Tech binding toe release values

[macon]

That's how tech bindings work, regardless of whether the toe rotates. The exception is if you are able to generate a force the directly jams to toe open. This leads to prerelease and is what I was getting at above with regards to skier style. It's also why some folks look for tech bindings with higher toe clamping force.

Not really. In a traditional tech binding the toe begins to release as the heel is moving laterally, and fully releases when the heel does. In practical use, yes, it appears like the toe doesn't release until after the heel, but the two are actually working in conjunction.

In a rotating toe that's not the case.

If we're talking about a side impact in front of the toe like in lindahl's test, I'm thinking the rad 2.0 toe would only allow rotation in the opposite direction that your foot is trying to rotate around (relative to the toe).

I bought a used pair of rad 2.0 and when I mount them up, maybe I'll try that test and report back.

I'd be curious about this. Seems like a good test, just don't apply the force directly at the toe pivot point.


edit: it's come to my attention that they were having this exact same conversation in 2015 in the comments of this article, here (quoted below). Lindahl, did you ever come to a conclusion with the question you posed in those comments?

I’d love to see an updated graph withthe testing of Dynafit Radical 2.0 design with the rotating toe. I wonder if this design yoelds superior release torques for both ACL (vs alpine) and tibia fx (vs tech).

Last year I had a relatively minor fall which plunged the ski tip vertically into the snowpack, no release and a major ankle sprain that took me out for months. Pretty sure the non-release fell into the region shown in the graphs for tech bindings and I’m wondering if the 2.0 design with the rotating toe would have prevented injury.

Thanks!

@Lindahl: Respectfully — please pull together the necessary funding (please see above) — and I’ll be glad to provide you with the test results. Kind regards, Rick Howell, Stowe, Vermont ��

[Lindahl]

The question then becomes: Is the moment required to overcome the static friction generated by the rider at the heel enough to fracture a tib/fib in a forward twisting fall? Is it enough to tear an ACL in a backwards twisting fall?

I don’t think its a yes/no question. The force curve is dependent on the distance from the toe piece - just like a non-rotational toe. The rotational toe probably changes the force curve some though - so it might behave better (or maybe not). But who knows by how much. Thats my semi-educated opinion on it though. I haven’t sat down to really run through the phyiscs of it on paper to think more deeply about this (and don’t really want to - Vipecs weigh the same and don’t have this problem so I just use those instead).

As for ACL/etc with the Vipec, its my uneducated guess that the forces required to tear an ACL in a backwards twisting fall are WELL under what I’d want to set my heel release value to anyway (<8), so who cares. And I try to avoid skiing in the backseat anyway. This part is a highly personal choice however.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Not really. In a traditional tech binding the toe begins to release as the heel is moving laterally, and fully releases when the heel does. In practical use, yes, it appears like the toe doesn't release until after the heel, but the two are actually working in conjunction.

You're as tediously pedantic as you are focused on the wrong details.

[galibier_numero_un]

You're as tediously pedantic as you are focused on the wrong details.

I was beginning to think he was a troll, but it's becoming clear that he's genuinely and sincerely invested in things that don't matter.

[macon]

I don’t think its a yes/no question. The force curve is dependent on the distance from the toe piece - just like a non-rotational toe. The rotational toe probably changes the force curve some though - so it might behave better (or maybe not). But who knows by how much. Thats my semi-educated opinion on it though. I haven’t sat down to really run through the phyiscs of it on paper to think more deeply about this (and don’t really want to - Vipecs weigh the same and don’t have this problem so I just use those instead).

As for ACL/etc with the Vipec, its my uneducated guess that the forces required to tear an ACL in a backwards twisting fall are WELL under what I’d want to set my heel release value to anyway (<8), so who cares. And I try to avoid skiing in the backseat anyway. This part is a highly personal choice however.

I think I agree with all your points here.

Your reasoning for vipec is similar reasoning to why I bought the shift.

You're as tediously pedantic as you are focused on the wrong details.

I might have misunderstood your previous point.

I was beginning to think he was a troll, but it's becoming clear that he's genuinely and sincerely invested in things that don't matter.

Huh? Is this not the subject of the thread?

Ah, whatever idgaf, go find another argument. ✌️

[rod9301]

The boot is suspended off tech bindings - no static friction other than pins to overcome.

Lindahl didn't state it (he has before), but one critical tib/fib protecting benefit of "toe release" bindings is the type of impact where you snack a buried log with your tip.

In this scenario, with a binding which releases at the toe, you stand a chance of releasing. With standard tech bindings, you're SOL, irrespective of rotating tech toes.

To understand a rotating toe's benefits, visualize a shock that displaces the heel.

Without a rotating toe, the pins are partially disengaged and a further shock before the heel recenters runs the risk of the pins jumping out of the socket. With a rotating toe, the pins remain fully engaged in the sockets up to the limit of rotation of the toe.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

That's so theoretical, i normally wouldn't respond.

I had the same exact thing happen to me a couple of times, with dynafits, and they released just fine.

I think it's because the force vectors are never in one exact direction, so you end up releasing anyway

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[rod9301]

Also, why are you guys so concerned about the safety of the release?

If you are backcounty skiing the lines i think you are skiing, the safety of the release should be one of the last things to worry about, after

You fall you die

Avalanche

Binding pre releases and you go over a cliff

Etc

I can't remember the last time i fell in the backcounty.

Wait, i do, 2011, when i tumbled backwards for 600 feet in a 50 degree couloir and i ruptured my Achilles and had to ski 7 miles to the car.



Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Lindahl]

Also, why are you guys so concerned about the safety of the release?

Because I’ve been taken out by a badly sprained ankle for several months as a result of a failed release. This was in pretty mellow terrain from a forward rolling fall in deeper snow when I stuffed a tip. An alpine binding definitely would have released. Getting out sucked too, but manageable. Would have really sucked if it was a fracture.

[galibier_numero_un]

That's so theoretical, i normally wouldn't respond.

I had the same exact thing happen to me a couple of times, with dynafits, and they released just fine.

I think it's because the force vectors are never in one exact direction, so you end up releasing anyway

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Agreed that force vectors are never in a single direction. I let myself get sucked into this discussion with macon and down a rabbit hole I went. If a stuffed tip is a concern, i'd still argue you have a better chance with a releasable toe. The operative word is "chance".

At the end of the day ... don't fall ;-)

... Thom

[Shorty_J]

Also, why are you guys so concerned about the safety of the release?

I can't tell if this question is serious or not.

If you legitimately don't care about the safety of release, why don't you just epoxy your boots directly on to your skis and save the weight of a binding?

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

At the end of the day ... don't fall ;-)

Or get a snowboard?

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[tomh79]

As for ACL/etc with the Vipec, its my uneducated guess that the forces required to tear an ACL in a backwards twisting fall are WELL under what I’d want to set my heel release value to anyway (<8), so who cares. And I try to avoid skiing in the backseat anyway. This part is a highly personal choice however.

My exact thoughts!

[mall walker]

I can't tell if this question is serious or not.

If you legitimately don't care about the safety of release, why don't you just epoxy your boots directly on to your skis and save the weight of a binding?

Eh I get where he's coming from. People here obsess over the minutia of tech binding RV characteristics; you really taking that many big falls in the bc, the sort of falls where you want your skis to come off? I understand wanting a "this will release in an avalanche" RV, and if you're skiing it inbounds that's another issue entirely (and use a different binding), but this stressing over 1 or 2 imaginary non-certified RV points does sometimes come across kinda silly, largely because those RV points are often not certified to any particular standard, they're just a ballpark sort of thing.

Also the epoxy doesn't tour very well.

(I fully get the nerdy curiosity over the engineering qualities of the bindings btw, I just don't know how much actual practical difference there is in say, a Dynafit binding set to 8/9 lateral/vertical release, and a Plum 150 with a fixed "8/8" release, in actual real bc fall scenarios; same re: all the different toes mentioned here)

[rod9301]

I can't tell if this question is serious or not.

If you legitimately don't care about the safety of release, why don't you just epoxy your boots directly on to your skis and save the weight of a binding?

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

I do care about safety, but tech bindings release.
I'm just pointing out that there are many other things to worry about, and the releasability of the binding is just one of them.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[rod9301]

Because I’ve been taken out by a badly sprained ankle for several months as a result of a failed release. This was in pretty mellow terrain from a forward rolling fall in deeper snow when I stuffed a tip. An alpine binding definitely would have released. Getting out sucked too, but manageable. Would have really sucked if it was a fracture.

I understand.

But in the resort i used to ski salomons, set at 11, and i did sprain my ankle too in a fall.

I still maintain that bindings are supposed to protect bones, but didn't tissue.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[rod9301]

Eh I get where he's coming from. People here obsess over the minutia of tech binding RV characteristics; you really taking that many big falls in the bc, the sort of falls where you want your skis to come off? I understand wanting a "this will release in an avalanche" RV, and if you're skiing it inbounds that's another issue entirely (and use a different binding), but this stressing over 1 or 2 imaginary non-certified RV points does sometimes come across kinda silly, largely because those RV points are often not certified to any particular standard, they're just a ballpark sort of thing.

Also the epoxy doesn't tour very well.

