From: sergei@is.morgan.com (Sergei Poliakoff)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:23:30 GMT

|> >1) original Rossi 4SK, a meek intermediate ski sold to general public as 
|> >	the top-level high-performance  ski, while racers used a same-graphics
|> >	"real" 4SK.

|> This is normal practise by every ski company.  Race stock skis are simply
|> not available to the public.  Well, actually you can get them, but it comes
|> under the category of "if you need to ask how..."  In fact with the 4S (and
|> probably the 7S now) Rossignol had three different molds (ie three different
|> sidecuts) available, plus were able to vary the flex and flex distribution
|> for each deserving racer, so there isn't really a single ski which could
|> be called the "real" 4S/7S.

That's fine , except Rossignol marketing  implies that you  and Tomba
basically get the same skis.
At least one company , Volkl,  makes no distinction between 
what is sold to the public and what it supplies racers with.

As far as ".. race stock skis are not available to the public.. " goes,
this  is OK, as long as public is aware of it;  in reality,
ski companies in collusion with ski press do everything possible
to convince public of the opposite.

In particular, use of exceedingly expensive materials and consequent 
escalation of cost is explained away by the demanding racing  requirements,
which , as it turns out, do not apply to the specimens sold to us.

|> >2) Edgar winning his mogul Gold  on Dynastar Coupe Du Mond's  covered 
|> >	with Vertical topskin.
|> 
|> Sure, personal preference.  That doesn't say that the Assault is a poor
|> mogul ski, but just that Grospiron prefers the SL.  No problem there.

The problem is that everybody thinks that he  skis  and prefers Assaults.
Grospiron prefers SL, but Dynastar wants YOU to prefer Assault,
and uses a primitive card trick  to win you preference.

The analogy that comes to mind is Volvo's commercial in which a 
Monster Truck rode over several cars and smashed them all except the
Volvo ; it turned out the car in commercial  had specially reinforced 
body.

|> >3) This is an arguable one : upward binding release on high-end bindings.  
|> >	In my experience, I have'n seen a single case when the binding
|> >	would release upwards. 
|> 
|> In 7 seasons of skiing on Look's ZRC/Z Racing bindings I have had one
|> fall where the release mode was predominantly upwards.  In the Look
|> design the upward release adds nothing to the complexity of the design,
|> nor the weight, so I see no disadvantage to the feature.  This may not
|> necessarily apply to other more complex designs.

I didn't realize Look had upward release for 7 years now. 
I don't mean "somewhat-upward" releases supported in most older bindings,
but the current trend of having the toe flip out completely out of 
the way.  There are definitely falls in which there is substantial
upward component, but if your binding didn't have the flip-out toe,
wouldn't it release anyway ? 
Anyway, I find it rather hard to believe that such feature adds nothing to 
the complexity of the design. Besides, if it doesn't, why is it then so 
much more expensive ?

The fundamental  problem is that this industry, BS-ridden like
many others,  has no independ publication to keep it in check, and it 
shows. It is impossible to tell the difference between the manufacturers'
advertisements and magazin's own articles in SKI or SKIING.


Sergei



Sergei

Newsgroups: rec.skiing