Icelantic copying 4frnt?

This thread is bull.

First off who cares. If the skis are good then that's all the counts right?

This reminds me of the armada graphic copycat thread.

Mimicry and competition are what drive innovation. If you want to claim a company is copying another by using a similar side cut or profile etc then it could be argued that all ski companies are copying the OG ski co by making skis full stop. We should encourage companies to imitate each other and try to one up each other as that is what leads to new better products. Competition.

Don't forget that side cut was actually a snowboarding invention and that ski companies copied snowboard companies by introducing it to skis.

**This post was edited on Dec 20th 2017 at 1:49:20am

Rocker was also a snowboarding invention for that matter.

sickskihey guys, if you look at the most recent post from Icelantic they talk about the ski having equal side cut and rocker. This was originally created by 4frnt/Hoji (reflect tech) is it fair for Icelantic to use this same concept?

Moment has done that with the Meridian 117 as well. As long it's not called reflect tech its fine. By your logic every ski with twin tips is copying the 1080.

I've never understood why any rockered ski design wouldn't match the sidecut to the rocker. It seems like the most obvious thing to do in terms of maximizing edge contact on a rockered ski when outside of powder.

cannonballerI've never understood why any rockered ski design wouldn't match the sidecut to the rocker. It seems like the most obvious thing to do in terms of maximizing edge contact on a rockered ski when outside of powder.

If anything it seems like you would want the rocker to be mellower than the sidecut so you still get flex when turning. Also, most rockered skis have tapered tips/tails so it wouldn't matter anyways. I'm could be totally wrong though.

oxicleanIf anything it seems like you would want the rocker to be mellower than the sidecut so you still get flex when turning. Also, most rockered skis have tapered tips/tails so it wouldn't matter anyways. I'm could be totally wrong though.

Or you can have straight skis with 20 mm of camber. Seems like the obvious choice

cannonballerI've never understood why any rockered ski design wouldn't match the sidecut to the rocker. It seems like the most obvious thing to do in terms of maximizing edge contact on a rockered ski when outside of powder.

ON3P is known for that and I've used their park skis and own a pair of their pow skis. Imo its a little too loose for my liking. I switched to rockered skis 3 years ago and my favorite rocker profile is a low, long rocker that initiates earlier than later. It adds the benefit of the rocker but doesn't force you roll the ski on edge to get the most effective edge (ON3P) since you aren't always able to do that on ice or landing/skiing park in general. I've also used outrageously rockered skis that don't touch much edge on the snow until you try to stop which is very loose.

cannonballerI've never understood why any rockered ski design wouldn't match the sidecut to the rocker. It seems like the most obvious thing to do in terms of maximizing edge contact on a rockered ski when outside of powder.

Lol I thought that too the first time I saw them put a pair of devastators together it was like, why haven't we been doing this the whole time?? Kind of only works for real reverse camber though

R-EDRocker was also a snowboarding invention for that matter.

pretty sure it was a waterskiing invention. McConkey brought it to snow.