Buell
-
Posts
1,733 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by Buell
-
-
Steeper. Turns out dragging your body on the snow is a very effective means of speed control.
FYI, 30 to 35 degrees is steeper than most groomed runs. Most people overestimate slope angle by quite a lot.
-
Yes, it is you. Your balls are too small. ;)
Seriously, big boards (especially big full on race boards) take a lot of effort to push around on most slopes. Smaller boards (obviously to a point) are generally easier to ride and take less effort.
-
BlueB knows Sno Pros better than I do, but I really don't think the toe and heel blocks should "wiggle" or be called loose.
Yes, I think you should take them apart and figure out what is wrong.
-
If the nose folds it ain't a carving board
If the plate bindings rip out on the first turn it ain't a carving board
If it ain't stable at speed it ain't a carving board
Yep. Most every board can carve, on some level, but that does not make them carving boards. Just like most boards can be taken in the park or ridden in power but that does not make them jib or powder boards.
If it isn't designed to be a carving board, it might carve, but it is probably not a carving board.
-
100% agreed. Top bindings for the racing(F2 race intec), but harsh on the board.
No, intec bindings are hardly used by anyone for racing. They are way too stiff.
Standard bail F2 Race Titaniums are the top bindings for racing. They are not harsh on a board from anything I have personally experienced, seen, read, or heard.
If you have other evidence, please post it.
-
I'm not saying the F2 Race Intecs are bad bindings, but the small dampening rubbers won't do much compared to TD3 elastomers. Also all intec bindings are stiffer than their bail counterparts, you're locked in at three points instead of two. Boards are getting softer and more fragile nowadays, so stiffer bindings can cause problems.
That's an entirely different binding, it probably has even more flex than regular Titanium bail bindings.
I realize you are talking specifically about the intec version of the F2s, but could you please offer more evidence about them damaging boards?
I do agree that these pads are not doing much more than protecting the topsheet from the toe and heel bail mounting T nuts. They are necessary to have under the binding though and are pretty easy to lose if you are careless.
The F2 binding itself is more damp than any of the TDs I have ever tried, including the SW. Except for the F2 Intec Race Titanium may be stiffer than the SW in most directions of motion (it has been a few years since I have ridden them).
-
This is feeling familiar. Valsam, are you channeling photodad?
You are actually dissing on another poster's avatar photo? For all the smack you talk, have you seen yours? Maybe it is part of the character.
I've seen enough of your posts, on this and other topics, to say you have got to be a troll.
-
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of labour/material costs etc for a custom board. The builder might be working for 4 bucks an hour if he's charging 100$ for his product:eek:
I imagine the shop overhead, tooling, press, and materials are far more than $100 per modern board. There is also all the prototyping costs and lets not forget about the business overhead costs and time spent dealing with red tape and corresponding with us crazy customers. Just to build and ship us boards. Thank you alpine gear manufacturers.
Let me guess Valsam, never been self-employed? The costs add up.
-
When over a million are sold, instead of, probably less than a hundred, the price will be much lower. :D
-
I had a Steepwater Steep twist on me during the time I owned it. It is the only one of many boards I have owned. I have no idea why it twisted.
-
Ahh, but hasn't the way that they are being ridden changed a bit? Many folks are now riding metals with plates or spacers, or bindings with lots of cushioning on the underside. That wasn't happening as much with glass boards. Several things have changed, not just the board variable.
True, to a point.
The binding makers improved their binding cushioning a bit but the biggest improvement was the board builders reinforcing under the bindings. I am pretty sure Bruce's first year of mostly metal boards was pre-TD3 and his failure rate was zero.
Plates are only coming into use this year for freecarvers.
A couple of years ago we all scrambled to get spacers under our bindings. The next year almost no one used them at all. Most of the binding at that time were still TD2 and Catek, yet there were very few failures, if any, due to the board being metal construction.
The early Kesslers and first gen Prior's were pretty much the last fragile metal boards but their reputation is lasting.
I did see one metal board that had a section of base ripped off to expose bare titinal. This was more than your typical core shot but no repairs would hold. If it had been wood, it could have been repaired. That is a rare situation for a carve board though.
-
Sweet Zoltan! What is it?
No Valsam, current metal boards seem to hold up just as well as the older glass ones. At least from talking to Bruce and watching broken board postscripts here on BOL.
-
It seemed pretty clear that metal bindings could break early metal boards by point loading at the edges of the binding. Often the tear in the titinal at the break matched the front contact point of the binding on the board. That issue seems to have been completely remedied by all manufacturers.
There is nothing about this damage that says a metal binding did it. It does not match the issues of the past.
Claiming you are going to insist it is true until someone proves you wrong really makes me concerned about you reasoning skills.
You bought a used racer's board. It broke on you. Now you are mad at SG and Bomber. Just 8 months ago you started a thread about "buyer beware" when buying used boards from racers due to your experiences. What happened to that idea. How did it become the manufacturer's faults now?
Not to mention you went off on Bomber last winter because they did not tell you they were about to release the Sidewinders when you bought TD3s. Even though we all knew they were coming but no one else had been told when.
Seems to be a theme of blaming others here.
-
And the rant continues:AR15firin
Apparently so.
Is this even an issue anymore?
-
Your stance should change as you see fit, if at all. I went from a slight rear boot heel lift, flat front foot, to a slight front boot toe lift, flat back foot to keep a bit more weight on the tail. I could have probably just moved my bindings back a touch to get the same weight shift.
For riding, I have found:
Stay centered you do not need to shift your weight as much on these designs.
Keep some weight on the tail coming out of turns. It will keep it from releasing.
Do not over presure the nose initiating turns. These boards do not need it.
-
Lucky that SG is even looking at this. Standard practice in the industry is the warranty is non-transferable and valid only to the original purchaser withing the specified time frame and requirements like to abuse, etc.
I think Sigi already mention this somewhat. It is also a very busy time for Sigi at the moment given all his commitments and you will have a hard time getting him to respond quickly until end of season.
Jason, again, you can call me.
+1
All indications are that it is a dead board anyway and unsafe to ride. You are not losing anything by being patient.
A couple of years ago I emailed Sigi's company with some questions. It was Sigi that replied, even though someone else at the company could have. He probably wants to look at it himself but is traveling or racing.
-
-
I have not ridden Snowpros but I much prefer the flex of the F2s to the TD2s, with and without the suspension kit.
-
Great shots of the concept blueb!
The other day in the water Rebecca mentioned that my front foot toes were off the board during an off the top. I replied that happens all the time. During fast backside waves my back foot rocks onto its inside as my knee drives forward and toward the board.
There is tons of freedom in those sports for the feet to adjust to your body position.
-
I've been deleting his responses. The opinions of anyone who does not ride hardboots are not relevant to hardboot binding setup.
I have had the same thought.
The answer to the post is that your feet are free to move, cant, and lift in all of those sports. Even wakeboarding and softboot snowboarding (two strap bindings anyway) allow loads of foot movement with their binding systems. Hardbooting, not so much.
-
And what is the point of this in this thread?
-
What Sean said.
I have seen tall guys really leverage a board that a shorter person of the same weight could not accomplish.
For better riders, personal preference is a lot of the factor of board length. A bigger board makes bigger turns, often at higher speeds. That is probably beyond the grasp of many snowboard sales people who generally talk to beginner or intermediate skidders.
-
..... so I guess I will go with $50 foot beds and take it from there for now ?.
I think the guy your were talking to was probably thinking more like $300 foot beds.
-
With rocker you can go either shorter or longer. They are more maneuverable and they also float better. For me it comes down to the turn I want to make. Shorter will make tighter turns, longer will make bigger turns. Generally I would also think that longer will ride better at higher speed.
I will ride the 172 rockered Tanker anywhere. It is maneuverable enough for the trees and is very stable at high speed. In really crappy bumped up stuff it is a bit scary in the trees but I do not ride those conditions in the trees. In normal chopped up powder it is very forgiving. I would not ride a traditional 172 cambered board in the trees on a powder day as they do not react nearly as quickly. I am 145 pounds.
I fully agree about the shop employees not knowing there stuff. I just dealt with that an hour ago.
I got to see the Hoovercraft finally. We will have one to test shortly. There is a lot less length of rocker in the nose than I expected and a lot more camber. It has no real tail though, so combined with the blunt nose, it is really much more like a board in the mid to upper 160s. Due to the almost alpine like tail the bindings look really set back, but I expect they are much less set back on the effective edge and sidecut than they appear. Not a lot of taper and it was pretty heavy for its size. I really do not know what to expect.
I also saw the Flagship. Camber between the feet, rocker in the nose and less in the tail. There was a kink at the transition between the camber and the rocker that seemed a bit harsh. It was about midway between the front foot and the nose. Flex seemed nice. Nose is reasonably stiff, midsection a little softer.
Subtle but long magnatraction bumps. It really makes the sidecut look all chopped up into different sections. Magnatraction, from what I can tell, is more of a skidding thing than a carving thing. That said, steeper lines are skidded.
It is an interesting combination of concepts. I am not excited enough to run out and buy one, but I would be interested in riding one to see what it is like in various conditions.
I still think the Prior MFR hybrid rocker is a great option for an all around freeride board. Oh yeah, and the 172 Tanker.
New Prior Powder Board
in The Lodge
Posted
By comparing the 6' Dupraz with other boards, I figured it's sidecut was somewhere in the 7m range. I really prefered the Spearhead to the Dupraz but Prior makes great powder boards so this one is probably really fun too.