Skiing Mag Gear Guide 2008

[big_vert]

The problem is as follows...put 2 people on the same set of skis and you'll get 2 different opinions. Especially true with new ski technology. The ski mags try to compensate for that by having alot of testers that vary by gender, height, weight, ability, age, even recreational skiers as opposed to pros. They all test the skis and they all make comments.

Then the editirs mess it up by trying to edit down all those comments into a few bullet points. It doesn't work. I find these tests useless.

The best way to figure out new skis is to demo them yourself, preferably with another skiing buddy who has similar interests as you. Pick 5 or 6 pair of skis and both of you ski each one throughout the day, then compare notes.

Without doubt this is the best description I've ever seen as to why the Mag reviews are so useless.

Anyone who would buy direct from any mag review is doing themselves a huge disservice. The mags aren't even consistent from one year to the next about a carry-over product. Absolutely right - demo, demo, demo, demo. demo.

And, when in doubt, demo some more. Whenever there's a demo tent I get on something new. I loved my Axispro's years ago, then eventually stumbled on Dynastar Skicross 10's - new meaning to life. Then with a buddy in CO, tried some different things including the Dynastar 4800's, which lead to the 8k's - my fave of 40 years of skiing. Nothing at the demo tents last winter has made me get off these yet - maybe this year. Maybe an Atomic (nah - just kidding - although I did try them again last season)

 

[SkiDork]

BTW - not all skis are available to demo.

 

[koreshot]

The problem is as follows...put 2 people on the same set of skis and you'll get 2 different opinions. Especially true with new ski technology. The ski mags try to compensate for that by having alot of testers that vary by gender, height, weight, ability, age, even recreational skiers as opposed to pros. They all test the skis and they all make comments.

Then the editirs mess it up by trying to edit down all those comments into a few bullet points. It doesn't work. I find these tests useless.

The best way to figure out new skis is to demo them yourself, preferably with another skiing buddy who has similar interests as you. Pick 5 or 6 pair of skis and both of you ski each one throughout the day, then compare notes.

Definitely, magazine reviews would work best for me if they included the following detailed ski specs:
- Available lengths
- Sidecut details
- Camber, tip/tail rocker, tip/tail height & shape
- Ski running length for each size
- Boot sole location on ski running length for each size
- Weight / swing weight by size
- Flex pattern
- Tip, middle and tail stiffness (on some kind of median scale)
- Construction (sandwich vs cap, metal/no metal, edges, etc.. etc..)

This should capture most of what is needed to make an educated decision on demoing some models. You can't have an all around soft park ski that crushes crud. You can't have a fat ski that is soft all around and has a bunch of time tip and tail rocker that is going to be better on hard snow that a ski with more traditional shape and stiffer flex. A ski with a softer, rockered tip will float better than a Atomic B5. You can't have a stiff, heavy ski with two layers of metal and square tail rippin bump runs as well as a light straighter ski with a round flex.

If people still want some random bs opinions that are based more on which tester is sponsored by which brand and who paid more advertising money, they can still do their usual reviews where they rank skis 53% finesse vs. 47% power. Like that helps a 230lb skier make a decision. Some feather light female skier was overpowered by a ski... and what does that mean to someone that has twice the weight and 50% more leverage?

This way people who are educated on ski technology and understand how shape, flex, weight etc... affects their skiing experience can narrow down their demo list using specs and principles of ski construction/performance, not biased opinions that are driven by the publishing company's financial bottom line.

 

[JimG.]

BTW - not all skis are available to demo.

You are partially correct.

Maybe not on the trucks during demo days, but any reputable ski rep/shop will have a pair or two of each ski they rep, or they can get a pair for you to demo.

But that's probably not true for specialty skis like bump skis or tele skis.

 

[wa-loaf]

Definitely, magazine reviews would work best for me if they included the following detailed ski specs:
- Available lengths
- Sidecut details
- Camber, tip/tail rocker, tip/tail height & shape
- Ski running length for each size
- Boot sole location on ski running length for each size
- Weight / swing weight by size
- Flex pattern
- Tip, middle and tail stiffness (on some kind of median scale)
- Construction (sandwich vs cap, metal/no metal, edges, etc.. etc..)

