Puddy Tat
-
Posts
1,022 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by Puddy Tat
-
-
There are a surprising number of similarities happening on both the Freestyle and alpine side s of deck construction
Food for thought.
If you are heavy, there is NO replacement for DISPLACEMENT.Burton Nug... Sorry, not quite convinced.
From the description "stiff along the entire length" there doesn't seem to be much difference from what I used to experience riding a Nidecker Nano (132cm) in softies. The board was diff along it's entire length, much more similar to the stiffness of an alpine deck. But then it has to be, because with a short nose you can directly apply more pressure and it would fold easily otherwise. Also with a shorter nose you need a stiffer board to get the same effect out of an ollie, as the lever arm back is shorter.
The Nano was fun to screw around on (skateboard deck analogy is quite appropriate), but it was a complete submarine in any depth of powder. That being said it was of course a normal cambered board. If the nug had huge rocker that would help enhance its float and it really isn't all that short as it comes in a 150cm (longest). Back when I was 185lbs in the early 90's I occasionally rode a 156 in pow, that being said it really blew when compared to riding a 171 Kelly Slopestyle in the same conditions.
At 215 lbs (on a light day) I wouldn't want to ride anything under 167 in the kind of dry powder we get out in Banff.
Dave
-
Doing a 630 into a frontside boardslide on a rail to a 270 out is going to suck with a 192. Carving at 40 mph is going to suck on a 145.But it would be epic to watch.
See this is why I don't do rails, at 40mph I would just clear them and land on the snow beyond. Well that and I tried a kiddie rail (in softies) on an icy day about 3 years ago, and totally taco'd myself on it when I slipped off it and my edge couldn't get any purchase in the ice. Ribs hurt for three weeks.
I have 50/50'd a 12' flat ride-on jump-off box in plates with UPZ RTRs in TD3 step-ins set at 60/60 angles if that counts for anything. Hmm maybe Fin could market the TD3s as a freestyle binding now to boost sales?:D
-
P.S. Heel is already feeling better at the end of me writing this but would still appreciate any comments on the matter!
I laughed when I realized you were writing the entire review while wearing your new boots. Apparently there's a few of us around here who can't wait for the season to start.
Dave
-
Shotgun!
-
Good to know where it all started, since I am lookng at becoming an instructor this season.
However I can't help but notice that in that photo he looks SO much like Chuck Norris...
Chuck Norris wouldn't wear a boot that could be called 'soft'.
-
if your bindings have a max toe-heel distance of 30cm, and your boot toe-heel length is 29cm, you have 1cm of longitudinal adjustment available. if it's shorter, you get more.
i don't need it now with the 700's because i successfully downsized, but i could have done with it when i used 325's.
(f2 bindings, btw)
I see your point. I'm thinking that with my mondo 28's on a 21.5cm waisted board (13.4m SCR) I set the boot up such that the edges of the boot are just inside the edges of the board. There is no space remaining to bias the boot towards the toe or the heel edge. (TD3 SI)
Dave
-
when you shorten the toeblock-heel distance, you can make greater fore/aft adjustments on your bindings. this is of particular use to those of us with big feets.
Does it make a difference though, as the toe-to-cuff distance hasn't changed?
-
My apologies Puddy Tat...what I meant by "fitting issues" was regarding the boot interfacing with the SideWinders...not my ugly paws... ;)
I noticed in the bomber store last night that their was mention of certain boots not fitting these bindings correctly, and grew concerned that UPZ's might be one of such.
Thanks again,
Randy
Ah ok. FWIW I have no problem with my RTRs fitting into a TD3 step-in, and the RC-10 uses the same, (or extremely similar) mold with a different plastic. I know last years ATB apparently had some problems fitting into certain bindings because of the shape of the toe block, but as I mentioned in the review it fits into my TD3s step-ins with no issue.
Where UPZs might present a problem, is that they have pushed the heel of the boot forward to create a shorter boot sole. Therefore the boot fits into a shorter space between the toe and heel bail (or step-in adaptor) than an equivalently sized boot by another manufacturer. People with smaller feet have had problems fitting them into TD3s, because the sole length of the boot falls below the minimum adjustment range of the binding. No problem with a mondo 28 boot in terms of sole length.
