Alaskan Rover

Teach: You bring up a good point about used equipment....Right now, however, i nam on the Chesapeake, in an area that oddly considers snow some sort of anathema, to be shunned. When I get over to Wintergreen area, I intend to look at as much stuff as possible. Keep, in mind, however, that for freeriding, cant and lift are largely negated as issues, as most ride flat. I guess my hypothesis has shifted to how a non-carve hard-boot system can better be adapted to freeride...and trying to get tighter interface to facililitate those advantages that a hardboot would provide, even postulating the possibility of some sort of harmonic damping. It would also be interesting to wonder about hardboot with composite absorbtive properties. As with the others...thanks for your input, Teach.

BlueB: You just answered a question that has been nagging at me like a burr in my sock. You are exactly correct!!! Somehow, I had been thinking about the disk wrongly and had forgotten that indeed, they ARE stationary! I am now so glad I was wrong, as your correction has solved MANY problems!!! A problem of stress on the T-track and disc kept coming up in my head, and I had no answer. All that dynamic force would have been distributed to a small plate...no good! But with the disc stationary, a much larger, more stable base for the T-track can be derived...(like the platform-base of a strap-binding, with out the straps). The track can actually be far stronger now... with the added advantage that it would be FAR more "finished" looking than my above drawings, and thus more palatable to those with an interest in aesthetics. I've got an image in my mind. I now have a better idea in my head...and mounting bolts wouldn't be a problem..they'd still be the same. And as I'd mentioned, I'd been wondering about the possibility of a harmonic damping system...a wider base to work with would better facilitate that. So my DEEP thanks for bringing that up!!! I am serious...it solved a HUGE amount of problems at once! BTW - I think ice WILL be extruded upon entry. You DO bring up a good point about the boot no longer being directly on the board, w/ a larger base...I'll have to think on that..I've got time. Thank you, Dano, for your hilarious comment!!! It made me laugh. As for Tex1230...need I waste electrons with a reply?

Thanks, everyone, for yours ideas and input. I think ANY input, be it positive or negative is worthy of consideration. I think, perhaps, that input and ideas are like bricks...good for building a wall OR building a bridge...it all depends how you use them. Thank you especially, Bjvircks and EMorris, for understanding the TRUE spirit of invention...that it must continue...for no other purpose than to harness the power of possiblity...even in the face of contravention. Kjl: I think you may misunderstand my reasoning in this endeavor. I seek not to put the cart before the horse and struggle futilily against constructs that I do not fathom, nor do I seek to conjure an operation I know not, but rather to look upon the horizon and ask a simple question: "This is how it is done, but can it be done better?" That is all I seek. And if, by slightest chance, the answer is yes, or even maybe...then that subsequent idea, given birth in that moment, becomes my charge...to nourish it and give it the chance to grow. I suppose, perhaps,that makes me weird. Indeed, I fully admit to being weird...and wacky...and sometimes, at the oddest hours, wise. So carry on I shall, with this little thought experiment, and endeavor to make it a working test-bed for other ideas, as they come, by and by. Knowing full well my lack of knowledge of Alpine boarding, I am limiting my scope to what I DO know: freeriding. While my first avocation has always been theoretical physics and astronomy, and my vocation bacterial research, I have enough of a groundwork in newtonian physics to understand the principles of the forces at play in the boot to deck interface. I have started thinking, of late, about a hybrid, composite type of interface that may use the principles of harmonic damping in conjunction with a direct boot to deck interface. The softboot industry has been seeing many advancements in boot technology over the years, yet the bindings, while lighter and stiffer, are basically the same. What is the point of having a good, comfortatable, stiff and tight boot if the strap binding allows so much energy loss due to it's own design? Granted you want SOME energy to be lost...you want shock energy dissipated before it is absorbed by the foot, for instance, but other forces you want to conserve. I realize that there are positive attributes to flex in a system, as it can initiate dynamic forces not otherwise allowed. I would like to study the positive change in dynamic force transfer caused by having a more direct boot to deck interface, without limiting the benefits of flex. What about a damping system? Or plastics with alternative energy absorbtive qualities? Every question leads to other problems, sure, but also other solutions. It's just like those bricks...all depends how you put them together. I've got an uncle that is a retired head metallurgical scientist from Alcoa that now has his own shop that does custom extrusions. And another friend that has a shop filled with CNC equipment, and I am adept with AutoCAD. I've got a bunch of spare rotating discs, and I can experiment with various used AT hardboots including my own. The first thing I am going to do is to autoCAD out a channel, and a couple variations of compatible T-track...and my uncle will come up with the proper strong alloy for them and extrude some samples for material cost only (almost nothing). That's a start...then I'll ponder recessing the channel into the boot. Sure, the end result might be sh--ty, but that's the point...it's NOT the end result..merely the beginning of an experiment. Discovery is an organic, trial and error process and the fulcrum of life. If one merely pads quietly around the room of life, content only to sit in a chair that has already been built and deemed safe, and never desires to open any of the myriad doors surrounding him...is that really life, or just existing?

If you're looking for a decent board for the park, but wanna do other stuff than just pure freestyle, I would suggest a board like Option Supercharger. It has plenty of pop for nailing a kicker and for all-mountain, has loads of flex for boxes and what-not in the park...is light enough to do good pipe-work...and has good flexibility and flotation for powder. It is very hard to find an all-mountain board that is good for all three endeavors, powder, freeride and freestyle, but I have found if there is one board that does, Option Supercharger is a good one! I think they come in up to 167...but 158 to 163 is a real good size for them. For softboots, I would actually recommend what I ride, for the same above reasons...it is a topline all-mountain boot made by Vans called "Jamie Lynn"...a well-made boot that lasts for a LONG time. But the new ones aren't as well-made as the old ones! There's plenty of good used soft equipment out there, especially in the spring-time...plus GREAT end-of-season prices on new gear, too. P.S.- I like your saying about Schrodinger's Cat and waveform theory...you don't see much about schrodinger in a boarder forum. Good luck!! Gravity IS Life.

I think what Jack says sums it up the best. If you have to ask, then no. I think that pretty much holds true for ANY endeavor of love. If money is a concern, and I would think for most people it is, just in the last couple weeks that I have been looking, I find there is quite a bit of used equipment out there....even with a small market. I have some AT hard-boots that will work in the mean-time, even though they don't have the forward lean of Alpine-boarding specdific hardboots. They'll work for now. I am just looking for a set of plates bindings, maybe used. I may even at first put them on my old wide-board or a cheap, used narrow all-mountain board, just to get used to the new feel of the boots and plates. The point is, like with any sport that I was just getting into, you don't need to start with a Ferrari when a home-modified Allard will do at first. No need to blow a bunch of dough. Get your gear piece by piece, sale by sale. But like Jack says: If you need to ask....no.

Ummm....Naahhhh! Ha ha. Don't like beer all that much, and sheep get pretty smelly, especially right before sheering season! ;) But I must admit that one of the best beers I have ever had, happened to be consumed in a field in England's "Lake's" region, that was at the time full of meandering sheep!! So it's funny you should say that...Ha ha. The beer was actually a local, pub-brewed ale...warm, but oh, boy...so good!! I'll keep working on this idea...but have now switched over to thinking about it as a way of facilitating a cleaner energy transfer for flat-deck, free-ride, NON-carving applications previously taken by soft boots/soft bindings. Even from a scientific aspect alone, I am now intrigued by the possiblity of new dynamics that a "hard interface" boot-to-board system might beget for non-carve free-ride, so I'll keep fiddling for that reason alone. Baahh...bahhhhhhhh...baaahh. :) Ideas are free...will is sometimes taxed.

