Forums Splitboard Talk Forum tatally new split system need feedback
Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 54 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #604258
    affix snow
    521 Posts

    Love the innovation, but it reminds me too much of the failed burton system.

    #604259
    prestonf
    48 Posts

    @bcrider wrote:

    @prestonf wrote:

    (check out Greg Hill’s blog for where he – and others in the recent thread on Dynafits – think the future of backcountry snowboarding lies).

    I looked at the blog and didn’t see anything. Can you point me in the right direction?

    Sorry about that, watch the video embedded under “Exploring.”

    #604260
    bcrider
    4150 Posts

    Thanks!

    Good stuff, his adventures and videos are awesome!

    I’m not so sure he’s really that qualified to comment on the “future” of backcountry snowboarding though being a skier and all. 😉 That would be like us splitboarders talking about the future of skiing. 🙂

    There is some truth to what he said though. Splitboards clearly are the future. Dynafits may or may not be part of the future and as we all know, hardboots are not for everyone.

    #604261
    TEX
    2486 Posts

    Can you post a link to the blog preston?

    #604262
    prestonf
    48 Posts

    http://greghill.squarespace.com/

    He tours big days out of revelstoke/rogers.

    #604263
    Snowjunkie
    15 Posts

    How many people are able to convert from skis to board without unstrapping.

    #604264
    Unruly Baker
    333 Posts

    @Snowjunkie wrote:

    How many people are able to convert from skis to board without unstrapping.

    Not anyone here. But how many times do I have to ask how you are handling the patent issue? Voile is pretty good about not worrying about things like Will’s Spark binders as they are just one part of a split, and they don’t have the $$ to battle Burton or Atomic for infringement, but I know for a fact that a start-up trying to make a new interface and split is going to get their attention. Just curious on your plan for this, since you are asking for investment, and most serious investors will want this answer. As one key feature of investing is getting a return on your investment, if your product can never be sold there is little chance of a return.

    Like I said, I’m all for the concept of step-in/step-out, but I have other concerns with your execution of the concept. Anything with that much metal/plastic/etc underfoot stands a good chance of getting damaged and packed with snow or debris during the step-in/step-out process. May work fine in powder with good coverage, but what about at the top of a slick spring couloir? I’d probably rather step out for many transitions.

    UB

    #604265
    bcd
    232 Posts

    There are a number of negative aspects to your system. Some of them are VERY negative. But there don’t seem to be any positive aspects to your system.

    So I guess I don’t really understand the point.

    My question is this:

    Why?

    #604266
    powderjunkie
    1669 Posts

    I didn’t totally digest the design drawings so…

    I think for it to be marketable it needs:

    1. to be easy or almost as easy as Voile system

    2. as light or lighter than Voile system

    3. similiar price to Voile system

    4. pieces that cannot break or be lost (this design looks to similiar to the old Burton system)

    It would be great to not have to unstrap to convert, but it really isn’t a big deal to do so.

    It is cool that you’re working on something like this, but in the end if it is to expensive to make, if you have warranty issues, and if it costs too much to buy and does significantly improve on the Voile system, then I wouldn’t be dumping $$ into your R&D.

    #604267
    Snowjunkie
    15 Posts

    This is the other idea I had for a locking mechanism. It would save weight reduce the thickness of the binding but probably make the binding wider and require another bolt hole would need to be drilled. Here I have removed the springs and pins from the press stamped ring that they rivet to. The stamped ring would have a tab that would project out the side. When the binding rotated onto the puck the tab would ride over a post that is screwed into of the outer bolt holes. In the middle of the tab is a slot that the post would drive through locking the binding in place. To release you would lift up on this tab possibly with a loop threaded through the small outer hole shown.
    I have not included a top plate in this image. Without the top plate the stamped ring along with a climbing bar and 4 contact point would need to be directly bolted to the plastic binding.


    #604268
    schwalbster
    321 Posts

    My question is: Why do you keep ignoring Unruly Bakers important point (which really interests me too) and some of the other questions posted here!???
    It doesn’t exactly work in your favor!

    After much research, experimentation and consideration, I have decided adulthood is not for me. Thank you for the opportunity.

    #604269
    Snowjunkie
    15 Posts

    Why do you keep ignoring Unruly Bakers important point (which really interests me too) and some of the other questions posted here

    With regards to the questions about the patent I don’t know who is reading this post and I am not going to give up sensitive information.

    With regards to the reason why anyone would want a new system the answer is the speed of transition and weight. Maybe transition speed isn’t a great concern for a lot of people if it’s not I wont pursue it. In regards to weight if I go to a integrated binding I feel confident I can match the weight of anything out there.

    To answer the question of how this is different then the Burton I can see why people would think it looks the same. Believe me it is quite different. As I said the Burton clamped on to the disk this piece slides on just like the Voile the difference is that it slide on radially rather then linearly.

    In terms of durability the only critical elements under foot or the engagement tabs and the pins. The pins are protected behind the engagement tab which are made out of .1 inch stainless. I wouldn’t go walking across a scree slope or on blue ice everything else should be fine.

    #604270
    powderjunkie
    1669 Posts

    In regards to weight if I go to a integrated binding I feel confident I can match the weight of anything out there.

    Where is the binding? You mention that you can attach standard strap bindings but I don’t see how this is considered integrated.

    Can plate bindings be used?

    When I read words like “springs” and “release arms” I get nervous. Parts do break.

    If you need to rotate the binding 90* to set it, will the climbing bars or touring bracket get in the way?

    What about tour mode? How does that work?

    #604271
    Mumbles
    753 Posts

    If you never have to take the plate on the bottom of the boot off, so that you don’t have to unstrap to get in, how do you clear all the snow that you will be staning on while separating or joining your board? I for one have most commonly had to stand in the snow in order to take apart or put together my board. I’m thinking that there is a lot of opportunty for a bottom boot device full of snow to be in the way of the step on and twist 90* motion. I’m also not sure that 90* motion would be very plausible in many of the possible side hill locations where you may have to transition. Not every place in the mountains has a flat bench area to transition.

    I like innovative thoughts, but think there is some overlap with voile, burton and some other shortcomings.

    #604272
    Unruly Baker
    333 Posts

    @Snowjunkie wrote:

    With regards to the questions about the patent I don’t know who is reading this post and I am not going to give up sensitive information. .

    What’s your application # or provisional patent #? I can find out for myself if it truely is patent pending. But I can’t find any record of your patent, unless it was submitted last Friday, they update the database every Thursday. I’m still interested in having a discussion on how you are circumventing both Burton’s and Voile’s patents, as it is something I deal with a lot in my job. I’ve been on both ends, I’ve had stuff I worked on get sniped, and I’ve sniped other patents. You can bet someone at Voile has seen this thread.

    @Snowjunkie wrote:

    With regards to the reason why anyone would want a new system the answer is the speed of transition and weight. Maybe transition speed isn’t a great concern for a lot of people if it’s not I wont pursue it. In regards to weight if I go to a integrated binding I feel confident I can match the weight of anything out there.

    My opinion:
    No one is going to switch for “matching weight”. You need to set a new standard to get people to bail from the current standard. You do an integrated binder, and you may have Will’s patent to worry about. Application number: 11/409,860 although his may be too specific to the Voile interface. Need to read it more carefully.

    @Snowjunkie wrote:

    In terms of durability the only critical elements under foot or the engagement tabs and the pins. The pins are protected behind the engagement tab which are made out of .1 inch stainless. I wouldn’t go walking across a scree slope or on blue ice everything else should be fine.

    So you’ve tested this?

    I know there are a lot of folks including myself busting your balls on this. But take it as constructive criticism, many of us want something new and better. Most of us are probably being extra critical because we don’t want to see another wasted effort like Burton and Atomic.

    Criticism #5: Your interlocking hooks extend past the sidewall and don’t pivot out of the way, this could lead to damage of those as well as loss of traction when edging in ski mode on hard traverses etc…

    Criticism #6: I run both Voile Mountain plates and hardboots and Will’s Spark Binders and softboots depending on conditions and the tour. Can your set-up do both? If not, you are not going to be able to target a portion of an already small market.

    UB

    #604273
    bcd
    232 Posts

    I was confused at first, but now I am seriously baffled.

    Are you for real?
    You wouldn’t go walking across a scree slope with it?

    I don’t understand what this product is, or what it’s supposed to be used for.

    I thought it was a splitboard, but splitboards are meant to be used outdoors. You know that, right?

    #604274
    Unruly Baker
    333 Posts

    @bcd wrote:

    I was confused at first, but now I am seriously baffled.

    Are you for real?
    You wouldn’t go walking across a scree slope with it?

    I don’t understand what this product is, or what it’s supposed to be used for.

    I thought it was a splitboard, but splitboards are meant to be used outdoors. You know that, right?

    I think he’s talking about walking across a scree slop/ice with the interface and binders strapped to your feet, not skinning across one. But in the case of skinning across one I could see damaging the interlocking hooks that stick out.

    Personally, a lot of the wear on my board comes during skin mode traversing rocky ridges and skiing down short sections. And that is in primarily CO and Wasangelas, areas with less snow might be even harder on boards in skin mode.

    UB

    #604275
    Snowjunkie
    15 Posts

    Criticism 5 You are right the hooks do extend past the side walls as do the torsion clips. In my experience having the clips hang out is never has never been a problem unless you are skinning with inside edges together. Which I don’t do. I imagine it could be a problem on a steep icy traverse but honestly I am usually skinning in powder or soft spring snow. The Burton Ying Yang hooks hung out also I am curious if anyone running Burton splits has had this problem.

    Criticism 6 Though I haven’t specifically fully investigated the mountain plate issue the top plate with the climbing bar is clearly ready to take a hard boot set up. If no top plate was used as in the system shown above some sort of plate would be required to carry the hard boots. I would not want to directly screw the lower stamped ring to a hard boot because I would not want to walk on it full time.

    Mumbles there is ample room within the the plate assembly for snow build up. The tolerances are not tight like they were in the Burton system. If you look at the animation figures you might be able to understand how snow is pushed out from under the puck tabs and above the plate tabs. If the top plate was discarded as is shown in color above the plate that goes in the middle of most strap bindings could be discarded.

    Another thing to say about strength. Any one who has used the K2 clicker bindings knows that the mechanism that locked it in place was rock solid. Metal is incredibly strong. When applied correctly it can be both strong and light.

    Unruly baker check you email on this site

    #604276
    split.therapy
    455 Posts

    Looks complicated! The Buddha say’s “Simplicity is the essence of life.”

    #604277
    fustercluck
    668 Posts

    I originally thought it was a typo when you mentioned bolting the plate to a boot, I figured you meant binding. But after reading more, I realized you actually did mean the boot. How do you plan on accomplishing this? I am not real big on the idea of puncturing my boot soles, and would be real skeptical of it ripping out or the rubber (or would you use a t-bolt?). Also, would this mean you can’t then use the boots with your resort board? Like most of the rest here, I’m all for innovation but this looks a bit sketchy.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.