BINDINGS

[jota]

I've also watched the Good Rides takes on step on, and pros talk about how step on 'aren't for them' and then of course fawcetts video. I've heard Billy Anderson talk about riding them, Downing, etc. We're seeing most major boot and binding brands adopt the platform.

It seems to me that there's an underlying resistance to step ons that they're not for 'real' snowboarders. But also, few can really say why, outside of some pretty flimsy criticism and or worrying about missing ritual ratchet clicks n such. But some other guys aren't worried about being seen as a 'real' snowboarder and so they're just evaluating the performance and don't find it lacking.

And I think that's kind of where my head is on it. Like I said before, to me it's kind of like the difference between tight trucks and loose trucks on a skateboard... But maybe even less so. If I remove my own bias of what I already own (a shitload of strap bindings) and dispel myself of the step on = jerry bias, what I'm left with is the idea that if snowboarding had started with step ons to begin with and then someone invented straps... I think we'd be having the opposite conversation and most would think them a step backwards. I can already hear the criticisms about adding straps and all the things that could possibly go wrong with them, now.

And so the fact that the industry seems to be embracing them, and the next generation of consumer will probably not have the same old school bias, it seems to me that step ons will likely, over time, just become the norm. But maybe not. I don't know I care either way.

Generally agree with this, even as someone who doesn't like them. Though, the inverse is also happening on every post across the internet about them (even here) where if you dislike them you're told you just can't handle the "performance" of them or whatever.

I put "performance" in quotes because, with Step On, it's often framed around just one metric: hair trigger heel/toe response. They don't "perform" for me personally because I lose 95% of the lateral mobility that I want out of my bindings and riding style. Plus the known heel lift issues, lack of adjustability for boot centering, hard plastic bases with the little board-breaker wings that B won't get rid of, etc (I realize Union just fixed that with theirs). For other people, response could be that end-all-be-all metric and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there are more metrics that are often ignored when talking about them and snowboarding is simply not that one-dimensional for everyone.

Hopefully we get some more freestyle/surfy brahhh friendly iterations as time goes on. Maybe wider heel cleats or something?

When I was racing downhill MTB, my friends were using automatic pedals. I was using platforms. Only a few pros were using platforms. Most people wanted automatic pedals for performance… I didn’t… because performance isn’t everything. In fact, performance isn’t anything.

There is nothing above the technique of each rider and that depends on the rider, not on the equipment.

That’s why I see step-on and defend it as part of the quiver, but I don’t understand this idea that it’s better or worse. I understand the idea of ​​“I like this better to do this and I use it, and for other things I use straps… or I do whatever I want… and I can change bindings, just like I change from a resort board to a pow board…”
that’s my humble or arrogant idea. But I haven’t tried step-on yet…

Performance isn’t anything in a bad rider or in a rider that doesn’t want performance. A good rider does what he wants with anything. The important thing is the Indian, not the arrow… It's like if I want a soft board to do jumps at the resort and someone is telling me that a hard Pipe board is going to have more performance because I'm going to fly 10 meters... It's that I don't want performance, I want enjoyment... I'm not in a Pipe... That's why don't sell me performance as something better because perhaps the forgiving material is better... for whom? and for what… ? And then all is a simple and personal preference but no more… Without technique, nothing will work well for you, and with technique, anything will work for you. and the rider will be intelligent when he knows how to choose what suits him “and makes him” improve and not what they sell him…

No brand is going to tell you “go and improve your technique to enjoy the equipment you already have more”…

and then there are those of us who buy intelligently or on a whim and try it out and enjoy doing it and that's great too

[pow_hnd]

One more set in bound after this to complete all 3 decks.

IMG_8554.JPG (6.25 MiB) Viewed 2684 times

IMG_8555.JPG (6.94 MiB) Viewed 2684 times

[jclinares]

One more set in bound after this to complete all 3 decks.


IMG_8554.JPG



IMG_8555.JPG

Never pay much attention to looks, but those Cardiff decks are good-looking. Love the matte look of the board + bindings combo.

[C.Fuzzy]

I've also watched the Good Rides takes on step on, and pros talk about how step on 'aren't for them' and then of course fawcetts video. I've heard Billy Anderson talk about riding them, Downing, etc. We're seeing most major boot and binding brands adopt the platform.

It seems to me that there's an underlying resistance to step ons that they're not for 'real' snowboarders. But also, few can really say why, outside of some pretty flimsy criticism and or worrying about missing ritual ratchet clicks n such. But some other guys aren't worried about being seen as a 'real' snowboarder and so they're just evaluating the performance and don't find it lacking.

