BC 125 or BC 110 ??

[lilcliffy]

The firmer the snow, the more camber you can "tolerate".

In my humble opinion it is more than just tolerate. There is a reason why Alpine racing skis still have a traditional single camber. On a hard/dense surface a cambered ski is going to have a much more effective edge than a rockered ski.

And yes- when it comes to Nordic skis- that can be stiff and cambered enough to offer a significant wax/traction pocket- on deep enough/soft enough snow, a Nordic ski can be so stiff and cambered it is almost impossible to flatten out and reverse-flex them in a downhill turn.

Also Rod being really light like he is, probably can't tolerate much camber anyway. Me, being more solid can easily squash out most any camber except the stiff DCs.

Yes again- skier weight is nothing to ignore in any context.

Skier technique also plays a significant role in the flex pattern that one might prefer- in a given snow/terrain context.

[Rodbelan]

I am not an advocate of flat or reverse camber skis... (these are specialized skis, mainly for powder). Like you are saying, racing skis have camber: SINGLE CAMBER... As for people who prefer « short double camber skis for downhill», I am really not following you... almost skeptical...

The BC90: ah, the worst skis I ever bought! They don't climb well, the don't track well and don't turn well... They are a combination of xc ski, backcountry ski, with a sidecut to make em turn... in a frankensteinish way... Rossi's recommendation regarding weight/lenght shouldn't be followed... I was really into the weight bracket (not on the fringe) that needs a 169... but the darn thing was't climbing at all... I guess I should have bought the 159... Even when you look at them, they do not seem right. Some of the Madshus (and Karhus), with their 1 1/2 camber look better and are better as far as I am concerned...

I won't talk about the Fischer... Why? Because I do not know them...

But we can get use to anything... Antoine, tu vas surement trouver moyen d'aimer ces skis là, d'une façon ou d'une autre...

[lilcliffy]

As for people who prefer « short double camber skis for downhill», I am really not following you... almost skeptical...

HA! Don't get me wrong here! I personally hate stiff, truly double-cambered skis when downhill skiing! (Especially seeing all of my double-cambered skis are a true xcountry length- intended to offer true XC performance.)

Until I began to browse this site, the only reference I had ever read or seen of downhill skiing on double-cambered skis was my old copy of Steve Barnett's "Crosscountry-Downhill". But, I have been in discussions with many older, traditional backcountry skiers that have skied on relatively stiff, truly double-cambered skis for decades (e.g. E-99/Glittertind/BC65/BC70). I would have had trouble believing it without seeing the videos! HOWEVER- my observation is that these "telemark" skiers are using double-cambered skis in a length that is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than a XC-length for their given weight. In other words- the ski is short enough that they can flatten the camber underfoot with just half of their weight. (By comparison- all of my double-cambered skis are long enough to offer a true wax pocket, and are intended for XC skiing).

For XCD skiing: I much prefer either single cambered- or "camber-and-a-half" (i.e. a very slight, low second camber; e.g. Eon/S-78/Ingstad/E-109).

The BC90: ah, the worst skis I ever bought! They don't climb well, the don't track well and don't turn well... They are a combination of xc ski, backcountry ski, with a sidecut to make em turn... in a frankensteinish way...

Great description- I love it!

but the darn thing was't climbing at all...

Has Rossi improved their waxless traction design? To be completely honest I have always hated it!

Also- if the BC90 is double-cambered- and the sizing chart preserves a wax pocket- then I am not surprised that they are poor climbers. IME- properly XC-sized double-cambered skis have absolutely brutal climbing performance.

[Rodbelan]

As for people who prefer « short double camber skis for downhill», I am really not following you... almost skeptical...

HA! Don't get me wrong here! I personally hate stiff, truly double-cambered skis when downhill skiing! (Especially seeing all of my double-cambered skis are a true xcountry length- intended to offer true XC performance.)

Until I began to browse this site, the only reference I had ever read or seen of downhill skiing on double-cambered skis was my old copy of Steve Barnett's "Crosscountry-Downhill". But, I have been in discussions with many older, traditional backcountry skiers that have skied on relatively stiff, truly double-cambered skis for decades (e.g. E-99/Glittertind/BC65/BC70). I would have had trouble believing it without seeing the videos! HOWEVER- my observation is that these "telemark" skiers are using double-cambered skis in a length that is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than a XC-length for their given weight. In other words- the ski is short enough that they can flatten the camber underfoot with just half of their weight. (By comparison- all of my double-cambered skis are long enough to offer a true wax pocket, and are intended for XC skiing).

Ok, ok, ok, I understand... You mean the old school kind of skiing... Yeah, I do that once in a while: Glittertind with 3 pin and leather on the groomers... but it is not where that kit excels... I thought you were saying that some prefer that sort of skiing today... They are pretty rare...

[lilcliffy]

Just a note to this discussion:

I was in my local shop yesterday evening and thoroughly flexed the current BC-110.

The BC-110 has a low single camber- just like the Guide/Annum.

The flex of the BC-110 feels very close to the Guide/Annum to me- perhaps a bit stiffer- BUT definitely not a stiff ski. It has the flex pattern of a powder ski- IMHO. The current BC-110 is not as stiff and cambered as the S-Bound 112 in my opinion...

The tips are slightly rockered and open a bit more when the camber is compressed.

They are a beautiful ski- very similar to the Annum and the S-112 from my perspective- in between the Annum and the S-112 in terms of stiffness. The BC110 would be a niche XCD ski for me, just like the Annum.


The waxless pattern on the BC110 does NOT appear to be updated however- I personally have despised Rossi's waxless scale designs in the past.

The BC125 flex pattern doesn't feel significantly different from the BC110 to me....And I personally would need significant boot power to drive the same 125 on any truly steep terrain.

My local shop did not have the current BC-90 for comparison...

[gulfofslides]

I think you are missing the mark here. I use a head monster Alpinist for light duty touring. See this review
http://www.skipass.com/tests/ski/head_m ... 13054.html
Just use narrow race skins(60mm) and glide will be okay on flats and moderate uphill. Otherwise blue kick wax but that would have to be scraped off. Just my 2 cents

[lilcliffy]

I think you are missing the mark here. I use a head monster Alpinist for light duty touring. See this review
http://www.skipass.com/tests/ski/head_m ... 13054.html
Just use narrow race skins(60mm) and glide will be okay on flats and moderate uphill. Otherwise blue kick wax but that would have to be scraped off. Just my 2 cents

What "mark" is it that is being missed?

[dnt_upton]

What "mark" is it that is being missed?

That those Rossi skis and their "air cores" are POSs, so just get a decent ski of the dimensions you want. If you want scales, go with Voile. Maybe G3 too, though I can't say I've ever tried those.

The Rossi skis can get the job done for lots of terrain and probably are more than fine for a variety of situations. But they're cheaply made.

[MikeK]

I don't know that the air core is cheaply made - I think perhaps they are copying Fischer and it allows them to build a lower cost cap with the appropriate strength and stiffness by using heavier materials and still keep some weight down.

Sure you can get a lighter board with those similar dimensions, but it will likely cost twice as much. It will also likely use carbon fiber and Paulownia wood. This seems to be all the rage in the latest AT/Skimo lightweight skis. Not really revolutionary I don't think, but just widespread now. We'll see how sustainable that is...

I honestly think paying $600-1000 for a pair of skis is silly. It's like buying a 4-6k dollar bike. Sure they are really well made and perform awesome, but you can get something that performs to 90% of that for less than half the price not to mention they retain almost NO residual value. The market changes so quick that used gear isn't even worth 50% of what retail is, and retail is highly inflated to get those big first year/second year sales. After it's not a new thing anymore, the price drops rapidly and it becomes more common place. Most XCD skis use older XC and DH tech, and are made using more traditional materials to give a good blend of everything. If they put the latest, greatest tech into these skis, I don't think anyone would buy them. Hell, most people aren't even willing to spend the $300 retail prices!

If you are going to buy a ski and ski it for 10 years, then yeah, maybe it makes sense to spend that money... but if you are going to be replacing it in a couple years because you want the next best thing, then you are just tossing a lot of money away IMO.

Just think about all the awesome skis you bought 10-15 years ago that you thought were AWESOME at the time, but are completely obsolete now.

[raisin'heel]

I am a fan of Rossignol BC 125's! They are unique with big camber, but are fast and efficient for powder, super responsive, great floatation compared to the 110's. Caveat: bindings MUST be more centered/forward so that ball of foot, not pin, is on center/balance point (+2.5"+). I just got a newer version from my older (orange) ones, moved the bindings forward, and looking to get out on them! The newer ones appear to have somewhat less camber....