Ski flex, tip rocker & bumps

[James]

Forgiving since it has a stiff tail where if you get in the back seat, you can lever or pry yourself back up. The boot mount is close to the center to add more tail length as well.

Lol. That's for competent bump skiers. I think newbies would find a stiff tail punishing. But, might as well learn sometime. Slarving around on a Soul 7 which turns if you move your eyes only goes so far.
What do you do when people show up on real wide stuff to learn? Change the line?

Talking of -ahem- vintage tip designs, something about this tip design really tweaks my brain in a good way. That said, tips like that are complete PITAs to wrap steel edges around ...and they can act as sprung loads in vibration events (as some of us may remember from the early days of rockered design).

I'd be likely to take a saw and cut that appendage off. Even if the signature went with it. What's that for? Adjusting ancient clocks? I know I've seen a similar tip on like an ungodly expensive ski like a Zai.

 

[cantunamunch]

I'd be likely to take a saw and cut that appendage off.

...winding up with a short/blunt tip

Even if the signature went with it. What's that for? Adjusting ancient clocks? I know I've seen a similar tip on like an ungodly expensive ski like a Zai.

Shape-wise it's kind of interesting - you get the presumably-tough presumably-springy center portion without getting large surface area or sideways-deflectable surface area. I think of it as a tapered tip that's been through several iterations of Christoph Niemann -level abstraction.

It is also interesting if you consider that it's probably lighter than the round tips (the edges stop back near the contact point), and it's also interesting if you consider that there are no cuts diagonally to the grain of the wood (in the area unprotected by edges).

And, of course, it's also a retro shout out to 19th century ski design. And, of course, it would easily work with a skin tip.

 

[jack97]

I think newbies would find a stiff tail punishing.

IMO, a newbie to bump skiing should be focusing on loading the front and making the first half of the turn. And jetting out from a stiff tail is problematic but you have take the training wheels off at some point.

What do you do when people show up on real wide stuff to learn? Change the line?

Yes. Or they don't realize how nimble and quick a soft and narrow tip can be,

 

[Wilhelmson]

Back in my day (1995 to 2005), I learned on straight intermediate skis and 187 cm Volkl P50s, but I did sever a tendon on my finger and get lower back pain. Any moderate width ski with some front rocker is WAY more easier and fun. A little metal still helps on the icy days and keeps things real.

 

[jack97]

The Volkl P50 was a stiff recreation GS type ski, the P40 was softer and may have been more appropriate for bumps. Looking up the dimension, 100-65-90 an all mountain ski was 107-70-97. Compare to now, back then they were all narrow.

 

[James]

Goodness, I had the P40f1 1st gen, red and white. Stiff. Not nearly as versatile as the p30 orange with plastic tip.
Took it to Taos first month I had it. Not really the best ski for there, but one manages. Plus it was short, 193cm. Loved Taos. Talk about bumps though.

 

[CalG]

Anyone knows that the "Pocket Rocket" was the finest bump ski ever produced.
Those things just snaked through the bumps. In fact, they snaked around just about everywhere ;-)

 

[Eric267]

Been keeping my eye out for a cheap pair of these the past couple years. Could be fun to have in the quiver for when it hasn't snowed in a while (like here in Tahoe currently) or on spring days when the freeze/thaw doesn't happen until later in the day.
Originator 92/65/82 @191

 

[cantunamunch]

Goodness, I had the P40f1 1st gen, red and white. Stiff. Not nearly as versatile as the p30 orange with plastic tip.
Took it to Taos first month I had it. Not really the best ski for there, but one manages. Plus it was short, 193cm. Loved Taos. Talk about bumps though.

I had the P40 in the red (99), green (99, 00) and platinum (00) versions - 188 cm on all of them. I took the Pts to Kicking Horse in 2003 - El Nino year so very low snow and the first season they actually called themselves KH. There were logs and stumps all over the mountain. Talk about a wooden mogul clinic.

The Pts were doable -very doable- if you owned a retraction turn. They were certainly better than the Elan Integra 10s I also had on the trip.

Anyone knows that the "Pocket Rocket" was the finest bump ski ever produced.
Those things just snaked through the bumps. In fact, they snaked around just about everywhere ;-)

Know what else was good, even very good for pow pile bumps? Zebra-base Chubbs.

The Volkl P50 was a stiff recreation GS type ski, the P40 was softer and may have been more appropriate for bumps. Looking up the dimension, 100-65-90 an all mountain ski was 107-70-97. Compare to now, back then they were all narrow.

The question is which P50 and which P40. The red and green p40s were easily stiffer than the grey/platinum p50s and any of the yellow SL-ish skis were in a class of their own.

100 tip means you're looking at a '99/00 season ski. They blimped out to 102 tip in their last season.

 

[James]

The question is which P50 and which P40. The red and green p40s were easily stiffer than the grey/platinum p50s and any of the yellow SL-ish skis were in a class of their own.

100 tip means you're looking at a '99/00 season ski. They blimped out to 102 tip in their last season.

I had the black and yellow 177cm P40 slalom with the Energy Rail. Back when it was that huge platform plate. I'd hardly call it a slalom ski, but that plate was just awesome. Made me a believer in plates. Eventually it turned into that measly Motion system. The original though, that was a stomper.

 

[cantunamunch]

I had the black and yellow 177cm P40 slalom with the Energy Rail. Back when it was that huge platform plate. I'd hardly call it a slalom ski, but that plate was just awesome. Made me a believer in plates. Eventually it turned into that measly Motion system. The original though, that was a stomper.

Was that one of the plates with the lateral through pins? There were two different variants, one with a fat pin that was almost the size of an inline skate axle and another, later version with a really tiny pin that would bend or deform if one got it even the least bit misaligned.

 

[James]

Was that one of the plates with the lateral through pins? There were two different variants, one with a fat pin that was almost the size of an inline skate axle and another, later version with a really tiny pin that would bend or deform if one got it even the least bit misaligned.

Yes, there was a pin that would change the flex point, kind of.
Here's the only illustration I could find right now. Though the rails were always black that I saw. Some shops carried the plate separately. It was a pretty beefy unit despite being plastic. Soloman had their Hangl aluminum plate system.

 

[tromano]

If the question is what makes a good bump ski to learn on, I think the OP of this thred is about right, except for rocker. If you are on a short ski already you want basically want no rocker. The scenario that was described, skiing head on into a deep trough.... then you will go down hard on any ski unless you actively absorb. And that is the first lesson that any newbie to the bumps should also learn; how to fall.

 

[cantunamunch]

Yes, there was a pin that would change the flex point, kind of.
Here's the only illustration I could find right now. Though the rails were always black that I saw.

yup, the pic you posted is the fat pin version.

 

[GregK]

Would agree that softer flexing tip and tails make things more forgiving and faster to learn bumps but rocker does make it easier to pivot and prevent catching edges. Flex is the more important factor but rocker helps especially with the wider width of today’s skis. Most people who like their skis in bumps usual are ones with more giving tip/tails.

Many mogul skiers including myself would run higher base levels and/or detune tip/tail on their mogul skis to prevent catching that can now be run full sharp with the advent of rocker even on wider ski widths so I think there are benefits to rocker.

Besides dedicated mogul skis which I would find limiting now the rest of the mountain, the best bet for a mogul/fun ski is a skinny twin tip with stiffer mid section but softer tip/tail and a bit of rocker on both ends.
Some “intermediate” level on-piste skis are also good for newbies but some of the more advanced carvers mentioned like the newer Volkl skis typically have stiffer tails which can punish new mogul learners. Twin tips/free ride skis are more likely to be symmetrical in flex on their extremes than on-piste although there are some out there of course.

Have had many mogul skis over the years including the ones from Volkl(always had stiff tails so more for advanced mogul skiers as it would buck back seat skiers), Hart(more forgiving than the Volkl skis but stiffer than the Dynastars or K2) and Dynastar/Rossignol/K2 that were always the “more forgiving/easier to learn on” bump skis as they had softer tip/tails.

Have WAY more fun now on my mid 80’s twin tips like my current Armada ARV86 Park/Bump skis that I can zipperline bumps, carve turns at 50-60mph on hard or soft pack, do tree runs in light powder and even do laps in the park.

 

[Tony S]

Talking of -ahem- vintage tip designs, something about this tip design really tweaks my brain in a good way. That said, tips like that are complete PITAs to wrap steel edges around ...and they can act as sprung loads in vibration events (as some of us may remember from the early days of rockered design).

You are such a freaking character.