Katana 108 - the resurrerection

Most of my skis are reverse camber. Never once complained about them being dead feeling. 4frnt devestators absolutely kill groomers with plenty of pop. But I’m not an engineer. Just know what skis feel like on my feet. Only bad thing about full reverse camber, that I’ve found, is decreased suspension on bumpy traverses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

A positive camber ski is a leaf spring.

How do you load up a reverse camber ski? You can’t compress both ends simultaneously on a plane.

---

Uh, they’re wider in the tips and tails. When you roll them over the sidecut allows the tips and tails to load. That’s just on hard snow, the softer and deeper it gets makes the same process easier. This isn’t true for reverse camber/reverse sidecut skis except in deep snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

To respond to JackAttack, yes, not quite the same rubbery damp as as the old Katanas and it does make a different sound, more of a, for lack of a better description, brittle, metallic sound. I would say it feels a little more "crisp" under foot but it doesn't feel pingy. .

---

So the on snow feedback is kinda like a Confession 108?

Less importantly, load them up through a compression with a tighter radius then the rocker, or porpoise into 3D snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Uh, they’re wider in the tips and tails. When you roll them over the sidecut allows the tips and tails to load. That’s just on hard snow, the softer and deeper it gets makes the same process easier. This isn’t true for reverse camber/reverse sidecut skis except in deep snow.

---

The reverse ski can only return the amount of energy imparted in the turn it doesn’t store any additional potential energy or pop. Leads to a dead feeling in between the turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

The reverse ski can only return the amount of energy imparted in the turn it doesn’t store any additional potential energy or pop. Leads to a dead feeling in between the turn.

---

Sure it does, depending on how stiff it is and what the load is. I’ve had enough rebound with the reverse Corvus to come clean from the snow in only an inch over soft grommers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

The reverse ski can only return the amount of energy imparted in the turn it doesn’t store any additional potential energy or pop. Leads to a dead feeling in between the turn.

---

Sure it does, depending on how stiff it is and what the load is. I’ve had enough rebound with the reverse Corvus to come clean from the snow in only an inch over soft grommers.

The side cut and stiffness play more of a role in rebound than camber. The Supershape Titans I had were almost flat but had incredible rebound.

So in one specific hero-snow situation you got a moderate amount of rebound out of the ski. Let’s be clear, energy out of a turn and stability in a straight line are not hallmarks of reverse camber skis. Skis like the old Cochise and Bode were regarded as fairly powerful. I did not experience that in the Corvus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

So in one specific hero-snow situation you got a moderate amount of rebound out of the ski. Let’s be clear, energy out of a turn and stability in a straight line are not hallmarks of reverse camber skis. Skis like the old Cochise and Bode were regarded as fairly powerful. I did not experience that in the Corvus.

---

No, I get rebound all the time from the Corvus. The point is that it doesn’t take much. Here’s a question, how do you continue to flex a cambered ski after you decamber it?

I haven’t skied the Corvus, but.... comments that reverse camber = dead or unstable are nonsense. Like a leaf spring, the early parts of the decambering in a cambered ski are as likely to dampen rebound as enhance rebound. If anything, reverse camber allows a ski to return more energy and more power out of the same turn shape.

IME, reverse cambered skis are more powerful and less smooth than normally cambered skis. Think Cadillac with long travel suspension vs sports car with shorter, stiffer suspension.

I'm happy you found your forever unicorn, but you're not convincing me. I skied the same skis, in a few inches of pow pow and variable crud over hardpack. The Corvus is not the powerhouse you claim it to be. Have you skied the Katana referenced in this thread? It is electric by comparison. Your former love, the Armada Invictus, is a pretty planky ride so maybe the transition has convinced you that the Corvus is lively as hell, idk?

From the press:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2018-2019-black-crows-corvus

The last thing to note is that the Corvus, like most other reverse-camber skis, produces almost no energy coming out of a turn. So if a dynamic / poppy experience on groomers is what you’re seeking, this is not the ski for you.

---

From a ski manufacturer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by https://wndr-alpine.com/blogs/stories/to-camber-or-not-to-camber

Camber vs. Reverse Camber

Skiing a reverse cambered ski on-piste takes a lot of energy, but the off-piste advantages far outweigh the negatives in my opinion. Reverse cambered skis get a bad rap because they feel very short and hard to control, but as long as you put effort into staying on edge and in control when you're on hardpack, it’s really tough to beat them in powder. They are really fun to carve too, as when you enter the turn the skis kind of fall into the turn and arc really nicely. All that being said, they aren't for everyone, and placing some camber underfoot with gentle rocker up front still leaves you with great off-piste performance combined with the stability on packed snow and skin tracks.

---

From the maggots:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaijin

The more important question, imo, is why there are so few offerings for a 100mm reverse camber on the market.

My theory is that athletes out-grow the design.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudfoot

I've skied the M4 and did not like the harsh feel on any kind of harder snow caused by the lack of camber. I was amazed at how much more they worked my legs on a bumpy traverse compared to several other similarly stiff skis. I had the same feeling on the original Cochise, which they put camber in on the next model. My two cents is that reverse camber is great for soft snow but not as a daily driver, but I've got old legs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGamms

I’m in the minority, but I dislike camber in general. I much prefer the loose feel of flat or subtle reverse camber skis. Hold an edge well enough on piste once they are tipped over, much more predictable than rocker-camber-rocker when feathering turns off piste. Not much pop/energy out of the turn, but I don’t care about that. YMMV, IMHO, yaddah yaddah

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

After skiing a bunch of different skis this winter, have to agree. For me, Flat/micro camber with low/low tip rocker is the inbounds equvalent it fully rockered BC skis.

Such a smoother and more rewarding ride, and physically less demanding/less harsh actually for me. Properly beveling and polishing your base edge get the clean drift if that is what you are after too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

I'm happy you found your forever unicorn, but you're not convincing me. I skied the same skis, in a few inches of pow pow and variable crud over hardpack. The Corvus is not the powerhouse you claim it to be. Have you skied the Katana referenced in this thread? It is electric by comparison. Your former love, the Armada Invictus, is a pretty planky ride so maybe the transition has convinced you that the Corvus is lively as hell, idk?

From the press:



From a ski manufacturer:



From the maggots:

---

I’m not trying to convince you to like the skis kai, that’s irrelevant because ski preference is purely subjective. I’m not concerned with maggot approved skis either, I’m an independent thinker.

I’ve been trying to explain the physics of how skis flex. Camber has little or nothing to do with flexing a ski or it’s potential energy. A ski is flexed because of the force exerted on it and it’s sidecut on harder snow and snow with less depth. It’s potential energy has nothing to do with camber. Potential energy is determined by stiffness and modulus of elasticity.

To be honest, your willful ignorance is a little disappointing.

It’s interesting that you quoted the blister review. I chose the Corvus based on that review. I have 70 pounds on their heaviest reviewer and I know that the ski will feel markedly different for me than it would for them in certain aspects. Same thing for the Invictus 108. I don’t know if it’s my forever ski but the Corvus is a great replacement for my beat to shit Invictus. That’s what we call subjective.

The one thing I’ll chime in on this random argument:

Just like camber, there are varying amounts of ‘reverse camber’. Some skis like 4frnt reflect tech really don’t like the ski to flex when rolled over on an edge. Side cut matches rocker profile, so they really do return no energy.

I believe Corvus is more of a flat shape with a shorter radius meaning that as its on edge it will in fact flex into the camber. Side cut does not match rocker profile. If the ski is stiff, this means there could be some pop that comes out of your turns even from the minimal flex happening.

However, It is likely a matter of comparison if the ski has energy. Is it a lot compared to 4frnt Hoji; could be. Compared to a Line Sakana; nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I’m not trying to convince you to like the skis kai, that’s irrelevant because ski preference is purely subjective. I’m not concerned with maggot approved skis either, I’m an independent thinker.

I’ve been trying to explain the physics of how skis flex. Camber has little or nothing to do with flexing a ski or it’s potential energy. A ski is flexed because of the force exerted on it and it’s sidecut on harder snow and snow with less depth. It’s potential energy has nothing to do with camber. Potential energy is determined by stiffness and modulus of elasticity.

To be honest, your willful ignorance is a little disappointing.

It’s interesting that you quoted the blister review. I chose the Corvus based on that review. I have 70 pounds on their heaviest reviewer and I know that the ski will feel markedly different for me than it would for them in certain aspects. Same thing for the Invictus 108. I don’t know if it’s my forever ski but the Corvus is a great replacement for my beat to shit Invictus. That’s what we call subjective.

---

Skied the new Katana. My biggest takeaway is it is a very turny ski. Feel like it has a 16m turn radius despite what the specs say. Doesn't like to be let loose and run, wants to be worked and turned constantly, and across the fall line. That being said, it does turn well. It is soft and damp and holds and edge through chop. It is heavy. It is energetic. It is loud as hell. Like a carbon dps, but a few notes lower. Like riding a Norco VPS loud. I think the skis I skied could be more detuned, so I will reasses after I do that.

I regularly ski the Corvus in the same length. The Corvus is definitely a dead feeling ski but I want that in a freeride ski. Yes, when doing tight turns on flat groomers, it feels boring and dead but do Super G turns down a 30 degree groomer or charge fans in chop and I don't want a spring loaded ski. The Corvus has a much longer (and longer feeling) turn radius than the Katana. It is much more comfortable letting it run and doesn't feel like it needs to be on edge and finishing it's turns all the time. The Corvus flexes stiffer and feels stiffer.

I wouldn't buy the Katana. They have made it a fat carving ski.

FYI: 5'6" 155lbs. Skied the 184 Katana with no detune. I regularly ski the 183 Corvus with no detune, although at this point it has done it itself. I loved the 190 Corvus as well but didn't want a touring ski in that length. Would be curious about the 191 Katana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I’m an independent thinker.

I’ve been trying to explain the physics of how skis flex. Camber has little or nothing to do with flexing a ski or it’s potential energy. A ski is flexed because of the force exerted on it and it’s sidecut on harder snow and snow with less depth. It’s potential energy has nothing to do with camber. Potential energy is determined by stiffness and modulus of elasticity.

To be honest, your willful ignorance is a little disappointing.

---

Camber does affect the energy of a ski.

Spring potential energy: E = .5 * k * d^2

k is the spring rate, which is determined by the physical dimensions and the modulus, as you correctly stated.

d is the distance through which the spring is flexed.

Like most leaf springs, cambered skis are shaped as such so that they can flex further than a straight beam of the same length and cross section, thus absorbing (and returning) more spring potential energy.

A reverse camber ski is not able to flex as far since it is already "flexed", so it takes more force input to return the equivalent energy.

But they are fun in powder.

Turny and noisy?

There goes my interest in the Katana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Island Bay

Turny and noisy?

There goes my interest in the Katana.

---

The noisy carbon tips is definitely a turn off. Was this an issue for the Mantra? That ski seems to get universal praise and this is supposed to be a beefed up version of that ski.

Watch Hoji ski- reverse camber skis have energy for sure


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Nobody said they don't. I have multiple pairs and enjoy their behavior in natural snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Camber does affect the energy of a ski.

Spring potential energy: E = .5 * k * d^2

k is the spring rate, which is determined by the physical dimensions and the modulus, as you correctly stated.

d is the distance through which the spring is flexed.

Like most leaf springs, cambered skis are shaped as such so that they can flex further than a straight beam of the same length and cross section, thus absorbing (and returning) more spring potential energy.

A reverse camber ski is not able to flex as far since it is already "flexed", so it takes more force input to return the equivalent energy.

But they are fun in powder.

---

I’m not an engineer but that’s basically what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Nobody said they don't. I have multiple pairs and enjoy their behavior in natural snow.

---

They did on the last page? Anyway...we agree. Skis without camber still rebound with energy at the end of a turn.

ah fuck, you're right. Post first, smoke rocks later. I don't agree with the claim of "no energy out of the turn" or whatever from a reverse camber ski... but "less energy", yes.

This is getting EpicSki-y, sorry. Ski whatcha like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Nobody said they don't. I have multiple pairs and enjoy their behavior in natural snow.

---

But not on unnatural snow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

ah fuck, you're right. Post first, smoke rocks later. I don't agree with the claim of "no energy out of the turn" or whatever from a reverse camber ski... but "less energy", yes.

This is getting EpicSki-y, sorry. Ski whatcha like.

---

I think it's that you get 'free energy' out of a ski with camber just by standing on it. It's not a lot but it's a few mm of deflection that you can almost always feel pushing back. With reverse camber you have to actively push through those first few mm just to get the same amount of spring pushback.

Assuming I'm not pulling off the rocks too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACH

But not on unnatural snow?

---

Pow, schmoo, chunder, zipcrusts, corn. Not groomers so much