New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Skicross Graphics

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I think if one surveyed the archive of this site, (s)he would find the most-often recommended ski is the Dynastar Skicross. The only complaint I have read is that the ski is fugly looking.

What do you all think of the new graphics?
http://www.snowrental.net/images/equ...kicross_10.jpg
http://www.snowrental.net/images/equ...kicross_09.jpg

I give the company an A for effort (they realized the previous style was a liability), but a C- for results: the best I can say for the new design is it is upgraded from fugly to ugly.

RF
post #2 of 25
some people think 911s are ugly too? i'd still want one in my garage.
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Of course, taste is inherently personal. And perhaps there are some lunatics that dislike the style of the 911 (80's wheels-matching-body with permanant whale-tail model notwithstanding). But my question was what do you think of the Skicross graphics for 04/05?
post #4 of 25
I've skied only Dynastars since the late '80's, and in general, I would tend to rate them as consistently the ugliest skis. However, I've always liked the way they ski.

I have a new pair of last year's SC09's leaning against my office wall directly in front of me as I type. They're for my 16 y.o. for Christmas. The gray is a bit drab, but otherwise, I think it's an "okay" looking ski. With as cheap as these things have been going for, I couldn't pass 'em up.

AM.
post #5 of 25
Thread Starter 
yea i think they are pretty ugly, with the exception of the Omeglass series. their race skis are really slick with the big numbers above the bindings and the race stripes. i like those a lot. and the new Exclusive Carve have decent graphics. the legends rock.

but what do you think of the new SC? i can't believe they totally redesigned somethign to be nearly as ugly as the original!
post #6 of 25
I don't think the new SkiCross graphics are ugly.....a bit loud, but definitely not ugly.
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
I don't think the new SkiCross graphics are ugly.....a bit loud, but definitely not ugly.
Fair enough, Rio. Maybe they are just too loud. And too busy. I just expect more of a European design team. Sure K2's graphics make no sense whatsoever to me, I can't figure out what the style is trying to "communicate," but Europeans value design so much more than Americans, it's very curious that these French companies -- Dynastar and Rossi most notably -- put out such boring or goofy stuff.

And before anyone gets all hot under the collar about European v. American design, please just pick up a copy any international design magazine (Wallpaper is a good starting point) and you will see the cultural bias toward conceptual, communicative design that spans all industries, not just hard goods.
post #8 of 25
i am biased but the ski cross is no better or worse looking than the other "skier cross skis" available from any manufacturer.
Legends are the BEST looking ski on any wall or hill...period. plus they ski better than they look.
post #9 of 25
Who cares how the ski looks? It's the performance of the ski and/or the ability of the skier to ski them that matters.
I myself tend to prefer the more subdued look and therefore do not mind these
new SC 9 and SC 10.
post #10 of 25
The past ski cross skis were ugly, but i think that may have participated to their popularity in a sense. If you saw one of those ugly orange striped (or later solid orange) skis ripping down the hill or in a lift line, you immediately knew what skis they were. I really like this years SkiCross 10 however. I don't really like the blue on the 9, but the 10 looks sharp. The one company who didnt put out very good graphics this year (especially race skis) was Volkl. They always in the past had decent graphics - remember the old G41 - bright green! Those were nice looking skis. My top pick continues to be Blizzard for graphics, followed closely behind by Salomon's race skis. Unfortunately i ski mostly on green Elans (race)... and find them hideous. I'm trying some Nordicas this year... so we'll see where i go with that... bonus is that they arent so ugly.
Later
GREG
post #11 of 25
Dont buy skis on graphics, buy what fits your style of skiing. The skicross 10 is a easy skiing all mountain ski. It does not have tons of life to it, and is not so hot on icy terrain, but it is fun.
post #12 of 25
Hey, buying for looks is as good a reason as any. The whole idea is to be happy. If you are happy because you skis look good then that's okay.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by RotoFury
What do you all think of
I think:

- Dynastar made model selection easier for shoppers. Now they can easily distinguish the ski they read a review of from the rest of the model line. With sidecut and lengths offered the same, this is important. Notice that they gave up at least part of 'race on Sunday, sell on Monday' for this.

- There is some visual continuity from the '03 SC09 to the new one, helping dealers get rid of last year's stock and keeping the name recognition associated with the visual recognition.

- Perhaps they looked at Rossi's sales on the RPM series and said: It's gotta be the color of the pretzels?

- There is a little irony that they used Belgian colors for a ski built in Chamonix, but it's all the new Europe, no?

- The contoured block pattern actually works far better for visual interest than some of the one-color schemes Dyna used for the BigMax series, for example. The ski isn't as flat-looking on the snow, you see? Not unlike some of the shape-distortion paint schemes as might be used on combat aircraft.

- You'll probably get as many recommendations on other skis. Try 1080s or Volkl 5/6*.
post #14 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
The past ski cross skis were ugly, but i think that may have participated to their popularity in a sense. GREG
Interesting, valid and potentially enlightened point.
post #15 of 25
The best-looking ski, imho, is the Völkl Superspeed.

Imo, most companies' ski-designers haven't really left the 80's with some notable exceptions.

Of course noone, hopefully, buys skis on looks alone. But looks don't hurt. I'll admit that there's a little poseur lurking somewhere in me...I do want my gear to look good (unless it's at the expense of performance)...
post #16 of 25
ugh, how am I responding to a thread about the looks of skis. The intuitiv 74 is one sexy ski as are the legend series (particularly 8800 and legend pro).

Good point about them not being any uglier than any other cross skis. The Atomic's are ear-shattering loud.
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by heluvaskier
The past ski cross skis were ugly, but i think that may have participated to their popularity in a sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RotoFury
Interesting, valid and potentially enlightened point.
i thought the Rossi RPMS might take the cake here, so i almost bought a pair, but i'm waiting for the Dale Earnhardt Jr Pro Edition
post #18 of 25
I have some RPM 21s and they definitely have a NASCAR twang to their design. For overall ugly though the Rossignol Viper 9.9s, which were designed to attract color-blind pimps, have to be the worst.


post #19 of 25
Thread Starter 
Holy crap.
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attacking Mid
I've skied only Dynastars since the late '80's, and in general, I would tend to rate them as consistently the ugliest skis. However, I've always liked the way they ski.

I have a new pair of last year's SC09's leaning against my office wall directly in front of me as I type. They're for my 16 y.o. for Christmas. The gray is a bit drab, but otherwise, I think it's an "okay" looking ski. With as cheap as these things have been going for, I couldn't pass 'em up.

AM.
We skied Christmas Day at Winter Park, and quite frankly, I wouldn't care if they were purple with pink polka dots, these skis were great. Granted, I've not had the opportunity to ski much else in current stuff, but when my one hour allotment was up (the 16 y.o. was NOT liking skiing my old 192 cm Speed SX's), I was trying all kinds of excuses for why we couldn't switch back.

The edge hold on hard pack was better than anything I've ever skied - and this little guy was 14 cm shorter than my SX's. My kid, for the first time in years, was actually requesting to ski groomers - it was just soo much fun to lay down tracks at speed.

The snow was pretty old, so we weren't exactly spraying powder in the bumps, but we both found the ski very confidence inspiring in the bumps. With the deep trenches and hard surfaces, we had to turn a bit more than usual to avoid being beaten to death (or hitting rocks), and the ski was very quick in responding to input. I could control my speed much better on these than I could on my longer, duller SX's, and I found myself going about twice as far before stopping to catch my breath.

I thought the 09's would be too soft for my 200 lbs., but I found them quite full of energy. Prior to skiing them, I figured I may consider some SC10's for me, but I'm not so sure I couldn't be quite happy with the stiffness of the 09's. In fact, I tried to convince my son that these were obviously too stiff for his 150 lb. frame, and that I should just make 'em mine and we'll find him something softer. He's not about to take me up on it.

Are they ugly (these are gray 03/04)? I can't really say.... I was having too much fun skiing on 'em to bother looking down at 'em.

AM.
post #21 of 25
Rossi B 1, 2, 3.....what are they thinking?
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attacking Mid

I thought the 09's would be too soft for my 200 lbs., but I found them quite full of energy. Prior to skiing them, I figured I may consider some SC10's for me, but I'm not so sure I couldn't be quite happy with the stiffness of the 09's. In fact, I tried to convince my son that these were obviously too stiff for his 150 lb. frame, and that I should just make 'em mine and we'll find him something softer. He's not about to take me up on it.

Are they ugly (these are gray 03/04)? I can't really say.... I was having too much fun skiing on 'em to bother looking down at 'em.

AM.
Well i think the graphics thingy is the result of the pre 03/04 yellow/black looks. I like the 03/04 dark glossed look compared to the 04/05
SC 9. I love how lively and easy they are to lay down tracks, but i`m no demo veteren. I think i like these skis for long days. Combined with my new diablo boots made skiing exciting again on the small local hills. I`m still wondering about removing the heel lifter on my pivot to flatten out the ramp angle...I dont know yet if this is worthwhile.
post #23 of 25
Change of topic!!!
I have a pair of new pair '05 SC 10s that I think I'm going to have to part with..anyone interested ?
post #24 of 25
Wow, if I was not reading user names, I would think this was a chicks thread! Just a bunch of sensitive guys talking about pretty or ugly ski graphics. Okay.

Anyways, I don't think my new Dynastars are ugly at all!
http://www.backcountry.com/store/DYN...ki-Womens.html
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisamarie
Wow, if I was not reading user names, I would think this was a chicks thread! Just a bunch of sensitive guys talking about pretty or ugly ski graphics. Okay.

Anyways, I don't think my new Dynastars are ugly at all!
http://www.backcountry.com/store/DYN...ki-Womens.html
Sensitive? Of course we are.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=7122790 966
We love to ride what we Burnin love... especially those mounted with Looks. :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion