A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can I set my own bindings?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old February 20th 07, 05:19 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:

Help me out a little more with VECTOR here.


I don't know that I can teach you vectors over the interwebs. Back when
I used to teach college calculus it would take most students the better
part of a semester to really "get" it. And without recourse to
mathematical notation, I'm kind of limited. Sorry, but it's kind of
like trying to teach skiing in a text only medium - you can only go so
far before you start sounding like foot to foot.



I still have one more, though, not entirely
related to the present post's discussion.

You said early on that TORQUE and WORK were
not the same thing at all except that they
shared the units used.

I still have yet to puzzle out what is so much
different between the two EXCEPT that direction
of the FORCE applied over a length has been
added to create TORQUE as opposed to WORK.

The concept of horsepower was originally
formulated on the basis of WORK, that is
moving a FORCE over a LENGTH in a given
period of time. Yet today we use TORQUE in
place of WORK for formulating HORSEPOWER
in a rotating engine.

In any case, whether it's TORQUE or WORK,
HORSEPOWER = 550 FT-POUNDS/SECOND.
The difference being that you would use
RPM (or more correctly RPS) for the TIME
component.

I'm sure there are mathematical reasons for
the answers to come out the same even though
the components are slightly different, it
still says to me that the concepts of WORK
and TORQUE while slightly different, are very
closely related. This I think was the beginning
of the discussion.



Yes, torque and work are very closely related. In SI units, Torque is
work done per radian of revolution (a radian is about 57 degrees) If you
apply a torque of 1 Newton-Meter and move through an angle of one radian
you have done 1 Newton-Meter or 1 Joule of work. If you apply a torque
of 1 Newton-Meter and move through a complete revolution, you have done
2*pi Joules of work. If you apply a torque and nothing moves, you do no
work.

And if you know the torque and revolutions per minute you can calculate
the rate of work (i.e. power). Hence the familiar relationship between
torque, Horsepower, and rpm from automotive engineering.

To sum up:

Power is work per unit time
Force is work per unit distance
Torque is work per unit angle
RPM is angle per unit time

//Walt



Ads
  #102  
Old February 20th 07, 06:06 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
klaus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:

In 2) above, I'm still troubled by the wrench
on the nut example. There is no component torque
here, yes? Yet there is no movement of the nut
until the force applied to the lever arm overcomes
friction to allow the nut to move.


Yes, there is component torque here. Let's use another example without
vectors. Vectors are sooo last century anyway and just a figment of
our imagination. Quaternions are where it's at. But anyway, Let's say
we have a spindle between us. I put a torque wrench on the spindle on
one side, you put a torque wrench on the other side. I apply a torque
of 5 Nm on my wrench. Now we have one component of the total torque,
equal to what the torque wrench reads. 5 Nm. Notice we haven't
discussed motion yet, because it doesn't matter. Now you apply a
torque on your wrench in the opposite direction, equal to 5 Nm. So we
have two component torques which exist. Mine, 5 Nm and yours, -5
Nm. Two components of the sum. These are two *real* torques. +/-5
Nm. And there is no motion, but the torques exist. My arm gets tired
because I am applying a torque, and your arm hurts becasue you are
applying a torque. They just happen to balance and there is no motion
because the total torque is zero. Zero motion and two torques. Torques
*do* exists even in the absence of work or motion.


-klaus



  #103  
Old February 20th 07, 07:22 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
JQ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Can I set my own bindings?


"klaus" wrote in message
...
VtSkier wrote:

In 2) above, I'm still troubled by the wrench
on the nut example. There is no component torque
here, yes? Yet there is no movement of the nut
until the force applied to the lever arm overcomes
friction to allow the nut to move.


Yes, there is component torque here. Let's use another example without
vectors. Vectors are sooo last century anyway and just a figment of
our imagination. Quaternions are where it's at. But anyway, Let's say
we have a spindle between us. I put a torque wrench on the spindle on
one side, you put a torque wrench on the other side. I apply a torque
of 5 Nm on my wrench. Now we have one component of the total torque,
equal to what the torque wrench reads. 5 Nm. Notice we haven't
discussed motion yet, because it doesn't matter. Now you apply a
torque on your wrench in the opposite direction, equal to 5 Nm. So we
have two component torques which exist. Mine, 5 Nm and yours, -5
Nm. Two components of the sum. These are two *real* torques. +/-5
Nm. And there is no motion, but the torques exist. My arm gets tired
because I am applying a torque, and your arm hurts becasue you are
applying a torque. They just happen to balance and there is no motion
because the total torque is zero. Zero motion and two torques. Torques
*do* exists even in the absence of work or motion.


-klaus



In your description there was/were initial motion to get the torque reading
even though the item the torque was being applied to did not move. I
believe in order to get a torque reading an applied pressure must first be
used and to apply pressure some form of motion must occur first, no matter
how small the distance it covers there still must be movement.
I believe the question is how we get our torque measurement. The applied
torque reading as with a torque wrench or the working/developed torque
reading as with a running engine.

JQ
Dancing on the edge


  #104  
Old February 20th 07, 07:56 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
klaus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default Can I set my own bindings?

JQ wrote:
In your description there was/were initial motion to get the torque reading
even though the item the torque was being applied to did not move. I
believe in order to get a torque reading an applied pressure must first be
used and to apply pressure some form of motion must occur first, no matter
how small the distance it covers there still must be movement.
I believe the question is how we get our torque measurement. The applied
torque reading as with a torque wrench or the working/developed torque
reading as with a running engine.


You mean due to the compliance of the wrench? That's pretty much
beside the point, no? Use an infinitely stiff wrench. But yes. Even at
the molecular level, molecules get closer together. Physics is full of
"infinite" assumptions. Otherwise, they'd call it
engineering. Otherwise you have to deal with material properties,
quantum effects, and Heisenberg's Pet Peeve.

-klaus



  #105  
Old February 20th 07, 09:11 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

Help me out a little more with VECTOR here.


I don't know that I can teach you vectors over the interwebs. Back when
I used to teach college calculus it would take most students the better
part of a semester to really "get" it. And without recourse to
mathematical notation, I'm kind of limited. Sorry, but it's kind of
like trying to teach skiing in a text only medium - you can only go so
far before you start sounding like foot to foot.


I actually took a calculus course once. It was taught
as a "pure" discipline and you were to use the rules
and apply them as taught. Nowhere was there any
explanation of WHY these rules were taught and WHAT
the math could be used for. IF I had been told that
the math was to describe motion and rate of change,
I might have found a reason to actually learn the stuff.

As it is, I excel in trig and geometry because I was
shown practical applications from the get-go.

It took two tries to pass calculus and the second time
I only passed because I had taken it before and the
instructor's first language was not English and he
graded on a curve in a class where NO ONE had a clue.

I hope your teaching was as patient and thoughtful
as your explanations here have been.

I still have one more, though, not entirely
related to the present post's discussion.

You said early on that TORQUE and WORK were
not the same thing at all except that they
shared the units used.

I still have yet to puzzle out what is so much
different between the two EXCEPT that direction
of the FORCE applied over a length has been
added to create TORQUE as opposed to WORK.

The concept of horsepower was originally
formulated on the basis of WORK, that is
moving a FORCE over a LENGTH in a given
period of time. Yet today we use TORQUE in
place of WORK for formulating HORSEPOWER
in a rotating engine.

In any case, whether it's TORQUE or WORK,
HORSEPOWER = 550 FT-POUNDS/SECOND.
The difference being that you would use
RPM (or more correctly RPS) for the TIME
component.

I'm sure there are mathematical reasons for
the answers to come out the same even though
the components are slightly different, it
still says to me that the concepts of WORK
and TORQUE while slightly different, are very
closely related. This I think was the beginning
of the discussion.



Yes, torque and work are very closely related. In SI units, Torque is
work done per radian of revolution (a radian is about 57 degrees) If you
apply a torque of 1 Newton-Meter and move through an angle of one radian
you have done 1 Newton-Meter or 1 Joule of work. If you apply a torque
of 1 Newton-Meter and move through a complete revolution, you have done
2*pi Joules of work. If you apply a torque and nothing moves, you do no
work.


So I guess that TORQUE can be analogous to WORK when there is
movement and it can be analogous to FORCE if there is no movement?

And if you know the torque and revolutions per minute you can calculate
the rate of work (i.e. power). Hence the familiar relationship between
torque, Horsepower, and rpm from automotive engineering.

To sum up:

Power is work per unit time

yes

Force is work per unit distance

no, work is force per unit distance

Torque is work per unit angle

Yes, but if you say it this way, you have
strongly implied motion because WORK is
FORCE per unit DISTANCE. Yet you and Klaus
are convincing me that TORQUE can exist
without movement. See my question above.

See below. You can also say that TORQUE
is ENERGY per unit angle.

RPM is angle per unit time

Yes, which is why the horsepower equation
works with either work over time or torque
over RPS, the angles cancel each other so
the actual units match foot-lbs/second x 550
--------------------------------------------------

Actually I think I just got it here and it goes back
to my thoughts on potential this and that.

It's the difference between WORK and ENERGY.
WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, yes?

ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.

Trouble is, we don't have two different terms to
describe TORQUE with movement or without movement.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
  #106  
Old February 20th 07, 10:05 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:


Ok, well I think we're making some progress


To sum up:

Power is work per unit time

yes


YES!


Force is work per unit distance


no, work is force per unit distance


Um, no.

Work = Force times distance
W = F x d

rearranging,

F = W/d or in words, force is work per unit distance.

If you apply a 1 newton force and let it act though 1 meter you get one
joule. And if the force stays constant you do one joule of work for
every meter you travel. i.e. energy per unit distance.


Torque is work per unit angle


Yes, but if you say it this way, you have
strongly implied motion...


Not really. It only implies that if the angle of motion is zero, there
is zero work.


See below. You can also say that TORQUE
is ENERGY per unit angle.


YES!!!


Actually I think I just got it here and it goes back
to my thoughts on potential this and that.

It's the difference between WORK and ENERGY.


There is not much difference between WORK and ENERGY. They are
basically different words for the same concept.


WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, yes?


yes.


ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.


No, ENERGY is not the same thing as FORCE.

When a FORCE acts through a distance you get ENERGY.
When a TORQUE acts through an angle you get ENERGY.

You need the motion to get the ENERGY, but the FORCE or the TORQUE can
exist without the motion.


Trouble is, we don't have two different terms to
describe TORQUE with movement or without movement.


We don't have it because we don't need it.


//Walt



  #107  
Old February 20th 07, 10:21 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,864
Default Can I set my own bindings?

In article ,
VtSkier wrote:

Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

Help me out a little more with VECTOR here.


I don't know that I can teach you vectors over the interwebs. Back when
I used to teach college calculus it would take most students the better
part of a semester to really "get" it. And without recourse to
mathematical notation, I'm kind of limited. Sorry, but it's kind of
like trying to teach skiing in a text only medium - you can only go so
far before you start sounding like foot to foot.


I actually took a calculus course once. It was taught
as a "pure" discipline and you were to use the rules
and apply them as taught. Nowhere was there any
explanation of WHY these rules were taught and WHAT
the math could be used for. IF I had been told that
the math was to describe motion and rate of change,
I might have found a reason to actually learn the stuff.

As it is, I excel in trig and geometry because I was
shown practical applications from the get-go.

It took two tries to pass calculus and the second time
I only passed because I had taken it before and the
instructor's first language was not English and he
graded on a curve in a class where NO ONE had a clue.

I hope your teaching was as patient and thoughtful
as your explanations here have been.

I still have one more, though, not entirely
related to the present post's discussion.

You said early on that TORQUE and WORK were
not the same thing at all except that they
shared the units used.

I still have yet to puzzle out what is so much
different between the two EXCEPT that direction
of the FORCE applied over a length has been
added to create TORQUE as opposed to WORK.

The concept of horsepower was originally
formulated on the basis of WORK, that is
moving a FORCE over a LENGTH in a given
period of time. Yet today we use TORQUE in
place of WORK for formulating HORSEPOWER
in a rotating engine.

In any case, whether it's TORQUE or WORK,
HORSEPOWER = 550 FT-POUNDS/SECOND.
The difference being that you would use
RPM (or more correctly RPS) for the TIME
component.

I'm sure there are mathematical reasons for
the answers to come out the same even though
the components are slightly different, it
still says to me that the concepts of WORK
and TORQUE while slightly different, are very
closely related. This I think was the beginning
of the discussion.



Yes, torque and work are very closely related. In SI units, Torque is
work done per radian of revolution (a radian is about 57 degrees) If you
apply a torque of 1 Newton-Meter and move through an angle of one radian
you have done 1 Newton-Meter or 1 Joule of work. If you apply a torque
of 1 Newton-Meter and move through a complete revolution, you have done
2*pi Joules of work. If you apply a torque and nothing moves, you do no
work.


So I guess that TORQUE can be analogous to WORK when there is
movement and it can be analogous to FORCE if there is no movement?


Sigh

No. TORQUE can never be analogous to WORK. TORQUE is the rotational
analog of FORCE.

It does *not* require there to be any movement of the system for there
to be torque, just as there doesn't need to be any movement of the
system for there to be a force applied in a linear motion system.


And if you know the torque and revolutions per minute you can calculate
the rate of work (i.e. power). Hence the familiar relationship between
torque, Horsepower, and rpm from automotive engineering.

To sum up:

Power is work per unit time

yes

Force is work per unit distance

no, work is force per unit distance


No. W = Fd.

Work is force *times* distance, and thus Force is work/unit distance.


Torque is work per unit angle

Yes, but if you say it this way, you have
strongly implied motion because WORK is
FORCE per unit DISTANCE. Yet you and Klaus
are convincing me that TORQUE can exist
without movement. See my question above.


No. He's implied that if there is *WORK* done then there must be *both*
TORQUE and rotation or FORCE and DISPLACEMENT.


See below. You can also say that TORQUE
is ENERGY per unit angle.

RPM is angle per unit time

Yes, which is why the horsepower equation
works with either work over time or torque
over RPS, the angles cancel each other so
the actual units match foot-lbs/second x 550


Wrong again. Horsepower isn't torque *over* RPM, it is torque *times*
RPM.

--------------------------------------------------

Actually I think I just got it here and it goes back
to my thoughts on potential this and that.

It's the difference between WORK and ENERGY.
WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, yes?

ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.


No. Utterly incorrect. Place a weight on a table: the table will exert
an upward force on the weight (if it didn't, gravity would continue to
move the weight downward) yet no energy is expended.


Trouble is, we don't have two different terms to
describe TORQUE with movement or without movement.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html


Because there is no need for one; just as there is no need for two terms
to describe force with and without movement.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
  #108  
Old February 20th 07, 10:51 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:


Ok, well I think we're making some progress


To sum up:

Power is work per unit time

yes


YES!


Force is work per unit distance


no, work is force per unit distance


Um, no.

Work = Force times distance
W = F x d

rearranging,

F = W/d or in words, force is work per unit distance.


OK...
So work is: Work = Lbs x feet = pound-feet
therefo Force = pound-feet/feet = pounds
I can buy that force is work with the distance
removed, but what's the point?

