Forums Bindings Phantom Splitboard Bindings, Group Order (Hardboot Specific)
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 77 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #577332
    keffler
    319 Posts

    The first release of the Phantom Hardboot specific binding will by pre-order only. In order to get the price listed below, we will need (30) people signed up and pre-paid before the bindings can be made. As soon as we hit (30), production will began. It will take between 4-8 weeks to make the bindings, and you will be kept up to date as progress is made. The goal is to get you bindings by Thanksgiving or the first week of December. The pictures below represent what your bindings will look like with a few minor exceptions: some of the cutouts will be filled in for strength and the bindings will be all Clear Hard Coated (gray color).

    Bindings are for the descent. Touring requires tech toe pieces. Those toe pieces and adapter plates can be purchased from Spark R&D ! :thumpsup:

    http://www.sparkrandd.com/products/dynafit-speed-radical/

    http://www.sparkrandd.com/products/dynafit-adapter/

    For more information about the bindings and to post general binding questions, see the discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13639&start=0

    For questions about waiting list, please post here.

    I will keep this first post up to date, so check in here first for news, pictures and videos.

    Facebook Page:
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Phantom-Splitboard-Bindings/363651653710150

    Pre-order is closed!

    Waiting List Info:

    If you would like to get on the waiting list, please send an email to: phantomsbb (AT) gmail.com

    Please send me the following information: Make/Model/Size of boot, How many and what you want, Contact Info

    Price:

    $550 With Bails
    $470 Without Bails

    Here are the basic specs:

    – Boot sole is 1/2″ off the deck with no cant.
    – +30 to -30 degrees foot angle adjustment
    – can accommodated 0 to 5 degrees cant (shipped with 2.5 degree cants)
    – each toe/heel block height/cant is independently adjustable
    – stance width adjustable in 0.5″ increments
    – Fits wide range of boot shell sizes
    – Uses Carving Company 5mm bails (AKA Burton Race Plate Bails, AKA Ibex Bails)
    – Part of the binding is removed and collapses flat for storage during hiking.
    – Interface clears snow/ice when putting bindings on board
    – Works with both Voile and Karakoram board clips.
    – Made from lightweight aluminum alloy. No plastic except for cants
    – Does not use the Voile puck system.
    – Only for riding. for hiking, use a tech toe piece

    Detailed Specs:

    Fits Boot Sizes TLT5
    S: 23-26 Mondo
    M: 26-28 Mondo
    L: 28-30 Mondo

    Weight
    S Per foot:~1#8oz [680 grams], (best guess)
    M Per foot: ~1#10oz [737 grams], (guess after cutouts filled in)
    L Per foot: ~1#12oz [793 grams], (guess after cutouts filled in)

    Overall length
    S: 21cm (22cm diagonal)
    M: 23cm (24cm diagonal)
    L: 25cm (26cm diagonal)

    Width:
    S: 13.7cm
    M: 13.7cm
    L: 13.7cm

    Pictures:

    Design is Patent-Pending


    HikeForTurns’ Venture Odin. Just needs some tech toe pieces and this board is ready!

    (Taken by HikeForTurns, Thank you)

    Weights:

    Size: M/L

    Disclaimer:

    These are experimental bindings. Use at your own risk!!!

    #659553
    Hendu
    21 Posts

    Hey Keffler
    What size boot is in the picture here? Also is the picture of the bottom of the binding the same setup as with the boot? I have size 12 (46) boots and wondering about the heel / toe overhang.

    Looks like an impressive system. Congrats on the great design
    Adam

    #659554
    HikeforTurns
    1113 Posts

    Hendu, these are my size 28 mondo boots on a small/medium binding. I believe Keff said the M/L fits up to a size 30 (12-12.5ish)

    Also the board width is 25cm.

    #659555
    keffler
    319 Posts

    @HikeforTurns wrote:

    Hendu, these are my size 28 mondo boots on a small/medium binding. I believe Keff said the M/L fits up to a size 30 (12-12.5ish)

    Also the board width is 25cm.

    The small/medium is maxed out with the 28 Mondo TLT5s. The medium/large will fit the 30 Mondo TLT5 (The largest shell size they make) and should fit other manufacture’s 30 Mondo. The M/L plate should not overhang for a 26 cm waist board.

    #659556
    JimmyC
    351 Posts

    E-mail just sent—the list has grown by one.

    #659557
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Just wanted to add some thoughts here on these bindings, and how much work Keffler has put into them. He started discussing various ideas with me at the end of the 2011 season, and by the middle of the 2012 season he was riding his first prototype. The very first day out on the first proto was a success, with no issues, and smooth transitions for the new system-this initial result is a really good testament to the reliability and performance of his initial design. Keffler continued to ride the first proto for the remainder of last season, with no problems, despite the binding being the very first proto he had made. Over the course of the spring and summer he started to develop the design further, resulting in big improvements in strength, and making the binding fully adjustable. I continued to provide him with feedback and my opinion, but all the design and fabrication work are entirely his own. Getting these bindings to this point required countless hours of drawing, thinking, building models, and finally expensive working prototypes. I doubt that Keffler will ever get financially rewarded appropriate with the amount of development time which has been spent, as this project has clearly been pursued to produce the best binding possible, without a thought given to making money, or even coming close to recouping expenses
    At this point I cannot fully express how impressed I am with the Phantom binding at this point in its development. It offers a number of significant advantages, not the least of which is that it allows fine stance width and setback adjustment, and fully independent adjustment of stance angles to exactly what the rider prefers. This adjustment ability is a huge advance over the Voile pucks, and any other commercial splitboard binding system of which I am aware. Now we can dial in the exact width and setback of our stance, and then, the perfect angle as well from +30 degrees to -30 degrees. No more compromising. The boot sole to board distance is now virtually the same as with a pair of Sparks or Karakorams and soft boots; combined with the thin sole of the TLT5 the hardboot rider will have unprecedented board feel, removing the final compromise of a hard boot system. Additionally, John feels that the additional surface area contact of the binding to board surface results in better, more precise, board response-I have not ridden the system yet, so I cannot say the he is right, but I suspect that he is.
    I am so psyched to be able to ride this new system this season!

    #659558
    christoph benells
    717 Posts

    they use race plate bales right?

    i’ll take a pair sans bails.

    #659559
    splitchef
    44 Posts

    Oh yeah!
    Sign me up for a pair no bails please.

    Thanks for your hard work! They look awesome!
    Come on snow!

    #659568
    buell
    534 Posts

    Count me in for a pair, with bails.

    I have seen a bit of the behind the scenes hard work John has put into these bindings and how much effort he has put into getting AT splitters something that is simple, light, strong, and adjustable.

    Thanks John.

    #659561
    p06781
    16 Posts

    I would be in if there was a way to get steeper angles. Long time fruitbooter and ride 55/50 or at least 45/40 ? Is there anyway to do this ? I have a custom donek split thats begging for the perfect binders…

    Jim in pdx

    #659560
    Powder_Rider
    498 Posts

    p06781 and other HB Carvers

    I would be in if there was a way to get steeper angles. Long time fruitbooter and ride 55/50 or at least 45/40 ? Is there anyway to do this ? I have a custom donek split thats begging for the perfect binders…

    Have your tried riding a splitboard with splitboard hardboot-bindings and Dynafit toe pieces? As a long time HB-Carver, I wanted higher binding angles. But the Dyna-split setup (Dynafit toe pieces, Spark R&D Dynafit adapters and G3 dual riser heels) gets in the way, while trying a keep the same < 21 inch stance width. Also riding higher carving angles. I tend to use cants, toe and heel lift. What I have found is that over time, I have lessen the stance angles to down to 21 degrees in front and 15 in the back to accommodate the Dyna-Split setup. I do not use cants or lifts (currently ride Bomber Sidewinders) when I ride with less angles. Although I could benefit from a little bit of cant and lift.

    Cant and lift was discussed in Vapor HB binding thread.

    If you have tried the Dyna-split setup… Great, I hope that you are offended here. I just want to shred” some light on the issue of using a Dyna-split and binding angles / stance width.

    keffler can custom Phantom bindings handle higher angles in a Dynaft-setup? I was having trouble above 24 degrees and <21 inch stance width with the Voile slider tracks.

    #659551
    ACheateaux
    16 Posts

    In con bails, now let’s do this…

    Can we put together a group buy for dynafit toe pieces? Anyone know a guy?

    #659552
    keffler
    319 Posts

    @Powder_Rider wrote:

    p06781 and other HB Carvers

    I would be in if there was a way to get steeper angles. Long time fruitbooter and ride 55/50 or at least 45/40 ? Is there anyway to do this ? I have a custom donek split thats begging for the perfect binders…

    Have your tried riding a splitboard with splitboard hardboot-bindings and Dynafit toe pieces? As a long time HB-Carver, I wanted higher binding angles. But the Dyna-split setup (Dynafit toe pieces, Spark R&D Dynafit adapters and G3 dual riser heels) gets in the way, while trying a keep the same < 21 inch stance width. Also riding higher carving angles. I tend to use cants, toe and heel lift. What I have found is that over time, I have lessen the stance angles to down to 21 degrees in front and 15 in the back to accommodate the Dyna-Split setup. I do not use cants or lifts (currently ride Bomber Sidewinders) when I ride with less angles. Although I could benefit from a little bit of cant and lift.

    Cant and lift was discussed in Vapor HB binding thread.

    If you have tried the Dyna-split setup… Great, I hope that you are offended here. I just want to shred” some light on the issue of using a Dyna-split and binding angles / stance width.

    keffler can custom Phantom bindings handle higher angles in a Dynaft-setup? I was having trouble above 24 degrees and <21 inch stance width with the Voile slider tracks.

    Hey Guys,

    At this time, the Phantoms can not rotate to riding angles greater than 30 degrees. Maybe later in the future, I can make some custom board interface plate that will give you higher angles, but at this time, I just can’t get.

    When you have a narrow stance, the issues you stated above are likely to be an issue with any binding setup you go with, mainly because like you stated, the Dynafit toe piece does mount forward of your toe and requires extra room. With the Phantoms, you do need a little room around the binding to rotate the binding to take them on and off. I suspect that if you are having trouble with your current setup, mine will not be much different for this particular issue. Bummer.

    -John

    #659546
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Really narrow stances are difficult to pull off with the Dynasplit system, as Keffler notes, the Dynafit toe piece needs some room between the toe of the boot, and the front binding position in which to work. A highly angled stance requires even more room, as the angle brings the front foot’s heel back, to where it can interfere with the placement of the Dynafit toe piece. The most narrow and angled stance I have been able to get away with is approximately 20.5″ stance width, with a 30 degree angle on the front foot, but this barely worked (with a 28 boot). I used to ride narrower and more angled stances, (which were more common back in the day), but over the years, I have been opening up my width, and flattening my angles (the existence of wider boards has helped with this). The reason I have changed is that a wider stance, to a degree, gives more stability, and the flex pattern of most boards these days is also optimized for stances between 21″-24″, and boards will not ride as well with narrower stances.
    The advantages which highly angled stances allow for carving grooomers are disadvantages for riding in the backcountry (narrow boards do not float, developing super high edge pressure is not necessary). I understand why one would ride a highly angled stance for making turns on packed snow, but this style of riding is not applicable to the backcountry, and I would suggest that anyone riding this way might want to consider moderating their stance a little. Even boardercross riders on hard snow understand the advantages of less stance angle when dealing with 3D terrain.
    At 6’1″, I have gotten to the point where I prefer a 21″-22″ stance width, and about 27 degrees F and 7 to 10 degrees R, and my riding has never been better. No, I will not go duck, as I prefer being able to still have my rear hip turned in the direction of travel, but I do understand why some prefer the duck position.

    The Phantom Splitboard Bindings are for riding in the backcountry, on Splitboards. There are plenty of other excellent bindings for riding resort groomers.

    #659545
    p06781
    16 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    Really narrow stances are difficult to pull off with the Dynasplit system, as Keffler notes, the Dynafit toe piece needs some room between the toe of the boot, and the front binding position in which to work. A highly angled stance requires even more room, as the angle brings the front foot’s heel back, to where it can interfere with the placement of the Dynafit toe piece. The most narrow and angled stance I have been able to get away with is approximately 20.5″ stance width, with a 30 degree angle on the front foot, but this barely worked (with a 28 boot). I used to ride narrower and more angled stances, (which were more common back in the day), but over the years, I have been opening up my width, and flattening my angles (the existence of wider boards has helped with this). The reason I have changed is that a wider stance, to a degree, gives more stability, and the flex pattern of most boards these days is also optimized for stances between 21″-24″, and boards will not ride as well with narrower stances.
    The advantages which highly angled stances allow for carving grooomers are disadvantages for riding in the backcountry (narrow boards do not float, developing super high edge pressure is not necessary). I understand why one would ride a highly angled stance for making turns on packed snow, but this style of riding is not applicable to the backcountry, and I would suggest that anyone riding this way might want to consider moderating their stance a little. Even boardercross riders on hard snow understand the advantages of less stance angle when dealing with 3D terrain.
    At 6’1″, I have gotten to the point where I prefer a 21″-22″ stance width, and about 27 degrees F and 7 to 10 degrees R, and my riding has never been better. No, I will not go duck, as I prefer being able to still have my rear hip turned in the direction of travel, but I do understand why some prefer the duck position.

    The Phantom Splitboard Bindings are for riding in the backcountry, on Splitboards. There are plenty of other excellent bindings for riding resort groomers.

    I am a long time “big board” rider on Radair tankers . I ride the same angles on all my boards and prefer 20.5″ at 55/50 with 3 degree cants. On narrow carving setups I go steeper so no toe/heal drag. I have my donek/voile setup at 45/40 but because of the touring brackets and angles I am at 22.5″ width and not centered over the “best” sweet spot of my donek. I dont use dynafit toe pieces yet but could go that route with my size 29 scarpas if it solved my stance problems. Sounds like your saying the dynafits take even more space not allowing greater stance angles as compared to the regular voile touring brackets ? I wish there was a solution , maybe sparks edison will eventually solve this but it only has +30-30 angles so far right ?

    I welcome any ideas ?

    Jim in pdx

    #659542
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Jim: Yes, the Dynafit toe piece requires more room than a Voile (or Spark, or Karakoram) touring bracket. My boots are 28, so your 29s will also be 1 CM longer. At 22.5″ width you might be able to get away with 40 degrees on the front foot, maybe, withn a Dynfit toe piece, but it would be close.
    The Phantom Bindings also need a little more room than a Voile slider plate based system, not much, but a little.
    All I can say for sure, is that if your set up is a tight fit with a Voile touring bracket, it will be more than tight with a Dynafit toe piece.
    Mmmm Tankers are cool! I always wanted to split one, but the width is just a little too narrow, conswer the width lost with the cut.

    #659543
    Taylor
    794 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    At 22.5″ width you might be able to get away with 40 degrees on the front foot, maybe, withn a Dynfit toe piece, but it would be close.

    Barrows, I asked Keffler what the angle range was for this binding and he said 30/30. I assumed this was a limitation inherent to the design, but you seem to imply that the 30 deg. front foot limitation owes to overlap with the Dynafit toe-piece at steeper angles.

    Is the angle limitation inherent to the binding design or a problem of overlap with the Dynafit toe pieces? If the latter, do you know the binding’s inherent angle limitation assuming one had no such overlap problem (as with a much wider stance, for example)?

    @sun_rocket

    #659544
    b0ardski
    251 Posts

    I’m with Jim on this, much prefer facing the direction of travel w/old skool angles.

    no issues with undulating bc terrain or landing cliff drops at old skool angles of 35r/45f with 19-20″ wide stance.

    I can ride at 20*/30* but it’s not as comfortable or efficient for my bio-mechanics, and requires more lateral flex than most hardboots allow but this belong in the discussion thread.

    don’t have dynatoes yet, but have flattened my angles (25/35-19.5″) to allow for tele toe (shorter than dynatoes) w/size 27s for skin mode. the lowest angles I’ve used in 20yrs but tolerable.

    altering the screw hole in the mount plate and/or retainer plate should allow for 35-40 degree angles which works well enough for alpine style on wider boards.
    I don’t have the cash flow to join the list and help this happen 😥 or I would go ahead & mod the phantoms to approach my stance comfort zone at home.

    #659566
    keffler
    319 Posts

    @Taylor wrote:

    @barrows wrote:

    At 22.5″ width you might be able to get away with 40 degrees on the front foot, maybe, withn a Dynfit toe piece, but it would be close.

    Barrows, I asked Keffler what the angle range was for this binding and he said 30/30. I assumed this was a limitation inherent to the design, but you seem to imply that the 30 deg. front foot limitation owes to overlap with the Dynafit toe-piece at steeper angles.

    Is the angle limitation inherent to the binding design or a problem of overlap with the Dynafit toe pieces? If the latter, do you know the binding’s inherent angle limitation assuming one had no such overlap problem (as with a much wider stance, for example)?

    The limitation with greater angles is inherent to my current design. If I were to adjust for larger angles with what I currently have, the parts would overhang the inside of the board when in split ski mode. Might be a little hard to explain and see, but yes, it is inherent in to my design. However, I can see in the future being able to make slightly different parts where this would not be a problem, but at a first glance, it would not be adjustable for lower angles. Meaning it may only be adjustable from +45 to +15 and then -15 to -45, but again, I can’t get to this this year. One thing at a time.

    #659567
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Taylor: Yes, maximum angles with the Phantoms are +/- 30 degrees. The angle adjustment has a hard stop at that point. If one takes a close look at the pictures, one can see where the stop is, their is no more room to go further.
    My point re the Dynafit toes, is that they require more room than a standard touring bracket, to fit on the board before they will interfere with the heelside ride mode binding. For normal freeride stances, this is not a problem, but people with unusual stance preferences (very narrow, and/or highly angled) need to test for fit with the Dynafit toe pieces. As mentioned, I have previously gotten a 20.5″ width stance, with 30-15 degree angles to work with a DynaSplit set up, but it was really close… I now have advanced my system and prefer widths over 21″ and angles around ~27F and ~7-10R. Boot length is also a factor in getting everything to fit.

    boardski: I agree that one needs boots with more lateral and medial flex (than 4 buckle race/freecarve boots)to ride flatter angles. That is why most backcountry splitters using hard boots tend to choose softer models of AT, and sometimes add additional flex through mods. My set up with TLT5s flex about the same laterally and medially as my Driver X soft boots. I believe Joey Vosburgh (Canukistani Pro) even rides slightly duck in these boots.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 77 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.