BRO 179 Tech Lift

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I like their narrower shapes with camber (less sidecut would be nice though). Haven't tried the Cochise/Scout. I prefer camber in firm steeps anyway.

I'm going to bring some Bushwackers to Italy this year, since I'm going in late April when firm snow is more likely, and they'll be good for skiing groomers with mom as well. I haven't skied them on anything steep yet, and I'm a bit concerned about the 19m radius, but I haven't found them hooky on groomers or bumps. They're also light enough for long vertical and long hours.

[TAFKALVS]

Ok, just snapped a few pics of my reverse camber 183s. While I'm not really into skiing 55 degree ice runnels, I am into steep corn and efficient touring/skiing in less favorable conditions. I think that this rocker profile should provide good float in powder, spring mush and breakable crust. The narrowish width should provide for easy sidehilling on icy skin tracks and better edge grip on firm snow. I will be putting these skis through the paces this entire winter and hope to have good feedback soon. (Haven't been able to ski them yet, was waiting on dynafits to arrive and have racked up 20,000 air miles traveling this fall for work.)

So I snapped a picture of the rocker profile, side by side with 181 Head Mojo 94s (full camber) on the left and 185 BD Justices (camber/rocker) on the right. Bros are in the middle.

[Lindahl]

Yeah, that's what I've been using - Bushwackers. I tore my ACL last season before steep skiing began out here, so I really only took them out a few times into steep firm conditions at the resorts (Breck's Lake Chutes, Loveland's Wild Child, ABasin's North Pole). Didn't want to be deep in the backcountry skiing steep lines without an ACL (rebuilt over the summer). I thought they were quite predictable. Even hopped off a cornice onto 45-50 degree firm with a small landing strip before cheesegrater cliffs (extreme billygoating?). Felt pretty good. Definitely got the heart beating fast though. There are still some things that I don't like about them, but that's mostly related to skiing fast and 3d snow.

Leavenworth, that profile looks really nice. Like I said, I'd prefer some camber, and maybe a bit less tip rocker, but that tail looks perfect. Maybe a slight kick would be nice for falling leaf manuevers. The camber would be mostly for charging hard once a face opens up and the snow gets softer.

[Lindahl]

I recently did a test pair of 196 Lhasas with many of the thoughts expressed in the posts above, rockering the tips and tails and throwing 10 cm of positive camber underfoot for icy steep grip. They were skied at Alta on less than ideal snow over thanksgiving and the report was very favorable. They are now on their way to Switzerland for the powder test.

Is the the sort of thing you'd want for ice over the void, jumpturn/lindahl/isbd/esagen?
I'm always ready to perfect a design, especially in pure carbon, to progress it.

I assume you mean 10mm of camber (1cm). Sounds really nice, except I'd definitely want a lot skinnier than Lhasas. I think 90mm underfoot is perfect, but I could get by with 99mm. It's just not ideal for sidehilling and steeps - more ankle torque than I want to deal with.

I'd go with no taper like the Blizzard designs. When doing ski mountaineering type stuff, I want to keep the length short for on the pack and, to a lesser extent, weight and kick turns. However, when you add taper, it robs the ski of running length. Even with rocker, you can get full running length if the rocker is subtle. You won't get full running length in slow-mo manuevers (which is actually a good! thing, imo), but when hauling balls on aprons or lower down on a face, you can really lean that ski over and then the rocker tends to engage like a fully cambered ski does. The Bushwacker's tip is a little too soft to get that full edge engagement feeling. The Brahma does better, but it can be improved still. It still feels a little bit disconnected at the tip. By making the rocker a bit more subtle, you could get the Brahma to blend really well, but you might be able to do it with stiffness as well.

The trick might be to match a chosen stiffness of the cambered section with a chosen stiffness of the subtle rocker so that when the ski is bent at a particular speed/skier weight (chosen by target market), that the ski's profile looks and acts exactly like a fully cambered ski. A hand flex should be able to simulate this. You also want to blend those stiffnesses as much as possible, and try to keep them pretty close, otherwise the ski can feel hinge-like in 3D snow (the Bushwacker does this a bit).

I'm pretty sure this would mean that the rockered section would actually be stiffer than the cambered section, which is VERY unusual for ski designs. Blister Gear Review just recently did a review of a ski that has this flex profile (stiffer at tip/tail than underfoot), and they really liked it - the key being that the flex was pretty consistent. The downside here, is making sure that a stiffer rockered section doesn't kill soft snow performance. I'd still like to take the ski into steep lines where I would see ~6" of windbuffed powder or deeper corn. I don't think this necessarily means that you need a softer tip, but it does mean that it really should be field tested in such conditions (I'll do it! ). It might actually ski that stuff even better than a more traditional flex pattern (softer tip than underfoot). These thoughts make me remember what auvgeek was saying in the Kusala thread about how he thinks reverse camber skis work better at stiffer flexes.

I should note that, based on my experience with the K2 Sideshow, that K2 does a pretty damn good job at making the rockered section of the ski act/behave just like camber when laid over at higher speeds. Despite it's tip rocker, it really does feel like a fully cambered ski. I haven't had a chance to play with it in soft snow though, or in firm steeps, so I'm not sure if the rocker is enough to actually act like rocker and this could actually lead nowhere.

What do you guys think?

(Went into enginerd spew mode. I'm not skiing for the next 4 weeks due to a broken ankle, so I have way too much time to spend on this kind of stuff.)

[TAFKALVS]

Leavenworth, that profile looks really nice. Like I said, I'd prefer some camber, and maybe a bit less tip rocker, but that tail looks perfect (maybe a slight kick would be nice for falling leaf manuevers). The camber would be mostly for charging hard once a face opens up and the snow gets softer.

So basically a Lhasa pow that is ~10mm skinnier all around? Maybe with a lower rise tip? I say keep the rocker length the same.

What excites me about the flat/slight reverse camber is that it should (at least in theory) make for looser 3D snow performance in crusts, low speed tree skiing and gnarly forest deproaches. About 80% of my tours start near or just slightly above the dependable winter snowline (~2500-3000ft or so.) That can result in very difficult ski conditions on the bottom half of the tour- melt freeze crusts, tree bombs and thin coverage.

Making a touring ski that can handle 10/10 type conditions is easy. I want a touring ski that can handle the 1/10 conditions and still be fun in good snow too.

[esagen]

Was the problem too light a ski, not stiff enough, not enough edge due to reverse camber, or just heinous conditions?

I guess it was a combination of all of the above. Well, it should be stiff enough, but the combination of reverse camber and lightweight construction may be the limitation. As I've been having more days on them in various conditions and getting used to have they react, I'm also getting more comfortable and learning how to handle them. Though, the reverse camber bros are not as good as my renegades in high speed on hard pack (which also was a learning process), but that is not really expected either. Without really having pushed the limits yet, I do feel that the reverse camber bros will handle as expected for firm, steep skiing - and maybe better than the "tip rocker only"-design for this specific purpose?

My experience with these light carbon skis is that they are easily deflected by rough hard terrain. They have a speed limit under those conditions and you need to ski them carefully. Similarly, they are not going to cut through 5cm ice crust like volkl kuros with alpine bindings -- full on ice breakers at 10kg on each foot...

Sounds like just some tip rocker and use the semi-twin as a slight pin tail to improve angle of attack in powder. Keep the center positive camber and stiff. Broaden and soften only the early rise tip.

Fully agreed. And I believe you can't have it all in a single package. Some compromises are necessary.

How about tossing in some metal in the mid ski to really bite on ice, kind of like the mantra...carbon and steel!

Carbon and metal - I guess that would be a first!

I recently did a test pair of 196 Lhasas with many of the thoughts expressed in the posts above, rockering the tips and tails and throwing 10 cm of positive camber underfoot for icy steep grip. They were skied at Alta on less than ideal snow over thanksgiving and the report was very favorable. They are now on their way to Switzerland for the powder test.

Is the the sort of thing you'd want for ice over the void, jumpturn/lindahl/isbd/esagen?
I'm always ready to perfect a design, especially in pure carbon, to progress it.

Splat, my Lhasas are perfect. I don't need to change a thing, though I may have to ride them hard and wear them out this winter so I can justify getting some pures for next year. Though - I would gladly help out with some though testing above the Polar Circle (you know - all the car manufacturers send their cars up here for the real winter testing).

You should check out blizzard designs (needs semi twin though). A little tail rocker to mate with the tip rocker makes it feel more balanced underfoot. Flat tail with tip rocker can feel a little off balance in firm steeps when you're totally focusing on keeping that underfoot edge super solid. Flat tails work just fine when you're charging though.

Yes, I see your point about having some tail rocker to balance out, especially for steep skiing. Several of the bigger companies have been taking up ideas from the indy companies lately, though still mostly lacking the combination of charging capabilities in a lightweight package. My bros weigh approx 1,6kg/ski and my lhasas are 1,9kg/ski, which I think is quite good. Ideally i would love to see them shave off additional 200g per ski while keeping the same performance.

Ok, just snapped a few pics of my reverse camber 183s.

This is more or less the same rocker profile as mine 179 Bros.

[jumpturn]

The trick might be to match a chosen stiffness of the cambered section with a chosen stiffness of the subtle rocker so that when the ski is bent at a particular speed/skier weight (chosen by target market), that the ski's profile looks and acts exactly like a fully cambered ski.

Agree. If you can lay over the ski and engage the camber sections, that would be great. On steeps, the ski is already laid over relative to the slope. So, if this works, then you have full edge where you want it, and the question becomes whether the rocker works in pow, crud, and crust.

I think the semi-twin tail would address pow.

So, it is really about the tip.

What about progressive softening from the start of the rise?

Crust cutting is really about the early rise on the ski.

Pow is more about the higher part of the tip, and the snow riding along the rise smoothly due to proper rise angle - continuous rise.

I don't know about crud.

A titanium stiffening layer might be interesting for the primary contact range of the ski.

Some rubber to dampen chatter, and that will be some tech for a carbon ski!

[Lindahl]

Agree. If you can lay over the ski and engage the camber sections, that would be great.

I assume you mean rockered sections?

On steeps, the ski is already laid over relative to the slope.

For a subtle rocker profile, likely. It's not just how the ski is laid over, though, it's how the ski is bent - which requires some amount of speed, which you're not going to necessarily have in the real steep stuff. When you enter a turn when moving, the ski is bent more. The higher the speed, the higher the force, the more it bends. This is why a stiff ski is difficult to ski at slow speeds - it doesn't want to bend, so the radius won't tighten. It also will lack energy, because it won't bend to store any energy. However, get that ski up to speed, and it has a different personality. You can bend it, get the radius you want by pressuring your tongues when you enter the turn, store up the energy in the bend, and have it release out the tail as you exit the turn. For example, with my Head m103, which is a monster of a ski, you have to be going pretty damn fast to get that thing to do much of anything. I'd say it doesn't start bending for me until about 30mph, which is pretty wild to think about. You don't get much rebound until you get it up to around 45mph. The skier's weight matters of course, as well.

I think the semi-twin tail would address pow.

My only concern would be that making sure you have just as much camber in front of you, as you do behind you, so that you have a balanced edge underfoot. A little bit of tail rise (ala Blizzard) should get that sorted out, but yeah, a semi-twin is kind of necessary, IMO, for falling leaf type maneuvers.

So, it is really about the tip. What about progressive softening from the start of the rise?

The problem if you soften the tip, is that when you're skiing faster, the softer rockered tip won't engage like the rest of the camber. The tip will feel like it doesn't exist. I've experienced this with both the Bushwacker and the Kabookie. The stiffer Brahma nearly solves this problem by having a stiffer tip, but there's still a little bit of a disconnect, unlike the K2 Sideshow, which blends remarkably well because the rocker is much more subtle. Like I said before, I think if you actually have a slightly stiffer tip than the rest of the ski, you could probably get it to blend really well, without going with a K2-like rocker (which is very very subtle, and may not do the trick in pow/crust/mank/etc. - haven't had the opportunity).

Here's the Blister Gear Review I was talking about, where they noticed the 4FRNT Devestator has a stiffer tip and tail, than underfoot. This is the first ski I've ever heard about that does this sort of thing (though there are likely others). There's a bit of discussion about this flex design down in the 'comments' section:
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-re...rnt-devastator

Crust cutting is really about the early rise on the ski. Pow is more about the higher part of the tip, and the snow riding along the rise smoothly due to proper rise angle - continuous rise.

Yeah, I wish I was able to spend more time on different nose profiles in crust conditions. We don't get crust inbounds here in CO very often though, which makes it tricky to demo a bunch of different skis on. I know a few people that own shops up here though, maybe I can talk to them and see if I can just grab a few pairs of skis on those rare days.

I don't know about crud.

Crud in the backcountry isn't usually very deep - usually it's strastrugi (or other textured snows) that has fully softened into corn. My favorite shallow crud ski is the Head m103. It has no early rise or rocker, a VERY low profile tip, is straight, stiff and heavy. I don't think you really need to worry about how the rocker/early rise works with this kind of crud. And, in fact, a stiffer tip rocker than the main body of the ski may end up performing better than the more traditional designs we've seen so far in backcountry skis.

Some rubber to dampen chatter, and that will be some tech for a carbon ski!

Pretty sure splat already does this?

Also, I've never seen a light ski with metal in it, so I think the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think we'll see it in a backcountry ski anytime in the near future. Based on my experience with the Salomon Q98, though, you can definitely get a smooth silky damp metal feel without it (and in a lightish construction!). You just won't get much energy (though carbon could fix that). Edge performance may take a hit as well, but I'm putting my money on that being a problem with the tune on the Q98 I had demoed.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Also, I've never seen a light ski with metal in it, so I think the two are mutually exclusive.

Some K2 touring skis have had metal- Shuksan, Backup (3.3 lbs/ski at 174), Backlash - other's whose names I can't remember, because they all sound the same.

[splat]

I assume you mean 10mm of camber (1cm).

No....1 mm of camber over 10cm distance.

[jumpturn]

Splat, is this all coming together in your engineering head?

Sounds like there are some good concepts here.

I'll test out the prototypes in cham if they show up before 12/26.

[splat]

None of this would be too difficult.
There are a lot of opinions expressed but it needs to be boiled down to a consensus.
I really appreciate all the offers for testing but the only way that will happen is if you place your order,tell me what you want and I build them.

One of the things you have to keep in mind is that the flex in an all carbon ski has to be very uniform or it will snap.
Too much flex in one area of the ski over another will be a weakness. It has to flow together as one in the flex resistance.
I'm going through this working out the soft flex Kusalas right now.

If any of you guys want to do this and develop the latest greatest attributes for the reversed cambered 179 in carbon, let me know.
If two or three of you guys make advance orders, I'll do them for $780 shipped.
I'll work out the perfect iteration of the ski as you all decide over ten pairs and send you guys the ones that are exactly correct.

[splat]

Bump for an advance purchase price on the new 179 subtle reverse carbon skinning/mountaineering ski.

[jumpturn]

I'll bite. What's the timeframe? February?

[splat]

Yep. Just pressing Lhasas now, then Kusalas, then 183s, then 179s if you want to do it.
Got other people who want to do this as well, so it looks like it's a go.
When someone throws down that first purchase, it's on.

[Leisg]

I'm in.

Personally, I look for a long radius, crust cutting capabilities as the main focus. Basically able to handle the full spectrum of snow. Ice performance is less important here in Japan. I have always wondered what a skinny kusala at 179 (with more of a regular bro tail and a short flat spot under the binding) would ski like as so many of those attributes seem applicable here but maybe that is beyond this discussion.

Anyway will follow the collective and Pat's experience.

Pat will PM you to work out shipping to Japan

[swissbro]

I'm in for a pair per Lindahl's comments.

[splat]

I think Lindahl needs to boil those comments down to some bullet points.
He always has great perspective. I read that devastator review, looked at the profiles and was quite surprised that a ski with that much rocker and stiffer tips and tails was a considered a crudbuster insomuch as I would think the rockers would kinda hinge and flop. I'm still processing that. It seems esagen might have the best insights on what the all carbon 179 currently does and what might improve it. Maybe he can throw down some suggestions. Anyways, it looks like we're a go with this ski, guys.

[Chugachjed]

Not to get too far off topic but the great dearth of snow here has me thinking about steep hard snow. Anybody used the volkl kendo as a tool for this purpose? I can get a stupid good deal on a pair.

[kevino]

I'm liking the sounds of this. Pat, what would you guess the weight would be?

[Lindahl]

Not to get too far off topic but the great dearth of snow here has me thinking about steep hard snow. Anybody used the volkl kendo as a tool for this purpose? I can get a stupid good deal on a pair.

I think it would be pretty decent. Never been fond of Volkl build quality though - the thin swiss cheese bases mostly.The downside is lack of any rocker to be more versatile for light crusts and deep corn and mush at the end of the day. It's a real solid ski though that can rip on firm/crud. It's probably one of the few skis that's light enough to be a backcountry ski, but can also charge on firm resort days. It's a shame the bases aren't more durable.

Haven't taken it into the steeps though. They hold demo days in November out here (fucking lame!), so all we get is groomers with a few small bumps thrown in, unless I like it enough to track one down later in the year - the Kendo would be one such ski, for the right price.

[Lindahl]

I think Lindahl needs to boil those comments down to some bullet points.

* Full sidecut (no taper), 25-30m radius
* 90mm underfoot (so ~115/90/105?)
* ~180cm tip to tail finished length
* Tail rocker similar to Blizzard Bushwacker/Brahma/Kabookie/Bonafide
* Tip rocker possibly a little less than Bushwacker/Brahma/Kabookie/Bonafide
* Possibly stiffer tip/tail than underfoot

Things to iron out in testing:
* How much tip rocker and how stiff to make the tip so that it fully engages when laid over at speed (slightly better than the Brahma), but without totally killing crud/windslab/powder performance (up to, say, 6-8" of depth).

This last question is the hardest one to answer and probably need a few revs to dial it in. I think the Salomon Q98 does a really good job with it's tip rocker and blending it into the rest of the ski when on edge. I'd probably go with slightly smaller rocker profile in all dimensions, but the stiffness blend seems pretty money.

I read that devastator review, looked at the profiles and was quite surprised that a ski with that much rocker and stiffer tips and tails was a considered a crudbuster insomuch as I would think the rockers would kinda hinge and flop. I'm still processing that.

I think the trick is that the tips/tails are marginally stiffer than underfoot. I haven't had flexed the ski myself, nor skied it, so I'm not that sure. If I can get my hands on one sometime soon, I plan on checking it out myself.

[jumpturn]

* Full sidecut (no taper), 25-30m radius
* 90mm underfoot (so ~115/90/105?)
* ~180cm tip to tail finished length
* Tail rocker similar to Blizzard Bushwacker/Brahma/Kabookie/Bonafide
* Tip rocker possibly a little less than Bushwacker/Brahma/Kabookie/Bonafide
* Possibly stiffer tip/tail than underfoot

Things to iron out in testing:
* How much tip rocker and how stiff to make the tip so that it fully engages when laid over at speed (slightly better than the Brahma), but without totally killing crud/windslab/powder performance (up to, say, 6-8" of depth).

This last question is the hardest one to answer and probably need a few revs to dial it in.



I think the trick is that the tips/tails are marginally stiffer than underfoot. I haven't had flexed the ski myself, nor skied it, so I'm not that sure. If I can get my hands on one sometime soon, I plan on checking it out myself.

I want to stick with the current bro 179 dimensions, including 32m turn radius. Less float in not an improvement. The current ski does a fine job on steeps, so don't break it.

Rocker the tip and semi twin the tail. I could go rockered semi twin, but in general you want a solid tail for the ice more that you want pow perfection. You want to maximize edge contact on the steeps, and you don't care about low angle piste skiing because you good enough to ski anything.

Make the tip address powder 50cm-1m deep and cut crust. The current skis deal with 10-20 cm no problem, but yoy have to lean back as it gets deeper.

A paired down 186 seems like the simplest transformation.

Radius should absolutely not be less 28m.

This is nor a pow ski. It is a traditional ski for couloirs that we want to have perform even better in pow and crust.

It we wan to do pivot turns, we'll ski the kursala or volkl kuros.

Think of the quivers like this:

• 179: a couloir ski that will also do pow and crust.
• 186 big bro: 192 bro for light skiers that does a good job on pow and ice.
• Kusala: a pow ski with enough muscle to ski the death couloir ice to get to the pow and to ski out the beater combat trail ack to the road.

[Lindahl]

I want to stick with the current bro 179 dimensions, including 32m turn radius. Less float in not an improvement. The current ski does a fine job on steeps, so don't break it.

I suppose so, but I prefer 90mm, as the ankle torque on a 99mm ski is still pretty noticable to me. Thinking firm steeps and sidehill skinning here. If I expected deeper snow, I'd personally take a wider 110mm+ ski - something I could surf around on. Any reason why that sort of thing doesn't work for you?

Rocker the tip and semi twin the tail. I could go rockered semi twin, but in general you want a solid tail for the ice more that you want pow perfection. You want to maximize edge contact on the steeps, and you don't care about low angle piste skiing because you good enough to ski anything.

If you look at the Blizzard tails, you'll see what I mean. You won't be giving up ice/edging performance at all - it actually improves by feeling more balanced underfoot. Having the camber profile ~centered on the full ski length is important when you want the tip rocker to engage as part of the sidecut.

Radius should absolutely not be less 28m.

No arguments here.

This is not a pow ski. It is a traditional ski for couloirs that we want to have perform even better in pow and crust.

Agreed, though I'd also say it's a traditional ski for anything late season, except powder (not just couloirs). I'd want it to be something I can take onto faces as well.

• 179: a couloir ski that will also do pow and crust.
• 186 big bro: 192 bro for light skiers that does a good job on pow and ice.
• Kusala: a pow ski with enough muscle to ski the death couloir ice to get to the pow and to ski out the beater combat trail ack to the road.

My main quiver would look like this:

• This ski: big days with limited powder, corn, or firm snow
• Lightweight ~110mm: big days in powder
• ~120mm untracked powder ski: Untracked powder, charging hard, hucking - resort mornings, sidecountry and road laps
• ~110mm resort powder ski: Resort alpine powder all day, charging hard, hucking
• Head m103: alpine chalk/hardpack, charging and hucking
• Mid-80s moderately stiff and damp: early season/bumps

My #1 is currently the Bushwacker, but I'd prefer something that feels a bit more comfortable at speed (it was $100, so a cheap experiment). The Bushwacker works pretty well in powder as a #2, but it's replacement likely won't. My #3 is going to be either Kusala or Billygoat - experimenting this year on which one I like more. #4 is a Wrenegade or a rockered Atomic Pow+ - experimenting this year on which one I like more (might keep both). #5, the Head m103, is a one-of-a-kind ski. I have no idea what I'm going to do when it dies. Hopefully I'll be able to find one on the used market. #6 is a Head m82, but needs replacing. I usually spend $100-$150 every 2+ seasons on this ski (they get torn to shreds). Craigslist is my friend here.

I also have an old Billygoat for early season rock touring (wish it was lighter, but it helps get me in shape), and a Volant Spatula for days when I feel like skiing a R/R.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

If you look at the Blizzard tails, you'll see what I mean. You won't be giving up ice/edging performance at all - it actually improves by feeling more balanced underfoot. Having the camber profile ~centered on the full ski length is important when you want the tip rocker to engage as part of the sidecut.

I agree with this. Tail rise doesn't necessarily equal a tail that disappears on you. I think an ideal execution of tip/tail rocker for this application is one in which skiing with more edge angle/ pressure lets you use nearly the entire edge of the ski, while a more relaxed approached will allow you to force shorter turns with less effort than with a fully cambered tail. Just a few mm of tail rise seems to be the just the ticket for a ski that skis long when you push it, and short when you dial it back. This ski doesn't need to smear huge McConkey turns. It needs to slarve through crust and slop with minimal effort while remaining solid on ice and stable at fairly high speeds on corn.

As far as the suggestion that the tip ought to be stiffer than underfoot, I'm a bit confused. Many skis are softer in the tip than under foot, and I can see how this would be a problem if the rockered tip section begins flexing before the cambered section (this is a problem on the medium flex Praxis BC, which I don't enjoy skiing fast on hard snow). Is this what your saying is problematic with the Bushwacker and Brahma? It certainly shouldn't be noodly, but I'm not sure the tip needs to be stiffer than underfoot to avoid this. Don't we apply more force to the underfoot section of the ski than to the tip? Perhaps their is an ideal ratio of tip-underfoot-tail stiffness for such a ski? Or would the ratio change depending on speed?

Subtly rockered skis as seem to have their own personality when it comes to the proper technique for using the whole edge. And that personality can change a bit if you're making short or long radius turns, going fast or slow. They're pickier about for-aft balance and edge angle than cambered skis when you are initiating a turn. Do you think a stiffer tip would mitigate this pickiness?