Ski Magazine Buyer's Guide 2013 -Test Skis Disclosed - Page 2

Dude, where was this ski NOT popular? The Cochise nearly sold out early in the season (getting a 185 was almost impossible past january) and was probably the most consistently highly-rated ski of the season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

 

Powder week is sponsored in part by Salomon. I think the Cochise is a good ski, I would say that Blizzard also substantially upped their visibility in the market buy putting the ad dollars where it needed to be. I would say that the Cochise was well reviewed on TGR, but not hugely popular.

 

Again though, magazine reviews are about paying people to get on your ski's. There is a cost to show up to Powder week, and there is a cost to get testers on your ski's

 

Freeskier did somewhat of the same thing. There was actually appointments to have "reviewers" test your ski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

Dude, where was this ski NOT popular? The Cochise nearly sold out early in the season (getting a 185 was almost impossible past january) and was probably the most consistently highly-rated ski of the season.

On TGR it was a little more level than on Epic Ski where many of the main contributors had financial stake in the popularity. Not saying anyone hated it. I know many people that liked it but felt it was remarkably unremarkable. And that is pretty big selling point for a lot of people.

The point though is Blizzard put a lot of effort in to putting their ski's in a lot of people's hands, and that being featured heavily in magazine reviews is for the most part a result of money spent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

The point though is Blizzard put a lot of effort in to putting their ski's in a lot of people's hands, and that being featured heavily in magazine reviews is for the most part a result of money spent.

It was also featured heavily because it was a damn good ski.  How about all of the love the crew over at Blister gave the Cochise?  They didn't receive any money from Tecnica / Blizzard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

 

It was also featured heavily because it was a damn good ski.  How about all of the love the crew over at Blister gave the Cochise?  They didn't receive any money from Tecnica / Blizzard.

Realskier rated it highly as well. Seriously, you cant say blizz' bought these accolades. it is still a great ski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

 

It was also featured heavily because it was a damn good ski.  How about all of the love the crew over at Blister gave the Cochise?  They didn't receive any money from Tecnica / Blizzard.

Where do I say it's not a good ski? Blister pointed out that it is not a niche ski, but caters to many levels. I would agree. Of course it will get good reviews regardless of how much or how little the company pushed it. But it's clear that they DID push their marketing this year. BTW I like it, it does not fit in to what I what I am necessarily looking for, but it's a good ski with a huge sweetspot....that ski's good.

You guys can keep making posts in defense of a ski because one comment made you butthurt. I'm not going to spend any more time discussing ski's.

The point is. Companies pay money to show up, and they pay more to be featured. In some cases that have to pay to ensure they even get tested. So take most reviews with a grain of salt.

For example there are MANY people on TGR enamored with PMgear ski's. And there are many great reviews there on the brand. But you don't see them in the magazines much.

what you said was it not hugely popular. my only point is that this is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

what you said was it not hugely popular. my only point is that this is not true.

I meant not hugely popular amongst the TGR crowd, well received, but hardly salivated over like it was here.

What's up with Head's entry in the Mens "Deep" category?  Did they really only provide a 163cm for the test???

At 115mm underfoot, I would have expected something in the mid 180's to low 190's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudfoot 

Announcing the skis they are going to test in the future is completely useless information. 

'Announcing' isn't information, tho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedToSki 

What's up with Head's entry in the Mens "Deep" category?  Did they really only provide a 163cm for the test???

At 115mm underfoot, I would have expected something in the mid 180's to low 190's.

People who read Ski size their pow ski's like they would a frontside carver.

I'm always struck by two attributes of the, uh, "top two" magazines, which are 1) They are usually criticized for sins of omission, not commission; we get steamed because they ignore our favorite ski, not because they reward a bad one, and 2) They are in the statistical ballpark for what you'd expect from intrinsically subjective data. Meaning that we seem to get the idea that we each value a particular quality in a ski more than someone else posting here (call it the "different strokes" model), but we get all cynical when we think that a tester weights the wrong thing. Yet if you allow for the intrinsic noise in subjective evals, and think about the audience (not folks who own 7 skis and a season pass), I think the tests are pretty decent. 

And IMO while Ski Canada is better overall than these "top two," they are clearly homers (check out the Prior scores). And as far as Real Skiers, ever notice their love affair with Head or Stockli? Not a paragon of even-handedness toward fat skis, either. 

So I agree with SJ that the "other two" magazines are a bit more dubious, but I think that reflects an ideological commitment to their demographic - Indies deserve their day in the sun, and this ain't your Dad's sport anymore - rather than getting envelopes of unmarked bills from the advertisers. They may give silly rating differentials between some indies and some majors (Are Armadas really that good compared to Nordicas?), but I've noticed that doesn't mean majors are excluded (Rossi in particular), unless the major makes mediocre fat skis (Head take note).

Cochises aren't hugely popular on TGR because they're too narrow and too multi-purpose. Has nothing to do with their quality or performance. The audience just doesn't care about a 108 mm ski that can carve inbounds. 

This idea that "the fix is in," based on advertising, seems at best to be an easy charge based on a weak correlation. Most correlations are not causal. Otherwise owning TV's would make us taller....

Can people please stop dancing around what they mean and just plain say it. It is just plain silly and disenfranchising to many readers to drop pointless wink-wink, nod-nod "insider" hints about this test vs that test.

For my .02, the Ski and Skiing reviews are about as useless as they come (next to Real Skiers). The old-school style and gear bias has caused them to trail the curve for some time. Although admittedly they sort of caught it up a bit the past year or two. But not really there yet IMO - in part because lots of the innovation comes from the indies and "middies" that they do not pay much attention to - for a range of reasons. Real Skiers should just be renamed Really Skiing in the Past.... As for Powder, I know several people who have tested at Powder Week. Really good skiers. Straight up with their picks and comments. But it is not really "free" to play in any of these tests. So facing market reality as a reader is a good thing. There is fundamentally an element of commercial influence in these tests - just by virtue of who chooses  play (and to pay to do so in some cases). Or who can afford to get themselves and a pile of skis there...  So even in a "fair" test, you get silly things like no or minimal mention of Praxis in a powder ski test. Not too much more of DPS, ON3P, PM Gear, etc. Meaningful omissions in my opinion. But not due to anything evil...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

 

It's very nice to see that you have an opinion on the subject. Given that those publications demo their tests toward 90% of the skiing public......I'd say they are relatively good. Do they hit the nail every time?.....no.....of course not. Do I personally agree with each review of the general rankings? again.....no. Nevertheless, when reading those reviews, I'm hard pressed imagine a consumer that would read one, draw a reasonable conclusion from it......and then end up being totally mis-aligned on their gear. Given that some of the other "tests" demo their tests toward the remaining 10% (if that).....their results will (for the majority) be understandably and predictably suspect.

 

SJ

You have a habit of dismissing everyone else's opinion as "opinion", and implicitly passing yours off as "fact". Consistently. The above is your opinion.

The fact is that the reviews you laud have largely been following behind the technology. IMO, the very bulk of the market - that 90% - you sing about has been led to buy inferior skis for a good half decade by magazines and a channel trailing the technology/design curve. Interestingly those same reviews are now touting as "must have" innovation the very classes of designs they once ignored or dismissed. Mainly because the bulk of manufacturers they deal with have adopted (or in some cases started to pitch) the designs that have been used by some of us for many years. Your case would actually have legs if the very same design points dismissed or ignored by "some" just a few short years ago were not today being pitched as the best thing since sliced bread now that market momentum has moved in their favor because - well, because they work.. 

This is actually a better statement of what I intended to convey. That said, if the editors of the magazines being discussed actually wanted to help their customers (and in turn actually enhance their own long term value), they'd pay attention and test the best and most interesting designs available. Regardless of the marketing competence of said company. For my .02, Blister Gear reviews and forum reviews are the only ones I read for more than amusement or curiosity value. They could stand to be a bit more critical - but they attack the problem in a better way than most. 

The 2012-2013 skis (next seasons' models) are tested in the spring of 2012. A few of these have been on sale since this past spring. The significance of the list is there is always a lot of griping about the winners in each category and the testing methodology.This article is a little of a preseason teaser and partly to show which skis were tested and what they were compared to. Inevitably once the magazine comes out in August folks will carp about their favorite ski not even being considered because it's not listed in the Ski Test Issue. This article lets us know that a lot more skis were tested than were rated and discussed in the article and if your favorite did not make it you can at least see if was considered at all.

That's why the article is always so upbeat because the skis they write about are all winners. If you want a wider canvas of the total ski universe go to Real Skiers or the Canadian ski magazine ski test and they give results on every model they test.

As to some who complain about the manufacturers selecting the skis, the models and the category to have a model compete in, who else is better equipped to do so. Supposedly some of these new models had not been available to the magazine or the testers before the actual tests. Who else could pick the category better that the folks who designed it and who are marketing it?

One last thought. There is not a lot of BAD stuff manufactured today in the ski industry or any other industry. There are skis you may not like or boots that do not fit you feet but they are not necessarily poorly made or poorly designed. Just because its not your cup of tea does not mean its junk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveturner 

The 2012-2013 skis (next seasons' models) are tested in the spring of 2012. A few of these have been on sale since this past spring. The significance of the list is there is always a lot of griping about the winners in each category and the testing methodology.This article is a little of a preseason teaser and partly to show which skis were tested and what they were compared to. Inevitably once the magazine comes out in August folks will carp about their favorite ski not even being considered because it's not listed in the Ski Test Issue. This article lets us know that a lot more skis were tested than were rated and discussed in the article and if your favorite did not make it you can at least see if was considered at all.

That's why the article is always so upbeat because the skis they write about are all winners. If you want a wider canvas of the total ski universe go to Real Skiers or the Canadian ski magazine ski test and they give results on every model they test.

As to some who complain about the manufacturers selecting the skis, the models and the category to have a model compete in, who else is better equipped to do so. Supposedly some of these new models had not been available to the magazine or the testers before the actual tests. Who else could pick the category better that the folks who designed it and who are marketing it?

One last thought. There is not a lot of BAD stuff manufactured today in the ski industry or any other industry. There are skis you may not like or boots that do not fit you feet but they are not necessarily poorly made or poorly designed. Just because its not your cup of tea does not mean its junk.

This is pretty spot on really, there is also so much diversity. For example, a pow ski, is not just a pow ski. The one that the ex-racer enjoys, may have none of the characteristics that the jibber is looking for, and vice-versa. What is the better ski? Neither...they are just different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

Can people please stop dancing around what they mean and just plain say it. It is just plain silly and disenfranchising to many readers to drop pointless wink-wink, nod-nod "insider" hints about this test vs that test.

I totally agree with this part of your post, spindrift. Not just - or even mostly - in this thread. It's a pattern that needs to be pointed out and discouraged, generally, on this board, IMHO. Thank you. If you're going to say something, say it. Anything else is discourteous to readers in a variety of ways, not least of which is that they have better things to do with their time than trying to decipher code. If you can't say it because it's politically a problem for you in some way, don't say it.

If I'm not mistaken, ON3P, Moment and DPS had skis selected in the first round of Powder's "gear draft" last year.  Just sayin'...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

It occurs to me that we need a ski test produced by a ski magazine that is published in a garage.....that'll fix everything..............

 

SJ

Of the brand's JT mentioned I don't know of any that are built in a garage. It occurs to me that if it's not something that your customer base is looking for, then you are incapable of being level headed about it on this site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI 

I have never seen a set of Goode skis on a ski lift line - not even once, and they have 6 models included. Yet I have seen plenty of skis being actually skied from Stockli, with not 1 model included?!?

This is actually the central paradox of all existence. In all my years of skiing, I've seen one (1) pair of Goode's on a slope. Two years ago out west. Yet they show up all the time in ski mags. 

So: One idea is that Goode threatens to gas the offices with nanoparticles unless at least 5 models get reviewed. 

Another is that the editors are so titillated by tech-carbon-porn that they don't care how the skis actually perform. I recall Backcountry struggling to say something positive about that rectangular model a few years back, and wondering why they bothered. Then I realized they wanted something stark black for layout purposes. 

Another is that Goode's are so transcendently high performance that everyone's afraid of them. Like skis that Stockli's and Kastles and Blizzards dream of being when they're grown ups. 

The last is that no dealers actually sell them. I've also never seen them in a shop. I conclude that when they show up on the truck, the kid in back thinks they're water skis, and sends them on to the summer  warehouse. Where they get used as racks for bikes. 

This thread has turned... dumb.  Look, do the ski companies need to spend a little dough to possibly get featured?  Yes.  But I think from there it's a toss up and the skis do the talking.  I'm okay with this - it's called reality.

I have some Cochise 185's that I ordered sight unseen because of reviews from people I trusted.  I love them.  It worked out great.  I ordered them *before* the accolades in the mags and they merely backed up what I already heard.  Having said that, based on what I've heard first-hand and online about some Moment skis, that is clearly a company that could benefit big time from playing the game a little more.  LINE is another company that didn't seem to get much love from magazines but every damn time I sat next to someone on a chair they raved about them.  I've met a few really good skiers I shared turns with who like both of the aforementioned skis.  That catches my attention as well.  Same deal with PM - I may actually get some Lhasa Pows for my AT setup based only on what people I've met skiing them around Tahoe have told me.

It's never going to be a perfect process, but you're not going to see some POS ski get called the best ski of the year if it isn't pretty good.  It's a flawed system but not useless by any means.