or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Knee Carbon vs Marker XCell 12.0 binding
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Knee Carbon vs Marker XCell 12.0 binding  

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

I am a male 59 yr old 195 lb 5'11" advanced skier. Ski mostly in VT at Killington, Okemo, Mt Snow and Stratton.  Looking for new bindings to mount on  new K2 Rictor 82 xti flat skis 177 cm. I want bindings with advanced. safety features because both knees have had acl reconstruction done on them, but still ski hard on most terrain all day long 12 to 15 days per season.  I see that Marker has a new binding for racers with intelligent backward release. What is this and how does it work?  Will it compete with Knee bindings as an enhanced safety binding or is it  meant more for racers with greater retention features? I have had Tyrolia bindings with diagonal release features and  Marker Bindings thru the years and am looking for a durable trouble free binding that will release predictably when required. Not completely sold on Knee Bindings durability, but after 5 yrs they are still around and coming out with new models.Then there is Marker with their pre release problems  in earlier years, but seem to have been solved in recent years. I don't want this thread to turn into another Knee Binding pro or con discussion as I have seen in the past that goes on and on.  Thank you in advance for your help and opinions. 

post #2 of 20
Great points & hope you are enjoying the snow we receive yesterday. I would ask / clarifying questions: what "feel" do you prefer in a binding & how high off the snow do you want to be?

Personally, I gravitate more toward a solid feel clamp.

For a ski like the Rictor you may want more leverage from a greater stack. KB may fit that ski rather well. Salomon is a little taller w the STHs as well.

If you want to be right on the ski- look for a lower stack height. May serve you better in the bumps / glades / side country. FKS & the Mojo's are lower.

Cheers
post #3 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildgopher View Post
 

I am a male 59 yr old 195 lb 5'11" advanced skier. Ski mostly in VT at Killington, Okemo, Mt Snow and Stratton.  Looking for new bindings to mount on  new K2 Rictor 82 xti flat skis 177 cm. I want bindings with advanced. safety features because both knees have had acl reconstruction done on them, but still ski hard on most terrain all day long 12 to 15 days per season.  I see that Marker has a new binding for racers with intelligent backward release. What is this and how does it work?  Will it compete with Knee bindings as an enhanced safety binding or is it  meant more for racers with greater retention features? I have had Tyrolia bindings with diagonal release features and  Marker Bindings thru the years and am looking for a durable trouble free binding that will release predictably when required. Not completely sold on Knee Bindings durability, but after 5 yrs they are still around and coming out with new models.Then there is Marker with their pre release problems  in earlier years, but seem to have been solved in recent years. I don't want this thread to turn into another Knee Binding pro or con discussion as I have seen in the past that goes on and on.  Thank you in advance for your help and opinions. 

 

Welcome to Epicski.  Kneebinding is designed to prevent ACL tears caused by rearward twisting falls -- AKA the phantom foot fall, a very common ACL injury mechanism.  It does this with a heel piece that releases sideways, toward the inside, as well as upwards.  

 

From what I can tell (and @Philpub can tell you better), the Xcell is marketed as a highly shock-absorbent binding, intended to minimize pre-release under race conditions, but with a conventional heel.

 

Just a heads up.  Kneebinding has been discussed at great length here, and it's been so flaming a controversy that many reasonable people are burnt on the topic.  Use the search function (or Google) for old threads, including a long, very technical discussion by KB inventor Rick Howell, who was fired early on from the company, and who has since aired grievances (and misgivings) here.  When Ski magazine mentioned in a recent article that there had been "an incongruous amount of skepticism -- even vitriol -- surrounding the product" on online message boards, they were talking about Epic (among others).  Fair warning.  If people respond, you may hear opinions on both sides of the fence.

post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildgopher View Post
 

I am a male 59 yr old 195 lb 5'11" advanced skier. Ski mostly in VT at Killington, Okemo, Mt Snow and Stratton.  Looking for new bindings to mount on  new K2 Rictor 82 xti flat skis 177 cm. I want bindings with advanced. safety features because both knees have had acl reconstruction done on them, but still ski hard on most terrain all day long 12 to 15 days per season.  I see that Marker has a new binding for racers with intelligent backward release. What is this and how does it work?  Will it compete with Knee bindings as an enhanced safety binding or is it  meant more for racers with greater retention features? I have had Tyrolia bindings with diagonal release features and  Marker Bindings thru the years and am looking for a durable trouble free binding that will release predictably when required. Not completely sold on Knee Bindings durability, but after 5 yrs they are still around and coming out with new models.Then there is Marker with their pre release problems  in earlier years, but seem to have been solved in recent years. I don't want this thread to turn into another Knee Binding pro or con discussion as I have seen in the past that goes on and on.  Thank you in advance for your help and opinions. 


Take a look at the article in the December 2014 Ski Magazine, starting on Page 55 if you're considering KneeBindings. As Lakespapa said it's a very contentious subject here. Personally I've skied on them 367 days as of today, and have recently started my 7th season on them - after my 2008 ACL Reconstruction which led me to them as one of their earliest adopters. BTW, I am happy on them.

post #5 of 20
Which one is TUV approved? Maybe things have changed from last year:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post

Dear fellow skiers,

To maintain my good reputation — I must reply:  Facts ARE facts.  

Not passing the ONLY minimum international safety standards for alpine ski bindings ( ISO/DIN 9462, 9465 and 11087 ) according to the ONLY independent organization / lab that tests according to these minimum international standards ( TÜV, in Munich, Germany ) AND being the ONLY alpine binding shipped within the US that has never passed these minimum international safety standards (ALL OTHER alpine bindings being shipped in the US have passed) is a serious issue in my opinion.   TÜV publishes a complete, real-time cumulative list of all bindings that have passed the minimum international safety standards according to their independent tests.  These minimum international safety standards apply to the functions that all alpine bindings should provide.  Countries (and their designated standards organizations) represented at ISO (International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland) during the formulation of these minimum international safety standards include but are not limited to:  Germany (DIN), USA (ASTM, as allowed by ANSI), France (Afnor), Austria (Ö-Norms), BfU (Switzerland).   Again, ALL OTHER bindings being shipped within the US meet these minimum international safety standards for alpine ski bindings. 

TÜV publishes the facts pertaining to all bindings that have passed (and that company's bindings were tested at TÜV.  The instant situation is not because those bindings were not tested.  TÜV does not publish which bindings have failed. ).

(( Of course, neither the minimum international ISO safety standards or TÜV can test for the new knee-friendly function of any binding because the industry has not yet passed such proposed-standards (I proposed them to DIN in 2009).  Consequently, TÜV does not have the special test equipment needed to measure the dominant loading condition involved in skiing ACL-injury (Valgus torque) that must be combined together with the measurement of the minor loading condition involved in skiing ACL-injury (Tibia torque) via the non-linear algorithm that integrates Valgus and Tibia torque to read and react to ACL-strain. However, such special standards and special test equipment does not usurp the minimum functional standards and tests required of all bindings for tibia fracture mitigation in the presence of icing, salt-fog, dirt-contamination, combined-loading, torsional anti-pre-release, ski-brake function, etc. that are defined by ISO/DIN 9462, 9465 and 11087. ))

Further, some of you may wonder why any orthopaedic surgeon would render such advice, especially in writing.  I know who this doctor is because he was my doctor.  He was lightly-involved in my early research on this topic in 2004 and 2005.  He is a member of the same 'social' fraternity as the purported-investor who is still hijacking my company;  and he received the bindings he is utilizing FOR FREE from that company.  He has never attended any international skiing safety conferences (such as ISSS);  has never attended any ski binding safety standards meetings (such as ASTM or ISO);  is not a ski binding engineer;  is not a ski injury epidemiologist;  and apparently is relying on 'odds-ratios' (because the mean days between injuries, MDBI, for tibia fractures is ~40,000 with the control-population of skiers, though such occurrence might, though highly unlikely from a probability perspective, take place on the 1st or 40,000th day of skiing.  It's a roll of the dice.  However, with bindings that do not pass the minimum international safety standards, the MDBI IS LESS.  How much less, no one knows.  Having worked for a major German ski binding company for 8-years and for a major French ski binding company for many years, I was mentored by the leading ski binding engineers in the world — Dr-Eng Peter Biermann (of Stüttgart, Germany) and Gilbert Delouche (of Annecy, France) — to rely upon our industry standards for safety compliance, not to rely upon abstract or speculative odds-ratios.  Our industry safety standards were developed at the intersection of engineering, orthopaedics, epidemiology, anti-trust/restraint of free-trade law, patent law (patent portfolios), ski-retailer needs and actual skiing.  The physician quoted may be a fine clinical orthopedist, but we should ask ourselves whether he is qualified to make recommendations about the utilization of alpine ski bindings that have not passed minimum standards — while leveraging his qualifications in orthopaedics to do so.

Additionally, it appears to me that when a company prints within their in-box instructions and on their website that they 'have [also implying, 'independently'] passed' these minimum international safety standards, but in fact, failed at TÜV — that seems to me to be 'somewhat disconcerting' at the least, especially when I am still a significant shareholder in such company AND especially when the business plan that I wrote (which plan was purportedly-agreed by the investors) expressly called-out for passing these minimum ISO/DIN standards by the only independent testing lab that conducts such tests.

Respectfully submitted,

Rick Howell

Howell™ Ski Bindings
Stowe, Vermont  USA
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Which one is TUV approved? Maybe things have changed from last year:


Good question, Tog.

post #7 of 20

Hello fellow skiers,

 

Update: 

 

1—  the brand name "KneeBinding" should be properly preserved from a trademark perspective:  it is one word with a capital K and a capital B;  also, it is not a noun and therefore should not be referenced with 'the' in front of it:  it is a trade-name.

 

2—  There are many bindings on the market that address "backward-twisting" on-snow injury-producing event-mechanisms.  However, bindings with lateral heel release address Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch events ... which are NOT backward-twisting event-mechanisms.  Both Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch mechanisms contain as their dominant applied-vector — valgus-torque (Scandinavian skiing-biomechanical researchers call the same applied vector, "abduction-torque";  some American biomechanical researchers call it "valgus-moment").  Valgus-torque involves zero "twisting" (zero twisting about the long-axis of the tibia) ... and zero "backward" loading.  Valgus-torque is a product of an abduction-force that's applied laterally at the base (the distal end) of the tibia (specifically, in skiing — at the ski / snow interface) OVER THE LENGTH OF THE TIBIA (the length of the tibia, the ski thickness, the stand-height of the heel pad and the thickness of the heel of the ski-boot — is the lever-arm) to produce torque about the femur when knee-flexion is 90°.  If knee flexion is not 90°, then valgus becomes a trigonometric function of knee-flexion — or, in an equally-produced way — it is the lateral bending moment on the tibia (plus ski-thickness, standheight and boot-heel thickness) ABOUT THE CENTER OF THE KNEE.  There is nothing "backward" or "twisting" regarding valgus loading.  It is this common misunderstanding about the dominant loading condition (valgus) that sends non-biomechanicists into spins about what's going on during the dominant event-mechanism that causes skiing-ACL injuries.  If appropriately-tuned, all toe pieces that have multi-directional release capability have the capacity to address "backward-twisting" skiing injury event mechanisms:  those mechanisms contribute to ~ 8% of all skiing ACL injuries.  Valgus-dominant injury mechanisms contribute toward ~ 80% of all skiing ACL injuries.  Only bindings with properly tuned lateral heel release can address the valgus-dominant injury-mechanisms that produce ACL (and MCL) injuries.  Although lateral heel release 'addresses' valgus-dominant ACL-related-loading, no one knows the extent to which ACL injuries are actually averted by lateral heel release.

 

3—  Certifications by TÜV for all bindings that have been tested according to the minimum international (independent) ISO standards are published on-line by TÜV.   Here you can see that the subject binding is still not listed.  All alpine bindings presently made, used and sold meet these minimum international safety standards, except one brand.  Meeting the minimum ISO standards provides compliance with tibia injury mitigation and, to a lesser extent, provides anti-pre-release compliance.  The subject binding is party to tibia fractures.

 

4—  'Just now returning from 8-days in Austria and Germany where I attended the latest skiing medical-safety conference ( in Flachau, Austria) and met with leading biomechanicists at their testing labs in and near Munich, Germany.  The conference was an excellent.  Several of the presenters included European WC team physicians;  leading skiing ER and rehabilitation MD's;  leading head-trauma MD's;  prevention-specialists — as well as skiing injury epidemiologists.  I was also fortunate to be a presenter.   More on this later ... but I can say that my latest engineering-science on this topic remains at the leading edge.

 

Meanwhile, the skiing here in Stowe, Vermont is outstanding.

 

Kind regards,

Rick Howell

 

Howell™ Ski Bindings

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/4/14 at 1:37pm
post #8 of 20

A name is a noun of the subset proper nouns.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 

 

The subject binding is party to tibia fractures.

 

 

 

This is significant, and interesting.  Can you say more?

post #9 of 20

No:  I cannot comment on that other than to say that all other alpine ski bindings being made, used and sold conform to ISO 9462, ISO 9465 and ISO 11087 according to independent testing by the TÜV testing institute in Munich, Germany.  

 

(( TÜV is the only independent testing lab in the world that has the capacity to test bindings according to all aspects of the minimum international safety standards — ISO 9462, 9465 and 11078. ))

 

However, I should clarify my above-post to add that both Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch ACL-injury mechanisms do contain backward loading (causing anterior-drawer loading withing the knee) and a tiny-dash of torque about the long-axis of the tibia.  Pure valgus and/or pure torsional torque about the tibia do NOT generate strain across the ACL.  Valgus loading by itself contains no backward loading and no torsional torque about the long axis of the tibia.  However, Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch mechanisms are 'valgus-dominant'.   By this, I mean that of the three primary driving vectors — valgus;  backward loading (BIAD);  and torque about the long-axis of the tibia (and a related 4th-driving vector — knee flexion angle) — valgus is BY FAR the primary driving vector.   When the BIAD (boot induced anterior drawer) vector becomes greater than the valgus vector, then the injury-producing event-mechanism becomes BIAD, not Phantom Foot, not Slip-Catch.  Again, BIAD has a prevalence of ~8% of all skiing ACL-injuries, while Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch have a prevalence of ~80% of all skiing ACL-injuries. 

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

 

Howell™ Ski Bindings

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/4/14 at 1:42pm
post #10 of 20

FWIW, Marker's Kingpin has full (not one direction) true lateral release at the true alpine click down heel. It's the first certified tech binding, apparently. If Marker sees a financial point, they'll find it child's play to substitute an alpine toe. I suspect within a couple of year's, there will be a bunch more choices from the majors, and whether you love 'em or distrust 'em, Knee Bindings will be an interesting historical sidebar. 

 

I'd also encourage posters to respect the OP's specific plea not turn this into another interminable pro-con thread. It's been done. And done. And done again. If you're compelled, just post a link to the previous arguments, Howell lectures and legal minutia, Chairman counter-pomposities, and save some storage space on Epic's server...

post #11 of 20

Gaining certification at TÜV for the international alpine-touring standard ( ISO 13992 ) has NOTHING to do with the alpine binding standards ISO 9462, ISO 9465 and ISO 11087  IF  the boot has the capacity to rotate more than 45° above the ski surface.  I encourage all of you who are interested in this topic to read ISO 13992:  it can be purchased, on-line, through ANSI (American National Standards Institute).  The pin-tech binding in reference allows more than 45° of boot rotation above the ski — thus it is expressly exempt from the alpine release-testing aspects of the ISO alpine-touring standard, 13992.  Mixing that heel (as it stands now) with an alpine toe will provide pre-release when utilized by strong skiers.  Pin-tech toes avert lateral toe release.  I have recently performed almost 2,000 tests in this category ... the results of which might be published, soon, on WildSnow   :)   Respectfully, the lateral heel release binding that you reference (Beyond) is also, presently, un-tuned for the (non-standard) capacity to address skiing-ACL injuries.

 

Howell Ski Bindings provide lateral heel release specifically-tuned to mitigate ACL and MCL ruptures and tibial-plateau compression fractures — and they mitigate pre-release.   An all-metal (magnesium-aluminum) model will also available with this capability ... which NO other binding company can provide ... though my new bindings will not be available to the public until the end of 2017   :)   They are undergoing thorough testing before consumer introduction.

 

Respectfully,

Rick Howell

 

Howell™ Ski Bindings

Stowe, Vermont


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/4/14 at 2:28pm
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 

Mixing that heel (as it stands now) with an alpine toe will provide pre-release when utilized by strong skiers.  Pin-tech toes avert lateral toe release.  I have recently performed almost 2,000 tests in this category ... the results of which might be published, soon, on WildSnow   :)   Respectfully, the lateral heel release binding that you reference (Beyond) is also, presently, un-tuned for the (non-standard) capacity to address skiing-ACL injuries.

 

OK, to cut past the techno-speak and self-citations you bath in, my point was: 

 

1) That there are plenty of videos showing the Marker operating with a full lateral release both directions, on the horizontal, at the heel (try Wildsnow, which you apparently respect), and Marker's making a big point that it was the only tech binding to be DIN certified. I pay attention to it having the same cert as my Tyrolias. I honestly don't give a flying rat's posterior if that means it's not ISO 495.65 that holds only when the moon is 3/4 full, or TUV 199.337 that applies to red bindings but not blue ones and is sooo much better than ISO, or how both make DIN only relevant to elderly beginners on snow blades.

 

IMO, You Want the Truth (Jack Nicholson accent kicking in here)? All this stuff is generated by competing international organizations who want the prestige and bucks that come with controlling standards that apply to production and marketing of gear, whether it's bindings or electron microscopes. We have them in our field too. And we also have cool international conferences about which methodologies and which standards are cooler; this makes us feel very relevant and cool. Meanwhile, sports standards are vasty more suspect, because the floating money (and attendant corruption) are vast in comparison. Think about how standards and certifications have played out with FIS or IOC or better, FIFA. Want to look into why soccer balls are designed the way they are? Let's just say it isn't about the physics of the kick or the ball in flight. :nono:

 

2) Your term "presently" is grammatically incorrect, but ends up being just right. The word means, "in the near future," not "currently." And in the near future, Marker does have the resources to put an alpine toe on the Kingpin and deal with the pre-release issues you envision if they wish. Even assuming those issues are as certain as you claim; the Beast 16 seems to be mostly there, too. I'm not saying the issues are trivial, rather that they're not all that insurmountable. Is it possible you prefer them to be technically mysterious so you can (drum roll) introduce a competitor to the KB? 

 

Put another way, it's not only brave little indies in Vermont that can figure out the physics of bindings. But majors need to know there's a market to justify the development and production costs of a design they've had for a while, whereby you guys can put together small runs of largely hand made gear and hope to create that market. Unfortunately, technological advancement isn't inevitable, or an automatic sell-out when introduced. It's about the mood of the market and how competitors respond. Re: Spademan, Richard. NYT Sunday Magazine had a whole issue a while back about technological failure, in fact, and its uneasy relationship to corporate conservatism and labor upheaval. Worth a read. 

 

3) When and if the majors jump in - and TGR is full of info that other majors are now all in for 2016 and 2017, including Atomic - neither you nor Knee Binding will have the resources to survive. Happy KB is getting nice press in Ski, or that you keep working on free advertising here, but Marker or Atomic could absolutely crush them or you in one or two seasons of head-on competition. I'm an agnostic about whether that's a good or bad thing; I like indies on principle, whether making skis or bindings or startups or cars, but I don't romanticize them, or think that they're better at meeting my needs than some established modern factory in Austria. Either way, if you're lucky, you'll be bought out, make some bucks, and your patents will be buried somewhere because they're unrealistic to scale up or don't allow enough profit if their bits are outsourced to three different countries. Welcome to post-modern global econ 101...;)

 

Out. 

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

I'd also encourage posters to respect the OP's specific plea not turn this into another interminable pro-con thread. It's been done. And done. And done again. If you're compelled, just post a link to the previous arguments, Howell lectures and legal minutia, Chairman counter-pomposities, and save some storage space on Epic's server...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

OK, to cut past the techno-speak and self-citations you bath in, my point was: 

 

1) That there are plenty of videos showing the Marker operating with a full lateral release both directions, on the horizontal, at the heel (try Wildsnow, which you apparently respect), and Marker's making a big point that it was the only tech binding to be DIN certified. I pay attention to it having the same cert as my Tyrolias. I honestly don't give a flying rat's posterior if that means it's not ISO 495.65 that holds only when the moon is 3/4 full, or TUV 199.337 that applies to red bindings but not blue ones and is sooo much better than ISO, or how both make DIN only relevant to elderly beginners on snow blades.

 

IMO, You Want the Truth (Jack Nicholson accent kicking in here)? All this stuff is generated by competing international organizations who want the prestige and bucks that come with controlling standards that apply to production and marketing of gear, whether it's bindings or electron microscopes. We have them in our field too. And we also have cool international conferences about which methodologies and which standards are cooler; this makes us feel very relevant and cool. Meanwhile, sports standards are vasty more suspect, because the floating money (and attendant corruption) are vast in comparison. Think about how standards and certifications have played out with FIS or IOC or better, FIFA. Want to look into why soccer balls are designed the way they are? Let's just say it isn't about the physics of the kick or the ball in flight. :nono:

 

2) Your term "presently" is grammatically incorrect, but ends up being just right. The word means, "in the near future," not "currently." And in the near future, Marker does have the resources to put an alpine toe on the Kingpin and deal with the pre-release issues you envision if they wish. Even assuming those issues are as certain as you claim; the Beast 16 seems to be mostly there, too. I'm not saying the issues are trivial, rather that they're not all that insurmountable. Is it possible you prefer them to be technically mysterious so you can (drum roll) introduce a competitor to the KB? 

 

Put another way, it's not only brave little indies in Vermont that can figure out the physics of bindings. But majors need to know there's a market to justify the development and production costs of a design they've had for a while, whereby you guys can put together small runs of largely hand made gear and hope to create that market. Unfortunately, technological advancement isn't inevitable, or an automatic sell-out when introduced. It's about the mood of the market and how competitors respond. Re: Spademan, Richard. NYT Sunday Magazine had a whole issue a while back about technological failure, in fact, and its uneasy relationship to corporate conservatism and labor upheaval. Worth a read. 

 

3) When and if the majors jump in - and TGR is full of info that other majors are now all in for 2016 and 2017, including Atomic - neither you nor Knee Binding will have the resources to survive. Happy KB is getting nice press in Ski, or that you keep working on free advertising here, but Marker or Atomic could absolutely crush them or you in one or two seasons of head-on competition. I'm an agnostic about whether that's a good or bad thing; I like indies on principle, whether making skis or bindings or startups or cars, but I don't romanticize them, or think that they're better at meeting my needs than some established modern factory in Austria. Either way, if you're lucky, you'll be bought out, make some bucks, and your patents will be buried somewhere because they're unrealistic to scale up or don't allow enough profit if their bits are outsourced to three different countries. Welcome to post-modern global econ 101...;)

 

Out. 


Hm.  Couldn't resist, huh? 

 

Doesn't sound wrong, however.

post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

 


Hm.  Couldn't resist, huh? 

 

Doesn't sound wrong, however.

well, except for the complete misunderstanding of what the Marker Kingpin lateral release represents compared to Kneebinding. Other than that, yeah, spot on.

post #15 of 20

Yeah, it's hard to stay true to our own words. I'm the worst offender sometimes. But Whiteroom, your comment interests me. In what ways do I completely misunderstand? Sincere here since you know your stuff.

 

I understand that the heel of a tech binding permits a (very) rough biomechanical equivalent to the lateral release of an alpine toe + upward. (In anatomical terms, it's actually preferable because the heel is closer to the axis of the leg.) I understand that a tech toe negates (more or less) the need for forward heel pressure, and that that is the biggest issue for integrating a alpine toe to a Kingpin style heel, since alpine toes require close control of forward pressure. And I understand that shock absorption, more than release itself, is the biggest problem with current tech toes, thus issues with premature release from jolts. Which is why the Kingpin toe is better, but still just a build up of traditional designs. The Beast design provides a bit more recentering capability, and the possibility of much more. But the tech crowd doesn't even like the 16's weight, so will that market support a heavier toe yet? Naw. Wrong tech for the wrong market. 

 

Now as far as the KB, I understand that it has lateral release one direction because its designers cannot figure out how to marry full lateral release to recentering and decentering movements of a toepiece. They claim that they don't need full lateral release to achieve their goal of reducing ACL. Possibly, but I'm not all in on that one since there's still only engineering models and negative evidence to support the claim; the latter is a logical fallacy (the lack of A does not prove B, no matter how much non-A). Also, I'd guess the design doesn't allow for upward release at the toe, either. I do not know why it can't get certified; it could be the cost and politics, or it could be that even the partial lateral release comes at the cost of having too much variance in forces pushing forward at the toe to achieve a consistent lateral release at all points in the heel's travel. If that's the case, then higher risk of MCL, LCL, and meniscal tears seems a high price to pay for reducing risk of ACL.

 

Now let's imagine that the Kingpin heel is capable of providing forward pressure, although it doesn't, since it's an alpine design that doesn't depend on a pin. So the spring can push on the heel.  Before you say that all alpine heels must provide only upward release, and set aside the KB, you're left with Look Pivots, that have some lateral recentering forces because the turntable rotates against the spring, and you have the older Tyrolia heels that provide full lateral release both directions above about 30 degrees off horizontal. And let's imagine that Marker's engineers can figure out how to provide consistent lateral recentering at the heel on the horizontal, just as we've been doing for well over a half century at the toe. It's more a question of the correct spring numbers, angles and gauges than hocus pocus. So what do we have? We have a two-sided KB heel providing forward pressure and upward release. Married to a fairly traditional toe. How is this so radical or such a misunderstanding? Again, not being argumentative exactly, just maybe don't know enough to know how I'm wrong. 

 

A last thing I know is that this may be more of an issue about body size than engineering possibility. Large guys like you that ski aggressively were never good candidates for Tyrolia Diagonal heels because they didn't provide enough forward pressure at all orientations to prevent pre-release. Sort of like the Pivots, some folks wanted that solid "click," and the sense the foot felt like it was really locked in. (Both FKS and Tyrolia LD's have this slight give at high forces; I call it elasticity, you call it unsettling.) I'd suspect you're not a good candidate for the KB, too. But that doesn't negate the fact that the amount of force they can provide was/is more than sufficient for a large majority of skiers. Sort of like how racers don't want upward release at the toe, because they can get way back and still recover, so the FKS high DIN models have toes that are very tough to move upward. But for more normal forces, like the DIN 14 handles, all good with full upward release, and we can devolve into the chest hair pulling over whether the 14 has enough heavy metal for the surging oceans of testosterone that we all have...:D

 

 

post #16 of 20
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

... /...

 

1) That there are plenty of videos showing the Marker operating with a full lateral release both directions, on the horizontal, at the heel (try Wildsnow, which you apparently respect), and Marker's making a big point that it was the only tech binding to be DIN certified. I pay attention to it having the same cert as my Tyrolias. I honestly don't give a flying rat's posterior if that means it's not ISO 495.65 that holds only when the moon is 3/4 full, or TUV 199.337 that applies to red bindings but not blue ones and is sooo much better than ISO, or how both make DIN only relevant to elderly beginners on snow blades.

 

IMO, You Want the Truth (Jack Nicholson accent kicking in here)? All this stuff is generated by competing international organizations who want the prestige and bucks that come with controlling standards that apply to production and marketing of gear, whether it's bindings or electron microscopes. We have them in our field too. And we also have cool international conferences about which methodologies and which standards are cooler; this makes us feel very relevant and cool. Meanwhile, sports standards are vasty more suspect, because the floating money (and attendant corruption) are vast in comparison. Think about how standards and certifications have played out with FIS or IOC or better, FIFA. Want to look into why soccer balls are designed the way they are? Let's just say it isn't about the physics of the kick or the ball in flight. :nono:

 

... / ...

 

Sorry Beyond, the DIN standards are exactly the same as the ISO standards — in fact, they're published together as "DIN / ISO".

 

Also, DIN has never certified anything in its history:  DIN is a standards-organization:  it does not perform tests:  all 'certifications' that reference DIN standards (in the case of all skiing-standards, the standards are DIN/ISO) are conducted and issued by independent testing labs that have nothing to do with DIN.  In skiing, there is only one independent testing lab in the world that has the full capacity to test bindings according to the DIN/ISO standards — and that lab is TÜV in Munich, Germany (it's the same lab that crash-tests German cars).  TÜV issues certificates, not DIN.  In this instant case, the TÜV-certificate is based on the DIN/ISO alpine-touring standard ( DIN/ISO 13992 ) that expressly exempts conformance to the alpine binding related tests for all alpine-touring bindings that allow the boot to rotate more than 45° above the ski surface:  the referenced alpine-touring binding rotates more than 45° — thus, it is exempt from conforming to the alpine binding related release tests.  Its certificate is for a 'pin-tech' binding:  it will not pass the alpine binding standards.

 

As for the rest of your commentary — please show us your test results.


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/5/14 at 3:45am
post #17 of 20

Just to clarify two points:

 

1. Rick's analysis of ski touring bindings and skimo race bindings was commissioned by -- and *PAID* for by -- not WildSnow.com but instead the specialty etailer Skimo Co.

Despite being a small independent shop, Skimo Co stocks many different ski touring bindings:

http://skimo.co/compare-touring-bindings

... and almost every skimo race binding:

http://skimo.co/compare-race-bindings

... including some that are not otherwise available from anyone else in North America.

Previously some magazines and blogs have carried on about alpine touring binding safety, but always with only vague assertions backed up by pretty much nothing.

(For example, WildSnow.com for many years would gas on about ISO yet was too cheap to actually buy the pdf file until recently.)

Anyway, I've seen Skimo Co's draft write-up of Rick's testing, and it's pretty amazing -- I've always been a big fan of Rick's posts, but seeing a summary of his testing protocol was astounding.

Where and when the draft I reviewed will be published is unknown, but the information is incorporated here:

http://skimo.co/binding-finder

 

2. Although the Marker Kingpin does have TUV testing certification for the alpine touring ISO, the Kingpin is not yet available for sale.  The first binding to receive that certification that is actually available for anyone to buy and use is the Dynafit Beast 16, and de facto retroactively the Dynafit Beast from 2013-14 since no substantive changes have been since then, with the 16 appendage only to distinguish it from the new Beast 14, which combines the Beast heel with the Radical 2.0 toe.  (The Radical 2.0 binding has been delayed to 2015-16 because of a part problem at the heel.)

post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Howell View Post
 

 

 

Sorry Beyond, the DIN standards are exactly the same as the ISO standards — in fact, they're published together as "DIN / ISO".

 

Also, DIN has never certified anything in its history:  DIN is a standards-organization:  it does not perform tests:  all 'certifications' that reference DIN standards (in the case of all skiing-standards, the standards are DIN/ISO) are conducted and issued by independent testing labs that have nothing to do with DIN.  In skiing, there is only one independent testing lab in the world that has the full capacity to test bindings according to the DIN/ISO standards — and that lab is TÜV in Munich, Germany (it's the same lab that crash-tests German cars).  TÜV issues certificates, not DIN.  In this instant case, the TÜV-certificate is based on the DIN/ISO alpine-touring standard ( DIN/ISO 13992 ) that expressly exempts conformance to the alpine binding related tests for all alpine-touring bindings that allow the boot to rotate more than 45° above the ski surface:  the referenced alpine-touring binding rotates more than 45° — thus, it is exempt from conforming to the alpine binding related release tests.  Its certificate is for a 'pin-tech' binding:  it will not pass the alpine binding standards.

 

As for the rest of your commentary — please show us your test results.


Gotta love your obliviousness to irony. I stated that I don't give a rat's a*s about whether ISO is the same as blahblahbalh. But you push ahead with TUVISO-babble, manfully. I'm supposed to be crushed by your dazzling ISO-virtuosity. Maybe this will help validate you: WOW! :eek

 

So I'll try again, and be very clear and use very small words with nice white spaces between them:

 

1)  DIN/ISO/TUV:  Don't  care.  Yawn.  And  doubt  Marker  would  agree  with  you  anyway.  

 

2)   "Test  results"  sound  super  impressive  to  laypeople.  They're  not.  I've  seen  too  many  poorly  designed  tests  of  simplistic  models  that  "prove"   utter  b.s.  or  demonstrate  "significant"  differences  that  have   no  functional  meaning.  Now  I  know  it's  shocking,  but  most  scientists  regard  tests  and  test  results  as  busy  work. The  creativity  behind  generating  the  hypothesis,  thinking  outside  the  box,  getting  closer  to  reality,  is  where  the energy  goes. My  commentary  had  nothing  to  do  with  "test results;"  nor  was  I  particularly  interested  in  trying.  Line  graphs:  Another  yawn. 

 

3)  Nor  from  my   perspective  do  your  engineering  models  even  constitute  a  "test;"  they  are  not  trying  to  measure  the  on-slope  real  time  variables  that  produce  epidemiological  outcomes.  Let  alone  the  anatomical  realities  of  a living  knee, which  start  at  the  molecular  level.  Engineering  models  are  very  interesting,  sort  of  like  economists'  models  of  the  market  with  all  the  "externalities" set aside.  I  respect  engineers  and  what  you  all  can  do.  I  could  never build  a  bridge  that  would  last  10  seconds  in  a light  wind.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  your  models  of  a  binding  (or  19th  century  style  tests  of  cadaveral  knees)  can  explain,  let  alone  predict,  real  ACL  injuries.  Prevent,  maybe,  in  the  same  way  that  a  civil engineer  can  overdetermine  a  simple  bridge  design  to  cover  a  few  known  major  forces on  that  bridge  without  understanding  clearly how  those  forces  actually  interact, and  across  how  many  domains,  and  how  many  other  forces  he/she's  ignored.  Until  they  interact  in  a  way  outside  the  model,  or  his/her  experience,  and  the  bridge  falls. The economic bubble  bursts. Those  damn  externalities...

 

4) Put  another  way,  your  results  may be  very  cool  to  you  and  simultaneously not  mean  sh*t  to  an  epidemiologist  or  statistician,  or  anatomist  or orthopedist  or  economist.  Each  paradigm  has  its  own  way  of  looking  at  the  world, what  is  a relevant  question  and  what  is  a  useful  answer.  Your  questions  and  answers  and  urgent  self-advertising  and  cool  little  line  graphs  are  not  relevant  to  what  I  was  talking  about. Your  ISO-know  is  irrelevant  to  me.  Others  here  may  freaking   love  it.  Can  I  be  any  clearer?  

 

5) I'm  sure  I'm  equally  irrelevant  to  you. 

 

4) Sweet  dreams.  

post #19 of 20

To the OP --

 

As you may already have realized, you've stumbled onto a well-established battleground.  A truce of exhaustion had been in place; we can hope for its return.  In the meantime, though, you may find it fascinating to watch perfectly respectable (or largely respectable) members flame it out in public.

 

This is a popcorn moment:popcorn.

post #20 of 20

Put down that popcorn. It's fattening. Since we need to watch our diet over the holidays I'm turning the flames off,

:rules:

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 › Knee Carbon vs Marker XCell 12.0 binding