And I think that's kind of where my head is on it. Like I said before, to me it's kind of like the difference between tight trucks and loose trucks on a skateboard... But maybe even less so. If I remove my own bias of what I already own (a shitload of strap bindings) and dispel myself of the step on = jerry bias, what I'm left with is the idea that if snowboarding had started with step ons to begin with and then someone invented straps... I think we'd be having the opposite conversation and most would think them a step backwards. I can already hear the criticisms about adding straps and all the things that could possibly go wrong with them, now.

And so the fact that the industry seems to be embracing them, and the next generation of consumer will probably not have the same old school bias, it seems to me that step ons will likely, over time, just become the norm. But maybe not. I don't know I care either way.

Generally agree with this, even as someone who doesn't like them. Though, the inverse is also happening on every post across the internet about them (even here) where if you dislike them you're told you just can't handle the "performance" of them or whatever.

I put "performance" in quotes because, with Step On, it's often framed around just one metric: hair trigger heel/toe response. They don't "perform" for me personally because I lose 95% of the lateral mobility that I want out of my bindings and riding style. Plus the known heel lift issues, lack of adjustability for boot centering, hard plastic bases with the little board-breaker wings that B won't get rid of, etc (I realize Union just fixed that with theirs). For other people, response could be that end-all-be-all metric and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there are more metrics that are often ignored when talking about them and snowboarding is simply not that one-dimensional for everyone.

Hopefully we get some more freestyle/surfy brahhh friendly iterations as time goes on. Maybe wider heel cleats or something?

I think I prefer a more surfy binding interface as well. My preferred highback is the OG now ipo... short; flexible, loose feeling. In general I don't like tall/stiff highbacks.

But with stepons, I don't really notice the highback. The interface almost neutralizes the highback as a lever, so it seems almost redundant to a degree.

I also find I run my boots looser with stepons, giving me more of the lateral movement I'm use to, but wo sacrifices to response. Basically giving me back some of that flexible loose ride I'm use to.

The grom stepon just has a high heelcup. No highback. I bet I may like that on an adult size.

Add to that skate tech, dampening... idk, could be pretty good.

I think the question a lot of folk may have is, if you already have something you like, why even bother with reinventing the whole system. Seems like a lot of messing about to solve a problem that isn't that big of a deal. And I think ifbits not a big deal one way, it's fair to say it's not a big deal the other... meaning, it's probably going to happen anyhow, so why fight the process.

Along the way something even better may be born just by the reimagining.

[coleslawed]

Here we go…

IMG_8551.jpeg

if you ever get a white pair and are open to a trade, I've got some white Team Strata's it'd be fun to upgrade into a modified version of my Ultra FC's from a few years back.

[dpartridge7]

I've also watched the Good Rides takes on step on, and pros talk about how step on 'aren't for them' and then of course fawcetts video. I've heard Billy Anderson talk about riding them, Downing, etc. We're seeing most major boot and binding brands adopt the platform.

It seems to me that there's an underlying resistance to step ons that they're not for 'real' snowboarders. But also, few can really say why, outside of some pretty flimsy criticism and or worrying about missing ritual ratchet clicks n such. But some other guys aren't worried about being seen as a 'real' snowboarder and so they're just evaluating the performance and don't find it lacking.

And I think that's kind of where my head is on it. Like I said before, to me it's kind of like the difference between tight trucks and loose trucks on a skateboard... But maybe even less so. If I remove my own bias of what I already own (a shitload of strap bindings) and dispel myself of the step on = jerry bias, what I'm left with is the idea that if snowboarding had started with step ons to begin with and then someone invented straps... I think we'd be having the opposite conversation and most would think them a step backwards. I can already hear the criticisms about adding straps and all the things that could possibly go wrong with them, now.

And so the fact that the industry seems to be embracing them, and the next generation of consumer will probably not have the same old school bias, it seems to me that step ons will likely, over time, just become the norm. But maybe not. I don't know I care either way.

i couldn’t agree with this statement more.

“what I'm left with is the idea that if snowboarding had started with step ons to begin with and then someone invented straps... I think we'd be having the opposite conversation and most would think them a step backwards.”

[jota]

I've also watched the Good Rides takes on step on, and pros talk about how step on 'aren't for them' and then of course fawcetts video. I've heard Billy Anderson talk about riding them, Downing, etc. We're seeing most major boot and binding brands adopt the platform.

It seems to me that there's an underlying resistance to step ons that they're not for 'real' snowboarders. But also, few can really say why, outside of some pretty flimsy criticism and or worrying about missing ritual ratchet clicks n such. But some other guys aren't worried about being seen as a 'real' snowboarder and so they're just evaluating the performance and don't find it lacking.

And I think that's kind of where my head is on it. Like I said before, to me it's kind of like the difference between tight trucks and loose trucks on a skateboard... But maybe even less so. If I remove my own bias of what I already own (a shitload of strap bindings) and dispel myself of the step on = jerry bias, what I'm left with is the idea that if snowboarding had started with step ons to begin with and then someone invented straps... I think we'd be having the opposite conversation and most would think them a step backwards. I can already hear the criticisms about adding straps and all the things that could possibly go wrong with them, now.

And so the fact that the industry seems to be embracing them, and the next generation of consumer will probably not have the same old school bias, it seems to me that step ons will likely, over time, just become the norm. But maybe not. I don't know I care either way.

Generally agree with this, even as someone who doesn't like them. Though, the inverse is also happening on every post across the internet about them (even here) where if you dislike them you're told you just can't handle the "performance" of them or whatever.

I put "performance" in quotes because, with Step On, it's often framed around just one metric: hair trigger heel/toe response. They don't "perform" for me personally because I lose 95% of the lateral mobility that I want out of my bindings and riding style. Plus the known heel lift issues, lack of adjustability for boot centering, hard plastic bases with the little board-breaker wings that B won't get rid of, etc (I realize Union just fixed that with theirs). For other people, response could be that end-all-be-all metric and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there are more metrics that are often ignored when talking about them and snowboarding is simply not that one-dimensional for everyone.

Hopefully we get some more freestyle/surfy brahhh friendly iterations as time goes on. Maybe wider heel cleats or something?

I think I prefer a more surfy binding interface as well. My preferred highback is the OG now ipo... short; flexible, loose feeling. In general I don't like tall/stiff highbacks.

But with stepons, I don't really notice the highback. The interface almost neutralizes the highback as a lever, so it seems almost redundant to a degree.

I also find I run my boots looser with stepons, giving me more of the lateral movement I'm use to, but wo sacrifices to response. Basically giving me back some of that flexible loose ride I'm use to.

The grom stepon just has a high heelcup. No highback. I bet I may like that on an adult size.

Add to that skate tech, dampening... idk, could be pretty good.

I think the question a lot of folk may have is, if you already have something you like, why even bother with reinventing the whole system. Seems like a lot of messing about to solve a problem that isn't that big of a deal. And I think ifbits not a big deal one way, it's fair to say it's not a big deal the other... meaning, it's probably going to happen anyhow, so why fight the process.

Along the way something even better may be born just by the reimagining.

remember when 29” wheel bikes came out? in the end it only worked halfway and they had to come up with 27.5? step on as we know it doesn’t have to be the end all be all. on the other hand brands need to change the market trend in order to “sell”… We all know it.. but i wonder where burton would be now without step on?

And it's true, I don't see the point of the hiback if it doesn't work since everything stays in the interface. But damn... if we take out the straps and hiback... that's starting to look like ski bindings

[C.Fuzzy]

Generally agree with this, even as someone who doesn't like them. Though, the inverse is also happening on every post across the internet about them (even here) where if you dislike them you're told you just can't handle the "performance" of them or whatever.

I put "performance" in quotes because, with Step On, it's often framed around just one metric: hair trigger heel/toe response. They don't "perform" for me personally because I lose 95% of the lateral mobility that I want out of my bindings and riding style. Plus the known heel lift issues, lack of adjustability for boot centering, hard plastic bases with the little board-breaker wings that B won't get rid of, etc (I realize Union just fixed that with theirs). For other people, response could be that end-all-be-all metric and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but there are more metrics that are often ignored when talking about them and snowboarding is simply not that one-dimensional for everyone.

Hopefully we get some more freestyle/surfy brahhh friendly iterations as time goes on. Maybe wider heel cleats or something?

I think I prefer a more surfy binding interface as well. My preferred highback is the OG now ipo... short; flexible, loose feeling. In general I don't like tall/stiff highbacks.

But with stepons, I don't really notice the highback. The interface almost neutralizes the highback as a lever, so it seems almost redundant to a degree.

I also find I run my boots looser with stepons, giving me more of the lateral movement I'm use to, but wo sacrifices to response. Basically giving me back some of that flexible loose ride I'm use to.

The grom stepon just has a high heelcup. No highback. I bet I may like that on an adult size.

Add to that skate tech, dampening... idk, could be pretty good.

I think the question a lot of folk may have is, if you already have something you like, why even bother with reinventing the whole system. Seems like a lot of messing about to solve a problem that isn't that big of a deal. And I think ifbits not a big deal one way, it's fair to say it's not a big deal the other... meaning, it's probably going to happen anyhow, so why fight the process.

Along the way something even better may be born just by the reimagining.

remember when 29” wheel bikes came out? in the end it only worked halfway and they had to come up with 27.5? step on as we know it doesn’t have to be the end all be all. on the other hand brands need to change the market trend in order to “sell”… We all know it.. but i wonder where burton would be now without step on?

And it's true, I don't see the point of the hiback if it doesn't work since everything stays in the interface. But damn... if we take out the straps and hiback... that's starting to look like ski bindings

I do somewhat wonder if they know the highback is redundant but kept them to keep the appearance of a more traditional snowboard binding.

Maybe were measuring the wrong thing. Snowboarding has in many ways been defined by its differences to skiing. Bindings and softboots and such are part of that sense of differentiation and along with that is some of the skate or surf aspect.

Just like how hardboots were rejected, even though they provided ride benefits the softboots couldn't... snowboarding chose softboots over hardboots on purpose. To make the point that it's different than skiing.

Only more recently have some folks been revisiting hardboots or trying to add hardboot features to softboots.

I may consider that more than the tech or the performance, a certain amount of the resistance from the snowboarding community is a sense of change to what they see as uniquely snowboarding.

And to which, even if I'm sympathetic to that ideal, like that of core, may exist more in the hearts of old guys than in modern snowsports.

[eleveneightnate]

Definitely some of that. Like you said, we had "step on" hard boots, step ins/clickers, etc. and none of them caught on. Part of that is probably cultural/tribalism, while I'd still hold that these systems were (are) functionally a step away from the surf/skate/freestyle roots of snowboarding. But at the same time, we always had the different Tom vs Jake mindsets within our little snowsports niche, so who knows.

Side note: I saw an advertisement the other day for these. I can imagine they're the "step ons" of skiing: "brah, soft boots and strap in bindings are lame and not our roots!"

[jota]

I think I prefer a more surfy binding interface as well. My preferred highback is the OG now ipo... short; flexible, loose feeling. In general I don't like tall/stiff highbacks.

But with stepons, I don't really notice the highback. The interface almost neutralizes the highback as a lever, so it seems almost redundant to a degree.

I also find I run my boots looser with stepons, giving me more of the lateral movement I'm use to, but wo sacrifices to response. Basically giving me back some of that flexible loose ride I'm use to.

The grom stepon just has a high heelcup. No highback. I bet I may like that on an adult size.

Add to that skate tech, dampening... idk, could be pretty good.

I think the question a lot of folk may have is, if you already have something you like, why even bother with reinventing the whole system. Seems like a lot of messing about to solve a problem that isn't that big of a deal. And I think ifbits not a big deal one way, it's fair to say it's not a big deal the other... meaning, it's probably going to happen anyhow, so why fight the process.

Along the way something even better may be born just by the reimagining.

remember when 29” wheel bikes came out? in the end it only worked halfway and they had to come up with 27.5? step on as we know it doesn’t have to be the end all be all. on the other hand brands need to change the market trend in order to “sell”… We all know it.. but i wonder where burton would be now without step on?

And it's true, I don't see the point of the hiback if it doesn't work since everything stays in the interface. But damn... if we take out the straps and hiback... that's starting to look like ski bindings

I do somewhat wonder if they know the highback is redundant but kept them to keep the appearance of a more traditional snowboard binding.

Maybe were measuring the wrong thing. Snowboarding has in many ways been defined by its differences to skiing. Bindings and softboots and such are part of that sense of differentiation and along with that is some of the skate or surf aspect.

Just like how hardboots were rejected, even though they provided ride benefits the softboots couldn't... snowboarding chose softboots over hardboots on purpose. To make the point that it's different than skiing.

Only more recently have some folks been revisiting hardboots or trying to add hardboot features to softboots.

I may consider that more than the tech or the performance, a certain amount of the resistance from the snowboarding community is a sense of change to what they see as uniquely snowboarding.

And to which, even if I'm sympathetic to that ideal, like that of core, may exist more in the hearts of old guys than in modern snowsports.

Sure, and that's one of the things I really liked when I started in the 90s. It's still to this day that I get annoyed when I see skiers dressed like snowboarders (I don't even know what that is today, but I did know it back then). But if our hardware gets close to skiing... there's that scary part of becoming a monoski where we ride crooked. I mean, a simple derivative of skiing. This obviously won't happen and we'll call Trevor Andrew or Daniel Frank if they're still alive and they'll guide us in some way to regain some kind of identity

Sometimes I wonder if now that the sport has grown and everything is dilutedwe, we still have some kind of identity.

Identity perhaps is not everything, but here identity is a lot and unites us.