10+ years ago when I worked in a shop we had an industry mag that had pretty much all that info in it. It was really handy when we had customers that wanted to know every detail. I don't remember the name. I'm sure someone else here is familiar with it.

Despite the subjective nature of the ski reviews I really enjoy seeing all those new skis and reading about them.

 

[Rushski]

Obviously not all brands/models were available when they were testing, but surprised Elan who is pushing hard in many shops and signed Plake are barely in their. And little or no Blizzard or Dynamic.

Also, one of their "Killer Deals" is a pair of Salomon X-Wing Cyclones for $1,275?!?!? Does that come with boots for that price to be a Killer Deal?"

Take it all with a grain of salt and just use it to get pumped for life to begin again...

 

[mattchuck2]

Yeah, I tend to trust reviews done by skiers who are at the top of their games, rather than random people in a ski forum. I have no idea how big_vert skis, but I have a pretty good idea of how Tommy Moe and Brant Moles ski. Therefore, I think that the Skiing Magazine reviews are, indeed, useful.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious about what you thought.

actively disliked the Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3. .

Just curious on what you disliked about the Mach 3's. I have a pair and like them alot on front side hard pack. Great edge gripe, very fast as well as stable, and versitle enough to get in bumps, woods or jump in the NASTAR course.

On the majority of my ski days I choose my Top Fuels', but for front side rippin the Mach
3's are nice.

 

[tjf67]

I wonder why people always hate on the reviews every year. Cause your ski is not tops on the list. Or better yet your skiis did not even make it to the plate. I guess if I speant a grand on skiis and they did not even make it to the finals I would would feel like a fool as well and make excuses for them.
Its really does not matter if you ski inferior skiis if they match your skiing ability. If you are happy then that is all that matters

 

[tjf67]

Without doubt this is the best description I've ever seen as to why the Mag reviews are so useless.

Anyone who would buy direct from any mag review is doing themselves a huge disservice. The mags aren't even consistent from one year to the next about a carry-over product. Absolutely right - demo, demo, demo, demo. demo.

And, when in doubt, demo some more. Whenever there's a demo tent I get on something new. I loved my Axispro's years ago, then eventually stumbled on Dynastar Skicross 10's - new meaning to life. Then with a buddy in CO, tried some different things including the Dynastar 4800's, which lead to the 8k's - my fave of 40 years of skiing. Nothing at the demo tents last winter has made me get off these yet - maybe this year. Maybe an Atomic (nah - just kidding - although I did try them again last season)

I have the t two years worth of reviews. I like to compare. They have very similar reviews from year to year.

 

[wa-loaf]

Just curious on what you disliked about the Mach 3's. I have a pair and like them alot on front side hard pack. Great edge gripe, very fast as well as stable, and versitle enough to get in bumps, woods or jump in the NASTAR course.

I didn't ski the power version, not sure which one you have. When I demoed them I felt that unless I had them locked into a medium radius turn they were chattering around and being squirrily. I skied a bunch of demos of varying levels that day and they were the only ones that really gave me trouble. I'd try them again, maybe it was a bad tune or I was low on sugar or something. :grin:

 

[big_vert]

Yeah, I tend to trust reviews done by skiers who are at the top of their games, rather than random people in a ski forum. I have no idea how big_vert skis, but I have a pretty good idea of how Tommy Moe and Brant Moles ski. Therefore, I think that the Skiing Magazine reviews are, indeed, useful.

They're posers.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

the Top Fuel is my #3 ski preference (Jet Fuel is nowhere near being on list - yuck). Never .

Interesting that an additional 3mm in the tip, 6 in the waist and 4 in the tail on the exact same construction turns you from a lover into a hater...sure, not as much sidecut, but other than that, its the same construction. Did you get on the Hellcat?

 

[big_vert]

Interesting that an additional 3mm in the tip, 6 in the waist and 4 in the tail on the exact same construction turns you from a lover into a hater...sure, not as much sidecut, but other than that, its the same construction. Did you get on the Hellcat?

Nighr and day difference. Interestingly, my buddy was on the Nordica Grand Prix's (?), and the 06-07 version was a favorite - while the 07-08's had the same feel that I experiencesd with the Jet Fuel - super heavy front end that had to be swung around.

His feeling was exactly the same - one run on these things would be like 10 on any other ski. Go figure.

 

[SkiDork]

You are partially correct.

Maybe not on the trucks during demo days, but any reputable ski rep/shop will have a pair or two of each ski they rep, or they can get a pair for you to demo.

But that's probably not true for specialty skis like bump skis or tele skis.

Also race skis - The local race ski shop at K, Peak Peformance won't demo stuff like Fischer RC4's etc. i really didn't care because I know I love them anyways...

 

[ctenidae]

I like the gear guide because they have lots of pictures, and that's how I pick my skis. It's gotta look cool. That's the most important thing.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Nighr and day difference. Interestingly, my buddy was on the Nordica Grand Prix's (?), and the 06-07 version was a favorite - while the 07-08's had the same feel that I experiencesd with the Jet Fuel - super heavy front end that had to be swung around.

His feeling was exactly the same - one run on these things would be like 10 on any other ski. Go figure.

I like them both...just for different places, Top Fuel for a one quiver EC ski (fortunately I'm not limited to a one ski quiver though) and the Jet Fuel for a western ski...the additional surface area made the 178 more skiable in deeper snow and crud than the Top Fuel...I'd want the 186 out west in the Top Fuel but the 78 Jet Fuel is just fine...with a fat ski for the DEEP days. This year the HellCat takes it a step further...no mild mannered house cat...that thing is a beast...but a good kinda beast. Did you try the Afterburner...Jet Fuel with no metal...I was at the Nordica product launch and most of the other dealers there favored the Afterburner over the Jet Fuel...lighter, snappier, etc...sounds like it would address your complaint.

 

[bigbog]

i got the powder gear guide today, it is making me sick.
to many awesome skis to choose from.
tough choices eh?

Talk about a plethora of fat skis waiting for the white stuff to fall. I think I may think about ditching my 80-somethings...while salivating at these dimensions....:-o

 

[skibum1321]

I wonder why people always hate on the reviews every year. Cause your ski is not tops on the list. Or better yet your skiis did not even make it to the plate. I guess if I speant a grand on skiis and they did not even make it to the finals I would would feel like a fool as well and make excuses for them.
Its really does not matter if you ski inferior skiis if they match your skiing ability. If you are happy then that is all that matters

I think the point is that you shouldn't buy skis strictly on a 2 sentence review in a magazine. I don't think anyone is ripping the mag because their skis didn't make the list. But you would be stupid to not take anything they say there with a grain of salt. Remember who pays the bills.

 

[JimG.]

I think the point is that you shouldn't buy skis strictly on a 2 sentence review in a magazine. I don't think anyone is ripping the mag because their skis didn't make the list. But you would be stupid to not take anything they say there with a grain of salt. Remember who pays the bills.

Case in point...I got SKI yesterday and glanced at the gear reviews.

I hear alot of good things about the Dynastar Legend 8000...I'll be demoing another pair this coming season because I do want a wider (the 8000 is listed at 79mm underfoot) ski better suited to powder skiing. I've heard alot of praises for this ski in this forum, from skiers who sound like they're pretty good in the bumps/trees/BC/powder. A versatile ski that skis alot of things well.

To me, that's the definitiion of an All Mountain Expert ski, a one quiver ski for experts.

SKI says it's an All Mountain Cruiser...designed for ripping big arcs on groomed snow. Why would they say that? It's Dynastar marketing to the people who read SKI...mostly groomer skiers I'll bet.

So, either SKI got it wrong or you guys are full of sh*t. I'll place my wager on the rag being wrong.