Hehe. I wondered what you were thinkin when you decided to go that way. How 'bout this.... You chose that route cuz of educational priorities, proirities that will get you a better job later in life so you can ski your bootee off the rest of your life vs 4 years. Plus, you'll get more snow there, some huge dumps, Holiday Valley, et al. Can't be all bad.
How's the Babe quality there?
I remember back in the day when Edinburgh state college in NW Penna had a 7 to 1 female to male ratio. Even the squints got puddin.
Clarkson and UB are about the same educational wise. Basically, I came out here because it was cheap, is a good engineering school, and my brothers came here. 20/20 hindsight.
My babes back home, so it doesn't much matter to me.
I don't really hate it here, I can definitely think of some places I'd rather be. If I'm paying of it though, I figure I should actually enjoy where I am. UB is about $16k a year, but hardly give out financial aid. Clarkson is about $35k but gives out tons of financial aid. We'll see what happens in the spring.
OK enough off-topic .
I definitely don't think my one ski quiver would be a rockered ski, unless it was one with a slight early rise and regular camber underfoot. In that case I'd consider it.
I figure if I am transferring to Clarkson (their ski club will reimburse your gas money if you keep the receipts for driving to Jay, Gore, and Whiteface), then my friends and I would definitely be hitting up Jay as much as possible. Also I'm getting into a trend of heading westward at least once a year. I'm looking for a fairly soft ski, mellow regular camber underfoot and early rise, 110 underfoot (+/- 5mm), and [relatively] cheap. Ideally, I'd like some AT boots (with interchangeable pads so they can be used for alpine bindings), AT binders and some skins. Money, money, money....
Judging by this thread, and just thinking about the increase in independent ski manufacturers in recent years, I get the feeling that there might be a price crash coming for skis . . . Especially "old-school" cambered skis (which have always worked out well for me). I'm going to wait it out until spring and then see what kind of deals are around (I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of leftover inventory for shops to clear out).
It's all that it's cracked up to be in deep snow, or soft cutup. Rough bumps are terrible, soft bumps with 6" of fluff =3 dimensional FUN. conventional sidecut+rocker=soft groomer "return home ski", rocker+reverse sidecut on harder snow CAN = blown ACL! Tool for right medium etc etc I really like the full rocker combined with the conventional pintail sidecut of my volkl kuros. It's admittedly a huge ski that's strangely manageable in less than perfect pow conditions. A NECCESITY at Greek Peak;-)
I had the opportunity to test a lot of this season's skis last season. First of all, most manufacturers have not yet jumped on the rocker bandwagon. A couple of lines have added a fair amount of rockered skis. K2 is pushing rocker in a big way while Volkl has taken a more moderate approach building rocker into some skis and leaving others alone. Off the top of my head I don't recall how Atomic and Rossi embraced this new design. Most manufacturers are taking a tempered approach that will allow them to either a) continue with rocker on selected skis or b) let it fall by the wayside. I think that we'll see rocker in twin tips for a while. I found no advantage on hard packed snow. Do experienced skiers need rocker in powder or do fat skis work just fine? I think that the market will determine the future of rocker. Clearly this is a change that is only being driven by the industry and the industry has not committed yet. I think that with the exception of K2, they are hedging their bets.
Mike Doyle is a prolific ski blogger for About.com.
Apparent he thinks rocker is a significant innovation that is here to stay. An excerpt on using rockered skis in other conditions:
"While we are not at the complete one ski quiver, and in my mind never will be if you are thinking of taking one ski from Maine to the Rockies, to Alaska. But, engineers are getting close by tweaking the camber range and the shape of the ski and putting skis out on the snow with testers who can bring back definable information well beyond "it's an awesome ski."
The 'rocker' concept has now come to commercial fruition, showing up in mass production, varying by brand and model in composition, amount of rocker, point of rise off the snow, height of rise and ski shape.
My assessment is the rocker ski is here to stay, just as the shaped ski took over all design. Why? Because it makes for easier skiing and an easier learning curve. I know some powder purists call it cheating and some instructors say it cuts technique. To these I say, 'Get over it.'"
I just picked up some Rossi S6's off of Steep and Cheap.
174cm, 136/106/130. Not super wide, but definitely solid for some powder days.
I'm a bit concerned about it and need to do some more research (structural Integrity), but I've been thinking about a DIY early rise. Not much, maybe 1/2 an inch over the first 12"-16".
The perfect ski for me would be -90-95 underfoot rockered 185s If I'm skiing rumor on a hard day I am gripping with about 170 but when I am in Valentine's Day Pow the tips ride up and I am sitting on top of the fluff with 185 cm of carvers. They have the're place. I think we are farther away from the one ski quiver than we used to be but overall...they're easier! I skied rockered way before it was cool...my Atomic Bionic SL 207 were bent so many times in the bumps and sort of Returned to form by Jack at Alpine that when you laid them flat they only touched for about 180 cm...By the way they ripped in Utah deep