Hi Snowfan,

Last year, you cannot "blame" your old "ordinary" bindings because that was the existing paradigm at that time.  This situation is similar to when cars had no air bags -- and it was "accepted" that you might sustain a head injury even if you were wearing a seatbelt.  Today, all cars have air bags and the bar has now been raised regarding the level of protection that you might come to expect with the utilization of the combination of a seatbelt plus an airbag.  Once these bindings are up to specification, you should not "chalk-up" a skiing knee injury as part of skiing.  Another example is closer to home for me:  people "expected" to be hassled by their toe straps and slotted sole cleats during bicycling back in 1980.  Most people did not even complain about the hassle because there was no other way.  Then, I invented hands-off clipless pedals -- and the level of expectation about what one should experience in their foot-to-pedal connection, changed. 

To answer your questions, directly:  Pure vertical toe release will address the BIAD-injury mode of skiing-ACL injuries, which mode contributes to approximately 15% to 20% of all skiing-ACL injuries.  Tilting toe release has little (if any) effect on skiing knee injuries -- as has been proven by the near-100% proliferation of toes with tilting features while the incidence of skiing-ACL injuries INCREASED (that does not mean there is a cause-and-effect between these 2 aspects.....because there is another factor that caused that increase....but it also does not mean that tilting toe features reduce skiing-ACL injuries).  This increase in skiing knee injuries during the proliferation of tilting toe features is why all "ordinary" binding companies have specifically disclaimed in their consumer literature that tilting toe features have no effect on reducing the chance of knee injuries.

KneeBinding has 7-degrees of tilt in order to comfortably pass the "ordinary" binding lab tests (a small amount of tilt helps ordinary binding release-performance).

2.  Yes, the heel releases sideways -- and this is the major feature that mitigates ACL injuries, especially Phantom Foot induced skiing ACL injuries.  The release is asymmetric to mitigate pre-release, because Phantom Foot injuries include abduction-movement (inward-movement) of the heel, not adduction (outward-movement) -- thus by not releasing in the outward lateral heel direction, the chance of pre-release is cut in half.  The binding also has 3 other patented anti-prerelease features to mitigate lateral heel pre-release.

 (( PPS -- many bindings from 20 years ago are far better than bindings being sold, today.  This is a well known fact quietly shared by many ski binding researchers who test binding performance.))   As long as I have said all of this, I should also add that 35-years ago there were many bindings with pure vertical toe release (none had "independent adjustability") .... including Cubco, Spademan, Besser, Gertsch, Head, Americana, Eckl, .... but all failed because they had massive pre-release no matter how high you cranked the settings (which cranking defeated key lateral toe release of because each of these bindings had vertical toe release cross-linked (coupled) with lateral toe release.  So not only did they pre-release, but they also had poor lateral toe release because they had to be cranked in order to attempt to mitigate pre-release.  That's pure failure.  All of those bindings failed, big time .... though Spandeman had many interesting virtues that I might discuss in this fourm another day (plus Rich Spademan, MD, is a great man -- who by the way was run-over by people that still today wrongly dominate US ski binding standardization).

Snowfan,

Yes.  You are correct.

Re your question about why KneeBinding does not have pure vertical toe release:  Pls see the paper that loaded into this thread, above.  Further, I was the Product Manager of Geze Ski Binding Company in 1981 (and I had been in this position for 3 previous years) when we introduced the Geze SE3 -- the world's first independently adjustable (pure) vertical toe release binding.  This bindng was a classic masterpiece of Stuttgart-Germany-engineering .... and it was the long-standing brainchild of Dr-Ing. Peter Bierman, as it had been in R&D for 8-years (and Geze had more engineers than all other binding companies combined).  You should see this binding some day (ask your local ski shop about it).  It was truly amazing.  However, because there is very little elastic-defection in the rear-spoiler of ski boots and because the afterbody of skis are typically more rigid than the forebody of skis ..... the impact energy that is transferred into all toe pieces in the upward direction is quite large.  Therefore, a binding with vertical toe release must have extensive anti-pre-release properties (remember, release settings should not be the sole-aspect that provides retention -- and the signature of a good binding is one that can be aggressivly skied at low-settings).  We knew that this binding had to have exceptional vertical toe retention characteristics in order to overcome the super high loads that are transferred into it.  That is the main reason it was in R&D for so long.... as we tweaked and tweaked the retention characteristics of this binding.  We even positioned this binding (from a marketing perspective) for smooth recreational skiers.  However, it still pre-released too much because it was not always possible to insure that any given skier who used it would be "smooth".  It was also heavy and ugly.   It failed, and 2 years later when I was at that time the Director of Marketing at Geze, I was the one who sadly pulled the plug on it because there were just too many reports of dangerous pre-release.  As a footnote, many of the leading skiing safety experts, world-wide, still ski on this binding (even though it is log off the schedule of indemnified products) -- because many of them are highly accomplished skiers now in their late-sixties, mid-seventies who ski as smooth as silk and this binding is "just right" for their needs. (( PPS -- many bindings from 20 years ago are far better than bindings being sold, today.  This is a well known fact quietly shared by many ski binding researchers who test binding performance.))   As long as I have said all of this, I should also add that 35-years ago there were many bindings with pure vertical toe release (none had "independent adjustability") .... including Cubco, Spademan, Besser, Gertsch, Head, Americana, Eckl, .... but all failed because they had massive pre-release no matter how high you cranked the settings (which cranking defeated key lateral toe release of because each of these bindings had vertical toe release cross-linked (coupled) with lateral toe release.  So not only did they pre-release, but they also had poor lateral toe release because they had to be cranked in order to attempt to mitigate pre-release.  That's pure failure.  All of those bindings failed, big time .... though Spandeman had many interesting virtues that I might discuss in this fourm another day (plus Rich Spademan, MD, is a great man -- who by the way was run-over by people that still today wrongly dominate US ski binding standardization).

Vertical toe release addresses the BIAD knee injury mechanism (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer) which injury mechanism accounts for approx 15 to 20 % of all skiing knee injuries (though there is disagreement among epidemologists regarding this range of prevalence).  

Because of (1) the difficulty in developing a binding that has pure vertical toe release (so that it does not pre-release) combined with (2) the fact that the BIAD-mode is not the dominant skiing knee injury mode (the Phantom Foot mechanism is by far the dominant mode), pure vertical toe release is a mode of release that excapes practical application at this time.

Snowfan, pls take a peek at the research paper that I posted earlier in this thread....and I hope you enjoy seeing a considerable amount of information that might further clarify your good questions.

Ski-binding lawsuit ends in settlement, finding of contempt

By Tom Kearney

Published:

A settlement has been reached in a nasty business dispute involving two Stowe residents and a Stowe company, KneeBinding Inc.

Richard J. Howell, who invented a ski binding designed to minimize knee injuries, parted ways with the company last year, then went on a campaign blasting the product and the investors who now own most of the business.

“We had no choice but to do the one thing a company can do when faced with this kind of attack: We took him to court,” said John Springer-Miller, who bought 57 percent of KneeBinding last year.

Under the settlement, Howell agreed to a permanent ban on criticizing KneeBinding, its products, or John and Tina Springer-Miller. Further, he must make strong efforts to recall statements he’s posted on Internet sites and material posted on YouTube.

Howell agreed that he was in contempt of a preliminary court order, banning KneeBinding criticisms until a hearing could be held, and understood that he could be fined. Howell posted more criticisms on the Internet, and picketed at Lamoille Superior Court, both in violation of the court order, Judge Gregory Rainville wrote in a decision issued Tuesday.

Rainville fined Howell $7,000 for contempt, but said he won’t have to pay it if he complies fully with the court order until at least Sept. 15.

In addition, if Howell complies with the order, he can again receive severance payments from KneeBinding, which were to total $80,000 over 12 months.

Strains and tears of the anterior cruciate ligament in the knee are the most frequent injury in skiing. KneeBinding says ski injuries account for more than $1 billion a year in health-care costs, and nearly one of four skiers who injures an ACL never returns to the slopes.

KneeBinding says conventional bindings can’t detect or respond to the specific forces that cause most ACL injuries in skiing, but its binding does.

“This product has the potential to save lots and lots of knees. It’s really important,” Springer-Miller said. “In a world where 70,000 skiers hurt their knees every year, one small company is trying to make a difference.”

However, Howell’s criticisms were hurting prospective sales of the new binding, the lawsuit alleged.

“Rick Howell has made many false, damaging statements,” Springer-Miller said after the court order was issued Tuesday. “He has been unable to substantiate any of what he has said about the company, its product or its people. Many of his statements are absurd.

“We have been unable to convince him to put his energies elsewhere,” which left no alternative to filing a lawsuit, Springer-Miller said.

Howell said the settlement provides “the means to restore severance benefits and — on March 2, 2010 — become free of a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement with the company.”

Howell said he remains a significant shareholder and a member of the board of directors of KneeBinding, but is no longer an officer of the company’s daily operations.

“This outcome allows the parties to avoid litigation at this time and to move forward with their respective points of business focus,” Howell said. Howell said he will concentrate on developing new products with other competing companies.

Howell is president and CEO of Howell Product Development, which works on development of high-end sports products, including normal-looking eyewear that displays time; cross-country skiing equipment for open water; and new footwear that increases soccer-kick efficiency.

Rick, if you are still out there, I hope in the future you will take the time to talk about some of the older designs and 'best of' from your personal experience and long history in this field.

As Rick stated earlier in this thread and I also heard from an employee of Carl Ettlinger's directly, the Spademan binding was the safest design to date.