A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fischer 812 Camber



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 29th 04, 01:19 AM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 29th 04, 01:26 AM
Gary Jacobson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 29th 04, 07:36 AM
Andrew Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 30th 04, 01:30 AM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 5th 05, 11:46 PM
Hank Garretson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 6th 05, 11:36 AM
Andrew Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 7th 05, 08:30 PM
Hank Garretson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 7th 05, 10:32 PM
Andrew Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fischer Centrix Classic Boot - On-Snow Review Tim Kelley Nordic Skiing 26 December 10th 04 07:11 PM
The Fischer Feed Sly D. Skeez Nordic Skiing 3 February 11th 04 03:11 AM
Fischer RSC and SCR? Jay Tegeder Nordic Skiing 6 January 6th 04 01:19 AM
REPOST: For Sale: Rare Race Stock Madshus and Fischer Tom Zidek Nordic Skiing 0 November 11th 03 06:24 AM
Fischer R&D Sly D. Skeez Nordic Skiing 2 November 5th 03 06:57 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.