All skis are much the same

OK, an exaggeration but in 7 years of skiing I have concluded that the reviews in magazines, comparisons with Honda Accord or Porsche 911 and so on are way overblown. Placebo effect.

I started on very early, stiff, long Elan carvers (30 quid including boots, poles and bag). Moved to shorter and more shaped Salomon Crossmax, 25 quid off the small ads. Today tried a pair of 2013 K2 Aftershocks I just bought from small ads from someone who said he found them too fast. Maybe they were a bit long for him.

Why fast? They are a bit heavy and fat, so a little hard to skid round. In other words it is not that they are fast, but that they are a bit of hard work to ski slow. Maybe turning circle a little large for a carved turn. Pretty stable at speed. Probably a little less likely to sink in deep powder than my narrow skis.

So they are harder to pivot than the Crossmax (so are my old Elan skis). They are a bit more stable at speed and in yucky spring snow. They are stiffer than the Crossmax, so hold better at speed (so did my 30 quid Elans).

My touring skis are the worst of the lot for catching an edge if you don't keep weight forwards, but at least are light to carry to the car park! They too basically work the same.

But that major enlightenment or pushing the owner to a new level, fastest man down the mountain, etc. strikes me as placebo. There are differences at the margins in turnability, stiffness (good for going fast, bad for going slow), holding the edge, weight (most expensive are worst), fatness (slightly less maneoverable, but no big deal). The differences are only at the margins.

I have concluded it is like the Stradavarrius: repeated tests have proved audiences can not tell one from a good modern instrument worth 1% of the value, but people still kid themselves the Strad is worth it.

I actually want to be wrong about this, especially as I have just spend the price of an excellent diiner for two on skis some reviewers rave about. If I had a reason to want to get to the bottom super-fast I would probably pick the new skis as a bit more stable at speed. But I am just not getting what all the fuss is about. Bottom line is that I am happy witth my ancient well used 25 quid old Crossmax, which are perfectly capable of taking me through the woods, or in deep powder, of wedeln or of carving.

Am I missing something? Or is it really just marketing hype?

Many a fine tune played on an old fiddle.

Hmm, until recently I have always rented my skis and got what I was given, trusting that the ski tech had chosen correctly for my ability and current conditions. I have always been happy on skis whatever they happen to be.
Maybe because I'm not an awesome skier I wouldn't know good from bad? Maybe an awesome skier can tell the diff among all the skis on offer.
I can't speak as to whether they are great skis or not but the most FUN I had on ski was with a pair of BBRs that I would never have chosen for myself in a million years!
Marketing hype? Certainly to a degree, all the manufacturers want to sell lots of skis, I'm sure in their ideal world we would all own a quiver of many of their skis.

Interesting. Some advanced skiers share that view that there is not a lot of difference. I just had this conversation with an Austrian friend, experienced on 40 years of 'skiing history' (starting by playing on homemade wooden skis in the woods as a tot) and by my standards is a superb skier. She said 'for me there is not a lot of difference. Some people prefer short light skis which they find easier to turn.'

I may have been influenced by starting on long, hard skis which were unsuitable for a beginner and hard to turn. I won't say they made me better, probably the opposite, but after that I regard a ski which is hard to turn for slow skiing as a bit tiring but no big deal. I guess all shaped skis turn easily if you tilt them on the edges. Sure, hard skis grip better at speed, soft skis grip better going slow, so matching flex to your weight and speed makes sense. Narrow skis are tricky to keep afloat in soft powder. That seems to be about it.

I think theres an element of what you say in ski design Innsbrucker. However, you will excel on different skis in different conditions thats for sure.
But for the average recreational skier its down to personal choice as to what suits you and often to what youve been given in the past as rentals or learned to ski on, which might explain why a lot of UK skiers have "carvers"

Ski's are very big business, I have never really listened to all the hype, it is all about price for me never paid more than a couple of hundred squid for a pair of skis.
Will these hyped skis make you a better skier I doubt it as well as an expensive pair of football boots won't make you a better footballer.
What I always find interesting is the people who spend 400/500 quid on a pair of skis are they brave enough to be open and honest on how the skis have proformed on snow and if they are worth the money. I doubt it . :wink:

More than happy to say I have spent that sort of money on bindings and skins, forget the skis part.

How anyone who has skied a 120mm underfoot and then gone onto a slalom ski can say there is no difference is beyond me. What I do agree is that nearly all brands have a quality offering, so similar price, similar shape will have similar performance. Having said that you will never see me on a Volkl. Flex does just not work for me.

Ranchero_1979 wrote:More than happy to say I have spent that sort of money on bindings and skins, forget the skis part.

How anyone who has skied a 120mm underfoot and then gone onto a slalom ski can say there is no difference is beyond me.

Never skied on 120 waist. That must feel different, especially on piste. I was more talking about the range of things which might be used on piste, from narrow to all mountain skis.

..forget the skis part.

Skins and touring bindings are a separate issue. For the tiny minority of British skiers who ever buy or use such things, you need quality for different reasons than when buying skis for downhill only use. If hiking I would not economise on bindings or skins, but on skis I do, and (having now tried skis magazine critics rave about) I would in future.