or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › watea 94 with knee bindings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

watea 94 with knee bindings

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
This is my first post and would like to know what the opinions are of this set up?  Watea 94(186) with the new lateral release knee binding(daily ski)....did not purchase knee bindings because of ACL problems, but was sold and made sense. I was looking for a lift in the binding setup and the knee bindings had a significant lift. I demoed a pair of Watea 94(186) couple of  weeks ago(from a friend)and was blown away by the versatility of the ski.(demoe ski, did have a significant lift). 

I will give my back ground later....ski mostly Sierra resorts, Squaw, Kirkwood...etc.... 
Edited by 2skis - 1/13/10 at 7:35pm
post #2 of 33
Knee binding is an unproven design lacking in development and overpriced to boot.....
post #3 of 33
What Rossi said.  Not to mention, few if any have actually skied them yet.

The Watea, OTOH, is probably a solid choice.  I've tried the 84 and 101, but not the 94.  Many here have, however.  You might want to search for their reviews.

But you are unlikely to find anyone with this particular ski/binding combination in use.
post #4 of 33
X3, not a fan of the Kneebinding. I respect the concept, but the quality and materials are lacking for a $150.00 let alone a $500.00 one. 
post #5 of 33
Do the Tyrolia diagonal release system resemble the knee biding?

I can release my bidings in almost any direction...
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterGoa View Post

Do the Tyrolia diagonal release system resemble the knee biding?

I can release my bidings in almost any direction...


 Simply, the Tyrolia was for a forward twisting fall, the Kneebinding is for a rearward twisting fall. 
post #7 of 33
Just my $0.02, but whatever binding you get, might want to mount it slightly behind the center mark (1/2" to 3/4").  Seems to wake the Watea 94 up for big mountain skiing.  If you spend all day in the park, never mind, center mount that puppy.
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Simply, the Tyrolia was for a forward twisting fall, the Kneebinding is for a rearward twisting fall. 

I thought Tyrolia's diagonal-release toe had the same purpose?

post #9 of 33
^^^ Same purpose, less efficient result. The Tyrolia heel needs to move upward to start to twist, the KneeBinding has pure lateral release (to one side). To visualize the difference between toe release and heel release, imagine the foot as a lever arm (the ankle is the 'end' of the lever), in a rearward twisting fall there is loading down on the heel and to the side. The force to the toe is fairly minor due to leverage. Bindings get 'confused' in 'Phantom Foot' falls, the KneeBinding was designed to work much better than anything else on the market, it is a very, very good idea and has potential to be a great product... it just costs a lot, is 'cosmetically challenged' and has a target market that really doesn't care too much about bindings. People that care about bindings care about one thing: Retention, Not safety, so the FKS is back and will sell in this price range. The KneeBinding needs to be purchased by a bigger manufacturer, the aesthetics need to be improved and it should be used as an integrated binding system where the 'price' is less upfront.
post #10 of 33
Hi – I’m John Springer-Miller from KneeBinding.

Whiteroom - thanks for clarifying why KneeBindings can mitigate knee injuries where others can't.  And thanks, also, for your suggestions.  We're taking your ideas to heart, and we're working hard on such things as "shelf appeal."  Like most, you already know that KneeBindings are safer than others.  But - also like most - you seem unaware that KneeBindings also provide performance and retention that is at least as good as - and usually better than - any other binding.

There is still a lot of confusion about how different bindings affect the rate of knee injuries, so I thought I’d jump in and clarify:


First – the problem: Knee injuries ARE the number 1 issue on skis, accounting for 1/3 of all reported injuries.  There are over 70,000 ACL tears and ruptures on skis each year, worldwide.  Nearly 1 in 4 of these people never ski again.  It is the worst medical issue the sport has ever faced.  Most (close to 75%) of these injuries occur in a backward-twisting fall scenario, but the backward-twisting isn’t what actually causes the injury!  Try this: sit down (hips and knees bent!) and take your left foot and put it on your right knee.  Your leg does move THAT way. Then try pulling your left foot straight sideways to the outside.  You'll quickly see that too much force would injure your knee.  Being in the back seat almost always causes you to bend your hips and knees – setting you up for the injury.  Counter-rotating (twisting) also increases the risk.  But the actual injury occurs because of the lateral movement (“abduction”) of the lower leg.  Typically, the ski bites into the snow and pulls your foot directly sideways.  It can happen to every kind of skier on every kind of terrain.

It has long been understood that the only proven way to mitigate this injury is to allow the binding to release directly sideways at the heel before the force is great enough to injure your knee.  That’s what KneeBindings were created to do.  Imagine the force pushing your foot straight sideways.  A toe will NOT release in this situation, because there is not enough twisting force.  Don’t confuse this with twisting your body (counter-rotating).  For the toe to release, the ski has to twist around the lower leg.  But the force that injures knees does not cause the ski to rotate – it causes the ski to move directly sideways.

There have certainly been other attempts by others - the most recent was the Line binding (Reactor/Pivogy).  But like all other prior attempts, this binding had massive pre-release issues, and was rapidly pulled from the market.  KneeBinding was able to create technology that REDUCES the kinds of pre-release associated with most ordinary bindings.  Skiers who are used to cranking up their heels to keep from coming out, for example, usually find that KneeBinding allows them to ski at their recommended DINs without unwanted releases.  We not only release when others can't, we retain when others don't.

Neither “diagonal” nor “turntable” bindings offers any way to reduce knee injuries.  “Diagonal” bindings (i.e. Tyrolia) must release upward before releasing sideways.  Most knee injuries occur when the skier is rear weighted, and these binding heels cannot release sideways in a rear-weighted fall.  “Turntables” or "side-lug" bindings (i.e. Look PIvot and Rossi FKS, Silvretta, others) also don’t help.  Check one of these out and try to imagine the heel moving sideways while the toe stays in place.  They can't do it for several reasons - most obviously because the boot heel is "blocked" by the side bars/plates.  A turntable is NOT a lateral heel release - it merely provides a rotation point for the lateral TOE release.

KneeBindings, of course, allow the boot to pivot at the heel to facilitate a toe-twist release.  And they DO release up and forward at the heel, just like all ordinary bindings.  These two release mechanisms are standard on ALL bindings.  BUT KNEEBINDING HAS A THIRD MECHANISM THAT NONE OF THE OTHERS HAS.  This provides an additional method of release (lateral heel), with an ADDITIONAL spring and cam system, and an ADDITIONAL DIN setting.  When you set the DIN on an ordinary binding, you set it in two places.  With a KneeBinding, you set it in THREE places.

One way to know for yourself that KneeBinding is the only "knee-friendly" binding is to notice that NO other binding company claims they can reduce knee injuries.  In fact, all other binding companies make a point of warning consumers that they cannot. 
The only proven way to mitigate this kind of knee injury in skiing is with a pure-lateral heel release – and only KneeBinding has it.

KneeBindings offer better performance and better retention than ordinary bindings – AND the world's only PureLateral heel release.  That’s why KneeBinding has been winning so many awards - including "Brand New Award" - ISPO, "Best Innovation in SnowSports" - SnowPress, "Best Alpine Binding" - Women's Adventure, "Skier's Choice" - Powder, and just recently - "Gear of the Year" from SKI Magazine. 

Sorry about the lengthy posting!  If you have any questions or thoughts, I look forward to hearing them - we are ALWAYS looking for constructive advice.  Also - feel free to e-mail me, if desired.


John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.

Edited by Chairman - 1/15/10 at 12:49pm
post #11 of 33

post #12 of 33
Well, thanks for that input John, and welcome to EpicSki.  Also looking to get some feedback from our original poster 2skis after some time on their new setup.
post #13 of 33
Looking at this video, at the 50 second mark, you see a Tyrolia biding disengage in a straight lateral movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn-gWmCm73o&fmt=18

I always has diagonal 3D bindings from Tyrolia/Head and always
found it totally painless to disengage laterally.

Now this not not a critique on the knee binding, however I feel correct information needs
to be given for the disussion to be sound...
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterGoa View Post

Looking at this video, at the 50 second mark, you see a Tyrolia biding disengage in a straight lateral movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn-gWmCm73o&fmt=18

I always has diagonal 3D bindings from Tyrolia/Head and always
found it totally painless to disengage laterally.

Now this not not a critique on the knee binding, however I feel correct information needs
to be given for the disussion to be sound...

I have all Tyrolia bindings right now and like them a lot, but they absolutely do *not* release purely laterally at the heel.  The toe can release laterally (as shown in the video) but not the heel.  As whiteroom noted, the heel need to release partially upward (about 15 degrees) before the diagonal function comes into play, and that is really only capable of improving release in forward twisting falls.  That is what the  diagonal heel is for, to improve the traditional release scenarios of the heel piece.  It's completely different from what KneeBinding is focusing on.

If you study your sideways releases more carefully, you will see it's happening at the toe, not the heel.  That will do you zero benefit in a backward twisting fall, or phantom foot scenario.  So don't get a false sense of security from the diagonal heel.  It's beneficial for traditional release scenarios, which primarily protect against boot-top fractures, but will not protect the knee much more than a non-diagonal binding will (which means, almost nil).
post #15 of 33
Given the fact that most recreational skis now come with system bindings, I think the Knee Binding isn't an option for most skis. Those who purchase flat freeride skis also probably would think that it's too cost-prohibitive.  

Sounds like a nice concept but who is going to buy them? Hardcore freeriders already seem to have their binding of choice and likely aren't going to take off their expensive Dukes and replace them with expensive knee bindings.  I think Whiteroom has the right idea when he implied it would be best for another company to buy out the design and mass produce it or even partner with ski manufactuers to have them mounted on their skis.

Unfortunately, the things going against the new binding are -- too expensive, too unknown, and not enough flat skis to mount them on.

As far as knee injuries, obviously nobody wants one but everyone knows it's a risk to begin with. The best way to ensure that you won't get a knee injury is not to ski.
post #16 of 33
Hi - JSM again.

MojoMan - One of my early concerns (a few years ago) when evaluating the idea of building the KneeBinding business was the "system" ski issue.  It seemed that ski companies were building more and more proprietary packages.  It reminded me of the computer business many years ago - when companies created proprietary hardware and software.  But then I realized - if your HP printer only worked with your HP computer, you wouldn't stand for it.  Well - all those proprietary computer interfaces disappeared.  Why?  Because you, the consumers, demanded open systems. 

Well - I predicted that skis would turn back toward flat.  And I was right.  You folks want to be able to pick your favorite ski and also pick your favorite binding - and know that they will work well together.  If you damage a ski and need to buy a new one, you shouldn't have to buy a new binding.  If you want a new binding, you shouldn't have to buy new skis.

I also did my research.  For those who don't know the actual numbers, "system" skis with bindings grew to become about 50% of the North American market three years ago.  Note that some regions are more system heavy, and some regions are more "flat" oriented - but the North American average was about 50%.  They stalled there, hitting about 50% again two years ago.  Last year, this fell to about 47%, and it is falling again this year to below 45% systems.  Also, of these proprietary systems, only about half of those are actually manufactured as systems.  The other half are flat skis packaged up with bindings, or pre-mounted with a rail that can be removed.  Many of these models  are offered by the manufacturers as systems or as flats - and they are exactly the same ski.  That means that this year, about 75% of all the skis sold in north America can be mounted with kneebindings.  Next year, it will probably be over 80%.  In the higher-end ski categories, the numbers are even more in our favor because the system percentages include such a large percentage of rentals. 

So - to say that "most recreational skis come with system bindings" is not true.  It has never been more than half of the market - and is becoming even less true.  Systems are in decline.  Next season, be on the lookout for a LOT more flat ski models being introduced - and look for shops that were once mostly systems to be turning back toward flats.  This is good for shops, good for manufacturers, and good for consumers.

John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

Sounds like a nice concept but who is going to buy them?

55 year old guys with bad knees.  Only the price is holding me back. 
post #18 of 33
I saw these for the first time at a local Christy's Sports.

I like the concept, but I'll sit on the sidelines for further refinement.

In the sake of of constructive criticism, my suggestions are to reduce the stack height and improve the quality of the components while not making them weigh a ton.

But I do appreciate the attempt at advancing the science.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post

Hi - JSM again.

MojoMan - One of my early concerns (a few years ago) when evaluating the idea of building the KneeBinding business was the "system" ski issue.  It seemed that ski companies were building more and more proprietary packages.  It reminded me of the computer business many years ago - when companies created proprietary hardware and software.  But then I realized - if your HP printer only worked with your HP computer, you wouldn't stand for it.  Well - all those proprietary computer interfaces disappeared.  Why?  Because you, the consumers, demanded open systems. 

Well - I predicted that skis would turn back toward flat.  And I was right.  You folks want to be able to pick your favorite ski and also pick your favorite binding - and know that they will work well together.  If you damage a ski and need to buy a new one, you shouldn't have to buy a new binding.  If you want a new binding, you shouldn't have to buy new skis.

I also did my research.  For those who don't know the actual numbers, "system" skis with bindings grew to become about 50% of the North American market three years ago.  Note that some regions are more system heavy, and some regions are more "flat" oriented - but the North American average was about 50%.  They stalled there, hitting about 50% again two years ago.  Last year, this fell to about 47%, and it is falling again this year to below 45% systems.  Also, of these proprietary systems, only about half of those are actually manufactured as systems.  The other half are flat skis packaged up with bindings, or pre-mounted with a rail that can be removed.  Many of these models  are offered by the manufacturers as systems or as flats - and they are exactly the same ski.  That means that this year, about 75% of all the skis sold in north America can be mounted with kneebindings.  Next year, it will probably be over 80%.  In the higher-end ski categories, the numbers are even more in our favor because the system percentages include such a large percentage of rentals. 

So - to say that "most recreational skis come with system bindings" is not true.  It has never been more than half of the market - and is becoming even less true.  Systems are in decline.  Next season, be on the lookout for a LOT more flat ski models being introduced - and look for shops that were once mostly systems to be turning back toward flats.  This is good for shops, good for manufacturers, and good for consumers.

John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.


Hi,

Like squeaky above, I certainly echo the sentiment about it being nice to see new options that have the potential to make things safer. I also hope your business kicks off well and is a success.

I would look at the comments here as kind of an informal focus group that helps a manufacturer know what people are thinking about their product. This web site seems to be one of the premier places on the web where skiers congregate and share discussion so I guess it's a good place to be if you're loking for such feedback.  

As far as my own views as a consumer and skier, I really don't know if I have enough info to purchase one at this time. I have never seen one in person. For me, the looks really mean nothing. I don't ski aggressively enough or fast enough to really worry much about pre-release. I also could get past the price. My biggest question when looking at a product like this is, how do I know it works when it should? One can certainly demo a binding but how do you demo a safety feature in a real-world situation where the safety feature comes in handy?  I think that is probably what most skiers such as myself are thinking as well. Obviously, you guys have done your homework and know what you are doing, but any new technology or product is likely to be met with a bit of caution at first. So, basically, my question would be, how did you guy's test the binding on real skiers to know that they safety feature will function as stated in a real-world situation of a backwards twisting fall, outside of a shop or lab? That's not in any way a loaded question. It's just what I have on my mind as a consumer and what I would ask before I would decide to spend the extra money on a new binding with added safety features.  
post #20 of 33

I like the concept, but not the price.  I know, it is cheaper than an ACL repair, but it is a lot of money to spend.  I saw one for the first time over Thanksgiving and I have to say that they just look and feel cheaply made.  I agree with Whiteroom when he says that they are "cosmetically challenged" as they look cheap but are very expensive.

Also, as Mojoman asked, how have you proven that they reduce knee inujuries.  The idea is good theoretically and in the lab but do you actually have any real skier numbers.

post #21 of 33
I think the concept of the KneeBinding makes sense, we are falling different now, where years ago, skiers did a forward twisting fall, now there is a rearward twisting one. As far as the system binding point, I am just under 50% of the skis on my mens ski wall are flat, so I sell quite a few traditional mount bindings. IMHO the KneeBinding is a valid concept, I don't think the quality warrants the price tag and for that reason, I am not ready to represent them at my shop. I just have the confidence in the product yet. 
post #22 of 33
To all of you here - thanks for all this great feedback.  It isn't easy starting a new business with a new product - especially when the binding business has been so complacent for so long.  Starting a binding business in this economic climate is especially challenging.  So - we're taking all the help we can get.

On the appearance - some people like the way they look. some people don't seem to care at all, and some don't like the look.  Some think they are downright ugly.  Diffrent segments of the market react differently.  We certainly understand this challenge - we'd like appearance to NOT be a barrier for anyone.