Corey had a nice post somewhere about how he considers the shorter sole to be a bit of a marketing gimmick. I agree with him on this, as I find that in order to really lay a board over the entire boot must be positione inside the edges of the board. Realistically the boot cuff becomes the limiting factor in this situation as the heel of the boot is positioned well inside the edge of the board.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Pretty sure I'm going to grab a pair or these boots. Was going to get a pair of the TD3 SW's as well. Any issues with these guys not fitting easily?
UPZs fit wider in the toe box and narrower in the heels. Other than that I can't say. My feet are pretty screwed so any boot would normally take me several trips to a bootfitter before everything gets comfy.
Maybe someone else can chime in.
-
It's frustrating to me than Dan refuses to import the RC-8. It slots in so nicely between the RC-10 and ATB, but he just drives people to the RC-10 and then suggests a softer tongue. Ok, but that's an additional expense on an already expensive boot, and it doesn't make the shell itself any softer.
His approach does make some sense. Unlike Deeluxes the forward flex of a UPZ boots isn't supposed to be dependant on flexing the shell. It is dependant on the tongue and how the springs are set-up. Therefore going to a softer tongue will create a more flexible boot. Lateral stiffness is of course all shell.
I'm interested in trying the ATB boot with the black tongue, and snowboard toeblocks. I think that might be where its at for me. It is rather cool that teh boot is this customizable, though it is a little expensive to do it.
-
I had the same concern Dave! Those bolts are hyper-critical, and this will put them in a condition no sane engineer would ever allow on their designs. Maybe it's fine, I don't know. I also am skeptical about the regular (non-step-in) ATB heel piece, it cantilevers the heel strap pretty far away from the actual heel. Again, maybe it's fine but it has me concerned.
All that said, I won't give up my RC-10s anytime soon as they just fit my feet/ankles/riding. Shame about the gimmicky heel that's so far forward and the stupidly slippery toe pad.
Yeah I agree, my plan is to ride them hard and keep an eye on the heels, then pull the heels and check the interface in Febuary, if everything looks ok I'll give it to the end of the season. If at some point things are looking a little screwy (pun intended) I'm going to swap the toe pieces to the RC-10 version and ditch the flexible shim plate. There are four screws on each heel so the chance of the worst case scenario (all four-screws on one heel failing simultaneously) are I think probably remote enough that I'm comfortable riding like this. That being said I'm still keeping an eye on it.
Dave
-
If you aren't riding step-ins then the ATB heel and toe pieces are much better than then existing toe pieces. By better I mean better traction and lateral stability for walking around.
With Step-ins you need to install the "shock absorbing plate" to shim up the heel. It's a bit of pity actually because I really prefer the ATB toe and Heel blocks.
FWIW and this is only my own unsupported opinion, I'm a little leary of sticking a flexible plate between the step-in and the boot shell. The screws are protected from loosening under the changing loading by lock washers, but becuase the intec/fintec doesn't drectly mate with the boot shell there is a levering action on the screws. This makes me wonder if this could cause metal fatigue failure of the screws over time. That being said I installed the plate and am giving it a shot, there are four screws, if fatigue does occur hopefully they won't all shear at once. :)
Cheers,
Dave
-
Reposted from UPZ thread in main forum
My ATBs arrived today so I'll give you my initial impression.
Boot shell
First off the translucent red looks way cooler than I thought it was going to. I'm liking the look of the boot.
The boot shell as the same as any of the other boots in the UPZ line. But the material is so much softer. So soft in fact that even though my feet are phenomenally screwed up (flat, bone spurs, jutting out ankle bone) when I put the boot on and tightened everything down I was having difficulty telling if I would need any boot fitting done.
Boot heels
The shells came with the heels already t-nutted for installing step-ins. Thank you UPZ! I know this has been an issue for most of us here. The boots come with riser pads, screws (#2 Phillips) and locknuts for the installation of step-ins as well. UPZ calls the riser pads "shock absorbing plates" and has supplied them to be installed between your step-in and the boot shell. My personal opinion is this acts more to shin the step-in in line with the toe piece than it is for shock absorption.
