Long story short, I broke my board last year and need a new one. I was thinking about trying ics/est. My home mtn is bear creek and I spend most of the day in the park. Some days I just like to carve blues and blacks. I want something not so catchy on rails but stiff for carving and jumps. I have thought about a custom, fix, and a x8. Maybe an un..inc. Any one ride one of these boards or get a chance to demo one? At this point I am open for suggestion. I am 5'11" 155lbs. and size 10 boot. Thank you very much.

I have a 151 x8 for sale, good all around board. Let me know

Dont get burton boards. sounds like you could get away with almost any park board. Go for maybe a rome agent or ride dh, or a k2 darkstar if u wanna keep it under $400. my advice to you is get away from burton and explore the board market. there are a ton of superior boards out there that arent near as overpriced.

how much do you weigh, and how tall are you

I rode a Custom for 2 years. Similar dimesions to you. Good all around board. No complaints.

I talked to the local shop and they recomended the x8. Does anyone have any time on the 09 x8? Did it turn in to a noodle or is it stiff enough to hold an edge? I will get the x8 or a custom as of now. I really want to try the ics system.

Why?

For as much as you are going to pay for that board new you could get decent board and bindings leftover from last year that will probably suit you better. I am pretty sure Buckmans is having their tent sale this week, I would go up there and check some boards out. I just got my friend a leftover K2 Believer for 259$ which I think would be a good board for you . He got the board here : Surftheearthsnowboards.com , they don't have the Believer in a size that would suit you but they have a Lib Tech TRS for 269$ and an Atomic Alibi for 279$ both would be good for you. They have a bunch of other boards form Nitro and Ride too that are on sale. I would look around in stores or on the web and find a good deal. Also I think the GSpot on business route 1 has a separate store they sell leftover equipment in so I would check that out. Grab some Union Force bindings and you are set.

Yea I would second the last years boards/bindings, it is definately the way to go. Shop around though, that site you linked is really hit or miss. I picked up a GNU Altered Genetics for $200 and it lists for $650+, that site has it for $549 - $100 is not much of a discount. This time of year play the local tent sales and inventory blow outs. People need to get rid of those boards and the deals are just ridiculous.

I would stay away from ICS. I would also stray away from burton. Have you looked at any other brands? It seems as if any park board would do you fine.

Rode a Fix and x8 last year with EST/ICS and loved them, both are great boards. I have ridden just about every board out there and always come back to Burton.

Well I've owned several Burton boards and several non-Burton boards and the Burton's always fall flat. "I've ridden just about every board out there" - ok if you rode every board from K2, Salomon, Ride, Arbor, Rome, GNU, Lib Tech, and Burton over the last few years then you would have ridden 50+ boards a year. We carried those brands when I worked at a shop for 5 years, and it WAS a full time job, and none of us had ridden EVERY board. Among the 5 who collectively made the purchasing decisions, we had ridden 90% of the boards, but not a single one of us had every ridden more than 70% of the boards. We definitely had all ridden all of the Burtons. Not a single one of us marked our favorite board as a Burton. We all had a lot of Burton gear because of the pro-forms, but we all agreed that our other boards were better.

Specifically, our favorites were the GNU Altered Genetic and the Arbor Mystic. All 5 of us had one or the other as our favorite board. All 5 of us had the GNU Altered Genetics and 4 had the Arbor Mystic (I'm the one who didn't have one, but either the Rome Mod or the Arbor Mystic is my next board), and the debate was between which one of those two boards were better. I'd be interested to hear what Burton boards you think can top an Altered Genetics with magne traction.

Of course when your name is "Burton71" I guess there is a psychological factor in what you feel, but objectively, I have yet to meet someone with one of those two boards - including all those I see on the hill because I do go out of my way to talk to those with these two boards to see if they agree - and no one has ever said anything other than "This is the best board I've ever had".

Now if you want to hear a technical discussion on why ICS/EST sucks, I can bust out my mechanical engineering degree side and show you why the entire concept is fatally flawed from the start.

I wouldn't mind hearing that....

even if it was just a condensed version

How do you like magne traction ? I have heard different things , some say it is too catchy and some say its the greatest thing ever. With all the different gear coming out I wish we had more demo days around here. I want to get on a rockered board and try out magne traction. The ideas seem right but I wouldn't buy them without testing them out. Never Summers new rocker seems cool too, different from the others out there. Also Bataleon has some triple base tech thats suppose to be different. So many options out there now with so much different tech.

Actually last year alone I rode over 60 different board/binding combinations from ever company out there. It’s my job come winter time to test all different kinds of gear and report back. My data along with that of all the other testers is then combined and trended. Year after year Burton products are always at or near the top. I know it is cool to hate on Burton as a company but they continue to put out great products year after year.



The Hero is just as good if not better than the GNU or Arbor. Out off all the test data I have access to the Burton scored higher. You have 5 opinions...I have the opinions of over 50 impartial reviewers.



I needed a screen name when I signed up for this site and tried 3 or 4 other names and they were taken. I had a Burton sticker on my laptop and slapped my hockey number on it. I have zero ties to Burton.

You can present all the anecdotal evidence you want about who you asked if they liked their board or not. But most kids, and people in general, are going to say their new board is the best one they have ever ridden. This is why consumer reviews are inherently flawed. If you are monetarily invested in something you are willing to look past flaws. We don’t pay for the gear we test and go into each review open to the product.



Go for it. However the 30+ days I spent riding EST systems the last two years proves to me that it works and works well.

As for why having a slot running down the middle of the board - this will be LONG, but not necessarily hard to understand (I hope). Mind you there is math that goes with all of this but I'll generally leave it out. If you want, skip to the bottom for my conclusion.


A snowboard is basically a beam with pressure applied to it. It is relatively simple to figure out how much a beam will bend for a given force, and also at what point it will break. These two outcomes are based on three things, the shape of the beam, the force applied and the material.

For snowboards, the forces will be the same so the thing that varies are the materials and the shape.

You see a lot of variation in materials and some slight variations in shape.

For flex you have three primary directions, longitudinal, torsional, and width-wise. Longitudinal is the flex you typically know about, you feel it for butters, you feel it initiating turns. This is the flex you WANT. Torsional flex and width-wise (I don't know a better name for it) are different. You can't show either one in the store and you can't feel them without applying huge forces. They create really small deflections. You can deflect the board longitudinally inches, torsional flex is on the order of a few degrees, width-wise should be 0. Torsional is a measure of the twist of the board - you see this a lot more in skis than boards because they are longer and torsional bending is an angle over a length. So if you have a torsional flex of 2 degrees per meter, on a ski you will have 1.5 degrees less edge angle on the tip than under foot, and on an oil well you might have the bit several full revolutions behind the motor since it is thousands of meters under ground. Since you only have a foot or so behind your back foot and in front of your front foot, torsional flex is low, but you can feel it. Width-wise flex is basically the amount the board flexes under foot when you put it on edge. Here your bindings add a lot of the stiffness because in most setups the bindings run all the way across the board and are connected to each side of the board and create a solid platform.

So back to EST. Lets talk about longitudinal flex first. The flex on a beam is dependent on the shape, the material, and the force. The shape primarily means the cross sectional moment of inertia. Basically every shape cross section has a different resistance to bending. That is why they make I-beams instead of just rectangles. The cross sectional moment of inertia of an I-Beam is way better than a solid rectangle. In fact, a solid rectangle is really bad at resisting flex. That is why a snowboard bends so damn well - which it needs to do - and a boat made with an equal amount of fiberglass setup with stringers and I-beams will flex very little for the same weight. The cross sectional moment of inertia for a rectangle is defined as (1/12)*width*height^3. For something like a board where the width is in several inches and the height is a fraction of an inch, cutting out a slot in the middle of the board a fraction of an inch wide for an ICS track does basically nothing. It won't weaken the board in this direction or change its flex in any appreciable manner because it is 2-5% of the total width of the board., Torsional is basically in the same boat. You have no appreciable change.

However when you start looking at the board from the edge, ICS/EST falls flat on its face.

Lets go 1" off the edge of the board. You have the full length of the board, and its height intact on any board. Your cross sectional moment of inertial is (1/12)*length*height^3. Now lets move to the inset line on normal board. You have (1/12)*(length-8*(width of insert holes))*height^3. Here, the moment of inerita is less, but not much less since you have only a few inserts. Maybe 5% less stiff on a normal 4x4, 10% on a 4x2 setup since you have 16 inserts in a row or whatever it is.

Now go the centerline of the Burton board. You have two slots running nearly 30% of the length of the board. Now on your cross sectional moment of inertia it is something like (1/12)*(1/3)*(length)*height^3. You are talking 30-50% less stiffness there.

OH SHIT this thing is going to break, or at least bend.

But the engineers at Burton aren't dumb, they know this, so they reinforce the track out of metal.

But oh shit there are stress concentrations around the radii at the end of the track, crack prorogation is defendant on crack radius! Shit! Its a small radius and there is a lot of stress here!

But again, Burton engineers aren't dumb, so they reinforce that area.

But wait theres more!

Before you had two connects on the binding on each side of the centerline. This created something called a couple moment - you pull up on one side and push down on the other evenly. The board rotates around centerline and it distrubutes the forces nicely across the board.

On ICS, you can push down like usual, but you only pull up in the middle where it is attached. So your couple moment is now centered halfway between the edge you have down and the centerline, so the force is unbalanced.

Better reinforce that shit again.

Again, Burton engineers know what they are doing so they handle all o f this, and as you said it lasts without breaking.

So what ends up happening is to make it work there are 3 new stress concentrations that don't exist on other board -with the associated reinforcements to make it work which adds weight and complexity. Even if Burton makes this all work perfectly - which it might have, what is the advantage? You added weight and complexity in exchange for vendor lock in since your bindings and board are not compatible with anyone else, and the ability to what? Set the bindings at the spaces inbetween a 4x2 pattern? Really?

To me it is a giant marketing scam forced on the engineers for no solid reasons. Everyone had worked out the 3 hole scheme so they wanted to make a new proprietary system to make people who don't understand this stuff say WOW THATS GREAT, it probably works like a built in binding system on skis!

Well guess what - it DOESN't work that way - meaning allow more flex in the total system. And even if it did look over at the ski wall - what is the new trend this year? Going back to flat skis, cut the complexity, cut the weight. Why is Burton going in the opposite direction of all of these manufacturers? Do you really think that they know better than 10 other manufacturers?


You have to credit Burton for their innovation, and ICE/EST might turn out to be the REAL DEAL, but don't jump into it yet unless you buy gear every year. It is just as likely that it will go the way of the Fusion binding or the SI binding or the Forum track as it likely to turn out to be the new high back.

This is a great place to answer the question about mange-traction too. Magne traction adds little complexity, little weight, and has a REAL positive effect on performance. Is it right for everyone? Not really. I like it on my free ride boards but not my park boards (yet). But compare that simple change to this drastic one from Burton and ask yourself which one will have a greater impact on your riding (cutting through ice or being able to adjust your bindings a tiny bit better?) and ask yourself why you want to lock yourself into the Burton system over the Mervin one.

Not going to argue the engineering stuff since I don't know all that. But you are wrong about a few things. ICS boards do not weigh more and you are not locked into Burton as the only bindings you can ride. However, to take full advantage of the ICS system an EST binding is recommened.



Same could be said about any innovation. Cap straps, rocker, etc... someone has to do it first.

Also the ICS system allows for a better tip to tail flex, you don't get the dead flex spots from the traditional mounting system.




You saying that this systems only benefit is stance options leads me to think you haven't ridden a ICS/EST setup. The difference in board feel between a standard binding and the EST binding is huge. Is everyone going to like it? Probaby not, but it is IMO one of the huge advantages of the system.

I agree with you about the feel of the EST bindings being better than a regular binding, I'm talking about defeciences in the board which is really due to ICS, not a knock on EST at all - but most people will see them as one in the same so I used them interchangbely, my bad.

As a note, I personally like Burton binding, I definately mistook you for a mis-informed Burton fan boy which you are obviously not, and you are mistaking me for a mis informed Burton hater which I am not. I ride right now with a RED helmet, Anon googles, AK Jacket & pack, Cartel bindings. But I just do not like their boards outside of the Custom X and T6.

To clarify, I think that the EST bindings are a great idea. But I don't think ICS is necessary. The advantage of EST comes from having the connect to the board on the OUTSIDE of the binding rather than inside. It has nothing to do with the slot. Look at wakeboarding bindings which have connected on the outside of the binding to regular insets on the board for years. There is no reason why should put such a drastic weakness down the middle of your board by machining a huge slot in it. The only advantage that offers over having insets and holes on the outside of the binding is allowing you more stance options.

I kind of cut that out but truthfully the problem with the slots on the outside of the binding like a wakeboard as compared to holes on the binding and the slot on the board is you can't get to all of the same stance positions as a regular binding, so the slot allows you full range of position for the EST binding. But is that really worth the weakness? I don't think so. Thats what I meant by stance options, as compared to dead spots you get with an outside binding slot + board insert system.

Ultimately you have to have a slot on one part and a hole on the other to have a range of mounting options. For years the bindings had the slots and the board had the holes. Now Burton reverses it, and I don't think it is the right move. The board is significantly harder to get to "feel" right than a binding, since the board has to have a perfect flex and the binding doesn't, it just needs to be stiff in that direction.

So to me, an EST binding that worked universally on a 4x2 pattern would be great. But it doesn't work for Burton. Their boards don't have the 4x2 pattern so it wouldn't work, and they either needed to concede their 3 hole pattern marketing/patents and switch to 4x2, or come up with something new. This is what they came up with, and while it is right for them as a company, it isn't what you would come up with if you had a clean slate from which to design. It just adds too much complication and even if they say it is the same weight, even if it IS the same weight, it is mathematically impossible for them to have built a board that is the the same weight and has the same strength as the board they COULD build had they not put the slot in. The stress in the board gets multiplied by the slot to make it easier to break, and they had to fix that by beefing it up. If they put more expensive lighter materials in it to make it the same weight, then they could have made it EVEN LIGHTER, if it did not have the slot.

seems like you guys know ur stuff. method, in your OPINION (im not looking to start a debate here, just curiosity), what would the advantaes/disadvantages be to going to a 6x1 bolt pattern. this gets rid of any ICS issues you address (at least from what i can think of). I'm thinking a 6x1 centered pattern would add a few more mounting options (or maybe not, i dunno). I just really like the idea behind the EST binding system, as my first bindings on my morrow mounted that way, and i loved how i was lower and really felt the board. I had my initial issues with ICS as I knew many who hated Forum's 2 slot rendition. So only having 1 slot seemed inherently flawed to me. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

ps: i would totally pay more to get a board with a 2x1 pattern that you could specify where you want them. i understand it would be a manufacturing nightmare, but i've pretty much dialed in where i like to be front and back, and occasionally tweak my angles depending on the plan for the day. anyway, it be cool.

Wakeboards are generally 6x1, it has been done on snowboards as well.

For a minute, think about driving your car (with two hands, not the way we all do with 1). You have a hand at 3 and at 9, perfectly across from each other. When you turn the wheel, your forces are perfectly balanced and the wheel only spins, with no sideways forces or anything. This is called a couple moment. Two forces acting in opposite directions, creating a moment (a torque) as a couple around a point. That point on a steering wheel is centered which makes it have less friction than if it were off centered pushing sideways some amount.

The same can be said for having 2 bolts through your binding into the board. When you push down on your heel edge, the heel side bolt is going to be pushing and the toeside bolt is going to be pulling in tension. When you rotate onto your toe, it is reversed. This makes the center of the couple moment the centerline of the board. Having 1 line of inserts (or an ICS slot), makes the center of the couple moment halfway between center of pressure of your heel, and the bolt. Your heel is pushing down in compression, and the bolt is pulling in tension. When you transition to that heelside turn, the moment is now centered between the center of pressure on your toe and the centerline bolt.

What does that do? Frankly I'm not sure. I really don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing. What I do know is that it will transmit more force through the bolts than if they were neatly coupled.

The bolts we use today are designed to have 4 holding the binding in, 3 minimum. 2 might be pushing it. I have no numbers to back that up but it at some point you will start stripping screws or pulling out inserts. I'm not sure at what point that is.

A 6x1 pattern would have lower stress concentrations than a slot for sure. That would allow you to have less reinforcement around it than a slot.

The problem with a 4x2 pattern is that you have so many inserts in a row, it gets kind of stiff under the bindings. It is already pretty stiff with just a binding there, but it gets really stiff with so many inserts. A 6x1 doesn't suffer from this problem as much.

So may be the best solution is a 6x1 row of inserts that strong enough to hold the forces required. That would certainly be interesting and do able.

I'm still not entirely convinced strap bindings are the best way to go on snowboards. The straps transmit power to the binding inefficiently. Your power gets transmitted from the binding to the board inefficiently, it seems like we could make things a lot lighter and strong. I have some ideas about boots/bindings/boards rolling around in my head but nothing concrete yet.

As for setting them up custom. It is probably not so much a manufacturing challenge as a user/business challenge. Assuming you start selling straight to the end user, it would be trivial to do in the factory. The hard part is people getting the right stance. I always have to play with mine on a new board a bit to get it right, how would you know before you owned the board? So it almost seems like you need to ship boards with no inserts to the shops, have people demo boards the boards, and then t-bolt the final thing. I think all of that hassle would be worse than the current solution. Spending more time to engineer it right up front is better than forcing every person who ever wants to use it down the line to waste time. An engineer can spend a year working to save every customer 1 hour of time and we would all net out ahead when you are selling thousands upon thousands of boards.

I did a lot of research on the ics system and feel compelled to correct this pile of garbage. As a mechanical engineer by trade I have to ask myself if you actually are a mechanical engineer. After I read this I think not. I bought an X8 155-last year’s model and love it. The strength and durability of an ics board worried me at first but after I broke it down I have to say It is stronger than a traditional insert board. Someone asked earlier why I wanted to try ics/est. My first reason is the micro-adjustability. I hate it when you can’t center your boot exactly on your board. I hate it when you want to make a very small change to your stance and are limited to the inserts. With ics you can dial in your toe/heel adjustments where ever you want. I am so glad Burton is getting rid of the 3-d pattern. If you wanted to make your stance wider you had to do so in one inch increments. If you wanted a centered stance you could pick 20, 22, or 24 inches. Not a great system. Ics is the cure for this. I also like the foam pad under the feet. It will take a lot of stress off of my legs and feet on landings. The interchangeable beds sound great too. I want to try the cant beds this year for sure. I know it is cool to hate on Burton because they are an industry leader but you have to admit they put out an exceptional product. Sorry to call you out, but your post is full of errors.



Let’s stop here. The forces on a snowboard will vary greatly depending on their purpose. Look at the Burton T-6. It has an aluminum honeycomb core. If you took it in the park and had a sketchy landing you would crush the core and it will break. However, on an artifact for example, the core is made just for this. A hard landing is fine on this board.



Here is a problem. Your bindings aren’t connected to each side of the board. The insert holes are one inch out of center in most cases. Your binding is only held in the center by a disk. (usually) Think about how power is sent to your edges. If you are going on your toes, you press down with your toes and pull up on your heels. Your bindings all have some flex, and so does the board. When you put pressure on the front edge your board bends up to touch the bindings and the bindings bend down. That is how the pressure gets transferred. Now, to tilt the board the back of the binding has to go up. Because the back of the binding has no screws into the board it is the screws in the center of the board that transfer the rising motion. Because of this, only half of the board gets any pressure on it at all. The other half just simply gets pulled off of the ground.
This isn’t different on an ics board. You don’t have a base plate but you do still use your foot on the foam to press down on the front edge. The gas pedal on an est binding is actually very stiff to transfer this force. The est binding also has stiff sides on it. The sides of the binding transfer power from your straps. When you get on your toes on an ics board your feet press on the edge of the board. The screws in the channel in the center pick the board up. It doesn’t matter if there are two or four screws in the centered on the board. The end result is the board is lifted on an edge.
You might think now “with only two screws on center, it is going to be weaker than four to do the same job.” With basic math this seems to be the case. Four is more than two. But the ics system is stronger. With a 4x4 hole pattern, you put all your stress on four inserts. They are pressed in and have a rim to help keep them in the board. To rip the binding out, you would have to pull all four of them out of the top sheet. Now, here is some math. The way to find the area for a circle is pie x radius squared, commonly known as pie r 2. Let’s give the inserts some help and say they are a half inch in diameter, even though they are smaller. The area for this would be pie x ¼(the radius of ½”) squared. This comes to .196 I will even help it some to make it easy for you and round it up to .2 of a square inch per insert. Can’t believe it is that small? Let me make it easy if you couldn’t understand the math. A square inch is one inch by one inch. If you would make it into four even sections the sections would be ½ by ½. Each section would be .25 of a square inch. Now, if you would make each of these ½ inch squares a circle you would lose material because you now lost the corners. So if each insert is .2 of a square inch X 4 for four inserts you have .8 of an inch on each binding to hold it in place. Now let’s look at the channel. It is roughly half of an inch wide. Just to match the same surface areas of the inserts for pull out strength it would only have to be 1.6 inches long. The channel is much larger than that. The math for that (area of a rectangle) is length X width. .5x1.6 =.8 The channel is very long, at least 10 inches each. This gives it a much greater strength against pull out. You might think that the whole channel isn’t used so this math isn’t fair right? Look at one of the studs you slide into the channel to mount the binding. They are about an inch and a half on mine. This gives them a surface area of .75 each, a total of 1.5. That is much better than .8.


If there was no change then what was the point of this endless babble? But here is a problem with your thinking about flex. A solid rectangle resists flex much better than an I beam. I beams are used so much because they are much cheaper than a rectangular beam. This document is long enough as it is so I will keep it short but if you need a detailed explanation as of why I will be happy to provide one. The basic reasoning for the use of an I beam is as follows.
If you take and bend a beam, let’s say it’s horizontal bending down to make is less confusing for you, the top section will be compressed and the bottom will be pulled apart. An I beam is very efficient because it has flat plates of steel welded or extruded on the top and bottom. It is hard to compress a plate of steel or tear it apart rather than a thin piece vertical that is also prone to buckle. A rectangular beam of equal dimensions is much stronger. Not only do you have the top and bottom plate to compress and expand but you have two plates on the side instead of one to resist a torsonaly applied flex. It basically has the top and bottom strength properties of an I beam on every side, not just the top and bottom. If twist an I beam, the top and bottom plates will want to move closer on one side and farther on the other. The middle piece holds them together but bends. In a rectangular frame, the outside corners can’t move away or push together unless it tears one side of steel and smashes the other one. It can’t just simply bend. This is why many truck manufactures are now using rectangular frames. The Toyota tundra for one uses the rectangular frame because of the increased stiffness. So does Ford and Chevy. There are no I beams. If a truck does not have a fully boxed frame, they usually use a C frame then. They are moving away from C frames because one side is open and that makes it prone to bending. I beams haven’t been used since the forties on cars because they don’t resist flexing as well as others. They are used for building in strait down loads because they put the extra steel on the top and bottom where it is needed. They don’t have the cost of an extra plate for the side or all the additional welding. With the price of steel, it would make projects a lot more costly.

Won't let me post it all, more is comming.




What is this math about? It makes no sense here what so ever. You seem to have a magic formula that tells you how much stiffness a board looses depending on length and height? Impossible. Snowboard cores aren’t all the same. You can’t compare one to another because different materials have different stiffness’s. Think about it this way. If length and height were the only factors for stiffness let’s compare two materials of equal size. Jello and steel. Let’s say they are both half an inch tall and 1 foot wide. The they would both have the same amount of space but the steel is obviously stiffer than the jello. Even if you cut a bunch of slots and holes and whatever in the steel it will still be stiffer. Material is the major cause for stiffness. Your formula only works if the cores are exactly the same. But even then, you don’t put the whole core under pressure. The only part affected is from the center where the mounting is lifting to the edge you are putting pressure on. The other side of the board just picks up off the ground. There is no pressure there.



Because you only flex half of the board on an edge for the reasons stated above, you lose 0% stiffness.



No, it won’t break or bend. It is just a strong.


The metal you speak of is aluminum. It is very thin. Aluminum flexes very easy- it is the same stuff a soda can is made of. The metal track was put in for a durable, flexible light weight surface to clamp the binding to. Not to reinforce the board.


There aren’t any stress concentrations at the end of the channel. The aluminum is flexible enough that the stress is dispersed along the length of the board before it gets to the end. If you think like this then do you also question the common use of carbon in cores to make it stronger? A stiff piece of carbon would make stress too right? Almost every snowboard manufacturer uses some type of carbon in their bases and there is no problem.

More comming.

This couple moment theory has no very little play in a snowboard, and one could even say it would be a bad thing. A snowboard flexes across its waist. Bindings also flex. Don’t you think they flex together and touch at the edge? If they didn’t it would be like riding on a flat spring. You would have to put energy into the snowboard to bend it before it got to the edges. With ics, the pressure comes straight from your feet. There is no big flex in the way. But then again, this couple moment doesn’t really exist on a 4 hole pattern either.

Nothing is unbalanced. If anything, you will have more control over your edges.


Why? Ics is stronger than the four hole pattern.

If you admit it works, then what is your problem with it??????



This paragraph of yours is pointless. There are 0 new stress concentrations. The ics board doesn’t weigh more than a 4 bolt board. You removed part of the central core and filled it with some light weight aluminum and air. If anything this reduces weight. Plus you don’t have to have the extra weight of the 10+ steel inserts you don’t use. Ics saves on weight. The only weight problem you will encounter is on some of the new fix’s. Burton has some boards made overseas and there was a problem where some of the fix’s got too much fiberglass. It was a manufacturing error and not a design one. You can tell the problem fix’s right away. They are heavy as a brick. You can have two of the same size and over a pound different in weight. Look out for those.
Ics has many benefits; however, it is nice to not rely on inserts for your stance options. You can also center your boot toe to heel a mm if needed. Plus, you get a pad of foam under your feet to absorb impact. This year they have several types of beds available, from very small, very big, and canted. If you don’t like these you can even right right on the top sheet. What isn’t to like? Also, several companies have announced they are coming out with disks to make their bindings Ics compatible. You will see them in the near future. But, if you have an ics board, est bindings are the way to go.




It sounds like to me you are stuck with the mentality found so much in the area that it is cool to hate on Burton. It may be part of a marketing scam, but other companies will make their bindings adaptable. How doesn’t ics allow more flex? You stand on a flexible piece of foam, not a hard base plate. You bring up skis going flat and this cuts the complexity and the weight. Do you know how camber or rocker is put in a snowboard? They use a press with the desired shape. It adds no weight, just gets the layers adjusted to the default shape.
This line of “Do you really think that they know better than 10 other manufacturers” is very offensive. Without companies trying new things we would all still be riding snurfers. Think about lib’s magne traction? At one point in time this was new. So was the concept of rocker. Did they know better than other manufactures? Now rocker is in everones line. Just because burton relieced something new doesn’t mean you need to hate on them.



Ics seems like it is the real deal. Most of their high end boards have it, a lot more than the four from last year. If the system is great, why not try it?? Open your eyes to new things. Quit being so “Old School”

Burton now has PDE, works similar to magne traction. In my opinion, magne traction is only good for a park board. I don’t like them free riding because you can’t carve a pencil line. Magne traction was created to give you grip when you filed down your edges for rails. That is what it was designed for. Mervin is ok, a lot of people swear by it, but I don’t like their product. I am not a fan of magne traction. I feel it is to extreme on their boards, and their bases are too slow. Maybe this year is better. We will see.
I am sorry for the leanth of this (4,024 total words) but I did a TON of research into this system and feel it is an exceptional system.

No worries, I like these types of conversations and am always open to others input on all products.

I can agree with your weakness idea of the ICS ystem in theory. Look at the Forum slider system as a perfect example to illustrate your point. Those boards had horrible feel and chatter because of the weaknesses and odd flex patterns caused by the channel system. However, I haven't experienced that with the Burton system. I rode a Custom last year with ICS and it felt the same as the regular Custom 3D.


Most of the weight savings is from removing all the mounting hardware of the traditional system.

Only time will tell how the system stands up to use and abuse though.

Summersux- If a magne-traction board can't carve big turns, then why are they putting it on free ride boards?

I believe he said you can't carve a pencil line, and it seems to me that he thinks Magne Traction is good, but does not like it personally.

To my knowledge if you can carve correctly it will look like a pencil line, so i state again why can't a mag board carve turns.

Im not trying to say he's wrong because this will be my first year on a mag board, but im curious as to why a mag board couldn't carve a turn.

I this is true. I do like magne traction, I just think that it is to extreme. There is no doubt it helps with griping ice, I just feel it helps too much. It cuts like a serated knife. It is real agressive, down and dirty. It works well but not for that perfect semi-circle lightning speed pencil line carve. I think it is best suited for what it was designed origanally for. It gives you some extra grip when you dull your edges on a park board.


A mag board will carve a turn very well. It just isn't the perfect pencil line very few people are capable of anyway. True carving is starting to disapear. You will have fun on a mag board for sure. It seems like a great quiver killer, just not an alpine racer. Like a jack of all trades, master of none. But don't get me wrong. You can carve a mag board, and it will bite very well.

It may well prove to be the next big thing in snowboarding. I am unconvinced. I point to SI bindings and the Burton Fusion as great ideas that failed miserably on the revolution in bindings.

The bottom line to me is that you introduce weak spots into the board, introduce variable flex along its length when previously it was even, and increase the force on the screws connecting it to the board.

In exchange you get a closer feel for your boot to the board and a bit better stance adjustment.

I just don't feel that the advantages are worth more than the disadvantages.

Your analysis is way off. Forget the sarcastic tone, you are just flat wrong. Inserts never pull up and out through the top of the board, ever. I didn't say they would. What happens to them is they get stripped when too much force is applied. So comparing the area of the bottom of the slot to the area of the bottom of the inserts is silly and pointless. And I wasn't even talking about the slot vs inserts in that situation, someone asked if a single row of inserts would work better, and I was answering that question. I don't think the slot would ever pull out of an ICS board. I really don't see how you can say that there are no new stress concentrations, that is just the way it is. I don't know how long it has been since you were in college but seriously, a quick Google search on the principal: http://books.google.com/books?id=gOfKT2Ya0...1&ct=result.

When one engineer can recognize areas that will cause it to fail, and the other sticks their head in the sand saying NO IT WON'T, who is usually right?

And jesus, read some of the things you wrote



What something is made of has no impact on the forces applied to it. That is like the first principal of mechanical engineering. Otherwise why would you figure out what the forces are FIRST and then pick a material to fit that constraint? Hello? And the T-6 IS made for the park, just not rails. And the artifacts and other park boards break on landings all the time. I have two Ride park boards with wood cores broken in half at home.

And what about this whole giant paragraph of BS. I know boards are not going to be made out of I-Beams, I'm trying to explain bending moment to people who aren't engineers. But this is flat wrong

[quote]
If there was no change then what was the point of this endless babble? But here is a problem with your thinking about flex. A solid rectangle resists flex much better than an I beam. I beams are used so much because they are much cheaper than a rectangular beam. This document is long enough as it is so I will keep it short but if you need a detailed explanation as of why I will be happy to provide one. The basic reasoning for the use of an I beam is as follows.
If you take and bend a beam, let’s say it’s horizontal bending down to make is less confusing for you, the top section will be compressed and the bottom will be pulled apart. An I beam is very efficient because it has flat plates of steel welded or extruded on the top and bottom. It is hard to compress a plate of steel or tear it apart rather than a thin piece vertical that is also prone to buckle. A rectangular beam of equal dimensions is much stronger. Not only do you have the top and bottom plate to compress and expand but you have two plates on the side instead of one to resist a torsonaly applied flex. It basically has the top and bottom strength properties of an I beam on every side, not just the top and bottom. If twist an I beam, the top and bottom plates will want to move closer on one side and farther on the other. The middle piece holds them together but bends. In a rectangular frame, the outside corners can’t move away or push together unless it tears one side of steel and smashes the other one. It can’t just simply bend. This is why many truck manufactures are now using rectangular frames. The Toyota tundra for one uses the rectangular frame because of the increased stiffness. So does Ford and Chevy. There are no I beams. If a truck does not have a fully boxed frame, they usually use a C frame then. They are moving away from C frames because one side is open and that makes it prone to bending. I beams haven’t been used since the forties on cars because they don’t resist flexing as well as others. They are used for building in strait down loads because they put the extra steel on the top and bottom where it is needed. They don’t have the cost of an extra plate for the side or all the additional welding. With the price of steel, it would make projects a lot more costly.
[quote]

You are talking about rectangular tubing, not a solid rectangle. A solid rectangle SUCKS at resisting bending - and snowboards are solid rectangles. Is your snowboard hollow inside?

And I-beam with a cross section of 3 sq inches, with flange width of 2 inches, height of 3 inches and thickness of 0.5" would have a moment of inertia of 3.5 since it is (bd^3-h^3(b-t))/12 where b is the flange width, d is the overall height, h is the distance between flanges and t is the thickness. And equivalent rectangular section 3 inches wide and 1 high is bh^3/12. So that is 1.5. 3.5 vs 1.5. The I beam is over twice as strong for the given material.

I hope to god you aren't designing anything I rely on.

And of course cores are different, the point is that if they have to beef up areas of this board to make up for its flaws, they have to do SOMETHING above and beyond a normal board to get the same effect. That either means making the board heavier or using more expensive materials that are stiffer for their weight. I think they went the latter route making snowboards - which are already over priced, even more so.

I'm all for new tech in boards. I love magne-traction, I like reverse camber, I like different materials in the core, I like Flow bindings, I like the Boa system on my boots, I like new base materials, I like single stiched boots, I like capstraps. In fact in most of those cases I bought boards in the first or second year they were selling our shop. I even kind of like the speed zone lacing in Burton boots despite that most people hate it. I also like the premise of EST.

But I hate the idea of ICS. You can try and peg it on Burton hating all you want, but there is no ounce of Burton hate in me. They do great things for the tech progression of the gear and they have a huge team of riders, and throw free gear at a lot of people (including nearly everything I am riding this year). They sponsor comps and promote the sport - along with having a major influence in founding it. But I really don't think ICS is a good idea. You did nothing to disprove what I've said about how it negatively impacts the boards flex characteristics, strength, and weight. It seems like a giant unnecessary compromise to me.

I've demoed the boards but I haven't owned one. Maybe I need to own one and ride it before I trust it. Right now I'm looking into getting a reverse camber magne traction board and putting some flow bindings on it. I feel like the difference between a standard insert/binding setup on a regular board is going at best to be slightly improved upon by ICS/EST, and jumping to reverse camber/magne traction/flow bindings is a giant leap in terms of the difference. It just doesn't seem like a big leap forward - if it even IS a leap forward at all. Certaintly not worth the premium to pay for me.

To each his own, I won't hate on people riding the stuff, but I back what I sell and I could not in good faith back an ICS/EST board when there are so many better options out there.

This thread is legit. I really dont know much about engineering but I really enjoy reading both of your sides. Continue please.

i agree with you lib. Its nice to read some intelligent posts from time to time.

Im gonna side with Method about the T6. I rode one for two years, and hit some big jumps with it, didn't always land perfect and never had any problems. Board still rode like the first day even after 60ish days on it. Rails would mangle the core.

Boards like an Artifact aren't exactly meant for hitting big jumps, it's much more of a noodle and if landed on incorrectly either too far back or too far forward it's going to break the tip or tail off at the binding. Those types of boards are produced fairly cheap with way fewer materials since they are really just meant for jibbing and will be destroyed in a season anyway. They will also be way less stable and more likely to wash out on big jumps.


And as far as comparing a Magne traction board to something like an alpine carving hard boot setup isn't even a far comparsion. I don't think there is one board out there that will carve like a hard boot setup.

All this theoretical talk is nice, but...

If the boards aren't heavier, and they weren't breaking, then there isn't a problem. If the feel is better because it's a more consistent flex (or really any reason), then who cares what kind of engineer hoops they jumped through or not. In the end, it's about what works and what you like under your feet. I've got to assume since they are putting ICS on more boards, and on their top boards, it worked for burton and those testing for burton.

I think what is more insane about this conversation is that somehow there is more power transferred to the board because you are on it. Tall bindings send more energy with less movement; look at racing gear, and restrictions on racing gear. There is a reason they only allow bindings to be so tall, and every single racer skis that max height. You can certainly get a more preferential feel lower to the board, and most jibbers like that since keeping the board flat is desirable.

I'd like to add that I hate all of you for getting new gear, and I will be riding crappy broken 4+ year old gear this year. Maybe I'll spring for a pair of boots, but thats a big maybe. Have fun with the new toys guys!

Glenn that is a really good point in bold. It is what works for you. I push people away from ICS when I'm selling but summersux you know what you are getting into so go for it. Tell me what you think when you have one. I promise I will get to a Burton demo this season and try one out and give it another go. I went into it with a negative perception the first time I rode it so I'll go back with a more open mind this time and see what happens.

The ICS system allows for a more consistant flex from tip to tail that a conventional mounting system. The conventional system will always have dead flex areas because of the mounting hardware. The ICS eliminates those dead areas and allows for true tip to tail flex.

One other area that the channel system will help in is maintaining a true base on your board. I can't even count the number of boards I have seen where the base has been damaged by people over tightening their bindings. Makes tuning the boards properly a pain in the ass. This is a minor thing, but back when I used to work in a tune shop it bugged the crap outta me.



Yep, I wasn't to big on the ICS system when it first came out. I thought it would be just like the old Forum system. But after riding a few Burton boards with the ICS/EST system I was amazed at how well they rode. Is everyone going to feel that way...no chance, but there are some many options out there that everyone can ride what they like.

I’m sorry if my tone affected you. I was trying to make a point and was shocked at some of the things I was reading. I will do my best to keep a cool and as calm of an approach as possible. The fact that inserts don’t usually pull up is well known. Usually. I have had the pleasure myself of ripping the inserts out of a K2 at one point in my life. Never say something will never fail- the Titanic was unsinkable. It was my way of demonstrating how I believe the channel will strengthen the connection of board to binding. And it does, Burton says on their web page it holds stronger. I don’t know how they tested it, but with the liability at hand I would guess they are very thorough about it. My major complaint about the snowboarding industry is that they don’t specify a specific torque for the screws. It is usually as tight as you can make it by hand. I know a fourteen year old girl and a high school football player will vary a lot with how tight they can make something. If they specified a torque there would be no stripped out threads.
This google search thing is irrelevant here. We aren’t looking at beams in bridges. I highly doubt the slot has any real effect on stress concentrations due to the fact that 99% of the time the stress will be on only half of the board. It will be at the mounting position (the channel in this case) and the farthest point of pressure toward the edge. The other half of the board is off the ground just hanging in the air. The only stress it will ever see is when it is from tip to tail from the board moving into the rockered position during a carve. With only a half inch missing in the center, you will not lose much strength at all. In fact, most snowboards now come with many slots cut in the core (completely covered up so you can’t see them, but it is in their tech pages) to reduce weight. Also, since you seem to be so up to date with your theory, where in a beam is the best place to put a hole or a slot and have the least affect on its strength? It is in the center. The center of a beam experiences the least affect of force.

You don’t need to make comments like this. Everyone thought Thomas Edison would never invent a light bulb even if he found the perfect filament. Look where that got him. There were countless people in history who were innovative with ideas no one told them would ever work. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes not. Only thorough testing can be sure. Just to be clear, I am not sticking my head in the sand over this. I was skeptical of the ics system when I first heard of it. The reason I embrace it now is the fact I believe it truly is better. Right now, I only have one concern for the system you didn’t even mention. I feel if it would fail anywhere, it would be the bindings eventually shifting lengthwise along the channel. The studs in the bottom do have ridges for some bite, but I know they would have to be very tight to hold against impact. I worry if you catch the nose something that won’t give it is going to shift your bindings. This is one reason they should have a specified torque. They could even make a pocket tool preset to the desired torque to change and check your bindings while riding. We will see.

This is my point exactly; you just didn’t realize it yet. My point was cores are built different because of different riding styles. With the T6 and artifact, the cores are built for very different things. The T6 is for fast, hard free ride. You can jump it fine, no real problems. But if you start railing it you will begin to compress the honeycomb core. It will weaken and break. The artifact is softer. It will snap on a sketchy landing before the T6. However, the core resists the compression found riding rails. My point was that they are both still snowboards, but very different forces to be concerned over. In this case I used compression.


Please slow down when you write things like this. You are getting yourself confused. My point was before that if I beams are strong in the sense they are very efficient. The load the carry compared to the amount of steel is very great. But if you compare the two beams of equal dimensions- lets use your 2 inches wide and 3 inches tall on both the I beam and rectangle- be it tubing or not-the rectangle is stronger. You compare the two for the amount of steel consumed in each design. That is why you are finding an error. A detailed description as of why is below your math.
A solid rectangle or square is great at resisting a torsional force. They use them for the extending portion of pto shafts for tractors because a square shaft can pass back and forth through a square hole and still transmit torque. They aren’t bad either. If it didn’t hold up, they would use a splined shaft like you find on the connection.
If you still don’t understand this and for anyone reading this who doesn’t understand, let me make it simple. Let’s say you start out with a piece of metal ½ inch wide by ½ inch high. If you put one end in a vice and clamped it so it won’t turn, then put a wrench on the other end and try to twist it, it is going to be very difficult. Now, if you take this same piece and cut large slots in it to make it look like an I beam and try it again, you will twist it much easier. It is basic engineering that the more material you remove from something the weaker it becomes.

As you see in the bold and underlined you did not compare two pieces of equal dimensions. Steel is sold in dimensions. This is a measurement of length, width, and height. You don’t order pieces by saying I want an I beam with a “cross section of 3 square inches.” You say I want an I beam 2 inches wide, 3 inches tall and half an inch thick. If you took a 2x3 I beam and compared it to a 2x3 bar of solid rectangular steel the rectangular steel will be much stronger. It will also be much more expensive because of the increased volume (measured in weight) of steel you would be purchasing. Once again, the reason I beams are in common use is they concentrate the steel on the top and bottom where it does the most good at resisting forces. Because they don’t have nearly as much steel as an equivalent rectangular beam they are much cheaper.

It’s ok if you do. I think everything through very well and test the crap out of it. I have a degree in engineering and machining. I believe a degree in machining is the most important thing an engineer could have. It gives you a much better appreciation on how different materials will react, and I can do my own prototyping if I so choose.

This I can agree with. I believe Burton uses very good cores because of the price they charge, which is too much.

We will have to ride together sometime and you can try my X8. I only have carpet board hours on it but it seems very solid as of now. It sucks that they cost so much, maybe they will get cheaper because of the struggling economy. I bought last year’s model to save some $$.

All I got was a new jacket and pants. So we'll at least be on the same page as last year, haha. I know your one board is broken, but what else is broken. I have an extra set of bindings that work fine. .

You don't need to go as far as to compare it to a hardboot setup. Magne traction boards are great but don't carve like a stiff cambered board, like a T6 or a custom x. Magne traction is great but it's not the be all end all for carving. My complant is the squigles don't make the nice, clean lines like a stiff cambered board. It slows you down some because of the added resistance and just dosn't feel the same. They carve, it's just different. I tried a friends skate banana for a day. It was a great all puropose board. The rocker is ok too, but again for carving it dosn't pop out like a cambered board. It's just the nature of rocker. But like I said, it is a great all purpose board.

I think glenn put it the best. It is all about what you like to ride and works for you.

Well thats why. My next question was going to be which mag board did you ride. The skate banana was really intended to be a park board. You want something faster pick something higher up in the line. Like an altered Genetics by Gnu or the TRS from Lib. The bases are also made of better materials so they'd be faster. If you rode those your opinion might change a bit.

Im not trying to say that mag + banana is the greatest thing out it's just something different. I still have a cambered stiff board in my quiver.

I thought about a trs this year but was told they can be slower too- especially if it is slushy conditions. Im not sure however, I really want to demo one. There was nothing wrong with the banana. I just wouldn't want it as a freeride board when compared to others.

It's gonna be slim pickings trying to demo something from mervin around here.

Haha, demo for me usually means ride on of my friends! However, I don't think any of them picked up a TRS or anything similar to it...

I agree with you on a lot of stuff. The torque thing is silly as hell. Ski companies specify a torque when you are mounting ski bindings. Every shop has a bunch of torque screw drivers, why not tell us what to do for snowboard bindings? Not only do they get stripped, but they dimple the base!

I was going by cross sectional area not outside dimensions, you are definitely right on outside dimensions and I am right on cross sectional area. I didn't understand what you meant the first time.

My concern with the stress concentrations are not riding. I know the board won't break riding down a trail. My thought is when you land with your tail coming down at a 45 degree angle to the deck. If you do it hard enough, all boards will break right behind the rear binding. But my thinking is that ICS will break with less force than other boards.

I certainly ride with you and give it a try. I'm due for a new board really badly this year and I was considering the Rome Mod but maybe I'll ride some new boards this year. I didn't demo anything last year and the X8 was not out when I was demoing stuff.

Yeah, I think we got a little carried away with the dimensions and cross sectional area. We were both right, just talking about different things. I really do wish they specified a torque too. Guessing just means you will never get it right. As far as landing on the tail goes, I guess I will see if it breaks easily. If it does, oh well, the boards come with a 2 year warranty. I am excited just to give it a try! Right now all we need to worry about is cold weather and a little snow!