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

[adrenalated]

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?

Yes, snowboard bindings have a standardized mount pattern.

There's significant engineering challenges involved in standardizing alpine and AT mount patterns though, much more so than in snowboard or even tele bindings. There's a reason that mount patterns aren't even standardized with brands, much less across the entire industry. At the end of the day, the drawbacks of forcing the rest of the binding design around a universal mount pattern are greater than the drawbacks of having multiple patterns and mounting skis with screws.

[ZomblibulaX]

Per inserts: k2s were never in the right place, and screws constantly backed out and disappeared. While most snowboarders are accustomed to tightening their screws regularly, dirtbag freeheelers never really caught on to the whole “maintenance” thing. The big AT boom finally killed it.

The line reactor failed because it was a heavy, over-engineered and under-built piece of garbage, but at least they had the sense to keep the inserts out of the way of a traditional mount.

IQ max was essentially a volkl motion system with an open interface and a more secure means of retention. Worries about losing or breaking the screw were largely unfounded, and even without a screw the two instances I saw people skied on them and then noticed after a while that their binding had shifted a little, but not come close to coming off the ski. IQ failed because blizzard was making heavy, shitty skis, IMO. Argos, Cronus, answer, One, were all stable but remarkably boring skis. IQ max lived on on their frontside offerings for a while, but nobody wants a plate on their pow ski. Still, I think IQ max was about as good as you’re going to get going down this road.

Per Burton’s channel: have you waxed a channel board? I’m still impressed that they found a way to make snowboards less flat and more of a pain in the ass to work on.

Nordica/vist had their tab/lock interface plate, which sucked horribly, was heavy, and rattled like a mfer.

Salomon’s pilot system was a pain to adjust, inevitably had floppy elastomers flapping around, and had shear issues with the pins, which they never seemed to have in stock, and was never adapted to not be a hostage plate.

Any insert system for skis is going to either involve mounting a plate via the inserts, and then a binding to the plate (see above), or adding enough inserts to accommodate a bsl range from, say, 280-360 for any ski 170cm and up, which adds up to... mmmm... one metric fuck ton of inserts, give or take a few.

No binding manufacturer is ever going to agree on standardized hole patterns, see adrenalated’s post above.

Plenty of attempts have been made in the past, see spademan bindings, et al., but the reality is that screwing a binding in to the ski is still the best way to ensure proper function, provide a secure platform, and maximize performance.

[Danno]

There's significant engineering challenges involved in standardizing alpine and AT mount patterns though, much more so than in snowboard or even tele bindings. There's a reason that mount patterns aren't even standardized with brands, much less across the entire industry. At the end of the day, the drawbacks of forcing the rest of the binding design around a universal mount pattern are greater than the drawbacks of having multiple patterns and mounting skis with screws.

what are you, some kind of engineer?

[toast2266]

Obligatory and perpetually relevant xkcd:

[Danno]

I'll accept that people smarter than me say it can't be done, and xkcd says it can be done but it won't work.

But to be clear, the suggestion wasn't for a standard hole pattern, but simply a standard hole spacing. It wouldn't be asking binding manufacturers to make all their bindings with the same pattern, or force them to put a screw in a certain place. It would simply be standardized spacing, such that screws must be spaced apart at intervals divisible by .5" or whatever.

Of course, that would result in skis that look like swiss cheese. But it sure seems like bindings COULD be engineered this way, although there may be ton$ of reasons why they wouldn't/won't be engineered this way.

But I'm feeling a bit like puregravity here so I'll just let myself out.

[XXX-er]

Dynafit kind of did that with the 8 insert holes in their skis to fit Dynafit bindings so dynafit bindings required no drilling for most users, I had to drill some extra holes in my Stokes for a small BSL but it was still a way easy mount cuz I could mount by 2 of the existing insert holes and use the binding as the guide to drill the other 2 holes

really, getting everyone to agree on a mounting convention hasn't worked if it was ever attempted

it probably also would cost more so is there that much money in a pair of skis?

[S_jenks]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[SKIP IN7RO]

But I'm feeling a bit like puregravity here so I'll just let myself out.

Come Danno, give us the deep dive into this dilemma.

[rfconroy]

That Blizzard IQ system seems like some pretty big compromises in order for minor gains. Not surprised from other folks talking about the weight and relative PITA.

What I don't understand is why a ski manufacturer cant use a series of spaced inserts for heel and toe, and used a binding which is similar to a demo binding, but with a shorter, stouter interface to accommodate for BSL variance.

Alternatively, all boots could have the same BSL....

[XXX-er]

there were rental boots back in the day that all had the same DIN sole

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Did anyone say "screws" yet?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Snowboard bases are never flat. Partly because of all the helicoils in them, I think. You can really see it when you hot wax them. Could they solve that problem with skis? Maybe. Do they need to? No, not really.

[Eluder]

there were rental boots back in the day that all had the same DIN sole

I remember those, I don't think it was din but could be wrong. The toe piece was flat and the boot went over it for the bigger boots. Anybody remember what brand they were?

[#######]

Back to the fuckin' magnets... But i'd bet (say 15 to 20 years) it's a room temperature superconducting magnet boot/binding interface

attached with screws.

[ZomblibulaX]

That Blizzard IQ system seems like some pretty big compromises in order for minor gains. Not surprised from other folks talking about the weight and relative PITA.

Agreed with minor gains from IQ Max, but if they could lighten it up significantly, it does give you a lot of options. Extra plates were around $60, and for that you got one ski that could do alpine, tele and AT, with no binding compromises, plus you didn't have to be a ski tech to make it work. Once the bindings were mounted and adjusted, they stayed on the plate, so you didn't have to unscrew a ton of shit like with inserts, which often also means readjusting the binding if you, say, had to move the heel to get to a screw. Just one screw, plus multiple mounting options, and multiple binding options. It was actually pretty slick, but it was heavy and like I said, a lot of the skis kinda sucked.

What I don't understand is why a ski manufacturer cant use a series of spaced inserts for heel and toe, and used a binding which is similar to a demo binding, but with a shorter, stouter interface to accommodate for BSL variance.

Because you'd just be using a demo binding so why bother adding inserts into the mix?

Alternatively, all boots could have the same BSL....

Head/Elan still does same BSL for multiple sizes in their rental programs, it's like five BSLs, color coded to estimated ski lengths. But every 12 year old kid in Texass has a size 13 foot (just ask them, it's their patent reply) so it doesn't always work as prescribed. And the boots are pretty ridiculous, if you're at the bottom end of a given BSL, they're just clown shoes.

Dynafit kind of did that with the 8 insert holes in their skis to fit Dynafit bindings so dynafit bindings required no drilling for most users, I had to drill some extra holes in my Stokes for a small BSL but it was still a way easy mount cuz I could mount by 2 of the existing insert holes and use the binding as the guide to drill the other 2 holes

really, getting everyone to agree on a mounting convention hasn't worked if it was ever attempted

it probably also would cost more so is there that much money in a pair of skis?

Of course, how could I forget the idiots that used inserts, but to save weight, used plastic ones. What could possibly go wrong?!?!?
Those were actually surprisingly resilient, all things considered.

[F#*k you cat]

I think we should all go back to the ESS VAR system from Atomic. That binding will move 3 cm forward or back. Perfect for finding the sweet spot on your DPS.

Otherwise just mount a Look or a Sally on the fucking line and ski it till it falls off. Or the ski explodes. Either way you are having a blast.

Spend less time talking about clamps and spend more time spreading stoke.

Ski you later

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[swissiphic]

the pros use velcro.

I ain't no pro, so I used two layers of heated 3M double sided carpet tape to hold the binding plastic cutting board mount plates to ski topsheets. Worked better than I thought, so much so that getting the fucking things off the topsheets was a real pia. Fawk the screws, the future is glue.

[SKIP IN7RO]

Snowboard bases are never flat. Partly because of all the helicoils in them, I think. You can really see it when you hot wax them. Could they solve that problem with skis? Maybe. Do they need to? No, not really.

Best bet when waxing a snowboard is to remove the bindings or at least loosen the screws so the base is not sucked up under the inserts.

[toast2266]

I ain't no pro, so I used two layers of heated 3M double sided carpet tape to hold the binding plastic cutting board mount plates to ski topsheets. Worked better than I thought, so much so that getting the fucking things off the topsheets was a real pia. Fawk the screws, the future is glue.

That is hilariously sketchy.

[rfconroy]

I ain't no pro, so I used two layers of heated 3M double sided carpet tape to hold the binding plastic cutting board mount plates to ski topsheets. Worked better than I thought, so much so that getting the fucking things off the topsheets was a real pia. Fawk the screws, the future is glue.

Carpet tape on HDPE.... nice.

Quick question: HOW THE HELL ARE YOU STILL ALIVE?