# Rear entry bindings suck for backcountry!



## hikeswithdogs

I knew they were a PITA for riding powder but Snowvols and I were hiking Pioneer Ridge this weekend, got cliffed out and had to hike through 4 feet of snow back up 50 feet or so then strap back in and traverse right, "strapping" back in on a 45' degree angle face in 4 feet of snow with read entry bindings sucks donkey balls.

Having my 2007 AutoEvers shipped out here from Minnesota and put a normal ladderstrap on them and forget the cable tightening sytem better bindings overall than my Cinche's anyways. No real need for fast in\out bindings out west anyways.


----------



## Grizz

Which bindings?

The title says rear entry so I thought FLOWs.

In the post you say step ins so I'm thinking clickers.

Shimano clickers did suck for entry in the deep stuff.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Grizz said:


> Which bindings?
> 
> The title says rear entry so I thought FLOWs.
> 
> In the post you say step ins so I'm thinking clickers.
> 
> Shimano clickers did suck for entry in the deep stuff.


Fixed, sorry said step in instead of rear entry.

Anything rear entry makes the scenario I mentioned above a major pain in the ass.


----------



## Grizz

hikeswithdogs said:


> Fixed, sorry said step in instead of rear entry.
> 
> Anything rear entry makes the scenario I mentioned above a major pain in the ass.


Good to know. I've never tried them.


----------



## snowklinger

is it easy to convert auto bindings to traditional? i just got a pair of uprises would be tempted to do this to, although i have no problems with them atm.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

snowklinger said:


> is it easy to convert auto bindings to traditional? i just got a pair of uprises would be tempted to do this to, although i have no problems with them atm.


Yea I believe it's just the ladder strap piece(the strap and ratchet are 100% normal), should have mine in a few days and I'll probably post somthing about the conversion. the Toe strap I will just lock in a static(like flows or Cinches) and not use a ratchet at all.

Loved my 1st gen AutoEvers but I keep on breaking cables(That K2 keeps replacing for free) and don't want to deal with a broken binding while getting ready to drop into some kind of gnarly steep and rocky out of bounds situation.


----------



## Leo

Am I missing something here? Every rear entry binding I know of can be used like traditional bindings in powder situations.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Am I missing something here? Every rear entry binding I know of can be used like traditional bindings in powder situations.


Yes my Cinch's have those but have you ever actually tried that in practice; not nearly as simple as it would seem.

For starters the ratchets aren't the quick\easy kind(like normal 2 strapers) their tight as hell and the when you get back to the resort you've totally screwed up your preset dialed in rear entry settings.


----------



## Leo

Well, I had several Flow bindings and their original ratchets sucked. Their mini-ratchets were a little better. I didn't have powder to strap into, but I did bring them to a demo where I had to constantly unstrap them to swap boards. I was able to strap back in very easily without messing up my settings because I never touched the adjustment on the inside ladders.

I haven't tried Cinch ratchets, but are they that bad that you prefer to try to kick in rather than strap in? According to the Cinch supporters, they are a better alternative to Flow because of the traditional strap nature. 

Oh well, all above issues definitely addressed with the upcoming 2013 Flow NX2 line.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Everyone I talk to says conventional bindings are superior in the backcountry and always will be, I've had flows and Cinches and while I do like them for resort riding they don't belong anywhere near the back or side country.

In the above situations simplicity, weight and reliability are paramount, no one gives two shits about saving 10 seconds when you spent 20 minutes or 2 hours hiking up and out.


----------



## Leo

Yea, I get your point. I'm not trying to defend rear entry here. You already owned them and were doing those types of activities. I was just pointing out that people have options if they already own these bindings or do more resort riding than backcountry.

Also, all of your last comments are likely addressed with the new Flows. From the various accounts of people that handled them at the show, they are very light and have traditional easy release ratchets. 

Also, for me personally, it was never about the speed of entry. That was a side benefit. The biggest was the comfort and the minimal bending down to strap in. All of my buddies ride traditional bindings anyway so I was always waiting regardless. 

Didn't mean to get you worked up buddy (can't tell if you really are or not).


----------



## KIRKRIDER

Not really. Granted they will be a bit stiffer since you use them less (if ever) using the rear entry, but they do work great when you need them to.
As for messing up your setting...just remember how many times you cranked that ratchet and you're good to go. But yes, they make sense in a resort, where you have to strap in at the top of the chair...probably not as useful in the Back Country


----------



## snowvols

Bit of foreshadowing occurred though. As we were driving up the hill we were talking about how much they suck :laugh: Oh that area we got cliffed out is normally filled in by this time of year that's what happened. I learned that yesterday.

You don't see locals out here with flows or the rear entry bindings. They are a PIA when you get stuck in powder.


----------



## Leo

Yea, for people strictly doing backcountry, it doesn't make sense to use since you are going to sit down either way. But for those that are looking into rear-entry that do SOME backcountry, they have other ways of getting into the binding like normal.

Also, I never memorized where my setting was (on my Flow FSE). I just cranked the outer ratchets down on my boot and that's it.


----------



## Leo

On a side note, I want to do backcountry with you guys some day! Never tried it, always interested. Must do a year of cardio beforehand though haha.


----------



## ThunderChunky

Flows are notorious for shitty times when trying to strap in in pow and on a slope.


----------



## Leo

ThunderChunky said:


> Flows are notorious for shitty times when trying to strap in in pow and on a slope.


Again, an old problem that is still being perpetuated by anti-Flow riders. Please let this Flow stigma die.


----------



## ThunderChunky

The old anti-flow was that they just sucked all around. The two people I ride with, never gone riding without him this year, have flows and have these problems everyday.


----------



## Leo

ThunderChunky said:


> The old anti-flow was that they just sucked all around. The two people I ride with, never gone riding without him this year, have flows and have these problems everyday.


What year and model? Yes, Flows definitely had problems. Big improvements throughout the past few seasons. Again, take a look at what they have coming up in 2013 in the binding thread.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Again, an old problem that is still being perpetuated by anti-Flow riders. Please let this Flow stigma die.



I would say even when in powder when on a relatively flat surface(less than 20 degree angle) rear entry are just fine(not the MOST convenient, but "fine") and don't get me wrong(sorry didn't mean to sound like a dick) I LOVE rear entry bindings(coming from the Midwest) especially the fact that I can get in and out without ever stopping forward movement but I just don't trust anything with that many moving parts when my life\afternoon may depend on it.

Does that mean everyone with rear entries that rides a little side country or hiking terrain should throw out their flows, of course not it's do able but I would NEVER EVER put them on a splitboard or a board being used for exclusive or mostly back\sidecountry\powder riding.


----------



## ThunderChunky

The one friend has the Zombie graphic kind, 2012 I believe. The other has two season old ones. Not saying they are bad. For resort riding they are one of the best. The only disadvantage is you have to sit to strap in on a decline.....most of the time.


----------



## Leo

hikeswithdogs said:


> I would say even when in powder when on a relatively flat surface(less than 20 degree angle) rear entry are just fine(not the MOST convenient, but "fine") and don't get me wrong(sorry didn't mean to sound like a dick) I LOVE rear entry bindings(coming from the Midwest) especially the fact that I can get in and out without ever stopping forward movement but I just don't trust anything with that many moving parts when my life\afternoon may depend on it.
> 
> Does that mean everyone with rear entries that rides a little side country or hiking terrain should throw out their flows, of course not it's do able but *I would NEVER EVER put them on a splitboard or a board being used for exclusive or mostly back\sidecountry\powder riding.*


Haha, imagine if someone did that. Yea, that would be ridiculous. If you are that dedicated to backcountry, you better have a backcountry specific setup and that setup better not have any quick entry bindings.

On that note, I have this urge to get a split board setup and take it to one of the MI hills around here. Just for shits and giggles. Of course I would have the GoPro running to capture the expressions.


----------



## snowvols

Leo said:


> Haha, imagine if someone did that. Yea, that would be ridiculous. If you are that dedicated to backcountry, you better have a backcountry specific setup and that setup better not have any quick entry bindings.
> 
> On that note, I have this urge to get a split board setup and take it to one of the MI hills around here. Just for shits and giggles. Of course I would have the GoPro running to capture the expressions.


I am assuming all of the hills there are on private property. Most if not all places will not allow uphill traffic citing the reason of danger to other traffic on the slope. 

One thing I will say about this entire debate. It is not that hard to bend at the waist and put two straps together. I know flows are quicker but it seriously is not that much quicker than a two strap binding.


----------



## Leo

snowvols said:


> I am assuming all of the hills there are on private property. Most if not all places will not allow uphill traffic citing the reason of danger to other traffic on the slope.
> 
> One thing I will say about this entire debate. It is not that hard to bend at the waist and put two straps together. I know flows are quicker but it seriously is not that much quicker than a two strap binding.


Actually, I attempted to divert attention away from the quick strap in aspect. It's the bending down to strap in that starts to tax some people. With these quick entries, you barely bend down and it's for a very short moment. Especially helpful to bigger riders. 

It's not hard to bend down and strap in, sure. But you still have to stay bent relatively much longer than with Flows. Now you do this on a small hill where you're strapping in a ton for the day, it adds up.

Anyway, I wasn't thinking about hiking a local hill with a split. I meant just riding a split down, but doing the normal lift up thing. Just for laughs. I'll have to add Flows to that now too haha. Got a split I can borrow?


----------



## snowvols

Leo said:


> Actually, I attempted to divert attention away from the quick strap in aspect. It's the bending down to strap in that starts to tax some people. With these quick entries, you barely bend down and it's for a very short moment. Especially helpful to bigger riders.
> 
> It's not hard to bend down and strap in, sure. But you still have to stay bent relatively much longer than with Flows. Now you do this on a small hill where you're strapping in a ton for the day, it adds up.
> 
> Anyway, I wasn't thinking about hiking a local hill with a split. I meant just riding a split down, but doing the normal lift up thing. Just for laughs. I'll have to add Flows to that now too haha. Got a split I can borrow?


I know what you are saying about the ease of use. It just seems to me if you are worried about a little bending at your waist you shouldn't be snowboarding. I have never hurt my back strapping in but I have hurt it hitting a metal rail. 

Good luck getting me off my split for you to use it haha. I take it out at least once a week so I don't think you'd have enough time :laugh:


----------



## KIRKRIDER

Leo said:


> Again, an old problem that is still being perpetuated by anti-Flow riders. Please let this Flow stigma die.



I love sliding slowly past people sitting on their ass strapping in especially in those first pow days where even 10 seconds before any other means getting fresh lines. I can strap on the chair if I'm alone, or while sliding past sitting riders. They look at you like "hey that's not fair!" lol.
If It's really steep you stop on one edge and one knee and lock it...in maybe 5 seconds.
If you get stuck in pow you release the straps like any other binding..but then I don't get much stuck anymore...I know my mountain pretty well at this point. I really can't see what sucks about that..


----------



## Ryan_T

Rear-entry binding people are loners. We have no friends and never have to/want to wait for anyone. 

Two things exhaust me when snowboarding: skating and buckling in. Sitting down with straps is the most comfortable method, but is also the most time-consuming (not to mention the possible wet rear). Bending over to strap in is exhausting. Flow is the best balance of time vs convenience vs fatigue for me.


----------



## grafta

Ryan_T said:


> Bending over to strap in is exhausting.


If you don't have a medical condition i'm saying you need to get some exercise man


----------



## snowvols

grafta said:


> If you don't have a medical condition i'm saying you need to get some exercise man


This is my entire feeling on rear-entry bindings.


----------



## Argo

I was on the ledge of not wanting flows anymore because pf the powder day problems but now that I got 2012,I'm happy again. It can only get better with 2013 bindings


----------



## Leo

snowvols said:


> This is my entire feeling on rear-entry bindings.


You guys have to realize though, not everyone is built the same. Just because someone is big doesn't mean they are out of shape. You couple that with a hill like in Michigan, you're bending down very often. Local hills here take 2 minutes max to complete the run. You are strapping and unstrapping constantly. It can be taxing for bigger folk even if they are in great shape. Is it taxing to the point that they can't snowboard? No. But using rear-entry gives them the same snowboarding pleasure without the excessive strapping in.

If you had a choice to make something easier on your snowboarding, why wouldn't you make that choice? I assume you guys use splits because it's easier to hike backcountry with. Why not just snow shoe? 

That's the only point I'm trying to make here. It's a justified purchase. Not for strictly backcountry riders. But it certainly works for those who occasionally go into backcountry.

@Snowvols, I go out at least once a week this season too so eat it son! My prospects for next season looks grim though. Baby #2 on the way


----------



## Leo

Snowolf said:


> I have never understood why people cant seem to strap in standing up; its simple....:dunno:


:/

I addressed this in my post.


----------



## wrathfuldeity

Rear entry, flows...etc. Another issue is getting out of the damm things, e.g., in deep pow...say you've bomb holed and are ass end up or upside down and hung up in a tree well. Standard straps could be lifesavers or at least alot easier.


----------



## killclimbz

I used flows for a fair amount of slackcountry riding for a season. Too be honest I didn't have much problems with them. I did have to approach how I got in and out of them differently. They were more of a bitch to get out of in falls like wrathful speaks of. No doubt. As far as deepp, steep slopes went. Generally speaking, I just faced the hill when putting them on. 

All that said, straps are more ideal for BC riding.


----------



## snowvols

Leo I know what you mean about the hill size. That is why in like one of my first posts I said out West they are impractical IMO. Congrats on baby #2 but I ride 4-5 times a week pending my training schedule HA! I just take the split out once a week so I couldn't send it to you.


----------



## Leo

snowvols said:


> Leo I know what you mean about the hill size. That is why in like one of my first posts I said out West they are impractical IMO. Congrats on baby #2 but I ride 4-5 times a week pending my training schedule HA! I just take the split out once a week so I couldn't send it to you.


I hate you so much right now. I'm going to go cry in the corner... for now. Once my kids start shredding, IT'S ON LIKE A PERVERT'S PANTS IN RED LIGHT DISTRICT!


----------



## KIRKRIDER

Snowolf said:


> I have never understood why people cant seem to strap in standing up; its simple....:dunno:


I don't know Wolf...I am in perfect shape but I assure you it's easier and faster on a normal resort day where you end up doing that movement a lot. 
Personally, at the top of the chairlift, I ride up a snowbank where I can go down on one fist easily, sort of a "runner starting position", angle my board against the slope, reach behind my calf, pull up the lever and ride away, using the slope I was on to start. You can do it while sliding too...it's just more fatiguing all geared up, because you have to flex down completely to fit your heel well in the binding, and depending on your binding angles it can be awkward.

I am not saying they are the best binding for everything, but I just have to stop less, I don't get stuck sitting behind other riders, and I can strap in standing too...if I can lean against something..say a trash can near the chairlift. It just makes the whole flow of getting back into riding mode faster.
Also having the straps locked in on the chairlift offers a better way to carry the board hanging off your boot, still in the upper strap, instead of having the board edge eating up your toe box.

As for Pow...they are hard to get back in...coming out is no issue....then you can sit like everybody else and use the straps...


----------



## Leo

Nah, not saying they are better haha. I am a defender of them though as I think there is a lot of needless hate and negative stigma surrounding quick entry bindings.

Just look in this thread. Nobody even once acknowledged my point about how the new Flows have been completely redesigned and eliminates all concerns here.

The only argument against them that is valid now is the more moving parts point. That is still fair game and I have no rebuttal to that.

I'm very stoked on the upcoming Flow redesign and I'm confident it will silence many of its critics. Obviously, not so much for you hardcore backcountry guys. Again, that was never a point of rebuke. True backcountry riders benefit from backcountry specific gear and quick entry bindings do not fall into this category. They can be used though, but there are better options for backcountry specific riding.

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## snowvols

I had a pair back when I lived in TN and they weren't bad for there. They just aren't practical on bigger mountains IMO. I didn't acknowledge your post earlier since I have not used them. Why speak on something I know nothing about. 3 years ago is the last time I rode a pair and it was the NXT-AT I think? I much prefer my bosses for comfort and use to my old flows


----------



## Leo

snowvols said:


> I had a pair back when I lived in TN and they weren't bad for there. They just aren't practical on bigger mountains IMO. I didn't acknowledge your post earlier since I have not used them. Why speak on something I know nothing about. 3 years ago is the last time I rode a pair and it was the NXT-AT I think? I much prefer my bosses for comfort and use to my old flows


I too ride the bosses 

Well, the video of the Flow NX2 shows the new design and tech. Has practically all of the features that people wanted and addressed complaints.

I will get my hands on these soon so Dave and I will do a review next month. Just stoked about the new design.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Nah, not saying they are better haha. I am a defender of them though as I think there is a lot of needless hate and negative stigma surrounding quick entry bindings.
> 
> Just look in this thread. Nobody even once acknowledged my point about how the new Flows have been completely redesigned and eliminates all concerns here.
> 
> The only argument against them that is valid now is the more moving parts point. That is still fair game and I have no rebuttal to that.
> 
> I'm very stoked on the upcoming Flow redesign and I'm confident it will silence many of its critics. Obviously, not so much for you hardcore backcountry guys. Again, that was never a point of rebuke. True backcountry riders benefit from backcountry specific gear and quick entry bindings do not fall into this category. They can be used though, but there are better options for backcountry specific riding.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks.


I'd like to know how they solved the stiff ratchet issue which makes using the straps(like a normal binding) totally impractical. 

If they put normal ratchets on they'd be too loose which will screw up your presets throughout the day. Did they build like a special ratchets with locks or something?

Also rear entry bindings will always be heavier than normal 2 strap bindings which sucks when you have to carry your board on your back for an hour or more at a time.

Then there's breakage issues(which goes along with the moving parts thing), everyone I know that rides flows carries parts bags in their cars so when something breaks they are prepared to do a parking lot repair job.

Rear Entries are great but no matter what they do they will never be equivalent to a high end pair of 1-2 strap bindings in powder or the backcountry.


----------



## Leo

Yes, they are normal ratchets with locks. Once you unlock, then you can easy release or crank down like normal. Even if they were normal ratchets, I don't see the problem as all of us traditional binding users rely on this type of ratchet don't we?

My 2011 Flow NXT-FSE was just as light as my Rome Bosses and lighter than my 2012 Targas. WiredSport weighed several of the Flow bindings against traditional bindings that they carry. Flow was on par with the competition. The NX2 has lightened up even more.

AngrySnowboarder confirmed this. None of us have ridden them yet though, but people have certainly handled them. Like I said, you should go into the binding section and watch the video Wired posted. It's not some promotional video. They recorded the rep going over the binding.

But I'll also be doing a full review on them with David Z soon. We have a Test Fest coming up in early Feb. Flow is usually there. I do have a GoPro now so I could get some footage of it in use as well. I'll likely record David strapping in as this will be his first time ever being on rear entry bindings. I'm very interested in what he will think about them.

Again, you get no argument from me about moving parts. But in contrast, I also carry spare parts for my Rome Bosses. I carry spare parts for any gear if I have them. That's just good practice.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Yes, they are normal ratchets with locks.


So they are or are NOT normal ratchets? It sounds like that have what I mentioned some type of locking mechanism that keeps them from tightening down when you accidently step on the strap or whatever? This is the reason why all rear entry bindings have uber insane tight ratchets in the first place.

Sorry man but compared to say my carbon fiber autoevers every flow I've ever picked up has felt like a tank

They need to compare the high end flows with the high end 2 strap bindings, most shops don't carry high end bindings at all, every pair I've bought had to be ordered online.


----------



## Leo

As I said about the weight, WiredSports weighed a few 2011 Flow bindings and compared them to competing traditional bindings. Weights were on par.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> As I said about the weight, WiredSports weighed a few 2011 Flow bindings and compared them to competing traditional bindings. Weights were on par.



So it looks like they copied the Cinch's clam shell system to me which is a good thing(I ride Cinch's currently) as far as I'm concerned. This solves my mian issue with Flows in that I could never get them tight enough for my preference and still make the quick rear entry system work, but then again I like my bindings insano tight. I do REALLY like the locking ratchets though, very cool it's about dam time someone came up with that.

It looks like FLOW is really trying hard to negate these obstacles and their doing a great job, the above binding does it look very nice.

Still a few issues

Without 2 separate straps that can either be completely come undone or moved out of the way you have to angle you foot to get it into the binding and on a high angle terrain that's a serious pain in the ass.

No way that's lighter or "on par" with a traditional binding but again for the resort rider weight ins't really an issue.

I thought Wired sports compared to what bindings they STOCK in store not high end to high end?


----------



## Leo

hikeswithdogs said:


> So it looks like they copied the Cinch's clam shell system to me which is a good thing(I ride Cinch's currently) as far as I'm concerned if they got it right but there's still no way that's lighter or "on par" with a traditional binding.
> 
> I thought Wired sports compared to what bindings they STOCK in store not high end to high end?


I think I was wrong. I believe they had rome or another bigger brand in there. Don't remember, I'll do a search for that post later.

I just don't understand why you insist on thinking Flows are the heaviest bindings on the planet. They surely were heavy and not that long ago. But their 2011 NXT bindings were light. I owned a pair and then Wired confirmed it with other weights. I demo so many bindings each year. Flow is not heavy. Wired confirmed this by weighing them. AngrySnowboard said the NX2 bindings are super light.

Why do you keep insisting on saying they are heavy? And yes, they were obviously influenced by Cinch and Ride (toe strap). Their binding actually lifts higher than the Cinch and the ladders are attached to the highback directly if you look at it so it uses less moving parts than Cinch to accomplish similar task. Plus the highback completely drops down.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> I think I was wrong. I believe they had rome or another bigger brand in there. Don't remember, I'll do a search for that post later.
> 
> I just don't understand why you insist on thinking Flows are the heaviest bindings on the planet. They surely were heavy and not that long ago. But their 2011 NXT bindings were light. I owned a pair and then Wired confirmed it with other weights. I demo so many bindings each year. Flow is not heavy. Wired confirmed this by weighing them. AngrySnowboard said the NX2 bindings are super light.
> 
> Why do you keep insisting on saying they are heavy? And yes, they were obviously influenced by Cinch and Ride (toe strap). Their binding actually lifts higher than the Cinch and the ladders are attached to the highback directly if you look at it so it uses less moving parts than Cinch to accomplish similar task. Plus the highback completely drops down.


Not saying they are the heaviest on the planet I am saying ALL rear entry bindings will always be heavier than normal 1 or 2 strap bindings.

Beyond personal experience here is my logic on weight

2 sets of bindings made with the same EXACT same materials , one traditional 2 strap and one rear entry.

Any and all rear entry systems have more parts\pieces and moving parts which means more material and that that material has to be re-enforced to provide the same level of stiffness as equivalent binding WITHOUT these additional moving parts.

It's just really simple engineering and logic as to why rear entry bindings will always be heavier unless they have alien technology\materials or magic.


----------



## Leo

Found the weights. I was right, Rome is in there and so is Union.

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/bindings/37035-flow-binding-2012-q-thread-3.html

The problem with your example is that it assumes two bindings of exact same materials and engineering. That's not the case here. Every company is different and bindings within the same brand can vary in production process.

Flow's extra moving parts are not heavy items. A few more screws, a cable, and a lock. All light weight items. As evidenced by the weights, we're talking negligible differences. This is 2011 models. 2013 models are supposed to be even more reduced.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Found the weights. I was right, Rome is in there and so is Union.
> 
> http://www.snowboardingforum.com/bindings/37035-flow-binding-2012-q-thread-3.html
> 
> The problem with your example is that it assumes two bindings of exact same materials and engineering. That's not the case here. Every company is different and bindings within the same brand can vary in production process.
> 
> Flow's extra moving parts are not heavy items. A few more screws, a cable, and a lock. All light weight items. As evidenced by the weights, we're talking negligible differences. This is 2011 models. 2013 models are supposed to be even more reduced.



Really? So your basically saying that Flow uses lighter AND stronger materials than ANY other manufacturer that makes high end 2 strap bindings and are better at engineering?

So answer me this, if flow choose to make a traditional 2 strap bindings out of the same exact materials as their highest end lightest bindings would they be lighter or heavily than the rear entry versions?

Sorry man I'm just not buying it, what your saying goes against all laws of physics and engineering UNLESS Flow has access to and chooses to use materiel's that no one else does. Highly Unlikely, again magic or alien technology are the only explanations for what your trying to prove.

This does not even take into account the side to side stiffness issue where in order to be as stiff or "solid" as a traditional binding they would have to use MORE and STRONGER material then anyone else.

Again what your claiming goes against all laws of physics and engineering


----------



## Leo

No it does not. I am not saying Flow uses lighter and stronger materials. I am saying they are using comparable materials as evidenced by the weight test. It could also be that competitors are using heavier parts. So many variables there, yet you choose to believe that I'm trying to say that Flow has SUPERIOR materials. The weights are FACT. You are trying to debate that Flows are heavy, when they were weighed against their competitors. And I'm talking about competition in terms of target customer, not price. 

Flows cost more because of the extra R&D needed and the extra parts you speak of. They also use CNC milled aluminum baseplates. 

Surely bindings like the Burton Diode are lighter, but that is the pinnacle of Burton's binding tech. It's also pricier. But you cannot refute that Flows are just as light, if not lighter as their competitors. The weight test proves this. No amount of "logic" is going to negate this fact. Unless of course you choose to assume that WiredSports lied about the weights or made a mistake on their measurements. That is a different matter.

Your claims go against the evidence.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> No it does not. I am not saying Flow uses lighter and stronger materials. I am saying they are using comparable materials as evidenced by the weight test. It could also be that competitors are using heavier parts. So many variables there, yet you choose to believe that I'm trying to say that Flow has SUPERIOR materials. The weights are FACT. You are trying to debate that Flows are heavy, when they were weighed against their competitors. And I'm talking about competition in terms of target customer, not price.
> 
> Flows cost more because of the extra R&D needed and the extra parts you speak of. They also use CNC milled aluminum baseplates.
> 
> Surely bindings like the Burton Diode are lighter, but that is the pinnacle of Burton's binding tech. It's also pricier. But you cannot refute that Flows are just as light, if not lighter as their competitors. The weight test proves this. No amount of "logic" is going to negate this fact. Unless of course you choose to assume that WiredSports lied about the weights or made a mistake on their measurements. That is a different matter.
> 
> Your claims go against the evidence.


"Surely bindings like the Burton Diode are lighter"

So you admit that Burton's Diode is lighter than even the lightest binding from flow?

"Your claims go against the evidence"

Evidence from a store trying to push a product, yes


So answer me this, if flow choose to make a traditional 2 strap bindings out of the same exact materials as their highest end lightest rear entry binding would they be lighter or heavier than the rear entry version?

Your trying to convince everyone that a binding with more parts AND moving parts is LIGHTER or just as light as a binding with less parts and parts that don't have to be as beefy to achieve the same stiffness and rigidity levels, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

You can fanboy on all you want about how Flow is the greatest thing since sliced bread I could care aless, all I'm saying is that all things equal 2 strap bindings will ALWAYS be lighter, stiffer, more reliable and easier to get in and out of in extreme situations than any rear entry binding from ANY manufacturer.


----------



## Leo

hikeswithdogs said:


> So answer me this, if flow choose to make a traditional 2 strap bindings out of the same exact materials as their highest end lightest bindings would they be lighter or heavily than the rear entry versions?


I would say lighter, but negligibly so. Just like they are negligibly heavier. Did you see the weights? We are talking 2oz max heavier and the Union Force was heavier than Flows.

So answer me this, are you suggesting that WiredSports presented flawed data? Are you suggesting that I'm talking out of my ass when I tell you that the 2011 Flow bindings I had were lighter than my current Targas and just as light as my Bosses?

Want to know what traditional binding was heavy to me? Forum Shakas. Even the rep admitted they were heavy. Another binding that Flow is lighter than.

And we're only talking about 2011 Flows. From the few accounts of people that handled them, including the buyer at my work, the new NX2 series is Flows lightest to date.

Not trying to say Flow makes the lightest bindings. I'm just trying to kill the claims that Flow continues to be considerably heavy as you are suggesting. Your claims are definitely true for any Flow bindings older than 2010, but it's simply not the case anymore.

Well, if you're not going to believe Wired's data, you likely won't believe mine either if I ever get to weigh them. So you're effectively unable to be convinced. Your mentality on this issue is etched in stone even in the face of evidence.

So all I can say is go handle some newer models yourself and compare them to other bindings. Until then, I will keep refuting your claims about Flows being heavy.


----------



## Leo

Recap:

Rear entry is not ideal for backcountry: Fair

More moving parts, more chances for failure: Fair

Speed benefit of rear entry is negligible for most: Fair

Flows are heavy: Plain false


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> Recap:
> 
> Rear entry is not ideal for backcountry: Fair
> 
> More moving parts, more chances for failure: Fair
> 
> Speed benefit of rear entry is negligible for most: Fair
> 
> Flows are heavy: Plain false


Where did I say flows were heavy, all I said was rear entry will always be "heavier" than traditional?

You keep ignoring my question

If flow choose to make a traditional 2 strap bindings out of the same exact materials as their highest end lightest rear entry binding would they be lighter or heavier than the rear entry version?

All things being equal traditional bindings will always be

Lighter
Stiffer
More Reliable


To me, living out west, those things FAR outweigh the fact that you can get in and out of them faster now if I still lived in the midwest or the east coast it would be a different story.


----------



## Leo

Stop talking about location. I am not arguing with your about the benefits/cons of speed entry. The only thing I ever said on that subject is that we are not all created equal. To say someone shouldn't snowboard if they get tired for whatever reason is a little harsh.

I addressed your question. All things equal if Flow went traditional, I said they would be negligibly lighter unless they change their materials. Compared to a Diode, no way aluminum can ever be lighter than carbon fiber or even plastics.

The way you talk about rear entry always being heavier insinuates that they are noticeably heavier. Otherwise, there would be 0 reason for you to say that. Such is the case, they are negligibly heavier and lighter compared to some bindings. So this is a moot argument then.

All of your other points I already conceded to. Enjoy your big mountains and back country. I'm going to pick up the NX2 if they perform well at test fest and be happy with them.

And just to spite you, if I ever get to ride with you and Snowvols, I'm going to bring the Flows. :cheeky4:


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Leo said:


> To say someone shouldn't snowboard if they get tired for whatever reason is a little harsh. :cheeky4:


Don't group me in with anyone that said anything of the sort as it wasn't me and I don't agree with the statement. I'd like to see everyone snowboarding or shit doing any kind of active outdoor activity instead of sitting on their fat asses in front of the TV and feeding their kids McDonalds 3 meals a day.

As far as the weight being negligible at the resort I would 100% agree but in backcountry I still want as light(and simple) as possible especially when it comes to boots\bindings.

Spend a few year backpacking summer or winter and you'll quickly come to realize that even a couple OZ makes a difference when your frame and feet have to take the direct impact literally thousands of times each day.

Either way we can agree to disagree and I"'m perfectly ok with that


----------



## Leo

hikeswithdogs said:


> Don't group me in with anyone that said anything of the sort as it wasn't me and I don't agree with the statement. I'd like to see everyone snowboarding or shit doing any kind of active outdoor activity instead of sitting on their fat asses in front of the TV and feeding their kids McDonalds 3 meals a day.
> 
> As far as the weight being negligible at the resort I would 100% agree but in backcountry I still want as light(and simple) as possible especially when it comes to boots\bindings.
> 
> Spend a few year backpacking summer or winter and you'll quickly come to realize that even a couple OZ makes a difference when your frame and feet have to take the direct impact literally thousands of times each day.
> 
> Either way we can agree to disagree and I"'m perfectly ok with that


If I were a millionaire, I'd send you every single new Flow binding to make you eat your words. Lucky for you, I'm broke haha.


----------



## killclimbz

Leo is dead on with the weights on Flows. One of their models, (expensive) the Team I believe, was the lightest binding I demo'd two seasons ago. You'll have to pay a premium to get a binding that is significantly lighter than Flows these days. If you match binding to binding as in for what it's use and market is, you'll find Flow models to often times be the lightest. 

Also if you are talking backcountry riding, the only way you are going light is with a carbon fiber splitboard and Spark bindings or the Karakorum system. Otherwise, you're talking about using heavy bindings. I don't care what you're using.


----------



## hikeswithdogs

killclimbz said:


> Leo is dead on with the weights on Flows. One of their models, (expensive) the Team I believe, was the lightest binding I demo'd two seasons ago. You'll have to pay a premium to get a binding that is significantly lighter than Flows these days. If you match binding to binding as in for what it's use and market is, you'll find Flow models to often times be the lightest.
> 
> Also if you are talking backcountry riding, the only way you are going light is with a carbon fiber splitboard and Spark bindings or the Karakorum system. Otherwise, you're talking about using heavy bindings. I don't care what you're using.



Pretty sure anyone building a new setup is gonna be on Spark's or Karakorum's not sure why you'd choose anything else building a new split rig these days.


----------



## ShredLife

flows make it easy to spot the gapers.


----------



## KIRKRIDER

Snowolf said:


> @Kirk;
> 
> Strapping in on the chair is not a great practice and some resorts will clip you pass for it. As far as getting stuck behind the cattle sitting and strapping in, I ride one footed right through them and partway down run and strap in so for me it's a non issue. Again, whether you are reaching down to latch the highback or strap a conventional binding, we are talking about a 1-3 second difference. If someone is that OCD about the time, they should just use step ins.


I did strap on the chair only on a mid-week pow day...alone and sharing the resort with about 100 other people or less...the lift operator nodded and that was enough. I know it's not the same on a full chair on Sunday...
Anyway those K2 were a huge improvement for me after my beaten up Cartels gave up the ghost. I love how they work...but to each it's own. I like to talk about gear...but bottom line is whatever makes your ride better is better for you. Using the cartels aligning 2 straps and tightening them took me much more than the time it takes me to lock one binding and go...I find it faster and more practical...but it's a personal preference.


----------



## Leo

Snowolf said:


> god help you if you do fall on it and get that high back shoved up your ass....


LoL. That was an awesome comment. :laugh:


----------



## snowvols

hikeswithdogs said:


> Pretty sure anyone building a new setup is gonna be on Spark's or Karakorum's not sure why you'd choose anything else building a new split rig these days.


Problem with that is your split comes with slider plates if you get the entire kit. So my thinking was I would get the sparks later so I could get the split now and save 300+ bucks and tour today. Once I purchased my sparks though I was highly disappointed in myself for not buying them sooner. Board had such a different ride to it.


----------



## cocolulu

> Anything rear entry makes the scenario I mentioned above a major pain in the ass.


Am I the only person that laughed when I read this? :laugh:


----------



## KIRKRIDER

Leo said:


> LoL. That was an awesome comment. :laugh:


Lol they high backs do fold...and It's pretty difficult to see you fall Wolf... I'm sure


----------

