New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kneebinding Update - Page 6

post #151 of 179
Thread Starter 

After skinning up, this picture shows BD skins and Alpine Trekkers removed from skis and stowed in backpack - all ready to clip in and ski down.

 

Canon Pics 023.jpg

post #152 of 179

Im not sold on the knee bindings due to the actual creator bashing them....but that skinning setup you have is very cool.   Never knew that existed.icon14.gif

post #153 of 179
Thread Starter 
Rich: The BackCountry Access Alpine Trekkers adjust to any alpine boots and bindings and allow easy skinning with a very free heel and two snap up heel lifts for skinning uphill. The Black Diamond Ascension skins need to be trimmed to fit the shape of the skis. I picked my Dynastar Legend 4800 skis since they are light and handle a wide range of conditions. For boots I used an old set of soft Lange RRS 80 boots, that I had initially used as soft rehab boots after knee surgey. The RRS is a bracket piece on the boot back that can be released to allow more and easier cuff flex. For walking/hiking from the car I use Cat Tracks for better grip, release the RRS piece and leave my upper buckles and velcro strap loose. These are soft flexing and comfortable for walking/hiking/skinning. At the top of the hill, I step out and tighten my buckles and re-engage the RRS piece to lock the boot cuff. I remove the Alpine Trekkers and BD skins from my skis and stowe them in my backpack. Then I can clip into my skis normally and ski down the hill with regular alpine gear - albeit with softer than normal boots.

A dedicated Alpine Touring setup would probably be a little lighter weight, but my setup is pretty darn light, fully AT functional, and feels very solid skiing downhill. My "AT" boots are softer than normal for me but quite skiable. Laterally they feel pretty normal, but I need to flex forward consciouly farther than normal to fully engage my ski tips at turn initiation. I use my shortest poles to help me skin up steep hills. I also duct tape my bare heels before putting on socks to make sure I don't get blisters.
post #154 of 179



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post

....but that skinning setup you have is very cool.   Never knew that existed.icon14.gif



 

AT skinning with Trekkers is like trying to run a marathon in gum boots; you can do it, it won't be enjoyable and you may well be scarred for life.

post #155 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

 

 

AT skinning with Trekkers is like trying to run a marathon in gum boots; you can do it, it won't be enjoyable and you may well be scarred for life.



Everything is a compromise.

 

I actually prefer the Alpine Trekker adapters over dedicating a pair of skis for installing lighter weight AT bindings, because when I'm skinning and get to the top and it's time to ski downhill on steep terrain, the Alpine Trekker adapters are simply removed with the skins (and stowed in my backpack) and I then have sturdy downhill bindings to ski downhill on - rather than flimsy lighter weight AT bindings. Plus, that set of skis can still be used normally for all frontside skiing without the adapters and skins, with no fear of damaging lightweight AT bindings in moguls, etc.

post #156 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI View Post





Everything is a compromise.

 

I actually prefer the Alpine Trekker adapters over dedicating a pair of skis for installing lighter weight AT bindings, because when I'm skinning and get to the top and it's time to ski downhill on steep terrain, the Alpine Trekker adapters are simply removed with the skins (and stowed in my backpack) and I then have sturdy downhill bindings to ski downhill on - rather than flimsy lighter weight AT bindings. Plus, that set of skis can still be used normally for all frontside skiing without the adapters and skins, with no fear of damaging lightweight AT bindings in moguls, etc.


Duke, Baron. Not to mention there are people who go bigger and ski harder on Dynafit than you ever will. The overlying fact is that you want to use kneebingings, and that's cool. But don't spread mis-information.

 

post #157 of 179

Thats probably they way I would do it, if I ever ventured to.  Pop em off into a back pack regain full Alpine functionality.   Hmm, I am envisioning NYC skinning with my rock skis and George Washington Bridge backdrop photos.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI View Post





Everything is a compromise.

 

I actually prefer the Alpine Trekker adapters over dedicating a pair of skis for installing lighter weight AT bindings, because when I'm skinning and get to the top and it's time to ski downhill on steep terrain, the Alpine Trekker adapters are simply removed with the skins (and stowed in my backpack) and I then have sturdy downhill bindings to ski downhill on - rather than flimsy lighter weight AT bindings. Plus, that set of skis can still be used normally for all frontside skiing without the adapters and skins, with no fear of damaging lightweight AT bindings in moguls, etc.



 

post #158 of 179

I was just thinking how awesome the responses to ChrisfromRI would be if this post was over on TGR!  Truly this would be a classic thread.

post #159 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Duke, Baron. Not to mention there are people who go bigger and ski harder on Dynafit than you ever will.

 



Hope you are still enjoying a nice second season on skis ecimmortal - nice colorful profile picture too. If you could bend a little at your hips rather than just leaning over to your side it would be even better.

 

Facts:

 

Dukes weigh 2630 grams per pair.

 

Kneebindings weigh 2200 grams per pair, and Alpine Trekkers add another 1228 grams per pair while skinning, for a combined 3428 grams per pair while skinning and only 2200 grams per pair while skiing downhill. 

 

Dynafits are extremely light with some models at only 1000 grams per pair, but require special dedicated boots with "pincer holes" to accept the special Dynafit binding points/pegs. There are also other very light specialty AT bindings ou there as well.

 

With those facts on the table we could do a comparison of the Kneebindings with Alpine Trekker adapters that I'm using compared to Dukes for skinning, and the result would be that the my setup is about 14 ounces heavier per uphill foot slide on skins than with Dukes - that's somewhere between a 12 ounce and a 16 ounce beer (in non-metric terms) per uphill foot slide. So my setup is definitely heavier going up (around a beer per foot), though lighter (around a half a beer per foot) coming down.

 

There is a link on my profile to video footage of me skiing down 30 degree terrain very comfortably. Yes, there are indeed other people that ski bigger and harder on other equipment.

 

post #160 of 179

Just saying..................... if you are serious about AT skiing, you won't be using Trekkers for long. And virtually everyone I know who has been BC skiing on AT equipment for a while end up on Dynafit .  Why?  Because when earning your turns, light is right.

post #161 of 179
Thread Starter 

This season is really starting to wind down, but I enjoyed a couple more days skinning and skiing last weekend, getting my total time on Kneebindings up to 163 ski days.

 

I've been managing to get in 2000 to 3000 vertical feet of skinning ascent with my quasi-AT setup each day I head out for some Back Country fun.

post #162 of 179

Thanks for the meadowskipping update.

post #163 of 179
Thread Starter 

 


Edited by CHRISfromRI - 6/14/11 at 2:52pm
post #164 of 179
Thread Starter 

Interesting Video on Kneebinding's home page:

http://www.kneebinding.com/KB-HomePage.aspx 

 

 

post #165 of 179
Thread Starter 

Here is another new Kneebinding Video, one that shows some testing comparisons to other bindings:

http://www.kneebinding.com/KB-InformationCenter3.aspx?settyp=Play&vid=ow8bxK7X9s4 

 

post #166 of 179

Chris, thanks so much for all the updates.   I suffered a backwards twisting fall at the start of the 2010/11 season and was unable to ski for the rest of the season.  While I didn't have an ACL tear (as far as I know), my knee was swollen for several weeks and walking was uncomfortable as well.   I believe I "just" sprained my knee, but it took  a long time for my leg to feel fully stable again.   Your posts have provided very useful information regarding the purchase of new bindings.

post #167 of 179

A sprain is a tear, its just a matter of degree, sounds like you were really lucky.

post #168 of 179
Thread Starter 

MogulFAn: Sorry to hear about your injury. I've heard that partial MCL tears can have symptoms like you had, with extended recoveries. When I tore my ACL it was a complete rupture, fully torn, gone instantly. The pain was only milliseconds long while it was tearing, and then there was no pain at all. I was still up skiing/landing while it tore but the pain was intense enough that I instinctively fell to my side. As a lay there I was surprised that I had no pain so I clicked out of my binding on that side and laying down wiggled my leg all around, and had full movement with no pain. I thought to myself that I was lucky. Then I stood up and went to click back into my binding and as I pushed down on the heelpiece my knee buckled sideways - not a direction it should go. My heart sank knowing that I was screwed, and I sat back down and prepared for the wait for a ride down in a sled, rather than risk further damage skiing a loose knee down a black diamond in ice flow/chunk conditions. I waited a long time and finally an instructor I knew came by and called it in on the radio, and my ride came. I'm glad I waited as there was no other damage than the ruptured ACL for the eventual surgical repair - which improved the odds of recovery. I was unable to walk normally because of the instability and occasional knee buckling, which felt crazy wierd. Every now and then there was a tweak of pain during a buckle but there was generally no pain and only some moderate swelling. More extended pain and swelling eventually came after surgery almost 2 months later.

 

The 2 month wait was because the first surgeon required I get an MRI and start PT immediately (to regain a full range of motion). He also immediately diagnosed my ruptured ACL by merely manipulating my knee before the MRI. In a few weeks the MRI had confirmed his diagnosis and the PT had also returned my mobility (I was walking pretty normally). At that point because of a personal receommendation I switched to a more experienced ACL reconstruction surgeon, and had to get on his busy calendar to see him for his diagnosis, and then schedule surgery with him. By the time I was to go for surgery my knee felt completely normal getting around, but NOT skiing or playing sports.

post #169 of 179

I hope Rick Howell still reads this stuff. It must kill a little piece of him each time he has to read some of the bullshit that is spouted by idiots who seem to be incapable of (or to lazy to try) to understand the design. Let alone having to do so without being able to issue any response to it.

 

Every product has quality control issues when first deployed to the market, let alone those that are innovative in design. Why anyone expects this to be different I cannot understand.

The designer himself has stated that there are product issues that need to be addressed. That's the sign of a good engineer, someone that can commit themselves and their resources completely to a project in order to see it through from conception to production, and still be capable of immediately realising and acknowledging that it is not perfect.

 

If it was so easy to mitigate knee tissue injuries through binding design then it already would have been done by companies already in the industry. A combination of social apathy and the adoption of a 'form over function' trend among skiers over the last 30 years (most of whom seem to revel in the idea that they are cool for being to lazy, or to stupid, to develop the abilities required independently assess the safety and performance worth of products using their own critical thinking) is precisely why companies have been able to avoid binding innovation and continue to financially survive, hell most have even prospered. It really speaks very poorly of the consumer market as a whole.

 

The kneebinding is not perfect and never will be, but it's a significant step in the right direction. It's a shame that 99% of people can't see past the fashion or the cool factor to in order appreciate that.

 

I'm going to buy a pair of these and give them a whirl this season. It seems to me that $450 (and some models for even less) is not a lot to pay for something that can substantially increase the odds of you being able to enjoy a sport (maybe all sports) to the fullest of your abilities for the rest of your life.

 

To Rick Howell:

 

Best wishes for resolving the dispute between yourself and the company. Irrespective of the outcome of the current situation, I hope that you will have the resources and the motivation to continue to develop this product, or a similar one, in the future. If you can hold out long enough, I have no doubt that it will be a financial success for you; something that is more richly deserved than most people appreciate considering the difficulties involved in pushing forward an industrial and social 'status quo'.

 

Furthermore, I really hope you do not loose your drive to innovate, it is only a tiny portion of the populace that have the motivation and capacity to do the hard yards involved with developing the concepts, products and technologies that the rest of us will just take for granted; I hope you are proud to be one of the innovators, even when it seems like life is just giving you lemons in return for your efforts.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

post #170 of 179

While I agree with you Chris, the  kneebinding could be (is?) a great breakthrough in preventing knee injuries. IMHO a binding design implementation that is not complete scare the crap out of me. I have been skiing for 40+ years with only one knee injury, that was on my telemark gear that doesn't release at all. I will only use gear that I trust will not fail to do the job while I am skiing, even if it does not prevent a certain type of injury. WHich is why I will only use one brand of alpine bindings that have never failed me.

 

I understand that it takes a while to perfect a new product as I have been a R&D engineer for many years, ( I hold several patents) as we can almost never predict all the ways a product can fail, I dont think I want to be the crash test dummy for a new unproven design. As they improve the design and have a few years on the market, I will then consider it. It is as always a risk rewards calculation. I love the idea, just waiting for the mature product. I know that sucks for the entrepenuer, but as always the product has to be very compelling to make people change. Heck a lot of people dont wear helmets skiing, so why would they care about a specfic kind of knee injury?

 

 

 

 

post #171 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplatt03443 View Post

While I agree with you Chris, the  kneebinding could be (is?) a great breakthrough in preventing knee injuries. IMHO a binding design implementation that is not complete scare the crap out of me. I have been skiing for 40+ years with only one knee injury, that was on my telemark gear that doesn't release at all. I will only use gear that I trust will not fail to do the job while I am skiing, even if it does not prevent a certain type of injury. WHich is why I will only use one brand of alpine bindings that have never failed me.

 

I understand that it takes a while to perfect a new product as I have been a R&D engineer for many years, ( I hold several patents) as we can almost never predict all the ways a product can fail, I dont think I want to be the crash test dummy for a new unproven design. As they improve the design and have a few years on the market, I will then consider it. It is as always a risk rewards calculation. I love the idea, just waiting for the mature product. I know that sucks for the entrepenuer, but as always the product has to be very compelling to make people change. Heck a lot of people dont wear helmets skiing, so why would they care about a specfic kind of knee injury?

 

 

 

 



Hear what you say but prefer to disagree with a few of your points:

 

1. Trusted Gear: Look bindings are what I previously trusted and what I was using when I eventually ruptured my ACL, so IMO clearly no need to revisit that lost trust once I had an alternative that offered a potentially safer experience.

 

2. New Unproven Design: Don't think something that's in its fourth season commercially fits that category anymore. This is my fourth season using KneeBindings of which I've had 185 ski days on them, with absolutely zero pre-releases and many proper releases in every direction and type of fall - including one I think would have otherwise resulted in a knee injury. I've used them for all sorts of skiing on all sorts of terrain from groomed, to ungroomed, to NASTAR, to Tuckerman Ravine. It's not a new and unproven design to me.

 

3. Head Injuries versus Knee Injuries: I don't see your analogy here. To be sure, there is a lot more money in the way of medical bills paid for skiing knee injuries than for skiing head injuries each year. Skiing head injuries are very rare indeed, and even include some deaths - so the rarest cases have a high severity component . It's rather amazing how helmets have caught on in the past few years to prevent against such a rarity. OTOH skiing knee injuries are extremely rampant, often called an epidemic. I never wore a helmet for decades of skiing and never had a single head injury. Yet, I was wearing a helmet a few years ago when I was knocked unconscious during a blindsided collision due to a dental concussion, and am unconvinced my helmet actually helped me in that situation. A protective mouthpiece might have helped, but I don't know anyone other than a few serious racers that wear those skiing.

 

post #172 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI View Post



Hear what you say but prefer to disagree with a few of your points:

 

1. Trusted Gear: Look bindings are what I previously trusted and what I was using when I eventually ruptured my ACL, so IMO clearly no need to revisit that lost trust once I had an alternative that offered a potentially safer experience.

 

2. New Unproven Design: Don't think something that's in its fourth season commercially fits that category anymore. This is my fourth season using KneeBindings of which I've had 185 ski days on them, with absolutely zero pre-releases and many proper releases in every direction and type of fall - including one I think would have otherwise resulted in a knee injury. I've used them for all sorts of skiing on all sorts of terrain from groomed, to ungroomed, to NASTAR, to Tuckerman Ravine. It's not a new and unproven design to me.

 

3. Head Injuries versus Knee Injuries: I don't see your analogy here. To be sure, there is a lot more money in the way of medical bills paid for skiing knee injuries than for skiing head injuries each year. Skiing head injuries are very rare indeed, and even include some deaths - so the rarest cases have a high severity component . It's rather amazing how helmets have caught on in the past few years to prevent against such a rarity. OTOH skiing knee injuries are extremely rampant, often called an epidemic. I never wore a helmet for decades of skiing and never had a single head injury. Yet, I was wearing a helmet a few years ago when I was knocked unconscious during a blindsided collision due to a dental concussion, and am unconvinced my helmet actually helped me in that situation. A protective mouthpiece might have helped, but I don't know anyone other than a few serious racers that wear those skiing.

 



I dont ski with the brand of binding that you tore your knee with. I prefer a different brand, although the same type of release as the Look. I do many types of outdoor activities, Reliability of my gear is paramount. I have been injured several times when I chose gear for added funtionality over reliability. Maybe I am just becoming an old fart and hate change. In my 40 years of skiing I have seen many different brands of bindings completley fall apart, and that experience is why I ski the brand I do.

 

 I think that the knee binding release concept is fantastic. I know you are an early adopter. But your sample size is one. 1 binding lasting 4 years is not equal to high reliability of a large production run. Especially for a company in its infancy that has been through changes in the last few years. I wish them well and hope they succeed. Hopefully they will license their patents to other companies that have greater experience in building bindings.

 

As for helmets, like the kneebinding the prevent some injuries but not all.  Mouthpieces are key in preventing concussions in collisions, Helmets are great at disapating the strike to the head but as you experienced if the head is moving and then stopped quickly , injury can still occur.

 

Ski Smart, Ski Safe... lets all be able to brag about how many ski days we have by the end of the year!

 

 

 

post #173 of 179
Thread Starter 

I have skied on KneeBindings for 285 ski days so far and they still seem fine to me. Plus they ski well and just don't pre-release. These 285 ski days included countless conditions, terrain up to the pitch of the Tuckerman Ravine, hundreds of timed race runs, hundreds of gate training runs, and a real lot of falls from all matter of things including hooking my ski tip on gates to just me misjudging terrain or being clumsy. One time departing a chair lift I tangled with another skier and I fell with a slow backwards fall that I am confident would have re-injured my reconstructed ACL, had my KneeBinding not released with a lateral heel release. Thankfully I was fine.

 

I know that nothing is guaranteed, and I'm using KneeBindings in an effort to tilt the statistics a bit further away from getting re-injured. I am looking to mitigate the likelihood of another knee injury because the last one cost me most of a ski season, $20 thousand, and 8 months of recovery. I also use a helmet to reduce the likelihood of a head injury (and that it's required by USSA), yet I have still been knocked unconscious while wearing a helmet. However, I could have been injured worse had I not been wearing it. All of this is simply managing risk and trying to mitigate the chance of injury as there are no guarantees. The only guarantee is that we are eventually all going to get hurt if we put ourselves out there enough, since this is all about statistics and the law of large numbers.

post #174 of 179
Thread Starter 

As a further update I am now well into my 6th ski season on KneeBindings, with 316 ski days on them. I have still had no pre-releases, have had lots of normal releases, and have had one (1) release in a rearward twisting fall that I am quite sure would have resulted in a knee injury had it not been for me being on KneeBindings. Here are some recent turns made on my KneeBindings:

 

https://sprongo.com/video/995428#playlist/70277

post #175 of 179

Chris, what generation of binding are you on now?  I assume these six years are not all on the same set.

post #176 of 179
Thread Starter 

Good question Cirquerider! I have a number of sets of KBs on a number of different skis at this point. That recent video is me skiing on the KB Carbons (Carbon Fiber Model), which are mounted on my Bomber B1 Slalom skis that I bought for a Slalom race late last season (and to ultimately replace my older Stockli Slalom skis). Although I bought that particular set of bindings last season for those Bomber skis they are to my understanding the latest and most advanced generation of the KB. However, I do still have some skis with the first season white bindings (which were upgraded for free with the 2nd season replacement lifters with molded-in AFDs). One set of those is on my Nordica Burners that I just used last Sunday when I was enjoying a newly tracked out snowfall. I also have a set of those original white bindings on my older Stockli SL skis that I took with me to Austria in October for training at a race camp - as well as a set of the new style Carbons on my GS skis.

post #177 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRISfromRI View Post
 

As a further update I am now well into my 6th ski season on KneeBindings, with 316 ski days on them. I have still had no pre-releases, have had lots of normal releases, and have had one (1) release in a rearward twisting fall that I am quite sure would have resulted in a knee injury had it not been for me being on KneeBindings. Here are some recent turns made on my KneeBindings:

 

https://sprongo.com/video/995428#playlist/70277

 

@  CHRISfromRI,  post #174:

 

Hello, and happy holidays.

 


In reference to your comment, ..."have had one (1) release in a rearward twisting fall that I am quite sure would have resulted in a knee injury had it not been for me being on [KneeBinding] ..." — I have the following notation:

 

First, some background:

 

1—  You had noted several years ago here on Epic that you are a 'P.E.' (Professional Engineer) — therefore, I will provide my notation to you being mindful of your combined educational and professional-experience background;

 

2—  Independent research by Professor Jasper Shealy, PhD (recently retired from RIT Dept of Engineering) that he presented at ISSS-Japan (2005), ISSS-Scotland (2007) and in the related published-papers associated with these presentations — as well as presentations by Professor Robert J. Johnson, MD (Director of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at U.Vermont College of Medicine) and his related published-papers — consistently point to the fact that, epidemiologically, there is 'no statistical difference in the torsional ['twisting'] release settings between ACL-injured skiers [and knee-injured skiers in general] and their respective control-group-skiers'.  This means that "twisting" is not a statistically-significant element of skiing-ACL (and knee) injuries;

 

3—  Prof. Robert J. Johnson, MD and other orthopaedic surgeons see very little ACL-strain when patients are on the operating table under anesthesia during ACL reconstruction surgery — when tibia-torque ["twisting"] is induced (intentionally or unintentionally);

 

4—  Stanford Professor Thomas P. Andriacchi, PhD, of the Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Mechanical Engineering reports very low levels of 'tibia torque' ["twisting'] during loading that causes ACL-strain.  Please see:  SHIN, C. S.,   A. M. CHAUDHARI,  and  Thomas P ANDRIACCHI.   Valgus Plus Internal Rotation Moments Increase Anterior Cruciate Ligament Strain More Than Either Alone.  Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1484–1491, 2011;

 

5—  KneeBinding, Inc. (of KneeBinding brand ski bindings) published a release adjustment table referring to the measurement of tibia torque as ..."twisting"... ;

 

6—  Generally accepted vernacular within the ski injury research community, among ski binding engineers and among most ski binding technicians hold the term, "twisting" to mean 'torque about the long-axis of the tibia'.

