Does nordic camber make a difference in deep snow?

[JB TELE]

I've always felt that when trudging through deep snow, a backcountry crosscountry ski with substantial camber has little advantage over a downhill oriented backcountry ski. On more consolidated snow you get that nice pop and glide, but when plowing through powder I don't feel that.

Am I wrong here?

This season I have a new to me pair of voile objectives. I plan on using them as powder skis for the majority of mid-winter conditions out here. So far they are great, but they are definitely not a nordic ski. Do you think that a backcountry nordic ski of similar dimensions would be more efficient for touring in the kind of snow that goes above your boot tops? Or does it not really matter?

[greatgt]

In order to go up you need wax, bones or something to cruise. On the down you want breakaway speed to initiate anything you do. Double camber allows the ski to "cruise" efficiently. In other words, less drag as the camber allows the glide part of the ski to fly. My two cents! TM

[lilcliffy]

I agree- "Nordic" camber- and particularly full-on double camber not only give zero XC advantage in deep soft snow-
in my experience a stiff highly camber ski is a liability in truly deep soft snow→ one simply drives the shovel and tail into the snow- without compressing the camber underfoot→ no grip underfoot for XC skiing and climbing; and very poor turning performance.

The "camber-and-half" Nordic touring designs are a great compromise- offering good deep snow and consolidated snow XC performance.

So no, I don't think a double-cambered ski with the same width-length profile as your Objective for Nordic touring in truly deep soft snow.

Traditional Nordic touring skis- that are designed to be efficient over distance in truly deep soft snow- are not highly cambered, but they are VERY long.