Day dreaming of tele binding designs in class. Help me out and take my survey!

[TeleThor]

I thought about the problems with designing a holy grail telemark binding back when the Kaj Gyr binding idea was first posted over on TTips. Your thread has me thinking again.

There are many ways that one could successfully build a binding with good activity, a nice tour mode, good boot to binding attachment, solid torsional rigidity, all while keeping it lightweight. I've thought about dynafit-ish attachment points, a dynafit-like version of the NTN, a light tourable Bomber Bishop-ish kind of thing. Even a binding where the actual compression springs are built into the boot and engage after being "clicked in" to the binding - I think that would be neat. I also think Kaj's leaf spring idea is pretty rad.

Personally, the thing that boggles my mind is building a DIN release into a telemark binding. I think that it's possible with a sideways-only release. The NTN sort of has that, but the release characteristics change with your spring tension, from what I hear. Forward release? Forget about it. You need to one foot to pivot forward during every telemark turn. Unless you can set that to only release at extremely high forces... It is quite the enginerding project.

[rabbit]

So far, this is how the ranking are falling...about 230 people have filled it out.

and you cant use that because you dont know how many interpreted/used the scale in which way...
bummer!

Build a skyhoy in titanium and carbonfiber and youre done.

[rabbit]

Without a doubt, activity is the #1 priority for me in a tele binding, but you did not include activity vs. passivity as a factor. I imagine that some of those polled marked "Torsional Rigidity and Response" with a high priority mark because that's the closest thing in your poll to activity.

FTR, "a more active binding is one that helps the boot break at the bellows and one that aids in keeping the skiers forefoot closer to the rear ski deck," thus resulting in increased forefoot pressure on the rear ski. See http://www.telemarktips.com/BindBench.html

ROFLMAO!

That's still one of the funniest pseudo-scientific pieces of crap I have ever seen! And there's a whole "internet community" that believes in it!

[nieveparasiempre]

I thought about the problems with designing a holy grail telemark binding back when the Kaj Gyr binding idea was first posted over on TTips. Your thread has me thinking again.

There are many ways that one could successfully build a binding with good activity, a nice tour mode, good boot to binding attachment, solid torsional rigidity, all while keeping it lightweight. I've thought about dynafit-ish attachment points, a dynafit-like version of the NTN, a light tourable Bomber Bishop-ish kind of thing. Even a binding where the actual compression springs are built into the boot and engage after being "clicked in" to the binding - I think that would be neat. I also think Kaj's leaf spring idea is pretty rad.

Personally, the thing that boggles my mind is building a DIN release into a telemark binding. I think that it's possible with a sideways-only release. The NTN sort of has that, but the release characteristics change with your spring tension, from what I hear. Forward release? Forget about it. You need to one foot to pivot forward during every telemark turn. Unless you can set that to only release at extremely high forces... It is quite the enginerding project.

yeah, the releasable issue is a big one. as mentioned before, the NTN falls very short since the release is dependent on the same springs as the forward flex. the 7tm pre-released on me all the time. i've gotten mroe f*cked up from pre-releases than from my bindings not releasing (though i know others that the non-release destroyed them).

i think the NTN boot opens the door for other release modes/design options than a duckbill. Thinking about anything else than a lateral release with a duckbill.....hurts.

and you cant use that because you dont know how many interpreted/used the scale in which way...
bummer!

i disagree. on a scale from 1-7, the median is 3.5.

the average for each response is less than one standard deviation from the median.

how i interpret that is all of those features hold equal weight for "Joe the telewhacker" when averaged. IF the there were some features that were on the extreme ends of the spectrum (1 OR 7) then i'd be screwed because i was so short-sighted and wouldn't know which one they meant. So i lucked out...(and learned a valuable lesson)

[AlpiNord]

Without a doubt, activity is the #1 priority for me in a tele binding, but you did not include activity vs. passivity as a factor. I imagine that some of those polled marked "Torsional Rigidity and Response" with a high priority mark because that's the closest thing in your poll to activity.

FTR, "a more active binding is one that helps the boot break at the bellows and one that aids in keeping the skiers forefoot closer to the rear ski deck," thus resulting in increased forefoot pressure on the rear ski. See http://www.telemarktips.com/BindBench.html

From TeleBindings.com :

[GeezerSteve]

^ ^ ^ That chart covers it very well, but needs to be updated to include NTN, Axl, etc.

ROFLMAO!

That's still one of the funniest pseudo-scientific pieces of crap I have ever seen! And there's a whole "internet community" that believes in it!

If you can't discern the difference between an active and passive tele binder, that's your problem. The "whole internet community" distinguishes between active and passive binders because it's real.

The least active tele binder is a touring binder in touring mode (i.e., full free pivot at tip toe). A 3-pin 75mm Nordic Norm is close. The most active tele binder is NTN, HH#5 and Bishop Bomber (in most active mode). Try a 3-pin 75mm Nordic Norm binder (very inactive) vs. HH#5 (most active) back-to-back, and then claim that there's no such thing as an active vs. passive binders.

[nieveparasiempre]

i disagree. on a scale from 1-7, the median is 3.5.

the average for each response is less than one standard deviation from the median.

how i interpret that is all of those features hold equal weight for "Joe the telewhacker" when averaged. IF the there were some features that were on the extreme ends of the spectrum (1 OR 7) then i'd be screwed because i was so short-sighted and wouldn't know which one they meant. So i lucked out...(and learned a valuable lesson)

k. i'm a JONG....in the middle of midterms, brain cramped, and hopefully my test scores don't reflect this kind of intellect. The scoring is useless and the reason all the scores are close to the median prob cause people flip-flopped how to wieght the rankings. my bad. lesson learned.

to those of you who have left input in the text box, that has been very informative, and somewhat compensatory for my mistake. thanks again.

[rabbit]

k. i'm a JONG....in the middle of midterms, brain cramped, and hopefully my test scores don't reflect this kind of intellect.

Im sure you'll be fine.

Make a new survey? Im sure there will be a lot of us that will suffer through another one for such a good cause...

If you can't discern the difference between an active and passive tele binder, that's your problem

How you drew that conclusion, Ill never know. Maybe you should practice your reading-comprehension?

Ive actually debated that pseudo-scientific crap before so Im not going to do it again in this thread but please consider this:
Do you really think that this is a useful reconstruction of how a telemark-skier pressures his inner-ski? Really?



If your answer is in the positive; You need to learn how-to telemark and/or study some biomechanics.
If your answer is negative you realise that what's on this page; http://www.telemarktips.com/BindBench.html , is pseudo-scientific crap.

They might have had good intentions with it, but that doesnt change what it is.

/R

[GeezerSteve]

Do you really think that this is a useful reconstruction of how a telemark-skier pressures his inner-ski? Really?

No, and I never claimed so. You might want to take some reading comprehension lessons.

It is however a somewhat valid demonstration of the respective activity of various tele bindings. Demonstration, not reconstruction. Read slowly. You might get it.

[bobbuilds]

your last binding was AT this binding is telemark? if so bang out something close to a bishop and you will have a winner.

[nieveparasiempre]

Alright, for those of you cool enough to forgive me of my sins, here's another survey comprising of ONE question, rank the tele binding features important to you.

You can find it here: Tele Binding Feature Ranking Survey

Do you really think that this is a useful reconstruction of how a telemark-skier pressures his inner-ski? Really?



If your answer is in the positive; You need to learn how-to telemark and/or study some biomechanics.
If your answer is negative you realise that what's on this page; http://www.telemarktips.com/BindBench.html , is pseudo-scientific crap.

Good Call Rabbit.
If you need that bench test because you can't calculate those forces, you prob shouldn't be making bindings in the first place....

[AlpiNord]

^ ^ ^ That chart covers it very well, but needs to be updated to include NTN, Axl, etc.

I contacted the originator of the chart and we tweaked it today.....any inaccuracies or obvious omissions?

[nieveparasiempre]

The number of responses has slowed considerably so I figure I'll throw up some numbers for those who are interested.

There were 15 models of bindings which comprised of less than or equal to 3% of "market share" (I use that term VERY loosely). I lumped them together in the chart below to clean it up a bit.
Bindings which comprised less than 3% of the "market share" include:

G3 Targa elle
22 Designs Bombshell
G3 Targa Ascent elle
Rottafella Cobra R4
Black Diamond 03
G3 Targa Ascent S/S elle
Bulldog
G3 Targa T/9 elle
Rottafella Chile
Linken
Rainey Super Loops
Voile 3-pin/cable
7tm Tour
22 Designs Axl
Bomber Bishop

Number of Responses 378.

Telemark Binding Distribution:



Seeing the amount of distribution the Hammerhead has achieved prob sheds some light on why BD went after them on the AXL eh?


Telemark Binding Feature Rankings:
Number of Replies: 112

*this is a result of my mistake of not differentiating which end of the ranking scale was most/least important.

Just to reiterate, 1 = most important, 6 = least important.



I'll keep the survey up for another couple weeks, before I make a final compilation of the data, but thanks again for everyones input.

[LightRanger]

In that new survey I put "DIN releasability" as number 1, but really I think it should say simply "releasability."

I'd be happy with something that released, but wasn't necessarily certified to DIN spec.