New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Magazine reviews? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Also, is it bad to have some money?
Nah, its just rare in Montana.
post #32 of 57
Thread Starter 
Rio, glad to see your response! Not that I'm rich or anything but, ouch, there are a lot slams against folks who have some extra dollars on this site. I guess since I'm new and not part of the "Lounge-lizards" (truckers terminology; for those who know what it really means, I don't think they are the same...) I will have to ignore most of what gets posted. Comments from folks like you are always appreciated. I guess I owe you beers at The Coral
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Also, is it bad to have some money?
Oh no, Ron, it's quite good. Especially if you like to ski.

I didn't mean to offend anyone. All I meant to convey was perhaps a "player" is somebody with enough money that they are a quick sell at the ski shop - provided, of course, that the ski has the right logo on it.
post #34 of 57
Thread Starter 
Trout, no, not offended at all! I am suprised though at the attitude towards folks with disposable income here. I would love to work in a ski shop. Around here the shops all have teenagers who don't know what they are talking about and the service tends to suck. (with the exception of Pinnacle Ski in Reading PA) I can see how those folks you discussed could be fish in a barrel but don't you upsell them?
FWIW-No income group has the monopoly on ass*oles! I also post over at shotgunworld.com and it's a different set of attitudes and rules of engagement there. There are folks with $10,000 guns and others with used $250 guns but no one seems to care. (as a business owner I sometimes have a lot of free time on my hands to post!) A lot of good helpful postings and fun, good hearted banter. No one seems to claim ownership of the board there. OK- Troutman, I'll buy you and Rio beers at Coral! (the Buffalo NY strips are awesome)
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Agreed, some of the differentiatons between SKI's categories are vague. A "player" ski is the same as what ski shop salesmen have called a "DL" (doctor/lawyer) ski for ages. My apologies to any MDs or attorneys present.

It's a ski for somebody 1) with money, 2)skis for one or two weeks a year, 3) is probably a decent skier, but will not ever get any better than decent, and 4) cares what logo is on his skis.
I'm looking at the list prices of the "Player" skis and they don't seem to be more than the other categories. Granted, the "Aspiring Carver" has a couple lower priced skis. Now based on the fact that I think I fall into cateogry 2 & 3, the prices don't seem higher to me (but I'm not loaded, I can't afford more than one ski trip a year), but I don't care about the logo, am I a "Player"?

I guess maybe I do care about brand a little. Having fallen in love with my Head i.c160s, the next time I get skis I would probably be prejudiced in favor of Head. What category would my skis fall into? When I bought them, I had demoed them, so I wasn't going totally by what a salesperson told me.

BTW, did I classify (expert, intermediate, beginner) the ski mags categories correctly?

johnny
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
I am suprised though at the attitude towards folks with disposable income here.
Disposable Income, Good.
Snobery, wasting natural resources, wearing Bogner, voting Republican, and other cluelessness, Not So.

Just my $.02 :-D
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTHGIskier
I'm looking at the list prices of the "Player" skis and they don't seem to be more than the other categories. Granted, the "Aspiring Carver" has a couple lower priced skis. Now based on the fact that I think I fall into cateogry 2 & 3, the prices don't seem higher to me (but I'm not loaded, I can't afford more than one ski trip a year), but I don't care about the logo, am I a "Player"?

I guess maybe I do care about brand a little. Having fallen in love with my Head i.c160s, the next time I get skis I would probably be prejudiced in favor of Head. What category would my skis fall into? When I bought them, I had demoed them, so I wasn't going totally by what a salesperson told me.

BTW, did I classify (expert, intermediate, beginner) the ski mags categories correctly?

johnny
Johnny:

The ski mag test reviews are MUCH more about selling the highest possible number of skis than providing any actual usable information to readers. It really doesn't matter which magazine you read - the tests are almost meaningless except for listing the physical specs (which are occasionally wrong, to boot).

There are literally dozens of skis out there that could/would provide skiers of a wide range of ability levels with everything they might wish for.

It seems like every year when the reviews come out we all get into a snit about this model or that. For various reasons, quite a few of us seek the affirmation that comes with having "our" skis annointed by the mags as one of the "best". The bottom line is that essentially every ski for sale today (including so-called intermedate/advanced/player models) is quantum leaps better than any top-o-the-line ski ten years ago.

For whatever it's worth, I've skied the Head I C 160 and the I C 200. I really, really liked both, with a slight preference for the 200. It felt just a bit snappier and substantial, perhaps because it's just the tiniest bit stiffer than the 160 (also with just a bit more sidecut if I remember correctly). That extra stiffness probably works better for me becuase I weight 195#. Anyway, I thought the 160 was one of the smoothest, easiest skis I've been on in a long time. I think you'll be enormously happy with them.

Bob

P.S. If anyone knows of a shop with a great (smoking hot, killer, can't-believe-it's-true) deal on a 177cm pair of I.C. 200's, please let me know. It appears that Head isn't making them for '04/05.
post #38 of 57
What would really be more helpful is it the entire "field" was published in the test. Yes some companies only send certain models/lengths, but unless a ski gets a favorable review it is not included in the test results in sept.
It would be great to see the "loser" skis in the test & read those comments.
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
For whatever it's worth, I've skied the Head I C 160 and the I C 200. I really, really liked both, with a slight preference for the 200. It felt just a bit snappier and substantial, perhaps because it's just the tiniest bit stiffer than the 160 (also with just a bit more sidecut if I remember correctly). That extra stiffness probably works better for me becuase I weight 195#. Anyway, I thought the 160 was one of the smoothest, easiest skis I've been on in a long time. I think you'll be enormously happy with them.
I am enormously happy with them and "smoothest, easiest skis" couldn't describe them better. I do love them.

I weigh 215 lbs and am an intermediate, so I guess I could have gone with the 200s, if they're ok for an intermediate. What I already have is wonderful.

BTW, would the 160s be considered an all mountain ski?

johnny
post #40 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodro
Disposable Income, Good.
Snobery, wasting natural resources, wearing Bogner, voting Republican, and other cluelessness, Not So.

Just my $.02 :-D

OK, cool, I guess I'm safe then! Just make sure you vote, this one's real important! Curious, does anyone wear Bogner anymore? Other than Stein Eriksen that is....
post #41 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
What would really be more helpful is it the entire "field" was published in the test. Yes some companies only send certain models/lengths, but unless a ski gets a favorable review it is not included in the test results in sept.
It would be great to see the "loser" skis in the test & read those comments.
NOW that would be good reading! I think that would be more fun than the "gold" reviews. I do agree with Bob though, there really aren't any "bad" skis, just skis better on certain terrains and skiier abilities.
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTHGIskier
I guess maybe I do care about brand a little. Having fallen in love with my Head i.c160s, the next time I get skis I would probably be prejudiced in favor of Head. What category would my skis fall into? johnny
That's cool, Johnny. You want to ski Head because you have had a prior positive experience with them. That's what it's all about. It's different than the terminal intermediate whose ego and money will force him to buy a pair of Volkl Superspeeds simply because it's some sort of status symbol.

I think you probably did assess the categories correctly as possible. I don't really think any of those categories are "beginner." A true beginner would either rent or buy the best looking $199 ski he could find. As for the other categories, there is definitely some crossover. The Fischer RX9 was written up in both the AME and AMC categories - and there is nothing "intermediate" about that ski.

As for what category your Heads would be in, I really don't know. As I've said, the manufacturers use some sort of voodoo to determine which models end up in which categories. It would either be Player or Aspiring Carver, but I'm sure you knew that much already...
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
NOW that would be good reading! I think that would be more fun than the "gold" reviews. I do agree with Bob though, there really aren't any "bad" skis, just skis better on certain terrains and skiier abilities.
Yes, it would be great, but you'll never see this. As much as I have defended the tests against the "advertising $ = gold medal" allegations, this is where the line is drawn. The moment a magazine prints overtly negative things about a particular model, the whole system would implode.

Years ago, SKI awarded Silver Medals in addition to Gold. The manufacturers felt that a Silver Medal wasn't any better than not being mentioned at all. They dropped the silver.

Oh, and Ron, thanks for the offer of the beer. BTW, I've been through Flemington once or twice. A college friend's folks have a farm in that neck of the woods.

EDIT: sp
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Yes, it would be great, but you'll never see this. As much as I have defended the tests against the "advertising $ = gold medal" allegations, this is where the line is drawn. The moment a magazine prints overtly negative things about a particular model, the whole system would implode.
Which is so too bad. The thing that keeps car reviews interesting for me is that the reviewers will say things like "the plastics used look like they were manufactured by Fisher Price". Even a few comments like that would keep things in perspecitive. Like "great ski, but breaks easily". Ya, you're right, never going to see a comment like that...
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Curious, does anyone wear Bogner anymore? Other than Stein Eriksen that is....
Next time you're in Utah look me up and we'll go ski Deer Valley for a day. :-D
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Curious, does anyone wear Bogner anymore? Other than Stein Eriksen that is....
Or come to Big Sky. The Bogner crowd tends to migrate around the mountain in packs but we can usually track some down. They're easy to spot from a distance since most of the males have those rods connecting their butt & boots.....I have no idea what the hell purpose the rods fulfill.
post #47 of 57
Well, I only ski the West (trees, steep-and-deep, corn, powder, soft bumps), so I'll put my 2 cents in.

I have demoed just about every powder ski (except for Head, Fischer, and Blizzard), and since almost all of fat skis have a wicked sidecut/radius that if you sharpen the edges, they will carve just about anything - just not Eastern ice or boilerplate. On Western hardpack or groomed slopes, I keep my powder skis apart from my hips to my shoulders (zero degree bevel base/side). But in a foot or above two feet of powder (dry or heavy), I tend to narrow my stance and bank my turns - the only caveat is the trees.

I think Skiing usually has the finesse/power ratio (for mid-fats and fats). But Powder magazine is the creme-de-la-creme, and they don't have features about real estate!

The only gripe iI have is designated powder ski/binding systems - especially Atomic. Atomic bindings are clunky, heavy, and expensive.
post #48 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
Or come to Big Sky. The Bogner crowd tends to migrate around the mountain in packs but we can usually track some down. They're easy to spot from a distance since most of the males have those rods connecting their butt & boots.....I have no idea what the hell purpose the rods fulfill.

Ahh you are describing the "boot heaters" that i don't understand. I guess if you don't ski hard enough in your cotton socks, your feet get cold OK, if they ski in packs, I would imagine we could pretent we were elk hunting, right? I'm a pretty good shot! Or would you prefer that we play wolf pack with them? I think Rio would make a good "Alpha". (yes, that's a complement)
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Ahh you are describing the "boot heaters" that i don't understand.
No, I'm talking about black rods (probably made from graphite or fiberglass) with rubber bungee cords attached to them. They hook one end of the rod to their boots and the other end to a hook on their butt. Its like they are trying to connect some form of shock absorber to themselves. I haven't a clue as to why they do it.
post #50 of 57
Thread Starter 
Ohh, spine supports! I think they were invented by Smithers to keep Mr. Burns from falling over. I am laughing my Ass off right now thinking of a swarm of one-peice geezers coming down the mtn with poles up their asses. I have to say I have nevr seen.
post #51 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
BTW, I've been through Flemington once or twice. A college friend's folks have a farm in that neck of the woods.

EDIT: sp
Not the New jersey that everyone thinks it is, huh? Where's the farm?
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Ohh, spine supports! I think they were invented by Smithers to keep Mr. Burns from falling over. I am laughing my Ass off right now thinking of a swarm of one-peice geezers coming down the mtn with poles up their asses.
Just to add to the image, you have to realize the one piece suits are heavily embrodiered on the back with designs and the Bogner logo......must be a gang thing.
post #53 of 57
I think we all agree that the test and or reviews from all the Magizines are somewhat biased. A lot of people do take them to be gospel truth. "If the ski won gold it has to be great." If powder mag said this is a great ski then it has to be great. The consumers ego really comes into play. There are those that walk into a shop and only look at "gold metal winners". They just want the "Best" never mind the the so called best might be the worse ski for them. they have to have the best whatever the best might be. why get the volke 5 star the 6 star has to be better, it has one more star and it cost more. This syndrome is not limited to the I have more money then God types alone. I also see this with a lot of less wealthy ego driven skier. They also want The "best" They see the pics of guys skiing on 85mm to 100mm skis in places like Alaska and and Canada. So they have to ski that type of ski. Never mind that they will only ski 10 to 14 days a season and if lucky ski 1 or 2 real powder days. That wide big mountain ski is thier one and only ski. There is nothing wronge with having a wide big mountain ski in your quiver. On the right day in the right conditions they can be a lot of fun.
I have been in sales most of my life. What I have found is that the highest grossings sale people let the customer talk himself into "buying up." They let the ego do the selling. It really doesn't matter if the customer is reading the reviews of ski mag or Powder,or Freeskier. They want to fit in with thier peers. be seen as a member of that group.
post #54 of 57
Thread Starter 
Bogner colors dude! Yeah, I know the look. I used to have a boss who skied in the bogners, he had 4-5 different jackets and one-piece suits. He couldn't ski for, well, you know. He fit the player description to a tee with the exception that he had all top of the line stuff. That embroidery is just too much. I'm sure you remember when Spyder had a lot of that too. Bogner seems to have made a big shift in their marketing, I was just looking through a gorsuch catalog and they took a lot of that crap off thier stuff. Still poser gear.
post #55 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah49
I think we all agree that the test and or reviews from all the Magizines are somewhat biased. A lot of people do take them to be gospel truth. "If the ski won gold it has to be great." If powder mag said this is a great ski then it has to be great. The consumers ego really comes into play. There are those that walk into a shop and only look at "gold metal winners". They just want the "Best" never mind the the so called best might be the worse ski for them. they have to have the best whatever the best might be. why get the volke 5 star the 6 star has to be better, it has one more star and it cost more. This syndrome is not limited to the I have more money then God types alone. I also see this with a lot of less wealthy ego driven skier. They also want The "best" They see the pics of guys skiing on 85mm to 100mm skis in places like Alaska and and Canada. So they have to ski that type of ski. Never mind that they will only ski 10 to 14 days a season and if lucky ski 1 or 2 real powder days. That wide big mountain ski is thier one and only ski. There is nothing wronge with having a wide big mountain ski in your quiver. On the right day in the right conditions they can be a lot of fun.
I have been in sales most of my life. What I have found is that the highest grossings sale people let the customer talk himself into "buying up." They let the ego do the selling. It really doesn't matter if the customer is reading the reviews of ski mag or Powder,or Freeskier. They want to fit in with thier peers. be seen as a member of that group.
Utah, as a sales & marketing guy myself, people want to validate their purchases. Most are not knowledgeable about the products and most can't or won't demo so they latch onto whatever helps them to feel comfortable about thier purchase. This is true across all purchase decisions. It's like consumer reports. Look at most resorts and you will see Atomic, Volkl, K-2, Rossi and Sali's for demo, Rarely will you see Heads or Fischers. So folks who do demo tend to buy these. Skis are expensive and the consumer doesn't want to make a mistake or risk having others think they did. The big names are easy for them to buy. Its a pack, me-too mentality----Baahh
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
That's cool, Johnny. You want to ski Head because you have had a prior positive experience with them. That's what it's all about. It's different than the terminal intermediate whose ego and money will force him to buy a pair of Volkl Superspeeds simply because it's some sort of status symbol.

As for what category your Heads would be in, I really don't know. As I've said, the manufacturers use some sort of voodoo to determine which models end up in which categories. It would either be Player or Aspiring Carver, but I'm sure you knew that much already...
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it.
post #57 of 57
I think more times than not the reviews are written for the masses and represent pretty informed opinions from the testers that have had the opportunity to ski a lot of different skis as they try and discern the tangible differences maybe between the products. I think Keelty said last year in his reviews that it was becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish products between the various manufacturers ;ski selection would become more a function of selecting the category of ski desired becasue there would be little discernible differences in skis once you selected the category of ski desired.
I value the opinions of the testers and have bought quite a few skis over the years on the basis of the reviews and haven't been disappointed. I was in Vail this April when Ski was there to test. The test was moved from Beaver Creek to Vail beacuse of conditions. It looks like they ski pretty much one run at Mid Vail for the test. They all can rip and and will extract more performance from the ski than most of us. But it is what it is, and skiing can encompass alot more than the conditions and the types of turns that are represented in that test on that run. I think the comments and inputs made from the testers provide us with good inputs to guide our purcahses. But like many have said , demoing will confirm if this is the product that you will be happy with. Demoing is pretty fail safe unless you end up with a demo ski that is so badly tuned you'd be happier skiing a two by four!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion