Who's fault is it that my skis are broken…

[Jonathan S.]

I agree with this post the most. The shop was aware of the plastic plate and should (hopefully, otherwise they're complete morons) have use longer screws in that sense of knowing. They're also goode skis which another stated above, have a tendency to do this and probably would've happened even with longer screws eventually, but seeing only 2-3 threads per screw going into that ski is completely wrong and should'nt have gone into your hands like that.

The ski is so thin that only 2-3 threads per screw is the max penetration before you're drilling into the base and/or dimpling the base.

[1000-oaks]

Taking 2mm off the sharp end of the screws doesn't really remove much full-diameter thread. Trickier to start the screws, but you get more full-diameter thread in the ski.

You could run too-long screws into the ski half-way to partially "tap" the skis, then remove them to grind them to length, and re-insert. Hell, you could even run the too-long screws all the way through the ski, measure how much is sticking out of the base at each location on the ski, grind off that much screw and a bit more, then smear a bit of ptex over the tiny holes in the base.

[stuckathuntermtn]

What skifishbum said

Sent from my DROID2

[Ted Striker]

"Each pair of Goode carbon fiber skis comes with binding shim plates. Due to our thinner carbon fiber / wood core ski profile, we require these shim plates be installed onto the ski top surfaces prior to binding drilling and installation."

As the OP noted, the shim plate is shipped separately, and has some rather unimpressive adhesive-backed highly compressible (i.e., squishy) foam. The adhesive foam doesn't even cover the full width of the plates in some plates (i.e., hardly precision finishing -- looked more like some part from a toy for my toddler), and the plate is narrower than the plastic base plate of a Dynafit Speed toe (i.e,. 4mm overhang on each side, or about 7mm for a Radical toe plate).
So don't count on the plate providing any retention power.

The ski is so thin that only 2-3 threads per screw is the max penetration before you're drilling into the base and/or dimpling the base.

Wow, I did not know that. If splat can make a light CF ski that's strong and and thick enough for standard length screws, WTF is Goode's rationale? SFB for the win.

That's said, I'm still hanging this on the shop. I worked in a shop. If someone came in with some oddball boutique skis we would (at the very least) have a good look at the things before drilling. If we still fucked it up, we'd eat it, plain and simple. The old carpenter's adage 'measure twice, cut once' exists for a reason.

Another analogy would be you take your car to an independent mechanic to get the brakes done. He takes the car without comment, "fixes" the brakes, gives it back to you, takes your money, and you drive away and crash into something because the brakes fail. You go back to the mechanic, and he says it's the manufacturer's fault for using a non-standard design. Is it? Or course not. It's the mechanic's fault for not evaluating the situation correctly before turning a wrench.

[Jonathan S.]

The shop should have had the customer sign a disclosure regarding the compromised screw penetration. Otherwise, there's nothing else they can do, given the ski's extremely thin profile. (Note that the shim plate is really there just to relieve shop techs of the time-consuming work in filing down screws, i.e., the shim plate is just a screw penetration limiter.)

[splat]

Nice "carbon fiber" print topsheet, btw. Splat must laugh his ass off when he sees stuff like that...

Woulda saved us a hell of a lot of money to go ahead and do what everyone else does...

Countersunk T-nuts through the base would be the ultimate bomber repair, and even if they're not covered with ptex I doubt 99% of skiers could tell which ski has them and which has a virgin base.

From experience, I'll say that T bolts will cause the eventual breakage of skis that get skied hard. They're just too narrow to not fold between the holes.

Wow, I did not know that. If splat can make a light CF ski that's strong and and thick enough for standard length screws, WTF is Goode's rationale? SFB for the win.

Our ski core thicknesses are borderline on the screws they accept.
Someone on the board this year dimpled their bases.
We had a couple fritschi ripouts this year.
I'm skeptical of the mounts on those.
Epoxy always is my rule.

That's said, I'm still hanging this on the shop. I worked in a shop. If someone came in with some oddball boutique skis we would (at the very least) have a good look at the things before drilling. If we still fucked it up, we'd eat it, plain and simple. The old carpenter's adage 'measure twice, cut once' exists for a reason.

Even my local hack techs know this. I'm very proud of them. With so many new ski companies, some of us are using enough composites that allow for thin cores. Trust me, it costs a lot more and I'm surprised that Goode prints a carbon fiber twill weave on his topsheets unless he's using an ugly ass matte carbon fiber in the skis, which is an economically sound carbon that costs a shitton less than what we use. The thinner the core, the more composites that can/must be used. In Goode's defense, kinda somewhat, this thickness correlates to the true value of the cost to build a ski, based on the amount of composites used. There are many times I've wished we would have thickened the cores and used less carbon to achieve our desired flexes. However, I have found that shaving the pointed end off binding screws will buy you 2 mm of unused thread depth that wants to dimple our bases sometimes. No problem screwing it in straight if you've ever run a drill proficiently.

