Waist Width and Bomber Bindings

[rcrobar]

Hi

Recently, during a Bomber discussion dealing with Trench Diggers, one of the TD2 designers stated the following:

1) Will edge pressure be affected by the orientation of the binding?

No.

Having ones toes or heels as close to the edge of the board as one can get, is not entirely as important as having the correct stance for your riding style. Meaning, the leverage produced by the boot on up, far outweighs specific toe/heel pressure at the edge. This is not to say that it's OK to have the toes hanging over or 2" inside the board. It simple means that body/boot leverage effects performance more.

As Fin said to me this past summer when we were discussing this point, defining ones stance angles and THEN purchasing a board to achieve proper toe/heel placement is a better approach than forcing the stance angle to fit the board. (If it doesn't feel natural.)

Somewhere in the EC forum I also remember a conversation stating that a huge lever is created if a boards’ waist width is too large, or doesn’t align with a riders boot size and stance angles. This lever was said to put more force on the riders legs, creating a false feeling of edge grip.
(I hope I have stated this correctly.)

Question:

If an elevated binding like the Trench Digger is ridden, can a slightly wider board (larger lever) be used without any loss in edge grip?

Does the principle of too much lever apply more to a board that is tipped on edge to an 84 degree angle rather then a 45 degree angle?

Thanks
Rob

[NateW]

I rode 45/30 angles on 25cm waists for years because I couldn't find a narrower board that had an upturned tail (I'm more into off-piste stuff than carving). When I had a custom board made with a 23cm waist, I rode the same angles, just with quite a bit less underhang, and the board felt like it weighed half as much. I just had much better leverage, and could hold the same edge angle with much less strength, whether it was carving or traversing or riding moguls or anything at all. I was hoping for an improvement, but the difference really surprised me. So, I think there is a lot to be said for matching the stance angles and the board width. (For the last two years I have been riding 55/50 with a 21cm waist and that feels pretty good as well.)

Patrice and Jaques seem to go about it the way Fin describes - they like relatively low stance angles, so they make relatively wide boards to get the best results with those angles.

I don't think a taller binding helps much, especially at the edge angles used in extreme carving. When the board is tilted 90 degrees, a tall binding doesn't move the boot away from the snow at all.

[rcrobar]

Hey Nate

Thanks for your thoughts.

When I had a custom board made with a 23cm waist, I rode the same angles, just with quite a bit less underhang, and the board felt like it weighed half as much. I just had much better leverage, and could hold the same edge angle with much less strength, whether it was carving or traversing or riding moguls or anything at all.

Were you using a Bomber/Catek raised type binding when you changed boards, or were you using a binding that has a larger area that is in direct contact with the board? (IE Burton Race)

I don't think a taller binding helps much, especially at the edge angles used in extreme carving. When the board is tilted 90 degrees, a tall binding doesn't move the boot away from the snow at all.

My question about the raised binding wasn't actually directed at the boot not hitting the snow. I was pondering how the boot/binding leverage or force is transfered to the boards' edge via the TD center disk, which is a long way from the boards' edge, and the torsional stiffness (ATC etc.).

Also, does the "leverage" concept change when a binding that has a large footprint or contact area (IE Burton Race). I am assuming that it is much more important for a Burton type binding to have the heel and toe of the binding line up with the boards' edge.

Rob

[SITO]

Hi rcor.
the question about what bindings are better flat or whith disk I made it to a customer bindings and to a acustomer boards.

the customer bindings said me:3) The concept of the disk theorically allows to the board to get deformed better. The flat plate gives the advantage to press directly on the blades in the front and back, but maybE doesn't deform well the board.
Everyone has his own theory, this is personal, there are no rules

the customer boards said me:
Sorry I don't know much about bindings. I always used flat bindings without
disc and had no problem with it. The boards are so stiff underfoot that you
don't really need disc, unless you have big shoes, so you can step higher.

I thinnk that the flat bindings transmit all the efort directly and uniform on the edge of the boards.
And the bindings disk transmit part of the pressure direcctly on the insert of the boards and lose some of the pressure on the edge(the most part of rider of the worl cup use flat bindings)

I think that the disk can help you if you have big shoes and not wider board because in this way you can obtain less angulacion of the bindings.

I think that all simple mechanism jobs well that sofisticated desingn.

I don't know if I HELP YOU IN YOUR QUESTION

[NateW]

I was riding Bombers when I switched.

I do not think that there is significant edge-to-edge flex due to the small footprint of the bindings. There certainly isn't with the stiff bumpers I use, and I doubt there even would be with the soft bumpers.

There is so little leverage to bend the board crosswise... If you support each edge of the board (the edges, not the nose and tail) and stand in the middle, do you see any bending? I must admit I haven't tried this, but I don't think there will be any. If there is, try supporting the nose and tail about one inch higher than the middle of the board, so the board is bent as if in carve. Then try to warp the board again. It seems to me that even a soft board would be difficult warp when bent into a carve. If anyone tries this and finds out that I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it... I'll be shocked and amazed and then I'll have to try it myself. Meantime I do not even think about it.

It seems to me that considering how stiff our board are lengthwise, where we have ~80cm of leverage and only 20cm of width, they must be REALLY stuff widthwise, and we only have 10cm of leverage but 160+cm of "width."

If the board was bending that way, I'd expect to see dents in the topsheet on the sides of the binding footprint, and I see none. There are tiny dents at the front and rear of the baseplate, which is to be expected considering the way the board bends when carving, but no sign of any bending on the width axis.

So, I don't worry about the transmission of force from binding to edge, even through a disc like the Bomber bindings use.

Even if there was a measurable loss of force, I would still use Bombers and Cateks. I have broken too many lesser bindings, they are the only ones that I feel confident riding.

[rcrobar]

Hey guys

Thanks for your responses.

Hi Nate, I have to agree with your last post ... your example(s) makes sense.

When re-reading my original question I now think it was poorly worded, so here is a little background info into my train of thought when posting.

In the past I have spent a lot of time changing boards and messing with stance angles, what boarder hasn't!!! An example of this would be riding a wide boarderX board all morning, with very high race stance angles and a lot of underhang. In the afternoon I'd ride the same board with a more traditional freeride stance. The next day I would ride a half day on a race board with more of a freeride stance, which meant quite a lot of overhang. Next, in that same afternoon on the same race board, I'd use higher stance angles. All this just to see what it would be like. My very unscientific conclusion was that the stance changes had a lot of effect on my riding style. Also, when moving from a wide to narrow board, the edge change feeling is VERY dramatic, but I could feel NO significant affect on any given boards' edge hold.

When I read the post from a binding designer that said a little under or over hang would not be significant (a few mm here or there) and I remember reading Jacques post (I think) about the importance of lining up the toes with the boards' edge (every mm is important), I went hmmmmm? I have a great deal of respect for the opinion of both these guys, so I had to ask. I hope I didn't misunderstand or misread their comments .... which inspired this post. Also the binding discussion was about the TD2 and the board discussion involved a flat on the board carbon binding while Extremecarvng. Perhaps I am comparing apples to oranges?

A see a few problems or holes in my testing, 1) my local snow conditions and 2) the amount my board was tipped over during a turn. I ride in the West coast, where the hard pack is really soft pack most of the time. The forgiving snow definitely holds the edge of most boards and I have very little experience on ice. Also, I was making average garden variety turns, nowhere near laying right over onto the snow.

So .... as the snow gets harder and the turn is leaned over more and more, does under and overhang have a major or minor affect on edge hold? Do Bomber style bindings negate or change this result in any way?

So I guess my question should have somehow been worded in such a way that edge grip, boot under & overhang, turns flat on the snow vs a moderately incline and flat on the board bindings vs raised bindings could be discussed.

I do not expect a definitive answer here, but was more curious what other riders feedback would be.

Thanks
Rob

[skywalker]

Hi Rob,

I'll try with some Physics.

First: To drive on a given Radius with a given speed, a specific force is needed. From this force a Momentum results, that depends on the stance from the edge to the middle of the board. This Momentum has to bee carried by Your legs, no matter, how Your bindings are mounted. But: The forces between Your footsoles, Your boots and the boards surface to achive this Moment are smaller, if the stance from The Middle of the board (The srews on the opposite side of the board from the edge in the snow) to the edge in the snow is bigger. (The forces at the legs/Tibia and the boots stay the same because the stance from this point to the point where forces meet don't change).

Second: The way, the longitudinal flex is affected does depend on the length of the bindings (in longitudinal sight) and their rigidity. I Think, it's rather equal with softer plates with big contact surface like the blax and alloy plates with small contact surface. The lateral flex is not torsional flex and as formerly mentioned is so small that it can be neclected. Torsional flex might be affected by the size of the contact surface between bindings and board. But the changes with different mounting of the bindings are neclectable. Important point for this is the binding itself.

Third: Edge grip depends on the board's characteristics and the angle between the board and the snow. Also it depends on the place of CG and the ways of the CG during a turn. But it does not physically depend on the way, Your bindings are mounted. This only affects YOU and Your riding ablities. Maybe even the movements of the CG during Your turns, but this is in Your hands. The board is not really interested in how You mount Your bindings, although The performance of You with this board might be.

fourth: I hope I could help You

Tom