Micro, Indy, Boutique or Mainstream? What is preferred source of skis?

[NZRob]

The vibe from the 'true' microbrands seems very different; there seems to be a statement that they want to make a good product [ I don't dispute that] but there also seems to be a cultural and 'political' statement of 'difference-ness'. An imperfect analogy but the local coffee store that sources, roasts, blends their own beans and so on.

It's a good analogy. Our local (NZ) microbrands are very much about brewing up something specifically designed and built locally for local conditions, as a distinctly different product from skis from large-scale manufacturers (even though the reality is most large manufacturers will have a very similar product in their range). The 'garage' nature of the build is celebrated (picture a lonely artisan...maybe in a Pugski apron , slaving away with some high-mod carbon), as is the low-profile marketing they engage in (very locally-focussed). They are only moderately more expensive than mainstream product.

 

[David Chaus]

An experiment I would like to see run is ski reviews with blacked out top sheets and identical bindings. Then, get normal skiers to test the skis. Would the average skier be able to notice the differences? If so, which brands would come out on top? Think of it like blind wine tastings, but for skis.

IIRC SkiCanada magazine does their annual ski test that way, or at least they used to.

 

[Philpug]

IIRC SkiCanada magazine does their annual ski test that way, or at least they used to.

You can mask 10 skis in front of me, I will be able to hit (minimum) 8 out of 10...I am sure there are many that will get 10 of 10.

 

[David Chaus]

You can mask 10 skis in front of me, I will be able to hit (minimum) 8 out of 10...I am sure there are many that will get 10 of 10.

Noted.

I wonder whether most ski testers whom they recruit to do the testing have a similar knowledge base of new skis.

 

[James]

Not allowed to look at Bindings??
Probably can tell from clicking in?

 

[parkrat]

Noted.

I wonder whether most ski testers whom they recruit to do the testing have a similar knowledge base of new skis.

Which might be a case where non-professional testers could provide a less biased evaluation of skis. A lot of skis in the same category are going to have similar shapes. I doubt most ski instructors would recognize a masked Stormrider 88 vs MX88 based on shape.

 

[Philpug]

Noted.

I wonder whether most ski testers whom they recruit to do the testing have a similar knowledge base of new skis.

David,

Sadly no and that is even more scary. I will tell a story from when we were at out previous employer. We we were at a test and @Tricia was skiing with her Boot Sole Buddy (BSB) and the other woman was complaining how bad a ski was skiing. Tricia replied that she skied that ski at another test prior and it skied great. They brought the ski back to the tents and sure enough the ski had a bad tune. NOTE: this is a skier that could ski rings around 90% of the skiers her and she could not discern that it was not a bad ski but a bad tune. This is what the consumer is relying on from a "well respected" ski test...when the tester cannot discern a bad ski from a bad tune. Sure enough, the ski had a bad tune. If Tricia didn't bring that up, they results would have been skewed. I will add the person running the test was visably upset because Tricia created more work for her.

 

[Dougb]

David,

Sadly no and that is even more scary. I will tell a story from when we were at out previous employer. We we were at a test and @Tricia was skiing with her Boot Sole Buddy (BSB) and the other woman was complaining how bad a ski was skiing. Tricia replied that she skied that ski at another test prior and it skied great. They brought the ski back to the tents and sure enough the ski had a bad tune. NOTE: this is a skier that could ski rings around 90% of the skiers her and she could not discern that it was not a bad ski but a bad tune. This is what the consumer is relying on from a "well respected" ski test...when the tester cannot discern a bad ski from a bad tune. Sure enough, the ski had a bad tune. If Tricia didn't bring that up, they results would have been skewed. I will add the person running the test was visably upset because Tricia created more work for her.

All the more important to demo skis from a reputable shop. Does anyone know how many skis come from the factory with a bad tune? And how that breaks down between large, medium, and boutique companies?

Back in my league bowling days I read studies showing how wildly different the surface prep was on balls coming from the factory. Many were not at the factory-stated specs. I owned a ball spinner and resurfaced every ball I bought before I ever threw it. It was the only way I really could really understand what the ball was like. Add to that I would only throw it after getting a read of the lane conditions with my benchmark ball. That way I could compare the ball reactions.

Along those lines, it would be interesting to demo skis against one’s “benchmark” ski. Does anyone do that? Of course, ski conditions can change from one run to the next — just as quickly as an oil pattern transitions in bowling. But could be useful...

 

[James]

Which might be a case where non-professional testers could provide a less biased evaluation of skis. A lot of skis in the same category are going to have similar shapes. I doubt most ski instructors would recognize a masked Stormrider 88 vs MX88 based on shape.

I don’t buy into the “random person” goes ski testing and comes back with useful information. If they do, it’s unusual and they should go into doing it.
You only get a couple runs with a ski. There’s just too many things to be aware of. Not everyone senses the differences, or can talk about them.
What you want is someone who can extrapolate for the intended audience of that ski even when they’re not the audience. It takes experience and awareness.

There are a bunch of Storm Rider 88’s. The MX 88 remained pretty unchanged till the 89.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Then, get normal skiers to test the skis. Would the average skier be able to notice the differences? If so, which brands would come out on top? Think of it like blind wine tastings, but for skis.

The concepts of “normal” and “average” are doing a lot of work in this paragraph and are at a minimum hard to define. Honestly if anyone did this from a general audience I would probably assume the reviews had negative informational value to me (i.e. I would assume I would like the lowest scoring skis more than the highest scoring ones).

I’m not saying the experts need to tell people what they should want, but I’m also pretty sure I don’t care much what an “average” skier thinks about skis. There are tons of really popular skis I hate and, at least if we go buy displayed preferences, many unpopular skis I really like.

 

[Eleeski]

I build my own waterskis for competition. I don't sell them (anymore - tired of losing money). A few friends and family do get them. We do compete at high levels on them so the performance of the skis are validated by tournament scores. My skis overperform - I do have an unfair advantage!

My skis are different. They have always been extremely lightweight. I did custom layups that would be hard to mass produce. I used lots of expensive materials. I used unsafe materials (a production line with boron fibers would need extreme protocols - I just pull splinters out for a while after a build). My skis do affect the major producers - they show what is possible, especially if I won. A couple of "clones" of my skis have been put into production - that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

We did a waterski test for Waterski Magazine a few years ago. We made all the testers use their own bindings but did not hide the skis. We did prohibit all the testers from using their own skis so there was little bias - we hoped. We got pretty good data. Most of the skis performed reasonably and it boiled down to what worked best for each individual. A couple of the skis went home with the testers!

You can mask 10 skis in front of me, I will be able to hit (minimum) 8 out of 10...I am sure there are many that will get 10 of 10.

You could probably get that without skiing them!

Eric

 

[markojp]

There's a fair amount of conspiratorial suggestion going on in some of the posts above. I've seen skis from every major maker delivered a bit edge high, or with less than stellar edge finishes. I've rarely seen an 'indy' brand that didn't need a complete base and edge prep, but ski fine once that's taken care of. Ski Logic was a poster child for an 'art' ski with lousy factory base and edge finishes. Really small shops starting out in someone's garage just can't afford the tuning machinery. Then there are smaller builders with loads of experience that make incredibly high quality skis a la Augment. . Bottom line though, no matter which ski you buy, they'll almost always ski better after being prepped by a skilled tech.

 

[fatbob]

Re the tune vs the ski point, surely it speaks to the manufacturer's overall attitude if they have skis out to test/demo and they aren't in the best possible tune.

They've chosen a rep who doesn't care enough or shipped under prepped goods at short notice ( I've seen demo tents where a rep has literally been mounting skis early morning) etc.

Shop demos are admittedly more of a problem.

 

[Superbman]

Aren't Indy ski companies just micro-brands that made it the next level? Icelantic started with one unique ski (the Scout) that was sort of a playful snow snowshoe for the Budding modern AT Enthusiasts. As far as quality, again, using Icelantic (but this would apply to Liberty, DPS, and ON3P and others)-it's excellent. The Three Year bombproof Icelantic warranty is great--and try as I might, on 4 different pairs of skis over 12 years, I didn't get to invoke it. My Liberty skis are equally tough and came from the factory with a high quality finish (and with metal in them, which is usually the one thing American Indy's haven't figured out). I just mounted up a Pair of Blossom whiteouts, they're passing the eyeball quality test for sure.

But, quality seems pretty great across the board with most major ski companies as well, it's a lot like the biking industry, at a certain price point everybody is making great products,-the FEA software revolution two decades ago and modern factories and wide scale, grassroots internet info sites (like pugski) have done a lot to weed out the poor quality products. You just can't get away with that so easily anymore.

 

[Philpug]

All the more important to demo skis from a reputable shop. Does anyone know how many skis come from the factory with a bad tune? And how that breaks down between large, medium, and boutique companies?

All but a few shops, their "demo" skis are glorified rental skis. A proper demo shop, the skis are earmarked as sales tools and might see snow once a week with someone who is actually considering buying that ski verses 9 times in a week with Claude who just flew in from Texas and just wants the latest and greatest ski as a rental.

Back in my league bowling days I read studies showing how wildly different the surface prep was on balls coming from the factory. Many were not at the factory-stated specs. I owned a ball spinner and resurfaced every ball I bought before I ever threw it. It was the only way I really could really understand what the ball was like. Add to that I would only throw it after getting a read of the lane conditions with my benchmark ball. That way I could compare the ball reactions.

Funny, we live in the center of the bowling universe here in Reno. We had a friend come in from out of town for bowling convention> We went with him one evening to the to the bowling stadium and there was one of those spinning machines and a test lane to try balls out. We chuckled to ourselves "What geeks", then thought they would probably say the same about us and skis and skiing.

Along those lines, it would be interesting to demo skis against one’s “benchmark” ski. Does anyone do that? Of course, ski conditions can change from one run to the next — just as quickly as an oil pattern transitions in bowling. But could be useful...

When we go to a demo to test skis. One of the things I do and I have our testers do is to take out either their own personal ski or a ski that they are familiar with to test the snow and use ot as a reference/benchmark ski.

 

[Wasatchman]

Funny, we live in the center of the bowling universe here in Reno. We had a friend come in from out of town for bowling convention> We went with him one evening to the to the bowling stadium and there was one of those spinning machines and a test lane to try balls out. We chuckled to ourselves "What geeks", then thought they would probably say the same about us and skis and skiing.

When we go to a demo to test skis. One of the things I do and I have our testers do is to take out either their own personal ski or a ski that they are familiar with to test the snow and use ot as a reference/benchmark ski.

Milwaukee may have something to say about Reno being the center of the bowling universe.

Good idea on testers taking personal ski. I think many avid skiers realize that some popular ski tests are as useful as ski resort rankings. I assume it's the casual skiers that are unduly influenced. That said, the Internet enables greater access to a variety of ski reviews and my guess is that the test you may be referring to becomes less influential with every passing year.

 

[fatbob]

The worst that can happen with a poorly designed ski is it snaps on a jump landing, which is a safety issue. Unfortunately, I don't know any good way to compare ski durability across manufacturers.

While this might be a risk with the first batch of skis that some kid has literally laid up in his garage is it really such an issue? I'm pretty sure Icelantics are burlier than some of those foam cored freestyle skis that Salomon and others were offering in the early 2000s. It's a bit like claiming if you don't buy Ford or GM you'll end up in a fireball because only big manuafacturers can make safe cars ( and I know the auto industry is a poor analogue because scale issues mean you have to be part of something big in order to play really).

The whole testing thing about skis is problematic. Even here where people make more effort than most "magazine" tests and I don't criticize the format because it's appropriate for the target audience I don't learn that much about skis that I wouldn't already know from my knowledge of the brand, what I've skied in the past from them and where I stand on the distribution vs testers etc. And there are some reviews that make me scratch my head as they come across as more hard sell than objective e.g. is it really the case that a new iteration of the same ski will have previous owners selling up in order to buy the new one?

 

[Quandary]

All big brands aren't the same, all indy's aren't the same, no doubt. Both have access to the same base material, edge material, fiberglass, carbon, rubber laminate, top sheet material etc. Both big and indy want to sell skis and make a profit, however the paths are quite divergent.

Take the big brands. For the most part they are part of large public companies. The want sales and they want profit before all things. They design they're skis to hit as big a market segment as they can at a price point that will sell the most skis. They design and build their skis at a cost as low as possible to satisfy the design, price point and quality targets. Design and build comprises are made, this is the simple reality of the world in which they live. It is foolish to deny or ignore this reality. Do the big brands make some great skis of course they do. Do they make a lot of really bad skis, no question. Some are built well, some are trash.

How about the indy's? They have significantly more design and build freedom. More flexibility on pricing. Don't have a board and shareholders breathing down they're neck to increase sales and profits. Many use these advantages to build really interesting skis built with the best materials and craftsmanship. Do they build some goofy skis that don't work, sure. Are there indy's that don't build the best quality, absolutely. Are the indy's that build as good or better than the best big brands, yep. Indy's give you the opportunity to find a really great, outstandingly built ski with great graphics that by and large you can't get from the big brands.

I currently ski both, I have owned both in the past. I have owned really bad indy's and really bad big brands. I have also owned really great skis built by both. You can find good skis made by either group and there is nothing wrong with going either way. Its personal preference. At this stage of my skiing journey I prefer the indy's, that's my choice. You do you, I'll do me.

 

[markojp]

Re the tune vs the ski point, surely it speaks to the manufacturer's overall attitude if they have skis out to test/demo and they aren't in the best possible tune.

They've chosen a rep who doesn't care enough or shipped under prepped goods at short notice ( I've seen demo tents where a rep has literally been mounting skis early morning) etc.

Shop demos are admittedly more of a problem.

Yes, sometimes the ski quite literally arrived at the reps door the day before the demo and he still needs to get them on the hill. Or sometimes the fresh tune just sucks. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Every rep in our region cares. Most spend a lot of time and or money getting their fleets ready. Every single maker has had a late product or early production delivery that was less than perfect. I could whine and moan about my optimal length not even being pressed yet, but I'm not going to. Sometimes the delivery service screws up. You're expecting perfection in a very long chain of production and delivery that isn't very realistic and confusing it for lack of effort. Deadlines happen. FWIW, we always tell our testers to be aware that if something isn't right, the culprit is most always the tune and to let the rep or tent know.

 

[GregK]

Afraid factory tunes from almost every company out there can be suspect. Of the last 30 pairs of skis I’ve bought/sold, the only one that hasn’t needed a stone grind to flatten has been my 2021 Moment Wildcats that received a full tune on the latest Reichman machines before they leave the factory.

This thread has a “groomer/race ski” bias as many on this site aren’t spending time in a terrain park or backcountry skiing out West so their experience with many of the fantastic “Indy” skis out there might be limited. If you were to post about Stockli or Kastle skis on freestyle biased websites, they would have very limited experience on those skis compared to something like an ON3P or Moment. They are some of the prestige/hand made skis that are held in very high regard in freestyle/freeride circles for their ability to take insane abuse from rails or rocks off piste and to be handle high speeds through heavy PNW crud with ease. Their fit/finish are very premium. And WAY BETTER graphics on any of the Indy skis vs the “Name of the ski with some stripes” of many big brands.