 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Sorry dude, to me facts are the things I’ve seen with my own eyes and have physical data of. I’ve never been one to accept the words of others, not without evidence. This is the main reason you and I butted heads so often and I ended up in a resort looking for answers through empirical testing on the snow and in the factories. I can’t say much more I guess, then you’d just be taking my word over some other dude’s, which would be just as dumb. I’d just like you to perhaps think about how dumb the concept of throwing arbitrary numbers on ski boots is, when they are so damn close to each other, model-model and by complete chance when you do conduct a test in a controlled environment with set parameters hey presto the number is in nm the same as the number printed on a boot +/-5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
As I said I am still trying to get my head round what you are going on about
One minute you say 130 is the machine result and that’s what’s written on the boot and the next minute you are saying it isn’t
We all know that 1 out of 130 boots feels different from the next pair of 130 boots
Why do you suppose that is if they are all the same…… maybe the uncontrollable factors like the user. Maybe I am missing something maybe it is just the words you are using in the order you are using them in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@CEM,
| Quote: |
maybe it is just the words you are using in the order you are using them in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@CEM, ok, can we start from the beginning then? Take 2, 130 flex boots, any two, you choose, pop 'em on your trotters, do them up best you can to feel the best presure you can, as equal sensation as you can. 1, is stiffer than the other correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
this is gonna take a while, but i'll stick with it dude, if you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I genuinely believe that you are subscribing to what you've been told for the sake of ease, it's really not difficult to understand if you're willing to understand the process, and perhaps back pedal, i doubt a pubic forum, and your reputation on it, is going to allow this to happen, but for the sake of reality i'm gonna try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @CEM, ok, can we start from the beginning then? Take 2, 130 flex boots, any two, you choose, pop 'em on your trotters, do them up best you can to feel the best presure you can, as equal sensation as you can. 1, is stiffer than the other correct? |
Yes they are, boot A feels soft boot B is a lot stiffer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| ..The earth is round bro! Xx |
No, it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@CEM, ok, assuming that you’re actually doing this empirically, are actually in the boots, given the reply was somewhere between 9pm and 7am and have the boots to hand, what is boot A and boot B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @CEM, ok, assuming that you’re actually doing this empirically, are actually in the boots, given the reply was somewhere between 9pm and 7am and have the boots to hand, what is boot A and boot B? |
Not actually in the boots as I am currently sat by the pool in Sardinia
But I know that if I put on Boot a and boot B they will feel different ( and for arguments sake they are both labled as 100mm 130 flex )
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Boot A Fischer RC4 MV 130 boa
Boot B atomic hawx prime 130 boa
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
For those of us watching to confirm:
CEM thinks that flex isn't standardised and will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, even boot to boot with the same manufacturer?
CH20 thinks it is standardised - as in the factories use the same machine, calibrated the same but may feel different because of many other factors such as the environment, user, etc.?
Or is my summary missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Layne wrote: |
For those of us watching to confirm:
CEM thinks that flex isn't standardised and will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, even boot to boot with the same manufacturer?
CH20 thinks it is standardised - as in the factories use the same machine, calibrated the same but may feel different because of many other factors such as the environment, user, etc.?
Or is my summary missing something? |
Nope you are confused, it’s much deeper than that
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
No, they use a machine that does the exact same job, however is bespoke and made by each manufacturer. That said just think of the machine, am like your bathroom scales, yours are different to mine, however do the same job if used in the exact same « weigh » pun intended, and will give you the same result if used under the exact same conditions. All of the said machines are designed to test many factors, durability, longevity of flex pattern, effect of temperature, effect of closure. The unit of measurement of the results in all cases is NM. Each boot manufacturer will play with the variables; temperature, number of flexes, closure to resistance, ROM of flex fore/aft and gather much data, to ensure the product does what it is supposed to, and deliver a return on the inversement of the value of the boots.
I believe Colin is suggesting there is a scale manufacturers use, I’d like to know what that is, to my knowledge it’s 50-190 (attributed flex number on the boot, sometimes letters) and boots are randomly manufactured, not tested uniformly, and an arbitrary number is chosen on this scale for some reason or another with fingers crossed and eyes closed. That’s as much as I can gather from his rhetoric to this point but we seem to be lacking any concrete information other that hearsay or Chinese whispers, no sources or evidence. He will I’m sure come back with clear information I would hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| CH2O wrote: |
I believe Colin is suggesting there is a scale manufacturers use, I’d like to know what that is, to my knowledge it’s 50-190 (attributed flex number on the boot, sometimes letters) and boots are randomly manufactured, not tested uniformly, and an arbitrary number is chosen on this scale for some reason or another with fingers crossed and eyes closed. That’s as much as I can gather from his rhetoric to this point but we seem to be lacking any concrete information other that hearsay or Chinese whispers, no sources or evidence. He will I’m sure come back with clear information I would hope. |
Nope you are doing a really good job of either not listening or not reading or maybe a bit of both who knows
What I have said and maybe where you have taken your view of what image said is that the flex is the marketing departments way of denoting the top boot
They are all measured in Nm we know that, and all the 130 boots come up somewhere about 130Nm
But as we know boot A feels softer than boot B, all I am saying is flex is a very personal thing some people like a liner flex some like a progressive flex, the lever length body weight, calf dimension, biomechanics and power of the skier are all just more things to go into the mix that make 130 in one model feel different to 130 in another. So purely by that fact alone there is no “standard” sure they can all measure the same on the machine and the machines acna all measure the same thing but they feel different to the end user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Right, so first things first, you both seem to agree the manufacturers do a decent job of getting an Nm rating and attributing a standard value to that rating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Ok, so having visited most factories over a period of 20 years, there are 3 missing in existence. These are my findings. Each boot is placed into the machine, they will do this shell only and with the defined liner. The liner test is the last process as the liner is the last component attributed and can help bring the boot into the flex number required. The boots are filled with a mechanical last, that stops flex distortion. It’s then attached to a piston arm, that has the ability to move fore/aft to varying degrees. The boots are closed around the last/piston to 5nm if memory serves me correct, I will varify again soon. The bootbox a temperature controlled unit is then kept at 23degees c, the optimum for the plastics in all cases and the reference on the plastic data sheets given to the boot manufacturers when sourcing plastic. The boots are then under these conditions flexed 30,000 times, as a target number of flexes in the lifespan of the average boot to offer value for money. The boots are flexed fore 15degrees and aft 5degrees Now during this test, the boot will offer more resistance at the first flex than it will at the 30000th, the reason we feel our boots getting softer with age, due to material breakdown, memory loss and fatigue. In the real world this may happen sooner or later depending on many variables, you ski at different temperatures, uva/uvb degradation, your weight, tibial lever length, speed, ski width, stiffness, humidity, it’s a lot to factor in. So once this test is complete we can ascertain an average amount of resistance each flex had. Now should that average figure be between 126 and 134 the boot will be considered a 130 flex. It’s fair to all and accepted as sufficient rather than attributing and exact number as it would seem most would like for this to be considered “standardised” however I can assure you that most testing across many industries where numbers are attributed allow for some margin of variables or too much product goes into the bin, and product ranges would be too vast and consumers lost. That is all I have witnessed, all I need to be sure that the flex numbers are simply not just arbitrary, and also explains why Colin can feel two boots, both advertised with the same number feeling different. First he’s not trying them on at the same temperature they are tested at, second they are not uniformly tightened as he simply cannot test this other than his “feeling”, possibly the liners are not the same, materials are definitely not the same, polymer, colour, thickness and density, and lastly, maybe one tests at 126 and the other 134, without actual daily time stamped data, we simply can’t know. I hope this helps and feel more informative and explanatory than “some bloke down the pub that knows a geezer that works there, told me.” Despite in reality this being the pub and I’m the bloke telling you he knows a geezer that works there, albeit he took me there and all his mates took me to their workplaces and I can confirm that I’ve seen it with my own, slowly failing eyesight, that this poo-poo is seriously complex and very expensive and scientific but no, manufacturers don’t simply chuck an approximate number based on some weird flex scale compared to some other dude doing the same somewhere else. It’s too expensive and too precise for such ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Layne wrote: |
