Why Are Surface Skis So Cheap?

Damn those are some good prices.. I hope it's not a bad sign

What do people think of the daily? How is it compared to other companies' high 90s waist do-it-all?
 
I asked them on their Insta a few months ago since I was wondering the same thing, they said:

"We are just laying low. All good over here just skiing a bunch. We didn't produce much for '17 just selling through existing skis but almost sold out then we'll decide what's next!"
 
I bought the outsiders and they are probably one of the most fun skis to ride. might even be my favorite pair of skis I have owned.
 
Because they ski very very badly and are poorly constructed. I'm an owner of a pair of all mtn blanks, and a pair of daily's for touring. Surface is just a super budget ski company, and their designs just arent that good...the skis don't carve or float properly, and (as many NSers can vouch for) their durability isn't all there, plus they use extruded bases.

As someone who has purchased multiple pairs of surfaces because they are cheap, the reason is because they legitimately ski worse than other skis and have budget construction. They are great skis for skiing uphill and riding on dirt on volcanoes in the summer, or destroying on rails...basically anywhere where actual downhill performance doesn't matter
 
I have a pair of, 2009ish I think, new lifes. They are currently marketing the same ski as the Balance, has same dimensions etc.

Anyways, I think the ski is great. They surf pow good from center mount, you can even drive the tips pretty hard in the right snow. These were beat to shit by myself and their previous owner; on 4th mount now and still looking good.
 
13788317:dizzydizzy said:
Because they ski very very badly and are poorly constructed. I'm an owner of a pair of all mtn blanks, and a pair of daily's for touring. Surface is just a super budget ski company, and their designs just arent that good...the skis don't carve or float properly, and (as many NSers can vouch for) their durability isn't all there, plus they use extruded bases.

As someone who has purchased multiple pairs of surfaces because they are cheap, the reason is because they legitimately ski worse than other skis and have budget construction. They are great skis for skiing uphill and riding on dirt on volcanoes in the summer, or destroying on rails...basically anywhere where actual downhill performance doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Nah, I think you're wrong.

-only the blanks use extruded bases

-they carve and float just fine?

-durability isn't something to rave about but definitely not an issue. Topsheet durability sucks though.

They really should update some of the designs, but they really are fun skis. Generally really light and responsive skis with a backbone to them.
 
13788330:Skerby said:
I have a pair of, 2009ish I think, new lifes. They are currently marketing the same ski as the Balance, has same dimensions etc.

Anyways, I think the ski is great. They surf pow good from center mount, you can even drive the tips pretty hard in the right snow. These were beat to shit by myself and their previous owner; on 4th mount now and still looking good.
Click to expand...

I also have some old surfaces that have been skied a lot and look way better than they should. 1st run i thought I had bought a toy ski because they were so light but they held up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top