New Salomon Boots?

Bjorn A. Payne Diaz wrote:

You gotta use the boots that fit best since they will give the most
control. ...

I agree totally - there is no more important consideration.

As I talked with the guys at Joe's Ski Shop, they make it sound like
the Salomon Carbons don't sell particularly well, and that the Race 9's
sell well. They've also sold a lot of Fischers. If you take that as a
sampling of foot width (narrow, normal, wide), and the fact that
Salomon is making the Carbons wider, it's hard to ignore that I have a
narrow foot. When I talk with the Fischer guys about this, they say not
to sweat the details and that Fischer will have a narrower version of
their boot next year.

My personal and of course humble opinion is that 99% (OK, it might be
90%) of the reason Skate 9's outsell the Carbons is price point pure
and simple. Unless cost is no object, I believe the average, serious
skier just hasn't seen any adbantage to the design in terms of weight
and performance. I mean, look at the top of the line boots from the
various manufacturers (skating), All of these are used by successful
racers (probably depending exclusively on sponsorship deals, not fit
nor performance):

Carbon $349
Atomic RS Elite $250
Fischer Centrex: $299
Salomon Racing 9: $289
Rossy Xium: $289

It is quite obvious to me that they have set the Carbon price point at
quite a premium. People are willing to pay a premium for two reasons:
(1) it is actually functionally better (in terms of performance or fit)
and (2) status (we can put "style" with that). I believe that most
(note I didn't say all), even quite serious skiers just don't see an
advantage over any of the other top of the line boots. - UNLESS it
happens to be the best fit. Frankly, I will be surprised if changing
the last makes them sell a lot better. Maybe a little better, but the
premium pricing will still be there and unless there is a tangible
advantage to the design, why pay it? All of the other boots are
excellent as well. I've never had any one tell me anything credible
why Carbons are *intrinsically* better, worth the premium price.


One more twist in the equation, is that Fischer has consistently had an
elevated heel compared to Salomon (or Salomon has a lower heel compared
to Fischer). I don't hear people talk about that much, but it's
something you should be aware of....the literature talks about a more
"active" position for the Fischer. Sometime I'll have to demo some
Alpina and Rossi boots just to see where these guys fall into range of
boots out there.

It seems to me that Fischer has come up with a truely different boot in
terms of a different design as well as light weight. Why don't they
set their price at a premium level?

Just discussing, and am interested in others' opinions.

I spent the weekend with a technically excellent skier (Ride & Glide
instructor) who says that in switching to the Carbons (vs. Race 9),
he's found it easier to get a flat ski (e.g., V1). He attributes
it to the softer shell, especially laterally.

Gene

"Camilo" wrote:


Bjorn A. Payne Diaz wrote:

You gotta use the boots that fit best since they will give the most
control. ...

I agree totally - there is no more important consideration.

As I talked with the guys at Joe's Ski Shop, they make it sound like
the Salomon Carbons don't sell particularly well, and that the Race
9's sell well. They've also sold a lot of Fischers. If you take
that as a sampling of foot width (narrow, normal, wide), and the
fact that Salomon is making the Carbons wider, it's hard to ignore
that I have a narrow foot. When I talk with the Fischer guys about
this, they say not to sweat the details and that Fischer will have
a narrower version of their boot next year.

My personal and of course humble opinion is that 99% (OK, it might be
90%) of the reason Skate 9's outsell the Carbons is price point pure
and simple. Unless cost is no object, I believe the average, serious
skier just hasn't seen any adbantage to the design in terms of weight
and performance. I mean, look at the top of the line boots from the
various manufacturers (skating), All of these are used by successful
racers (probably depending exclusively on sponsorship deals, not fit
nor performance):

Carbon $349
Atomic RS Elite $250
Fischer Centrex: $299
Salomon Racing 9: $289
Rossy Xium: $289

It is quite obvious to me that they have set the Carbon price point at
quite a premium. People are willing to pay a premium for two reasons:
(1) it is actually functionally better (in terms of performance or
fit) and (2) status (we can put "style" with that). I believe that
most (note I didn't say all), even quite serious skiers just don't
see an advantage over any of the other top of the line boots. -
UNLESS it happens to be the best fit. Frankly, I will be surprised if
changing the last makes them sell a lot better. Maybe a little
better, but the premium pricing will still be there and unless there
is a tangible advantage to the design, why pay it? All of the other
boots are excellent as well. I've never had any one tell me anything
credible why Carbons are *intrinsically* better, worth the premium
price.


One more twist in the equation, is that Fischer has consistently
had an elevated heel compared to Salomon (or Salomon has a lower
heel compared to Fischer). I don't hear people talk about that
much, but it's something you should be aware of....the literature
talks about a more "active" position for the Fischer. Sometime I'll
have to demo some Alpina and Rossi boots just to see where these
guys fall into range of boots out there.

It seems to me that Fischer has come up with a truely different boot
in terms of a different design as well as light weight. Why don't
they set their price at a premium level?

Just discussing, and am interested in others' opinions.

"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote:

Gene,
...
One more tidbit (since you always talk about sponsorship clouding
opinions). At my ability, there's nothing free from Fischer or Swix.
Actually, Fischer expects some work for the modest discounts they
give. My clothes, skis, boots, etc come from pretty much from working
overtime. There's plenty of fast skiers out there with their hands
out, and I think the ski companies get tired of that. They do take
notice when skiers offer to do a wax clinic or run a demo. Like they
say, there's no free lunch.

Jay Wenner


Jay,
Sponsorship didn't even cross my mind. You've always been straight
about what works and doesn't, and up front about your sponsorships,
for whatever they get you. In this case, I had heard the Fischer boots
didn't work.

Gene

Camilo wrote:
My personal and of course humble opinion is that 99% (OK, it might be
90%) of the reason Skate 9's outsell the Carbons is price point pure
and simple.

I have a hard time commenting on the Skate 9 since I haven't tried
them, but there is a large difference between the Salomon bumble bee
Pilots and the Carbons or the Fischer Centrix. I can't quite explain
it, but the bumble bee Pilots are an clumsy boot because of how they
lock your ankle in. The Carbon boot is much better in this regard (but
I can't explain why from a mechincal point of view), and of course the
Fischer completely releases the ankle. I can train in a bumble bee, but
I find it hard to race in this boot. It's just not nimble and seem to
have too much mechanical stuff directing the ankle flex. So I feel the
Carbons and bumble bees are completely different boots, and the Fischer
is even more nimble and closer related to the Carbons (in this regard)
than the bumble bees. (Width is a whole different story.) This freeing
of the ankle is a big selling point of the Fischers, but I guess you
have to have some skiing background, or the freedom can be a problem.
Also, the boot has to fit _really_ well, or the extra freedom can be a
problem with control. Double-edged sword I guess. I think this is
another reason why people who fit in the Fischers just love 'em (and
I've heard similar things about the Carbons). I don't hear that about
the Skate 9s.

Jay Wenner

Thanks for the information. It just shows my ignorance as to the
actual characteristics of the boots in question. I still tend to think
that the price point is a significant reason why the Carbon isn't
selling all that well, however the performance issues you've described
are definitely worth considering - and paying for if appropriate. If
any boot fits better and seems to perform better (a tough call for
those of us who can't demo boots), I would tend to spend the extra
money. If/when I shop for new skate boots, I'll do what I did with my
classics - try on every pair of top line boots available and make the
decision based on that. Thanks again for the info.

Camilo wrote:
Thanks for the information. It just shows my ignorance as to the
actual characteristics of the boots in question. I still tend to think
that the price point is a significant reason why the Carbon isn't
selling all that well, however the performance issues you've described
are definitely worth considering - and paying for if appropriate. If
any boot fits better and seems to perform better (a tough call for
those of us who can't demo boots), I would tend to spend the extra
money. If/when I shop for new skate boots, I'll do what I did with my
classics - try on every pair of top line boots available and make the
decision based on that. Thanks again for the info.

I think you need to ski them, not just try boots on. I pretty much
agree with everything Bjorn D Wenner had to say about the
characteristics of each boot, and yep, I have skied them all. I also
tried the Xiums for a season, and they were definitely OK, but something
just wasn't quite 'right'. At this point, I've got last year's Fischer
9000 skate boots, and 3 y.o. Carbon Classics. I've done enough
inline/ice speed skating to really appreciate the ankle flex, and I
really do like the forward position of the Fischers. My 'case mods' are
sufficient to make them work OK for me for another year or two, at which
point, I'm sure somethign really cool will surface for me to spend my
money on.
As my Carbon Classics are nearing EOL as a competition boot (cuff is
wearing out, a couple of pole induced tears, etc. I'll start looking to
replace them at the end of this season. They'll still be good enough
for rollerskiing, but I would like a new pair of boots for next year's
race season. I've heard rumours of a couple of interesting things from
a couple of vendors for the Olympic campaign, but nothing I want to pay
retail for.
Oh yeah, the things I really like about the Carbon skate:
-it feels like an old running flat (and darn near as warm)
-the Salomon lace is the best of breed (I put them in my Fischers)
-even though the cuff is a pain, there's no zipper mark on my ankle at
the end of the day.

Salomon and their dealers say the Race 9 is the same as the bumblebees,
just a different cover design. I think you are onto key issues about
all the stuff around the ankle, as well as the lower heel of the
Salomons. I always feel like I'm fighting the boot. Those similar lap
times I mentioned indicate to me that the Fischer's flex allowed me to
make up on the flats and rolling sections what they lost to the
bumblebees on Elm Creek's few 'hills.' It gives me an idea to play a
bit with heel lift in the bumblebees. I'm finding the last of the
Salomon combi quite comfortable for striding, but don't know how it
would work for skating. Helpful discussion.

Gene Goldenfeld


"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" wrote:


Camilo wrote:
My personal and of course humble opinion is that 99% (OK, it might
be 90%) of the reason Skate 9's outsell the Carbons is price point
pure and simple.

I have a hard time commenting on the Skate 9 since I haven't tried
them, but there is a large difference between the Salomon bumble bee
Pilots and the Carbons or the Fischer Centrix. I can't quite explain
it, but the bumble bee Pilots are an clumsy boot because of how they
lock your ankle in. The Carbon boot is much better in this regard (but
I can't explain why from a mechincal point of view), and of course the
Fischer completely releases the ankle. I can train in a bumble bee,
but I find it hard to race in this boot. It's just not nimble and
seem to have too much mechanical stuff directing the ankle flex. So I
feel the Carbons and bumble bees are completely different boots, and
the Fischer is even more nimble and closer related to the Carbons (in
this regard) than the bumble bees. (Width is a whole different
story.) This freeing of the ankle is a big selling point of the
Fischers, but I guess you have to have some skiing background, or the
freedom can be a problem. Also, the boot has to fit _really_ well, or
the extra freedom can be a problem with control. Double-edged sword I
guess. I think this is another reason why people who fit in the
Fischers just love 'em (and I've heard similar things about the
Carbons). I don't hear that about the Skate 9s.

Jay Wenner