Ride Bindings for a Big Guy - Page 2 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2012, 10:11 PM   #11 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
herzogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Auburn, MA
Posts: 310
Blog Entries: 56
Default

FWIW, I'm 6'1" and 235 lbs, size 11 boot and love my basic Ride EXs. They have held up well, although I did only get 25 days on them last season due to injuries. They are totally comfortable and plenty responsive for me. To be fair, I have little experience with other bindings, so don't take this as a specific recommendation (I'll leave that to the experts like Nivek), just wanted to share my positive experience with Ride bindings since I figured it was relevant to the OP.
herzogone is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:30 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gdog42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MI
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nivek View Post
Not to be an ass, but that thread is from 2008. It's irrelevant when considering 2013 Flow.
True story. You have a good point there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nivek View Post
As far as loss of performance with a lack of toe cap, you actually get better performance. Instead of driving into the highback then down into the heelcup then the frame then the board, you drive into the highback, straight into the cable, staight into the base. Skipping a force redirection means more energy goes into the board. They're quicker edge to edge than traditional bindings.
As an engineer, I can tell you that the whole "better energy transfer" thing is simply a gimmick and is actually a load of crap. It was pretty obvious to me the moment I first saw it. Here's physically how:

When leaning back with a regular highback, force is applied to the back side of the binding and directly to the heel edge of the board, which pushes it downward. This is a 1st class lever with the effort force being the back of the binding, the fulcrum being the heel edge, and the resistance force simply being the weight of the other side of the board.


When leaning back with a Flow binding, force is still applied to the back of the binding, but instead of it pushing down on the heel edge, it pulls up the center of the board by pulling back the cable connecting to the center of the binding.This is a 3rd class lever, this time with the effort force being applied upward from the center of the board instead of downward directly on the back edge of the board.


The problem is that pulling backward from the center of the board actually requires more effort force than it would to simply push down on the back side. So yeah, you are transferring energy to the center of the board, but at the center of the board it can't be used as efficiently and could be considered wasted energy. Transferring energy straight the the back side of the board sends most of the energy in that direction and requires less effort force. So you're not "skipping a force redirection", you're actually adding one: 1.) pushing back to 2.) pull up. There is one-less force vector with a traditional highback: 1.) pushing back.

That's my theory of why Flow bindings are inefficient for making heel-side turns.
__________________
This is a tasty burger.
Gdog42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 11:42 PM   #13 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
herzogone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Auburn, MA
Posts: 310
Blog Entries: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdog42 View Post
The problem is that pulling backward from the center of the board actually requires more effort force than it would to simply push down on the back side. So yeah, you are transferring energy to the center of the board, but at the center of the board it can't be used as efficiently and could be considered wasted energy. Transferring energy straight the the back side of the board sends most of the energy in that direction and requires less effort force. So you're not "skipping a force redirection", you're actually adding one: 1.) pushing back to 2.) pull up. There is one-less force vector with a traditional highback: 1.) pushing back.

That's my theory of why Flow bindings are inefficient for making heel-side turns.
The only problem I think I see with that explanation is that conventional bindings don't "push down on the back side", at least not relative to the heelside edge of the board; all of the forces applied to the snowboard through the binding itself are inboard (between the board edges) since the binding baseplate is smaller than the board surface to which it is mounted. Hence, conventional bindings generally have the same basic, simplified force diagram you showed (though with additional inconsequential forces caused by rigid side supports).
herzogone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 12:06 AM   #14 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Nivek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mountains of Mordor
Posts: 6,539
Default

Yeah I studied physics too and took statics and had the same initial reaction as you. What you're missing is though the cable is directed to the middle of the board, the cable starts at the top of the highback. Would it be more efficient if the cable ran down towards the toes? Yeah. But being that you have to drive the force through the whole length of the highback on a 2 strap you still have better energy transfer with Flow.

Also my experience backs it up. Flows are more powerful transitioning edges. It's noticeable every time I ride both in the same day.
__________________
Snowboarding Is...

That thing I do to escape the world and have fun with my friend

Also, buy my things?
http://www.snowboardingforum.com/buy...ml#post1737634
Nivek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 04:24 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gdog42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MI
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by herzogone View Post
The only problem I think I see with that explanation is that conventional bindings don't "push down on the back side", at least not relative to the heelside edge of the board; all of the forces applied to the snowboard through the binding itself are inboard (between the board edges) since the binding baseplate is smaller than the board surface to which it is mounted. Hence, conventional bindings generally have the same basic, simplified force diagram you showed (though with additional inconsequential forces caused by rigid side supports).
Sorry, yeah I should have explained that better:
When you lean back in a conventional binding, the heel loop is connected directly to the baseplate. So, when the back of the boot pushes against the highback, the highback leans back onto the fixed heel loop and makes leverage in that direction. This way there are 2 main force vectors: a down-and-back force from the heel loop and an upward force from the boot under the straps.

