Ridiculous binding setup!

[vtmecheng]

I have the latest MOB system with the added stiffener plate. It only allows complete removal of all VHB or dual lock if the ski has two additional inserts. Without the inserts, the new stiffener allows for less tape or dual lock. The old design without the stiffener required four inserts to remove the tape or dual lock. @mmosley899 sent me the new stiffener with some low profile dual lock, which works well if you add a layer of EVA foam to the bottom of the plate. I have been using it this year and did have one successful release and no undesired releases. So far so good and I can bump the binding forward or back without replacing tape.

[Than_Bogan]

#FakePanda :smile:

 

Totally reasonable points by @BraceMaker.

[BraceMaker]

@Than_Bogan - he can panda it.

 

My point is more that if you rewind and look at the early hardshell systems. Fogman had a lot of engineering in it, the connelly stealth had a lot of engineering. Dave Wingerter's flow point conversation with Marcus last year talked about how proud he was of the Exoform system, not from its ultimately being successful but it was just a 100% from scratch waterski binding system.

 

My opinion is that if the ski companies could standardize fully on a pattern that include the normal 8 trick ski binding screw holes, add 4 standard rear binding inserts or whatever - and then a set of front and rear inserts you'd open a lot of potential up for design. If this was standardized to the point where you knee the pattern was exactly the centered on the factory binding recommended positions you wouldn't need to measure binding position and microjust would literally be able to have a 0 point - the measurement would be 32ndths steps forwards or backwards from 0.

 

@vtmecheng send photos!

[mmosley899]

@vtmecheng is correct, the new mob plate does not require any tape or interlock if you have the standard trick ski inserts in your ski. D3 is now putting the additional inserts up front that accommodate longer plates in some of their skis. As @BraceMaker said, if the slalom ski manufacturers would include either standard set of inserts it would help many skiers with the use of their preferred release system.

 

BTW, I can easily mount Joel’s boot on the mob release system if he wanted it...

[Horton]

@BraceMaker additional inserts means more holes in the top of the ski. Holes substantially diminish the integrity of the laminate. Ask a composites engineer if holes in the top of the ski are a good idea and I am pretty sure most will say NO. From a composites / ski design perspective inserts are a necessary evil.

 

Each additional insert is additional hand work in the factory AND additional weight from the nylon anchors. HO is the only ski company that has extra inserts. They do it to accommodate their proprietary mid-range bindings.

 

The current state of binding inserts is not perfect but all front binding hole patterns are the same. I am sure @mmosley899's life would be easier if the factories would add 4 or 8 more holes but he has fould a successful workaround.

 

If you want to complain about something it should be about the farthest back binding holes. In the case of HO, Radar, Connelly and D3 they all have the same hole pattern for the front binding and the front holes on the back binding but not the back holes on the back binding. Rarely does this represent an issue swapping bindings but every once in a while it is a problem.

[lagdawg]

I wasted an hour or so yesterday and found this: https://www.truesport.store/index.php/product/point-951-120-worldcup/

 

It appears to be a Alpine Snowboard Hardboot cut down that Joel uses.

[VONMAN]

Steam powered boots and hokey religions are no match for a D-3 rubber boot.