Launching SwitchSki Binding Adapter Plates!

[adrenalated]

Both tele and frame bindings will work fine with the heel sliding forward

[roboto]

Cool! I think a hard anodize would really add to the look

[ericvoneast]

Thanks for all the thoughts and questions- you guys are an awesome collective brain!

On the front-back vs back-back mounting, I'll need to revisit this as I look at more specific binding combinations. My initial prototype had the front-back combination, as it takes the stress of the locking device. However, there are two concerns I had about that approach: the first is for bindings like the Dynafit Radical FT and other bindings which have a "bridge" between the toe and heel pieces, and thus the toe and heel are linked (I accidentally referred to these as frame bindings earlier, but looking at my notes I now remember the details). The second issue may arise with bulky bindings and short boots: there may not be enough space between the toe unit and heel unit to slide the two towards each other (the binding currently slides 1" along the mounting rails). I'll need to look at these issues in more detail after talking to more shops and potential customers- the gain in strength from a front/rear combination may be worth excluding a few potential customers.

Neck Beard, you're correct that you only need one set of mounting holes to accept a wide variety of bindings, and your quiver sounds like a perfect test case- just have base plates on each of your skis, and swap a single set of Dynafits between them. While you could resell them with the plates and somebody could use them with different bindings (e.g. alpine or telemark bindings), they may need to move the plates fore/aft to fit their boots. This would be just the same as selling skis with a single set of holes.

Vt-freeheel, good eyes spotting the prototype hole pattern. As a sometimes-tele skier myself, I wanted to have the option of skiing NTN or similarly stiff tele bindings without worrying about pull-out. The result is an extra set of holes that you can drill if you're worried about pull-out, or leave unmounted for less hassle and weight. The final design of the hole pattern is still up in the air; I'd like to prevent potential conflicts with other hole patterns, and may adopt the hole standard from another manufacturer for the 4 main holes.

Great questions, keep 'em coming!

[neck beard]

an awesome collective brain!

Well this TRG neurone saw your gif and, like Pavlov's dog, immediately expected boobies-from-tshirt action. So you already got that going against you.... v.s this is techtalk and should be SFW.

More serious: mounting template. You should get your people to talk to the Jigarex people. You both owe me for that one.

Me = if you want them tested/promoted by a multiple-ski-owning-3-country-2-hemisphere-travelling-worker-in-the-backcountry-industry (excuse the grotesque term). ASSUMING THEY ARE SAFE. Your FAQ doesn't mention anything. And assuming you can get the rise down to 6.5mm. Less would be much better.

[Island Bay]

Great idea; will follow closely. Regarding your worry that there might not be enough room to slide bulky bindings on/off if opposing directions, how about not having the "track" be the whole length of the plates? If both the plates on the ski and the binding had four lobes, each lobe taking up a little less than a third of the length, then you could place the binding unit in the space between the ski unit lobes, then slide/click into place.
You'd lose a little holding power, but if dimensioned correctly that shouldn't be an issue (would lose some weight too, so could beef up lobes).

[::: :::]

Bring some to BBI17 for maggot demos

[galibier_numero_un]

Great concept. I'd do everything I could to minimize the rise as well, and it sounds as if you're thinking along those lines, from your early comments.

My take would be to try to do a small, pre-production run - something like a TGR (and other forums?) release (20?). This would fit with your PHD program schedule (i.e. how much can one individual do). More importantly, it would limit your exposure as far as any necessary production modifications you identify, while hopefully getting an idea of what QA and QC issues you'll encounter in a quasi-production situation.

I don't know the legal side of this, but ideally, you could look at this as extended tester recruitment.

Cheers,
Thom

[abraham]

For bridge bindings, I only can think of two. Some dynafits and the zz labs that are kind of uncommon. There could be more but I'm not sure how many.

For separate heels and toes, what binding combination is the worst with your current design? And what's the smallest bsl you can expect? I'd think it's either a 21-23 size alpine boot or a similar size tech boot, probably the new TLT is the shortest on the market. As long as they are greater than 2 inches apart you should be able to make it work. After all each part is connected independently if they aren't bridge style bindings

[ericvoneast]

Awesome feedback. I like the idea of an initial pre-production run, and am starting to reach out to manufacturers for a small batch to get feedback from some hard-charging testers like you all. I'll bring that back up when I have a schedule & batch size.

[Shorty_J]

Couple of questions:

If I understand correctly you need tight tolerances to keep slop out of the system...

1) Does that create any potential problems with icing up making binding transfer difficult?

2) Does that require a very accurate mounting hole placement for the system to work?

[sethschmautz]

There are many here (including me) who have experience with the Binding Freedom swap plates and would be able to offer some feedback based on that experience. I like the concept of your toolless swapping, and am very interested in seeing the development of this product. Personally, I swap between Speed Radicals and Marker Lords (I believe those fit the Griffin pattern) and would be interested in your pre-production run or to test if helpful to you.

[ericvoneast]

Shorty_J, good questions: I haven't had issues with icing, probably due to the fact that contact areas are greased, which prevents water intrusion. While the dimensioning of the two metal plates is important for working with vendors, the mounting tolerances are just the same as with normal bindings. Mount the baseplate on your ski just like normal, then slide the top plate into place- it's the interface between the baseplate and top plate which requires precision.

Sethschmautz, I'd love to get your feedback on the BindingFreedom swap plate experience- feel free to PM me or share your thoughts here.

[meter-man]

Subscribed. Product looks solid.

If you need local testers, I can offer my 415 services.

[auvgeek]

The second issue may arise with bulky bindings and short boots: there may not be enough space between the toe unit and heel unit to slide the two towards each other (the binding currently slides 1" along the mounting rails).

I can't imagine "bulky bindings and short boots" being a limiting factor for any reasonable bsl. If the FKS can work for a 250 bsl, I highly doubt you'll any issues.

The final design of the hole pattern is still up in the air; I'd like to prevent potential conflicts with other hole patterns, and may adopt the hole standard from another manufacturer for the 4 main holes.

I could see the argument to make them a standard hole pattern, but I think it would be better to make it a bit wider, like the BF plate pattern, so there won't be hole conflicts when mounting/remounting.

[SiSt]

Cool product. Definitely following this closely.

I'd go front-back, if combined with the idea of not sliding the bindings "all the way", that should resolve any issues, let you use the binding preload to make unintentional release impossible and make switching even easier.

Practically no bindings have the bridge, and in most cases it's completely useless and should be removed anyway. Screw those.

Will it work with pivots/fks? Weird screw pattern in the heel may have issues?

[LC]

I'd have bought this 3-4 years ago but have too many niche skis now and don't travel in the winter. Make a forward-offet Dynafit toe plate (à la CAST), make the whole system reliable and get some help with how you want to market it and it should sell. Good work.

[Shorty_J]

Any updates on this?

[ericvoneast]

Thanks Shorty_J for checking in about an update. I'm currently working on a prototype run for folks who've contacted me about getting their hands on a copy, and will be posting an update to this thread as I get costs and dates locked down (likely delivery mid-January).

Thanks a ton to everybody who expressed interest; I'm excited to see the prototypes hit the slope and get feedback rolling in! PM me if you're interested in having your name added for the prototype run.

[ericvoneast]

Sorry about the radio silence; I've been slammed with research deadlines. If anyone here is interested in taking over the idea, PM me- I'm happy to hand over the webstore, pre-orders, provisional patent, designs, and prototypes.

I'd love to see these go somewhere, but realize that I don't have the bandwidth to pursue this right now. For somebody with manufacturing experience, this should be a much more doable side project- I'm happy to support the web and engineering side.

[Muggydude]

Talk to binding freedom/svst maybe

[skizix]

Damn. Just saw this thread for the first time. Exactly what I'm looking for - which is how I found it. The switchski site is still up, and is evidently still taking orders. Think I'll hold off for now, lol.

Any update of any kind? Finish that PhD yet? Has anyone else consided taking the reins?

If perfected, I think there could be a huge market for this sort of thing (even in the simplest case: one set of bindings to serve multiple skis, with the swap being quick/easy).

Obviously the most important concern would be reliability/safety (with low weight and low stack height important but not as). And while no-tools-required is certainly very appealing (and helps w/ marketing), I don't think it's entirely necessary. If all that releasing the top plate involved were, say, prying a locking tab (something like that seems like it might help reliability, especially with tele bindings), it'd still be hugely viable (vs. ~20 screws in inserts w/ threadlock, etc....*if* you could even get holes to not interfere).

Not sure I understand the concern about icing vs binding swap. Why would you want to switch out bindings out on the hill?

[SumJongGuy]

tl/dr.. So we've invented a binding for your bindings??