Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

I agree... too much rocker AND too much sidecut. AND sometimes, too much camber... Ski designers should stop trying to please everyone. And conceive skis with unequivocal fonction.

Press Release
13 November, 2020

To avoid naming confusion, and to promote TRANSPARENCY across the entire acronym universe, the Universal Acronym Naming Authority (UANA) has upgraded the designation for Too Much Damn Nordic Rocker from ENR (V 1.0) to TMDR (V 2.0). Please update all relevant document accordingly.
Note: TMDNR (Too Much Damn Nordic Rocker) was not used to avoid hurting the feelings of the Nordic people in general, and to avoid ambiguity with reference to Nordic Rockers (music).

Stephen wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:20 pm

Press Release
13 November, 2020

To avoid naming confusion, and to promote TRANSPARENCY across the entire acronym universe, the Universal Acronym Naming Authority (UANA) has upgraded the designation for Too Much Damn Nordic Rocker from ENR (V 1.0) to TMDR (V 2.0). Please update all relevant document accordingly.
Note: TMDNR (Too Much Damn Nordic Rocker) was not used to avoid hurting the feelings of the Nordic people in general, and to avoid ambiguity with reference to Nordic Rockers (music).

TMFA!

When Fischer first came out with the xtralites (newer N. rockered 99s and 109s), it so happened the skis were also significantly lighter than their predecessors. I for one was actually mostly excited about the reduced weight. Installing bindings in a couple pairs of xtralites, I noticed how easy it was to place the screws in air pockets, these thinks are built like a wafer cookie without the filling!

Anyways, I'm thinking perhaps we cannot have both a lighter AND stiffer ski, without the use of expensive fibers (carbon etc.).

We've been asking for lighter affordable backcountry skis for ages. Well they delievered. Only thing is they just aren't that stiff anymore with all that mateial removed. But WAIT they said...: Let's call that NORDIC ROCKER and get all those smart suckers excited about our new lighter skis!

On my Nansen Waxless 205 cm, chord length 202 cm, the distance from the tip to the point of contact when compressed is also about 28cm. Or about 175cm from the tail of the ski. Just out of curiosity I measured my Atomic Redster C7 track skis.
207cm long, 55cm from tip to point of contact when compressed.
However these skis are fitted to my weight, and do NOT compress completely when my weight is ditstributed between both skis. Interestingly I suppose the shorter contact surface when compressed helps with grip whereas the glide points are further apart when half loaded.

Thanks Roelant!

The 205 WL Nansens I have are also exactly the same as yours, with the rocker going back to 28cm from the tip when compressed. That's Asnes dependability!

This is not TMDR, this is totally fine and acceptable amount of rocker. Over the length of the running surface ski it's only 4%. This is nothing compared to the E99 210 at 18% or whatever.

Rodbelan wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:15 pm

I agree... too much rocker AND too much sidecut. AND sometimes, too much camber... Ski designers should stop trying to please everyone. And conceive skis with unequivocal fonction.

So the Eon for you, then, eh?

Woodserson wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:05 am

Rodbelan wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:15 pm

I agree... too much rocker AND too much sidecut. AND sometimes, too much camber... Ski designers should stop trying to please everyone. And conceive skis with unequivocal fonction.

So the Eon for you, then, eh?

Man, you are reading my mind... Maybe the M62 with Intelligrip. But, you know I (we) have enough skis... I guess we put too much hope in the design of a particular ski. I have a pair of Tua touring ski (from the last generation) that probably fits the bill. I just need to change the binding... I repaired em last year and did a neat job. I tried to emulate Lo-fi (Gus) with his real time cable bindings and... I'll go back to my 3pinC. Voilà. You now know everything about me...

I bought a pair of Asnes Combats last season because the Ingstadt, imho, has TMDR for my use, long tours with kicking and gliding at times, but also some descents. Flexing the Ingstadt reminded me of old worn out Karhu XCD's--the old foam core model with a camber lasted about 25 skis days and then went flat.
The Ingstadt is a very fine ski, just not what I wanted in a combination soft snow turning and mostly off track touring/traveling ski for trail sking.

I would suggest to you that are looking for a similar type of ski to reconsider the Combat, or the Nansen, or even purchase a fine conditon used pair of 1980s or 1990's E99's, which, with the wonderful old Fischer wood core which never seems to lose flexion, and with only 10mm of sidecut, is a fine touring ski.
That way you vote with your wallet.
Others here probably have a favorite old backcountry touring ski that would also fill this role, a role without the dreaded(?) marketing(?) ploy of TMDR.

Lots to say about this topic!

Before I dig into it-

Master Fisheater-
Bob please keep us posted on how you make out with your new kick wax. Your commitment to kickwaxing for BC Nordic touring in "warm" temperate climates- and extremely variable temperature and snow conditions- are second to none. I wish to learn from your applied local indigenous knowledge and experience!
(And with the weather extremes in our current long-term forecast- we can all learn how to wax for these conditions!)