(I fully get the nerdy curiosity over the engineering qualities of the bindings btw, I just don't know how much actual practical difference there is in say, a Dynafit binding set to 8/9 lateral/vertical release, and a Plum 150 with a fixed "8/8" release, in actual real bc fall scenarios; same re: all the different toes mentioned here)

Exactly, and said much better than i could ever do, especially typing on my phone.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[XXX-er]

Eh I get where he's coming from. People here obsess over the minutia of tech binding RV characteristics; you really taking that many big falls in the bc, the sort of falls where you want your skis to come off? I understand wanting a "this will release in an avalanche" RV, and if you're skiing it inbounds that's another issue entirely (and use a different binding), but this stressing over 1 or 2 imaginary non-certified RV points does sometimes come across kinda silly, largely because those RV points are often not certified to any particular standard, they're just a ballpark sort of thing.

Also the epoxy doesn't tour very well.

(I fully get the nerdy curiosity over the engineering qualities of the bindings btw, I just don't know how much actual practical difference there is in say, a Dynafit binding set to 8/9 lateral/vertical release, and a Plum 150 with a fixed "8/8" release, in actual real bc fall scenarios; same re: all the different toes mentioned here)

Do you really need to take a big fall to get hurt, aren't people more/most likely to get hurt in low speed turns when the bindings didn't release and I see lots of people taking small falls in the BC ?

On the toe piece spring thing my thots/findings align mostly with Jonathan S but the practical application of a rad1/ Vert/ any tech with adjustable release is I know I can perfect release characteristics, as for how much difference there is in the "DIN like" I can ignore the marks and just turn the binding up till they stop falling off ... it is a real difference

Spiral fracturing a tib/fib on Tele made me into a safety nerd BUT if it makes more sense to you to chose less weight over more safety ...then do so

[mall walker]

Do you really need to take a big fall to get hurt, aren't people more/most likely to get hurt in low speed turns when the bindings didn't release and I see lots of people taking small falls in the BC ?

On the toe piece spring thing my thots/findings align mostly with Jonathan S but the practical application of a rad1/ Vert/ any tech with adjustable release is I know I can perfect release characteristics, as for how much difference there is in the "DIN like" I can ignore the marks and just turn the binding up till they stop falling off ... it is a real difference

Spiral fracturing a tib/fib on Tele made me into a safety nerd BUT if it makes more sense to you to chose less weight over more safety ...then do so

Yeah fair enough, that is a particularly good point on ignoring the RV marks and just adjusting until it works how you want it to, I hadn't thought about it like that but it makes perfect sense. Frankly I have no sense of how many people get hurt in low speed turns in the bc vs big falls - certainly all of my relatively infrequent bc falls are of the low speed type (just recently I went over a little hollow pocket below a big rock and somersaulted forward) but my climbing/bouldering years have taught me how to fall well, or else I've just gotten lucky so far.

I certainly see a big difference between say, having the adjustable tech binding RV at 8/8 and a fixed tech binding at a much higher value (say 12/12)... but for me personally, I'd set my stuff at 8/8 anyway so using bindings that are "about" 8/8 or 9/9 or whatever doesn't feel hugely less safe; it's close enough that I figure I can just dial it back a little bit. I also have not (yet) broken a bone skiing, and I am a big weight weenie, both of which affect my judgment here I am sure.

Always curious to hear your point of view though, it does give me pause to think. I think it was you who was posting about the "nitrile gloves under your regular gloves" trick, which has completely solved my cold hands problem.

[Shorty_J]

Ignoring the minutia of one aspect of potential dangers in the backcountry just because there are other dangers seems silly. That's like saying if you can't influence one part of the equation then you might as well not try to address any of them. That's ridiculous. "I can't get reliable release values from a tech binding so I'm going touring with no beacon and straight lining coiliors... Since I'm probably going to die anyway."

As I've stated a number of times in this thread, I'm trying to protect a known weak spot in my body by trying to pick a binding that is least likely to stress it. I don't care if the "RV" is a "6" or a "12"... Who gives a shit about the number? But I do care RELATIVELY what's going on with release values and release mechanisms from one binding to the next... Thus this thread. I'm asking questions and I'm getting some useful answers... Some. Fuck... This is literally the point of tech talk!

I don't ski in no fall zones, I'm not hucking cliffs, I'm not skiing Mach schnell, and I make conservative choices in route and line selection. I'm thinking about all the other things that can kill me... So why is it that I'm wasting my time trying to address this one?

Between this thread and the marker thread, for the life of me I can't figure out why my decision making process and my priorities are "wrong" to some people because they are not the same decisions as theirs, and that for some reason I don't want the newest and fanciest binding and that makes me an idiot.

Such a narrow minded thought process.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[mall walker]

^ oh relax

Ignoring the minutia of one aspect of potential dangers in the backcountry just because there are other dangers seems silly. That's like saying if you can't influence one part of the equation then you might as well not try to address any of them.

Also, nobody is saying this or anything remotely close to this. What I am saying is: the minutia between toe release from one tech toe to another is a hard to quantify thing, it's one small piece in a big complex puzzle, and even if you nail it 100% you can still get hurt. You can probably reduce your chance of leg injury far more by skiing 10% slower/more cautiously than you can by buying a particular toe. IMHO

Either way it's tech talk; don't go all betelgeuse on us.

[XXX-er]

Yeah fair enough, that is a particularly good point on ignoring the RV marks and just adjusting until it works how you want it to, I hadn't thought about it like that but it makes perfect sense. Frankly I have no sense of how many people get hurt in low speed turns in the bc vs big falls - certainly all of my relatively infrequent bc falls are of the low speed type (just recently I went over a little hollow pocket below a big rock and somersaulted forward) but my climbing/bouldering years have taught me how to fall well, or else I've just gotten lucky so far.

I certainly see a big difference between say, having the adjustable tech binding RV at 8/8 and a fixed tech binding at a much higher value (say 12/12)... but for me personally, I'd set my stuff at 8/8 anyway so using bindings that are "about" 8/8 or 9/9 or whatever doesn't feel hugely less safe; it's close enough that I figure I can just dial it back a little bit. I also have not (yet) broken a bone skiing, and I am a big weight weenie, both of which affect my judgment here I am sure.

Always curious to hear your point of view though, it does give me pause to think. I think it was you who was posting about the "nitrile gloves under your regular gloves" trick, which has completely solved my cold hands problem.

yeah I suppose you can ADJUST THE SKIING TO THE BINDING which is the opposite of ADJUST THE BINDING THE SKIING but whatever you choose including going slower there are always unforeseen things, BTW I have skied bindings with fixed release ... its called Tele



weight wise the way I see it an adjustable tech binding with brakes is fully half the weight of any frame binding I own so I am already most of the way to weight weenie nirvana and I am willing to pay for the most safety i can get with a little more weight ... a couple hundred grams for something I know works

Yeah I bet you get funny looks on the nitrile gloves

[mall walker]

Yeah I bet you get funny looks on the nitrile gloves

I keep a box of them in the glove box of my car, where my registration/insurance are... it'll be a fun conversation if I ever get pulled over and a cop asks me why I have them

e: "fixed release" in tech bindings usually means non-adjustable; not like tele, which is "no release" right? like a Plum 150 is roughly an 8 RV lat/vert; a G3 Targa or whatever is roughly a "how much it takes to rip your leg off / rip the binding out of the ski" RV

[Shorty_J]

^ oh relax



Also, nobody is saying this or anything remotely close to this. What I am saying is: the minutia between toe release from one tech toe to another is a hard to quantify thing, it's one small piece in a big complex puzzle, and even if you nail it 100% you can still get hurt. You can probably reduce your chance of leg injury far more by skiing 10% slower/more cautiously than you can by buying a particular toe. IMHO

Either way it's tech talk; don't go all betelgeuse on us.

I'm relaxed.

I agree it's tough quantify... That's why I'm asking questions. The initial question about toe release values led to answers that made me realise that the total system is more important. I learned something... Awesome.

And I already agreed that skiing conservatively etc is even more effective and that I'm already doing that, but you seem to be glossing over that detail. You were absolutely implying that if I do all the other things you suggest there's no point in thinking about RVs.

If someone offered you the same ski as your favourite touring ski but 10% lighter you wouldn't be interested in that? Or 10% more float? Not worth it?

Don't worry about it... I got the info I needed from this thread from the reasoned answers. I bought a pair of rad 2.0 ft... Not the lowest force toes like I thought I wanted.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[macon]

Don't worry about it... I got the info I needed from this thread from the reasoned answers. I bought a pair of rad 2.0 ft... Not the lowest force toes like I thought I wanted.

Idk if it matters at this point but I’m still interested in what you’re experience with those bindings will be, even if only from an academic perspective. Obviously I’m not buying any new bindings soon as I’m not as concerned about this issue as you are, but I think you’ve raised a totally fair and valid subject with this thread.

Anyway, I’m prolly gonna stay out of this conversation unless you’ve got updates yourself. ✌️



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Idk if it matters at this point but I’m still interested in what you’re experience with those bindings will be...



... Anyway, I’m prolly gonna stay out of this conversation unless you’ve got updates yourself.

OK, I'll post back if I do that test... The only potential issue being that because I got the FT, the lowest DIN I can test at is 6, which might be too high for the test to be instructive (or safe for my knee).

I'm also staying out of this conversation until then.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk