Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:24 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Ummm ...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:06 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Colorado
...
Quote:
I need to know the most common stance angles that people use so that my product works in that range.


Back to the chalk board dude. You have a worthless design if it cannot operate in a 0 to 90 degree range.

You have cant and lift incorporated, right?

_________________
Okay, God, I see you don't want to do it just now. Well, all right, suit yourself, you're the boss, but we ain't got a hell of a lot of time. Make it pretty soon, goddammit. A-men." - Seldom Seen Smith.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 391
Location: Bozeman MT
I disagree,
If you could accommodate + - 25 degree angles the vast majority of riders could use it. Adjustability, always has tradeoffs in a design, if you come up with one design that fits everyone it's going to be heavier and less user friendly than it needs to be. My vote is to have many models, which is more of a pain from a manufacturer's point of view, but can allow different types of riders to have a setup that is optimized for them. I don't need any cant and lift adjustment on my setup, to me it would just be extra stuff.

My $0.02


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ummm ...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:57 pm
Posts: 4958
Location: California
Cat Jockey wrote:
Back to the chalk board dude. You have a worthless design if it cannot operate in a 0 to 90 degree range.


I'm going to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement as well.

Wouldn't 90 degrees be a ski stance cat jockey? ;) :roll: :mrgreen:

In a perfect world it would be nice if a new system could accommodate all of our needs but in the real world I don't think it's in the cards. The reality is that only a small percentage of snowboarders run angles beyond 30 degrees. Having said that, it doesn't make sense to design a new system around the needs of the smallest percentile.

Sorry bro...hardbooters with 50 degree angles aint even on the radar. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ummm ...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:43 pm
Posts: 439
Location: Western Washington
[quote="bcrider

Sorry bro...hardbooters with 50 degree angles aint even on the radar. ;)[/quote] I'm on your radar baby! Just 'cause I wasn't watching you, well, you know, I'll catch you!

_________________
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them (Frederick Douglass)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:43 pm
Posts: 439
Location: Western Washington
Will wrote:
"new school"
+15 - 5

John Dahl is my hero, gotta get him back to soft boots and acute angles
Soft boots??!! I'd rather take up the monoski!

_________________
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them (Frederick Douglass)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:16 pm
Posts: 391
Location: Bozeman MT
Quote:
Soft boots??!! I'd rather take up the monoski!


That has the makings of a great t-shirt.

John is my hero due to his inventiveness in the garage to create the gear that he wants to ride, not because I'm crossing over to hardboots, angles over 45 degrees and compound cant plates. Which brings up the question about the interface issue in general - soft booters and hard booters are looking for different things in their ride, would it not make sense for there to be a different interfaces for the hardbooters and the softbooters? Food for thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:43 pm
Posts: 439
Location: Western Washington
Will has a good comment about interfaces. The reality is that we will, for some time at least, have to modify anything we use for the split setup. Even when I rode soft boots (yes, I did!) there was always something missing from the puzzle for me. A cant/heel lift shim for my rear foot binding was the one thing I needed and never found. If somebody had told me about the old Burton cant back then I would have been in heaven! I could have kissed heel lift in my boots goodbye, the one thing I suffered from even at 20f/10r. Everyone is different and their biomechanical needs vary, and any interface design will need to accomodate that factor.

_________________
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them (Frederick Douglass)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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