Spruce Riser Solution vs. Drilling Bindings Directly into Skiboards

[Toro]

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

[jsinger]

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

[Bad Wolf]

Here's a thread about bindings pulling out of Summit skiboards.

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.

[Gromit]

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.

[Wookie]

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.

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?

[Greco]

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.

[tyberesk]

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.

[msoerensen]

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.

[Bluewing]

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.

[h2opete987]

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.

[rgzip]

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.

[CAN]

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.

[valmorel]

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.

[wjeong]

That's what I thought, but was directed to the "50%" document when I first joined the forum.

So the best plan is to use the ski DIN charts and not worry about making adjustments?

I set my heel around 50% less than the toe. Fred, Steve and Marianne are also setup this way due to my influence. This setting works depending on how you ski. If you are park riding, you can't set the heel so light. You will release trying to save an off balance landing. Din for the most part must be modified for riding style. I've had to up my toe piece setting to avoid prerelease in moguls and hard carves. Din charts will also say that you need to reduce one din at the age of fifty-five. This won't work for me as I ride just as hard now as before when I was younger.

[Bad Wolf]

Bindings release when they sense a load. That load is measured by the DIN standard. That is hopefully about what a body can stand, not what a ski generates. Consequently your DIN setting should be about you, not your ski.

That's what I thought, but was directed to the "50%" document when I first joined the forum.

So the best plan is to use the ski DIN charts and not worry about making adjustments?