New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So many Boot Top Fractures - Page 4

post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Why would the ligaments of the knee not give way before the bone breaks?
I wonder that too, as Vail mentioned there are several factors, there usually is, accidents happen when a series of conditions are present, it usually takes more than one failure in design of the system for things of this nature to occur.

My blame list: 1) The bindings, they simply are not as good as they could be. 2) Unusual ski position circumstance, even with bindings that dont work as well as they could, they do work at least most of the time, otherwise we would all have broken legs, so something as far as the ski/user position, occured that put uncommon stresses to the system. 3) Stiff boots, in the past even if your bindings did not release your boot had enough give so that there would not be any concentrated pressure on your legs to tear or break anything. 4) Skier's bones, I think that if a biopsy were done with the bones from those who have had the breaks, we may find that for whatever reason these skiers bones were not as strong as they could be at that point in time....or that they had been compromised previously, and all they needed was an extra push to fail.

WC skiers fall at 70mph with heavy 200+cm skis and DINs of 14+ and leg breaks are not the norm (torn connective tissue is); leads me to believe that they have strong bones, nutrition and training increases the resilience and density of bones. Our victims may have all the skills of a WC racer but due to age, conditioning, or a maybe medication they are taking, their bones may be slightly compromised, enough to result in a break, even before the ligaments give.
post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJguy View Post
I wonder that too, as Vail mentioned there are several factors, there usually is, accidents happen when a series of conditions are present, it usually takes more than one failure in design of the system for things of this nature to occur.

My blame list: 1) The bindings, they simply are not as good as they could be. 2) Unusual ski position circumstance, even with bindings that dont work as well as they could, they do work at least most of the time, otherwise we would all have broken legs, so something as far as the ski/user position, occured that put uncommon stresses to the system. 3) Stiff boots, in the past even if your bindings did not release your boot had enough give so that there would not be any concentrated pressure on your legs to tear or break anything. 4) Skier's bones, I think that if a biopsy were done with the bones from those who have had the breaks, we may find that for whatever reason these skiers bones were not as strong as they could be at that point in time....or that they had been compromised previously, and all they needed was an extra push to fail.

WC skiers fall at 70mph with heavy 200+cm skis and DINs of 14+ and leg breaks are not the norm (torn connective tissue is); leads me to believe that they have strong bones, nutrition and training increases the resilience and density of bones. Our victims may have all the skills of a WC racer but due to age, conditioning, or a maybe medication they are taking, their bones may be slightly compromised, enough to result in a break, even before the ligaments give.
boots have become stiffer laterally but softer foreward flex wise. It seem like the less give in the boot, the more direct input to relaease the binding. or were the bones snapped from behind? Most binding toepieces have some flavor of compensatory mechanism to ease upward realeas as the forward pressure increase at the toe piece. this usually decrease the retention of the toe wings and allows the boot toe to come out.
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
boots have become stiffer laterally but softer foreward flex wise. It seem like the less give in the boot, the more direct input to relaease the binding. or were the bones snapped from behind? Most binding toepieces have some flavor of compensatory mechanism to ease upward realeas as the forward pressure increase at the toe piece. this usually decrease the retention of the toe wings and allows the boot toe to come out.
Atomicman you are probably right about that, but think about it this way, with boots that now transmit more forces to the bindings increasing chances of a prerelease (when at angles that the bindings are desinged for), we then tend to up the DIN to compensate.

Now that I think back, I am a living example of this, my carvers are set to a DIN of 8 (recommended for me is 7), my race skis are at 10 (far over what any chart recommends)...I didnt just choose these numbers randomly, I was having too many binding releases as I was tackling more difficult terrain at higher speeds with my new stiffer boots, so I upped the DIN, now things feel acceptable, but I know I have increased my risk of injury.
post #94 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJguy View Post
Atomicman you are probably right about that, but think about it this way, with boots that now transmit more forces to the bindings increasing chances of a prerelease (when at angles that the bindings are desinged for), we then tend to up the DIN to compensate.

Now that I think back, I am a living example of this, my carvers are set to a DIN of 8 (recommended for me is 7), my race skis are at 10 (far over what any chart recommends)...I didnt just choose these numbers randomly, I was having too many binding releases as I was tackling more difficult terrain at higher speeds with my new stiffer boots, so I upped the DIN, now things feel acceptable, but I know I have increased my risk of injury.
I am sure there are multiple factors that come into play. maybe it has to just be the perfect (or imperfect combination) that causes catastrophic results.

your cranking up the DIn is reffered to as the "Ratchet" effect. if you have not you should read this very interesting FAQ from the originators of DIN release and torque settings.

http://www.vermontskisafety.com/faq_..._skiers_8.html
post #95 of 119
The mechanism you describe is the phantom ACL injury, pressure of the back of the boot cuff on the calf. This presses the shin forwards and snaps the ACL. It ended Aamodt's career (Last Olympics' DH run, where he landed in the back seat of the drop at the top.).
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
The mechanism you describe is the phantom ACL injury, pressure of the back of the boot cuff on the calf. This presses the shin forwards and snaps the ACL. It ended Aamodt's career (Last Olympics' DH run, where he landed in the back seat of the drop at the top.).
BigE, yes i know that, but in these cases it was the inside retracted or collapsed leg that was injured, I believe in the common ACL tear it is the outside weighted leg.
post #97 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
BigE, yes i know that, but in these cases it was the inside retracted or collapsed leg that was injured, I believe in the common ACL tear it is the outside weighted leg.
That would be in the Phantom Foot but I believe we're talking Boot Induced ACL tear, and the knee injured is whichever tail you pressure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
The mechanism you describe is the phantom ACL injury, pressure of the back of the boot cuff on the calf.
no that's Boot Induced. Phantom foot is where the tail of the ski acts as the Phantom Foot, the edge catches and twists the knee.
post #98 of 119
When you say landed on, what do you mean? often times you are not landing, which would imply having left the ground in the first place.

Isn't it more common to just get too far in the back seat and try to recover at the expense of your ACL. I would think this would almost always be your outside leg.

Or the same scenario with the added sidecut of the ski causing a direction change opposite of your travel path as you try to recover.
post #99 of 119
From Vermont Safety Research:


THE PHANTOM FOOT ACL
One common ACL injury scenario has been termed the Phantom Foot because it involves the tail of the ski, a lever which points in a direction opposite that of the human foot. Phantom Foot injuries can occur when the tail of the downhill ski, in combination with the stiff back of the modern ski boot, acts as a lever to apply a unique combination of twisting and bending loads to the knee.
RECOGNIZING POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
Three types of situations can lead to the Phantom Foot syndrome:


SITUATIONS WHICH CAN LEAD TO ACL INJURY
* Attempting to get up while still moving after a fall.
* Attempting a recovery from an off-balance position.
* Attempting to sit down after losing control. To help reduce the risk of Phantom Foot injury, skiers must first learn to recognize potentially dangerous situations while there is still time to respond. The list that follows represents a profile of the Phantom Foot ACL which was developed from an analysis of more than 14,000 skiing injuries and a score of videotapes of actual ACL sprains. Six elements define the profile.


PROFILE OF THE PHANTOM FOOT ACL
* Uphill arm back.
* Skier off-balance to the rear.
* Hips below the knees.
* Uphill ski unweighted.
* Weight on the inside edge of downhill ski tail.
* Upper body generally facing downhill ski. Although these elements may fall into place in almost any order during a sudden loss of balance or control, the order shown here is characteristic of the chain of events which can often put the average skier at risk.
post #100 of 119

Vit A/Calcium leak

Just a note on calcium leak (not that this is what happend but someone mentioned the possibility of soda causing bone loss)

There's growing medical evidence that excessive intake of Vit A (especially with relatively low levels of Vitamin D) can lead to calcium leak which could even lead to osteoporosis.

See this page for a synopsis.

As I understand the levels considered in the Swedish study (which looked at hip fractures) are less than previously considered (about 2x vs the old level which was 3-4x RDA).

I'm not saying this is what's happening with the boottop fractures, just an fyi wrt calcium and bones I learned about recently.
post #101 of 119
Anecdotally, I haven't seen an increase in tib-fibs (boot-tops). I'm a CSPS volunteer patroller in western Canada, patrolling 25-30 days per year over the past 25 years. I've worked directly on about 600 accidents, and been at the hill for perhaps 6000 accidents. I've only worked on two skiers with tib-fibs in all that time, and haven't heard about very many more than that. My first was a classic slow twisting fall, about 20 years ago, the second was a child wearing snowblades with non-releasable bindings in wet spring snow (go figure).

In my experience, 5 out of 10 accidents are knee injuries of various sorts, 3/10 are wrist/arm/shoulder, and 2/10 are more serious head/back/femur/ribs, often requiring EMS. More upper body injuries to snowboarders, more knee injuries to skiers.

By the way, snowboarding doesn't appear to be any more dangerous than skiing, but the main snowboarding demographic, the 16-25 y.o. male, tends to be a dangerous character no matter what equipment he's using.

Besides making it easier to ski fast on the groomers, I also believe the newer equipment makes it easier to ski more extreme terrain. This leads to more serious accidents related to speed, increased steepness, more variable snowpack, and closer proximity to rock outcrops. But I'm still not seeing any tib-fibs!

I'm thinking that the views expressed in this thread related to skis/bindings/DINs as a cause for more observed tib-fibs is perhaps more related to the terrain made accessible, and the speeds that are possible with the new gear.
post #102 of 119
Along the lines of MDF's thinking. Do we possably create more downward force, boot to binding, and maybe are over powering the ability of an anti friction device to work properly? When I've watched my bindings being checked the boot was in the binding but there was no weight in the boot. Maybe this was considered when din standards were calculated but that was way before shaped skis and current skiing technique. I could see that there may be much greater downward pressure against the afd now then 10 years ago. It shouldn't be that difficult to get some real world measurements of this pressure and compare to what was assumed in the original calculations.

Also in this quest for understanding, do we need to look at what brand/model binding was in use. Markers have a reputation for un called for release, and aren't they the only binding with a movable afd? Is there a connection?

I'm guilty of upping my din 1 point after experiencing several releases. Most left me wondering if maybe bindings worked as needed and the forces were more then I relized, but the time I was doing 1,000 steps in front of a clinic. I don't think so!
post #103 of 119
Moving AFDs are common in Salomon, Atomic, Rossi / Look, Fritschi and others. Look elsewhere.

Some of the descriptions are making me appreciate the function of the Spademan binding; although I refuse to accept a plate and poor mounting pattern like that.

post #104 of 119
It seems to me there was more downwar force on the ski/binding in the old days.

You had to come up to unweight and for ever action there is a reaction, which was to come back down and decamber the ski which took lots of downward pressure. Now we just tip and ride the edge. Crossunder produces & even crossover produces little downward force since most of us are trying (sometimes without success) to get rid of our up motion.

Again the folks in this thread all broke thei inside leg, which in most cases does not have that much downward pressure on it. although in these cases maybe that was part of the equation. they had too mcuh weight on the inside ski.

from Vermonty safety Research:

All research efforts to date show that the magnitude of the load a skier applies to a modern binding toe piece decreases with speed (even during competition) and yet all problems of retention (inadvertent release) are blamed on the binding setting.
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Moving AFDs are common in Salomon, Atomic, Rossi / Look, Fritschi and others. Look elsewhere.
And Tyrolia!
post #106 of 119
OK! Clearly it's time for me to spend a little time looking at products I don't use. It's been a while since I concerned myself with features of bindings other then Marker. I'm a Vlokl fan and Volkl's come with Markers.

As to the forces. The VSR statement seems bass ackwards to me but I also trust they know a lot more then I do. I'll spend some time contemplating how this could be.

Another thought is, even though we have bindings that move to adjust for the flex of the ski and prevent excessive forward pressure. Is it possable that these calculations are off and boots are getting pinched in the binding?
post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
BigE, yes i know that, but in these cases it was the inside retracted or collapsed leg that was injured, I believe in the common ACL tear it is the outside weighted leg.
My first knee injury was a torn ACL - I fell back in some bumps and my inside ski caught on the snow while the rest of me was still going downhill, resulting in a torn ACL on the inside leg. At the time I was in the Army and my doctor said my knee was fine, just take motrin. So I kept on skiing... I felt that ACL "blowout" happen dozens of times that ski season - ALWAYS on the uphill ski, almost always in cruddy snow (where there was something to catch the uphill ski). Even with my ACL deficient knee, it was always stable as the downhill leg.

Coming back to skiing after finally getting it fixed a year later required a lot of work forcing myself not to pick up my left ski when it was the inside leg, so I remember it well!


edit: Well, and if you think about it, the problem comes when you fall backwards and your hip gets below the knee and you're trying to recover. Your knee with the downhill ski wouldn't be at nearly the angle of your uphill ski's knee. It's the weighted twisting recovery (or attempted recovery) while your knee is bent too far that regularly does the ACL in.
post #108 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
Ghost - sorry, but of the 3 of us (VSP, Toni Sailor, and myself - all fairly accomplished skiers) we're not exactly employing "beginner" techniques like a gliding wedge in our skiing styles. There wasn't a "flat" pivoting inside ski to blame here. At least you're thinking about it.

CC - Sorry, but no dice here either. That's absolutely not how it's happening - and if you think about it, the forces you're describing will generally always pop the heel of the binding.

So here's an extra factoid for everyone thinking about this - my skis did come off, but neither heel popped - only toe releases (eventually, but obviously too late).

Noodler, do you feel like your inside ski caught or dug in before your leg broke?
post #109 of 119
Thread Starter 
Altagirl,
That's true for acl tears and other ligament tears around the knee but Boot top fractures are caused by a more violent tourque. I'd bet most leg fractures occur before you even hit the snow. Not so much while being in the backseat.
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Moving AFDs are common in Salomon, Atomic, Rossi / Look, Fritschi and others. Look elsewhere.

Some of the descriptions are making me appreciate the function of the Spademan binding; although I refuse to accept a plate and poor mounting pattern like that.

All you need is a pair of Hexcel's to mount that exploding gear on!
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl View Post
My first knee injury was a torn ACL - I fell back in some bumps and my inside ski caught on the snow while the rest of me was still going downhill, resulting in a torn ACL on the inside leg. At the time I was in the Army and my doctor said my knee was fine, just take motrin. So I kept on skiing... I felt that ACL "blowout" happen dozens of times that ski season - ALWAYS on the uphill ski, almost always in cruddy snow (where there was something to catch the uphill ski). Even with my ACL deficient knee, it was always stable as the downhill leg.

Coming back to skiing after finally getting it fixed a year later required a lot of work forcing myself not to pick up my left ski when it was the inside leg, so I remember it well!


edit: Well, and if you think about it, the problem comes when you fall backwards and your hip gets below the knee and you're trying to recover. Your knee with the downhill ski wouldn't be at nearly the angle of your uphill ski's knee. It's the weighted twisting recovery (or attempted recovery) while your knee is bent too far that regularly does the ACL in.
On the contrary as explained above by vermont Safety Research. their research indicates it is almost always the outside ski. And it seems to me your outside knee is the one that is going to bent the most in a slow backwards twisting fall.

It appears you are the exception.

Can you explain the comment that you felt that ACL blow happen dozens of times that season?

Once your ACL is torn, it can't tear again. Unless you partially tore it dozens of times (pretty unlikely)

Also, bumps is an entirely different set of circumstances. As far as i know Noodler & bonni etc. were not in the bumps
post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Altagirl,
That's true for acl tears and other ligament tears around the knee but Boot top fractures are caused by a more violent tourque. I'd bet most leg fractures occur before you even hit the snow. Not so much while being in the backseat.
I agree and have no idea about what's causing the fractures, I was just disagreeing with the Atomicman's statment "I believe in the common ACL tear it is the outside weighted leg." I think the common ACL tear is actually the inside leg.


As far as ligament tears vs. broken bones... I wonder if flexibility has anything to do with it in addition to the strength of your bones? I personally have had a collection of torn ligaments, but despite some nasty high speed collisions with trees and rocks on my bike, etc. I've never broken a bone.

From what I've read, there's a U-shaped curve of flexibility vs. injury (general injury, not broken down into joint or bone injuries). i.e. if you're very stiff you're more likely to injure yourself, and if you're overly flexible you're also more likely to injure yourself, compared to someone of average flexibility. (personally, I'm hyper-flexible.) I've never seen a study on it, but it just makes me wonder if those who are more flexible have a lower incidence of bone breaks, or if it's just me. It seems to make sense - if you have more flexible joints, it's taking the stress off your bones, but when it goes too far, the ligaments are where the damage happens. If your ligaments don't stretch with an impact, your bones would take more of the shock and be more likely to break. (Obviously there would be plenty of other factors, such as pre-existing damage to either bones or ligaments, the specific forces on the body from the impact, etc.)
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl View Post
I was just disagreeing with the Atomicman's statment "I believe in the common ACL tear it is the outside weighted leg." I think the common ACL tear is actually the inside leg.


Well here is the foremost authority on the subject as I posted above:

From Vermont Safety Research:


THE PHANTOM FOOT ACL
One common ACL injury scenario has been termed the Phantom Foot because it involves the tail of the ski, a lever which points in a direction opposite that of the human foot. Phantom Foot injuries can occur when the tail of the downhill ski, in combination with the stiff back of the modern ski boot, acts as a lever to apply a unique combination of twisting and bending loads to the knee.
RECOGNIZING POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
Three types of situations can lead to the Phantom Foot syndrome:




SITUATIONS WHICH CAN LEAD TO ACL INJURY
* Attempting to get up while still moving after a fall.
* Attempting a recovery from an off-balance position.
* Attempting to sit down after losing control. To help reduce the risk of Phantom Foot injury, skiers must first learn to recognize potentially dangerous situations while there is still time to respond. The list that follows represents a profile of the Phantom Foot ACL which was developed from an analysis of more than 14,000 skiing injuries and a score of videotapes of actual ACL sprains. Six elements define the profile.




PROFILE OF THE PHANTOM FOOT ACL
* Uphill arm back.
* Skier off-balance to the rear.
* Hips below the knees.
* Uphill ski unweighted.
* Weight on the inside edge of downhill ski tail.
* Upper body generally facing downhill ski. Although these elements may fall into place in almost any order during a sudden loss of balance or control, the order shown here is characteristic of the chain of events which can often put the average skier at risk.

As i said before usuaually the downhill leg!
post #114 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
On the contrary as explained above by vermont Safety Research. their research indicates it is almost always the outside ski. And it seems to me your outside knee is the one that is going to bent the most in a slow backwards twisting fall.

It appears you are the exception.

Can you explain the comment that you felt that ACL blow happen dozens of times that season?

Once your ACL is torn, it can't tear again. Unless you partially tore it dozens of times (pretty unlikely)

Also, bumps is an entirely different set of circumstances. As far as i know Noodler & bonni etc. were not in the bumps

What I meant by that is that with no ACL, the "collapse" of my knee, which felt 100% identical to the original incident where I tore the ACL, happened dozens of times. (nowadays, I'd have the common sense to quit skiing and just get it fixed already...) Inside ski would catch on something, and without an ACL, the knee would give out, and my left hip would hit the ground. It's a sickening feeling of instability that's hard to forget. As time went on, it would happen just walking and turning a corner - and even then, it would be as the inside knee to the corner I was walking around.

Maybe my accident was unusual according to Vermont Ski Safety - though the 6 factors they're describing are what happened to me, then I weighted the uphill ski to recover and the ACL popped. My ortho and PT have all said it was the "classic" way to blow an ACL. Maybe it's not. Vermont Ski Safety's website doesn't offer any statistics as to which leg or which scenario is actually most common. Just: "Although there are many ways in which knee injuries can occur in skiing, this pamphlet concentrates on the two best understood scenarios, the Phantom Foot and the Boot Induced. " Are you seeing an actual statistic somewhere that I'm not?
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl View Post
What I meant by that is that with no ACL, the "collapse" of my knee, which felt 100% identical to the original incident where I tore the ACL, happened dozens of times. (nowadays, I'd have the common sense to quit skiing and just get it fixed already...) Inside ski would catch on something, and without an ACL, the knee would give out, and my left hip would hit the ground. It's a sickening feeling of instability that's hard to forget. As time went on, it would happen just walking and turning a corner - and even then, it would be as the inside knee to the corner I was walking around.

I just think they worded it funny in the Vermont Ski Safety article.
That makes sense!
post #116 of 119
Starting sort of from scratch here,

the other aspect of the new gear is a wider stance, meaning the inside ski is more highly edged. The point of pressure is still somewhere at the outside ski, the CM is inside both of them.

Now, what happens if that outside ski were to somehow lose traction and the POP do a quickie shift to the inside ski? The inside ski is overedged and, if the edge holds, must accelerate the CM very fast to keep up with the new edge angles. Particularly if the inside edge angle was originally achieved by supinating the ankle.

Wouldn't happen to trench diggers because their CM is already over the POP at the little toe edge.
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
When you say landed on, what do you mean? often times you are not landing, which would imply having left the ground in the first place.

Isn't it more common to just get too far in the back seat and try to recover at the expense of your ACL. I would think this would almost always be your outside leg.
We were talking about the skier coming over a rise(Aarnot, I think), and landing in the back seat. I don't know any specifics about the incident, but am getting all my info from the original post, which sounded more like the Boot Induced scenario. When that happens, the ski tail levers the back of the boot against the back of the calf, pushing the Tib/Fib forward and tearing the ACL. That scenario is called the Boot Induced ACL tear. In that case a landing would apply.

Quote:
Isn't it more common to just get too far in the back seat and try to recover at the expense of your ACL. I would think this would almost always be your outside leg.
Or the same scenario with the added sidecut of the ski causing a direction change opposite of your travel path as you try to recover.
That is what VSS calls the Phantom foot, and is the leading cause of ACL injuries in Shiers. As the skier falls to the rear, the six points that VSS lists almost always follow. Basically, when the hips drop below the knee, the knee is bent >90 degrees and in a vulnerable position. At this point, when the arm goes back, the upper body twists and engages the ski tail's edge. the ski then turns, taking the lower leg with it and tearing the ACL.
post #118 of 119

Time for Rethinking Bindings?

Have to say that acl tears are not problems that most modern bindings were designed to prevent. New parabolic ski designs and higher, more rigid backward flexing boots are placing demands on our legs that most bindings are not keeping up with.

The major issue in the 50's and 60's used to be broken legs. Even very experienced skiers/racers could count on having their legs broken several times in skiing career. As late as the 1950's the ratio was about 4 broken legs per thousand skier days. You can follow the history here.

http://skiinghistory.org/releasebindings.html

This problem was solved by a flurry of innovation in the late 50's through the early 1970's. But since the late 1980's it seems most bindings have not undergone significant changes, and some of the safest designs are considerably older than that (Rossignol/Look fks/pivot heel is still perhaps the best design out there, and the turntable heel dates back to the late 1960's). You can see my post on the recent binderoo switch by Salomon on its toepiece here:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=49043

I view this, together with the switch by Rossi/Look to the px heel, with alarm. I get the sense that safety is being compromised at the expedience of ease of manufacture and a rush toward the lowest common denominator (aka the gaper market). It is interesting to note that the binder of choice for many cliff hucking maggots is the Rossi FKS 185!

Interestingly enough, as Cirquerider has noted, some of the binding designs from the late 1960's and early 70's incorporated features that would have prevented some of the types of injuries we are seeing, to whit the Spademan:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Some of the descriptions are making me appreciate the function of the Spademan binding...

I also believe the Cubco would have prevented many of these types of injuries since it provided for a direct upward release at almost any angle.

The question is whether most of us would be willing to endure significantly more premature release at the expense of not having our acl tear (much less boot top breaks)? These older bindings are definitely not engineered for the g forces generated by a 165cm 11m radius modern sl ski.

In any event, I think a binding redesign is probably what is called for, and given the level of innovation in ski manufacure, there will probably be someone out there who will start tinkering with the problem. When the big guys figure out there is money to be made here they will probably buy the little guys out.

Any Mech. E's out there with spare time on their hands?
post #119 of 119
Most modern bindings (with few exceptions) including, Marker, tyrolia, Atomic (Both Neox & race can be locked out) have some flavor of upward or diagonal release or both at the toe along with some sort of force reduction mechanism to reduce the force needed to release by up to 50% in a rearward twisting fall.

Not promoting Atomic here, but the Neox binding was designed from scrathc over a 3 year period just a couple of years back.

All the bindings have been updated over the years with more safety features while retainig nretnetion characteristics.

As evidenced by VSR, most prereleae have nothing to do with DIN setting, most often a softwre problem (the skier)

As far as ACL injury goes there is much a skier can do to prevent this sort of injury. there are very specific movements and reactions that if avoided vastly decrease the chance of an ACL tear.

i don't know about anyone else, but when I am riding a lift and watching the entertainment on the hill, I would conservatively say 85% of the skiers are on thier tails or in the backseat!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion