Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ScottyBob Headrush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andinista
    replied
    Hi! So here is where the Telemarktips gang ended up 😏? Telemarktalk.com seems to have rescued the cross-contry part only.. Did I take too long to figure out?...
    About the Headrush: I think the Scottybob desing is great, the only thing wrong with that ski is that it's better suited for powder -by that time standards-, where the bobtail desing is not as relevant. For hardpack they are a bit too soft and don't hold the edge strong enough. A more powerful reincarnation would certainly be worth to try.
    I still keep mine with 75mm bindings and boots. NTN on the newer stuff.
    Last edited by Andinista; 15 March 2021, 03:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • chamonix
    replied
    "I have G3 ski tickets which are asymetrical skis without the scottybob offset." "Owned the Tickets as well and they were pretty fun. I found the G3 Rapid Transits to be a much more versatile ski"
    I skied the asymmetrical G3 Rapid Transit skis for years, first with 7TM Powers and Ener-Gs, then with NTN Spike Bulldogs. Click image for larger version  Name:	Rapid Transit and Tele Bulldog.jpg Views:	0 Size:	441.8 KB ID:	108945 I thought they were a great, carving ski, but some of that was probably my transition to NTN boots and bindings.
    Some of the time I skied them with with early yellow Scarpa TX, and later with Garmont Prophets. On terrain, that wasn't too steep, I preferred the Prophets. But the Prophet liners packed out really quickly. On steeper terrain, like Fernie, my toes would slide down into the front of the Prophets, and painful toe bang..

    Later , I went back on the Rapid Transits with my new TX Pros, and the edge hold just wasn't there, compared to later skis I had, like Volkl Mantras with Freerides.
    Last edited by chamonix; 7 March 2021, 05:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tele.skier
    replied
    I have the jr high idea version of scottybob's design. I have G3 tickets which were just different radius edged skis to try to create the same effect. As Chez said, the unique design does impart quicker reaction when you initiate turns, but in some ways it's a one trick pony. I use mine as bump skis where the more maneuverable ski design fit the terrain choice pretty well. The Ticket was also 82 underfoot and stiff, so those features also contributed to the quicker handling of the asymmetry.

    Overall, a ski has to have features that work together to make it a better niche ski, or it will give up that niche performance for versatility. I never skied the Scottybobs, but oogled them in wonder before I got the Tickets. It was always fun to trade skis with someone for my tickets because the asymmetry would initially screw with the person's feel on his first run because there was an effect going on with their design.
    Last edited by tele.skier; 4 March 2021, 08:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cesare
    replied
    Aside from my opinion that designing and marketing a ski specifically for a market niche as small as telemark is never going to be a winning proposition, I think the ScottyBobs suffer from taking a good idea too far. For the record I owned a pair of Fat Bastards for several years and skied all the other models enough to form an opinion based on the way I like to ride. I think they are soft, low performance boards that are effective in one thing, making the telemark turn easier. The bobtail is too long and it sinks in soft snow. I told Mazz this when he was still working with ScottyBob and he understood where I was coming from. If it were just a pintail or even a bobtail of a third of the length that it is, that would be a very different ski. But that sharp corner at the tail end of the offset edge gets hung up in any kind of crust or upside down snow condition and the ski doesn't want to release the turn. If you only ski soft powder you would never notice it. But I didn't like that characteristic. As far as firm snow performance, it has one thing going for it and that is the ease of engaging the edge of the trailing ski. But they are too soft, both longitudinally and torsionally to hold an edge at any kind of speed. Back in the teletips days I said as much and was chided for skiing the FBs in T2s. I got T1s, which improved things a lot. But when I went from the FBs to any number of even wider, more conventional skis, the performance shot through the roof. They are good for what they are designed for, making telemark turns easier. But at a considerable cost in terms of edge hold, crud performance, and speed limits.

    Leave a comment:


  • laksboy
    replied
    Thread bump for fun. I have 2 pairs of headrush's both now over a decade and a half old, 1 pair longer and stiffer than the other. About 20 years ago as a relative beginner Tele skiier I demo's the original BobTail at A-Basin and was blown away. I went immediately from a beginner ability to an advanced intermediate. Those old skis I learned on must have been crap. As an engineer, the design features have always made sense. Anyways I saved for a pair and got a deal on some factory 2nds through the Mines ski club. They were awesome in soft snow, tight trees, and when critical turns had to be cranked or you'd fall off a cliff. Did a lot of hut trips, Berthoud days, cranking turns at Loveland under the chair with my first 2 kids in a backpack (not at the same time), and a few days at Silverton on those. But they eventually got too soft for going fast on groomed runs. They'd chatter and lose grip all over the place. I moved away from the mtns and also ended up buying a longer pair on craiglist on a trip back to Denver. Turns out they were also stiffer and significantly more stable on groomed CA snow. Those are what I ski now. I've always hoped that when I move back to the mtns, I can buy myself a fresh pair with custom topsheets, or that someone picks up the patent and pushes the design development further. I still think they makes perfect sense for the dynamics of the telemark turn. I can't imagine old Scotty will be around much longer. I visited the "factory" in Silverton about 10 years ago and it was a shanty and Scotty was looking worse for wear and a few beers dee in the middle of the morning. It's a shame when you have a good idea and can't get any respect from the entrenched industry and/or you just don't have the skills or resources to market and sell your idea to gain acceptance of a wider audience. In summary I don't think they're gimmicky but also can't compare them to a modern ski. I love the conversations they start in the lift line, especially when my wife is next to me on my old softer pair.

    Leave a comment:


  • telemarkmark
    replied
    Not sure you can compare the Ticket with a a ScottyBob. Is the shorter side of the tip supposed to be on the inside or outside? I appear to have seen pics both ways!
    To explain the rear cut out, in part it is to centre the boot with a lifted heel, though it is a much longer cut out that that would require. What it does is move the centre of the boot behind the outside centre of the ski, this makes the inside ski naturally turn more vigorously than the outer ski, so countering the tendency to stem and allowing easy pressure on the inner ski. It does take some getting used to, once you have you can really work the inner ski.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uphill Plodder
    replied
    Owned the Tickets as well and they were pretty fun. I found the G3 Rapid Transits to be a much more versatile ski, or maybe it was those new fangled Freeride bindings that did it.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheWheel
    replied
    One of the funnest mornings I've ever had on demo's was on G3 Tickets.
    One of the least fun was on Bob Headrush's.

    Leave a comment:


  • tele.skier
    replied
    Hey, I don't think the scottybobs are "awesome skis" either, but I have G3 ski tickets which are asymetrical skis without the scottybob offset. I actually think the tickets are awesome bump skis for reasons I mentioned above. At some point Matt, if we meet at alpental on a hardpack day, I'll swap skis for a run with you if you're on NTN gear. Maybe you'll like them, maybe not. They are kind of soft now but if you're not as heavy as I am they might still give you the weird asymetrical effect I spoke of above. I don't always ski them, but I generally bring them once spring skiing starts to dominate the conditions.
    Last edited by tele.skier; 28 January 2020, 08:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • xmatt
    replied
    I demoed a pair of ScottyBobs about 15 years ago or so. I couldn't assess the offset sidecut because of the other ski design choices. The ski was very soft and very sidecut. As a result, it was skittish unless held in a clean carve, so while it worked well on groomers it did not work well in steeps and bumps. And in groomers the softness still gave it a speed limit, though it was pretty stable given its softness. I would have been interested to try an asymmetric sidecut in a ski with more normal dimensions and stiffness otherwise. I remember that I did feel that transitions felt "smoother" on that ski, so perhaps the offset sidecut helped, but really hard to say on a ski that was different in every other aspect from what I wanted.

    Leave a comment:


  • telemarkmark
    replied
    Perhaps to close my thread. I was not expecting the Headrush to become a great carving ski on the hard pack (I have a Junior GS Race Tiger for that), though some improvement is desired. I did ski it a few more runs, with care it does ski hardpack, just not that well.
    When there is any grippy snow it is magic.
    Typical piste conditions here in Scotland are hard and icy in the morning going to soft after lunch, so worth having both ski to hand.
    With a good base grind & edges* and if I can get the camber to relax a bit, it will still be my choice for an all mountain ski (that is to suit my level of competence, which does not include no-fall zones), that is should the conditions be favourable.
    * The art of edge angles is still a bit of a mystery, especially as the Headrush may need something away from the norm. I assume zero base angle and a sharper edge is where to start, as easier to file down edges to a larger angle. They definitely do not hook.

