Salomon Rocker2

Nobody at Sally wants their company to fuck over TC, not pay him, whatever. They work within company policy, or they lose their jobs, and then they're unemployed and TC isn't paid. Company policy is there to make sure that only people who really deserve it get paid, or every Joe who takes a crash on Sally equipment sues them and gets paid because there is precedent. Hopefully they (the company) can realize its error and give TC the help he deserves.

And no, obviously Salomon isn't trying to make shitty products that kill people. They fucked up. So did BD when they released the Factor 2 years ago and the walk modes disintegrated when you looked at them wrong. In a particular situation, that could have royally fucked someone too. Luckily, as far as I know, it didn't. Yet people still go nuts for BD products here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ectreeskier11

there's a reason we aren't up in arms over the atomic thing: the bindings sucked in the first place, everyone knew that, so we didn't use them. an AT product hits a lot closer to home on this forum than some POS race binding that no one ever puts on a pair of decent skis.

---

I think you would be shocked at the number of world cup/noram racers on the metal version of that same exact binding.

BD didn't make a dangerous harness. They were sued because some nitwit forgot to double their harness back. Now we all have to endure the scourge of two-piece buckles. BD was also sued for causing a woman to lose her feet because she got frostbite on an 8000m peak in her BD boots.

Both of those were due to customer stupidity. The Quest failure is shit engineering (look at the pictures) followed by denial and blame-laying.

In the last 10 years salomon hasn't innovated ANYTHING except for marketing. Oh, and maybe superbadass x-wing crosspieces and 3-D ski top sheets.

I am not a BD fan (most of their stuff is second-tier these days), but they don't deserve to be lumped in with the lying incompetent fucks at Salomon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCK

....shame on us for assuming that a company that has never ventured into AT in the past 10 years, could magically come up with the most bomber AT boot ever. Let's not forget, Scarpa, Garmont, and Dynafit have been trying to come up with a bomber AT (dynafit compatible boot) for years. It is completely naive to believe that a new comer to the AT market can do it in just one year (and Black Diamond doesn't count because they have been involved in the AT market for years, indirectly, of course).

---

Umm...I don't think the issue was whether the boot was "bomber" enough. It wasn't remotely adequate. Not like they made it strong, but should've made it stronger. Not even a little. They cheaped out, on purpose, period. Your contention that this is just a "learning curve" issue is what's naive here and, frankly, silly.

Besides, nothing about the Quest is particularly revolutionary from a design perspective. Walk modes and Dynafit compatible interfaces have been around for years. So the notion that Salomon was trying a groundbreaking new design and thus deserves some leeway for this kind of flaw is just as silly.

I think DoWork is absolutely appropriate for raising this issue in any discussion of Salomon products. That's the point of a protest. So sorry if you find it inconvenient, that must be terrible for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patches

The Quest failure is shit engineering (look at the pictures)

---

I will say that I was pretty stunned to see Lou's analysis. I think that his diagnosis -- poorly placed weight-reduction holes and too-thin material -- seems spot on.

But that seems a little different than this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weasel1

They cheaped out, on purpose, period.

---

I doubt that what they did saved any significant money over doing it right. After all, unless Dynafit has a separate patent on the current boot piece, they could have just cloned the Dynafit piece. It seems like they were going for additional weight reduction over what they'd get with Dynafit. Problem is, they don't appear to have tested adequately to determine whether they had hit the tipping point.

Cheaped out on R&D on the insert piece, material testing and analysis, licensing fees, you pick it...

Fair enough, it's possible it was gross oversight, but after notice of a failure to leave them in place and not re-test, that is cheaping out, on purpose in my book.

Let's get back to the "ROCKER 2"

Do anyone know anything new?

Wait, wait, can't we start ranting about Toyota now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCK

First off, I think all of you are too quick in writing off Salomon. Let's not forget that they have given us (the skiing community) some pretty sweet products over the years. They have been on the forefront of freeski, freestyle, and race for the past 30 years. They have churned out some killer skis and bindings. Skis and bindings that the majority of us have put our lives at the mercy of.

---

I'm really not the knee-jerk dbag you seem to think I think I am. People make mistakes but its how you deal with those mistakes that makes you what you are. Salomon apparently feels that bullshitting us is the way to go and I don't appreciate it one bit, as I feel at the very least they owe us some honesty at this point.

Quote:

---

Having said that, shame on us for assuming that a company that has never ventured into AT in the past 10 years, could magically come up with the most bomber AT boot ever. Let's not forget, Scarpa, Garmont, and Dynafit have been trying to come up with a bomber AT (dynafit compatible boot) for years. It is completely naive to believe that a new comer to the AT market can do it in just one year (and Black Diamond doesn't count because they have been involved in the AT market for years, indirectly, of course).

---

See, this sounds completely ridiculous to me. There are perfectly functioning examples of correct ways to engineer and reinforce the Low Tech Inserts in many companies just as you've listed. No other boot company offering these low tech interfaces has had a problem engineering and testing a similar product to ensure its safety- especially a new one- before releasing it to the public. It's perfectly feasible that they could have come out with a super burl boot as they clearly had the resources to make it happen, they just got so caught up in slapping features on it that they never bothered to make it safe.

Quote:

---

As for this thread: There still are many of us that are interested in Salomon's products. We are not jumping to conclusions over something that happened with a poorly executed, and obviously untested product. I've seen scores of broken bones and injuries from Atomic bindings recalled in the past 2 years (and we're talking 10 years worth of bindings). I don't see anyone throwing a hissy fit over those. Maybe if it was your mother that got hurt, there would have been a "Boycott Atomic" thread. Regardless, we feel for TC, and we hope the best for him, but please stop cunting up this thread.

---

While I understand your right to your opinion, I think you're missing some key facts. The boots were NOT UNTESTED. They WERE tested and BROKE the same way TC's did... They were released anyways. Please read up, I am more than happy to discuss viewpoints on specific issues but you don't seem to know the first thing about what happened other than TC got hurt and you seem to be pretty damn smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dynodonkeyaltabird

the only way to make salomon realize that we know they fucked up is to stop buying their shit... nobody around here should be purchasing any new salomon stuff. if we keep buying salomon, its just business as usual.

---

QFT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCK

You have a very good point. But, our outrage with Salomon needs to be a lot more focused than random ramblings in every Salomon related thread. That is the only way that they will get the message. However, in the spirit of TGR, cunt away!

---

Well, this website gets a lot of hits from people searching for info on new skis and equipment. I just want those people to be aware of the actions of the company they are considering supporting, so check out the thread on the insert failure. There are some very interesting pieces of information that are given throughout it that I feel any prospective Salomon customer should know.

[ame="http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191256"]Saloman Quest Tech inserts failure thread - Teton Gravity Research Forums[/ame]

Edit: I'm done and carry on with your previously scheduled ski stoke if you're still interested.

Solomon clearly screwed up. The spin control that we are seeing in the aftermath is basically the legal department of a big assed corporation getting involved and attempting to minimize the company's exposure. It sucks, but that is regrettably the way it works in just about every industry.

Unfortunately TC paid a terrible price and is likely going to have a tough legal battle. Generally the easiest path in these situation is a quiet settlement where Salomon doesn't publicly accept responsibility and hopefully TC gets some decent dollars so that he can get on with his life as best he can (speculation on my part). Obviously no amount of money is going to get back what he has lost. Then again TC may feel that it is important to do battle and have Salomon publicly admit their negligence/culpability. That is respectfully his choice.

Lesson for me is not to take anything these companies say at face value and not to use a first year product - especially from a company with no experience/expertise in the space. This is in no way a dig at TC just an observation of how what I have learned has effected me - and hopefully others.

It is certainly fair and right for folks on this board to call attention to what happened so that those who are looking at Salomon gear can have all the data to make the best and most informed decisions for themselves. Having said that, it is equally fair for folks to be able to actually have a discussion about Salomon equipment without every thread being hijacked. If the latter happens, people will just go elsewhere and one of the most important points of drawing attention to the situation will have been lost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elskier

Lesson for me is not to take anything these companies say at face value and not to use a first year product - especially from a company with no experience/expertise in the space. This is in no way a dig at TC just an observation of how what I have learned has effected me - and hopefully others.

---

Being careful with first-year products is all good, also everyone should be skeptical about anything a PR department tells you.

However, there is no reason to lower your standards to the point where you start to expect fundamental and dangerous flaws in any product, first year or otherwise. There is simply no excuse for the complete lack of testing and QC shown in this case.

Wonky walk modes, roving cant adjusters, durability issues, and the like can still be expected and will normally be excused/fixed/replaced with an updated product. Complete failure in critical points, especially for something which has been around for years and years (Dynafit inserts in this case) is not to be expected, is not excusable, can not be fixed and no-one can replace a broken knee.

Totally agree. Negligence is a completely different story

Here is some info on the Salomon Rocker 2 They look pretty sweet. I definitely want to try them. The construction sounds interesting though. Honeycomb with ABS reinforced frame... Full wood core though. So should be good!

John

Catskiing Canada | Heliskiing Canada | Skiing BC Canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejrp

Here is some info on the Salomon Rocker 2 They look pretty sweet. I definitely want to try them. The construction sounds interesting though. Honeycomb with ABS reinforced frame... Full wood core though. So should be good!

John

Catskiing Canada | Heliskiing Canada | Skiing BC Canada

---

Thanks for the info! Those dimensions look money. Not too tapered yet not too symmetrical.

Any word on flex?
If they flex like the old rocker mmm...

Short radius, camber underfoot... hmmm more competition for the S7 niche. Can anyone read the actual dimensions and sizes? I cant quite make it out. Looks like the long length is 190 or 192 but I cant tell which and is it 122 under foot? Anyone with Salomon connections know when it might be available?

i sincerely hope salomon makes things right with TC... not only because he deserves it but because I really want to try some of their gear. these and the rumored touring binding sound great, along with some other stuff. too bad.

oh and professor you should be able to click on the picture and enlarge it

the 192 looks like 144-122-134, the 184 looks like 142-122-132.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ectreeskier11

oh and professor you should be able to click on the picture and enlarge it

---

Not big enough that I could read it. The print got blurry on my little laptop screen. Or I need glasses :)

Boycott Salomon until they choose to make it right with the skier they injured. When they do that, they will be in good graces again. Simple, they make the right choice, we change our choice to call them out every time their product comes up....good or bad products.

If you can't take righteous people steering people away from a irresponsible company, head on over to alpinezone and engage with those douches.

Nice to see a range of sizes.

170cm 137-115-127 R26
180cm 139-115-129 R26
184cm 142-122-132 R26
192cm 144-122-134 R26

If the pricing can compete with the JJ and Bentchetler they should be able to grab a good share of those sales.

Rocker2, El Dictator, Czar, Shogun, Sentinel, 2012; Salomon has a killer freeski line-up right now. Though the Czar seems a little crowded by the new offerings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

Boycott Salomon until they choose to make it right with the skier they injured. When they do that, they will be in good graces again. Simple, they make the right choice, we change our choice to call them out every time their product comes up....good or bad products.

If you can't take righteous people steering people away from a irresponsible company, head on over to alpinezone and engage with those douches.

---

How do you have over 1000 posts since Feb. of this year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

If you can't take righteous people steering people away from a irresponsible company, head on over to alpinezone and engage with those douches.

---

I am so glad you have been here for 6 months so you could tell me what this place is about :nonono2::nonono2::nonono2:

Edit: Now back to the question about availability. My guess is after the first of the year for a mid season release?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stikki

Nice to see a range of sizes.

170cm 137-115-127 R26
180cm 139-115-129 R26
184cm 142-122-132 R26
192cm 144-122-134 R26

---

So, the current Rocker is 147-127-137 and has a flat tail. So, they shaved 3-mm off of the dimensions and gave it a JJ rocker effect, but did they make it LIGHTER??? This from someone who owned and liked the first version but didn't think the weight penalty was worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

So, the current Rocker is 147-127-137 and has a flat tail. So, they shaved 3-mm off of the dimensions and gave it a JJ rocker effect, but did they make it LIGHTER??? This from someone who owned and liked the first version but didn't think the weight penalty was worth it.

---

i'm assuming they did as this would be a horrible ski with the weight of the rocker. that alone would put it in a different class than something like the BC.

I personally did not find the 2010 / 2011 Rocker too heavy. It certainly felt solid though. Really point and shoot with the swallow tail action.

Catskiing Canada | Heliskiing Canada | Skiing BC Canada

Just read the fine print "an innovative construction using honeycomb with ABS reinforced frame at the extremities reduces swing weight". Wasn't that how the Atomic Thug was laid up? Sounds lighter for sure, but I wonder how it affects flex?

Tons of companies are now starting to be real concerned with swing weight vs. overall weight. It is one of the reasons for the hole in the Kastle tips, BD does it by making relief in areas of the tip. Many other examples as well. Personally I think it is a great idea. Lower swing weight is easier to toss around without loosing some of the stability of a ski that has a bit of weight to it. Back on the original subject, when can I get some? (Rocker 2s that is) :eek:

who is dalton, and how did a boot almost kill someone. just curious.

whats this about a possible touring binding?

search, douchebag!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D(C)

search, douchebag!

---

haha, hey douchebag, see my signature.

Interesting to note that Salomon got rid of the swallowtail on the new version of the Rocker...

Seems like Rocker and Rocker2 are different skis, Rocker has big long tips, conventional sidecut, no real taper, whereas the Rocker2 is JJ/S7 like sidecut. Interested to see the camber profile in pictures, you can see Sammy Carlson skiing them in the new TGR film I'm pretty sure.

MikeDski tweets:
It's finally done! Here's a sneek peek of my fav Salomon ski in 7 yrs: The Rocker 2... http://yfrog.com/1rhxlbj

And

Here's a shot of the bases: http://yfrog.com/2ssg8tej

Does he have any review of how they ski?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejrp

Does he have any review of how they ski?

---

From what I've heard, they're awesome. Full rocker, lighter than a hellbent, and they aren't total noodles. I want a pair. Kind of disappointed in the name though since these skis have virtually nothing in common with the Rocker.

Don't buy salomon please. Thank you.

Those look sick I must say so myself...

When is the release date? Any late season for this ski year?