Six Seems a Bit Excessive

It does, but I'm still not convinced.

1. Sounds nice in theory, but the video shows people with their center of mass moving far less than on skis. Having handlebars fixes your hands and by extension your torso.

2. You have this same ability on skis, but aren't limited to only this range of motion. However, this is in my mind the only benefit to the system, and relates to the "not crossing your skis" comment above - it removes freedom from the user, making it easier to use. I see this device as being good for those that don't know how to ski.

3. Brakes would be nice. I didn't know they had any.

Here's a few:

1. Four points of contact instead of two. With handlebars and pedals/pegs, you have a lot more control over where your center of mass is relative to your equipment and the ground--this comes in particularly handy if you like to leave said ground regularly.

2. The intriguing part of the design as I read it is this bit: "When you grab the bars and tip them right or left the rear of the machine tilts while the skis tilt in parallel at a similar angle". So they looked at how the above 4 points of contact borrowed from bike design could influence edging technique, and more modern skiing has leaned back towards more pressure on both uphill and downhill skis simultaneously (as opposed to old-school style that favored the downhill edge more).

3. Brakes. The jury is out on this, but you do get those added on as well, something I'm often happy to have on my bike and wish for on snow. There's not enough detail here, however, about how they'd actually work so I'm hesitant on this point.

Does that help?

Bikes certainly have more design features than those I've listed, but I don't see any that apply to this product. Perhaps you can help me understand the merits. I'll start the list:

1. It keeps you from crossing your skis.

Matt, you've got some great points about bicycles. If the last time you rode one was 10 years ago. Like ski technology in the past 5-7 years, bike technology is no longer just about the things you point out. Being on a hill on a bike nowadays can require an insane amount of energy and a completely different set of rules about transference of force when the trails you're on look like this: http://photos.nsmb.com/showimage.php?i=10768&c=5

And yeah, in that case you don't use the seat on your bike really either. But you need it for the 5% of the time that you do. I'm not really defending this product as yet, but I do think there's a little more merit to some of the underlying engineering concepts than your dismissal allows for. I'd also not shell out the dough for it either...

Um...it's 47 degrees at Snoqualmie. Perhaps you meant to link to this page?

http://vail.snow.com/winter/tm.current.asp

I think what snow machine designers often miss is: the point. Take this design. A bicycle is a combination of machines that translate force into momentum. There are the wheels to reduce friction, the pedals and crank arms that interface with the user's leg for good use of muscle energy, there's the chain and gears to efficiently translate this energy into forward motion.

Of course, all of this is useless when you're on a hill (no energy required from the user) on a slippery substance (no need for wheels). The only benefit I can see from this device it the shock absorber, but looking at the video nobody really uses the seat anyway. So it ends up being a heavy chunk of metal you drag around with you that only serves to limit your mobility and lighten your wallet (which must be pretty heavy if you can afford to waste this kind of money).