80's Binding reflash: True upward release from the toe piece - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonorchid 

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.

:)  Yes, the way I will be able to continue with this work that will help all of us — and the entire ski industry, world-wide — is for me to win-back the assets of 'my' ski binding company, including all of the assets that were developed as a consequence of my original assets, no liabilities;  receive proper monetary recourse to re-brand and complete the final engineering and re-engineering that's needed to have this product 'market-ready' (I never wanted to ship this product into the consumer market without it being complete);  obtain a judicial ruling indicating that my reputation was maliciously and intentionally harmed by the parties who fraudulently [and purportedly] transacted with me in order to, in part, steal 'my' company;  obtain an injunction barring those parties from future securities transactions and from conducting business in the ski-industry;  gain full access to the product liability insurance policy covering all products sold to date;  plus receive any other recourse supplied to me by the court.  Re-branding and re-engineering is estimated at this time to be $15m.  To date, I applied ~$780,000 to develop the enterprise prior to the moment of the purported (above noted) transaction plus I have applied ~$400,000 in legal fees to prosecute the above rightful and reasonable goals.  My lawyers need another $400,000  AT THIS TIME  to achieve these goals, though large risk-factors are present (all of you can see the 'freight train' that I'm up against).  I will supply a 14X ROI plus provide the social benefit of transforming the ski-industry with this advanced binding.  We are in the heat of the 'discovery stage' at this moment and the 3-week trial is scheduled to begin the last week of June, 2012, in Vermont Superior Court in the Chittenden County Courthouse in Burlington, Vermont.  Upon victory, I promise all of you that you will have an honest line of alpine ski-bindings that will provide you with 'knee-friendly carving' ™ for your weight, ability, budget and mountain.  I work positively and effectively — and have many colleagues who will supply solid references.  To do this, I need your support — at this time.  Please call or text me at 802.793.4849.  Kindly and respectfully submitted to all Epic Skiers,  Rick Howell, Stowe, Vermont.  :)  :)

Dear fellow skiers,   Yes, we all know Spademan ... and Dick Spademan, MD, is a friend — who also lives near Phil in Incline Village.

No one person (or even a 'small group') can accumulate enough skier-days in their life to properly assess whether any given binding (or any given binding-function) can or cannot mitigate any type of skiing injuries.  This is because the mean-days between equipment-related injury exceeds the level to which any one skier could be statistically-exposed ("at risk" for an actual skiing injury) in a lifetime.  That is why we have developed biomechanical models that can be utilized, 'in-computo', to replicate the injury mechanisms thought to be associated with ski injuries — and to do so with various interface-designs (bindings) between the boot and ski, in-computo.  We also have lab-tests that simulate various types of injury mechanisms while utilizing metallic body-segments that are instrumented to generate peak-loading-information that we utilize to compare to elastic-limit data from statistically-valid failure analysis of cadaveric and in-computo models that have been 'validated' against actual humans — while interposing various types of binding designs.  These biomechanical studies (in-computo and experimentally in labs) provide plausible associations between binding-features and simulated injuries.  This is how we develop meaningful data (today) on the relationship between bindign-features and injuries.  Biomechanical studies that are bona fide (which provide meaningful data) have only been possible for leg fracture analysis beginning 50-years ago (Agang, Vogal, Outwater) and only possible for ligament failure analysis during the past 10-years (Andriachi, De Guise).  Many of the leading biomechanical researchers world-wide are only now starting to apply meaningful ligament analysis.

(( Aside from present biomechanical research, Spademan requires large torsional and forward bending release levels to mitigate pre-release because both modes of release are cross-linked (except by moving the position of the AFD to change the effective lever-arm for forward bending release relative to torsional release).  Roll (edge control) is also cross-linked with torsion and forward bending release as well as with backward bending and forward shear release in Spademan.  I had my lowest-point DH races (29 FIS-points) in the mid-70's on Spademan mixed together with a 'bored-out' Salomon 555 toe (removed the 2 springs & the pin between the springs), then welded a small plate across the middle of the back-edge of the toe's base-plate to enhance full lateral movement of the rollers in the 555 toe-cup to match Spademan's large lateral elastic travel.  The 555 toe blocked forward shear, backward bending and roll release to allow torsional and forward bending release to be intentionally cross-linked.  I also removed the useless Spademan AFD (made of Gaflon, not Teflon — which Gaflon had a high coefficient of friction and caused poor recentering during forward-weighted innocuous loading) and replaced it with a modified (wider) Lipe Slider that was highly effective even when compressed by slightly over-tightening the toe-height-adjustment on the 555 toe piece.  The modified Lipe Slider provided outstanding recentering and edge control.  The large lateral connection inherent with Spademan PLUS the modified Lipe Slider also provided further-enhanced edge control (and lift).  However, Spademan does not allow the boot to release straight-laterally (through the side-lugs) — and therefore, Spademan (with or without the addition of the 555 toe piece) has NO effect on the primary injury mechanisms thought to be associated with skiing knee injuries — the Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch injury mechanisms (which mechanisms are thought to be associated with ~70% of all skiing knee injuries, today).  Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch induced skiing knee injuries were not a problem back in the 60's, 70's and early-80's when Spademan was bona fide because shaped skis did not exist during those days.  Today, if you want great carving while mitigating the primary knee injury mechanisms (Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch), Spademan has no possibility of addressing these injury modes. ))