Like the others said, math and science is very important as a decent foundation. But take this sincere WARNING: DO NOT take so much as to OVERLOAD yourself on math/science and thus burn out on the sciences before you even begin....that happens often. It is important to get good grades to get into a decent engineering school, a 'D' or an 'F' in AP Physics is not nearly as good, in the eyes of an admissions director, as an 'A' in regular physics, don't forget...so don't overload. You'll have plenty of time to take advanced courses in college, but you'll need to get IN to a good college, first. In today's competitive admissions market, you'll need to put yourself above the masses...you can do this by taking part in extra-curricular math/science activities. Often, winning noted science competitions, be they local, state-wide or nation-wide, with innovative ideas is MORE important than grades...IF the admissions dept. is imaginative and forward-thinking. And if they are not, you might want to think about applying elsewhere. I REALLY stress an OUTSIDE interest in the math/sciences. Become aware of the JOY of taking things apart and trying to rebuild them...investigate how they work, doesn't matter if you get them together right again, that's what cardboard boxes are for!! What you are doing is training your mind in the powers of both observation and innovation by taking everyday objects apart and trying to build them better or at least finding out HOW and WHY they work. The great thing about learning theory is that it can be done ANYWHERE. Immerse yourself at home with science and math...there is much learning you can do on your own, afterschool. Wikipedia is GREAT!! Use it. Newton...Leibniz...Kepler...Heisenberg...it's all there, and it's ALL beautiful...the IMPLICIT JOY of LEARNING IS BEAUTIFUL!!! Immerse yourself in it, and you will find a new universe of thought. I LOVED science and math as a kid...I built my own 10" newtonian reflector telescope when I was 12...and used to sneak out and look at the constellations and the rings of Saturn at 03:30 AM with school coming up THAT morning. NEVER FORGET THE LOVE AND UTTER JOY OF LEARNING. Science is LESS about absolute, categorical knowledge for it's own sake, and MORE about the joy of learning and creating. Enginnering is about applying those learned scientific/mathematical principles to make an idea work. And most important: ASK QUESTIONS !!....always!! Drive your teachers CRAZY with questions! I DID !! Think outside the box....that is not just a slogan on t-shirts...it is an endeavor. Good luck. Ideas are free....will is sometimes taxed.

While I do not wholly agree with the trajectory that Burton is taking...they have apparently become the GM of the snowboard industry (or perhaps maybe worse: the Toyota!!), I have nothing but respect for Jake Burton Carpenter himself. Along with Tom Sims and many others, he managed to stick to his guns and meld a company and a product in a time when snowboarding was just thought of as a fringe sport with little merit...a time when 90% of the areas didn't even want riders on their mountain at all, except MAYBE in their off-mountain snow-park, and even THEN with many reservations. Snowboarders at that time were thought of as ruffians, as misfits, and "ner'-do-wells"..and were NOT to be associated with by the mainstream ski-oriented resorts. Little, by little, by a combination of good product development, luck, a LOT of perseverance and business acumen, he and others were able to change the path of snowboarding forever. Given all that, though....I still don't like it when a company gets so prolific that they are able to both rest upon their laurels and STILL continue to dominate market forces. As snowboarding has become a multi-billion dollar corporate industry, it has become an entity where matters of the "Board of Directors" have eclipsed matters of 'Riders of the Board", to the detriment of innovation and a certain innate synergy with the riders. That said, and while I have become quite chagrined by the 'corporatization' of the snowboarding industry, NOTHING diminishes the fact that snowboarding is still fun as hell...and I wouldn't turn down a chance to ride for a day with jake Burton Carpenter. I can see, in the mere week since I have been on this board, that companies like Bomber Industries and other small companies, STILL embody a grass-roots spirit and the needed synergy with the riders and customers that ensure a dynamic market. I salute that spirit....may it never wane. Gravity IS life Ideas are free...will is sometimes taxed. :)<O:p</O:p

Thanks KJL, Snowboardfast, Jack Michaud and Corey Dyck for for your informed input. Yeah...Dan was the first one to bring up the issue of cant and lift. I've seen some hardboot plate systems that almost look like ice-skates blade frames! Knowing the innate problems it would pose to carving due to lack of cant and lift, I began thinking how it could be applied to free-ride stances. Like a lot of people have found, the dynamics and linear forces totally change when riding at angles past 40 or...flat to the deck with no cant/lift. I go no higher than 40/35 with my flat-binding, soft boot...tried 55/50, 55/55...didn't do me any good. So, I started wondering what hard-boots, not necessarily Alpine hardboots with their much more forward lean, but SOME sort of hard-shell would do to change the dynamics of free-ride, flat-binding, low-angle stance that most non-carve soft gear is now. I realize that flex in the system is a good thing from a physics/mechanical point of view...as it both disperses excess energy, AND helps to transfer a force to a different vector, and can alleviate some detrimental moment. Present soft, strap bindings obtain this flex from the looseness of the interface with the boot, whether intended or not. I realize that if flex is designed out of the system.,..many of those forces are going to be transferred directly to the PERSON, rather than absorbed by the flex and looseness of the binding. Those are the bad points of loss of flex...so I am wondering, as a "thought exercise": would there be ANY good points to loss of flex in a free-ride, non-carve mode? I am thinking that if the boot to deck interface was more direct, one may be able to transfer needed moment to the board in a more efficient manner. That's why I started thinking about a track/channel system. I think there would be less dynamic loss. Granted, the extrusions would have to be SUPER-strong. And there would need to be either HDPE or rubber underneath the T-track where it overhangs the disc that is the same thickness of the disc to contact the board. Figuring out how to lock the boot onto the track with ZERO longitudinal movement and still be simple is another catch. And the tolerances in the channel to T-track interface would need to be very low to enable higher force transfer without loss. Tolerances too low in the channel/track and you'd need a robotic leg to engage it! And would there be enough plastic "meat" in the boot bottom to be able to ream in a channel? But all that aside, I am thinking it would be an interesting experiment as far as free-ride, flat board to deck stance. And the main premise would be that the advantages of less flex in the flatboard in terms of force dynamics may outweigh the above drawbacks. Once again, this is mainly for free-ride applications, flat on board and with a hard-boot that has less lean than the standard hard-boot...maybe like the buckled, climbing hard-shell boots, but stiffer in the lateral areas. I think lateral force in the free-ride realm is less than that found in the carving realm, as some of the carve dynamics are the same as I am used to from racing. Sure, the leg muscles would need to toughen up. I've got a bunch of old discs, and can get a hold of used climbing hard-shells for testing...extruding the channels and T-track I-beams would be more intricate. I guess my main thought was trying to come up with a more direct human to deck interface with less dynamic loss than present free-ride bindings and maybe more efficient power transfer and board feel. I think it could change the dynamics involved to good effect if some of the above problems were figured out. Thought is free....will is sometimes taxed. GCB :)

Wow!! Seeing this pix of this guy getting down to SERIOUS business has just stoked my desire to get back on racing skis again!!! Like TOMORROW!!! Hopefully that feeling will pass...ha ha. But it brings back memories!! Those extreme angles are ALSO how I tweaked my knee...but I wouldn't have traded it. My old Volkls, Atomics and Elans wouldn't compare to today's NEW racing sticks, though!!! This guy's ACE !!! He'll have to make a hella transition to his next gate, though...but those 5 rings on his chest signify that he ain't no weekend warrior!...ha ha. Photo originally posted by Stevo.

Good question, Snowboardfast. I guess because I like to tinker, really. Plus, I am thinking that this system would be good for less forward stances, and since the boot would be a direct contact interface with the deck..sitting directly on the board itself, held in place by the channel/T-track, that the weight transfer, and thus power-transfer would be applied directly to the board better than wth the ubiquitous soft-boot and strap bindings. I think it might be a more direct application force form the boots to the deck. I think that might make the dynamics of free-riding (including at angles of 15/5 or even 15/-15) different and maybe better. Worth a try, I figure. :)

Ohob: You mean like miniture closed-bearing rollers in the boot channel that would engage the track? But how would you alleviate lateral play in the rollers, I wonder? Oh, about icing in the channel...the force with which the T-track engages the channel and the small tolerances thereof would effectively EXTRUDE the ice from the channel out the other end of the channel. As for boot stiffness required, wouldn't a modern hard-boot be able to take that lateral force? They seem pretty stiff. B0ardski: i think the entry would be fairly easy...like I said, any ice in the channel would be extruded out...and as for release, there wouldn't be any safety release....just undoing the lock and slding the boot back out from the track. Also, I forgot to mention, that somehow most of the boot-bottom must be in direct contact with the board itself, thus there would be less lateral force on the track itself.. May have to do this by recessing the channel in the boot to just the right amount so that enough plastic is there to contact the board except where the rotating disc is. I think this direct dynamic contact with the board deck would be be key to the whole idea....at least for non-canted, non-lift boarding.

Ha ha....maybe it'll work on a wake-board, then. I think it'll work if no cant or lift is needed (like the canted and lifted plates I have seen on some of the race boards)...I think if these were canted, it may put too much of a torque-arm on the four disc-to-deck screws, but non-canted wouldn't put any more stress on them than regular bindings, as the forces would be on the same plane. I think if the ends of the channels and male tracks were beveled, that would make entry easier. If one end of the T-tracks had a stopper, then only ONE lock would be needed per track...and it can be a dynamic lock...essentially pushing the boot against the stopper and locking in place right there. Both ends of the boot-base channel would be open, thus any ice in channel would be extruded by the entry of the T-track into channel. Granted, an electro-magnetic binding would be best, but until someone comes up with some portable way to power up the powerful electro-magnets we'll have to wait a while...dang it, Tesla, why couldn't you be living in the 21st century? Anyway, I just like the simplicity of the thing...plus the rotating plates with welded on tracks would fit any standard four hole decks. Boot would basically be flush to the board. It might very well be better for non-carve applications..say like free-ride angles of 15/5 or whatever...but I think it would afford more stability and edge control than softboots and strap bindinmgs, as there IS a lot of energy loss due to looseness with the softboot/strap system. Just wanted something simple that would do the job well. I'll keep on working on it. :) Gravity IS Life.

Bjrvircks: Good idea about the single pin lock on top of the T-track...I do a lot of sailing and was thinking about the same kind of pin locks they have on deck-block tracks and sail tracks. But the sailboat pin locks have about a mm or so of play...maybe too much for the forces on a binding. Might be able to be tightened up, though. As a matter of fact, the T-track on the board disc (puck) would be similar to a sail track or deck-block track. Ohob: I see your idea about the wheels...wouldn't there be a lot of play in them, though, that would multiply through-out the system? Interesting thought, though. Here are some sketches I drew up of what I was thinking of...the cross-section one with the boot on it is with everything longitudinal, as if on a ski, with the disk spun to 90 deg...just for sketch simplicity. The other is longitudinal too, just to show. The topview shows the length of the track, approximately, anyway. Not necessarily to scale...just a quick sketch...the T-track itself is no higher than 3/4 inch high.

Piusterhedrcarve: Wow...thanks for putting up all those plate systems...had no idea there were SO many out there! Sure gives me some ideas! Ohob: Good point on the I-beam...I-beam is actually what I was thinking of ...(I was using the wrong word) for ease of attaching to the disc or puck or whatever. I was thinking it could be welded to the disc. I think rollers may recieve to much wear and blow out, wouldn't they? I was actaully thinking that maybe an aluminum alloy extension would be strong enough, since Al is easy to extrude...that would mean the boot track would also have to be aluminum. I just wonder if aluminum would be strong enough. KingCrimson: I was thinking of making the ends of the extruded I-beam track beveled, and also bevel the ends of the boot-channel...to make entry easier...because you're right!...it is hard to hold one's boot steadyand flat...but practice makes perfect. Beveling would make that easier. Yeah, I admit ice would be a potential problem, but I still think the ice would be extruded out the other end by the I-beam track. I always like to simplify...and wonder about "what-ifs"...if the first idea doesn't work...keep trying. Might have to wait for those electro-magnetic bindings powered by a back-pack fusion power plant that doesn't exist yet!! :)

WOW!!! That's CRAZY!!! I've done some fast descents in the Chugach, but not THAT fast!!! That guy looks like he has a rocket strapped to his back and pointed DOWNHILL!!!! He's flying.

Newcarver: You never mentioned the stance angles you were soft-carving at. I presume you were at fairly high angles. I pretty much agree w/ everyone else here. I often carve at 15/5 if I want to be mixing it up and doing other stuff on the same run...but if I want to carve and only carve all day long (like when it's super-nice hard-packed groomers :)) I usually go with an angle of approx. 40/30. I have tried 55/55 and I didn't really like it too much...especially with 2-strap bindings. I don't know, just felt wishy-washy in my boots, and angle felt weird. I settled with 40/30 as a good general soft-boot carve stance. My favorite soft angle is still 15/5....I don't know...maybe cause my ACL knee surgery...after ACL, you can get 95% of your knee stability back, but I don't think ever 100%...least that's what Eric Heiden says...and those are one of his main surgeries now that he is a sports surgeon. Anyway, are you sure that your center of mass wasn't being shifted too much, causing you to skid out? Try that lower angle...your legs might be more used to the dynamics of the hardboots, and with softies you are using different muscles. You can still get a decent carve at 40/30....You just have to play w/ your binding stance to find your soft-boot carve sweetspot. Thems my 2-centavos worth. A centavo isn't worth much anymore...100 times less than a peso...:)

Ohob: Yeah, I thought about ice in the channel....I rented board/boots that had the K2 Clicker set-up...and they got so plugged up by ice that they became almost useless depending on temperature (and temperment...ha ha). I got really annoyed with the icing problem of those Clicker bindings. Never had that problem with ski-bindings. The solution would be to have both ends of the boot bottom channel open. Because of the tight fit, when sliding the boot onto the track, the T-track would basically extrude the ice from the channel. If only ONE end of the channel was open, then ice WOULD be a problem. Of course, if both ends of channel are open, then one end of the T-track would have to have a stopper. Yeah...a little like one of those drawer runners...just way tighter and no wheels and the track would be an upright T about 3/4 inches high. Dan: As for walking, no problem....as the channel would-be recessed into the boot bottom, and wouldn't stick out at all at the toe or the heel...it would be flush.

Dan: EXCELLENT INPUT about the cant/lift. I hadn't thought of that! I remember that with skiing, cant and lift were very important to people such as my mom who had bad knees, and also important in racing, but I hadn't thought about that in regards to boarding since my present set up doesn't require it. I guess cant/lift becomes more important the higher your stance angle and the more aggresive the style of your attack on edge to sustain that carve without skidding. The only quick solution to that with THIS system would be some sort of proper form underneath the T-track on the disc. But it seems this would increase the torque-arm and stress on the disc/board attaching screws...I guess if they were strong enough. I realize cant and lift must be very important for a racing, GS-type set-up, but I wonder how important cant/lift is to more recreational -type hardboot carving..if there IS such a thing?? Even without the cant/lift blocks, it would be an interesting alternative system for people who are more attuned to general all-mountain who might not require such cant and lift requirements. KingCrimson: Thanks for your good input too. I think if the T-track locking mechanism was dynamic and stopped any fore/aft slip, there wouldn't be such high sheer force on the pin...but how to beget a dynamic locking system without going back to some sort of spring, DIN system, I wonder? Would be better to have one end of the channel closed, like my original thought, but then ice in the channel comes into play. Ha ha...every solution always begets 3 more problems...like some sort of logarithmic function of tinkering! :)

Wonderful post, ZOOM!!! I see that you've spent some time and effort to "mine" the good parts of BOTH sides of a thread that was becoming fairly abrasive (I tossed some fuel on that fire, also, I admit). That type of diplomacy is what is needed...and highlights the fact that grace and gentility of manner are important ingredients of any discourse. Thus, I commend you, sir!

I forgot to mention: Because of the possibility of ice building up in the channel of the boot, BOTH ends of the boot channel may need to be open, and thus when one end of the channel is engaged with the T-track upon booting in, the T-track will actually push the ice out the other end...like an extrusion. Thus I guess TWO pin-locks would be needed...one on each end. I think that would work. Haven't figured out the T-track pin-lock yet. I think the track would have to extend past the boot on both ends, and then a engageable track-lock on each end.

So here's what I have been kicking around the last couple days: (This is specifically for hardboots on a solid board.) A boot with a T-channel inbedded in the bottom of the boot...the channel would have to be a stainless-steel insert to cut down on plastic wear. The channel would be open at the forward end of the boot. The heel end of the channel would be closed. The board would have a male T-track (also stainless-steel) secured to a moveable disk (the same disk that softboot bindings use). The T-track would be approximately the length of the boot, give or take...and because of the disk, it would be able to move to any stance angle. Very simple design and rugged. To boot-in, you would simply slide the boot forward onto the T-track (engage the boot channel w/ the T-track, in other words) until it hits the channel dead-end, and lock the open end of channel with a simple Heavy-duty pin-lock. Voila. You're in. Or you could boot-in the other direction if the boot channel was reversed, I guess. To boot-out or disengage the boot, you would simply undo the pin-lock and slide the boot out and off the T-track. Again...nice and simple. T-track height and thus the boot channel, would need to be no higher than 3/4 of an inch and be approx. the length of the boot bottom, give or take. Potential drawback: Because the overall height would be lower than with a conventional plate/binding, there would be less torque-arm or lever-arm, which might effect ease of carve initiation, but I don't think too badly. Also: once your in your in...just like a strap-binding...there'd be NO safety release. The advantage: Having a longer linear surface to apply inertial moment and kinetic force to the board via the long T-track, would make up for less torque arm. If the boot channel to T-track interface was good and tight, there would be much less loss due to play, and thus more dynamic energy applied to the board and not lost at the binding. But the overall advantage would be SIMPLICITY and durability of parts. Existing hardboots could have either a channel routed in and the stainless T-channel reamed into it (if there was enough plastic to accept a said channel)...or a channel plate attached to the bottom...the former would be WAY better. And becasue it makes use of a simple strap-binding-type of adjustable disc, it will fit ANY board with standard holes. I am going to get my old ski boots and an old board, turn on the lights in the machine-shop and work on it. Any input??

On the solid board boot channel/board T-track idea, one drawback I think may be that because the essential platform is lower than with the normal hardboot plate binding, there would be less of a torque arm and thus less power for intricate edge control. The edge control would still be there of course, but perhaps the higher the torque arm, the easier to control the edge..maybe. An advantage, however, is that that inertial moment and all that mumbo can be applied to the board THROUGH-OUT the length of the boot, instead of just transferred through the toe and heel pieces...and maybe, if a very tight fit between boot bottom channel and T-track...there would be less energy loss due to looseness. The boot channel would have to a stainless steel insert...otherwise too much loss due to plastic wear. I think maybe the simplicity and length of linear kinetic transfer surface (the whole length of the boot channel) would compensate for any slight loss of torque arm. I'll have to get some old ski boots and a used-up board and do some testing and tinkering. Great picture of that splitboard, Buell. Never thought of that...having the toe pieces permanently mounted right behind regular plate/binding. Would just have to take the plates off and huck them into the pack when you split the board! Nice idea.

B0ardski: Yeah...I've heard good things about the DynaFits...I don't quite recognize that yellow lug-sole boot in the set-up...looks like a touring boot more than a climbing hardshell. For solid board non-splitboard set-up, I have been tossing around the idea of a sort of hardboot/binding amalgamation. Thinking of like a channel system in the bottom of the boot and a board-top T-track that the boot would slide into and then lock into place. You would get in/out from the board by simply undoing the rear lock and sliding your boot out of the T-track rearward. Would be nice and simple and afford a lot of power application to the board and edge control, I think. The T-track can be adjustible to whatever angle like on a soft-boot disc, so that it could fit standard holes. Like i said...I am alwys tinkering...ha ha.

Thank you, Jon Dahl, Buell, ShortcutToMoncton, Herosmero and NateW for all your suggestions. I am now thinking of looking at the TD2 or TD3. I'll see what the Sidewinders cost. I had serious resignations about the Voille Mountains after seeing the pix of them. Up in Alaska I get most of my gear from outdoor-gear swapmeets, and I know in the mountain states and Pac. Northwest they likewise have many also. Here in Virginia, though, I find most of the outdoor swapmeets center themselves around hunting/fishing with nearly no winter gear, except for the odd pair of Olin Mark IIIs skis (damn good skis, BTW...nearly bombproof!!...I have friends that STILL use them..ha ha) and even older black Heads with leather Lange boots. Since all the snows, I have been trying to find a pair of snowshoes and X-country skis to use while here since all my backcountry gear is up in Ak. No one has any ANYWHERE!!! I guess that is akin to shopping for beach apparel in Greenland. I LOVE to tinker, and whatever plates/bindings I get for split-boarding and to throw on my regular board, I will no doubt be tinkering with them to....even if they work fine right out of the box. Tinkering is in my blood. I don't think I have ANY equipment that I haven't screwed with in SOME fashion. Heck, the Wright Brothers were endless tinkers!! Not that I am anywhere NEAR their tinker/designing prowess! NateW: I very seldom use the 15/-15 duckfoot stance, but I do occasionally. I can sometimes initiate a spin better with it, though. I haven't tried the 55/50 stance too much on my board, but I often use angle of 40/35 to good all around effect. Good advice about practicing switch. Concerning switch: I guess that is why I am often ride at 15/5 because I find I can more easily olly to switch at that angle...switch at 40/35 or 45/45 feels like when I used to try and ski backwards...which I was never good at! I have great admiration for people who can switch at 55/55 or 45/45, though!