Blister

[Vitamin I]

...videos could help me determine the credibility of the reviewer, otherwise it’s safe to assume they’re a technically flawed skier who just happens to be able to express an opinion somewhat convincingly.

I observed Blister reviewer Luke Koppa ski for a token 1.5 hours. If you have any specific questions about his skiing, I'm happy to report what I observed.

Also, for ski reviews, I care more about the reviewer's ski TESTING skills than their skiing skills. The 2 are not the same.

.

[kootenayskier]

I observed Blister reviewer Luke Koppa ski for a token 1.5 hours. If you have any specific questions about his skiing, I'm happy to report what I observed.

Also, for ski reviews, I care more about the reviewer's ski TESTING skills than their skiing skills. The 2 are not the same.

.

Being a technically proficient skier doesn’t necessarily correlate with an ability to effectively assess and communicate the qualities of skiing equipment, but I’ve always assumed it’s a requirement. If for example you can’t make technically proficient short radius turns down the fall line (without faking it with some floppy, skidded, interpretive dance variation I see all day everyday) what am I to make of your subjective opinion and florid prose. I actually preferred it when ski tests consisted of a large roster of instructors and coaches (with cheesy mugshots and bios), some attempt at objective criteria, and spat out numbered rankings.

[Vitamin I]

Being a technically proficient skier doesn’t necessarily correlate with an ability to effectively assess and communicate the qualities of skiing equipment, but I’ve always assumed it’s a requirement. If for example you can’t make technically proficient short radius turns down the fall line (without faking it with some floppy, skidded, interpretive dance variation I see all day everyday) what am I to make of your subjective opinion and florid prose. I actually preferred it when ski tests consisted of a large roster of instructors and coaches (with cheesy mugshots and bios), some attempt at objective criteria, and spat out numbered rankings.

I hear ya. That's valid. But the way I see it, different people want the results of different tests. And one ski tester doesn't need to be a "complete skier" who is proficient at ALL tests---a tester only needs to be proficient for the subset of tests he/she reports test results for.

For example, there might be some people who don't care at all about the results of a "technically proficient short radius turns down the fall line" test, and maybe some people only want to know which comp-type ski will help them most to recover as elegantly as possible from a backslap landing. ...And I don't know if a roster of instructors and coaches would be proficient at performing a bunch of backslap tests.

Yes, I'd like ski testers to be proficient at the tests they choose to perform---and then just report the results they observed.
Yes, I definitely agree that comparisons are valuable (either numbered rankings, or just sorting, or whatever other methods they come up with).

.

[Mustonen]

I hear ya. That's valid. But the way I see it, different people want the results of different tests. And one ski tester doesn't need to be a "complete skier" who is proficient at ALL tests---a tester only needs to be proficient for the subset of tests he/she reports test results for.

For example, there might be some people who don't care at all about the results of a "technically proficient short radius turns down the fall line" test, and maybe some people only want to know which comp-type ski will help them most to recover as elegantly as possible from a backslap landing. ...And I don't know if a roster of instructors and coaches would be proficient at performing a bunch of backslap tests.

Yes, I'd like ski testers to be proficient at the tests they choose to perform---and then just report the results they observed.
Yes, I definitely agree that comparisons are valuable (either numbered rankings, or just sorting, or whatever other methods they come up with).

.

Right. Which is why I’d rather have 6 overtly subjective data points than 2 or 3 that try too hard to be objective.

[ex-powderbroker]

On the other hand, Powder Magazine’s gear testers just spent a week goofing around my local mountain, which has me thinking, does it really matter that most reviewers are upper intermediate hacks, lacking the technique, physical conditioning, and experience to appreciate the subtleties of gear’s performance, given that most of the people reading the reviews and buying the gear are even less capable.

i’m wondering where to sign up for this job!

[m69be5]

I see it, different people want the results of different tests. And one ski tester doesn't need to be a "complete skier" who is proficient at ALL tests---a tester only needs to be proficient for the subset of tests he/she reports test results for

[CaliBrit]

All I’ll say is I’ve seen videos of a few people here ski and immediately disregard anything they say about skis. For a professional reviewer it sure would be nice to see them ski to see if it’s worth paying any attention.

[white_wolf]

There are tons of pictures of these guys skiing, and I know I've seen videos of both Sam and Luke skiing before. It's pretty easy to see the skiing style of all of them from the pictures, and that they are pretty decent skiers. They are pretty open about not being perfect, pro-level skiers (except Jonathan), but from the pics and videos i feel like they are probably in the top 95% percent of skiers on the mountain. There are a lot of top 5% skiers on TGR (from the way you talk at least), but its pretty shitty to totally disregard someones opinions on skis just because they're not quite as good as you.

I have the luxury of skiing a LOT of different skis, and I know that mostly agree with Luke, and Paul often enough, but he's 20 lbs heavier than me so that skews his take for me. They're also getting better at including multiple reviewers in each review, which displays the subjectivity of each reviewers take. I subscribe to the deep dives because it allows me to talk to about a ski I'm trying to sell compared to a ski that I've never seen before pretty confidently.

If you can demo a ski, you should do that. I feel like any of the blister guys would say that too...

Also, on the note of measurements, I find it incredibly interesting to see which manufacturers actually hit their stated dimensions and weights, and which are way off. For those ones that are way off - are they intentionally lying? or are their manufacturing tolerances just that loose? Some consistently nail it, which gives me confidence in those brands.

[TahoeJ]

Also, on the note of measurements, I find it incredibly interesting to see which manufacturers actually hit their stated dimensions and weights, and which are way off. For those ones that are way off - are they intentionally lying? or are their manufacturing tolerances just that loose? Some consistently nail it, which gives me confidence in those brands.

Sometimes there are definitely what I would call, marketing adjustments. Or a placebo effect to some degree. Nordica used to be pretty bad this way several years back. Like a 184 ski would measure out at 187 on a straight-pull, which is insane. It's also why ON3P cut the tail off their 186 / 191 Billy Goats to make essentially the same skis a 184 / 189 so they wouldn't over-intimidate people.

[nyskirat]

I do think a few clips of the reviewer skiing would actually be useful.

I don't think we need a full length run for every reviewer or ski but a few clips here or there wouldn't be bad. Hell, even a GoPro POV clip would suffice. That can't be too difficult given how many POV Instagram stories I see daily.

My issue with relying on pictures is that we skiers can be vain when it comes to picture choice. I don't think anyone here would volunteer a potential review photo in which we aren't ripping. As a result, we have a single still snapshot which doesn't really cover a whole lot in the scheme of things.

And to those saying demoing a ski is better than reading reviews, unfortunately not all of us can demo a ski in the conditions we're buying them for.

[auvgeek]

Also, on the note of measurements, I find it incredibly interesting to see which manufacturers actually hit their stated dimensions and weights, and which are way off. For those ones that are way off - are they intentionally lying? or are their manufacturing tolerances just that loose? Some consistently nail it, which gives me confidence in those brands.

Ski mfgs often measure the base material which means the straight tape pull is short after the ski is pressed with rocker and camber. It's not lying or poor tolerances, it's just a different measurement.

[TahoeJ]

Ski mfgs often measure the base material which means the straight tape pull is short after the ski is pressed with rocker and camber. It's not lying or poor tolerances, it's just a different measurement.

Of course, we all know this.... but there's definitely been some fudging here or there for marketing purpose. Which, to be honest, I'm fine with. Because people can be dumb and say they don't want a ski that's 107mm but 105 would be perfect. It's 2 millimeters, STFU.

[auvgeek]

Of course, we all know this.... but there's definitely been some fudging here or there for marketing purpose. Which, to be honest, I'm fine with. Because people can be dumb and say they don't want a ski that's 107mm but 105 would be perfect. It's 2 millimeters, STFU.

And if any tech talk regular would have said, I wouldn't have commented the way I did but I wasn't sure if the JONG I responded to was also aware. Should have worded my post to give the benefit of the doubt, tho.

Yes agree, the numbers aside from length sometimes seem fishy -- especially the weight. Like you, I'm not too concerned about a few mm or a few grams. But sometimes, it's good to know how the actual weights stack up.

e.g., the Scarpa Alien RS is spec'd at 890g but weighs 970g. There's a fair number 1 kg boots out there, but there's not too many 900 g boots out there so the difference is substantial. So to me, that lets me compare the Alien to other 1kg boots, instead of the no-man's land between 1kg boots and skimo race boots.

[Vitamin I]

Right. Which is why I’d rather have 6 overtly subjective data points than 2 or 3 that try too hard to be objective.

OK. To each his own taste. Is your preferred ski review method (i.e. "6 overtly subjective data points") being delivered by anyone nowadays? Like, do you feel that TGR Forums community delivers that if >6 people chime in on a review? Or does a different website deliver that? Or nobody provides that?

...They are pretty open about not being perfect, pro-level skiers (except Jonathan), but from the pics and videos i feel like they are probably in the top 95% percent of skiers on the mountain. There are a lot of top 5% skiers on TGR (from the way you talk at least), but its pretty shitty to totally disregard someones opinions on skis just because they're not quite as good as you.

Those sentences confuse me. I think you wrote numbers you didn't mean. "Top 95%" merely means Blister testers are not the worst 5% on the mountain---and I doubt you meant that. I have personally observed 3 days worth of Crested Butte skiers, including Luke Koppa, and Luke is near the top end of that huge 95% chunk of top people you mentioned.

.

[white_wolf]

Those sentences confuse me. I think you wrote numbers you didn't mean. "Top 95%" merely means Blister testers are not the worst 5% on the mountain---and I doubt you meant that. I have personally observed 3 days worth of Crested Butte skiers, including Luke Koppa, and Luke is near the top end of that huge 95% chunk of top people you mentioned.

Yeah sorry, ski brain. You got what I meant. Blister reviewers are probably better than 95% of skiers.

Of course, we all know this.... but there's definitely been some fudging here or there for marketing purpose. Which, to be honest, I'm fine with. Because people can be dumb and say they don't want a ski that's 107mm but 105 would be perfect. It's 2 millimeters, STFU.

I agree entirely, but what I really question when looking at measured vs. stated dimensions is whether each ski coming out of a factory in a certain model/size is actually identical to every other ski in that model/size (and I'm talking about widths here, not lengths). When looking at a bunch of pairs of the same ski, you can often find subtle differences in construction in supposedly identical skis. It can be variability in the width between carbon stringers under a clear topsheet, or in materials under a clear base, but there seems to be less precision in ski manufacturing than we would all like to think there is. Also, you can see in the measured specs on blister's reviews that the one skis in a pair can weigh up to 50g more or less than the other. I'm not saying there are drastic performance differences between different pairs of the same ski, but I do think that large discrepancies between stated and measured dimensions could indicate loose manufacturing tolerances. For someone who doesn't get to inspect a dozen pairs of the same ski, that could be valuable information.

[swissiphic]

I agree entirely, but what I really question when looking at measured vs. stated dimensions is whether each ski coming out of a factory in a certain model/size is actually identical to every other ski in that model/size (and I'm talking about widths here, not lengths). When looking at a bunch of pairs of the same ski, you can often find subtle differences in construction in supposedly identical skis. It can be variability in the width between carbon stringers under a clear topsheet, or in materials under a clear base, but there seems to be less precision in ski manufacturing than we would all like to think there is. Also, you can see in the measured specs on blister's reviews that the one skis in a pair can weigh up to 50g more or less than the other. I'm not saying there are drastic performance differences between different pairs of the same ski, but I do think that large discrepancies between stated and measured dimensions could indicate loose manufacturing tolerances. For someone who doesn't get to inspect a dozen pairs of the same ski, that could be valuable information.

Anyone have input/data points where those micro variances have any relevance to real world on snow ski feel? I ski 99 percent backcountry heliskiing and ski touring and IMO/ime, it doesn't really matter much in that context. Skied for a few seasons with a cracked core ski which resulted in almost flat camber/more shovel splay/softer flex/altered flex profile...another season with one ski with a bent tip, some delammed skis both repaired and left delammed...really couldn't tell the difference between one or the other aside from just a C hair better float in bottomless conditions on the one cracked rossi xxx bandit compared to the 'normal' one.

Also, unsolicited data point; Can't stand 'new' skis; always find them too reboundy, twitchy, precise...I like em broken in, edges fully detuned and rounded off for tip/tail rocker, work matured...like a seasoned baseball glove. More friendly, forgiving, predictable, schmeary, eezee. Just one man's take. Still lovin' my beat to shit o.g. customized K2 Darksides...they might just be my lifelong partner. Just learned about 'refreshing' old geezer skis by grinding off the topsheet and adding a layer of fiberglass to bring em back to life if they're completely trashed. Not there yet but at least there's a backstop just in case. Dunno details of what the process is...mentor buddy will coach when required.

Just giv'er.

