# Snowboard Binding Canting



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

How many folks out there like canted bindings? How would you like to have 4 point independent adjustment to really dial in your stance. I finally got my US PATENT 7703794. Check out this video to get a glimpse of the future of binding technology. 






Steve

Edited to embed your video.


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

Thats an interesting device you've got there Steve...


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Isn't that essentially what the old Ride CAD did?


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

*Snowboard Binding Canting Technology*

The Ride adjustable binding design is far inferior and does not contain any intellectual property. This patented design has been modeled for torsion characteristics, has stiffness in all the right places, direct 5 point connection to the board, not a teeter totter like the Ride design. The concept keeps its shape when your foot is not in it thus allowing for true 4 point independent adjustment. Please do not compare,, need I say more. BTW the carbon concept weighs a fraction of what the Ride design added to the binding.

Steve


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Kudos on patenting your idea.... but is there a reason you've broadcast it on youtube? Are you trolling for a licensee? If so, tread carefully.... a patent is only as good as the holder's means of protecting it.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

steveo said:


> The Ride adjustable binding design is far inferior and does not contain any intellectual property. This patented design has been modeled for torsion characteristics, has stiffness in all the right places, direct 5 point connection to the board, not a teeter totter like the Ride design. The concept keeps its shape when your foot is not in it thus allowing for true 4 point independent adjustment. Please do not compare,, need I say more. BTW the carbon concept weighs a fraction of what the Ride design added to the binding.
> 
> Steve


So what you're saying is you added more screws and more parts that could break and it's better? I'm not really getting what you're trying to accomplish here with this thing as it just looks like something that's going to break and over solving a non complex problem that has been addressed with slip in canted footbeds. Who is your target market?


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

*Snowboard Binding Canting Technology*

Angry Dude,

The concept and design is simple and elegant, I have been riding this design for 4 years now and "parts do not break" In different conditions you may prefer a different stance. Who wants to change out a footbed every time they want another degree of cant or none at all? Molded eva foam does not give you infinite adjustablility just "canting" only. I am confident in this technology being the best way of addressing adjustability in your footbed to dial in your stance, riding style and conditions. I posted on this forum to get some feedback from folks trying canting and how they would benefit from this concept. Maybe your just angry that you didn't think of it!!

Thanks:

Steve


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

steveo said:


> Angry Dude,
> 
> Maybe your just angry that you didn't think of it!!
> 
> ...


i bet he is :cheeky4:

seems like a decent idea to incorporate into bindings, the way you have them seems more like a riser?

brutal soundtrack!


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the idea is really cool. The only thing you have to do to make it marketable or sell-able to a company would be to explain how it is functional or beneficial to riding. I can already kinda see, but just letting you know. I'm sure you already know this if you've got a patent though.  Anyway, I think it is a really cool idea. It would be nice to have something under the plates when it rises though. It seems like it is just a real raw system. You could maybe even have the screws spring loaded and out foam or padding under it for extra cushion. Could also put less strain on the screws and less chance of breaking.


----------



## Revolution (Nov 12, 2011)

I have that on my ride CAD. though they are heavy and not as usful as just a plan wedge from ride or like the ones from rome 390 boss. Any on looking for L CAD ride bindings let me know. look at it on ebay


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

steveo said:


> Angry Dude,
> 
> The concept and design is simple and elegant, I have been riding this design for 4 years now and "parts do not break" In different conditions you may prefer a different stance. Who wants to change out a footbed every time they want another degree of cant or none at all? Molded eva foam does not give you infinite adjustablility just "canting" only. I am confident in this technology being the best way of addressing adjustability in your footbed to dial in your stance, riding style and conditions. I posted on this forum to get some feedback from folks trying canting and how they would benefit from this concept. Maybe your just angry that you didn't think of it!!
> 
> ...


Congratulations you made a riser plate that has more moving parts. I like consistency when I ride, then again I go more than 10 times a year so you know that plays into effect. Maybe weekend warriors like yourself need something more to play with after work on weekdays though. 

Most people depending on stance width don't need more than 2 to 2.5 degrees of cant as that helps with the alignment of their stance and keeps their hips and knees in check. I've ran canted footbeds in my boots for almost a decade, cants on my bindings isn't anything new either. You're changing the dynamic of how the binding sits on the board and the leverage at which it applies pressure into carves. 

I'm never upset about people that create bad ideas. Besides a roll of duct tape and some 3m foam I could build a cant for my binding for under 5 bucks.


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

Id rather have the canting in the binding than the boot, unless the "shaft" or whatever the upper part of the boot is also canted.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Dec 9, 2010)

Canting is great. I have weak knees and injured my ACL so it's great to have


----------



## CheeseForSteeze (May 11, 2011)

I wouldn't buy bindings with this. I don't want infinite adjustability, I don't want four point adjustability and I certainly don't want those things at the cost of complexity, price and inferior binding feel. Static, canted EVA footbeds in bindings get close enough to anatomically correct for most people's stances without adding all of that complexity. And I can shave them with a razor if they aren't close. Bindings already have enough non integral elements to them: buckles, adjustment points, the ladders themselves and all the associated hardweare. 

My opinion is that binding design should work to eliminate and simplify bindings and taking advantage of advances in material sciences.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Congratulations you made a riser plate that has more moving parts. I like consistency when I ride, then again I go more than 10 times a year so you know that plays into effect. Maybe weekend warriors like yourself need something more to play with after work on weekdays though.


The average snowboarder puts in 10 days a year on the mountain, so us 'weekend warriors' are in good company.



> Most people depending on stance width don't need more than 2 to 2.5 degrees of cant as that helps with the alignment of their stance and keeps their hips and knees in check. I've ran canted footbeds in my boots for almost a decade, cants on my bindings isn't anything new either.


Then the riders who aren't "most people" now have another option to consider when looking at binding/canting options.


> You're changing the dynamic of how the binding sits on the board and the leverage at which it applies pressure into carves.


....So, the analysis of a grizzled veteran who spends more time on the mountain than the rest of us could ever dream is that this bindings idea changes the way a rider will have to control the board? :laugh: Wow. Its a good thing you're here to help us understand such complicated concepts.



> I'm never upset about people that create bad ideas. Besides a roll of duct tape and some 3m foam I could build a cant for my binding for under 5 bucks.


Maybe you're missing the point? Let us know how adjustable the canting from your pre-cut foam and roll of duct tape in your pocket are on the mountain. 

No, not everyone will need canted bindings, but idea clearly fills a niche. Hmm, I guess experience really is no guarantor of wisdom or insight. 

Stevo: If you ever do license this idea then perhaps you could use some of the royalties to send BA a roll of duct tape and some poly foam.


----------



## dantech (Jan 27, 2011)

Interesting...but I wonder how that has to feel landing on those screws sticking up since there really isn't anything underneath for support to evenly distribute the pressure. Seems like it would really affect the way you'd be able to flex the board too as you'd be flexing the raised baseplate.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Tarzanman said:


> The average snowboarder puts in 10 days a year on the mountain, so us 'weekend warriors' are in good company.


 And this means what? Pointed out that I like to have consistency as everyone else should have too many adjustments = less consistency. Then again if you actually rode as much as you pretend to you might understand this. 




Tarzanman said:


> Then the riders who aren't "most people" now have another option to consider when looking at binding/canting options.


 Not really dumbass doesn't look like these are production ready. Then again you believe R and D is cheap so I guess they could be made of pvc and anyone could use them. 



Tarzanman said:


> ....So, the analysis of a grizzled veteran who spends more time on the mountain than the rest of us could ever dream is that this bindings idea changes the way a rider will have to control the board? :laugh: Wow. Its a good thing you're here to help us understand such complicated concepts.


 What don't you understand dumbass? You sit higher up or raise yourself it changes the leverage you use to carve. Do you not understand simple concepts? Maybe we should talk about magnets too. You're a real fucking retard. 





Tarzanman said:


> Maybe you're missing the point? Let us know how adjustable the canting from your pre-cut foam and roll of duct tape in your pocket are on the mountain.


 Adjustability sure awesome have fun playing with micro screws on snow with cold hands. I'll be riding with consistency at least. 



Tarzanman said:


> No, not everyone will need canted bindings, but idea clearly fills a niche. Hmm, I guess experience really is no guarantor of wisdom or insight.


 Hmm and yet a reputable binding manufacturer did the exact same thing and that binding lasted 1 season. What does that tell you? Oh but I forgot you know everything about snowboarding with your immense use of google. Why don't you snowboard as much as you talk about it? 



Tarzanman said:


> Stevo: If you ever do license this idea then perhaps you could use some of the royalties to send BA a roll of duct tape and some poly foam.


I'll be holding my breath /sarcasm


----------



## bobthegood (Sep 14, 2011)

Oh oh, it's on......


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

This is ridiculous. He wants feedback, whether it be good or bad, and he's gonna get an argument.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

rode my 10th day of the season today at breck, my first time there. nice soft greens with falling snow, perfect day for flatland workouts (i'm the only one who knows i was doing that, pretty sure everyone else thought i was on my 2nd run ever).

i wish v. stiles would weigh in.


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

Steveo- I looked at your patent drawings, and have a few questions. Im curious about the ability to lose screws from this. Most boarders I know have enough trouble keeping track of the 8 screws used to mount their conventional bindings (luckily they have retainer strips on them). What is to stop the extra 5 or 6 screws per plate going missing during use? 

My interpretation of your drawing is that there is a the central "jesus screw" that appears to be the sole holder of the adjustable plate to the binding plate?

Have you considered a small locating lug to keep the plate in place should the central screw become lose?

I realize that you have probably taken these out for a test run, can you tell me if they would still "lock in" alright and give the boarder enough control if the screw is missing with solely the down wards pressure of the rider and the binding straps?

Also, as the adjustable plate can be raised a significant amount, is there potential that, if raised to high, the heel cup of the binding could become ineffective? I know that this would be based purely on a binding to binding basis, but an thinking generally?


Im not trying to damn on your product, I think what you have is fairly interesting and would be appealing to a target audience looking to keep there gear very personalized.


----------



## AAA (Feb 2, 2008)

Looks interesting. I've ridden with various cant/lift in bindings for 20 years, always on my rear foot and sometimes on the front. (Currently prefer the front foot dead flat, though.) I like the idea of infinite variability.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

ThunderChunky said:


> This is ridiculous. He wants feedback, whether it be good or bad, and he's gonna get an argument.


So where's your feedback junior. Either offer something or ask a question cause otherwise you're fucking dead space.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

Did you read the whole thread?:dunno:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I've been in the whole thread fuckstain. Seriously offer something up for the guy or ask some questions about what he intends to do. For a WNYer you sure do cry a lot I guess your generation is weak. Now go eat some Jims Steakout and ride Snowpark Niagara.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

Well then, I guess you can't read.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Keep crying like the little pillow biter you are. You're offering him nothing at least I'm asking some questions and seeing what he has to say. It's been done before it didn't work why will his succeed? Moving parts that overly complicate things, changed riding dynamics, less inconsistency, these are all things that need to be addressed. He can get butt hurt all he wants but at least I see it for what it is another idea that more than likely won't be licensed.


----------



## dantech (Jan 27, 2011)

Mmmmm Jims Steakout....now that the best idea this thread has to offer!


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

ThunderChunky said:


> I think the idea is really cool. The only thing you have to do to make it marketable or sell-able to a company would be to explain how it is functional or beneficial to riding. I can already kinda see, but just letting you know. I'm sure you already know this if you've got a patent though.  Anyway, I think it is a really cool idea. It would be nice to have something under the plates when it rises though. It seems like it is just a real raw system. You could maybe even have the screws spring loaded and out foam or padding under it for extra cushion. Could also put less strain on the screws and less chance of breaking.


Hmmmmm.........If you need help reading this let me know. 

You didn't really offer anything helpful after the first page. You just argued and attacked people, like you always do, and tell him his product is bad.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I questioned it like anyone that has a brain and snowboards would do. He then got butt hurt. Not my fault he can't understand that people will question his product. I've seen this done before it failed. You're the one that keeps crying maybe you should untuck your munt and man up.


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

The only thing mildly offensive to you he said was that maybe your jealous you didn't think of it first.  Oh man, what a douchebag.


----------



## Kwanzaa (Sep 4, 2011)

Hey steve just wanted to say nice design there. Also wanted to let you know I found out about this binding through other sources, so its definatly getting around.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Here is my take on this if anyone cares.

You're an engineer huh? Kudos not raising is as much as a lot of other who try to change what works. Still raised it too much though.

Take a tip from running, we are all just starting to figure out that actually, more is less, less is better. The human body is full well capable of adjusting for certain tollerances. Unless you're riding bordercross or slalom a forward-back cant is unnecessary and will go unfelt. All these tiny little adjustments dissolve in the bodies own ability to suck them up. We will only ever need 2-2.5 degrees. Unless you're 5'6 and REALLY need that 26" gangsta stance. But that child wont be dropping for bindings with that much CNC's carbon fiber.

I, an avid "weekend warrior", do not change my stance THAT MUCH that I would need to do this. Burton has the canting thing dialed by sticking it in the boot sole in my opinion. And they don't make it a set degree, just softer EVA on the inside. If you stand wide you put more pressure on the inside causing more compression and you achieve a higher effective cant. Makes more sense and is WAY lighter than this.


Tried and true in bindings, the easier and simpler they are to work the better they sell. And the more moving parts anything has the more they brake. You, 1 person, hasn't had any issues? That a focus group of one, and based on what boards you stuck them on (capped sidewalls) I doubt you are putting them through what me or BA could. Not even R&D abuse. Just average riding that we put gear through. 

Oh and you probably got an A in your design class for sure.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

ThunderChunky said:


> The only thing mildly offensive to you he said was that maybe your jealous you didn't think of it first.  Oh man, what a douchebag.


You're still crying twat waffle? Seriously I would figure for a NYer you might have some balls you must have grown up in Pennsylvania or are from Grand Island.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Blue waffle?


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> .


Did you google blue waffle?


----------



## phony_stark (Jul 2, 2011)

Nivek said:


> Here is my take on this if anyone cares.
> 
> You're an engineer huh? Kudos not raising is as much as a lot of other who try to change what works. Still raised it too much though.
> 
> ...


This. 

Congrats on seeing a project from start to finish and even getting a patent for it, a lot of people can't say they've even gotten close to that. As far as the idea taking off in industrt burton has beat you to it, by having an auto canted footbed. 

The design/parts are very simple:

One part, and it cants based on stance width...done. I already hate dialing in my bindings, and despised (even though I liked them when set up) how long it took to get the 390 bosses ready. I can't imagine what setting that up would be like.


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

*Snowboard Binding Canting Technology*

Nice Discussion!! I had a blast testing and designing this concept and I love to ride on my protos. I really don't care if it ever gets licensed, not like I'm dying for money!! A few pics from the gallery of the modified Burtons that I loved taking to the saw after they gave them to me for sending them early protos.

Steve


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

steveo said:


> Nice Discussion!! I had a blast testing and designing this concept and I love to ride on my protos. I really don't care if it ever gets licensed, not like I'm dying for money!! A few pics from the gallery of the modified Burtons that I loved taking to the saw after they gave them to me for sending them early protos.
> 
> Steve


Do the two carbon plates that are at the front of the binding effect the stock burton toe ramp set up?


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

*Snowboard Binding Canting Technology*



fattrav said:


> Steveo- I looked at your patent drawings, and have a few questions. Im curious about the ability to lose screws from this. Most boarders I know have enough trouble keeping track of the 8 screws used to mount their conventional bindings (luckily they have retainer strips on them). What is to stop the extra 5 or 6 screws per plate going missing during use?
> 
> My interpretation of your drawing is that there is a the central "jesus screw" that appears to be the sole holder of the adjustable plate to the binding plate?
> 
> ...


Screws are captive and do not "come out and the plate acts like a lock washer for the screw so no it does not come out. All 4 feet are in contact with the board at all time with or without your foot in the binding..


----------



## CheeseForSteeze (May 11, 2011)

To add to Snowolf, I have the same concerns but I'll ask something even more fundamental: even if we find a design something that gets around the weight, energy transfer, complexity/durability, what does it gain us? The current solutions provided for cant bed options seem to work fine.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

BurtonAvenger said:


> And this means what? Pointed out that I like to have consistency as everyone else should have too many adjustments = less consistency. Then again if you actually rode as much as you pretend to you might understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ThunderChunky (Oct 1, 2011)

Just to be clear, I stopped so....I'm in the clear for now right?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Tarzanman said:


> Thats funny. I work in the R&D dept. of my company. Go on again and tell me how much more knowledgeable your adventures in the test lab make you on this topic? :laugh:


 So now you work in R and D yet last week you were saying it's so cheap. You are a fucking moron. Keep googling I'm sure you can learn everything you ever wanted about snowboarding. 




Tarzanman said:


> I guess that one went over your head (shocker). R.I.F. At least now we know who to call on when we want something explained that everyone already knows*.


 Do I need to type phonetically for you? I'm beginning to think you are one of those over educated under socialized dipshits. 





Tarzanman said:


> Yes, because no one has ever had to adjust screws while riding and there aren't screwdrivers chained to benches at resorts.  Aren't you always going on about how much more you know about snowboarding than me? If so, then how did you argue yourself into this particular corner? :laugh:


 What corner? Am I the only one that knows how to dial my shit in tighten it and go riding. Have fun with those screw drivers that are bolted on by hard cables that don't provide a swivel link to get a maximum turn. You're really grasping at straws here. What is wikipedia and google not working for you?




Tarzanman said:


> Google is great... and reputable products fail all the time for a myriad of reasons. Correlation is not causation.


 Google is great unfortunately it doesn't give you hands on knowledge which is something you completely lack. I'm pretty sure I've already ridden triple the amount of days you'll get for this year and it's not even December. God damn it must suck living in the south and having to snowboard through the interwebz. 




Tarzanman said:


> Keep holding. We'll tell you when to stop.


And once again Sarcasm eludes you. Damn must suck to be so socially awkward. Just admit it you play World of Warcraft and attend Magic the Gathering conventions. 

But keep grasping at straws I can't wait to see what you come up with. While you wrote your response I was at my office and by office I mean chairlift snowboarding.


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

Snowolf said:


> Here is another question I have. I reposted your pic for reference. In the top right and bottom left picture, I am concerned about efficient transfer of force from the rider`s foot to the board. Binding manufactures put a lot of engineering effort into the entire flex and energy transfer into a binding. Rome`s big thing is their under wrap design to help transfer the rider`s energy through the side rails down into the toe area of the binding. Riser plates proves to be performance inhibitors due to ineffective and inefficient transferers of energy from the binding to the board.
> 
> When I look at those pictures, I cant help but suspect this is going to interrupt even pressure transfer into the board to utilize the designed flex pattern of the board. It seems that you have concentrated pressure points at the setting screws rather than an even distribution. Can you explain how you solved this engineering issue with your design?
> 
> Please understand, this is not a critique, but an honest engineering question about your design...


The plate makes direct contact to the board at the toe and heel and to the binding itself when not canted. When canted there is still direct support along the inside edge of the foot. The outside edge of the foot is supported by the stiff carbon plate that gives just enough to make for a really comfortable ride. The direct connections to the toe and heel make for great weight transfer for quick turning and minimal energy loss. The plate has great anti-chatter properties and as for board feel the plate is sucked down onto the board surface when mounted and really mimicks what the surface of the board does and does not fight back much like a big chunk of aluminum or glass filled plastic covered up by foam does. 

BTW- Remember, this is about a concept and the adjustability factor could be left out of it and it could just be a plate with different mounting feet that has all the benefits that a carbon footbed brings to the table. Kind of sounding like swapping out footbeds except maybe one would do. The intellectual property is all about the plate and how it "deflects" to a position as well as the adjustability.

Steve


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

steveo said:


> How many folks out there like canted bindings? How would you like to have 4 point independent adjustment to really dial in your stance. I finally got my US PATENT 7703794. Check out this video to get a glimpse of the future of binding technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I quickly scanned a few pages of the thread, so I apologized if this wasn't already answers. How does this differ from CATEK's patented design that they have had for over a decade?


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

*Snowboard Binding Canting Technology*

Lonerider,

Nice to hear from you.. Are you still using the old proto's I sent you four years ago?? How is this different from Catek you ask. For one its not 350 bucks, two, much more comfortable for the free rider and average snowboarder, three, it conforms and flexes to form you footbed not a solid chunk of heavy alumunum that gets set with set screws..

Steve


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

steveo said:


> Lonerider,
> 
> Nice to hear from you.. Are you still using the old proto's I sent you four years ago?? How is this different from Catek you ask. For one its not 350 bucks, two, much more comfortable for the free rider and average snowboarder, three, it conforms and flexes to form you footbed not a solid chunk of heavy alumunum that gets set with set screws..
> 
> Steve


Ah, this is Kickerfoot's latest version? I tried to track you down, but the website was gone.

I don't used the old prototypes, but they worked pretty well though. I liked that you could use them on virtually any binding (from what I saw... it looks like the most recent version is Burton specific?). I have to admit that I really didn't need that many configuations... 0 degree, 1 degree, 2 degree was usually enough.


----------



## steveo (Dec 1, 2010)

lonerider said:


> Ah, this is Kickerfoot's latest version? I tried to track you down, but the website was gone.
> 
> I don't used the old prototypes, but they worked pretty well though. I liked that you could use them on virtually any binding (from what I saw... it looks like the most recent version is Burton specific?). I have to admit that I really didn't need that many configuations... 0 degree, 1 degree, 2 degree was usually enough.


Conforming aluminum cant plates.. This was the start of the concept and yes these do work good as well with the right bindings. I made 100 pairs and still know folks who rid on them. I still have about 20 pairs left. 

Actually the newest version can be custom built into most any binding, However the technology of how it adjusts is what this is all about.

SteveO


----------

