The Numbers Game: Skis

[jwolter7]

I really appreciate how some manufactures--notably Praxis--includes a whole variety of numbers you don't typically see. Taper lengths, sidecut lengths, camber height, rocker length, rocker height, and (one of my favorites) camber contact length

Which is how you establish and quantify quality.

They are saying: Our skis are made with a close manufacturing tolerance.
If that is actually real is a whole different day...

 

[cantunamunch]

In order to play the numbers game at the right level, you would need a lot more than three or four numbers. BTW, I would love to see those numbers standardize a bit more, especially for flex.

See, I was trying to get the concept of There Are Two Separate Games Here across. The numbers game is analogous to mapmaking/cartography. The testing game is hiking the terrain. The map is not the territory. The most detailed topo is not the hike.

 

[Paul S.]

Phil,

Just received the Newsletter !!!!

Thanks for starting this thread which has generated a good number of replies in less than a day, thereby confirming that there are a lot of people fixated on skiing in spite of 80 degree temps. Maybe I am not the only one watching ski videos in July and August!

It is my opinion that the numbers provide a general reference point, but the real proof is in the skiing. I don't have the opportunity to demo all the skis that you do. Therefore, I NEED you and your reviews. The numbers get me into the ball park; your reviews get me in the right row and then I can find my seat.

Thanks to you and Tricia for your great test work and for this Site. I greatly appreciate it.

BTW, I just realized that if I so enjoy the fruits of your labor, I should SHOW my appreciation and will do so immediately.

 

[Mendieta]

See, I was trying to get the concept of There Are Two Separate Games Here across. The numbers game is analogous to mapmaking/cartography. The testing game is hiking the terrain. The map is not the territory. The most detailed topo is not the hike.

I see this as more of a pragmatic matter. Ultimately, if you had a huge number of measurements, you could in principle telleverything about the ski, but you would need way too much info and knowledge of mechanical engineering, etc.

Practically speaking, as a user, unless you are lucky to demo skis all the time, you benefit from qualitative info from reputable testers. They won't care too much about how the ski was engineered, but rather how it behaves. If it looks like a duck and it quacks ...

Btw, some of the most depressing ski reviews are the 1 minute youtube videos where someone stands by the ski on the snow, reads the specs and repeats the manufacturer's marketing material. Really?

 

[Ron]

"Btw, some of the most depressing ski reviews are the 1 minute youtube videos where someone stands by the ski on the snow, reads the specs and repeats the manufacturer's marketing material. Really?"




Gee, I wonder which reviews you speak of .

 

[skibob]

One of the most curious bits of data to come out of Blister Gear's reviews are the weights of each of a pair of "identical" skis. Specifically, they are never the same. I've never analyzed it formally, but seems to range from 20 grams to 200 grams difference. This comes to 1-10% variance. Its just as true of skis made on high tech production lines as those handmade.

I always wonder what actually accounts for the differences. I figure a lot components are pretty precise, like bases, cores, edges, metal layers. I am thinking that epoxy probably accounts for the majority of the variation. And epoxy is stiff stuff. And then there is the weight difference itself.

And then I think about skis I ski on and wonder if it makes a difference. I swear I like my Motive 95s better when the ski with the chipped top sheet is on my left foot. Couldn't tell you why. Couldn't describe a difference. Just seems like I ski better . And yes, I am sure the bases are flat. Could it be a construction variation.

If my guesses are correct, it seems a valuable practice that wouldn't take too much effort could be for ski makers to weigh each individual ski and pair them based on some similarity in weight.

 

[Philpug]

Weight, again another irrelevant number..unless you are going up hill. Why is it irrelevant? Where is the weight? Under the boot? At the extremities of the tip and tail? Volant were supposed to be there ungodly heavy beasts, but they weighed within ounces of most other skis. They skied heavy because the weight was distributed along the whole ski. K2's Luv series were claimed to be heavy but it was a heavy binding system under the foot and they skied fairly light. Swing weight, not dead weight creates the on snow feel, again not a real quantifiable number.

 

[skibob]

Weight, again another irrelevant number..unless you are going up hill. Why is it irrelevant? Where is the weight? Under the boot? At the extremities of the tip and tail? Volant were supposed to be there ungodly heavy beasts, but they weighed within ounces of most other skis. They skied heavy because the weight was distributed along the whole ski. K2's Luv series were claimed to be heavy but it was a heavy binding system under the foot and they skied fairly light. Swing weight, not dead weight creates the on snow feel, again not a real quantifiable number.

I think you missed my point. It was about the difference in weight between two of the "same" ski. And not even the weight itself then, but making inferences (guesses) aobut what led to those differences.

I'm an avowed heavy ski fan, so no argument here to your point.

 

[Philpug]

I think you missed my point. It was about the difference in weight between two of the "same" ski. And not even the weight itself then, but making inferences (guesses) aobut what led to those differences.

I have seen it, very uncommon amongst major manufacturers. Smaller garage and boutique companies, still not that prevalent. I have seen different flexes more.

 

[skibob]

I just went back through some recent BG reviews to refresh my perception. I do think it is fair to say that the larger mfr had less variance than indies (other than moment, which appears remarkably consistent at least based on recent results). Nonetheless, I still found these results:

Rossi Super 7 RD: 2126 & 2173 grams

Fischer Ranger 98: 1833 & 1807 grams

Head Monster 108: 2530 & 2570 grams

Salomon Mtn Explore 95: 1507 & 1595 grams

Nordica Enforcer (100): 2131 & 2189 grams

Again, its not the weight itself, but the question of what the difference is to create it. The largest I found among recent reviews was 88 grams. That's nearly 1/4 pound. I know I've seen upwards of 200gms in the past, but can't recall if that was an indie or biggie. I don't really think it presents a qc issue per se, in terms of the integrity of the product. But I do wonder if these variations create feeling on the snow.

Like I said, I've always preferred one particular Motive 95 to be on my left, but couldn't tell you why.

 

[fatbob]

Fair, but numbers are a good place to start. They just can't be the end of it.

I really appreciate how some manufactures--notably Praxis--includes a whole variety of numbers you don't typically see. Taper lengths, sidecut lengths, camber height, rocker length, rocker height, and (one of my favorites) camber contact length. How it all comes together is still a little bit of magic, but knowing those details can really prep me on which ski will be more playful vs chargey even if they are the saome core, same waist width, and same length.

If anything these ski manufacturers are at least signalling that they know their market and that they care enough about this stuff that they believe their customers might care/obsess about it. Presenting me 5 point dimensions in a ski spec is a sign that its likely to be a slarvier funshape than a carving dominator. So the numbers do signal something.

Plus because the big boys are marketing savvy I think dimensions are definitely part of the product mix. Why else would Dynastar do a Cham 87/97/107/127 and below that the Powertrack series spaced at 5mm intervals. It's a game the industry is complicit in for sure. Blizzard are totally guily of the same. The fatter/thinner Bonafide etc

In terms of product ranges it would be a better idea for everyone to focus more on a differentiated story between fewer models IMV or even to flex dimensions in a single model so that different sizes behave similarly for skiers of different dimensions.

 

[Paul Lutes]

Go ahead, ridicule the numbers - they are immune to your puny words!

As alluded to above, the traditional numbers are but a fraction of the complete ski picture. If all, or at least most, of the numbers were provided, and the reviewer has the skill to interpret them, there should be no surprises when getting them on snow (everything else being standardized). I must admit, I would find this boring. Also, the amount of effort required to accurately "go by the numbers" is prodigious. Much quicker, easier and in the long run more fun to gently tease out the skis secrets. Unless they rise up and slap ups upside the head, of course.

 

[cantunamunch]

Go ahead, ridicule the numbers - they are immune to your puny words!

As alluded to above, the traditional numbers are but a fraction of the complete ski picture. If all, or at least most, of the numbers were provided, and the reviewer has the skill to interpret them, there should be no surprises when getting them on snow (everything else being standardized). I must admit, I would find this boring. Also, the amount of effort required to accurately "go by the numbers" is prodigious. Much quicker, easier and in the long run more fun to gently tease out the skis secrets. Unless they rise up and slap ups upside the head, of course.

remember friflyt.no's flex graphs? those were awesome .

http://www.eviski.com/Index.aspx?PageUrl=forum&Forum=Tab=Topic,TopicID=40,PostsList,Page=1

 

[jmeb]

remember friflyt.no's flex graphs? those were awesome .

http://www.eviski.com/Index.aspx?PageUrl=forum&Forum=Tab=Topic,TopicID=40,PostsList,Page=1

These are awesome. How I wish this was standard for all skis. Flex is a hard thing to understand because it is so related to how a tester skis, weight, etc. This is a wonderful objective comparison.

 

[mishka]

One of the most curious bits of data to come out of Blister Gear's reviews are the weights of each of a pair of "identical" skis. Specifically, they are never the same. I've never analyzed it formally, but seems to range from 20 grams to 200 grams difference. This comes to 1-10% variance. Its just as true of skis made on high tech production lines as those handmade.

I always wonder what actually accounts for the differences. I figure a lot components are pretty precise, like bases, cores, edges, metal layers. I am thinking that epoxy probably accounts for the majority of the variation. And epoxy is stiff stuff. And then there is the weight difference itself.

.

high-volume production companies usually using preinprognated fiberglass....where epoxy get reactivated under heat... This should gives relatively uniform results.
in wet layup with liquid epoxy certainly the possibility however not to extend you describe up to 200 g that's a lot. Usually it takes same amount of epoxy to wet everything and using same pressure/heat/time cycle can produce consistent results

 

[tromano]

Weight, again another irrelevant number..unless you are going up hill. Why is it irrelevant? Where is the weight? Under the boot? At the extremities of the tip and tail? Volant were supposed to be there ungodly heavy beasts, but they weighed within ounces of most other skis. They skied heavy because the weight was distributed along the whole ski. K2's Luv series were claimed to be heavy but it was a heavy binding system under the foot and they skied fairly light. Swing weight, not dead weight creates the on snow feel, again not a real quantifiable number.

Moments are a real quantifiable thing, that is the measurement for swing weight. It just not some thing that is discussed in ski reviews.

 

[tromano]

So I guess phil you is not a sabrmetrics baseball fan?

 

[Philpug]

So I guess phil is not a sabrmetrics baseball fan?

LOL, I enjoyed Moneyball but it only got the A's so far.

 

[tromano]

Understand what the op is saying. Basic numbers like length, width, radius, weight are not the whole story. But all my experience professionally is that you can still learn a lot from messy data. It's not meaningless.

 

[Philpug]

Understand what the op is saying. Basic numbers like length, width, radius, weight are not the whole story. But all my experience professionally is that you can still learn a lot from messy data. It's not meaningless.

I didn't way they were meaningless, I said they were a point of reference and not to get hung up on them. The do not define how a ski will perform.