EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Realskers.com 07/08 reviews posted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Realskers.com 07/08 reviews posted - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
I was surprised how some of his reviews, numbers or language, were totally different than what respected members of Epic, or anybody else, say. For instance, he thinks the Palmers are the second coming - no one here seems especially impressed - and he pans the new Fury, which people here seem to like a lot. And as usual, his Volkl reviews are mixed, stressing how demanding and un-versatile skis like the Mantra and AC4 are. Which most here see as super versatile skis.

Keelty's always favored Heads, but anyone have an opinion why his reviews are getting so contrarian? Just to stir things up? Because no one over there believes in skis fatter than 85 mm? Indigestion? :
From Realskier's review of the AC40, "This is a versatile, powerful all mountain ski for strong skiers." From the review of the Mantra, "rock solid in chop and crud and a strong carver in the bargain." He said it wasn't as good a powder ski as others, not that it wasn't versatile.

In general PK's site always qualifies almost all reviews for skis above 9Xmm with some sort of warning about how they are only for aggressive big mountain use by good skiers. I am pretty sure it's his SOP. He does seem to love head skis but then again so do many people on epic.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
Lloyd,

There're alot of $hitty skiers out there - maybe even 90%.

that is my point. Most skiers never even get near top 80% of skiers. Most instructors don't even get to the top 85%.

I would say 90% of the people I see ski around here are intermediate skiers at best.

it was a lame comment with absolutely nothing to back it up!
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lloyd braun View Post
that is my point. Most skiers never even get near top 80% of skiers. Most instructors don't even get to the top 85%.

I would say 90% of the people I see ski around here are intermediate skiers at best.

it was a lame comment with absolutely nothing to back it up!
Most skiers ski better than 49% of all skiers. 20% of skiers ski better than 80% of all skiers. "...ever get near top 80%..."? Maybe one in four.

I think MOST of us Epicskiers are better than intermediate, so if 90% of all skiers are "...intermediate at best...", most of us are in the top 10%. Yay us! We rock!

No way I'm shelling out $20 to read ski reviews though.
post #34 of 47
I'd gladly shell out a double sawbuck for some real reviews.

Realskiers is just weak sauce. I wan't to like it but it makes Skiing and Ski seem like Scientific American.

But then again I like SkiPress and Freeskier best, so to each his own.
post #35 of 47
FWIW, One of Peter's all-time favorite ski is the Metron B5. Also, his opinion of the ski is not what what he uses for the reveiws, its from the cards submitted by the testers. His favorites are a separate thing. He did review the Palmer I believe.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post
I'd gladly shell out a double sawbuck for some real reviews.

Realskiers is just weak sauce. I wan't to like it but it makes Skiing and Ski seem like Scientific American.

But then again I like SkiPress and Freeskier best, so to each his own.
So true and very funny.

Michael
post #37 of 47
Definitely more on-piste oriented and geared.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Definitely more on-piste oriented and geared.
Which is why the Coomba review came out of left field.
post #39 of 47
One thing I find "interesting" about Peter's reviews is his "skier suitability" scale. The little "black skier" icon is defined as a "The best skiers on the hill. They advance the sport and change how we ski. a.k.a. World Class Skiers". I'm guessing anybody that good is the one helping design the skis, and certainly isn't scouring the web for reviews. The "blue skier" icon is defined as "Former pro-level skiers who currently ski considerably fewer days per season than working pros". Again, don't know about you, but I'll never be a "pro-level skier". The "green skier" icon seems to be in-line with the better recreational skiers out there.

