Bindings 101: What Are Your Questions?

[Philpug]

Bindings and their release values were set up to protect against bone breakage. What is trying to be accomplished with Kneebindings and Howell is to protect against ligaments..two very different things tha we are asking a binding to do. Now, protecting against ligaments is not anything new, Salomon tried years ago with their Multi directional Driver toe then Spheric which the concept was to turn forward twisting pressure into lateral pressure allowing the binding to release smoother. Salomon also went as far to say that these bindings protected against knee injuries, a bold claim even then. Now these were designed in a day whene a forward twisting fall was more common than te rearward twisting one that is more prevelant today.

Bindings are pretty dumb, they only know the force that is put into them so then can release and they have no ability to discern between a slow twisting fall and a high speed violent one. The setting of a binding is balancing retention and release.

 

[markojp]

Someone needs to add a speed detection chip to bindings.

 

[eok]

Someone needs to add a speed detection chip to bindings.

I remember reading one of Howell's posts someplace where he described ski bindings as simple "analog computers". Microelectronics being what they are today, I know micro accelerometer/decelerometer components are quite accurate nowadays. Just about every smart phone and tablet has at least a couple of them.

I think the real challenge for future ski binding development is the nature of today's market. I don't think it's currently robust enough to drive big spends (and gambles) in R&D. Too much risk. Financially safer to stick with current binding tech and focus limited R&D on relatively small incremental improvements (I'm OK with that, BTW).

For example, if Salomon decided to go all-in on ligament protection then they'd be facing much bigger R&D spends for multiple years. Of course they could leap-frog over the spike in R&D costs by buying a company that already had done the R&D heavy lifting & had something close enough to production ready. But, still, they'd have to decide that ligament protection was an actual priority. I just don't see any of the big binding names jumping on the ligament safety bandwagon any time soon.

Kind of a downward spiral (or catch 22): fear of injury is what keeps a lot of people out of the sport and the sport has been stagnant/shrinking for years - which (I'm guessing) probably has dampened R&D on development of "safer/smarter" bindings (ie: ligament protection).

 

[Philpug]

We are asking a binding to do something it is inherently designed not to do, have low force release capacity at a higher retention setting...you can't ahve it both ways. There is no way that a binding will be able to protect a knee ligament when it is set at a mid to high double digit setting, it can't even protect a knee when set at a 4 or a 5.

 

[eok]

We are asking a binding to do something it is inherently designed not to do, have low force release capacity at a higher retention setting...you can't ahve it both ways. There is no way that a binding will be able to protect a knee ligament when it is set at a mid to high double digit setting, it can't even protect a knee when set at a 4 or a 5.

Yes, I've heard similar statements - and I generally agree. But this only applies to current binding products that are exclusively mechanical in nature. However...

Technologies exist that could be applied to ski binding designs to provide broader protection. I know the speed & latencies of key components (sensors, wireless data transports, embedded CPUs, etc.) are a few milliseconds (or less) and you can get things into a form factor the size of a stick of gum (or less). There's a number of ways a hybrid design could actuate release: servo (would require some power), gas (would require small form factor gas cartridge plus a small amount of power for trigger) or others I can't imagine right now. Anyway, totally doable today with current tech.

 

[James]

That is: if a company develops a product that truly can save life and/or limb like never before, should they be allowed to be the ONLY provider of the tech - and charge a hefty premium for the product?

Like patenting the seatbelt?

Photo: Volvo
Nils Bohlin, an engineer at Volvo, invented the three-point seat belt in 1959. The 1950s were a time when pilots and racing drivers wore harnesses, but seatbelts – where they were fitted in cars – took the form of a rudimentary two-point waist restraint. In crashes, sometimes these did more harm than good.
The reason the three-point seatbelt is so widely adopted is actually because Volvo opened up the patent so that any car manufacturer could use it in their design. They decided that the invention was so significant, it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from.
https://www.arnoldclark.com/newsroo...the-patent-for-their-most-important-invention


Well we certainly allow drug companies to rape the public in the US. $600 epi pens? We used to have parents give us the kids epi pens for an all day lesson. That hasn't happened in a while. Certainly not since they went through the roof.
Don't know if their story is actually true, but saw companies were given the chance to license Saw Stops limb saving technology and they rejected it. So don't feel too sorry for them. Basing the patent ruling just on the sensing technology seems to be a stretch though. But I guess patent law is like maritime law, somewhat bizarre and byzantine.
Still surprised it hasn't made it's way into more industrial stationary units other than Saw stops's. Given workers comp etc.

 

[Mickey]

@Philpug, here's a binding question for you: Old wisdom says not to use bindings at their highest or lowest settings. Where did this advice originate? How much truth is there to it?

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug, here's a binding question for you: Old wisdom says not to use bindings at their highest or lowest settings. Where did this advice originate? How much truth is there to it?

I am not sure where it originated but if you set the binding at either extreme and it functions properly, there should not be a concern. With that said, if you at either of these extremes, chances are there is a binding better suited for the application.

 

[Mickey]

I am not sure where it originated but if you set the binding at either extreme and it functions properly, there should not be a concern. With that said, if you at either of these extremes, chances are there is a binding better suited for the application.

#bringbackthepivot15

 

[neonorchid]

@Philpug, here's a binding question for you: Old wisdom says not to use bindings at their highest or lowest settings. Where did this advice originate? How much truth is there to it?

League of extraordinary gentlemen and mad as in angry genius Rick Howell did a post on Epic of his findings, IIRC, x-y axis graph on release/retention from low to high DIN of various unnamed bindings he had tested. The results were eye-opening. I PM'ed him several times in an attempt to get the identy of the worst and best, his lips were sealed but offered to test my bindings if I wanted to stop by his lab in VT. Had it been a better snow year at the time, I'd of taken him up on the offer.

 

[eok]

I am not sure where it originated but if you set the binding at either extreme and it functions properly, there should not be a concern. With that said, if you at either of these extremes, chances are there is a binding better suited for the application.

Totally agree.

Back in the early 70s I started working in a ski shop & split my time between sales, rental ops and the ski tech shop. We tested bindings with a machine. Can't remember the manufacturer, but we got it through Look & it was dedicated for testing toe release.

The ski was positioned in the machine & clamped down. Then you'd pull a handle to actuate a ram that pushed against the side of the boot near the toe. While doing this you'd watch a big dial on the machine to see the force curve for the release. You wanted to see the peak force not exceed the predetermined max for the customer and you wanted to see a smooth release curve (ie: no jumps/catches). [yes, yes: I know this testing method is questionable by today's standards - it was the 70s].

I'm saying all this because I do remember much of the Look training I got back then. This was back in the day of the initial N17 production runs. For those early N17s, it was strongly advised (by our Look rep) not to use the bindings at the absolute min or max settings as the release curves could sometimes be inconsistent. Also, boot soles back then were not 100% DIN compliant yet. Some boots needed their heel and toe lugs to be reshaped slightly to work in the early N17s. The reshaping was kind of an art form. You can imagine how this could affect release curves if the artist was an abstract expressionist rather than a precise realist.

BTW, the Look reps/techs I knew back then advised setting the N17 toes & heels to "zero" spring tension during the off season - and then reset them to the desired setting (& retesting) at the start of the new season.

The N17 was an extremely popular binding - as were the subsequent spins of it, up to the N77 ( I still have a soft spot in my heart for the N77, I had so many good days on them). So I can see how they influenced the common notions of avoiding min/max settings and the need to back off spring tension during the off season.

 

[Doug Briggs]

@eok , today's binding testers aren't much more sophisticated that what you describe, although they are calibrated and can provide reproduce-able numbers for release values.

Here are videos of the Vermont Calibrator in action testing Spademans.



Not evident in the videos is that the handle I pull on is a torque wrench with a simple indicator to show maximum torque required. This number is what is used to match up to the DIN chart desired release torques.

Here is a link to Vermont Ski Safety: http://vermontskisafety.com, maker of the Vermont Calibrator.

<THIS IS JUST MY OPINION and is BASED ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE>

I have not done a sophisticated analysis of binding settings vs whether they are at the top, bottom or middle of their range, but I find that bindings will calibrate just fine anywhere in the DIN range. Initial calibration failures are almost always due simply to the DIN settings of the bindings not calibrating with the test equipment at their initial settings (from the DIN chart). By adjusting the DIN up or down on the binding, I can almost always get a binding to calibrate. If I can't get a binding to calibrate it is due to the setting required to calibrate being out of range of the binding. Typically the setting needs to be lower than possible, rarely higher than possible.

For example. You bring in a binding with a 4 - 12 DIN range. You require a 5 DIN. I find that at the initial setting of 5, the release values are too high. So I turn down the binding to 4. The test result is still too high. I can't turn the binding setting below 4, so I am unable to set the DIN low enough to obtain the desired release value. The binding fails the test. I believe this is simply due to the vagaries of the physical binding construction and wear. So in this example the binding, while listed as 4 - 12 DIN, probably will be providing in real life a 6 - 14 DIN.

My take on this is to buy bindings that match your DIN in the middle range to allow a range that the binding can be adjusted to match your desired DIN setting. I don't think that running a binding at the low end of the DIN range affects its ability to respond in an accurate or reliable fashion.

</THIS IS JUST MY OPINION and is BASED ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE>

 

[François Pugh]

In my humble opinion, if you have found the DIN setting that works well for you, and it is at the upper end of a lower performing binding, then you would probably benefit from the other features that come with a higher-level binding (e.g. better retention, some form of free-flex, less play, better return to centre, more robust, longer lasting, etc.). On the other hand if you're at the lower end of a top level racing binding, I see no advantage to switching to the lower level binding (except cost, which is minimal when spread out over the life time of the binding).

 

[Philpug]

In my humble opinion, if you have found the DIN setting that works well for you, and it is at the upper end of a lower performing binding, then you would probably benefit from the other features that come with a higher-level binding (e.g. better retention, some form of free-flex, less play, better return to centre, more robust, longer lasting, etc.). On the other hand if you're at the lower end of a top level racing binding, I see no advantage to switching to the lower level binding (except cost, which is minimal when spread out over the life time of the binding).

Personally at a competiion or high performance application, I would perfer to not be at the bottom number on the setting scale. Every manufacturer offers a quality binding that has a more obtainable setting range of 4-12 which is the lower end, Look SPX10 & 12, SPX 12 Rockerflex, Atomic Neox 412, Tyrolia FF Evo 11 and the Marker X-Cell 12.0 that some of the better top junior skiers/lighter skiers can use. So while the higher end bindings are indeed better, a solid 4-12 binding like the ones I used as an example are a viable option.

 

[Mickey]

Personally at a competiion or high performance application, I would perfer to not be at the bottom number on the setting scale.

So average Joe resort skier is OK riding P18's at 8, but someone bashing gates should be on SPX 12s? What's your rationale?

 

[François Pugh]

So average Joe resort skier is OK riding P18's at 8, but someone bashing gates should be on SPX 12s? What's your rationale?

I think you misread, average Joe (high performance application) would also be beter on the SPX 12, according to Phill.

 

[Philpug]

So average Joe resort skier is OK riding P18's at 8, but someone bashing gates should be on SPX 12s? What's your rationale?

No, as I said in my initial post, while the 8 will work, but someone in gates is putting more stress on the spring more rapidly. You are splitting hairs and over thinking it. But if there was a pivot 15, we wouldn't be having this discussion

 

[François Pugh]

So long as we are talking bindings, what are the differences between the Fischer Z18 FF X and the Fischer Z13, other than the spring?
Also, why not use the Z18 FF X at a DIN of 8, its lowest setting?
BTW I have an old pair of FF 17 Plus that I bought and a pair of FR12s that came with skis. I Seem to like the FF 17 Plus better, but I don't know why, and not enough that I have any intention of swapping out the FR12s. Maybe it's because the 17s seem to be a solider connection to my skis, but maybe its the placebo effect.

 

[Philpug]

So long as we are talking bindings, what are the differences between the Fischer Z18 FF X and the Fischer Z13, other than the spring?
Also, why not use the Z18 FF X at a DIN of 8, its lowest setting?
BTW I have an old pair of FF 17 Plus that I bought and a pair of FR12s that came with skis. I Seem to like the FF 17 Plus better, but I don't know why, and not enough that I have any intention of swapping out the FR12s. Maybe it's because the 17s seem to be a solider connection to my skis, but maybe its the placebo effect.

The 18 FF X and the Z13's differences are the housing and the AFDs, the 18's have the solid AFD and the 13 has the tractor. As fas as the the bpttong of the spring, there is little tension on the spring, again will function correct in the majority of the conditions but might not have the reaction in continuing shock. Bindings are all abotu confidence, be it placibo or not.

 

[Mickey]

You are splitting hairs and over thinking it.

Of course I am! There's no snow to distract me with actual skiing!