EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Kneebinding: off-topic from "I'm the person with the first ACL tear on a Knee Binding"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kneebinding: off-topic from "I'm the person with the first ACL tear on a Knee Binding" - Page 9

post #241 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

Who can...eventually you cross some invisible line with him and become a fantasy figure in his legal battles.

 

Yeah, it's like he lives in this world where there's more system binding skis than flat skis... right?

post #242 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Kneebindings dont do that, in fact they are worse then standard proven products.

 

Um, OK, based on what?

post #243 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Fact - skiers on Kneebindings have a 23% higher (1/35,000 vs 1/43,000) rate of blown ACLs then average companies.\

 

Ah yes..you still haven't told us about your "I have a list" of "10 ACL's tears caused by Knee Bindings" or the imaginary lawsuits over Knee Binding safety issues.

 

Until those fabrications are resolved, might be best to say nothing or people will keep reminding you that you admitted to knowing nothing about KneeBindings, ACL injuries on them or lawsuits about them but you keep making these admittedly dishonest statements about them.

post #244 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 

Um, OK, based on what?


Data presented by Kneebinding itself.  10 blown ACLs over 350,000 days is 1 blown ACL for every 35,000 ski days.   Industry average is 1/43,000.

 

 

Kneebinding discards these 10, becuase they didnt happen via "Phantom Foot" which is the only mechanism they are designed to prevent.  However...that is a ridiculous argument...the only question that matters is "are these bindings safer?"  Yes or No?  Based on the data, Kneebindigns have more ACL injuries per ski days then regular bindings full stop.  Its why Eagles fought so hard to get the number of ski days up...so this little fact can be mitigated.

post #245 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post


Data presented by Kneebinding itself. 

Then it should not be hard for you to quote and reference it.

 

Until then, the phantom lawsuits, the imaginary ACL's caused by Knee Bindings, the fuzzy math on ski days....all are just fabrications.

post #246 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

Then it should not be hard for you to quote and reference it.

 


It isnt...but I am not going to go back through pages and pages of stuff...its all there for anyone wanting to find it. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

 

 

Until then, the phantom lawsuits, the imaginary ACL's caused by Knee Bindings

 

Are you going to go on the record now and say that there is only 1 known ACL injury on KBs how ever caused??? 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post
 

 

 

fuzzy math on ski days....all are just fabrications.

 

Fuzzy math?  I know its fuzzy to you...but I showed my work, and stated the assumptions.  You on the other hand just claimed a "1 MILLION ski days!!"  Sounded like something from Austin Powers movie.  Your posts and stats are total bogus fabrications designed to trick and rip-off people who only want to have a safe binding. 

post #247 of 265

There are aspects of release dynamics tht are NOT offered on the kneebinding like upward release and upward compensation/ multidirection release in the toe. Sliding AFD's in the toe, with KB offering the lateral release in the heel, why not a sliding AFD there too? I am not niave enough to think that these features will help every fall but if you are going to market a the safest binding for the knees, why not include every safety design offered? 

post #248 of 265

It actually wouldn't surprise me to find that there are actually more knee injuries in the sample of knee binding skiers per capita than in a sample of other binding skiers.  This is simply because it is possible that the majority of knee binding skiers already have at least one bad knee.  It''s rolling loaded dice so to speak..

post #249 of 265
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

There are aspects of release dynamics tht are NOT offered on the kneebinding like upward release and upward compensation/ multidirection release in the toe. Sliding AFD's in the toe, with KB offering the lateral release in the heel, why not a sliding AFD there too? I am not niave enough to think that these features will help every fall but if you are going to market a the safest binding for the knees, why not include every safety design offered? 


Phil:  

 

1—  That toe does have multi-directional release. 

 

2—  Presently, there are no toes on the market that offer adjustable vertical toe release.  

 

3—  As for AFD's, most mechanical AFD's, of course, are inferior to Teflon® AFD's because most mechanical AFD's go to 'catastrophic failure' (the resultant load on the leg becomes greatly increased) during forward twisting events when contaminated internally.  Teflon®, on the other hand, typically produces a smaller than expected increase in the resultant load on the leg when contaminated.   Of course, the down-side of Teflon® is that it's manufacturing-cost is higher than most mechanical AFD's.

 

4—  "Safety" especially means 'no pre-release'.   (Safety is a bad word in the ski binding industry.)  Vertical toe release is associated with pre-release when utilized with aggressive skiers and racers — therefore, it is 'more safe' to not have vertical toe release than to have it (unless a toe is developed with upward release that does not pre-release).

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

post #250 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post


Phil:  

 

1—  That toe does have multi-directional release. 

 

2—  Presently, there are no toes on the market that offer adjustable vertical toe release.  

 

3—  As for AFD's, most mechanical AFD's, of course, are inferior to Teflon® AFD's because most mechanical AFD's go to 'catastrophic failure' (the resultant load on the leg becomes greatly increased) during forward twisting events when contaminated internally.  Teflon®, on the other hand, typically produces a smaller than expected increase in the resultant load on the leg when contaminated.   Of course, the down-side of Teflon® is that it's manufacturing-cost is higher than most mechanical AFD's.

 

4—  "Safety" especially means 'no pre-release'.   (Safety is a bad word in the ski binding industry.)  Vertical toe release is associated with pre-release when utilized with aggressive skiers and racers — therefore, it is 'more safe' to not have vertical toe release than to have it (unless a toe is developed with upward release that does not pre-release).

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

I am intuitively in agreement about Teflon™ AFD's vs the mechanical AFD's i'm familiar with. 

 

However i'm not clear on what is being described as multi directional release of the Knee binding toe piece. In my mind multi directional should encompass a upward releasing aspect, which according to the following quoted post, KB lacks, (Not describing a strictly vertical/strictly horizontal modes of release, which you could also describe as multi since more then one plane of release and as seen in the following discussion, http://www.epicski.com/t/108729/80s-binding-reflash-true-upward-release-from-the-toe-piece ), i imagine PP was referring to the same.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/108555/kneebinding-2012-discussion-forum/60#post_1451553 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

JSM 4/2

 

Hi all - a couple of clarifications.

 

raspritz - There are certainly lighter bindings on the market.  However, KneeBindings weight about 5 lbs per pair - which is average for premium bindings - despite the fact that we have a complete third release mechanism including cams, springs, pullbars, etc.

 

Beyond - KneeBinding does not have an upward toe release.  No one has ever demonstrated any real benefit from this kind of release, and after many years on the market, there has been no apparent effect on the knee injury rate - which has reached epidemic proportions.  Remember that falling backwards may put weight on your heel, but it does not create upward force on your toe.  As you know, you can lay down completely on your ski tails, and still not have any upward force at the toe.  If a release mechanism does not have any way to reduce injuries, then all releases from such a mechanism would have to be considered undesirable.  That is why this kind of release mechanism is gradually disappearing from the market.

 

Chairman

 

 

There was a video posted demonstrating vertical release between the two forms of Look pivot toe pieces. I referenced it in post: http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/150#post_1550769 as well as in prior post. Not only did my question go unanswered but the video subsequently became locked! To my eye the video clearly demonstrated a upward releasing toe of the Look P14. Of which i'll add also releases in multi directions/multi 3-D planes of such, something i don't believe KB toe piece can and or is designed to do.

RH, i presume you elaborated on the prior statement in latter post and again in point #2 of the above quote, http://www.epicski.com/t/119530/kneebinding-off-topic-from-im-the-person-with-the-first-acl-tear-on-a-knee-binding/240#post_1570879 , where you say "offer adjustable", quite different then ^"there are no bindings presently on the market with vertical toe release".

 

And again for those who care to search back links RE: relevancy of upward toe piece release;

JSM's take on it, http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/30#post_1489832  

RH's, http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/30#post_1489874

 

^P.s., Pls see links to quoted passages for full context of original quote as intended by the author. 

post #251 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

It actually wouldn't surprise me to find that there are actually more knee injuries in the sample of knee binding skiers per capita than in a sample of other binding skiers.  This is simply because it is possible that the majority of knee binding skiers already have at least one bad knee.  It''s rolling loaded dice so to speak..


Yeah, I have considered that, and it is certainly one possible explanation. 

 

However that is the issue here...it is one possible explanation, it also possible that Kneebindings are actualy worse at preventing ACL injuries in "the other 30%" making its net effect worse then regular bindings.  The fact is...no one knows for sure.

 

So KB has two choices really...they can spend the money and do proper studies to prove the answer one way or the other.  The obvious problem with that is, it costs money, takes time, and may not provide the results they hope for. 

 

OR

 

they can simply state the truth, what they believe, what they know, and what they speculate, and let people make up their own minds.  If they take this approach, at most what they can say is:  "Kneebinding has a unique release mechanism that might reduce your chance of blowing an ACL in certain types of falls, and as a result may be a safer alternative to regular bindings". 

post #252 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

................

OR

 

they can simply state the truth, what they believe, what they know, and what they speculate, and let people make up their own minds.  If they take this approach, at most what they can say is:  "Kneebinding has a unique release mechanism that might reduce your chance of blowing an ACL in certain types of falls, and as a result may be a safer alternative to regular bindings". 

That might just be enough providing they can demonstrate consistent release, retention and durability. Some added measure of safety might tip the scales for many provided the binding gets a good rep otherwise.

post #253 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

That might just be enough providing they can demonstrate consistent release, retention and durability. Some added measure of safety might tip the scales for many provided the binding gets a good rep otherwise.

Fwiw, Idk whats what with KB not passing TUV certification, nor am i comfortable with that.

post #254 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

It isnt...but I am not going to go back through pages and pages of stuff...its all there for anyone wanting to find it. 

 

 

Chuckle...we know your "lawsuits against Knee Binding safety" are fictitious.  We know your "10 ACL's caused by Knee Binding" are fictitious. We know your claims about Knee Binding "R&D" are fictitious.  Only real question why do you keep haunting the threads on Knee Bindings when you admitted know nothing about them or about the company?  There seems to be small pack on EpicSki that go on a Jihad of faith based lunacy every time a Knee Binding discussion begins.

post #255 of 265
One says they didn't pass and the other says they did pass (eventually) TUV... Would love to know for sure. Why no JSM in this thread this time around? There has been a lot of mud slung.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
post #256 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetwJE View Post

One says they didn't pass and the other says they did pass (eventually) TUV... Would love to know for sure. Why no JSM in this thread this time around? There has been a lot of mud slung.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I'm no expert, but if you go to http://tuvamerica.com/tools/clientlists/certs.cfm and plug "binding" into the search box, you get some spurious "binding appliance" hits and then a whole bunch of ski bindings ...(you can filter the non-ski hits by clicking on Sports Equipment).  I see certificate holders: "Amer Sports Corporation WInter Sports Equipment," "ATOMIC Austria GMBH", "Fritschi AG Swiss Bindings" "HTM Sport GMBH" "Marker Deutshland GmbH" "Salomon SAS IP & Legal Department 'Les Croisselets'", "Skis Rossignol S.A.S", "VIST Tech GmbH".

 

If this is the wrong place to look, I would love to hear about it.

post #257 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

 

Chuckle...we know your "lawsuits against Knee Binding safety" are fictitious.  We know your "10 ACL's caused by Knee Binding" are fictitious. We know your claims about Knee Binding "R&D" are fictitious.  Only real question why do you keep haunting the threads on Knee Bindings when you admitted know nothing about them or about the company?  There seems to be small pack on EpicSki that go on a Jihad of faith based lunacy every time a Knee Binding discussion begins.

 

I have to ask, as a mere consumer (as most of us are) of a product that you're perfectly happy with, why on earth do you care so deeply and passionately about this whole thing? You and SkiDude could just get a room and call it good, no?

post #258 of 265

Here's all I have to say...

 

post #259 of 265
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

I'm no expert, but if you go to http://tuvamerica.com/tools/clientlists/certs.cfm and plug "binding" into the search box, you get some spurious "binding appliance" hits and then a whole bunch of ski bindings ...(you can filter the non-ski hits by clicking on Sports Equipment).  I see certificate holders: "Amer Sports Corporation WInter Sports Equipment," "ATOMIC Austria GMBH", "Fritschi AG Swiss Bindings" "HTM Sport GMBH" "Marker Deutshland GmbH" "Salomon SAS IP & Legal Department 'Les Croisselets'", "Skis Rossignol S.A.S", "VIST Tech GmbH".

 

If this is the wrong place to look, I would love to hear about it.


That's the correct place for certificates that prove compliance at TÜV for alpine bindings, according to the minimum international standards, ISO 9462, 9465, and 11087.  Btw, "HTM Sport GmbH" is Head / Tyrolia / Fischer / Elan.  There is only ONE brand of 'alpine' bindings missing ... and all of you know which one that is.

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT

post #260 of 265
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

I am intuitively in agreement about Teflon™ AFD's vs the mechanical AFD's i'm familiar with. 

 

However i'm not clear on what is being described as multi directional release of the Knee binding toe piece. In my mind multi directional should encompass a upward releasing aspect, which according to the following quoted post, KB lacks, (Not describing a strictly vertical/strictly horizontal modes of release, which you could also describe as multi since more then one plane of release and as seen in the following discussion, http://www.epicski.com/t/108729/80s-binding-reflash-true-upward-release-from-the-toe-piece ), i imagine PP was referring to the same.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/108555/kneebinding-2012-discussion-forum/60#post_1451553 

 

 

There was a video posted demonstrating vertical release between the two forms of Look pivot toe pieces. I referenced it in post: http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/150#post_1550769 as well as in prior post. Not only did my question go unanswered but the video subsequently became locked! To my eye the video clearly demonstrated a upward releasing toe of the Look P14. Of which i'll add also releases in multi directions/multi 3-D planes of such, something i don't believe KB toe piece can and or is designed to do.

RH, i presume you elaborated on the prior statement in latter post and again in point #2 of the above quote, http://www.epicski.com/t/119530/kneebinding-off-topic-from-im-the-person-with-the-first-acl-tear-on-a-knee-binding/240#post_1570879 , where you say "offer adjustable", quite different then ^"there are no bindings presently on the market with vertical toe release".

 

And again for those who care to search back links RE: relevancy of upward toe piece release;

JSM's take on it, http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/30#post_1489832  

RH's, http://www.epicski.com/t/113646/height-length-and-din/30#post_1489874

 

^P.s., Pls see links to quoted passages for full context of original quote as intended by the author. 

 

If in doubt about "multi-directionality" or "vertical release capability" (these are two different things) — the bottom-line regarding "multi-directional" is in the test results. 

 

When the resultant torque on the leg is 'significantly' greater with certain bindings during combined BIAD-twisting loading — as compared to other bindings where the resultant loading on the leg is not 'significantly' greater in the presence of these combined loads, then the binding that does not have the 'significant' increase in resultant-loading MUST HAVE a multi-directional toe in order to achieve these test results.

 

Bindings with pure vertical toe release include the Geze SE3, Spademan, Cubco, etc.  The "L-binding" noted above has a fixed amount of 'vertical release' that is not adjustable — and therefore does not generate a backward-bending release moment on the leg that is scalable for different anthropometric variation among us:  it is not intended to have effective 'vertical toe release' — it IS, however, multi-directional.

 

As for 'proof':   Yes, we at Geze ( when I worked there way back in the late 1970's through mid-1980's ) decisively proved that vertical toe release radically mitigates BIAD-induced ACL-injuries.  I was also the one within Geze who withdrew that binding from the market because even though it did have a huge positive effect in reducing BIAD-induced ACL-injuries, it also had significant pre-release among aggressive skiers ... and we were unable to stop some aggressive skiers from utilizing it — so we withdrew it from the market.   However, several of the top ski-injury researchers in the world (who also happen to be smooth, non-aggressive skiers) still utilize the Geze SE3 expressly BECAUSE of our definitive proof that it greatly reduced BIAD-induced ACL-injuries.  This brilliant binding (sincerely ... and despite its well known and Very Real pre-release flaw) was the creation of Dr-Eng Peter Biermann — a truly brilliant man, who in my mind, is probably the leading expert in the world on alpine ski bindings.  For smooth recreational skiers, the Geze SE3 is still a totally-fantastic binding but if you ever find yourself skiing aggressively, you face possible pre-release ... which pre-release condition can be far worse than a 'no-release' condition.  BIAD-induced skiing ACL-injuries are associated with ~10 to 15% of all skiing ACL-injuries;  whereas Phantom Foot induced ACL-injuries and especially Slip-Catch induced ACL-injuries are associated with approx 70 to 75% of all skiing-ACL-injuries.  Vertical toe release and multi-directional toe release have no effect on Phantom Foot or especially on Slip-Catch induced skiing ACL-injuries — because PF and SC induced events have a transposed-centroid that generate a large abduction force (then subsequently large valgus torque), such centroid offers little or no effective lever arm over which ANY toe (multi-directional, vertical, non-multi-directional, combined lateral and vertical) can sense — and hence they do NOT respond in the presence of the signature loads that are associated with PF or SC events ( they cannot respond to 70 to 75% of the events that cause skiing ACL-injuries).

 

(( Lastly and clearly, as most of us well know, when backward loads are applied on skis, there is significant upward loading on all toe pieces:  Statements to the contrary demonstrate a lack of the most basic biomechanical knowledge AND a lack of the most basic skiing experience. ))

 

((( Proof of the Geze SE3 regarding BIAD is to simply utilize this equipment then intentionally self-induce a massive BIAD-load ... and everytime this happens, the Geze SE3 toe releases purely vertically — IF properly adjusted according to the manufacturer's specifications.

 

Pls note that the Geze SE3 is no longer on the so-called 'Schedule of Indemnified Products' — Therefore, DO NOT utilize this binding, today.  Geze sold its ski binding division a long time ago, and the buyer of that division is not in a position to support that product.  DO NOT USE IT. )))

 

Rick Howell

Stowe, VT

 

.


Edited by Richard Howell - 4/3/13 at 11:17am
post #261 of 265

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

KneeBinding, Inc. wrongly modified my design...

Could you please explain what these modifications were and what effect they would have?   [If you've already addressed this, my apologies, and could you please link the relevant post?]

post #262 of 265

I'd like to add a general comment on risk assessment that I think is germane to this thread:    Any estimate of risk is meaningless unless accompanied by a measure of the uncertainty attendant with that estimate (and a precise description of how the uncertainty was calculated).   

post #263 of 265

Re: BIAD

 

Just out of curiosity: has anyone ever attempted to address this type of ACL injury with a releasable boot? Ie the boot shell itself would decouple from the lower shell. Of course this might make binding release itself even more unlikely but nonetheless it does seem like a possibility. The other possibility that comes to mind is a release mechanism built into the sole of the boot itself that causes release (either lateral or upward) at the boot binding interface kind of like a built in binding plate. This may have been covered before and it doesn't relate to the product specific  nature of the thread so I'll apologize in advance if this is inappropriate. If it kills this thread which seems to have degenerated into a shouting match-so much the better.

post #264 of 265

Lange did, and it worked, but people thought it "pre-released" too much so they stopped selling it.

post #265 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

 

Epidemiology is the science involved.  It is used for disease, injury, for gun shots, etc.  It applies to ACL injuries.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post


No. 

 

Look here:

 

http://www.aea.asn.au/about-us/what-is-epidemiology

 

and here

 

http://www.shea-online.org/

 

 

Its the study of disease.  Sure they look at causitave factors such as smoking and its affect on lung cancer...but ultimatley its about diseases.  Not ski accidents or gun shots.  Those are links to an Australian and an American Epidermilogical Society.  But what do they know right?rolleyes.gif

Please forgive me Skidude, but Eagles is correct -- while not the most common usage, epidemiology can indeed be applied toward injury as well as disease. Consider, for instance, the subfield of occupational epidemiology, which concerns occupational injuries, including physical injuries (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a15.htm).  In fact, there is an entire journal devoted to this area: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/ .  The reason that injuries weren't mentioned in the definitions given on the two professional epidemiology sites you linked is likely because those definitions were not there for their members, they were there for the general public.   Consequently, they chose simplicity over comprehensiveness.

Note also that the term "disease" itself can be interpreted more broadly to include a purely physical injury (though that is not the most common usage).

Most importantly, it makes sense to use epidemiology to study knee injuries.  Epidemiology represents a powerful set of tools to understand the relationship between exposure and health effects, and scientists, after all, like to use the most powerful and appropriate set of tools available to study a subject.


Edited by chemist - 4/4/13 at 4:08pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Kneebinding: off-topic from "I'm the person with the first ACL tear on a Knee Binding"