or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › .....What-If Kneebindings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

.....What-If Kneebindings? - Page 5  

post #121 of 898

This thread is some flashback.

I don't know what happened, one minute I was walking down the street and then this guy with a DeLorean pulled up and I got in...

Now I'm here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

JSM 2/7

 

Okay - this seems to be moving toward a valid discussion.  

 

First, Tog:  You say there were serious issues with our bindings two years ago.  I know of no such issues.  Meanwhile, OTHER brands have gone through through large recalls, but somehow you think WE have an issue?  You also say we got terrible reviews here.  Not so - a few people who have never skied on them (and apparently never even SEEN them) dissed us, but people who actually skied on them liked them a great deal.  All of the actual reviews I can find are very, very positive.  

As for left/right, we think we have a very reliable way for people to get this right.  It isn't 100%, but it is about as reliable as putting your boots on the correct feet.  In addition - if, for some reason, you fail to get this right - then they work very much like ordinary bindings.

...

 

John

 

Ok, so the product on the market now is essentially the same as two years ago? Or have there been changes?

I know you came out with the Carbon model. What's the difference? Just the shell? Was it for weight or strength?

 

As for "reviews" of bindings, I wouldn't put much stock in it. I mean what are people reviewing? Basically the foot goes in fine, it feels ok, they didn't release on me as I cruised around etc. Those are essentially annecdotal and have no data to make any sort of claim from.

 

The NHTSA  (Nat'l Hghwy Trans Saftey Admin) doesn't ask for safety "reviews" from people and publish them. They also don't take the manufacturers word that they do such and such in an accident. They go and crash test the cars and see what happens. These tests have had a huge impact on the safety of cars because consumers can view them and they're easy to understand. - Car goes into wall at x mph, what happens? - pretty simple.

 

Going even further, the insurance companies themselves developed their own tests because so much of their money depends on real data as opposed to annecdotes. The IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) recently developed a new offset frontal test that more closely resembles common accidents. Those where a car impacts a solid object on only part of the front, instead of running into a wall. (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html)

Some cars that might be considered annecdotally safe, as in "that's a safe car" - the Mercedes C class, Audi A4, Lexus IS 2/350, - they all failed the test. (http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/08/iihs.html)

 

So what tests and what data can you show us to validate your claims for your binding?

You could say that other binding manufacturers don't have data either. True, but unfortunately we've been living with it and are used to it. You're also claiming something new and different.

You're going to have to show some kind of test data to really convince people.

 

Last time we had ChrisfromRI on here saying how "safe" they were, but that was based merely on nothing happening while he used it. - annecdote.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tch View Post


OK, let's try to be fair to you.  Of course everyone would agree that IF we lose 70,000 ACL's a year (and I don't know that's true; I'm only using your number), we all would like to fix/mitigate/alleviate this issue.  But you seem to imply that other companies are not doing any work on this, that they are willfully and "negligently" ignoring a dangerous hazard, and that they are intentionally attempting to profit from an inadequate product and drive you out of the market. 

 

Perhaps you have evidence that supports these assertions, but you sure haven't produced it.  If your binding actually does solve the problem, the world will beat a path -- no a 6-lane highway -- to your door.  And, you will be able to license it for plenty more.  The world of machinery and technology is rife with examples of complete paradigm shifts within very short time spans built on proven innovations.   But...... I don't see that here.  Could it be that you don't have a complete solution?  That you don't have and can't produce a competition-level binding ... or technology even adequate to submit to testing and evaluation?    

 

In a world where shaped skis, then rockered skis infiltrated and then took over the market, where brake-lever shifting on bikes rendered down-tube shifting immediately obsolete, where the IPhone dominated the market as soon as it debuted..... KneeBinding is one lone visionary lost in the cold, cold world of corrupt binding companies and can't get a break?????   Your story line is improbable, and your lack of solid proof as to the value of your technology leads me to believe there's a lot of hot air here, but no substance.

 

You do yourself no good by pontificating and accusing w/o proving.

 

tch, I'm not saying the chairman's binding works or not, but what you're saying isn't the way the world works. I know it's completely illogical, but just because something works, would benefit people, and other companies could use it to benefit their customers, doesn't mean those companies will embrace it. In terms of bindings, what it comes down to (and this is conjecture) is that if binding company A embraces this technology, then essentially they're saying that their other bindings are unsafe. So now they all have to have it. Plus, it calls into question everything they've been making.

 

Before you argue with that, I'll give you a real world example. (sigh...kicking the tires of the DeLorean because I did this last time).

 

About 13 years ago this guy invents something to prevent people from cutting off their fingers in a tablesaw. Essentially, he used airbag technology and the device senses when the blade contacts flesh, fires and jams the blade in a hunk of aluminum. It worked. They tested it with hot dogs to mimic a finger and it stopped the blade extremely quickly - could've saved the finger. It was reliable too. Not a lot of false blow offs, though for a few materials you have to turn it off and thus don't have protection. The replacement cost when it goes off is about 100$. Plus a new blade, but you might be able to repair it.

 

Ok, sounds great right? What table saw manufacturer wouldn't want to put this on their saw? So he brought it around and showed it to every manufacturer. Almost all thought it was brilliant and were impressed. Yet not a single one wanted to buy it, or license it for their own product.

 

This from an article in Fortune Small Business in 2005:

 

Quote: (The inventor is Stephen Gass. - a patent attorney with a Phd in physics.)

But when he tried licensing the technology to tool manufacturers, they rejected the idea. He approached Delta Machinery, headquartered in Jackson, Tenn., one of the largest tablesaw manufacturers, but Gass says the company told him safety doesn't sell.

 

"I was flabbergasted. The industry didn't see this as a solution to a problem," says Gass. "They saw it as a problem, because it creates a product-liability issue for them."  In other words, the existence of such technology could make saw manufacturers who didn't use it seem negligent.

 

Final Cut:
A woodworker claims he came up with a safer tablesaw. So why doesn't the tool industry want it?
By Melba Newsome

 

So, he ended up starting a company to produce tablesaws with the device in it. The first saw was produced in 2004 and the company, Saw Stop, is still in business and still the only one with that technology. (http://www.sawstop.com/)

                                                                                                                     

                  cue Paul Harvey...."and now you know the rest of the story"

 

Originally Posted by radiobb View Post

John, please run your post by marketing before posting ... here is what you just said ( searchable via the the entire internet) :Here's why:  Our bindings don't make skiing safe.  They do not prevent crashes.  You can still get injured on KneeBindings.  You can even injure your knee on KneeBindings.

People searching Google will read this and make a split second decision on a purchase.

I think you have done all you can do here.


I wouldn't worry about it. It's an honest statement about the state of bindings. It acknowledges the risk. Read the back of your ski ticket. You're still skiing.  Replace "bindings" with "cars",  "skiing" with "driving" , and there you go. No one would claim cars are 100% safe considering we have tens of thousands of deaths in cars per year in the US.

Actually, if he claimed the opposite, ie they're totally safe, it could be trouble down the road. Almost surely.


Edited by Tog - 2/7/13 at 10:59pm
post #122 of 898
Thread Starter 

JSM 2/7

 

oldgoat - I guess an analogy for what you are saying would be:  just because seat belts reduce injuries at 50mph, this, in itself, doesn't prove that they reduce injuries at 80mph.  This seems like a difficult argument to support.  I presume you agree that lateral-toe/forward-heel release mechanisms reduce broken legs injuries - regardless of speed?  I don't think there is any difference.

 

You also mention our DIN 12 limit, but in fact, our bindings ARE used by lots of expert recreational skiers.  They are our "bread and butter" customer, along with high-level professionals (nearly 10% of our sales are to ski instructors and ski patrol).  Very few beginners buy KneeBindings...  

 

 

John

post #123 of 898
Thread Starter 

JSM 2/7

 

Boy, it is tough to keep up.

 

Tog - you have laid out a lot of wisdom.  Here's the tag on the "SawStop" - all the other saw companies recognized that the existence of the new technology would create liability issues for them (sound familiar?).  Instead of embracing it, they tried to shun it.  So the inventor, Gass, formed a company and started making saws himself.  Now that the new safety mechanism is readily available, and at a reasonable cost, the other companies are starting to face liability issues.  Here is something from USA Today:  

 

"Now the [other saw] companies face hundreds of lawsuits over injuries and at least 50 legal claims that SawStop could have prevented the injuries. Last March, a jury awarded $1.5 million to a man who injured his fingers on a saw after plaintiff lawyers argued SawStop would have saved his hand."

 

And guess what - the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission starts to look at it:

 

"There's a pattern of injury, a safety technology that can address it, and it's affordable," says Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, which is joining Gass to push for a federal rule requiring all table saws to detect flesh and stop blades before they cut into it."

 

And then, a year ago:

 

"The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission voted 5-0 today to take the first steps toward regulating table saws, which have been blamed for more than 4,000 finger, hand and arm injuries a year.  The agency will examine technologies, such as offered by closely held SawStop LLC, that can stop the blade instantly when human flesh is detected and may eventually issue a rule, Scott Wolfson, an agency spokesman said. The CPSC will seek comments from the industry and the general public before moving to a more specific proposal, he said."

The similarities between KneeBinding and SawStop cannot be ignored..  Note that they are dealing with 4,000 power saw injuries a year.  We are dealing with 70,000 knees.

 

 

John

post #124 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

 

The similarities between KneeBinding and SawStop cannot be ignored..

 

 

John

 

Yes, they can. (well, maybe you're right)

 

As a lifetime woodworker (and skier) I can tell you the sawstop is an idea looking for an idiot. It is a MARKETING tool, much like the one size socket that is bought by the unknowing ( hey, could also be true of another product mentioned here). If you have not been trained on the safe operation of a table saw (or anything else) perhaps learning how to use it is a more appropriate path.

 

(I hear soon they will have cars that drive for you so you can concentrate on your texting)


Edited by Rossi Smash - 2/8/13 at 5:52am
post #125 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

JSM 2/7

 

oldgoat - I guess an analogy for what you are saying would be:  just because seat belts reduce injuries at 50mph, this, in itself, doesn't prove that they reduce injuries at 80mph.  This seems like a difficult argument to support.  I presume you agree that lateral-toe/forward-heel release mechanisms reduce broken legs injuries - regardless of speed?  I don't think there is any difference.

 

You also mention our DIN 12 limit, but in fact, our bindings ARE used by lots of expert recreational skiers.  They are our "bread and butter" customer, along with high-level professionals (nearly 10% of our sales are to ski instructors and ski patrol).  Very few beginners buy KneeBindings...  

 

 

John

John, to clarify, at our mountain, there are exactly no patrollers that I've seen, and to the best of my knowledge, one instructor using you product. Before you tell me that more patrollers at our hill use your product, I'll tell you that we work closely with our patrollers, so I've had the chance to see many if not most of them. And unless the instructors you mention have WC backgrounds, you really can't equate the needs of a WC racer with even a DCL level instructor...  Again, nothing wrong with your product, but it's still a rare creature.

post #126 of 898

Let me try to understand this:

 

Thread starts as a outpour of support for injured skier. Very famous skier BTW, skier that equates popularity of sport in this country. And as usual, many "Monday morning quarterbacking" (nothing wrong with that, that's why water coolers and forums are invented, and many office jobs) and then some salesman comes to play and try to plug his product !? Very unfortunate, insensitive and opportunistic attempt to advance his agenda and product from serious injury to famous skier. Public is outraged by his lack of sensitivity and start pushing back his attempt to turn discussion towards his product ability (?) "to mitigate this type of injury". Then, for whatever reason, moderator decides to throw a life line to this guy and redirect(create)  thread that would solely focus on this (questionable) product. Next thing you know, "offender" turns things around, gets publicity sought in the first place and start portraying himself as a "offended' side. Somewhere in-between , we slowly started forgetting the reason for outrage directed at this guy - his shameful attempt to hijack the thread created in support of injured skier. His marketing strategy that is deplorable and could be at best be described as "snake oil salesman" attempt is suddenly being pushed aside.

 

His product is questionable at best, but his ability to hijack the subject and redirect it towards his agenda is well documented here. Real, real good "snake oil salesman" tactics.

 

And I will now use one of those little figures that seem popular here:

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #127 of 898

^^^^ You're too perceptive to last long here. In this case, think the moderator was trying to tamp down the general outrage at Chairman, who has really shown his true colors in this thread for the last 6 members who still cared. But in doing so, he just opened the door for (another) weary thread about Knee Bindings and (another) weary opportunity for its shill to do his thing as misunderstood avatar of all that is upright and good about binding design. So Chairman's (again) ended up playing Epic, and its moderators, like a violin. Hey, as they say in Hollywood, negative publicity is better than no publicity.

 

I think we should now bash Vonn for not using Knee Bindings!! nonono2.gif

post #128 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

Let me try to understand this:

 

Thread starts as a outpour of support for injured skier. Very famous skier BTW, skier that equates popularity of sport in this country. And as usual, many "Monday morning quarterbacking" (nothing wrong with that, that's why water coolers and forums are invented, and many office jobs) and then some salesman comes to play and try to plug his product !? Very unfortunate, insensitive and opportunistic attempt to advance his agenda and product from serious injury to famous skier. Public is outraged by his lack of sensitivity and start pushing back his attempt to turn discussion towards his product ability (?) "to mitigate this type of injury". Then, for whatever reason, moderator decides to throw a life line to this guy and redirect(create)  thread that would solely focus on this (questionable) product. Next thing you know, "offender" turns things around, gets publicity sought in the first place and start portraying himself as a "offended' side. Somewhere in-between , we slowly started forgetting the reason for outrage directed at this guy - his shameful attempt to hijack the thread created in support of injured skier. His marketing strategy that is deplorable and could be at best be described as "snake oil salesman" attempt is suddenly being pushed aside.

 

His product is questionable at best, but his ability to hijack the subject and redirect it towards his agenda is well documented here. Real, real good "snake oil salesman" tactics.

 

And I will now use one of those little figures that seem popular here:

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

Hey..as for the outpouring of support, it's cool that everyone wishes Lindsey Vonn well.  Certainly I do.  But, the profuse outpouring of support can also be a way to feel part of the story.  She is a multi-millionaire several times over, and all that happened is she wrecked a knee in a way that she can rehab, in a sport known for wrecking knees.  Also, frankly, if this had been a training injury with no video released complete with screams of pain that people could be transfixed by, I doubt there'd be the same number of posts.

 

There wasn't this much "support" when she went through her divorce, and that in its own way was likely as painful and disruptive to her.

 

But, there are lots and lots of racers every year who are struggling to cover their expenses, or worse, who also wreck their knees, and there is never "support" for them.  If they wreck their knee in Europe, there may be no one to help them get off the plane when they get back home.  Basically, "support" for a public figure by itself is a little easy, for some even a little cheap.

 

So, a binding company comes on and says, hey, let's look at this issue.  You have two companies, in fact, who are trying to address the issue in a way that may help future knees, for racers who are famous and for skiers of all sorts who aren't.  That by itself is not a bad thing.

 

A PR person would have advised against either of those companies participating here, precisely because it is also easy for people to sling mud in these forums.  Outrage over someone posting about a product is easy, just as "concern" for one of the best situated skiers in the world getting the inevitable knee injury is easy.  Posters in this thread have in fact tried in the past to keep both companies looking to address this issue from continuing to post.  People can look at that and say, why??? and that is a very good question. 


Edited by CTKook - 2/8/13 at 7:25am
post #129 of 898
Thread Starter 

JSM 2/8

 

Perhaps we should agree to wrap this thread up at this time.

 

Good wishes to all,

John

post #130 of 898

Don't understand what Ms. Vonn's financial wellbeing has to do with anything here? And yes, some of us do show support for injured athletes through other means, less public. Ms. Vonn is public face of the sport and as such her misfortune is discussed in public. It comes with territory. 

Nothing wrong with KneeBinding promoting their product. They can even choose to be sponsors of the forum like this, or place adds. It is in bad taste (my opinion) to do so on the heels of tragic injury and in the forum not created for discussing merits of their product. To the extreme - it is like going to the funeral of a person who just died from lung cancer and trying to sell electronic cigarette.

"life after ACL reconstruction" thread. I do not see Chairman posting there at least not so aggressively promoting his ACL injury mitigating ware. Oh, yeah - no Lindsey Vonn's name there. 

 

Don't understand "divorce" comment. I personally would like to be in position to "comfort" and "support" Ms. Vonn after her divorce. Not so fortunate.

 

Don't understand "sling mud" comment either. Who is "slinging mud" here. Exactly what I pointed to in my previous post - there is a push here to turn the thing around and go from being "offender" to being "offended". I am questioning Chairman's decision to use thread not intended for promoting his product just to do that. 

 Shameless, opportunistic, ill advised attempt to redirect discussion to his product. 

 

And my "concern" for Ms. Vonn's well being is real not because I know her personally,  but because what her presence means to promoting the sport which I happen to enjoy a lot.

post #131 of 898

Wrap, agree !

post #132 of 898

Suffice to say, the good Chairman is here simply to push an agenda that results in commercial gain for him and his company. Period.

 

KB is the sole proprietor of a solution to a certain problem, and has created a sizeable barrier to entry for other companies to offer a solution on their own without some form of financial compensation to KB (licencing or royalties) . Now he is attempting to push the market into demanding product offerings to solve said problem to point where the other companies will find it necessary (by demand, legislation, or otherwise) to offer a comparable product, which in turn due to the barriers to competition in place by KB, essentially force those companies to pay fees to KB.

 

As far as this thread goes, he is trying to capitalize on the heightened awareness around the problem in question via LV's crash at the World Championship by hyping and fear-mongering the problem trying to incite this community in being vocal about "other" companies providing solutions to a problem that is already well known in this community and appears not to be of such a concern that the community is willing to do any more than it already does now. He has convinced practicaly no one to jump on his bandwagon and has actually turned a number of people off by his approach.

post #133 of 898

Feb 8, 2013

 

Hi Bears:

 

In another thread in which the designer of the KB was describing the pros about this product and how he was in the process of going to court to regain control of the company, I suggested, courteously, that it would be a whole lot more convincing if he could offer data from a test.  I probably set the standard a bit high, since I mentioned something about clinical trials performed by National Institute of Health (NIH) in general and National Cancer Institute (NCI) in particular.  I still think that a valid test, based on randomization i.e. randomly assigning a pair of skiers, one to KB and one to a traditional bindings, brand and model to be fairly determined prior to the test and which all members randomized to the "traditional" binding arm would use, would shed light into the strength and weakness of this design and enable skiers to make educated choices based on science and not propaganda.

 

Anyway, at this point in time, I think that these two individuals deserve each other and that the legal fees involved in the battle for control of the company will suck out any profit which is generated by sales of this binding.  Maybe a bit harsh.

 

Think snow,

 

CP 


Edited by CharlieP - 2/8/13 at 8:59am
post #134 of 898

I know zero about internal KB politics, but have friends who have been involved in analogous situations in high tech.  Sometimes the founder has his head stuck in the clouds and needs to be pushed out.  Sometimes the investor wants to get his money back too quickly and kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.  There is no way to tell from the outside.  But divorces are never pretty.

post #135 of 898
Quote:

Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post


.Very unfortunate, insensitive and opportunistic attempt to advance his agenda and product from serious injury to famous skier. Public is outraged by his lack of sensitivity and start pushing back his attempt to turn discussion towards his product ability (?) "to mitigate this type of injury".

 

....the reason for outrage directed at this guy - his shameful attempt to hijack the thread created in support of injured skier. His marketing strategy that is deplorable.

 

His product is questionable at best, but his ability to hijack the subject and redirect it towards his agenda is well documented here. Real, real good "snake oil salesman" tactics.

 

You did a great job of summing this up.

 

To the "Chairman" - I will NEVER consider using your product, as your means of marketing it are hugely unsavory. Maybe some others will join me in boycotting an unfounded product shilled by (apparently) a snake oil salesman.

 

Extraordinarily poorly played shill sir.

post #136 of 898

post #137 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post

Feb 8, 2013

 

Hi Bears:

 

In another thread in which the designer of the KB was describing the pros about this product and how he was in the process of going to court to regain control of the company, I suggested, courteously, that it would be a whole lot more convincing if he could offer data from a test.  I probably set the standard a bit high, since I mentioned something about clinical trials performed by National Institute of Health (NIH) in general and National Cancer Institute (NCI) in particular.  I still think that a valid test, based on randomization i.e. randomly assigning a pair of skiers, one to KB and one to a traditional bindings, brand and model to be fairly determined prior to the test and which all members randomized to the "traditional" binding arm would use, would shed light into the strength and weakness of this design and enable skiers to make educated choices based on science and not propaganda.

 

 

 

I think suitable tests would include a demonstration that shows the same bio-mechanical forces with and without a knee binding on a model (if such a thing exists that mimics a human body), or a cadaver. It would also have to be done repeatedly with consistent results, and in a variety of conditions. Even resaonably comprehensive coverage would be a big, time consuming, and expensive task. Think Weekend with Bernie on the ski hill!

post #138 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

Let me try to understand this:

 

Thread starts as a outpour of support for injured skier. Very famous skier BTW, skier that equates popularity of sport in this country. And as usual, many "Monday morning quarterbacking" (nothing wrong with that, that's why water coolers and forums are invented, and many office jobs) and then some salesman comes to play and try to plug his product !? Very unfortunate, insensitive and opportunistic attempt to advance his agenda and product from serious injury to famous skier. Public is outraged by his lack of sensitivity and start pushing back his attempt to turn discussion towards his product ability (?) "to mitigate this type of injury". Then, for whatever reason, moderator decides to throw a life line to this guy and redirect(create)  thread that would solely focus on this (questionable) product. Next thing you know, "offender" turns things around, gets publicity sought in the first place and start portraying himself as a "offended' side. Somewhere in-between , we slowly started forgetting the reason for outrage directed at this guy - his shameful attempt to hijack the thread created in support of injured skier. His marketing strategy that is deplorable and could be at best be described as "snake oil salesman" attempt is suddenly being pushed aside.

 

His product is questionable at best, but his ability to hijack the subject and redirect it towards his agenda is well documented here. Real, real good "snake oil salesman" tactics.

 

And I will now use one of those little figures that seem popular here:

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

Goran, and all others who might think likewise.

The thread split was NOT done in order to favour "this guy" or to "throw him a life line".

On the contrary, it was done to preserve the original thread its initial purpose, a thread started out of genuine concern for an injuried athlete.

That is the only reason behind the splitting.

At the same time, we did not want to hamper or stop what it was hoped to become a tech discussion on binding.

post #139 of 898

Typical grade school pile-on by all you guys.  

post #140 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

Let me try to understand this:

 

Thread starts as a outpour of support for injured skier. Very famous skier BTW, skier that equates popularity of sport in this country. And as usual, many "Monday morning quarterbacking" (nothing wrong with that, that's why water coolers and forums are invented, and many office jobs) and then some salesman comes to play and try to plug his product !? Very unfortunate, insensitive and opportunistic attempt to advance his agenda and product from serious injury to famous skier. Public is outraged by his lack of sensitivity and start pushing back his attempt to turn discussion towards his product ability (?) "to mitigate this type of injury". Then, for whatever reason, moderator decides to throw a life line to this guy and redirect(create)  thread that would solely focus on this (questionable) product. Next thing you know, "offender" turns things around, gets publicity sought in the first place and start portraying himself as a "offended' side. Somewhere in-between , we slowly started forgetting the reason for outrage directed at this guy - his shameful attempt to hijack the thread created in support of injured skier. His marketing strategy that is deplorable and could be at best be described as "snake oil salesman" attempt is suddenly being pushed aside.

 

His product is questionable at best, but his ability to hijack the subject and redirect it towards his agenda is well documented here. Real, real good "snake oil salesman" tactics.

 

And I will now use one of those little figures that seem popular here:

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

Actually, you are wrong here. 

 

The hijack didn't occur until all the butt hurt people took it the wrong way and jumped into attack mode.  If the injured skier wasn't LV, would the reaction have been the same? Probably not... I don't even remember what the OP was, but from what it sounds like it something along the lines of, "Shame about LV, if she was on KB maybe it wouldn't have happened." Ok, I could see where that would get people angry, I don't even agree with it, but for god sakes stop whining and get over it!  I'm guessing the object of the OP was to get the name out there and that needs to happen somewhere when you run a small company, it was just in the wrong context in this case. Just look at how many people have never heard of KB. Give em a break.

 

 

 

So I'm just wondering, who in here actually watched the video I posted? (of the binding releasing laterally from the heel)

post #141 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

So the last time we had a Knee Binding discussion the inventor of the binding was here to tell us how badly the on the market product was.

I get there was bad blood after he sold the company and you ousted him - or whatever happened,  your version is welcome to be explained.

His point was it wasn't ready for market as built.

It got so that he was ordered by the court after an action by your company to cease discussing the product.

There were quality control issues.

Afd's would fall off - people got afd stick ons like postage stamps to replace them.

The general build quality was deemed awful by those who have a long experience with bindings.

We then had to listen to posters talking about how they skied x number of days with no problems - in itself proving nothing.

 

So, what's happened to the quality control issues?

You opened a can of worms. I hope you're ready to seal it up. We actually welcome innovation believe it or not.
 

I am buying my second pair of the KB this year after skiing 3 seasons on my carbon KB. No issues with quality, nothing falling off, works as intended and saved my knee few times I believe. Stop bitching about the KB - it is pretty good product. It is not designed for hard core racers, but rather for people like me who had one ACL surgery and doesn't want another one. 

post #142 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemat View Post

I am buying my second pair of the KB this year after skiing 3 seasons on my carbon KB. No issues with quality, nothing falling off, works as intended and saved my knee few times I believe. Stop bitching about the KB - it is pretty good product. It is not designed for hard core racers, but rather for people like me who had one ACL surgery and doesn't want another one. 

 

 

Artemat, you missed the source of the discontent. No one was diss'ing the product itself, in fact it is a great idea for recreational skiers.

 

The problem started when Chairman made the claim that his product would have prevented her injury, but in fact does not offer a product suitable for use in that environment, furthermore, he went on the chide the rest of the industry for not fixing the problem (I believe he used either mayhem or carnage and shameful and negligent) yet is not willing to put his money where his mouth is to produce a race binding, which leads to the open question of the motive behind posting about a race-related injury.

post #143 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post
...The problem started when Chairman made the claim that his product would have prevented her injury...

 

 

Please quote his post where he "made the claim that his product would have prevented her injury".  I see no such claim. 

post #144 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post

The problem started when Chairman made the claim that his product would have prevented her injury

 

Actually, he does *not* that say that.  In the very first post in this thread, he says:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

Numerous people have asked us if we think Ms. Vonn's injuries could have been avoided if she had a lateral heel release.  No one can be sure, of course, but the classic elements are there.

 

[...] 

 

The only proven way to mitigate this kind of injury is with a pure-lateral heel release.  Although, again, it is impossible to know what will happen in every situation, it is likely that a lateral heel release would have allowed the boot to come out of the binding before the forces were so great that the knee was damaged.

 

 

He never once says a knee binding could have done anything.  He only claims that lateral heel release maybe could have helped, but states that it's impossible to know.

post #145 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

Actually, he does *not* that say that.  In the very first post in this thread, he says:



He never once says a knee binding could have done anything.  He only claims that lateral heel release maybe could have helped, but states that it's impossible to know.

Fair enough, because there is no race product. Rather the statement strongly implied that the technology, which only KB has, would have mitigated the injury thereby promoting his technology as the solution. It was the "somebody else" should make a race binding with lateral release that prompted me to ask the questions about how the other companies could implement such a feature without infringing upon KB "strong patents" or otherwise financially advantageous to KB. Those were never answered.

Call a spade a spade and come right out and say that you are trying to market your bindings and tech and do it by promoting the positives of your own product, not trying to shame other companies, or get this ski community to do that for him.
post #146 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post

 

 

I think suitable tests would include a demonstration that shows the same bio-mechanical forces with and without a knee binding on a model (if such a thing exists that mimics a human body), or a cadaver. It would also have to be done repeatedly with consistent results, and in a variety of conditions. Even resaonably comprehensive coverage would be a big, time consuming, and expensive task. Think Weekend with Bernie on the ski hill!


post #147 of 898
Maybe one of the two dummies on the outside, not the one in the middle who seems to suffer from a general lack of ligaments smile.gif
post #148 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

 

 

(and, pssst... this thread is about a knee injury that occurred before the binding released. So Lindsey says Hi! also.)

I am with you. It looked to me like her blew apart on landing. Had nothing to do with release or the fall.

It didn't look like any binding was going to help this Possible her knee was already partially injured when she raced and was ready to let go?

post #149 of 898
Thread Starter 

JSM 2/8

 

The typical scenario for this kind of injury, which appears to also be the case in the LV video, is that the injury occurs before the fall - and may actually be the cause of the fall.  There is a point in the video in which you can see her right foot being "yanked" sideways to the outside, by the snow, due to catching an inside edge.  The resulting abduction appears to be significant enough to have resulted in the reported injuries.  We've studied a great many of these videos and the pattern is, unfortunately, just as visible here.

 

Note that the binding did not release at the monent of the injury.  In fact, it NEVER released - not even later on, after the injury occurred - not even during or after the fall.  The forces that cause this kind of injury do not cause an ordinary binding to release.  That is why there are so many of these injuries.

 

Chairman

post #150 of 898

Acting as a moderator, I removed the ski racer's name from the title of this thread.

 

I don't feel it's fair to a much-admired, badly-injured ski racer to have her name used as an advertising come-on for a product, the use of which that might or might not have had any effect at all on the injuries that were suffered.


Edited by Bob Peters - 2/8/13 at 8:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › .....What-If Kneebindings?