Gear Guides = pointless / little credibility?

[deadheadskier]

This is something I noticed in this years Gear Guides from Ski and Skiing, which I can't believe the editors didn't catch as it's the same company.

Kastle MX98 is the number 1 rated ski in it's category in Skiing magazine, yet it's the lowest rated ski in it's category in Ski magazine.

Skiing Pros: Quick between the edges, this ski eats up moguls and tree lines.

Ski Best For: Long-turn high speed power surfing.

:blink: um what?

I'd imagine that there are other completely contradicting reviews of same skis between the two magazines.

So, what's a consumer to think? These magazines are a joke and there is zero credibility to the gear reviews?

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

long turn high speed power surfing..sign me up for the clinic cause that's not in my ski set..

 

[Geoff]

This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.

 

[marcski]

This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.

Agreed.

Plus the lingo is a bit ridiculous and can mean different things for different skiers. I was just reading Skiing's gear guide last night. I have heard some good things about the new Kastle's though from people that have them.

 

[wa-loaf]

They should merge the mags so they can put out only one bad set of info.

They only get one size to ski in most cases. So maybe 200lb guy at Skiing though it was a nice snappy ski and the 140 pounder at SKI couldn't get the things to turn?

Powder looks like they didn't even test. Just put up the marketing info from the manufacturers.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.

Believe me I'm pro demo, but even when you do you have to consider the conditions that day plus how good the tune on the ski was.

 

[Geoff]

They only get one size to ski in most cases. So maybe 200lb guy at Skiing though it was a nice snappy ski and the 140 pounder at SKI couldn't get the things to turn?

I figure the people doing the reviews are also quite different from the average recreational skier. I haven't looked at a review other than this year's Skiing in a long time but I recall that the people Ski used when I last bothered to look at their reviews were people who skied every day, typically had some competitive background, were fit as hell, and probably mostly weighed 150 pounds. Their review and my review are going to be very different.

Demo. /thread

 

[skidmarks]

It's hard to demo

Believe me I'm pro demo, but even when you do you have to consider the conditions that day plus how good the tune on the ski was.

Demoing skis can be very subjective; conditions, tune and how you feel all come into play.

A bad tune can make the best pair of skis ski like crap. I was amazed that some of the Rossignol CS70s I sold last year had a bad out of the wrapper factory tune. The skis were very base high and didn't hook up like the pair I had demoed the previous spring. I have this knowledge because I had purchased a pair for my very own quiver. After a nice stone grind and tune the skis were ready for action. I called everyone we sold pairs to and inspected their skis, most needed tunes!

Personally I don't trust most of what I read in the magazines. Make sure you buy skis that have a performance guarantee so if they suck (for you) you can try again.

One last note and very important, if your current skis aren't tuned you'll be demoing the tune instead of the equipment.

 

[Philpug]

The best factory tunes I have demoed were Kastle and Blossom skis (Vist & Hart).

 

[deadheadskier]

This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.

no doubt........but, what's the point in rating gear when you can't even be at least somewhat consistent? Best in one magazine, worst in another and one saying they're quick turners the other better for longer turns. It's an embarrassment for those magazines, especially because they have the same owner.

 

[riverc0il]

Ski rags have always lacked credibility. Generally, ski rags only review skis from companies that advertise with them. And they only post good or glowing reviews, never a negative comment. Ever. And they use catch all horoscope like descriptions to make every ski sound like it can do it all.

In your example, it is funny that the same company would have two different magazines saying two different things. But that just goes to show you how subjective feel of a ski is. Those comments could be completely true to two different skiers. Maybe the older groomer crowd thought one thing (SKI) and the younger natural snow crowd thought another (Skiing) which is very typically how I see different skis falling into those two very broad categories. I suspect the two magazines used different testers for their demoing which caused the discrepancy.

Bottom line is ski magazine gear guides will never be reliable or credible. It is nice to see the new line ups, check out specs, and stack up the major brands best offerings in each category against each other. But this can more easily be done online with broader and better results as well as real valid feedback from skiers would can say whatever they want without risking pissing off a client.

 

[deadheadskier]

maybe there already is, but if I were a ski manufacturer; in this case Kastle, I would be putting quite a bit of pressure on the editors to get it straight. Yes, I do understand that different testers will have different results, but over the course of a group of professionals, greater consistency in reporting should be expected.

While Skiing mags have had credibility issues for a long time, it seems like they continue to fall further and further. It's bad for resorts, it's bad for suppliers, it's bad for the sport in general.

I'm sure this is the trend with print magazines in general as the world transitions more and more information online. Some of us aren't like trekchik though and prefer something old fashioned to bring into the crapper

 

[Trekchick]

All the reviews of the reviews(Ski Gear Guides) I've seen says that the best print version is Freeskier. I picked up a copy yesterday at the ski/bike shop and I have to agree.

 

[SkiDork]

not all skis are available for demo unfortunately.

 

[thetrailboss]

not all skis are available for demo unfortunately.

Exactly. I agree with the consensus on the crediblity of ski testing. A few years ago when I was buying skis I talked with a local reputable shop about the tests and he shared some secrets.

First, not every ski is demoed. Manufacturers, believe it or not, have to pay for the honor to have their skis tested. So they will only send a few models. When they are tested, the skis are covered up so that the skier doesn't know what he/she is skiing on.

Second, the manufacturers know that these demos are not really too important. So what they do is send skis and then have the skis demoed in different categories to see how they handle. For example, they might have their twin tips demoed for high speed cruising or something like that just for the hell of it. They want to see where the ski's weakness is, not necessarily its strength.

The magazines arbitrarily make up the categories and the ski manufacturers will just toss in whatever skis they want...not necessarily the best ones. They don't have any say...the categories that the magazines make up are pretty random at times and one magazine may say that a ski is a "freeride" model while another might say, "big mountain expert." Likewise, a manufacturer may have a ski demoed in the "freeride category" in one magazine and in the "intermediate" category in another.

Nothing replaces an actual demo. The ski that I liked the best last season at the demo day was a high speed expert cruiser ski, but it handled very well in the bumps as well. You wouldn't know that from a magazine test.

 

[SkiDork]

oh, when I said "demo" I meant personal demo, not magazine ski test demo. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[tjf67]

I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard. They do give you the general characteristics of each ski. I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased. I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis. I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
That said AC50 for me this year. I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.

 

[deadheadskier]

I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard. They do give you the general characteristics of each ski. I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased. I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis. I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
That said AC50 for me this year. I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.

For the Record,

This thread isn't a 'fight against the man post'; just my observation that a company that owns two magazines presented two conflicting reviews of the same product and IMO that's pretty weak sauce.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I don't even bother to read Ski or Skiing magazine cause they are crap...all the gear info I need I can get on the net..

 

[thetrailboss]

I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard. They do give you the general characteristics of each ski. I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased. I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis. I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
That said AC50 for me this year. I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.

The criticism is directed not at the technical data (size, dimensions, price, etc) but at the "ratings" and testing of the skis and ranking as which ski is best for what.