New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Never a bad review...

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Do you realize that? We all read gear reviews, here and in magazines, yet I cannot recall there ever being a bad ski review. No one has ever said these skis were horrible, or I really disliked these, junk buy elsewhere
etc.
post #2 of 27
Possibly, as others have stated, because the high performance skis that most of the Bears and others are reviewing are all good. It comes down to personal preference and what "flavor" and personality you want in a ski. That said, I have never been so strong in my reviews as to say a ski really sucked, but I have said that I disliked some of the skis I've tried. So, given some degrees of negatvity, there are negative reivews out there.

I've also seen on the Real Skiers site a review that called a ski horrible, although this was years ago.
post #3 of 27
You will find the following on Realskiers
"Low level skiers only" and "Dito. Rent, don't buy!"
post #4 of 27
I skied the Rossi B94 at Mary Jane... It SUCKED. It felt like I had a dead possum under each foot. If hatred alone could delam a ski, there's be cheesy wing fragments all over parsen's bowl.
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
I skied the Rossi B94 at Mary Jane... It SUCKED. It felt like I had a dead possum under each foot. If hatred alone could delam a ski, there's be cheesy wing fragments all over parsen's bowl.
So..did you like them?
post #6 of 27
I've posted a couple where I recognize the properties of the ski but say that the ski was not for me, or my tastes.
I've seen many others like that as well.

RR They're there, if you read
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ght=uninspired
post #7 of 27
1) It's hard for folks to admit they bought a crappy ski.
2) It's even harder for folks to say their buddy sold them/loaned them a crappy ski.
3) Folks here tend to have a really good idea what they like before they click in to it.
4) Many folks here can ski on just about anything. Hence, there are no bad skis, just bad skiers?
Naw, see 1 and 2.
post #8 of 27
Richie,Richie,Richie. Haven't you learned by now there are no bad skis. Just bad skiers.;-)
post #9 of 27
Rossi Mutix.

I also agree there's a bit of pre-selection going on in that you're not going to see many people picking up low end skis for reviews around here, whereas you do see reviews of some of those skis on Realskiers.
post #10 of 27
Not to defend the major rags but read the opening statements of this months Skiing. It clearly states that they are only showing the skis they liked and then go on to post commentary on skis that sucked. They don't say which ones, but it's pretty funny. BUT, back to Slider's post, its' true.
post #11 of 27
I usually just forget the names of the skis I've hated (though, granted, I tend to like just about every ski I try. I'm an easy date).
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Richie,Richie,Richie. Haven't you learned by now there are no bad skis. Just bad skiers.;-)
I think there are very few bad skis, just skis that are poorly matched for a particular skier. It seems that a race ski would be not score well with most beginner-intermediate skiers and a beginner ski would not score well for someone wanting a ski for blasting double blacks at high speed.

The other thing is a poor state of tune can affect how a ski feels. Some people may not post their review if they think the ski skis poorly and was poorly tuned.


I remember slamming the SX10 pretty hard; it didn't compare well to the SX11 or Solomon Equipe SC for what I wanted to do (I was looking for a modern turnier replacement for my one-ski quiver of an old SG racing ski). Some fans chimed in to defend it, and brought up state of tune.

I wonder if a demo tent with two skis of differing performance levels would tune the lower one so that it is easier to ski it with minimal skills, in other words less sharp so as to be more appealing to the target audience?
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Richie,Richie,Richie. Haven't you learned by now there are no bad skis. Just bad skiers.;-)
Aug 20, 2008

Is this similar to the National Ski Association slogan: "Skis don't suck, people do".

Have to agree with posters who have already pointed out that the ski magazines only report on what they designate as "Gold Medal" skis. As mentioned frequently on this forum "demo,demo,demo".

CP
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
So..did you like them?

Loved them!

I suppose there may be someone somewhere that liked them, but out of all the skis that I demoed while I was in CO last year and all the skis I've tried around here, they are still far and away my least favorite ski. They honestly didn't do anything well enough for me to feel like giving them props. Float was "meh", even at the upper-limits length I tried. Not very lively, no pop whatsoever, and not fun to carve on edge either. Sorri rossi. B94 = skunk poo deep fried in deer urine to me.

Make that one bad review and counting.
post #15 of 27
I really think it would be difficult to buy a 'bad' ski these days - only buying the wrong ski for your size, ability, style and needs.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
I've posted a couple where I recognize the properties of the ski but say that the ski was not for me, or my tastes.
I've seen many others like that as well.

RR They're there, if you read
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ght=uninspired
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Loved them!

I suppose there may be someone somewhere that liked them, but out of all the skis that I demoed while I was in CO last year and all the skis I've tried around here, they are still far and away my least favorite ski. They honestly didn't do anything well enough for me to feel like giving them props. Float was "meh", even at the upper-limits length I tried. Not very lively, no pop whatsoever, and not fun to carve on edge either. Sorri rossi. B94 = skunk poo deep fried in deer urine to me.

Make that one bad review and counting.
Make it two!
No, three.........if you count heluva and me as two
post #17 of 27
Whenever ski related magazines do ski "reviews" it's always funny what gets written! I sure hope that nobody actually thinks that this is good way to get info on skis.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
:. B94 = skunk poo deep fried in deer urine to me.and not fun to carve on edge either.

Make that one bad review and counting.
And yet that basic ski in various forms, Bandit XXX, B3, B4, is probably the biggest selling mid fat of all time.
post #19 of 27
Ski mags never give bad reviews of skis because then the manufacturer won't buy ad space.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by narc View Post
Ski mags never give bad reviews of skis because then the manufacturer won't buy ad space.
They even give good reviews to some really marginal skis (that some glow over here) because "then the manufacturer won't buy ad space".

Demo, demo, demo, THEN go apoplectic over something or else it looks sorta funny. If you only had one kind of steak you wouldn't know what you were missing with the other cuts. If you've only been on a recent (marginal) hi-po ski, you don't know what the real good ones are like.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropCliffsNotBombs View Post
Whenever ski related magazines do ski "reviews" it's always funny what gets written! I sure hope that nobody actually thinks that this is good way to get info on skis.
I'm just glad they do core construction/sidecut/camber stats on most of 'em so you can see through the BS and get real info. It's a decent place to start, but it's better to go online (um, like here, for instance) and pick people's brains about how it behaves, what's the build quality is, etc. Magazines are really just for the pretty pictures and to get people's loins stirring in those late summer months.
post #22 of 27
The reason I stopped "listening" to mag review of skis, exactly that, too many (only?) positive and often boastful comments.
Mags marketing (at least here in Italy) must have noticed because
at least one mag has started to put a small section for each ski review/presentation which basically says "What we liked of this ski" and "what with did not like of this ski".
I know it isn't much, after all it is enough to put under "what we did not like..." a "Nothing" comment and the game is done, but it's a step.
I used to be two minded, on one side I felt that it was impossible that all skis be good/perfect. On the other, every ski has its "utilization envelope" and if used within that "envelope" every ski might well be at least "good".
Where I would like to see mags discuss a bit more is in the constancy of performances as time goes by. After all people buy skis, which are an expensive item, and would like to ski on something that deteriorates as little as possible as the winters passes, or at least that has an as "flat-linear decline" in performances as possible.
This said, I don't really agree that here on Epic all reviews/reviewers are sticking to the positive side.
Be it because the "envelope" is exceeded or because the ski is really not for that person (or because it's really a bad ski, who knows after all) you'll find negative reviews.
post #23 of 27
inconsistency! I was just reading the reivews for the Line Prophet 100 from last year to this year. Identical skis, yet they review them fairly differently. How if the review standards are consistent and accurate.
post #24 of 27
To get a review of the 2006 skis you have to read the 2007 and 2008 reviews. There, you will read how much better the current skis are than the old skis and be able to determine the shortcomings of the old skis. This system works well for those of us who can only afford to buy new old stock.
post #25 of 27
We often get reviews here that a ski didn't meet expectations. Usually someone replies that they disagree, but, here is an example.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=69207

Just saying, in my experience, members here call it as they see it.
post #26 of 27
The problem is skiing on bad skis is still fun, so how much can you complain about the experience...
post #27 of 27
I bought a pair of used skis last winter and really loved them.

I wanted another pair so when a ski shop at Mammoth had them at a good price I demoed them with intent to buy. They were horrible! I spent a whole day trying to get used to them. I could not turn decently or stay parallel and the fresh powder that everyone else seemed to be enjoying kept catching me up. I could not see anything wrong with the bases or the tuning but perhaps the skis were shot from 2 years of demoing. In any event I was glad I could return them after having paid only $40 to demo, rather than purchasing the ski.

This coming season I want to demo K2 Tough Luvs. I could buy them this summer for a good price but after last year's bad experience I'm afraid to buy a ski I haven't skied on, particularly a demo version.

I may go fatter and try demoing some skis like the Auras that everyone seems to love.

So yes, I agree that tuning and a ski's history may play an important role in whether you love it or hate it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion