Older Salomon Bindings Questions

I have a set of older Salomon Driver Equipe 977. They are the black and yellow w/ red/orange writting ones. I see them from time to time mounted to much newer skis. I also see older Salomon clamps mounted on newer skis.

Every time I try to get them mounted the shop tells me no-dice because they are not indemnified any longer. When we look at the book from Salomon they list any and all similar models and vintages as still being indemnified but they do not specifically list "Salomon Driver Equipe 977."

So, then I ask the shop to drill me the holes for a 916 at my BSL and then just screw them in myself. They're great really wish I could find another set. These are the equivalent of the newer 920.


Any body know why these are not indemnified by Salomon any more? Are there just some poorly written guides in circulation? Or, how people are getting them mounted? Are there a bunch of us just screwing them into 916holes?

Thanks

binding springs get old and don't have as much pressure as they did when they are new. if you bring your 997s in to get function tested, they won't release at a true DIN. Say your din is 8, they test the bindings and they are releasing like a 6. spring just get old, wear out. hence the reason they aren't indemnified by Salomon.

right on man, thanks. I understand that is the basis of why a model would not be indemnified. What I'm saying though is that there are models of the same technolgoy, vintage, etc. that they do in fact indemnify.

I am guessing there is something in this model, like the springs, that they do not trust. Like I said though, I see 'em on other peoples skis too so somebody is mounting them.

what kills me though is that they won't even pressure test them which is just rediculous. If they pass a binding test then let's go...

Plastic housing, search for the everything you wanted to konw about threa 900's etc. Plastics have a shelf life and those have reached it. Spring as mentioned is the same just a smaller size, but the housing will fail long before a metal housing.

these have the metal housing. this what I dislike about digital communication...context gets lost. wish I was better at it because these replies aren't addressing the issue. and if they are then I am missing it.

Material fatigue is the text book accross the board given by corporate salomon to cover their ass. Mountain bike suspension manufacturers do the same thing. but it is very clear and covers all models from a certain year back. for example you won't get parts, repair, replacement or installation of any shock or fork older than say four years. this doesn't seem to be the case with Salomon.

we'll say for example the bindings in question are circa 1999. Salomon is indemnifying MANY other circa 1999 bindings . The spring/plastic/etc. explanantion doesn't make sense in light of this fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rager

we'll say for example the bindings in question are circa 1999. Salomon is indemnifying MANY other circa 1999 bindings . The spring/plastic/etc. explanantion doesn't make sense in light of this fact.

---

977 are way older that that. they came off the indemnification list this year. the only reason they did is becasue they could... in an attempt to force you into buying new bindings.

they pull according to a. age (ie. 977 are ~18 years old) and b. common failure (ie. lower end plastic bindings breaking).

I thought 977's were still on the list this year. Someone posted the list a while ago in this thread:

http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...ght=977%2A

977's kick ass. Get them tested and mount them.

Right on fellas

some homie from OK just PM'd me with a set that he's got available.
18 year old binding prolly has taken some licks but the things are s olid metal, at least mine are. It looks like wherever there is plastic is only a cosmetic deal which is over more metal. I don't really give a rats ass if they release or not. I'd prefer they didn't...ever.

Hopefully someday we will become one


ahhhh ha haha ha ha