1) A lot of skis only change their tops from year-to-year (2-3 year runs or longer if they "got it right"), yet their rankings in SKI or SKIING change a lot from year-to-year. What gives?
2) A lot of skis are designed to be skidded and not carved for the general public. Moving the bindings up or back a few cm completely changes the characteristics of the ski, but they skis are never tested that way.
3) The whole "one ski quiver" concept is bull. An 86 cm waisted ski will never carve like a 66 cm slalom or gs ski. Why rank "expert" skis on everything from moguls to ice to powder when most "experts" have more than one ski?
4) Skis react very differently depending upon their length. In fact, the difference the way a ski reacts may be greater due to the length rather than comparing manufacturer to manufacturer! Why not test diffent length skis?
5) Some of us try to buy equipment as if we are living in a one story whorehouse (no f ing overhead). Since skis a year or two old sell for a fraction of the new price, why not compare the skis year-to-year. I can buy a brand new "older" GS ski for the groomers or a few inches of powder for less than $200, and it may be very similar to the manufacturers new model. Why don't the ski tests compare this stuff from year-to-year?
6) Why not test some of the custom stuff out there? I ski mostly on Daleboots because they are laterally stiff and so damn comfortable (I use racing boots for the racing skis). They have a lot of unique features and benefits, yet they are never reviewed in the magazines.