New skis: I must do it right this time! (Was: new tools for this coming winter)

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
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