They MUST be kidding us with all the ski boot models and offerings...

I was on a website for ski boots - and Salomon alone must offer something like 20 different ski boot models for men and women. Other manufacturers offer a similarly bewildering range of choices. I've been away from skiing for 8 years and just purchased new gear, but it seems to me that all those choices are counter productive for all concerned. I'm sure there is something about this that I'm missing. somebody explain it to me, please...

Wouldn't these companies sell more product and be able to explain it to consumers more easily if they cut their offerings down by 1/2 to 2/3 and focused on making the products better. No wonder it's hard to find gear reviews when it comes to ski equipment - there is so much of it and it changes every 12 months that any one particular model is like the leaf of a tree in a big forest.

It's called marketing.
The only real advance in skis in the last 20 yrs. is parrabolics or shaped skis. Other than that it is the name and the graphics that change.
Same with boots. Now you can pay $100 more to have a "clear" shell. Buy what fits and is comfortable.
I was in a shop last season looking for something else. Bought a pair of "used" boots that could have only been "used" once for $60.00. Best boots I ever owned.
I was at Killington this week. Had a cig on the deck. Overheard a blowhard talk about all the things he had and what he spent. Funning is, conditons were great, and he was talking, not SKIING! Buy his stuff next year. Barely used and half price.

>>It's called marketing.<<

Sometimes I wonder. I spent part of my career in advertising and part of getting your message across involves comprehension on the part of the consumer. Clutter precludes comprehension. What I saw on that website yesterday was profound clutter. It even baffles the big ski shops. Example: I purchased the Salomon Ellipse 9.0 boot. Salomon makes something like 4-5 varieties of boots, and then they have various models within each line. For instance you can buy an Ellipse 10.0, or a 9.0, or an 8.0. Mens or Women's. OOOffaaaa. Ski Barn where I bought my boots told me that they didn't bother with the Ellipse 10.0. Why? It's just a stiffer version of the Ellipse 9. The whole POINT of the boot is comfort. They figure anybody stepping up to a stiffer boot will go to one of Salomon's higher performance models. In other words this large ski retailer didn't even see why Salomon even bothered with the Ellipse 10.0. I'd have to agree. If the Ellipse boot I have (again, the 9.0) was any sitffer, it wouldn't be comfortable for the vast majority of skiers.

More complexity breeds more confusion. You go on ski gear websites and they can't possibly hope to carry the entire Salomon boot line. It's too vast. It's too redundant. It has too many pointless models that overlap.

You see the same thing in the car industry. When we went shopping for a minivan the Toyota Sienna had over TWENTY option packages. That's utterly ludicrous. When I purchased my Acura TL you could buy it with a stick or auto trans. with or without the Navigation system. Every conceivable option was standard. The TL is the best selling car in its class, and I'm convinced part of that is simplicity in the way Acura markets their cars. I wish some of these ski manufacturers would cut their offerings in half.

Typical advancement in product line of any industry (pick one) with flat growth are small, and nearly invisible. Finances dictate that it must be. But look over the span of 5-10 years and it is tremendous!

Product improvement is evolutionary, to find it, you must know what to look for. The structural engineering improvement in the materials found in skis, boots and bindings are incremental. The overall products are lighter, stronger and MORE flexible….not just formed into an hour glass shape. Look at the advanced ski-binding development…it started with the World Cup Racers and has emerged in to the retail stores with $1100-$1300 list price packages…for the advanced skier and eventually to the recreational skier. What better way for a skier then to walk into a shop and buy skis and boots where the binding assembly is already part of the ski? 10-minutes more to adjust the binding after fitting the boots and there out the door! The only loser is the ski shop looking for binding mounting revenue…

However, it appears that the average recreational consumer only sees the packaging, thinking that is the only change…

I'm very happy with the Volkl/Marker package and I do buy the notion that the floating mounting system allows the entire ski to flex and carve the turn, eliminating the 'dead spots' the mounting holes in the ski used to create. When you buy a pair of skis you always need bindings anway. Makes sense to me. Eventually all skis will be sold this way, new and at the flea market...

patentcad said:

.... I've been away from skiing for 8 years and just purchased new gear, but it seems to me that all those choices are counter productive for all concerned. I'm sure there is something about this that I'm missing. somebody explain it to me, please...

Click to expand...

Well, excuse me for using the John McEnroe line, but...You cannot be SERIOUS!...man, you are TRUELY oldschool.
Patentcad, I bet you possess "C"-width feet too!!! I'm not pickin' a fight with ya', but once the European bootmakers began realizing that half the population has something other than a perfectly shaped "C"-width foot...and began creating moldings to fit, gee...they've begun to make mo $$$. If you've checked, the number of different ski lengths HAS been compressed. Man, IMO..they got it ALL WRONG in the beginning...more lengths per ski with fewer boot choices...granted, the type of sidecuts & techniques did demand more skis, but they did alienate half the people that love the outdoors...that would have killed to get into a comfortable boot...that didn't have that anatomically perfect "C"-width. Does thee have a "C"-width, or does thee forget the mountains and go & play golf...
...I guess you can tell who never had proper alignment in the early years.... :lol:

Eventually all skis will be sold this way, new and at the flea market...

Click to expand...

i hope not. system skis are fun to ski (i own a pair of volkl p50 motions with the railed binding) but i think there's a solid market for non-binding system skis (especially with the expert level skier that demands to customize their own setup to their liking). compared to other skis without the floating binding system type deal, i can't say that the motion system is any better at allowing flex than a regular ski and binding setup. i think it's a lot of hype and most skiers can't tell the difference... likely mistaking the natural flex and pop of a ski with any binding as an indication of the binding allowing for a better turn. does it help a little? sure. is it extremely noticable? not really. though it's hard to tell since most system skis are not sold sans system to compare

If it's old school to want simplicity, then I'm guilty as charged. If all these different models are to offer a range of choices reflective of the wide variety of foot shapes out there, then why not have fewer models- and offer then in different widths too, just like shoe manufacturers? I still haven't heard a cogent rationale for what appears to be marketing madness to me.

This is all hot stove league talk. Real world: I LOVE my new gear and after three ski days back after an 8 year hiatus the Volkl 5 Star/Salomon Ellipse 9/Marker Piston binding combo is definately improving my skiing. I'm skiing as good or a little better than I think I hever have after a short time back on snow, and that's all due to a gear setup that's far beyond anything I have ever enjoyed. So whatever they're doing in the ski industry it's working all the way around: they have my money and made a profit and I feel as if I got my money's worth and then some. Exactly how capitalism is supposed to work : ).

So this stuff actually WORKS. Floating binding systems improve carving? I don't know, but this setup carves up boilerplate like my electric kitchen knife goes through the london broil...

patentcad said:

If it's old school to want simplicity, then I'm guilty as charged. If all these different models are to offer a range of choices reflective of the wide variety of foot shapes out there, then why not have fewer models- and offer then in different widths too, just like shoe manufacturers? I still haven't heard a cogent rationale for what appears to be marketing madness to me.

This is all hot stove league talk. Real world: I LOVE my new gear and after three ski days back after an 8 year hiatus the Volkl 5 Star/Salomon Ellipse 9/Marker Piston binding combo is definately improving my skiing. I'm skiing as good or a little better than I think I hever have after a short time back on snow, and that's all due to a gear setup that's far beyond anything I have ever enjoyed. So whatever they're doing in the ski industry it's working all the way around: they have my money and made a profit and I feel as if I got my money's worth and then some. Exactly how capitalism is supposed to work : ).

So this stuff actually WORKS. Floating binding systems improve carving? I don't know, but this setup carves up boilerplate like my electric kitchen knife goes through the london broil...

Click to expand...

I agree. At least with VOLKL it seems to be working. VOLKL is the first system I have met that actually made a better skier out of me and made it more enjoyable at the same time. Maybe it's in the special sauce. I sure as heck hope these pistons and other new tech stuff will be durable for the next 5-7 years I plan to keep them....

BTW, when I bring this issue of breadth of models up with shop owners/buyers, they only select a smaller subset of equipment - a balance of what they know will move along with a continuim of products that will service the skill sets they see the most of. And a few exotics for the Beverly Hills crowd. After all, they're in business to make a buck too.

>>BTW, when I bring this issue of breadth of models up with shop owners/buyers, they only select a smaller subset of equipment <<

That really underscores my point. Very silly indeed. Uber-marketing run amok.