Home › Forums › DIY and Mods › 2 hole vs. 4 hole pucks
- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- May 9, 2011 at 1:14 am #574851
stomppowParticipantI see that there are two “versions” of the voile split kit for DIY boards, one with 2-hole rectangular pucks, and one with 4-hole trapezoidal pucks… wouldn’t 4 holes be better? Is one for wood screws and the other for T-nuts or something? Why would they revert from 4 holes to 2?
May 9, 2011 at 3:11 am #640139barrowsParticipantThe old style pucks are the 4 hole versions. these are designed to be mounted with ski screws. The new 2 hole pucks are designed to be used with bolts and t-nuts.
If you can do a good mount, the old style 4 hole pucks and ski screws will result in a more responsive set up (less puck flex). The new two hole pucks, mounted with t-nuts, will be more bombproof in terms of pull out.May 9, 2011 at 5:48 pm #640140stomppowParticipantHmm that’s what I suspected, thanks barrows.
I would assume that 4 hole T-nut would be the way to go, I guess I could modify the holes in the 4-hole pucks. It seems sketchy to me to only have 2 holes in the pucks, when they are being flexed forward and back a bit while riding, and being pushed on and pulled on repeatedly when transforming. I also definitely wouldn’t rely on ski screws.
Has nobody ever had a problem with the standard 2-hole pucks for factory splits?
May 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm #640141PedroDelfuegoParticipantI think the 2 hole pucks are a BIG improvement. :twocents:
I don’t get and perceptible flex in them. They are stronger and simpler. I was using t-nuts for my pucks before and will always use t-nuts for binding pucks. Many Splitters have ripped pucks out with the ski binding screws. Properly installed t-nuts aren’t going anywhere, even under big-air/big-crash scenarios.
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” – Leonardo da Vinci
May 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm #640142barrowsParticipantI do have some problems with the Universal Pucks (2 hole) used on factory splits. I find that these pucks tend to flex a bit more than I would like (especially when my stance usually requires the bolts to be at the ends of the slots) and the pucks tend to shift and need re-adjusting occasionally. Of course the DIY pucks will not shift, as there are no slots.
On the factory splits with Universal Pucks, I do a mod where I run a single ski screw through the Puck and into the board (once I am certain my stance is perfect). This mod makes the pucks much stiffer, and stops them from shifting entirely.
If you are going to use T-nuts, I would go with the two hole DIY pucks (I would not want all those additional holes all the way through the board)-there is no way you could rip it out with a t-nut mount. If you find you need more stiffness, just run a single ski screw through the puck into the board in a triangular relationship to the two bolts. Anytime you use ski screws, make sure to use good epoxy, and never over tighten the screw (this weakens the grab) just bring the screw up snug, and then give it additional 1/8 turn. When the epoxy cures in core, you will have a very strong mount.May 11, 2011 at 4:37 am #640143maniacdaveParticipantAnother option of course (because they’re aren’t enough in the DIY world…) is to get some delrin or similar material and machine it in to custom pucks and utilize the factory inserts and perhaps a single wood screw or t-nut farther out. I know a number of other projects on here have gone that route and I think that’ll be the plan for my next split (172 Swallowtail anyone? 😉 ). Reduces the amount of core material you end up removing and recycles hardware already in the board. While I’m unconvinced that an unmolested base makes a whole heck of a lot difference in the type of riding I do, an unmolested base is a lot less maintenance intensive as well.
That was Pontus
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.