New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salomon Quest AT Boot - Page 2

post #31 of 52

Bob, you are probably correct in that I was "out of bounds". Perhaps Dave just jumped in without reading any of the previous posts to see that there were issues and merely wanted to share his fit experiences. As you may have seen, there is a lot of emotion swirling around about the "accident". Those feelings are heightened with the realization that Salomon ( in reality, someone working for Salomon) let some boots get into the marketplace at either a development stage that was untested or they were preproduction / salesman's samples that were not intended to be on the market. I also think that a lot of the angst has been due to the realization by many that "that could have been me, how can I trust them again".  Combine that with the reality that Salomon the corporation, has not to anyone's  knowledge,  been able to mitigate the extreme financial stress for medical care that the injured and his young family are currently experiencing as a result of their (Solomans) negligence and you have a lot of "lynch mob" mentality.

 

I, myself, have tried to avoid that. I don't know the injured. Never met him. I do have a son about the same age who has small children and skis in dangerous situations where equipment failure could be catastrophic and this struck me in the heart. I have tried to play a more positive role by shopping for and buying select used ski gear and reselling with all of the proceeds being donated directly to the injured party to help meet his medical bills.

 

 

Dave, sorry if you were offended.  I read a number of your posts prior to my reply and detected nothing ill but as the internet is a lousy way to communicate feelings I may have misread yours. I'll stand by my suggestion though. In light of the high emotions surrounding that boot, your member review might be better received in the patrol shack or ski gear discussion where it would receive a wider and perhaps less inflamed audience.

post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post

Thanks for bumping the post. People should know. Strange that a boot would be designed for a weird foot. Wonder if Salomon had the substandard sub contractor that made the tec inserts make their buckles and rivets too? How did they look to you?

 

 You have no idea of the life changing pain and suffering, not to mention financial hardship, that Salomon has brought down on a young family as a result of their negligence in releasing a defective pre-production product so that some of their major customers could be "first on the block".

 

I notice that you are a ski patroler and the majority of your posts are in the Patrol Shack.  As this is a a back country part of Epic, seems like you have ducked the ropes and you certainly are out of bounds here with any further comments you would make.

 

 Perhaps you should clip your own ticket and post any future comments on the boot in the Ski Gear Discussion.


Oooh, boy.  Well, I'll be civil.  First of all, as for bumping the post, the last time I checked, I am allowed to give my opinion about a ski boot on a skiing forum in a thread which is discussing the very boot I am interested in.  I spend enough time in my boots that they are finished after two or three years of use, and having a not quite normal foot shape, my choice of boots is very limited, so when I found this one, I was quite happy.  The fact that they are AT boots makes them irresistable.  To me, the boot looks very well made, the rivets and buckles looked very well installed and worked as they should.   The top buckle is interesting in that it is double width, and it si combined with a double width powerstrap to support the ankle-shin region in spite of the fact that it is a three buckle design.  As with all of the Quest 10s sold here, they come with the DIN blocks and the AT blocks are an aftermarket accessory.  Due to the fact that mine is an in-bounds only resort, I will be using them exclusively with the DIN blocks... at first.

 

Pain and suffering??? I have no idea to what you are referring, but I would assume that it has something to do with the defective block in the Quest Pros.  To me, this is simply not an issue.  If I buy AT blocks and equipment, I will not be buying Dynafits, simply because I have never liked the feel of them.  They are light, they do work, but for some reason my stride and dynafit bindings do not work well together, so I would not have used them that way.  Salomon is a very reputable company, and 99.9999 % of the equipment they make is top-notch.  They made a boot that fit my feet, and offered all of the qualities that work for patrollers; they are light, they walk well, they have soles that grip well in snow (even with the DIN blocks) they have a venting mechanism that is supposed to evacuate humidity.... what's not to like?

 

The bell rang.  (sigh)  I gotta go back to work.  I'll finish later.

 

 

 


 

post #33 of 52

Thanks for "trying" to be civil while accepting my apology. Oh, you skipped that post.  I'm guessing you teach Phys Ed. Certainly not Reading Comprehension or any of the humanities.

