Skis lost camber (and grew rocker?)

[flbufl]

Hi Everyone,

I have a pair of Blossom FlyUp cheater GS skis in 174 cm for about 4 years. Approximately they have been skied 40-50 days. I took it to the shop for base grind and full tune up only once just before this season.
I am in New England. I usually ski them on hard-pack/icy condition. Half of the days are 3 hours night skiing.

I recently bought another pair of very similar skis (same sidecut, from the same Blossom factory, different brand).
When direct comparing the old skis to the brand new, never skied skis, I realized the Blossom lost significant amount of camber, and grew some rocker... (It should have no rocker by design.)

It must have lost some edge hold and rebound, but are still completely skiable.
My questions are: is this normal wearing? Or anything I did wrong to the skis?

Just saw a tip from @ScotsSkier in another thread mentioning putting block of wood between the skis to keep the camber during storage. Should I start to do this?



The yellow ones are the old Blossom skis. The blue ones are the new skis.

 

[Philpug]

@ScotsSkier was being facetious with the wood block, it is something we had to do with old wooden skis.

Race ski have a lot of metal in them...metal while dampening the ski, is very suspectable to bending. It is nto uncommon for race skis to lose camber in them especially when they are used for their intended purpose.

Side note, whoever pulled the sidewalls back on the skis with the blue sidewalls, did a beautiful job.

 

[4ster]

Just saw a tip from @ScotsSkier in another thread mentioning putting block of wood between the skis to keep the camber during storage. Should I start to do this?

This was standard procedure back in the wooden ski days, never heard of it with modern skis.
I have seen skis lose a small amount of camber with time & use but never gain rocker/rise. Could they have warped in storage somehow? Some skis have more camber than others depending on design & materials. You say these skis are different models, so maybe not a fair comparison?

EDIT: Looks like @Philpug was posting while I was writing

 

[flbufl]

Hi Phil,

Blossom started to use this so-called concave sidewall ~2 years ago. All skis from the Blossom factory should have this type of sidewall now. IIRC, the purpose of it is for easy tuning.

@ScotsSkier was being facetious with the wood block, it is something we had to do with old wooden skis.

Race ski have a lot of metal in them...metal while dampening the ski, is very suspectable to bending. It is nto uncommon for race skis to lose camber in them especially when they are used for their intended purpose.

Side note, whoever pulled the sidewalls back on the skis with the blue sidewalls, did a beautiful job.

@ScotsSkier was being facetious with the wood block, it is something we had to do with old wooden skis.

Race ski have a lot of metal in them...metal while dampening the ski, is very suspectable to bending. It is nto uncommon for race skis to lose camber in them especially when they are used for their intended purpose.

Side note, whoever pulled the sidewalls back on the skis with the blue sidewalls, did a beautiful job.

 

[mdf]

That happened to my skis with a little more than 50 days on them, as reported in another thread. I'm surprised your race ski did that, too.

The poor things just got tired. They once had camber underfoot.
View attachment 95656
View attachment 95657
View attachment 95658

 

[dbostedo]

Silly question maybe.... any chance that the brakes are locked together differently on one pair than the other, and keeping you from seeing the real camber?

 

[KingGrump]

I'm surprised your race ski did that, too.

They do.
I have a pair of non cambered Atomic FIS SL with tail rockers. Gently used by my little boy. Can cut you a great deal on them.

 

[Eleeski]

I'm going to say that a wood block between your skis for storage IS a good thing. If your ski has a wood core, wood does move with time. If your storage gets hot, resins flow over time and can slowly move if stored improperly.

The wooden core waterskis I built all warped enough to ruin the performance of the ski. I've used a heat gun to visibly bend a composite ski.

Loss of rocker will have a significant effect on how the ski feels. Don't exacerbate the problem with your storage techniques. A block for the summer is ridiculously easy.

Eric

 

[Uncle-A]

I don't think the 40 - 50 days is enough to be a ski killer. How you store the skis is important, do not store skis with the breaks locked together. The long term storage over the summer with the breaks locked may be the cause of this issue. You said that you purchased the second set from the same factory before you noticed the lack of camber, it is unfortunate that you ended up with another pair of skis coming out of the same factory. I don't think I would have purchased a ski from the same factory if I only got 50 days out of the previous ski. If I don't get 100 days out of a ski, I go to another manufacture.

 

[flbufl]

No. They were mounted with the VIST SpeedLock plates. When I first discovered this, the bindings are removed from the skis.

Silly question maybe.... any chance that the brakes are locked together differently on one pair than the other, and keeping you from seeing the real camber?

 

[Doug Briggs]

Comparing apples and oranges is never a good idea.

The amount of tip splay is not incongruous with modern design. That they didn't advertise it doesn't mean it wasn't there. My Stockli SGs have that and are not defective, but that's apples and kumquats.

Various skis have lots of camber, others don't. Only comparing the same ski with its former self or an identical new ski will result in useful data.

 

[flbufl]

I am pretty sure they came from the same mold. They may have different stiffness though.

Also, I remember the rocker was not there when the skis was new.

Comparing apples and oranges is never a good idea.

The amount of tip splay is not incongruous with modern design. That they didn't advertise it doesn't mean it wasn't there. My Stockli SGs have that and are not defective, but that's apples and kumquats.

Various skis have lots of camber, others don't. Only comparing the same ski with its former self or an identical new ski will result in useful data.

 

[crgildart]

We may finally have an answer to the question.. "do these skis make my butt look big"? Seriously though, when I weighed 120 I could ski a ski for 15 years without killing the camber. After quitting smoking and everything else and adding 50 pounds, I'm also only getting about 50 days before they start to feel noodly.

 

[mdf]

I figured the fact that I prefer fairly soft skis was coming back to bite me. But the aspect @crgildart notes might have something to do with it too.

 

[cantunamunch]

I don't think the 40 - 50 days is enough to be a ski killer. .... If I don't get 100 days out of a ski, I go to another manufacture.

This thread has been about longitudinal flex. Torsional flex is even worse - and, unlike changes to camber, you can't see torsional strength drop off by looking at in the ski.

50-60 days with a heavyweight on SL skis? They're toast torsionally even if the camber is good - and you'd run out of manufacturers quick. A bunch of mfgs and aftermarketers have tried to control this using flex arms and sliding flex members - to not much avail.

Only comparing the same ski with its former self or an identical new ski will result in useful data.

And that's where I was going to make the point - 'ski feel' (no peeking at the ski!) doesn't cleanly distinguish between loss of torsional strength and loss of longitudinal stiffness because both of these are active at, say, the beginning of the turn.

Sure, the new skis feel crisper and readier to turn, but assigning that to one quantity over the other is ... an imprecise art at best.

 

[Uncle-A]

This thread has been about longitudinal flex. Torsional flex is even worse - and, unlike changes to camber, you can't see torsional strength drop off by looking at in the ski.

50-60 days with a heavyweight on SL skis? They're toast torsionally even if the camber is good - and you'd run out of manufacturers quick.

I would like to see the statistics on that with a curve base on say 20 lbs increments. What do you consider "heavyweight" because not many of the top SL racers are big people. The OP was talking about the cheater GS skis not SL skis.

 

[cantunamunch]

I would like to see the statistics on that with a curve base on say 20 lbs increments.

It would be nice to have those numbers as factory fatigue numbers - but nobody is going to do that, especially the hard way. I say the hard way (instead of in test jigs) because but you'd also need turn speed controlled in sub-5mph increments. And turn radius control in given increments.

What do you consider "heavyweight" because not many of the top SL racers are big people.

It applies to anyone using skis to do hard edging on hard snow - top racer or not.

The OP was talking about the cheater GS skis not SL skis.

Yes, I know, but my point stands - torsional softening will still be part of the loss of 'feel' in addition to any loss of camber. Cheater GS radii are not that much different to SL ones.

 

[hbear]

Skis lose their camber and pop, easily can tell when skiing for a season and then picking up a new ski of the same model.
Especially race skis when we are talking about hard days on them in training. Our SL skis are toast after a season, they can certainly be skied but the pop is very much gone.

 

[Philpug]

Skis lose their camber and pop, easily can tell when skiing for a season and then picking up a new ski of the same model.
Especially race skis when we are talking about hard days on them in training. Our SL skis are toast after a season, they can certainly be skied but the pop is very much gone.

This is what some feel it is better to have A/B skis verses racers and trainers when you have two pair of SL's or GS's. Trainers will wear out before a pristine racer so you will experience different performances. When you have A/B skis and ski them both equally, the performance between the two skis is more consistant.

 

[Uncle-A]

It would be nice to have those numbers as factory fatigue numbers - but nobody is going to do that, especially the hard way. I say the hard way (instead of in test jigs) because but you'd also need turn speed controlled in sub-5mph increments. And turn radius control in given increments.



It applies to anyone using skis to do hard edging on hard snow - top racer or not.



Yes, I know, but my point stands - torsional softening will still be part of the loss of 'feel' in addition to any loss of camber. Cheater GS radii are not that much different to SL ones.

If factory data is not given out how did you get your number of 50 - 60 days? My 100 days is based on customer feedback from when I worked in a shop. Maybe the people that say 125 days are lighter weight but most people I have had contact with seem to say 100 days is a benchmark. Maybe a pole could be done here in the PUGSKI community about what their expectations of life expectancy of a ski.