chazz.
Active member
Thread summary:
I got bored, wrote a lot about an idea I had, and you can read if it you want. Wether you do or not, use this thread as a place to voice your ideas, opinions, and constructive criticism on how buyers guides could get better. If they are so obviously flawed like I keep reading, then write up your ideas and post them here how to make them better!
Cheers,
chazz
(sparknotes at the bottom)
With the coming season of buyer's guides both in print and online, it is no surprise that they come with their fair share of criticism. While some opinions are entirely without basis and/or experience, many are well founded from personal experience. Especially when you have a following such as Newschoolers, and a new market for companies to target because of exponential growth rates; the number of opinions, and disappointments, will obviously skyrocket. I myself have been left staring in awe multiple times after flipping through the new year's guide, only to find that some of my favorite skis were ranked quite low because they may have scored a sub-par average in one category, scored by 10 skiers, over the course of 5-10 runs. Especially if they were mounted with demo bindings. Realistically, unless one was to employ hundreds of testers, over whole seasons of skiing, in every condition, there is no way to "rate" a ski 100% un-biased and accurately because factors like durability are non-existent in short term ski tests. And with as much skiing as Newschoolers are doing on non-snow surfaces these days, durability is one of those factors in buying a ski that is of utmost importance, yet usually overlooked.
What I am proposing is an entirely new system of rating, reviewing, and previewing skis to the general masses. If there really is such a flawed system of this process, then surely there must be a better one to create then simply repeating it year after year. But let me just say before we go any farther, that I have give full credit and props to magazines like Freeskier for the testing that they pull off and the results they come up with. Is there still a few skis that we feel were rated wrong? Yes, but the testing as a whole does come up with a fairly accurate average over the course of all skis, created by smaller averages, averaged out by every tester. Averages, in general, are usually pretty good. But what if that method was dropped all together? What if there was another way for a magazine reader to find his perfect ski? What if the company reviewing the ski, dropped the ski tests?
Drop the ski tests? Now you're thinking "no way, there's no way you can have a ski test, without ski tests!". But think about it for a second, really think about it. From the feedback I read, it seems as if most readers feel there is no practical way to actually do a ski test "correctly", by testing skis. And if the goal of buyer's guides is to guide the buyer into purchasing the ski they feel is right for them, shouldn't there be more of a "guide" to help the buyer determine what his/her perfect ski would be?
The first section of the guide would be a set of questions for the reader in order to determine ones Skier DNA. These would be basic ski-finding questions like Height/Weight, skiing ability, skiing location, etc. Next set of questions would be along the lines of Flex Preferences (stiff, soft, damp, poppy, etc) Turning preferences (do you want to make shorter turns or longer turns?) Location preferences (Do you feel like you need a fat ski for where you ski? Also, where are you skiing on the mountain?) and Camber Preferences (do you want a "traditional" ski or want tip and/or tail rocker? If so, how much?)
Every time the reader answers one of these questions, that answer will directly correlate to a small chart somewhere in the guide.
One chart might be for ski length, with general ranges for a persons height and weight and what general size they should be looking for.
One could be for turning radius, showing what range in Meters would be considered a "short" turn, "long" turn, etc. and how ski width can effect the turning radius.
Another might be for flex or ski weight, with a person's weight ranges correlating to stability (ie. a heavier person might prefer a stiffer, heavier ski) and so on.
Essentially, give the reader every tool necessary to accurately create his/her own "Skier DNA".
Now that the reader has found his Skier DNA, or a list of preferences and features that they would want in their perfect ski, move on to section 2 of the guide where all the skis have been reviewed in a way that the reader can simply match up his answer with a rating or measurement on the ski. Ski testers should:
-Weigh the ski
-Note how ski is built (sandwich, cap)
-Flex test the ski and show the differing areas of the ski (tips, tails, underfoot)
-Give accurate dimensions and turning radius numbers for all lengths of a ski available
-Measure and list rocker dimensions, profiles, etc. Show a small rocker profile image next to the topsheet shot of the ski.
Now to loosely relate how this info can give you a pretty close match to a tester's averages for a ski. Take Freeskier for example, their rating system I felt was pretty darn good. They rated skis on properties such as Playfulness, Swing Weight, Carving, Stability, and Float in powder. What if we just correlated those characteristics with the specs from the skis tested?
-Playfulness can relate to flex (softer=more playful)
-Swing Weight can relate to the weight of the ski and where it is mounted
-Carving can be determined by turning radius and also where it is mounted
-Stability can be be pretty closely related to weight & flex (heavier or stiffer can be more stable)
-Float can obviously be determined by waist width, shovel width, and rocker profile & measurements
Hypothetically, someone who's Skier DNA tells them they need a 185, stiff, lightweight, fully cambered ski with a 21M radius could read through the spec list of all the skis and find which ones would suit them best, or at least closest to their personal specs. This should be fairly easy with how many models of skis are out on the market nowadays. And there you have it, a happy ending and a ski that should match up to what the skier wants as long as they have accurately described themselves!
*Note* I realize there is still no way to test durability or any other factors influenced by time spent on the hill. Still haven't come up with an idea for that…
**Sparknotes** Have buyer identify own Skier DNA, match buyer up with ski based on Skier DNA. Skis would be simply "spec-ed out" instead of skied on.
Feel free to voice any input you have on my ideas too, constructive criticism is the best.
I got bored, wrote a lot about an idea I had, and you can read if it you want. Wether you do or not, use this thread as a place to voice your ideas, opinions, and constructive criticism on how buyers guides could get better. If they are so obviously flawed like I keep reading, then write up your ideas and post them here how to make them better!
Cheers,
chazz
(sparknotes at the bottom)
With the coming season of buyer's guides both in print and online, it is no surprise that they come with their fair share of criticism. While some opinions are entirely without basis and/or experience, many are well founded from personal experience. Especially when you have a following such as Newschoolers, and a new market for companies to target because of exponential growth rates; the number of opinions, and disappointments, will obviously skyrocket. I myself have been left staring in awe multiple times after flipping through the new year's guide, only to find that some of my favorite skis were ranked quite low because they may have scored a sub-par average in one category, scored by 10 skiers, over the course of 5-10 runs. Especially if they were mounted with demo bindings. Realistically, unless one was to employ hundreds of testers, over whole seasons of skiing, in every condition, there is no way to "rate" a ski 100% un-biased and accurately because factors like durability are non-existent in short term ski tests. And with as much skiing as Newschoolers are doing on non-snow surfaces these days, durability is one of those factors in buying a ski that is of utmost importance, yet usually overlooked.
What I am proposing is an entirely new system of rating, reviewing, and previewing skis to the general masses. If there really is such a flawed system of this process, then surely there must be a better one to create then simply repeating it year after year. But let me just say before we go any farther, that I have give full credit and props to magazines like Freeskier for the testing that they pull off and the results they come up with. Is there still a few skis that we feel were rated wrong? Yes, but the testing as a whole does come up with a fairly accurate average over the course of all skis, created by smaller averages, averaged out by every tester. Averages, in general, are usually pretty good. But what if that method was dropped all together? What if there was another way for a magazine reader to find his perfect ski? What if the company reviewing the ski, dropped the ski tests?
Drop the ski tests? Now you're thinking "no way, there's no way you can have a ski test, without ski tests!". But think about it for a second, really think about it. From the feedback I read, it seems as if most readers feel there is no practical way to actually do a ski test "correctly", by testing skis. And if the goal of buyer's guides is to guide the buyer into purchasing the ski they feel is right for them, shouldn't there be more of a "guide" to help the buyer determine what his/her perfect ski would be?
The first section of the guide would be a set of questions for the reader in order to determine ones Skier DNA. These would be basic ski-finding questions like Height/Weight, skiing ability, skiing location, etc. Next set of questions would be along the lines of Flex Preferences (stiff, soft, damp, poppy, etc) Turning preferences (do you want to make shorter turns or longer turns?) Location preferences (Do you feel like you need a fat ski for where you ski? Also, where are you skiing on the mountain?) and Camber Preferences (do you want a "traditional" ski or want tip and/or tail rocker? If so, how much?)
Every time the reader answers one of these questions, that answer will directly correlate to a small chart somewhere in the guide.
One chart might be for ski length, with general ranges for a persons height and weight and what general size they should be looking for.
One could be for turning radius, showing what range in Meters would be considered a "short" turn, "long" turn, etc. and how ski width can effect the turning radius.
Another might be for flex or ski weight, with a person's weight ranges correlating to stability (ie. a heavier person might prefer a stiffer, heavier ski) and so on.
Essentially, give the reader every tool necessary to accurately create his/her own "Skier DNA".
Now that the reader has found his Skier DNA, or a list of preferences and features that they would want in their perfect ski, move on to section 2 of the guide where all the skis have been reviewed in a way that the reader can simply match up his answer with a rating or measurement on the ski. Ski testers should:
-Weigh the ski
-Note how ski is built (sandwich, cap)
-Flex test the ski and show the differing areas of the ski (tips, tails, underfoot)
-Give accurate dimensions and turning radius numbers for all lengths of a ski available
-Measure and list rocker dimensions, profiles, etc. Show a small rocker profile image next to the topsheet shot of the ski.
Now to loosely relate how this info can give you a pretty close match to a tester's averages for a ski. Take Freeskier for example, their rating system I felt was pretty darn good. They rated skis on properties such as Playfulness, Swing Weight, Carving, Stability, and Float in powder. What if we just correlated those characteristics with the specs from the skis tested?
-Playfulness can relate to flex (softer=more playful)
-Swing Weight can relate to the weight of the ski and where it is mounted
-Carving can be determined by turning radius and also where it is mounted
-Stability can be be pretty closely related to weight & flex (heavier or stiffer can be more stable)
-Float can obviously be determined by waist width, shovel width, and rocker profile & measurements
Hypothetically, someone who's Skier DNA tells them they need a 185, stiff, lightweight, fully cambered ski with a 21M radius could read through the spec list of all the skis and find which ones would suit them best, or at least closest to their personal specs. This should be fairly easy with how many models of skis are out on the market nowadays. And there you have it, a happy ending and a ski that should match up to what the skier wants as long as they have accurately described themselves!
*Note* I realize there is still no way to test durability or any other factors influenced by time spent on the hill. Still haven't come up with an idea for that…
**Sparknotes** Have buyer identify own Skier DNA, match buyer up with ski based on Skier DNA. Skis would be simply "spec-ed out" instead of skied on.
Feel free to voice any input you have on my ideas too, constructive criticism is the best.
