DEBATE: Intec VS. Toe Bail

[NWboarder]

1. Pros and Cons
   
2. Strengths and Weaknesses
   
3. Balance and Versatility
   

Lets us debate on likes and dislikes of intecs (or any other quick step in/out system) and toe bail bindings systems.

I want to hear why we chose the system we ride with and believe in. I am wondering if I'm missing out (currently run Intecs).

Pow days I see the draw toe bails offer... slushy icy days too. I wonder if I am forfeiting balance and control for easy in and out.

[kieran]

toe bails give more wiggle when your angles are low. intec gives more lateral rigidity which should work better for stances with high angles, or if you're a big/fat heifer. ;)

click and go. technologically cooler but not as yogatastic as the sliding toe bail engagement maneuvre.

intecs can be a talking point for people who havent seen the tech.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

Evan, knowing a little about your history and progression through the bindings.

I suggest using what you have until the TD3 SW SI comes out. They will give you more lateral flex and the convenience of step in.

In general , TD step-ins are slightly stiffer than a standard bindings of the same model. In part due to the hard heel.

If you don't mind standards, get a pair of the Sidewinders, I think they will give you the added forgiveness you likely seek.

PS. I also use F2 TI SI for my powder boards. I will be happy to switch back to Bomber TD3 SW SI for off piste when that becomes available.

IMHO, Bryan

[NWboarder]

I really like my F2 and TD2 Intecs. Didnt/dont think Ill make the switch but I want to make sure I'm not missing out some aspects of control or helping me initiate turns and dig in.

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

I really like my F2 and TD2 Intecs. Didnt/dont think Ill make the switch but I want to make sure I'm not missing out some aspects of control or helping me initiate turns and dig in.

Nope , both can rip hard , both provide an excellent connection and feedback to the rider. Slight difference in flex which can make a big difference in some riders but is not huge deal to most. Slight adjustments in riding position and pressure will

allow both to work very well.

[powdahbonz]

Started on Burton Race Plates, liked the flex, never broke them, moved to Catek World Cups-stiff but mucho adjustability and then got my first set of TD2 standards. never looked back. Switched to Step-ins and have preferred that to standards. Just picked up a set of proto SW to try out and I'm sure that when the SW step-in is available, I'll grab one set. As my riding has improved, I have to grant much of that to the interface changes along the way (i.e. changing from ski boot shells to burton fire's, to Track 700's with the various combinations). This season I will be trying the double duty of the Stormtrooper boot from skiing to riding on the SW's. I agree with much said here when it comes to step-in cons...the spring riding icing under heel combo has caused me to have two spectacular heel releases at speed which left me questioning standard vs. step-in...At the end of the day, PPPPPP. Always check your pins and heels.

[Beckmann AG]

Much like bicycle pedals, the step in interface has a lot going for it, at least in concept.

But;

The Intec interface severely limits your boot options.

Intec compatible boots tend to have excessive internal ramp to accommodate the latch module.

Matching shell geometry and internal contour to the structural/mechanical needs of each rider is one of the more important considerations for rider development beyond intermediacy.

E.g., a reasonably skilled driver can complete a lap of their favorite road course wearing Sorel Pacs without incident, but they are nearly guaranteed to be faster (and safer) with a pair of proper driving shoes.

If hardbooting were not a niche endeavour, boot development would not be stalled, and, like cycling (with a plethora of shoe options) the boot/binding interface would be further improved to the point of universal acceptance.

As it stands, riders who appreciate the significant convenience of step-ins might never realize their on-snow potential on account of their footwear.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Beckmann AG

[philw]

It's great that there are options; I've no interest in persuading anyone else to do what I do - use whatever you want. That said...

(1) I switched to Intecs in the early days and found the interface immediately more positive than the various clip-ins I'd used up to that point. The stability of the heel was a revelation I remember noticing from the first run. Other benefits are easier in/ out generally; escape potential in powder; and it makes the park rat stuff look particularly neanderthal. On the "con" side, you can't use them with ski boots. You also need to consider the system (boot + binding) as a whole, so you can't just switch from clip-in to step-in without tweaking the boot to accommodate the different transmission.

(2) Strengths and Weaknesses - see above. New weaknesses would be that the cables don't last for ever, so I carry a spare, as the whole continent of North America likely has none.

(3) Balance and Versatility. Step-ins are less versatile as they only work with Intec heels, so you have to be happy with that.

So in summary my personal feeling is that I have more power and control from the Intec system, as the heel lock is so positive. For powder I would ride conventional clips if I had to, but I'd not want to try to get out of those in a tree well - I think they're less safe from that respect.

[Corey]

I've no interest in persuading anyone else to do what I do - use whatever you want.

Wisest info ever! This debate happens in all sport/hobbies/whatever, there's always a few options. On each side of an option there are people that are completely convinced that the other side just doesn't know what they're missing. Some people love a rigid setup, some want flex to filter out some noise from the board. The top racers tend towards flexible toe-bail bindings and stiff boots, but they don't exactly ride perfectly-groomed corduroy like we mostly yearn for.

I like my step-ins. I'm out and back in every 6 or 7 minutes when riding near home; step-ins save a crapload of time over the span of a day. I've broken one Fintec cable (Thanks again for the fast repair Fin!), and have had three unintentional rear-foot releases on my first or second turn after stepping in. I now aggressively wiggle my legs side to side to ensure the pins are fully engaged while I'm building speed at the start of a run. That becomes automatic real quickly. They also tend to build up ice in certain conditions, and you can't readily feel that. With standard toe-bail bindings you can feel that something is wrong when flipping the toe clip, alerting you to trouble. No such feedback with step-ins. You need to be conscious of the amount of snow/ice on your heel. If it feels funny, stop and make sure you have proper engagement.

If Fin ever stops thinking about one-liners, Subarus, and aluminum-chip-stealers, he might be able to make the holy grail - a TD3 step-in Sidewinder. Step-in convenience, calibrated/tunable flex of the Sidewinder. My credit card is ready!

[Neil Gendzwill]

The Intec interface severely limits your boot options.

Intec compatible boots tend to have excessive internal ramp to accommodate the latch module.

Our boot options are already severely limited. Can you name a snowboard-specific hard boot currently in production that is not Intec compatible?

[Hans]

Intec TD3 SI on my narrow Virus boards, I don't want any sideflex in my bindings in this setup, only direct transfere times. Standard bails on my wide worldcup raceboards: F2 Race CNC for more lateral movement.

[Beckmann AG]

^

^Sorry about any confusion Neil, something must have got hung up in Customs.

The choice of step-in bindings gives you a choice of two brands of new boots, and a few more brands of NOS or used boots.

Toe flips give the user far more options, limited only by imagination and sole/binding compatibility.

A greater number of practical boot options leads to improved, if you will, 'biodiversity' within the sport.

Otherwise you're left with, well...

NASCAR.

[NWboarder]

I've no interest in persuading anyone else to do what I do - use whatever you want. That said...

So in summary my personal feeling is that I have more power and control from the Intec system, as the heel lock is so positive. For powder I would ride conventional clips if I had to, but I'd not want to try to get out of those in a tree well - I think they're less safe from that respect.

First thanks for the disclaimer! I would hate for someone to think you were twisting their arm... Its your experience that is the takeaway here.

Second, I often think about safety vs. convenience. I like your take on powder days and I often think a toe bail would be better as buildup of ice/snow under heal or clicking in off balance or at odd angels can complicate things with intecs... Tree wells scare me and quick release gives us a higher chance of survival...

When I started hard booting I think I had toe bails the first three days and slid into intecs by default, haven't changed back. Didnt give them much of a chance... its the unknown I want to know most about.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I run Intecs and I like them a lot, mainly because they are so convenient. Love being able to step out and skate on the flats and step back in without losing momentum. Love not holding up my skiing friends at the top. Stiffness is not an issue with me as I run softer boots and F2s, so there is some slop in there which suits what I like to do.

The only downside for me is ice buildup on the heel on wetter days, and making darn sure both pins are engaged which are related of course. I've been running the same boots since forever and no desire to change a good thing so biodiversity holds little appeal for me.

[OhD]

Much like bicycle pedals, the step in interface has a lot going for it, at least in concept.

...

If hardbooting were not a niche endeavour, boot development would not be stalled, and, like cycling (with a plethora of shoe options) the boot/binding interface would be further improved to the point of universal acceptance.

...QUOTE]

And the universally-accepted cycle shoe/pedal interface is....?

[kieran]

And the universally-accepted cycle shoe/pedal interface is....?

i presumed he meant sole-affixed cleats, rather than shoe clips.

