BUCKET CLIPS 3 | A FLINTA Ski Mixtape

Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The Imenent Retrogressive Groove

profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
This is getting rediculous. Just because they make a couple pairs for athletes and employees every kid on the damn internet thinks they should be looking at '07s to buy.

What will happen to our industry if inline (current model year) product can't be moved after Feb 1st? I'll tell you, Stores will have to buy LESS. Then BRANDS will have to MAKE less.

Same as this damn length trend. For some reason every kid on this site thinks they need every ski out there in the longest size made cuz it's steezier. Guys have been thinking that way for 100's of years thats howcome it took 100 years to get us off of 210 straight skis. Buy different sizes or else BRANDS will have to MAKE FEWER sizes and hence LESS skis. This will be retrogression not the "progression" you all talk of.

Also whatever we do, do not support the most recent trends steering us back into Rear Entry boot systems. This may sound crazy but Nordica is reintroducing a full lineup (like 5 models) of fully Rear Entry "Performance" boots for next season. If they sell than every other brand will make them to compete and our sport will get stuck in the most horrible rut it ever experienced, AGAIN!

If you weigh under 175lbs, get the AR5 in 176, so when the 195lb kid comes to my store I'll have a 180 for him. Otherwise you make us buy only the 180's! Brands go out of their way when they offer small gaps between sizes so that you can have the perfect length ski.

This is all coming to me because I am currently going through all of the new catalogues picking out our twins for next year and these are the issues we're facing. It seems like there is no market for literally HALF of the skis made by LINE ARMADA 4FRNT etc, because nobody buys the smaller half of their sizes.

I told Jason Levinthal this last friday and he was blown away. I told him and Pollard how without a 185 Invader and Anthem they would be sunk in the current market and I explained why.

Anyways buy wide skis so you can ski them a little short. The 175 ARV weighs less than the 180 AR5 and it skis better all mountain. And Don't buy rear entry boots if you care about this awesome sport. That's the end of my rant if you read the whole thing thank you I'd like to hear from you about it.
Feb 6 2006 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
waynewong
Posts: 1359 - Karma: 23
^^I agree somewhat

But it comes down to shop employees and informative ordering that moves skis from your racks. If your shop guys are pushing one size or are not "educated" enough to place customers on proper product while also moving your inventory then some changes need to be made. The ski industry is not at fault for making a wide array of choices, shops are at fault (in many cases) for both misordering and having stoner employees who talk down to customers and push the wrong product to them....

Talk about "retro-gressive" - Neon? White ski boots? tight pants? fuck I though the 80's and early 90's died....but I do get pumped to hear some old twisted sister playing in my local park....
Feb 6 2006 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Market forces equal all this shit out in our country. Produce the best ski for the market you are selling to and you will continue to sell skis aslong as there are skiers. If a company makes more money selling just 190s, they should sell just 190s. They have no reason to change that. If there are profits to be had on the shorter skis (which there are, in very large numbers) then they should also sell them. If those wishing to have short skis are large enough in number, there will be a market for them and the companies producing the larger skis will produce shorter skis again to capture the untapped market and increase profits.

Right now invaders are not up to par durability wise with the fujatives (most closely compareable ski both in price and construction), any problem line is having with sales is not because they are not producing that longer size. It is because they are not producing the best ski in the eyes of the buyer. While you may be right that a 185 invader would sell, the invader would by no means be sunk if it remained producing just the shorter lengths.

For the market your selling to you may be correct that people prefer longer skis. But your flatout wrong when you say there is no market for the shorter length skis in total. The people that buy twin tips are not all riding park. Skis like the 161 invader, 159 pe, 157 stl are great choices for regular people to buy that just like to ski in general. In general twintips are softer flexing, easier to ski, and cheaper in stores than most of the other skis on the market when purchased new.


Long skis have their place, shorter skis have their place. Both are still being purchased in large quantities. Your lack of knowledge of the ski industry as a whole, combined with your prophetic business outlook is an interesting combination that will likely result in the loss of an entire market in the area surrounding "your" store.
Feb 6 2006 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Triple_Strum
Posts: 6384 - Karma: 953
ahhh skimasterflex, I am with you on this one. Those are all symptoms of the big problem: kids value style over effectiveness. I will admit that even I do it sometimes, however rarely. Shops are having huge problems moving stock of particular sizes because they choose product based on looks rather than what ski, boot, or binding is best for them. That is why there is 24 pages of the "06/07 gear" thread when we are barely in the middle of the 2006 season!
As for the fat ski length argument, I agree. Somehow it is the opposite though, which is funny. I know people want more float in powder, but does someone who weighs 160 lbs need a 189 fat ski? Not really.

The rear entry boot idea is just to try to generate new sales with a new idea. Just as the Salomon spk is a new idea to sell more product. I doubt the rear-entry boot will catch on because it just isn't an efficient construction.

But yes, I weigh 195 lbs and could ride a stiff 165 cm carving ski easily. We are just caught up thinking that longer = better. I ride 185s because I need them that long. Otherwise, wouldn't shorter skis be advantageous?
Feb 6 2006 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
You're a god damn fascist!
Feb 6 2006 3:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
I think you were looking for communist, but I agree... the only way this would ever be a problem is if we were living in a communist/fascist society.
Feb 6 2006 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
I think people nowadays... atleast in NY get fitted shorter than they need to be. I told one of my up and coming buddies to buy 170s last season, he bought 160s by the shops recommendation, he rides my 180s for fun sometimes and he said he doesn't even notice a HUGE difference because of the way I have them mounted... aside from the large weight difference and now he is looking for 170s one year later... My friend who works in a shop was pushing me to 170s telling me 180s would be too long. Im 510 185-190... I think you will find that in this sector of the industry people know what they want and it'll be hard to convince them otherwise... I am that exact way but I am not one of the young kids you speak of so I guess Im different, but when someone tries to sell me something, it pisses me off "you want this, these are nice"... not saying your like this but in most cases I know more about the product Im buying than the shop dude knows
Feb 6 2006 3:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Triple_Strum
Posts: 6384 - Karma: 953
oh I agree, some people are idiots. I went to my local shop because they just started carrying Armadas and I knew I wanted the AR5. I weigh 195-200 lbs so I wanted the 180s. They didn't have them in stock because "no one needs skis that long" buahahah.
Feb 6 2006 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
A couple things to think about:

1) I'm not blaming Ski companies, I think that having a 176 and a 180 is awesome for our business and for the sport (two things that should be seperated for the purpose of a philosophical debate).

2) STLs are $575, add a binding for around $150 and you hit $725. Even on sale there are 30 models of mens skis in my store alone that ski better all mountain and cost less. So arguing that small "pro model" park skis should be marketed as "easier cheaper skis for just skiing on" is not viable whatsoever.

3) I can assure you that next years Invaders are at the very least "up to par" with Fujatives. However when you introduce the concept of true center mounting on any ski you reduce the effective tip enormously therefore the overall length can be longer, I'm sure you know this. The Anthem especially would be an amazing offering for Line in a larger size because it is a wide enough park ski that Anyone who really can only afford one ski can ski it everywhere. I just doubled over the tips of it several times so either mount it a couple back or hope for a 185cm if you're fat like me.

4) People not riding park should be on better skis than most park skis are. I've skied almost every ski on the market and for the price of even the cheapest twins you can get a better skiing non-twin end of story. In fact in most price points the best skiing skis are not twins. Twins are a worthwhile sacrifice we make because it is worthwhile to us. It isn't worthwhile for everyone.
Feb 6 2006 5:54PM
0 0
profile picture
skogenjake
Posts: 6685 - Karma: 511
fucking revolutionary post.
Feb 6 2006 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
The point i was trying to make is that sizes will go and come as the market allows, and that its not really revolutionary to state that.

Do i think line should make a longer invader? Yes, Im 5'8 and found the 177 short. Everyone doesn't need to ride them longer, but people who ride hard or are taller do. I agree with you here

My only real disagreement with you is that the invader would be sunk without the longer length. I think it would be nearly as successful and they should expand into the longer lengths with a differently designed ski. Something like a toned down bacon.
Feb 6 2006 6:42PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
^My "sunk" statement wasn't to say that the Ivader wouldn't sell, for the shear price/margin of the ski will always make it their best seller wether it stays together is made bigger or not.

The statement I made to J. Lev was in the context of Lines true goal for the model. What the Invader/Anthem can and will represent is a super fun ski that ANYONE can kill it on for super cheap. I simply mean that without a bigger size they will leave some, indeed quite a few of us, behind and hence not meet the goal of making it for all of us.

His response was that they had never sold a 186 park ski well enough to make it worthwhile. My response to that was that all of the previous models that came big were stiff enough in the 178 for almost all of us and that nobody skied those (skogan, etc.) mounted true center. Make it soft and center mounted and all of a sudden your ski is functionally much smaller.

Also I mentioned how the best selling ARV, one of the only skis in the Anthem category of fairly big and really soft, was 185cm 2 to 1 over the 175cm.

I think we will see a 185 Anthem, maybe not this year but at least by the next.
Feb 6 2006 7:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on the point that if lines goal with the invader is to hit anyone that they aren't reaching it, and definately would need to produce a bigger size. Personaly what i would love from line is to see a JP julien style ski, very light, big and very very soft. Not as crazy as the bacon though.
Feb 6 2006 7:53PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
I think the Bacon will surprise you bro. The one other thing they need is a legit BC ski, light fairly stiff and long. Like a 192 Prophet 100 :)
Feb 6 2006 7:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Yeah im excited to try them, never been a huge fan of ultra shaped fat skis though. Im a little bitch about tip grab. Well see.
Feb 6 2006 8:02PM
0 0
profile picture
FUUUCK
Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888
well i believe that short skis are not the way to go, companies will learn that kids want longer skis and thus produce the larger sizes in larger quantities

as for next years skis, i never buy them, why? because in two years ill buy em for $300 less
Feb 6 2006 8:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Lineskier-101
Posts: 7863 - Karma: 22
I weigh 160lbs, and have 179 fujatives, and 177 STL's, the STL's feel extremely short, and I think 183 would have been a better size.

I wouldn't tell people not to get the ski size they want because it will make it harder to buy equipment, I'll buy whatever size i feel like.
Feb 6 2006 8:10PM
0 0
profile picture
BCKicker540
Posts: 1283 - Karma: 11
it is kinda ridiculous how long everyone thinks their skis should be. people on here told me to buy 185s, and im only 5'6'' 165. i skied 182 foils and they kicked my ass. kids just want longer skis because theyre cocky and play up the ability level way too much.
Feb 6 2006 8:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Lineskier-101
Posts: 7863 - Karma: 22
Most the kids on here will tell you really long to make themselves look like they actually ski that length.
Feb 6 2006 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
no, I was looking for fascist.

Fascism: A movement which believes the state should consist of a dictatorship by the economic elites of the country being governed.

Communism:A socialist society in which resources are held collectively, under the slogan "from each according to his or her ability, and to each according to his or her need", and in which the State is either abolished because it is harmful or withers away because it is no longer required. Communism is the final aim of revolutionary socialist ideologies such as Marxism and anarchism.

He just wants everybody to do exactly what he wants, so he is more of a fascist, not that he literally is one, than a communist.
Feb 6 2006 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Fascism is more of an oppresive and selective, do what is good for the country because it is the country that matters.

Communism is let the country decide what is good for you and everyone will be better off.

In practice they are almost identical, but in theory you were making a reference to communism. Just to be a literal douche about it.
Feb 6 2006 8:39PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
I don't get how that proves I was making a reference to communism. He's saying, "Do 'this' for the good of skiing."
Feb 6 2006 8:45PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
but since it doesn't matter at all, I wholeheartedly agree with the other stuff you said.
Feb 6 2006 8:46PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
If I worked in a shop I would honestly recommend 175-180 max... depending on how you mount them. As was said before and I forgot to say it, if you mount the foils at +0 then they are going to feel huge, if you mount them at say +5-6 or core cntr then they will have an effective tip length of that of a 170 cm ski and feel much more balanced... jmo
Feb 6 2006 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
GreatWh842
Posts: 44 - Karma: 10
fuck rear entry boots, fuck sacrificing performance for looks, at the end of the day you shouldn't be skiing for other people, some of the best runs of my life i've done alone, after hiking for that line that i always looked at w/ my buddies and had pissing contests about who would do it, blah, blah,

as for length, I almost felt pressured to go smaller, i was looking for some new boards this nov. and wanted to get Karmas, but they only make up to a 185, and I mostly ski off piste, but i wanted something that i could have fun all over w/ but 185 is too short for me, i'm 6'2 205, and my previous bc ski was an xscream 187 that is mounted back, and feels tiny now, since i'd first got them when i was 5'10, so i had to get 192 mantras, and i was initially afraid that although i'm a damn good skiier, that they may be more ski than i wanted, but after skiing on them, i fuckin love them, they are surprisingly awesome in tight steeps, fun everywhere, they even carve better than i thought, they have just enough float for the average pow day i see, sometimes i wish i had some gotamas, or profets lol, but 192 was just right, and i'm getting some full twins for myself after borrowing my buddies 178 old ass candide pros w/ blown edges, and i'm thinking about a wider shorter ski, so i'm glad that these companys make all these skis, adn sometimes i wish they made some of them longer for someone my size
Feb 6 2006 11:04PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,143
I love not having to debate with myself over lengths since I'm too big for any but the biggest size in just about any ski. But 180 Ar5s I found to be too short for me. I wouldn't have a use for a 185 invader, but an Anthem or a Chronic, well, that's a different story.
Feb 7 2006 1:52AM
0 0
profile picture
TheStamos
Posts: 9311 - Karma: 910
Yo taylor, i still want my 180 ar5's next year.... jigga and what the fuck you didnt answer your phone and you were asleep, your lucky you have a kid or i would have pulled your fire alarm. i didnt ski by the way and FUCK you both for going to mammoth without me.
Feb 7 2006 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
MLB
Posts: 4462 - Karma: 298
i like rear entry boots...........that is more opinion then anything........i think they are soo much easyer to put on.
Feb 7 2006 6:43PM
0 0
profile picture
ImperialFlow
Posts: 269 - Karma: 10
Yeah I'm 5'10" 167 pounds and I went with 177 Karmas, but in hindsight I wish I would have bought the 169's because the ski is so stiff that I just can't compress them enough most of the time to keep tight situations under control.

I'm picking up a cheap pair of Rossi Scratch FS's from last year in a 174 to use as a ski that I can maneuver better on non-powder/bc days.

-Nathan
Feb 7 2006 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Scottness
Posts: 1123 - Karma: 10
It's on fellas. Taylor is crashing the party. We need some thinkers like this. Otherwise we will stagnate.
Feb 7 2006 7:02PM
0 0
profile picture
bianconeri
Posts: 152 - Karma: 10
same....i always laugh at the people who buy the new skis for $500 and then i get them at the end of the season for half that...as for my opinion on this argument i only believe that people should get longer skis if you want to grow into them...if you dont want to do that then fuck you
Feb 7 2006 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10471 - Karma: 2,182
i agree...just go with the size that fits you best...
Feb 7 2006 7:13PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
What is good for skiing is good for the skiers bro. If we help support our industry they will keep making better stuff and we will get to ski it. It is pretty simple.

So yes I'm saying don't buy a ski that is bigger than you need because some kid on this site told you to. If we all by the same size they can only make one and that is called homogeneity. It is Spencer and Engals idea of Utopia but is the true expression of the ideas you think you understand becasue you looked up a big word in your websters dictionary.

Don't talk to me about political theory I'm a Cultural Anthropologist.
Feb 8 2006 2:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Logchucker
Posts: 1508 - Karma: 16
I'm 5'5 120 and ride 165 Pocket Rockets, and they pretty much will rip anything I take them on
Feb 8 2006 4:22AM
0 0
profile picture
TheStamos
Posts: 9311 - Karma: 910
T$ your gonna have to help me get through this college thing, all you fuckers are smart and im fucked, because your Dcrew and my G it is mandatory you all help me.
Feb 8 2006 1:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Fairview
Posts: 430 - Karma: 33
Well, you're partly at fault for all the kids getting excited and waiting to buy next years skis. Maybe if you didn't come on here and brag about having seen and ridden a new ski everyday, kids wouldn't think about it. So think a little about your own actions before you rant on everyone else's.
Feb 8 2006 1:56PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
^oh I got Owned!

I do talk about next years ski because people do want to know what I know. You can't just connect that information with their assumption they can get it all early. This is the best time to buy this years park skis for instance because the next three months is the real park season.

The point is that the selling season should be as long as the skiing season or longer and kids unreasonably expect hookups from an industry that is trying to make money.

If you feel that my talking about next years skis on NS is contributing to kids already being over inline product you're mistaken. It's companies like K2 that are to blame, releasing their skis early at the expense of the whole industry.

Buying for stores is being done earlier and earlier over the last few years.
I remember when people went to SIA knowing nothing about the lineups but this year we had catalogues before we even went. Everyone is having to put the pressure and hype on early, why? Because if one company does then all others are afraid of being out-hyped early on.

And with preseason orders already beginning for next year we've already skied all the skis and picked them for our stores. How can we possibly keep all of that a secret with a place like NS in existance?
Feb 8 2006 5:34PM
0 0
profile picture
SHastatahoe
Posts: 3414 - Karma: 20
what is wrong again with kids wanting next years product? Its good for the economy? oh yeah! I forgot, its a good thing that they want that in tearms of the ski industry period.
Feb 13 2006 11:57PM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
^your post was so worthless. What were you trying to say?
Feb 14 2006 12:04AM
0 0
profile picture
SHastatahoe
Posts: 3414 - Karma: 20
that buying more stuff helps everyone
Feb 14 2006 12:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12811 - Karma: 1,971
they have chronic wides in 187.
Feb 14 2006 12:44AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12811 - Karma: 1,971
and for the record i ski something my size, being 5'10" 175, i ski a 177 kehau, which is a fat twin. and if i were to buy a park ski i would want something around the same size because i'm lloking for something that i can spin easily and butter the hell out of, aka if anyone has some 178 invaders they want to sell, im interested.
Feb 14 2006 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
SHastatahoe
Posts: 3414 - Karma: 20
yeah, I'm like 5'10 and I have 179 fujis and they are perfect. if I had some fat twins I would get like 185-190 though for extra floatation.
Feb 14 2006 12:50AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)