Offset angled crampon teeth is the first mod I make to any ski crampon. Inline teeth are stupid! Do you paddle a canoe with the skinny edge or the fat one?!
The standard solid board four hole pattern opens up the ability for the binding to be mounted flush to the board instead of over it. Anybody who has seen Ivar's (ieism) carbon puck diy bindings or my copy using aluminum pucks can see that! It makes the most KISS sense.
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:05 am Posts: 89 Location: Oslo, Norway
Reindeer mtn wrote:
Check quiverkiller inserts puderluder, but you have to grind them down it seems. Asked them about and said they can't do it for splitboards as they become too short: "Thanks for the email. We have played with the idea of making a splitboard insert but the issues are 1. the market is small and 2. the insert needs to be very short (7mm or less), which makes it difficult to include enough threads."
I am sure others will chime in after me in saying that Quiver Killers work just fine on splitboards. At least for the walk mode which goes where the board normally is thickest. Boards get thinner out towards the front and end, but I havent measured at the ride mode interface.
I had my dynafit toepieces direct mounted on my venture odin with ski screws, they ripped out (while splitskiing a ski slope) so I drilled the holes slightly bigger and installed QKs.
I didn't do any grinding on the insert, and had about 2mm clearance left after drilling. Didnt drill all the way through to the base (still only seeing wood in the bottom of the hole, but must be very close.
I'm sure you could take off 1-2mm of the QKs without any trouble, if you had to.
_________________ Venture Odin 164 (split) Furberg 167 (split) Never Summer Summit 161 (solid) Phantom Alpha Dynafit One
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am Posts: 1538 Location: Colorado
I also use Quiver Killers to mount the Dynafit toe piece on all my splits, as this allows me to use a single toe piece on many boards (otherwise I woudl use ski screws, which are strong enough when very carefully mounted). I grind the tip off the QK, saving about 1 mm, and it is still very close on board thickness: depends on the board. My Never Summer is quite thin in the touring bracket area, and it was really close getting the QKs in there, in hindsight, I would probably grind another mm off the top of them if mounting another Never Summer. My other boards are thicker and had plenty of room. I mount the heel risers with ski screws, and this works perfectly. In fact, the other day I stomped down on a heel riser so hard (trying to trigger a small pocket with the riser up, ooops) that I broke the Voile heel riser piece in half, but the ski screws remained firmly in place. Ski screw strength depends on a few factors: the screw itself: some have deeper threads than onthers, the density of the board core material and top laminates, and the skill of the placement. I think that most people who have problems with ski screws and heel risers are probably not placing the screws correctly. It is imperative to use high strength long cure epoxy in the holes (I would recommend a low viscosity epoxy as well, not G Flex) and then to just bring the scews up snug, not tight. If you here wood fibers cracking when you tighten the screws, you have gone too far. For an even stronger ski screw interface (say when you know the core is weak, like Pauwlonia) cut up some carbon fiber strands and stick them in the hole before placing the screw.
Rughty, that is an intersting point on the insert placement. With my Phantom bindings, the standard split hole pattern (or 4x4, they work for both) allows the binding to sit flush as you note, sure looks like PLUM gets their interface to sit flush as well, with the standard hole pattern, at least as far as I can tell from the pics and vids I have seen. The wider stance of the split pattern allows for more strength and stiffness with the interface as well, and less leverage on the inserts themselves: of course this weakness can be compensated for by adding material to the binding for additional stiffness, but this then adds weight. I am much in favor of the wider placement of the splitboard insert pattern over 4x4 (or 4x8 etc), for this reason.
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:57 pm Posts: 4966 Location: California
Apologies for not sharing any thoughts or impressions from the Trade Show sooner. I really wish I had a small team of folks to help me share all the pics, videos, and words I have but alas it's just me here...and as a result the polished report is still on the to-do list.
I figured I'd try to share a few thoughts and opinions tho before too much more time goes by so here goes...
It's human nature to create your own preconceived notions from time to time and I'm no different. Before heading to the show we saw leaks of things like the new Salomon 3-piece split, the Voile Revolator BC with scales, and the APO (plum) binding. I fell victim to making my own assessments like many of you have before even getting my hands on them. Such is life and its a good reminder to keep an open mind.
Having been to the show and seeing these things, I haven't done a complete 180 on some of my initial thoughts but can say that I now have a more informed view.
There are so many things to touch on but for now I'm going to focus on the three products mentioned above.
Salomon 3-piece splitboard, The Premier
Pre Trade Show thoughts: Like many of you, my initial thought was WTF...they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There's too many parts creating too much fiddle-factor, there's added weight, more seems, etc...we just don't need it.
Post Trade Show thoughts: After seeing the board and learning more about the design philosophy, the French snowboarder that designed it, and the intended uses...I gotta say I'm much more optimistic than I originally was. The transition really wasn't too complicated or time consuming. I don't think I'd use this as my only splitboard but I can see it being useful on really long and flat approaches, overnight trips, etc where you're doing more touring than riding. I can think of many peaks and tours where having a narrower ski on the approach could be really nice. It may not have as much skinning traction as a 2-piece split on the steeps but good technique would offset that and it could be a worthy compromise if the flat slog in was faster and more enjoyable. Time with tell if others agree and ultimately the market will decide. I'm not going to hate on a company for trying something new, I say good job and good luck.
Volie fish-scaled splitboard, The Revelator BC Pretty much everything above could be applied to my thoughts on this new board. I think as the splitboard market becomes more saturated manufactures are looking for ways to differentiate their offerings. Shifting the focus from ride performance to skinning and touring performance seems like a logical step. As I said above, with the 3-piece split and this fish-scaled split, to me these are not going to be quiver killers or go-to split as much as they are going to be specialty splits to compliment your split quiver and use in specific scenarios. Touching and feeling the Revelator BC, the scales don't seem like they'll impede the downhill performance too much...unless you wanna ride switch . Again, I can think of many long, flat-ish approaches where having the added glide of sans-skins with a little grip underfoot could be really nice. Time will tell and the market will decide.
APO (plum) System
Pre Trade Show thoughts: I thought, does the sport really need another system? Not really. We've got Spark Tesla which is a simple, bomber, and effective binding built around the time-tested and proven Voile pucks. The pucks may not be perfect but they proven to be simple and reliable for the majority of splitters. We've also got Karakoram for folks looking for another option to the pucks and a more active and engineered system. Both systems have evolved and been refined since their introduction. This year Karakoram introduces the Prime system which moves away from the side lever and single pin engagement to a much more effective 2 pin engagement with 4 contact points and a heel lever. The on-board interface pieces have also been improved and everything about the system seems to be a great evolution in my opinion. The K bros have done their homework and really refined the system. Stoked for 'em. My only really criticism is the straps, ladders, and ratchets. If only they were sourcing these from Burton like Spark!
Post Trade Show thoughts: Call me uninformed and shallow but I didn't know APO was Regis Roland's company. Now that I do, I respect this more. Regis was doing sweet pow turns and road gaps in the 80's (somebody post the vid!). How can you not respect that!? So now I'm more stoked to see the system. After seeing it in action and playing with it I'm more excited about it than I was....and you guessed it...time will tell and the market will decide!
As for first impressions, this was a proto but it resembles what will be sent to production for the most part. My thoughts are that is seems a little under built and less refined than the existing offerings in the marketplace. It will be interesting to see how larger riders feel about the system. It's also got a fair amount of play in ride mode. Being from the surfy, loose trucks type-feel camp I generally like a little play vs the super rigid and precise feel of hard boots but I typically like this play to come from binding (or puck) flex as opposed to play in the overall interface. The APO system also uses a single flat pin engagement system and side lever akin to Karakoram. It will be interesting to see if Karakoram seeks patent protection in the US as the APO system does seem to possibly infringe on some of their design. I'm not a patent lawyer though so who knows. It is a little funny though to see them use a similar design that was recently replaced and improved by the original inventor. I'm not knocking APO or the system, just dumping some thoughts. I think if the market likes the design and it evolves and gets refined it could be a nice addition to current offerings.
As for the standard hole pattern comments. Thinking about the big-picture...I think a common standard that all mfgs adhere to is a good thing and will result in less fragmentation. Does that mean the current standard is the end all be all? Not really. But changing the "standard" is much, much easier said then done and without widespread support I don't see it happening anytime soon. Who knows....maybe Brooks will invent something rather than just bitch about it. Just playing, love ya BG.
Shit that was a lot of words and thoughts. Hopefully you all glean a little something out of it. I'm just a splitter like you all though so don't take my word as the gospel....get out there and develop your own thoughts. Just remember to be open-mindinded, optimistic, and positive!
Offset angled crampon teeth is the first mod I make to any ski crampon. Inline teeth are stupid!
You mean, you bend the teeth this way: / \ / \ to reduce sliding backwards?
exactly...I bent my mr chomps like this
\ / / \ \ /
they had almost no backward sliding due to added surface area. And if you like a steep skin track like I do, these allow it. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, not a switchback pattern!!!
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:32 am Posts: 109 Location: Pyrenees
Bcrider, I agree with you on the Salomon Premiere. The guy who developed it is a splitboarder, and I think it could work for certain days. I feel like it will work better in Europe than in the US. I guess we're more used to narrow skintracks and steep traversing following skimo people... the idea that the skis are stiff and the middle part softer is a good idea that should help skinning up. As I said, I was skeptical at first, but after playing with it, I don't see it that bad. But, first I need to try how it performs in every kind of snow.
and one little thing regarding the new system, the system is made by Plum, french brand of skimo bindings dynafit-like. They have developed the system themselves, which is the one in the video. Then APO, french brand aswell from Mr. Regis Rolland (we met at ISPO; super cool guy!), have done some kind of collaborationg using the base of the Plum system but the highback and straps from APO, making the binding a back entry binding. The APO one feels way heavier than the Plum one. The developer mentioned that all the parts will be tighter, those were just a prototype.
And what you mentioned about if we need another system? well, in my opinion, the more choices we have, the better. Ranger is also out there trying to get their portion of the market. And it's not so easy to get karakoram in Europe, neither Spark, so maybe a European brand like Plum will make things easier for us.
_________________ Victor Perise Splitboard magazine
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am Posts: 1538 Location: Colorado
Rughty: I fully understood what you meant by a flush mount binding. As I mentioned, that is how Phantom works (with the standard split board inserts), and it looks to me like Plum is doing the same: where the interface mech is all in the middle of the binding, and not underneath the binding's baseplate. My point being that I do not think the standard splitboard insert pattern makes it impossible to produce a flush mount system, one just needs needs to apply some good engineering, and by using the standard pattern, the interface is stiffer and more responsive, due to the wider stance of the inserts.