www.apriliaforum.com
"If the road You followed brought you to this,of what use was the road"?
"I have no idea what I am talking about but would be happy to share my biased opinions as fact on the matter. "
Ottime
I'm very sorry for you ThinCover, and I hope you get a complete recovery.
Most people are willing to pay a premium for ski mountaineering gear ... we all know it's expensive stuff. Which makes me wonder ... why Salomon would even feel the need to use such an obviously inferior part?
I understand that people need costs squeezed out, but gosh, this is a little too much. I like to save pennies as much as the next guy, but I rarely try to skimp when I'm buying mountaineering gear. Sometimes I'm even reassured by expensive gear.
How much money could Salomon have possibly saved? It seems difficult to imagine that the inferior tech fittings resulted in any significant cost savings or any dramatic increase in profit. Couldn't have been weight savings either.
I'm sure all these components are manufactured at independent facilities and combined to build a boot. It's who bids the lowest to make these parts to spec. Tough market for manufacturing these days. Its a wonder they were even able to bring this to market this year after all the monetary loss in this market.
If Salomon is now calling this a "pre-release," does anyone have an educated guess how many pair are circulating, let alone have been used?
I got mine through a connection, Quests were delivered as I was thousands of miles away (still am), so never had a chance to use them, and the inserts were for a Dynafit in my future (Dukes right now).
For a guestimate of use, when the Quest threads started rolling a couple of months ago, repeated Googles turned up total of four ads, always the same sizes (26.5, 27.5), so assuming same number of sources not advertising online, and 2 or 3 boots per size available, that comes out to a range between roughly 30 and 50 pair. Obviously there would have been additional demos that circulated among more than one user. So in terms of actual possible users, rather than buyers, go for the high number. Have no clue if people bought the Pro version, but it was on sale at one place, people must have at least demoed it.
So of estimated 50, how many were/are actually used with the insert? I'd guess most buyers would use that weight 12's with DIN inserts or perhaps AT but non-tech binding, as I would have initially. OTOH, demos would have been by testers more likely to check out the tech inserts.
So say 3/4 of the potential 50 users actually clicked in this spring, and 1/4 of those used the tech inserts with a Dynafit, we're talking only 9 people that MAY have used these with Dynafits. And apparently there have been 4 failures...
Even if my guesstimates are off by 100%, and even if all the failures have been reported, that's a ridiculously high failure rate.
How large were the four users known to have suffered failure? Bet if the tech user is above a certain size, thus can exert as much force as Lou's test, the toe WILL fail. Abruptly. Light users might have been able to ski it for a while, and the insert would have probably gotten loose, rather than catastrophically failed, although the outcome might have been the same; you come out in no mistake allowed land.
I've got a set of the pro-pebax which comes with the tech insert blocks. I've used mine a fair bit this season in the onyx. I just took a look at the tech inserts and they seem fine in mine. I still want redesigned blocks. Best wishes to the injured.
Would donate tomorrow if I were anywhere near the boots, but 6,000 miles away for months yet. Will save the inserts.
Meanwhile, recall that Sahara movie, how it ended with the suit getting the glass of water? Assuming plenty of inserts to test, I'd be thinking more about inviting the nearest Salomon exec to come and ski Tuckerman's in them. Still some snow, and you guys could set him up in a nice Dynafit, start the video, pick out some interesting lines...
Last edited by Beyond; 04-23-2010 at 05:57 PM.
Formal logic? I agree with bossass's statement.
Pretty sure he said, 'If there were ISO standards, then there would not be tech insert failures'. At most it can be translated into 'If there are tech insert failures, then there are no ISO standards', and NOT 'if no ISO standards, then there will be tech insert failures'. Lawyered.
However, its still no excuse for them to put out such a shitty product without testing. On the other hand, standards for inserts in terms of strength of steel, thickness should be made so this doesn't happen again.
TC-I got my knee done at DHMC a year ago. They have some superb docs. Also, you'd be surprised how far synthetic replacement joints have come in the last few years. Hope you recover!
Last edited by enzo3366; 04-23-2010 at 06:39 PM.
Also, a poster at Wild Snow reported that his girlfriend has been using them in Dynafits without incident (so far...).
Questions:
-- How much do you weigh?
–- How much steep skinning in firm conditions with uphill kick turns on traversing skin tracks with ski crampons? That must put lots of stress on the interface.
www.apriliaforum.com
"If the road You followed brought you to this,of what use was the road"?
"I have no idea what I am talking about but would be happy to share my biased opinions as fact on the matter. "
Ottime
I weigh @140lbs, 180 with all my gear on according to the scale at 33mile (downhill gear though). I have done lots steep side hilling, with many uphill kickturns. I'm sure I ran into some firm conditions but nothing pops into my head. No walks using crampons. Had them mounted on Voile Drifters 182cm 125mm underfoot.
I agree that separate "Tech" DINs should exist, both for boots and also for bindings.
After all, it's not like ISO is reluctant to have a whole bunch of these for snow sports.
But whatever the "Tech" boot sole DIN would eventually look like, the Quest design clearly doesn't come anywhere near it, since clearly even the most minimal reliability wasn't even met by the designer.
"potential incompatibility." That's just awesome.
More like "we built a shitty, under-engineered, inadequately-tested product with the potential to fail and cause devastating injuries."
Gotta love the legalese.
Salomon, if you care about keeping formerly loyal customers like me (and all the people I know) who buy your high-end stuff--tell us that you are going to take care of thincover financially for the REST OF HIS LIFE--a life that you have permanently altered thanks to your fuck-up.
Then maybe I won't tell everyone I know, for the next few decades, not to buy Salomon products.
I agree 100 percent.
I'm not convinced that the shitty insert would have failed if encased in hard plastic but will never have the confidence to try a first year product ever again after seeing how corporations will skimp by any means neccessary.
I'm not telling anyone to curse off mike here, but bossass's comments seem way off given the nature of this catastrophic negligence.
j'ai des grands instants de lucididididididididi
The reason for the lack of standards stems from how the system was created.
Dynafit invented the system and patented it. As the holder of the patent they had no reason to create a standard as they were the standard. If you wanted to make Dynafit compatible boots you just bought the inserts from them/paid royalties.
When the patent expired companies started to try and get in on the action by engineering their own products, Dynafit isn’t going to have much interest in a standard other then saying our stuff is the standard, take a pair of calipers to it if you want to standardize, and maybe that’s where the industry should start. Right now my though is Dynafit has a huge head start on tech bindings and based on the mostly non-innovations I’ve seen so far I’m really not inclined to buy anything other then Dynafit in the near future. (maybe BD…)
And why does Dynafit stuff cost so much? Probably all that design work they have to sink in to it. You get what you pay for. Salomon could have easily have bought the inserts from Dynafit but they decided not to so they could make more money on a pair of $650 boots. Scarpa somehow makes money with their boots.
You see this closed design thing happen a lot when a company drops a lot into a making an awesome product that sells well. (iPhone, etc)
When life gives you haters, make haterade.
Funny how people can be saying essentially the same thing, but each argue that the other is wrong. Bossass is right, standards for tech binding/boot interface may have prevented a bad product from reaching the marketplace. This is what the DIN standards addressed in plastic ski boots. Prior to DIN standards for alpine boots and bindings, poor materials in boots where they interfaced with the bindings deformed under stress, causing skier injury. Sound familiar? So, DIN standards were established for alpine boots specifying certain characteristics of the materials used in the boot where it interfaces with the binding.
That said, the absence of standard does not justify the production of an unsafe product. Every manufacturer selling a product in the US is subject to the general legal standard that its product must be fit for its intended purpose (called an implied warranty). I think a sound argument could be made that not only is the tech fitting in the Quest unsafe, but it is also unfit for its intended purpose, and thus should be replaced as a warranty issue. Lawyers out there, reign me in if I am too far afield in my analysis here.
This is not even getting into the idea of negligence here. It is hard to imagine that even rudimentary pre-market testing would not have uncovered this defect. If not, then I think the argument that Salomon was negligent in its testing protocol is not unreasonable. If testing did identify the issue, and they still brought it to market, then that is a whole other hornet's nest. Having met many of the folks in Salomon's US distribution, I have a hard time imagining that they all knew about it and went ahead with it anyway, but then, stranger things have happened (I mean come on, 8 years of GW, BY CHOICE?!).
Just my $.02 FWIW
"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."- Alan Greenspan
well put, weasel.
Just caught up on this whole thread, and wow, sickening. Won't be touching Salomon products again, and it's an eye opener on the value of tried and tested gear that's easy to forget when new shiny things appear. Huge vibes to TC.
I think sfotex covered the point Bossass raised, which is another issue entirely and not the time or place for here. Common sense assumes that if anyone's going to build their own Dynafit insert unlicensed, they'd at least test the thing, ideally with something a bit more rigourous than a crowbar too - but that'd of been a good start. If the ski industry truely is run by cowboys as implied here, then yes, let's hope a standard comes along soon.
Also, regardless of who's friend this guy Mike is, or how nice he is - unfortunately for him, his job puts him in the line of fire. Yes, there's no gain in the lynch mob, but he's going to bear a fair share of the anger generated in such willful negligence.
Only 13 pairs of boots and 14 sets of pads out there according to wildsnow...
http://www.wildsnow.com/2899/salomon...-announcement/
Looks like Salomon is looking for the return of all Tech soles/boots according to the above link at Lou's site. So there you go, recall started.
Since there are not many sets of toe blocks out there I don't think it would be good for ALL the evidence to go back to salomon ...TC should have at least one pair of toe blocks
I think the ski industry is now run by big corporations and shit falls thru the cracks
Bookmarks