I've been on skis that have been rated as suitable for "black / blue" skiers. I'm no pro, but I found them entirely manageable (i.e., some of the Nordica "Hot Rod" models).
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
And as usual, his Volkl reviews are mixed, stressing how demanding and un-versatile skis like the Mantra and AC4 are. Which most here see as super versatile skis.
I would probably question the credibility of anyone who considered the AC4 (or AC40 Carbon in this case) demending...
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiDeC58 View Post
He really gives raves to the new Volkl Tigershark with the PowerSwitch Rods. I assumed this was bogus gimmick, but I might need to reconsider. Has anyone here tried these?
Yes. The difference is extremely noticable, but not useful. On the stiff setting the skis are STIFF, and on the soft setting the skis are VERY soft. What annoyed me about the ski was that they were not able to keep a round flex pattern with the soft flex... the ski just feels like it folds up in front of the binding. I don't know many skiers who are skilled enough or athletic enough to power the 12 on it's stiff setting. The one nice thing about the 12 is that it carves so well that it renders the 10 useless in my opinion. I would ski it in a 168 unless you're over 200lbs and a very strong skier. The 175 took some work.

Later

GREG
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
I would probably question the credibility of anyone who considered the AC4 (or AC40 Carbon in this case) demending...
Read the whole review for the true picture, its a very positive review. Although they are more on-piste oriented, there are quite a few wider skis very favorably reviewed like the Bridge, Mantra just in Volkl alone. This was not the case in the past.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Read the whole review for the true picture, its a very positive review. Although they are more on-piste oriented, there are quite a few wider skis very favorably reviewed like the Bridge, Mantra just in Volkl alone. This was not the case in the past.
I don't have a subscription unfortunately. The AC40 Carbon isn't a bad ski... it just isn't demanding like most seem to describe it - it did feel hollow though.

:

Later

GREG
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
I would probably question the credibility of anyone who considered the AC4 (or AC40 Carbon in this case) demending...
It is funny that he would say that, as the AC40 has the reputation as a "resort" ski, made for people who don't ski 40 days a year. Then again, as was mentioned earlier, he tends to gear his reviews to an advanced-intermediate point of view (and since most advanced-intermediates consider themselves experts (judging by the amount of 3+ binding requests I get on rental forms) then he is probably right to do so).
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Then again, as was mentioned earlier, he tends to gear his reviews to an advanced-intermediate point of view (and since most advanced-intermediates consider themselves experts (judging by the amount of 3+ binding requests I get on rental forms) then he is probably right to do so).
Are those the binding setting requests that you set at the level for a "type 2" skier?

This perception versus reality thing is getting out of control. Whatever helps him sell more subscriptions...
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post
One thing I find "interesting" about Peter's reviews is his "skier suitability" scale. The little "black skier" icon is defined as a "The best skiers on the hill. They advance the sport and change how we ski. a.k.a. World Class Skiers". I'm guessing anybody that good is the one helping design the skis, and certainly isn't scouring the web for reviews. The "blue skier" icon is defined as "Former pro-level skiers who currently ski considerably fewer days per season than working pros". Again, don't know about you, but I'll never be a "pro-level skier". The "green skier" icon seems to be in-line with the better recreational skiers out there.

I've been on skis that have been rated as suitable for "black / blue" skiers. I'm no pro, but I found them entirely manageable (i.e., some of the Nordica "Hot Rod" models).
The little skier icons are consistent. When I was trying out skis to find a short-radius carver, I tried several skis. I noticed, when I later found his web site, that skis that I had thought did not have sufficient high-performance ability did not have a black skier icon, and all the skis that I would find acceptable did. Now I know when looking over the reviews, to just ignore the skis that don't include the black skier. Some skis have black, blue, and green icons, so they would be suitable for a wide range of skiers. While I don't quite agree with the level of experience required to enjoy what-ever level of skier, I don't know how most other skiers advance with time and I do find the icons a pretty accurate rating of the ski's abilities.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiDeC58 View Post
He really gives raves to the new Volkl Tigershark with the PowerSwitch Rods. I assumed this was bogus gimmick, but I might need to reconsider. Has anyone here tried these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Yes. The difference is extremely noticable, but not useful.
I agree. My full review is here.
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 › Realskers.com 07/08 reviews posted