 

Like I said but you failed to read or comprehend, I'm not a boycotter and realize the limitations of the legal system with regard to any ability to possess decency.  For many years I worked as an agent for a factory in China selling  O.E.M. sporting goods products so I have a pretty good idea of what went down.

 

After reading your reply, I'll hereby retract my apology as you've shown me that you are only interested in you.

 

Any further replies by you will not be responded to. I'll be too busy helping.

 

I'll paint the pain and suffering for you so you don't have to read.

 

100_3809.jpg

knee w pins.jpg

 


Edited by wooley12 - 12/1/10 at 12:18pm
post #34 of 52

Quote:

Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post

Thanks for "trying" to be civil while accepting my apology. Oh, you skipped that post.  I'm guessing you teach Phys Ed. Certainly not Reading Comprehension or any of the humanities.

 

Like I said but you failed to read or comprehend, I'm not a boycotter and realize the limitations of the legal system with regard to any ability to possess decency.  For many years I worked as an agent for a factory in China selling  O.E.M. sporting goods products so I have a pretty good idea of what went down.

 

After reading your reply, I'll hereby retract my apology as you've shown me that you are only interested in you.

 

Any further replies by you will not be responded to. I'll be too busy helping.

 

I'll paint the pain and suffering for you so you don't have to read.

 

100_3809.jpg

knee w pins.jpg

 

Whoa... multiple fractures of the femur, multiple fractures of the tibia and fibula, part of the patella seems to be missing, chances are all the ligaments are heavily damaged...   Looking at this, he fell, then had a high energy impact straight up the leg.  That does not explain the upper fracture of the femur, though.  He hit something after he parted company with his ski.  What was it?
 

Well, I guess that nobody should ever ski, drive a car, ride a bicycle, (motorcycles are out of the question) go hiking, or anything else for that matter.  I have news for you.  People like to do activities that have inherent risk.  Although manufacturers do their best to mitigate the risk, many people do get hurt when people take part in activities with that inherent risk. They are fun. Next week, my hill will re-open.  Some people will get hurt, some of them seriously.  Should we close the mountain indefinitely?  Should all car manufacturers be barred from selling their products?  From where I am sitting, Salomon has been producing very good equipment for a number of sports, and all of it had been of uniformly high quality, with the exception of one AT block.  Are you going to condemn the whole Salomon company for one product?  If you are, you better not buy anything, as the list of companies that has made defective products is probably far longer than the list of those that has not.

 

Believe me, as a patroller I have far better knowledge of risks taken and injuries suffered than do most people.  This accident was unfortunate, but then again, they all are.  Last Monday I treated a knee that was very bad. Less swelling than the photo above, but oooh, torn ligaments for sure.  The young lady fell backwards with a twisting motion and the ski did not release.  It happens.  While this boot was probably substandard, the fact of the matter is that skis do break, that bindings do break, and that boots do break.  I have seen many broken boots.  I have yet to see a broken one from Salomon.  (Actually, It was Raichle yellow boots that were the all-time winner.  (We never figured out why, but only the yellow boots would fail, only after many years of use and only in very cold weather.)  No other colours of boots seemed to have the problem.  Go figure.)

 

Seeing as you decided to go as far as looking into my profile and reading my other posts, I guess I'll tell you that I am, in fact, an English teacher.  However, I think you missed the fact that the boots to which you are referring are Quest Pros, while the boot that I was talking about are Quest 10s. By the way, they have not been recalled as they are sold, as I already said, with DIN blocks, which, by the way, are both CE and CSA approved.  So what was it that you were saying about reading comprehension?

 

The apology to which you refer was not posted when I read your reply and when I started to write mine.  Had I read it, I would certainly have started my post differently, but in the end, I would have stated the same facts.  In my area of the world, there are no places where you can go AT skiing, and these boots (Quest Pros) are not sold here.  It's not an issue here because AFAIK, there is not one Quest AT block in Quebec, or in eastern Canada for that matter.  In other areas, Salomon has already started a very well publicized recall program that will remove any of these blocks from the marketplace.  But I hope that you realize that if every sports equipment manufacturer had to pay the medical bills of every practitioner who was injured using their equipment, there would be no sports industry at all.

