hktrdr

You cannot be serious!?

Supra

i sure am! On EL there's a guy who pops in every now and then who has very close ties to the bindings division at B, so we get all those juicy stats :P

BigmountainVMD

I should have noted that from what I heard, the Cartel highback is softer than last years model, but by how much I had no idea.

How can a binding be good for carving but not for boxes and rails? You should think that out a bit more. On the scale from flexible to stiff, a more flexible binding is better for rails/boxes, an intermediate flex is better for jumps and a stiff binding is better for carving. The Prophecy, in the year that I purchased them, had some lateral flex (longitudinal on the board axis) but less flex than the Malavitas. It was also relatively stiff heel to toe, which is why it was a good carving binding, and also good for jumps, but didn't have the OPTIMUM flexibility for rails. If it makes you feel better you can replace "not so hot for boxes and rails" with "not optimum for boxes and rails."

Triple8Sol

Either one will pair very well with that board.

__________________
14 NeverSummer Proto HD . 13 Never Summer Cobra . 12 Gnu Rider's Choice C2PTX
13 Now IPO . 12 K2 Formula . 11 K2 Formula
13 NB x 686 580

hktrdr

I am still calling bullshit on the 3%. There is just no way to quantify the different dimensions of flex that way. It makes no sense.

havin_a_ball

I got the wife (5'11") a new (last seasons sale) setup this year, which included switching from 2010 Burton Lexa's (LG) to 2012 Cartels (SM)

I was really hoping that the Cartels would offer a higher and stiffer back to match the relative stiffness of the new board (2012 Rossignol Diva 156).

Glad to hear all the positive comments about them!

Supra

How about if they have a machine which flexes the highback with a constant pressure until it snaps? You can then compare highback stiffness.
and yeah, there is 3% more torsional flex this year.

I know, I know, 3% sounds silly but seriously, if I was making it up, don't you think I'd use a bigger number?

phony_stark

+1 The prophecies are actually supposed to be the best of both worlds. The lower half of the binding is softer, so you should be able to get some nice lateral flex out of them

Could be the high back though, I think it predates zero forward lean.
I like a little forward lean though.

havin_a_ball

If the material composition of the highback was altered slightly, and tests were done as described above, then the 3% sounds like it could just be a number the marketing team got ahold of.

Unless, combined with other changes in re:flex or whatnot, the sum of the small changes would be somehow noticeable.

I bet the margin of error for the stiffness of run of mass produced highback pieces is at least 1.5%.

hktrdr

Exactly. The 3% number is complete bullshit. What specific aspect was measured that changed by 3% percent?
The force required to break the highback? Which would be completely useless information...
Or the force to deflect/twist the highback by a certain degree/extent? In that case how about a different degree/extent - I guarantee you it will not be 3% and could be 10% more or even 10% less.
It is bad enough that the industry is trying to rate flex for boards and bindings on a single number scale, but at least those numbers can offer some guidance. Stating that a highback is 3% stiffer is just complete and utter lunacy and completely meaningless (as pointed out by others already, even the manufacturing tolerances are more than that).