Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 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!

Skis going to shit/ selling out?

profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
First off before people say I don't know my shit, I work in a ski shop, I have for the past 8 years. I demo stuff every year from our reps before we sell it.

Anyways getting on to my question:


Has anyone else started noticing a lot more companies are making shittier skis and selling out and catering to the masses? I mean like for example this year the Rossignol S7 or whatever has the new tip and tail with like the air ski. Sure its lighter, less swing weight, and soft, but the durablity of the ski goes down immensily.

It just seems like more and more companies are starting to use fillers or "hybrid core" or some fancy term for filling their ski with shit to make it lighter and flexier only to have a product that blows out or gets trashed within a year of skiing.

Few companies have resisted this and seemed to hold to what a solid built ski is brands such as ON3P, 4FRNT, and some of the Faction line up seems to have such a reputation. Other brands such as Armada and them have use cheaper materials to cater to the masses but in doing so it has created a cheap ass ski in regards to construction of the materials.

Maybe I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass but is it really something that is going to be the future of skiing and actually work or is it going to end up shooting itself in the foot by making such a cheap ski. I mean why are more and more companies starting to build less of a product. Is that why ON3P is doing so well?

Just some ideas I was thinking about +K for any intelligent arguments for either side I wanna hear what other people think on this matter.
Jan 8 2013 12:20AM
3 0
profile picture
Avifarer
Posts: 5926 - Karma: 598
Because most of the time those watered down skis are more fun. I know i sure as hell dont need a mothership (rip) type of ski. Lighter skis with different shapes and different materials are making skis easier to ski for the general public and making it more fun.
Jan 8 2013 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Goku
Posts: 8119 - Karma: 4,223
I hate the S7. It's for people that want to think they can ski powder, but can't
Jan 8 2013 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Goku
Posts: 8119 - Karma: 4,223
Also fuck cap/capwall construction
Jan 8 2013 12:39AM
0 0
profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
But with having this softer lighter ski, it often times creates a ski that can be blown out with one season. I mean for example I bought some Line afterbangs when they first came out. Fun as hell ski but I blew them out with one season. They had reverse camber by the time I was done with them. I understand the need to make them avliable to the public but is their a way to create a soft ski with out making it out of shit material?
Jan 8 2013 12:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Sharko
Posts: 2274 - Karma: 4,100
whatever dude, caps are fine and cheaper to build. I've got Line Blends and love them, bought in 2007 and still going strong, and I've never once looked down and said "damn, I wish these had sidewalls." If the end result is fun to ski on, don't sweat the details.
Jan 8 2013 12:58AM
0 0
profile picture
Avifarer
Posts: 5926 - Karma: 598
If guys like kye and treadway can ski skis with the new tech wouldnt you think 99% of people shouldnt have a problem?
Jan 8 2013 1:05AM
0 0
profile picture
TheClap.
Posts: 21676 - Karma: 4,201
pretty sure he was talking the blend of those two
Jan 8 2013 1:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
I'm not saying they are making shitty skis. Hell most of the ride fantastic. I mean I love me some of this years Line Cronics. I'm saying that they are making skis that don't last hardly at all. That the skis they are making are just good enough to ski on, but unless you are loaded with cash, you cannot afford to keep buying a new pair everytime another one breaks. I mean is it possible for a company to make a solid built ski while still having it be playful and buttery?
Jan 8 2013 1:20AM
0 0
profile picture
YUNG_milksteAk
Posts: 1437 - Karma: 4,328
I love my k2 domains. Armada is also doing good things right now making durable creative fun skis.
Jan 8 2013 9:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Sparta
Posts: 228 - Karma: 336
How do you know the durability will go down? It's only a guess on your part. No one thought a carbon fiber downhill bike would work, let alone be stronger than aluminum. Now look- the strongest and most successful downhill bikes are carbon. Lighter does not always mean weaker (it never means cheaper price though either).

Companies like 4Frnt and ON3P make great skis, but they don't have the R&D budget or the ability to make complex molds the way the major brands do. They use traditional processes with high end internals and new geometries, which from our point of view works great and it does. But, their skis all look the same. 4Frnt, ON3P, Moment, 9thward, Icelantic, Fatypus, etc all look very similar- there is nothing that looks drastically different about them. This ski looks different and it will turn a lot of heads. And if it was designed in conjunction with their athletes, it will ski totally well.


Jan 8 2013 10:39AM
0 0
profile picture
Sparta
Posts: 228 - Karma: 336
Why? Cap and CapWall type skis can offer all of the durability (sometimes more durable) of sidewall skis and provide just as much edge grip.

It's not about cap vs sidewall, it's about what is inside them that makes a ski perform well.
Jan 8 2013 10:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
Finally the first real answer to this question I've had all day.

The only reason I assumed that the derablity would go on them is the fact that they are an air core ski on the tip and tail. as soon as you get say a chip or a shot in the ski in the area where they air core technology is what happens?

I mean from the marketing standpoint yes they will turn heads and they athelets do endorse the product but I'm all about that rideablity and longevity of a product. You're absolutely right, I have no say that the product sucks before I even try or even give it time to make a statement I would love to demo a pair.

By having the traditional look that the brands have that you have mentioned why do they stick with that technology rather than going to where all the other companies disperesed to?


For example Armada back in the day used to be an amazing product, built to last. Now their edges blow out and the cores break in over time as do most skis anymore. Is their anyway to create a ski that maintains its durablity and doesn't have core fillers and create a soft, playful ski as well?
Jan 8 2013 10:55AM
0 0
profile picture
Sparta
Posts: 228 - Karma: 336
I'm a shop rat too and I also share your concerns... but when I look at the ski wall in my shop, I see lots of the same thing- especially if I were a consumer who shopped for skis every 3 or 4 or 5 years. At the very least, something like this will grab my attention. And in this ski market, which is not growing but more brands are appearing, the ski that stands out will usually win.

It would be awesome if this was more durable too. Light and durable aren't usually things that go hand n hand, but it would be cool if it did.
Jan 8 2013 11:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Sparta
Posts: 228 - Karma: 336
I forgot to address this one, but part of the answer is that a sidewall, vertical laminate mold is "easy" to build (in the grand scheme of mold construction). It allows a small operation to change out materials and layers more easily and thus you can make more/different skis out of the same mold in an easier way. That's just one reason, besides the obvious way that it works. But, to many consumers, it doesn't look special.
Jan 8 2013 11:05AM
0 0
profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
this make sense as our ON3P lineup has the same construction on almost every ski. The graphics, camber/rocker, and the dementions are the only thing changing really. They all have that sidewall style to the build.

So are you trying to get at is the more technical looking ski it is, the decrease in durablity due to the fact that its built with more filler material to make it look the way it does? And that the less appealing made tradional looking ski typically is more durable because its just a true cut with nothing fancy added for the most part?
Jan 8 2013 11:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Shifties4Dayz
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 553
Completely understand where you're coming from. I bought On my way! Mt gems a few years ago and the ski became so soft it is virtually unrideable
Jan 8 2013 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
Sparta
Posts: 228 - Karma: 336
No, I guess I'm trying to say that if you were to line up all of the flat (non-system) 90mm+ skis in front of a customer, the customer would see a lot of the same style of ski with just graphics to differentiate them. You and I would know the finer details (construction, base materials, topsheets, camber/rocker etc) but these things tend to escape most consumers. When anyone invests in new gar (skis, bikes, whatever) they want to look different usually. And this ski will give them that look plus the added benefit of being lighter. And they probably know the Rossi name, which they might also trust because its been around for a long time.

I guess that because the actual ski industry is not growing (there is not a increase of new skiers on the mountain) but there are more brands entering the market creating more choices for less skiers. The brand that makes a visible statement will probably succeed more than the brand which looks like the other brands.

The ideal scenario would be a ski that looked different, gave real meaningful benefit to the skier, and lasted a long time.
Jan 8 2013 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
Caucasian_Asian
Posts: 2447 - Karma: 1,665
Sounds like you want magic skis.
You want them to be light, flexible, poppy, durable, and inexpensive.


It's like any kind of construction project.  You've got three goals.  Being under budget, on time, and high quality.  Pick two, because you can't have all three.

Jan 8 2013 11:48AM
0 0
profile picture
paige.
Posts: 1932 - Karma: 926
As far as the durability maybe not being the main focus in the construction of these lighter skis, you have to remember that your needs/demands are different than the average consumer. Many of these people only ski a handful of timesa year and rarely venture off-piste. They will, in all likelihood, buy new skis before their old ones break and durability is far less of an issue.
Jan 8 2013 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
DosasNMimosas
Posts: 1701 - Karma: 664
please explain to me how responding to customer feedback is selling out. Last time i checked a company's goal is to try and sell more products, so they "improve" there products based on their customer's response of said product to sell more of it the following year.
Jan 8 2013 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Ehh...
Posts: 1897 - Karma: 1,423
Exactly but the thing is most people are wanting to buy a ski that probably lasts just as long as possible. And one thing I've noticed if you are a serious skiier who actually throws down hard, you'll go through these skis like socks. And having to put down 4 to 700 dollars a set up is mad expensive.
Jan 8 2013 9:29PM
0 0
profile picture
paige.
Posts: 1932 - Karma: 926
But as I mentioned, serious skiers who thow down hard is a minority group. As far as market power you need to look at the wants of gapers and weekend warriors first.
Jan 8 2013 10:58PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)