or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How would you format a ski review for a Skiing Magizine?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How would you format a ski review for a Skiing Magizine?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Ok a New start up Sking Magizine Is going to do Reviews for the up coming season they want you to format the Reviews. The editor holds a meeting and says He wants a review that is easy to understand and gives the average joe skier a good idea of what's out there and what will work for him or her! You put together the team to do the reviews you put it down on paper anf he then tells you if it sucks Your butt is out the door! Ok go to it convince this guy your format is the best! [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #2 of 11
Well, my butt would be out the door, because the most important feature of the testing process would be the availability of more than two lengths in the models being reported.

My butt would be even FURTHER out the door because it would involve, after the shop personnel tests, further numerous tests and interviews with truly average skiers invited at randon off the slopes to test the skis, and in different lengths.

And just in case any of my butt remains in the door, it would be further pushed out by the reporting format:

The categories are by USE. There are three: Powder; all mountain; carve. Withing each category the are arranged by ability level, but if a ski covers more than one ability level, then the review says so . . . HEY!

Why am I writing all this when I could just say, "Look at Peter Keelty's ski reviews!" He has it right!
post #3 of 11
Personally, I think that skiing magazine's aproach this year with their numeric values for a skis performance was a great idea compaired to ski magazines random gold medals, it seemed like every ski companies ski won a medal. I disagree with the three category system, I think it should be done by skier ability and then by snow category with the skis ranked instead of alphabetized. As for advertising, well thats the monster that you just have to deal with, even if you got rid of it for that one issue there'd be no way you could stop companies from advertising in other issues and no magazine is going to go ad free.

That being said you are right that the skis should come from shops, and that testers should not be skiing skis that have been tuned by product reps. I would also like to see the full numeric values put in the magazine. Ski tests are by nature a subjective excercise and no matter WHO tests them or WHERE they are tested, and therefore I use the tests as a sort of weeding out proccess in which I pick 5-7 skis that I would like to demo throughout the year, then I can play around with the length and get the most effective test for my purposes.
post #4 of 11
RCrumb and laseranimal, I like both you posts, excpt for one thing: DO use heavy and light skiers as well as medim weigh skiers. It makes a huge difference in how useful the test results are. For example, the ski review in a magazine might say, "Can be overpowered by heavier skiers at higher speeds." So, if I'm heavier and ski fast that matters. For me, it says it's probably not too stiff for my 150 pounds and 60 years.

Some of the test reports even go so far as to say, "A great ski for lighter weight skiers." I LOVE that!
post #5 of 11
I like SkiCanada's system. The comments by each tester really help, as I usually look for the tester that most closely matches my weight and ski style.
post #6 of 11
I agree that as ski magazine tests go, Ski Canada has by far the best format. However, each year one or more companies do not participate for undisclosed reasons. This year it was Nordica, Scott USA, Salomon and Volkl.

Test improvement suggestions:
Show the construction of each tested ski using illustrations of the ski's cross section. The US ski magazines used to do this...It's interesting and also looks :

For performance ski boots, include performance details such as forward lean, ramp angle, flex index under different loads and temperatures etc. At least the magazines should do it for top performance models. This is another once seen US ski magazine feature worthwhile bringing back.

IMHO, binding reviews have long been useless. Including information on performance models about stand height, delta angles and retention and release characteristics under specific loads would make them more meaningful.

I realize there may be certain advertising pressures on publishers . Let the magazines continue to say what they think they must in their narratives to placate sponsors. However, including additional objective information on performance ski, boot and binding models could help bring that skiing segment back as readers.

Note: Edited for grammar, spelling and clarity but not necessarily for style. [img]redface.gif[/img]

[ September 16, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Lostboy ]
post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
Well I just read the reviews in Skiing and I have to say they are about the most useless reviews I have ever read. First they state that they start with the premise That we are all better then average skiers? What? They test a bunch of High end Fat to mid fat skis that are best suited for really big Mountain skiing and leave everthing else except near race stock skis behind. They have score system that rates 2 charactoristics Just 2? I take the Mag reviews with a grain of salt but this new system was an insult to the Skiing magizine reader.
post #8 of 11
Get all the testers to dress in their Bogner one-pieces and Gucci glasses and Nordica headbands, then ask them to wiggle their way down a perfectly groomed intermediate slope at slow speed and then get them to comment on how every single ski was the best ski they have ever skied, especially the race skis in a wedge position, and how every ski seemed to ski itself.
post #9 of 11
Originally posted by Lostboy:
delta angles
Most Skiing readers would think you were talking about the wings on their Gulfstream
post #10 of 11
I just read SKIING'S equipment issue. The large photo layouts are nice and must have pleased their advertisers a lot. The descriptive narratives were lame as usual.

In the boot section there is a "Fit Chart" which ranks various boot models on a "tight-loose" scale of 1-5 for items like toe box height, width, instep, heel etc. Except for the "flex scale" rankings, the other information is useless except for being a very complicated way of describing each model relative to others.

It would be much simpler and more effective to simply have a diagram explaining how to size your foot using a measuring tape and include the actual relevant boot dimensions to help a skier to accurately zone in on several suitable choices.

SKIING came so close yet so far with their 2003 Boot "Fit Chart".
post #11 of 11
Originally posted by Lostboy:
"delta angles"
Originally posted by The Rock Skier:
"Most Skiing readers would think you were talking about the wings on their Gulfstream."

The sad thing none of the magazines publish this data anymore and most shop rats are clueless about these things.

[ September 20, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Lostboy ]
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 › How would you format a ski review for a Skiing Magizine?