EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › ski shops too conservative with dins?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ski shops too conservative with dins? - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanOZakk
Ohhh boy, looks like I've started something...

The lawsuit would target the end-user, who adjusted their own bindings. Basically, in the event of one such suit, the binding form that was filled out at the shop would be subpoenaed, and as soon as it was found that the DIN on the skis didn't match the DIN on the work order, the shop is released from liability, and it falls upon whoever modified the setting.

And I don't know where you live, or where you take your skis for work...but where I work, each and every person who so much as waxes a ski is fully certified by every binding manufacturer that we carry. That's why, on work orders, there's a blank line for the "Technician's Signature"...and that's a legal document. If you sign your name on there, it's saying "I did this work, it was done in accordance with my training." If the tech is untrained, liability would fall upon them, and their employer. If they're trained, the shop and the technician are free of liability, unless there's a case of extreme negligence or wrongdoing.

And even IF a skier is okay with ramping up their DINs, and wouldn't ever sue the shop...what about that skier's widow? Their parents? Their children?

Bottom line, there's far too many litigation-happy people in this world, and EVERYONE who has any sort of financial interest in this industry needs to be certified if they're doing anything with ski bindings.
So obviously where YOU work is not anywhere near the individual who had his bindings set at 6.5 instead of 9.5. What if he pre-released and fell off a cliff? Or if his ski released on a beginner run and speared a kid in the eyeball? Apparently his "trained technicians" did a shitty job, or are too stoned to read a chart correctly. Standard DIN settings work great for people who don't want to understand how or why their skis release, and so "trained technicians" don't have to think so hard.
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerBoy
Apparently his "trained technicians" did a shitty job, or are too stoned to read a chart correctly.
Bingo. Someone ****ed up there, and in this case, lawsuits would potentially fall upon that individual and/or their employer...depending on exactly what the certification circumstances are with the technicians there.

edit: Oh, look at that, it auto-censors me. Bonus! Makes my life simpler
post #33 of 56
The DIN chart is meant to standardize release settings, and they work well for a general range. Experts and racers may have different needs, and will know those needs. As such, they are free to set them up according to those needs. But, the shop has to adhere to the chart, or risk a lawsuit. Still, it is good practice to look at a chart (find your boot sole length column, find height and weight row (use the row toward the top if they are not the same), match up the correct row an column, move down 1 row for type 2, 2 rows for type 3, 3 rows for 3+, up one row for age 50 and up, or 9 and under)). This should give you a general idea of where your DIN range should be. Mine, for example, is 8 at type 3 and 9.5 at type 3+. I usually ski with my freeskis at 8.75, and the skis seem to come off in every hard fall I have taken recently. But, then don't pre-release (which is even more dangerous when skiing tough terrain at speed).

I learned the hard way to double-check the DIN setting after having the binding worked on. I once had a binding installed, and the DIN was set up at 6. Well, I skied for 3 days, not noticing the incorrect setting, and then pre-released on a steep, icy pitch. I went headfirst down the pitch at least 100 yards, wondering when I was going to stop. Thanks, Mr. Brain-Dead ski tech!
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching
I learned the hard way to double-check the DIN setting after having the binding worked on. I once had a binding installed, and the DIN was set up at 6.
Most good shops will actually have you confirm before you leave.
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanOZakk

Though it paints a nice big ol' bullseye on your forehead in the event of a lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanOZakk

The lawsuit would target the end-user, who adjusted their own bindings. Basically, in the event of one such suit, the binding form that was filled out at the shop would be subpoenaed, and as soon as it was found that the DIN on the skis didn't match the DIN on the work order, the shop is released from liability, and it falls upon whoever modified the setting.
I'm not sure I follow this at all - I adjust my bindings a step or two above what the shop set them to. I fall, don't release, and break my leg.

Who on earth would file a lawsuit targeting me, the enduser? The ski area isn't going to sue me, the binding manufacturer isn't going to sue me, the shop isn't going to sue me... I'm certainly not going to sue me

The consequence in adjusting your own bindings is that YOU are then responsible. If something happens with shop set DIN, the shop can be held liable if it is determined there was error on their part. If something happens after YOU set your DIN, the only liable party for any error is yourself.
post #36 of 56
The scenario here is if you are involved in a crash with another person. Or, if your ski pops off because you mis-adjusted it and hits someone.

