# Ride Bindings for a Big Guy



## buckeyeguy (Nov 26, 2012)

Need some advice from those who know a lot more than me...

I'm a 6'4" 235lb guy wearing size 12 ThirtyTwo STW Boa's. I started boarding a little bit ago and loved it. Now that I finally have a good feel for it, I am taking the plunge to get all my own gear this year. I just ordered a 2012-13 Never Summer SL (161) but will likely need to swap it into a similar sized (or slightly longer) Legacy since it's a mid-wide (got them confused while ordering). I wanted to get a good all-round board since I plan to vary my day up on the hill. Around here, I mostly like cruising groomers, hitting some natural kickers and will seek out powder when I get out West. But since Ohio's got nothing going on in terms of slopes, I also plan to play in the park a bit here and there just to mix it up.

My question is this...I am planning on putting some Ride bindings on the board, but am unsure on which model. Despite my interest in this year's new Flows and the advantages of step-ins in Ohio (our runs are less than 30 seconds long and you're constantly strapping in), I was talked out of them by all the seasoned vets I floated the idea past. They all pointed me in the direction of Ride bindings. So, I was curious what you guys would recommend. I was thinking of going with the Rodeo's but I'm also considering the Capo's. The Rodeo seems to be plenty of binding for my build and style of riding (plus it may be a bit softer and more forgiving for my less-experienced skill level), but I didn't know if it was too soft given my height and weight. Should I go with the Capo, which seems like a monster but is potentially more responsive? Or should I go with the Rodeo, which is more forgiving but potentially too soft?

Any thoughts you have would be welcomed. Thanks much! It's great to have a forum like this to share ideas and get feedback.


----------



## Gdog42 (Nov 11, 2012)

I've seen several reviews that say Ride bindings are not very durable. The most common problems are the straps and ladders coming loose easily, and the rubber material busting/popping out on the toe straps.

One of my friends has had a pair though for a few years and so far hasn't had any problems with them, so...lucky him! 

Some of the best brands for bindings are Flux, Union, Burton, Salomon, and Drake.

Check those out. They are much higher quality than Ride and will definately last a lot longer!


----------



## 131441 (Oct 4, 2012)

After reading everything and playing with them I went with Rome 390's. I'm a big guy also. 250 6'. They feel strong and my local shop backs them up as well.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

Gdog42 said:


> I've seen several reviews that say Ride bindings are not very durable. The most common problems are the straps and ladders coming loose easily, and the rubber material busting/popping out on the toe straps.
> 
> One of my friends has had a pair though for a few years and so far hasn't had any problems with them, so...lucky him!


Not sure where you read those reviews, I have a pair of '08 Ride Delta's that have 60ish days on them, they still look and function like the day I pulled them out of the box. :dunno: I did hear they had a lot of problems with the toe straps on the contrabands.


----------



## Toomeyct (Apr 4, 2012)

buckeyeguy said:


> Need some advice from those who know a lot more than me...
> 
> I'm a 6'4" 235lb guy wearing size 12 ThirtyTwo STW Boa's. I started boarding a little bit ago and loved it. Now that I finally have a good feel for it, I am taking the plunge to get all my own gear this year. I just ordered a 2012-13 Never Summer SL (161) but will likely need to swap it into a similar sized (or slightly longer) Legacy since it's a mid-wide (got them confused while ordering). I wanted to get a good all-round board since I plan to vary my day up on the hill. Around here, I mostly like cruising groomers, hitting some natural kickers and will seek out powder when I get out West. But since Ohio's got nothing going on in terms of slopes, I also plan to play in the park a bit here and there just to mix it up.
> 
> ...


Hey there,

I can chime in here because I have both of those bindings. The rodeo highback is most definitely softer than the capo high back, however I don't really notice the difference in any of the rest of the construction. The ankle strap is a little better on the capo in my opinion but the ankle strap on the rodeo is by no means bad. I have really had no problem with either binding and they both fit the boards that I have them on (Rodeo on NS Revolver and Capo on NS Heritage X). So it really comes down to what kind of riding you want to do. If you really want to charge the mountain, I would suggest the Capo, if you want something a little more forgiving and playful, I would go with the Rodeo. 

However, I choose Ride bindings because I have a size 14 boot and they make bindings just big enough to fit that. I've also found that flow XL bindings fit. Now I'm sure your friends had a reasonable explanation as to why not to get flow bindings, however my friend has the new NX2 bindings and he loves them. I messed around with the 11/12 flow bindings and I thought they were also nice. So I wouldn't rule them out just yet. Also with your size foot you can try all kinds of bindings really. I'm limited because of the size of my boot, but you aren't. If I were you, I would go to a shop and try out a bunch of different brand bindings and see which one you like the most.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Gdog42 said:


> I've seen several reviews that say Ride bindings are not very durable. The most common problems are the straps and ladders coming loose easily, and the rubber material busting/popping out on the toe straps.
> 
> One of my friends has had a pair though for a few years and so far hasn't had any problems with them, so...lucky him!
> 
> ...


Really? Throwin Drake in there? 

Ride bindings are not low quality. Sure the rubber mesh in the toes can break, but it really doesn't do much and if it wasn't there at all the toe strap would still function well.

I'd venture a guess your experienced friends either haven't touched Flow's in 6-7 years, or they have and never got them set up right, or they haven't tried them ever and are just repeating the opinions of the past. They are fantastic bindings and ride great.

If you do wanna stick with Ride I would suggest the Capo. You're bigger, you're going to flex that binding more than most of us.


----------



## buckeyeguy (Nov 26, 2012)

All- Thanks much for your responses...they've been very helpful.

Toomeyct- Good to know there are other big-footed guys in this sport! Interesting (and helpful) that you have both setups. I think I will primarily be cruising groomers, hitting powder with some ski buddies, doing some trees and natural jumps, and for the most part, staying out of the park, except on days where I get bored doing the other stuff (or at least until I get more comfortable and skilled on my board). I like that the SL gives me good flexibility to do it all, but will probably be most concerned about maintaining control when I find myself getting too much speed on slopes above my skill level. It sounds like the Capo may be the way to go based on that and your feedback. I think I'd prefer control over playfulness (at least for now) and may need the extra strength in the binding given my size.

Nivek- Thanks for the feedback as well. I agree with you--my guess is most people hold a pre-conceived view of rear-entry bindings or at least that their view didn't keep pace with the innovation that has gone on in the space. Sounds like the newest Flows may be the way to go, especially for the slopes here in Ohio. I'm going to check them out (per your recommendation). Quick question--do you find the lack of a traditional toe strap gives you less responsiveness/control? I like the Capo's toe strap quite a bit (very responsive) and noticed that the pictures of the new Flows have a toe strap option, but it does not go over the top of the boot and instead is used to secure the front of the boot in the binding. Any thoughts?


----------



## Toomeyct (Apr 4, 2012)

buckeyeguy said:


> All- Thanks much for your responses...they've been very helpful.
> 
> Toomeyct- Good to know there are other big-footed guys in this sport! Interesting (and helpful) that you have both setups. I think I will primarily be cruising groomers, hitting powder with some ski buddies, doing some trees and natural jumps, and for the most part, staying out of the park, except on days where I get bored doing the other stuff (or at least until I get more comfortable and skilled on my board). I like that the SL gives me good flexibility to do it all, but will probably be most concerned about maintaining control when I find myself getting too much speed on slopes above my skill level. It sounds like the Capo may be the way to go based on that and your feedback. I think I'd prefer control over playfulness (at least for now) and may need the extra strength in the binding given my size.
> 
> Nivek- Thanks for the feedback as well. I agree with you--my guess is most people hold a pre-conceived view of rear-entry bindings or at least that their view didn't keep pace with the innovation that has gone on in the space. Sounds like the newest Flows may be the way to go, especially for the slopes here in Ohio. I'm going to check them out (per your recommendation). Quick question--do you find the lack of a traditional toe strap gives you less responsiveness/control? I like the Capo's toe strap quite a bit (very responsive) and noticed that the pictures of the new Flows have a toe strap option, but it does not go over the top of the boot and instead is used to secure the front of the boot in the binding. Any thoughts?


No problem man. Its always nice to chat with people who are in a similar situation as myself. I see all these guys on the hill who are 150 lbs and riding narrow boards and small bindings. I just can't relate to those people. 

From your description, I think the Capo may fit you the best out of the Ride lineup. Though I wouldn't say you would overpower the Rodeo by any means. I'm a bigger guy myself 6'1", 225 and I don't feel like I am too big for the Rodeo. Its just a different binding for a different kind of riding. I usually get that board and binding out when I just want to mess around that day. 

As far as your question about flows, I've tried out the 11/12 version of Flows without their toe strap and my friend has the 12/13 version flows with the normal Flow strap. From the reviews that I read, the toe strap really doesn't do anything other than stop the boot. It doesn't really add the response that a toe cap does on traditional bindings. I've only ridden them once and didn't really notice that much of a difference. They felt a bit looser but I got used to it quickly. The new Flow NX2's have the NASTY system so you can get them a lot tighter now and still get into them if them not being as tight as traditional bindings bothers you. My friend went from traditional bindings with a toe cap to Flow bindings and he won't go back. He loves them.


----------



## Gdog42 (Nov 11, 2012)

Nivek said:


> Really? Throwin Drake in there?
> 
> Ride bindings are not low quality. Sure the rubber mesh in the toes can break, but it really doesn't do much and if it wasn't there at all the toe strap would still function well.
> 
> ...


Of course I'm throwing Drake in there! They're long-lasting, and after riding 2 pairs of my last bindings that broke, I know it's important that bindings are durable. 

Right now I have a pair of Union bindings and it's great because I never have to worry about slamming them too hard and never need to tighten them up. Here's one thread, for examples, in which most users had only good things to say about their Drake bindings after having used them for years. http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/610-drake-bindings.html

I never said anything about Flow bindings, but some of my friends do have K2 Cinch bindings... and they both broke! I've also seen several reviews where people's Flow bindings have broken easily. Gnu bindings do look pretty strong though and I haven't heard of any breakage issues with them, so maybe I'll try those some day. Check this out: http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/7778-flow-bindings.html

And yes, I would give a shit if the toe straps broke. Bindings are expensive, so I'd expect to get something that at least lasts several seasons without any problems.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Gdog42 said:


> Check this out: http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/7778-flow-bindings.html


Not to be an ass, but that thread is from 2008. It's irrelevant when considering 2013 Flow.

I rode the Zombie edition Quattro's for a whole year and didn't have a single issue. I've been riding last years M9 SE's for 2 now and have had no issues. Gnu's are crap. They feel like 4 year old Rides and they have too much canting in the highback.

The new Hybrid strap is great if you are more often in powder situations cause they better allow for traditional entry.

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.


----------



## herzogone (Oct 19, 2010)

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.


----------



## Gdog42 (Nov 11, 2012)

Nivek said:


> 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! :thumbsup:



Nivek said:


> 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.


----------



## herzogone (Oct 19, 2010)

Gdog42 said:


> 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).


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

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.


----------



## Gdog42 (Nov 11, 2012)

herzogone said:


> 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!


----------



## buckeyeguy (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## robjobetattoos (Nov 7, 2012)

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...


----------



## Gdog42 (Nov 11, 2012)

buckeyeguy said:


> 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.


----------



## buckeyeguy (Nov 26, 2012)

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!


----------

