or Connect
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 3

post #61 of 129

>> Just because something is more expensive, why does that mean it isn't a better value?

 

Value=quality/price for something you want or need. Aren't you the one that started this thread?

 

Of course, "quality" is far from simple, because I will get value just looking at some tasty $1200

Kastles (or the like) just sitting in my living room :-). Peace.

post #62 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'm a best bang-for-the-buck kind of guy.  I will pay a premium though if I see the value.


Agree totally with Noodler here.

 

As for cars, I've owned many Porsches over the years and altho they are the cat's meow in performance, everything falls off after a few years...door handles, dashes crack, weather sealing leaks, etc. etc...I will not buy a Porsche again even if I won the lottery (hope springs eternal, though)...I run a modified Miata that will run circles around a similar Boxster, and HAS lasted so much longer w/o ANY trouble.

As for skis, best bang-for-the-buck works for me. I would buy Kastle if the price was right.

 

post #63 of 129

I struggle with two maxims: live within your means, and get the best.  I buy the best when I can afford it.  

 

I remember buying my Kästles in the last century.  I wanted a ski to ski at very high speeds and it was simply the best tool available at the time for that job.  I justified it by saying it could make a critical difference at a critical moment, and at that moment I would regret compromising if I didn't have the best. It may have been expensive compared to other skis, but I didn't care.  That was the ski for me and I had just enough to pay for it.  I couldn't afford the best car, but I could afford the best skis.

 

Now I have other priorities.  Sure it would be nice to have a pair of pre-curved shorter wider skis for tight places with deep snow, but I have a mortgage and a family to support.  I'll get by with my old Machete Gs, even though they are a little too long and stiff for some runs (Hey they are still better than my old 208s in the tight stuff).  As to buying the best carver, well there are plenty of very good carvers in both GS and SL that will do the job without needing to shell out big bucks for this years model. 

 

post #64 of 129

I recently bought some MX78s after researching and demo-ing many skis over the past two months.  For me it was a matter of finding the ski that best matched how I wanted to ski, in the conditions I'm likely to ski, on the terrain I normally ski on.  Once I figured out which ski I liked the best, I set about finding the best price on it.  That was my method, the comparison of prices between different skis didn't really enter into the equation for me. I don't care that a different brand ski cost less $ because I didn't want it anyway.  

 

That said, I keep skis longer than most on here I suspect, so over a longer term the $ is less of a factor.

post #65 of 129

I weigh out the performance and the price.   It usually takes me a long time to make a purchase because I am very very picky.   That being said once I make up my mind I have to have it no matter what the price.... of course this is within reason, I would love to have a Pagani Zonda R...but at $1.8 million, I cant see that happening in the foreseeable future.

 

Pagani_Zonda_R.jpg

 

I remember when I was a teen I had to have the Redline RL-20 II it was, the most expensive BMX bike made at the time and is one of the most desirable for collectors now....its the holy grail of BMX.   It took me a while, but I finally got one built up with every top of the line component that existed at the time.....the good thing about such an investment is that it lasted, I also tend to take great care of my possessions, and in fact I still have it and have been offered a few large for the bike....but I keep it, its my baby.

rl20iiad1986.jpg

post #66 of 129


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post




Just because something is more expensive, why does that mean it isn't a better value? 

 




How many times has someone bought something (they compromised on) only to discard it later then replace it with what they really wanted and in the long run ended up paying more? 

 


 


Thus sums a lot of what I am talking/asking about. Quality never goes out of style. 

 



These same arguments for what  quality is, why it is the only true value come up when I explain the ethics involved in building fine furniture to prospective clients.

 

What is a better value:

a $400. some assembly required screwed together table of lacquered veneer and particle board that will last about 2 years before being tossed after a brief period of poor performance and probably replaced by more of same?

 

or a $2500. solid wood, mortise and tenon rubbed oil finish table that will be passed down through generations without being in any way diminished by time and use?

