If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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..) |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 news 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Crossover and Crossunder | foot2foot | Alpine Skiing | 288 | May 14th 05 06:09 PM |
Ski "Logic" and the second pair of skis... | Lisa Horton | Alpine Skiing | 4 | April 2nd 05 02:59 AM |
How bad off are ya with bad skis, wax, grind? | [email protected] | Nordic Skiing | 21 | March 25th 05 11:55 PM |
About those cheap Internet skis.... | Lisa Horton | Alpine Skiing | 5 | November 2nd 04 12:25 AM |
skate ski home flex test question .. help! | Chris Crawford | Nordic Skiing | 6 | February 26th 04 04:00 AM |