The Numbers Game: Skis

[tromano]

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.

Wasn't intending a straw man argument. I guess I misunderstood the op.

 

[cantunamunch]

Hahaha just 15 years ago we were trying to teach people that it IS all a numbers game

 

[Tom K.]

My number is 10. That's how many pairs of skis are in my garage...

Well..........mine goes to 11.

Bwahahaha!

Weight, again another irrelevant number..unless you are going up hill.

Also important when loading into a roof box.

I don't demo much -- or at all compared to some of this site's great contributors -- but my life experience is that without exception, light skis suck.

But they don't have to weigh as much as my old Line Influence 115s, either. Holy knee abusers, Batman!

 

[Philpug]

Also important when loading into a roof box.

The only limitation I have found with our roof box was space and not weight. I have had over 15 pair of skis in ort Skybox Pro, it is amazing how many you can fit when you slide the demo bindings off.

 

[slowrider]

The only limitation I have found with our roof box was space and not weight. I have had over 15 pair of skis in ort Skybox Pro, it is amazing how many you can fit when you slide the demo bindings off.

That's cheating.

 

[Philpug]

That's cheating.

Says you.

 

[Cheizz]

I believe that you can quantify ski behaviour as you experience it. If you define areas of behaviour that are relevant, you can either rank different skis (so, you compare them to each other, like I have done with some slalom skis: https://forum.pugski.com/threads/slalom-ski-choice-for-non-racer.1869/page-2 , post # 36).

Or, you can give each ski a grade (on a scale of 1-10), or stars (1-5) on each of the categories (such as edge hold, stability, float, etc.). Of course, this still is very subjective and personal, but it can help you to organize you experience.

This is not a system that could ever be used by manufacturers, but it could work as a database made by testers. If you have enough scores, you can just filter on specific behaviours of a ski, or just view the sores of every tester that has similar skill level and build as yourself.

I built a database and ski selector Including the algorithm) in Excel based on the 70 skis I have tested, scoring them 1-5 stars on 10 specific behaviour categories.

 

[mishka]

in ski dimensions numbers is the numbers. I cannot say they represent nothing of how skis will preform. For the most part people don't know(or don't want to know) what to look into those numbers
for example if all other variables the same 120-80-110 will preform differently if compare130-80-110 or 120-80-90. But all other variables rarely is the same.
imo take statistical approach also serve no value to others..... To compare ....need to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

 

[cantunamunch]

I built a database and ski selector Including the algorithm) in Excel based on the 70 skis I have tested, scoring them 1-5 stars on 10 specific behaviour categories.

You don't need to limit scrutiny to just those testers that have a similar build and skill as yourself if you take your valuations as a state vector with [number of skis you tested * properties valuated] dimensions. Do so for all other testers. Then let's say you're interested in a new ski that you haven't skied yet. Find the testers that have valuations for this new ski and compute the projection(s) of your state vector onto theirs. Normalize over all selected testers. You should arrive at a predicted value for yourself, even if those other testers have substantially different valuations of the skis you have in common. And no, given a competent computing machine you don't have to reduce the state vectors to coefficients and independent basis vectors.

This is already being used for rating books and movies and things; Netflix and Microsoft come to mind as having well-worked-out, robust versions. Sure, it sounds a bit 'statistical'...and if your Netflix predicted ratings are wildly off then feel free to dismiss it.

 

[François Pugh]

Not much spoils fun more than logic: logic is the antithesis of fun. Numbers are logic, numbers are not fun. I hear numbers being thrown out like 14.5, 98, 131, 177 -- and I am sure 94.5% of the people reading this know exactly what each of those numbers represents. But what does each of those numbers really mean? Nothing. The are just points of reference. I could give four exceptions for every reason you want a ski with a particular number in a specific slot, and you would still get the on-snow results you are looking for.
​

View attachment 12603​

“I want a ski that carves well and is good on ice” -- that is not a number. “I want a ski that makes a short- to medium-radius turn” -- that is not a number, either. “I want a ski that floats in powder” -- again, not a number. Numbers do not define how a ski reacts on snow. You want a ski that carves well? Get it up on edge and bend it. A ski does not have to be narrow to carve. You want a ski that is good in three-dimensional conditions? Relax and bend the ski and let it rise out of the snow. Personally, I have had some of the most fun laying trenches on a 90mm ski, just as I have had one of my best powder days on a 98mm ski.

The point here is, Don’t get hung up on the numbers. There a lot of great skis out there that will do what you expect them to do, regardless of a specific length, width, or shape. Plus, they will do so much more. For your own enjoyment, don't let a number make the decision for you. Look at the flex, how the ski will bend. Look at the combination of rocker, rise, and camber and how it affects contact with the snow. There are no numbers tied to these characteristics, but they have a lot more to do with ski performance than sidecut and dimensions and sometimes even length.

[The Exception: we know slalom skis need to be a certain dimension and length and this-that-and-the-other. The same goes for other race and discipline-specific skis. If you are looking for such skis, you are not the intended audience for this article. If you want to do the “yeah but’s,” you are welcome to discuss the hole in my argument. Here, we are talking about the ski that could be a one-ski quiver or the foundation of a multi-ski quiver.]
​

Coming next, The Numbers Game: Boots, Parts 1 and 2.

@Dave Petersen artwork.​

So you're saying the numbers are meaningless unless you know what they mean?

 

[Mike Thomas]

No, he's saying knowing a bunch of numbers does not define how a ski will behave. It might define exactly what the ski won't do, but it doesn't define how the ski will behave. They are a data point, not an answer to any important question.

 

[François Pugh]

Well nobody ever said a single specification would tell you everything about a ski, but it will tell you one thing, e.g. a turn radius of 35 m isn't a good idea for carving tiny turns, and a turn radius of 11 isn't a good thing for carving high speed turns.

 

[Mike Thomas]

A 35m ski won't carve a short turn, but some will turn quicker than a similar ski with a much shorter turn radius... that's the point Phil is making. Knowing dimensions or turn radii does not let you know what a ski will do. Not on their own. If you have skied a Blizzard Bonafide, you can extrapolate a lot about how the Brahma and Cochise will ski by looking at the numbers. If you've skied a Bonafide you can't say much about the Kendo based on that experience, the 'numbers' here don't help.

 

[markojp]

And you could take out a Monster 98 and an Enforcer and have two profoundly different experiences.

 

[Jim McDonald]

If all makers would, ala Praxis, at least give relative flex numbers for their skis it would at least give a basis within the brand.
I think it would add to that Cochise/Bonafide/Brahma comparison, for example.

 

[François Pugh]

Yes, we need stiffness numbers to go along with that radius number.
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.

 

[markojp]

A stop at the local shop, and stiffness isn't too hard to sort out. Of course that doesn't help much if there's no local shop.

 

[Philpug]

Yes, we need stiffness numbers to go along with that radius number.
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.

This is the problem, how a ski is measured is the variable. With all of the different types of early rise, rocker, camber there is no standard. If there were to be comparisons to how a ski flexes, there needs to be a point of reference and in todays world, that is jsut not possible. Stay tuned to when we start talking about boot flexes.

 

[cantunamunch]

Snack for thought: What is the relationship between skier ability and skier reliance on numerical ski description?

 

[Mike Thomas]

Snack for thought: What is the relationship between skier ability and skier reliance on numerical ski description?

That would be a bell curve, doesn't really matter -> matters -> matters a lot-> doesn't matter.