Hey binding manufacturers - go fat?

Having spoken to some product managers in recent months, at least at this point, wider soled boots are not on the radar screen. Wider bindings have already happened but the added width is again.....mostly flexible plastic. Marker has finally widened to actual baseplate of the new version Duke to a point where it is now almost as wide as some other bindings have been for a decade. They have also added a lot of plastic surrounding the fixation points. What are you gaining I wonder?

I guess the still open question would be what is the benefit that ya'll think would come from wider boot soles and wider yet and/or lower bindings? Or.....is it that you wish to see wider boot soles but taller systems? Or what?

Is the desired benefit more leverage and/or power to the edge? Or would it be less? It might be a good exercise to axe onesownselfs the following questions...........

In all this talk of improved performance.....what performance factor(s) do ya'll think are going to get better?

Why would power to the edge of a wider ski be of much benefit given the typical usage? Does one need that?

If in fact power to the edge were a worthy goal, why do many owners of wide skis seldom if ever tune their skis or even maintain them?

Why is it that a good number of die hard wide ski skiers aggressively dull or over bevel their skis?

It is known that taller stack height improves leverage and power but lower height is the trend on wide skis from the typical user....why?

It is known that lower camber reduces edge pressure at the extremities, and reverse camber reduces it even further. If power to the edge were desired, reverse camber is counterproductive.

Why would we want to reduce pressure distribution though ski shaping but then reverse some of those benefits by adding leverage through the boot binding system?

Sure seems that this is much ado about nothing......and btw don't hold your collective breaths for wider boot soles.

SJ

omg! we need some snow and in large quantities, stat!

great job SJ of trying to interject some reality into a ridiculous topic. which by the way got restarted by spindrift posting "Still seems to me that going wider offers the opportunity for substantial improvements in a number of dimensions" and "I see no reason to believe overall binding performance on narrower skis will ever improve materially under the current standards. Yet I see huge opportunity for improvement on modern (aka fatter)  skis - both under the existing standards and any newer ones that might evolve. I'd really appreciate it if the binding guys just got on with the future." the key words used to restart this i wish i had a fish dreamy dreamy thread are "still seems" and "I see no reason to believe"

i am still waiting for the cool self drying jacket that marty mcfly had in "back to the future."

if this was an automotive forum this thread would be about wishing for the day that automotive engineers would stop making cars roll and get them to fly instead.

hey honey, do these bindings make my butt look big?

please snow soon

jim

  Saying that retailers are trying to hold back progress and performance at the risk of distressed merchandise or having to buy another jig is beyond laughable. 

the part that you have correct is that this thread is a fantasy, oh just call me mr bucket of cold water..........forcing you guys to actually think about what you are wishing for, without regard to mathematics, physics, scientific methodology, and logic.

the stuff you need to prove your fantasy is reality is all available at your local hardware store. buy it, build it, patent it, test it, and prove your theories. when finished sell your designs to this sleepy controlling ski industry that cannot help but trip over itself and get rich beyond your dreams!!!!

please keep the bears posted as to how your r & d is coming along. i would like to volunteer as a product tester for your new " low ride/wide ride comfy" boots and "extra wide ride" bindings when the prototypes are available.

and another thing......... improvements in product design and manufacturing are the best possible scenario for ski retailers to stay healthy. as a ski retailer we are always on the lookout for products that make a difference to the end users experience. however supporting change based on rumor and innuendo is a sure fire way to continue to dumb down the ski industry, as well as drive committed skiers to other ways to spend their leisure dollars. you can only rip consumers off with stuff that does not work so many times. although that being said, it seems that some of you wishers are asking to get ripped off a lot ( "please sir , may i have another" ). after a while even fools realize that they look stupid pumping up their ski boots with air.

here are a few emoticons to prove that i am laughing on the inside

jim

 

 

Ya'll should keep in mind that I'm not pooh-poohing anything......I'm asking what you think you'll get and how you think you'll get it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantunamunch 

I'll bite. 

 

 

 

Improved, smoother  lateral modulation prior to full edge engagement without requiring front-to-back pressure shift as sidecut-based modulation requires.

 

So.....does this smoother lateral modulation come from less leverage?

 

 

Overall maximum leverage onto the edge is a bit of a pink-tinted kipper here - we've had superb leverage for decades, along with the chattering skids that come from reg'lar humans being unable to finesse that  leverage.

 

Of course, and this then refers back to the above.....

 

The other part of "improved performance" comes from the answer to the puzzler here:

 

 

 

 

Putting the boot down on (or in) the ski makes the system rigid at the edges also, without having to put  I-beams from the points of fixation to the edges.

 

So again........what do you want?.....less or more? and if this is benefit for wider skis why has it not succeeded on a wide scale? (it has been done....btw)

 

 

The overall balance of the thought experiment therefore comes to:   Improved early modulation and some recompense for lost maximal leverage through a gain in system rigidity.

 

So.....you get better early modulation through less leverage............but then you want to gain it back through a more rigid coupling?

I'm debunking anyone's dream weaving here. Ya'll are doing a great job debunking yourselves. I'm trying to point out that ya'll are asking for different and often opposite things all at the same time.

For example...............

You want smoother lateral modulation? OK.....easy enough. You put the binding flat on the ski with very little lift and thus get less power and smoother transition. (done deal...nothing new here)

OR........you tune your ski a little differently......OR you go for a binding with a softer coupling. All these things can be easily done or undone if you choose.

But then you want a more rigid system.....why?......to get more power back and to compensate for lost leverage? Basically to undo what you just did.

BTW..........On the subject of a more rigid boot sole. That has been done to death for decades and always falls off the map everytime it has been tried. (why?)

BTBTW......If what you think you want is a more rigid boot sole, making it wider is not the way to go about it. (what is more rigid in torsion.....a 2X4 or a 2X8?)

BTBTBTW. How do ya'll think think that changing beam and/or torsional flex of the entire ski compares to trying to modulate performance by manipulating about 20% of the structure?

So.....ya'll are beating the drum for the entire ski industry to change direction to accomplish a goal that you can't identify or that is contradictory. What is it you want? You all don't even seem to know. And remember.....all this can (and is) being done right now, equally or more effectively with the components and techniques that we already have.

Now.......about them Flux Capacitors......now there's something worth talkin' about.

SJ