or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski weights database - Page 2

post #31 of 56

OK.  Seems like most of us can agree to agree.  Lightweight skis are desirable for skinning uphill.   My knees would certainly notice the weight of my Super Gs or my Volants, if I could afford to go out and buy some AT gear.  Heavy skis are desirable for DH-type skiing.  There is no way I would prefer to ski any of those light touring skis at high speed.

 

Thanks for providing the information.  It's too bad the manufacturer's don't list more data in their marketing material.

 

We have a website here, a spreadsheet there, a thread here and another thread there.   We need one all-encompassing spreadsheet that can be shared, as in update-able by all members, so new data can be added to it.

 

BTW, the AT and touring market may be a tiny piece of the pie, but it's still there.

post #32 of 56
I wonder if they could adapt the gear database for weights that are searchable?
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I wonder if they could adapt the gear database for weights that are searchable?

TGR does this with stickies--I think they even have one for ski weights ( a lot more tourers over there). Does epicski have stickies?

post #34 of 56

You know this could also be a revenue source for Epic if they provided a list,  get the manufacturers to pay a nominal fee (say $5.00 per ski average length, length and wt per model year one time fee) to be listed and provide the list free online to all who want to use it.  I would suggest that the list be as current and lets say the anything older than 2 or 3 years be listed for free as information comes from members and other sources.  Current info must be sponsored.

 

Assuming 30 skis in a lineup 150.00 for a listing is nothing as advertising and for smaller manufacturers with 5 models the fee is only $25.

9 majors and 20 minors $1,850.00 in revenue to cover server costs is not so bad.

post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I wonder if they could adapt the gear database for weights that are searchable?
TGR does this with stickies--I think they even have one for ski weights ( a lot more tourers over there). Does epicski have stickies?

We have thread stickies. I'm talking about them using the gear DATABASE, not the forums, to be able to run queries against it that include the technical specs, one of which is weight. Probably would be best to try to establish a median length for each ski and provide the weight of that length rather than going totally crazy trying to get weights for every length. That would be nice, but would blow the project to a size Huddler might not want to deal with.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

You know this could also be a revenue source for Epic if they provided a list,  get the manufacturers to pay a nominal fee (say $5.00 per ski average length, length and wt per model year one time fee) to be listed and provide the list free online to all who want to use it.  I would suggest that the list be as current and lets say the anything older than 2 or 3 years be listed for free as information comes from members and other sources.  Current info must be sponsored.

Assuming 30 skis in a lineup 150.00 for a listing is nothing as advertising and for smaller manufacturers with 5 models the fee is only $25.
9 majors and 20 minors $1,850.00 in revenue to cover server costs is not so bad.

The only figures worth looking at are actual observed weights recorded by fastidious nerdy amateurs. The bike world learned this decades ago. You get mfrs involved and paying, they feel they have a right to control the information.
post #37 of 56

Maybe.....or really cheap but effective advertising to the target market that actually matters.  You want control that costs a whole lot more like buying and running the site :D.

post #38 of 56

This sounds a gazillion times more complicated than trying to maintain an indemnefied bindings list.

 

We're really talking about a spreadsheet with a row for every ski ever made in every length ever made in every model year ever made with the weight (with or without bindings?), dimensions, and other descriptive criteria?  Would there be additional records for race stock versus regular and additional rows for different stiffness versions of race stocks?

 

I'm already over the top with OCD organization disorder but this seems a bit anal to even me.  True, I like to know if ski A is heavier or lighter than ski B in general.  But, that is where basic product research and in store shopping come in to play. 

post #39 of 56
Well, the gear database already exists. I'm just suggesting they add fields for some weight specs in the details section and make it searchable. Or, sortable. But that would mean agreeing that only some particular length was the number being used so that weights were comparable.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Well, the gear database already exists. I'm just suggesting they add fields for some weight specs in the details section and make it searchable. Or, sortable. But that would mean agreeing that only some particular length was the number being used so that weights were comparable.

Herin lies the problem.  There are also Jr, women's and adult versions.  Biggest obstacle is that they'd need to break our a record for each different length instead if having available lengths all together in the same cell separated by commas.

This looks like the current data objects field list selected in the database.

Quote:
 Details:
Detail Value
Lengths 119, 129, 139, 149
Dimensions 113/85/104
Turn Radius 12m @ 139 / Directional Taper
Construction tip / tail rocker
Core Material Cap - Triaxial Braided Aspen/Paulownia
Binding Included No
Recommended Use  
Manufacturer Warranty  
Recommended Binding FasTrack2 7.0, Flat
Recommended use Powder
Binding Type Flat
Recommended Level Advanced
Model Year 2012

There would need to be some pretty specific rules governing how the data is entered to keep it clean.  Metric versus pounds/ounces for starters..  But, they'd really nee to break out a separate record for each different length available so we could compare  X cm apples to X cm apples.

post #41 of 56
Well, I think if you selected something like 172-177 as the target length, all the skis would have one ski in that length and you could infer that if the ski in that length weighed more than another ski that when the lengths increased the difference would be more pronounced. I'm not as OCD as some...
post #42 of 56

Or, we could just call Phil at Starthaus and ask him ti weight 12 different skis :devil:

 

It would probably not be the first time that happened to him..:rotflmao:

post #43 of 56

I think I might have a way that could be worked in to the current Huddler database structure.  Perhaps a reviewer could enter the cms of the ski tested, then enter the weight in grams then have the weight per cm (or per 100 cms) calculated and displayed by the platform.  That would work to provide a standardized dimension that could be compared across all different entries throughout the database.

post #44 of 56

I don't think every ski length should have a wt, just the most popular length in that ski.  Just gives a reference for comparison.

post #45 of 56

What about women's sizes?  Often women do not use skis in the "most popular lengths."  

post #46 of 56
And are you weighing with or without the binding?.....?????????

So when you review you unscrew the binding to weigh??????
post #47 of 56
Weighed without binding, before bindings mounted.
post #48 of 56

There are a lot of women specifics skis that can be listed,  In the case of something like a FIS ski, the women's length and the men's length.  Each is a separate model. But if there is choice of lengths in the group pick the most common.

post #49 of 56

So, is there going to be some disclaimer that we only weigh our ski and post the weight in the review ONLY if it is in the most popular size whatever that is??  We can post the weight and length of whateverski we have and Huddler could probably add a formula calculation to display roughly what a 172 cm ski would weigh based on weight per cms of the ski entered.  For that matter it could fill in the weight of all other lengths based on weight per cm of one ski actually weighed..

post #50 of 56

They way some people may see things today a disclaimer might be a good idea :rules:.  I wouldn't post any formula, if you are so inclined the information is available and make of it what you will.

 

KISS principal.

post #51 of 56
If the weight is emerged in manually, the font is one color, if it's interpolated it's another? Over time interpolated weights could be overlaid with actual?
post #52 of 56

thanks very useful. Do you have weights of bindings ?

post #53 of 56
I notice the turn radius in the example already specifies the length, "12M@139". How is that different from the weight situation?
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

I notice the turn radius in the example already specifies the length, "12M@139". How is that different from the weight situation?


Here's how this works.  Joe EpicSki member reviews a ski and enters the info they have on it as they have it.  The weights aren't available so they would have to remove the bindings and weigh the ski themselves.  Some want the weight of each different length to be represented.  Others only want "the most popular size" to be represented.  I'm saying that a formula could be used to calculate whatever size and weight Joe EpicSKi entered to convert that to the rought weight of "the most popular size" if that isn't the one Joe happens to have on hand..  Weight per CM X 172 or whatever length is deemed "most popular" for that particular ski.  Or the weight times centimeters could be multiplied by any length to arrive at a rough weight for that particular length.

post #55 of 56

Reinventing wheels is great fun, but there's a solid ongoing weight thread over at TGR, and I vaguely recall starting one here years ago. Didn't go anywhere, but there are some older data. Wildsnow has good data on most AT and touring gear. I'd suggest that we concentrate on weights that are less likely to be found other places. So carving skis or more mainstream midfats would fit the bill. 

 

Anyway onward: Not sure I agree with a formula. Not a simple mathematical relationship because of sidecut curves, glue, other bits that don't scale simply. Even the best nonlinear predictor equations that take care of multiple variables typically have a 5% SEE; that's a hundred grams for an average midfat ski. More realistically, it'd be 2-3X that.

 

Alternatively, we probably have weights of most bindings anyone has on their skis. Also a lot of stuff posted online. So that provides unmounted weight, give or take a few screws. Members can just subtract those from their own skis' weights. And dealers here have wide range of unmounted lengths to measure on a slow August day.  

 

My .02...

post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Anyway onward: Not sure I agree with a formula. Not a simple mathematical relationship because of sidecut curves, glue, other bits that don't scale simply. Even the best nonlinear predictor equations that take care of multiple variables typically have a 5% SEE; that's a hundred grams for an average midfat ski. More realistically, it'd be 2-3X that.

 

I highly doubt that the weight per cm of a 179 would significantly differ from the weight per cm of a same year same model 186 cm ski.  If you tried to use the formula across brands and models that would be a problem.  But, for the same model as in line with the current gear database fields it would be sufficient..

 

Quote:
  Details:
Detail Value
Lengths 119, 129, 139, 149
Dimensions 113/85/104
Turn Radius 12m @ 139 / Directional Taper
Construction tip / tail rocker
Core Material Cap - Triaxial Braided Aspen/Paulownia
Binding Included No
Recommended Use  
Manufacturer Warranty  
Recommended Binding FasTrack2 7.0, Flat
Recommended use Powder
Binding Type Flat
Recommended Level Advanced
Model Year 2012

The real weight per cm for one of the four above models would work fine to calculate the weight of the other three lengths in the exact same model and year.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion