or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Knee-Binding reviews/opinions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Knee-Binding reviews/opinions.

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 

I've searched for information on the new Knee Binding but I can't find much. I see they are advertised here but does anyone have an extended period of experience with this product. What do we know about it? Who was involved with development of this product? Who used it last year? Who is selling it and what kind of feedback are they getting from their customers?

post #2 of 45

Steve, there are some posts on here about those bindings.  Nobody used them last year they are new but have been advetising for quite awhile.  There are people using them now and there is some hype about them since they are the only binding to every claim that they protect the ACL.  Generally speaking that is not what bindings do.  They release prior to a bone breaking not connective tissue tearing so there claims are a radical departure from previous design.  I'm not saying it's all marketing hype, but there is not data proving their claims at this time. 

post #3 of 45

So you are complaining that a new product doesn't have independent empirical data backing up its claims?

 

ABS systems were released into the wild without empirical data showing real world safety impacts, and now ABS is nearly universal and insurers offer discounts for the equipment.  I could go on with examples like these ad nauseam, because this is the way the world usually works...despite your odd claims it should somehow work differently.

 

Yes, we are all quite aware of the fact that there isn't a large body of data supporting these marketing claims in the wild.  Which is also true about most other "special feature" bindings, including those that have been around for years.  What, do you want the FDA to start testing and approving bindings?  What the heck do you actually want?

 

Steve:  The answers to all of your questions are available through the search feature.  Not the first time any of them have been asked.


Edited by Garrett - Thu, 05 Feb 09 04:41:18 GMT
post #4 of 45

The comparison to ABS is completely misleading. The are two questions with a given technology: does it work, and does it achieve the larger objective. It's one thing not to know if a technology results in fewer or less severe injuries, it is quite another to not know whether it actually does what it claims (releases in certain backwards falls). As far as I know, there is not even enough independent data to show the latter.

post #5 of 45

I got too much time on my hand and found these on youtube. It shows how the binding works.The binding dyno is interesting.

 

 

 

 

Edit: The inline youtube does not seem to work

 

Here are the links

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sH7Y68v6bE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3GSJaw1qY&feature=related



Edited by hellside - Thu, 05 Feb 09 04:59:08 GMT
post #6 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post

So you are complaining that a new product doesn't have independent empirical data backing up its claims?

 

ABS systems were released into the wild without empirical data showing real world safety impacts, and now ABS is nearly universal and insurers offer discounts for the equipment.  I could go on with examples like these ad nauseam, because this is the way the world usually works...despite your odd claims it should somehow work differently.

 

Yeah, but ABS is shite! Okay, not shite.... I'm sure it saves a few crappy drivers, but for anyone who knows how to drive on ice and use a clutch its just a pain in the arse that the ABS system second guesses the driver and increases the braking distance!

 

On the other hand, my interest is positively piqued by these KneeBindings. Haven't seen any in Scandi-wegian land yet.

post #7 of 45

i'd hate to get into this.

 

ABS works. It is a stupidity feature put in for drivers who cannot drive and just slam on the brakes. If they don't panic to much, they can turn the vehicle and have control of the vehicle.

ABS does screw up stop times when it engages improperly. Such as hitting a bump, or something to make the car think that it is slippery.
ABS does not work on ice. Nothing does but good driving.

 

Sorry to get in on this, but thats just how it is. ABS works, in certian situations.

post #8 of 45

^^^I concur.

 

Garrett,  I'm not  "complaining that a new product doesn't have independent empirial data backing up it's claims" specifically.  I am suggesting that this company is claiming to have designed a binding that does what no other binding made claims.  Namely, that it reduces ACL injuries.  No binding manufacturer makes that claim because that's not what bindings do.  This company is coming out of the blue with no evidence that their claims work at all.  It's akin to some company putting out a miracle pill saying "hey take this pill once a day, you'll live longer, look younger, have more energy and never gain weight" 

 

The claims being made by Knee Binding seem to good to be true.  I am not saying their claims are lies or even impossible I just find it a far fetched

post #9 of 45

Re: videos, anyone know how they came up with that 45/55 cm boundary condition?

post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierhj View Post

 

The claims being made by Knee Binding seem to good to be true.  I am not saying their claims are lies or even impossible I just find it a far fetched

And I, having read the publicly available data (patent applications, a variety of studies on knee injuries published in the literature) do not find it far fetched.  The binding has modes of release fundamentally different than all other current bindings.  It coincides well with what the literature shows to be the most common method of seriously injuring the ACL.


As far as I know, there is not even enough independent data to show the latter.

 

What, you think Bosch was going publishing independent, public, objective tests of their ABS pumps and control systems in the 1980's?  The knowledge is available, you merely have to educate yourself.  Heck, lots of the public still think ABS sucks, yet ABS is near universal, because skilled knowledge-workers aren't so clueless.

 

As soon as I get my hands on these bindings (my shop doesn't sell them yet) I'll design and execute my own testing.  I probably won't publish the results, because I find the brigade of do-nothing internet Luddites tiresome.

post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post

As soon as I get my hands on these bindings (my shop doesn't sell them yet) I'll design and execute my own testing.  I probably won't publish the results, because I find the brigade of do-nothing internet Luddites tiresome.

 

Any idea of how they came up with that 45/55 cm from projected tibial axis boundary condition?

 

What happens at that spot on the tail?

post #12 of 45

ABS also sucks hard in snow/slush/sand. I installed an ABS cut switch in my cars and in each of them I could always stop faster and in more control with it off. In some situations I wasn't even slowing down with the ABS, would have wrecked had I not been able to engine brake. That said I would be even more afraid of driving if cars didn't have ABS, but in my mind those drivers shouldn't really be on the road to begin with.

post #13 of 45

Here's one for believers and non-believers of ABS.

 

I happen to own two 2800 pound sports cars, that coincidentally use the exact same size and brand/model (Potenza S02) tires. However, one car is 18 years older than the other and doesn't have ABS while the newer one does have ABS. Both interestingly have the same horsepower too, though the older one has a 3 liter engine and the newer one has a higher revving 2 liter engine. Both cars are in perfect mechanical condition, and rear wheel drive mid engine layouts (one front-mid and the older rear-mid). As you might expect the older one was considered a "super car" in its day, compared to the newer one which is only considered competent in its day and definately not a "super car".

 

So the key ABS debate ending question is: which car can a competent driver put down a faster lap time around a racing circuit with?

 

The answer is: the newer one with ABS is marginally quicker around the race track (a couple of seconds per lap around Lime Rock). The reason why it's faster is clearly because of its better brakes too.

post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI View Post

Here's one for believers and non-believers of ABS.

 

I happen to own two 2800 pound sports cars, that coincidentally use the exact same size and brand/model (Potenza S02) tires. However, one car is 18 years older than the other and doesn't have ABS while the newer one does have ABS. Both interestingly have the same horsepower too, though the older one has a 3 liter engine and the newer one has a higher revving 2 liter engine. Both cars are in perfect mechanical condition, and rear wheel drive mid engine layouts (one front-mid and the older rear-mid). As you might expect the older one was considered a "super car" in its day, compared to the newer one which is only considered competent in its day and definately not a "super car".

 

So the key ABS debate ending question is: which car can a competent driver put down a faster lap time around a racing circuit with?

 

The answer is: the newer one with ABS is marginally quicker around the race track (a couple of seconds per lap around Lime Rock). The reason why it's faster is clearly because of its better brakes too.

you can't compare the laptimes of two cars that are 18 years apart and chalk up the difference to one of many, many factors that affect a laptime at least as much as abs.  Its like comparing GS skis to powder skis and then saying the GS's are faster down a course because the bindings are different.


Edited by Thereisnospork - Fri, 06 Feb 09 10:06:33 GMT
post #15 of 45

I am the inventor and initial developer of KneeBinding and I would like to respond to all of you many good points.  First, however, I must indicate that I am no longer an employee of KneeBinding and I can only discuss what was already contained within the public domain.

 

First, pls let me say "Thank You" for all of your passionate posts.  There is a lot of energy here. 

 

Clearly, there are also competitors (other binding companies) posting here, too.  I say this because the other binding companies will lose hundreds of millions of dollars once this new binding takes hold.  They stand to lose a lot -- and the things people say and do when this kind of money is involved is evidenced right here in these blogs.

 

Proven.  KneeBinding was developed based on my background and experience and the application of massive medical science by hundreds of providers who have been involved in developing KneeBinding.  There is a ton of medical science and engineering behind this binding that proves, biomechanically, that this binding will mitigate Phantom Foot skiing knee injuries.  That science that proves this is readily available on the web.  The primary-science is published in the peer-reviewed, medical journal, Medicine and Science in Sports and Expercise, "Effect of Ski Binding Parameters on Knee Biomechanics";  by Prof. N. St. Onge, PhD, Yan Chevalier, Prof. N. Hagemeister, PhD, M. van de Putte, Prof. J. Deguise, PhD,  p1218-1225, June, 2004.  This journal is the official publication of the American College of Sports Medicine -- and is considered by medical researchers to be the gold standard for medical science regarding sports medicine.  The authors are at the top of their field in knee science -- and are totally respected, world-wide by the ski injury research community (300+ research orthopaedic surgeons, and biomechanical engineers, many of who meet for a week at the ISSS conference that's held in different parts of the world every second year at major ski resorts.  The abstracts for this sceince who "Highest Honors" at the ISSS conference in Pontresina, Switzerland (St. Moritz) in 2003.  All you have to do is read this work -- and you will see the proof, loud and clear.

 

Additional abstracts were presented at the 2005 ISSS conference in Nagano, Japan and again at the 2007 ISSS conference in Aviemore, Scotland regarding the application of the above medical science on the engineering of this new binding.  These abstracts are on the web and they clearly delineate how this new binding technology can mitigate skiing Phantom Foot knee injuries.

 

Overview of the science and engineering behind KneeBinding:  There are 3 broad categories of "injury mechanisms" that cause skiing knee injuries ( I say "events" rather than "falls" because, as one blogger correctly notes in this thread, the ACL be injured when loaded in a specific way that is not necessarily a fall).

 

Skiing knee injury-mechanism 1, Phantom Foot.  This event involves three load-components that are applied simultaneously:

 

1.a.  Rear-weighting; 

1.b.  Abduction (that's straight-sideways-outward movement of the heel relative to the knee);

1.c   Inward twisting.

 

Skiing knee injury-mechanism 2,  BIAD (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer).  This event involves one load-component:

Pure backward loading.

 

Skiing knee injury-mechanism 3,  "Other".  Forward-twisting.

 

The prevalence of these three skiing knee injury mechanisms are approximately:

 

Phantom Foot:   60 to 80%;

BIAD:  10 to 20%;

Other:  the remainder (0 to 30%).

 

The range of prevalence is due to variation among studies.  The two leading studies involve the analysis hundreds of thousands of skiing injuries over a period of 30 years.  This data and the accompanying findings are readily available on the web via previous ISSS papers.

 

To solve this engineering problem, I elected to not focus on "Other" and to not focus on the "BIAD" mechanism because:

 

Problems with focusing on "Other":  

Prevalence is low (0 to 30%);

 

Existing technologies that deal with forward twiting events have had zero effect on mitigating skiing knee injuries. 

 

That's why all binding companies, including those whose bindings providing features that address forward twisting release characteristics, specifically disclaim that their bindings "have no effect on skiing knee injuries" (read each binding company's in-box instructions).  Binding-features that provide outstanding forward-twisting release characteristics include:  Teflon AFD's, new mechanical AFD's (used mechanical AFD's can go to catrostophic-failure then providing very poor release, while used Teflon AFD's will not go to full catrostophic failure);  friction-compensators found in Geze 900-series bindings, Salomon biindings with the "Spherical" technology, and the Tyrolia Diagonal technology (which only provides lateral heel release during forward-twisting events when the toe is blocked from being able to release laterally, such as when the toe of the boot is jambed against firm snow).  These forward-twisting release features have all provided a huge reduction in the amount of leg fractures (leg fractures went from a prevalence of approx 20% of all skiing injuries in 1970 to approx 2% of all, today), but all of these forward twisting release features have had zero effect on reducing skiing knee injuries.  This is proven in scores of studies -- and that is why all other binding companies specifically disclaim that their bindings "have no effect on skiing knee injuries".

 

Problems with focusing on BIAD:  

Low prevalance (10 to 20%);

 

.... and historical problems have existed with the mechanisms that dealt solely w BIAD.  I was involved in the development of the Geze SE3 -- the world's first independently adjustable vertical toe release binding that was also the first binding seeking to address the BIAD-type of skiing knee injury (1980 -- 83).  Vertical toe release is not new by any means.  There were dozens of bindings in the late 1960's throughout the early 1980's that had it.  All failed because they all had massive pre-release.  Pre-release is unacceptable under all conditions.  Bindings with pure vertical toe release, including those with tens-of-millions of development funding behind them (SE3), have always been plagued with pre-release.  Even boots that dealt with BIAD failed (Lange RRS).  Pre-release and loss of skiing control is totally unacceptable.

 

Today's ordinary bindings all have varying forms of "tilting" toe release (not pure vertical release) -- meaning that they sometimes release in response to a combination of backward-twisting loads ... but when a combination of twisting and backward loads are applied to the medial edge of the ski between the projected axis of the tibia and a point that is approx 50cm behind the projected axis of the tibia (for a 50th percentile male....and scaled proportionally for other percentiles, and scaled for a range of female percentiles) -- no release is possible utilizing any toes that have "tilting-release" features (even pure vertical release, unless the loads become pure BIAD -- in which case pre-release can occur during controlled skiing).  Again, pre-release is totally unacceptable.

 

There is a "blind spot" that no toe can address (not even the toes that are the subject of patent applications that are pending by certain "self-proclaimed" binding experts).  Even when a sensor is placed in the heel pad, which sensor causes the toe to release at lower-levels in the presence of backward-twisting loads, there is too small of a lever-arm spanning between the point at which the load is applied to the medial edge of the ski (the "blind-spot" zone) to the point of rotation of the boot-relative-to-the-ski (this point of rotation is controlled by the kinematics of the binding).  Since T = f x d, if "d" is zero (or nearly zero), then T = 0.  No release will occur with any toe-piece in response to a load that enters the "blind-spot" zone.

 

That's why it is not wise to address the BIAD-mode.

 

Focus on the Phantom Foot skiing knee injury mechanism:

 

The solution to the skiing knee injury problem is to focus upon the Phantom Foot injury mechanism because it has the most prevalence (60 to 80% of skiing knee injuries);

 

.... and because a clear binding mechanism can address the combination of loads that cause Phantom Foot injuries. 

 

Again, the 3 components of a Phantom Foot event include the simultaneous combination of:

 

1.a.  Rear-weighting; 

1.b.  Abduction (that's straight-sideways-outward movement of the heel relative to the knee);

1.c   Inward twisting.

 

The magnidude of these three components during a Phantom Foot event are:

 

Rear-weighting:  large amount;

Abduction:  large amount;

Inward twisting:  very small amount.

 

Simple engineering 101 mechanical analysis (see ISSS abstracts noted above) shows that a binding with pure lateral heel release can release in response to this combination of loads, especially even when the load is applied to the "blind spot" in the "Phantom Foot Zone" (into the medial edge of the ski between the projected axis of the tibia and approx 50cm behind the projected axis of the tibia).

 

Yes, there were many bindings with pure lateral heel release including the Eckl that is noted in this blog as well as Moog, Head, Gertsch, Eckl, Alsop, Line, Americana, F2, Revolution-X, and many others.  Note specifically that the Tyrolia Diagonal (introduced in 1969 at the Tyrolia Clix Diagonal) does not provide pure lateral heel release:  it only releases laterally at the heel AFTER it first moves upward during forward-twisting events -- Phantom Foot events involve rear-weighing and thus the Tyrolia Diagonal can NEVER release in response to the rear-weighted component (one of 3 compontents noted above).  NEVER.

 

All of those previous bindings with pure lateral heel release had massive pre-release, especially the Eckl binding noted above.

 

The heart of this new binding technology is centered around mitigating pre-release in the pure lateral heel release direction.  It is patented and this technology provides powerful retention in the lateral heel release direction to mitigate pre-release.  There are four feature within KneeBindng that mitigate lateral heel release:

 

Pre-release mitigation in the pure lateral heel release direction (patented):

 

1.  Independent adjustability.  Lateral heel release is seperate from forward heel release and both are seperate from lateral toe release.  No other binding ever had independent adjustability, laterally at the heel.

 

2.  Vector de-coupling.  The guts of the mechanism forces the binding to only release laterally at the heel when the "signature loads" that cause ACL injuries are present -- and to not repond AT ALL when other mixtures of loads are present.  There is essentially a mechanical filter that blocks lateral heel release when large skiiing-control loads are present.

 

3.  Assymetric Lateral Heel Release.  Only inward-twisting-abduction-rear-weighted events cause ACL injuries, not outward.  Therefore, by completely blocking outward lateral heel release, the probability of pre-release in the lateral heel release direction is cut in half.

 

4.  Powerful recentering.  There are a series of wide, eccentric (off-center) progressive cams within the lateral heel release mechanism that are shaped in a way to powerfully recenter the heel of the boot during short-duration impulse loads that cause pre-release.

 

All of these features are designed so that this binding has 20% less parts than other bindings.  This reduction in parts provides durability and reliability.

 

No other binding has ever had this combination of features to mitigate pre-release in the presence of lateral heel release.

 

In combination, the massive anti-pre-release features that are found in KneeBinding allows the lateral heel release level (which lateral heel release responses only to Phantom Foot events not to BIAD or "other") to be at a level that is significantly below the elastic limit of the ACL.  (( If you simply sawed-off the cam in the Tyrolia Diagonal to provide lateral heel release -- that modified binding would not have the other anti-pre-release features that are patented and within KneeBinding, and it would pre-release like crazy. ))

 

That's it.  Anyone can design a binding that releases laterally at the heel (listed above):  not everyone can design a binding that has lateral heel release that does not pre-release.  That what's behind KneeBinding. 

 

How did I do this:  I was seriously injured several times as a kid in the early 1960's even after my bindings were "modified" by the person who was thought to be the leading expert at that time.  I knew then what my life's work would be.  In high school, i co-developed #1-selling bindings for Salomon, learning a great amout about bindings from the great Gilbert Delouche (thank you, Gilbert).  During engineering and business school, I was active in ski binding standards and saw first hand another "self-proclaimed ski binding expert" who can barely ski and who was purely self-centered in the sale of his relese testing equipment....and I have remained steadfast in attempting to block this blow-hard's ill effects on skiing safety.  At that same time in college, I ski raced and achieve 29 FIS points in DH, and usually finished in the top 20 in SL and GS in Division-1 college racing.  At that same time in college I also had my own ski binding service center -- and serviced hundreds of my college racing buddies and my roommate's ski school buddies (which eventually spilled-over to include their friends and families).  Mounting and adjusting hundreds of bindings at my service center which was located ABOVE the loading point of the local ski lift (where people could ski-into my shop and throw things at me if the bindings did not work) proved invaluable in my learnings about bindings.   Also at that time, I measured, electronically, how ski binding effected ski performance (both on-slope and at the Charles Stark Draper Labs in Cambridge, MA at the request of MIT Professor Larry Young).  Then, I worked 8-years for Geze ski binding company during which time while I was Sr. Product Manager we went from worst rated to best, then when I was Director of Marketing we went from a 2%v market share to a 20% share.  I then invented and developed the world's first hands-off clipless bicycle pedal system (CycleBinding), which creted the category of "clipless" pedals -- and which lessons have proved invaluable in the development of this new ski binding.  I then invented and market-launched (as a consultant during a 3-yr turn-key project) Tubbs high-tech snowshoes and the Tubbs TD-91 bindings, which caused Tubbs to go to an 85% market share and expand the total snowshoe market 50X.... here also learning powerful lessons in cold-weather durability and the importance of simplicity in product design.

 

Electronic bindings:  there are dozens of patents on electronic ski bindings and all bindings companies have spent tens of millions of R&D money on electronic bindings.  Salomon and Marker actually withdrew there electronic bindings on the eve of their introductions at the ISPO world trade fair in Munich in 1975 (Salomon) and 1983 (Marker).  Today, Tyrolia has invested tens of millions of dollars (for the second time in 30 years) on an electronic binidng.  My good friend, Nick D'Antonio consulted with me in the early 1970's on his electronic binding back when he was the director of advanced electronics at GE in Syracuse, NY.  I invented the mechanical guts of UC Davis Professor Morrey Hull's electronic ski binding (thus rendering his patent invalid) -- ((the SOB)). 

 

All electronic bindings have failed for 2 reasons: 

 

(1)  When the power-source fails (and they all do fail when the temperature goes below -20°F for several hours even when they are re-charged via piezioelectrics within the skis), there must be a mechanical "back-up" mechanism to off-set the failed electronics.

 

(2)  If a mechanical "back-up" is needed when the electronics fails, then why not have a good mechanical system in the beginning.

 

I wish Tyrolia good luck with their new electronic binding.....

 

As for price:  the Marker Duke is the same price as KneeBinding and retailers can hardly keep the Duke in stock.  Plus, the extra $200 For KneeBinding (above the price of an ordinary binding) is far less than the average $20,000 cost for a knee injury (plus 6-months of rehab;  plus early arthritis).  Skiing knee injuries at this moment are BY FAR the most prevalent of all types of skiing injuries (20 to 25% of all).  Many skiers sustain a skiing knee injury more than once (here in Stowe, Vermont, this is a huge problem).  My girlfriend buys Manolo shoes at $1,500 and does not blink.  If you are seriously in the game of skiiing, spending an extra $200 is nothing to mitigate (not prevent) a skiing knee injury.

 

As for the other well-regarded points about the Teflon AFD's falling-off -- this is serious and KneeBinding will resolve it.  After I was squeezed-out of the company in mid-September, the people within the company who took over "forgot" to field test the production-version of the bindings before they went to market:  these kinds of issues (Teflon falling off) whould have been discovered during normal pre-introductory field testing ... but his is something I could not control at that point.   As for the one noted forward pre-release, snow buildup under the heel of the boot prior to stepping-into the binding is the single biggest cause of forward pre-release.  The other aspect of forward pre-release is to utilize the proper "self-release" method to adjust the level of forward release (proper method is defined in old Geze consumer instruction booklets).   The proper way to perform the self-release method mitigates the use of settings that are too high.   If you cannot find this method, pls comment on this in the string and I will write it up for you -- as my typing fingers are now going numb, today.  Lastly, the point about the soft plastic on the forward release adjustment bolt is well-taken and (again) this is the kind of thing that shows-up during pre-introductory field testing by a closed group of test skiers (which the company "forgot" to do).  This bolt shoul be changed so that it is not so soft (add more glass-fiber or switch to metal -- preferrably stainless steel like most of the other metal parts within KneeBinding).  There are other fine-tuning issues within KneeBinding ski bindings that the company must deal with in order to go about this in the right way, but I am not able to control the people who are presently running KneeBinding, Inc. -- though there are ways that these issues can be dealth with, effectively, and I am pursuing those paths at ths time.

 

35 years of my life's work is contained within the design of these bindings (6-years, full-time, up to mid-Sept 2008)....and these bindings are fundimentally a major move forward in the same way as clipless pedals and Tubbs high-tech snowshoes (industry transforming).  As noted, my typing fingers are going numb -- but we have not even touched upon how these bindings uniquely provide the most edge control of any binding, ever, how light they are (which is a huge plus after skiing all day in wet sloppy spring-snow conditions) and how easy thaty are to step-into and out of in all snow conditions.   I wish everyone well in this blog -- even the obvious competitors ... who, one day, will realize when they are standing in front of a judge in court that they will not have a good answer as to why they have not taken pro-active steps to mitigate skining knee injuries now that a real solution is available for the primary type of knee injury (Phantom Foot) .... even if that pro-active step involves a strategic alliance (due to the monopoly-rights of the KneeBinding patent).

 

Stowe, Vermont

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #16 of 45

"The other aspect of forward pre-release is to utilize the proper "self-release" method to adjust the level of forward release (proper method is defined in old Geze consumer instruction booklets).   The proper way to perform the self-release method mitigates the use of settings that are too high.   If you cannot find this method, pls comment on this in the string and I will write it up for you"

 

OK. I'll bite, since my injury was precipitated by a series of pre-releases.

 

Also, since you indicate the company failure to do a shake down cruise and the need for more fine tuning, at what point should the general public (ie I) invest in these? Is is prudent to wait a year while they figure these things out?

 

Thank you for your post. Hope your fingers have recovered.

 

PS: You imply a sad departure from your invention; that's a shame.

post #17 of 45

Thereisnospark: I've driven a lot of cars around a lot of circuits, and the biggest difference between cars on the track is usually differences in tires and weight, but in this case they're identical. Both of these cars really handle in a very, very similar way except that the higher and broader torque curve of the older car (50% greater displacement for the same HP) is simply better than the newer one, plus you can get on the throttle sooner coming out of corners due to its rear-mid versus front-mid layout. The older car is also 7 inches lower in overall height than the newer car, which is HUGE. Frankly, the only thing that's any better in the newer car is its brakes, and if those amazing brakes were on the older car I can tell you it would be significantly faster than the newer car, versus the current situation where the newer car is marginally faster around the circuit because of its great ABS brakes.

post #18 of 45

Which car gets better gas mileage?

 

is one of them red?

 

can we introduce some other irrelevant stuff to derail this thread?

 

Kneebindings don't have ABS, skis aren't cars...

 

but this idiocracy will continue, carry on.

post #19 of 45

Whiteroom - good question, we all know that red is faster. I'll bet the newer car is red!

post #20 of 45

Actually the older car is a red hardtop (berlinetta) and the newer one is yellow convertible roadster with a roll bar. As I say the red car would be the faster one if it had brakes like the newer yellow car.

 

I am using 3 sets of Kneebindings myself (on 66mm, 75mm, and 82mm waist skis) and am happy with them, and my wife and sister-in-law are also on them with 75mm waist skis and are happy with them too. Does this tie the two conversations together better?

post #21 of 45

There's more to brakes than ABS too...disk size?  Drilled?  Vented?  Slotted?

 

As you noted, peak HP/torque means less than what the HP/torque curves look like.  Integrating under the curves is much more telling.  Do both cars have the same suspension geometry?  I doubt it.  You say they have the same tires and weight, but do they have the same weight distribution?

 

There's a lot more going on here than just the ABS difference.  Also, it could be in some hands the yellow car is faster than the red one, but in other hands the red one is faster...depending on the style and skills of the driver.

 

Also, your cars a way to heavy...get something about 1000 lbs lighter and then let's talk.  :)

 

Edit for obligatory skiing content:

 

I'm very interested in seeing independent data on these bindings.  ABS is a great example...people think it's great, but in the hands of a skilled driver, a non-ABS car has been shown to brake better.  On average, it's still a good idea for the average idiot driver though who needs to stop in a panic moment...but there are times when it will increase stopping distances.  Even the best ABS systems can be fooled into doing the wrong thing. 

 

Another car example that comes to mind is DRLs.  Everyone went ape for DRLs for a time...when I dug up the data that was used to justify them, I found out it was based on a study of BUSSES in Scandinavia.  Somehow people thought that busses were easier to see with their lights on in the daytime...yeah, right.  Turned out it was a statistical fluctuation...anyone who knows statistics knows how to look for those, but most people don't. 

 

So...I think real data analyzed by people who know what they are doing is the only way to really start knowing.  In the meantime, we should all embrace the early-adopters who are happy to do our testing for us.  You go Chris!  Just don't blow your knee out so badly you can't drive your Ferraris...(or is it an S2000 and an MR2 (well, I know an MR2 doesn't quite fit the specs, but it's an amusing picture)?).


Edited by Wannabe - 2/7/2009 at 04:28 am
post #22 of 45

I rarely activate ABS in my car but I am glad it is there the few times when they are activated.

 

post #23 of 45

Wannabe: Great comments, and you're absolutely right that different cars do suit different driving styles. Also the S2000 brakes are indeed a bit larger than the 308GTB brakes, though both have OEM rotors and higher performance pads. After owning/driving these two cars for many years, I feel they are very similar when it comes to cornering and grip, when they both have sets of Potenza S02 tires on them. The newer car is a little more tail happy requiring a bit more patience in applying throttle coming out of corners, but its brakes are simply amazing - and the ABS has worked well on the track and in autocross.

 

On Kneebindings, today was my 20th ski day on them, and my 34th ski day of this season.

post #24 of 45

In the category of beating a dead horse...

 

It occurs to me that probably the biggest factor slowing down your 308 is its age.  As car engines age, they can lose a lot of power.  Dyno it back-to-back (conditions make a huge difference) with the S2000...I wouldn't be surprised to see a big power difference there.  Suspensions age as well...which not only can impact cornering but also braking (possibly the anti-dive characteristics have changed as well).  All of these things add up to say that there are so many differences between these two cars, you can't chalk up your difference in lap times (or even your braking distances) to just the brakes.  Anyway...I'm boring everyone except myself now, so I'll shut up.

 

ObSkiing:  This discussion also seems to apply to the 200 lb. gentleman who skis better on 150cm skis of brand/type A than on 170cm skis of brand/type B.

post #25 of 45

Update on my Kneebinding Experience

 

21 ski days on Kneebindings (of my 35 total ski days so far this season), and well over 1/2 million vertical feet, by an expert skier in all conditions and on all terrain. Still NO pre-releases, NO knee injuries, NO bone breaks, just GREAT skiing!

post #26 of 45

Here (below), for  "Mom"  is the old Geze information from 1984 regarding the proper way to conduct the "Self-Release Method":

 

First, however, this information Must Be placed in proper / full context.  Factors that cause pre-release go far beyond release settings.  In fact, in most bindings today, the "release adjustment" is actually a "design deficiency adjustment".  Most bindings today have mechanisms that cross-link the release and retention functions, so that the binding is constantly "confused" as to whether it should be releasing or retaining.  That's why some bindings today now have release adjustment scales that go up to DIN 30:  those binding designs need these high setting levels because their enherent design is cross-linking release and retention.  Therefore, in these designs, retention can only be achived by nearly eliminating release.  Consequently, no method of release adjustment or setting by itself will cure the pre-release problem within a binding that has a cross-linked mechanical design.  Keeping this in mind, the best solution to a pre-release problem is to utilize a binding design that de-couples the release function from the retention function.  No binding company (except KneeBinding) discusses this issue because this is new engineering science recently (1999) developed by MIT (Axiomatic Design) that has not yet found its way into ordinary bindings (re-engineering time;  investment in molds / tooles / dies;  fabrication of molds tools and dies;  testing / testing / testing to de-bug;  tweeking of molds / tooles / dies;  energy to prevent investors from shipping bindings pre-maturely due to short-term ROI-goals) all add up to a long time-horizon to bring a new binding, with a new technology like decoupling, properly to market.

