This just got posted on a few of the other forums that I frequent, figured it would be appreciated here as well:
http://pmgear.com/news.php?Nid=97
HD Version:
http://www.pitonproductions.com/SkiingVids/Bro.wmv
New PMGear mini-documentary
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
Interesting vid and fun to watch. I'm sure that the Bro Model is a quality ski and rides pretty well in a variety of conditions and really well in just a few... but, I'm not much of a believer in a 'quiver of one' ski. There's just no such thing as one ski that kicks ass in all conditions and I don't quite understand why I keep hearing really experienced skiers say that they've got one.
And you know what else... just kidding. The soapbox is going back in the closet.
Oh, wait... one more thing. Those pmgear guys are going to be really sorry someday that they didn't wear their respirators. Don't ask me how I know.
G-man
And you know what else... just kidding. The soapbox is going back in the closet.
Oh, wait... one more thing. Those pmgear guys are going to be really sorry someday that they didn't wear their respirators. Don't ask me how I know.
G-man
G-man;
I fully agree with you on both points. I bought into the "quiver of one" a few years back, pure BS. Sure it works in all conditions, but it sacrifices in most to pull it off.
I've seen their "Gotta be poor to be core" video, shot in the trailerpark factory (most of the first part of this video was from that). IIRC, there were some comments on the state of the grinders and such. I think (and hope) that the have invested in some respirators, I do know that they have a wet grinder now to keep the dust down.
I fully agree with you on both points. I bought into the "quiver of one" a few years back, pure BS. Sure it works in all conditions, but it sacrifices in most to pull it off.
I've seen their "Gotta be poor to be core" video, shot in the trailerpark factory (most of the first part of this video was from that). IIRC, there were some comments on the state of the grinders and such. I think (and hope) that the have invested in some respirators, I do know that they have a wet grinder now to keep the dust down.
On the subject of "one quiver".
Really if you live in a place like Gothenburg Sweden where we dont have any sking of our own. We have to travel at least 8 hours to get decent skiing. So getting in more then 20 days isnt easy and definatly more then most get. Then a "one quiver ski" is exactly what you want.
Justifying three or four skis for 20 ski days is a luxury for the rich.
Since a "one quiver ski" is per definition a compromise then it will never be fantastic at one specific thing. Its part of the nature of compromise.
Ofcourse its better to have one speciallized ski for each condition. But if you dont have at least 40-50 ski days a year then it imho is not worth the investment.
So Im definatly buying the "one quiver thing".
Tex
Really if you live in a place like Gothenburg Sweden where we dont have any sking of our own. We have to travel at least 8 hours to get decent skiing. So getting in more then 20 days isnt easy and definatly more then most get. Then a "one quiver ski" is exactly what you want.
Justifying three or four skis for 20 ski days is a luxury for the rich.
Since a "one quiver ski" is per definition a compromise then it will never be fantastic at one specific thing. Its part of the nature of compromise.
Ofcourse its better to have one speciallized ski for each condition. But if you dont have at least 40-50 ski days a year then it imho is not worth the investment.
So Im definatly buying the "one quiver thing".
Tex
Tex,
I'm in the same situation. In high school, I lived 45 minutes to an hour and a hlaf away from two large mountains. I was an instructor for a season. I never counted, but I was out at least 3 days a week the whole season.
I've been in college for the past 4 seasons (including right now). Last year I got 5 days in, I'm up to 2 so far this year (2 more this weekend-
). I definitely can't justify buying more then 1 ski, but at the same time I hit conditions each time out where I know that a different ski would perform so much better. A compromise is what it is.
It's kind of amusing too, as the majority of the skiers who purchase a Bro model are not limited to one ski, so why are they marketed as a 1-ski quiver?
I'm in the same situation. In high school, I lived 45 minutes to an hour and a hlaf away from two large mountains. I was an instructor for a season. I never counted, but I was out at least 3 days a week the whole season.
I've been in college for the past 4 seasons (including right now). Last year I got 5 days in, I'm up to 2 so far this year (2 more this weekend-
). I definitely can't justify buying more then 1 ski, but at the same time I hit conditions each time out where I know that a different ski would perform so much better. A compromise is what it is.It's kind of amusing too, as the majority of the skiers who purchase a Bro model are not limited to one ski, so why are they marketed as a 1-ski quiver?
