days though, so i'd like some insight as to whether my observations are valid...

- everyone loves pow, but HATES tip dive, hence the new concept occuring is skis today "reverse camber" or "rocker." this concept makes skiing powder ultimately much easier and enjoyable because we arent have our tips dive on us or having the snow throw our tips around etc... basically it makes skiing powder better.

- that being said, almost all skis that are rockered, aside from maybe some moment's or something, are at least 100 underfoot.

- everyone also loves the sensation one gets from skiing powder which is the all time classic, "Face shot."

- now fat fat skis = less flotation, which in turn = less face shots!... here is the problem.

- now my solution to this, would be to have skis something like 90 underfoot, with a medium soft flex but ROCKERED!. that would give maximum face shots, but at the same time maximum ease and enjoyment in skiing the powder.

what are your thoughts?

sparknotes: Rocker = good. rocker is only on fat skis. fat skis = less face shots. solution? 90mm underfoot skis with rocker = easy/fun pow skiing AND face shots.. no?
 
u really love those face shots dont you? j/k mang. in my opinion people care more about making it pow skiing easier for better fun. but i'd b down for a lil more face shottage.
 
I thought about this before, and I've just made the personal decision to never go too fat, for fear of losing the faceshot.
 
um... i got more faceshots this year than heather brooke has in her life... and ep's are fat... so im not really sure what your getting at... but just cause "i float a little more" doesnt mean i don't spend shit tons of time in the white room...
 
So what you're suggesting with the skinnier skis is to ski powder at 15 mph as opposed to 30. I'll take the 30 mph slasher face shot over the old school sinking face shot. And I'm old enough to be considered old school.
 
yay.... def. my next park ski.... that is unless line can come up with something similar in the next year... (please)

 
fat skis are cool because you plane in the snow quicker and float more. if you sink more (more faceshots) you hit the (moguled out) bottom, and that sucks balls. while at first this may slightly depress you and think that you have to choose one or the other, eventually you will realize you need to ski lighter snow (go to CO, it has champagne powder...all snow west of CO is way to heavy...UT snow is just as heavy as coastal snowpack)
 
aight well my whole season is spent skiing CO and Ut, so i definitely know the powder. and as retarded as this may sound, i spent three days of waist deep untracked on my ANTHEMS! yeah its ridiculous, and aside from the tiny tips that those skis have and the tip dive i got sometimes, that was some of the best/lightest/most fun pow ive ever had. i got the feeling, that if i were to be on EP's or something, i wouldn't have been able to enjoy it nearly as much, because you aren't making good use of the 30 inches when you ski only the top 10. ya dig?

true, that you get the benefits of the surfy feel and whatever, and with 120+ underfoot, 10 inches can be a pow day, but either way i think something like a rockered kung fujas, would be the sickest ski ever.
 
hahaha.... i weigh about 190 lbs... my balls drag in the snow on a 30 inch pow day all day long... i dont know what your talking about riding the top 10 inches..... thats just retarded...
 
well when you ski a fat ski the width keeps you on teh surface when the skis are flat and you are going straight but when you initiate a turn the leaning of the ski will allow it to sink into the powpow. you will then sink and get a nice big faceshot, finish your turn and go upright, and bounce up out of the powder. repeat as necessary
 
a) moment reno rocker, 93 under foot.

b)not everyone loves pow, faceshots are retarded, you cant breath and it is way more work than skiing city rails when it snows that much.

c) you can still get tip dive with rockered skis, and its way easier to washout on drops and such with rocker. the point is to make the part of the ski that is touching the snow have less surface area on the snow, making it easier to move the ski around. also, less speed... thats right, bet you never thought of that!

 
dalton understands.

also, while landing a drop of any sort, you sink in, snow covers your face. best faceshot right there.
 
your last point on rockers would be true for park skis. but for pow skis the rocker is there to keep you sitting on top of the snow more like a water ski. i do believe that is correct.
 
this is the single most ridiculous statement i have ever heard.

i would love to try out the reno rockers, but i have trouble believing that rocker slows you down.
 
The EPs are so flexy sometimes it just feels like youre sinking into the snow as you charge through but your tips are still on top, its a real fun feeling~
 
ok firstly.. yeh reno rockers are 92 underfoot.. but they are only 117 in the tips which is too thin for pow really..

that aside.. i agree with the original poster in part.. although you obviously do still get faceshots on wider skis.. but less so unless the pow is really deep.. i also agree that rockered skis are in general too wide for most people.. (almost all 110+).. i think a high 90s waist, mid to stiff flex, all mountain rocker, would be good for a lot of people.. maybe 128 - 96 - 125 or something..
 
right, now thats what im getting at. and im sick of all these people saying that 93 or whatever is TOO narrow to be a pow ski. 5 years ago, that WAS the pow ski. can any of you guys remember back to like 2003 when the salomon pocket rockets and scratch bc's were the pow skis? both of those were 90 underfoot...

and even earlier like glen plake years, skis werent even shaped and had a waist of about 68 and they were shredding the shit out of powder.
 
yeah man i made a post about this before.. i think that for 95% of people all these 120-140mm skis are way over the top.. i actually own line elizabeths as a pow ski but I am finding them too short.. they are also wider than i need.. I am looking for a 95-100mm ski that is rockered.. the rocker really matters when you are landing switch. but i think skis like jjs and hellbents are just too big.. i dont need a ski that big and i'd like something a bit narrower.. i know people are gonna say obsethed by the way.. but they have huge tips and not much rocker so.. and i think reno rockers are too narrow in the tips.. i really think there is a gap in the market here..
 
ski on the left:

IMG_0380.jpg
 
OR you could simply shred utah pow, where you get plenty of face shots on any skis. but yea I see what you're sayin and it's a pretty good idea, it'd be perfect for bc jumps too.
 
stop using = signs all the time

and faceshots are never hard to come by if youre actually skiing as much pow as this is talking about.
 
If you want faceshots with fat skis, just make a few turns. There's technique to skiing powder, it's not all in the equipment.
 
reno rockers have skinny tips (117) thats not really enough for pow i dont think.. that said i am considering them as my all mountain ski..
 
kick 2 claim, i want you to elaborate on that one statement you made, because from such ignorance im coming to the conclusion that you either have down syndrome, or have never skied powder.
 
can you explain how this is possible?... i feel that since my tips are always out of the snow... even when im skiing in nipple deep now... that the "planning" effect you get on rockered skis (similar to how a boat planes up on water) would in turn make you faster, mostly because of decreased drag... i have never felt as though i have skied pow faster than i can on my ep pros...
 
I got one of the best powder turns of my life on a pair of stiff-as-hell 171cm forward-mounted park skis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top