or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Height, Length and DIN - Page 4

post #91 of 187

Here is a cool 'mechanics trick' for anyone who might be interested in physically-locating the pivot points of bindings that deploy 'virtual pivots' ( as taught to me by Gordon Lipe ):  

 

Step 1:   measure the system's peak release torque (utilize, for example, a VT Release Calibrator).

 

Step 2:   measure the force at the end of the boot that releases (utilize, for example, a Lipe Release Check, or a Winterstieger machine).

 

Step 3:   divide the force into the torque.   This step will give you the length of the lever arm from the point of application of the applied force to the point of rotation of the boot (relative to the ski) at peak release.

 

Step 4:   add the distance from the point of application of the force to the end of the boot nearest the force-application device.

 

Step 5:   subtract the value derived in Step 4 from the boot sole length.  The 'pivot-point' (at peak release;  for that mode of release) will be located at that point.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT

post #92 of 187

Please tell me, Richard, would you use/recommend your knee-binding for DH racing or big mountain skiing at similar speeds?

post #93 of 187

It is not "my" KneeBinding brand ski binding (company or product) until the court rules.   After nearly 5-yrs of full-time litigation to date, I expect a ruling on this issue in approx 1 to 2 years.  Until then, I will have no comment on KneeBinding brand ski bindings or KneeBinding, Inc.

post #94 of 187

Richard, since you seem to be extremely experienced and well informed (to say the least) on these matters, I'd like to ask how often do you test your own skis' bindings with a machine or tool to check release values?

 

Also, do you have a manual (clicked in - lifting/twisting) process you perform to check binding release? If so, what is it. and how often do you do that?

 

TIA.

post #95 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Please tell me, Richard, would you use/recommend your knee-binding for DH racing or big mountain skiing at similar speeds?

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

 

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


Ghost, you answered your own question, even had L&AirC reinforce it!

 

And Btw, i'm in my early fifties but thanks to genetics, good dietary practices and adopting a "Tom Shadyac" stress free lifestyle long before i heard of "I am", i look younger then most in their early forties. When i rent demo skis the shop guys look at me and say they have to let me know DIN should be dropped a setting at my age then proceed to ask if i want to raise it a setting above my height/weight/bsl standard before the age correction is factored in! He-double-hockey-sticks No, i'm not skiing the no fall zone, not doing the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbühel!!! Why the F' should i care that these guys are not and never will be on current model year Knee bindings -  http://mpora.com/videos/Mz3m4W0aj  -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM2X_pOwBEI&feature=related ???

post #96 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

(( Yes, the above explanations are greatly simplified ... and I appreciate your kindness. ))
 

 

No it wasn't intended to be kind. I guess we can also add sarcasm to your list of insults.

 

I can't help but feel that you have hijacked the thread to grind your axe in public. Prior to this thread I had no idea who you are, but now I know all about your past, your legal troubles, your court cases, your credentials, even your court ordered deleted opinions on this forum. In fact this thread is starting to read like a court transcript.

 

Your answers are obviously not directed at the average reader of this forum. You seem to be using this thread for a self serving motive. Your answers come off as insincere because they are defensive, inappropriately long, over complicated and still don't seem to answer the question.

 

I don't know if this thread truly represents who you are, but I have found your posts to be extremely condescending.

post #97 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Wolf View Post

 

No it wasn't intended to be kind. I guess we can also add sarcasm to your list of insults.

 

I can't help but feel that you have hijacked the thread to grind your axe in public. Prior to this thread I had no idea who you are, but now I know all about your past, your legal troubles, your court cases, your credentials, even your court ordered deleted opinions on this forum. In fact this thread is starting to read like a court transcript.

 

Your answers are obviously not directed at the average reader of this forum. You seem to be using this thread for a self serving motive. Your answers come off as insincere because they are defensive, inappropriately long, over complicated and still don't seem to answer the question.

 

I don't know if this thread truly represents who you are, but I have found your posts to be extremely condescending.

I don't find RH to be condescending although most of the technical stuff is over my head even when attempts are made to simplify statements. I have learned some things about binding function though and if you don't like or disagree with what is being written, well just deal with it, ITS THE INTERNET YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE!

post #98 of 187

Dear jc-ski:   Good questions. 

 

Re my own personal bindings:

 

This is a skewed answer because I'm almost always modifying my own personal bindings for design-work.  Therefore, I'm often measuring the release of my own personal bindings sometimes several times a day.   As my close friends know, I've been doing that since mid-way through high school starting in 1970.  In college, I developed my own setting-chart ... which as you already know, later became, in part, the so-called 'DIN-System'. 

 

Aside from that chart, I simultaneously developed a special chart for racing when I was 5th-ranked in the US in DH in 1976 (the special racing chart was fully-developed and completed in 1974).  At that time, I was provided bushels of new ski bindings from the binding company for whom I developed #1-selling bindings ... and I gave-away most of those bindings to my fellow college ski-team buddies at New England College (NEC was then in Div 1 ski racing).  In exchange for these free bindings from me, I only had a few 'rules' with my ski-team buddies:  They had to  (a) allow me to mount and perform functional testing of their bindings;  (b) use my special racing settings;  (c) allow me to check their bindings at least once a week with my special measuring equipment;  (d) I had to be the 1st to know if they had any problems;  (e) they couldn't tell anyone they received the bindings for free.  Each of my 15 ski team buddies had at least 3 pair of skis with these bindings .... so this turned into a huge thing and was the basis from which I gained a huge set of knowledge about bindings.  My college roommate was also the director of the ski school and his buddies eventually became involved in this process, too.

 

Simultaneously, I was conducting research for that binding company on the development of a special new retention test method; and I was also conducting the first electronic testing of ski vibration on-snow utilizing strain gauges and accelerometers (at Pat's Peak ski area) and on a special 'shaker table' developed for NASA in order to measure ski-boot-binding impedance at the Charles Stark Draper Labs in Cambridge, MA in conjunction with MIT Aerospace Engineering Prof Larry Young.  All of this required more than daily release testing.

 

So unfortunately, my own personal bindings (and those of my ski-team buddies) were always 'over-tested' in order to learn about what was going on.

 

Here are some of the findings:

 

1—  My own personal bindings and those utilized by my ski-team buddies deployed special racing settings that were notably LOWER than all others on the Div 1 racing circuit — but one of the reasons why our college ski team did so well (team-score counted then, not individual scores) was because we consistently had more of our team members finishing each race, without pre-release (as compared to the other teams at Dartmouth, UVM, Middlebury, St Lawrence U, UNH, Williams, and Norwich — each of which other team typically had 1 to 2 racers who DNF'd each race due to pre-release).  Our team had LOWER settings without pre-release.

 

2—  We found that retention had little to do with release settings — retention had a lot to do with binding design.   That's right, I modified ALL of my college racing buddies' NEW bindings  :)  :)   None of us skied on 'stock bindings'.   (( Where do you think these modifications ended-up ? ))  :)  :)

 

3—  I co-developed a special retention test method ( NOT a 'release method' ) utilizing a specially adjustable pendulum plus a static pre-load (that's NOT a quasi-static pre-load) — that provided us with 'retention settings'.   ( Over the past several years, I have refined those 'retention methods' utilizing an enhanced set of adjustable pendulums plus static pre-loads.  I say this in the plural sense because I have developed a specially adjustable pendulum plus a static pre-load for measuring retention in the horizontal plane (co-planar with the snow surface) and another specially adjustable pendulum plus it's unique static pre-load for measuring retention in the forward direction (perpendicular to the snow surface).  The specially adjustable pendulum for measuring forward retention is significantly scaled-up relative to the one for measuring horizontal retention.  It's big.  I call the one for measuring forward retention the "Large Howell Collider"  :)  :)

 

4—  During college, I also raced, separately, on the Can-Am DH circuit with my own 'home made' bindings ( I utilize fantastic machinists ).  These were 80 mph DH races.  I was the only one who could successfully complete these races — then self-release at the finish line.  My DH colleagues always commented on this ... and on my cigar smoke ... in the finish area.  :)  :)   (( They knew I was nuts. ))

 

5—  I changed our entire ski team's settings (very slightly) mid-January of each year.  These slightly changed settings then remained constant through the end of each ski season.

 

I've even taken some of this special retention testing equipment to far-away ISSS conferences — but the exact details of my special pendulum tests are different from the pendulum methods of ISO 9465 — and have always remained confidential to all, exception to my son, daughter, WPI Prof. Chris Brown (his son's are 'Cochran cousins' that were recently on the US Ski Team) and to my former college ski team buddies from NEC.  Even the ski bindings companies for whom I worked were never provided all of the full details of my special pendulum test methods ... but the fruits of those methods are deployed, in-part, in many features found within various bindings, today.  :)  :)

 

 

Re Self-Release Method ( I do not view this method to be a 'test' per se, because some people wrongly misconstrue it to be an 'all encompassing test', while in fact, it is NOT all encompassing ... and in the same vein, this method is only a small part of the overall service required for any given ski-boot-binding-system):

 

Before performing the Self Release Method, it's key that the entire ski-boot-binding system MUST have low NET friction throughout ALL moving interfaces.

 

Quoting nearly-directly from the former Geze retailer technical manual and from the former Geze consumer instruction manual that I first authored (then as a consultant) way back in the late 1970's:

 

"Highly aggressive skiers and racers who sometimes need special settings can seek an appropriate setting utilizing the self-release method AFTER it is established that the ski-boot-binding system meets and exceeds all functional testing as described in the Geze retailer technical manual — especially including functional testing to minimize friction between the boot and binding and between the moving components of the heel.  First, pre-set utilizing the Geze release adjustment chart.  Then, the skier should stand on one foot only with the boot fully buckled as it is while skiing.  The ski should NOT be held fixed.  The skier should self-release by slowly bending the lower leg forward but NOT by pulling the heel up because upward pulling can cause undesirable tension on the achilles tendon.  Readjust the setting to the skier's 'comfort threshold'.  If, based on further skiing, it is perceived that even higher settings are needed, the settings may be increased as long as all troubleshooting procedures as described in the Geze retailer technical manual are fully-deployed by a Geze Qualified Technician AND ONLY THEN as long as the skier can still self-release according to the above described method.   Skiers may continue to utilize settings below these recommendations if suitable retention has been experienced."   End quote.

 

I enhanced these directions, later .... and may provide the enhanced directions here on Epic, later, but I am Very Concerned that someone may misconstrue any such instructions from me as being and end-all-be-all — because these instructions are only a small portion of the total service requirements for all ski bindings AND BECAUSE ANYONE'S USE OF THE ABOVE METHOD WILL ADVERSELY VOID ALL SKI BINDING COMPANY'S WARRANTIES FOR ANY GIVEN SKIER.

 

Retention problems in the horizontal plane barely exist with all good bindings — and that's why I have intentionally left-out the description for the self-release method, here, though there are benefits to performing the method in that mode of release, too ...... but I will come back to that in a future post.  The main problem most skiers face regarding retention is in the forward mode.

 

There are many significant steps that all skiers should do to positively impact binding performance:

 

*  NEVER expose bindings to road salt and road contaminates.  NEVER.

 

*  If a binding is dropped on a hard surface such as a concrete floor — it should be immediately reinspected for function.

 

*  Boot sole wear should be minimized as much as possible.   This is very important.

 

All skiers should determine if their bindings meet the minimum international standards according to ISO 9462, 9465 and 11087.   There is only one independent testing lab in the world that utilizes the minimum international standards according to ISO — and that lab is TÜV in Munich, Germany.  TÜV posts a list of all 'Approved Bindings' on their website and most binding companies indicate approval on the binding shipping box.  This is a huge thing that all skiers should be diligent about.  (TÜV does not and will not indicate which bindings have failed the ISO standards.)

 

•  At a minimum, have your bindings checked for complete system function by a 'qualified technician' at the beginning of each ski season or every 20-skier-days, which ever comes first.

