Review confusion

[Cheizz]

I’m a bit confused. In reviews, many ski’s get great ratings for edge hold, dampness etc. But when I try them, my teeth rattle out of my mouth and I slip and slide all over the place. The K2 Pinnacle 95, Atomic Vantage 90 CTI etc. are examples of this.


Also, there are some ‘expert’ rated skis that – according to the reviews by people who should know what they’re doing and writing down – should be great for experienced skiers that have some mass and power. But when I get on them, my knees get all the shocks and those skis feel like Cadillac and the bottom hits the road as soon as you just sit in it. Elan Amphibio 16 TI and K2 iKonic 85 TI are examples.


What am I feeling wrong? Or rather, what am I interpreting wrong?

 

[Philpug]

Ahh, age old questions. This is the problem with most static reviews be it magazine tests or established on line reviews. Who are the reviewers? What conditions are they testing them in? How is the ski tuned? IS the ski tuned? Can the tester tell if the ski is tuned correctly? Much has to do with what the tester prefers in a ski and what their point of reference is. If you read our "How we review skis", I go over much of this about biases. It is understanding the reviewer and that reviewer being able to discern the differences between a ski. Our reviews here are complied by actual skiers, advanced to experts..not "Professionals"..where that skier could get on two 2x4's and get them to ski perfect. Our testers get on at least 30 different skis in a season, some of us more, much more but getting of different skis gives up an appreciation to explain the nuances, where the skis strenght is and where it's weeknesses are and who can benefit from thos charateristic and who will be hindered. My suggestion would be find a skier/reviewer that you relate to and converse and compare notes. Oh, you can't do that with the magazines or other review site?

 

[Monique]

Everything Phil said. It is also *possible* that when a skier consistently finds their teeth rattling or edge control lacking, they might benefit from some carving lessons.

 

[Cheizz]

Everything Phil said. It is also *possible* that when a skier consistently finds their teeth rattling or edge control lacking, they might benefit from some carving lessons.

Very true. But on other skis I don't have that problem (when I ski them back to back on the same runs, in the ame conditions). That's why I think it has to do with the ski+skier+conditions combo (since the only thing different is the ski).

Not that I wouldn't benefit from lessons, but in this case, I don't think that's the factor.

 

[David Chaus]

I believe Phil has posted several times that when we're demoing skis, what we're really demoing are:
1) The snow conditions
2) The tune
3) The skis. More accurately, how the ski expresses your skiing movements, on those conditions, with that tune.

Pretty much in that order, maybe reverse 1) and 2).
I've wondered how positive reviews from print and online reviews correlate with the snow conditions on that date.

In any event, if you're demoing different models back-to-back, on the same runs and in the same conditions, and if you have reason to believe the tune is good on all the skis (a bit "if"), then the last variable is 3).

 

[Philpug]

I believe Phil has posted several times that when we're demoing skis, what we're really demoing are:
1) The snow conditions
2) The tune
3) The skis. More accurately, how the ski expresses your skiing movements, on those conditions, with that tune.

Pretty much in that order, maybe reverse 1) and 2).
I've wondered how positive reviews from print and online reviews correlate with the snow conditions on that date.

In any event, if you're demoing different models back-to-back, on the same runs and in the same conditions, and if you have reason to believe the tune is good on all the skis (a bit "if"), then the last variable is 3).

@David Chaus , this is is where we don't have the limitations of a magazine test. The have to ski X amount of skis in Y conditions on THAT day. Most times if the tune is bad, they don't have a choice. We were at a test with our previous site's other test and one of the ski was tuned so bad that it was almost unskiable. @Tricia didn't get on that ski till the middle part of the day. That means everyone who skied that ski early in the day did not get to test that ski fairly because they could not go back and retest it. We talked to the other testers and they all just thought it was a bad ski.

One thing I will say about our reviewers....they know a bad tune. Our testers know if a ski is skiing poorly because of the tune and we make sure if we feel it is the tune, we either get another opinion or get on another pair of that ski.

 

[fatbob]

From a consumer's point a demo ski with a bad tune is a bad ski. It shows either that the company or the rep don't care enough about tune or that the store doesn't care about tune which means in turn that you can't trust their recommendation on ski. I still have a irrational aversion to Armada on the basis of demo of a pair where the rep shrugged off my suggestion that the tune was way off.

 

[neonorchid]

I’m a bit confused. In reviews, many ski’s get great ratings for edge hold, dampness etc. But when I try them, my teeth rattle out of my mouth and I slip and slide all over the place. The K2 Pinnacle 95, Atomic Vantage 90 CTI etc. are examples of this.


Also, there are some ‘expert’ rated skis that – according to the reviews by people who should know what they’re doing and writing down – should be great for experienced skiers that have some mass and power. But when I get on them, my knees get all the shocks and those skis feel like Cadillac and the bottom hits the road as soon as you just sit in it. Elan Amphibio 16 TI and K2 iKonic 85 TI are examples.


What am I feeling wrong? Or rather, what am I interpreting wrong?

Can only comment on the first two of which I had demoed. No such problems with the Vantage 90cti, Pinnacle 95 would not hold an edge on icy hardpack, did fine elsewhere. I'm ~5'7" 140lbs when I demoed them in a 176cm (90cti) and 177cm (pinn 95). Both skis required sizing up from my standard size of 170cm.

 

[Brian Finch]

I'll bite- @Cheizz

A) most testers (myself included have fav brands & types).

B) the industry has gotten lazy & lost it's swagger- I was appalled testing at tests I've done of late: too socal, everyone from grandfather to the shop girl "testing", in the bar by 1:30..... I'm a open to close charging Tester. I hammered 20some sets @ Stratton for 2 runs a piece this spring for Pugs while others seemed to halfheartedly wander the booths.

C) Even in the medical/ science community, negative findings rarely get published. The DPS foundation line- I don't think they're manufactured with edges, Fat skis with 20m Radius+ will never help out on the groomed, Sali's QST skis are too light, the hood ornaments & top sheet crap are as helpful as lawn decoration in a trailer park, there's nothing in innovative happening at FullTilt.... (I think I just got uninvited for '17...).


Best to stick w longer term tests & skiers who you aspire to ski like in terms of style & terrain.

 

[Cheizz]

Thanks everyone for the comments and feed-back. I know I have my preferences, personal style and all. It is just my frustration that where I live (The Netherlands), the public heavily relies on big ski test done by the British, German, Austrian and Swiss associations. My own conclusions are so different from those compiled big tests, that I just needed a bit of a reality check. And you've confirmed what I have found to be important and true in that sense. So thanks for that.

 

[bbinder]

So, how does one learn to judge whether a tune is good or bad?

 

[fatbob]

Thanks everyone for the comments and feed-back. I know I have my preferences, personal style and all. It is just my frustration that where I live (The Netherlands), the public heavily relies on big ski test done by the British, German, Austrian and Swiss associations. My own conclusions are so different from those compiled big tests, that I just needed a bit of a reality check. And you've confirmed what I have found to be important and true in that sense. So thanks for that.

You must have a reasonable demo fleet at Landgraaf? I've had the argument with people that indoor testing is a pretty good environment for all skis as it removes a number of variables and you certainly get to feel how competent the ski is in less than ideal conditions.

 

[Cheizz]

You must have a reasonable demo fleet at Landgraaf? I've had the argument with people that indoor testing is a pretty good environment for all skis as it removes a number of variables and you certainly get to feel how competent the ski is in less than ideal conditions.

I have done some work for the shop at Landgraaf and Zoetermeer (same company: Duijvestein - I did the product content for their website)... Demo fleet is OK, but they don't carry a few brands that do interesting things in their piste skis (Dynastar, Fischer), and only have the high-end skis from Atomic. So, after a day or two, all the stuff worth testing is done.

And you are right: very stable conditions indoors, very icy too. So you can actually test quite well if the ski holds well on icy man-made snow..

 

[Philpug]

So, how does one learn to judge whether a tune is good or bad?

Bob, its not the good tune that stands out it is the bad ones and those you immediately feel. Our earliest major demo is the On Snow at Copper right after SIA, there are some indivudual ones before but that is the major. Manufacturers are rushing to get product to Copper to the point the skis are being overnighted the days leading up to the show. Some of these skis are fresh off of the presses and still haven't cured all the way which can create numerous issues that just do no thave time to get tuned properly.

 

[Monique]

@Philpug - for those of us who aren't sure if we can identify a bad tune - given your assertion that all skis are pretty good, just with a different audience - should we assume that if we hate a ski, it has a bad tune - then go from there?

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug - for those of us who aren't sure if we can identify a bad tune - given your assertion that all skis are pretty good, just with a different audience - should we assume that if we hate a ski, it has a bad tune - then go from there?

I am not saying that, the first thing I will ask myself...should I like this ski? Does it meet the criterias that we usually like, flex, shape, camber/rocker, width? If not, then why, does the ski feel like it's not working? We will then grab another pair. If it still the same issue, We will ask someone else who skied it. When we (our testers, @Tricia and myself) are demoing a ski we are not so much demoing for ourselves, but for our readers like you. Then we have to decide, as you say, what is the audience for that ski.

 

[SBrown]

@Philpug - for those of us who aren't sure if we can identify a bad tune - given your assertion that all skis are pretty good, just with a different audience - should we assume that if we hate a ski, it has a bad tune - then go from there?

I think at its most basic, Can you turn? And as Phil says, should you be able to turn on that particular ski? Or hold an edge? If you are on a 200cm DH ski, well, yeah, turning might be difficult. Or holding an edge on a kid's 140cm park ski. (Not that I am using extreme examples or anything .)

 

[Monique]

"Is today one of those days when I can't buy a turn? If so, it's not the ski" - that would be a useful question for me to ask myself.

 

[Philpug]

"Is today one of those days when I can't buy a turn? If so, it's not the ski" - that would be a useful question for me to ask myself.

LOL, yeah, we have had those days too. Then the testing parameters change...should I like this Bloody Mary...is the pickle crisp enough?

 

[SBrown]

"Is today one of those days when I can't buy a turn? If so, it's not the ski" - that would be a useful question for me to ask myself.

That is always a question, yes! But when we are demoing skis on the same exact run, run after run after run, it becomes obvious.