Trust Ski Manufacturers' Flex Rating
Jon
selling, in spite of the fact that Fischer gives a specific flex
point.
Just curious if anyone has experience with the manufacturer's numbers
being off?
ge...@none.net
You didn't say classical or skate, but yes, I read a comment somewhere
to that effect the other day re Fischers and know from my own experience
that the tag numbers are often off a bit. That's part of why, for
example, Zach Caldwell takes a flex tester on his visits to ski
factories and warehouses when picking skis. Another reason is that
it's unusual for ski pairs to have matching flexes, although the
manufacturing technology has improved over the years. The person
measuring them also has to know what they are doing re the brand of
ski, since Carbonlite classics (and skates?) have, or have had,
residual camber by design that other skis don't.
If you're talking about classical skis, the other thing that's very
important (and another thing Zach measures) is the "finish," or closing
flex, i.e., how much pressure it takes to go from a one-leg full-footed
ride to a firm push off from the ball of the foot. Kris Freeman, for
example, exerts a whole lot more force downward than most of us do, and
since he skis relatively upright, he will likely exert more force down
than another racer with a more forward, classical Norwegian stance
(Odd-Bjorn Hjelmeset comes to mind). This is why in general
comparisons between the needs of citizen skiers and what elite racers
use, is dicey at best. And even more so as we age, with muscle power
available seeming to decrease, meaning the need for a relatively or
absolutely softer ski (this is something I've found very few people
selling skis understand, especially younger ones). The closing flex can
be gauged by feel on a board - full foot, paper slides; ball of foot it
doesn't - but more accurately it's measured with a press and digital
meter from the 0.2mm to 0.1mm closure points, at 8cm behind the balance
point (if I've got those numbers right).
Gene
Jon
Thanks for the detailed response.
The carbonlites in question are classic's.
Just curious, what is "residual camber?
Jon
On Jan 7, 2:15 pm, g...@none.net wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:40:55 -0800 (PST)
>
ge...@none.net
> Thanks for the detailed response.
> The carbonlites in question are classic's.
Warm or cold?
> Just curious, what is "residual camber?
My understanding(!) is that it's open camber in front of the kick zone
when the ski is fully weighted, hence residual. Thought that seems
paradoxical, it's the way Fischer built the Carbonlites and I think
even some of the regular RCS classics, their 812 construction types (a
rep told me this year to look for a pair of colds in my flex range with
the longest pocket and most residual camber). In terms of skiing, I
think it fits best with someone who pushes off the ball of the foot, vs.
a more full or mid-foot push off, and perhaps means the need for a
stronger kick at any flex number (with a Fischer ski fullly weighted -
down to 0.1mm - the ski will still be slightly open from the foot
forward). This idea of 'left-over' camber is definitely not traditional
and initially some shops were sending them back. I've heard that this
year's batch of Carbonlites has less residual camber.
Gene
ge...@none.net
the binding) are actually close with this year's batch, but bench
testing got very different numbers on the carbonlites previously. It
also depends on who's doing the testing and with what equipment (I'll
know more about this soon with a pair of non-carbonlite RCS).
Concerning residual camber and forward lean, it's been pointed out to
me that as we age flexibility in the ankle decreases. So even if one
skis in a flexed forward position, a 50 or 60 year old skier (and
probably most all citizen skiers) will not be able to get the pressure
down on the front of the kick zone that a more flexible and stronger
elite or WC skier can. Important issue in fitting.
Gene
Spunout
> To add a bit more information, I'm told the (tear-off)label#s (above
> the binding) are actually close with this year's batch,
Hi there, is there an interpretation guide to the label numbers? I
read it somewhere here on RSN but can't find it now.
I have a 2010 Carbonlite Classic plus with 'N13891202 Medium' and the
bar codes are '9 002971 223823'. My dealer (very reputable) told me
that these close at 41-43kg, right in my range.
Any takers?
ge...@none.net
long thin one laying aside the main sticker that reads like this:
FA:39,98
HR:0,42
I don't know what all those refer to, but the 39 in this case refers
to Fischer's flex measure (skier half-weight 8cm back of balance
point?). While a label scanner and the right software may pick up more
info, you'd probably have talk to a dealer or Fischer rep to get
specifics. Btw, the skis I took this off of were bench tested at ~40.5
(would be a bit more with bindings). But to interpret numbers like
that it's also important to look at how the skis close, both in front
of the foot (where, how much residual camber) and under foot (double
pole vs. striding position), as well as how much pressure it takes to
go from 0.2mm to 0.1mm, i.e., what it takes to close them to the
equivalent of about two layers of hard wax. Skis with the same flex
numbers can have very different characteristics on a variety of
dimensions. And the same skis will feel different to different skiers,
depending on factors like age, technique, strength and ski style.
Gene
Norski
The Fischer numbers are the reverse of what you described. FA is
basically the force to totally compress the ski flat, in this case, a 'flex'
of 39.98 kg. That is very close to the 40.5 kg that you got from your bench
test.
HR is half weight height. The height of the camber when the skier's
weight is evenly distributed on both skis. Your example is 0.42 mm
As you mentioned, the skis come to the dealer with two bar code
stickers. Usually the dealer removes the one sticker when it is sold, as it
is a temporary sticker.
Usually you can scan the remaining sticker to get the numbers, but not
always.
In any case, as Gene points out, the manufacturer's numbers are just
used by the dealers to narrow down the available skis that might fit you,
when you go to purchase a ski. Being fitted on a ski bench is much more
important, as the 2 flex values are only 2 points in the movement of a ski.
What goes on in between the half weight position and the fully closed
position is what determines how a ski feels.
Of course, how the ski feels to you on snow is the most important aspect
of all.
Hope this helps and you are enjoying your new skis.
Paul Haltvick
Bay Design and Build - LLC
Engineering, Construction Services
FSx - Fischer / Swix Racing
Sa...@BayDesignBuild.com
<ge...@none.net> wrote in message
news:20100203102337...@none.net...
ge...@none.net
recent experience to your comment about the key being between half
weight and closed. I quickly found that the (cold) pair I described
stride ok but seriously drag double poling. With DP, the skier's weight
is what, maybe 75%, and focused several cm farther back than half
weight flex is typically taken? The ok stride told me that residual
camber was compensating in good part for the drag under foot, while the
latter suggested these skis collapse quickly under foot (behind the
ball) with added weight.
Which leaves the question, how can 0.42mm, which is 8-9 standard wax
layers, be insufficient? There seem to be at least two answers. First,
skis don't necessarily close in an even manner across the entire kick
zone (I had a pair of Crowns where just squeezing I could see the front
5+ cm closed right off, which explained the drag). Second, the idea is
to match that 0.42mm with the skier's half weight (with adjustment for
skier's preferences). In my case, at 80kg, the actual measurement seems
to be well less than .42, since I can't use more than about 6 layers +
a thin binder in front of the ball of the foot before seeing drag.
That's a sign that the ski is too soft to be used as a universal cold
ski. Which is the point where one goes back to the seller.
Gene
Spunout
> to be well less than .42, since I can't use more than about 6 layers +
> a thin binder in front of the ball of the foot before seeing drag.
> That's a sign that the ski is too soft to be used as a universal cold
> ski. Which is the point where one goes back to the seller.
>
FWIW, I've found that 50% is the softest RCS one might ski (If you
were a 'shuffler'). I wanted to make sure that my current skis are
about 60% of weight, and this range seems to be sufficient to ski
'athletically', use a lot of wax and still get some glide. Pocket
distribution is so important (and tough to test), layers need to be
built up according to how the camber closes.
ge...@none.net
camber there is. 60% is stiff in a classical ski, stiffer than WC
skiers use. Up to a point in steepness, it's possible to ski stiffer
with a lot of wax - I have a pair of warm carbonlites like that. But I
find it also means having to "work them" a lot, what you describe as
athletic, meaning more energy expended per kick. It's harder doing a
30k race like that. I prefer a ski that kicks easy but rides high
enough to glide, so my again athleticism is going forward more than up
and down.
Btw, this thread has been about RCS's, but Atomic has for some years
used a different flex measurement. I'm told they may have changed
to the standard way of doing it this year. If I recall correctly,
the ones with the tags that have two figures are standard, while the
racing stock isn't (or maybe that's vice versa). I don't know about
Maddhus or Rossi, but they're all NNN now and I use Salomon.
Gene
Terje Mathisen
> Which leaves the question, how can 0.42mm, which is 8-9 standard wax
> layers, be insufficient? There seem to be at least two answers. First,
> skis don't necessarily close in an even manner across the entire kick
> zone (I had a pair of Crowns where just squeezing I could see the front
> 5+ cm closed right off, which explained the drag). Second, the idea is
> to match that 0.42mm with the skier's half weight (with adjustment for
> skier's preferences). In my case, at 80kg, the actual measurement seems
> to be well less than .42, since I can't use more than about 6 layers +
> a thin binder in front of the ball of the foot before seeing drag.
I'm simply amazed that all you wizards always ski on perfectly flat
surfaces, so that you can notice the difference between a few tens of um
of flex on top of the snow surface.
Frankly, I've never been able to do that, except that I'll often run up
a steep hill outside the tracks when I have marginal grip in the track.
I guess this _could_ be due to the less packed snow outside the track,
but that's a difference of mm, not um!
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
ge...@none.net
steep hill in the tracks that's my ultimate test of how a ski flexes
for me. I figure at the price of skis in the States, it's worth the
mm.
Gene