Xplore Flexors — Thoughts on Standard vs Hard

[Manney]

Lots of thoughts, different directions…

Product differentiation is important to skiers and companies. One driven by preference, the other by profit. Can’t see that changing in any fundamental way (Xplore is not NNN BC and never will be), (Xplore will never become a franken version of Super Tele), (dyed in the wool NN skiers will never fully accept Xplore). So we must reconcile ourselves tothe fact that the only coloring occurring will be that which lies between the lines.

Binding tuning is an interesting issue. A full range of flexors, each with different durometer values (like actual numbers, so that skiers can buy with confidence) appears to offer some advantages. Low cost for consumer, easy to manufacture, ship, and market for Rottefella. Rottefella has already done durability testing of its binding with each of the three existing flexors, so the technical risk of offering something “in between” is very low.

Consumers have embraced tuning their favorite bindings for decades. Wires, rods and springs, bumpers, now flexors. They have done so without any of the rejectionist bs that comes from something new. Lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is an investment in boots.

Dual density flexors? Yeah, maybe. Don’t know what it would achieve over a single density flexor. Might lead to some very curious flex at different temperatures. It would be an interesting experiment… something requiring a fair amount of testing (unlike single density flexors, where all that has to be done is pick different elastomers whose values fall between the current goal posts of hard, medium, soft and call it a day).

If consumers could pick one battle, instead of three or four, that idea would probably gain much more traction with a manufacturer. X2 if that idea fits within the original design concept and operation of the binding.

[JohnSKepler]

Some interesting ideas. The nice thing is that these are all possible with Xplore (if you think of it as a standard and not just Rottefella's current binding design), and not NNNBC.

I think Xplore flexors would have a lot less complaints if the attachment system was not designed like a TV remote battery cover. Fortunately this can be fixed in future binding designs.

What I would like to see is a dual-density flexor made of two very different hardness layers of elastomer glued together. This is something not possible with NNNBC, but I think would work really well with Xplore. The soft layer would give a low-resistance ROM until it bottoms out and the hard layer engages. Same idea as dual-rate suspension springs (existing flexors already have a non-linear response, it probably most closely resembles exponential and is not tunable). Should be possible to DIY this by starting with the flat plates.

Rottefella can also take their highly regarded Super Telemark hardwires, put a heel ledge on the Xplore soles, and make a hardwire Xplore (they have to call it Xplore Xtreme).

I think a spring-loaded flexor might be interesting. It would be very linear. I also think some heel wires would be interesting paired with the Xplore but at present, my engineering judgment (which has been wrong before) tells me that the current spring pin system isn't robust enough to handle the force generated by the springs. And I do mean force. The linear force on the pins is going to be quite large as the heel comes up. I've not done any analysis or testing but holding the two systems side by side reveals a significant difference in scales and dimensions. 75mm is big and chunky. Xplore is trimmed down and svelte. Parts from systems like this don't generally cross over very well. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, and I'm still interested in fiddling with it, but I don't think it would be hobbled together with existing parts into something robust.

[CwmRaider]

@JohnSKepler
I just had a vision of you fiddling with your telemark skis, on crossover bindings.

[JohnSKepler]

@JohnSKepler
I just had a vision of you fiddling with your telemark skis, on crossover bindings.
_fbb52562-0adb-4bec-a9e2-43f4ee1593d4.jpg

Honestly, I'm a lot better at the fiddling than at the skiing!

[Capercaillie]

I also think some heel wires would be interesting paired with the Xplore but at present, my engineering judgment (which has been wrong before) tells me that the current spring pin system isn't robust enough to handle the force generated by the springs. And I do mean force. The linear force on the pins is going to be quite large as the heel comes up. I've not done any analysis or testing but holding the two systems side by side reveals a significant difference in scales and dimensions. 75mm is big and chunky. Xplore is trimmed down and svelte. Parts from systems like this don't generally cross over very well. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, and I'm still interested in fiddling with it, but I don't think it would be hobbled together with existing parts into something robust.

Are you thinking shear failure? And what do you think would fail first: the binding, the pins, or the rubber the pins are mounted in? I bet (or at least, I hope) Rottefella has measured this and knows the number.

[JohnSKepler]

An Xplore system isn’t under constant force so it isn’t designed for a constant force. I think the springpins are solid so aren’t going to shear. If the boot was being pulled the pins might tear out but I really don’t know what is up there. As it is, the cable would push the boot into the binding so I can’t see it tearing out into the boot. But that binding is plastic. Push plastic past spec and it cracks.

[CwmRaider]

But that binding is plastic. Push plastic past spec and it cracks.

I'll have to take another look at my bindings, for some reason I was pretty sure they are anodized aluminium.

[telerat]

Xplore binding seems to be plastic molded over steel. See Tom M's video:
I believe the reinforcements in/around the front mounting holes are part of the same steel piece as in the holes for the pins, and if so the binding is plenty strong. Tom mistakenly says the plastic is some sort of aluminum alloy. He thinks that the bottom is alloy, and that may be correct; I tested it with a magnet and it stuck to it so I thought it was steel, but that may also be the steel insert above. I am curious on how the binding is manufactured.

The resulting binding seems relatively simple and reliable with little that can fail. SpringPins in the boot is the reliability question and it remains to be seen long term. I think the binding and pins could handle heel wires, as the forces when bending the boot with the hard flexor are also quite high. I'm unsure if a heel wire is needed for Xplore though, with the hard flexor and stiff sole; Half of what I liked with 75mm cable bindings was elimination of play between the boot toe and binding and Xplore has no play, while the feeling with the stiff flexor also reminds me of cable bindings.

[lilcliffy]

I'm unsure if a heel wire is needed for Xplore though, with the hard flexor and stiff sole; Half of what I liked with 75mm cable bindings was elimination of play between the boot toe and binding and Xplore has no play, while the feeling with the stiff flexor also reminds me of cable bindings.

[Capercaillie]

You can make an Xplore binding that is much more robust and a fraction of the weight at the same time. Note with the Dynafit P49 system, there are two buttons on the sides of the binding to push the toe pins in for release (I don't know if you have to push them in at the same time, or one at a time). That leaves the area in front of the boot free for any kind of flexor or spring mechanism. Retracting flexor tour mode? Spring-loaded release plate? Bring back the Superloops? All possible with the Xplore (but not low tech toes), at a fraction of the weight of equivalent 75mm bindings. The Xplore as a standard is very versatile.