Ski Rental... Here or There?

Ise,
So what you're really saying (I think?) is that rental skis are much better quality, because they're built to last.

Ally

Surely Ski's are designed to perform to a specific set of criteria. That criteria is only met if the correct materials are used, but more crucially the right construction. A rental ski (according to the article) defeats the whole design purpose by fortifying the wearable areas of the ski.

What it was saying in the article, the rental ski's meet the requirements of durability at the cost of performance, due to the footfall in the rental shops. Edge-2-Edge replace their rental ski's at a much faster rate to ensure that you recieve the ski as it was intended to be used.

Thats the jist I got anyway.

EVO88 wrote:After reading an article in the Fall-Line mag entitled, "The Rental Rip-Off", I came across a link to a company called Edge-2-Edge. They specialise in ski/snow related gear. It seems that the renatl shops in resort use specific rental modifications on their ski's. which in essence changes the performance of the ski completely!

I did't have a clue about this. But it seems that Edge-2-Edge rent full retail speck ski's, complete with the appropriate binding, for a fraction of the cost compared to the resorts.

Unfortunately I cannot use them this year, as you need to book well in advance for the ski's you want. I leave on Saturday you see.

Anyone ever used them?

Never used them as I have my own skis. However, their service looks outstanding, and at the end of each season they have a massive sale. Ok, the skis might have done a full season and been through the belt a few times, but they have some right bargains. Keep an eye on them from April onwards if you want some cheap skis or a 2nd pair.......Mrs H will kill me if she finds out :wink:

AllyG wrote:Ise,
So what you're really saying (I think?) is that rental skis are much better quality, because they're built to last.

Ally

Not necessarily, I think the article (I cant' be bothered to read it a second time though) just says quite correctly they're different, that's going to be sometime better and sometimes worse depending on what you like. Recreational skiers tend to do better on heavier skis so it might be the average customer prefers the rental version.

So when you're skiing the latest "Salomic turbo thruster crapri ghia gti powder dude" ski or whatever they're calling this years laminated bit of foam from last year with a different paint job then you're going to find it's not the same as the one on sale on the high street.

Robust would be on my list of desirable features though :)

I can't see what earthly difference it makes to most customers, mostly people aren't going to be buying the ski they're renting they just want to have a decent ski to use for a week or so.

The problem Edge-2-Edge will have is that most of the popular skis aren't going to last more than a few weeks treated as normal rental skis with the rental full service, either they'll have to replace the skis every 4 to 6 weeks or either not service them or do it by hand. If they can find the bigger fool though and sell most of them at the end and rent enough pairs you can see they could turn a profit on 4 to 6 weeks rental. The stuff they're stocking while a bit dull is all very popular.

I would just point out that neither the Fallline article nor the the Edge-2-Edge website actually say explicitly they're not using the exact same rental stock as any other store, you'd think the website might headline it if it's such a big deal.

Incidentally, although apparently written recently Falline neglect to mention this brave new world pioneered by Ski Republic isn't going very well, they're in serious financial difficulty. The founder apparently still thinks it's a good business model despite loosing money and being in receivership, his CV is a former career in international finance coincidentally also full of good business models that didn't work out too well. Hopefully they'll get their problems sorted out though, ski rental can be very over priced with poor service.

Provocative thoughts, somewhat along lines of above post, coming up....

I rented skis once. Stopped a roadside kiosk on the road up to Sierra Nevada, Spain. The guy spoke no English. Had a room full of tat. And probably knew almost nothing about skis. I assume when you can talk to the hire shop guys in Austria, when they have a properly equipped workshop, and when they ski themselves, things are better. The skis did the job, and it was my fault I took a couple of nasty falls.

But at my level, as mentioned elsewhere about 150 hours skiing, I am sceptical whether I would notice the difference in equipment, really. Last week I went straight from my straightish 180cm old carvers to snowblades. Both are difficult to carve, both skid round ok, both slide sideways when you hit ice. The long skis cross more easily of course, and feel safer for schussing. But I rarely cross them (though it was hard at first), and rarely schuss.

It is a bit like hi-fi journalists and retailers, writing about all sorts of subtle sound poistioning and reveberations that no real classical concert-goer bothers with (and I do go to operas and concerts). Or a motorcylce journalist finding fine difference between a Honda 125 and a Suzuki 125, ok on the track one will be a tad quicker to accelarate, stop, corner etc. I have ridden bikes for a lving, OK one make of tyres holds better in the wet than another, but I think a lot of the reviewing is fantasy.

It is proved that assessments of wine are affected by how much you say the bottle cost. So yes there are bad skis and good skis, bad wine and good, but also a big element of fantasy, imagining one's good day or off day are down to some subtle difference in equipment, which in truth are not that relevant, unless you are racer looking for a fraction of a second.

Maybe the differences in skis, provided one has reasonable sitffness, sidecut, and length, and sharpish edges, are a lot of fantasy, fed by journalists and advertisers, in the heads of skiers who fancy themsleves as high level (with all respect to skiers, including some contributors here, who genuinely are at a high level, where different standards might apply). The really major differences and areas for improvement, are in our ski technique, not in some fancied difference in flavour from one intermediate carver to another, or between racing boots mostly used by recreational skiers.

On another point, if you are regular in the same hotel, why not chat up the host and try to get permission to leave your skis in his store room... I am in the lucky position of being able to keep my skis in Austria. Though I would not want to spend much on a pair, owing to fear of theft from outside a resort bar.

Reading that last post, it suggests the problem is not just with skis, but with your technique. It suggests you are skidding and sliding turns, and not getting onto your edges.
Different types of skis will help you to do that, but only if you try to get over on them.
Good skis do not make a good skier, but a good skier recognises the difference good skis make; thats a subtle difference.

Personally, having improved reapildy in recent years, I have noticed the difference in my own technique, coupled together with a change and step up in equipment quality, although not just quality but also aimed at different levels.

My last week was spent (mostly) on a new pair of skis, which were a lot wider underfoot than I had had before (82mm) and I noticed I had to work them a little harder on piste, but that they floated so much better in the pow. I also noticed that they are stiffer than a lot of other wider skis which I liked, but if I was not as good a skier, I would probably not have noticed that.

I dont think I can however agree that it is pure fantasy which makes a difference between skis.

ise wrote:Mostly true I think, but probably missing the point to an extent. The big name volume ski manufacturers behave like any other businesses trying to make a profit, I'm not sure why that would be surprising.

While they're making a fair point about the exact rental version being a little different from a retail one it does cut both ways, it's a bit annoying when you're repairing a pair of skis to discover how wafer thin the base is so in some ways you might prefer the rental version anyway with a thicker base. Although CD's are the same, once reassuring thick now paper thin )

Most of the skis rented out are pretty dull things anyway, there's precious little difference between most of them and there hardly needs to be most people can't tell the difference anyhow. You've got to applaud some rental outfits for being to send out customers with some mass-produced foam filled plank and convince them it's deluxe model and the sheer cheek some have with the age of their kit is unbelievable.

Mind you, if mass market skis are dull and predictable then so's ski journalism, every article just a fluff piece for some outfit or another. Particularly sad to see Fallline having fallen so low though, it was genuinely very good in the first incarnation although I should declare an interest that the founder and I are members of the same climbing club.

Quite right in what you say about journalism, I knew a guy who worked for a wellknown golf magazine testing golf clubs etc, He said that if you gave out to much negative feed back on their equipment, the magazine wouldn't get any more advertising from the manufactures. So you have too keep them sweet and not bite the hand that feeds. Not that this helps the consumer much :evil:

Innsbrucker wrote:
Maybe the differences in skis, provided one has reasonable sitffness, sidecut, and length, and sharpish edges, are a lot of fantasy, fed by journalists and advertisers, in the heads of skiers who fancy themsleves as high level (with all respect to skiers, including some contributors here, who genuinely are at a high level, where different standards might apply). The really major differences and areas for improvement, are in our ski technique, not in some fancied difference in flavour from one intermediate carver to another, or between racing boots mostly used by recreational skiers.

I think that's pretty much on the money. There's clearly a difference between a pair of race skis and a 100mm powder ski but otherwise a lot less difference than people claim to find. If you read another forum you can find them knocking lumps out of each comparing skis with nonsense speak and gobbledegook after skiing down a 15' 100m long slope in a fridge. And there's clearly difference in construction and so on. But for the 80% or so of the mass market skis there's precious little difference and what difference there is isn't going to impact your skiing much.

I think it does matter to a degree as well, it's the sort of nonsense that's used intimidate less experienced skiers which is just isn't very nice. I've skied for over 20 years, thousands of days I would guess and a hundred odd each year and I can't tell the difference between some skis and I'm not even remotely embarrassed to admit it. More than that, where I can tell the difference between the skis, for example the three pairs of Black Diamonds I use, I also know it makes not one jot of difference to my skiing, on a good day I can ski on anything and on a bad day I can't ski on anything.