EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Hey binding manufacturers - go fat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hey binding manufacturers - go fat? - Page 3

post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

 

Do you really have a pair? There's set about 40 feet from me. 

 

I have 2 pairs, but they're not the model that guy from Whistler was selling; mine are 90mm narrower and a fair bit shorter. 

post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

Did you really just type all that without considering that I can tip a ski or tip a canoe  without shifting my CoM at all?

 

How?  and maintain functional ski stance?  You must have incredibly loose ski boots.

post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

Already done, on top of said Reverse/Convex skis.      If you can get me a 10mm+  drop in boot lug, I'll take new boots even with a 70mm standard.

 

Don't need new boots necessarily although only a sold sole race boot would get even remotely close. Anything with removable toe and heel lugs would not have enough solid material to get anything near 10mm. The top portion of the std lug will be built up with metal commensurate with the amount removed from the bottom of the sole. However, the boot sole itself is generally hollowed out to accommodate the zeppa and the actual thickness of the sole is the biggest limiting factor especially in the forefoot. Anything over 5mm would be sketchy.....maybe 6-7 max and that's a WAG and dependent on the boot.

 

SJ

post #64 of 83

This thread is fascinating.  

 

anyhow, agree with SJ/Phil/et al - color me disinterested in wider boots.  i just don't see it.  

 

i think what folks are totally missing is how torsionally un-stiff in the tip and tail a lot of skis are, which is very much a point for loss of performance.

 

basically all skis, however, are exceptionally rigid under foot... especially with a boot and binding on there, but even without a binding.  

 

a wider binding will only make a ski higher performance if there is torsional give underfoot.  simply put, there is not.  

 

in the marker duke case, i can see the wider binding structure making the BINDING stiffer, since it was kind of a wet-noodle previously (at least compared to a metal alpine binding).  but i for sure don't see making a wider s916 or p18 having any bearing.  

 

back to your regularly scheduled e-speculation.

post #65 of 83

I would prefer to ski on the right side innovated set up below over the left side current set up.

 

^^^^^Noicon13.gif------------------------------------^^^^^^Yes!icon14.gif

post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I would prefer to ski on the right side innovated set up below over the left side current set up.

 

^^^^^Noicon13.gif------------------------------------^^^^^^Yes!icon14.gif

 

Yep......figured that out the first three times you stated it and posted the pic.

 

IAC.......it's doable right now. Pony up to have your boots planed as far as possible, then find a pr of Blizzard "slider" skis.......throw away the slider and proceed to mount your bindings in the trough (assuming you can find one to fit)

 

 

 

SJ

post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I would prefer to ski on the right side innovated set up below over the left side current set up.

 

^^^^^Noicon13.gif------------------------------------^^^^^^Yes!icon14.gif

 

you could always grind an old boot's sole off and then bolt it directly to a ski to test your hypothesis.  super easy to do, really.  

 

take a few runs, and see how well the modification works to see if your idea has any merit and basis for usefulness in the real world.

 

then throw your wrecked equipment away and go back to normal ski gear.  

post #68 of 83

or just pull the removable soles off a boot and use those threads to bolt your ski onto.  all you need is a wrecked pair of skis to experiment with.  i could even go give you a pair if you are really dying to prove the world wrong.  

post #69 of 83

Bolting isn't an option.  We still need forward pressure and heel springs so the ski can flex.  A vist plate under a hard snow board boot might be an option to play with, but not as wide as I'd like to really try. The boot lug and sole would still need to be very dense and brittle, not prone to flexing at all within the wider bindings.   The snowboard boot would probably work well for me since I prefer boots loose on top anyway.  I've already cut off the booster straps years ago and rarely buckle the tops tight at all.

post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

i could even go give you a pair if you are really dying to prove the world wrong.  

Hey man, I've been itchin' to prove the world wrong for quite some time now.  Not exactly sure how a pair of 138s would help but I'll mosdef figure it out.  Please PM for shipping info ;-)

post #71 of 83

bummed out because this thread has stalled out. imo it's sierrajims fault for attempting to interject thinking into the dreaming, however there may be a way to get going here........................

 

first of all we need to break you guys into 2 separate groups. one group will deal with the wide binding project, and the other group will address the wide boot sole project.

 

since spindrift has very strong opinions on binding width he should be the blue team ( binding team ) leader. and the boot sole conundrum is definitely cgildart's bailywick so he should be the red team ( boot sole team ) leader. i believe these guys make the most sense because of the passion they have shown as to why the existing products are not addressing the true needs of the skiing community.

 

because sierrajim and myself have both had experience developing products and bringing them to market, i suggest that we help coordinate the progress of the the two groups as well as offer advice, encouragement, and guidance where it is needed.

 

for the sake of saving some time in the "anything goes stages", much of what you are looking for could be found in some products or materials that already exist. also do not worry on the front side about limitations of standards or safety that currently constrict the market. all the 2 teams need to do is develop test material that will either prove or disprove the characteristics that you desire to drive wider skis. 

 

good luck and may the farce be with you,

 

jim

 

popcorn.gif

post #72 of 83

Perhaps someone already cover this, but... There are bindings and boots with wider footprints out there. Just look at telemark boots and bindings. Now if wider were better, wouldn't everyone be teleing? biggrin.gif

 

 duck.gif

post #73 of 83

I'm going to add another point to the totally useless thread. People forget about the euro market, where many of these companies(scratch that ALL OF THESE COMPANIES) are based. In euro-land 84 mm underfoot is still fat, and i regularly got laughs and looks of confusion when i brought my 105 mm 195's on trams. The vast majority of European skiers ski on piste, and the ones who ski off-piste do it on (relatively) skinny skis. So by making a binding that is 76 mm wide, you cut out a lot of your euro market. okay that's all, pray for snow.

post #74 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post

Perhaps someone already cover this, but... There are bindings and boots with wider footprints out there. Just look at telemark boots and bindings. Now if wider were better, wouldn't everyone be teleing? biggrin.gif

 

 duck.gif

 

 

how about looking to the water ski market. HO makes warm comfortable neoprene boots/binders that are built on thin aluminum plates that are attached at the widest points to skis and have screws that pin the center to the ski while having floating screws at the front and rear of the plate that allow for more natural ski flex. those thin aluminum plates use recessed machine screws to hold the boot portion on to the aluminum plate from underneath.

 

not that i am trying to lead the red team into any particular direction, however these water ski bindings might be the perfect starting point to prove your hypothesis.

please post photos or video of your team attempting something really steep, deep, and gnarly on the first prototypes. yahoo.gif

 

does anyone remember the footage of shane mckonkey skiing sick lines on waterskis? ( another great thought just ripped through me ) what if we eliminated the metal edges on our skis, it would probably reduce the weight and improve the soulful feel on snow!!!!!!!!! we may need to add another test team to the binding and boot groups. any thoughts, any volunteers?

 

jim

post #75 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by starthaus View Post

 

 

how about looking to the water ski market. HO makes warm comfortable neoprene boots/binders that are built on thin aluminum plates that are attached at the widest points to skis and have screws that pin the center to the ski while having floating screws at the front and rear of the plate that allow for more natural ski flex. those thin aluminum plates use recessed machine screws to hold the boot portion on to the aluminum plate from underneath.

 

not that i am trying to lead the red team into any particular direction, however these water ski bindings might be the perfect starting point to prove your hypothesis.

please post photos or video of your team attempting something really steep, deep, and gnarly on the first prototypes. yahoo.gif

 

does anyone remember the footage of shane mckonkey skiing sick lines on waterskis? ( another great thought just ripped through me ) what if we eliminated the metal edges on our skis, it would probably reduce the weight and improve the soulful feel on snow!!!!!!!!! we may need to add another test team to the binding and boot groups. any thoughts, any volunteers?

 

jim

 

What if we went with segmented edges for improved grip for fat skis on hardpack?

post #76 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiingblind View Post

I'm going to add another point to the totally useless thread. People forget about the euro market, where many of these companies(scratch that ALL OF THESE COMPANIES) are based. In euro-land 84 mm underfoot is still fat, and i regularly got laughs and looks of confusion when i brought my 105 mm 195's on trams. The vast majority of European skiers ski on piste, and the ones who ski off-piste do it on (relatively) skinny skis. So by making a binding that is 76 mm wide, you cut out a lot of your euro market. okay that's all, pray for snow.

nope, afraid you are well off the mark there...maybe 5 -6 years ago that statement might have held water, now 85-100mm is about the norm for anything considered "all mountain" (i hate that term...all skis are all mountain)

 

sure there are a lot of skinny ski skiers out there but times have changed...however i think there are a lot of deluded people on this and other forums who bang on about skis 125+ under foot...sure if i was dropping alaskan powder lines all day every day...but i just don't see that many people doing that.

 

as i said a page ago, this whole "wide ski" sector is still only a small % of what is sold, and i actually think that a % of what is sold is sold for dick measuring purposes

post #77 of 83
Thread Starter 

I think just defending what we have is the wrong way to look at this. Rather we should look at what we want and the constraints as they exist today.

 

If I may use an old joke as a metaphor for framing the current discussion…

 

 

 

Quote:

Once upon a time a guy heard about an amazing taylor. As a result, he stopped by and ordered a suit. A few weeks later, on the appointed day, he went to pick it up. He strode into the shop giddy with anticipation. When he tried the suit on, he noticed that one sleeve was too short and one leg crooked. The taylor's response was to tip him over a bit so the sleeve hit his arm at the right point. But that put the hem out of whack. So once again the taylor twisted him a bit. After several rounds of such alignment and some back and forth, the taylor convinced his customer to give it a go and see what others thought. As our now contorted customer went hobbling down the street he was approached almost immediately by a stranger who queried about who the customer's taylor was. The customer, puzzled, told the stranger and then asked why he wanted to know. The stranger replied "that taylor must be amazing! If he can make a suit that fits a hunchback such as yourself so beautifully - imagine what he can do for a normally proportioned person such as myself!!!!"  And proceeded to positively run down the street to the taylor's shop….

 

 

This is, in a funny sense, the state of our world today.  It is not that the current crop of bindings do not work "well enough"  (at a certain price point anyway).  Or can not be skied well. It is that we are using a standard that I am quite sure would never have evolved given the wider skis broadly in use today. And as these wider skis see even wider adoption over the next few years, this will be even more evident. 

 

Engineering is a discipline of managing compromise. It is all about trade offs. And relaxing one very major constraint by 25 or 30 percent is a big, big deal in that kind of world.  To my mind, not seeing the silliness in a system designed for skis roughly half the width of today's all mountain and powder skis is just deliberate blindness.

 

Yes - there may be some questions about just how much extra "performance" could be squeezed out given current standards, Especially given the boot situation. But can you seriously claim that it would not be beneficial to get comparable performance for less money? Or to have better brake retraction systems? Or to have more space for springs, mechanical components, etc? Or maybe use the extra space to give me boot center and bsl adjustability without stack height or transmission or durability compromise? Or even just getting to wider force distribution to the deck - like less focused stress toward the middle of the deck of wide skis taken to high edge angles on firm snow - yeah, that can crack glass and core for no reason other than the leverage introduced by a nonsense narrow standard.

 

As for going out and dong my own experiments - no thanks. It is the manufacturer's job to innovate on my behalf. That's why I pay them. I have no problem with them making a fair profit along the way.  But I damn well want improved products as part of the deal. And I'm happy to reward the folks who do it by giving them my money. But recently the binding guys have been slacking because they have not made this leap - despite an increasingly clear opportunity.

post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Engineering is a discipline of managing compromise. It is all about trade offs. And relaxing one very major constraint by 25 or 30 percent is a big, big deal in that kind of world.  To my mind, not seeing the silliness in a system designed for skis roughly half the width of today's all mountain and powder skis is just deliberate blindness.

 

 

 

 

Relaxing major constraints by 25-30% is a big deal.  However, the point people "on the other side of the arumgent" are making, is that the width of binding is not a contraint at all.  Let along a major one.

 

There are people here who are expert skiers, some are engineers, some are both...and no "constraint" can be seen.  A "standard" does not equal a "constraint".   

 

In reality, it seems the only answer that will satisfy you, is someone coming up with some rock solid reason why a binding CANT be wider.  Well in truth there is no reason.  Bindings CAN be wider.  DIN is just a standards organisation, they determine boot sole lugs as well as spring tensions.  Nothing preventing them coming up with a new DIN approved "wide" version. 

 

Having said that, the question becomes, what is the benefit of these wider bindings?  Basic understanding of physics shows the arguments put foward by the "for wider bindings" camp dont hold water. 

 

Bindings transfer our wishes into the skis with 99.999999% accurracy now, broken legs from skiing is almost non-existent (the original goal of modern bindings was to eliminate broken tib/fibs at the top of the boot) they are very strong, and light, and frankly cheap.  They work with all skis and have minimal negative effect on them.  And dont kid yourself, that going for 0.0000001% improvement is worth it.  There are far better and easier ways to make those gains...for example, get a hair cut.  It will make you lighter.

 

The biggest defficiancy with bindings today is they are still not very good at all at preventing knee injuries.  That will be the next major break-through.  If wider somehow enables them to make a binding that safe gaurds againsts knee damage....sign me up, I would only buy wide bindings. Not sure how wider would make bindings better for knees thou.  As I understand the issue is the knee ligaments have no "give", meaning they "snap" before the spring compresses so the binding can release.  

 

As I wrote before thou, I have no doubt if someone built them, they would sell.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Yes - there may be some questions about just how much extra "performance" could be squeezed out given current standards, Especially given the boot situation. But can you seriously claim that it would not be beneficial to get comparable performance for less money? Or to have better brake retraction systems? Or to have more space for springs, mechanical components, etc? Or maybe use the extra space to give me boot center and bsl adjustability without stack height or transmission or durability compromise? Or even just getting to wider force distribution to the deck - like less focused stress toward the middle of the deck of wide skis taken to high edge angles on firm snow - yeah, that can crack glass and core for no reason other than the leverage introduced by a nonsense narrow standard.

 

 

 

 

Some question?  That is the ONLY question.

 

Comparible performance for less money?  Great idea!  How does having a wider binding...ie bigger (more material, more expensive to ship) result in a cost savings?

 

Better brake retraction?  Narrow bindings actaully give you MORE room between the binding and the ski edge.  How would a wider binding, which would leave less room for the brakes improve retraction?

 

More space for springs? Could work.  Leave the current "round" spring behind, and go for a flat "Z".  Not sure the benefit thou.

 

BSL adjustablity?  Could work, assuming you mean run the track the sides, instead of underneath.  Results in lower bindings height.  Might get you 1 or 2mm lower.  Of course I fail to see the value in that.

 

Transmission or durability compromise?  Wider means more likley to get hit on rocks etc, so likley less durability.  Transmission is virtually 100% now, so not sure how you can improve on that.

 

Distributed load?  Not really, the issue isnt really distributing load, more of shear strength of the core material.  Which is not effected by width between the screws (within reason..as long as not 5mm apart) which they arent with current bindings.


Edited by Skidude72 - 8/30/12 at 12:16am
post #79 of 83

The main function of a binding is to separate you from the ski after you make a mistake but before you are injured. So any major reconfiguration such as a wider binding needs to have an increase in injury prevention as its main motivation, with improved skiing performance being more of a side benefit.

It is much easier and cheaper to increase skiing performance by varying ski and even boot design and materials than changing binding design.

 

Slightly off topic, here is a question for the more experienced ski shop guys: Why has the trend toward integrated binding systems for narrower skis not expanded to fat skis?

post #80 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post


 

Slightly off topic, here is a question for the more experienced ski shop guys: Why has the trend toward integrated binding systems for narrower skis not expanded to fat skis?

 

It has but was not terribly successful.

 

The typical "good" system adds some torsional stiffness in the plate area and sometimes a dampening component to the setup as well. Unfortunately, it also added production costs, higher stand heights and weight. With the current trends in wider skis (above say 90mm or so) being lighter, softer in torsion and low mounted, the things that the system added were not things that wider ski buyers were looking for.

 

SJ 

post #81 of 83

Is there a trend? Letsee. Nordies have backed away, Sollies ditto, now offer choice of plate or no, as does Rossi with its "open" option, Volkl yes seems to be committed to Motion systems, Dynastar has plates on Outland series, but not on some narrower candidates, Atomic calls its binders "options," can't tell if they're delivered bolted on, no plates for Kastles, Stocklis, any of the indies. So seems to me that the movement is more toward giving customers their choice. 

 

On thread issue, there may.may not be a theoretical mechanical advantage to making wider bindings, but is it significant functionally? Doesn't sound so. Core and sidewall construction seem like the limiting factors, and not very limiting at that. I'm also struck by two non-sequitors, first in calling for more efficient energy transmission in skis optimized to be flexy (relative to carvers) and smear/slarve/pivot in soft snow, and second, in skis that often use AT rigs, which cannot be paragons of rigidity because of their basic function. Conclusion doesn't follow...

 

It's not like there's this groundswell movement to use 115 mm skis for etching railroad tracks on GS courses. 

post #82 of 83
Thread Starter 

On a few random points:

 

Beyond,

 

GS courses - injected & salted are far from the norm anyone will ski. And yeah - lots of people are using 105 to 120 wide skis as all mountain skis. And lots of them lay down pretty darn good tracks. At least out here, often matching anything else on the mountain.

 

Why do you think it is OK for a dated standard to put artificial constraints on ski construction - when simply putting more pressure closer to the edges (notably the inside edge at any given moment) would be relatively easy? 

 

Skidude,

 

Let's look at something like brakes. The leverage gets a bit funny as skis get wider. A wider binding would allow experimentation with more secure brake retraction with no overhang (some do OK now - but it seems more constrained than it should be). Do note that the arms extend into the mechanism - so it is not just distance, but a lever and fulcrum opportunity (or maybe more than one). Talk to someone who has crabbed a brake while skiing switch at a decent ski angle  & see if they might appreciate a better system. Again, I'm not sure how much better one could do - but having that space to play with seems like it would open some doors.

 

You are on the right track regarding what I was thinking about adjustability (esp the outside track thing, or maybe a low internal + outsides). But I think you underestimate how much height you could save. I suspect half to a full cm vs today's demo tracks. And with a much more solid connection to the ski... 

 

One of the transmission points I was making is the same as the last comment to Beyond - that with a narrow contact zone, you put a ton of pressure on the deck of a ski if you lever it up on firmer snow. Distributing the pressure or shifting it to the inside edge will very much change how the force is applied to the deck, the connection, etc. I know of multiple fat skis that showed visible damage (in one case through a clear topsheet - which was very illuminating so to speak) along the binding contact length after being railed hard. Do martial arts types demonstrate breaking boards in the middle or next to the edge?

 

Regarding knees -- again, space is flexibility. What could the thinking that led to the knee binding or the ill fated reactor result in given more deck space to play with?

 

etc...

 

again, it is simple --- take a big constraint and relax it maybe 25-40% or thereabouts. Shame on any engineering team that can't do better wrt price or performance (overall) or both.

post #83 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

On a few random points:

 

 

One of the transmission points I was making is the same as the last comment to Beyond - that with a narrow contact zone, you put a ton of pressure on the deck of a ski if you lever it up on firmer snow. Distributing the pressure or shifting it to the inside edge will very much change how the force is applied to the deck, the connection, etc. I know of multiple fat skis that showed visible damage (in one case through a clear topsheet - which was very illuminating so to speak) along the binding contact length after being railed hard. Do martial arts types demonstrate breaking boards in the middle or next to the edge?

 

Regarding knees -- again, space is flexibility. What could the thinking that led to the knee binding or the ill fated reactor result in given more deck space to play with?

 

etc...

 

again, it is simple --- take a big constraint and relax it maybe 25-40% or thereabouts. Shame on any engineering team that can't do better wrt price or performance (overall) or both.

 

Force is not pressure.  Pressure = Force/Area.  If you make the binding plate wider, and maintain the length, the pressure on the ski will decrease.  It wont "shift" to the edge.  Where the forces act, is where the forces act.  It doesnt change based on a width of bindings. 

 

So having said that, will wider bindings then have an effect?  Well less pressure on the ski will result, because the force is distributed over a larger area.  But, I have never ever heard of a skier "crushing" a ski.  I have heard or rock impacts blowing sidewalls, etc.  But that is a point load on the bottom, and would be totally unaffected by binding width up top.

 

What controls where forces act?  2 points.  The COM of the moving object, and its contact point with the ground.  In this case that is the COM of the skier, and the ski edge, or base, or both, depending on snow conditions, edge angle, etc.  What happens in the middle is irrelevant.  Weird huh?  But its true, you learn this in the first week of Mechanics 100, which is really a repeat of high school physics.

 

Consider these shapes - [   vs. Z vs.  E vs. X.      Now assume these are rigid bodies.  (That is the assumption I am, and everyone on the "no constraint" camp is making regarding skis.  Ie there is not give between the edge of the binding base and the ski edge...which is valid.  If you disagree, well then fine, this argument will never be resolved.)  Now assume rigid bodies.  If you placed a 10lb weight on the upper most left corner of the respective shapes....according to the laws of physics, the effect on the bottom most left corner on each shape will be identical.  Totally identical.  Again, weird huh?  But its true.  You are only suggesting we change something in the "middle", but you are not altering the either of the things that control where the forces act.  Hence no change, hence no benefit.

 

 

Other stuff...save a 1cm over "Demo bindings"?  Give me a break.  To be honest you could save more then that I bet. 

Brakes?  You made no sense.  I think you confused yourself with levers, fulcrums etc. 

 

More room to make a bindings safer for knees?  Hope so.  Would be a great advancement.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Hey binding manufacturers - go fat?