Purchasing a KneeBinding????

Hi I'm new here and this is my first post. I am considering purchasing a KneeBinding when they arrive in a few weeks time....(They are scheduled to be out @ the 15th).....

Prior to parting with ~$500 for a ski binding and after reading the posts by Rick Howell (the inventor), the only factor holding me back from pulling the trigger on this one is that he is no longer with the company and will not answer the "Why" as to his departure. This only leaves me to speculate as to whether it was a "design" issue or "personal/financial" issue that caused his departure.

As a careful consumer, which we must all be in these times, parting with this kind of $$$ deserves at least some sort of explanation as to why the company and engineer are at "odds". If it is a design issue, I want to know before jumping in "literally"......

Thanks for any help on this.

It seems to me that there are only two party's that can answer this... any answer NOT from Rick or Knee Binding is pure speculation.

I'd suggest sending an eMail to:

http://www.kneebinding.com/KB-Contact.aspx

Good advice. I cannot send a PM to Rick yet as I haven't posted 5 times, but I'll use the link. Thanks.

New stuff sometimes works

Put me in the hopeful but skeptical category. My concerns:

1. There's no evidence that "rotation about the femur" is a primary mechanism of ACL rupture. With one exception, the studies don't support it.

2. Even if rotation about the femur is theoretically correlated with ACL tears, there's no evidence that this equipment reduces injury in the field.

3. Apart from a few seconds of youtube video, we've little clue how this binding will perform in normal skiing, let alone demanding terrain and conditions such as steeps, bumps, powder, crud or gates. (I like to keep my skis on in the powder, how 'bout you?)

4. The Knee Binding has more height than I prefer. YMMV.

5. Why is Rick, the inventor, founder, etc. no longer with the company? "I can't tell you" is explicitly a non-answer. In the absence of explanation, this is a huge red flag.

I'd happily pay $500 for something that let me ski hard while protecting my ACL. However, it's foolish to throw that money away without reason.

As always, caveat emptor.

Note: The below *is* all hearsay and rumor, so take it with a great-big-salt-lick-size grain of salt.

Spoke to a guy who HAS skied on the bindings (and been in the ski industry for ages), and he was a fan. He said he was pushing them pretty hard and never felt in danger of preleasing. he seemed to be a fan. He didn't say whether he skied moguls or not, but I know he didn't ski powder (it was at Stowe... so that's pretty much a given). He saw their biomechanics force demo too, and it seemed reasonable to him. However, whether or not this is actually going to reduce knee injury is certainly something that would have to be proven beyond marketing materials.

In terms of the split, the rumor (note: BIG GRAIN OF SALT) is that the issues were personal between the two company founders, and not necessarily product related.

My personal take (as an engineer and a skier)? It would need to be tested and proven more, with careful analysis done on cadavers and actual ski injuries (as much as is possible) in addition to FEA simulations of ACL/MCL/LCL failure before I'll buy the claim that it can help reduce injuries. In theory it seems like a likely failure mechanism for ACLs, but I'd need to see the data without it going through the marketing buffing machine or at least have a preponderance of real-world data ("10000 knee binding skier-days, 1 ACL injury, average for the year being 12/10000" for example).

Also, I doubt this binding can be a real commercial success in this market unless an established ski company in search of a marquee binding design licenses the tech/buys out KNEE (Nordica, I'm looking in your direction). With a big name backing up the design, it's a lot more likely to take off as a commercial success than it is as a small, one-off brand nobody's ever heard of.

However, if I had already injured my knee in the past, and the bindings hold up and don't prerelease under normal aggressive skiing situations (bumps, powder, crud, hard carving etc.), I'd probably take the chance. Assuming no prerelease and adequate function elsewhere, the biggest risk would be a slightly lighter wallet.

Thanks for the responses. I work in the healthcare industry and given the prices for rehabilitating a knee (including surgery, etc.....) $500 is a drop in the bucket. I ski 60-90 days per year and I'm on the "ski till I'm 80" program (need to get my money back w/ senior discounts ) so if it avoids just one tear it's seems worth it's weight in gold.

When I think about the actual type of fall that tears knees apart, having that extra release component seems like extra insurance against leg damage....then again I got "snake-oiled" w/ the new Li Ion Primovolta heated gloves by Outdoor Research which I promptly sent back till they work out the kinks.....so I may just be a sucker for science novelties.

I plan to stop by MicroStrain where the bindings were actually tested, and try to get their honest opinion on the set up w/o the hype. We'll see what they have to say.......

KneeBinding called me today in response to my inquiries.They took the time to explain how the binding worked, where to get it mounted, and allayed my fears of a design flaw. While I was not given any details about the split, I was assured that the inventor leaving the company had nothing to do with a difference in perspective in the overall design of the product to be released.

They skied yesterday at Stowe on the binding (it's icy right now) w/o pre-releases.

The theory behind the binding sounds logical to me.

I plan to try this product and I'll give a review after I get them mounted up in a few weeks time.

Thanks

I'm very interested in learning more, look forward to your impressions.

I would be interested in more info as well.

Keep in mind here that the goal is not to see if the binding pre-releases but if it prevents ACL injuries. Any report on test-use of the binding would not be practical or meanginfull unless the test runs included backwards twisting falls. I would want to know how the ski releases in falls, not if it pre-releases.

Just curious how they test the heel release feature on live skiers? Mounting skis on a cadaver and pushing it down a mogul field does not qualify as a live skier. For example, did someone ski on them and intentionally do a backward twsiting fall and try to rip their knee out of the socket and see if their ACL ruptures? And was this done many times by skiers of various weights, fittness levels, muscle strength, and under varying condtions?

Also, if someone did test this type of scenario on the hill, it would not be a valid test as they knew the fall was coming and could react accoriingly in preperation. Most ACL injuries occur when you don't know their about to happen.

I would certainly pay for such a system if it were proven effective. To be proven scientifically effective, however, will take time and a lot of ski-days on the snow from everyday skiers of all persuasions taking the ski and bindings into all kinds of condtions.

Testing in the lab is one thing, testing in real-life scenarios is another. There are many different skis, skiers, skier styles,uses, boots, and fittness levels.

The only real 'scientific' way to test the effectiveness of the system in the real world comes after skiers start getting hold of the binding and put it through the paces.

After a while, the knee injury stats can be compared to binding use.

After a couple of years, you can possibly pick out a pattern --

Relative to users of standard binding systems, use of the binding satistically resulted in:

- No redcution in ACL injuries.
- Minimal reduction in overall ACL injuries.
- Signifigcnt reduction in ACL injury.
- An increase in injury from pre-release.

The above stats would be the only 'scientific' proof of real-world effectivness. Until I saw these stats from independant parties, I would be reluctant to invest the money in the new system. Outfitting 4 pair of skis with $500 bindings is quite expensive.

I am not being negative -- just realistic. I hope it does prove effective. I am just taking a wait-and-see approach. I will let other skiers be the first real-world beta testers.

Hearing feedback from test users who demo the binding, about the binding not pre-releasing, tells us nothing.

FWIW, I'm very interested in whether this binding pre-releases. If it does it's not very useful.

spam

ignore anyone who suddenly appears for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There has been no talk anywhere that the binding is prone to early release.

Thanks

I guess I get full credit for the concern then!

Well, actually not. FYI, the issue in binding design has never been whether engineers can design a binding that prevents the most common injuries. The issue, rather, is whether they can do so while preventing premature release given the forces encountered during normal skiing.

Again, color me hopeful but skeptical.

I'll be waiting as well, but your notions that scientific=empirical are bit weird. Something can certainly be based upon sound science while being ineffective, or something based on handwaving can be effective. Lack of effect doesn't imply bad science. You are waiting to see the empirical evidence of effect. That is fine.

I'm going to wait to see what some other beta monkeys experience, but I'm certainly not going to wait for large quantities of data on experience among the general skiing population to emerge. First, I don't think there are many examples of this kind of information being reported for any individual binding design. Second, my skiing is not at all similar to the mean of the group. Third, this function change is being implemented unilaterally via marketing, not skiing-wide by standard. There will be a tremendous number of difficult to quantify biases separating skiers with this binding and skiers with other bindings.

In other news, I've also been wearing a helmet while skiing since 1995. If I were to wait for high confidence in empirical benefit for that device to be proven amongst a broad group of skiers, I'd still be wearing a hat.

Then again, a helmet is not a mechanical piece of equipment with moving parts that can malfunction or pre-release off your head. You know what youre getting and it's not a $500 piece of gear. Same thing for back protectors or pads.

I think the only way anyone can say with certainty whether the binding works as intended is to have a diverse sample population of skiers use the binding over a period of time in various condtions. I don't see how else you can judge it.

You may have people say their binding came off in a twisting fall but you cannot determine this wouldnt have happened with a standard binding setup, or perhads the skier had well conditioned lower leg muscles and strong knees.

Only a large sample population with many skiers reporting results that are not typical for standard bindings will really answer the question of efficiency.

I am not saying its not worth a try. It's just too pricey for me personally to outfit all my skis at $500 a pop without some sort of assurance that ths new product works not only in significantly reducing the chances of ACL injurt but also no reports of unusual pre release issues when real world skiers start mashing moguls and getting into all sorts of various terrain.

Only time will tell. The word will eventually get around.

I will wait a while and watch as the real testing begins on the ski slopes. It is obvious the first few hundred or thousand skiers who purcahse the product are the real first beta testers -- just like Microsoft does with their operating systems

I will wear my badge of "Beta Crash Test Dummy" with pride!

Deleted per court order.

Edited by rick howell - 4/2/2009 at 08:50 pm

Thank you very much for the detailed and informative post Rick.

I'll be looking for these bindings and their users out on the hill.

Thanks again for your involvement Rick, always nice to see the thought behind the product.

However, if there's one thing engineering has taught me, it's that everything has unintended consequences, and you can't predict everything (especially with consumer goods!) Maybe the nylon in the binding functions fine under the humidity conditions in the east, but when it stiffens up on a cold, dry Utah day it leads to brittle failure. Maybe the release mechanism gets easily clogged by road salt - which the team has never seen because they properly care for their gear, but you can't guarantee the public will do. Maybe the release mechanism ends up causing a completely different type of injury through unforseen circumstances. Maybe so much attention was spent on the heel piece that the toe piece is inferior to some of the other technologies on the market. Maybe a tolerance is off on one integral piece that reduces the effectiveness of the system. Maybe the manufacturer uses lower grade material than specified for the production run, casuing premature failure. It's the same reason why you always test physical models even if the FEA says it's going to be perfectly fine. Usually it is - but there are plenty of cases where it isn't.

Are any of these likely? No, they're all pretty highly unlikely. But almost always, there's something that doesn't work the way it should or has an unforseen side effect with a completely new technology. If everything was perfect the first time, quality managers and an awful lot of engineers would be out of a job

As stated, obviously a double-blind study isn't feasible, but waiting for some statistically significant data to come back is after public launch. Having a few guys skiing on it for a few seasons only proves that none of them had ACL injuries during that time, and nothing else. Plenty of people, including myself, have had many many seasons without any type of knee injury - that doesn't mean our bindings are perfect and safe, it just means we've been fortunate not to have any knee injuries. Just like how Body Mass Index means little on an individual basis but is applied incorrectly all the time, yet works great as a statistical tool for populations. Obviously you can't have somebody TRY to tear their ACL on your system for ethical reasons, unless the guy who suggested that wants to volunteer!

Plenty of products have come out onto the skiing (and other sporting goods) markets promising decreased injury, superior performance, etc. etc. Once burned, twice shy. Or, in this case, many times burned, light in the wallet

As for the gravity/orbit argument (which, really, are related arguments), before any burden of proof, they are nothing but hypotheses. You can hypothesize that the binding reduces knee injuries (and it probably does, to boot... pun intended), but that doesn't make it any truer than my hypothesizing that the universe has 42 dimensions. Until significant testing is done that puts the burden of proof behind the hypothesis, it's nothing other than a hypothesis. Gravity (including orbital motion) are theories because they have a burden of proof behind them through experiment and investigation. And, for that matter, we may find out that gravity is actually wrong (and, to some degree, we're finding on the nano and supermacro scales that it very well may be wrong - hence why we're fudging stuff with dark matter that we can't find).

