Beckmann AG

Maybe get your ears recalibrated? I've been party to more than a few liner jobs. Some of which were horribly botched on account of corner cutting/haste. Cold toes/feet have several origins, chief among them restricted circulation/lack of capillary refill associated with excess pressure over the instep. In most, (but not all) cases I've seen, reduction/removal of pressure either restores or greatly improves warmth. Unless I'm mistaken, your extremities run to the cold side, and that makes you a good candidate for heated socks, regardless of which liner you use.

Almost any shoe will be cold if you restrict circulation. In order to properly foam a set of liners, the tech should provide clearance over each of the prominent veins of the feet. This is usually done by taping something over the veins. Thick yarn, gummi worms, surgical tubing, Fettuccini al dente, etc. If this is not done, the foam, as it expands and then sets, will flatten said veins, and the customer will have cold feet. At which point the shop can sell a pair of battery powered socks for a tidy profit; a sale already front-loaded by the reputation HP liners have for performance at the expense of warmth. (It is possible to reduce the squeeze of a HP foam liner to some extent, but that requires a hypo filled with acetone, and skill, and patience). From your earlier description, you have two problems: Too much instep, and not enough ankle. Assuming you can find a qualified shop, the HP foam liner might be wonderful for your application, as you can pump a lot of foam into the ankle pocket, meanwhile putting less into the liner tongue. Assuming you opt for the liners with injectable tongues. That same qualified shop should be able to punch the instep area of your boot shell tongue for more clearance. There really is no comparison between HP foamers and the monolithic heat moldable units, as the latter are designed for a comfort fit, rather than making up for a drastic mismatch in contour/volume. One possible issue with the Zip Fit goo is that it remains pliable, and the greater mass needed to secure your heel may simply squish around from place to place. If, on the other hand, your feet were already a good match for your shells, the Zip would be an easy choice given the option to add goo as needed. Either Zips or HPs will last a very long time, assuming they're well cared for and kept away from things with gnawing tendencies.

I've a portable, and you can look at it for free. Might even have some film, but I'm sure the chemicals are long expired. As mentioned previously, I've moved rivets to, (or closer to) the node of the medial malle0lus, and the boots work 'better' that way. 'Better' being somewhat subjective in terms of goals/outcome, and predicated on the notion that the boot/shell is a means of supporting the efforts of the lower extremities, rather than a hammer wielded by same.

Are you surveilling my operation? Or simply making the reasonable assumption that I own a pair of cobblers anvils? @lonbordin Rumor has it you might be in the neighborhood later this month. Stop in at the shop If you want to bring heavy machinery to bear on the problem. I could set you up with the wheel and planishing hammer if you want to custom form a cuff, or whatnot. There are many considerations that go into boot design. Logic/reason doesn't figure near the top of the list. E.g., modern telemark boots won't really allow one to make a proper telemark turn. They will, however, fulfill the expectations of skiers who never learned how to make a proper telemark turn.

^ Not so much that he's not aware, it's that based on the explanations at hand, he hasn't a compelling reason to spend the money. I could suggest you tune all of your stance variables to the highest reasonable level to which your CNS is sensitive, but you won't; until you realize why you should. That realization won't take place without understanding, and that understanding won't happen until you do thing in the first place. Or until you see a relevant outcome in a different context, then make the connection as to why it might be important for your snowboarding.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/study-warns-helmets-don-t-131909843.html

I've relocated the ankle rivets on most of my boots. This pays off, assuming you want to ride 'out of your feet'. Given the other challenges posed by typical boot geometry, allowing for a more transparent flex at the cuff doesn't seem a priority, and therefore isn't worthy of discussion. Similarly, many, (probably most) riders use the front of the boot as a lever. If the manufacturers located the rivets in the 'correct' location, the boot would then be criticized for being 'too soft'. As noted, you don't have much plastic to work with if you simply move the cuff up and forward. You could, however, experiment by leaving the cuff at it's intended height on the scafo, but drilling new pivot locations up and forward, depending on what the plastic will allow. Use generic hardware store T nuts, and trim the prongs so they don't go all the way through the lower shell. If you don't like what you get, just push them out and slap some tape over the holes for slush season. You may need to remove the originals for clearance. If you opt for this butchery, use the inner ankle bone as your reference point, and mirror the outer pivot location to match. Otherwise you'll have asymmetric flex. Won't be ideal, but you may find it a lotbetter than what you have. You will, however, run into a sliding friction conflict with the forward lean band, as that anchor point is located to work in harmony with the original ankle pivot location. As an adult, you'll probably be safe taking a few runs for proof of concept with that assembly fully disabled, after which you may choose to build/buy a suitable replacement. As to the ankle pain, odds are good its a matter of sustained load at full flexure. While your other activities involve range of motion, they load the joint within 'intended' parameters. Typical hardbooting goes beyond in that respect. That it wasn't noticeable previously probably has something to do with age/injury/etc.

I know I have a few pair, but they're at the ski camp, and I'm not. If you're not in a hurry, I'll check next trip.

Pat, As BT suggests, part of that is the surface, where the snow is soft enough to sink, but dense enough to deflect the boot. If you think you'll be riding that board on similar snow in the future, add a few degrees to your angles, and grind off any excess material from the front binding receiver and boot heel. As reference, I've spent many hours on the Madds in all conditions, with a 301 305mm boot sole, riding at 60-63. I'll typically make a small cut off the corner of the front boot, just to be safe. And bring the heavy body parts into the turn earlier, slower, and with less rotation. You won't see any improvement in technique if you assume it won't happen.

Some shops don't like to visibly distort the plastic for fear of reprisal, so there's a good chance the boots you have can work. Maybe post a photo of your widest foot as seen from above. Or if you're shy, a tracing of the outline. Also the boot shell to illustrate the extent to which it's been modified. If you put your feet in the empty shells (no liners) are you hard up against the plastic on both sides? Have you had the same issues in other boots? Failing the usual solutions, you'll need a large paper bag, a pair of scissors, and a used sporting goods shop.

The flo goo will continue to move about for a few days as you ride/lounge in the boots, so it doesn't really matter at this point. Heating that stuff will just make the boots slightly less uncomfortable for your initial outing. If, on the other hand, it feels like you've got a handful of rodent skulls chewing on your ankle bones, heat it sooner rather than later. You can use a hair dryer, bag of heated rice, etc.

^Cut gill slits on the outside of the liner. Outer layer of fabric only, as the internal layer is compliant. Start at the heel if your heel has more definition/shape than the liner. Usually a few slits to either side of the seam that runs up the back. Be mindful not to slash the flo pacs in the ankle area.

A few pieces of intel for those that prefer their information without the 'mis'. The boot board ramp in a zise 'B' measures 9.6 degrees. The boot board is removable, and hard foam, and there is room to lower the heel by maybe another 2 degrees without too much trouble. The boot board is not flat, either toe to heel, or medial/lateral, instead having slight concavity on both axes. If you have higher quality footbeds/orthotics, plan on planing this surface to match. The boot board is not level medial/lateral, having perhaps 1+degree of incline to the medial side. In other words, the average foot will forcibly pronate. The plastic is easy to grind with a standard ball burr, offering a powdery residue. The plastic is bright and sharp, rather than being rubbery and dull. In theory this should enhance feedback, and also spatial awareness. Too bad the sole is rubber. Perhaps future models will provide an option in this area. Ankle pivots are nicely free-hinging with a lot of bearing surface, and there is plenty of clearance below the lower cuff overlap to allow flex. The cuff overlap is stiff. Don't leave them unbuckled over the summer. The plastic is reluctant to form with heat, and does not readily inform it's willingness to 'give'. So if you plan to do any serious forming, book plenty of time with your fitter, and bring snacks. The chassis, so to speak, is robust. Plenty of thickness in the lower half of the shell, thinning gradually as you move upward. Presumably decreased deformation will provide consistency of 'messaging' between rider and board. Also room to grind for various protuberant foot parts. Ankle pocket contouring, at least compared to a modern race ski boot, is nothing to write home about. Better than Deeluxe, but how much better is hard to tell without a side by side comparison. Very easy to remove the tongue and cuff for modification, and plenty of room to move within the shell to position forming dies and grinding tools. Medial/lateral cuff adjustment is present, but not particularly fine in increment. More when I get there. Pictures maybe.

"I almost would love to introduce a rule that if the board is over 10 years old and being sold in the classified section that we move it to a classified section called "Collectors". Any newbies that are looking at gear should know that the board has new tech or is ancient." "At best they are denying a sale to a current manufacturer. They may also be influencing others with the misconception that new boards are not significantly better than old boards, and other misinformation." So... forget the ‘separate but equal’ classifieds. Now is a good time to demonstrate the courage of your convictions, and simply ban older boards entirely from the commerce section. Erase their unwelcome influence from the sport and clear a path for the next generation of alpine riders. The ‘cheapskates’ and divergent may object, but there’s no need for a horde of tatty refuse to hinder the march of evolution, meanwhile sweeping bread from the tables of Coiler, Donek, and other fine builders. If unqualified equipment is weakening the sport, then progressive elimination is a fine solution to the problem of dilution.

In general, the outer layer of fabric on a composition liner will not have much give, and therefore feel restrictive, even when used in the correct size shell. As in: Your foot is foot-shaped, and the liner is more of a rectangle of approximate foot length. To gain a little more room, install your foot to the liner, look for and mark the spots that look 'tight' (often at the heel, and at the first and /or fifth metatarsal head), and make a few careful slits with a razor knife/box cutter, or one of those cats with laser beam eyes. Take your foot out of the liner before cutting. Esp if you go with the cat. This will allow the formerly non-conforming material to better match the shape of your foot.

Snow crystal structure will have a big influence on how a board responds to base/edge variance, and how the rider is affected by those things. If, by 'western conditions', you are not including fresh, dense and abrasive machine made, then odds are good that if the board slides, it's good enough for most. On the other hand, if you have a base with a coarse/open base structure, with zero degree base bevel (or some variant on the generic ski shop quick grind) on that kind of machine made, you (and possibly others) would probably notice a few things at slower speeds, or during moments where you wanted to use finesse rather than brute force inputs. Looking back, I've noticed the effects of flat base/base structure, and edge bevel a lot more than missing chunks of Ptex, or the wrong/absent wax. For the better part of the east coast season, wax is primarily useful as a means of retarding base erosion in the area directly next to the edges. They do, if you're the kind of rider that needs that kind of help. As Aracan mentioned, 'correct' base bevel can make a board more maneuverable where the board is transitioning between flat glide and edge rise. Appropriate base bevel provides more positioning options over a greater area. That's not to suggest base bevel is a fix for iffy technique, rather it's like using a more specific tyre tread/compound for a given set of circumstance, rather than just using something black and round.

In terms of handling characteristics, binding setback is roughly analogous to the steering axis of your bike, or caster angle at the front end of your car. I'll typically ride an unfamiliar board in controlled context using only the front binding until I find what feels like the 'neutral point', then mount the rear binding at my preferred stance width. Binding offset will also change reactivity, but on the short axis.

One of the many advantages of the Backland is that it's a viable boot with roughly half the boot board ramp of Intec compatible shells. Maybe you don't care about such nuance. Maybe you should. Either way, put a few hours on the new boots and see how you stand with lower heels. Might be you value the convenience of a more centered and relaxed stance more than the convenience of step-in bindings.

Jcar, If your intent involves ‘baselining’, or higher resolution adjustment, you’ll want less flex in the binding. While the Catek OS2 offers more support than a fresh box of Kleenex, it’s not, by design, as solid as the OS1 and WC. The ‘short’ plate versions of the WC, OS1 and 2 are .375 inch thick, while the ‘longs’ are .5. While your internal processor is sensitive to a very small increments of change, there’s a point where ‘rider philosophy’, and the fit/flex/geometry of your boots will render such increments moot. The standard bails are, for the most part, interchangeable across the three variants. Heel loops came in both narrow and wide versions. There are both coarse and fine grooved patterns used to locate the toe and heel blocks on the WC. Boot sole length adjustments are much faster on the WC than the OS series. Toe and heel blocks can be reversed on all variants. This may be necessary to accommodate odd combinations of boot sole length/boot center and boot size. Spherical kingpin nuts are different between each variant. If you don’t have access to a lathe, take care not to lose them. Toe flip levers are more or less interchangeable, though the later versions were more svelte/stylish than the earlier. An OS2 top assembly can be mounted to an OS1 base, but not an OS1 top to the OS2 bottom. In a pinch, you could mount a WC top to an OS1 base, but you’d need a bushing to center the king pin. The WC has the fewest parts to lose/misunderstand, the OS2 has the most. Of the three, the WC is the easiest/most versatile for ‘on snow’ adjustment, as one can affect toe/heel height, canting, angle, and boot offset without removing fasteners. Critically, cant and lift can be altered independent of each other. (These parameters are co-dependent on the TD series). ->The compromise: In order to change stance width, or binding location on the board itself, you’ll need to disturb established cant and lift settings. Similarly, the means by which adjustments are made can make it very easy to get lost in the process. Fortunately, you can get a digital protractor app for your phone, and from what I understand, pocket-sized notepads and pencils are still available. -- Lacking a better picture of where you are with your riding, and where you want to be, it’s not appropriate to suggest Cateks will or will not serve your needs/wants. In general, the Catek platform is a significant asset if you want to better understand/resolve the relationship between interface geometry and various rider outcomes. ->So long as you’re capable of methodical practice and entry-level critical thinking. If you find yourself at a loss before technical monoliths like the adjustable spanner, multi-speed bicycle, and shoelaces, you should probably avoid the Catek.

And a few other considerations.

He exclaimed with pleasant surprise; simultaneously striking the tasty (yet obscure) stout from his shopping lisp.

True, but then the sport hews closely to this line: “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” A mindset that likely contributed to Wilde's premature demise.

For snow removal at the ski house. (Representative photo)

Probably not. To resolve that particular problem, you can invest time toward making better use of the equipment you already have. However, if you want a plate, buy a plate. Then budget for the next plate that you hope will resolve the issues not adequately addressed by the plate you have.