All mounting screws on the boot, with the exception of the eight screws supplied for step-ins are torx heads in one of two sizes. UPZ supplies two torx keys for all of these. I removed the boots existing heels, which required twelve screws for each heel, and installed Fintec heels.
Boot toe piece
I mentioned in a post above that it looked like UPZ had modified the toe block because there was apparently some issues with them fitting into some bindings. I had heard there was a problem with Bombers in particular. I can confirm that there is no interference or issue with this years toe piece and a TD3 step-in. The toe pieces are attached with a beef screw but are not t-nutted. Which based on the design of the toe piece, boot interface I don't think is a problem. If you have issues with this take it to another thread please.
Both the toe and heel have a much more aggressive sole which looks like it would help provide stability which hiking. Unfortunately I lost half of this when I installed the step-ins.
Boot tongue
The red tongue is really soft. In fact the only way I can really describe it's consistency is rubbery. This tongue will not impede the flex of the boot in any noticeable way. In fact the tongue folded easily out of the way when I was putting the boot on.
Spring Mechanism
This appear to be similar to what is on my RTRs though I suspect the springs are much softer based on how much I can flex the boot.
Liners
The ATB uses what are called a Flo adaption liner which is definitely different than the ones used in my RTRs. The tongue is much softer than the RTRs, and doesn't impede the boot flex. The heel cup held my heel snuggly enough that i couldn't notice any movement. I was initially going to replace these with a Deeluxe 141 because I have had nothing but problems with liners with tongues, but I think I'll hold off and give these a shot.
Stiffness
Ok I'm 230lbs, and having been riding in, and flexing the snot out of RTRs, I know how to put pressure down and flex a boot. The boots are literally flexy enough to hike around in! I then stepped onto my AM board on the carpet which is set up with angles of 50/45 and TD3 step-ins. Laterally the boots seem to be stiff enough that, at hardboot angles, they would allow me to respectably carve a turn on our Rocky Mountain snow and are soft enough forward that I could absorb chop or suck up huge landings. Read as "I could fles the sh!t outta 'em". As a comparison laterally they feel like a Track 225, though forward and back they feel much softer because the spring allows a controlled forward and rearward flex. My opinion is with these I probably wouldn't require Sidewinders.
Conclusion
I'm a 230 lbs freak who has given up riding softboots completely. I ride UPZ RTRs with Fintecs into TD3 step-ins on a 173 Schtub for carving, but have been trying to put together a good AM set-up that fill feel floaty and surfy. I bought a custom 167 Donek last year outfitted with TD3 Step-ins and tried it with a set of Deeluxe 225s last year, and while it worked, no amount of boot fitting was able to allow me to ride the Deeluxe boots for longer than three hours with out pain.
I purchased the ATBs specifically for AM riding. The intention is mostly for light carving, off trail, trees, pow, and jumping. Personally I think these boots could be great in those applications. Perhaps with a slightly stiffer tongue it might even acceptably float between carving and AM really nicely.
I'll update this thread in January once I have had a chance to ride these a few times. Normally it would be earlier than that bit I'm in an MBA program right now an I'm slightly pressed for time.
Cheers,
Dave
-
My ATBs arrived today so I'll give you my initial impression.
Boot shell
First off the translucent red looks way cooler than I thought it was going to. I'm liking the look of the boot.
The boot shell as the same as any of the other boots in the UPZ line. But the material is so much softer. So soft in fact that even though my feet are phenomenally screwed up (flat, bone spurs, jutting out ankle bone) when I put the boot on and tightened everything down I was having difficulty telling if I would need any boot fitting done.
Boot heels
The shells came with the heels already t-nutted for installing step-ins. Thank you UPZ! I know this has been an issue for most of us here. The boots come with riser pads, screws (#2 Phillips) and locknuts for the installation of step-ins as well. UPZ calls the riser pads "shock absorbing plates" and has supplied them to be installed between your step-in and the boot shell. My personal opinion is this acts more to shim the step-in in line with the toe piece than it is for shock absorption.
All mounting screws on the boot, with the exception of the eight screws supplied for step-ins are torx heads in one of two sizes. UPZ supplies two torx keys for all of these. I removed the boots existing heels, which required twelve screws for each heel, and installed Fintec heels.
Boot toe piece
I mentioned in a post above that it looked like UPZ had modified the toe block because there was apparently some issues with them fitting into some bindings. I had heard there was a problem with Bombers in particular. I can confirm that there is no interference or issue with this years toe piece and a TD3 step-in. The toe pieces are attached with a beefy screw but are not t-nutted. Which based on the design of the toe piece, boot interface I don't think is a problem. If you have issues with this take it to another thread please.
Both the toe and heel have a much more aggressive sole which looks like it would help provide stability while hiking. Unfortunately I lost half of this when I installed the step-ins.
Boot tongue
The red tongue is really soft. In fact the only way I can really describe it's consistency is rubbery. This tongue will not impede the flex of the boot in any noticeable way. In fact the tongue folded easily out of the way when I was putting the boot on.
Spring Mechanism
This appear to be similar to what is on my RTRs though I suspect the springs are much softer based on how much I can flex the boot.
Liners
The ATB uses what are called a Flo adaption liner which is definitely different than the ones used in my RTRs. The tongue is much softer than the RTRs, and doesn't impede the boot flex. The heel cup held my heel snuggly enough that i couldn't notice any movement. I was initially going to replace these with a Deeluxe 141 because I have had nothing but problems with liners with tongues, but I think I'll hold off and give these a shot.
Stiffness
Ok I'm 230lbs, and having been riding in, and flexing the snot out of RTRs, I know how to put pressure down and flex a boot. The boots are literally flexy enough to hike around in! I then stepped onto my AM board on the carpet which is set up with angles of 50/45 and TD3 step-ins. Laterally the boots seem to be stiff enough that, at hardboot angles, they would allow me to respectably carve a turn on our Rocky Mountain snow and are soft enough forward that I could absorb chop or suck up huge landings. Read as "I could flex the sh!t outta 'em". As a comparison laterally they feel like a Track 225, though forward and back they feel much softer because the spring allows a controlled forward and rearward flex. My opinion is with these I probably wouldn't require Sidewinders.
Conclusion
I'm a 230 lbs freak who has given up riding softboots completely. I ride UPZ RTRs with Fintecs into TD3 step-ins on a 173 Schtub for carving, but have been trying to put together a good AM set-up that fill feel floaty and surfy. I bought a custom 167 Donek last year outfitted with TD3 Step-ins and tried it with a set of Deeluxe 225s last year, and while it worked, no amount of boot fitting was able to allow me to ride the Deeluxe boots for longer than three hours with out pain.
I purchased the ATBs specifically for AM riding. The intention is mostly for light carving, off trail, trees, pow, and jumping. Personally I think these boots could be great in those applications. Perhaps with a slightly stiffer tongue it might even acceptably float between carving and AM really nicely.
I'll re-post this as a thread in the boot reviews section and update that thread in January once I have had a chance to ride these a few times. Normally it would be earlier than that bit I'm in an MBA program right now and I'm slightly pressed for time.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Okay, I started back to snowboarding this past season after a twenty year hiatus, last used some homemade plates and Dynafit ski boots (circa 1985). I started with some modified ski boots (Scarpa TX) which worked fine once I elongated the slot in the ski/walk mode. So now that I was hooked, I scored some UPZ ATB from All Board Sports and rode them with some Scarpa liners. I like the ATB, though they are a little soft for riding harder snow.
So here's my conundrum:
I want a range of boot flexes, from soft to hard, so the ATB is my soft boot, now I need to decide how to outfit a medium boot. I picked up some used UPZ RTR this summer with black (medium) and grey (stiff) tongues, with a plan to change out the soles to the Board/AT soles like used on the ATB and get a red tongue (soft).
Now I'm having second thoughts about putting money into an older boot, so what I'm wondering is should I stay with the current plan (RTR with red tongues and AT soles), get some new RC 10 with a red tongue and AT soles, or get another pair of ATB with a medium tongue?
I can also mix and match with my current ATB, though I have not tried them with a stiffer tongue yet.
Anyone tried riding their ATB with a stiffer tongue?
From reading this site I'm starting to get the feeling that the RC-10s may be softer than the RTRs they replaced. This is only an opinion, as I only have RTRs. But it seems historically people thought UPZs were really stiff, lately I've been seeing posts indicate that the RC-10s UPZs stiffest current boot weren't all that stiff. I think Allee even mention they were soft.
Dave
-
Coiler Schtubby.... I'm lovin' it. Carves, ECs, goes off piste, has been in pow, launched off cat tracks into chop, carves through chop, rides switch.
Plus with the single radius sidecut it is very predicable. The board is nice, in that with some carving boards if you aren't on your game the board will hand you your @ss. Instead the Schtubby say to you, "just go for it I've got your back."
According to Bruce it is very similar to his AM board, In fact when I was looking for an AM board from him he said I wouldn't find his AM much different than the Schtub i already had in terms of ride. The AM has a bigger shovel on the nose, but that is only of benefit off piste or in pow. The Schtub still goes there , it just doesn't float quite as well as the AM. But if you are looking for a carving board go Schtub.
As an aside I think I'm turning into a Coiler fanboy.
Dave
-
I'll be interested to hear what you think of the ATBs I dooo like the step in thing, being nearly 50 it makes life easy, also spending time on the mountain with Skiers they hate waiting for boarders...
I'll probly try and get a new board sorted first then get new boots.
Ok like I said on another thread I'll throw up a new thread in the boot reviews section of the site when I get the boots in October. I can give initial impressions then but you'll have to wait until at least early December in the same thread before I can comment on how they ride.
I agree on the whole step-in thing, I'm a 6'2" 41 year old with the hamstrings of a guy 5'2" so I don't ride anything but step-ins. :D
Cheers
Dave
-
I still think the best instruction I got was showing up at an Expression Session after two years of riding and seeing both what was possible and how little I actually knew.
-
Yes, the ATB will take a standard step-in. can't comment on them compared to a softboot, as I'm only just this year buying a set to replace my T225s which worked pretty well as a softboot replacement.
In softies you might try a Burton Driver X, I had a pair at one point but gave up on them, as my opinion at the time was why have a boot that was pretending to be a hard boot when I actually have hard boots. Sorry I can't comment on other softboot bands.
Cheers,
Dave
-
Dave,
Interested in your comparison thoughts. I like the idea of the atb, but most likely will end up with the rc10 with soft tongue. I'm coming out of old raichle 324's so I would assume these would be similar to your 225's.
Thanks
Ok I'll make sure to post something in the boot reviews section when I get my hands on them.
Dave
-
The ATB boots are posted as "supersoft" is there another boot on the market that this can be compared to? I love my AF600 blue and gold but they need to be put to rest. Im looking for a boot with that same flex and stiffness as them.
Thanks all.
When I asked Dan about how stiff these actually were last year he said "They are pretty soft." Though most other boots could probably be called soft when compared to the RTRs or RC-10s he normally sells. After I get my pair of ATBs this year I can give you my opinion of stiffness comparison vs the Deeluxe T225 that I was freeriding in last year. Though I'm not sure that will help you if you don't know the feel of a T225.
Dave
-
I've got a set of the ATBs on order for AM riding. Less wild about this years colour, but it'll probably grow on me.
While it can't be really seen in this picture, it does look like UPZ has modified the toe block to fit better into the toe bails of bindings. See the hyperlink in the first post under ATB and the "all mountatin sole" and "intec compatible" pictures for some better detail of the toe block.
I also think the green RC-10 boot is pretty sweet.
I don't know if UPZ dropped the RC-8 (after one season) or if Dan just isn't stocking them this year?
Dave
-
Just saw that Dan has updated his website.
-
Canadians, buy 2.
Because we have two feet?;)
Awesome Squaw 'mocumentary' (no carving)
in The Lodge
Posted
I pole whacked for two minutes before responding to this thread.