or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Part wanted for an old Salomon ski boot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Part wanted for an old Salomon ski boot

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

I love my old Salomon 92 Equipe ski boots but have lost one of the clips from the top of the rear levers.

 

 

 

 

Does anyone know where I might get one. I can manage without it but a zip tie just does not look right.

 

I am currently in Salt Lake City.

post #2 of 20

Based on my failure to get spare toe sole pads for a much newer pair of Salomon boots and having to try several shops to find a buckle that would work with a much newer pair of Rossi's, I'd say your odds are extremely poor. While boot shops that have been in business a long time usually have a lot assorted spare parts lying around (so many parts that often the challenge is sorting through all the parts to find the one that will work) i can't imagine a shop hanging onto the part you need. Salomon certainly won't have it, nor will it be listed in anyone's on line catalog. 

 

What I've found about old gear that I love is that when I finally replace it I realize I didn't love it as much as I thought--I was just used to it. (Kind of like some marriages--except when you ditch the old boots they don't wind up with the house and the kids.)

post #3 of 20

Have you checked ebay for the same boot that you can cannibalize for parts?

post #4 of 20
You know they did make ski boots post 1992...

I think you best hope is cannibalizing an Ebay pair.

But really, isn't iut time? I realize you have the best of the rear-entries, but that is a low bar.
post #5 of 20

Those boots aren't worth repairing. They're just a ticking time bomb for shattering mid-run and leaving you stranded with a bare foot halfway up a mountain. Even if you find a part, no reputable shop is going to do repairs on them, because the boots are no longer indemnified by the manufacturer. 

 

Let them go. They're not worth it. 

post #6 of 20

"Location: On a sailboat in teh Eastern Caribbean."

 

They aren't worth using as an anchor.

post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

Have you checked ebay for the same boot that you can cannibalize for parts?

now why didn't I think of that? Problem is that anyone who still has a pair is probably as attached to them as the OP and would never sell them.

post #8 of 20
But unpopular sizes, which work for many parts, do sometimes show up.
post #9 of 20
Set up a search and alert, and you may be surprised. I wanted to replace a pair of discontinued raybans and found them this way.

I the bigger problem will be along the lines of the people who come here posting pictures of straight skis they've come into and asking what they're worth.
As oldgoat said the people who know skis cant give them up or know they're junk so will toss them and not post them on ebay.

But also, the people that don't know skis but found them somewhere will think they've hit the jackpot and post it as barely used, original priced at 350 yours for 325.
post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

Set up a search and alert, and you may be surprised. I wanted to replace a pair of discontinued raybans and found them this way.

I the bigger problem will be along the lines of the people who come here posting pictures of straight skis they've come into and asking what they're worth.
The people who know skis cant give them up or know they're junk so will toss them and not post them on ebay.

The people that don't know skis but found them somewhere will think they're big money and post it as barely used, original priced at 350 yours for 325.

 

And they are always 3 years old.

 

Back to the OP, boots have come a long, long way. Skis have come a long way too, and the old boots were designed for the more backseat style that straight skis dictated.

 

The broken buckle is one of the least concerns skiing a boot that old. The suspect plastic leading to catastrophic failure is #1, the completely packed/worn out liner is #2. For what you can pay for another used set on Ebay, I would consider putting that money into a better investment- a modern pair of boots from a good bootfitter.

post #11 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thank you for the concern but these are the only boots I have found that allow me to ski in comfort. The 92s replaced a pair of 90s that did indeed suffer a shell fracture. I then spent a lot of time and money on modern 4 clip boots but they hurt and gave poor control unless tightened to beyond pain level. It was such a relief to find a pair of 92s.

 

I will most likely give up skiing if I break my 92s and can't find a replacement pair.

 

I am hoping that some forumite has a clip or a boot they are willing to cannibalize to help me out.

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by TQA View Post

Thank you for the concern but these are the only boots I have found that allow me to ski in comfort. The 92s replaced a pair of 90s that did indeed suffer a shell fracture. I then spent a lot of time and money on modern 4 clip boots but they hurt and gave poor control unless tightened to beyond pain level. It was such a relief to find a pair of 92s.

I will most likely give up skiing if I break my 92s and can't find a replacement pair.

I am hoping that some forumite has a clip or a boot they are willing to cannibalize to help me out.

A properly fitted boot does not hurt. It's unfortunate that you had a bad experience with a pair of boots. However, that's due to a poorly fitted boot, not the intrinsic properties of every modern ski boot. I assure you, if you go to a good boot fitter and get the right boot, they will be more comfortable and work better than 20+ year old rear entries.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

the boots are no longer indemnified by the manufacturer. 
Since when are ski boots indemnified? Can you point me to that list?
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

Since when are ski boots indemnified? Can you point me to that list?
Indemnity is the responsibility of the manufacturer to compensate the user in case of failure. In other words, it's the manufacturer backing it's product. Salomon won't back a 20 year old boot anymore.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

A properly fitted boot does not hurt. It's unfortunate that you had a bad experience with a pair of boots. However, that's due to a poorly fitted boot, not the intrinsic properties of every modern ski boot. I assure you, if you go to a good boot fitter and get the right boot, they will be more comfortable and work better than 20+ year old rear entries.

If you believe some of the posters on the Apex boot thread only an Apex boot is physiologically capable of fitting properly.:D

 

I'll repeat mtcyclist's question--are you sure about ski boots being indemnified? I've only heard of bindings being indemnified. Shops won't set bindings for boots that are too worn of course but as long as the boot meets the current DIN standard I haven't heard of a shop refusing to work on a boot for being too old. There was a thread from someone whose boots were labelled with an old DIN standard, although if I understood it correctly the actual dimensions weren't changed when the standard was changed.

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

If you believe some of the posters on the Apex boot thread only an Apex boot is physiologically capable of fitting properly.:D

 

I'll repeat mtcyclist's question--are you sure about ski boots being indemnified? I've only heard of bindings being indemnified. Shops won't set bindings for boots that are too worn of course but as long as the boot meets the current DIN standard I haven't heard of a shop refusing to work on a boot for being too old. There was a thread from someone whose boots were labelled with an old DIN standard, although if I understood it correctly the actual dimensions weren't changed when the standard was changed.

There isn't a formal indemnity list like bindings, but if you go back to Salomon and say the boot failed, they're going to say 'not our problem, boot's way too old'. As far as DIN standard. DIN 7880 was the old DIN standard, to which the sx92 was built. That was superseded in 1991 by DIN 5355. So again, no shop is going to touch a boot that old, for both reasons. 

post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

If you believe some of the posters on the Apex boot thread only an Apex boot is physiologically capable of fitting properly.:D

 

I'll repeat mtcyclist's question--are you sure about ski boots being indemnified? I've only heard of bindings being indemnified. Shops won't set bindings for boots that are too worn of course but as long as the boot meets the current DIN standard I haven't heard of a shop refusing to work on a boot for being too old. There was a thread from someone whose boots were labelled with an old DIN standard, although if I understood it correctly the actual dimensions weren't changed when the standard was changed.

There isn't a formal indemnity list like bindings, but if you go back to Salomon and say the boot failed, they're going to say 'not our problem, boot's way too old'. As far as DIN standard. DIN 7880 was the old DIN standard, to which the sx92 was built. That was superseded in 1991 by DIN 5355. So again, no shop is going to touch a boot that old, for both reasons. 

Thanks for clarifying. 5355 was adopted in 1997 and revised in 2005. Will a shop work on bindings for boots older than 2005 but newer than 1997? Setting aside the question of whether that's wise or not. 

post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

Thanks for clarifying. 5355 was adopted in 1997 and revised in 2005. Will a shop work on bindings for boots older than 2005 but newer than 1997? Setting aside the question of whether that's wise or not. 

5355 was adopted in 1991, not 1997, and last revised in 2006. Typically revisions to a DIN or ISO standard reflect additions to things included in that standard, rather than a change in compatibility or standard. A change would require the adoption of a new DIN/ISO standard, with a new number. 

post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

Thanks for clarifying. 5355 was adopted in 1997 and revised in 2005. Will a shop work on bindings for boots older than 2005 but newer than 1997? Setting aside the question of whether that's wise or not. 

5355 was adopted in 1991, not 1997, and last revised in 2006. Typically revisions to a DIN or ISO standard reflect additions to things included in that standard, rather than a change in compatibility or standard. A change would require the adoption of a new DIN/ISO standard, with a new number. 

You're right again--thanks. Was the standard change a change in dimensions or was it just a change in test procedures, as I vaguely remember reading somewhere but can't find now? And what happened to boots produced the year before the new standard--did they instantly become obsolete? Hope I'm not boring you with my questions. I lived through all that stuff--I started out on wooden skis, leather boots, and cable bindings--but I was oblivious about gear until the internet came along, since my gear was purchased mostly used, based on price as the main criterion, and generally from people who new as little about it as I did. So it interests me to learn about it now.

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

There isn't a formal indemnity list like bindings,

 

Thank you.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Part wanted for an old Salomon ski boot