    Leave a comment:


  • Allan Fici
    replied
    Gimmicky might not be the most accurate word to describe them. I'm sure they work for those that really need help carving hard pack. But the Scotty Bob's are like the kid that's trying a bit to hard and over does it. The crazy camber on some of the ones I saw made me shake my head. I hate skis like that that are over cambered, too unpredictable and they tend to be hooky in nature. I probably shouldn't say this but we make fun of skiers on Scotty Bob's. OK, I'm done now with my rant on them.

    Leave a comment:


  • tele.skier
    replied
    IMO, calling something a gimmick means that it's design claims are false, so I don't think gimmick is the right word. You don't like them and some other people do, but the design isn't a placebo. That was my point. I skied those 182 tickets as my bump skis. When they had decent camber left in them they turned very aggressively. I thought the design worked pretty well for bumps for an 81mm underfoot ski.

    If we're comparing firsts,... I was the first guy to ever ski on the west point private lift area in 50mm three pin gear and misery sticks with boots that were essentially sneekers. I was also the first guy on that gear to have a ski completely fold under pressure and do a cartwheel down the hill with skis on my feet... and then not go to any hospital...

    Leave a comment:


  • Allan Fici
    replied
    Originally posted by telemarkmark View Post
    I thought Allan might upset some devotees. Allan, how much time have you spent on Scotties?
    A friend, better skier than me and more experienced has a narrower model and says it is a great piste ski.
    i shall treat mine to a full base grind and service, see it that improves them.
    I am definitely stirring the pot here. I skied them a couple time and absolutely hated them, garbage as far as I'm concerned and definitely gimmicky. They are mostly way over-cambered and not very versitle skis. Personally I don't need a radically asym ski to allow me to carve. I do quite well, thank you on symmetrical skis that are stout with good grip.

    Originally posted by tele.skier View Post
    Asymetrical skis are not a gimmick... I have the lesser copy of that idea, G3 tickets, which just have asymetrical sidecut, but not the offset of the scotty's. I've swapped skis with a friend (another NTN skier) who was a doubter. He was flabberghasted that they felt so different. One of the things they do is they force you to power up the uphill ski because it doesn't just skid along quietly, because it's not the same radius as the downhill ski's inside edge. If you have a lazy technique the uphill ski feels like it's going cockeyed because of the different radius and it will throw you off balance. If you adjust your technique to drive the uphill ski hard, then you find they carve like crazy... Not a gimmick.. but not something everyone likes either...

    Some years back I had my tickets mounted with bishop bombers and they were the quickest responding bump skis I ever had. Too many days in the bumps have turned them into soft flexing noodles so they don't have the grip they used to have, nor do they turn as aggressively for the same reason.

    But to address the original poster's issue, Skis don't have less grip due to having significant camber... if anything, they may loose grip due to a LOSS of camber as they age. There is no ski who's design works best everywhere. If that were true, then there would only be one design for all skis. All designs are a compromise of design features which enhance their performance in certain conditions, which is why few of us have only 1 ski. I have 10 pair mounted and usually bring at least 3 pair when I'm out skiing so I have choices. Your Scottys will never carve like a slalom race ski...

    On lift served pow days, I start out on a fat ski and usually go back to the truck to swap to a narrower ski once the place is cut to ribbons... The conditions change, so I change ski to match the new conditions.
    I said Scotty Bobs are junk and gimmicky. I did not say all asym skis are, I think you did. Look, I don;'t need that junk to carve trenches on hardpack. Peeps should learn how to ski, so you don't need these ridiculous band-aids.

    I'll bet I was one of the very first to mount 3 pins on the very first (late 90's) Elan hour glass skis. Our local Elan rep from our rep group asked me If I would mount them tele and do some on hill demos when they launched them and had the skeptical buyers skiing them. We had some fun with them and I remember one particular carvacious day where if you had enough speed and stayed on the edge long enough you could come all the way around loop-di-loop. Pretty funny but after a few days their story grew tiresome and we were back on our normal (at the time mid 70's-80 UF fairly straight skis, carving hard.

    I like you have too many skis but my quiver is backcountry biased. For area skiing I have my Blizzard Brahma's, big 184cm 115 UF Wagners, Voile Busters and some Faction Prime 3.0's. Mostly I ski the Brahmas except in deep snow. The Brahmas are beasts and can lay trenches if you know how to ski them. The Primes have the Lynx on them but If I'm going to hammer out runs on a soft snow day I'll swap over the Outlaws on the Primes since they're all mounted with BF inserts. Carry on

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Lutes
    replied
    But, but, but ....... no one should have more than one pair of skis!!! If conditions change, the Indian must change! 😉

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X