HARDGOODS 25/26

[dpartridge7]

I think he missed the tonal change in the room.

The Korua Noserider is in the same ballpark of what you were mentioning, DP. Are you familiar with it?

as i understand, this still needs a screwdriver to loosen the mounting screws. then you need to carefully find the desired binding position while being careful not to change the angles. or you can ride it with loosened screw and allow the bindings to move while riding on the snow (something i would never wish to experience). what i am referring to is the binding position is locked down with 2 predefined stance settings (a more centred stance and a set back stance for powder) that can be switched between toolless and on the fly. of course, for this to be viable, there would be a need not to add weight or interfere with the performance.

[ad1105]

[/quote]

there would be a need not to add weight or interfere with the performance.
[/quote]

I guess that’s the engineering challenge. Sounds like a rad idea that could have other useful implications if someone could figure it out.

[dpartridge7]

there would be a need not to add weight or interfere with the performance.
[/quote]

I guess that’s the engineering challenge. Sounds like a rad idea that could have other useful implications if someone could figure it out.
[/quote]

i've figured it out and tried it....the hard bit is to get a snowboard brand to invest in producing it. as whitey said on bombhole, companies don't like taking risks nowadays.

[jota]

I think he missed the tonal change in the room.

The Korua Noserider is in the same ballpark of what you were mentioning, DP. Are you familiar with it?

as i understand, this still needs a screwdriver to loosen the mounting screws. then you need to carefully find the desired binding position while being careful not to change the angles. or you can ride it with loosened screw and allow the bindings to move while riding on the snow (something i would never wish to experience). what i am referring to is the binding position is locked down with 2 predefined stance settings (a more centred stance and a set back stance for powder) that can be switched between toolless and on the fly. of course, for this to be viable, there would be a need not to add weight or interfere with the performance.

Exactly, I wrote in the thread a while ago that I have a love-hate relationship with the channel, the simple possibility that you have of being able to minimally change the stance and angles is great to find a position where you are really comfortable, but for the same reason, that possibility already drives me crazy... every time the snow changes or I feel better or worse... it leads me to continually change the position, and I know that, that is not good, sometimes it’s even obsessive... and in turn another problem that I mentioned and is what you say is that when you make a minimal change, you can change many things and if you add to this that you do it when you have ice in the channel, a minimal movement to remove the unlocking of the ice and everything changes and then there is another problem and that is that the slack that the binding has, where the piece that joins with the rail is, makes it never mark the correct angles.. I have friends who tear out that piece because they say that without it it’s better…

[dpartridge7]

I think he missed the tonal change in the room.

The Korua Noserider is in the same ballpark of what you were mentioning, DP. Are you familiar with it?

as i understand, this still needs a screwdriver to loosen the mounting screws. then you need to carefully find the desired binding position while being careful not to change the angles. or you can ride it with loosened screw and allow the bindings to move while riding on the snow (something i would never wish to experience). what i am referring to is the binding position is locked down with 2 predefined stance settings (a more centred stance and a set back stance for powder) that can be switched between toolless and on the fly. of course, for this to be viable, there would be a need not to add weight or interfere with the performance.

Exactly, I wrote in the thread a while ago that I have a love-hate relationship with the channel, the simple possibility that you have of being able to minimally change the stance and angles is great to find a position where you are really comfortable, but for the same reason, that possibility already drives me crazy... every time the snow changes or I feel better or worse... it leads me to continually change the position, and I know that, that is not good, sometimes it’s even obsessive... and in turn another problem that I mentioned and is what you say is that when you make a minimal change, you can change many things and if you add to this that you do it when you have ice in the channel, a minimal movement to remove the unlocking of the ice and everything changes and then there is another problem and that is that the slack that the binding has, where the piece that joins with the rail is, makes it never mark the correct angles.. I have friends who tear out that piece because they say that without it it’s better…

yes, i hear you. i do think for this reason that presets would be a good addition to the channel. like with binding angles, i like that it’s defined in increments so you know exact where to rotate them to ever time. i believe riders would prefer a system where they can have there own reference stance as a preset. if you follow what i mean. it would be like having inserts, but the rider gets to place the inserts to there own reference stance width and position after purchasing the board. of course they can change this and can try different variations.

[casjcade]

what are you getting at

I think he's flirting...

who is he?? i was asked my thoughts on the channel and i answered that i didn't think burton's changes to my original approach were an improvement, as i feel the alloy is too stiff and allows the bindings to slip. also, i think it was counterproductive that burton went to a different standardisation to the 4X4. i also know the channel can be taken to another level.

did burton change the channel after your original approach? i think single channel makes sense for est bindings, and havent seen many major issues with it from other bindings either, but whats stopping someone from making a dual channel again if its better?

[dpartridge7]

I think he's flirting...

who is he?? i was asked my thoughts on the channel and i answered that i didn't think burton's changes to my original approach were an improvement, as i feel the alloy is too stiff and allows the bindings to slip. also, i think it was counterproductive that burton went to a different standardisation to the 4X4. i also know the channel can be taken to another level.

did burton change the channel after your original approach? i think single channel makes sense for est bindings, and havent seen many major issues with it from other bindings either, but whats stopping someone from making a dual channel again if its better?

nothing. it is stronger as the leverage point is out further. we used plastic channel at rev as didn’t mess with the flex and less likely for the inserts to slip. a reason brands i have talked to shy away from the burton channel is the hassle of having to re engineer the boards flex and the limitation that come with that. one of the reasons for innovating the channel in the mid 90’s was because of the popularity of baseless binding (basically est), as the board would need more inserts to work with both discs and baseless. the baseless then was a extended 4x4 pack

[casjcade]

1984:

[Kevington]

who is he?? i was asked my thoughts on the channel and i answered that i didn't think burton's changes to my original approach were an improvement, as i feel the alloy is too stiff and allows the bindings to slip. also, i think it was counterproductive that burton went to a different standardisation to the 4X4. i also know the channel can be taken to another level.

did burton change the channel after your original approach? i think single channel makes sense for est bindings, and havent seen many major issues with it from other bindings either, but whats stopping someone from making a dual channel again if its better?

nothing. it is stronger as the leverage point is out further. we used plastic channel at rev as didn’t mess with the flex and less likely for the inserts to slip. a reason brands i have talked to shy away from the burton channel is the hassle of having to re engineer the boards flex and the limitation that come with that. one of the reasons for innovating the channel in the mid 90’s was because of the popularity of baseless binding (basically est), as the board would need more inserts to work with both discs and baseless. the baseless then was a extended 4x4 pack

The flex is why I have always avoided the channel. I've never understood how embedding two metal bars in a snowboard is going to make a board better. But you seem like the man who might actually know.

[dpartridge7]

did burton change the channel after your original approach? i think single channel makes sense for est bindings, and havent seen many major issues with it from other bindings either, but whats stopping someone from making a dual channel again if its better?

nothing. it is stronger as the leverage point is out further. we used plastic channel at rev as didn’t mess with the flex and less likely for the inserts to slip. a reason brands i have talked to shy away from the burton channel is the hassle of having to re engineer the boards flex and the limitation that come with that. one of the reasons for innovating the channel in the mid 90’s was because of the popularity of baseless binding (basically est), as the board would need more inserts to work with both discs and baseless. the baseless then was a extended 4x4 pack

The flex is why I have always avoided the channel. I've never understood how embedding two metal bars in a snowboard is going to make a board better. But you seem like the man who might actually know.

yeah...I think it's not the smartest thing burton has done. I guess they went for strength over performance like building a binding that will never break, but is also a dead turd.