EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What is the price of performance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the price of performance? - Page 5

post #121 of 129

Again, The products I am talking about have been around and have proven performance level. The information on how they perform is out there from a variety of sources. So no, there is no buzz about shaped skis at this point. Just because this person never heard of it doesn't make it new.

 

Again, I said in the context of a $500 season pass and a $75 lift ticket, buying a $5 ski makes no sense. Then you talk about your context of $10 a day for human powered touring at white grass and the $150 season night pass at whitetail. That's apples and oranges.

 

I agree with you that waxless touring skis with 3pin tele bindings would work great at WG. BTW, this history of touring gear seems to indicate that catamounts were first made in 1994.  Who knows how accurate that is. Anyway...

 

As far as straight volants at Whitetail, never skis that ski, but I am thinking that those are not the end all for skiing at whitetail. Maybe you could straight run limelight  on them, but that's probably the only respect in which they are superior to a stout modern carving ski. You could probably find shaped volants that would be much easier to ski well at about the same price. And there are dozens of models of skis form the mid 2000s that would work better. Metrons, Seriously. And anything else damp with a SL radius will be more fun.

 

As I added above, (perhaps you didn't see) the sketchiest thing about real old skis are the bindings. The cost of procuring new bindings and having them installed blows any savings relative to a newer ski. And if you want them for a season then I don't see how you don't do this.

 

If you want a straight ski because that's what you skied forever, you are old and don't want to change, ok, but please put a decent binding on there. If you just want to get on snow and skid around for a few days a year and have no expectations of skiing well or being safe, then virtually anything will do that for you. I have skied XC skis at the resort before. It goes with out saying that you could ride lifts on them if you have a leash. And I still think that general argument is irresponsible and not worth making.

 

I can't think of any situation no matter how you cherry pick where a reasonable person who wants a cost effective ski is new to the sport and just wants to ski with their kids, should seriously consider a 30 year old set of alpine skis instead of an appropriate and lightly used modern ski available in their budget.  And if their budget were $5 the reasonable answer would be for them to rethink their safety and commitment to skiing and either quit while they were ahead or start saving nickels. 


Edited by tromano - 3/20/11 at 10:35pm
post #122 of 129



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

 

I have never heard of anyone doing a retro season. If you, knowing the difference between what was available then and now, have decided you want to ski 30 year old skis, be my guest. But don't make some sort of general argument justifying this sort of decision as somehow cost effective or reasonable. In the context of lift served skiing, it really, really isn't.

 

ETA: Any 30 year old ski with bindings has a negative NPV since you will have to spend $100+ to get a set of indemnified bindings and have them installed.


 

No, you really don't. Just have to know what you're looking for.

 

And a 20 year old ski is fun. Just as much as it was 20 years ago, only now with much better snow! I'm sorry if you skied all those year being miserable and having no fun at all. You'd rather ski new modern gear at $500-$1000 prices, some see no value in that. Whatever works, brand new, 2-5 years old, 20 years old. It's just sliding on snow and having fun smile.gif

 

You pay too much attention to all the hype and sales pitches regarding new and "improved". It's just different.....
 

 

post #123 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Where do you pay a premium? Do you always buy based on price? Do you buy the best, price be damned? Do you vary these practices from sport to sport and from item to item? 




Phil, I think these are good questions.

 

When I begin any new sport I usually will not go to the local store and jump on the highest price point items.  I actually suggest to most people if they are getting into a new activity to go with used gear (as I will when I take on telemark in the upcoming season).  The investment in quality gear should come when the user has the ability to take advantage of performance gear.

 

When I began kayaking I went with a fiberglass paddle, why buy a $500 dollar paddle when you have an ugly stroke always cracking off rocks.  I spent 4.5 seasons with the same fiberglass paddle and now have a carbon foam core performance blade.  The new power and comfort is great...... I can almost guarantee sometime in the first few years of paddling I would have destroyed something like this but now I know it is what I need to step up to the steep class V adventure stuff I'll be running this year...... this also went for me with my drygear (originally had used drytops/pants that I got used over the years... this year I bought me a gore-tex kokatat drysuit(peak performance)).

 

Next season I am jumping into telemark skiing.  Why would I want the top quality gear my first year?  Do I know I'll even like it better than skiing at this point? No.  I'll be hitting up the local shops all summer to find a good deal on cheap gear so I can learn the ropes for a year or two.  If I progress and would like to step up my game I will most definitely get the gear to match where I am going.  I would think too that by the time I need performance gear I can spend money on the "current" performance gear, as opposed to having top of the line gear when I get into the sport that may become obsolete as I progress into the sport(I prefer to replace my old used stuff with new stuff, instead of just replacing my brand new stuff with brand new stuff).

 

 

I think to some extent price matters.  If your a novice at your sport there is no reason to go to the most expensive boot... just becuase you can get it.  You want performance that matches your ability levels.  I could have bought the 500 dollar paddle a few years ago, but I would probably still be needing a new paddle for this current season Hell, maybe it wouldn't have even lasted as long as the cheaper but more durable fiberglass.  On the other hand, if you consider yourself at the highest level of expert I fully support the idea that you will benefit from and should go with the gear that is more expensive and made to be used by the top level experts... ("good thing I had that 15din setting for that 30 foot cliff I just hucked, instead of having the cheaper binding that only can be set to a 12").

 

Just putting in the ole .02.

post #124 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post



 

The lowbrow version (I also forgot where I read or heard it) is that of the people who wanted to get rid of their old crappy sofa, so they put it on the driveway with a "free BEDBUGS!" sign on it. It sat there unclaimed for a week, and they were mildly surprised. So they put a "$10" sign on it, and it was gone by morning.

Fixed :-O
 

 

post #125 of 129

"performance" implies a quantifiable gain. Most people in the thread are not talking about something easily quantifiable; for them, maybe the unanswerable question should be "what is the price of enjoyment." Some people will enjoy skiing significantly more on the latest and greatest and otherwise will be having gear envy all season. Likewise, some people (ahem, my wife) might enjoy skiing more with stylish coordinated clothing and others don't. Now cover the topsheet and have them ski side by side on a similar 2-3 year old ski and they may very well enjoy them equally. Also, consider that having some cool new gear can inspire the confidence that will help you ski better. Also consider that many skiers may be hitting a wall from the equipment they are on and be frustrated, while others don't care. Maybe ski marketing would be more successful at selling the the large middle segment if they marketed enjoyment rather than performance.

 

However, Phil's original question was posed from the perspective of someone with the experience and expertise to notice and appreciate subtle differences between similar skis with very different price points. From that perspective I humbly admit that I have nothing to offer.

post #126 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by aschick View Post

 

However, Phil's original question was posed from the perspective of someone with the experience and expertise to notice and appreciate subtle differences between similar skis with very different price points. From that perspective I humbly admit that I have nothing to offer.

 

I think Phil's post included the subtext of:  "experience and expertise to notice and appreciate subtle differences between similar skis with very different price points"  can be calculated as part of a "true price", not the asking price.      The true price includes all the investment that person has made into getting to that level of  E & E.     For someone who /is/ that invested in E & E, does that investment not far outweigh the difference in asking price?

post #127 of 129

^^^^ This is another way of quantifying symbolic value. Notice the term "appreciate." Suspect that as with people who argue over Ferrari's vs. Lamborghini's, it's not just the subtle differences in actual performance, but the signal that you have the background to discern them. And that that background represents cost. Because, let's face it, in terms of getting down a particular run, it's variance in the pilot that makes the performance difference, not variance in the skis. Otherwise, no one would win any World Cups unless they were on the mechanically best skis a given season. 

post #128 of 129



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post




Well, now.........it depends on what you DID for that level of performance. wink.gif

 



Oh my! ..........Are you getting dirty on me TC?...........redface.gif   I guess being around the Philmiester will do that to a normal person..........Why you poor thing.

 

I'd suggest disciplining him but, no matter what you would do to him, he would probably like it way to much...........  I guess the ptex fumes over all the seasons did take their toll.

 

post #129 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

^^^^ This is another way of quantifying symbolic value. Notice the term "appreciate." Suspect that as with people who argue over Ferrari's vs. Lamborghini's, it's not just the subtle differences in actual performance, but the signal that you have the background to discern them. And that that background represents cost. Because, let's face it, in terms of getting down a particular run, it's variance in the pilot that makes the performance difference, not variance in the skis. Otherwise, no one would win any World Cups unless they were on the mechanically best skis a given season. 


So true, and there's truly tremendous skier skill/tactic variation!
 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What is the price of performance?