Next years k2

your joking aren't you?? there's no way any ski company is going to take a best selling ski and call it the "extreme" and I find it quite incredible taht they would take a park ski liek the fujative and give it a 95 mm waist without changing the name.
 
the fujative is pep fujas' pro model, pep is now focusing more towards back country using the hell bent etc, so it is fitting that they change his pro model to fit his skiing
 
i love it how so many people can't wrap their minds around the sizes changing and what's going to happen with the obvious size gaps... do you SERIOUSLY think K2 didn't think their entire line through? not only are they aiming to put out good shit, they're also looking to maximize profits (ie- offer a ski for as many different uses as economically possible/reasonable). i can promise that if the Fujative gets wider, there will be a ski made to replace it... also, my claim that there's an addition to the line might have been a misunderstanding on my part. i couldn't understand if the wider Seth was the ski was being told about of if there was an additional ski being added to the line, but i'm beginning to think the line will be something like this, widest to skinniest... HB 122, Seth 110ish, Pep 95, Extreme 85, Silencer 80. if you ask me, that's a pretty good spread.

of course, my source might have left something out and i could be totally wrong.

also, whomever said rockered skis were pow-only... you're a moron.
 
skis released for next season, ie you will see them at this year's SIA. 08-09 season. 
 
I'm prettty sure if what I've heard about the Pep is true I'll be riding it next year. Please keep the price point low!
 
the PE is kinda an institution haha

I think it'd be better if the pe was bumped up to 90 and fuja stayed where it is. though a wider ski for park would make for nice landings

still, if the fujas are going to be different next season then shops might have some sweet deals on the old ones
 
Alright... lets be serious... by definition... a rockered ski CANNOT be as good on groomers as a traditional camber ski. You will never be able to get the power or edge hold out of the rockered ski due to its shape. You cant argue with physics and geometry. Im not saying that rockered skis are bad... just that they are not the right tool to rip groomers... or anything other than soft snow/pow for that matter.
 
until you want to butter, butter on rails, do presses on rails, anything creative really..

who are you to say what the right tool is.

theres ridiculous amounts of companies putting out regular boring park skis. K2 is going where the future is, and no other companies are going (except Eric Pollard Skis, I mean, Line) = $money$
 
You can still do that with unrockered skis. People have been doing it for ages. However, a rockered ski helps in that aspect. Rockered skis get popular and everyone thinks you can't do that old stuff on "old" skis, and that you need rockered.

Don't be so dumb. Anyone, someone give me more info on the Peps...
 
Don't be an ass and don't put words in my mouth.

Whatever, the 'optimal' tool for groomers is a race ski end of discussion.
 
See I really don't know how calling me a moron gets this argument anywhere. And whether you agree or disagree with my argument, Id love for you to point out which part of if its illogical or "moronic". If you could point out the flaw in my argument and show me where I am wrong and educate me that would be great. At which point I would admit that I was wrong and we would all be better off having this new knowledge about rockered skis. Until then I'm pretty sure everything that I said in my post is accurate and reasonably well put. Which I believe would make your post rather moronic. But please... educate me.
 
i remember someone coming on here last month talking about changes to the fuji and even mentioned a 95 waist. a lot of people flamed him, but it's looking pretty probable now.

 
yeah, your post was put together well and you stated your opinion clearly. good job. that doesn't mean that the idea is wrong, and not just wrong, but so far from wrong that it's entered the realm of pure stupidity. do you SERIOUSLY believe that a rocker has no place or function on-piste? have you been living in a fucking hole for the past 8 months or so? i think Pep, Andy, and Chris have done a great job showing the potential rockered skis have on-piste. buttering and presses are cake on a fat, rockered ski and the technology is brand fucking new... in other words, we've just scratched the surface of what's possible with rockered skis.

so, go ahead and whine your ass off about how they'll hold an edge terribly and that the whole point of a rocker for better performance in powder, but you're absolutely wrong in saying and thinking that they have have no purpose out of the pow. just because using it in the park isn't necessarily what K2 had in mind when they designed the ski doesn't mean that it can't be used for park. on the same note, just because you, personally, don't find the ski useful on-piste doesn't mean that someone else can't show you how it's done.

 
Hey there big guy.

You said "until you want to..." as in you're going to try to butter and won't be able to with your current, unrockered skis. Don't open end your comment so much, and leave it up for debate, if you don't want to be interpreted and have words "put in your mouth."

You made it sound like rockered skis are THE skis you need if you want to butter, etc. etc...
 
fine, so you can dick around all day just doing butters and tail presses on rails, but here are some of the facts:

on piste landings are more difficult on rockered skis because on initial impact less surface area of the ski is touching the ground, resulting in less stability

on groomers it is more difficult to dig your inside edge in to the snow, resulting in less feel and less efficient turning.

