or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Height, Length and DIN - Page 2

post #31 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Wolf View Post

I'm starting to realize that at best, the DIN system is a ball park guess based on incomplete information and outdated research. I wonder how accurate the settings are that we put our faith in. All that really matters is that the force required to release the binding is less than the force required to break the bone. There are multiple variables that go into this calculation, but we just use a few basic ones.

 

This may seem a little random, but whether or not a person is taking steroids (like prednisone for asthma), has a huge impact on bone strength/density. Potentially more than all the other factors combined. I have never seen the question "Do you have any medical or hereditary conditions that may affect your bone strength?" appear in any DIN calculations. Perhaps it's fair to say that this responsibility should fall on the customer and not the technician, but if you are going to train and certify people in the application of safety equipment, it seems reasonable to educate them in all the variables.

 

When you see information presented on a website, manufacturer's manual or printed chart, there is the tendency to believe that the information is accurate, based in validated research and can be trusted. Can DIN be trusted ? Do we really have enough information about a given individual, to decide if their DIN should be 6.0, 6.5 or 7.0 ?

 

Not meaning to be critical, just thinking out loud.


Ye know too much.  You are on the verge of understanding why the average ski shop employee earnes just slightly above minimum wage.

post #32 of 187

To muddy the waters even more is the Type of skier you are.  Most people put themselves in a category too high.  It gets to the whole argument on whether you are skiing a run or surviving it and calling it skiing.

 

I view the Type input for higher end skiers, having a pre-release is riskier than having the binding release a little late and because they are higher end skiers, there will be more forces applied more often.  There is also the fact that experienced (real) expert skiers can recover from more things as long as their ski is still attached.

 

A lot of this is risk management and knowing what you are capable of doing and are willing to risk.  The trouble is, it is hard for most folks to understand what exactly they are risking or how to protect themselves from those risks (maybe defend themselves is more accurate).  Or maybe they don't even think about it because they just assume they are safe because the shop set the bindings for them.

 

I've been in the bumps and in beer league race courses and haven't had a pre release even when I turned the bindings down (my range is 6.5 - 8 based on type 3 or 3+ ).  I have had the bindings not come off during falls and have torn two acl's.  At 52, I think I would rather risk a tib/fib break over another knee injury.  I'm sure if it where to happen, I would immediately change my mind and wish I didn't break my tib/fib.  Just trying to point out how much I don't want to go through acl injury again.  Last year I believe for most of the season, I was at 6.5 and if you remember the season we are all trying to forget, we had a lot of crap conditions and crud.

 

Thinking about using Type 2 this year and dropping down to 5.5 since I'm not planning on racing this year.  Lest to worry about as long as I ski smooth.  We'll see.

post #33 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Wolf View Post

I'm starting to realize that at best, the DIN system is a ball park guess based on incomplete information and outdated research. I wonder how accurate the settings are that we put our faith in. All that really matters is that the force required to release the binding is less than the force required to break the bone. There are multiple variables that go into this calculation, but we just use a few basic ones.

 

This may seem a little random, but whether or not a person is taking steroids (like prednisone for asthma), has a huge impact on bone strength/density. Potentially more than all the other factors combined. I have never seen the question "Do you have any medical or hereditary conditions that may affect your bone strength?" appear in any DIN calculations. Perhaps it's fair to say that this responsibility should fall on the customer and not the technician, but if you are going to train and certify people in the application of safety equipment, it seems reasonable to educate them in all the variables.

 

When you see information presented on a website, manufacturer's manual or printed chart, there is the tendency to believe that the information is accurate, based in validated research and can be trusted. Can DIN be trusted ? Do we really have enough information about a given individual, to decide if their DIN should be 6.0, 6.5 or 7.0 ?

we do not need to put too much faith in the way in which DIN settings are derived. they are close enough to get any skier started in a reasonable sphere of safety and performance. where the rubber meets the road, should put the responsibility back on the end user (you, john q skiing public) to fine tune your bindings to either decrease or increase the settings so they perform best for you. if you are coming out prematurely, you need to be able to turn up the binding to prevent pre-release, and if you are not coming out when taking hard falls then you need to be able to dial back your settings. this idea of handing your skiing safety and performance over to some poorly trained ski shop employee is like an IQ test. and if you are not taken responsibilty for your own equipment you are probably a point or 2 below normal.wink.gif

 

jim

Not meaning to be critical, just thinking out loud.

post #34 of 187

L&AIRC,

You mentioned that you are age 52. Are you aware that at age 50 you are supposed to go up one line on the DIN chart (not change Skier Type)?

 

When I turned 50 I did not change my DIN setting because I felt that I did not loose much strength at that age (and I ski 80 days/year so I'm not the norm). However when I turned 60 the drop off in strength and stamina was very evident and I did turn the binding DIN setting down.

post #35 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

L&AIRC,

You mentioned that you are age 52. Are you aware that at age 50 you are supposed to go up one line on the DIN chart (not change Skier Type)?

