Reviews up at Realskiers

Just a note to let folks know that most of Peter Keelty's reviews are up,  a few more to follow soon, but most are posted.

I'm debating renewing. However, in recent years their reviews have been prime examples of "not getting it" with respect to fatter and modern design skis. The coverage has been lean and what reviews they've had  have been clearly influenced by, shall we say, a certain technique/school bias. Any change in this - or should I just assume my world view and their world view will not likely meet again?

 What do you mean? Isn't the Head Supershape a great powder ski?

epic, full points for that quick reply. I think I may owe you a beer should we cross paths...

Seriously though - I was an early (I think "charter") member & when I had questions (pretty newb questions at that), Peter was responsive and took some real trouble to get me accurate info. I really appreciated that. But over the last few years, they really just have not kept up with how skis have been evolving - and how easy and fun some of those designs are to ski in a pretty broad range of conditions. Not that everyone has to love those designs - but the relatively dismissive sort of statements in those reviews did not ring true to me.

I took a flyer and renewed yet again last year -- and was pretty disappointed as I was quite familiar with a decent number of the fatter skis they dismissed as essentially mutant skis. In fact, no one in my family skied anything but those skis for an aggregate of roughly 200 days between us last season. Not a credibility booster for Real Skiers IMO. If they are catching up, I'd be inclined to flip them the 25 bucks or whatever. But if they are remaining entrenched in the past, not much point...

Agreed... I havent bothered to renew this season. Definitely out of touch with what's really happening out there. I get more value out of being on here or tgr

In the right hands (or should I say under the right feet) they are.

Hah. Part of being a good skier is knowing what is the right tool for the job. The sport really is passing these guys by.

Too bad becuase they used to have some of the best review sites.

I think they still have the best reviews.  What ski did they dis that you liked Spindrift?

Exactly my point. Using a pair of Supershapes for deep powder makes about as much sense as using these super wide planks to skid around on the groomers all day. I ski all over the country, and in the last five years or so I can only remember a handfull of days when I really needed anything wider than an 80mm waist. And sure, if your a dedicated backcountry skier with access to a lot of off piste terrain, and only ski the groomers to get home, then a wider ski makes sense. But that's not what the majority of people that buy these skis use them for. I've used these super wide skis on some steep, icy, narrow and crowded trails in New England, think Cannon Mtn, and they represent a challenge that a lot of skiers just aren't equipped to handle. I don't have anything against wider skis, I have a pair myself. But lets not dis Peter's reports just because he's being truthful about things that some people may not want to hear. As was stated previously, it's all about knowing the right tool for the job.

I agree with most of the above about the certain "old school" bias to these reviews.  They seem to scoff a wider and laugh at rocker. With that said, at least there are "reviews". Actual, subjective opinions on performance.  This still makes the site head and shoulders above any of the other gear guides masquerading as reviews.  If there is another mag or site that is giving opinions rather then presenting a catalog a regurgitating manufacturer copy, please let me know.


I read the reviews yesterday, they love Kastle and Palmer and Dyn 4 x4.

I joined Realskiers a few years ago mostly to get archives of old reviews for buying used skis (just basic "What are these things?" even more than testing results).  I was pretty happy with them.

I did not renew last year largely because the number of reviews seemed to be way down.  I can read between the lines to adjust for someones preferences, provided they are consistent.  But I can't read something that isnt there.

I am considering not renewing my realskiers subscription also.  I do think that the reviews are good, but I am finding them less useful than I used to.  I have skied with enough people on this site, that I get a pretty accurate feel for a ski by reading what they say about it here.

I used to enjoy all of the articles on realskiers as well, and I was a huge fan of the "Inside Tracks" newsletter years ago.  But I feel that lately I am getting the same/similar info either here or at some free sites.

I may end up renewing, because I do support Keelty's basic concept.  And, after all, I found epicski from a link on his website.

Since the cost (or at least the MSRP) for many/most skis is breaking the $1K threshold, I'm happy to pay a few bucks a year for another set of data points -- in addition to Ski, Skiing, and of course Epic.  Realskier may have a bias toward carving, but as long as you recognize that you can weight its reviews according to your own skiing objectives.

I find it interesting when the various reviews agree and when they don't.  Examples:

• Realskier, Ski, and Skiing all seem to be underwhelmed with the new AC-30, which I had been hot to try (OK, I'll still demo it this season.);
• IIRC, Epic (Philpug and others) and Ski like the Blizzard Magnum 8.1, yet it got mixed reviews on Realskier;
• Realskier and Epic (Philpug) like the Dynastar Contact 4x4, but it didn't make the cut this year in Ski;
• Atomic Blackeye TI got a great review on Realskier -- and was one of only two skis (that I could find) that received both the powder and the ice symbol (Kastle FX 84 was the other) -- yet it didn't make the cut for Ski and is never mentioned on Epic.     

   

I think I misunderstood your previous post. We are on the same page.

An 85-95mm wide all mountain ski will do just fine on most groomed runs. However its more fun and I can ski different turn shapes with perhaps cleaner technique, more interesting lines, on a dedicated carver. And in certain conditions, very hard reforzen snow, ice, running gates, etc... you really want a dedicated carver or maybe race stock.

For 95% of people a softer 85-95mm wide board is all you need in most deep snow.  The reason that I prefer a 110mm wide conventional pow ski or a full on rockered ski the the Praxis is becuase its more fun and lets me ski different lines in a bit different way from what I can do on a mid 90mm wide board. Also there are some deep snow conditions where a 95mm wide or even 110mm wide conventional pow board really are tough to use, e.g. funky layered or upside down snowpack, windpack, crusts, etc... 

This is what the RS revies seem to be missing, the idea that a wider ski can let you ski deep snow with a different line, with a differnet techniue, and in more challenging snow conditions and that leads to better skiing. Period.

I had no idea that Philpug was so central to the "EpicSki" official view......

Now you know. 


(Need to get me some Kryptons )

My citing of Philpug says more about about my selective (spotty) memory than the "officialness" of the view... 

 IIRC I read somewhere else(not epic) recently that EpicSki has a decent foothold in the review world.  It does make sense that reviews done by folks in this community are valuable to regular folks looking for information...

Nothing against realskiers, I subscribe there too.

 RealSkiers = useless

I was a subscriber for 4 years, until I realized that it was no better than Ski.

If you like to cruise groomers it may have some useful comparisons, maybe.

Peter is living my dream.  More power to him.

For me, he used to be pretty accurate, especially for the older skis I was looking at.

Now, it's a little bit of Wildcat, some of Sierra Jim, and a healthy dose of personal experience / guesswork.  I tend toward wider and longer than I used to.

TGR isn't totally off the mark either.

I guess now I upsize from what Realskiers says.

I just renewed.  I haven't given up on the reviews yet.

I guess we should see where we can get some of Peter's test cards so they reflect our viewpoint better.

For frontside reviews, I'd go with a mix of here and realskiers.

For backside, I'd go with a mix of here and TGR.

I fully agree. Got any doubts ?  Follow Bob Peters around on a pair someday.
Or
Follow this guy around.
 
That's SCSA who clicked out (but didn't go down) in Vails back bowls. I'm holding up his missing Supershape.

Both guys are great skiers and from a distance you would have no concept of what they were skiing on in bottomless pow, until they skied right up to any of you.

It all comes down to the intent and ability of the skier...and the intent of what the manufacturer wanted the ski to excell at.  The ski companies have really made an art of keeping us in LOTS of gear.  It's almost impossible to own only one pair of skis to do everything anymore. 

Is the Supershape THE CHOICE on a powder day?  No more than Spindrift's reverse camber water skis to run slalom.

The more the gear is matched to the intent of the day....the better it will work and more folks can effectively use them.

(sidenote....for those that don't know, SCSA suffered a fairly serious knee injury last Spring.  I hope he is 100% for this season and I wish him well with his recovery)

UL

LOL, neither did I. 

I haven't read the Realskier reviews this year, I probably should. I actually had some long talks with Peter on their testing process, while I don't totally agree with it, it is a consistent format but I do agree it is a bit dated. Take reviews like Realskiers, Ski Mag and such for what they are, a homogenized opinion. If you want the scoop on a particular ski, there is a good chance someone here or some other forum has tested it and posted their two cents. Find their review and PM them and talk to the tester directly, this is something you cannot do with any other review format, talk to the actual person that tested and reviewed the ski. There are many members here who have done this and I hope it was helpful for them. 

This is Epic's latest feature !   The "OM"

This may be why EpicSki was recognized as a good source for reviews.
It becomes particularly helpful when you get to know the Bear that does the review and trust/or not his/her assessment.

... I was thinking the same thing.

What makes Epic different from Realskiers is methodology.

Realskiers uses ski-shop personnel to review models. The have a standardized form to complete on each ski. The testing is done at industry events. Peter then summarizes the data and builds his database.

At Epic you have an open format that is unfiltered. Any poster can provide an opinion, and often other posters will add their 2 cents.

The directness of the review on Epic often provides a higher level of detail than Realskiers.

When a ski is reviewed by Sierra Jim or Dawgcatching, you really feel like you are getting a complete personal discussion the ski. Direct reviews from the reviewer is the benefit of the forum website.

Michael
Edited by WILDCAT - 9/20/09 at 8:22am

Nice to see that the misreading of my post has brought joy and humor to so many.  Happy to help keep everyone in good humor til snow comes.

Actually, what I like about the reviews on Epic is that there is no "official" viewpoint. That gives it a leg up over either realskiers or Ski.  But Epic has its biases too, which is why I like multitple perspectives.  Of course, I can understand that if you never ski groomed slopes or East coast packed snow/ice, you might not find realskiers useful.  

 

I support both Epic Ski and Real Skiers and value the information they provide. Peter (Real Skiers) has always gone above and beyond to answer any questions and does it via a personal phone call! I even subscribed to the Inside Tracks publication (reviews) before there was a Real Skiers website. I've always found Peters reviews to be accurate and influential when making a buying decision. I also value the real world opinions of fellow skiers and consumers here on Epic, they're both great sources of information. Use them both, especially given the high cost of ski gear these days! Living in the mid-west there are very few opportunities to demo before you buy, reviews from any source are greatly appreciated.