Pure vertical toe release only deals with the BIAD injury mechanism, which injury-mechanism is thought to be associated with only ~8 to ~15% of all skiing knee injuries.  Spademan (like the Geze SE3) is believed (based upon plausible biomechanical modeling, in computo) to provide the possibility of generating a positive effect on 'addressing' the ~8% to ~15% of all skiing knee injuries induced by the BIAD injury mechanism — though no research exists that associates how much any specific binding-function can actually reduce the incidence or prevalence of a specific type of injury other than to 'believe it addresses' a given type of injury, such as an ACL-injury (the term, 'addresses', does not mean to imply 'how much' a given binding-feature reduces the incidence or prevalence of a specific type of injury within a given injury-mechanism — "adresses" means a given binding-function can intervene, biomechanically, period.  No one knows how much the intervention changes actual injury incidence or prevalence).  This underlined notation is an important point for all skiers to understand when they provide "feedback" on ski-bindings.

Skiers can evaluate any given binding's retention, durability, convenience and edge-control — but it is IMPOSSIBLE for any one skier or even a small group of skiers to evaluate any given binding or binding-feature relative to injury-mitigation relative to release ... once again noting that injuries associated with inadvertent pre-release (lack of proper retention) or from durability-issues can be far more severe than injuries associated with non-release.  

Spademan (without modification) suffered from inadvertent pre-release and poor ski control (including poor edge-control) with aggressive skiers.  Spademan was an outstanding binding for non-aggressive skiers on non-shaped skis.  Spademan also had many virtues for rental operators.

Only bindings with lateral heel release are believed to address ('believed', via plausible biomechanical modeling) the primary skiing knee injury mechanisms — the Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch injury mechanisms.  

Evidence-based studies involving prospective intervention of various binding designs in order to determine the cause / effect relationship of features to injuries is 'practically-difficult' — because the sample size of proper intervention-samples needs to be large enough to be 'statistically significant' and the intervention samples need to be compared to proper massive 'control' populations that are 'closed', properly randomized, double-blind and diagnosed by MD's in order to assure validity.   Therefore, PROPER biomechanical studies are the most practical way to properly assess specific types of binding-function relative to various types of skiing injuries — and NEVER by any one skier's personal experience or even by a 'small group' of skiers' personal experiences (especially in the absence of injury inside of the mean-days-at-risk for a given type of injury).  

    :)    :)

— Rick Howell, Stowe, VT

Also, Dick Spademan, MD is a giant of a man — a truly Great Man.  Thank you Dick for teaching all of us so much.  :)

Dear Phil,   'Very, very sad to learn of this.  He truly was a Great Man.  It wasn't that long ago when I was still receiving Christmas cards from Dick.  The only reason why he failed with his binding company was because the so-called 'leading U.S. binding expert' allowed the center section of the boot sole standard to become 'undefined' at the urging of boot companies owned by binding companies who competed against Dick, because otherwise, his bindings were 'good enough' for a large chunk of the skiing-population — especially in rental.  The other binding companies viciously competed against him ... and as a young man in high school then later in college I watch the other binding companies work hard to destroy his binding and binding company. These were large 'reality' eye-openers for me as a young man.  It was heart wrenching as a young man to sit there at these standards meetings and watch the seasoned binding engineers and binding company executives pounce on a man who was obviously a brilliant orthopaedic surgeon (highly respected by his peers in orthopaedics, such as Dr. Robert Johnson, Dr. Wolfhart Hauser, Dr. Henry Crane, Dr. Arne Ekeland, Dr. Ejnar Eriksson, Dr. Harold Lystad and the others orthopaedists who participated together with Dick at the ISSS conferences) — with great intentions to help the ski-industry.  In hindsight, the actions imposed on Dick Spademan through the improper utilization of the standards-process to block his product and his company from effectively competing were, in my non-legal opinion, malicious and may have involved restraint of free trade and anti-trust by the standards organizations — plus these actions may have involved business interference, defamation and unfair business practices by the other binding companies.  The other binding companies ruthlessly destroyed Spademan binding company while everyone in the industry (especially those vested with good rental operations) just stood there, watched — and even 'play homage' to the so-called 'leading binding expert' who ran the standards meetings and who rolled with these actions at the standards meetings in the face of the clear and obvious malicious designs imposed upon Spademan by the other competing binding companies.   At Geze ski-binding company, we played fair with Dick Spademan — and while working for Geze, I was graciously invited into Dick's booth each year at the SIA trade shows where Dick and I respected each other for our contributions toward our common goals in skiing safety.  He was a Great Man and a good guy who was 'rolled' by the sharks ... but his many contributions to skiing safety are lessons applied to today's newest binding technology — and for that, his contributions remain a reality, today.  Respectfully, Rick Howell

Your Color Combo is out of site!!!

Great, Info.

In my own act of defiance I still use my Solomon boots (certainly one of the companies that had it in for Spademan) with their cut out bottoms.

I filled them in 30+ years ago so I could mount my spademan plates.  I would have continued with Scott boots, but everyone knows how they held up. 

The Solomon  was about the second lighest boot on the market which makes it very good for my Freestyle/Ballet.

Unfortunately the "Modern Boots for the Most part are far more Comfortable, Heavy and Clunky/Big.  I have had to sacrifice the comfiort with these boots.

I still ski on this Spademan/Olin/Solomon Combo today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Howell 

Dear Phil,   'Very, very sad to learn of this.  He truly was a Great Man.  It wasn't that long ago when I was still receiving Christmas cards from Dick.  The only reason why he failed with his binding company was because the so-called 'leading U.S. binding expert' allowed the center section of the boot sole standard to become 'undefined' at the urging of boot companies owned by binding companies who competed against Dick, because otherwise, his bindings were 'good enough' for a large chunk of the skiing-population — especially in rental.  The other binding companies viciously competed against him ... and as a young man in high school then later in college I watch the other binding companies work hard to destroy his binding and binding company. These were large 'reality' eye-openers for me as a young man.  It was heart wrenching as a young man to sit there at these standards meetings and watch the seasoned binding engineers and binding company executives pounce on a man who was obviously a brilliant orthopaedic surgeon (highly respected by his peers in orthopaedics, such as Dr. Robert Johnson, Dr. Wolfhart Hauser, Dr. Henry Crane, Dr. Arne Ekeland, Dr. Ejnar Eriksson, Dr. Harold Lystad and the others orthopaedists who participated together with Dick at the ISSS conferences) — with great intentions to help the ski-industry.  In hindsight, the actions imposed on Dick Spademan through the improper utilization of the standards-process to block his product and his company from effectively competing were, in my non-legal opinion, malicious and may have involved restraint of free trade and anti-trust by the standards organizations — plus these actions may have involved business interference, defamation and unfair business practices by the other binding companies.  The other binding companies ruthlessly destroyed Spademan binding company while everyone in the industry (especially those vested with good rental operations) just stood there, watched — and even 'play homage' to the so-called 'leading binding expert' who ran the standards meetings and who rolled with these actions at the standards meetings in the face of the clear and obvious malicious designs imposed upon Spademan by the other competing binding companies.   At Geze ski-binding company, we played fair with Dick Spademan — and while working for Geze, I was graciously invited into Dick's booth each year at the SIA trade shows where Dick and I respected each other for our contributions toward our common goals in skiing safety.  He was a Great Man and a good guy who was 'rolled' by the sharks ... but his many contributions to skiing safety are lessons applied to today's newest binding technology — and for that, his contributions remain a reality, today.  Respectfully, Rick Howell

Phil, did the Look XM's have two separate settings like the GEZE, or just one?

Hey Richard, not to be a jerk or anything, but having skied the Spademans on several occasions, I'm not at all convinced of this conspiracy theory. I think the Spademan went away for several extremely good reasons.

To start, I would argue that the binding was flawed at a fundamental level. On every occasion that I skied them the same thing would happen. After the plate got cold it became EXTREMELY sticky to warm snow. So the next time you weren't buckled in and stepped on any snow, some of it would stick to the bottom of the plate.

Now it's time to lock in. In many cases you simply couldn't, because the binding had a *tiny* amount of free movement and even a thin layer of snow would prevent it from locking. So after a couple of tries you'd start scraping the snow off. Did I say it stuck? I meant to say it FROZE ON, which requires dexterity to remove that I didn't have as a pimply-faced teenager, and certainly don't now as an overweight grey-hair.

But much much more dangerous was the times when you COULD step in and lock down... because you weren't really locked in and the next time you hit even the most minor bump the ski would come flying off. And since this had nothing to do with the direction you were traveling, unlike a typical fall where the body is going in a different direction than the ski, there was the greater-than-zero chance that it would come flying right at you. They didn't have cell-phone cameras at the time, otherwise I'd have a nice picture of my split lip when the ski came up in FRONT of me.

Quite frankly, I considered the Spademan to be *more* dangerous than conventional bindings for this reason. The unpredictable release under very real-world conditions was a serious concern to me, even when I considered myself invincible.

Now wait, you say, snow sticks to normal boots too. Yeah, sure, but not in the same way. Every step-in I've skied has some ability to handle snow on the bottom of the boot, and as much of the area under the boot is clear, it's only really snow that's on the flanges that's a problem. And unlike the Spademan, hitting the side of the boot with my ski pole is generally enough to dislodge it, it simply didn't stick on the same way. And finally, the bindings either clip or they don't, a side effect of the rotating cams that lock them. They can't "half clip" like the Spademan did.

And then the whole action of putting it on and taking it off even when there wasn't a problem. Uggg. They tried to fix this with the S9, but that was way too late, everyone else beat them by years at this point.

I was not alone. I  clearly recall the communal growl that started on the school buses when the the manager of "Mt." St Louis would come on to explain how the gear worked. On the second year of this we had heard rumors they were replacing the dreaded spademan with step-in designs, and when we learned to our horror that this was not the case the look of pain on his face at the reaction was visceral. I also recall the cheer that went up the next year when Salomon arrived. If you can't sell it to

Then there's all the other problems:

1) bronze is expensive

2) if my boot breaks on vacation, now what? Carry those plates around?!

3) If I want to rent gear with different bindings, now what? Clip in with the plate on the bottom where my brake is? Nope.

So all this about  conspiracy theories falls on deaf ears here.

As someone who has skied Modern and Spademan bindings up even today, I can only tell you a little technique (ie. tricks) go a long way.

I don't ever bend down to take my Ballets off (Spademan) bindings or to put them on.  I don't even use my pole (tapping) to clean the bottom of

my boots as many do with regular Toe/Heel bindings. 

When I ski my Mod-X's with Salomon Bindings I have to clear the bottom of my boot especially the heel and toe with the tip of my pole.  This requires

that I balance with one pole and one leg while lifting my boot sideways above my knee.  It also forces me to crouch down to stab the bottom of my boot with the tip of my pole.

VERY AWKWARD !

When I switch to my Olin Ballets with SRSII's (mid style, not a step-in binding) it is actually easier.

I'm standing straight up, With poles in hand, I move my foot down and sideways to the binding clamps.  They have a point on top facing upward and it takes, literally 3 seconds a boot.  I of course do one foot at a time.  I place the foot in and step down on the back (screw/spring/lever) with my other foot.  When I'm ready for the other foot I lift my foot w/ski, point my toe outward slightly and step down with the edge/bottom of the back of that ski to complete the process.

Even in very sticky / wet snow I can do this very quickly.  

Yes, snow can pack onto the boot plate quickly (metal? Temp Change?), However, It does come off easily.

I have never had a binding freeze, stick or malfunction because it was frozen.  Brass on brass and brass on aluminum can have  lots of frost on it and it will not have any significance as far as sticking.  Yes, if you have a ton of snow packed onto the bottom of your foot the binding will not hold properly and you could go flying, but I can tell you from years of personal experience, if you are in the binding you are in and they don't release slow or fast depending on the temp, snow or other factors.

I can also get out of them faster than any modern binding without  reaching down.  I use the back inside edge of my ski for the first one and the toe of my newly freed boot to lift the mechanism on the other.

I agree, my S9's were a vast improvement, but are actually slower as I have to push down on the tail of each ski to release them like other bindings.

SPADEMAN bindings are far from perfect, however,  Salomon and other companies knew perfectly well what they were doing.  It isn't a conspiracy at all, they did this openly and publicly.  The Spademan design may have gone out anyway as most consumers like the standardization (heel to toe) and its benefits,  But their is no doubt that companies that were almost unheard of in this country a few years earlier like Salomon (a boot company) came on strong in the binding market in a largre part because cutting out the boot bottom had no particular benefit for Salomon but it was easy to do and eliminated a competitor.

