Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

[DanoT]

Not much difference between 23 and 25. Big difference between 25 and 45 or 50 or 70.

I just picked 20m radius and 25m out of the air because the numbers printed on the ski don't mean much, actually skiing the ski means a lot more.

Grouping skis in a category based on width under foot is kinda inadequate because it ignores tip and tail width, tip shape and rocker.

Sizing ski length by skier height is kinda lame as well because skill level and skier's weight are more important.

 

[ski otter 2]

Not for tall people.
But experience and lessons from experimentation are more important still, if one bothers to do that.

A facet of this thread's premise: some skis that become more accessible still retain lots of character and challenge, only in different ways: some multiple radius skis come to mind (e.g. the M6 Mantra and the newest Kendo; and the Fischer GT 86 Mulitflex), as well as some belatedly rockered skis over the years (e.g. Kastle FX 106Ti, Fatypus D-Sender).

 

[Wasatchman]

My wife is die-hard manual transmission. '99 Audi A4 still going strong (We should start a Audi manual transmission thread )

Same here with my manual 2001 subaru outback.

 

[DanishRider]

So I would really like to have a Ferrari, but it is isn’t really suited to my need to go skiing because:
A: It is not very good at getting me up a snowy mountain
B: my skis won’t fit in it
C: Don’t even get me started on insurace

I now own a Cupra Formentor that does it all, and I still have fun…. I feel the same way with skis, and just ride them trying to have fun

 

[Wasatchman]

For someone that has a ski quiver, I like a ski to have a personality rather than just "okay" at a lot of different things.

However, the average skier does not really have a quiver and so from a business perspective I can see how the market (at least the mass brands) tends to gravitate toward the needs of the many.

Skis that focus on the needs of a few tend to be boutique brands. By default they aren't targeting a bigger market.

 

[DocGKR]

"Please build me a 95ish/mm, full camber ski without much or any metal, that turns on a dime, doesn’t wobble on the steep chalk & grips the slick like an ice skate!"

Have you tried the Augment AM98? Only ski I've tried that has eclipsed my old Nordica Hell & Backs for what you describe....

 

[4ster]

Sounds good except for the rocker but still may be worth a try.

 

[tomahawkins]

Please build me a 95ish/mm, full camber ski without much or any metal, that turns on a dime, doesn’t wobble on the steep chalk & grips the slick like an ice skate!
I will somehow hack my way through the crud & bumps

Regarding "without much or any metal", what's the performance requirement you're looking for? Less weight? Less torsional stiffness?

Near full camber 95mm skis are rare: Mantra M6, Bonafide, and Evolv 90/100; the later being the less metallic. If metal is ok and 170 is your size, there's a new '16 Monster 98 on ebay right now.

 

[Wasatchman]

"Please build me a 95ish/mm, full camber ski without much or any metal, that turns on a dime, doesn’t wobble on the steep chalk & grips the slick like an ice skate!"

Have you tried the Augment AM98? Only ski I've tried that has eclipsed my old Nordica Hell & Backs for what you describe....

If you know what you like in a ski you should check out Praxis.

 

[Philpug]

Please build me a 95ish/mm, full camber ski without much or any metal, that turns on a dime, doesn’t wobble on the steep chalk & grips the slick like an ice skate!

Blossom Pure 99, a traditional full cambered 99 that skis very quiet.

 

[snwbrdr]

The needs of the many provides revenue to provide to the needs of the few.

 

[Philpug]

The needs of the many provides revenue to provide to the needs of the few.

Very true. Porsche builds Macans and Cayennes to fund 911 and 718s

 

[4ster]

Regarding "without much or any metal", what's the performance requirement you're looking for? Less weight? Less torsional stiffness?

I think I would describe it as less damp. I’m not against metal or Ti, I just like a lively, snappy ski. I only need the width for the versatility it provides me in variable snow, otherwise I would just ski on my SL’s all the time. My typical ski run consists of 2/3rds off piste & 1/3 groomer, I prefer to optimize the groomer part along with the mix of powder, bumps, windbuffed sastruggi, crud, trees & whatever other junk I encountered the rest of the run.
180ish is more my preferred length.
Rocker or rise is only useful to me on a pure powder day, only time I may want something wider or longer too.

If you know what you like in a ski you should check out Praxis.

I have & I may again

Blossom Pure 99, a traditional full cambered 99 that skis very quiet.

The tough thing for me with all these boutique options is that it is difficult psychologically to spend big bucks on something I am going to thrash. It would be nice to have a mainstream mid priced ski that fits my criteria, hence the title of this thread.

 

[Ryan Perham]

Luckily for the manufacturers, they get to have their cake and eat it too. Most average skiers just want something with a reputation of being high performance. They’ll ski whatever the marketing departments and reviewers and their friends tell them is the best. The average skier is not demoing ten pairs and picking the ones that are easy and fun and then buying another easy going pair every couple years.

 

[Wendy]

So I would really like to have a Ferrari, but it is isn’t really suited to my need to go skiing because:
A: It is not very good at getting me up a snowy mountain
B: my skis won’t fit in it
C: Don’t even get me started on insurace

I now own a Cupra Formentor that does it all, and I still have fun…. I feel the same way with skis, and just ride them trying to have fun

I had to look up the Cupra Formentor, since it’s not here in the US. Sweet-looking vehicle!

 

[Wendy]

The needs of the many provides revenue to provide to the needs of the few.

This. It’s hard for Indie skier manufacturers to break though and make a good profit. I’m sure for even the major manufacturers, there’s ebb and flow and profit is at the forefront of their strategy.

 

[Wendy]

I think I would describe it as less damp. I’m not against metal or Ti, I just like a lively, snappy ski. I only need the width for the versatility it provides me in variable snow, otherwise I would just ski on my SL’s all the time. My typical ski run consists of 2/3rds off piste & 1/3 groomer, I prefer to optimize the groomer part along with the mix of powder, bumps, windbuffed sastruggi, crud, trees & whatever other junk I encountered the rest of the run.
180ish is more my preferred length.
Rocker or rise is only useful to me on a pure powder day, only time I may want something wider or longer too.


I have & I may again





The tough thing for me with all these boutique options is that it is difficult psychologically to spend big bucks on something I am going to thrash. It would be nice to have a mainstream mid priced ski that fits my criteria, hence the title of this thread.

IDOne skis have a lot of camber, no metal, and are super snappy as a result. My FRXP’s are good in east coast conditions which is saying a lot. Still, not a mainstream, midpriced ski. But not $1000 either.

 

[4ster]

IDOne skis have a lot of camber, no metal, and are super snappy as a result. My FRXP’s are good in east coast conditions which is saying a lot. Still, not a mainstream, midpriced ski. But not $1000 either.

Thanks
I‘ve never heard of IDOne skis?

 

[Scruffy]

The tough thing for me with all these boutique options is that it is difficult psychologically to spend big bucks on something I am going to thrash.

Amen.

 

[tomahawkins]

The needs of the many provides revenue to provide to the needs of the few.

Very true. Porsche builds Macans and Cayennes to fund 911 and 718s

This. It’s hard for Indie skier manufacturers to break though and make a good profit. I’m sure for even the major manufacturers, there’s ebb and flow and profit is at the forefront of their strategy.

But I don't think this is the case. Head could have afforded to keep limited production of Monsters while mass producing and marketing Kores. But they didn't; they killed the Monster line. Why? Because I think having two semi-competing lines, albeit at different skill levels, under the same brand is difficult to market. People want to know they are buying the best, most advanced skis, but if they are beyond their skill level, the skier has a hard time of it and follow-on business suffers. But if you kill off the Monsters, Kores take the top spot by default, and a larger percentage of skiers are happy about their purchase and skiing better because of it.

That said, Blizzard seems to be managing this competing balance well with the Rustlers and the Bulls.