non release above 110s

[graeme]

Would anyone use them? I sm thinking of doing it on my next set up. Always prefered bomber's over any other bindings.

[tyberesk]

Would anyone use them? I sm thinking of doing it on my next set up. Always prefered bomber's over any other bindings.

bad idea.

[SkaFreak]

Only if you don't like your knees and enjoy spiral fractures.

[valmorel]

Ha ha, count me out!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[wjeong]

bad idea.

Broke my leg with Bombers. One unlucky fall that's it.

[tyberesk]

Broke my leg with Bombers. One unlucky fall that's it.

I don't even ride nonreleasables anymore.

[CrazyBoy-1]

I considered this myself at one point. I wear Deeluxe 225's, so release bindings are not an option for me. I was very interested in trying the Lacroix 125's, however, so I toyed with the idea of modifying a pair of my Bombers to be able to use them with the 4x10 inserts. I'm a machinist by trade, so this would've been relatively easy for me to do. In looking at the relationship between the recommended minimum height for non-release bindings and board length, I figured that I'd be ok (I'm just shy of 6'3"). Just to be safe, I posted my thoughts and asked for input. Thankfully, I got some very well reasoned detailed responses that dissuaded me from pursuing my idea. Jack (jjue), in particular made a good case based on physiology. I can't remember all the details, but the basic principle is that boards in excess of 110cm long provide a lever that has a much greater chance of damaging your legs, regardless of your height. This has to due with the relative strength of human bone and tissue vs the forces exerted by a fall. Basically, 110cm and under boards provide a potential force that most people's legs can handle. That is assuming, of course, that the rider is on boards that are appropriately sized for his/her height and weight. I'll see if I can find that thread in the archives and post up some of the details that Jack provided. For now, my advice is to either go with something like the Condors, which will give you maximum surface area in a 110 length, or resign yourself to the use of release bindings if you're set on riding boards longer than 110.

In all fairness, I have to say that each situation is relative, and it would be theoretically possible to ride 120+cm boards with non-release bindings without injuring yourself. Risk is inherent to our sport, after all. Even with release bindings, people suffer injuries because the situation was just right. Having said all that, certain guidelines are there for a reason, and this is one of them. I choose to ride non-release because I love the convenience and light weight of my step-in Bombers. I also don't push myself past my limits, and this has thus far kept me safe. I've also learned that I have no interest in riding anything over 110cm, so the point is moot for me.

Good call asking about the idea before trying it. That's what this community is here for, to give advice and reasons why.

[Bad Wolf]

I switched to releasables this year. I have the DIN set pretty low at 5.5 and have yet to have them release, even after a few spectacular falls. To be fair I am on 89cms, but they never released on my 110s either. I'm just not sure if we can generate enough torque to make shorter boards release? Gives me piece of mind though. I am looking for a pair of non release bindings for the 87s and 99 MNP that I have, and save the risers/releasables for the 125s when they come out.