|
|
New skis: I must do it right this time! (Was: new tools for this coming winter)
I want a new pair of skate warm RCSs, and I *must* do it the absolutely
perfect way this time. This means: No lame hand squeeze tests (my 1998 skis); No lame "Oh, this is out last pair of 193s, but I am sure it will fit you" (my 2000 skis) No lame "Oh, we are out of RCSs, wanna give Hypersonics a try?" (my 2001 pair) No, I need *my* skate warm RCSs which will *fit* and which will *kick ass*. |
Call Zach
wrote in message ups.com... I want a new pair of skate warm RCSs, and I *must* do it the absolutely perfect way this time. This means: No lame hand squeeze tests (my 1998 skis); No lame "Oh, this is out last pair of 193s, but I am sure it will fit you" (my 2000 skis) No lame "Oh, we are out of RCSs, wanna give Hypersonics a try?" (my 2001 pair) No, I need *my* skate warm RCSs which will *fit* and which will *kick ass*. |
FITZGERALD wrote:
Call Zach .. . . no, I think he maybe should make a phone call to "Herr Fischer", in der Homeland. (just kidding!) wrote in message ups.com... I want a new pair of skate warm RCSs, and I *must* do it the absolutely perfect way this time. This means: No lame hand squeeze tests (my 1998 skis); No lame "Oh, this is out last pair of 193s, but I am sure it will fit you" (my 2000 skis) No lame "Oh, we are out of RCSs, wanna give Hypersonics a try?" (my 2001 pair) No, I need *my* skate warm RCSs which will *fit* and which will *kick ass*. In reality, I thinks it's very difficult to pick an optimum/ideal pair of skis, because of the weather/snow variables. In surfing, if one keeps their eyes & ears open for the opportunity, it's possible to demo ride an actual contest/pro board, at least if you live near let's say, Santa Cruz. Perhaps maybe Salomon will do a demo day of the actual skis used by their team members. Ha! mark |
In reality, I thinks it's very difficult to pick an optimum/ideal pair of skis, because of the weather/snow variables. In surfing, if one keeps their eyes & ears open for the opportunity, it's possible to demo ride an actual contest/pro board, at least if you live near let's say, Santa Cruz. Perhaps maybe Salomon will do a demo day of the actual skis used by their team members. Ha! mark Why not? Every points race I ever competed in for windsurfing had the demo boards and sails (some were even experimental) laying on the beach......So why can't we demo skis? |
nordvind wrote: In reality, I thinks it's very difficult to pick an optimum/ideal pair of skis, because of the weather/snow variables. In surfing, if one keeps their eyes & ears open for the opportunity, it's possible to demo ride an actual contest/pro board, at least if you live near let's say, Santa Cruz. Perhaps maybe Salomon will do a demo day of the actual skis used by their team members. Ha! mark Why not? Every points race I ever competed in for windsurfing had the demo boards and sails (some were even experimental) laying on the beach......So why can't we demo skis? The past two years Fischer has had a tent on Vasagatan in Mora where one could test Fischer skis. I think that Atomic also had an arrangement there with Fliesbergs store for a day or two where you could test Atomic skis on the Vasalopps tracks. I think you needed your own boots. And my wife purchased Fischers one year that were no so good fit to her and she went back to the store after Tjejvasan and the store exchanged them for a better (just a smidgen softer) fit. |
Rev - BUY EARLY when they have selection. Don't wait for sales in March.
JK |
I have heard this before!
