noob question on used ski equipment

Hi all,
I have been skiing about 15-20 days since I learned about ten years
ago, and haven't yet bought my own skis. I just skied 4 days a couple
weeks ago while in Colorado on business, and have decided I ought to
buy some skis in preparation for next year. I've found a couple of
very good deals on craigslist and would like some advice on deciding
between them:

$75 for 1996 non-parabolic K2 skis with Salomon bindings, 190cm
(excellent condition, tuned and waxed)
$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

Any suggestions on which would be a better choice for me? I've used
only parabolic skis before, 165-170 cm, and I'm 6'0" 165 lbs. Skied
in Northern Michigan and Colorado, though I live in DC so I might do
more skiing on the east coast. I'm an intermediate level skier, I
sail down the blues anywhere with no problems, and am comfortable on
black terrain unless there are lots of moguls, and I'm getting into
doing some gladed terrain too.

Thanks for any advice!

Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:
Hi all,
I have been skiing about 15-20 days since I learned about ten years
ago, and haven't yet bought my own skis. I just skied 4 days a couple
weeks ago while in Colorado on business, and have decided I ought to
buy some skis in preparation for next year. I've found a couple of
very good deals on craigslist and would like some advice on deciding
between them:

$75 for 1996 non-parabolic K2 skis with Salomon bindings, 190cm
(excellent condition, tuned and waxed)

Forget it. Not worth more than ten bucks, and only good for hanging
over the fireplace.


$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

Maybe. I've never tried Volant, but many people have good things to say
about them. These are probably worth the price for *somebody*, but I
have no idea if that somebody is you. OTOH, it's only 75 bucks, so
what's there to lose? If you don't like them you can probably sell them
at a swap for what you paid for them.

Any suggestions on which would be a better choice for me? I've used
only parabolic skis before, 165-170 cm, and I'm 6'0" 165 lbs.

Do not even think about going back to the pre-shaped ski, unless you
want to deliberately ski on obsolete gear for some reason.

//walt

On Mar 15, 12:43 pm, Walt wrote:

$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

Maybe. I've never tried Volant, but many people have good things to say
about them. These are probably worth the price for *somebody*, but I
have no idea if that somebody is you. OTOH, it's only 75 bucks, so
what's there to lose? If you don't like them you can probably sell them
at a swap for what you paid for them.

Thanks Walt! At that price (includes poles), I figure it is about the
same as 2.5 days of rentals, so I can hardly go wrong.

I have since found some "Rossignol Cut Stage 2" skis with Tyrolia
bindings for the same price, so I'll probably want to compare those to
the Volant. One more dumb question:
I read somewhere that non-rental bindings have a more limited range
of adjustment and will have to be redrilled if trying to change the
boot size by too much. I wear size 11 boots (have a pair already), is
there a way to check that they'll fit?

Do not even think about going back to the pre-shaped ski, unless you
want to deliberately ski on obsolete gear for some reason.

Good to know!! Thanks,

Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:

$75 for 1996 non-parabolic K2 skis with Salomon bindings, 190cm
(excellent condition, tuned and waxed)

Which skis? K2 made/makes numerous pair. The "K2 Four" is from abut that
era, and are still fun to ski, but maybe not for a beginner. I'd give
them a pass unless you recognized the ski and simply wanted to try them out.

$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

Volant was known for damp, easy skiing skis. Should be good skis (unless
delaminated.) I can's check the 06-07 binding indemnification list
without a better identification on the binding, but I don't think many
of the Logic series is still listed.

Dan Lenski wrote:
On Mar 15, 12:43 pm, Walt wrote:

Thanks Walt! At that price (includes poles), I figure it is about the
same as 2.5 days of rentals, so I can hardly go wrong.

I have since found some "Rossignol Cut Stage 2" skis with Tyrolia
bindings for the same price, so I'll probably want to compare those to
the Volant. One more dumb question:

The Rossi Cut ski was ubiquitous at the rental counters about 7 years
ago or so. It's a beginners ski and you'd probably outgrow it before
long, assuming you're not already beyond it.

I read somewhere that non-rental bindings have a more limited range
of adjustment and will have to be redrilled if trying to change the
boot size by too much. I wear size 11 boots (have a pair already), is
there a way to check that they'll fit?

The important number is the boot sole length, not the shoe size. There
should be a number stamped on the side of your boot, something like
320mm - ask the seller what boot sole length they're set for and if it's
within 10 mm or so you're probably ok. Worst case is that you need to
get them remounted which will cost an extra $20 over the normal
adjustment. IOW, if they need to be remounted it's not a deal-killer.

Lal brings up an excellent point about binding indemnification - find
out the exact model number of the bindings and check it against this
list: http://www.nssra.com/2001/nssra/index.asp. If they're not on the
list you'll need to replace the bindings. This *is* a deal-killer.

//Walt

lal_truckee wrote:
Dan Lenski wrote:


$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

I can's check the 06-07 binding indemnification list
without a better identification on the binding, but I don't think many
of the Logic series is still listed.

The "Logic" label was Marker's indication of it's toe release technology
and was applied to many models, but it isn't an official part of the
model number (even though it's written in the largest font on the device
itself.) There are many Marker bindings on the list that have the
"Logic" designation. For instance the M9.1.

Saying "Marker Logic" bindings is about as specific as saying "Chevy V8"
How old is it? Who can say?

But given the longevity of other Marker models, my hunch is that any
Marker binding that came on a shaped ski as original equipment is still
on the list. Of course, we don't know that the binding was new when it
was fitted to the ski. Check the list.

//Walt

//Walt

On Mar 15, 1:30 pm, Walt wrote:
The important number is the boot sole length, not the shoe size. There
should be a number stamped on the side of your boot, something like
320mm - ask the seller what boot sole length they're set for and if it's
within 10 mm or so you're probably ok. Worst case is that you need to
get them remounted which will cost an extra $20 over the normal
adjustment. IOW, if they need to be remounted it's not a deal-killer.

Very good to know, thanks! I'll check my boots for the exact length.

Lal brings up an excellent point about binding indemnification - find
out the exact model number of the bindings and check it against this
list:http://www.nssra.com/2001/nssra/index.asp. If they're not on the
list you'll need to replace the bindings. This *is* a deal-killer.

I'm a little hazy on this... from googling "ski binding
indemnification" it seems like the binding manufacturers indemnify ski
techs from liability when they work on bindings that are on an
approved list. Is that right? Are the NOT-indemnified bindings so
dangerous that no one in their right mind would use them, or is it
just red tape? (I built and service my own racing bike, so I think I
have a good general understanding of the kinds of things that can go
wrong with equipment.)

Thanks again,

Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:
Hi all,
I have been skiing about 15-20 days since I learned about ten years
ago, and haven't yet bought my own skis. I just skied 4 days a couple
weeks ago while in Colorado on business, and have decided I ought to
buy some skis in preparation for next year. I've found a couple of
very good deals on craigslist and would like some advice on deciding
between them:

$75 for 1996 non-parabolic K2 skis with Salomon bindings, 190cm
(excellent condition, tuned and waxed)
$75 for Volant shaped/parabolic stainless steel skis with Marker Locic
bindings, 165 cm (never used)

Probably neither one. See below.

BTW, if you've only used shaped (parabolic is a registered
trade mark of Elan Ski Company) skis, the straight skis
will seem like 2 x 4's to you.

Any suggestions on which would be a better choice for me? I've used
only parabolic skis before, 165-170 cm, and I'm 6'0" 165 lbs. Skied
in Northern Michigan and Colorado, though I live in DC so I might do
more skiing on the east coast. I'm an intermediate level skier, I
sail down the blues anywhere with no problems, and am comfortable on
black terrain unless there are lots of moguls, and I'm getting into
doing some gladed terrain too.

Thanks for any advice!

cue the "buy boots first" monologue.

If you've only skied 15 to 20 days in ten years, you have skied
on equipment that is more or less up to date, though probably
of a low end type. Even at $75, both of those skis are out of
date and rentals or "performance rentals" will serve you better.

Now, if you had said that I found some boots to buy, I'd say
"go for it". First, if you have skis, you will have trouble renting
boots because the rental shop will want to test your skis with
their boots to satisfy their liability carrier. And, I might add,
they will charge you for it, between $15 and $25 for the service
in addition to the rental charge.

Please, for the first go around, don't buy boots on line. Go to
a reputable ski shop, which is probably having a sale of up to
40% off right now. Go when they aren't busy and have their
boot fitter do a good job for you in a boot that may be just
a tad beyond your ability level. In no circumstances, buy
a "racing" boot, or even a top-of-the-line recreational boot.
It'll be just plain too stiff and will hamper your progress.

Don't by rock bottom either. They will be too soft and may be
made for convenience rather than any kind of skiing performance.



Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:

I'm a little hazy on this... from googling "ski binding
indemnification" it seems like the binding manufacturers indemnify ski
techs from liability when they work on bindings that are on an
approved list. Is that right? Are the NOT-indemnified bindings so
dangerous that no one in their right mind would use them, or is it
just red tape? (I built and service my own racing bike, so I think I
have a good general understanding of the kinds of things that can go
wrong with equipment.)

Here's how indemnification works: If a ski shop follows all the
manufacturer's protocols & procedures and only works on "supported"
bindings (i.e. the ones that are on the list), the manufacturer will pay
any and all legal costs for the shop should they be sued for negligence.

IOW, indemnification means that if you try to sue the ski shop, the
manufacturer will pay all your opponent's legal costs. Nice, eh?

What this means in practice is that no shop will touch anything that's
not on the list. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're unsafe, but
you'll have to do the adjusting/testing yourself. Go read the "Adjusting
Bindings" thread from last week for reasons why that approach is not
such a good idea.

//Walt

On Mar 15, 2:06 pm, VtSkier wrote:
cue the "buy boots first" monologue.

Hey, thanks for the tips. Just to clarify, I *do* have some Nordica
boots which my parents got me a couple years ago in expectation that I
would get skis soon. Don't know if they're high/low/medium-end, but I
am quite comfortable in them.

If you've only skied 15 to 20 days in ten years, you have skied
on equipment that is more or less up to date, though probably
of a low end type. Even at $75, both of those skis are out of
date and rentals or "performance rentals" will serve you better.

Good to know. This year I did 4 days of skiing (just a couple weeks
ago) with 170cm skis, which I liked better than the 160cm skis I had
used before. I haven't noticed much of a difference between different
skis I've used though I am sure they have changed a lot over the past
ten years.

Given that I have boots I like, do you think those Volant skis might
be a good set for me?

Dan