ur13
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by ur13
-
-
woah, I see splitfires in the pictures
those available?
Nope, everything has been sold. Sorry.
-
Everything has been sold...thanks.
-
Umm, b0ardski? The K2 TX was a monoski. We're talking about snowboards, yes?
Ha... actually the Hot Logical I was thinking of doesn't seem so hot anymore...
Oh the memories of this board. It still looks hot today. Back when this thing was out it was the "virus" of it's day. Hot, sexy, European and a bit of a different ride than anything you bought in the USA. I loved the logicals, I had three, maybe the best asym I ever rode (even though they were a PITA in a straight line due to the shifted camber).
-
I love the fact that the Avalanche has imprints from the old A-plates that Damien Sanders and the like used to ride on those, I also dig seeing the old 5-hole Burton pattern on the "Mystery Air", and I find it funny that the K2s look to have haggard t-bolts on them (which they ALWAYS did back then).
Otherwise... do kids still ride Forum's now-a-days? I thought their hey-day was about 10 years ago.
Oh, and Jack - Gyrator's were deemed the "poser" board in my circles back then too...but more because they rode worst than a plywood ironing board (and yes I have a Avalanche "Kick" in the era). Sure we were all Burton boys back then, but those K2s were horrible even for the era.
-
Sweet board...thanks, C!
Good meeting you. Enjoy the board. Let's carve some turns next season.
-
With this, I presume Catek does not come with enough short set screws to support both bindings riding in the "low" configuration?
By default a set of OS2s come with 4 long and 4 short set screws which by default give you toe/heel lift. You can back the long set screws back enough that you can get the binding as low as having 4 set screws. it's just you might have boot interference is you want to go as low as it seems you wish too. Thus I'd recommend getting 4 extra shorts.
That is one element of concern. I see that OS2 addressed the repeatability issue, but it still seems a pain to disassemble and transfer when compared to a TD3. As far as I can tell, one must remove the kingpin, then the power plate, then the disc, along with all the hardware, o-ring(s), and spherical nut.
With the TD3, assuming the blocks are out of the way, it's just the four binding plate screws. Is my understanding incorrect?
Thank you.
Actually I used to think it didn't get simpler than TD1s 4 screws (sans dics to board). But with the OS2 all you need to do is back out the 4 set screws 3/4 a turn and then you can hand loosen the kingpin generally, if not it's low torque to take it out. Then you simply drop that plate on another board, with the disc and powerplate mounted already, tighten the kingpin and back the set screws in 3/4 a turn and you are done. It sounds more complex here then it really is in practice. It is simpler than TD1s 4 screws, or even TD3s 3 screws.
Even if you are moving the powerplate in this case it is still simpler.
Not to mention on hill lift/cant microadjustment is a HUGE plus. I thought I was 6/6 Bomber cant discs for years. Only with OS2s did I realize I was anything but. More like 8* rear/2* front with outward cant in the rear and 0 cant up front.
-
If you want to ride flat, the OS2's will go really low, just use the short kingpin bolt and stack the washers on top of the plate, not under........just stacked one up and it looks like 34mm from board surface to top of binding (with elastomer).
Or just don't use any washers, short kingpin and get 4 extra short set screws from Catek and you have a very very low binding in the OS2, even with the D3, still with some cant/lift adjustment. Overall it is just slightly higher than a Ibex/Burton plate.
I wouldn't say I like being close to the board with a low binding but I don't like a really high binding in most conditions. The OS2 gives you the ability to pick. Many many options.
I used to loath Cateks due to how complicated assembly was, how high they had to be and difficult matching angle cant/lift adjustment were. But it is mostly all fixed in the OS2 design. I was really won over by them this year and can transfer setups from one install to another with minor issues.
-
Trust me, if I had another bumper, I'd put it on. Those TD1s only came with 3 (2 purples and 1 yellow). I'm suck with that until I can get something better. :(
Talk to Fin, I'm sure he has some laying around. Or ask around here, I'm sure someone has them. At the very least you can get some Urethane and cut it down to size. I've even seen people use skateboard truck bushings (Khiro makes some that would suit this).
I'd go for the Mistal as well, for the same reasons someone else here said. Those Burtons were useless. The Sims not much better.
If you try rocking those TD1s like that on any of your options in this thread you'll crush those boards. All the boards you have in this thread were the ones TD1s used to kill. Unsupported TD1s will rip them to shreds these many years later. Even with someone your weight.
-
You know riding TD1s without the bumpers is a solid way to break a board or tear out the inserts. You've got a big unsupported lever there.
F2s might have been stout back in the day (compared to a Burton or Sims) but not that stout.
-
For my $.26 worth,(that's what $.02 worth costs now) this is a goodly part of the reason we're in this whole financial mess. People pay too much for stuff. Then we have to pay more for stuff to make the stuff that ends up costing more for the stuff that we really need. You used to buy a cup of joe for $.50 (I remember when it was $.10 but that doesn't count) and then latte's came along and now a cup of joe is $2.00. Prime example of more expensive stuff causing the increase in less expensive stuff.
Now I'm not faulting the board builders, they have to pay for the material stuff and the labor stuff in order to sell the stuff to afford to have stuff. I have stuff, and rationalize the stuff that I have as needed stuff, but I don't have stuff just to have stuff because I would have to work more and produce more stuff to afford the stuff that's too expensive and stuff I just don't need.
Look at the housing market. Bigger houses with too much fancy stuff drives up the prices on all the little houses with not much stuff. Does a family of 4 really need a 3500 sq.ft. house filled with stuff? Society tells us we have to have the really nice stuff and everyone wants the stuff that we don't have to have. Live within your means and a little smaller footprint maybe things would get back to a normal keel. Speaking of keels, does a person really need that big fancy sailboat with all that stuff.
So quit buying expensive stuff just to get that little extra "bling" so that all the stuff goes back down to a reasonable level. How much extra material stuff actually goes into a 8lb. snowboard compared to an "Old School" 8 lb. snowboard. I know more stuff goes into it and the stuff costs more, but that's the point. If everything was not so "having nice stuff" dependent raw materials would go down.
How about car stuff. Holy crap you can buy a decent safe care with most stuff in it for $10k new. so why do you need to spend $40k on the same size car with about the same amount of stuff (though more expensive stuff). Does amount spent on stuff dictate relative happiness.
Question: How much extra is a 2500 lb.Mercedes Z class (I don't know my classes) with all that expensive stuff worth when compared to a 2500 lb Chevy Impala when the it's crushed at the scrap yard?
Again I'm not blaming builders, but all this stuff ends up costing us our happiness stuff, and you can't put a price on that.
I'm starting to feel like Andy Rooney, except I trim my eyebrows.
If we are going to get this philosophical here maybe we should all open our copies of these books and start the debate.
-
LOL, yeah, if you pay full boat retail. DA hubs laced to open pros shouldn't cost more than $400 anywhere. Srsly, I've got a deal for you UR13, if you'd pay that much for zipps -- "old mold" (undimpled) 404 clinchers laced to PT SL with about 300 miles on 'em... yours for $1500 shipped! Will even throw in a barely used pair of corsa evo cx's and latex tubes.
But yes I see your point that the gear geekery can take over any sport. Bikes tend to last me longer than boards for whatever reason, even on a fully cost-amortized basis.
Personally. I don't like carbon rims. I ride some Phil hubs laced to Open pros for road. I even ride a handbuilt steel frame. None of it is bleeding edge tech but it costs way more than a $1500 snowboard.
And for leeding edge cycling gear. Even as a hardcore rider, not racer, a top of the line carbom frame/wheelset will last a powerful rider 2 years tops. If you race it's less....
-
Perhaps I'm incredibly unlucky (or overly sensitive), but my concern is that it's pretty easy to put a rock through the bottom that completely ruins the board.
I guess it's the same as training on your zipps. But I'd want this high zoot board to RIDE and all the time, as opposed to a fast roadie wheelset that I save for special occasions.
(and on that front, anybody want a set of zipp 404 clinchers laced to a powertap SL and light front hub? :))
$1500 buys you a a solid wheelset (say high/mid range Campag or Shimano hubs or Phil hubs, DT Swiss pokes and Mavis Open pro Rims with Conti Gp4000 clinchers tires or some such thing) good for day to day training duty that is still open to rocks, ruts, pavement, pot-hole, and catostrophic damage. A nice tubular carbon Zipps will double to triple that, even before you add in the powertap SL.
If the wheelset analogy won't do it for you. Try getting a custom built frame under $2000...
The point is. While $1000-$1500 is alot to drop for a snowboard for most (even me) it's the price to have the latest and greatest right now and compared to other sports this level of tech comes at a small (comparatively) price.
But again...you don't need the latest and greatest bleeding edge whatever... to have fun, be a "core" rider or even ride at a high level.
-
Try $1500. My kidney is on the helicopter now.
Is anyone a cyclist here? $1500 will get you a mid-range decent wheelset, or a low end frame, or half a mid range component group. Road and mountain are in the same realms now as well.
Hell, even a top of the line composite slalom race skateboard with race trucks, bearings and wheelsets with all the cutting edge tech is around $1000-1200 for everything.
Anyone ride motorcycles here? Auto cross? Kayaks? Sailing? $1500 is a drop in a never ending bucket for those "sports".
I do remember the days of the $500 Burton complete... but those days left us a long time ago. Sure you can still buy a $500 complete snowboard...but no one wants to ride that here.
Given $1500 buys you a cutting edge, top of the line, F1 level technology (respectively) gear isn't too bad at all. Especially when we all play in a niche sport that is increasingly gear and tech driven made (mostly) by small (generally custom) manufacturers that are not making huge margins on the gear they make you (think of what it costs Burton to make the $500 complete and then the margin they make on it selling it to shops....sadly that will never be possible with alpine snowboarding).
The benefit of all this "top of the line" gear out currently is that in a few years time the bleeding edge will trickle down to more moderately priced gear. Plus you have all the demo and used gear out there to pick up at lower prices.
Sure, even when the economy is good, $1500 is pushing most people's ability to participate at the level they want too given life's complexities and responsibilities for most. But in the bigger picture $1500 is not unreasonable for the level of tech we are now able to get in our gear.
Not everyone needs the latest and greatest. The "old stuff" still "works" for most. Thinking you have to have the newest and greatest to be a "core" rider, or even a good rider, is laughable.
But it is sure nice to have it and the price is what it is. Pay to play with anything gear/tech driven...
-
if its still avail.
Lemme know
kurt at bowcycle.com
thanks
k
It is currently taken (I think)...but you are next in line (If you have a USA shipping address, sorry)
-
If this is from the same batch that I had, I think it actually may have been called a 156.
Who knows what the real lenght really is, or if it even matters. I had my classic 158 next to my gf's 154 Atomic skis and my board only had about a centimeter on it even though they are labeled 4cm apart. I know my wee little 158 holds my 190 lbs just fine at full tilt though :).
It does match my Madd 158 closely. If my Madd 158 is actually 158 (I've never measured it) then this board is 157.6'ish, and that could be from the sweep in the tail.
-
I had a 167 (or 8?) that I got from Shaggy about 5-6 years ago. It looked pretty similar to yours with carbon stringers and CF "wings" near the bindings. These were Madd's attempts at getting back into the alpine game with different shapes as far as I know. It was pretty stiff and damp as I remember and handled ice (well what us wussie west-coast riders call ice) quite nicely. It had a 9-9.5m radius if I remember, and the cool looking tail you got there. I do wish I still had it.
Interesting. I can't remember if this is a 157 or 158...
-
Hey I had one of those at 168cm. It was a lot of fun. Quite springy and stiff.
Bump for you! :)
You had one? What do you know about it? Do you have more details than I gave? I'm curious about it. I don't remember the story Mike told me when I talkes to him years ago...
if that's stiff enough for a 200+ pounder I'm interested.email coming
I was 210 at the time I rode it and it would have NO problem shooting me off into the woods on it's whim. So ya, it will work for you.
-
I don't know a whole lot about this board. I bought it directly from Madd Mike a few months before the first run of New Madds (like the one Jack is currently selling). This was a prototype that Madd Mike built for Boardercross (to get around the square tail rules when alpine boards still raced in BX), as I remember around 2001'ish (maybe someone here knows more about this, Gilmour?). It's dimensions are as follows;
157cm
8.8m sidecut
18.8 waist
Basically it is fairly close to the Madd 158 dimension-wise, with a fuller nose, higher camber and BX tail. It's capped construction and very (I'll say it) crudely built cosmetically (it's ugly as sin). It also has standard inserts, not the brass ones. The carbon in it is rough and crude and overall the board is very much a prototype.
All that being said it's a fun ride. A very springy and stiff ride and given it's a capped board it doesn't feel like one. I put maybe 8 days on it but ended up getting a few other boards shortly afterward and didn't ride this much.
The base is clean and the edges are solid and beefy. It currently has a crude tune on it (89*/0*base) with my hand file guide and is in need of a wax. The top sheet is a soft material and has some small nicks in it but overall the board is in very good shape, the base is clean and beyond obviously being a prototype the board is perfectly rideable.
I'll tell you one thing. You won't see many of these out on the hill, or anywhere else for that matter.
Pay-pal is preferred but a USPS money order will work.
I'll ship ONLY within the USA. Sorry.
$165 including USPS Shipping takes it (most likely First class, 7-12 days across the country from NYC, USPS Priority is just too expensive shipping boards now-a-days)
If you have questions ask.
ur13 at hotmail dot com
-
I'm sure any of the custom builders would work with you.
And I didn't get the impression you were saying everyone is wrong but you.
Jack, I'm glad you didn't. It seemed someone else did though.
I do have some messages into some friends and custom builders about the thing you mentioned. However I'm trying to get up to speed with the new ideas, which I will admit I don't fully grasp yet (not like I did with what is called "the old school" now). Before I engage in detailed conversations with builders I like to get myself up to speed first. That is what I'm trying to do here.
Speaking of diverging from the masses though. Just what is up with Virus and their direction(s)? I know not many people have much love for Virus in this forum but I find it very curious. The frustrating thing is finding any detailed information on Virus boards/constructions...if only I could read German and Russian. I have reached out to an old friend about Virus but again am trying to educate myself first in order to have an informed discussion...
-
why?
just get a skwal
this pops up all the time, someone says "hey, the whole industry is wrong and I am right." usually though that person is dead wrong, not all the time but usually.
You are that guy right now, narrow boards BLOW for most people generally, few people make them work really well.
BTW, the reason that most companies are jumping on the bandwagon is the new boards are so much better. prior to the last few years the shapes stagnated other than they got a little wider in most cases.
seriously, the new boards are sick, wide is good. I can't do more than 22 but 20 is real nice.
Standing at 90'ish/85'ish on a 138mm waist width skwal is a very different thing than riding a 175mm waist width board at 70/70'sih. I'm not interested in riding a skwal. I tried it and it's not fun (to me) nor is it as versatile as the type of board I'm thinking of. It's too much of an extreme to my legs.
I'm not calling anyone out here. Nor am I pointing a finger that the "industry is going the wrong way". I find these new ideas and technologies fascinating and amazing and from the stagnation that alpine has been in for the past few years from a design stand point it's great.
It says something when many people considered a 15+ year old board/design (which I ride currently as my primary board, BTW) as the gold standard. Only late last season and this season have many people moved to the direction of finding new boards that out-do that Madd 158. Even the hardcores that love the Madd 158 are finding better options. That is a very good thing.
I might have been a hold out to the "old school" of the Madd 158 but as I'm planning my equipment choices and purchases for next season (to replace the Madd 158 and a few other boards) I'm asking questions and reading everything I can find on the subject to make an educated decision.
So get off your high horse there friend, know your opinions are subjective and chill. I asked a question I've been wondering for a while now. I left my "opinions" out of it.
So back to my question.
I'm simply wondering if any manufacturer, besides say Virus (and even Virus has it's own take on things it seems), is playing with something that is not a 200mm waist board but has all the new ideas like decambered noses, blended sidecuts, new constructions, etc etc?
-
I dont think it has the sidecut funkiness but it has the nose - bruce made me a X2 schtubby with a 19 waist (he talked me out of 18)
I'm thinking more around 170mm, even 160mm.
I've been reading alot of arguments here about new board designs and how riding has adapted to suit them, especially for racers. It is all well and good and makes total sense but some of us can clearly see the technical advantages of the technology involved with the new board shapes...but also can see how that could suit narrower boards with high angles and the fullbody/forward facing riding style and stance over the board.
Of course there are trade-offs here and there for everything but I find it very interesting there are only a handful (I can think of two really off hand) of board makers currently not totally adopting the current trends.
That is one thing that has been so cool about the freecarve scene for a longtime now. The different styles and takes at board design and riding styles. Granted the Bomber community is tight-knit and there are alot of like minds here thinking the same things for a reason.
But still...why does it seem everything is shaping up to be the same lately and if someone has a different point of view, be it a board maker or rider, it is just assumed to be wrong.
It's becoming deja-vu really.
-
I realize part of the "New School" style in alpine is a assumed preference for shallower stance angles and thus wider boards...
But are there any board designers out there making blended sidecuts with new school construction/camber boards that have waist widths sub 190mm? For those of us who prefer high angles and narrower boards yet want some of the technological advantages that 2010 brings alpine snowboards?
-
Sold! I'll send them out Monday morning to the address contained in the Paypal receipt. Thanks!!!
-
They are yours if you want them but you've got to email me. I've no clue how to contact anyone through this site.
ur13 at hotmail dot com
That works for paypal as well if you just want to do it that way.
The oldest board you are still ridding?
in Carving Central
Posted
I'm sure some will appreciate that my original Madd 158 is still my main ride. Granted I don't ride much anymore so it's more board than I will need. I still love it. It did get new Cateks a few years ago.
Oh and hi...it's been a while.