EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › KneeBinding - 2012 Discussion Forum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KneeBinding - 2012 Discussion Forum - Page 4

post #91 of 109

Rossi and Ecimmortal, I'm on record as having received my KB vaccination, and I hope Chairman realizes that there are a lot of bright folks on Epic with experience in playing with data. So it's hazardous to keep promising a breakthrough study that's always a month off. Or that shows up looking massaged. And obviously I've been known to, ah, draw attention to the appearance of possible conflicts of interest in gear reviews. But that said, not seeing anything sketchy about Lou's posts. Face it: A whole bunch here have some connection to/business interest in some of the gear we all blather about. And the rest of us are not magically free of bias just because we don't sell stuff. (Well, I am, but I'm really really special. wink.gif) IMO it's all about how data points are presented over time, whether someone's being a cheerleader or taking a stab at balance. 

 

No, Chris, this is not suggesting you jump in with day number 1,297, no KB problems to report. Puleeeze nooo...eek.gif

post #92 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


No, Chris, this is not suggesting you jump in with day number 1,297, no KB problems to report. Puleeeze nooo...eek.gif

 

 I might, however, watch one of those "one photo per day in the life" type videos though.

post #93 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

Will the Kneebinding fit on Blizzard IQ-type plates?

 

(I don't mind RS expressing unstaked views as often as he likes, just not in a review thread).


Yes they will go on a iq max plate. This is how they were demoing the binding at trade shows. Iirc thy used a blizzard 8.1 as the test ski.
post #94 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Rossi and Ecimmortal, I'm on record as having received my KB vaccination, and I hope Chairman realizes that there are a lot of bright folks on Epic with experience in playing with data. So it's hazardous to keep promising a breakthrough study that's always a month off. Or that shows up looking massaged. And obviously I've been known to, ah, draw attention to the appearance of possible conflicts of interest in gear reviews. But that said, not seeing anything sketchy about Lou's posts. Face it: A whole bunch here have some connection to/business interest in some of the gear we all blather about. And the rest of us are not magically free of bias just because we don't sell stuff. (Well, I am, but I'm really really special. wink.gif) IMO it's all about how data points are presented over time, whether someone's being a cheerleader or taking a stab at balance. 

 

No, Chris, this is not suggesting you jump in with day number 1,297, no KB problems to report. Puleeeze nooo...eek.gif


There is nothing "sketchy" about Lou's post. It's his website that show's he is a KB retailer. Just saying.

post #95 of 109

Thanks for helping me guys but Rossi Smash is correct.  It was all just theory, because that is the way things work.  First the theory, then the testing and use which leads to the statistics that supply the proof.  Without the theory there is no design.  Kind of a cart and horse, chicken/egg thing.

 

But anyway Phil and Cattunamunch on to important things.

 

So I'm not familiar with the plate you are referring to but if it is predrilled then probably not, which is the reason we sell primarily flat skis in my store.  If you already own the skis and the plate is mounted and predrilled you may have to use another plate to use Knee bindings.  But if you haven't purchased yet, then see if the shop get get the skis flat.  If not there are plenty of great skis out there that won't trap you into a binding system.

 

Lou

post #96 of 109

hijack.gif ^^^^ This brings up a general question about predrilled plates. Several years back, I had a racing FKS mounted on a 9S OS from the next year as the binding, all good. Only later found out that the shop had to drill some additional holes since the 9S plate, meant for the recreational pivot, didn't quite match the FKS. Worked fine, FWIW. 

 

So: What's the issue - besides possibly having holes too close together - in redrilling a predrilled plate? Thinking both of the KB, but also Phil's comment elsewhere that the upcoming Outbound 87 is spoiled by "requiring" a PX. Why not just slap anything you want on it, assuming there's no blatant hole overlap? 

post #97 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

hijack.gif ^^^^ This brings up a general question about predrilled plates. Several years back, I had a racing FKS mounted on a 9S OS from the next year as the binding, all good. Only later found out that the shop had to drill some additional holes since the 9S plate, meant for the recreational pivot, didn't quite match the FKS. Worked fine, FWIW. 

