Do we need bindings that release?

[fin]

After just reading the article about Earl Miller who just passed away (inventor of a releasable snowboard binding - see other thread) , it got me thinking about the debate that has been going on for years, do snowboarders need a releasable binding?

Some of the arguments have been that a snowboarder is locked into a very structurally sound shape (legs form a triangle) and that we are not as prone to lower leg injury. Accident data would support this, we tend to get upper body injuries.

The other argument was that a releasable system would have to release BOTH bindings at the same time. If one released and the other stayed on, man do you have a problem.

However, I have certainly been in situations where the board was twisted around and it might have been nice if it came off at a certain point.

Anyway, what do you guys think, better to release or better to just stay in?

[Jon Dahl]

twice, and both times it was rather inconvenient! A system like that would have to be VERY well thought out and like you said, both would have to go at the same time.

[Hagen]

...would not want to get into the situation where only one binding releases. I guess Fin is right, unless they come up with a mechanism that would release both bindings at the same time it's a nono...

But then we would have another problem - the board being attached to you by the leash. I would think sliding down the mountain with a board next to you asks for mor insuries...

[mirror70]

The reason for a releasable binding on a ski is that you can twist your leg off if you fall and turn. On a snowboard, since both legs are attached to the same plane, your legs cannot be twisted; your hips twist instead. I've never heard of injuries due to this.

Problems I see with releasable snowboard bindings:

[*]Figuring out when it is that you would want to release

[*]Making the release happen

[*]Making both bindings release, to avoid the ski problem mentioned above

[*]Making a brake mechanism so that boards wouldn't go launching down the hill, but also so leashes wouldn't be required

[*]Since people ride with such a wide range of stance angles, the range of "unsafe" motion varies hugely. One rider's unsafe (a duck-footer leaning towards the front of the board) may be an essential part of another's technique (someone riding 60/45 putting some weight on the nose)

[/list=1]

There is one situation in which a manually releasable binding would be useful: when riding deep powder. The ability to release your binding without reaching your board is potential a major safety enhancement if you're riding off-piste or in anything deep.

[Mike T]

I can't count the number of times I've been *really happy* that my bindings don't release, especially when I was just starting out. Having a snowboard attached to your feet makes an excellent brake when I eat it on a steep run.

Also, I'm trying to imagine if bindings released durring a nose fold. Half the time I end up bouncing off my helmet and onto my board again. Not so bad. If the board didn;'t catch me I'd face plant every time after buncing off my head. No thanks.

Regarding "manual release" - I find Intecs work adequately in deep snow if I need to get out. But I am only talking deep resort snow (which can be 4 feet plus in windblown spots at the Hood) and not backcountry whioch is probably an entirely different animal...

[Hagen]

On a second thought - the one time a release on the front binding could be usefull is when you exit the lift, especially for beginners. But that mechanism would need to be disabled once you get into the rear binding and start riding.

[philfell]

I've broken many bindings over the years and it's the scariest thing in the world when you release, especially the front foot. Yeah in theory both feet are supposed to release at the same time, but soft boot step-ins aren't supposed to clog with snow and are more convient than straps. Any one who has spent enough time in clickers knows how well that works in reality. I've also had one incident where both feet came out of my bindings during a crash, it wasn't convient, I ended up sliding down Mt. Hood glaze and had a hard time stopping. If my board was attached no big deal.

Earl actually wrote a book about his releasable bindings. I can't remember the name,I think it was something like "Snowboard deaths, the cover-ups", but I did read it, and there are some points that he makes that are so far off, when it comes to how things work in the real world of snowboarding. One of his claims is snowboarder getting stuck in tree wells.... How does riding into a tree well give enough torque to release your bindings?, and how does being out of your bindings make it easier to get out?, and how does staying in your bindings increase your risk of injury? He also rants about how Burton brainwashes the public in the early 90's's so people wouldn't accept his idea. For a while he had a billboard on I-15 near Provo, UT trying to get people to call if they have been injured snowboarding so they could sue binding manufactors and resorts.

In my opnion he did some great things for skiing, but never understood snowboarding. Releasabe bindings are a bad idea.

[Jon Dahl]

has anyone tried releasing Intecs/Fast heel systems while upside down in a tree well? If not, I may have to test that in a (AHEM) laboratory setting!

[bobdea]

as far as getting stuck in a tree well goes I have pulled a couple skiers out of them and releasable bindings did them no good since their skis were still on!

I have been ejected a couple times on a board it was not good but it was funny to watch I am sure

one thing I would like to see though is a release system that actually works the way it is supposed to with tele bindings

[Chris Houghton]

I just checked the McMaster-Carr catalog Fin, and they have everything you need for the TD3 release option. 6mm button head explosive Allen bolts, only need 30 microvolts to initiate. Luckily they also have an anal probe/accelerometer/strain gauge that will generate more than the 30 mV needed. Just insert the probe before you start for the day, and you'll be safe knowing that if you exceed 1.2 G in any plane, or if your sphincter clenches more than 10 newtons (no, not fig newtons, the force measurement) all of your board/binding bolts will blow, and you'll fly into the trees without a board to encumber your trip. Should be a boon for the board manufacturers - oh wait, you'll need new Bombers everytime - hey wait, that's why Fin is asking!

[Guest Randy S.]

Originally posted by Jon Dahl

has anyone tried releasing Intecs/Fast heel systems while upside down in a tree well?

I've done that. I copied a system from Hiroshi and a guy named Scott Ferrell. I have a clip in the top of my intec handle (its made to accept one) and web strapping attached to the cable. It exits my pants mid-thigh and I attached a little bottle opener/figure 8 thingy to that. I can release without bending down to my boot tops. It works great when riding up to the lift line, but has the side benefit of allowing you to release when hanging upside down in a tree well or cliff area. Just make sure you have a safety leash.

Chris Houghton: Great post! I love the idea of explosive bolts and the sphincter-trigger is a perfect way to handle the release.

[Skully]

This should be a fun thread.

I had a freind who rode the softie releasables for a while. I don't think he ever actually got them to release while riding, but he liked them because they actually work as great lifters....

I don't personally think I would ride them. Obviously you need a leash for "brakes." Imagine having both feet release, with your board swinging around on the end of the lease, hacking off body parts as it flies by. No Thanks.

They still have their web-site up if anyone is interested:

www.rideharder.com

[Mats]

The only times (two) I have hurt my legs from snowboarding is when I lost ONE of the bindings. I didn´t get in the Intecs and as a cause lost it when a started to push down. Twisted my knees quite badly. I don´t se any need for a releasable binding. As for the Intec system - F2 makes pants wich are conected to the cables. You just pull the legs of your pants and your out. Been using them for a couple of season. Works good. And they are for sure nice to have when you get stuck in bottomless mushy snow and your board is stuck under 40 centimeter of snow.

Mats

[Enzo]

When I take my carving board into the park to drop some funk with the gangsta boogie posse....I can spin, flip, rodeo, and McTwist with the best of them, but always seem to have a hard time with my Judo Airs. While flying through the air I'm able to release my Intec binding and kick, but as I'm coming down it's sometimes tough to click back into my Trench Diggers before landing. I couldn't find anything in the Welcome Center or the archives about this. Is anyone else having the same problem?

Could you make a releasable binding with high-powered magnets or Superconductors that can be electronically controlled with a microchip in one's head? That way the binding will release when you tell it to release via a nerve impulse.

Seriously though, wouldn't a releasable binding compromise the health and safety of the snowboarder it's meant to protect? The thought of being in a full speed carve and having one boot release makes my spine shiver and my knees ache. If both boots release simultaneously, what happens when your feet land on your board as it's being dragged behind you? Is an Orthopedic Knee Doctor funding this design and looking for more business? Not enough torn ACL's from skiing? :D

[CarvCanada]

I wonder, has anyone had their intec cable accidentaly pulled while riding? Maybe in the glades, and a tree snagged it :) ? Does the front boot have as long a string as the rear one? I wouldn't feel safe knowing that I could just reach down and give it a little pull and I'd fly out of my toesides

If the system for releasable snowboard bindings was PERFECT and couldn't possibly go release at the wrong time, I'd still probably not get one, since when they release you have a gigantic board with sharp edges flying right next to you, which one leg maybe could step on, while the other steps on the snow and many injuries could happen just after release.

[gdboytyler]

Did Miller submit a snowboard patent that Burton ended up buying? I sort of remember reading that story.

[Baka Dasai]

According to the releasable binding guy, if only one foot released initially, and the twisting forces on the other leg began to build up to dangerous levels, it too would release.

I'm not sure that's true because you can probably create a lot more force on the binding when both feet are attached than when only one foot is attached, and so a releasable binding would have to be calibrated for that "double-foot" force in order to prevent premature ejaculation.

Re releasing when you're stuck upside down in a tree well - I recently read of a study that showed that when both skiers and snowboarders did release from their bindings in this situation it made the situation worse - they just buried themselves deeper, making it harder to get out, and making it harder for people to find them.

[pm_wizard]

Chris, it took me this far down the thread to stop laughing. I see a patent filing coming up fast... the perfect stress sensor.

John

[utahcarver]

Other than never wanting a releasable binding on a snowboard, I can think of one instance that I'd like a binding to FAIL. If I were to hit a log or limb of a tree that was just underneath the snow, instead of a traumatic compound fracture to my lower leg, I'd prefer to have a binding or more specifically, a set of inserts fail and allow my leg to not be big part of that encounter.

I've maintained for a while that the obvious answer was to have a 'Burt' (I think it was Burt) type of plate binding that would allow a rider to 'bend without breaking' so to speak. A retractable cable under a plate binding that would 'release' or give under a preset load. When the rider stopped pressuring the plate, it would retract back into position as before.

The next course to pursue would be to try to develop inserts/boards which would fail in order to save the riders' legs. Of course, inserts failing is not the same as a releasable binding for snowboarding. But, it is an added measure of protection where there is currently none. And boards failing, well, that's not very good for anybody now is it? Which would you rather hear snapping below your waist?

Great question Fin, short of exploding bolts and LSC's (linear-shaped charge), your answer may be in a retractable cable.

Orrrrrrr, how about an airbag? yeahhhhh, just get that awful grandma lady from Columbia to develop a unipiece suit that would puff up like an SUV airbag. Just a few sodium azide tabs strategically woven into the fabric, and WHAMMO! A skier hits you and you suddenly turn into the Hindenburg.

Mark

[Guest AlpentalRider]

if you ever get caught in an avalanche, having your bindings release will help save your life. A board attached to feet while getting churned by an avalanche is very bad for your health. And the chances of you being able to swim towards the surface during the tumble is about zero.

There are quite a few backcountry riders who have retrofitted release levers in their bindings that go up to their knees where they can pull on both levers and release and then proceed to swim for their lives.

Of course the best way to survive an avalanche is to not get caught in one...

[NateW]

I have mixed feelings about the release idea. I think it's got potential, but I also think that the both-or-neither feature absolutely essential and unfortunately really really hard to implement.

If someone comes up with a design that I believed in, I'd probably try it. But I'd need to be absolutely certain that I will never, ever find myself tumbling down the mountain with only one foot attached.

My guess is that for a binding manufacturer, the risk-reward tradeoffs favor non-releasing bindings by a long shot. If someone gets hurt riding those, well, shxt happens and we all know that, it's a risk you take. And it's a fairly small risk - having both legs attached to the same object makes it pretty hard to break either of them. On the other hand, if someone gets hurt riding a releasable binding that only releases one leg, the lawyers will be popping out of the woodwork. (Which really sucks. I utterly despise this feature of our legal system (I'd call it a bug, not a feature), but that's another rant for another time.)

[C5 Golfer]

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.

[sheffy]

FIRst off the"ANAL PROBE ONE WAS GREAT"" :D --I have broken several bales over the years at high speeds(fixed that problem junked the burton race and went to cateks:) )and things get exciting in a hurry---things are much more in control when you go down at 50kmh---heading for the f****** trees when you still have your board still fastened to your feet to stop ya and not take your head off on its leash!!!====releasable bindings would cause way more injuries --theres no possible way to make them release exactly at the same time---the g force of a carve would set it off from the stress!!!!

[DiveBomber]

Ive build some prototype step in bindings(for soft boots currently) that you can step out of, theres no release lever on them currently

[mirror70]

C5 Golfer - The reason NASCAR cars seem to break apart in crashes is because the bodywork sucks. It isn't because they're getting rid of excess energy. If you look at them, only the bodywork comes off - the structure of the car stays intact. The bodywork comes off because it is only loosely attached to the car. The reason for this has more to do with entertainment value than it does with engineering.

Jim, C5 - You don't need a whole plate to connect the bindings. Something like a shift cable would work just as well. If you don't mind trading cost for good looks, you could even use a shift ribbon like the ones used on the Carrera GT.

sheffy - Nothing is impossible, only improbable.