Forums Splitboard Talk Forum Standards in splitboards
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #790832
    permnation
    303 Posts

    What if splitboarding had some standards kind of like the cycling industry, as a bad example, but one I’m familiar with? By no means as convoluted and complicated as BB, headsets, hubs, etc, 1X !!! More along the lines of a bike needs wheels to ride whereas a splitboard needs a way to connect the halves. Since most of us do not want to ski on the down, no interface and no wheels will make both contraptions useless for their intended purpose. There are some standards already with insert patterns and maybe the puck, but that can be argued as there are multiple versions of pucks now. The insert pattern is truly the only norm in splitboarding.

    With the interface connection of the halves being an essential standard and crucial performance enhancer, why not have a summit of the binding and boot enginerds (typed with the utmost respect, sinseriously) and have them develop a standard connection interface. If in upcoming seasons a better system emerges (lighter, stronger, better performing, etc.), then change to a new standard ie. 135 x 9qr to a 142x 12 thru axle in mtb-speak or threaded headsets to aheadsets.

    Just some Monday morning rambling. Time to go ride.

    #790843
    Hai Nguyen
    1 Posts

    What if splitboarding had some standards kind of like the cycling industry, as a bad example, but one I’m familiar with?

    This is pretty much the reason it won’t work in splitboarding. Its exactly the same problem as cycling standards

    #791211
    Jason4
    443 Posts

    We have all the standards we currently need. Insert patterns for the bindings and four touring and a pseudo standard for the bolt pattern for nose and tail clips and hooks allow various manufacturers to mix and match. Standardizing things like pucks and attachment types takes away the competitive advantage. That’s basically what we had when it was just Voile, they were the standard and that’s what everyone had.

    The bicycle example is a good one to illustrate why standards are needed, it allows different manufacturers of different components to have some interchangeability. Any hub that fits a 142×12 rear end can be bolted onto any frame that has that rear spacing. Completely integrated companies have ignored standards and come up with their own interfaces (Cannondale with the lefty fork and matching hub).

    #791288
    permnation
    303 Posts

    Among other things, I would really like to see Dynafit toes as the standard touring attachment for all splitboards whether you are a hardbooter or softbooter.

    #791291
    maniacdave
    564 Posts

    Among other things, I would really like to see Dynafit toes as the standard touring attachment for all splitboards whether you are a hardbooter or softbooter.

    That’s about the only change in standards I could get behind… once tech binding manufacturers and even Dynafit itself come up with some mount standard they can all abide by.

    All the successful brands in splitboarding are the ones that worked with the standards Voile developed rather than ask someone to ditch all they’ve invested at a chance. Look at all the unsuccessful splitboard hardware attempts out there, the old Burton system, that goofy Volkl(?) from a few years back. Proprietary shit doesn’t fly when we’re all cheap ass dirtbags at heart. Cost is still a big opponent to splitboarding and with it being such a tiny market unless Voile/Spark/Karakorum/Phantom/Board makers all come together and unanimously decide that hey, “Chinese hooks and three hole touring bracket mounts gotta go”, we’ll be sticking with what we’ve got for a long time yet. And it’s for the better in my opinion, everyone gets a piece of the pie and the dickbags who sell a special board to go with their special hardware (or weird folding skis with their proprietary backpack…) crash and burn. Now excuse me I gotta decide if my next mountain bike is gonna have it’s travel measured in mm or old ass inches to go with those 29″ wheels and Boost(tm)….

    That was Pontus

    #791319
    permnation
    303 Posts

    cheap ass dirtbags

    Indeed, that is an underlying standard.

    #791439
    b0ardski
    251 Posts

    “Chinese hooks and three hole touring bracket mounts gotta go”, we’ll be sticking with what we’ve got for a long time yet.

    totally agree with the tour bracket.
    the near strait line across the split ski of the voile pattern creates an unnecessary weak spot, when a split ski breaks it’s a given where the break will be. The four hole dyna pattern spreads the load out the length of the board half, this is good. Secondly, there’s no good reason pin tech toe standard can’t work for all exoskeletal bindings in tour mode and maintain light weight simplicity like ranger or maurelli but use a more spread out hole pattern to prevent weakness. This would actually allow a slightly thinner lighter core. Proprietary systems are a disservice to such a small niche market of enthusiasts. With split skis being 125-140 wide even the current dyna hole pattern is a bit narrow imo.
    I cant believe hook holes go through the board base instead of using inserts ala jones, a factory board with holes thru the ptex is just plain stupid.
    ps; no reason a spread out hole pattern cant accommodate the original voile pin standard for backwards compatibility.

    #791445
    Taylor
    794 Posts

    I went with a direct mount of dyna toes on a DIY Gen 1 Furberg recently to ditch adapter weight. Of course, smartly, the Phantom adapter actually spreads the load out longer and wider than the four-hole pattern.

    @sun_rocket

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.