High Sierra Topix

I'm a poor skier. That's one reason I broke my ankle skiing this year.

Ian - thanks for this great report ! Wonderful photos, and such great clear weather (until your windy night, which would have made me pretty miserable). I liked your haiku, AND C9's haiku in response to it.
Being a former alpine skier (having only done x/c a couple times, and never on touring-style skis), I am curious about how it works ... i.e. how your boot interacts with the binding. And by "3-pin" binding, is it an old-school telemark setup, or fixed-heel ? I'm sure this is a dumb question, but curious nonetheless.
Got any closeup photos ?

Hi Mike/grampy,
I have linked a video of a guy who skis around the arctic, and sometimes uses the 3-pin binding setup. You will see how it works in the first couple minutes of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiUBPsum7nY

I have always loved the ease of entry with 3-pins, but on this trip, for some reason I was having difficulty getting the 3 holes lined up on one ski.
The boots I use with this setup are so much more comfortable, and lighter, and better for climbing (even with the duckbill) than my expensive AT boots.
I recommend 3 pin bindings, and then Gogd added the knowledge that they are safer than other bindings, even though they do not release?? There may be differing opinions on that safety point-- perhaps c9h13no3 will chime in?

Thanks for the comments Mike.

And tomba, we're very sorry to hear about the broken ankle. What stage of recovery are you currently in Tomas? Did you choose the hard cast or soft? Mine has healed about 90% since the injury in March of 2023. As folks here predicted, it was the ligament damage that was hardest to heal. Do you know the extent of the ligament damage? Good luck with your recovery, Ian and Lizzie.

I can walk now, but I have to wear a CAM boot. No cast.

Harlen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:47 pmThere may be differing opinions on that safety point-- perhaps c9h13no3 will chime in?

I mean, this is a long topic, but I'll try to keep it concise. Both AT bindings (ISO 13992) & alpine downhill bindings (ISO 9462) have a release standard. Tele skis do not. AT bindings have a less reliable release than alpine ones, but having an engineer think about these sorts of things is better than not.

Tele gear is niche now. If you're worried about stuff like releasability or weight or whatever you're going to lose to big market players that have more resources. You should use tele gear if you like telemark skiing, and that's about what it boils down to.

Harlen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:48 pm .. something Gogd says about 3-pin bindings being the very safest arrangement

I believe this is the post you are referring to.
viewtopic.php?p=179632#p179632

Ed

Hey Ed, long time. We hope your health issues have been resolved for the best, or at least that they are they are coming around toward success.
Thank you for linking us to your experience with the different binding setups. Here it is:

You wrote:

Harlen ,
I cannot put an exact explanation on why 3-P is safer, but have some theories. That said, the research compared the injury rate of skiers using different equipment under different circumstances. The general conclusion is 3-P has a lower likelihood of injury than all other boot/binding/ski technologies on every type terrain class. So I base my statement solely on the statistics. But If one wishes to read between the lines, there are several possible explanations.
The boots used with Rondonée and tech bindings have little to no torsional twist, thus this force is more readily transferred up into the ankle and leg.
The boots used with Rondonée and tech bindings often have a "walk" mode, allowing pivot in the ankle, and a "downhill" mode where the ankle pivot is locked or restricted. The locked, downhill mode can result in transmitting more force in that axis up into the ankle and leg in certain situations.
The dimensional geometry of 3-P bindings preclude the skier from getting into the really gonzo stuff, because the binding interferes with setting your edges on steep slopes.
Tech and Rondonée instill a greater sense of confidence, encouraging some skiers to attempt terrain beyond their ability.
The mechanics of 3-P telemark skiing require more highly refined techniques. Alpine and AT skiing are to 3-P telemarking what modern dance is to classical ballet. The 3-P skier is compelled to stay more focused on execution, therefore less likely to screw up. Furthermore the technical demands of 3-P skiing reduce the likelihood of underprepared skiers from even considering getting onto the dance floor.
The research did specifically conclude tech bindings are less safe on piste than alpine bindings, thus discouraged skiing with tech bindings at resorts, and suggested limiting that activity for when practicing in preparation for BC skiing.

Harlen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 5:51 pm Hey Ed.. ..Thank you for linking us to your experience with the different binding setups.

For the record: the possible explanations I shared are were my own hunches, based on data compiled in an actual academic research effort, surveying orthopedists and sports medicine professionals. My own experiences are limited to std alpine and Nordic three pin bindings.

Ed

Gogd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 3:03 pm For the record: the possible explanations I shared are were my own hunches, based on data compiled in an actual academic research effort, surveying orthopedists and sports medicine professionals.

I mean, you can find papers that state the opposite.

For example, this one:

Injury rates/1000 skier days in 1995–1996 were 3.3 (95% CI: 3.27, 3.35) for downhill skiers, 4.1 (95% CI: 3.32, 5.22) for telemark skiers, and 6.8 (95% CI: 6.54, 7.00) for snowboarders.

But the difference in your life between 4.1 and 3.3 injuries per 1000 days is largely meaningless. No one is going to quit Tele'ing because it might give you a 0.08% higher chance of getting injured on any particular day. We're not talking about base jumping vs. bowling, it's pretty much the same.

If I were learning or planning to hit the terrain park (planning to fall a lot, so small differences may matter), I’d want a modern alpine binding. Otherwise it isn’t a factor.

So yeah, ski what you like.

c9h13no3 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:03 am
..you can find papers...

Indeed!
We may in fact be nitpicking what the numbers say. And your comment actually alludes to far more than just the numbers.

I tried looking for the research I cited, but could not find it. But keeping your POV in mind, I noticed most of the research was conducted prior to 2000. So much equipment innovation has occurred in the meantime, making the relevance of these research efforts moot. Also a close examination of study designs indicates a failure to distinguish between the various Nordic boot and binding technologies. They often lump all non-alpine skiing into a one size fits all - telemark. Yet anyone who has dabbled with the myriad ski equipment technologies knows alpine, trad free-heel tele, free-heel cable tele, locked-down AT, free-heel AT tele, and AT walk-mode all have unique force dynamic profiles and effects on the skier's body.

What I found most compelling were the anecdotal comments accompanying many of the articles on the web, identifying factors that were insufficiently addressed by all the research I have come across. All of the studies focused mostly on objective data that can be measured by instrumentation: force data, force vectors, velocities, slope angle, etc. The researchers usually relied upon subjects providing a self-assessment of skill level, versus a more formal assessment thereof. Reading the comments it is apparent additional factors unrelated to the equipment also have an influence on safety.

Access and availing to effect technique instruction.
The robust nature of alpine gear enables skiers with poor technique to skid, slide and bomb their way down green and certain blue runs in relative safety, while still finding gratification. If they should desire more from the experience, they can avail to the abundance of formal instruction options offered in most any resort; however, access to formal tele skiing instruction is limited. Even resorts that offer tele lessons have limited staff formally trained as tele instructors. So a given resort may have a totally competent instructor or three; the fact is one instructor's coaching style may work better than another for a particular client. Failing to find that match among the limited pool of instructors, the would-be tele student may not achieve the insights the skier aspires to gain. The limited access to tele lessons has also lead to most Tele skiers being self taught. These folks often never get good enough to attempt a blue run at a resort, and struggle with anything more than gentle off-piste terrain. They lack proper technique, this adversely affecting their skill and safety level. I have seen some tele skiers rip challenging runs, leading one to assume they are "expert" skiers. Yet the trained eye can spot significant flaws that increase the likelihood of an eventual injury.

The vast majority of research was conducted on resort slopes. There is a lack of robust research comparing injury rates among different equipment in the backcountry. This is probably due to the difficulty of organizing such a study, as there are not dependable sources for data collection. Many injured skiers self-rescue, thus do not get attended to by SAR; skiers often seek medical attention at facilities close to home, thus requiring a huge effort to collect this data; and clinical data records (in the US) typically categorize injuries by activity type. All skiing related injuries usually get lumped into the "ski" category, with no effort made to formally subcategorize by technique and equipment.

The motives of the skier also is not taken into consideration. Some ski the backcountry as a mode of travel, while other are primarily interested in skiing as a sport, sending remote, downhill runs. That is not to say a ski trekkers with limited skills do not end up on challenging terrain, but they are not likely to drop into the fall line and rip it. In any case it is obvious the willingness to accept different levels of risk will affect injury level and injury type.

There is a bunch more; however, TLDR is making me restless, and I have an important event I need to prepare for. But good comments, Mr. Adrenaline.

Ed