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 27  

post #781 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

But I don't NEED travel, so I'd rather have a more compact design. Plus/minus one mondo size gets it done.

Tough to design and produce for a market of one if he wants to make any money. smile.gif
post #782 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Tough to design and produce for a market of one if he wants to make any money. smile.gif

 

Look Pivots don't even cover that spread, I don't see that keeping their sales down. In fact it is one of many reason they are chosen.

 

I don't run a demo business so why use a demo binding?

post #783 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Tough to design and produce for a market of one if he wants to make any money. smile.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post
 

 

Look Pivots don't even cover that spread, I don't see that keeping their sales down. In fact it is one of many reason they are chosen.

 

I don't run a demo business so why use a demo binding?

 

Both have their pluses and minuses, all depending on what that particular consumer wants. 

post #784 of 898

Did we settle whether the Howell binding will release laterally either way? I know it's somewhere in this 26 pg spread but I don't have the stomach for it.

post #785 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 

Did we settle whether the Howell binding will release laterally either way? I know it's somewhere in this 26 pg spread but I don't have the stomach for it.


only on one side. I believe there is an answer on the previous page.

 

royal

post #786 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 


@quant2325   Thank you for your good thoughts, Quant.  As all of you probably know several of my previous products took-off like wildfire not because they were technological-based but because they were developed 1st from market research.  Products in search of markets often fail.  I view myself as a manager who simply holds a mirror to my market and gives back to them what they subconsciously demand.  I say subconsciously because no one 'demanded' clipless bicycle pedals before I invented, developed and delivered them to the market.  But people were subconsciously tired of the hassles of toe straps.  Yes, I utilized my background in technology to solve the market-based problem — but, first, there was subconscious demand.  Then, I utilized by corporate-background as a former successful director of marketing to drive the new technology-based solution into the market:  the market then received what it subconsciously already demanded:  we went from our basement to m's in revenue, nearly overnight.   This is the same thing with skiing.  I have not met anyone yet who 'demands an ACL-injury'.  Therefore, the corollary must be true:  skiers do not want ACL-injuries.  The market subconsciously demands knee-friendly skiing.  A technology solution is available.  Knee-friendly skiing via ALL FORMS of lateral heel release was biomechanically-proven at ISSS-Switzerland (2003), ISSS-Japan (2005), ISSS-Scotland (2007), and at ISSS-Argentina (2013).  If entities chose to not utilize this public data to validate the essential proof to the market, then that IS a real problem from a marketing perspective.  The proof exists:  it needs to be properly put-forth to the market.   Properly communicating this proof to the target-market requires a firm understanding of the subject.

 

As for racers, all of you know that I was one for many years.  Many of you here on Epic who work in the ski industry also know that two of my marketing-mentors, Drew Callen and Fred Schaeffer, enlightened me about the merits of market/product-segmentation.  While at Geze, we actively chose to exclude racers from our marketing plan because brands M and S owned the racing segment at that time.  Brand T went after price-oriented skiers.  Brand L had no positioning strategy.  We saw an unfilled gap among doctors, lawyers and drug dealers — people who HAD TO be at work, Monday morning.  Cubco had marketing-positioning toward this unfill-gap in the late 1960's — but their product did not function.  Spademan grabbed some of that market.  At Geze, we went directly at it and grabbed much of it.  The cool thing about this market-segment is that it's aligned with high-magins at nearly every price-point at every level of distribution.  Geze's subsequent distribution alliance with Elan then expanded market penetration due to sales-rep, price-terms and retailer-credit synergies. 

 

Never-the-less, new Howell Ski Bindings are already being beta-tested with the involvement of recent World Cup ski racers.  This development effort is strictly confidential while we dial it in.

 

So my main point to Quant is that I don't come-up with technology, then find a market.  I find a market with needs, then provide the technological solution.   This approach worked with my involvement with Tubbs snowshoes, too.   :)   :) 

1) I never thought that much about bindings before seeing this thread, which coincides with the feeling that I am getting weaker as I get older.  At best, 10% of the skiers out these are my age or older, so avoiding a potential injury I never thought about before is now of interest.

2) I don't know your market as well as you, so thanks for your response.

3) Trust is still, IMHO, of vital importance.  Getting known racers to test the product will go a long way in getting the early adapters (like people reading this thread) to buy the product...and I bet they do.

4) I really don't care if this topic stays here or moves to another thread.  It is interesting, and I'll keep reading about it even if I have nothing to add in a post (which is likely).

post #787 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

1) I never thought that much about bindings before seeing this thread, which coincides with the feeling that I am getting weaker as I get older.  At best, 10% of the skiers out these are my age or older, so avoiding a potential injury I never thought about before is now of interest.

2) I don't know your market as well as you, so thanks for your response.

3) Trust is still, IMHO, of vital importance.  Getting known racers to test the product will go a long way in getting the early adapters (like people reading this thread) to buy the product...and I bet they do.

4) I really don't care if this topic stays here or moves to another thread.  It is interesting, and I'll keep reading about it even if I have nothing to add in a post (which is likely).

 

 "Trust" is not something one should apply to anyone paid to promote or use a product.  It's a business relationship. As far as early adopters, I don't think that many have  purchased the KneeBindings which is available now.  Investors in Mr. Howell's future product likely look at that fact and have pause on his business plan as Knee Bindings already offers the product in the high end marketing Mr. Howell targets.  Few early adopters.  Not sure having paid "stars" ski the product would change the market dynamics.

 

While I use KneeBinding and have found them a solid product, as the orthopedic surgeons I work with doing ACL repairs note, if there was a mechanism to provide 70% reduction in ACL tears in skiing, one would think all the major manufacturer's would adopt it. The licensing costs cannot be that high.  I've read KneeBindings literature and the product does seem built to do as advertised regarding the ability to release prior to the ACL tearing but I don't know of any definitive testing that could prove it (same for Mr. Howell's once and future product).

post #788 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

 

While I use KneeBinding and have found them a solid product, as the orthopedic surgeons I work with doing ACL repairs note, if there was a mechanism to provide 70% reduction in ACL tears in skiing, one would think all the major manufacturer's would adopt it. The World According to Duh! The licensing costs cannot be that high. Idk? 

If you've been following the threads you would've seen where RH wrote something to the extent of the plan after his binding is successfully on the market to, iirc, sell or license his new binding/binding tech to a major manufacture. 

post #789 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

 "Trust" is not something one should apply to anyone paid to promote or use a product.  It's a business relationship. As far as early adopters, I don't think that many have  purchased the KneeBindings which is available now.  Investors in Mr. Howell's future product likely look at that fact and have pause on his business plan as Knee Bindings already offers the product in the high end marketing Mr. Howell targets.  Few early adopters.  Not sure having paid "stars" ski the product would change the market dynamics.

 

While I use KneeBinding and have found them a solid product, as the orthopedic surgeons I work with doing ACL repairs note, if there was a mechanism to provide 70% reduction in ACL tears in skiing, one would think all the major manufacturer's would adopt it. The licensing costs cannot be that high.  I've read KneeBindings literature and the product does seem built to do as advertised regarding the ability to release prior to the ACL tearing but I don't know of any definitive testing that could prove it (same for Mr. Howell's once and future product).


Trust is everything for a new product.  For example, if Apple produces a product there is already a level of trust from previous users. The product still could flop, but those buying it will trust it works until proven otherwise. With a new company with a new product, trust still has to come from somewhere.  Howell can build trust here, but to the guy walking into a ski shop with a SKI or SKIING Buyers Guide under their arms trust will have to come from somewhere else (unless the product is in the magazine), namely the ski shop.    I don't see Knee Bindings as a major player because of that issue.  I see no reason why the binding shouldn't work as well as you say, but I don't exactly see the average guy or gal perceiving that spending $100-$200 more for a binding is worth it.  If a competitive skier used it, even testing it free skiing, I'd trust it a lot more and I think others would, too.  For example, if you see a skier winning a competition (e.g., Big Mountain, mogul, etc.) on a ski you never heard of, there is an implied trust that the product is good for something even though the skier got his equipment for free and was also probably paid to use it.  Ligety skis using a his helmet?  It probably doesn't suck.

 

The assumption that all the major manufacturers would want a product that reduces 70% of all ACL tears could be wrong.  Car manufacturers knew seat belts saved lives in the 1970's, but they didn't put them in cars until they had to by law in 1984 because of the usual cost excuse.  At least with seat belts there was meaningful data available that the device saved lives.  With Knee Bindings, how do you prove the ACL claim?  I am quite certain all the major binding manufacturers have already tested the Knee Bindings, as they should.  These companies can easily buy out Knee Bindings making KB's owners wealthy if the product did as claimed and the major manufacturers either thought it was a threat to their existing business, or through pure altruism decided they had to have the technology to save the skiing world.  I don't see that happening.  So perhaps Knee Binding isn't as good as advertised?  Perhaps it is a good as advertised but the market needs to trust it more?

 

Howell invented other products that had a market waiting for it even though those products were new.  Perhaps he will sell a lot more than Knee Bindings.  We'll see in a few years.

post #790 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

If you've been following the threads you would've seen where RH wrote something to the extent of the plan after his binding is successfully on the market to, iirc, sell or license his new binding/binding tech to a major manufacture. 

 

Issue isn't Mr. Howell's future plans, the issue is fact that Howell did it already, invented an ACL friendly binding, the Knee Binding, but could not sell it to the majors. Only a small group of private investors took it on, the current owners of Knee Binding.

 

The market has proven to be small and the interest of the majors non-existent.  Do the majors balk at the design doing what it says or the lack of market demand or a combination of both?

post #791 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 


- The assumption that all the major manufacturers would want a product that reduces 70% of all ACL tears could be wrong.  Car manufacturers knew seat belts saved lives in the 1970's, but they didn't put them in cars until they had to by law in 1984 because of the usual cost excuse. 

Good point except seat belts were first required by law in all vehicles (except busses), in 1968, then New York was the first to pass a law requiring all occupants use them in 1984. ;)

post #792 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

Issue isn't Mr. Howell's future plans, the issue is fact that Howell did it already, invented an ACL friendly binding, the Knee Binding, but could not sell it to the majors. Only a small group of private investors took it on, the current owners of Knee Binding.

 

The market has proven to be small and the interest of the majors non-existent.  Do the majors balk at the design doing what it says or the lack of market demand or a combination of both?

As a industry outsider my guess is as good as yours. 

post #793 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

As a industry outsider my guess is as good as yours. 

No guessing. Just looking at current market share of Knee Bindings. Mr. Howell is looking to enter what would appear to be a small already saturated market with a functionally identical product.
post #794 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post


No guessing. Just looking at current market share of Knee Bindings. Mr. Howell is looking to enter what would appear to be a small already saturated market with a functionally identical product.

 

Actually he plans to fully develop, certify and test this version BEFORE it is "released" to the public.

post #795 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

Is there an "ACL Injury Prevention" certificate?  Who issues it?

 

There is a market for ACL injury preventive bindings currently being filled by Knee Binding.  That market appears to be small, something Mr. Howell alluded to in his marketing plan of small market, high price demographic.  We see a lot of hostility here to the idea that a binding might prevent ACL injuries.  Odd but I think it is that if it Knee Bindings, works, everyone should have it and there is an emotional or other investment in the standard binding technology.

 

 

 

Well that is your opinion. I have no problem with the "current" technology or even some that were around twenty years ago.

And yes, I ski at my own risk.(and have for 45 years)

 

And yes, "MIGHT" is exactly correct.

post #796 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post
 

Well that is your opinion.

 

More fact as far as sales of Knee Bindings, market demographic for an "ACL" binding, major mfgs licensing ACL protective binding technology, Knee Binding investors.  Howell bindings will be entering and existing market with an existing product so those knowns will apply to his product should it make it to market in 2017 as Mr. Howell plans.

 

Had mine come off today in an interesting collision with a boarder.  He hit me at high speed at the uphill knee at 90 degrees.  That binding released, I'm guessing due to the ski being at a angle, having some pressure on it so it offered enough resistance that the binding released.

post #797 of 898

I think everyone here can now see exactly what I've been dealing with since before November 1 of 2007 when a purported investor entered the picture at my ski binding company (my binding company before Howell Ski Binding company). 

 

You can now see, Beyond, that I'm not paranoid:   the KB-thugs actually ARE real — and they actually attempt to assert their agenda (squeeze-out;  then freeze-out).

 

Here's how everyone at Epic can deal with this instant situation:  picture yourself in 1960 driving a car with a 'perfectly-functioning' air-bag but the car's brakes do not meet minimum inspection standards.

 

Is the car "Safer"?  

 

Now please go to the Google brand search engine — and search with:

 

[https://www.tuev-sued.de/industry_and_consumer_products/certificates]

 

— then follow the TÜV in-house search path described on the TÜV web portal:

 

"Database (all fields) -> Product name -> Sports equipment -> Binding"   (also see the screen-shot, below, to assist with navigation within TÜV),

 

... that takes us to all of the Alpine Ski Binding Certificates at TÜV.  TÜV is the only independent testing lab in the world that tests alpine ski bindings according to the minimum international functional standards for alpine ski bindings according to International Standards Organization ( ISO ) 9462, 9465 and 11087.   TÜV does not write these international ISO standards.  Scroll down the alphabetical list of 581 alpine ski bindings that have obtained minimum standard certificates.  

 

Can anyone name the one and only alpine ski binding that is currently being made, used, sold, and induced-by-others-to-sell — on the open market — that does not have a certificate from TÜV for minimum function according to the international ISO standards 9462, 9465 and 11087 ?

 

How is an 'added-feature' significant when a binding does not meet the minimum standards for what all bindings must do?

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

 

 

P.S. —  ((  Please note that "HTM" is Head / Tyrolia / Fischer / Elan alpine ski bindings;   "Skis Rossignol S.A.S" is Rossignol / Dynastar / Look alpine ski bindings.  ))

 

Please also note that Certification by TÜV is mandatory for alpine ski bindings in Germany — and in Switzerland, the BfU enforces the mandatory certification because the Swiss determined that skiing injuries are adverse to the Swiss GDP.

 

.


Edited by Richard Howell - 1/19/14 at 7:36pm
post #798 of 898

For this thread here on Epic, here's the alphabetical point of demarcation (between the alphabetical listings of "HTM Sport GmbH" and "MARKER Deutschland GmbH") within the TÜV website on Ski Binding Certificates — as tested according to the minimum international ski binding function standards ISO 9462, 9465 and 11087:

 

post #799 of 898

Here is a screenshot of the bottom of the alphabetically-listed Certificates issued by TÜV — showing Certificate 581:

 

 

Yes, obtaining these Certificates from TÜV is expensive:  each model fully-tested by TÜV costs US$ ~15,000.   I guess after failing the full-tests several times, a certain binding company could not afford to keep modifying the binding then re-testing and re-testing and re-testing — with no Certificate produced.

 

.

post #800 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 

 

Incorrect.   We have all of the data.   Do I need to post this, too?

Mr Howell

Can you please post this research that shows that shaped skis cause knee injuries - or at least tell use where to find it.

post #801 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberoni View Post
 

Mr Howell

Can you please post this research that shows that shaped skis cause knee injuries - or at least tell use where to find it.

gilberoni, that was not exclusive of RH's research, it was clearly backed by statistics etc., and discussed here over and over two three years ago, probably longer.

 

Fwiw, When i began reading of phantom foot slip and catch falls, first thing i thought of in my minds eye was a highly shaped sidecut locking in, shortly after i read of just that. Straight skis don't have the tendency to hook up catch a edge and lock in like shaped skis. In a slip and catch scenario straight skis are 100x more likely to release then a shaped ski.

 

I read somewhere here that rocketed skis have a bit more of a chance to release so i placed early rise at the top of the list of wants for my last ski purchase, although actually i think it was said of a combo of tip and tail rocker. I'll say there are occasions were i find my up hill ski locks in pulling away from the fall line (direction of travel). To date i've been lucky enough to have the room around me to run it out, reeling the downhill ski inward toward the ski with a mind of it's own and then reinitiating a turn out of harms way and back into the fall line. I have to say it's unnerving knowing that is 3/4's of the ingredient of a fantom foot event. Saving grace being center of gravity and leg extension is just enough to keep me out of the back seat, where upper lower leg/knee angulation relative to momentum and tourso present a different set of forces to the knee. I wanna say i learned the just let em run "ride it out" approach from years of skiing very long straight skis, but idk, just thankful i'm not a statistic here. YMMV.

post #802 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

gilberoni, that was not exclusive of RH's research, it was clearly backed by statistics etc., and discussed here over and over two three years ago, probably longer.

 

Fwiw, When i began reading of phantom foot slip and catch falls, first thing i thought of in my minds eye was a highly shaped sidecut locking in, shortly after i read of just that. Straight skis don't have the tendency to hook up catch a edge and lock in like shaped skis. In a slip and catch scenario straight skis are 100x more likely to release then a shaped ski.

 

I read somewhere here that rocketed skis have a bit more of a chance to release so i placed early rise at the top of the list of wants for my last ski purchase, although actually i think it was said of a combo of tip and tail rocker. I'll say there are occasions were i find my up hill ski locks in pulling away from the fall line (direction of travel). To date i've been lucky enough to have the room around me to run it out, reeling the downhill ski inward toward the ski with a mind of it's own and then reinitiating a turn out of harms way and back into the fall line. I have to say it's unnerving knowing that is 3/4's of the ingredient of a fantom foot event. Saving grace being center of gravity and leg extension is just enough to keep me out of the back seat, where upper lower leg/knee angulation relative to momentum and tourso present a different set of forces to the knee. I wanna say i learned the just let em run "ride it out" approach from years of skiing very long straight skis, but idk, just thankful i'm not a statistic here. YMMV.

Neonorchild

Rick Howell said that he would post the research that showed that shaped skis cause knee injuries - I have never seen this research.  You said it was back by statistics, which infers that this information is published.  So lets see it ? You are rambling on about phantom foot and slip catch.  That is not research.

post #803 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

gilberoni, that was not exclusive of RH's research, it was clearly backed by statistics etc., and discussed here over and over two three years ago, probably longer.

 

Fwiw, When i began reading of phantom foot slip and catch falls, first thing i thought of in my minds eye was a highly shaped sidecut locking in, shortly after i read of just that. Straight skis don't have the tendency to hook up catch a edge and lock in like shaped skis. In a slip and catch scenario straight skis are 100x more likely to release then a shaped ski.

 

I read somewhere here that rocketed skis have a bit more of a chance to release so i placed early rise at the top of the list of wants for my last ski purchase, although actually i think it was said of a combo of tip and tail rocker. I'll say there are occasions were i find my up hill ski locks in pulling away from the fall line (direction of travel). To date i've been lucky enough to have the room around me to run it out, reeling the downhill ski inward toward the ski with a mind of it's own and then reinitiating a turn out of harms way and back into the fall line. I have to say it's unnerving knowing that is 3/4's of the ingredient of a fantom foot event. Saving grace being center of gravity and leg extension is just enough to keep me out of the back seat, where upper lower leg/knee angulation relative to momentum and tourso present a different set of forces to the knee. I wanna say i learned the just let em run "ride it out" approach from years of skiing very long straight skis, but idk, just thankful i'm not a statistic here. YMMV.

please see post # 703

post #804 of 898
Post #701
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberoni View Post
 

the incidence rate of ACL injuries has actually decreased since shaped skis became more prevelant 

  Post #703 :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 

 

Incorrect.   We have all of the data.   Do I need to post this, too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberoni View Post
 

Neonorchild

Rick Howell said that he would post the research that showed that shaped skis cause knee injuries - I have never seen this research.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilberoni View Post
 

please see post # 703

Ok, post #703 ends with a question mark, ?, nevertheless didn't RH respond to you in post #708 wrt finding the info you're looking for, no?

 

Perhaps you could be so inclined to follow through and come back to report your findings, as well as findings to the contrary to back your post #701 statement? 

post #805 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

  Post #703 :

Ok, post #703 ends with a question mark, ?, nevertheless didn't RH respond to you in post #708 wrt finding the info you're looking for, no?

 

Perhaps you could be so inclined to follow through and come back to report your findings, as well as findings to the contrary to back your post #701 statement? 


Yes, thank you for reminding me.  I still owe information pertaining to 2 posts above.  Sorry.  I'm just now coming off of weeks of writings and three 14-hr days attempting to complete two manuscripts against 2-extended deadlines — regarding the biomechanical research that I presented at ISSS-Argentina this past August, 2013.  As soon as I complete these manuscripts this coming Friday, I will post the refs.  Thank you for your extreme patience.

post #806 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

 

Can anyone name the one and only alpine ski binding that is currently being made, used, sold, and induced-by-others-to-sell — on the open market — that does not have a certificate from TÜV for minimum function according to the international ISO standards 9462, 9465 and 11087 ?

 

But those testing certificates have nothing do with Knee Bindings or your proposed bindings being able to reduce chances of an ACL injury. 

post #807 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

But those testing certificates have nothing do with Knee Bindings or your proposed bindings being able to reduce chances of an ACL injury. 

 

No, but they do at least prove they can work as a binding at all...

 

all the pesky certification stuff, just profits out of the owners pocket  :nono:

post #808 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

 

Can anyone name the one and only alpine ski binding that is currently being made, used, sold, and induced-by-others-to-sell — on the open market — that does not have a certificate from TÜV for minimum function according to the international ISO standards 9462, 9465 and 11087 ?

 

But those testing certificates have nothing do with Knee Bindings or your proposed bindings being able to reduce chances of an ACL injury. 

What an obtuse argument.  Of course they don't.  They have to do with certifying the binding for predictable release safety functions in accordance with industry accepted international standards.  Or as RH says "minimum function..."  ACL protection comes in addition to that "minimum" that he says Kneebinding has never obtained.

post #809 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

But those testing certificates have nothing do with Knee Bindings or your proposed bindings being able to reduce chances of an ACL injury. 

Yeah, what I want is a binding that'll - perhaps, hold a good thought, still waiting for injury incidence from the field to back up lab tests on cadavers - lessen the risk of one type of injury, but may increase the risk of most other types. :irony:

 

Eagles, do you comprehend that the best shills typically grant some points to the opposition, try to make themselves appear vaguely capable of seeing both sides of an argument? For instance, you could have said, "Yes, I agree that not being certified is a serious problem, but perhaps reducing risk to our ACL's is worth the tradeoff." Or: "I wish I knew why they weren't certified. It could be trivial paperwork or it could be a fundamental design issue. But IMO that doesn't detract from the primary strength, which is to protect ACL's."

 

Seriously, you may think you're helping out KB's cause here, but you're not. Others who support KB's are doing a superior job. Please go study some good political speech writing, then get back to us...;) 

 

PS to all: Got ahold of the full Snowboard injury paper, am looking at the statistics as advertised. Will report back. 

post #810 of 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

PS to all: Got ahold of the full Snowboard injury paper, am looking at the statistics as advertised. Will report back. 

Thumbs Up cool

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?