| Right, so first things first, you both seem to agree the manufacturers do a decent job of getting an Nm rating and attributing a standard value to that rating? |
absolutely they do it’s of paramount importance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| CEM wrote: |
| CH2O wrote: |
I believe Colin is suggesting there is a scale manufacturers use, I’d like to know what that is, to my knowledge it’s 50-190 (attributed flex number on the boot, sometimes letters) and boots are randomly manufactured, not tested uniformly, and an arbitrary number is chosen on this scale for some reason or another with fingers crossed and eyes closed. That’s as much as I can gather from his rhetoric to this point but we seem to be lacking any concrete information other that hearsay or Chinese whispers, no sources or evidence. He will I’m sure come back with clear information I would hope. |
Nope you are doing a really good job of either not listening or not reading or maybe a bit of both who knows
What I have said and maybe where you have taken your view of what image said is that the flex is the marketing departments way of denoting the top boot
They are all measured in Nm we know that, and all the 130 boots come up somewhere about 130Nm
But as we know boot A feels softer than boot B, all I am saying is flex is a very personal thing some people like a liner flex some like a progressive flex, the lever length body weight, calf dimension, biomechanics and power of the skier are all just more things to go into the mix that make 130 in one model feel different to 130 in another. So purely by that fact alone there is no “standard” sure they can all measure the same on the machine and the machines acna all measure the same thing but they feel different to the end user |
Colin try keep on point here, we’re not discussing the unfathomable amount of variables and differences and single individual can experience in the lifespan of the use of the boot, simply the fact that when attributing a flex number on a boot in a range at the factories there is a uniform test under set conditions across all brands. If you’d like to discuss the variables in the real world for the users of snowheads feel in their boots or when trying them on at a store we can start a different thread for that, I very much enjoy that topic, and would be happy to help the community understand that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
So we know it's technically possible to have two 130 flex boots that actually have a 126 and 134 flex but in reality most times they will be much closer.
And we know that conditions/consumers in the real world will vary.
But I still would have thought that trying on two 130 boots - same customer, same shop, same time - flex wise they would feel similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| CEM wrote: |
| CH2O wrote: |
Not my flavor, just skience, I’ll leave the religious sermons for the others. I don’t believe CEM and I have any difference of opinion on the matter. However whether the subject of standardised tests is under question here I’ll stick to my empirical guns rather than the old testament thanks. The subject will be closed in October when a few choice heads are sat together to put better the subject to the public. It would seem the skience needs to be put into the public domain before it’s a true scandal, as it has been up to now. A huge amount of YouTube videos will disappear overnight!  |
100% agree flex numbers are the marketing departments way of denoting the top boot in the range
there is no standardization in flexes it is all averages, each brand will test all the other brands 130 flex and make their 130 flex where they feel it should be, some want to be the stiffest some the softest but is there a definitive 130 Nope , nada not a chance, too many factors including the boot design, the density of the plastic used in the injection, the liner materials, and then after you have done that each person will feel that flex slightly differently due to the way the boot fits their foot / leg
a boot can't tell how good a skier you are.... but your body weight, level length, biomechanics and lastly technique can determine how much you bend it
if you like a podcast listen, check out blister gear 30 Matt Manser of Atomic does a dive into flex in one episode which might just give you an idea of the complexity |
I'm confused this does read as if you're saying a number is simply chucked about compared to someone elses, now you're saying it much more complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| CEM wrote: |
| CH2O wrote: |
I believe Colin is suggesting there is a scale manufacturers use, I’d like to know what that is, to my knowledge it’s 50-190 (attributed flex number on the boot, sometimes letters) and boots are randomly manufactured, not tested uniformly, and an arbitrary number is chosen on this scale for some reason or another with fingers crossed and eyes closed. That’s as much as I can gather from his rhetoric to this point but we seem to be lacking any concrete information other that hearsay or Chinese whispers, no sources or evidence. He will I’m sure come back with clear information I would hope. |
Nope you are doing a really good job of either not listening or not reading or maybe a bit of both who knows
What I have said and maybe where you have taken your view of what image said is that the flex is the marketing departments way of denoting the top boot
They are all measured in Nm we know that, and all the 130 boots come up somewhere about 130Nm
But as we know boot A feels softer than boot B, all I am saying is flex is a very personal thing some people like a liner flex some like a progressive flex, the lever length body weight, calf dimension, biomechanics and power of the skier are all just more things to go into the mix that make 130 in one model feel different to 130 in another. So purely by that fact alone there is no “standard” sure they can all measure the same on the machine and the machines acna all measure the same thing but they feel different to the end user |
Colin try keep on point here, we’re not discussing the unfathomable amount of variables and differences and single individual can experience in the lifespan of the use of the boot, simply the fact that when attributing a flex number on a boot in a range at the factories there is a uniform test under set conditions across all brands. If you’d like to discuss the variables in the real world for the users of snowheads feel in their boots or when trying them on at a store we can start a different thread for that, I very much enjoy that topic, and would be happy to help the community understand that too. |
Ok then so you tell us your point about why boot A and boot B feeling different, seeing as I obviate know  all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Layne wrote: |
So we know it's technically possible to have two 130 flex boots that actually have a 126 and 134 flex but in reality most times they will be much closer.
And we know that conditions/consumers in the real world will vary.
But I still would have thought that trying on two 130 boots - same customer, same shop, same time - flex wise they would feel similar? |
Yes it should feel similar, as it's yielded a score/result within that resistance spectrum, however you are not trying them on at 23°C, and they are of different volumes. The different blend of plastics, tried on at a different temperature than tested, closed loser or tighter depending on the shape/volume of the shell, and possibly coming from either extreme of the test spectrum could indeed mean that a 130 boot could feel like a 100 flex, or the opposite, A 160 flex. Regards temperature, for context, most of you are wearing and using boots with a flex of 400-500 in the real world of snow temperatures. I'm pretty sure in my insanity i started a thread last winter about why "YOU" the consumer would experience such differences, it'll be in the ERQ somewhere if you fancy pulling it outta the CH20 for reanimation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
You still haven’t answered your own question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Ok then so you tell us your point about why boot A and boot B feeling different, seeing as I obviate know all
|
Bro, wind it in, this is a forum where people discuss what they know, and learn about what they don't. You have regularly preached there is no standardisation, seemingly without any empirical proof. You have a strong reputation on this site, however i simply will not sit around reading nonsense from you or anyone else when i've actually seen something to the contrary with my own eyes on multiple occasions. I want to continue learning about my industry, the fun and the mundane. As i said, back in 2005 i got tired of not having answers to these questions, so upped camp and went on a research project for 3 summers. Worked on projects and with most of the manufactures, i did this at my own expense, with my own time for the sake of my customers and transparency in the industry. You sit here now, as did the reps in 2005 feeding me word salads without any proof or scientific data to back up your scribblings. Now, I'm happy to discuss this here, in the open for the benefit to all who use this site for their better understanding of skiing, thats why i came here all those years ago and it's ongoing. What's with the passive agressive quote? No one has said you know all, and you know damn well why they feel different, or i really hope you do. If you don't, i am genuinely and sincerely happy to help you here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| CEM wrote: |
| You still haven’t answered your own question |
Firstly, on the hierarchal scale we have temperature, you are not testing these two boots accurately at the same temperature they were when the score/figure was denoted. This could yield upto a 30nm difference alone, easily. So that answer alone could be the reason, as the two materials/blends are reacting to variables in temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
If you believe the temperature, is to your satisfaction controlled, 23°C, highly possible and easy to do with a bit of Mcgyvering, then we can look into other variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of which boils down to the fact that the boots when created are tested at X temperature with Y closure tightened on Z cuff sized machine leg
So standard yes in manufacturing but in the real world where the people are actually using the boots these parameters might never be achievable or if so for a fraction of a time when all the variables line up.
Shall we just add the stiffening factor of each individual material at each relevant temperature as well
It’s such a personal thing, it might as well not exist other than to guide people towards a product sector
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Oh and let’s not forget pigmentation and how between 4% and 6% master blend can make a boot go from medal winning to unusable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
So standard yes in manufacturing but in the real world where the people are actually using the boots these parameters might never be achievable or if so for a fraction of a time when all the variables line up.
|
Bro that's a different discussion, this is about the fact that two different boots, any manufacturer will be tested in huge depth, uniform across brands to be denoted their flex number within certain tolerances. You're muddying that waters talking about the real world and individual variables, i have already started a thread about that last winter to help people understand why they feel these differences, let's try keep on point. There's hundreds of nonsense videos out there and many podcasts and discussions dismissing this reality, i would like it to stop and be cleared up. Matt for one dismisses that these numbers are in fact NM, then I get a bunch of data sheets from Atomic all in NM, help a brother out, this is not hard to understand or explain to our clients, however it will educate them better and possible reduce sales as the "ability" ladder helps shift quotas, it's great for the manufacturers however unnecessary for the consumer and poo-poo for the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Oh and let’s not forget pigmentation and how between 4% and 6% master blend can make a boot go from medal winning to unusable
|
It doesn't matter, the variables under test are the same, the unit value is a real world figure. Pigmentation whilst a variable, it is only used to get the right value, the value is the value. If it were as important as well you say, all the manufacturers would use the same colour, and we wouldn't see such regular pigmentation changes on the world cup. The polymer blend is way more significant that the colour it ends up being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Both points are valid and unfortunately the consumers ski in the real world (
For the time being at least)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
"I don't care what colour they are, as long as they're black." Hermann Ford, 1998.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Both points are valid and unfortunately the consumers ski in the real world (
For the time being at least)
|
No one is doubting that, but it doesn't change the fact that when the boots get stamped at the factory with "130" there's a damn good reason for it. They allow for temperature change Colin, they want your boots to run at 400-500nm flex in the real world. This would allow a 100KG dude to travel at 80KMPH in full control, boots have to be over engineered, just like your brakes on your car, to function under stress/emergency. And why weight is so much more important than ability, and thus why would a beginner who weighs 100kg buy a 70 flex beginners boot? That said a 70 flex boot is almost certainly still around 500 flex, albeit it through 2°ROM, in real world as most likely polyprop' which practically turns into glass at -5°C. They just change so much under various temperatures and are inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
At no point ever have I said that weight wasn’t the most important factor on flex selection
So if you want to misquote that go ahead
I’m out
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The boots have to be tested at 23°C in order to get the functional aspect of the plastic polymer right, as the manufacturers sell these plastics with highest possible property function at that temperature. For sure they test at real world temperatures, but guess what, no damn way they're publishing that data on a boot, it's a serious wormhole of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
At no point ever have I said that weight wasn’t the most important factor on flex selection
So if you want to misquote that go ahead
I’m out
|
No one has said the contrary dude, keep your pork pie lids on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CEM, this is simply about the attribution of a number on a boot, where it comes from, what it means, and how it arrives there, again, real world effects and individual variables can be covered by another thread, it's almost a skience of it's own and we've practically nailed it here in CHX, but first we need to understand the boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| Layne wrote: |
So we know it's technically possible to have two 130 flex boots that actually have a 126 and 134 flex but in reality most times they will be much closer.
And we know that conditions/consumers in the real world will vary.
But I still would have thought that trying on two 130 boots - same customer, same shop, same time - flex wise they would feel similar? |
Yes it should feel similar, as it's yielded a score/result within that resistance spectrum, however you are not trying them on at 23°C, and they are of different volumes. The different blend of plastics, tried on at a different temperature than tested, closed loser or tighter depending on the shape/volume of the shell, and possibly coming from either extreme of the test spectrum could indeed mean that a 130 boot could feel like a 100 flex, or the opposite, A 160 flex. Regards temperature, for context, most of you are wearing and using boots with a flex of 400-500 in the real world of snow temperatures. I'm pretty sure in my insanity i started a thread last winter about why "YOU" the consumer would experience such differences, it'll be in the ERQ somewhere if you fancy pulling it outta the CH20 for reanimation. |
I totally get the general point that while they will feel similar - that "similar" is totally different to the factory machine testing. I get also the shape/volume of the shell will make some difference so whilst they are "similar" in a manner of speaking they may also feel/behave "differently" to me.
So with my pure consumer head on we come back to where I think we started... is that it doesn't mean that much. A boot fitter would/should focus on my physicality, experience, style of skiing, the fit and then maybe the flex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it actually means very little really, however it does come from somewhere and is scalable. The variables, principally temperature at use, and the biological matter operating them throw up soo many variables that it almost becomes mute. This withstanding, it is still one of the first topics chosen by our clients, so alot of time and understanding is required each fitting for us to explain this, despite it being possible to actually precisely decide an exact boot based on flex if we fully understand the clients biomechanics and the plastics properties across a spectrum of temperatures. Which I am fully confident that we at our place do, and furthermore, it would appear that by a huge margin compared to other shops as they continue to spout this nonsense about flex not being a real figure or unit of measurement. Therein alone we are head and shoulders above others. It is then about us fully understanding this, that we can then, from that foundation build the boot that best suits the clients biology. The problem i have with this is that the ski boot companies market flex ratings based on skier ability, i'm completely confused and frustrated by this. Customers upgrading by 10nm, after a few weeks based on performance based aspirations i find really unfair and cynical, whilst understanding this permits the manufacturers to build quantities that mean unit price and profits are attainable. We are living in times where information is readily at hand, the environment is suffering, and skiing is again becoming a sport for the wealthy. Buying a boot that's build for your biology, rather than you ability would mean it serves you until it is no longer functional, it can be recycled because it is of no use to anyone, it's properties have gone. Or you keep upgrading because your ego is flattered by your days skiing. It drives me nuts, like you guys going crazy back in the day about wide skis, like you guys not using bootfitters. I really like the existence of this forum, it's a powerful tool,has alot of potential, and is a great resource however alot of the users are tools themselves, or so it would seem when equipment advice is concerned. There's simply too much hype, marketing and confirmation bias around. It is within my quest in my work to provide some clarity and honestly about these issues. It's simple skience most of the time.
You're all skiing on "wider" skis these days, it's not because suddenly 98mm or plus has become narrower, it's because you've all stopped being spoonfed nonsense. Most of you recognise the benefits of some bootfitting, whatever the spectrum of skill they have. Now i'm obsessed by the facts, the skience that ability has zero bearing on your equipment choices, ski bootflex, ski stiffness, it means nothing, it's all about perceived budget, and i know many many experts that are tight fisted so budget is not related to ability in my experience, the mantra that a "beginner doesn't want to spend as much." may hold some truth, to some, but i haven't in almost 30 years found that is the way it works, the tight fisted exist at all levels, they are what they are, and they are not welcome at our establishment. This doesn't mean beginners are not welcome, quite the opposite, the smart beginner, that wants easy, fast and efficient progress at any cost are very welcome. The tyre kickers, whatever their ability had better keep trawling the internet for confirmation bias to support the boot, size or product they think they need at half price. They can waste their time trying to sell it on to someone else later down the line when they figure out they have bought a dog, a poo-poo dog, a dog that doesn't bark, but a dog all the same and at at half price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
