philw

And an update.. I thought I may as well try walk mode on the rear foot... that works pretty well, it's a feel which is kind of soft, but it turns out that on reasonably soft snow (this is not powder!) I don't need the fore-aft rigidity of the rear boot much. I switched that one to walk and then forgot about it. The riding was better today, but that could have been the snow as much as this change. That said, I rode one 1000m pitch which was frozen sastrugi all the way down and the boots were fine. Hmm.

I spent a week in Iceland riding end of season snow. It's been a poor snow year here, with refrozen rained on rotten snow. The top-to-bottom (about 1,000 vertical meters down to sea level) vertical give a binary transition from "too hard" to "too soft". The beer's expensive too. And don't get me started on the pickled Herring. Anyway, boot-wise, it's not really a fair test, but I've not really noticed the boots, which is a good thing. They seem kind of small, and I worry that I may get cold toes in seriously cold conditions... I may end up buying heaters for the dead of winter, which kind of defeats the object of saving weight. Stiffness-wise I've no problems - I'm running these with F2 Race Ti bindings which are fairly flexible and although the shells are stiff, there's play in the inners too. I'm a hard booter, and these are hard boots. As I probably said before, the forward-lean range isn't great, and I like my back leg with lots of lean. I tried to use a shim (from an old Indy boot) to push the top of my back calf forward.... that worked, but it felt a bit wrong and in practice moved about as I rode, eventually being ejected into my pants leg! I gave up on that, and just rode, which worked ok. I did have some issues (in this snow) with "disciplining the front of my board" - that is, the front of my board was chattering a bit on some of the softer snow. I have that on video, and although a soft booter had a similar issue, I think it's my set-up as I'd not expect it. I tried to push more on my back foot which I think helped. Conclusion: I still need to do something about the back leg forward-lean before I'm happy. I don't want to dick with my set-up in the middle of a heli week, but future plans: I have a standard three-degree wedge under the back foot on these F2s. Once I'm home I'll switch that up to six-degrees, which may solve the problem. Maybe I can drill the shell to get more lean out of the back boot. Phantom are supposed to be producing some spring kits which may be usable to do what I want, although I don't really need the spring thing or the weight. I can probably get someone to make me a bigger bit of aluminium than the standard "walk" lever, which will do the job.

I've met a few people who have that reaction, on seeing the Kessler logo - people from that village do get about, it seems. I shall be taking my own Kessler to Iceland tomorrow, although only as a backup in case I can't get into the back country. I'll look out for Dario.

I agree - from the perspective of anyone who doesn't drag themselves through the snow like that it does look odd. The trick with spray however... is to kick up the spray, then turn back through it. In which case you could well be carving as you emerge from your cloud The other trick is to make one big turn, and count down to it so the photographer knows it's coming.

Pretty much every time I meet someone I've not ridden before I get that - they see the boots, not the board, which in my case is like you mentioned a "powder specific board", usually more dedicated power than whatever they're on.

I've been grounded by my builders running late... I'm aiming to get to Iceland at the end of April, but so far I've not had any more snow I'm afraid... I shall certainly post back once I know for sure.

My Titanflex came with all the bits straight out of the box, no need for extra bits, it was all there, I just left the "bumper" bits out and I was good to go. I may have used standard 4x4 bolts rather than the ones the bindings came with, can't remember.

Yes.

Obviously asphyxiation is a risk in both cases, that wasn't my point. You know how they tell you to carry a metal avalanche shovel because the plastic ones can't always cut the debris? In contrast, tree well snow is light and loose, which is why it falls down with you. The snow is different. I'm not a guide, but the buddy system isn't really optional for heli guests. That Powder article is interesting, but it reads a bit like "advertorial" and doesn't reflect my experience as described. The only place you can't fly with air bag canisters is the USA; there's no problem in Europe or Canada. Which is partly why the none-gas operated bags have appeared. His Cirque 35 is 1075 g plus the weight of the Avalung. My airbag is 1500g including the full cartridge.

(1) Never come across that, but I've also never come across someone who can't actually breathe. The thing is you're in a big hole - a place without snow... so long as you don't squirm around and pull a load of it in with you, there ought to be space there. The hole "goes all the way around" the tree, if you see what I mean, so there is probably air space below you and to your sides. If there isn't space, you can probably make it because unlike avalanche snow it's not compressed and concrete-like, it's powder. You can compress it. (2) They don't brief much in the heli-boarding training sessions, other than "don't panic", use the buddy system, and wait for help. They tell you to dig in from below, which is obvious - rescuers could easily make things worse by kicking snow into the hole. In my humble opinion, as above, it's really a much more relaxed sort of "rescue" than I'd expect in an avalanche. I've never been in the latter, but with people in tree wells they usually they yell back when you yell at them, in which case you know you've time to think. Waggling around will probably not get you out on your own, but will pull snow down into your air space. If you're not there alone, and you know someone will come for you, you'd stay put. I'd guess that most people probably try to get out, then realize it's not going to work and then stop. The buddy thing reduces the risk a bit, especially if you're good at it (most people aren't, and it's harder than it looks). A couple of years ago there was a legal case where the litigious wife of a heli-skier who died in a well tried to sue his "buddy" for not looking after him. That was a well in a clear-cut, so a relatively small tree or trunk. I wasn't there but I know the people involved. Anyway, the BC judge threw it out, or the whole "buddy system" thing would have stopped right there. I've seen some people with Avalungs, but I've never seen anyone ride with one in their gob. I doubt you'd get the air in fast enough to ride, and in any case you're supposed to be yelling to each other for the buddy system. I think that'd increase your risk. Even so, the Avalung is designed (I thought) for compacted snow; that's not really what you're dealing with in a tree well.

One thing to remember is that you generally have time with a tree well, compared with a slide. They are big holes, so as long as you don't kick everything in on yourself, there should be air space. I've never fallen in one. I try to ride so if I blow a turn then the way I fall will not be into the wells. I carry a whistle and a radio. The standard approach is to use a "buddy system", although it's a bit limited. You ride in pairs and "leap frog", with both people yelling every few seconds, depending on how gnarly the trees are. The front person yells, the back person answers. The back person will see immediately if the front rider's gone down. If you have a well balanced pair of riders it's easy to make that flow, but I've never had to rely on it either way. I was once shooting stills and someone crashed into a tree well almost right in front of me. I asked him if he was ok and if he could wait until I'd finished the shot... he said he was fine with that, so I shot the remainder of our group coming off whatever it was, and then we went and dug the fella out.

I used to fly kites a lot, the designs change pretty quickly though. Foils are generally less manoeuvrable than delta designs, but it depends what you're trying to do. I've not flown with 3 lines, but I guess it runs like a 2 line foil. The bar makes it easy to hold, but restricts how hard you can turn it (depending on the design of the foil). Two line foils are quick and you can do a lot with them, but they're not as fast to turn as delta kites. Crashing foils is better than crashing deltas - there's less to break. That said you should get out of that habit pretty quickly once you get a feel for where the ground is and what the wind does.I used to fly kites a lot, the designs change pretty quickly though. Foils are generally less manoeuvrable than delta designs, but it depends what you're trying to do. I've not flown with 3 lines, but I guess it runs like a 2 line foil. The bar makes it easy to hold, but restricts how hard you can turn it (depending on the design of the foil). Two line foils are quick and you can do a lot with them, but they're not as fast to turn as delta kites. Crashing foils is better than crashing deltas - there's less to break. That said you should get out of that habit pretty quickly once you get a feel for where the ground is and what the wind does.

No. But if they run Wednesday and Sundays it may be that they have a relatively limited tenure within which to operate, so it'd possibly get too tracked if they went every day. In places like Whistler, "the reset button" is pressed every day or two with fresh snow filling everything in, plus the tenures are relatively large with limited incursion from other users. If those things aren't true, and bearing in mind that no one wants to pay to ride tracks, that could explain the scheduling.

That AASI video just looks lame to me. Perhaps that's because it's an instructor demonstrator thing, but that's not something I could aspire to. It's not why it was posted, but I wonder if that doesn't explain why most softboot people don't carve - it looks really silly, if you're set up that way. Who would want to learn to ride like that? I know Martin also teaches, but he has a much more fluid style there: it looks "right". I'm not sure about the arms, mind People who take a dogmatic position on stances are probably inexperienced and scared of what they don't know. Hard boot people should fight that, because mostly we are what they don't know. I've ridden bottomless powder with several people on the above list and a few more famous snowboarders. Not one of them has ever mentioned my set up. For that kind of crazy, you need the internet.

I think you may be right - in recent years boards have been designed shorter, so my Kessler SL is a 156, but Burton stuff is old so that sounds teeny. I'm sure someone in Europe has a more suitable board. As I think someone mentioned F2 boards are good, well priced and fairly easily available. Their 162SL or the equivalent Speedster may be good choices. I've ridden the former and it's slightly too stiff for my 62kgs - ridable but needs aggression. I would not want to have had to learn (hardbooting) on that because I have to stamp on it to make it perform.

I agree. I'm about as far away from "extreme carving" as I am from softboot riding - those are both perfectly good snowboarding styles, and you can "perfect" either of those or something else... which is "good" is unequivocally subjective. Asking which is "best" is clearly a bad idea. In the case of that video, I think they'd not be making it like that if they didn't think it was a mighty fine thing. To her, highest quality, no question. I'm not sure what the point is. To me, it's all subjective: I snowboard the way I snowboard because that's the way I want to do it. I prefer that lass's style to the spinny/trixy stuff I see at resorts, and I'd probably be learning "Korean" style now if those were the choices I had. They are the only choices most people are aware of. Well other than extreme carving, which is laughable if you don't do it, else extremely cool.

