There is too much damn rocker out there! Wonkish discussion.

[Woodserson]

TL;DR There is too much nordic rocker in BC cross-country skis that are meant to travel long distances. As in skiing for travel, not for turns. It is time to reduce nordic rocker in skis like the Fischer E99, Traverse 78.

The Meat:

I'm done with "nordic rocker" in nordic skis that are meant to crush miles and go the distance, especially in no-wax/crown/scaled skis but also in wax skis too. I understand what the ski companies are trying to do and I understand that in some skis, rocker is perfectly acceptable. For example: The Asnes Ousland has rocker to help polar explorers get up and over terrible snow conditions, sastrugi, etc. The Asnes Ingstad, S-Bound 98, etc. have rocker to aid in turning, increase the shmearability™, and so forth. This is all fine.

What's NOT fine is when you have a ski that is for going long distances and there is insane amount of rocker.

Let's recap: Rocker, when the ski is compressed, shortens the effective edge and amount of ski that is on the snow, especially firm snow, and the ski is less efficient, less fast. This makes the scales more effective, but it also drags them more on the glide. Additionally, and this is a real problem in New England, when there is a crust on the snow the shovel rides up and over the crust and the ski breaks the crust further back along the ski in front of the binding, instead of breaking the crust at the tip in front of the shovel. This definitely happens if the shovel isn't very stiff. A stiffer rockered shovel is a bit more immune to this. I don't want, nor do I enjoy it, when the middle part of the ski is breaking the crust, I want the tip of the ski to break the crust. It is immensely annoying over many miles, it's inefficient, it's dumb.

If I want to go cruise somewhere for turns I'd take a ski that is meant for it. If I want to travel 17 miles across relatively flat woodland trails, I want a ski that is efficient and fast. The best ski type for this is the E99 class ski and the Traverse78 class ski. This would include the Asnes Gamme and the Asnes Nansen, respectively.

The Gamme has a stiff shovel. While it is rockered it resists riding up and over crust. Also, it smooth out variable terrain. This is totally great and a good example of rocker done right. It also has a strong double camber. I don't mind having a bit of rocker, I mind having so much rocker that a long double-cambered XC ski has rocker in line with an all mountain 97mm waisted downhill ski. That is a PROBLEM and is a clear indication that there is too much rocker!

An efficient ski has double camber, is long, and does not have rocker, or just has a little bit of it to smooth out variable snow but retains a stiff shovel so it doesn't climb over ice crust.

Inspired by the ever-wonkish Stephen I have made many measurements of skis at different lengths and across time in these particular classes to compare rocker in terms of percentage of running surface. To do this, I measured the running surface from point of contact (POC) in the tail (all the skis are slightly upturned in the tail, so it's not from the tail-end) to point of contact in the shovel, marking the POC on the shovel. Then, I compressed the skis with clamps underfoot in the binding area and marked the new POC as the rocker engaged and lifted the shovel and tip. I slid cardstock (a Voile mounting guide) along the rockered section until it stopped. I measured the distance between the two forward POC's and calculated the percentage over running surface. For further data, I also added chord length, straight line from tip to tail.

A ski with no rocker would have 0% of the running surface being rockerized™

Caveats:
(Percentages are rounded up or down to nearest whole)
(Does not take into account of rocker elevation and assumed a hard smooth surface. The T78 199cm has more vertical rocker, like the Ingstad, then the E99 does, but the E99 goes deeper with a shallower grade. This should be taken into account as well... in the same variable conditions more base of the E99 could theoretically be on the snow than the T78 because the rocker is more gradual.)

The format below is as follows:
Name Published length: chord length/Running surface length/rocker from POC-POC when compressed/% of running surface that is rockerized™.

PERCENT OF SKI RUNNING SURFACE THAT IS ROCKERIZED™ when compressed

E-99 CLASS SKI:
Fischer E99 205cm: 202.5cm 180.5cm/25cm 14%
Fischer E99 210cm: 208cm 186.5cm/34cm 18%

Asnes Gamme 200cm: 197 175.5/18.5 11%
Asnes Gamme 210cm: 207.5 185/18 10%

T78 Class Ski
Fischer Sbound 78 189cm: 185.5 164/8 5%
Fischer Traverse 78 189cm: 186 164.5/16 10%
Fischer Traverse 78 199cm: 195 174/20.5 12%

Asnes Nansen 200cm: 197 176/5.5 3%
Asnes Nansen 205cm: 202 180.5/8 4%

INGSTAD SKI (sold specifically as a ski for turning in deeper snow and steeper terrain! so it SHOULD BE ROCKERIZED™, THIS IS OK, the manufacturer wants to increase the turny-ness easiness)

Asnes Ingstad 205cm: 203 182/26.5 15%
Asnes Ingstad 195cm: 193 170.5/23 14%

******

Here's my big beef. Those Fischer E99 210's are so deeply rockerized™ that the rocker reaches back to the Crown. When the ski is compressed there is no gliding surface forward of the crown. What is the point of that? There is none! It's a serious capitulation to "turning abilities" in a long skinny trad ski that compromises forward motion. Look, I think it's fun to turn the E99 and I get it, a bit of rocker is nice, but this is just crazy talk. If I want to go turning on skinny skis I should get something that is sold more as a turny ski, like an Ingstad. Or an FT62. Or a S-Bound 98. But an E99? Forgetaboutit! Why does the T78 have so much rocker? Also, it's rocker has a serious vertical profile. It's a relatively straight ski with little sidecut. This is a ski I would want to take to crush miles in deeper snow or variable snow. I'm not ever grabbing it thinking, "you know, I can't wait to schralp some sweet turns on these babies!" I would take the Sbound 98 or even Excursion 88 for that kind of skiing! I want a ski to go long and fast!

Additionally, it's obvious that rocker has increased over time. Look at the Sbound 78 to the Traverse78. Same ski, sidecut, flex, but more rocker.

The only almost traditional ski now left is the Nansen. This is fine and all, but it has much less camber than the other skis in the line-up and it flats out. This makes the Nansen, I think, probably tres polyvalente, but it won't have that real nice turbocharged get-up-and-go of skis like the double cambered Gamme and E99. I want a sharp and clean kick with power to thrust me into the next glide, with the efficiency of a long base to ride that kick for as long as possible.

All I'm asking for is a traditional length, double cambered, non-rockered ski that can go the distance. Some nice scales would be nice too. Basically, an E99 or T78 without any rocker. How hard is this?

Why does everything have rocker?

[fisheater]

Woods, are you instead asking for a Gamme with a more aggressive waxless pattern along the lines of the Off Track Crown pattern?
Before I make the next statement, let me preface it by saying I thought the 75 mm Alaska had a ridiculously soft duckbill. Then Mr. Woodserson got a pair and wrote positivity about them. Now I acquired a pair stupid cheap. So, what don’t I understand? The T-78. I guess it exists because the Asnes pattern isn’t cutting it in spring conditions. I only ask the question because touring skis are long, that is part of the equation to go fast. A fatter 199 cm does not make sense if you have a thinner 210 cm. At least to me.

[Woodserson]

Woods, are you instead asking for a Gamme with a more aggressive waxless pattern along the lines of the Off Track Crown pattern?
Before I make the next statement, let me preface it by saying I thought the 75 mm Alaska had a ridiculously soft duckbill. Then Mr. Woodserson got a pair and wrote positivity about them. Now I acquired a pair stupid cheap. So, what don’t I understand? The T-78. I guess it exists because the Asnes pattern isn’t cutting it in spring conditions. I only ask the question because touring skis are long, that is part of the equation to go fast. A fatter 199 cm does not make sense if you have a thinner 210 cm. At least to me.

I want a long E99 or T78, but preferably a E99 that doesn't have so much damn rocker!

Those Fischer E99 210's are so deeply rockerized™ that the rocker reaches back to the Crown. When the ski is compressed there is no gliding surface forward of the crown. What is the point of that?

[fisheater]

Good luck my friend. I agree, the skis don’t need rocker. The skiers just need The Green Man Ski Lessons http://www.fftv.no/fjellskiskolen-so-2-svingteknikk-22
Other than that I feel your frustration. If you were to go wax, I’m sure you could go Combat Nato. I guess maybe ignorance is bliss, and I’ll just cruise with Gamme. In case you need to take out the Gamme when you would prefer the E-99 crown I am trying a new to me warm snow kick wax:

I also ordered some of Ben’s recommended Rex Universal Tar

Hope to be sliding soon! Just hiked a new trail today, looking forward to skiing it!

EDIT, ORIGINAL PHOTO WAS COLD NOT WARM WAX. Warm wax now shown

[Stephen]

I am so thinking of completely appropriate, but unpostable replies.
Your loss.
I started to hear the ice cracking underfoot and headed back to shore.

Damn that Excessive Nordic Rocker (ENR, for short)!
No, don’t go there — head back to the safety of shore, the next sentence will surely cause the ice to break.

[lowangle al]

Woods I have a like "new pair" of waxable Karhu XCD-GTs 210cm from the eighties that you would like.

I never skied a xc ski with Nordic rocker but it sounds like a good idea to me. My beef is that skis today have too much sidecut.

[Woodserson]

I am so thinking of completely appropriate, but unpostable replies.
Your loss.
I started to hear the ice cracking underfoot and headed back to shore.

Damn that Excessive Nordic Rocker (ENR, for short)!
No, don’t go there — head back to the safety of shore, the next sentence will surely cause the ice to break.

ENR is now the new technical term for "too much damn rocker!"

Also, this is "Wonkish Discussion" and I damn well expect some wonkishness, Stephen!

[greatgt]

had the same conversation last week with the Boys.....I have rocker on the 109's and it sucks....Good in powder but not so good cruising.....and to get the good there is MUCH cruising....My old 109's are a better ski but to short....Even so they handle all kinds of conditions better.....My beater 99's are just great skis and I would NOT purchase a 99 with rocker....Might have to look at some of my oldest 99's and see if any of them have life left in them...Good observation Wood and thanks for charging into the PAST.....TM

[Woodserson]

Let me be clear. I am very happy with the Gamme's. They have rocker, but less rocker, and it doesn't have much vertical height to it either. The shovel is stiff, so the rocker resists riding up and over crust, and the double camber is big and snappy and powerful, so it really takes some pushing to get that ski to completely flatten out.

I love my E99's, but they could be made better, by removing some of the TMDR. Maybe even eliminating it completely and just giving the public (me) a long straight fast machine.

Let's look at this rocker in the 210cm E99 another way, by percentage of total ski length:
Chord length: 186.5cm
Chord length to rocker end point: 51.5cm

28% of the overall length of the ski is off the snow when it is compressed.

That's too much damn rocker! (excuse me, TMDR)

Excuse the mess in the background. Here you can see the rocker, it goes to the aft end of the card stock. That is also where the crown pattern starts. It's the same place. It's TMDR!

Maybe the answer is Amundsen. But I really dig that Fischer Offtrack Crown. That stuff works!

EDITED to update new terminology

[Montana St Alum]

Yep. Just goes to show that ski designers still need to keep basic design characteristics in mind. What's good for some tasks may not be good for others.