binding help?????

[philw]

[...] Just like 'suspension' on anything else, road bike, mtn. bike, motorcycle,street car, race car, monster truck, whatever. It's all about putting the 'forces' to the surface. [/b]

True, but there's not exactly much suspension on my road cycle, and my "sports" car is pretty stiff, as are my windsurfer sails... All these things flex of course, but it's about having the right type of flexibility in the right places.

It's good that there's a choice in stuff like this. I tried some of the Intec Proflex (now F2) bindings with the suspension things a few years back and ended up dumping the dampers - they are removable and what you're left with is essentially the same as the undamped Proflex race plates.

[Guest BRAD PETER]

Fin/Bob Seems like there is a market for Bomber lights say td standards with 5.5 mm bales and high quality plastic toe piece. The design of your binding is the best and this would be an easy change that would pick up lighter riders,beginers ,racers ect. l

[Jack M]

not speaking for fin or bob, but i'm sure this could be accomplished with the existing e-ring system, and just making it cushier, perhaps also with more travel. no need to compromise safety with weak components.

bombers are engineered bindings. if you're not engineering, you're guessing.

[Jack M]

Originally posted by Kent

But why over-engineer a problem that doesn't exist? Don't engineers understand the KISS principal?

Oh, I'm sorry, do Burton bails <i>not</i> break all the time? :p

I'm no engineer, but I play one on TV. If you took the TD1 binding and made the top of the toe/heel blocks "rounded" (rather than flat) you give yourself a wee bit of wiggle room and lateral movement.

Unnecessary. Then you'd be getting boot wear and/or unpredictable play. Why not make the closure system unbreakable, and engineer the flex in somewhere else?

Coupled with a (replaceable) plastic (ryton) toe clip and you might be there.....

Now that's just crazy talk. Plastic toe clips. peushaw.

Just a thought. The other is price.

The price of this sport is creeping up way too fast........

Compared to what? Skiing? No. Softboot snowboarding? No. (Burton's topshelf 2-strap binding is $350)

[Mike T]

Originally posted by Kent

Care to give us your idea on where a binding should flex? It seems that material flex is easier to accomplish than mechanical flex.

I'm a software engineer not a mechanical engineer but I'm giving my $0.02 anyway:

It should flex somewhere, such that when "flex" becomes "fail", the risk of injury to the rider is minimized. When that part is the bails, there is a great risk of injury.

I understand how much engineers hate hearing something like that last paragraph, where someone doesn't know what they want but they sure know what they don't want. I deal with that all the time at work.

[RCrobar]

Hi Fin

When the TD2 was first released I remember Fin (or Bob?) discussing different E-Ring prototypes, both thicker and thinner E-Rings were tested.

It was explained that the thin E-Rings shredded or wore out too quickly. The thicker E-Rings were said to have too much movement, pitch and roll but not yaw.

From a layman’s point of view it seems that the thicker E-Ring used with the TD2 prototype could create what some riders are after, more flex from the bindings without compromising binding strength or design.

Fin/Bob, could you tell us more about the different E-Ring (thick vs thin) prototype testing results?

In theory could the thicker E-Ring be a viable possibility/solution to the flex question?

Thanks for your time.

Rob

[fin]

Rob,

When Bob and I came up with the design for the suspension system for the TD2 the thickness of the E-Ring was a HUGE debate with us as to what would work the best. The issues are:

- Go too thin and you reduce the ability for the system to absorb as well as reduce your movement or rather "float" which gives you some of that needed lateral (relative to boot, side to side) movement. Also, the E-ring is prone to ripping at the thinner thicknesses.

- Go too big and you now have maybe gained more absorption but you also have a lot more forward and rearward (toe and heel) movement that severally reduces your ability for edge hold. Also, the increase in movement will move the parts of the lower assembly past what might be acceptable for reliability and wear.

So we had to find a good middle ground for the thickness. But to answer your question, as I mentioned up top, during testing we found the really soft and really thick E-Rings did add some more flex to the system but severally reduced edge control. Example: Make a car with really soft suspension and it rides very smooth but corners like crap. However, when it comes to suspension there are ways to have most of what you want or need. The TD2 system is a good start and (in our opinion) as good as it gets right now.

[skategoat]

Fin - why does the e-ring have to be consistent through it's entire circumference? Why not make the toe and heel sides of the ring out of firmer materials to reduce the fore-aft flex?

I can even picture a two piece ring that mates together to form a complete ring.

[Derf]

Originally posted by skategoat

Fin - why does the e-ring have to be consistent through it's entire circumference? Why not make the toe and heel sides of the ring out of firmer materials to reduce the fore-aft flex?

I can even picture a two piece ring that mates together to form a complete ring.

Then you would lose the ability to adjust the direction of the lift/cant, which is a major selling part of the TD2. See the pictures at the online store and you'll understand.

[Guest Jeff Caron]

Jack,

To date I have not publicly commented on the TD2 “Suspension” system vs the CATEK True Flex Disc. However there are distinct differences and your claims have prompted me to enter this spirited debate. I have responded to your statements on the CATEK Forum: http://www.catek.com/forum/list.php?f=1

Jeff Caron

CATEK

[Kent]

Perhaps the best response to a Bomber post ever

I don't understand most of it, but sure do like seeing good ole fashioned US capitalism and innovation at work.

Although, I'd still like to see a flexier binding that doesn't break.

K

[Jon Dahl]

After reading Jeff's short article, I note that his observations are somewhat correct, but his diagrams are somewhat skewed in the area of board deflection, making the Catek look better than the TD2. Force transmission will be more linear than his diagram suggests. There will always be a bending moment at the binding edge (metal area) it just is damped differently.

[Guest Randy S.]

Where else is there a forum where you can correspond directly with some of the best minds in the business and get direct feedback from product designers/mfgs/users? This thread has prompted me to try new things (and buy something new) and gain a much better understanding of the products I use. Kudos to Fin, Jeff, Phil, etc. for contributing to one of the most informative threads. Keep up the great stuff guys.

Many Thanks,

Randy

[DrCR]

Originally posted by Jon Dahl

After reading Jeff's short article, I note that his observations are somewhat correct, but his diagrams are somewhat skewed in the area of board deflection, making the Catek look better than the TD2. Force transmission will be more linear than his diagram suggests. There will always be a bending moment at the binding edge (metal area) it just is damped differently.

So perhaps the the Catek looking better than the TD2 is unrepresentitive, but then were do the Catek's really stand. Perhaps not better, but equal? Only somehwhat inferior? (In this regard, not as a whole)

I know I'm asking this in a naturally very much TD2 biased forum, but I'm curious on what you consider , given your acknowledgement to at aleast some legitimacy of Jeff's thoughts, where the Catek's actually stand in this regard.

Thanks,

DrCR

________

[D-Sub]

thing is, if Jack, Bob, Fin, etc, thought that Catek was "better" they wouldnt have designed the TD2 the way it is designed! They would have found a way to mimic the Catek formula while staying unique

same goes for Caron...Im not sure who has been doing plates for longer, but...if they werent certain their design was the best, they'd have done it differently.

asking one or the other to say ours is best is kinda futile, dont you think?

Id call them equals with different purposes

[Guest Randy S.]

Originally posted by DrCR

So perhaps the the Catek looking better than the TD2 is unrepresentitive, but then were do the Catek's really stand. Perhaps not better, but equal? Only somehwhat inferior? (In this regard, not as a whole)

I know I'm asking this in a naturally very much TD2 biased forum, but I'm curious on what you consider , given your acknowledgement to at aleast some legitimacy of Jeff's thoughts, where the Catek's actually stand in this regard.

Thanks,

DrCR

________

I think you'll actually get a pretty un-biased opinion here. Fact is, this is the definitive forum for Carving discussion. Cateks is good too (especially if you miss CMC :p ), but there are way more people who post here.

I think its almost a Coke/Pepsi discussion. Except that here you can argue on technical merit 'til you are blue in the face. Both are great bindings. Neither is likely to dissapoint or fail. To me it comes down to Cateks have almost unlimited adjustability and Bombers are more set-and-forget, but within certain limits, based on base disks. I do like the suspension on the new TDs, but Cateks suspension isn't half-bad. You have to ride them back-to-back to see/notice any difference and even then I think it would be a close call as far as ride/suspension is concerned.

I have 2.5 sets of TD2 SI's.

Oh, if you wanted freeride bindings also, that might tilt you toward catek so you could interchange parts (is that right - can you interchange base plates and some other parts?).

[Mike T]

Originally posted by Randy S.

I do like the suspension on the new TDs, but Cateks suspension isn't half-bad. You have to ride them back-to-back to see/notice any difference and even then I think it would be a close call as far as ride/suspension is concerned.

I have 2.5 sets of TD2 SI's.

Oh, if you wanted freeride bindings also, that might tilt you toward catek so you could interchange parts (is that right - can you interchange base plates and some other parts?).

I've done the back-to back test, on two different boards...

On a Coiler SuperBoard (SuperDamp) PR 184 I couldn't tell the difference, even on frozen cord. The bindings felt the same. (I set the cant/lift as close as I could get it)

On a Donek Axis 172, I can tell the difference immediately. Advantage, TD2. Less knee-jarring*

I believe the disks on the Catek Oly and FR are the same, and so is the kingpin... you can swap out top halves as long as you use the same stance width.

*That is a comparison of *just the dameping qualities* using a soft e-ring. I think Catek's cant/lift system is a valuable feature.

[DrCR]

Cool, thanks guys.

[kipstar]

>>Where else is there a forum where you can correspond directly with some of the best minds in the business and get direct feedback from product designers/mfgs/users?

If you like this sort of conversation, you should take up formula windsurfing and go on these websites:

www.star-board.com

www.gaastra.com

www.mytrims.com

Friggin 'eck, you get to speak with the world champs (Pritchard, Wojtek etc) and the brand owners as well...unbelievable. I guess it is the beauty of being involved in sports without excessive media attention.

Kip