-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
Jonathan Shefftz wrote:
That is definitely the best and most-informed Silvretta defense I have
ever read.
Now back to the debate!
Although I’ve attended clinics from:
http://www.vermontskisafety.com/
... and read many articles on alpine downhill binding safety, I will
agree that I have no direct evidence that placing the lateral release
at the toe is superior to placing it at the heel.

_ Okay, got that one.

But given that *all* recent alpine downhill bindings have a lateral
toe release, and that very few bother with a lateral heel release
(despite having all sorts of other innovative features), my conclusion
is that a lateral toe release is a critical safety feature, while a
lateral heel release is not a significant advantage.

_ You're drawing some very spurious conclusions from very little
evidence. Alpine bindings are driven by marketing as much as
safety. A lateral heel release is not needed if you have toe
release, but you could never sell a binding that didn't have a
toe release so the point is moot. In fact if you think about it
a bit, you'll release that having both kinds of releases would
make the binding excessively complicated and make adjusting it
reliablely quite difficult.

_ Just because one set of design criteria leads to one class of
solutions does not mean that a different set of criteria have the
same solution.

Also, as I try
to envision it, the situation that a lateral release is trying to
solve arises from the boot and ski diverging - the heel is aligned w/
the shaft of the leg, so the pivoting occurs there, and lateral
pressure that the binding can sense occurs at the toe, not the heel.
(Think about hooking a tip on a branch, a la a slalom race course: the
Diamir toe will release laterally, but will the Silvretta heel release
laterally in that situation?)

_ Yes. The lever arm at the heel is shorter, but it will still
release.

I’ll agree that fixing crampons w/o exiting the binding is a
nifty feature - I’ve been in many situations where that would
have been a nice plus.
Standards for alpine touring bindings though exist just like standards
for alpine downhill bindings - you can order the DIN from that Euro
website (though it costs a non-negligible sum, so I haven’t
bothered yet).

_ There are DIN standards for the shape of the boot. There are no
standards for the release mechanisms. Read the fine print that
comes with your bindings.

As for the mode switch, I’ve played w/ it in shops, and it does
indeed appear to be a par w/ the Diamir.
Regarding durability, I heard some nightmare stories from these guys:
http://www.andesmountainsports.com/
...but that of course is just one step (barely) above anecdotal
evidence.

_ Of the old 404's or the newer 500's? The guys at
thebackcountry.net also have bad things to say about silvretta
that mostly have to do with the fact that the company is in
Germany. And if I owned a shop I would probably have the same
concerns. The whole liability problem with AT bindings should
make any shop owner a bit nervous. If you can't get clear
answers, then you don't want to take the risk of selling the
binding. Adjusting the 500's is a bit complicated[1], I know I
wouldn't do it for somebody that might sue me.

Overall, I still think that for those most concerned about weight,
Dynafit is the best choice; for climbing boot compatibility, Silvretta
500; everyone else, Diamir (or maybe the new Naxo).

_ Well, that's certainly the common wisdom, but your entire argument
boils down to

"Well, it looks like an alpine binding so it must be
safer."

It's a good marketing ploy, heck it may even be true, but I have
not seen anything that would prove it to me.

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- The lateral release is dependent on getting the length of
the boot adjustment correct first. With a regular AT boot, this
is pretty straightforward, with a climbing boot you actually
have to ski in the boots a bit to get this adjustment correct.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPy7nMWTWTAjn5N/lAQHdNwP+LlPB2GvoeLLCUETAooDH7zZthXf1Cl3A
wa1Wf+Yrmhw8JD71SkcF53RN3Ie+f9KbVNlTUG5hPyVwSd7oGm ZScFL95IslqQyS
moxJT6XFgaosfJofz1yiUAVaEukpIPfuiDH9O5XJqDofamO3WB apO7Z5cRN2S9Oa
1jHQTmOmqaY=
=hN3z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----