Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 63
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,610
    Not saying it wouldn't be nice to have established metrics for dampness, flex in 3 regions in the ski, etc. but I'm not sure who is going to take on the job of standardizing this in the industry. Ski manufacturers already test for these traits, usually during prototype production to compare different material layups, but as with boot flex index there is no industry-wide standard. Most companies would prefer to spend the budget on topsheet graphics, which they know sell skis, rather than trying to hit an "8" for dampness, which no one knows what to do with.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    CO/UT
    Posts
    2,185
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    The problem is people ski differently and perceptions will vary. Take a tip driver vs a very centered skier and they might completely disagree about a skiís flex based on a particular part of the build.
    And because of this, even if we did quantitatively measure a ski it may still not ski the same between different people. I have a ski buddy who is a very ripping skier but he skis very balanced and centered whereas I just lean forward. He is also 40lbs lighter than me. We ski the same terrain together and have completely different opinions about skis. The last demo day I remember him telling me on the lift "I hate this ski, it feels dead and too long in the tip. You should try it!" And of course I liked it.

    Also to touch on something else, even using something like Blister's methodology where they estimate the flex at various parts of the ski, this could still change based on binding and BSL, right? Obviously most people fall inside the norm, but if you are on a 330+ bsl with frame bindings underfoot numbers may be out the window?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    17
    Seems like it would be easy to set up a jig to measure flex. I am thinking you could clamp the ski at a certain point, which would vary depending on what part of the ski you are testing, then use a force gauge to push the free end a certain distance. You could take a few measurements to see how progressive or linear the curve is.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by jaywf956 View Post
    Seems like it would be easy to set up a jig to measure flex. I am thinking you could clamp the ski at a certain point, which would vary depending on what part of the ski you are testing, then use a force gauge to push the free end a certain distance. You could take a few measurements to see how progressive or linear the curve is.
    Iíve been thinking about building something like this for a while now. Even have a few sketches of what it would look like. Iím lacking room to build it though living in a condo with a one car garage shared by 4 people...

    The idea came about to figure out how live or dead, how poppy or stable a ski is, also how torsionally stiff a ski is. As someone said up higher, not to quantify numbers the perfect ski but to perfectly quantify a ski.

    My plan was actually to built two jigs, one to measure static and one for dynamic forces. Static forces required to flex a ski would let us know theoretically how a ski flexes in a carve. Iíd also like to measure torsion here because that would theoretically give us a number connected to edge hold. Dynamic forces, how quickly and forcefully a ski flexes and rebounds would let us know the poppy nature of a ski, how quickly a ski will come out to a flex.

    The jig for the dynamic forces we also be used to measure how long a ski keeps its qualities. We could actually quantify how long it takes (in number of flexes) to lose the characteristics that makes a ski what we like. We could actually see how ďdeadĒ (and thatís probably not the correct term) a K2 ski becomes over time.

    And for a bit of fun I wanted to use an ultra slow motion camera and attempt to break skis. See how much force it actually takes for skis to fail.

    This might be my COVID project this fall and winter. Maybe we could create a new standard like DIN or ISO, but for ski construction.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    Iíve been thinking about building something like this for a while now. Even have a few sketches of what it would look like. Iím lacking room to build it though living in a condo with a one car garage shared by 4 people...

    The idea came about to figure out how live or dead, how poppy or stable a ski is, also how torsionally stiff a ski is. As someone said up higher, not to quantify numbers the perfect ski but to perfectly quantify a ski.

    My plan was actually to built two jigs, one to measure static and one for dynamic forces. Static forces required to flex a ski would let us know theoretically how a ski flexes in a carve. Iíd also like to measure torsion here because that would theoretically give us a number connected to edge hold. Dynamic forces, how quickly and forcefully a ski flexes and rebounds would let us know the poppy nature of a ski, how quickly a ski will come out to a flex.

    The jig for the dynamic forces we also be used to measure how long a ski keeps its qualities. We could actually quantify how long it takes (in number of flexes) to lose the characteristics that makes a ski what we like. We could actually see how ďdeadĒ (and thatís probably not the correct term) a K2 ski becomes over time.

    And for a bit of fun I wanted to use an ultra slow motion camera and attempt to break skis. See how much force it actually takes for skis to fail.

    This might be my COVID project this fall and winter. Maybe we could create a new standard like DIN or ISO, but for ski construction.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Add in a few tensionometers and a load that could be released close to instantly and you could measure the damping coefficient of a ski, compare something like a bodacious or a stockli to a poppy park ski to get close the extremes.

    Of course all these tests would also have to be done below freezing to accurately portray the results in the climate that they are used in.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    645
    It's not that hard to measure and quantify... something. The hard part is designing tests and metrics that actually translate to real world usage and are meaningful. Stiffness would be on the easier end of the spectrum to do well. Damping would be harder, because the load cases and inputs to the system vary much more widely. Sure, you could (for example) support the ski at the binding mount area, pull the tip down and measure any number of things about how the ski vibrates, but is that really that representative of what happens when you put the ski on snow? It's significantly removed from that case.

    Even if you have all that data, the problem with it will be that the shape of the ski (both sidecut/taper and rocker profile), and mount point, and tune, and a fuckload of other factors go into how the ski actually works. Manufacturers don't want to publish all that detail because it'll confuse more people than it'll inform (Scott Andrus has spoken about this struggle rather well in the past), and it's not worth it for media outlets to try to do either, because the effort and expense would be enormous, especially when it comes to testing all the skis they're looking at, not just those from one manufacturer. Plus then they're in the position of having to back all the data up, present it in a way that's digestible, and explain it to all the punters who'd be like "well ski A is 3% more damp in your testing, doesn't that mean it's more stable?"

    I'm not saying I wouldn't be interested to see the results of someone doing something like this well. It'd be a fun project for the dorks on here, for sure. But I both understand why nobody's doing it and putting the data out in the open, and don't think that it's a substitute for subjective reviews from people with known skiing style and preferences, as has been said already by a bunch of people.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by madriverfreeride View Post
    Add in a few tensionometers and a load that could be released close to instantly and you could measure the damping coefficient of a ski, compare something like a bodacious or a stockli to a poppy park ski to get close the extremes.

    Of course all these tests would also have to be done below freezing to accurately portray the results in the climate that they are used in.
    Nearly instant release wouldnít be too hard with the correct set up.

    To begin collecting data I think as long as the temperature is fairly constant, give or take a few degrees off the set point, say in a somewhat heated garage, about 50ish degrees, that shouldnít be too much of an issue. Once data collection grows to become more universally accepted, then a space with a set temperature would be more important.

    Are you volunteering your garage to build one these contraptions? Iíll be home in a few weeks.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by gw815 View Post
    You can definitely talk about the damping capacity of different materials, but the problem is skis are not one solid material. We have different volumes of multiple materials and composites. This makes it more complicated to determine the overall dampness of a ski. Also skis that use the same materials could still have different damping characteristics determined by the geometry. I'm sure someone smarter than all of us could come up with a decent way to average out all these factors into a number, but I wouldn't count on that number being very objective between skis/skiers. I say demo or borrow and judge for yourself.
    Weíre finally starting to ask the right questions. I donít see any reason why you couldnít determine an overall dampness value. Itís not like you need to do a weighted average of all the materials. Just do some sort of vibration frequency test for the finished product.
    And I completely disagree with you about it not being objective. If there was a standardized way of measuring said value it would be completely objective.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by jaywf956 View Post
    Seems like it would be easy to set up a jig to measure flex. I am thinking you could clamp the ski at a certain point, which would vary depending on what part of the ski you are testing, then use a force gauge to push the free end a certain distance. You could take a few measurements to see how progressive or linear the curve is.
    Now weíre talking!

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    DIN (or ISO) is a published set of standards, which practically applied (I assume you mean with reference to ski bindings; there are DIN and ISO standards for thousands of things) involves controlled testing to make sure the calibrations on a binding align with established torque metrics (Nm), or are within a certain range when physically tested for release. It doesn't tell you whether a binding skis well, is durable over time (the test does involved dropping the mounted ski from a height of 1 meter but it doesn't specify whether the binding itself hits the ground), or is difficult to put on, etc. Having T‹V certify your binding as having passed ISO 9462 or ISO 13992 doesn't mean it's "good" or that you'll be happy with it, only that it complies with certain standards for consistency of release.
    Wow thanks for all the irrelevant info. What Iím trying to get at is: numbers like DIN (yes for fucks sake of course Iím talking about bindings) especially when subject to standard testing methods are relevant and do mean jack shit!

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by skibrd View Post
    Iíve been thinking about building something like this for a while now. Even have a few sketches of what it would look like. Iím lacking room to build it though living in a condo with a one car garage shared by 4 people...

    The idea came about to figure out how live or dead, how poppy or stable a ski is, also how torsionally stiff a ski is. As someone said up higher, not to quantify numbers the perfect ski but to perfectly quantify a ski.

    My plan was actually to built two jigs, one to measure static and one for dynamic forces. Static forces required to flex a ski would let us know theoretically how a ski flexes in a carve. Iíd also like to measure torsion here because that would theoretically give us a number connected to edge hold. Dynamic forces, how quickly and forcefully a ski flexes and rebounds would let us know the poppy nature of a ski, how quickly a ski will come out to a flex.

    The jig for the dynamic forces we also be used to measure how long a ski keeps its qualities. We could actually quantify how long it takes (in number of flexes) to lose the characteristics that makes a ski what we like. We could actually see how ďdeadĒ (and thatís probably not the correct term) a K2 ski becomes over time.

    And for a bit of fun I wanted to use an ultra slow motion camera and attempt to break skis. See how much force it actually takes for skis to fail.

    This might be my COVID project this fall and winter. Maybe we could create a new standard like DIN or ISO, but for ski construction.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    PLEASE DO THIS

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,610
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumsmith View Post
    Wow thanks for all the irrelevant info. What Iím trying to get at is: numbers like DIN (yes for fucks sake of course Iím talking about bindings) especially when subject to standard testing methods are relevant and do mean jack shit!
    What Iím trying to get at is: Every alpine binding on the market has been certified to ISO 9462, they are not rated "better" or "worse." Can you predict which one you will like best based on that fact?

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumsmith View Post
    PLEASE DO THIS
    Iíll see what I can come up with but Iím not an engineer


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,089
    I've wanted to build a website related to this topic. Not "ski reviews", but instead more focused on matching skiers to skis.

    Quote Originally Posted by skibumsmith View Post
    ...If you were given the task of describing every detail of a ski in a quantitative manner how would you do it?...
    See how these guys measure stuff:
    Longitudinal Stiffness: see http://www.eviski.com/Index.aspx?Pag...stsList,Page=1
    and http://www.endrehals.no
    Torsional Stiffness: see https://soothski.com/technology-measure-ski-properties/
    Damping: see https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/09...88122968470358

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    ...a few trusted reviewers is all we need...Many numbers are deceptive...and numbers mislead, with an impression of "false precision"...
    Some nerds have learned how to interpret the misleading numbers, some haven't. I want to build a website to empower a minority of super-nerd users to be middlemen to advise everyone else. Then maybe eventually cut out those middlemen, by trying to automate whatever the super-nerd users end up doing with that website.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    ...We have no meaningful way of conveying ski quality/application with an objective numbering scheme...
    I want to try on-snow A/B Tests by humans, and report perceived ski performance comparisons as simply >, <, and ~. Might be useful, or might fail. Unfortunately, my approach to recommendations will also depend on users "knowing thyself' and inputting a lot of personal taste data, which also might fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    So much is context-dependent, especially with respect to the height/weight of the skier.
    I want to try to address that via a community-driven personal recommendation engine/collaborative filtering/etc. Basically just store as much data as possible, and see if any modeling can make any valid conclusions from all the data.

    Quote Originally Posted by skibumsmith View Post
    No no no
    I don’t want to use number to describe the perfect ski. I want to use them to perfectly describe any ski.
    Instead of striving to perfectly describe every ski in absolute terms, I hope to rely on some relative comparisons to help compensate for each ski being imperfectly-described. That and personal taste ratings, collaborative filtering, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    ...Manufacturers don't want to publish all that detail because it'll confuse more people than it'll inform (Scott Andrus has spoken about this struggle rather well in the past)...
    I want to try building a website like "If this stuff confuses you, then this website ain't for you. Ask a super-nerd to be your middleman."

    Quote Originally Posted by skibumsmith View Post
    ...I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t determine an overall dampness value. ...Just do some sort of vibration frequency test for the finished product...
    Do it. If the community ever measures stuff like that, and if they want to share it, then I will provide a feature for them to enter data into my website for everyone to read---plus we'll see if someday my models can make any valid conclusions from all the data. We'll see if I ever find spare time to build this thing...

    .
    Last edited by Vitamin I; 08-13-2020 at 12:36 AM.
    - TRADE your heavy PROTESTS for my lightweight version at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Vitamin I, we are on the same page with collecting data for the nerds and if you donít like it, this isnít for you. Collect as much data as possible, and see what we can model from that. The idea of using that to set skiers up to A/B skis after that, using the data to help quantify comments at demos like ďI likes the Bonafide but not the Head Monster 98,Ē and use that to help direct skiers towards skis instead of the bro/bras at the ski shop saying I liked the pink/green/red ones.

    Iíve got an idea for a spot to build this set up. Iíll need a hand figuring out the electrical components to measure dampness, rebound, etc. Thats not my forte. There may be software and hardware already set up we can cut and paste into this application. Iíll be home in 2 weeks and can look into it more then.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Tits
    Posts
    619
    There was some European website that did some of what you are talking about. I think they mostly tried to quantity stiffness at various points on the ski. I'm sure someone on here remembers the site, don't know of it's still around.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,482
    I think it was Endre Hals and some of it was published with friflyt.no

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by abraham View Post
    I think it was Endre Hals and some of it was published with friflyt.no
    Yeah, above I posted his old website at http://www.endrehals.no.
    That old website looks somewhat abandoned and broken by now, but there's enough text there for anyone to read some keywords to plug into Google to research it further. His measuring device was not very complicated.
    UPDATE: The apparatus is pictured at http://www.eviski.com/Index.aspx?Pag...stsList,Page=1

    http://skitest.com seems published by http://friflyt.no , and it formerly displayed a lot of the stiffness data as "SFI" using the Hals method. Now Skitest.com has removed most of their old juicy data, but you can still see some on the WayBackMachine, like at https://web.archive.org/web/20190710.../Ski/4FRNT-MSP

    .
    Last edited by Vitamin I; 08-13-2020 at 12:45 AM.
    - TRADE your heavy PROTESTS for my lightweight version at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    543
    I totally get why one would *want* to measure all those attributes, and have a less subjective "measure" of the ski.

    But so you produce a set of numbers. Lets ignore all the difficulties about what you'll measure and how. [And SUPER IGNORE how you're going to pay for it all.]

    So, you've got a set of really reliable numbers that measure all those "features" or "attributes" of the ski.

    Now, how does anyone actually use it?
    Yeah, Vitamin gets that - he wants some bhagwan-ski-guru guys who can "translate" the numbers into a subjective "This ski has (or these skis have) the attributes you want. Go buy it/them."

    But how many of those Bhagwan's can you create?
    I'd probably be good for at least all those damp skis with a ton of metal and weigh as much as the average fat American. But I'd have no idea about "poppy" or "playful" skis.

    We already do that for cars, measuring all sorts of attributes. [And there's a ton of arguing about the measurement itself.] And even with all those measurements, using the most objective criteria possible, it's still really impossible to describe a car by it's measurements alone. In the end, nearly everyone simply says "It does X like this other car." And does Y like yet another car. etc...

    Which really seems to leave us about the same place as we already are, without needing special equipment and cost to "measure" all those skis.
    It's an awesome, cool, super-nice theoretical idea.
    But it's a terrible practical one, IMO.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    116
    I think the idea would be more to create a library of measured skis, so that someone could come in and say ďhey I really liked my ____Ē and you would ideally have that ski measured already and give them a list of skis that have similar numbers and then let them choose based on sidecut and rocker profile or go demo some of them.

    You could even measure their old beat pair and then apply some sort of degradation factor to estimate what the original measurements would have been. You could then provide that person with two lists, say these sets of skis are similar to what your skis are at now, these skis are similar to what we think those skis were like new. Again they would have to demo a bunch of skis or choose based on rocker and sidecut.

    Basically you could give people lists of skis that had similar attributes, you could even prioritize certain ones and say I want a list of skis with a damping rating of X and a turn radius between 20-30 meters, and see all the different skis that show up, again it would be up to the user to choose a ski based on other factors.

    Basically it would just be interesting to start, it probably wouldnít provide an income to the builder or much useful information to the average skier whoís just going to buy whatever the shop dude tells him is the hot shit that year.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by madriverfreeride View Post
    I think the idea would be more to create a library of measured skis, so that someone could come in and say “hey I really liked my ____” and you would ideally have that ski measured already and give them a list of skis that have similar numbers and then let them choose based on sidecut and rocker profile or go demo some of them.

    You could even measure their old beat pair and then apply some sort of degradation factor to estimate what the original measurements would have been. You could then provide that person with two lists, say these sets of skis are similar to what your skis are at now, these skis are similar to what we think those skis were like new. Again they would have to demo a bunch of skis or choose based on rocker and sidecut.

    Basically you could give people lists of skis that had similar attributes, you could even prioritize certain ones and say I want a list of skis with a damping rating of X and a turn radius between 20-30 meters, and see all the different skis that show up, again it would be up to the user to choose a ski based on other factors.

    Basically it would just be interesting to start, it probably wouldn’t provide an income to the builder or much useful information to the average skier who’s just going to buy whatever the shop dude tells him is the hot shit that year.
    Sure, I get that.
    But I fail to see what advantage that really has over the current system of: "The guys at Blister/TGR/BroRiders/your-fav-review-site have this review and it's pretty similar to the Katana - though you may not be able to sip your PBR while crushing chop."

    It seems like a ton of work developing a set of measurements that accurately describe any ski, and then the devices to measure those attributes - then create a catalog etc - all for, IMO, not a lot of utility over the current method. The ratio of effort to reward seems really, really bad.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by gregorys View Post
    Sure, I get that.
    But I fail to see what advantage that really has over the current system of: "The guys at Blister/TGR/BroRiders/your-fav-review-site have this review and it's pretty similar to the Katana - though you may not be able to sip your PBR while crushing chop."

    It seems like a ton of work developing a set of measurements that accurately describe any ski, and then the devices to measure those attributes - then create a catalog etc - all for, IMO, not a lot of utility over the current method. The ratio of effort to reward seems really, really bad.
    I think what you are missing here is my time is cheap when Iím off work, because Iím on vacation about 5-7 months a year. The rest of the argument is we are just a bunch if ski needs who think this would be a cool project.

    Making money off it, well there are some ideas in my head, and if it evolves into something that is sustainable, great, if not itís just a science project for a bunch of ski nerds/dorks. I think you start by proving the concept works, then reach out to Blister, TGR, Pugski (is that a thing?), Powder, etc and see if they would be interested in what you have.

    And the cost, what do we need? Some steel angle bar to build a frame? Not too expensive. A welder and someone to weld it together? I love buying tools and have a basic understanding of how to weld. A way to bend skis, I grew up on racing sailboats, block and tackles are my jam and not that expensive. Computers are getting fairly inexpensive and we hopefully wonít need one thatís too fancy. Iím not sure what the measuring equipment will cost, but a quick google search seems to lead me to believe potentiometers are fairly inexpensive. Skis? I own enough skis to get started. How many Mags (or friends) are in or around Jackson/TheGhee, and have an infinite number of skis, and would love to see what this contraception does? Skis are easy to come by to get started. Hell, I could probably sell a few pairs of skis I donít use out Iíd my quiver or not buy any new pairs for this season and cover the costs.

    The hardest part I see is coming up with older skis in mint condition, like the OG German mane Katana (not the Chinese crappy ones) to create a baseline on older skis so when people look to replace them after 68922 years, you can point them in a certain direction.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    The only reviews I find useful are when I know that person likes other skis similar to my tastes. More often than not, I've noticed they're usually in the same ballpark in terms of height and weight.

    Also: stiffness is too vague and I like how Blister has really emphasized stiffness / flex in various parts of a ski, not to mention lateral stiffness being an important factor.

    Ski design is as much art as science so reviews are never going to be perfected in any real way. That reminds me of the Soul7 - I remember trying it and thinking, I fucking hate this ski but it's a really good ski for a lot of people.
    Except from the fact that they have a 10-point scale, but never use anything above 6-6,5. Most skis end up hovering between 8-9 it seem?

    Or maybe I'm biased because I don't read reviews of skis I'm not interested in.

    Anyhow, that's just like my opinion, you know. I really like Blister. But their stiffness-scale isn't very useful

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Except from the fact that they have a 10-point scale, but never use anything above 6-6,5. Most skis end up hovering between 8-9 it seem?

    Or maybe I'm biased because I don't read reviews of skis I'm not interested in.

    Anyhow, that's just like my opinion, you know. I really like Blister. But their stiffness-scale isn't very useful
    I agree!! Iíve been skipping the stiffness part of Blister reviews for a while now because it always seems like they cut and paste the same info from the last review. This is why Iíd like to quantify actual numbers based on science, not the Bros flexing a ski and how it feels


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Except from the fact that they have a 10-point scale, but never use anything above 6-6,5. Most skis end up hovering between 8-9 it seem?

    Or maybe I'm biased because I don't read reviews of skis I'm not interested in.

    Anyhow, that's just like my opinion, you know. I really like Blister. But their stiffness-scale isn't very useful
    That's just not accurate. Here for example are the flex numbers from two reviews that came out this summer;

    DPS Pagoda
    Tips: 8.5
    Shovels: 8-8.5
    In Front of Toe Piece: 9-9.5
    Underfoot: 10
    Behind the Heel Piece: 10-9
    Tails: 8.5-9

    K2 Reckoner
    Tips: 6
    Shovels: 6.5-7
    In Front of Toe Piece: 8-10
    Underfoot: 10
    Behind the Heel Piece: 10-8.5
    Tails: 7.5-6

    Hmmmm, looks pretty different to me. Once you have flexed a few skis that they have reviewed and have a feel for their "scale" you will find it is reliable.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •