• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,604
Location
PNW aka SEA
The Bonefide has been outdated? Amazing. And only into its second season of the current design. Maybe the should rename it the B3.... oops.... no. Taken.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
The Bonefide has been outdated? Amazing. And only into its second season of the current design. Maybe the should rename it the B3.... oops.... no. Taken.
Personally I don't think it is outdated but even with a new construction, shape and well everything other than waist and length options, the Bonafide falls under the topic of did Blizzard play it too safe with it's evolution? Other than the Black Pearl, the Bonafide is probably the most important ski for Blizzard and it's success is based on reputation...and sales. Where the Bonafide was the leader in the segment in both performance and sales...others have caught up to it, this takes nothing away from the Bonafide and it is not outdated by any means but it also doesn't have the separation from the pack that it once enjoyed.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
But the customers 'owned product' is still as good as it was before the change was made. It therefor has just as much value (at least to those who don't chase marketing hype endlessly). It's about perception. They can't sell you want you already have. THIS is the number one rule in sales.

It's about perception in the prevailing social context. This is the big strength of my definition over the others - it automatically stops making value predictions when products are taken out of the prevailing context.

My phrasing is also happily transposed to straight up socionomic terms, and can even be phrased in a way that allows for Trotskyist permanent revolution.


Now, notice that, if we accelerate R&D enough all the secondary market value of a purchased product is gone the moment it is purchased - then the value to each purchaser becomes exactly equal to the native value of using the product without comparison to others in the market.

As a corollary to my above, you will immediately perceive that a huge part of R&D pacing for any ski company is to not outstrip the R&D pacing of other products competing for customer budget. There is absolutely zero incentive for Blizzard, for example, to develop product faster than Apple and Samsung do.
 
Last edited:

David Chaus

Beyond Help
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,529
Location
Stanwood, WA
So what IS real revolution? I get the shape revolution, rocker, 5-point design... perhaps even "revolution" in the sense of major change in core/construction, a la your Stockli example. But how much different (valuable) is most change? For example, I have a pair of Kastle MX78's, (no longer in the line-up). Really, what "revolution" would make these skis any better? Would I really notice -- or like -- "newer" designs that are aimed at the same demographic? Same with my Fischer Motive 95's. I know Fischer adjusted the construction & dimensions subtly and called them the Pro Mountain series. But does that make my Motives suddenly significantly inferior?
Someone mentioned that flipcore is getting old. But if it worked, why does it need to change? Is the idea passe? Why? How?

While I'm as much of a gearwhore as the next Pugster, I often find myself wondering if a lot of "change" in skis is not substantial and really designed to spur sales. It seems like a lot of attention is simply advertising and fad: for awhile the Bonafide was the BEST ski ever made, then the Rossi Soul 7 became the "it" ski. Now, if someone says they like the Soul 7, serious skiers scoff. Really, did these skis suddenly become obsolete?
:huh:

I thought the Soul 7 was always fun as a playful fresh snow and tree ski and absolutely crappy in cut up crud. I have always scratched my head at other PNW skiers on them, given the Cascade Concrete we slog through. Also I thought the Bonefide was planky, so neither was my “it” ski. Last year the Head Kore was the “it” ski and the year before, the Enforcer. Honestly, I thought Fischer’s Air Tech construction was a pretty significant revolution/evolution in ski construction, and has never gotten the “it” buzz some other brands/models have enjoyed. However, the ski companies’ jobs are to sell skis, so if they have something that sells, whether it is due to performance or perception, I fully expect them to market them all they can, and we should be prepared for this.

As someone who has kept my Head Rev’s (both 85’s and 105’s) for 5 years, I am not easily swayed by most of the evolutions I’ve seen/demoed, or even by many of the revolutions. Not having a huge budget and being frugal/cheap, I tend to look at whether the performance is significantly different/better than what I already have, or whether I have use for those performance characteristics.

It does seem, assuming you aren’t upgrading equipment every year or so because you can, or you ski enough to reach the limit of the useful life of a pair of skis in a few years, that for the average skier noticeable revolution/evolution cycles are about 5 years. Equipment gets better in design and materials, and as @markojp observed, first there are revolutions that might swing to extremes in design, materials and concept, then a series of evolutionary adjustments to refine the concept and execution.

That all said, I am now the owner of Renoun Z90’s, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. :ogcool:
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
But the customers 'owned product' is still as good as it was before the change was made. It therefor has just as much value (at least to those who don't chase marketing hype endlessly). It's about perception. They can't sell you want you already have. THIS is the number one rule in sales.

As someone who has kept my Head Rev’s (both 85’s and 105’s) for 5 years, I am not easily swayed by most of the evolutions I’ve seen/demoed, or even by many of the revolutions. Not having a huge budget and being frugal/cheap, I tend to look at whether the performance is significantly different/better than what I already have, or whether I have use for those performance characteristics.

The two of you have put flags and pegs around the cusp- Perception of performance differences and perception of utility is the name of the game.
 

DanishRider

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Posts
339
Location
Mainland Denmark Scandinavia
Evolution is safe, revolution is risk. Product managers are in a constant fight for balance and must determine when evolution is not enough and revolution is needed. But evolution can actually be riskier than revolution: brands can be so content with the sales and acceptance of a particular model that they leave the ski on the market too long, and revolution comes too late. These are the thoughts that keep product managers awake at night.

Ski designs run their course. The sales of even the most timeless eventually get stale, so we see evolutions beyond just NGT (New Graphics Technology). Then at some point, evolution is not enough, and it's time to reinvent things. The Völkl Mantra is a good example: evolution turned into one revolution and then another. The last revolution includes a possible evolution to a new model name in the M5, dropping the Mantra name altogether.

As a boutique ski company, Kästle really needs to watch this balance. Kästle’s original and oldest collection, the MX line, is still in the evolutionary stage as its most popular MX88 turned into the MX89. Where Kästle went revolutionary was with its FX collection. The current FX skis are a blend of the original Chris Davenport-influenced FX, which some billed as "MX Lite," and the entry-level BMX collection, which didn’t quite have the Kästle panache. The FX of today has a much clearer direction and personality.

This year we are seeing revolution in a series from Rossignol with its cornerstone collection. The Experience/Temptation line has become the all-new Experience/Experience W. The original Experiences were polarizing skis: they were either on or off, and while they were great carvers, they proved to be difficult in mixed conditions. Rossignol evolved the skis through the generations but they remained biased toward hard snow; even the wider Experience 100 didn’t excel off piste. Enter the new Experiences, with a more gradual tip profile and less pronounced flare in the tail. The new collection is eons better off piste, and with a slightly tighter turn radius on piste, groomer performance is not compromised too much.

There are countless other examples. Blizzard's reference Bonafide is still in its evolutionary stage; even though the current ski is "new," it is "safe" new. Another instance is K2 and its Luv skis. When the Luvs were released in the mid-2000s, they were THE women’s ski. After numerous generations, K2 felt the series had run its course and dropped the Luv name in favor of the Super-models: Superstitious, Superfree, etc. It was a Super marketing misstep, and sales plummeted. After a short time, K2 returned to the Luv name, hoping to regain the series' momentum.

My final example is Stöckli's Stormrider 88. Over the past half decade, the SR 88 was one of the reference skis in its class; last season, Stöckli evolved it with a lighter balsa core. Big mistake. Instead of finishing a typical two-year run to get its investment back, Stöckli cut its losses and changed the construction -- and the SR 88 has returned to its expected place in the hierarchy of premium skis.

So, what does all this mean to you? Well, how many times did you like a ski only to discover that the newest version just didn’t ring your bell? This could be why: even though the name is the same, it could be a completely different ski. Now, counter to that, maybe you owned or tried a ski that just didn’t work for you so you completely wrote that model off. Remember how we say, “There are no bad skis, just wrong skis”? Well, the ski that was the wrong one for you then might be the right one for you now. You need to have an open mind today more than ever. Sorry, I just made more work for you in your ski selection process, didn’t I? Actually, I am not sorry, I am K2 Luv-ing it.
My best example is the Atomic Vantage 90 CTI. The 16/17 version are still the perfect ski for me, but last years model - not at all! I Can’t figure out what they did to it, but it ain’t working for me!
 

David Chaus

Beyond Help
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,529
Location
Stanwood, WA
Ok Mr. Thrifty. ogsmile

Renoun has a Pro Day on April 1, you have to register for in advance, so they can verify eligibility. So though I had wanted them last year, I had to wait until Spring to order, and it was delivered in September, so there was much delayed gratification.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
It seems to me that with my vision often set just in front of my nose, plodding along step by step, I dimly am aware of at least two kinds of meaningful change to skis - or boots - (revolution/evolution), that may prompt even me to take notice, and maybe buy.
The first is, I guess, more "big step," revolutionary: like shaped skis or fat rockered skis; or most recently, the light weight carbon and part carbon designs - for example, by DPS, Rossi (tips), Volkl (backbone, with their V-Werks models) and Head (Kore). If the price jump with these hadn't been so great, I'd guess these changes would have taken the ski world by storm.

The second change type I'm likely to notice is a kind of evolution, I gather: I notice a failing or limitation to a favorite ski I have or have tried, and thus I'm likely to notice also when that problem is specifically addressed - or not - in a newer model of the same ski or its replacement. Thus the Soul 7/Super 7 got "HD" models, which to me tried and failed to fix the problem with both those skis: how they do in crud/variable. And thus I could take notice also of the rather obscure Super 7 RD. (Did this ski retain the best of the Super 7, while solving the crud ride also?)

Similarly, the limits of the Gotama (a bit tossed in crud) made me aware of the old metal Katana (no longer tossed, but heavy, burly and not much of a floater. etc.), which in turn lead me to the V-Werks Katana (those problems solved).

Something similar would have happened for me with the Rossi Experience 98/100, except it took so long for them to solve that ski's limits (stated well above) that I pretty much lost interest and jumped ship to other brands and models. (So now they've maybe solved that ski's off piste limits? At this point, it's gonna have to be a major improvement for me to take much notice.)
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Here's what I've noticed about ski evolution in some niche skis, e.g. Dynastar Legends, Stockli Stormriders, Head Monster 108.
1. Company makes a great hard-charging ski, perfectly designed for very fast skilled skiers.
2. The ski gets a reputation among skiers who actually ski very fast and want to be in control at all times.
3. The ski is very popular in it's small niche market, and the buz makes other less skilled wanna-be skiers want it.
4. The company knows the wanna-be skiers can't handle the truth, and the company want's to sell skis, so they water down the hard-charging ski.
5. The marketing gurus all parrot the company line, the new model is almost as good at high performance high speed skiing, and much more accessible. (a blatant lie; the ski is now neutered and would be a death trap at very high speeds).
Sometimes the company goes too far and has to backtrack, but that is rare.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Here's what I've noticed about ski evolution in some niche skis, e.g. Dynastar Legends, Stockli Stormriders, Head Monster 108.
1. Company makes a great hard-charging ski, perfectly designed for very fast skilled skiers.
2. The ski gets a reputation among skiers who actually ski very fast and want to be in control at all times.
3. The ski is very popular in it's small niche market, and the buz makes other less skilled wanna-be skiers want it.
4. The company knows the wanna-be skiers can't handle the truth, and the company want's to sell skis, so they water down the hard-charging ski.
5. The marketing gurus all parrot the company line, the new model is almost as good at high performance high speed skiing, and much more accessible. (a blatant lie; the ski is now neutered and would be a death trap at very high speeds).
Sometimes the company goes too far and has to backtrack, but that is rare.
You bring up some very good points but on a slightly different perspective, the marketing of a name. the Legend was a different ski with that original Legend than it is now..Dynastar, right, wrong or indifferent, was hoping to capitalize on it's recognition. I am not sure if it fits into the evolution vs revolution discussion but a good discussion none the less. Along the lines if Rossignol dropped the Experience name with this revolution of design and called it a Bandit. Head with the reintroduction of the Monster IMO stayed true to the original Monster philosophy. I do agree with you with the neutering of the Stormrider but I don't think it is as bad as you say calling it a deathtrap. Making a product more obtainable isn't always at the cost of top end performance and example I always come back to is Porsche with the 911. Older water cooled 911's really didn't come alive till you hit triple digit speeds and were tough to drive below that. A new 911 is jsut as comfortable at 30 MPH as it is at 130 MPH, is it less of a car? Hardly.

