jim_s

I believe I've seen some pics of @Mellow Yellow laying his MK down (somewhere in my obsessive mining of the interwebz for info on the MK when I was fretting over whether to get it or not), and maybe it just points to my (numerous) deficiencies as a rider, but I don't personally see the MK as a 'laying it down' type of board - its just too quick (ie, how quickly the turn takes from start to finish) and too tight to do that with any regularity - it really seems to be cut more from the SL-style, gate-running cloth, in terms of high edge angle and highly-angulated body position needed to achieve that edge angle (and required to counteract the violence you've now unleashed on yourself as a resulting of taunting the dragon.... ;-). In addition to technique deficiencies (and though while I think it looks cool, I'm not personally a fan of the fully-laid-out-hands-dragging-in-the-snow type of carve), I just would not have the body speed to be flopping fully from side to side on the MK - in the approx 3 seconds that it takes between initiation of the carve, the board carving around and coming back under you, and now in full-on heat-seeking mode for the next edge engagement. (This is the one area where the MK says, "I got this!" - at that point, you *will* be making another carve, its just up to you to try to manage that process!)

I exchanged many emails with Sean before settling on the MK (He is a very patient man. I was *ever so close* to just having him rebuild my old SL board in the MK construction... SO glad I listened to him - and @GeoffV.), and one of my big concerns was my ability to bend the MK - I wanted a tight-turning board, and it won't turn tight if you can't bend it. Sean himself noted that I was, "on the low end of the weight range" that the MK was designed for. (He subsequently ran some numbers, and determined that my SL was probably originally stiffer than the MK...) Anyway, my take on the energy needed to ride the MK is that its not nearly so much a matter of being *able* to bend it (and at 225, Sean is right, bending it won't be a problem), its more a matter of having the energy to handle what happens *when* you bend it, and being able to repeat that energy expenditure with expediency and frequency. As @big canuck notes, its pretty much ON all the time, and when you give it the slightest prod, its Go Time. :-) So, from my perspective (and it also syncs with another of @big canuck's observations), if you're into tight and quick, its your E-ticket ride. If you're looking for more mellow, it sounds like something in metal construction might be your deal. (I can't imagine why, but to each his own... ;-) Similarly, if you want to be constantly riding wide, sweeping turns (the MK will do it, but its not what it does best), and/or dragging body parts on the snow the whole time, the MK might not be your best choice of tool. If, however, you view your ski day as too short to be waiting for your next carve to come around, and if you like tearing up every trail as many times as you possibly can, and you're 'man enough' to handle it, LoL (I say this as a scrawny dude... :o), the MK might just be what you've been looking for your whole life. :-)

Gotta go w/ Mellow on this one - I'm a 135lb wuss, and I ride the MK all day (and I *ride* that sucker - I'm literally making turns from top to bottom of any and every trail I take - the tighter the turn, the better!) I think it depends a bit on what you're used to and what you like, and I suppose to a degree, your physical condition. (I'm no superman, but I am fairly fit and have good leg endurance, due to my cycling obsession... I suppose only having 135 lbs to have to heft around helps, too.) I also find the MK's ability to stretch turns (only when needed, LoL - I like the kind of turns that really test your dentist's ability to put fillings in solidly... :-) to be surprisingly good, too. I worry a little that the MK gets a 'bad' rap as not being very versatile, but I find it to be an all-day, every-day (one likely exception being deep stuff - haven't faced that on the MK yet), barrel of monkeys kinda fun ride!

FWIW, I'm a 135-140 pounder, and I can bend the MK w/o a problem - its work, don't get me wrong, but I ride it all day, and I'm always disappointed when the lifts close. (Tired, but disappointed... :-) The beauty of it is, you can carve up even the narrowest trails and cat tracks on the MK. (There's one cat track at my local resort that I need to take at the end of the day, and its almost always one of my favorite runs of the whole day - its all of 30 feet wide, and often not in the best condition, and the MK rips it up every time! :-) If you judge your day on the total number of carves you make, I'd put the MK up against just about any board out there, LoL.