Hmm: Specifically at lower speeds is interesting. It's hard to know based on text, but you said this, and that's what I'm focusing on. What's the manufacturer's recommended weight range for that board? I know without looking that it's too big for me with my 62kgs - I can ride those kind of things, but I can only pressure them enough to turn at Mach 2. Which would make them really hard for me to ride slowly. At 78Kgs. and a 173cm board..... hmm, that's not where I'd start. You say you're not into Extreme Carving. You also say you want to ride the whole mountain, which is what I do. My suggestions: Check the weight range for that board and if you're not in the middle of it, then trade the board for something where you are in the middle, or even the upper end of the weight range, because as a beginner you're not going to be particularly aggressive. Consider SL boards, because they're flexible for all mountain use and most importantly they turn at slow speeds too. Forget "custom", because you can't try the boards out first. Try out several boards because sizing of the board is crucial. I could not ride most people's boards here comfortably, and I certainly would not want to. You have to try before you buy, really. Don't sweat the boots, the number of buckles don't matter. If they fit, stick with them. There are broadly no new hard snowboarding boots - they're all old designs. New ones are different colours, that's all. Don't use crazy-high angles if you're not into diving for the snow. I use 45 degrees parallel at resorts and in the back country and it works fine. The extremes are for Extreme Carving people. -- edited Here you go - if it's this board, well " In short: an original world cup model that offers unlimited lateral position for any kind of speeding thrill!". So it'll be great at racecourse speeds. http://www.snowdb.com/catalog/voelkl/2011/rt-gs

It's interesting looking at the rationale people use. I didn't read it all, but they're sure they won't like it so they've never tried it. They sound so much like skiers from the 1980s, but then that's what they'd have been then. Whatever.

I was trying to understand this issue; powder makes everything easier. Then I looked at this some more and I think I may understand what you're talking about. When there's powder at a resort - even quite a lot - if you tip your board on edge like you would on hardpack, it kind of "catches" in the snow - cuts down through it - and doesn't really make use of the powder. My reaction to that is to switch from using the edges of the board to turn it, to using the base. It's more about banking the board than jamming the edge in. The snow still has a base, and you can still feel it, so you can still ride narrow hard-boot specific boards, which is very hard in bottomless powder. I suppose that's why I'm not a carver - I can carve, but it's not precisely what you ought to be doing in all conditions, because you need a hard surface to put that edge into and it's not there.

Different boots have different "ramp angles" and forward-lean ranges, so in my case the precise answer to the question is that it's dependent on the boots. I ride a mellow 45 degrees parallel without any cants.

As he said, you're clearly not at the min or max on either end there, plenty of adjustment, so I would think you'll be fine. My M bindings are much closer to the maximum settings with my 27.5 boots, so you may be on Large there. But it looks like they'll work fine. I'm in Cambridge and have various size Medium bindings kicking around if that helps.

My 27.5 boots fit the M size F2s, but they clearly would not be adjustable for much larger boots. I've used several boots, all the same internal size, but different external sizes (Deeluxe, Rachlie, Head, Atomic). There is sufficient range in the bindings to deal with all of those. As far as I know the sizing is the same for the Intec versions, as I have both. One way to tell which is which would be... if your 28 boot requires the binding to be fully extended, then it's an M. If it requires the binding to be fully contracted (toe and heel pieces both closest to the 4x4 holes as they'll go), then it's L. I would guess that the Long version has a longer base plate (the metal bit). You could also measure the precise length of that plate and I can compare it with mine to see if it's the same or longer.

Of course Switzerland isn't quite in the EU, although they're closely aligned with it. -- I've never been a "custom" person myself, for any sport. I'm sure if you can try 10 prototypes you can hone it to precisely what you think you want, but otherwise if you have 10 stock models I could likely pick several to which I could easily adapt, and one or two which would be equally close to perfection. But then I also ride stock boots...

Not bad at all. A bit like me on soft boots, I'd say Clearly you can ride. I really dislike indoors as it's so slow, even compared to plastic, but it is what there is.

Since 1989 I don't recall seeing more than a tiny number of hard booters in North America. The death of hard-booting was much more obvious in Europe, where back in the day half of us used hard boots. Even now, there are many more hard booters in Europe than North America, perhaps because of the way resorts are run over here. Most people ride more hard pack than in North America, and off-piste stuff can be more "ski mountaineering" than "playing in the trees". I guess it depends what you think your core business is: what precisely is it you don't want to die, here? On this site you'll read that a shocking number of peoples' "game changing" shift was to bindings whose flex was apparently more appropriate to their needs than the beautiful stiff bindings they'd bought in the USA. The problem there would seem to be failure to adapt to the customers' needs. I've no recent experience of US board builders, so I can't comment on them specifically. Oxcess seems to be a good example of a company who can be cool and sell gear to both soft and hard boot people. Ignoring powder seems to me to be a mistake, especially in North America. People will point out that hard-boot board builders don't do that, but they don't in my opinion build modern competitive powder designs. Their stuff looks like hard booters failing to understand powder, to me it's all wrong. If you needed a gateway drug, well sell something which rocks in the soft boot world, then tease people over the line. I don't think it will work the other way around. Catek I suppose tried that. Or the split board thing is much-hyped and groovy... the marketing's brilliant, and the technology is hard boots. Maybe Atomic will sell more snowboard hard boots than Deluxe