Rocker_Binding

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Is the final product going to be similar to plates which were prototyped? I’m wondering if a plate with a standard snowboard binding is going to give you the support which is really needed? Skip down to “***Question” if you want the quick and dirty. ***Backstory The Bomber system is a great system. The design and manufacturing is beautiful. I think soft boots on the TD3 systems is definitely something which should be explored. My tendencies lie toward soft boots just because I came from standard (non-carving) snowboard setup. At the end of the day though I think whatever is best hard or soft should be used. I’d always thought about the idea of a soft boot on a TD3 but really started thinking about it when Howard Lee from Australia sent me an email. I think the is an important consideration which came up with other work I’ve done with skiboard bindings. A skiboard is a short, wide ski (roughly half the length of a normal ski and typically about the width of powder skis). Traditionally skiboards are ridden with releasable or non-releasable binding. The releasable bindings are standard ski bindings used across the industry. The non-releasable are typically specifically made for skiboards. With the non-releasable the theory in the community is that the boards are shorter so building up a body damaging torque is less likely. Bomber actually makes the non-releasable Elite 2 skiboard binding. Skiboarding is now looking at putting snowboard bindings skiboards. The wider width of skiboards (relative to a normal ski or ski blade) allows for this possibility. Even so the binding is typically wider than the skiboard. If mount directly to the board, the binding would drag at moderate carve. This has led to the use of risers which allow for greater clearance. Two method are beginning to emerged, use a riser with a standard snowboard binding or use a 3-strap binding with an integrated riser. Personally I’ve haven’t ridden the setups on anything more than artificial snow (waiting for snow to come in Ohio or going to Colorado). I’ve been getting a lot of feedback from Jack Jue from California, Yaroslow from Canada, Greco at skiboardsonline.com, and Doc at skiboards.com. There’s a thread on another forum I can post if that’s appropriate (not sure on the forum etiquette). ***Question Do traditional 2 straps bindings give you the support you need? A traditional 2 strap will give you good support backwards due to the highback. Forwards and laterally (side to side), you are relying on the stiffness of the boot and a little support from the ankle strap of the binding. A 3rd shin strap give you the forward support. Depending on how the highback is designed, it can give you good lateral support too. In the skiboard experience, forward and back support (tip to tail on the ski) is not important. It may actually be a bit of a hindrance. Most ski boot have some play in this direction (rough estimate 10-15 deg). The lateral support is key for the skiboard binding. This support is was controls the carving. The overall initial experience with the traditional 2-strap binding with the riser is that may or may not provide the support for carving. This is a very initial experience with the setup. This season is where the experience will really come from and the determination on what is best will happen. For a carving setup, what directions do you want support and which do you want movement? On a non-carving setup, the highback give you support for a heel carve. With the higher foot stance angle of carving this is going to rotate the support to have a component of support on the heel edge and a component of support on the tail of the board. What do you think? Jake Bender Disclaimer: To be upfront, I run Rocker Binding. So I guess take it all with a grain of salt.

I could definately design a pair to fit on a pair Bomber. If your interested send me an email at general@rockerbinding.com.

I looked at the spring constant needed. It was extremely soft to the point it's not practical. Assuming a 500gram weight and resonance frequency of 1/2 Hz (away from the resonance frequencies in the board), the spring need would have a spring constant (stiffness) of 4.9 N/m. For reference a slinky has a spring constant of about 1 N/m. I've been working with the behind binding mount. How I built it. http://www.rockerbinding.com/Snowb._Mount_behind_v1.html Video http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=812710CD6E14B3AA I had two version (v1.1 and v1.2) and the more rigid one seemed to be better. I also made a nose mount but haven't had the time to try it. http://www.rockerbinding.com/Snowboard_Mount_Nose.html

What type of binding is that?

Not one a one to comparison. On sort of a larger picture conceptual level with the concept of lateral motion. IMO, on a general level, when your riding a binding it doesn't matter if the support comes from the boot (hard boots) or comes from the binding (soft boots). With good design you should be able to design identical performance (I'm not saying it's that way right now with binding). The thing in my mind that determines the better design would be weather you want a rigid boot to walk around in or a soft boot to walk around in. This is more a philosophical debate. Putting it into to practice to get equal support out of a hard boot and soft boot can be a bit more challenging and definitely hasn't been done.

I'm trying to get conceptual opinions on bindings. I'm not really pushing the bindings. Right now I break even on them so it's not the sales and exposure I'm trying to get, it more what people think of the idea and improvements which could be made. Is that ok? What do you think of the hinge in the sidewinders? http://www.bomberonline.com/store/bindings/td3_SW.cfm

I was also thinking about making custom three strap highback. Using a baseplate and hardware from a rider's binding and custom making a highback with 3 straps which would could replace the existing highback.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I guess it must not have been clear. I’m wondering about a version without the hinge. Just a 3 strap binding. I’ll make a correction to the original post to clarify. I’m not exactly sure what to post and not. I know you should only post once. Is there someone who you can check with about posting? I don’t want to be annoying or make people mad.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Initially I was working on a version with 3 straps and a hinge. I’m wondering if there would be an interest in a version with 3 straps and no hinge. It would basically be a copy of an old 3 strap binding.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I’m trying to keep the price down. That binding has a 125% higher price than mine. I’m not knocking it because it’s a good binding but I want to make my binding assessable.

Sorry for multiple posting. I’m pulling down all of the other posts besides this one.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Sorry for multiple posting. I’m pulling down all of the other posts besides this one and the new one I started for the 3 strap binding. I don't know if I was clear but the most recent post was to about a 3 strap binding without a hinge. Something which is a bit more conventional like the Burton Torques and Flexes. I was hoping to start a new thread to avoid confusion with this thread which was more for the a 3 strap design with a hinge. Is it kosher if I have two posts (3-strap and one 3-strap+hinge)? For me spending all this time working on this, they seem like significantly different topics but then again I might be getting tunnel vision from working on this so much.

Sorry I'm delete I'm told I should just have a single post. I'll do that and take down the other posts.

I was able to contact him through facebook.

Clarified Post: Do you think there would be a market for a 3 strap snowboard binding for soft boots? It seems like there are several people who like the old Burton Torques and Flexes and I thinking about basically making a copy of one of these old bindings (http://www.rockerbinding.com/3_Strap_Binding.html). There seemed to some confusion on the original post. So I hope this is clearer. Original Post: _ Do you think there would be a market for a 3 strap snowboard binding for soft boots? _ I've been working on a snowboard design with 3 straps and an integrated hinge (http://www.rockerbinding.com/The_Rocker_Binding.html). _ Talking to people lately there seem to be a descent number who are interested in a 3 strap binding. Mostly people want it for carving or _ racing with a few who are interested in a 3 strap for ski boards. _ With the work I've been doing it I could make a 3 strap binding. I think it would be easy to make one from the current binding I have. I _ would just need to figure out the angle adjustments. I'm could either make a stand alone 3 strap binding _ (http://www.rockerbinding.com/3_Strap_Binding.html) or custom highbacks for commercially avaliable baseplates _ (http://www.rockerbinding.com/3rd_Strap_Highback.html). _ Do you think there is a market for this?

Do you have any more info on the binding? or how to get in contact with someone who would?

I have bindings made up and available for demo now. Let me know if you are interested at general@rockerbinding.com. http://www.rockerbinding.com/The_Rocker_Binding.html

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> The mounts worked well in version 1.2 of my design (a few changes from the first). Lift operators were impressed and didn't give me any grief. The video was decent and I'm working on get the shots from v1.2 up on YouTube. http://www.rockerbinding.com/Snowb._Mount_behind_v1.html

Yeah. We'll have to see how that works. I might try riding with the board off if I can. What's BTS?

I'm not sure if they'll let me on the lift. I'll see this weekend. I'm not worried about durability on the one on the side of the board. You can hold and shake the board around with it. It's surprisingly strong. I'm sure it'll be able to hold a little camera.

I made a custom mount. I have two setups made up. It'll be interesting to see how they work next time I'm out.

How did the surf mount work?

I've only seen that design in a few patents. I haven't seen any products like that. Salomon was the owner on that patent so I'd be interesting to know if they did anything with the design. I'm going to the SIA trade show this year, so I'll ask them about it. I tried a design like this. The highback rotated and the baseplate remained still. The problem I experienced was the bottom of the boot was remaining still and the top was trying to move. This twisted the boot which felt strange and limited movement.

3/16" Type 1 PVC

Are you talking about a pivot in the highback itself? There was a patent by Salomon (us patent 5967531) about this type of idea. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=pYoWAAAAEBAJ&dq=5967531