BadBrad

To me this looks like the sexy curves of a Fender Strat next to Bo Diddly's rectangular guitar.

The bike looks like it would be hard on the spine and hard on the ears. The Fire-O trike is cool.... and funny!

I second the recommendation for something like Iyengar. I did Anusara yoga for a few years. It's more physical than mental, which is what I was looking for as a triathlete/mountain biker/snowboarder/marathoner. I don't know a lot about the different yoga styles, but I think John Friend develeped Anusara based on Iyengar yoga and exercise physiology principles. It is sort of glorified stretching, except it ensures that you are stretching properly with good spinal alignment and balance. It also gave me a much better realization of my posture throughout the day. I have scoliosis and posture problems, so this was a good thing for me. And even though it is mainly physical, I did feel some mental and relaxation benefits from it as well.

A lot of nice triathlon bikes here. Here is mine. It was a pretty cool bike when I built it in 1992, and I still like it, and it is still in excellent condition. I bought the bare Serotta Tri-Colorado frame and then built it up with my favorite lightweight parts. Dura-Ace derailleurs, shifters, and crank, Suntour Superbe Pro brakes, etc. I also have a set of Hed aero wheels for it (rear disk, front deep rim). I used to do 7 or 8 triathlons a year, but I've only done one in the past 10 years, so I think I'll try to sell this bike.

I have a pair of gloves that are probably 15 years old, but they can't compete in the ugly contest. They are Gordini gloves with kevlar palms & fingers and a little pad on the heel of the palm. They are still in pretty good shape after all of these years, just now showing some wear on the fingertips and palm of my left glove. The most durable gloves I've ever seen. For the last couple of seasons I've been wearing the Level Fly gloves with the built-in wrist guards most of the time, so the old Gordinis are semi-retired.

And here is my family sedan in action - a 2004 BMW 330i with the ZHP performance package. Besides a few local events I'm signed up for the DC ProSolo. However, we are planning to buy a new house soon so I may end up selling this car.

That was not my experience. I demo'd a metal-top WCR 173 at SES08, and to me it felt rather dead and unresponsive. I now own a 2009 WCR metal 173 with the topsheet, and to me it feels livelier. Not as snappy as a Madd or 'glass Donek, but a good balance between dampness and responsiveness.

I don't know a lot about rum, but my in-laws brought me a bottle of Cacique 500 Extra Anejo from Venezuela (where it is made), and I like it a lot.

I hear that Bruce Vasarva is working on a custom hardboot. You take a plaster mold of your feet and lower legs, and he will custom build the boot for your anatomy, weight, preferred bindings, and riding style. The construction will be a hand-laid carbon fiber/kevlar construction so the boots will be very light. Buckles will be titanium, and he is also researching and testing magnesium and beryllium alloys to further reduce weight. Forward/aft and lateral flex and cant will be fully adjustable on the fly through a revolutionary electro-viscous damping system in which the stiffness and damping is varied by an electric current powered by a small watch battery. Since the shell is molded to fit your foot, the liner can be very thin, resulting in very compact outer dimensions. Revolutionary materials will ensure that the thin liners are warm, and there will also be an option for an integrated heating system. The boot will be called Lirpa Loof.

My local ski areas don't even know what alpine snowboarding is.

I bet you're talking about the Bulgarian split squat with overhead press, right? Fat Loss I workout B just about does me in. Bulgarian split squats are freakin' hard!

This article really just says that you need to do more than just aerobic training. Increasing muscle mass increases your resting metabolic weight, so weight training is important. I used to be an avid triathlete and mountain bike racer, and was skinny and pretty fast. Now I'm married and the father of a 20-month old boy, and I work long hours, so it's hard to find much time to train. I'm about 15 lbs heavier than i'd like to be. I made some significant changes to my diet -- eating more vegetables, eliminating sodas, no sugar in my coffee, avoiding most baked goods. But I didn't lose weight. I trained for an did a triathlon and a marathon, but didn't lose weight. I did the online Weightwatchers and stayed within my points limits, but didn't lose weight. I did the South Beach diet, and lost a few pounds in phase 1, but nothing significant. So now I have started doing more training with free weights. I have always done some strength training, but it consisted of going through the weight machine circuit at the gym. I was using heavy weight (8-12 reps to failure) and going through the circuit 2 or 3 times, but found that I wasn't increasing the weight. I started reading up on free weight training, and it made a lot of sense that it would provide more real-world strength for lifting a suitcase or my toddler or doing yard work. I am still doing a little running, biking, and swimming, but my emphasis now is on the weight training. I read the book "Maximum Strength" by Eric Cressey, and it had a lot of good info, but I discovered that the workouts aren't for beginners. I then got the book "The New Rules of Lifting", and I am doing the workouts provided in this book. I haven't lost any weight, but my pants do feel a bit looser, so maybe I'm losing a little bit of fat. I have, however, been able to increase the weight I use each week, so that would indicate that I am actually getting stronger. At first, just keeping my balance for some of the squats and lunges exercises was a challenge, and I could really feel my core working, so that's another benefit. For those familiar with the New Rules of Lifting, I have completed the Break-In workouts and I'm half way through the Fat Loss I workouts, so I haven't been doing it long enough to see what the long-term results will be, but the workouts kick my butt and I'm getting stronger, so that's all good. Another key is to vary your workouts. I know people who run the same 5-mile course every day at the same speed and then wonder why they don't get faster. I was doing the same weight circuit routine over and over, and even though I was really pushing myself I wasn't getting stronger. You body gets used to a workout routine and then you'll plateau, so you need to mix it up. For running, do long runs, tempo runs, intervals, and hills. For my weight workouts I will be doing Fat Loss I, then Strength I, then Fat Loss II, then Strength II, and I might even throw in Hypertrophy I at some point, constantly mixing it up.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the metal and non-metal WCRs had identical specs until the new 2010 metal shapes came out. I have a 2009 WCR metal 173. It has an 11m scr, 19.5cm waist, and 146cm effective edge. I like it a lot, and the 11m scr seems perfect for the kind of riding I do. If I were going to order a new 2010 model I think I'd go for the 169. It actually has a longer effective edge than my 2009 173, the same scr, but less overall length. I'm not sure which width I'd choose, though. The 19.5 width gives me angles of 60/55 with my 26.5 boots, which I find comfortable, but I'm also comfortable on my 21.4 wide 4WD, which gives me angles of 54/51.

Look at the regular WCR specs. The 169 is 10.6m and the 173 is 11m. I'm pretty sure the WCR-metal specs were the same prior to the new 2010 shapes.

The specs you are listing sound pretty much like the 2009 WCR specs, except for a slightly narrower width. I have a 2009 WCR-metal 173, standard specs. It has an 11m sidecut and a 19.5cm waist. The biggest difference with the 2010 shape would be the longer effective edge for a given length. A 2010 169 would should ride similarly to my 2009 173.

I've had my Burton Winds for 10 years and they still seem to work fine. The original liners were replaced a couple of years ago because they packed out (and were never that comfortable or warm in the first place). Before the Winds I had some Burton Reactor boots for several years. They were replaced by the Winds when a buckle broke, but other than the buckle they were fine. I don't think boot shells wear out. If they aren't cracked or broken then they should be fine. Liners do eventually get packed out.

Unlike most of the posters here, I am a struggling terminal intermediate since I only get to ride a half dozen or so days a year, and I feel the same way as the original poster about a hardboot setup. I really struggle in the bumps and crud, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to turn quickly to venture into the trees on an alpine setup. I have seen guys easily ride stiff narrow race boards backwards down steep bumpy junk, in tight trees, and so on, but I can't do it. A soft boot setup is more forgiving for us beginner-intermediates. The increased ankle flexibility helps (I do put my boots in walk mode for riding in bumps), but I think the biggest factor is that the shallower stance angles allow you to throw the back end of the board around easier. And in the bumps the ankle flexibility gives a wider balance point.

On Saturday I was at Park City and the conditions were pretty good. Sunday at The Canyons, conditions were okay, but not great. Monday at Snowbird. Icy in the morning, I didn't like the terrain that much, and my legs were dead from the previous 2 days, so I quit early. Tuesday at The Canyons. Icy in the am, slushy in the pm. Not good conditions, but I still had fun. Brad

There were some "turn-schtubbies" built, and those might be a good choice for what you want. For my own east-coast small hill riding, I was thinking of something similar.

That's a good question. How do you decide between a schtubby and an AM?

Thanks for the info. I'll ask my friends about Solitude.

I got a concussion this season while wearing my Giro G10 helmet, and it got me thinking about helmet design. The ski/snowboard helmets seem to be designed to take a big hit on a solid object, which is good if you hit a tree or a rock at high speed. But in my case, I hit the ground (hardpack snow), and I think that instead of the hard styrene liner a softer foam liner would have given me better protection. It doesn't appear as if the foam deformed at all, so the majority of the impact was transferred to my head instead of being absorbed by the helmet. I'm thinking that a good material might be the high density foam material that is used for rollcage padding in racecars. Perhaps a dual-density helmet liner would provide better protection for various types of hits. There are beanies available with the d3o material, and I wonder if this might work well for use on snow. The legalese says that they should not be used in place of a helmet since they don't conform to any safety standards, but perhaps someone should incorporate this material inside a hard outer shell.

The canting plates should not affect your binding angles, at least not by any significant amount. I have switched among zero, 3, and 6 degree cants, but my binding angles were the same -- set so that my boot heel and toe were just at the edge of the board.

I'd call the 200cm Silly Good a speed board. http://www.hardbooter.com/product_p/2009_prior.htm

valsam, the Burton Winds appear to be sized differently than the Deeluxe boots. My foot measures 26.0. My Winds and liners are 26.5. With the stock liners they were a little to tight and my toes would hurt. I replaced the liners with 26.5 ZipFit liners and the fit is very good now. Michael said his feet also measure 26.0, but a Deeluxe 26 was too big. So it would appear that a 26.5 Burton is about the same size as a 25.0 Deeluxe. If your foot measures 30.0, then it sounds like you probably want a size 29 in a Deeluxe boot if you like a snug performance fit. If you like some extra room then a 30 will probably work.