 

So: What's the issue - besides possibly having holes too close together - in redrilling a predrilled plate? Thinking both of the KB, but also Phil's comment elsewhere that the upcoming Outbound 87 is spoiled by "requiring" a PX. Why not just slap anything you want on it, assuming there's no blatant hole overlap? 

I have seen "wrong" (to use a word) bindings mounted on plates they were not designed for. It has to be watched not only do the holes not conflict but also that there is enough material where the new screws will be. 

 

As far as the Outland. The PX is an integrated system but it can be pulled off and replaced with a flat mount, say a Pivot or Griffon or whatever you choose as long, again, if there is no conflict. But then you are buying two bindings. 

post #98 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I have seen "wrong" (to use a word) bindings mounted on plates they were not designed for. It has to be watched not only do the holes not conflict but also that there is enough material where the new screws will be. 

As far as the Outland. The PX is an integrated system but it can be pulled off and replaced with a flat mount, say a Pivot or Griffon or whatever you choose as long, again, if there is no conflict. But then you are buying two bindings. 

Would this be the same phil that mounted solomon binders on a metron plate pre.drilled for a neox biggrin.gif
post #99 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

hijack.gif  ^^^^ This brings up a general question about predrilled plates. Several years back, I had a racing FKS mounted on a 9S OS from the next year as the binding, all good. Only later found out that the shop had to drill some additional holes since the 9S plate, meant for the recreational pivot, didn't quite match the FKS. Worked fine, FWIW. 

So: What's the issue - besides possibly having holes too close together - in redrilling a predrilled plate? Thinking both of the KB, but also Phil's comment elsewhere that the upcoming Outbound 87 is spoiled by "requiring" a PX. Why not just slap anything you want on it, assuming there's no blatant hole overlap? 

Can be done. I have successfully mounted a tyrolia freflex on a pre drilled solly power axe plate. Only needed 4 extra holes as half the toe and heel holes lined up . Oh and a solly 916 on an atomic D2 deck!
Phil is on the mark though, you need to check how much material is there. Some things like the atomic wc plate, it can't be done.
post #100 of 109

JSM or anyone else...

 

does the toe release mechanism act stiffer than 'normal' bindings.  i just put some brand new ones on and when i try to physically move the toe piece (with my hands) i find it much much harder to move than my my marker toe release mechanisms.  (set at same DIN setting)

 

has me a little concerned as i feel i took a minor leap of faith going with a smaller company etc.

 

thanks!

post #101 of 109

JSM 11/27

 

Hi DavidFox,

 

The retention/release values for KneeBinding follow the same "DIN" chart as all ordinary bindings.  The force required to release the toe at any given DIN setting is the same as it is with other brands.  The standards for retention/release values do allow some tolerance - that is, they can vary to a certain degree and still meet the standard.  But most retailers report that KneeBindings are much more precise than others - that KneeBindings are "dead on," while other brands tend to vary more.  In part, this is due to the simplicity of the KneeBinding design, but also to our Q/A standards.  We test every heel and every toe before it leaves the factory, and we require each one to be within much tighter tolerances than the industry as a whole.  The KneeBinding toe has exceptionally good release characteristics, and also offers excellent elasticity.  

 

After all that - you still want to be sure.  Call the shop that mounted them, and ask them if they can provide any information about the mounting/testing.

 

Finally - it would be fascinating if you could have a shop test the toes you removed in order to Mount KneeBindings.  If the new KneeBindings seem "firmer" - perhaps it is because the old bindings were releasing at a less-than-appropriate value.

 

Please let me know what you find out!

 

Yours,

Chairman

post #102 of 109

@ DavidFox:    Your good question pertains to the 'stiffness' of the binding's release mechanism.  

 

When you move a part of a binding's release mechanism with your hands, you are 'feeling' that specific part of the binding-mechanism's stiffness—but you're not  necessarily  'feeling' peak release.

 

I wrote about your good question, in part, in a full-page article that appeared in the December, 1978 issue of SKI magazine on page 124—which article included a graph to explain, in part, the answer to your good question.  I am also one the many co-authors of the 'DIN-System' — so I am qualified to answer your good question in that way, too.

 

First, peak release is standardized.  For any given DIN-number, all alpine ski-boot-bindings systems must produce a standardized peak release value within specific standardized tolerances.  These requirements are precisely defined in the International Standards Organization's ISO 8061 and ISO 9462 minimum international standards.  These standards (along with other ISO standards covering other functional requirements of alpine bindings and boots) can be purchased on-line through the American National Standards Institute, ANSI.  For example, all alpine bindings meeting ISO 9462 that are set at 'DIN-7' together with a standard alpine ski boot sole (standard boot defined by ISO 5355) while utilizing the 'predicted' boot sole length of 33.88cm (predicted boot sole lengths for any given 'DIN-setting' are defined in ISO 8061) must produce a standardized peak release torque (about the tibia) that's between 6.17 and 7.83 deka Newton-meters (daNm).  If there is no unexpected functional impediment with either of the two brands of bindings that you reference, the peak release torque for both bindings should fall within that exact range of values (between 6.17 and 7.83 daNm) ASSUMING a 'predicted' boot sole length of 33.88cm.  That's an example.  If either binding does not produce a peak release torque within that range of values, there could be a functional impediment with a binding AND/OR with the boot.  Each binding company provides advice on how to troubleshoot non-conforming peak release— which troubleshooting procedures include inspection and measurement of both the binding AND the boot. 

 

If, on the other hand, after proper inspection and measurement according to the binding manufacturer, peak release measurements of the ski-boot-binding system continue to fall outside the industry standards, then a 'critical defect' exists within either the binding and/or the boot.  To isolate whether the critical defect is contained within the boot or within the binding, another boot with exactly the same length sole can be introduced into the system for re-measurement of the peak release.  Sometimes, but rarely, the release measuring instruments can be out-of-calibration— and there are well defined methods to validate (and re-calibrate) the measuring instruments, too:  each measuring instrument manufacturer provides these instruction, too.  If the boot meets ISO 5355 and after all of the binding manufacturer's troubleshooting procedures still do not cause the binding to produce peak release torque values within the minimum international standard tolerances, then the binding is defective and it should be returned according to the warranty procedures that are defined by the binding company. 

 

You should not ski on any binding until this process is fully explored by you.

 

HOWEVER, how any given binding company decides to produce 'force' at the toe (or at the heel) is up to each binding company—because each type of binding generates its own unique pivot-point for release-about-the-tibia and for forward release.   For example, if one binding's heel cup design produces a pivot point location (about the tibia) that's located 3.5cm forward of the end of the boot's heel projection;  whereas another binding's heel cup design produces a pivot point location (about the tibia) that's located 2.5cm forward of the end of the boot's heel projection— then the first binding's toe must provide higher force values for any given DIN-number than the second binding's same incremental DIN-number in order for both binding-systems (toe and heel) to produce the same peak release torque about the tibia in order to meet the standardized torque-values.  This is because according to Isaac Newton's fundamental laws of physics, "torque equals force times distance".  Toe-pieces are force imparting mechanisms.  Therefore, if the distance between any given binding design's pivot point (for torsional release) to its toe is shorter than another binding's distance from its pivot point to its toe, then the binding with the shorter distance MUST provide higher force values in order to generate the same torque values for both bindings.

 

In practice (with a real binding that meets the minimum international standard ISO 9462) this means that IF THERE ARE NO MANUFACTURING DEFECTS, any given toe piece design may produce more or less force than another binding design — while BOTH binding designs produce exactly the same peak release torque.

 

In the same way, if you now own a new boot that has a shorter boot sole length than your previous boot, this could also explain why your new toe might have a higher force than your previous toe.

 

But I suspect that there are two other explanations as to why you might be 'feeling' a difference between these two toe designs:

 

1)   When you release a toe, only, (NOT including with the boot) with your hand, you are 'feeling' one component of the binding.  Here, the binding designer has full latitude to deliver whatever force she desires for any given binding-component in order for the complete ski-boot-binding SYSTEM to deliver the standardized level of torque according to ISO 9462.  In fact, a binding component that controls peak release which provides a high force in order to meet ISO 9462 is superior to a binding component that provides a low force to meet ISO 9462.   Your leg does not know the unit force supplied by any given binding component;  nor does your leg know how long its foot is (your leg does not know the distance from the binding's pivot point to the toe-piece):   your leg ONLY reacts (structurally) to torque, NOT to force.  A binding design with components that deliver higher force (than another binding) has the possible advantage of providing higher recentering force, too.  Re-centering is one key aspect of retention.

 

And "retention" is NOT standardized for any given DIN-value:  I discuss the fact that release has little to do with retention, extensively, over in the Epic thread: "Height, Length and DIN" — including the posting of different graph there, too, to show, decisively that release has little to do with retention.   Please ref that thread to gain a better understanding of why release has little to do with retention.  Intermixing the terms "release" and "retention"—fogs the issue—leaving people with a mistaken belief that they are fully inter-related:  they are not fully inter-related in the ways described here and over in the other Epic thread.  Several binding companies incorrectly intermix these two unrelated terms, causing improper confusion.

 

2)   MOST IMPORTANTLY, 'feeling' with your hand—as you describe—is NOT a reflection of peak release:  it is a 'feeling' of stiffness.  'Peak release' and 'stiffness' are two different properties.  This is why I have underlined the term, 'peak', everywhere above.  When you 'feel' the action of a toe-piece component with your hand, you are experiencing the relationship between the component's resistive force AND its relative incremental movement:  that's called 'stiffness'.  Stiffness is NOT peak release.  This is what I wrote about in the article in SKI magazine in December 1978 (when I was 25 years old).

 

In terms of stiffness, think about a diving board.  Imagine in your mind a 'soft' diving board and a 'stiff' diving board.  Imagine also that both diving boards break at the same 'force'.  In this example, the soft diving board will have to deflect through a longer distance in order to reach the same braking force as the stiffer diving board.  Both diving boards break at the same force (by definition in this example) but the diver 'feels' a Very Different diving-effect from each diving board.

 

With bindings, us older-guys could imagine certain binding designs many years ago that were very 'soft' in their torsional release characteristics, while all other bindings were notably stiffer.  Both the 'soft' bindings and other bindings could be set to have the same peak release torque (utilizing release measuring instruments, before the DIN-system) .... but all other bindings would 'feel' "much harder to move" than the 'soft' bindings.  What you are 'feeling' is stiffness—NOT PEAK RELEASE TORQUE—because both bindings probably (hopefully) have the same peak release torque.  Here, again, just as with pivot-point-location, a binding's 'stiffness' properties are largely [sic] undefined by the international standards (thank God).  Pivot-point-location and 'stiffness' are 'functional-characteristics' that are open to each binding designer (again, thank God).  Therefore, each binding design exhibits different and unique 'stiffness' characteristics.  Bindings that are 'stiff' (but not 'too stiff') have the possibility of providing not only better recentering characteristics over 'softer' bindings — but they also provide better 'on-snow' skiing control characteristics than softer bindings (though good skiing technique should rely more on edge control in the roll direction than on side-slipping-control in the lateral sheer direction ... but sometimes—never any of us, of course :)  :) — inadvertently side-slip :) :) .... so therefore we need to be able to control our skis if this unlikely event ever occurs via the binding's stiffness properties, WHICH PROPERTIES ARE INDEPENDENT OF PEAK RELEASE TORQUE.  :)  :)   )