[Neil Gendzwill]

i presumed he meant sole-affixed cleats, rather than shoe clips.

Well there's at least 3 styles of those, in addition to clips and just plain pedals.

[Beckmann AG]

And the universally-accepted cycle shoe/pedal interface is....?

Outside of some track events, if you are more concerned with effective propulsion than acrobatics, the interface of choice is clipless.

AKA step-in.

But you already know that.

---

Look introduced their first commercially viable pedal in '84. (Apparently the first clipless pedal was introduced in 1895. It had 'float'.)

Time followed in '88.

For the first few years, each pedal worked best with the shoe of the same brand. Most likely the limited shoe options, and inadequate shoe design, slow the adoption of clipless pedals among the professional ranks.

(Sean Kelly rode with clips until right before the eve of his retirement in '94. He knew what worked for him and stuck with it, despite the status quo).

Some shoes are 'Look compatible', others are 'Time compatible'. Eventually soles offer both options, with or without suitable adapter plates.

And the uppers no longer separate from the sole.

Materials and design, both shoe and pedal, are refined until there are no compelling reasons not to use a clipless interface on the road. (With the SPD interface, clipless was always a no-brainer for XC).

It stands to reason that the alpine snowboarding boot/binding interface should follow a similar path.

Clipless pedals caught on largely due to convenience and ease of use. Their success was assured when it was discovered that different shoe/pedal combinations could improve effect, at the same time reducing joint stress and injury for a greater number of cyclists who might otherwise give up riding.

Of course, there are any number of riders who simply can't come to terms with clipless pedals, and carry on with toe clips.

So long as they are out on a bike, more power to them.

It's not so much whether toe flips are better than Intecs, or vice-versa; rather a matter of which is better for the 'job' at hand.

[snowboardfast]

I rode intec for a while and have switched back to bail bindings because I like what they do for me. I felt that intec is too stiff andwhen you get off balance it is harder to make adjustments. You would have to try bail bindings again to see if you like what they do for you? I feel that bail bindings are much better when you are riding on variable conditions as well. No more intec heels to break either. I will be keeping an eye on my bails and replacing them occasionaly to avoid breakage although bindings today are much better than they were years ago. I have ridden many versions of both intec and bail bindings over the years. Of course in the early days all you could ride were bail bindings.

[Johnny]

Why Speedplay of course, with Grey Poupon...

I don't know about that, my Look Keo blades are pretty fantastic.

[Johnny]

Intec TD3 SI on my narrow Virus boards, I don't want any sideflex in my bindings in this setup, only direct transfere times. Standard bails on my wide worldcup raceboards: F2 Race CNC for more lateral movement.

Other than being prettier, whats the difference between the F2 Race Ti's versus the CNC?

[Jeremy]

Good thread. Thanks.

[Mr.E]

I'm not sure I follow on Intecs being better for escape in avy or tree well situations. I've never been caught in a slide that necessitated release, but have been upside down in a tree well. Flipping the toe bail was immediate release. If you are hanging from the Intec pins (either hanging or with avy debris pushing the board away from your center line) you are as likely to break the cable as release the interface. 

 

I really enjoy Intecs for convenience on piste, but I'm not convinced they provide a safety margin off. 

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mr.E

[Surf Quebec]

I switched from stepin to standard this year, love the added flex, love my riding.

I use to ride stepin with td2 then F2 and Virus, now standard F2.

I broke 1 cable once, so must keep backup nearby.

I don't mind the clipping effort.

[nvsnowlion]

I switched from stepin to standard this year, love the added flex, love my riding.

 

I've been riding step-ins since 2001, and never tried a standard binding. I like to ride all-mountain, all conditions on a Donek Axxess. Never had an unintended release, or cable break. Still using the same intec heels I bought back then.

 

After reading this thread I have to know first hand what the standard binding is like. Just ordered the Bomber TD2 retrofit kit to go standard. I would be happy to get the added flex that Surf Quebec speaks of. I hope it is a good trade off for the step in convenience.

 

Can't wait to try this new set up. Now if it would just snow here in Tahoe it would be alright. Four years in a row with sub-normal snow pack and this year was the worst yet. 5 years ago we were still riding on the 4th of July. Damn you fickle b!#ch mother nature!

Edited February 25, 2015 by nvsnowlion