Now - the question asked by MojoMan regarding real-world proof that they actually reduce injuries - that's the really tough question.  I don't think it is possible to get hard-fast proof of a negative.  You don't put people into a car and run them into a brick wall at 60mph to see how well the airbags work.  And even if you could do that - it would be argued that you can't simulate every possible kind of accident in every possible kind of car.  And then you'd face the argument that you would not really know how many of the subjects would have survived anyway.  In the end - you can't really prove it - not in that way. 

At the same time, it HAS been proven that a specific injury mechanism causes close to 75% of all ACL injuries (i.e. we know how many people died because their heads hit the dashboard at 60mph).  And it HAS been proven that lateral heel release would mitigate that specific injury mechanism (i.e. if we had something softer for their heads to hit - more people would live through these accidents). 

The ski industry has known this for quite some time.  The reason other efforts have been made toward offering a lateral heel release is becuase it is well-known to be the answer.  Most skiers intuitively understand that the mechanism is of great benefit.  The medical community does as well.  But - designing a heel to release laterally is pretty easy.  Getting it to retain - to stay on when its supposed to - that is what has defeated so many before us.

But we did succeed.  People really like the way KneeBindings ski.  As a result, an oft-heard comment about KneeBindings is: As long as it offers the same or better retention and performance, why wouldn't you use them?  A third dimension of release?  Without any downside?  That's a no-brainer (i.e. we all intuitively know that airbags are a good idea.  As long as the don't take away from the performance of the car - we ALL want them).

So - in many ways, our challenge is not to prove that the lateral heel release mechanism works - nor even to prove that it dramatically reduces the knee injury rate.  Our challenge is to prove how well the binding retains and performs.  Fortunately, most people who ski on them can immediately feel the performance enhancements we've brought to the table.  And we simply don't have the kind of pre-release problems so many ordinary bindings are plagued with.  The ONLY way to prove this - at least to skiers such as yourselves - is for people like you to ski on it.  More and more of you are/have - and as you do, we are confident that acceptance will snowball.

We do try to facilitate opportunities for people to ski on them.  We did an event last year in Stowe, and we'll do at least two more this year here.  We also recently did an event at Okemo, and we are planning to do them in other parts of the counrty.  It isn't easy, but we are making it happen.


What are your thoughts about all this?


John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.
Edited by Chairman - 1/16/10 at 2:48am
post #23 of 33
My thoughts are that this development could be great news and a wonderful benefit to skiers everywhere. However I do have a couple of questions....

Quote:
At the same time, it HAS been proven that a specific injury mechanism causes close to 75% of all ACL injuries

Is this mechanism the "phantom foot" that has been postulated by VSSR via the Sugarbush Study over the last 25 years or so? If not, what is this specific mechanism, or how is it different?

Quote:
And it HAS been proven that lateral heel release would mitigate that specific injury mechanism

Proven how? by whom?, when?, who financed the study? and has the study been subjected to peer review?

SJ
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post


On the appearance - some people like the way they look. some people don't seem to care at all, and some don't like the look.  Some think they are downright ugly.  Diffrent segments of the market react differently.  We certainly understand this challenge - we'd like appearance to NOT be a barrier for anyone.



What are your thoughts about all this?


John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.


Personally, i can get past how a binding "looks" and I think most skiers can, cosmetics of a binding are a non issue, I don't think there are any bindings in Museum of Modern Art. I do appreciate the conversation here is staying pretty candid which is great, kudos to John for coming here to talk abut the product. I will stop by to see you in Vega...Denver.

My reservation with the Kneebinding is the quality of the materials and the feel of the binding. A $495 Retail binding and there isn't even DIN windows, the DIN is scribed into the plastic? I am sorry, but if you lined up this binding along with 10 various other bindings from Look, Tyrolia, Salomon and Marker and askied a consumer how much the binding would cost based on feel and substance, it would be at the low end of the scale vs. at the very top line it is now. Personally, I would like to see this technology brought to more bindings in some capacity, I truly think it has some merit. 

Quote:
 
Fortunately, most people who ski on them can immediately feel the performance enhancements we've brought to the table.
Exactly, what are they feeling here? How are they feeling a release mechanism while skiing? 
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Exactly, what are they feeling here? How are they feeling a release mechanism while skiing? 

I think he means the rigidity of the system, the wide AFD(s), etc. He has demo bindings (they're on skis of course). Next time you are up here, I'm sure we could go do a few runs with Chairman.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post


But we did succeed.  People really like the way KneeBindings ski.  As a result, an oft-heard comment about KneeBindings is: As long as it offers the same or better retention and performance, why wouldn't you use them?  A third dimension of release?  Without any downside?  That's a no-brainer (i.e. we all intuitively know that airbags are a good idea.  As long as the don't take away from the performance of the car - we ALL want them).


We do try to facilitate opportunities for people to ski on them.
  We did an event last year in Stowe, and we'll do at least two more this year here.  We also recently did an event at Okemo, and we are planning to do them in other parts of the counrty.  It isn't easy, but we are making it happen.


What are your thoughts about all this?


John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.

i.e. airbags as an example. The DO take away performance of the car as they add weight. They also add a huge amount of additional equipment and complexity. Given the choice, I would like the option of NO airbags.

As for opportunity, first I would have to WANT to ski them, which at this time I do NOT.

I found the whole issue with the designer of this product very distasteful. When it's "your baby" you should certainly be allowed to talk about it's pros and cons.His credentials are more than sufficient, certainly an expert in the ski binding field. Including the limitations of "our" legal system aside, the whole thing was a joke. Given that you are trying to SELL us a product and he was trying to INFORM us about the same product, it's easy for me to to find the more creditable source. YMMV.......
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post




i.e. airbags as an example. The DO take away performance of the car as they add weight. They also add a huge amount of additional equipment and complexity. Given the choice, I would like the option of NO airbags.

As for opportunity, first I would have to WANT to ski them, which at this time I do NOT.

I found the whole issue with the designer of this product very distasteful. When it's "your baby" you should certainly be allowed to talk about it's pros and cons.His credentials are more than sufficient, certainly an expert in the ski binding field. Including the limitations of "our" legal system aside, the whole thing was a joke. Given that you are trying to SELL us a product and he was trying to INFORM us about the same product, it's easy for me to to find the more creditable source. YMMV.......
 

Rossi, I will respectively say, you are outside of the bell curve (well outside) for most marketers in design. :wink:

Regarding the second point, I will walk a fine line because of my position here on Epic, but I can't say that I disagree with you. I too was very disappointed on how the while situation <publicly> transpired. 
 
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post




Rossi, I will respectively say, you are outside of the bell curve (well outside) for most marketers in design. :wink:

Regarding the second point, I will walk a fine line because of my position here on Epic, but I can't say that I disagree with you. I too was very disappointed on how the while situation <publicly> transpired. 
 

YES! I do appear to be FAR outside the norm these days. I even dare to ski without a helmet, ski on bindings designed in the 60's and once even ran with scissors in my hand.....
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post




YES! I do appear to be FAR outside the norm these days. I even dare to ski without a helmet, ski on bindings designed in the 60's and once even ran with scissors in my hand.....

I call BS on this....I am sure you have run with scissors MORE than once. 
 
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman View Post


What are your thoughts about all this?


John Springer-Miller
Chairman, KneeBinding Inc.
 


I understand you take on testing. Really, the biggest hurdle your product faces right now is consumer skepticism and price. Obviously, you can see this from some of the comments here. I wouldn't look at this as a negative. It's only natural with a new product like this. Also, skiers can be pretty discriminating when it comes to their choice of gear, as browsing the gear forum here shows. 

Until someone evaluates the product from a performance standpoint, obviously many skiers will be a bit leery of a new product. I know you guys were given the award by ski magazine but there really haven't been any technical write-ups or comprehensive reviews. You can overcome this by getting the bindings in the hands of some seasoned skiers and have them get the word out.  Personally, I would be interested in such impressions, as I am sure most here would. The interent can be a powerfull tool.

From comments, most people here seem to be worried more about pre-release than the binding safety features working. There are plenty of skiers here who are more than qualified to evaluate a binding system from a technical perspective(not me). Maybe partner with the owner here and donate a pair for the raffle they have going. Or donate a demo to one of the shop owners or fitters. Philpug, dawgcatching, sierrajim, etc -- they all would make good testers and would be able to give their impressions. There are thousands of skiers on this site and I am sure many would love to read the reviews and impressions of someone they trust to give the straight poop. 
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 › watea 94 with knee bindings