dshack

Back from the Bay Area, and it looks like the base has grown 100 inches. I'll be on cascade early, probably move to shooting star later. 415-608-9267.

Alternatively, anyone know a site other than bomber to buy size 24's speed liners? Theirs are backordered.

Anyone know the stiffness difference between Suzukas and the x25 series? I'm eyeing a NOS pair of 125's on ebay and I want to know if they'll be too stiff

My understanding of liner sizing is that a shell is usually built to take either a full-size or half-size liner, with full-size liners being bigger to take up more volume. Carver's Almanac basically says that .0 and .5 sizes of Head and Raichle boots tend to use the exact same shell size. "Manufacturers vary the "size" of the liner either by making the liner bigger/smaller, or by changing the thickness of the footbed. For instance, if the lower shell is stamped with "27-27.5", then the boot can be either size 27 or 27.5, depending on the liner size. There are 3 possibilities: The exact same liner and footbed are used for both 27.0 and 27.5, in which case the two sizes are actually the same size: they are both size 27.0. This is the case for later models of Raichle boots. The liner for the 27.0 boot is thicker, taking up more room, but the footbed is the same. In this case, the size 27.0 really is smaller, but only if you use the liner that takes up more room. The 27.0 boot fits foot lengths of 27.0 to 27.49999 cm, and the 27.5 boot fits foot lengths of 27.5 to 27.9999 cm. The liners are identical, but the 27.0 liner has a thicker footbed that takes up more space. In this case, the size 27.0 really is smaller, but not really, since you will be throwing away the footbed and using your own custom molded footbed. As a result, the two different sizes are unintentionally the same. This example applies to Head Boots." If I'm reading this right, and I measure a 24.2, I should have no problem using 24.5 boots with 24.0 liners, right?

Isn't this guy breaking at the hip on a toeside? Maybe I misunderstand the concept.

Could you tell a big difference between a current Madd 170 and the earlier ones? A Donek FC? I think someone brought up earlier that they thought Factory Primes stayed basically the same board during their entire production run. Obviously new board models, and new constructions (metal, carbon, etc) affect ride quality, but what about the yearly tweaking of the staple shapes in a manufacturers' product line? What do you think? Aside from materials innovation, how much do the rides of different board models change over the years?

Second!

Having some major shin problems with my head boots with NT thermo liners. The wisdom of the interwebs has suggested I try different liners, or possibly different boots. I guess I'm looking for stock head, thermo (wrap-style), zip-fit, or any other liner in a mondo 24, or potentially raichle boots (any vintage that will take intec heels) in the same size.

Nooooooooooooooooo........

I'd love to see a modern free-ride oriented hardboot setup. The problem in my mind is how to engineer the moderate amount of lateral flex needed for feathering the board in powder or absorbing landings; I'm almost thinking we need a rotational or side-to-side spring analagous to the BTS, but controlling lateral movement. Some of the lighter plate bindings do that for you (burtons, basically), but it seems sloppy and unintentional. It would be great to flick a switch or adjust a screw to turn a laterally stiff carving setup into more of a soft all-mountain one. At the low (35-50ish) angles I like to ride on my freeride boards, there's just too much movement along the long axis of my board for stiff hardboots. Softboots are reasonably powerful along their heel-toe axis, and have a ton of give side-to-side, which is great for jumps, powder, and bumps.

Do the speed liners take up more space then an NT liner? I ask because I measure somewhere around a 24.5 foot, and I'm using a 24 liner in 23.5 boots. The fit is nice, but snug, and I'm worried that if I put in the speed liners, it may be too tight. Are there other liners (zip fits or stock heads) I should look at?

Ok, question following from my "head boots with NT liners hurt my shins" thread: how do you suck up hits in hardboots without banging your legs up? I love the lateral power hardboots give me, but the flip-side of that is when riding low angles (say, sub-50), it's tough to absorb impact along the long axis of your board, which sucks for riding chop or hitting kickers. In softies, I'd flex my boot forward and sideways, but in hardboots, the forward flex is truncated significantly, and the sideways flex is eliminated. I use my knees as much as I can, but I'm still having problems. Any solutions?

Long plate or short plate on the cateks?

The last few days, I've been riding hardboots on a freeride board, and I've been getting pretty bad pain on the outside of each shin. I've looked at the shin bang section on carver's almanac, but I'm not quite sure it applies in my case, as instead of a case of repeated pressure against my whole shin, it's more a case of the top of the shell of my boot digging into the side of my shin. I've got two culprits in mind: 1) Instead of stock Head liners, which at least on their ski boots have plastic/rubber on the outside at the top, my boots came with Raichle NT liners, which are foam all the way up. I think if I either cannabilize some old ski liners or find another source of foam-backed plastic, I might be able to attach it to the top couple inches of the liner, and distribute the impact of the shell better. Anyone had this problem or tried something similar? Alternatively, can anyone recommend a sturdier liner for the head boots? 2) I can still pressure into turns easily with my shins, but the pain is really a problem on rutty terrain, where bumps repeatedly slam the shell into my shin (picture sliding out of a regular heelside turn, and the shell of your right boot digging into your calf). Once I realized this, I started trying to absorb a lot more of the shock with knee and ankle flexion, but I think my boots may be too stiff- I really can't bend my ankles near as much as I could on my (too-big) suzukas with the raichle spring thing in the back. It looks like people have both modded the BTS to fit head boots, and also tried a DIY spring system invented by some guy named arnaud. Is one of these a better strategy than the other? I'm a little worried because the 2nd and 3rd buckle seem to be almost hitting each other, and I'm worried that will make increasing the flex of the boots a futile effort. Am I just incompatible with Head boots?

Is there a chance I could get a few measurements on it? Tip/tail/waist would be great.

Dag, that might be good for an all-mountain type board for me. If any senior BOL-ers have thoughts on the possible year, ride quality, or value of this board, that would be great.

Sugar bowl tomorrow and maybe thursday, then northstar. 415.608.9267.

The boots are last year's, so that would be 06/07. Figure on $12 UPS.

yeah, I'd call them reasonably narrow.

still got these...

Hey MUD, Dave Tiller over at Hardbooter.com has some demo-stock Madd BX's sitting around, if you're still looking.

What do people think about a prior 4x4 vs. an f2 speedcross for powder? They're really similar dimensions, but the f2 has a centimeter wider waist. Or are they both too skinny?

Sure....but it would be pretty flexy. If you're looking for a board to play around on, maybe riding with softbooters or beginners, it might be ok, but for anything serious, it's not going to be enough board.

Do those angles give you underhang? Is it hard to power the board into a carve?

I think I might; they've gotten pretty rave reviews. What sort of angles do you ride at?