 Poster: A snowHead
|
| stuarth wrote: |
I would have thought Atomic could just suck it up no matter how it happened - would build much better brand loyalty and reputation.
IMHO this refelects badly on all involved. |
Agreed, i own a pair of Atomics but this thread makes me wonder whether or not i will buy again next time. And thats a real shame as i love my current planks but there are also many a good other ski out there and business is won on lost on customer service nowadays.
Suddenly i feel really anti atomic..... i really wish they had sorted this out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Corduroy, I think you may have missed the OP's happy post? His skis have been replaced by Atomic after the retailer eventually sent the skis, rather than a couple of photos to the expert for analysis. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Corduroy, The specific issue raised has been resolved by CEM, Atomics’ "agent" and all parties are happy. I suspect that through CEM's efforts this has been sorted out much quicker than it would have been with many other makes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Corduroy, tbf - the planks in question were foam cored and - to put it politely - at the lower end of the Atomic range. That's not to say they should not perform if correctly used but there's a reason skis come at different price levels and to some extent - you get what you pay for. As long as they suit you I don't see any reason why you should think of changing your current choice, other than just to have a change and see what else is out there. In any event, as said above - Atomic eventually sorted it and we have no reason to beleive that they ever had any intention of doing otherwise, the original 'reluctance' seems to have arisen from the retailer (although we do not have enough detail to know the whole story).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
jtr, you are mixing two issues with the reference to the Metron - that scale was specifc to a series of skis and not intended to be a general guide i.e. it compared 'like' with 'like', not skis across ranges. For your concept to work you would have to get across the board agreement to a standard rating from all the major ski manufacturers. As we all know, the variations between the 'standards' we already have are proving a challange (shell size v standard shoe sizes, boot mid-point/balance, ski mid-point/balance, ski length, etc., etc.). I think the 'failure' to introduce an agreed rating for ski vs. skier is down to the fact that the various manufactuers have their own way of doing things. Even if you could bottom out an agreed rating system, I suspect that the manufacturers would not agree which of their skis matched which rating so the poor consumer would still be left guessing. In any event, I am more interested in what the ski was designed to do (piste, park, all mountain, etc.) rather than at what level it was designed to do it - I can make my own mind up with regard to the latter.
I think the actual reason that such a rating does not exist is for reasons simlar to the response sometimes allegedly given by Rolls Royce salesmen to certain potential clients - 'If you have to ask the price, you can not afford it'. Here it's more like 'anyone asking the question probably should only be picking from the lower 1/4 of the scale anyway so why bother with the other 3/4 of the scale??' If you know enough then you are not going to pay any attention to any generalised ratings and if you do not know enough then you should be buying from a specialist salesman who should advise you correctly in any event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
RattytheSnowRat, I am not sure you really understand how the Metron Index operated. It applied to only the Metron series of skis, (as I said “Essentially, this was designed to ensure that the length of ski (by specific ski model) matched the user and the usage"). That series of skis encompassed a wide variety of shapes, sizes, uses and expertise e.g. the B5 was quite different to the M8 and the length of ski determined by the MI differed accordingly.
I have not asked for/proposed a universal standard (see above). All I have said is that if skis have a safety design limit based on, say the skier’s weight and type (we can only surmise that these are the types of parameters since they aren’t widely available), then that information should be made available to the end user. It has been established that this information exists, so why not make it freely available?
PS I recall similar discussions about bindings not so long ago. I favoured the publication of the “DIN” charts but others seemed violently opposed to that, which I found equally odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jtr, I did, as stated, understand how the Metron system worked - I though it limited, restrictive and not inclusive of the relevant criteria to make the correct assessment.
What happens if a skier uses a 'race ski' - as defined by the Metron Index - for going off piste? What do you think an insurer would argue? What would an manufacturer argue if you jumped that ski off a ledge or ramp?
DIN charts were created as a safety feature from day one and come with a raft of caveats about level of expertise, weight and type of use - many of which are often ignored. I'd like to bring spyderjon in on this but I think its the case that different manufacturers can give different release pressures for the smae nominal DIN reading (jon has a machine that can test this) and this will also vary for angle of release depending on the binding. So your 'standard' here is a little bit dubious and rates personal consideration and testing - I certainly don't assume 'DIN 8' works for me for all bindings and all skis and any combination thereof, regardless of type of snow, type of sking, backpack weight, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, The Metron system was clearly limited; it was limited to the Metron series of skis! but it was a genuine attempt to make sure that the skier ended up on the appropriate ski. The answer to your question of “What would an manufacturer argue if you jumped that ski off a ledge or ramp?”, I guess (only the manufacturers can answer this) in most cases would be that the user was using the skis for a purpose that they were not designed and marketed to satisfy. That seems entirely reasonable to me. What is your view? Similarly, I doubt anyone with a normal car would get very far with a warranty claim if the car failed whilst wading through 1 metre of water (again reasonable, IMV).
The DIN standard is a not “a little dubious”; it is clearly defined. However, its implementation may vary and, at least, the manufacturers do make the data available. Independent testing of each binding would be ideal but you well know (I hope) that this just doesn’t happen in most ski shops in the UK and abroad, so these charts are the best available to the user to check that they’ve been given something close to the “correct” value. (There have been many posts over the years describing some horrific examples of some ski techs sending people out with wildly wrong DIN settings). IMV, “something” which would get you into the correct ballpark is better than “nothing”. Your view on this and skis appears to be that “nothing” is better than “something”. Each to his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
Your view on this and skis appears to be that “nothing” is better than “something”.
|
- "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - it's not 'my view', it's shared by many. If 'nothing' forces the partly informed to take expert advice then 'Yes' -"nothing” is better than “something”. That's not to say that one should implicitly trust every ski tech. I've had to adapt and correct work that I have been sent out of the shop with in various ski resorts - including variant binding settings where the tech involved failed to ask my weight or level of expertise (last season, Les Arcs 2000, binding re-fitting on some WhiteDots - sent out with them set at DIN 2!) The point is that relying on someone who has never met you to give this type of advice is inherently flawed. I think Atomic knows this which is why the system has not been sustained. Did you also notice that nothing in that range was classed as 'Beginner’? That implies Atomic only trusted relatively experienced skiers to make the correct choice even with their rating system doing most of the ‘heavy lifting’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, Your
| Quote: |
| - "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - it's not 'my view', |
is encouraging and it is good to see that you applied your knowledge to the DIN issue that you subsequently described.
It has been established that design limits exist. There has still been no justification for these not being published other than some vague assertion that this will force people to see an expert (i.e. dealer) who I note you posted may well be ill-informed
| Quote: |
| Also I suspect that ski manufacturers do not want to get into the issue about training retailers on this point since it is actually the retailer that currently bears the 'risk' of getting this issue wrong (subject to a genuine equipment failure during proper use). |
Your experience of DIN settings is, IMHO, a good example. If someone looks up a DIN table and determines that they should be, say, a “5” and they are sent out with a, say, “8” then they, at least, have the opportunity to question the difference (which may or may not be correct) rather than relying on the “8” which could be complete wrong. One of my sons bought new boots in the 3V and the ski tech screwed the toe height adjustment down on my son’s skis so that there was no clearance between the boot and the AFD. I knew that there should be 0.5mm clearance, so took them back; cue furious argument between the ski tech (who stormed out) and the manager. The problem was sorted out there and then; definitely a case of "no knowledge is a dangerous thing".
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
One of my sons bought new boots in the 3V and the ski tech screwed the toe height adjustment down on my son’s skis so that there was no clearance between the boot and the AFD. I knew that there should be 0.5mm clearance, so took them back; cue furious argument between the ski tech (who stormed out) and the manager. The problem was sorted out there and then; definitely a case of "no knowledge is a dangerous thing".
|
- just shows the difference in our approaches - I own a screwdriver. Glad however no harm came to your next-in-line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
ooops, sorry all. It seems i should read threads thoroughly before posting.
I pleased to see it was sorted. My faith is restored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
