• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

The Numbers Game: Skis

Mike Thomas

Whiteroom
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
1,194
Of course, if we had the data we wouldn't be at the mercy of the marketers, so I can see the reason for the resistance.

There are no numbers, at least none you are ever going to get your hands on, that will let you know any more about a ski than the 'marketing blurb' given by the manufacturer. That's just the way it is.

On the other hand, I just know how a ski will feel by touching it. I don't know how or why... well, maybe 25 years of professional experience... but I haven't been 'surprised' by a ski in over a decade. If I hold a ski in my hands, I know exactly how it will feel on snow. I'm an odd dude, with useless talents.
 

michael

.
Skier
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Posts
118
Snack for thought: What is the relationship between skier ability and skier reliance on numerical ski description?

Ability and numerics are probably related for skiing much like they are for other products. Personally, this is sort of terrifying as the numbers currently used to describe skis can hide the important aspects of a ski. In photography, for example, a camera has XYZ pixels, such-n-such dynamic range, etc. and those properties are apples-to-apples for cameras (within and across brands). Skis, though... sidecut? is it elliptical, reverse, combo... rocker? how much and where does it start... camber? yep/nope/what's camber... stiffness? how much, due to what tech, did you mean torsional stiffness... weight? how is it distributed across the ski... For a beginner skier all of this can be intimidating (at best) and dangerous if incorrectly interpreted. But it's the starting point for most, I bet.

Having typed the above, though, I do believe there are important numbers for skis - namely, the size and weight of the skier. After that, skier skill. And this is why I think the approach of who is a ski for/not for is great. In the end, so many numbers associated with skis seem superfluous when, ultimately, all I care about is how does it perform for someone like me?
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
That would be a bell curve, doesn't really matter -> matters -> matters a lot-> doesn't matter.

It just about always has to be a bell curve if we have lots of random variables, each of which has a limited weighting in the result. But I've been thinking in a bit of Tolstoy-inspired fashion, as in "lots of ways to fail, few ways to succeed". "Succeed" in this context meaning 'having high ability'. Which makes me wonder if there is a power law analysis that could be done, sort of like was done for runners here http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sylvank/pubs/FractalAthlete.pdf
When running and swimming records of superior athletes are
compared for different distances, it is demonstrated in this article that power law distributions
offer the best representation of performance
, except for skiers ofc.

Which, yes I know, sort of takes me off topic towards the 'skis that go to 11' thread.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
... For a beginner skier all of this can be intimidating (at best) and dangerous if incorrectly interpreted. But it's the starting point for most, I bet.

Sure, I completely agree.

I further insist (rude, I know) that all numerical description is, in the end, subjectively interpreted. For those very far from the starting point, I think of those numbers not as objective comparisons but rather as indices into a well-developed (subjective) mapping into the audience's own experience.

Which ties into my response to Mike T. above, thus: the people falling outside bell curves of ability have so much experience that the scale of variation within available skis cannot possibly be a good index.
 

michael

.
Skier
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Posts
118
Sure, I completely agree.

I further insist (rude, I know) that all numerical description is, in the end, subjectively interpreted. For those very far from the starting point, I think of those numbers not as objective comparisons but rather as indices into a well-developed (subjective) mapping into the audience's own experience.

Absolutely agree. I meant to note that numbers may only mean something to the advanced skier who, presumably, would have enough experience on a variety of equipment to understand the nuances between differing sets of numbers. But I much prefer how you stated it so I'm happy about my omission. :)
 

Mike Thomas

Whiteroom
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
1,194
[QUOTE="michael, post: 57714, member: In photography, for example, a camera has XYZ pixels, such-n-such dynamic range, etc. and those properties are apples-to-apples for cameras (within and across brands). Skis, though... [/QUOTE]

In photography, those 'numbers'- dynamic range, pixel density, ISO range are all measuring how well a device creates an image. Those numbers don't measure the 'user interface'. Have you ever read a camera review where the camera seems to be spectacular but the reviewer just... doesn't like the way it handles? With a ski, it's all 'handling' or 'user interface', there is no end product like a photograph. It would be like walking around 'taking photos' with no CF card, no way to review the image, only the memory of clicking the shutter. At that point, the dynamic range kind of doesn't matter. Only your enjoyment of operating the mechanism matters.
As I said earlier, it is more like food than an electronic product. Walk into any fast food restaurant and you can get all the 'numbers' for their burger. Those numbers don't help you compare how much enjoyment you will get from their product compared to a local farm-to-table gastro pub's burger in any meaningful way. You just need to sample the product. (Or know that grass fed, locally sourced beef tastes better than Burger King...).
I am not saying the numbers are useless, just that they are such a small part of what a ski 'is' that they are more likely to get in the way than they are to help. Knowing how different a Blizzard Cochise's rocker profile is compared to an ON3P Billy Goat doesn't help compare the two skis. There is SO much else different that comparing rocker is just a waste of brain wattage. The numbers are a nice baseline, but that really is ALL they can be, more numbers don't get you closer to understanding what the ski will do on snow. Actually, it is more accurate to say the numbers are kind of usefull at understanding what a particular ski is all about, they are much less useful at COMPARISONS between skis. That is when everything breaks down. Ski A from Manufacturer A vs Ski B from Manufacturer B by numbers... not gonna help much.
 
Last edited:

michael

.
Skier
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Posts
118
In photography, those 'numbers'- dynamic range, pixel density, ISO range are all measuring how well a device creates an image. Those numbers don't measure the 'user interface'. Have you ever read a camera review where the camera seems to be spectacular but the reviewer just... doesn't like the way it handles? With a ski, it's all 'handling' or 'user interface', there is no end product like a photograph. It would be like walking around 'taking photos' with no CF card, no way to review the image, only the memory of clicking the shutter. At that point, the dynamic range kind of doesn't matter. Only your enjoyment of operating the mechanism matters.
As I said earlier, it is more like food than an electronic product. Walk into any fast food restaurant and you can get all the 'numbers' for their burger. Those numbers don't help you compare how much enjoyment you will get from their product compared to a local farm-to-table gastro pub's burger in any meaningful way. You just need to sample the product. (Or know that grass fed, locally sourced beef tastes better than Burger King...).
I am not saying the numbers are useless, just that they are such a small part of what a ski 'is' that they are more likely to get in the way than they are to help. Knowing how different a Blizzard Cochise's rocker profile is compared to an ON3P Billy Goat doesn't help compare the two skis. There is SO much else different that comparing rocker is just a waste of brain wattage. The numbers are a nice baseline, but that really is ALL they can be, more numbers don't get you closer to understanding what the ski will do on snow. Actually, it is more accurate to say the numbers are kind of usefull at understanding what a particular ski is all about, they are much less useful at COMPARISONS between skis. That is when everything breaks down. Ski A from Manufacturer A vs Ski B from Manufacturer B by numbers... not gonna help much.

Yep. And it's why when asked for advice on what camera to buy I always reply "go to the shop and see how the cameras you think you want feel in your hands".
 

mishka

Getting off the lift
Industry Insider
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Posts
341
Actually, it is more accurate to say the numbers are kind of usefull at understanding what a particular ski is all about, they are much less useful at COMPARISONS between skis. That is when everything breaks down. Ski A from Manufacturer A vs Ski B from Manufacturer B by numbers... not gonna help much.
IMO this is by far best summary on the subject.
furthermore comparing different product line within same manufacture also might not help much especially if if skis build differently. For example same or similar dimensions skis one with metal and one without should feel and ski differently.
I am in unique position designing skis and making changes to the numbers within same product line and skis with very similar construction to achieve specific goal of ski performance....and I can tell you even small change can make substantial different how skis feel
 

tromano

Goin' the way they're pointed...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Posts
2,443
Location
Layton, UT
I agree with the statement that numbers do not define the subjective experience of a ski. However I think it overlooks the fact that numbers are one of the most important drivers of customer expectations. And that a priori expectations are the critical factor in all subjective experiences.

