Tyrolia Protector Series of Bindings

[Philpug]

Okay so I bought the protector pr from outdoorXL, shipped with no powerRails. They insist it doesn't come with any. Where can I get powerRails separately?

Like Slider says. The are available with and without rails, without, if someone wants to swap bindings from a current system ski ... but woulnd't you need rails for that binding you took off? IMHO it was an easy miss for shops to order the wrong version. The ones with rails are called "set".

 

[tomahawkins]

Right so adjustment range is 260bsl to 380, when mounted 20cm between binding screws, which makes 320bsl the middle mount of the rail.

So for a 305bsl, if I change the mount distance between binding screws to 18.5cm, then 305bsl will be the centre of the rails, and I'll have maximum adjustment forward and rearward (+/- 6cm?) for 305BSL?

If you can wait a day or so I can code up a template that maximizes adjustment range for a given BSL.

GitHub - tomahawkins/binding-templates: Alpine binding mounting templates.

Alpine binding mounting templates. Contribute to tomahawkins/binding-templates development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[Uncle-A]

It would be nice to know what set of existing Tyrolia rails the Protector binding would just slide on to fit? Would they fit on my Head labeled Tyrolia binding?

 

[tomahawkins]

Right so adjustment range is 260bsl to 380, when mounted 20cm between binding screws, which makes 320bsl the middle mount of the rail.

So for a 305bsl, if I change the mount distance between binding screws to 18.5cm, then 305bsl will be the centre of the rails, and I'll have maximum adjustment forward and rearward (+/- 6cm?) for 305BSL?

@coercion, try these -- in a 2x4 first. It should place the Tyrolia Twin BR Bases to maximize the fore/aft adjustment range given a specific BSL. Of course, completely unverified.

binding-templates/tyrolia-twin-pr-base at master · tomahawkins/binding-templates

Alpine binding mounting templates. Contribute to tomahawkins/binding-templates development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[coercion]

@coercion, try these -- in a 2x4 first. It should place the Tyrolia Twin BR Bases to maximize the fore/aft adjustment range given a specific BSL. Of course, completely unverified.

binding-templates/tyrolia-twin-pr-base at master · tomahawkins/binding-templates

Alpine binding mounting templates. Contribute to tomahawkins/binding-templates development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

Thanks appreciate that. Very awesome.

I ended up buying a set of 2022 rock skis with a good base that had some (normal) attack demo 13s on them. The protector pr heel and toe both fit the rear demo rail. Nothing fits the toe rail. So I guess I might miss and match protector heel with attack toe.

They asking for $110 for twin pr rails where I live. I want to replace the toe but not for this much. I ordered rails from Colorado discount skis online, we'll see if they post individual rails to Aus.

So what are people setting the lateral heel release to? Same as DIN?

 

[Philpug]

So what are people setting the lateral heel release to? Same as DIN?

That is the design. With that said, I have been skiing ours as low as 4 in the heel for the lateral release and have yet to prerelease.

 

[tomahawkins]

They asking for $110 for twin pr rails where I live. I want to replace the toe but not for this much. I ordered rails from Colorado discount skis online, we'll see if they post individual rails to Aus.

Ask any Tyrolia dealer to order them for you. I got them through REI for $10 per pair.

 

[coercion]

Near perfect binding?
View attachment 200199

How so?

 

[Philpug]

Near perfect binding?
View attachment 200199

I have some Look toe lifters if you need?

 

[PupManS]

So having ordered and mounted a set of PR Protectors on my Blossoms that used to have PRD, and Attack Protectors on my Line Blades this season, I'm pretty convinced; I had an ugly fall where I'm almost certain I released laterally out of the heel and I was in a spot where getting a sled in would have been UGLY. The weight is higher but a small price to pay. The higher step in effort is a thing, but I don't feel I would need this protection on my bottomless skis due to the way I ski powder and what I do on those. That just leaves stand height.

So I'm thinking of just updating most of the quiver to these things. I am hearing that non-demo versions are coming. However, after examining the Attack heels pretty thoroughly, I'm really not seeing that they would be materially lower in stack height; the clearance the Powerrail is providing is effectively where the brakes can sit without interfering with the lateral release mechanism. I would THINK that if they make a fixed heel version, they would still need some sort of spacer to allow brake function.

@Philpug or anyone with knowledge of coming products, does anyone think the fixed heel versions are going to be lower stand height? I'm asking because of my 95-115 waist type skis; I ran PRDs on groomer skis before anyway so no change there.

So if they make a non-demo version, maybe the point is slight weight reduction? But the tracks really aren't heavy. I'm trying to figure out the additional value they would offer, if any. Otherwise, I'm going to buy up the stock at Corbett's for 300 CAD each. Particularly if they might get litigated out of production.

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug or anyone with knowledge of coming products, does anyone think the fixed heel versions are going to be lower stand height? I'm asking because of my 95-115 waist type skis; I ran PRDs on groomer skis before anyway so no change there.

With the amount of mechanisms under the heel, I doubt we are going to see a lower version.

 

[Nobody]

Particularly if they might get litigated out of production

I admit not having read the whole 23 pages, lately. But is a possible litigation, with the aim to put the protector out of production/sales by a "competitor", a thing in the coming?
If I were a competitor, and seeing the kind of buzz (and not only buzz) this product is rising in the social circles.. I would scramble to either
-Produce own version
-Work at a possible licensing agreement

 

[David]

I admit not having read the whole 23 pages, lately. But is a possible litigation, with the aim to put the protector out of production/sales by a "competitor", a thing in the coming?
If I were a competitor, and seeing the kind of buzz (and not only buzz) this product is rising in the social circles.. I would scramble to either
-Produce own version
-Work at a possible licensing agreement

I think the litigator will offer an agreement and then do the same with all the other binding companies too. They'd make a ton of money and not have to manufacture and sell a new binding.

 

[PupManS]

I think the litigator will offer an agreement and then do the same with all the other binding companies too. They'd make a ton of money and not have to manufacture and sell a new binding.

The problem (For Tyrolia) is that it would be VERY hard to accept a licensing agreement while protecting their own IP (assuming they have some of their own and not just what they allegedly infringed). While paying to license the patent might be unattractive for them, it's just money. On the other hand, if every other firm can license it too and make their own patent, the potential loss is a lot higher.

From a business perspective, you take a high margin differentiated product and very quickly it turns into binding priced same as they always have been, except your margin is lower, because you're paying licensing fees, and presumably the Protector has higher manufacturing cost than the Attack and PRD it's based on - more moving parts, the tracks, etc.

 

[onenerdykid]

Here's the official lawsuit:

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/VermontSafetyDevelopmentsLLCvHeadSportGmbHDocketNo223cv00089DVtMa?doc_id=X18MIV2UACV9FROA5RM1P7KS9J5

 

[Philpug]

The problem (For Tyrolia) is that it would be VERY hard to accept a licensing agreement while protecting their own IP (assuming they have some of their own and not just what they allegedly infringed).

Tyrolia has their own patents on their Protector heel.

 

[eok]

Vermont Safety Developments LLC was apparently created in Feb 2023. It's associated with Composite Developments Inc (been around for decades), which is Dodge's company.

I read the full 27 pages of the complaint. I'd have to see Head's response to develop a fair opinion.

It seems like Head apparently used Ettlinger/Dodge as a resource (like consultants) - so I'm curious if sufficient aggreements/NDAs were signed for the engagement?? If not then I'm left shaking my head & rolling my eyes.

As kind of a relevant factoid...

Back around 2016/2017, Bosch came out with a "safer" table saw that competed with Sawstop. Up until that point Sawstop had absolutely zero competition in the "safe table saw" niche. Bosch clearly spent a lot of effort & dollars to create a saw safety system that was quite different from their competitor. You can read for yourself about the debacle here: https://www.protoolreviews.com/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/

But, in the end, Bosch lost and had to pull the saws, the saw's parts and the key consumable safety parts completely off the market. This made the saws worthless to consumers who had previously purchased the saws. Ug.

 

[BigSlick]

Vermont Safety Developments LLC was apparently created in Feb 2023. It's associated with Composite Developments Inc (been around for decades), which is Dodge's company.

I read the full 27 pages of the complaint. I'd have to see Head's response to develop a fair opinion.

It seems like Head apparently used Ettlinger/Dodge as a resource (like consultants) - so I'm curious if sufficient aggreements/NDAs were signed for the engagement?? If not then I'm left shaking my head & rolling my eyes.

As kind of a relevant factoid...

Back around 2016/2017, Bosch came out with a "safer" table saw that competed with Sawstop. Up until that point Sawstop had absolutely zero competition in the "safe table saw" niche. Bosch clearly spent a lot of effort & dollars to create a saw safety system that was quite different from their competitor. You can read for yourself about the debacle here: https://www.protoolreviews.com/sawstop-vs-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/

But, in the end, Bosch lost and had to pull the saws, the saw's parts and the key consumable safety parts completely off the market. This made the saws worthless to consumers who had previously purchased the saws. Ug.

Apples and Oranges. The Bosch case was an ITC proceeding where the main remedy is a prohibition on the importation of infringing products/parts: "On January 27, 2017, the ITC instituted a ban prohibiting the import of REAXX table saws into the U.S."

In US Patent litigation, injunctions are extremely hard to get as the normal remedy is a reasonable royalty (or actual damages). Since Vermont Safety doesn't appear to be a true competitor or even sells bindings, they won't get an injunction. For that same reason, they'd be better offer getting a royalty for each binding that Head sells. The only wildcard is whether Head actually used any proprietary information that was subject to an NDA in its product or patent. If so, then an injunction *might* be warranted in addition to the possible invalidation of Head's patent if it is based on that proprietary information.

 

[PupManS]

Apples and Oranges. The Bosch case was an ITC proceeding where the main remedy is a prohibition on the importation of infringing products/parts: "On January 27, 2017, the ITC instituted a ban prohibiting the import of REAXX table saws into the U.S."

In US Patent litigation, injunctions are extremely hard to get as the normal remedy is a reasonable royalty (or actual damages). Since Vermont Safety doesn't appear to be a true competitor or even sells bindings, they won't get an injunction. For that same reason, they'd be better offer getting a royalty for each binding that Head sells. The only wildcard is whether Head actually used any proprietary information that was subject to an NDA in its product or patent. If so, then an injunction *might* be warranted in addition to the possible invalidation of Head's patent if it is based on that proprietary information.

That would be my worry if I were Head. You have to pay VSD? Ok. But the two downsides beyond that:

1) losing the case (or settling and licensing) may invalidate some or all of Head's patent
2) If anyone can license it from VSD and build the thing, it's a much larger potential dilution of profit as that will depress the premium Head can charge for what is, at present, highly differentiated. And if #1 happens and some of their patent is invalidated, it's even worse.

Based on what I read - I'm not an IP lawyer but I do consulting that deals with IP coming out of engagements on a regular basis, who owns it, etc- all the information about Head asking a ton of questions makes them SOUND like villains but it doesn't mean much legally unless there was a contract between Head and VSD that was clear about who owns the resulting IP. Talk is cheap!

Having many conversations with someone, extracting knowledge out of their head, building a product based on that knowledge and then not compensating them is unsavory, but it's not illegal.

 

[eok]

Apples and Oranges. The Bosch case was an ITC proceeding where the main remedy is a prohibition on the importation of infringing products/parts: "On January 27, 2017, the ITC instituted a ban prohibiting the import of REAXX table saws into the U.S."

Yes, that's why I led off with "Kind of a relevant factoid".

In US Patent litigation, injunctions are extremely hard to get as the normal remedy is a reasonable royalty (or actual damages). Since Vermont Safety doesn't appear to be a true competitor or even sells bindings, they won't get an injunction. For that same reason, they'd be better offer getting a royalty for each binding that Head sells. The only wildcard is whether Head actually used any proprietary information that was subject to an NDA in its product or patent. If so, then an injunction *might* be warranted in addition to the possible invalidation of Head's patent if it is based on that proprietary information.

Agreed. But an injunction is a possible outcome of the complaint. That's my concern.

I really appreciate that Head/Tyrolia brought the Protector to market. I want the added ACL safety and was planning to go all-in this summer and get Protectors on all the skis in my quiver.

But, heck, now this VSD vs Head thing has thrown a lot of uncertainty into my mind about the future of the Protector. For example: if an injunction happens... will Protectors remain on the indemnified list like normal binding models??? Since the indemnified list is driven by legal & insurer priorities, I'm guessing the answer may not necessarily be a "yes".