AT binding help

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

In article ,
Dan wrote:

"Jonathan Shefftz" wrote

And the
release-setting instructions that come with my Diamirs are similar to
those that come with my alpine racing bindings.

My experience, entirely on the slopes at resorts, is that I cannot
tell the difference between my Diamirs and the Solomons they
"replaced." Well, once I accidentally clipped the heel release
and had a little instability until I figured where it came from...

The cost was even similar.

Anyone know if it is really unsafe to telemark on them? Store
rep said so, and I haven't tried. My tele skills have corroded over
the last 20 years or so, but I think it would be fun to try again
on the lower shallower slopes...


_ You can't telemark on AT bindings. You can do one footed
fake-a-marks, but unless you can bend at the ball of the foot
it's not really telemarking. Doesn't really seem worth the
risk of trashing the binding and possibly your knees.

_ Booker C. Bense


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

iQCVAwUBQTNlmWTWTAjn5N/lAQFXmQQAlEoH3J+NiJHopkiN6ja6tqOzCQAjPeBE
QSJD6L1Y/AKXbbi79Tp8V53GKHAtGxX7+SBvhgCT/CO1Do4jLkH32TmR+M+5uz+T
UqQIjoxmH/LA78Jun6nydXHRtTczHCPgzr732pOsC86djPfcPi09iIbTz/OCqEeb
CqSCuKtage8=
=lvei
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

In article ,
Jonathan Shefftz wrote:
(John Red-Horse) wrote in message ...

...I thought about this too when I was lining my daughter out with her
skiing kit; then I learned that the release technology on AT bindings
is of the early-70's full alpine class, and I reconsidered. Maybe this
point should be researched more fully...

Well, yes and no.

First, I think it was more like the late 70s (rather than the early
70s) that bindings (e.g., Salomon 727, Tyrolia 350) first achieved a
safe lateral toe release function with effective anti-friction
devices, along with a reliable vertical heel release. The incidence
of lower-leg fractures plummeted. Unfortunately, this beneficial
development was offset to a large extent by a rapid rise in injuries
to various soft tissues in the knee joint (particularly the ACL),
mainly because ski boots became taller and stiffer (and not because of
any changes in bindings).

_ This is not quite as I remember it. Late 70's bindings where
certainly better, but you had to choose between safety and
accidental pre-release. Look's in the 60's had a lateral toe
release with vertical heel release. Perhaps you are thinking of
upward toe release? Even the first Marker toe pieces from the
50's had lateral toe release.


Almost three decades later, alpine downhill ski bindings have become
far more sophisticated in their design and materials. (Atomic now has
an electronic binding for over a grand that features radio
communication between the toe and heel.) And what his happened to
injury rates? Basically nothing. In economics-speak, the marginal
utility of binding technology advancement has been essentially zero.

_ I'm not sure this is entirely true. I would say there was a big
advance in the 80's in the skiablity of bindings. After about
1990 or I no longer had to mess with my bindings to keep the skis
on in the moguls. Now I can just set it on 8 and forget about
it. That was not true in the 70's and early 80's.


So do the Diamir and Naxo use late 70s binding technology? Yes. Do
the historical statistics therefore imply any compromised safety? No.

_ That's a vast oversimplification of the issues. What improved
the reliability and safety of bindings was standardizing the
boots. In particular the friction interface at the toe, this
standard doesn't exist for AT boots. Does it matter? Not to
me but I think it's worth thinking about.


By contrast, the Silvretta 404/500/505/555 and Dynafit
TLT/TriStep/Comfort lack a lateral release ability at the toe, instead
substituting lateral release at the heel. (The Silvretta Pure seems
to offer a lateral toe release, although somehow controlled by a
mechanism at the heel?) I am unable to speak to the engineering
implications of this, but I do know that no modern alpine downhill
binding has ever lacked a lateral toe release - draw your own
conclusions (if any) from this.

_ Alpine bindings don't need to pivot at the toe, until the Naxo
no one had come up with a design that didn't deviate from
standard alpine toepieces in some fashion. Torque is torque, you
feel it at the toe as well as at the heel and you can design
a release mechanism for it.


As for The Backcountry's claim:
"In other words, we hope YOUR Dynafit or Fritchi [sic] binding thinks
a DIN of 8 is truly an 8, but we can't test it to make sure."
Once again, yes and no: no, The Backcountry can't test it; but yes,
anyone can who has access to a testing machine. By contrast,
backcountry.com, which already owns a tester for their alpine downhill
gear, tests all the bindings they mount. (The rest of that webpage at
The Backcountry contains a similarly frustrating mixture of helpful
advice and unhelpful inaccuracies.)

_ Well, I don't agree with everything they say, but they are
right next door to a shop with the Alpine testing equipment.
If it was a simple as you state you should be able to get
your AT skis tested at any shop with the equipment, yet most
places won't do this. It could just be that they are not
"trained/certified" on the binding or there could be some larger
issue. Does Backcountry.com get the same results with different
boots?

