Open ended question: ski/binding interfaces of the future?

[Crow]

People have been drilling holes and using screws to mount bindings on skis for a really long time. It works pretty well damn well but swapping bindings can be annoying. Enter inserts, like Binding Freedom. You drill some bigger holes in your skis, install inserts, and now binding swaps are pretty easy IMO. However, changes in BSL or mount position mean more holes in your ski. Not the end of the world but mildly annoying. Every ski in my quiver has more than 1 mount. Maybe this is because I buy cheap used skis on the internet but its got me thinking. Will this system eventually be replaced and drilling holes in your skis be a thing of the past?

The channel system from Burton looks pretty slick to me. I don't snowboard so maybe a snowboarding mag can weigh in on performance. Could a similar system would work for skis? These "channels" would probably need to be installed during the layup of the ski. Maybe they could be routed out and then sealed?


I know of at least one failed attempt by Line with their reactor binding and pre-installed inserts. I used to have a pair of Mike Nick pro models that came with these inserts. I never tried the reactor binding but heard it was awful.


So maggots of Tech Talk, what say you? Will we drill holes in our skis forever or will future shredders use new undiscovered fastener systems to secure bindings to their snow sliding apparatus?

[XXX-er]

skis have used all mannner of rails and yada

still the vast majority of skis still use screws and must stay that way

so that SFB doesnt have to retrain to get a job at 7-11

[Core Shot]

Any system that one size fits all, is really a demo binding. Compared to a look turntable.
The latter allows full flex.

If it bothers you to drill, just go attack demo and fighettaboutit

[charlesj]

Blizzard had IQ Max many years ago. It didn't catch on. There was a plate that you could mount whater you want on then slide it on and lock it down. You could also change the position fore aft (pozi drive needed) So you could have one pair of bindings with a quiver of Blizzard IQ Max skis or one pair of skis with alpine , tele and AT that you could swap out.

K2 had inserts for OG four hole mount on tele skis many years ago, perhaps last century, but more than a few people felt they weren't in the right places

[skisurfmirth]

Blizzard had IQ Max many years ago. It didn't catch on. There was a plate that you could mount whater you want on then slide it on and lock it down. You could also change the position fore aft (pozi drive needed) So you could have one pair of bindings with a quiver of Blizzard IQ Max skis or one pair of skis with alpine , tele and AT that you could swap out.

K2 had inserts for OG four hole mount on tele skis many years ago, perhaps last century, but more than a few people felt they weren't in the right places

I had a pair of blizzard The Ones with that iq max system. Was pretty good really. Could ski inbounds with sth16, swap on dynafits and go do the bugs to Rogers. Super heavy though, with metal top, bottom and side walls around core. From what I remember local rep saying it added 50-100$ per pair, I think that really did it in.

[toast2266]

The inevitable consequence of something like this catching on is that every brand will have a similar but non-compatible binding mount interface and you'll be stuck using certain bindings with certain skis.

[Crow]

Yeah drilling doesn’t really bother me, just pondering possibilities. The IQ system sounds pretty cool. Added cost is a downside but not surprising. Shame it didn’t catch on.

I think you’re right toast, binding/compatibility would be a big challenge . An industry standard interface would help but that removes the incentive for any one company to do the R&D + integration work.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[apocequip307]

See nordic skis for how this can go right and then wrong with different brands and compatibility. For a while, many brands used NIS plates- a binding slid on and had a little tool to adjust mounting point or remove. Now Fischer and Rossi have IFP and their own bindings and madshus(K2) has NIS, while Salomon has pre drilled skis still using screws.

that being said, none of those plate systems would probably hold up on an alpine ski, just an example of the headaches these “easy” systems create

[beer30]

Magnets bro! 🧲

[m2711c]

the pros use velcro.

[SKIP IN7RO]

The channel system from Burton looks pretty slick to me. I don't snowboard so maybe a snowboarding mag can weigh in on performance. Could a similar system would work for skis? These "channels" would probably need to be installed during the layup of the ski. Maybe they could be routed out and then sealed?

Burton killed the Spark R&D Edison splitboard interface because it would not work with Burton's wonky channels and 3D inserts. They basically kept Spark from advancing their interface beyond the Voile Puck system. Spark went hush-hush and only said the interface was scrapped due to "icing up". Yeah right.

[wasatchback]

I had a pair of blizzard The Ones with that iq max system. Was pretty good really. Could ski inbounds with sth16, swap on dynafits and go do the bugs to Rogers. Super heavy though, with metal top, bottom and side walls around core. From what I remember local rep saying it added 50-100$ per pair, I think that really did it in.

Actually there was no metal involved in the IQ system. There were some skis with metal that used it but no more metal was necessarily used for its construction than any other ski. It was a pretty cool design but it did add some weight and no one wanted fat skis with a system binding. It was a nightmare from an engineering standpoint and did significantly add to the production time and cost due to cores having to be designed specifically for it as well as the molds.

At one point I’m pretty sure Arne actually routered an old pair of boots to slide into the narrow IQ and T nutted his boot to the ski.

Velcro is the future for sure....

[skifishbum]

The juggalos called
Said magnets
Is the answer

[Crow]

Burton killed the Spark R&D Edison splitboard interface because it would not work with Burton's wonky channels and 3D inserts. They basically kept Spark from advancing their interface beyond the Voile Puck system. Spark went hush-hush and only said the interface was scrapped due to "icing up". Yeah right.

That's a bummer. Does Burton have a stake in Spark or just throwing their weight around in the snowboard industry?

Actually there was no metal involved in the IQ system. There were some skis with metal that used it but no more metal was necessarily used for its construction than any other ski. It was a pretty cool design but it did add some weight and no one wanted fat skis with a system binding. It was a nightmare from an engineering standpoint and did significantly add to the production time and cost due to cores having to be designed specifically for it as well as the molds.

At one point I’m pretty sure Arne actually routered an old pair of boots to slide into the narrow IQ and T nutted his boot to the ski.

Velcro is the future for sure....

Design does seem cool. This video has some nice animations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAGZfld7pnM
I can definitely imagine this being a bitch from an engineering and production standpoint. Were there any performance downsides? Maybe slightly higher stack height than a flat mount binding? Video seems to claim it didn't affect ski flex like plate/frame bindings can. I definitely used to think system bindings were lame when I was a kid for purely aesthetic reasons. My race skis in HS had plate systems but I wish I had tried some Blizzards with the IQ system.

The juggalos called
Said magnets
Is the answer

Might as well forget bindings and magnet/velcro mount boot straight to ski.

[skifishbum]

ive lost to many dog booties to think the answer involves velcro

[Core Shot]

Gorilla tape.

But it leaves a bad residue.

[Marshal Olson]

Aerospace-grade velcro

[El Chupacabra]

I had a couple of Blizzards with the IQ system, and still have the Titan Argos with the later IQ Max (Max was a little wider plate). They were all heavy skis. I found that the IQ plate wouldn't slide easily in the channel on the ski, once a binding was mounted. No slop in the system, which is nice.

The plate idea was kind of interesting if it had worked without so much weight. It allows you to move the binding fore/aft on the ski, without redrilling, because the plate has a series of holes for the one screw holding it onto the ski. Blizzard also had Marker Barons and Dukes made for the system rails - I had a set, which made for the heaviest BC setup imaginable.

[charlesj]

What el Chupacabra said. I had some Ones with the IQ Max. Getting the plates a few years after the fact was a PITA as they were rare and/or pricey for a chunk of plastic. The one screw connecting the plate to ski was cool for easy removal, tweaking fore/aft and the way it had a minimal affect on the flex, but it was unnerving in a way. I don't know of any mishaps and my own experience was limited but just the idea of that one bolt loosening or shearing can get one wondering (even if it's not rational) about potential mishaps.


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[ExPowderSnob]

I just want to know why the sole of a ski boot and the binding is so damn narrow. My skis are 117 underfoot, my boot is maybe 50mm?... I feel like a much wider boot-binding-ski- interface would be better for transmitting force to the edge of the ski...

[SKIP IN7RO]

That's a bummer. Does Burton have a stake in Spark or just throwing their weight around in the snowboard industry?

Burton needed a splitboard binding and rebranded a Spark and called it the HitchHiker. What Spark was going to introduce was an interface that would work with the standardized (Voile) hole pattern and could also use the existing inserts on a DIY splitboard and no longer use Voile pucks. The Spark Edison would not have worked on any Burton board at the time, but pucks would. Spark has a healthy enough chunk of the split binding market, so you need your splitboard to work with their bindings.

[L82thegate]

A bit off topic but I liked the guy who routed off the mounting profile of some Spademan bindings, then mounted them upside down to Scott ski boots. The little plate was on his ski's, not the boot. Try stealing those. Back then, ski theft wasn't uncommon and separating ski's was a deterrent. My buddies carefully placed their Hexcels well apart but thought an obviously mis-matched pair could stay together so put them back to back, went to the bar. Hour later they return and someone had taken them. Each person still had one but a double loss in which the thief was no better off.

[Danno]

It seems to me that the real issue is standardization of bindings across platforms. Snowboard bindings seem to have this covered (based on what I see, but I don't board so maybe I am wrong). Because the bindings all "mount" the same way, the board comes with a bunch of "inserts" that allow the user to mount any binding in a wide range of orientations.

If alpine and tele bindings could all come up with some standard of hole spacing (even if some bindings required 6 screws and others 4, or 8), all skis could come with inserts spaced over a decent range, allowing people to mount different bindings in different spots. Isn't it the standardization of snowboard bindings that allows snowboards to have this?

[charlesj]

What Danno said. It almost worked for tele bindings. More inserts for different positions would have helped. Most tele bindings at the time had a common 4 hole pattern.

Just get all alpine, AT, tele bindings to share a pattern*. How difficult could that be??

*more accurately a spacing grid, agreeing to a common width and length being some multiple of a shorter dimension (the distance between each longitudinal insert) sort of like a race plate where all the holes are in two parralel lines

[Danno]

Exactly, they don't all have to share the same pattern, but they do need to all share the same spacing standards.