Reduce weighting of G-Force in the SkiIQ score

Dear Carv Team,

When comparing different runs, I noticed that the SkiIQ score appears to place a relatively strong emphasis on the measured G-force value. Two runs with similar or even clearly different technical metrics can receive different scores primarily due to differences in peak G-force.

In one comparison, I observed the following:

Run A (SkiIQ 164 – Short Turns):

• G-Force: 3.2 g

• Edge Angle: 52°

• Early Edging: 68%

• Turn Shape: 60%

• Parallel Skis: 84%

• Edging Similarity: 100%

• Weight Release: 86%

• Rotation Rate: 72°/s

• Slope: 23°

Run B (SkiIQ 156 – Carving):

• G-Force: 2.0 g

• Edge Angle: 68°

• Early Edging: 82%

• Turn Shape: 94%

• Parallel Skis: 95%

• Edging Similarity: 91%

• Edge Build: 100%

• Edging Smoothness: 75%

• Weight Release: 71%

• Turn Closure: 54%

• Slope: 20°

While Run B shows clearly stronger technical indicators (higher edge angles, earlier edging, significantly better turn shape, and better ski control), Run A receives the higher score primarily due to the higher G-force.

From a physics perspective, lateral acceleration depends mainly on speed and effective turn radius. Factors such as ski type (e.g. slalom vs. GS skis), chosen line, or very tight turn radii can generate high G-peaks without necessarily reflecting a meaningful difference in technical quality.

Skiers using longer-radius skis (e.g. around 18 m) will naturally produce lower G-peaks than skiers on slalom skis, even with comparable or superior technique.

It might therefore be worth considering whether G-force currently has a disproportionately high influence on the overall SkiIQ score, and whether additional emphasis could be placed on metrics such as pressure progression, smoothness of force application, and turn efficiency.

Thank you for the very interesting system and for continuously developing it.

Kind regards