EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › skipress reviews "strong steering"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

skipress reviews "strong steering"?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
In the skipres reviews they rate a skis "steering" What exactly do they mean by this term. Example
http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/o...ge=US1_063.swf
an SX12 is "strong" but a Fastthang is "average". Steering means to pivot the ski around as used at epicski. Do they mean you had better be strong if your going to "steer" the SX12, or do they mean something completely different, that the ski will turn you with a lot of force when put on edge?
post #2 of 16
I understand it as: it steers strongly, so you don't have to. Take a look at the tip/waist delta. That should be a big indicator.

Also, I suspect, that if two skis steer differently with the same tip/waist delta, and longitudinal flex is same, then the torsional rigidity could be much different. The stronger steering ski ought to be more torque resistant.

Another interpretation is that once on edge, releasing a "strong steering" ski could be more difficult than releasing an average steering ski. ie. it could be harder to stop it from continuing to turn. This should be reflected in the waist/tail delta -- Dynastar's "pintail" construction was a direct attempt at making the ski easier to release.... Again, resistance to torque given the same waist/tail delta could be the culprit.

Unfortunately, comparisons cannot be drawn accross categories. I think that is a significant failing of the ski-press tests. Edge hold for a race stock ski should be 9+ points. HP carvers at about 8, sport carvers about 7, beginner/sport models say 6. Fat skis should also be tested in the exact same conditions to reveal edge hold to arrive at the correct number. Yet you see edge hold at around 8 for almost everything. It would be more revealing if the numbers were consisten, and it would mean something for a skier stepping up.
post #3 of 16
Interesting; I always assumed it meant, more force/effort required to initiate and maintain a turn. Which fit several of the skis they tested and labeled "strong steering."
post #4 of 16

ski press ratings

ski press numbers remind me of wine reviews (where 90% of the wines are between 85 and 88-------they are all bunched up around 8. what is the rest of the scale for?
post #5 of 16
BigE: Unfortunately, comparisons cannot be drawn accross categories. I think that is a significant failing of the ski-press tests.

But I wonder if that would be fair or relevant. Why would you want to compare a race SL ski with a freeride ski in edge hold using the same criteria. We all know that the freeride ski will be much worse. We know what to expect from a freeride ski vs a SL ski in terms of general performance, but I need to know how each performs against peers in the same category.

Having said that, SkiPresse is taking the same downward slide that every other magazine has experienced: pressure from advertisers to remain politically correct. SkiPresse will gladly tell you that they only publish skis that passed the 75-80% mark, so naturally they will all be around the same general scores. There are probably all good skis, but with different characteristic to suit individual tastes. They should go much further to discuss such characteristics, but even these characteristics are easily lost in individual tastes, individual styles and especially weight of the skier.

As for steering I take it the way you explained it. I would expect a straight ski to have weak steering, which means that the skier must supply most of it.
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
BigE: Unfortunately, comparisons cannot be drawn accross categories. I think that is a significant failing of the ski-press tests.

But I wonder if that would be fair or relevant. Why would you want to compare a race SL ski with a freeride ski in edge hold using the same criteria. We all know that the freeride ski will be much worse. We know what to expect from a freeride ski vs a SL ski in terms of general performance, but I need to know how each performs against peers in the same category.
You still can make comparisons. It makes the numbers real, because you know how the ski you use behaves. It would give you a baseline.

What I need to know is whether or not a "sport ski" will deliver all I want, or whether I need to pony up more bucks for an HP or performance ski.

I also want to know if a fatter ski will have enough grip to really be considered an "all-mountain" ski. Without a consistent measurement of edge grip, I can't tell at all how well an all-mountain ski will hold. So should I risk buying an all-mountain or do I have to stick to HP carvers to get what minimal on-trail performance I am certain of receiving? I know it will be a step down in edge grip. But HOW BIG is that step?
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
I also want to know if a fatter ski will have enough grip to really be considered an "all-mountain" ski. Without a consistent measurement of edge grip, I can't tell at all how well an all-mountain ski will hold. So should I risk buying an all-mountain or do I have to stick to HP carvers to get what minimal on-trail performance I am certain of receiving? I know it will be a step down in edge grip. But HOW BIG is that step?
The better the skier the less of a step down it will be.
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoontasan View Post
The better the skier the less of a step down it will be.
Rubbish.
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Rubbish.

Clown.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoontasan View Post
The better the skier the less of a step down it will be.
OK, why?
post #11 of 16
Thread Starter 
I think the numbers should all run on the same scale too. They don't. It would be nice to have some idea how much more edge grip you get from two skis that are in different categories, say a High performance carver and a "performance" carver.

Would my old straight SGs be a strong steering ski? They will give you a heck of a lot of gs, but if you don't know how to turn them you won't be able to steer them too easily.
post #12 of 16
Sorry guys, but if you think comparisons between a mid-fat ski and a SL ski is of any benefit, be prepared to see lots of "bad" (yet meaningless) scores. And since a 1-10 scale is too small, all mid-fat ski may very well end up at a score of 4 or 5 compared to the 8-10 for SL skis.

The problem with that is that the real interesting comparisons (of skis in the same category) would be completely meaningless. To use an analogy, who would want to compare the cornering abilities of a SUV with that of a Ferarri. We all know the result, but personally I would much rather know how the SUV compares with other SUVs.
post #13 of 16
Tom,

If you don't have a consistent numbering convention, then you are at the mercy of the manufacturer to identify the category of the ski.

It's fine for the all mid-fats to be 4-5 if that really is their relative scoring.

What about somthing like a Metron? The "one ski quiver".

Suppose Edgehold = 8.5. What sort of edgehold can I expect, if my carvers have an edgehold of 8? Answer: If I am unfamiliar with the category, I can't expect anything at all by reading only the review.

I'll have to demo and simply forget about the magazine completely. In otherwords, it is useless.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoontasan View Post
The better the skier the less of a step down it will be.
FWIW, I do think there's some validity in this statement due to the higher edge angles required when skiing a mid-fat, in order to attain similar performance in terms of edge grip to a carver. A higher level skier would have the means to attain such edge angles making the difference in edge grip less of an issue.

That said, all things being equal, there is definitely a step down from the edge-grip of a mid-fat to that of a carver.
post #15 of 16
I hear you BigE. There advantages and disadvantages either way, but in general I think it makes sense to compare skis in the same category.

However, Ski Canada has a nice picture (dot graph actually) of all the reviewed skis where the x-axis is snow (from powder to ice) and the y-axis is skier capability from intermediate up to expert. I think this type of graph would be a much better way to represent skis across categories.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13 View Post
FWIW, I do think there's some validity in this statement due to the higher edge angles required when skiing a mid-fat, in order to attain similar performance in terms of edge grip to a carver. A higher level skier would have the means to attain such edge angles making the difference in edge grip less of an issue.

That said, all things being equal, there is definitely a step down from the edge-grip of a mid-fat to that of a carver.
Coach, are'nt you talking about turn radius?

Edge grip is highly correlated to torsional rigidity. If you step down a few notches, you'll have edge-hold problems that are worse with edge angle. It would actually become more difficult to get to higher angles, simply because the ski won't hold an edge.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › skipress reviews "strong steering"?