EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Did anyone hear how Atomic did at the SKI Magazine Test?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did anyone hear how Atomic did at the SKI Magazine Test? - Page 2

post #31 of 53
physicsman:

I do not remember if it was Ski or Sking Magazine. But Last year in November a very extensive ski guide was published, just like that. They lumped the differnt ski,s into catagories, explained the logic behind the catagories, and the numerical rating system used. Half the issue was write-ups on what they felt were the leading models in each catagory. I remember sitting in the (noname) bar in Park City reading the Mag. It was pretty good. You did have to figure out the sublties in the laungage used to figue out what they really did (NOT) like. They used work like (This is a very popular high sales ski)?? but did not say there was a good reason for it. If a ski just flat ROCKED!! and all the testers thought so they came out and said it.
I don't think a Ski mag is going to print an evaluation of a ski that says (THE SKI SUCKS) but I have not seen them give a glowing review of a ski that they feel is poor (Sub Par) as compared to others within a particular catigory

MTT
My 2 Cents
post #32 of 53
All right all you wise guys. Will there be a 'Metronlike' category?
post #33 of 53
comprex:
Metronlike? (Mid fat All Mountain cruiser)
post #34 of 53
was thinking more
Mid Fat All Mountain Slalom Carver
post #35 of 53
You may be right. But whatever the catagory I can assure you that they will write somthing about the Metrons that make you fell warm and fuzzy about already owning them. (They seem to be good @ that)

MTT
(GRIN)
post #36 of 53

Ski Tests

Seems to me that last year the ONLY mainstream mag that had a test of the Atomic B5 was Ski Canada.

They gave it an Editor's Choice Star.

I wonder why no one else managed to test the ski. Hmmmmmm
post #37 of 53
Gotama:
I am not positive but I think B5 is really an 06 ski.?? Lots of them out now but i did not see them start showing up on the slopes or in shops untill after Christmas.

MTT
post #38 of 53

B5

Hi MTT:

No I'm sure they were originally released in model year 2004-2005 as a 2004-2005 model. I got mine in October 2004.

Those have recently been replaced w/ the 2005-2006 models, which have different graphics.

It seems unreal that no other publications tested, or maybe reported the tests, on the 2004-05 B5, don't you think?

I'm curious to read this years tests to see if they are there. Ski Press and Ski Canada usually are very good sources. Ski amd Skiing are usually first out.
We will see.

Gotama
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
please get them to stop describing skis in a way that often sounds like, "...skis like a greased pig on a windy day in Argentena". If the test results have validity, such idiocy in the subsequent writeups completely destroys their credibility.

Including a single large table summarizing the basics for all the skis in the review wouldn't hurt, either. BTW, besides things like available lengths, MSRP, etc., the "basics" that I would like to see in the table include basic physical properties such as weight, sidecut radius (at a length which is specified), and, at minimum, some estimate of longitudinal stiffness.
Point 1. I don't disagree about the off the wall analogies. That started a few years ago when a particularly colorful tester got more ink than everybody else. The next year, it seemed like everybody came prepared with some quotes.

Interestingly, this leads to point 2: It was aorund this time that less hard data made its way into the articles. Once upon a time, there were info charts as well as the scoring breakdowns of all the models in a given category. Up to 1997, SKI even included "Silver Medal" skis.

It's tough to say why this stuff disappeared. Certainly, the Silver Medal skis went away because nobody wants to be second. It was better to not be listed at all than to to be listed as second fiddle.

It's my belief that the charts/scores went away because many felt it was a cumbersome way to deliver information that 95% of the readership didn't care about. All of us here are a mere sample of the 5%. That being said, I would think having this data on the SKI/SKIING website wouldn't hurt anybody.

Ski Press, considered by many here to be the test with the fewest flaws, does print 99% of the raw data for the public. While techies like us may eat that info for lunch, it just induces a migraine for many people.
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex
All right all you wise guys. Will there be a 'Metronlike' category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
Seems to me that last year the ONLY mainstream mag that had a test of the Atomic B5 was Ski Canada.

I wonder why no one else managed to test the ski. Hmmmmmm

I knew this would come up.

The 04/05 B5 was tested by SKI/SKIING last year. It didn't score well. There are 2 likely explanations for this:

1) The tune could have sucked. As SkiDoc has written in the past, current testing protocols reward excellent tunes and quickly expose bad tunes.

2) It was a ski without a category. I believe it was tested in AME, but it was competing against skis with significantly different geometries - Superspeed, RX9 come to mind.
post #41 of 53
I am sure that everyone will recall that although there were Metrons included in both SKI and SKIING Mags.(M9, M10 and M:EX), neither the Metron B5, nor the M11 received any illustrious comments. There were many posts in Epic trying to explain why this was the case. We have heard everything from bad tune to wrong category. It will be interesting to see how this ski compares to the AC4 in 2006! I used to ski R:11.20. I switched back to Volkl when Atomic stopped production on this ski. IMO, the M B5 is "a jack of all trades and master of none." I would certainly rather own a pair of 6* and a pair of AX4, than one pair of M B5s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
You may be right. But whatever the catagory I can assure you that they will write somthing about the Metrons that make you fell warm and fuzzy about already owning them. (They seem to be good @ that)

MTT
(GRIN)
post #42 of 53
Troutman/Canyons

You may be right. did not excel @ test time/ tune in any of the preselected catagories. I found this to be one way Ski mags give a Ski a not in top ten rating in any specific catigory. they just don't mention it. If no one has noticed (I ski SX11 2004 ) I like them. But would not run around telling evryone I saw that they were the best thing since sliced bread. If money grew on trees I would be on Fisher RX9's
I am shoppling for a fattie for next winter. (Gonna go fat and admitt it to my freinds)

MTT
post #43 of 53
Was just looking @ posts. Seems Metron B5 would be closer to a Fisher RX8. RX9 is more a comparison with Six Star and SX B5

MTT
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
(Gonna go fat and admitt it to my freinds)
MTT
How did Prophetts do?
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
did you spend equal time on the RX 6 and the WC SC? any good skier can learn to love any ski, so I'm not sure what is the point of your disparagement of my advice... or maybe it's not disparagement and just a statement of fact that happens to mention only me... whatever.
I spent no time on the RX6 and no time on the WC SC before buying the WC SC. I spent equal time on the WC SL and the Race SC. I loved both of them but thought the SL was not versatile enough and the SC was a little soft so I got the ski that is between them in performance, the WC SC. They are the perfect complement to my WC RC's and my Pocket Rockets but I like the SC's the most because they are phenomenal ice carvers and great in corn and soft bumps too.

dt
post #46 of 53
I have really just started my research on what I am going to get for my first fat Ski's. I just made up my mind about a month ago to go Fat. I have been a competent pow skier since it clicked for me around 1972. But I see some guys I respect doing some things that I find difficult to do (In Tahoe Conditions) and as of late I got my ass kicked!! high-speed down a steep open bowl (Squaw)by a freind on Mantra's.
post #47 of 53
boy that sure sounds like my advice was wrong.

or something completely different, more likely. :
post #48 of 53
As mentioned above Ski Press make most of their raw data available.

The raw data tables at http://travel.canoe.ca/SkiCanadaProductTests/home.html are fantastic to print out and scribble notes on when trying to pick skis.

They dont contain any test data but do contain a summary of tip/waist/tail price, size and sidecut.
post #49 of 53
:
See
http://www.gords.com/excel/04-05skitest.xls
http://www.footloosesports.com/reviews/
Two different approaches to reviewing skis by non-sponsored skiers. Both approaches are useful. Their limitations are that they only test the brands they carry.
Ski Canada discloses the manufacturing affiliation of their testers.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Point 1. I don't disagree about the off the wall analogies. That started a few years ago when a particularly colorful tester got more ink than everybody else. The next year, it seemed like everybody came prepared with some quotes. ...
Interesting. I was trying to be restrained in my previous comment about the analogies, but since I now realize that I''m preaching to the choir, I'll go further and say that I think that such sophomoric writing has a much worse effect on the mag than simply "causes it to lose some credibility". At least in my circle, my impression is that many people develop strongly negative feelings about these mags because of such writing. For example, in one private discussion I had about these tests, a fellow instructor told me that the participants & editors "sound like a bunch of drunk college kids who get together every year to write this article, and convinced each other that their main purpose is entertainment, not information".


Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
... Interestingly, this leads to point 2: It was aorund this time that less hard data made its way into the articles. Once upon a time, there were info charts as well as the scoring breakdowns of all the models in a given category. Up to 1997, SKI even included "Silver Medal" skis.

It's tough to say why this stuff disappeared. Certainly, the Silver Medal skis went away because nobody wants to be second. It was better to not be listed at all than to to be listed as second fiddle.

It's my belief that the charts/scores went away because many felt it was a cumbersome way to deliver information that 95% of the readership didn't care about. All of us here are a mere sample of the 5%. That being said, I would think having this data on the SKI/SKIING website wouldn't hurt anybody.

Ski Press, considered by many here to be the test with the fewest flaws, does print 99% of the raw data for the public. While techies like us may eat that info for lunch, it just induces a migraine for many people.
Again ... interesting and balanced comments. I don't know if the apparent perspective of the editors is more accurate, but, like you, it's hard for me to see how inserting a one page table in the article (like Ski Press) has much downside potential. The tech-heads will devour it, and those who feel a headache coming on will skip it. As for tables being a "cumbersome" way to deliver info, there are a lot of people whose day job IS technical communication who would violently disagree with that statement.

BTW, MTT, I don't remember such a table appearing in Ski or Skiing, but I could easily have missed it as I usually only skim through those mags in recent years. What I do remember is that in the 70's, and maybe extending through the early 80's, at least one of the major ski mags used to publish quantitative flex data. Using it, you could easily skim through the models and make a very good guess about which were appropriate for a heavy guy or a light-weight gal (or visa versa) and otherwise start to categorize the models without having to read through a bunch of jibberish, or go into the store and hand flex them in an attempt to get the same info.

Anyway, I better stop my annual rant on this topic before I *really* get wound up.

Cheers,

Tom / PM
post #51 of 53
All this talk about the tech-head perspective reminds me of seventh grade when my topic of choice for a research paper was alpine racing skis, and included comparisons of different types of construction and what properties they had. It really upset me when my teacher said it was too specific a topic, and that I should have just done the report on skiing in general.

I got most of my information on ski construction, for the report, from Ski magazine. Does Ski publish this sort of thing anymore?
post #52 of 53
I also like to see all the available ski specification data in a chart/table form, but I wish the testers would go a step further (off the mountain). I want them to go "consumer reports"-like on the stuff. I'd like them to abuse the crap out of the skis and tell us which ones have high build quality.

Which ones have the hardest edges?
Which ones have great bases that absorb wax well, but also are fairly scratch resistant.
Which skis snapped in half under a specific load?
Which top sheets are the most scratch resistant?
Which skis are the most torsionally stiff?

you could go on and on...

Because honestly I've come to the conclusion that almost any top end ski from any reputable manufacturer is going to work for you given you get the ski "fit" right. What do I mean by ski "fit"?
Ski Fit = binding mount is in the right spot, binding delta angle is correct for you, length is appropriate for the intended use, ski flex is correct for intended use, etc.

So if you've got the "fit" right (and of course as long as your boots are "dialed-in") it doesn't matter whose name is on the skis.
Call me crazy, but I had one of those "eureka" moments this past season regarding binding mount position, delta angle, and alignment. If those are all good for me then I'd probably be happy on any ski. So then I want to know about the quality of the build of the ski. That's how I want to make my purchase decision (oh yeah, and which ones look the coolest! ).
post #53 of 53
There will always be a limited group of technically oriented experts who would like to know a more detailed information (no wonder if one is a full-time professor ).

Otoh, there will always be a majority of readers who mostly take notice of the overall grade - a gold medal, the VIP attribute, "the choice", the best grade, etc. and who, at the best, will read the comments.

If the whole world of (not only printed) media steers toward less serious contents and more superficial attractiveness it´s no wonder the ski mags are no exception - no matter how we "experts" will be crying.

There´s another problem: even if you introduce a most sophisticated system of evaluating certain criteria its beauty fades if the results are almost the same - which often is the case.
I am familiar with practically all relevant European ski tests, have translated the biggest one for three successive years, have edited the big Italian one, will be translating the Austrian very soon. The German SuperTest (some info available on www.skimagazin.de) has a system where each criterion has 5 possible "positions" between a "+" and "-" extremes showing the amount of the quality/characteristics.
E.g. "stability": from the +position on the left (highest = the best) to the -position on the right (the worst) and those between.
That way you seem to be able to dissect any ski in a very detailed way.
Two problems occur though:
- the tester has to decide for one position only even if he is not quite sure (otherwise there is much dispersion in the results)
but mainly:
- most comparable skis get almost the same results so that the precise patterns look almost the same -
which de-motivates the reader and makes him read just or mostly the accompanying words

Similarly, the ski test of the mag under the German Ski Federation (Active) gives grades from 1 (best) to 4 (worst - I don´t know exactly because I never saw worse than a worse 2).
Looks nice but: a few best skis get a 1, the pack uniformely 1- (a worse 1) and some less lucky a 2. That´s all. Very uniform and very little difference.
To be fair, there is some more info so that the test is quite good and informative.

Btw, I can remember the info on ski flex (shovel - middle - end of the ski, stiff - medium - soft) in some US mag as late as as in the mid-90s. Don´t remember which one.
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 › Did anyone hear how Atomic did at the SKI Magazine Test?