Ski Magazine Buyer's Guide 2013 -Test Skis Disclosed - Page 3

It seems to me that we all moan and groan about the ski tests and buyers guides, yet we all spend hours reading and re-reading these guides when they arrive in late august/early september!

I think the biggest effect that these guides is the degree they influence a ski shop to carry what skis. There are a lot of great skis out there but if they arent getting the press that other skis are getting, good luck finding them at your local ski shop.

 

The weird thing about the list published is that it is not complete. Stocklis were at the test for sure. I know because Whiteroom was the guy that was out there turning the screws. I'm pretty sure they were "tested" by Powder as well. 

Actually, we are writing our orders for the season well before the tests take place so the tests don't influence the orders at all.

 

There are a few things that aren't great about the Ski/Skiing test, but they sure do try hard to provide a fair test. One thing I was impressed with was how hard the testers had to ski in order to test all of the skis that were 'on the table' for each days testing. Most days (there are 5 days of testing) the men had about 20 different skis to test... that's at least 20 top to bottom runs at Snowbird, these aren't 'cruiser runs' for these guys and girls, they were skiing hard, they got tired, they were working. I honestly don't think adding more skis to the mix would be feasible while keeping the same test conditions for all skis. The next thing I noticed was that, damn, the testers can ski. I thought that there would be a bunch of OK skiers... but they, for the most part, are exceptionally good at skiing. It was no problem what so ever to pick out ski testers for the general public, the testers ripped, the general public... not so much. The categories are a mess, but that's because the manufacturer's pick what ski should be in what category and what one company thinks will excel at 'Eastern All-Mountain' might be what another thinks is 'Western All-Mountain'... or 'Powder'. If the days conditions don't fit the category for the day you can get burned, even though they plan the testing by the weather. They try, they try hard, but it's probably impossible to run a test where everyone is completely happy, so they do what they think works best. I don't think they do a bad job at all.

 

Well I guess they have to draw the line some where. Any arbitrary width based categories are going to be inherently problematic with some skis getting left on the wrong side of the dividing line. If you push the line from 105 to 110, then other fun shape / softer flexing more deep snow oriented 108mm width skis will be on the wrong side of the line. 

 

What I don't understand is why the categories are width based at all. Why can't the testers simply tell us what category the ski belongs in.  

"Mixed Snow" that is a new one. It is interesting when the gear guide introduces a new snow condition I have never heard of before. I wonder what they are mixing it with... 

 

Dirt. They're just trying to get with the times and reflect last years conditions.

Hey, Elan here...we chose not to participate in Ski Magazine's ski test this year for a few reasons...the first being an unfair playing field in terms of entries allowed. I know that it is logistically difficult for the magazine to test so many skis but that should not be our problem. We were offered 6 entries vs 12 for several other companies...we can not even cover all the categories with men and women's ski models...It might be ok for a twin tip company to have 6 models because they probably don't make skis for hard snow...or "value" skis....but it isn't ok for a company that manufactures skis for all types of skiing.

 

Secondly, the method used to measure market share is flawed and is not close to actual market shares...they use a sample of retailers and if a brand is not distributed everywhere...it does not register. The only way to measure market share accurately is through the industry sell in report where actual info is reported by the brands...the magazine was not interested in this fact.

 

There are a host of other little things that make it hard to accept this test...

 

So....we just decided that it wasn't worth supporting...no hard feelings...but doesn't make sense to us...We do love to win awards and have been recognized around the world with great results...check out Skiing and Freeskier tests... as well as some European tests...that actually test skis under 80mm.

 

Feel free to let us know what you think about the tests... we do want to know...

^^^^^ Interesting. My initial response is that a "market share" allocation is foundationally flawed regardless of how the sample is drawn. It's measuring popularity rather than quality, and popularity reflects many things besides performance. Marketing, price point, rental or demo exposure, and my personal favorite, e-buzz. Moreover, it tends to be an equilibrium model, where the larger number of reviews help a popular brand stay that way. At least we know how K2 does it...

From someone thats been to a few magazine ski tests... wow. 

 

For better or worse, heres what I've observed. In the ski tests I've attended, testers will go out and ride a pair of skis from anywhere from 2 runs to a half a day. You cant choose the conditions on the day of the test, so you take what you get. The testers have an insane amount of experience on different skis, and many make it their goal to get on as many skis as possible during the year, just to get other reference points and try new things. They really do give it their best shot, and if the test is organized well, a given brand can have each of their models they bring to the test go out to at least 3 testers. Everyone has a review and rating system, most tests require a quick review to be written right after returning the skis. It is physically and mentally demanding, if you ever attend a demo day, try to take out 10 pairs of skis a day, and really put them through their paces, feeling the way each ski responds differently and discovering the good and bad characteristics - all the while controlling for snow conditions, terrain and how tired your legs are at the end of the day. 

 

There are a lot of reasons why some brands target specific magazines / magazines target specific brands. Not many people reading Freeskier are looking to add a frontside ski to their quiver next year. Some magazines readers want familiar brands they know and trust through years of experience, other readers of different magazines want something new, exciting and different. This should not be a surprise. I'm not ever going to claim that ski reviews are all accurate and without some bias, but on average, they do a good job of telling you what the ski is like to ride in a 200 words. If you are the person that needs more than that, there are many, many resources for you to delve into on the internet. I dream of a day when enough skiers are online and motivated to create a ski review database that just compiles everything, using a massive sample size for the best review possible - but even then, someone's gonna have to test out next years gear before it hits shelves. 

 

"The major ski magazines have little time to evaluate the fringes of the market but rest assured that I have had the opportunity to test a lot of them and to carry them in the store if I chose to. For the most part, they are simply not up to the overall standards of the major companies. The fact is.......most are average at best and a fair number of them just plain suck."

 

Sorry you've had a bad experience with indie companies. I've heard it said that success is the ability to move from one successive failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. In the indie world, there are a lot of good ideas out there, but also a lot of smoke and mirror marketing and people out there to make a quick buck. I had someone from a wakeboard company tell me to "get out of production as soon as possible and sell your company to the highest bidder." With an attitude like that, I'm sure the quality of the product must be top notch, and I'm sure its not confined to that industry.

 

I see skiing right now like the Earth early in life's development. The internet has revolutionized the way a company can communicate with its customers, and from that, we are seeing an explosion in diversity of ski species and design. Some species will eventually succumb to extinction, some will evolve and adapt - some may even start preying on their old predators. There are always going to be indies making good skis, there will always be indies making bad skis - there will always be large companies that make great skis, there will always be companies that make bad skis. Its completely unfair to make generalizations, every time I do I end up proving myself wrong. 

 

To this, this guy a few posts down nailed 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."

 

Keep an open mind and enjoy the diversity of choices when it comes to having fun. 

 

 

Do we live in a purely subjective world where there is no objective standard of quality whatsoever?

 

 

If yes, then why are we reading tests?

 

If no, then the ability to spot junk and correctly call it junk is a very valuable skill.     We should nurture and treasure it.   

 

We should especially treasure accurate junk-spotting  skill in a world of large diversity.

 

 

Not at all. You need to think of magazine tests as a good indicator of what the experts think, but they are by no means comprehensive. Durability for example -  its hard to rate a skis durability in a one day test. I think its preposterous to expect them to provide a completely accurate run down of every ski out there. If you need that level of detail, its going to take some more work and sleuthing online. Take what you read with a grain of salt, the online community has its disadvantages as well, we're usually a pretty hard-headed group of individuals who love one or two brands unquestionably.

Yes. Unless you want to arbitrarily specify a standard, measure it, and declare a winner. And then everyone will disagree with your criterion. Or your measurement. Or your shirt design.

 

Agreed, that people expect to categorize skis based on width. And even knowledgeable people here obsess over 105 vs. 108 -- which is a whopping 2% difference. Other things to me make alot more difference than 3mm. Some skis are 115 under foot and I think ski like an all mountain ski. And other skis are 98 under foot and I think ski like a powder ski. There are plenty of "classic powder skis", like pocket rockets, if they were reviewed today, would be categorized as a skinny ski? This does not compute. 

Edited by tromano - 6/19/12 at 8:46pm

Ski or Skiing in the late 60's early 70's used to have an engineer bench test the skis being tested.  Think he did it independently of the on snow testing.  They developed a battery of about a dozen tests and ran the same tests on each ski.

 

 It was very dry reading for a kid, but their predictions on how they would perform on snow were pretty accurate.  It would be interesting to see that recreated with today's testing equipment on today's skis.

I heard 1st hand from an indie brand a similar story but in their case, their skis are soft snow oriented but were only allowed 1 ski per segment. it didn't really work well.

 

They have been trained to categorize skis based on width since 1999.    For  pretty much a full decade  they have been repeatedly told by print publications and by online websites (counting both this one and TGR) and by word of mouth  to ignore flex, to mostly ignore sidecut and to focus on waist width.

 

Well, now that bird has come home to roost.

Which reminds me, I found it interesting that LINE completely eliminated their 130 ski this upcoming season because they have two versions of a 115 - the softer oriented Opus and the more versatile Influence 115 - and felt there was no benefit at this point going any wider than that.  Same width, different purpose.

 

Duralibity is one area that I wish could be evaluated.   Whatever the price I pay for a pair of skis, for whatever purpose I have in mind for them, I expect them to last a few years.  If a ski tests "the best" in a ski test category but doesn't last longer than a year I'd be unhappy with the purchase.  There are a few skis that I have decided I'm not interested in due to reports (from ski rental folks) of durability issues.  

 

Any unsung, unpraised gems in there?

 

 

Gives them higher technical merit scores?   Correspondingly lower scores for Artistic Impression?

 

Jim will probably disagree with me on this, but I've been blown away by the 2013 Moment Governor (aka the 2012 Bibby Pro 186/196, but not the other lengths).  For those of us who love directional chargers, it offers a surprising amount of playfulness, and has usurped the 190 DPS Wailer 112RP as the most versatile ski I've ever owned.

Dem' fightin' werds there bud!   I know the boyz over at Blister rave about them.  I am lazy today so do you mind explaining the diff' between the govner' and the Bibby pro?

Is there no 2013 Bibby Pro?  It's just the Governor?