 

 

:)  :)  Remember what David Zwilling said at the finish line of the Men's Olympic DH when he won the gold medal as he was asked by the ABC News announcer, "How does one become a good downhill racer ?"  He replied, "You don't fall."   (( Some of the best epidemiological research shows that ~70% of all skiing injuries result from falling. ))

 

I will be glad to show all of you ( well,  almost  all of you ) my special test equipment here at my biomechanics lab in Stowe, Vermont — but I will not disclose all of the details of the special test methods that I have developed.  These special methods are primarily utilized for design research.  Visitors are welcome with a heads-up notice, first, because I am often traveling to deal with the main issue noted above.  :)  :)

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/7/12 at 3:18pm
post #99 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

The answer is that no 'ordinary binding' (defined as ones that have only lateral toe release and forward heel release) can have any effect on reducing knee injuries

 

And this is such an obviously preposterous statement that I can't take anything else you say remotely seriously.

 

For the sake of simplicity, imagine a boot in ski, subject to a twisting motion solely in a plane parallel to the ground.  With an "ordinary" releasable binding, the toe disengages from the binding.  With a non-releasable binding, torque is transmitted through the leg, including at the knee.  You cannot seriously suggest that a releasable binding will not, in this instance, reduce the likelihood or severity of injury to the knee.

 

Many of us have an ax to grind.  Most of us try to look past the handle.

 

I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying. Obviously releasable bindings have a great effect on reducing injuries (particularly leg fractures, but knee injuries as well). His statement is that without changing how bindings release you can't further reduce knee injuries. I think his statement would be much clearer if the word further is put before the word effect. (Or maybe I am wrong and he actually thinks that releasable bindings have no effect on knee injuries which in my mind is such an absurd proposition that its very implausible). 

post #100 of 187

Why are knee injuries by far the #1-injury in alpine skiing, today ?    ( 18% to 25% prevalence )

 

Why have knee injuries been the #1-injury in alpine skiing for the past 20 consecutive years ?   ( ALL randomized double blind epidemiological studies prove this ).

 

Why do all 'ordinary' alpine binding ('ordinary' = alpine bindings without lateral heel release) companies specifically disclaim (in writing, in their consumer instructions) that ALL of their 'ordinary' bindings can have NO effect on knee injuries ?

 

Why does ALL theoretical physics;  ALL hands-on physical biomechanical testing ( in vitro, in vivo & in computo );  all orthopaedic research;  and all epidemiological research show that 'ordinary' bindings cannot have ANY effect on knee injuries ?

 

Perhaps these are the questions we need to ask ourselves ....

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

post #101 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Why are knee injuries by far the #1-injury in alpine skiing, today ?    ( 18% to 25% prevalence )

 

Why have knee injuries been the #1-injury in alpine skiing for the past 20 consecutive years ?   ( ALL randomized double blind epidemiological studies prove this ).

 

Why do all 'ordinary' alpine binding ('ordinary' = alpine bindings without lateral heel release) companies specifically disclaim (in writing, in their consumer instructions) that ALL of their 'ordinary' bindings can have NO effect on knee injuries ?

 

Why does ALL theoretical physics;  ALL hands-on physical biomechanical testing ( in vitro, in vivo & in computo );  all orthopaedic research;  and all epidemiological research show that 'ordinary' bindings cannot have ANY effect on knee injuries ?

 

Perhaps these are the questions we need to ask ourselves ....

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

 

Richard,

I've enjoyed reading your explanations of binding technology.  I've learned quite a bit from your posts.  But I still have a clarifying question.  

Do you mean to say that if half the skiers in the world were on "ordinary" bindings and the other half were on "non-releasing" bindings, the two groups would experience the same number of knee injuries per year?

post #102 of 187

Yes, LiquidFeet:   That's a great way to visualize the problem.   The answer is almost, "yes".   This shows the seriousness of the problem.  

 

( Pls remember that those on 'ordinary' bindings will most likely NOT sustain a lower-leg fracture because, today, lower-leg fractures have a prevalence of ~2% to ~3% of all skiing injuries, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE FEATURES CONTAINED WITHIN 'ORDINARY' BINDINGS ( p-values are uniformly strong across many studies ). 

 

Large lateral loads that enter the entire forebody of the ski are resolved by 'ordinary' bindings, except as noted above where ~2% of all knee injuries are a result of forward-twisting events;  large lateral loads that enter the ski ~55 cm aft of the projected axis of the tibia are resolved by 'ordinary' bindings;  large lateral (abduction) loads that enter the ski between the projected axis of the tibia and ~55 cm are undetected by 'ordinary' bindings — and these same loads (entering the ski between the projected axis of the tibia up-to 55 cm aft of the projected axis of the tibia ) lead directly to knee injuries;  large vertical loads that enter under the forebody of the ski in front of the leading edge of the AFD are mostly resolved by the forward release mechanism of 'ordinary' bindings (but as the load gets closer and closer to the leading-edge of the AFD, the resultant torque on the tibia increases unless the leading edge of the AFD is located at ~22% of the boot sole length:  Ettlinger, Bahniuk, Lipe, 1980);  large loads entering under the complete afterbody of the ski are unresolved by all bindings — unless an additional lateral load is induced, too, and with this special combined load, 'ordinary' multi-directional toe release 'resolves' the event ( the lateral component of the aft-lateral event ONLY WHERE SPECIAL COMBINED BIAD/LATERAL LOAD ENTER THE SECTION OF THE SKI AFT OF ~55 cm WILL THERE BE A RESOLUTION BECAUSE BETWEEN THE PROJECTED AXIS OF THE TIBIA AND ~55 cm AN 'ORDINARY' MULTI-DIRECTIONALLY RELEASING TOE DOES NOT HAVE AN AVAILABLE LEVER-ARM NECESSARY TO PRODUCE TOE RELEASE TORQUE (pls see my posts, above) much of which unresolved multi-directional toe releases caused by loads entering ~55 cm aft of the projected axis of the tibia are associated with BIAD-induced knee injuries — but all BIAD-induced ACL injuries represent ~10 to ~15% of the prevalence of knee injuries;   large loads that enter the top-aft-end of the ski ( dragging the tails while on your back ) is 'resolved' by the forward release mechanism of 'ordinary' heels;  large loads entering the top of the tip ( tip-dragging ) are resolved only by vertical toe release, which no binding offers, 'ordinary' or non-releasing.  

 

I say "almost" at the beginning of this post because a small portion of BIAD-induced events are resolved by 'ordinary' multi-directional toes when loads enter the ski ~55 cm aft of the projected axis of the tibia — again, however, noting importantly that all BIAD-induced knee injuries represent ~10% to ~15% of all knee injuries (prevalence), while on the other hand, ~70% of all knee injuries are a result of loads entering the ski between the projected axis of the tibia and ~55 cm aft of it ( per my presentation at ISSS-Japan in 2003 ).   The solution to resolving the problem that's associated with ~70% of all knee injuries is NOT resolved by non-release bindings and NOT resolved by 'ordinary' bindings — for the mechanical reasons given in my posts, above.  Large lateral (abduction) loads entering the zone of the ski between the projected axis of the tibia and ~55 cm aft of it are resolved by bindings that have lateral heel release because an available lever-arm is produced when entropy hunts to the path of least resistance (also as described above).

 

This good example of yours, LiquidFeet, illuminates exactly why we must work—seriously—on this problem. 

 

Respectfully,  

Rick Howell,

Stowe, Vermont
 


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/7/12 at 8:09pm
post #103 of 187

What about the prevalence of the large number of ACL blows due to increased torque from shaped skis suddenly biting deeper than expected?  It's been said that is one reason FIS is dialing back the sidecuts for GS events. 

post #104 of 187

@ crgildart:    YES, this is EXACTLY what causes the 'center of effort' of those loads from shaped skis to become located under (or near) the projected axis of the tibia in the same way that 2 columns holding up a beam have their center of effort located in the center of the beam.  Exactly.   ( I love shaped skis, and with a binding that responds to excessive loads that become focused in the center of the ski (through lateral heel release) — one can have it both ways:  one can have the power of shaped skis + the mitigation of knee injuries. )  Excellent comment !!!!!    :)  :)
 

(( Pls remember that the "torque" you reference is 'valgus torque' NOT tibial torque:   these 2 completely-different kinds of torque act in planes that are oriented 90-degrees from each other — as described, above. ))

 

((( to fellow engineers:  I'm utilizing the term "power" (above) in a slang, non-engineering way. )))


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/8/12 at 7:03am
post #105 of 187

This is 'not perfectly related' — but I have to say it anyway: 

 

We received ~6-inches of snow on top of Mt. Mansfield (Stowe), Vermont last night !!!!!  

 

We'll all be skiing, soon !!!! 

 

     :)     :)

post #106 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

This is 'not perfectly related' — but I have to say it anyway: 

 

We received ~6-inches of snow on top of Mt. Mansfield (Stowe), Vermont last night !!!!!  

 

We'll all be skiing, soon !!!! 

 

     :)     :)

I flew over the Canadian Rockies a week ago and there was just a dusting on the mountain tops. This has been the driest late summer-early fall in Western Canada in a very long time. My theory is that things average out, so we have make-up moisture coming later in the form of snow.biggrin.gif

post #107 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Dear jc-ski:   Good questions. 

 

Re Self-Release Method ( I do not view this method to be a 'test' per se, because some people wrongly misconstrue it to be an 'all encompassing test', while in fact, it is NOT all encompassing ... and in the same vein, this method is only a small part of the overall service required for any given ski-boot-binding-system):

 

Before performing the Self Release Method, it's key that the entire ski-boot-binding system MUST have low NET friction throughout ALL moving interfaces.

 

Quoting nearly-directly from the former Geze retailer technical manual and from the former Geze consumer instruction manual that I first authored (then as a consultant) way back in the late 1970's:

 

"Highly aggressive skiers and racers who sometimes need special settings can seek an appropriate setting utilizing the self-release method AFTER it is established that the ski-boot-binding system meets and exceeds all functional testing as described in the Geze retailer technical manual — especially including functional testing to minimize friction between the boot and binding and between the moving components of the heel.  First, pre-set utilizing the Geze release adjustment chart.  Then, the skier should stand on one foot only with the boot fully buckled as it is while skiing.  The ski should NOT be held fixed.  The skier should self-release by slowly bending the lower leg forward but NOT by pulling the heel up because upward pulling can cause undesirable tension on the achilles tendon.  Readjust the setting to the skier's 'comfort threshold'.  If, based on further skiing, it is perceived that even higher settings are needed, the settings may be increased as long as all troubleshooting procedures as described in the Geze retailer technical manual are fully-deployed by a Geze Qualified Technician AND ONLY THEN as long as the skier can still self-release according to the above described method.   Skiers may continue to utilize settings below these recommendations if suitable retention has been experienced."   End quote.

 

I enhanced these directions, later .... and may provide the enhanced directions here on Epic, later, but I am Very Concerned that someone may misconstrue any such instructions from me as being and end-all-be-all — because these instructions are only a small portion of the total service requirements for all ski bindings AND BECAUSE ANYONE'S USE OF THE ABOVE METHOD WILL ADVERSELY VOID ALL SKI BINDING COMPANY'S WARRANTIES FOR ANY GIVEN SKIER.

 

Retention problems in the horizontal plane barely exist with all good bindings — and that's why I have intentionally left-out the description for the self-release method, here, though there are benefits to performing the method in that mode of release, too ...... but I will come back to that in a future post.  The main problem most skiers face regarding retention is in the forward mode.

 

•  At a minimum, have your bindings checked for complete system function by a 'qualified technician' at the beginning of each ski season or every 20-skier-days, which ever comes first.

 

Richard, appreciate your thorough responses. I understand the need for you to provide and stress caveats and qualifiers for all the suggestions given above, given the complex nature of the subject matter, and potentially dangerous consequences.

 

In a perfect world your last suggestion in blue above might be diligently followed, but I suspect if a poll were taken amongst skiers here it would be found not to be, hence the interest in some simple self-check procedures, which hopefully would prove to be better than nothing if performed occasionally during the course of a ski season. In that spirit I would still be interested to know what method of self check for the toe binding you think might offer some benefit, so I hope you do "come back to that in a future post".

 

Again, thanks for participating and sharing your knowledge and perspective.

post #108 of 187

OK  here goes.

 

data for DIN settigs is old yes but we as humans have not evolved physiologically beyond test values so it is still valid.

 

in regards to height -  given that bone is elastic, and injury occurs with load/deflection vs. time , a longer bone will both bend at the boot top i.e.- heel release situations and twist-i.e.-toe release  and in twist the degrees of rotation over a longer bone is a lower loading per unit of length just as the deflection is greater in straight longitudinal flex with a longer bone. hence higher setting possible regarding this parameter.

 

boot sole length - twist loads are generated by skiers body mass moving while the ski for various reasons in relativly fixed.  A shorter boot sole will apply a higher load to the release mechanism of the toepiece before tibial failure due to reduced leverage mutiplied resistance from the toe piece than a longer boot sole will.  As the boot sole length increases the distance multiplies the DIN setting and hence the twisting load on the tibia ia greater and consequently the toe piece relase value must be decreased proportionally to the boot sole length increase.

 

modern knowledge indicates several links between bone density and external circunstances,  medications, diet, excercise that perhaps should be addressed at some point in the DIN specification review process.  however I believe there is enough of a safety margin built into the settings indicated it may very well negate these  factors.

post #109 of 187

Dear jc-ski:   Thank you for your continued good questions.   As I recall, I think you live in (or near) Stowe .... so why don't you swing by my biomechanics lab and we can discuss these topics during real, physical, testing. 

 

One of my biggest concerns about providing instructions on the self-release method (out of full-context) is exactly what you suggested in your good follow-through question.  If skiers were to think that performing a self-release (even properly) was a substitute for measuring release against a known reference value, then we would all go back to having considerably more leg fractures.   In the absence of measuring against known reference values, it is NOT a "test".  But, again, there is Real Value in performing proper self-releases IN COMBINATION WITH HAVING PROPER PERIODIC MEASUREMENTS PERFORMED, TOO.  Quoting Al Greenberg, the former (now deceased) Editor-in-Chief of SKIING magazine for over 25-yrs:  "If a used ski-boot-binding-system was already known to be performing properly as a result of using measuring equipment, the self-release method may allow a skier to know if a 'gross impediment' to release has developed during use.  This way, the skier might be able to know when to go back to the shop to have another full inspection performed, including release measurement."   Al was right ( he was Gordon Lipe's and Carl Ettlinger's editor all during his 25-yrs at SKIING magazine when the "Binding Performance Reports' were written almost every month by Tippy Lipe, then by CFE. ).   So alerting a skier to a "gross impediment to release" has Real Value:  However, as noted above — being alerted to one possible problem is NOT a substitute for calibration and full validation of function (measured release against known target-values).

 

The mechanical reason why self-release is not a substitute for a full system inspection, including measured-release — is because in the event a given binding system contains an 'excessive amount' of friction (such as, due to a pebble being lodged between the boot and AFD) — self-release alone may cause the skier to back-down the release setting too much in order to compensate for the undetected friction generated by the pebble ..... then, if the pebble becomes dislodged, the skier may experience pre-release (pre-release, as we all know, can be far worse than no-release — because pre-release can cause serious upper-body injuries that might lead to death or paralysis) .... or if the pebble remains and the skier experiences a significant forward-twisting event (one cannot simulate a major forward-twisting event during self-release — nor would you want to if the system is in a 'failure mode'), then the resultant torque generated around the tibia may exceed its elastic limit and the skier might then sustain a tibia fracture.  Those are realistic examples of what can actually happen.  I know this is real because part of my job at Geze was risk-management ... and all binding companies, unfortunately, have injured-skier-claims ( 'needless' claims, of course :)  ) ... and these were things that actually caused real problems, in practice.

 

Having said all of that AND ASSUMING MY WARNINGS WILL BE HEEDED (above), here we go ...... quoting directly (verbatim) from the retailer technical manuals and consumer instructions that I wrote during the late 1970's up to the mid-1908's for a major German ski binding company ( NOT Marker ), specifically the writings for the North American ski season of '83/84:

 

(( Pls remember, this is a continuation of what was written in one of my posts, above .... )) ....

 

" Self Release Method:

 

Unusually aggressive skiers and racers who sometimes perceive the need to have high settings can utilize the self-release method to obtain these special settings.  Additionally, all skiers may benefit from the use of the self-release method by potentially exposing a 'gross impediment' to release.  For racers and unusually aggressive skiers, this method may help to provide a reasonable level of assurance that the special settings that might be needed will not be grossly overtightened, which overtightening is the usual case with adjustments made without utilizing this method.  Again, however, the self-release method may imply a misnomer because it is NOT a 'test'.  Do not use the self-release method for checking the function of the complete ski-boot-binding system.

 

Start by utilizing the settings recommended on the release chart [see manufacturer's release chart].  

 

The boot must be fully buckled as it is while skiing.

 

Toe:

 

•  Place the ski on its inside edge by rolling the knee inward and then, while pushing downward on the ball of the foot into the top surface of the ski, slowly twist the toe of the boot inward.  Rapid twisting must be avoided because it is not the worst case for maximum loading.

 

•  For unusually aggressive skiers and racers:  readjust the setting to your 'comfort threshold'.  If based on further skiing it is perceived that higher settings are needed, the settings may be further increased as long as self-release is still possible. 

 

•  WARNING:  A gross over-correction that lowers the originally 'indicated' pre-settings may cause inadvertent release or increasing the 'indicated' pre-settings may block release.

 

•  For all other skiers — it is recommended that one's own physical effort should be utilized to release the boot from the ski in the twist (left and right) directions and forward directions from time to time.  This serves to exercise the working mechanisms of the binding and may identify a gross impediment to release.  Note:  this is not a full test.  Go to a Qualified Technician who will utilize measuring instruments for testing. "

 

Out of full context ( in the absence of a manufacturer's full set of consumer and retailer instructions ), these above 'instructions' can be counter-productive and dangerous.  Please.

 

These above instructions do not pertain to self-release of lateral heel release:  I will not 'go there' at this time.

 

 

The retailer technical manual that I wrote for ski bindings also had a section, as follows:

 

" Improper Use of the Self Release Method:

 

It is a scientific fact that used equipment can disguise release problems unless tested with release measuring instruments.  Yes, a skier may be able to twist-out of their equipment — but 'twisting-out' is not the whole story:  'twisting-out' does not provide information about the contribution of friction within the 'twsit-out' level.  If there is an undetected high level of friction, larger problems can arise — as follows:

 

•  Dramatic increase in the resultant loading induced into the leg during forward-twisting events.  ( No matter how hard one tries during a self release, one cannot simulate the extreme levels of downward loading that can occur on-snow. )

 

•  Poor retention due to poor recentering.   Imagine a Slinky spring connected to a wall on one end while the other end is stretched across a carpeted floor — then 'released'.  Then, compare that example to the same Slinky spring being stretched across an acrylic floor — then 'released'.  The Slinky spring acting on the carpet will move more slowly than the spring on the acrylic floor — and the spring on the carpet may not fully return to center.  Reducing friction, as with the acrylic floor, provides improved recentering speed and acts to provide complete recentering.  The important effects of friction are not uncovered during self release.  Skiers need to come to manufacturer-qualified technicians that utilized release measuring instruments to calibrate settings and validate the complete function of the ski-boot-binding system. "    End quote.

 

Again, any utilization of the above information will void the warranties of all bindings — so I urge everyone who reads this to simply treat this as — 'fyi'.   Do NOT void your binding warranties by using this information, please.

 

Again, the above information is by no means comprehensive — and if utilized out of full context ( in the absence of a manufacturer's full set of consumer and retailer instructions ), these above 'instructions' can be counter-productive and dangerous.  Please.

 

All 'ordinary' bindings have been engineered to release the ski from the boot in the twist and forward directions and to retain the ski to the boot during controlled skiing maneuvers.  Despite these features, injuries may result from simply falling down or from impact with an object — which events can be independent of the function of the binding.  Any appropriately functioning binding may not release during all injury producing events and may not provide absolute retention during all controlled skiing maneuvers.  Skiing, like all sports, involves a certain degree of risk which must be recognized and accepted.

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/8/12 at 1:44pm
post #110 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Dear jc-ski:   Thank you for your continued good questions.   As I recall, I think you live in (or near) Stowe .... so why don't you swing by my biomechanics lab and we can discuss these topics during real, physical, testing. 

 

Unfortunately** I don't live near Stowe, but if I ever get up that way and the invitation's still open perhaps I could then take you up on your offer.

 

Most importantly, thanks for the additional info!

 

 

**Actually I feel quite fortunate to live where I do...
This thread needed a little break, methought. ;-)
post #111 of 187

@ Sandy:   This is good — but here is the exact history and engineering behind skier-height and boot sole length relative to DIN-settings.

 

Skier Height:   This is a correction factor to REDUCE a skier's setting if they are over-weight.  Pls notice that all manufacturer's charts show the correction in this way ( 'use the one, weight or height, that produces lower torque' [sic]. )

 

Boot Sole Length:  

 

Skiers' bones fail based on applied torque (( your leg does not know how long your foot is ( — except that they do a little bit due to the evolutionary biology effects of adaptive radiation ... [sic] ).  

 

Bindings are force imparting mechanisms.  

 

Torque = force times distance. 

 

Toes and heels are located distances from the bone. 

 

A skier's weight correlates well with bone diameter and bone diameter is directly proportional to strength in both torsion and bending (there is a ton of research — tens of millions of dollars of research — proving this well known biomechanical fact ). 

 

Therefore, a skier whose 'expected' weight is disproportionally lower than their 'expected' boot sole length — yields a force imparting setting (( DIN settings on the bindings are actually force-related (but they are also devised to be statistically-based on expected torque for an expected boot sole length) that is higher than for a skier whose 'expected' weight is disproportionally higher than their 'expected' boot sole length.  ((( Pls do not yell at me too much, but I'm the one who came up with that part of the DIN-system. :)  :)  )))

 

Example:  

 

Bob weighs 200 pounds and [simplified without corrections for age and 'style'] has a 'pre-setting' (recommended torque) of '7.0' (( that would be 7.0 daNm (deka-Newton meters) of torque around the tibia AND ~30 daNm of forward release torque (for engineers, that's 'forward bending moment').  Bob's boot sole length was statistically expected to be 34 cm long ( based on human-factors data that's published — for someone who weights 200 pounds ) — but, in fact, his actual boot sole length is 36 cm.   A chart (not all charts) will yield a recommended DIN-setting on his binding of 6.5 in order to generate 7.0 daNm of torque around the tibia and ~30 daNm of forward release torque [sic].

 

Stan weights 170 pounds and [simplified without corrections for age and 'style'] has a 'pre-setting' (recommended torque) of '6.0' ( that would be 6.0 daNm of torque around the tibia AND ~24 daNm of forward release torque [sic].  Stan's boot sole length was statistically expected to be 32 cm long ( based on human-factors data that's published — for someone who weights 170 pounds ) — but, in fact, his actual boot sole length is 30 cm.   A chart (not all charts) will yield a recommended DIN-setting on his binding of 7.0 in order to generate 6.0 daNm of torque around the tibia and ~24 daNm of forward release torque [sic].

 

Stan, who is lighter (therefore has a LESS strong tibia, if Stan is not overweight) than Bob, gets settings on his bindings that are higher than Bob's ( Stan gets 7.0,  Bob gets 6.5 ).   This occurs in order to insure that both Bob and Stan get the proper peak torque values are 'expected' for their weight (hence, tibia strength) irrespectively of their 'unexpected' boot sole lengths because their bindings (also) do not 'know' how long their boot is (their bindings are just force imparting mechanisms).  Stan needs 6.0 daNm of torque around the tibia and 24 daNm of forward release torque;  while Bob needs 7.0 daNm of torque around the tibia and 30 daNm of forward release torque.   But Bob's boot is 'unexpectedly' long and Stan's boot is 'unexpectedly' short — relative to published human factors data that was utilized to generate the 'table of corrections for boot sole length'.   :)  :)

 

Again, bones fail based on torque, not force — but bindings (except Spademan, Revolution-X and Sundial) are force imparting mechanisms that are spread apart by the boot — and these force imparting mechanisms do not 'know' how far apart they placed, while at the same time Newton's natural law of torque is T = F x D ( Torque = force times distance ).  DIN numbers that are indicated on the force imparting mechanisms (bindings) must ( when used with a boot ) allow for how far they are placed from the tibia in order to produce the torque that's expected for a given tibia — and which given tibia correlates directly to skier's weight.

 

(( Lever arms (boot sole lengths) are hugely important in forward release, too ( based on Newton's basic laws of physics and as proven mathematically and experimentally in hands-on physical measurements as published in scores of papers and as validated whenever a ski shop performs release measurements.  For example:  move the position of the AFD while holding the measured forward release torque constant and you must change the force setting on the heel unit in order to keep the expected forward release torque constant.  This is a huge thing .... just like it is in the toe piece. ))

 

All of this can be found in the international standard for the selection of release torque values, ISO 8061 — which standard was developed by consensus among participating member alpine skiing countries DIN (Germany), ASTM (USA), AfNOR (France), Ö-Norms (Austria) and BfU (Switzerland).  All ISO standards can be purchased on-line through ANSI (American National Standards Institute).

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/8/12 at 3:47pm
post #112 of 187

            Yes, jc-ski, right-on !!   :)  :)

post #113 of 187

I would be remiss to not also further clarify my above description of what happens when loads enter (incrementally, in different events) into the bottom surface of the forebody of the ski, more and more closely to the leading-edge of the AFD ( the leading edge of the AFD provides the fulcrum for forward release ).  The result may appear at first to be counter-intuitive — but several entire studies have been devoted to this seeming paradoxical engineering problem.

 

As the 'center of effort' of a given load in different potentially injury-producing events enters under the forebody of the ski (forward event), less and less torque ( for fellow engineers, it's 'forward bending moment' ) is developed AROUND THE FULCRUM FORMED BY THE LEADING EDGE OF THE AFD.   However, when the 'center of effort' of the applied forward load enters the ski directly under ( in-line ) with the leading-edge of the AFD (the lever arm in the forward release direction becomes zero) — torque about the AFD therefore becomes zero.  The binding's complete ski-boot-binding system senses ZERO:   no release can occur no matter how large or how small the applied force when the load enters the system directly under the leading edge of the AFD.  However, the distance between the leading edge of the AFD and the tibia is far MORE than zero — therefore this distance between the leading edge of the AFD and the tibia becomes its own unique lever arm that produces forward torque on the tibia ( forward bending moment ).  In fact, when the load enters the ski directly under the leading edge of the AFD (and when the AFD is located near the tip of the boot sole) the net forward torque (forward bending moment) on the tibia is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT (depending also upon the size of the incoming load) — and can easily cause tibia fracture.  

 

Although the 'center of effort' of a forward load rarely is centered exactly under the leading edge of the AFD, this 'overall effect' on the leg is incrementally transpiring as an applied forward load is incrementally approaching the leading edge of the AFD.  In other words, even if an in-bound potentially injury producing load enters the ski 2-feet in front of the leading edge of the AFD, the net forward torque (forward bending moment) on the tibia is incrementally increasing while at the same time the binding is incrementally 'sensing' less and less net torque.  Initially, counter-intuitive, but when one runs the equations and performed physical tests with actual equipment that provide for the possibility of inducing loads at different points along the ski, one sees the effect on the tibia ( with a tibia that is instrumented to read forward torque, mid-shaft ).

 

This same example points to the natural 'blind spot' found in all bindings — in the forward release direction.  The effect on the loading on the tibia caused by this forward release blind spot  can be minimized  by locating the leading edge of the AFD, aftward, so that the length of the lever-arm that's perpendicular to the bending-axis of the tibia is minimized.  Some bindings have their AFD's located further aft than others  specifically to minimize this blind-spot.  It would be 'ideal' if the leading edge of all AFD's was located at 22% of the boot sole length to optimize the trade-off between supporting the boot and minimizing forward release torque (forward bending moment) on the tibia — but this is impossible in practice because of the location of the 'glide-zone' that's standardized on all boot soles.  In practice, the most that an effective AFD could have its leading edge be aftwardly located is ~4cm aft of the tip of the boot.

 

This is one of the design modifications that I made on ALL of my college racing buddies' bindings.  By doing this, we learned that by moving the AFD aftward, two additional benefits arose:  (1) the force in the heel unit can be increased while maintaining the same peak forward release torque (forward bending moment) and because the heel unit is also cross-linked with edge-control ( lateral overturning moment ), net edge control was increased for any given level of forward peak release.  This has a huge effect on retention because by allowing the binding to not 'work as hard' to provide edge-control — the cross-linked function in the heel can act to mostly resolve forward retention.  (2)  moving the AFD aftward allows the ski to begin its bending in front of the ball of the foot on a rigid ski-boot — causing the 'feel' on the snow to be smooth.  Combining (1) and (2) yields an on-snow experience that is truly unparalleled:   one gets (a) maximum edge control;  (b) maximum retention without adversely impacting forward release;  (c) a smooth 'feel' on the snow.  When skiing, this translates to an experience of power and smoothness all in one.  This is something that every good skier should experience, on-snow.  

 

Here is a prime example of how 'design' enhances skiing performance, independently of net torque on the leg.   It's an example that my engineering professors loved to use to explain some of the 'mysteries' of structural engineering because as students who skied, we could easily get our heads around it at a time when our minds were still malleable.

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/9/12 at 9:04am
post #114 of 187

Important note:   one person questioned my motives in this — and even went so far as to say that "they had never heard of me before".   Pls let me indicate that my 'giving' of this level of information on ski-bindings has been my life-long pattern, starting in college when I gave 'talks' on most of these same points and many, many people attended (standing room only).  I wrote about this very subject in SKI magazine in Dec 1979, page 124 (full page plus graph).  I developed my own 'standard procedures' for testing the function of bindings way back in 1970 .... upgraded them continuously ... then 'converted them' into technical manuals for Geze starting in 1978 through 1986.   They became the benchmark in the ski binding industry that other binding companies followed (yes, I was paid for that work at Geze).  All of my presentations at ISSS were free and they contained as much or more 'free info'.  

 

So, why am I doing this ?  

 

Simple. 

 

I love skiing — and was severely injured in skiing at a young age (1959, 1962, 1964) due to incorrect information on how to service bindings and from lousy bindings.  My 'neighbor' was Gordon Lipe who first developed the 'weight & ability' method ( now called "weight & style' method ) for selecting release levels ( "Lipe Units" ), he was the first to properly measure release ( Lipe Release Check ), and he developed what is still today a very good way to minimize friction at the AFD ( Lipe Sliders ).   I found that when I really began to understand his teachings and integrated them into racing equipment — my bindings (and those of others that I serviced ) functioned exceptionally well.   I felt — and still feel — that it's critical for skiers to know the correct information about this subject.   In the absence of SKIING magazine's 'Binding Performance Reports' (published nearly monthly from the late 1960's through the late 1980's, first by Lipe then by Ettlinger) that skier's understanding of bindings has significantly slipped.  Further, incorrect information is knowingly and wrongly being presented to skiers that could cause injury — injury that might occur in conjunction with products that I've designed .... and I will not sit-back to let that happen. 

 

It has been my life-long goal to resolve what happened to me when I was young so that all of us can ski with joy and without thinking ( too much ) about our bindings, knowing that other responsible people are ..... and by providing correct knowledge to allow others to make correctly informed decisions about service that involves proper function-testing — and helping people make informed decisions about proper selection of bindings.  I have consistently stepped-out many times over a period of over 40 years to do this (ask your local ski shop who's been in business for some time about this pattern) — and I remain confident that they will tell you that they know of this pattern, too.   This has been a life-long pattern — and I intend to continue to do so — especially once I am back once again with my own brand of bindings, because as you can see ... the functional-design differences of bindings truly make a difference.

 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide this information to you.

 

Sincerely,

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT


Edited by Richard Howell - 10/9/12 at 4:28pm
post #115 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy Webster View Post

OK  here goes.

 

data for DIN settigs is old yes but we as humans have not evolved physiologically beyond test values so it is still valid.

 

in regards to height -  given that bone is elastic, and injury occurs with load/deflection vs. time , a longer bone will both bend at the boot top i.e.- heel release situations and twist-i.e.-toe release  and in twist the degrees of rotation over a longer bone is a lower loading per unit of length just as the deflection is greater in straight longitudinal flex with a longer bone. hence higher setting possible regarding this parameter.

 

boot sole length - twist loads are generated by skiers body mass moving while the ski for various reasons in relativly fixed.  A shorter boot sole will apply a higher load to the release mechanism of the toepiece before tibial failure due to reduced leverage mutiplied resistance from the toe piece than a longer boot sole will.  As the boot sole length increases the distance multiplies the DIN setting and hence the twisting load on the tibia ia greater and consequently the toe piece relase value must be decreased proportionally to the boot sole length increase.

 

modern knowledge indicates several links between bone density and external circunstances,  medications, diet, excercise that perhaps should be addressed at some point in the DIN specification review process.  however I believe there is enough of a safety margin built into the settings indicated it may very well negate these  factors.

 

 

RH,

 

Do you have any information comparing bindings here that would help here explain retaintion and release factors of different bindings?

 

I'm sure that most here would interested.

 

G

post #116 of 187

I'm going to add a few comments here that hopefully translate engineering speak to make sense to the non engineering minds following this thread helping in understanding bindings forces.

 

To simply things unless I say a load is caused don't assume there is one.  Before anyone complains I am intentionally using non standard measurements as they can be practically seen by all (I hope)

 

An easy example of this is extend your arm and hold an apple.

Gravity pulls the apple down.  We are going to call this 1 apple of force (1a)

The arm length is going to be broken down into 2 arm sections (upper and lower arm section) (2s)

 

So at the shoulder we have a rotational force applied to the should of 2s x 1a = 2as clockwise. (rotational applied)

 

To counter this force we must use the same opposite for 2as counterclockwise, which happens to be your muscles. (rotational counter forces)

 

Here's where it gets fun:  2as also equals 1s x 2a which means I've placed 2 apples at your elbow.  (more apples, same rotational force, same counter force).

 

Bindings as currently designed can only work with apples of force (linear).  To get linear forces we must look at applied rotational forces, and translate the counter forces back to applied forces specifically at the toe or heel piece in the direction required to hold or release the binding.

 

This simple concept is used in designing bindings (and all other structures in the known universe),  I've just shared the basis of 4 years of Engineering for free (the details sorry you have to pay someone for).

 

Here is the difficulty, the rotation point (shoulder) for binding design can be at different locations (sometimes not located on the binding or ski at all) depending on how the load is applied as is the case with some ACL injuries to determine the forces the binding must deal with.

 

If you want a better description of what I've just shown above watch this video. (No I didn't make it)  Be advised this is engineering speak and mored detailed.

 

http://youtu.be/awgqjxtDYaE

 

RH has clearly describe the details and has provide all the information need to calculate the forces involved.  Thanks

post #117 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

 

 

RH,

 

Do you have any information comparing bindings here that would help here explain retaintion and release factors of different bindings?

 

I'm sure that most here would interested.

 

G

Hope you don't mind if i take your question in a different direction -

 

Richard, If you had to choose between bindings currently on the market and don't need a high DIN model, given the choice between Philpugs *2013 steals and deals winners Tyrolia and the Knee binding  which would you pick and why?

1) Look Pivot 14

2) Salomon Sth 12 Driver

3) Knee binding

4) Tyrolia Peak 12 or LX 12 (or any other tyrolia, i'm not familiar with the line)

* http://www.epicski.com/t/113533/philpugs-2013-steals-deals-winners

post #118 of 187

Richard Howell,

 

For the longest time, my ignorance led me to believe that the binding DIN charts or whatever the proper name for them are, as sketchy.  About as valid as the food pyramid.  It didn't make sense to me for several things, like the fact that turning 50 makes you flip a switch when I feel it should be more gradual, like aging.  That piece aside, this thread has led me to have a better (albeit not that great) understanding of the charts, more faith in them, and a much better respect for them.  Most of this stems from my desire to understand things or at least the justification for things.  I've always been more interested in why we do things than what we do.  In the past, most questions on the validity of the chart have been met with "because I said so" or "your puny brain can't comprehend it" type of answers.  While the latter isn't that far from the truth in my case, I an smart enough to at least appreciate the conversation, and feel comfortable with the math that went into developing the charts to make them valid. 

 

Thank you,

Ken


Edited by L&AirC - 10/12/12 at 10:35am
post #119 of 187

Dear all of you ( well,  almost  all of you ) —

 

You're welcome.   I'll have more info for all of you, soon .... but 'am distracted at this time by preparation-efforts for a key event this coming Oct 19 at 9:00 am in Hyde Park, VT concerning an organ of government ( but relating to the ownership of certain ski-binding company assets ).   'All are welcome to come here to watch this event, if interested:  It's a public event.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT

post #120 of 187

Good luck Rick!
 

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