Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 98
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,818
    Lindhal, this is totally ridicolous.
    They tested the skis as you suggested. A given category of 15-20 skis was tested by a given bunch of expert skiers in a few weeks, not over months, so every skier had a good memory of one ski vs the other.. and had plenty of opportunities of re-testing if any specific memory was blurred. Your whole issue now is that A>B, B>C etc is better than numbers. OK, I'm pretty bored of reading it for the 089765976th time.
    To add to your overwhelming ego, you repeat that an (undefined) device easily prepared by yourself in a couple of days will offer better data/insight on the bindings, ignoring decades of dedicated work from fellows in the field (including maggotts here).
    Finally, you state there is no need for a similar tuning of all the skis (we're not talking only of edge tuning, we're talking of planarity, etc... issues that can completely change the way a ski is felt), and here I realize that you're just interested in yourself and not in skiing.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21
    Ciao Lindahl. Thanks again for discussing about our job. It's interesting for us to know different opinions, even not so positive for us ;-(
    Pleas consider that: some of your proposal are considered in out testing protocol.
    For exemple: category A (freeturing, as exemple). We have 30 models. Day 1 we go on the snow with 12 models and 4 testers (our teams ar specific for each category and all of them made by 4 pro-testers). They move with 4 skis, than we have a table of changes which consider that all 12 models could be used by all tester and in the different hours of the day.
    In the second day we use other 10 models, using as referral the best and the wors model of the day before. All the testers make some turns with them to wake up their 'performance memory' as you write, and to have a term of comparison (maybe conditions are changed in the night).
    And the same in the third day.
    The same protocol for different conditions: if we made it in powder, it will be done again on crust, on icy snow, on firn, on wet...
    I hope to have provided you a more clear explanation...
    Than... Of course something is flawed: but to work on large scale, with a so big number of skis and different categories/teams/conditions your method is quite difficoult. Isn't it?
    Ciao ciao

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246

    Skialper 2016 buyers' guide. The new gold standard

    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    They tested the skis as you suggested. A given category of 15-20 skis was tested by a given bunch of expert skiers in a few weeks, not over months, so every skier had a good memory of one ski vs the other.. and had plenty of opportunities of re-testing if any specific memory was blurred.
    No they didn't. The magazine specifically said, they tested a ski, then evaluated it and then moved onto the next ski. I quoted the magazine in one of my earlier posts so I'm not going to dig it up again. Their testing process did not revolve around direct comparison testing - identifying how one ski performed better than another - but instead, the same method that most other ski magazines use - point evaluation. You can disagree with me and say that such a process is worthwhile and provides useful information, but as you know, I highly disagree. I feel it provides little over what basic ski knowledge will give you (its a powder ski, its a charger ski, its a playful ski, etc). Trying to extrapolate more than that would be flawed (ie does one ski float better than another).

    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    To add to your overwhelming ego, you repeat that an (undefined) device easily prepared by yourself in a couple of days will offer better data/insight on the bindings, ignoring decades of dedicated work from fellows in the field (including maggotts here).
    Wrong. I did not say better data. I said it would provide useful data. I have no idea what device you are talking about, so how can I say an experiment I can come up with would provide better data? lol

    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    Finally, you state there is no need for a similar tuning of all the skis (we're not talking only of edge tuning, we're talking of planarity, etc... issues that can completely change the way a ski is felt), and here I realize that you're just interested in yourself and not in skiing.
    Maybe its a language thing, but wrong again. I said the tunes don't have to be synchronized. They do have to be similar, however (which I just said!!! lol).
    Last edited by Lindahl; 11-18-2015 at 07:24 AM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246

    Skialper 2016 buyers' guide. The new gold standard

    Quote Originally Posted by skialper View Post
    Than... Of course something is flawed: but to work on large scale, with a so big number of skis and different categories/teams/conditions your method is quite difficoult. Isn't it?
    Yes, direct comparisons with large numbers of skis is difficult and time consuming.

    I have a hard time understanding exactly how the skis are evaluated in your description. It still sounds like skis are evaluated in relative isolation (though tested on the same day at least). I'm also glad to hear that the best and worst skis from the previous day are re-tested before testing 10 new skis. That is certainly an improvement over what most ski magazines do. This kind of 're-calibration' is critical.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 11-18-2015 at 07:38 AM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    I don't see it being as difficult to sort out as you do, just because of the whole A > B and C > A so then C > B thing... especially when you have skis in widely varying classes (La Sportiva Nano vs Cochise)... but eh... different strokes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Yes, direct comparisons with large numbers of skis is difficult and time consuming.
    .

    Quoted for contradiction. It seems your real problem is with math and understanding numerical order between 1 and 10 and prefer descriptors like "sorta" "kinda" and "little bit".
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246

    Skialper 2016 buyers' guide. The new gold standard

    Quote Originally Posted by Mofro261 View Post
    Quoted for contradiction. It seems your real problem is with math and understanding numerical order between 1 and 10 and prefer descriptors like "sorta" "kinda" and "little bit".
    You don't need to directly compare every combination to do direct comparisons of skis (or speakers). You do need to actually do direct comparisons though. I know... words are hard

    Numbers in isolation don't work well because of variability and memories suck, but I already said that.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Yes, direct comparisons with large numbers of skis is difficult and time consuming.

    I have a hard time understanding exactly how the skis are evaluated in your description. It still sounds like skis are evaluated in relative isolation (though tested on the same day at least). I'm also glad to hear that the best and worst skis from the previous day are re-tested before testing 10 new skis. That is certainly an improvement over what most ski magazines do. This kind of 're-calibration' is critical.
    We just plan several groups of testers, specific for each category, then plan periods with the program explained above (never more than 10, sometimes 12 skis for a full day of job, 3-4 days for each period, including 30-35 pair of skis). We organize 4 periods like this one, one for any snow condition, from late winter, spring and early summer.
    Then we put together all the results and edit our final evaluations...(we have a lot of material: tester write their evaluations, we record all of them on video at the end of each downhill just to have their fresh words and sensations. Then our technical responsable also look at them sking during the sessions to understand if their words match with the words they write and say and he talk a long with all of them).
    The re-calibration is the only way to extend sensations of testers for all the duration of the session.
    I hope to have explained you our way. (of course, I know my english need to be refreshed...)

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Breckenridge
    Posts
    496
    Meh, Lindahl, I think you're backed against the wall with your contrarian statements and don't want to back down now.

    I bought the guide, spent awhile reading it. All the writing on the methodology is super helpful and I especially found it helpful that the bindings were tested for release characteristics.

    Kudos to Skialper!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246

    Skialper 2016 buyers' guide. The new gold standard

    Quote Originally Posted by timmaio View Post
    Meh, Lindahl, I think you're backed against the wall with your contrarian statements and don't want to back down now.
    There's a difference between directly comparing two skis to understand the relative performance (and possibly assigning numbers after) and assigning point scores to a ski based on how you think it performs and then comparing the scores (indirect comparison).

    If you have 3 skis, lets say the. Cochise, the Rocker 108 and the Nano, and you test them for stability, and you compare the Cochise with the Rocker 108 and the Cochise is obviously more stable. And then you compare the Rocker 108 and the Nano, and the Nano is significanlty less stable, then you could say the Cochise is a 10, the Rocker 108 is a 7 and the Nano is a 2, the evaluation method is still direct comparison (in my opinion), even if you didn't directly compare the Cochise to the Nano.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 11-18-2015 at 09:46 AM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by neck beard View Post
    Both his parents were pro mogul skiers.
    how did they test their skis? maybe he has a generation conflict to fix.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,855
    This thread is sweet! Everything I need to know about ski testing all in one place. That is, you gots to demo.

    Lindahl, let me ask you this. If you had 5 pairs of skis you wanted to "test", how would you go about it? 'Cause what I don't understand about this whole circus jerk is what you are actually asking the ski testers to do.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,393
    Just read most of it. Great work. I do agree with Lindahl in some respects. Reducing a ski to a few numbers without much narrative is, well, what it is.

    For example, the Blizzard Cochise scores well on hard snow. I agree with this. However, people who like to carve their turns in a more traditional manner and get some rebound from the tail will find the ski frustrating. Whereas those who like to steer and drift through turns will love the Cochise. Kastle BMX 108 is the opposite. Both great skis for experts, both excellent on hard snow for their width, but very different. The BMX 105 review hints at this difference, while the Cochise text makes no mention of this behavior.

    I'm impressed with the issue. Love the tech binding stuff. But I don't think Lindahl's criticism is insane by any means.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    165
    Wht you are wanting is not possible on the scale of a magazine test/review, even one whos sole purpose is testing gear. One cannot tailer reviews/tests to such a detailed extent to satisfy your particular needs. What ski do you choose as the baseline? They would have to make that choice at aome point, and juat because some person has been lucky enough to demo that particular model dosen't mean the next reader has. It renders it all arbitrary again.
    Constantly rehashing your idea doesn't make it any more feasable, just a little anoying
    Put it this way, take your formula and compare gear review mag A (skialper) with mag B (anyone you've read as well) and what do you get? Down to personal preference in the end. Just no point going on and on and on and on.....

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Chamonix
    Posts
    855
    I'm confused. Is the Skialper Buyers' Guide supposed to be a buyers' guide or a ski review bible?

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    CH
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by McDee View Post
    Wht you are wanting is not possible on the scale of a magazine test/review, even one whos sole purpose is testing gear. One cannot tailer reviews/tests to such a detailed extent to satisfy your particular needs. What ski do you choose as the baseline? They would have to make that choice at aome point, and juat because some person has been lucky enough to demo that particular model dosen't mean the next reader has. It renders it all arbitrary again.
    Constantly rehashing your idea doesn't make it any more feasable, just a little anoying
    Put it this way, take your formula and compare gear review mag A (skialper) with mag B (anyone you've read as well) and what do you get? Down to personal preference in the end. Just no point going on and on and on and on.....
    On and on and on and advertising budget and on and friend of the magazine and on and on and on...normal stuff....in the end it is just sliding in snow. Enjoy!
    #1 goal this year......stay alive +
    DOWN SKIS

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246
    Quote Originally Posted by McDee View Post
    Wht you are wanting is not possible on the scale of a magazine test/review, even one whos sole purpose is testing gear. One cannot tailer reviews/tests to such a detailed extent to satisfy your particular needs.
    I disagree. I do it in a single day, for a single set of conditions, for nearly 15 skis, in a somewhat limited fashion. Sure, I would like a couple more runs on each ski, different conditions and different terrain, but that's just not possible for someone who has to rely on demo days for comparisons. Add a few reviewers, free access to skis, and stretch the period out over a month or two and I believe it can be done. Perhaps not for as many skis as was covered by skialper, but that's where quality over quantity steps in. I would prefer the focus to shift more on quality and less on quantity if there's a time limit on the test period. What value is a review of 100s of skis is the data is not very useful (NOT talking about their objective data)?

    I also think that the way Blister Gear Review does it is pretty smart. There is no review period, it's an on-going in-depth comparison. Sure, things may get out of date over time, or you might get things wrong sometime, but overall, in the long run, stretched out over a long period of time, you really get a great view of how skis stack up against each other, and you can learn a ton. Sure, there's lots of skis out there, and you won't be able to nail every ski that someone wants to learn about, but if you take feedback from the readers, you can filter it down some, at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    Lindahl, let me ask you this. If you had 5 pairs of skis you wanted to "test", how would you go about it? 'Cause what I don't understand about this whole circus jerk is what you are actually asking the ski testers to do.
    I post a Loveland Demo Day review thread every year. I just posted this year's demo day review now - seemed like a good time given this discussion. Basically, take that day, run it out over a month or two, including a re-calibration period on familiar skis every morning. Add other conditions and other terrain (demo days are generally only on roughed up groomers in early season terrain - booooo!). Another good example is my DPS Wailer 105 Hybrid T2 review - calibrating on the Head m103 in the morning before hopping on the DPS, and then going back to the Head m103. I also did the same with my old Volkl Katana, ON3P Wrenegade, and Head m103 last year, but I never posted about it, since that was more for personal reasons. I brought all 3 skis up on the hill and rotated through them throughout the day, over a couple days, testing them on various terrain and snow conditions, and focusing precisely on comparing them directly in different performance aspects (slarving, runouts, cliffs, carving, chop, firm bumpy snow, powder/float). In retrospect, I would have taken voice notes and posted a review, but that data is all but lost - all I'm left with is knowing which one I prefer overall, and in a general sense, which one I preferred in each performance category.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 11-18-2015 at 04:05 PM.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,818
    It's like an much more intelligent but equally fallible Rog on a meth bender.
    Life is not lift served.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    Just read most of it. Great work. I do agree with Lindahl in some respects. Reducing a ski to a few numbers without much narrative is, well, what it is.

    For example, the Blizzard Cochise scores well on hard snow. I agree with this. However, people who like to carve their turns in a more traditional manner and get some rebound from the tail will find the ski frustrating. Whereas those who like to steer and drift through turns will love the Cochise. Kastle BMX 108 is the opposite. Both great skis for experts, both excellent on hard snow for their width, but very different. The BMX 105 review hints at this difference, while the Cochise text makes no mention of this behavior.

    I'm impressed with the issue. Love the tech binding stuff. But I don't think Lindahl's criticism is insane by any means.
    look at the pic showing the camber of the 2016 cochise they tested. At variance with past (or at least with the first generations of cochise), now it has a lot of positive camber. This is likely why the review does not mention what you were expecting for.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    3,935
    Quote Originally Posted by verbier61 View Post
    look at the pic showing the camber of the 2016 cochise they tested. At variance with past (or at least with the first generations of cochise), now it has a lot of positive camber. This is likely why the review does not mention what you were expecting for.
    Have you skied both, or are you just guessing?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    meager stoke

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    verbier, milan, isla de pascua
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Have you skied both, or are you just guessing?
    I have first gen orange full reverse cochise, and have tried the 2015 cochise with a little bit of positive camber. There was some difference in the feeling that you mentioned. Now, looking at the pic of the 2016 cochise, the positive camber look much more. That's all I can say.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21
    Ciao... Just to comunicate the exit of BUYER'S GUIDE 2017 from Skialper magazine... If someone is interested in it!
    www.skialper.it/buyersguide

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    652
    So I paid and downloaded the mag through the app. Of course it was in Italian, so I went back and saw there was an English version under "supplements" not that it would make any sense to offer it beside the Italian version or anything where it is obvious. I tried to download it and got a message in Italian that I couldn't read but obviously said something like, you can't do this. So I deleted the app, reinstalled and tried to re download the English version. Same message. So, I switched iTunes accounts and tried to re download the App and it said I couldn't because another user had got a refund or cancellation. WTF? They are two totally unassimilated accounts. Anyone know how I can get a copy of the English version? I can download the Italian version all day long, but it's just a picture book to me.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    G Falls
    Posts
    268
    I'm in the same boat. It doesn't appear that the English version can be downloaded so I tried downloading the Italian version first with hopes it would allow me to open the English version. Now I have an $8 picture book. Shit.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden/Breckenridge
    Posts
    5,246

    Skialper 2016 buyers' guide. The new gold standard

    Worked fine for me. Just order the right product.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    652
    The English version is not immediately apparent. I stumbled upon it by accident after downloading the mag which turned out to be the Italian version. The app doesn't make that clear. In the past, both versions have been in one doc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •