or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski/Binding Systems

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
This year there are more Ski/Binding systems then last season. I'm sure in a few years you won't be able to buy a ski that isn't a Ski Binding combo. I don't like this trend. I dislike being forced to use a binding that I just don't like.I'm so against this new trend That i even resist demoing System Skis. What are your feeling about this trend?
post #2 of 23
You need to be looking at fatter skis. This year I found most skis with 80mm or bigger waists don't have an integrated binding system. Since most of the skis I'm looking at are in that category I'm not too concerned. (It also helps to live in Bozeman where the shops order the flat version of models like the 724 Pro and K2 Axis XP because of the popularity of telemarking and AT.)

Personally, I like the way integrated bindings interact with the ski in some of the systems but wonder why they require specific brands to work. The plates on my Dynastar SkiCross 10s should be able to take any binding but they predrill them for Look/Rossi so you're stuck. Same goes with Atomic and some of the Salomons. The rails used on K2s IBC system only take Marker which is a shame because Tyrolia makes a similar binding interface. It would be nice if they could take them also.
post #3 of 23
its all about the money, and people are giving it to the companies. Think about the companies you listed, Dynastar, Look, Lange, Kerma, and Rossi are all owned by the same parent company. Atomic its own company (and I think they bought the sliding/moving binding from Ess a long time ago), as is Salomon, and K2 now owns Marker (Volkl's have Marker systems too, also owned by K2 now). Companies are trying to maximize their money by requiring a specific brand binding.

To avoid this trend, look at the wider skis, the twin-tips (no they're not only for park skiing any more), pro-models, and lesser known companies/models. Think like a giant ski conglomerate, the average Joe Consumer is an intermediate to high intermediate skier, that strives to be better, and looks to gain a little edge by getting good equiptment (just look at the explosion of sales of the Star series by Volkl). They are not affraid to spend money, and do not always have the knowledge experience to differenciate between different bindings. Therefore an easy way for the company to make money is to market "integrated systems" or the same company's binding required plates/pre-drills on skis. If the average Joe Consumer didn't buy so many of these "systems", you would think the companies would abandon them, giving consumers more of a choice again.

But after all, no matter how much I hate what some of the major ski companies are doing, I can understand why they are, and they are still going to get money from me, so who am I to complain.
post #4 of 23
Manus:
I understand your take on the comercial tie-in aspect of the intergrated binding, (the potential for more revenue is never to be underestimated) but don't you see some merit to the intergration of the bindings in the ski as opposed to drilling almost at random into the core for standard binding?

I like the idea of not altering the platform w/ screws and holes if possible.
The beauty if the intergration is in not upsetting the core/edge/wrap of the ski construction and flex but letting it work as designed. And if a new skier or boot shell is to be possible there is no "swiss cheese"of the ski.

Just my .02cents.
post #5 of 23
interesting thought, but not all binding systems allow full flex of the ski. Granted, some are designed to not impede the natural flex, but others are not. Furthermore, with all the differences in bindings and consumer opinions, why not just market the plate either sperarate from the ski or don't drill the plate, thus not impact on the core or flex and still able to mount your binding of choice.

The only "system" that I recall that I honestly felt changed things a little (making it so it cannot really be used universally) was Solly's pilot system (when it mounted to the side of the ski - is it still, I know there were some problems originally).

Personally, I think the one biggest advance in binding technology is Line's concept, both in how the binding releases the boots, and the concept of their quick mount. Honestly, I'm hoping they got all the bugs out, because I think its a great idea, imagine owning 5 pairs of skis, and only 1 pair of bindings, and being able to put your bindings on another set of skis in a matter of minutes.
post #6 of 23
I think the whole integrated ski/binding systems are a fad which has already peaked and is on the decline. Look at Atomic dropping their pre-drilled plates on fat and twin tip skis, Dynastar dropping the autodrive plates on their freeride skis, and this season in NZ there are a lot more of the flat version of the 724 Pro than there were last season. I think in a few years the only skis using the integrated systems will be the racer wannabe skis and the groomer cruiser skis for 50yr old dentists.

I think that people have finally realised that integrating bindings and skis doesn't offer any real performance benefit. Those who have tried skis in the integrated vs standard mounting say that they feel a little different but it is arguable if it is a good difference or a bad difference. The only real performance benefit I could see is in letting the ski flex freely but that isn't something that current free flex bindings can't already do.

I don't buy into the argument that mounting a set of bindings on a ski weakens the ski or affects the performance (unless it is the fourth set of mounting holes in the ski). In order to ensure that the binding screws don't pull out of the ski, manufacturers reinforce the mounting area of a ski and this more than makes up for the insignificant loss of material from a single set of mounting holes.

If there genuinely was a problem with drilling skis and mounting bindings directly I believe all the manufacturers would be getting together to create a new industry standard which they would all follow, instead of pushing their own systems. The fact that Marker have two incompatible systems for K2 and Volkl makes me laugh, how can they say that either system is the best way to attach bindings to a ski and then come up with something totally different for another ski manufacturer.

The biggest drawback I see to integration is that the system bust be able to be able to be adjusted to fit the full range of boot sizes, so this means long metal tracks and more weight than the standard mounted bindings. This adjustability may be beneficial if you want to lend your skis to your friends or if the skis are in the demo fleet for a rental shop, but otherwise it is just dead weight. And I believe that is going to be the ultimate fate for the integrated systems, they will be relegated to performance rentals which just look flashier than the other rentals.
post #7 of 23
I think that you are 100% correct. I think that you should send this post to Ski and/or Skiing Magazine for publication. Good job!
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
I think the whole integrated ski/binding systems are a fad which has already peaked and is on the decline. Look at Atomic dropping their pre-drilled plates on fat and twin tip skis, Dynastar dropping the autodrive plates on their freeride skis, and this season in NZ there are a lot more of the flat version of the 724 Pro than there were last season. I think in a few years the only skis using the integrated systems will be the racer wannabe skis and the groomer cruiser skis for 50yr old dentists.
I have no clue about the current feelings in NZ, but this is not true in the US. While true that some companies have wisely made more models available "flat," the overall market is noticeably moving toward systems. The percentage of "system" sales has risen substantially every year, and 2004/05 is no exception. And for the record, in the US, "racer wannabe" skis (I'm assuming here that you are talking about something like a Fischer RX or Völkl Supersport) and groomer cruiser skis ARE the market. It's fun for all of us here to talk about twins and pow skis, but the manufacturers make their money elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
I think that people have finally realised that integrating bindings and skis doesn't offer any real performance benefit. Those who have tried skis in the integrated vs standard mounting say that they feel a little different but it is arguable if it is a good difference or a bad difference.
It depends what system you are talking about, and for that matter, how you choose to define "system." IMO, the only true "systems" out there are Pilot, Motion, and Fusion. Everything else is a pre-drilled plate, and those have been around for years before there was ever a "system." Personally, I think Motion and Fusion offer significant performance improvements. I tend to think that Pilot makes a skis that is already too soft, softer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
I don't buy into the argument that mounting a set of bindings on a ski weakens the ski or affects the performance (unless it is the fourth set of mounting holes in the ski). In order to ensure that the binding screws don't pull out of the ski, manufacturers reinforce the mounting area of a ski and this more than makes up for the insignificant loss of material from a single set of mounting holes.
I agree with you on this point. However, I have never heard this used as a selling point in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
The fact that Marker have two incompatible systems for K2 and Volkl makes me laugh, how can they say that either system is the best way to attach bindings to a ski and then come up with something totally different for another ski manufacturer.
Marker doesn't say either one is better -- K2 and Völkl do. In fact, US Marker reps agree with you - they tell everbody traditional bindings are better, but of course they're just trying to sell bindings. The irony here is that Völkl once owned Marker, so they got the better Motion technology while K2 got IBX, which is basically a traditionally-mounted rental binding. It will be interesting to see if this changes now that K2 owns both companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
The biggest drawback I see to integration is that the system bust be able to be able to be adjusted to fit the full range of boot sizes, so this means long metal tracks and more weight than the standard mounted bindings.
Not true. The 3 true systems I mentioned above accomodate 350mm boot soles without any significant weight increase over a traditional binding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
And I believe that is going to be the ultimate fate for the integrated systems, they will be relegated to performance rentals which just look flashier than the other rentals.
Maybe in NZ, but not in the US. I think you'll see that market continue to move toward systems in the "all-mountain" segment, which, as I said above, basically is the market. With that said, I agree completely that twin tips, race-stocks, and fatties (defined as anything over 80mm wide,) will remain system-free. These skiers define "core," and they will continue to demand choice.

