New idea for ski analysis

[Horton]

My reviews have always been On and Off side turns/ Ball to Wake / Wake to the ball. How does the ski feel. What does it do. What does the skier need to do to get the most from it.

 

In the last year I have also started to think in terms of how easy or hard a ski is to ride. Smooth does not always equal a big score but there is a correlation. How easy is it to be smooth up to your limit?

 

Maybe an elite pro can rip on a specific ski but the average Baller cannot. Or maybe it is the other way around. I told one of the big ski designers what I thought I wanted in a ski last month and I am pretty sure it is not what he expected.

 

I am sure about the below matrix. The rest of this is just me thinking out loud.

 

Where does any ski fall on this grid?

 

Ski draws errors / Ski does not draw errors

_________________________________________________

Ski forgives errors / Ski does not forgive errors

 

[Skoot1123]

@horton - I like the idea of adding this. It would also be nice to maybe have a segment that includes effort...ie does it seem like you have to really lean away hard or does it just take off once your in the leverage position.

[JAS]

@Horton- I always look forward to your reviews and think you do an exceptional job of choosing words and message. I think you are right on target with individual variation in skiers and the above grid makes sense.

 

Since everything is being measured by your skiing, it would help my interpretation if I had a clear picture of how you define your own skiing. Strengths, weaknesses, and overall style.

[Horton]

@jas I am a BallOfSpray

[gregy]

Yes, what I want. Low effort, forgiveness, smooth, stance on ski - I seem to do better on skies I can get on the front of.

 

Im LFF and most of my life I would have told you 135 was offside, now that's my good side so now think more in terms of heel side / toe side.

[Razorskier1]

Interesting idea John. I feel like I got an extreme example of that switching from the Razor to the Mapple. I loved the Razor. For me it was forgiving, and it allowed me to "get back in the pass" if I screwed up. How? Get on it and hang on! The ski made you feel like your hair was on fire (well, maybe @Horton's hair -- I really don't have any)! Next thing you know, early for the next buoy.

 

The Mapple is smoother all the way up to the limit. It lets me be more or less aggressive as needed, and it, too, will get me back in a pass quite easily. The difference is that on the Mapple it "feels" like you get there a different way. Almost as if it gets there with angle instead of pure speed. Hook up after a bad turn, hang on and you are both wide and early at the next ball, but you never feel the sensation of massive speed, just cross course angle.

 

I think that these two skis in particular could be two totally different ends of the spectrum, and there are probably many more subtle differences with skis in-between. I like your concept, not sure it can be quantified as easily as some of the other aspects of ski performance you use in your write-ups.

[Joeprunc]

Interesting topic with regards to how some skis work better or worse for elite skiers vs. weekend warriors. Maybe you need to get a second weekend warrior reviewer to post what the aspiring skier feels. Kind of like a Part Deux - Review from the Weekend Warrior.

 

[A_B]

How easy does the ski roll on edge and hold edge?

Carving turn, sliding turn, or hook turn?"

How easy does the tip stay down at finish of the turn when pushed hard (late and hot)?

How much input is needed to initiate turn and shut down going into a turn?

Just some random thoughts...

 

assumes fin setup is optimal.

[thager]

If Horton no loanski or keepski - GoodSki : )

If Horton sell or loanski - no goodski! : (

 

[Texas6]

I know this varies by skier, but how much variation from stock settings is required prior to skiing at your potential. It seems you tune some skis far more then others prior to optimum results

[Horton]

@Texas6 I try to say close to stock. In the case of the Vapor I talked to the test team about what I felt to get better settings. I think the Rossi settings for the Vapor are the right settings for most skiers.

 

On a very few skis I went way off the map but I also documented that. On the S2 my bindings were no where near stock.

[Horton]

@AB I already try to talk about turn radius. Is any modern ski hard to roll on edge or hard keep on edge?

[A_B]

Well, then what about surface area?

 

I know, panda....

[thager]

or Pterdactyl?

[gator1]

@horton I think your reviews are great and clearly a laborious and conscientious effort. But...I don't know how you ski, (more vids on the ski please) I've never been able to trade skis with you set by set, and just knowing your 38 off is often but not always helps some but there are a lot of ways to get that done. Now that I know the 13/14 prophecy fits your style my trust in the match of our preferences is much higher. But that was just lucky for me.

 

My only suggestion is, if you haven't seen them, take a look at SKI magazines 2014 buyers guide. I'd bet you could get 5 or so guys and set up a day with the mfg to run a couple of sets each, tweak the fin with the mfg guru help, and get a composite score like the snow ski guys and crank out a review with less pain for you and more data for us. I am not proud of the detailed data analysis I do on the SKI reports: it is evidence of a damaged mind. But GOD I am a happy man when the buyers guide shows up in the mail.

[MattP]

@gator1 one day is not enough. Hey @Horton I know three words that give you scary flash backs. INDEPENDENT SKI TESTS

[Horton]

@gator1 Haaa yea I have been through this. We tried this for 3 years and the results were to far less accurate than hoped.

[gator1]

@Horton, you probably did it wrong.

 

Kidding aside, thanks for sacrificing your skiing for the reviews.

[Jordan]

@Horton I think adding the dimensions that you are talking about would be helpful. The problem is that so much of this is personal preference, and "feel" is so subjective. "Subjective" is hard to quantify.

 

We all ski a little different, we ar all built a little different. Heck, there has to be significant variation between ski sizes of the same model.

 

I think you get just about as close to possible to giving us all that we can realistically hope for in your reviews. Thanks to this site, we can also ask as many questions as we like about your review and about the skis. Interestingly, I don't see a lot of disagreemnt about the various skis.

 

@Joeprunc, IMHO, adding more people to the review process is just adding complexity and another variable, not necessarily giving you improved information.

 

 

[DW]

@JTH: anything you do to add to the report will be good for the reader. A good category or as I would tend to think of it, the size of the sweet spot & how it relates to the riders ability to extract the maximum performance (easily & repetitively).

[ToddF]

@Horton I appreciate your reviews, but with that said anything in the form of a rubric could help skiers to decipher if that particular ski fits their style better

 

Maybe rate each category on a scale of some sort

 

 

 

[SkiJay]

The whole thing seems an impossible task. It's too subjective and there are too many uncontrollable variables. Every handmade ski adds variables. Every skier's physique adds variables. Every skier's technique adds variables. Every skier's bindings and plates add variables. Every fin measuring technique adds variables. Every day's water and weather adds variables. And even Steady John has good days, bad days, progress and regress during the season, not to mention inconsistent trace levels of Kilo Kai clouding the picture or not one day to the next ... and we want a matrix of hard numbers clearly defining each ski from the poor guy?! Tough room eh @Horton!

[Ilivetoski]

@Horton I liked what I saw in an earlier comment saying it is being reviewed by your skiing. That just gave me the idea of possibly having multiple people give reviews on the ski (not giving people all these skis, but saying "ok, who is on the vapor? These are my thoughts do you all agree?) something along those lines. Preferably people from different skill levels. What someone at 38 might notice on a ski could be completely different than what someone running 28 or 32 could notice on the same setup. Just my .02

[Horton]

@ilivetoski

did you read the whole thread above. I did the ski tests for WSM back in the day. 10 -15 skiers over 3 days. It was fun but less accurate than what I do now.

 

Any Baller is always welcome to do thier own reviews.

[thager]

I am sure @Horton would be glad to share the skis! Hah!!!!!! : )

[Horton]

I took a single tournament round on the Nano OneXT yesterday. That one ride did not in any way a offer a complete feel for the ski but what I think I felt definitely plays into my original idea for this thread.

 

For me the original Nano One offered me great scores but I struggled to ski smooth on it. It was a ski that I would describe as drawing errors but also as forgiving those errors. It allowed me to run a lot of balls no matter what silly things I did. Generally I think skis with minimal or not flatspot in the rocker tend to feel this way.

 

What ever the difference between the Nano One and the XT my first impression is that the ski is as forgiving but may not draw as many errors. My back was wrecked before I went out and I ran 28,32,35 and a few at 38. The 28 - 35 were very low energy and brainless. With a rested back and a few tries I am pretty sure I could cush some 38s on this thing.

[Horton]

Errr so what I am getting at is ... as an example... of the idea

 

Nano One draws errors and is extremely forgiving

Nano OneXT (maybe) does not draws errors and is also extremely forgiving

 

The question for you guys is does this make sense? Does the idea of a ski drawing errors and or being forgiving or not mean something to you?

[ALPJr]

@Horton... The last post does not not really make sense to me. Is forgiving? - yes or no - would be enough. I think the term "smooth" may be helpful - somewhat - regardless of style or ability.

[MattP]

I like the term Flowy. I know what Flowy means.

[acmx]

Draws errors? Explanation please.

[thager]

I like MS's "Kittywampus". Of course when I heard him use it was an adjective attached to Horton.

: )

[Wac]

@Horton: Thanks for all you do with this site and providing feedback for all of us! I too have been trying some new skis at the end of this season. Have been on Stradas for past few years, decided to try some used skis, started with a 2012 Goode N1 65.25. For me, it feels like it doesn't draw errors and is extremely forgiving, but a good amount of effort needed. I skied as good if not better than usual in practice. Then I got on a 2013 N1 66" (which oddly enough has much sharper bevels than 2012 65.25" N1... not sure if it might actually be a XT prototype...) That 66" ski draws a few more errors but I was able to ski the same buoys as the N1 with a little less effort.

 

So to answer your question; I like the addition of your new matrix... I want a ski that scores high buoy counts, but I don't want to feel like it is a crazy ride to get there.

[Horton]

Well @Wac that is exactly my point. One some skis I feel like Jerry Lewis or @eleeski and still run a lot of balls and on other skis I run a ball less but feel smooth as Kilo Kai on ice. On some skis it seems like you never make mistakes but when you do it is all over. On others you can make mistake after mistake and it almost does not seem to matter.