Even just how skis are reviewed it's by waist width category, the 98s the 10somethings carries a huge amount of significance. And determines what you expect the ski will do.
 

tromano

Goin' the way they're pointed...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Posts
2,443
Location
Layton, UT
[QUOTE="michael, post: 57714, member: In photography, for example, a camera has XYZ pixels, such-n-such dynamic range, etc. and those properties are apples-to-apples for cameras (within and across brands). Skis, though...

In photography, those 'numbers'- dynamic range, pixel density, ISO range are all measuring how well a device creates an image. Those numbers don't measure the 'user interface'. Have you ever read a camera review where the camera seems to be spectacular but the reviewer just... doesn't like the way it handles? With a ski, it's all 'handling' or 'user interface', there is no end product like a photograph. It would be like walking around 'taking photos' with no CF card, no way to review the image, only the memory of clicking the shutter. At that point, the dynamic range kind of doesn't matter. Only your enjoyment of operating the mechanism matters.
As I said earlier, it is more like food than an electronic product. Walk into any fast food restaurant and you can get all the 'numbers' for their burger. Those numbers don't help you compare how much enjoyment you will get from their product compared to a local farm-to-table gastro pub's burger in any meaningful way. You just need to sample the product. (Or know that grass fed, locally sourced beef tastes better than Burger King...).
I am not saying the numbers are useless, just that they are such a small part of what a ski 'is' that they are more likely to get in the way than they are to help. Knowing how different a Blizzard Cochise's rocker profile is compared to an ON3P Billy Goat doesn't help compare the two skis. There is SO much else different that comparing rocker is just a waste of brain wattage. The numbers are a nice baseline, but that really is ALL they can be, more numbers don't get you closer to understanding what the ski will do on snow. Actually, it is more accurate to say the numbers are kind of usefull at understanding what a particular ski is all about, they are much less useful at COMPARISONS between skis. That is when everything breaks down. Ski A from Manufacturer A vs Ski B from Manufacturer B by numbers... not gonna help much.[/QUOTE]

Not sure I agree with this. The performance is the objective phenomenon in skiing. Different skis do create different outcomes for a skier. See this thread for an example: http://www.epicski.com/t/116001/kas...8xti-2-very-good-skis-comparison-video-review
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
Not sure I agree with this. The performance is the objective phenomenon in skiing. Different skis do create different outcomes for a skier. See this thread for an example: http://www.epicski.com/t/116001/kas...8xti-2-very-good-skis-comparison-video-review

In order to get to that objective phenomenon you have to go through at least two layers of subjectivity - subjective interpretation of ski feedback to create an internal situational awareness and subjective control of DIRT to create definite outcomes within the envelope of possible outcomes.

The fact that @dawgcatching is among one of the best on this site at understanding the shape of those layers and on describing them to us as 'feel' doesn't mean they don't exist.
 

tromano

Goin' the way they're pointed...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Posts
2,443
Location
Layton, UT
The point was that both subjective and objective expeiences of a ski are real things. Read my post one post higher than what you replied to ;) we are on the same page.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
Waist numbers are the GS SL RC SX designations of the '10s.

If you mean that, we'll have to round up a flask of Flor de Cana and debate the "only the subjective is real" thesis sometime.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Waist numbers are the GS SL RC SX designations of the '10s.

If you mean that, we'll have to round up a flask of Flor de Cana and debate the "only the subjective is real" thesis sometime.
Most any indepth ski discussion goes well with alcohol...and meatball pizza.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
The meatball pizza isn't real - only the smell of it and the weight of it coming out of the oven and the resistance to the cutter blade and the feel of biting into it and the savor of chewing it and the satisfaction of swallowing is real. :eek::D

The tears of when its gone - reality non determinate at this time.
 

tromano

Goin' the way they're pointed...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Posts
2,443
Location
Layton, UT
Got a ball jar with amaretto and PBR. Let's do this.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
IMG_2330.JPG

Ready.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top