Do we need bindings that release?

[philw]

(good thread). My experience...

(1) Leg Breakers

I've been riding a lot since the 1988/9 season and I only had one injury, which was a broken ankle on my front leg. This was in helicopter-accessed back country, and we were in the wrong place - the snow was crusty glacier stuff. I overcranked a turn slightly and the nose bit too deeply... the board augered in and I felt the boot break (Rachlie 225s), then something bad happened to my ankle. I rode down to the pickup on adrenaline, and they helied me out before the really bad pain started. The boot broke at the cant bit (which is a bad design anyway); the Intex Proflex race jobbies were unmoved.

So if you can build me a binding which releases before the boot breaks, I would at least take a look at it.

(2) Buried Logs

I hit a log buried under about a meter of powder in Lake Louise in about 1996. It was a bit of a steep chute, and I was on a slalom board (Nitro Scorpian 1.0, 163, the red one). The nose of the board broke, and the laminates were left hanging by the top sheet. It didn't board down the rest of the run very well, but otherwise no damage was done. I was just pissed off that my board was toast. I borrowed some duct tape from a pisteur and scooted back to the base.

Arguably a releasable binding may have saved the board: has anyone trashed a ski in the same manner, or did the bindings save it?

(3) tree wells

I ride a lot of trees. The "clicker" people tie a rope between their release handles and figure they'll grab that if they go in. I have my T-handles tucked up in side my pants, and I know where I'll be going if and when I get in a well. But I've ridden a lot of heli terrain over the years and never once yet fallen head-first into a tree well... if you're going there you tend to slide in backwards, which is not quite the same problem. I always figure that I'm in a better position than the old strappy people though - I don't have as far to reach and the problem's simpler.

I do find the T-handles brilliant for heli use generally though: the bindings don't get cut up in the baskets; and you can get in and out so quickly that you're much quicker generally than the rest.

This isn't really the same issue as binding-release on overload, as you don't load the bindings if you take a header into a tree well.

In practice I'm not sure I'd look to releasability in this market. I want a binding which is stiff, and although it needs to be adjustable when I get it, once it's locked in I want it to stay locked in so I can worry about other stuff. I want it to be elegantly engineered and to do the job.

Releasability may have more pull with beginners? I wonder if it might not be simpler to engineer releasability into the Intec pin mechanism, rather than putting something into the binding.

Phil

[hangten247]

Great poll and thread!

Nice to see all the different perspectives of why and why not, and all the potential situations for use, especially the funny fig newton sphincter response!

I used to have releasable bindings. I called them "Burton Step-in Plate Bindings" Definitely NOT fun!!!

Having pre-released from front and also from rear, I can't imagine how one would be able to control themselves in a fall situation with one foot only. I'd be worried about wrecking one or both legs, shoulders, hips, arms, head, you get the idea...EVERYWHERE. not to mention what happens to the board, you could get whacked by it with either one foot still in, or none in. I feeel safer falling with both feet in, knowing that lilkely how and where I ride my feet & legs will be ok, just have to protect head, face, and uper body. (YES, I wear a helmet).

Trees, logs, and tree wells are th only thing tht scares me, but not every fall is the same every time either. If I had intecs, I'd feel safer in a tree well situation, at least I could potentially get out and right myself, even if I fell in deeper, 'cause if I could right myself, the blood wouldn't be rushing to my head.

[dillrepair]

you guys mentioned a quick release binding, after reading about a recent injury on another forum, its got me wondering.. if bindings that release aren't the answer then what is, there must be some way to avoid shattering knees and lower legs. I understand the best way is to have good technique and make sure your equipment is working well, but if there were a way to make things safer through mechanical devices what would it be? any ideas?

[forrest]

Seems to me that a problem with releasable bindings is having them release for the right reasons. You generate a ton of force when you ride in complely normal situations, so how do you make a binding that releases only when you actually have a problem, I've never had a binding release on me but imagine being in the middle of a carve and having both feet come out, seem like that would suck. Personally I've always liked falling on a board a lot more than falling on skis, and really nothing sucks more than having to hunt around and pick up your equipment after you lose it.

[Guest alakata]

I would think that if a binding were to release it would go at a certain pressure point, lets just say youre in a hard carve and you hit a bump unexpectedly and the board goes flying off. I wouldnt want that to happen. No Releaseable Bindings!

besides leashes suck.

[Guest Todd Stewart]

I just sold a pair of binding because they keep releasing on me. Crashing while one foot pops out and the other stays in scares the crap out of me. Anyways, if you were to have a hard enough bail that both binding released on purpose then you have to worry about snaping the leash aswell. Trust me it sucks, I've done it twice now.

[dillrepair]

for everyone who's read chris's reply about the eploding bolts and the fig newtons... well here's the real thing in case you hadn't gone to the patent office website to look at it yourself.

i suppose it could work really well if anyone wanted to spend the time and make it more modern, and test it thouroughly... obviously i'll be sticking with the plates i already own, as for releasing both at the same time, god knows how you'd do that without a linkage rod or some such absurd thing connecting the two bindings.

it seems pretty complicated and bulky but i'm still interested, just by looking at it i can't tell if it works well or not, but here is the link and some pics taken from the patent itself.

earl miller's patent

you have to click on full page images.. and you need a free plugin to view the tiff's, www.alternatiff.com its free and works well, with ablility to save images, small also... i have not recieved any advertisements as a result of installing, it is one of the recommended free viewers on the patent office website help section.

there are more images in the patent, but these are the most generally illustrative, the others are cutaways, more specific, there's a variation with a flat metal tab instead of the nipple shown here

[snowghost]

I tested the Miller's, both the soft boot and the hard boot versions, in the early 1990's on the original Aym Air.

Earl T-BOLTED the bindings to the board because they did not fit the Burton 5 hole variplate pattern, and he modified the variplate rear cant/lift to work with his bindings. The Miller bindings worked great, and always released at the same time, but they were heavy. Everything was heavy back then.

I still have the Miller's if anyone wants pics. Mel at DaleBoot, who had done the "Custom Blow" liners that Craig Kelly wore, was developing his snowboard boot at the same time. A couple of us "testers" were riding some pretty funky looking equipment back then.

I taught in that set up at Vail several times, but it never caught on, and the equipment discussions with adult students started to distract from focusing on the lesson.

As I recall, all the early snowboard speed records were set on releaseable bindings made by "Maier" or Meyer". Anyone remember?

[Fat Old Bastard]

Otherwise no release. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Fat Old Bastard]

Weight would be a problem.

But maybe if instead of 2 separate bindings we had a system with a mini-link/connector (maybe like a windsurfer flexible mast-base) tying our front & back boots together with a single releasable 'binding' attaching the connector and thus both legs to the board.

Sorry I can't explain it properly. Like a releasable sub-assembly.... OK I give up.

[Fat Old Bastard]

That's what I tried to say. Thanks.

The engineering side of me says "no" to releasable bindings.

If we were to start to experiment here my Prototype would be focused around a model of a short board to which the two bindings are hard mounted which is in turn mounted to the snowboard. That way when a crash or an impact that wants to release the rider from the snowbaord his two feet and bindings would still be firmly mounted in a triangle but would be free from the longer lever. This would be similar to what we see in NASCAR or Auto racing, when a crash happens the vehicle disintegrates from the driver to expel the energy. Now the problem I see here is the rider would most of the time release from the board and then fall forward ahead of the snowboard and then "eat" the board racing towards him. Not a pretty sight to visualise.

[snowghost]

To FOB: Good thoughts. Do you remember the sailboard releasable toe straps from a while ago?

[trikerdad]

I've had both bindings release at the same time, the bindings release from the board that is. I was in a laid out toe side turn when I went into a large hidden hole filled with wind blown powder. The hole was at the convergence of two runs and looked just like the groomed. The board, a Sims MFR 172 Race, stuck in the side of the hole and I kept going for a couple hundred feet down the hill. When I stopped sliding and checked to see why the bindings released and the leash hadn't worked, they were still attached to my boots along with a chunk of top sheet and wood core.

[Fastskiguy]

My first reaction is "no" but after thinking about it, ski bindings (usually) hold the skier in when he's thrashing around, then (usually) release before bones break so maybe it would be a good idea for snowboards too. The old Burt design would be kinda neat, as would the old Spademan design.

I guess the big fear would be cranking a hard turn going fast and having the bindings release. But that's a possibility with ski bindings and even downhill ski racers use bindings that *can* release.

[Helmut Karvlow]

Fin what ever you were smoking when you thought that up......send me some

[boarderboy]

Sorry, I actually admire the man.

I rode, or tried to ride, the Miller release bindings a good bit. They did release, and the segmented, Velcro'd leash did work. I was mostly "learning" at the time, and the considerable lift of the plates, and attendant "tippiness" didn't help my progress. Also, in my mind, Miller never dialed in what should have been the simplest binding facet - the boot-to-binding interface.

Once released, the Millers could be a royal pain to re-engage, especially on steeps.

That said, the bindings did release, and on-piste I think it would be possible to devise a workable system. (Miller never did.) Matter of fact, it was rumored that Marker believed they had designed a viable solution but didn't think there was sufficient market.

Obviously, however, most of the positive scenarios discussed involve off-piste disasters, and I'm no authority there. So I'll comment no further on that.

no-so-trivia I'm pretty sure Earl Miller was one of the last living pilots from Chenault's Flying Tigers...?

[b0ardski]

I thought hard about this a long time, 20 yrs ago when Miller made his prototypes. I was an expert skiier by then and hated when skis came off mid turn in bumps or heavy pow. I set mine at DIN 12 instead of the recommended for my wieght DIN 8. Skis have to come off in a hard crash, but need to stay on under a lot of twisting forces.

For a release SB binding, longitudinal release could be benificial, but upward release at the toe or heel needs to be avoided.

Think about the last time you chattered a layed out turn, Do you want that sharp edged plank hitting your butt or worse your face.

Creating anything even approaching DIN adjustability would take years & millions to bring into production. Anything less, I could not inflict on an unwary public.

leashes only suck until you accidently release the front binder on the lift

[bosco]

I wonder if Brian's tib/fib would have broken at SES if he had a releasable binding.

[b0ardski]

I wonder if Brian's tib/fib would have broken at SES if he had a releasable binding.

A longitudinal release could save you from boot top breaks when the board impacts a log or the hardpack in a crash, any other direction of release is unwanted.

[Civ]

anyone see the crash from the DH event this weekend. Skier hits the gate, goes flying and only one ski comes off, the other basically spins his lower leg over 180 degrees....destroyed his lower leg. He got knocked out too.

I know its kinda unrelated, but it shows that even ski systems are unpredictable...

[jtslalom]

For the fact of a future law suit, I would not question the fact that snow board bindings need a release. They don't. I would only hope that all binding manufaturers stick to this idea and none start to deviate. I'm sure that the first year companies start to produce release snowboard bindings, you will see more law suits against manufacturers that don't make release bindings.

[John E]

Sounds like a liability nightmare.

Bindings that would hold tight until you REALLY needed them to release & then both would release simultaneously. How would one establish the force level when they should release?

[Mike T]

I've said it before and I will say it again: I have crashed many times, but never been in a situation where I think that having my bindings release would have prevented injury. If one binding were to release but not the other, I don't even want to think about the leg injuries that might have resulted.

[nils]

please! we like them safe....

Nils

[queequeg]

hells no! Non-release is the safest way to go, all the way. Skis need to release due to the fact that there is only one limb attached to them, making it easy for the lever (ski) to over-twist, and permanently destroy your ankle. We have a second limb attached, preventing the board from damaging our ankles in this way. As long as snowboards use non-release bindings, that will never be a problem for us.

skiing != snowboarding.