 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I've been skiing tech bindings for over a couple of decades. I very rarely fall. Last season once when someone skied into me I didn't see on a narrow piste.
I don't use them in resort, lift served. I use an alpine binding.
As for the video, no idea about the physics really, Some of what they say would seem to apply to all binding systems. The ski is a big lever after all, if you fall. The principal advantage of an alpine binding is it can release in more directions than a tech binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yeah, I don't understand why this applies to tech and not alpine bindings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
He says that tech bindings are not suitable for skiing 'fast in areas where you might be hitting avalanche debris or trees or stuff'. I wouldn't ski fast on an alpine binding in areas where I might hit avalanche debris or trees.
The discussion only looks at the load that the binding puts on the tibia, no discussion of the load that the binding puts on the ACL (see altis' link). You could use the same physics arguments to argue that alpine bindings put an excessive load on the ACL.
I'm fairly sure that Dodge ski boots don't offer a boot with tech fittings. The boots he manufacturers may not have tech fittings because he doesn't recommend the use of tech bindings, or alternatively, he may not recommend the use of tech bindings because they don't fit the boots he sells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I agree that his point was a little vague. If he had started off with an analysis of the differences between Alpine and Tech bindings, what he was saying may have had more validity. He danced around the fact that Tech toes don't have DIN setting adjustment, then seemed to be making the point that you had to crank up the DIN because the heel released at half the setting in a rear impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What he is saying doesn’t hold up for an impact at the tip of the ski compared to the charts on the wild snow link - here both the alpine and tech bindings release at similar torque (it gets worse for the tech binding the closer the torque is applied to the boot/centre which makes sense for the lever effect he mentions with the boot releasing further away at the heel, rather than closer at the toe for an alpine binding).
What he says looks correct for an impact on the tail, the alpine binding set to DIN 6 releases true, but the tech binding (also set to 6) releases at 3.
Anyone felt that in real life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So vague & out of date with the latest kit (even though they had a Kingpin) it's scary. I'm of the Oceanic train of thought, ie Dodge don't make a tech boot or even a boot with a walk mode so all tech bindings are poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The only time my tech bindings release is when I try to skin up without locking the toe. I try and avoid putting high stresses on my tech setups.
Stripping out all the techno talk I think that is what he was saying and I agree with him. Don’t expect your tech bindings to behave the same as alpine bindings, take it easy. Plus if your a long way from civilisation take it easy on your alpine set up as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
