Every time I think I should give Ski or Skiing Magazine another chance to entertain or inform me, they come up with another reason to dump their rags in the recycling bin. Read their "2013 Ski Test" lineup blurb. To quote: Quote: "You’ll notice that some companies get more skis than others. It’s a controversial approach among the manufacturers who get fewer entries, but we do it for the reader. The number of skis allowed each brand is based on two factors: market share and performance in last year’s test. By factoring in market share, we reflect what’s actually out there in the shops. (No use giving a ski a Gold Medal if you can’t find it for sale anywhere.) By factoring in past-year’s performance, we reward companies, however small, for doing well in the test—because we want to focus on the good skis and waste less time on the dogs. In the end, doing well in the test is the quickest way for a brand to get more skis in next year’s test, which should in turn help them to sell more skis and gain larger market share. Makes sense to us." This pisses me off to no end. "Do it for the reader"? Are you frigging kidding me? There are nearly 300 OTHER ski companies out there besides Atomic, Blizzard, Head, K2, Volkl, Dynastar, Nordica, Rossignol...etc. Sure, the big ski companies can make some kick-ass skis, and I like them just fine, but to limit the test universe based on market share, "performance in last year's test" and availability in retail stores is a serious disservice to the skiing population out there. With direct-to-consumer sales from hundreds of websites (should we name a few innovators like Praxis, DPS, ON3P or not?), the idea of limiting the test field like that tells me Ski Magazine has no clue about the kick-ass skis made by small businesses out there. Personally, I like the idea of giving my hundreds of dollars per-pair of skis to someone I can email or call on the phone, knowing that money goes toward paying their bills and feeding their families without huge corporate overhead sucking up a chunk of that cash. With tons of people wanting to "buy local" and "support small companies" these days (for good reason in my book), limiting a field of ski companies in an annual test to the criteria stated at Ski Magazine is seriously deficient and serves to perpetuate ignorance in the buying population. I am all for shopping at small shops and supporting small shops, and nearly every small company will put their product in shops if they are asked and a reasonable profit can be had by all, so the "available in shops" argument rings hollow with me. Case in point: The new Blossom Skis importer told me the total time from customer inquiry to delivery of the ski to the skier's door was 8 days, even when the ski had to be sourced from the factory in Italy. In this day and age, you can get nearly anything you want very quickly. They did include Goode and Line (a rep told me this month that Line expects to press 30,000 pairs of skis this season..so they are not really "small"..being under the K2 corporate organization), but that really does not cut it. Ski Mag should rename their test "2013 Skis from the largest companies". Anyway...just venting....I knew I should ignore Ski and Skiing Magazine (again)....but the criteria just burns my biscuits...