Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spruce Riser Solution vs. Drilling Bindings Directly into Skiboards

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    With release bindings, the boot can often rock in the binding causing a lack of precision in edge control. This is due to the nature of the design, but also to the fact that the heel piece releases upward. If the heel piece is set with too low a DIN, the heel will lift during normal use causing rock. FWIW, I use DIN 9 which some would consider too high but gives great precision. The introduction of the Attack 13 binding has been a huge help with boot rock and is now the only release binding I use. I feel performance is as good as a fixie.
    Crossbow (go to dream board)
    Most everything else over time.
    Go Android

    Comment


    • #17
      Wow, Doc is a poor businessman. Most reputable businesses I know won't belittle their competition , but rather let their products speak for themselves.
      I have been using the spruce riser and releasable bindings for 8 years now without any problems. I am someone who will always try the new fads out. I began with the non-release bindings with my first skiboards as a less expensive option. I then had the funds to upgrade to the spruce risers and releasables a year later. I have experimented through the years trying non-release again and even trying the snowboard boot soft boot option of skiboarding last year. I always find my self going back to the Spruce riser and release binding option for several reasons. One, the raised height of the binding gives me what I feel is the most responsive and precise connection to the board to let me better feel the terrain when I am boarding. Two, I have had several times that I needed the release and the bindings did exactly what they were supposed to, release! Three, they are quickest , easiest way to step in and go at the lift at the bottom of the hill, getting me to the untouched powder faster than the snowboarders and non release leash riders whom I pass by with a smile.

      Jeff has made, in his riser, what i feel is the best and safest way to let me enjoy my favorite winter hobby! I whole heartedly support them.
      64 CM Bigfoots
      88 CM Blunts
      94 CM Head Big Easy (Friend loaners)
      100 CM '15 Blunt XL 2 pair
      110 CM Rockered Condors
      125 Spruce LE's
      130 CM Spruce Osprey

      Comment


      • #18
        I currently own 2 pairs of spruce risers and have owned as many as 7 in the past. I have never had an issue with them and trust them enough that it's the only binding setup I put my grandson on. Thanks Jeff and Greco for a great product/setup

        Still lovin my Sherpas.

        Comment


        • #19
          I used the 2010 Pro Sports for a few years before I bought receptors.

          The only unintended release I had was because I somehow un-latched both upper buckles on my right boot.

          Attempting a hard carve with a loose boot (apparently) creates enough torque to pop out of the binding.
          - Alpina Fatboards with 8-hole bindings (retired as shot-skis)
          - 2003 Line Pro with FF-pro (on loan to friend)
          - 2010 KTP Revel8 Receptors with 2012 Orange Receptors
          - 2012 Rockered Condors with 2010 Black Receptors
          - 2014 DLP with 2021 Blue Receptors

          Comment


          • #20
            Perhaps the most important part of this discussion is the fact that the riser/binding combination is not only product with high integrity - the guy who designed it and sells direct (Jeff at Spruce) and the guy who sells is through SBOL (Greco) are people with very high integrity as well. Neither of them would put a product out there that was not of high quality and didn't perform well.
            In pursuit of Peace, Harmony and Flow.....
            Think Like a Mountain

            Boards ridden, some owned: Sherpas, Spruce 120 "STS", Blunts, DS110 custom prototypes, Rockered Condors, Revolts, DLPs, Summit Custom 110s, Summit Marauders, Head 94s, Raptor prototypes, Osprey prototypes.

            Comment


            • #21
              We got 2 different versions of the spruce riser, and they have performed perfectly, the first is still working flawless after 7 years.


              i found the link for the text on skiboards.com's website all-about-skiboard-bindings

              sad to see grown people acting like that.
              Learning by Trial and Error on
              07 alps
              spruce riser
              ktps

              and the wife has a pair of rumspringa with spruce riser

              Comment


              • #22
                I rode on risers for the last few years and they were great on groomers, in powder, and performed fine in the park. After switching back to RVL8 Receptors, I must say I hardly notice a difference. Sure they weight a little more and sit on top of the skiboard a bit higher, but they are great with no sacrifice in performance.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi guys,

                  I'm revisiting this topic again because a customer contacted me with the same misinformation again that is at the top of this thread. This time he sent my response to the owner of Skiboards.com and got the response below. Just for the record, it would be much easier for us to make boards that can be direct mounted but it's not the best solution, this is why we don't do it, not because we "can't". We choose not to.

                  That is misinformation promoted by a company that you canít direct mount skiboards with bindings as yes they would pull out. Mostly these are on forums to promote their products. Summit skiboards are made for direct mounting (this is recommended by all ski binding manufacturers such as Salomon and Atomic. In fact, they will not back the liability of their bindings if mounted makeshift to riser plates. It is too unpredictable whether they will release when needed.

                  We use birch cores, aluminum layers, kevlar and high end materials and mount such that the bindings do not pull out. Summit skiboards are not heavier and have great flex for maximum performance. With 4 X 4 inserts and risers, flex is actually effected. We used to use these risers many years back and stopped selling them for that and of course liability reasons.

                  If risers offered better performance, then all ski companies would be using them and not direct mounting. We are quite confident in the performance of Summit with direct mount.

                  Doc Roberts, Phd.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Greco View Post
                    Hi guys,

                    I'm revisiting this topic again because a customer contacted me with the same misinformation again that is at the top of this thread. This time he sent my response to the owner of Skiboards.com and got the response below. Just for the record, it would be much easier for us to make boards that can be direct mounted but it's not the best solution, this is why we don't do it, not because we "can't". We choose not to.

                    That is misinformation promoted by a company that you canít direct mount skiboards with bindings as yes they would pull out. Mostly these are on forums to promote their products. Summit skiboards are made for direct mounting (this is recommended by all ski binding manufacturers such as Salomon and Atomic. In fact, they will not back the liability of their bindings if mounted makeshift to riser plates. It is too unpredictable whether they will release when needed.

                    We use birch cores, aluminum layers, kevlar and high end materials and mount such that the bindings do not pull out. Summit skiboards are not heavier and have great flex for maximum performance. With 4 X 4 inserts and risers, flex is actually effected. We used to use these risers many years back and stopped selling them for that and of course liability reasons.

                    If risers offered better performance, then all ski companies would be using them and not direct mounting. We are quite confident in the performance of Summit with direct mount.

                    Doc Roberts, Phd.
                    Thanks for revisiting this G.

                    BTW if Doc was so concerned about binding liability and safety why does he still sell non-release snowboard bindings for his Summit boards and cheap plastic non-release bindings?
                    Boards:
                    2016 Spruce tuned Head Jr. Caddys - 131cm
                    2013 Spruce "CTS" 120s
                    2010 Spruce "Yellow/Red" 120s
                    2018 Spruce "CTS" Crossbows - 115cm
                    2016 RVL8 Spliffs - 109cm
                    2008 RVL8 Revolt "City" - 105cm
                    2017 RVL8 Sticky Icky Icky - 104cm
                    2011 Defiance Blades - 101cm

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Greco View Post
                      Hi guys,

                      I'm revisiting this topic again because a customer contacted me with the same misinformation again that is at the top of this thread. This time he sent my response to the owner of Skiboards.com and got the response below. "Just for the record, it would be much easier for us to make boards that can be direct mounted but it's not the best solution, this is why we don't do it, not because we "can't". We choose not to.

                      That is misinformation promoted by a company that you can’t direct mount skiboards with bindings as yes they would pull out. Mostly these are on forums to promote their products. Summit skiboards are made for direct mounting (this is recommended by all ski binding manufacturers such as Salomon and Atomic. In fact, they will not back the liability of their bindings if mounted makeshift to riser plates. It is too unpredictable whether they will release when needed.

                      We use birch cores, aluminum layers, kevlar and high end materials and mount such that the bindings do not pull out. Summit skiboards are not heavier and have great flex for maximum performance. With 4 X 4 inserts and risers, flex is actually effected. We used to use these risers many years back and stopped selling them for that and of course liability reasons.

                      If risers offered better performance, then all ski companies would be using them and not direct mounting. We are quite confident in the performance of Summit with direct mount.

                      Doc Roberts, Phd."
                      Here's a thread about bindings pulling out of Summit skiboards.
                      2015 RVL8 Blunt XL 100 skiboards
                      2019 Spruce Crossbow 115 skiboards
                      Tyrolia Attack 13 release bindings on Spruce Risers
                      Atomic Waymaker 80 ski boots

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Although uncommon, even the mainstream ski manufacturers have cases of bindings pulling out, and they are using full thickness skis and adult size screws. One, isolated incident, in six years, neither proves nor disproves an issue with Summit Skiboards. Regardless of the history of Doc Roberts, we need to be fair to the product. I have owned RVL8, Spruce and Summit skiboards, and find all three to be of equal manufacturing quality. I have also received excellent customer service from all three owners.

                        I am not a Doc Roberts apologist, but have owned several Summit skiboards and been very happy with their quality and performance. The 110 customs I had were direct mount, and never failed.

                        Sorry to rant a little, I just want to be fair to the product and not have one isolated incident smear the brand. Whichever side of the debate you are on, that's not good for the growth of our sport.
                        Just these, nothing else !

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Riser Rationale

                          The argument here shouldn't be about the best way to mount bindings on skiboards, it really should be about what binding mounting​ system gives the ski designer the most freedom in the design of a board. When I design a board, it's a huge benefit to me not to have to worry about the thickness profile and construction technology of the board. I can pick a flex profile that I think will yield the performance on-snow that I'm aiming for. None of the Spruce boards or RVL8 boards would exist if they had to be thick enough to accept full-length binding screws. With full-length bindings screws, boards are inevitably stiffer and heavier. My own experience and that of Spruce and RVL*8 customers is that a thick stiff board is less responsive on snow, and much less versatile. In the early days of my skiboard involvement, I bought a pair of pretty popular commercial skiboards that were very stiff. On-snow I found them to have a harsh ride and be unresponsive to my inputs. That experience convinced me that the riser concept was the best way to avoid that type of board design. The freedom to design boards of any flex pattern means that they can be optimized for deep powder (R/C, Osprey) or for hard pack (SII, KTP) and for lighter (Spruce Raptor) or heavier (Sherpa, Revolt) riders.

                          Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk
                          Last edited by jsinger; 04-06-2017, 12:41 PM. Reason: Additional text

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Why is it that having a riser or non-releasable bindings means screw lengths required for attaching bindings to the board are shorter? Doesn't this mean that the connection to the board is inherently not as stable? Don't get me wrong I ride skiboards and fully trust their safety and stability, but just curious from a theoretical standpoint. This may be a dumb question so I apologize if that's the case.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Toro View Post
                              Why is it that having a riser or non-releasable bindings means screw lengths required for attaching bindings to the board are shorter? Doesn't this mean that the connection to the board is inherently not as stable? Don't get me wrong I ride skiboards and fully trust their safety and stability, but just curious from a theoretical standpoint. This may be a dumb question so I apologize if that's the case.
                              Actually, it's a great question, Toro. Shorter screws are an indirect benefit of attaching bindings with t-nut inserts and machine screws compared to using self-tapping screws directly in the body of the ski or skiboard. Self-tappers ---essentially short wood screws--- depend on digging deep into the wood/composite ski structure for strength. Because a machine screw into a threaded metal insert is exponentially stronger than this, using inserts doesn't impose any practical limits on ski/skiboard design---including thickness---in the area where the bindings attach (as Jeff explained so well).

                              Think of it this way: A nut-and-bolt fastening arrangement is typically stronger and more compact than a wood screw into a piece of lumber.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Greco View Post
                                If risers offered better performance, then all ski companies would be using them and not direct mounting. Doc Roberts, Phd.
                                For those who believe "because big companies do it, it must be right"... good luck with that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X