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

[markojp]

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.

The inner boot mondo measurement isn't accurate either, even among different boot lines from the same brand.

 

[James]

At most you’re looking at 3 choices of flex, and more likely two, and very likely in this group, one. So getting hyperdetailed on the numbers yields little practical results. Getting all worked up about it and starting a commission on it is a Don Quixote quest.

Again, publishing the physical measurements they have without doing anything would be far more useful than inventing a flex machine and procedure.

 

[dbostedo]

Getting all worked up about it and starting a commission on it is a Don Quixote quest.

I kind of agree. Though I can certainly understand folks wanting more data and consistency - I am an engineer after all, and data is good.

I just can't see that it would be useful for me unless I wanted to buy new boots frequently or have a boot quiver. That's why I don't think it would be anywhere near as useful as ski flex numbers/ methodology. (Which are also of some limited usefulness for most people.)

 

[Schussboelie]

At most you’re looking at 3 choices of flex, and more likely two, and very likely in this group, one. So getting hyperdetailed on the numbers yields little practical results. Getting all worked up about it and starting a commission on it is a Don Quixote quest.

Again, publishing the physical measurements they have without doing anything would be far more useful than inventing a flex machine and procedure.

Fair enough, but then don’t mention any flex at all.
I feel like some of have a hard time reading comments others and myself posted.
I can only speak for myself and I will keep repeating it. If you’re gonna a number and a scale as typology for your product, make it consistent or don’t use it all.
That’s a manufacturer’s choice and responsibility.

 

[skipress]

Fair enough, but then don’t mention any flex at all.
I feel like some of have a hard time reading comments others and myself posted.
I can only speak for myself and I will keep repeating it. If you’re gonna a number and a scale as typology for your product, make it consistent or don’t use it all.
That’s a manufacturer’s choice and responsibility.

My read is that most of the mfgrs would prefer not to use, but the genie is out of the bottle and it's hard to put it back.

Think cars - a [european] car can have a 2 litre engine and top out at 100mph or 200..it's just more complex.

 

[ARL67]

In the golf world, every shaft manufacturer have their version of Regular, Stiff, X-Stiff. Not all R,S,X will feel the same across all shaft manufacturers, and then there is the shaft bend profile and torque that have an impact on how it feels. If you’re into it long enough, you know or have an idea of what’s what, or have a fitter to guide you.

Is it not the same for ski boots ?
We know a 140 > 130 > 120 ….
Does it matter that brand X 120 may be stiffer/softer than brand Y 120 ?
We either have that historical knowledge or are guided by our boot fitter.

With boots made of multi material, different leans, different liners, buckles, power straps, tongues, or aftermarket liners, how can one put a quantifiable number on a boot flex that is universal among all brands. To me it’s a solution looking for a problem, from my viewpoint as an average guy. For the hardcore ski gear enthusiasts, they have the boot knowledge already, so what’s in a number ?

BUT I guess if the industry is going more to self-serve and bypassing the fitter, then ya some more standardization may be helpful - Soothski for boots.

 

[Noodler]

In the golf world, every shaft manufacturer have their version of Regular, Stiff, X-Stiff. Not all R,S,X will feel the same across all shaft manufacturers, and then there is the shaft bend profile and torque that have an impact on how it feels. If you’re into it long enough, you know or have an idea of what’s what, or have a fitter to guide you.

Is it not the same for ski boots ?
We know a 140 > 130 > 120 ….
Does it matter that brand X 120 may be stiffer/softer than brand Y 120 ?
We either have that historical knowledge or are guided by our boot fitter.

With boots made of multi material, different leans, different liners, buckles, power straps, tongues, or aftermarket liners, how can one put a quantifiable number on a boot flex that is universal among all brands. To me it’s a solution looking for a problem, from my viewpoint as an average guy. For the hardcore ski gear enthusiasts, they have the boot knowledge already, so what’s in a number ?

BUT I guess if the industry is going more to self-serve and bypassing the fitter, then ya some more standardization may be helpful - Soothski for boots.

Yeah, BUT... we also have all the data on the shafts (EI profiles). So I could care less what they put on the shaft label because we have the data on the shafts. It's also REALLY easy to go demo shafts to your heart's content. Can't do that with boots.

 

[Noodler]

Blister just released Gear:30 Episode 283 - Blister Labs Ski and Boot Flex

It's a must listen for anyone interested in this stuff. I think they made the case very clearly for why we should all want public flex curve data on ski boots.

 

[Noodler]

 

[Philpug]

Yeah, BUT...

You can "Yeah, BUT" ... all you want. As much as you want an independent lab to go through the numbers, it ain't gonna happen. We need to play the hand that it dealt to us. I will say once we do all the variables, in sizes, temps. femur length, dorsal ranges, buckle tensions, I bet we would come up with in percentages of what they published numbers are now.

 

[charlier]

I totally hear you. And here is my dilemma: if I am ruthlessly honest about the flex rating of a Hawx Prime XTD and our stiffest model is hypothetically a 110, then it won't be as commercially successful as a Lange XT3 130, Cochise 130, etc. People, like you admitted, automatically reject a boot if it doesn't say "130" on the side of it. The markets simply won't accept it. We've been there, we've tried it, and it's the kiss of death for the boot, the project, and the ROI on a million Euro investment.

I've wished for/alluded to a different system moving forward, but I really think there needs to be a clear hierarchy not based on flex alone, that is clearly positioned within a family and that family only, and a clear communication that performance expectations make sense within a family and not crossing over families.

Entering the conversation as a backcountry guide. For every skier with a Tecnica Cochise130 or Atomic Ultra XTD 130, I wish that they were all wearing softer touring boots. On 7 day ski hut trip, I can easily guess,which skier will ski better with variable snow conditions and be able to enjoy 4,500 vertical - not a 130,flex boot.

 

[Chessie]

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

What do you mean mpg ratings were not mandated in Europe? I assume you would consider liters/100 km or km/l ratings equivalent to mpg. They have been around for decades for all cars and the methods standardized. Not sure they were mandated by law in all countries, but all consumer cars had them. Not sure about Ferrari, Rolls Royce etc though.

 

[HardDaysNight]

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

I’ve been in the WCR3s since 2020 and also got a new pair a week ago. In my original pair I had to have both boots ground over the navicular. No way I could have skied them out the box. The new ones fitted like gloves, absolutely no pressure - I skied them in perfect comfort with no work at all. Do you have any idea if Head recently modified the clog molds to create a little more room over the naviculars? Certainly feels like it.

 

[Chessie]

The Head Raptor WCR series received a new clog for the 21/22 season according to my research. It coincides with the WCR 140 S arriving with the “extended toe box”. Although there is no “extended toe box” inscription on the race models (like your WCR3), it has a different, more shark-nose clog. Possibly that is why it feels different. Compare these pics of older boots with the current

 

[dbostedo]

The Head Raptor WCR series received a new clog for the 21/22 season according to my research. It coincides with the WCR 140 S arriving with the “extended toe box”. Although there is no “extended toe box” inscription on the race models (like your WCR3), it has a different, more shark-nose clog. Possibly that is why it feels different. Compare these pics of older boots with the current

Looks like you posted the same pic twice @Chessie. And that also appears to be the 65 flex junior boot?

 

[Chessie]

Looks like you posted the same pic twice @Chessie. And that also appears to be the 65 flex junior boot?

It was not my intention to post a pic of the current design because it is easily found online. Although I have previously found a pic of the earlier pre 21-22 WCR 1 thru 4 design on the Web, all I could find without an extraordinary effort was the junior model as you point out. However, the nose, if not the entire shell, has the same general shape as the adult line. I accidentally posted the same pic twice and had difficulty removing the extra copy on my phone. If you compare “nose shapes” in Head’s race catalogue from previous years (searchable online), I believe you will agree.

 

[Chessie]

Sorry for the confusion about the Head Raptor shell development over time. This table should clear it up.

 

[Chessie]

Here is a close-up of the toe of the current WCR 140S. The race models appear to have the same shell exterior but no "Extended Toe Box" inscription.

 

[onenerdykid]

WCR 1 and WCR 140 use the same outer mold. This means they look and measure the same externally.

But they use different inner lasts . This means they fit differently and have different wall thicknesses.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Thanks for the info @Chessie and @onenerdykid.