Originally Posted by justanotherskipro
I was talking about the sarcastic reference to knee replacement surgery. Fat skis or not, poking fun at the injured is in bad taste.
I wasn't poking fun at the injured, apologies if that came off in bad taste. I was poking fun at the fat ski knee argument, with a little sarcasm to at least being close to a world class knee clinic. My actual only intention there was to get this thread moving again, because there are so few good bad threads anymore
Speaking of which, I took this little video for another killing 'em softly thread, and I think it is relevant to the idea that camber is a more defining characteristic than width. The vid just shows the reaction of the tips and tails to compressing the skis together at the bindings. First ski is the 100mm waist Rocker2 100, second is a 91mm waist Rocker2 92.
The key here is to notice how much the contact points change when there is splay, which is the traditional "rocker" concept of early rise (a lot in the 92) vs. a longer tip on a consistent arc (the 100). I postulated earlier - way earlier - that camber is a the real tyrant, and how it behaves through pressure and motion defines a ski more than its waist width as long as you aren't at the extremes.
Now put a fully cambered pair of skis together and compress between the bindings. Almost nothing happens. That's why these skis have to be pressured into a de-cambered state to alter turn shape without edge release. Lots of things people like happen in that state, but not too many developing skiers like those things because they can't control them.
Look again at the Rocker2 100 vid as I think this is most consistent with design evolution. You get a bit of arc increase, mostly at the tail, with just hand weighting from the center - the arc is more reactive to pressure, even if it is happening more out to the edges of the ski. At the design level, what is happening in my view isn't this idea of "rocker" or necessarily overly fat skis, but it is camber behavior management. There is a cost to edge hold obviously, but that hardly forces people to ski in a Z shape and the ski becomes a much better teacher in the effects of pressure. Better you get, the more you can manage camber behavior on your own, although to some extent, why bother unless you have a strong reason or preference?
In any case, I think this is vastly superior to drastically shortening a fully cambered ski in order to manage camber behavior, because the developing skier doesn't have to get slaughtered in crud, among other things.
Camber management should not be limited to wider skis, and if we are honest, does that not continue to be the big trend in ski design?