I'm interested in the hybrids.  Skis that have a moderate rocker in the shovel (I guess some call them early rise tips) with a traditional camber under foot and tail. Haven't skied any yet, but I figure that gives me a little extra length and float in powder, but the ski should still perform like any other modern ski on hardpack, given that the contact point will be a little back from the shovel, but traditionally cambered.

I want to be able to truck in crud, something my current "phat" setup doesn't do so well at 172, float in powder, and still be able to carve on packed powder. Ice? Well, basically it just has to survive. If it's truly icy, I have other skis. 

I'm currently eyeing the Bluehouse Tight Shoots. Anyone have any experience on 'em? 


Benjamin D. Bloom
[log in to unmask]
www.benjamindbloom.com

Facebook: http://facebook.com/benjamindbloomphoto
Twitter: @benjamindbloom



On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, John Gilbert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
full rocker is fun for sure, powder or chowder- you just haul.  i still don't know about 'em.  on a super deep day (3ft+), like it was said, you need a lot of ski just to stay moving.  but those days aren't all that common, most seasons, anywhere.  

i was thinking about this yesterday. looking back,  i still have had more fun turns on more traditional skis.  super floaty, smeared turns of a wide rockered ski is fun, but you don't get the whole up and down airplane turn thing going quite like that of a more traditional ski.

the rockered-type ski is a big thing right now- and here to stay.  you see a lot of guys skiing 'em when they're totally not the ski for the day, but it's just what they do right now.  wouldn't be surprised in a few years if the locals at big mountains are skiing something else just as frequently- the next big thing- whatever it is.  


On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Nathan Bryant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Not if you're making figure-11's.

;)


On 2/16/2011 7:37 PM, Marc Chrusch wrote:
At 05:13 PM 2/16/2011, Denis Bogan wrote:

Marc>  "Remember that full-rocker skis were designed and built for a single purpose - *deep* powder. During your average season, how many days do you spend on 36" - 60" of new 8% powder?"

Really?  I'd be fascinated to know why would it have to be that deep.

It doesn't have to be that deep - it was just an illustrative example. The point is that full rockers weren't really designed for 6" days, but that also doesn't mean folks don't ski them in something other than powder.

Riding higher to me means that they care less about what lies deeper in the snowpack.  IMHO 8" ought to be enough, and that mostly to smooth out the ride.

Could be, or not. It depends a lot more on the density than the ski. Even 18" is not enough to not hit bottom on steep terrain if it's only 5%, esp. if it's on a crust.

-marc
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html