# Burton's ICS / EST: Thoughts?



## Guest

Hey just wondering if any of you have had a chance to ride or demo the new ICS (Infinite Channel System) from Burton with the EST (Extra Sensory Technology) binding? 

If so, what did you think of it?


----------



## Guest

It just looks like Burton found a new way of making their fucking equipment unique and not compatible with other brands.

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:


----------



## BurtonAvenger

Burtons patent on the 3 hole is or was running out this was their way to get you limited to their boards and bindings.

It rides different and causes more foot fatigue I've found and so have others that have used it.


----------



## boarderaholic

I found where the grooves are feel like one dead spot as well.


----------



## Nivek

I only like It on the Jeremy Jones, I found it helps with board control while jibbing. But would never buy it since you then sign you life away to burton gear.


----------



## Guest

seems just like a gimmick to me, i've never found being able to move my binding a centimeter to make any difference.


----------



## Guest

I unfortunately got suckered into buying an 08' UNINC EST binding on ebay without realising that Burton had introduced the ICS system.

So now I'm stuck with an ICS binding and no board to go with it.. hmm.. 

But I have heard some good things about the new ICS system but haven't had first hand experience as of yet..


----------



## Guest

Sounds like it will be a hit with the people who spend all day in the lodge tinkering with their gear or shaking boards in the shop, but beyond that, I'd be astonished to find a few cms difference in stance would matter, even if you could figure out EXACTLY how you should be standing.

Like others said, just a new way for you to keep those evil 'offbrand' bindings off of their boards.


----------



## Guest

Not only do they lock you in, but at a higher price, too!

I tried the Burton Feelgood vs the ICS version on a demo day and didn't really think there was any improvement (at least not $100 worth); the only difference was that the ICS board's graphics were prettier...


----------



## Guest

I've heard the rumors about ICS being a scheme for Burton to charge other companies royalty after their 3-hole patent expires. I believe this is the 3-hole patent:

Snowboard boot binding system - US Patent 5261689 Full Text
US Patent Issued on November 16, 1993
Estimated Patent Expiration Date: January 28, 2012

Since 2012 is relatively soon, I think this theory is very credible.


----------



## Guest

I purchased a ICS/EST setup this year and it works for me. I'm not saying that another setup wouldn't work just as well, but with the off season equipment sales, I didn't pay much more (if any more) than similar setups from other companies. With that being said, I only have 1 board that I use and I don't plan on switching out my bindings. I guess if I break the bindings I have on the board now, I'm stuck buying other EST bindings, but that's not really any concern of mine. 

As a side note, and I'll probably catch a lot of @#$% for saying this, but don't you guys ever get tired of bashing Burton and the people that ride Burton? I am in no way a Burton die-hard, but they are the industry leader for a reason. I understand that many of you consider yourself snowboard "purists", but the ICS/EST was a great business move for Burton, regardless of the reason they did it. If you don't like Burton, don't buy Burton. It's that simple!


----------



## Guest

theeamishplow said:


> I purchased a ICS/EST setup this year and it works for me. I'm not saying that another setup wouldn't work just as well, but with the off season equipment sales, I didn't pay much more (if any more) than similar setups from other companies. With that being said, I only have 1 board that I use and I don't plan on switching out my bindings. I guess if I break the bindings I have on the board now, I'm stuck buying other EST bindings, but that's not really any concern of mine.
> 
> As a side note, and I'll probably catch a lot of @#$% for saying this, but don't you guys ever get tired of bashing Burton and the people that ride Burton? I am in no way a Burton die-hard, but they are the industry leader for a reason. I understand that many of you consider yourself snowboard "purists", but the ICS/EST was a great business move for Burton, regardless of the reason they did it. If you don't like Burton, don't buy Burton. It's that simple!


There are definitely people that bash Burton blindly, but I think a majority are like myself. I think Burton makes fine stuff. Yeah, they'll have problems here and there like bindings that can be relatively fragile, but every company has weaknesses. I just think that for the price I'd pay for a Burton, I can get something better from a different company. And while I understand the whole 3-hole binding/EST thing, I don't appreciate it, and I'm not going to buy a board that will greatly limit my binding options if I can avoid it, and I CAN avoid it. I don't like business practices that are designed to take advantage of the consumer, especially not masquerading as innovations.

I've had two pairs of Burton boots, I love my current pair of Hails. They were the best fit for me, they were super comfortable right out of the box, and they've held up great. If someone feels the same way about their other gear, more power to them, it's just not for me.


----------



## Guest

Hopefully my previous comment didn't sound bashful. But as cheesy as it sounds, customers have a lot of power, so I think it's important to be aware of what's going on behind the curtains.

And to address the comment about Burton being an industry leader: being an industry leader doesn't necessarily mean it is the best or the most fair. Two examples:

Starbucks: who said they have the best coffee?

De Beers: biggest player in the diamond business--indirectly funded tribal wars in Africa to buy their cheap "blood diamonds"

I do think Burton has great marketing and sponsors a lot of great athletes, though. I could see that playing a big part of being the industry leader.


----------



## justdust

I really enjoyed the two Burton boards I owned, but that does not mean I approve of all of Burton's business practices. Build a better mousetrap...I'm interested. Build a mousetrap that only takes one kind of cheese...no thank you.:thumbsdown:


----------



## Reede

It isn't masquerading as an innovation, wether they did it to protect their patent rights or not, it still IS an innovation.

I have an ICS custom, altho am using standard Cartel's, not EST ones with it and the adjustability of them is great. Wether the gain over the 3D system is significant enough to justify the cost is another point to argue but ICS is just another evolutionary step. Why be limited to a discrete number of binding configurations when you can set it to exactly what you want?

I bought my board on special, and the ICS version cost exactly the same as the 3D one (Spec ed Southern Hemisphere model as well) so for me cost didn't factor.

The only question mark that I still have over my ICS setup is durability, with only 2 screws holding it in and the disc that runs in the channel is actually quite small so I have a question mark over the level of security it offers, even tho I have had sign of problems yet. This is particularly a concern right now as this is the first generation of the hardware, expect the technology to improve every year and I don't see why ICS and whatever equivalents other manufacturers come up with in the next couple of years won't take over completely, especially once the tech has matured.


----------



## Guest

Whether or not it's truly an innovation is almost besides the point. Burton didn't do it because they thought it was a wonderful new idea, they did it because their 3-hole patent is almost out, and a number of companies are offering free converter discs now.

And I'd also debate whether it's truly an innovation, or at least a useful one. How many times had you looked at your bindings and said "Damn, if only my stance was 1/2" wider." Probably never, and very few people are knowledgeable enough to put it to use even if they want to. I know I can't tell you how a few cms this way or that would affect my riding. It's like making a clock that you can adjust the seconds on: few people know exactly what second it should be, and even fewer care.


----------



## Reede

Stance width is one thing, but the lateral position on the board is another bonus as well. You can get an EST set of bindings perfectly centered on the board which is imo more important than the extra resolution in stance widths. Of the 3 positions ive got on the standard binding ICS disk, none are quite right and it annoys me when this problem has been solved with no less than the system I am using (albeit, only half). If you can get extra adjustability, no matter how insignificant it is without adversely affecting performance then there is no reason not to encourage it.

The excuse that burton only came up with a new idea because their patent was about to run out is ridiculous. 
Burton came up with a new idea because they have the biggest R&D budget in the industry. Every company is looking for their own ways to get an edge over the opposition wether they have a patent or not and if any other company were first to the market with a channelled system then I bet people around here would be singing their praises. 

I bet if Burton had a watertight patent on reverse camber that everyone would be critical of that too, but they don't and i've seen it suggested on more than one occasion that all boards might go this way in the future.

Replacing their 3D patent with this system will only work if the market and other companies deem it worth replicating. If you patent a system that nobody will use then it is wasted. The market is not held to the will of Burton with this system, if it is no good then superior products will eventually knock it off its perch. Just like Facebook killed Myspace and any other corporate changing of the guard.


----------



## Guest

Reede: I'm uncertain why you think it's ridiculous Burton *may* be coming out with ICS in part to get royalties or monopolize the sales of bindings. If Burton indeed *always* has good ethics, why did they charge other companies royalties for selling bindings with 3-hole plates? It is important to note that Burton didn't just charge a fixed royalty price (like $5 per pair of bindings). Instead, they charge a percentage of the full price of the bindings (they say it's about 2%, but I've also read some people say some companies get charged up to 8%). Are three holes really better than four? Was the R&D in this case justified to make better equipment and improve the sport?

Here's a possibility: Burton does great marketing... they sponsor lots of snowboarders. Burton boards are very distinguishable, and people like them (and their graphics). A lot of people, for better or worse, care a lot about their boards and how they look. So lots of people want to buy Burton boards--no problem there. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), Burton has a stronger presence in snowboard sales than in bindings sales. By forcing everyone buying Burton snowboards to also buy Burton (possibly inferior) bindings, they will gain a stronger presence in bindings sales, too.

I disagree with the philosophy that "the best equipment will prevail" and unnecessary technologies (and their patents) die. This is an idealistic view of capitalism without taking things like monopoly into account. A really good example are CDs--they're a really old technology, and there are many better mediums for music distribution out there. Why is most (legal) music sold as CDs? The answer is that it has a lot to do with music corporations that make a ton of money off this obsolete technology. And with this money, they have a lot of lobbying power to resist change and make it harder for other technologies to prevail.


----------



## Reede

Good points all round and they will be true to an extent, but I still dislike the politics inevitably hijacking a thread that is supposed to be discussing the technical merits of a product and so far has yielded next to none except from a couple of us who actually own this system, and like it.


----------



## Guest

Fair enough! =)


----------



## mjd

Reede said:


> Good points all round and they will be true to an extent, but I still dislike the politics inevitably hijacking a thread that is supposed to be discussing the technical merits of a product and so far has yielded next to none except from a couple of us who actually own this system, and like it.


Well put. The ics/est set up on my Hero feels unlike any other board I've ridden and for the better- better response edge to edge, lighter, incredible board feel, real good pop- I just couldn't be happier with it. That said, I've also rode it on the Jussi, uninc and X8 and the effect is not as much so I think it may be more geared towards reverse camber boards. Anyway, nothing else in my quiver- the Romes, Nitro, Forum feels as fun to ride as that set up. I still ride my other boards for ripping around and hitting kickers but the Hero set up is most fun all around.


----------



## Incogneato

wow, lots of goofy stuff in this thread. you guys are kidding yourselves that any other company wouldn't do what Burton does in regards to patents if they could, its just that they're not in a position to do it.

I like the ICS system because i can get the exact stance i want, where i want no matter what. its also super easy to change it up. if you get to the hill and theres way more pow than you thought you can move your bindings back without even taking the screws out.

the rest is just marketing. ICS and EST is not going to do anything for your riding just like TBT isn't going to make you a better rider, or MTX or whatever. every company markets their tech like its going to make your year the best year ever.


----------



## Guest

Yeah I heard the same thing.


----------



## Guest

my thoughts on the whole EST system are a little mixed. I think it is a great thing that you can have your stance any way you want it, but the second you take your bindings off for any reason, you are never getting it back the same exact way. period. in terms of how it rides...i honestly didn't notice that much of a difference. I rode the '10 Lipstick with their new Molotov bindings (they are pretty much like the escapades but they have a wing on the highback) and the overall setup was a little shaky.

i think that if you are going to buy a burton board and bindings anyway, then why not go with the EST system, but i wouldn't buy a burton board and bindings BECAUSE of it.


----------



## Incogneato

SpringheelJack said:


> Whether or not it's truly an innovation is almost besides the point. Burton didn't do it because they thought it was a wonderful new idea, they did it because their 3-hole patent is almost out, and a number of companies are offering free converter discs now.
> 
> And I'd also debate whether it's truly an innovation, or at least a useful one. How many times had you looked at your bindings and said "Damn, if only my stance was 1/2" wider." Probably never, and very few people are knowledgeable enough to put it to use even if they want to. I know I can't tell you how a few cms this way or that would affect my riding. It's like making a clock that you can adjust the seconds on: few people know exactly what second it should be, and even fewer care.


this whole post is nonsense. if burtons main interest was maintaining a patentable system they could have done it a lot easier. this system is an extension and inprovement from sliding systems of the past. how could someone not be "knowledgeable enough" to put a sliding channel into use? the 3d system was extremely limiting in terms of width options and centering abillity. so much so that i avoided burton boards because of it. with ics you can move your bindings back towards the tail if you want way quicker than you can with conventional bindings, you just loosen and slide them, you have half as many bolts, you don;t have to lift discs up and try and aligh them with the next row of snow filled holes all while making sure you angle doesn't change, its just simpler and more easily adjustable.

an yeah, i have had my bindings at 23.5 and wish i had 24 (my usual stance). isn't the opposite of what you say more true? if you're used to 22 is 19.5 or 22.5 just ok? why compromise when you don't have to? why do we have stance options anyway then?

clinging to the idea burton spent tons of r+d dollars just to make another patentable system shows you're a true ignoramous that just hates on burton to be a hater. burton already sells more bindings than all other companies combined.


----------



## Incogneato

HeartSnow31 said:


> my thoughts on the whole EST system are a little mixed. I think it is a great thing that you can have your stance any way you want it, but the second you take your bindings off for any reason, you are never getting it back the same exact way. period. in terms of how it rides...i honestly didn't notice that much of a difference. I rode the '10 Lipstick with their new Molotov bindings (they are pretty much like the escapades but they have a wing on the highback) and the overall setup was a little shaky.
> 
> i think that if you are going to buy a burton board and bindings anyway, then why not go with the EST system, but i wouldn't buy a burton board and bindings BECAUSE of it.


why can't you get your stance the same? remember the width, setback and angles like you do with any other system.


----------



## ckang008

ICS is quite good (given that it doesn't slip around if you don't crank it in hard enough). I have the plastic washer version which i heard is the cause of the slippage problem. I warranty them fo the metal washers. Hope they work out for me in new zealand!

one thing that i don't like is the inability to use other companies binding. I have a non ics pow board (ns summit 161cm) and everytime i go on a trip, i need to bring uninc / uninc est / rome targa / ns summit - quite a waste of space for an extra set of bindings. I wish i can just bring the rome targa and use it on both boards.


----------



## Guest

Incogneato said:


> clinging to the idea burton spent tons of r+d dollars just to make another patentable system shows you're a true ignoramous that just hates on burton to be a hater. burton already sells more bindings than all other companies combined.


Haha are you joking? I'm not sure if you got the memo on capitalism but thats how companies operate to make a profit! Of course its for financial gain. Why did they introduce the 3 hole system? How does that in any way improve performance? 
Sure the ICS may have some slight improvement in performance but at the end of the day are we going to see pro's using the system? I doubt it. If its not for the money why don't burton spend some of that huge R&D budget on a means to make it compatible with other bindings. Your an ignoramous if you truely think burton didn't introduce this for financial gain.

I've been riding for about 10 years now and I really don't think a quarter of an inch on my stance is going to have any real bearing on my riding ability. There's no doubt Burton make good stuff but they are the biggest capitalistic snowboarding company in the world, hence they will do things that will make them more money. But so does everyone so its not just on Burton. Burton is just lucky enough to have the market power to do these thing on such a huge scale. If any other board company tried to introduce a system which only works withs its own bindings it would crash and burn no matter how amazing the new system was!


----------



## Guest

Incogneato said:


> this whole post is nonsense. if burtons main interest was maintaining a patentable system they could have done it a lot easier. this system is an extension and inprovement from sliding systems of the past. how could someone not be "knowledgeable enough" to put a sliding channel into use? the 3d system was extremely limiting in terms of width options and centering abillity. so much so that i avoided burton boards because of it. with ics you can move your bindings back towards the tail if you want way quicker than you can with conventional bindings, you just loosen and slide them, you have half as many bolts, you don;t have to lift discs up and try and aligh them with the next row of snow filled holes all while making sure you angle doesn't change, its just simpler and more easily adjustable.
> 
> an yeah, i have had my bindings at 23.5 and wish i had 24 (my usual stance). isn't the opposite of what you say more true? if you're used to 22 is 19.5 or 22.5 just ok? why compromise when you don't have to? why do we have stance options anyway then?
> 
> clinging to the idea burton spent tons of r+d dollars just to make another patentable system shows you're a true ignoramous that just hates on burton to be a hater. burton already sells more bindings than all other companies combined.


You're right. Clearly Burton spends tons of r+d dollars just because they're such sweet dudes and want you to have a sweet set-up, brah. I was totally being naive. Your comments totally don't clash with your admission that 3d was an inferior system. Burton must have just made a mistake when they created an inferior 3 hole system and then patented it and done their best to prevent other companies from making compatible products. And then charged you more for it. For years.

Also, I will buy you the Neverland Ranch if you can explain how 0.5" in binding width affects your riding in meaningful terms.

By the way, my jacket, pants and boots are Burton. I own an old pair of Burton bindings, and was going to buy the Twin in 2007 but I couldn't find it on sale in my size. So, do you still think I'm a rabid Burton hater? Or is it more likely than you're a slobbering Burton fanboy?


----------



## Reede

Stance widths mean little, but the extra adjustability makes a very big difference for me in getting the binding properly centered, with my boot size I find the discrete positions impossible to get my boot properly centred and I am already at the limit of my boards waist width as it is.

The point remains however, if you have the option of getting that extra 0.5" of adjustability at no detriment to performance, then WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T YOU? Not only are they more adjustable, but they are much much easier to adjust as well. We had a huge dump during our Niseko trip in Jan this year and after 1 run when me and both my mates sank like rocks we sat down at the bottom of the mountain for a quick set-back adjustment. I have an ICS board and adjusting it took me all of 20 seconds, both my mates have traditional setups and decided it wasnt worth the effort adjusting it (Plus the last time one of my mates tried to change his config on the hill he lost a screw in the snow, so wasn't too keen on the idea) 
Result? I had a board suited to epic powder conditions that day while they didn't

The convenience of it is simply something that you have no reason to do without.

I am still waiting for the concept to be debunked from a technical standpoint. Hell i'll even throw you one, I think the fact each binding only has 2 points of attachment lends itself to potentially dangerous failure modes. There is no proof yet to show wether this is true, but from an engineering standpoint it basically removes the N-1/N-2 redundancy that traditional setups have. This of course has no effect on performance, just safety.

Of course cost is a factor and makes you question wether it is worth it at all. But that is another argument altogether (Once you start arguing value for money you have basically accepted the fact it is a superior system). Point is if the performance is the same (and nobody has said anything to suggest it isn't) then there is no reason not to have total adjustability.


----------



## ckang008

Think the biggest problem is again the slippage issue. You really need to crank the screws down quite hard to ensure it doesn't slide the bindings around. But by doing that I will need a huge screwdriver (ones at the workbenches in rest areas) which defeats the purpose of able to change your stances on the fly.


----------



## Reede

Yea, good point too. I have not had any issues with mine slipping but will see how it goes with more wear and tear. One thing I noted when I first set my board up was the fact the sliding bolts seem a lot smaller than I would trust to support all 85kg's of me flying down the hill at 40k's, and I do check them regularly for that reason but I would do that with a normal board anyway.

The multi putpose tool I carry has a fold out lever tho and I would argue that it can tighten things almost as well as my massive screwdriver can.


----------



## Guest

Reede said:


> WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T YOU?


Because its incompatible with every other binding on earth! 

A pair of bindings are going to have a way bigger effect on ur riding ability to than minor stance adjustments. An it really isn't a huge job to move your bindings on a traditional system. It takes wat 10-15mins max.



Reede said:


> Point is if the performance is the same (and nobody has said anything to suggest it isn't) then there is no reason not to have total adjustability.


Your argument promotes adjustaility but in the end the bindings are always going to be burton. Not totally adjustable are they?

Soon they'll have a new binding system where u need burton boots to lock in.


----------



## Reede

Yea, incompatibilities suck and if you don't like Burton bindings in general then that alone is certainly reason enough not to get an EST setup, but how about if your favorite binding comes out in an EST model?


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

yea im sure burton is going to let other company's make their bindings compatible to burton boards. also one of my friends rode this last season and i watched as he landed a pretty big jump slightly nose heavy and his back binding ripped out of the ICS channel. he got lucky and had no injury's but it couldve been A LOT worse moving at those speeds with only one foot strapped in.


----------



## Reede

It should be the same as it was with the 3D system, binding makers will be able to make a compatible base plate/attachment mechanism as long as they pay some sort of comission.


----------



## Guest

Reede said:


> Yea, incompatibilities suck and if you don't like Burton bindings in general then that alone is certainly reason enough not to get an EST setup, but how about if your favorite binding comes out in an EST model?


I might get it, I'd wait another year for more reports of EST's reliability and durability to come in though. Until then though, it's not nearly enough of a benefit to sacrifice being able to mix and match the bindings and boards as I choose.


----------



## bubbachubba340

I think that the 6 inch dead spot on each foor would really bug me and feel really odd.


----------



## Guest

Reede said:


> Yea, incompatibilities suck and if you don't like Burton bindings in general then that alone is certainly reason enough not to get an EST setup, but how about if your favorite binding comes out in an EST model?


Well I'm not going to go out an buy a board just for a binding. That's just stupid. 
Hopefully they'll make a compatability plate for it an I'm sure Burton will make a nice lil commission on them too.

I agree with SpringheelJack give it a year and see how the durability of the system is before i go spendin 800-900 bucks (Aus dollars) on a board


----------



## ckang008

Cr0_Reps_Smit said:


> yea im sure burton is going to let other company's make their bindings compatible to burton boards. also one of my friends rode this last season and i watched as he landed a pretty big jump slightly nose heavy and his back binding ripped out of the ICS channel. he got lucky and had no injury's but it couldve been A LOT worse moving at those speeds with only one foot strapped in.


Wow! back binding ripped out of the ICS channel? he ripped the channel from the board? or just the screw portion? From what I see, the channel itself is quite strong. Only concern is the actually the screw area.


----------



## lonerider

*EST/ICS not terrible, but not that great either*



ckang008 said:


> Wow! back binding ripped out of the ICS channel? he ripped the channel from the board? or just the screw portion? From what I see, the channel itself is quite strong. Only concern is the actually the screw area.


My friend and I have been riding our Burton X8 for a season now (about 40 days) and the EST/ICS system doesn't slip/slide *IF* you tighten the screws tightly. I check mine in the every morning (which you should be doing no matter what binding you have) and they haven't loosened up at all. I think anyone who has had problems basically didn't check their gear properly.

That being said, I'm not a particularly a big fan of the EST/ICS binding system. It's really tough to set your bindings exactly how you want them (the angle markers are tough to line up and I think they are off) and impossible to repeat the same setting if you take you bindings off (to get a base grind or carry multiple boards in a travel bag). My friend likes the flex, but it doesn't do much for me.

In the future, I would just use a regular binding with an EST/ICS board (since all of Burton's upper end boards are EST/ICS now). All Burton non-EST bindings can be mounted via converter disk that comes with the board. Since about half (roughly) of all bindings sold are by Burton... for most people this seems to work... I'm sure is EST/ICS becomes popular, Burton will license the 2-hole disc to other companies.


----------



## ckang008

lonerider said:


> My friend and I have been riding our Burton X8 for a season now (about 40 days) and the EST/ICS system doesn't slip/slide *IF* you tighten the screws tightly. I check mine in the every morning (which you should be doing no matter what binding you have) and they haven't loosened up at all. I think anyone who has had problems basically didn't check their gear properly.
> 
> That being said, I'm not a particularly a big fan of the EST/ICS binding system. It's really tough to set your bindings exactly how you want them (the angle markers are tough to line up and I think they are off) and impossible to repeat the same setting if you take you bindings off (to get a base grind or carry multiple boards in a travel bag). My friend likes the flex, but it doesn't do much for me.
> 
> In the future, I would just use a regular binding with an EST/ICS board (since all of Burton's upper end boards are EST/ICS now). All Burton non-EST bindings can be mounted via converter disk that comes with the board. Since about half (roughly) of all bindings sold are by Burton... for most people this seems to work... I'm sure is EST/ICS becomes popular, Burton will license the 2-hole disc to other companies.


Is your friend using plastic washer or metal washer? I also check my gear and crank the screws again (and it slips for plastic washer)


----------



## lonerider

We both have the 2008 X8 and the original EST bindings (we demo'd them over the summer to try them out and then bought them at 50% off). I think we have the plastic washers (black rubbery thing). I used a Bakoda McIver tool (I found rachets tend to break on me), which gave me plenty of leverage to tighten my screws.

Just our experiences.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

ckang008 said:


> Wow! back binding ripped out of the ICS channel? he ripped the channel from the board? or just the screw portion? From what I see, the channel itself is quite strong. Only concern is the actually the screw area.


it was more of the screws breaking but the ICS channel was pretty f'd up as well. def wasnt usuable again after that but it didnt rip COMPLETELY out. just got messed up pretty bad. and his screws were plenty tight so it wasnt that.


----------



## lonerider

Interesting... you must have photos of the wreckage as he must have warrantied the board/bindings.

I'm not an mechanical engineer / builder type, but from what I've heard about screws/bolts (particular the kingpin of your skateboard truck) is that the tensile breaking strength of bolts is a lot. I just looked it up and the breaking strength of a 1/4 inch diameter Grade 2 (most people actually use Grade 8, which is a lot stronger) fine-thread bolt has a breaking strength of well over a ton (SAE Bolt Strength Specs) - basically means the ICS channel and board would break first... however the shear strength is much lower ... about 200 lbs and that can drop even more if the bolt is fatigued through use.

Maybe the bolts were *too* tight and pre-loaded with too much pressure beforehand? No idea, that's something for the Burton techs to figure out...


----------



## DaBonner

I rode Burton Un Inc with Est bindings last season and it held up fine. Although I really didn't feel any difference between that and another board/binding set up. Never had a problem with the screws/bolts holding up but I agree the bindings were a bit of a pain to set up.
Anyhow I have now sold that set up to a friend and got an end of season bargain on a stepchild jp walker board with some technine bindings . Should be testing that out in the snowdomes this summer (UK snowboarder !!)..


----------



## Incogneato

he probably doesn't have photos because its a crock of shit. IF he did rip anything out it would either be user error (most likely) or a manufacturing defect (which could happen to any brand) and it doesn't represent a flaw in the ics/est system, people (mostly pros) have ripped bindings out of every companies boards at some point. attributing the ripping out of a binding to a supposedly weak or flawed system is just stupid, companies are not going to risk injury and lawsuits due to crappy products (thats why k2 recalled ALL of its auto bindings one year) and Burton and every other company TESTS the pull out strength of anything they develope. its just more hate talk from burton haters, thats all.


----------



## paulperroni

Incogneato said:


> he probably doesn't have photos because its a crock of shit. IF he did rip anything out it would either be user error (most likely) or a manufacturing defect (which could happen to any brand) and it doesn't represent a flaw in the ics/est system, people (mostly pros) have ripped bindings out of every companies boards at some point. attributing the ripping out of a binding to a supposedly weak or flawed system is just stupid, companies are not going to risk injury and lawsuits due to crappy products (thats why k2 recalled ALL of its auto bindings one year) and Burton and every other company TESTS the pull out strength of anything they develope. its just more hate talk from burton haters, thats all.


Completely agree!


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

no, i dont have photos because it wasn't me. i don't carry a camera around with me so i can snap pictures of people boards who get f'd on the mtn so call BS all you want. i know what i saw and thats good enough for me to never want to ride those boards. im not spewing burton hate just because i dont like them, just sharing what ive seen. i dont see anywhere in my first post me saying that burton sucks and blah blah other then the story of what I saw happen. i personally haven't ridden burton in over 3 years but that doesnt mean i dont think they have something decent every now and then. im just done spending money trying out there shit to have it bust on me (mainly bindings from my experiences). i put a lot of abuse on my gear from 130+ days of riding so i want something i know is going to last. am i saying burton is the worst company and no one should buy them? no, just that they are not for me.


----------



## Reede

I think there is finally enough informative, logical discussion in this thread for someone to make an informed decision on wether or not to buy this system, but by god they need to filter through a fair amount of shit to get there. Will be very interesting to see how the system goes when other manufacturers license/build their own systems/adapters because atm by far the biggest problem is if you dont like burton bindings (or boards, wether your reasons are founded or not) then it's not an option.

Either way, traditional systems will be around for a while yet, and burton still offer their big sellers with the 3D system anyway.


----------



## FLuiD

The idea of getting your foot lower on the board and closer to the snow seems legit. The lack of any actual padding seem weird to me. I know they have the interchangeable footbeds but have you seen them? Making a proprietary mounting system is sooo 90's...


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

Snowolf said:


> Just browsed through this thread....you need to tone it down. If someone is not fond of Burton don`t take it personally, I love Atomic and some people hate them; I don`t get butt hurt over it. There is a reason why there are hundreds, if not thousands of different boards and bindings available to consumers. You seem to be super defensive of Burton....:dunno:
> 
> As for this comment, judging by the pics, the amount of air he gets will push a board to it`s limits and I would assume the friends he rides with go as big. It is pretty disrespectful to basically call someone a liar when you have`nt seen them ride....
> 
> Everyone has a right to their opinions and seldom will they agree; respect those differences and don't make it personal...:thumbsup:


thanks for backing me up on this, again i want to say if you've ridden this system and feel comfortable riding it then go all for it, its just not something for me. also DEMO BOARDS! it helps form your own opinion on things since you get your own hands on experience on things.


----------



## lonerider

Cr0_Reps_Smit said:


> thanks for backing me up on this, again i want to say if you've ridden this system and feel comfortable riding it then go all for it, its just not something for me. also DEMO BOARDS! it helps form your own opinion on things since you get your own hands on experience on things.


I totally believe CrO_Reps_Smit... I just wanted to learn more about the break to see if such a binding failure could be avoided with something as simple as replacing the screws with more heavy duty ones.

As I mentioned before, I have a moderate opinion on the EST/ICS, given my experiences with the board I don't think they will break/slip significantly more than a regular binding provided that they are set/maintained properly (a big caveat). However, I don't find them that great either... they are better than 3D because they have more stance options, but that's about it for me. The only reason I have an EST/ICS board is because all the higher-end Burton boards are EST/ICS.


----------



## Guest

Reede said:


> The excuse that burton only came up with a new idea because their patent was about to run out is ridiculous.
> Burton came up with a new idea because they have the biggest R&D budget in the industry. Every company is looking for their own ways to get an edge over the opposition wether they have a patent or not and if any other company were first to the market with a channelled system then I bet people around here would be singing their praises.
> 
> I bet if Burton had a watertight patent on reverse camber that everyone would be critical of that too, but they don't and i've seen it suggested on more than one occasion that all boards might go this way in the future.
> 
> Replacing their 3D patent with this system will only work if the market and other companies deem it worth replicating. If you patent a system that nobody will use then it is wasted. The market is not held to the will of Burton with this system, if it is no good then superior products will eventually knock it off its perch. Just like Facebook killed Myspace and any other corporate changing of the guard.




....pretty sure that the channel system came from forum if you remember back to when forum was its own company...and magically when burton bought forum now they have a channel system. hm strange? just saying...the channel system was already around once, now its just back with less binding options.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit

personally i can see them as being an awesome jib board because of all the options you can get out of it. alot of the people i know who have ics are mainly rail kids and it seems to suit them fine.


----------



## lonerider

HeartSnow31 said:


> ....pretty sure that the channel system came from forum if you remember back to when forum was its own company...and magically when burton bought forum now they have a channel system. hm strange? just saying...the channel system was already around once, now its just back with less binding options.


Yea, Forum had them back in like 1999/2000 in a two slot setup (to work with any 4x4 bindings). They looked kind of sketchy back them as the sliders were really small and fragile looking... actually the Burton ICS/EST ones don't look super sturdy... but I give them a bit of trust that they put "some" thought into making the boards/bindings resistant to breakage - although I have broken a bunch of Burton bindings (Burton Cartel, P1, Burton C60) and boards (Burton Custom, Twin) now that I think about it.


----------



## SnowProRick

Forum wasn't the first with the old sliders. I think it was Rev (Revolution) that came up with it. Forum and a few other companies licenses or bought the technology. It was a good idea, but there was never enopugh money/testing that went into the development, so it broke and had problems. 

Burton has the money to get the design right (I personally love it). Time will tell, but it is on more and more boards each year. I would guess it will be the only option on Burton boards in a few years.

Forum also has ICS on some boards next year. Just like they use Speed Zone lacing on some boots. They are owned by Burton after all.

I also heard that Drake had a license to make a 2 hole disc to make their bindings work with ICS.

--rick


----------



## BurtonAvenger

Incogneato said:


> he probably doesn't have photos because its a crock of shit. IF he did rip anything out it would either be user error (most likely) or a manufacturing defect (which could happen to any brand) and it doesn't represent a flaw in the ics/est system, people (mostly pros) have ripped bindings out of every companies boards at some point. attributing the ripping out of a binding to a supposedly weak or flawed system is just stupid, companies are not going to risk injury and lawsuits due to crappy products (thats why k2 recalled ALL of its auto bindings one year) and Burton and every other company TESTS the pull out strength of anything they develope. its just more hate talk from burton haters, thats all.


So manufacturing defects aren't flaws in the system? Got proof that every company tests their pull out strength? I'd love to see these facts and figures you're trying to say exist because they don't. Stop talking out your ass .


----------



## Lumberjack

noturstar said:


> Hey just wondering if any of you have had a chance to ride or demo the new ICS (Infinite Channel System) from Burton with the EST (Extra Sensory Technology) binding?
> 
> If so, what did you think of it?


I bought a X8 with ICS and some Cartels EST's to go with it. Fun system to play with, lots of stance options. My main problem with it is that eventually the bindings start slipping. Towards the end of me riding it i would go out with my stance set, screws freshly tight, and come back with angles as much as 3-5 degrees off. I never measured the stance to see if it got wider, but the angles most definetly changed even from a light day of riding.  Burton is just doing what they do best, making you spend more money then you want to in order to ride their equipment. why do you think they have the 3 screw instead of staying with the standard?


----------



## killclimbz

^^^The experience you described I have had several people report the same thing. The connection is just not bomb proof enough. Two connection points allows a lot of force to be applied to the binder. Not sold on ICS one bit. Not a horrible idea, but there is a reason it failed the first time around that it was tried.


----------



## ckang008

killclimbz said:


> ^^^The experience you described I have had several people report the same thing. The connection is just not bomb proof enough. Two connection points allows a lot of force to be applied to the binder. Not sold on ICS one bit. Not a horrible idea, but there is a reason it failed the first time around that it was tried.




This is one of the reason I want to sell my 08 Uninc and the EST. You really need to crank it down to make it stay tight for couple hours of riding and no guarantee that it will not slide by end of day.


For the ppl with binding slippage, are you using the plastic washers or the metal washers? I want to know if metal washers will also cause slippage.


----------



## legallyillegal

The angle issue was supposedly fixed for 09 EST hardware - Burton claims it was a faulty angle indicator


----------



## Guest

i rode 09/10 ics stuff and the binders slipped on my first run. good thing i had a tool on me.


----------



## DC5R

IMO, if you had the choice, why go with EST / ICS? It's just another Burton ploy to lock you into their gear.


----------



## arsenic0

DC5R said:


> IMO, if you had the choice, why go with EST / ICS? It's just another Burton ploy to lock you into their gear.


But think of all the time your saving not having to screw in those extra 4 screws!

Just like i'll never understand getting flows to strap in faster...


----------



## DC5R

arsenic0 said:


> But think of all the time your saving not having to screw in those extra 4 screws!


Well, that is 10 seconds of your life you're never going to get back :laugh:



arsenic0 said:


> Just like i'll never understand getting flows to strap in faster...


Hmmm...I can see some benefit with Flows: a buddy has them and he's strapped in before we get off the lift. However, with EST/ICS :dunno:


----------



## Guest

i rock flows and they are the best binders i have had for sure. the whole strapping in fast thing isnt as much of an issue...it's not like i have trouble strapping in, but they have so many more benefits that people overlook because they think they are 'gaper' binders


----------



## DC5R

HeartSnow31 said:


> i rock flows and they are the best binders i have had for sure. the whole strapping in fast thing isnt as much of an issue...it's not like i have trouble strapping in, but *they have so many more benefits that people overlook* because they think they are 'gaper' binders


What exactly are these benefits? Other than for the speed of strapping in, there isn't really much difference otherwise.


----------



## killclimbz

Flow makes some good binders. The best? Not so sure, but I've rocked Flow and liked them well enough. The strap distributes pressure evenly and reduces pressure points. You also don't need them to be as tight as a regular strap binder to get the same performance. It's also easy to have them too tight and uncomfortable, so they take a bit to dial in. At times the rear entry thing can be a pita. Especially in deep snow on a steep angle.

Strapping in when you don't have any obstacles (most of the time) is quick and easy. There is something to be said for it. 

Overall I like Flows well enough and will probably own another pair at some point.


----------



## Guest

DC5R said:


> What exactly are these benefits? Other than for the speed of strapping in, there isn't really much difference otherwise.


while they do take a week or so to really get dialed in and used to, after that they are absolutely comfortable. you don't have to loosen your front binding to give it a break while riding up the lift because it doesn't need to be so tight as to almost cut off your circulation. if you ride in really cold places, this can also be a savior because it means your feet aren't getting cut off from circulation and in turn stay warmer.

they are also uber responsive. especially once you get into the higher end aluminum ones (as is true with any aluminum binding, it's going to be more responsive than plastic). But even the low end ones are more responsive than a traditional binder because of the cables. the cables that make the whole rear entry system work, also work in your favor in terms of responsiveness. when you push into the highback, you pull on the cable which directly pulls on the front of the binding, making your response time that much faster. (this is a technology that salomon has developed with their relay binders...)

i also feel that because of how the strap system works, i feel more secure in my binder without killing my feet. this also lets me ride a softer boot without sacrificing responsiveness in that area, but still gives me the freedom to actually move in my boot.

in the past few years they have made drastic drastic improvements to their binders, including weight (which has been an issue in the past) they are now no heavier than any other binding on the market, the shape of the strap(s), ratchet system, everything.


----------



## ckang008

HeartSnow31 said:


> while they do take a week or so to really get dialed in and used to, after that they are absolutely comfortable. you don't have to loosen your front binding to give it a break while riding up the lift because it doesn't need to be so tight as to almost cut off your circulation. if you ride in really cold places, this can also be a savior because it means your feet aren't getting cut off from circulation and in turn stay warmer.
> 
> they are also uber responsive. especially once you get into the higher end aluminum ones (as is true with any aluminum binding, it's going to be more responsive than plastic). But even the low end ones are more responsive than a traditional binder because of the cables. the cables that make the whole rear entry system work, also work in your favor in terms of responsiveness. when you push into the highback, you pull on the cable which directly pulls on the front of the binding, making your response time that much faster. (this is a technology that salomon has developed with their relay binders...)
> 
> i also feel that because of how the strap system works, i feel more secure in my binder without killing my feet. this also lets me ride a softer boot without sacrificing responsiveness in that area, but still gives me the freedom to actually move in my boot.
> 
> in the past few years they have made drastic drastic improvements to their binders, including weight (which has been an issue in the past) they are now no heavier than any other binding on the market, the shape of the strap(s), ratchet system, everything.







I heard they fall apart into pieces quite easily (there's a thread about the Flow Team falling apart). Is that occuring for your bindings?


----------



## Guest

ckang008 said:


> I heard they fall apart into pieces quite easily (there's a thread about the Flow Team falling apart). Is that occuring for your bindings?



i haven't had anything fall apart yet and i have been riding them for about a year now. the only thing that i don't like about the bindings is that the screws that hold the straps on are exposed which makes it easier for them to get loose and possibly fall out. that happened to me once this year, but after that i never had any more problems with it.


----------



## BurtonAvenger

Just so you know if you're moving around in your boot you have a sloppy fit and the binding is compensating for it. You're doing more harm than good.


----------



## Guest

well yeah..

where did that come from?


----------



## BurtonAvenger

HeartSnow31 said:


> i also feel that because of how the strap system works, i feel more secure in my binder without killing my feet. this also lets me ride a softer boot without sacrificing responsiveness in that area, *but still gives me the freedom to actually move in my boot.*


 that part of your statement right there.


----------



## Guest

okay, i think that maybe either i wasn't clear in what i was saying or you interpreted that wrong. i didn't mean that my foot slops around in my boot at all, i meant that since it is a more supportive binding, i can wear softer boots and still be able to flex them and move around WITH my boot instead of a mega stiff boot where you it takes all the strength you have just to flex the boot. it gives you the ability to really press things out, without sacrificing basic support for turns and stuff.


----------



## burritosandsnow

my view is rather simple... Im not interesting in buying any tech/system etc that limits my choices to only specifically compatible gear no matter what brand.


----------



## VietOne

I like the ICS for the various options I have with it.

I bought two EST bindings, Triads and C02s. I use the triads for when I want to go for casual free riding and the C02s for when in pushing harder and going for more control and speed. I use them on a Custom X board with Ion and Driver X boots.

What sold me was its ease of use and adjustments I can do without much effort. I can adjusts the stance and set back for powder days or set it centered for groomers. Also, I can switch the beds out so I can put the superbed on the Triads to get a stiffer bottom feel with a softer upper binding to lean back and forth more or the cantbed on the C02 for a stiff hold on the boot and a soft bottom so I can power down in the inconsistent snow we have here in Western Washington without tearing away at my comfort.

I dont like the fact that Burton is keeping out other brands from making their bindings easily compatible with their ICS but also I think people are giving them more crap than they need to. Like any company, when your on top you do what you can to stay there. Its like the battle between Microsoft Windows vs the world. Sorry, I am an IT guy and the comparison is fairly similar.

Would I want to use other brands bindings on burton boards? Yes
Would I want to use EST on other brands of boards? Yeah, at almost any cost

Before people pass judgment on the ICS/EST you really have to ride it with your style of riding to feel the difference. Because depending on how you ride, some may not feel a difference while others like me will feel a totally difference experience.

When your powering down at 40+ mph and you go from soft off trail snow to the groomed packed hard snow or day after rain snow, the EST bindings make a world of difference in feel to me, almost as if your still on soft snow. If you spend your time on snow thats consistent and predictable, you probably wont feel much of a difference.

The extra cost wasnt too much of a factor to me since the end of season sales generally make the differences in price between all brands and classes less distinguishable.

I say try it for a while before your criticize it. I know more than my fair share of people who hate anything burton just because they can. I know burton fanatics who use the reason "Because they cant afford it". I have loaned out my board several times and I see the same responses here. Some love the difference, some hate the difference and some cant feel a difference at all.


----------



## legallyillegal

what happens you want to use your C02s on a neversummer titan


----------



## BliND KiNK

probably an old thread, well i'm a wizard with level 200 reviving spells.

just wanted to tag no on there, just got my cartels and knowing that I can chainsaw my burton board in half and buy whatever board brand I want makes me all giddy inside.


----------

