EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › looking for feedback on equipment testing criteria
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

looking for feedback on equipment testing criteria - Page 2

post #31 of 98
10/11/05 at 4:06pm
Bud,

I would like to make one thing clear. When i said subtle differences between plugs i was reffering to something else. IMO, after you post all the data on a specific model, you could tell us what are the subtle differences between that model and the others in that group on the hill. This is what i forgot to mention. This is different from the review. For example, if you test the Atomic RT, the Dobermann WC 150 and the Tecnica Race R, you will be saying they turn the ski faster than anything else, that their lateral response is superb etc. What i would like to know is what are the subtle differences between them with regards to: turn entry, turn exit, direct response, which is better for short turns, which is better for long turns, which is more forgiving in soft snow etc. These differences are subtle, very subtle, but perceptible. I am not asking you to do this with all boots, just with the plugs. It would be great if you could do that. But you need very good testers!

All this in addition to the fit differences, of course.
Reply
post #32 of 98
10/11/05 at 4:14pm
One more thing: the info on the website, it is going to be free, right?
Reply
post #33 of 98
10/11/05 at 10:59pm
Bud, the manufactuers supply technical reference manuals to all the stores and reps. The binding manuals contain photos on how to install bindings and set forward pressure and other adjustment; the ski manuals include all the skis, available lengths, construction details and specs, features, recommendations for sizing, mounting location, tuning recommendations; boot manufacturers describe maintenance, adjustments and features. We never get to see this. Having an online library of reference manuals would be so valuable. I understand you would need to post disclaimers, but a lot of this stuff is not even copyrighted. It is meant for distribution, but no one does it. The manuals should be on the web sites of the manufacturers. What gives? is this some kind of State secret?

The reference manuals are the easiest way to rapidly get a lot of techical data without independent testing. More information would be nice, but this should be low hanging fruit to obtain in electronic format or to scan.
Reply
post #34 of 98
10/12/05 at 3:00pm
Thread Starter 
thanks Lostboy, and Noodler for your efforts will look forward to hearing from you both!
Reply
post #35 of 98
10/12/05 at 3:39pm
Thread Starter 
Skiingman, in respect to post#20 I don't know that an internet shop/company that is trying to SELL their product would do anything or say anything to hurt sales of their product. So to get an honest no B.S. opinion there may be futile. This is the other nice thing about this concept is that it shouldn't be influenced by sales goals or advertising dollars. I know the web designer plans to sell advertising, heck that's how they make their money, but the testing will be independant. I also told them that each tester that is enlisted must disclose who their sponsors are so that consumers can weigh this in their opinions.
Reply
post #36 of 98
10/12/05 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman
Skiingman, in respect to post#20 I don't know that an internet shop/company that is trying to SELL their product would do anything or say anything to hurt sales of their product.
I understand that. Right now I'm writing descriptions for such a site. I guess I'm asking if people appreciate honesty (as in, pointing out alternatives or weak spots) or if they'd rather just read all the glow on such a site.

Quote:
This is the other nice thing about this concept is that it shouldn't be influenced by sales goals or advertising dollars. I know the web designer plans to sell advertising, heck that's how they make their money, but the testing will be independant. I also told them that each tester that is enlisted must disclose who their sponsors are so that consumers can weigh this in their opinions.
Sounds like a great plan. If you generate big traffic, google ad-sense (and other systems) ad dollars can really rack up. Great content generates great traffic. There really is no "go to" place on the web at the moment for this kind of independent and quality review.
Reply
post #37 of 98
10/12/05 at 6:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
Bud,

I would like to make one thing clear. When i said subtle differences between plugs i was reffering to something else. IMO, after you post all the data on a specific model, you could tell us what are the subtle differences between that model and the others in that group on the hill. This is what i forgot to mention. This is different from the review. For example, if you test the Atomic RT, the Dobermann WC 150 and the Tecnica Race R, you will be saying they turn the ski faster than anything else, that their lateral response is superb etc. What i would like to know is what are the subtle differences between them with regards to: turn entry, turn exit, direct response, which is better for short turns, which is better for long turns, which is more forgiving in soft snow etc. These differences are subtle, very subtle, but perceptible. I am not asking you to do this with all boots, just with the plugs. It would be great if you could do that. But you need very good testers!

All this in addition to the fit differences, of course.
good points! Note that the challenge with the plug boots may be having the time to invest into sculpting them to fit the testers feet so that they are skiable? That would certainly be a test I would want to be in on though!! We'll see. Another challenge in testing boots in the Spring when the new models trickle into the country is that usually there are very limited sizes available. Your points are well taken and I believe would be of interest.

also: I don't believe there will be any costs associated with the web site.
Reply
post #38 of 98
10/13/05 at 1:52pm
Bud,

IMO, you do not need 10 testers for the plug boot test. I think one is enough (for me) if he is a good tester. You said you are interested in this test. Why don't you ski in them? For me that would be enough. You are one of the most respected guys around here and i do not think anyone would have anything against that. This would cut the costs too. Think about it.

I vote for Bud! What do you guys think?
Reply
post #39 of 98
10/13/05 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
IMO, you do not need 10 testers for the plug boot test. I think one is enough (for me) if he is a good tester. You said you are interested in this test. Why don't you ski in them? For me that would be enough. You are one of the most respected guys around here and i do not think anyone would have anything against that. This would cut the costs too. Think about it.

I vote for Bud! What do you guys think?
I wonder how feasible what you are talking about is. I can't ski in a plug boot without an hour or two of work prior to making the first trip to the hill. Who is going to donate these new plugs to get ground to oblivion for a test?

I guess you'd have to find "that guy" that can cram a weensy foot into any ol' plug and have it fit well enough for a testing session. Ouch. Not my E foot.

Seems like this would be a very expensive and time consuming test to run.
Reply
post #40 of 98
10/13/05 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I wonder how feasible what you are talking about is. I can't ski in a plug boot without an hour or two of work prior to making the first trip to the hill. Who is going to donate these new plugs to get ground to oblivion for a test?

I guess you'd have to find "that guy" that can cram a weensy foot into any ol' plug and have it fit well enough for a testing session. Ouch. Not my E foot.

Seems like this would be a very expensive and time consuming test to run.
the whole project deserves a lot of credit. But all the tests will probably be expensive and time consuming, if this dream becomes reality.
Reply
post #41 of 98
10/13/05 at 3:07pm
Thread Starter 
Good points guys, Manufacturers are pretty good about getting their equipment out for testing and certainly if this concept is presented well and they see the power and experience behind the team that is putting the sight together (not me) that getting equipment shouldn't be difficult. More later.
Reply
post #42 of 98
10/14/05 at 8:35am
At the risk of beating a dead horse, anyone who thinks that one or two testers, however superb and experienced they are, can scientifically evaluate a boot, a ski, or a banana for that matter, is, ah, optimistic. Choosing the variables is the easy part. The real problem here will be associating those variables with on-slope performance. And that requires some thought about how you SAMPLE on-slope performance. With apologies to those who already know all this, an example:

Each tester will have a different slope-side take on how a variable, say lateral boot stiffness, influences its performance. So if he/she awards a score, say a 4.5, that score includes a "real" component (the "actual" performance) and an error component (doesn't mean "mistake," but rather how replicable and accurate his/her scores are) There are ways of getting at this error, but without them you'll never know how much of that 4.5 is real and how much is noise.

The noise in turn can be random or systematic (termed bias, again no perjorative meaning), where one skier unintentionally tends to score one brand higher or lower than another. I'd guess expert skiers have fairly low random error, but bias is another story. Peter K on Realskier, for instance, loves Heads and says so. Then there's tester differences in size, build, strength, and experience. Female experts may lean toward a lighter ski at any length, like in the recent scores for Fischers in the Ski Canada tests. That's informative, obviously, but because it includes both real and error terms, we can't be sure HOW informative.

Put another way, if a Fischer gets a 3.7 for long turns and a Head gets a 3.9, how much of that difference is "true" (Heads make better long turns), and how much is noise (no real difference)? To find out, you can either have hundreds of tests of Fischers and Heads, which reduces the impact of noise, or you can start out by correcting the noise, and then you'll be OK with a smaller number of tests.

So how do we "correct" all this stuff? Well, one way is after the fact - huge numbers of testers (hundreds) under large numbers of conditions and terrain, and regressed scores; the biases and errors partly cancel out. I deduce that Realskiers does some version of the first.

Another way is before the fact. Take a much smaller number of expert skiers, measure each's test-retest and accuracy against a standard. You actually "teach" each skier beforehand to evaluate each ski with similar error. When you read a newspaper article about some big new study on heart disease or nutritional status, anything that involves more than one person collecting data, that's the approach they've honed before the techs ever go out the door.

I haven't found any ski site that does this. Ironically, when we read and compare evals from a dozen different mags and sites, we're doing a third approach, where the errors of each "study" are lumped together in our heads and (we hope) evened out. Sort of like reading all the college football polls and deciding who the real #3 is. (Go Blue. Sigh.)

But you just don't get a grip on this stuff by having a half dozen great skiers do one run on a taped ski or boot. That's why magazines and websites have such bizzarely divergent takes on the same ski. It isn't "preference," it's plain old error.

Now I happen to like reading tea leaves among all the ski tests, and mulling them over on these threads. But then, I also like footballs polls more than a national championship. More stuff to argue about on cool fall nights at the local pub.

But if you claim to want to associate all these numbers about flex and weight and such with real performance in a way that is technically superior than other approaches, your MAIN task is to handle slope test error. Just the way it is, folks...
Reply
post #43 of 98
10/14/05 at 12:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Bud, the manufactuers supply technical reference manuals to all the stores and reps. The binding manuals contain photos on how to install bindings and set forward pressure and other adjustment; the ski manuals include all the skis, available lengths, construction details and specs, features, recommendations for sizing, mounting location, tuning recommendations; boot manufacturers describe maintenance, adjustments and features. We never get to see this. Having an online library of reference manuals would be so valuable. I understand you would need to post disclaimers, but a lot of this stuff is not even copyrighted. It is meant for distribution, but no one does it. The manuals should be on the web sites of the manufacturers. What gives? is this some kind of State secret?

The reference manuals are the easiest way to rapidly get a lot of techical data without independent testing. More information would be nice, but this should be low hanging fruit to obtain in electronic format or to scan.
I haven't seen all this data you are talking about? Certainly not consistant with manufacturers. Be careful what you read in marketing materials put out by manufacturers much is propaganda and not standardized as far as methodology or testing criteria. The goal of equipment data testing is to compare all subjects in a controlled setting with the same testing equipment to achieve accurate comparisons. Quite different than company brochures or technical manuals.
Reply
post #44 of 98
10/14/05 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
At the risk of beating a dead horse, anyone who thinks that one or two testers, however superb and experienced they are, can scientifically evaluate a boot, a ski, or a banana for that matter, is, ah, optimistic. Choosing the variables is the easy part. The real problem here will be associating those variables with on-slope performance. And that requires some thought about how you SAMPLE on-slope performance. With apologies to those who already know all this, an example:

Each tester will have a different slope-side take on how a variable, say lateral boot stiffness, influences its performance. So if he/she awards a score, say a 4.5, that score includes a "real" component (the "actual" performance) and an error component (doesn't mean "mistake," but rather how replicable and accurate his/her scores are) There are ways of getting at this error, but without them you'll never know how much of that 4.5 is real and how much is noise.

The noise in turn can be random or systematic (termed bias, again no perjorative meaning), where one skier unintentionally tends to score one brand higher or lower than another. I'd guess expert skiers have fairly low random error, but bias is another story. Peter K on Realskier, for instance, loves Heads and says so. Then there's tester differences in size, build, strength, and experience. Female experts may lean toward a lighter ski at any length, like in the recent scores for Fischers in the Ski Canada tests. That's informative, obviously, but because it includes both real and error terms, we can't be sure HOW informative.

Put another way, if a Fischer gets a 3.7 for long turns and a Head gets a 3.9, how much of that difference is "true" (Heads make better long turns), and how much is noise (no real difference)? To find out, you can either have hundreds of tests of Fischers and Heads, which reduces the impact of noise, or you can start out by correcting the noise, and then you'll be OK with a smaller number of tests.

So how do we "correct" all this stuff? Well, one way is after the fact - huge numbers of testers (hundreds) under large numbers of conditions and terrain, and regressed scores; the biases and errors partly cancel out. I deduce that Realskiers does some version of the first.

Another way is before the fact. Take a much smaller number of expert skiers, measure each's test-retest and accuracy against a standard. You actually "teach" each skier beforehand to evaluate each ski with similar error. When you read a newspaper article about some big new study on heart disease or nutritional status, anything that involves more than one person collecting data, that's the approach they've honed before the techs ever go out the door.

