The Step On thread

[casjcade]

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?

Mainly something like the Contact Pro, but a couple of the really soft Burton Customs weren't that great either. Flexing too much from the middle, that gets worse without the 2x4/4x4. Also like that EST that wiggled too much with urethane or something in the frame.

[sunokeru]

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.

This. Especially limiting for brands that outsource production and want to be able to split it/move it between different factories.

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.

I buy that on the consumer side. I doubt any serious industry guys really still hold those concerns (but might claim otherwise because of vested interests).

[sunokeru]

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

Everything big B does these days is shit according to JG... Burton could cure cancer and he would find fault with it.

[sunokeru]

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.

How many guys on the mountain are adjusting their stance frequently, though. Or even occasionally. I'll wager good money that most bindings stay bolted to their respective boards for years without a bolt ever getting even touched.

[sunokeru]

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.

Small counterpoint to that is that a number of B riders supposedly preferred Re:flex bindings to EST ones on Channel boards - and purportedly because of the feel. Not sure how true that is/was, if it has changed, etc

Also, do note that EST bindings have a more limited range of adjustments both for stance width and degrees.

[casjcade]

Some of the footbeds and toeramps have been better on reflex than est, and also adjustment of the straps compared to the hinge versions with onehole.

[Kevington]

I may be misremembering this but I think Donna Carpenter admitted on the bombhole that keeping Channel/EST as proprietary to Burton was a big mistake.

[jota]

Maybe they wanted to release the channel patent and win money with the license of the est binding patent… ( I don't know if I explained it well)

If that was their idea, now they will not miss the opportunity to have external income with step on

[jota]

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.

Small counterpoint to that is that a number of B riders supposedly preferred Re:flex bindings to EST ones on Channel boards - and purportedly because of the feel. Not sure how true that is/was, if it has changed, etc

Also, do note that EST bindings have a more limited range of adjustments both for stance width and degrees.

shaun white didn’t use EST

[C.Fuzzy]

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.

Small counterpoint to that is that a number of B riders supposedly preferred Re:flex bindings to EST ones on Channel boards - and purportedly because of the feel. Not sure how true that is/was, if it has changed, etc

Also, do note that EST bindings have a more limited range of adjustments both for stance width and degrees.

shaun white didn’t use EST

Mic drop!