I was setting DIN's, forward pressure, and generally seeing what kind of shape my my skis are in when I noticed that my old Atomic Atomic SX:11's seemed pretty flat. In fact, with the boot in they sat no more than 1/16" off the bench.
I bought those skis used about 5 years ago when I lived on the East coast and they were more "appropriate" to the terrain. They were a lot of fun to rip around on for the first two years, but I have maybe used them twice since.
They need some base work to come back to life but I'm worried their flatness is a sign of being decambered so I don't want to spend the cash if they're shot. I didn't have a great time on them last time I skied them, but it was a "no-viz" day and I was tired, so I attributed it to that but perhaps they were a little dead at the time.
For giggles, I measured camber by placing both skis base-to-base, both horizontally (bases vertical) and vertical (one ski resting on binding w/ the other on top). For comparison I checked my Rossi B3's (which have been used & abused - I'd expect them to be decambered!)...
Camber is defined, for my purposes, as half the "gap" between edges at the mid-sole/mount line, with bases allowed to touch where they naturally come together and the brakes were banded back.
|SX11 gap||SX: 11 Camber||B3 gap||B3 camber||PONTOONS!|
Anyone have thoughts on this? I guess the big surprise is that the all-mountain and relatively soft B3 is way more cambered than "race" boards like those... Is that typical?
PS - I blame all the rocker talk (and my new Pontoons ) for making me even notice camber/rocker/tip rise so much. No I'm curious where other skis come in, as well. i came thisclose to measuring out my XC skis...