Vinersa Ski Touring Binding — Added to Museum

Thanks Joe and Roman. Yeah, chrono ascending order sounds like the way to go, I’ll get on it. The challenge is I don’t have solid intro dates for a number of the bindings, but I’ll estimate. Once traveling in Europe is easier, I’m planning on interviewing a bunch of old-timers about the binding development dates. Good excuse to travel around and meet some folks, maybe I’ll sample some pastries or carve into a schnitzel or two. In terms of binding engineering, it’s worth noting that the safety problem with the Ramer binding was that it blocked lateral release at the toe, just as tech bindings do. (Paul Ramer claimed that lack of greasing caused the problem, but I never believed that to be the case, as I knew several people who broke their legs on greased Ramers). So, related to this, certain binding engineers have predicted a rash of tib fractures from tech bindings. It happens, but it’s not an epidemic. As I’m not a mechanical engineer I don’t have a solid answer as to why this is, but I suspect it’s because tech bindings “give” a little at the toe even though the tech binding releases to the side at the heel. The Dynafit rotation concept might even help with this, again not sure. In any case, it’s been amazing to see how well tech bindings have functioned over the years, considering that _in concept_ all they are is a Ramer binding that reverses the toe ball/socket, and uses the boot as the carrier plate by virtue of built-in fittings. Lou