Ski Camber and Rocker

[corlay]

camber.

Thanks for the discussion!

I tend to agree with you on the TR78 having some degree of "double camber"...

I think the glossary of terms to describe these design choices are poor, and not intuitively descriptive.

I also think that some that experience a "stiff single-camber" ski, would describe it as a double camber - soley because it is hard for them to "flatten".

In reality, a double camber is not simply a stiffer ski; but it is a *variable* stiffness ski.
I think @Stephen explained it best, in how a truly "double cambered" ski is progressively harder to compress flat, the closer you get to flat. So, initially, it isn't as stiff, and becomes progressively more resistant to bending the more you bend it.

[Krakus]

I remember that Pinnah described somewhere a simple method of recognizing single or double cambered ski, by pressing it and looking along the side. Single cambered looks like a regular bow, while for a double cambered a more or less flat section is visible.

[Stephen]

Maybe this has already been said…

I picture the / a difference between single and double camber being what the ski looks like when it it bent past flat (into a bow shape).
I think there is still some of the second camber visible when a double camber ski is bent like that.
Something like in my crude drawing, below.
.

[jyw5]

All this makes alot of sense.

So far the Asnes MT51 **for me** has the best capability on icy terrain as it holds better ...a characteristic of a double cambered ski...but still turns and has slight flotation in shallow snow due to the rocker tips (shortened effective edge) and sidecut. However, because its very light and only 51mm underfoot, I get knocked around on kibbles and bits (hard refrozen chunky snow from high traffic) and sinks terribly in deep snow.

In theory if the Asnes USGI truly has the same geometry but 65mm wide, it would solve all the problems of stability on icy moderately steep terrain....but still have some decent performance (flotation) in deeper snow (vs. mt51).

Rocker and softer flex are traits shared by so many of these "BC Nordic" skis... i am beginning to wonder whether we really need (or want) all that rocker. It's fine for beginners but then becomes perhaps a disadvantage for better skiiers. I am starting to prefer a stiffer ski. I want better hold and stability on difficult snow. I don't need better turning ability...

So when they made the FT62... a ski that practically turns itself...it came at a cost. it destroyed the skis ability to be stable when snow becomes variable (e.g., difficult).
because it was advertised as "camber and a half" but in actuality is closer to being just a downhill/alpine ski with slight camber...(it sucks for flat k&g...i took it to the local nordic ski area and it didnt track very well and was very slow).

anyone sharing that experience? thoughts?

[Stephen]

@jyw5, I’m “tracking” with you on this stuff.
I have nowhere near the skill or experience you have, but, generally, most of what write rings true.

For example, last year I was out on a south facing slope with melt / freeze hard crust on the Ingstad (rocker) and felt that the skis did not edge / hold well. Would wash out from under me a bit. Kind of unnerving on a steep slope with rocks!

Other, similar situations on the Gamme felt much more secure.

On the FT62 on snowmobile tracks they just swiveled under my feet. A great skier can compensate, but even then, extra effort. Maybe the new FT62 is better in this regard?

Was out on the Voile V6 (advertised a a playful ski, which I’m sure it is) first time and they felt similarly squirrelly on packed runs.
For firm snow, the Voile Vector looks enticing: stiffer ski, less rocker, longer running surface per any given length.

I have the sense that more skilled skiers sometimes prefer stiffer skis than less skilled skier might like.

[jyw5]

jyw5, I’m “tracking” with you on this stuff.
I have nowhere near the skill or experience you have, but, generally, most of what write rings true.

For example, last year I was out on a south facing slope with melt / freeze hard crust on the Ingstad (rocker) and felt that the skis did not edge / hold well. Would wash out from under me a bit. Kind of unnerving on a steep slope with rocks!

Other, similar situations on the Gamme felt much more secure.

On the FT62 on snowmobile tracks they just swiveled under my feet. A great skier can compensate, but even then, extra effort. Maybe the new FT62 is better in this regard?

Was out on the Voile V6 (advertised a a playful ski, which I’m sure it is) first time and they felt similarly squirrelly on packed runs.
For firm snow, the Voile Vector looks enticing: stiffer ski, less rocker, longer running surface per any given length.

I have the sense that more skilled skiers sometimes prefer stiffer skis than less skilled skier might like.

thanks for confirming that its not just me! All these darn skis I have feel squirrelly... mt51 is the least. I think Gamme might be the closest to m51... stiff, not so rockered, and wider at 54mm. This might be the answer. now if they can just get rid of the hobbit picture thats on the skis...

I think the new FT62 is definitely better but undoubtedly still useless on icy crust and breakable crust.

also, I've looked at the Asnes Amundsen for crust busting and icy windblown flats. Maybe get a pair next yr. Its stiff, double cambered, 10mm sidecut, and nearly no rocker...perfect. Step, stem, and jump turns on small hills.

So the quiver continues to grow..... amundsen and gamme are next.

this winter, I will figure out what the Sverdrup is for.

update: My shoulder is a bit messed up. I'm going to have to go easy for at least a month...
my friend is talking about doing a multiday trip big mtn glacier skiing in April... I will need to heal up and then train with a heavy pack and put on a suit of armor or something so as to not mess up my shoulder again.

[Ullrsson]

also, I've looked at the Asnes Amundsen for crust busting and icy windblown flats. Maybe get a pair next yr. Its stiff, double cambered, 10mm sidecut, and nearly no rocker...perfect. Step, stem, and jump turns on small hills.

Don't know if you've gotten your hands on a pair of Amundsens, but I think their reputation for stiffness comes from what people read on the åsnes product description more from experience. My buddy just picked up some new Nansens and I helped him mount his bindings. I compared the stiffness between his 205s and my 201 Amundsens and I really couldn't tell the difference. That being said, so far my experience has been that the Amundsen is pretty good in nasty icy crud. As far as breakable crust? I don't think there's really a solution, at least not on the downhill. For breaking trail through crust the Amundsen is probably about as good as it gets (which still isn't very good. Let's face it, breakable crust is horrible, but I'll ski it anyway).

[lilcliffy]

also, I've looked at the Asnes Amundsen for crust busting and icy windblown flats. Maybe get a pair next yr. Its stiff, double cambered, 10mm sidecut, and nearly no rocker...perfect. Step, stem, and jump turns on small hills.

Don't know if you've gotten your hands on a pair of Amundsens, but I think their reputation for stiffness comes from what people read on the åsnes product description more from experience. My buddy just picked up some new Nansens and I helped him mount his bindings. I compared the stiffness between his 205s and my 201 Amundsens and I really couldn't tell the difference. That being said, so far my experience has been that the Amundsen is pretty good in nasty icy crud. As far as breakable crust? I don't think there's really a solution, at least not on the downhill. For breaking trail through crust the Amundsen is probably about as good as it gets (which still isn't very good. Let's face it, breakable crust is horrible, but I'll ski it anyway).

I am starting to realize that the Amundsen BC is perhaps Asnes' best kept secret!

I agree with you Ullrsson- my 205 Nansen is also as "stiff" and stable as my 208 Amundsen, 210 Gamme and 205 Ingstad (the Nansen has GREATLY surprised me)-
The difference is in the camber profile and the final resistance underfoot-
Both the Amudsen and the Gamme are more resistant over their length than the Nansen- and they are both more resistant underfoot than the Nansen-
BUT- I owuld certianly NOT describe the Amundsen/Gamme as classically double-cambered from a Classic track ski perspective. They are both finely tuned for backcountry snow and the camber profile is low and VERY long- associated with their longitudinal flex pattern.

I absolutely frackin love the Amundsen. Yeah the Gamme does plane at downhill speed- and yes it does have a "shorter" turn radius-
BUT- man o man- is the Amundsen the archetypal BC Nordic touring ski-
Other than downhill- where the Gamme indeed offers a bit better performance- the Amundsen outperforms the Gamme in so many other contexts...
You don't know until you know- but I would have a very hard time choosing between them for my local touring and application. (i.e. I am not taking the Gamme up above treeline and riding wide open terrain with them).

[lilcliffy]

If you look at Stephen's drawing above↑ of a "double-cambered touring ski-
neither the Gamme or the Amundsen have that flex-camber profile.
(The even stiffer and "more cambered" Amundsen Fram might- but I kinda doubt it- I would predict the Fram to have he same profile, but be stiffer and perhaps a slightly higher camber).

Stephen's very good drawing- illustrates a ski that is intended to preserve a "wax pocket" on a groomed consolidated surface.

[fisheater]

@lilcliffy
Gareth, you sure make the Amundsen sound like a fun ride! So I’m assuming Amundsen is faster, should I assume better tracking as well? One of the things I like about Gamme is the tracking. It’s really a big deal.