Richard, was a witness to this.  Is this anything new? No, if I could change my design in a relatively slight way (no change to the heel/toe) and eliminate at least one competitor I can't see any reason why I wouldn't.  But the fact that this did happen, IS A FACT.  Whether it is fair or not.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz 

Phil, did the Look XM's have two separate settings like the GEZE, or just one?

I have the XM, it only has one setting.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonorchid 

Quote:

I have the XM, it only has one setting.
 

 

Ahhh, ok thanks neo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foreveryoung 

SPADEMAN bindings are far from perfect, however,  Salomon and other companies knew perfectly well what they were doing.  It isn't a conspiracy at all, they did this openly and publicly.  The Spademan design may have gone out anyway as most consumers like the standardization (heel to toe) and its benefits,  But their is no doubt that companies that were almost unheard of in this country a few years earlier like Salomon (a boot company) came on strong in the binding market in a largre part because cutting out the boot bottom had no particular benefit for Salomon but it was easy to do and eliminated a competitor.

Salomon was a binding company almost from the start (after a short period making edges for skis). They were selling bindings in the 1950s (google up "salomon skade") and led the development of the modern step-in design in the 60s with the 505. They were the #1 binding brand from the late 1960s and into to 80s. So I would have to say there's lots of doubt.

I'm sure your experience with the Spademan is exactly like you say, but so was mine. And my experience is that snow stuck to the plate and did not "come off easily", and that snow on the plate did cause pre-release. IMO it was an unreliable system that made even the simple act of walking about fraught with peril (nothing like a low-friction plate under the insole to improve your chances of sliding). I was not alone; our high school was going to change hills as a result of the complaints about the binding, but instead the hill ditched all of their Spademan gear in 1983.

I'm sure your right about the history. I just remember in the late 70's, I saw very few Solomon bindings (Lots of Boots).  I'm sure they were big in parts of the country and worldwide.

Their boots and bindings were certainly modified to work best with their own setup, not a surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foreveryoung 

I'm sure your right about the history. I just remember in the late 70's, I saw very few Solomon bindings (Lots of Boots).  I'm sure they were big in parts of the country and worldwide.

Their boots and bindings were certainly modified to work best with their own setup, not a surprise.

 70's, in New England, Salomom 502, 505 and 444 were EVERYWHERE.......

Follow-up, the outcome was?

There is never an outcome:

"Jarndyce v Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce v Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce v Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce v Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless."

Although I would like the trial to take place right away — it is now forecast that the trial may take place, unfortunately, as long as one year from now (~August, 2013).  I am pushing as best as I can to have the trial take place as soon as possible.  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foreveryoung 

I'm sure your right about the history. I just remember in the late 70's, I saw very few Solomon bindings (Lots of Boots).  I'm sure they were big in parts of the country and worldwide.

Their boots and bindings were certainly modified to work best with their own setup, not a surprise.

Late 70's, still a lot of Salomon bindings around pretty much everywhere in the US. Racers started to leave them around that time because of pre-release issues in chatter. MRR's were the ticket back in the day. To the best of my knowledge, all boots worked fine with all bindings, even in that time frame. Only knew a couple people using both Salomon boots and bindings, and most of those dumped the boots within a couple of seasons and went back to their Langes or Nordicas. 

I just now saw your question about the top-end differences between the toe and the heel on the SE3.  I believe that settings can be 'fine-tuned' based on the 'self-release method' (if, the 'function' is 'working' in the respective mode of release:  'function' and 'working' are key terms).  Therefore, because the pivot-point of all bindings (except one) in the forward release mode is in-line with the top of the heel projection, all bindings (except one) are biased toward pre-release in the forward release mode as soon as the combination of a small amount of forward loading plus ski-flex occurs.  Thus, all bindings (except one) need 'elevated settings' in the forward release mode to attempt to overcome this inherent design deficiency of all bindings — which elevated settings in the forward release mode are best achieved via the 'proper' utilization of the self release method (in the forward mode).  This means that if you are 'large' and you need a 9 in the toe (for lateral toe release), then the additional possibility exists for an 'elevated setting' (based on the utilization of the self-release method) in the forward release mode with a 12, if needed.

The 'except one' (only other binding) has its pivot point for forward release located 'well above' the heel projection:  Therefore, when the ski flexes, heel 'hold-down' INCREASES — which increase exists during ski-flex in no other binding.  This is why there is no pre-release in this 'other binding' in the forward release mode.  On the other side of the coin, the increase in forward release is capped (via the shape of the cam) at ~10% — while the relevant standard (ISO 9462) limits the increase in forward release during a 'defined amount' of ski flex to be no more than 20%.

:)