^amazing review.....
Printable View
^amazing review.....
ditto. you're definitely a nerd with all those measurements...and that's definitely a compliment...good info!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rob stokes
So...the July stiff will be stiffer than the first round of 179 stiffs? I'm still trying to figure out how I can pay for these...but when the time comes, given the reviews on the stiffs, I think that'd be the flex I'd want. But, will the new flexes mean the "old" stiff will be more like the "new" soft?Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
I would like to know the answer to that question, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spthomson
Yeah, it might fall into a scenario like you describe, sp.
Well have to wait and see....
Ditto!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyntrayc
Dreaming....dreaming...
Bitching and whining about topsheets aside, from the first 2 pages, I think I'm gonna like my 179 stiffs. Like, a lot.
And splat, you are really impressive with your responsiveness to reviews. I guess that's just one more perk to the existence of The Board.
I had been worried that, coming from skiing a B3 every day, the stiffs would be TOO stiff. I wanted something a bit stiffer, but not 3" sheet metal. Very reassuring to know that this semi-impulse purchase will not likely end in regret. (Err, after reading the last few posts, the concern has returned to some extent. Bummer).
Thanks for the reviews, maggots! :yourock:
Shredgar: great review. What I want to know is: if a maggot can do those types of measurements to quanitfy stiffness, why can't ski companies? Boots have a fairly universal flex index, but skis seem not to. Why? Just not enough interest?
Edit: would differences in running length compromise the efficacy of a stiffness index for skis of the same length? There would have to be SOME way to standardize the test, I would imagine. What does everyone think?
^ thats a really good point man, ive never thaught about that, but now i have it would be really cool if skis had a guide to how stiff they were-it would give people in the know a better indication on how they ski along with dimensions, radius, running length etc....
I'm just thinking out loud here....
Because of variability in raw materials, it's hard to produce the exact same stiffness reliably in a manufacturing run. If ski manufacturers published stiffness metrics then they would have to (a) ensure the reliability of the stiffness or (b) admit that there is some variability in stiffness and just report an accurate measurement for each ski.
The honest answer is that, even with very high consistency in manufacturing, each ski will flex slightly different. At best, ski flexes are quantified with an ordinal scale (e.g., soft, stiff, very stiff). This tells you that stiff is stiffer than soft. However, this ordinal scale does NOT tell you that the difference between soft and stiff is the same the difference between stiff and super stiff. Clear as mud? Basically, an ordinal scale is not very useful. It's better than nothing, but it leads to comparisons that are "loosey-goosey". I think that Iggy had a great idea when they used this to help you customized their skis, but it can be improved upon.
Quantifying the stiffness with an interval scale, means that constant units are used (like in the example above) making quantifiable comparisons possible. You could say, for example, that ski X is exactly 1.3 times stiffer than ski Y. There's real value in being able to do that.
I think that the best solution is to just measure report the exact interval measurement of each ski's flex. Customers can select from the range available. We can still label skis at the bottom of the range "soft" and those at the top of the range "stiff" to give some meaning to the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Gosey
Don't worry too much, Max. When I sent Shredgar those skis I told him they were the last pair and were blems on many levels, ie, stiffness, camber and topsheet misalignment. His would be the last pair I would want reviewed as a representative sample of the 179s. I sent them to him so he had something to ski this spring and told him I'd send him another pair when we get back to pressing. Those skis were the last of the Mohicans and therefore not even close to the even flex and camber of a pair that would normally be sent out. Maybe Shregar left that part out of his review.
Cool. Good to hear. Thanks, splat!
Does any other company do this type of thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
:yourock:
No kidding & right on.Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyntrayc
Yes I knew they were extra blems & I'm fine with it. Thanks for taking good care of me Splat, you've earned my business. The review is intended for fun & information.
The flex test is easy; two 1" thick books, one at each contact point. Stack weight at midboot till the ski touches the table. A community flex database would be easy, folks just need to measure their quivers & post. I think it's useful information & it would be great to see more skis added to the list.
Re: contact length, been thinking about this. I guess Spatulas & DP Lotus 138s have no contact length, more like a contact point. I've heard the DB Tabla Rasa has a lot of rocker = short contact length. Have heard the same about the DP Lotus 120. Can anyone comment about the Pontoons? This would seem to be a progressive ski design. The 179 Bros widest points are way out past the contact points = effective edge length is >> contact length = they ski longer on edge & it seems to work. Any comments Splat?
Nailed the corn cycle on south facing LCC yesterday morning on the 179 Bros before work. It was great & so were the skis. Damp & straight, the 179 Bros ski very well. They easily ripped big fast turns in the white velvet = passed the test. Yes, they can work for me in the backcountry. Lightweight & go uphill very well, made the first ascent at a 3,000'/hr pace. I was blissed out & grinning when I got to work.
Third day on the 179 Bros in the Wasatch bc, third different set of conditions, same good times. Way to go PM Gear.
If you can go up at 3k/hr (sustained) w/ 99mm-waist ski that is (1) a damn fine testament to your conditioning & (2) a pretty damn good sign that those skis are light for their size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shredgar
What would your pace be on, say, a moderately light 80mm-waist ski? (Not that skiing down in variable conditions would be as fun...but in corn it might be.)
Purdy impressive! :)
Because flex pattern can change the skis that are "on the same level on the index/scale" very much?Quote:
What I want to know is: if a maggot can do those types of measurements to quanitfy stiffness, why can't ski companies? Boots have a fairly universal flex index, but skis seem not to. Why? Just not enough interest?
E.g.
(Traditional) race flex - somewhat softer tip, very stiff tail
Even flex - almost the same through the whole ski
So called progressive flex - at extreme, very stiff under the boot but can be very soft in the tip (and also tail)
New "Park" flexes - "butter" zones/areas...make things even more complicated
And all the other possible variations...(e.g. Dynastar Big Trouble is said to have stiff tip and soft tail!)
Say, you have a ski at "flex index 110"...without knowing how is the flex pattern of the ski, I'd say the scale/index lacks quite a lot of information on the nature of the ski.
I'm not saying this type of flex index would be totally useless. Still, there are so many other variables that it would only tell a small portion of the whole picture. (Think about torsional stiffness, camber / tip&tail rocker possibilities, sidecut / width, lenght, twin tip vs. traditional etc.)
Just my 2 cents...
EDIT: And that's why you got to give some props to PM Gear. What I've notice Bros seem to be all about HOW they ski, not about all the ski-technology jargon big companies are using to sell their stuff...:) (--> one potential future buyer here...Big Bros, hmmmmm....)
Sustained usually around 1,500'/hr when moseying, 2,000'/hr when hustling on skins. Part of the other day might have been motivation & snow. It was beautiful w/fast travel conditions & the Bros sure didn't hold me back.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
Then why not flex of "tip to contact point," "contact point to contact point," and "tail to contact point?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiehkevarri
I think a maggot database of flexes woud be cool.
I know you guys are out of stock of all models and will be for a while since you are revamping the production process, but how what are the chances of me getting some non-blem 188 stiffs by october-november?
Contact points for a flexed ski of traditional design on edge in a turn are longer and farther out on the tip and tail than the contact points of a ski sitting on a flat suface.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shredgar
Hence the argument of skis with less sidecut for coulior skiing (if this makes sense).Quote:
Originally Posted by splat
I may have missed it among all the pages of this thread, but has anyone actually compared the weights of the 179 bro and the 179 dynafit freeride 10? i know trackhead posted weights for his 188 dynafits...but the 179s?
If everything goes according to plan...good....but keep checking of course and we'll keep updating.Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybryan
There was a picture (on the "Pics of the 179 Bros" thread) of the 179 stiff Bro's on a scale reading 38280. I am guessing it was 3.828 pounds, but it might be 3lbs, 8.28oz, for one ski, which makes it either 7.6 pounds or 7 pounds a pair. My 178 FR 10.0's weighed 6lbs 14oz on my digital scale. My FR 10.0's are for sale.
Sounds good. I'm going out to UBC in August and am gonna need some bigger sticks by the time the snow flies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces
UBC as in Vancouver, BC. Well, in that case, welcome to Lotusland. One more step to the west and you are right in the Pacific Ocean. At UBC, try the VOC (Varsity Outdoor Club). They organize a lot of bc ski trips around Whistler, such as Brew Hut. Check out their website: http://www.ubc-voc.com/wiki/Main_Page. IQuote:
Originally Posted by dirtybryan
hiked and skiied Brew myself. LeeLau here also skis a lot around there.
If you can't make it to Whistler (too much homework, yeah right?!), the local ski hills, Cypress, Grouse etc, are only 30 minutes away. When you ski down, downtown Vancouver is right in front of you. Spectacular view. Enjoy your studying, ah should I say, skiing?:)