how many boards broke

[JUNGLEKID5]

who has broke boards and were did they break?

[rob12]

none here lucky

:D

[Mark]

why does it matter ?

[airdonut41]

My friend broke one of his BWPs right in front of the bindings (just snapped, but not all the way off). Most of the other broken boards around here seem to be snowjams.

Dan

[Jeff Miles]

2 emps (seperate occassions)
1 mnp
1 bullet
1 nlp
1 m7

mnp, nlp, m7 all were beat'n to shit so they werent expected to last the season.
all broke from behind the binding

[Kirk S]

Just for anyone who is browsing the forums and reads this

MANY OF THE BROKEN BOARDS WERE FROM USE UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS

NOT FROM NORMAL USE

[tyberesk]

ummm 3 snowjam 75s...shredded from the back all the way to the top....2 snowjams the edges are ripped out...hmmm time to get some new boards. I broke one a few weeks ago, sent it back, and they gave me a new one, and i broke it today.

[JUNGLEKID5]

nice work

[skiskiskiski]

Snowjams 90 broke after wiping out down the landing ramp of a jump. Cracked down the middle of the board, almost from tip to tail

[valmorel]

I cant imagine ANYTHING inducing me to make boards for you guys :-)
You are a Hero G.

[atreidex]

two pairs of M7's broke (bent really). these were on jumps and fairly hard landings.

my new EMP's broke just yesterday, however it was in powder, and on the softest crash ever.. so i'm hoping that was just a defect issue. actually the more i'm now searching this forum, i keep hearing about emp's breaking... eek i hope the new 'revolt' replacement is stronger.. i'm heading to whistler for the weekend, we'll see if it makes it past day 2...

all of mine, and pretty much every story i've ever heard, was a break (bend) behind the heel/binding. i think it's related to bomber elite's mainly and it's design, but i also hope that in coming years, as skiboarding continues to grow, manufacturers will learn, and build stronger boards... how often do you see bent in half skis or snowboards? the skiboard length is unique, and creates unique pressure points.. maybe some people replace their gear every year, i'd rather have some boards that'll last a few years at least.

[kirk]

I have seen TONS of broken snowboards .... not so many skis, althogh I snapped a pair a few years ago.

The problem is non-release bindings. When you fall with non-release bindings, there are times where there will be too much pressure, and they will snap. The only boards I haven't heard of an instance of them snapping yet are the Lokens... probably because they are extremely stiff.

The catch 22 is that most people prefer flexier boards, but flex means they are thinner... Boards today seem to be getting a lot better at least. Take any old canon or groove boards out for a day of rails and they would be completely delamed in a few hours. Lines were a little better, but had the same issue after only a few outings.

The biggest thing is to be careful. If you land with all of the weight on the tails with non-release bindings, there is a very good chance they will snap. The exact same thing happens with snowboards all the time. I have tons of friends who broke snowboards on their first or second times out. Skis, having releasabes, get away from this because the bindings usually realease before the ski will snap.

[atreidex]

yea the jump landings i can totally understand, but the emp's broke almost immediately, and powder of all things, so i don't know what's up w/ that.

sounds like i should look into spruce releasables.. as soon as i scrape up $300.. :(

[winterparkrider]

1996-1997- 2 pair of line sun83s
1997-1998-1 pair of line jedi
1998-1999 this when I really started to go big and getting upside down. 4 pair of the red mnps
2000- 2002 4-6 pair of the mnp sparkle boards.
I stopped competing after that season with injuries and being sold out by by the guy who said some day skiboarding will rule the world.
end of 2006- present I have beat the piss out of r8 boards and the only way I have broken one was when I hit a rock in thin cover on berthoud pass at pretty good speed and launched myself onto my head . But it broke in the same spot as yours did. The rock stopped my foot dead and put a core shot in it that would make an oil driller jealous. But with this new carbon fiber beam I bet the best boards on the market just got a whole lot stronger without adding stiffness yay!!!!

[winterparkrider]

Originally posted by Kirk S
Just for anyone who is browsing the forums and reads this

MANY OF THE BROKEN BOARDS WERE FROM USE UNDER EXTREME CONDITIONS

NOT FROM NORMAL USE
Amen to that. I would say that %90 of the people who ride skiboards dont ride them anywhere near hard enough to break them. But maybe a manufactoring error could happen on individual boards. But that is not the norm os should be thaught of as the norm. especialy r8 boards

[atreidex]

here's a question, for those who use or have used bombers, how do you space them on the board??

prior to R8's i'd always gone w/ more length to the front of the boards than the rear. R8's (and i have to just assume most newer boards) the 4-hole mounting threads are dead center.... so the bombers allow the option to space things either dead center as well, front/back, you can get your center of gravity back about 1.5 inches?...

i always think about whether its pure riding style preference, or what the advantages to each position are.. i've moved them around and played w/ it, and i've found i still like a little more length in front than rear... but then that also makes me think about being mounted so lopsided, if that aids in the pressure point and thus the breaking point behind the heel..

[kirk]

I never thought about that... but I think you're right. The way bombers sit on those risers, if you set them back, you put a fair bit more leverage on the heels, especially if you are leaning back in powder. But I have to agree with Brett... even with things like this, our boards need to be able to take the abuse. I think this year's boards with the carbon beam are a big step in the right direction.

[Mark]

Originally posted by kirk
I think this year's boards with the carbon beam are a big step in the right direction.

I agree. I've noticed they are alot stronger this year.

however no matter how a board is built, if you are constantly thrashing it on rails its going to break down eventually. However I think this year's revel8 will take alot of rail riding.

[eldiablodenieve]

I was actually talking with a company about making a one off board for me. I am waiting to see what the cost would be but they make composites that can be tuned to the strength of midrange steels. Greco, you should definitely check this company out it could be the next evolution in skiboarding. PM me if interested.

[airdonut41]

Yeah, the only problem with stuff that strong is there's usually very little flex. Part of the beauty of boards is that they do flex well, and compromising that for sheer strength may not be the best thing.

Dan

[eldiablodenieve]

Originally posted by airdonut41
Yeah, the only problem with stuff that strong is there's usually very little flex. Part of the beauty of boards is that they do flex well, and compromising that for sheer strength may not be the best thing.

Dan

Absolutely, this company is doing some pretty progressive stuff it will be interesting to see if it is possible to maintain flexibility and add strength similar to the carbon beam addition. I am not looking to enter the board business, but if I can get a custom board for a decent price it will be a fun idea to play with.

[atreidex]

I was looking at the '08 Revel8 product line brochure.. and it has the 3 Revolt variants; tree, chicken, & city, but down where it says 'construction' the tree model does not have 'Carbon Beam', like the other two do???

Seeing as how I just replaced my '07 Tree's w/ '08's expecting an upgrade in strength related to my breakage problems, is this a typo or does anyone know why the tree model does not have a carbon beam and the other two identical models do?

[tyberesk]

the trees came out earlier than every other skiboard besides the ALP and the Tansho??? maybe that is the reason, because those other ones do not feature the carbon beam either.

[Mark]

all of the trees came out before the carbon beam feature was available. They'll still take plenty of use though.

[Poots]

Originally posted by atreidex
here's a question, for those who use or have used bombers, how do you space them on the board??

prior to R8's i'd always gone w/ more length to the front of the boards than the rear. R8's (and i have to just assume most newer boards) the 4-hole mounting threads are dead center.... so the bombers allow the option to space things either dead center as well, front/back, you can get your center of gravity back about 1.5 inches?...

i always think about whether its pure riding style preference, or what the advantages to each position are.. i've moved them around and played w/ it, and i've found i still like a little more length in front than rear... but then that also makes me think about being mounted so lopsided, if that aids in the pressure point and thus the breaking point behind the heel..

I had a similar inquiry-- I put the bombers on my 07 bwps using the center of the three options to screw them into the boards. My question is: should the bindings be dead center if I chose the middle holes, cus when I looked after I got my boots into the boards I realized my weight was forward, and after measuring, I realized the bindings weren't center in that stance but about an inch or more forward, so i used the farthest back of the three settings to compensate and now the bindings are a little back from the middle of the boards but not by much. Is this normal? How do you guys set-up your bombers? Are they supposed to be situated on the exact middle of the boards?

Thanks