When and by whom was the 3-digt flex rating system invented?

[Chessie]

As stated in the title. Which company was first the use a 3-digit "flex" system directed at consumers? Which season?

 

[TomPietrowski]

It’s a good question. I’m not sure who it was but I feel like it was around 2011-12 when mass adoption happened as I can remember. And it makes no sense and it would be nice if it went away in my opinion

 

[Sibhusky]

It’s a good question. I’m not sure who it was but I feel like it was around 2011-12 when mass adoption happened as I can remember. And it makes no sense and it would be nice if it went away in my opinion

It would be nice if it was standardized.

 

[TomPietrowski]

It would be nice if it was standardized.

No real way to standardize it. What do we use to class a 130 for example? A 130 92mm race boot will always be stiffer than a 130 104mm comfort boot. But who is to say which is really a “130”? A good way to think of it currently is the higher the number the stiffer in that style of boot but don’t expect them align even between lv and hv boots from the same brand. And how do you test? For the flex to be “correct” you need the shell to be totally filled so you need a different test setup for every boot which is simply impractical.

Instead how about we just go to soft, mid and stiff for example?

 

[Tricia]

It would be nice if it was standardized.

The Numbers Game: Boots, Part 1

Let's think about the purpose of the ski boot. Besides keeping the foot warm and dry, what is it designed to do? To transmit your energy to the ski. So what is the best way to accomplish this? With a snug, uniform fit that allows the foot and...

www.skitalk.com

The Numbers Game: Boots, Part 2

Oh boy, these are some of the most “missed” numbers: mis-understood, mis-represented, and mis-referenced. We see flex ranges from 50 to 150 for adult boots. Why and how are these numbers set? You might as well try to figure out airline pricing...

www.skitalk.com

The Numbers Game: Boots, Part 3

Every manufacturer trickles down the features it feels are relevant to the lower-level and softer boots. Some manufacturers do offer canting capability via replaceable soles down to 80ish-flex boots. Proper canting to accommodate stance is very...

www.skitalk.com

 

[pchewn]

As stated in the title. Which company was first the use a 3-digit "flex" system directed at consumers? Which season?

You are being very generous calling boot flex numbers a "system".

 

[onenerdykid]

It’s a good question. I’m not sure who it was but I feel like it was around 2011-12 when mass adoption happened as I can remember. And it makes no sense and it would be nice if it went away in my opinion

I've researched this a bit and I think it was started by Lange back in the early 2000s with the Lange Comp series. They had the Comp 130, 120, 110, etc. during a time when every other brand was using 2-digits or a naming system: Atomic SX:14, Salomon X-Wave 12, Nordica Speedmachine 12, Tecnica Diablo Magma/Fire/Flame, etc.

During the period between 2007-2010, most brands switched over to the current 3-digit system we have now.

And I agree, we would all be better off without it. But, this is now an established system and too many skiers reference it. Even people here ask if a boot is a "real 130", when that doesn't mean anything. Or if you use a name like "Backland Pro" people always ask "what's the flex?". And when too many people think a system exists, getting them to learn a new system just creates confusion. And no brand wants to take that first step. It would have to be a systematic effort on the part of all brands, which will never happen. It took the brands over 5 years to agree on what "GripWalk" should be and that is honestly a pretty straightforward set of dimensions. Something like "130" will be impossible to come to an agreement on. Many brands don't want there to be a standardized "130" because it means their boots now get harder to put on and they will lose sales because of it.

 

[Schussboelie]

I've researched this a bit and I think it was started by Lange back in the early 2000s with the Lange Comp series. They had the Comp 130, 120, 110, etc. during a time when every other brand was using 2-digits or a naming system: Atomic SX:14, Salomon X-Wave 12, Nordica Speedmachine 12, Tecnica Diablo Magma/Fire/Flame, etc.

Still seems like the same scale though, they just added a "0"...

 

[anders_nor]

130 touringboot, and 130 racing boot from same mfg, are worlds apart.

 

[Schussboelie]

130 touringboot, and 130 racing boot from same mfg, are worlds apart.

Unfortunately I have to agree.
Really sad actually.

 

[onenerdykid]

Unfortunately I have to agree.
Really sad actually.

Herein lies one of the main problems with a flex hierarchy: if you want a "real" 130, every boot has to be built like a race boot, which means thick and heavy. It will lead to all boots being constructed more or less the same way.

If a brand wants to push the boundaries of weight/mobility, they risk not making a "real" 130 and won't know it until after they spend about 250K Euros on the first development size. No brand wants to invest that kind of money only to be able to make a 120, which will be immediately written off as "not enough boot" by the internet.

"Stiff" for a race boot and "stiff" for a touring boot should mean different things. Attaching a label like "130" implies specificity and a unit of measure which is just not and never will be the case. Like @TomPietrowski said - we would all be better off going with Soft, Medium, Hard distinctions which allow for a grey area and/or variances to exist. But it is going to be near impossible to turn this gigantic tanker around at this point...

 

[Chessie]

Thanks, especially to Tom and Onenerdykid who answered my question about the history. One more company that used flex ratings before the advent of the current industry practice is Raichle, whose Flexon tongues existed in various degrees of flex. As per the Raichle 1980-81 tech manual they were 4, 6, 8 and 10. At some later point it was expanded to 12. My Full Tilt boots from 2011'ish have a clockface stamping on the inside to indicate flex, which goes to 12 (mine are a 6). However it seems the 12 flex was never actually available through Full Tilt, although they advertised it. Full Tilt later "translated" 6-8-10-12 to 90-110-120-130, IIRC. However, Full Tilt and now K2 are using a different material for the flex tongue than Raichle did in the past.

