Origin of ski boot flexes via Nordica

Good historical dorkiness. And a good throwback to the Doberman!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDcM3...xqZmRpOHY1MGFl

cool vid. it's basically all made up from other made up baselines.

Wish there was some effort to standardize this but marketing would throw a fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NBABUCKS1

cool vid. it's basically all made up from other made up baselines.

Wish there was some effort to standardize this but marketing would throw a fit.

---

The lack of flex standardization has less to do with marketing departments and more with the reality that plastic manufacturers have a large hardness tolerance vs. what boot brands spec, and the fact that measured flex values change depending on what shape foot is in the same boot. The best you can hope for is that brands try to be as consistent as possible within a product line.

And that flex is so subjective even though efforts have been made to quantify it objectively

I was told in the early '00s that the Nordica scale was based on how many pounds of pressure it took to deflect the boot a certain amount at room temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onenerdykid

The lack of flex standardization has less to do with marketing departments and more with the reality that plastic manufacturers have a large hardness tolerance vs. what boot brands spec, and the fact that measured flex values change depending on what shape foot is in the same boot. The best you can hope for is that brands try to be as consistent as possible within a product line.

---

Weren’t you saying just a week or so ago that you needed a soft and stiff 130 in the line because your European customers won’t buy a 120 or 140?

I hear (and have heard you go into much more detail) about the difficulty of measuring and standardizing flex, but it seems like marketing is a consideration too?

I remember the Saloman SX81 and SX91 of the mid80s as being the first marketed as flex specific. They even had the slider over the instep to make it more/less stiff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Weren’t you saying just a week or so ago that you needed a soft and stiff 130 in the line because your European customers won’t buy a 120 or 140?

I hear (and have heard you go into much more detail) about the difficulty of measuring and standardizing flex, but it seems like marketing is a consideration too?

---

So there's two things at play here: 1) barriers to implementing a flex standardization and 2) consumer buying habits. My post above refers to the main technical barriers that would make trying to implement a flex standardization near impossible. That there are two specifications of 130s is related to the second point, specifically that many people (let’s be honest: men) want a boot that says 130 on the cuff that is also easy to put on. I think the lack of flex standardization as more to do with the first point and less to do with the second, but both are factors for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iowagriz

I remember the Saloman SX81 and SX91 of the mid80s as being the first marketed as flex specific. They even had the slider over the instep to make it more/less stiff.

---

There have been different flex indexes over the years. Prior to the current "130-120-110-etc" system, brands used a single-digit systems that eventually evolved into double-digit systems. In the late 90s, most brands flex hierarchy was on a 1-10 scale (i.e. Atomic ARC Race 9.28) and in the early/mid 2000s, things moved into 11-14 (Atomic SX: 14, Salomon Impact 12, or Nordica Speedmachine 14). Nordica may have had it first with the sticker on their cuff, but the first boot I ever saw with a triple-digit flex in its name was in 2002 with the Lange Comp LV/MV 130-120-etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian

I was told in the early '00s that the Nordica scale was based on how many pounds of pressure it took to deflect the boot a certain amount at room temperature.

---

There’s the problem. Room temp.

Pebax is the most temp variable today.

I could care less about cross brand standards.
Lange is consistent. That should be the standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

There’s the problem. Room temp.

Pebax is the most temp variable today.

I could care less about cross brand standards.
Lange is consistent. That should be the standard.

---

Fully agree. Consistent flex within a brand is most important, and I could care less what marketing manipulations are done to sell more boots to euros.

Stamping a high end boot with 130 which turns into a 90 halfway through the flex progression is irresponsible and dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onenerdykid

That there are two specifications of 130s is related to the second point, specifically that many people (let’s be honest: men) want a boot that says 130 on the cuff that is also easy to put on.

---

I want a true 130 that's easy to put on, but I only put my boots on once a day, so I'll deal in order to have a boot that skis well. Actually, it was TAKING OFF the ZB that keeps me from skiing that boot. A cold parking lot extraction is brutal.

Boot flex numbers are generally useless.The variation between flexes is massive. I tried a Nordica Unlimited 130 DYN last year. That boot flexes like a 100. The Hawx XTD is definitely softer than a Lange RX120.

I guess it is what it is. Seems fairly easy to standardize if people wanted that. Standard jig flexed to a certain distance at a set temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowMachine

I want a true 130 that's easy to put on, but I only put my boots on once a day, so I'll deal in order to have a boot that skis well. Actually, it was TAKING OFF the ZB that keeps me from skiing that boot. A cold parking lot extraction is brutal.

Boot flex numbers are generally useless.The variation between flexes is massive. I tried a Nordica Unlimited 130 DYN last year. That boot flexes like a 100. The Hawx XTD is definitely softer than a Lange RX120.

I guess it is what it is. Seems fairly easy to standardize if people wanted that. Standard jig flexed to a certain distance at a set temperature.

---

Not saying anything is right or wrong here, but here is what would need to happen if flex consistency is the goal:
1. Every boot would need to be built in a very similar way, with very similar wall thickness, with the same plastic. We'll never have 1500g boots that flex the same as 2200g boots. The only way to have multiple boots feel similar to a Lange RX 120 would be if they were built very similarly to a Lange RX 120.
2. A standardized flex jig has to have a last that accurately matches the shell. If one jig/last is used across different volume boots, only the boot that matches the jig/last will have accurate flex data; all others will be skewed because the last doesn't match the shell. With the wrong last, a "true 130" could look like a 120, or even 110, on the standardized test.
3. Plastic manufacturers (like BASF) would need to deliver plastic with a much better tolerance on specified hardness. Right now, they can't and don't, which is an issue that kinda dooms this project from the onset.

I’m not even confused with the current situation. Buy whatever boot you want from a certain brand that has a nominal flex rating that corresponds to your wants. It’s not that difficult and if it is go to an experienced boot fitter.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums