New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I a Traitor? - Page 3

post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post


Absolutely will.  The Avenger 82Ti is a candidate, as is the E88.  I've skied both a little bit now and liked both a lot.

 

What I'm doing right now is skiing my Titans as my "rock" skis.  While we have very good skiing top to bottom now (thanks to the 30-plus-inch dump of wet snow last weekend), there are a lot of rocks around.  I'm sort of cruising around the mountain, the Lower Faces, and the Hobacks just to see where the less granite-y lines are.  While I'm doing that I'm just not going to get a new ski.  I've been scouting with the Titans and then going back the next day and skiing the clean lines with the E98's. 

 

I'm waiting for a couple more storms so I can do another test to see if I like the 82 or the 88 better.  From the initial runs, I've been really surprised at how grippy and quick the 88's seem to feel, but I want to try them in a bunch of new snow before deciding on one or the other.

 

 


Both the E88 and A82 are very good skis and somewhat different. I would say the A82 would be a better complement to the E98 especially if you are looking for a hard snow biased friend to the E98. I like the E88 as my hard snow ski butI am not looking for that precision that you have gotten from your Titans. 

 

post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post


+++ begin thread drift +++

 

True! Ugly is one thing. That's bad enough all by itself (cough ... Icelantic ... cough). But intelligence-insulting is another thing altogether. What's with the specious umlauts that just confirm American insularity and ignorance? Motörhead. Sheesh. From an Austrian company, no less! Total turn off.

 

+++ end thread drift +++



I assumed it was some marketing deal with the band.  That's how these guys spell it, too (note the drummer's t-shirt):

 

 

post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post


All right, spin.  I've been instructing during the day and on the party circuit every night during the holidays, so I haven't had a chance to properly reply to this.  I didn't want to let it sit out there without a response, however.

 

You know I respect your knowledge of the new skis and all that, but I just think you're wrong in the above assessment in a lot of ways.  I honestly think that your view of the ski-design world is skewed by your own experiences, opinions, and location.  There's nothing particularly wrong with being skewed - I am too - but when you say that Head's shape designs are trailing the market, I'd be curious to hear which design you think truly epitomizes what's "best" out there in the marketplace right now? 

 

You say the Head designs are not relevant for "recreational" skiers.  I would simply point out that "recreational" takes in one hell of a lot skiers and some of those recreational skiers are pretty damn good.  I will PERHAPS agree that many of the Head models are better suited for skiers who would fall to the right of center on the bell curve of ability levels.  Maybe Head is perfectly happy with that segment of the market.

 

In general, Head skis are designed to perform for someone who knows how to put a ski on edge and bend it.  For that skier, they perform extremely well.  Most skiers on the middle-left of the bell curve simply don't know how to use a ski that way and wouldn't know how to react when they were on that type of ski.    

 

I'm really curious as to what you think the most "relevant" makes, models, shapes, and designs might be.  Here at Jackson Hole, I'm seeing a whole bunch of the really good skiers gravitating BACK to what I would call a middle-of-the-road kind of design.  Instead of the "out there" full-rocker/reverse camber/super-wide designs, they're on skis around 100-110mm underfoot with with fairly traditional sidecut, a moderate amount of camber, SOME early rise in the tip and maybe the tail, and a flex pattern that's a little stiffer than "normal".  I've recently talked to or skied with several of the local rock stars and that's where they are this year.  If you're seeing something different in performance skiers on your mountain, I'd be really interested in hearing about it.

 

The reason I bring that up is that Head has models that fit exactly in that category.  They've had those models (or a pretty close approximation of them) for thee model-years now.  How does that make them irrelevant?

 

As an example, I'm spending a lot of time right now on the Rossignol E98.  I full-on LOVE this ski for all kinds of conditions.  I've skied it on hardpack, soft groomers, hard bumps, soft bumps, powder (maximum of about 15" so far, unfortunately), wind slab, junk, and bushes.  They perform really, really well in all of those conditions.  I could be happy with this ski as my only ski if I had to.  What's interesting, however, is that the E98's design and the way it skis is pretty darned similar to the "old" Head Richie 102, which I think now has morphed into the Inferno 104.

 

So, while I'm thrilled and happy to be riding Rossi this year, I just can't figure out how you can proclaim that Head is irrelevant.  th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif

 

Head's seem to ski plenty well under my feet. We even picked them back up after a 2 year pause, due to some pretty lackluster designs in the old Peak lineup that finally were dumped.  Got my Infernos mounted up with a Marker Baron, and will do a head to head in a few days with the Bonafide, although they are different lengths: 181 vs. 187.   Skied both of them the other day, but the snow was really sticky, and they both skied fine, but it was slow-motion skiing.  Had waxed for cold weather (20's the day before, a good dump) and then it hit 50 the very next day!  

 

The guys up at the Bachelor demo shop are really liking Head and Blizzard right now; not that it says much, but they aren't pushing Rossi and Volkl as much as they are the other 2 brands.  It seems that Head does get respect from people who follow the industry; I have people coming up to me on the hill if I am on a pair, asking me where they can find them, that they heard that Head is making some great skis.  For the average Joe: they are going to be far more into buying one of the bigger names (like Rossi or Volkl).  Nothing wrong with that either; they make some damn fine skis as well.   
 

post #64 of 78

Gave Bob a nudge about his rock ski Heads in the tram line yesterday.  Then went and skied the mountain.  It wasn't that bad, but I was being careful.

post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

...I just think you're wrong in the above assessment in a lot of ways.  I honestly think that your view of the ski-design world is skewed by your own experiences, opinions, and location.  There's nothing particularly wrong with being skewed - I am too - but when you say that Head's shape designs are trailing the market, I'd be curious to hear which design you think truly epitomizes what's "best" out there in the marketplace right now? 

 

You say the Head designs are not relevant for "recreational" skiers.  I would simply point out that "recreational" takes in one hell of a lot skiers and some of those recreational skiers are pretty damn good.  I will PERHAPS agree that many of the Head models are better suited for skiers who would fall to the right of center on the bell curve of ability levels.  Maybe Head is perfectly happy with that segment of the market....   

 

...I'm really curious as to what you think the most "relevant" makes, models, shapes, and designs might be.  Here at Jackson Hole, I'm seeing a whole bunch of the really good skiers gravitating BACK to what I would call a middle-of-the-road kind of design.  Instead of the "out there" full-rocker/reverse camber/super-wide designs, they're on skis around 100-110mm underfoot with with fairly traditional sidecut, a moderate amount of camber, SOME early rise in the tip and maybe the tail, and a flex pattern that's a little stiffer than "normal".  I've recently talked to or skied with several of the local rock stars and that's where they are this year.  If you're seeing something different in performance skiers on your mountain, I'd be really interested in hearing about it.

 

The reason I bring that up is that Head has models that fit exactly in that category.  They've had those models (or a pretty close approximation of them) for thee model-years now.  How does that make them irrelevant?...

 

So, while I'm thrilled and happy to be riding Rossi this year, I just can't figure out how you can proclaim that Head is irrelevant.  th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif

 


OK, that's a bunch to digest...but all fair enough and pretty well summarized in the final question. So here's my attempt to get across the way I look at this...

 

It is almost exactly 5 years since I first hopped on a pair of Pontoons. The event was certainly eye-opening and arguably life changing. Among other things, it fired up my nerd brain about ski design. After a bit of dabbling and investigation, it seemed pretty clear to me that "rocker" represented a classic disruptive technology as discussed in the book The Innovator's Dilemma. The following quote from Clayton Christiansen is worth thinking about in the context of the Spatula and its relatives:

 

 

Quote:
Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream.

 

One might quibble a bit about tagging a simple shape change to a "plank" a disruptive technology, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it. 

 

If you are looking at the future, many times the trendline - or curve - is more important than the current point value. This is notably so with disruptive technologies. They start as insignificant blips - sometimes stay that way for a while - and then hit a growth rate that often will cannibalize an entire market before some number of existing major players even realize the rug has been pulled out from under them. The is relevant to the Head discussion.

 

In the case of rocker, the key question was not - and is not - what portion of the market does it represent? But rather, the combo questions of what is the trend of overall market size and is "rocker's" share growing or shrinking? The short answer to those is the market is not growing materially and rockered designs are growing at a tremendous rate - by cannibalizing more traditional race derived designs in virtually all segments of the recreatioal market. Other than race-specific designs of course. And then the question naturally will drift toward Head's trendline in terms of development, product line and mindshare in this space.

 

After the Spatula made some waves on the feet of McConkey, the rocker thing was largely driven by a few key indies (notably DPS followed by Praxis), some "tweeners" like Armada and Line, and a limited group of majors. K2 - with McConkey as icon - being the notable early adopter & leader in the latter group. Others have come onboard to varying degrees. The companies who have committed are deploying designs that reflect a new understanding of the relationships of camber, sidecut, flex and taper (not the front  to back kind of taper, but the more subtle and multidimensional tip and tail kind). [Yes, this is a bit abridged, but it is as good as I can do summarizing in a paragraph. ]

 

So, in that context, where does Head fit?

 

To my mind, Head has been a day late and a dollar short in this arena. While I have not crawled through their business metrics (I'm not even sure what one could get), my impression - and feel free to correct me if you have data to the contrary -  is that they have continued to focus both their development dollars and their marketing emphasis on traditional race derived shaped skis. While they have produced some fatter skis with some rocker - those designs have not generally screamed understanding and commitment. More like "fringe part of the line" or "OK, if you insist, we'll throw you a bone, but we really are not that into it".

 

I have no brand bias among the majors - but let's contrast Head with K2. What part of Head's line is rockered? How much does Head invest in racing vs other arenas where ski design is not insanely constrained by both inertia and regulation? In that context, is racing per se a bigger of smaller part of the market? Are race designs gaining or losing general market share? To what extent has Head shown an understanding of the reality that the vast - and I mean truly vast - majority of skiers are better served by more modern designs than their conventionally shaped carvers?  How do the answers for Head compare to those for K2? Heck, even Atomic and Salomon who arrived late to the party are vastly more visible - with designs like the Bent Chetler and Rocker 2, along with some of their even more hybridized kin, flying off the shelves (even as daily drivers...).

 

As a brief aside - I agree that you can make a case that Head is focused on people who can bend a traditional ski. But honestly, lots of people on modern skis from many brands can bend a ski (although they don't have to bend it quite as much biggrin.gif ). There are people out there who have been using Hell Bents, Bent Chetlers, etc., etc for years who can bend a ski with the best of them. As far as I can tell, whether someone is on fatter rockered skis or not tells you nothing about how well they can bend a ski. But back to the main theme...

 

Yes, you can get into discussions of Europe vs the US and where are skis sold and demand and inertia, etc. But the bottom line is that much of Head's market territory has been eroding out from under them the last few years. Whether they even know it or not. Do you really think European consumers (when they start buying again) will not see the benefits of even more evolved modern designs? 

 

Now, given the origins of this thread, let's contrast Head and Rossi for a moment. Many here are familiar with how desperate Rossi was a few years ago. In the middle of that, the S7 appeared and sold out. And did it again the next year. And it is still a top seller. The S3 still seems to be doing well.  Out here, even race families are trying skis like the S7 and literally concluding "why would I ever free ski on my race carvers again except on ice days"... Even if the Rossi product line is not 100% all about rockered designs (yet), the company is clearly committed. Management, without a shadow of a doubt, "gets it". The issue will be execution. With Head, my impression is that it remains one of comprehension. Again, I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

So... I'm not saying Head builds bad product. I'm not saying they are a bad company. I'm not saying they are a bit player in terns of market share today. And I'm not saying they have nothing at all interesting in their lineup (more Bone Shaker philosophy in the line could be interesting). But the trendlines, IMO, portend irrelevance. And absent evidence to the contrary those omens are strong enough for me to reach a conclusion and act accordingly without waiting for the final curtain... Now, if they roll out a brilliant line for 2013, I'd be ecstatic to eat my words. But if they don't get it this year, I think irrelevant will be an increasingly accepted view.  So my .02, unless Head pulls a rabbit out of a hat, is that you just swapped for a much better and more relevant horse. 

 

Obviously the above represents my opinion. You may or may not agree. But it is certainly not arbitrary.

 

post #66 of 78

that Rossi SC 112 Pro was an interesting ski. I could see a Squad fitting into what was going on there, in the 100mm range.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




Soul 7!

 

soul7.jpg

 

BTW stowe's Head SS are not the nice one but rental one. Real SS are a really fun ski.



 

post #67 of 78

Spin, I think BP asked a simpler question than that.  You can make it complex enough that no one can see if you addressed the question.

 

Take one segment, expert skiers, say top 5% on a big resort mountain, and tell me what it is they want in an every day ski. In a few words if possible.

 

Also, it bears remembering, the Spatula didn't sell well at the time, actually never did. and nothing like it ever will. so much for early adoptors etc. didn't read your book yet.

 

You assume something has been accomplished by the disruptive technology of rocker. I'm not so sure. It is a slippery slope, the end of classic technique as broad knowledge. 

 

It is interesting that you had an epiphany on the Pontoon. Never did a ski give up so much to gain so little. davluri  biggrin.gif 

 

 

post #68 of 78

spindrift,

after many meager years saleswise for Head in Norway, last season they got a new, major importer/distributor, one of the major chains. Maybe driven a little by Aksel, sales are improving. Many of the instructors, skipatrol etc in and around Oslo now have Head as their personal skis. This is not driven by price, we get the same discount on most brands, but because we like the skis.

 

Oslo is mainly frontside, race and park-oriented. Most of us have Nordica as a work-ski, but when you see us skiing on our own time we ( many of us ) are on Head.

 

From what I learned today, when visiting my buddy who works with Head sales for the large chain, they have sold quite much of the more BC/offpiste line in addition to aggressive front side carvers nation wide. The race-line also does well.

 

I think that the innovators don't always make a killing when establishing trends.

post #69 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post


OK, that's a bunch to digest...but all fair enough and pretty well summarized in the final question. So here's my attempt to get across the way I look at this...

 

It is almost exactly 5 years since I first hopped on a pair of Pontoons. The event was certainly eye-opening and arguably life changing. Among other things, it fired up my nerd brain about ski design. After a bit of dabbling and investigation, it seemed pretty clear to me that "rocker" represented a classic disruptive technology as discussed in the book The Innovator's Dilemma. The following quote from Clayton Christiansen is worth thinking about in the context of the Spatula and its relatives:

 

See, and I've skied Pontoons and my life didn't change at all.  I thought they were very nice for untracked snow and excellent in the one instance of breakable wind slab where I tried them.  Once the powder was chopped up, however, I found them to be bouncy and clunky and not as much fun as a ski that could power through crud rather than skim over it.  Rocker works in certain situations, but to me those situations are relatively limited.

 

One might quibble a bit about tagging a simple shape change to a "plank" a disruptive technology, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it. 

 

If you are looking at the future, many times the trendline - or curve - is more important than the current point value. This is notably so with disruptive technologies. They start as insignificant blips - sometimes stay that way for a while - and then hit a growth rate that often will cannibalize an entire market before some number of existing major players even realize the rug has been pulled out from under them. The is relevant to the Head discussion.

 

In the case of rocker, the key question was not - and is not - what portion of the market does it represent? But rather, the combo questions of what is the trend of overall market size and is "rocker's" share growing or shrinking? The short answer to those is the market is not growing materially and rockered designs are growing at a tremendous rate - by cannibalizing more traditional race derived designs in virtually all segments of the recreatioal market. Other than race-specific designs of course. And then the question naturally will drift toward Head's trendline in terms of development, product line and mindshare in this space.

 

After the Spatula made some waves on the feet of McConkey, the rocker thing was largely driven by a few key indies (notably DPS followed by Praxis), some "tweeners" like Armada and Line, and a limited group of majors. K2 - with McConkey as icon - being the notable early adopter & leader in the latter group. Others have come onboard to varying degrees. The companies who have committed are deploying designs that reflect a new understanding of the relationships of camber, sidecut, flex and taper (not the front  to back kind of taper, but the more subtle and multidimensional tip and tail kind). [Yes, this is a bit abridged, but it is as good as I can do summarizing in a paragraph. ]

 

And I still would argue that for the majority of recreational skiers - ones who spend 75%-plus of their time on groomed or firm snow -  the only practical advantage of "rocker" in its various forms is to shorten the contact length of the ski.  Shorter contact length = easier turning.  The tips and the tails aren't as likely to get hung up as with a "traditional" cambered ski.  

 

Rocker also makes the ski less likely to dive in deeper snow, but now we get back to the fact that most recreational skiers spend most of their time on firm snow.

 

Now, easier turning is fine.  It's an admirable trait in a ski.  Short contact length translates to a ski that can be pivoted very easily, we learned that 30 years ago with the Graduated Length Method.  

 

 

So, in that context, where does Head fit?

 

To my mind, Head has been a day late and a dollar short in this arena. While I have not crawled through their business metrics (I'm not even sure what one could get), my impression - and feel free to correct me if you have data to the contrary -  is that they have continued to focus both their development dollars and their marketing emphasis on traditional race derived shaped skis. While they have produced some fatter skis with some rocker - those designs have not generally screamed understanding and commitment. More like "fringe part of the line" or "OK, if you insist, we'll throw you a bone, but we really are not that into it".

 

Your interpretation of "understanding and commitment" would seem to be that Head should market bleeding edge designs that may or may not prove to have any practical benefit to the target market they seek to reach.  MY interpretation would be that they put all the R&D they felt necessary into it and decided that the designs they have on the market right now (and - again - have essentially had on the market for the last two or three model years) perform perfectly well for their skier demographic.  My impression is that you would not be satisfied unless part of their product line included 130mm+ wide skis with massive rocker, reverse camber, and even Spatula-like reverse sidecut.  My contention is that while a ski like that sounds good to the early adapters and the heli-skiing crowd, it's such a one-trick pony that it has no real application in the ski-resort universe. 

 

I have no brand bias among the majors - but let's contrast Head with K2. What part of Head's line is rockered? How much does Head invest in racing vs other arenas where ski design is not insanely constrained by both inertia and regulation? In that context, is racing per se a bigger of smaller part of the market? Are race designs gaining or losing general market share? To what extent has Head shown an understanding of the reality that the vast - and I mean truly vast - majority of skiers are better served by more modern designs than their conventionally shaped carvers?  How do the answers for Head compare to those for K2? 

 

Heck, even Atomic and Salomon who arrived late to the party are vastly more visible - with designs like the Bent Chetler and Rocker 2, along with some of their even more hybridized kin, flying off the shelves (even as daily drivers...).

 

See, imo that's just silly.  For some reason, you find it ridiculous that an anachronism like me would consider something like the Head SS Titan to be an outstanding "daily driver" ski, while you think it's perfectly rational for someone to use a Bent Chetler as a daily ski.  But let me elaborate;

 

* I ski a resort that's rightly considered one of the better (best?) powder-skiing mountains in the US.  

 

* I ski off-piste a fair portion of every single day of the season.

 

* Even in our best seasons, on average we'll have AT LEAST fifty to sixty days when there is less than 4" of new snow.  

 

On those 50 or 60 days, I would much rather have a highly-responsive narrower-waisted ski that absolutely kills it on hard snow, bumps, and junk than a huge, clunky fat ski that responds like a supertanker.  That's my preference and it works well for me, but it's no more insane than thinking something like a Bent Chetler would make a good daily ski.  My only assumption is that the person who thinks of that ski as a daily driver must be among the large majority of Jackson Hole skiers who ONLY show up on the days when we're getting snow, so "daily" for them simply means the days when conditions are right - rather than every day regardless of conditions. 

 

And by the way, what's been flying off the shelves here in JH this year is the 85-100mm, mild early-rise, traditional-camber ski that I referred to earlier.

 

As a brief aside - I agree that you can make a case that Head is focused on people who can bend a traditional ski. But honestly, lots of people on modern skis from many brands can bend a ski (although they don't have to bend it quite as much biggrin.gif ). There are people out there who have been using Hell Bents, Bent Chetlers, etc., etc for years who can bend a ski with the best of them. As far as I can tell, whether someone is on fatter rockered skis or not tells you nothing about how well they can bend a ski. But back to the main theme...

 

Yes, you can get into discussions of Europe vs the US and where are skis sold and demand and inertia, etc. But the bottom line is that much of Head's market territory has been eroding out from under them the last few years. Whether they even know it or not. Do you really think European consumers (when they start buying again) will not see the benefits of even more evolved modern designs?

 

Based on what I'm seeing on the tram dock at Jackson Hole every day, Head seems to be doing just fine with their newer fatter skis.  I've seen more of them this year than I've ever seen, which is REALLY interesting considering there is nowhere in town you can buy them.  Everywhere I've skied this year, I've seen more Head skis than I've seen since back in the Head Standard days. If anything, K2 is the company that's suffering in our particular market this year.  Most of their skis don't perform particularly well on the hard snow that we had for seven weeks.

 

Now, given the origins of this thread, let's contrast Head and Rossi for a moment. Many here are familiar with how desperate Rossi was a few years ago. In the middle of that, the S7 appeared and sold out. And did it again the next year. And it is still a top seller. The S3 still seems to be doing well.  Out here, even race families are trying skis like the S7 and literally concluding "why would I ever free ski on my race carvers again except on ice days"... Even if the Rossi product line is not 100% all about rockered designs (yet), the company is clearly committed. Management, without a shadow of a doubt, "gets it". The issue will be execution. With Head, my impression is that it remains one of comprehension. Again, I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

As great a ski as it is, I know of almost no one here at JH who considers the S7 a daily driver ski.  They consider it a powder-and-crud-day ski.  When it doesn't snow for a few days, the S7's disappear (or maybe it's just that the people who would consider an S7 or something similar to be a daily driver disappear, I'm not sure).  I also know a lot of race families here and they consider fat skis to be a tool that works for certain conditions and those conditions don't exist every day.

 

So... I'm not saying Head builds bad product. I'm not saying they are a bad company. I'm not saying they are a bit player in terns of market share today. And I'm not saying they have nothing at all interesting in their lineup (more Bone Shaker philosophy in the line could be interesting). But the trendlines, IMO, portend irrelevance. And absent evidence to the contrary those omens are strong enough for me to reach a conclusion and act accordingly without waiting for the final curtain... Now, if they roll out a brilliant line for 2013, I'd be ecstatic to eat my words. But if they don't get it this year, I think irrelevant will be an increasingly accepted view.  So my .02, unless Head pulls a rabbit out of a hat, is that you just swapped for a much better and more relevant horse.

 

I just skied a number of the 2013 Head skis a few days ago.  It was during our recently-deceased drought, so there was no soft snow anywhere, but they skied really, really well.  I don't think there's anything wrong with what their product line will look like. 

 

Obviously the above represents my opinion. You may or may not agree. But it is certainly not arbitrary.

 

How true.  Have fun in all that new snow you've got.  I'm sure your skis are perfect for it. wink.gif

 



 

post #70 of 78

Sounds like Bob Peter's is another one who is confusing his opinion with fact. rolleyes.gifwink.gif

post #71 of 78

We are at a turning point in skiing. Good skiers that have a racing background are passing the torch, grudgingly perhaps, to good skiers that have a freeride background. Everything about the evolution of gear will follow this shift. Skiers with these two disparate backgrounds have little in common when it comes to selecting gear.

 

As long as BP refers to trends at JH, a place he knows exceptionally well, I'd accept as fact his observations.

 

There are also skiers with no background technical knowledge. What is their preferred gear?


Edited by davluri - 1/20/12 at 8:45pm
post #72 of 78


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

As long as BP refers to trends at JH, a place he knows exceptionally well, I'd accept as fact his observations.

 



A) I have never skied with anyone who knew their mountain better that Bob Peters. I recall skiing the Hobacks with him, he stopped and pointed out a suggested line. He commented..."See that brush down there? You want to be 10-20 left of that, that is where the snow is best this time of day, if you go more than that over, the snow will be awful" Sure enough, where he said the snow would be good, the snow was, where he wait it wouldn't be, sure enough...it was mank. 

 

 

post #73 of 78

sounds like Bob is not only knowledgeable, but a generous soul.

OTOH, if I say it's good over there right now, it's going to be mank. If I say it's not skiing well, it's likely very good. I'd get in a lot of trouble for being as nice as Bob   wink.gif.

post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

There are also skiers with no background technical knowledge. What is their preferred gear?



What ever they get marketed to with shiny pictures in magazines or encouraged to buy while instore, right or wrong choice, depends on how good the store is. Same as cars, TV's, mountain bikes, anything technical that they can't be bothered researching themselves and will be told what's good and happy to accept it.

Fortunately that's nobody here, you wouldn't be reading this forum if you were one of those types of people. 

 

P.S my daily driver is a Head SS Titan. I'm obviously out of touch too wink.gif

 

post #75 of 78
Well, has Head caught up in 2014? Can't wait for the ski magazines to hit the mailbox with the reviews. Full rocker daily drivers abound according to POWDER (just got their gear review issue).
post #76 of 78
The head flight series from what I demoed in the spring seemed like a step backwards. Tried the venturi and preferred the previous rock and roll ski by far. Also tried the cyclic which I did not like either. Neither ski felt like a head skis to me.
post #77 of 78

Have to say I didn't dig the Venturi. 

post #78 of 78

HA...are you kidding Bob.  

Change can be a good thing....the Earth IS round!.....LOL.

 

 

Looking forward to finally getting out West in 14'.

 

SteveD

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion