Aracan

Carve Company will have the same prices as Carver's Paradise. They are both part of the Pure Boarding universe. Two weeks ago I picked up a pair of IBEX via the local version of Craigslist for EUR 65,-. You can sometimes score them for cheap if you browse the "boards with bindings" and then ask if they will sell the bindings separately. The F2 Race Ti (which I use) is a solid binding, but with a bit more lateral stiffness than the Ibex.

They are shell sizes, IIRC. The original point boot came in four shell sizes designated A-D.

My ride is a Pure Boarding Bastard 168. IIRC, it has a 24.5 cm waist, enough to accomodate low rear angles even for my MP 29.something foot. Actually, the width of the different PB boards is calculated to allow 30° in the rear with a given Deeluxe SB shell - the longer the board, the bigger the shell. Unfortunately, the calculation only goes up to MP 28. The advantages of the large splay as advocated by Pure Boarding are a relaxed, stable stance (think fistfighter or surfer) and the ability to really drive your rear knee into the snow on toeside turns. Oh, and my stance is pretty standard: I am slightly above 6' and ride a 20" stance. Most guys in the PB crowd ride not only with a lot of rear canting, but also significant heel lift. But I have found it does not really help me, maybe due to the heel lift already provide by UPZ, as mentioned. Disclaimer: Please do not take this as universal wisdom. I have not tried everything. But I have found this works well for me.

Of course, a lot depends on your anatomy, your angles and boots as well. E.g. my angles are about 55/35 (Pureboarding surf stance) and UPZ boots have a rather high ramp angle already built in. So I use a toe lift (no canting) in front for more comfortable riding. In the rear I have inward canting, but no heel lift apart from that already provided by the boot.

The system corey_dyck linked to in post #3.

Forget modifying the boots for BTS. The BTS has its mounting points exactly where there is not enough plastic in the boot to hold them. The DGSS is easy to install and a perfect fit.

Cycling to work and taking the stairs, two steps at a time. I believe that fatigue is nature's way of telling me to improve my technique, not my condition ;-)

Three choices, counting the two different Raichle/Deeluxe shells. However, having been through all three (and Head/Blax) I think the UPZs already are the best match for me, especially better than the SB shell (*shudder*).

Bury Rail, what size are your feet, actually? I mean: When you stand with your heel to a wall, and have someone make a pencil mark at the tip of your toe, how far in centimeters is that mark from the wall? Useful info to determine how well the liners and your feet might go together?

The closer I read the postings in this thread, the more trouble I have in making sense of it (that may well include my own postings). As far as I can tell, there is a noble goal to be achieved, namely, optimal performance, which includes or even presupposes optimal comfort, since lack of comfort will of course influence performance negatively. It takes time and money to get there. Therefore less performance may be acceptable as long as it can be achieved with less outlay of time and money while providing similar levels of comfort. It definitely makes sense for me as a recreational rider to prioritize optimal comfort offer optimal feedback. As a racer I would probably accept a certain level of discomfort (for the duration of a run) in exchange for higher performance. Indeed, racers often unbuckle at the finish before they even get out of their bindings. I guess there is a reason for that. The rub, of course, would lie in determining what level of performance beneath optimal is still acceptable. Which in turn seems impossible before one has experienced what lies at the desirable end of the spectrum. Oh, the humanity ...

That confirms my guesses. I hope that by combining a shell that allows for sufficient ankle mobility with a not-too-rigid liner I will achieve satisfactory results. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say - I will know more by November 7th. I also found the FLO liners quite good while the lasted, apart from that thing where the tongue wouldn't stay where I needed it. But as far as I can make out, they are the most expensive option this side of foam-injected (on my side of the pond, I would have to pay list price, almost EUR 200,- two years ago, probably more now) and I feel that for that price they could have lasted longer.

I absolutely agree that boots are of paramount importance. Over the years, I have spent more on boots than on any other part of snowboarding equipment. As I am not, alas, a man of leisure, nor in a position where I get more than 30 days in a really, really good winter (and in some years I am lucky if I get half as many), the total cost still needs to make some sense in the context of my life in general. Therefore I hesitate to spend a big bundle for results that may or may not turn out to be worth it in enhancing my overall snowboarding experience, especially as I am unsure if bootfitting wisdom for ski boots is completely the same as for SB hardboots, as any bootfitter I am likely to see will be a ski bootfitter.

Thanks for the pointer! Unfortunately, it seems the price depends on size. For my feet, they come at USD 180 before shipping. So I will source some liners locally.

I hope not! But time will tell. Of the three hardboot shell shapes available at this point, I have had the best performance experience with UPZ, in the sense that I perform better when I am under less pain ;-/ Thank you for your observations. Though I cannot resist to repeat a question I hinted at in my first post: I take it that the opacity you wrote about is more noticeable with softer, more yielding material. In my (very limited!) experience with thermo liners, the molded liner was decidedly firmer than the stock liner it replaced, and indeed any hardboot stock liner I have tried. At the time, that seemed logical to me, because what would be the point of molding a liner with a lot of "give"? What am I missing there?

Thank you all for your replies! I will just give it a try based on past experience and also on the fact that thermo liners are definitely the least risky option, financially speaking.

The liners of my UPZ boots are pretty much shot, to the point where the tongue has rubbed down so far that the stiff outside creates pressure points on my shin. I was about to replace them with heat-moldable liners. But now I read on the homepage of Mr Beckmann that those liners are "not appropriate for performance riding" because they are "softer, more vibration-opaque" and therefore provide insufficient feedback. I have used TF liners before, and I recall that they were noticeably firmer than the stock liners I was used to. The comfort came not from their softness but from their having conformed to my foot. (Note that I am referring not to the outside of the liner, but to the cushioning material.) So I am unsure. Any insights are welcome.

Oh. Well, being able to read certainly gives you an edge ;-) I did not catch that part, but it's obvious in retrospect. That certainly rules out Phantoms for me. 30° would probably mean 2 cm overhang front AND back, even on a 24.5-waisted board. The bindings also look very rigid and unforgiving anyway ...

The TD3s limited your angles more severely than boots with DIN soles? Live and learn indeed.

Also, at this point the "new Northwaves" cost nothing at all, as they are not available yet, nor has anyone published a date for when they will be.

My Italian is only what I can deduce from my Latin. But it seems they don't really know anything about the boot. They came across the linked image on a Swiss site from people who are experimenting with a follow-up to the point boot. They hope it will work out well, and they have written to the Swiss and are waiting for their answer with more details ("Abbiamo scritto al produttore e siamo in attesa di risposte.").

Not from the Western hemisphere. I wouldn't know if there was a boot like that in Japan or Korea. AFAIK, the usual technology for achieving a polished-metal look on plastic is not optimal for parts that bend or rub on each other.

Oh. I didn't expect anyone to not be aware of a shell shape that has been around since I got my first pair of hardboots. Well, that clears things up, then.

+1. Can you give us a pointer or two, Jack? Or are the differences just not noticeable from pictures?

I know very little about those methods. But I seem to recall that while the tooling costs for carbon fibre are significantly lower compared to plastic, the cost per piece (for materials and work) goes up like there is no tomorrow. Perfect for low-volume production where cost is not that big an issue - say high-performance auto parts. Snowboard hardboots are already not exactly cheap. For carbon, I would not be surprised if they cost at least twice as much as now.

I think Beckmann wants to know the ramp angle, i.e. the angle between a horizontal surface under the boot and the plane on which the foot rests. Like this: