or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › No binding release in backward fall?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No binding release in backward fall? - Page 2

post #31 of 40
Not everything I said is to release the bindings.

The spinning body around is to stop yourself from sliding headfirst which is bad.

Sometimes in a severe tumble I would rather kick of my skis and use my boots to slow down then risk damaging my knees or skis to self arrest. This is risky because you can get tangled up and doesn't work well if your DIN is set high. Also this really onl
post #32 of 40
TooSteep, has your son had lessons?
How long has he been skiing?
post #33 of 40
Originally posted by gonzostrike:
yeah, it's clearly the mfrs' fault. so plainly.

I wouldn't want some "sophisticated consumer" forcing us to have perpendicular upward toe release when bindings already are too expensive. forced technology ALWAYS is passed directly to the consumer, usually with a "headache bonus" added.
Nothing I've read in this thread from Too Steep has to me suggested he is looking to place the blame on the manufacturer. As a concerned parent (by the way, I'm not one) he seems to be looking for answers that could help avoid similar injuries in the future.

As to your second point, would you suggest manufacturers cease trying to improve their products, be it for safety or any other reason? If there are innovations that can enhance the safety of bindings for everyone, how is that a bad thing? I wouldn't consider that "forced technology". What ultimately drives innovation? Performance, safety, and marketing (in no particular order), all of which drive up costs. Too suggest that developing a legitimate upward release mechanism would excessively influence costs to the consumer seems like a reach.
post #34 of 40
This thread cutoff my post that was there before and there are some replies missing after it.

post #35 of 40
Firstly, I am very sorry to hear that TooSteep's child was hurt so very badly. I wish him a most speedy full recovery and return. Good luck.

Now on with it...

Originally posted by Lew Black:
Binding manufacturers have been working on upward release at the toe for decades. The problem is retention and possibly elasticity. Hard skiing will put upward force on the toe that the knee can handle in some positions, but not in others.
But won't bindings which release due to a purely vertical force cause your skis to fly off when landing a jump on the tails of your skis....on the race course?... in the bumps?....in bumps in the trees?.....

I can't imagine a decent time that a purely vertical force should cause release.

I also don't understand how a spiral fracture should arise from a force that would pull the shovel of the ski down/tail up. Such a force would be push down on the toe, so the boot cuff would be forced into the calf, giving a bad bruise at most.

I don't think a vertical force is the culprit. Here's a demo of making a spiral fracture:


As stated earlier, the lateral movement of the bindings seemed to work. So why did it fail?

Assuming it's set properly and is functional, a compressive force could do the trick. Perhaps the break actually occurred when he hit into the pile of slush, prior to actually falling? The binding might not have released because the boot did not slip on the anti-friction plate -- it stuck, with the help of the compressive force and the lateral force was not sufficient to move the toe piece.

Unfortunately, all a lawyer has to say was that the boot or binding surface was dirty or damaged and the lawsuit is over...Manufacturer is innocent due to reasonable doubt.

Which is another reason why one should never carry skis in a roof-rack with bindings exposed....or even walk with boots across the parking lot, potentially damaging the soles or colecting grit which could make them grip and not slip...

Sorry, but I can't see how the binding mfg is at fault through failure to provide upwards release.
post #36 of 40
PM, the Look XM series which came out between the 99RS and ZR was hinged for upwards realease at the toe. After that the ZR series used a universal joint for upwards release. Now the Pivots use the articulated toe wings.
eckles draw a blank with me as well
post #37 of 40
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by gonzostrike:
yeah, it's clearly the mfrs' fault. so plainly.

Can you read?
post #38 of 40
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by John J:
TooSteep, has your son had lessons?
How long has he been skiing?
He has had lessons. This is his 3rd year on skis, but first with a lot of days on the hill.

It is clear from watching him, (and other kids of his age or size), that he would be much safer if he would allow his skis to run more, and turn by rolling the skis onto their edge instead of grinding the inside edges into the hill, with his weight more forward over his skis. I haven't figured out how to get him how to do (and feel) that. Lessons so far have all promoted a wedge turn that he does with firm pressure on the rear of his boots.

Next year, I think I'll put him in the local racing program - the kids I've seen from the racing program don't seem to have the same wedging/weight back style. I talked to one of the instructors Sunday, and he told me that they never mention/show wedges at all (opposite to the regular teaching program at that hill). Instead they get the little kids to do 'hockey stops', pivots and a lot of boot skiing. The kids, in general,seem to end up with a superior balance position. The race instructors approach was totally different from the regular instructors I've talked with. It will be interesting to see if it changes his approach/balance.
post #39 of 40
Sometimes it is hard to get accurate reading from written words, but I thought the original poster was only wondering if there was a way to prevent similar mishaps in the future. Maybe I read it that way because I'm a parent as well.

TooSteep -
I kinda went backward on this thread. I should've mentioned something about your post before being selfish and getting the information for myself. I hope your son recovers soon and well.

My son (almost 6) started skiing this season, improved quite a bit in a short amount of time, and I was wondering about how to get him to do parallel turns as well. He starts the turn with a wedge, and puts the skis together at the bottom of the turn.

You mentioned racing team, and I'm curious if that is a viable alternative for my son as well. Can a kid enter the team at this half-wedge/half-parallel stage? Do you happen to know if there are prerequisites in terms of skiing ability? Or, is it open to all levels and they have them race/learn in different conditions?

My first reaction to 'racing team' was wincing, given my son's level, but maybe there is some merit to it?

post #40 of 40
Originally posted by TooSteep:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gonzostrike:
yeah, it's clearly the mfrs' fault. so plainly.

Can you read? </font>[/quote]sorry, but I've forgotten more about communication than you'll ever know. yes, I read quite well.

can you read? I didn't say YOU were insisting on the mfr forcing. I commented on the problem of forcing mfrs to adopt technology when they haven't been considering it or preparing for it. My comment was a caveat to those who think it's fine to sue or complain with the intent to "force" a change. almost always it comes back to haunt the consumer. and I'm serious -- $300 for a pair of bindings is ridiculous, and with forced upward release incorporated, I'd bet we'll pay $500. mark my words, if that's your goal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › No binding release in backward fall?