Why don't ski manufacturers post better spec's?

[lowsparkco]

This is a rant of mine... poor spec's for boards on website and in brochures. Also, why don't they archive skis on their site? A bunch of retail outlets are stuck with a season or two older skis and no one knows what the dimensions, weight, turn radius, rocker profile, etc. is for these skis. Hard to believe the IT guys aren't instructed to copy all the spec info before it's taken down for the new skis.

Obviously it has taken a few years to standardize how we talk about rocker and camber i.e. where it starts and how much rise when compared to flat, but blister reviews and other reviewers are way in front of manufacturers when quantifying and listing dimensions. Kinda lame imvho that these guys get paid to eat, sleep, breathe skis and can't get basic information to consumers who are curious about getting an idea how a ski will feel on snow before a demo.

[bfree]

Why? Because ski manufacturing is 5% engineering and 95% marketing. Most consumers don't care and want simplicity.

(Don't get me wrong, I completely understand and agree).

[wolfelot]

Good point. It should always be simple to find all of the specs. Weight is way harder to find than it should be.

[LC]

Good point. It should always be simple to find all of the specs. Weight is way harder to find than it should be.

Sport Conrad list the weight of every ski they sell (normally the second longest length available, but good enough for reference), which is pretty much every ski on the market. Only in their printed catalogue, but you can view it online too: https://www.sport-conrad.com/page/order-catalog

[kolkritan]

Sport Conrad list the weight of every ski they sell (normally the second longest length available, but good enough for reference), which is pretty much every ski on the market. Only in their printed catalogue, but you can view it online too: https://www.sport-conrad.com/page/order-catalog

Nope. They provide weight info on quite many of their skis, but I think it's only the skis where the manufacturer provides weight info... For examples, look at the atomic automatic or the salomon rocker^2 series.

[bfree]

Weight is somewhat variable and most companies that do list weight end up lying about it anyways. If weight is a big concern to you, bring a scale to the store. No joke.

[lowsparkco]

I agree with a lot of what's been written. Marketing plays a huge role in the ski industry. It doesn't much matter how good your skis are if you can't sell them. I'm just surprised that manufacturers aren't utilizing technology to mitigate this and provide glossy photos and blurbs for the casual consumer and a link for more information for the geeks like me. There are certainly a few examples of companies getting it right, but it shouldn't be so rare. IMHO, every ski should have a photo of the top sheet, bases, profile with both skis base to base as well as dimensions of width, rocker, turn radius, weight (noted as single or pair and what length) and some info about construction as it applies to flex - really, ideally all this should be published for each length as typically turn radius and weight do change across a line. Could it be that difficult or are manufacturers clinging to the idea that there are trade secrets involved?

[LC]

Nope. They provide weight info on quite many of their skis, but I think it's only the skis where the manufacturer provides weight info... For examples, look at the atomic automatic or the salomon rocker^2 series.

"Quite many skis", meaning "all skis"? Eg. Atomic's pages; Automatic 2210g in the 186cm: https://www.sport-conrad.com/content...inekatpage=282

[thehaze]

I agree with a lot of what's been written. Marketing plays a huge role in the ski industry. It doesn't much matter how good your skis are if you can't sell them. I'm just surprised that manufacturers aren't utilizing technology to mitigate this and provide glossy photos and blurbs for the casual consumer and a link for more information for the geeks like me. There are certainly a few examples of companies getting it right, but it shouldn't be so rare. IMHO, every ski should have a photo of the top sheet, bases, profile with both skis base to base as well as dimensions of width, rocker, turn radius, weight (noted as single or pair and what length) and some info about construction as it applies to flex - really, ideally all this should be published for each length as typically turn radius and weight do change across a line. Could it be that difficult or are manufacturers clinging to the idea that there are trade secrets involved?

They doesn't do this because otherwise too many customers will understand that their ski doesn't worth the money compare with the ones from smaller company (infact small company provides you that data) and that all the hype is thanks to marketing...about the specs for older skis, why a company would give you help decide if a ski they have already sell (shop pay for it) is a good purchase? They prefer you to buy the new one, and go out to feed the hype!

[lowsparkco]

some of the smaller companies are screwing this up too...

surface gets the award for most confusing names making it hard to compare models - icelantic didn't publish rocker profiles last year although I think they're trying to get it right this year

I don't buy that big manufacturers don't care if retail stores are stuck with product - rep's usually care if a store drops them - it hits them in the pocket book.

[TheDon]

Couldn't agree more. Always miss weights and when you really want to see a detailed image of the rocker profile they don't have one either!
It's like they aren't even expecting the thing they are marketing to generate traffic.

They market to generate interest, talk about their "new" "super" [insert buzz word] for the [year in question] season. Then they don't even provide images of what they just tried to hype up! Idiots! I cannot stand not having weights or rocker images!

[mntlion]

As a shop staff most customers don't care and are in informed. If people want this info they get the skis at a deal

Yes companies SHOULD post all this info. And pics. And specs. But most people don't know or want to know

[XavierD]

If you go to a shop, you can eye and hand fuck the shit out of all of them. If you need to know every gram, mm dimension, and m of turn radius to pick your ski you are fucking yourself into some piece of shit built by a ski mountaineering company. I always laugh (inside) when some ski instructor/gearQueer comes in with a measuring ruler and a scale, to record all the values. Unless you want companies to start providing the 2nd order ODEs that discribe the ski flex and response for three different vectors, you are cheating yourself with those dimensions. Might also want the equation that defines the rocker/camber profile... So go into a shop, pick up the skis, and talk to the guys who have actually skied it. It will give you way more information. And if you are really worried about weight, take that beer out of your diet, and go read the thread in summits.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

If you need to know every gram, mm dimension, and m of turn radius to pick your ski you are fucking yourself into some piece of shit built by a ski mountaineering company.
.
.
.
And if you are really worried about weight, take that beer out of your diet, and go read the thread in summits.

In other words, ON3P skis are really fucking heavy.

[Sessiøn]

In other words, ON3P skis are really fucking heavy.

I prefer the term "manly".

[XavierD]

In other words, ON3P skis are really fucking heavy.

Not if we are comparing to my Dynastars or Bodacious...

plus you can decide for yourself...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...illy+Goat+Tour
(part way down)...

[stuckathuntermtn]

They'd rather dazzle you with their mad Flash skillz. Fucking annoying.

[AlpiNord]

As a shop staff most customers don't care and are in informed. If people want this info they get the skis at a deal

Yes companies SHOULD post all this info. And pics. And specs. But most people don't know or want to know

^^^
This & what's their motivation?

The 80/20 (Pareto) Principal probably also applies to ski manufacturers:

If you've ever run a small business, you've probably noticed that a few of your customers are easy to work with, make substantial purchases, and pay on time. You've probably also noticed that the rest of your customers need more attention, make smaller purchases, and sometimes even keep you waiting for your money. That situation isn't unusual. It can be described by the 80-20 Principle, later known as the Pareto Principle.

IE 80% of revenue comes from 20% of your customers, time, effort and expense.

[Stikki]

IE 80% of revenue comes from 20% of your customers, time, effort and expense.

And that 20% is what Mntlion described. The rich guys that come in and drop $4,000 at full retail prices to outfit himself, wife and kid for their annual week long trip to ski groomers. I have friends just like this, don't know anything and don't care, they just want nice stuff that is easy to ride, doesn't hurt their feet and keeps them warm while looking stylish.

[waxman]

as mntlion said most consumers don't care
is it pretty? i'll take it.

[lowsparkco]

Not if we are comparing to my Dynastars or Bodacious...

plus you can decide for yourself...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...illy+Goat+Tour
(part way down)...

your assumption is that if I want to know weight then it's automatically to find the lightest ski - but you're wrong

I have a pair of both enforcers and pro riders - both of which are pretty heavy

I have dynafit boards too

funny, I guess I can jack my own thread, but I think this is a unintended side effect of the whole "side country" phenomenon

your average skier is finding these setups sexy, but they don't know that for every ounce of weight you lose you gain uphill performance and lose downhill performance - imho - every combo has an ideal application and you should be buying for the majority of your use and accept the weakness in the minority time - I'm a gear whore, admittedly, but I'd much rather see a friend buy a used dedicated touring setup and a used resort setup than a new hybrid that doesn't do either very well -

[lowsparkco]

Also, I worked as a shop rat for quite awhile - and that's another whole angle. If you proliferate good info then it's easier for your salesmen to be informed. A lot of the 80% at my shop weren't necessarily going to memorize the stats of their new boards, but they sure as hell wanted the salespersons to quote it to them. The last year I was full-time sales floor was '09 and 75% of the people who walked in the door asked, "where are the skis that are at least 100 mm under foot?"

[counterfeitfake]

This problem is not limited to skis, go look at a outdoor clothing manufacturer's website and try to figure out the difference in their lines. Arcteryx, I am looking in your direction.

I don't understand why they would not want to make it easier for the consumer to understand their products, when it would be so simple to do, just add some information on a webpage. But it's so prevalent that I assume there is some business reason for it. I don't think "they don't have to care" is even a good enough reason, I think they are doing it on purpose.

[lowsparkco]

This problem is not limited to skis, go look at a outdoor clothing manufacturer's website and try to figure out the difference in their lines. Arcteryx, I am looking in your direction.

I don't understand why they would not want to make it easier for the consumer to understand their products, when it would be so simple to do, just add some information on a webpage. But it's so prevalent that I assume there is some business reason for it. I don't think "they don't have to care" is even a good enough reason, I think they are doing it on purpose.

I agree. It would be interesting to hear why? maybe it's this 80/20 concept - sounds like the kinda biz school bullshit that would encourage smoke and mirrors. I have a question for those adherents to this "theory" of business... if you can convert some of those 20% with something as easy as some specs on a website, why not?

[stuckathuntermtn]

And that 20% is what Mntlion described. The rich guys that come in and drop $4,000 at full retail prices to outfit himself, wife and kid for their annual week long trip to ski groomers. I have friends just like this, don't know anything and don't care, they just want nice stuff that is easy to ride, doesn't hurt their feet and keeps them warm while looking stylish.

Well, the good thing is that those people don't hit up the good shit, but their wallets help keep shops and mountains open. The problem is when resorts forget about the people who are into skiing.

Sent from my cell phone. no, a cell phone.