Regarding AT binding standards, yes they exist: they are available
from iso.org or din.de (# SN ISO 13992, along with ISO 13992 AMD 1),
although no, I haven't forked over the money to find out exactly what
they are and how they compare with alpine downhill standards.

_ Unless you read and compare the existence of a standard implies
nothing.

And the
release-setting instructions that come with my Diamirs are similar to
those that come with my alpine racing bindings.

_ The experiment is happening. There are many people resort
skiing in alpine boots with AT gear. I think it's fairly safe for
an experienced skier and will not affect the accident rate. It
would be interesting and probably impossible to compare accident
and injury rates between Europe and North America.

_ Booker C. Bense

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

iQCVAwUBQTNxOGTWTAjn5N/lAQEUBwQAu6QojHKjId3PtTlRMJSg4Oq+y1m5UOll
BsEquab1UkTOFrqN6XIhYqIvNT1PWbm983gtqAGWmJl1x5vuwI zS5cRAvEUpUuas
BuwPykczWSWL5gotqGpx7BussDoMRrQwapunGp+hjwe3CQZ7zr pidPhFRsQxIR7F
XDWFJoh+fuA=
=18iu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

First, in the words of the great Andrew McLean:
"I take great comfort in the fact that even the worst alpine touring
binding is better than the best telemark binding."
Now with that in mind, let the debate continue...

All of my previous statements are based upon numerous articles I've
read by Vermont Safey Research (back when Ski and Skiing actually
printed stuff like that) as well as several equipment workshops I've
taken with them. I suppose one could quibble with whether it was the
Salomon 727 or 747 (or maybe even 757, or 967, or whatever came next)
and the Tyrolia 350 or 360 (or maybe even 380) that first achieved a
reliable lateral toe release and vertical heel release, and whether
that was the late 70s or early 80s, but since then bindings have
become technologically better but not any safer. And yes, many
bindings before then had a lateral toe release and vertical heel
release, but they were not anywhere near as reliable as later on.

Looked at another way, I started alpine ski racing in the early 80s,
coached professionally part-time throughout the 90s, and still do some
alpine racing (when I'm not backcountry skiing of course). Throughout
this period, ski design revolutions totally changed the sport, and
boot evolution helped too. Bindings? Still just as safe (re lower
leg fractures), or dangerous (knee soft tissue injuries), depending on
which aspect you focus on.

As for the friction interface at the toe, the Diamir grips the upper
radius of the boot, just like the Look single pivot did for many
(many) years (and which I think Solly does now, though I'd have to
check). The only thing the Naxo adds to AT binding release design
compared to the Diamir is the *look* of a more standard alpine
downhill toe piece, since it's still just a standard single-pivot
lateral release (though the pivot point is probably a bit more stable
than the Diamir's).

Re the never-ending Silvretta later-heel-release debate, all I'm
saying is that if one takes comfort with similarity to established
alpine downhill binding design (or takes pause at major deviations),
then this is a key factor with the Silvretta.

As for the torque tester, Naxo is pursing (or has already achieved?)
regular binding indemnification. Perhaps The Backcountry feels that
by torque testing other models they would be making some implicit
guarantee of performance? Or maybe the next-door shop doesn't want
torque tester freeriders (as in the economics sense, not the skiing
sense)? Either way, torque testing a binding would providing valuable
release setting information - plenty of skiers have done this on their
own for randonnee bindings. How consistent would the results be over
hundreds of tests of different boot/binding combos? I don't know,
although I do know that not all alpine bindings are as consistent as
one would hope/think.

Jonathan Shefftz schrieb:

[...]

Looking at your ski career looks familiar to me ... :-))
Only, i finished to race in the early 80s and now i'm converted to
telemark - for the intrinsical fun (of doing something new). Anyway ...

As for the friction interface at the toe, the Diamir grips the upper
radius of the boot, just like the Look single pivot did for many
(many) years (and which I think Solly does now, though I'd have to
check). The only thing the Naxo adds to AT binding release design
compared to the Diamir is the *look* of a more standard alpine
downhill toe piece, since it's still just a standard single-pivot
lateral release (though the pivot point is probably a bit more stable
than the Diamir's).

I think this is not quite correct: The Naxo - compared to any other AT
binding adds the idea of an additional turning point (before the toe)
when you release the heel. That gives a very smooth feeling when you're
marching in flat terrain (let's say less than 25-30°) - a little bit
like telemarking (with the EasyGo). OTOH: In steep terrains this turning
point in front of the toe is a clear disadvantage [1]

Greetings,

Ulrich

[1] Friends of mine did the Sarek (in northern Sweden, mixed terrain:
long distance marching with smooth hills and short steeps up to 500/600m
dislevel) this winter with the Naxo and were very satisfied.

Booker C. Bense wrote:

until the Naxo
no one had come up with a design that didn't deviate from
standard alpine toepieces in some fashion.

Erm, this sounds like Naxo marketing. For example the Sk'Alp 8007 uses a
standard Salomon toepiece so how does it deviate from a standard alpine
toepiece?

Booker C. Bense
bbense+rec.skiing.backcountry.Aug.30.04@telemark. slac.stanford.edu
wrote:
_ This is not quite as I remember it. Late 70's bindings where
certainly better, but you had to choose between safety and
accidental pre-release.

That's not really my recollection. By the late 70s, the burlier
versions of the Marker MR and MRR were available (still pre-twincam)
and the Tyrolia binding had twin arms. Look and Solomon, of course,
both had single pivot designs and suffered poor return to center
performance. The other binding that sucked in terms of pre-release
was the very early "Sensomatic" step ins from Marker, but those
problems were with the heel piece, as far I could make out.

_ I'm not sure this is entirely true. I would say there was a big
advance in the 80's in the skiablity of bindings. After about
1990 or I no longer had to mess with my bindings to keep the skis
on in the moguls. Now I can just set it on 8 and forget about
it. That was not true in the 70's and early 80's.

Heh. In the 90's I skied moguls a bit slower than I did in the 70's
and 80's. Certainly pre-released a lot less. Nothing to do with the
bindings though.

Last comment.... I would think that the continued pressure to move to
AT bindings for resort and bc skiing will continue pretty much
regardless of the finer points of the technical pros/cons. Once the
AT bindings got the "DIN" letters on them, the rest of discussion will
be seen as garbley-gook by the buying public. The (idiotic) success of
heavy tele has proven that there is a market niche out there that
wants resort/bc bindings. DIN rated AT bindings will answer this
market need. I predict more growth in that direction.

If I'm right, one likely impact will be a decrease in sales for heavy
tele gear. Another may be more AT type solutions from trad alpine
bindings and boot makers.



-- Dave
==============================================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, Politics, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
==============================================

Ulrich, I agree; what I should have written was:
"The only thing the Naxo adds to AT binding *safety* release design
(as opposed to its innovative touring mode design)..."

Another thought -- why doesn't Couloir or Backcountry Magazine:

1. Purchase for about $250 the four separate DIN specs for alpine
downhill boots, alpine downhill bindings, alpine touring boots, and
alpine touring bindings, and report back on just how
tight/lax/stringent/whatever the downhill/touring specs are relative
to each other.

2. Borrow an alpine downhill shop's torque tester and compare the
release characterastics/consistency for: a) alpine downhill boots in
alpine downhill bindings; b) alpine downhill boots in alpine touring
bindings; and, c) alpine touring boots in alpine touring bindings.

I suppose this kind of stuff doesn't necessarily sell more magazines,
but still . . .

pinnah wrote:
... The (idiotic) success of heavy tele ...

Bob Lee wrote:
Hey, hey, hey now Dave! I'm calling a foul here. Either give me two
free shots or explain why it's idiotic.

This is function versus fashion debate.

If the (fashion) goal is to tele on (ahem) to'-to' gnar'-gnar' (ahem)
terrain, then of course heavy tele is the only gear to consider.

But if the goal is to ski with the most efficiency, stability, power
and ease on that same to'-to' gnar'-gnar' terrain, the AT makes more
sense.

I don't think there is any serious debate about that assertion. The
single solitary advantage (if you can call it that) of heavy tele is,
well, you can tele on it. Period.

OK, I admit. I tossed out the charge "idiotic" on a matter of taste.
But in my book, if your going to be skiing hairball lines, putting
your back side in jepordy, yada-yada-yada.... the only sensible
approach is to use the tool that makes it easier -- AT.

And please don't start with the tired "I like tele better alpine
*because* it is harder" arguement while you're wearing plastic boots
and skiing phat skis.

You and I have been around ski racks long enough to appreciate that
efficiency trumps style over the long haul. Oh yeah, twin tips are
new, right? Yah, we *never* saw twin tips in the 70s, did we? *cough*
Olin Ballet *cough*.

Let's face it. Once you sever the chord and leave striding efficiency
behind, the telemark turn is a fashion statement. Its way fun. I ski
on heavy tele gear, not AT gear. But I'll never tell anyone it is
better in any way shape or form other than the fact that it reinforces
technique that I need for my preferred hippie sticks.

shrug I started out on dirtbag gear...

And why did you leave it behind? Set your sights on higher goals?
Wanted more efficiency? Why not just get AT? Really.

[Chicks dig tele]


-- Dave
==============================================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, Politics, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
==============================================

Hi Folks,

I am rather surprised that so far nobody has mentioned the old plate
DH/AT bindings such as the Gertsch. The best such dual purpose binding
was the Fritschi FT88, from the 80s, which did a sterling job for both
AT and resort skiing, though it was heavy. I still use it for DH and
the odd resort based tour and believe that nothing significantly
better has turned up so far.

Cheers
Craig
(Veteran)