chadx

I've been using the Swix 180gram of CH6 with my waxwhizard and while yes, it is rather hard it does crayon on if you use just the corner of it and some elbow grease. Definitely helps if the board and especially the wax have been kept indoors where warm overnight. Wavechasers heater idea would help even more. I've only used the waxwhizard with CH6 so far. I got it a few weeks ago and that has been the range wax I've needed. It's warmed up a bit, so will be trying some CH7 this week, which I'm sure will crayon way better. The CH4 would probably be a bit tough, but still doable with warming the board first or maybe even just a quick tap on the iron before crayoning (yes, that is an extra step in a process that is supposed to by simplified and the reason we have turned to the whizard in the first place, but with CH4 type waxes, it might help). You can always go for the paste waxes, too. By the way, it is spelled waxwhizard and not waxwizard. Wax Wizard is a trademark name for a software on the Swix site that has you input outside temp, humidity, type of snow, ect. and then recommends a wax for you. http://www.swixschool.com/web_tysk/wizard2.html?langInput=lang2&menuInput=subM2 As for the original question and using an iron, yes, first clean with a real soft wax. After scraping and brushing, then go with a medium wax. After scraping and brushing, your cold wax should work in better. One way to get it to work better is touch the CH4 to the iron for a second, then crayon it on. Once you have crayoned the whole base, you can then do the usual melted wax drizzle over the crayoning. Then when you iron it, it seems to take it better. Scrape it a few minutes later before it turns to total rock. Brush it out and done.

dshack, Just to make sure you know about them, use the Wintergreen Superfeet (for winter sports) and not the regular Green Superfeet. I used them when I molded my Suzuka thermoflex. I also did the other recommended things (cottom between toes, cut off old wool sock and made a toe cap, didn't tighten buckles too much for the 15 minutes I stood with my toes on a 2x4 while they cooled, etc.) All I can say is they are so comfortable, I don't loosen the clips once for the entire day, even during lunch.

In two different instances in the past, I had noticed bolts slowly coming lose. One of those times was off the hill. One was on the hill. I was in the bad habit of only checking the bolts once every week (or more). After that, I've made it a habit to check all bolts at least every other day. Usually I find nothing, but occasionally I do. It's now just become part of normal maintenance. I'd rather spend the few minutes inside the garage and out of the wind doing it with a T handle than waiting and having to do it while fighting the cold and snow with freezing hands and just a little 'L' hex wrench and working on snow/ice packed hex heads. But then, I also do a walk around on my motorcycles and dirtbike before riding them. Much more convenient finding a problem in the garage than along the road or a trail out in the woods. People just need to learn (like I did) to follow the directions that come with their bindings and do the maintenance. Mechanical 'skills' or not. It's a wrench and bolt. "Make sure they are tight" shouldn't be over too many peoples heads.

I don't know if there is anything like that, but if you want to save some money that first half day, you could just run Moonlight Basin rather than Big Sky. That is if you wanted to try them both anyway. The Moonlight half day pass is only $35 vs. the $59 of the Big Sky half day pass. Moonlight pass site: http://www.moonlightbasin.com/ski/tickets-passes/lift-tickets.html Moonlight will usually run you with a shuttle (free I think) from Big Sky over to their lodge. I just got your email and replied.

Hi John, I still hope to make it up and do some runs with you when you are here. For 4 days, the frequency card probably isn't right for you. The one for Big Sky is actually $69, so your break even point on 4 days of skiing isn't worth it. I think I still have some coupons that allow me, with my season pass, to get you in for a full day at the half day price of $59. Another alternative if you are a Costco member... They have 3-day Adult Big Sky passes for $160, 2-day adult Moonlight passes for $70.00, and 2-day Youth Moonlight passes for $50. Members can even order them online rather than stopping at the store. The store guy told me quantity was unlimited. Go to the main www.costco.com page and search for 'Big Sky Ski' or 'Moonlight Basin Ski'. The passes with show up. If you are flying into Bozeman during a normal business day, your are only 9 miles away from the costco over on 19th Ave. right off the interstate. I'll PM you with my contact info. Chad

Goggles only. 'Same same' on the tears if I don't. I have a couple year old pair of Scott Sequence with mirror-grey polarized lense for bright days. Finally picked up a second pair of goggles last month. Got a pair of Anon Figments with two sets of lenses (mirrored gold and gold) for those flat light days. Scored them on SAC for $12.00. I couldn't resist. I'm currently using the gold lens. Nice to have two pair so I can just grab the lens color of the day rather than having to swap the lens in one frame.

