If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fischer 812 Camber
I've just picked up a pair of Fischer SRC Classic skis. It has the 812
camber same as the new RCS. Just wandering what is so special about the camber style. TIA Tony Ottawa |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I was just going to ask what exactly my 902 Fischers are- I mean what makes
them special, or differentiates them from the current 812 skis? And how are these numeric designations derived? Not sure of the answer to your question, but I think it has to do with the well defined wax pocket that is either "on or off". I trust that we'll get the answers we are seeking. Gary Jacobson Rosendale, NY where there is no skiable snow. "Tony" wrote in message . .. I've just picked up a pair of Fischer SRC Classic skis. It has the 812 camber same as the new RCS. Just wandering what is so special about the camber style. TIA Tony Ottawa |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony" wrote: I've just picked up a pair of Fischer SRC Classic skis. It has the 812 camber same as the new RCS. Just wandering what is so special about the camber style. Zach Caldwell has a description he http://www.engineeredtuning.net/CSS/FischerInfo.html The graphic of the 812 camber that Fischer uses in brochures shows that the 812 has distinct bends in the camber marking the front and rear of the kick zone while the middle of the camber is flatter... overall more of a squarish (rectangular) shape. Standard cambers don't have the distinct change in shape at the front and back. They look more like leaf springs, so the kick zone lengthens or shortens with different applied loads and more of the pressure is on the ends vs. the middle of the pocket. The 812 camber's squarish shape keeps the kick wax at the ends of the pocket off the snow with partial loading, while the flatter overall shape of the camber gives it a more even pressure distribution over the length of the pocket when collapsed. Zach says that because of the shape, it does have some residual camber when collasped - but it's not a problem. If I have any of this wrong, someone please correct me. This is going way off, but this is why I was interested in learning about the 812 camber: I'll call it experiments in camber manipulation. I made it through the last two seasons or so (of citizen's racing and general skiing) with a single pair of classic race skis, Atomic Beta Race Classics warm flex, that I have found an absolute pain to wax because of excessive stiffness. It's a pair that I ended up with after my last decent classic skis broke and got warranteed. I bought a new pair of Madshus from a local shop last season that disappointingly turned out to be too stiff, though they seemed to close well on the fitting board... too bad I didn't have the shop test them in the flex tester until this season when I found out that they closed at around 97% of my weight. Next, I bought a pair of skis off Ebay that are also borderline on the stiff side. I'd like to get a new pair of skis from Zach and be done with it, but I've blown my budget and need to sell off some skis first. Classic skiing may be popular here with RSNers, but used classic skis are a difficult sell (don't understand why though because new skis seem to be a bigger fit and $ risk). I wanted skiable classic skis without spending any more money, so last week I thought that I'd experiment with my Atomics. The Atomic have always been rockets for me. The problem was that I needed to put about 15 layer of hardwax on them to get the solid kick that I like (and a dozen layers to get any kick at all). That results in a lot of time wasted waxing, and it's difficult keeping the wax smooth at that thickness. When I do manage to get the wax on, they are perfect... rockets still, with no wax drag, and rollerski like kick. Interestingly, Zach recommends against the warm flex Atomics. I now know why. I clamped my skis together with a C-clamp 8 cm behind the balance point. When closed completely, the ski was pinched down under the C-clamp obviously, but the entire rest of the wax pocket had residual camber... There was a gap from 2-3 cm in front of the clamp all the way to the front of the wax pocket and a similar gap behind the clamp all the way to the heel end of the pocket. I could fit 0.1mm thick paper folded over three times into the gaps, so that's 0.15mm of residual camber per ski in the wax pocket anywhere not directly under the pressure point. The only good thing I could see was that the front and rear of the pocket was very squarish and distinct - like the 812 Fisher skis. That's partly why I wasn't dragging wax even with 15 layers of wax. People generally say that modern skis are metal spring-like and don't lose their camber like wooden skis. I have a degree in materials engineering, so I was pretty sure that there are at least some components in modern skis that are wood-like and don't have perfect elastic memory like metal springs. My first experiment was to clamp the skis down gently at the 8 cm behind balance point with some newpaper wedged into position at the front and rear of the pocket. I didn't want to destroy the skis, so I used no more pressure than the ski would experience with me standing in them, and I didn't use any heat. The next morning, the residual gaps had shrunk down to a single thickness of paper (down from 3). I tested the 1/2 weight wax pocket and it was still the original length, so I didn't overdo anything. Going for a ski, I found that 6 layers of wax was now enough to give me some kick, but it still wasn't solid. I then did some more targeted tweaking of the camber, gradually shaping it to collapse more fully without taking out the distinct camber breaks at the ends of the pocket. I did this with careful placement of the C-clamps and newspaper wedging, and doing checks once in a while. I did the front of the pocket two days ago, skied on it, and found it had slightly better kick. Yesterday I worked on flattening the rear of the pocket. I saw that the stiffness there, if softened would reduce the overall closing flex under the forefoot significantly. Today it kicked much better with the 6 layers of wax. It still has same speed. I'll probably tweak a little bit more - I might have to remove the bindings so I can place the C-clamp where I want to near the balance point - but they're already much more useable and better skis than they used to be. I haven't played with an 812 camber ski, but I think I'm moving towards a rough approximation of it. By the way, if anyone is interested, I have some classic skis for sale. As new Madshus Hypersonic C-3 cold 200 Profil, skied on 3 or 4 times, as new condition except with lots of wax and some race prep (omniprep, rounded edges at tip and tails) kick zone not sanded yet. Probably good for 165-180 lb skier, $280. Used Rossi Xium classic powder 203 Profil, skied to a 5th at the Junior Olympics 3 years ago. Race stock and marked for 145-160lb, but I would bump up the recommendation to 155 to 170 lbs, $185. I don't have much use for the Madshus pair since skis that don't fit suck, and they are more valuable in new condition to someone else - that's what I'd like to get rid of most, but I'll consider offers for either. Otherwise, I'll hold on to them until the local ski swaps come around again next season. I was trying to sell the Atomics too, but I think I like them now and other people might not want a ski that has been tweaked. Andrew Lee |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Just did a Google on this and found...
http://www.ernordic.com/FischerRCSClassicCold.htm So it would s\appear I have to add additional layer(s) in front of the toe. When I did the paper test, I did notice the the pocket was assymmetric about the balance point, shorter in front and longer behind, than my previous skis (Bonna). Just back from a short ski, had family with me, and all appeared well. Had two layers of extra blue, the full length of pocket, which seemed to worked well. I'll try again Friday and play with additional layers. Tony Ottawa "Andrew Lee" whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom wrote in message ... "Tony" wrote: I've just picked up a pair of Fischer SRC Classic skis. It has the 812 camber same as the new RCS. Just wandering what is so special about the camber style. Zach Caldwell has a description he http://www.engineeredtuning.net/CSS/FischerInfo.html The graphic of the 812 camber that Fischer uses in brochures shows that the 812 has distinct bends in the camber marking the front and rear of the kick zone while the middle of the camber is flatter... overall more of a squarish (rectangular) shape. Standard cambers don't have the distinct change in shape at the front and back. They look more like leaf springs, so the kick zone lengthens or shortens with different applied loads and more of the pressure is on the ends vs. the middle of the pocket. The 812 camber's squarish shape keeps the kick wax at the ends of the pocket off the snow with partial loading, while the flatter overall shape of the camber gives it a more even pressure distribution over the length of the pocket when collapsed. Zach says that because of the shape, it does have some residual camber when collasped - but it's not a problem. If I have any of this wrong, someone please correct me. This is going way off, but this is why I was interested in learning about the 812 camber: I'll call it experiments in camber manipulation. I made it through the last two seasons or so (of citizen's racing and general skiing) with a single pair of classic race skis, Atomic Beta Race Classics warm flex, that I have found an absolute pain to wax because of excessive stiffness. It's a pair that I ended up with after my last decent classic skis broke and got warranteed. I bought a new pair of Madshus from a local shop last season that disappointingly turned out to be too stiff, though they seemed to close well on the fitting board... too bad I didn't have the shop test them in the flex tester until this season when I found out that they closed at around 97% of my weight. Next, I bought a pair of skis off Ebay that are also borderline on the stiff side. I'd like to get a new pair of skis from Zach and be done with it, but I've blown my budget and need to sell off some skis first. Classic skiing may be popular here with RSNers, but used classic skis are a difficult sell (don't understand why though because new skis seem to be a bigger fit and $ risk). I wanted skiable classic skis without spending any more money, so last week I thought that I'd experiment with my Atomics. The Atomic have always been rockets for me. The problem was that I needed to put about 15 layer of hardwax on them to get the solid kick that I like (and a dozen layers to get any kick at all). That results in a lot of time wasted waxing, and it's difficult keeping the wax smooth at that thickness. When I do manage to get the wax on, they are perfect... rockets still, with no wax drag, and rollerski like kick. Interestingly, Zach recommends against the warm flex Atomics. I now know why. I clamped my skis together with a C-clamp 8 cm behind the balance point. When closed completely, the ski was pinched down under the C-clamp obviously, but the entire rest of the wax pocket had residual camber... There was a gap from 2-3 cm in front of the clamp all the way to the front of the wax pocket and a similar gap behind the clamp all the way to the heel end of the pocket. I could fit 0.1mm thick paper folded over three times into the gaps, so that's 0.15mm of residual camber per ski in the wax pocket anywhere not directly under the pressure point. The only good thing I could see was that the front and rear of the pocket was very squarish and distinct - like the 812 Fisher skis. That's partly why I wasn't dragging wax even with 15 layers of wax. People generally say that modern skis are metal spring-like and don't lose their camber like wooden skis. I have a degree in materials engineering, so I was pretty sure that there are at least some components in modern skis that are wood-like and don't have perfect elastic memory like metal springs. My first experiment was to clamp the skis down gently at the 8 cm behind balance point with some newpaper wedged into position at the front and rear of the pocket. I didn't want to destroy the skis, so I used no more pressure than the ski would experience with me standing in them, and I didn't use any heat. The next morning, the residual gaps had shrunk down to a single thickness of paper (down from 3). I tested the 1/2 weight wax pocket and it was still the original length, so I didn't overdo anything. Going for a ski, I found that 6 layers of wax was now enough to give me some kick, but it still wasn't solid. I then did some more targeted tweaking of the camber, gradually shaping it to collapse more fully without taking out the distinct camber breaks at the ends of the pocket. I did this with careful placement of the C-clamps and newspaper wedging, and doing checks once in a while. I did the front of the pocket two days ago, skied on it, and found it had slightly better kick. Yesterday I worked on flattening the rear of the pocket. I saw that the stiffness there, if softened would reduce the overall closing flex under the forefoot significantly. Today it kicked much better with the 6 layers of wax. It still has same speed. I'll probably tweak a little bit more - I might have to remove the bindings so I can place the C-clamp where I want to near the balance point - but they're already much more useable and better skis than they used to be. I haven't played with an 812 camber ski, but I think I'm moving towards a rough approximation of it. By the way, if anyone is interested, I have some classic skis for sale. As new Madshus Hypersonic C-3 cold 200 Profil, skied on 3 or 4 times, as new condition except with lots of wax and some race prep (omniprep, rounded edges at tip and tails) kick zone not sanded yet. Probably good for 165-180 lb skier, $280. Used Rossi Xium classic powder 203 Profil, skied to a 5th at the Junior Olympics 3 years ago. Race stock and marked for 145-160lb, but I would bump up the recommendation to 155 to 170 lbs, $185. I don't have much use for the Madshus pair since skis that don't fit suck, and they are more valuable in new condition to someone else - that's what I'd like to get rid of most, but I'll consider offers for either. Otherwise, I'll hold on to them until the local ski swaps come around again next season. I was trying to sell the Atomics too, but I think I like them now and other people might not want a ski that has been tweaked. Andrew Lee |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
At 23:54 28 12 04 Tuesday, Andrew Lee wrote:
I'll call it experiments in camber manipulation. Very interesting and fascinating. Question: Are the mods you made permanent? Are they still there a week later? A month later? Ski Exuberantly, Hank Mammoth Lakes, Calif. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Hank Garretson" wrote: At 23:54 28 12 04 Tuesday, Andrew Lee wrote: I'll call it experiments in camber manipulation. Very interesting and fascinating. Question: Are the mods you made permanent? Are they still there a week later? A month later? Yes, the changes are permanent. Basically, I think I caused the nomex (the top line Atomics have a nomex honeycomb core and probably some other materials) and/or resins in the core to "creep". At room temperature this is also known as "cold flow". I'm pretty sure that the core materials are creeping and not cracking because the actual stress level that I am using is very low, but is held for a relatively long time. Creep could be considered a form of damage, but at this low level of movement in the camber of the skis and even lower movement in the individual fibers, I am almost certain that it is insignificant, and I'm sure it won't go back to the original camber. I wouldn't recommend this for your new skis though! I raced this weekend for the first time after playing with the Atomics, and I have to admit that I was dragging wax for the first time on these skis. I don't think I killed the skis, because they were good until I put a last minute overly thick and roughly corked layer of special red on. I looked at the camber carefully just now, gradually closing the skis together with a C-clamp and I noticed that the obvious wax pocket (now tiny residual camber sighted between the skis with a light behind the skis) is now 54 cm, down from 59 cm and all of it is in the front, so I was dragging 5 cm of special red. I hadn't noticed it with the colder extra blue and multi-grade violet waxes earlier in the week. 54 cm is within the range of 50-55 cm for powder skis recommended in this 1996 article: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jaydavis/f...waxpocket.html so, I'm not worried that I shortened the pocket too much. I've seen that some newer skis like the 812 are supposed to have wax pockets in the 60 cm range though. Shameless FS repeated: I inspected the new Madshus mentioned before that are too stiff for me. They close in from the ends and don't leave residual gaps as expected from the traditional design. Nothing funky going on like my Atomics. I klister skied on them with the slick unsanded new bases and could easily see the wax pocket length from the wear of the klister. They have a 60 cm pocket from 25 cm behind the boot pin forward at my weight of 150 lbs. Flex tested recently at the ski shop I bought them from (they don't accept skis for return after bindings have been mounted), they are still open at 140 lb and are closed at 145 lbs, so that's around 96% of my weight, way too stiff. Looking at the RSN archives on google, 85% is recommended as the ceiling for all around non-klister specialist skis, so the minimum skier weight would be around 168 lbs. Even 200 lbs would be around 71%, so that probably wouldn't be too heavy. The 60 cm pocket at my weight of 150 lb will definitely shrink down at a higher skier weight because of the this traditional close-from-the-ends design. It would probably be in or close to that 50-55 cm range recommended in the above linked article for a skier in the 168-190 lb range. Here's a somewhat more detailed version of the original FS: As new Madshus Hypersonic C-3 (last year's model), cold 200 cm, Profil bindings, skied on 3 or 4 times, AS NEW condition except with lots of wax (star uniblock yellow saturated) and some race prep (omniprep, rounded edges at tip and tails) kick zone not sanded yet. Good for 168-190 lb skier, $280 or best offer, less without bindings. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
At 03:55 6 01 05 Thursday, Andrew Lee wrote:
Question: Are the mods you made permanent? Are they still there a week later? A month later? Yes, the changes are permanent. Thanks Andrew. Please keep us informed. Ski Exuberantly, Hank Mammoth Lakes, Calif. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Hank Garretson" wrote: At 03:55 6 01 05 Thursday, Andrew Lee wrote: Question: Are the mods you made permanent? Are they still there a week later? A month later? Yes, the changes are permanent. Thanks Andrew. Please keep us informed. I think that as long as I'm having fun with this pair of skis, I'll play around with it until I get it "perfect". Last night I was thinking about the wax dragging over the weekend, but mainly thinking about a discontinuity in the camber. A point 6 cm back from the front of the pocket hits before any other part of the wax pocket There's some residual camber in front of that, which is bad because it negates the effectiveness of the extra length of the pocket in front of that. I tried to get rid of this discountinuity while moving the front edge of the pocket forward a bit by wedging a dry kitchen sponge under the discontinuity and clamping in front, bending the ski upwards where I want the front of the pocket. I just unclamped it and the discontinuity is indeed much smaller, but the overall camber is higher (much less than before I started experimenting though), so I made the ski a bit stiffer. I was glad to see that it got stiffer. That shows that the areas that I'm bending are not made "dead", but are instead changed in shape kind of like working with wood. I'm going to ski on it to see what it's like now, but I think the place I really want to tweak the camber is right under the binding mechanism. I can't clamp down on that part without removing the bindings, so I'm putting that off for later. I image that what I'm doing is not too far off from what was done to make the camber in the skis in the first place, though they probably do it while the resins are still curing. I think Wenner had a report on a ski factory tour video (?) a while back, and what he came with was "don't touch the screws!" Andrew Lee |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fischer Centrix Classic Boot - On-Snow Review | Tim Kelley | Nordic Skiing | 26 | December 10th 04 06:11 PM |
The Fischer Feed | Sly D. Skeez | Nordic Skiing | 3 | February 11th 04 02:11 AM |
Fischer RSC and SCR? | Jay Tegeder | Nordic Skiing | 6 | January 6th 04 12:19 AM |
REPOST: For Sale: Rare Race Stock Madshus and Fischer | Tom Zidek | Nordic Skiing | 0 | November 11th 03 05:24 AM |
Fischer R&D | Sly D. Skeez | Nordic Skiing | 2 | November 5th 03 05:57 PM |