Comments on: Voile introduces the ‘Light Rail’ and ‘Trax’ splitboard bindings http://poormansheli.com/2009/11/23/voile-introduces-the-light-rail-and-trax-splitboard-bindings/ Backcountry snowboarding and skiing...most of the time Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:31:22 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Justin http://poormansheli.com/2009/11/23/voile-introduces-the-light-rail-and-trax-splitboard-bindings/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Justin Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:57:39 +0000 http://poormansheli.com/?p=1297#comment-499 Yeah, my first impression was really 'this looks like some circa-1996 shit', but in the end if it rides good that's all that matters. My guess is the height is similar to the Fuse, it just LOOKS like it's higher because it doesn't have the full baseplate that sits flush against the board. Initial knee-jerk reaction is that the Voile binding won't be as stiff as a result, but I'm not an engineer and realize that's just judging it purely off looks and with no sort of metal engineering design. The modular nature of the rails could be interesting, if you break one you could just replace it as opposed to the entire binding, but I'd imagine stress to that part of the binding under normal use is the exception rather than the rule (and probably usually involve a car or something else to bend 'em). The old slider plates would sometime wear from the pinhole, I guess if the rails are cheaper than new plates you'd save money there. One thing I missed on their site on first glance but just noticed when looking at the prices on these bindings is the dual height climbing wires http://www.voile-usa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=1130-56&Category_Code=SB&Product_Count=2 Yeah, my first impression was really ‘this looks like some circa-1996 shit’, but in the end if it rides good that’s all that matters. My guess is the height is similar to the Fuse, it just LOOKS like it’s higher because it doesn’t have the full baseplate that sits flush against the board. Initial knee-jerk reaction is that the Voile binding won’t be as stiff as a result, but I’m not an engineer and realize that’s just judging it purely off looks and with no sort of metal engineering design. The modular nature of the rails could be interesting, if you break one you could just replace it as opposed to the entire binding, but I’d imagine stress to that part of the binding under normal use is the exception rather than the rule (and probably usually involve a car or something else to bend ‘em). The old slider plates would sometime wear from the pinhole, I guess if the rails are cheaper than new plates you’d save money there.

One thing I missed on their site on first glance but just noticed when looking at the prices on these bindings is the dual height climbing wires

http://www.voile-usa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=1130-56&Category_Code=SB&Product_Count=2

]]> By: Colin in CA http://poormansheli.com/2009/11/23/voile-introduces-the-light-rail-and-trax-splitboard-bindings/comment-page-1/#comment-498 Colin in CA Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:47:36 +0000 http://poormansheli.com/?p=1297#comment-498 Interesting addition to the market. They don't look as elegant as the Sparks, but who knows. As for the rip straps and liability, as long as they include the usual disclaimer that ships with any kind of glisse equipment, they should be fine. They'd also need to spell out (in big letters) that for the release to work, you must reach down and rip the straps with your hands. For example, BD doesn't guarantee the Avalung is going to save your life. To establish a prima facie negligence claim (or even a claim of strict liability for product liability), the plaintiff would have to adequately allege that Voile's negligence contributed to their injury (highly unlikely), or that the product did not work in the manner advertised or was somehow defective (also unlikely). Suffice to say, I doubt they're worried about it. There might be stupid plaintiff attorneys out there who might file a suit, but it wouldn't get anywhere. Not that I think the rip strap is a bad thing at all, but I would think that one would be first trying to ride out of the slide before trying to get the board off... and then by the time one tried (and failed) to out-ride the slide, one would not have enough time to rip those straps before getting buried. Lots of things to think about in a very small amount of time (out-ride, Avalung in teeth, rip bindings, swim, etc.). Interesting addition to the market. They don’t look as elegant as the Sparks, but who knows.

As for the rip straps and liability, as long as they include the usual disclaimer that ships with any kind of glisse equipment, they should be fine. They’d also need to spell out (in big letters) that for the release to work, you must reach down and rip the straps with your hands. For example, BD doesn’t guarantee the Avalung is going to save your life. To establish a prima facie negligence claim (or even a claim of strict liability for product liability), the plaintiff would have to adequately allege that Voile’s negligence contributed to their injury (highly unlikely), or that the product did not work in the manner advertised or was somehow defective (also unlikely). Suffice to say, I doubt they’re worried about it. There might be stupid plaintiff attorneys out there who might file a suit, but it wouldn’t get anywhere.

Not that I think the rip strap is a bad thing at all, but I would think that one would be first trying to ride out of the slide before trying to get the board off… and then by the time one tried (and failed) to out-ride the slide, one would not have enough time to rip those straps before getting buried. Lots of things to think about in a very small amount of time (out-ride, Avalung in teeth, rip bindings, swim, etc.).

]]>