Product Warning Notice from Bomber

[fin]

Product Warning Notice - Boots with Removable

Toe Sections

January 17th, 2006

Bomber Industries has come across a serious safety issue with a particular type of snowboard hardboot that can cause severe injury to the user. After receiving multiple reports of this issue and reading various observations of this on our Forum area we decided to conduct some tests of our own. These test we ran did confirm the issue this type of boot has.

Any snowboard hardboot with a removable toe section is in danger of allowing the boot to eject from the binding. For clarification, this applies to boots where the entire toe section is removable and NOT with boots where just the toe pad can be removed. We have found that boots with a removable toe sections can under certain conditions and situation allow the boot to come out of a snowboard hardplate binding resulting in loss of control. This applies to both step-in and standard type snowboard plate bindings.

Using boots with a removable toe section may lead to serious injury or death. Bomber does not recommend or condone the use of these type of boots. However, Bomber does not recommend using them in any binding products we have sold, are currently selling or will sell in the future.

Bomber Industries, Inc.

[ncermak]

could we perhaps generate a list of good and bad boots?

[Guest dragon fly jones]

Naming names and making a list would more than likely open Bomber to some major legal issues. While it is a good idea to get the "word" out and Bomber would be the acknowledged expert that status could be used against Fin and CO.

Not a bad idea, but one fraught with peril.

This could be referred to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not that there are that many boots with a competely removeable toe piece.

Lost in thought on this one, will have to edit later.

[Guest Randy S.]

Other than UPZ, which boots have a removeable toe piece?

[bschurman]

The last generation Burton Fire and Wind have removable toe pieces. However, unlike the UPZ they are T-nutted to the boot. On the UPZ the toe attaches with screws that thread into the plastic of the boot. There is a ledge in the front of the boot that holds the toe on but that's it. This is why I replaced the stock screws with tee-nuts and button head cap screws on my UPZs.

->Ben

[Guest stickman]

I've got an older pair of UPS RSV Mach's (the blue and black ones). These came T-nutted up forward. No problems so far........(knock on nearest wood, now). They have over 250 days on them.

And yes, they do smell a little gnarly, too.

[NateW]

It would be nice to know more about the failure mode...

Did the removable part break? (part still attached, part snapped off)

Did the screws pull out?

Did the sole of the boot break, thus letting go of the screws?

[garyj]

My Burton Reactors (translucent green) have the above mentioned removeable toe piece. I retired them several years back because they were a bit tired, good boot though. I wish I had them here to post a picture of the removable toe. Maybe some one else can post a picture to add clarification.

Wow Fin, you are going above and beyond the call of duty with this product warning; I'm sure because of recent events it is now necessary. Thanks for the heads up and continued good luck with BOL and keeping us supplied with some of the best products in the world of alpine riding.

As to potential ambulance chasers, consider the above warning. Also consider the fact that all alpine sports are often dangerous or even fatal, and that each user willingly submits their bodies to this risk. That being said, please leave the industry guys alone, so they can continue to bring us the products we all enjoy using at prices we can afford. Thanks. :)

[Guest stickman]

Two words:

Inherent Risk

Accept it!

[LeeW]

Amen!

Two words:

Inherent Risk

Accept it!

[Gleb]

I got the burton winds and i didn't even notice you can remove the pieces. Does this mean i can change it into a regular ski boot as well?

Also, could this make UPZ make a recall?

[tufty]

As to potential ambulance chasers, consider the above warning. Also consider the fact that all alpine sports are often dangerous or even fatal, and that each user willingly submits their bodies to this risk. That being said, please leave the industry guys alone, so they can continue to bring us the products we all enjoy using at prices we can afford. Thanks. :)

Maaaan. That's an _awful_ lot more politik than how I would have phrased it.

It's immensely sad that it has to come to things like this. I can see why it's come to it, but it makes me sick to the core. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone involved in alpine boarding (if not alpine sports generally) are in it because it's what they love doing, not because it makes them mucho dineros. Ambulance chasing lawyers are in it because they think they can make a painful incident into someone else's fault, _anyone_ else's fault, and make some profit by driving someone else's business through the floor. I despise them.

I've seen this happen before, in a completely different (although probably equally esoteric) environment, where somone hired to do a performance regrettably damaged themselves very badly, and was then pressured into sueing the venue for what was essentially their own fault (failure to check their own personal equipment). The result was a case that dragged on for years, and an awful lot of bad blood.

Simon

[NateW]

Also, could this make UPZ make a recall?

I hope so... or better yet just issue a fix for the problem. TNuts to hold the toe pieces on, heavier-duty toe pieces, etc. It might be a solvable problem, that's why I asked for more information about what broke and how. But I am not holdin gmy breath for an answer. Instead I'll try 'em as ski boots and hope the snowboard issues are straightened out before the novelty of skiiing wears off.

[Guest dragon fly jones]

In manufactuing is whole different boat.

Assessing inherent risk requires reviewers (users or legal eagles) to evaluate the likelihood that the item, product or use might do not conform to professional standards assuming (this is a large and grey assumption) that no system of quality control is in place. Both internal and external circumstances influence the assessed level of inherent risk (snow, groming, boots, bindings, resort ops, user op's a whole ideas use of stuff). In practice, most products, users, resorts or winter summer or "extreme sports) have with have at least some characteristics that can tend to increased risk.

Most boot, binding or snowboard, bike, car, motorcycle (the list is endless)so ergo or for the less legal: IE the firm that (or should) design(s) and implement sell, retail, wholesale, pro form, deal or summarlily distributes products shouls and could, willfully, presently and all experts concur that they should implement, use or employ some sort of quality control policies and procedures to mitigate the inherent risks. So basically there is no legal legs to stand on, but if you lawerly types know you can blow truck sized holes in that convoluted essay. Note that this is one interpetation of Inherent risk in a broad general view, if you want straight counsel your gonna have to pay me some serious $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Guest crikey]

If you have a strong board, toughened bindings, toughened boots then the weakest link now becomes the rider with leg breaks more common.

If you have a strong board, standard bindings and toughened boots, people wil complain that their bindings keep failing.

If you have a strong board, toughened up bindings and standard boots then in theory the legs should be ok as the boots are now the weakest link but then people will complain and start suing Bomber because their heel pieces are not strong enough .

If every one had left the kit as it was and just accept the inherent risks the world would be a lot happier and shiny place.

At the end of the day something is gonna have to give. The choice is either your equipment or your body.

I will now get off my soap box.

[Steve Dold]

It's an interesting problem from an engineering view. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but it seems like we want a system that either doesn't break, or breaks in predictable ways like a ski binding. That seems hard to build because you'd almost have to design a system that either releases both boots simultaneously, or not at all. It would be fun to try to come up with designs, though. It would be a great way for those of use who work with CAD to screw off at the office and appear to be working

Just make sure the title block doesn't say "Snowboard Binding" in case you

forget to take the drawing out of the plotter tray :o

I thought once that answer might be a plate of some sort that both boots mount to, that mounts on top of the board, like a smaller conshox maybe. The weak link would be between the board and that plate so that both feet would stay connected together if the board came off. The more I thought about it the less practical it seemed.

I think at one time Nate was wearing two leashes. That might lead to something.

The more I think about it the more I think maybe there isn't any good way to do it and we just have to make everything as strong as possible.

[Gleb]

not to mention that one plate that covers most of the board would probably cost enough to make people not care about the risk with traditional bindings.

[Guest owaysys]

I had one of the later generations of (insert name of really huge snowboard manufacturer based in VT here) boots with the translucent black shell and flames on the liner...the toe piece got worn down in two seasons from the plastic toe piece on my race plates and eventually cracked while I was riding. So I sent them back and got a pair of the newer translucent green-shelled boots and didn't have any problem with them. Nevertheless, if I stood on flat ground with both feet in my bindings and torqued on my boots, I could see daylight through the space between my toe piece and my shell.

The toe pieces on these boots were screwed on and adjustable so that you could slide them under the boot if you were using the Physics bindings. The idea with the Physics binding was that it was (1) a step-in, and therefore faster on the in/out and (2) the attachment method for the toe piece gave you a shorter effective boot length and more efficient and faster power transfer.

[NateW]

It's certainly true that there will always be a weakest link (or least reliable link) in the system. That should be the rider's legs. There's no advantage to having something else fail first, but there are pretty big drawbacks to having something else fail first.

A releasing system would be cool if it could be done reliably and without adding much extra weight, but that seems like a pipe dream (pardon the pun).

I rode with dual leashes for a while a couple years ago, before I switched to Intec. I rode with dual leashes for a while this season while I was on a brand new set of heels. They survived the first few days, so I went back to one leash. It's interesting that all of the Intec failures I know of (mine, Joel Broadbent, one other whose name I forgot) happened on the first day of use. I still think it's a good system.

I still think Intec is the best thing out there. And now I think it's worth the trouble to use two very strong leashes until any new piece of equipment has proven itself.

[Guest azrcd5]

could we perhaps generate a list of good and bad boots?

I don't know why we couldn't compile a list of boots with the removable toe peice under a different thead heading and ONLY make it a list of boots with the feature. Do not discuss any issues with it. Or make a list of all boots and simply list some featues these among them. Again make sure it is not in realation to this issue but simply a list.

[Guest Jan]

When I go skydiving, I accept certain inherent risks of the sport. Parachutes occasionally (rarely) fail to open properly, wind gusts can screw up your landings, there are obstacles on the ground, there are aircraft and other skydivers in the air. However, if I were handed a parachute with suspension lines that can't support more than, oh, say 20 pounds, I would not consider that an "inherent risk," I would consider that a faulty parachute. Anyone KNOWINGLY making or distributing such a parachute would be at least civilly (and possibly criminally) liable.

When I drive, I accept the inherent risks of variable road conditions, bad weather, or bad judgements of other drivers. But if my car had wheels that fell off at 50 mph, that would be a defective car, not an inherent risk, and certainly not a "safety feature" ("something has to give, so we made the wheels weaker than your body").

I agree with those who say it's a terrible thing that good, honest companies are driven out of business because of trivial lawsuits, brought on by people who fail to make the distinction between an inherent risk and a faulty product. (and don't get me started on the role juries (that's you and me, buddy) play a role in this)

But it's also a terrible thing that some companies claim that all equipment failures are part of "inherent risk," refuse to admit they made a faulty product, and fail to take the appropriate action (discontinuation, recall, etc), unless forced to do so by a lawsuit.

[tahoecarver]

Does anyone have any detailed instructions on how to t-nut my UPZ toe piece to my boots? Paranoid now...and not very mechanically inclined, at least when it comes to putting hardware in plastic. Any help for the rest of us would be greatly appreciated.