Ditch the double camber

[lowangle al]

I had two experiences with double camber skis this week that made me realize there is no room in my quiver for them.

My first experience was on one of the last wax models of Karhu xcd-gts available. They are my wifes skis that she hardly ever wears, preferring her older model xcd-gt from the 80's. The newer ski is more shaped but has a stiffer camber than the origional version which was more like a 1.5 camber ski.

On the day I skied them I had done many laps with a xc set up with xc shoes just to see how it went. After that I changed into my leather tele boots and tried a new used ski, a skinny alpine ski with a cable binding. They worked ok but were short at 180cm.

The last ski I tried was the newer xcd-gt. The skis acted squirlier than either of the other two and the reason was obvious. When doing a smooth telemark without much weighting and unweighting I couldn't get enough weight on each ski at the same time to get them to fully engage the edges. I learned telemark on double camber skis and thats all I skied for twenty years. But the smooth tele turn(the easiest to learn) eluded me. I learned by first heavily weighting the lead ski to initiate the turn then weighting the rear ski to finish the turn. This way I was able to weight and carve both skis but not at the same time. The other turn I did was a heavily weighted jump turn which enabled me to get enough weight on both ski edges at the same time. Both turns worked well but took to much energy and power to do.

I went out yesterday with my no wax xcd-gts, another stiff camber ski. The conditions weren't bad for turning, a little on the firm side though. I was unable to make any T turns. I was unwilling to commit to the heavy weighting and unweighting that may have made them work.

My conclusion is that double camber has no place if I want to make any turns, and they would be a huge detriment to anyone learning the turn. With skis like these I can see why people think the tele turn does not work in all conditions. Parallel turns work much better because you need to only weight one ski at a time.

The other conclusion I came to is that we need a ski like the S98 for touring for turns when I don't feel like waxing for the conditions. My wife agreed so I must be right.

[Cannatonic]

interesting thoughts! I think the overall flex of the ski affects ease of turning also, a soft flexing ski like the E99 has camber but still initiates turns well. But the turns are more arc-ing than T-turns.

I remember having trouble getting my Epochs to hockey-stop, I think they're the same as the XCD GT? Maybe the combination of camber and a stronger, wider ski make it hard to jam hard turns.

[lowangle al]

Soft flexing skis help big time. For twenty years my turns relied on flexing the skis but it wasn't until I skied single camber skis that I found out that skis don't have to flex to turn and they don't need to be heavily weighted or weighted at all. My turns were more arcing back then but it takes a lot more energy to bend the skis. I did use the flex of the ski to control speed, but I later found that by not flexing them I was able to carry more speed with more control.

I think they are hard to do a hockey stop because it's hard to get enough weight on both ski edges at the same time to make it happen.

[phoenix]

Not a double camber fan myself. Certainly understand it's place for straight up xc, but not for xcd or general playing around. For the sake of disclosure, I'm a featherweight - yet double camber's reson for existence doesn't value turning.

The whole "camber and a half" pitch kinda irks me... exemplified by my original Karhu XCD's. they ski wonderfully, including turning... but what they are, in my opinion, is a soft cambered double camber. A stiff cambered single camber can also be a curmugeon.

A valuable, if nearly extinct reference for the camber was written up by Steve Barnett a generation ago. For a true BC ski, you should be able to flatten ( and that means FLATTEN) the camber out between the thumb and two forefingers. Thumb and whole hand, general XC. Racing XC, two hands.

Overly simple with todays info overload - but try it sometime if you have the opportunity. Be objective.

Anyways, for me... an easy single camber. roundish flexing ski, anyday.

[iBjorn]

I am also on the idea of ditching double camber, as well as fish-scale. With correct modern skins with p-tex front section (intelligrips, Atomic rocker skins etc) you travel just as fast, or even faster, and the downhill is more fun. With race tip attachments of the skins it is also a matter of seconds to take on or off the skins.

I mainly ski my double camber skis lift-served now, just because they are fun on easy conditions. However, your milage might differ. I usually ski mostly on more windpacked snow, or crust, and not so often in deep powder - and in these conditions single camber and skins perform very well.

[Woodserson]

I dunno...

I just took my Outtabound WAX out for a spin on the local hill with the leathers... there is this wonderful spot where you can load the ski up and it comes out of the corn and away I go turning down the hill in this almost effortless fashion, one loaded up turn transferring to the next. Keeping the upper body smooth and quiet and let the legs do the work. There were some wonderful turns to be had for such light equipment on such skied up/pushed up wet corn snow at a resort.

Of course, the Outtabound may not qualify as a double camber, but it takes two hands to close it for me (base to base with no light).

[lowangle al]

I dunno...

I just took my Outtabound WAX out for a spin on the local hill with the leathers... there is this wonderful spot where you can load the ski up and it comes out of the corn and away I go turning down the hill in this almost effortless fashion, one loaded up turn transferring to the next. Keeping the upper body smooth and quiet and let the legs do the work. There were some wonderful turns to be had for such light equipment on such skied up/pushed up wet corn snow at a resort.

Of course, the Outtabound may not qualify as a double camber, but it takes two hands to close it for me (base to base with no light).

In general double camber are inferior for turning, not impossible. I still ski older double camber xcd-gts and they work. Teleman up in Vermont skis them exclusively. Two things were in your favor, one was the corn snow gave enough resistance to get the ski to flex and two, you "loaded up" the ski engaging your edges and flexing the ski. You said your legs were doing the work and that's fine. My point was that the skis don't do the work for you, like a single camber ski.

I have no idea how you ski or your skill level but when I was still skidding my turns I didn't even feel the difference between single or double camber. They both seemed to skid equally well.

I would do the paper test on the floor, and if you can slide a paper under your ski while both skis are weighted equally they will not carve well when equally weighted.

My point was that trying to learn on a double camber ski is a handicap.

[Woodserson]

Agreed, but I would disagree on the "ditching them" aspect. They certainly have a place in my quiver. I will say they were easier on my legs than the Vectors were in the same conditions, and arguably more fun on some days. They are useless when it's bulletproof.

[lowangle al]

^^^ you're right Woods, I probably am overreacting, I'll never give up my double camber waxables. I would like to replace my no wax xcd-gts with a single camber no wax ski. The only situation I can think of where I would need the no-wax xcds is if I were running late to a flailing contest.

[Woodserson]

Sounds like you need an OBJECTIVE BC!