ShortcutToMoncton

There's no issue of "consent" when driving. There is a defence of "consent" when it comes to sports. (And some other situations, such as medical ones.)

Nonsense. Whether you are "negligent" is a multi-factor test. It is perfectly possible to hit someone, and be found not negligent. It happens all the time. We agree to slide down the side of a hill with other people, all of whom may or may not be in control at any given time. Why shouldn't we then "stand up" and take some responsibility for agreeing to put ourselves in that situation? ;) I mean, it's a "special situation." Of what sort, I don't know. But this judgment seems to indicate that you can be sued on a ski hill for being "out of control" at any given moment - although at the same time, the very nature of the sport means that you're quite likely to be at least somewhat "out of control" at any given moment. That seems problematic to me. greg

Yeah, I guess the beginner label is debatable. He didn't sound any good, anyway! I'm still not a fan of this. It sounds like anyone who happens to go "out of control" while skiing could be liable. That sounds reasonable if you're driving a car, but skiing has as an essential component an "out of control" factor - no one, not even experienced skiers/boarders on this forum, is always "in control." We can hit a rut, hit a little bump, lose our balance, or any number of little things... and for a period of time, be "out of control." It is inherently a tough sport. Does that make you negligent if you hit someone during that time? I don't know. I don't know if it should. If there's evidence that you're not meeting the standard of care - say you're going excessively fast, or you're skiing in some sort of dangerous manner - then I'm more okay with it. But the judge's conclusion seemed to be "since the accident happened, you must have been going too fast or not paying attention." Hmmmmmm. How about: "**** happened, because when you're sliding down the side of a mountain sometimes you bang into things? And if you decide to join other people in sliding down that mountain, you probably should not be able to sue someone unless they're doing something that they really shouldn't be doing?" I mean, think about what this judgment means. From the sounds of it, the guy was a goofy rider and he hit the kid while making a heelside turn (going right). How many of us have had scary "blindspot" moments while making heelside turns? What about if we're coming over the top of a drop-off and someone's skiing along just underneath, such as here? Interesting stuff. 30 grand? Yikes. greg

This is the court's reasoning Makes no sense to me. The kid certainly had injuries, but he was five years old, and now he's fine and there doesn't seem to be any expectation of permanent damage. What "damages" could he have had? The judge quotes the case McGrath in which damages were awarded, but he doesn't mention that the woman there was a semi-retired school administrator who had to subsequently quit tennis and skiing because her injury caused her pain during those activities. I think the most interesting point was brought up by a buddy of mine: that isn't there some measure of consent when you agree to "play" a sport? For instance if you play hockey with some buddies and one of them shoots a slapshot way too high and it hits you in the face, you can't sue them. If you play soccer and someone makes a reckless slide tackle and you hurt your ankle, you probably can't sue them either. At least in Canada, the threshold is generally quite high: say if someone does something totally outside the boundaries of the sport (such as deliberately head-butting you in a soccer game, or swinging a hockey stick like a baseball bat maybe?). In this case both parties were "beginners" so to speak. A beginner is, by definition, probably halfway close to out-of-control most of the time. You could argue that such a person who decides to ride down a black diamond might be negligent, but the boarder was on a green run. Unless he was just going way too fast (and from the judgment it doesn't sound like he was good enough to be going fast), I have a hard time calling him "negligent" just because he "wasn't very good." Seems like a strange, strange result to me. greg

This is Canada. There probably weren't any medical bills. Well, perhaps physio costs maybe, if it wasn't covered by the dad's insurance. Seems like a weird decision to me. Surprised at the outlandishness of the damages, but perhaps there's more to the story than we know...? greg

Update: Asking $125 including shipping from Halifax, Canada. Pretty solid deal! Make me an offer!

Talk to Bruce of course; he'll give you the rundown. Rode a Schtubby for one day - was far more impressed with the VSR. People kept talking about the Schtubby as "quiver-killing" when it came out a few years ago, but the VSR is unquestionably better in that regard IMO. YMMV of course Good luck!

Haha... well that would have been a million times easier, but unfortunately I accepted Réal's offer this morning! :D Happy hunting though! greg

I also don't know if it makes sense. "Vibrations" and "negative feedback from the terrain" that he mentioned aren't really a serious problem of the board vibrating. Those are problems that stem from the board oscillating across its length - cambering and decambering. That's exactly what the plate was designed to deal with. That's what its "isolation" addresses (hinge/slider). greg

$200 Cdn. incl. shipping to Canada, $210 for shipping to US F2 Eliminator snowboard, from the 2005-06 model line I believe? 168cm 25.5 waist 9.5 radius or so Great shape - only used for about 3 seasons, and sparingly so (it was not used this season, and only 5 days last season). The regular nicks and dings of a used snowboard but absolutely nothing that would affect performance. Marks visible on the topsheet are just discolourations from the bindings. As you can see it was originally used with plates, but I spent last year on it with softboots. The base and edges are in close-to-perfect shape - a nice sign of how little abuse this board has seen. There is one edge ding on the side of the nose where I clipped a tree - it's above the running length and won't make a difference. There are the usual marks here and there on the topsheet, a couple small gouges that have been roughly epoxied over, etc. etc. - nothing affecting performance at all. Great camber. Tons of life - this board has a couple seasons left, so if you're looking for a solid softboot ripper this is a cheap alternative to keep you going. I'm doing a long-distance move and due to my new location and work, I won't be getting out much next year (tear)... I can't take this board with me, so hopefully someone out there can make use of it! Greg

I wouldn't bother. Get a VSR. greg

Anyone? I'm moving and don't really have the room to bring these boots with me. Anyone want them? greg

A statement made with intelligent knowledge of the science I'm sure

Did I just see Credit Card info being given over email?! greg

Buddy of mine bought an early-season 165cm model that snowcoach was selling; had been one of his riders' boards I think (but not really used). I spent a half-day on it. Had a 26 waist, which was nice for BX-angle softboot freecarving. A little more damp than my normal softboot ride - 164 Rad Air Reto Lamm - which I'd assume is because of the rubber, and more effective edge of course. It was a more comfortable ride in chop, which you'd expect out of a newer-gen BX board. If you want to carve on a freeride board, you can definitely go to town with the Sabre. On the other hand it was a fairly heavy board. The Reto Lamm is quite light as it is, and the difference was noticeable - I couldn't throw around the Sabre as easily. On one run when I tried exploring a closed-off section I got stuck on a terrible area with packed powder/ice moguls combination, and it was surprising how tired my legs got trying to ram through it. It was also definitely less forgiving than my Reto Lamm, which is itself a board that some people describe as fairly stiff for a freeride board. (On the other hand the board was built for a pro rider who was 25 pounds heavier than me, so that could have something to do with that aspect of it.) And my friend really had to move his bindings as far back as possible when we got some fresh - and this is east-coast stuff, 15cm of heavier pow - because it doesn't float as well as his old Burton Canyon. So yeah, you might want to talk to Sean. I think he said somewhere that he's refined them over this season, so he might be able to address any concerns you have. greg

Hahaha his boots look to be attached... a solid 3-4 inches above the board surface.... :D

Shaking head in disbelief

What a way to go out! The last month must've been as perfect a send-off as anyone could have imagined. Awesome. greg

Yeah, you know you are right about the boots: a lot of men are on Northwaves. However those are supposed to be stiff boots from what I've told (I've never tried a pair myself). I'm not sure why you think F2 bindings can't do 6 degrees of lift. Just add a large lift block, no? Mine are about 6 degrees in the rear and a couple degrees on the toe. That's actually one of the areas I find F2 has more versatility than some other bindings - you don't need discrete amounts of lift (e.g.p 3, 6, 7 degrees etc.). You can just add or subtract as needed and depending on what feels best. (Of course it's a pain in the ass to do so but that's another story.) greg

My Dalbellos flex a little differently and are far more responsive than the standard Deeluxe boots I've tried. I like that. It's a benefit to me, at least. To be honest I don't really care about people on BOL who use certain coloured BTS, because everyone on here seems to have some opinion of "what works best for them," but when I watch professional alpine racers they're never using BTS (ever) and almost always seem to be wearing the same type of ski boots; and when they're actually wearing snowboard boots that I can buy (e.g. JJA on Deeluxes), they're heavily modified and/or have incredibly expensive custom liners. I think those people must be on to something. :lol: (But even on this board, the general trend seems to be towards the UPZ boot, which by most accounts is the stiffest of the bunch.) There's lots of cant and/or lift options on the F2; not as easy or convenient as the TD2 (or especially TD3), but still quite possible to do pretty much anything. Personally I would take an F2 binding over any TD binding except the new Sidewinder, which I have not tried. Apparently every snowboard racer I've ever seen agrees with that assessment to some extent. I have no idea why you think it's impossible to get an "anatomically correct" setup with a non-TD binding; that seems like a stupid theory to me, sorry. And I'd never ride my Dalbellos, at least, on the TD2. Apparently JakeW might like that setup but by any conceivable measure I can think of it sounds absolutely terrible. I like responsive power from my boot, but a binding that lets me respond to how I'm getting thrown around. When I rode the TD2 I was wearing AF700s with a thermo liner, and like I said I did not enjoy it at all. The Dalbellos would be even worse. greg

I'm not sure what you mean about "footprint." I don't have any concerns about breaking the board; I'm sure Sean knows what he's talking about but I haven't heard anything about ski boots resulting in a higher rate of board failures (more like a higher rate of boot failure and/or rider injury, but that's something else). Sean, have you been seeing a correlation between board failures and boot type, or was that just a common-sense conjecture? I guess what I meant to say is that the ski boots I see people riding tend to be stiff. "Stiff" seems to be the way snowboard boots are going nowadays (see UPZ) but ski boots have even more lateral stiffness. Well, the key to the "stiff boots" setup is, I think, a flexy binding. Now that's just my opinion and I can't say that it's the be-all, but that certainly seems to be how snowboard racing and riders "in the loop" have gone. And Trench Digger bindings have been just... stiff, in general. Too stiff for stiff boots, I think. I went from Burton Race plates to the TD1 and hated myself for a year; I went back to the Burtons for a while before trying the TD2 only because the yellow dampener seemed promising, but still was not a fan, and went back to the Burton plates before getting F2s. The amount of gushing praise on here over the Sidewinder is pretty telling IMO: binding flex has been badly, badly needed in the TD line. (On that note I always have to bite my tongue when people recommend to newbies that they should pick up a cheap pair of TD1s or TD2s. Arrgh. ;) ) Now I don't want to turn this into a binding war, so getting back to ski boots: they specifically don't have much lateral flex. And I think when you pair them with Catek/TD bindings, you'll end up getting a system that's simply way too stiff, unless all you ride on is hero cord. greg

Don't use them with TD1/2s. Probably not 3s either. Same for Cateks, but I don't like Catek bindings anyway. Gonna be too stiff. Haven't tried the Sidewinder, but I use F2s (and anyone else I've seen with ski boots have been on F2s or Burtons as well) without a plate and the Krypton Pros were a good fit on my Coiler VSR. I've never been happy with the Deeluxe fit, and I've heard terrible things about the UPZ liners. Liners seem to be the deal-breaker in general, and I'm not about to spend $500+ just to get a good custom-fitter liner; that's just criminal. I enjoy the Dalbello Gold liner so far. greg

Sorry, what does that say for size?

Haha great stuff, I've only tried it on softies, but I've always thought that a wide alpine board would be ideal - lots of length, and the bindings face forward and are high off the board. On another note, doesn't look like they give you much of a head start in that competition... :lol:

Why did you sell it then? What's the deal with it? I would have thought this board would be a killer slalom deck...? greg