Home Contact Info Newsletter

Forum > Allgemein > Thema

Forum: Allgemein

Thema: re:uninc

re:uninc von euter am 22. Dez 2008, 23:29

http://onboardsnowboarding.com/blogs/sno wbroader/rdm-dcp-jp-yes-we-can/
snowforce ist wieder ne woche hinterher, newstechnisch...
Antworten

re:uninc von Mr. Marty am 23. Dez 2008, 09:05

haha, sehr geil. Mir gefaellts.
Antworten

re:uninc von Jürgen Klinsmann am 25. Dez 2008, 19:27

Wieder eine unnötige Marke mehr am Markt.
Antworten

re:uninc von dieta am 25. Dez 2008, 20:18

dafür steht bei onboard nix von romain fährt flux und solberg hely hansen
Antworten

re:uninc von Mr. Marty am 26. Dez 2008, 05:40

Klinsi, und was genau ist daran nun verwerflich? Ueberfordert?
Antworten

re:uninc von re:sist am 6. Jan 2009, 16:19

auf jeden fall gefällt mir so was besser als wenn völkl, atomic, elan etc versuchen board unter eigenen namen an die kaufsüchtigen zu bringen.

okey, div obengenannte firmen produzieren schon länger boards, aber ich hab wirklich probleme damit wenn skifirmen versuchen in dem markt geld zu verdienen auf den sie vor 10 gepisst haben..
Antworten

re:uninc von swingbomän am 7. Jan 2009, 15:36

rome is eh viel cooler. romain und jp sollen froh sein das sie bei burton weg sind.
Antworten

re:uninc von anon.ymous am 7. Jan 2009, 16:30

absolut.
ich hab vor ca 14 jahre angefangen, meine schwester noch früher.
damals gab es rad air, kemper usw. burton und nitro waren teilweise auch schon uncool aber skimarken die snowboards produzieren, hätten auch nur monoskifahrer oder raceboarder gekauft.
Antworten

re:uninc von swingbomän am 8. Jan 2009, 09:14

weiß jemand wo man dinosaurs will die boards her bekommt? taugen die was? sehen cool aus. rome haben auch schon so viele.
Antworten

re:uninc von anon.ymous am 8. Jan 2009, 10:08

http://www.snowboard-asylum.com/dinosaur s-will-die-snowboards.htm

apo kann ich auch empfehlen.
Antworten

re:uninc von maetsches am 23. Jan 2009, 18:21

dinosaurs will die gibt es hier:
www.trytheunfamiliar.de
Ein Freund von mir hat sich eins gekauft. Der ist richtig begeistert. Sehr schnell und sehr weich.
Antworten

re:uninc von forky am 25. Jan 2009, 10:17

Apo... Hm, ich mag die nicht mehr, weil sie auch so krass ins Skibusiness gehen.

http://www.apo-snow.com/apo_ski/site_typ e/site/index.php?idlang=1&idmenu=138&pag e=produit_gb.php
Antworten

re:uninc von simplepleasure am 25. Jan 2009, 12:35

pfui!
Antworten

re:uninc von philipp5 am 25. Jan 2009, 15:27

naja ich finds eigentlich nicht sooo schlimm wenn skifirmen bretter baun. Peinlich find ichs nur wie libtech das anstellt! vonwegen aufs burton logo pinkeln und dass ganze antikommerz getue und dann aufeinmal skier baun.
Antworten

re:uninc von forky am 25. Jan 2009, 16:37

Ja, ich seh das wie du: Wenn Skifirmen Bretter bauen, mei, da gibt's auch positive beispiele (K2) und ich hab nix dagegen.

Aber andersrum, wenn Board-Firmen Ski bauen, so wie Apo oder das von dir erwähnte Libtech, dann find ich's nicht mehr gut und würde mir von der Firma nix mehr kaufen.Libtech is ja nur noch peinlich, die Ski dann "Narrow Ass Snowboards" zu nennen.
Antworten

re:uninc von bastibauer am 25. Jan 2009, 18:46

das ist doch sooooo wurscht!

1.: seid ihr noch immer der meinung, dass skifahrer die schlechteren menschen sind?
2.: hat eine firma, die zuerst snowboards und dann auch skier baut, zwangsläufig nur geld im kopf?
3.: hat eine firma, die ihre starke position auf dem ski-markt ausnutzen möchte, um auf dem wachsenden snowboard-markt fuss zu fassen, nicht eindeutig stärkere finanzielle interessen?

libtech ist ja eh ein kleiner brand...die werden gar nicht das nötige geld haben, sich ernsthaft eine starke stellung bei den skifahrern zu erhaschen.

ganz abgesehen davon wird es wohl kaum eine firma auf der welt geben, die einzig und allein aus ideellen gründen handelt...natürlich wollen die ihr geld verdienen, was ist dabei?
Antworten

re:uninc von philipp5 am 25. Jan 2009, 19:27

dass stimmt ja alles, allerdings sollten die firmen dann auch von anfang an offen damit umgehen. Und nicht, à là libtech, einen auf corebrand und fuck-komerz und fuck-burton machen um dann selber noch viel krasser zu sein als burton!! Denn die bauen wenigsten noch keine skier, soweit ich weiss!
Antworten

re:uninc von Jürgen Klinsmann am 25. Jan 2009, 20:38

Sehe ich ähnlich wie der Philipp.

Basti, du weißt hoffentlich schon, zu welchem Konzern Libtech gehört?
Antworten

re:uninc von Mitchbu am 26. Jan 2009, 13:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervin_Manu facturinglibtech
Antworten

re:uninc von Mitchbu am 26. Jan 2009, 13:03

Link geht nicht.
Aber:

Mervin Manufacturing is an American snowboard manufacturer. Mervin is the parent company of Liberace Technologies (aka Lib Tech) Snowboards, Gnu Snowboards, Lib Tech Skateboards, and Bent Metal bindings. In the mid 90's Mervin was also an OEM supplier for companies such as Canada's Luxury brand and for The Movement Snowboards.

Mervin was purchased by Quiksilver in the late 1990s. Since this acquisition, Mervin has continued the tradition of making winter toys out of plastic, fiberglass, heavy metals and fast growing trees. Additionally, they manufacture Roxy snowboards, a Quiksilver brand. Mervin's original founders continue to reign supreme and promote the fact that their snowboards are made near Canada by snowboarders with jobs.

Ziemlich core...
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 26. Jan 2009, 18:12

schon, wenn man weiss, dass die allermeisten patente, mit denen die snowboardindustrie heute produziert, von mervin kommen. da kann man dann auch auf's burtonlogo pissen und sich über freeskier lustig machen. genau das tun sie nämlich.
Antworten

re:uninc von sker132 am 26. Jan 2009, 20:45

und was würde die skateboardwelt sagen, wenn powell auf einmal inline skates produziert, weil der kleine bruder vom neuen praktikanten fruitbootet aber das knowhow und image von powell viel cooler findet!?
Antworten

re:uninc von Jürgen Klinsmann am 26. Jan 2009, 21:25

Ich glaub, da weiss der arschprolet! aber was falsches.
Meiner Meinung nach ist da klar Burton führend. Das belegten auch meine Suchergebnisse.
Lasse mich aber gerne aufklären, ihr unrasierten Hoden.

Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 26. Jan 2009, 22:30

angefangen bei rocker, magnetraction über dinge wie den parabelförmigen sidecut, cap- und sandwichbauweise,uhmw-sidewalls, die verwendung von tri-axialer glasfaser usw...mike olson hat mit seiner "grundlagenforschung" in den achtzigern wohl den weg dafür bereitet, wie snowboards heute gebaut werden. um patente gings da wohl weniger, lass uns das doch "ideen" nennen.
Antworten

re:uninc von Jürgen Klinsmann am 26. Jan 2009, 22:46

Ja, aber die werden kaum ihre guten Ideen nicht durch Patente schützen, oder?
Bemüh mal die Patentsuche!? Ich kann dazu nichts passendes finden. Stoße nur auf eine Vielzahl an Patenten, eingetragen von Burton.
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 26. Jan 2009, 23:27

naja, allerhand krude konstruktionen für's bindungsdesign, das tolle est-system...die haben sich auch drei löcher patentieren lassen, über die man die bindung ans brett schrauben kann. ich find allein die idee, sowas patentieren zu lassen schon wert, sie selbst patentieren zu lassen.
das hat doch nichts mit dem nutzen zu tun, den wir daraus ziehen. irgendjemand hat ne tolle idee, hat seinen spass damit, und ein paar jahre später kommt irgendein arsch, patentiert das ganze und verkauft es als seine tolle innovation. siehe burton's capstraps. bloß blöd, dass irgendwann fotos aus den achtzigern aufgetaucht sind, auf denen sims-bindungen mit ebendiesen capstraps zu sehen sind.
in der transworld gab es vor ein paar jahren ein interview mit mike olson. eine kleine geschichtsstunde über die entwicklung des snowboards. wär cool, wenn das irgendjemand auftreiben könnte. ich find's leider nicht mehr.

dann könnten vielleicht auch die kleinen schwanzlutscher da oben begreifen, warum's den mann freut, auf's burtonlogo zu pissen.
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 26. Jan 2009, 23:48

oha! da schau her, es ward gefunden:

leider funzt der originallink nicht mehr, deshalb wird das hier ein etwas längerer eintrag...

BusinessTransworld Business A History Lesson With Mike Olson
By Leah Crane
Posted 10.15.2004
When researching a story on Mervin Manufacturings new Magne-Traction technology, it was obvious Id have to track down its Founder and Director of Design Mike Olson. I didnt want to simply talk to him about the new technology, but also about some of the technologies Mervin has worked on in the past. According to some industry vets, it could be argued that many of the concepts currently used in snowboard and ski construction were developed by Mike Olson and used in Mervin products or prototypes long before coming to market.
But tracking down Olson for a story on Mervin isnt the easiest thing to do. When you do get a hold of him its even harder to make him stop talking. "Im sure your interview with Mike started with you saying hello and ended with your cell phone battery dying, joked Mervins VP of Sales Greg Hughes in a subsequent e-mail.
Essentially, it did. Only it was a tape recorder that ran out of tape just as he was finishing up an hour-and-a-half long conversation about Mervins contributions to the industry. Unfortunately, the print version of Transworld Business just didnt have the space to include all of Olsons conversation. Instead we offer it here--all 8,000 words. But trust me when I say, even if you have to come back to it several times before you finish it--every single person who works in snowboarding should read this.
Leah Stassen: I mean the cool thing to me about Magne-Traction--aside from it being just an interesting ideaÖ
Mike Olson:
Kinda wacky. Yeah, kinda wacky.
Yeah. It looks like the designers were drunk, or really tired, or both.
They might have been drunk with a skill sawÖBut, its interesting to me because I was always under the impression that Mervin brought a lot of things to the current ski and snowboard industry--like the parabolic sidecut?
Right.
And cap construction?
Yep.
Is that accurate?
Yeah, it actually is. Its funny because a lot of people arent aware of that. I remember a few years ago hearing about how some snowboard companies, like Scott were going to start bringing parabolic sidecut to snowboards now--taking it from skiing. I was like, wait a second are they that far out of it that they think skiing came up with the super-deep sidecuts? There are so many new people that work for the (snowboard) companies that they are like, wow weve got to look at the ski industry.
I started doing the deep sidecut in the early eighties. Back then all the snowboards that were out on the market (which were Sims, Barfoot, Burton, some Snowtech, and Slicker) all had sidecuts that didnt resemble anything you see today. The boards looked like they had a surfboard nose. The sidecut was done the wrong way. They go into an hourglass shape and then a flat rail line all the way down.
The designers really were just drawing things. I actually met people, like Chris Karol, who worked at the Burton factory back then and Id go, "So howd you guys come up with the sidecut? And they just literally (Karol worked at Sims and Burton. He would go back and forth, go to Sims in the summer and ride for Burton in the winter.) He was like, "Well theyre just kind of random. Theyd all just draw lines, eye them, and say, "How does this line look? It looks aesthetic. And, that was about the thought into it.
Ironically, my boards looked the least like a surfboard--mine looked like a big fat monoski back then. There was a company called Bahne Monoskis on the market back then. And, I had the only shop in Washington that would sell my board. The shop was called The BikeFactory and doubled as a skateboard/bike shop that carried some snowboards. He (the owner, Bob Barci) just kept saying, "Thats a monoski--get that monoski out of here," while I was trying to explain how it worked.
Ironically, of the group of everyone making snowboards back then I was the only one, as far as I know, shaping surfboards to survive as a living. I really knew surf theory and ironically my snowboards looked the least like a surfboard. The curves on a surfboard are for totally different purposes. The long needle nose on a surfboard is there for paddling. This was the part I think the other guys building snowboards didnt get. Theyd make these long narrow noses and Id say, "What? Youre not going to paddle your snowboard too often, so you dont really need that.
My theory came more off skis--the concept of making the sidecut go the right direction. I thought why not try a super-deep sidecut and experiment with it. Since you have two feet and all that weighting on one board, I thought, you have twice as much weight as you have on a pair of skis--thus you have the ability to press out more sidecut.
Also, I really didnt want a board that if you have a really straight sidecut (like skis at the time) the tail gets really swishy, really washy. Since we were trying to make it feel like a surfboard and a skateboard, my theory was put a super, super-deep sidecut from your backfoot on back (to the tail of the board). Then it feels like a surfboard fin--almost. When you put it on edge it really bites behind your foot. Then you put a moderately deep sidecut in front of your foot so its a little more forgiving on the entry than the exit of the turn--because you have less control coming into a turn more control coming out.
All of my first sidecuts were--in the early, early days--whats now called progressive sidecuts or dual radius. People have all kinds of words for them now but basically it was two radiuses mixed.
When you came up with these new shapes and sidecuts, did people start instantly gravitating to it?
No, not at first. They didnt at all, even people that I kept building boards for up here kept going, "Why dont you just try one thats Ö normal.
Avalanche was the next brand that actually had a sidecut. Their board was modeled off a ski, with more of a mellow sidecut, but it went in the right direction. And, so we were the only two brands that first had (and were marketing) a board with sidecut and no fins. I had people going, "Why dont you try mellowing out the sidecut? And, I refused to do it. I just didnt want to do it.
A few years later, Pete actually made one and tried it with mellower sidecut--and we took it to Europe. I remember I kept going, "I dont know, I dont know, it just feels so good with a deep sidecut. So, we took it over to Europe and it felt horrible with the mellower sidecut (laughs). It just felt kind of swishy, and tail loose. It didnt really feel like a skateboard or a surfboard.
My theory back then was that I was trying to get (snowboarding) to feel like riding a skateboard or a surfboard--where to do a 360 was a trick. The other boards on the market, thats all they did is 360s--doing a carve was a trick. (laughs)
So anyway, when I went into that snowboard shop (The BikeFactory) that existed back then, and the owner (Barci) was going, "Get that monoski out of here. (laughing)
I was trying to explain to him my concept, saying, "Listen you know how a skateboard and a surfboard is really carvy and its a trick to do a 360--like its really hard to do. And on a snowboard that you have now its a trick to do a carveÖ
He just said, "Mr. Gnu get that monoski out of here. I want my snowboards to slide sideways. I was like, "Wow. That was the mentality. Since the three or four other brands had snowboards that were all swishy and slidy--thats the way it was supposed to be.
After that I did a brochure--the one with me and Pete on it. It was my first attempt ever at a brochure. It was a four-color brochure (one of the first ones ever, I think.) Burton and Gnu were the only companies that had four-color brochures--I had no money, but I knew a printer that gave me like a year to pay for it.
In the brochure, you open it up and it explains a carve. It says, "This is not a snowboard. Thats one of the first thing it says (laughing). We didnt call it Gnu snowboards. I was denouncing snowboards because I was like wow, "I guess snowboarders want to slide sideways.
So, the brochure shows a cartoon of conventional snowboard--it shows this guy with a really wide stance on a needle nose snowboard. He kind of has a Neanderthal-looking head, a big forehead, and is just kind of Neanderthal-looking guy. It shows him sliding sideways--a cartoon of tail slides out in the really wide track.
And then the brochure shows our board. It says Gnu, shows a modern shape, and it shows a guy making little pinline carves. We were explaining the concept of a carve! At that point--that was 1986--the word carve wasnt used in snowboarding. I remember running into other snowboarders heckling us saying, "whats this carve thing? We were pushing the concept of the carve.
And then the Euros got pictures of it Ö we ran an ad in ISM Magazine that showed the functional shape, functional carve. That was our first ad. There was a shadow on the board because the shot was taken from above at Mt. Hood.
I think we were one of the first groups of snowboarders to go to Mt. Hood because the lifties didnt know what the things we were riding were. But, anyway, the shot in the ad in ISM had a shadow in it that made the nose of the board look really, really, really blunt.
All of a sudden Hooger Booger (which was José Fernandes, the Swiss guy) came a year later with these boards with really snubby noses. The noses were only about two inches long and looked like a picture from the side top angle of our board--like they missed interpreted it. I was like, "Howd they come up with that idea? Then I looked at it again and it was exactly like picture of our board from the ad with a shadow across it.
But, the thing is, then they started pushing carving. The whole Euro-carve movement came out a year-and-a-half later. Everything went neon. Burton started putting out videos that were famous for Jean Nerva saying, "You carve, you carve, you carve ... no slide.
All of a sudden everyone was saying, "Yeah! The Euros have this new movement called carving. We were going, "Wait a second-- weve been saying that for about three and a half years now.
After that the sidecut thing went off the hook?
It did. Then everyone jumped on it.
And then skis went parabolic?
Yeah skis did, too. Whats really funny is that I went to K2 in 1985 and I was buying steel edges from them. It was like, How do you get steel edges? Youre a kid building snowboards in the U.S., and how do you get edges? It was really cool that they were selling them to me.
They were actually bankrupt at the time. The media back then didnt report stories like that so often--so the world didnt realize that K2 was bankrupt. Id meet with them at a bank in Seattle--the president of K2 was a banker (laughs).
So, at the time they were selling me these edges. Finally they said, "Hey, we're kind of in a slump right now. We want to look at new products. Bring this snowboard thing in because weve never seen one. We want to look at it see if we could do some sort of venture together.
I brought it in to K2 and met all of their engineers. I was twenty-one then and there were all these guys whod designed Steve and Phil Mahers gold medal skis.
I was in total awe, four engineers, and one of the managers were sitting around a table. I was explaining the snowboard to them and theyd never seen it. After about a half hour I said, "Can I ask you guys a question? How come you dont put a deeper sidecut on skis?
(See, I used to teach skiing back then. That was how I made a living--shaping surfboards and teaching skiing. I think I made $4.85 an hour.) I said to the engineers at K2, "Listen, my beginner kids--I love beginner classes-- they learn super fast. I take them from beginner to advanced, and my advanced kids are killer, but the intermediates are stuck as intermediates. The problem is almost all of them have bought skis from the seventies and early eighties that are called intermediate skis, which means they have no sidecut on them--like no sidecut at all.
There was actually an era where K2 had these skis called K2 shorts that had no sidecut. My beginners (that had second- and third-hand equipment) would have early 70s skis that were deeper sidecut like slalom skis and theyd go right to advanced class. But the intermediate kids had those skis from the early 80s.)
So that day at K2 I said, "Hey why dont you build a ski with super-deep sidecut like I have on my snowboard? They all laughed. I was super humbled. I was just a kid there--these guys were my heroes.
They said, "Well, if you put a deep sidecut on it, it would be too narrow where your boot is. The lines of the sidecut would cross, there wouldnt be a ski there.
And I went, "No, why dont you widen the whole ski? Widen the tips?
And then they laughed again at me and I was like, "Whats so funny?
And they said, "You cant do that.
I said, "Why cant you?
They said, "It would never turn.
And I said, "Why not?
They said, "It'd be too wide.
I went, "Huh? Well, this thing (my snowboard) is twelve inches wide and it turns.
And then they all scratched their heads and went, "Huh? It must be because you have two feet on it that it turns.
At that I point I went, 'Well they must know what theyre doing. I did ask them if theyd tried it--if theyd experimented with sidecut much? They said, "To be honest--we dont even really work on that. Our main effort is materials and decoration. (Which meant new ways to put graphics on and materials.)
Im saying, "You dont work on sidecuts at all?"
They were like, "Oh no. Weve had those established for years.
That was literally the mentality, thats when I realized, "You know what? The sky is the limit. All of a sudden I realized what an open window it was. These were some of best engineers in the world and theyre not even thinking about sidecut--literally. That was probably a big motivating factor.
But when you developed all of this stuff, you obviously didnt patent it or protect it?
The thing about patents is theyre not what a lot of people think they are. Certain patents, in certain industries, can be really good, but most things pertaining to skiing or snowboarding--theyre really easy to work around. If its a really good patent--like the formula of materials--when you patent it then youre giving away the formula to your competitors. You have no real way to monitor if the competitors are using it. Plus if you want to steal something you can usually just get around it with little modifications on those kind of patents.
Design patents arent protected too well, either. If you do a design patent like a shape, then its really easy to work around that because if you change any small aspect then its not the same shape. Both the design and formula patents dont have a lot of protection in our industry.
Ironically, Burton tried suing the industry a few times for things. We just sent letters back to their law firm saying something like, "You guys should be embarrassed for representing them on his case. We were dropped. We had prior usage. I have a picture of me from 1985 holding a board with a three-hole pattern. That was seven years before they did it (or something like that) but it was just something I was experimenting with way back then.
Youve always been pretty experimental?
Yeah, we always just experimented. The reason I did, without a doubt, is because I started with no mentors and no money. People say think outside the box, I think in my case I was never in the box because I never had a mentor--never had any money. There was no box to think outside of--there was no parameter. I kind of just experimented with every material I could find--and every process. Influences I had two big influences, one was Tom Morey from Morey Boogie--the guy who invented the boogie boards. He actually moved up here in the mid-80s and I ran into him. Hes known for inventing some crazy ideas. He basically said, "Mike, go to the library. Theres a set of books called the Thomas Register and its an industrial catalog that lists all the industries in the U.S. and Canada. He said, "Thats how you find materials.
That piece of advice wouldnt have given out til the computer era. Now people can find materials really easily, but back then it was hard to find crazy composite material to build things.
And then I also met the guy that owned RD skis. A guy named Mike Bernetto was making these really cool hand-crafted skis called the Coyote in Sun Valley during the early to mid-80s. I would always hear about this guy, and back then the ski industry was fading in the U.S. I drove to Sun Valley and lived in the back of my pickup for a couple of weeks outside of his factory. The one piece of advice he gave was, "Dont ever try to satisfy a whole market. Just be a niche guy. If you make ten percent of the market happy youll be stoked, youll have those people following you.
And thats what our philosophy has always been. Where a lot of the other brands try to do a bit of everything, we just concentrate on a few. Some of our Lib Tech and Gnu marketing image--a lot of people dont get it. Then the people that do get it like it that much more.
But we had to think outside the box, I had no mentor no money, there was like no old guy to sit me down and say, Heres how you do it. I had to come up with all these materials and concepts from scratch. I think it really helped that I couldnt afford skis back then.
I was ski instructor and I had a friend who ran the backhoe at the K2 dump. Whenever they put skis in that they forgot to break--like the warranties and rejects--hed find us matching sets. Wed repair them and ski them. I also bought a lot of thrift store skis--I learned a lot of ski theory repairing that stuff.
And then shaping surfboards was kind of the same thing. I didnt have mentor for surfboard building so I had to invent a theory as to how surfboards work. Back then, up here, there werent any surfers. I didnt have a surfboard to look at--I had to look at pictures in Surfer Magazine and figure out what the dimensions were. I think that just helped develop theory.
We came up with a lot of firsts. Probably that a lot of people dont even realize we did.
What are some of the other ones?
One of them thats probably a huge one since its super common in the ski and snowboard industry is tri-axial weaves of fiberglass, knitted fiberglass. Everyone uses it nowadays and probably no one realizes that we were the first.
Tri-axial Fiberglass Ö
I was in Matt Cummins shop Northwest Snowboards for their clinic about four years ago and someone raised their hand and said, "Well Burton has this new type of glass. The person was explaining it and it was in the Burton brochure. I had seen the brochure, and they didnt even describe it right. I said, "Listen, Ive had that since 85.
Most of the U.S. manufacturing shops had the fiberglass four to five years after I was using it. It became an industry thing. Before that all the glass was in Europe--in fact Burton still uses a lot of European glass. Its pre-cured glass with lots of uni-directionals and then just a cross-weave of glass going straight across the board. The weaves we started using were tri-axial. It makes Xs down the boards, all knitted together. The glass doesnt weave over and under like the woven cloth of a T-shirt. Instead its layers are laid on top of each other that are then stitched together. Theyre knitted together.
I worked with the first company in the world that was doing the knits. We werent the first-ever to do knits whatsoever--they were starting to work on them for the boat industry. But I came up with a bunch of directions of glass and weights of glass that are still in all the books now. And, all European glass companies that came into business five or six years later started making weaves. All of the weaves are based on the original weights that I was using in the mid-80s.
I still use them now. Its just funny because theres maybe five glass companies that do this type of knitting now. They all go back to our original weights and directions wed come up with. Its pretty fun to see that it got big. I thought it would have caught on quicker--I was using that glass for years and years.
I remember sometime later Jason Kasnitz was doing burn-off tests at K2 on our boards. (We never bought or had any other brands products. We would never cut apart other peoples boards-- we just did our own thing.) But he said they were doing a burn off where they burned our board until the only thing left is the glass so they can count the glass.
He was saying, "You have these funky weaves and these funky weights. (laughing) The ski industry wasnt seeing these glass weaves yet. I was just blown away that they werent. I was like, "You guys did a burnout to discover that? I thought it was common knowledge by then.
That was definitely a thing that we did that is now an industry standard.
Ö Metric Versus Standards
Ironically most people thought this one was a lampoon, but we did the first metric M6 inserts in snowboards. And, we were the ones that got famous at Lib Tech for the anti-M6s--the non-metric. We started using U.S hardware and then after about five or six years the shops got bummed. So we ran an ad that said "M6--we invented it.
People were like, "Thats funny. But the irony is we were the first bringing it into snowboards. I actually used to export M6 T-nuts to Europe in the mid 80s.
Id send them to Austria to Palé Skis which was making Avalanche, Kemper, and a bunch of brands. He made some of my snowboards so I would trade him inserts for snowboards. I was the middle-man for all of the M6 inserts.
Ironically Europe was metric, but I found a guy in Japan that was selling them cheaper than they can make them in Austria or Germany. I would bring the M6 inserts to the U.S., change the box--so they didnt know where they were coming from--and them ship them from the U.S. to Europe. I could get them for a penny and a half and in Europe they were eleven cents each.
Back then Sims and Burton were still using helicoils. They were screwing from the top of the board and after the board was finished they would drill it out and then put that oversized screwnut in there. We were actually the first ones molding in T-nuts and you couldnt pull them out.
Thats how we did the four-hole pattern--years before the one thats being used now. Ours was just a little bit wider than the ones being used now. The standard four-hole pattern now used was developed by F2 when Kevin Delaney was riding and working for them.
Ours was just a smidgen wider. I would split my four-holes sideways, turn then into a triangle so I would have a series of triangles going down the board from your front foot. So I had the first three-hole pattern, too. You could just hook up three holes, and have the triangle under your foot.
The only reason you could hook into just three was because we had these inserts that were so strong in the board. They were the first ones imbedded in the board, no one else was doing that yet.
I remembered getting heckled by Paul Wren who was the head engineer for Burton. He was this guy that was like six foot seven. I saw him down in Colorado at the World Championships and he came up to me and started laughing at how tight our insert pattern was. (Back then they had big wide cluster of a million inserts on their boards.)
He said, "Theres no way thats gonna hold. What are your pullout numbers?"
I said, "I dont know theyve never pulled out. Weve never tested them because weve never had one come out. (laughs)
And he goes, "Theres no way theyre going to hold up.
I said, "Ive been doing it for years and theyve never come out.
A few years later they came out with a three-hole pattern, which is an even tighter pattern. We kind of had the predecessor to F2s four-hole pattern and luckily Kevin Delaney remembers it. When their four-hole pattern came out people were like, "Look at this invention--F2 has this invention!
Actually during the trade shows that year Kevin was going, "Well actually these guys over here at Gnu had it years before this. They had a four-hole pattern and everyone made fun of it.
But it was pretty cool--I am glad the four-hole pattern still exists today because it works pretty well. People always think theyre is going to be a better system but its a system that works.
So, as you roll through all of these old steps thats everyones laughed at then later adopted--is that kind of how you look at Magne-Traction?
I expected people to laugh harder, because I have been working on the concept since about 1986. I actually dug it out and presented it to some people in our shop seven years ago. I said, "If I get some spare time, this is something I want to work on. It might work now.
Magne-Tractions one of those things that looks crazy enough to be a dead end. A concept where I could have spent a couple weeks working on it and said, "You know what that was a waste of two weeks.
We started working on approaches to it in 1986 and gave up on it because people were not ready for it then. And then I got really motivated seven years ago and started working on the concept of presenting it to the shops. Everyone was looking at me like I was crazy.
I started revamping the idea again just recently and decided to really work on it. This time a couple people in the shop went, "That might really work, and they even took it to the next level. And it works.
I thought this was going to be the hardest one to get accepted because it looks so crazy. Our skateboard for instance--our skateboards, look like a beautiful piece of woodwork. At the ends they have all of that fancy lamination and theyre shiny and people go, "Oh, thats a nice skateboard.
Its light, and it lasts a long time--but the skateboards were hard to get accepted. People were scared and I asked, "Why? Its lighter and going to last longer. Whats scary? They were like, "I dont know--I just dont want to try it.
Ö drawing a Surftech parallel
Its kind of the same thing that Surftech is going through with surfboards. Ironically, Randy French and I talk a lot because we have both been through the same thing--were kind of a team on this. Even though were not in the same company, were in the brotherhood of trying to get accepted for things that shouldnt seem that radical. Now we're both accepted. Even though theyre a few people who would never try it, most of the market is super into it now. Hes killing it now. We are making more boards than we wanted to be making.
Ö on to Magne-Traction
So with Magne-traction I thought, "Well this one is going to take years, and come on low-key and really have to be marketed carefully. A few of the guys that I thought were going to be the biggest skeptics--werent. As soon as they looked at it, thought about it, and tried it--they flipped out. At the end of the year I couldnt believe how fast everyone knew about it.
I was in the parking lot of Mt. Baker and skiers were coming up to us saying, "Hey are you guys the ones doing the Magne-Traction? I want it on my skis next year. How can I get skis made with Magne-Traction?
Everyone was loving it. I didnt find anyone that was saying thats crazy, thats nuts. You say, "Look its like any serrated knife. Take that versus a smooth knife and it just cuts easier. You cut your surface area in half so it sinks in further. Thats our whole theory.
Snowboards work almost perfect in powder and slush, but in ice they still have a ways to go. Ice is fun but not as fun.
A couple of years ago I was talking to other snowboard companies at the show and I was saying, "I dont think boards are where they need to be on ice.
They said, "Ours work perfect on ice.
I said, "No, thats not what Im talking about. Im saying, snowboards in general should work better on ice. They werent getting what I was saying, at all.
The beauty of Magne-Traction is we're just touching the tip of the iceberg, I have a whole other generation Im going to bring out. The sky is the limit. We dont know how deep or how many combos of bumps will be the ultimate someday. Maybe youll want more bumps behind your feet, or in front of your feet, or between them. Maybe youll want shallow ones in one place, and deeper in the other, where as right now we have a blend. Theres like twenty years of combos to try out, which is fun because I think the industry kind of needed that. The word on the street over the last few years, is that snowboards are stagnant and not changing, which is true, there wasnt much changing.
I mean every brand claimed, "We reinvented everything this year. When really its just new graphics, a few line, or shape changes--but this can be a giant change.
Luckily ice and hardpack is what the majority of people are riding on most of the time--unless you are lucky enough to be in the Northwest where thats only in January that we get the ice (laughs). Most of the world, even Europe, they get a ton of hardpack. I think its cool because Magne-Tractions going to make hardpack really fun because you can just gouge it.
Ö More Industry Firsts
Weve added tons of things, its fun to see. The industry claims things now and then, and we just kind of go, "Thats funny because theyre new enough not to remember.
Never Summer has done a killer job with their UHMW (P-Tex) sidewalls, and theyll run ads saying we invented them in 1991. All of our boards from 84 until I think 86 we had UHMW sidewalls. We were hand-building the boards just south of Seattle and using super high temperatures to cure them. At the time I was buying surplus pre-preg (which is another thing thats new right now).
I was buying the glass from a Boeing subcontractor. Everything that was out of date they would have to get rid of, so I bought it. I had to cure these boards at 350 degrees Fahrenheit so everything melted. The only sidewalls I could find that would work were at that temp were UHMW. But Im stoked that Never Summer jumped into it in 1991 and have been pushing them ever since.
It really is a good way to go and now, thanks to Never Summer, were back to using them on a majority of our boards.
What are some of the other firsts?
We did caps in 1987 and we actually did sandwiches in 1984, because before that everyone was making snowboards with a skateboard construction--maple veneer, nine-ply, or seven-ply. I did sandwiches.
Another funny one that we did first--because Salomon has a patent pending on this--is twenty-degree fiberglass. It runs across the board making a big X from contact point to contact point. We used to run ads for the Temple Cummins board--which was eight years ago--and it said power X construction. The ad talked about the twenty-degree fiberglass.
Salomon literally just wrote a patent in the last few months. Its all about the twenty-degree glass that they came up with. The patent talks about how the whole ski industry and snowboard industry only have glasses that are zero, ninety, and forty five and they came up with this new concept.
Its pretty much my point about patents. The thing I dont like is that the people who write them dont do any research to find out if the patent-pending idea already existed.
But, snowboards are better because of the technology--patented or not.
Exactly. Thats why we always joke that we're going to make a lampoon of ones of Burtons last lawsuits. We may do it some day. When they were suing everyone for the three-hole pattern, we were going copy it and cross out Burton everywhere and write Lib Tech. But, mark it so you could still see the word Burton under it. Then where it said three-hole pattern and under it wed write Air Core. At the bottom, where they ask for 600,000 dollars, we were going to cross that out and write an order for pizza. Wed make it for each day at Vegas, for Solomon, Nitro, Option, Ride, and Glissade. We were going to have each one of them give us an order of pizza each day. I talked to most of them and they were like cool--theyd love to do it, it was cool for them, too.
It was a lampoon, because Burton would be bummed. They were the only ones not using the Air Core, but they were the ones going around suing people--we were going to use their lawsuit. It was kind of a lampoon that they were trying to charge people money for the three-hole pattern. Its like, "How do you sue someone for using three holes?
They literally sued people for that. We sent back our letters that said, "You should be embarrassed. We never heard from them again. But I know brands that are paying the money--actually like literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Any more firsts?
You know Crown Plastics? Theyre the ones in the U.S. that do the UHMW base material that everyones doing the fancy diecut designs with. They were the only U.S. supplier for base materials--Gary Ellerhorst and his family owned Crown Plastics--which came into the scene in the late 80s early 90s.
We were actually his first snowboard customers and he didnt even know it. We got together and we were talking about it recently. He was like, "Oh yeah, my first customer was Ernie DeLost who works for Taylor Dykma. And I was like, "Actually, Gary, I was your first customer, you just didnt know it. (laughs)
I was buying the base material through a middleman--this old lady and old man in Wisconsin. I dont know how I got this set up--it was a crazy one! I found this old lady and old woman in Wisconsin that claimed they were making it, but they were actually buying it from Ellerhorst in Cincinnati, Ohio and middle-manning it to me.
Then I found another plastic supplier and they middle manned it to me, too. Im getting these boxes from all over, they looked the same, and all said Crown on the outside. I said, "Hmm, theres some company called Crown thats actually making this.
I was the first to use that and theyre definitely really cool. Theyre kind of like one of the solid anchors of the industry that's been there forever and are a great material supplier. A lot of people buy their base from them Ride, Burton--I know we buy a bunch from them. Theyre really good guys.
Olson Talks Bindings
Oh another thing that we did, that I think there will be a revival in but we got completely laughed off the market on, is tongues on our bindings. But recently I had a bunch of snowboarders that werent aware of that going, "You know what? I think the future is tongues, kind of like Flow has.
It was a funny thing. I still have a few boxes of these old tongues that no one was even aware of. Some people did like them at the time, but other people were going, "Theres no future in tongues."
Ironically, we were giving tongues to Craig Kelly and Terry Kidwell, two of the best guys at the time--the best two actually--who were sponsored by other brands. The reason our tongues went out, people said, "Well youre not going to have enough flexibility to tweak your feet side to side. (It was the late 80s and tweaking was big but it was funny, because the two best tweakers on earth were using our tongues.)
The beauty was that you could get forward stiffness out of your tongue for toeside turns and the highback would give your heel stiffness, but side-to-side--your foot could fully flex.
Yeah, and those boots back then were so loose Ö
Exactly, you could have a really loose boot and be flexible side-to-side but stiff forward and backward. We had three different flexes of tongues so you could get stiff, medium, or soft. It was a good concept but it completely died. Im happy to see Flow bringing back the same kind of concept--its really cool.
Flow is obviously making waves right now, theyre doing good. The K2 Cinch is now coming into that aspect, too--the new easy-to-get-into alternative binding. Burton is working on one, too. Thats going to be the next wave that youll see. But, Flow has done a great job. Maybe in some way theyre based on some of our old ideas, but theyre taking it to the next level. Theyre way beyond what we were doing with their really cool fold-down highback. Theyre booming right now.
With all of this old stuff, I bet you guys have the crazy storage archive.
Yeah. (laughs) I have a forty-foot container here in Port Angeles. It holds all the things that people always said, "Dont throw all of this stuff away to.
Its got at least a thousand Jamie Lynns in it. I think that theyre a Japan-edition that were factory thirds. They were supposed to be thrown away but I went, "Theyre Jamies--from 94 or 95. I cant throw these away.
Also all of the mystery boards from the old days are in there. Theyre all in little stashes everywhere. Every now-and-then well dig into a pile and go, "Wow, this is really cool. A lot of it isnt too different from what were riding today.
Some of our oldest boards really havent changed too much, and the old bindings either.
Making Bindings With Italians Ö
This is a story in itself. It was a company called Icaro Olivieri, which is an Italian company started by two brothers who invented the plastic ski-boot buckle in the late 60s. They patented it and had a patent on it for like twenty-some years. When we decided we were going to make our first real production binding-- the one with the tongue--I was like, "You know what Im going to do? Im going to go to Italy, meet these brothers who make the buckle we needed anyway, and see if theyll make my binding."
I walked into the factory and they hadnt dealt with Americans--like young Americans--and they didnt know what a snowboard was so they were stoked. The president of the company spoke English the best because he remembered it from a high school English class like twenty years earlier (laughs). So he was the guy I dealt with at this giant factory that made all of the ski-boot buckles in the world. They also made something like eighty percent of all of the ice skate blades in the world and owned most of the ice skate companies in the world. They were giant. So here I am dealing with the president--he was the guy that made my bindings.
For years I was the only company making bindings there. Until one year, Jamie Salter (who owned Kemper at the time) caught me at the ISPO Trade Show with the guys from the factory. I was sitting there eating with the president of the company and Jamie was standing outside the little room. He was pointing to me saying, "Gotcha, I know where youre bindings are made now.
I didnt have any money. Olivieri was basically funding me. He built me 5,500 bindings with no money, but then the door was open--everyone knew where I was getting them made.
Then I told Jason Kasnitz at K2, "Hey listen, if you need to get bindings made we dont have any money for new molds--Ill tell you how to get them done, and where to go--if youll sell some bindings to us, too. So thats what we did. We bought K2 bindings for a year.
That was the first year we were doing Lib Tech--years after I had been working with Olivieri. Nitro, of course, (because they branched off of us) they knew where to go, too. All of a sudden, everyone was there. Then Burton figured it out, came in and threw the money at it to get an exclusive. Later Nike bought out that company (which was by that time operating under the name Canstar.) So its a little known fact that some of Burtons bindings are made by Nike now.
Its funny because it all started from Mr. Olivieri, he sold out the company for eighty million dollars. But to this day I think they still make a bunch of the Burton parts. Burton got really famous for their bindings and I was laughing because our first year our binding was known as the crappy binding with the tongue. Its the same factory that made the crappy ones and the really good ones--exactly the same factory! Ironically, our first binding didnt work very well because you couldnt get out of the strap, or out of the t
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 26. Jan 2009, 23:49

ongue. The buckles wouldnt open. We tested them with stock buckles and then we ordered our first ever order of 5,500 bindings. When they showed up, we realized that Mr. Olivieri thought hed surprise us and reinvent the buckle for us. Since Olivieri never had seen a snowboard before he invented this buckle that didnt open up very well. We had explained the concept that you never want to eject on the hill but it didnt sit right with him. The binding with his modified buckle was almost impossible to get out of. People were stuck--they couldn't get out of the bindings. My first day at Baker on opening day of that year--with my first bindings on the market--riding on the first chair I got about three towers up. I looked down and I see this snowboarder sitting on the snow going, "These bindings suck! He was hitting them. I looked and they were our bindings--he was stuck in them!!! He was stuck in the flats and I went, "Oh, no were doomed. And, we were. We called Mr. Olivieri in Italy--hes a big shot--and he still ends up flying all the way to Seattle to visit us at our office in Southpark. He ended up selling us the 5,500 bindings, with the faulty buckles for free. We had to recall them, drill off all of the buckles, and hand rivet all of these new buckles on. Pretty much from that point on the Gnu binding went downhill. This tongue started with a bad reputation. (laughing) Luckily, in a way, its getting revamped right now by Flow. Which, I am really stoked to see. Hey MikeÖ um (as my tape recorder dies) Well thank you for the history lesson!
Antworten

re:uninc von Jürgen Klinsmann am 27. Jan 2009, 17:35

Schwere Kost für meine derzeitige Lernpause. Werde ich mir ein anderes Mal reinziehen.
Aber nochmals zurück zu den Patenten, findet wer von euch die Patente zu den Technologien "Banana Technologie", "Magne-Traction", etc...das wird sich doch wer gesichert haben? Konnte dazu nichts finden.
Wie schaut das eigentlich aus, Unternehmen XY entwirft Technologie YXZ und bindet die in ihre Produkte ein und vertreibt diese, allerdings ohne sich dafür ein Patent einzutragen. Wäre dann Herr ABC berechtigt, diese Technologie abzukupfern, ein Patent auf seinen Namen anzumelden und kann evtl. sogar eine Gewinnbeteiligung von Unternehmen XY einfordern?
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 27. Jan 2009, 19:49

nein. wenn's jemand zuerst verwendet, dann kann irgendjemand zwar das patent darauf anmelden, aber keine ansprüche gleich welcher art durchsetzen. zumindest, solange der erstanwender nachweisen kann, dass er oder jemand anders die idee schon vorher hatte. siehe burton's 3d-inserts.

quellen möge sich der interessierte fred-beteiligte selbst suchen, ich hab das noch aus irgendeiner vorlesung im kopf.
Antworten

re:uninc von arschprolet! am 27. Jan 2009, 20:04

ah und zu bananatech: mervin hat scheinbar ein patent drauf. aber da sich findige köpfe anderer firmen immer gern was einfallen lassen, um bestehende patente zu umgehen, hat ks zum beispiel, soweit ich weiss, einfach das design ein bissl abgeändert: statt wie libtech zwischen den bindungen einen echten rocker wie bei surfboards zu verbauen, ist bei k2 der teil einfach flach und dann zu nose und tail hin aufgebogen.
Antworten

re:uninc von sker132 am 27. Jan 2009, 21:11

das mit den patenten steht auch so teilweise in dem laaaangen artikel. jedenfalls bis dahin, bis wo ich gekommen bin...naja, aber das unterschiedliche firmen die verschiedenen systeme abkupfern und auf ihre weise interpretieren, liegt ja an der tagesordnung. rocker/reverse camber bei bisher minimum 4 brettern/firmen, was ich bisher so gesehen hab. da bin ich ja mal schwer auf sonntag gespannt...
Antworten

re:uninc von bacon am 28. Jan 2009, 08:38

ich würd mal behaupten dass das gyrator von k2 das erste rocker board war und lib dann das konzept für parkboards einsetzte. (http://www.reversecamber.com/). @sker132: man kann davon ausgehen dass jede snowboardfirma einige modelle mit reverse camber bringen wird. mir leuchtet ja die V-rocker story (lib verbaut ausschließlich diese form des rockers aber auch big B, Rome, etc setzen teilweise auf diese technologie) nicht wirklich ein, denn wenn man am board steht drückt man das board flach und man hat erst wieder vollen kantenkontakt! hat jemand schon beides probiert? vielleicht sogar direkt nach einander?
Antworten

Weitere Themen

home   contact   info   newsletter   rechtliches   datenschutz    twitter    rss