 

And a better use of wood as well. Skis are not investments, nor can they last forever, but there is a feeling that one resonates with when the right ski is put into its first turn. I had an uncanny feeling when first demoing the Legend Pro Rider: it felt like a fusion of every ski I'd ever ridden, familiar and classic, yet more powerful and complex. That's quality in performance, and cool looking too. icon14.gif

post #67 of 129
I buy things that elevate my skill set and meet a certain set of priorities. I'm on stocklis because they provide the opportunity for me to be a better skier while providing characteristics that I was looking for based on previous experience.....and in deference to the objections of some here they are not made in china and for that I am willing to pay the perceived premium.

So for me performance is about my performance on a set of skis, not just the skis themselves. I buy for the skier I want to be.

Bikes are similar but different. You have a ski with fixed characteristics and a binding, whereas on a bike you have numerous components that are often adjustable and interchangeable in some way.

I am a mountain biker and I can agree that some parts are easily interchangeable but some are clearly superior and worth the premium. For those that think ibis and xtr are expensive....tell that to my steel ibis mojo circa 1996 with full xtr. It was ridden extensively on vancouvers north shore and I can still hammer it today with almost all of the original xtr components. As a result of this I own very specific xtr parts on my knolly dt, which include both deraillers, chain and I did have the cables which are outstanding. A bunch of other stuff is xt because technology hand downs has provided xtr advances to xt parts. Oh and the frame with moron tubing, still perfectly fine.

Hubs are a personal preference but a king hub serviced once in 5 years and still going perfectly an additional 2 years later is good value....less servicing, less money, less trips to the shop, less time wasted. But that's just me.

One can only buy what they can afford and afford to maintain as well as pay for what they value. Both industries require people to overpay for "performance" which is really just marketing. And when I say overpay, that doesn't mean 1000 vs 300 it means buy more than they will use or be ready for. With all the others overpaying for equipment allows these companies to innovate and provide a few amazing products for the rest of us.

Remember, your time has value as well. So waiting for the right deal, shopping, demoing etc has merit, but it is also part of the cost of a purchase. I think this part of any transaction is greatly undrapreciated.
post #68 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristram View Post


Remember, your time has value as well. So waiting for the right deal, shopping, demoing etc has merit, but it is also part of the cost of a purchase. I think this part of any transaction is greatly undrapreciated.


I see this all the time. It is not uncommon for a "professional" (Doctor/Lawyer/Exec) with "billable hours" well into the $hundreds$ trying to save $50.00...I will jokingly remind them in the time they took to tray to save $50.00 it cost them $100.00 in time. There is an old saying.."the least expensive price is the first one you get"...most people put no value in their biggest asset..themselves. 

post #69 of 129

Careful .... all time is not the same!  Work time is definitley not the same as play time, especially when it comes to placing a $$ value on it, and I place gear searching/testing/discussing firmly in the play time category.   Seems like "quality" is the fuzzy variable in the value equation - if someone wants to buy the most sexy/expensive gear available just to look stylish, I can't really fault them - that's their "quality", and they generally have the assets to easily afford it.  If they insist on blaming the gear when they flail on the hill like an ostrich with two broken legs, then they diserve nothing but scorn and ridicule.  As I've aged and seen my performance begin to fade (not handlingit very well so far), I've come to accept a much smaller improvement from gear upgrades than I ever would have previously, but I'm certainly much more secure financially now, as well. Bottom line: as long as you're honest with yourself and have a firm grip on what performance/quality means specifically for you, spend away!

post #70 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post

I weigh out the performance and the price.   It usually takes me a long time to make a purchase because I am very very picky.   That being said once I make up my mind I have to have it no matter what the price.... of course this is within reason, I would love to have a Pagani Zonda R...but at $1.8 million, I cant see that happening in the foreseeable future.

 

Pagani_Zonda_R.jpg

 

I remember when I was a teen I had to have the Redline RL-20 II it was, the most expensive BMX bike made at the time and is one of the most desirable for collectors now....its the holy grail of BMX.   It took me a while, but I finally got one built up with every top of the line component that existed at the time.....the good thing about such an investment is that it lasted, I also tend to take great care of my possessions, and in fact I still have it and have been offered a few large for the bike....but I keep it, its my baby.

rl20iiad1986.jpg



I ride my bike. It's not collectible. What do you use your bike for?

post #71 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post

I weigh out the performance and the price.   It usually takes me a long time to make a purchase because I am very very picky.   That being said once I make up my mind I have to have it no matter what the price.... of course this is within reason, I would love to have a Pagani Zonda R...but at $1.8 million, I cant see that happening in the foreseeable future.

 

Pagani_Zonda_R.jpg

 

 



RR.....I don't think your Zonda would be good for crap in the snow.........  nonono2.gif

 

post #72 of 129

What would that be good for? Why would anyone want one? Trekchick says it's not about impressing others or status, but I'm not so sure. I think Richie has hit the head of this thread's nail.

post #73 of 129

If you could really afford it, you'd go out and race it on weekends in the local sport car events. If you are afraid to trade paint with it, then I guess you couldn't really afford it to begin withroflmao.gif

post #74 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

If you could really afford it, you'd go out and race it on weekends in the local sport car events. If you are afraid to trade paint with it, then I guess you couldn't really afford it to begin withroflmao.gif

Maybe. Sounds queer to me, but I'm not rich.

post #75 of 129
I like to buy and ski top drawer skis but I also like to buy them at a discount. Over the years I have bought at end of season sales, last years model at discount, taken advantage of pro deals back when I patrolled and most recently I have worked p/t at a ski shop to get deals.

I think there is a little ski bum in all of us that wants to get deals and ski for free.

Rick G
post #76 of 129

I like to ski in nice drawers in case I end up in the ER.

post #77 of 129

When it comes to skis I wish there were truly a way to have blind demos for the average consumer.  Heck, I know it's difficult to even get on demos, but with skis it's sometimes difficult to leave behind preconceived notions of what a ski "should" do and any brand bias.  I have personally really tried to do that in the past couple years giving some of my less preferred brands additional "chances".  Anyhow, I often wonder if the cachet of the Kastle brand brings along preconceived notions from those that test them and subsequently buy them.  Of course the same could be said of other high end brands (Stockli comes to mind).  All things being equal, sometimes it's difficult for us as humans to put the biases behind us and truly look for that ski that perfectly melds with our skiing style and preferences.

 

The other side of the coin for me is the quality of the product.  Much of the "quality" of skis can't be seen.  We can only try to infer what the core quality is from marketing literature and the feel of the skis.  And then there's the durability of the topsheets, edges, and base material.  I often wish that some "organization" would test skis as if they were like Consumer Reports.  You know, setup a testing apparatus that flexes a ski 1000 times.  Measure the ski flex deflection before the test and after.  In the end see which skis hold up better to intentional abuse.  I kind of try to infer this when I ride demos - I look at how well the demo skis have been holding up.  Of course I have no idea how long a ski has been in a demo fleet (no odometer on skis unfortunately), but if there is really obvious damage I look at how it could have occurred and put that into my consideration of a ski purchase.  There are some skis/brands that more easily defend topsheet and base damage than others.

post #78 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

I like to ski in nice drawers in case I end up in the ER.


I think you can get some Kastle drawers. You'll really impress the nurses.

post #79 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

I like to ski in nice drawers in case I end up in the ER.


funny you'd say that on the year anniversary of my attack. that's what one of my friends said that he had learned from my attack: wear nice underwear when skiing!biggrin.gif

 

post #80 of 129

Getting back to the title of the thread, I have a question:  Is an $60 bottle of wine better than a $40 bottle?  Just like with skis, wine "experts" will disagree about  quality.  But many times price is not the best indicator of performance and quality.  Pricing does have a lot to do with perception.  Why else can a custom ski manufacturer get away with charging $2,000 for a pair of skis that uses the same materials as $750 ski? 

