Forums Bindings No pucks, locking splitboard plate binding
Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 53 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #651619
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @treepilot wrote:

    @splitchef wrote:

    @buell wrote:

    @wasatch surf wrote:

    @Snurfer wrote:

    @christoph benells wrote:

    @whistlermaverick wrote:

    because they would sell only three models… you, barrows and vapor!

    haha just kidding folks.

    I
    BCRider joked about this recently and it got me thinking… :scratch: How many HB’ers are on the forum? A partial list…

    Buell
    Barrows
    Firstlight
    SogNar
    Vapor
    Powder_Rider
    hyzerbomber
    mcduff
    norriega
    ale_capone
    keffler
    ibisbiking
    karkis
    Wasatch_Don
    shasta
    aliasptr
    Pow-D-Rider
    b0ardski
    treepilot
    Wasatch Surf
    UTAH
    Snurfer

    StaggerLee
    mej
    singlewhitecaveman

    p06781
    snowman1
    Locster
    Unruly Baker?
    my wife (who does not post here)

    Splitchef reprezenting in the San Juan’s!

    MangyMoose + his wife
    a regular partner who doesn’t post here

    and after a demo for Matt a.d., I think him and mrash will be jumping ship too.

    definitely time for a custom hard boot plate. Ditch the pucks, or use bails wide enough to go on the outside of the pucks, rather than on top.

    Plus:

    Schralptowner
    braal

    Note: anyone who is interested in a new school, plate binding interface set up, please send some encouragement to Will at Spark R n D. A plate binding version of the new Edison interface could be developed without too much additional work.

    #651620
    treepilot
    352 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    Note: anyone who is interested in a new school, plate binding interface set up, please send some encouragement to Will at Spark R n D. A plate binding version of the new Edison interface could be developed without too much additional work.

    I’ve been encouraging him to do a collab with Fin at Bomber for quite some time…

    #651621
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    barrows / treepilot
    I have asked Will before about this, would help reduce the work for us backyard designers.
    Sparks base plate is 90% on the way to a HB setup for either pucks or Edison systems.
    Ive tried to modify a Fuse plate, 50% of the way there.

    Will
    Lets make this happen :bow:

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #651622
    maniacdave
    564 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    @treepilot wrote:

    @splitchef wrote:

    @buell wrote:

    @wasatch surf wrote:

    @Snurfer wrote:

    @christoph benells wrote:

    @whistlermaverick wrote:

    because they would sell only three models… you, barrows and vapor!

    haha just kidding folks.

    I
    BCRider joked about this recently and it got me thinking… :scratch: How many HB’ers are on the forum? A partial list…

    Buell
    Barrows
    Firstlight
    SogNar
    Vapor
    Powder_Rider
    hyzerbomber
    mcduff
    norriega
    ale_capone
    keffler
    ibisbiking
    karkis
    Wasatch_Don
    shasta
    aliasptr
    Pow-D-Rider
    b0ardski
    treepilot
    Wasatch Surf
    UTAH
    Snurfer

    StaggerLee
    mej
    singlewhitecaveman

    p06781
    snowman1
    Locster
    Unruly Baker?
    my wife (who does not post here)

    Splitchef reprezenting in the San Juan’s!

    MangyMoose + his wife
    a regular partner who doesn’t post here

    and after a demo for Matt a.d., I think him and mrash will be jumping ship too.

    definitely time for a custom hard boot plate. Ditch the pucks, or use bails wide enough to go on the outside of the pucks, rather than on top.

    Plus:

    Schralptowner
    ABP

    Note: anyone who is interested in a new school, plate binding interface set up, please send some encouragement to Will at Spark R n D. A plate binding version of the new Edison interface could be developed without too much additional work.

    Hehe, superquote.

    Mighty Bighorn, Uriedog & Libtechsplit are all fruitbooters & I’m about 99% ready to convert. Damn cash discrepancy.

