Worst, most awful, ski brands and skis.
- Thread starter Bended_Toenail
- Start date
typicaldenverkid
Member
14140583:moist_velvet said:
Same here, honestly I think they’re geniuses. They make it seem like your buying a custom made ski since your dropping so much. Go to their website they have a whole survey that proves my point
LukeTheWaffle
Active member
14140543:rice.chex said:
i ride factions.
everything about the skis and brand is dope as hell, except the durability on some of the model
faction makes some of the best freestyle skis for kids, so it makes sense that a bunch of lil kids ride em
BigPurpleSkiSuit
Active member
Found the aforementioned post from jskis, not sure if jason wrote this or not but here:
Yup, Sander hit us up last November after two seasons on Scott (ON3P before that) looking to move away from the big company / professional filming scene to do his own thing. He was super stoked to work with us and with his help we were able to develop the new Friend ski in a matter of weeks which became the most awarded powder ski of the season and we're crazy proud of that.
Flash forward to this season; priorities change, miscommunications happen, Dynastar offers an immediate salary and travel budget. Sander has no choice but to accept it - especially since Lange boots and Look bindings come along with it. Being with a big conglomerate like The Rossignol Group (Dynastar's parent company) will give him the ability to travel and create content in a way that's impossible for a small brand to justify, so we're really stoked to see him get paid and be able to chase the dream.
Yup, Sander hit us up last November after two seasons on Scott (ON3P before that) looking to move away from the big company / professional filming scene to do his own thing. He was super stoked to work with us and with his help we were able to develop the new Friend ski in a matter of weeks which became the most awarded powder ski of the season and we're crazy proud of that.
Flash forward to this season; priorities change, miscommunications happen, Dynastar offers an immediate salary and travel budget. Sander has no choice but to accept it - especially since Lange boots and Look bindings come along with it. Being with a big conglomerate like The Rossignol Group (Dynastar's parent company) will give him the ability to travel and create content in a way that's impossible for a small brand to justify, so we're really stoked to see him get paid and be able to chase the dream.
MoneyMakerMike
Active member
14140741:LukeTheWaffle said:
I'm not talking about the little rippers that use them. I'm talking about the comp jocks who get 3 new pair of factions skis every year because there dad has deep pockets. This results in them thinking they own the park for some reason. Kinda like the freestyle version of racers. This is how it is at least at my resort. I'm sure not every one who rides factions is a douche.
14140757:BigPurpleSkiSuit said:
IMO kinda dodging the question and acting as though it was mostly about the money, not mistreatment from J-skis. This is the behavior I would expect from Atomic/ Rosi / any big ski brand, not a company that claims to be small and different than the others.
JLev
Member
14140785:beat said:
First off, Sander is an awesome guy and it was really rad getting to know him, skiing together and working on developing a ski together. Sander AND Giray Dadali were both equally driving the design of the new Friend ski working with our engineer Francois and I and together the team created a really awesome pow ski!
Sander joined us in the fall, and by February the ski was 100% ready to go, it took a ton of our resources to make that happen in such a short time but it was well worth it. I promised Sander we would create a graphic collab with him as we had done in the past with other athletes. However I already had been working with an artist to create a graphic for this ski and being that a ski that wide sells far less than any other models we couldn't justify creating 2 graphics, twice the quantity at that time. So I planned on adding one potentially in season with Sander's graphic depending on how sales went and definitely by the following year.
Sander is correct we did not pay him for riding our skis, instead we always pay athletes royalty on collab product and since there was none for the upcoming season there was no plan to pay him at that time. Unfortunately Sander never brought up his financial needs, and I never asked so instead we went 6 months working together and one day mid summer he called up out of the blue and said "I just accepted sponsorship from Dynastar".
I've worked with ski athletes one-on-one for over 25 years and this was the first time an athlete ever left telling me it's because they needed to be paid more... WITHOUT ever having a conversation about it prior in which case we always work something out. It was weird to me and made me wish we had what would have been a super easy conversation prior because honestly we would have worked out a fair compensation but at that point he had already made up his mind, so there it was.
CatdickBojangles
Active member
14140812:danbrown said:
Lol called the fuck out!
IanAvery-Leaf
Active member
14140420:SofaKingSick said:
The “radio silence” was when ownership was changing away from Mike Schneider, the original head of Surface. I agree it was a weird season with no new skis, but they’re well past that now with a pretty damn competitive lineup, and low key great team thats growing. There’s some familiar favorites like the Outsiders, with a lot of skis cleared out to make room for new shapes like the Giv’r and my favorite that I ripped all this season: the Upper. It’s technically a touring ski but I used it as my only park skis, they carve like slalom skis, and feel pretty nimble on rails for how wide they are. Outsiders continue to be my favorite pow (and deep slush) ski I’ve ever ridden. Always kept in my quiver since my first pair in high school, which lasted 6 seasons including riding rails and finally switched to a new pair this past one
As far as a “we’re back” announcement, most of the ski content I’ve filmed and put out the past 3 seasons has been Surface focused and have had decent viewing despite instagram taking more and more eyeballs off NS, and a lot of the early comments on those were hype that Surface is back. Between dialing in their social media, building up the team, cutting the fat from the ski lineup, and a handful of thoughtful high quality edits, it’s all basically a “we’re back” without outright saying it
WoFIowz
Active member
14140466:Demillsta said:
Interestingly enough, anyone who I've seen on J skis (skis always catch my eye cuz dope graphics) are usually dudes late 20's or mid 30's who are super chill and down to earth people who can hold a conversation. 0% douchey vibe. Might just be your mountain.
WoFIowz
Active member
14140757:BigPurpleSkiSuit said:
Honesty he just sounds like a brand whore chasing the next best thing with no real loyalty to current sponsors. Also see J skis response above which some appear to not believe based on down votes. It doesn't seem he read the fine print or understood what his role was. I get it with money and who wouldn't go after a brand that pays more especially if you're struggling.
Fancy_Latte
Member
14140907:Turd__Authority said:
Good luck making the best career decision based on loyalty and coming out on top. Definatly an important aspect in some decision making, but in the bountiful career opportunities of freeskiing?? But hey who knows, maybe he would join Jason's resume of LINE skis and FT boots after 5 years
SofaKingSick
Active member
14140890:IanAvery-Leaf said:
That’s good to hear! I’ve met plenty of people who like the skis a lot. Maybe next time for me
VT_scratch
Active member
14140569:bongripper said:
pretty sure he was sellin some drip
tsingtaofanatic
Active member
14141079:VT_scratch said:
oh shit rly
dolanslebensraum
Active member
On3p for price gouging
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141189:highpeak said:
From what ive read the durasurf 4001 bases on on3ps isnt as bulletproof as armadas s7 bases. It seems armada went for a sintered material thats a bit slower than 4001 but makes up for it by being tougher. And edge wise both armada and 0n3p seem to get great reviews.
the point being—armadas you can score for alot cheaper than on3ps. On3ps are good, but imo park skis should not be as costly as 0n3ps.
r00kie
Active member
14141193:DolanReloaded said:
Only someone with a base fetish would care that much lol. And clearly the skis are priced right cause they sell every pair they make before having to clearance them cause the new model year came out. They are also priced competitively anyway. Not any higher than most other North american built skis.
little1337
Active member
14141201:iggyskier said:
He used his microscope and cross referenced the data with NASA archives
weastcoat
Active member
14141193:DolanReloaded said:
Ive never ridden armadas but I’ve seen some pretty fucked up bases by them. I’ve literally tried to really fuck up my ON3P bases in the past and the bases didn’t even budge. Without a doubt most durable bases out there it’s insane.
**This post was edited on May 17th 2020 at 2:00:58am
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141201:iggyskier said:
Im just going by reviews ive read. Dolan consumes as much information in a day as you consume in a week.
14141207:little1337 said:
Naw i was trying to find your dick on the naked pic you posted on your 18th bday. I need a more powerful microscope tho...
14141213:iggyskier said:
Meh.
14141221:weastcoast said:
If durasurf 4001 is both faster than armadas s7 base and more durable, and it only cost 5 to 10 bucks more per ski, why the fuck would armada not use it.
i mean if durasurf 4001 is really the best shit ever why are only on3p and moment using it?
its clear that armada bases are slower than on3p durasurf bases, so what could possibly be the reason for armada to not use the best bases available? Why do any ski company use anything other than 4001?
it makes no sense its like porsche competing with ferrari in a race and porsche decides to put wooden wheels on its racecar
im not ruling out that durasurf 4001 literally pwns the fuck out of every other ski base material
but if it really is the ultimate PE base material then armada and the rest of the ski manufacturers deserve to have their skulls caved in by a massive penis literally its that bad
14141222:highpeak said:
Meh
14141230:DolanReloaded said:
1) I'm not being fictitiously what I said post up the reviews up. If you consumption rate is 7x mine, hopefully you can find them in the next couple days. I'd love to see them.
2) European companies generally use European materials because it saves them vast amount of money in transport, import cost, etc. Especially at scale. It would cost, say, Atomic millions per year to import material from Durasurf vs getting it from Iso. Same applies to US companies (not universal though). That would preclude most companies in Europe from using US-made Durasurf.
You do see some more Isosport (European made) base used in the US - partly because people think it finished a bit easier, partly because people think it has better wax retention - AND because everyone in the US is using topsheet material coming from Europe so the logistics of Euro to NA make a bit more sense than NA to Europe.
As for why companies use what material - it is based upon a principal of value added. What will customers pay you to add to your product.
Brands have different values and use those to guide them to the material they use. Glide, ease of finishing, cost, wax retention, durability, manufacturing consistency, color quality, and supply chain stability.
4001 is the most durable base we can buy - so it is what we use - as that is our more important value in base material.
We're not saying it is the BEST material for everyone. We're saying it is the best material for ON3P customers. Other brands find other materials fit their customer or price point better.
On the record here saying, too - good high quality sintered IsoSport is good base. If it was more durable than the Durasurf 4001, we would move to it. But we find 4001 more durable, so here we are.
3). Moment and ON3P are not the only companies using 4001. But you are asking the wrong question - it isn't why are Moment and ON3P using the most expensive US-made base material out there. It's why are the other companies using the shorter-molecular chain 2001 material (which is still a quality US-made sintered base) or extruded material when a more durable, quality 4001 material (at ~2x the cost) is available here in the US?
I answered why above, but am stating that the anti "Durasurf 4001 Mountain" is a poor one to die on.
These things are not black and white. Try to accept that there is nuance with all the products and materials we're discussing.
if i have skied more pow in a month than Dolton has his whole life
can I haz proform?
if borlandos still round tell him the deb friend hr puppy stuffs and I said hi
oh and your finished skis that ive mounted or tuned have been tight
the "go skiing with your friends"
is my life
keep on keepin on
can I haz proform?
if borlandos still round tell him the deb friend hr puppy stuffs and I said hi
oh and your finished skis that ive mounted or tuned have been tight
the "go skiing with your friends"
is my life
keep on keepin on
14141230:DolanReloaded said:
.
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141238:iggyskier said:
I appreciate you explaining.
the main thing i dont understand is why is would cost so much more to import ds 4001 to europe because from what ive gathered it looks like the “ds 4001 is the best” isnt just the opinion of on3p and moment, it could just flat out be a fact.
I have not seen any base get half the accolades on3p bases get. Im not going to waste my time cutting and pasting 200 reviews ive read over the past months, if you dont want to believe me then dont believe me.
Could you divulge the cost premium per pair of skis that a european factory would have to pay to switch from iso bases to ds4001?
i dont understand how it could possibly cost more than 20 bucks per pair of skis, which most customers would gladly pay for if they were explained that the base on their skis literally clownrapes the shit out of any other ski base available.
snowfinder
Active member
14141372:DolanReloaded said:
Dude I get it bases are important and all but kick it back a notch and go to the source crown plastics. That's the company that makes the bases.
14141372:DolanReloaded said:
I am probably not as informed regarding the specifics of ski manufacturing at any scale, whether it be "workshop style" like ON3P or in a factory production line I imagine brands like Atomic and Rossignol use, but I think the really prohibitive cost of altering the bases of skis doesn't come from the change in material itself.
I would be more interested to understand the costs associated with re-fitting and adjusting production lines to use a new type of base material. Is it a simple adjustment (like a mechanical grip needs to be widened or shrunk) or is it a more involved process that requires intensive changeover labor and new software?
At that point, once we understand the size of the initial outflow required to adjust to this new base material, a breakeven analysis could be conducted to see if it could be justified why more brands don't switch over.
14141372:DolanReloaded said:
Base material is very heavy. A shipment of base to cover about 250 skis for us is about 800 lbs.
Atomic build ~600,000 skis per year (number that just came up on google, could be more/less).
So, say we're excluding all the other reasons I already listed why a brand would use a different material, let's just look at it in terms of cost of transport of 1.8mm 4001.
Option 1: Ground transport base from ISOSPORT factory in Eisenstadt, Austria to Atomic Factory in Altenmarkt ~ 286km.
Option 2: Ground transport base from Crown factory in Cleveland OH to East Coast sea port, ocean transport base from East Coast sea port to European sea port, ground transport from European sea port to Altenmarkt. ~7446km as the bird flies. So tack on a lot more distance there.
And you have to do this...with 1.92 million lbs of material, and then you have to add on import duties and taxes.
I don't know what it would add in cost, but it would be in the millions of dollars - when they have material made 300km away that they order to their own specs and fits the goals they've set for their product.
Second, talking about costs as high as an additional $20/pair would be huge. That is $12 million more per year in expenses, and assumes that each ski needs the thickest, most durable base. Business decisions aren't made that way.
So again, we're just not allowing for the nuance here that is needed when we're talking about the production of millions of different skis per year.
We specifically value durability. That is not what many brands value. We use the material that fits our top need. They use the material that fits theirs.
As for the review - I'm patient but I understand not wanting to do work without incentives. So let's open it up to you and everyone else here. First person to find a review - posted before yesterday - that specifically states the S7 Base is more durable than ON3P's Durasurf 4001 I will venmo $50. Let me know.
14141398:lurking said:
Yes there would be a huge cost in tooling too. For what it is worth too - we operate on a lean production line here - just one set up for a lot less skis/day.
There is one flaw in this discussion that is being overlooked (I've tried to address it a few times). Brands use the material they want. No one at scale is not ordering the material they want - so this exercise in talking about what it might cost a large European factory to change over is moot. They are already ordering the materials they want in their skis.
WoFIowz
Active member
Dolan, reviews mean jack shit for the most part. I would focus on the plastic manufacturer descriptions and scientific studies comparing them (if they exist). Do some research to see the actual physical properties of those plastic formulas. Even reach out to the companies as they may/likely have unpublished research on their bases and if you're lucky, research comparing other bases. If your research isn't from the company, in a text book, journal, or reputable site, then you're looking in the wrong places.
Reviews are essentially case reports. They're anecdotal experiences of people but do not prove causation. A trend in case reports might suggest something but you can't prove it without an actual well structured scientific study. In terms of the evidence quality scale, case reports are last on the bottom of the list. It's like your grandma saying her new Goodyear tires are super fast. You think oh sweet, Goodyear makes fast tires, totally ignoring the fact she drives a Ferrari. An even better example of real life is hydroxychloroquine. In case reports, it was cool. In poorly constructed studies, it was yes and no. In randomized controlled studies, it was dogshit. So back to your original idea of random, nonverified reviews; that evidence is poor. If there's any trend, it's all the people alluding to the durasurf 4001 being better than the s7 base. I've skied both. Maybe it's the thicker bases or maybe it is truly harder, but the durasurf in my opinion takes the cake compared to s7 in all aspects other than price- value is better for durasurf though.
If you truly do have more reports suggesting the alternative, then by all means use that observational data to fuel your research into credible examples and studies in the topic. If they don't exist, then find someone who can analyze the plastics for you (there's gotta be someone in the world who has done or could do this as a thesis or research project) or give up this quest.
P. S. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? I think you may have it just a tad...
Edit: reach out to university chemistry and physics departments for help. How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? All of these tests on hardness, friction coefficients, molecular structure (and how much wax is absorbed--I know debatable but just saying), etc can be done in a lab. The only thing that can't is personal experience which is where your case reports come to top the icing on the cake. But without some sort of funding, this is gonna cost you way more than just selling and buying a pair of skis with durasurf bases to satisfy your need for speed.
**This post was edited on May 17th 2020 at 11:49:28pm
Reviews are essentially case reports. They're anecdotal experiences of people but do not prove causation. A trend in case reports might suggest something but you can't prove it without an actual well structured scientific study. In terms of the evidence quality scale, case reports are last on the bottom of the list. It's like your grandma saying her new Goodyear tires are super fast. You think oh sweet, Goodyear makes fast tires, totally ignoring the fact she drives a Ferrari. An even better example of real life is hydroxychloroquine. In case reports, it was cool. In poorly constructed studies, it was yes and no. In randomized controlled studies, it was dogshit. So back to your original idea of random, nonverified reviews; that evidence is poor. If there's any trend, it's all the people alluding to the durasurf 4001 being better than the s7 base. I've skied both. Maybe it's the thicker bases or maybe it is truly harder, but the durasurf in my opinion takes the cake compared to s7 in all aspects other than price- value is better for durasurf though.
If you truly do have more reports suggesting the alternative, then by all means use that observational data to fuel your research into credible examples and studies in the topic. If they don't exist, then find someone who can analyze the plastics for you (there's gotta be someone in the world who has done or could do this as a thesis or research project) or give up this quest.
P. S. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? I think you may have it just a tad...
Edit: reach out to university chemistry and physics departments for help. How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? All of these tests on hardness, friction coefficients, molecular structure (and how much wax is absorbed--I know debatable but just saying), etc can be done in a lab. The only thing that can't is personal experience which is where your case reports come to top the icing on the cake. But without some sort of funding, this is gonna cost you way more than just selling and buying a pair of skis with durasurf bases to satisfy your need for speed.
**This post was edited on May 17th 2020 at 11:49:28pm
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141420:iggyskier said:
This is still ridiculous. I bet switching to ds would cost less than 10 bucks per pair of skis. I dont know one customer who would say to a shop owner:
“GEE WIZ, ILL TAKE THE 500$ SKI WITH A SHITTY BASE THAT DOESNT GLIDE WELL INSTEAD OF THE 510$ SKI WITH THE MOST DURABLE, FASTEST GLIDING BASE IN THE WORLD; THAT WAY I CAN SAVE 10$ I CAN SPEND ON A GATORADE TO DRINK WHEN IM THIRSTY FROM HIKING A TRAVERSE BECAUSE MY COCKSUCKING SKIS DONT GLIDE FOR SHIT.”
who cares what the total cost is. The main reason im regarded as such a troll is bc people continue to fail at making an incredibly reasonable person look unreasonable.
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141431:Turd__Authority said:
I think the ptex manufacturers wont be very willing to release their trade secrets tho.
Alot of ski companies (eg. armada) wont even disclose which brand of base material they use.
i get what your saying that you cant trust a reviewer, but if someone has demoed 100 skis from every manufacturer and says on3p and moment are the fastest gliding on traverses as far as they can judge, i think that should hold at least some water.
But im all ears; if companies stonewall you and dont reveal any details, what better place is there to gauge a skis performance than from certain reviews by dedicated ski testers and people who have tried many different skis?
dolanslebensraum
Active member
14141432:crawley said:
“Mommy will you please ban dolan for making me Recognize how Inferior and uninteresting a place my brain is, every day of my fucking worthless life?”
Dont kill yourself crawley