Alpine bindings on Telemark skis?

MoonMan wrote:
"Walt" wrote

I wonder why they're using a passive AFD for their top of the line
bindings...

Because its safer?

Is it? Do you have any data to back it up?

My *opinion* is that an active AFD is safer than a passive AFD. I wish
I had some objective research to support this assertion, but
unfortunately, I don't. If you know of any data showing a benefit one
way or the other, I'd love to see it.

And to answer my own question (now that I've had a few minutes to think
about it) I would assume that once you've set the DIN to 10 or 11, the
difference in release between active and passive AFD become neglible in
comparrison. Couple that with the fact that few racers will be
competing in old worn out boots, an active AFD for race bindings has
little additional benefit. And just in case you're wondering, I *am*
just making this up - it's my partially-baked hypothesis of the day.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

"Walt" wrote in message
...
MoonMan wrote:
"Walt" wrote

I wonder why they're using a passive AFD for their top of the line
bindings...

Because its safer?

Is it? Do you have any data to back it up?


Nope, just my own opinion, being my normal cynical self I would just assume
it was cheaper to make.

Personaly I think the static devices are probably safer purely because there
are no moving parts to jam up or break, I Think I have seen more broken
Active AFD's than working ones, but then I don't go around inspecting other
peoples bindings.

My *opinion* is that an active AFD is safer than a passive AFD. I wish I
had some objective research to support this assertion, but unfortunately,
I don't. If you know of any data showing a benefit one way or the other,
I'd love to see it.

And to answer my own question (now that I've had a few minutes to think
about it) I would assume that once you've set the DIN to 10 or 11, the
difference in release between active and passive AFD become neglible in
comparrison. Couple that with the fact that few racers will be competing
in old worn out boots, an active AFD for race bindings has little
additional benefit. And just in case you're wondering, I *am* just making
this up - it's my partially-baked hypothesis of the day.


personally I doubt there is any difference in release between active and
passive AFD's mainly because if there was it would have been through the
merkan courts by now and everyone would be using the "better" one. (Damm
there's my cynicism showing through again)


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

Walt wrote:
MoonMan wrote:

"Walt" wrote


I wonder why they're using a passive AFD for their top of the line
bindings...


Because its safer?


Is it? Do you have any data to back it up?

My *opinion* is that an active AFD is safer than a passive AFD. I wish
I had some objective research to support this assertion, but
unfortunately, I don't. If you know of any data showing a benefit one
way or the other, I'd love to see it.

And to answer my own question (now that I've had a few minutes to think
about it) I would assume that once you've set the DIN to 10 or 11, the
difference in release between active and passive AFD become neglible in
comparrison. Couple that with the fact that few racers will be
competing in old worn out boots, an active AFD for race bindings has
little additional benefit. And just in case you're wondering, I *am*
just making this up - it's my partially-baked hypothesis of the day.

Here is some more "stuff" to add toy your partially baked hypothesis...

Under shop conditions, which is where binding testing takes place,
there is no discernible difference between teflon pads and active
AFD's.

The only place you will see a difference, if you are going to, is on
the hill. Now, figure out some way to test the difference when you are
going downhill at a fair clip and then "stage" a fall, which can be
observed and tested.

Now that we are past that. The binding manufacturers *do* provide
active AFD's. Apparently in greater numbers than I had suspected.

Do they have actual data that shows that the active AFD is safer than
a teflon pad?

Back to you again, Walt, it is also my *opinion* that active AFD's
*will* work better in the real world, under a greater variation
of conditions, including boot sole type and condition.

If there is data, especially done by the manufacturers, you won't
see it very soon as it could be data to be used by lawyers to back
up claims that, for instance, "Teflon pads are not as safe as
active AFD's, therefore the company was remiss and liable for
providing Ms. Jones here who has a broken body part with bindings
which have teflon pad AFD's."

Walt wrote:

it seemed the $425 Marker Titanium 13.0 Piston Turbo was the obvious choice:
"Our testers were unanimous. The technology [oil piston and front bar]
really works. Initiation was immediate, carve was clean and powerful,
and rebound was smooth and measured."

That's interesting, because I've got a pair of Marker Piston bindings,
and I can't notice the slightest difference between the ON and OFF
position. I've even skied with one ski set to ON and the other to OFF
and I still can't detect a difference. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Ha ha ha! Lal_Truckee softened me up and you followed with this act.

Is there any data (oops excuse me, *are* there any data) indicating
which bindings have the highest and lowest injury rates?

That's my principal concern, more than performance. I could select
an AT binding for lighter weight, but their safety is somewhat unknown,
and I've heard that AT bindings are less durable.

MoonMan wrote:

personally I doubt there is any difference in release between active and
passive AFD's mainly because if there was it would have been through the
merkan courts by now and everyone would be using the "better" one. (Damm
there's my cynicism showing through again)

Just because one technology has been shown to be safer than another
doesn't imply that the lesser technology is unsafe to a degree that is
legally actionable. So, even if I could show that Brand A binding is
20% safer than Brand B binding, that's a far cry from proving that Brand
B is so unsafe that the manufacturer is liable.

Case in point: I can still buy a new car without side airbags. Or
without Anti lock brakes. Or with crappy tires. etc. etc.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Ha ha ha! Lal_Truckee softened me up and you followed with this act.

Is there any data (oops excuse me, *are* there any data) indicating
which bindings have the highest and lowest injury rates?

Unfortunately, none that I am aware of.

I've ground this axe on this forum before, so I won't belabor the point
again. Suffice it to say that the data has been collected, but not
aggregated or analyzed. I can look up crash data for cars and imply
safety therefrom, but there's nothing for bindings.

That's my principal concern, more than performance.

Yeah, me too. Basically, all I've got to go on is reputation and
anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal evidence says stay away from passive
AFDs, and Salomon bindings in particular.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

Bill Tuthill wrote:

My principal gripe is that my skis are heavier than I'd like
for carrying from my car to the lift.

Long ago I noticed that Telemark and AT (alpine touring) skis
weigh less than downhill skis of any type.

What would happen if I put downhill bindings (e.g. Marker 13.0)
on good telemark skis such as Atomic TM:X or Fischer Stingrays?
One bonus is that these models cost less than most downhill skis.

Or what about an AT ski such as the K2 Shuksan? I've seen those
at Kirkwood, but neglected to ask the owners about them.

I think that whoever mentioned binding weight was on the money. Have
you ever lifted skis without bindings, or bindings without skis? With
lighter skis, the binding can be nearly half the weight of the
ski/binding combination.

Look/Rossi may or may not be the lightest bindings, they say they are,
and they are light. I bought those in part because of weight. I can't
give any more evaluation than they release when I fall and don't when I
don't fall...

Lisa

, tm floated this notion:

Robert Swindells wrote:
Walt wrote:
Robert Swindells wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

Just for information, someone else mentioned that Look/Rossi
bindings have an active AFD. I went and looked at their
sites and it sure looks like they have active AFD's.

Their race bindings don't have active AFDs.

Are you sure? If so, which model(s) don't have them? The p10/p12 from
last year definitely had active AFDs, although they look like passive
devices at first glance. Everything on Rossi's website looks like the
same AFD as the p10.

Quite sure.

The Rossi models are FKS 185, 155 and 120. I don't know the equivalent
Look model numbers.

There is a picture on http://www.rossignolracing.com. Get past the first
page, select 'products' from the menu on the lhs then select the top line
in the 'Bindings' box.

p10-
http://snipurl.com/etqy
FKS 185
http://snipurl.com/etqx
Land Walker-
http://snipurl.com/etr0

Don't you have a kayak to sharpen?

http://www.ottawakayak.com/

Lisa Horton wrote:

I think that whoever mentioned binding weight was on the money.
Have you ever lifted skis without bindings, or bindings without skis?
With lighter skis, the binding can be nearly half the weight of the
ski/binding combination.

Yes. Bindings weigh quite a bit less than skis. The typical ski for a
tall person like myself weighs almost 2000 grams (each), with the Shuksan
being around 1500 grams and the carbon fibers being about 1000 grams.
The Look P10 Ti Lifter binding is 990 grams, if a webpage is correct.

Look/Rossi may or may not be the lightest bindings, they say they are,
and they are light. I bought those in part because of weight. I can't
give any more evaluation than they release when I fall and don't when I
don't fall...

Thanks for the pointer to Look/Salomon. I had Look bindings before my
last pair of Markers, and they worked well. Here's what Skiing magazine
wrote after testing the Look Pivot 12 Ti Lifter:

The heelpiece allows for a shorter mounting zone, so the ski's
natural flex is less disrupted. The heelpiece now automatically
re-centers after release, so you don't need to straighten it out
before steppign in (remember old Looks?).
Gripes: Step-in felt mushy compared with the satisfying clicks
of most other test bindings.
Props: The heelpiece's titanium stirrup surrounds the boot heel,
promoting heightened energy transfer and edge sensitivity.
Plastic lifter plates beneath the heel and toe provide helpful
leverage for edging.

P.S. Walt, thanks for your safety opinions; they are appreciated...

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Thanks for the pointer to Look/Salomon. I had Look bindings before my
last pair of Markers, and they worked well. Here's what Skiing magazine
wrote after testing the Look Pivot 12 Ti Lifter:

The heelpiece allows for a shorter mounting zone, so the ski's
natural flex is less disrupted. The heelpiece now automatically
re-centers after release, so you don't need to straighten it out
before steppign in (remember old Looks?).
Gripes: Step-in felt mushy compared with the satisfying clicks
of most other test bindings.

One of the things I don't like about Look bindings is that if there's
any snow at all on your boots you can't click in. Atomic bindings have
the same problem. Markers are *much* more forgiving in this regard.


Props: The heelpiece's titanium stirrup surrounds the boot heel,
promoting heightened energy transfer and edge sensitivity.
Plastic lifter plates beneath the heel and toe provide helpful
leverage for edging.

P.S. Walt, thanks for your safety opinions; they are appreciated...

Opinions you want, opinions I got. (c:


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy