brodster_57

Haven't been on here in ages but I was cleaning out my garage today and found my old boots. I bought them new to do racing back in 2001, if I remember correctly. The size of the boots are 28 according to the liners. Sole is stamped with 309mm. At the time I tried to squeeze a size 11 foot into them. The first season was painful. The next season I took them to a boot fitter in Spokane and had him work the toe box over. He did some grinding. The toe box does not feel overly weakened from the removal. Anyways, give me a holler if you have any questions. Email will be a bit faster since I am not too active on here: brodymahoney@hotmail.com $50 OBO on these boots. They aren't in perfect condition, but they are still very useable. Just want to see them go to someone who can use them. Thanks for looking.

Thanks for the reply. I will check out those sites tonight. Yeah, some coaching would probably be in order in the future.

That sounds like it might just work well. I don't know much about the model so I will be emailing you for more info. Thanks

The first time I demo'd MTX, I was a bit apprehensive. Despite being young, I am rather old-school in my preferences. Anyways, I took one of the boards out for a spin with more dramatic MTX. As described above, it did seem to rip into the ice...sort of like a serated blade sawing. It seemed to increase the edge hold on the hardpack, but at the same time I really didn't like how it wasn't as smooth as a finally tuned edge. Fast-forward to last weekend. I tried the Banana Tech board for the hell of it (this is the reverse camber one). Of course, it was a bit awkward to get the board to initiate, but the MTX on that board was a bit more subtle. I found that this was a far better trade-off. It held an edge well, but was not too rough. I was impressed with that one. I probably won't ever buy one for myself, because I still attest to infinite points of contact, but I agree that it is definately worth a try.

Well, maybe not completely new. I don't race anymore, and I have always wanted to get the right equipment for this style of riding. I have definately come across the Donek Blade and Swoard snowboards built specifically for this. However, I am curious if there are any tips you can offer me to get me started correctly. I was sitting here trying to think what type of boot or binding would be perfect for this. I currently have some old unmodified AF700's and I used to ride CATEK's. I have no board and binding as of now, so I am open to any advice. I also understand there are probably a million different preferences for the next one, but what are typical stance widths and angles? Edge tuning? Thanks for any info!

As you can tell, I am not to specific. This is because I used to race, haven't been into carving for awhile, and want to re-establish my setup. I am looking for something that is in the 180ish region in length and is great for free carving. Hoping to do some euros, so I would love to step up to a width that would let me lay it down without boot-out. It would be a plus if I could use it to race on too. I am open, so please hit me with anything you got. Also, a nice set of used bindings would be sweet too. Thanks

Here's the story: I came across quite a few examples in the past, but I am no longer sure where to look besides Catek. I have a Palmer Crown and ride Super plates on it. Right now I have some Union bindings, but the base plate has cracked because it flexes over the plates too much. Also, the teeth on the highback have worn out and they are not bullet proof at high forward lean angles and someone who weighs 210 lbs. Basically, I need a binding that will be compatible with the plates and be solid. I want one with a solid forward lean mechanism that will hold. I like responsive but tend to favor a binding that dampens well. I know these two can be a bit mutually exclusive, but I am willing to sacrifice a little response for great dampening. I remember seeing a binding with a spring/shock device on the high back awhile back. Does anybody remember what these are called? Thanks

Yeah, I came to the conclusion that height is in fact a factor, but a very small one. I think for 95% of the people, height shouldn't even be considered. But should it be considered for the short and heavy or tall and light? I can't prove it yet. But in the end, height is still a factor. Thanks guys.

100% I agree that the rider is the major factor. But if COG is an issue, than height is an issue? This is what bothers me. And on that note, if mass is a factor than height is a factor because torque is a consequence of force, which is a consequence of mass. Funny thing, my fiance just read me an article out of snowboarder magazine regarding selecting the correct board. The section has a small blurb on "physics" where the author concluded that weight is the only factor.

Sorry, hope I didn't touch on a sensitive subject. I am just transferring into EEE. I love this stuff.

I agree here too. I think the reason so many people don't consider height is because most manufactures don't even consider it. They probably think torque is too complicated for the average joe. And weight seems to deviate more than height for most people. With this in mind it would seem that weight is usually the primary concern. But there are the extreme cases, which are realistic: 6'3" 150 lbs (my brother) 5'2" 145 (I won't say, whe would kill me). If we follow only weight light tall guys would ride really short boards, and heavy short chicks would be riding boards over their head.

Good posts. Not trying to start and argument here, but I do understand that any rider can create a variety of forces. And I also understand that style and preference dictates the majority of the choice. In fact this is my personal breakdown: 1. Style 2. Mass 3. Height 4. Ability And the overriding factor is always preference. But's lets assume we negate some things. Let's assume that we consider a group of riders with equal ability, preference, and style. Now only mass and height is left to consider. What then. Is it or is it not provable that height is a factor on board selection? I agree that height does not directly influence length. But outside of the carving world where riders do not understand the finer things in life as well, generally longer boards change in stiffness. Also it depends how far out that same stiffness is applied, which would produce a counter torque so to speak. With that in mind, if height affects stiffness (which I completely agree with) does affect length (in the real world).

I've been riding just short of 15 years, and just short of about eight on hardboots and such. A question recently surfaced among some of my peers: Should height affect your choice when purchasing a snowboard. I read the prior post that touched on this topic, but I ended up getting the drift that there are just a bunch of opinions on this matter. However, I have heard no good argument supporting the perspective that mass is the only consideration. I heard nonsense such as the following: "Your board knows how much you weigh, but it can't tell how tall you are." Not trying to be too pompous I replied that boards do not have mental capacity and therefore cannot know either thing; they can only respond to forces and such. I claimed that height is always a factor because we live in a 3 dimensional world and not in a flat plane. I argued that a consequence of this is that boards experience torque, and that torque is a product [vector cross product] of radius and force. Thus, we have to consider height as a factor(however large of a factor that may be) when choosing a board. I would assume since snowboarding is governed by the laws of physics, that it is provable one way or the other. Plus I know there are some physicts and engineers roaming around on this site. I have to know, it's driving me crazy listening to nonsense.

I have been off my carving board for a couple of seasons, but I am back at it in full swing. It didn't take long before I remembered the potential dangers of carving: Other snowboarders and skiers, who typical ride straight down the hil without turning, do not expect the way a carving board can turn and the paths we take (especially on a 15m sidecut turning GS turns). It scares me everytime I lay one over and skier or boarder whizzes by me at mach 10 nearly taking me out!. Since most of you have more experience than me, I am sure you guys have had some close calls or nasty wrecks. Now, I sit and wait for the slope to clear and always look behind me when I lay over an unexpected turn (especially in the flats near the chairlifts!)

Thanks for the response. I ended up changing my stance to 63/60. I like the way that feels. I would try flatter angles; however, my board is not wide enough. As for other changes, I put more forward lean on the back foot and less on front. I am not sure what the numbers would equate to because the AF700's have the bolt and spring adjustments for forward. But there is approx. 1/4" difference between the two boots. It feels good. Another issue was my technique. I played around with this some more, and my tail chatter was reduced. I have a problem getting too far over the front foot. I was checked after I flew over the nose a couple of time hard. Thanks again.

Hi, I know this a burned out question, but I am curious what many of you are ridiing. To start off I have an F2 178, and I ride 60F/60R. My stance width is 19," and I have approx 2 to 3 deg toe lift and 6 deg heellift. I have a couple degrees of inward cant on my rear foot. I have Raichle AF700's, which seem to be a little aggresive in the forward lean department stock, set light for forward lean on the front foot and quite a bit more on the rear. Currently, this setup seems to work well; however, I have always had this feeling like my back foot heel doesn't want to set down in the heel cup. I frequently get front quad burn, and I have this bad habit of tail chatter in the lower portions of my heelside turns near exit. I can quiet down the heel chatter if I get my weight back further on the tail, but sometimes it feels like I am leaning too far back. Granted, I know a little tail pressure at exit is appropriate and I may just be getting used to putting my weight where it should be, but I am starting to wonder if some of my problems are equipment related. Also I am 6' tall. I have medium legs in length and the 19" feels comfortable. I have theorized that a narrower stance may help (at the cost of stability), less forward lean on the front foot may help, more on the rear may help, and more toe and heellift may benefit as well. I am just trying to get a feel what is normal for someone of my size with 60 deg angles. Just getting tired of this unbalanced feeling; please give me you input. Thanks in advance!

Ya that was one brutal crash. Looks more like a backside rodeo or 90 roll though ;-).

The larger one was taken from an old pro snowboard movie(around 1993). I believe it was Andy Hetzel, and there was someone else too that almost killed himself because he did not have enough speed.

Been to his website but does anyone know what stance angles Jasey Jay rides? How about any other pros on the WC. I know Klug rides 54 51. Thanks.

Yeah the post may seem a bit strange, but in all reality I think it is actually a good post for someone who hasn't ridden a lot of different alpine boards with different angles...such as myself. I have tried different wasted boards from 18 cm to 20 cm with a 29 and 28.5 mondo. Since the goal for many people is to minimize overhang and maximize leverage (personal preference excluded here) I think it is a good idea to get a feel for what angles are possible with different width of boards. There is also another minor consideration of the sidecut radius too. For instance my Burner 197 had a huge radius, so there wasn't much difference in width between the waste and where my foot would be placed. This seemed like I had to run a couple deg. steeper in order to avoid booting out. With my current bootsize I would like to get down to mid 50's, and I think 20-21 cm should handle it fine. Plus I absolutely love the stability of a wider carving board.

Right on, the 6 deg may help things out quite a bit. True that slightly higher angles help heelside carves in general but I don't think you will notice a huge difference. Many of the pro racers ride with a 3 to 4 deg splay between their bindings at mid to low 50 deg angles and have awesome heelsides. But if 65 deg is the key for you go for it, there is nothing wrong with it. Your current stance is similar to mine and I really like it. Try playing with forward lean a bit. But like I suggested before video yourself first at your normal setup before you change anything. Let me know how everything goes. I am interested. I bet you that the video will tell you something you didn't want to know :-)...it always does. This weekend I will be in Idaho on a cat boarding trip. I have never done it before, I am excited. Later.

I don't know what you are shooting for, but if you are asking for the reason I would be asking I would suggest to ask there binding angles they typically ride as well. I can ride a mondo 28.5 at about 60 deg. with no overhang on a 19.5 cm waist board. Also on a Burner 197 I rode about 70 deg with know overhang on an 18 cm wide board. Later

I remember reading about you on here years ago. And I agree if there is no need (for you) why bother. I mean obviously on the race course every fraction of a second counts. So in your opinion though why would a racer not want to use soft boots and such? I also read back in the day that you rode 45 deg angles on your board? Have you had to mofidy in any cants or heellifters? I remember for a day I rode with 45 deg angles and noticed how much it strengthened up my heelsides. But it felt so sloppy. And my toesides were way sloppy. Maybe I didn't give it a chance, but it just didn't feel right. Also what is you stance width. Thanks.

Haha , yeah I tend to write internet messages in monolithic blocks. I get so in to it I forget what it will look like when I post it. But yeah with the analogy that is my point exactly. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The handgun sounds more like a freestyle board and a rifle sounds more like a race board.

Funny stuff I just procede to tell people that I like 'em long and stiff. (In the case of my freeride soft boot board...wide too.) Yeah monoski used to be very common. And I love it when I hear people talking about it, "Yeah this guy was wearing ski boots on a snowboard!" or "If I had thousands of dollars I would by all that race stuff!" We started a race team at my local high school and two of the local kids wore alpine gear. Lots of fellow freestylers talked very poorly of their gear choice. They won every race. One actually rides on the Us Snowboard B team now. So I decided to convert and train hard in the gates and started winning races. I got a lot of negative feedback from others calling it the usual names. They claimed I only won because of my race board. I could not disagree that it was an advantage. But I laughed when we did the mile long course at Northstart and 2 girls decided to give hardboots a try. When they crossed the finish line they lay down and started crying holding their legs in pain. I thought to myself,"Not so easy is it?" But for my last race I decided to use my softy 156 board with low angles. I ended up with a DQ in the overall because of a minor minor gate issue on the first heat, but for my final second heat I cleared 2 seconds faster than anyone. Currently there are way more hardbooters racing in our league. Even one girl who used to talk sh$t to me about my hardboots converted 1 year later when I was her coach and took a State Championship her senior year. Report this post