Why not talking of the real things?

[Rodbelan]

On youtube, I see lots of marketing bull about nordic BC skis. The presenters never talk about camber (height and stiffness) nor are talking about overall flex, nor nordic camber... I am amazed. Marketing is almost never product oriented... I was a little angry at one video made by Fischer about their nordic skis... You can see in my comments; they actually deleted it. I wrote another one, more gentle. They left it there and post back my older deleted comment. I take that as a compliment; they probably think that, after all, I am not a bad guy

[CwmRaider]

Exactly!
Look at the Fischer website!
There is not even basic data on ski dimensions. Ridiculous...
https://www.fischersports.com/excursion ... n/skin-333

[Blackbeard Ben]

Even on the manufacturers' website some of the basic specs are often missing.

I get that camber is a bit harder to understand than just lengths, weights, widths, and sidecut, so from a marketing perspective I understand why it is often left out - even if it doesn't make sense from a knowledgeable user's point of view (and I'm still a novice just learning).

But look at a couple of examples:

Fisher's website: They give lengths, and a weight for one length, but don't even tell you the sidecut - let alone anything about the camber or flex. There's plenty of marketing spiel about the waxless kick pattern and easy skins though.

Alpina's website: They give a length range - for some skis only - and that's it. No weights, no sidecut, camber, anything.

Madshus is a bit better; at least they have sidecut listed.

Do they prefer dealers to explain it? That may have made sense 20 or even 10 years ago, but this is an increasingly online connected world where that just doesn't cut it anymore.

The situation for boots is similar. I know skiing- especially BC skiing - remains a fairly small market - but that's no excuse.

It may be the case that since no one company yet puts attention into providing all the information online, none of the others bother. When one finally does - all the rest will have to compete to some degree. Look at bicycle manufacturers - more and more are putting full geometry and component specs online than ever before.

[Blackbeard Ben]

Exactly!
Look at the Fischer website!
There is not even basic data on ski dimensions. Ridiculous...
https://www.fischersports.com/excursion ... n/skin-333

Haha, you beat me to it! Exactly!

[Rodbelan]

Promotion and marketing department are thinking: «You like the graphics and the blob? Good! Buy that ski and shut the fuck up!» Marketing is a real poison!

[lowangle al]

If they’re not talking about real things maybe there not real skis.

[lilcliffy]

I think that manufacturers should first and foremost articulate what the intended use is of the ski:
- terrain
- snow
- boot-binding

Second- try and describe the geometry, flex and camber-rocker profile- and most importantly augment this with photos and video of all of this.

Rigid classifications like "single-camber", "double-camber", "camber-and-a-half", "hybrid-rocker", "early-tip-rise"- and on and on- are not universal and may not be helpful on their own.

A recent example-

I was kinda surprised- but pleased to see how "low" (in a relatvive sense) the "camber" was of Laurence's Amundsen BC.
The "camber" of Laurence's Amundsen BC appears very close to the Gamme 54- and even the Ingstad/Combat Nato (and perhaps Nansen?)- but I have no doubt that not only the geometry but the flex pattern of the Amundsen is very different than all of these other skis- ESPECIALLY when Ben states that the 201cm Amundsen is a bit much for him and he would be better on a shorter length...

Intended use is the most important thing.

I would love to own a 188cm Voile V6 (heck I would love to own a 193cm V8!)- but I don't have local access to the terrain and snow where either of those skis would work for me...
The 178cm V6 is the ski I need to be looking at for my intended use- downhill BC skiing in forested ravines and glades in the Northeast.

So- back around my mental wheel- descriptions of geometry are not that useful without descriptions of intended use.