 

When I turned 50 I did not change my DIN setting because I felt that I did not loose much strength at that age (and I ski 80 days/year so I'm not the norm). However when I turned 60 the drop off in strength and stamina was very evident and I did turn the binding DIN setting down.

Yes.  That is why I'm down to 6.5 to 8 (was 7.5 - 9) and since I'm not coming out of my bindings, I'll drop down to 5.5, which is skier type 2 Vs. 3 at 6.5.  If I start coming out like starthaus mentioned, I will start dialing it back up.  I'm not dialing it down because of strength.  I'm probably stronger now than I was during my entire 40's.  When I retired from the Marines, I also retired from working out nonono2.gif .  In fact since I've been eating better, I now weigh less when I got out of the Corps 14 years ago (thank you loboskis).  My stamina isn't what it was but that probably has more to do with my lifestyle, work stress and my back bugging me a bit.  Anyway, I'm turning them down because in "my risk management", with how I ski and where I ski, I would probably prefer my ski coming off and me rolling down the mountain than the opposite.  If I race at all, I'll bring it up a bit.

post #36 of 187
Thread Starter 

Of course the main factor regarding safety is the length of your skis. Longer skis equal more speed, more required skill, more strength, more stamina, greater risk of injury and more serious injuries. Ego aside, we should be able to appreciate our limitations as we age and adjust accordingly. Is it such a big deal to buy a shorter, less aggressive ski and give our knees a break?  Most athletes, whatever the sport, change their game from aggression to finesse as they age, and learn to enjoy a different aspect of their chosen pastime.

 

In recent years I've gone form competing in martial arts to becoming a judge and instructor and my golf game has gone from a power long game to a finesse short game. I can live with a shorter ski if it keeps me safe and enjoying skiing for years to come.

 

BW.

post #37 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

L&AIRC,

You mentioned that you are age 52. Are you aware that at age 50 you are supposed to go up one line on the DIN chart (not change Skier Type)?

 

When I turned 50 I did not change my DIN setting because I felt that I did not loose much strength at that age (and I ski 80 days/year so I'm not the norm). However when I turned 60 the drop off in strength and stamina was very evident and I did turn the binding DIN setting down.


When I turned 50 I went down a line on the DIN chart, then I went up from III to III+ to put me back in a position where I could be confident that I wouldn't be heading for the trees at 60 mph with only my ski boots to correct my path after hitting a few ruts in a turn.

 

It's really not worth worrying so much about the accuracy of the DIN numbers, when after all the choice is your's to subscribe to which line of numbers.  The DIN numbers just help you quantify your risk.  It gives you an idea as to which level of risk you are accepting.

post #38 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


When I turned 50 I went down a line on the DIN chart, then I went up from III to III+ to put me back in a position where I could be confident that I wouldn't be heading for the trees at 60 mph with only my ski boots to correct my path after hitting a few ruts in a turn.

 

It's really not worth worrying so much about the accuracy of the DIN numbers, when after all the choice is your's to subscribe to which line of numbers.  The DIN numbers just help you quantify your risk.  It gives you an idea as to which level of risk you are accepting.

 

If you are going 60mph, your bindings being a number off probably isn't your biggest risk.

post #39 of 187

JSM 9/23/12

Chairman

KneeBinding, Inc.

 

 

Hi again all,

 

Ski-related knee injuries continue to be misunderstood by many, and this blog contains a great deal of confusing, contradictory information.  Some of it is accurate and correct and some less so.  Please allow me to sort some of it out.

 

1.        Most knee injuries on skis occur because a skier starts to fall backward, intuitively bends hips and knees, and then catches an inside edge.  This is a very specific injury mechanism that accounts for over ¾ of all the ACL injuries (and other knee injuries) on skis.  The details of this injury mechanism are often misunderstood, but it isn’t really that complicated.  The injury occurs when a bent leg is rotated outwardly (abduction) around the axis of the femur (thigh).  Here are the elements:

a.       You start to fall backwards (in a lift line?  Getting off a lift and tangling with another’s skis, hooking in a cat track, landing a mogul the wrong way, etc.) and instinctively bend your hips and knees.

b.      When your hip is bent, it locks in one direction.  To see this for yourself, sit down (hips and knees bent) and try swinging your lower leg straight sideways to the outside.  You can’t.  Your leg can rotate to the inside (i.e. your right foot can swing all the way up onto your left knee) but not to the outside.

c.       With your knee also bent, the lower leg becomes a significant lever.  As you sit there, trying to swing your foot straight sideways to the outside, envision catching an inside edge.  Picture the inside edge of the ski getting “caught” on the snow, forcing your foot further and further to the outside.

d.      The more your legs are bent, the more at risk you are.  When you sit back so far that your hips are below your knees, recovery is nearly impossible.

