Hybrid camber skis - a conservative remnant?

[MnO]

This season I have tested some fully rockered skis that, imo, clearly shows that there is really no reason to put any kind of positive camber in a freeride ski. Still, I would say that the most common way to interpret the ideas of rocker into a ski lineup is to have a ski with a slight camber underfoot and tip and tail rocker. There seems to be an enourmous amount of smaller and bigger ski companies that have a ski that have a "traditional camber underfoot" and a tip and tail rocker to "combine the best of rocker skis and traditional cambered skis". There are S7, JJ and their alikes in the bc jib segment, Solly Rocker and Czar, K2 Side Series and alikes more in the bm part of the market. But, is there really anything good with a positive camber underfoot? Wouldnt this skis be even better with a flat or a slightly negative camber?

The reason for positive camber seems always to be that the ski should have some performance for hardpack. It seems like most manufacturers just thinks that positive camber is something that always makes the hardpack performance better. But is it really true? I dont think so. After trying last years Katanas (flat or slightly neg), this years Katanas (fully rockered), and maybe most of all some skis in this years Hendryx lineup (all full rocker skis), I would say that these skis perform in an absolute top level on the hardpack, even if they are fully rockered. Especially the Hendryx skis is better than most things I have tried in piste, and I can feel no negative effect of the rocker, as long as its not too much. Maybe there is some flapping when you are going straight, but who goes straight for any long period of time in the piste? Not me, anyway, and most of the time it is not even noticeable.

Even if I havent tried it myself, all the people that have tried Hendryx 917, a fully, but low rockered race inspired 97mm ski, say that there is not many skis out there that can match that skis performance in the piste. And after that I have tried the freeride skis of Hendryx lineup (PH, Func, Rhino) and thought that they absolutely killed it in the piste, I have no doubt that a ski built for the piste by Hendryx is something very special on the groomed.

Outside of the piste, most people would agree that positive camber is not needed and that rocker makes a ski better in most conditions if it is made right.

A lot of skis tend to go to lower rocker from year to year. The Lhasas for example had to much camber in the beginning and now are almost flat. Solly went from normal camber in the Rocker and XWing lab to flat in the Dictator. Fatypus lowered the camber on the Alotta and gave it a bit of tip rocker. Small and big companies seems to be moving away from positive camber, even if some is more slow than others.

So, why do we have hybrids at all? Isn´t it better to give the ski a flat or really low full rocker between the tip and tail rocker? Is it just a step on the way towards fully rockered skis because of a conservative view by the designers?

[bennettc14]

Positive camber in almost all cases will help hardpack performance especially on EC bulletproof. Fully rockered skis are just not as good on hardpack/ice, I think that's pretty clear. Think racing skis, positive camber galor. Hybrids as you said take the best of both worlds and they work which is why they're the most popular skis on the market right now and full reverse are not. There's more to life than Hendryx skis afterall...

[toiletduck]

I always thought camber helped on firm snow, adding a bit of rebound to turns in bumps etc to help you release/pop out of the turn - especially in stiffer skis like the Lhasa etc (well, basically just not in noodles).

[butterscotch]

Interesting. The OP seems to be challenging the conventional wisdom and the first two responses essentially restate the conventional wisdom.

I ski on what the OP would call "hybrid camber" skis everyday, but haven't skied a fully rockered skis with conventional sidecut. Based on the different skis I've been on, I think that sidecut radius is just as important as rocker shape for firm snow performance, i.e. would you rather be on a rockered ski with a short radius or a cambered ski with a long radius?

[toast2266]

I'd agree that full rocker can be ok on hardpack and even kinda fun, but I have yet to ski any ski with rocker (whether it be full rocker or "hybrid") that can really lay down trenches like a traditionally cambered ski. If you have two skis of similar length, sidecut, and flex characteristics, one rockered and one traditional, In my experience the traditional will ski better on the hardpack.

[El Chupacabra]

Relevant skis I've had or have:

- Spatula (full reverse camber)
- Praxis Powder (full reverse camber)
- Salomon Rocker (tip rocker, small camber under foot)
- Salomon Czar (tip rocker, small camber under foot)
- PM Gear Lhasa (tip rocker, camber under foot)
- DPS Lotus 120 (tip rocker, small camber under foot)
- Volkl Sanouk (longer tip, small camber under foot)
- Volkl Sumo (minimally longer tip, small camber under foot)

(1) The skis without any camber under foot (Spatula, Praxis) felt dead to me. No springy poppy sensation from turn to turn. Only stand-and-surf style skiing. I dislike the rockered tail design, and prefer a flatter tail on skis.

(2) More traditional design skis with some camber, but easily decambered to flat (Sanouk, Sumo) have that springy poppiness that I like, but are easily decambered while skiing so that the tips don't dive (in contrast to a stiff, traditional ski with significant camber, where weighting the center of the ski just pushes the tips deeper down).

(3) Hybrid designs with tip rocker, with some camber, are a great mix (Lhasa, Lotus 120). The rockered tip is more forgiving in soft snow, no tip dive. The camber under foot brings the poppy fun. Salomon's Rocker and Czar fit this category, but weigh a lot, particularly the Rocker.

The Lotus 120 is my favorite pow ski of all time, right now. The mix of tip rocker, small camber, and pintail design is perfection in a pow ski (140-120-125 sidecut = enough to hold an edge when you need it, but loose enough to let you slide any turn and whip the skis around as fast as the full reverse/reverse Spatula or Praxis). The Lhasa is a close second, but due to its additional stiffness and deeper sidecut, it's more versatile in firm snow -- and less playful in pow.

[splat]

So when you weight the U shape of a fully rockered ski, how much of the zero/reverse camber is going to distribute weight into the fore and aft edge of the ski to get a bite on piste? How much camber is required to get that weight down the edges and take a bite? Has piste been canceled for the future? Is skiing only powder now the norm? Should everyone be required to have a cambered piste ski and a non-traditional powder ski? There will be no piste in freeride heaven? And, most importantly, why can't one ski do it all?

[El Chupacabra]

Should everyone be required to have a cambered piste ski and a non-traditional powder ski?

Yes. Maybe required is a bit strong, but it's a lot nicer to have a few options than trying to make one ski do everything.

And, most importantly, why can't one ski do it all?

It can, but not as well as specialized designs for different applications. The Lhasa is pretty versatile, but it will never take the place of a race ski for fast hardpack groomers. Realistically, nobody who buys it will expect it to do so.

It does make for a very nice "travel" ski though.

[MnO]

So when you weight the U shape of a fully rockered ski, how much of the zero/reverse camber is going to distribute weight into the fore and aft edge of the ski to get a bite on piste? How much camber is required to get that weight down the edges and take a bite?

If the rockered ski is not a lot rockered, the weight in the front and the back will be engaged later, but still, in a carving turn when the ski is loaded, you will not feel any difference between a rocker ski and a cambered ski. The bend start a bit later, but if the rockered ski is a bit stiffer and produce the same kind of bending force like a cambered and a bit softer ski (that is bend a bit further to give the same amount of bending or holding force), my physical sense tells me that those skis would feel rather equivalent in the middle of the turn. The difference with the rocker is that the ski initate the turn easier and feels lighter in the beginning of the turn. Then you have to be a bit careful in the end of the turn to not overload the tail normally, but when you find the balance, atleast I can produce the rebound, even if is needed to do a bit differently than in a more automatic rebound traditional ski.

Has piste been canceled for the future? Is skiing only powder now the norm? Should everyone be required to have a cambered piste ski and a non-traditional powder ski? There will be no piste in freeride heaven? And, most importantly, why can't one ski do it all?

No. That is absolutely not my meaning. I prefer skis that do everything well, piste as offpiste. I have had specific powder skis in the past, but I always end up with using the everyday skis also in the powder. I say that of all fat skis I have tried the last years, the ones that I thought was the BEST in the piste all were rockered skis. Not a lot rockered, but still, rockered. The first years Katanas for example, had a lot of rebound and spring in them and suited my kind of rather light feet skiing perfectly. In the piste. I think that you can work with other parameters to receive a springy feel and good rebound. This years Katana is another example of this. Noone can call that ski dead in the pist. It takes a bit more work to load up than the previous versions since it is stiffer, but if you manage to load the ski, there is a clear and more than enough rebound. A lot better than many cambered skis I have tried. This, in my opinion, opens up the possibility to produce an allround ski that is as good or better than anything out there today in the pist, and is in par with the best powder skis on the market in powder.

