Thread: Burton C60
View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 9th 07, 06:43 PM posted to rec.skiing.snowboard
lonerider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Burton C60

On Feb 9, 6:18 am, "56fish" wrote:
On Feb 9, 4:25 am, René Bedbur wrote:

lonerider wrote:


Just as a running count - this is the third pair of Burton bindings
I've broken in the past 5 years.


'02 Missions (heelcup) - ridden 5 days, returned to store
'03 P1s (FLAD) - ridden 20 days, replaced by Burton after a week
'05 C60 (baseplate) - ridden 6 days, replaced by Burton after 3 weeks


You broke three Burton Bindings? But never had any Problems with other
Brands? Why do you still by them?


Must ride better than the rest!


I still buy them because:

1) I can't trash talk a brand or binding I haven't ridden in a couple
of years.
2) I can't resist a good deal on gear (the last two bindings were both
over 50% off super clearance).
3) Some Burton items are actually decent (not all)
4) I figure at a measly 141 lbs, I wasn't likely to break Burton's top
end, ultra-tech, flagship binding.

Just like I said last time their recent trend towards ultra-light gear
has lead them to shave every little possible ounce of excess material
off their bindings (perhaps too much) and it lead their stuff being
prone to breakage (see below for some examples). My most recent Burton
break just underlines my point despite what any Burton-phile or zealot
might tell you. I always believe that the truth lies somewhere between
all the hype and all the horror stories. Burton bindings have some
nice innovations in them, but you need to be willing to accept some
durability issues with them - they won't always break, but their
aren't incredibly sturdy either. You need to choose for yourself what
you want.

Just to explain, if you look at the C60 photo, it is clear that Burton
slim and slick looking little toe-strap adjustable slot innovation
makes that part of the baseplate weak and prone to breaking. If you
compare it to say a Nidecker 900 Carbon, or say a pair of Catek
Freerides, it's is *clear* that those are much more sturdy than Burton

Burton -
(Medium Size - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/
154/381858984_582630df35.jpg)
(Big Size - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/
154/381858984_582630df35.jpg)
Nidecker - http://static.backcountry.com/images/items/large/
NDK0007.jpg
Catek - http://catek.com/freeride.htm

Also on the lightweight boards... I was at a shop and saw a Burton
Vapor being brought in for repair. Apparently, to reduce weight,
Burton used a really thin layer PTEX that makes the board prone to
core shots (also only gave you 1.5 sets of inserts to reduce weight,
so limited 3D stance options). The owner said since the core isn't
wood, it's less of an issue as the damage is very localized to a
particular cell in the aluminum honeycomb, and he says the ride is
awesome (he sounded sincere... maybe he was rationalizing a $1000
purchase). As I was next in line for repair (to have a slightly
topsheet chip epoxied and clamped) the shop tech told me that that guy
has had like 3-4 core shots in the last two seasons because of it and
he's (the shop guy) not particularly fond of the board... of course
the shop tech only gets to fix the board, he doesn't get to ride it.

All this to claim that Burton has the lightest board on the market...
no WAIT! when you press them, they waffle and say the lightest board
Burton makes and refuse to get actual weight specifications (probably
the boards vary a bit in weight)... I wondered about that and
checked... actually TWSnow did a comparison and found the Elan Inverse
is lighter. I manage to get a weighing of a 160 Vapor and (5 lbs 10
ounces) and realized that it is also heavier than a '07 Rad Air Tanker
200 cm!!! (around 5 lbs 2 ounces) and barely lighter than my Nitro T2
(5 lbs 11 ounces) although my T2 is 152 cm. I'm guessing Burton's
marketing machine decided that hyping the weight of the core was the
best way to convince the impressionable masses to pay $1000 for a
board (versus the perhaps more truthful, but less persuasive line of
"it's an awesome ride").

So sure it's a light board, and it's nice to have "lighter" gear, but
don't get obsessed with buying THE lightest stuff. I mean that Prior
Khyber 160 split I rode was like 8 lbs 8 ounces (pretty hefty for a
board) and it still rode really nicely and I didn't notice the weight
at all riding (jumping and spinning in the air yes... but why would
you need to take a powder split board into the park aside to provide a
point).

Anyways, to conclude this gear ramble... their is Burton-hype, Burton-
love and Burton-hate... and all of us regular joes are often left just
figure it all out on our own... hence when I just try the stuff. I'm
told Burton gear resells really well btw!

Ads