Jack M

Yes, 2" is a lot. But 17.25" may be the right answer for you. If you like it with a flat rear foot, you'd probably like 17.75" or 18" with a 3 degree heel lift on the back foot. I think perhaps the Golden Ratio probably comes into play when selecting stance width. In other words, the triangle formed between your feet (in boots) and your taint should have base b and height h such that (b + h)/h = h/b. That works out to 1.618 rounded. Not far off from what skategoat said about b/h = 0.6.

Thanks RDY_2_Carve. One correction though, Donek released their metal board to the public this year, and they have been developing and testing it for many years. I have a lot of confidence in Donek, I absolutely loved the 2 I owned, and I think their metal boards will be real contenders.

Thank you Shawn. I apologize to Pokkis and Tinkler for the tone. My tone is affected by the fact that every year someone comes here and says "hey, why not asyms?" and a few people chime in and get excited. This really annoys me. They are being ignorant of history and I think this distracts from the forward progression of the sport. This thread appeared to be similar to that at first. I thought this rockered board was simply a random idea by someone with money to burn on a wild custom, not a researched design by a known board builder. Now I realize it is, so I apologize for the tone. I still don't think it will work well here, but I'm ready and willing to be proven otherwise.

Again I disagree. I want/need stiff bindings. I've ridden Burtons after Bombers, and it was simply un-fun and frankly scary. Ok, so now that we're both theorizing without having used a rockered race board... conversely, you will need to make larger movements/shifts in order to pressure the nose or tail of the board, unless the board is built hella stiff. Sounds reasonable. Bah. Use a shorter radius board then. My 158 will carve steep ice down the whole run. That is, when I don't have to stop and catch my breath! I've taught hundreds of beginners and I think rocker would be a nightmare. They already have a tough enough time getting spun around backwards. A cambered board does this too. Now that IS interesting.

Perhaps. In that case I'll send the board on to you or Phil or Bordy when I'm done. :D Who's got the ego now? ;) I'd like to believe I push myself. Sugarloaf is pretty darn steep. I 99.9% agree, and was not for a second saying anything to the contrary of this. I'll reserve that 0.1% for the few racers I've seen who knew how to go friggen fast, but weren't very good freecarvers. But they weren't world-level racers.

One can apply their knowledge of theory to make a hypothesis about what might or might not work. I've never ridden a full-suspension mountain bike, but I can say I think it would be better than my hard-tail. My earlier post did say I've never ridden a rockered board so what do I know. But I am free to say that I don't think rocker is a good idea. I strongly disagree. I have a ton of respect for you and what you do, Phil. But I can tell you as a freecarver I have absolutely no use for the flexy bindings like Burton or F2 that racers use. My race-derived metal board is awesome, but on the right conditions my glass livlier-than-hell boards are also awesome. No serious racer would be caught dead on a Madd with TD2s. I would like to try this board. I'm not going to pay $2k for something I can't imagine working well on the slopes I ride. My tone is affected by the fact that I get annoyed when every year someone comes here and says "hey, why not asyms?" and a few people chime in and get excited. Argh. They are being ignorant of history and I think this distracts from the forward progression of the sport. This thread appeared to be similar to that at first. I thought it was simply a random idea by someone with money to burn on a wild custom, not a researched design by a board builder.

Where was this board promoted as race stock? I would be reviewing the board from the perspective of a freecarver in the eastern US. I think I'm qualified for that. If you want to think that's egotistical, I won't argue that. If I've been too big a meany in this thread to be loaned a board to review, I can suggest others out here. Like I said - freecarving, racing, different goals. Sounds like the board may pick up a racing endorsement. Wouldn't it be nice to get a freecarver's endorsement too? Or won't it work for that? As for who needs to put their money somewhere, I'm not the one selling a rockered board for $2k.

If the board is that good, it will win me over. I would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by writing a biased review. I would have a lot to gain if this turned out to be a great board.

you've got that backwards.

bummer. seems like a vote of no confidence in the board.

It is apparent to me that we have reached a point where the goals and concerns of racing and freecarving have more differences than things in common. Freecarvers are looking for the pure, round carve on groomed terrain. Racers are looking for maximum speed and the shortest line in a horribly rutted up course. I've done a little racing, nothing serious, but ruts are a major factor that we simply don't have to deal with in freecarving. So saying something is the standard in racing means little to me now. Of course we have racing to thank for metal boards and new nose shapes, but I'm not about to add a 5-7 pound plate to my board and mount my bindings with a 4" setback. (On that note, it appears racers will have freecarvers to thank for the TD3) I would think that if a racer could have a board that performed as well as a Kessler with Hangl but weighed 5 pounds less, they'd want it. I had a first-gen Prior metal WCR, and it was the lightest board I've ever owned by a significant margin. It was a very cool feeling - almost felt like the board wasn't even there and I was just flying. It also had no topsheet, so it was fragile.

This has also been my experience on my metal Coiler. It does it all, with no compromise on carving ability.

No and no. :rolleyes:

I'm not supposed to say what it is, but I can tell you it's not that. Knowing what it is, I think there is going to be a paradigm shift in racing to this binding.

Before parks, jumps were always verboten on anything but black diamonds. Any natural jump would have a bamboo X blocking it, and forget about building one. Just because a park hasn't been built yet doesn't mean you're entitled to build jumps.

The 166 would be too close to your 172, get the 163.

No, this would be for review only. If this is truly the next big thing, he should be happy to get it out there. After I'm done with my review, I'll ship it back and it can become a demo with which to educate others, or you can sell it for a small discount. But if he's not sure this thing will carve well on eastern hardpack/ice, he probably won't want to have it reviewed on those conditions. I don't think it will work well for freecarving here; that's really my only point in this thread. But if I am wrong then lets prove it.

Okay tinkler... send me one. I give you my word on my reputation here that I will give it a fair review. (and fyi... I was asking if MUD was joking with me, not calling your boards a joke.)

At last! :biggthump

I don't doubt it, and I like your idea. Feet are picky things. For the record I was using vintage 2000 Burton Fires and previous-gen Raichle Thermoflex liners. 2009 Deeluxe T700s and Fin-Tecs arriving this week... we'll see what happens.

I guess I've been told. WTF... racers using rockered boards... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria. Where is my god now?? When you say steep and firm, you mean a race course, right? Because for freecarving steep firm groom, I can't fathom rocker not sucking.

Welp... this doesn't sound much like the sport I love.

haha, no, Dave was joking. See the wink?

pokkis is a racer?

weird, I always mold with the cable in.