People need to realise that they are not the only people who could be involved in an accident with themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisNM
I'm not sure I follow this at all - I adjust my bindings a step or two above what the shop set them to. I fall, don't release, and break my leg.

Who on earth would file a lawsuit targeting me, the enduser? The ski area isn't going to sue me, the binding manufacturer isn't going to sue me, the shop isn't going to sue me... I'm certainly not going to sue me

The consequence in adjusting your own bindings is that YOU are then responsible. If something happens with shop set DIN, the shop can be held liable if it is determined there was error on their part. If something happens after YOU set your DIN, the only liable party for any error is yourself.
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanOZakk
The scenario here is if you are involved in a crash with another person. Or, if your ski pops off because you mis-adjusted it and hits someone.

People need to realise that they are not the only people who could be involved in an accident with themselves.
Point taken. Though I guess it never would have occurred to me to blame the binders (and in turn, the shop/person who set/adjusted them) were I in an accident that affected another skier, even if I had pre-released. How un-american of me
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake75
I understand that the DIN setting isn't arbitrary - that's why I'm confused. I chart out to a 9.5, and I've found a shop that actually sets my bindings to a 9.5. What I'm trying to figure out is why have several other shops set my bindings to a 6.5? If I chart to a 9.5, they should set me to a 9.5.

I'm trying to figure out if the shops that have set me to a 6.5 (which is plainly wrong, according to both the manufacturers' charts and my own experience) are just incompetent, or if they have some sort of policy of not setting DIN's above a certain point / always scale back DIN settings that chart "too high" according to their beliefs...

J
A shop does not have an option (unless they want to be sued) to set a binding at any other value than indicated on the chart. The skier provides that info (accurate or not) and it is a simple calculation.

I am 6"1", 190 and a type III skier. My boot soles are long and I am well past 50 (settings go down 1) so my setting is 6.5 which is too low. I can prerelease easily at that setting. Normally I ski at an 8 setting and when younger and skiing more aggressively I set my bindings much higher.

The settings are averages and very conservative. They do not meet the needs of very strong, aggressive skiers, racers, etc. who must set them higher. Many shops will set them at higher values if you sign a release or you can do it yourself. Make sure all settings are equal.

However, you will not have the benefit of an actual release check to see if the bindings are releasing within tolerance. That is why it would be preferable to find a shop to do it.

The charts are good for the vast majority of recreational skiers and have improved safety a great deal. But they do not meet the needs of 100% of the skiing population.
post #39 of 56
When you have your car worked on do you just get in and drive it? Same with skis. Check the work yourself. 5'10"@180#TypeIII-DIN 7.
post #40 of 56
Din setting is for an average skier. The more agressive you are, that is (the more you beat your skis into submission) the higher the DIN should be. DIN safety is a matter of how quickly the loads are applied. Fast shock loads will not break bones at high DIN settings (Racing). Slow twisting loads will break bones at modest DIN settings. (flat terrain in deep snow)

For me, I am 50yo, 5'8" 215 lb large frame type II skier with a sole length of 304mm. I have my DIN set at 5.5 for everything including huge knarlly moguls.
post #41 of 56
I just write race on the shop sheets, and that usually gets the message across. In a demo situation, I usually just tell the tech to put it on 10 or 11, and they listen more often than not. The shops I use for my own skis do what I tell them to do, which usually means leaving the DIN alone. Race shops are more likely to listen when you write in something above 10, in my experience. I have had some demo people refuse to put it above 9, in which case I ask to borrow the screwdriver after they give me the skis.
post #42 of 56
I am heavier than you Pierre and much older as you know, but even when I was younger, matter of fact as far back as I can remember having the new step in bindings after the long thong turntables, I have one way of setting my bindings (I don't take them to a shop for that or for tuning) and that is that I can walk out of them at the bottom by the lodge.

And I ski everything, steep and cruddy and have no problem with pre releasing...Stein Ericksen once said that if you have a problem with pre realeasing maybe you should learn to ski right, there is no need to put undue stress on a binding. Exceptions are deep rebound from moguls or chatter on very hard snow at high speed, and that only if the toe and heel pieces are mounted directly to the ski separatly and influenced by the bend in the ski, something the new integrated binding avoid.

If you twist your foot/boot while the ski is anchored in the snow during a turn release can happen, so don't do that, and if your drive your knees so agressivly forward that you pop out of your binding you are no longer over the sweet spot of the ski so don't do that either. I suspect that unintended binding release is due to a mistake the skier made and it is severe enough that for safety reasons the binding pops, as it should.

Folks, as an experiment set your binding at DIN 3 on a green or blue run and concentrate on skiing so smoothly that you wont release, it does wonders for your skiing.

....Ott
post #43 of 56
Like skiing with your boots unbuckled,right Ott.
post #44 of 56
Exactly, slider, it teaches you more than any video, it is sheer willpower that keeps you on your skis...

....Ott
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
And I ski everything, steep and cruddy and have no problem with pre releasing...Stein Ericksen once said that if you have a problem with pre realeasing maybe you should learn to ski right, there is no need to put undue stress on a binding. Exceptions are deep rebound from moguls or chatter on very hard snow at high speed, and that only if the toe and heel pieces are mounted directly to the ski separatly and influenced by the bend in the ski, something the new integrated binding avoid.

If you twist your foot/boot while the ski is anchored in the snow during a turn release can happen, so don't do that, and if your drive your knees so agressivly forward that you pop out of your binding you are no longer over the sweet spot of the ski so don't do that either. I suspect that unintended binding release is due to a mistake the skier made and it is severe enough that for safety reasons the binding pops, as it should.

Folks, as an experiment set your binding at DIN 3 on a green or blue run and concentrate on skiing so smoothly that you wont release, it does wonders for your skiing.

....Ott
So good I had to quote it all. Ott, I'm with you. This is really the fundamental issue, I think, and the reason that I always struggle with pre-release chatter. To have you say it is far more validating than most anyone else saying it, I think.
post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
I am heavier than you Pierre and much older as you know, but even when I was younger, matter of fact as far back as I can remember having the new step in bindings after the long thong turntables, I have one way of setting my bindings (I don't take them to a shop for that or for tuning) and that is that I can walk out of them at the bottom by the lodge.

And I ski everything, steep and cruddy and have no problem with pre releasing...Stein Ericksen once said that if you have a problem with pre realeasing maybe you should learn to ski right, there is no need to put undue stress on a binding. Exceptions are deep rebound from moguls or chatter on very hard snow at high speed, and that only if the toe and heel pieces are mounted directly to the ski separatly and influenced by the bend in the ski, something the new integrated binding avoid.

If you twist your foot/boot while the ski is anchored in the snow during a turn release can happen, so don't do that, and if your drive your knees so agressivly forward that you pop out of your binding you are no longer over the sweet spot of the ski so don't do that either. I suspect that unintended binding release is due to a mistake the skier made and it is severe enough that for safety reasons the binding pops, as it should.

Folks, as an experiment set your binding at DIN 3 on a green or blue run and concentrate on skiing so smoothly that you wont release, it does wonders for your skiing.

....Ott
Your advice for learning to ski properly is great.....several ways to accomplish that. However, using the old twist and step out to check binding settings is risky and imprecise.

As an experienced skier you know that in higher lever skiing (bumps, steeps, racing, etc) unanticipated things happen. These skiers are skiing at the edge of control and the last thing they want is to prerelease.

It is best to determine the proper setting, test the bindings to see if they actually perform as intended, and raise the DIN if needed for more aggressive skiing where the risk of releasing is greater than retention.

I am a little younger than you and my days of real risk taking are over but I still bump up my settings as I am in better shape than most and ski very, very fast.

Unfortunately, I have been ill this year and it looks like my ski season will not happen except in my dreams. I only hope I can recover and ski next year. So, my DIN setting this year is a big fat 0 instead of the normal 8.
post #47 of 56
bsimeral I hope your illness gets better soon, it is always sad to miss a season, but there is always another one...

My whole argument is that cranking up the DIN is no compensation for faulty technique. The modern binding don't move with the bend of the skis, the retention setting doesn't change and they have quite some recentering latitude.

It's the retention stregth of the binding against you bones, joints and muscle strength. Even a cranked high setting will realease in a shock situation, it is the one where your ski tip hooks and you ski past it that does the damage, with your foot turned 90 degrees your leg is much weaker than when you are lined up.

And now a question: what unanticipated things happen in bumps or steeps that a high DIN setting solves? I thought thats why we have release bindings to release in those situations and let us ski another day.

.....Ott
post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
Folks, as an experiment set your binding at DIN 3 on a green or blue run and concentrate on skiing so smoothly that you wont release, it does wonders for your skiing.

....Ott
Three? Did you say 3? I weigh 150# - with my boots on if I'm in good shape - and I'd pop out of 3 on the first 3 foot drop. I think I worked up to 8 (have to check on that) using the good old trial and error method. Sure, I'm exceeding my "smooth" technique limit but what fun is it if you're not pushing yourself a bit (I might feel different when I'm 50+). A loose binding is far more dangerous than a tight binding IMHO. Brocken ankle > busted head.
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
My whole argument is that cranking up the DIN is no compensation for faulty technique. The modern binding don't move with the bend of the skis, the retention setting doesn't change and they have quite some recentering latitude.

It's the retention stregth of the binding against you bones, joints and muscle strength. Even a cranked high setting will realease in a shock situation, it is the one where your ski tip hooks and you ski past it that does the damage, with your foot turned 90 degrees your leg is much weaker than when you are lined up.

And now a question: what unanticipated things happen in bumps or steeps that a high DIN setting solves? I thought thats why we have release bindings to release in those situations and let us ski another day.
I've heard this agrement made before, by Ott and by others. It always makes me chuckle a little.

I can make really nice carved turns on a groomed trail at a level I din setting. What's that prove? Pretty much jack squat.

People who ski high dins ski agressively. They learned a long time ago that a normal level III is not enough to keep the skis on when they are skiing agressively. Hence they turned up their bindings. Following me?

Smoothness and skiing agressively are not mutually exclusive. Most agressive skiers try to ski somewhat smoothly, in fact, skiing very agressively and unsmoothly takes a huge amount of energy. If you're skiing big skis at high speeds on crappy snow, the last thing you want to do is waste energy.

What does actually happen when you ski agressively? You hit stuff. Moguls, cruddy snow, rocks, logs, ice chunks, etc. Chances are you're laying into the ski pretty hard at this point, and this stuff puts some pretty weird loads into your ski and binding. Thus you need a high DIN binding with alot of elastic travel.

A binding with no elastic travel is useless - yes, you will come right out with any shock loading. That's why agressive skiers ski high dins on bindings with lots of elastic travel. I have twisted out of a race stock salomon toe at a 14 setting, but I have never prereleased out of one at high speed.
post #50 of 56
You owe it to yourself to check your DIN settings. I picked up my Big Stix 106 after they were warrantied and not only had the shop adjusted my DIN, but they set it all the way down to 2. And of course I didn't look at it because I was in a rush to head up for a powder day - dropped into the Cirque and immediately double ejected. Got up and double ejected again. And then noticed the DIN.


I will agree that on groomed terrain, you can ski smoothly at a low DIN. I bought some SX:9's and have been skiing them set at 4.5 with no problems. But I certainly wouldn't leave the groomed with them set like that. My normal setting is an 8, and with Looks or Rossis, that works really well for me.


I've got to say I'm among the confused as to how you could get sued for adjusting your own bindings. Particularly if you're cranking them up - - who falls because your skis stayed on? What is the argument? "I was falling but if my skis would have fallen off I would have been in better control not to hit someone mid-fall?" Huh??

If you lowered the DIN setting and lost a ski and it ran into someone... maybe? But seriously - bindings release. It happens. Suing over it?? You've got to be kidding me.

Check it yourself and be responsible for your own actions.
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
I've heard this agrement made before, by Ott and by others. It always makes me chuckle a little.

I can make really nice carved turns on a groomed trail at a level I din setting. What's that prove? Pretty much jack squat.

People who ski high dins ski agressively. They learned a long time ago that a normal level III is not enough to keep the skis on when they are skiing agressively. Hence they turned up their bindings. Following me?

Smoothness and skiing agressively are not mutually exclusive. Most agressive skiers try to ski somewhat smoothly, in fact, skiing very agressively and unsmoothly takes a huge amount of energy. If you're skiing big skis at high speeds on crappy snow, the last thing you want to do is waste energy.

What does actually happen when you ski agressively? You hit stuff. Moguls, cruddy snow, rocks, logs, ice chunks, etc. Chances are you're laying into the ski pretty hard at this point, and this stuff puts some pretty weird loads into your ski and binding. Thus you need a high DIN binding with alot of elastic travel.

A binding with no elastic travel is useless - yes, you will come right out with any shock loading. That's why agressive skiers ski high dins on bindings with lots of elastic travel. I have twisted out of a race stock salomon toe at a 14 setting, but I have never prereleased out of one at high speed.
I'm right with HS on this one. Level III (or even III+ when a shop will agree to set it there) is still proving to be less and less adequate for me as I've become more aggressive on the mountain. I guess due to the indemnification stuff and the current DIN standards the shops won't even consider double digit settings (10+) unless you're a really BIG guy with a short boot sole length. What sucks about this is that I want my bindings tested at these higher settings - I don't want them tested at 9 and then I have to crank them up myself and hope that the binding guage and the number of screw turns are accurate.
post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I'm right with HS on this one. Level III (or even III+ when a shop will agree to set it there) is still proving to be less and less adequate for me as I've become more aggressive on the mountain. I guess due to the indemnification stuff and the current DIN standards the shops won't even consider double digit settings (10+) unless you're a really BIG guy with a short boot sole length. What sucks about this is that I want my bindings tested at these higher settings - I don't want them tested at 9 and then I have to crank them up myself and hope that the binding guage and the number of screw turns are accurate.
Granted, I could ski on a 11 din (level III+) if I skied normally, and I was careful not do anything stupid.

However, once you start skiing high dins, you realise that it *is* possible to do alot of stupid things and remain upright, instaid of ejecting. Such as massive mistakes in weight distribution, charging choppy snow/ice, etc.
post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
bsimeral I hope your illness gets better soon, it is always sad to miss a season, but there is always another one...

My whole argument is that cranking up the DIN is no compensation for faulty technique. The modern binding don't move with the bend of the skis, the retention setting doesn't change and they have quite some recentering latitude.

It's the retention stregth of the binding against you bones, joints and muscle strength. Even a cranked high setting will realease in a shock situation, it is the one where your ski tip hooks and you ski past it that does the damage, with your foot turned 90 degrees your leg is much weaker than when you are lined up.

And now a question: what unanticipated things happen in bumps or steeps that a high DIN setting solves? I thought thats why we have release bindings to release in those situations and let us ski another day.

.....Ott
Thanks for the kind thoughts....I hope to eventually recover and ski.

The DIN standards were never meant to cover stronger and more aggressive risk takers. The only reason for cranking up the setting is to stay in the binding not correct technique. Sometimes, it is safer to stay in than come out due to an unanticipated shock that releases.

I found, by trial and error, that my personal settings were much higher than recommended and I did release safely a number of times without injury but never when I needed to stay retained. If I were a young risk taking skier and skied steeps, etc., I would want to stay in my bindings rather than release during a bad turn or hitting something under the snow.

We both have good points and you are right about learning techinque. I once made my instructors in the early 70s ski in leather boots and cable bindings....wood skis as well with screwed in edges. Also subjected them to skiing with boots unbuckled, etc. Worked wonders for balance and technique. But skiing steeps, bumps, trees, deep powder you do not have consistent conditions and sometimes have to react quickly or create a turn. That is where you can get into trouble if bindings are set too low.

Nothing that I have to worry about anymore.
post #54 of 56
OK, set the DIN to whatever your bones, muscles and joints can handle, you know yourself best. We used to ski with bear traps and cable bindings which had no release, then with the first release binding, the Marker toe that required the two notches in the boot sole and had a shearing action release with the Marker turntable with two rings on either side and a six foot leather long thong wrapped around the boots that allowed the boot to turn under the heel after toe release but held the heel firmly to the ski.

We survived all that because we knew how to ski, we could practically go a whole season without falling and we skied most every day all winter in snow before grooming was invented, powder, crust, breakable or not, ice (seldom) and lots of crud.

As a 250 pounder I can crank hard turns on blue groomers at a DIN setting of 3, I can also walk or even hop out of the binding at the base if I want. Naturally, I don't do my everyday skiing at that setting but any twisting or shearing or excessive pushing in your skiing will reward you with a crash.

Once that lesson is learned the steeps the bumps and the death cookies wont bother you at normal DIN setting because you skis will slide forward along it's length and not sideways.

I presume that they don't do it anymore at exams, but in the USSA and early PSIA and especially in the Austrian and French courses we skied with boots unlaced or unbuckled, with bindings very loose and even with eyes closed and a bandana over them. The latter will show you which is your strong and which is your weak side.

Those exercises teach you balance and use of the skis by guiding them around not musceling them around. Skis are tools that are deflection devices, gravity pulls you straight to the nearest place to the core of the earth which in our case is vectored downhill. What you do with your skis is interfere with that trajectory by deflecting the path your body takes downhill.

That pull can get great enough to where it's either the binding or your bones that will give.

....Ott
post #55 of 56
I don't think I can do that drill...none of my bindings go down to 3....or anywhere near 3....

Look P18 (2x): 8-18 din
Look ZR: 8-18 din
Salomon S916 (2x): 9-16 din
Atomic 1018 race: 10-18 din
Salomon 997 racestock (2x): 11-17 din

Guess I'm out of luck....:

I think I might have binding hoarding problem though....
post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
OK, set the DIN to whatever your bones, muscles and joints can handle, you know yourself best. We used to ski with bear traps and cable bindings which had no release, then with the first release binding, the Marker toe that required the two notches in the boot sole and had a shearing action release with the Marker turntable with two rings on either side and a six foot leather long thong wrapped around the boots that allowed the boot to turn under the heel after toe release but held the heel firmly to the ski.

We survived all that because we knew how to ski, we could practically go a whole season without falling and we skied most every day all winter in snow before grooming was invented, powder, crust, breakable or not, ice (seldom) and lots of crud.

As a 250 pounder I can crank hard turns on blue groomers at a DIN setting of 3, I can also walk or even hop out of the binding at the base if I want. Naturally, I don't do my everyday skiing at that setting but any twisting or shearing or excessive pushing in your skiing will reward you with a crash.

Once that lesson is learned the steeps the bumps and the death cookies wont bother you at normal DIN setting because you skis will slide forward along it's length and not sideways.

I presume that they don't do it anymore at exams, but in the USSA and early PSIA and especially in the Austrian and French courses we skied with boots unlaced or unbuckled, with bindings very loose and even with eyes closed and a bandana over them. The latter will show you which is your strong and which is your weak side.

Those exercises teach you balance and use of the skis by guiding them around not musceling them around. Skis are tools that are deflection devices, gravity pulls you straight to the nearest place to the core of the earth which in our case is vectored downhill. What you do with your skis is interfere with that trajectory by deflecting the path your body takes downhill.

That pull can get great enough to where it's either the binding or your bones that will give.

....Ott
Remember those excercises well. Have not been involved in psia for many years so don't know what they teach. I get the impression that the better schools run their own programs outside or in parallel with psia. Nothing changes I think.

However,

In ungroomed, variable snow you can get unusual conditions and pretty turns are not always possible. I learned to ski pretty in the midwest but was introduced to much more adventurous skiing later on in the west....the kind where you sometimes have to make whatever turn or survival move you can.

Never intended to say that skiers should not learn how to use their skis, particularly todays shaped skis, properly and efficiently. Skiing on a groomed or consistent powder run is a pure joy on them.

While I could ski on a gentle groomed run at a very low setting I would not want to ski fast, steep, bumps, powder....s**t happens no matter how good you are.

Anyway, I hope to return to skiing next year and when I grow up (only mid 60s kid) I want to be just like you!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › ski shops too conservative with dins?