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

[James]

Coming up with some scheme to test boots and standardize flex numbers benefits…whom? I get some would feel better if there were numbers that made sense. Seems logical. I just see little benefit other than that some feel better that there’s a bit more order in the world. It still has little effect on using the product.

 

[Noodler]

Coming up with some scheme to test boots and standardize flex numbers benefits…whom? I get some would feel better if there were numbers that made sense. Seems logical. I just see little benefit other than that some feel better that there’s a bit more order in the world. It still has little effect on using the product.

The problem is that almost no one demos boots before you buy. Feeling the flex of a boot indoors does not equate to how it will ski. It would be nice to have an agreed standard that all manufacturers adhere to for what is printed on the boot. As we all know, you cannot compare boots within a manufacturer's own line, let alone between manufacturers. You just really have no idea what you're getting, until you commit to getting it. That's not fair to consumers of these products.

 

[onenerdykid]

The problem is that almost no one demos boots before you buy. Feeling the flex of a boot indoors does not equate to how it will ski. It would be nice to have an agreed standard that all manufacturers adhere to for what is printed on the boot. As we all know, you cannot compare boots within a manufacturer's own line, let alone between manufacturers. You just really have no idea what you're getting, until you commit to getting it. That's not fair to consumers of these products.

But having a standardized flex rating wouldn't give you any clarity concerning how a boot feels indoors vs. how it will feel at 0° or -5° or -10° or -20°. That will still be a problem that people will have to deal with regardless of standardized flexes or not. Moreover, the same flex rating but in different plastics will also be a mystery until it is tried on or skied. A 130-flex boot in PU will behave differently than a 130-Pebax boot or a 130-PA boot at room temp and at different temperatures. I don't see how a standardized flex rating would solve the challenge of how a boot feels indoors vs. when on snow.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Not only that but the reality is that only a very small minority of skiers have any idea what flex (and other boot characteristics) would actually suit them and, given the inconsistency of their skiing, demoing boots isn’t likely to help. These skiers would be far better off relying on the advice of an experienced boot fitter than trying to figure it out for themselves. High end recreational skiers and above generally have a very good idea what works for them and aren’t searching the woods!

 

[BLiP]

But having a standardized flex rating wouldn't give you any clarity concerning how a boot feels indoors vs. how it will feel at 0° or -5° or -10° or -20°.

Careful. They'll start asking you to list multiple, temperature specific, flex ratings.

 

[Noodler]

All we keep getting are excuses and not actually recommendations for solutions.

Cars all are mandated to show mpg ratings. But we all do not drive the same and will not all get the same mpg as the rating. Does that mean mpg ratings aren't useful? Hardly.

It's time to stop putting up roadblocks and making excuses. Bring some solutions to the table.

I am confident that this information will eventually come out. Boots will be tested (probably by a 3rd-party), flex information will end up being standardized whether or not the manufacturers like it. We will all be better off having this info in our buying decisions rather than not having it.

 

[BLiP]

All we keep getting are excuses and not actually recommendations for solutions.

One solution has been offered multiple times - get ride of the flex numbers altogether and go with something like Stiff, Medium, Soft.

The primary issue seems to be that some people think specific, standardized flex information would be useful and worth the time, money, and effort, and some do not. I'm not sure that issue has a solution.

 

[markojp]

All we keep getting are excuses and not actually recommendations for solutions.

Cars all are mandated to show mpg ratings. But we all do not drive the same and will not all get the same mpg as the rating. Does that mean mpg ratings aren't useful? Hardly.

It's time to stop putting up roadblocks and making excuses. Bring some solutions to the table.

I am confident that this information will eventually come out. Boots will be tested (probably by a 3rd-party), flex information will end up being standardized whether or not the manufacturers like it. We will all be better off having this info in our buying decisions rather than not having it.

Not getting out to ski enough? Man o man, if I got that wrapped around an axle about numbers on boot boxes, I'd have quit and opened a Laz-E-Boy store decades ago.

 

[Schussboelie]

It's not even about wanting a flex rating that tells all about a boot, not at all.
We all know that's impossible and very depending on feet and usage, don't try to make it sound like we don't.

And yes, it probably would be better to get rid of it all together.
But in lack of that, which still remains a manufacturers decision, the least we can expect is that if they use a rating, propagate in their marketing talk and even their product's names, one could at least expect some consistency and standardization in the way they determine that rating for a specific boot.
That's all.

It's difficult to find a good metaphore but let's think chocolate.
Chocolate from different manufacturers (boot makers) will have different ingredients (plastics) and some will have nuts, salt or other stuff that changes the structure.
Some are thick bars, others slim pellets.
But if a bar says 65% cacao, you know it's gonna more bitter than a 50% one, across brands, flavours and forms.

So if y'all are gonna very similar numbers, better align them, especially within one brand, or loose them.
All's I'm saying is that a 130 flex boot shouldn't fold on a recreational run on a groomer.
Or at least I don't expect it to.
As we don't get a chance to try on every boot in cold environments, let alone demo every boot, the desciption and flex are strong indicators to go by.

 

[James]

Does that mean mpg ratings aren't useful? Hardly.

In Europe they weren’t a few years ago. Nearly 40% off real world. Since the manufacturers controlled the rules there was no incentive.

 

[dbostedo]

We will all be better off having this info

I'd posit only a few folks will be better off. But maybe some of them will be boot fitters and it will help them fit others? As noted above, I think the vast, vast majority of boot buyers would not understand or make proper use of the info, or care. Personally, even as a dedicated skier, I don't care.

 

[AlexisLD]

Thanks for your patient answers @onenerdykid !

Totally agree that the industry as a whole can do a much better job at communicating and educating skiers, retailers, etc. We will be launching a new website at some point (don't hold your breath) where we take the time to educate people about everything we make, the fitting processes required for them, and simply serve as an educational platform to learn more about ski boots.

It is because of "fit" and how it is such a key component to how a boot flexes that we shouldn't strive for exact flex measurements. The exactness of the boot's flex depends on each individual and for this reason I think we should stick to hierarchical labels that allow for some grey area to exist, yet still be able to offer meaningful comparisons. We don't need exactness in order to properly understand a comparison, especially with how a comparison feels to us.

Definitely, I have no problem demoing boots and feeling different things for myself. If I could do that with all boots and skis, I would not be thinking about getting measurements/numbers.

Problem is, in my area, the nearest decent shop is 2-3h away. And they still mostly have rotating seasonal staff who are not bootfitters with 20+ years of experience. I can't imagine a word when we have less online sales in the future...

There is a level of objectivity (the boot itself) but there is also a large element of subjectivity (how our own foot fills/doesn't fill the shell). We can say the flex of a Hawx Ultra 130 RS is comparable to a Nordica Promachine 130 without needing exact data behind it. These boots aren't exactly the same and with a narrow/LV foot inside the shell, they will be close.. And I think having a hierarchy/label/system that gets us to "close" is what we should be striving for.

I am starting to understand that. Thanks.

I use the term "stability" to refer to how well a shell resists collapsing under load. This term really entered my boot vocabulary during the time of the first generation Hawx Ultra, when we were trying to make a very light weight boot ski well. The most common feedback we got with this boot was that it flexed well until a certain point but then the shell would collapse if enough force was applied to it. And when this happened, it was very noticeable and equally disappointing to the skiers who experienced it. This type of collapsing does not happen with boots like a Redster CS and we started to see where more material was needed in the shell to prevent it from happening. So I use stability to refer to the lower shell specifically and its ability to resist collapsing.

I would assume you can see that on a Moment vs Angle curve?

So progressiveness, damping, stability and rebound can be measured through the same process. Snow feel would probably require a different test... Assuming you test for different fits and temperatures, and that you can summarize that in a useful/simple way to skiers.

 

[AlexisLD]

@AlexisLD , I don't agree with the advice James has given. You (third person) should listen, but it's reasonable that they should earn our trust and answer our questions. This happens best through personal interaction. I've successfully fit a lot of boots for different people with feet and skier narratives that bear no resemblence to mine, beginners through very strong expert skiers and racers, and everything in between. Phil, Trisha, Otto, and others here have also and continue to do so on a regular basis. Someone who's truly competent at the craft of fitting, knows their products, has a integrity to let us know if they don't have the right boot on hand, but will help us find it, etc.... will have no problem helping. We'll know by the questions they ask and the physical evaluation process we're taken through before they even suggest a boot if have a partnership or not. And when they run into a foot that's truly unique or new to their experience, they'll reach out to their colleagues and ask for their thoughts. One of the most rewarding boot fits I ever did was with a colleague who's also been a mentor. We more or less built a pair of boots to help a woman get back into the sport after a long and abusive relationship that had by her own account, had crushed her emotionally, physically, and spiritually. She'd given up and thought she was too heavy to ski, and had been turned away by several shops. We took most of a slow weekday to put our collective skills to work to make sure we got her in boots and back on the hill to begin the process of reclaiming her previous life and passion for skiing. Now what if she hadn't listened? And what if we hadn't tried?

That is awesome @markojp. Can't really be more inspiring that, and I want this kind of experience to continue for as long as skiing exists. I totally agree that if I have someone with experience look at my feet and let me try a few boots, they can provide extremely valuable information.

I just don't have access to that kind of help around me (or haven't found it), I am sure it is the case for many others, and I am pretty sure that online sales will keep growing. The in-person service from knowledgeable staff will always be the most useful, but there will be even more need for help that can be provided online (or some other idea on how to make this work for people).

 

[Noodler]

Not getting out to ski enough? Man o man, if I got that wrapped around an axle about numbers on boot boxes, I'd have quit and opened a Laz-E-Boy store decades ago.

So I take it you never read the dimensions and sidecut printed on skis? Give me a break.

 

[Noodler]

What is actually the most annoying thing about this whole discussion is that the manufacturers are actually measuring the flex of their boots and their competitors. They have the data. They just choose to not share it. There simply needs to be more accuracy and transparency in how boots are marketed and sold.

 

[markojp]

So I take it you never read the dimensions and sidecut printed on skis? Give me a break.

I most certainly don't live, die, or judge a ski by it. If I did, I'd have lost my marbles when I found out my 189 Kore 99's are in fact 102 underfoot. Nor do I get my undies wound up about that a 180 eSpeed Pro and 175 eSpeed Pro do in fact ski a bit differently. Frankly, I expected it. Breaks my heart that no one currently makes a 16/17 Monster88 or the original Augment AM 88, and I don't really care if Graphine is the deal or not, I only care how they ski and that they're prepped by my guy who knows what I like. The latter is much more important than any numbers printed on the topsheet. Just looking at a Kore 99, a Monster 88, and an eRace Pro, I'm pretty comfortable anticipating what they might be used for, where and when they'll excel, and yes, even anticipate how they might ski, etc... Have there been suprizes? Sure! The current blue eSpeed Pro which is a totally different beast than the yellow model, but no big worry one way or the other, just a different horse.

And yes, I was apprehensive when changing from an older RS 130 to a B3, and then finally to a WCR 3. They all ski differently. The fit is even different. It took a bit to figure out the WCR3's, but man o man, I love them and wouldn't go back. Just got a new pair dropped off yesterday and am pleased as punch! I also know they'll ski differently because they're fresh plastic. Not quite time for the Laz-E-Boy just yet.

 

[Near Nyquist]

I most certainly don't live, die, or judge a ski by it. If I did, I'd have lost my marbles when I found out my 189 Kore 99's are in fact 102 underfoot. Nor do I get my undies wound up about that a 180 eSpeed Pro and 175 eSpeed Pro do in fact ski a bit differently. Frankly, I expected it. Breaks my heart that no one currently makes a 16/17 Monster88 or the original Augment AM 88, and I don't really care if Graphine is the deal or not, I only care how they ski and that they're prepped by my guy who knows what I like. The latter is much more important than any numbers printed on the topsheet. Just looking at a Kore 99, a Monster 88, and an eRace Pro, I'm pretty comfortable anticipating what they might be used for, where and when they'll excel, and yes, even anticipate how they might ski, etc... Have there been suprizes? Sure! The current blue eSpeed Pro which is a totally different beast than the yellow model, but no big worry one way or the other, just a different horse.

And yes, I was apprehensive when changing from an older RS 130 to a B3, and then finally to a WCR 3. They all ski differently. The fit is even different. It took a bit to figure out the WCR3's, but man o man, I love them and wouldn't go back. Just got a new pair dropped off yesterday and am pleased as punch! I also know they'll ski differently because they're fresh plastic. Not quite time for the Laz-E-Boy just yet.

Got any of those Laz-E-Boy for the superbowl next weekend ?

What’s the flex on one of them ?

130 or 140 flex

I hear that the flexsteel ones flex different cause of the steel ?

Maybe the Flex is different.

Do you think my butt can tell the difference

bet cha a couple of beers in I won’t be able to tell.

These recliner guys all need to measure flex at room temperature, my room is cold
Can they account for that too ..,

Need an 85 inch tv too

got any that are true to size ?

they need to have standards as well

it’s unfair to us consumers just wanting to drink beer and watch football.

 

[James]

What would be useful is publishing the dimensions of the boot, forward lean, where the hinge point is, rail angle, zeppa angle, how it’s aligned on the base. Flex is pretty trivial.

 

[cem]

What is actually the most annoying thing about this whole discussion is that the manufacturers are actually measuring the flex of their boots and their competitors. They have the data. They just choose to not share it. There simply needs to be more accuracy and transparency in how boots are marketed and sold.

why do you need to know, simple answer is you don't, what are you wanting to do with the data??? the flex number is as irrelevant as the mondopoint sze conversion to UK/US shoe sizes.... all that matters is does it actually fit you properly and does it bend in a way that suits you and your skiing, it is a guide, a start point

does everyone who measures 242mm long, ski in a 24.5 boot, of course not that too is a guide

having said it once i will reiterate, this forum is the niche of the niche, and you are trying to be the niche of the niche of the niche

 

[Schussboelie]

why do you need to know, simple answer is you don't, what are you wanting to do with the data??? the flex number is as irrelevant as the mondopoint sze conversion to UK/US shoe sizes.... all that matters is does it actually fit you properly and does it bend in a way that suits you and your skiing, it is a guide, a start point

It's a guide indeed, or at least it should be, the mondopoint is actually a good reference.
Sure not every 24.5 but fits all 242mm feet, but at least they are measured in the same way and mean the same thing.