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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
-----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----- |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
-----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----- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 ============================================== |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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)..." |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 . . . |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 ============================================== |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
removing rear fastener on sns profil binding | Chris Crawford | Nordic Skiing | 3 | February 26th 05 12:29 AM |
need help - not your avg binding settings question. | Squirrel123 | Snowboarding | 1 | February 16th 05 05:31 AM |
flow binding warning | [email protected] | Snowboarding | 8 | February 18th 04 03:04 PM |
can only ride with my back binding loose - why? | Dmitry | Snowboarding | 8 | December 12th 03 01:25 AM |
Pilot binding system -- what's the point? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 1 | August 14th 03 03:28 PM |