Blister

[Mustonen]

The S6 is not the same ski as the sickle... Different camber. It makes a big difference.

There are only 2 reviews of that ski in that link, one of which is a super short mention in a demo day review, which I had to search for.

The blister review is of a different ski, is more complete, has camber pics... Much more useful.

The fact that the same people do the reviews means that at least their comparisons are relative. I don't ski like the blister guys do... Not even close. But I can read into the reviews because I know that.

I stand by my statement.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

No. Just an incarnation of the same ski. Unfortunately, the sickle incarnation came after blister systematically killed TGR tech talk reviews.

2010/11 was the dawn of camber pics. Recent TGR reviews usually have them, if you can find a review, that is.

Also, I find it incredibly useful to get comments from people with a variety of perspectives and ability levels. You figure out who the tail gunners are pretty quick, and even THEIR feedback is damn useful.

By all means, go pay $60. For a review forum where you aren’t encouraged to participate on an equal footing. Go like what they tell you to like.

[Shorty_J]

No. Just an incarnation of the same ski. Unfortunately, the sickle incarnation came after blister systematically killed TGR tech talk reviews.

2010/11 was the dawn of camber pics. Recent TGR reviews usually have them, if you can find a review, that is.

Also, I find it incredibly useful to get comments from people with a variety of perspectives and ability levels. You figure out who the tail gunners are pretty quick, and even THEIR feedback is damn useful.

By all means, go pay $60. For a review forum where you aren’t encouraged to participate on an equal footing. Go like what they tell you to like.

Lol... Ok man.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[JFE24]

Goddamn it why do I have to pay $60/year to read a comparison from 4 years ago.

Hey, guys - I was sent the link to this thread, just wanted to try to clear up a couple things. (I’m also trying to get out the door to get on the mountain, but happy to try to address follow-up questions later.)

To answer your question, Chugachjed, a year's worth of access to all of our Deep Dive Comparisons is $29.99, same price it's always been. The full-blown Blister Membership is $60, and includes a lot of discounts on gear + access to Flash Reviews. But if the comparisons are the primary thing, that's $29.99.

Why do we charge for that? I think a lot of you know this, but some probably don't: we don't take any money from any of the gear manufacturers we review. None.

Most ski / bike / running / climbing publications take as much money as they can get from the gear makers in their respective categories, and they then turn around and write glowing advertorials about the product — or else, they don't bother to really test the product, and instead regurgitate a version of the manufacturers product copy. We don't operate like that, because I think that's ultimately just straight-up lying about expensive product to fellow skiers, bikers, etc, and I refuse to do that.

The way it works here -- and the way it has always worked here (despite what some folks with no knowledge of the actual situation have posted in the past) is that companies submit the product, then walk away. We tried to create a level playing field here, and I believe that we have created the most level playing field that we could at the time. Is it absolutely perfect without any room for refinement or improvement? No. Will everyone always agree 100% of the time with every single one of our assessments? No. (And is it even conceivable that nobody would ever have a different take on a product than that of one of our reviewers? No.) But do you need to worry that a positive take or a negative take on a product has anything to do with money we've taken from any of these manufacturers? No.

What we do try to do is not simply say that something is "Good" or "Bad," but instead we try to provide the rationale for our assessments, and also try to state our personal preferences so that you know where we're coming from. Then hopefully you can assess for yourself if you would probably share the opinion of our reviewer, or have the reasons to think that you might get along better or worse with that same product.

Anyway, I understand that not everyone wants to pay for information, and that's fine. But I also don't really believe that $29 a year is a prohibitive cost for anyone who is spending a lot of time on TGR or Blister, etc, trying to figure out which (expensive) boots or skis to buy. And if it truly is prohibitive, the good news is that 90% of our content is still free, and on the ski side, we are putting out far more free content about gear than any other publication -- as well as a massive, free 200+ page Buyer's Guide.

Again, I know that isn't going to make everyone happy, and smart people will have their own ideas and opinions about how to do things. But we have tried hard to do things the right way for 8 years now, and we promise to keep trying to improve.

And if you do have questions / criticisms / etc. about how we operate, you are welcome to either write me directly: jonathan.ellsworth @ blisterreview.com, or come to Crested Butte, come ski with us, come check out some skis, come get a beer. Open invitation.

[galibier_numero_un]

Maybe that Jonathan dude has discovered some humility and is actually seeing the worth of a ski from another person's perspective?

In fairness, it takes a while to find your editorial voice.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[dunfree]

Interesting that after 20 years of disruption, the wisdom of the crowds and crowd sourcing, people are back to spending $30-$60 a year on gear review magazine(s).

has anyone tried the consumer reports model for gear? review what was bought and paid for at retail? or is that just a nonstarter?

[El Chupacabra]

I stopped reading Blister reviews years ago when they seemed to routinely review skis like this:

* skied on 2' of fresh powder
* complained of tip dive
* mounted ski at +2cm ahead of recommended

[JFE24]

I'm halfway surprised people do subscribe. My understanding is they don't purchase the gear they test? Reviews are generally great, but I wonder how much politics are involved. Surely they can't trash on a product if they want the manufacturer to keep sendin' em things, right?

Good question, Kyle. Bottom line is that every single manufacturer knows that they are not guaranteed some glowing review. And yet, I'm proud of the fact that, even when we have to say that we thought that a product was flawed or could be improved or wasn't some best-in-class product, the vast majority of the time, we've heard from manufacturers that they either (a) agree with us — I just had a number of conversations with product manufacturers at some very big companies where they said that they didn't disagree with our negative reviews of their products; or (b) they use that feedback to think about refinements to the product in the future — we get this a lot; or (c) they might say that they disagree with our conclusion, but at least see where we were coming from, and don't think the review was unfair.

Our job is just to try to locate the product as best we can. Try to detail where it works really well, where it might come up short against some of its direct competitors, and try to identify who it will likely work best for, and who it won't work best for. And we've got an 8-year body of work now for everyone to judge for themselves how good or bad we are at that.

[JFE24]

I stopped reading Blister reviews years ago when they seemed to routinely review skis like this:

* skied on 2' of fresh powder
* complained of tip dive
* mounted ski at +2cm ahead of recommended

"Seemed to routinely review skis like this"

This is a really inaccurate statement, but at least it's funny.

[eskido]

Hard not to agree with a lot of the comments here and I’ve certainly been quite critical at times as well but overall I’m quite glad these guys exist and find a lot of their info valuable, especially profile pics, size/flex comparisons, detailed info, yadeeyada.... Like any review you have to read them understanding there’s a very good possibility you’re not going to size up or ski the same, and I feel like they try to get that across. I did buy the buyer’s guide one year and it was nice (print + digital for like $10 IIRC) but 1000% like OP’s original statement I was fully let down because it was 90% old reviews that I had already read on their site. Love all the details, thought it was very nicely done and if I wasn’t such a gear geek that had already read all of what I wanted to read it def would’ve been worth it IMO. For now I’ll stick to free content, and be glad this guys offer what they do. I do very much appreciate how hard it has to be offer what they do and make a buck, good on em I say.

[Chugachjed]

P Forward on this board, he was down here for med school and I skied with him a bunch. Solid dude and ripping skier, I dont blister much tho.

I’m pretty sure I took him and his pops on a charter when he first moved up to AK

[TeleBeaver]

The best part of Blister are the comparisons. Everyone has their own skiing style and their own preferences, but objective things like "ski x is surfier than ski y" are pretty hard to mess up. If I can find a blister review that compares a ski I have skied to a ski I am interested in, I am stoked because it gives me a frame of reference to go off of. Its also nice that they are based in CB now, so their reviews are done on the same terrain and snow conditions that I ski. Internet sluething and finding random reviews and accounts of ski performance is part of the fun for me, so I don't really need to pay for membership, but I usually start ski research by reading the blister review to get a baseline.