 

To be clear, the best way to mitigate pre-release is to utilize a binding design that decouples the release function from the retention function, rather than to utilize a band-aid like elevated releases settings -- which approach will not overcome the enherent design deficiancies of a binding that has cross-linked release/retention features (which is all ordinary bindings offered today).  Some of the ordinary bindings that are offered today are more cross-linked than others, so some will provide better retention than others .... and you can determine which are which by how high the settings must go in order to have adequate retention.  The signature of a good binding design is one that can be skied at low settings while not having pre-release.  Again, this aspect is best controlled by the level of decoupling within the enherent design of the binding, not by the method of adjustment or by the amount one can elevate the settings.  I have to make that clear because of product liability issues.

 

Further, dirt and contamination and other ordinary adjustments to the bindings, such as the forward pressure and many other functional adjustments aside from the release adjustments -- can and do have a much larger material effect in controlling pre-release than do the release-settings, per se.  All of these adjustments should be made by factory-trained personnel in ski shops who make use of release measuring equipment to compare the expected release values to the actual release values -- and then to make corrections to the ski-boot-binding-system based on factory-recommended instructions (such as, just to name one correction:  clean and re-lubricate the moving interfaces within the heel track and lower heel housing .... this cleaning and re-lubrication can cause a huge improvement in preventing pre-release.);  or which testing by technicians brings a realization that the binding is defective and it must be returned to the binding-manufacturer. 

 

When utilizing the Self-Release Method, bindings with poor recentering characteristics (especially when weighted) will not release at the intended levels during largely-loaded forward-twisting event.  AFD's must be of low friction (preferrably with a coefficient of friction of approx 0.01) and the total ski-boot-binding-system must be clean.  Combined load tests (not possible for an ordinary ski shop to perform) provide information that can be compared to functional limits on the amount that the twist release should increase in the presence of large forward-loading (defined by the ISO standaards).  When utilizing the Self-Release Method, the fulcrum point (between the boot and ski) for forward release should distinctly-defined and be located under (or near) the ball of the foot -- not under the skiers' toes, as is found with almost all bindings being sold today. 

 

Many of today's binding engineers were never transferred the lessons that were painfully learned by the diligent binding engineers of 25 years ago.  Too bad, because this is why there are so many pre-releases today -- even with elevated settings.

 

Having said all of this, do not deviate from the instructions provided by the binding manufacturer unless you are willing to assume ALL risk for any events that may occur as a consequence of the below stated deviation method:  settings lower than recommended by the binding manufacturer may cause pre-release and settings higher that recommended by the binding manufacturer may cause no-release.  Pre-release can cause a head or spinal injury;  no-releaase can cause a leg fracture or soft-tissue of the knee injury (yes, I said that correctly).

 

Lastly, the "Self-Release Method" is NOT a "test".  For example, if a ski-boot-binding-system has an underlying impediment to release (such as a pebble lodged between the boot and the AFD), utilization of the Self-Release Method during this condition will result in the release setting needing to be lowered to off-set the impediment caused by the pebble -- but that reduction in the release setting is only an off-set during a lightly-weighted condition.  Under this condition, the ski boot-binding-system will release at a much higher than indended (intended by the designer) level during a large-forward-twisting event.  Therefore, the net-setting achieved by the Self-Release Method in the presence of an impediment such as a pebble will result in a setting that is unacceptable.  Only release measuring equipment can "test" the difference between the measured value and the expected value.  If the difference between the measured value and the expected value is within the limits specified by the manufacturer / designer, then the Self-Release Method (together with all of the other above conditions in place) is vaild.

 

From the 1984 Geze in-box Consumer Instructions; 

 

"Self-Release Method.

 

Unusually aggressive skiers and racers who sometimes need higher settings can use the Self-Release Method to obrtain these special settings.  This method [conducted in the proper way] may help to insure that the special settings these skiers need will not be grossly overtightened, which is the usual case with adjustments made without using this method.

 

Start by using the presettings for [Type III+] skiers that are suggested on the Geze release setting chart.

 

Heel Setting:

 

— Stand on one foot with the boot buckled as it is during skiing.

— The ski should not be helf fixed.

— Release the heel by bending the lower leg forward (move the knee forward and down—toward the forebody of the ski).  Do not lunge forward with the opposite leg because this will cause an undesirable upward pulling on the Achillies tendon.

— Readjust the forward heel release setting to your "comfort threshold".

 

Toe Setting:

— Place the ski on its inside edge by rolling the knee inward and then SLOWLY twist the foot inward.  Rapid twisting should be avoided because it is not the worst case for maximum loading.

— Readjust the setting to your "comfort threshold".

If, based on further skiing, it is believed that higher settings are needed, the setting may be increased as long as self release is still possible."

 

..... /..... and only if all of the conditions that are noted above the quote from the old Geze In-box Consumer Instructions are in place, too.

 

Enough for today.....

 

Rick Howell

President & CEO

Howell Product Development

Stowe, Vermont

post #27 of 45
I only wish I would of had these bindings last year before my high speed backwards twisting fall that destroyed my acl. Skiing the remaining 1200 vertical with a trobbing right knee was pure torture. The corisponding surgery and rehab has been far from a good time. I will be purchasing a pair this upcoming season. As far as ABS is concerned why don't we see if Valentino Rossi moto GP world champ is a fan. ABS along with traction control will decrease lap times, period. BMW's new motorbikes stop considerably faster with ABS than without. Now for more irrelevance, motorcycles with ABS vs. yellow cars with mis-matched tires with 1/2 ABS and 1/2 flux capacitors. Which one will go back to the future faster?????
post #28 of 45

Knee Binding Review

                                                               

Me:

150 lbs., 5’-7”

Masters ski racer

Mechanical engineer

 

I tore my ACL tendon 4 years ago.  I had it repaired with a patella tendon graft 2 years ago.  I have been waiting for the Knee Binding as it seamed like cheap insurance.

 

I had the bindings mounted in January 2009 to a pair of GS race skis.  My first impression was that they clamped the ski to the boot more rigidly than other bindings.  At first this was un-nerving as they seemed much less forgiving, but I soon became used to the feeling.

 

The first time skiing, I lost all 4 anti-skid pads because I was taking the skis off each run to ride the Keystone gondola at night. The Company has not come up with a fix for this yet, but they have changed the heal so that the anti-skid pocket is now filled in with plastic.

 

My second time skiing I was hit from behind by a snowboarder (who didn’t bother to stop) and knocked me out of one ski.  That toe binding twisted past its normal limits and slightly damaged the plastic housing.  (Would not have had damage if it was aluminum)

 

Update after 11 days skiing in Chile and 30 days total:

 

I was skiing with the bindings set 1.5 din settings lower than my race setting, 7.5 versus 9.0 in an attempt to avoid potential knee injuries. I had an upward heal pre-release skiing fast through moguls.  I don’t think this was the fault of the bindings, just too low a setting for my skiing.  I have yet to have a fall where the bindings released sideways at either the heal or the toe.  I can twist out though with some effort.

 

I have had two additional problems with the bindings,  I began stripping out the plastic screwdriver slot adjustment on the heal when adjusting with a slightly undersized screwdriver.  I was surprised as this has never happened with metal adjustment screws.  When taking the skis off, the brakes are no longer deploying.  In a fall with release, I am fairly certain the brakes would no longer deploy properly.  The brakes have worn a groove into the plastic housing preventing them from deploying.

 

While I like the concept of these Kneebindings, I cannot recommend them until the problems with the antiskid plates, the plastic adjustment screws and the brake deployment are fixed.  I hope the company is moving rapidly to fix these problems.

Update on 2010 Model:

The factory is now offering brake/antiskid upgrades to the toe and heal units.  The new parts will have bi-injected teflon anti-skid pads with modified brake units. They also tell me that the plastic adjustment heal screw has been redesigned with a tougher plastic. I am still hoping for a a model with a more durable aluminum housing.


Edited by mountainsport500 - 11/6/09 at 12:52pm
post #29 of 45

To Rick Howell,

 

Ty for the explanation. I don't really understand all of them. But I believe these bindings are designed for me. I only ski for four seasons, and I have hurt my right knee & left knee each once. Luckily I am still skiing and improve my skills every year. What happened to my injures are similar, side way pressure and one of my ski is stuck in snow and all weight on one of my knee. I guess the current bindings are not designed to release on side way and that's how I hurt both my knees. I still experience few similar situation (but I didn't hurt myself) in powder and sometimes in moguls. I know I would avoid that if I have better skills. But when you do more and more off-piste skiing, there are more and more unexpected things will happen. That is the fun part of skiing - to explore and challenge yourself. But you don't want to hurt yourself, especially your knees. That's why I am exciting for these new bindings.

 

I plan to get new powder skis for next season and I would like to try these new bindings. I guess I am the perfect guy to test it because I don't have expert skills and I trend to hurt my knee once in a while. :p I will come back and post my experience once I ski on these new bindings for few times. :)

post #30 of 45

Dadali, I'm a mid level intermediate skier and have always been frightened of knee injury. I learned of Knee bindings late last season. Despite the products claims and critics I didn't find any negative comments from actual users so I had a pair installed and managed seventeen days with them.

 

I didn't have any premature binding releases. I did fall negotiating a lift line while the individual behind me was standing on one of my skis. Falling back and to my left the right binding released at the heel as my leg twisted up and out before my butt hit the snow. If I'm not mistaken the binding paid for itself at that moment.

 

If nothing else it seems to work well as a binding and it employes U.S. citizens. 

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 › Knee-Binding reviews/opinions.