FS: Blizzard SL Magnesium 165

[Philpug]

I picked up a pair for myself and I know where there is another pair. These are FIS legal skis and real beefy. The Vist system is awesome and bulletproof. Bindings are a 6-14 DIN.

 

These skis have less than 2 days on them. $400.00

[AtomicSkier]

Why do you ski on skis for two days, and then sell them? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to demo the skis for two days. It's the same thing, minus a few hundred.

 

As for the skis, who, that is serious about skiing, skis on Blizzards.

[toast21602]

As for the skis, who, that is serious about skiing, skis on Blizzards.

 

 

hahahahahahahaha. you speak the truth.

[Philpug]

Why do you ski on skis for two days, and then sell them? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to demo the skis for two days. It's the same thing, minus a few hundred.

 

As for the skis, who, that is serious about skiing, skis on Blizzards.

I have skied on skis for one run, then sold them. I have sold skis that I bought before I even took them out of the wrappers.

 

 

As far as not being a serious skier skiing Blizzards. The level of intelligence is remarkable here.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Philpug

[AtomicSkier]

I guess my question is, WHY? Can you give me a solid answer why you buy so many skis, and sell them so quickly? It takes me a few days to REALLY get into a ski, to explore its limits, know its weaknesses, see where it shines, and what conditions its best in. And you ski so infrequently, that skiing the same ski is like skiing a new one each time because you don't ski everyday. Maybe your skiing would improve if you start worrying about technique, and less about gear. You have the Papacheese syndrom.

[Ski]

Well, let's take a dispassionate look at Blizzard versus other ski brands.

 

As Phil will tell you, World Cup skis are nothing like the skis off the rack, or even the "race room" versions we buy off of eBay. However, every testing that manufacturers perform are done on the World Cup level. The World Cup is the testing ground because that's where gear is put to it's limits, from base temperatures to lateral force to high impacts. Reagan liked to call these things the Trickle Down Effect...Head, for instance, may not hand you Bode's skis, but the recreational Head customer will directly benefit from the things Bode had done to his skis this year.

 

Here are the current rankings for women World Cup racers on each brand:

 

 

Rank-Brand----Points

1 Atomic 3240.00

2 Rossignol 2080.00

3 Voelkl 1800.00

4 Head 755.00

5 Salomon 630.00

6 Dynastar 235.00

7 Fischer 140.00

8 Blizzard 125.00

 

Does this mean that Blizzard skis for women suck? Not necessarily. It does mean that Blizzard has lower level athletes on their skis, so Blizzard isn't getting the same feedback as Atomic or Rossignol. So it's much harder for Blizzard to keep up.

 

As for the mens rankings on the World Cup:

 

Rank--Brand---Points

1 Atomic 3880.00

2 Head 1550.00

3 Fischer 1500.00

4 Rossignol 875.00

5 Salomon 475.00

6 Dynastar 430.00

7 Nordica 150.00

8 Voelkl 60.00

9 Stoeckli 50.00

10 Elan 40.00

 

Blizzard is getting zero feedback from top racers.

 

Bottom line: maybe some nice things were said about Blizzard skis in the Ski Mag Gear Guide, but if you've ever seen mass ski testing being done, you sure wouldn't trust your $700 on it. I'd go with the real data and not some instructors opinion of a race ski on a April afternoon in corn snow.

 

So I agree with Phil: "The level of intelligence is remarkable here."

Edited February 18, 2007 by ski

[Metz the Jersey boy]

Just throwing in my $.02 here... Blizzard does make a race ski. fact. Their skis can be skied quite fast. I believe Bartek owns a pair that he races on.

 

Do ski's stats point to one ski being a better ski than another? In some ways yes, but in other ways deceptively yes. Is Atomic the best race ski on the market? As much as it pains me to say so, more than likely I'd have to say yes. They get feedback from the best racers in the world on their skis. If Blizzard was getting feedback from (and had the money to pay) the Hermanator, Bode, Daron Rhalves, and the US women, Blizzard might have a shot at the title.

 

Nordica is very low on the list amongst mens skis. Are they a bad ski? No way, I love both of my pairs to death. They have a reputation as being a ski with amazing hard snow edge grip, but at the same time are REALLY stiff and unforgiving. There are simply different reasons to ski different brands of race skis.

 

To get back on topic: is Blizzard a bad race ski? well, you're better off on their SL skis than on a pair of Atomic Eye-Sores sorry, I mean Izors, or Goodes in a race. But very, very, VERY few serious racers or skiers for that matter will be found on a pair of budget oriented Blizzards.

 

My take on things: Blizzards suck and feel like cardboard and are stiff in all the wrong places.

Don't get me started on Goode skis as Phil will end up backed into a corner. (they should never be mounted with anything but a backcountry binding system and used for such a purpose)

 

wow... what a rant. anyways, I'm done now.

[splooshie]

the worlds best racers only say atomics the best because they get paid the most money by them. that and there the sponsors of the usa ski team.

 

im my opinion, fischer makes the best race skis. heres my list.

 

1.fischer

2.volkl

3.rossignol

4.atomic

5.k2

6.nordica

7.salomon

8.elan

9.dynastar

10.blizzard

[AtomicSkier]

That may be your opinion, but I'd rank Elan race skis much higher up, and K2 much lower. The SLX and GSX from Elan are pretty nice skis. I wouldn't ski Atomics unless they were, imo, the best.

[splooshie]

That may be your opinion, but I'd rank Elan race skis much higher up, and K2 much lower. The SLX and GSX from Elan are pretty nice skis. I wouldn't ski Atomics unless they were, imo, the best.

 

your right about the elans. but, alot of whats good about a ski is if it has YOUR OWN prefrences. i think atomic makes pretty stiff skis, and thats good for racing and all, but its all about personal prefrences. i dont really like stiff skis , even for racing.

[AtomicSkier]

aren't stiff skis good for racing???

 

Yes...My SL skis are 37/25 which is mofo stiff....my GS skis are 48/38, the GS skis being softer, but they're the perfect flex for a 200lb guy on 183's. Any softer then that would not be suited for real racing.

[Ski]

the worlds best racers only say atomics the best because they get paid the most money by them. that and there the sponsors of the usa ski team.

 

IMO, you're right and you're wrong. It's a little like the chicken or the egg arguement.

 

Look at it this way: would a top World Cup racer in the height of his career switch to an inferior ski just for the money? Keep in mind, that downhill races cannot be won on an inferior ski---in fact, only the very best skis of a particular line have a chance on most courses. For example, only the top Atomic racers ever see the skis with the fastest bases. So if a top racer switches to a crappy company for the money, his future earnings are over.

 

But skis are constantly getting better---there is constant change going on. And the top racers are the one's making it happen. They are the testers with each race run and each training day. So if Atomic is paying the most to the athletes, then they are getting the best feedback for research and development.

 

And you are 100% right with your list, because it's your list. If that's what you like, then that's what you like.

 

I don't like Volkl skis, but have bought six pair for my oldest daughter. If every ski worked for the same way for every person, we'd either only have one ski manufacturer, or they'd all be making the same exact ski.

[splooshie]

IMO, you're right and you're wrong. It's a little like the chicken or the egg arguement.

 

Look at it this way: would a top World Cup racer in the height of his career switch to an inferior ski just for the money? Keep in mind, that downhill races cannot be won on an inferior ski---in fact, only the very best skis of a particular line have a chance on most courses. For example, only the top Atomic racers ever see the skis with the fastest bases. So if a top racer switches to a crappy company for the money, his future earnings are over.

 

But skis are constantly getting better---there is constant change going on. And the top racers are the one's making it happen. They are the testers with each race run and each training day. So if Atomic is paying the most to the athletes, then they are getting the best feedback for research and development.

 

And you are 100% right with your list, because it's your list. If that's what you like, then that's what you like.

 

I don't like Volkl skis, but have bought six pair for my oldest daughter. If every ski worked for the same way for every person, we'd either only have one ski manufacturer, or they'd all be making the same exact ski.

 

[First Grade Teacher]

the worlds best racers only say atomics the best because they get paid the most money by them. that and there the sponsors of the usa ski team.

 

BINGO!

Edited February 27, 2007 by First Grade Teacher

[First Grade Teacher]

Yes...My SL skis are 37/25 which is mofo stiff....my GS skis are 48/38, the GS skis being softer, but they're the perfect flex for a 200lb guy on 183's. Any softer then that would not be suited for real racing.

 

Stiffer isn't always better! What's real racing?

[First Grade Teacher]

Well, let's take a dispassionate look at Blizzard versus other ski brands.

 

As Phil will tell you, World Cup skis are nothing like the skis off the rack, or even the "race room" versions we buy off of eBay. However, every testing that manufacturers perform are done on the World Cup level. The World Cup is the testing ground because that's where gear is put to it's limits, from base temperatures to lateral force to high impacts. Reagan liked to call these things the Trickle Down Effect...Head, for instance, may not hand you Bode's skis, but the recreational Head customer will directly benefit from the things Bode had done to his skis this year.

 

Here are the current rankings for women World Cup racers on each brand:

Rank-Brand----Points

1 Atomic 3240.00

2 Rossignol 2080.00

3 Voelkl 1800.00

4 Head 755.00

5 Salomon 630.00

6 Dynastar 235.00

7 Fischer 140.00

8 Blizzard 125.00

 

Does this mean that Blizzard skis for women suck? Not necessarily. It does mean that Blizzard has lower level athletes on their skis, so Blizzard isn't getting the same feedback as Atomic or Rossignol. So it's much harder for Blizzard to keep up.

 

As for the mens rankings on the World Cup:

 

Rank--Brand---Points

1 Atomic 3880.00

2 Head 1550.00

3 Fischer 1500.00

4 Rossignol 875.00

5 Salomon 475.00

6 Dynastar 430.00

7 Nordica 150.00

8 Voelkl 60.00

9 Stoeckli 50.00

10 Elan 40.00

 

Blizzard is getting zero feedback from top racers.

 

Bottom line: maybe some nice things were said about Blizzard skis in the Ski Mag Gear Guide, but if you've ever seen mass ski testing being done, you sure wouldn't trust your $700 on it. I'd go with the real data and not some instructors opinion of a race ski on a April afternoon in corn snow.

 

So I agree with Phil: "The level of intelligence is remarkable here."

 

This assessment is bullshit! Just because an athlete is doing well on a particular product has no relevance as to the quality of that or any other product. Just because an athlete has a bad year doesn't necessarily mean his equipment sucks. Bode had an off year last year. Does that mean Atomic was crap last year? NO! Salomon will stop selling race skis next year. Is it because they have no good racers? NO!

[AtomicSkier]

Stiffer isn't always better! What's real racing?

 

You wouldn't know.

[First Grade Teacher]

You wouldn't know.

 

I know! The only thing I know is that I don't know anything! I google all this shit.