Really? My understanding is that Burton made the Channel system available to anybody free of charge.
Can anyone here verify if thats true? BC if it is... why tf aren't more brands using it?
mostly manufacturing/implementation. the tech might be free, but the tooling and changes to building the boards wouldn’t be.
and there are still folks out there that don’t trust and/or believe in The Channel/its functionality/benefits, both on the consumer and industry side.
hmmm... have they never had to adjust their bindings at the top of JHMR while the 25 mph wind is whipping sprays of icy snow in their face and their fingers are too cold to feel the screw driver (much less try to fit 4 binding screws back into snow clogged inserts) simultaneously trying to hold onto a board that's trying to run away down the mountain as they scour the snow for the bolts that dropped when the wind flipped the whole binding over?
Between the ease of adjustments on est (or even disc) by just being able to loosen them (vs full removal from the inserts) and the ability to adjust the stance with more flexibility that the 4x4 inserts... channel is imo better and adherence to the 4x4 insert pack if the tech is free to use, just seems, lazy.
I don't hate the 4x4 inserts. But given the choice of inserts OR channel ...on any given board, I'd choose channel every time.
C.Fuzzy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:51 am
hmmm... have they never had to adjust their bindings at the top of JHMR while the 25 mph wind is whipping sprays of icy snow in their face and their fingers are too cold to feel the screw driver (much less try to fit 4 binding screws back into snow clogged inserts) simultaneously trying to hold onto a board that's trying to run away down the mountain as they scour the snow for the bolts that dropped when the wind flipped the whole binding over?
Between the ease of adjustments on est (or even disc) by just being able to loosen them (vs full removal from the inserts) and the ability to adjust the stance with more flexibility that the 4x4 inserts... channel is imo better and adherence to the 4x4 insert pack if the tech is free to use, just seems, lazy.
I don't hate the 4x4 inserts. But given the choice of inserts OR channel ...on any given board, I'd choose channel every time.
It's probably because even though most binding discs are compatible with the Channel, most bindings themselves aren't designed around it at all. They're basically retrofitted with a couple new mounting holes in the disc and nothing else. I'd imagine if the Channel became standard across all boards, most people would demand bindings evolve as well to have the advantages of EST (or something similar) and companies probably don't want to eat that cost at this point.
Last edited by eleveneightnate on Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Channel can be nice, but I feel like it needs to be full to be worth it, and with bindings designed for it. Not that you can't make a binding for both, but a poorly designed binding feels worse on channel.
There are of course some limitations and drawbacks in flex with the full channel too..
Bushings like on new stepon or the hinge stuff prevents the heelcup from jerking at the bolts I guess, that was annoying on some early versions. And of course the bolt length and disc and washers of other bindings vs the channel inserts took awhile to get right. Not sure if conversion of the full line was worth it, but I guess going to 2x4 instead of 3D/Channel was a matter of principle too for them.
benjinyc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:38 am
JG shits on the channel, but I have no idea if that's more because of his soured relationship with Burton rather than the design of it
What are his criticisms about it? Maybe they're legit and I just don't know.
casjcade wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 12:09 pm
Channel can be nice, but I feel like it needs to be full to be worth it, and with bindings designed for it. Not that you can't make a binding for both, but a poorly designed binding feels worse on channel.
There are of course some limitations and drawbacks in flex with the full channel too..
Bushings like on new stepon or the hinge stuff prevents the heelcup from jerking at the bolts I guess, that was annoying on some early versions. And of course the bolt length and disc and washers of other bindings vs the channel inserts took awhile to get right. Not sure if conversion of the full line was worth it, but I guess going to 2x4 instead of 3D/Channel was a matter of principle too for them.
I like what Endeavor is doing.
I dig the single long channel... optimal stance options but yes, i imagine there's a tradeoff with center flex.
I think ive only ran burtons and nows on the channel, both seem good to me. As far as how a lot of bindings perform on it, what would be their limitations?
Was a Burton binding guy (est and re:flex), then a diehard Union guy, past few years I’ve been very into my Rome full wraps, ridden them all on the channel. They all perform just fine on the channel.
benjinyc wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 1:18 pm
he posted an instagram story with a k2 instrument zoomed into the 4x2 saying "inserts are just better"
Ehhh.... he sure can't work for a brand that uses insets and say the channel is better. So. Without some sort of reasoning or evidence as to why, who knows if there's any Merritt to that.