    That was Pontus

    #651623
    b0ardski
    251 Posts

    :bananas: :bananas: :bananas: :bananas: :bananas:
    fruit booter revolution
    wow I’m starting to feel like less of an anomalie :disco:

    #651624
    Zude
    367 Posts

    Looking forward to see your work vapor. Spark has gotta be at least considering this. I really don’t like the idea of being high off the board but bails right on a clean plate and i just might convert. :thumbsup:

    #651625
    Grahambrew
    4 Posts

    another hardbooter in support of binding research and development.
    also: with Rainier in my backyard, crampon compatibility is a consideration for me.
    stoked to see some garage-fresh pics!

    related topic: splitboard specific hardboots…
    hardboot setups aren’t necessarily any lighter overall, but the weight on your back is less when carrying, because the boots take on more of the structure and weight. i would love to see work on splitboard specific hardboots. harder to build from scratch in the garage, i know, but i keep imagining a boot that weighs as little as a rando race boot, but has optimized stiffness and flex characteristics for a board, as well automatic crampon compatibility… any work in this area i should know about?
    thanks

    #651626
    whistlermaverick
    312 Posts

    hardbooters, talk to ChrisNZ about bails…..

    http://splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12707&start=13

    @j.memay

    #651627
    Powder_Rider
    498 Posts

    Whistlermaverick Said:

    Screw the voile style puck.
    Something that fix’s to the board(Karakoram/Edison style).
    All it needs to do is fit the split hole pattern, after that it’s up to your imagination.
    Then a thin plate that locks on to it. Bails adjustable(??) and integrated in to the plate. Boot sitting as close as possible, if not on the plate.

    If I get an AT boot I don’t want the bottom of it to be 1.5 inches off my board, it’s sole is high enough already.
    I want to be close to my board, I don’t like being high off it.

    First; l say I really like the Voile puck design for it simple durable design (no extra parts to lose or break, such as the over-engineered Atomic Poacher), but the Spark R&D Edison binding interface appears to solve some issue:
    1) Allows to use existing holes in a solid and DIY board binding pattern.


    2) Lower profile height binding to the board.
    3) Does the Edison interface make the board more rigid, cam-lock the binding to the interface?
    4) Wide variety of binding angles???

    Therefore: I would like to see a narrower TI-Vapor style plate binding ( http://splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11248 ), which uses the Bomber bails, Instead of a channel for pucks, just create a U-shape plate binding, so the Bombers bails can be attached and provide some rigidity. This would interface with the Edison interface.

    Because, I use Dynafit toes pieces, I do not need the Edison touring bracket latch and touring bracket, just a simple cam lever or pin to lock in place plate binding into the Edison interface, will do..

    #651628
    b0ardski
    251 Posts

    @Powder_Rider wrote:

    Whistlermaverick Said:

    Screw the voile style puck.
    Something that fix’s to the board(Karakoram/Edison style).
    All it needs to do is fit the split hole pattern, after that it’s up to your imagination.
    Then a thin plate that locks on to it. Bails adjustable(??) and integrated in to the plate. Boot sitting as close as possible, if not on the plate.

    If I get an AT boot I don’t want the bottom of it to be 1.5 inches off my board, it’s sole is high enough already.
    I want to be close to my board, I don’t like being high off it.

    First; l say I really like the Voile puck design for it simple durable design (no extra parts to lose or break, such as the over-engineered Atomic Poacher), but the Spark R&D Edison binding interface appears to solve some issue:
    1) Allows to use existing holes in a solid and DIY board binding pattern.


    2) Lower profile height binding to the board.
    3) Does the Edison interface make the board more rigid, cam-lock the binding to the interface?
    4) Wide variety of binding angles???

    Therefore: I would like to see a narrower TI-Vapor style plate binding ( http://splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11248 ), which uses the Bomber bails, Instead of a channel for pucks, just create a U-shape plate binding, so the Bombers bails can be attached and provide some rigidity. This would interface with the Edison interface.

    Because, I use Dynafit toes pieces, I do not need the Edison touring bracket latch and touring bracket, just a simple cam lever or pin to lock in place plate binding into the Edison interface, will do..

    I was thinking along these lines too

    #651629
    firstlight
    721 Posts

    Food for thought

    The Edison system will be OK for solid boards / Factory splits that you want to use your Sparks on.
    For DIY im not sure :scratch:
    Just remember when cutting the board in two, the distance between the factory inserts will be less, even with a water jet there is missing material from the cut.
    Although I havent seen the mounting plates I would imagine that the holes would have a fixed spacing(that spacing is a std for all 4 hole binding mounts)

    I imagine the plates would move around under the the loads exerted on the board while riding (if there is some micro adjustment) and become floppy :thumbsdown:

    Another thing I have noticed is that sometimes the factory inserts aren’t in the exact centre of the board, meaning if you use them your binding would not be centred.
    You would have more or less toe /heel side error in alignment.

    Not trying to put a downer on this.

    Any other thoughts on this?

    Adam West

    www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au
    www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au
    www.splitfest.com.au
    www.snowsafety.com.au
    www.mrbc.com.au
    www.backcountryglobal.com
    www.alpinefirstaid.com.au

    #651630
    chrisNZ
    304 Posts

    @firstlight wrote:

    Food for thought

    The Edison system will be OK for solid boards / Factory splits that you want to use your Sparks on.
    For DIY im not sure :scratch:
    Just remember when cutting the board in two, the distance between the factory inserts will be less, even with a water jet there is missing material from the cut.
    Although I havent seen the mounting plates I would imagine that the holes would have a fixed spacing(that spacing is a std for all 4 hole binding mounts)

    I imagine the plates would move around under the the loads exerted on the board while riding (if there is some micro adjustment) and become floppy :thumbsdown:

    Another thing I have noticed is that sometimes the factory inserts aren’t in the exact centre of the board, meaning if you use them your binding would not be centred.
    You would have more or less toe /heel side error in alignment.

    Not trying to put a downer on this.

    Any other thoughts on this?

    i thought this too, but if you look close the holes are sloted to fix this problem i guess.

    #651631
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    @firstlight wrote:

    Food for thought

    The Edison system will be OK for solid boards / Factory splits that you want to use your Sparks on.
    For DIY im not sure :scratch:
    Just remember when cutting the board in two, the distance between the factory inserts will be less, even with a water jet there is missing material from the cut.
    Although I havent seen the mounting plates I would imagine that the holes would have a fixed spacing(that spacing is a std for all 4 hole binding mounts)

    I imagine the plates would move around under the the loads exerted on the board while riding (if there is some micro adjustment) and become floppy :thumbsdown:

    Another thing I have noticed is that sometimes the factory inserts aren’t in the exact centre of the board, meaning if you use them your binding would not be centred.
    You would have more or less toe /heel side error in alignment.

    Not trying to put a downer on this.

    Any other thoughts on this?

    Adam: these are valid concerns, but I suspect all will be addressed by Spark. The Edison proto shown at SIA had slots for the screw holes in the baseplate, allowing for adjustability, and compensation for DIY boards and off center holes, etc. I share your concern that these slots might allow for some shifting of the baseplate. Shifting like this can be pretty easily avoided by the use of friction paste (bike shops have this) between the mounting plate and board topsheet, shift like this is much less likely with an aluminum plate (which will have much higher friction to the board topsheet) than a plastic puck. Personally, for a DIY setup, with the design shown, I would get it all set up perfectly, then add a ski screw or two through the outer holes in addition to the machine screws in the inserts. Right now I stop Voile Universal Puck shift by adding a single ski screw, this stiffens the pucks and stops all shifting.

    #651632

    for as much smack as ive talked on hardboots…id be in the market.

    if you cant understand something then its best to be afraid

    #651633
    Jason4
    443 Posts

    I’d be much more interested in hardboots if there was some foot roll built into the binding. I know ankle flex can be addressed with some boot mods but I like the way a soft boot and plastic binding allows for some forgiveness along the length of the board when riding.

    #651634

    @Jason4 wrote:

    I’d be much more interested in hardboots if there was some foot roll built into the binding. I know ankle flex can be addressed with some boot mods but I like the way a soft boot and plastic binding allows for some forgiveness along the length of the board when riding.

    have you seen bomber’s splitboard binding?

    #651635
    Jason4
    443 Posts

    @christoph benells wrote:

    have you seen bomber’s splitboard binding?

    I thought so but maybe not, I’ll look again.

    *edit*
    The sidewinder looks like what it will take to get me to try hardboots, now if I can pick up a set of TLT5s on spring clearance maybe it will happen…

    #651636
    JimmyC
    351 Posts

    Yep, the Bomber Sidewinder design allows for some moderate lateral movement in the binding—good stuff.

    #651637
    b0ardski
    251 Posts

    This looks interesting, “bulldogs”? skiboard to snowboard conversion binder, definite possibility

    I can’t seem to embed here’s a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef7kUGK35j4&feature=related
    Apparently out of business
    It shouldn’t take much to give this a tour mode but dynafit would be better

    #651638
    treepilot
    352 Posts

    @b0ardski wrote:

    This looks interesting, “bulldogs”?

    I can’t seem to embed here’s a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef7kUGK35j4&feature=related

    Ef7kUGK35j4[/youtube:pu69jvan]

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 53 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.