Now, that's the skeptic opinion above. My personal opinion is that, assuming it all works as stated (as I haven't seen one in person), and from a few third party opinions I've heard, that it probably does work pretty much as described above. Again, I can't say whether it will work as described or not, but the theory certainly seems sound. I'll personally wait until I hear a bit more about actual experiences with the product before taking the jump myself, but if it works as advertised it stands to be a very great jump in binding technology and I'll definitely get a pair for myself on the possibility it may help prevent injury.

For the record, I work in the sporting goods industry in Lacrosse, field hockey, and a bit of golf, including work for Nike, but am NOT associated with ANY skiing or binding manufacturers whatsoever. My closest "connections" to the skiing industry are a few years ski instructing + PSIA certification in high school (with the accompanying pro deals) and some VERY casual sporting-goods-industry connections through my coworkers to Burton, Spyder, The North Face, and Wilson (owned by Amer sports who also owns Atomic and Salomon). The only product I own by Amer Sports is a pair of boots I bought last week, at retail, from Salomon, simply because they fit my feet best.

Thanks, Rick. Your explanations and efforts are very much appreciated.

I'll pull the trigger if I can just find someone authorized, trained, and equipped with the template to mount them.

Edited by rick howell - 4/2/2009 at 08:51 pm

Thanks again Rick,

I wasn't saying that any of those were going to happen, just giving examples of some of the more obvious things that could happen. It's the same basic reason why I didn't buy the first gen iPhone even though I thought it was a great piece of technology - even in a company with supremely experienced, talented people and tons of history, mistakes can be made. Hell, even the iPhone 3g (which I did purchase) had tons of issues when it first came out, it took a few months of updates to finally get it working the way it was intended to.

While your experience and knowledge certainly does (and should) influence my confidence level, I stick by my "first generation products are public betas" stance. It is encouraging to see that you did try to simplify the design as much as possible, but any additional element causes additional failure modes.

As for the epidemiology paper, while your contributions do make sense, I prefer to get my data from a third party

As for the business side, I am disappointed that you're no longer with the company, as you're clearly still very enthusiastic about the product. While it's certainly no business of mine why you left the company, it doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the company, hence my reservations about the financial viability of the company as a private entity and not supported by a more established manufacturer. In a better economy this probably wouldn't be as much of a concern.

Regardless, I'm very excited about any new products that push skiing technology and safety. As I said before, once a bit more independent data comes in (subjective or objective), I'd certainly consider plopping some on my boards.

Also, it's 50 and raining here, which may explain my argumentativeness. 2 weeks til I get to ski

This is certainly a very intriguing product.

One thing I can't quite get my head around is why we shouldn't be concerned that the heel is designed to only release in one direction (inward and not outward). Does the phantom foot fall only act on one leg to tear its ACL, while the other knee for some reason is not at risk during the same fall?

If one heel needs to release inward to prevent the injury to that knee, why doesn't the other heel need to release outward at the same time to protect its knee? Is that second hip free to rotate, protecting its knee from injury? Or are the forces on the second ski different such that the traditional release mechanisms will be triggered?

Other than that, the inward only release seems to make sense. In another thread it was mentioned that outward release at the heel would lead to prerelease problems. I imagine that's because the peak load on the inner edge of a ski occurs when that leg is being used as the heavily loaded downhill leg in a hard turn. So hitting a bump while loaded like that might approach the force you'd see in a phantom foot fall, even though the knee is in no danger during a normal turn. So the binding would have no way to tell the difference. Then for the inward release, I suppose the binding mainly has to look at the outside edge of the ski being lightly loaded while used as the uphill foot in a turn, so that this force would rarely reach the level of the phantom foot fall scenario.

I wonder if you could get a prerelease by going airborne during a turn and trying to save yourself by landing hard on your uphill leg rather than using your downhill leg. Maybe like intentionally twisting your feet, that would be something you'd want to avoid doing.

