Zero camber or reverse camber Big Daddy

**Atomicgray** · 10-30-2007, 08:22 PM

What do you guys think - Dead flat (Zero camber) or reverse camber - The side cut and shape will stay the same 145/125/129 at 190cm.

**mntlion** · 10-30-2007, 08:25 PM

flat = good. maybe just a bit or reverse at tip and tail.

**flyby** · 10-30-2007, 08:36 PM

Wait, you mean, hypothetically, like I might design this ski, or like I wanna rocker mine? Cause there was a thread about that a little while back. You'd have to look it up cause I can't find it but one of the members here rockered BD tips (and tails, I think). If I remember correctly, the results were favorable.

**Atomicgray** · 10-30-2007, 08:39 PM

As in this ski might be produced - At least the zero camber model. The zero camber model does or will have a little reverse camber at the tip and tail.

**squirrelmurphy** · 10-30-2007, 08:45 PM

sounds fun, do it up. keep 'em light, keep the dims.

**Chris Knight** · 10-30-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Atomicgray

As in this ski might be produced - At least the zero camber model. The zero camber model does or will have a little reverse camber at the tip and tail.

So, zero camber underfoot for a while, with slow rise (reverse camber) through the front and back, still with a traditional upturned tip (and tail?) finish?

Something in the Hellbent/DP120/ARG/Rocker/etc world...yeah, these are great design ideas...
Go find the Big Daddy vs. DP 120 thread too...

Suggestions/lessons from the other similar shapes out there:
1) zero camber underfoot with sidecut if you want mo' bettah on groomed, good idea, see Lotus 138 or ARG or Rocker specs
2) more reverse camber in the front, much less if any in the back, for no-wheelies on hucks and max pow performance, see newest 138 and Rocker design and comments here in other threads
3) not soft - if already in "engaged" reverse camber position, ski should be medium stiff longitudinally, and very stiff torsionally, see Pontoon complaints
4) Give it a moderate tip upturn too, not just a long slow rise reverse camber
5) Give it a small half twin tail as well, particularly with less reverse camber in back
6) Consider offering a 200cm length eventually, the reverse camber shapes make things ski a lot shorter.
7) If you can make it light, people will use it for a sidecountry ski as well, broadens your market.
8) If you can make it cheaper than some other similar offerings, you'll get a lot more play. The DP Skis Lotus 120/138, which are somewhat similar, sell for $1000. Can you hit $700 MSRP? Shop floor $600, closeout sale prices (getting near retailer cost) at $500, super duper mondo hookup deals/at cost around $400? If so, I think you're in range.
9) When you put a reverse camber in the front, you lose some access to driving the widest part of the ski, because it's now lifted up a ways, so move the tip "hips" effectively back by changing the tip shape from rounded to tapered-then-rounded. Keep the same "hip" width, but don't have it be at the end of the ski, have it be followed by a slight tapered nose before the final upturn, i.e. dart shaped. This makes it a crud machine as well, as it it'll track and slice way better. See newest Lotus 138 or Praxis tip shape.

Ya get my drift. There's a market for it for sure, but be sure to differentiate somehow too. There's a LOT of competing models right now.

**Phill** · 10-30-2007, 10:05 PM

Don't rocker the tails, keep the tails flat and stiff for stability and stompability. Rockering the tips sounds great. Shape is fine, if anything add some width to the tail. And if you do rocker the tips offer longer. As others will say there IS a market for this.

**Blurred** · 10-30-2007, 10:27 PM

I've got a great idea for another Atomic pow ski. PM me. It's so great I'll want my own pair. Seriously.

**pechelman** · 10-30-2007, 11:04 PM

make the camber profile the same as the salomon rocker, just with less tip rocker, and then make a model thats also 200cm

if you want to know, pm Damien Sanders
he bent a pair of 06/07 big daddies to have rockered tips and iirc, remove almost all of the camber underfoot.

**Damian Sanders** · 10-31-2007, 07:42 AM

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...highlight=bent

They are pretty sweet like that....can't bury a tip at all. Mine still have full camber underfoot.

I would suggest a bit of camber in the middle 1/3rd of the ski, with a long, curved slight rocker in the tip and tail, such as a 1/2"-3/4" rise in the tip, and a 1/4"-1/2" rise in the tail...that's when a single ski is sitting flat on the ground. (nowhere near as much as something like the hellbent) Also, a slightly stiffer tip and forebody. And move the recommended mounting line -2cm.

I think that would retain stablity, or even gain it, while making it more floaty and powder carving friendly.

Can I get a deal on a pair if you make them? Pretty please?

**Core Shot** · 10-31-2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Atomicgray

As in this ski might be produced - At least the zero camber model. The zero camber model does or will have a little reverse camber at the tip and tail.

DP 120??

**leroy jenkins** · 10-31-2007, 09:37 AM

I think you should leave a couple mm of camber underfoot, but rocker the tips about like Highway Star has done. Leave the tails as they are.

**Atomicgray** · 10-31-2007, 09:41 AM

Damian Thanks for the info - That's a big yes on moving the mount point back at least 2cm I have a pair at -4cm and they ski great same goes for Thugs if any one has new version mount point is a least 2cm forward of last years ski and I would recomend to mount back around -2 to -3cm.When this ski gets pressed I'll let you guys know. Could be as soon as Jan.1 Thanks for all the ideas.

**wren** · 10-31-2007, 11:08 AM

Thank you very much for info on the mount point on the new Thugs. I Was actually going to get mine mounted up today right on the line, so now I will definitely move that back 2 cm.

**XtrPickels** · 10-31-2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Atomicgray

Damian Thanks for the info - That's a big yes on moving the mount point back at least 2cm I have a pair at -4cm and they ski great same goes for Thugs if any one has new version mount point is a least 2cm forward of last years ski and I would recomend to mount back around -2 to -3cm.When this ski gets pressed I'll let you guys know. Could be as soon as Jan.1 Thanks for all the ideas.

If you are going to let us know, I bet a sweet group buy price would unload a ton very quickly

**cpj.slc** · 10-31-2007, 07:59 PM

This sounds like it will be a great ski. My only complaint when Atomic changed the BD was that the new version didn't have tip rocker. Glad to see you guys are making the adjustments.

**Chris Knight** · 10-31-2007, 09:32 PM

Yeah, seriously, set up a sweet TGR Forum pre-order price, and you'll have people pimping your product in no time.

**XtrPickels** · 10-31-2007, 09:40 PM

I'll concur with phill as well.
I think that for the ski that the big daddy is supposed to be (big mountain slayer), tail rocker would be a mistake.
Tip rocker on the BD. Tip and Tail on the Thug

**gramboh** · 11-01-2007, 02:14 AM

(Random) for some reason I'm considering buying some cheap 06-07 Thugs, even though I'd probably get 4-5 days on them max per year unless I took some heli/cat trips. What is wrong with me.

Squatch · 11-01-2007, 04:55 AM

Please Please Please make a 200 or 205cm version.

I can't throw down the coin for a DPS ski, but if you can make it for $600 or so...we'll talk.

**Damian Sanders** · 11-01-2007, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

I'll concur with phill as well.
I think that for the ski that the big daddy is supposed to be (big mountain slayer), tail rocker would be a mistake.
Tip rocker on the BD. Tip and Tail on the Thug

Having skied the BD with only tip rocker, I would say that a very slight tail rocker, 1/4", would not hurt stablity, and might actually help it when combined with a stiffer, rockered tip.

**Atomicgray** · 11-01-2007, 09:33 AM

Both versions of the BD will be around.One with new design the other will be the same old 145/125/129 - 190 cm with normal camber. As far as a group buy I don't see Atomic going for that ...But who know with enough interest nothing is out of the question.Finally I too would love a 200cm - I'm a fat boy 205lbs. + so a 200cm would kill it - The only problem is I don't think Atomic will produce another mold when they already have the 190cm mold around. Thanks again for all the ideas - I realy hope Atomic follows thru with this - Peace