The Never-Ending Peak By Bode Miller Skis Discussion Thread

[Tony S]

But wouldn't you agree skis in general are good these days. So if someone chooses a ski because some brand influencer likes it, is that ultimately going to be all that different to their result from simply choosing Ski Mag's best in test ski? In both cases they are likely to have bought a fine ski, but not necessarily the ski that fits them best.

I suppose you could argue Ski Mag's rankings are not completely tainted. I'm sure advertising influences it but even I'm not jaded enough to believe it's based purely on advertising dollars as in whoever gives the most ad dollars wins.

If something is going to go off the rails a bit with any kind of ski testing it's seems to me that it's likely to be the result of peer group chatter that tends to steer preferences in a consistent direction at any given point in history. The Ski Mag testers comprise a pretty static group of industry insiders. If there is a hot ski based on the current thoughts of one or more August Personages, people are going to try that ski. They may internalize the way that ski feels and will be prone unconsciously to judge other skis against that model based on how similar or different they feel. Anyone who followed trends in wine during the Parker era has seen this phenomenon in action.

 

[James]

I ski mainly atomic because I get a good deal, and they make something for all the styles of skiing I like.

But you don’t ski on any Atomic, and can tell differences between skis.

Now @KingGrump will ski any ski starting with ‘k’ and en do ing in ‘o’. There’s at least a dozen examples to prove it.

 

[Philpug]

Thanks for the softballs.

But wouldn't you agree skis in general are good these days. So if someone chooses a ski because some brand influencer likes it, is that ultimately going to be all that different to their result from simply choosing Ski Mag's best in test ski? In both cases they are likely to have bought a fine ski, but not necessarily the ski that fits them best.

I have said for years, there are very few bad skis but a lot of wrong skis.

I suppose you could argue Ski Mag's rankings are not completely tainted. I'm sure advertising influences it but even I'm not jaded enough to believe it's based purely on advertising dollars as in whoever gives the most ad dollars wins.

From my "Print is Dead" article from a few years ago and it still rings true today...

So what happens after ski testing, ie, what does a magazine do with the information? Well, since a magazine is static, all it can really do is rank the skis using some sort of numbering system. Once the skis are ranked, how do they rate? We see the top 10 results, let's say one ski gets a 8.16 and another a 7.91, but what does that quarter point mean? It means the 7.91 might as well be put on the discount rack now because it won’t sell, its fate has been sealed. Why? It could be any reason, maybe it wasn't tuned well or had the wrong wax on it. Maybe the testers, all PSIA Level XI, ex-NCAA racers, or manufacturer-paid athletes, over-skied a ski that was designed for mortals. No matter why, a ski that could very well be a better ski for a multitude of skiers will never make it onto their feet. How would that skier even know? Can they ask the reviewers? No, because they are either skiing some glacier in Austria or running a clinic in Portillo. How can skiers who do not know what they need decipher information that they don’t understand? Simple, they go to the ski that has the highest rating because it must be the best. But is it the best for them? Chances are, no.​

To reitterate. I am not sure you have been in a retail environment when consumers look for skis ... or most any product ... enter with a magazine or in today's age with a phone. As you sad pretty much all skis are good, yes, absolutely, I agree with you, but not all skis are just interchangeable. Again, read the excerpt from Print is Dead again, most publication tests are proud to say theur reviews are done by top level skiers. I will counter with that by saying, "while many are fantastic at honing their own skills, does not mean they are the best at discerning the nuances of a ski". I will jokingly add, "some of these skiers can rip down an mountain on barrel staves and do it better than many of us on their best days."

Magazines and many test sites are pay to play, we are not. Do we take ad dollars from brands? Absolutely. Do we review skis for brands that do not advertise with us? Absolutely. Our whole philosophy is who is the ski for and who is it not for and NOT a number rating system which I get back to does a diservice to the brand, the ski and more so the customer. We also do Testers Choice winners and if you see that is also not limited to the brands that advertise with us.

All of this start back in our Epic days when we were reviewing skis there. It is also the cornerstone of why we built this site was to be able to review wach ski on its own merits and design. Have missed on some? Absolutely. Have we brought skis to the light that were totally missed by other avenues? Absolutely. To this day, I will stand by every review that was written by any of our official testers and many of the readers that have chosen to publish their own opinions.

 

[David Chaus]

But you don’t ski on any Atomic, and can tell differences between skis.

Now @KingGrump will ski any ski starting with ‘k’ and en do ing in ‘o’. There’s at least a dozen examples to prove it.

Like the Kanjo?

 

[ski otter 2]

Correction: Franz Klammer's iSpeed RD Rebel World Cup ski of choice was 180/18, not the 180/30 I posted (brain glitch - something I thought I was posting in the first place).

 

[David]

So what happens after ski testing, ie, what does a magazine do with the information? Well, since a magazine is static, all it can really do is rank the skis using some sort of numbering system. Once the skis are ranked, how do they rate? We see the top 10 results, let's say one ski gets a 8.16 and another a 7.91, but what does that quarter point mean? It means the 7.91 might as well be put on the discount rack now because it won’t sell, its fate has been sealed. Why? It could be any reason, maybe it wasn't tuned well or had the wrong wax on it. Maybe the testers, all PSIA Level XI, ex-NCAA racers, or manufacturer-paid athletes, over-skied a ski that was designed for mortals. No matter why, a ski that could very well be a better ski for a multitude of skiers will never make it onto their feet. How would that skier even know? Can they ask the reviewers? No, because they are either skiing some glacier in Austria or running a clinic in Portillo. How can skiers who do not know what they need decipher information that they don’t understand? Simple, they go to the ski that has the highest rating because it must be the best. But is it the best for them? Chances are, no.​

Exactly! I love the magazine buyers guides but i look for ski testers closer to my size and see what they liked and why. I do like the overall rankings but I know they are based on strong but tiny skiers (compared to me) so I look at the category scores more to see what would work best for me. As I narrow down my list I may stop at local shops looking for demos only because usually the staff haven't skied it.

My last purchase was decided on here on SkiTalk after speaking with a number of more knowledgeable skiers that had actually skied the skis. It was a great purchase and I couldn't be happier...unless I lived closer to powder.

 

[mdf]

They may internalize the way that ski feels and will be prone unconsciously to judge other skis against that model based on how similar or different they feel.

I have a long-standing preference for (longitudinally) soft skis. So it was interesting skiing @James 's FX104 monsters for one day this spring. They were long and stiff with camber almost the full length. They were a challenge the first couple runs. But by the end of the day I was having fun on them in all available conditions, including large steep bumps, and starting to appreciate their somewhat-different appeal. If I gave up after one run I would have thought they were bad skis. (My overall preferences haven't been permanently changed, though).

Over the years I've only skied a few that I really hated. There have been a lot that I thought were ok but not my thing.

 

[Wasatchman]

Thanks for the softballs.

I have said for years, there are very few bad skis but a lot of wrong skis.

From my "Print is Dead" article from a few years ago and it still rings true today...

So what happens after ski testing, ie, what does a magazine do with the information? Well, since a magazine is static, all it can really do is rank the skis using some sort of numbering system. Once the skis are ranked, how do they rate? We see the top 10 results, let's say one ski gets a 8.16 and another a 7.91, but what does that quarter point mean? It means the 7.91 might as well be put on the discount rack now because it won’t sell, its fate has been sealed. Why? It could be any reason, maybe it wasn't tuned well or had the wrong wax on it. Maybe the testers, all PSIA Level XI, ex-NCAA racers, or manufacturer-paid athletes, over-skied a ski that was designed for mortals. No matter why, a ski that could very well be a better ski for a multitude of skiers will never make it onto their feet. How would that skier even know? Can they ask the reviewers? No, because they are either skiing some glacier in Austria or running a clinic in Portillo. How can skiers who do not know what they need decipher information that they don’t understand? Simple, they go to the ski that has the highest rating because it must be the best. But is it the best for them? Chances are, no.​

To reitterate. I am not sure you have been in a retail environment when consumers look for skis ... or most any product ... enter with a magazine or in today's age with a phone. As you sad pretty much all skis are good, yes, absolutely, I agree with you, but not all skis are just interchangeable. Again, read the excerpt from Print is Dead again, most publication tests are proud to say theur reviews are done by top level skiers. I will counter with that by saying, "while many are fantastic at honing their own skills, does not mean they are the best at discerning the nuances of a ski". I will jokingly add, "some of these skiers can rip down an mountain on barrel staves and do it better than many of us on their best days."

Magazines and many test sites are pay to play, we are not. Do we take ad dollars from brands? Absolutely. Do we review skis for brands that do not advertise with us? Absolutely. Our whole philosophy is who is the ski for and who is it not for and NOT a number rating system which I get back to does a diservice to the brand, the ski and more so the customer. We also do Testers Choice winners and if you see that is also not limited to the brands that advertise with us.

All of this start back in our Epic days when we were reviewing skis there. It is also the cornerstone of why we built this site was to be able to review wach ski on its own merits and design. Have missed on some? Absolutely. Have we brought skis to the light that were totally missed by other avenues? Absolutely. To this day, I will stand by every review that was written by any of our official testers and many of the readers that have chosen to publish their own opinions.

Yep, I wasn't clear in my post. What I was trying to say is the net result from listening and buying purely because of a recommendation from a social influencer versus simply buying the top ranked ski in the magazine test is that in both instances they are likely to end up with a fine ski but not necessarily the best fit. Either case is more or less the same outcome so is listening to the influencer that has a hidden sponsor agenda that much worse for the consumer than relying purely on the traditional magazine test? Maybe one can argue ski magazine top pick has better chance of broader fit for people. I was just trying to say the uninformed consumer who buys based on social media influencer recommdation may be no worse off than buying purely best in test mag ski. Both cases they probably have a good ski, but perhaps not the best fit for them. In that sense, influencer with hidden agenda may not be all that scary and different versus what was already traditionally been happening.

 

[Philpug]

Maybe, one can argue ski magazine top pick has better chance of broader fit for people.

Possibly. I will let @Tricia tell her story of dealing with a customer that always bought the "Ski of the year"

 

[Philpug]

Yep, I wasn't clear in my post. What I was trying to say is the net result from listening and buying purely because of a recommendation from a social influencer versus simply buying the top ranked ski in the magazine test is that in both instances they are likely to end up with a fine ski but not necessarily the best fit.

The big concern is that social influencer has a stake, be it fiancial, emotional or even self validating, in the ski ... or product ... (s)he is recommending. We see it here, a tell tail sign is when someone recommends the same ski, brand and/or model or even type of ski in every situation.

 

[Tricia]

Maybe one can argue ski magazine top pick has better chance of broader fit for people.

Possibly. I will let @Tricia tell her story of dealing with a customer that always bought the "Ski of the year"

Yeah...
Well....
I had a guy come into the shop very frustrated. He HATED his new skis. Never wanted to ski them again and was hoping that I could help find the right ski.
After asking him a few questions I found that he had bought the ski of the year from ski magazine several years ago and was thrilled with is, so when that ski was at the end of it's life he picked up a ski magazine and bought the ski of the year again, thinking that formula worked for him back then.
The problem was, the ski of the year he loved was the Atomic Metron B5. The Ski of the Year that he replaced it with was the Rossignol Soul 7.
The dude who loves the Metron B5 is not the same dude who's going to love the Rossignol Soul 7.

That was the year that Atomic had the front side Vantages, which I sold him and he came back with a big smile on his face. Ironically those Vantages didn't get any kind of recognition from Ski Magazine.

 

[HardDaysNight]

but not all skis are just interchangeable.

Of course not. A FIS GS ski obviously isn’t interchangeable with an all-mountain clunker produced for the intermediate skier. Perhaps what @jimtransition said was misinterpreted. Within fairly broad categories skis from reputable manufacturers are all decent and perform acceptably. Nuances are likely to escape the large majority of recreational skiers and preferences are more likely to be driven by preconceived brand preferences (and internet BS) than actual differences.

 

[Quandary]

I have to give a shout out to Peak. I received an email today from them saying that their website was incorrect when I order my 110s. I ordered the 184cm 110s. Received an email today saying in essence we apologize but the lengths for the 110 are 178 or 188, there was a typo in the website. Would you like the 178s or the 188s? I replied actually neither, the 178s are to short the 188s to long for my preference so I'll have to cancel my order. Received a very prompt email saying no problem we will process the refund of your $50 deposit ASAP and we would love to sell you a pair of skis if you change your mind. Good for them, left me with a very positive impression.

Its not just Peak but I don't get the 178/188 thing. Very bad sizing choices for their molds in my view if you are going with those big gaps in length offerings.

 

[DanoT]

I have to give a shout out to Peak. I received an email today from them saying that there website was incorrect when I order my 110s. I ordered the 184cm 110s. Received an email today saying in essence we apologize but the lengths for the 110 are 178 or 188, there was a typo in the website. Would you like the 178s or the 188s? I replied actually neither, the 178s are to short the 188s to long for my preference so I'll have to cancel my order. Received a very prompt email saying no problem we will process the refund of your $50 deposit ASAP and we would love to sell you a pair of skis if you change your mind. Good for them, left me with a very positive impression.

Its not just Peak but I don't get the 178/188 thing. Very bad sizing choices for their molds in my view if you are going with those big gaps in length offerings.

You need to keep in mind the variance between manufacturers with regard to how they measure the ski's length. Tip to tail measurement or running surface? And how much rocker at the tip and tail all play a role in the ski's actual and usable length.

At the shop where I used to work, we could pull 4 or 5 184cm skis out of the demo rack, from different manufacturers, and likely none would actually be the same length.

Something else to keep in mind: The 188 is only 4 cm longer than your preferred length, so it is only 2cm longer on the front of the ski and 2cm longer on the back of the ski. 2cm is less than an inch. Would you really be able to tell the difference if the ski was available in both a 184 and a 188?

 

[ski otter 2]

You need to keep in mind the variance between manufacturers with regard to how they measure the ski's length. Tip to tail measurement or running surface? And how much rocker at the tip and tail all play a role in the ski's actual and usable length.

At the shop where I used to work, we could pull 4 or 5 184cm skis out of the demo rack, from different manufacturers, and likely none would actually be the same length.

Something else to keep in mind: The 188 is only 4 cm longer than your preferred length, so it is only 2cm longer on the front of the ski and 2cm longer on the back of the ski. 2cm is less than an inch. Would you really be able to tell the difference if the ski was available in both a 184 and a 188?

Easily, every time, skiing them back to back. But four cm. is still at least slightly too little between lengths, ideally, probably.

In a perfect world, maybe the length spacing would be decided by prototyping small differences (say 2 - 3 cm) and picking the favorites/consensus optimal lengths for that particular model design. Probably in many cases optimal spacing to me might be 5 or 6 cm between lengths offered. Dunno.

P.S. I ordered that length in the 110s also, and have not yet heard from them about this. If I get the chance, I'll probably go with the 188s.

 

[Quandary]

You need to keep in mind the variance between manufacturers with regard to how they measure the ski's length. Tip to tail measurement or running surface? And how much rocker at the tip and tail all play a role in the ski's actual and usable length.

At the shop where I used to work, we could pull 4 or 5 184cm skis out of the demo rack, from different manufacturers, and likely none would actually be the same length.

Something else to keep in mind: The 188 is only 4 cm longer than your preferred length, so it is only 2cm longer on the front of the ski and 2cm longer on the back of the ski. 2cm is less than an inch. Would you really be able to tell the difference if the ski was available in both a 184 and a 188?

Ahh after 50 years of skiing I am fully aware of all of that......

 

[DanoT]

Ahh after 50 years of skiing I am fully aware of all of that......

Then why cancel over a few cm variance when you know that a 188 may not be a 188? In my ski quiver I have skis that are labeled as 178.2, 180, and 184. I am able to ski them all without problems because I have not locked myself into one and only one length.

 

[slow-line-fast]

I've got a 184 and a 188 from different manufacturers, that are essentially the same length tip-tail as well as running surface.

You might try asking them how their lengths ski.

 

[Quandary]

Then why cancel over a few cm variance when you know that a 188 may not be a 188? In my ski quiver I have skis that are labeled as 178.2, 180, and 184. I am able to ski them all without problems because I have not locked myself into one and only one length.

I have in my rotation skis ranging from 175 to 188. I don't want a 188 or 187.1 or a 186.3 straight pull ski for this spot in my quiver. There are plenty of great skis to choose from, no need for me or anyone else to compromise what the want because a certain manufacturer chooses not to produce a ski in the length you are looking for.

 

[fatbob]

I have to give a shout out to Peak. I received an email today from them saying that their website was incorrect when I order my 110s. I ordered the 184cm 110s. Received an email today saying in essence we apologize but the lengths for the 110 are 178 or 188, there was a typo in the website. Would you like the 178s or the 188s? I replied actually neither, the 178s are to short the 188s to long for my preference so I'll have to cancel my order. Received a very prompt email saying no problem we will process the refund of your $50 deposit ASAP and we would love to sell you a pair of skis if you change your mind. Good for them, left me with a very positive impression.

Its not just Peak but I don't get the 178/188 thing. Very bad sizing choices for their molds in my view if you are going with those big gaps in length offerings.

Oops. This is what we mean by having an eye to executional detail. Anyone can make an error, it's checking for the errors that is relevant.

Obviously a nice save in keeping you sweet. I agree that in practice a 10cm spread in lengths is not really life changing in rockered skis but it is relevant when selling to individual consumers where a certain "Wow a ski over 185 that's a big ski" still holds sway in a lot of the market. So for commercial reasons alone one might expect a 5cm spread.