There's another perspective most people don't realize about systems. The popularity of systems isn't just the manufacturers trying to ram new marketing schemes down the consumer's throat. The shops play along very nicely. Most shops love systems because it makes their buying, warehousing, inventory control, and customer sales pitch significantly easier.

EDIT: spelling
post #9 of 23
I think the fundamental flaw in the integration idea is that there is really no problem or consumer dissatisfaction with conventional mounting. I have still yet to hear a convincing explanation of how integration can actually help my skiing, or let me ski some snow or terrain that I couldn't with conventionally mounted bindings, and until I do I will continue to call integration a fad.

I would love to hear how an integrated binding which can fit a 100mm range of boot sole lengths would be no heavier than a conventional retail binding with a 20mm range of boot sole lengths. Integrated bindings have to have as much extra metal as demo bindings and everyone always complains about the weight of them, and says avoid them if possible.

Integrated skis and pre-drilled plates mean manufacturers can sell more bindings and they do make mounting easier for shop staff, practically eliminating mis-mounted skis, but do you really want to buy a more expensive, heavier and non transferrable binding just to make some ski techs job easier?

I want to go on the record as saying that I believe the integration fad is at its height now. My prediction is that in a couple of years there will be only a couple of integrated skis with waist width over 75mm. In three years time most on piste skis will be flat again. And in 5 years the only integrated skis will be a few premium intermediate to advanced groomer skis and performance rentals.

It looks like Salomon may cling onto their Pilot system after everyone else has given up their systems, but given that the response by people in this forum to the pilot system is luke warm at best, it may be a foolish move for Salomon as they will lose the growing AT and telemark markets. But they can't drop the systems all at once it without admitting it was a bad idea, which would annoy consumers who just bought integrated skis, and annoy shops which still have racks full of integrated skis. So it is going to have to be a slow fade out, and they will be hoping they can come up with some other way of distracting us so we don't notice that they aren't in the racks any more.
post #10 of 23
Nicely written, well thought out post, Kiwiski. I just don't agree that systems will go away.

In the US, I think we will continue to see them sell well on the types of skis on which they do well now - skis with less than a 80mm waist. Close to 50% of the US market of these models is systems, so there is very little consumer resistance in 2004. I think there is a huge performance advantage for these skis. These skis have so much sidecut and so little length, that you want any help you can get putting every cm of edge in contact with the snow.

Conversely, systems have never been strong on wider (80mm+) skis and I, like you, see no reason why they would be in the future. The best example of this is Motion. It's probably the system sales leader in the US, and it isn't even offered on a model wider than 77mm.

I actually think we agree on more than we disagree about. I think the future really depends on where the technology goes. If it stagnates, you may be right. If systems become lighter, cooler looking, and easier for techs to mount, they aren't going away.
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
In the US, I think we will continue to see them sell well on the types of skis on which they do well now - skis with less than a 80mm waist. Close to 50% of the US market of these models is systems, so there is very little consumer resistance in 2004. I think there is a huge performance advantage for these skis. These skis have so much sidecut and so little length, that you want any help you can get putting every cm of edge in contact with the snow.
I don't doubt that there will be several more seasons where integrated systems will be highly visible, but I have still yet to hear a convincing explanation of how integrated bindings will improve my (or anybody else's) skiing. If anyone can explain how integration will help me ski difficult snow or terrain better I will withdraw everything I have said and rush out to buy a pair.

From a manufacturers point of view the integrated systems are great because they increase binding sales, lock consumers into their brand of bindings and integrated systems are are easy to market to the 50 year old dentist segment of the skiing public. These are the people with lots of discretionary cash but who don't understand enough about how skis work to see through the advertising spin, they just want their new skis and bindings to be as high tech as possible and to match their jacket. It has proven much easier to sell these people on integration than it has been to sell them on mid fat skis, even though the wider skis will help their skiing much more than binding integration ever could.

But while this segment of the market is very lucritive for the manufacturers and retailers, they are not a good indicator of future trends. They are the people who thought rear entry boots were the best idea ever, who thought K2s peizoelectric vibration dampening device was the future of ski design, and who rushed out to buy pencil thin carbon fibre ski poles as soon as they became available. As a group these people are a bit slow to realise when they have been sucked in by marketeering, so I think the integration idea will have a similar or even shorter life cycle as rear entry boots.

The people who really indicate the future direction of ski design are the ski bums and the true all mountain expert skiers who want the best gear but aren't sponsored so aren't told what to use. They are the ones who get noticed on the slopes, who know enough about ski hardware to know what works for them and who want real performance, not marketing hype and flashy gimmicks. Racers and pro freeskiers do have some influence but while I admire their skiing I would definitely not want to use their skis, which are designed for icy race courses or Alaskan powder, not the real conditions I ski every day. And the skis that the local experts are using are all all mid fat to fat, non-integrated skis.
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
I have still yet to hear a convincing explanation of how integrated bindings will improve my (or anybody else's) skiing.
I won't go so far to say the bindings themselves help the skiing. But I do look at it like this: A true interegrated binding, defined as a system that allows the ski to flex unhindered between the toe and heel, helps modern ski design help people ski better.

Here's why: These skis are so short that the boot occupies a much greater percentage of the ski surface than in the "old days." Now, combine that with the deep sidecuts being used. Many modern sidecuts can feel "chattery" if the skier can't engage the entire edge - the tail will just start to skip. If you can't flex the ski under the boot, it becomes more difficult for some skiers to engage the entire edge.

Now, to be clear. This scenario is obviously of greatest importance to skiers that prefer to stay on the groomed - But that's 80% (or more) of the skiers out there. A majority of US skiers will never leave the groomed, so this is where I disagree with your assertion that core, off-piste skiing locals will dictate future trends/design for the skiing public as a whole. If that were true, systems wouldn't exist in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
From a manufacturers point of view the integrated systems are great because they increase binding sales
Not for all manufacturers. Look at it this way: Salomon and Marker used to completely dominate the binding market in the US. Now, they are basically only sold on Pilot and Motion skis and to the small segment of the market that buys wide, non-system skis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
It has proven much easier to sell these people on integration than it has been to sell them on mid fat skis, even though the wider skis will help their skiing much more than binding integration ever could.
What are you talking about? Does NZ have a different definiton of "mid-fat" than we do here in the US? Mid fats, defined as between 70 and 80mm under foot, are the largest segment of the market in the US. They're everywhere. The high performance carver 68-70mm category skis, like Fischer Rx or Völkl Supersport, are a close second.

:
post #13 of 23
Like them or not, I bet the mfgs. will keep hammering the retailers (via reps) that
their skis work better with the "SYSTEM". I've noticed a local retailer has started
repeating the mantra....
Resist!
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
The irony here is that Völkl once owned Marker, so they got the better Motion technology while K2 got IBX, which is basically a traditionally-mounted rental binding. It will be interesting to see if this changes now that K2 owns both companies.
A side note to that side note: In the investors' conference call on the Marker/Volkl acquisitions, Dick Heckman mentioned the Völkl motion system and referred to as the best integrated system on the market. Presumably that indicates K2 will switch over in due course.

More to the main point: I'd also take the acquisition as at least a bit of a factor indicating that the trend is toward more integration, rather than less.
post #15 of 23
Hah, I finally found the thread I was looking for. - The whole argument about the effect of integration on the flex of a skis has already been debunked HERE

And anyway, if you are really worried about the flex of your skis there are lots of free flex bindings and plates around, and they have been around for a while. And if manufacturers were truly worried about the effect of bindings on a skis flex then why aren't they trying to come up with a new industry standard which they would all follow?

My assertions about the mix of mid fats (75-85mm) to skinny skis (>75mm) is just based on my own observations over the past season here in NZ. There seem to be supersport and cross type skis seem to be everywhere, but I have only seen one person with 724 Pros, and nobody on the XP/Recon.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
... if manufacturers were truly worried about the effect of bindings on a skis flex then why aren't they trying to come up with a new industry standard which they would all follow? ....
Because they're only interested in solving the problem* as a way to sell more of their product. They're not interested in solving the problem to help someone else sell more.

That's just how it works.

-----
*If there is a problem, which is a different subject.
post #17 of 23
I would add that the first attempts at intergration were developed directly from race plates used on the world cup. The pilot system loosely resembles the race plate they have been putting on their race skis for years. and the motion system was develped as a means to decrease the weight of the volkl energy plate, which was mounted to each ski via 14 screws (so 28 screws in total). In fact any of the motion bindings will still fit on the old energy plate rails. The new AT PCOS motion binding is a combination of the marker world cup pistion plate and the older motion system.

So if these world cup plates work so well, should not he same be true for the lighter systems developed for consumer use.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Nicely written, well thought out post, Kiwiski. I just don't agree that systems will go away.

In the US, I think we will continue to see them sell well on the types of skis on which they do well now - skis with less than a 80mm waist. Close to 50% of the US market of these models is systems, so there is very little consumer resistance in 2004. I think there is a huge performance advantage for these skis. These skis have so much sidecut and so little length, that you want any help you can get putting every cm of edge in contact with the snow.
You mentioned that only Pilot, Motion, and Fusion are really systems. The rest are predrilled hostage plates/doodads.

You claim there are huge performance advantages to say, Motion. Having skied on quite a few of the Motion skis both flat and w/Motion, I'd like to call BS on that.

"Every CM of edge in contact with the snow"

Nice goal, but that isn't going to happen routinely on any ski, system or not. If you made a ski that damp and flexible, it would ski like a log. FWIW, when I look at photos from races, no one has a big huge flat spot under the binding anymore. That is with race skis and race bindings on the newer race plates, which allow for more flex.

The plate on my Blizzards is a reasonable example. Its probably way too beefy, and thats a disadvantage. However, it floats and I get "all ski on the snow" despite my FK race bindings, which might as well be 20 years old.

Can you explain the "advantage" of a "free floating system"? Last I checked, the change in distance between toe/heel on a very shaped ski that is deflected as much as feasible is still shorter than the travel of a typical forward pressure spring before it reaches coilbind.

That is to say, the forward pressure spring absorbs the shearing action between the ski/plate and binding as the ski flexes. So long as the forward pressure system is designed properly, it does so while keeping the spring rate linear.

That hasn't changed in 20+ years. I would submit that the reason people used to get huge flatspots under bindings were:
-Absurdly stiff skis underfoot. The old skis were often twice as thick underfoot as a modern ski.
-Absurdly stiff plates....like Deflex.

Certainly, 8 screws into a ski is a more torsionally rigid/lower convergence setup than four or so non-precision rails with a non precision fit to the slots that noticeably varies from pair to pair. So I don't see the "feel" factor being there. Perhaps I'm still pissed about the poorly designed locking pins on the old Motions, and the bindings I had to hunt down on the hill.

And the various forms of "Piston Control"? If my ski needed more damping in rebound, I woulda bought a Rossignol.
-Garrett

EDIT: Ranting about what I believe is perceived value aside, I agree with you on the likely US market sales trend. Perhaps some of the other industries that currently do things "a la carte" should look at the "system" sales model and consider applying it. Thule/Yakima come to mind. Actually, I guess they are already moving that way, with Rapid Railing and so on.
-Garrett
post #19 of 23
KIWISKI thanks for the illuminating posts. especially the last one.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosackthrower
So if these world cup plates work so well, should not he same be true for the lighter systems developed for consumer use.
If the C5-R can win at LeMans, shouldn't the C5 then be a great car for consumers?

It is, but your logic is flawed. The WC plates have about as much in common with the consumer systems as a C5-R has in common with a showroom C5. General look and design ideology. Thats about it.

I could have easily picked an example that worked out the other way. The Monte Carlo NASCAR ride may do very well on the track, but the production car is a piece of shit.
-Garrett
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
"Every CM of edge in contact with the snow"

Nice goal, but that isn't going to happen routinely on any ski, system or not.FWIW, when I look at photos from races, no one has a big huge flat spot under the binding anymore. That is with race skis and race bindings on the newer race plates, which allow for more flex.
I realize that skiing is not a game of absolutes. However, getting as much edge in contact with the snow is still something you want to have the ability to do, and I believe Motion helps the average skier do that.

Regarding the race observation, I completely agree, but that isn't relevant to the recreational skier that buys a 5 Star from you. The average J1 racer is much stronger, more powerful, and more technically accurate than 97% of people on the mountain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Can you explain the "advantage" of a "free floating system"? Last I checked, the change in distance between toe/heel on a very shaped ski that is deflected as much as feasible is still shorter than the travel of a typical forward pressure spring before it reaches coilbind.
Since I don't know exactly how much travel there is with the Marker forward pressure spring, I'll concede that I can't argue this point with numbers. All I can say is that, having skied an original 5 Star with and without Piston Motion, I found a large difference between the two, and it wasn't the tune. The Piston Motion was a little bit smoother and more predictable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Certainly, 8 screws into a ski is a more torsionally rigid/lower convergence setup than four or so non-precision rails with a non precision fit to the slots that noticeably varies from pair to pair. So I don't see the "feel" factor being there. Perhaps I'm still pissed about the poorly designed locking pins on the old Motions, and the bindings I had to hunt down on the hill.
I think you're saying that a traditionally mounted binding has a tigher tolerance, and hence a more powerful/accurate connection to the ski than a "system." I can't deny this, and it is one of the major reasons why you don't see systems on the World Cup. But, to use your own analogy, you aren't going to see a car from the Le Mans starting grid next to you at a stop light, either.

The original Motion, with that dial interface, was not an example of "performance." There was too much "play." Similarly, I felt that original Pilot made me feel like I was skiing in oatmeal.

However, the newer incarnations of Motion, with the aluminum rails and tighter tolerances, are a significant improvement.


To close my thoughts on this subject, my original point in this thread was that Systems were here to stay. I ultimately found myself defending the performance of systems. Though I believe everything I have written above, I don't think performance is the reason why systems are in for the long term.

The majority of US consumers and shops embrace the concept for reasons that have nothing to do with performance. Consumers like the fact that it's one-stop shopping - they don't have to deliberate on a binding choice. Most shops like how easy it makes their buying and how quick it makes their mounting.

Contrary to some other opinions expressed above, the desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few. The system market won't go away because a few super hard core locals launch some sort of crusade against them. That being said, most skis that super hard core locals want to ski on are offered w/o systems, so I don't really see where the controversy is.

The shops hold the lynch pin to the future of systems. If they stop buying them in favor of flat skis, the manufacturers will follow.

:
post #22 of 23


Very well said.
-Garrett
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
To close my thoughts on this subject, my original point in this thread was that Systems were here to stay. I ultimately found myself defending the performance of systems. Though I believe everything I have written above, I don't think performance is the reason why systems are in for the long term.

The majority of US consumers and shops embrace the concept for reasons that have nothing to do with performance. Consumers like the fact that it's one-stop shopping - they don't have to deliberate on a binding choice. Most shops like how easy it makes their buying and how quick it makes their mounting.

Contrary to some other opinions expressed above, the desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few. The system market won't go away because a few super hard core locals launch some sort of crusade against them. That being said, most skis that super hard core locals want to ski on are offered w/o systems, so I don't really see where the controversy is.

The shops hold the lynch pin to the future of systems. If they stop buying them in favor of flat skis, the manufacturers will follow.
Yeah I think this subject has been pretty thoroughly thrashed here. I think we have sort of worked out that the performance of these systems is subjective, but the systems appeal to those who don't know and don't want to know about ski equipment. The only question on the long term survival of the systems is whether the retailers and manufacturers can keep those people dumb and happy, or whether they will work out they have been duped.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews