EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Reverse camber/sidecut-- what is the point?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reverse camber/sidecut-- what is the point?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

When I moved from the steeps of Fernie to the flatter slopes of Mt. Bachelor, I thought it was time to keep my eye out for a deal on a mega mondo fat monster ski. I found it in an ebay deal….a 2008 Atomic big daddy, 190 cm, 145-125-129mm,  $260. That should keep me afloat on the flats. The reason they were so cheap is the 2009 ski has reverse camber. I’ll only have as much fun as people had last year.

 

We’ve had 27 inches in a day and a half, so I’ve been able to use them a fair bit. They suck on the groomers, and the deeper the snow, the easier they are to turn. By the time they are in the snow they are meant for they are amazingly, absurdly, ridiculously easy to turn. You can turn them conventionally, windshield wiper them, push the tip, push the tail, pivot on a dime around the tightest trees.  Forward, back, evenly weighted doesn't much matter.  These skis are so easy to use  hardest thing to do is get a good day's exercise.

 

So, the reverse camber, reverse sidecut is supposed to make them easier to turn, particularly pivot. What would the point of that be? They turn by sheer mental telepathy, and they don’t need to suck on the runouts any more than they already do.

 

I should confess I haven’t been on a rocker/reverse ski, but ignorance never prevented anyone from posting here. So what is the point of those water skis?

post #2 of 24
Quote:

We’ve had 27 inches in a day and a half, so I’ve been able to use them a fair bit. They suck on the groomers, and the deeper the snow, the easier they are to turn. By the time they are in the snow they are meant for they are amazingly, absurdly, ridiculously easy to turn. You can turn them conventionally, windshield wiper them, push the tip, push the tail, pivot on a dime around the tightest trees.  Forward, back, evenly weighted doesn't much matter.  These skis are so easy to use  hardest thing to do is get a good day's exercise.

I think you answered your own question. The various iterations of "concept" skis do all this but more so. Naturally, there is a compromise that you have to accept b/c to get more of one thing, you generally give up an approximately equal amount of something else. It's all a matter of taste and that varies with the individual.

 

Honestly, you should just demo a "concept" ski of similar dimensions to your BD. Something like a Hellbent/189 comes immediately to mind. Go back to back between the two on a deep day and also on a transition day as I described in my S7, Answer, Huge Trouble threads. You might find that the concept ski is just your cuppa. Then again you might not.

 

One thing is for sure, you won't get any kind of an answer online.....all you'll get is arguments.

 

SJ

post #3 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 

When I moved from the steeps of Fernie to the flatter slopes of Mt. Bachelor, I thought it was time to keep my eye out for a deal on a mega mondo fat monster ski. I found it in an ebay deal….a 2008 Atomic big daddy, 190 cm, 145-125-129mm,  $260. That should keep me afloat on the flats. The reason they were so cheap is the 2009 ski has reverse camber. I’ll only have as much fun as people had last year.

 

We’ve had 27 inches in a day and a half, so I’ve been able to use them a fair bit. They suck on the groomers, and the deeper the snow, the easier they are to turn. By the time they are in the snow they are meant for they are amazingly, absurdly, ridiculously easy to turn. You can turn them conventionally, windshield wiper them, push the tip, push the tail, pivot on a dime around the tightest trees.  Forward, back, evenly weighted doesn't much matter.  These skis are so easy to use  hardest thing to do is get a good day's exercise.

 

So, the reverse camber, reverse sidecut is supposed to make them easier to turn, particularly pivot. What would the point of that be? They turn by sheer mental telepathy, and they don’t need to suck on the runouts any more than they already do.

 

I should confess I haven’t been on a rocker/reverse ski, but ignorance never prevented anyone from posting here. So what is the point of those water skis?

 

I know its a troll, a quite obvious one at best as well. In fact you admit ignorance

 

but whast funny is atomic has a convential ski that outskis the Big Daddy in powder. The thug, I passed on the Big due to the stiff tail that seemed to throw me around.

 

although I dont have enough money or space to travel with another R/R ski or just a Reverse normal sidecut ski, it is even easier and allows even more turn shape then what you are on now.

post #4 of 24

That is truly the funniest line I have read here, ever! ; has me laughing out loud.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 .....

The reason they were so cheap is the 2009 ski has reverse camber. I’ll only have as much fun as people had last year.

....... 

post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

 

 

 

I know its a troll, a quite obvious one at best as well. In fact you admit ignorance

 

 

 

Not so much a troll. as a WTF?  Why do people need to modify this to make it easier turning?

 

OK, a bit of a troll to the "my skis are big and burly, and only a big burly dude like me can handle them" crowd.  I'll be able to ski on these until I'm too feeble to walk up to lift.

post #6 of 24

Try them in the right conditions and you'll feel the difference. It's not just about easier to turn, it's a different sensation and I was hooked after tryng the Volkl Kuro's in powder. 

 

We also managed to have some fun skiing a wind blasted 5cm death crust the other day. It would have been murder on my Dynastar LP's. 

 

On the other hand they're crap on any firm surface but that's the price you pay for perfection in powder. Skiing powder is the best feeling on earth and the Kuro's just increase that pleasure for me.

 

post #7 of 24

He doesn't have to try new skis, mind.

 

The redneck rocker:

 

Leaf spring variant:

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/72553/thinking-about-line-elizabeth

 

Or, just do what Rossi did and use a cam and a cable to yoink the tips back:

 

http://www.rossignol.com/index.php?_lang=GB&alias=rossignol-innovations&oid=INNOVAT:4bhx98mbc7ps

 

 

 

post #8 of 24

Fergit it all...............the 2011 Quad Rocker is the one that will be the magic bullet.

 

SJ

post #9 of 24

ALL this newfangled stuff is a bunch of baloney!!  I bought my Volkl P9 RS's back in 1988.  They are 207's, and are the best ski's I've ever tried...  They make short turns, long turns and have great edge grip on the ice.  I've skied them in deep powder and always had a blast!

 

A lot of people have tried to talk to me into these "parabolic" skis that everyone is talking about, but I just don't see any point in it..

 

I'm with you, Newfy

post #10 of 24

I just got the K2 Missbehaved with the "rocker"...mine aren't quite as fat as yours...they are 98 underfoot but hella lota fun.  Easy to turn and very forgiving (great for me since I need to be forgiven alot!) and they make me feel as if I could fly...literally.  More flexible than a Cirque du Solei contortionist.  Just don't lose your ski...saw a guy off I-5 yesterday yardsale it and came home with one less ski.  He wan't the only person looking for their ski yesterday.  Today was great and tomorrow...I think I'm...cough, cough, not feeling too well.  I might have to call in sick.

post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 

Still snowing......44" in this storm.  160 inch base, 430 for the season.

 

Saw a pair of the new improved reverse camber Big Daddys.  Hideous graphics, not much rocker, definitely not worth the money.   At least they resisted putting a twin tip on them and giving them some anti-social model name.

post #12 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 


 

 

 

Not so much a troll. as a WTF?  Why do people need to modify this to make it easier turning?

 

OK, a bit of a troll to the "my skis are big and burly, and only a big burly dude like me can handle them" crowd.  I'll be able to ski on these until I'm too feeble to walk up to lift.

 

yeah on TGR these are know to be pretty easy going, but like i said didnt do it for me. Glad you like them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post

 

ALL this newfangled stuff is a bunch of baloney!!  I bought my Volkl P9 RS's back in 1988.  They are 207's, and are the best ski's I've ever tried...  They make short turns, long turns and have great edge grip on the ice.  I've skied them in deep powder and always had a blast!

 

A lot of people have tried to talk to me into these "parabolic" skis that everyone is talking about, but I just don't see any point in it..

 

I'm with you, Newfy

 

I know I love to ski every 11th bump on SG skis, the feeling of just hopping over all of them is so great......

post #13 of 24

OK, I'll bite.

 

The reverse camber & reverse sidecut skis are good with me, I've enjoyed the Volant Spatula, especially in the trees in deep snow. But they are the inverse of an FIS SL ski and should be viewed as such.

 

Consider: The FIS SL ski will quickly turn and allows rapid progress down a steep set of gates on rock hard ice. The reverse/reverse ski will quickly turn and allows rapid progress down a steep set of trees in powder. The FIS SL ski is not the ideal tool for straight lining a hardpack run at high speeds. The reverse/reverse ski is not the ideal tool for straight lining any run at high speeds. The FIS SL ski is almost worthless in knee deep snow. The reverse/reverse ski is almost worthless on rock hard snow. The FIS SL Ski is a poor choice as an everyday ski. The reverse/reverse ski is a poor choice as an everyday ski.

 

 

Still, as a specialty ski in a multi ski quiver: the FIS SL ski and the reverse/reverse ski are fun toys.

 

Michael

post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 

Just seems like it is diminishing returns.......making a ski go from bad to horrible on the groomed back to the lift in exchange for incremental improvement in powder skiing.  You probably could make them lighter and more flexible if you removed the metal edges.  Who needs those in powder?  That will probably be next year's marketing ploy.

post #15 of 24

I agree with the diminished returns criticism. You will just have to find out for yourself. I just sent you a PM.

 

Michael

post #16 of 24
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

 

 

 

yeah on TGR these are know to be pretty easy going, but like i said didnt do it for me. Glad you like them.

 

 

 

 

 

He's the hype:

 

 

Quote:

The Grand Master of the powder snow carvers. A ski that demands respect.

 

Quote:

Atomic built these boats to be stiffer than the average powder ski so you can bomb the sketchy steeps harder than the Bush family bombs oil-producing nations. This ski only comes in one size—huge, so don’t climb into the driver’s seat unless you’re ready to step on the gas.

 

Quote:

The latest Big Daddy is more versatile, still as hard-core but an improved big mountain package for the confirmed expert to pro rider.

 

Gosh, I become more manly just by clicking into them.  Not manly enough for TGR of course, those guys are just gods.

post #17 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 

Just seems like it is diminishing returns.......making a ski go from bad to horrible on the groomed back to the lift in exchange for incremental improvement in powder skiing.  You probably could make them lighter and more flexible if you removed the metal edges.  Who needs those in powder?  That will probably be next year's marketing ploy.

 

Let's try flipping this around to discuss any 68-70 race derived ski... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inverted newfydog View Post

 

Just seems like it is diminishing returns.......making a ski go from bad to horrible in powder off trail in exchange for incremental improvement in on groomers back to the lift.  You probably could make them heavier and stiffer if you removed a bunch of the ptex and added thicker metal edges.  Who needs that ptex on ice? ...

 

 

Please tell me you are joking with this thread...

 

 

post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:inverted newfydog 
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

 You probably could make them heavier and stiffer if you removed a bunch of the ptex and added thicker metal edges.  Who needs that ptex on ice? ...

 

Please tell me you are joking with this thread...

 

 


 

OooooI like that one.  Soneone would buy them.  The image of the inverted Newfydog is disconcerting though.

 

Heck no, I'm not joking.  They took a ski that requires virtually no effort to float to the top and turn on, bent the tip a bit, covered it with some paisley and orange puke and then tell us it works better now.  Forgive me if I'm skeptical about both the claims and the need for the changes.

 

Geez....they are selling next year's Gotama with a pre bent tip.  I thought that was supposed to be an all round ski.  That tip sticking up and flapping in the wind will be just great on the rime crusted stuff near the summit we bash through getting to the powder.

post #19 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 

Geez....they are selling next year's Gotama with a pre bent tip.  I thought that was supposed to be an all round ski.  That tip sticking up and flapping in the wind will be just great on the rime crusted stuff near the summit we bash through getting to the powder.

 

Last year's Got + turnbuckle + 1/8" cable + 2 screw eyes. 

post #20 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 

...................................................................

 

Geez....they are selling next year's Gotama with a pre bent tip.  I thought that was supposed to be an all round ski.  That tip sticking up and flapping in the wind will be just great on the rime crusted stuff near the summit we bash through getting to the powder.

 

Quote:

Geez....they are selling next year's Gotama with a pre bent tip.

 

Actually bent tip to tail but pretty modestly.

 

Quote:

I thought that was supposed to be an all round ski.

 

IMO the key word here is was

 

Quote:

 

That tip sticking up and flapping in the wind will be just great on the rime crusted stuff.......

 

Yeah....it's not gonna be too good at that.

 

Quote:

............................getting to the powder.

 

Unfortunately, it's not a whole lot better at that either.

 

SJ

post #21 of 24

Sad sad sad.

 

Not even worth flogging this dead horse. You guys are the spiritual descendants of the "parabolic skis suck and real skiers use straight skis" crowd.

 

oh well...

post #22 of 24

 

This one time I skied on a groomer when it was a powder day... that experience scared me for life and its a mistake I never want to repeat again. Some times I still  wake up in the night screaming. The horror.

post #23 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Sad sad sad.

 

Not even worth flogging this dead horse. You guys are the spiritual descendants of the "parabolic skis suck and real skiers use straight skis" crowd.

 

oh well...

 

Awwww.....don't take it so hard Spin. Heck, they didn't believe Jesus at first either.

 

SJ


Edited by SierraJim - 3/18/2009 at 04:34 am
post #24 of 24

Just to let you know I've already tested the new Go Tama and it is only rockered in the forebody of the ski not the tail. It is an excellent allround ski and I have tested it in powder as well as boiler plate in Vermont. Maybe one of the most versatile skis I've ever skied and that is coming off of a Line Prophet 100 which is a great all around ski in all conditions including hard snow and I have over 90 days on the Lines. Also tested all the 09-10 models from most manufacturers.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Reverse camber/sidecut-- what is the point?