Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:00 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:44 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Cupertino, CA
Just thinking about stances again and it got me thinking about the Voile pattern and how to make improvements. What about the Burton ICS on a split?

As many people might now, the Burton ICS partially came about because their patent on the 3D system is running out (I believe its January, 2012) . Although hardly revolutionary (I think the first was Forum with Peter Line), it did allow for another proprietary system which presumably they like for locking people into binding sales or at least being able to license compatible bindings out. Regardless, it does have some pretty nice benefits in weight reduction, infinite stance width adjustments and lateral adjustments as well. My wife’s malolo with ICS is easily a full pound, maybe more over her other board with a 3D system

Could an ICS/EST-type system work for splits? Is it patented? It might not be because of Forum.

It would seem like the benefits might be applicable there. I figure you’d dump a lot of weight from having only "floating" 8 inserts instead of 20-24. You would have 4 ICS-type “tracks” instead of 2 because you need to account for the touring bracket/lifters. I have no idea how much each “track” weighs, but it’s got to be more than offset by the amount of core material routed out of the core. 16 inserts saved at (guessing) 0.5 oz apiece savings is a half a pound reduction alone.

Any thoughts??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:51 am
Posts: 704
Location: Surfing or Splitboarding Downunder
tiltedworld
I have tried to source this for DIY conversions but couldn't find any info on the ICS design.
I found some Aluminium channel but i'm not sure that routing a hole in the deck and laminating the channel in from the top is the best way to go?
I had this idea to try and stop the holes in the base, but haven't found a solution that is as bomb proof as just putting inserts in.
Any ideas welcome

_________________
Adam West
Board Designer
FirstLight
+61 (0)413 888 115
http://www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au http://www.splitfest.com.au http://www.splitfests.com http://www.mrbc.com http://www.backcountryglobal.com
Sydney - Nowra - Jindabyne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:27 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Denver
I find the ICS design to be piss poor. Demo'd a few boards where I thought I was going to rip the channel out. Not too mention if you are a larger rider or ride a good number of days. The connection points to the bindings get grooved and the binding constantly shifts. I've seen a ton of people having to bring their bindings back in because of this.

You can argue over the channel stability. It didn't rip out, so maybe that is just how it is. The binding durability on the other hand is a problem.

As far as for a split. It would have to be some sort of dual channel system. So maybe a compatible binding would have more connection points, eliminating the grooving problem on the single ICS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 78
So, are you talking about using Voile pucks on tracks? I would imagine that the additional labor involved in manufacturing a split with tracks would be push the price over the top. If you were to make one yourself, it would certainly be a labor of love/PITA. There's got to be some sort of reinforcement for the track that they embed, isn't there? How would you do that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:03 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Southern VT
Burton owns Forum, so they don't need to do any licensing moving tech back and forth between them. Burton has changed up the channel from its first iteration, and it seems to have gotten a bit more durable; I work with folks that ride channel set-ups hard 100+ days a season, and the hold up. That being said, the margin for error is substantially bigger inbounds. Also, a big part of the pro-ICS argument is eliminating the dead spots in board flex under the bindings, and you're not going to get that with a split channel set up.

-Daniel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:44 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Cupertino, CA
Killclimbz wrote:
As far as for a split. It would have to be some sort of dual channel system. So maybe a compatible binding would have more connection points, eliminating the grooving problem on the single ICS.


It would acutally have to be a four channel design, because you couldn't run the full length of the "ski" because of the potential interference with the touring brackets and the lifters.

Archie Mc Phee wrote:
So, are you talking about using Voile pucks on tracks? I would imagine that the additional labor involved in manufacturing a split with tracks would be push the price over the top. If you were to make one yourself, it would certainly be a labor of love/PITA. There's got to be some sort of reinforcement for the track that they embed, isn't there? How would you do that?


If the same width were used between the insert patterns, I wouldn't see why the current Voile pucks or Karakoran ride mode bracket couldn't be used, you would gain all the stance width benefits. I'm not suggesting that I am making one myself, just wondering why it couldn't be done, given the proper design. Certainly Burton has the manufacturing know-how, as its on every one of their new boards except for the grom boards. Certainly they could license it out to other manufacturers of there was interest.

dgg wrote:
Burton owns Forum, so they don't need to do any licensing moving tech back and forth between them. Burton has changed up the channel from its first iteration, and it seems to have gotten a bit more durable; I work with folks that ride channel set-ups hard 100+ days a season, and the hold up. That being said, the margin for error is substantially bigger inbounds. Also, a big part of the pro-ICS argument is eliminating the dead spots in board flex under the bindings, and you're not going to get that with a split channel set up.


Huh, I didn't know Burton owns Forum, I missed that completely!! I think I read somewhere that the ICS changed again and they widened the channel a little to allow burlier hardware. I can't find the information now, but perhaps that addresses what Killclimbs was saying about the strength of the system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 1522
Location: Colorado
I would not be in favor of an ICS style set up for splits-too many negatives, plus the channel would fill with ice, and encourage the entire board to ice up.
I am considering going with old style DIY (Voile) pucks, mounted with ski screws, to be able to get the exact stance I want, plus avoid the movement of the pucks which always happens with the Voile universal pucks. I know some have problems with pull out, but with a good wood core, and a well crafted mount (correct drill size, do not over torque the screws, and use good epoxy) I am pretty confident that ski screws will hold.
The other option is custom pucks-with custom pucks one could drill holes in the pucks and be able to achieve just about any stance in conjunction with the standard Voile pattern inserts. This approach would also avoid the problem of puck shift with the universal pucks.

_________________
Never Summer Prospector 167X, furberg 173 DIY, Dynafit TLT5/6 Mountain , Phantom Bindings, BD Glidelite Skins
Quiver Killer inserts

http://protectourwinters.org/
http://14ersnowboardproject.homestead.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:57 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Santa Barbara, CA/Ashland, OR
yeah, as others have mentioned it wouldn't work because of the board seem in the middle. You'd have to have an ICS track that separated in the middle and engineer virtually ZERO tolerance into it to be sure the track would hold up. It still would fail in time because virtually all splitty's get a gap in the middle of the board in time.

I have a custom x with ICS with about 150 days of hard riding on it. I don't think you could rip the track out, but I have had the bindings loosen up and adjust on me...but then again..that's partly user error because I don't do many safety checks/screw checks on my in bounds board, and all screws loosen up in time if left unchecked.

FWIW I'm neutral on the ICS system..it's kinda gimmicky, but the infinite adjustability is pretty sweet.

_________________
"Winter is not a season, it's an occupation."
-Sinclair Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:57 pm
Posts: 4958
Location: California
jbaysurfer wrote:
yeah, as others have mentioned it wouldn't work because of the board seem in the middle.


You're missing it....the channel wouldnt go down the center like on a solid ICS board....it would go in the exact same spot as the current inserts on splitboards. There would be two channels on each split ski in the same location as the inserts but instead of having 12-18 inserts per ski and having to move the pucks out of the inserts to adjust your stance width, you would just have 2 channels and a much easier process for adjustments.

I submitted this idea to Burton and Voile about 5 years ago to no avail and I still think its a decent idea. I also submitted it to Rome at the time as well since the owner is an avid splitter. He sent me the channel itself that goes into the board. At the time my pipe dream was to make my own brand with split specific bindings and splitboards with this tech. We all know neither happened for me. LOL

I always disliked the fact that our boards have so many unused inserts and the added weight that comes with it. Adjusting your stance is a bit of pain too with inserts which is why I like this idea.

Viva la ICS splitter! :thatrocks:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:57 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Santa Barbara, CA/Ashland, OR
bcrider wrote:
jbaysurfer wrote:
yeah, as others have mentioned it wouldn't work because of the board seem in the middle.


You're missing it....the channel wouldnt go down the center like on a solid ICS board....it would go in the exact same spot as the current inserts on splitboards. There would be two channels on each split ski in the same location as the inserts but instead of having 12-18 inserts per ski and having to move the pucks out of the inserts to adjust your stance width, you would just have 2 channels and a much easier process for adjustments.

I submitted this idea to Burton and Voile about 5 years ago to no avail and I still think its a decent idea. I also submitted it to Rome at the time as well since the owner is an avid splitter. He sent me the channel itself that goes into the board. At the time my pipe dream was to make my own brand with split specific bindings and splitboards with this tech. We all know neither happened for me. LOL

I always disliked the fact that our boards have so many unused inserts and the added weight that comes with it. Adjusting your stance is a bit of pain too with inserts which is why I like this idea.

Viva la ICS splitter! :thatrocks:



Aha! I gotcha. Yeah it does sound like a good idea when you put it that way.

Barrows..FWIW I haven't ever experienced icing of the channel to be an issue with my solid board..so I don't see it as any more of an issue then it already is with all the rest of the hardware on a splitty that collects snow/ice etc...

_________________
"Winter is not a season, it's an occupation."
-Sinclair Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 1522
Location: Colorado
After further thought, I am forced to re-evaluate my point of view regarding the potential of an ICS type system for splitboards. I am quite particular about my stance, in terms of width, setback, and angles, and I have always found that the lack of full flexibility of stance options with the splitboard was a problem.
Recently I have concluded that mounting old style Voile DIY pucks with ski screws may be the answer for me (I already mount both my Dynafit toe pieces and heel lifters this way, making the inserts for these obsolete) as this allows both complete freedom in stance width, setback, and angles, and solves the frustrating problem of puck shift and puck flex. I will probably order my next splitboard with no inserts, saving weight, and mount it up completely using ski screws-as I am confident that a properly crafted mount with ski screws will be reliable for me.
Adoption of an ICS type system and a redesigned puck system could allow for complete stance freedom, and if properly engineered could be a big advantage for splitters who are very particular about their set up.

_________________
Never Summer Prospector 167X, furberg 173 DIY, Dynafit TLT5/6 Mountain , Phantom Bindings, BD Glidelite Skins
Quiver Killer inserts

http://protectourwinters.org/
http://14ersnowboardproject.homestead.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ICS stance pattern for splits?
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 pm
Posts: 35
Location: Bozeman
one of the reasons Burton bought Four Square was for the slider system. Forum had the patent on the dual slider, the ICS is not patented. after loosing out on the early binding pattern war (ie vhs vs beta) Burton is trying to instil a new universal system and get a jump on the bindings (they have a patent on the stance dial a meter) I've had some initial ideas how to make a binding interface with a split channel, but would require more working components than i would want to pursue said design (to many working parts have problems with snow pack IE K2 clicker)

_________________
Paulie


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 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