Brands need to sell product and while they hope to increase market share, they at least want to retain what they worked hard at getting. The models you are refering to are the top 5% of the market and maybe 3% of the product mix. They will risk slightly watering down a name and lose 1% there to pick up 2..3..5% of the mass market. The shops are behind this also because that top skier rarely if ever pays retail, wants/gets a Pro/Bro deal and that more expensive model has a much lower margin and that investment could be turned over 3X with a more obtainable model. Now some shops will buch that trend but we are also seeing this type of specialty shop fall by the wayside year after year.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Ah yes, the name recognition game:
1. Have a great ski.
2. Build name recognition with that ski
3. Name half your future skis with that same name, even if they are different skis.
Examples: Head with their "Supershape" and Fischer with their "RC4".
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
Yesterday at the Loveland Demo Day it was obvious where the ski industry is going. Light. I am not thrilled since one of the skis I liked the most, the Bonafide 187cm, is probably not going to be made much longer (at least like it is now) from looking at Blizzard's tent and what people were taking out.

On a day like yesterday, which had conditions that are more common than not even here in Colorado, the Bonafide made every run fun, smooth and comfortable. To me that is very valuable in a resort ski.

The Kastle MX89 180cm did the same (although not as good at 40+ mph but close) while still feeling even more versatile. Ditto with the Monster 88.

The fact that Head only had one Monster 88 and one Monster 83 in their tent says it all. :(
 

Bad Bob

I golf worse than I ski.
Skier
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
5,843
Location
West of CDA South of Canada
Here's what I've noticed about ski evolution in some niche skis, e.g. Dynastar Legends, Stockli Stormriders, Head Monster 108.
1. Company makes a great hard-charging ski, perfectly designed for very fast skilled skiers.
2. The ski gets a reputation among skiers who actually ski very fast and want to be in control at all times.
3. The ski is very popular in it's small niche market, and the buz makes other less skilled wanna-be skiers want it.
4. The company knows the wanna-be skiers can't handle the truth, and the company want's to sell skis, so they water down the hard-charging ski.
5. The marketing gurus all parrot the company line, the new model is almost as good at high performance high speed skiing, and much more accessible. (a blatant lie; the ski is now neutered and would be a death trap at very high speeds).
Sometimes the company goes too far and has to backtrack, but that is rare.

thought that the CA and TI designations made sense for this. Often the stiffness is how the teeth are pulled and this was an easy way to show the difference. The CA's would give you the ski, it was just less demanding.
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,287
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
Yesterday at the Loveland Demo Day it was obvious where the ski industry is going. Light. I am not thrilled since one of the skis I liked the most, the Bonafide 187cm, is probably not going to be made much longer (at least like it is now) from looking at Blizzard's tent and what people were taking out.

On a day like yesterday, which had conditions that are more common than not even here in Colorado, the Bonafide made every run fun, smooth and comfortable. To me that is very valuable in a resort ski.

The Kastle MX89 180cm did the same (although not as good at 40+ mph but close) while still feeling even more versatile. Ditto with the Monster 88.

The fact that Head only had one Monster 88 and one Monster 83 in their tent says it all. :(

Light rocks! Material science allows a designer to keep the properties we like but with less weight. This is the evolution that can improve a good design.

I don't think that Bonafides are good because they are too heavy to turn. The strong skiers are able to turn them well. The weaker skiers (like me) suffer with the weight. Is opening up the ski to a wider audience ruining the ski? Even if the ski is shaped and flexes identically?

There is a huge percentage of skiers who are ageing. They may disproportionately buy new skis. As we age, we do get weaker and slower. A light ski is an advantage for an older skier. And it's easier to carry!

Eric
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
Light rocks! Material science allows a designer to keep the properties we like but with less weight. This is the evolution that can improve a good design.

I don't think that Bonafides are good because they are too heavy to turn. The strong skiers are able to turn them well. The weaker skiers (like me) suffer with the weight. Is opening up the ski to a wider audience ruining the ski? Even if the ski is shaped and flexes identically?

There is a huge percentage of skiers who are ageing. They may disproportionately buy new skis. As we age, we do get weaker and slower. A light ski is an advantage for an older skier. And it's easier to carry!

Eric
I think that the light tendt is taken to fat.
Sure there's the vwerks katana, which is a really good ski, but still...
In a resort we almost never ski powder, but mostly cut up crud, and a heavy ski works better.
And i don't see how a heavy ski is harder to turn. You put it on edge and it turns, just like a light ski.
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Yesterday at the Loveland Demo Day it was obvious where the ski industry is going. Light. I am not thrilled since one of the skis I liked the most, the Bonafide 187cm, is probably not going to be made much longer (at least like it is now) from looking at Blizzard's tent and what people were taking out.

On a day like yesterday, which had conditions that are more common than not even here in Colorado, the Bonafide made every run fun, smooth and comfortable. To me that is very valuable in a resort ski.

The Kastle MX89 180cm did the same (although not as good at 40+ mph but close) while still feeling even more versatile. Ditto with the Monster 88.

The fact that Head only had one Monster 88 and one Monster 83 in their tent says it all. :(


Totally agree with disappointment of the industry going lighter and lighter for resort skis but I'm also excited with the improvements in technology and construction allowing skis to perform as well/similar to previous models while being lighter. Skis like the Moment Wildcat that has been a 2140-2200 gram 184cm ski when it was named the Bibby for years that charged hard yet super fun to ski has improved the material used and construction process to make an under 2000 gram ski that actually skis better.
Been on all the wider Monster versions as well as owning the Head Collective 105 and they were amazing through crud at speed but at 2400 grams plus per ski, were sometimes tiring to charge all day on. Getting this capability in a 2000 gram ski without losing anything is something I can get behind! My 2018 184cm 116mm Moment Bibby weigh less than my old 181cm 95mm Head Venturi 95 that I didn't think were heavy.

Have noticed manufactures going "too far" in the lightness game correcting to heavier skis before making production models or when making later models when consumers/testers complained the skis were too light and sacrificed performance too much. Head Kore early testing skis were 200 grams lighter than the production skis are after lots of complaints of being too light for resort skis. The Line Sir Francis Bacon 184cm ski went from a 2200 gram ski in 2015 to 1650 gram in 2016 and of course performed poorly in rough terrain etc. The 2017 model changed the core construction and went to 1900 grams and it skis better than the original. So there still is some policing of weight it seems.

Think we often forget that most people that post on forums like this are part of a niche market compared to the general public who ski a few times a year and think 40mph is "crazy fast". They are happy to carry lighter skis to and from the car and won't see a negative impact of lighter, more forgiving skis.
The brahma and Bonafide will still be around for awhile I bet although it will be tweaked to keep up with competitors. Volkl Mantra M5, Moment Commander etc show there is still a market for charger skis that have more versatility than the wider Monster skis had.

Far more sales could be made if you can sell the same ski to an solid intermediate AND as a "forgiving ski" for the advanced skier. Love the Bonafide and Brahma but if you can get a good percentage of the performance to those with a freestyle/playful mix like the Rustler range, you hit a much larger audience. Got the Rustler 9 myself to replace two lengths of a playful charger in the 95mm length and think it will fit the bill nicely. I did take in my kitchen scale to weight the stores stock to find the heaviest 180cm pair because I'd rather have the heaviest of the lighter skis. :)

Bet if you took out the 188cm of the Rustler 9, it would be comfortable at 50-60mph but still more playful and easy going than the Bonafide. Most testers last Spring that tried out the Rustler 9 that were above 200 lbs didn't test the 188cm model they should have as only the 180cm was available for demo then. The 188cm Rustler 9 should haul.
 

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
please explain why do you think so. If company making good product, popular product. Product maybe don't need to be changed. Why make changes only for marketing and marketing only.

It happens all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've been in development meetings with clients and they say, "We want to refresh the line", or they look at three negative on-line reviews, in a sea of positive reviews, hone in on those and that dictates our efforts for the next 18 months in redesign the product, or line.

It is important to remember that, in several industries that I have designed for, they are trying to sell more stuff to the same consumer. There is no incremental growth in participant population, so cash flow has to be generated.

In a few cases we get superb products, because design and innovation is generally evolutionary. And that is for a lot of reasons ranging from market acceptance to tooling costs. Also, when you redesign something you can have 10 units out with product testers. Once you have 10,000 units out there (not a realistic numbers in ski land) you have so much more feedback, from a broader range of population.

In most cases through, it is different year, slightly different stuff.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
Bet if you took out the 188cm of the Rustler 9, it would be comfortable at 50-60mph but still more playful and easy going than the Bonafide. Most testers last Spring that tried out the Rustler 9 that were above 200 lbs didn't test the 188cm model they should have as only the 180cm was available for demo then. The 188cm Rustler 9 should haul.

I did take the Rustler 9 out in 188cm right after I skied the Bonafide 187cm yesterday. It is not in the same ballpark as the Bonafide for skiing on harder snow at speed. And a bit too awkward in tighter areas and slower speeds at 188cm. So my takeaway is that for how its designed the Rustler 9 is optimal in the 180cm length. That is true of a lot of skis.

I mean it wasnt a noodle by any means and had good edgehold and was decent at speed but its best not to want to make the Rustler 9 into something its not by going to the 188cm length. The Rustler 10 on the other hand worked great in a 188cm. I would actually own the Rustler 9 in 180cm to have it as a great ski for exploring the nooks and crannies of a resort like Vail when it has not snowed in a day or two or more. Tight trees, no prob.

I am 6-2 but not super heavy at 185 lb.
 
Last edited:

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
I did take the Rustler 9 out in 188cm right after I skied the Bonafide 187cm yesterday. It is not in the same ballpark as the Bonafide for skiing on harder snow at speed. And a bit too awkward in tighter areas and slower speeds at 188cm. So my takeaway is that for how its designed the Rustler 9 is optimal in the 180cm length. That is true of a lot of skis.
I mean it wasnt a noodle by any means and had good edgehold and was decent at speed but its best not to want to make the Rustler 9 into something its not by going to the 188cm length.

I am 6-2 but not super heavy at 185 lb.

I'm the same height and just 10 lbs lighter than you so I'm sure I'd feel the same.
Didn't think it would be quite as good as the 187cm Bonafide but closer to the 180cm Bonafide or more likely Brahma maybe? The Rustler 9 seems closer to the Brahma even through width closer to Bonifide.
The Rustler 10 and 11 NEED to be in 188cm length I find mounted a bit forward to be better in tight spots and still get the stability of the longer length.

Yes, 188cm is an awkward length in most skis I find and wished companies did a 4-5cm length steps in the 177-190cm lengths. 188cm feels so much longer in tight spots and the 180cm feels a touch short. Had 181cm and 191cm Head Venturi and ran into the same issue. Felt too long or too short depending on terrain.
Rustler 9 in 184cm would be perfect. So many skiers "money length" is 184-186cm and only certain models are in that size. Boooo!
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Top