or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Height, Length and DIN - Page 7

post #181 of 187
Originally Posted by HiTunes View Post

Mr. Howell.

You should check out the Fritschi 88 Swiss military AT binding.

They are old but I had a pair and they were good for AT skiing. They had a pin to lock the heal that offered 360 degree release. (I guess only 180 was needed but 360 was there.) They also had a pivot point directly under foot, and had lateral and vertical toe release all with adjustable dins. It was a fun binding and released on cue every time. I sold them to a friend but want to buy a new set. To all readers, If anyone is selling any let me know I bought the first pair for $50.

I'm not clear on how your post fits in with the thread, but here's the Fritschi 88 in action:





post #182 of 187

Hi neonorchid,   I have read your post #179 — and don't understand.  Sorry (sincerely).  Could you pls rephrase?


Kind regards,


Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

post #183 of 187

Re the Fritschi 88 Swiss military AT binding,


I have tested this binding:  it has a fixed-pivot (in the horizontal plane) — just like John Perryman's binding (and several others from long ago) — and therefore is incapable of 'hunting' to optional virtual pivots in the horizontal plane to produce 'available lateral lever arms' when abduction loads are applied under or near the projected axis of the tibia, which optional lateral lever arms reduce peak resultant tibia-valgus loading.  Pls see graphs above where peak resultant loading is significantly reduced by an alpine binding with lateral heel release that does not have a 'fixed' pivot in the horizontal plane.  'Virtual pivots' can be formed by the locii of the projected radii of a heel cup and/or of a toe cup if no other 'fixed' pivot blocks this formation.


Kind regards,


Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont




Rick Howell


Howell Ski Bindings




post #184 of 187

I was just bringing up the binding because it had a unique heel release system. Thanks for your video link, I thought Mr. Howell may be interested but he obviously already knows about it. Like I said, You guys are talking way over my head about the knee stuff and release stuff so I'll stay out of it. But thanks for all your hard work and research and keeping us all safer on the slopes.

Edited by HiTunes - 3/31/13 at 5:05pm
post #185 of 187
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Hi neonorchid,   I have read your post #179 — and don't understand.  Sorry (sincerely).  Could you pls rephrase?


Kind regards,


Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont


...ok i try too, will also further add where i was going with post #179 -


RE: Stand Height third paragraph post #173 ( http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/150#post_1569120 ),


From the above link i learned of a greater injury risk using bindings with a high stand height (greater valgus torque/greater strain across ACL). Additionally, i learned from other postings that a toe piece which only offers one lateral plane of release (with no upward or upward twisting release mechanism), provides no protection from BAID ACL injuries (and others).  


In a attempt to apply the above i found four different manufactures product which have both high stand heights and toe pieces that only release in one plane, i.e., lateral, left or right. They are the: 


1), Marker Duke/Barron/Tour 36mm stand height


2), Tyrolia Adrenaline 36mm stand height.


3), Salomon Guardian/Atomic tracker 32mm stand height At the Heel. (toe stand height is adjust down depending on boot design (Alpine sole vs Tour lugged/rocker sole), from ~30mm to 26mm)  http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/follow-up-atomic-tracker-16-salomon-guardian-16-at-binding/2 )).


4), Knee Binding 32mm stand height At the Heel, (toe stand height is adjustable from 26mm or 29mm (depending on model), to 32mm via shims)).


The fourth binding of my list, KB, also has a mechanism for lateral heel release which should make it a safer binding then the others above wrt Phantom Foot mode of injury.

However if my understanding of the cited info and my assumptions are correct then i'd think, by design, the trade off comes at the expense of being less safe in other situations where a lateral heel release would not occur.

Furthermore in that context, the KB would be no safer then the previous three "slack country" bindings with the exception possibly being for a greater degree of elasticity then the "slack country bindings", something which based on available info, i don't know.

To me it would appear all four binding examples, minus the lateral heel release mechanism, could possibly be bested safety wise by other Alpine bindings on the market which offer high elasticity, low stack heights and "3-D" multi directional releasing toe pieces??


Given "supposedly" other knee injuries on KB not to be believed to have been caused by Phantom Foot Slip and Catch falls, would it be correct to assume those others, were (are), at greater risk of those injuries by virtue of being on the KB's, had they been using high elasticity low stand height multi directional toe piece bindings on the market which are lacking the lateral heal release mechanism? If so, to me it would appear to be a "catch 22", pick your poison, damed if you do damed if you don't situation?? 

post #186 of 187

@ neonorchid:   


I understand your post, now.  Thank you for clarifying. 


As a purchaser of KneeBinding brand ski bindings (can you imagine that I've had to purchase ALL of the KneeBinding brand ski bindings that I have !!) have toe-pieces with multi-directional release.  


I cannot discuss the other bindings. 


The best we can all hope-for is that, eventually, other people will utilize test devices that measure valgus loading.   Presently, all bona fide alpine binding companies and several others do have test devices that measure BIAD-loading (backward bending moments) and combined BIAD/tibia-torque.  We know the test-results from the devices that measure in this way — but again, I will not discuss the other bona fide alpine binding companies by name.  I can make test-devices that measure the applicable loads (backward-bending and/or BIAD and/or valgus torque) for US$30k:  that's a bona fide offer for anyone.


(( An alpine binding company becomes "bona fide"  when it complies with the minimum international safety standards — ISO 9462, 9465 and 11087 — as certified by the only independent alpine ski binding testing lab in the world, TÜV, of Munich, Germany. ))




Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont



Edited by Richard Howell - 4/1/13 at 5:13pm
post #187 of 187

Latest update:


I am now being extorted (once again) to "remove my posts on Epic".  


Anyone who values my posts ... might consider copying and saving my posts, if you would like to retain my information.


My belief is that 'we' — as a civil society — should not put-up with extortion as a proper mode of conduct ... and I sincerely hope that someone here on Epic notifies a major source of media as to what's going on here as soon as I am thrown in jail for refusing to remove my posts here on Epic, which jail-action will most likely commence, Very Soon.


As most of you already know, I will NEVER abandon you as MY customers and I will not let you be exposed to the fraud and safety issues that are transpiring within the ski market by the hijackers of my product and my company ... and I will do everything possible to protect you via the information that I have posted here on Epic.


Stay-tuned ...


Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs