Snapped Atomic Smoke Skis

A snowHead

One of my skis snapped when I was away on season last winter. Atomic are now refusing to replace the ski under warranty.

I was skiing on-piste, the conditions were slightly slushy with a number of small to medium moguls. The ski came off my foot and I was left skiing on one ski, needless to say I when down pretty quickly after that.

There was no impact damage at all and nothing to suggest on the tip of the ski that I hit anything. Bear in mind that the Smoke model has a composite core not a wood core.

The expert is claiming that there must have been impact to cause the ski to snap. Atomic refuse to deal with me so I can't even get a hold of any warranty or guarantee that may I got when I bought them.

The ski was never posted to the expert for analysis by the retailer, only photos were sent down. He's even quoted the wrong model of ski on his letter back to me, incidentally the ski that he has quoted does have a wooden core. I've asked for the ski to be sent but I haven't heard anything since then. That was about a month ago.

What do I do now? Or what can I do now?

A snowHead

Friend here whose skis have something of a hard life snapped one of his skis - small US ski manufacturer had no issues replacing it under warranty.

Atomic on the other hand have not done so well in my experience. Quite some time ago I had an edge crack on some fairly new Atomic skis (no rock dings or mistreatment
so seemed a clear cut warranty issue to me!). Not covered under warranty but fortunately Whistler Village Sports worked them over until they agreed.

A few things that came out of this:
- my friend is very happy with aforementioned small US ski manufacturer and therefore passes on the good will.
- I still give Whistler Village Sports my custom when possible
- I'd be more hesitant to buy Atomic skis (which is a bit of a shame because Atomic seem to make nice skis)

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

hojkoff, You never said how old they are/ were? If 1-2 years old I'd be digging my feet in, if older you're IMO on a hiding to nothing, "that's what ski's do, its a tough environment etc etc" is their likely response, been there, however mine were brand new so I got it sorted and made sure it got sorted..............Claim on your insurance, but its likely too late, why did it take 6 months+?

Put it behind you and buy another make of ski, ie not Atomic (for your own sanity).......write to them first giving them 28 days to respond/ replace and if they dont respond move on.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

hojkoff, If purchased in the UK it is the Retailer you need to be dealing with not the manfacturer?

Avaoid Foam (Composite cores) they are poo

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

I'd consider using the small claims court if you can't get any joy. It's easy enough to do online.

This is the best guide I know of to consumer rights:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

hojkoff, your claim is with the retailer rather than the manufacturer

for your information it would have been me who saw the photos so if you want to start hurling abuse carry on

we assess on a case bay case basis, the pictures that were sent to me were of a ski which had been snapped through either impact or hitting something, if you do not feel that this happened then i suggest (as i told you when you called my office and were fairly abusive to me flying off the handle about this) to contact your retailer and get them to send the skis to me for a full inspection.

it is not in my interest to say anything other than i see, i am not paid by atomic top keep claims down but skis simply DO NOT snap whilst skiing along, not showing the forces to cause this type of damage.

can you remind me of your height and weight and what length the ski actually is, i have a suspicion that there might be more to this than meets the eye

kieranm, stunning idea but make sure the facts are correct before you start, there are enough industry experts who will blow a case out the water if there is any doubt

After all it is free

hojkoff, so you were skiing along, a ski fell off and when you walked back up to it, it was snapped in half???

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

davidhammy, think you are missing the point,

here are the facts
1 the customer has a problem with a ski, yes we agree
2 i was sent pictures by the retailer asking to assess the damage, from the pictures the damage looks to not be consistent with any type of fault in construction, more like impact.

3 customer gets report from retailer and instead of dealing with them he calls me up, gets upset and abusive down the phone.

being honest that is as far as it has got, i only write the report based on what i have seen, either pictures of the ski in the flesh

the consumer should be contacting the retailer rather than extracting details from a report and sounding off at me, that and only that is my point

here is the procedure as it should be done

1 customer takes ski to retailer
2 retailer contacts atomic customer service and requests a returns number (i am only the inspection centre so do not issue the returns number)
3 skis get sent back for inspection
4 report is written either agreeing the claim or refusing it (based on what i have seen it was refused but this was not the ski only pictures but pretty conclusive ones)

now at this point the retailer has not been in touch with customer services to get a returns number therefore i cannot do anything more about it, the customer calling me will get nothing in return, i would love to help but, i am contracted to work with the retailer based on 25+ years of working in this industry on boots and skis.... so far from what is being posted all i can see is the customer and the retailer are arguing over who is paying £15 for postage, if the claim is substantiated then the postage will be credited to the shop.

i really love how many internet experts this forum drags up, none of you have seen the pictures or the ski, so i find it amazing that you can comment

how about considering the size of the ski based on the size of the skier?

Getting a bit heated considering the pictures are not on here to second guess, the analyst clearly has only seen pictures to work from, the OP says the skis released not that he crashed, he states he went to the ground AFTER release on bumps/moguls then walked back to a broken ski, I don't think anyone should be mud slinging.
Why if the OP thinks he has a legitimate claim or the retailer thinks there is a legitimate claim they don't stump up the postage to send the ski on for proper inspection is beyond me!
I understand the OP thinks hes getting a poor deal, the analyst is obviously not getting enough information and the retailer is perhaps not as helpful as he could be. Communication obviously needs looking at here. Puzzled

You know it makes sense.

lilywhite, Wasn't aware it was the ski that released that was the broken one.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Apologies CEM didn't see your last post.

A snowHead

so

1. the ski may have snapped slightly before the binding release point, possibly due to a construction failure or possibly due to an impact (which subsequently resulted in binding release)

2. the ski may have had an impact post binding release whch resulted in the damage.

3. Both the retailer and atomic have failed in some respects to have the issue fully and properely assessed (sending the ski to an expert for investigation rather than some probably less than detailed or perfect photos)

4. Customer is unhappy and has not surprisingly vented at the first person he can who he feels is in some way responsible for non resultion of his issue

5. customer raises a query on forum (1st post i think), possibly or possibly not knowing that expert is a regular on this forum.

My very simple view. I do not know if the ski snapped as a result of impact or not, but being the kind hearted sole i am, I assume the truth is being told and that the ski released without impact. It is possible that post release the ski hit something and caused the damage. However if the customer has an issue, and it is within an acceptable limit of time, then as stated the claim sits with the retailer under the sale of goods act in the uk. It is the retailers remit to liaise with the supplier and either resolve or provide a case a to why this cannot be followed through.

If the customer is not happy with the final response, he can either take it through the small claims court or through their Trading Standards dept.

Not saying who is right or wrong but as i see thems are the facts mam.

A snowHead

ansta1, Agreed

hojkoff, My best advice is to have a face to face meet with your retailer, mine were replaced by my supplier following a dismissive report by the UK manufacturers rep, as a good-will gesture by the store. They knew I spend a lot of money with them over the years so suspect they took a sympathetic view. My ski pinged off on a fast descent on-piste and buckled as it landed end-on. Don't want to say what type of ski it was, or who the supplier was but IMO face to face discussion rather than confrontation helped.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Ok, I think it might be worth saying that I don't want a confutation, I don't want an argument and I especially don't want to have to pursue this through a court, I have a good friend who is a lawyer and trust me, the most expensive words you can ever say are, "see you in court" (well that and "will you marry me?"). What I really want is for this to just be resolved.

The way I see it is that there are 4 people involved:
1. Me the customer
2. The retailer
3. The rep from the manufacturer
4. The expert

The rep and the retailer are where this is falling down. As far as I am aware the rep stated that the photos were fine to be sent for analysis, now the rep is being slow to respond and there is an issue over who will pay for postage, the rep, or will the retailer be reimbursed for the fee. If it's £15 or so then I'm happy to pay it and just treat that as an expense but I'm not being allowed to do that, again this is frustrating. I'm not arguing over a postage cost, it's the retailer and the rep who are.

CEM I don't blame you for your conclusion based on the fact that you were given photos and not the ski to assess. I don't blame you for the standard procedure breaking down either, I don't understand why the standard wasn't followed I feel it's that's the reason that this has occurred. Again, I don't blame you for that.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

hojkoff, Suggest you start again with your supplier, they should sort it. Your situation is no that different from mine. Just be aware though that this is not that rare an event and as I mentioned at the top of this post it's not unlikely that you will get a statement along the lines of its a dangerous environment etc, and skis do fail etc.....I know it's not easy, good luck.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Its not nice to break equipment but should he really be using that ski in the first place? Assuming, because we don't know, that the equipment wasn't defective then you can't really blame the manufacturer. The product is clearly entry level and the ski probably wouldn't stand up to decent impact. It is quite easy to break equipment if it is not suitable for the skier.

If I use some entry level bindings, marker squire or something similar, then is it the manufacturers fault when I break them? Not really (unless they were faulty or the marketing is cowdoo). If the shop miss sold them then they could be partly responsible. But if I only bought them because they were the cheapest bindings then its clearly my fault if the retailer did not have any reason to think that the product wasn't suitable (eg if I weigh 100kg+). The shop can only go by what information you tell them.

Still feel sorry for the guy. I have broken equipment that I shouldn't have been using. Try not to lose your cool.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I don't know if it's the Ti version or not, but it gets good reviews as on this link. It shouldn't break.
http://youtube.com/v/HM4dI6GtOG4&feature=relmfu

After all it is free

Just had a nosey at the specs, this ski in a 164cm length is suitable for people under 170lb or under about 77kg, couldn't see specs for the 157cm ski but you can assume the weight guide will be lower still. The OP is not sure whether his ski is a 157 or a 164. The OP lists his weight as ~75kg.
The ti does have some compositeclarky999, !

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

lilywhite, wood core though, no?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

hojkoff, the small claims court isn't expensive at all as your lawyer friend will confirm. Also CEM, is right I'm sure that there may be lots of experts who could "blow a case out of the water" but frankly I'd be amazed if any experts were involved in a small claims case. I've never heard of any expert being involved in any small claim like this in my local small claims court. If the retailer won't deal with the issue, just fire ahead with a small claim. You have nothing to lose except the stamp fee which is about the price of a decent round of drinks or maybe a meal in a restaurant, depending on the precise value.

snow reports

clarky999, composite core with ti layer is how its listed. 2012 version.

You know it makes sense.

mag1882, the next length up (171cm) is for 160-200lbs the 178cm for weights of over 185lb. Ps I'm no expert just reading from the manufacturers specs online.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

A snowHead

So general question, when a ski manufacturer gives a guide max weight, is this for skier, or skier boots and all the gubbins they carry around?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

ansta1, Good question.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Another general question; where do you find these guidance maximum weights? I've been looking around for my first pair of skis and I don't think I've seen them mentioned on any online shops, and I can't see it anywhere on (as an example) Salomon's website.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

finestgreen, I found the atomic listings on rei.com. Salomen had not supplied details on that site.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Given me all know who the expert is, why is no-one mentioning who the retailer is?

hojkoff,

First question - do you reside outside the UK and did you get the skis on line. You need to establish where the sale took place before trying to establish what rights you have. For the sake of the rest of what follows I shall assume the sale took place in England. If it didn’t, then you are posting in the wrong place

When you bought the skis there was, I assume, a warranty letter or leaflet that came with them, yes? Do you have that? Have you followed the terms of it? If the retailer was in England they have a number of responsibilities BUT they can modify these. Generally this is done by means of some really small writing on the reverse of your invoice. Do you have that? Have you complied with what it says there?
Actually I should stop there since the permutations of those issues alone are enough to gag a horse but never mind ...{takes deep breath}.
Did you have any other service such as the fitting of bindings (if the bindings were fitted elsewhere you may have a really big problem)? [There are a host of questions that need to be asked here relating to boots, where the bindings were sourced, etc., etc.) Did they sell you the skis under any conditions (e.g. ex-demo)? If the ski came with bindings did you supply details of your mondo or not (goes to service and appropriateness of the ski for your weight/height). Did you provide any statistics (e.g. height, level at which you ski, etc.)
There are a host of potential issues here but what they boil down to is 'did the retailer just flog you skis on line or did they see you, advise you and then sell you a product which was flawed'? Given the nature of the failure it does not surprise me that they will resist admitting that it broke on its own but the extent of their liability will vary according to details that you have not disclosed. Given the use of the product, the service of- not just the sale by - the retailer is an issue (i.e. should they have sold you that ski). There are a number consumer Acts which cover this area in English law and more than one may apply according to the nature of the transaction.

I believe that CEM called it as he saw it BUT that does not mean that a more detailed physical exam would not yield a different result. Depending on what the warranty/sale terms state, you may well be stuffed UNLESS you cough up the postage to let CEM look at the skis ‘in the flesh’. Even then he may not change his mind. One thing that is prodding me in the hind brain is that the ski may not be the source of the failure - it could be a badly fitted binding. If the tech drilled just a fraction too far through the core it could have led to a fatal weakness given the low budget nature of the ski and your weight i.e. it may not be one thing but a number of interrelated issues. CEM cannot necessarily easily tell that from a photo (depending to some extent on the photo) and he may not have been asked the question or shown the evidence.

I think you have to bite the bullet, pay for the skis to be sent to CEM and understand that he could well stand by his original judgement. Get an agreement in writing up front that if CEM does judge them to be flawed in some way, the retailer will refund the cost of the postage as well as get the skis sorted.

Please bear in mind that this advice is all off the cuff as you really would need to provide a great deal more info than you have given BUT the warranty and the invoice are more than likely the starting point.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

The recommended maximum weight is only going to be a rough guideline as it doesn't take into account how, or what, you ski. You could weigh much less than the recommended maximum and still break the ski. This guy is only 110lb and clearly he places much greater forces on a ski than the average punter who is much heavier.

http://youtube.com/v/OQWKQxkp97o

After all it is free

p.s. the most expensive words are not 'see you in court', they are 'it's the principle of the thing' - trust me. Phyrric victories always cost the most.

a few calls made and the skis are being shipped from the retailer so we can have a full inspection of them, until then, not a lot more that i can say about them

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I can more see the point with edges and wanting to check for rock damage before covering under warranty (even then I gave my Volkls a real hammering and never broke an edge), but surely for the number of skis that fail like this, 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.

Help!!

Snapped Atomic Smoke Skis

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions