hemlockjibber8
Active member
If you ain't cool, you can't be core. It's a Boyz club. Simple as that.
Revision Messed Up
- Thread starter Jcamotts
- Start date
leprechaunsissy
Member
What is the statute of limitations for core status? Salomon created the 1080; they doubtfully have core status now.
13756970:leprechaunsissy said:
I consider Salomon to not be a core brand anymore. I don't see them really putting their money back to the skiing community in a way that isn't just for them to make more money. I could be off on this since I really don't know much about the company right now.
fausty
New member
In the exact same boat as you. Disappointed at whosever idea it was to even ship mid november when i pre ordered them over the summer. They had a good 3 months they could've been building for. It's ridiculous bc when you cut it this close to ski season shit like this does happen. I've been trying to get in touch wth revision for a week now just trying to get my money back so i can purchase some other skis. Still, no email back. Beyond frustrated with the whole company. You would think they would try to work with you so i can do what we all love doing the most- skiing. Was excited to be riding revisions but i'm not gonna waste a good portion of our season.
Young_patty
Active member
13756987:fausty said:
They just emailed my back after well over a week later and prett much just said "yeah bummer" (worded better and apologized but that was pretty much the gist of it) and I can't get a refund because my skis were a pre order. I agree with everything though mid November is super late to start shipping out skis plus the $100 dollar gift card is pretty much useless because I doubt I'll ever buy skis from them again, honestly I really wish I had just spent the extra money and gotten another pair of Moment pb&js.
J-C
Active member
13757031:Young_patty said:
I'm in the same boat. Been waiting on customer service to get back to me for a bit but at least now I know what their answer is going to be so I don't have to wait any longer to get a new pair. At least their website says you cab ship them back if never used which I what I'm going to do as soon as they show up. Sucks that I'll have to cover shipping back to the states from Canada though. I'd much rather them covering that with my 100$ than me having to order more stuff through them.
hot.pocket
Active member
13756842:tcurle said:
Would it be fair to say a company isn't core unless their employees deal with apple cores on the side?
13757042:JAH-C said:
I'm thinking the same thing. But the fact that you can't cancel your order, yet can simply return them when they come is just another frustrating addition to the equation. Their shipment is going to be over a month and a half late, they should be more understanding of our situation.
I would just buy a different pair of skis in the meantime, but I have $400 tied up in Revision's company that won't become available to me until they process the return, which prolly won't be until February...
Your Rights When Shopping by Phone, Mail or Online
The Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule applies to most goods you order by mail, phone, fax, or online. It requires sellers to have a reasonable basis for claiming they can ship an order within a certain time and details what sellers should do if there is a delay.
Ship Dates
By law, a seller should ship your order within the time stated in its ads or over the phone. If the seller doesn’t promise a time, you can expect it to ship your order within 30 days.
The shipment “clock” begins when the seller receives a “properly completed order.” That includes your name, address and payment (check, money order or authorization to charge an existing credit account — whether the account is charged at that time or not).
If the seller doesn’t promise a shipping time, and you are applying for credit to pay for your purchase, the seller has an additional 20 days (50 days total) to establish the account and ship the merchandise.
Delays
If the seller is unable to ship within the promised time, it must notify you, give a revised shipping date and give you the chance to cancel for a full refund or accept the new shipping date. The seller also must give you some way to exercise the cancellation option for free — for example, by supplying a prepaid reply card or staffing a toll-free telephone number.
If you don’t respond — and the delay is 30 days or less — it’s assumed that you accept the delay and are willing to wait for the merchandise.
If you don’t respond — and the delay is more than 30 days — the order must be canceled by the 30th day of the delay period and a full refund issued promptly.
If the seller can’t meet the revised shipping date, it must notify you again by mail, email or telephone and give you a new shipping date or cancel your order and give you a refund.
The order should be canceled and a refund issued promptly unless you indicate by the revised shipping date that you are willing to wait.
If you don’t respond to the second notice, the seller should assume that you are not willing to wait issue a full refund promptly.
Refunds
If you pay by cash, check or money order, or a non-seller credit card, the seller must give you a refund within seven working days after the order is canceled.
If you pay by credit card where the seller is the card issuer, the seller must credit your account within one billing cycle after the order is canceled.
The Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule applies to most goods you order by mail, phone, fax, or online. It requires sellers to have a reasonable basis for claiming they can ship an order within a certain time and details what sellers should do if there is a delay.
Ship Dates
By law, a seller should ship your order within the time stated in its ads or over the phone. If the seller doesn’t promise a time, you can expect it to ship your order within 30 days.
The shipment “clock” begins when the seller receives a “properly completed order.” That includes your name, address and payment (check, money order or authorization to charge an existing credit account — whether the account is charged at that time or not).
If the seller doesn’t promise a shipping time, and you are applying for credit to pay for your purchase, the seller has an additional 20 days (50 days total) to establish the account and ship the merchandise.
Delays
If the seller is unable to ship within the promised time, it must notify you, give a revised shipping date and give you the chance to cancel for a full refund or accept the new shipping date. The seller also must give you some way to exercise the cancellation option for free — for example, by supplying a prepaid reply card or staffing a toll-free telephone number.
If you don’t respond — and the delay is 30 days or less — it’s assumed that you accept the delay and are willing to wait for the merchandise.
If you don’t respond — and the delay is more than 30 days — the order must be canceled by the 30th day of the delay period and a full refund issued promptly.
If the seller can’t meet the revised shipping date, it must notify you again by mail, email or telephone and give you a new shipping date or cancel your order and give you a refund.
The order should be canceled and a refund issued promptly unless you indicate by the revised shipping date that you are willing to wait.
If you don’t respond to the second notice, the seller should assume that you are not willing to wait issue a full refund promptly.
Refunds
If you pay by cash, check or money order, or a non-seller credit card, the seller must give you a refund within seven working days after the order is canceled.
If you pay by credit card where the seller is the card issuer, the seller must credit your account within one billing cycle after the order is canceled.
leprechaunsissy
Member
13756986:parkplayground said:
They helped to create this. Any core company now maye be a corporation in a year. For skiers to put so much stock in the intention of a company is nonsense. If you like a product then buy it; if not, don't.
These are companies with an aim of profit. In this community, a company would be wise to 'give back' to skiing so that they will have countless teenagers' parents in their pockets.
This company has not had its say yet; the people on this site are easily starting the demise, of a twin tip ski company.
13756878:parkplayground said:
Although I won't comment on the naivety of this post, J does have his skis made at a factory in Quebec, he doesn't make them himself. The same factory makes RMU, HG Skis, and some others.
SofaKingSick
Active member
13757117:spookkyy said:
funny how threads go on NS. some are mostly positive, some are mostly negative. personally ive been super happy with my revisions and i have some of the first batch
13757142:loganimlach said:
If im off with any of this, please explain. I know that i may not be on point with everything I said, I just said my opinion and views. I also know that J doesnt make his skis currently. Im talking about as a startup where he spent his entire summer handmaking those short twintip fatty skis that were for the Japanese(?) business mogul who first invested in him.
AngryGramps
Member
13757142:loganimlach said:
one of the least helpful posts in this thread. you commented on the naivety of the post by purely mentioning the naivety of it but presented no information to back it up.
also you work for armada don't you? maybe (definitely) your position there effects your opinions on here?
If you have something to say about the mans opinion, let it be backed up by all that knowledge and insight packed into your orange name then we all might learn something useful.
13757237:angrygramps said:
i totally apologize that I didn't go into specifics about how the tone and information presented in the post struck me as naive. that opening statement was unnecessary, and if i was going to say that i should have presented more information. the whole thing just sounded like a college sophomore spewing after he took an intro to business course. also, the way he presented it, it seemed as if he was talking about J skis being built by himself, but now that he clarified it was about the ski boards, he was totally correct.
you're correct, my position does affect my views on the situation, but not my employment with armada. being a ski designer, it aggravates the shit out of me to see subpar product with a lack of engineering behind it. some chinese factories have amazing engineering teams and produce great product, some of them are on the absolute opposite side of the spectrum. same with eastern block countries. quite obviously there was a lapse of communication either on the side of revision (unlikely) or on the side of the factory (more likely) when it comes to their skis coming with the wrong cores and delivery getting pushed back, leading me to believe their probably dealing with one of the factories where dudes are walking around in flip flops chain smoking. more power to them for offering discounted pre-bookings on their skis, but i wish that companies like this would eat a little more margin to not sell a completely garbage product that may actually last a little bit. again, huge generalization, but i tend to hear more negative things about their product than positive.
do i love the skiers they support? fuck yeah i do, and hats off for supporting sandy, mike king, spence, noah, and the bunch dudes. I think that part is incredible. but as a designer it irritates the shit out of me when people increase margin by sacrificing the quality of their product. I'm also not insinuating they're doing it to get rich, because lets face it, nobody in the ski industry is rich.
and before someone decides to take shots about armada's quality, just stop. i know there's issues with the e'dollo and that was designed long before myself or our other engineer got here. don't you worry, we are trying to make the most durable park ski of all time, without breaking the bank, right now.
matthasaurusrex
Active member
13756336:NYager said:
pretty much sums it up. And I did witness my 2 friends revisions completely implode halfway through the season....
SofaKingSick
Active member
13756336:NYager said:
maybe im missing something here, but is a soft, ~96mm waist park ski really so unique that it's a ripoff to make one? or are the specs identical or something...?
hot.pocket
Active member
13757921:SofaKingSick said:
Not really, everyone makes one in some form or another.
Al Dente
Shredditor
Magnus
Blend
Talisman
etc...
SofaKingSick
Active member
13758031:NYager said:
oh im not saying theyre not similar-- ive skied both (well, ARVs rather than dentes, but that's what dentes were based on anyway) extensively and bought the talismans for that exact reason
im just saying unless you know something i don't, it seems unfair to accuse them of copying dentes when theyre just similar, and not very unique, skis. ARVs are a very old, typical shape and the dentes basically just added nose rocker, which has happened to like 75% of skis out there recently
.lencon
Active member
13758031:NYager said:
People do it all the time.
Kartel 98 and 106 and Jeffrey 114 become popular.
J skis makes the allplay (98mm) and vacation/metal (106mm) and Friend (114mm)
I mean it's not a bad thing, be unique in your own ways but there's a reason skis with certain waist lengths and shapes sell well haha.
aroge
New member
Not been arsed to read all of this thread, however I'm in the same boat as lots of people who pre-ordered and are now feeling disappointed.
I ordered my Talismans in late August, and despite what some are saying about Revision, I was really excited about these skis and getting the chance to represent them in Europe where they're not particularly common.
I totally understand that a new company (offering such good pre-sale deals) will have teething problems, but what I cannot accept is how poor the customer service has been. I have had to send an email at least twice to even have a chance of a response on every occasion I've tried to contact Revision. Literally all I want now is an outright refund as I'm a week into the ski season and simply cannot wait until mid-January with over £300 (+ Swiss import tax) of my money tied up in skis that I don't have.
I have never, ever been rude in a situation like this, but I'm right on the cusp of sending an expletive-laden email to Revision. It's a joke
I ordered my Talismans in late August, and despite what some are saying about Revision, I was really excited about these skis and getting the chance to represent them in Europe where they're not particularly common.
I totally understand that a new company (offering such good pre-sale deals) will have teething problems, but what I cannot accept is how poor the customer service has been. I have had to send an email at least twice to even have a chance of a response on every occasion I've tried to contact Revision. Literally all I want now is an outright refund as I'm a week into the ski season and simply cannot wait until mid-January with over £300 (+ Swiss import tax) of my money tied up in skis that I don't have.
I have never, ever been rude in a situation like this, but I'm right on the cusp of sending an expletive-laden email to Revision. It's a joke
13758614:.lencon said:
Can you explain what your point was? It seems like that was exactly your point.
Also, how has this not become a class action lawsuit? Somebody should put together a lawsuit against this revision guy, I'd be surprised if anybody got skis at this point. Seems like he may have taken the money and ran based on the lack of a customer service response.
casual
Active member
13755579:hot.pocket said:
I've had the only 2 pairs of skis with diecut bases absolutely fail. It ain't a good day skiing when the overly complicated dumb design on the bottom of the skis just decides to peel away from the ski along the color line and you don't know it until the thing peels back enough to act as a drag on your bases and you die.
I'm begging all ski companies: just give me black bomber bases. I don't give a shit about how my ski looks on the bottom.
P.s. I had no idea that revision was related to epic planks, nor did I know how the company began before this thread. Pretty ironic that Dan is putting revision on a core pedestal and sort of marginalizing line seeing as how Jason Levinthal and line's genesis is like the Cinderella of core stories.
So what I'm really hearing Dan say is something like: "too many people ski on line and armadas, and I need something a little less well known so that I can feel like a hip, unique flower".
GayWolf420
Active member
just give the damn kids their money back for their laminated construction paper skis.
hot.pocket
Active member
13759220:casual said:
What skis were they?
hot.pocket
Active member
13759654:casual said:
Thanks for the info.
casual
Active member
13759743:hot.pocket said:
wish i had kept photos, it was pretty infuriating. It's one thing to destroy edges, get absolutely devastating core shots, etc., but you just don't expect the base to just peel off the ski.
The domain's were two color bases, like a neon orange and a neon purple/pink. Skis were waxed fairly often, never cooked the bases while waxing. The only thing that I could try and attribute it to were extreme temperature swings, but then again, what pair of skis doesn't face that? Gradually, the pinkish/purple color started just peeling away from the orange, and it happened in a few spots on both skis. When it first happened, it peeled in such a way where when it finally gave, it acted as an anchor and my ski just basically stopped while the other didn't. I tweaked my groin, fell awkwardly and was pretty pissed. A buddy that's a tech helped me out and repaired the initial peel, but it just became an issue in other places.
The only reason I didn't attempt to warranty them or take some kind of action was because the skis were on their 4th season and I just figured they weren't going to do anything for me at such a late stage in the ski's life. So I guess you could look at it like I got a fair amount of use out of the skis before this happened, so it's whatever, but then again, if not for that issue (clearly not related to my treatment of the ski) I should've gotten more. I just think of all the myriad ways that a ski legitimately breaks down, companies owe us more in terms of design and construction then shit like this.
I'm curious if other people have found this a problem?
For me now, a diecut base is an immediate red flag, or at least, if there's two skis I'm digging, one with a solid black/race style base vs. the other with a graphic diecut base, the choice is easy for me. Maybe different companies use different techniques, different materials, etc., I acknowledge that the two diecut base skis I've had were likely made in the same factory, so maybe it was an issue with k2/line at that time. But, I don't know. Why make aesthetic choices in ski design on the sliding surface and contact point of the ski at the sacrifice of functionality/durability? For photos of some pro boostin out of a pipe? Naw.
hot.pocket
Active member
13759829:casual said:
You bring up a lot of good points, especially the one about the sliding surface / contact points on park skis. While I feel this wouldn't be as much of an issue with more all mountain / power skis, having two pieces of base underfoot (or near a section where rails would be slid) on a park ski could be a bad choice.
I wouldn't write off diecut bases entirely. They're slowly becoming the norm in the industry and, when done properly, shouldn't affect the performance of the ski. The skis you had could have been a bad batch of diecuts, or it could have been something to do with the construction process. Everyone has different things they look for in a ski, and with your history, I don't blame you for putting a red flag on diecut bases.
I'd also like to see what others have experienced with diecut bases on park skis, as I might try this out in the future and want some input.
We're the diecuts located more towards the tips (like K2 does today, with the big black logos at the tip and tail with the white base) or were they more towards the center of the ski?
casual
Active member
13759848:hot.pocket said:
I agree with all of that, and I haven't really heard much from others having the same problem, so it's definitely possible I was unlucky twice, or that k2/Line struggled with this construction for a year or two before figuring it out. And to your other point, yeah, it's getting pretty tough to find park skis with solid black bases anymore, so realistically I can't just write off every diecut based ski.
The diecuts on both skis mentioned were sort of all over the bases (the domain was a design or text the length of the base and the opus had the red rising sun japanese style), definitely a hell of a lot busier than what you're describing with them being mostly at tip and tail. Who knows, maybe that's a conscious functional decision on the manufacturer's part to avoid this very problem, because I feel like the initial failings of the diecuts were closer to underfoot where I was definitely hitting rails, though I'm not entirely positive.
willysworld
Active member
13756986:parkplayground said:
What about Freeski TV and all of their video projects?
13760500:ozzywrong said:
I didnt realize they still made their tv series actually so props to them if they do but im a little lost on the video projects you are talking about. If you mean stuff like Be Water im not necessarily sure that I would count that since it is mostly just a great promotional video for them, and they only supply (from what ive seen) the funds for those kinds of projects to their top competition athletes. If i saw some support for Lars Tynes for example i would completely change this view.
13760512:parkplayground said:
It's not necessarily the brands job to hype the athelete, and build them in to something marketable. That is the athletes job, and then by virtue of additional sponsorship dollars, the brand buys the exposure the athelete provides their product. And of course the funding for projects like that are promotional tools....Hello, what do you think sponsorship is?
hot.pocket
Active member
13760535:Session said:
Giving kids skis for free so they can continue doing what they love.
Hoodliving
Active member
13755089:Session said:
yep they blow up like chads gap.
lol 3 pairs in one season blew up on me.13755147:TheDoughAbides said:
Tru, I regret it. Thank god I got the pair dirt cheap13755214:johnk said:
13755253:-Dan said:
you're high AF if you think they aren't unreliable. I had 3 pairs blow up back to back in one season, yay warranty on toys. Not to mention 90% of the people I have saw riding them I ask and they're on the next pair or have blown out edges and bases waiting for a warranty. They are a joke.
lmfao13755481:loganimlach said:
hemlockjibber8
Active member
13760512:parkplayground said:
There are some demented views on sponsorship and support here.
Salomon freeski tv is the original webisode series and it is still going. 10 years in! Be Water, like it or not, was well produced and contained top level talent...and you complain about that? Small 'core' companies seem to support more small names because they can't afford big names. And to say Salomon doesn't support small guys? How about Kieran Nikula on Salomon Freeski TV?
I don't even really like half of Salomon's stuff but don't just post a bunch of BS
13760778:hemlockjibber8 said:
I think you forgot the main discussion. I have nothing against Salomon at all in any way. I actually really like their skis. everything I've referred to earlier was if they are core or not.
Be Water was amazing. I loved it and in no way am I complaining about it. I also realize that sponsored edits and movies are marketing tactics as well. My point in mentioning this earlier is that they only support their top end pros to the point of what Bobby received for Be Water (he deserved it of course), but I see just about zero support or company recognition for the skiers that focus on enjoying skiing instead of competitions like Lars Tynes. In this regard, Salomon is not core imo. The brand image strikes me as a more corporate enterprise, and it should act like one because its enormous.
I classify a core company as putting the love of skiing ahead of making profit. I do not see that in Salomon. Maybe I'm wrong and they are core by your defintion, but I answered a question on my opinion that I can understandably see why you mistook it for me seeing sponsorship as a deal where kids just get skis for free so they can continue to do it (according to hot.pocket). I get what sponsorship is about. I understand that the goal of sponsoring people in the first place is to make money and recognition. The methods companies use to do this is where the core aspect comes in. just my opinion of course, whether its right or not.
I
13768515:G-Bola said:
That's the most tragic thing about all of this shit. Fucking blows. First three kids that can send me proof of their pre-season purchase to Logan.imlach at armadaskis.com, I'll send you a pair of ARV86 skis that got used at our park test last season (drilled once for demo bindings) as long as you cover cost of shipping. I'll go ahead and delete this post when I've got 3.
Update: 3 people are in, sorry I don't have more skis for the rest of you guys getting screwed. I really do feel bad for revision that they had a manufacturing mishap, but not replying to customers is straight up fucking Busch league.
**This post was edited on Dec 24th 2016 at 2:46:44pm
**This post was edited on Dec 25th 2016 at 4:17:19pm
..=
Member
13768538:loganimlach said:
We need more of this; it's one thing to support core brands because they're core, but it's another to back brands which have the right people on board. I know which ski I would pick if I was deciding between Armada and Revision. Bravo Logan, big up's on this one
*coop*
Member
13768538:loganimlach said:
mad respect to this man right here. i had ordered a pair of Revision in october and just like everyone else they never came, but i did email asking for a refund which they gave me promptly and respectfully. sucks to hear all these homies saying they hve nothing to ride on this season because Revision needs to make some revisions business-wise. good luck y'all
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
13768538:loganimlach said:
Stud. This is why NS rules.