I suppose if the binding was going to be able to release in both heel directions, you'd need to have an asymmetrical release setting where the outer direction could be set higher than the inner direction. But perhaps that isn't practical.

I'm also wondering who the target group is for this initial version of the binding. Do ACL injuries occur more often during high speed crashes by experts, or awkward low speed crashes by casual skiers? The premium price and the need for custom mounting seems to suggest the binding is aimed at pretty serious skiers for now.

My initial concern was the split between Rick and Kneebinding. I was concerned that the manufacturers possibly changed some of the design parameters to bring the product to market.

Reading Rick's commentary in support of the final product, allays some of my fears about trying this binding. This is a good sign.

I plan to put these bindings on my primary set of skis, I can't afford 7 sets of Kneebindings. I think it's worth every penny because the price of being able to ski w/ a reduced possibility of injury is priceless.

Thanks Rick for all of the technical information. Since I have torn both ACL's in the last 10, no, 15... no.. wait...17 years (Both on Marker) I am very interested in a safer binding.

I was wondering if you would comment on two bindings that I have skied on without injury. First, I skied the Spademan's in the late 70's with the screwed on plate. Back then, I skied more aggressively, in the back seat, in the bumps on Rossignol Strato 102's without injury. If the Spademan binding were available today I think I would still ski it. Why did they fall out of favor, and did they reduce knee injuries?

Second, I ski Dynafit bindings and compatible boots in the backcountry. Their heel has direct lateral release in both directions as well as upward release. The toe has no upward release, and I'm really not sure of it's lateral release capability. But I have released in falls and haven't experienced any prerelease problems and no injuries.

I would love to purchase the Knee Binding, but like others, with many pairs of ski's, It would be an expensive proposition.

Would it be practical to mount the binding by myself with the mounting template or just take it all to my local shop?

Thanks

I think this binding might have saved my ACL. I got one ski caught in a drift skiing a cat track in the fog and snow. It spun me around backwards and I went off the cat track. I landed on my back with my feet in the air and the tail of one ski caught the ground and twisted. The toe did not come close to getting the torque it needed to release. Maybe a heel release would have worked.

You are going to put down $500.00 or so for arguable the most expensive and safest binding that is being produced, then you are looking to save $30.00 by mounting it yourself? You do realize that is not just a couple of screws that need to be drilled in a ski, right? You do realize that if a toe or heel piece is off center by a degree or two, they binding won't release/retain as it is designed? I assume that you also have a Vermont Calibrating device and bench at home and the training on how to torque test a binding too.

Yes, I understand all those things.

But it is interesting that the Knee Binding website sells the mounting jig alongside the bindings. I can't think of another binding manufacturer who does that.

I am also thinking that a shop may be resistant to mounting a binding that they have never seen or heard of. Especially in these days of high liability.

Also, I understand that ski shops are unwilling to mount or work on bindings that are not on the Binding Indemnification list. (I haven't been able to find a 2008-09 updated list using google). I think it is reasonable to suggest that those ski shops would not work on the Knee Binding if it isn't on the list. But I really can't imagine it not being on the list.

I emailed Knee Binding about shops in the Seattle area that sells the binding and here is their reply:

JSM 12/11/08

Hi! I'm John Springer-Miller from KneeBinding.

Sorry about your ACLs...

We do have a couple of shops in Washington:
FairHaven Bike and Ski in Bellingham at 360-733-4433
Sport Haus - Yakima - 509-966-6695

If neither of these works for you, let me know. There are a couple of other
shops we are considering. Or - tell me who your favorite ski shop is, and
we'll look into it.


Yours,
John Springer-Miller
KneeBinding, Inc.
802 760-3026

The listed shops are a few hours away from me. Hopefully I can get a more local shop to do the work.

Anyway, I agree that it is not worth saving a few dollars on mounting bindings. It's best to have a knowledgeable shop do the work.

Cheers,
Jon

Edited by rick howell - 4/2/2009 at 09:00 pm

Edited by rick howell - 4/2/2009 at 09:01 pm