Printable View
So I've checked around and haven't been able to find a real explanation of the available flex ratings/patterns that Iggys can be made with. The only reference I've had is knowing something with a high 200 would be stiff, a low 200 soft... jong away.
Thanks
180 = old salomon AK rockets, or K2 Lawnchairs
220/240 = Volkl Explosives
260+ = Team GS race ski
Its the thinkness of a stiffening layer inside the skis.
i always thought it somehow translated to core volume (amt and roughly equivalent to thickness of wood).Quote:
Originally posted by mntlion
Itsthe thinkness of a stiffening layer inside the skis.
if you use that internet wayback machine (forget where it is) and look up their archived igneousskis.com website there's a flex calculator that takes your ht wt and din setting and finds you an optimum flex for hard snow, all aroudn and soft snow.
woooord- never knew about that Wayback machine- found it w/ google... and eventually came to this site:
http://web.archive.org/web/200010061...om/create.html
Thanks
mntlion-----proves once again that he knows everything
They also can change the flex and make them stiffer in various parts (race= stiff tail).
I've skied 235rounds, (195cm FaGS) 250 rounds (190 pinners) and 270 races (200 Smurfs)
Both the 235 and 250 are manageable. 235 is still MUCH stiffer than almost any other ski going. The 270 is simply TOO much ski.
Hey LB, what's your heigth and weight?Quote:
Originally posted by lemon boy
They also can change the flex and make them stiffer in various parts (race= stiff tail).
I've skied 235rounds, (195cm FaGS) 250 rounds (190 pinners) and 270 races (200 Smurfs)
Both the 235 and 250 are manageable. 235 is still MUCH stiffer than almost any other ski going. The 270 is simply TOO much ski.
The old website gave me,
Everyday 300
Backcountry 290
Hardpack 310
I was thinking more of the 260-280 range.
Sick, sick, sick... that old Iggy site is kinda fun to go back to. Never knew about the internet archivers. Good stuff all around.
or needs to get a life!Quote:
Originally posted by bisnibble
mntlion-----proves once again that he knows everything
caddy-
5'9" 145lbs
So far there have only been two skis I've been on which were unenjoyably stiff: 190vexs (1st year wizard graphic) and the 270 iggies. I am typically fine riding skis that are longer/fatter/stiffer than average.
If you're really intersted in a pair give Adam and the boys a call to discuss the flexes, those numbers look way too high to me unless you're a REALLY big dude.
I think for probably 99.999% of the people 260 is the absolute stiffest you would need/want. Especially given the fact that you're getting a big old fat ski.
Again, while they may say that the flex of a K2 is just a little ways under their scale, an Iggy is still so much burlier overall that if not actually stiffer is still more massive.
In general I would recommend people get a softer rather than stiffer igneous.
im 6'2, 240 and had to tell that flex calculator i skied with a 15 din to get those numbers.
I cant wait til i finish school and can get some iggys though!!
Quote:
Originally posted by lemon boy
caddy-
5'9" 145lbs
So far there have only been two skis I've been on which were unenjoyably stiff: 190vexs (1st year wizard graphic) and the 270 iggies. I am typically fine riding skis that are longer/fatter/stiffer than average.
If you're really intersted in a pair give Adam and the boys a call to discuss the flexes, those numbers look way too high to me unless you're a REALLY big dude.
I think for probably 99.999% of the people 260 is the absolute stiffest you would need/want. Especially given the fact that you're getting a big old fat ski.
Again, while they may say that the flex of a K2 is just a little ways under their scale, an Iggy is still so much burlier overall that if not actually stiffer is still more massive.
In general I would recommend people get a softer rather than stiffer igneous.
I'm a bit of a big un, 6'4" and 235. I think the old MFFL's I have are a 260, which seem to be pretty much where I would prefer them, but I haven't ever rode any wider iggies to tell what they would be like.
Follow you on the softer rather than stiffer, anyone know if the current production is still using the progressive flex pattern also?
Maybe a little savings plan this summer will let me spring for some new 3T's or even a pair of FFF. we'll have to see.
And ditto on Eleven's comment, I think I messed around the old site for 45minutes yesterday, dig the way-back machine.
260's probably good for you then. You can still get the different flexes (has to do with core volume) although I think they stopped offering a couple of the old flex patterns (powder) a while back. Round is always good :)
You're probably big enough to actually flex some of the stiffer ones but it seems like overkill for such a FAT ski you know?
Yeah, I think in a mid, I might want a 280 or so, but in the big uns' I think a 260 would be just right, little softer up front.
Must start saving now, and hide money from GF..........................:rolleyes:
I get 230 for all mountain (matches my G4 pretty well I'd say). Of course I'm not one of those extremo dudes with DIN locked at 12 or more. That's worth a good extra 20 (DIN 12).
drC
so alright, im 6'2, 240. Don't care much for turning and my dream ski is a 200cm FFL, would a 280 progressive flex be too much?
I had no problems cranking my buddies 210 Asteroids through any turn i wanted with Freerides and Denali xt's and im planning on my first full alpine rig since 92 here.
Fez- 280 iggys are WAY STIFFER than 201 roids. I would say that Roids felt like about 250-260 give or take. They're gonna be primarily soft snow-everyday but not hardpack boards right? Again, IMO go softer but talk to Adam first.
BTW- IMO just get the round flex.
Right on, I'm still mostly just in the fantasizing realm here. Yeah, im looking for an every day ski, i don't usually bother too much with hard snow or bumps. Bumps hurt me and on hard snow i worry too much about hurting others. I'd like about a 120 or so shovel and 90 - 100 underfoot, as long as possible, for my first full alpine rig after 10 yrs of tele and 2 on at gear.
So far my top choices are iggy, stokli and head monsters.
I just noticed, i guess i really was fantasizing when i said 210 asteroids!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntlion
I asked Igneous:Quote:
Originally Posted by mildbill.
"Does that mean 260 is the cross sectional area of the core profile underfoot? Like 260 = 100mm core width times 2.6cm core height underfoot? Or what?"
Michael Parris at Igneous replied (2009/08/18):
"Our stiffness scale is still the same. A 260 core is 2.60mm thick at the contact points. The thickness under foot varies with the length and width of the ski, based on the cross sectional area.
There's a stiffness comparison chart on the Teton Gravity forums- [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41028"]Recommended Skis & Bindings List[/ame]
Our simplified scale 200=really soft, 210=soft, 220=medium soft, 230=medium, 240=medium stiff, 250=stiff, 260=really stiff; based on non-scientific comparison with industry standards."
Bonus: 1999 interview at http://www.descender.com/issue1/igneous.html
.
Like was already said, the number represents a measurement of the thickness of the core.
So, a 260 flex skinny iggy will be way way softer than a 250 flex FFF.
I have a pair of 235 flex 200cm FFF's, and they are absoltluy beastly. They hand flex a good deal softer than my 194 B squads, and the eliptical sidecut profile makes them easier to schmear and slide around in tight spots than I thought they'd be, but they are still about the manliest ski I think I'd ever want. I wish I'd gotten them a touch softer, like a 230, although I've only had a few days on em, so I bet they'll break in a bit more over time.
It took me a minute to realize most of this thread is now more than 5 years old. Also made me realize how long it had been since I had thought about LB skiing my 200 cm 270 race flex fgs in the Park City half pipe. Still one of the most amusing things I have ever witnessed :)