 

In the article in SKI magazine, I show a graph that plots unit-force as a function of unit-displacement (which correlates, indirectly, in that example, to 'unit-torque and unit-rotation') for a Geze ski binding:  this was an excellent binding in its day.  I describe the various effects that a skier can come to appreciate in their on-snow experience relative to the various phases of force and displacement (or, in that example, phases of torque and rotation) as was clearly shown in the graph in that article.  Each unique binding design has its own well-defined force-displacement (or torque-rotation) 'signature'— and every binding engineer comes to know, intimately, the relationship between each unique 'signature' and certain on-snow skiing performance characteristics.  One phase of the signature is the 'initial stiffness' phase;  another phase is the peak release phase;  another is the 'full-and-complete release' phase';  another phase—if the load that's causing the system to displace is innocuous and dissipates before 'full-and-complete release' phase—is the 'recentering' phase;  while the last phase is the 'complete return-to-center' phase.  A comparison between the first 3 phases and the last two phases describes a binding's elasticity.  Each phase has certain advantages and disadvantages that must be decisively controlled by the binding designer.  Some of the phases are defined by ISO 9462, but not all of the phases.  All binding designs must meet the minimum requirements of ISO 9462, but a good binding designer can create her own plan within the non-standardized phases.  The 'initial stiffness' phase is largely undefined [sic] by ISO 9462.  Each binding designer can shape the 'initial stiffness' phased however she chooses [sic].

 

But here, also, is a Very Important point about binding design:  there was once a Very Interesting binding called 'Spademan' (  :)  :)  ) that had excellent 'elasticity' characteristics BUT IT HAD LOUSY RETENTION ON-SNOW AT ORDINARY RELEASE SETTINGS.  This is important to note because many bindings with excellent elasticity do NOT necessarily have good retention.  Elasticity is critical in all good and all excellent bindings— but any given binding design that does not have its various modes of release FUNCTIONALLY DECOUPLED FROM its various design elements that provide skiing control will produce lousy retention, on-snow.  Elasticity alone is not a full predictor of retention.  Bindings with maximum 'functional decoupling' between their release features and their retention and edge-control features—and which have excellent elasticity (as well as excellent shaping of the other phases, as noted above)—exhibit the best on-snow retention at normal release ( 'DIN' )settings.  In fact, bindings that decisively decouple each mode of release from each mode of retention and edge control can be skied at very low release settings with powerful retention — WITH MINIMUM PRE-RELEASE

 

Therefore, the  full  signature of an excellent binding is one that can be skied at low settings without pre-release.

 

The differences between the various levels of anti-prerelease that are supplied by various binding designs AT THE SAME RELEASE SETTINGS are night and day — and provide an opportunity for selective skiers who discover which bindings exhibit the best combination of the above properties to enjoy flat-out skiing without having to think about their bindings while skiing.

 

Skiers should be able to enjoy skiing, while binding designers should think about bindings.  In this way, certain binding designs have pedigrees that exceed those of known brand names :) :)

 

'Feeling' a specific binding component by hand may not reflect how a binding is actually behaving :)  :)

 

'And, yes, please be sure to have BOTH your former and your new bindings re-inspected with release measuring instruments to rule-out the unlikely possibility of a manufacturing defect within the boot or with either of the two bindings that you have noted.

 

Respectfully submitted  :) :)

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont
 


Edited by Richard Howell - 11/28/12 at 4:35pm
post #103 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

 

And "retention" is NOT standardized for any given DIN-value

 

 Bindings that are 'stiff' (but not 'too stiff') have the possibility of providing not only better recentering characteristics over 'softer' bindings — but they also provide better 'on-snow' skiing control characteristics than softer bindings (though good skiing technique should rely more on edge control in the roll direction than on side-slipping-control in the lateral sheer direction

 

...Therefore, the  full  signature of an excellent binding is one that can be skied at low settings without pre-release...

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted  :) :)

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont
 

Seems like you have given this a lot of thought Rick.  In your opinion, which are the best bindings currently on the market?  aka which can be skied at low settings without pre-release for most skiers?

 

From personal experience, I have found my Look PXs to hold me in very nicely even when I have them set below where I chart out.  Of course, my second blown knee was on my Looks, necessitating my 2nd ACL recon (the first occurring on some Solomons).  Not sure if the knee bindings lateral heel release would have helped either time, but having that 3rd release point seems beneficial assuming the rest of the bindings characteristics are good.   

post #104 of 109

@ MEfree30:   Yes, I've been exploring this issue in full-depth for ~40-years.  However, I will never identify specific brand names, except those such as Spademan, Cober, Sundial, Alsop, Moog, Burt, Besser, Americana, Gertsch, Inertia-B, the Box binding, Calspan, Ramy, Weinmann, Ess, Cubco ... and others — that went out of business.  WE can learn lessons from their failures.  Most of these binding companies went out of business because their release mechanisms were cross-linked with the retention function — and they pre-released, like crazy.  Once people know how to identify the characteristics that I describe, people can make their own informed assessment, themselves. 

 

As for knee injuries, extensive independent research by many highly qualified people in epidemiology and biomechanics consistently shows that ordinary torsional and ordinary forward peak release settings have no correlation to ACL strain:  only bindings with lateral heel release address the Phantom Foot and Slip Catch injury mechanisms (which injury mechanisms contribute toward ~70% of all skiing ACL injuries);  while toes with full vertical release address the BIAD injury mechanism (which injury mechanism contributes toward ~10 to 15% of all skiing ACL injuries).  By my use of the term "address" — I mean that they have the possibility of acting to mitigate the cause and effect interactions that I have identified:  no one knows to what extent a lateral heel release or a vertical toe release ACTUALLY mitigates ACL injuries .... but again, those two binding mechanisms address those two injury mechanisms.

 

Also, kindly said, the partial quote noted above is slightly out of context in the absence of my full post above — but I respect and appreciate the partial-quote that you have selected.  With bindings, partial-quotes can literally be dangerous — so I encourage readers to read my full post for the full and proper intended meaning.   :)  :)

 

But it's nice to hear from you, MEfree30.   If you're ever in Stowe, please feel free to visit my biomechanics lab and let's take a few runs together on the mountain [www.gostowe.com].

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

[www.howellproductdev.com]
 

post #105 of 109

Correction:   What I wrote above, "Therefore, the  full  signature of an excellent binding is one that can be skied at low settings without pre-release."  ....  should have said:  'Therefore, the  full  signature of an excellent binding is one that can be skied at low peak release torque ( in each mode of release ) without pre-release.'

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

post #106 of 109

thank you all

post #107 of 109

Has anybody combined Kneebindings with HDS skis? Any advantage to mounting them on a short tailed ski? 

post #108 of 109

I own a set of Kneebinding purchased this year. They are mounted on BD Havoc skis. I teach skiing so I'm on them quite a bit.

I've fallen twice this year and on both occasions the release feeling was "different" w KB. 

Their seemed to be no stress on my knee, very odd.  Not what I would of expected. Once hit a piece of ice on a ridge, another, a hidden rock in some bumps.
You mentioned a available ramp, Is there one available for the toe and or heel, I tend to get in the back seat. I'm familiar w/ the other solutions and stance issues, but thought I'd ask... . Model is KB12-c
I went to the store and they were not familiar with this ramp option.

I do like them, because of the lack of stress it caused in my legs and very smooth release compared w/ other bindings.

post #109 of 109
I have not combined Kneebindings with HDS skis but I feel that is a great idea and I must try this. Thanks for this idea. https://www.fleischersport.com/snowboard-rentals-in-steamboat-springs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › KneeBinding - 2012 Discussion Forum