Blister

[whyturn]

When skis are reviewed in AK or japan I think I want to go there. Not really trusting those reviews. But then they went to Alta or Taos so this is that data point. They did like protest.
I think some reviews have substance. Others like Rossi or wailer 112 are total BS to sell skis.

[SB]

I have a blister on my heel.

[EWG]

I have a blister on my heel.

[mcski]

The blister is on the sun

[old goat]

I find the best way to use Blister is to find their review of a ski that I own and understand. Then use that as a sort of baseline as they compare it to other skis in their Deepdive and Blister Spectrum. Otherwise you leave it purely up to the testers interpritation of a ski, which is going to differ from your own.

I agree. This is why it's good to have older reviews on the site. The do a good job of telling us what type of skier might like a particular ski. I dont take their reviews as gospel but to narrow down the list of skis I want to demo. Blister is a lot cheaper than demoing a long list of skis. That said I didn't see that when I subscribed the subscription autorenewed. I just canceled and requested a refund for the payment they charged my card today.

[Vitamin I]

...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?

Not true. Blister does INDEED trash on some products. For example, here's a whole 35-minute Blister podcast episode dedicated to them trashing on products---see https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/a...not-gold-ep-30 . For example, Blister trashes one Faction ski model in the episode, but there are other Faction ski models that they have reviewed without trashing those products---and I'm guessing Faction is OK with the mixed treatment they receive from Blister.

Maybe there's no politics with Blister, except that a company can't get decent exposure on Blister unless they give Blister free product.

...A minor tuning issue can transform the complexion of a ski. I don't know if Blister still goes with the factory tune, but most everyone's writing (both here and on Blister) sadly underemphasizes this. When I write up a ski, I go total geek on tuning comments.

Agreed. It took me a long time to accumulate infrequent observations and learn that, likely because I've never had any interest in intentionally ruining my skis' tunes in various different ways just to A/B Test for my own education.

Blister has published their approach to tuning (EDIT: I found it and pasted it in this post, down below). I recall they start testing with the factory tune. And after that, if it feels "off", then they will re-tune it if necessary to enable test results that I guess they would deem "valid". Blister seems pretty good at transparently reporting some of the re-tuning they felt they needed to do for each ski review.

When I post my test results/reviews here, I rarely mention tuning details. Basically, if I post my test results, that means I have tuned the ski so that it accentuates the performance strengths of the ski (as deemed subjectively by me), and partially covers up a ski's performance weaknesses (as deemed subjectively by me).

-----

UPDATE: Blister's Ski Tuning Approach, pasted from https://blisterreview.com/features/n...17-ski-testing

Jonathan Ellsworth, Editor in Chief, Blister
March 11, 2016 at 2:14 pm
I’d say about 90-95% of the skis we review are skied “out of the wrapper” – or on skis that haven’t yet seen snow and still have the factory tune. Several reasons for this: (1) many, many skiers are getting on skis this way, so it’s relevant to see how well a ski performs right out of the box. (2) In an age where there are so many good skis out there, a company’s factory tune is yet another bit of criteria we can use to judge skis. (3) It also means that we can give a heads up to readers on mods they might want to perform right away. Recent example: detuning the shovels of the Liberty Origin96 really altered that ski, so I want to give that info in case someone jumps on that ski and finds themselves struggling. Of course, that might have only been the case with OUR review pair, but still, I think it’s valuable info to provide.

So if we go ahead and just throw a 2/1 or 1/1 tune on everything, we lose the ability to weigh in on any / all of the above. And if we DO have any issues after getting the ski on snow, we can – and do – tune / detune the ski accordingly.

.

[Micol]

A blue collar 1 ski quiver that crushes the mediocre all day
A 32*radius supplies the go fast while 116 waist plays pow
A world class factory sharp edging surrounds bases of steel
when you just want to forget about which ski to ski it’s A ski


who do i send the bill to?

bought some used off ebay last night and paid from that gear swap post.....today utah ski gear llc said sorry they sold elsewear canceled sale initiated refund......

[bw_wp_hedonism]

A blue collar 1 ski quiver that crushes the mediocre all day
A 32*radius supplies the go fast while 116 waist plays pow
A world class factory sharp edging surrounds bases of steel
when you just want to forget about which ski to ski it’s A ski


who do i send the bill to?

This is for the Soul7, ya?

[galibier_numero_un]

Not true. Blister does INDEED trash on some products. For example, here's a whole 35-minute Blister podcast episode dedicated to them trashing on products---see https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/a...not-gold-ep-30 . For example, Blister trashes one Faction ski model in the episode, but there are other Faction ski models that they have reviewed without trashing those products---and I'm guessing Faction is OK with the mixed treatment they receive from Blister.

