New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski flex compared

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Bears

I took the liberty of lifting this from an Australian forum where it was posted today by Silence.

Here's a PDF with the flexcurves of +100 07-08 freeskiing ski's. Each ski is a layer, so you just select which layers (=skis) you want to see/compare. All lengths are also actual lengths compared to what some manufacturers claim

Credit goes to Endre Hals!

http://www.friflyt.no/files/SFI_2008.pdf

Enjoy and comment
post #2 of 12
Heh, the PE's are 5-5-5-6-7, which means average ski with a stiffer tip. Which pretty much confirms my impressions of them, that they handle predictably and stably in all conditions with a hint of "understeer" for easier control.

Kinda like a Subie.
post #3 of 12
no wonder I like the PE and gotama so much its the same flex.the size is all off though unless it 'real" lenght which could be right since both the PE and Gotama are the same lenght.

Gotama have hinge point built in I can only guess so it can float powder better.

No atomic or scott skis though
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
True BW

I was hoping for a Scott or two.

I have some Scott Missions and was hoping they'd be in there. Haven't skiied them yet and but they feel reasonably soft.

Some very unusual/alarming looking flex patterns though don't you think?
post #5 of 12

More!

Great stuff!! Which produces a bunch of questions for me:

1) Are these data reliable?

2) If we all talk about stiff/soft tips and tails, how that affects performance, why are most of the real flex differences in the middle half of the skis?

3) How will shape differences affect handling? Especially skis that have a "mesa," with similar flex for much of the ski, big drops at tail and tip, vs. skis with a "bell curve?" Or a mathematically smooth pattern (Supermojo) vs. a mountain range (4fnt, Mantras)?

4) Who knew how soft Goats were? Or 08 Blizzards? Are we talking about how we prefer burly skis and then actually skiing (and liking) softies? Skipressworld calls Goats "stiff," same classification as Supermojos. Not. More like pumped up Guns.
post #6 of 12
Yeh it has got some odd results.. like the armada pipe cleaner described as a stiffer AR6 is the same stiffness as the T-Hal which is meant to be a softie.. the Volkl Wall really is a stiff park ski compared to any of the others...
post #7 of 12
and also the AR6 is one of the softest skis in that test but is always reviewed as a stiff park ski! Theres no way it's softer than a Line Invader (they might as well be made of butter!)
post #8 of 12
All very interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing the methodology. It does beg one question: Why hasn't there be some scientific (methodical, repeatable) way to measure ski stiffness.
post #9 of 12
the data seems inaccurate for skis I am very familiar with. Perhaps the gadget, and I think that's all it can be considered, does not work, or it works poorly on fat skis. You can grab a ski and flex it and get better data, or ski it. this is likely bad science.
post #10 of 12
More info on the methodology can be found on Endre's site at http://www.endrehals.no/
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Great stuff!! Which produces a bunch of questions for me:

1) Are these data reliable?

2) If we all talk about stiff/soft tips and tails, how that affects performance, why are most of the real flex differences in the middle half of the skis?

3) How will shape differences affect handling? Especially skis that have a "mesa," with similar flex for much of the ski, big drops at tail and tip, vs. skis with a "bell curve?" Or a mathematically smooth pattern (Supermojo) vs. a mountain range (4fnt, Mantras)?

4) Who knew how soft Goats were? Or 08 Blizzards? Are we talking about how we prefer burly skis and then actually skiing (and liking) softies? Skipressworld calls Goats "stiff," same classification as Supermojos. Not. More like pumped up Guns.

I have allways said gotamas were soft.....

go back and read my review I called them a pocket rocket with guts.

I like gotamas and recommended to nearly everyone because anyone could ski them.

everyone told me i was crazy because it was to 'stiff" and "demanding".

I dont like burly skis for an everyday skis, I can ski them, but choose not too.
post #12 of 12
Great with people who are interested in our work! We hope it will be of good use.

Read this thread on skibuilders if you want to see a bit more on how things are done:

http://www.skibuilders.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=407

The accuracy level in these tests is very high. (We can see traces of empty holes from removed bindings on the curves). The skis are "devided" in to 16 seperate segments, wich are all measured individually.

The reason for the SFI is to make a useable way to communicate flex patterns in a short sentence, and with a not-to-detailed accuracy level.

the SFI is the flex curve compensated for length, since longer skis in average are pretty much stiffer than short skis.
The average 195 ski is 5 5 5 5 5,
and the average 185 ski is 5 5 5 5 5, even though the 195 ski is stiffer in reality.

The SFI also makes the tips of the skis visually equal to the mid ski, which seemed to be a problem on the curves from last year (without the SFI).
People tended to stare themselves blind on the mid part of the ski, which is naturally a lot stiffer than the tips (since the lever is a lot larger). This does not, however, meen that the mid ski is more important flexwise.

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