[Meadow Skipper]

Dear JFE24, if you’re still watching this I’d like to put in my request with the others. To match the ski tester to my needs you should know that I’m 155 lbs, I’m an upright finesse skier that likes to ski anything, anywhere, except big air, and I’m transitioning from tele to fixed heel but I’m not sure which way to go with any particular ski so please test them with both types bindings. My bsl is 305-307 so you’ll need to match that. Also, please provide video and detailed evaluation of the skis performing in all conditions with alpine, AT, and tele bindings.

Thanks in advance.

Oh, and make it free, or possibly Pay Per View.

[cydwhit]

Yes agree, the numbers aside from length sometimes seem fishy -- especially the weight. Like you, I'm not too concerned about a few mm or a few grams. But sometimes, it's good to know how the actual weights stack up.

Yeah, on that note, I remember going to put bindings on a ski that was advertised as 105 mm underfoot, and my 105 mm brakes didn't fit. Pulled out the calipers, and it was 111 mm at its narrowest point.

That experience really reinforced for me why it's worth it to record those numbers on Blister. Otherwise, you have the potential to get your new skis the day before a trip and end up really bummed because your bindings don't fit them.

[macon]

They all seem like totally proficient skiers to me.




And idk how I found this but here's a steezy vid of reviewer sam shaheen from a decade ago:



edit:
Here's their skier bios:
https://blisterreview.com/category/c.../ski-reviewers

[hercule33]

Dear JFE24, if you’re still watching this I’d like to put in my request with the others. To match the ski tester to my needs you should know that I’m 155 lbs, I’m an upright finesse skier that likes to ski anything, anywhere, except big air, and I’m transitioning from tele to fixed heel but I’m not sure which way to go with any particular ski so please test them with both types bindings. My bsl is 305-307 so you’ll need to match that. Also, please provide video and detailed evaluation of the skis performing in all conditions with alpine, AT, and tele bindings.

Thanks in advance.

Oh, and make it free, or possibly Pay Per View.

Lol. Don’t forget to ask JFE to buy all the skis so that he can check the quality that you as a buyer will get and get rid of the Blister badges because they annoy you.

[Vitamin I]

...Just learned about 'refreshing' old geezer skis by grinding off the topsheet and adding a layer of fiberglass to bring em back to life if they're completely trashed...Dunno details of what the process is...mentor buddy will coach when required.

Long, long ago, an aerial ski jumper guy had a website with instructions how to add multiple layers of fiberglass, each layer of different length and position, with intent to stiffen/strengthen a ski so it could handle big landings from those big aerials. I remember it was like sloppy hand-drawn illustrations. If you have mad Google skillz, maybe those web pages are still being served...and then just take bits and pieces of his methods for aerial skis and adapt them for your freeride skis.

.

[CaliBrit]

e.g., the Scarpa Alien RS is spec'd at 890g but weighs 970g. There's a fair number 1 kg boots out there, but there's not too many 900 g boots out there so the difference is substantial. So to me, that lets me compare the Alien to other 1kg boots, instead of the no-man's land between 1kg boots and skimo race boots.

This pisses me off. Everyone raves about how the MTN explore 95 skis for the weight. Sticker on the skis says 1480g for the 184. Blister weighed them at like 1530g. I had three pairs in my possession, one was even a warranty claim from Salomon for overweight skis. They all came in at 1650g or so, so yeah no shit they ski better than a 1500g ski.

[roQer]

Oh my god, JE skis still with his pole straps flapping around. Plz do something about, cut them off, tuck them under your hands, use leki poles, whatever. This is just bad, bad style.

[Meadow Skipper]

Oh my god, JE skis still with his pole straps flapping around. Plz do something about, cut them off, tuck them under your hands, use leki poles, whatever. This is just bad, bad style.

Finally, we’re getting to the important reasons we can’t trust Blister reviews.

[dunfree]

Lol. Don’t forget to ask JFE to buy all the skis so that he can check the quality that you as a buyer will get and get rid of the Blister badges because they annoy you.

Why are you reading a ski review if you don't care about representative quality?

other than to be like the gear connoisseurship status "i need to know my 105mm vs. my 107mm ski" dentists bullshitting in this thread, who I suspect are the core market for blister gear. it's about bullshitting about skis, not buying skis. like wine spectator was bullshitting about wine, not buying wine much less drinking wine. neither are untethered from reality, it's just not the target.