Float and Velocity and Equipment Choices

[serious]

Max, I am talking in general terms. "Early rise" and "tip rocker" are the same and it is all about having tips that rise higher off the snow after the camber is finished. And from all indications, it does not affect how a ski carves. Logically it shouldn't, which is why the "broken design" comment makes no sense to me.

[h.harb]

And from all indications, it does not affect how a ski carves. Logically it shouldn't, which is why the "broken design" comment makes no sense to me.

This is ridicules, what and who the hell is "And from all indications?". Are you running for election, sounds like a politician saying nothing. Well, "broken design", may make no sense to you, but they are broken designs, and logically it does effect the way skis carve, because, they don't.

First, I don't know where your information is coming from, but I have a good idea. There is no comparison between an early rise or rocker ski, and racing skis. The technology is not the same, between the skis. They are not even close. And, the exact same ski, regarding shape, side cut, rocker and length, can ski totally differently, if it is made from fiberglass and wood; compared to wood and metal. The materials in the ski, can totally change they way the basically same shape skis, ski and feel.

That's why it's so amazing to ski a convention proven ski design, like the Movement, Jam, and then ski the Head, Peak 84, both nice skis that work well with PMTS technique, but they ski totally differently. They are close in dimensions, but the Jam has no metal, it's as stiff as the Head, but feels light and lively. Comparing skis in the shop will fool you every time. Skiing the skis, is the only way to really give an accurate test report.

Rocker in a ski doesn't allow you to move forward on the ski. Because there is nothing there, it's in the air. The tip is practically useless, especially in the upper third of the arc. When I ski test, I am very sensitive to technique changes I have to adapt to, to make a ski do what I want. If the changes have to be made for every turn and it requires thinking I don't normally use, and have to add to my technique, I'm not a happy skier. I want to enjoy the ride, not have to save my butt on every turn. That's why you see, even skiers who are trying to develop good technique, while on groomers and proven designs, disintegrate when they ski on most of these new school, all mountain skis.

[h.harb]

Why would that be a broken design, especially since it has crept in racing?

I don't know what you are smoking, but statements like this are false, misleading, inaccurate, and not appropriate for a PMTS forum. Wow! where are the PMTS police when you need some cleaning up done around here.

With this kind of garbage, this is turning into Epic.

[serious]

Thanks Harald. Actually my info comes from here http://volkl.com/ski/technology and here http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2011/08/02/rossignol-new-gs-giant-slalom-ski-radical/.

I understand that ski construction would completely change the feel of a ski. What I am trying to understand is how early rise affects a ski (any ski). From the Volkl web site, early rise (or rockered tip) seems to be nothing more that a tip that goes higher off the snow, presumably to help with float. It should not affect hard snow performance when compared to normal tip rise if the camber and ski construction is the same. Does that make sense?

[h.harb]

Sorry for being so blunt, however, No, it's bull shit and Volkl/ Tecnica, is the biggest bullshit factory in the ski industry. Th whole industry is like Congress, "They lie to get you to buy".

[h.harb]

How can a ski with a tip in the air, (rocker early rise) ski the same as a ski with pressure on the tip, come on, this is not rocket science. Unless they are also lying about the rocker.

[serious]

How can a ski with a tip in the air, (rocker early rise) ski the same as a ski with pressure on the tip, come on, this is not rocket science. Unless they are also lying about the rocker.

Originally I had the same reaction, until somebody simply told me that "early rise" is nothing more than a normally cambered ski with the tip going higher than a traditional ski. The tip interracts the same way with the snow, but it is longer and higher (for example instead of 6 cm high, maybe 8 cm high). The only benefit is that the tips won't dive in deep snow. To me it makes sense, because this is exactly what I see in my new Salomon Enduro ski. It is a traditionally cambered, wood core, double Ti laminate and vertical sidewall construction with a tip that is a bit longer and higher than my older ski.

And with this I shall apologize to jbotti for the highjack and shut up now.

[h.harb]

Highjacking a thread is worth at least 15 demerits.

[Max_501]

... until somebody simply told me that "early rise" is nothing more than a normally cambered ski with the tip going higher than a traditional ski.

I heard that "early rise" was a design where the tip rise started earlier so there was less ski contacting the snow for a given length.

[HeluvaSkier]

I heard that "early rise" was a design where the tip rise started earlier so there was less ski contacting the snow for a given length.

Which allows a skier to do what more easily?

[Matt]

How can a ski with a tip in the air, (rocker early rise) ski the same as a ski with pressure on the tip, come on, this is not rocket science. Unless they are also lying about the rocker.

Originally I had the same reaction, until somebody simply told me that "early rise" is nothing more than a normally cambered ski with the tip going higher than a traditional ski. The tip interracts the same way with the snow, but it is longer and higher (for example instead of 6 cm high, maybe 8 cm high). The only benefit is that the tips won't dive in deep snow. To me it makes sense, because this is exactly what I see in my new Salomon Enduro ski. It is a traditionally cambered, wood core, double Ti laminate and vertical sidewall construction with a tip that is a bit longer and higher than my older ski.

And with this I shall apologize to jbotti for the highjack and shut up now.

Serious, the Enduro has the widest part of the ski up in the air, which means the tip will not engage at low tipping angles.

Theoretically you could just take a normal SL ski and make the tip a bit longer, but NOT wider. That ski would perform almost like the SL ski but with more float in powder.
I have not seen any skis like that though, but I am no ski freak (only a skiing freak).

If you put a string between the tip of the ski and the binding and tighten you will get a poor-mans front rockered ski At high tipping angles there will be no difference compared to the original ski, but how will it perform at low angles?

[HighAngles]

What some of you have described is commonly referred to as a "shark" nose - that's where the tip has just been elongated beyond what is typical. This isn't an early rise ski - there's no "early" in that rise.

What I really need to do is create a diagram, but I think it's easier to picture if you think about what happens to the ski when it's decambered standing on something like a hard wood floor. Imagine that nothing else about the ski has changed except that when it's decambered a significant portion of the shovel is no longer in contact with the floor. Your binding position is still the same and the sidecut is still in the same place, but you no longer have much tip on the ground until you are fairly edged.

So clearly this "helps" (and I use that term loosely) people who tend to catch their front edges, but what kills me is that it really doesn't buy you much in the way of float or greater capacity to take on variable terrain. That's the insanity in all of this - expert skiers don't need early rise and many of the designs result in a huge compromise when you bring the skis back onto the hard pack.

Bringing this back around to the original topic - I think you're much better managing your velocity to achieve the same effect without resorting to an early rise design.

[Skiasaurus Rex]

Interesting discussion thus far.

The appeal of the early rise is the possibility of skiing a narrower ski than traditional fat skis as a dedicated powder, soft, deeper crud snow ski. I don't know if this translates into reality, but the idea of the design has some appeal.

Even in powder, I don't always like the the lag time between edges and the torque on my knees of a fatter ski (fat being 105mm or higher. I ski on a traditional camber 110mm ski in softer, deeper snow). But it's a trade off I-and most people, even on this forum-make to get the advantages of float. Yes, Jbotti's idea of mastering the skills to be able to ski at 'terminal velocity' in powder makes float on a narrower ski more possible. However, does a narrower , say 88-98mm waisted ski with early tip rise that will be used as a quiver ski focused on deeper snow (crud and powder) offer no advantages-especially for someone who wants help in the float at less than terminal velocity department but also wants a ski that is quicker edge to edge (with less knee pressure) than a fatter traditional camber ski?

I skied the Rossi Experience 88 and 98 last year in different conditions and liked them, but I didn't get enough time on them to really assess their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't have the answer to this-it's an open ended question to skiers here who have experience with all sorts of designs and a better grasp of ski physics than I.

[Matt]

I think you're much better managing your velocity to achieve the same effect without resorting to an early rise design.

HA, its easy to control you speed with rockers. You just need to follow the dresscode. Really baggy clothes i.e.

[h.harb]

Yes and the hair cut!