Splat> Have you tried the current Lhasa sidecut all flat or with a slight negative camber in any prototypes? Do they feel more dead? Did you end up with the current camber after coming from more and going down, or did you also try full rockered protos? (Probably I could find the full story in this forum...) I would be happy to try a slightly, slightly full rocker version of the Lhasa with 22-24m sidecut sometime in the future.

Dude, I totally apologize for screwing up your post. The computer at the office has a horrible mouse and I clicked edit instead of quote.


-splat

[bennettc14]

There are also some versions of flat camber and slightly tip rockered race skis out there this season, so the thoughts are also starting to get affect in the racing scene.

Which tip rockered race skis are you referring to?

[Beyond]

The argument that race skis have a lot of camber, and therefore camber is good on the hardpack, dont bite on me. A true race ski most often has a lot less camber than the consumer graphical equivalents. If the camber was a positive thing, also the race level skis would have a lot of it. Often racers actually search a pair with less camber since they tend to be quicker.

True on the face of it, but dead wrong underneath. "True race skis" are stiffer than shit. Rebound energy is not so much function of camber, as of flex patterns. So a very stiff damp race ski can get away with less camber because what it has can still store a bunch of energy before it counterflexes. Racers may (or may not) "search" for skis with less camber (in theory less camber could reduce time to counterflex by a few milliseconds), but that's only because they're race skis being loaded by racers at racing speeds.

For a good rec ski of typical stiffness, skied at typical speeds, no camber at the start of a carve will produce a lack of rebound felt as a dead spot, just like everyone else on this thread has been saying. The Katana is a red herring; liveliness is a function of construction materials and placement, not the same as rebound.

More to the point, manufacturers are not ignorant of ski physics, or of market possibilities. Nor do they lack decent testers. So why haven't they marketed zero camber or even fully rockered groomer skis? Uhh...ummm....I know, must be a conspiracy!!

[MnO]

Which tip rockered race skis are you referring to?

DH and SG skis in general seem to have gotten a slight tip lift if you compare a 5-6 year old ski with a ski of this season. Not much, but atleast a dead/flat camber spot in the front of the ski. I havent tried many of this high speed skis, but for example two days ago I checked out a pair of Atomic SG:s in a shop with a almost all flat camber and then a slight lift in the last 20 cm in the tip.

Also, I have seen pictures of Head GS skis with slight tip rocker and some Ross GS protos with a bit longer rocker. Salomon is said to have a totally flat (which probably will go to a slight rocker after a bit of use if it behaves like other skis...) SL Lab ski if the rumours are right. So far I havent seen any "mass production racerooms" with rocker, but maybe the new things end up there in a few seasons.

Conspiration... Hehe, maybe not, but I think that many small companies are a bit afraid to test new things and stay with the safe designs more close to the center mainstream market.

[theetruscan]

I think that many small companies are a bit afraid to test new things and stay with the safe designs more close to the center mainstream market.

While certainly true that many small companies are afraid to test new things, it certainly seems like other small companies are coming up with the most interesting new ski shapes.

[SiSt]

One advantage of having a fully rockered ski is that there are no kinks that mess up the flex pattern when bending the ski, as there will be in a hybrid design. You have a hard time engaging the entire length of the ski in a hybrid unless the tip/tail rise is very gradual (if that´s what you want), but in a full reverse ski this is no issue. From recent experience I´m not sure if you need a really long effective edge anyway.

I have skied and carved a bit on both rockered (obseth both old and new) and fully reverse skis (new got) and in my experience they carve really well, but engage a bit slower than cambered skis. Solution to this is that you just throw yourself into the turn, and trust the ski to engage and keep you from falling over.

More to the point, manufacturers are not ignorant of ski physics, or of market possibilities. Nor do they lack decent testers. So why haven't they marketed zero camber or even fully rockered groomer skis? Uhh...ummm....I know, must be a conspiracy!!

Or it could be conservatism, in both the manufacturers and their target demographic of Epic skiers.

I foresee a fully reversed camber allround ski at ~110mm waist one ski quiver sometime in my future though.

[/Incoherent post.]

[MnO]

More to the point, manufacturers are not ignorant of ski physics, or of market possibilities. Nor do they lack decent testers. So why haven't they marketed zero camber or even fully rockered groomer skis?

The conservatism of the big brands when it comes to change the mass produced beginner to mid level skis is massive I would say. Even if they probably enjoy making cool new freeride skis, most big skiing brands makes the money elsewhere. Its the ski for the masses and for the big sport shops that brings the big money. If you look at the feet of the people in the big Euro resorts, I would say that it are more than 90% intermediate carving skis. In total, there must be a huge favour in numbers if you compare mid level carvers to freeride 100mm+ skis.

Just remember that it took almost 5 years for the companies to adapt to the ideas of carving skis in the beginning of the 90s. It took a significant amount of time before the original Kneissl Ergo turned the market over to carving only. Even five years after the introduction of shaped skis the big companies offered non carving groomer skis, probably most because they were afraid to loose the income that they historically had gained from that kind of skis. It was not the skiing companies that changed to carving skis. It was the consumers that no longer bought straight sticks.

The characteristics of some of the traditional camber + tip rocker skis that I have tried should really appeal the beginner market. K2 Sidestash for example have such a easy turn initation and some ideas from that ski should be good to put into a groomer ski for the one-week-per-year-skier. I would not be surprised if we would see some light tip rockered entry/intermediate level groomer skis in a couple of years. At the moment the development in that area seems to stand almost still, but there should be some brand that tries the idea to lift their skis above the huge numbers of anonymous models in intermediate carving ski market. I thought that there should come some followers to the Bogner rockered groomer skis that was seen a couple of years ago, but they are still quite alone in that region.

[geo039]

Me too Sounds like the right daily driver for Euroland where you encounter it all in one day.

I foresee a fully reversed camber allround ski at ~110mm waist one ski quiver sometime in my future though.

[GeezerSteve]

Conservative remnant? No way. Modestly rockered tip w/ underfoot camber is the future of all-mountain skis. Wait and see.

Question for you ardent full rocker fans: Do you guys ever need to traverse steep hard slopes to access a powder stash?

As an old-timer who spends lots of time touring to and from the soft stuff, full rocker as too specialized a design for my uses. Might be fun to try tho.

[RootSkier]

Rebound energy is not so much function of camber, as of flex patterns.

I agree. I find that stiff skis with zero camber can still have tremendous rebound energy (I have a pair of fat bros like this).

[splat]

So when you weight the U shape of a fully rockered ski, how much of the zero/reverse camber is going to distribute weight into the fore and aft edge of the ski to get a bite on piste? How much camber is required to get that weight down the edges and take a bite?

If the rockered ski is not a lot rockered, the weight in the front and the back will be engaged later, but still, in a carving turn when the ski is loaded, you will not feel any difference between a rocker ski and a cambered ski. The bend start a bit later, but if the rockered ski is a bit stiffer and produce the same kind of bending force like a cambered and a bit softer ski (that is bend a bit further to give the same amount of bending or holding force), my physical sense tells me that those skis would feel rather equivalent in the middle of the turn. The difference with the rocker is that the ski initate the turn easier and feels lighter in the beginning of the turn. Then you have to be a bit careful in the end of the turn to not overload the tail normally, but when you find the balance, atleast I can produce the rebound, even if is needed to do a bit differently than in a more automatic rebound traditional ski.


No. That is absolutely not my meaning. I prefer skis that do everything well, piste as offpiste. I have had specific powder skis in the past, but I always end up with using the everyday skis also in the powder. I say that of all fat skis I have tried the last years, the ones that I thought was the BEST in the piste all were rockered skis. Not a lot rockered, but still, rockered. The first years Katanas for example, had a lot of rebound and spring in them and suited my kind of rather light feet skiing perfectly. In the piste. I think that you can work with other parameters to receive a springy feel and good rebound. This years Katana is another example of this. Noone can call that ski dead in the pist. It takes a bit more work to load up than the previous versions since it is stiffer, but if you manage to load the ski, there is a clear and more than enough rebound. A lot better than many cambered skis I have tried. This, in my opinion, opens up the possibility to produce an allround ski that is as good or better than anything out there today in the pist, and is in par with the best powder skis on the market in powder.

Splat> Have you tried the current Lhasa sidecut all flat or with a slight negative camber in any prototypes? Do they feel more dead? Did you end up with the current camber after coming from more and going down, or did you also try full rockered protos? (Probably I could find the full story in this forum...) I would be happy to try a slightly, slightly full rocker version of the Lhasa with 22-24m sidecut sometime in the future.

First, to talk about what you said in your first paragraph....I understand what you're saying. And I have done fully rockered Lhasas (hell, yeah, they're fukking great in pow and soft stuff!). However, they won't rail the hard like the longer effective edge on the Lhasa that provides stability for those of us who like to rail. In trying to achieve the best overall performance, ie, bite on hardpack, I went with the small camber to push weight out along the edges. It's a fine line of sacrifices and benefits weighing against each other. Also, with regard to your comment about effective sidecut engaging in a rockered ski when flexed - sure enough, it does. That's why the end of the sidecut in the tip of the Lhasas, for example, is above the effective edge of the ski on a table or with someone standing on it; because it's going to engage in the turn when the ski flexes. The one thing I hate is a standard sidecut that is rockered. The tips can get hooky as hell in many conditions

[Beyond]

The conservatism of the big brands when it comes to change the mass produced beginner to mid level skis is massive I would say. Even if they probably enjoy making cool new freeride skis, most big skiing brands makes the money elsewhere. Its the ski for the masses and for the big sport shops that brings the big money. If you look at the feet of the people in the big Euro resorts, I would say that it are more than 90% intermediate carving skis. In total, there must be a huge favour in numbers if you compare mid level carvers to freeride 100mm+ skis.

Yep, but how long did it take the majors to start putting rocker with a bit of camber into their products? And K2 is pretty much doing what you predict no one will do, put hybrid rocker next year even into groomer skis. Head has introduced a new tip that floats up, just like Fischer did last year, in its 50/50 models. Maybe, just maybe, it won't take 5 years. (Although the indies should hope it takes 10.) Meanwhile, don't hold your breath for zero or negative camber, because as well explained by earlier posts, it's not optimized for groomed.

Evil Carvers: The reason Euro markets favor carvers over freerides is less about conservatism than marginal snow where a carver can be about the only solution to the ice and bumps. Unless they want to hire a guide and hike. Sorry, but the majority of winters there's a reason that Vail or Whistler sound like the United Nations, and it's not just the exchange rate. We have this stuff called "new snow."

So again, you're taking an apparently true observation, and making it into some overgeneralization. As much as some folks here want to see themselves as the center of god's gaze, ski companies would go broke just servicing our better comprehension of How It Should Be. Face it: Most skiers in the world do not even WANT to bust through pillows in the backwoods or mach chutes they hike to. They do not have the skill set to lay a rockered ski over far enough, and progressively enough, to use the whole edge. They do not care about the optimal design for freeriding, because they never ski off of groomers. And you should be glad for that, because it leaves more soft snow for you. And plenty of market niche for good indies. Of which there are plenty.

What average skiers do want is skis that will complete a carve with a skid and forgive their backseatness. They want to feel like heros in 4" of powder over the groomers (thus Pocket Rockets). Yeah, I know, intermediates are inferior human beings, mere gaper-insects who only abet the major's mindless greed. Better that the majors ignore their demand, and say, patting them on the head, "Here, we know what's better for you, buy this!"

Uh, OK, but personally 1) I'm glad you vote in another country, and 2) I love the idea that I can buy quality innovative products from the indies and quality more traditional products from the majors. Sometimes ya feel like a rocker and sometimes ya don't.

[splat]

Wow. That post up there is the most backassward thing I've screwed up in a while...


The multitude of rockers coming online as it gets integrated into the piste skis will exude some sweet dims in the quest for the one ski quiver (bet you start to hear that more). I think it's fukkin awesome to be throwing down as design evolves, honing bits and pieces of the shape, looking for the nuances of the performance characteristics in different conditions. As the majors crank out rockers, those detailed characteristics will be molded and combined until someone generates a better formula for all around performance for both freeriders and the corduroy crew, who will then be able to take their piste carvers off piste. Which is what's starting to happen now, I believe.

[SiSt]

^^
The shape revolution in freeride skis is making it more accessible to a bigger crowd, who normally wouldn´t venture out of bounds. Freeriding and touring has become much more common in the last few seasons, at least here in Norway. Making a rockered 100+mm waisted ski that lets your average skier link carving turns on hardpack and rip pow with equal ease is a new market segment that I believe is going to become huge in the next 5-10 years.

[ExoticSkis]

The frenzy of new geometries and flexes coming out of every workshop (small and large) around the World is very cool. With so many people testing different combinations, and so many people reporting how they behave on forums like TGR, we all eventually get better toys to play with.

How many of us remember "mid fat" and "fat" flat or reverse-camber skis just a couple seasons ago that spooked the hell out of people as soon as they had to ski a groomer to a lift? Now, you can watch people ripping excellent arcs on groomers with rockered fat skis as they head back to the powder playgrounds.....things are getting better and better. The ski industry needs a shot in the arm every now and then, and we're in the middle of an exciting design revolution now.

Better toys is what's it's all about!

[Vitamin I]

...there is really no reason to put any kind of positive camber in a freeride ski...

What about normal camber for higher fore/aft self-righting moment at high speeds while straightlining rough/bumpy stuff? Full rocker skis can't match that unless they get superstiff, or longer, or people adjust to them by skiing in a significantly lower stance.

...But, is there really anything good with a positive camber underfoot?...

Yes. Not absolutely good, but it's a matter of personal taste and balancing trade-offs in ski design choice.

...Wouldnt this skis be even better with a flat or a slightly negative camber?...

That's a matter of personal taste.

...The reason for positive camber seems always to be that the ski should have some performance for hardpack. It seems like most manufacturers just thinks that positive camber is something that always makes the hardpack performance better...

That's a limited view. Fore/aft self-righting moment also affects offpiste skiing, landings, many kinds of recoveries, etc.

...Maybe there is some flapping when you are going straight, but who goes straight for any long period of time in the piste?..

Uhhh, some people straightline groomers, and full reverse camber and flapping do not stop them from doing so.

...Outside of the piste, most people would agree that positive camber is not needed and that rocker makes a ski better in most conditions if it is made right. ...So, why do we have hybrids at all?

??? Are you a powder8/powder farmer guy? Are you against variety and choice? No ski is absolutely better than another. We want neither the minority nor the majority telling us what to ski, or even limiting our choices at all. Even if "the perfect ski" exists, it will not be perfect for everyone. Why would a free sport like skiing ever want "one ski to rule them all"?

.

[Like a Boss]

Awesome discussion, whether you agree with the OP or not. Just think, if this were the 80s we'd be debating the pros and cons of foam cores and cap construction of the same skinny straight shapes as the 60s.

Anyway, on quality groomed snow a full reverse ski like the new Gotama lays absolute trenches. However get it on hardpack/boilerplate and the ski only wants to go straight and flat. Carving becomes very difficult. You can ask the question as to why you'd have a full-reverse ski on boilerplate, but we are talking about a proposed elimination of + camber for freeride/big-mountain skis.

The other question is, what about hard-snow skidding? You get into hard, tight, treed, and bumped-out runouts from great pow laps and you need the ability to scrub speed through sideways skidding. This is more difficult in a full-reverse ski because of the lack of effective edge. You have diminished "braking" power as you go down in effective edge. In these situations, a traditional cambered ski like the Lhasa is easier to ski than something like the Gotama.