New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snowboarding Injuries

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
How common are knee and ankle injuries with snowboarders?
post #2 of 15
What is your motive for asking?
post #3 of 15
Much less than with skiers...
post #4 of 15
acl injuries are more common with skiing
mcl injuries are more common with snowboarding

This is what i was told by a PT when I injured my mcl. Nice thing is mcls are better able to heal themselves.
post #5 of 15
Phil,

Didn't we just have a discussion about this here? O yeah - it's a couple of threads down. From my post in that thread - here's a link about snowboard injury rates. If you scroll down, it covers lower limb injuries.
post #6 of 15
I asked why Phil was asking because he has in the past advocated for snowboard bindings that release in falls (as opposed to in slides, where several homebrew release options are available). Releasables are a bad idea that would dramatically increase, not decrease, lower leg injuries and past versions have not caught on for this reason; plus, they raise a host of unpleasant collateral issues.

As noted in that existing thread you also need to back terrain park injuries out of the mix.
post #7 of 15
I've never seen anything that indicates snowboarders have a higher MCL injury rate than skiers. Might be true, might be not. I didn't find any info on ski injury about this.

I agree with you CT, releasable snowboard bindings are not really needed for resort riding. Injury rates are practically the same. Miller tried for years to market their releasable snowboard binding. First with misinformed "facts" and scare tactics. Then the nice guy route. Either way, no one really saw a need for it. I do have to agree with their logic as far as the one leg scenario. If your releasables are set correctly enough force to release one, will also cause the other one to release. So that one leg stuck thing is kind of a lame arguement though we all fear it. In that scenario, you would most likely be getting on or off a lift. Where most snowboard knee injuries happen outside of park. A releasable may just be the thing to avoid this. Just sayin'.

Where Miller really missed the boat, and I tried to point this out to them, is that a functional releasable binding could be a great device for backcountry riders. In the worse case scenario where you get caught in a slide, your board becomes a serious liability. Dragging you under the snow. Being able to get your board off your feet quickly can be a life and death difference. They didn't seem to see that need and just wanted resort business. As far as I can tell the releasable binding is no longer a retail product. I guess carving out a niche and going from there just didn't make sense to them...
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
...I do have to agree with their logic as far as the one leg scenario. If your releasables are set correctly enough force to release one, will also cause the other one to release. So that one leg stuck thing is kind of a lame arguement though we all fear it. In that scenario, you would most likely be getting on or off a lift. Where most snowboard knee injuries happen outside of park. A releasable may just be the thing to avoid this. Just sayin'.
If you can get bindings to predictably, reliably release before injury occurs without prereleasing, I get your (and Miller's) point. Even for ski bindings I don't know that they're there, though. IMO widespread adoption of releasables would've led to a dramatic increase in lower-leg injuries (particularly when the rear foot did not release, say 50/50 a rail and having that brief "rail shock" cause only your front binding to release... ), but fewer shoulder, wrist and collarbone injuries. Probably a moot point, though I do admit I'm often wrong as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
...Where Miller really missed the boat, and I tried to point this out to them, is that a functional releasable binding could be a great device for backcountry riders...They didn't seem to see that need and just wanted resort business...
Resort biz = $$$. I'm amazed at the diversity of backcountry products out there in general given the contained nature of the market.
post #9 of 15
They were definitely looking at the $$$. Unfortunately for them, I think they missed a niche that could have gotten their product out there and maybe even resort acceptance if it worked as well as they claimed.

Backcountry is definitely a small market and it gets even smaller when you talk snowboard related stuff. Splitboards, that kind of thing. Backcountry use is growing by leaps and bounds though, and more than a few people are making some $$$ there these days.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
I
I agree with you CT, releasable snowboard bindings are not really needed for resort riding. Injury rates are practically the same. Miller tried for years to market their releasable snowboard binding. First with misinformed "facts" and scare tactics. Then the nice guy route. Either way, no one really saw a need for it. I do have to agree with their logic as far as the one leg scenario. If your releasables are set correctly enough force to release one, will also cause the other one to release. So that one leg stuck thing is kind of a lame arguement though we all fear it. In that scenario, you would most likely be getting on or off a lift. Where most snowboard knee injuries happen outside of park. A releasable may just be the thing to avoid this. Just sayin'.

Where Miller really missed the boat, and I tried to point this out to them, is that a functional releasable binding could be a great device for backcountry riders. In the worse case scenario where you get caught in a slide, your board becomes a serious liability. Dragging you under the snow. Being able to get your board off your feet quickly can be a life and death difference. They didn't seem to see that need and just wanted resort business. As far as I can tell the releasable binding is no longer a retail product. I guess carving out a niche and going from there just didn't make sense to them...
I'ld maybe be dead if i had had releasable snowboard binders on my feet the only time (still bad enough) I got sucked into an snowslide avalanche. As I went over a cliff with the avalanche upon landing I could somehow dig in my backside edge into the ground and make it out sideways. I "travelled" about 150m vert with the avalanche, avalanche went down 350-400m vert in total (inside a steep couloir), with about 3m deep run-out. Noone would have got me out of that 3m deep run-out if burried below as it happened at a remote place. I had intecs on but was prepared to only release them once speed goes down. With security release binders I would have lost my snowboard during the first meters of my "travel". It was pure luck and chance I got out of it, on skis I'ld be gone probabely.

Never ever would I put my foot in releasable security bindings on a snowboward. Scary enough when you break your bindings or tear them out of the inserts during a race or training and then try to stop with only one leg fixed to your snowboard.

Many freeriders use Intec system, so if you need you just pull the cable (best connected to your Intec system in your pants) to the the board off with both feet at the same time. Intec is well established an proven, no need for any other release system offpiste.
post #11 of 15
The jury rig releasable system eh?

In your case it may have been better to have the board on. Over 90% of the time it's going to be much better to have your board come off. Yeah, it could get lost, better that than your life though. Last year I believe, for all the avalanche related incidents. Those who got free of their sliding apparatus (ski's obviously) lived. Those who didn't (tele skiers and boarders) died. That gear to your feet is an anchor plain and simple. If I went for a ride in a slide, I would want out.

First rule, if you are in a slide situation is to ski/ride out of it. Sounds like you did just that. If you are going to get carried it's time to get rid of the gear. A rip cord releasable would be fine, or a setting release. I don't care. It would be nice to have something designed for this that isn't some aftermarket jury rig.

Isn't intec more of a hard boot product? Not really for those of us who like softies right?
post #12 of 15
I'm not real sure about accessory cord with Intec, but for straps I think www.splitboard.com has a thread that covers cord on the ratchet.
post #13 of 15
I don't think I've ever seen a ratchet release system. I have seen it for other step in setups like the clicker.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
I don't think I've ever seen a ratchet release system. I have seen it for other step in setups like the clicker.
Cord on ankle strap ratchet; toe straps rigged like capstraps so that boot can "tumble" out. Whether yanking this is that much better than just reaching down and yarding on both ratchets at once by hand is an open question.
post #15 of 15
Intec Softboots aren't produced any more, that's the problem.

Nevertheless, go to some events like Verbier Extreme and you will see a fair amount of riders still using them. In any case, for extreme freeriding many many riders choose Dee Luxe (some in the newer, some in the old Intec) softboots, while outside of freeriding circles the boots are mostly unheard of. Intec is used still so often because it's the only system to get your board off in an avalanche (tested it once in an avalanche training and no probs).

The Intec softboots with integrated highback used in the Proflex HBX bindings with highback (thereby profiting from two highbacks) has been the stiffest and most direct softboot system ever available.

The release mechanism is the same as for the Intec hardboots. I had both K2 Klickers as sold in New Zealand (produced by Marker) as well as the standard K2 Klickers (Shimano System) and both wouldn't allow to get out of the bindings as easily as for Intec. Can't speak for the Burton Step-in. The main difference with Intec is that you don't have to reach down, but can pull the bindings off with straight legs if you click in the extension cord.

Well I didn't really ride out conventionally like you see in videos, in fact I had been "tumbling" around in the avalanche for the first meters, then regained ballance by using the board as anker dragging me down through open forest luckily not getting smashed against a tre(during all that time not seeing anything as I was near the ground the whole time , waiting for the small cliff that I knew coming in any second and in the air compressing as small as possible to get my board under my feet and then just trying to go left as I knew that the the couloir hangs off to the right and so the left hand side of it should be out of the avalanche path and luckily getting out that way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: