Ski Magazine Buyer's Guide 2013 -Test Skis Disclosed - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

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

The geometry and construction of the 186 and 196cm lengths of the Bibby Pro were very similar to each other, but very different from the other (174, 184, 190) lengths.  So for 2013, the 186 and 196 are now the Governor, and the other lengths (as I understand it) remain the Bibby Pro.

The most significant differences between the lengths that remain the Bibby Pro and those that are being rebranded as the Governor are the sidecut, rocker profile, and flex.

The lengths that are becoming the Governor have a pintail geometry at 150/116/123, while the lengths that remain Bibby Pro are more symmetrical at 143/118/134 -- that's three times the taper from tip to tail in the Governor as in the BP.  

The BP lengths have 65mm of tip and tail rocker, but the Governor lengths have a 55mm tip rocker and only 10mm of tail.  That translates to 164cm of effective edge in the 186 Governor, compared to only 156cm of effective edge in the 190 BP.  (The 196, which I own, has a whopping 174cm of effective edge, which I believe is the most on any commercially available rockered ski, and translates to fantastic performance on firm surfaces for a wide, rockered ski.)

The Governor lengths are also significantly stiffer, as I understand it.

Thanks. I was purusing the site and saw the dims but its not labeled as the Governer yet. Great example of how you should never just look at the width of a ski.  how about a BP with a 123 tail?  I like the taper and the rocker on the Governer. I would like to see less tip (or multi dim'd tip) on the governer's profile.  All summertime conjecture, the proof is on the snow.

Well, one obvious answer - albeit a completely unsatisfying one, to us easterners - is that they tested at Snowbird in April. Sheesh. That's like testing road bikes by riding them through fields and woods. Guess what? The cyclocross bikes are going to win, and they all will seem pathetic compared with the real off-road bikes. Duh. In the past, I know some publications - e.g., Ski Press - used to test the narrower skis at an east coast resort. That only makes sense to me. Seems to me like if you're testing for hard snow and you're leaving a trench more than a quarter inch deep, you need to go to a different day or a different location, because you are not testing for the conditions where I will be using that ski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

Thanks. I was purusing the site and saw the dims but its not labeled as the Governer yet. Great example of how you should never just look at the width of a ski.  how about a BP with a 123 tail?  I like the taper and the rocker on the Governer. I would like to see less tip (or multi dim'd tip) on the governer's profile.  All summertime conjecture, the proof is on the snow.

It is the first ski I've ever liked (much less loved) that had a tip wider than about 140mm.  It carries it well, and doesn't have that awkward kicked-around feeling I've always experienced with 150+mm tips in the past.  I think some of that has to do with the pintail, which softens the turn radius.

It's also the first ski I've liked that had strong tip rocker and a flat or slightly lifted tail.  Again, the pintail means that I don't feel like I'm going over the handlebars in soft snow at the same mount point that gives me control on hardpack.

Can't say enough good things about this ski.  Assuming we get actual snow, it will likely be my daily driver for 2012-13.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcanoe 

 

Well, one obvious answer - albeit a completely unsatisfying one, to us easterners - is that they tested at Snowbird in April. Sheesh. That's like testing road bikes by riding them through fields and woods. Guess what? The cyclocross bikes are going to win, and they all will seem pathetic compared with the real off-road bikes. Duh. In the past, I know some publications - e.g., Ski Press - used to test the narrower skis at an east coast resort. That only makes sense to me. Seems to me like if you're testing for hard snow and you're leaving a trench more than a quarter inch deep, you need to go to a different day or a different location, because you are not testing for the conditions where I will be using that ski.

Ski Canada does separate locations too. Part of it is that in the U.S. actual carving skis no longer merit much marketing attention, regardless of conditions people actually ski on, so why should magazines bother? Another part is that two or three locations cost more, and suspect some of these publications are on life support to begin with. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidmarks 

Seems crazy that Elan was limited to only 6 entries in Ski Magazine when they tested so well on the Skiing side of things. IMO the Elan Amphibio 12 and Elan Waveflex SLX are what Hard-Snow (Carving) skis are all about. Fischer Progressor 10+, Atomic D2 VF 75 and a crop of amazing skis under 80mm never made the cut. 

 

As an East Coast retailer and an advocate of a 2+ Ski Quiver I wish Ski Magazine did a better job with the Hard Snow Category.

Why should "Floatation" and "Crud" be used to score these skis when "Stability" and "Hard-Snow Grip" should be the trump cards. They do have a Mixed Snow category for all mountain skis so why not leave Hard Snow as a specialty category where edge-grip and other hard-snow like attributes are rewarded.

 

For example if you look at last year's test how could the Volkl RTM 84 have been the best ski for Hard Snow performance? The RTM 84 was a great ski (not for me) but if your looking for hard snow performance how about one of the Speed Walls or the Code? In last year's test the Dynastar Course Ti was the sure winner of Ski's top 10 but only scored a 6th place because it doesn't float well or handle crud well.

 

So if you look at this year's Test Skis you'll notice companies trying to game the results.

 

K2 submitted the Rictor when the Bolt, Charger, or Velocity are better Hard-Snow choices, Atomic the Black Eye Ti instead of the D2 VF 75, and the list goes on.

 

 

 

 

the RTM 84 turned out to be a pretty damn good ski.   I thought it ripped on the hard snow, and pretty much everywhere else.   RTM 84 and Enduro 850 are both my top pics for daily drivers (both skis recognized and favored in the testing grounds).  The ski's that ARE tested are done fairly, the only problem is the market share analysis and total number of ski's tested by that standard.   But as usual the bottom line is, Demo before you buy,  my buddy demoed the RTM 84 and Enduro back to back for 3 days and settled on the Enduro,   I liked both and bought the RTM because it was in better condition then the Enduro.  

Hmm... well there aren't as many sub-80 skis for them to test. sure they are there, but not in as great numbers as before.   And 84-width skis are better on hardpack than they used to be in past years. Most casual shoppers would probably like them just fine on hardpack.   My girfriend recently bought a much wider ski than she was interested in because they gripped with a nice edge despite the width, and she felt really confident on them.

I don't know if the ski mags are entirely to blame for what they test, they have to look at what categories make sense, given what manufacturers are producing for the majority of the ski-buying market.   Of course, manufacturers may feel they are responding to what ski mags are testing and reviewing.  Vicious circle.

This is an issue that has always confused me. I ski trees, bumps and fresh snow at Big Sky on shortish mid-80 width skis that are almost impossible to find at a Big Sky Ski Shop. John Clendenin has a great ski camp that emphasizes 3-D terrain skiing including trees on short relatively narrow skis. It amazes me that the ski industry concentrates on the 1% of macho skiers who really need a big, long, wide board. Look back just a decade ago at the original Chubb.

An 87 waist and only a 112 shovel and considered a favorite powder ski for experts in 2002. Have new materials the laws of physics that impact skiing really changed so much as to make this approach completely obsolete? I think it's about 90% marketing and the macho oriented marketing hurts our sport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidmarks 

 

I'm sure the RTM 84 is a great Daily Driver and will be great in all sorts of conditions. What I'm talking about is why did Ski-Magazine turn the Hard Snow Category into All-Terrain/All Conditions skis? IMO they should be testing the sub-80 carving skis in that category that all of the Ski Companies still build. Like I said before wouldn't a  Volkl CODE or Speedwall be a better Hard Snow Ski than an RTM 84??

I guess having not tried both I couldn't say.   Have you tried both skis on hard pack?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveturner 

This is an issue that has always confused me. I ski trees, bumps and fresh snow at Big Sky on shortish mid-80 width skis that are almost impossible to find at a Big Sky Ski Shop. John Clendenin has a great ski camp that emphasizes 3-D terrain skiing including trees on short relatively narrow skis. It amazes me that the ski industry concentrates on the 1% of macho skiers who really need a big, long, wide board. Look back just a decade ago at the original Chubb.

"Still one of our favorite powder skis for skiers from intermeiate to high expert. It just makes powder skiing easier!

112/87/104"

An 87 waist and only a 112 shovel and considered a favorite powder ski for experts in 2002. Have new materials the laws of physics that impact skiing really changed so much as to make this approach completely obsolete? I think it's about 90% marketing and the macho oriented marketing hurts our sport.

oh no, here goes an entirely different thread.  :)     

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveturner 

This is an issue that has always confused me. I ski trees, bumps and fresh snow at Big Sky on shortish mid-80 width skis that are almost impossible to find at a Big Sky Ski Shop. John Clendenin has a great ski camp that emphasizes 3-D terrain skiing including trees on short relatively narrow skis. It amazes me that the ski industry concentrates on the 1% of macho skiers who really need a big, long, wide board. Look back just a decade ago at the original Chubb.

"Still one of our favorite powder skis for skiers from intermeiate to high expert. It just makes powder skiing easier!

112/87/104"

An 87 waist and only a 112 shovel and considered a favorite powder ski for experts in 2002. Have new materials the laws of physics that impact skiing really changed so much as to make this approach completely obsolete? I think it's about 90% marketing and the macho oriented marketing hurts our sport.

I think it's neither.   I think it's an incomplete reading and the reading should  have included the obvious qualifier "from amongst the skis available on market".

Or are we honestly expecting Keelty to  anticipate unmarketed designs that will sit in the production pipeline for another 10 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveturner 

This is an issue that has always confused me. I ski trees, bumps and fresh snow at Big Sky on shortish mid-80 width skis that are almost impossible to find at a Big Sky Ski Shop. John Clendenin has a great ski camp that emphasizes 3-D terrain skiing including trees on short relatively narrow skis. It amazes me that the ski industry concentrates on the 1% of macho skiers who really need a big, long, wide board. Look back just a decade ago at the original Chubb.

"Still one of our favorite powder skis for skiers from intermeiate to high expert. It just makes powder skiing easier!

112/87/104"

An 87 waist and only a 112 shovel and considered a favorite powder ski for experts in 2002. Have new materials the laws of physics that impact skiing really changed so much as to make this approach completely obsolete? I think it's about 90% marketing and the macho oriented marketing hurts our sport.

Are you sure you're not channeling Bob Peters? IMO your first few sentences are not necessarily living in the past, given that most days in most places in the U.S., there isn't enough fresh snow to seriously reward a fat ski. And as has been said, flex is more relevant than waist width anyway. Some actually like the flickability of a narrower ski in light pow.

That said, not clear what this has to do with a discussion of the 2013 ski tests - should an old pair of Chubbs be included? Might actually be amusing in a comparo.

And you kill whatever argument you may have had with the last, weary sentence. It's not marketing, and its not macho, it's just companies providing a greater range of choices to a greater range of skiers on a greater range of terrains. If you like a mid-80's ski for pow, go buy next year's Outland 87 and be happy. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidmarks 

 

I'm sure the RTM 84 is a great Daily Driver and will be great in all sorts of conditions. What I'm talking about is why did Ski-Magazine turn the Hard Snow Category into All-Terrain/All Conditions skis? IMO they should be testing the sub-80 carving skis in that category that all of the Ski Companies still build. Like I said before wouldn't a  Volkl CODE or Speedwall be a better Hard Snow Ski than an RTM 84??

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdiddy 

I guess having not tried both I couldn't say.   Have you tried both skis on hard pack?  

[Thread drift warning.] Speaking for myself, I have not tried EITHER ski on ANY surface.     However, I have skied several mid-80s general purpose skis on hardpack (including a pair that I now own) and quite a few 65 - 75mm race carvers on the same surfaces (including a pair that I now own), and, broadly speaking, there is really no comparison between the categories when you are trying to arc clean turns at speed on east coast Formica. Yes, flex, construction, etc., play a big role, but I absolutely stand by my generalization. This has been hashed out many times on this board, and this thread is probably not the right place to do it again. (Mea culpa, I guess.)  I would just say that, as a New England skier who makes only the occasional trip out west, when I talk about "crud" or "mixed conditions," or "powder," I am probably drawing on a range of experiences that is infrequent and narrow and tame compared to what you experience on a daily basis in California. To the extent that this is true, my qualifications for evaluating how well a given ski handles those conditions are modest. Similarly, my observation is that many - not all - west coast skiers grossly underestimate the frequency and extent of true un-dentable white-slate conditions that many of us blithely consume as a regular diet here in the east. We had a solid Colorado skier with our group on one entirely typical and unremarkable Wednesday race night a few years ago. He handled the conditions more or less capably, but he bailed into the bar at the earliest opportunity with a comment along the lines of "You guys actually ENJOY skiing on treacherous crap like this?" Yes, we do ... partly because we have learned to specialize. Purpose-built skis are part of that specialization and enjoyment, just as fatties are for powderhounds. All this partly explains why one skier (you) can ski on a relatively grippy 85mm ski and say "this is an ideal hardpack ski!" and another skier (me) can ski on it and say, "meh."

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

Are you sure you're not channeling Bob Peters? IMO your first few sentences are not necessarily living in the past, given that most days in most places in the U.S., there isn't enough fresh snow to seriously reward a fat ski. And as has been said, flex is more relevant than waist width anyway. Some actually like the flickability of a narrower ski in light pow.

 

Stated better than I could and I do think it relates to what skis are tested in the main line ski magazines. I think both the industry and the sking public are poorly served by the high concentration on skis that work best for the somewhat specialized use by the top 1% of the skiing public. What would happen if the golf industry only displayed irons with  X-stiff shafts and small forged heads becaues that's what Tiger and Phil play? Think it might impact sales or the overall number of rounds of golf played each year?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

As a 'western' dealer it might surprise some that I'm a little bugged by the test selections as well. But then, we always carry a fair number of true technical skis. I also spend about 20% of my considerable testing time to these skis (as does Phil). We know who they are for, what the differences are, and how to sell them (and to whom). For us, we select some real technical ice picks (Course Ti and Head I-speed Mag for ex). But we'll also select a few easy-goers that are still pretty exciting on a groomer run (Rossi Pursuit HP, and K2 Charger for ex). So, when a company like K2 (for example) puts the Rictor in instead of the Charger (btw.....a vastly better ski) I kinda think it's a dumb move. Nevertheless, I don't worry about it and still buy the Charger b/c it's the best dang K2 I've skied in a while and a half.

 

The same rationale applies in the "versatile frontsider" category which includes skis like the Rossi Exp 88, Dyn Outland 87, and Blizzi Mag 8.5 Ti. If you just look at the width, you'd think these are the same thing as a Nordie EDT84 or a Kastle MX83. But....they're not......not even. The differences are flex (the big Kahuna) dampening, torsion and other factors that create the differences. If anyone thinks that magazines, mag testers (great skiers all....btw) or editors can get you this info and all the subtleties therein........youbedreamin.....dude.

 

So......I guess all this indignation about this or that not being included in the tests or the categories being all effff'ed up, strikes me as kinda silly. If you think you're gonna get definitive answers from a mag test, I sorta think that ya'll gotz beans in your brains.

 

 

 

SJ.........................

This is the reality, there are plenty of reviews on sites like Epic, and TGR. Blister is also doing a very nice job of doing extended tests, and using skiers with different skiing styles. You don't need to pay for a magazine or a website to get solid reviews on a lot of different ski's.

^^^^ I'll agree with the idea and disagree with some of the details. Yes, sites like Blister (super fine idea of extended/return to testing) and here and IMO even (gasp) TGR do the heavy lifting in terms of ferreting out all the nuances. Where else than here or TGR or a few other places can you go ask the reviewer to expand on a comment? Or a dealer to explain about the decisions behind why one ski is on his shelves and not another.

But: I still dutifully buy all the review editions of all the freaking magazines. And I subscribe to Real Skier. Here. Others. Sigh. Why? Cuzz a) I believe in supporting the sport, and keeping Ski and Skiing and Freeskier and Powder and Keelty kicking helps keep the sport foregrounded for less, ah, committed (committable?) skiers. They're the future, not us. And b) I find that I actually (second gasp) get something from the reviews. They're informative even when they're not, like the dog that didn't bark in the night. Plus as I said, they're seldom way off. So they don't review my favorite Everest Slayer XCR-22. So?? And c) They're fun. By the late summer I'm ready to read almost anything about skiing and ski gear. Who cares if they're "accurate," as long as they help pass the time - including threads like this - until first snowfall? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcanoe 

 

 

[Thread drift warning.] Speaking for myself, I have not tried EITHER ski on ANY surface.     However, I have skied several mid-80s general purpose skis on hardpack (including a pair that I now own) and quite a few 65 - 75mm race carvers on the same surfaces (including a pair that I now own), and, broadly speaking, there is really no comparison between the categories when you are trying to arc clean turns at speed on east coast Formica. Yes, flex, construction, etc., play a big role, but I absolutely stand by my generalization. This has been hashed out many times on this board, and this thread is probably not the right place to do it again. (Mea culpa, I guess.)  I would just say that, as a New England skier who makes only the occasional trip out west, when I talk about "crud" or "mixed conditions," or "powder," I am probably drawing on a range of experiences that is infrequent and narrow and tame compared to what you experience on a daily basis in California. To the extent that this is true, my qualifications for evaluating how well a given ski handles those conditions are modest. Similarly, my observation is that many - not all - west coast skiers grossly underestimate the frequency and extent of true un-dentable white-slate conditions that many of us blithely consume as a regular diet here in the east. We had a solid Colorado skier with our group on one entirely typical and unremarkable Wednesday race night a few years ago. He handled the conditions more or less capably, but he bailed into the bar at the earliest opportunity with a comment along the lines of "You guys actually ENJOY skiing on treacherous crap like this?" Yes, we do ... partly because we have learned to specialize. Purpose-built skis are part of that specialization and enjoyment, just as fatties are for powderhounds. All this partly explains why one skier (you) can ski on a relatively grippy 85mm ski and say "this is an ideal hardpack ski!" and another skier (me) can ski on it and say, "meh."

When I think of "hard snow category", I'm not thinking of a full on racing ski, I'm thinking of a ski that someone likes to hit groomers more than anything but not limited too.   I would imagine that is the target, other wise the hard snow category would be full on race ski's.   Anyways,   Just a thought.     As far as skiing solid ice, um, yea most of us can do it, but why?    bar sounds real good compared to bullet proof conditions.