Some shops are like that and some not: - No lame hand squeeze tests (my 1998 skis); - No lame "Oh, this is out last pair of 193s, but I am sure it will fit you" (my 2000 skis) - No lame "Oh, we are out of RCSs, wanna give Hypersonics a try?" (my 2001 pair) I feel lucky when I know it will take the local shop 4-5 days to get a new hand picked pair directly from the factory. If it looks perfect in shop too then I'll buy it. (yes this is for Madshus skis sold in Norway) |
Sorry to hear that your previous ski buying experiences haven't been
that great. I hope it goes better for you this year. I think you've gotten some good suggestions from the group. Demos area great way to test skis, and all companies love an opportunity to demo their skis. West Yellowstone is the best place that I'm aware of to demo skis because the companies all put a lot of resources in to being there. And it's early enough so that you've got decent shot at finding some good skis after figuring out what you like. Regardless of whether you've been on demos, you've still got to get some help finding an appropriate pair. You want to find somebody who understands ski construction, what the various companies are ding with their current models, and what will best complement your characteristics as a skier. I've just posted a skate ski flex sheet (PDF) on my website that outlines most of the qualities that are relatively easy to measure in skate skis, and how they relate to performance. You can find that at http://www.engineeredtuning.net/ . There should be a link from the front page - otherwise go to the Flex Evaluation page. The good news is that most companies have struck a really good balance in their ski design, and it is certainly possible to find skis that handle a broad range of track and snow conditions. It would be nice to start with a goal of finding three pairs of skis to cover the whole range, but you can get ninety percent of the way there with a single pair. Best of luck! Zach |
Sorry to hear that your previous ski buying experiences haven't been
that great. I hope it goes better for you this year. I think you've gotten some good suggestions from the group. Demos area great way to test skis, and all companies love an opportunity to demo their skis. West Yellowstone is the best place that I'm aware of to demo skis because the companies all put a lot of resources in to being there. And it's early enough so that you've got decent shot at finding some good skis after figuring out what you like. Regardless of whether you've been on demos, you've still got to get some help finding an appropriate pair. You want to find somebody who understands ski construction, what the various companies are ding with their current models, and what will best complement your characteristics as a skier. I've just posted a skate ski flex sheet (PDF) on my website that outlines most of the qualities that are relatively easy to measure in skate skis, and how they relate to performance. You can find that at http://www.engineeredtuning.net/ . There should be a link from the front page - otherwise go to the Flex Evaluation page. The good news is that most companies have struck a really good balance in their ski design, and it is certainly possible to find skis that handle a broad range of track and snow conditions. It would be nice to start with a goal of finding three pairs of skis to cover the whole range, but you can get ninety percent of the way there with a single pair. Best of luck! Zach |
I've found what Paul says even applies to professional purchases, where
you give the ski length, your weight and maybe the desired % flex and the head nordic person at the U.S. company warehouse picks out the skis at a substantial discount, but no returns (except for defect). I've had one excellent pick (Donna at Garmont when they were importing Peltonen), one still up in the air and one seriously poor choice (+ a bad ski design). I'm using Zach this time because I sense that his experience, testing, knowledge of technique and obsessive attention to developing good measurement techniques stand a good chance of a happier ending than I've found so far in ski shops. However, it does help him or any good fitter for the customer to have used and demo'd some different brand skis and possess a good enough sense of their technique (a video is invaluable) to have an intelligent discussion of possible choices. Gene Norski wrote: The Fischer shops here in the midwest, such as 'ABR Ski Trails' in Ironwood, MI, 'New Moon' in Hayward, WI. and 'Ski Hut' in Duluth, MN. have demo skis and boots you can try. The trails are near by to test. If you'd like to try skis for several days, they also have rental skis available. Some of the bigger races, such as the Birkie, have an expo and Fischer, along with the other companies have equipment demos. The demos, expos or rental could help you narrow down the length you'd feel the most comfortable on. Zach is right, once you have an idea of what you'd like, it is best to go with a reputable dealer with a large stock of skis and have the skis fitted to you using a bench or Zach's ski picking service. I learned the hard way over 20+ years of racing, trying to 'save money' purchasing discounted skis at shops going out of business, end of year close outs and such. The very best skis and bindings cost about $550. A good pair of skis that fit can last 10 years of racing. That works out to $55.00 for a whole year of enjoyment. Most of the shops these days are really honest. I've been in some that would not sell me a pair of skis, as they said they didn't have any that fit. -- Paul Haltvick Bay Design and Build - LLC Ashland, WI |
I'd probably say the best route is if you can have someone like Zach
have an order in hand when he goes to the Fischer warehouse and pull a pair for you. Of course Zach's time is worth some money. Another route is to find a knownledgable shop employee (or owner) that has a good selection, and have them pick out a pair. Picking the shop is kind of like interviewing for a ski selector. I've had my skis picked at the warehouse based only on my weight for probably the last 10 years. Peltonen was never able to get it right for classic skis, and they were pretty good for skate skis. Fischer has been excellent with each of their picks for me, both classic and skate. I have each of my pairs checked at the local level, and I get the "this is a good ski for ..." and generally that matches what I asked for. I believe that you could ask the shop to order a pair for you (if they don't have the proper pair in stock) and probably get a pretty good set of Fischers just based on your weight. Jay Wenner |
Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-) I would reverse your statement
and say that picking the ski selector is the basis for picking the shop. Not all selectors at reputable shops are quite created equal, experience notwithstanding. It's a bit of trial and error, which can be costly and frustrating. Also, getting into the warehouse early is essential to getting a "perfect" pair, but that's probably not an option for most people. I didn't get my request into Fischer until early Nov last year and by then the stock was significantly depleted. They selected a pair of Skatecuts enough under the requested % to be of concern, but they do seem to love soft snow. Finn Sisu looked at them and just shook their heads, but said you never know. BTW, Zach's time includes the grind. Gene "Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote: I'd probably say the best route is if you can have someone like Zach have an order in hand when he goes to the Fischer warehouse and pull a pair for you. Of course Zach's time is worth some money. Another route is to find a knownledgable shop employee (or owner) that has a good selection, and have them pick out a pair. Picking the shop is kind of like interviewing for a ski selector. I've had my skis picked at the warehouse based only on my weight for probably the last 10 years. Peltonen was never able to get it right for classic skis, and they were pretty good for skate skis. Fischer has been excellent with each of their picks for me, both classic and skate. I have each of my pairs checked at the local level, and I get the "this is a good ski for ..." and generally that matches what I asked for. I believe that you could ask the shop to order a pair for you (if they don't have the proper pair in stock) and probably get a pretty good set of Fischers just based on your weight. |
I don't believe there is "the perfect" pair. Some at better for this
and some better for that, kind of like picking the perfect car. Jay, born a pain |
Geno writes: Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-)
I was talking with Peter Ashley (head mucky much at Fischer) and told him how Peltonen would send classic skis which were so far off that it was like they laughed at trying to get classic skis without stepping on them, and they were grabbing a pair for me to trade out on a local level. OTOH, I was really surprised how well the Fischers fit (from the factory). Peter said he has had great luck fitting a bunch of college guys based simply on their weight, and that he wouldn't ship out anything that flexed out at 60% of their weight. Generally the target was 55%. (I used to target 70-75% and some guys will go to 100% and over, so 55% is a surprising number.) Some may laugh, but the flex numbers work pretty well. Jay |
It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from different manufacturers often describe very different measurements. Even using the exact same testing system, those flex numbers will be different across manufacturers and even between ski models made by a specific manufacturer. So, the 60% guideline might work really well for a certain type of classic ski from Fischer, but possibly not from a different model and definitely not for a different brand of ski. So when you hear flex numbers tossed around, make sure that you look closely at what they mean and that they are comparing apples to apples. Just because a different brand selects their skis based on 100% of the skiers weight, does not mean that the skis are 40% stiffer than the Fischers that are selected at 60%. As examples of this, Fischer's classic skis are generally made in two types of mold: the 812 is the stock plus/cold ski that has been in production for 4 years (I think) and the 902 is the new "wet" ski. These skis have very different characteristics and need to be selected in different flex ranges. The World Cup skiers have some Fischer skate skis (V9 mold) that tend to flex very stiff (175% of body weight) and a new soft-track ski (300 mold) that flexes around 85% of the skier's body weight. The V9 is designed for the very hard track conditions seen on the World Cup and the 300 is designed for powder. Both skis do very well for their specific conditions, but have extremely different "flexes". So, don't take those numbers to be anything magical, especially when comparing between brands of skis. They are probably more a measure of the different methods employed by different companies and the differences in ski construction. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, because I agree that there are definitely some brands out there that have tended to advocate picking skis that were much too stiff. But you can't compare flex numbers by themselves to compare the "softness" of one brand or model vs another. You need to look at the overall construction and as always, the best way to tell the differences between skis is to ski on them. -Nathan "Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote in message ups.com... Geno writes: Spoken as a Fischer-sponsored skier? ;-) I was talking with Peter Ashley (head mucky much at Fischer) and told him how Peltonen would send classic skis which were so far off that it was like they laughed at trying to get classic skis without stepping on them, and they were grabbing a pair for me to trade out on a local level. OTOH, I was really surprised how well the Fischers fit (from the factory). Peter said he has had great luck fitting a bunch of college guys based simply on their weight, and that he wouldn't ship out anything that flexed out at 60% of their weight. Generally the target was 55%. (I used to target 70-75% and some guys will go to 100% and over, so 55% is a surprising number.) Some may laugh, but the flex numbers work pretty well. Jay |
Nathan writes: It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from
different manufacturers often describe very different measurements. I guess I assumed incorrectly the numbers represent a closing of the ski to a certain gap. I realize people can measure the closure at different points aong the pocket, and different flexes have an effect, but it's still seems surprising to me that the numbers can vary so much when the fitting goal should be about the same. BTW, my classics glide (and kick) well, so I'm not questioning the 55% figure from Fischer. Jay Wenner |
Hi Jay,
Yes, it would seem simple enough, but there is not really a "standard" measurement or way to measure it. Different companies use different devices and have different specifications for the tests. I think Fischer uses 0.1mm and applies the force 8cm behind the balance point. Other companies may use different specifications or apply force differently... Nathan "Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote in message oups.com... Nathan writes: It is important to point out that "flex numbers" from different manufacturers often describe very different measurements. I guess I assumed incorrectly the numbers represent a closing of the ski to a certain gap. I realize people can measure the closure at different points aong the pocket, and different flexes have an effect, but it's still seems surprising to me that the numbers can vary so much when the fitting goal should be about the same. BTW, my classics glide (and kick) well, so I'm not questioning the 55% figure from Fischer. Jay Wenner |
Just got back after a week of backpacking/scrambling in the High
Sierras. Some passes are still under 3+ feet of snow. Thanks a lot, guys, for the great responses. I will definitely check the factory picking option. In fact, I did not know this route exists: I thought it's only for the sponsored ones. |
Nathan raises some really important points about ski flex. It's
important to understand that there are huge variations in both ski design and in flex measurement techniques. In combination these variables make it really impossible to, for instance, compare a Fischer factory flex number with an Atomic factory flex number. Even when I'm measuring different skis from different companies using the same protocol on my flex tester the "closing flex" is the least important measurement that I make. It's much more important to understand how the ski reacts to active loading than the what static load closes the ski to a given residual camber. So - be very careful about putting too much stake in the factory flex numbers, especially when it comes to comparing between brands. I also want to add a comment to what Nathan said about the various "special" skis that world cup skiers use. I imagine that there will be a handful of people out there scouring the world for a pair of 300s now that the mold number is in circulation! It's important to understand and appreciate how Fischer conducts their R&D of new and different ski constructions. The basic fact is that ALL companies make special skis that aren't available to the consumer market. All companies, that is, that have the production capacity to test different constructions. Of the companies that I work with Fischer is the most transparent in their development process. We actually get to see what they're trying, and what world cup skiers are using from time to time. This can cause some headaches on the retail end of things because word gets out that there are different skis available if you're good enough or well-connected enough. Competition testing is important. I know for myself that a new grind isn't ready for the market until it's been successfully tested in competition. Fischer isn't about to launch a product without a lot of information and feedback from their stable of test pilots (world cup racers). That doesn't mean that these skis are always better than what's available to the public. All companies want to put their best face forward. Sometimes we, the public, feel that the decisions that get made aren't as good as they could be. For instance, I was never a fan of the skatecut, or the wide-tipped Atomic Beta. But I think it's probably a bit cynical to chalk all such products up to marketing. In fact, the real "holy grail" for ski design is a ski that can handle the broadest possible range of conditions and be race-worthy in all of them. The problem with the special world cup skis is that they're usually pretty specialized in application. At least, they start out that way. For instance, the 902 - just released as the Wet classic ski - started life as a dedicated slush ski for strictly sloppy conditions. As Fischer made modifications based on feedback skiers started using the ski in a wider range of conditions, and it became apparent that they had a very viable race ski. And now it's on the market. Right now the skis that Nathan mentioned are a ways away from being market worthy. The V9s appear to be a hit-or-miss proposition. Eli Brown and I shared a "R&D fleet" of special construction skis last year. We had one pair of V9s in the fleet that got raced everywhere we had it, by a wide variety of skiers. Another pair rarely if ever got used because it wasn't as good. The things seem to be hard to control in production and there is little assurance that a correctly fit ski will be good. The 300s are also an interesting ski, but an even newer idea. The ski seems to be designed for soft snow, but some of the Austrian Fischer guys were touting it as a hard snow ski last year. Kris Freeman had a pair last year (they're in my shop right now) that are fit WAY stiffer than my analysis suggests they're designed for. But he had his best World Cup finish on them last year. Now he's got a pair that are about 30% softer than last year's pair that he seems to be liking in new Zealand. Nobody, not even Fischer race service people, know enough about these skis to know how best to fit them. When I'm picking skis I can be very confident with the results I'm going to get from the standard production models. I can pick a 610 for soft snow, or I can pick one for hard snow. Fischer has dialed that ski in to the point that it can do a lot. A few years ago I wasn't as confident of that. If I were picking V9s for consumers right now they'd come with no guarantees. I actually got ahold of a pair last year as part of a complicated trade - I thought they'd be great hard snow skis. They suck. Actually they seem best in softer slushy stuff. I don't know why. Mike Wynn has them right now - I gave them to him to try to make sense of at the end of last year. Actually, I think I said something like "take these out to Crandall Park when it's really icy and see how many bones you break". So it's fun getting to see how the development process works, and I love working with Fischer because of their willingness to share information and show what they're playing with. However, I would caution people not to get too excited about the new constructions before they're well tested. When they're ready for the market I can pretty well bet we'll see them on the market. In the meantime, just ask Nathan how he liked the V9s he used at the Birkie a couple of years ago! Zach |
If I want really well-fit skis, I get then fom Bert Kleerup at Eagle
River Nordic. Years ago he designed and built a (then ) unique and very accurate ski pressure-profile test bench. All the racing skis he sells are tested on it. The prices are premium, but the fast well-fit skis are worth it to me. While you can mail order from them and have them select a good pair for you, I prefer to go to the shop and sort through skis with Bert. Be prepared to spend a delightful few hours talking with someone who has thought about skis for a lifetime, and hear some great stories. (No disclaimer needed. They're not relatives, sponsors, partners, or anything else..) |
Hi All,
Yup, I just got in trouble for disclosing the mold number on this special pair of test skis. To everyone out there, please don't ask Fischer or Fischer dealers about getting a pair of these prototype skis. There are only a handful in the world. I was just using them as an example of different ski constructions and flex numbers. I was talking to Kris Freeman about them when we were in New Zealand, so it was fresh in my head. Zach's point below is very important - R&D is just that. They need to test things out with skiers that are at the highest level under controlled conditions to determine if the features are desirable. These are test skis and while they sound exotic, they are often fickle and often a complete pain in the ass. They frequently have very specific applications and therefore they tend to run hot or cold, depending on if you get lucky or not on any given day. Once the engineers have had time to tweak these new molds or bases, they are usually abandoned as unworkable or somehow incorporated into the production line-up. An example of this is the 902 construction. It has been around for a while and they have finally nailed the ski down enough to know that it is good enough for production and that they need to educate consumers on the specific performance characteristics so they are not frustrated. So, please be patient and don't get me in any more trouble by asking for skis that are not available in production yet. -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Zach Caldwell" wrote in message oups.com... Nathan raises some really important points about ski flex. It's important to understand that there are huge variations in both ski design and in flex measurement techniques. In combination these variables make it really impossible to, for instance, compare a Fischer factory flex number with an Atomic factory flex number. Even when I'm measuring different skis from different companies using the same protocol on my flex tester the "closing flex" is the least important measurement that I make. It's much more important to understand how the ski reacts to active loading than the what static load closes the ski to a given residual camber. So - be very careful about putting too much stake in the factory flex numbers, especially when it comes to comparing between brands. I also want to add a comment to what Nathan said about the various "special" skis that world cup skiers use. I imagine that there will be a handful of people out there scouring the world for a pair of 300s now that the mold number is in circulation! It's important to understand and appreciate how Fischer conducts their R&D of new and different ski constructions. The basic fact is that ALL companies make special skis that aren't available to the consumer market. All companies, that is, that have the production capacity to test different constructions. Of the companies that I work with Fischer is the most transparent in their development process. We actually get to see what they're trying, and what world cup skiers are using from time to time. This can cause some headaches on the retail end of things because word gets out that there are different skis available if you're good enough or well-connected enough. Competition testing is important. I know for myself that a new grind isn't ready for the market until it's been successfully tested in competition. Fischer isn't about to launch a product without a lot of information and feedback from their stable of test pilots (world cup racers). That doesn't mean that these skis are always better than what's available to the public. All companies want to put their best face forward. Sometimes we, the public, feel that the decisions that get made aren't as good as they could be. For instance, I was never a fan of the skatecut, or the wide-tipped Atomic Beta. But I think it's probably a bit cynical to chalk all such products up to marketing. In fact, the real "holy grail" for ski design is a ski that can handle the broadest possible range of conditions and be race-worthy in all of them. The problem with the special world cup skis is that they're usually pretty specialized in application. At least, they start out that way. For instance, the 902 - just released as the Wet classic ski - started life as a dedicated slush ski for strictly sloppy conditions. As Fischer made modifications based on feedback skiers started using the ski in a wider range of conditions, and it became apparent that they had a very viable race ski. And now it's on the market. Right now the skis that Nathan mentioned are a ways away from being market worthy. The V9s appear to be a hit-or-miss proposition. Eli Brown and I shared a "R&D fleet" of special construction skis last year. We had one pair of V9s in the fleet that got raced everywhere we had it, by a wide variety of skiers. Another pair rarely if ever got used because it wasn't as good. The things seem to be hard to control in production and there is little assurance that a correctly fit ski will be good. The 300s are also an interesting ski, but an even newer idea. The ski seems to be designed for soft snow, but some of the Austrian Fischer guys were touting it as a hard snow ski last year. Kris Freeman had a pair last year (they're in my shop right now) that are fit WAY stiffer than my analysis suggests they're designed for. But he had his best World Cup finish on them last year. Now he's got a pair that are about 30% softer than last year's pair that he seems to be liking in new Zealand. Nobody, not even Fischer race service people, know enough about these skis to know how best to fit them. When I'm picking skis I can be very confident with the results I'm going to get from the standard production models. I can pick a 610 for soft snow, or I can pick one for hard snow. Fischer has dialed that ski in to the point that it can do a lot. A few years ago I wasn't as confident of that. If I were picking V9s for consumers right now they'd come with no guarantees. I actually got ahold of a pair last year as part of a complicated trade - I thought they'd be great hard snow skis. They suck. Actually they seem best in softer slushy stuff. I don't know why. Mike Wynn has them right now - I gave them to him to try to make sense of at the end of last year. Actually, I think I said something like "take these out to Crandall Park when it's really icy and see how many bones you break". So it's fun getting to see how the development process works, and I love working with Fischer because of their willingness to share information and show what they're playing with. However, I would caution people not to get too excited about the new constructions before they're well tested. When they're ready for the market I can pretty well bet we'll see them on the market. In the meantime, just ask Nathan how he liked the V9s he used at the Birkie a couple of years ago! Zach |
Rob Bradlee pointed out a much more succint way to say what I'm trying
to say: The R&D prototypes out there are being tested by top skiers to figure out how to bring the best features to market while eliminating the negatives as much as possible. When Fischer finds something that works in their prototypes, they will get it to market as quickly as possible because they want to sell skis. They are not making special skis just for elite athletes. They are developing the next generation of equipment. Some of their prototypes bomb and go nowhere. Putting those technologies into production before extensive testing would result in a lot of people getting some really bad skis. -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Nathan Schultz" wrote in message ... Hi All, Yup, I just got in trouble for disclosing the mold number on this special pair of test skis. To everyone out there, please don't ask Fischer or Fischer dealers about getting a pair of these prototype skis. There are only a handful in the world. I was just using them as an example of different ski constructions and flex numbers. I was talking to Kris Freeman about them when we were in New Zealand, so it was fresh in my head. Zach's point below is very important - R&D is just that. They need to test things out with skiers that are at the highest level under controlled conditions to determine if the features are desirable. These are test skis and while they sound exotic, they are often fickle and often a complete pain in the ass. They frequently have very specific applications and therefore they tend to run hot or cold, depending on if you get lucky or not on any given day. Once the engineers have had time to tweak these new molds or bases, they are usually abandoned as unworkable or somehow incorporated into the production line-up. An example of this is the 902 construction. It has been around for a while and they have finally nailed the ski down enough to know that it is good enough for production and that they need to educate consumers on the specific performance characteristics so they are not frustrated. So, please be patient and don't get me in any more trouble by asking for skis that are not available in production yet. -Nathan www.nsavage.com "Zach Caldwell" wrote in message oups.com... Nathan raises some really important points about ski flex. It's important to understand that there are huge variations in both ski design and in flex measurement techniques. In combination these variables make it really impossible to, for instance, compare a Fischer factory flex number with an Atomic factory flex number. Even when I'm measuring different skis from different companies using the same protocol on my flex tester the "closing flex" is the least important measurement that I make. It's much more important to understand how the ski reacts to active loading than the what static load closes the ski to a given residual camber. So - be very careful about putting too much stake in the factory flex numbers, especially when it comes to comparing between brands. I also want to add a comment to what Nathan said about the various "special" skis that world cup skiers use. I imagine that there will be a handful of people out there scouring the world for a pair of 300s now that the mold number is in circulation! It's important to understand and appreciate how Fischer conducts their R&D of new and different ski constructions. The basic fact is that ALL companies make special skis that aren't available to the consumer market. All companies, that is, that have the production capacity to test different constructions. Of the companies that I work with Fischer is the most transparent in their development process. We actually get to see what they're trying, and what world cup skiers are using from time to time. This can cause some headaches on the retail end of things because word gets out that there are different skis available if you're good enough or well-connected enough. Competition testing is important. I know for myself that a new grind isn't ready for the market until it's been successfully tested in competition. Fischer isn't about to launch a product without a lot of information and feedback from their stable of test pilots (world cup racers). That doesn't mean that these skis are always better than what's available to the public. All companies want to put their best face forward. Sometimes we, the public, feel that the decisions that get made aren't as good as they could be. For instance, I was never a fan of the skatecut, or the wide-tipped Atomic Beta. But I think it's probably a bit cynical to chalk all such products up to marketing. In fact, the real "holy grail" for ski design is a ski that can handle the broadest possible range of conditions and be race-worthy in all of them. The problem with the special world cup skis is that they're usually pretty specialized in application. At least, they start out that way. For instance, the 902 - just released as the Wet classic ski - started life as a dedicated slush ski for strictly sloppy conditions. As Fischer made modifications based on feedback skiers started using the ski in a wider range of conditions, and it became apparent that they had a very viable race ski. And now it's on the market. Right now the skis that Nathan mentioned are a ways away from being market worthy. The V9s appear to be a hit-or-miss proposition. Eli Brown and I shared a "R&D fleet" of special construction skis last year. We had one pair of V9s in the fleet that got raced everywhere we had it, by a wide variety of skiers. Another pair rarely if ever got used because it wasn't as good. The things seem to be hard to control in production and there is little assurance that a correctly fit ski will be good. The 300s are also an interesting ski, but an even newer idea. The ski seems to be designed for soft snow, but some of the Austrian Fischer guys were touting it as a hard snow ski last year. Kris Freeman had a pair last year (they're in my shop right now) that are fit WAY stiffer than my analysis suggests they're designed for. But he had his best World Cup finish on them last year. Now he's got a pair that are about 30% softer than last year's pair that he seems to be liking in new Zealand. Nobody, not even Fischer race service people, know enough about these skis to know how best to fit them. When I'm picking skis I can be very confident with the results I'm going to get from the standard production models. I can pick a 610 for soft snow, or I can pick one for hard snow. Fischer has dialed that ski in to the point that it can do a lot. A few years ago I wasn't as confident of that. If I were picking V9s for consumers right now they'd come with no guarantees. I actually got ahold of a pair last year as part of a complicated trade - I thought they'd be great hard snow skis. They suck. Actually they seem best in softer slushy stuff. I don't know why. Mike Wynn has them right now - I gave them to him to try to make sense of at the end of last year. Actually, I think I said something like "take these out to Crandall Park when it's really icy and see how many bones you break". So it's fun getting to see how the development process works, and I love working with Fischer because of their willingness to share information and show what they're playing with. However, I would caution people not to get too excited about the new constructions before they're well tested. When they're ready for the market I can pretty well bet we'll see them on the market. In the meantime, just ask Nathan how he liked the V9s he used at the Birkie a couple of years ago! Zach |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SkiBanter.com