or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 80's Binding reflash: True upward release from the toe piece
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

80's Binding reflash: True upward release from the toe piece

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 

Here are two examples of toe pieces from the 80's that had upward release. The Geze actually has TWO DIN settings, one for the traditional lateral and the second for the upward release. While there is much discussion of late on lateral heel release, here are two technologies that tried to address protecting the heel that didn't succeed. 

 

Geze SE3:

IMG_0165.JPG

 

IMG_0166.JPG

 

IMG_0168.jpg

 

Look XM:

 

 

 

IMG_0163.JPG

 

IMG_0164.JPG

post #2 of 56

Well Cubco had upward release at the toe in the early 60's !

 

Cubco 01.jpg

post #3 of 56

I was a young skier in the 80s and don't recall either of these.  Any idea why they didn't succeed?

 

While we are talking about equipment designed to reduce injuries that didn't catch on, does anyone have thoughts about the Lange Rear Release System http://www.outdoorreview.com/cat/product-archives/ski-equipment/mens/lange/v8-men-s/prd_111467_4209crx.aspx  Never heard of them until very recently.  The benefit that they seem to have over a binding in terms of performance is that they only partially release and allow a skier to still recover as opposed to a binding that completely releases on a skier who is in a back seat position that he plans to recover from.  Read a thesis paper from a guy who prototyped a binding plate system that had only a partial release that you might be able to recover from, but it has never been tested or marketed.   

 

 

One concern I have is that potential good technological advances get lost because the company holding the patents can't or don't know how to effectively market them.  

 

I think there is less risk of this with products that offer substantial and visible performance benefits that can easily be tested in a short demo as opposed to products that offer safety protection in the less visible form of a lower % chance of an injury that most people aren't concerned with (UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM).  I think this is why you have seen KneeBinding emphasize some of their performance based features- problem with that is how often do you get to demo different bindings on your favorite ski?  That is why most people go with whatever the shop has or recommends (or is cheapest/most visible/available online from a name they recognize).   

post #4 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post

I was a young skier in the 80s and don't recall either of these.  Any idea why they didn't succeed?

 

While we are talking about equipment designed to reduce injuries that didn't catch on, does anyone have thoughts about the Lange Rear Release System http://www.outdoorreview.com/cat/product-archives/ski-equipment/mens/lange/v8-men-s/prd_111467_4209crx.aspx  Never heard of them until very recently.  The benefit that they seem to have over a binding in terms of performance is that they only partially release and allow a skier to still recover as opposed to a binding that completely releases on a skier who is in a back seat position that he plans to recover from.  Read a thesis paper from a guy who prototyped a binding plate system that had only a partial release that you might be able to recover from, but it has never been tested or marketed.   

 

 



Burt did the same thing.

 

burt_76.jpg

 

Burt plate.jpg

post #5 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post

 

While we are talking about equipment designed to reduce injuries that didn't catch on, does anyone have thoughts about the Lange Rear Release System http://www.outdoorreview.com/cat/product-archives/ski-equipment/mens/lange/v8-men-s/prd_111467_4209crx.aspx  Never heard of them until very recently.



The boot it was on was - meh at best.    If only the boot had been as good as a current Nordica GranSport...

post #6 of 56
Thread Starter 

Rossi, Pretty much staying DIN era forward. There were plenty of "plate" bindings from the 70's and prior that offered upward release, if you want to start a 70's thread,,,go ahead. Once we hit the 80's there were much more standardizations in bindings, these two treaded where others did not. In this era, a forward twisting fall was much more common than the current rearward twist one. I would be intrigued how either of these would test against a current knee friendly device. 

post #7 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Rossi, Pretty much staying DIN era forward. There were plenty of "plate" bindings from the 70's and prior that offered upward release, if you want to start a 70's thread,,,go ahead. Once we hit the 80's there were much more standardizations in bindings, these two treaded where others did not. In this era, a forward twisting fall was much more common than the current rearward twist one. I would be intrigued how either of these would test against a current knee friendly device. 



We know someone that could answer that.......

 

post #8 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Rossi, Pretty much staying DIN era forward. There were plenty of "plate" bindings from the 70's and prior that offered upward release, if you want to start a 70's thread,,,go ahead. Once we hit the 80's there were much more standardizations in bindings, these two treaded where others did not. In this era, a forward twisting fall was much more common than the current rearward twist one. I would be intrigued how either of these would test against a current knee friendly device. 



Only bringing it up because I think it was the first (before Miller?) to offer that feature.

 

post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Here are two examples of toe pieces from the 80's that had upward release. The Geze actually has TWO DIN settings, one for the traditional lateral and the second for the upward release. While there is much discussion of late on lateral heel release, here are two technologies that tried to address protecting the heel that didn't succeed. 

 

Geze SE3:

IMG_0166.JPG

 

Look XM:

IMG_0164.JPG

I don't recall the GEZE and cant speak of them.

 

However IIRC and i'm 99.9% sure i am, the LOOK XM marketing had nothing to do with "tried to address protecting the heel", on the contrary i remember it being billed as also addressing upper leg, knee injuries where previous products had addressed lower leg injuries doing little for upper leg injuries.

 

I'd hardly say the LOOK XM failed, rather that it evolved and the upward releasing toe piece concept continued on to this day. Have a look at the current LOOK PIVOT 18 toe piece and compare it to the XM's successors such as the ZR's that hit the market a year latter, it's graphics also include a upward pointing arrow indicating upward release (i can dig up a pair of them around here and post a pix if you'd like).

 

Btw, still use my XM's, fell twice last season, they worked fine. That's not to say i'd take them off the straight skis of their era and put them on a modern short wide waist shaped ski, more because of age and that their successors toe-piece design is a step up, than a lack of a confidence on them.

 

 

post #10 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

I don't recall the GEZE and cant speak of them.

 

However IIRC and i'm 99.9% sure i am, the LOOK XM marketing had nothing to do with "tried to address protecting the heel", on the contrary i remember it being billed as also addressing upper leg, knee injuries where previous products had addressed lower leg injuries doing little for upper leg injuries.

 

I'd hardly say the LOOK XM failed, rather that it evolved and the upward releasing toe piece concept continued on to this day. Have a look at the current LOOK PIVOT 18 toe piece and compare it to the XM's successors such as the ZR's that hit the market a year latter, it's graphics also include a upward pointing arrow indicating upward release (i can dig up a pair of them around here and post a pix if you'd like).

 

Btw, still use my XM's, fell twice last season, they worked fine. That's not to say i'd take them off the straight skis of their era and put them on a modern short wide waist shaped ski, more because of age and that their successors toe-piece design is a step up, than a lack of a confidence on them.

 

 


Neo,

 

I am fairly familiar with the Look generations before and after the XM, "Sensor" was a work they used for marketing on bindings for years. No need to post a pic, I have a few actual ones in the garage. wink.gif Either way, both of these designs were very "short lived".

 

IMG_0161.JPG

 

 

post #11 of 56

Look XM toe, 1986

 

LOOK+XM+1986b.jpg

post #12 of 56

Dear fellow skiers :)

 

Geze SE3:   I was a key part of the team that introduced the Geze SE3 ... and I was also, 4-years later, the decision-maker who stopped the SE3 (in fact, the SE3 in Phil's image is mine, on loan to Phil :)  ).  The SE3 was developed by Dr-Eng Peter Biermann and his team of outstanding German engineers (including Ulrich Kolvatch, Rolf Storandt, Herbert Hasslauffer and others) at the home office in Leonberg, Germany (next to Stüttgart & Zuffenhousen).  The SE3 is unquestionably a fantastic example of German engineering in terms of the quality of a manufactured product.  I could go on for some time discussing this binding — but I will try to summarize as follows:  The SE3 was positioned (from a marketing perspective) for doctors, lawyers and drug dealers ... people who had to be at work Monday morning.  Vertical toe release is in response to the BIAD (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer) skiing knee injury-mechanism.  BIAD skiing injuries have a prevalence of approx 8% to 15% of all skiing injuries (then and now), though the BIAD injury mechanism is a contributory vector to both the Phantom Foot and the Slip-Catch injury mechanisms, too — thus the term, "BIAD", has a 'relative significance'.  The Phantom Foot injury mechanism involves 3 loads, in order of magnitude and direction, as follows:  (1) abduction (that's a pure lateral force that enters the medial edge of the ski directly under the projected axis of the tibia, which force acting over the length of the tibia generates a massive valgus torque about the knee);  (2) BIAD (pls see above anatomical description);  (3) tibia torque ('inward', in orthopaedic terms — or in the natural direction of a DiVinci gear relative to the femur).  The BIAD component is 'low"; and tibial torque is almost nil.  The Slip-Catch injury mechanism (recently coined by our 'friends' of the FIS :) ) has 'more' of a BIAD-component than in the Phantom Foot mechanism, and still very little tibial torque.  BIAD usually contains some abduction (or, alternatively, adduction) and also a small amount of torque about the tibia.  When the rear-weighting component of the 3 vectors is predominantly rear-weighting, it's considered 'BIAD', not Phantom Foot, not Slip-Catch.  The SE3 absolutely release below the elastic limit of the ACL during BIAD injury mechanisms.  However, due to its inherent kinematics, it sometimes also released in response to extreme ski-flex or less extreme amounts of ski flex plus the vector-addition of 'controlled' rear weighting:  in other words, it sometimes pre-released during controlled skiing maneuvers that did not induce lads above the elastic limit of the ACL.  As one poster recently commented, yes, inadvertent pre-release is far worse than a non-release for skiers who carry speed because K.E. does = mv^2 and when the head or the spine become part of the kinetic impact after pre-release, death or paralysis are Very Real.  Death or paralysis is far worse than a broken leg or a sprained or ruptured ligament ... so therefore, we stopped selling the SE3 and issued serious warnings to all former purchasers that this binding was ONLY for 'smooth recreational skiers'.  However, not only did the SE3 have independently-adjustable vertical toe release — it was also the 1st binding with forward-twisting 'friction compensation' ('Friction Compensator').  Previous posts indicating that Salomon was 1st with friction compensation are factually incorrect.  We diffused the Geze Friction Compensator throughout the line of top-end Geze bindings — except in the metal Geze racing bindings because friction compensator's 'back-off' the toe's release spring proportionally to the normal-force acting on the AFD, and thus, not only is the force of friction 'moderated', but so also is recentering.  Thus, friction compensator's have their drawbacks, too — especially pertaining to retention and anti-pre-release.  I choose Teflon over compensator's for this reason, though, of course as we all know, Teflon is expensive.  But, quoting the great Gilbert Delouche, "Teflon is the only known substance that maintains is low-friction characteristics, even when worn".  Geze invested over 11m in the SE3 (that's 11-million US$).  Many of the so-called 'binding experts' of that day who are 'smooth recreational skiers' ski on the SE3, today.  I have a button that says:  "Don't Ask Me About the SE3."  ... and sometimes wear it at ISSS conferences.   :)  :)

 

There is one person who believes that the incidence of tibia fractures is rising these days "due to the lack of friction compensator's on many bindings of today" (or, that there are far less friction compensator's diffused throughout the total population of today's binding designs).  I say, maybe — but, pls:  the prevalence of tibia fractures has 'increased' from 2% of all skiing injuries ten years ago to 4% of all, today.  In my mind, this is 'statistical noise'.  Tibia fractures remain nearly irrelevant due to good toe piece design, though there are no 'evidence-based' studies that correlate, directly, 'good' toe piece designs to tibia fractures.  Biomechanical studies do however suggest a plausible link (pls see the peer-reviewed papers by University of Münich Professor, Veit Senner).  Besides, that so-called expert also believes release is more important than retention — and he sits in his sailboat in the dead of winter reading books rather than skiing.  That person also has not ever measured valgus-torque because he does not want to be 'contaminated by such ideas' — though somehow he has retained control over America's standards that are relegated to the appendix of the minimum international ski-binding standard, ISO 9462.     Hmmmm.  :)   Phil, are you sure he is "probably the leading-expert" ?  The 'hole in the envelope' (the valgus torque' that he is not measuring) is what's causing the most prevalent injury in skiing, today.  This hole in the envelope that blinds him is the solution — and I feel the same way about the evolutionary-death of friction compensator's.  Adaptive radiation certainly has its ways in evolutionary biology.

 

In summary, during Phantom Foot or Slip-Catch injury mechanisms where the abduction vector that generates Valgus-torque is greater than the pure-BIAD vector and where torque about the tibia is almost nil, lateral heel release has the capacity to mitigate strain across the ACL in a way that voids any possibility of inadvertent pre-release vertically at the toe.  Injury mechanisms that are predominantly-BIAD need vertical toe release to resolve strain across the ACL.  However, again, only 8% to 15% of all skiing knee injuries are thought to be a result of the predominantly-BIAD mode — and more importantly, from a dirty-finger-nails perspective — when is tibia torque 'pure'?  When is forward release 'pure'?  Resultant tibia-torque plus bending moment are resolved, practically-speaking, by the toe's AFD (in concert with whichever mechanism, toe or heel, that has the least entropy).  Here also, a low-friction boot-binding interface on the heel pad resolves combined abduction forces (converted to valgus torque) and BIAD bending moments — via lateral heel release, though of course, there is always a rise in the peak resultant lateral heel release that's a function of the coefficient of friction of the interface materials on the heel pad and [materials and geometry of the] boot sole.  :)   Hence, lessons learned from the SE3 seem transferable ... and that is another reason why my button says, "Don't Ask Me About The SE3".

 

Lastly, any toe that offers vertical toe release in the presence of ACL-injury-producing BIAD loading might consider also aligning its pivot (the pivot that allows vertical toe release) to be placed 'above' the line of action of the vector generated by the incompressability of the boot-sole during ski-flex and by the horizontal component of the vector generated from the ski's tip — in order to decouple innocuous longitudinal shear-loads from the binding's vertical release mode.  :)   This principle should be / is / transferable to the other modes of release, too.

