Ski Rental... Here or There?

After reading an article in the Fall-Line mag entitled, "The Rental Rip-Off", I came across a link to a company called Edge-2-Edge. They specialise in ski/snow related gear. It seems that the renatl shops in resort use specific rental modifications on their ski's. which in essence changes the performance of the ski completely!

I did't have a clue about this. But it seems that Edge-2-Edge rent full retail speck ski's, complete with the appropriate binding, for a fraction of the cost compared to the resorts.

Unfortunately I cannot use them this year, as you need to book well in advance for the ski's you want. I leave on Saturday you see.

Anyone ever used them?

I've never heard of that before. Are they suggesting that the hire shops in every ski resort are basically renting out crap? Why would they do that?

There must be someone on here that knows more.

How much cheaper are you talking about anyway? Don't forget you'll have to pay carriage if you fly.

When I went ski-ing on the glacier at Tignes, in October, it was through a special arrangement with Edge2edge who let us use their stuff for free.

I have been hiring my skis and boots for 6 years now, and quite honestly I didn't notice any difference. I get different skis each time and I just adapt to them. In fact, I didn't like my edge2edge skis as much as I liked the ones I hired last time in Val Thorens.

Are you sure this is true, and not just a rumour, about skis and boots for hire being different to the privately owned ones?

Ally

Here, have a look for yourselves http://www.fall-line.co.uk/news/features/the-great-rental-rip-off

Personally I have only rented from the resort shops, but according to their sources, it could be the case that they are getting away with renting out 'crap'.

I think that this is rubbish. A rental company commenting on a 'scam' by other rental companies is hardly objective.

Mostly true I think, but probably missing the point to an extent. The big name volume ski manufacturers behave like any other businesses trying to make a profit, I'm not sure why that would be surprising.

While they're making a fair point about the exact rental version being a little different from a retail one it does cut both ways, it's a bit annoying when you're repairing a pair of skis to discover how wafer thin the base is so in some ways you might prefer the rental version anyway with a thicker base. Although CD's are the same, once reassuring thick now paper thin )

Most of the skis rented out are pretty dull things anyway, there's precious little difference between most of them and there hardly needs to be most people can't tell the difference anyhow. You've got to applaud some rental outfits for being to send out customers with some mass-produced foam filled plank and convince them it's deluxe model and the sheer cheek some have with the age of their kit is unbelievable.

Mind you, if mass market skis are dull and predictable then so's ski journalism, every article just a fluff piece for some outfit or another. Particularly sad to see Fallline having fallen so low though, it was genuinely very good in the first incarnation although I should declare an interest that the founder and I are members of the same climbing club.

I don't know anything about skis, but having read that article very carefully I reckon that their maths is all to pieces.

They say this:

Skis cost £500
Bag costs £20
Poles cost £30

Easyjet charges per trip for carrying skis = £37
Allowance for repair and service to skis each trip = £52

Renting skis for 6 days cost £105

They then say that renting skis costs twice as much per trip as maintaining and transporting your own skis. I don't know where they get this from, because £37 plus £52 is £89, not £52-50 (half of £105).

And worst of all, they forget to allow for the capital cost of buying the skis in the first place, which you may only use for 5 years (either because they're worn out or simply outdated), and they don't allow for annual depreciation or the 'cost' of borrowing the money to buy them in the first place.

So, as I said, I don't know anything about skis, rented or purchased, but I reckon the rest of the article is rubbish.

I am quite sure the skis and boots I have rented in the last few years have been very good quality.

Ally

AllyG wrote:I don't know anything about skis, but having read that article very carefully I reckon that their maths is all to pieces.

probably so, but it's not an easy thing to work out at the best of times to be fair )

AllyG wrote:
And worst of all, they forget to allow for the capital cost of buying the skis in the first place, which you may only use for 5 years (either because they're worn out or simply outdated), and they don't allow for annual depreciation or the 'cost' of borrowing the money to buy them in the first place.

you're kidding :lol: most UK skiers don't keep their skis for anything like 5 years, even if they did it would only between 30 and 60 days use on average anyway, I'd need two or three pairs a year if I did the same or more like 10 pairs from what I think is the real usage and lifetime of around 20 days or less. That's exactly how manufacturers are able to get away with cutting corners in bases or using foam constructions, they only have a lifetime of a few weeks so it just doesn't matter, that's kind of what that article is trying to point out about rental skis needing to be a bit more robust.