# What is the lightest binding on the market...



## thetraveler

And do you know how much it weighs?

If you have any other input on this binding it would be appreciated.

Cheers


----------



## Nivek

I'm wondering why...?


----------



## thetraveler

Nivek said:


> I'm wondering why...?



Are you being sarcastic  I'm in the market for a light binding. I'm also curious why weight is not a listed metric for hardgoods. I find it an important factor important when choosing my stuff...


----------



## ScBlack

Probably Union force MC


----------



## jliu

contact pros are pretty freakin light...if that is your sole concern in bindings


----------



## twin89

not sure, but you should prob have comfort as your #1 priorty for bindings. Who cares if it is light if you can't ride it.


----------



## FtCS4

Most bindings are so close to each other that just a little bit of snow packed on your board will completely negate any weight savings. Like others have said, just find a pair that you like and feel comfortable riding.


----------



## john doe

I saw a thread from another forum a last year that had all the bindings weighed and the contrabands came in the lightest. I don't know if that is still true since they have changed since the first ones a good bit.

There may not be a single lightest binding. With the large size range of bindings the lightest for a size size 7 boot could be different then a size 8 boot.


----------



## thetraveler

Rome SDS got back to me - the United is their lightest binding around 1.6lbs - i'll post more as i keep hearing back....


----------



## ScBlack

thetraveler said:


> Rome SDS got back to me - the United is their lightest binding around 1.6lbs - i'll post more as i keep hearing back....


I am curious, are you trying to get the lightest setup possible since you're asking about lightest boots and about the Burton Method on another thread. Do you have a specific purpose behind this?


----------



## Triple8Sol

I'm thinking some of the Burton EST bindings must be pretty light, since they have almost no basepalte, no disc, and only 2 screws instead of 4.


----------



## thetraveler

ScBlack said:


> I am curious, are you trying to get the lightest setup possible since you're asking about lightest boots and about the Burton Method on another thread. Do you have a specific purpose behind this?


i plan to take over the world 

i'm looking for new bindings and boots. i wanted to start my search at the lightest end of the spectrum. which is why i'm emailing all the binding companies and all the boots companies and asking what is their lightest product. then hopefully among those offered i will find something comfortable that will do the job...

so far, the Flite Union is the lightest binding I have ever held in my hand...

PS. i would never buy a method. its disgustingly expensive. i just thought people should see/feel what space age technology can do with a snowboard. it is truly a technological marvel and it gives a new perspective on what snowboards can be like/could be like...


----------



## JoeR

thetraveler said:


> I'm also curious why weight is not a listed metric for hardgoods. I find it an important factor important when choosing my stuff.


I agree with you on that point, although more for boards than for bindings. I asked the moderators on the Ride forum why board weights are not provided, the way all other specs/dimensions are, and all I got was a song and dance about why I shouldn't really want to know them.


----------



## john doe

You really don't want to know the weight of everything. I'm all for getting light gear. I own Contrabands and F20's. The problem comes when all weight is know it becomes a buying point. That means that the companies now need to make their stuff light to compete. That would result in degraded durability across the board. Companies and shops have an unspoken agreement to prevent that type of arms race that none want to take place in. You would end up with people buying smaller boots bindings and boards then they normally would just to save weight and everything would break faster.


----------



## MistahTaki

I would think the ride contrabands because it only has one strap. For boots check out the thirtytwo ultralight. Honestly even if you get "lightest" gear i'm guessing it's only going to be around a 2 pound difference from an average setup. Which you wouldn't really notice.


----------



## MistahTaki

john doe said:


> You really don't want to know the weight of everything. I'm all for getting light gear. I own Contrabands and F20's. The problem comes when all weight is know it becomes a buying point. That means that the companies now need to make their stuff light to compete. That would result in degraded durability across the board. Companies and shops have an unspoken agreement to prevent that type of arms race that none want to take place in. You would end up with people buying smaller boots bindings and boards then they normally would just to save weight and everything would break faster.


they will break faster and people will buy more


----------



## crazyface

according to Union, the Force MC is the lightest binding there is. They cost $400.


----------



## StarCommand

thetraveler said:


> i plan to take over the world
> 
> i'm looking for new bindings and boots. i wanted to start my search at the lightest end of the spectrum. which is why i'm emailing all the binding companies and all the boots companies and asking what is their lightest product. then hopefully among those offered i will find something comfortable that will do the job...
> 
> so far, the Flite Union is the lightest binding I have ever held in my hand...
> 
> PS. i would never buy a method. its disgustingly expensive. i just thought people should see/feel what space age technology can do with a snowboard. it is truly a technological marvel and it gives a new perspective on what snowboards can be like/could be like...


The Flites are great...BUT! I had them out just before Christmas, and I was breaking them in, and such, and I noticed that they are good, solid bindings, but for my preferences, I didn't like them for carving and cruising. If you're jibbing around, they are perfect--which is why I put them on my smaller board. For my all-mountain stick, I like the Forces. Much more solid when you're cruisin' at top speed. They feel so much better in a carve than the Flites. At one point, I was sure my foot was going to pull the binding off the board.

If you're looking for light because you want a light jib setup, cool. But if you want to get some speed and carve, put some weight on the board. The Forces aren't that heavy. I'm 5'3", 120, and a chick, and I can pop the board up with the Forces easily. If you can't move the board without it weighing a couple ounces, you're just not strong enough to be snowboarding. Buy for comfort, and then build some muscle to handle your gear.


----------



## JoeR

john doe said:


> You really don't want to know the weight of everything.


I don't? Do you work for Ride too? :laugh:



> Companies and shops have an unspoken agreement to prevent that type of arms race that none want to take place in.


Antitrust violation.

In my opinion, refusing to provide customers with readily available, nonproprietary product information is terrible customer service. It doesn't matter what the customers want it for.


----------



## ylnad123

k2 evers are the lightest binding I have ever had. Doesn't say much since most of my bindings have been burton bindings. But my guess would be that they are for sure in the top 5 for lightest.


----------



## Leo

Addison said:


> First, for those that aren't familiar, the Burton Cartel is a freestyle binding whose major feature is Burton's Skyback, the highest highback in their lineup. This thing has a huge amount of adjustability. The Cartel also features Burton's SuperStrap ankle strap and Covertible Capstrap, which can be used as normal toe straps or around the front of your boot to give you extra control on tricks. The Capstrap was a major selling point for me as I spend about 60-70% of my time in the park.
> 
> THANKS
> designer replica handbags


Wow, these spammers are getting good.

On topic, Burton C60s are effin light. It's like picking up air. I don't know the weight though, just the lightest I've demoed. The price and Burton bindings overall aren't my cup of tea.


----------



## ev13wt

Leo said:


> Wow, these spammers are getting good.
> 
> On topic, Burton C60s are effin light. It's like picking up air. I don't know the weight though, just the lightest I've demoed. The price and Burton bindings overall aren't my cup of tea.


Yea really, selling fake ass bags for ridiculous amounts of money. OMG.


----------



## Leo

ev13wt said:


> Yea really, selling fake ass bags for ridiculous amounts of money. OMG.


I was referring to their method of spamming lol. This dude actually talked about snowboard related things. Almost on topic too. Got the binding part right, but didn't say anything about weight haha.


----------



## Mr. Polonia

im really diggin this yrs Cartel ESTs....i did a review about them. even though so far i only been on them once, i was practically impressed how soft and light they were. The only time that i realized i had them on was when i was strapping in at the summit:thumbsup:


----------



## Ca-Pow

I would say Burton C-6o are the lightest.


----------



## thetraveler

DRAKE came back and said their lightest binding is the RELOAD. no specifics on their weight yet...


----------



## thetraveler

StarCommand said:


> The Flites are great...BUT! I had them out just before Christmas, and I was breaking them in, and such, and I noticed that they are good, solid bindings, but for my preferences, I didn't like them for carving and cruising. If you're jibbing around, they are perfect--which is why I put them on my smaller board. For my all-mountain stick, I like the Forces. Much more solid when you're cruisin' at top speed. They feel so much better in a carve than the Flites. At one point, I was sure my foot was going to pull the binding off the board.
> 
> If you're looking for light because you want a light jib setup, cool. But if you want to get some speed and carve, put some weight on the board. The Forces aren't that heavy. I'm 5'3", 120, and a chick, and I can pop the board up with the Forces easily. If you can't move the board without it weighing a couple ounces, you're just not strong enough to be snowboarding. Buy for comfort, and then build some muscle to handle your gear.


nice review. i'm gravitating towards the Unions because they usually get positive remarks from people who own them... 

and yes, i'm looking something for a jibbing setup so it looks like it might be the Flites.

as a side point, i think it is possible with today's technology to avoid compromising/sacrificing when buying equipment. for example, you can find a stiff and light board (custom x) or, a stiff and light binding (burton C60's), etc. 

and in response to everyone who's saying one shouldn't look at how much equipment weighs i say bollocks. we the riders/consumers are effectively the ones who are at least partially responsible for how equipment develops by giving the manufacturers feedback - i agree comfort is number one, safety/security is also right up there, durability and for me also weight! no reason why they shouldn't be developing products that tick ALL the boxes. i mean, we had a man on the moon almost 50 years ago. technology is a crazy beast nowadays. i'm pretty sure in another fifty years your grandkids will be snowboarding out there in space...


----------



## ev13wt

Leo said:


> I was referring to their method of spamming lol. This dude actually talked about snowboard related things. Almost on topic too. Got the binding part right, but didn't say anything about weight haha.


Yea, I noticed that too, didn't quite word it right. My "Yea really" was meant as, yea really what a nice spam method. I wonder if its a bot that takes some text from google searches?



*Weights:* (Use your moms/wifes kitchen scale, get "the look" from her for extra points!)

Rome Targas L/XL with all hardware incuding screws: 1116 grams (2.46 lbs) / 1085 without the crews and washers

Burton Cartel in M from 05, with gel strap: 966 (2.12 lbs) grams with all hardware.


----------



## Joeyblunts420

thetraveler said:


> i plan to take over the world


I F'ckin KNEW IT!!! Lol


----------



## MistahTaki

Leo said:


> I was referring to their method of spamming lol. This dude actually talked about snowboard related things. Almost on topic too. Got the binding part right, but didn't say anything about weight haha.


hahaha i LOL at that spammer's post. i bet he copied and pasted that from a burton forum. I was reading along and trying to figure what he was trying to say and then i see the link. LMAO


----------



## jgsqueak

MistahTaki said:


> hahaha i LOL at that spammer's post. i bet he copied and pasted that from a burton forum. I was reading along and trying to figure what he was trying to say and then i see the link. LMAO


He copied the post from here: Burton Cartel Bindings 

I can't believe that I actually searched that out...I need to get back to work.

OP, Take your scale into your local shop and weight everything. I would bet that Flites, Contrabands, C60s, and Auto Evers will be some of the lightest that you come across. Pretty different styles of bindings though...


----------



## Nivek

thetraveler said:


> Are you being sarcastic  I'm in the market for a light binding. I'm also curious why weight is not a listed metric for hardgoods. I find it an important factor important when choosing my stuff...


I am being serious. I don't get why people care this much about a bindings weight. A heavier binding is only noticeably heavier when its dangling on the lift. Other than that it makes no noticable performance difference. You will shed more weight if you poop before you ride than if you drop and extra $200 on "light" bindings. Yes there are heavy bindings you might want to stay away from, but the majority of the market is just fine.

"Light" bindings are one of two things, expensive or weak. Just get something that matches your riding style and you're good.


----------



## ek3

Nivek said:


> I am being serious. I don't get why people care this much about a bindings weight. A heavier binding is only noticeably heavier when its dangling on the lift. Other than that it makes no noticable performance difference. You will shed more weight if you poop before you ride than if you drop and extra $200 on "light" bindings. Yes there are heavy bindings you might want to stay away from, but the majority of the market is just fine.
> 
> "Light" bindings are one of two things, expensive or weak. Just get something that matches your riding style and you're good.


I agree with you however there are people who prefer lighter bindings.
While you may want performance gain, some people want comfort. 
Different people want different things

Lighter bindings:
1. Allows more comfort on the lift. 
2. Easier to carry. 

You are spending at least 200 dollars; you should have a choice.


----------



## Thad Osprey

Nivek said:


> I am being serious. I don't get why people care this much about a bindings weight. A heavier binding is only noticeably heavier when its dangling on the lift. Other than that it makes no noticable performance difference. You will shed more weight if you poop before you ride than if you drop and extra $200 on "light" bindings. Yes there are heavy bindings you might want to stay away from, but the majority of the market is just fine.
> 
> "Light" bindings are one of two things, expensive or weak. Just get something that matches your riding style and you're good.


Because I already poop before I ride and still wanna shed more weight.
Because one might not always have the bowel control to time it such.
Because all the little extra weight does add up for someone "unstrong".
Because we want to spend an extra $200 on a pair of light bindings.
Because I may be fat and I am heavy enough as it is.
Because some people actually do feel the minute weight differences.
Because I dont like it noticeably heavier when dangling on a lift.
Because I respect questions most times tho I dont "get" them.
Because comfortable gets uncomfortable when its too heavy.
Because I genuinely believe it makes me a little better.
Really.


----------



## NWBoarder

I have Union Flites and they are damn light. There is a reason the name stands for "Fucking Lite". So far I have nothing but good things to say about my Flites. They're super comfortable, super light, and have taken me everywhere I have asked them too. I can see why some people might get turned off of them since they are technically a "soft" binding, but I find that the softness does not bother me, even when I'm railing a turn down a groomer. I'm sure there are other bindings that are about the same weight, but I like my Flites.


----------



## MistahTaki

ek3 said:


> I agree with you however there are people who prefer lighter bindings.
> While you may want performance gain, some people want comfort.
> Different people want different things
> 
> Lighter bindings:
> 1. Allows more comfort on the lift.
> 2. Easier to carry.
> 
> You are spending at least 200 dollars; you should have a choice.


yeah exactly. pay an extra $200 to feel more comfortable on a 10 minute lift ride, and have it weigh couple ounces less so it's easier to carry when walking from the parking lot.


----------



## ev13wt

Well, since this argument seems to be cooking up a bit, let me add that weight IS an important factor for me as well.

Else, I would ride my old board from 1996 and be happy. I haven't weighed them, but carrying it AND riding it I can notice a real difference in the weight. The Lib Tech is so much more agile and lively underfoot. Why is this? Of course a part is due to technology advances like rocker and "correct sandwich" keeping for low spin weight because nose and tail are lighter.

I see it like this: Its not the total weight of the setup and my fat ass, but the weight of everything EXCEPT my fat ass. Using the age old car analogy, its the difference between the tire and rim of steel, and the aluminum rim. The aluminum will steer quicker, suspend and rebound quicker and will thus follow every nook and cranny in the road. Total unsprung mass/weight is the key word here. Wiki article unsprung mass click.

Boots, bindings and the board is the riders rim and tire, and his legs are the suspension. The lighter the setup is, the faster it can move up and down with easy, be turned quicker and will ultimately follow the terrain better.


----------



## Smitty

Nivek said:


> I am being serious. I don't get why people care this much about a bindings weight. A heavier binding is only noticeably heavier when its dangling on the lift. Other than that it makes no noticable performance difference. You will shed more weight if you poop before you ride than if you drop and extra $200 on "light" bindings. Yes there are heavy bindings you might want to stay away from, but the majority of the market is just fine.
> 
> "Light" bindings are one of two things, expensive or weak. Just get something that matches your riding style and you're good.


Unless your fecal matter resides in your feet, taking a shit before you ride does nothing to lighten your gear. Blowing out your colon does nothing to change the weight of your gear. The day I didn't take a shit before I rode... magically my gear felt exactly the same.

I haven't found any "lighter" bindings that you need to spend an extra 200 on to get. Most cost exactly the same as other bindings.

Some people like lightweight shit.... maybe they are smaller frame guys? Who really cares? If people want lighter gear they should be able to ask the question without people being douches about it. I rode the same "light" bindings for four years without any problems. Not expensive or weak. I prefer to shed as much weight as possible. I'm not a big guy and I do a ton of hiking. That extra two pounds I can shed off my gear actually does make a difference after hours of hiking.


----------



## thetraveler

FLUX: 

"Look out for our DMCC-Light freestyle binding for the 2011-2012 season.
It is using a newly designed base and highback that make the binding 35% lighter.
It also incorporates titanium hardware.
It is freestyle oriented and ready for the park."

K2:

"Our lightest bindings are the Auto Evers. They are super light and fast to get in and out of.
My boot of choice is the Maysis they are nice and light, super comfortable, and have the Boa lacing system.
I do not have the weights of our product.
It is best to visit your dealer and pick them up to see how light they are."

BURTON:

"You did not miss it, we just do not publish the weight of our products online. I can tell you though that the C60’s are the lightest weight binding we make and the SLX boots are the lightest boots we produce."


----------



## Beatlesfan888

Smitty said:


> Unless your fecal matter resides in your feet, taking a shit before you ride does nothing to lighten your gear. Blowing out your colon does nothing to change the weight of your gear. The day I didn't take a shit before I rode... magically my gear felt exactly the same.
> 
> I haven't found any "lighter" bindings that you need to spend an extra 200 on to get. Most cost exactly the same as other bindings.
> 
> Some people like lightweight shit.... maybe they are smaller frame guys? Who really cares? If people want lighter gear they should be able to ask the question without people being douches about it. I rode the same "light" bindings for four years without any problems. Not expensive or weak. I prefer to shed as much weight as possible. I'm not a big guy and I do a ton of hiking. That extra two pounds I can shed off my gear actually does make a difference after hours of hiking.


:thumbsup: thats all.


----------



## Beatlesfan888

thetraveler said:


> FLUX:
> 
> "Look out for our DMCC-Light freestyle binding for the 2011-2012 season.
> It is using a newly designed base and highback that make the binding 35% lighter.
> It also incorporates titanium hardware.
> It is freestyle oriented and ready for the park."
> 
> K2:
> 
> "Our lightest bindings are the Auto Evers. They are super light and fast to get in and out of.
> My boot of choice is the Maysis they are nice and light, super comfortable, and have the Boa lacing system.
> I do not have the weights of our product.
> It is best to visit your dealer and pick them up to see how light they are."
> 
> BURTON:
> 
> "You did not miss it, we just do not publish the weight of our products online. I can tell you though that the C60’s are the lightest weight binding we make and the SLX boots are the lightest boots we produce."


and ok i do give burton a little credit for not trying to dance around the subject and giving it strait


----------



## thetraveler

Beatlesfan888 said:


> and ok i do give burton a little credit for not trying to dance around the subject and giving it strait


i cut out the dancing in their reply so that people can focus on what the thread is about. but there was a little shuffle there from Burton


----------



## ev13wt

Please post the original responses.

I love K2 all like: "Hey go take it in your hand then you will FEEL the product, and you will LOVE it, BUY it and rub up against it at home, taking it to BED at night. Kach-ing."

I mean, I do that with all my new stuff. Wait. Don't tell anyone I do that, but ok this morning I woke up and had my helmet on. :/


----------



## Nivek

Thad Osprey said:


> Because I already poop before I ride and still wanna shed more weight.
> Because one might not always have the bowel control to time it such.
> Because all the little extra weight does add up for someone "unstrong".
> Because we want to spend an extra $200 on a pair of light bindings.
> Because I may be fat and I am heavy enough as it is.
> Because some people actually do feel the minute weight differences.
> Because I dont like it noticeably heavier when dangling on a lift.
> Because I respect questions most times tho I dont "get" them.
> Because comfortable gets uncomfortable when its too heavy.
> Because I genuinely believe it makes me a little better.
> Really.


Fair.
Get strong.
WHY!?
If your fat and heavy then 3 less ounces is pointless.
Not while riding unless you go from a Lib with T9 to a Method with C60's
Boo. They last 6 minutes. Put your board on your other foot.
Internetz, so I don't. 
Only on the lift, which lasts 6 minutes.
Placebo.

To get a lighter Force you have to double the price, to get a lighter Cartel you add $200. There is really only one "affordable" light binding that doesn't fall under more or less a park section, Auto Ever's. And those are still $300.

2-3 oz is not worth $200.


----------



## Milo303

Seriously, the products nowadays are plenty light. Build up your muscles, pussies


----------



## Beatlesfan888

thetraveler said:


> i cut out the dancing in their reply so that people can focus on what the thread is about. but there was a little shuffle there from Burton


oohh i gotcha i thought someone was being genuinely honest for once :dunno:


----------



## JoeR

thetraveler said:


> FLUX:
> 
> "Look out for our DMCC-Light freestyle binding for the 2011-2012 season.
> It is using a newly designed base and highback that make the binding 35% lighter.
> It also incorporates titanium hardware.
> It is freestyle oriented and ready for the park."
> 
> K2:
> 
> "Our lightest bindings are the Auto Evers. They are super light and fast to get in and out of.
> My boot of choice is the Maysis they are nice and light, super comfortable, and have the Boa lacing system.
> I do not have the weights of our product.
> It is best to visit your dealer and pick them up to see how light they are."
> 
> BURTON:
> 
> "You did not miss it, we just do not publish the weight of our products online. I can tell you though that the C60’s are the lightest weight binding we make and the SLX boots are the lightest boots we produce."


Shameful. Yes, we'll boast about how wonderfully "light" our products are, but no, we can't disclose the actual weights. Of course, we have the numbers at our fingertips and will even calculate an alleged 35% weight reduction so we can give you the hard sell about that too, but sorry, we can't release the figures to the likes of you. You're just a customer -- who knows what asinine conclusions you might draw?

Tennis racket manufacturers publish both the unstrung and strung weights of their rackets (along with length, racket face area, etc.). Weights are standard specs. Somehow Wilson has survived.


----------



## jgsqueak

JoeR said:


> Tennis racket manufacturers publish both the unstrung and strung weights of their rackets (along with length, racket face area, etc.). Weights are standard specs. Somehow Wilson has survived.


I don't think that is a fair comparison. Tennis has repetitive movement with limited velocities/tolerances, i.e. the human body can only generate a certain amount of swing and they can over build for the exceptions. Bindings (or any part of snowboard equipment) could have an infinite number of angles of impact, weight of rider, strength of rider, etc. We invent new ways of breaking things all the time. Dropping a 40 footer and landing on the tail has totally different tolerances that steezing out a a front board on a 40 foot rainbow (which I would live to see). 

I get your point, but I don't think that is apples to apples. 

Should weight be published? Probably. Would that lead companies to building the lightest (and possibly weaker) product? Probably. Would we eventually realize that 35% of a 6 oz baseplate is only 4 oz. off of a 8 lb. setup (not including your 160lb frame) and then not really care anymore? Probably.


----------



## JoeR

jgsqueak said:


> I don't think that is a fair comparison. Tennis has repetitive movement with limited velocities/tolerances, i.e. the human body can only generate a certain amount of swing and they can over build for the exceptions. Bindings (or any part of snowboard equipment) could have an infinite number of angles of impact, weight of rider, strength of rider, etc. We invent new ways of breaking things all the time. Dropping a 40 footer and landing on the tail has totally different tolerances that steezing out a a front board on a 40 foot rainbow (which I would live to see).


What does any of that have to do with _disclosing_ the weights of products? Even Apple tells you how much an iPad weighs. (Yes, I'm aware that a computer is different from a binding.) The point is that companies in other industries don't suffer from this laughable fear of publishing the weights.



> Should weight be published? Probably. Would that lead companies to building the lightest (and possibly weaker) product? Probably.


Probably not. I don't understand this paranoia that simply publishing weights, so that customers can access this information conveniently, would lead to some sort of counterproductive arms race. Snowboarders aren't fools. How many people really care more about the weight of a board or bindings than anything else? Performance, durability, price, and even aesthetics are at least as important for most riders, IMO. Weight is a factor, not _the_ factor. Most snowboard companies already offer some products that they tout as "ultralight" (though in a vague way, as noted). This has not led to all the "normal" boards and bindings being pushed out of the market.


----------



## Smitty

Why do people respond to threads when they have nothing to contribute. The thread didn't ask what your personal opinions are on lightweight bindings. If you want to bitch and cry that people want lightweight shit, start a new thread! You can complain all you want. We get it, you don't care... we don't need your .02 telling us why. Ever think people may have bad knees or other body parts that CAN feel the extra weight? I strength train almost every day and I still want light gear. Why the hell not? If I want a BJ before I go snowboarding then I'm going to get one. Either way, you shouldn't care... same goes for this topic.

Ride Contraband's = 1 lb 9.60 oz (info from buddy, not sure if accurate)
Union Force SL = 1 lb 15.81 oz (with hardware)
Burton Cartel = 2 lb 0.70 oz (with hardware)

Just a couple I've run across.


----------



## ev13wt

Bikes are also full of weight specs.

Just saying. So I wonder, which company will start posting specs on weight? I say Rome and NS will.


----------



## Smitty

JoeR said:


> Probably not. I don't understand this paranoia that simply publishing weights, so that customers can access this information conveniently, would lead to some sort of counterproductive arms race. Snowboarders aren't fools. How many people really care more about the weight of a board or bindings than anything else? Performance, durability, price, and even aesthetics are at least as important for most riders, IMO. Weight is a factor, not _the_ factor. Most snowboard companies already offer some products that they tout as "ultralight" (though in a vague way, as noted). This has not led to all the "normal" boards and bindings being pushed out of the market.


Ahhhhhh, the voice of reason. I agree.

Most of my friends could care less about weight, I'm in the minority. I think most snowboarders don't really care as long as the product is quality. Publishing weights wouldn't destroy the quality of the industry, that is foolish. Of course rising costs and a crumbling economy.... sure that could take down a bunch of companies.


----------



## hanzosteel

i confess, i'm a weight weenie too.

someone posted some numbers a while back in the reviews section....
http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/23954-review-2010-flux-super-titan-bindings.html

and on the big b boards...
Burton Snowboards Community - plastic vs aluminum bindings

not sure if i'm allowed to post that second link?


----------



## jgsqueak

Joe, an example of companies trying to build lighter stuff, it not working, and we come right back to where we were is Hyperlite making the Sub 6 wakeboard. It was expensive, sold poorly, and delamed a lot (even though it had their "Phalanx Construction"). I am just saying that it is more probable, than not, that some companies would try to one up each other (they already do now, just with hearsay, "our board x is just as light as the Method, we just don't brag about it") in weight savings. I think the point is that we have a lot of great stuff that is probably all within a few ounces of 2lbs for a set of bindings; there is not need to spend $400 or get weaker product to save an ounce or two. 

Smitty, I posted a few binding suggestions for the OP as well, I just didn't put weights on there as you did.


----------



## Smitty

jgsqueak said:


> Smitty, I posted a few binding suggestions for the OP as well, I just didn't put weights on there as you did.


Fo sho, I definitely wasn't talking about you. Just for people that chime in with absolutely no substance relating back to the original question. I can understand most of the responses if the question was, "What do you guys think about lightweight bindings?"


----------



## Leo

If you are a Flow fan... The NXT-FSE's are super light.

To sort of chime in with the rest of the posters...

I have a pair of Flow Pro FS's that I got in '08 sitting in my cube. I rode them for one season and upgraded due to weight. I kid you not... they weigh more than my board.

However, they are beasts. I don't think durability is an issue with those. Just too heavy for my tastes. 

Other than that, I'm not really that concerned with weights as long as they aren't in the extremes like the above mentioned bindings.


----------



## jgsqueak

The B link...someone explain to me how a M Cartel is lighter than a M Cartel EST??? Maybe I should quite assuming that open cell foam is lighter than Burton's Magic Plastic...

All of those pics on the scale were pretty nice thought...all of the bindings came in pretty close.

I am not down for heavy bindings, I just don't know if I need to seek out the world's lightest (although having a pair of Contraband Nitranes, it looks like I might already have them...)


----------



## SimonB

jgsqueak said:


> The B link...someone explain to me how a M Cartel is lighter than a M Cartel EST??? Maybe I should quite assuming that open cell foam is lighter than Burton's Magic Plastic...
> 
> All of those pics on the scale were pretty nice thought...all of the bindings came in pretty close.
> 
> I am not down for heavy bindings, I just don't know if I need to seek out the world's lightest (although having a pair of Contraband Nitranes, it looks like I might already have them...)


Another post in the same thread said the nylon % in the baseplate is different from EST vs. non-EST. And the mounting disk was not weighted

As for the weight of bindings, I think it should only be used to make a decision when you have a "tie" when choosing your bindings, and then again, if you can't feel the difference in your hand, you most likely won't feel it when boarding. Other factors are much more important!


----------



## thetraveler

RIDE:

"These are not published ever... every manufacturer keeps this fairly secret. I can tell you the Contrabands are typically about the lightest bindings and depending on size, weigh in at just under 3.5 lbs per pair. The Phy-Top is our lightest boot, but those specs too are unavailable, and unfortunately I do not have a sample to weigh."


----------



## jgsqueak

SimonB said:


> Another post in the same thread said the nylon % in the baseplate is different from EST vs. non-EST. And the mounting disk was not weighted


That makes sense. The difference seems too much to me though. I guess that they really have to over built the EST baseplates (which adds weight) so that they don't blow up. 

I will choose to believe that the B has secret stash of unicorn hoof dust that they use to make their bindings weigh less than air yet not float in air...or water...it's all an illusion. Even though the scale says 1.80 they really weight -5.0...back to reality.


----------



## jgsqueak

Just weighed one of each (not the pair, all with disc and hardware):

2010 Ride Contraband Nitrane 7-9 (with 4 degree wedgie) = 2.15
2011 Forum Shaka Med. = 2.16
2011 Union Force M/L = 2.20
2011 Union Contact L/XL = 2.10


----------



## platinum1

why does every body answer someones question with a question he wants to know what the lightest binding is does it matter how he wants to compair and break down his choice LOL


----------



## rayt100

Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo


----------



## Donutz

Brainzzzzzzzzz....


----------



## ctoma

platinum1 said:


> why does every body answer someones question with a question he wants to know what the lightest binding is does it matter how he wants to compair and break down his choice LOL


What I'm wondering is why someone would dig up a thread where the last post is 9 years, 5 months, 15 days old and not say something useful...


----------



## buller_scott

platinum1 said:


> why does every body answer someones question with a question he wants to know what the lightest binding is does it matter how he wants to *compair* and break down his *choice* LOL


Hey man, aside from your fully sick Eminem / Fred Durst hybrid pic, I would suggest you register with forum officials legitimately, before you go about spruiking your business/company:

Air Compressors from CompAir | By Gardner Denver 

I understand that Compair gives us quite a choice, but nevertheless, you should be more tactful about how you proceed with promoting just how much your company can compress air, and the canisters inside which your company can indeed compress that air. 

*Comp*r*Air - *Compressed air outlasts ALL questions!


----------



## AC93

thetraveler said:


> And do you know how much it weighs?
> 
> If you have any other input on this binding it would be appreciated.
> 
> Cheers


Maybe Burton X Base, but they cost so damn much...


----------



## Manicmouse

AC93 said:


> Maybe Burton X Base, but they cost so damn much...


I wonder if thetraveler is still looking for the lightest bindings after 9 years.


----------