I also have a bag of loose binding screws, so I took a pic against a ruler. Blurry, but poignant. I laid the screws next to the mm ruler to the approximate depths the screws had gone into our skis and held. It should give you an idea of threads per mm...

Attachment 113900

[1000-oaks]

From experience, I'll say that T bolts will cause the eventual breakage of skis that get skied hard. They're just too narrow to not fold between the holes.

Even with today's fat skis? I would have thought the extra width would really help retain some strength even with a lot of drill holes, or a reasonable number of inserts/t-nuts.

[Ted Striker]

The shop should have had the customer sign a disclosure regarding the compromised screw penetration. Otherwise, there's nothing else they can do, given the ski's extremely thin profile. (Note that the shim plate is really there just to relieve shop techs of the time-consuming work in filing down screws, i.e., the shim plate is just a screw penetration limiter.)

Yes. The conversation should've gone along the lines of... whoa these are thin. And they come with a shim? Lemme see if a binding screw is going to be a problem. Hmmm... you've got two options here, less than ideal thread depth, or a higher labor cost for us to do some grinding AND you're still going to have less than ideal depth, but it'll probably be stronger.

Plus they could've discussed tapping the holes which helps prevent pullout due to less deformity of the core (yes even on no-metal skis), and using epoxy.

My personal choice would have been to throw that plastic/rubber thing in the garbage because it's doesn't look strong enough to do anything other than maybe introduce a fulcrum which is obviously a bad idea. 16 minutes at the bench grinder is worth not having a pullout.

Our ski core thicknesses are borderline on the screws they accept.
Someone on the board this year dimpled their bases.
We had a couple fritschi ripouts this year.
I'm skeptical of the mounts on those.
Epoxy always is my rule.

This I know. The first time I mounted a pair of carbon Lhasas I was concerned about the thickness of the core. I put some masking tape on the topsheet and placed a binding on and marked the hole locations with a pen. Then I checked the sidewalls at those locations (doing my best to estimate the core thickness) to make damn sure I wasn't about to drill though. When I did drill, I used a drill-press with a depth gauge, then checked the holes with a plunge caliper. I didn't bother tapping, but did chamfer the holes and use g/flex. Anyone who can't do that shouldn't be mounting bindings.

[skimaxpower]

Its your fault... for buying Goode skis.

Agreed. Goode skis are weak. Bindings pull out. This is a manufacturer-caused defect. If a ski requires any screw depth outside of the industry standard, it should be written on the ski.

[skimaxpower]

Goode is the only company I have ever heard of that would add something that
would change the screw depth from what is provided by the binding manufacturer.

2009-2010 Volk Aura was built too thin - standard binding screws would dimple ski base. Volkl began shipping the ski with a clear, adhesive plastic sticker to add binding stack height. This meant that the screws had less depth in the ski than a normal binding screw in a normal ski. (The difference, of course, is that the Volkl ski has a burly metal layer. The core of the Goode ski is made from the ashes of burned money.)

[splat]

Even with today's fat skis? I would have thought the extra width would really help retain some strength even with a lot of drill holes, or a reasonable number of inserts/t-nuts.

Possibly the extra meat in the wider cores is enough to keep the ski strong enough to go the distance.
Def saw it happen back when skinny skis were the norm, so I'd have to see it again on a fat ski.

[Jonathan S.]

Yes. The conversation should've gone along the lines of... whoa these are thin. And they come with a shim? Lemme see if a binding screw is going to be a problem. Hmmm... you've got two options here, less than ideal thread depth, or a higher labor cost for us to do some grinding AND you're still going to have less than ideal depth, but it'll probably be stronger.

Plus they could've discussed tapping the holes which helps prevent pullout due to less deformity of the core (yes even on no-metal skis), and using epoxy.

My personal choice would have been to throw that plastic/rubber thing in the garbage because it's doesn't look strong enough to do anything other than maybe introduce a fulcrum which is obviously a bad idea. 16 minutes at the bench grinder is worth not having a pullout.

Yes, that's exactly the conversation I had with myself, going back and forth between skis, bindings, Dynafit jig, screws, and calipers. I probably spent several hours with measuring...
My personal choice though was to have my skis shipped back to Goode.

[Jonathan S.]

2009-2010 Volk Aura was built too thin - standard binding screws would dimple ski base.

Just curious -- was this for all the screws or only the heel unit?
(I've had that previously with some skis for my wife, but that was with 14Xcm skis, and the only problem was with the Diamir heel screws, which are pretty far back there on the ski.)

[Ted Striker]

My personal choice though was to have my skis shipped back to Goode.

That was a good call.

[skimaxpower]

2009-2010 Volk Aura was built too thin - standard binding screws would dimple ski base. Volkl began shipping the ski with a clear, adhesive plastic sticker to add binding stack height. This meant that the screws had less depth in the ski than a normal binding screw in a normal ski. (The difference, of course, is that the Volkl ski has a burly metal layer. The core of the Goode ski is made from the ashes of burned money.)

Just curious -- was this for all the screws or only the heel unit?
(I've had that previously with some skis for my wife, but that was with 14Xcm skis, and the only problem was with the Diamir heel screws, which are pretty far back there on the ski.)

The volkl binding lifter pad stickers were both heel and toe. They were necessary for to prevent any standard binding screws from dimpling the bases. (The other option was to measure and grind down the binding screws - this of course has its own set of problems.)

[auvgeek]

Our ski core thicknesses are borderline on the screws they accept.
Someone on the board this year dimpled their bases.

If this is referring to me (obviously can't tell), then it was 100% my fault and had nothing to do with the ski. Bought a used pair of binders and didn't check to make sure the screws were the right length. Turns out, the screws were for use with a riser plate, which the guy forgot to include. Those screws would have gone through any ski. Once I got the right screws, no issues whatsoever. Just thought I'd mention that in case someone is reading this and gets freaked that PM Gear skis are too thin.

[splat]

^^^Thanks. Yeah, I guess it was you.
Like I said, I haven't had an issue with screws that I've flattened the point on to get max thread in the holes using epoxy. They don't go sideways or anything. You really need to make sure this shit is written on the work order to prevent one guy taking the skis and knowing what to do and another guy mounting them who has no idea of your special instructions. If he misses written directions on the tag, the fuckup is on the tech.

[wooley12]

This is sounding like "I brought my Maserati to Jiffy Lube for an engine swap and they screwed it up." Am I mistaken?

[lobstahmeatwad]

This is sounding like "I brought my Maserati to Jiffy Lube for an engine swap and they screwed it up." Am I mistaken?

pretty sure you are mistaken.

with all the skis out there with varying core thickness I assume this would be standard practice to measure the screw/core thickness to make sure you didn't A) dimple or B) screw through the ski or C) not have a screw long enough to get into the ski.
this is pretty basic measure twice, drill and screws . Should it cost you $100 euro? maybe, but it should be done right.

[Ted Striker]

This is sounding like "I brought my Maserati to Jiffy Lube for an engine swap and they screwed it up." Am I mistaken?

I would agree with that except for the Maserati part

Like I said above, if PM Gear can build a lightweight carbon fiber ski that performs well and doesn't need some bullshit shim just to mount bindings, what the fuck is going on with Goode?

Even though I blame the shop for the fuck up with the OP's skis, that doesn't really let Goode off the hook for making shitty skis.

[Damian Sanders]

Epic fail all around here really. But the main fault is deciding to put FKS on a thin ski with no metal. FKS heels pull out of anything not solid. Goode and/or the shop should have pointed this out and stopped you.

[DropCliffsNotBombs]

Those screws are too short AND the ski is junk. Bad combo...

[la_grave]

An update to this thread, same bindings and same shop but a new pair of skis. This time I had shop mount these FKS180 on a pair of K2 Shredditor 120 and they failed again: the distance between toe and heel piece is 7 mm greater on one of the skis. How is such a mistake even possible?

Furthermore, they don't even tell me about their mistake when I pick up the skis. It is not until I need to adjust (or possibly remount, but it is impossible - the holes would be too close for a symmetric mounting) the bindning for a new pair of boots I realise what they have done, and now the refuse to take responsibility for their mistake (they have offered to remount but they explicitly don't guarantee that it won't break).

The shop in question is Snow Legend in La Grave. Unsurprisingly I recommend anyone to avoid them for anything more complicated than buying socks.

(Is it possible to change the subject of this thread? I want to include the name Snow Legend in it.)

[wooley12]

(I don't think so.)

[GeezerSteve]

Goode skis have a history of failures notwithstanding competent mounts. Goode skis + shitty shop = certain failure. Get new skis, find new shop (or, better, mount your own) and write off this episode as a life lesson.