HARDGOODS 25/26

[C.Fuzzy]

I seem to have an alternate experience to folks where repositioning an 4 screw binding on the fly is entirely more fiddly with traditional 2x4, when dealing with removal of the whole binding, working around the straps and pad, trying to reseat screws when there's snow in the inserts and under the binding, trying to figure out if I need to move the disk one notch clockwise or not, trying to read where the arrows and umbers line up, and so on and so forth... it's a pain and I despise trying to do it outside in the parklinglot or on some halfass workbench with a screwdriver that I can't turn more than 1/2 a turn b/c it's tethered to the damn rack.

Channel doesn't solve that all, but it does make it so that I can just loosen a couple screws, make a change, and then get tighten them on the fly more easily.

And for all the stated and speculative compromise on flex and whatnot that goes along with the channel, I can't say I've personally thought a channel board was ever holding me back or that a board with inserts was objectively better because of inserts. My opinion of B boards isn't that they're "too stiff" or don't have enough tortional flex. Quite the opposite.

I've ridden some dead door boards and the issue hasn't been related to having a channel.

I am an old curmudgeonly hater of B too. I like the universality of the industry's use of tech. It's a benefit to snowboarding. B has generally always had their proprietary bullshit and it always rubbed me wrong.

I don't like B boots. I don't like most B board specs. I don't give two hoots about their outerwear. etc.

But until someone comes with something more than handwringing speculation, I think a slider / channel offers more to the rider than inserts.

[jota]

6500€
Who the fuck buys this??
100 units handmade in the Alps

…Well maybe someone like the one who crashed Lando Norris's F40…
…maybe also someone who own a Lamborghini and is now giving away his Lamborghini Capita and reserving this one
… and why the fuck do I get this board on Google when I'm searching for a superdoa Capita???

The curious question that comes to mind is, if I had 6500€ to spend on snowboarding, what would I buy?
And there are two options:
1/ make a quiver or
2/ I can only choose a board, some boots and some bindings… what would I buy??? 6500€…

[Oldhead]

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.

FYI, Aluminum is flexible. It is not some dead piece of steel under foot.

[jclinares]

The curious question that comes to mind is, if I had 6500€ to spend on snowboarding, what would I buy?

Avy gear and a trip to Baldface, for me.

[casjcade]

Not sure that would cover a trip to Baldface. Maybe if you live in Nelson. I would pick option 1 and make a quiver, because there's enough money for that even if I buy a TT160.

[AyAyRon]

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.

I thought you must be joking. Not sure where this drive to make things easier comes from, its so wacky. Making some sort of on the fly channel adjustment so you can "ride pow" is right up there with Clew and that binding swivel thing and any number of other goofy things that are supposed to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know of a single rider that doesn't ride pow because they can't move their binding easy enough. Its weird.

[AyAyRon]

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.

This is like one of those infomercials where some bad actor makes doing a simple thing look super hard in an effort to convince you to buy that device changes from a scewdriver into camcorder.

[AyAyRon]

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?

i think the single channel is just for aesthetics, Endeavor uses it and has some wacky disclaimers about it that totally scare me off.

'NOTE: Due to the combination of core profile and full Channel, you can feel the Channel on the base and is not a warranty issue. " Hard pass.

https://can.endeavorsnowboards.com/coll ... 2170378472

[AyAyRon]

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.

nvm

[bagis]

6500€

The curious question that comes to mind is, if I had 6500€ to spend on snowboarding, what would I buy?
And there are two options:
1/ make a quiver or
2/ I can only choose a board, some boots and some bindings… what would I buy??? 6500€…

Pow board, Snorkeling set and month in Japan.