Jack M

May 12, Bob an I are headed to Loudon. Who's in? Bob, get some frame sliders!! R6's love to get horizontal! (just kidding, but 3 guys on R6's went for a slide when I did my track day last year... coincidence??)

Mmm, no. It just makes your stance more comfortable and natural, imo, by neutralizing some of the forward lean built into your boot. I find it increases your range of motion. If you want to REALLY get forward, try a flat front foot. However, I find this to be a quick way to burn out your front quad, and that it locks you into that forward position. But many people prefer a flat front foot. They would probably be too deep for a normal board. And it's a bummer to see four little pimples poking out of your base under your binding.

With Rossi off Honda, now we'll see who REALLY makes the fastest bike! I couldn't get those links to work.

Assuming the AASI is talking about softboots (pretty safe bet, eh?), I believe it is not possible to significantly torque the board simply by turning your upper body into the fall line while wearing softboots. Or for that matter, doing anything else you'd normally do while riding in softboots. Even in hardboots, it takes a deliberate, unnatural effort to deform the board with your legs while riding it. Putting heel lift and toe lift in your bindings is a good thing because it makes your stance more natural, and it relieves resistence to your effort to face forward. It <i>might</i> relieve some stress on the board, but very little - a barely significant amount in hardboots, and no appreciable amount in softboots. (imo, I have no data) The idea that a rider can somehow manipulate the board to their benefit by moving their knees around is a farce. It is an old concept that Burton tried to capitalize on with their "rider responsive flex" design in the early 90's. You won't find them talking about that anymore. They thought that people like Craig Kelly and Kieth Wallace were making their boards carve tighter by jamming their knees together, which is a physical impossibility. Even if you could warp the board with your knees, it would only reduce the board's ability to perform as designed. -Jack

That's not how it works. There is a matrix of some of the possible combinations here: http://www.bomberonline.com/JackM/td2matrix.xls Just reading from the matrix, at say 55 degrees on the 3 degree disc, you could have 1.93 degrees of outward cant AND 2.3 degrees of lift. To determine your exact cant and lift angles at your binding angles, use this formula: cant = (disc slope) * sin(disc angle - binding angle) lift = (disc slope) * cos(disc angle - binding angle) True, the adjustments are not independant. However for smallish changes in binding angle or disc angle, your lift angle does not change very much at all. I would say 2 degrees of outward cant is a lot, but your legs may very well need it. Even then you're only losing 0.7 degrees of lift. Nearly impossible to say. The 3/6 combo will simply allow you to use a wider stance than the 0/6. Personally If I wanted a change, I would probably go for 3/6 just because I use 3/3 now and I know I like some toe lift on the front foot. The way someone else was using the measurements 4mm and 5mm, he was talking about hex key width. You can get longer screws either from your hardware store or Bomber. You should always find out for certain what length screws should be used with your board. You can assume that the standard screws provided with Bomber bindings will work in "normal" boards, which the Madd is not because of the extra topsheet. -Jack

The TD2s can be set up for outward cant, very easily. In my (biased) opinion, TD2s are easier to experiment with because all settings are easily quantifiable and repeatable. There was another thread comparing the two bindings here. -Jack

Yes, it was Beckman's idea, which I posted here (with disclaimers). I actually used TD1's with nickels in a similar role as your washers, for years with no problem - and I didn't even use longer screws. I did tighten the heck out of 'em though. Sorry to hear it! Glad I made the disclaimers!! -Jack

4 hole.

Although he does both, it looks like he prefers pushing from the left side of the board, which would make him a goofy. So, even a dog knows which way is better! :p

yup, ordered my subscription before issue 001.

everybody knows that goofy-footers carve more perfectly.

I hope you stick around. Your mags were the best. I had a subscription to TWS for a good number of your years before they turned it into Vogue. It was truly inspirational to me as a young snowboarder. Snowboard Life was even more excellent, I loved the carving how-to's by Melhuse, Jacoby, Fawcett, etc. Snowboard Journal seems to have rekindled part of the fire, but I have yet to see any carving there. On the cover it says "Snowboarding for Everyone". Let's hope. -Jack ps- sweet guitars, I'll have to make do with my Taylor for now.

oops, forgot to say they're standards (non step-in). and oh all right, I'll throw in shipping to the 48.

pretty much the same analysis applies.

Isn't that a Bob Joe Signs original?

All true, agreed. I am giving Karol the benefit of the doubt because, well, he's Chris Karol. I am assuming a lot to post the picture, 1, that this picture represents the whole turn well, which it very well may, and 2, that people know who he is. If anyone doesn't know, he's a true veteran, among the ranks of Mark Heingartner, Andy Coghlan, etc, and a product of the ice coast. Why I think it's "perfect" technique. I didn't go into this at first because I wanted to see if anyone was interested. Keep in mind there is a difference between technique and style. Here ya go. His hips are down and in and facing I'd say about 1 o'clock (nose of board = 12). His edge angle is a result of his hips being dropped into the carve. His shoulders and head are level - this improves balance. He is not bending at the waist towards his toeside edge. He is not reaching for the snow. His upper body is stacked over his c.o.g. It is not folded over the nose of the board. This also improves balance. This position is just generally "natural". He is poised and ready for anything, he can absorb terrain with his knees and ankles while keeping a quiet upper body. In this position all options are open to him. He could draw the carve out and maybe lay one out, or he could snap a quick cross-under transition from the waist down and instantly be in good heelside position. When you aren't rotated towards the toeside edge, you can make quick edge changes with the ankles and knees, and be in heelside position in much less time. Also, when you are turned towards the toeside edge, you are more prone to bend at the waist and reach for the snow if your balance is disturbed. Now of course there are plenty of people who don't ride like this, and go for more style. They can have a lot of fun and look great, and make their style work very well - in many cases just as well. That is fabulous, but it is irrelevant. My point is that someone learning to carve should try to emulate perfect technique rather than cool style. I said in another thread that learning to carve is like learning a musical instrument. It is possible to get very good and have a lot of fun relatively quickly by learning the basics and then just learning to play songs. But true mastery comes from learning the theory first and developing your own style second. -Jack

Just don't fight the equipment, don't take your first run on anything above a green circle, and you'll be fine. Be sure to try The Norm to get started!

what did you get for an engine? I've always thought it would be cool to drop a motorcycle engine in a kit car. Something nasty like an R1 or a 996cc V2, so you could roll down "the strip" snapping the throttle!

Tim, "laying it out" is far from perfect technique, it is a stunt we do for fun when conditions allow. There's nothing wrong with Karol's arm. Keep in mind you're talking about a guy who was snowboarding during the Carter administration.

There is more to this site than this forum. This idea gets proposed at least once a season here, and nobody ever runs with it, at least not very far. Unfortunately not enough people would step up to the plate. Did you know that the Bomber article archives are open to any qualified hardbooter/writer to contribute to? Of course the material must pass muster, but there's nothing stopping a lot of people here (I could name names) from doing what I do. I count 7 different names in the Tech Articles archive, and only one active one. Also in 6 years BOL has attracted, I believe, zero advertisers. :-/ Actually, www.raceboarders.com shows promise too. It's very witty and provides more of a "lifestyle" perspective. -Jack

I thought the 170 had an 11.2m radius??

Two 3-degree discs, your choice of e-ring hardness. $250 -Jack

These boards are worth it.

on the shelf with the underwater basket weaving magazines. Snowboard Journal is the closest thing out there.

Is that a Conshox on that board or just graphics?