Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:42 am
Posts: 34
Location: Bozeman
Who has a setback on their solution and by how far? I was very disappointed with the performance of my new board this weekend in deep snow with the bindings centered on the insets. I was under the impression the inserts were setback and centering on the inserts would be a good place to start. I ended up riding completely in the back set to keep from diving and smashing rocks in our still developing snow pack. Knee deep should be more fun on a pow board, no?

I'm hoping some changes to the setback will improve the situation and the board isn't a deep snow dud.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 671
Location: Kodiak, AK
I had the exact same experience my first day out on my Solution, albeit on spring corn.

Now I'm pretty much all the way back on the rear foot, and in the second to last holes on the front foot. I don't find this to be that unusual a stance on my various splits. However, I never ran my bindings seemingly quite so far back on solids, so I'm not sure what is going on. Most splitboards offer ridiculously far forward stance options. I mean really, is anyone on the planet using the front two inserts??

If you want a pow board, something with an early-rise/rockered nose and significant taper may be a better choice. I have never thought of my Solution as a pow stick.

_________________
Jones Solution 163W
Venture Zephyr 164/260
Never Summer SL 163X
Burton Spliff 148
Voile Mojo RX 166
BD, G3, and Gecko skins
Sparks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Hemsedal / Norway
I have the exact same board and tried it on hardpack a few laps. It's a little bit strange to have the extra width when it comes to edge to edge, but now I'm getting to know it and it feels more on the spot. I still havent' found my perfect binding setup, I'd like to have the back binding more than 5 degrees positive, but the Karakorams doesn't seem to offer that. I find it strange that a splitboardbinding are offering that much duck and so little forward. Have I done anything wrong when I mounted it?

PS: We had 15-20 cm of fluffy fresh snow on saturday (cold, -20c) and today we got bluebird and went for a hike just outside Hemsedal/Norway.

Here's what that turned out to be...

https://vimeo.com/55287120

(PS: How do I embed vimeo code to have the player in the forum?)

_________________
Jones Solution carbon 163W - G3 skins & Karakorams
Lib-Tech T.Rice 161,5
Burton Nofish 155____________Lib-Tech snowskate 43" (w/50" POW ski)
Burton Canyon 168
Norske Opplevelser AS
VIMEO/Tallak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 671
Location: Kodiak, AK
Sorry for the threadjack, but on the K-ram rear binding rotation question: you need to ask the K Bros for a second front binding plate. If both of your binding plates are the same then you can rotate them into a more forward stance. They ship with a 'front' and 'rear' which limits the rear foot's forward rotation. If you had two 'front' foot plates you would be set.

_________________
Jones Solution 163W
Venture Zephyr 164/260
Never Summer SL 163X
Burton Spliff 148
Voile Mojo RX 166
BD, G3, and Gecko skins
Sparks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:38 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Fairhaven
The guys at Karakoram have said that they are willing to get ride modes plates out to people that want to have more forward angle on their back foot. Send them and email and see what they say. As far as I know, for the kit to not be specific to regular or goofy footers they would have to give up some forward angle on the front foot to open up more room on the rear foot. For what it's worth, I'm on K'rams at 27f/-6r.

It's funny that this comes up about the Solution because a friend of mine had his out in several feet of pow for the first time over the weekend and said that it was diving on him. The way he described it I thought it was a set up problem.

_________________
I only ski uphill, mostly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:43 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Fernie, BC
Everyone has different experiences with boards, but for what it's worth I had my solution out for it's final ride before moving on to my Odin today, and it floated like a dream in fernie's blower.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Setback on Jones solution 163
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:42 am
Posts: 34
Location: Bozeman
dangraham wrote:
Everyone has different experiences with boards, but for what it's worth I had my solution out for it's final ride before moving on to my Odin today, and it floated like a dream in fernie's blower.


How is your setup in terms of stance?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EngineNr9 and 4 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