Gear Reviews are (and always have been) an important part of PowderGuide. The aim has never been to test everything the market has to offer. That would not be possible nowadays anyway due to the abundance of suitable winter sports and outdoor equipment. Instead, we try to test new and innovative, or simply very good and proven products that are (hopefully) of interest to as many PowderGuide readers as possible.
The internet is teeming with test reports on outdoor equipment and most of them don't actually tell you exactly what you're looking at. We therefore want to briefly explain who at PowderGuide tests what, how and why.
What do we test and where do we get the material from?
A large proportion of the test material is provided to PowderGuide by the partner companies as part of the co-operation. This does not mean that we carry out paid tests, as is not uncommon in the industry (these would hardly be independent), but simply that we test material from our partners more frequently. If you follow PowderGuide, you've probably already noticed that other manufacturers regularly provide us with equipment for testing. In general, we try to test as much and as interesting material as possible, although we don't usually buy much material specifically for testing.
It is always clearly stated in the test reports whether the tester received the material from the manufacturer on a permanent or loan basis, or paid for it out of their own pocket (possibly at a discount). As a rule, no tests are carried out by persons with a close relationship to the manufacturer (employees, team riders, sisters-in-law, etc.), or if they are, this is also stated.
Who are the testers?
The testers on PowderGuide are as diverse as the snow sports. In addition to the members of the editorial team, you will find ski tourers, splitboarders and freeriders from all areas of the Alps. What they all have in common is not only their enthusiasm for activities in the snowy mountains, but also the fact that they simply spend a lot of time travelling in the mountains. This is also necessary in order to put the test equipment to the test in a wide variety of snow and weather conditions in a relatively short space of time (we don't want to publish test reports on equipment from two years ago). You can find more information about a tester in their author profile or in the respective test report.
Do you think you have what it takes to be a tester? Occasionally we recruit people who are very active on PowderGuide, especially in the ConditionsReports section. If this applies to you, you should be in contact with us anyway - so let us know that you would be available as a tester.
How do you test?
Lab tests are not our thing, so we generally test in real, hard use in the mountains, in the context of the typical area of use of the product to be tested. Touring skis or splitboards are most likely to be used in the ski area and on the piste as part of the test, and a ski touring boot will sometimes get lost in the park, but the focus is clearly on the intended area of use. And of course we don't publish test reports if we have only tried out the material for half a day or similar.
The scope of the test (not necessarily the report) is divided into three categories on PowderGuide:
1. material test
The standard test. The tester used the material for at least 15 days, covering a wide range of conditions. A well-founded statement about function and suitability for different areas of use is possible in relation to the tester's personal preferences, as is at least a rudimentary assessment of durability.
2. short test
We publish a short test if the tested material was only used for a short time. There are various reasons for this, for example if there is simply no snow or the tester is absent for a while due to illness or injury. In addition, special test items that are in high demand are not always available for long enough. As we are of the opinion that you can't really make a sensible statement after a few hours with the test material, the material was also used for at least five days during a short test. Nevertheless, it was not possible to test it in all important applications, conditions or areas of use. In principle, it is not possible to make any statement about durability in short tests. We will therefore endeavour to publish a supplementary report (material test, long-term test) online at a later date if possible.
3. long-term test
In a long-term test, the material was used intensively for a long time (>30 days), preferably by several testers. The durability and longevity of the material can then also be assessed here.
Products that have really convinced us over a longer period of time and that are either simply outstanding in their field or very versatile are also honoured with the PowderGuide tip.
And what if something is wrong?
Material can be defective, break or simply be unsuitable for the intended use. This also happens from time to time in our tests. Although we do not conceal this in the test report, we contact the manufacturer beforehand and ask for a statement or the repair or replacement of the material under warranty.
We don't normally let test reports "fall by the wayside" if the material has failed. However, there are two exceptions: If we receive prototypes or samples (products that will not go on sale until next winter) for testing and there is a problem with them, we speak to the manufacturer because samples sometimes do not meet the same quality standards as end products. If the manufacturer says that the problem has been solved in the series models, we usually try to test a series model and only then publish a test.
The same applies if there is an official recall by the manufacturer for material that is being tested. Here too, we wait for the material to be repaired before we publish a report.
