or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Puzzling Skinet ski test scores
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Puzzling Skinet ski test scores

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 

I noticed that many ski test scores on Skinet are different than the scores from last year, even though the ski's themselves haven't changed (apart from the top sheet). Perhaps not very surprising, but at least remarkable: the unisex/men's skis consistently score lower in 2014 than they did in 2013, whereas the women's skis score higher than they did in 2013. 

 

Any thoughts on these observations?

 

  Rossi E88   Rossi E 98   Bonafide   Hell&Back
  2013 2014     2013 2014     2013 2014     2013 2014  
Stability at speed 3,63 3,39 -0,24   4,17 3,81 -0,36   4,29 4,00 -0,29   3,96 3,98 0,02
Maneuverability 3,24 3,53 0,29   3,36 2,74 -0,62   3,43 3,48 0,05   3,44 2,81 -0,63
Hard snow performance 3,38 3,53 0,15   4,17 3,71 -0,46   4,03 3,83 -0,20   3,68 3,77 0,09
Crud performence 3,78 3,17 -0,61   3,57 3,69 0,12   3,91 3,96 0,05   3,71 3,59 -0,12
Forgiveness 3,64 3,55 -0,09   3,34 3,47 0,13   3,67 3,04 -0,63   3,53 2,99 -0,54
Flotation 3,08 3,52 0,44   2,86 3,27 0,41   3,29 3,06 -0,23   3,14 3,12 -0,02
Overall rating 3,46 3,30 -0,16   3,59 3,42 -0,17   3,79 3,53 -0,26   3,54 3,39 -0,15
                               
      -0,03       -0,14       -0,22       -0,19

 

  Aura   Kenja   Viva 8.0   Samba
  2013 2014     2013 2014     2013 2014     2013 2014  
Stability at speed 4,23 4,37 0,14   3,66 3,74 0,08   3,93 4,16 0,23   4,23 4,26 0,03
Maneuverability 3,14 3,31 0,17   3,64 3,91 0,27   3,44 3,24 -0,2   3,17 3,33 0,16
Hard snow performance 4,06 4,06 0   2,74 3,35 0,61   3,9 3,91 0,01   3,73 3,79 0,06
Crud performence 3,93 4,06 0,13   3,16 3,65 0,49   3,61 3,68 0,07   3,61 3,83 0,22
Forgiveness 3,6 3,56 -0,04   3 3,9 0,9   3,61 3,43 -0,18   3,03 3,47 0,44
Flotation 3,3 3,93 0,63   3,01 3,11 0,1   1,94 1,98 0,04   3,01 3,66 0,65
Overall rating 3,68 3,95 0,27   3,18 3,69 0,51   3,49 3,52 0,03   3,5 3,78 0,28
                               
      0,19       0,42       0,00       0,26
post #2 of 15

Different testers, different day, different conditions, different competition.

post #3 of 15
Rule 1, they're some thoughts, not a definitive guide.
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
 

Different testers, different day, different conditions, different competition.

 

And the skis were tuned differently...

post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
 

Different testers, different day, different conditions, different competition.

Different amount of advertising dollars spent.

post #6 of 15

It's subjective, but relative.  They peg a number for the ski, and go from there.  This number could depend on their mood, the snow, the tune, their ability or change in ability from last time, etc., many things.  

 

If they gave a bettter mark to ski X and then found ski Y still skied better than ski X, they would decide they had to be fair and also give an even better mark to ski Y.

 

 So long as the relative ranking hasn't changed, there really isn't much to see here.   When it does, then you can look into why?  Perhaps conditions favoured one ski over the other, or the testers had come to expect more or gotten used to quirks of the new models.

post #7 of 15

Also could be the order they rode the skis in as well. Going from a <80mm to some fatties might change their mindset.

post #8 of 15
Just shows you that it's all subjective.
post #9 of 15

the highest increase is +16% the others are less than 10% variations...
seems very reasonable to me considering all that the others have already pointed out...

post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

the highest increase is +16% the others are less than 10% variations...
seems very reasonable to me considering all that the others have already pointed out...

 

Well % isn't a big tell because they all have such narrow windows. (they're all about 2.5-3.5) I just wish they would review some carvers. It seems like the narrowest they go is 80mm

post #11 of 15

This just points out the obvious--different skiers like different skis. What I find more useful than ratings are comparisons of features--ski A is stiffer than ski B, etc, or to say that ski A is good for this type of skier in these conditions.  Not too many "bad" skis out there. The trick is to find the right ski for the particular skier, rather than buy the highest rated ski for everyone (advice I ignored with the Bones I just bought, but we'll see.) 

post #12 of 15

Your statistical methods are also flawed.  You can't say that 2014 is "consistently lower" scores for the unisex skis based on the numbers you show.  

 

You are basing your judgement on an overall average score for the unisex skis, but when you look within the individual categories for each ski the scores go both up and down.  

 

If just one category goes up or down a lot, that will drive your average in that direction and not give you a clear picture.

 

Ok, statistician hat now off, back to skiing.:D

 

Mike

post #13 of 15

You're just looking at lower test-retest reliability due to different kinds of errors - between observers, between conditions this year and last, between tunes, etc. I'm surprised they even get trends for a single model over time, but they kinda do.

 

My long winded way of repeating Epic's comment. :D

 

BTW, ecimmortal, if you look at the fine print, you'll see that Sierra Jim was one of the boot testers. And wouldn't be surprised if other members participated. We've had this annual conspiracy theory almost forever, but people who actually were there say that advertising doesn't play a real role. I've talked in person to a couple of testers, and I believe them. If you see a correlation, it's prolly just that, not a causal relationship. 

post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
If you see a correlation, it's prolly just that, not a causal relationship. 

 

I think this is maybe where the reviews are valuable? Trends like, "k2 makes forgiving skis." and "If you are looking for a 98mm waist NO ONE is unhappy with a blizz bonafide."

post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

You're just looking at lower test-retest reliability due to different kinds of errors - between observers, between conditions this year and last, between tunes, etc. I'm surprised they even get trends for a single model over time, but they kinda do.

My long winded way of repeating Epic's comment. biggrin.gif

BTW, ecimmortal, if you look at the fine print, you'll see that Sierra Jim was one of the boot testers.

I figured it was the other Jim.
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 › Puzzling Skinet ski test scores