or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Broken skis, whats your opinion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Broken skis, whats your opinion? - Page 2

post #31 of 55

Frogman 1

 

Your having bad luck with skiing aren't you?  Myself, and I'm not that big a guy- I60lb- I have bent a ski with metal near the tip and cracked  2 more under the 

heel skiing moguls hard ( all straight skis.)  But still, if you say did what you say you were doing- skiing fairly slow- I would think the shop should just call it a buisness expense and not charge you for the damage.  But, I have never worked at a ski shop, just my 2 cents.

 

Quoted by SlopeFossil:

"I used to run a ski rental shop and, believe me, I saw just about everything - including skis simply fail due to no real fault of the skier.  But, sadly, if a skier did return broken skis it often was pretty clear they abused them somehow.  Most common was not lifting the skis up enough when on the lift when approaching the unloading platform - resulting in skis getting caught & bent backwards & breaking/delaminating.  Second most common: backing their vehicle over the pile of rental skis they forgot to load into the vehicle.  Third most common: not securing the rental skis on their rental ski rack correctly.  No, I'm not saying you damaged them, just sharing my experiences."

Oh No----   Most damage to skis was never actually from skiing??    

post #32 of 55

Had there not been LOUD CRACK I'd totally be on the track that the skis were already cracked and OP just finished them off pushing through a bump they way I've blasted through thousands and thousands without breaking anything.  I have bent metal laminates slightly though...

 

If the shop had tuned and waxed them after the previous renter ran them over or whatever odds are they would have noticed them starting to come apart.  IDK, I'm thinking that OP hit something significant if they SNAPPED LOUDLY under foot regardless of if they fell or not.  However I also agree that paying the damage insurance should absolve them of paying to replace the skis regardless.  Skiing is a high impact activity for new folks especially and skis break when they encounter obstacles sometimes..  OP paid for that contingency so rental shop owns this IMHO..

post #33 of 55

This happened to me several years ago:

 

Admittedly, this damage occurred in a full-on bump run, but still -- as somebody else mentioned above, it only takes one mogul to cleanly break a ski in half.  As somebody suggested above -- the ski hit a mogul and wasn't able to "climb out" of the rut and it snapped.

 

I can't say how fast I was skiing when that break occurred, but nobody is ever going to accuse me of skiing "fast", especially in moguls.

 

Were mine cracked before they totally died?  Who knows?  This was late in the day of an all-day bumping session and late in the season and I had been skiing those skis all along and they seemed to be behaving fine right up until they died.  I don't think any cursory 30-second lookover would have indicated any damage.  Sometimes one hit is the proverbial "straw that breaks the camels back" and sometimes one hit is the one perfect hit that destroys, well, whatever.

 

While I'm not an expert in ski construction or law or anything I don't see any particular reason off-hand to dismiss the OP's story.

post #34 of 55

I've broken two skis in my life, both a long time ago.

One looked a lot like Kevin's, happened flailing in a mogul field.

The other was a fall that somehow caught the ski just right and delaminated the last 5 inches of the tail.  I didn't realize anything was wrong until I heard the flapping noise on the runout.

post #35 of 55
I think you don't have a ski to stand on.

That both skis suffered identical damage at the same point rules out defective skis. It's clear that you were skiing in a straight line at the moment of impact and that considerable force was applied.

Unless insurance was available to cover damage, the shop rented you skis in good condition and they came back broken.

Don't threaten to go to your lawyer unless you want to throw away your money. A lawyer will charge you more than $250.
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuz a skier View Post
 

Frogman 1

 

Your having bad luck with skiing aren't you?  Myself, and I'm not that big a guy- I60lb- I have bent a ski with metal near the tip and cracked  2 more under the 

heel skiing moguls hard ( all straight skis.)  But still, if you say did what you say you were doing- skiing fairly slow- I would think the shop should just call it a buisness expense and not charge you for the damage.  But, I have never worked at a ski shop, just my 2 cents.

 

Quoted by SlopeFossil:

"I used to run a ski rental shop and, believe me, I saw just about everything - including skis simply fail due to no real fault of the skier.  But, sadly, if a skier did return broken skis it often was pretty clear they abused them somehow.  Most common was not lifting the skis up enough when on the lift when approaching the unloading platform - resulting in skis getting caught & bent backwards & breaking/delaminating.  Second most common: backing their vehicle over the pile of rental skis they forgot to load into the vehicle.  Third most common: not securing the rental skis on their rental ski rack correctly.  No, I'm not saying you damaged them, just sharing my experiences."

Oh No----   Most damage to skis was never actually from skiing??    

 

Yep, most of the instances of rental skis damaged beyond possible repair were from customers doing something dumb with the skis before/after actually skiing on them.  Our shop basically served customers that almost exclusively skied at two relatively modest hills in the central Sierras: Badger Pass & China Peak.  Those hills were groomer-centric back then.  Also, it was the early-to-mid 70s and we hadn't switched the rental fleet to the shorter "GLM" style skis - so they were the longer "straight" skis.  Rarely got skis returned that actually broke while being used on the hill. 

post #37 of 55

@joe strummer I'm not suggesting anyone actually get lawyers involved, but you're missing the point of the threat. You're basically threatening to sue the shop for damages because you believe the ski was already broken and thus a threat to your safety. I have no idea whether any of that is remotely likely to hold up, but if it did, you're potentially talking about getting a lot more than $250 out of the shop. (And either way, the shop would have to spend more than $250 defending itself if you actually did this.)

 

Anyway, the fact that the damage is nearly identical doesn't really imply anything about who really broke the skis, since rental skis tend to stay paired. What if, hypothetically the last person to use them ran over them with a car right at that point, weakening the structure. This would probably leave marks, but even that could be explained away if the skis were still strong enough that someone waxed them without noticing. I'm not claiming this is what happened; certainly I'd be suspicious if I saw a pair of skis like this come into a shop.

 

It's certainly possible to break skis, but I do have a hard time imagining it happening the way the OP described, going up a bump on the side of the trail. (To me this implies a smooth bump, like a single mogul, not a wall of ice at some significant angle.) Are beginner skis really that weak?

post #38 of 55

My opinion, is that we are not getting the whole story, and the OP literally joined yesterday to tell us this fantasy in the hopes of illiciting some pieces to add to the yarn that he told the rental shop. 

post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unpiste View Post
 

@joe strummer I'm not suggesting anyone actually get lawyers involved, but you're missing the point of the threat. You're basically threatening to sue the shop for damages because you believe the ski was already broken and thus a threat to your safety. I have no idea whether any of that is remotely likely to hold up, but if it did, you're potentially talking about getting a lot more than $250 out of the shop. (And either way, the shop would have to spend more than $250 defending itself if you actually did this.)

 

Anyway, the fact that the damage is nearly identical doesn't really imply anything about who really broke the skis, since rental skis tend to stay paired. What if, hypothetically the last person to use them ran over them with a car right at that point, weakening the structure. This would probably leave marks, but even that could be explained away if the skis were still strong enough that someone waxed them without noticing. I'm not claiming this is what happened; certainly I'd be suspicious if I saw a pair of skis like this come into a shop.

 

It's certainly possible to break skis, but I do have a hard time imagining it happening the way the OP described, going up a bump on the side of the trail. (To me this implies a smooth bump, like a single mogul, not a wall of ice at some significant angle.) Are beginner skis really that weak?

well, he said he swerved around a girl and hit a "bump" on a cattrack..    You can see in the right hand side of that pic that perhaps the cattrack scraped and creating a bit of a 90degree cornice there .  If he hit that 90degree cornice it could've bent the ski.  If a hunk of that cornice came off and that was the "bump" then the bump could've been a  boulder of ice with the sharp angle conditions to break a ski, especially if he hits it during a compression or down motion.

 

But anyway, I'm for the rental fleet i would be under the expectation that the damage waiver should've covered this or at least a point of negotiation as it becomes a slippery slope of if it doesn't cover ALL damages up to what damage did it cover.

 

 

I will throw in that shops around tahoe would have tried to stick you for $400+ even for the cheapest rental skis as the starting negotiation point.  They'd consider the price to be how much it costs them to set up a whole replacement pair of skis into the rental system to be available for the next rental, not the current market value of the skis you broke.   