 

(( Yes, I worked in a "marketing department 25-years ago" but I was also in my 20's then — and, yes :) I am an engineer, too :)  The Germans have no problem with engineers who are also practicing marketing management. ))

 

 

Cubco ( poor Mitch & Joe ) and Burt ( poor B.W. & Tippy ) are classic examples of 'forgetting' about the basic principles of functional-decoupling (pls see 'The Principles of Design' by Nam Suh, MIT Press).  In both of these designs, lateral toe release is heavily cross-linked to vertical toe release = massive pre-release.  These bindings were advertised as "safer", when in fact, they were far less safe because one had to crank-up the release adjustments to attempt to not pre-release, thereby negating the very thing they set-out to do.  These designs exhibit classic examples of marketing people playing 'engineer'.  :(   How dangerous!  When velocity is real, pre-release in front of a lift tower or tree is far worse than no-release (obviously — sorry).  These designs were so cross-linked (non-decoupled) that it was impossible for just about any skier to stay in them.  But they shipped them anyway, without having gone through a process of pre-shipment testing that involved properly informed beta testers, perhaps thinking along the lines of — "when 'cash-flow' variances exceeded budget and when quarterly returns were more important than long-term valued customers, then to heck with testing, let's ship and invoice"   Hmmmm ??   Well, they might have met short-term cash-flow — but what about their long-term customers?  These guys went out-of-business because their designs were fundamentally flawed.  We learned lessons from these examples.  Why repeat these same lessons at the expense of those who already knew these lessons?  Real product problems must be fully resolved — immediately and decisively — when recognized.  Retention (overall retention) must function even with new modes of release (per today's, "standard industry practice") even when the seemingly smallest design changes are made —— and especially when new modes of release rely upon non-standardized boot-interfaces.  The SE3 toe decoupled these two release modes (lateral at the toe and vertical at the toe) with its independent mechanisms as does another binding's design concept, in which the other design's toe AND heel NEVER release laterally, together — due to the simple rules of vector-addition — and that is one of several reasons why it does not pre-release inadvertently.  

 

No matter what the design, all alpine ski-bindings must meet the following minimum requirements in order of importance:  (1) retention (defined by 'standard industry practice' [sic] — at least ten informed beta testers who are typically large, strong, males who ski the fall line all day every day for at least one month without any 'faults';  if there are 'faults', the design must be re-engineered, new parts must be made / new bindings must be assembled and the full-process must re-start from the beginning with all of the informed beta test skiers:  however, no internal-ski-binding-company-on-slope-testing should begin until the design meets the minimum ISO international standards 9462 (release), 9465 (quasi-retention, toe only) and 11087 (~ ski-brakes);  (2)  comply with minimum international ISO alpine ski-binding standards ISO-9462 (which 9462 includes on-slope testing by independent 'non-ski-binding-company' skiers),  ISO-9456,  and  ISO-11087 (which 11087 also has an independent on-slope-testing protocol) as tested by the [presently] only independent ski-binding testing company in the world, TÜV, of Münich, Germany.  It is important to note that TÜV does not write standards — TÜV utilizes the existing minimum international ISO ski-binding standards, plus TÜV certifies the facility where the ski-binding is manufactured in order to attempt to verify that the bindings that are tested at TÜV are 'the same' binding designs that come off of the assembly-line — in order for TÜV to grant "Approval" (pls see the "TÜV-Approved" markings on all bona fide alpine ski-binding boxes).  (( Pls notice the difference between #1 and #2:   #1 can be accomplished by the binding company's own lab, whereas #2 requires 'independent' verification. :)  ));  (3) new modes of release / retention that are not standardized according to ISO-9462, ISO-9456, ISO-11087 and by 'standard industry practice' (pls see above ref to 'standard industry practice') should not cause 'side-effects' to what an ordinary binding must do to comply with #1 and #2.  All three requirements are upheld in the US by de facto case law;  in Germany by statutory law;  and in Switzerland they are enforced by the BfÜ.

 

Epic skiers can verify "TÜV-Approval" of any bona fide alpine ski-binding.  TÜV lists on their web site all alpine ski-bindings that have complied with the combination of (a) meeting the minimum international ISO ski-binding standards ISO-9462, ISO-9465, ISO-11078 plus (b) complying with TÜV's requirements for each accompanying ski-binding companies' end-manufacturing facilities (or final assembly / manufacturing-testing subcontractors) to insure that production-bindings are equivalent to the test-specimens.

 

Epic skiers can purchase the minimum international ISO alpine ski-binding standards, on-line, via ANSI (American National Standards Institute), by referencing the specific standards, ISO 9462, ISO 9465, and ISO 11078.  These independent ISO standards (co-developed by the German's via DIN, the American's via ASTM, the French via AFNoR, the Austrians via Ö-Norms, the Swiss via BfÜ, plus other member's national standards organizations — are expensive — but for some of us, they might prove illuminating and even part of our bona fide knowledge base.  For others, this information in your hands might prove to be 'interesting'.

 

Rick Howell  :)

President 

Howell Product Development Holding, Inc.

Stowe, Vermont

[www.HowellProductDev.com]

 

 

post #13 of 56
Thread Starter 

Rick,

 

Thank you you for clearly and concisely simplifying the evolution of the modern binding and to what works and what doesn't work and what it marketing and what actually works. The TUV list should be a helpful resource for anyone who is looking into this safety device more in-depthly. I am sure that JSM/The Chairman will respond here with his views and how his product fits into this topic. 

post #14 of 56

Thanks for the info Rick-

 

Is this the right site?  https://www.tuev-sued.de/industry_and_consumer_products/certificates

 

For "binding" it looks like there are 473 entries with Marker, HTM Sport (Fischer parent?), Solomon, and Rossignol holding the most followed by Atomic, Vist srl, and Fritchi.  Are there any links to a list that shows a more user friendly list of which bindings have which certifications? 

post #15 of 56

HTM is Head-Tyrolia... not a Fischer parent as such, but supplier of all bindings branded Fischer.

post #16 of 56

hijack.gif

 

A binding design that was used in the '70s (Besser plate bindings), '90s, '00s and '10s (Voilé Telemark bindings and release plates).  Not sure about the '80's (the dark age of binding design smile.gif) but I'd guess not. 

608-27_01_lg.jpg

 

Upward release in not decoupled from lateral release, but they work for me. I guess "smooth recreational skier" means slow. I'm slow and pretty smooth except when I lose my balance which happens often, especially when I ski smile.gif. Happy with the Voilés, but I was happy with Cubco too, worlds better than the safety release cable binding I started with in the '60s. If the Voilé Hardwire counts as a cable, I've come full circle biggrin.gif! I don't ask a lot of my bindings but I'm glad I use binding that address (I think) "...the BIAD injury mechanism... a contributory vector to both the Phantom Foot and the Slip-Catch injury mechanisms..."

 

Seventies version:

2b0c1fc6_Besser+79+074.jpg

post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker View Post

HTM is Head-Tyrolia... not a Fischer parent as such, but supplier of all bindings branded Fischer.

 

Ah, I was wondering where Tyrolia was on that list! 

post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Dear fellow skiers :)

 

Geze SE3:   I was a key part of the team that introduced the Geze SE3 ... and I was also, 4-years later, the decision-maker who stopped the SE3 <snip> I will try to summarize as follows:  The SE3 was positioned (from a marketing perspective) for doctors, lawyers and drug dealers ... people who had to be at work Monday morning.  Vertical toe release is in response to the BIAD (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer) skiing knee injury-mechanism.  BIAD skiing injuries have a prevalence of approx 8% to 15% of all skiing injuries (then and now), though the BIAD injury mechanism is a contributory vector to both the Phantom Foot and the Slip-Catch injury mechanisms, too — thus the term, "BIAD", has a 'relative significance'.  The Phantom Foot injury mechanism involves 3 loads, in order of magnitude and direction, as follows:  (1) abduction (that's a pure lateral force that enters the medial edge of the ski directly under the projected axis of the tibia, which force acting over the length of the tibia generates a massive valgus torque about the knee);  (2) BIAD (pls see above anatomical description);  (3) tibia torque ('inward', in orthopaedic terms — or in the natural direction of a DiVinci gear relative to the femur).  The BIAD component is 'low"; and tibial torque is almost nil.  The Slip-Catch injury mechanism (recently coined by our 'friends' of the FIS :) ) has 'more' of a BIAD-component than in the Phantom Foot mechanism, and still very little tibial torque.  BIAD usually contains some abduction (or, alternatively, adduction) and also a small amount of torque about the tibia.  When the rear-weighting component of the 3 vectors is predominantly rear-weighting, it's considered 'BIAD', not Phantom Foot, not Slip-Catch.  The SE3 absolutely release below the elastic limit of the ACL during BIAD injury mechanisms.  However, due to its inherent kinematics, it sometimes also released in response to extreme ski-flex or less extreme amounts of ski flex plus the vector-addition of 'controlled' rear weighting:  in other words, it sometimes pre-released during controlled skiing maneuvers that did not induce lads above the elastic limit of the ACL.  As one poster recently commented, yes, inadvertent pre-release is far worse than a non-release for skiers who carry speed because K.E. does = mv^2 and when the head or the spine become part of the kinetic impact after pre-release, death or paralysis are Very Real.  Death or paralysis is far worse than a broken leg or a sprained or ruptured ligament ... so therefore, we stopped selling the SE3

<snip>

In summary, during Phantom Foot or Slip-Catch injury mechanisms where the abduction vector that generates Valgus-torque is greater than the pure-BIAD vector and where torque about the tibia is almost nil, lateral heel release has the capacity to mitigate strain across the ACL in a way that voids any possibility of inadvertent pre-release vertically at the toe.  Injury mechanisms that are predominantly-BIAD need vertical toe release to resolve strain across the ACL.  However, again, only 8% to 15% of all skiing knee injuries are thought to be a result of the predominantly-BIAD mode — and more importantly, from a dirty-finger-nails perspective — when is tibia torque 'pure'?  When is forward release 'pure'?  Resultant tibia-torque plus bending moment are resolved, practically-speaking, by the toe's AFD (in concert with whichever mechanism, toe or heel, that has the least entropy).  Here also, a low-friction boot-binding interface on the heel pad resolves combined abduction forces (converted to valgus torque) and BIAD bending moments — via lateral heel release, though of course, there is always a rise in the peak resultant lateral heel release that's a function of the coefficient of friction of the interface materials on the heel pad and [materials and geometry of the] boot sole.  :)   Hence, lessons learned from the SE3 seem transferable ... and that is another reason why my button says, "Don't Ask Me About The SE3".

 

 

Rick Howell  :)

President 

Howell Product Development Holding, Inc.

Stowe, Vermont

[www.HowellProductDev.com]

 

 


So what you are saying is upward release at the toe has a minimal increase in skier safety (which can be better addressed in <other> ways) under real-world situations and it can be a major contributor to negative performance characteristics, like pre-release, if it isn't designed in a way that decouples it from forces present in controlled skiing. Wow, I never would have thought that possible, I mean all the big manufacturers offer upward release in their marketing... uhmmm, I mean in their bindings (except the good ones, which have it disabled)... so I figured it must be important.

 

post #19 of 56

Typo corrections and a few more notes of related interest:  

 

Above should read "K.E. = 1/2mv^2".   ( where m = mass;  v = velocity ).  

 

There are several other typos, too — and if anyone has difficulty reading-through them, pls feel free to ask.

 

Pls also remember that each finite element of any design has 6 degrees-of-freedom (DOF): 

 

1— fore-and-aft shear,

2— lateral shear,

3— vertical shear,

4— pitch (that's forward and backward bending moments),

5— roll (that's edge control),

6— yaw (that's torsion).

 

Each finite element that operates within the above 6 DOF has friction, damping and inertia as its drivers.  Therefore,  F(in any one of the 3 shear DOF's) sin ø t = m**x + c*x + kx;  where F = force,  x = distance,  t = time,  c = damping coefficient  and k = spring constant.  Some aspects of this equation may appear familiar, such as, F = ma (the second derivative of displacement is acceleration);  F = kx;  and we all know that c (friction) is velocity-dependent (the first derivative of displacement).  Action and reaction are also on opposing sides of this equation in order to maintain equilibrium (non-pre-release).  When one side of the equation is imbalanced (the left-side of the equation contains the 'steering' or 'disturbing' drivers that enter the ski;  whereas the right side of the equation contains the ski equipment and bio-mechanical drivers).   A similar equation exists for the 3 rotational DOF's, in angular terms.

 

Each group of finite elements also has a macro-elements 'above it' that interact with its interfacing elements.

 

Bones and ligaments are visco-elastic (they behave diametrically the opposite of materials such as steel, concrete, etc.) ... e.g., when inertia is significant ( F = ma ), bones & ligaments become stronger, whereas steel and concrete become weaker.

 

I say this because my elementary discussion above, seeks to simplify aspects of binding design that poke directly in our faces relative to ski-bindings.  Additionally, though, I may have over simplified by leaving out aspects of the discussion pertaining to de-coupling relative to all 6 DOF, especially roll (edge control).  The SE3, the above "L-binding", Burt, Cubco, Besser, Americana, Gertsch, Moog, Miller, Spademan, 2 plate-bindings bearing the "H-binding" brand, Alsop, F2, Eckl and other failed-designs were all cross-linked between yaw and roll;  between yaw and pitch;  or between pitch, roll and yaw.  They all failed in their designs because of this.

 

"Vertical toe release" appears to be a misnomer to some:  many bindings today have "tilting" release-features in their toes that do not fully-release, vertically.  Titling is a variation on the theme of decoupling that certainly has its merits.  Pure vertical toe release has its issues as noted above.

 

The Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch injury mechanisms each have their primary vector-components to be abduction (which converts to valgus when the abduction force acts over the length of the tibia to produce torque about the femur ... thereby also producing strain across the ACL).  If the abduction / valgus driver is greater than BIAD, then entropy (thank you Enrico Fermi) hunts for equilibrium (thank you Isaac Newton) ... and with 'ordinary' bindings, there is no direct kinematic path (no way to release because there is no effective lever-arm, because an abduction force is applied directly UNDER the tibia and since T = fd, and in the case of abduction forces, d = 0, then T = 0 ... so the binding does not (cannot) read or react to it — and thus the weakest link (entropy) in the kinematic chain between the snow surface and the hip is the ACL.  When abduction-drivers hunt to find entropy and finds that the elastic limit of the ACL is less than the release level of a vertical toe release, then vertical toe release is moot.  Further, since vertical toe release is difficult (in practice, where cost is a design requirement) to decouple from the primary release modes of lateral toe release (yaw) in order to mitigate inadvertent pre-release, pure vertical toe release becomes doubly moot.  However, 'tilting' toe release helps entropy find happiness when BIAD and abduction loads approach equal magnitudes and when abduction forces almost become force-couples as they enter the ski incrementally farther-and-farther away from the projected axis of the tibia.  :)

 

Now if this appears to some people to be a 'rant', compare this to our witness of 4 years of marketing BS that violates, not only Enrico Fermi, Isaac Newton and Edward O. Wilson (pls see 'The Diversity of Life') — but which even TÜV doesn't seem to believe (according to ISO-9462, which includes is mandatory sister-standards, ISO-9465 and ISO-11078).

 

Now, I must get back out on my porch to continue with years of physical-testing (where equations end and real engineering begins ... thank you Dr-Eng, Biermann).  Ski-bindings are all about testing.   These test results will be utilized in a certain 3-week trial that is scheduled to begin the 3rd-week in June 2012 in Vermont's Chittenden County Courthouse where Judge Bryan will make some rulings that will certainly have an effect on the world of ski-bindings.  :)   That's all I'm going to say for a while due to the nature of these events ... but as you all know, I wish you well — and almost all of you are welcome to visit my porch here in Stowe, Vermont where I have set-up custom valgus testing equipment and ASTM-like tibial torque testing equipment, each of which allow the addition of BIAD (and/or forward bending moments) to be introduced as 'drivers', too.  Here, one can see the beauty of entropy fully at work, with the mountain (the real-world) not too far away in the near distance  :)  — and where there is a clear intersection between theory and practice.  :)

 

 

post #20 of 56

So what bindings do you currently ski on Rick?

post #21 of 56

Bindings that have been modified so that they meet the 3 functional requirements of all bona fide alpine bindings as noted above.  :)

post #22 of 56

I don't have any experience with the other upward release toes, but nonono2.gifthose Bessers were an abomination in the bumps and landing jumps to friends I knew that had them.  Full disclosure those kids were skiing back seat and landing on their tails a lot. 

post #23 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

Look XM toe, 1986

 

LOOK+XM+1986b.jpg


Give those guys green faces and they could be Umpa-loompa's

 

post #24 of 56

Quote:

"Vertical toe release" appears to be a misnomer to some:  many bindings today have "tilting" release-features in their toes that do not fully-release, vertically.  Titling is a variation on the theme of decoupling that certainly has its merits.  Pure vertical toe release has its issues as noted above.

 The manufactures websites aren't all that clear on that. For instance Tyrolia; "Intelligent 180° release both horizontally and vertically of the Diagonal Toe and therefore ensures maximum safety in backward twisting-fall situations.". Look/Rossignol; "180 degree multi-directional Dual Action Race toe piece, 7 contact points with the boot for a maximum power transmission, 180 degree multi-directional toe piece for safety"

Both descriptions with illustrations indicating some form of upward release action are somewhat ambiguous as to tilting vs upward. How is the consumer expected to know where the distinction is made between tilting vs upward, i.e., clearly a pure upward release is evident in your Geze SE3 and the Look XM, however the angle at which the two extend are different with the Look XM's appearing closer to what i'd expect of a upward tilting release feature of a later model binding.

 

Furthermore and not to say the feature is the end all be all, but it sounds to me like a terminology issue which really makes little difference so long as the consumer expecting some form of upward, upward-tilt, upward twisting release mechanism will get such with the two sited brand offerings vs. something which has neither a upward or upward tilting feature.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Bindings that have been modified so that they meet the 3 functional requirements of all bona fide alpine bindings as noted above.  :)

I would've appreciated a more specific answer as is i' don't know if "been modified" is in reference to modifications you made to stock products or updates within a product line?

So i'll ask if you think a stock off the shelf current model Look/FSK Pivot 14 and Pivot 18, Tyrolia Full tilt/Race tilt Peak12/15, all of which have one form or another of upward-tilt release, meet your requirements?

I intuitively prefer the Look Pivot/FKS 18 toe piece design over the Pivot 14, however my weight is between 135lbs - 140lbs @ 5'7'/BSL ≤300 so the 18's minimum din of 8 is out for me.

 

There has been talk on the KneeBinding 2012 thread of the Look pivot heal being the worst wrt ACL safety, a aspect which clearly is a concern to all, i'm interested in your thoughts about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by neonorchid - 1/5/12 at 12:51pm
post #25 of 56

:)  :)

 

Vertical toe release deals with pure or nearly-pure BIAD (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer) ACL injury mechanisms.   The BIAD injury mechanism is believed to be involved in ~8% to ~15% of all skiing knee injuries (per Professor Robert J. Johnson, MD — the leading ski-injury epidemiologist in the world and a director of ISSS).  The BIAD injury mechanism does not cause tibia fractures.  There are no toes on the market today that provide pure vertical toe release.   25 years ago, the Geze SE3 appeared to provide the least amount of inadvertent pre-release of any toe with vertical toe release — but almost any amount of inadvertent pre-release can have severe consequences.  My friend, Kent Yale died from inadvertent ski-binding pre-release;  I had a splenectomy 35 years ago as a result of testing a prototype binding that inadvertently pre-released — which almost killed me (I had hemorrhaged almost half of my body's blood by the time the operation was performed).  Ski-binding design must consider BOTH frequency and severity of injuries.  Until a toe that releases vertically is presented that largely mitigates pre-release, one might question its utility in view of frequent AND severe pre-release with all know forms of pure vertical toe release — especially because the BIAD injury mechanism appears to be involved in 'only' ~8% to ~15% of all skiing knee injuries, whereas the Phantom Foot injury mechanism appears to be involved in approx 70% to 75% of all skiing knee injuries (also per Dr. Johnson) — and the BIAD-component of the Phantom Foot injury mechanism is a small component relative to the dominant abduction component. 

 

The Lange RRS addressed the BIAD injury mechanism, but caused a loss of skiing control.  The Lange RRS is no longer on the market.

 

Tilting toe release deals with the combination of BIAD plus torque about the tibia.  Skiing situations that combine BIAD and torque about the tibia cause a distribution of loading to both the ACL and to the tibia.  This distribution of loading to these two anatomical structures suggests that each structure (ACL and tibia) do not experience the introduction of peak loads that approach their individual elastic limits — unless, hypothetically, the total loading-event is far greater in magnitude than pure BIAD or pure tibial torsion, alone.  The leading 'evidence-based' studies involving the comparison of MD-diagnosed injured skiers (and 'ordinary'-envelope-testing of each injured-skier's equipment) to a randomized double-blind statistically-significant closed control population including analysis of their equipment-factors by the same 'ordinary'-envelope-testing (those of Dr. Robert Johnson) indicate 'no correlation' between lateral toe release settings or forward heel release settings and ACL injuries (no matter what your DIN with 'ordinary' bindings—high or low—ACL injury can occur).  There are other skiing epidemiology studies involving MD-diagnosed injured skiers — but the other studies are flawed because they have too few in their control-populations ... so their findings are of statistical question.  Additionally, many 'good' biomechanical studies find that tibia torque is barely present when generating strain across the ACL (Andriachi; Beynnon; Arms; Senner; and many others).

 

Tilting toe release assists lateral toe release during the introduction of combined backward-bending moments when the tibia is loaded in torsion:  Tilting toe release helps mitigate peak torque about the tibia.  Tibia fractures have a prevalence of ~4% of all skiing injuries, today.  Tilting toe release may be why tibia fractures almost do not exist today — ( but the primary reason tibia fractures are so low today is because the forward-twisting injury mechanism is now well-resolved by the 'effective' low-friction interface that exists between almost all bindings' AFD's and the glide-zone on the boot (located under/near the ball of the foot).  The 'good' evidence-based studies and all biomechanical investigations that have studied tibia fractures in skiing prove this association between few tibia fractures of today and the 'effective' low-friction interface between the boot and the binding.

 

No toe—tilting, vertically-releasing or otherwise (including those described in the recent patents of the 'so-called' leading U.S. binding expert)—can release in response to any amount (large or small) of abduction loading because there is no 'available' lever-arm to supply any toe with a signal.  Abduction loading is the primary component of the skiing knee injury mechanisms that have the highest prevalence of skiing knee injuries — Phantom Foot injury mechanisms and Slip-Catch injury mechanisms (~70% to 75% of all skiing knee injuries).  Skiing knee injuries have a prevalence of ~18% to ~25% of all skiing injuries.  Knee injuries are by far the most prevalent type of injury in skiing).  All toes—tilting, pure vertically-releasing or otherwise—need an 'available-lever-arm' to transmit an injury-producing load ('load' = force, torque or bending-moment) in order to respond / release. 

 

(( An abduction force enters the ski directly under the projected axis of the tibia, exactly also where all 'ordinary' bindings have their center-point of torsional rotation (whether the center-point is generated virtually as with all step-in heels or mechanically as with all turntable heels).  When a abduction force is applied to a ski that utilizes an 'ordinary' binding there is no available lever arm to transmit a load to any toe—tilting, pure vertically-releasing or otherwise.   The effective lever-arm generated by an abduction force is zero—because the abduction force is in-line with the tibia and in-line with an 'ordinary' binding's virtual-pivot in a step-in or mechanically-defined pivot in a turntable heel and therefore all toes—tilting, vertically-releasing or otherwise—have zero load transmitted to them in the presence of pure abduction forces and therefore no toe can release even if all toes are adjusted to release at 1 on the DIN scale.  You can apply thousands of pounds of abduction loading to a ski and no toe—tilting, vertically-releasing or otherwise—will release.  It's just that simple.  Seriously.  Try it yourself:  take an ISO Test Sole ( $500 purchased through TÜV ) and connect it upside-down to a fixed-object.  Connect a ski with an 'ordinary' binding to the ISO test sole.  Apply an abduction force to the ski and no matter what the magnitude of the applied abduction force, an 'ordinary' binding will not release—whether it has a tilting toe, pure vertically-releasing toe or otherwise.  It is impossible for any turntable binding to release in the presence of an abduction force because no boot can pass-through the side-lugs of a turntable.  Apply the abduction force as much as you want, and you will NEVER see a release;  all toes—tilting, vertically-releasing or otherwise—feel NOTHING in the presence of abduction loading;  they feel no torque about the tibia is ZERO.   ZERO.  Absolutely zero.  This is a binary situation:  abduction force = zero torque about the tibia.  All other non-abduction forces that are applied to the ski in other locations do provide an 'available' lever-arm to all toes and therefore all toes feel something in the presence of non-abduction forces.  Again, binary (abduction = zero tibial torque;  non-abduction = some tibial torque, depending upon distance the non-abduction force is applied to the to the ski).  All toes, tilting, pure vertical releasing and otherwise are effected by this inherent "Blind Spot". 

 

Ironically, abduction forces ALSO act over the LENGTH of the tibia to produce massive torque about the femur when the knee is bent (femur torque is maximal under this condition when positioned at 90-degrees to the tibia—that's 90-degrees of flexion), which femur torque is known in orthopaedic terms as 'valgus'.  Valgus torque easily takes the ACL past its elastic limit (50th-percentile male at ~25 daNm of pure valgus torque).  No toe feels or responds to valgus torque (see the beginning half of this paragraph).  Your DIN is mutually exclusive and independent of ACL injury.  I'm unsure of how to express this point more clearly other than to show you how this works on my custom test equipment that measures tibial-torque and valgus torque.  Here, you can see that in the presence of pure abduction loading, tibial torque always measures ZERO while under the same abduction loading valgus torque is maximal.  Again, a 50th-percentile male's ACL reaches its elastic limit at ~25 daNm of valgus torque and zero tibial torque (please do not equate the relative magnitude of valgus torque to DIN-values:  these two different types of torque are at 90-degrees to each other:  torque is a vector and vectors include magnitude AND direction).  Nancy St. Onge's research (together with Nicola Hagemeister, Yan Chevalier, Maxime Van De Putte and Jacques De Guise) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15235329] published in the peer-reviewed, 'Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise' (a leading medical journal), which research was commissioned by Dave Dodge and me via certain 3rd-parties and paid in large part by the Canadian federal government's IRAP-program (I wrote the grant), shows that when a abduction force is applied to a ski slightly behind the projected axis of the tibia (15cm behind the projected axis of the tibia), the ACL approaches its elastic limit at ~600N, whereas lateral forces applied to the ski in other locations requires significantly higher-magnitudes to cause the ACL to approach its elastic limit  (again, vectors are magnitude and direction—position—sensitive).  When I told my former coach, Warren Witherell, about this special place on the ski that generates maximal ACL-strain, he dubbed it "The Sour Spot".  (Yes, this means a small dash of tibial torque is present — but not much:  the culprit is mostly abduction ... and all toes feel almost zero tibial torque in the presence of this applied abduction force.)) 

 

When the "Blind Spot" of all 'ordinary' bindings aligns with the "Sour Spot" of the human anatomy, the ACL is exposed to extreme vulnerability.  This is why we have so many ACL injuries:  all 'ordinary' bindings (including those with tilting-toes, pure vertical toe release or otherwise) have a 'Blind Spot' that is sensitive to abduction loading.  Abduction loading is more prevalent, today, because of shaped skis.

 

I love shaped skis.

 

Lateral heel release voids the 'Blind Spot'.

 

Lateral heel release responds to abduction loading.  Lateral heel release has an 'available' lever-arm that emanates from the virtual pivot formed by all toe cups.  All toe cups have a locus of radii that converge at a focal-point located ~4.5cm aft of the tip of all bona fide alpine ski boots.  This focal-point forms a another virtual pivot-point located at 4.5cm aft of the tip of all alpine ski boots from which the fore-body of all alpine ski boots can rotate when utilized in concert with a lateral heel release that's in the presence of an abduction force because the abduction force is located a distance aft of the new virtual-pivot that's formed near the toe when allowed to act in concert with a lateral heel release.  With this new virtual-pivot that's located near the toe PLUS the virtual pivot that's supplied by all step-in bindings, there is NO 'Blind Spot' any where on the ski — and the human "Sour Spot" cannot never become aligned with a non-existent "Blind Spot" of a binding that supplies both of these virtual-pivots, one virtual-pivot located under the ball of the foot and second virtual-pivot located under the heel.  Lateral heel release cannot be generated by any turntables because no boot can pass laterally through the side-lugs of a turntable.  A turntable binding can never act in concert with a virtual-pivot under the ball of the foot.  An 'ordinary' binding cannot act in concert with a virtual-pivot formed under the ball of the foot because it has no ability to supply a controlled lateral release (the forward pressure can become overwhelmed and a boot can 'escape' over the side-edge of a step-in's heel-cup — but I measure this effect to transpire at 35 daNm of valgus torque on all step-in's and this level of valgus torque (35 daNm) is far past the elastic limit of a 50th-percentile male (25 daNm).  Only a binding with a lateral heel release mechanism can supply controlled lateral heel release.  Only a binding with a lateral release mechanism can act in concert with the newly-formed virtual-pivot located under the ball of the foot that's generated by the focal-point of the radii that form the toe cup.  Previous bindings that had controlled lateral heel release capability include (but are not limited to): Americana, Alsop, Burt, Besser, Moog, F2, Miller, Eckyl, Gertsch, Inertia-B, Sundial, Haldman.  Each of those bindings had their lateral heel release cross-linked together with either vertical heel release (pitch) and/or edge-control (roll).  Each of these bindings had massive inadvertent pre-release.  De-coupling lateral heel release from vertical heel release (pitch) and decoupling lateral heel release from edge-control (roll) solves the pre-release problem.  There is no pre-release when lateral heel release is de-coupled from vertical heel release and from edge-control (if you induce an abduction force or valgus torque that exceeds the pre-set release level of a fully-decoupled lateral heel release mechanism it is not a pre-release:  it is a 'necessary release').

 

Abduction forces are generated by shaped skis in the same way that the overall 'center-of-effort' in a sailboat is generated by two sails.

 

Lateral heel release that does not inadvertently pre-release allows us to have it both ways:  reduced knee injuries AND enjoyment of our beautiful shaped skis.

 

I don't need to say what brand of bindings I ski on because I am in litigation with KneeBinding, Inc.—the company that I founded (this litigation is public knowledge and the specific claims, counterclaims and pleadings are of matter of public record in Vermont Superior Court).  However, I assert that the proper return of KneeBinding, Inc. assets to its rightful owner, based upon the facts and under the rules of law (which rightful-return by a victory in court will eventually then allow me to develop the patented technology that I invented to become "bona fide alpine binding status" based upon ISO-9462 and 'standard industry practice', noted in my previous posts), will only occur when I win the litigation, which litigation is now publicly scheduled for 3-week trial in June of this year, 2012.  To date, I have applied ~400k to the prosecution of this litigation — and my lawyers now need another 375k to win (yes, they are prosecuting on partial contingency, too).  If any of you are inclined toward the positive-expansion of the future of skiing through my assertion of my proper legal ownership KneeBinding, Inc. assets, which assets include the technology that I invented—then you know what to do.  My lawyers need this additional funding (paid directly to them) at this time.  My invention, development and market-launch of the first clipless bicycle pedal system (CycleBinding) and my invention, development and market-launch of Tubbs' first high-tech snowshoes transformed bicycling and snowshoeing ... and my marketing management at Geze ski-binding company here in the U.S. transformed Geze from a ~2% U.S. market share to a profitable ~20% U.S. market share while Geze sales tanked elsewhere, world-wide (except Canada).  These are facts that cannot be revised by other parties.  History tends to repeat.  I assert that by returning proper ownership of my company's assets to me via the litigation process, coupled together with my stewardship of the enterprise going-forward (with me having full 100% control over engineering and marketing) — will transform the ski industry, world-wide, in the same way as with bicycling and snowshoeing.  We need shaped skis without knee injuries.  I remain confident of your support in this effort that will be of immense benefit to our beautiful world of skiing.  :)  :)

 

This is not a 'rant':  These are the facts in this hugely important situation coupled-together with my assertion—based upon information and belief—of the rule of law.

 

Rick Howell

President

Howell Product Development Holding, Inc.

Stowe, Vermont

[www.howellproductdev.com]

 

 

post #26 of 56


 

All the above seems pretty straighforward, excepting:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

 

Abduction forces are generated by shaped skis in the same way that the overall 'center-of-effort' in a sailboat is generated by two sails.


 

 


 

which seems to imply that there is a possibility of an abduction force /away from/  the projected axis of the tibia.

 

If this is true, it is terribly difficult to visualize as part of a usable ski.   

post #27 of 56

:)   :)  The center-of-effort of all sailboats (with or without 2 sails) is near the center of the boat and is a function of the lateral center-of-resistance supplied by the keel (or centerboard) plus rudder.  If you have weather-helm or lee-helm (as a consequence of the center-of-effort not being directly aligned with the center-of-resistance), then you can either trim the jib, trim the mainsail (with the mainsheet, by vang-sheeting or by fair-leads that allow the slot to be adjusted), adjust the rake of the mast (change the ramp-angle of your boots), change the geometry of the keel and/or rudder, or change the cut of the sails — you can move the center-of-effort.  But the main point is that when you drop the jib, or (alternatively) when you drop the main, the overall center-of-effort shifts aft, or forward (respectively), radically, and the helm on the tiller is clear (the boat wants to turn).  If one end of a non-shaped ski slides-out (one sail is dropped), it generates yaw (torsion).  If both sails are up and she is properly trimmed, the center-of-effort is nearly amidship.  If you're in a Flying Dutchman, solo (  :)  ) and you are properly trimmed AND you are out on the trapeese AND you are standing on the rail near the center-of-the boat — and you then fall straight abeam into the cockpit—she will heel without heading-up or falling-off ... she will not turn.  If you fall straight abeam into the cockpit and inadvertently release the mainsheet or the traveler, she will fall-off;  if you fall into the cockpit and inadvertently release the jib sheet, she will head-up.  If you are early at the start and you need to slow down but remain pointing (shifting the center-of-effort aft), ease the jib.  Obviously, no one can see the center-of-effort with one's eyes, but by balancing the center-of-resistance with the center-of-effort as in these examples, you know that the center-of-effort is near the center of the boat.  The same thing happens on skis:  no one can 'see' the abduction-force that is formed by the combination of the tip plus the tail not sliding-out.  Just like in civil engineering — no one can see with our eyes the centroid of a bridge being supported by 2 bridge abutments.  But we have many ways of locating it with equations and/or actual physical measurements of the elements within the structure.  Structural engineering is based completely upon this kind of vector analysis (pls see, The Principa, by Isaac Newton).  I am a civil engineer.  We rely upon these unseeable centroids to keep buildings, bridges and dams in place.  Abduction forces are located near the center of the ski and we know this by vector analysis in equations and by measurements.  We also know this by inverse-dynamics when we measure what happens to the ACL when abduction forces are applied to the ski (in computo):  only a load that's applied near the center of the ski can do this.  This nearly-centered load is the resultant vector centroid of a shaped-ski not sliding-out at the tip or the tail.  Non-shaped skis allow one end to slide-out (a sailboat with just the jib up) and the ski then produces a torsional load (she has has lee-helm and wants to bear-off).  When non-shaped skis proliferated the market and produced a prevalence of ~15% to ~20% of all skiing injuries (and when toe-pieces did not function properly) there were few ACL-injuries.  A teater-totter in balance with 2 people of nearly-equal weight people has a single bearing-point near its center.  Before we go too much further, I encourage you to pls check to see who funded the research-studies that claim that shaped-skis do not cause ACL-injuries.  :)  :)   Those same ski companies have no patents in the hopper on bindings with lateral heel release — and I can assure you that in my discussions with them, they are 'worried'.  :)   :)

post #28 of 56

:)   :)   Another typo ... sorry:  the first sentence in my last post should read:  "The center-of-effort of all sailboats (with or without 2 sails) is near the center of the boat and is offset as a function of the lateral center-of-resistance supplied by the keel (or centerboard) plus rudder."   :)  :)

 

There's a few typos in my other posts, too, and I apologize:  I'm a lousy typist.  :)

post #29 of 56

:)   :)  Here below is my custom tibial torque device on my deck made of mostly hardware store parts that allows the introduction of lateral force vectors (green mainsheet lines attached to center of ski, 3:1 ratio) to be applied to the ski at any point along the length of the ski, while also allowing the introduction of large BIAD and/or large forward bending pre-loads (white mainsheet lines off-set on railing of deck, 4:1 ratio);  allowing any alpine ski boot to be utilized due to a unique exo-skeleton that captures the boot relative to the tibia.  The lateral force vectors are introduced into the ski in a way that allows 5-DOF (Degrees-of Freedom — thank you Gene Bahniuk).  Snow (on-slope) applies only 1 of the 6 DOF to a ski at any single point.   Tibial torque is measured mechanically.  (My beautiful electronic device that measures combined tibia torque & valgus torque in this same way, simultaneously, is presently hostage, elsewhere).  I find a variance of about 3% to 5% between the values generated by this tibia-torque device compared to the values generated by my electronic device, which electronic values were publicly presented at ISSS-Scotland in May, 2007:

 

Tibia-torque device, porch.jpg

 

______________________

 

 

Here below is my custom Valgus Torque Device on my deck, also utilizing mostly hardware store parts in the absence of my beautiful electronic device that measures tibial torque and valgus torque, simultaneously.  This purely-mechanical Valgus Torque Device also allows the addition of large BIAD pre-loads  as well as large forward bending moments (white mainsheet lines, 4:1 ratio);  the utilization of any alpine ski boot with the unique exo-skeleton;  the application of a lateral force to the ski at any point along the length of the ski (green mainsheet lines resting on the floor of the deck, 3:1 ratio);  and allows a wide-range of knee-flexion angles.  I find a variance of about 3% to 5% between this mechanical valgus torque device and the values derived from my electronic valgus torque device, which electronic values were publicly presented at ISSS-Scotland, May, 2007.

 

Valgus Device.deck.9.jpg

 

__________________

 

Here, below, you see Professor Robert J. Johnson, MD (the co-leading ski-injury epidemiologist in the world;  professor of orthopaedic surgery and rehabilitation and UVM College of Medicine; and my former knee-doctor ... though he never—but almost—cut);  myself;  & Professor Jake Shealy, also co-leading ski-injury epidemiologist in the world — at the ISSS Conference in Aviemore, Scotland, May, 2007 a few hours after our presentations.  Yes, we are 'knee-friendly'  :)

 

Johnson, Howell, Shealy.ISSS.Scotland.jpg

_____________________

 

 

Here, below is the so-called "bi-annual (every 2-years) binding collusion table"  :)  with the following ski-binding engineers:  (2nd from left) Manfred Weismayer (Atomic);  (3rd from left) Helmut Holzer (Atomic);  (5th from left) me;  (6th from left) Sylvie Aleirac (Salomon);  (7th from left) Herwig Schretter (Head-Tyrolia);  photo by Klaus Damborski (D, co-author together with Prof Dan Mote of ISO-9465) :

 

ISSS dinner Scotland.jpg

 

____________________________

 

 

 

Here below is an image of some of the leading skiing knee-injury researchers in the world at the top of the Zugspitz Glacier, May, 2009 during a 'day off' at the ISSS-conference in Garmish-Partenkierchen, Germany.  From left,  Marc Binet, MD (the leading ski-injury epidemiologist in Europe);  Professor Schot;  MIT Professor Larry Young, ScD (head of the Harvard-MIT Interdepartmental Biomedical Engineering Dept);  WPI Professor Chris Brown, PhD (dissertation advisor to several PhD-students who focused on skiing-ACL injuries, former All-American UVM ski racer & father of Roger and Douglas Brown of the U.S. Ski Team).  I took the picture.  Interestingly, while we were skiing way-up on the Zugspitz, the FIS held a 'private meeting' with certain other members of the ISSS who purported to know something about skiing-ACL-injuries (we weren't invited) ... and ... well ... you know the results ...  :(  :(   Hmmmm.

 

Binet.Schot.Young.Brown.9.jpg

 

The skiing was outstanding !!!!  :)  :)

 

No one here utilizes 'pure-vertically releasing' toes ... but all of our toes tilt (including mine).  Two skiers among the five mentioned are skiing on a binding that provides lateral heel release ... and we concluded (at Very Low p-values) that they were quite light after a full day of skiing when we walked from the banhoff back to the hotel.   :)  ;)

 

 

post #30 of 56

R.H., i had trouble following your first post but get the subsequent ones. I hope you're able to continue with the development of your advanced binding.

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 › 80's Binding reflash: True upward release from the toe piece