 

[François Pugh]

Still seems like the same scale though, they just added a "0"...

Seems like. I had the Solomon Cross-max 10. It was 100 flex. I now have Technica Mach 1 MV 120. They got stiffer than they were with stock liners when I replaced the liners with foam injected Sidas.

 

[Schussboelie]

"Stiff" for a race boot and "stiff" for a touring boot should mean different things. Attaching a label like "130" implies specificity and a unit of measure which is just not and never will be the case. Like @TomPietrowski said - we would all be better off going with Soft, Medium, Hard distinctions which allow for a grey area and/or variances to exist. But it is going to be near impossible to turn this gigantic tanker around at this point...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
Stiff is stiff and both are ski boots.
Their usage is not distinctive or seperated enough to justify seperate stiffness definitions or scales.
Especially if you use a number to quantify something, and use the same number on seperate but similar objects, that number should mean the same thing.
If an Atomic Redster CS 130 and Hawx Prime 130 don't have to same stiffness, how are we to compare?
Does the Hawx' stiffness correspond to the Redster 120? The 90?
Nobody has clue yet manufacturers use the same number (and we, the market, probably demand that).
It's as if a 12V battery would actually deliver 15V in a heavy truck but only 10V in a Volkswagen Golf.

Rather than having to interprete the value in combination with a type, brands should teach us not to expect the same stifness from boots with different functions, and we should accept that our freeride boot will have a lower flex number than our club racer.

 

[KingGrump]

brands should teach us not to expect the same stifness from boots with different functions,

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[onenerdykid]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
Stiff is stiff and both are ski boots.
Their usage is not distinctive or seperated enough to justify seperate stiffness definitions or scales.
Especially if you use a number to quantify something, and use the same number on seperate but similar objects, that number should mean the same thing.
If an Atomic Redster CS 130 and Hawx Prime 130 don't have to same stiffness, how are we to compare?
Does the Hawx' stiffness correspond to the Redster 120? The 90?
Nobody has clue yet manufacturers use the same number (and we, the market, probably demand that).
It's as if a 12V battery would actually deliver 15V in a heavy truck but only 10V in a Volkswagen Golf.

Rather than having to interprete the value in combination with a type, brands should teach us not to expect the same stifness from boots with different functions, and we should accept that our freeride boot will have a lower flex number than our club racer.

My point is that manufacturers should not use the numbers anyway. Numbers imply that specific values exist and they simply don't. We can objectively measure things like voltage. Right now there is no objective measure for flex. There needs to be a grey area to allow for differences in boot builds.

Try as hard as you may, but there is no way for a 1kg boot to feel like a 2.5kg boot. It's best to just do away with the current 3-digit flex ratings because they imply a specificity that simply does not exist.

 

[BLiP]

My point is that manufacturers should not use the numbers anyway.

Nordica did away with numbers for its new Dobermann line. Perhaps all the manufacturers can start with the race boots then trickle down.

Then again, as soon as the Dobbies were announced, people were asking questions about the number equivalent of each of the designations, ie, is ES a 150, or is the S closer to a 130 or a 140?

Maybe we’re the problem. We want to quantify and standardize something that is not quantifiable and has no standard. I think you should take the 170 off Mikaela’s boots and put a 100 graphic on them. Watch people freak out.

 

[onenerdykid]

Nordica did away with numbers for its new Dobermann line. Perhaps all the manufacturers can start with the race boots then trickle down.

Then again, as soon as the Dobbies were announced, people were asking questions about the number equivalent of each of the designations, ie, is ES a 150, or is the S closer to a 130 or a 140?

Maybe we’re the problem. We want to quantify and standardize something that is not quantifiable and has no standard. I think you should take the 170 off Mikaela’s boots and put a 100 graphic on them. Watch people freak out.

I think we're the last brand holding on to a 3-digit flex index in racing. This will change in due time.

 

[TomPietrowski]

Maybe we’re the problem. We want to quantify and standardize something that is not quantifiable and has no standard. I think you should take the 170 off Mikaela’s boots and put a 100 graphic on them. Watch people freak out.

You are 100% the problem

Unfortunately the ski industry is very set in its ways. It’s so hard to try to change established conventions even if they don’t make sense and people complain about them.

As an example we had our recon team boots, they were our stiffest boots with a flex around 140 but we did not call out the flex. They did ok but never great. Next season I changed the name to recon 140 and orders doubled. The boot did not change but suddenly buyers looked at them because they understood what they were.

As Matt has said the only way we can get away from this is if all brands move towards it together which unfortunately I just don’t see happening. I have some tentative plans for our 26/27 product line but I’m being asked still to put a flex in brackets next to the name but hey it’s a start at least.

 

[TomPietrowski]

Thanks, especially to Tom and Onenerdykid who answered my question about the history. One more company that used flex ratings before the advent of the current industry practice is Raichle, whose Flexon tongues existed in various degrees of flex. As per the Raichle 1980-81 tech manual they were 4, 6, 8 and 10. At some later point it was expanded to 12. My Full Tilt boots from 2011'ish have a clockface stamping on the inside to indicate flex, which goes to 12 (mine are a 6). However it seems the 12 flex was never actually available through Full Tilt, although they advertised it. Full Tilt later "translated" 6-8-10-12 to 90-110-120-130, IIRC. However, Full Tilt and now K2 are using a different material for the flex tongue than Raichle did in the past.

Full Tilt were one of the last hold outs to do something a little different but eventually even we gave in and changed to standardize to the rest of the industry after demand from retailers to make it easier to understand. But it’s just renaming, 12 or 130 they both flex the exact same the only difference is the number printed on them. It could just as easily say extra stiff instead and still be exactly the same product.