Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:11 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Slick boards
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:07 pm
Posts: 62
This might been up for discussion before?
Why don't the splitboard companies start making slick boards without any inserts.
The skiing industry has it right there, just ship two skiis for assembly.
Maybe then the splitboard setups would be more interesting to see with new interfaces than the traditional patterns.

I think it is possible to use quiverkiller inserts instead of drilling through and using t-nuts. Like John does at:http://www.johncarolin.com/2011/05/malolo-ics-splitboard-waterjet-cut-steel-inside-edges-puderluderquiverkiller-inserts-alternative-hardware/

I myself would think that not many wants to DIY boards but it seems like the binding systems still has a long way to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:16 pm
Posts: 346
funny,
my ski buddies always bitch about ski companies not figuring out a standardized mounting system like snowboarding has (Burton not withstanding)

_________________
It is diffucult to assess ones own fuckedupness
Jones Solution 164, Fuse baseplates w/BM Bisquits, Salomon Malamutes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:07 pm
Posts: 62
peacefrog wrote:
funny,
my ski buddies always bitch about ski companies not figuring out a standardized mounting system like snowboarding has (Burton not withstanding)


True for regular boards, I guess you just get annoyed when splitting a burton. Still is a lot of holes on a factory made split and does not seem like the end game. burton channel yet another example


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:16 pm
Posts: 346
I think you're right about ICS (BCrider has alot to say about this) but I don't have any issues with splitboard inserts. For me any extra weight they may cause I think it's worth it for the versatility they provide

_________________
It is diffucult to assess ones own fuckedupness
Jones Solution 164, Fuse baseplates w/BM Bisquits, Salomon Malamutes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
If you can get ahold of one of the first generation Lib Tech "Voila" T Rice splits, they had zero inserts in them. I believe that was their way of getting around paying the Voile license fee (hence the play on words in the name). They even called it a "mono skis snowboard" instead of a splitboard. Those guys are so clever. :) The first time I saw one in the shop I thought someone in production had just screwed up and forgot to put in the inserts.

I think there are no factory splits w/o inserts for the same reason there are no factory solids w/o inserts - 99% of people don't want to deal with putting in their own inserts. Of that remaining 1%, most of those people are probably the ones who would be splitting their own solid board anyway, not buying a factory one.

There are lots of inserts in a factory split to allow for a wide range of stances. That said, I bet most people never change their stance once they have it set up. I know I don't... maybe I would if it were easy like with the new Burton channel system, but with the regular Voile system it's a pain in the ass. Plus I just don't find I need or want to change my stance for conditions as much with the versatility of most modern splits. So yeah it's annoying to have to carry around the weight of all those extra inserts that I'll never need. But in reality I wonder how much extra weight that actually is?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:07 pm
Posts: 62
Really interesting information. I did not know Voile had the pattern patented but it makes sense. Lib tech is great on making plays on stuff. I loved when they had the B (even though I am a Burton fan) in that's it that's all that on the hood of the car that they drop the tree on.

I myself do not re-adjust my bindings when I had a factory split or my own DIY split because of the pucks. When looking at the new Tesla bindings from Spark they have the raisers in the binding, which I think makes more sense, and then those two holes is obsolete. One would need to drill new ones.

it is not the weight more the limitations they create in the early phases of the evolution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:35 pm
Posts: 312
Location: Ithaca, NY
A stainless insert is about 4g so it's about 100g total. I am not very weight conscious and I, like jimw, never change my stance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Slick boards
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:18 am
Posts: 299
Snowboard cores are thinner, ski screws rip out. Quiver killers rip out. Snowboard industry standard inserts pattern would have saved consumers millions over the years.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: the_dragon_no1 and 8 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