Jump to content


Supporting Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tanglefoot last won the day on July 15 2019

Tanglefoot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 Excellent


About Tanglefoot

  • Rank


  • Location
  • Home Mountain/Resort?
    Kongsberg / Geilo
  • Occupation?
    Second Fiddle Player
  • Current Boards in your Quiver
    F2 Speedster RS 168, F2 Silberpfeil 169, Coiler Stubby 172, F2 Eliminator 161, Goltes Pro Race 163, Coiler Nirvana Energy 170
  • Current Boots Used?
    UPZ RC8, UPZ RX8
  • Current bindings and set-up?
    Bomber TD3, Volkl Tiger Force, F2 Race Titanium
  • Snowboarding since
  • Hardbooting since

Recent Profile Visitors

590 profile views
  1. Lots of good thinking going on here. This whole Backland / touring boot discussion is really interesting. I will definitely strap my own touring boots to a wide board next winter and give it a go.
  2. My thoughts around attaching to the sides of the boots were that the tensile load paths of current hard boots are arranged in a rectangle that is only 70 mm wide and around 300 mm long. I just don't think you would choose to attach the bindings to the extreme ends of a long, narrow boot if you did not have the ski boot heritage. I agree that lateral flex is often desirable, and especially with flatter angles. Hopefully, lateral flex can be incorporated in the binding, rather than in the boot / binding interface.
  3. The costs you mention here are properly scary. I think you would have to be confident of grabbing a good chunk of the wide board / flat angle market to make it worthwhile. Need to convince some marketing departments... Did you ever try the Burton Physics bindings?
  4. Me neither, but it would make for a very streamlined boot if someone could figure it out. Hi Pokkis, I am intrigued by this whole Backland subculture. Does this mean that you use the Backlands for other purposes than just split boarding?
  5. Apologies, this is the danger of sketching. As mentioned somewhere in my post: "Note that the binding is nowhere near “designed” at this point, but the sketch shows roughly where I think the attachment points should be." To clarify; I definitely feel that the boot should be light and simple. I do not have a working design - I am really just sharing some thoughts, as I feel it should be possible to combine the best features of hard boots with the best features of soft boots.
  6. I think that could work quite well. Attaching the boot on the sides rather than at the toe should provide more control of the lateral flex, as well as a shorter, wider and flatter sole. I would try to avoid having moving parts in the boots, and rather move the weight and complexity to the binding. Thanks! I had not seen these.
  7. There has been a flurry of activity regarding boots on this forum lately, and I now feel it is my turn to put my foot in it. This follows on from my “binding ramblings” thread from last year, combined with some good thoughts from other forum contributors. I have also ridden more in soft boots over the winter - in powder, in carving conditions and even in the park – all in the name of science. I have discovered a few things, e.g. that I love riding at flatter angles, but I soon come across the limitations of the equipment and cannot help but think there is room for improvement. There has also been much talk regarding how to grow our sport, and it seems that many flashing arrows are pointing squarely towards the boots. Consider the rapid development of ski equipment in recent years (especially ski touring), and also of soft boot equipment. The choice of gear is huge in these fields, and the technology is advancing continuously. Frankly, hard booting has been left behind. Apologies if I repeat the ideas of others. This is an attempt to bring some thoughts together in one place, rather than to claim intellectual property rights for anything. I will get right to the heart of the matter: Bad things about hard boots: You have, for some inexplicable reason, decided to go snowboarding in your ski boots. Ask anyone in the lift line. NOBODY dares talk to you, as you are clearly a lunatic. Hard boots and bindings have evolved from standard ski binding interfaces; therefore the bindings are attached to the ends of the boot - resulting in a long and narrow sole. Makes lots of sense for skis, but not for boards. The toe of the boot is not foot shaped, but symmetrical about the center, due to the ski boot heritage. This also makes the boot longer than required. The heels of my UPZ boots are 59 mm high to the inside of the foot bed. We are in stiletto country now. It is impossible to look even remotely normal while walking across a slippery floor with a tray full of drinks in these boots. Neither can you stand upright, even in walk mode. The center of the foot is 15 mm behind the center of the binding interfaces on my boots – which makes it non-intuitive to fit the bindings correctly to the board. The long sole leads to long tensile load paths, which then lead to bindings that are longer than necessary. The narrow sole leads to high lateral bending forces, hence poor control over lateral flex in the boot / binding interface. (My reference here is toe lever bindings.) Long boots with high heels are not well suited to flatter angles and wider boards. Good things about hard boots: Buckles! Tighten the boot as much as needed, exactly where needed. A well-defined mechanical pivot and a spring system provides plenty of progressive flex - in the right direction. The plastic shell provides stiffness in other directions. (Although, as an observation, “hard” boots do not need to be especially rigid. RC8’s are so soft you could stuff your pillow with them.) Bad things about soft boots: No mechanical pivot. The soft boot flexes by deforming and buckling of the shell. This is not very linear or well defined, and creates pressure points on the foot and ankle. Soft boots also tend to be “loose” initially and then stiffen up considerably when flexing further. Not enough lateral stiffness or longitudinal flex for riding with steeper binding angles. And lacing is not a good way to tighten ANY winter sport boot. More and more elaborate lacing systems enter the market, and they don’t work all that well. The strap binding is a large, breakable and cumbersome device. Boots and bindings need to be matched carefully. Good things about soft boots: I can walk! It’s a miracle! Low heels and wide, grippy soles. Foot-shaped. Short sole length. Low weight. Soft initial flex in all directions works well for flatter angles and non-carving. Bad things about both soft and hard boots: The walking surfaces are also the binding interfaces. If the snow is even slightly sticky, the soles need scraping thoroughly prior to entering the bindings. On short runs, this can be a right time waster. Following on seamlessly; a proposed new boot and binding system: Fundamentally, I would like a shorter, foot shaped hard boot with a wide, grippy sole and binding interfaces on the sides rather than at the ends. The binding can now be more compact, but with a much wider spacing of the transverse load paths, and centered on the foot longitudinally. Build as much flex, lift, cant and height as you want into the binding. For carving and all-mountain uses, I would lift the boot off the base of the binding by about half an inch, so that you no longer have to scrape snow off the sole. I have attached a preliminary sketch of the TangleBoot for the entertainment of The Carving Community. Note that the binding is nowhere near “designed” at this point, but the sketch shows roughly where I think the attachment points should be. Et voila! You now look like a fun-loving snowboarder, rather than a high heeled skier who walks funny. A slick, reliable step-in system should now be within reach. With studs sticking out on the sides of the boots, this becomes very simple - but it would make for a much nicer boot if we could have recessed inserts, similar to those of ski touring bindings. As of now, I am not sure how you could then make an easy-to-use step-in system that would not clog up with snow. Is there any way we can get the folks who designed the Salomon Shift binding interested in snowboard carving?
  8. I agree entirely that the shorter board would be better for her. Softer and shorter is generally better until you gain experience and know exactly what you want. The GTS is an easy bord to ride for a beginner, and it is very good build quality for the price.
  9. Just thought of another point: The GTS is an old fashioned, single radius board. It is only happy at lower speeds and tight turns, so if you go a little too fast, it loses composure. It is still fun - given the right conditions, but a modern raceboard will give you a wider range of speeds and turn shapes to play with.
  10. I own a GTS 158, and I would say it is a relatively stiff board for the intended weight range. I weigh 72 kg (158 lbs), and the board feels roughly the right stiffness for me. However, this is an entry level board with low grip on hardpack, and it is very easy to skid around - which might be a good thing for a first board. My wife has also used it, but neither of us prefer it for "proper" carving sessions. There is also a Kessler Alpine 156 in the house. This is super soft, super capable and really easy to ride well. I love this board, but I never ride it, since my wife keeps it permanently attached to her feet. I sometimes think this could be a better board for myself than my K168. Can not recommend the K156 highly enough, and you would never "grow out of it" in terms of the board's limits. Jolly expensive though - but I think you get a lot for your money with Kesslers. Also, as mentioned further up the page: Coiler will make you something quite similar to a Kessler, tailored for weight and riding style, with custom graphics, for half the price.
  11. My size 8.5 UPZ liners were 30 mm shorter than the inside of the shell they came with. Can not be legal. I bought some Intuition Luxury high volume liners, and they fit the shell very well. Much warmer too. Really should not be necessary though...
  12. I had a conversation with Ivan from i-carve.com about these boards. Apparently, they are intended as a lower cost alternative to SG and Kessler raceboards, with similar design and materials. Ivan came back very impressed after a few days of testing in the French Alps, and recommended the boards highly.
  13. My Kessler 168 feels slightly stiff for my 160 lbs, so I would think 185 lbs is within range for most conditions. (BTW, a Coiler built for my weight will be softer.) The 168 is a board that gives me more confidence than I have on similar boards, and I especially like the way it initiates a turn very quickly and positively without having to load the nose very much. Definitely handles a lot like a slalom board.
  14. At the risk of initiating another sidecut discussion, I think you need a variable sidecut in order to describe a perfect arc in the snow. If you intersect a cylinder with a plane at anything other than a 90 degree angle, you will end up with an ellipse. In order to end up with an arc on the plane / in the snow, your initial sidecut needs to be an ellipse, with tighter radii near the ends of the board. I think this is, at least partly, why manufacturers have come up with variable sidecut radii. But to make matters more complicated, the loads are applied through two boots, the snow is not rigid, and there is a need for varying the turn radius. Hence the complex 3-D geometry on modern carving boards. Camber/rocker combinations, sidecuts and flex patterns all come into play - as well as the structural support of the snow on the day you are riding. I don't think I have answered the original question in any way.
  15. Hi Ondrej, Which shop did you go to? There are at least four UPZ-riders in Kongsberg who might consider the same process.
  • Create New...