:: View topic - Skibuilding should be a controlled substance...

Its just like being addicted to drugs. If you can keep your shit together long enough eventually you will buy in bulk and sell off product just to pay for your fix.

I'm essentially doing what I said I never would. I will sell some skis to people who pay for them to be built. As we all know unless you are doing volume 250+pairs @ $600~ ea. you basically just get money back and dump it back into materials.

So that is what is happening. We have 5 orders. We have enough material for 10 pair. So maybe we each get a free pair?

Labor is so far out of the equation its ridiculous. We will use the waiver from 333skis and no liability insurance, no incorporation and no taxes, unless it grosses over 10K them we have a problem.

I'm totally addicted and spiraling downward. The funny thing is I got another junkie hooked and now we are partners in danger.

Thanks to everyone for all the free knowledge, if I ever actually make money at this I owe you some of it or just a bunch of beer.

Thats pretty much what we are doing. We are riding th experiment boards, and going to sell them as such if someone falls in love with them. we have 3 boards to finish of actual boards and two more potential orders we have to nail down

we dont charge for labor either, just materials and a little extra. We broke down the extra $ one a simple board once and we were making right around minimum wage.. between two of us, so not profitable at all

whats the waiver from 333skis?

please post this waiver, that you speak of.

Awe, shit. I see no waiver. I'm thinking a general liability waiver tweeked could fit the bill if I have a lawyer look at it.

Before I give this to you I have to say it: consult with a lawyer, preferably one with experience setting up businesses and with liability issues, and setup a LLC or S-Corporation. At a minimum.

That said, here you go: http://www.happymonkeysnowboards.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/HappyMonkeySalesContract.pdf The contract I used for every Happy Monkey sold. Created for me by a lawyer as suggested above, tailored for the state of WA, in 2002. Ive passed this to a few guys over the years, and now here it is for everyone. Obviously change the damn names before you use it, and remember: this is not legal advice from me to you, merely an example.

An LLC is a disregarded entity and will not help in liability issues at all.

I just let everyone know that if they sue me I'll break their kneecaps.

He he.... Broken kneecaps to go with the broken leg! That's really tough. But it's making me smile.

I didn't think of that approach

Thanks for the laugh.

HeadMonkey thanks for the example.

What about setting it up as a kit? I have been having the person interested come over and do the work of the layup. I supply the pre made parts, expertise and equipment. They do the layup and make the skis themselves.

This was a suggestion from my friend who used to make weed hopper planes. To avoid the liability they would sell a kit. The user was reasonable for putting it together... with some help from the makers, but ultimately it was the purchasers responsibility to assemble the product and fly at their own risk.

Its also kind of fun getting the guy into the project makes them feel like the skis where theirs. Kind of gives the person the same feeling we get out of skiing our own gear.

Just a thought

hafte- that's an interesting idea. There's a skibuilder, 333, and I've seen his video clips of other people building skis in his trailer. Wonder if that's an angle he's using or if it it's like a class he gives. I know there's been a lot of discussion about 333 for other reasons.....

But in the end I think that won't prevent an aggressive lawyer IMO. Sucks that insurance is so expensive.

SD - I can't speak for the US, but as you appreciate the crux of the problem is negligence. I suspect common sense would suggest that you document your process in detail, build in a QA regime - for both the materials you are using and the effect your process has on your materials. Pay particular attention to your epoxy - sample it regularly and subject it to testing. Test your product and then test it to destruction and then have your results verified. Don't hold out the idea that your ride will allow the rider to jump off the highest cliff edge and survive ...

In summary, common sense suggests that you should be able to show that nothing in your process allowed for the potential for failure... what do you think?

I'm in total agreement with what you say. I have all the confidence that I can build a safe ski. But it's only as safe as the person on it. Yes negligence is the crux of the problem... negligence of the consumer to use a product as it was designed to be used as well as the negligence of the company that produces a poor product. Ever read the warning label on a ladder or a cleaning product? It's laughable and sad at the same time that companies can't say "Use Common Sense when using this product".

Even of an insurance company was interested enough to see the process and quality controls in place I doubt it would lower the premiums by much.

In the last 20 years or so in this country people have cashed-in on crazy law suits and won even though they didn't use common sense. Ever hear of the old lady who spilled her coffee in her lap going through a McDonald drive thru? She sued McDonald's for millions because the hot coffee didn't have a warning label saying the coffee was hot. A father sued the makers of Cracker Jacks (caramel coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize...) because his kid didn't get a stupid plastic prize in his Cracker Jacks, claimed emotional distress. Drunk drivers (or family of drunk drivers) sue the bars/restaurants they were at for being over severed. Worse they've sued friends for being over served at house parties. Ski into a tree? Sue the ski resort, you'll get something out of it.

We get bombarded daily with tv ads for class action lawsuits about the side effects medicines/drugs... (well maybe they deserve some of it...) but it's the lawyers that win, not the victims in those cases.

Personal responsibility and common sense is a dieing trait, it's always some else's fault. Adding to the problem is many companies settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting a case and a over burdened liberal court system. All this adds to the cost of business in this country.

Even if I had a great product and some one got injured using it (properly or not) I'd still have to hire a lawyer to defend myself.

Nothing get's me more worked up than seeing some one working the system for profit.

I like the DBS approach

and a punch to the head for being stupid.

I feel like in my neck of the woods its not if you get injured its when. If you log that many days being risky and dropping cliffs and skiing trees fast in deep snow eventually you will hurt yourself it just depends on the severity of the injury and if you get lucky. I'm very lucky.

Usually it happens early or late in the season.

MM, that's true, but you do it knowingly and accept the risk. No doubt it's a total rush and that's why we do it. It's the dumb asses that go off cliffs, ski off trails, or skis the trees, get hurt and it's someone else's fault.

yeah, I've been lucky too, 40+ years on skis and no serious injuries.

Insurance is one of those necessary evils.

lets get back to breaking knee caps ..think there is any money in it..hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm just like everything else some one else got it covered......but i like it..

So, assuming liability has been addressed satisfactorily ... then consideration needs to be given to 'point of difference'.

Here are a few issues to kick about:

'Hand Made', this premise is overplayed. Not that I wouldn't use it, but it needs to be focused and relevant to the issue of quality i.e. the materials are 'hand picked'.

'Eco', broadly speaking, there is little evidence that we are all eco-warriors ... is it easier for small builders to hold out wood sidewalls and veneers than the big companies. So is it easier to suggest that we make a more balance product?

'Custom', if you have the data, but then your going to expect a better price for your product. Here your not looking for volume.

'Innovation', it's certainly appears easier for small builders to innovate, but unless its protected, then it won't be new for long. But how much does that matter to the prospective purchaser?

HHmmmm.... I think all of the above matter and it's what separates the small builders from the big time companies. Companies like K2 seem to have every segment of the market covered with their line of skis and boards, except racing which is covered by most of the other big companies like Volkl, Fischer, HEAD, and even HART which I thought disappeared.

From what I've seen in the ski industry as a consumer, the last big lasting innovation was the shaped (parabolic) ski. It revolutionized skiing. Most other innovations fade after a couple years, until a new one comes a long that makes the old one seem ancient... There's a fine line between innovation and gimmicks..... ie marketing (hole in the ski tip which made a come back, split tails, honeycomb, glowing silicone diodes, stabilizing bars (Salomon), "air channels" ...).

I've seen tons of innovation here... revolutionary even. Ski/board shapes I never would have thought of. Every sport and/or business needs to re-invent itself to keep the consumer coming back.

IMO 90% skiers are buying skis because they're cool looking, great graphics, swallowed the hype hook, line and sinker, or "gotta have it" . It's not really their fault.

But put a nice handmade ski in front of them that looks like no other and most are blown away.

Add unique to the list.

Weren't the first shaped skis out in the mid-90's? In my opinion that was just about the time skiing was dying. It wasn't the shape ski that started making it almost as cool as snowboarding again. Perhaps the twin-tip and Spatula played a part. Skis had become extremely stale. They were all almost the same. The industry was telling us to ski 204cm gs race skis in powder. Thank god for the 1080 and Mr. McConkey. RIP.

I do fully agree with your unique comment. I think that is the number one selling point for our potential clientele.

snowboarding saved skiing.

This. I hear a lot of skiers (or people that call themselves skiers when they're like 5 days a year kinda people...) ripping on snowboarders, and it pisses me off. If it weren't for snowboarding skiing would be completely dead now. Now I've only snowboarded once, ~10 years ago, I'll probably never do it again, it just doesn't interest me. But I have the DEEPEST respect for snowboarding and snowboarders and I'm so glad we have you guys on the mountain.

Skiing was dorky, and now it's a badass sport again. But what's funny, is where as the young snowboarders used to be the tools on the mountain, the snowboarders as a whole have turned normal again, and the skiers are becoming the tools. It all goes in cycles, just like ski technology.

Snowboarding used to be filled with punks. Now I find it hilarious that it is so mainstream. We used to be banned from certain ski mountains and I can remember how much shit we would get from the ski patrol, especially for the snowboard leash. Not sure why this was such a big issue but now you don't ever get asked about it. Skiing has actually become cool enough I have considered giving it a try again.

I agree. Snowboarding revived ski areas. I see the same trend in snowboarding vs skiers too. See a lot of middle aged boarders now. The terrain parks also revived the industry. I can remember ski patrol pulling tickets if you got caught jumping off moguls. Now it's encouraged with table tops, rails, boxes, etc.

Take a look at vintage Warren Miller movies w/ guys like Glen Plake skiing on long skinnies in fresh deep powder. That took a lot of skill, strength, and large gonads

The only noticeable difference w/ skis back then were length and stiff vs soft.

Now only if lift ticket prices could revert back to the 80's.