 

2.       If you are in this situation and you catch just the tip of the ski, or if you catch just the tail of the ski (but not both) the ski will twist off the boot with a typical lateral-toe release, common to all alpine ski bindings.  As you sit looking down at your feet, move your toes from side to side while keeping your heel planted.  Situations that cause your foot to twist in this manner were one of the main causes of broken legs (radial fractures) many years ago in skiing.  In the 1960s and 1970s, a new kind of alpine binding reached the market that combined a lateral toe release with a forward heel release, which solved the broken leg problem.  ALL alpine bindings now have these two release mechanisms, they all meet specific standards, and they work well to solve the broken leg issue.  Most of the few remaining broken legs on skis today are caused when the lower leg is “snapped” backward over the top of the boot.  This is not a very common injury.

 

3.       But knee injuries are not generally related to this type of side-to-side toe rotation.  They are related to pulling your entire foot (and lower leg) to the outside.  Many years ago, knee injuries of this kind were not a significant issue because, with old-style “skinny” skis, the tail or the tip of the ski would slide out, allowing the ski (and your foot) to twist, resulting in a lateral toe release.  However, with modern shaped skis, the tail and tip of the ski tend to “dig in” like shovels, making it significantly more difficult to get out of this situation once you are in it.

 

4.       Because the lower leg is being rotated straight sideways, the lateral toe and forward heel release mechanisms found on all ordinary bindings do not have any relationship to the knee injury issue.  Unless the heel of a binding can allow the heel of the boot to release directly sideways, they will not react to the forces that cause most knee injuries.  Interestingly, that also means that the DIN adjustments of the ordinary heel and toe release mechanisms have no significant relationship to the likelihood of a knee injury.  We often hear from people whose practice is to set their DINs lower to try to avoid a knee injury.  We do not see any significant relationship here.  Setting your bindings looser increases the likelihood of unwanted release (which is also dangerous) and does not improve the ability for the binding heel to release directly sideways.

 

5.       KneeBinding’s third release is a complete mechanism, with its own adjustment screw, spring, indicator and DIN setting.  Do not confuse this concept of a lateral heel release with ANY other kind of binding mechanism.

a.       Some think it is the same concept as the “turntables.”  It isn’t.  A turntable under the heel does not allow the boot heel to release sideways.  In fact, turntable bindings generally have side lugs and bars that encase the boot heel making it virtually impossible for the boot heel to come out sideways – no matter how loosely they are adjusted.  There is further confusion about turntables, and what the turntable does.  In fact, they do not behave any differently than any other ordinary binding.  The turntable can best be described as part of the lateral toe release mechanism.  ALL alpine binding toe releases work because the ski rotates around the heel of the boot – regardless of whether there is a turntable or not.

b.      Also, do not confuse this with the concept of the “diagonal” binding.  A so-called “diagonal” heel must release up and forward before it can release sideways.  This has no benefit when it comes to the classic knee injury mechanism.  Once you are out via forward heel release, the lateral release is no longer relevant.  But more to the point, these knee injuries occur while falling backward.  In this position, the heel cannot release up and forward at all, preventing ANY kind of heel release.  Diagonal bindings have all but disappeared from the market.

c.       Some used to think that, since these injuries happen while falling backward, an upward toe release would help.  It doesn’t.  Falling backward doesn’t hurt you – and it doesn’t create any significant upward force on the toe of your boot.  In fact, you can completely lie down on the back of your skis.  The problem isn’t falling backwards – the problem is your ski being pulled sideways while you are in that position – which, again, has nothing to do with an upward toe release.  Upward toe releases are also disappearing from the market because they have no positive effect on injury rates.

d.      Companies that have made all of these other kinds of bindings (turntables, diagonal, upward toe) have never represented that they have any benefit when it comes to knee injuries.  In fact their materials clearly and specifically point out that they do NOT have the ability to reduce the chance of knee injuries.

 

6.       Binding releases need to be very focused on specific injury mechanisms.  Any release method that does not specifically mitigate a known injury does not offer a benefit to the skier, but rather, a detriment.  If a release mechanism exists that does not protect the skier against injuries, then ANY release experienced by that mechanism is, by nature, unwanted.  Why would anyone want a release mechanism that ONLY produces unwanted releases?

 

7.       There is always much discussion on whether the DIN system is an “accurate” one.  Without delving into its mysteries, let me just say that broken legs are no longer a significant issue in skiing.  This is specifically because of the lateral-toe/forward heel release mechanisms AND the DIN settings that go with them – which came into being nearly half a century ago.  Even despite all the games people play with their Skier Types and Ages, the discussions about relative bone density, the inconsistencies at shops, and even the deliberate choices some people make to set DINs higher or lower, the number of broken legs in skiing is really quite small.  It may be valuable to think of the DIN setting as more of a retention setting than a release setting.  The risk of unwanted release is real – and probably more significant than the risk that your bindings will NOT release when they should.  Your “Skier Type” should accurately reflect how aggressively you ski because the bindings need to keep you in!  Our recommendation is to FOLLOW the DIN system, despite any perceived (or real) shortcomings.  “Ghost” makes an excellent point that the setting helps you “quantify your risk.”  However, few consumers understand enough to draw any valid conclusions here, as evidenced by the number of people who mistakenly believe setting their DINs below standard is safer, or that the DIN settings on ordinary bindings have anything to do with knee injuries.   To recap these thoughts:

a.       Lateral-toe/forward heel releases have all but eliminated broken legs, despite all kinds of incorrect DIN settings, for all kinds of reasons.

b.      DINs on ordinary bindings do not have any real effect on knee injuries.

c.       Therefore – think of DIN settings as retention settings, and have them set based your most honest assessment of your height, weight, age, BSL, and TYPE.   

 

8.       Boot sole length has a lot to do with the retention and release characteristics of the lateral toe release because it acts as a lever – and the length of the lever has a lot to do with how much force it can generate.  It is not, however, significantly relevant to the forward heel release, nor to the KneeBinding lateral heel release.

 

9.       The length of the ski is a frequent red herring when it comes to bindings.  In the classic lateral toe release (toe twisting around the heel), it could be argued that the longer the ski, the more likely it is that the toe will release in a classic, forward-twisting fall.  This is because the distance between the tip and the boot is the lever – and the longer the lever, the more force it can apply to the lateral toe release of the binding.  However, there are no studies I have seen that suggest that the incidence of broken legs rose as skis got shorter (doe to the newer parabolic ski shapes).   Most people seem to believe that longer skis create more risk of knee injuries as well, but once again, we don’t see anything to support this.  If anything, we think a short ski is LESS likely to create a toe-twist release in the classic knee injury mechanism we have been discussing here, and therefore more likely to result in a knee injury.  This doesn’t mean you should go out and buy longer skis.

 

10.   I would submit that the “quality” of bindings has generally declined – significantly – over the past 30 years.  In part, this is because ski companies tried to make them a commodity.  With “systems,” you don’t have a choice of binding, so the quality and the capability of the binding become less and less relevant in the sales process, while lowering the manufacturing cost becomes a greater and greater priority.  In effect, ordinary binding manufacturers have worked hard over the past 20 years to reduce the cost of their products, rather than to improve the functionality and/or the quality.  This was a huge dis-service to the industry.  But - "flat" skis have been coming back strong!  This season, only about 35%-40% of skis sold in the U.S. will be packaged by the manufacturer with binding systems.  If you're curious, take a look at our “Flat Ski Listing” – a resource we have provided to the industry for the past couple of years – that now has over 1,900 different “flat” skis on it, and growing fast:

·         KneeBinding Flat Ski Listing – Sort By Brand

·         KneeBinding Flat Ski Listing – Sort By Length

·         KneeBinding Flat Ski Listing – Sort By Waist

 

11.   KneeBindings were specifically designed and developed to deal with the knee injury issue.  Our patented lateral heel mechanism solves the problem.  Much of the material covered in this blog posting is also covered in KneeBinding's latest video.  I encourage you to watch it (below) to help understand the injury, why others have not solved it, and why KneeBinding has become so effective at mitigating knee injuries on skis:

 

  

post #40 of 187

A couple of years ago very early in the season I got a little too aggressive on a run in low visibility, stuffed a tip, and took a bad, twisting tumble. Bindings didn't release, and I yanked one leg really hard. Got away with an MCL sprain that hobbled me for a couple weeks, and caused me to wear a brace for a few months, but fortunately didn't kill my season. I suspect like a lot of (most?) skiers I was ignorant about what my bindings would/would not be able to do for me in the event of a fall, but became a little more sensitive after my bad one.

 

Of course KB has been discussed at length here before. This thread is one of the more recent ones, has a quick overview (which probably no one reading here needs, but WTH, just in case), and contains links to a few older ones...

 

 http://www.epicski.com/t/95152/knee-binding

 

It also has a link to the KB patent, which was filed in 2007. Pretty recent. Makes me wonder, the idea of lateral (heel) release would seem to be a natural. None of the major binding manufacturers ever tried to develop something along that line and bring it to market?

post #41 of 187

JSM 9/24

 

There have been other bindings with lateral heel release.  

They all failed due to pre-release issues, and some other issues as well.

 

It isn't difficult to have the heel open sideways.  

The trick is to get it to retain well, yet still release before an ACL tear can occur.

 

KneeBinding's patented mechanism is the only proven solution.

Our lateral heel does not increase the risk of pre-release.

At the same time, other elements of our design (including FlexFloat(TM) Mounting and LeverEdge(TM) Technology) actually result in an improvement in retention over other brands.

 

 

John Springer-Miller

Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.

post #42 of 187

I'll add my 2 cents here for what they are worth....

 

DIN setting in previous (many) years were also calculated by measurements of the bone just below the knee among other things, which has now been (thankfully) converted to a chart to give a good guideline as where to start.  If in doubt, or question what the numbers are, go to a good shop and get them set by real professionals!  This group can recommend shops in your area!

 

My take (put in simple terms) on the variance between Level 1 vs Level 3+ (and those in between)  is simple.  Level 1 skiers load bindings relatively slowly during fails and as a result the sticktion (sorry on spelling here) inherent in the bindings holds better and as a result the binding do not release resulting in injury.  Level 3+ skiers because of ability load skier binding very quickly and harshly during skiing and the sticktion experienced during extremely slow loading do not effect the function of the binding as dramatically.  Hence the binding will show what appears to be an early release when a hold on the binding is expected.  Hence the level 3+ skiers turn the numbers up.  Some 3+ skiers depending on terrain use these numbers as a starting point and turn up even higher...but again they know the risk (I don't fail into that level extreme level by any means, at least any more...getting older and wiser I think).  It also explains why you see bindings up to 18 DIN and beyond available.

 

EXAMPLE:  Sticky door....opened slowly requires a lot of slow steady force to open, quick force (sudden jerk) door opens a lot easier with what appears to be less force than a slow opening.  This is sticktion and  its effect or lack thereof.

 

In short the main difference is the suddenness/amount of the loading between skier types that cause this change in numbers of the DIN values.  Again, we are trying to get a balance between un-need release (possible injury) and required release (to prevent injury) by ability factors factors.

 

Here's the rub...a level 3+ skier failing exactly like a level 1 skier with the higher setting will likely suffer injury just the same (level 3+ skills not applied of course to avoid the fall or injury).  And it does happen, we all have brain drain moments.

 

For those more knowledgeable please don't bash me to hard for trying to put this in simple terms as there are more factors involved but well beyond simple factor put forth here.

post #43 of 187
Chairman a question regarding the Knee Bindings. I read somewhere else that they only release laterally in one direction, is this still true of the current models? The reason this is an issue for some people is that it makes a Left/Right ski necessary - no switching skis if you get a ding on an inside edge and want to be skiing on fresh edges for example.
post #44 of 187

JSM 9/25

 

The KneeBinding lateral heel only releases in one direction, so there is a left and a right.

 

As for edges - people that care a lot about edges will tune frequently, and they know that their edges don't really "wear out."  There ARE a very few skiers who would notice a ding on an edge during the day, and be bothered by it.  However - I it is possible for them to "ding" inside edges AND outside edges.  You could easily ding an inside edge AND an outside edge - so that swapping them wouldn't do any good anyway.  I suggest a small pocket sharpener (about $25-$30).  A couple of swipes between runs...

 

More critically, one's knees are generally more important that one's edges.  

 

OLDSCHOOLSKIER - I would submit that bindings with DIN settings up to 18 or higher (some go to 30-!@%?) offer DIN as the only way for the skier to overcome poor binding design.  Some bindings have very little elasticity.  Once you start to come out - you ARE out.  There is no buffer; no shock absorber.  And - consider that all the other "flat" ski bindings on the market have mounting systems that date back to the 1960s.  We used to turn skis back then by "sliding" them over the snow.  With modern ski shapes, we turn by flexing the ski into an engineered arc.  But the mounting systems found on ALL other flat-mount alpine bindings inhibit ski flex, and create pre-release problems in extreme-flex situations.  Add to these sins the commonly undersized boot platforms, and the "automatic" toe height adjustment found on many bindings, and the curved front AFD, and you have many reasons for bindings to come off when they should not.

 

I do believe there are SOME skiers in rare situations for whom a release would be more dangerous than the risk of damaging a leg.  VERY few.  Most people who crank their DINs do so because it is the ONLY tool the binding offers to try to keep them from pre-releasing.  Again, I remind everyone that lateral toe and forward heel releases are not designed for, nor related to, knee injury situations, so the DIN settings of these releases do not really have a significant impact on knee injuries.  Just because they help prevent one kind of injury doesn't mean they affect a completely different kind of injury.  

 

Consider the fact that your helmet can help prevent SOME kinds of injuries - but tightening your chin strap will also have no effect on knee injuries.

 

John Springer-Miller

Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.


Edited by Chairman - 9/25/12 at 7:40pm
post #45 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

JSM 9/25

 

The KneeBinding lateral heel only releases in one direction, so there is a left and a right.

 

As for edges - people that care a lot about edges will tune frequently, and they know that their edges don't really "wear out."  There ARE a very few skiers who would notice a ding on an edge during the day, and be bothered by it.  However - I it is possible for them to "ding" inside edges AND outside edges.  You could easily ding an inside edge AND an outside edge - so that swapping them wouldn't do any good anyway.  I suggest a small pocket sharpener (about $25-$30).  A couple of swipes between runs...

 

More critically, one's knees are generally more important that one's edges.  

 

OLDSCHOOLSKIER - I would submit that bindings with DIN settings up to 18 or higher (some go to 30-!@%?) offer DIN as the only way for the skier to overcome poor binding design.  Some bindings have very little elasticity.  Once you start to come out - you ARE out.  There is no buffer; no shock absorber.  And - consider that all the other "flat" ski bindings on the market have mounting systems that date back to the 1960s.  We used to turn skis back then by "sliding" them over the snow.  With modern ski shapes, we turn by flexing the ski into an engineered arc.  But the mounting systems found on ALL other flat-mount alpine bindings inhibit ski flex, and create pre-release problems in extreme-flex situations.  Add to these sins the commonly undersized boot platforms, and the "automatic" toe height adjustment found on many bindings, and the curved front AFD, and you have many reasons for bindings to come off when they should not.

 

I do believe there are SOME skiers in rare situations for whom a release would be more dangerous than the risk of damaging a leg.  VERY few.  Most people who crank their DINs do so because it is the ONLY tool the binding offers to try to keep them from pre-releasing.  Again, I remind everyone that lateral toe and forward heel releases are not designed for, nor related to, knee injury situations, so the DIN settings of these releases do not really have a significant impact on knee injuries.  Just because they help prevent one kind of injury doesn't mean they affect a completely different kind of injury.  

 

Consider the fact that your helmet can help prevent SOME kinds of injuries - but tightening your chin strap will also have no effect on knee injuries.

 

John Springer-Miller

Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/108555/kneebinding-2012-discussion-forum/60#post_1453250

 

BTW Still waiting for the answer.th_dunno-1[1].gif

 

I would expect that you've had the summer to put information into a reviewable postable format.

 

Just to clarify, my comments also apply to how the binding is set for your bindings in simple terms.  We are not talking about extremes here.

post #46 of 187

As the co-author of the DIN-system, I can say that very little of what's being said here about the DIN-system is correct.

 

The rants about how bindings cannot mitigate strain across the ACL are Way Off — those who wish to disprove Isaac Newton's fundamental laws of physics should address their posts to the Journal of Physics and see where that goes.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 

post #47 of 187
Richard, good to have you on this thread. Can you elaborate please? I've come to believe now that bindings protect legs but not knees. It would be very nice to find that's wrong.

Would appreciate your info!
post #48 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Richard, good to have you on this thread. Can you elaborate please? I've come to believe now that bindings protect legs but not knees. It would be very nice to find that's wrong.
Would appreciate your info!

I too have always believed that bindings protect knees. I hope that the knee binding does a better job of this, but I have not yet seen evidence to prove it. The fact that the KB only releases the heel in one direction raises the question: why.

post #49 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

As the co-author of the DIN-system, I can say that very little of what's being said here about the DIN-system is correct.

 

The rants about how bindings cannot mitigate strain across the ACL are Way Off — those who wish to disprove Isaac Newton's fundamental laws of physics should address their posts to the Journal of Physics and see where that goes.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 

Thank you, Newton is a hard man to disprove.

post #50 of 187

Unfortunately, there's not too much I can say until after I win the litigation to re-gain the assets of 'my' ski binding company — and I remain confident that I will win.  Further-unfortunately, I anticipate that it may take as much as another $500k in legal fees for my lawyers to accomplish this goal ... and it may take another year or two to complete the litigation.  I am applying 110% of my energy to achieve this goal.  To date, I have been focused full-time with my lawyers on achieving this goal for the past 4-years.

 

Parties interested in perusing my product-development website [www.howellproductdev.com] can find some public information pertaining to the background of DIN-system and to some of your other questions.

 

I will think about how to properly shape answers to your questions without my answers being adverse toward my goal ... and hope to provide you with that info, if possible, soon.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/3/12 at 10:53am
post #51 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Unfortunately, there's not too much I can say until after I win the litigation to re-gain the assets of 'my' ski binding company — and I remain confident that I will win.  Further-unfortunately, I anticipate that it may take as much as another $500k in legal fees for my lawyers to accomplish this goal ... and it may take another year or two to complete the litigation.  I am applying 110% of my energy to achieve this goal.  To date, I have been focused full-time with my lawyers on achieving this goal for the past 4-years.

 

Parties interested in perusing my product-development website [www.howellproductdev.com] can find some public information pertaining to the background of DIN-system and to some of your other questions.

 

I will think about how to properly shape answers to your questions without my answers being adverse toward my goal ... and hope to provide you with that info, if possible, soon.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 

I read and understood some of the stuff on your website about your involvement in the DIN system--very interesting. There was mention of "Self Release Check" but no description. I use to twist out of my old Look/Nevada 17 (pre DIN), but it was kinda stressful on the knees imo.

 

Could you describe the "Self Release Check".

post #52 of 187

The self-release method must be performed properly or it can generate a 'false-positive'.   One key aspect of the self-release method is that the binding must already be performing properly.  If the binding is not performing properly, then the final setting derived will adversely mask-over underlying problems within the boot-binding-system that can become amplified in the presence of larger-loads, while skiing.  The full and proper description of the self-release method was already provided by me a few years ago in another post here within Epic.  I will try to find it and provide you with a link.  If I can't find it, I will re-type it again, here on this thread.  Remember, you will void the binding manufacturers' warranty on your bindings if you deviate from their instructions to you.
 

post #53 of 187
Thread Starter 

Tomorrow I get to turn fifty and move my DIN down one point.

 

Today my bones are young, supple and strong; tomorrow they will be old, brittle and weak. Makes prefect sense.

post #54 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

JSM 9/23/12

Chairman

KneeBinding, Inc.

 

 


5.       KneeBinding’s third release is a complete mechanism, with its own adjustment screw, spring, indicator and DIN setting.  Do not confuse this concept of a lateral heel release with ANY other kind of binding mechanism.


c.       Some used to think that, since these injuries happen while falling backward, an upward toe release would help.  It doesn’t.  Falling backward doesn’t hurt you – and it doesn’t create any significant upward force on the toe of your boot.  In fact, you can completely lie down on the back of your skis.  The problem isn’t falling backwards – the problem is your ski being pulled sideways while you are in that position – which, again, has nothing to do with an upward toe release.  Upward toe releases are also disappearing from the market because they have no positive effect on injury rates.

d.      Companies that have made all of these other kinds of bindings (turntables, diagonal, upward toe) have never represented that they have any benefit when it comes to knee injuries.  In fact their materials clearly and specifically point out that they do NOT have the ability to reduce the chance of knee injuries.

 


 

I went to school with a guy who in a out of control backward fall on a mogul run with skis landing on the tails resulting in his leg bone cracking his knee cap in half! I'm of the opinion a binding with a upward toe release would've abated or even prevented the injury. As such i can't agree with you on the above statement (item c), and i see the lack of such release mechanism the achilles heel of a otherwise brilliant product, minus the ridiculous stand height. And yes i know of the other bindings in the same stand height range, none of which i'd want for myself either. I'd love to see the Knee binding refined to address those shortcomings, at which point i wouldn't care what Pro or who is, isn't or has not used them for me to buy a pair.

post #55 of 187

Regarding straight-backward loading, this is well-known in the ski-injury research community as "BIAD-loading".   BIAD is an acronym for 'Boot Induced Anterior Drawer'.   BIAD-induced loading is believed by leading skiing-injury researchers (especially including UVM College of Medicine (Dept of Orthopedic Surgery) Professor Robert J. Johnson, MD... who by the way was Dr. Bryan Huber's knee-surgeon mentor during medical school) to contribute toward approximately 10% to 15% of all skiing ACL-injuries;  while these same leading skiing-injury researchers also believe that 'Phantom Foot' and 'Slip Catch' loading contribute toward approx 70% of all skiing ACL injuries.   About 2% of all skiing ACL injuries are believed to arise from forward-twisting events. 

 

As the Dir of Marketing at Geze ski binding company (assets later acquired by Rossignol) who managed the launched in 1980 (and who withdrew in 1985) the Geze SE3 alpine ski binding, I know first hand that vertical toe release ABSOLUTELY addresses BIAD induced events.   BIAD loading can often occur in the range of 2 to 5 milliseconds — and in this time interval, inertia is significant (This short-duration time interval precludes the possibility of quasi-static loading, where inertia is insignificant.  Even Olympic athletes cannot turn-on fast twitch muscles fast enough to off-set inertia-induced laoding ... they cannot proactively / consciously control 'sitting down' in the presence of these high speed impacts where inertia is present).   Therefore, when the tail of the ski is driven upward causing the high-back of the boot to drive the proximal end of the tibia forward, but the skier's mass cannot accelerate to keep-up with this loading event, the toe-piece of any binding (or the front edges of the jaws on Spademan) are massively loaded, upward.   The Geze SE3 specifically read and reacted to BIAD-induced loading events.   It worked:  we proved that it worked, biomechanically and epidemologically.  Many of the leading skiing-injury researchers still ski on the Geze SE3, today, even though it has been de-listed from the 'Schedule of Indemnified Bindings', long ago (there are many bindings not found on that list that are far superior to many bindings being sold, today — but I cannot and will not induce anyone into utilizing bindings that are not on the Schedule of Indemnified Bindings).   The Geze SE3 had vertical toe release that was independently adjustable from lateral toe release (2 independent springs, 2 independent indicator windows, 2 completely decoupled release mechanisms).   It also was made in Stuttgart, Germany where engineering and the manufacture of quality-products is a normal lifestyle (witness Mercedes, Porsche, Bosch, Audi, etc.).   The binding worked well for smooth recreational skiers who skied neutral and who did not tend to sit-back or finish sharp slalom-like turns with aggressive tail-weighting.  We positioned the binding for doctors, lawyers and drug dealers:  people who HAD TO be at work Monday morning.  It worked and it mitigated many skiing ACL injuries.   ( Pls remember that it only addressed the BIAD injury mechanism = 10% to 15% of all skiing ACL injuries — and that's still cool. )   However, I was also the manager who elected to withdraw the SE3 from the market because it also had the side-effect of causing some inadvertent pre-releases that could have easily caused severe head, neck and spinal injuries.  These 'upper-body' injuries were far more severe than sprained (Grade I or Grade II) or ruptured (Grade III) isolated ACL injuries.  In the world of safety products, one must consider the combined-effect of both FREQUENCY of injury-producing events and SEVERITY of injury-producing events — and thus, with the Geze SE3, the injuries mitigated (a portion of 10% to 15% of all skiing ACL injuries) were more frequent but less severe than the unintended side-effects (pre-release) that could have caused only a few (low frequency) BUT VERY SEVERE upper-body injuries.  The decision to stop selling the binding AND TO REMOVE THE BINDING FROM ALL SKIERS WHO EXPERIENCED PRE-RELEASE was necessary.   This was an expensive but necessary and responsible process.

 

So, yes, vertical toe release can address a portion of the approximately 10% to 15% of all skiing ACL injuries that are believed to be induced by the BIAD mechanism:  but the severe side effects of pre-release related to the products that sought to mitigate this small portion of injuries outweighed the benefits of reducing a small portion of skiing ACL-injuries.  

 

Doubters of the above inertia discussion can take-up their concerns with Isaac Newton:   I don't seek to change ANY of Isaac Newton's fundamental laws of physics.

 

The 1st and most important functional requirement of all alpine ski bindings is to mitigate inadvertent pre-release — while also meeting all minimum international standards for release (ISO 9462, 9465 and 11087) and while also meeting 'standard industry practice' for durability and anti-pre-release.

 

That's also why I chose to address the Phantom Foot and Slip Catch injury mechanisms in my work — because the leading skiing injury researchers believe that they are associated with approx 70% of all skiing-ACL injuries (irrespectively of whether they are sprains—Grade I, II;  or rupture—Grade III) ... and because I determined a way to do so with minimal pre-release.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/4/12 at 6:09am
post #56 of 187
Richard I understand that aside from the Kneebinding no bindings address the Phantom Foot injury specifically.

My question for you based on your first post in this thread is this:

Does a binding such as a Marker Griffon with proper DIN settings do anything to mitigate knee injuries, or is it true as was stated earlier in this thread, that they only protect against tibia injuries?
post #57 of 187

@ SkiMangoJazz:   Top-grade peer-reviewed medical-engineering research from several independent sources of skiing-injury researchers proves (biomechanically and epidemiologically) that, during Phantom Foot and Slip Catch events — strain across the ACL can approach (and exceed) the elastic limit of the ACL independently of lateral-toe release settings and independently of forward heel release settings.  Phantom Foot and Slip Catch events induce strain across the ACL that is directly proportional to Valgus Torque, which type of torque is directly proportional to induced abduction force at the distal end of the tibia.   Abduction forces located at the snow-ski interface and boot-ski interface arise from the primary (of three) component of the induced-vector that is also known as Phantom Foot and Slip Catch injury-mechanisms.    When an abduction force is induced into the ski-boot-binding-human system, where the binding is an ordinary binding with ONLY lateral toe and forward heel release, it "reads 0" loading (zero) and thus it does not "react" (does not dissipate the loading, temporarily;  does not release).   In the absence of an ordinary binding "reacting", a build-up of an abduction force generates massive valgus torque around the knee — thus generating massive strain across the ACL.   :)  :)

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT
 


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/4/12 at 6:40am
post #58 of 187
But do traditional bindings protect the knees at all? In any type fall? Someone earlier on this thread said they don't.

Simple question. Bindings protect knees at all or only legs?
post #59 of 187

SMJ: He's presumably avoiding it because the answer is obvious.  Even taking the argument to the absolute logical extreme, a releasable binding will provide at least some protection than a nonreleasable will not.

post #60 of 187

See post 50...Unfortunately the answer is not as clear cut as it appears, TheDad has more or less gives an answer to your question.

 

Release (protection) and Retention (ski-ability) will be one of those arguments that will continue for a long time to come.  I don't think any binding in the foreseeable future will ever take into account the all the stupid loadings we as skiers can think of putting onto them and honestly expect the binding to provide 100% protection.

 

Build a better binding, the old extreme will become the new norm!

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