I haven't found any ski site that does this. Ironically, when we read and compare evals from a dozen different mags and sites, we're doing a third approach, where the errors of each "study" are lumped together in our heads and (we hope) evened out. Sort of like reading all the college football polls and deciding who the real #3 is. (Go Blue. Sigh.)

But you just don't get a grip on this stuff by having a half dozen great skiers do one run on a taped ski or boot. That's why magazines and websites have such bizzarely divergent takes on the same ski. It isn't "preference," it's plain old error.

Now I happen to like reading tea leaves among all the ski tests, and mulling them over on these threads. But then, I also like footballs polls more than a national championship. More stuff to argue about on cool fall nights at the local pub.

But if you claim to want to associate all these numbers about flex and weight and such with real performance in a way that is technically superior than other approaches, your MAIN task is to handle slope test error. Just the way it is, folks...
To put it in just one sentence: NOTHING SUBSTITUTES FOR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. All the tests offer the tester's points of view. But these can be very helpful sometimes.
Reply
post #45 of 98
10/14/05 at 1:36pm
Thread Starter 
beyond,
Very good points, This is exactly why these website designers are taking a different approach. The developers have a strong background in doing very technical tests on computer equipment and other techy stuff and are bringing their scientific approach to the ski equipment forum. It is hoped that by giving the consumer this data and maybe educating them as to how this will relate to skier sensations on snow, they will be able to look at the data and deduce how a particular piece of equipment may ski based on data comparisons. The tester's reviews will be focused a little differently than in the past. I have introduced them to Jackson Hogen, and they said he is very interested in getting involved. In my opinion, Jackson had organized some of the better tests when he was working with the now defunct Snow Country magizine but this website will focus more on the hard data collected through lab testing.
Reply
post #46 of 98
10/18/05 at 4:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Bud, the manufactuers supply technical reference manuals to all the stores and reps. The binding manuals contain photos on how to install bindings and set forward pressure and other adjustment; the ski manuals include all the skis, available lengths, construction details and specs, features, recommendations for sizing, mounting location, tuning recommendations; boot manufacturers describe maintenance, adjustments and features. We never get to see this. Having an online library of reference manuals would be so valuable. I understand you would need to post disclaimers, but a lot of this stuff is not even copyrighted. It is meant for distribution, but no one does it. The manuals should be on the web sites of the manufacturers. What gives? is this some kind of State secret?

The reference manuals are the easiest way to rapidly get a lot of techical data without independent testing. More information would be nice, but this should be low hanging fruit to obtain in electronic format or to scan.
With all due respect, the data in these manuals is not the kind of technical data we are going after. The testing criteria that will be used will offer valuable, quantitative data comparative between brands to allow apples to apples comparisons. It will go far beyond any testing that has been done to date by the magazines!!
Reply
post #47 of 98
10/18/05 at 4:50pm
Sounds great Bud. At the time I posted that, it was not clear what resources could be available to perform testing and post the information online. Its a monumental task, and of course, it has to be updated every year. My thought with the above is that some basic information is usually provided by manufacturers to technicians and stores, things like recommended binding mount location, length, construction etc. I agree that a combination of objective equipment data and subjective user tests that can be used to compare products and define their best applications, are more useful.

Are you guys thinking of a subscription site. How do you plan to meet expenses?
Reply
post #48 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman
good points! Note that the challenge with the plug boots may be having the time to invest into sculpting them to fit the testers feet so that they are skiable? That would certainly be a test I would want to be in on though!! We'll see. Another challenge in testing boots in the Spring when the new models trickle into the country is that usually there are very limited sizes available.
I think that some folks could ski the plugs pretty much out of the box for a run or two. No more, tho!

The spring also usually means warm weather. Can mean a lot of difference in flex...
Reply
post #49 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
Bud,

IMO, you do not need 10 testers for the plug boot test. I think one is enough (for me) if he is a good tester. You said you are interested in this test. Why don't you ski in them? For me that would be enough. You are one of the most respected guys around here and i do not think anyone would have anything against that. This would cut the costs too. Think about it.

I vote for Bud! What do you guys think?
Bud, definitely. I'll take the second spot and represent the "everyday" guy. Everyone who has seen Bud ski will know why I say that.
Reply
post #50 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
At the risk of beating a dead horse, anyone who thinks that one or two testers, however superb and experienced they are, can scientifically evaluate a boot, a ski, or a banana for that matter, is, ah, optimistic. Choosing the variables is the easy part. The real problem here will be associating those variables with on-slope performance. And that requires some thought about how you SAMPLE on-slope performance.
I think there is a way to handle this...

We test the equipment for lab values (more on this after I get through the rest of this thread) and then we do two tests: one "blind" (testers don't know what was measured) and one later with that knowledge to factor in to how they attempt to ski them. Furthermore, once the initial testers are done and their numbers in the site, I think we allow other people to put their opinions in as alternative information (what is, in the Internet industry, referred to as "collaborative filtering"--like Amazon's recommendations). That way, I can say that I like the Fischer RX8, Elan S12, and Atomic Metron:b5, so you will know to either try the ones you haven't (if you like one of them) or avoid them (if you hate one or two of them).

I think it would be interesting to offer the testing during an event like the ESA (perhaps the day after when everyone really has their "ski legs" tuned up) and let a large group of recreational skier try them.
Reply
post #51 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sywsyw
To put it in just one sentence: NOTHING SUBSTITUTES FOR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. All the tests offer the tester's points of view. But these can be very helpful sometimes.
For the subjective testing, certainly. But, you can begin to get some idea if you know what you have liked in the past and what the testers have liked in the past. This is how my recommendations have worked here in EpicSki, and folks have been pretty pleased with the results.

However, for measurements, this is obviously not the case.
Reply
post #52 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:23pm
Are you gonna test just high end gear? If not, and you are going to test intermediate and advanced level gear, that you should have intermediates and advanced skiers testing that gear. I think they can give a more truer review of what they might need or want in a product.
Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #53 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:26pm

Ski measurements

I know that these have been discussed in other posts here, but I'll toss in my 2 cents...

The dimensions of the ski are critical. I would like to have complete information:
  • Widest point forward of the toepiece, it's distance from the tip of the ski and its distance from the ski balance point (with standard bindings if a system ski).
  • Widest point forward of the toe and within the contact length, distance from tip.
  • Widest point aft of the heelpiece.
  • Widest point aft of the heelpiece and within the contact length.
  • Measured chord length
  • Measured total length.
  • Measured contact length.
  • Measured waist width (narrowest part of ski)
  • Measured waist location (from tip, tail, center of running length, and balance point)
  • Flex toe-to-tip
  • Flex Heel-to-tail
  • Tortion toe to shovel
  • Tortion heel to tail
  • Tortion shovel to tail
  • Pressure to decamber ski such that pressure is distributed evenly through the contact length
  • Pressure to decamber ski such that pressure is distributed evenly along the contact length while ski is tipped at varying degrees (from, say, 5 degrees to 85 degrees in 5 degree increments?)

That's it for now... I'm sure that there're more...
Reply
post #54 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:36pm

Boot measurements

Same for boot measurements...
  • Total shell volume.
  • Volume of lower (foot).
  • Volume of upper (shaft).
  • Circumference of upper.
  • Dimensions of lower (ideally a computer-generated outline of the floor of the boot and the 90 degree cross-sections), including widest point, total interior length, heel width, ankle width, ankle bone locations.
  • Ramp
  • Forward lean
  • Ankle angle (dorsiflexion necessary)
  • Shell axis (the location of the natural flex of the boot), including whether it's symmetrical or not
  • Instep height
  • Instep contour
  • Liner width (forefoot, ankle, heel, shaft)
  • Adjustability (range of ramp, forward lean, etc.)
Reply
post #55 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:40pm

Binding measurements

...and bindings...
  • Force diagrams from neutral through release showing the force necessary to move the binding further from neutral
  • Point of no return
  • Force diagram of torque on tib/fib rom neutral through release (toe-only)
  • Return-to-neutral speed at every location from neutral through point-of-no-return
  • Stand height
  • Delta
Reply
post #56 of 98
10/18/05 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Are you gonna test just high end gear? If not, and you are going to test intermediate and advanced level gear, that you should have intermediates and advanced skiers testing that gear. I think they can give a more truer review of what they might need or want in a product.
Great question, and you're right on.

I also have to wonder if different types of skiers will give different subjective opinions on high-end gear (racer v. big mountain, pipe v. power 8 champ, PSIA v. PMTS ).
Reply
post #57 of 98
10/18/05 at 6:56pm
Thread Starter 
Easy now......let's keep PSIA and PMTS out of this or it will all go to *%&$*!

To Phil's prose.... When we look at the pyramid of skier abilities with the top skiers being 10% of the picture and sport skiers being.....say 70% and beginners 20% roughly. Because the peak of the pyramid influences many others it would be prudent to give them roughly 25% of the attention and the remaining 75% to the sport skiers. We anticipate getting more email and forum discussions from the peak group but will not let that influence the proportion of testing aimed at the meat of the market!
Reply
post #58 of 98
10/18/05 at 7:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Are you gonna test just high end gear? If not, and you are going to test intermediate and advanced level gear, that you should have intermediates and advanced skiers testing that gear. I think they can give a more truer review of what they might need or want in a product.
In regards to having intermediate testers...

IMO, I believe a skilled skier would be able to "detune" their turns and evaluate a sport catagory ski/boot better than an intermediate skier for the simple reason an intermediate skier does not have the feel and sensitivity for the nuances a ski/boot may have. Also, would you want a skier who maybe has some poor habits or is adapting their technique for poor alignment issues to evaluate a ski or boot.

I welcome arguments FOR using intermediate testers though!! What are your thoughts??

Remember, there is a limited amount of time to gather timely information and get it published. Therefore, the testing criteria will be boiled down, for each catagory (skis, boots, bindings) to the most valuable data needed for consumers to use to narrow their equipment search and decision making.

note: This site will also offer ongoing pertinent industry "news flashes" (ie: K2 buys Volkl/Marker) and a variety of "how to's" (ie:ideal mounting positions for your skis). There will be discussion forums for feedback and suggestions.

What else might you like to see specific to equipment?

The final site name has not been chosen yet and it will not be launched until it can be done properly, but you can bet that you here at Epic will be among the first to know!!

Keep your ideas and suggestions coming though because all here are the target market!!
Reply
post #59 of 98
10/18/05 at 9:37pm
QUOTE=bud heishman]

what test results would best help you the consumer make educated buying decisions? What would you like to know about a product but have never seen data about that also reveal comparisons between brands?[/quote]



I have posted on this subject before, but yet the question keeps turning in my brain.



I know it has been said before but I must express my discouragement on this subject and have a rant. Sorry it’s a long one. It’s not directly related to the original question but it is relevant.



I realize the manufacturers supply the equipment at no charge and hence the review people feel obligated to say nice things in order to get more free product the next year. Nice relationship for a review organization and the manufacturer but this does little for me the consumer who's pocket the money is coming out of.



Isn't a review intended for my benefit ? It’s not so writers have something to say and somewhere for product to be showcased. If a ski is good then it will get good reviews and the ski will sell.



Manufacturers need to accept the fact that if they build a crappy ski then they deserve to get bunk reviews and suffer the consequences.



The review organizations have the responsibility to test the equipment for which purpose it was intended for in a controlled and equal manner and let the chips fall where they may regardless if the review is "this ski isn't worth the wax put on it compared to the others tested in this category"



In a nut shell.... let the average of the test results be said in all honesty, drop the useless sales hype, give more actual how it skied information.



Further, I personally appreciate when reviews mention body weight as this is a major factor on how most skis perform and respond. So review for each body weight type. lumping all the body weights together destroys any average or data that is put together. Light weight 120 - 150 LB, middle weight 160 - 190 LBs, heavy weight 200+



Regarding intermediate skis. This is an important segment of the industry and a large part. I believe this category should be tested by upper end intermediates. They may not be the best skiers but they will know a good ski when they get on it and be able to give simple feed back (ease of initiation, edge hold, length of turn, speed of edge to edge, stability at their top speed) Mach 1 performance matters not as they don’t ski at this level and if they do they have the wrong ski category.



Reality is the key, people appreciate brutal honesty. I believe in giving people honest reviews and let the manufacturers pull up their socks and suck it up princess.
Reply
post #60 of 98
10/19/05 at 4:00am
oops, post not ready.
Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › looking for feedback on equipment testing criteria