Binding ramblings

[Tanglefoot]

I am no hard boot historian, but I am fairly sure that alpine snowboard bindings were originally designed to accommodate ski boots. 
This was understandable back in the early days of the sport, when many of us actually rode in ski boots - but there are many disadvantages associated with this solution:

The sole of the boot is long and narrow, to suit skis rather than snowboards. Hence the lever constraining the boot transversely is very short, and the lever constraining the boot longitudinally is very long. 

Thus it is hard to control the transverse flex, and there is little longitudinal flex available. Virtually all of the longitudinal flex is handled by the cuff of the boot. 
Neither my boots, nor my ankles really enjoy going through the range of motion that they are often subjected to.
The interface between the boot and the binding are also the walking surfaces of the boot. These are not precision surfaces, and they deteriorate over time.

So as a thought for the day, imagine a compact binding that attaches to the middle / sides of the hard boot rather than the ends. This brings the following advantages:

• The boot could be made shorter.
• The binding could have a pivot, allowing it to flex fore and aft, maybe offering a significant range of movement.
• The boot could then be simpler, as the binding would handle more of the longitudinal movement. Less need for complex spring systems in the boot.
• The interface would be more stable transversely, with potential for harder or softer side flex as required.
• Elastomeric pads could enable fine tuning of longitudinal and transverse flex, and could be made available in a range of hardnesses and rebound rates.
• The walking surfaces could be wider, more rubbery and properly grippy, and therefore safer and more comfortable for walking.
• The interface between binding and boot could be very precise, would not be walked on, and hopefully could incorporate a slick step-in function.
• I would also like to be able to adjust cant and lift simply by turning knobs while wearing mittens, but maybe I am being greedy now.

There are also some obvious obstacles looming:

• The cost of developing new boots and new bindings at the same time would be considerable.
• Riders would need to buy new boots and new bindings at the same time.
• It is difficult to build in flex and adjustability in several directions, without making the binding bulky or high. Or expensive.

However, I think such a system, if properly designed, could also work for wider boards and flatter angles, i.e. 99 percent of the snowboard market. 
This would make the development effort worthwhile financially, if not spiritually. But these wide-board folk would need to accept that buckles make more sense than laces, and I am not sure they are ready yet. Unless we can throw in some pull-on covers that make the boots look like park-ready lace-up soft boots?

P.S. I have been on this forum before, so I am well aware that there are genuine hard boot historians out there, who presumably will tell me that this has been tried before, and did not work...

[philw]

There's a fair bit of historic information here:
http://www.alpinecarving.com/binding_model.html

If you think about the costs of injection moulds (see the Mountain Slope discussion), then you can see why it would be quite a challenge for a low-numbers  sport like this to come up with brand new moulds and also a completely new binding design. Without the mass market, it's a challenge. But then the technology is changing, and Mountain Slope have built some new moulds. If you've got that, maybe it's not too hard to mess with the interface too, so perhaps there's hope. In fact did they not suggest something to that effect?

 

 

[BlueB]

Whole point of the longitudinal flex is to happen at the ankle joint in supported (by the flex of plastic or spring/elastomer device) and controlled (by our muscles) manner. 

I personally would hate to have the "falling on my nose" feeling, if something flexed forward under my boot... 

As for the side flex, I like my ski boots slightly rocking sideways in the bindings. When that is not present, I get sore ankles. But I've got wonky ankles, so maybe not the best person to judge it... 

Otherwise, you are describing the Switch softboot bindings. Those attached to the side of the boots and were incredibly solid. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by BlueB

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

Switch brand bindings would be the candidate for a step-in, attaching along the sides of the boot sole. Shave a few lugs off of Vibram-soled AT boot (Like Early Raichle SnoBoarder, Koflach Valluga, or maybe even the Nordica Coach boot?), and just bolt the receiver to the shank/sole, tucked in close to the heel block. The receiver has 5 bolt holes, so even #8 or 4mm machine screws/t-nuts should hold, although #10/5mm might be a better bet. The ONLY issue I had with the binding Switch made was in just-under-freezing rain, where the cam froze up (iced over, actually), and the pre-highback boots (like many step-in boots) just sucked for support on heelside turns.  Of course, all of the above are relics from a past age, so unless you've got this old crap on hand, you probably aren't going to make this kit. My pair of Switch bindings are likely going to an old friend who has my old Vallugas (Pink, just like Damiens!) so that he can get some back-country riding on the Western Slopes in Colorado.

[west carven]

howdy

stop blaming gear!!! the obvious obstacles are your limitations. there are people ripping

clean carves in soofboots, hardboots just makes it easier. don't ever blame the gear...

people were ripping back in the day with crappy gear. stop making excuses...

[Jack M]

TD3s supply all the movement you're talking about. You're right that the boots could be made shorter with side or bottom  attachment points though. 

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

2 hours ago, west carven said:

stop blaming gear!!! the obvious obstacles are your limitations. there are people ripping

Right... You can climb backcountry with 'modern' hardshells? VIBRAM SOLES, Baby!! Koflach's Rule for the Hike + ride. And having a step-in that also works on snowshoes has got a certain advantage.

Oh, and Jack, Sidewinders... I'm the guy who first put that idea on Fin's table (although G+S snowboards first put a lean-pivot hadboot binding out on the US market in '90)...

[lowrider]

Mid sole bindings require more metal  (heavier) due to concentration of loads on a single point. Diving board like unstability of a mid point binding isn't something i'd be interested in. The assurance of a firm clamping of toe and heel goes a long way in assuring good contact with the groom on sketchy terrain. Build it and some will try it most won't want to try it and the remainder will trash your idea and bitch about the price !

[b0ardski]

It is difficult to build in flex and adjustability in several directions, without making the binding bulky or high. Or expensive.

every bell or whistle added to simplicity costs $$$$, durability, weight, and user friendliness "too many fiddly bits" I remember being discussed. If I could afford $1000 bindings I'd own some phantoms. ANYTHING covered in snow and Ice should be simple.

 

However, I think such a system, if properly designed, could also work for wider boards and flatter angles, i.e. 99 percent of the snowboard market. 
This would make the development effort worthwhile financially, if not spiritually. But these wide-board folk would need to accept that buckles make more sense than laces, and I am not sure they are ready yet. Unless we can throw in some pull-on covers that make the boots look like park-ready lace-up soft boots?

 

In a recent review I saw of burton step-ons, the parky complained his foot didn't "roll" in the boots the way he likes. If they want slop, they won't buy locked in, even though a boot attached to a plate CAN be made with the same sloppy flex the parky's like

 

ps I've used bails to hold my boots on wide allmountain boards since 1990, sole ledges are passive, durable simple and cheap

Edited September 18, 2017 by b0ardski

[Tanglefoot]

17 hours ago, west carven said:

howdy

stop blaming gear!!! the obvious obstacles are your limitations. there are people ripping

clean carves in soofboots, hardboots just makes it easier. don't ever blame the gear...

people were ripping back in the day with crappy gear. stop making excuses...

I am not blaming gear or making excuses.

In every sport, there is continuous technical development, and occasional step changes or breakthroughs. All over the world, there are people working to come up with better solutions, and I can not see anything wrong with that. Boards, bindings and boots are different now to what they were ten or twenty years ago, but you seem to disapprove of this development?

As a person with technical interest, I sometimes like to share some thoughts on this forum, as there is usually a lot of constructive feedback to be gained.

[SunSurfer]

Tanglefoot, factor in that hard boots are ridden from angles of around 0 degrees on wider boards right up to 90 degrees on skwals. The way lateral and fore/aft motion are needed varies accordingly. At one extreme fore/aft flex weights the board edge, at the other lateral flex weights the board edge. And in the transition zone between, where most of us ride, both styles of edge weighting have their followers.

Both the cant and lift that bindings are set up with, and board flex as it carves a turn, create pressures, and discomfort, on our feet, ankles and lower legs. The appropriate cant and lift in the "at rest" position and full isolation plates vastly reduce these pressures. 

For the greatest control, and comfort, both the riders style and boot/binding set-up must be consistent. Trying to ride out of the side of your boots with a set-up that suits heel/toe riding will be an exercise in discomfort and frustration.

Edited September 18, 2017 by SunSurfer
Add detail

[Beckmann AG]

On September 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Tanglefoot said:

I am no hard boot historian, but I am fairly sure that alpine snowboard bindings were originally designed to accommodate ski boots. 

More likely mountaineering boots. For better access to actual mountains.

This was understandable back in the early days of the sport, when many of us actually rode in ski boots - but there are many disadvantages associated with this solution:

The sole of the boot is long and narrow, to suit skis rather than snowboards. Hence the lever constraining the boot transversely is very short, and the lever constraining the boot longitudinally is very long. 

Valid observation, and that was certainly a consideration with 'lightweight' bindings like the Burton Variplate. Wobble in that part of the interface can be resolved largely by increasing/relocating the contact area between the sole of the boot and the binding, and eliminating the rubber toe and heel blocks in favor of plastic. Also by carefully affecting the departure angle of the bails from the binding when the binding is 'closed'.

With the Variplate, one could get better performance by filling all the gaps between boot and binding with a section of 'dri-deck' floor tiling swiped from the base lodge. At the time, it was a revelation.

Thus it is hard to control the transverse flex, and there is little longitudinal flex available. Virtually all of the longitudinal flex is handled by the cuff of the boot. 

And Ideally, that's where the flex should originate, in the boot shell, not the binding, where the flexing can better match the articulation of the joint(s).

Neither my boots, nor my ankles really enjoy going through the range of motion that they are often subjected to.

Is this the origin of the musings? If so, when, where, and under what specific circumstances do you experience discomfort? One needn't twist up all pretzel-like in order to be effective or stylish on hardboots.

The interface between the boot and the binding are also the walking surfaces of the boot. These are not precision surfaces, and they deteriorate over time.

Usually, (but not always), when the foot is properly supported, and the  boot shells are properly modified for a specific user, walking tends to wear the soles evenly, such that wear is easily accommodated by removing slack from the closure system. 

So as a thought for the day, imagine a compact binding that attaches to the middle / sides of the hard boot rather than the ends.

(The original Spademan ski binding worked like that)

This brings the following advantages:

• The boot could be made shorter.
• Given all of the options available for board configuration, is that really an issue?  The UPZed boot has a shorter sole, and the implementation causes all sorts of headaches for people with smaller feet with regard to binding bias.
• The binding could have a pivot, allowing it to flex fore and aft, maybe offering a significant range of movement 
• To what end? Under what circumstances is that an actual advantage? Some Atomic ski boots offered something like that in years past, and it was largely a gimmick.
• The boot could then be simpler, as the binding would handle more of the longitudinal movement. Less need for complex spring systems in the boot.
• Moving interface flex to the binding is simply shuffling tuning responsibility from one manufacturer to another. And not in a good way. A spring system in and of itself isn't complicated (as you probably realize), it's coming to grips with how to tune them that causes problems. The more adjustment on offer, the easier it is for the end user to create something useless instead of useful. And that gives rise to those mechanically challenged users who get vocal when anyone proposes better equipment that they can't understand, or use properly.
• The interface would be more stable transversely, with potential for harder or softer side flex as required.
• Stiffer binding, better boot shell design. Comprehensive instructions on configuration for intended use. Done.
• Elastomeric pads could enable fine tuning of longitudinal and transverse flex, and could be made available in a range of hardnesses and rebound rates.
• Some people really like the Sidewinders, others really don't. Introducing 'give' below the boot sole is an easy way to accommodate the wants and perceived needs of the consumer, but doesn't make too much sense in terms of biomechanics and control systems.  At least not if one actually understands such things.
• The walking surfaces could be wider, more rubbery and properly grippy, and therefore safer and more comfortable for walking.
• If the current offerings were configured as a better match for the lower extremities, walking would be easier and safer. It's been my experience with a variety of footwear types, that there is a 'more effective' proportionality between width and stability, where too wide is worse than too narrow.
• The interface between binding and boot could be very precise, would not be walked on, and hopefully could incorporate a slick step-in function.
• It's been more or less demonstrated that too much precision in the interface isn't desirable, as it requires too much of the user in terms of set up, maintenance, and skill development. Snowboarding is recreation for most, science for few.
• I would also like to be able to adjust cant and lift simply by turning knobs while wearing mittens, but maybe I am being greedy now.
• What are you using at the moment, and what do you hope to gain by adjusting without tools, other than not having to carry tools and chill your fingers?

However, I think such a system, if properly designed, could also work for wider boards and flatter angles, i.e. 99 percent of the snowboard market. 
This would make the development effort worthwhile financially, if not spiritually. But these wide-board folk would need to accept that buckles make more sense than laces, and I am not sure they are ready yet. 

They aren't, because they don't. Buckles are simpler to use, and more secure once set, but as a closure system, they work best when the boot shell is already a good match for the foot. Otherwise, they tend to create hot spots and cold feet. Softboots  have wide acceptance in part because they provide more options to more users than a hard shell can ever hope to. And that's not a bad thing.

Regardless, keep thinking on it, and see if you can reach a solid conclusion on the actual problem to be solved, rather than the trends that could be addressed. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Beckmann AG

[philw]

;-) I think it's worth musing about this sort of thing, whilst there's no snow to be seen around, at least.

On the technical specifics, it would probably be worth modelling the system and building a few sensors to see what actually happens - that may have been done, or may not... it's a minority sport. If I get bored I may take a shot at that. I don't suppose anyone has any (software) models of existing boots and bindings kicking around?

Bindings I think a centrally located system (like Klickers/ SPD) has limitations, and the existing approach will be more stable.  You have fore/aft hold from the bails, and also lateral control from the two Intec pins plus the toe bail. You can easily and simply adjust the boot-in-binding flex by adjusting those bails (height, tension). Flex in European bindings at least is built in and not adjustable, but is incredibly simple and reliable.

Boots A boot which did not flex at all is harder to imagine than I would have thought. Moving flex from boot to binding is an idea, but it's not necessarily connected to shifting the binding mount points: they are separate ideas. A flex-free boot would be pretty cruel on your legs, I'd say, but you could make one fairly easily today with existing bindings to demonstrate this. I'm with B-AG on this though: flex at the ankle is not the same as flex in the binding, the axis is completely different and the moment is different. Think about all those springs people put on the backs of their boots and where that flex acts.

But I think it's a good idea to speculate about what could be done, and I don't believe innovation is going to come from the dead hand of the large companies behind current manufacturing. They have no incentive to disrupt their existing business: they can only lose.

My own view.... with respect to the owners of this site, I think complex bindings aren't the way to go. I'd prefer something extremely light weight and beautifully simple. Phantom have the right idea, I'd say. And for what it's worth you'll probably get more hard boot converts from there than anywhere else. For boots, I hope more flexible manufacturing techniques can liberate design from the financial constraints of injection moulding... at which point I'd expect to see an explosion of variation followed by a winnowing down to what works, but that should be something better that current designs. I'd expect to see more sophisticated use of materials. And with instrumentation becoming easier, maybe a less "trial and error" approach, even without significant investment.
 

[Jack M]

3 hours ago, philw said:

My own view.... with respect to the owners of this site, I think complex bindings aren't the way to go. I'd prefer something extremely light weight and beautifully simple. Phantom have the right idea, I'd say.
 

Your use case (riding powder in hardboots) is not one that Bomber was trying to address with the design of the Trench Digger.  I took a look at the Phantoms.  Nice looking, but those two tiny hold-down points are not going to cut it for carving.  But you were probably not suggesting to just take the Phantom as-is and use it for carving.  I think you were suggesting a simple, lightweight, flat design with minimal moving parts.  We've already been there with bindings like the Burton Race Plate.  Bomber also had a binding like that called the Toaster.  The original Trench Digger was similarly minimalistic but added a cant disc.  The TD2 and 3 came into existence because of the shortcomings of simple  bindings - no adjustability other than shims (talk about a kluge), and no suspension.

That said, I've felt for many years that Bomber should have offered custom machined bindings for a premium that would be separate toe and heel blocks machined to your desired cant/lift angles.  Elastomer suspension could be added or not.  Of course you'd have to get a custom board or isolation plate with inserts placed accordingly, but that wouldn't be a big deal at this level.  I think this would be the lightest, lowest, simplest (aside from the initial configuration) solution.  Obviously they wouldn't get rich selling these, but it would work great on an isolation plate or a bare board.

 

[Jack M]

Back to the OP, I can imagine a new binding (TD4?) that would attach sideways like you say, and then a retro-fit kit for existing boots that would bolt on in place of the boot's toe/heel pads.  Then grind off your toe/heel ledges and voila, ride lower angles.

[Tanglefoot]

Thanks for a lot of great thoughts guys! My original musings stem from boredom during too much air travel this year, and I came up with the list of perceived advantages, which have now partly been debunked. It all hopefully adds to my understanding of the dynamics involved.

I find myself flexing my back foot forward quite a lot, even when using heel lift and full forward lean, and I have observed similar behaviour in others on youtube. Also, I have been observing the local Telemark skiers (I live very close to Telemark), and their boot / binding combo allow a lot of fore and aft movement. This movement is mainly through the binding and toe of the boot, and I was trying to draw some analogy to carving a snowboard with steep binding angles. I know that skiing is not the same as snowboarding, but I went along with it for the sake of lateral thinking...

Sounds like I just have to bite the bullet and work on my technique. Or should I buy a Teleboard?

[Corey]

13 minutes ago, Tanglefoot said:

Sounds like I just have to bite the bullet and work on my technique. Or should I buy a Teleboard?

Nothing is too good to improve upon!  The hard part is finding the right direction to go.  

Teleboard?  Please take video.  ;)  

I also tend to be near my rear ankle's limits often.  I've been working on improving ankle flexibility, but haven't made too much progress.  Some racers run surprisingly large heel lifts, so it's not 'wrong'.  I'm still debating if I should adapt my equipment (wedges for TD3 bindings) or my technique.  

[Jack M]

On 9/19/2017 at 4:07 PM, Tanglefoot said:

Or should I buy a Teleboard?

[Beckmann AG]

 

 

---

It all hopefully adds to my understanding of the dynamics involved.

I find myself flexing my back foot forward quite a lot, even when using heel lift and full forward lean, and I have observed similar behaviour in others on youtube.

Watching Youtube is a good way to observe trends, but it's not one of the better ways to identify and isolate some of the more important nuances of athletic movement, particularly if you don't already have a good idea of what you're looking at.  More often than not, the movements you want to emulate are the movements too subtle to actually 'see'. Meanwhile, the larger visible movements are generally outcomes, rather than drivers of the action.

 

Also, I have been observing the local Telemark skiers (I live very close to Telemark), and their boot / binding combo allow a lot of fore and aft movement. This movement is mainly through the binding and toe of the boot, and I was trying to draw some analogy to carving a snowboard with steep binding angles. I know that skiing is not the same as snowboarding, but I went along with it for the sake of lateral thinking...

Skiing and snowboarding are almost exactly the same in terms of how the tool reacts with the surface. How one manipulates that tool is open to interpretation. This is part of the appeal of the telemark turn, in that there is so much freedom of movement, that the athlete can do more or less whatever they want, and therefore craft an identity that matches their preferred mode of movement and need for physical stimulation.

If you have not yet tried free-heel skiing, you should. (Especially given your location. Heia!). You'd find some striking similarities to hardboot snowboarding, particularly in terms of what happens if you 'stand' on the 'wrong' foot at the 'wrong' time.

That many skiers of a type appear similar has a lot to do with boot design. As with hard boot snowboarding, there are very few manufacturers of 'telemark' ski boots, therefore, most free-heel skiers bear a resemblance to one another. That is not to suggest that they are all doing it to the best of their capacity, rather, the plastic is shaping their options, and they are following a particular path as a result.

Worth noting that a telemark turn in a plastic boot is quite different than a telemark turn in leather.

As per usual, if a skier/rider needs to move fore/aft in a manner readily noted by the casual observer, there is probably some misunderstanding of how the equipment can be used, or said equipment is not configured properly for the user.

---

I also tend to be near my rear ankle's limits often. 

Take heed, and 'move away' from that tendency. If the forward edges of the tibia distal and talus superior clash frequently,  you may develop spurs, and that will further limit ROM. I've seen the X-rays, and you don't want that.  

I've been working on improving ankle flexibility, but haven't made too much progress.

And you won't. Ankle mobility, particularly in terms of 'loaded' dorsiflexion in a snowboard boot, is more a matter of connective tissue and bone interspace, than it is of musculature.

 

 

[Beckmann AG]

14 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

Teleboard? 

( Big Hiss)

Edited September 20, 2017 by Beckmann AG

[Corey]

4 hours ago, Beckmann AG said:

I've been working on improving ankle flexibility, but haven't made too much progress.

And you won't. Ankle mobility, particularly in terms of 'loaded' dorsiflexion in a snowboard boot, is more a matter of connective tissue and bone interspace, than it is of musculature.

Oh, very interesting!  I definitely did have tendon/joint/muscle flexibility limiting my motion originally.  That range increased with frequent stretching, but it stopped increasing at a point.  I'll work to keep the range I have now.  

[Tanglefoot]

I can not buy Telemark skis as well. The five members of this household all have cross-country and back-country skis (required for school), alpine ski equipment and a range of snowboards. There is nothing else to do here in the winter, so it is all justifiable, but storage is definitely an issue. Telemark skiing is very popular around here though, by a factor of around 1000 compared to alpine snowboarding. Glad to see others drawing some parallels between these activities - it makes some sense.

I still think there is room for improvement in alpine bindings, but as has been pointed out, they need to be simple and robust and easy to understand.

I take it I should not order a Teleboard until I understand what the above images are trying to tell me...

[Tanglefoot]

On 9/19/2017 at 10:35 AM, philw said:

On the technical specifics, it would probably be worth modelling the system and building a few sensors to see what actually happens - that may have been done, or may not... it's a minority sport. If I get bored I may take a shot at that. I don't suppose anyone has any (software) models of existing boots and bindings kicking around?

 

This sounds interesting. Are you talking about kinematic modelling of someone riding a snowboard? Sounds highly worthwhile.

[philw]

I was thinking more specifically about modelling the boot/ binding system, although that may be too limited as (for example) the whole "flex" thing would involve the board characteristics (eg metal or not) too.

I was just thinking that our own technology was developed back in the dark ages (early 1990s) and hasn't changed a lot since, and it works because we threw away all the stuff which didn't. I was thinking that modern abacus technology would perhaps allow that sort of development to be done quicker and cheaper, without the massive investment in trial and error.

 

 

[Tanglefoot]

I agree completely. Design and analysis tools have become so capable and affordable now, that it should be possible to use these to speed up the design loop and reduce the number of prototypes needed. The main challenge, I think, would be to find out what the actual design targets are and put some numbers on these.