Asymmetric camber?

[agiocochook]

As this is my first post, a quick intro...I live in the white mountains area of NH and made some snowboards back in the mid-80's, and have been meaning to try skis since. What finally knocked me loose, though, was stumbling on to this site....a community! Woulda' vastly shortened the learning curve when I tried this before!...already got more beta than I know how to file.

Anyhow, my question -- I traced the camber profile of my current skis (starting out by mostly copying the skis I'm on, sort of as a baseline) and it came out asymmetric towards the tails...is this 'cuz the binding placement is aft of center?...or just sloppy tracing?...

Btw, any other northern new englanders out there?

Thanks much, Scott

[falls]

I think a lot of skis have a camber bias backwards of ski centre
Most people mount boot centre a bit bacwards of centre
Maybe companies aim to have the high point of the camber right under your foot where you can take most advantage of the spring/pop the camber creates?

[skidesmond]

The skis I made have the boot center about 2.5 inches behind the mid point of the running length of the ski and the camber is at the highest point under the boot center. I also have the narrowest width of the ski at the same point.

I don't know if this is "right" but as Falls says, it makes sense to have the high point of the camber under foot. Some one making twin tips may want the camber in the exact center of the ski and I imagine the boot center would be at the same point, although just guessing, since I'm making your typical "eastern" ski.

[MontuckyMadman]

I think the camber point makes the most sense dependent on the radius side cut placement. Some skis are symmetrical with the narrow point dead center. Some are setback.
Usually you will have between 55-65% of the ski in front of your toes so the camber point should be relative to mount point. As well as the core profile as well. Changing the flex pattern.

The most recent skis I made are core profile on center but the ski dimensions are tapered so to the rear of the ski has a softer flex than the tip because the ski is narrower. Even though the core is tapered evenly the flex pattern is backwards than what I wanted. I wanted softer tip/stiffer tail. Its backwards I'm kinda pissed.

I put oak sidewalls on them to, they are stiff.

[agiocochook]

Thanks for the feedback. Makes sense to me, but I couldn't find any reference indicating that the camber is either, always centered, or sometimes asymmetric....

When I was making snowboards, I thought it might be better to center the throat/camber/profile on the front foot (rather than in between), allowing for more, and better controlled, flex of the board. I did this by playing with the geometry of the board, and by moving the rider's position further back than was standard. It worked great as a carving board, but difficult to move around quickly in bumps etc. At the time, I happened to meet Mike Olson (founder of Gnu) by chance, and he was also playing around with where the sidecut throated. But, where my ski background led me to orient it around the front foot (driving turn), as a surfer, Mike throated his at the rear foot (pivot turn)...which made for some wickedly asymmetric sidecut. 'Course, the Gnu prototype I still have (somewhere..) also has a split tail and five, count 'em, five fins!...