Traditional sidecut/camber skis--do they even still exist?

[MMP]

really what Dex needs for his skiing is soul. His turns lack soul.

[Buster Highmen]

The older DPS L120s are a choice blend of trad sidecut and flat camber with fat but a still digging tail that make for super railing arcs in the groom. I swirtched over from the Stockli/Volkl school of slightly fattened GS race boards and am exstreamly pleased.

The newer ones that have more tip rocker have a bit more flap on the groom, but still honk that arc with the grippy tailflex if you know how.

Ask Foggy or Cletus, they bees the old skool racer railers too, y'know.

Can't help anyone on this imagy 'soul' thing.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Dex what's your BSL? I've got a great pair of PM Gear 183 stiffs that have a smidge of rocker in them but they are definitely cambered and FUCKING RAIL and behave very traditionally. I likely won't be skiing them so I'd be happy to pass them along on the cheap. Let me know if you want to take a peek at them.

Thanks--I'm fairly familiar with those skis and I think I like them. I'm somewhere 314-316 BSL, I believe. Maybe I can take them for a run at some point on one of the deep days Magic gets this winter...but don't hold onto them on my account if you were looking at selling them anyway.

really what Dex needs for his skiing is soul. His turns lack soul.

That's what you keep calling it, but all I ever see is a guy who turns like he spent too many years in the parking lots of Dead concerts in the 80's and lost his heelpieces in an ill-advised card game with other, similar shifty types. But if you say soul, we'll call it soul.

[Altaholic]

188 Armada Invictus is the only ski that comes to my mind that is in production. Basically, a comp ski at 107mm underfoot.

I am really stoked I picked up some 191 Armada ANT in killer condition. A ski pretty much like Dynastar Pro XXL. I had the XXL & ANT in the past.

If you want a traditional ski with slight early rise, the Invictus looks interesting.

[Aldo]

Super Bro

[MMP]

That's what you keep calling it, but all I ever see is a guy who turns like he spent too many years in the parking lots of Dead concerts in the 80's and lost his heelpieces in an ill-advised card game with other, similar shifty types. But if you say soul, we'll call it soul.

It costs a lot to win, and even more to lose.

[pfluffenmeister]

The older DPS L120s are a choice blend of trad sidecut and flat camber with fat but a still digging tail that make for super railing arcs in the groom. I swirtched over from the Stockli/Volkl school of slightly fattened GS race boards and am exstreamly pleased.

The newer ones that have more tip rocker have a bit more flap on the groom, but still honk that arc with the grippy tailflex if you know how.

Ask Foggy or Cletus, they bees the old skool racer railers too, y'know.

Can't help anyone on this imagy 'soul' thing.

truth.

i like fatter GS type sidecut skis, also came from stockli (& kastle).
love the 120 (skied many iterations).
moved on to 191 Lhasa Fat; close enough performance wise in the pow, better everywhere else.

[Bandit Man]

There should be a shit ton of Volkl Mantras (prior to 2015 model) floating around that come close in my estimation. Or try a Blizzard Bonafide. Maybe not entirely what your looking for, but worth a look-sie.

I guess I'm one of the slightly older guys who loves the current version of LP-ish skis. Between my Q-Labs and Cochises, I get lots of that LP feel with the benefits of progression. YMMV. ;-)

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Fischer.

[cat in january]

Your inbox is full.
I bought the Dynastar Big Dumps for my bro, but thought one of the STP offerings would suit him better.

Here is the link to the thread:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ight=big+dumps

Paid $80 shipped. How does $75 shipped sound? Obviously loosing out on shipping.

I would not describe the edges in excellent condition. there is plenty of edge left, but they are in need of a good tune.

[Iowagriz]

After 10yrs(??) of riding on my old Atomic ReX, I decided to rent last year to see what the hype was about. Tried and hated the Armada TST; then tried the 2015 Mantra. Close, but still not exciting.

Then the Rossi Experience 100; lots of fun. Easy to carve high speed on the groomers and behaved like an old school ski off groomed. Also tried the K2 Richtor 90. Also fun, but the Rossi will be getting my cash sometime soon.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Cool. I'm at least a little (maybe more than that) interested. So they were mounted 2cm back of the line? I've always gone right at the line--I assume with a 315bsl I should be able to put them back there anyway, right? (Not sure how much difference the 2cm makes.)

Don't need them right away so may be able to figure out a pickup if I take them (save you shipping). Let me get back to you. Inbox can take a few messages again (probably better to email following address: ny [and then this part] ski_mnnAThotmail.com

[Timberridge]

I still have a pair of '10 184 Mantras w/out rocker, I also had 191 Mantra's w/ rocker that I sold last season. I bought some 188 ARVti's to replace them, and honestly I can't see a situation where the ARVti's can't out carve and out run the 184 Mantra's, and even the 191's. And they do so without the drama of having to keep on top of what the Mantra tips are doing in deeper, bumpy terrain. Though anything over 6" deep I still want more waist than ~100.

I'm not sure why I'm keeping the Mantra's other than to have something for the low tide days. Perhaps you haven't tried the right 'modern' skis yet?

[ill-advised strategy]

192 bro model might fit your bill.

take a good hard look at the fatypus D-sender also...

[Dexter Rutecki]

I still have a pair of '10 184 Mantras w/out rocker, I also had 191 Mantra's w/ rocker that I sold last season. I bought some 188 ARVti's to replace them, and honestly I can't see a situation where the ARVti's can't out carve and out run the 184 Mantra's, and even the 191's.

I guess that, aside from the 4cm difference, I can't see how a ski with rocker could outcarve a ski without. Maybe someone might like them better in soft snow, but the idea of a rockered ski being better at carving doesn't make sense to me (if rockered skis could do that then race skis would have rocker, which they never will).

And they do so without the drama of having to keep on top of what the Mantra tips are doing in deeper, bumpy terrain. Though anything over 6" deep I still want more waist than ~100.

I also haven't ever really been worried about my unrockered tips in deep or bumpy terrain so I'm not sure rocker would be a benefit, although I agree 100+ is better in the deep.

I'm not sure why I'm keeping the Mantra's other than to have something for the low tide days. Perhaps you haven't tried the right 'modern' skis yet?

Definitely possible. After taking a few runs on some DPS skis a number of years ago (the orange ones, whatever that means) I concluded that rocker/early rise just probably isn't for me. Felt like I was losing about 1/3 of the ski's potential performance, and trying to drive the ski through the tip just wasn't happening. To some degree I just feel that I'm getting action out of a traditionally built powder ski that I can't get from something with rocker/reverse sidecut (if it ain't broke...), but maybe I'll try some of the new ones with less radical design.

[utagonian]

I guess that, aside from the 4cm difference, I can't see how a ski with rocker could outcarve a ski without. Maybe someone might like them better in soft snow, but the idea of a rockered ski being better at carving doesn't make sense to me (if rockered skis could do that then race skis would have rocker, which they never will).

Most race skis have had some rocker for a few years now.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Most race skis have had some rocker for a few years now.

Well, yes, they market some of them with rocker/early rise, but they all still have traditional camber (AFAIK), which to me means they are not rockered (I've never seen race skis that, when placed base to base, will touch under the bindings, nor have I seen race skis that have tips flaring up (except where the shovel starts, obviously)).

edit: I actually don't know how the ski companies define these things any more--just looked around, and Rossignol, for example, had a SL ski that some weird profile to the tip which people have sometimes described as 'early rise' (but it's nothing like the early rise on a powder ski, for example). And I still believe that all race skis are cambered, which to me means they aren't rockered skis. But I guess it depends how you define it (and IMO the ski companies are latching onto these terms for marketing purposes--camber always ends at some point, but at least on race skis I've never seen what I would call rocker after the camber).

[utagonian]

Semantics.
Some skis with camber have rocker from just a little like most race skis, to a lot like a dps 112. But, all skis that I know of with no (or reverse) camber have rocker.

[adrenalated]

Let's get our terminology straight here.

On one extreme, we have a fully traditional ski, with a traditional sidecut and a traditional tip, and a flat tail. On the other extreme, we have the Spatula or Praxis Powderboard. Fully reverse sidecut, and fully reverse camber.

99.95% of all skis now fall somewhere on a spectrum between those two extremes, incorporating design elements from both. "Rockered" just means that the ski incorporates some reversed rise into part of the ski. Rocker and camber are not mutually exclusive. Some skis have long rockered sections, and no camber at all. Some have very minimal rockered sections and lots of traditional camber.

Trying one rockered ski (you were likely on either a DPS Wailer 99 or Wailer 112) and then immediately saying "I hate all rockered skis" is short sighted. Those skis are both fairly far towards the Spatula end of the spectrum, and yes, skis with a very short cambered section and short traditional sidecut sections are generally not happy with a tip driving ski style. That doesn't mean that all skis with rocker are like that. There are literally hundreds of models that fall more towards the traditional end of the spectrum that will certainly allow you to drive through the shovel of the ski.

You need to try more skis before you completely discount any ski that has a little rocker. Many good options are mentioned in this thread.

[PNWbrit]

After taking a few runs on some DPS skis a number of years ago (the orange ones, whatever that means)

Sounds as if you should have tried some red ones?

[Dexter Rutecki]

Those aren't the only skis I've ever been on with rocker/early rise. I've skied a number of others and own one pair. But I have yet to ski something with rocker/early rise that performs better than my current skis (which I would say don't have rocker/early rise) or previous, traditional skis. And I simply don't see any evidence of rocker/early rise on current race skis (I was curious and just took a look at a pair of 2014 Rossi SL skis and 2015 Head GS skis--if they have rocker or early rise it is not visible to my eyes).

I will say that I think there is an issue with the terminology, and I think some of it is marketing crap--simply because camber ends at some point (which has always been the case) doesn't make a ski rockered, IMO. And there's obviously no hard and fast definition for what constitutes 'early' rise--any ski with a shovel at the tip could conceivably be described as having early rise. These are partially marketing terms, not scientific definitions.

That said, I'm not saying I automatically dislike all skis with some sort of reverse camber and/or 'early' rise. I just don't see why they would necessarily be an improvement; for example, I think a selling point of early rise is it helps with turn initiation, but I honestly don't see why that matters (when was the last time you had trouble initiating a turn?). I also read that rocker/early rise means you don't have to pressure the front of the ski so much, but in my mind making a decent turn necessarily involves hammering the front of the ski at the beginning of your turn. I don't see the benefit of not being in a forward position pushing through the fronts of your boots (and therefore pressuring the tip of the ski).

[Dexter Rutecki]

Sounds as if you should have tried some red ones?

Some paint would've made the difference?

[adrenalated]

Those aren't the only skis I've ever been on with rocker/early rise. I've skied a number of others and own one pair. But I have yet to ski something with rocker/early rise that performs better than my current skis (which I would say don't have rocker/early rise) or previous, traditional skis. And I simply don't see any evidence of rocker/early rise on current race skis (I was curious and just took a look at a pair of 2014 Rossi SL skis and 2015 Head GS skis--if they have rocker or early rise it is not visible to my eyes).

I will say that I think there is an issue with the terminology, and I think some of it is marketing crap--simply because camber ends at some point (which has always been the case) doesn't make a ski rockered, IMO. And there's obviously no hard and fast definition for what constitutes 'early' rise--any ski with a shovel at the tip could conceivably be described as having early rise. These are partially marketing terms, not scientific definitions.

That said, I'm not saying I automatically dislike all skis with some sort of reverse camber and/or 'early' rise. I just don't see why they would necessarily be an improvement; for example, I think a selling point of early rise is it helps with turn initiation, but I honestly don't see why that matters (when was the last time you had trouble initiating a turn?). I also read that rocker/early rise means you don't have to pressure the front of the ski so much, but in my mind making a decent turn necessarily involves hammering the front of the ski at the beginning of your turn. I don't see the benefit of not being in a forward position pushing through the fronts of your boots (and therefore pressuring the tip of the ski).

They are more forgiving to people who suck at skiing. I mostly agree with you, and tend towards more traditional shapes myself, particularly for my skis that see a lot of time on firm snow. Praxis Freeride, ON3P Wrenegade, etc. I agree that I don't think rockered skis are an improvement on hard snow.

The benefits of rocker have more to do with soft snow performance. They hook less in grabby 3D snow conditions (windcrust, suncrust, heavy pow, etc.) and float easier, allowing you to pressure the tips MORE in soft snow than a traditional ski allows.

"Early rise" is a term that needs to die in a fire. Just call it a rockered tip, and tell me where the rise begins on the length of the ski and how high it rises.

[jgb@etree]

Super Bro

Yep. Despite have a pretty respectable quiver, I find myself pulling superbro's off the rack damn near every morning that I ski.

[El Chupacabra]

I think a selling point of early rise is it helps with turn initiation, but I honestly don't see why that matters (when was the last time you had trouble initiating a turn?). I also read that rocker/early rise means you don't have to pressure the front of the ski so much, but in my mind making a decent turn necessarily involves hammering the front of the ski at the beginning of your turn. I don't see the benefit of not being in a forward position pushing through the fronts of your boots (and therefore pressuring the tip of the ski).

I understand what you're saying here, but IMHO the advantage of more modern ski shapes* is that you don't have to put as much muscle and effort into each turn -- so you can ski longer and easier, and it lets you recover faster from botched turns. This also means you can ski with sloppier form and still survive, but that's another topic.

It's similar to going from straight skis to "shaped" skis in the 1990s. Sure, someone could ski everything (including super deep pow) on 65mm wide 215cm skinny skis, but carving turns got a lot easier after skis got some more sidecut to them, and an 80mm wide 185cm ski turned out to be pretty useful all around + more maneuverable.

*modern ski shapes -- e.g. the so-called 5-point designs, which are generally fairly versatile skis. Wide enough for float, sidecut enough for carving, camber underfoot for some springiness. Also, the rockered tip + tail means they give you the float expected of a long ski, but since the running length on hardpack is short, they can turn fast like a short ski.

But YMMV on all of this.