Perfect New England tree ski

[Cannonball]

So I've been talking with Mishka about designing and building skis. There are lots of skis out there with dedicated purpose: race, moguls, powder, etc. And there are lots that claim to do it all: all-mountain, freeski, etc. But what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind? Obviously you still have to get to the trees, but just like a dedicated race or bump ski that shouldn't factor into the design at all.

What are your thoughts on: tip-waist-tail, length, profile (camber, rocker, etc), stiffness, mounting position, etc????

I have my thoughts but I'm curious to hear what everyone else says starting from scratch.

 

[jimmywilson69]

I think a lot depends on the snow. is it 12" of fresh? or is it tracked out?

 

[Cannonball]

I think a lot depends on the snow. is it 12" of fresh? or is it tracked out?

It's New England trees. Targeted when fresh, but very often tracked out.

 

[Edd]

No metal, sub-16 turn radius, full rocker, 110 waist...

 

[Cannonball]

No metal, sub-16 turn radius, full rocker, 110 waist...

Similar to my thoughts. 2 questions though:
1) Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it? Turns in trees tend to not really be carved. Does a short turn radius create quick hook-ups that you might want to avoid?
2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?

 

[Tin]

2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?

On a full rocker you can really make the ski do whatever you want in term so of turning...so yes. I'm kind of regretting not getting another fully rockered ski. My Lines are a bitch compared to my old Volkls in tight trees.

 

[Edd]

Similar to my thoughts. 2 questions though:
1) Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it? Turns in trees tend to not really be carved. Does a short turn radius create quick hook-ups that you might want to avoid?
2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?

Full true rocker might make a short TR unnecessary, yeah.

 

[Puck it]

I think that 110 is too wide for the days when things are hard packed. 95-100 underfoot is good.
I ski my HB's in the trees and I find them to be awesome in pretty every condition except for deep powder. I prefer them over my Nomads. They could be a a little for the tightest trees maybe 174 instead of 178. The early rise is the way to go. Full rocker on a ski under 180 is really squirrelly. I know my RockStars are 178 and I wish I would have gotten them in the 185's.

 

[BeefyBoy50]

I'd suggest short length... I don't know so much about the feel of rocker vs. camber but a shorter length ski combined with a lighter ski means you have a much lower moment of inertia for turning and its a very noticeable difference that increases maneuverability a ton.

 

[Highway Star]

The best ever, right here!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/13-14-Atomic-Redster-Speed-Skis-238cm-NEW-/351059724443

 

[Tin]

I'd suggest short length... I don't know so much about the feel of rocker vs. camber but a shorter length ski combined with a lighter ski means you have a much lower moment of inertia for turning and its a very noticeable difference that increases maneuverability a ton.

A rocker shortens the ski a great deal because of the flex in it. My 179 bridges skied like a ski in the 160s.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Light, tip/tail rocker, 90-105 waist, larger shovel.....

 

[Puck it]

A rocker shortens the ski a great deal because of the flex in it. My 179 bridges skied like a ski in the 160s.

Just like my Rockstars. They suck on snything groomed or worse.

 

[Tin]

Just like my Rockstars. They suck on snything groomed or worse.

Even with that width?

 

[Puck it]

Even with that width?

Yup, I wish I had listened to owner and went with the longer ones.

 

[Cannonball]

Great input.

Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this: 132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski. Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.

 

[St. Bear]

Great input.

Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this: 132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski. Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.

If you're resort skiing, the trees get tracked out too quickly for full rocker. I would want some level of camber underneath.

 

[Puck it]

Great input.

Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this: 132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski. Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.

I would say length is about right but just tip rocker with camber. No tail rocker.

 

[jimmywilson69]

If you're resort skiing, the trees get tracked out too quickly for full rocker. I would want some level of camber underneath.

+1

 

[BenedictGomez]

what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind?

This is a subject I think some people here realize I'm obsessed with. I've been trying combinations the last few years, even intentionally trying extremes to rule out & rule things in. One thing I've learned is this is a very complex, multifaceted question, and while I'm 100% certain I don't have it right, these are my current feelings:

Tip rocker
Fat shovel
Substantial surface area (float matters)
Light skis (4lbs or so per ski) likely with no metal for quick turns
90mm underfoot up to ????? (I'm not sure of the upper range, but I wouldn't go below 90)
Slightly (but not dramatically) shorter than your daily driver

My unanswered questions:

1) Turn radius? (does is really matter? Current convention is short radius is best in tight trees)

2) How fat do you go underfoot? (I have no experience here, but some like very fat 110, 115 underfoot in trees, while some prefer 90mm)

3) Tail rocker? Yes or No? Some say yes for quicker turns, some say no for more snow contact & control.

Similar to my thoughts. 2 questions though:
Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it? Turns in trees tend to not really be carved.

Right now this is my #1 question. As I said, I've spend a LOT of time researching this subject, and the current logic is definitely that, yes, short radius skis work better in tight trees. My quandary is, this doesn't make much sense to me given you dont have the "room" to make it matter (as least that's what I would assume anyway).