Ski Reviews Across the Spectrum of Skiers

[LivingProof]

  Skis that strongly reward good movements and correct input also can be the same skis that punish poor movements and mistakes.  I've found that I need to be much more on top of the Pulse and maintain that higher degree of focus at all times.  I'm thinking that it's really not an intermediate-friendly ski. 

An interesting statement, worthy of more discussion. High Angles has a unique perspective as he is a student of ski technique, ardent reviewer and collector of skis, engineer and very accomplished skier.

I've often wondered about how ski reviews performed by accomplished skiers relate to the ability of those less skilled to ski the same ski. Generally speaking, better athlete's in sports that are equipment oriented (golf, tennis) need equipment that that may be almost unusable by the pedestrian public. I believe that High Angles and Helluvaskier (two people selected because I've spent days skiing with them ) put a helluvalot more energy in their skis, ski with far higher velocity and much higher edge angles. They know exactly what they want, far better than the even skilled recreational skiers. They spend time on enough different skis in the same performance class to tell the difference.  Are deficiencies  noticeable to them, noticeable to someone with lesser skills? Does this make a ski unsuitable for we who are less talented?

Also, what is an "intermediate" ski. My thinking is that it's one suitable for a skier just getting into full parallel turns and does not put a lot of energy into making a ski turn.

I ski the same Pulse ski referred to by HA, and, while it may not be a first choice to an "intermediate" skier, I think it would work, as it's not "quirky" for me. Skis that make Philpug really smile, generally are not my personal daily drivers, but, again, he just so much more demanding on what he gets from a ski due to his style and skills. I skied with Helluva one day on my Blizzard Sl's, which I enjoy, but, Greg commented that they are not very good by his standards.

What do you think?

[jim-ratliff]

I agree.  I often wondered if a reader of the SKI Magazine annual gear review could really get anything out of the reviews.  The reviewers are all "big name" skiers with lots of years of skiing, I could never believe that they could relate very well to what I wanted.

I have always felt that the hardest part of reading ski reviews (and this is especially true on forums) was determining how the reviewers skill set, body size, and preferred terrain related to you.  Svend writes great reviews, but he's a bigger man than I, skis a longer size than I, and the same model ski in a dramatically different length is a different ski.

I would love to hear Phil or Snowhot or Liam's thoughts on how shop staff relate to the gear requirements of the customer that they don't know?  At least he has history with you on how you ski and what skis you've liked in the past.

I know Gary and Alice participated in a ski review session in Canada where the magazine invited regular people to do the ski reviews.  I think that may be a good approach, but still you have to figure out where the reviewer is coming from.  Alice didn't like one pair because of the sexy chick graphics, for example.

I think a good example is my Progressor 8's.  Most people ski and rave about the 9's and 10's, but for an older and slightly slower skier, I love them.  They're versatile and light and quick and hold a good edge -- other's feel they have a speed limit up in the mid-20's but that hasn't been much of an issue for me.

[Gary]

It's interesting how skiers that read reviews and find "that" ski to rent at the mountain sometimes are overwhelmed from being on that ski all day long....they feel exhausted or beat up.

A good example of myself is when I compare the MX78 and the FX84. Both skis turn well, reward good technique, and actually in their 168 lengths, have the same turning radius.

Where they differ is that I have to pay much more attention on the 78 than I do on the 84.....the energy feedback underfoot and off the tail from the 78 is considerably more than that of the 84. Both in mental and physical awareness and in technique application.

I've found that if I'm skiing 4-5 hours a day for 5 days....I want something a bit more forgiving and less exhausting and will sacrifice the energy pump high speed thrill I get from the 78's for the more playful versatility of the 84's..the luxury of having a few Thoroughbreds in the stable. Just the other day skiing locally for a 3 hour outing....the snow was perfect, the sun was shinning and the 78's were in supersonic mode....just feeling the g's, feeling the energy, just awesome fun. 

Having the right tool to balance performance and what each of us look to get out of skiing...finding and making that right ski choice just makes sense.

G

[midwif]

I amazed at all the things you guys  feel from your skis, wheels, rims, frames etc
I am just not all the sensitive. (my kids also complain about this )

Seriously, I am unable to pick out as many aspects of ski performance/feelings  as you guys seem able to do.
Also, is it the tune of a ski? A freshly tuned ski that is a real dog of ski may feel great for the un-nuanced skier (me)
and a highly reviewed ski that has been dragged all over the mountain may feel horrible.

And I have demo'ed some highly regarded skis that I couldn't wait to get off of due to foot pain. I suspect it is the demo bindings, but it is hard to demo without them!

Anyway, I thank all of your insights and live (and buy) vicariously through you.

[dan.boisvert]

Are deficiencies  noticeable to them, noticeable to someone with lesser skills? Does this make a ski unsuitable for we who are less talented?

Also, what is an "intermediate" ski. My thinking is that it's one suitable for a skier just getting into full parallel turns and does not put a lot of energy into making a ski turn.

I ski the same Pulse ski referred to by HA, and, while it may not be a first choice to an "intermediate" skier, I think it would work, as it's not "quirky" for me. Skis that make Philpug really smile, generally are not my personal daily drivers, but, again, he just so much more demanding on what he gets from a ski due to his style and skills. I skied with Helluva one day on my Blizzard Sl's, which I enjoy, but, Greg commented that they are not very good by his standards.

What do you think?

I think some of the deficiencies are noticeable, and I think some aren't.  A couple years ago, a very skilled friend was given a pair of GS skis, which he managed to damage within a couple weeks.  He could feel that there was something inside the ski near the toepiece that had broken, and could demonstrate the way it messed up the flex so it was very obvious, but I couldn't feel a difference when skiing them.  I think I wasn't getting forward enough to put pressure on the tips, so it wasn't affecting me.

On the other hand, last year I demoed the Bomber B1 SL skis, and wrote a glowing review here about them.  I nearly bought a pair, but got distracted by something shiny and forgot about it.  Over the summer, I was talking with another friend about them, and he said they weren't very good, compared to his skis.  As it happened, he decided to get out of ski racing, and I was able to buy a pair of his SL's, which came out of the Head race department run that the WC skis are pulled from.  I was quite surprised to ski them and find I could feel the difference.  The ones I bought from him are incredibly smooth and very stiff for SL's.  They also have this amazing flex pattern that seems to make them disappear underfoot.  I forget they're there and, before I can even think "turn", I'm in the arc.  It's really neat.

I think it's great to have really good skis, even for "the rest of us", because they come alive when we get it right, and inspire us to improve.  If our skis respond by feeling sketchy or weird when we get it right, we'll think we did it wrong, and the incentive will be to ski worse.

From what little of them I've seen, "intermediate" skis are floppy pieces of junk with cores made of cheese.  The edge-hold stinks, the flex is like a wet noodle, and they don't really reward any movement whatsoever.  I don't understand the purpose of these, aside from hitting a price point.  I have a friend who was a beginner the first time she talked me into letting her try my Supershape Magnums.  She instantly loved them, and I spent a summer talking her out of buying a pair just like mine, and into buying something shorter that she could bend.  I think a real intermediate ski would be something torsionally stiff, with a progressive but softer flex profile.  That way they could get used to bending a ski at the speeds they ski, while still having useful edges.

I don't think you need to be Michael Schumacher to appreciate a Ferrari.  You might not appreciate it as much, or in the same way, but you'll probably still like it better than a Lada.

[HeluvaSkier]

When I read a ski review from someone, I want to know how they ski. If they don't ski like I do, I don't put much stock in the review. My preferences in a ski are not "normal".

When it comes to others choosing skis, I think developing skiers should choose skis that will let them develop and have an enjoyable time while doing it. Shop sales people are clueless when it comes to this. They makes sales based on emotions and aspirations. This doesn't mean get only skinny skis and do drills all day, but buy a ski that suits how you actually ski - not how you want to ski, or think you ski. 

I bought Kathleen a pair of Elan SLCs in a 170 this year. To make sure I had them tuned properly and mounted in the correct spot, I took them for two runs early in the morning at Holimont. I was shocked at how EASY these skis were to ski on. I could still rip SL turns on them with no trouble, but they were easy and predictable - a perfect learning ski that has a huge top end that most skiers will never tap into. I could ski these things as a primary carving ski and probably not give up much in performance unless I tried to ski a race course. With skis like this around, there is no reason for a skier like LP to use a stock Blizzard SL as a front side carver. I put the Head Supershape and MTX/STX firmly in this category as well. Sure they aren't aggressive skis, but **** they are fun to ski on. The best part is that Kathleen LOVES the SLC and skis great on it. She's tried my stock SL skis before... she hates them. These are the kinds of reviews that skiers should pay attention to. When skiers who are very aware of their skis and sensitive to what they ski on, tell you a ski is easy to ski on but has a huge performance envelope, "normal" skiers should perk up and pay attention. That is the ski that will get you to the next level.

On to a related note, my old college room mate has now started a ski company (Avant Skis). He builds skis for the general public. He designs the skis himself for what he believes the public will want because to quote him: "Skiers have no idea what they want in a ski, but it isn't the same thing that we [he and I] want in a ski". He builds skis that other people want to ski and will be able to have fun on regardless of level. That isn't to say his skis don't have a huge top end - they do, but they aren't a tool that has been specialized for a top level skier.

He and I have talked about building the ultimate front side ski designed by us both, for me, for how I ski. The specs are 185-190cm, 78-82mm waist, 19-21m radius, high taper angle, slightly turned up rounded tail, possibly early rise or at least flat camber at the tip, side cut that runs very far up the tip in order to increase the effective edge while tipped, and a stiff, even flex pattern with no metal - all carbon fiber on a wood core (possibly with carbon fiber stringers in an 'X' layup). He said the ski would definitely rip, but that it would need to be skied exactly how I ski, anything less would be scary and that basically the general public would not be able to do anything with the ski, and it may actually be dangerous if it were fully tuned. You can't sell a ski like that... all the skiers who would be able to ski it want, or already get, free skis. If it ever gets produced, it will be for fun "because we can" [company motto], and the skis will be for us only.

Look at the GTO that Ligety designed for Head... again... general public will kill themselves on a modern 200cm 17.6m radius ski that has a 62mm waist.

So, the moral of that story is what I want in a ski, may send a typical skier to an early grave, or at least deliver a very unpleasant day on the snow. I can tell you that my 188cm 27.2m radius stiff-flex Fischer GS ski is a sweet front-side carver... and it is, but it isn't a magic bullet for hip-to-the-snow turns and slick-looking avatars on forums. Those things are a nasty piece of work in all but the most ideal conditions... even I am selective about when I ski them. Bottom line is be smart about choosing your skis. If someone who can ski tells you that a ski is easy, or is a great learning ski, but has a great performance envelope, that doesn't mean it is a piece of junk with a core made of cheese simply because it isn't the fancy expert ski... It means it is probably worth a serious look if you are serious about your skiing.

[Liam]

Here are my thoughts.

First off, I agree with Dan's basic assessment that skis labeled intermediate are usually defined by their poorer construction and general 'softness.'   Higher End or Top of the Line skis will perform better for everyone from low intermediates to true experts (heck, even for the stem-twister the dampening qualities of a laminate-constructed skis will add performance advantages).  Honestly I hate selling lower end skis (which are sometimes barely a step above rental) to anyone, but alas, in our shop they represent a huge chunk of our sales as the price dictates most of our customer's habits.

Now, assessing customers and the nature of expert skis.  This is similar to what Heluva skier is getting at: There are high end skis, and then there are skis that are for true experts.  We had great success with the Rossi CX80 (which later became the Straton 80ti)-lot's of people came looking for this ski, however, IMHO, this is/ was a true expert ski that was truly only suitable for faster, hard chargers with a racing background who wanted a race-like ski for their all mountain ripping.   In the hands of the right pilot, it was an amazing ski, however, I'd say that less the 3% of self-identified expert skiers had any business buying this ski with the hopes of it becoming their all-mountain ripstick.  Heluva would be the prototype of this sort of skier.  I had long discussions with people whom I didn't know before I let them drop some serious change to walk out with that ski.  Same caution went with the Elan Waveflex/ speedflex 14-it was a great east coast ski...under a very skilled pilot with real carving skill and a penchant for power.   Anyway, these are example of expert skis that would actually suck for an intermediate-and many experts as well.

Compare that ski, with something like the Blizzard Magnum 85ti (or the even more broadly appealing Magnum 80 CA)-certainly an expert ski, but not one that is really all that demanding, and if someone was looking for a 1sq type ski for the east, it's a choice that fits a lot of bills, including intermediate ones.  Honestly, I'd put the Hart Pulse in this same category (with the Phoenix being the more true 'expert' ski...and better ski).  These are 'expert' skis, in terms of the quality of construction and high envelope of use, but not in skills required to enjoy these skis.  Yep, better skiers would get more out of these (or any) skis, but the intermediate would get benefits as well.

Now, the final piece of the puzzle: trying to actually counsel customers into purchasing skis that they could really learn to ski on.  That's the hardest sell of all.  We carried the Fischer Progressor Line for years (top to bottom great skis), and when most intermediates came in, described what they skied, and what they wanted to accomplish--I'd say that for 8 out of 10 I'd recommend the Fischer Progressor 8+, or depending on the skier the 9 or the 7.  All great skis, very versatile for primarily front side east coast skiing with forays into moguls and skill acquisition all on the table. 

But, those skis were just dogs that wouldn't hunt--nobody wanted them, whether it was adverse marketing, self-percetion, I don't know, but you almost can't give those sort of skis away.    The prospective buyer would either demand something more 'low end', because they didn't need to spend the extra 70 bucks on a fancy ski (really, that was the difference), or they wanted something fatter and more rad like their friends. 

So, it's tough.  The easy sell are more focused skis:  I want a ski for crud and trees, I want a powder ski, I am a park and pipe guy, etc: just about any remotely knowledgeable shop employee can meet these requests.

[Svend]

Liam, you are clearly one of the tiny percentage of shop people who put some thought and consideration into matching the right ski with the skier. Kudos to you. I spend a lot of time browsing ski shops, and buy a lot of skis, and it's a rare shop that has someone who asks the right questions: ability, weight, intended use, skier style (finesse vs power), snow type...  So few ask these very pertinent questions.  I can probably count the good sales guys I've met on one hand. 

The CX80 is a good example actually.  Every shop where I saw that ski (there were a lot of them), the sales guys were punting the CX80 to me as the ultimate all mtn ski, and claimed it would be a perfect match.  Forget it.... That thing was way too stiff for anyone except a heavy, aggressive, high speed power skier.  I never even bothered with a demo.  Dynastar's Contact 4x4 was similar - rave reviews, but when I demoed it I found it to be a plank -- great at high speed, but zero fun factor any other time. One of the few Dynastars I have not enjoyed.

As for well-written reviews, there are few.  Forget the commercial magazines. One of the only ones that makes a half decent attempt is Ski Canada mag, which at least has rankings for each ski wrt. skier ability level, weight and skiing style. But even at that, their reviewers only take a single run per ski, and then come to a judgement.  Skiing Mag also does a an OK job.

Some of the best reviews, IMO, are found on Epic, where guys like Dawg and Sierra Jim do a great job of evaluating and presenting their thoughts, taking into account the key variables.  I also read some of the German forums, and the depth some of those guys go into is truly impressive.

[HeluvaSkier]

FWIW, I will add some validity to what Liam said about the CX80.

My "lazy cruising afternoon ski" is a 180cm Rossi CX80 Ti.

I'm 5'7" 140lbs...

[epic]

FWIW, I will add some validity to what Liam said about the CX80.

My "lazy cruising afternoon ski" is a 180cm Rossi CX80 Ti.

I'm 5'7" 140lbs...

...and I liked it as a bump ski. YMMV

[Svend]

FWIW, I will add some validity to what Liam said about the CX80.

My "lazy cruising afternoon ski" is a 180cm Rossi CX80 Ti.

I'm 5'7" 140lbs...

And in summer, Helluva drops his moniker and uses his real surname....Andretti   

[HeluvaSkier]

Schumacher. Play to win.