Thread: knee binding now for sale

no dickisum taken. the sad part is it was harder for me to right than it was for you to read. o well we all have our gifts and limitations, some are jest more evident than others.

After a search, I thought this would be the best thread to resurrect this issue. Anyone have any real experience on these bindings? The new carbon version looks interesting and the price has come down.

Originally Posted by Spats

Yes, Dynafits will release purely laterally at the heel. No current alpine binding will, though: I think the last alpine binding to do that was Spademan.

Anyone blown an ACL while on Dynafits? (And not locked into tour mode)

My wife blew her ACL, tore the meniscus and tore the MCL while skiing on Dynafits two Aprils ago at the Battle Abbey hut in BC. 125lb woman, not locked in.

Pretty easy to blow an ACL just falling straight backwards onto your tails, if you try to muscle yourself back up from a low position. No binding will save you from that unless it can release vertically at the toe, and we know how well those ski. When I did my ACL, the orthopedic surgeon's recommendation was "stop skiing & take up snowboarding. Knees were never meant for skis."

As for the Knee Binding, the was quite a sh&$&&t storm on EpicSki last season over them where I moderate the Fitness/injury/recover stuff. I wanted to give the co a chance & repeatedly requested a sample. Even though we are less than1 hour away from each other, they never were able to get a pair to either myself or others looking for a legit testing.

To be fair, I wanted a pair I could mount on known skis & go hammer. This did not go over well & I simply had no desire to drive to ski some middle of the road gear w demo plates. I hope to trial a pair this season. The concept is intriguing.

Been considering these for my GF. She broke her tibia, fibula, femur and tibial plateau as a result of a skiing accident when she was a kid. On top of it she had a shitload of complications. She recovered very well. I got her back on skis so I kind of feel responsible for her safety. Obviously in her case DIN18 bomber bindings are not critical.

Originally Posted by 1000-oaks

No binding will save you from that unless it can release vertically at the toe, and we know how well those ski.

Actually, I love my Head Mojo 18s. They release vertically from the toe...

Been looking at binding for the past few days and I find it ridiculous that there's no regulated standards for binding features. No one really knows if and which bindings have vertical toe release. FKS are still up for debate. Everyone says the 180 doesen't have vertical toe release but info sheet states "Pivot toe provides four points of contact with the boot for maximum power transmission, has 180-degree multi-directional release for reliable release". For Head Mojo 18s "Aero Toe with TRP System" doesn't tell me anything. There's no din standard. Some industry standard should be made.

Originally Posted by daught

FKS are still up for debate. Everyone says the 180 doesen't have vertical toe release but info sheet states "Pivot toe provides four points of contact with the boot for maximum power transmission, has 180-degree multi-directional release for reliable release".

I think we've established that the FKS 180/Pivot 18 does have vertical toe release. This was confirmed by an email from Rossi.

Most bindings have vertical toe release except for some of the shitty low end ones, it seems, and Markers. Well, I think the biometric toe does, but to get around that fail, they just eliminated pretty much any upward release in the royal family bindings.
Z toe from Salomon is basically a Quadrax 6/7 hundred series toe, so the middle tab is fixed.

Come to think of it, I believe the Z/Quadrax and the Marker royals and seemingly every AT binding are the only ones that DON'T release straight up. They have to move to the side and up, if they go up at all.

Look/Rossi toe is supposed to be the only one who's upward release is effected by din setting.

And as I keep writing, I think the Biometric toe does not release straight up, but immediately loses all upward resistance once it moves sideways in the slightest.

/blog

More boot contact and more elastic travel = more consistent release. Think Tyrolia and rebadged bindings with the LD toe, old Look/Rossi P/Axial, Salomon/Atomic with driver toe. And don't fight the fall.
Sent from my cell phone. no, a cell phone.

This is quite a shift from what i read on many other threads on every ski forum. Any idea if the FKS 155 WC has vertical release too?

Making a binding called knee is kind of like making a helmet called the concussion.

Originally Posted by daught

Been considering these for my GF. She broke her tibia, fibula, femur and tibial plateau as a result of a skiing accident when she was a kid. On top of it she had a shitload of complications. She recovered very well. I got her back on skis so I kind of feel responsible for her safety. Obviously in her case DIN18 bomber bindings are not critical.

Sounds like a kind of accident that could be caused by pre-release at the wrong time. Hence why I'm never getting these bindings, I ski a lot of places where a locked on ski is a better outcome than a pre-release.

Hell, even on a black groomer, I've had a ski pop off at an inopportune time and almost slid into the trees. Having better control of your skis trumps a possible ACL tear IMO.

^^ Pretty much agree.

Seems like the wrong thread was bumped. More information may be found in other various thread, but a few points I thought were especially useful:

1. A video that explained to me why this actually works.


2. A quote from the company founder/engineer concerning pre-release concerns.

Originally Posted by 5bind

Re Core Shot: Pre-release. KneeBinding will release before the ACL reaches its elastic limit during Phantom Foot events (which events are approx 65% to 70% of all types of loading-conditions that cause skiing-ACL-injuries). If the event you are inducing has Phantom Foot components and causes the ACL to approach its elastic limit, KneeBinding will release. KneeBinding has several features that, collectively, mitigate pre-release when you are performing 'controlled' skiing maneuvers. We have now successfully tested KneeBinding in racing, but it is NOT ready for men's world-cup downhill racing, yet. In the other situations that you outline, KneeBinding cannot / willnot release during BIAD (boot induced anterior drawer) events (tail-slapping), which events cause approx 10% to 20% of all skiing-ACL-injuries; and it will not release during 'recoveries' if the induced-loads are below the elastic limit of the ACL. During tail-feathering, as I call it, you may or may not get a prerelease depending on whether your tail-feathering reaches or does not reach the elastic limit of the ACL.

Pls note that in the short video clip where we are skiing we demonstrate the fact that KneeBinding provides powerful retetntion even with extremely low settings. This is accomplished by to our extensive use of axiomatic design principles (decoupling and minimization). However, in normal (non-video-demonstration) use, the actual lateral heel release settings are higher than what is shown in the video (again, we are simply making a dramatic point about the binding's inherent retention characteristics). The signature of a good binding is that it can be skied hard without pre-release at reasonable settings (especially in the toe).

( We are now, at ths time, completing the final styling of the two introductory models -- one model will be for men, DIN 5-14; while the other model will be for women DIN 3-9 )

And finally -- yes -- our target market is skiers who must be at work on Monday morning and -- yes -- even these skiers need retention during 'off-balance recoveries'....which kneeBinding provides....unless the recovery causes the ACL to approach its elastic limit. We do recognize that some people might think that a release-response in this situation was a pre-release, when in fact their ACL was saved -- by a 'necessary release'.

Also found the following quote, which was apparently made on another forum. Really curious to see if these truly stand up to abuse from a hard skier, or if the stuff about DIN and retention is just smoke and mirrors. (Bold mine, cuz that's where I think it gets interesting.)

We are not showing images of the binding yet because she's not sytled yet....but we're working on that aspects at this time with a world-class sculptor. We are trying to insure that the styling will not cause any side-effects to the already proven function. We will be using non-hydroscopic engineering grade resins and all of the metal parts will be stainless steel. We have decided to take the high-route, thought the cost will not be low. We have not completely decided on price points....

As for the above notes ski compatability....yes, this will be a road-block to some extent, but we will be announcing an alliance with a ski company who produces excellent flat-top skis. Also, if someone is truly interested in this technology, every ski company produces models of flat-top skis -- and most retailers have some flat-top skis in their inventory (or they can order them for you). We realize this is an inconvenience, but -- again -- good flat-top skis ARE available. Most of the skis on the world-cup circuit are flat-top....and for entry-skiers who are price-conscious -- package-skis are available at most ski shops, most of which package-skis are flat-top. For an entry-level-skier, the combination of a flat-top package ski together with our new binding should yield a 'reasonable' price. Again, for others, good flat-tops skis can be found, everywhere. (( As a side-note, presently, if you blow-out an edge on your rail-system skis, you need to replace the ski AND the bindings.... With ala carte bindings - such as KneeBinding - only the ski needs to be replaced. This is considerably more 'convenient'.

I would also like to take a minute to discuss why - from an engineering perspective - the other lateral heel release bindings failed. In each case, those designers believed at that time (late 1960's - early 1980's) that a binding with more 'modes' of release was 'more safe'. This was misguided thinking because more modes of release means more pre-release IF THE MODES ARE CROSS-LINKED (IF EACH MODE IS NOT DECOUPLED) FROM THE OTHER MODES. Pre-release can be far worse than a non-release because pre-release can cause head and spinal injury. A non-release might cause a broken bone or a sprained or ruptured ligament. A head or spinal injury could be worse than a broken bone or ligament injury. Therefore, the first design requirement of a binding is 'retention', while the second design requirement is 'release' -- in that order. All of the previous American ski binding designers had the order reversed. Each of the present European ski binding companies have the order, correct (however, on major European binding company has significant pre-release problems at this time...). Therefore, the solution to adding one more mode of release (lateral heel release) to the already existing lateral toe release and forward heel release is to DE-COUPLE them.

Most of the old bindings with 'multi-mode' release had lateral heel release cross-linked with forward heel release; cross-linked with edge-control (roll); and cross-linked with ski flex (forward pressure). With those 'multi-mode' bindings of the past, when a skier edged on ice or applied a large forward load -- while a non-injurious lateral heel load entered the system -- the binding became 'confused' and pre-released. Skiers then cranked-up their settings (understandably) -- thereby defeating ALL of the cross-linked modes...causing the original intention of the designers to negated. With KneeBinding, each of the standard 6-degrees-of-freedom (fore-and-aft shear, lateral shear, vertical shear, pitch, roll and yaw) are decoupled from each other. Each degree-of-freedom (all 6) is a seperate system, independent of the other (as in good software design). Therefore, when you're edging hard on ice with a radically shaped ski, KneeBinding ski binding's forward release mechanism is uneffected and the lateral heel release mechanism is uneffected. Or, if you apply a large forward load, the lateral heel release mechanism is uneffected. 'Same w combined edging and forward loads. Same with ski flex - large ski flex does not cause the binding to pre-release. As for lateral toe loads - again - that's a seperate system, too. All of this is accomplished by the unique patent-pending design.

Today, many skiers (and even a few binding engineers who will remain un-named) believe that the retention properties of a binding are based completely on the DIN setting. This is wrong. One binding company recently introduce a new model for racers that goes up to DIN-30. What this binding company does not understand is that they have an inherent design flaw...and they are attempting to band-aid-over this design flaw by providing higher RELEASE settings (the release setting adjustments are mostly RELEASE settings)...((the binding companies who lobbied for the vernacular change "release-retention settings" has the inherent design problem)).

Most pre-release problems today stems from poor binding-design that cannot distinguish one load from another. And much of today's pre-release stems from the combination of improper cross-linking AND friction ("That 'Ol Friction Bugaboo" - Lipe; "On Friction" - Outwater). Racers who are experiencing pre-release or who have settings that are high and still have pre-release need to (1) de-grease and re-lube their heel tracks so that the heel unit can recoil after deep flex, quickly; (2) insure that there are minimal contaminates under the heel of their boot - to allow the sole to slide quickly back-and-forth on their heel pads so that the heel unit can press the boot solidly against the toe; (3) reduce their heel settings - because (ironically) excessively high heel settings increase the normal-force, downward, between the sole of the heel and the top surface of the heel pad, reducing the binding's ability to recoil after deep ski flex. Super-slow motion video analysis of racers exiting slalom turns shows how boots 'walk-out' of bindings without the toe or the heel ever 'releasing'. Surprisingly, many elete skiers today don't know the factors that effect ski-binding function.

Skiers who are attempting to change their ramp-angle via sole-grinding - then shimming are effecting the binding designers' planned pre-loads on the toe and the heel. If the toe is squeezed too much as a result of a bad shim-job, there will be too much friction in the toe piece -- and during multiple shocks (such as when skiing in chattery-ruts or over a cat-track), the toe piece will begin to move outward, but it cannot recenter quickly when this innocuous load disappears when there is too much friction. Overcoming 'too much frictin' by increasing the RELEASE setting does not solve the original FRICTION problem -- and it will adversely effect release. The solution is to reduce friction. By minimizing friction, a good binding design can recenter quickly during innocuous loads, while still providing intended release (best of both worlds). The key, however, is "a good binding design". Binding designs that have cross-linked functions can never provide lightning-like recentering no matter how little friction during the critical retention-events and release-events that cause pre-release and non-release.

That takes us back to the beginning: a decoupled (non cross-linked) ski-binding design; combined with low friction; 'intended' settings; and this one new mode of release (lateral heel release - that is now proven to bias Phantom-Foot-induced ACL-injuries) will provide the essential ingredients for our skiing requirements.

Originally Posted by angrysasquatch

Sounds like a kind of accident that could be caused by pre-release at the wrong time. Hence why I'm never getting these bindings, I ski a lot of places where a locked on ski is a better outcome than a pre-release.

Hell, even on a black groomer, I've had a ski pop off at an inopportune time and almost slid into the trees. Having better control of your skis trumps a possible ACL tear IMO.

I fully agree pre-release is dangerous, however skis that dont release when they should are just as bad. There's a lot more to bindings than their force to hold you locked in. Elastic travel for example makes a huge difference between between force required to release and pre-release. If technological advances make it possible to have a higher safety margin without prerelease why wouldn't we use them?

Also poor technique causes pre-release...

I think these posts definitely address the issues at stake, and I think that's where this Knee Binding becomes interesting. However, it still comes to the practical question of whether anyone has any real world experience with this binding to see how it skis.

Not a fan. Thousands of man hours went into standardizing DIN then to come up with a 3rd release angle that there is no way to test or even know what a 7 (or ANY DIN) would be.

Originally Posted by daught

I fully agree pre-release is dangerous, however skis that dont release when they should are just as bad. There's a lot more to bindings than their force to hold you locked in. Elastic travel for example makes a huge difference between between force required to release and pre-release. If technological advances make it possible to have a higher safety margin without prerelease why wouldn't we use them?

Also poor technique causes pre-release...

Any design that punishes technique is fucking retarded. Every skier, no matter how skilled, has moments where their technique was not perfect.

I have always felt like the Marker Royal Family heelpiece punishes you for being bucked forward by pre-releasing. I feel like the rest is sound, but that aspect keeps me away from them.

Originally Posted by skiburgher

. . . the practical question of whether anyone has any real world experience with this binding to see how it skis.

Thanks for dropping a turd in the punch bowl, party pooper. This is TGR Gear Talk, land o' wild speculation without any first hand knowledge.

^^ I think people have been saying this from the beginning. But:

1. It's hard to justify $$$ just to see if it works.
2. How do you tell if it just saved your ACL or if another binding would have released as well?
3. It's a little scary to charge on a binding with an unknown history of pre-release. Yes, someone has to do it, but I'm not a fan of being a guinea pig.

Yeah, but there are lots of reviews on the internet from people who have actually skied the binding. Most of those reviews are quite positive and report no prereleases. Re your second question, KB has links to discussion about phantom foot injuries. I have not tried the KB -- and not sure if I ever will -- but I'm persuaded by the theory of phantom foot injuries, and I'm pretty sure Dynafit's lateral heel release saved my knee at least one time when an alpine binding would not have.

Originally Posted by Flexon Phil

Not a fan. Thousands of man hours went into standardizing DIN then to come up with a 3rd release angle that there is no way to test or even know what a 7 (or ANY DIN) would be.

You should save this and revisit this page in 20 years. This new release angle might get perfected and become the new standard, saving thousands of knees. I am sure that back in my dads day, there were people saying we don't need them newfangled plastic boots, and our long thong bindings work just fine.

Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik

Any design that punishes technique is fucking retarded. Every skier, no matter how skilled, has moments where their technique was not perfect.

Well it doesn't punish technique. It's just not meant for it. You can't blame something for preleasing if it's meant for low impact skiers. Not everyone worries about prerelease. Many people worry about their binding not releasing. That category won't mind a prerelease as much and with their choice of runs they cant get in trouble if the binding prereleases.