This arose in another thread and I think it deserves it's own discussion.
Like a lot of other people I have been told over the years from various sources that boot flex is not a standardised measure between manufacturers.
However @CH2O has posted the following:
"The « test « is carried out not to determine the flex(individual) of the boot. It is to test the durability and life span of many thousand flexes over a boots life span, using different thicknesses, densities and types of plastic. The test has that in mind and is kinda a pre deposed factor, the average weight of a human (68kg) travelling at 60km per hour. So we put a boot in a temperature controlled environment and pump it through it range of motion using a mechanical leg. This lets up observe the drop off in resistance each time the boot is flexed. This is super complex as the boots will be used in different temperatures, each degree difference will have an effect if the longevity of the elasticity of the boots, also being microwaved by UV isn’t helping, so we do it 30,000 times, average 150-200 days skiing.
and;
Boot put in oven and secured. Temperature 23degrees. Boot closed to specific restisence. Boot flexed through 15degrees forwards, 8back. Boot flexed 30,000 times, resistance curve measured. Machine uses energy, measured in joules. We can divide the energy used and divide by the amount of times the test is performed. This gives us a theoretic number giving us restisence. If this number is between 96 and a 104 then whammy!!!! You got yourself a 100 boot!!!"
My take on this is that there is a standard test that produces a number but once in the real world so many other variables exist that it may be doubtful that the number is of much practical use - I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.....
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Yes
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?
@CH2O, So are you saying that boot manufacturers are trying to find a better method of matching skiers to boots of a suitable 'stiffness'
This arose in another thread and I think it deserves it's own discussion.
There's been so much discussion on this already I can't understand why you'd want to do so again. Is it reading that you're struggling with, or simple unwillingness to accept the opinion of experts?
The answer has always been a conclusive No so far, does a new year give you hope that it's suddenly changed?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Chaletbeauroc, in fairness, @CH2O does know what he's talking about ... although so does @CEM ...
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.
Given we like anything spoken by/on youtube as our gospel, i found this which explains the subject, or at least the voluntary need to believe!
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
snowheid wrote:
This arose in another thread and I think it deserves it's own discussion.
There's been so much discussion on this already I can't understand why you'd want to do so again. Is it reading that you're struggling with, or simple unwillingness to accept the opinion of experts?
The answer has always been a conclusive No so far, does a new year give you hope that it's suddenly changed?
You have the right of course to believe what you want/read, having literally seen the test in operation i'm afraid i can't forget and ignore what i've seen, that would be super dumb.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
under a new name wrote:
@Chaletbeauroc, in fairness, @CH2O does know what he's talking about ... although so does @CEM ...
Does he really? or did he hear something that sounds like it made a complex thing simple and now he's the genius and the rest of the world are idiots?
I'm not claiming to know everything about boots production but I do have a claim to spending 5 years working on a team that developed plastic molding software for industries so I do know what it means when the term "standardised testing" is mentioned. So far he has not produced any proof that such a thing exists between brands. It's just something he saw once and was impressive to him.
@Chaletbeauroc, in fairness, @CH2O does know what he's talking about ... although so does @CEM ...
This is the problem for the ordinary punter. CEM is generally better at explaining his views, though, without playing to the gallery.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@luanb, Easy, idon't think standing on an asseùbly line in Italy qualifies ùe as a genius.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Hurtle, happy to talk you through it, however is is really detailed and complex as much as variables go. But I promise you, all factories have the same machine, use it in the same way for the same reason. The number on you boots is a reference to that test. I’ve heard too it is t standardized and has no value, the same guy then sent me a bunch of data sheets for a new boot and guess what….
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?
Having the same machines does not mean it's a standard! Where's the white papers? Who's the certifications committee?
p.s. Does Salomon also not know what they're talking about?
@CH2O,
So far I get that there is a test that produces a number (although doesn't seem to be ISO standard so could well be variables introduced at this stage) and l presume that most boot manufacturers use it so it could be argued that there is an industry 'standard' at this point.
However you also mention some of the other variables that affect boot 'stiffness' and these need to be taken into consideration. In other words the boot fitter's skills are key in selecting the correct boot and so the 'number' becomes largely irrelevant other than an approximate starting point.
Given all that I think that to present the stiffness number as a standardised test to the general punter (like me) is not helpful even if there is some basis to claim that it is an industry standard.
Again I am prepared to listen to counter-arguments but I think I for one will continue to advise people looking for new boots to go to a good boot fitter rather than relying upon a speculative number to get the correct stiffness.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
It's from 2019 but the Atomic ski boot product manager didn't seem to think there was an industry standard. He does mention their own "custom" test machine. Perhaps things have developed since then.
I for one will continue to advise people looking for new boots to go to a good boot fitter rather than relying upon a speculative number to get the correct stiffness.
I think he'd agree with you on that point!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Are "boot flex" threads the new "helmet" threads?
The Ski Podcast needs to set up a mini debate with CEM and CH20 on the subject.
I think (as a punter) ultimately the number is a reasonable approximation of the flexibility but that the construction of the shell, your anatomy. etc. means you, as an individual you may not get the flexibility from the boot. And therefore it's ultimately only a guide. Like a lot of other things really.
After all it is free
After all it is free
All the machines are bespoke for sure, the industry modifies equipment from other industries, however they are calibrated to test the boots of each manufacturer, and all those of the competition.
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.
Layne wrote:
Are "boot flex" threads the new "helmet" threads?
The Ski Podcast needs to set up a mini debate with CEM and CH20 on the subject.
I think (as a punter) ultimately the number is a reasonable approximation of the flexibility but that the construction of the shell, your anatomy. etc. means you, as an individual you may not get the flexibility from the boot. And therefore it's ultimately only a guide. Like a lot of other things really.
I think there's probably some clarity to be gleaned here, if if after we all agree that there are and are not certain standards, as i say i'm happy to give over what i've seen to help.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I'd like to at least able to achieve the fact that we don't suggest a Salomon 130 is different from a tecnica 130 for example, mold to mold they'll be a difference, foot to foot, material to material, temperature to temperature. And that your flex is better served as a weight, height and speed connection, not ability, it's nonsense.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
It seems to make no sense to me for manufacturers to either deliberately or simply through not caring to have their boots deviate markedly from others in terms of this measure of boot flexibility.*
That said from what I am hearing there is no independent check to ensure their measure/testing is accurate, or indeed a standard to be accurate to. And I don't think they would spend a lot of time ensuring there is near exact proximity. So when we say "different" I could imagine it could be but is the difference significant. That is to say - if one is 128 and another 132 would it matter (given the other factors that will come into play in regard of what is the better boot for that skier.
* Unless they believe that marketing a 110 flex boot as a 130 flex is going to 'fool' punters into buying it.
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.
Layne wrote:
It seems to make no sense to me for manufacturers to either deliberately or simply through not caring to have their boots deviate markedly from others in terms of this measure of boot flexibility.*
That said from what I am hearing there is no independent check to ensure their measure/testing is accurate, or indeed a standard to be accurate to. And I don't think they would spend a lot of time ensuring there is near exact proximity. So when we say "different" I could imagine it could be but is the difference significant. That is to say - if one is 128 and another 132 would it matter (given the other factors that will come into play in regard of what is the better boot for that skier.
* Unless they believe that marketing a 110 flex boot as a 130 flex is going to 'fool' punters into buying it.
No there is no independant check, there really doesn't need to be, no one is cheating, everyone is testing and comparing each others products too. Otherwise you're right, it makes no sense to cheat or make outragous claims.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@CH2O, I am happy to concede that the number indicates an approximate equivalence across boots, but I think we have established that it is a number that has little relevance to choosing a boot for an individual.
The problem is that I would suggest the majority of the boot buying public will have neither the stamina nor interest in the subject to trawl through what has been an extensive debate on this forum so that they can make up their own minds.
For me life works when it is kept as simple as possible and in this case the simplification is to advise that boot flex is not standardised (even though there is a degree of standardisation) and a boot fitter is best placed to judge the correct boot.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
amen, kinda, i am in a position where the question is asked 20 times a day, i've had to get to the root of it after such a long time.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@CH2O, even 20 times a day in the summer?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@Mother hucker, no, the circus is in town from 1st September as long as stocks last, usually Mid March, then it's Trout season.......
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@CH2O,
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:
Are "boot flex" threads the new "helmet" threads?
The Ski Podcast needs to set up a mini debate with CEM and CH20 on the subject.
I think (as a punter) ultimately the number is a reasonable approximation of the flexibility but that the construction of the shell, your anatomy. etc. means you, as an individual you may not get the flexibility from the boot. And therefore it's ultimately only a guide. Like a lot of other things really.
I'd be super happy to do that in the right format, it's been too long since the two of chatted poo-poo about ski boots. I would imagine we'd come out of it all the wiser, him, I and the forum.
It seems to make no sense to me for manufacturers to either deliberately or simply through not caring to have their boots deviate markedly from others in terms of this measure of boot flexibility.*
That said from what I am hearing there is no independent check to ensure their measure/testing is accurate, or indeed a standard to be accurate to. And I don't think they would spend a lot of time ensuring there is near exact proximity. So when we say "different" I could imagine it could be but is the difference significant. That is to say - if one is 128 and another 132 would it matter (given the other factors that will come into play in regard of what is the better boot for that skier.
* Unless they believe that marketing a 110 flex boot as a 130 flex is going to 'fool' punters into buying it.
Exactly!
Although, fun fact, something like that has happened in the past. Back in the day, when Atomic, K2 or Black Diamond boots weren't even a thing, Tecnica was one of the biggest players on the market and they came up with an intuitive rating sheet: Flex 100 (like in 100% or full stiffness) => their race plug (think Alberto Tomba); 90 => their top shelf men's consumer boot; and going down from there. This lasted until the early/mid '00s, because other brands put their top consumers at 130 with men's plugs at 150. In the end marketing kept the upper hand and Tecnica had to give in to what had become the main stream. And so it stands pretty much since then with some minor deviation from model to model rather than from brand to brand.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
no, the circus is in town from 1st September as long as stocks last, usually Mid March, then it's Trout season....... 
