EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding information IMPORTANT!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding information IMPORTANT!

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Welll...what have we here NOW? According to the latest..04/05 binding imdemnity lists..ALL is confused..wtf.

I DID NOT read this closely NOR in entirety..(I will)BUT here it is in my nutshell.

NO Tyrolas before 2000..

Salomon..VEHHY intuh-esting.."Bindings that are NO longer indemnified CAN STILL/NOW be serviced..bindings that are NOT indemnifed/NO longer indemnifed can NOW be indemnified..(ya you read it right ..as I read it)..IF the dealer gets the customer to sign an ADDITIONAL waiver..There was APPARENTLLY that I could see NO list of older bindings??

WOOOOOO HOOOOO..metal Salomon 747 "E''s WILL AGAIN rule!...

Sorry I did not read any further..

This is not a joke/I am not on the pipe.

I gotta go read this again and FIND my old Sal jig..
post #2 of 21
Thread Starter 
Gotta correct this a tiny bit.Nit picky stuff.Actually it is NOT the dealer that can "actually" indemnify ANYTHING..and Salomon will NOT indemnify older bindings..BUT they will NOW allow the dealer to "service" older bindings and offer the customer an additonal waiver.Servicing is the "installation and adjustment/checking and testing".
post #3 of 21
WTF is an indemnify binding? Not a wise ass poke at ypur mispelling, a genuine question.

I have heard many here refer to the term and I have no clue what it means.

If I get hurt using something not on the list, what happens?
post #4 of 21
Binding manufacturers put out a list of bindings that they allow their technicians to work on, set DINs, etc. They call them indemnified bindings. (i.e. their insurance covers them for problems) All bindings not on the list are not covered by insurance (non-indemnified) and they don't want their technicians working on them.

Basically the improvements of bindings are such that they don't consider the older bindings to be safe enough according to modern standards. Also, they are concerned with wear and tear on the bindings making them unsafe.

If you get hurt with while using a non-indemnified binding, tough tea kettle.
post #5 of 21
For those of you with older 757/857/957 series bindings. Take a look at your heel cups for cracks. These are notorious for cracking, be weary of these. This gets back to my post on how good the 727 was. Granted the first year ones were a 1-4 DIN, I bet you can adjust a set to torque correct. Says alot for a 25 y/o binding.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
And what's up with Tyrolia? NOT enough lawyers??..NOW they have some stupid thing(and it is stupid) on their list about the dangers of some of their 4 and pre series.. heel and toe lugs that were manufactured with..(sorry can't remember the other stuff to Delrin..)that they are oh..dangerous.. and they are still dangerous but NOW seeing as how they NO longer offer free replacements because they were and are dangerous...WHAT? they are still dangerous.Get a grip..some of their 4 series stuff was JUNK THEN..that's goin' back..pre 7/6/5..gotta be close to 15 years.And THEY are warning people about using THEIR plastic bindings..that THEY will NO longer replace for free.Oh yeah..they are dangerous.Gee Tyrolia..Thanks for that!..NO WAY could anyone ever figure that out.Maybe hire some more lawyers.Says something when you take MOST of your bindings.. OFF the list.. that WERE on it last year.
HAT'S OFF TO SALOMON..I see JUNK bindings a few years old..skied in salt/slush..left exposed/ on the car./kept in damp locations..test them and they feel like they are full of SAND..junk.BUT indemnified.Yet other meticulously maintained equipment is given the boot..not idemnified.
A ski shop/tech doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is junk.

I can't see the indemnity issue(lawsuit wise) changing.It is pretty much impossible to get ANYTHING no matter what does happen.ENOUGH people have sure tried.You pretty much HAVE to sign waivers for equipment.THEN you go to a place for your activity that basically requires a waiver by virtue of the ticket.
T..that was my point that Salomon AGAIN has the confidence..even in their older bindings to AGAIN allow technicans..those accreddited by Salomon to "service" them.

Phil gets wind of this and he will be scarfing up those NEW 727's on Ebay.

How far back does this..or can this Salomon thing go?..
post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Phil that could be a plastic/colorant issue. In Canada I have not seen ANY 957's crack there. They are also a different color often than the U.S.ones. BUT I have imported some and THEY have cracked there(the green ones). We pretty much got ONLY the purple ones.
As for the 757/857..I don't recall seeing any..LOL that were NOT broken. The 857's up here were notorious for breaking at the heel rivet. They also broke internally in the heel. Mustta been teething problems. Redesign/plastic problems?.The 747 series that they replaced up here in 90 didn't do that for several years after.
I still have some old skis with 747's on that have NO hairline fractures at the heel lug. Even after the hairline fractures they still went quite away (have some with the tiny hairline fractures too.) The newer ones must have lasted for some length of time. I used to peel them off and make new sets up.
The 857 demo toes(plastic) seemed to be made from a tougher plastic..I never saw one of those broke. GRRR..they changed the demo plate on the ski screw hole pattern with the 857 demo. Fortunately..you could whip off the 757/857 heel units off the demo tracks and replace them with 957's. Ditto for the toe screws of the plain 857's.
post #8 of 21
I checked out the following link:

It lists Tyrolia's back through 1997 plus models from before 97. As for the Salomon comment on older bindings, I don't know a single shop that would stick out their neck with the way it is worded since it puts all the liability on the shop.
post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 
Interesting..the original page I read did not list ANYTHING prior to 2000..because I also have some pre 2000 stuff and it was not there?This list shows 2000 and back to 97
Thanks for the correction..
post #10 of 21
it really helps if you know syntax, spelling and grammar. those stupid rambling nonsensical posts with bad English make no sense and help nobody.
post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 
Oh dear me..HERE we go AGAIN..NOT!

Should I take this as a personal attack?? HMmmm

Gon..you DID get away with a personal attack on another member a few weeks ago. The member didn't react. The thread dropped. Guess you got away with it. I felt like taking you apart for that attack. AND for a serious lack of knowledge about the sport in your response. In hindsight I wish I had.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here..about your remark(here). And also about you not seeing..or worse..paying attention to my reaction the other day in a similar situation..or WORSE yet..trying to "bait" me.

I feel bad. I went after Carvemeister pretty bad. AS I am MORE than capable of doing..both in defence and in attack mode. I am not particularly proud of this trait..but I am at times grateful for it when I need it. Sure sometimes I do abuse it..in defence NOT as a bully. I want to PUBLICLLY apologize for that and to Carve again. I did apologize for that..and to the administrator..in describing the situation.

You have put me in a very bad position gon. I lashed out at Carve..and I can only hope that Carve or others don't see my attack on him as a personal one BECAUSE in this instance I am not going to lash out at you. I AM a fighter! AND I do admit it..like skiing hard/a passion for equipment..I do at times LOVE to fight!! AND I sure feel like it I tell ya..but sometimes "discretion is the better part of valor".

I asked the administrator to remove ONLY MY post reacting to Carve..because I felt that it wasn't in the general good spirit of Epicski and it's members. OR for anyone..visitors to read.

You get the chance to decide if you feel that you got away with a personal attack..OR cover yourself by saying you were joking. Trust me.. if you feel the first..I am not proud of the other day. But I am sure that a few other members and your peers out here would say AFTER the fact..IF I reacted..that you shouldda left this one alone.

I feel now..seeing as how you are a regular poster that you couldn't have missed the other day..and I personally don't really have time for this on a NOT AGAIN BASIS..I I JUST went through this the other day. And feel this could end be a fun thing too for someone or others to watch...or provoke. And end up in a "claw sharpening exercise" for me

I'm gonna tune out for a while. I fear that one of my reactions to personal attacks could see me banished from the site..with perhaps prior warnings from the powers that run this site that "personal attacks from other members do not give you the right to take this person apart publiclly and humiliate them especially in front of their peers"..ya I don't want/need that..neither does anyone else.

It is ski season. I have a GLUT! of equipment to deal with!..personal stuff/stuff being shipped in/out. I have a bunch of plates to make out of aluminum stock. I am fairly conversant with plastics..polyester/epoxy.. resins..cold weather high rubber content epoxies..mat/cloth/kevlar..moulds. etc.,etc., And may try my hand at making my own plate(s)..

Good day gentlemen.

Gon..let's just say that I thing your remarks were: "ill timed" and unwise.

I'll leave it at that.
post #12 of 21
Arnold, I'm backing you up... Your contribution to this site is good (and by the post that caused this ruckus, it appears that you are trying to space things out better!).
post #13 of 21
Arnold, well spoken, and keep posting!
post #14 of 21
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
it really helps if you know syntax, spelling and grammar. those stupid rambling nonsensical posts with bad English make no sense and help nobody.
It is truly sad that you feel the need to belittle others for their lack of proof-reading skills. This is an internet forum, not a peer-reviewed journal. People who are relaxing and exchanging ideas should be able to do so without being castigated by an overly erudite linguist.

Incidentally, it is customary in the English language to use an upper-case (capitol) letter to begin a sentence. It helps to distinguish separate thoughts.

Intelligent people viewing this board are quite capable of making sense out of Arnold's posts.
post #15 of 21
Arnold, If you could please send me the latest..04/05 binding imdemnity lists that you have I would appreciate it. I just want to make sure mine are up to date. I really appreciate your help. saegainer1@yahoo.com
post #16 of 21
www.skipressworld.com has the lists if you really need them
post #17 of 21
Anyone else curious about Salomon indemnification changes for '05/'06?
post #18 of 21
Originally Posted by comprex
Anyone else curious about Salomon indemnification changes for '05/'06?
I imagine that the 05-06 lists will be out w/in the next 30-60 days.
post #19 of 21
My understanding of the meaning of "indemnified" in this context is a little different from what's written above. I'm not sure my understanding is right or anything, but it is:

If a binding is "indemnified," the manufacturer will indemnify and defend the shop against liability and suits relating to the binding. That is: Skier Joe buys a pair of skis from Bigbox Ski Shop, and asks the shop to take the Acme Super-Duper 101 bindings from his old skis and remount them on his new ones. The next day, Skier Joe spiral fractures his tibia. He sues Bigbox Ski Shop (among others, including his ski instructor, the lift ops and the girl he ran into).

IF the Super-Duper 101 model was on Acme's "indemnified" list when Bigbox mounted them, THEN Acme will indemnify Bigbox: handle the lawyer's fee for the suit, pay a settlement to Skier Joe if they reach agreement with him, pay the judgment if they don't and Skier Joe wins.

IF the Super-Duper 101 model was NOT on Acme's indemnified list, Acme will tell Bigbox that they're on their own (or at least they might).

In either case, Skier Joe can still sue Bigbox. He might win the suit against Bigbox if the binding's not indemnified (if anything, it being not indemnified might help his case, not hurt it). In either case, Skier Joe can sue Acme directly. While you'd have to read the liability policies to know for sure, I suspect that Acme would be insured in either case. Not so sure about Bigbox. If I owned it, I probably would not want an exclusion from my liability coverage for mounting non-indemnified bindings, because I wouldn't totally trust my techs. But it depends on what the insurance company says, and what they want to charge me.

Note that there are business issues which affect Acme's decision to remove bindings from the indemnified list that have nothing to do with safety. If they drop the Super-Duper 101 from the list, Bigbox will refuse to remount Joe's old bindings (unless the tech is sloppy and deserves my lack of trust), and one of two things will happen:

- Joe will buy a brand new pair of Acme Super-Duper 102 bindings.

- Joe will say to the Bigbox employee, "Jeez, these bindings are only a year old! Acme must make crappy bindings ... how much are those cool-looking Best Brand bindings over there?"

Acme kind of likes the first possibility, but worries about the second.
post #20 of 21
Acme bindings? Aren't those the brand Wily Coyote uses? With his luck I'd definitely get another brand.
post #21 of 21
Holly revived from the dead posts Batman!

I still use my all-metal Tyrolia 490s: , even though they haven't released (except when testing the mechanism at low din) in decades. On the other hand the brand new bindings on one of the top-end demo skis I tried last winter pre-released when skating to the lift, and again later on the hill when I hit a patch of snow.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding information IMPORTANT!