Maybe there's no politics with Blister, except that a company can't get decent exposure on Blister unless they give Blister free product.



Agreed. It took me a long time to accumulate infrequent observations and learn that, likely because I've never had any interest in intentionally ruining my skis' tunes in various different ways just to A/B Test for my own education.

Blister has published their approach to tuning (I forget where it is published). I recall they start testing with the factory tune. And after that, if it feels "off", then they will re-tune it if necessary to enable test results that I guess they would deem "valid". Blister seems pretty good at transparently reporting some of the re-tuning they felt they needed to do for each ski review.

When I post my test results/reviews here, I rarely mention tuning details. Basically, if I post my test results, that means I have tuned the ski so that it accentuates the performance strengths of the ski (as deemed subjectively by me), and partially covers up a ski's performance weaknesses (as deemed subjectively by me).

I seem to remember the opposite with Blister, but this goes back about 5 years, so maybe they've modified their approach. As I recall, they didn't question the tune from the factory and this raised a stink with respect to some Praxis reviews.

Yeah, I don't do much special with the tune - ain't gonna remove a ton of metal for science ;-)

Standard 1/1 & play with detuning tip and tail over a few days. I've bought skis on gear swap (no sense bringing up the manufacturer's names) where the claimed 1 degree base bevel was closer to 0. I'm guessing this was the original tune, but I might be wrong. Establishing a "proper" 1 degree base bevel completely changed the character of the ski ... ya think

On a side note (my above suggestion), I was reading up on the Hawx and Z-G Guide Pro, and I saw where Lee shot a photo of his "interesting" foot anatomy in one of his reviews (might have been on Newschoolers ... I forget).

... Thom

[SB]

They should do an in depth comparison of the best toilet paper for the backside country.

[Meadow Skipper]

A blue collar 1 ski quiver that crushes the mediocre all day
A 32*radius supplies the go fast while 116 waist plays pow
A world class factory sharp edging surrounds bases of steel
when you just want to forget about which ski to ski it’s A ski


who do i send the bill to?

Monetizing it is the tricky part.

[Vitamin I]

...Standard 1/1 & play with detuning tip and tail over a few days.

Ha! That's precisely the same as my tuning approach. After that, if I ever end up with disappointingly low grip on firm steeps, or icy WRODs, or whatever...then I sometimes bump the side edge up to a 2 or 3 bevel. That's about it.

.

[hercule33]

Personally I like that Blister charges for some of their content. I think that we have gotten too accustomed to “free” content and don’t ask enough questions how those “free” services make money. Social media is perhaps the best example but car and ski magazines are good examples too.

As to reviews on this forum, there is a bias when you buy a ski that you did not waste your money. I have seen reviews here that sounded more like stoked owners rather than impartial reviewers, in addition to fair and unbiased reviews. I appreciate that Blister is a ski review site and can be held accountable for their reviews. Charging people money makes them more accountable as less of their revenue comes from SEO, click bait titles or controversial content that creates “engagement” such as likes or comments.

[whyturn]

We just get skis so cheap and then sell to other mags who have different tastes. When u don’t pay for the milk u don’t care about the farm or cows or some witty saying.

[swissiphic]

As to reviews on this forum, there is a bias when you buy a ski that you did not waste your money. I have seen reviews here that sounded more like stoked owners rather than impartial reviewers, in addition to fair and unbiased reviews.

Good point...then there's also the 'honeymoon phase' reviews. You get yer new skis and take em out for a day or two and post some euphoric, post purchase vagus nerve pumping, oxytocin filled biased brain glowing review...then after the luster of 'new' wears off and skis turn out to be pieces of shit in a few months when the long term relationship issues bubble forth from the ether....the skis are shit in spring refreeze breakable crust.

[hercule33]

I also find the some of the comments in this thread to be at opposite sides of the spectrum. On one hand people are bitching about paying membership fees or that they are too high and on the other end people are complaining that “Blister recommended” exists. The reality is that if you want “free” content, things like “Blister Recommended”, paid advertising from sponsors, click bait titles will be a reality. Without having “Blister Recommended” I wonder how high the membership fees would be.

In addition, it would be great if Blister actually bought all the skis they reviewed but once again how would they pay for that extra cost? How many people would be willing to pay $100/year for skis reviews? How about $200? A lot of great stuff could be done with those fees but the demand is not there to make them a reality.

That being said, I don’t want to sound like too much of a Blister fan boy. I did find some of their early reviews a bit too biased, particularly the one of the Blister Pro. They have gotten better in recent years.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

Good point...then there's also the 'honeymoon phase' reviews. You get yer new skis and take em out for a day or two and post some euphoric, post purchase vagus nerve pumping, oxytocin filled biased brain glowing review...then after the luster of 'new' wears off and skis turn out to be pieces of shit in a few months when the long term relationship issues bubble forth from the ether....the skis are shit in spring refreeze breakable crust.

I know, right? It's not like any ski is breaking new ground in this day and age (maybe the company that puts the silly putty inside). It's all been done.

I initiated an email exchange with JE not long ago suggesting he'd get a very high subscription and renewal rate of Blister readers with a $19.95 annual membership as opposed to the $60 fee that gets probably, really, not that many. And added that he'd be rich beyond his wildest dreams (not those exact words).

All of these are just assumptions on my part.

To me it was just such obvious common sense. He wants some tangible backing on such a claim, not just a feeling that I have. Of course no way I could provide that.

I then went and paid that $60 annual membership rate. I'll probably renew too. I'm not a fan of the cost, but I do like JE's reviews; his skiing style and the skis he prefers (we are on the exact same page) so it works for me and I want to support the voice that is blister.

There was a want (clearly based on Blister's success) for real honest reviews from people who can actually ski and who ski the product for long enough to form a valid opinion.

[galibier_numero_un]

Good points about honeymoon phase and confirmation bias.

Add to that a groupthink/reverse snobbery mentality (i.e. I suspect the Soul 7 isn't that bad of a ski), along with honeymoon/break-up/make-up sex/break-up/make-up sex (ad nauseum) pattern as documented in LVS's Billygoat thread on gear swap.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[Ted Striker]

The Billy Goat is fire. The GPO is ice. The Soul 7 is lukewarm water.

[TahoeJ]

Took a few laps on the Soul7. It’s really not a bad ski but it forces you into shorter turns and folds up in heavier snow (I hated it but could appreciate why it works for some). I think there’s a good reason you see more of them in Utah or Colorado than California or the PNW - at least in my anecdotal experience. Skied Deer Valley with a buddy a few years back and we played spot the Soul7.

[galibier_numero_un]

Took a few laps on the Soul7. It’s really not a bad ski but it forces you into shorter turns and folds up in heavier snow (I hated it but could appreciate why it works for some). I think there’s a good reason you see more of them in Utah or Colorado than California or the PNW - at least in my anecdotal experience. Skied Deer Valley with a buddy a few years back and we played spot the Soul7.

A buddy of mine who doesn't hang out here visited me, and we headed out to Utah for a few days. The guy rips with his Soul 7s mounted for Tele.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[Nevada29er]

Blister is ok, but it's no EpicSki

[DumbIdeasOnly]

On one hand people are bitching about paying membership fees or that they are too high and on the other end people are complaining that “Blister recommended” exists. The reality is that if you want “free” content, things like “Blister Recommended”, paid advertising from sponsors, click bait titles will be a reality. Without having “Blister Recommended” I wonder how high the membership fees would be.

As I have said I like Blister and feel what they are doing is valuable, so I may be biased, but my understanding of the "Blister Recommended" label is that it does in fact refer to skis they recommend. If you read the buyers guide they list a couple of ski quivers. I think, but don't know, that all of the skis that have "Blister Recommended" next to them are in at least one ski quiver.

Would be interested in JE's comment on that.

[hercule33]

As I have said I like Blister and feel what they are doing is valuable, so I may be biased, but my understanding of the "Blister Recommended" label is that it does in fact refer to skis they recommend. If you read the buyers guide they list a couple of ski quivers. I think, but don't know, that all of the skis that have "Blister Recommended" next to them are in at least one ski quiver.

Would be interested in JE's comment on that.

My point was that Blister was being attacked from both sides. On one hand, people want free content and on the other side people are complaining about things like “Blister Recommended.”

For the record, I get the complaint about “Blister Recommended.” Blister’s ethos was detailed reviews that talked about every aspect of skis, not a two word endorsement. However, the reality is if Blister doesn’t take money from advertisers and most of their content will be free or cheap, then they have to do things like this.

I would like to see a clarification of exactly what “Blister Recommended” means for skis and exactly how Blister makes money off it.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

I would like to see a clarification of exactly what “Blister Recommended” means for skis and exactly how Blister makes money off it.

And I'd like to know if Blister is OK with this. Marketing to the lowest common denominator is way too easy. If I were Blister, I'd be dead set against anyone using my name for such a purpose (we know they are not getting paid for it, right?) because it minimizes my credibility.

Blister will recommend skis for a specific type of skier (and pans some skis pretty well using similar context if one reads between the lines). If Blister was mine I'd not want a "Blister Recommended" blanket statement on any ski. But then again, anyone who buys a ski with main selling point being Blister Recommended probably would not be able to tell if it was good or bad for them anyway.