or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Product Manager for a Day...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Product Manager for a Day...

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

If you could walk into any ski company (skis...boots...bindings...clothing...accessories..ect) and redesign a product line. what would you do? Maybe a particular model with a different flex or shape? or a boot with a walk feature?

 

Examples:

 

Look:

(Re)Offer the Pivot in a 12 DIN @249.00 and the 15DIN @349.00. You have both of these DIN ranges in PX series, why not Pivots? Remember, you used to offer a Pivot with a 2-6 DIN range.

 

Kastle:

Enough with the 10cm increments in your models. Example MX88, 158, 168, 178 and 188. the 2 end sizes sell awful and to extent are disproportionate. Go down to a 7 or 8 cm size break and you will get sizes that will work much better. 164, 171, 178, 185

 

Blizzard:

Cochise with a Bonafide construction and profile. A Cochise with camber would be stellar..a 108 waisted Bonafide? drool.gif

post #2 of 16

Rossi:

Same as what Phil said about Kastle.  No more 10cm increments.  A 188 and 178 leaves a huge void in-between.

 

Head:

Graphics department, you're fired!

post #3 of 16

All: Measure tip to tail of the final product. And make the size you advertise.
 

post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

Head:

Graphics department, you're fired!

 

After seeing the 2014 line, I think that has been addressed.  

post #5 of 16

Nordica:

Bring back a boot series in the last of the old Beast (102 mm last/size 26.0), but make it in a mono-injected shell.  Give it a modern stance (low ramp angle zeppa, conservative forward lean, and a removable spoiler).  Build it with removable flex screws like most modern performance overlap boots.  On the top end men's and women's models, use Booster Straps instead of stock power straps.

post #6 of 16

all boot makers:

 

figure out a real way to offer the sizing information of your boots.

 

width at met-heads as the ONLY consideration is ridiculous.  look at the bike industry geometry charts.... 

 

HOW ABOUT THIS:

+instep height @ center of length

+actual internal length

+width at the met-heads

+fore-aft distance at the throat of the boot

+actual volume measurement

+width of ankle pocket

post #7 of 16

Look:

(Re)Offer the Pivot in a 12 DIN @249.00 and the 15DIN @349.00. You have both of these DIN ranges in PX series, why not Pivots? Remember, you used to offer a Pivot with a 2-6 DIN range.

 

^This. Don't want to settle on PX/Axial2 12 but don't want to waste $ on Pivot/FKS 14 either...(I'm DIN 8 and progressing, can see me getting 9.5 eventually)

post #8 of 16

The game sez a product line, as in one

 

Forget skis, they're already fine. And boots are evolving there. It's bindings that are frozen in 1970. 

 

So I'd walk into Look, and tell them to build a FKS 14 with lateral release at the heel, adjustable delta, all metal housing, all brake widths...if it involved mods to the matching Rossi boot, all the better for sales.

 

That's it, guys, get to work. 

post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

The game sez a product line, as in one

 

Forget skis, they're already fine. And boots are evolving there. It's bindings that are frozen in 1970. 

 

So I'd walk into Look, and tell them to build a FKS 14 with lateral release at the heel, adjustable delta, all metal housing, all brake widths...if it involved mods to the matching Rossi boot, all the better for sales.

 

That's it, guys, get to work. 

 

I'm just fine with the current Look/Rossi, Pivot/PX  product line. (well except maybe their choice in colors!). They continue to meet all my requirements needed in a performance ski binding. Maybe better access to replacement parts so I can keep them on the hill for another decade or two....

 

No need to reinvent the wheel.

post #10 of 16

Dynastar:

Cham series, adjust the colours, drink espresso, dig out the 117 prototypes that have to be knocking around (why dont they offer a 117 it seems odd with the jumps from 87, 97, 107 and 127?) and go skiing.biggrin.gif

post #11 of 16

Goggles: Bring back this model ... complete with fake nose and moustache.biggrin.gif

post #12 of 16

All ski and boot manufacturers:  Industry standard measurements for flex and actual values related to dimensions.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/29247/industry-wide-standardized-ski-facts-and-figures

post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

 

I'm just fine with the current Look/Rossi, Pivot/PX  product line. (well except maybe their choice in colors!). They continue to meet all my requirements needed in a performance ski binding. Maybe better access to replacement parts so I can keep them on the hill for another decade or two....

 

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Uh, appreciate they meet all your needs. But I'm interested in the common need, as in the large majority of skiers. Specifically I'm interested in ligaments, and how to reduce the incidence of damage to same. To anticipate your next two responses, 1) Yes, taking lessons obviously lowers risk, but that argument is like saying that we could reduce highway fatalities by more driving lessons. For sure, but that doesn't negate the reasons for seat belts, crush zones, or air bags. And 2) Yes, it's a serious morbidity risk in epidemiological terms. Regardless of whether you see it as a problem for you, personally. (I might add that I suspect it's also a check on the growth of skiing as a sport. Most humans of the non-kid variety tend to be worried about getting injured, they see skiing as high risk. Any technology to reduce that risk in new skiers would be a boon to our sport, no?) 

 

Now it may be a wheel - I used it as a starting point because I think it's the best design on the market right now - but saying it's the wheel is sorta like saying that cars were better with solid rubber tires. Bindings haven't changed significantly in decades because of lack of economic motivation on the part of manufacturers, not because they're miraculously perfected. We've seen waaay more technological innovation put into skis and boots. Yet Salomon gets a thread all to itself because of minor tweaks to its heel and a new paint job. Whooopee! I can only imagine how pulse pounding that new Look red will be in person. rolleyes.gif

post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny1969 View Post

Nordica:

Bring back a boot series in the last of the old Beast (102 mm last/size 26.0), but make it in a mono-injected shell.  Give it a modern stance (low ramp angle zeppa, conservative forward lean, and a removable spoiler).  Build it with removable flex screws like most modern performance overlap boots.  On the top end men's and women's models, use Booster Straps instead of stock power straps.

Lange SX series does all this.

RE LOOK bindings, we just got a survey re:Pivot requests and I said the same thing build the P12/P15 and keep the P18 for "pros" hopefully they listen...

CHAM 117 yes please

post #15 of 16

Took the words out of my mouth......a Cochise with Bonafide camber.  Give it a new name......and since it has to be something in the bull moniker and early in the alpahbet to keep with Blizzard's current them........how about Dillinger or Asteroid.  Famous bulls.

post #16 of 16

Every all mountain skis  should have resistant base and edges! What's the point of putting a racing base to a ski that is suppose to be 50% off piste??? I have a pair of Dynastar legend 85 who were used about 1 1/2 season and still look like new ( base, edges and topsheet)... and I have a pair of mx88, used half a season and, despite being more careful  with these, they look beatten up (base and edges!).

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 › Product Manager for a Day...