Jack M Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Facts: Skis and boards made for high speeds do not have decambered noses becase it will make them less stable att high speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCrimson Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Just want to share my experience with you:)Facts: Skis and boards made for high speeds do not have decambered noses becase it will make them less stable att high speed. High speed needs long contactsurface and low noses to avoid that air gets under the nose. Note that the noses have a very smooth low uplift. That seems to contradict itself. Decambered noses are relatively low, and very smooth in the way they rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias112 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 That seems to contradict itself. Decambered noses are relatively low, and very smooth in the way they rise. Well my guess was that to call a nose decambered it will have a long section above the snow in a straight line? Otherwise it would just be a low nose:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCrimson Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Look at the NSR vs. the Madd, not a great example since the Madd is a little, oldschool board, but ultimately the NSR has a lower nose even when decambered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Look at the NSR vs. the Madd, not a great example since the Madd is a little, oldschool board, but ultimately the NSR has a lower nose even when decambered. just an FYI Jack has a 180MADD not the more just the more common small ones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave29 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Jack nice job. Super informative and easy to understand. THANKS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Varsava Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Now I get it, thanks Jack, as always very informative If you don't think that Jack can rip You don't know jack:biggthump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave29 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Jack I noticed toelift on your front binding. How do you like it(pros and cons)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I think Mattias is talking about speed skis - if you don't need to turn, he is correct.I wouldn't want a roockered nose at 120mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Look at the NSR vs. the Madd, not a great example since the Madd is a little, oldschool board, but ultimately the NSR has a lower nose even when decambered. No, the boards in the photos are a Madd 180 and Coiler NSR 185. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruth Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I would say all of the modern skis have widest poit of sidecut ahead of base contact point, even when just sitting on the floor unloaded. Dynastar had this quite exagerated for at least 6-7 years. Race ski design has definitely changed over the past 4-5 years. I just compared my newest race stock GS skis (2009 Dynastar WC GS) to a 8 year old pair of GS skis (Atomic 10.22). The Dynastar is the full blown hand made, matched flex race stock (the good stuff). When placed on a flat surface, there is no camber in the ski--it sits flat in the middle by its own weight. The widest part of the sidecut is well ahead of where the front of the ski contacts the surface, and the contact point is several cm rearward of where the older Atomic makes contact. The turn radius is blended along the length and listed only as "meeting FIS specs" (minimum of 27M) The Atomic 10.22, in spite of being 8 years old, has over 1/2 cm upward camber at the center when sitting on a flat surface, and the forward contact point is right where the tip curves up. The turn radius is clearly listed as 22M. No comparison in the way they ski. In spite on the Dynastar being a much "straighter" ski, it is much easier to turn, vary the turn shape, and release a turn at will. The older Atomic seems "locked" into a single radius turn, and will plow the tip into the snow if you try to tighten up the turn. I mostly ski, but I also have an alpine board that I enjoy riding to mix things up and I have found this thread very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiomoto Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'll have to take a look at my skis I guess. I have two pair of SLX and one GSX. All are race stock and 3-4 years old. I know they do lay "flat" under their weight (with really heavy bindings on them) but never noticed a decambered nose. I know a few local reps, but never really talked about the specifics when I run into them. My original point was that if a decambered nose is so great for racing applications, you would think the ski racing community would be all over it. Maybe they are and I never noticed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCrimson Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 No, the boards in the photos are a Madd 180 and Coiler NSR 185. Bahhumbug thought it was a 170. Somewhat o/t, is there a difference in the nose profile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdahbonz Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 After watching Jack ride this NSR today, I would disagree with the lack of stability at speed. He was ripping on it, through slop and spring mashed snow. First time I ever saw him ride and I could not keep up. I felt pretty good about my riding last week. Today, I felt like I have alot of work to do. Nice turns Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 A single camber board will pressure the nose of the board as it is loaded carving a turn. Will a double camber board create a rocker effect on the nose since the flattening of the camber is acting as if on two fulcrum points causing the nose to rise???:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 A single camber board will pressure the nose of the board as it is loaded carving a turn. Will a double camber board create a rocker effect on the nose since the flattening of the camber is acting as if on two fulcrum points causing the nose to rise???:confused: that question makes my head hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Buggs Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Old or new? to me it does not matter, All I know is it works:biggthump Steph, you will totally Rip on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiomoto Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I was wrong! I never noticed, but the widest point of the sidecut on all of my skis are on what would be considered the "tip" on the curled up portion. I'm talking way up there! Probably 1/3 of the way up the radius. I never noticed this before. Put your race stock skies base to base, use a strap to tie them together in the middle so the bases are actually touching and I'm sure you'll see that you can start to see space between the bases far before where you would consider the actual "tip". Actually no. My tips placed base to base look "normal" They make contact right around the point at which the tips curl up at the nose. They look nothing like the pictures Jack posted here. BUT, the widest point of the sidecut is way ahead of the contact point.I wouldn't call it decambered because the base of the ski looks "normal", but the widest point is way ahead of the contact point of the base so I guess you could argue that it's decamberd. I'll go eat crow now. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Actually Elan pioneered this back in 80s. It was just a slight move of the widest point forward from where it traditionally was on straight skis, but noticeable. If my old RC Omni Lite are still kicking around my auntie's place in Europe, I'll take few pics late this summer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Bahhumbug thought it was a 170. Somewhat o/t, is there a difference in the nose profile? If anything, the 170's nose might be even more abrupt. After watching Jack ride this NSR today, I would disagree with the lack of stability at speed. He was ripping on it, through slop and spring mashed snow. First time I ever saw him ride and I could not keep up. I felt pretty good about my riding last week. Today, I felt like I have alot of work to do. Nice turns Jack. Great to meet you in person today. You've got a lot of potential there. Thanks for the compliments, but you should have seen that board killing it last weekend when conditions were firm. I'm not a fan of mashed potatoes over ice. Looks like our carving season is over unless there is another dump. Oh well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Now I get it, thanks Jack, as always very informativeIf you don't think that Jack can rip You don't know jack:biggthump :lol: I love this place. Jack I noticed toelift on your front binding. How do you like it(pros and cons)? Love it. I recommend a balanced stance of equal front-foot-toe-lift and back-foot-heel-lift, with a little outward cant on the back foot. There's an article on this somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias112 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I wouldn't call it decambered because the base of the ski looks "normal", but the widest point is way ahead of the contact point of the base so I guess you could argue that it's decamberd. This is not what I call decambered either. This is not new at all but has been like this for years. But to have decambered 1/4 of the total length of the board, that is another matter:) That will probably be a little unstable at speed... But as you sy it will also make the board easier to initiate the turn. If it is combined with a flexpattern to suit. But a soft nose and a really decambered nose? Not for me on my alpine board... But everybody likes it different:eek: So ride and be happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdahbonz Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Never got comfortable-I really can't perform in mashed spuds and I washed out later on spillway and ate $hit-didn't notice until end of the day but think I picked up a 1st degree sep. on my right shoulder. I was trying hard to keep transitions smooth and felt like I couldn't keep board from chattering out on heels or toes. Power drove head and shoulders for an over the handle bars endo..guess I may have been loading the nose up.Least I know what the new board dims. will look like now for bruce and thanks for the advice on topsheet design-sfleck, email forth coming to you soon. Great to meet you in person today. You've got a lot of potential there. Thanks for the compliments, but you should have seen that board killing it last weekend when conditions were firm. I'm not a fan of mashed potatoes over ice. Looks like our carving season is over unless there is another dump. Oh well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruth Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 This is not what I call decambered either. This is not new at all but has been like this for years.But to have decambered 1/4 of the total length of the board, that is another matter:) That will probably be a little unstable at speed... But as you sy it will also make the board easier to initiate the turn. If it is combined with a flexpattern to suit. But a soft nose and a really decambered nose? Not for me on my alpine board... But everybody likes it different:eek: So ride and be happy! Right, the idea that the widest part of the sidecut is way up on the ski tip and off the snow has been around for a long time. This isn't new. What is different on my 2009 race stock Dynastars, is the lack of camber when sitting flat, and that the ski rises off the surface a few cm behind where the tip curves up. I'd call it "mini decamber" -- not as pronounced as a new school powder ski, not quite as pronounced as Jack's board--but it is there. Whatever Dynastar has done it works. These skis are the most stable, fast, yet turnable race stock GS skis I have ever been on. All the other WC GS skis have similar designs--less camber and no defined turn radius other than "meeting FIS minimum specs". What is really interesting (and I'm curious how this applies to snowboard hardboots), is that you need a modern ski boot design to really get the performance out of these new race skis. For example, at the start of the season, I had a trusty pair of 2008 Lange RL11 plug boots. The RL11 shell design has been around in one form or another for 15 years. It was the standard that all other ski race boots were judged against. And it does not work with the newest race skis. Lange dumped the RL11 and now has the RL12, a design with a shorter cuff, more upright stance, and the hinge points moved way back. Nordica, Atomic, and Fischer came out with similar designs a few years ago, and have been eating Lange's lunch in racing. The new designs allow you to engage the greater tip sidecut NOW (like steeping on the gas pedal of a dragracer!!!), and then allow you to vary the turn shape along the rest of the ski length. My bootfitter warned me that I would never get full performance out of the new Dynastars with the geometry of the RL11 boot, and boy was he right. So, my question is with all the advancement in alpine board design in the last few years, do we need new thought given to hardboot design? The DeeLuxe, Head, and UPZ design are very old, and by using their designs, are we getting the top performance out of our fancy new board designs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave29 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 :lol: I love this place.Love it. I recommend a balanced stance of equal front-foot-toe-lift and back-foot-heel-lift, with a little outward cant on the back foot. There's an article on this somewhere. Thanks Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.