 

In the old days we bought whatever ski our favorite racer used.  Atomic and HEAD still have the big bucks to play that game, but are people buying these brands any more  because  WC racers ski them?  I think most people now, at least in the USA, have no clue who Cuche , Kostelic or even Nolan Kasper are.  People today are buying skis based upon published  reviews.

 

Kastle, Blizzard and a bunch of other brands are not exactly household names ("Real" skiers have always been familiar with them, but not the general public).  I love a good deal, so with everything else being equal the lowest priced of the two would work for me.  But most skis are still sold through ski shops, and they know their local market and their desired pricing structure.  So what is the price of performance?   Whatever the local market will perceive as quality.  So if you have a shop in Deer Valley catering to rich tourists or locals who want hard to get skis, a relatively higher priced item will sell (and be more profitable) since the customer perception is that they have to pay up to get want they want.   If you have a ski shop in an area where there are many knowledgeable skiers, selling more of the lower priced ski makes more sense since the prevailing perception is that it is not necessary to pay more for performance.

 

 

post #81 of 129

most people are not paying a premium for "customization"; the company trying that (Silver something?) has not caught on in a way that leads to a viable business concept. The notion of a ski as a high performance tool that is used hard and then replaced prevails.

post #82 of 129
Symbolic capital. We pay for performance but we also pay for narratives about how discerning we are. Wine makers have known this a lot longer than than car or ski makers. Which is why you can underprice a product and kill it. Blizzard beware.
post #83 of 129

The wine industry has an involved jargon with respect to the properties of a wine, a very large vocabulary to praise or criticize it. Skiing has some of that. How would you compare the two and what is the benefit mechanism to creating an aura of value? 

post #84 of 129

RR: Serious question: if you have the plastic wheels illustrated, do you trust them as much as you would a plastic binding from the same era? (assuming you still get onto the bike on occasion)

post #85 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post

RR: Serious question: if you have the plastic wheels illustrated, do you trust them as much as you would a plastic binding from the same era? (assuming you still get onto the bike on occasion)


That's a good question, one which really never crossed my mind. I really don't ride the bike anymore, it's just hung on a wall in one of the storage rooms of my garage. Those wheels in the photo I have but are not mounted, I swapped in 48 spoke High Pressure wheels, which was the thing to do back then for aerials, since the mags were heavy and tended to make the bike too easily blown away by wind. That being said the wheels look great, I have not heard of any cracking due to age by any of the guys who still really get on the bike. I think most people who own these take it easy on them to just preserve them, those wheels although strong, are way heavy so I can't imagine anyone using them for anything other than nostalgia/show. I believe they are made out of Zytel. After experiencing first hand what happens to old plastic bindings, I would be cautious about using these wheels in any way that their integrity would put me in big danger...like a half pipe or jump.
post #86 of 129

I'll admit I've skimmed rather than reading every single word, but I think a lot goes into price other than just what's in the box.

 

* Customer support.  If I'm going to be buying a piece of equipment that my life will depend on, I would prefer to buy it from an established, reputable company.  One that has a quality control department, and/or one that will help me out if their defect/negligence causes me to get hurt would be best.  Certainly not a company that I think might be out of business in 6 months because their 15 minutes are up.  I think a lot of people will pay extra for that confidence.

 

* Kind of the opposite of that, but some people will pay more for something that's unique, or at least not hum-drum.  If a mom and pop sandwich shop opens next door to Subway, I'll go to mom and pop even if they charge $1 more.  Partly to support the little guy, and partly to have a new experience rather than a repeat experience.  I think this applies mostly to consumable goods, though.

 

* Price is not just a function of what people are willing to pay, but also of what a company has to charge to stay in business.  Part of the reason a sports car (for instance) is so expensive is because fewer are made.  Therefore the cost of building the factory, paying the engineers who designed it, etc. may be the same as for a family sedan, but that cost is spread out over fewer units sold.  So a new Porsche probably *can't* be profitably sold at $20,000.  Like the thread starter, I'm just using sports cars as an example.  Of course, if the cheapest a new Porsche can be sold for with the company still breaking even is more than the price that people will pay for one, Porsches will go the way of the dinosaur.

 

* Lemons.  This is probably not that big of a factor, but if I test drive a Ford and a Chevy and the particular Ford I test drove drives like crap, I'm probably not going to ask to drive a different Ford, I'll probably just buy the Chevy.

post #87 of 129

Not that an additional $.02 is needed here, but I'll add it anyway.  Phil and others mentioned the value of your time related to finding a "deal".  I agree with this concept, but would add another dimension to the value of your time/experience. For those of us who do not get out on the hill anywhere near as often as we would like, there is the question of making the most of the time you do get out there.  One might argue that someone who skis 10-20 days a year certainly does not need to pay top dollar for the "best" (subjective) gear when there are plenty of good skis that cost less and provide similar levels of performance. 

 

I come out on the other end of this equation ... since every day of skiing is rare and I want to make the most of it, I want to be on the skis that make the experience as exciting and enjoyable as possible.  Does that mean more expensive skis?  Not necessarily.  It DOES, however, mean that if I find skis that really mesh well with the way I like to ski and add more of the WOW! factor to the days I do get out on the hill, it's well worth it to me!  Once I find that kind of a ski, I surely don't want to overpay for it, but it's much less of a temptation to pay a lower price for a similar performing ski.

 

I guess this really brings the core of the issue to the surface ... what is and is not a good value, really depends on what you value!!!

post #88 of 129

Let's also be honest about what the price of performance really is. Compare apples to apples. It gets my goat when people keep comparing list price on a new Kastle to street price of a two year old Head. List price on most skis is pretty high. Just for an example, I just looked at Start Haus' website. The MX98 lists at $990 flat. Nordica Enforcer is $899. Compare Tigershark to an MX78 or whatever. It's not like we are talking about Bogner skis or Zai skis.

post #89 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on the whole "I pay for premium components on my bikes because it really matters..." No, it really doesn't. Is Dura Ace better than 105? Sure. Is the price-to-performance cost indicative of that 'extra' performance? Absolutely NOT. If you can ride a century on a 16lbs carbon bike w/ DA components you can ride it on an aluminum framed bike with 105 components. Cyclists are complete gear-snobs, everyone knows that. People put bike-bling on their bikes to fit in with their riding buddies not for any real-world riding reason... be honest with yourselves. You like nice stuff so you buy it, that's it, there doesn't have to be different reason, which is good because there ISN'T one. Anyone who argues otherwise is LYING.

 

Ho ho ho...  The difference is HUGE in durability and longevity, and sometimes operational precision.  Why buy a $120 King headset instead of a cheap FSA chinese headset?  Why top-end Shimano or Campy rather than their mid-line or entry-level?  Who would buy Magura instead of Cheng-Shin?  With regular use, the expensive parts will last dramatically longer than their inexpensive counterparts, operate with much more accuracy, and often have replaceable sub-components.

 

A 5-day-per-year skier will be happy on almost anything, and would probably be wasting money by going "high-end", just as a cyclist who putts around a few dozen miles a year can get by with most any junk they find laying around.  A serious cyclist, putting on thousands of miles a year, is far better off spending a bit extra up front on better gear.

 

Sure, there's a demarcation point for most items- do I really need CF or Ti to save 3 grams?  But there's also a tangible performance and long-term economy realized by buying "high-end" gear for many riders.

 

Yes, I know... Don't feed the trolls  eek.gif
 

 

post #90 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Let's also be honest about what the price of performance really is. Compare apples to apples. It gets my goat when people keep comparing list price on a new Kastle to street price of a two year old Head. List price on most skis is pretty high. Just for an example, I just looked at Start Haus' website. The MX98 lists at $990 flat. Nordica Enforcer is $899. Compare Tigershark to an MX78 or whatever. It's not like we are talking about Bogner skis or Zai skis.


What about comparing a 2011 Head SL ski to a 2008 Head SL ski (both brand new/unmounted) for performance per dollar analysis?th_dunno-1[1].gif

 

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?