 

It's great that you want to help.  However, from the little that I have read, the fact that the pad failed combined with the fact that Salomon recalled them indicates to me that Salomon will end up paying a settlement to the injured person.  The fact that the accident occurred in the States actually complicates things, as Salomon must wait before they do anything.  If they move too quickly and offer a settlement, it can (legally) be seen as an admission of responsibility.  So they have to wait, be sued, then put on the wide eyed innocent expression and say, "what, who, us?  Well, we'll do what we can."  We in the rest of the world view your legal system with some distaste, and companies view it with outright hatred.  But before you try and throw your computer at me for buying a pair of Quests, remember that they will make my job, well, my other job (patrolling) much much easier and safer.  That way I can help even more people, and that is what I do every time I ski.  To me, the technical specs on these boots, when combined with the price are a gift from God.  My only other choice would be Black Diamond Methods, which are far heavier, and almost triple the price.  No other AT boots have DIN soles, fit my feet, and have a useable walk function, and together they make a huge difference for my safety and the safety of my patients.  For me, that's the bottom line.


Edited by Dean - 12/2/10 at 6:41am
post #35 of 52


 

 

Well, I guess that nobody should ever ski, drive a car, ride a bicycle, (motorcycles are out of the question) go hiking, or anything else for that matter.  I have news for you.  People like to do activities that have inherent risk.  Although manufacturers do their best to mitigate the risk, many people do get hurt when people take part in activities with that inherent risk. They are fun. Next week, my hill will re-open.  Some people will get hurt, some of them seriously.  Should we close the mountain indefinitely?  Should all car manufacturers be barred from selling their products?  From where I am sitting, Salomon has been producing very good equipment for a number of sports, and all of it had been of uniformly high quality, with the exception of one AT block.  Are you going to condemn the whole Salomon company for one product?  If you are, you better not buy anything, as the list of companies that has made defective products is probably far longer than the list of those that has not.

 

Believe me, as a patroller I have far better knowledge of risks taken and injuries suffered than do most people.  This accident was unfortunate, but then again, they all are. *****

 

Seeing as you decided to go as far as looking into my profile and reading my other posts, I guess I'll tell you that I am, in fact, an English teacher.  However, I think you missed the fact that the boots to which you are referring are Quest Pros, while the boot that I was talking about are Quest 10s. By the way, they have not been recalled as they are sold, as I already said, with DIN blocks, which, by the way, are both CE and CSA approved.  So what was it that you were saying about reading comprehension?

 

 

*****

 

It's great that you want to help.  However, from the little that I have read, the fact that the pad failed combined with the fact that Salomon recalled them indicates to me that Salomon will end up paying a settlement to the injured person.  The fact that the accident occurred in the States actually complicates things, as Salomon must wait before they do anything.  If they move too quickly and offer a settlement, it can (legally) be seen as an admission of responsibility.  So they have to wait, be sued, then put on the wide eyed innocent expression and say, "what, who, us?  Well, we'll do what we can."  We in the rest of the world view your legal system with some distaste, and companies view it with outright hatred.  But before you try and throw your computer at me for buying a pair of Quests, remember that they will make my job, well, my other job (patrolling) much much easier and safer.  That way I can help even more people, and that is what I do every time I ski.  To me, the technical specs on these boots, when combined with the price are a gift from God.  My only other choice would be Black Diamond Methods, which are far heavier, and almost triple the price.  No other AT boots have DIN soles, fit my feet, and have a useable walk function, and together they make a huge difference for my safety and the safety of my patients.  For me, that's the bottom line.


1) You are flat out wrong on your opinion regarding the effect of a party offering to settle a dispute.

2) The technical specs on this boot are a complete travesty.  Salomon's testing, if any, on the Dynafit fittings in these boots was grossly inadequate and caused the injuries depicted above.  The fittings were defectively designed and/or defectively manufactured.  Lou Dawson's website wildsnow.com shows how flimsy the Salomon fittings were, in comparison to the ones manufactured by Dynafit.

3) The injured skier may never ski again, due entirely to Salomon's negligence.  Yet you seem willing to easily brush this off as "too bad, accidents happen, go do some safer sport if you don't like the risks."  

 

Let me put it in simple terms for you:  Salomon placed a product on the market that was a piece of shit.  This is not defensible by them, or you, or anyone.

post #36 of 52



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra View Post


 

 

Well, I guess that nobody should ever ski, drive a car, ride a bicycle, (motorcycles are out of the question) go hiking, or anything else for that matter.  I have news for you.  People like to do activities that have inherent risk.  Although manufacturers do their best to mitigate the risk, many people do get hurt when people take part in activities with that inherent risk. They are fun. Next week, my hill will re-open.  Some people will get hurt, some of them seriously.  Should we close the mountain indefinitely?  Should all car manufacturers be barred from selling their products?  From where I am sitting, Salomon has been producing very good equipment for a number of sports, and all of it had been of uniformly high quality, with the exception of one AT block.  Are you going to condemn the whole Salomon company for one product?  If you are, you better not buy anything, as the list of companies that has made defective products is probably far longer than the list of those that has not.

 

Believe me, as a patroller I have far better knowledge of risks taken and injuries suffered than do most people.  This accident was unfortunate, but then again, they all are. *****

 

Seeing as you decided to go as far as looking into my profile and reading my other posts, I guess I'll tell you that I am, in fact, an English teacher.  However, I think you missed the fact that the boots to which you are referring are Quest Pros, while the boot that I was talking about are Quest 10s. By the way, they have not been recalled as they are sold, as I already said, with DIN blocks, which, by the way, are both CE and CSA approved.  So what was it that you were saying about reading comprehension?

 

 

*****

 

It's great that you want to help.  However, from the little that I have read, the fact that the pad failed combined with the fact that Salomon recalled them indicates to me that Salomon will end up paying a settlement to the injured person.  The fact that the accident occurred in the States actually complicates things, as Salomon must wait before they do anything.  If they move too quickly and offer a settlement, it can (legally) be seen as an admission of responsibility.  So they have to wait, be sued, then put on the wide eyed innocent expression and say, "what, who, us?  Well, we'll do what we can."  We in the rest of the world view your legal system with some distaste, and companies view it with outright hatred.  But before you try and throw your computer at me for buying a pair of Quests, remember that they will make my job, well, my other job (patrolling) much much easier and safer.  That way I can help even more people, and that is what I do every time I ski.  To me, the technical specs on these boots, when combined with the price are a gift from God.  My only other choice would be Black Diamond Methods, which are far heavier, and almost triple the price.  No other AT boots have DIN soles, fit my feet, and have a useable walk function, and together they make a huge difference for my safety and the safety of my patients.  For me, that's the bottom line.


1) You are flat out wrong on your opinion regarding the effect of a party offering to settle a dispute.

2) The technical specs on this boot are a complete travesty.  Salomon's testing, if any, on the Dynafit fittings in these boots was grossly inadequate and caused the injuries depicted above.  The fittings were defectively designed and/or defectively manufactured.  Lou Dawson's website wildsnow.com shows how flimsy the Salomon fittings were, in comparison to the ones manufactured by Dynafit.

3) The injured skier may never ski again, due entirely to Salomon's negligence.  Yet you seem willing to easily brush this off as "too bad, accidents happen, go do some safer sport if you don't like the risks."  

 


 

Let me put it in simple terms for you:  Salomon placed a product on the market that was a piece of shit.  This is not defensible by them, or you, or anyone.

QFT

Sweet Blog though

 

Pagin Do Work to the set this clueless bear straight courtesy phone

 


 

post #37 of 52

Just as on TGR, there is a lot of emotion in this thread. Lets try to keep it together. 

post #38 of 52

Agree with you Philpug. You would think that anyone with a soul and social awareness, who supposedly is a mature adult, and wanted to let his fellow patrollers and skiers know about a boots fit would choose the Patrol Shack or Member Gear Review threads. They'd  reach a wider audience.  Instead they chose to jump into an already heated discussion and continue to throw gasoline on the flames in this area with their insensibility. I'm getting the feeling that some just like to stir the pot for their own amusement.


Edited by wooley12 - 12/4/10 at 11:53am
post #39 of 52

I feel for the skier and the family. Any accident is difficult for entire communities.

 

After reading this thread I feel like there are a few main points that the emotions are washing over.

 

1. The issue is not the entire Quest line, It is the AT blocks and the way Salomon is handling the issue.

 

2. Rick didn't have any thing to do with the manufacturing/QC of the blocks.

 

3. These blocks were only sold with a limited number of Quest Pro's OR as a separate package.

 

 

It looks like the injured skier is skiing a pair of Quest 12 with the AT blocks. The question is did he buy them as retail or did he get them from someone that shouldn't have been selling them (this is a legit question, I don't know the answer).

 

I understand and agree with what both sides are saying. Salomon did release a sub par product. Part of this is due to the patent on Dynafit tech inserts expiring and due to the lack of an industry standard. The other part is due to the corporate mentality of make money.

 

I also agree that there is a certain amount of risk involved with the sport. EVERYONE knows this. That is why you sign a waiver with every ticket/rental and why ski mountains have massive insurance policies. Most skiers try very hard to limit these risks by wearing helmets and having their gear finely tuned. But that doesn't prevent everything, that's why it's called an accident.

post #40 of 52

Interesting first post, Gordon. Please explain your concept of the difference between an accident and negligence. Is it negligence to allow an unsafe and unsuitable product to be sold to the public and an accident if I buy it? Is it an accident if my two year old  gets  hurt  because I bought them a bicycle? Sure. Is it an accident if they get hurt because the the handlebars on the bicycle I BOUGHT break in half because they were made of silver painted PVC tubing for a photo shoot? No, it was negligence. The word "accident" is not an appropriate description of this event. It was NOT an accident by any definition. That's why those in the know are pissed. Your lack of standards argument is particularly lame but nice try. 

 

I worked for 10 years as a sales agent for a Chinese factory supplying O.E.M. products to the sporting goods industry. I know the process.  I cannot believe that a company such as Salomon would design and pass testing of a product as inferior as this boot. The truth will never be known except by the product manager and a select few, but one scenario is that the boots in question were "salesman's samples".  We used to produce "salesman's samples" in small batches  prior to shipping the real order. They often were not of the same quality and detail as the actual production order. Great for trade shows and photo shoots. Geeze, I did bowling bags that required rigorous testing of hardware to save broken toes. I sold $0.05 camera straps that needed 4 engineers and an on site testing program prior to shipping. The only good to come out of this is that I'll bet that Salomon and other suppliers will re-evaluate their procedures so it doesn't happen again.


Edited by wooley12 - 12/6/10 at 10:21am
post #41 of 52

"Please explain your concept of the difference between an accident and negligence"

 

An accident is when something that is suppose to work doesn't. Negligence is when it was never intended to work in the first place.

 

Now I'm sorry but I don't see where Salomon knowingly released a product that was dangerous, but told every it was fine. Unless you have secret access to the engineer's reports, or memos between designers, then I doubt you have any more info then the rest of us.

 

Now as for standards. The reason why you can buy a bike and feel safe knowing that the handlebars aren't PVC is because there are industry standards. So standards do have a lot to do with it. there are no standards for Dynafit style bindings or inserts. Salomon is the first, AFAIK, to make their own inserts. They sucked and didn't work. I get it.

 

What you don't seem to get is that there are many other factors in this whole thing. Were the blocks he was using actual retail items or were they Beta's that got sold to him? He is using Quest 12's so it has to be one or the other. Were his bindings locked out? The boot still shouldn't have failed but it is a factor. There are also rumors that he was testing them. I'm not saying he was but rumors can really mess things up. There is an ongoing lawsuit so I highly doubt we'll hear ANY new news. It's even possible the Salomon told him to file a lawsuit because he could get the deserved money easier. We don't know.

 

All I'm saying is that Salomon messed up, but they are fixing it. There are a lot of things we don't know, so it's best to not get too upset about it all. It's unfortunate that it is taking so long, but that is the legal system we live with. And to be completely honest, wooley you're coming off as a major asshat. I'm sure you're not really, but it's hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.

post #42 of 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon McNair View Post

It looks like the injured skier is skiing a pair of Quest 12 with the AT blocks. The question is did he buy them as retail or did he get them from someone that shouldn't have been selling them (this is a legit question, I don't know the answer).


Retail.  

This has been asked and answered in numerous other posts on other forums.  But he told me the identity of the retailer that sold the "pads" to him, and I have no reason to doubt his account.

Also, the pads that Lou Dawson tested (which failed in a very similar manner to how the victim's pads failed) were also bought at retail.  I know the identity of the retailer (and a different retailer than the one who sold the pads that failed in the field) because I directed Lou to purchase the pads from that retailer asap for testing.

BTW, note our on-line exchange in the comments section here:

http://www.wildsnow.com/2888/salomon-quest-tech-fittings-failure/

Me:

*****

Having previously seen close-up pictures of the boot that failed in the field (with horribly results for the skier), the failure on the bench is not surprising.
For me the really surprising part is:
“Ordered online via retail, the fittings came in prime time packaging.”
That box clearly has “TOURING PADS” integrated into the graphics, so it’s a box dedicated to this part, as opposed to just tossed into some random plastic bags or something like that. Almost seems like they spent more time designing the box than they did testing the product?

*****

Lou:

*****

Jonathan, exactly, the box is better quality than the sole blocks. I forgot to mention that I peeled the sole rubber off with my hand. It would have held up for all of 2 minutes to a rock scramble.

*****

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon McNair View Post

There are also rumors that he was testing them. I'm not saying he was but rumors can really mess things up.

No, there aren't any such rumors.  Well, except for the rumor that you apparently just started.  Please show me any prior reference to such a rumor (which is absolutely entirely false, as the victim had no relationship with Salomon, with the exception of purchasing the boots and pads at retail, as has been noted on-line in many different places).

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon McNair View Post

It's even possible the Salomon told him to file a lawsuit because he could get the deserved money easier. We don't know.

Much has been written about the incident in many different places, but this entirely baseless and false rumor you're now starting is the first comment that has truly disgusted me.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.  The victim is unable to work and unable to partake in normal household childcare duties.  After numerous painful surgeries, he faces a long and uncertain recovery, which is also costing him significant sums of money, and meanwhile Salomon has of course not paid him a single cent or conceded anything.  He has resorted to a lawsuit because he has no other possibility of compensation.  Now you're claiming that it's possible Salomon told him to file a lawsuit?  This goes beyond even some of the most outlandish comments posted on TGR.  So there, I supposed you've accomplished something, engaging in even worse baseless vitriol than the worst trolls at TGR.  Score one for epicski.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon McNair View Post

All I'm saying is that Salomon messed up, but they are fixing it.


Salomon recalled all "Tech"-compatible pads.  Perhaps that counts as "fixing it" in your book, but that isn't all that much of a fix.
post #43 of 52

OOOPS !!!!

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=86889&stc=1&d=1291947591

post #44 of 52

So, just to be clear. There wouldn't be any issue using these boots with Diamirs, right? Just wondering, since given all the bad press, they might be available cheap.

post #45 of 52

No issues other than the tech fitting was substandard, the ski/walk mode lever appears weak and today someone commented the plastic lace tightener hardware broke in their hand while they were using it.

post #46 of 52

Yeah, and the prices are still high. I'm sticking with my E2 Ellipse. Though thinking about a Mobe...

post #47 of 52

Salomon quest was made for my gnarled foot.  Thank you Salomon.  My dream boot come true!  I usually have to remount the instep buckle a bit to get it off the bone on the top of my instep.  (not sure the proper name.)  Luckily I haven't had to .. yet.  The upper cuff comes from the dope @ss park cuff.  The traditional forefoot allows me to move one buckle without loosing too much pressure in the toebox.  Thanks Salomon.  Plan on using it with the MArker Dukes and currently use it with my suspects mounted with the fks 140's.  baller.

post #48 of 52

Whoops!

 

pic1292929892sdivnrvtak.JPG

post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post

 Wonder if Salomon had the substandard sub contractor that made the tec inserts make their buckles and rivets too? How did they look to you?

 

 



I'm feeling......vindicated.

post #50 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post

Agree with you Philpug. You would think that anyone with a soul and social awareness, who supposedly is a mature adult, and wanted to let his fellow patrollers and skiers know about a boots fit would choose the Patrol Shack or Member Gear Review threads. They'd  reach a wider audience.  Instead they chose to jump into an already heated discussion and continue to throw gasoline on the flames in this area with their insensibility. I'm getting the feeling that some just like to stir the pot for their own amusement.



Actually, what happened was that I typed in 'Quest 10 user reviews' in the search window to get people's opinions, and I assumed I had landed in Gear Reviews.  When I saw the poop storm I had stirred up, I replied and only later I started checking and I realized where I was.  At that point, I did not even know there was a Quest 12, Quest Pro or Quest Pebax, and I thought I was being attacked over the 10's which, strictly speaking, are not even an AT boot.  At that point, I left the discussion, but I should have written this message then.  I could not have known why people were so mad, just as they could not have understood why I was talking the way I was.  So I defended myself, and now regret ever having done so as this was the wrong forum in which to do so. My fault, I should have checked which thread I was in.  But no, I am definitely not the type to stir up the pot, and never for my own amusement.  

 

That being said, I realize that people are really pissed off, but I still don't understand why you are so pissed off at Salomon.  So many companies have made fortunes by selling products with planned obsolescence, others have done so by repeatedly selling products that were patently unsafe, and others have resisted making their products safer in order to save money.  In my experience, Salomon has never done any of the above, until this time, when they made exactly one product that has no established testing procedures, no approval procedures, in fact, no standards of any kind. When it comes to this particular AT block, they did not know how to do it, and quite frankly, they blew it.  

Since that time, they have done everything they are supposed to.  They have aggressively recalled the product, they have replaced them with a non-tech AT block, and they have done so at their own expense and very quickly indeed, given the small amount of tech blocks that were on the market.  Most companies would have done nothing and have taken their chances with the possible lawsuits!  

But compared to other companies, their record is exemplary, and I really think that many people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.  Our resort exclusively uses Salomon ski boots, bindings, and skis in our rental shop and we have been doing so for years, and we have found all of these products to be extremely reliable.  Their durability and reliability is the main reason we use their products and that we will continue to use them (They are not the least expensive supplier, either!).  In my experience Salomon (Canada) has always conducted themselves very well, and has handled all of our problems very professionally.  So if people see me as defending them, it is because I have had nothing but good experience with them in the four years that I have worked in the ski industry.

As for my referring to this situation as a simple accident, well, sorry, but that is exactly what it is.  I refuse to believe that Salomon deliberately put a product on the market that was designed from the beginning to break.  I believe that they acted in good faith, designing and manufacturing a product that they thought was a good one.  The skier believed it too, and bought the boots and blocks in good faith.  Because both parties acted in good faith, it was an accident, just as when Chrysler sold thousands of trucks with ball joints that wear out in less than half the mileage they are supposed to.  Then, they catastrophically fail, leaving the driver unable to steer with, get this, no warning.  But Chrysler had to be forced to recall their trucks after many accidents and the possibility of many deaths.... and I have yet to hear anyone screaming that we should not be driving Dodge Rams and Jeep Cherokees.   In spite of all this, as well as the thousands of other examples, people are still disgusted with Salomon?  


Edited by Dean - 1/31/11 at 4:00pm
post #51 of 52


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Shefftz View Post

Whoops!

 

pic1292929892sdivnrvtak.JPG


I skied with a guy last week to whom this happened on both boots ... same buckle, each on successive days.

post #52 of 52

The Quest 12 top boot buckle is sub-standard. I have broken it off twice in one month. Does anyone know what Salomon is doing about this issue?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home