Mounting alpine bindings

Ethics from Seth Masia?
Bit of a disconnect, eh? After all, he is friendly with a pathological liar
who has grossly defamed me, his buddy Lloyd. He is civil to criminals and
terrorists. He has never condemned the vileness of rsa, and he is buddies
with members of the criminal conspiracy that has harassed me in real life.
Seems that Seth Masia's ethics are for show, not for go.
I wonder what Masia would say if HE was being falsely accused of molesting
his daughter, simply because he told the truth about the vileness of his
buddy Lloyd.

in article , Seth Masia at
wrote on 12/3/03 9:13 PM:

I have the indemnification list, but I won't make it public, either. Sorry.
The issue is that the lists are furnished to indemnified shops -- that is,
to ski shops who send their shoprats to be certified as having all their
wits (and fingers) intact. When your friendly neighborhood non-certified
"expert" has the list and claims he can do the job safely, it leads to
customers believing that the guy is backed by the manufacturer's warranty
and indemnification program, when in fact he's not. I don't wanna be a
party to that transaction.

Seth

"Chester Bullock" wrote in message
...
Chester Bullock wrote:

Walt wrote:

Chester Bullock wrote:

Walt wrote:



Anybody know where to find this year's [indemnification] list? It
used to be available on
the web, but it appears to have vanished...


The NSSRA seems to have it online, but it requires membership to
access...

http://www.nssra.com/2001/nssra/inde...icles%C2%A0by%
C2%A0date




Right. I found that too, but I'm not a member.
Why is this vital safety information kept secret? One would think that
it would be in everyones interest to make this data public.


I agree. I emailed the guy that owns the site and asked if he could
make it available. We'll see what he says. Maybe if more people email
him, he will be more inclined to make it available.


So I should have posted his address...



Alternately, maybe Seth can get it. I think he has connections...

--
Chester Bullock,
Ethical, custom website hosting, design and programming
Tenxible Solutions, http://www.tenxible.com
Web Based Autoresponder and DRIP system, http://www.toolsre.com
AIM: tenxible YahooIM: ccb247

Seth Masia wrote:

I have the indemnification list, but I won't make it public, either. Sorry.
The issue is that the lists are furnished to indemnified shops -- that is,
to ski shops who send their shoprats to be certified as having all their
wits (and fingers) intact. When your friendly neighborhood non-certified
"expert" has the list and claims he can do the job safely, it leads to
customers believing that the guy is backed by the manufacturer's warranty
and indemnification program, when in fact he's not. I don't wanna be a
party to that transaction.

Well, that's not why I want to see it. I often troll the ski swaps
looking for used gear, and I'd like to know whether the bindings are
still supported by the manufacturer. Is this too much to ask?

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?

The guy who started this thread bought a pair of bindings on Ebay, and
it appears that he bought a pair that are not on the indemnification
list. I'd like to be able to tell people "before you buy used
bindings, check the list". But I can't, because the industry in it's
infinite wisdom has decided to make it secret. Sorry, but that's wrong.

And as for the friendly neighborhood non-certified "expert", by keeping
the list secret you just add to their mystique of credibility. If
they've managed to get ahold of the secret list ( or just claim that
they have a copy of the secret list, which they refuse to show you on
the basis that its secret) it makes them seem *more* credible than if
they had just copied some public information off the internet. Like so
many other attempts to save people from themselves by hiding
information, it's counter-productive.

Sorry if I sound ****ed off about this, but I am. I'm not mad at you,
Seth - you probably signed some non-disclosure agreement to get the
list, and can't legally post the list without repercussions. But who's
idea was it to keep this info secret?

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy

Walt wrote:

Seth Masia wrote:

I have the indemnification list, but I won't make it public, either. Sorry.
The issue is that the lists are furnished to indemnified shops -- that is,
to ski shops who send their shoprats to be certified as having all their
wits (and fingers) intact. When your friendly neighborhood non-certified
"expert" has the list and claims he can do the job safely, it leads to
customers believing that the guy is backed by the manufacturer's warranty
and indemnification program, when in fact he's not. I don't wanna be a
party to that transaction.

Well, that's not why I want to see it. I often troll the ski swaps
looking for used gear, and I'd like to know whether the bindings are
still supported by the manufacturer. Is this too much to ask?

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?
....

A while back omebody posted a link to the 2002-3 list published by
snowtradenews. I tried to find it but couldn't. Maybe somebody else
will have better luck. I did find that there's a movie called "Mad Pow
Disease," though.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=================================================
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.

Walt wrote:

Well, that's not why I want to see it. I often troll the ski swaps
looking for used gear, and I'd like to know whether the bindings are
still supported by the manufacturer. Is this too much to ask?

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?


I agree with you Walt, it would be good to know what is 'supported'
these days and what is not. I would think this would be good for the
industry, as people might pony up for new bindings when they see that
the ones they could by are not 'supported' any more. It looks like, from
the NSSRA site, that I could get the list for a membership, which is
$120. If we all pitch in we could get it out into the world. I don't
see any real reason why it shouldn't be out there for everyone to see.

Related question: Is this also what some people refer to as being 'out
of DIN'?

--
Chester Bullock,
Ethical, custom website hosting, design and programming
Tenxible Solutions, http://www.tenxible.com
Web Based Autoresponder and DRIP system, http://www.toolsre.com
AIM: tenxible YahooIM: ccb247

The Real Bev wrote:

A while back omebody posted a link to the 2002-3 list published by
snowtradenews. I tried to find it but couldn't. Maybe somebody else
will have better luck. I did find that there's a movie called "Mad Pow
Disease," though.

Duh! Never mind...

--
Cheers,
Bev
=================================================
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.

The Real Bev wrote:
Walt wrote:
Seth Masia wrote:

I have the indemnification list, but I won't make it public, either. Sorry.

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?
...

A while back omebody posted a link to the 2002-3 list published by
snowtradenews. I tried to find it but couldn't.

IIRC, Snowtradenews and www.snowtradenews.com went belly-up last March.
Here's an idea: Maybe we could find the former editor and ask him
nicely to post the list? Anybody know where we might find him?

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy

"Walt" wrote in message
...

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?

If you are buying new bindings, the shop and manufacturer will work together
to increase the likelihood that your experience will be pleasant and safe.

If you are buying used bindings, they don't give a crap about you. They
want you to buy new bindings.

Chester Bullock wrote:
Walt wrote:

Well, that's not why I want to see it. I often troll the ski swaps
looking for used gear, and I'd like to know whether the bindings are
still supported by the manufacturer. Is this too much to ask?

I agree with you Walt, it would be good to know what is 'supported'
these days and what is not. I would think this would be good for the
industry, as people might pony up for new bindings when they see that
the ones they could by are not 'supported' any more.

No, what would be good for the industry is for everyone to buy new gear
every year.

The cynical side of me says that they're hiding the indemnification list
to curtail the used-gear market. "Watch out, don't buy used gear -
there's no way to know whether it's obsolete or not" Heck, the whole
indemnification scam is there to make people throw away perfectly
functional (if perhaps obsolete) equipment. I don't know of any other
product where the manufacturers have this ability to obsolete an item by
fiat.


It looks like, from
the NSSRA site, that I could get the list for a membership, which is
$120. If we all pitch in we could get it out into the world. I don't
see any real reason why it shouldn't be out there for everyone to see.

Chances are it's copyrighted, so even if I paid the $120 I wouldn't be
allowed to reproduce it. And it's not worth it to me since I can always
call up the shop and ask about a particular model for free. My hunch is
that after 10 calls they'd probably just give me a copy of the list to
keep me out of their hair.

Related question: Is this also what some people refer to as being 'out
of DIN'?

I think 'out of DIN' happens when you want to set your DIN to eleven and
your bindings only go up to ten. (c:

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy

Chester Bullock wrote:

Related question: Is this also what some people refer to as being 'out
of DIN'?

No. As I understand it, when a shop tests a binding (most shops will
only test an indemnified binding) they set it to the proper DIN release
number on the binding scale; they then test the torque required to
release; if it's too different from the torque the scale implies the
binding is "out of DIN."

Alternative way to look at it: they set the DIN on the binding to that
required to provide the appropriate torque for the user using their test
rig; if the binding scale then doesn't read within a certain tolerance
of the appropriate number from the charts the binding is "out of DIN."

It catches some types of wear and malfunction on the binding; usually
however, it's just a spring that's slightly off, and if the binding is
set to the appropriate torque and in the middle of range nothing is the
worse. The trick off course is to get the torque set without test gear,
since shops won't set a binding that's "out of DIN."

Walt wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:
Walt wrote:
Seth Masia wrote:

I have the indemnification list, but I won't make it public, either. Sorry.

If I'm buying a car, I can check lemon lists and recall notices. If I'm
buying software, I can find out what the supported versions are. Why
not bindings?
...

A while back omebody posted a link to the 2002-3 list published by
snowtradenews. I tried to find it but couldn't.

IIRC, Snowtradenews and www.snowtradenews.com went belly-up last March.
Here's an idea: Maybe we could find the former editor and ask him
nicely to post the list? Anybody know where we might find him?

I repeat: Duh!

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =======
"If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than
if you just drank gin straight from the bottle."
- Garrison Keillor