"feel" again

[tch]

I've taken the liberty of cutting out a response from another thread. It addresses something that I've often thought about, which is the "feel" of skis.

Quote: "If I’m looking for something light and lively with lots of energy, I lean towards Fischer and Dynastar. If you like something not quite as lively but damper at speed I think of Head and maybe Blizzard."

Here's the question/wonder/discussion point: I really like damper, solid skis -- I think. I'm 64 and have bad knees, so I don't want a ski that is light, "boingy", tossed around. I bought my Kastle MX78's b/c they were supposed to be one of the dampest, skis around. But...I also have a pair of Fischer Motive 95's, and I LOVE them and have never felt they were too light, insubstantial, "boingy". So is the characteristic quoted above wrong? Do I maybe not like damp skis as much as I think? Is there really a "Brand" feel that cuts across all offerings (for instance, I've never bonded w/Salomon skis b/c two demos convinced me they made skis too light)? Are the words folks using not precise enough or perhaps not as agreed-upon as I think? Besides the obvious "different reactions from different folks" answer, is there any answer to these questions?

 

[Freddo Bumps]

So, what do you think of the MX78?

 

[Tricia]

Quote: "If I’m looking for something light and lively with lots of energy, I lean towards Fischer and Dynastar. If you like something not quite as lively but damper at speed I think of Head and maybe Blizzard."

From your quote of a quote -
The interesting thing is, I don't think of the Head Joy line as damp, but more on the light and lively side.
And to your point @tch, I find that the skis referenced in that quote aren't always in line with what the OP said.
Fischer Pro Mtn and My Mtn have both been quite damp.
Hmmmmm, I guess it depends on the ski in the product line.

 

[Wendy]

I think the problem is that people equate ALL skis across a brand as having the same characteristics. I always hear, “I’m a Volkl person because their skis are..” (fill in the blank). I think it is counterproductive to paint brands with a wide brush.

My Stockli SR100’s do not ski like my SR83’s, width notwithstanding, they are different skis. They are both awesome, just different.

I have skied a poppy, light feeling Elan and also a heavier, damper Elan.

I owned a very poppy Dynastar and also a very glued-to-the-snow Dynastar.

The Volkl Kenja felt nothing like the 90Eight.

The Liberty VMT series does not ski like the Origin.

Perhaps Kastle (which I am not familiar with) does hold the same characteristic feel in its skis, but generally speaking, if a company wants to market to different skiers, wouldn’t it want to create skis with different “feels?”

 

[cantunamunch]

Perhaps Kastle (which I am not familiar with) does hold the same characteristic feel in its skis, but generally speaking, if a company wants to market to different skiers, wouldn’t it want to create skis with different “feels?”

Yes*...BUT...that doesn't always work out from the get-go. There are lots of attempts to get out of a design comfort zone that don't make it. Designing for feel requires both testers and designers to be on the same idea page otherwise it's just a mad money drain of frustration with blah to show for it. So you might even need to recruit new testers and train them to give designer feedback.

And then when a new out-of-wheelhouse product doesn't work very well in initial testing, all the subsequent revisions will tend to steer it back towards the tried and true.

And THEN you have to convince the market that it is, in fact, different from everything else, enough to justify spending money on.


EDIT: Even then that should be a highly qualified yes - you'll have to do a fair bit of convincing trying to get line managers to understand that no, their current product envelope simply isn't good enough to encompass the new target market. The fact that brands are brands and not one-hit wonders carries with it a simply terrifying amount of self-examination.

 

[cantunamunch]

Here's the question/wonder/discussion point: I really like damper, solid skis -- I think.

The (measurably) dampest ski I own - an older Stockli btw - is not even close to being the stiffest. Let's not pretend that "solid" and damp are necessarily associated in the same product.

You can have as solid a ski as -pick your metaphor here- and get a jouncy Jeep-on-potholes ride out of it.

What I suspect you're looking for is actually a combination of damping, shape, and flex.

 

[Wendy]

Yes*...BUT...that doesn't always work out from the get-go. There are lots of attempts to get out of a design comfort zone that don't make it. Designing for feel requires both testers and designers to be on the same idea page otherwise it's just a mad money drain of frustration with blah to show for it. So you might even need to recruit new testers and train them to give designer feedback.

And then when a new out-of-wheelhouse product doesn't work very well in initial testing, all the subsequent revisions will tend to steer it back towards the tried and true.

And THEN you have to convince the market that it is, in fact, different from everything else, enough to justify spending money on.


EDIT: Even then that should be a highly qualified yes - you'll have to do a fair bit of convincing trying to get line managers to understand that no, their current product envelope simply isn't good enough to encompass the new target market. The fact that brands are brands and not one-hit wonders carries with it a simply terrifying amount of self-examination.

