On 09/13/2016 04:35 PM, Toller wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:07:31 PM UTC-4, The Real Bev
wrote:
On 09/12/2016 02:11 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 09/12/2016 10:28 AM, Toller wrote:
I am looking at a pair of used ski that are about 40% of the
same new skis. The seller says he has repaired all damage and
sharpened them, but cautions they won't have as much edge left
as new skis and may be a bit softer from use.

I like the price and don't care about the edges; I probably
won't be using them too long anyhow. But what about the flex?
They are about two notches above my present skis, so a tad
softer than new is okay, but I don't want something soggy. No,
I can't try them first, and I understand you haven't seen them;
but does this seem like a fair bet? (don't expect a sure thing;
just a fair bet)

I've never bought anything BUT used skis and I buy them dirt
cheap at yard sales. The most I would ever pay is $25. My last
ones were $5, maybe 10 years old and unused; I've used them for
3 years. This gives you a frame of reference for my comments.
If there's any damage at all, repaired or not, 60% off is
excessive. Are the bindings still indemnified? If not, can you
adjust them to your boots yourself and release test them?

I meant an inadequate discount, not excessive. The price is
excessive.

That makes sense. I have since found the new skis for 20% less, so I
am going with those. Thanks (I did buy my first pair of skis at a
garage sale and still have them. My son uses them the every two
years he goes skiing)

I think the technology in many fields is pretty mature. The last big
improvement in dirt bikes was the monoshock; I really hate the idea of
water cooling, especially with the radiator right out there in front
exposed to whatever wants to smash it. Whatever happened to
piezo-whatevers in skis? I only ski groom, and the places I ski aren't
really cold, so not-wide skis and candle-wax work fine.

Perhaps the equipment matters a lot more when you're thinking in
hundredths of a second, but that's not me in any field at all. I'm
just happy if it doesn't break -- the brand new Atomic bindings that
replaced the recalled Atomic bindings that were recalled for breaking in
exactly the same way the replaced one broke were a real disappointment.

--
Cheers. Bev
It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament
to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they
met too much resistance.