The Bonefide has been outdated?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Personally I don't think it is outdated but even with a new construction, shape and well everything other than waist and length options, the Bonafide falls under the topic of did Blizzard play it too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in both performance and sales...others have caught up to it, this takes nothing away from the Bonafide and it is not outdated by any means but it also doesn't have the separation from the pack that it once enjoyed.The Bonefide has been outdated?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.
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.
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?
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.
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!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.
That all said, I am now the owner of Renoun Z90’s, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
Ok Mr. Thrifty.
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.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.
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.
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.
I think that the light tendt is taken to fat.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
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.
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.
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.
I am 6-2 but not super heavy at 185 lb.