Methinks you’re just too smart for me. Always bringing up stuff I never thought of.

 

[tch]

The (measurably) dampest ski I own - an older Stockli btw - is not even close to being the stiffest. Let's not pretend that "solid" and damp are necessarily associated in the same product.

You can have as solid a ski as -pick your metaphor here- and get a jouncy Jeep-on-potholes ride out of it.

Whoa! I never would have replaced "solid" with "stiff". Interesting p.o.v. When I say "solid", I probably do mean a reasonably torsionally stiff ski...but what I really mean is a planted, "heavy", stick-to-the-snow feel. But you seem to connect "solid" with "stiff". Hmmmmm......

 

[Wendy]

So, to those who have skied several Renoun models....do those all have the same “feel” due to HDT? I would assume the Citadel would feel different due to its weight.

 

[cantunamunch]

Whoa! I never would have replaced "solid" with "stiff". Interesting p.o.v. When I say "solid", I probably do mean a reasonably torsionally stiff ski...but what I really mean is a planted, "heavy", stick-to-the-snow feel. But you seem to connect "solid" with "stiff". Hmmmmm......

As I wrote that I probably had two specific skis (both built by a major producer) in my head - one was a womens FIS race the other was an SX ski. They're both torsionally - immediate; I couldn't really call one more solid than the other based on that. The SX ski is notably (read: far) stiffer and notably *less* damp (read: buzzy to the verge of being unskiable on coral reef). I really therefore do not know what 'solid' would mean in the context there, but I expect you would choose the FIS ski because it is both damper and smoother.

I'm sure I also had my double-carbon-and-black-locust MR87s in my head - as solid survival skis go they are bulletproof; you could use them to chop through zombie necks all day and skate-ski out of the bloody mess afterwards. Torsionally they are crampons, but again, with your knees I expect you would hate them - they simply don't have enough give to absorb terrain in the length and shape they encounter it.

Apologies if I mistook your use of "solid" - I'm still not sure how to interpret it other than in the way I did. "Planted" and "stick to the snow" I would call compliant. Makes me think of Kicker Snowsports and their POTUS. Amazingly compliant, amazingly damp ski. Borderline unskiable in soft snow. Seriously, in mashed potatoes snow you couldn't tell where the edges were.

I would assume the Citadel would feel different due to its weight.

Me too - and shape. I'll jump back to my Jeep analogy to explain: Imagine two Jeeps with the same suspension all around except one has steel rims and highway narrow tires where the other one has wide mud tires. Same potholes. Will they feel the same? No, of course not.

Takeaway: The shape we use to encounter environmental inputs is very important to 'feel', including our feel for damping and compliance.

 

[Scruffy]

If you have bad knees and hate them being rattled, wouldn't you avoid a stiff ski?

 

[Josh Matta]

If you have bad knees and hate them being rattled, wouldn't you avoid a stiff ski?

no....it would really depend on what you want.

for instance I had a pair blizzard X powers and pair of head monsters 83, the monsters ARE way stiffer, also more damp, the X power would wear me out, but the monsters just let me ski with out much effort because the ski doesnt get tossed around at all.

 

[Tytlynz64]

As I wrote that I probably had two specific skis (both built by a major producer) in my head - one was a womens FIS race the other was an SX ski. They're both torsionally - immediate; I couldn't really call one more solid than the other based on that. The SX ski is notably (read: far) stiffer and notably *less* damp (read: buzzy to the verge of being unskiable on coral reef). I really therefore do not know what 'solid' would mean in the context there, but I expect you would choose the FIS ski because it is both damper and smoother.

I'm sure I also had my double-carbon-and-black-locust MR87s in my head - as solid survival skis go they are bulletproof; you could use them to chop through zombie necks all day and skate-ski out of the bloody mess afterwards. Torsionally they are crampons, but again, with your knees I expect you would hate them - they simply don't have enough give to absorb terrain in the length and shape they encounter it.

Apologies if I mistook your use of "solid" - I'm still not sure how to interpret it other than in the way I did. "Planted" and "stick to the snow" I would call compliant. Makes me think of Kicker Snowsports and their POTUS. Amazingly compliant, amazingly damp ski. Borderline unskiable in soft snow. Seriously, in mashed potatoes snow you couldn't tell where the edges were.



Me too - and shape. I'll jump back to my Jeep analogy to explain: Imagine two Jeeps with the same suspension all around except one has steel rims and highway narrow tires where the other one has wide mud tires. Same potholes. Will they feel the same? No, of course not.

Takeaway: The shape we use to encounter environmental inputs is very important to 'feel', including our feel for damping and compliance.

Would not the physical characteristics of the rider also be critical to the algorithm? In the case of the jeep we are adding mass while expanding the contact patch. The driver is irrelevant. On skis the driver is the steering and suspension

 

[cantunamunch]

Would not the physical characteristics of the rider also be critical to the algorithm?

Yes - but that's more directed towards the 'established corporate testers and their training' facet that I mentioned to @Wendy above.

Presumably an end user will have accustomed themselves to their own bodies, so a demo is a demo for them. A tester, OTOH, has to imagine how a ski will feel to someone like you and to someone like the low-percentile women in the 22.5MP boots, as well as provide feedback to base further dev. work on. You will perceive the difficulties and how -there's no better name for it - corporate 'personality' begins to creep in.

 

[tch]

CTM: don't apologize for your use of "solid". Interesting example to me of how different people use the same word to mean different things. And indicative of how hard it may be to communicate certain things.

Regarding flex...that's something I haven't really thought of as giving the ski personality. Of course as soon as I consider, it makes sense. Usually, however, I've just thought of flex as relating to how quickly a ski responds: stiffer = more immediate; softer = slower. Stiffer for hardpack; softer for soft snow. But I guess flex is part of how a ski feels planted or compliant on the snow.

BTW: your description of the SX ski is exactly what I DON'T want in a ski. To use a car analogy, I used to have an Audi A6 twin-turbo. It felt solid -- maybe even heavy -- but yet agile; my wife used to say it felt like it was vacuuming up the road it felt so planted. I want that in a frontside ski -- not a Toyota Tercel.

 

[Scruffy]

@tch, have you given the Renoun Z90 a ride? Sounds like it's your ticket. I have not skied them BTW, but the reviews here seem to point to a damp planted ski that is soft when needed in soft snow and bumps, and stiffens on hard pack with speed, but does not transmit snow noise to the skier.

 

[François Pugh]

While it may be true across two brands, it is also only true for comparing the same niche ski for those two brands.
Even if one brands skis favour a light sensitive feel, it's cheater race ski will be more solid and heavy feeling than the other brands beginner-intermediate ski.

Also speed plays a role, my Volants are solid and damp as per the family feel, but if I take them up to SG speeds they are as lively as a colt on crack. Same with the old Atomic SX10s I once demoed, feel much more solid and composed than Fischers SC, but get them over 50 mph on hard icy snow and they are like a paint shaker on crack, as opposed to the Fischers which are still fine.

 

[Philpug]

So, to those who have skied several Renoun models....do those all have the same “feel” due to HDT? I would assume the Citadel would feel different due to its weight.

Yes, the Citadel has a significantly different feel than the Z. The Endurance with it's more off piste shape does split the difference. Each have their own personality.

 

[cmackvt]

@tch, have you given the Renoun Z90 a ride? Sounds like it's your ticket. I have not skied them BTW, but the reviews here seem to point to a damp planted ski that is soft when needed in soft snow and bumps, and stiffens on hard pack with speed, but does not transmit snow noise to the skier.

I'd second this. I think that is a good description of the Z90 - "damp planted" ski. I skied it about 25 days last year and never got used to how little feedback I got from the ski but it did allow me to ski longer and end the day with my legs feeling less tired. Last spring and this fall I was back on the Bonafides (now my rock ski) and it felt great. Last year I was able to ski the Z90 on the same day as the Bonafides and Salomon Q -105 when conditions where right and wasn't wowed by the Z90. Don't take this the wrong way the Z90 is a good ski but I'm having trouble adjusting to how "quiet" it skis. It is definitely the ski I'd pick if conditions are icy and rough (Vermont) and I plan on skiing all day.

 

[Wendy]

I'd second this. I think that is a good description of the Z90 - "damp planted" ski. I skied it about 25 days last year and never got used to how little feedback I got from the ski but it did allow me to ski longer and end the day with my legs feeling less tired. Last spring and this fall I was back on the Bonafides (now my rock ski) and it felt great. Last year I was able to ski the Z90 on the same day as the Bonafides and Salomon Q -105 when conditions where right and wasn't wowed by the Z90. Don't take this the wrong way the Z90 is a good ski but I'm having trouble adjusting to how "quiet" it skis. It is definitely the ski I'd pick if conditions are icy and rough (Vermont) and I plan on skiing all day.

I just skied my Z90 today in dust on crust and icy choppy groomer crud.....the ski really handles everything well. I usually enjoy a lively ski but the smoothness and ease of the Z90 do make my legs feel A LOT less tired! Also, it is nice to know there will be no surprises when the conditions are unpredictable.

BTW, they may be damp, but I can get a nice pop out of them on short radius turns.