WinterGold

Noschoolrider already answered your question, but I just posted the "original" setups in another thread. So maybe you are interested. Jean Nerva front 51° back 43° width 45cm (17.7") Peter Bauer front 48° back 43° width 43cm (17") Dieter Happ front 51° back 45° width 45cm Martin Freinademetz front 51° back 48° width 43cm So if you want to go really oldschool then you have to use such a stance :D. All the numbers are original setups from the 1992/93 season. Personally I would go for a wider stance. I think the angles are perfect for such a wide board.

@carvedog - you are 100% spot on. I have these videos on VHS from back in the days and I have seen them so many times. That´s what it´s all about - really great!!! And some of the best carving, even compared to today´s standard for me. Their boards were around 22cm wide and their stances: Jean Nerva 51° 43° 45cm Peter Bauer 48° 43° 43cm (A bit narrow, but very nice!) So definitely "snowboards"

@b0ardski - I remember several years ago, we had to do some technique exercises with a pole in our hands. I hated the loss of freedom ... but I see that you found a lot of advantages for yourself. So if it works for you, that´s great . @carvedog - very philosophical ;). "I need no definition to do what I do" - Of course not and that´s fine, but that´s not really the point.

a bent piece of plywood - ok, that´s evolution a monoski with a surf stance - for me the important part of a monoski is that the feet are side by side, otherwise it is not monoskiing powder skis - so skiing and snowboarding are the same sport? I don´t think many people would agree sub 140 snowboards are skwals - that is interesting, is that the definition of a skwal? snowboard with poles - ??? Really? Why? just semantics - right, but you do know how important language is for humans I am not afraid of being called a skier (and I am not that young either :)), but it is simply not correct.

Some boards in the "New Board Porn Thread for 2010" kept me wondering how to define the term "snowboard". So I looked up some definitions. A lot of them just concentrate on the "one board gliding down a snowy surface" concept. But this would also include a monoski, which nobody of us would consider to be a snowboard. Even the "one" board is problematic, if you look at splitboards or special plate constructions (e.g. Tinkler). Some definitions include the "stance like a surfer". This is interesting, because for me the angulated stance is one of the most important criteria for defining our sport and its technique. But here comes the problem: How much angulation (binding angles) is needed? When does a snowboard stance begin? A skwal is not a snowboard, right? Should there be a certain minimum width in the definition? For competition there is a rule (I hope it is still up to date ...): Snowboards must have a minimum width as described: - gliding surface up to 135 cm: 14cm minimum width - more than 135 cm: 16cm minimum width Is that a good starting point? Too narrow or too wide? Which brings me back to my starting question - What is a snowboard (for you)?

Maybe BlueB is correct, because on a 173 it would be quite a big radius. There is a thread called "20m SCR" if you want to learn more about big sidecut radii.

@BlueB - as I said, I´m not really sure about the construction of the WCE edition. Maybe the weight issue doesn´t matter ... ;) @benttech - I´m 175. The new 2010 shape has changed considerably - radius went up from 9.7m (on my model) to 12m, the board has more taper and a real decambered nose. I´m sure that these are nice boards, but I like my boards a tad bit stiffer, although not too stiff. If you are set on F2, I would definitely go for a WCE board!

I have a Speedster SL 163 WCE from the 07/08 season. It seems to be a middle thing between a classical shape and a new school shape (new nose shape, but not really much decambered; a bit of taper, radius a bit under 10m). I like the board quite well, but coming from older Burton Factory Primes the board somehow feels softer (the core is thinner than that from the Burtons). So it could be a bit more aggressive for me, but still it holds an edge well and it´s a very comfortable ride. About the metal construction - maybe somebody has more details about this, but there is only a very thin metal layer visible under the topsheet and the board is not as heavy as a ´real´ metal board, so I´m not sure whether this construction can be compared to an SG, Kessler, Apex, Oxess, etc.

This Speedster is from the 95/96 season. There were 3 RS models (164, 166 and 170) and 3 SL models (148, 154, 159). So I guess yours is the RS 164. Here are the specs: effective edge - 146cm nose/waist/tail - 22/18/22 board weight - 3,3kg (7,3 pounds) rider weight - from 65kg (143 pounds) The price was about 815$ in Europe back then :D ...

@Rob Stevens - Hey, you know that ´umlaut´ is a German word ... you´re on the right track ;) @big canuck - My saying - Never admit a mistake! :D

It´s not that important, but do you really think that they spelt their website the wrong way??? Look closer at the boards - it says ´Völkl´! The ´ö´ is a German letter which can also be spelt as ´oe´, which is easier for countries which don´t have the ´ö´ letter.

You do realize that ´Volkl´ is not their correct name, right?

I guess that most people here are aware of this site ;). But have you noticed that the results of Landgraaf are still not on the site? And there is still a poll who is going to win there . It seems like they are rather late updating at the moment ...

Exactly! I didn´t pay much attention to this before (because I had no alternative), but if you crouch you can see how the instep strap moves back! Seems like this is not the best construction ... By the way, the UPZs are stiffer, but for me this is more a plus than anything. And they are still not as stiff as the old Burton Fires were (and I liked them a lot as well). @Ondrej - in the old days some people used to mix softboots and hardboots - so my combo is not so bad ... :D

I´m wearing a Head on the left foot and the RC 10 on the right foot right now. The Head liner is thicker and softer, but there is considerably more space for the toes in the UPZ (the ´racey´ liner feels very nice despite being rather rigid). The heel is a bit narrower on the UPZ, but very comfortable (for me). I must say that I had no real problems with the Heads last season, but there was a small pressure point on my instep. Now when bending my knees and putting pressure on the tongue part of the boots there is a noticeable difference between the Head and the UPZ. In the Head boots you start feeling the boots on your instep, while in the UPZs this doesn´t happen at all (the tongue part just seems to slide forward a bit)! It feels much better and flexes more smoothly. @bjvircks - the UPZ are a tad bit higher in direct comparison to the Heads, but it´s hardly noticeable. I wouldn´t worry about it, but we are all different, right?

From my first test wearings around the house I would second that. Superior heel fit combined with enough room for your toes :).

I also got my UPZ RC 10 two weeks ago. The shell does have a very nice form and the sole is really very short (which is very nice!!!), but if you measure from the toebox to the heelcup (where the toes and the heels really sit) then the boots are not shorter than the Head Stratos Pro I have here to compare. Nevertheless the boots look amazing - buckles, springs, top strap, leather liners, form of the shell - everything looks great

I wouldn´t call it hardbooting either. The fixation is nowhere near what most of us would imagine as hardbooting.

1982? That was the year of the National Snow Surfing Championship (first Nationals). I quote - ´Most raced on Snurfers wearing rubber boots or tennis shoes´. I guess with a pair of hardboots you would have beaten Tom Sims easily ;) ...

That would make some interesting stories . But I guess we would have already heard of such pioneers by now ...

Are the last two categories (26-30 and more than 31) on the poll a trick question? The first plate bindings were built around 1985, right? That´s 24 years ... So how can anyone get in the last two categories :rolleyes:?

I´ve been on hardboots since ´88, but I have always used softboots as well. Some seasons were almost exclusively hardboots. Others the other way round. I have always seen myself as a ´snowboarder´. And I try to adapt to the conditions. Riding powder in hardboots is almost as bad as riding well groomed slopes in softboots ;). I wouldn´t want to limit myself to just one kind of setup. But this season I have quite a lot of new alpine gear to test :D - and I´m looking very much forward to this task ...

I wouldn´t say that the plate system is ´simple´. It looks very well made. And if you look at their site you will find that they are working on a new plate at the moment. They can customise the board for you and they work very quickly.

@Masahiko - you beat me by a few weeks. I wanted to post pictures of my new Apex TheFast 163 SL. Now I don´t have to because it looks pretty much the same as your pictures, just shorter :D ... The board has an excellent built quality and the plate system looks promising. Can´t wait for the first snow ...

Yes, and before that Nitro had such a topsheet ... So it´s old news ...