Interesting new idea for a hardboot/board interface...

[Alaskan Rover]

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??

[BlueB]

How about you get some real plate bindings, then ride your AT boots, or real hard boots, or God forbid, the ski boots, on them, for several years, to really learn the hardbooting ways, then build your system and run comparative tests, then, surviving that, get few more riders to test it, then come back and post the reviews?

Or just build the damn thing and ride it, post the pics and video?

Or couple of drawings, so we can visualize the thing better?

Also, be aware that ~30% of members here are engineers of some kind and another 20% "play one on TV", while 25% the total membership is quite closed-minded and other 25% enjoys flaming just for the sake of it, so be prepared ;) :D

...

I think your other tread got mouved as it was about splitboarding...

[BlueB]

Ah, I just re-read the end of your post - you are going to build it! That's the spirit!

[Alaskan Rover]

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.

[KingCrimson]

There will be fore-aft slide in the track, and the boot bouncing up against the pin over and over will create a feedback loop for sliding, and the pin will break.

I don't see the problems you're solving to be worth the millions in development cost...But it's still a cool idea!

I REALLY love the cam design of standard bindings. It's a very elegant solution.

[Dan]

Pretty interesting idea. I'm not one of the engineers, nor do I play one on TV, so I'll leave the hardcore mechanical engineering feedback to those who are/do. One question though -- it seems that this design does not allow cant/lift; is that right? Also, how will walking be affected? Might need to build up the sole around the t-channel to provide a walking surface.

[Alaskan Rover]

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! :)

[Ohob]

The first thing that pops into my mind when you describe this is a center bottom mount drawer glide :rolleyes:

http://www.dlawlesshardware.com/clhetoor21in.html

I take it the boot side interface would be recessed. I can only imagine the ice/snow buildup you would get. That problem there would stop me dead in my tracks, but perhaps I'm visualizing it wrong.

[Alaskan Rover]

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.

[piusthedrcarve]

This is good...

for your imagination, i am throwing this for an idea.

Instead of stainless T-track, could you think of any of these plate systems to work as the T-track?

If then, that will be the ultimate Plate/Binding combo!!

[Ohob]

You might want to consider some type of single, dual or even triple roller assembly with a small guide infront and behind the rollers in the sole of the boot instead of a track. take a look at the top image.

http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/manual-trolley-for-electric-chain-hoist-380217.jpg

My reasoning is that a close tolerance sliding channel affair would have to be lined up perfectly to engage, and you would be able to use an I beam on the board itself that is fairly strong (however I might wonder how strong it would be torsionaly)

[KingCrimson]

Ignoring anything else, put on a hardboot or a ski boot and try and slide it forwards while keeping the sole perfectly flat, it's hard enough to get a boot flat on a standard binding sometimes!

[Neil Gendzwill]

Never had that problem with ski-bindings.

The reason is you are not constantly in and out of ski bindings.

[Alaskan Rover]

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!! :)

[bjvircks]

for a locking device... how about a spring loaded pin arrangement like the present intec but with just one pin inside rather than outside, facing into the male T track which could have a notch in the top of the T to receive the pin.

[Sultan Guy]

Also, be aware that ~30% of members here are engineers of some kind and another 20% "play one on TV", while 25% the total membership is quite closed-minded and other 25% enjoys flaming just for the sake of it, so be prepared ;) :D

How very true! I will try and stay in the engineer group and out of the flaming group. Perhaps when you register you could choose which group you want to be in? :rolleyes:

Alaskan R-Always great to see innovation in any sport. If you have an idea for a better mousetrap then build it, test it, refine it, etc.

The American dream.

[Ohob]

This is a very large version of what I was thinking of (Its a roller coaster) abet upsidedown.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Vekomawheels.jpg

The blue roller would go all the way over the top of the I beam.

The other 4 rollers would be sandwiching it from the bottom. You might even be able to use smaller bearings as the rollers.

If you wanted to get really trick, you could make the upper roller out of different durometers of urathane and get some interesting flex out of it.

I like the idea of a single pin to lock it into place that bjvircks brought up.

[Ohob]

How very true! I will try and stay in the engineer group and out of the flaming group. Perhaps when you register you could choose which group you want to be in? :rolleyes:

I will register as the 20% that play one on TV!

After working in hardware stores, ski shops, auto repair places, motorcycle repair places and re-modeling crappy houses, I ended up having to modify/build/create way to much stuff so I really can't keep my hands out of something like this!

[crucible]

Not to put too much of a downer on your upcoming project:

If you want a good primer on what you're up against in designing a great hardboot/binding interface, do a Google search on step-in softboot binding development in the late 90's.

In the Gold Rush days of snowboarding, one of the biggest Holy Grails out there was a step-in softboot binding- I have an old copy of Snowboard Life that showcased at least 8 different bindings- K2 clickers, Intec, Deeluxe, Xbone etc...

In the end, even with companies like Burton, K2, Shimano and Rossignol dumping millions into the effort- the snowboarding consumer looked at them and said, "meh".

Unless you have the business and CNC design skills of Fin Doyle and Jeff Caron, you're in for an uphill slog... there's a big difference between crafting something in your workshop and making it into a viable business.

[Dave ESPI]

ahh ahh ah say...Maybe; just maybe it will keep da boy busy......

[Alaskan Rover]

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.

[Jack M]

this will work great as long as there isn't any snow around.

[b0ardski]

ease of entry and release is of the utmost importance.

[Sultan Guy]

Your system will require a very stiff boot to handle the lateral forces, stiffer then todays boots.

I agree with Jack, they look very prone to getting full of snow/ice when you walk.

[Alaskan Rover]

this will work great as long as there isn't any snow around.

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.