Thanks, Fin. In my experience, the variation hadn't seem to make a performance difference, but I'm happy to have that confirmed. Thanks. The smaller one just seemed to look a little tidier, if that makes sense. D-Sub, Glad to hear I'm not the only one that noticed. As for the not posting, I think ralann summed it up best. And thanks DaveF on the your info, too. Does anyone replace their bolts with concerns of stress/failure? I would assume our application doesn't cause the type of loads that warrant occasional replacement. I'm sure a replacement for an occasional rounded out hex head or lost bolt, but replacing for metal fatique? Anyone? Good idea or waste of money?

So I was fiddling with the settings on a pair of TD2. As I looked closer, I noticed that the M6 bolt heads had two varied diameters. Both the M6x12mm and the M6x16mm bolts showed this variation within their length group (aka some 12mm had larger heads and some smaller. Some 16mm had larger heads and some smaller). When using the M6x16mm to hold down the center disk, the one with the ever so slightly smaller head diameter seems to sink further into the recess. Also, with the M6x12mm holding the sole blocks to the base plates, the slightly smaller diameter head seems to fit in the positional grooves ever so slightly better. It is so subtle, it seemed like my imagination, but it's there. The diameter of the larger heads measure 12mm and the smaller 11mm. That's only 1mm difference in diameter, but is noticeable in circumference as the bolts seats in the recess. I pulled out all of them and measured to verify they are, indeed, their correct length (of 12mm or 16mm respectively) and it seems like the final count of the larger and smaller diameter heads (including bindings, second board kits, and extra bolts) is as follows: M6x16mm: 11mm head diameter: 23 bolts 12mm head diameter: 7 bolts M6x12mm: 11mm head diameter: 12 bolts 12mm head diameter: 8 bolts Anyone notice this? I didn't see anything in past posts with my search. Both of my TD2 were purchased used (one from Bomber and one from private). Was there a variation based on year? Also, I noted the bigger M8x16 bolts (to secure base plate to cant disk) have two different stampings on the head. They are split about 50/50 with the following two stampings: FS A2-70 CS A4-70 All their size specs seem identical so are those just strength ratings? Thanks.

To fill in the missing spec...I think that year 165 speedcross has a 23cm waist (228mm to be exact and according to an old F2 spec sheet I kept from when I got my 165 speedcross). Some of this is a repeat, but to copy my spec sheet for the 165: Overall: 1650mm Effective Edge: 1400mm Nose Width: 280.2mm Waist Width: 228mm Tail Width: 280.2mm Sidecut radius: 9m Recom. Stance: 520mm Recom. Angle: 45 / 35 Offset: 20mm Target group: 75+ KG

Hi Alg, I think you are talking about the silicone flavor rather than funk from not being cleaned, right? I don't think there is anything you can do to rid a particular type of bag/bladder of that flavor. It is because of the material the bladder is made out of. The only thing you can do is, like Sinecure suggests, switch to a different brand of bladder. The flavor usually comes from the bladder not the hoses. My camelbacks (4 different ones) have that silicone flavor you talk about. Some people are more touchy to it than others. Some of my friends say they can't taste it, others say they can't stand it. I'm somewhere in between. I do find that rinsing out the bladder a few times before filling it with the days water reduces it greatly. Definitely don't leave the same water in it over night if you don't like that taste because it really picks it up then.

Gecko, Also consider a little Bomber Butter (or equivalent) on your bindings each morning. It keeps the 'scrape factor' lower compaired to dry click-ins.

Since we moved out here last summer, anytime anyone is in the Big Sky / Moonlight Basin area, let me know. I have super flexible work schedule, so should be able to head to the mountain almost any day.

Interesting. Please explain how an unweighted board that is NOT on edge and NOT flexed (putting the effective edge on the snow) could possible follow a sidecut radius? What about boards with variable sidecut? Bad conditions? Put any board with good camber on a fresh groomer and tell me it's laying flat. (see pic posted above) Pushing a board across a slope and it turning downhill is more a result of gravity. It might grab a bit of the edge, but definitely doesn't turn following the sidecut radius. Consider this. If you push the board with a medium shove, it will start to turn downhill with one size arc. If you shove the board really hard, the arc is going to be much larger. Neither arc will be the sidecut radius, unless it's by coincidence.

Here is a link to Levels website that describes the various levels of insulation and the various levels of waterproofing. How they compare and how they perform in Level brand gloves, but most of these same materials are used by other manufactures as well. That might help with evaluating the materials used in various gloves. http://www.levelusa.net/values/tech_features.phtml .

Ah, makes me glad I decided on the super pipe pro. You have to go up to that glove to get the Outlast brand insulation (with the little capsuls in the threads that move heat back and forth as your body sheds it and needs it). I had Outlast in my last pair of gloves (by another company) and loved it but hated having seperate wrist protection. Anyway, I've found that with Outlast, the first ride up the lift, my fingers are cold and I wonder if they'll warm up. During the first run, they get toasty and are that way the rest of the day (coldest start temp so far was 7 below zero). The other thing I like is they don't overheat, either. When you hands have extra heat, the 'capsuls' absorb it so your hands don't overheat. Then as your hands cool on the lift, it moves the heat back to your hands. That's what they say anyway. But my experience so far seems to agree. All I can say is I love that brand of insulation for gloves. Oh, and Divebomber, to somewhat answer your first question, I tried on the Burton Impact gloves you mention. I actually found them very comfortable and they seemed like they would offer great protection. I just wanted an over the cuff glove and the Outlast insulation (and, right or wrong, part of me didn't want Burton's big red B R T N letters across my knuckles).

You also might consider the Level brand of gloves if you are looking for built in wrist protection. I bought the Level Super Pipe Pro gloves and can't say enough good things about them. They are a bit pricier than the Burtons, though. Level also makes several gloves at a similar price to the burtons. I can't speak directly for those models, but I they all use the same "bio-mex plus" wrist protector and I can say it has worked nicely in the model I have. I've tested it several times.

Bad? I guess there are varying levels of bad. Since it is topical, it is not as bad as ingesting it. But kiddies tend to swallow it, in which case it is VERY bad. Again, the only topical benefit is it kills the bacteria that cause plaque, etc. (because it is a poison). It is the abrasives in toothpaste that clean your teeth, not the fluoride. Tom's also makes non-fluoride paste, as do many other manufactures. Bubble boy? Hey good idea! :D Nah, then again, that would get boring. It's all about varying levels of risk. Some small changes and easy changes, like this, I see no reason not to do them. Other things are harder to avoid. Your body can only handle so much before it weakens enough to let disease, of one type or another, set in. I just think a person might as well avoid as many stressers (chemicals) as one can. Also just to mention, just because things are common practice doesn't mean they are safe. How many years did we use lead water supply pipes in houses? It was common practice until the lead poisoning thing came up. There are many other examples of common everyday things later found to be toxic to one degree or another and fading away (or flat out being outlawed). Think of all the pharmacueticals (sp?) that have been pulled off the shelves after 3, 5, or 10 years on the market after they start causing all kinds of problems. "Tested". "Safe". "Approved by the FDA". Yeah, sure. That makes me feel better. So if all the unsafe stuff manages to get approved by the FDA (and is later pulled because peoples heart valves deteriorate, brain chemistry changes, birth defects, etc.), then what about fluoride since it has never been approved by the FDA? Makes you think. Or should anyway. People tend to ignore what they put into their bodies if it doesn't give them immediate problems (hence why big macs are so popular! :D ). They often don't think long term. That is not unlike when we were teenagers or in our 20s and thought we'd live forever and were invincable. "Damn the long term consequences" we thought. But these chemicals that are supposedly "safe and/or beneficial in these low amounts" have long term effects and consequences. Most of these poisons (like fluoride) and toxins are cumulative. Meaning your body stores them and doesn't flush them from your system as fast as you ingest them, even when ingested in extremely small doses. People finally caught on to that concept with mercury. The results of that were a rationing on how often a person should eat fish with a high risk of high mercury content. They also, finally, took some or all of the mercury out of vacinations, which was causing all kinds of long term problems in children (read: mercury poisoning). It's just a matter of time before the fluoride backlash picks up momentum. It already is. It's been building steam since the 90s and, I think, will be an even more mainstream way of thinking come the end of this decade. There are already cities pulling their fluoride programs and more to follow. The only problem is there are still a few small cities getting conned into STARTING this program. Often by 'big city' folk that move into the town and start a big fuss when they find out the water is not fluoridated. People tend to band together behind 'common belief or concept' rather than researching it and when those towns put it on a ballot, people mindlessly check off the "Yes, add it" box without realizing what they are doing. After all, they've been told their whole lives that ingesting fluoride is good for your teeth and poses no harm. Only problem ? That is inaccurate.

By the way, this is not all "conspiracy" thinking. Some people tend to lump anything that questions current process as such. It's not that at all. I do the research before forming an opinion on such subjects. Your opinion may very but just make sure it's based on your research rather than advertisements. Every year there are more and more scientists, doctors, dentists, researchers, etc., who used to suport the use of fluoride, that are not strongly opposed to it. When you realize that both sides agree on most of the factts, such as that it is correctly classified as a poison and hazardous material, it becomes fairly clear to me that you shouldn't be consuming this stuff. It is beyond me how the pro-fluoride side can sit and tell me, with a straight face, that it is all about quantity and that the benefit outweighs the risks. Clipped from another article...(something to ask your dentist next time) >>> " What about dentists? I challenge you to ask your own dentist for detailed information on fluoride. Test his/her knowledge of this subject, and see if the answers you get make you more confident or more doubtful. Ask your dentist to tell you exactly what fluoride is and what the lethal dosage is. Ask your dentist where the fluoride in their toothpaste and fluoride treatments originally comes from (trust me — you really don’t want to know). Ask your dentist how s/he came to believe that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. Ask your dentist to tell you about the dangers of fluoride exposure. Ask your dentist to tell you where you can obtain the proof that fluoride usage is safe and effective. Wouldn’t you expect your dentist to know this information? Personally I have never met a dentist who knew even the most basic facts about fluoride. Dentists apparently learn about fluoride from the same people that market it to consumers. Most likely your dentist doesn’t know much more about fluoride than you do aside from the information that’s been provided to them by marketers. In fact, simply by reading this article, you probably know a lot more about fluoride than your dentist does, unless your dentist happens to be exceptional. "

Here is an article to read if you have young children in the house (using toothpaste with flouride). http://fluoridealert.org/media/1994b.html ...and yes, fluoride is a poison, even according to the FDA. Read the back of any fluoride toothpaste tube. In the late 90s, the ADA and FDA finally put the warnings and poison control comments on toothpaste. Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA. Here is a cut and paste of another article (numbers indicate references also pasted below... "Because of a glitch in the law(3), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) never safety-tested fluoride for ingestion.1 Yet, the FDA recently OK'd cavity-preventing claims on fluoridated bottled water labels (2), giving Americans a false sense of security about the safety and effectiveness of drinking bottled water with fluoride added.. Sodium fluoride was sold before FDA safety and effectiveness testing laws were enacted in 1938 and 1962, respectively. So fluoride was exempt from scrutiny, or "grandfathered in," without any FDA human or animal studies. (3) "The premise was that all pre-1938 drugs were considered safe," according to FDA correspondence.(3) Sodium fluoride was already sold pre-1938 but not as a decay preventive. As strange as it sounds, it commonly sold as a rat poison. The FDA has no information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938. (3) " References: 1) U.S. FDA Approved Drug List http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ 2) US FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, October 14, 2006, "Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html 3) E-mail correspondence at bottom of article http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoride-never-fda-approved-for.html

Metal as an abrasive? Hmm, not sure, but not likely. At least not as an abrasive. There are still some pretty harsh pastes out there, but that might be over the top. It looks like there are sometimes some metal content in today's pastes, but not as an abrasive. Per a quick look up... "The most commonly used abrasives are hydrated silica (softened silica), calcium carbonate (also known as chalk), and sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Other abrasives include dibasic calcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, tricalcium phosphate, and sodium metaphosphate hydrated alumina. Each abrasive also has slightly different cleaning properties, and a combination of them might be used in the final product." However, I did note, in the same article that an alkali metal is part of the combo used to create the foaming action. "Sudsers, also known as foaming agents, are surfactants. They lower the surface tension of water so that bubbles are formed. Multiple bubbles together make foam. Sudsers help in removing particles from teeth. Sudsers are usually a combination of an organic alcohol or a fatty acid with an alkali metal. Common sudsers are sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfoacetate, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, sulfolaurate, sodium lauryl sarcosinate, sodium stearyl fumarate, and sodium stearyl lactate." Full article here... http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Toothpaste.html

Maybe it's time to ask your city water provider what type/grade, and from where they get their fluoride. I've never heard Homer Simpson say "Mmmmm, flouride". See below... >>>Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian expert and head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto --- ...Limeback, who once supported but now opposes fluoridation, has written extensively on fluoride's health risks, and his views are shared by many in the scientific community. ...Limeback and others also point out that industrial sources of fluoride contain harmful chemicals and have not been tested properly. "Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer and sold to most of the major cities in North America, which use this industrial grade source of fluoride to fluoridate drinking water, rather than the more expensive pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride salt," he wrote in a public letter in April 2000. "Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans."

Sounds like the guy should lose his license because he doesn't have a clue. That or he was joking or perhaps you misunderstood what he was saying. As mentioned before, the only thing fluoride does topically is kill bacteria. It kills the bacteria that can cause plaque, true, but kills all the beneficial bacteria in your mouth as well. Nothing to do with enamel unless you are talking about fluorisis, which is basically chemical poisoning. It has to do with rearranding the crystalline structure of the enamel in its formative years. As one doc put it ""Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely." Some water companies actually add flouride to their bottle water, too. You can learn a lot from reading the labels as to what form of filtration they perform. Many only micron and carbon filter. You can do that for $14 on your sink. Some people just assume all bottled water is the same or that it is superior to tap water that you filter yourself. That just isn't the case.

Hi Kipster, Well, you give up absolutely nothing by NOT drinking fluoridated water. First, though, realize than many bottled water and most mechanical filtration systems do NOT remove fluoride (unfortunately). Distillation and RO will remove or greatly reduce it (thankfully). You are also getting high volumes of fluoride with anything that is made with water (all juices from concentrate if made with fluoridated city water) and it concentrates in meet if it's in their water supply. I, too, have never had a cavity and, according to dentists, probably never will. The reason? What they call fluorosis. The definition? "Dental fluorosis is an irreversible condition caused by excessive ingestion of fluoride during the tooth forming years. It is the first visible sign that a child has been overexposed to fluoride. " It is usually found in people that grow up on well water, though many city water systems are so fluoridated, it can happen there as well. And is actually on the rise. Here is a link explaining why having enough flouride as a kid to cause fluorosis is so bad (even if the side benefit is lack of cavities) http://fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm#text My case isn't very noticeable, but still, as a kid, I always got teased as if I didn't brush my teeth, etc. Quite the opposite. I was one of the kids that took care of their teeth and never had a cavity. Still, it made me self conscious. Basically, fluoride is a neuro-toxin, among other things. It's main job in preventing tooth decay is to poison and kill the bacteria in your mouth. That is a topical application only and along the way, you are washing your mouth with a poison. The amount of fluoride in a typical tube of fluoride toothpaste is sufficient to kill a small child if it were consumed all at once. Might as well brush your teeth with mercury, lead, or arsnic. Besides it isn't the fluoride in toothpaste that cleans the teeth. It's the abrasives (like calcium carbonate) that do that. All this put in water when the only possible benefit is only topical and ingesting it does nothing but harm you. It is a poisonous bi-product of fertilizer production. There is only one study showing tooth decay is reduced by putting it in water and that was from around the 40s I believe. All modern studies in many countries show no benefits. It is banned from water supplies in many countries. Rather than me type out what is already said elsewhere, take a look at this article. It is but one of many, but the author is very readable and puts it all together in plain english. Yes, it even touches on bottled water (to stick with the thread subject) http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/07/whats-the-deal-with-fluoride/ As for not getting enough minerals, if your diet is so poor that you get most of your minerals from water, you have a super poor diet. The mineral thing is an advertisement 'think' by the water companies to get you to shy away from getting a distillery or RO filter and 'making' your own water. ....aaaaaaannnd discuss...:D

Bullwings, this is more of a question for others than an answer for you. Anyone know if a thermoflex liner, in all it's marshmallow puff glory when molding, would take up more room than the standard liner? Than might help you. Also, it's Suzuka, not Sazuka.