[JFE24]

Well, they sure do like the Soul 7. Just sayin'

Our reviewer, Sam Shaheen, loves that ski. Jason Hutchins really liked the first version of it, too. There are author names at the top of every single one of our reviews, so you can see who, exactly, is saying what about which product.

I'd argue that the common, mistaken assessment about the Soul 7 is that it *isn't* a good ski for extremely athletic and dynamic skiers (like Jason and Sam) who don't need the stability of a heavier, damper ski to charge, and don't want the heavier swing weight of a burlier ski when jumping off stuff and spinning. That said, it's also a ski that can work really well at low / slow speeds, for people who are far from charging.

Is it my personal favorite? Nope. But the point isn't to declare it to be "Good" or "Bad" and move on, the point is to try to help people decide if they will like it. That's it and that's all.

[JFE24]

I've been a little critical of blister for a few reasons: I've had fundamental disagreements with a few reviews they've posted (pretty much every Praxis review), their reviews of female skis are generally poor (they should definitely put their lady reviewers on male skis when they come in short enough sizes), but the main thing is that I basically hold them to the same standard I would any other professional journalist or self-proclaimed expert and call them out when they don't get it right. Which obviously they don't like. But I think if you're putting yourself out there like that as a figure of authority or expert and getting paid to do it as your job, you're accepting a level of responsibility similar to a journalist, unlike your average TGR poster. So I'm pretty sure I'm permanently banned from commenting on their site after my last comment asking why they didn't press Salmon for more info on the sliding AFD for the Shift binding given the data from Jeff Campbell's PhD thesis. That's fine -- it's their site, they can decide who gets to comment on it. [Yes, I could play games with my IP address and still comment, but I'm not childish]

But the bottom line is that blister provides a service, and apparently it's one people are willing to pay good money for. So good for them. If you're complaining about lack of access to an old review, it means their content is valuable enough that you want to read it. And apparently badly enough to start a thread complaining about it. Personally, I'm grateful for the info they provide in their free reviews. Things like rocker profile pics and measured dimensions are really nice and way easier to find on their site than by searching TGR.

If more folks here took it upon themselves to write detailed reviews/comparisons, maybe fewer people would rely on blister. Though even when mags make detailed posts and reviews, they often get lost or buried -- you can't easily sort by manufacturer or ski type the way you can on blister. So maybe we need review subforum on tech talk so that stuff doesn't get lost. And I think to some extent, your average layperson doesn't want to read a thread where various people might disagree on some aspect of a ski -- they want an "expert" opinion that they think they can trust.

I appreciate the mix of criticisms, compliments, and opinions - lots going on in your post, but most importantly: I have no idea where you got the notion that you were "permanently banned from blister"?? That's a super odd and unfounded claim - and, given that you and I have exchanged a number of personal emails over the years, it's very strange to me that you wouldn't have sent me a note asking if there was a problem, but instead suggest to a public forum that Blister banned you? So just to set the record straight, you're not banned. Anyway, I'm also not interested in sorting out personal issues on a public forum, but please feel free to send me a note if there's something we need to get sorted out here.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Our reviewer, Sam Shaheen, loves that ski. Jason Hutchins really liked the first version of it, too. There are author names at the top of every single one of our reviews, so you can see who, exactly, is saying what about which product.

I'd argue that the common, mistaken assessment about the Soul 7 is that it *isn't* a good ski for extremely athletic and dynamic skiers (like Jason and Sam) who don't need the stability of a heavier, damper ski to charge, and don't want the heavier swing weight of a burlier ski when jumping off stuff and spinning. That said, it's also a ski that can work really well at low / slow speeds, for people who are far from charging.

Is it my personal favorite? Nope. But the point isn't to declare it to be "Good" or "Bad" and move on, the point is to try to help people decide if they will like it. That's it and that's all.

Yeah, I was joking. The Soul 7 is the source of a running joke around here because of it's wild popularity. Which brings me to my main critique of Blister: You all could use a sense of humor. I mean, I know reviewing skis is serious business, but, well, actually... it isn't.

Mostly I appreciate your site. I paid for a subscription when you first offered it, but found that I have dissimilar taste to your reviewers to the extent that your comparisons aren't that useful to me (see Auvgeek's Praxis comment). I might pay $15. In particular I find the demanding vs. forgiving framework you often use to assess ski to be not very useful, and also a little inconsistent. I don't think demanding and forgiving are opposites when it comes to skis. A demanding ski can be forgiving if it has a big sweet spot and works in a variety of snow types for a a variety of skiing styles. On the other hand, a ski that requires little input to turn at low speed may have a small sweet spot and be hooky if you drive the tips. When you focus on how specific skis respond to specific inputs in specific conditions is when your reviews work best (while acknowledging that skier size and style influences these observations). The way you categorize and generalize across skis (the way you've described tip taper comes to mind) can fall short at times, although perhaps you acknowledge this more than I give you credit for.

And finally, I understand that you don't take money from ski manufacturers, but your reviews are extremely polite. This can make it hard to tell if a criticism is indicative of a minor gripe or a major flaw. I think you can remain polite and still be clear that some aspect of a ski truly comes up short.

Good luck moving forward and congrats on what you've accomplished thus far.

[El Chupacabra]

"Seemed to routinely review skis like this"

This is a really inaccurate statement, but at least it's funny.

Are you contending that Blister has not posted such reviews? Or taking issue solely with the word routinely?

[DumbIdeasOnly]

The best part of Blister are the comparisons. Everyone has their own skiing style and their own preferences, but objective things like "ski x is surfier than ski y" are pretty hard to mess up. If I can find a blister review that compares a ski I have skied to a ski I am interested in, I am stoked because it gives me a frame of reference to go off of. Its also nice that they are based in CB now, so their reviews are done on the same terrain and snow conditions that I ski. Internet sluething and finding random reviews and accounts of ski performance is part of the fun for me, so I don't really need to pay for membership, but I usually start ski research by reading the blister review to get a baseline.

This. A lot of value in the comparisons. Much more, for me personally, than the standalone reviews. Mostly because the standalone reviews rarely say this or that attribute just sucks.

I’m not sure how Blister could, or should, communicate something judgemental like the Rossi S series is a pile of shit and you should go back to Texas if you think they’re acceptable skis (just joking - we all know that you should break both legs if you like them so you can’t ski again). That said, the spectrums they put together are genuinely thoughtful, as are the deep dives, and good compliments to the mag collective wisdom.

[auvgeek]

most importantly: I have no idea where you got the notion that you were "permanently banned from blister"?? That's a super odd and unfounded claim - and, given that you and I have exchanged a number of personal emails over the years, it's very strange to me that you wouldn't have sent me a note asking if there was a problem, but instead suggest to a public forum that Blister banned you? So just to set the record straight, you're not banned. Anyway, I'm also not interested in sorting out personal issues on a public forum, but please feel free to send me a note if there's something we need to get sorted out here.

sweet, no worries. Frankly, I had forgotten that my comments wouldn't go through on your site until this thread popped up last night and I made that post. But I edited my post and sent you an email just to follow up and make sure we're good.

Also, didn't realize you were in CB these days, maybe I'll hit you up next time I'm in your neck of the woods.

[kid-kapow]

Are you contending that Blister has not posted such reviews? Or taking issue solely with the word routinely?

Really? What point is it that you are trying to prove here? That your take away from their reviews remain the same (which at some point should make you more cognizant of your biases, or make you stop reading them) or that reviewing skis is a developing process where perfection is hard to find and next to impossible to maintain?

--------------------

What I applaud Blister for is their drive to describe how a ski functions, and not just say it is good or not. Will Blister always be 100% accurate or review a ski the same way that I would? No. But their effort is a helluva lot better than what Powder, Freeskier or other magazines put out there (which is pretty worthless imo) and is very helpful in generating understanding.

At the end of the day Blister has influenced my purchasing decisions, where I like to think that they have been made more informed by reading Blister's take on products.

And my 2 cents, are people bitching about having to pay 30usd for a years worth of free access? Like for real? By three less (insert randowm thing people use money on) Starbucks coffees a month and you end up ahead.

And I've seen black Diamonds - I have a feeling that Blister really appreciate that kind of input. If they are professionals they probably understand that better metrics = better reviews, so feedback that helps refine the right metrics or discussions points that people actually get help from would be a 10/10 feedback in my book.

[TahoeJ]

I think it's funny that people are blaming Blister for the lack of gear reviews on TGR. I think it's partly because so much of the gear is so good now, even compared to 6-7 years ago. And we still get pretty indepth around here when something is new or different (like the Shift, Kingpin and Tecton threads, for example).

Gotta give Jonathan and crew credit for really being the first to consistently post stuff we are all after, like ski profile shots, proper dimension measurements and actual measured weights. And I appreciate that those are always available for free.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I think it's funny that people are blaming Blister for the lack of gear reviews on TGR. I think it's partly because so much of the gear is so good now, even compared to 6-7 years ago. And we still get pretty indepth around here when something is new or different (like the Shift, Kingpin and Tecton threads, for example).

Good point.

[Mustonen]

I think it's funny that people are blaming Blister for the lack of gear reviews on TGR. I think it's partly because so much of the gear is so good now, even compared to 6-7 years ago. And we still get pretty indepth around here when something is new or different (like the Shift, Kingpin and Tecton threads, for example).

Gotta give Jonathan and crew credit for really being the first to consistently post stuff we are all after, like ski profile shots, proper dimension measurements and actual measured weights. And I appreciate that those are always available for free.

Well, I watched it while it was happening. They killed review threads and redirected discussion. I went so far as to copy/paste blister reviews back into the TGR thread, but gave up. They used the TGR user review engine to drive traffic to their site and killed discussion here. It sucked and it made this place less. Good on them for making something cool. I just didn’t like how it was done. And it wasn’t original. They just figured out a way to monetize it.

[3PinGrin]

I think Blister provides some of the better large scale reviews, I also like abetterski and think they are objective for the most part. Both of these review sites have shown their dislike for certain skis that may be more popular but usually provide a sound reason why. The best objective reviews in my mind (that I have been exposed to) are those formerly by Couloir and continuing by Dostie at earnyourturns.com

Craig is very pointed in his critiques and the reviews always read with the understanding of the common man that is actually skiing stuff not trying to develop print copy (but with the background and experience to back it up). His love of skinny sticks doesn't dissuade him from glowing reviews of some of the fatter skis out there. I don't always agree with him, but at least he provides a solid argument for why he does or does not like a certain ski, boot, binding, etc. and is willing to provide some back and forth after the review (as with Blister).

[TahoeJ]

Well, I watched it while it was happening. They killed review threads and redirected discussion. I went so far as to copy/paste blister reviews back into the TGR thread, but gave up. They used the TGR user review engine to drive traffic to their site and killed discussion here. It sucked and it made this place less. Good on them for making something cool. I just didn’t like how it was done. And it wasn’t original. They just figured out a way to monetize it.

Hmm. I don't seem to remember the thread hijacking / linking... but maybe it was just on skis I wasn't really interested in.

[ill-advised strategy]

The explosion of different ski design parameters makes reviewing so so much harder than back in the day. Think about even not that long ago when most skis were full camber...I could reliably pick a ski site unseen just based on dimensions, construction and grapevine word on what the flex was like...

So much more involved now with the extra dimensions involved.

[3PinGrin]

The explosion of different ski design parameters makes reviewing so so much harder than back in the day. Think about even not that long ago when most skis were full camber...I could reliably pick a ski site unseen just based on dimensions, construction and grapevine word on what the flex was like...

So much more involved now with the extra dimensions involved.

Agreed, and the difference in being a centered skier versus driving the tips, etc. only confounds the difficulty of the review.