Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:43 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:10 pm
Posts: 1411
Location: UT
With all due respect to sales figures, average rider needs. etc... I can't help but notice the longer this conversation goes the further you retreat from your original query; Specifically
Amplid wrote:
The LAB is Amplid's experimental division, I guess a Skunkworks of sorts. Here we focus on experimental shapes, materials and construction. http://www.amplid.com/lab
Amplid wrote:
The crazier the better!

_________________
Experts tell me I'm not a serious rider; riding boards that are too long with the incorrect boot and binding setup and I'm not having fun...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 358
Pretty much agree with Snurfer above, anything new and different will be a niche within niche product, so why try. Snowboards are still pretty much the same resort snow design, designed to be versatile, avoid bad experiences on hard snow from resort riders and new tourers, avoid bad reviews and make back on initial investment.

That said, how about a 3 foot section of edge in the middle of the outside edges that can be adjusted downwards so you can file off a few millimeters and start with a fresh edge after a few seasons? or a section that screws into the sidewall, locks into place with a manufactured groove in the sidewall, and that can be replaced. Seems like a lot of base-repairable boards bite the dust because of an edge being ground off on rock or compressed. I say just a section of edge because most of the heavy edge damage usually occurs heelside under or near your feet and not so much at the tip and tail where the board flexes away from stone. It could be a long square section of edge and ptex and core maybe 1 cm. wide that would lock in and could be replaced after trauma.

Also you could really get crazy and make a 159, a 159.5, a 160, a 160.5 etc. for the (majority?) of folks who fear length increases in their (powder?) boards. Obviously all you need is to shave the tips and tails and change the number stamped on the sidewall :lol:

Don't use woven E-glass. ssshhhh! don't tell everyone their boards are made with the cheapest, heaviest, least strong version of fiberglass. Market H or S-2 glass so the consumer can know the difference. And then of course just make them with the same cheap E-glass.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:20 pm
Posts: 312
Retreat! :lol: Snurfer has it. Just another high dollar carbon board. < My words not Snurfer's. I actually think alot of rider's would like to see some new shapes. Perhaps inovative shapes would sell?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 500
Location: Salida, Flagstaff
Amplid wrote:
To a certain extent, a commercially viable board is one that gives the most testers a smile after a day riding. So sometimes the more drastic and niche concepts have to remain ideas and prototypes, because selling 30 boards a year won't even cover the mould and prototyping costs. That said, Amplid is a smaller brand and we like to take a risk so it's good to hear that there's a hunger in the market for pushing the envelope!


It bears mentioning that Furburg, without a traditional market segment to fall back on, took the risk of introducing (what is relative to resort boards) a drastic and niche concept and appears to be winning big. I don't say so to criticize Amplid (again, I applaud you being here asking questions), but that risk taking contrasts with the general reluctance of the industry to experiment with off-piste-specific board designs. Furburg's success shows that the off-piste market is large and ready enough to support major innovation.

The bottom line is that better off-piste boards will require somebody taking risks. Right now that somebody is the smaller, boutique, rider-driven splitboard companies. And while there's still a long ways to go, their design innovations are as much investments in splitboarding as they are business risks. These are real people assuming real risk for a greater good that, if all goes well, should serve their business interests too. Many on this forum get that, and are thus fiercely loyal.

This forum is brimming with years worth of ideas, discussion and suggestions for advancing off-piste snowboard design. An engineer or shaper need look no further than the Furburg or Firstlight or "Why Doesn't Somebody Build A Board Like This" threads (or now this one) for a solid jumping off point.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:05 am
Posts: 72
Location: Oslo, Norway
whistlermaverick wrote:
Optional/custom insert pattern.


+1

Quiver killer seem to have proven that tnut inserts are overkill anyway.

My new board came with 38 inserts. I wish I could get it with none and then have qk only where I need them.

_________________
Venture Odin 164
Furberg 167
Phantom Alpha's


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:21 am
Posts: 21
Snurfer wrote:
With all due respect to sales figures, average rider needs. etc... I can't help but notice the longer this conversation goes the further you retreat from your original query; Specifically
Amplid wrote:
The LAB is Amplid's experimental division, I guess a Skunkworks of sorts. Here we focus on experimental shapes, materials and construction. http://www.amplid.com/lab
Amplid wrote:
The crazier the better!


Damn do you guys always give brands that come cap in hand for your opinions such a hard time :wink:

So far this what I'm feeling from the many valued inputs (thanks to everybody that's contributed so far):

* A directional, but not overly directional shape
* A shape with plenty of reverse sidecut that puts surface area in the right place
* Length is not so important if a surface area measurement is available for comparison with other boards
* The ideal sidecut is between 11m and 13m
* Weight is important but durability is primary
* The topsheet should repel water and snow to reduce touring weight
* Slider tracks offer more stance options
* The start and end of the effective edge should be raised very slightly

How's it looking so far?

_________________
Amplid::: Next Level Splitboards
http://www.amplid.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 500
Location: Salida, Flagstaff
This is looking good. Two more things. First give us a larger size option - something in the neighborhood of 180 cm. Length (for some people) and surface area are important. The former for taller riders whose higher center of gravity exerts more per-pound leverage onto the board, and for accommodating fore and aft weight throws. Second, on that larger sized board, give us a slightly wider stance for the taller riders who will ride it. I like what you are doing here.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:10 pm
Posts: 1411
Location: UT
Taylor wrote:
This is looking good. Two more things. First give us a larger size option - something in the neighborhood of 180 cm. Length (for some people) and surface area are important. The former for taller riders whose higher center of gravity exerts more per-pound leverage onto the board, and for accommodating fore and aft weight throws. Second, on that larger sized board, give us a slightly wider stance for the taller riders who will ride it. I like what you are doing here.
This ^^^ and overall a great summary of the suggestions
Cheers! :guinness:

_________________
Experts tell me I'm not a serious rider; riding boards that are too long with the incorrect boot and binding setup and I'm not having fun...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 358
I disagree on the drastically tapered tail and tip:
I do get the concept of having a tapered sidecut or sections of reverse sidecut on the tip and tail increasing surface area towards the middle of the board and reducing surface area at the tip and tail. However, I think this is a ski design, not a board design. Compared to the tip of a board, ski tips are just harder to control with one foot in the middle of a ski. Rotating your lower leg to control a ski, even in a plastic cast is just not ergonomically strong. The amount of power that you have to rotate your foot and tell the tip and tail of a ski what it should do is a fraction of the power that you have over the tip and tail of a snowboard with both feet attached about 2 ft. apart. I think this is the physics that makes a tapered tip less hooky and grabby in a ski in soft snow particularly resort cut-up powder piles. Think about how skiers are on super wide 175-185cm skis often without tails, and they are steering them with one foot. Board sizes are commonly a lot shorter than this and have a real strong two foot stance. Could a skier ever rock up in their nose or tails and butter their way down a groomer the way a snowboarder can? No. The tip and tail of any ski are also super thin and really soft because they are harder to control, I think snowboards also incorrectly follow the flex pattern of skis in this area.

I think if you want a pivoty, loose and super-floaty board, just add 2-3 cm width overall, and drop length, (or go full reverse sidecut). But with a shorter length, you are cutting surface area away in the tip and tail, and not really fixing a problem for a snowboard (lack of control over tip and tail), and losing the stabilizing effect of edge contact when you regrettably are faced with harder steep snow. Think about how the little nug boards from burton have a long effective edge for their length, so they aren't really squirrely on packed snow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:09 pm
Posts: 682
Location: white room
I do like that you are trying to get some input here, curious to see what comes of it. You haven't mentioned what you're thinking for rocker/camber, but my thoughts from earlier still stand - flat or very slight rocker between the bindings, camber towards tip and tail.
I'm also not buying BG's (or TB's) taper and sidecut argument. Though technically much of it may be accurate, I think it loses a lot of validity on snow. For starters, 2mm of taper on each side of the board is not going to make a drastic difference in the board finishing a turn facing downhill or sideways, especially in soft snow where the tail kicks out at the transition of a turn. Same with turn radius, the soft snow will allow you to "carve" any size turn you want with whatever radius you have. I think TB's logic applies more to riding firm snow, but I can guarantee that my board with 9m sidecut will carve a clean arc larger than 9m even on a ski area groomer. and while an 11m sidecut can make tighter turns, that same turn will be easier with a smaller sidecut.
You've seen me ride plenty, Brooks, does it look like I struggle to lay out big, clean turns on my board? And as much as I admire TB's riding, he doesn't ride switch. Taper may work well for someone riding strictly one direction, but it's a detriment to those of us who ride switch. I don't like to compare my riding to anyone's, but my style would definitely be closer to Travis Rice than Tom Burt. Burt is more fall line, fluid, straight ahead. Rice is more charging from feature to feature, playing with the terrain, but still full throttle. Not saying one's better than the other, but I don't think it can be argued that the boards Rice rides and helps design (Banana Hammock not withstanding) are more versatile, and for someone like myself who wants one board to ride all the time, versatility is key.

_________________
Ridin' Dirty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:16 pm
Posts: 346
Scooby2 wrote:
I disagree on the drastically tapered tail and tip:

I think if you want a pivoty, loose and super-floaty board, just add 2-3 cm width overall, and drop length, (or go full reverse sidecut). But with a shorter length, you are cutting surface area away in the tip and tail, and not really fixing a problem for a snowboard (lack of control over tip and tail), and losing the stabilizing effect of edge contact when you regrettably are faced with harder steep snow. Think about how the little nug boards from burton have a long effective edge for their length, so they aren't really squirrely on packed snow.


I agree completely with your assessment but disagree with your conclusion. For me, at least, the point of reverse side cut on tip and tail is to make things less "hooky" and perhaps to change the float profile. If you're on very steep terrain (jump turn territory) float is no longer an issue. Speed control is, but not stability (that will happen later on the run out). Your primary concern is making all your jump turns without hooking an edge and falling (perhaps to your death). Increasing your width won't help with that. You need to had the tips narrower than the effective edge. On that topic I've never understood why noses and tails are so short in height and rise so slowly. Years ago I had an Avalanche Ice Rocket. The rise on the tip and tail was abrupt to say the least. I found no downside and multiple upsides (lower swing weight, harder to submarine, more effective edge/overall length, etc). I don't think that would be a good idea with a reverse side-cut board but for a traditional shape I don't see why no one is doing it.
On the float profile. By tapering the tail (or the tip if your riding switch) you cause it to sink and therefore the nose to rise. This lets you get on step and "plane" easier and when you can't get enough speed to plane it still helps keep the tip out of the snow. :twocents:
You will lose stability at speed but in this business everything is a trade off. "Puerto Rican, two good legs, life's give and take"-Mr. Potts, Pyromaniacs a Love Story

Amplid- Don't think the guys are being too hard on ya. If you want to see how this community feels about split board companies check out this thread http://splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=15864.
One item of concern I saw in your summary. It seemed like you were trying to roll all the ideas into one "ultimate" board. This is not going to happen. Different riding styles, terrain, conditions, and personal preference, will make certain shapes and technologies mutually exclusive. For me I've got no use for a powder specific board (I can ride anything in powder). I've got no use for a board that performs on groomer (I can ride anything on groomers). I want something that shines in mank and crud. That board would probably not make barrows happy.
"You can't please all the people all the time, and last night all those people where at my show"-Mitch Headberg

I do think that for traditional shapes a steeper rise on tip and tail give benefits without detriments.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:29 pm
Posts: 297
Location: Tacoma,WA
I'm surprised multiple contact points (like magne-traction) haven't been brought up.


I've got a venture and love it, the one complaint I have compared to my solid is the lack of magne-traction. I've got T.Rice and Rossi experience solids both with magne-traction, and riding without the multiple contact points on steep icy shit isn't the same without it. I don't feel as confident, and definitely don't have the same grip or edge control as with multiple contact points

_________________
Saign
------
www.saignc.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Amplid LAB - We want to hear your Splitboard ideas!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:05 am
Posts: 1499
Location: 395
fustercluck wrote:
I do like that you are trying to get some input here, curious to see what comes of it. You haven't mentioned what you're thinking for rocker/camber, but my thoughts from earlier still stand - flat or very slight rocker between the bindings, camber towards tip and tail.
I'm also not buying BG's (or TB's) taper and sidecut argument. Though technically much of it may be accurate, I think it loses a lot of validity on snow. For starters, 2mm of taper on each side of the board is not going to make a drastic difference in the board finishing a turn facing downhill or sideways, especially in soft snow where the tail kicks out at the transition of a turn. Same with turn radius, the soft snow will allow you to "carve" any size turn you want with whatever radius you have. I think TB's logic applies more to riding firm snow, but I can guarantee that my board with 9m sidecut will carve a clean arc larger than 9m even on a ski area groomer. and while an 11m sidecut can make tighter turns, that same turn will be easier with a smaller sidecut.
You've seen me ride plenty, Brooks, does it look like I struggle to lay out big, clean turns on my board? And as much as I admire TB's riding, he doesn't ride switch. Taper may work well for someone riding strictly one direction, but it's a detriment to those of us who ride switch. I don't like to compare my riding to anyone's, but my style would definitely be closer to Travis Rice than Tom Burt. Burt is more fall line, fluid, straight ahead. Rice is more charging from feature to feature, playing with the terrain, but still full throttle. Not saying one's better than the other, but I don't think it can be argued that the boards Rice rides and helps design (Banana Hammock not withstanding) are more versatile, and for someone like myself who wants one board to ride all the time, versatility is key.


9m is a pretty long sidecut. Unfortunately this is rare on most boards. Most are below 9m. My flagship is a 9m and it's perfect for all around riding. My winterstick was 10.5m and I like that even more for steeps and going fast (however, I like the Jones nose, rocker, weight, and magne traction better). I ride tons of groomers on my 161 flagship and I find the 9m is just barely adequate for turn size when I'm riding a true edge at speed. It's definitely adequate, but a little longer would be better for riding a true edge on groomers...at least for myself. For whatever reason the flagship is the best board I've ever ridden. I think if J.J. added 1 more meter of sidecut and 4mm of taper it'd be the absolutely perfect all around board for someone who doesn't need switch in the backcountry. (maybe .2-.4mm wider too). On the other end, the reason why furburgs suck on groomers is they have a WAY too little sidecut (16m lol). It's a pure powder slarver. But a splitboard never sees groomers so that's why I think a 10-13m radius would be best as you're going to be slarving on everything and not carving. disclaimer: this is MY dream all around mountain charger.

And yes, for your riding style you don't want taper and you make the longest turns I've seen!!! LOL. However, T. Rice can look amazing on anything, and when I see him on steep spines it's not hard to see where his board design holds him back when he's just making steep pow turns. He's just too good to notice most the time and he needs the twin design to do 30ft 540's on 50 degree slopes lol.

AND YES, MAGNE TRACTION IS THE SHIZZZ!!! I hate riding without it. That's probably why I'm happy with my solution vs another board with better specs and no magne.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NeverSummer 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