Full camber vs rocker/camber

[MonomarkMark]

Rocker is an easily measured thing, for ANY ski.
For tip rocker:
1) lay ski flat
2) Run a tape from exactly where the base toward the front of the ski starts to bend upwards.
3)Drop a line straight from the top of the tip down to the tape.
4) That distance measured by the tape where it intersects the dropped line is the amount of tip rocker.
5) The length of the line that was dropped is called the splay.
6) Most people will think the splay is the rocker, but it's
not. Where rocker starts, running length of the ski and camber both effectively end (if there is camber).
That's all there is to it.

[Manney]

Doesn’t sound to me like the OP was asking how to define or measure rocker. Even dropped hints like “free ride” and”skidding” which are dog whistle terms for full-on twin tip powder-oriented skis.

Maybe there’s room for debate on definitional issues… sure wish terminology was standardized. But skis and skiing has evolved a lot over the past decade or so. Probably more than in the 20 years prior to that. Just the way it is. Trying to put the genie back into the bottle isn’t likely to succeed unless you’re the chair of FIS.

[MonomarkMark]

Yea, he was asking about "full camber" vs rocker-camber-rocker and I told him was full camber was a term without meaning which involved explaining how camber and rocker are related. And then he asked me a couple other questions. In any case, in order to understand camber or rocker it helps to be able to measure measure them.
You have a much greater chance of meaningful discussion if you can clarify terms.
Twin tips are not full rocker; they are just heavily rockered tips and tails.
Fully rockered (reverse cambered) skis are generally the rage for deep powder, not standard twin tips.

[Manney]

You’re not wrong by any stretch… but your approach isn’t something that is universally accepted or advertised. So a person could go around the world and visit every ski shop with a measuring tape in hand… and be no further ahead in a discussion of this type.

Neither camber nor rocker (or r-c-r) are described in anything but normative terms. Wish that it were different but it happens everywhere… how is “heavily rockered” defined? How long is a piece of string? LOL

On the issue of handling, my pref would be some camber for firm surfaces or crud. More stable, less playful. Less chance of digging a tip in if skied deliberately. But more chance of digging a tip if skied loose and casual.

Twin tip with no or reverse camber (latter might be called continuous rocker, full rocker, or just reverse camber)… wouldn’t split the difference in soft powder. Both would work but neither are technical skis. So lots of loose skids. Hard surface with crud on these skis? No thanks.

If forced to choose, a twin tip with a little camber would be a very livable recreational ski tho. Explains their popularity. This kind of ski has really found a solid following in one quiver set ups, which is what most young people live with.

[Andinista]

What about side cut? I see some analogies there. Is taper the same as reverse side cut? Would “side” apply to tips and tails properly?

[Manney]

Not sure about the ambiguities of which you speak. The prevailing view is that side cut is good for turning, less so for directional stability. The big selling point is turn radius but this is more of a calculated figure than a real world one… but it is indicative. Wouldn’t necessarily choose one ski over another because of a small difference in turning radius but a big difference might get me thinking.

Your initial post said you’ve been doing testing over a number of years. Any personal observations, conclusions emerging on sidecut?

[MonomarkMark]

You’re not wrong by any stretch… but your approach isn’t something that is universally accepted or advertised. So a person could go around the world and visit every ski shop with a measuring tape in hand… and be no further ahead in a discussion of this type.

Neither camber nor rocker (or r-c-r) are described in anything but normative terms. Wish that it were different but it happens everywhere… how is “heavily rockered” defined? How long is a piece of string? LOL

On the issue of handling, my pref would be some camber for firm surfaces or crud. More stable, less playful. Less chance of digging a tip in if skied deliberately. But more chance of digging a tip if skied loose and casual.

Twin tip with no or reverse camber (latter might be called continuous rocker, full rocker, or just reverse camber)… wouldn’t split the difference in soft powder. Both would work but neither are technical skis. So lots of loose skids. Hard surface with crud on these skis? No thanks.

If forced to choose, a twin tip with a little camber would be a very livable recreational ski tho. Explains their popularity. This kind of ski has really found a solid following in one quiver set ups, which is what most young people live with.

Well, my "approach" is hypothetical though universally applicable, and accepted by the folks who actually make skis; it's a design feature of "ski". So there's no need to do anything except consider a single tip on any given ski. A tip is a tip is a tip and it's rockered. Considered abstractly "rocker" is inherently in "ski tip".
Also camber is more about weight distribution than concern about digging in tips. You can always catch a tip irrespective of camber.
The length of the piece of string measures splay, not rocker. And it is exactly the measure of splay from level. The horizontal line of the triangle measures rocker because rocker starts where curvature begins. It's basic right triangle Geometry. Splay/rocker= slope, or how abruptly the tip rises.
Full rocker means 0 camber by definition. Where you have one, you don't have the other. Full rocker is the maximum rocker so anything less, is less. Full rocker still does not tell you much about splay, though in practical terms you might guess more rocker, more splay but that's not necessary.
Twin tips vary in terms of camber and are, of course, common in the parks.
Had a friend, great skier, heli-guide, skied the K2 Hellbent, twin tips, camber. Loved them, skied literally everything on them. He also loved the Armada JJ's. He could ski anything at a high level and was in his 70's. Had given up Tele. I mention this because you seem to intimate that skis are specific to age and I can assure you they are not though it's true we see more twin tips in the parks but we also see the younger crowd on every ski design imaginable and you don't show up for race practice on twin tipped skis.

[wabene]

This was informative @MonomarkMark , thanks. When figuring the real world effects of a ski design on performance, you would want to consider rocker in conjunction with splay, correct?

[Manney]

Sure. Most of what you say is true @MonomarkMark. But not always. That’s the rub.

Like camber and pressure (true) or pressure and digging a tip in (not true if loosely controlled, crud etc.).

Agree on full rocker etc. Not sure if any or all of the definitions are “universally applicable” by manufacturers tho… Not saying you’re incorrect… just no clear evidence of universal definitions at the design level. Lots of evidence the other way… loose language in ad copy, which is what is published.

Not initamting anything between age and ability, though reaction time, coordination, etc. favors the young. Which explains why practically everyone on the podium is under 30, not over 50. Hard to argue against success in competitive sports.

Here’s the point about a one ski quiver and age tho… young ppl generally don’t make enough money, or have enough of it laying around, to drop $6k on a quiver. So the majority of young ppl are on one set of skis.

[MonomarkMark]

This was informative @MonomarkMark , thanks. When figuring the real world effects of a ski design on performance, you would want to consider rocker in conjunction with splay, correct?

Hi Wabene,
Most folks are going to look at the splay as an indication of rocker, which is understandable but not exactly accurate. In any case, I think relative to your question, what's really important is splay/rocker (which measures how abruptly the tip comes to the apex of splay) in that you don't want a tip that is shoving snow hard rather than smoothly angling up out of it. That , of course, has been considered by whoever designed the ski. Short answer is the maker should have taken care of splay issues in terms of splay/rocker (pitch) so it's probably not worth worrying about.