If you apply a 1 newton force and let it act though 1 meter you get one
joule. And if the force stays constant you do one joule of work for
every meter you travel. i.e. energy per unit distance.


Torque is work per unit angle


Yes, but if you say it this way, you have
strongly implied motion...


Not really. It only implies that if the angle of motion is zero, there
is zero work.


See below. You can also say that TORQUE
is ENERGY per unit angle.


YES!!!


Actually I think I just got it here and it goes back
to my thoughts on potential this and that.

It's the difference between WORK and ENERGY.


There is not much difference between WORK and ENERGY. They are
basically different words for the same concept.


Same concept yes, in that Torque with and without
movement are the same concept, which I'm just now
getting.

WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, yes?


yes.


ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.


No, ENERGY is not the same thing as FORCE.


I didn't say it was, see the URL I cited on this subject
which I don't see in this reply. I did say that work
and energy use the same units and that those concepts
were similar.

Try this again, you erased it in your reply:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

When a FORCE acts through a distance, you get WORK
When you apply FORCE to an object, you get ENERGY, but no WORK

When you apply WORK through and angle, you TORQUE
with a value greater than zero. There is movement.

When you apply only ENERGY through an angle, you
get TORQUE with a value of zero. There is no movement.

When a FORCE acts through a distance you get ENERGY.
When a TORQUE acts through an angle you get ENERGY.


Again, see the above cite.

You need the motion to get the ENERGY, but the FORCE or the TORQUE can
exist without the motion.


You are making FORCE and TORQUE synonymous again. It's not
and never was.

Trouble is, we don't have two different terms to
describe TORQUE with movement or without movement.


We don't have it because we don't need it.


Maybe we don't, but it would be helpful.

  #109  
Old February 20th 07, 10:56 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
VtSkier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,233
Default Can I set my own bindings?

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
VtSkier wrote:

Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:

Help me out a little more with VECTOR here.
I don't know that I can teach you vectors over the interwebs. Back when
I used to teach college calculus it would take most students the better
part of a semester to really "get" it. And without recourse to
mathematical notation, I'm kind of limited. Sorry, but it's kind of
like trying to teach skiing in a text only medium - you can only go so
far before you start sounding like foot to foot.

I actually took a calculus course once. It was taught
as a "pure" discipline and you were to use the rules
and apply them as taught. Nowhere was there any
explanation of WHY these rules were taught and WHAT
the math could be used for. IF I had been told that
the math was to describe motion and rate of change,
I might have found a reason to actually learn the stuff.

As it is, I excel in trig and geometry because I was
shown practical applications from the get-go.

It took two tries to pass calculus and the second time
I only passed because I had taken it before and the
instructor's first language was not English and he
graded on a curve in a class where NO ONE had a clue.

I hope your teaching was as patient and thoughtful
as your explanations here have been.

I still have one more, though, not entirely
related to the present post's discussion.

You said early on that TORQUE and WORK were
not the same thing at all except that they
shared the units used.

I still have yet to puzzle out what is so much
different between the two EXCEPT that direction
of the FORCE applied over a length has been
added to create TORQUE as opposed to WORK.

The concept of horsepower was originally
formulated on the basis of WORK, that is
moving a FORCE over a LENGTH in a given
period of time. Yet today we use TORQUE in
place of WORK for formulating HORSEPOWER
in a rotating engine.

In any case, whether it's TORQUE or WORK,
HORSEPOWER = 550 FT-POUNDS/SECOND.
The difference being that you would use
RPM (or more correctly RPS) for the TIME
component.

I'm sure there are mathematical reasons for
the answers to come out the same even though
the components are slightly different, it
still says to me that the concepts of WORK
and TORQUE while slightly different, are very
closely related. This I think was the beginning
of the discussion.

Yes, torque and work are very closely related. In SI units, Torque is
work done per radian of revolution (a radian is about 57 degrees) If you
apply a torque of 1 Newton-Meter and move through an angle of one radian
you have done 1 Newton-Meter or 1 Joule of work. If you apply a torque
of 1 Newton-Meter and move through a complete revolution, you have done
2*pi Joules of work. If you apply a torque and nothing moves, you do no
work.

So I guess that TORQUE can be analogous to WORK when there is
movement and it can be analogous to FORCE if there is no movement?


Sigh

No. TORQUE can never be analogous to WORK. TORQUE is the rotational
analog of FORCE.

It does *not* require there to be any movement of the system for there
to be torque, just as there doesn't need to be any movement of the
system for there to be a force applied in a linear motion system.

And if you know the torque and revolutions per minute you can calculate
the rate of work (i.e. power). Hence the familiar relationship between
torque, Horsepower, and rpm from automotive engineering.

To sum up:

Power is work per unit time

yes

Force is work per unit distance

no, work is force per unit distance


No. W = Fd.

Work is force *times* distance, and thus Force is work/unit distance.

Torque is work per unit angle

Yes, but if you say it this way, you have
strongly implied motion because WORK is
FORCE per unit DISTANCE. Yet you and Klaus
are convincing me that TORQUE can exist
without movement. See my question above.


No. He's implied that if there is *WORK* done then there must be *both*
TORQUE and rotation or FORCE and DISPLACEMENT.

See below. You can also say that TORQUE
is ENERGY per unit angle.

RPM is angle per unit time

Yes, which is why the horsepower equation
works with either work over time or torque
over RPS, the angles cancel each other so
the actual units match foot-lbs/second x 550


Wrong again. Horsepower isn't torque *over* RPM, it is torque *times*
RPM.

--------------------------------------------------

Actually I think I just got it here and it goes back
to my thoughts on potential this and that.

It's the difference between WORK and ENERGY.
WORK = FORCE x DISTANCE, yes?

ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.


No. Utterly incorrect. Place a weight on a table: the table will exert
an upward force on the weight (if it didn't, gravity would continue to
move the weight downward) yet no energy is expended.


and there is no movement.

Trouble is, we don't have two different terms to
describe TORQUE with movement or without movement.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html


Because there is no need for one; just as there is no need for two terms
to describe force with and without movement.


Alan, I'm doing better here with Walt. At least he
has some patience with an old fart stuck in the last
century, maybe the century before.
  #110  
Old February 20th 07, 11:25 PM posted to rec.skiing.alpine
Walt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,188
Default Can I set my own bindings?

VtSkier wrote:
Walt wrote:
VtSkier wrote:


ENERGY = FORCE applied to an object yet it doesn't move.


No, ENERGY is not the same thing as FORCE.


I didn't say it was...


You see, this is why we are having trouble communicating. When I see
the equals sign it means something specific to me, i.e. the things on
either side of it are the same.

Obviously, it means something different to you.

Likewise, the terms FORCE ENERGY TORQUE etc have very specific meanings
to me, but you are bandying about these terms without regard to their
standard meaning in physics - that makes it rather hard to have a
discussion.

It's like trying to parse something like "I had my bindings waxed and
now the moguls don't hurt my feet when I schuss across the hill in a
parallel stem-christie wedge turn."

It's hard to follow what the heck the person is on about.

//walt

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Salomon Relay XLT Bindings - perception and sizing dengel Snowboarding 0 January 19th 07 08:59 PM
Bindings Advice Sought Espressopithecus Alpine Skiing 10 January 7th 07 02:22 AM
Bindings from straight skiis suitable for for shaped? [email protected] Alpine Skiing 7 October 14th 05 05:48 PM
Mounting alpine bindings Terry Hill Alpine Skiing 26 December 6th 03 06:51 AM
Atomic Ski Bindings - 4.12 or 6.14 which is better for me? Christopher Luke Alpine Skiing 7 August 10th 03 03:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.