|
Post by hip2snow on Nov 24, 2015 19:30:20 GMT -7
One aspect of his reviews that needs some extrapolating, for me at 190 lbs., is that Dawg is a lightweight. Unless you are putting your hip to the snow you probably need softer skis then Mr. Dawg enjoys. He is easily pulling 2 to 3 Gs.
|
|
|
Post by HeluvaSkier on Nov 24, 2015 20:11:51 GMT -7
New guy is right
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Nov 25, 2015 7:16:24 GMT -7
Dawg's reviews are great and widely applicable. I've also come to love the blistergear reviews, though, those guys demand more from a ski than i ever will. I'm still a fan of Realskiers and I like the start hans/ philpug reviews as well and I like the group review of Yellow Gentian. I tend to put together a composite view based on all of these, plus my own limited sense of design and materials to come up with skis I'm interested in (I also am a sucker for price…I just a pair of front side skis for 319.00 shipped with bindings that I can mount and adjust myself..if they exploded while I was skiing them, I still might not care that much at that price!).
The value of any review site depends on how specific your ski need are, and I suspect most skiers needs are far less particular than they imagine (even for very good skiers).
My general thought is this: Most skiers, even pretty good ones, don't really need anywhere near as specialized a ski or ski review as they think they do. Most skis, within a given category will suit them just fine. Which is why, most can get a good sense of a ski by using these few ski review resources and then just shop prices and do well with their purchases.
It's really only at the highest end, and only for those with near critical performance needs, that really specific and detailed ski characteristics and reviews make a big difference (and yes, Helluva, you are in that category-based on both ability AND very specific use parameters).
For the rest of us, I think generalized, well thought out reviews, ala Dawg and Phil and Realskier and Yellow Gentian get us where we need to be.
|
|
|
Post by livingproof on Nov 25, 2015 19:28:57 GMT -7
I've used my fantastic mod-powers to create a new thread about how individuals perceptions of the various ski reviewers influence their selection of new skis. The above 3 posts drifted away from the intent of the original Pugski thread, but, are worthy of continued discussion, or so I hope.
I started the drift by stating that Dawgcatching reviews are among my favorites, but, I've always had to do a translation on his reviews for 3 reasons. First, he skis big mountains in Oregon, and, second, he weights 40 lbs. less than me, and, he also skis a helluva lot better than I do. One of our new members, hip2snow very quickly points out that he loads a ski a few others do, HelluvaSkier has also told me, and, confirmed in his post above, that I am not a hip to snow type skier. Probably never will be one. So, the question becomes when should a pedestrian skier (to borrow a HelluvaSkier term) be concerned with a very positive review of a ski that may just be too much ski for that person.
I can state there have been well reviewed skis that I've owned and liked at first, but, came to believe they were beyond my ability. My Hart Pulse in 178 and Kastle MX88 in 178 fit into that category. I recall demoing several well reviewed skis and knowing there was no magic in them for me. On the other hand, I still like my Fischer WC Sl's that Helluva warned me that if they hook up too much, then I am in big trouble. I also have some video from Helluva that proves I am not worthy to be on a WC Sl.
So, I generally agree with Superbman's thoughts above, read enough reviews by people you trust and then be guided accordingly. Yup, sometimes you loose, but, I think I've gained by the experience. Having said that my quiver will not change this year, I remain more convinced than ever that it is about the archer not the arrow. How we determine the skis that work for those who can put hip to snow and also for the pedestrian remains an open issue. I always think of the original Head Supershape as a ski that gained universal acceptance as a carving ski suitable across a wide range of skilled skiers. Are there any skis out there that fall into this class?
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Nov 26, 2015 8:58:53 GMT -7
Know thyself, skier. (I think someone famous may have said that). I demoed the Head Peak 84 in a 170. However, like Superbman I too save shekels by buying in the off-season, and I bought a 177 (which was a size I used often before I took up bicycling and lost 40 pounds). I kept the 177 Peak 84 two years, never liked them.
So beware when you just assume that one length is just as good for your needs as the reviewers length was for her/his needs.
Another example. I still like my Ullr's Chariots in a 177 and they've been highly regarded on RealSkiers ever since introduction, but John Botti bought a pair in 184 and he hated them (as did Max).
FWIW, the Peak 84's were replaced this summer by a pair of Rev 85's in a 170 length.
Read the reviews, but demo if you can, and don't assume that one size up or down will ski the same.
I remember Peter Keelty saying that with the overall increase in ski quality over the last several years, there can be more difference in sizes of a given ski than in different brands of skis at the same size. I proved him right, I guess.
Anecdote: The Head SuperShape became revered as an awesome ski, but many initial reviews were not positive. Turns out that, because of the sidecut, people were categorizing it as a slalom-like ski and skiing it pretty short (and there was an early production problem with the 165 length, and most ski testers had been on that early preduction run.).
|
|
|
Post by HeluvaSkier on Nov 28, 2015 21:10:54 GMT -7
I tend to only give merit to ski reviews by those who I know ski similarly to how I ski. This doesn't mean terrain, but rather movement patterns and aggressiveness. I own skis all the way from 165cm to 206cm, with waists ranging from 63mm to nearly 100mm and in some cases various flexes of the same ski... each for specific turn types and conditions. The one commonality is they all react well to how I ski. This is really important when selecting skis based on a review... If you don't ski like the reviewer, chances are you may have a vastly different experience on those skis.
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Nov 29, 2015 10:33:26 GMT -7
I tend to only give merit to ski reviews by those who I know ski similarly to how I ski. This doesn't mean terrain, but rather movement patterns and aggressiveness. I own skis all the way from 165cm to 206cm, with waists ranging from 63mm to nearly 100mm and in some cases various flexes of the same ski... each for specific turn types and conditions. The one commonality is they all react well to how I ski. This is really important when selecting skis based on a review... If you don't ski like the reviewer, chances are you may have a vastly different experience on those skis. That of course is largely true. And, in your case even more pointed as your technique is more focused and specific than most and, as I suggested above, it explains why the number and range of reviewers and review sites that are useful to you are limited, and certainly narrower than what is useful to someone like myself. I do think that the copious, focused, reviews available, if properly culled, compared and discerned, can yield a fairly reliable aggregate set of behaviors and values for a prospective ski. And, for the majority of skiers, even pretty good one, will steer them to a set of boards they'll enjoy. And, allow them to hunt and find places to buy them on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by HeluvaSkier on Nov 29, 2015 11:53:13 GMT -7
That of course is largely true. And, in your case even more pointed as your technique is more focused and specific than most and, as I suggested above, it explains why the number and range of reviewers and review sites that are useful to you are limited, and certainly narrower than what is useful to someone like myself. Probably the most interesting thing regarding my preference for skis is that I tend to not gravitate toward the skis that most would assume I would like. Most Heads... could take them or leave them... Rock n Roll, couldn't wait to get off it, Peak 78, felt like I was on someone's daughter's skis. My Blossoms... a guy some of you may have heard of by the name of Harald hates them... and if there are no young ears around, ask him about Fischer boots sometime. Taking a higher level view (and I posted this on EpicSki a few weeks ago and it wasn't well received), I think most skiers out there are on WAY too much ski. Most skiers I see on expert level skis are using about 10-20% of the available performance of the ski they are on (top level skis these days have an impressive performance envelope). If you gave them a ski one or two models down, but had the expert ski top sheet, I'd wager they would like that lower level ski better in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by ToddW on Dec 1, 2015 18:00:07 GMT -7
Funny. I think that about most skiers too. But when I test it out on myself once or twice a year by swapping skis with a friend on lesser boards, I don't like it. Especially not cap construction skis. I think I'm going to stick to my double standard. It strokes my ego and financially supports the ski industry. Besides, I need to practice slowly turning into a crotchety old man for when that time comes ;-)
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Dec 1, 2015 23:37:47 GMT -7
I agree with Heluva on this. I now gravitate to skis a couple of rungs down the performance envelope. My rationalization is that they perform better at slower speeds. That supports my ego better than accepting that as a skier I might be a couple of rungs down the performance ladder. ?
|
|