 Poster: A snowHead
|
Atomic =
| Quote: |
a mid level ski manufacturer
|
??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
My favorite legal consumer story is the guy who ironed a shirt. Trouble is he was wearing it at the time. He sued for personal injury. He won
|
not sure why i was following this thread, it was getting all to serious, but i knew there would be something of interest and then i see this, made me laugh....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Just to let people know, the skis have been replaced as a good will gesture. I'm obviously extremely happy with the outcome and although it got a bit stressfully at times, I hold nothing against anyone involved and am extremely thankful to everyone who helped.
I'm going to update the 1st post with the full story, but I've just got in from work and am exhausted so I'll leave writing a detailed post until a bit later in the week or at the weekend.
Stay tuned everyone!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Good for you, it sounded like you were sold unsuitable skis for your height and weight to begin with. Have a great season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
hojkoff, Same happened with me last season when I bent a major manufacturers ski when had an off, these were also replaced as a "good will gesture", easier than them saying they were faulty I guess and opening a can of worms. Sounds like you are sorted so well done, happy days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| hojkoff wrote: |
Just to let people know, the skis have been replaced as a good will gesture. I'm obviously extremely happy with the outcome and although it got a bit stressfully at times, I hold nothing against anyone involved and am extremely thankful to everyone who helped.
I'm going to update the 1st post with the full story, but I've just got in from work and am exhausted so I'll leave writing a detailed post until a bit later in the week or at the weekend.
Stay tuned everyone!!! |
Out of interest, where they replaced like for like or do you have a different size or model?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ansta1, let's not go there - that's a whole new can of worms.
hojkoff, happy for you. Ski on, Garth!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hojkoff, a good result for you, and no doubt when you come to replace them more likely to be a good result for the manufacturer. Good on you for sticking with it if it was a genuine claim, many would have given up at the first hurdle. If of course it wasn't a genuine claim, then a plague of locusts on your houses etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
ansta1, let's not go there - that's a whole new can of worms.
hojkoff, happy for you. Ski on, Garth! |
why? It's clear the retailer is unlikely to be named but the OP is now satisfied with the end result, but what's wrong with getting some context around the issue. Though I feel this thought will roll across the forum like tumbleweed......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok here are the facts
ski size 164cm the skier is 75kg without ski kit, so right on the limit of the design spec of the ski, the core has snapped due to fatigue most likely cause is that skiing right at the limit of the design over the season the core has become stressed and failed, there was no air bubbles or similar in the core so it is not a design fault, if the ski had been skied 1-2 weeks a year in this size then it probably would never have happened
end result is that the ski has been replaced by Atomic in a larger size 170cm so that the issue does not happen again
you can take whatever conclusions you like from the above.
matter now closed customer happy etc etc
next 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I'd love to know where consumers can find out the designed weight ranges for skis. It's not something I've ever seen specified when buying skis, and looking at the Atomic website for the skis I own there's nothing about a maximum weight, but clearly it's something we should consider when making a purchase if we want them to survive a season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
kieranm, or maybe it's something the retailers should be pointing out to punters when they buy the skis. Bit more difficult when you're buying online.
I'm surprised that there's not something that exists for shops to get customers to sign something that says that they are buying something that may not be suitable and that the shop won't be liable for failures due to this.
It would encourage punters to take proper advice on board rather than going with what they may think is best based on some guff advice handed out on some internet forum somewhere.
It would protect the punter and the retailer and the manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see that this was a "goodwill gesture" at all - if the retailer sold a ski that wasn't fit for purpose then they're obliged to refund or replace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
I don't see that this was a "goodwill gesture" at all - if the retailer sold a ski that wasn't fit for purpose then they're obliged to refund or replace.
|
Agreed
That is IF the retailer sold the wrong length then it's shoddy to try hide behind someone else when it goes wrong, maybe the guy insisted on 164's in the shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| shoogly wrote: |
kieranm, or maybe it's something the retailers should be pointing out to punters when they buy the skis. Bit more difficult when you're buying online.
I would have thought easier online as it is something can be included in the specs, in a shop unless you put posters up everywhere or stickers on the skis themselves you can't expect every shop assistant to know the specs of every ski in every length. Perhaps the onus should be on the manufacturer to print this info on the box?
I'm surprised that there's not something that exists for shops to get customers to sign something that says that they are buying something that may not be suitable and that the shop won't be liable for failures due to this.
Can you imagine "Madam can you sign this waiver please you looksignifigantly heavier than the 9 stone these skis can cope with?"
It would encourage punters to take proper advice on board rather than going with what they may think is best based on some guff advice handed out on some internet forum somewhere.
It would protect the punter and the retailer and the manufacturer. |
The onus should be on the manufacturer to make the info readily available, I found the weight specs eventually after searching on google, it was not obvious on any sites selling skis that I looked at. K2 info was only available as a general guide not ski specific, I have a feeling it was them that had nothing if you were over 6ft or 15st!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
CEM, well done, m8. Does sound like a retailer based cock-up to be fair to all the other parties.
kieranm, manufacturers ski length assessment charts usually make a point about your height which they regard as a short hand reference for weight (it's sometimes expressed as an adjustment shift upscale on the side of the chart i.e. if you are 'X' skill level or over and/or 'Y' height or over, go up a length/choose in this range of ski type). Which I imagine is why Atomic did not replace 'like for like' in this case.
As I said before (and as shoogly just mentioned), we do not know if the retailer ever even met the OP - the purchase could have been done over the internet. If so, I expect the seller's standard terms warn buyers that they have to make such weight/use judgements for themselves. If that was the case, then it was very nice of Atomic to pony up the appropriate skis so lets reserve judgement on all parties and be glad that everything seems to have worked out for the best in this case.
shoogly, to be fair to internet forums, sometimes that's all the poor punter has to go on. I think there is a lot of good advice given on this site by people with a lot of experience and a range of insight based on a wide diversity of participants. CEM is an 'off the scale' example. I don't know about you but I've been to so called 'expert' retailers in London who know less about their product (and their own policies and systems) than I do. Conversely, some of the nicest ski related purchasing experiences I have had have been internet based where people have steered my gently in the right direction despite my initial eagerness. I take what I can from where I can and try to learn from my mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| lilywhite wrote: |
| The onus should be on the manufacturer to make the info readily available, I found the weight specs eventually after searching on google, it was not obvious on any sites selling skis that I looked at. K2 info was only available as a general guide not ski specific, I have a feeling it was them that had nothing if you were over 6ft or 15st! |
+1.
If a ski is designed in a manner that causes it to break when skied by someone who is on the design limit for that ski, these crucial limits should be stamped on every ski. It is certainly possible to put 5 Kg of weight on in a few months (fortunately, I went the other way!) but I have never been told by a ski shop that such an increase in weight (and/or using the ski for more than a couple of weeks) could cause the ski to suddenly snap.
As a general guide (and I know that is all it is), the S&R catalogue shows 160cm as the starting ski length for people up to 75 Kg. That goes up by +5cm for “advanced” and another +5cm for “expert”. There are no notices stating that skiing shorter than these guidelines could result in ski failure with the associated consequences.
Given the litigious nature of consumer goods/services (e.g. “Warning these nuts contain nuts” etc.) I am puzzled as to why ski manufacturers and their agents/resellers appear to think that they are exempt from this by not making this information widely available to their potential customers (and then there is the matter of subsequent resales).
I have skied (happily if not very competently) on Atomic skis for many years and my only issue to date is that on some of them I have had to move the bindings forward to get really happy. Given that I prefer skis on the short side of the general recommendations, I may now revise my ski choice.
(….. as a balance, my son has skied extensively on Atomic Smoke Tis without them exploding, albeit he is probably within the design/ failure limits).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I too am very happy with my Atomic skis; I was just wondering why this data isn't more easily available if the manufacturers have it as it sounds like a useful set of figures to have. As someone who is pretty light for their height I doubt I'll ever have a problem with it, but I have considered slightly shorter or slightly less stiff skis than I might do if based solely on my height to account for not weighing so much (and so meaning I can flex the ski effectively).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think I should put in a good word for Atomic since I happen to have seen said ski. All this talk of "snapped" is overly dramatic. It has, in fact, bent just behind the shovel and the base there splintered. There is still quite some strength in the tip and it is still skiable - with caution. IMHO, the break is unlikely to have directly caused the skier's fall.
Obviously I am not an expert and have not been in there with an x-ray microscope but, IMV, Atomic are being very generous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
altis, The word "snapped" was used by the OP and others and you have used the word "break"; I'm not sure I fully appreciate the difference. In any event, it is reassuring that the "bent" bit is unlikely to have caused the fall. However the weight sensitivity (and consequent liability) issue still appears to exist.
Actually, I would have been happier if the outcome had been along the lines of "The skier gave these skis a real hammering and whist we think they were ill-treated, we are giving him a new set because we can't prove it one way or the other."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
jtr, be happy with whatever words you like
i have posted the facts as i see them, and as the final decision as to if these skis are replaced lies with me, not the retailer or the manufacturer (as i have a contract with the manufacturer that they will accept my decision as final in all such matters) i am not paid a cash figure for this decision, we do have an agreement with the manufacturer to cover my time, but this is not anyones concern, i am quite within my rights to refuse or authorise warranties and pressure form "internet experts" had no bearing on the decision!
there are other mitigating factors which have no intention in posting however as i have said the ski has been replaced and the reasons for this are no concern of you or anyone else, it is between the op , the retailer the manufacture and myself
now can we get on with the forthcoming season
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEM Say what you like and and hide behind whatever you like but the
| Quote: |
| there are other mitigating factors which have no intention in posting however as i have said the ski has been replaced and the reasons for this are no concern of you or anyone else, it is between the op , the retailer the manufacture and myself |
is just poor. You have more than implied that these skis are not able to sustain a skier on the design limit. That is clearly a matter for public concern, especially as these design limits are not widely published.
| Quote: |
| now can we get on with the forthcoming season |
i.e. just bury it. You have raised a serious safety issue and that should be addressed by Atomic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jtr, no safety issue on the skis whatsoever, i suggest you reread the thread FROM THE BEGINNING and you might work it out
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| CEM wrote: |
| jtr, no safety issue on the skis whatsoever, i suggest you reread the thread FROM THE BEGINNING and you might work it out |
I HAVE READ IT FROM THE FIRST POST. I suggest you look carefully at your posts but I don't expect you to add much which is disappointing because all of your other posts over the years have been really informative. I still intend to get my next boots from you (but will probably use an alias!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jtr, I rather expect CEM, is remaining neutral because he runs a business, potentially we are all clients, slagging one of us off is not good business. Atomic has a business arrangement with him, he would need to an idiot to slag them off and lose a revenue stream. The retailer has not been named by the OP and CEM, has respected his wishes by not naming them.
The OP is happy with the outcome, CEM, has maintained his integrity I think you are being harsh.
I do think the manufacturers should make the specs the skis are designed for easier to access for us mere mortals however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
jtr, there is a whole lot more that goes into breaking a ski than the weight of the skier. You could be a dynamic 50kg whizz and still break a ski if you pitch yourself off a big enough drop or smash into a big mogul. If the skis in question were high-end race skis, it might be worth dragging out all the detail you seem to be fishing for but the fact is they were bottom of the barrel first-timer skis with a composite core. Get over it ffs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
lilywhite, Fair comment. I don't think I was being harsh but that is clearly debateable. The comments on the issue of the provision of ski suitability data was/is directed to the ski manufacturer rather than CEM. In cycling, the manufacturers have no problem in providing such data e.g. frame size vs height and Campagnolo specify weight limits on some components (IIRC 80Kg on the wheels I looked at). Like you, I can't see why this type of data is not made available for skis (and indeed I can see why the manufacturers would want to provide it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
So what's your point then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| flowa wrote: |
| So what's your point then? |
I see originality is not yours. Let's leave it at that - oh sorry, forgot the "ffs!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
jtr, I think you are being unfair and argumentative. Whatever your opinion, you have no right to the information you are 'demanding' and there may be very good reasons other than those listed above why the parties cannot discuss it. I am speculating but if I was advising Atomic/CEM/the retailer then I would make damn sure that a confidentiality agreement was put in place regarding the settlement ESPECIALLY because of the in-depth discussion here. The OP would have agreed to this in writing which is why he is now 'schtum' and the others would also be bound by it to the extent that revealing the existence of the Confi. Agreement would be a breach (CEM possibly being regarded as an 'agent' for Atomic in this context alone).
So before commenting try to think a bit and assume there may be good reasons why people do not enter further dialogue after a settlement has been reached. In any event, I suggest you owe CEM an apology just in case I am correct.
I think that the max weight issue notification is, in theory, a resonable one BUT as pointed out above this means very little depending on how you are skiing the plank in question and is only one of the factors that would need to be considered when advising whether a particular ski model is appropriate for a specifc skier. 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). There are plenty of other PR and legal reasons why ski manufacturers would not want to do as you suggest. The first that springs to mind is the issue of how much the lady skiers would wish to have their weight range plastered all over their skis for all and sundry to read ...... ditto, for many men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
The first that springs to mind is the issue of how much the lady skiers would wish to have their weight range plastered all over their skis for all and sundry to read ...... ditto, for many men.
|
an opportunity for a bit of creative marketing therin..
I ski "fat b'stard skis"
She skis "stick thin rake skis"
and lots of other options in between....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
RattytheSnowRat,
| Quote: |
| So before commenting try to think a bit and assume there may be good reasons why people do not enter further dialogue after a settlement has been reached. In any event, I suggest you owe CEM an apology just in case I am correct. |
I think you are being unfair and argumentative. I have not “demanded” details of the OP, the dealer or the background to the original sale (and indeed have had a perfectly amicable "PM" exchange with CEM since our posts). It is the general implications, rather than the specifics that I find of interest.
| Quote: |
| I think that the max weight issue notification is, in theory, a reasonable one BUT as pointed out above this means very little depending on how you are skiing the plank in question and is only one of the factors that would need to be considered when advising whether a particular ski model is appropriate for a specifc skier. |
Before commenting try to think a bit. There appear to be good reasons why suppliers of other types of sports equipment have no problems in supplying this type of safety limits data to the general public. In the skiing world, bindings manufactures have no problem is supplying this maximum weight data. In cycling, Campanolo feel happy to state a limit of 80Kg on some road wheels. They don’t even feel the need to add any caveats such as “not suitable for MTBing, drops” etc.
| 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). |
Think about that for a moment. You are saying the manufacturers don’t want to train the retailers properly. I am not that cynical and I hope you are incorrect on this point.
| Quote: |
| There are plenty of other PR and legal reasons why ski manufacturers would not want to do as you suggest. |
Such as? Maybe you think that tyre manufactures should to remove speed ratings from their products.
| Quote: |
| The first that springs to mind is the issue of how much the lady skiers would wish to have their weight range plastered all over their skis for all and sundry to read ...... ditto, for many men. |
A touch patronising. Maybe you can start a campaign to stop people having to wear a safety belt when driving in case it crease their clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
flowa, +1 - especially as there does not seem to be a link between the quote and the subsequent statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Curious responses devoid of any substantial points.
Perhaps you don’t remember the Atomic Metron Index (of the not too distant past). Essentially, this was designed to ensure that the length of ski (by specific ski model) matched the user and the usage. Here is a copy of it (but with the range abridged and the actual numbers removed so that you don’t get over-excited with the provision of data)
| Quote: |
50 kg : Index=
…in 5 kg increments to
110 kg : Index=
2. Skiing ability
Expert:
Index=
Advanced:
Index=
Intermediate:
Index=
3. Preferred turning radius
Long:
Index=
Middle:
Index=
Short:
Index=
How to calculate the Metron Index
Weight ( )
Skiing ability ( )
Preferred turning radius ( )
---------------------------
Metron Index =
|
Using that number you could choose the appropriate ski knowing that your choice was within the manufacturers design limits.
Why do you think it is unreasonable to provide similar data for all current skis to the end user?
I look forward to your reasoned responses and am willing to be convinced by the power of your logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carroz, I look forward to someone presenting a cogent case that justifies why this information is withheld from the end user. Perhaps you could have an attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
jtr, it's not withheld it is just not easy to find.
Height/weight is a guideline not an absolute.
Terrain skied, conditions skied, aggressiveness of skier, maintenance/storage of skis, ability level of skier will impact on how long the ski will last.
As a lot of those factors will mean different things to different people how could you measure it realistically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lilywhite, Thanks for the polite and reasoned reply. I agree the information is not easy to find. My question is why. My view is that this data should be easily obtained (e.g. like the Metron table, which covered the weight, ability and elements of usage factors) and if it is crucial to the integrity of the ski, it could/should be displayed on the ski.
On the bike forums, the “I was just riding along when ….” posts are quite frequent. They rarely attract a sympathetic response if, for example, it was a “Clydesdale” who suffered a failure on light weight wheels or hit a pavement/did a drop on a light weight road bike because people point out that the rider was using the equipment beyond its publicly specified limits.
I’m toying around with getting a new road bike and have been looking a quite a few sites. I noticed on one yesterday (don’t ask for a link because I’ve looked at quite a few recently) that it published the maximum weight for rider (120Kg, so I’m OK!) in addition to the usual sizing recommendations and usage caveats e.g. for road use only, no cross-country and no drops. I fail to see why bike companies publish this information freely and ski companies don’t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
