What bindings do you use?

[Lurch]

Without hard numbers its going to be difficult for others to form an educated  position on how much flex is beneficial Dave. How much of your new 'cushy' ride is from the BTS?

You've mentioned previously it is the lateral flex which seems much greater on F2 - quantifying that by applying a calibrated force to a rigidly fixed test article would seem a good way to confirm the difference in deflection between SW and F2 (Yellow e rings and yellow base elastomer as the soft Bomber baseline).

 

[Chouinard]

This thread dovetails with a equipment trial I conducted this past weekend.  I recently took delivery of 10 orange Gecko Plate bumpers for a tryout. I had been using all red bumpers on a Coiler VCAM. I wanted to see how the plates affect the board in terms of stiffness and how the plates affected the feel of the board in less than ideal conditions.

Surface conditions:  machine groomed lake effect hard packed snow/ice tracked and chewed up for 4 hours.

Board: 174 Coiler VCAM

 Bindings: F2 Intec Titanium

Test equipment: Neither strain gauges NOR accelerometers.

I completed the following trials over 6 hrs.

Test sequence:

1) Symmetric Gecko plates with red bumpers

2) Symmetric plates with two orange instead of red bumpers at the outer positions on each plate

3) No plates

4) F2 Titanflex Bindings

5) Plates with two orange bumpers at the outer positions on each plate but the plates were offset tight together with minimum projection past bindings towards the nose/tail.

6) Plates with two orange bumpers at the outer positions on each plate with the plates symmetric under the bindings again.

Findings:

1) Without plates the board feeds back surface chatter after the groom is destroyed.

2)The plates with any color bumpers stiffens the board.

3) With plates the ride is much smoother [ride impression].

3) With the orange bumpers the ride is as smooth as the red but feels softer [nose/tail flex].  

4) Moving plates closer together nose-to-tail makes the the board as smooth but even softer.

Bright Idea: 

Thought I could use my Titanflex bindings to achieve the same results and then sell the plates. 

Wrong.

Although the Titanflex bindings softens the board like the short position plate setup, they do not smooth out the ride as much as the plates in any configuration.

Conclusion:

Keep the orange bumpers at the end positions with minimum projection beyond the binding for my VCAM. 

Future Test Variation:  Remove the red bumpers from the inside four fingers of the plates and see how it affects the ride with the potential future modification of the plates by removing one finger.

============================================================================================================

Change of topic:

Consider a longitudinal axle with soft bushings to allow the binding plate to rotate above the base plate and use an adjustable torsion spring [constant or progressive spring rate] to control lateral movement. Might work but it's bound to be bigger and heavier than the SW. 

The difference between the Bomber SW and the F2's is similar to the difference between a statically determinant and a statically indeterminate design. The Bombers have distinct components that appear to independently address the dynamic loads whereas the F2's relies on the design shape and material properties to do the same.

Occam's Razor

Edited March 12, 2019 by Chouinard
Added test binding type

[David Kirk]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

Without hard numbers its going to be difficult for others to form an educated  position on how much flex is beneficial Dave. How much of your new 'cushy' ride is from the BTS?

You've mentioned previously it is the lateral flex which seems much greater on F2 - quantifying that by applying a calibrated force to a rigidly fixed test article would seem a good way to confirm the difference in deflection between SW and F2 (Yellow e rings and yellow base elastomer as the soft Bomber baseline).

 

You're spot on. It's all conceptual and hard to quantify.

I think the BTS is certainly part of the deal. At the same time I was using the BTS for a good while with the Sidewinders before swapping over to the F2. So I was able to make an apples-to-apples comparison.

And I also agree that some real world measurements need to be taken. i've got a pretty good shop and space to do that work in but i feel strongly that both the binding and boot need to be cold before doing the test to remove that huge variable. The SW living room carpet test give MUCH different results than when you are out on 10° snow. This will be a bit of a challenge and suspect that I'll need to use my chest freezer to bring things to a consistent temperature.

What do you think?

 

dave

 

[Lurch]

Cold soak would def. provide real world data. If you could 'prove' the F2 was say 25% more flexible laterally than SW, but only 5% softer heel/toe it would give you a clear direction to investigate for the 'Kirkclamps'

[daveo]

I have never used bomber bindings but I found the opposite effect was true for boots for me. My riding stepped up a notch when I switched to stiffer boots. Also to a stiffer board. Horses for courses I guess! 

[RCrobar]

Hi Chouinard

Quote

Future Test Variation:  Remove the red bumpers from the inside four fingers of the plates and see how it affects the ride with the potential future modification of the plates by removing one finger.

For the past couple of seasons I have been experimenting with the Apex Stealth Soft Boot plates with hard boots and F2 bindings; my hope is that the feedback below might help with your testing.

My subjective and highly baised opionion is that the Stealths configered in a symetrical arrangement with F2 bindings, centered on the Stealth plate had the following affect:

- Stealth Plate, Red Bumpers, F2 Titaniflex  =  no change in the boards' flex, the footprint of the F2 binding directly on the board and the Apex Stealth plates are basically the same size.

- Stealth Plate, Orange Bumpers, F2 Titaniflex  = the board is able to flex and bend more easily, the foot print feels much smaller.

- Red and Orange bumpers both give a much smoother ride that is very similar.

Perhaps this might stop you from cutting off a finger:)

Cheers

Rob

Edited March 12, 2019 by RCrobar

[daveo]

2 hours ago, RCrobar said:

Hi Chouinard

For the past couple of seasons I have been experimenting with the Apex Stealth Soft Boot plates with hard boots and F2 bindings; my hope is that the feedback below might help with your testing.

My subjective and highly baised opionion is that the Stealths configered in a symetrical arrangement with F2 bindings, centered on the Stealth plate had the following affect:

- Stealth Plate, Red Bumpers, F2 Titaniflex  =  no change in the boards' flex, the footprint of the F2 binding directly on the board and the Apex Stealth plates are basically the same size.

- Stealth Plate, Orange Bumpers, F2 Titaniflex  = the board is able to flex and bend more easily, the foot print feels much smaller.

- Red and Orange bumpers both give a much smoother ride that is very similar.

Perhaps this might stop you from cutting off a finger:)

Cheers

Rob

Did you ever try non titanflex in the same config? 

[RCrobar]

Hi D

Quote

Did you ever try non titanflex in the same config? 

 

Yes and No.

This season with Mig's Diamond Blade, NO I did not try the combination you asked about.

Last season with Bruce's Nirvana Balance, YES I did try the combination you asked about.

To be a 1000% sure, I think more test should happend with all boards, etc.

For a highly biased opinion and a gut feeling, the sensation that I believed I felt was that there wasn't much difference.

If you always have nice snow, not ice, and don't have boot out and are good with the board's flex ... I'd take the plates off.

Quote

Bright Idea: 

Thought I could use my Titanflex bindings to achieve the same results and then sell the plates. 

Wrong.

Although the Titanflex bindings softens the board like the short position plate setup, they do not smooth out the ride as much as the plates in any configuration.

Back to original thread topic on bindings.

Any guesses as to why the Titaniflex bindings DON'T soak up vibrations as well as the Geckos? 

Seems it would be cool if the binding and Gecko plate could become one! 

Any thougths, anyone?

Cheers

Rob

Edited March 12, 2019 by RCrobar

[Chouinard]

2 hours ago, RCrobar said:

If you always have nice snow, not ice, and don't have boot out and are good with the board's flex ... I'd take the plates off.

Thoroughly agree except the Midwest undergoes rain/thaw/freeze cycles after mid January which turns the base into ice.

2 hours ago, RCrobar said:

Any guesses as to why the Titaniflex bindings DON'T soak up vibrations as well as the Geckos?

The Titanflex support disk is rigid under the binding center disk which directly transmits vibration whereas the Gecko plates are suspended above the board by the extension bolts and the binding center is effectively isolated from a majority of vibrations.

[Buell]

16 hours ago, Chouinard said:

Test Findings:

1) Without plates the board feeds back surface chatter after the groom is destroyed.

2)The plates with any color bumpers stiffens the board.

3) With plates the ride is much smoother [ride impression].

4) With the orange bumpers the ride is as smooth as the red but feels softer [nose/tail flex].  

5) Moving plates closer together nose-to-tail makes the the board as smooth but even softer.

 

I completely agree with 1-3 and never tested 4 and 5 (I fixed your numbering)

Did you have any thoughts on edge change effort and speed? What about slow speed turn initiation on cat tracks and such?

I find it requires more effort to switch edges and I lose a bit of edge change quickness with the plates on. I also find slow speed initiation to be a bit more difficult (though nothing like an isolation plate).

 

5 hours ago, RCrobar said:

If you always have nice snow, not ice, and don't have boot out and are good with the board's flex ... I'd take the plates off.

 

I generally ride good snow and prefer riding without Geckos. If I had to ride bumped up snow I would probably accept the added weight trade off and use them. I wish they didn't trap so much snow under them.

 

[Buell]

Regarding bindings, it is more than lateral flex that is important. That is one of the short comings of the SWs. You want some flex around the entire circle. I expect the most flex should be in the lateral direction decreasing as you travel around to the least flex in the toe / heel direction. The rate of change in the flex should be reasonably consistent (there should not be any quick changes in the flex over a few degrees). In particular, the direction of the long axis of the board needs some flex.

[BlueB]

4 hours ago, FrankNBeans said:

I've had failure with SnowPro Race bindings. I also recall their baseplate would warp by the end of the season.

What part? Just interested to know where to pay attention... 

[Beckmann AG]

On 3/11/2019 at 8:23 PM, David Kirk said:

Now to snowboarding. When the rider enters a turn the board sees a very high load against the snow and the vibration it encounters is very high frequency and very low amplitude (buzz or chatter). And since the system has no suspension most all of the buzz and chatter are transferred to the rider's feet. The rider then becomes the suspension. The problem is that we can not deal with the high frequency movements very well. The vibration is way over 1 hz (one cycle per second) and our bodies simply can't absorb a small bump, push the board back down and do it again and again many times per second. So what we tend to do is go rigid. We tense our muscles in an effort to resist the movement....but of course going rigid is the worst thing we can do to try to keep it in control. Our muscles tighten and resist any movement and our suspension "packs up" just like it did on the poorly set up bike. We loose the ability to keep the edge firmly and consistently engaged with the snow and the board chatters and our smile goes away. Not good.

So...like the bike we need suspension to deal with the motions the board is trying to transfer to our feet....we need a filter of sorts to take up the small stuff so that we can just focus on the big stuff. This is where flexi bindings like the F2.

The binding alone can go a good bit. It will effectively filter out the buzz so that our muscles can stay relaxed and supple and deal with the task at hand. Fully rigid bindings to not do this well at all.

A few years back, I linked a lab grade recording device to my board; a Donek FC with radial sidecut and  ‘conventional’ camber.

I.e.,  absence of nose rocker/early rise.

On typical eastern machine-made hardpack, the ‘noise’ was consistent from turn to turn, and while it was annoying (in real time) by way of the ears, it was of no consequence through the feet.

Or the legs.

Nor did it have any perceivable effect on muscle tension elsewhere.

Riding fully rigid bindings.

 

A board in an of itself will do a marvelous job of attenuating vibration, particularly if the rider is providing guiding inputs to the board in such a way as to limit dissonant interaction between the board and snow.

If, however, the inputs are either ‘inappropriate’, or outsized in magnitude, the interaction between board and snow will become progressively unstable, and this may lead to the rider adopting a ‘bracing posture’ which, by it’s nature, will be somewhat tense.

The long and short of this scenario, is that if a rider tends to provide overlarge inputs to the board, those inputs will lead to erratic and uncomfortable board behavior. The easiest way to deal with this problem is to allow ’spillage’ of those inputs, such that what the board sees is somewhat less than what the rider provides, the end product being a ‘smoother’ experience.

The easiest way to do that, given

1) the obvious difficulty almost everyone has in finding a decent boot mechanic, and

2) the all too common indifference toward understanding/implementing the subtleties of effective boot/binding configuration,

->is to buy flexible bindings.

Conversely, if you prefer/want to ride flexible bindings, (for whatever reason) you will, by default, move toward larger movements of the knees and hips as a means of controlling the board; in part because the give in the bindings will dissipate the smaller, more accurate, and more intuitive controlling movements of the feet. If the feet are lost as a means of finer input, the required inputs are drawn from further up the kinetic chain (from progressively larger body parts), and that usually involves holding various limb segments in tensioned relation to one another.

E.g., if you want to rock your knees sideways to alter the tilt of the board, you’ll need to hold the knees in flexion to allow medial/lateral movement by way of the hip joints, meanwhile driving the legs by way of the hips will ‘bind’ the legs to the torso.

All of which will make a rough ride rougher.

So it’s a bit of a self-affirming loop. ‘Less refined’ movements dictate flexible bindings, and flexible bindings spawn ‘less refined’ movements. Meanwhile, the flex in the system provides enough ‘give’ to make the experience palatable.

One of the challenges of design work is to figure out “what is the problem(s) to be solved”, and then to figure out, “what is the origin of said problem(s)”.

Within the confines of alpine snowboarding, (especially given it’s short history) it’s all too easy to look at the dominant modes of riding, and assume that such modes have followed a particular evolution toward refinement. And from there, it’s easy to assume that common problems within those modes are related to materials and hardware, rather than to technique and software.

Technique in alpine sport is directly related to the equipment available, and how that equipment enhances, hinders, or otherwise colors the abilities of the athlete. It’s not surprising then, that most riders on a given boot/binding platform will bear resemblance to one another, or that riders within a particular genre will tend to use similar equipment. It follows they will demonstrate similar movements, experience similar difficulties through their skill development, and voice similar complaints with regard to outcome/performance.

Get enough athletes doing the ‘same’ thing, and after a while you’ll see very little ‘technical’ innovation from within, other than platform construction/geometry, and those changes will most likely reflect established athlete preferences. Meanwhile, athlete preference for products extant will drive market viability, and that tends to hamper the development of 'better' gear. 

 

 

[daveo]

@Beckmann AG I think I remember Nevin Galmarini saying in an article somewhere of the internets that he uses flexible bindings. Do you think he could improve as a rider and/or racer from using totally rigid bindings?

[SunSurfer]

@daveoInstead of using an argument that appeals to the authority of a gold medal winner, why not go back to first principles, using that mathematical mind of yours, and consider the force vectors that bumps and ruts might produce to act upon a rider's centre of mass while they carve their board at 40+km/hr. Then think again about how bodies absorb those forces by using muscle tension and joint movement. You just might come up with a different answer than the "received wisdom" of current race technique.

[daveo]

@SunSurfer It wasn't a serious question 

[JRAZZ]

I hesitate to enter the fray fro being flamed on but my riding has improved as I made my setup less rigid. I know of a couple of riders who run super rigid set-ups and are absolute rippers. I don't think there's a right and wrong here. If a flexi setup works for you then you should probably use it. The goal is to have fun. I try to even if my technique sucks.

[Corey]

As much as I'm a fan of using a logic and math approach; if there is a large dataset (World Cup riders in general) that disagrees with your model, then it's likely that your model doesn't account for the needed variables.  Is it likely that no one on the World Cup circuit has tried super-stiff bindings and well-fitted boots? I assume (risky, I know) that a multitude of setups have been tried and the results have led to the current solution of stiff boots and soft bindings. 

Luckily this is a hobby for most people, so you can pretty much do what you'd like and have fun. 

[daveo]

49 minutes ago, JRAZZ said:

I hesitate to enter the fray fro being flamed

[SunSurfer]

Lateral flex is useful if you need to absorb shocks from side to side, across your pelvis, because you're using a - stance on your heelside. Stiff boots useful for the same reason, that you want to "lock" that edge angle on heelside. 

I suspect that I am more of EBs mind. The + stance for heelside with edge pressure through the soles of the feet benefits from laterally stiff bindings and because of the different alignment of the pelvis relative to the direction of motion, allows more effective suspension while maintaining an accurate edge angle. 

I've said before that Vic Wild and Ester Ledecka both ride more + on heelside than many other racers. I think Justin Reiter may kill the goose that lays the golden eggs if he manages to coach Ester to change to more - position, as he stated to me in a Facebook conversation.

[BlueB]

+ hips/body on heel side are more conductive to drive the cuffs then soles... 

[David Kirk]

27 minutes ago, SunSurfer said:

Lateral flex is useful if you need to absorb shocks from side to side, across your pelvis, because you're using a - stance on your heelside. Stiff boots useful for the same reason, that you want to "lock" that edge angle on heelside. 

I suspect that I am more of EBs mind. The + stance for heelside with edge pressure through the soles of the feet benefits from laterally stiff bindings and because of the different alignment of the pelvis relative to the direction of motion, allows more effective suspension while maintaining an accurate edge angle. 

I've said before that Vic Wild and Ester Ledecka both ride more + on heelside than many other racers. I think Justin Reiter may kill the goose that lays the golden eggs if he manages to coach Ester to change to more - position, as he stated to me in a Facebook conversation.

I don't know the nomenclature.....what do you mean by "+ stance"?

dave

[BlueB]

Hips and shoulders facing towards the nose more then front foot binding angle. 

[David Kirk]

9 minutes ago, BlueB said:

Hips and shoulders facing towards the nose more then front foot binding angle. 

Got it....I assumed that was the case. I've always called that an "open" position.

dave

Edited March 13, 2019 by David Kirk

[BlueB]

Yours is the correct way to call it... 

Edited March 14, 2019 by BlueB