Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/split/public_html/talk/common.php on line 106
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 942: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 942: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/session.php on line 942: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3545: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3547: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3548: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 3549: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /common.php:106)
Splitboard.com Forums • View topic - 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks


Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:27 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 156
Location: bc
I see that there are two "versions" of the voile split kit for DIY boards, one with 2-hole rectangular pucks, and one with 4-hole trapezoidal pucks... wouldn't 4 holes be better? Is one for wood screws and the other for T-nuts or something? Why would they revert from 4 holes to 2?

_________________
Git'R-duuhhhhn
Transform and roll out team


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 1482
Location: Colorado
The old style pucks are the 4 hole versions. these are designed to be mounted with ski screws. The new 2 hole pucks are designed to be used with bolts and t-nuts.
If you can do a good mount, the old style 4 hole pucks and ski screws will result in a more responsive set up (less puck flex). The new two hole pucks, mounted with t-nuts, will be more bombproof in terms of pull out.

_________________
Never Summer Prospector 167X, furberg 173 DIY, Dynafit TLT5/6 Mountain , Phantom Bindings, BD Glidelite Skins
Quiver Killer inserts

http://protectourwinters.org/
http://14ersnowboardproject.homestead.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 156
Location: bc
Hmm that's what I suspected, thanks barrows.

I would assume that 4 hole T-nut would be the way to go, I guess I could modify the holes in the 4-hole pucks. It seems sketchy to me to only have 2 holes in the pucks, when they are being flexed forward and back a bit while riding, and being pushed on and pulled on repeatedly when transforming. I also definitely wouldn't rely on ski screws.

Has nobody ever had a problem with the standard 2-hole pucks for factory splits?

_________________
Git'R-duuhhhhn
Transform and roll out team


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:01 pm
Posts: 793
Location: Colorado
I think the 2 hole pucks are a BIG improvement. :twocents:

I don't get and perceptible flex in them. They are stronger and simpler. I was using t-nuts for my pucks before and will always use t-nuts for binding pucks. Many Splitters have ripped pucks out with the ski binding screws. Properly installed t-nuts aren't going anywhere, even under big-air/big-crash scenarios.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci

_________________
Talking about snowboarding is like dancing about architecture...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 1482
Location: Colorado
I do have some problems with the Universal Pucks (2 hole) used on factory splits. I find that these pucks tend to flex a bit more than I would like (especially when my stance usually requires the bolts to be at the ends of the slots) and the pucks tend to shift and need re-adjusting occasionally. Of course the DIY pucks will not shift, as there are no slots.
On the factory splits with Universal Pucks, I do a mod where I run a single ski screw through the Puck and into the board (once I am certain my stance is perfect). This mod makes the pucks much stiffer, and stops them from shifting entirely.
If you are going to use T-nuts, I would go with the two hole DIY pucks (I would not want all those additional holes all the way through the board)-there is no way you could rip it out with a t-nut mount. If you find you need more stiffness, just run a single ski screw through the puck into the board in a triangular relationship to the two bolts. Anytime you use ski screws, make sure to use good epoxy, and never over tighten the screw (this weakens the grab) just bring the screw up snug, and then give it additional 1/8 turn. When the epoxy cures in core, you will have a very strong mount.

_________________
Never Summer Prospector 167X, furberg 173 DIY, Dynafit TLT5/6 Mountain , Phantom Bindings, BD Glidelite Skins
Quiver Killer inserts

http://protectourwinters.org/
http://14ersnowboardproject.homestead.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:32 am
Posts: 553
Location: Rawesome, BC
Another option of course (because they're aren't enough in the DIY world...) is to get some delrin or similar material and machine it in to custom pucks and utilize the factory inserts and perhaps a single wood screw or t-nut farther out. I know a number of other projects on here have gone that route and I think that'll be the plan for my next split (172 Swallowtail anyone? :wink: ). Reduces the amount of core material you end up removing and recycles hardware already in the board. While I'm unconvinced that an unmolested base makes a whole heck of a lot difference in the type of riding I do, an unmolested base is a lot less maintenance intensive as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: the_dragon_no1 and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  








Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group