Jack M

I see how it sounds that way, but it really isn't. My point is that it is far better to progress your technique and learn how to carve on familiar equipment than it is to simultaneously try to learn new skills AND new equipment. Elitist snobbery would be telling him he can't carve on his softboots and that he has to get an alpine setup. that would be the "brute force method".

Sounds like you're more than ready for an alpine setup. However I would suggest reducing that cant on your front foot to around 4-6 degrees. Make sure it is sloping such that it either gives only toe lift, or slopes along the long axis of the board, towards the tail. If the overhang isn't bad, sure, try starting out with lower angles. However you'll probably soon get boot drag, and then you'll have to go steeper. It's normal to not be able to jump on alpine gear and be as good as you are on your softboot gear. Do head back to the greens and try the Norm on your alpine gear to get started. Also a common bad habit is diving down into your toeside turn with your upper body, dipping your shoulders. I've seen many softboot carvers do this. The Norm helps you realize that the turn initiation should start in the lower body - ankles, knees, hips. Another common bad habit is trying to initiate a heelside turn by deeply bending your knees. Sounds like you might be trying to do this...? Heelside initiation should happen by simply leaning to that side of the board and lifting the toes. THEN use your knees for suspension.

My first time in front of a camera that can do sequences! These shots were underexposed and I just did a quick autocorrection and threw these together. They're still pretty raw. Thanks to Ben Schurman for the photos! this is some mellow carving on a green circle at Buttermilk, hope you enjoy... www.bomberonline.com/JackM/jm_seq www.bomberonline.com/JackM/jm_seq2

Sorry, I'll elaborate. You don't have to be able to ride softboots at all in order to ride an alpine setup - but if you DO ride a softboot setup, if you can't ride it at higher angles, chances are bad that you're ready for an alpine setup. Yeah, or anything above 30. Many softbooters ride very low angles like 15/0 or even duck. Terje was considered radical because he rode "high" angles - 24/12. So the jump from low angles to upwards of 36-45 can be daunting to many softbooters. Sure, if they can do it, then go for it. It's just been my experience that the transition is easier in smaller increments. If they're having trouble going from 15/0 to say 36/33 on their softboots, hardboots aren't going to be any easier.

this is not even close to what I said.

By "higher" angles, I meant higher than typical softboot angles. If he sets up his current softboot board with angles around 45 or 50 and is unable to ride it, he's not ready. You said you started above 45, that's what I'd call "higher" angles.

Modern carving technique really works best for most people at angles of 50 or higher. So if your board is so wide that it allows lower angles without boot overhang, it's probably too wide and you should <i>consider</i> a narrower board. If you're not able to ride at higher angles, you're probably not ready for an alpine setup. It is very possible to carve on a softboot setup (granted, usually at lower speeds) so you should try to get carves happening on your current gear before jumping into hardboots. You should be able to do the Norm on your current softboot gear. A good indicator for being ready for hardboots is if you can change edges and start carving the next turn before the board points downhill. That is, can you carve your downhill edge?

Todd, do both yourselves a favor and get her an all-mtn carving board. Unless she's a whiz at carving her softboot gear already. (does she snowboard? I forget) Trruuuust meee. I tried to start my wife on a Stat 5, and my sister on an Alp 157 - they both found much relief when we switched them to E-decks.

Flex and sidecut are symbiotic. A board with no sidecut will not flex, no matter how flexible it is, it would just rail you into the woods in a straight line. A board that is too stiff won't bend easily into an arc, so it may turn wider than the sidecut naturally wants. Vice versa for a board that is too soft. Sidecut and flex need to be appropriately matched to each other and to your weight.

It simply does not. You can make a narrow board as stiff as a wide board, but it will probably be thicker.

Not really, waist width is up to the designer. For example, Donek makes two 171s - both with an 11.2m sidecut, but one that is 18cm wide at the waist and one that is 19.5cm. I suppose if you wanted to fix the nose and tail width at some arbitrary number, then yes, length, nose/tail width, and sidecut radius would determine waist width. However most designers fix the waist width at some number, and let the length and sidecut radius determine nose/tail width. Burton seems to take a different approach - they seem to fix length, waist width, and sidecut <i>depth</i>, which results in a random sidecut radius number.

http://www.bomberonline.com//articles/physics.cfm

I'm going to give John the benefit of the doubt and assume that was all meant to be humorous in some strange, probably cox-2 inhibitor induced way. I guess. I've never ridden an old Madd, so I can't argue with those claims. However I can unequivocally say that my Madd 170 is ONE OF the most fun boards I've ever ridden. The impressive thing is that in year one, Madd has climbed out of the where-are-they-now file and is instantly right back in the hunt with the best in the business. Performance-wise, at least. Aesthetically, yes, they are not there yet. And that's a big "yet". The 180 protos at the SES were a big improvement in that deptartment. As for reliability, I think that is coming soon, if it hasn't already been solved. The difference here is that we've all been invited to participate in the prototyping and beta testing process, which would normally be a private thing. John has outed me - yes, my previous 170 had the cf wing delam. But it was warranteed reasonably promptly, and the new board is holding up.

Hmm, a woman on this site who carves AND rides a Ducati. You should have at least one marriage proposal within 12 hours. :D

It seems that 95% of the time in these collisions, the carver "wins". It would suck to have injured your wife, so in a sense you got lucky! get back on the horse soon.

Some wallpaper to help you get back to work... Jim Jordan Geoff Vincelette Highland Bowl And yes, thanks to Fin & Michelle and everyone for making it a really special time.

check it out HERE

Mellow Yellow: Paul K:

He's got limited internet access right now, so he asked me to post some pics from Montana. Too bad I wasn't there :( Shred: Helmut Karvelowv:

Oh the horror! The waste! All those poor Germans! http://tinypic.com/1qmuy1 and the valiant rescue attempt: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X36B65B7A

I saw a guy come over a lip and onto a steep icy section of the trail that I assume he didn't realize was there. He freaked, bailed, and did about a 50 yard ice slide (read: not slowing down) straight into the cement foundation of the lift tower, which was exposed due to the low base of the early season. He hit it side-on, bounced off, went completely limp, and slid the rest of the way down the steep. I never found out what happened to him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make it. Actually I'd be surprised if he did make it.

You need to really crank up the edge angle and get your carve around as quickly as possible to control speed. Also do not waste ANY time between carves. Don't stand up. Use cross-through. Be compact. Commit to each carve early and completely, and drive the nose.

even if some wizard ski/board tech <i>could</i> fix it (which I doubt), it certainly looks like the board is totalled - enough so that you would be able to recover the cost of a replacement from the person who hit you. You *did* get their info, didn't you?

The Volkl 173 has an 11.7m radius. Pro snowboard racers are generally using boards in the vicinity of 185cm and 15m for GS. I don't know about slalom. In skiing, these days, a 15m radius usually appears on skis around 170cm long. Part of this has to do with the fact that a ski 185cm long with a 15m radius would have ridiculously wide nose and tail. I don't know what ski racers are using.

That's a 2001. (winter of 2000/2001)