 

7—  My personal research that I presented at the International Society for Skiing Safety (ISSS)-Japan-2005 that was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy and Sports Traumatology (the basis for the original design of KneeBinding brand ski bindings) shows almost zero "twisting" (tibia torque) during the most dominant type of skiing ACL injury producing events (Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch events):  I reported very large abduction-force and very large valgus-torque during these same skiing injury events — but nearly zero "twisting".  I have provided significant information right here on Epic about my findings in this way.  One of my recent presentations at ISSS-Argentina-2013 reports nearly zero "twisting" (tibia torque) during all possible combinations and permutations (full envelopes) of Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch skiing-ACL-injury producing events.  This research is based on the combination of my proprietary on-snow experiences (previously and recently including with KneeBinding brand ski bindings, as well as with my new Howell™ Ski Binding designs) coupled together with my publicly-presented laboratory tests.

 

 

Therefore, based upon the above facts ...

 

... and quoting you directly from above:  ... "release in a rearward twisting fall that I am quite sure would have resulted in a knee injury" ...

 

... then, I believe the following:

 

a—  If "twisting" was involved in your event, the multi-directional releasing toe-piece of your bindings may have released, not the lateral heel release.

 

During "backward twisting" skiing knee injury events — 'twist torque' is read and reacted-to by multi-directional 'ordinary' ski binding toe-pieces, not by lateral-releasing heel units (see also the Howell-invented patents on this topic).  ( Pls remember that no boot can pass-through the side-lugs of any 'turntable' heel unit and the so-called diagonal heel must first move upward before being able to release laterally which is impossible in a 'rear-weighted-valgus-induced' (RWVI) event .

 

b—  If, on the other hand, you are certain that the heel released laterally, then there was probably zero or nearly-zero "twisting" during your 'event'.  If your 'event' was one of two 'dominant types' of knee-injury events (Phantom Foot or Slip-Catch), you may have experienced a combination of loads that, when resolved, are (i) rear-weighting and (ii) valgus-induced, NOT "backward-twisting". 

 

Again, during typical skiing knee-injury events such as Phantom Foot or Slip-Catch — abduction-forces that enter the ski aft of the tibia-axis produce Very Large valgus-torque — whereas "backward twisting" (torque about the long axis of the tibia) is Very Low and barely present.

 

 

It is important to discuss this properly because if the "twisting"-component of "backward twisting" was relevant in typical skiing knee injuries, then all bindings with some form of multi-directional release would have solved the skiing knee injury problem, long ago.  Almost all alpine ski bindings on the market for the past 25 consecutive years have toe-pieces that feature some form of multi-directional toe release.  But multi-directional toes effect only BIAD (Boot Induced Anterior Drawer) skiing knee injuries, which type of knee injury has an epidemiological prevalence of ~8% of all skiing ACL injuries.  Phantom Foot (PF) and Slip-Catch (SC) knee injury mechanisms have a prevalence of ~80% of all skiing ACL injuries:  "twisting" is barely present in PF and SC injury mechanisms:  therefore, multi-directional toes that read and react-to "twisting" loads can barely read or react-to PF or SC knee injury events.

 

The "twisting" component of "backward twisting" ('twisting' is defined by the de facto general vernacular within the ski industry to mean torque about the long-axis of the tibia) is barely present and therefore largely irrelevant in the dominant injury mechanisms, PF and SC, that cause skiing knee injuries:  if "twisting" was relevant in skiing knee injuries, the ski industry would not have a skiing knee injury problem at the level to which it exists today and over the past 25-consecutive years:  multi-directional releasing toes would have largely solved the problem — but they have not solved this problem.  That's why skiing knee injuries have been and are today by far the most prevalent type of skiing injury (about 18% to 25% of all skiing injuries).

 

All bindings with lateral heel release have the capacity — if 'properly' tuned to the right lateral heel release settings AND if they don't pre-release — to provide a bio-mechanically proven reduction in ACL-strain.  Excessive ACL-strain causes ACL-injury.  'Ordinary' bindings cannot read or react to the combination of large abduction-forces that generate large valgus-torque together with a tiny dash of "twisting" (torsion about the long axis of the tibia) that TOGETHER cause ACL-strain in PF or SC events.  'Ordinary' bindings that respond to 'twisting' or to "backward twisting" events CANNOT positively-effect (reduce) ACL-strain:  they cause ACL-injury.  ((Sorry to say 'cause' — but the 'ordinary' binding companies have now had plenty of time to adapt to the issues that changed the load-patterns induced by shaped-skis that generate large abduction-forces and large valgus-torque.  Bindings with lateral heel release — properly adjusted and that do not pre-release — allow decisive confidence while skiing with shaped-skis.))

 

It is important to properly distinguish the unique knee-friendly qualities of bindings that provide lateral heel release — from 'ordinary' bindings that cannot respond to the dominant type of knee-injury events.  Skiing-knee injuries are a big deal, so let's get it right.

 

 

We see that the promotional language being presented to the public involving KneeBinding brand ski bindings now makes extensive reference to the term "backward twisting" when describing the function of KneeBinding brand ski bindings.  As the original designer of KneeBinding ski bindings and the holder of significant stock in KneeBinding, Inc, — descriptions of function involving the term "backward twisting" are patently incorrect — and this language does not differentiate a binding with lateral heel release from 'ordinary' bindings (again, 'ordinary' bindings with multi-directional toes can read and react-to "backward twisting" events).  The utilization of the term "backward twisting" is 'convenient' and 'brief' in marketing ... but it is diametrically the opposite of what is actually happening in-practice, on-snow during PF and SC events.  As a 43-year insider within the ski industry, I believe that when other binding companies soon introduce their new mechtronic bindings with advanced ability to read and react-to "backward twisting" loads — skiers may incorrectly perceive that new mechtronic bindings will be superior to all others in terms of reducing ACL-strain ... which will be a false-positive perception by skiers, because all mechtronic bindings, as presently configured, do not read or react-to the special abduction-forces that generate ACL-straining valgus-torque.  Again, ONLY bindings with lateral heel release (configured mechanically or mechtronically) read and react-to the special 'signature' abduction-forces that are the predominant generators of ACL-straining valgus-torque during the predominant types of skiing knee injuries — Phantom Foot and Slip-Catch events.

 

 

Note:  Howell Ski Bindings are NOT KneeBinding brand ski bindings — but both brands of bindings have lateral heel release function that does NOT react to "twisting" or to "backward twisting", as reported above by CHRISfromRI.

 

 

  New Howell™ Ski Bindings with Anti-Pre-Release and low (18mm) stand-height.   Engineered by Rick Howell.   Shown:  Pro model.  1st shipments:  2017.  This binding, just like all bindings with lateral heel release, has the inherent capacity to read and react-to the signature loads that typically otherwise cause ACL-strain, which typical loads do not involve "backward twisting" — please see below ....

 

Howell Ski Bindings are NOT KneeBinding brand ski bindings.

 

 

This is what happens on-snow AND in the lab with all lateral heel release bindings:  here, one can see the relationship between valgus-torque and "twist" (tibia torque).  This Epic-topic-related-binding is 'set' to 4.5-DIN ('set' = 'ski shop'-like setting ... see far right on graph where -4.5 is shown.  'Negative' ( - ) means polarity of the resultant load on the leg:  e.g., values 'below zero' to the right of the tibia-axis are induced by abduction forces applied to the medial edge of the ski, causing clock-wise tibia-rotation;  whereas all abduction forces applied anywhere along the length of the ski always cause a 'positive' ( + ) value shown 'above zero' (valgus torque is always 'above zero').  Vector-addition on the ACL applies throughout.  IMPORTANTLY NOTE the low level of tibia-torque ("twisting") — nearly zero — where abduction forces are applied aft of the tibia up to -45cm aft of the tibia (aft of -45cm is where ASTM Test Methods BEGIN to start measuring tibia-torque.  It's no wonder those who have invested their entire careers studying ONLY tibia-torque and who have never measure it between 45cm aft of the tibia and the tibia-axis have little understanding that tibia-torque is moot when it comes to the true resultant load on the ACL — THE VERY LARGE 'SISTER-LOAD' (AS SHOWN), VALGUS-TORQUE, IS THE PRIMARY PRODUCER OF ACL-STRAIN !!   Tibia-torque is nearly moot.  However, as noted above, there is a tiny amount of "twisting" (an amount undetectable by humans at the levels shown) ... but when added to valgus-torque as shown in this table (below) derived from Standford University Professor Thomas Andriacchi's work ...

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2013 by Rick Howell and Howell™ Ski Bindings.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

... then utilizing this table (above) — derived from Prof Andriacchi's work — that provides a 'ball-park' bio-mechanical algorithm for the combination of incremental valgus-torque AND incremental tibia-torque ... the following (below) ACL-strain can be approximately simulated.     Vóla ! 

 

 

 

 

Here (immediately above), one can see the result in terms of ACL-strain when combining the large incremental levels of valgus-torque together with the small incremental levels of 'twisting" (tibia-torque) into the table derived from Prof Andriacchi's work.  THIS is the holy-grail that everyone has been attempting to discover ... that I reported at the recent ISSS conference in San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina on August 6 of this year.  This final graph combines an approximate derivation of Prof Andriacchi's biomechanical work on ACL-strain together with my experimental testing experiences.  Here is the biomechanical proof that bindings with lateral heel release — including the one that's the subject of this thread — CAN reduce ACL-strain during simulated PF and SC events (the above envelopes are the result of these advanced-simulations) ... and they show (unlike what CHRISfromRI reported) that 'twisting' ("backward twisting") (tibia-torque) is nearly moot during these high-ACL-strain events. 

 

Large ACL-strain (greater than 0.15 mm/mm) = ACL rupture.

 

When abduction forces enter the medial edge of the ski between 45cm aft of the tibia and the tibia-axis, 'ordinary' bindings produce ACL-strain (at release) that is 'friendly' along only ~22% of this PF/SC event-zone.  It is my experience that all bindings with lateral heel release — including the bindings that are the subject of this thread — (properly tuned) — have the capacity to be ACL-friendly along ~88% of this same PF/SC event-zone.

 

All of the above research was derived from on-snow experience AND laboratory experience with both (purchased) KneeBinding brand ski bindings (can you believe I had to purchase them? ) and with Howell™ brand ski bindings — both of which have lateral heel release — and as can be seen, "twist" release is nearly zero during simulated full-envelope events that illuminate every possible permutation and combination of PF and SC loading at 10cm increments along the full length of the ski (to know what happens with shorter skis, cut-off the end of the graphs at the tail).

 

 

Happy holidays !  :)  :)

 

Respectfully submitted to all fellow Epic skiers,

 

Rick Howell

 

President,

Howell Ski Bindings

Stowe, Vermont USA

[www.howellskibindings.com]

 

 

 

P.S. —   Here's what happens with 'ordinary' bindings in terms of the inter-relationship between "twisting" (tibia-torque) and valgus-torque, at release:

 

When these (immediately-above) loads are incrementally applied to the table derived from Prof Andriacchis' work, the red-line shown in the above ACL-strain graph is produced.  There's no escaping large ACL-strain (at release) with 'ordinary' bindings.   —RJH, Stowe, Vermont USA


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/23/13 at 7:34pm
post #178 of 179
Thread Starter 

Rick,

 

Thank you for your insight.

 

I hope that you enjoy a Merry Christmas and that you do find joy and holiday cheer. Remember that much of what might limit this, is how you consider the glass:

 

 

I trust this brought you a smile! Chris

post #179 of 179

The reality, Chris, is that when one develops a product that must at least meet minimum safety standards — but yet others who wrongfully should not have management control of the company that controls the product (and who should not have management control of the valuation of the company that was to be built-up around the product) cause the product to be shipped into the consumer market even though it does not meet minimum safety standards (and the parties with wrongful control know that it does not meet minimum safety standards) — then one must stand-up and fight to keep the customers from being harmed by the non-compliant product;  must stand up to and fight those who wrongfully have control of the product and the company that controls the product;  must work hard and smart to provide the customers with the original goal;  and must gain recourse for the train wreck that was caused by the parties with wrongful control who willingly and knowingly shipped the non-compliant safety-product into the consumer market.   This is what one does when one is a stand-up citizen.  'And I refuse to smile until proper equity is restored.  I worked too hard;  skiing is too beautiful;  and my trusting customers deserve proper transparency.  Knowingly creating fraudulent inducement around a safety-product is totally unacceptable:  5-years is too long to wait during a 'spoiled brat / multi-millionaire's game' that's purely about financial attrition to pound me into the ground to make me go away.  I will not go away.  'And market factors will prevail. 

 

This is my experience with the product that is the subject of this thread.

 

Based on this experience, together with my positive career experiences — I have developed version 6.0 — Howell Ski Bindings.  From all of this, the best compliment that can be provided is a pre-order  [www.howellskibindings.com].

 

Rick Howell

 

President,

Howell Ski Bindings

Stowe, Vermont USA

[www.howellskibindings.com]


Edited by Richard Howell - 12/25/13 at 5:53am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion