Burton EST boards

[philw]

Ok, this is probably a dumb question, but in a couple of weeks I'll find out the hard way and I'd rather know now...

Is there any way to fit a nice 4-hole hard-boot binding onto a Burton EST board? Has anyone actually done this?

[boarderboy]

Very Careful!

I'm not one of the Burton bashers, and I've wondered about this question myself. But the energy transfer and mechanical stress of hardboots has to be much higher than the softies for which these boards are designed.

Good luck, and beware!

[Phil]

Burton ICS, or Infinite Channel System, equipped boards are meant to be used with EST bindings. However, I believe that the boards come with a 2 hole disk for other Burton bindings (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Theoretically, you should be able to use the two diagonal holes on any binding to hold them to the ICS.

Would you really want to? :(

Believe me, I am not bashing Burton. I ride a lot of their products and I'm pretty happy with them, but this sounds like a really bad idea, albeit one that would probably work for a short time.

The issue of plate bindings on any of their boards is a valid concern as well. I would not do it, but I am a big guy. YMMV.

[bumpyride]

Used a rotozip tool with a little grinding bit and removed almost nothing gave me 6 different disc positions per set of 3 hole. Some of these were able to actually get 4 screws in the 3 hole sets.

Hope this helps you out. Did this to 9 sets of bindings and no failures or deflections.

[valsam]

I also have the same base plate of the binding you show in your picture (NALE)and last week i was going to buy a new Burton Coil that was on e-bay but didn't know if i could fit the bindings on the board!

Damn it!

I thought of doind the extra hole thing !

So it would have worked?

Anyway i bought an Oxygen F2002 169 carver!(Does anybody know anything about this board?)

[bumpyride]

I also have the same base plate of the binding you show in your picture (NALE)and last week i was going to buy a new Burton Coil that was on e-bay but didn't know if i could fit the bindings on the board!

Damn it!

I thought of doind the extra hole thing !

So it would have worked?

Anyway i bought an Oxygen F2002 169 carver!(Does anybody know anything about this board?)

It's really not all that difficult. What I did was lay the F2 baseplate over the Burton 3 hole pattern. Then looked at which position was the least invasive and ground out the first hole only about 1/16". Then put a screw in that hole and marked out the others that you can see with little blue ink marks, and only removed what was necessary to get the next screw in and repeated for the others. Then I drilled the center hole and elongated the cross shaped slot where the cover plate goes into, and was able to get a couple more positons out of it.

Haven't had any problems, and the plate once screwed down has never come loose.

[philw]

My question was specifically on the EST ("2-hole") system, but this is all good anyway. I have the 4-hole titanium plates and also an old set of 3-holel F2 titanium plates (much heavier than the new ones). Actually I should do the drilling thing; I always just carried both sets of plates but that makes more sense.

So I'm still left wondering about the EST thing - I've not actually seen one in person yet. I've ridden Burton boards for years with the 3-hole plates and never damaged anything, as I would expect. I'm a little concerned about the amount of torque on two screws.

That said, the two screws are loaded by people riding piste who weigh twice what I weigh, so although I can apply my force faster, it's unlikely to push it beyond tolerances. Plus assuming the screws are tight and nothing moves it should be ok. I just wondered if it had been done...

[queequeg]

Sorry - don't mean to threadjack but I have a somewhat relevant question.

I am teaching a friend to carve this season. My plan is to transition her from soft to hard this way:

1 - Softboot board + stiff softboot setup, angled forward to get comfortable with riding the sidecut on a smaller board with more forgiving boots.

2 - Inch stance angles forward.

3 - Switch to hardboots, but keep her on the softboot board and use extremely soft bindings.

I think this will provide for a pretty good, progressive transition. I'm a bit concerned about the ability of the board to handle the force applied by a plate binding setup.

The board she is using is a burton feather (154?) this is her only softboot board. Her boots are AF700s with a BTS, using the yellow springs. Despite the fact that this is a relatively stiff boot, the BTS softens it up quite a bit. The bindings she will be using with the softboot board are Burton Carrier bindings ... extremely soft. I'm thinking this will be safe for her as she:

- Isn't very heavy

- is just learning to carve so she won't be ripping any high-g arcs

- will be transitioning to a soft alpine board and real bindings once she she is comfortable with this setup.

Any thoughts?

sorry for the threadjack.

[xxguitarist]

Sorry - don't mean to threadjack but I have a somewhat relevant question.

I am teaching a friend to carve this season. My plan is to transition her from soft to hard this way:

1 - Softboot board + stiff softboot setup, angled forward to get comfortable with riding the sidecut on a smaller board with more forgiving boots.

2 - Inch stance angles forward.

3 - Switch to hardboots, but keep her on the softboot board and use extremely soft bindings.

sorry for the threadjack.

FWIW, I learned on softboots in the normal sort of rental angles, probably went 3-5 or so times at the local hill like that, then moved to something like 25*15* angles in softboots on the same board, for one day, then sb 124s, F2 speedcross and snowpro race bindings at 48* 45* It felt wierd at first for sure, but I did fine with it after a few falls & learning how to trust the edge.

