sibhusky

This is from the Fischer site, a picture of last year's competition junior: 2004-2005: And world cup SL junior: 2003-2004: world cup junior:

Are you sure he sent you the right model and year? Here is a site with all the measurements for each length for the most recent season: http://erskia.co.uk/racing/RaceInformation...s%202004_05.htm

I think the bigger issue is whether the ad said "brand new skis" or "2005" skis. Are we sure you got old model skis, of course, is a question. Normally there is some (possibly small) graphics change between years. Do you still have the ad? I'd look at the ski you got vs. the one pictured. Are all the graphics the same? Then compare the picture to the pictures of 2005 skis. I know when I was looking for K2 XP's on the web I had to be REALLY sure what the year of the ski was and queried every seller about this. Many said "brand new skis" or "2004" skis (this was at the beginning of last year). I asked if they were 2003-2004 or 2004-2005 before I bid. Quite a number admitted that they were prior season's skis, but you couldn't tell from the ad text. And the graphics for that ski were extremely similar year to year for about four years. After I owned them and sat on the chair with others I started to be able to see the differences, but they were subtle. The reason I say this is key, is because the guy could know beans about sidecuts and widths and their impact, but he darn well knows the model year of the skis.

You know, I looked up those specs you got and they belong to 2003/2004 Season's Junior Race skis: Is that what you thought you were buying? That is, an OLD model? Or is this a coincidence? Check out (need to page down) http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:awh0L2E...2&hl=en&start=1

He says he will pay shipping costs if he made an error:

Hate to be a post whore, but I have to agree with the above. Either return them, accept his socks, or move on. Anything else is just a shake down of the guy.

I agree with this item. I am wondering if in fact the ski is not actually a Junior ski or different model year ski or something. It sounds like it is a SOFTER ski than the advertised ski. Maybe a woman's version?

It reminds me of when we got our dog yard fence put in. I told them I needed nine gauge fence for structural reasons, i.e strong dogs. Then I said I wanted the green vinyl kind. When it arrived, it was obviously not what I wanted by "nine gauge". It was 11 gauge, dipped in vinyl, suddenly becoming nine gauge. I told them that I don't care what the "industry standard" was, that I had specifically told them I needed it for STRUCTURAL reasons, and that this stuff wouldn't hold my dogs. They agreed there was no way for me to know that once you dip fencing in vinyl it becomes a "different" gauge. They swapped it. Of course, I always say this is a "male thing", advertising one thing and it's actually another thing..... Case in point, two by four wood doesn't measure two inches by four inches..... It goes on to other measurements as well, but we won't go into that here.... ;-) But anyway, the main point is, if you'd have told him at the outset that you needed a turning radius of 11 and he didn't deliver that, it'd be a whole 'nother story. Right now, you're stuck. He's right about the lazy "industry standard". When I bought Siblet's race skis one year I contacted the manufacturer SPECIFICALLY asking the turn radius on the ski I was buying BEFORE I bought it because I knew the FIS regulations were coming.

See, the fact that you are not returning them means that they are acceptable in some way, which is why he is trying to buy you off with socks. IMO, they are NOT acceptable if what you were looking for was a certain side cut, say for quicker slalom turns or whatever. As soon as you take this middle road, you've lost the fight.

Well, definitely put a protest on the charge with your credit card company and at the very least they will withhold payment until it gets resolved. The ONLY acceptable end to this is all of your money back, period. And if you need to invoke all the powers that be at PayPal and Ebay you do it. There is no defense for this guy, it was written ON THE SKI, the heck with the Fischer site.

I think you should just return them and tell him to pay for all your costs. If they are not right, they're not right, why keep them?

I'm suspecting that since you hadn't looked in a long time, there were far more "unread" postings than here, where you're on every day. The CB board goes for DAYS without a single post. In fact, my posting to skierforever on April 18 still doesn't have a response. If people from this board hadn't logged on and posted things, the only posting would have been for the Camelbeach (yecch) section. I bet the Daves have to read this board now since they are getting no info over on their own board.

We saw a lot of stressed out gymnasts when Siblet did that (she had to make a decision between the two around Sophomore year of high school as they were interfering with each other). Those kids have started competing right around the time they started walking. It's not surprising that they are burned out by college -- I would have expected it sooner. Ridge is just starting at ten, which is not that early. As long as you let him ramp up the interest level and don't get ahead of him, I wouldn't worry. That being said, by the time he's in high school, you'll have to start making decisions about the commitment level as you'll either have to dive in full bore (ski academy) or settle for a permanent lower level of involvement. We waited too late for Siblet, not knowing any better. Now she's "out of runway". Which is fine as she wants to get her PhD, she says, before she is 30. The kids who go for a US Ski Team spot are not going to college when they finish high school, you see. They are saving that option for after their race career. The ones who are on the college teams may be good, but they've chosen to allow scholarship to take precedence. Now it's theoretically possible for the NCAA kid to make the US team later, but in reality it's rare.

That's exactly the point I was going to make. After all, we all agreed that Bode is an all around athlete. The MONEY in the US is not in skiing. Sure, he's got some great endorsement contracts, but nothing compared to some football hero.

I'm thinking this is a guy thing.

Hey, last I heard you were moving to Hawaii.... Not my fault you like waves more than peaks.

I think we go a long time between pissing matches.... The only ones I remember were about waxing and skidude/NASTAR.

Since I live where every race is a major undertaking, I would say either Vermont or Colorado. You want an area where a whole lot of great ski areas are all within driving distance. I am actually leaning towards New England over the west for racing, since so many ski academies are up there. The west has better snow, but we all know racers want ice, not snow. And there are more people up in New England packed closer together, too, so you have critical mass. Where I am has great snow (normally) and a great hill, but the closest team to us is 2.5 to 3 hours south. Some of the race venues are ten hours away. Some involve flying. Our expenses quintupled when we moved out here, a good chunk of which was just lodging and driving. Other reasons for increased costs: more intense training beginning with dryland four days a week in the fall, then four or more days a week of on snow training once the season gets going. more skis needed for more events higher race fees for FIS races more races in general At some point those ski academy prices look like not that much over what you are paying anyway! Plus, the better the kid gets, the more school they miss, so you need an understanding school that will work with you. Most won't, hence the ski academy.

Girls don't always go first, especially in speed events. We've been to MANY races where the boys run a course before the girls. Also races where they have two different courses or the race is run on different days. In PARA and the Northern Division (where we are now), kids who are not yet skiing in USSA "scored" races ski for "world cup points". Certain races are designated as the "qualifiers" within a division for JO's or end of season championships. The total WC points earned in those races is added up to determine which kids go to the "big races" at the end of the season. The next season they start all over with a clean slate, earning points based on where they finish, not their times. USSA points are not about your finish position, but about your time compared to the leader. Basically, if you finish 3 seconds out of first, it would give you the same points if there were 15 racers or 200 racers. They carry over year to year and determine start positions for a race.

I was told that "javelin turns" are a thing of the past.

Actually, she's got a slight A-frame going on, and the left arm is a bit wide, but at least her boot top or the top of her shin is in a line to hit the gate and she's not reaching for the gate with her hand. She needs to be a bit closer to the gate with those skis, always assuming that it's not part of the set up for the next gate....hard to tell in one picture.

Well, sometimes they grind the boot sole, sometimes it's done to the binding. The end result is that knock knees or bowlegs are realigned into a vertical position or something in relation to a flat ski. Some boots come with cuff adjustments that purport to do this, but it's not true canting from what I understand. I've never had it done, but am thinking that Siblet might profit from it. The current thinking on leg spread is the same as in most other sports, I believe -- shoulder width. It's supposed to present a sturdier base without compromising your ability to control things.

Well, for me it's a combination of the leftover desire to keep my legs close together (old style skiing) and my hips. I can correct it consciously by thinking about it, but really I should get my ski binding/boot canted (not the cuff, actually recanting the entire boot). Anyway, I drop one leg back on turns to the left, behind the other knee. I don't do it the other direction.