You're talking like buttering a soft park specific ski is like trying to butter a race ski. unless your idea of fun park skiing is nothing butt butters and presses, then your are gonna benefit greatly from a soft park ski.

and sorry about this thread getting jacked when you just wanted to let us know whats on the horizon from K2, but this guy needs to get learned.
 
ever heard of theline elizabeth? 95 underfoot is not to wide for park, infact I think its perfect, big enough to hit some bc booters jib around, and still easily manageable on groomers. Hell I'm on the EC and my everyday skis are 93 underfoot and 99.
 
jesus christ, just think about it, for like a second, thats all it'll take, i promise.

a rockered ski is good in powder because powder is some senses is more similar to a liquid than a solid. Shane figured this out a few years ago, i forgot what movie, but remember that he just threw some bindings on old jumping water skis and was killing it, and parachuting off cliffs and all other kinds of madness. however on groomed snow you are on top of a solid, therefore a rockered ski even if its wider, longer, whatever has less of its surface in contact with the snow.

less base in contact in a straight line=less stability

less edge in contact while turning=less stability, feel, and efficiency

game over
 
I never said that rockered skis have "no-use on-piste" I realize that

they make butters and presses easier. Theres no questioning that. And

yeah Andy and Pep and Pollard do amazing things with rockered skis, and

Im sure we will see more and more of it. All a given. All part of

progression. And I really dont need to go into a huge discussion about

how they have limited edge hold or how the rocker makes it more

difficult to land big jumps. Thats not the point here.. The original

point I was trying to make is that it just doesn't make sense for K2 to

have 4 freeride skis with a rocker on them. A fat ski with a rocker,

and a park ski with a rocker. That would be fine. But at this point in

time if they are really planning on having 4 rockered skis in their

line, its an over use of the technology. Its a niche within the greater

twintip market. In my opinion rockered skis are a quiver ski. Not a one

ski quiver. Thats all Im saying. And the last thing I ask, and I ask

this as a legitimate question and not an attack: have you ever skied a

rockered ski?
 
I agree... i like friendly conversation and debate... you can easily make your point have a good debate without getting heated. there needs to be more if it on this site.
 
the name comes from late 80's early 90's K2 products. its all a part of the silly neon rebirth trend, so it makes perfect sense.
 
...still putting words in my mouth I see. I never made it sound that way. Rockered skis are fun in the park, especially for butters and presses, whatever is best or worst, they can be used outside the powder. I quoted a comment that said "there's no use for rockered skis outside the powder." I pointed out some uses. So stop being a bitch.

+ why so condescending "big guy" ?
 
This is exactly where people are missing the point. It's true what you say but.....

...K2 and Line are putting out all these crazy skis where other brands are sticking to the typical park skis and a typical mid-fat all-mountain ski. I think this is awesome. They are pushing the future of skiing. Of course not all these skis will be a success, but these 'experiments' keep them ahead of the game. I'm sure the Hellbents are selling a shitload. Great to see their pushing it even further.

You can get a standard park ski from any brand for $200-$300, there isn't much money in that oversaturated market...

And whoever thinks Hellbents or EP Pros are a "quiver" ski obviously never skied them or just doesnt like the concept. They are skis that you could be using 90% of the time, with a skinnier park ski for shitty days. Well that's my experience with them, everyone has different tastes.
 
Im gonna throw in my two cents in this one, if i haven't already. Rocker skis are a wonderful concept, but its mostly a great concept for the BC then for the park. Pep still rides his promodel 90% of the time in the park, Eric still rides the Lizzies in the park, and i think andy is the only one who rocks the hellbents 100% all the time. The fact is the only thing the rocker will be better for park is butters and presses.

They would be HORRIBLE in the pipe since the edges will not really bite at all, and the rockered shape will take all the pop in the ski. Carving off any sort of jump will be 100 times harder, and the pop will just not bet there. In an urban setting they would be decent, but again you need TONS of pop when you ride urban. Rocker skis will make presses and nose slides way easyer, but you can still do them fairly easily on regular skis ( look a tanner rainville......that guy does not need rockered skis to OUTBUTTER anybody out there). It's a great concept, but i think park revolutions will more come from fully symetric skis, with different widths, flex patterns, sizes, cores, base designs, and edge design.

I can't wait to have a ski with copper or aluminum edges to slide rails with. Softer metals are the way to go for sure. Wider skis in the park seem like a great idea too. While the rockered skis will devellop a different style in the park, they just will not perform nearly as well as a standard park ski.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top