If she can already snowboard, I'd just say turn up the angles to (nearly) eliminate boot-out, get her on edge, then switch to hardboots and a mild hardboot board (like my speedcross, maybe a soft burton alp or oxygen or something)

[bumpyride]

Sorry - don't mean to threadjack but I have a somewhat relevant question.

I am teaching a friend to carve this season. My plan is to transition her from soft to hard this way:

1 - Softboot board + stiff softboot setup, angled forward to get comfortable with riding the sidecut on a smaller board with more forgiving boots.

2 - Inch stance angles forward.

3 - Switch to hardboots, but keep her on the softboot board and use extremely soft bindings.

I think this will provide for a pretty good, progressive transition. I'm a bit concerned about the ability of the board to handle the force applied by a plate binding setup.

The board she is using is a burton feather (154?) this is her only softboot board. Her boots are AF700s with a BTS, using the yellow springs. Despite the fact that this is a relatively stiff boot, the BTS softens it up quite a bit. The bindings she will be using with the softboot board are Burton Carrier bindings ... extremely soft. I'm thinking this will be safe for her as she:

- Isn't very heavy

- is just learning to carve so she won't be ripping any high-g arcs

- will be transitioning to a soft alpine board and real bindings once she she is comfortable with this setup.

Any thoughts?

sorry for the threadjack.

I used the Carrier bindings for 10 years and never had a blow out. Another guy Chris who must weigh close to 200 has had the same experience. Carrier bindings are more forgiving and don't transfer energy the same way stiffer bindings do. Your idea, I think is very good.

[bumpyride]

Ok, this is probably a dumb question, but in a couple of weeks I'll find out the hard way and I'd rather know now...

Is there any way to fit a nice 4-hole hard-boot binding onto a Burton EST board? Has anyone actually done this?

Just looked up Burton EST. Didn't realize it was just a 2 hole system. Don't know if I would be confident riding just two holes. At least with 3 if you have a failure you have 2 left. Plates would scare me with only 2 screws, no tripod affect for stabilization in more than 1 plane.

[Phil]

That said, the two screws are loaded by people riding piste who weigh twice what I weigh, so although I can apply my force faster, it's unlikely to push it beyond tolerances. Plus assuming the screws are tight and nothing moves it should be ok. I just wondered if it had been done...

I have ridden with a lot of people who are using ICS and most of them are using EST bindings. I have not seen any failures in the EST bindings with regard to the 2 screw mounting. I have, of course, seen strap and highback failures as you would expect. The EST bindings have been known to creep (change angles) as you ride, though. OTOH, I have only known a few people to be riding an ICS board with non-EST bindings by using the Burton 2 hole disk. Again, I don't know of any failures, but I also have not seen any burly and super aggressive riders using that setup. All of the people I have seen just happen to be small and/or unaggressive.

My problem would lie in the fact that you want to use a disk that was designed for 3 or 4 hole patterns and just use 2 screws. Hey, it's your life, but I would not do it. Burton's 2 hole disks are made to be just that - 2 hole disks. I would trust them because that is what they are made for.

I would even trust certain 4 hole disks for 3 hole applications, but still not 3 or 4 hole for 2.

[S-Fource]

Hi. Yall. I run Berg's Snowboard Shop. Let me shoot a question off to my Burton Rep and see if he has some in site on this one.

[philw]

Burton rep: thanks - I'm waiting for some feedback from someone there too.

I know the system is solid enough; I also rode with some on it last year, but I didn't look closely as I didn't think they'd stick what seems to me to be a park gimmik on the powder boards (other than the custom jobs I saw). But they did.

OTOH, I have only known a few people to be riding an ICS board with non-EST bindings by using the Burton 2 hole disk. [...]

There's a 2-hole disk? Is that something I could use? For sure my titanium disks are stronger and stiffer than anything they could be shipping. Hmm. Anyone got a picture of these two hole disks?

My problem would lie in the fact that you want to use a disk that was designed for 3 or 4 hole patterns and just use 2 screws. Hey, it's your life, but I would not do it. Burton's 2 hole disks are made to be just that - 2 hole disks. I would trust them because that is what they are made for.

Well to be precise I just want to ride the boards, without being forced to use Burton soft bindings for reasons we all know. I think I'd happily bet that my Ti disks are stiffer and stronger than anything Burton produce, so if that's the only issue it doesn't concern me.

I'd happily trust the Burton disks though: are you saying that they're the same size as the F2 disks? In which case there's no problem.

[Phil]

There's a 2-hole disk? Is that something I could use? For sure my titanium disks are stronger and stiffer than anything they could be shipping. Hmm. Anyone got a picture of these two hole disks?

I am thinking that any 3 or 4 hole disk is riddled with holes and is meant to be held with 3 or 4 screws. If you think it would be fine, then go for it.

Well to be precise I just want to ride the boards, without being forced to use Burton soft bindings for reasons we all know. I think I'd happily bet that my Ti disks are stiffer and stronger than anything Burton produce, so if that's the only issue it doesn't concern me.

I'd happily trust the Burton disks though: are you saying that they're the same size as the F2 disks? In which case there's no problem.

The thing about the B disks is that they only have two holes because they are engineered to be held in two places. They are not for other bindings, though, so I doubt that they would fit your F2's.

[S-Fource]

As far as the 2 hole disks are concerned, They are reinforced to be used with only 2 screws. Also they are built to only fit Burton bindings. Applying them to other brands is NOT recommended.(according to Burton) They are built a specific way for a reason.

Of course I have to say that being a Shop employee.(Now I am covered) But personally I wouldn't trust the 2 hole on anything but Burton.

I have seen some tests and attempted some other applications here in my shop. In a couple cases the attachment was OK at best. However, I would not attempt to ride them. Not worth the risk.

[philw]

Thanks. I'll have to have a look at it, or ride last year's boards. That's sad.

Really I was trying to find out if anyone's actually done this. My girlfriend's a materials scientist so I'm well covered on the engineering issues... if Burton can build an adaptor then I'd be surprised if we can't figure something out. Does anyone have a picture of the Burton adaptor?

[Corey]

Just looked at Burton's site, interesting idea. It's a bit of a throwback; baseless bindings were huge in the early 90's, this is similar except they have a thin layer of material under your feet. Having T-nuts in a channel isn't new either, but incorporating the two hasn't been done before.

You likely could get away with it with a binding with a big and fairly round baseplate like a TD2/3 or a Catek, I'd be concerned with something like an F2.

Burton's Speedzone strap looks pretty cool! Clip it in, pull the cord (with a 3:1 mechanical advantage) and you're off.

[b0ardski]

As someone who has ripped both ski & snowboard bindings out of the core, I can't believe anyone thinks two screws per foot is a good idea??

Putting 2 channels in the core is easier/cheaper than 12-20 inserts.

This is pure "going cheap" garbage.

100% of the stresses between the board & binding are focused through 2 points into an inherently weakened area milled into the core.

Metal channels in the core can't help but to affect the flex of the board.

Once again Burton comes thru with a weakened non-standard interface:barf::AR15firin

I wouldn't bash burton if they were actually building performance equipment.

[bobdea]

As someone who has ripped both ski & snowboard bindings out of the core, I can't believe anyone thinks two screws per foot is a good idea??

Putting 2 channels in the core is easier/cheaper than 12-20 inserts.

This is pure "going cheap" garbage.

100% of the stresses between the board & binding are focused through 2 points into an inherently weakened area milled into the core.

Metal channels in the core can't help but to affect the flex of the board.

Once again Burton comes thru with a weakened non-standard interface:barf::AR15firin

I wouldn't bash burton if they were actually building performance equipment.

not sure if it's going cheap, inserts are cheap and easy to install, these rails are a custom part that takes more milling to get in and has to cost more than a hand full of inserts for the actual parts.

I'm not sure I want one of these boards but also the system probably is not that bad either. Burton softboot gear usually rides fairly well.

These system were a big selling point on the 4x4 boards that had these rails, geenyus and forum boards had this tech, the big B bought those companies and I assume that's how they got the rights to use this type of system. They just made it so it had one rail per binding instead of two per binding.

I know a few people who's judgment I trust that like these boards and the EST bindings.

[S-Fource]

First off, According to my burton Rep, The EST/ICS systems are designed as a "Burton-to-Burton" only interface. The equipment has not been tested with other binding applications and is not recommended for use with other brands. This applies to Soft bindings too.

He did mention that using an older Burton plate binding and the new EST mount disk could work. Again, Not tested.

Definitely a "try at your own risk" application.

With all the other choices out there for hard boots why not leave this stuff to soft boot applications. Just a thought.

Cheers.

[S-Fource]

I know a few people who's judgment I trust that like these boards and the EST bindings.

I'll put myself down as a FAN. In Fact The new Fish and Custom-X are amazing products. The new EST Bindings are super comfortable and give great board feel. I recommend giving them a try and generate your own apinion.;)

I have always had great experiences with Burton. Both when I rode for them in the mid '90's and now as a product buyer. They still set the standards for the industry in their areas of influence.

We are all entitled to your opinion based on our experience...

Cheers.:D

[philw]

Thanks all.

I want to ride the boards because they work well, nothing more complicated than that. Of course I'm aware I could use other powder boards : it's something I'm trying to avoid because I know what works.

I've seen plenty of big guys ride hard on the EST stuff - it works, or at least they can't rip the bindings off the boards with their legs. If those big people can't, well I'm not nervous about that.

I think I'll try to investigate with Burton directly and post back..

[pokkis]

Dont worry, they will come next year 1-hole disk for new set of bindings which works only quaranteed with B-stuff

Why bother cause ...

[philw]

Much as it pains me to use gear from a company who refuse to follow standards (a bit like MS), these boards are actually the best thing for what I ride.

Anyway, here's what Burton say:

[you need the] ICS kit which comes with every Channel board. It’s a white box that contains the hardware needed to mount bindings on a Channel board, along with two “retro” discs that allow you to mount any Burton binding, EST or 3D, onto a Channel Board.

So if you can get a 3D binding on there then I think it should be ok; I have some 3D plates I've been using for years and the sky has not yet fallen.