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that skiers should own a different ski for each different condition. More accurately, I'm saying that I think the buying public would be better served if ski makers would say that, "we designed this ski to be a great compromise ski that handles a multitude of conditions quite well", rather than promoting the 'quiver of one' thing. I have a rather large group of skiing friends, and I have often seen one of them purchase a ski because it was promoted as 'a ski for all conditions', only to be disappointed shortly after because their really wide/soft ski sucked on firm goomers, or their really stiff ski sucked in soft conditions.
Since new skis require new raw materials to be taken from the earth, and because our 'old' skis usually end up in a land fill or at the bottom of the ocean, I think it's important for all skiers to make really good and informed choices regarding ski purchases. If ski makers were more accurate in their descriptions regarding a particular ski's best uses, the buying public could then make more informed buying decisions and maybe find a ski that allowed then to own just one ski that would be a great compromise for the conditions that the skier would normally encounter. Manufacturers (and ski reviewers) promoting a product as a 'quiver of one' seems just as likely to lead to a regretful (and wasteful) purchase as a happy one.
G-man
Since new skis require new raw materials to be taken from the earth, and because our 'old' skis usually end up in a land fill or at the bottom of the ocean, I think it's important for all skiers to make really good and informed choices regarding ski purchases. If ski makers were more accurate in their descriptions regarding a particular ski's best uses, the buying public could then make more informed buying decisions and maybe find a ski that allowed then to own just one ski that would be a great compromise for the conditions that the skier would normally encounter. Manufacturers (and ski reviewers) promoting a product as a 'quiver of one' seems just as likely to lead to a regretful (and wasteful) purchase as a happy one.
G-man
g-man, you`re not suggesting it, but it would somehow be the logical consequence of what you`re saying to have to own one ski for every condition.
the ski industry is just one part - it`s a general problem called marketing to promise everything under the sun for a particular product.
so we as consumers should be aware of this and adapt our consumation decisions. for me it`s kind of logical that a so called one-quiver-ski is a compromise. i mean why are there such specific categories as GS-skis, carving skis, powder skis, fats, mid-fats etc... so it`s pretty obvious that skis which are intended to fill the gaps between those categories are literally somewhere in between them. something from both parts can`t be good in both categories
ok, you can blame the industry of beeing a bitch for marketing instead of describing exactely of what their products are able to do and what not.
but this leads straight to the next problem: who defines the characteristics of a product? we are all individuals with individual preferences, some like to ski powder fast and forward - for them a stiff ski may work great while the moderate powdersurfing fraction is too slow for the ski. of course you could take some average skier to measure the all-conditions-and-all-skiers-compatibility of a skier. but then we have to deal with the same problem as on the ski-categories: the average skier is average, and there are 50% of skiers that are "better, faster, whatever" and 50% of guys below this.
to sum it up it`s very difficult to measure individual preferences, to design a product that meets a majority of those individual preferences and finally to describe which preferences such a product fulfills.
furthermore: there are a lot of opportunities to test new equipment before buying it...and last but not least: it doesn`t matter that much what you ride, it`s more important HOW you ride it everything requires some adaption until you get used to it.
i`d declare my skis as a ski that can handle all conditions - it`s a bitch on ice, squirelly, 150mm in tip with duckstance. but i like it. and i ski it in every condition.
the ski industry is just one part - it`s a general problem called marketing to promise everything under the sun for a particular product.
so we as consumers should be aware of this and adapt our consumation decisions. for me it`s kind of logical that a so called one-quiver-ski is a compromise. i mean why are there such specific categories as GS-skis, carving skis, powder skis, fats, mid-fats etc... so it`s pretty obvious that skis which are intended to fill the gaps between those categories are literally somewhere in between them. something from both parts can`t be good in both categories
ok, you can blame the industry of beeing a bitch for marketing instead of describing exactely of what their products are able to do and what not.
but this leads straight to the next problem: who defines the characteristics of a product? we are all individuals with individual preferences, some like to ski powder fast and forward - for them a stiff ski may work great while the moderate powdersurfing fraction is too slow for the ski. of course you could take some average skier to measure the all-conditions-and-all-skiers-compatibility of a skier. but then we have to deal with the same problem as on the ski-categories: the average skier is average, and there are 50% of skiers that are "better, faster, whatever" and 50% of guys below this.
to sum it up it`s very difficult to measure individual preferences, to design a product that meets a majority of those individual preferences and finally to describe which preferences such a product fulfills.
furthermore: there are a lot of opportunities to test new equipment before buying it...and last but not least: it doesn`t matter that much what you ride, it`s more important HOW you ride it
everything requires some adaption until you get used to it.i`d declare my skis as a ski that can handle all conditions - it`s a bitch on ice, squirelly, 150mm in tip with duckstance. but i like it. and i ski it in every condition.
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
My .02
I would be willing to say that a particular ski will ski differently than the next ski of the same make and model. A good skier can ski a bad ski and make the ski work. A bad skier can take a good ski and not make it work.
I am on my fourth ski and actively ski two of them, one has little side cut and isn't much fun (for me) so I do not ski it. On good snow days i take the big fat ones otherwise I take the other ones for the groomers or hard snow.
We (at least me) started to build so I could have a ski for different conditons at a more favorable price (less the cost for tooling equipment) and to be able to say I built it!
Reguardless, Marketing is just that, a method to sell things and that is what they do. Either as a quiver of one or the best at ...
remember the days of planned obsolescence?
rockaukum
I would be willing to say that a particular ski will ski differently than the next ski of the same make and model. A good skier can ski a bad ski and make the ski work. A bad skier can take a good ski and not make it work.
I am on my fourth ski and actively ski two of them, one has little side cut and isn't much fun (for me) so I do not ski it. On good snow days i take the big fat ones otherwise I take the other ones for the groomers or hard snow.
We (at least me) started to build so I could have a ski for different conditons at a more favorable price (less the cost for tooling equipment) and to be able to say I built it!
Reguardless, Marketing is just that, a method to sell things and that is what they do. Either as a quiver of one or the best at ...
remember the days of planned obsolescence?
rockaukum
more $0.02... I started by building a quiver of skis for different conditions, then I fell in love with the reverse side-cut spatula type skis after a couple days on them. So, now when I go skiing, I just grab "The Future", my spatula skis, and enjoy the challenge of navigating them through all conditions.
As a side note, it is surprising how bizarre a ski shape can be and still be enjoyably skied.
As a side note, it is surprising how bizarre a ski shape can be and still be enjoyably skied.
that`s exactely what i mean greg.
i mean... we all are skibuilders, so there is no limitation to building as many skis for as many special conditions as a man can imagine. and even with an on-mountain accomodation with huge storage for all sorts of gear i never ever wanted to change my ride in the middle of a day. maybe i`m just a lazy ass...but i personally prefer to ski a ski all the time so that i know how this particular ski acts and reacts in all the different conditions rather than switching skis all the time and every time i`m on an other ski it takes some time until i regain the feeling for how it skis.
i`ve got 3 pairs of bindings on 3 different skis, but i just ski my newest pair. and the one with touring bindings on, but very seldomly. from my point of view this is the only "exception" that leads to several pairs of skis. but not because of the skis but because touring bindings suck for normal alpine skiing
i mean... we all are skibuilders, so there is no limitation to building as many skis for as many special conditions as a man can imagine. and even with an on-mountain accomodation with huge storage for all sorts of gear i never ever wanted to change my ride in the middle of a day. maybe i`m just a lazy ass...but i personally prefer to ski a ski all the time so that i know how this particular ski acts and reacts in all the different conditions rather than switching skis all the time and every time i`m on an other ski it takes some time until i regain the feeling for how it skis.
i`ve got 3 pairs of bindings on 3 different skis, but i just ski my newest pair. and the one with touring bindings on, but very seldomly. from my point of view this is the only "exception" that leads to several pairs of skis. but not because of the skis but because touring bindings suck for normal alpine skiing
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
G-Man
I just want to point out a even more horrible name in that case and its the "all mountain" skis that the big manufacturers are selling. Im thinking of skis such as the Nordica Hot Rod series. They are fantastic skis but they are really just a fat carver that can do pow just because a fat tip keeps it floating. But in fact its not a all mountain ski its a pist racer that can venture offpist.
The "quvier of one" skis such as Bros, Line Prophet 100, Völkl Mantra, ect at least preform relativly well in all conditions. But as you say the marketing is more great in all conditions then can handle all conditions relativly well. This obviously is totally wrong.
Most of them excel in 30cm deep snow (not pow) that is tracked. This at most big euro resorts is what you get if you get deep stuff.
But what I want to get to is that the information is not given to the buyer by the manufacturer its given by the retailer and there are soo many clueless retailers out there. They only read the brochures and have no idea on how the ski performs so they arnt competent enough to provide you with info.
When buying my Goodhas I was out lookin for a fat pow ski that is primarily to be used in the trees. This ski was to complement my Karmas and bring a softer, FAT and more agile complement to my quiver. Note that I also gave the criteria not made by K2 Sports (as they are under boycot for moving Völkl to china).
I go to the three competent dealers in town and I get offered these skis:
*Atomic Suggar Daddy
*Dynastar Legend Pro
*Movement Goliath
*Salomon XWing Lab
*Scott P4
*Völkl Mantra (even though I said no K2 Sports)
*Völkl Gotama (even though I said no K2 Sports)
*Völkl Unlimited AC40 (HELLO!?!?!?!?!!?!?!)
The list is laughable and the P4 is propably the only ski that should be on the list.
Tex
I just want to point out a even more horrible name in that case and its the "all mountain" skis that the big manufacturers are selling. Im thinking of skis such as the Nordica Hot Rod series. They are fantastic skis but they are really just a fat carver that can do pow just because a fat tip keeps it floating. But in fact its not a all mountain ski its a pist racer that can venture offpist.
The "quvier of one" skis such as Bros, Line Prophet 100, Völkl Mantra, ect at least preform relativly well in all conditions. But as you say the marketing is more great in all conditions then can handle all conditions relativly well. This obviously is totally wrong.
Most of them excel in 30cm deep snow (not pow) that is tracked. This at most big euro resorts is what you get if you get deep stuff.
But what I want to get to is that the information is not given to the buyer by the manufacturer its given by the retailer and there are soo many clueless retailers out there. They only read the brochures and have no idea on how the ski performs so they arnt competent enough to provide you with info.
When buying my Goodhas I was out lookin for a fat pow ski that is primarily to be used in the trees. This ski was to complement my Karmas and bring a softer, FAT and more agile complement to my quiver. Note that I also gave the criteria not made by K2 Sports (as they are under boycot for moving Völkl to china).
I go to the three competent dealers in town and I get offered these skis:
*Atomic Suggar Daddy
*Dynastar Legend Pro
*Movement Goliath
*Salomon XWing Lab
*Scott P4
*Völkl Mantra (even though I said no K2 Sports)
*Völkl Gotama (even though I said no K2 Sports)
*Völkl Unlimited AC40 (HELLO!?!?!?!?!!?!?!)
The list is laughable and the P4 is propably the only ski that should be on the list.
Tex
-
Wannabebuilder
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:22 am
well. I actually ride a pair of 188 bro protos.
I absolutely love this ski in all conditions. It rocks.
The only time I want another ski is in extremely deep blower, wetter snow or wind affected/variable snow.
The only thing I would want is a spat type.
That's why I will build.
The ski I have is very light and well balanced, and stiff/damp, really is great for all conditions but you have to know how to drive it, just like my beat up jeep with 250,000 Miles.
It helps to live where the snow is really fugin awesome
I absolutely love this ski in all conditions. It rocks.
The only time I want another ski is in extremely deep blower, wetter snow or wind affected/variable snow.
The only thing I would want is a spat type.
That's why I will build.
The ski I have is very light and well balanced, and stiff/damp, really is great for all conditions but you have to know how to drive it, just like my beat up jeep with 250,000 Miles.
It helps to live where the snow is really fugin awesome