BRO 179 Tech Lift

[kevino]

Lots of great details in this thread. As someone who would most likely buy a pair and use it a lot...keeping the weight around 7 lbs for the pair with ~95 waist would be great. some camber would also be appreciated. the rest of the points i generally agree with. oh and as described before, something that shows a little carbon but doesn't make for an entirely black topsheet

[Lindahl]

Speaking of mags skiing together, I really need to make it back up to the PNW sometime soon. You guys seem way too rad to not go ski with. I grew up skiing Crystal, and I definitely miss it at times. Hauling balls down Pinball, sending stuff in Campbell Basin, getting into the gnar above Snorting Elk, Bear Pits and beyond Brand X, the glading in Left Angle. What a great mountain.

I guess I was hoping we *were* trying to build the perfect spring-touring ski. Or at least, the perfect steep snow/couloir ski.

Yeah, that's what I was hoping for too.

90mm? ok let's split it in half. 95mm waist? with a 125 tip? Probably result in a ~30m radius? Agree, pintail on a skinny ski isn't the greatest idea. (see dynastar cham series.)

Still struggling with the idea of 95mm. If I want something to REALLY float, there's always those 110mm skis at 8lbs. I just don't see the need for something that versatile. I might go for it, but man, 90mm underfoot feels so perfect. I think it's something to do with it being just about as wide as the majority of your foot.

For quiet, damp, hard snow performance you can't really beat Head skis.

So fucking true. Head knows how to make a damp ski. I haven't been on their new series yet, as the puny turn radius pisses me off - I refuse to be a part of that bullshit. Splat, if you want me to send an old Head m82 to you to see what their magic is with damp construction, let me know. The Head Monster (m) series is pretty much my dream construction on firm snow. Heavy, but man, it skied SO well.

Lots of great details in this thread. As someone who would most likely buy a pair and use it a lot...keeping the weight around 7 lbs for the pair with ~95 waist would be great. some camber would also be appreciated. the rest of the points i generally agree with. oh and as described before, something that shows a little carbon but doesn't make for an entirely black topsheet

It'd be cool to see an abstract pattern with random carbon cutouts that looks like it's been burned away to the carbon. That would be pretty rad. Think ON3P-style wood veneer topsheets, with zones scorched in it to reveal the carbon? Maybe not as sunny-day-touring friendly as I'd want, but I've always wanted to see a ski with a topsheet like that. Not sure if it'd work, since you need gloss for carbon and not for wood? Also, I guess the veneers add stiffness and epoxy, so sections of it and see-through to carbon might funk up the flex a bit. I guess you could always just do a normal topsheet burned down to the carbon, which would still be pretty damn sick.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

For "I've seen black diamonds":
Curious on more of your thoughts and experiences with the CD4, Bro and Bushwacker. If you have the rocker/camber/rocker version of the CD4, that looks very similar to what I'd be looking for, except with less pintail to avoid washout (112 tail width would be better). Also, 10mm narrower would be really nice.

I had the old, puke green 179 stiff Bros. The were pretty soft with lots of camber. The had good grip on ice, great pop, and were remarkably stable at speed for a small, light ski. Great for hauling ass down open, corn-covered faces. But they were nose divers. Compared to more modern skis, the powder performance was poor, and, more importantly, they liked to dive under crust. Replaced them with Praxis BC's which are great winter touring skis, but wider and softer than ideal for spring.

This led me to the CD4's, which have a rocker profile somewhat like the Praxis, but the width and weight of the Bros. They handle soft snow and crust beautifully. They're very stiff, and pretty damp for the weight. The feel of the construction is not unlike the 191 Lhasas hybrids I had in that I was surprised how beefy they feel on my feet compared to how light they feel in hand. They grip beautifully on steeps. However, they don't dance in short turns they way the Bros do. I'm not sure if this is because of the tail rocker, which is subtle, in terms of rise, but a bit abrupt in transition (changed in the new version at the expense of underfoot camber), or because they are so stiff. They don't fell dead, but they aren't as easy as the Bros in this area. They make up for this with their ability to slarve predictably on hard, steep snow. I noticed this most last winter skiing 40 degree windboard on which edges left no mark. I was able to transition for carve to slide and comfortably carry speed in fairly difficult conditions in a way that made me very, very happy.

I haven't had a chance ski them fast much. I expect they'll excel in powder, but I don't think they be as good as the cambered Bros on firm snow, since the CD4's ski a bit short, whereas the Bros are capable of remaining stable at far higher speeds than should be possible. I wish the updated version had kept the camber, while softening the transitions and possibly shortening the tail rocker.

My time on Bushwackers is limited. They have a speed limit, but they are enough ski for many ski areas that don't have much in the way of open spaces. And they are ridiculously good in bumps. Love the rocker profile on these. I believe the rocker profile is the real reason for the success of the flipcore skis. They're intuitive and easy. Bases are soft. I've only had a couple days on these. I wish I could compare them more to the CD4's, but I've skied the two in completely different conditions:

CD4's- steeps and trees. pow, crust and windboard. Only used touring with Dynafits.
Bushwacker- groomers, spring bumps. Only used riding lifts.

I'll be able to make a better comparison in a few months.

I'm not in the market for new skis at this time, but I think 99mm is an ideal width for spring skiing or long winter tours. I like that little extra width when I get into bad snow, and don't find ankle torque to be an issue until skis get closer to 110. I think a blizzard-esque rocker profile is closing in on perfection when matched with a medium stiff flex. But the bases are too soft and they're heavy (aside from the narrow, less stout bushwacker). As far as how side cut should be matched to rocker, I consider myself ignorant.

[splat]

So far the general consensus seems to be: (at least based off my re-reading of the thread.)
-keep the sidecut and width the same/similar.
--(No less than ~28m radius and no greater than ~32m)
--(No less than 90mm and no greater than 99mm. Seems most want it to stay 99mm)
-Either flat or low camber
-Tip Rocker
-Early Rise tail with upturn for falling leaf couloir action.
-non stick topsheet. (Silcone/Teflon dwr??)
-medium-stiff
-damp layup/extra rubber for hauling balls in rough snow.

(Wow, sorry for writing a novel.)

Make it come in at ~1600g (am I dreaming?-I noticed you were getting Kasula's at 1800gish...) and I may be buying my first Bro.

Edit to add, I would personally like it a bit narrower, more like 95mm. I see this as a steep skiing ski, you can float a narrow ski (especially with a little rocker) easy at 45+ so I think keeping it narrower would be more advantageous for weight/edge grip than it would be a negative for float.

We had a 179 top sheet that was done in pbt, art by md9, that was whitish blue. I'm going to use that graphic on some of these. There's some kind of hash marks underfoot that I was going to see if they could be taken out to show the carbon. And I was going to see if I could do the art on nylon, which is what we use on the transparent topsheets. Otherwise, some will be pbt for the sake of color.

The whole dims/rocker/splays thing is now circling in on the 99 waist 179 bro weighing less that 1600g (doable), subtly rocking (doable) and....not too stiff??? small positive camber??? pizeoelectric intuitive chip to charge a carbon grid that automatically stiffens the ski just when you realize it needs to be stiffer???

99 waist does not ankle torque on steeps that I've ever noticed. Cause 99 seems skinny to me these days, I guess.

I just got some CD4s and a couple of days on them. They have that really intuitive feel that the EHPs have.

Great in funky snow, very neutral in their behavior. I mounted them -7cm from center while recommend is 10-12cm back. Feels pretty balanced, but you notice their pintail nature a little bit.

I think there should be a kusula line. A 124, a 112, and a 100.

Straight sidecut with mellow reverse camber is magic.

I'm glad auvgeek is back to beat the drum for Team Center Mounted Straight Skis.

Throw up some profiles and let's see if there's an advantageous improvement that everyone would love to have.
I'm all down for a shape discussion with pics.

ISBD - that's about what we're shooting for, I believe...the magic rocker combo that will take the trad bro and let it slip, slarve and falling leaf in coolies while still having edge grab so subtle it would kick in on the steep, produce consistent hold and not skip bounce the tips. Taking into consideration that it is going to be light as hell and carbon quick responsive, it's a delicate balance.

[Lindahl]

However, they don't dance in short turns they way the Bros do. I'm not sure if this is because of the tail rocker, which is subtle, in terms of rise, but a bit abrupt in transition (changed in the new version at the expense of underfoot camber), or because they are so stiff. They don't fell dead, but they aren't as easy as the Bros in this area.

I think it's likely the flex pattern. Bending a ski into a narrower turn radius is all about the ski's flex.

They make up for this with their ability to slarve predictably on hard, steep snow. I noticed this most last winter skiing 40 degree windboard on which edges left no mark. I was able to transition for carve to slide and comfortably carry speed in fairly difficult conditions in a way that made me very, very happy.

Yeah, I've been in the same kinds of conditions, and you can actually ski pretty damn fast but still in control by slarving the skis around, rather than struggling to maintain edgehold in carves with little edge penetration. I call that style controlled falling.. and it's pretty fun!

My time on Bushwackers is limited. They have a speed limit, but they are enough ski for many ski areas that don't have much in the way of open spaces. And they are ridiculously good in bumps. Love the rocker profile on these. I believe the rocker profile is the real reason for the success of the flipcore skis. They're intuitive and easy.

I think a blizzard-esque rocker profile is closing in on perfection when matched with a medium stiff flex. But the bases are too soft and they're heavy (aside from the narrow, less stout bushwacker). As far as how side cut should be matched to rocker, I consider myself ignorant.

Totally agree. Money rocker profile, soft flex (or too heavy), soft bases. The Bushwackers are actually decently stiff underfoot though, it's mostly the tip flex (and likely tail too) that's the problem.

I'm not in the market for new skis at this time, but I think 99mm is an ideal width for spring skiing or long winter tours. I like that little extra width when I get into bad snow, and don't find ankle torque to be an issue until skis get closer to 110.

99 waist does not ankle torque on steeps that I've ever noticed. Cause 99 seems skinny to me these days, I guess.

Looks like I'm in the minority here, so I guess 95-99mm is where it's gonna end up.

[jumpturn]

Here is ON3P vicik rocker profile for an allround ski with hardpack performance.

Ski= 176cm
Tip= 29.5cm
Tail= 24.5cm
Edge= 146

http://on3pskis.myshopify.com/collec...products/vicik

Their Jeronimo profile is here:

Ski= 176cm
Tip= 40.5cm
Tail= 40.5cm
Edge= 147

http://on3pskis.myshopify.com/collec...ducts/jeronimo

Their Billy Goat profile is here:

Ski= 176cm
Tip= 43cm
Tail= 28cm
Edge= 132cm

http://on3pskis.myshopify.com/collec...ucts/billygoat

Note: It makes sense to me that tip and tail rocker should be symmetrical to keep the ski balanced when edging steeps. That means effective edge should be the same forward and backward of boot center.

Here's a dual camber in the midsection concept from the Moment Deathwish.

http://www.momentskis.com/shop/product/deathwish/

It seems like a recipe for trampolining....

[rob stokes]

Note: It makes sense to me that tip and tail rocker should be symmetrical to keep the ski balanced when edging steeps. That means effective edge should be the same forward and backward of boot center.

I dont think this is important. Think of the old fully cambered skis, we were never in the center of the effective edge and it never bothered us then! This is a ski mountaineering ski, not a jib ski!

[Lindahl]

Note: It makes sense to me that tip and tail rocker should be symmetrical to keep the ski balanced when edging steeps. That means effective edge should be the same forward and backward of boot center.

I dont think this is important. Think of the old fully cambered skis, we were never in the center of the effective edge and it never bothered us then! This is a ski mountaineering ski, not a jib ski!

I don't think it needs to be exactly the same forward and backward necessarily (since few fully cambered skis are like that - mostly park), but there is a difference in the balance for skis with profiles like the Blizzards, versus skis with profiles that only have tip rocker (at least a reasonable amount of it). The old ON3P Wrenegade comes to mind. The contact points of the camber should be similarly centered as compared to the contact points on a normal fully cambered ski. The ratio of tip to tail rocker should be similarly proportioned as well:

tail contact point - boot center
--------------------------------
tip contact point - boot center

~=

tail rocker end point - boot center
-----------------------------------
tip rocker end point - boot center

~=

fully cambered ski tail contact point - boot center
---------------------------------------------------
fully cambered ski tip contact point - boot center

Note that the end point, is the point in which the semi-twin and true tip of the ski begin, not the absolute tip and absolute tail of the ski.

[auvgeek]

Wow. First time I ever wanted a LaTex plug in for TGR. This is starting to freak me out.

Lindahl, we should definitely make some turns!

[Lindahl]

For rocker profiles, I was thinking something like this, the new Salomon Q-Lab for next year. Shorter tip rocker length (maybe 30% less), slightly smaller splay (not sure), longer tail rocker (maybe 30-50% more) though similar splay. I'll take some photos and measurements of my Bushwackers this evening.

[splat]

I added this in as an edit above but it seems like it is the target - the magic rocker combo that will take the trad bro and let it slip, slarve and falling leaf in coolies while still having edge grab so subtle it would kick in on the steep, produce consistent hold and not skip bounce the tips. Taking into consideration that it is going to be light as hell and carbon quick responsive, it's a delicate balance.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

For rocker profiles, I was thinking something like this, the new Salomon Q-Lab for next year. Shorter tip rocker length (maybe 30% less), slightly smaller splay (not sure), longer tail rocker (maybe 30-50% more) though similar splay. I'll take some photos and measurements of my Bushwackers this evening.

Pretty similar to CD4's. Some more rocker shots (that were sitting on my phone), some of which are relevant to the discussion:

Tail
L to R: Cochise, CD4, Bushwacker


Tip
L to R: Worth Mega George, Praxis BC, 186 Lhasa, Cochise, CD4, Bushwacker

[TAFKALVS]

For rocker profiles, I was thinking something like this, the new Salomon Q-Lab for next year. Shorter tip rocker length (maybe 30% less), slightly smaller splay (not sure), longer tail rocker (maybe 30-50% more) though similar splay. I'll take some photos and measurements of my Bushwackers this evening.

That looks great! I agree less tip rocker, maybe closer to the rocker on my reverse camber 183s. (see the pics from a few pages back.) I like the tail. Powerful but not hooky.

Another thing I would love to see is a flat camber transition zone, rather than an abrupt transition between the rocker and camber. I am a sales and marketing guy not an enginerd so no cad drawing for me. Hopefully going to ski with auvgeek next week so maybe I can have him draw what I'm talking about.

We had a 179 top sheet that was done in pbt, art by md9, that was whitish blue. I'm going to use that graphic on some of these. There's some kind of hash marks underfoot that I was going to see if they could be taken out to show the carbon. And I was going to see if I could do the art on nylon, which is what we use on the transparent topsheets. Otherwise, some will be pbt for the sake of color.

That would be cool. I was thinking that either a full retro "airplane" top sheet or the last iteration of "puke green" BRO top sheets with huge block print lettering, you could have the primary top sheet color be a light color and then have all the details, lettering, and other graphics be clear through to the carbon. Would still show off the carbon but not have such a dark top sheet for snowmelt/sticking issues.

Taking into consideration that it is going to be light as hell and carbon quick responsive, it's a delicate balance.

I would love to see a heavier, damper layup available (at least in the 183 and 188) that would be appropriate to mount alpine bindings on for crushing it in the resort. (the current layup my 183s have seems pretty close.)

[rob stokes]

For rocker profiles, I was thinking something like this, the new Salomon Q-Lab for next year. Shorter tip rocker length (maybe 30% less), slightly smaller splay (not sure), longer tail rocker (maybe 30-50% more) though similar splay. I'll take some photos and measurements of my Bushwackers this evening.

I agree with your points on the rocker up front, but I think any more tail rocker than shown in these pictures wouldn't be ideal. Personal preference maybe but I don't like a 'loose' ski on anything hard/steep. That tail profile is $$ imo.

[TAFKALVS]

After mounting these puppies 5cm further forward, I think I have discovered the best shit snow ski ever. Went from a fat GS ski feeling, to a cosmic, loose, crust ripping, quick intuitive crap snow ski. Like a lhasa pow for crusts.

Low tide conditions right now. Breakable crust, wind crust, creek holes. Stump, log and boulder hopping. A little pow mixed in too. I will post more details once I get couple more days in, but, wow, these things rock in the funk.

Edit: While we're at it. 186 lhasa vs. 183 rc Bro

[splat]

Ooohhhh, Buddy. You know I'm dying to hear about it.
Would you pull a tape off the center of the tip straight back to where your new bcl is, please?

[kevino]

For all the heavy hitters in this thread, have you guys seen this ski?

http://www.movementskis.com/en/ski-c...ouring/magnet/

I realize there are a few differences in this BRO model we're working to create but just though I'd add it to the mix of brain storming.

[splat]

Cores and bases are almost done for these 183s and 179s.
Positive camber with tip and tail rocker is not hard to incorporate for anyone who wants it.
183s press first.

[kkashkooli]

Splat,

Positive camber with tip and tail rocker is not hard to incorporate for anyone who wants it.
183s press first.

Yes, please.

I have been locked in on work and missed these updates. Where are you in the rocker/camber profile on this shape? I would be interested in something along the lines of what Lindahl and Leavenworth Skier discussed in their most recent posts. I'll shoot you a PM as well.

[splat]

That's the target. Got everything in play except edges on the bases. As some of you might know already, I got the dreaded sensitivity to resin and glass and was looking like a leper so I had to back off pressing and have been prepping materials to minimize exposure and heal. Doing much better, and almost everything is in place except edges on the bases. Got new, almost solid, more reflective topsheets and the clear over carbon tops as well, so, choices. I think the new tops will look very cool. Been training TeleTahoe to help and he's just now got the hang of putting edges on, I believe. We're doing 183s and some test units of the new 184 Byas, then 179s and then Kusalas. Most of what we're doing is pure carbon, except the new skis, which were designed to be hybrids.

[Lindahl]

Bump because I bought the Countdown 4s from 'black diamonds'. After hand flexing them, my guess is that they don't dance into short turns because of the flex. They're pretty damn stiff. They remind me of the stiff Kusalas blems that I bought.

Their profile is money in soft snow/powder, and very very similar to the Salomon Lab Q105. With these, I don't really see a need for a 110mm+ ski, unless you're jumping off stuff and need a longer/wider platform for soft snow landings so you don't auger in. I really like the stiffness in powder, and I think I'll like it even more in crusts. It's on firmer snow where I think they need to be a bit softer, for bending into shorter radius turns, but I'm not 100% sure just yet, given my propensity for high speed turns, even in firm steep snow.

As things start to firm up in May, hopefully I can get these out and get a better feel for them. Skiing these this upcoming spring/summer should give me a LOT of insight into how the design of this PM Gear ski should turn out. Gonna ski them a bit this weekend and hoping to get onto some firm steep snow, but that doesn't look to be in the cards just yet. Will probably have to settle for a couple quick runs on firm "steep" groomers.

In the meantime, here's some stoke:

[splat]

Just did some pure carbon 179s w/positive camber and a bit of enhanced tip rocker for jumpturn, east coast pdr and some other peeps..
Coming up on the reverse cambers and reverse w/positive camber underfoot.
Been slowed down by a wicked fiberglass allergy but wearing a virtual spacesuit at work helped get me back in the game.

[auvgeek]

^^Rocker profile pics??

Is that weight just the pure carbon or does it have the extra rubber for dampening?

[retirwntm]

Sex on a stick!

[snapt]

^^Rocker profile pics??

This please!