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe strummer View Post

I think you don't have a ski to stand on.

That both skis suffered identical damage at the same point rules out defective skis. It's clear that you were skiing in a straight line at the moment of impact and that considerable force was applied.

Unless insurance was available to cover damage, the shop rented you skis in good condition and they came back broken.

Don't threaten to go to your lawyer unless you want to throw away your money. A lawyer will charge you more than $250.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unpiste View Post
 

@joe strummer I'm not suggesting anyone actually get lawyers involved, but you're missing the point of the threat. You're basically threatening to sue the shop for damages because you believe the ski was already broken and thus a threat to your safety. I have no idea whether any of that is remotely likely to hold up, but if it did, you're potentially talking about getting a lot more than $250 out of the shop. (And either way, the shop would have to spend more than $250 defending itself if you actually did this.)

 

Anyway, the fact that the damage is nearly identical doesn't really imply anything about who really broke the skis, since rental skis tend to stay paired. What if, hypothetically the last person to use them ran over them with a car right at that point, weakening the structure. This would probably leave marks, but even that could be explained away if the skis were still strong enough that someone waxed them without noticing. I'm not claiming this is what happened; certainly I'd be suspicious if I saw a pair of skis like this come into a shop.

 

It's certainly possible to break skis, but I do have a hard time imagining it happening the way the OP described, going up a bump on the side of the trail. (To me this implies a smooth bump, like a single mogul, not a wall of ice at some significant angle.) Are beginner skis really that weak?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
 

My opinion, is that we are not getting the whole story, and the OP literally joined yesterday to tell us this fantasy in the hopes of illiciting some pieces to add to the yarn that he told the rental shop. 

Here you all go again--getting yourselves in a tizzy about a lawsuit. The OP never said anything about a lawsuit.

The OP came here for an opinion as to whether his concern about the skis is justified. While he might have something to gain by making up a story for the rental shop, he has nothing to gain by making up a story for us. Our opinion isn't going to matter to the shop or his credit card bank. 

A lot of people around here seem to be into bashing the victim (like the victim who was run into in another thread).

post #41 of 55
Others mentioned playing the lawyer card. It's a non credible threat given a lawyer would cost more than $250.

If I worked at the shop I would laugh at such a threat and say "go ahead".
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisingarizona View Post
 

Tell the shop you were just lucky you didn't get your neck broke because there skis were defected. If there is any more of a problem inform them you will be contacting your attorney. This should clear everything up for you. 

 

If you are being honest about this experience than the skis were already broken when you got on them. Let them know that you know this, be firm and take this stance. F- that shop. They should be kissing your butt not charging you for abuse on their gear.  

 

That's if your post is truly honest. 

 

Assuming OP is truthful... 

 

What kind of skis break on a bunny hill going 5 miles an hour? What if they broke on a Double Black Diamond right as you were turning into the treeline at high speeds?

 

 

I suspect these were used and abused skis that the store just kept using, hoping that one day somebody would break them so they can make them replace it. Very shady... 

 

OR they were perfectly fine Skis that got rekt by OP in a legitimate way. I don't know. 

post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
 

My opinion, is that we are not getting the whole story, and the OP literally joined yesterday to tell us this fantasy in the hopes of illiciting some pieces to add to the yarn that he told the rental shop. 


Thats kinda silly thing to say.

 

 

If I had such a stupid experience like this, I'd go onto communities and try to share/get feedback as well. 

post #44 of 55

So first I would like to point out and many here will agree, that Atomic doesn't build their skis in pairs. They build singles and match them up later in the finishing process so the chances of having the exact same issue in 2 skis would be highly unlikely. I've been the shop guy, done some warranty work for a medium size ski manufacturer and I've also broken some skis. If it was a manufacturing quality issue, Atomic engineers would be aware of the problem and they would honor their own warranty. Comparing what I see in the pics and what I've experienced in the real world, the story doesn't jive. We have all skied into stumps, creek bottoms, rocks, frozen piles of snow and watched people stomp 90 footers. Skis are built to take abuse. It looks to me as if maybe the OP was trying to butter while riding switch.

post #45 of 55

What are the chances that two skis would break at the same location and in the same fashion? 

 

The bases of the skis look too new to be in service as rentals very long.  Or to have been run over by a tire or groomer.

 

How do you break all four edges in the same location?  Segmented edges?

post #46 of 55
If the shop guy who mounted these had used the same wrong jig setting for both skis, it's possible that both skis would have had structural weakness at exactly the same points. You could tell this from inspecting the ski.

The other thing is that from the pic - it might just be the angle of the pic, but it looks like those bindings are mounted too far back on the ski. That could cause this kind of crack, as the ski is stiffened differently at different points, and if the plate that is supposed to be under the front binding is instead in front of the front binding, you could get this kind of crack easily.

Taking the ski to another shop where they know what to look for will answer these questions really quickly.

I don't think it's the manufactuer's defect that would be identical on both skis like that, although, once shop error from the mounting is ruled out, I'd say a large part of it is that the ski just wasn't spec'd to handle whatever you hit - whether it was a "real" ice-hard mogul, or an ice boulder on the edge of the cat track. In my opinion, if you design a ski with a limitation like that, it's not a good candidate for a rental program, where people are usually beating up the equipment. If you sued them over it, a critical piece of evidence would be how many times they have had this particular ski returned with a break like this. Why do manufactures design a ski like that? To reduce cost for private beginners who are going to be careful with their equipment.

Whether it was you or the person who rented these particular skis before you, these skis hit something they weren't designed for. If that something was part of the expected terrain you were going to be skiing on - i.e., simple groomer with some ice chunks, not a double black with 30+ inch moguls, then I think the risk of loss should be on the guys who chose this ski. If it was your own private ski, the loss should be on you, not Atomic, for choosing the wrong ski. If it was the rental shop who might have tried to update their stock on the cheap, it should be on them.

As far as the damage waiver from the shop, that bothers me the most about this. I've only seen this kind of break once where both skis had an identical break. They were rentals, and it happened at Ragged Mountain in NH for spring skiing. Their slopes were literally lined with 20 inch granite boulders. My friend, who had never skiied before, skied off the edge of the trail, as beginners are wont to do frequently. He wasn't skiing fast, just "forgot" how to turn - skied straight into the boulder and cracked both skis just like yours. Never even released from the bindings. He had checked the extra damage waiver, and when we took them back to the shop not only did they not give him a hard time about skiing into the boulder, but they handed him another pair of rentals and said something like be more careful or you'll hurt yourself. No way any ski is designed to hit a boulder like that, but they understood the situation wasn't his fault.

So the fact that a shop would treat you like this after you paid for the insurance makes me not trust them.

It being the age of yelp and facebook, etc., I would make sure in your letter to the shop manager (make it polite and professional) that you plan to tell everyone you know about your experience and to avoid their shop. That means a lot more today than it did 20 years ago.
post #47 of 55
I would agree to the above except the bs about blackmailing them with reviews and social media. Because thats what it is,blackmail. You expect different treatment or else. If they comply with your demand then what? you write a 5 star review or otherwise change your perspective?
Itf that's ok with you ethically, so be it . But that s not me or something id ever advise anyone
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

I would agree to the above except the bs about blackmailing them with reviews and social media. Because thats what it is,blackmail. You expect different treatment or else. If they comply with your demand then what? you write a 5 star review or otherwise change your perspective?
Itf that's ok with you ethically, so be it . But that s not me or something id ever advise anyone

Posting on review sites that the shop's damage coverage only covers repairs, not unrepairable damage, is hardly blackmail, as long as the information is presented fairly and accurately. If the shop is embarrassed by their policy they should change it. If they don't want people to know about it ahead of time that would be dishonest. That's the sort of information I would want to know before I walked into a shop to rent skis. 

post #49 of 55

Well the original suggestion was for him use his review First and Foremost as a Threat (e.g. letter to manager) to the Store that he that he *plans* to make a post, and tells everyone he knows.  Not primarily as a public service warning to others.  Where there is the subtext that there is a quid pro quo that he wouldn't be following through with these *plans* if he got an exception to the policy.


That's what makes it blackmail.  Completely different than taking the lumps of his entire experience in completion, then writing about it unbiased and where there is no expectation of different treatment and your integrity isn't compromised.

 

If a newspaper gets some compromising photos and publishes it without compromise, it's journalism.  If they go back to the subject that could be injured by said photo, and say we are planning on publishing these photos this unless you do [fill in the blank], what else would you call it except blackmail. 

post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

Well the original suggestion was for him use his review First and Foremost as a Threat (e.g. letter to manager) to the Store that he that he *plans* to make a post, and tells everyone he knows.  Not primarily as a public service warning to others.  Where there is the subtext that there is a quid pro quo that he wouldn't be following through with these *plans* if he got an exception to the policy.


That's what makes it blackmail.  Completely different than taking the lumps of his entire experience in completion, then writing about it unbiased and where there is no expectation of different treatment and your integrity isn't compromised.

 

If a newspaper gets some compromising photos and publishes it without compromise, it's journalism.  If they go back to the subject that could be injured by said photo, and say we are planning on publishing these photos this unless you do [fill in the blank], what else would you call it except blackmail. 

Every business knows these days that unhappy customers are going to post about it. Blackmail would be if you go into a business you don't have a beef with and demand free merchandise in exchange for not posting bad reviews. Threatening to post about customer service one thinks is bad is using the only leverage one has against a business that (IMO) rented a pair of defective skis due to a bad mount and sells meaningless damage insurance in order to be treated fairly. The deck is stacked against the OP in this case and trying to even the odds is fair imo.

post #51 of 55

fair enough, I can understand why some people would do that, to each their own.

But I just personally would never use "I'm going to post to yelp and facebook and tell all my friends" as a portion of my complaint on a good or service just as I would also never do the "i'm going to sue you unless"  (see other thread), but that's just me.  (and yes, that means if you were my friend friend and did such a thing, I would judge and look down on you for that and reconsider our friendship)

post #52 of 55
This thread makes Occam's Razor sad
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

fair enough, I can understand why some people would do that, to each their own.

But I just personally would never use "I'm going to post to yelp and facebook and tell all my friends" as a portion of my complaint on a good or service just as I would also never do the "i'm going to sue you unless"  (see other thread), but that's just me.  (and yes, that means if you were my friend friend and did such a thing, I would judge and look down on you for that and reconsider our friendship)

One should never threaten to sue. One should just sue (but not in this case). 

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

Well the original suggestion was for him use his review First and Foremost as a Threat (e.g. letter to manager) to the Store that he that he *plans* to make a post, and tells everyone he knows.  Not primarily as a public service warning to others.  Where there is the subtext that there is a quid pro quo that he wouldn't be following through with these *plans* if he got an exception to the policy.


That's what makes it blackmail.  Completely different than taking the lumps of his entire experience in completion, then writing about it unbiased and where there is no expectation of different treatment and your integrity isn't compromised.

 

If a newspaper gets some compromising photos and publishes it without compromise, it's journalism.  If they go back to the subject that could be injured by said photo, and say we are planning on publishing these photos this unless you do [fill in the blank], what else would you call it except blackmail. 


I think the implication here is that if the situation isn't rectified to the OP's satisfaction, any review will be strongly negative. If it is, then any review will reflect that. As long as any review posted is accurate, that's not blackmail.

 

It's a slightly different situation, but this parallels with any online marketplace that has seller reviews. (e.g. eBay or Amazon.) If I have a problem with the way a seller is handling something, the unspoken assumption is that failure to resolve the problem will result in a bad review. Depending on what's happened so far, addressing whatever the problem is will at least result in a slightly positive review. The difference here is that it's not obvious the shop has considered the implications of a negative review. Bringing it up just makes it explicit.

 

The shop can certainly still choose to stand behind their policy, but if they do, it's perfectly fair to mention the policy and the overall experience in a review. As said (again, assuming everything is accurate), I would certainly be interested in hearing about an experience like this before sending someone to a rental shop.

post #55 of 55
It stinks. It's a shame this happened but I'm just thinking how unlikely it is for both skis to be defective in the same spot in the same way. I wouldn't think this should happen but if you run your skis into a steep enough berm I could see them snapping. I think it's rotten that the damage waiver only covers repairable damage- that's lame. But I do believe under the terms of the rental agreement you are on the hook. Sorry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Broken skis, whats your opinion?