On a Flow binding, the heel loop is a part of the highback and is not fixed to the baseplate, because the cable is what stops the highback from rotating backward. The highback does not rest against the heel loop. So, when the back of the boot pushes against the highback, the highback pulls the cable backward in a similar overall direction to the boot pulling back against the straps. This gives it 1 main force vector.

So what I'm saying is that with conventional bindings, force is divided into 2 main directions when leaning back vs. combined into 1 main direction with a Flow binding.

I didn't include the straps in my last explanation because I was only comparing the differences, and the straps are pretty much in the same position on both, but here it made it easier to explain. Also, there are other forces involved such as the heel of the boot pushing down on the back end of the binding, but again that is something that both bindings have in common so I didn't see any point in including them.

In actual performance, though, the difference in the force directions would hardly be felt as this is only a slight difference. So it doesn't really matter. I just wanted to prove that their "energy transfer from hiback to baseplate" thing would hardly make a difference.

If you did notice more powerful heel-edge transition, pulling back on the cable and straps with one single direction of force would be just as responsive than as dividing it into 2 different directions of force, depending on how tight the cable is (more forward lean = tighter cable = more responsive, which is actually like on regular bindings.)
In other words,
a. the Flow bindings might have more forward-lean, with or without adjustment.
and/or
b. you might not be feeling more power when transitioning heel-side because in the end, you're still leaning with the same amount of force but in different directions. Therefore, you could just be feeling the same amount of power but in a different way.

Anyone got any other binding suggestions for this guy? After all, that is what we're here for!
__________________
This is a tasty burger.
Gdog42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 04:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks, Gdog42...that was some serious articulation!

I think I'm going to try out a traditional binding to begin with (Ride Capo) and then as I get more comfortable (and have saved up some additional dough) also pick up the Flows. Trying them is probably the best way to go to see if I like them. If so, I'll at least throw them on my board while here in Ohio (where strapping in is frequent) and have the option of choosing a traditional or rear-entry when I head out West. I guess at this point, I'm still too new to the sport to know which one I will like best in the long run and there's no way to demo anything around here until later in the season.
buckeyeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 01:35 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6
Default

Im a big guy, and I trust metal much more than plastic. I understand from a manufacturing point and materials that new bindings are much better than in the past metal is metal. Ride bindings are strong and can handle the weight and stress as far as base plates and disc's go. I have an old pair of LX and even as an entry binding these things are solid. Just got a brand new pair of El Hefe's for this season and they look incredible. Ill be putting them to the test this upcoming weekend...
robjobetattoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 07:52 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gdog42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MI
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyeguy View Post
Thanks, Gdog42...that was some serious articulation!

I think I'm going to try out a traditional binding to begin with (Ride Capo) and then as I get more comfortable (and have saved up some additional dough) also pick up the Flows. Trying them is probably the best way to go to see if I like them. If so, I'll at least throw them on my board while here in Ohio (where strapping in is frequent) and have the option of choosing a traditional or rear-entry when I head out West. I guess at this point, I'm still too new to the sport to know which one I will like best in the long run and there's no way to demo anything around here until later in the season.
What boots do you have? It might be best just to go with bindings that are the same brand as the boots, for the best fit. I have Ride boots and Union bindings...they fit but not fit well! I'm getting a pair of ThirtyTwos later ths season anyway.
__________________
This is a tasty burger.
Gdog42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 09:34 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA
Posts: 6
Default

I have ThirtyTwo STW Boa's. It was pretty impressive to throw them on the Capos. Despite being a size 12, the footprint was the same size as the Ride Hi-Phy's in a size 10.5 (which was the other boot I liked). You gotta give it to ThirtyTwo--all they make is boots and you can tell they do a great job at it. Since the ThirtyTwo's were more comfortable and a bit softer overall, I went with them. The reduced footprint was a huge bonus though because it allowed me to stay on the SL (instead of going with the mid-wide Legacy) since I had little to no toe overhang. I realize the boot is a bit softer despite the binding being on the harder/stiffer side of things, but they were the most comfortable of the bunch compared, so I went with it. Now we just need some snow in Ohio so I can put them to the test!

Last edited by buckeyeguy; 12-04-2012 at 09:36 AM.
buckeyeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums