 Poster: A snowHead
|
It came to me whilst reading the ‘conspiracy’ thread, that the whole idea of whacking a screw into a piece of wood is fine for building a garden gate and has been for a good few hundred years. But we don’t slide around on field entrances so why are we still using screws to hang bits of metal and plastic on our skis?
DB brought it up, are my bindings too far forward (ignore the ramp angle thingy) . . . well they may be as I had to go 20 mm forward to avoid the old holes and as I’m using a hybrid ‘tech’, NTN combo, tele mounting is often a bit forward from ‘alpine’ as the toe loading is less. I'm not the only one giving the ‘quads’ a bashing as TangoWagon is sharing the discomfort.
That's also a safety issues as tired muscles and slack responses can kill you in the wrong circumstances.
But coming back to point; On piste performance skis usually come with a rail binding combination that allows a remarkable amount of adjustment . . . nice, most convenient . . . but beyond easing boot fitment, that's all it's used for.
Whereas for those of us going lightweight and tech it's ‘nail ‘em down and job done’! Yet we're the ones skiing in the most mixed conditions where the position of our feet and our mass insertion point into the ski is far more crucial to performance than just keeping the waxy side down on a white billiards table.
I’m a snowboarder (first and always) and there is one thing that a snowboard excels in . . . is soft and deep. It's sensual, zen like, it really is like flying, you can ‘think’ a turn and you are already in the middle of it . . . What makes it thus is our ability to tune our ‘stance’, we can move our bindings to a position where our mass is perfectly balanced in the lift of the snowboard and when that happens it really is little more than a toe twitch or two and we are gliding silent ‘S’ shapes through the trees . . . magic! Not so much on a touring setup unless you have your feet nailed to uber fat boats.
So I’m thinking; It's not really practicable to to have multiple inserts on a ski as there are on a snowboard, nor is a rail system as the weight penalty will be unacceptable . . . BUT! There is a system already in use, well tested, more than strong enough and proven to have minimal if any affect to performance.
The Burton channel mounting system. An internal inverted ‘T’ channel slot that accepts a ‘T’ bolt. It would take little engineering to construct ‘tech’ toes and heels to use this and at the same time allow both easy adjustment for differing boot sized and the ability to move your foot position along the ski by at least 100 mm. . .
Email already sent to Burton regarding licensing the technology and time to build a new PC and renew my AutoCAD licences. 
This thread started as a bit of a joke . . . Had a brainfart in the middle of it and have genuinely mailed Burton . . . may be time to put money where my head is 
https://www.burton.com/blogs/the-burton-blog/story-behind-burtons-one-kind-snowboard-mounting-system-channel/
Imagine if you could drop your bindings back 3 inches with just a flick of a lever when you hit the Champagne . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Thornyhill, just how many times a night does your prostate get you up to visit this wee midden 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
2 cm forward, no wonder your tips dive. Are you going to get them re-mounted - would 1cm back from the centre line be possible?
Would you need two burton channels per ski? how would you ensure the binding are mounted true and not skew wiff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@DB, two bolts per slot like the EST binding and yes two channels though in all practicality one might be adequate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Marker Schizos answer your idea maybe email them too, solves the problem of only being locked into one brand of ski and athe durability issues of the channel I've heard friends moaning about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can move Rotty Freerides a bit too.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Burton tech isn't secret so if it was worthwhile someone would have licensed it. Big no from me based on durability issues.
Find a good mounting point and stick with it for all conditions. That's why it's worth noting mounting points when you demo. I acciddntally mounted my Shiros 15mm back one day and found them a grim lumbering experience. Similarly I the Whitedot ASBOs lost all their desirable Thuglife qualities on the Saga mount position preferred by some people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate I'm not freaking out about keeping the weight down, but I have rail bindings on all my skis (fat skis included) and it's totally the way forward. I do move them dependent on conditions, and it does work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Burton tech isn't secret so if it was worthwhile someone would have licensed it. Big no from me based on durability issues.
Find a good mounting point and stick with it for all conditions. That's why it's worth noting mounting points when you demo. I acciddntally mounted my Shiros 15mm back one day and found them a grim lumbering experience. Similarly I the Whitedot ASBOs lost all their desirable Thuglife qualities on the Saga mount position preferred by some people. |
Endeavour snowboards have licensed it. They're really nice boards - daughter has one, and had no issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Burton tech isn't secret so if it was worthwhile someone would have licensed it. Big no from me based on durability issues.
Find a good mounting point and stick with it for all conditions. That's why it's worth noting mounting points when you demo. I acciddntally mounted my Shiros 15mm back one day and found them a grim lumbering experience. Similarly I the Whitedot ASBOs lost all their desirable Thuglife qualities on the Saga mount position preferred by some people. |
Endeavour snowboards have licensed it. They're really nice boards - daughter has one, and had no issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| dp wrote: |
| I appreciate I'm not freaking out about keeping the weight down, but I have rail bindings on all my skis (fat skis included) and it's totally the way forward. I do move them dependent on conditions, and it does work. |
Your skis snapped in 1/2 #NotAConvinsingArgument 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| hang11 wrote: |
Endeavour snowboards have licensed it. They're really nice boards - daughter has one, and had no issues. |
I meant in skis but perhaps this reinforces my point by showing Burton aren't averse to licensing and yet no ski co has launched i channel skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
This is getting interesting (sorry for the tardy response, today is a 720 mile run and I have to keep my wits about me across the Rockies). . . though a Gordon’s Rangoon and some stupidly priced organic Tonic water is helping the wind down . . . and when da’fook did tonic water become more expensive than Gin !!!!
I'll deal with the reliability issue first:
A snowboard is very thin in relation to most skis and is a far more dynamically stressed object than a pair of skis. In the hands of . . . or rather on the feet of a boarder they are longitudinally bent far more acutely, in both negative and positive values than ever a ski is. Repeated jump landings, butter turns, landing on to slide a rail. Then there are the huge torsional stresses induced when pedalling and carving a snowboard. and remember that a rider’s full body mass is being used to abuse this snow tool with massive leverage forces. The failure rate of the Burton channel system is more down to rider screw-up than inherent fragility. There’s not a skier on this planet that induce the same level of forces into a ski that a snowboarder hammers into a board and that’s just basic geometry and physics.
So now I’m looking at the pictures of the suggested alternatives in existence and all I see are relatively crude variations of the ‘screw it down, unscrew and re screw it down or as an alternative allow an inch or so of adjustment fore and aft and if you want to swap skis in either case it’s a full on dismantling job.
Again we’re looking at excess weight for all the redundant material needed for this limited functionality and the proprietary nature of their manufacture.
With what I’m postulating, it would be relatively simple to engineer a new base plate for an AT binding set to use a two point channel and if you wanted to use your existing system a 5mm mounting plate machined to be as minimal as possible would work as an intermediary between the slot system and your standard screw pattern. You would be able to swap to any channel ski in seconds without any issue.
Then there is the OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE . . . you love your skis but you hate or want to upgrade/change your bindings. There’s no hole drilling, no moving the mounting position to miss the old holes.
I read a lot of people searching to support their negativity rather than look to alternatives.
What I want is to experience the same frisson in the soft stuff on my skis as I do on my board and with the same ease and flexibility of binding and boot choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I've never felt the need for an infinitely adjustable stance on a snowboard and once I get one locked down for a particular board have never needed to tinker much.
I like demo bindings on skis because it lets me find my sweetspot but again would never bother adjusting on the fly. I think you're aiming for a tiny fraction of a niche market with ultralight "rail system" ( because that's what it still is in truth) for people who want AT bindings. I might be wrong you might be on the verge of the dropper post for skis and no self respecting ski geek in future will ski a lap without tweaking mount a couple of times but I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Masque, I don't think moving your binding position makes that much actual difference. It feels a bit different, but that wears off. IME from playing with the hold Ess V.A.R.s back in the 90s. Bought out by Atomic and the v.a.r. thing still exists...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I've never felt the need for an infinitely adjustable stance on a snowboard and once I get one locked down for a particular board have never needed to tinker much. |
I'm lucky enough to have a couple of boards in the resort... and a couple of pairs of skis. I try to pick the board or skis to suit what I intend doing that day but things always change.
Both my piste board and my powder board are Burtons with ICS and the change in binding position is dramatic. My cambered piste board can be used in the powder but needs around 50mm of set back to start floating in a neutral stance. Best of all, the adjustments takes around 2 mins at a lift station tool bench. I have even adjusted them whilst still clipped in (standing on a flat area).
I can see merit in the idea being applied to skis and agree with Masque about the durability of the system. Boards work with considerable tension loads on the track and they don't fail.
I also agree with Masque on the Zen of boarding in powder and the only times I have thought my set up was wrong, was when I was on skis and wishing I was on a board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, @under a new name, Yup, there are people who are perfectly happy with just nailing it down and riding the thing. I've always been a 'horses for courses' rider and played with stance to suit conditions and found sweet spots for both piste and powder. Lately I've had to spend MANY hours to find a setup that works with the metalwork in my leg. Add to that the sheer frustration of having a ski tech completely balls-up your favourite skis.
This thread is not 'just' about binding position, it encompases the whole ‘destroy to fix’ mentality, our willingness to accept a compromise . . . and the ski manufacturer’s desire to sell us more product to suit differing conditions.
We are still based in what is essentially (if David Glisternuss is to be believed) a pre-history concept of how and where are feet should be attached to our toys.
I like the Burton channel system because it’s non-destructive and worth pursuing as it not just offers us a level of flexibility not previously available to us but also think of resale values . . . when you can pass-on or buy second user skis without concern about screw damage or mounting position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Fine but what does it really achieve over a good demo binding - tool-less adjustment ones are now freely available? Only the greater fredom to choose what you mount (provided those binding manufacturers all agree to a norm for channel spacing etc).
The general skiing public don't give a flying feck - I doubt many could even tell you the difference between true centre mounting and chord centre etc. Certainly people by and large delegate the decision on where to mount their skis to the tech doing the mounting and live with it, even keen skiers who may have a substantial quiver. People who do care seek out demo bindings or schizos or whatever. Personally I'd like all bindings to be demo style and the manufacturers to freely sell spare base plates so you can run a quiver off the same binding. But that's not good business to them and the chances of getting normalisation around ichannels on skis is nil. A couple of niche plays for the tiny bit of the market that thinks like you - maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, on the basis of many observations, the majority of the skiing populace don't even know what colour their skis are, let alone anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, the number of skiers moving away from white motorways is growing. A rail binding is nothing more than the inverse to what I'm talking about just with added weight complexity and cost. That you see little value in a simple, robust, flexible and non-destructive binding mount is more about your goals rather than mine.
If there weren't a movement to more people exploring the side and back country then there wouldn't be a large market for fat, lightweight skis, nor the growing plethora of AT bindings. And if people weren't interested in the colour of their skis then there'd be no point in SpyderJon turning up for the EOSB and spending hours to our benefit in setting up demo skis and bindings for us.
Channel spacing, that is already a usable standard and as for existing bindings, a simple flat and cheap machined plate would allow pretty much any to fit into a channel system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errr, the market for "fat, lightweight skis, nor the growing plethora of AT bindings" is surely down to excellent marketing that these are the things to have rather than a (!! huge) market of off piste skiers.
Re "if people weren't interested in the colour of their skis" - you are conflating "people" with "Snowheads". I assure you, most people don't have the first clue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| That you see little value in a simple, robust, flexible and non-destructive binding mount is more about your goals rather than mine. |
Maybe true that I don't see a lot of benefit for me in a system which is unproven in alpine skiing use and little benefit if being a guinea pig. I do see value if it were universal across all skis I may wish to ski, the mounting plates were "type approved" by binding manufacturers and transferable between skis and reasonably priced. But your stated purpose is not really a driver for the industry or a material part of the skiing population and there is an existing solution that meets most of the requirements for all but the weight weeniest. Damage from screwing in a binding is a negligible real world problem - the very great majority of skis never have a binding change and even then they are good for 3 mounts. Personally I like the connection provided by well screwed in bindings/plates and IME the more opportunities you introduce for play in a system the more play will develop in use - I give you the Fritschi Freeride.
So nice idea that will never actually happen due to lack of adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I’m also not convinced about your analysis of the forces, nor their application in the geometries suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I don't want to be negative either.. but... Every single ski I've used that has had any kind of plate, or anything else that affects the flex of the ski has skied waay better after removal. I've seen this with.. Voile telemark release bindings, Fritschi bindings, Marker, Fischer and Salomon rail systems (usually all replaced with a telemark binding). I get that for alpine racing a plate gives added leverage and vibration absorbtion but that isn't something I need in soft snow. Sorry @Masque,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@ski, not sure I understand how you can compare an alpine binding with a telemark one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Masque wrote: |
I’m a snowboarder (first and always) and there is one thing that a snowboard excels in . . . is soft and deep. It's sensual, zen like, it really is like flying, you can ‘think’ a turn and you are already in the middle of it . . . What makes it thus is our ability to tune our ‘stance’, we can move our bindings to a position where our mass is perfectly balanced in the lift of the snowboard and when that happens it really is little more than a toe twitch or two and we are gliding silent ‘S’ shapes through the trees . . . magic! Not so much on a touring setup unless you have your feet nailed to uber fat boats.
|
You made a point (bold was mine) as though it's a foregone conclusion. I don't accept that as is without some solid supporting evidence.
Then, you go on to say "unless you have your feet nailed to uber fat boats". Well, given snowboard ARE uber fat. It goes to reason THAT is more probable the reason behind "what makes it thus" (the floaty, flying experience), instead of the perfect stance you put out earlier.
You just argued against yourself rather successfully, and destroyed whatever motivation you had for your new idea! That's not a great start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@abc, yeah, I’m thinking that a well balanced stance on skis, is, well, a well balanced stance.
I appreciate there seem to be some folks with delta or ramp angle specifics, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Masque, you were too busy arguing the individual points by Dave of the Marmottes, you seem to miss his overall argument:
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Fine but what does it really achieve over a good demo binding - tool-less adjustment ones are now freely available? Only the greater fredom to choose what you mount (provided those binding manufacturers all agree to a norm for channel spacing etc).
|
The current demo binding offers the flexibility your idea just the same. But it's heavy (really heavy). It's clunky.
So, I DO see the advantage of your idea, as a better alternative to the existing demo binding. Further more, it's light enough to be used as a standard binding mount for users who need to adjust their stance on the fly. All without much performance sacrifices. Best of the world. Basically, you have an idea to create a standard akin to the universal boot/binding interface, if ONLY all the ski and binding manufacturers all agree to adopt... Revolutionary!
But to make that a reality, you'll need to start hitting the road (no, not in your truck) to visit as many ski and binding makers as you can get in, to convince them this is the future binding mounting system.
And supposed you're successful in convincing some makers to adopt that system, where does that leaves you? Burton owns the patten of the channel, what can you add to monetize the concept after you put in all the work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Yeah as a long time though largely past snowboarder ( if I ever resolve the nerve impingement issues in my front foot that might change) I'm not sure I buy the tinkering with stance is the special sauce. By all means you have to get it right and it's grim if you aren't in an effective powder stance in powder.
But get it right and you can transition from hard groomer to coral reef to windbuff to pow to breakable crust in a single stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Snowboard bindings are fore-aft adjustable because people have different lengths of leg, and also because it allows people to ride piste boards in powder or vice versa. As skis don't have the first issue, I assume the OP is interested in the second. You don't actually need much variability for that - on a snowboard a couple of cm is lots
=> You don't need a channel.
If you're selling to the sort of people who care about stuff like this, then they most likely have more than one set of gear anyway, so they probably would not use this type of compromise anyway. I don't use it on snowboards, I just pick the right board for the conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@under a new name,
| Quote: |
not sure I understand how you can compare an alpine binding with a telemark one?
|
The thing I was trying to say was that in my experience skis work better (for soft snow) without a plate stuck in or on the ski stiffening the middle of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Once upon a time, Line used to make skis that had 4 M6 holes in a square pattern in the center - much like snowboards. Their bindings had matching holes and ran along rails. The system never stood the test of time but it gave me the idea for what is now known as Quiver Killers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people I know who ride a lot / ride hard have loads of hassle with the Burton / Endeavour channel system anyway. Comes loose constantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stevomcd wrote: |
| Most people I know who ride a lot / ride hard have loads of hassle with the Burton / Endeavour channel system anyway. Comes loose constantly. |
I've never once had that happen in the last 8 years and around two hundred of days of using ICS boards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Waiting on Burton response . . .
@ski, having spoken with a couple of ICS riders, they both say that their boards are far more evenly flexing than their old insert boards and looking at it logically from a skiers POV it would be VERY easy and simple to ensure the heel binding would be 'floating', giving even better flex response than the best of rail systems or requiuring any internal mechanism within the heelpiece itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Masque, I look forward to having a go then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
