Whats in the future at Radar?

[h2odawg79]

With all the BUZZ surrounding Mapple, H.O. and Goode, what is now in the works @ Radar? Anything wider, ZO or 55K specific?

 

With H.O. and Goode taking direct aim at the 34mph market, is Radar going to follow through with a Legit 55K Ski? I may be wrong, (just a ed uma cated guess) but wouldn't the Biggest market share be in the 34 mph class? Certainly not for the Pro's and the young Guns, but aren't there about a ton of older 55K skiers who would jump all over a Ski that was R&D'd explicitly for 55K? Considering, that most 58K skiers have a lot of trouble transitioning to 55K, once again, it seems to show the need for a True 55K Ski.

 

 

A Separate question; Is Radar doing the production for the Mapple 6.0?

 

Thx to all Ye in the know!

[JC McCavit]

@h2odawg - Legit 55K Ski? What is not legit about the Strada, Vice & Senate Skis. Getting a BUZZ is one thing, but what about the hangover with the brands you mentioned. When you shell out 2K and realize you didn't pick up the 6 buoys you imagined when you were BUZZED. A few of the skis from the brands you mentioned were marketed as game changers, but what was the reality for amateur skiers? And the pros, mens 55K world record Jeff Rogers on unknown brand that didn't get any BUZZ. Whitney McClintock 55K temporarily co-held the world record, and was hanging neck and neck until she suffered an injury mid season. She rides a RADAR Strada.

[h2odawg79]

@JC McCavit, The Strada is a Great ski No doubt. Heck, I ride Radar myself! But, For the reasons that I stated above, I believe a Legit 55K could (Would) be a true Game changer.

 

Legit Def: "being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false" >a legitimate grievance, a legitimate practitioner<

 

Maybe I am wrong, maybe a Ski that is completely R&D'd by 58K skiers to perform at it's absolute best at 58K will also produce the best 34 mph Ski too.

 

No telling what Jeff is Skiing on, (he's just awesome!) or how much tooling he has done to personalize his stick. Of course this can be said for most Pro's as well. We just see the skins and assume they are really on a _ _ _ _ _ Ski and that it's probably straight off the shelf! ;-)

[Horton]

I think it is a false premise that a ski has to be designed for 55k. There are examples of skis that do not work as well at both speeds but not many.

[JC McCavit]

@H2odawg - I am biased, I ride RADAR too. I did try the S2 & N1 after all the BUZZ and did not feel anything special that would make me want to buy one. I do want to try a Mapple 6.0. I heard they are built by RADAR, but I have no confirmation.

[ToddL]

I think someone should design a ski optimized and setup specifically for the 35 off pass.

 

Many skiers are struggling to get into the -30-somethings... A ski optimized for say, -35 might work very well at -32 and -28. There's got to be a significant market for such a product.

 

When I watch the pros ski at -35 or longer lines, they ski differently. Then, at their top-level passes, there is such a substantial difference in skiing, especially at a line length where the handle doesn't reach the buoy. I would think that the way a ski casts out, turns, accelerates and the level of aggression it must accept are very different at 38, 39, 41 and 43 vs. 35 and longer.

 

At -28, -32, and -35; there is just a different objective... smooth early arching turns and light, consistent hookup into the lean. There really should be no need for a hard finish to the turn and that abrupt acceleration that we see at -41. Consistent turns, smooth finishes, seamless transition from turn into lean... Promotes stacked stance, etc.

 

Just a thought... Maybe speed isn't the primary distinguishing variable. Maybe its line length.

[BraceMaker]

Todd l - a radar Co-X analog?

[RazorRoss3]

Both speed and rope length definitely have an effect on the rythm of the course and what you need from your ski. I think the solution to that is in the fin and binding settings, there are so many setting combinations that I find it hard to believe that any "high performance" ski can't be tuned to ski well at any speed or rope length.

[Ed_Obermeier]

"I think the solution to that is in the fin and binding settings, there are so many setting combinations that I find it hard to believe that any "high performance" ski can't be tuned to ski well at any speed or rope length. "

 

But that's exactly the problem, getting the ski properly tuned. For those of us in the 28 - 35 range mensioned above ski setup for the level we're operating at IS an issue. And I'd tend to think that while most 38 off and up skiers are, amongst other differences, very knowledgible ski tuners, those of us at the next level down perhaps aren't as good at it. So a ski that isn't as touchy to perfect setup (as are Goode's i.e.) for skiers in that range is a big plus. If the manufacturers would address that (some have, i.e. Radar Senate/Vice) IMO they'd have a big leg up on cornering that segment of the market.

 

I asked that exact question about the new Mapple 6.0 on another thread and never got an answer, which makes me wonder. Interesting ski for sure, but if it's another touchy-to-set-up high end ski it's not gonna be for the masses.

[RazorRoss3]

So would it be an acceptable alternative to a ski specifically designed for 35 off if the major ski companies were to put out a chart with what they believe to be the optimal settings for short line vs. 15 off and 55K vs. 58K? Since we all ski a little differently it wouldn't be perfect but it might help give us a place to start if we find that the factory settings aren't quite working for us. I know that the past couple of years something like this has come out for Razor skis, it's just recommended short line settings but it's a similar idea.

 

Of course some skis are going to be easier to tune than others, I'm personally curious about the new good which for a while was only in two sizes. If you remove the length variable to a constant I would think that changes in fin and binding settings would be even more touchy to compensate.

 

 

 

[h2odawg79]

Lots of great thoughts guys.

I wish more folks would use threads like this to voice their thoughts and/or concerns. B/C, for the Saavy Ski manufacturer, it would be an awesome way to connect with the pulse of the Skiing Market and then taylor their products and marketing accordingly...

 

With the degree of difficulty that 58K skiers have slowing down to 55K, I am not buying the fact that a BETTER 55K Ski is not possible. Heck, just slow down to 32mph and tell me how great (Not!) that feels! -it's like Skiing through syrup, b/c the ski was R&D'd (design AND Set Up #'s) for 36mph not 32...

 

Set up: @RazorRoss3, @EdObermeier, AMEN!

If there is one area where many Ski manufactures truly miss the mark, it is the availability of credible Set Up #'s and Tuning guides. To their credit, Goode and D3 have some Tuning Guides and #'s readily available to try to optimize their products in the hands of the consumer. (Very Wise Bus. move)

 

I'm with RazorRoss on the logic of Set Up and being able to tune just about any Ski to perfection. (I know @Mapple could do this for me...) This would eliminate a whole lot of people Buying the next Best Thing and then posting what a hunk of junk it was for them! I mean, just look at all the High end, High $$$ Ski's for CHEAP on Ski-it-again!!! But, most manufacturers leave the make or break Priority of Tuning in the hands of all of us Weekend Warriors and their products too often suffer...

[thager]

On the other hand, If a ski doesn't work it creates a buyer looking for another ski. The never ending chase for the magic stick begins anew!

[ToddL]

@thager - by that I assume you are suggesting that there is a viable business model where skiers are constantly buying new skis each year in search for the magic stick...

 

I definitely think most sport manufacturers over-hype the latest thing on their latest model each year in the hopes of generating new product sales to loyal customers. I think some are even happy to provide equipment with superior materials with short life spans (break down quickly) so as to keep the revenue stream flowing. However, I do not think a manufacturer would intentionally release a product and want it to not work well for the customer in the hopes of causing the customer to shop for a new product. That's just too risky and could impact brand loyalty.

 

I know many folks just can't afford to demo/buy 2-3 new $1000+ skis each year. Thus, ski-it-again and the gently used ski market is strong. But I worry about skis where mold methods and materials result in skis with short life spans or partially broken down at the time of resale. I think ski manufacturers should build skis with a minimum optimal performance life span of 5 years. After 5 years of average use, I would expect skis to start to fatigue. Why 5 years? 1-2 years for the 1st owner, 3-4 years for the 2nd-hand owner. That doesn't saturate the market, but does allow a good life span of seeing a lot of that ski manufacturer's product on the starting doc.

[Horton]

@ToddL

You have a choice: A ski that is designed to last 5 years or a ski that is optimized for performance.

 

Analogy: You expect to get 200K miles from a Toyota Camry. Do you really expect to get 200K from a Lamborghini or Ferrari?

 

If you want a ski that will last you 5 years you are asking for a ski that is not cutting edge. Just like with a new car, a little bit of life comes out of a ski the first time you ride it. If you want to ski on a Mack truck that will go 1,000,000 I am pretty darn sure your ball count will suffer.

 

There are examples of high end skiers staying on an old ski for many seasons but generally speaking I say that if you ski a lot and ski shortline, you should change you ski every season or two. If you are 6’4 and run 39 off every week you might need a new ski every 6 months.

 

Then there is design: I think we are on the crest of a new generation of skis. By the end of 2013 I think nearly every factory will have a ski that is clearly superior to anything from 5 years ago. As all skis get better it is harder and harder to improve.

 

Lastly: The market is small and the margins are smaller. The ski companies are not holding anything back. They are all in a struggle to keep and or grow market share. They are not designing skis to fail after a season, this I am 100% sure of. The whole goal for them is to build a ski that gets you more balls and that means pushing the envelope.

 

[Horton]

As far as tuning goes. Demo before you buy. Demo with factory settings. Ski with factory settings unless you feel you understand how to adjust. As the rope gets longer the margin of error for setup gets bigger. At 32 off and below factory settings should used unless you have a pro coach set your ski up different. With rare exception I ride every ski very close to factory settings.

[Waternut]

Since no one has really mentioned it yet... I do think a very important factor in all of this information is the word "BUZZ" that you used earlier. "Buzz" is initiated and maintained by advertising and advertising costs money. That advertising money is then passed on to the customer.

 

How that advertising is done is also a game changer. From what I've seen, AM ski's seem to promote to forum users and smaller skiing communities. Goode seems to advertise to everyone and their prices definitely reflect that. HO seems to advertise mostly on retailers websites. I always thought Radar kept quiet for the most but this year they are putting their name out there by doing stuff like the "How it's Made" for their ski's.

 

I think the syrupy feel of the 34mph speeds has more to do with you being accustomed to 36mph. Think back when you were learning and you moved from 30 to 32 or 34 to 36... Do you remember thinking how that extra 2mph made you feel like you were going a million miles an hour? Now you're going the other way and it feels slow...

[Ed_Obermeier]

"...I do not think a manufacturer would intentionally release a product and want it to not work well for the customer in the hopes of causing the customer to shop for a new product. That's just too risky and could impact brand loyalty.

 

I know many folks just can't afford to demo/buy 2-3 new $1000+ skis each year. Thus, ski-it-again and the gently used ski market is strong.... I think ski manufacturers should build skis with a minimum optimal performance life span of 5 years. After 5 years of average use, I would expect skis to start to fatigue..."

 

I'm in agreement with @horton. I believe that the manufacturers DO build skis that are designed to give you 5 years or more of serviceable lifespan. If they build junk that falls apart you start getting a lot of negative press which affects market share i.e. the issues Goode was having with their skis breaking. Don't hear much about broken Goode's anymore do we? They addressed the issue because they had to or lose even more market share to the other manufacturers who build equally high performing product that doesn't break.

 

I don't know about the majority here but for myself I can't afford to spend $1200 - 1600 or more a year for a new ski that MIGHT be the Magic One. Last time I did that it didn't work, sold it at a significant loss, and I went back to my now 6 year old (and still skiing perfectly well, thank you) old faithful ski that I DO ski well on. Personally I'm completely over buying into the hype that every new hot ski comming out is gonna be THE ONE. And being personally comfortable in the knowledge that skis DO last several years (at my level at least) that I can get a great ski at half price on Ski-It-Again, I don't know that I will ever buy another brand new latest greatest ski. Kinda like buying a 2 - 3 year old used car - its been proven not to be a junker, still has plenty of miles left in it, and someone else took the depreciation. Yeah, try before you buy is a great idea in theory and I agree is the optimal way to do it. For a lot of us that just isn't practical economically or time wise with brand new skis. Perhaps easier to do with SIA skis?

[Bulldog]

@Ed well said. If I am spending that kind of $$$$ it should last at LEAST five years.

[thager]

@ToddL Never said anyone would make a bad ski on purpose but they do make changes every year because people are intrigued by change. Every manufacturer has made some great skis and some dogs. Whether a ski is good or bad depends on the skier. We all ski differently. Why buy the same ski if you already own it? Change one aspect of the same ski and skiers will buy it. I know many skiers who buy two or three skis or more every year in search of that "magic one". While most of us don't have that kind of disposable income a large percentage of hardcore skiers do. Myself, I bought a Razor because of its' known "for me" performance and longevity. Previously, I was on a Fischer built in 07 I think? Razorskier1 broke it down until it was ideal for me. I got two really good years out of it until it got too soft.

[RazorRoss3]

I also recently got on to a Razor in the last few months of last season and my first set I ran a pb by 4 buoys (1@35 off) and ran 32 off 4 more times over the course of the season. I don't know if it's the best ski out there or if anyone can ski on it but I definitely like it and fischer and Razor do seem to last 3+ years.

[h2odawg79]

IMHO, as far as Ski's "breaking down" I'd have to say that for most of us, that is soley "Perception" on the part of the Skier. I'm convinced that they do in fact break down. BUT, 99.9% of us do not have or have access to a flex testing device. Therefore, we do not posssess any way to verify any flex, torsional or otherwise and/or optimal #'s, much less degradation. -for 99.9% it's all perception. (IMHO)

 

In this day and age, (Info/technology age) "BUZZ" is also very much generated and maintained via the Web, smart technology and Web saavy consumers. I know for me, in Real Estate it's all about the Web and communication. When I want to get informed before the purchase of just about ANYTHING; the Web! I want to KNOW what y'all are saying about _ _ _ _ _ Ski, Bindings, etc...

 

Sure was hoping @EddieRoberts jr. or Rossi was going to shed a little light on the direction of Radar. It's just been too quiet since 2011... Something is in the works, I can feel it!

 

Now, if the rest of you 55K Skiers would chime in, maybe we could help shape OUR immediate 34mph future!

 

-SUPPLY & DEMAND Baby, SUPPLY & DEMAND! ;-)

 

 

 

 

[Dirt]

Great thread with a lot of different opinions.

[DW]

Great thread. For a slightly different perspective we can all be grateful our sport is not pavement related, because if we complain about a 5 year cycle, consider the average car racer (the reality is the tournament skier is doing basically the same thing). . . Tires (the things that contact the road, just like the ski contacts the water) last basically just a few heat cycles (or a few sets). How would you like your ski to lose grip by the second or third tournament you enter. BTW, they aren't cheap either. Hence the saying, "how to make a small fortune in racing. . . start with a big one".

 

I will attribute a bit of that aspect to the buoy chaser, since making a great ski causes the manufacturer to reduce the margin of safety or margin of wear down to maximize performance, the longetivity will suffer. What does one want, Horton said it well, do you want a Camry or a Lambo.

[ToddL]

@Horton - one thing you will notice when you re-read my earlier post... I was speaking more generally about sports equipment manufacturers. I do think that they value cutting edge over longevity. (Longevity may be a close second.) The ideal is to provide for both, that doesn't have to be in the same model, but the ideal is to maximize both in one model.

 

I think this is already happening in our sport. You have cutting, bleeding edge skis which may or may not be built to last. You have intermediate skis built upon tried and true materials and methods that will live for 20 years of intermediate use. And in some cases you have skis where the goal is to do both as best as possible.

 

I agree with you comment about the "mileage" of a ski is affected by how hard and often it is "driven". Stress upon a ski ages it. Materials have life span which can be shortened by stress.

 

So, I guess if you are buying used skis, know the history... it can be a bitter sweet opportunity to own that ski which got the original owner into 39 off. On one hand, it will be well tuned (for that skier's style, boot system, etc., but well tuned); on the other hand, it might be twice its chronological age due to high usage.

 

One thing that caught my eye on Andy's site about his new ski: "... ensure that your ski really does last a lifetime..." Maybe that is just buzz. The warranty is the standard 1 year. But, at least they are suggesting that their ski is intended to provide more than 1 season of suitable performance.

 

Razor skis' site talk about their skis being "unbreakable". That suggest they are responding to the concept of ski life. I could not find their warranty info.

 

Connelly's site states, "We offer a lifetime warranty because we believe in and stand behind our product." The official warranty shows the standard 1 year warranty, but also states that failure due to materials or workmanship may be replaced at 1/2 price per manufacturer's discretion for the life of the product (original owner, non-transferable).

 

I searched Goode's site, D3's site, & HO's site. I could not find a similar comment. They, too, have the standard 1 year warranty. I could not find any comments on lifespan and I could not find the warranty info at O'Brien's web site.

 

Radar's site is down, pending a new site launch. ( @h2odawg79 - I guess they are busy with something new...)

 

This was not completely comprehensive, so if others find any contradictory info or the missing info above, just ping me. I'll update.

 

 

 

[ToddL]

@DW - agreed! However, I would equate $1000 in tires vs. $40k Camry or $200k Lambo... well, that is like gloves $50 and liners $10 are to high-end skis $2k. These are the expendables and consumables of the sport. The skis themselves should not be. (Thank goodness that they aren't!)

[Razorskier1]

I rode my Fisher for 5 years. It skied great right on through. Switched to the Razor because I didn't want to hassle with putting inserts back into the ski for the second time. @thager took it off my hands. I figure if I can ride the ski for 5 years at a time I get my average cost down.

 

Now, the flip side of that coin is that I'm not getting any younger, and I'd like to keep picking up buoys. As a golfing friend of mine once said, you can buy a certain amount of skill! The amount of gas, gloves, etc I go through every year, the ski is really not the biggest expense! I plan to try out a new Mapple this year. My Razor is in its third full season (I think), and still skis great.

 

As for a "perfect 34mph ski", or a "perfect -35 ski", I think that comes down to fit, tuning and the skier. I think it was Ben Favret who said that a ski can only be tuned to be "right" at about two rope lengths. What you need is to find the tuning that works at your toughest two passes, and don't worry about the rest -- you'll make those no matter what the tuning is!

 

I don't know much about tuning and like @Horton ski pretty close to factory. What I did find on my Razor is that because I am a big guy and because I push my ski around hard when I get in trouble, I needed a little more depth to keep the ski from over-rotating on my onside at shorter line lengths. Didn't matter all the way through -35. Caused me probems at -38.

 

Same ski for my wife who is small and light. She needed a lot less depth because she doesn't push the ski as hard. Tuning, tuning, tuning.

[6balls]

Most of you know the Ross clan rides Razor right now. Funny thing is lifelong it has been pretty rare for us to be on the same stick. I rode KD and D3 for a bazillion years and Jim went thru some six-ams, Fischer, then Razor (the latter two I don't consider the same by any means). Mitch had been on an Elite for some time.

I'm intrigued by the N1 and the Mapple, but having smashed a tourney PB by 4 buoys and setting practice PB's as well as more consistent on both sub-max and max passes on the Razor in one full season I would be hard pressed to change anything. Good to know it should last. As an aside to the warranty comment...I believe Volker has stated they have not had a single Razor break.

I ended up on a Razor b/c I tried Jim's ski. I also had tried his six-ams, and his Fischer but didn't like them and stayed on D3. I guess the point of this post is it's extremely economical and informative to ski your buddies new stick! The best move is to make friend with a ski-chaser who happens to be roughly your size and weight :)

[RazorRoss3]

@6balls has the right idea, both of us ended up on the razor A flex after riding my Dad's for a few sets.

[Deanoski]

I'm lucky to be able to ski at radar lk with eddie a hand full of time each yr. Radar has been making proto skis and testing different things, The new 2013-14 ski will be amazing! that is all i can say!

 

Deano

[SkiJay]

I think the concept of there being anything a manufacturer can do to achieve a remarkable improvement for all skiers in any given segment is a pipe dream at this stage of technical evolution. Everything is a trade-off, and the manufacturers know what these trade-offs are.

 

Perhaps the biggest help the manufacturers could provide would be to come up with a somewhat standardized way of showing sophisticated buyers what specific trade-offs they've made with each design element of each ski so we can better match a new ski to our personal skiing styles and experience.

 

It's sort of been tried in the past, but it's always been dumbed-down by some marketing guy and it comes across like telling stupid people what they want to hear. I'd like them all to agree on a matrix of measurable specs that tell the real story about the ski's actual design specs. We're not stupid, and if they gave us this info, we'd learn what each spec means then make better choices armed with actual useful info.

 

TV, stereo and computer specs are complex too, but we manage. We figure the specs out (or consult with someone who has figured them out); we buy what we need and get what we expected.

[rq0013]

I have heard of a few things in the works but there are always new ideas they are trying. If they werent always testing they would fall behind. I got the orange strada last summer and it rocks, so if you havent tried it yet, go try it!

[Waternut]

@skijay The problem with telling people exactly what's going on is their minds/pride get in the way. Most people will think they need the hardest most aggresive ski out when they could greatly benefit from a slightly more forgiving ski.

 

It's a lot like golf if anyone plays. Most golfers need a regular or stiff flex shaft but think they need a stiff or extra stiff shaft in their clubs. Worse yet, a lot of golfers in their 40's still think they need a stiff shaft while in reality they need a senior flex. So when they order that new set of clubs with stiff shafts and the clubs perform poorly, they blame the clubs, and the company is obviously to blame...

 

The other problem is that newer ski's have started integrating "safety nets" in their ski designs that help prevent the skier from using the wrong technique. This puts that high end unforgiving ski in a category that's more forgiving than the "forgiving" ski from a few years ago.

[h2odawg79]

@jfw432, Agreed!

 

I totally get the Golf analogy. (I used to play) Like buying ski's, people are "people" and follow the "Buzz" and instead of seeing a Pro with a Swing analyzer to determine Club Head Speed and help diagnose swing path issues, they blame the stupid equip!

 

I think @Mapple will forever change the Ski industry with their "Hands on" approach and their desire to find the correct #'s for a particular Skier. One day very soon, we will all be laughing about the "Stone Age" of Slalom. -back when you couldn't get EVERYTHING from the manufacturer and ALL of the Spec's, #'s and Tuning Guides, etc...!

 

I can think of at least one Manufacturer that did not even have a Hgt/Wgt Ski chart posted on their freakin' website! -Cough, cough

[The_MS]

Radar has had the "Hands On" approach for years. Eddie and Rossi have been regular posters on BOS for years. You can e-mail or put a call into Radar and and talk to someone any time. Radar has traditionally had there ski set up info on their web site and other shops that sell them also post those set up numbers. For people that know how to set up a ski, I dont think there is an issue with getting access to set up info. It is the inexperienced ski tuner that may not have the tools or know how to set up a fin and binding. This is why it is critical for the manufactures to set them up properly. If I were to buy a ski off the shelf from a local shop around me and I did not know how to tweak, I would be SOL. Not many employees know how to tune a fin.

[Waternut]

I would love to see the day when we go to a ski fitting session with a pro before buying a ski and then they tailor a ski specifically for your use. It'd probably cost $200-$300 but think of the results.

 

With golf, they take measurements, watch your swing, check angles, etc. to arrive at the perfect club for your style. It basically makes your margin for error much larger so you get more consistent results. With biking, I spent $150-$200 to be custom fitted to my bike. They measured flexibility, natural joint angles, loaded joint angles (like do your knees/ankles/elbows bow in or out), if one arm/leg is slightly longer than the other, is your weight distributed evenly, etc.

 

Ski manufacturers understand weight distribution, angles, flex, boot placement, etc. but when it comes down to fitment, we get a chart that says this weight vs height should use this ski and that's it.

[ToddL]

@jfw432 - OK, let's create a new retail solution! Here's what that might "look" like...

 

Retailers will be located in every major market (distributed across all of the AWSA regions, and based upon skier density). The "shop" will sell _all_ major brands (HO, O'brien, Connelly, Radar, D3, Mapple, Razor, Goode, etc.). The shops will be located near a ski site and have contracted access to the site. The shop's key revenue generator will be an elite-trained staff which will review a skier's style on his or her current ski, assess likely best fit new ski models (no brand loyalty), and assist in fin setup by offering a number of follow-up tuning sets. This service will be a separate cost appropriate to the market demand and value of skiing time and expert advice. Customers will have an option to exchange a ski if the tuning sets did not yield a satisfactory result. Exchanged ski will be considered a demo and a only a portion (~80%) of that retail value will be applied to the next ski selected at the shop. Demo skis will be offered at their discounted price as initial options for new customers. The same ski setup package can be purchased and applied to a demo ski purchased through the shop. Skiers who wish to buy the ski setup package for a ski already owned by the customer can do so but at a higher rate than customers buying a new or demo ski through the shop.

 

Sound like a plan?!? All we need is a market analysis and revenue feasibility study to see if the market demand can support the business model. ;-)

 

[SkiJay]

I can do that feasibility study on a napkin.

 

- Number of slalom skiers that get to ski enough that total customization matters = few.

- Number of highly experienced highly knowledgeable skiers available and willing to work at each regional shop providing this service = very very few.

- Number of high-time advanced skill skiers who need this service = very very few (cause most of them would rather do it themselves).

- Price you'd have to charge to operate this high-end fitting service for very few customers = WAY to high to be commercially viable.

 

It's a great idea except the total number of slalom skiers is probably 1/1,000th the number of golfers.

[SkiJay]

I think the manufacturers are doing a fabulous job of providing excellent equipment for every level of skier, and that they will continue to improve over time. I would just like them to give us a spec list for each model, something along the lines of the spec list on a laptop or TV, so I can both learn what works best for me, then make better informed choices in the future.

[Horton]

You can not logically spec a product that is all compound curves and dynamic flex. Ski design is part engineering and part black magic

[Steven_Haines]

I agree @MS, the ski industry has had a hands on approach for years. All you have to do is seek it out or go ski w the pro of your choice. How many times have you seen Marcus, Rossi, Mapple to name a few speak out about set up or coaching ideas here and other websites for FREE! Where else do you get free access to the elite in the industry? You just need to seek it out. It's there with all the manufacturers! The service and quality that we enjoy is cheap IMO!

[454SS]

Rossi has great ski setup vids posted on YouTube

[h2odawg79]

Rossi has done a Great job staying in touch on the Web. No complaints from me!

 

But, @Mapple has just turned up the volume and taken this thing to another level on Manufacturing, Coaching and Set up. By offering "In House" Service from the Manufacturer, where everyone has ez Web access, Andy is also becoming very visible on-line, plus a Great year around Coaching/Training facility to visit. -Grow the Sport, Grow your Business... -it's Genius!

 

If it were possible, I would also Love to go to a Colder water sight like Radar lake and get some real help with "Cold Water set up"...

 

IMO, to help optimize their product, there's just no legit excuse for Manufacturers to elect to not have things such as; detailed "Tuning Guides" readily available on their Web sites for their Ski's. I think Flex #'s would be GREAT as well, especially for the higher end Skiers. Of course, it would be awesome if we all could verify our own flex #'s in the 1st place...

[h2odawg79]

What about Manufacturer tuning #'s for 34mph? for 32mph? for Long line? for -32?

 

Heck, besides being R&D'd by 36mph Skiers, skiing @36, how are the "Factory #'s" derived? Do they test the Proto types at slower speeds and longer line for optimum #'s or just test them with the same #'s used for -41/36? Or do they simply find the "Sweet Spot" for "Factory" settings at -32/35mph? -fits some a little better then others approach.

 

Tuning Guides with MPH and line length taken into consideration, water temps, sample cause/effect examples could be very helpful... I wonder how many "X Brand" Ski's would then start smokin' the local/Regional Tourneys, simply because they "Magically" were More user friendly!

[ForrestGump]

@h2odawg79 The problem with coming up with factory numbers for slower speeds and long line would be that it would still be a pro skier capable of running deep, deep short line doing the testing. So a number thats come up with for that type of skier in that application might have a very different feel to a long line/slow speeder. In the time it'd take to validate all sorts of different #s for different "apps", it's time to be testing a new ski for next year. Mfr's only have so much bandwidth in their employees and their sponsored skiers. So they go with a baseline number that the majority of skiers will ski well on.

 

You should see some fin numbers on pro's skis. They're not necessarily anywhere close to factory numbers.

[Waternut]

@Toddl and @Skijay The market definitely won't support something like that. Heck the market really doesn't even support the ski lakes that are already out there. However, after having a few things in my life custom fit and adjusted to my specific needs, constraints, style, etc., it's really hard to not want something similar for all your activities. Even if nothing gets adjusted, it's amazing to just go in and understand the inner workings of you and your equipment and how they work together.

[ToddL]

@skijay... My post on the new ski tuning biz was tongue and cheek. Agreed. No way it could be sustained.

[h2odawg79]

@Shane, Yes, Exactly!

 

A "One size fits ALL" "Fits some a little Better then others" Cough, cough, -Factory settings... #'s that are derived from middle of the road (i.e. -32/35mph) testing. And by a Pro, not Joe Average...

 

My guess is: most Pro's personal settings are generally geared toward #'s that optimize their own "Personal Preferances" @ -38 or 39.5/36mph. -not One Size fits All, factory #!

 

This leaves the door wide open for a 34mph specific Ski and/or (at the very least) Optimized #'s for 34mph.

[h2odawg79]

Not to mention; to my knowledge all Ski's are Built around the Hand crafted 66" proto type Model. So, now you've got a Pro Skier who might wgh around 170, developing a Ski in the Warmer waters of FL. and after perfecting this one size, the Manufacturer simply scales up/dn for the Larger and smaller Ski and Skier, they don't re-tool and R&D the other sizes. (b/c of this, I hate that I am a 68" length skier, 2" longer then the Proto Type, skiing in much colder & Harder water. -with subpar technique! :D )

 

Doesn't this leave a rather large hole in Optimum #'s as well? Many Skiers are Bigger/Smaller, skiing in Colder more viscous (Harder) water and at speeds of anywhere between 30-36mph...

 

All this to say: there really needs to be some better Credible info. available and 34mph ought to be a Priority for the Manufacturers and not an after thought.

 

 

[MattP]

@h2odawg79 they don't re-tool and R&D the other sizes. This used to be the case, but a lot of the companies (if not all) are doing R&D on all ski lengths and is one reason why it takes a bit longer than just "stretching" in cad and making a longer or shorter ski and is why you usually see a 66/67 released first then the other sizes to follow.

[SkiJay]

@h2odawg79 Most ski prototypes get input from a lot more than one pro and not all start life as a 66". The O'brien Endo is a case in point. It started as a 67" Elite. Then the 65" and 68" were further developed and improved. Now the Endo 67" is the latest and greatest evolution of the concept with new 66" & 68" skies in the works.

 

In fact, you might want to try the 67" Endo. A good friend who is a good cold water skier (into 38 off) tested one in 62° water this winter and was so impressed, he swapped out his weeks old S3 for it.