I'll grant that I might not be *quite* as enamored of it, were it not on the top of my favorite snowboard... ;-> (But its still kinda neat, either way! :-)

I'm curious, from a carving perspective (and only riding narrow-waisted boards for the past decade+, I can't reasonably compare wider to narrower, except for my ancient memory of my Burton Alp and even more ancient memory of my Checkered Pig), what do you find you don't like about the narrower board, and do like about the wider board (granted, we're talking 20cm as 'wide' here... :-) I remember the older boards (whether it was due to construction back then, or width, I can't say) being more relaxed edge-to-edge, being less nervous-feeling, and being far more willing to ride flat than the narrower boards that I've ridden more recently, but I actually like the 'nervous' and quick edge-to-edge part, and I compensate for the riding-flat problem by just never riding flat, aside from exiting the lift. Wider seems to be a growing preference though. (I guess maybe the requirement for higher angles comes into play, too?) Top sheet isn't a decision factor for me in the least, but my favorite top sheet ever was the old silvery fabric that Sean used to use - I had that on my SL board. I definitely prefer a very plain-looking board. In fact, one of my requests was if I could get a different top sheet on the MK, but Sean is very particular about the MK being an MK. I'm kind of glad that I lost that discussion, though, as I really like the sort of artsy look of the MK now. I've even gotten quite a few comments/compliments from random people on the slopes and in the lift lines (skiers mostly, interestingly enough!) about the MK's graphics. (Even this past weekend, some approx 12 year old kid actually tracked me down at the end of a run, to tell me how "really cool looking" my board was! It brought a grin to my face when he did that. :-)

Ah, I guess they just needed something to put on the ticket, eh? (And Sean was definitely clear w/ me that if there's any real deviation from stock, its no longer an MK, so I guess that makes sense! :-) Ah well, some day, somebody's gonna need to rip apart their MK to see what's inside. ;-)

Interesting statement - is that your characterization or Sean's? I ask, because I'm curious if the two share materials/construction - the Proteus is claimed to be a combination of metal and glass construction, but I've never heard anything about the innards of the MK - I'd love to know, though! (Everything I've read says that the MK is sort of the 'anti-metal' board, but the description of the Proteus is 'a metal board that rides like a glass board (that rides like a metal board...)', so maybe there's some commonality between them?

Ooh, when you start talking custom designs and comparative performance, I'm not the guy with the answers. I've owned 2 Doneks, one was an SL board that had been custom-designed for a Korean racer (and when I went to Sean looking for a board, but without full-custom budget, he graciously searched through his spreadsheet of past designs, and found the one that was closest to what I was looking for - it was *perfect*), and most recently the MK, which after talking with Sean and a few others who'd spent time on the MK (and after much hand-wringing on my part), I went with a stock MK design. (My concern was that I'm a lightweight, and that I wouldn't be able to sufficiently bend the board - its turned out not to be a problem - I'm actually looking for a workout when I ride :-), plus, I've put on about 5 lbs of winter weight, LoL...) Sean had offered to re-build my old (worn out) SL board in the MK materials/construction, but I'm very happy that I went with the MK, given the R&D that Sean and other very experienced riders had put into it. I love a narrow board - the fast edge-to-edge transitions are what really get me wound up, and with reasonably-sized feet (US 8.5-9), boot overhang isn't really a problem. I want a board that is itching to turn - going straight is of no interest to me, and going fast scares the Hell out of me, so the constant-turning and tight radius help me keep my speed down to the sub-relativistic range. (Though the MK is way more stable at speed than my old SL board, and I got a pretty serious concussion this season, as a result of piling in while going way faster than I should have been going on the MK...) I'd query a few others with more board variety experience than I've got - I'm sure they'd give you some great input on board design. (And, of course, Sean is always quite willing to talk to people about boards and board designs - he's an amazingly patient and accommodating guy.) My only real potentially-useful observation on the MK regarding width, is that the MK is more torsionally flexible than my old SL board, so I might be concerned about how that would translate to a wider board - you might end up with more torsional flex that you're looking for, but again, I'd defer to those with more experience in custom/customizable boards. (My other alpine boards were all older stock boards - a Checkered Pig and a Burton Alp.)

Congrats, @Ondrej!! Life is too short for cold, uncomfortable feet, eh? :-) What insoles did you end up using? (I ask, because I had a hard time finding insoles that didn't add too much volume - I ended up going with Superfeet Carbon insoles, which are very good, but I'm convinced there must be something even better. The Superfeet Carbons are really thin, so didn't add much volume.) I'm envious that you have a store that you can just walk into! Everything I've had to do w/ Intuition has been via mail order. They were very helpful, but it would have been great to be able to just walk into a store and try some things out!

Same thing on the Luxury liners - took me a few struggles before I figured out that using the loops on the liner cuff and tongue made a *world* of difference getting them on and off! (I personally have to also sort of peel the shell overlap to the side, as well, getting them off - probably tired arms and legs at the end of the day are a contributing factor in them being harder to get off than to get on. :-)

Yeah, the Flo liners kinda suck - I had exactly the same experience. I was seriously questioning my decision to get the UPZ boots, just a few runs into my first day on them. The great news is, the shells are awesome - its just a matter of finding the right liners, and the Intuitions have worked out really well for me. Still plenty snug, no adverse effects on boot flex, and my feet are both *warm* and *comfortable" now. (I do still loosen the middle 2 buckles on each boot on the ride up the hill...) I would STRONGLY advise you to cut right to the chase, and contact the fine folks at Intuition. They #1 know their liners really well :-), and #2 are very well versed in how their liners fit the UPZ shells. They are also incredibly patient (I tend to ask a LOT of questions), and very accommodating. They actually ended up sending me out a second, slightly-larger set of liners, so that I could actually compare the feel between the two sizes, to arrive at my final decision. (I was genuinely blown away when they offered to do that!) I ended up with the Luxury liners in a medium volume, and am very, very happy with them. **Seriously, just call them.**

I'm sort of talking to myself here, but after getting another weekend in on the MK, I just can't get over how much absolute freaking fun this thing is! I was relegated to greens and blues all weekend, due to a recent head injury, and I literally had as much fun on them w/ the MK, as I would have had tearing down blacks all weekend. The edge hold is still nuts (I guess I was thinking it would dissipate with time or something, LoL... :o), the ability to rip crazy tight carves (almost faster than you can keep up with them) is nuts, as is the ability draw turns out to a significantly larger radius. It pumps really well, too, so even on really tame terrain, between pumping the carves, and being on edge about 95% of the time, it still motors along very nicely. With it being so lively and tight, you can carve up the cat tracks just as well as the regular slopes. Its just an amazingly versatile board, if you're willing and able to put the work in on it. ***GREAT BOARD!!*** :-)

My teenage son was in an hour-long ski lesson this weekend. Turns out I'd passed he and his small group on one of the trails. (it was my one hour to sort of cut loose, so I was solely focused on open trail... :-) I was standing in line when he breezed through to the front w/ his instructor. He says, "Hi Dad!" to rub in that he's skipping the line. The instructor says, "That was your Dad on the snowboard??". Son says, "Yeah". Instructor says, "Too funny - we were on the hill talking about getting the ski up on edge to carve turns, and you flew past, and I literally said to them, "Do it like that snowboarder is doing it." A rare Dad Win! :-)

Oops, I think that @Jack Michaud was also one of the contributors to that discussion, too, IIRC! :-) It really is awesome to have this whole community of experienced folks who are so willing to help everyone out and share the genuinely inestimable wealth of knowledge that is collectively held. I hope that we're able to keep this community going through all of Bomber's travails. (In addition to hoping that Bomber, itself, is able to weather the travails! :-)

I think both @Eric and @Beckmann AG were discussing with me the relative stiffness of the old Burton Race Plates I had, compared to the new F2 Race Titanium bindings I'd gotten, with some consideration on how they might treat my little 135-140 lb self. (Exact actors may not be correctly noted, as I haven't pored back over the entire thread...) I finally got out on them this weekend, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the F2 bindings!! I now see where the old Burtons might be compared to rubber bands holding one's feet to the board. The F2's have much less flex (like, about zero for me) - where the old Burton bindings used to allow a fair bit of side-to-side rocking. The F2's only rock due to the board actually deflecting underneath the bindings, LoL. :-) The pedaling effect is certainly amplified w/ the F2's. :-) The other great thing is that they seem to do a much better job of centering my boot along the center line of the binding - w/ the old Burtons, I had to make sure my boot was positioned correctly before flipping the toe lever down - the F2's sort of push the boot to the correct alignment position when I close the lever. I made quite a number of setup/stance adjustments before going out this weekend (added toe lift for the first time ever, reduced heel lift and removed all inward rear cant for the first time ever, and widened my stance a little), so its hard to pin all of the positive changes just on the bindings, but the whole package was a HUGE change, and I can't help but believe the F2 bindings were no small part of that. (*Super Duper* THANKS go out to @SunSurfer for lots of patient input on helping me make a pretty major change to my stance/binding setup, which brought about a very noticeable improvement in how my board feels!)

BTW, posting this random pic here (nothing too exciting, I'm afraid...), so I can at least refer to it in the PM to this other member... (The irony is that this picture is to illustrate a problem to the other member - the thin edge is too thin - but I appreciate the support and encouragement! :-)

Sorry, this is a little off-topic, but its photo-related, sorta... In PM'ing w/ another member here, I've previously included a picture, but when I tried to do it just now, I was unable to do so. Drag/dropping a photo into the text area results in nothing happening, and there is an 'Inser other media' dropdown, but it only lets me specify a prior photo attachment (ie, from a message or post I'd previously sent), or a URL to a picture - I can't attach a new photo, though. (In this forum posting form, there's a 'Drag viles here to attach, or choose files..." option, but not on the PM form. (But, I know I did it previously...) I checked my attachment quota, and I'm not anywhere near the limit on that - any other ideas?

I was so waiting for someone to coin the name Poly-Ester, but alas, nobody seems to share my sense of, um... Linguistic Vision... Yeah, that's it, Linguistic Vision... ;-) Absolutely amazing lady!!

@RyanKnapton - time for you to level-up on the pole planting!! :-)

Yikes - weren't those TD base plates made of machined aluminum? Maybe I'm confused about what you're looking for, but if its what I think it is, a 3D printed part would be wholly unsuited for the task.

I'm laughing so hard, I've literally got tears streaming down my face. This is the Best.Olympic.Moment.of.2018.

Every alpine boarder I've ever met is probably diagnosable with an obsessive personality disorder, so just add OpenSCAD to your list... ;-) For those w/o access to a 3D printer, there are online services that you can use to print your customized model. Shapeways is probably the most well known, but also tends to be rather expensive. 3DHubs is a collection of local geeks with printers who will print things for a price, and tends to be the least expensive option. One of @erazz's plates, via Shapeways, comes out to be about $270 - probably not a great price proposition. The same plate printed via 3DHubs (in PETG material) should be around $40-$45 + a few dollars in shipping. (this price is for one plate, so a pair would be in the $80-$90 range + shipping, but shipping via 3DHubs is usually *very* reasonable.) Compared to what I understand is something in the $70-$80 range (+ shipping from Europe) for a stock set of power plates, you'd be paying the same basic price for a fully customized set printed to your own personal specifications (lift, cant, twist, thickness, width, length, etc), so even for those w/o a printer, its likely still a pretty good deal. (The take-home message here, though, is its worth your while to have a 3D printer, or to at least be on good terms with someone who does, LoL! :-)

These look great! Nice job on the updated lightening holes, too! Sound like you're an OpenSCAD believer - its not the answer for everything, but its a great answer for a lot of things! :-) Its really frustrating that Thingiverse hasn't fixed the library problem w/ Customizer. For anyone wanting to try out @erazz's power plates, though, you can freely download OpenSCAD, download his .scad file from Thingiverse, and customize it and run it locally in OpenSCAD. Super pumped that this is all finding its way down into use in our sport!! Great job on all of this @erazz!!

LoL - these are the casualties of my OpenSCAD efforts over the last week or so. (The sharp observer will see an F2 binding photobombing in the lower-left corner of the photo... :-) I've dredged up a lot of high school geometry that I had long ago forgotten, since taking up OpenSCAD. I have to admit, I really enjoy it, though. (I have to admit that there are times, however, it would be nice just to click something w/ the mouse, and have magic happen... :-) I completely cheated on the F2 shims - I render the main block, then diff out a second block that is resized down by 2 times the wall thickness. I also split that resized block into parts by diffing out cross pieces and the cylinders around the bolt holes, and minkowski those remaining pieces, which results in the nicely filleted corners when I diff that all out of the main block. (The resized block retains the proper top angle, so the roof of the cavity is a consistent thickness regardless of lift, cant and elevation.) I was pretty psyched when I kinda stumbled on that approach! With your twist and difference in size between top and bottom, you've definitely got a tougher job figuring out the volume for the cavity, but I bet its do-able. (Better get some more scratch paper out, though!) The other option might be to put cylinders in the corner areas, then hull those, then diff out that hull from the main block - might save on some math, and still get you a fair bit of volume savings he