bumpyride

Another really good point.

No disagreement here, although I think the fox shock should be plated in "GOLD" for a little extra "BLING". I do believe it would be safer to have BTS installed for all, but walk mode would work for some also. After riding for so many years in the walk mode with my particular boots, it works quite well, so I'm not inclined to change just to change. Of course driving without seat belts works quite well till you have an accident. But then I've had several accidents while in the walk mode that saved me from going over the handlebars and snapping my leg.

QUOTE=zoltan;247958]Think about it this way, a boot crashed in walk mode will collapse until it hits the plastic stops, at which the stops will either hold or break. Therefore the two possible outcomes are: - If the stops hold, then you've essentially crashed with a locked boot, since the adjuster is now "locked" against the stops. Since our boots have ankle pivots, minimal energy has been dissipated until it hits the stops. Therefore, in this scenario it's no safer than a locked boot. Me, My conjecture refuting your conjecture: There is resistance as the boot travels forward to the stops which subdues some of the force, and the distance that it allows the leg to travel forward is greater which also allows the force to be minimized. A locked boot stops the leg at a greater angle and quicker which increases the force at the boot cuff, which increases the chance of a snapped leg. Z - If the stops break, then you have an uncontrolled collapse of the boot, which is not a good thing. You're going to run a high risk of tearing your ankle, snapping your leg at the cuff when the boot bottoms, or snapping your leg over the plastic in the instep. Me: If there's a risk of snapping your leg in the walk mode where the boot has flexed forward would there not be a greater chance of snapping it in the ride mode where there would be even greater force applied at the boot cuff? Then we also haven't even thought about factoring in heel lift which would change the pivot point. Z At the least, for the experience of people on here who've blown the stops and not caused significant damage, you're going to have a sore ankle. Therefore, in this scenario a locked boot is safer. Me: I'd rather have a sore ankle than a broken tib-fib any day. How is that safer? Granted torn ligaments etc. are sometimes harder to heal than a break, but it's up for debate where you will suffer torn ligaments, and not to hard to discern when you snap a leg. Z Just because it hasn't bit you yet, doesn't mean it's safe. It just means you haven't been bit yet. You probably have your short height and low weight to thank for that. Me: I'm not height challenged, I'm 5'9", although I will say that I do have a low weight. If it hasn't bit me yet, and I'm relatively certain that it has prevented me from breaking a leg, I would have to say I feel it's safer. Z If you want to ride in walk or powder mode, be my guest, but it's wrong to tell people it's just as safe or safer than riding with a locked boot or a BTS. Me: For me, I figure it's safer, though I wouldn't say it's safer than riding with BTS, although I would say it's safer for people to ride with a BTS than a boot locked in Ride mode. You know life is not always in absolutes. Lots of gray areas. I do feel that it's safer, and I stand by that till proven otherwise. I would venture to say that riding in the walk mode being dangerous will not be sustained by discourse without facts.

I'm actually a Minnesotan (Duluth) by birth and fall somewhere in between, and maybe I am a bit of a lightweight (5'9" 150 lbs). No doubt about the energy causing the problems, I think the whole thing boils down to lessening the energy to the point where it is no longer in the fracture zone of the tib/fib, and where one goes to initiate that reduction. You are to be congratulated on "heuristics". First time I've seen that used on this forum, and very applicable.

I totally agree with everything written here.

Very true, but then we do have safety belts, and Nascar has full body stabilisation (whatever that's called), and we have helmets and BTS.

The problem that I have about this argument is that people say "to me it seems". I like to have an argument that relies less on opinions and more on facts, and I don't have any more facts than you do, so it's kind of a stalemate till someone actually comes up with a good model to make a competent study, but one that takes in all the parameters. I ride in the walk mode because it allows me to absorb any rough/soft spots on the slope, and also the troughs of the bumps. It keeps me from going over the handlebars. It also allows me to be more flexible in the knees (able to move forward and aft because the fulcrum goes forward and aft, and to recover and react quicker. Believe when I say that I've tried to ride in the ride mode and to me it's not safe. Pressure on the edges doesn't seem to be a problem because your lateral movement in the boots is not affected to any great degree because the forward movement, at least not enough to put me my off edge grip. If a person looks at the way the board/boot interface works when it the boots are locked down, you're putting a hard edge just past the 90 degree mark from the slope. If you fold the nose, hit a rut. or submarine at a high rate of speed look what happens to your body. When coming to a screaming stop your upper body can bend at the waist but your knees and tib-fib will prevent your body from bending much more forward. Once the force on the cuff of the boot become too great the tib-fib takes the brunt of the force. If the boot is allowed to flex forward with increasing resistance it would prevent a hard edge at the cuff line acting as a static breaking point. You, of course could dial in your resistance with the BTS. I would encourage people unsure of the safety of the walk mode to experiment with the BTS, but what's the reason for the BTS in the first place? I guess that would be to allow forward and aft movement and keep the tib-fib under less strain. I find that I have not a problem in the walk mode, and that's 13 years of riding that way.

I'd have to definitely agree whole heartedly and yet the guy gave me a great tip, so I can't figure out where he was coming from.

Jim, I know that you're not a fan of riding in the walk mode. Pretty evident from some of your past posts. I happen to ride strictly in the walk mode and am a fan of riding in such. What I'm saying is that I'd rather have neither injury, and that has borne out in my riding. I believe that the walk mode has saved me numerous times, and that's my experience, and I'm not alone. It may not be yours, and that's OK. Had a poll awhile back open to all of Bombers Denizens, and it went like this. View Poll Results: Walk Mode Vs. Ride Mode which is really more dangerous Walk mode--no injuries 25 41.67% Walk mode--injured while being in Walk mode 2 3.33% Walk mode--would've been worse in Ride mode 2 3.33% Ride mode--no injuries 25 41.67% Ride mode--injured while being in Ride mode 6 10.00% RIde mode--would've been worse in walk mode 0 0% Voters: 60. You have already voted on this poll I think you'd be surprised at how many people do ride at least occasionally in the walk mode. Check out the numbers above, and I know the sample is small, but it is the sample, and it was open to all. I do believe that a lot of the guys around here don't like to rock the boat and sometimes hold back their own opinion especially if it goes against the grain. I don't happen to be in that group. So unless someone can definitely prove that it is inherently unsafe, it's inherently unfair to paint as dangerous.

I agree with you up to a certain point, and that's here. I think the proper way to analyze this would be to include a model to calculate the "braking" as well as the "breaking" point. As the boot and leg decelerate it lessens the force on the leg because the boot absorbs energy. I think the amount of tib-fib breaks at the boot cuff would attest to the fact the stiff interface of the ride mode acts more as a fulcrum and less as a spring. My feeling about that is if the point of failure of the legs in not reached then you don't have the break. Often times I have over extended and could swear that I would have broken my leg at the boot cuff if the deceleration of the walk mode had not been in play. The boot in the walk mode does offer resistance and does stop at a certain point, and if you flex it manually in the walk mode you can see the amount of force that it takes to get the cuff to contact the boot. I think that is the neglected aspect of the walk mode. Kind of reminds me of the fable of the willow vs. the oak. The oak strong and proud tried to stand against the storm's wind and the willow bent with the wind. The oak broke and the willow was left standing. Very apparent in a wind storm. So if one was to do a model he would have to include the rate of deceleration with a more flexible system (walk mode) to calculate how much that deceleration would temper the ultimate force placed on the tib-fib. Somehow I have trouble with the fact that there have been many clean breaks at the boot cuff in the ride mode and that would not give any evidence that the ride mode gives more flex. So I don't believe that the boot in the ride mode works as a better spring, I believe it acts as a better fulcrum than a spring. If one was to do a model he would have to test the load that is placed on the tib-fib in several scenarios and stress loads. Again if the breaking point is not reached because of deceleration then there is not break. I'm also of the opinion that when a sudden force is placed on a static position (boot cuff) it results in a greater impact than a slower force where there is a chance for it to yield. I too have folded the nose of a board and broke it. Hardly ever felt it on my shin. Coming off a headwall into trough. Sudden and forceful stop-no problem. Of course this is my opinion and certainly open to debate.

Humility is the worst form of conceit. François Duc de La Rochefoucauld.

Harsh but true.

I'll have to take exception to that, I thought I was tooting my own kazoo.

Ya you nailed it also. I can't believe that there were 7 other guys that think they're in the same category as me. Some of the Egos are hard to believe. Course I had my own "Special Bump Olympics" going. I think there's only 4 entered so far, so I only have to not be last to medal.

Man, you're back to the regular "Special Olympics".

With your avatar in mind, I'll have to change my "Special Olympic" category. Welcome to the small club with of gifted athletes.

Yeah, Rooney is the Doppelganger in this case, though Carlin was the impetus. I have to respectfully disagree. We are having a correction to the over indulgence of our society. The problem is that we over spent for stuff that really isn't worth what we paid for it. The value of the housing market was over inflated, and when there's no one around able to pay for it, the value plummets. Now it's not only the people that paid too much for it, it's the people that leveraged their supposed reserves 33 times over and then sold them, and the people that sold credit default derivatives that brought it down. It's gains in the short term that drove the economy to the brink. We should buy solid stuff, made primarily in the US so not to see any more of our money go out of the country. We need to buy stuff that will create more jobs here, and not necessarily add to the retailers that buy all their stuff from overseas. Cruel fact: A share of Berkshire Hathaway that was worth $150K is now worth $86K today, and next week if no one wants one, your stock broker will do you a favor and sell it for $1.00 so you can declare a loss. Buy US stuff that you need, otherwise you're going to add to the problem that will again manifest itself at a later date. I don't suggest that I'm a protectionist, but will say that we have to clean up our own house first. I think spending $1500 for a board is a bit overindulgent and don't ascribe to the philosophy of "if you can afford it, why not". I firmly believe that it affects all below that standard of living.

For my $.26 worth,(that's what $.02 worth costs now) this is a goodly part of the reason we're in this whole financial mess. People pay too much for stuff. Then we have to pay more for stuff to make the stuff that ends up costing more for the stuff that we really need. You used to buy a cup of joe for $.50 (I remember when it was $.10 but that doesn't count) and then latte's came along and now a cup of joe is $2.00. Prime example of more expensive stuff causing the increase in less expensive stuff. Now I'm not faulting the board builders, they have to pay for the material stuff and the labor stuff in order to sell the stuff to afford to have stuff. I have stuff, and rationalize the stuff that I have as needed stuff, but I don't have stuff just to have stuff because I would have to work more and produce more stuff to afford the stuff that's too expensive and stuff I just don't need. Look at the housing market. Bigger houses with too much fancy stuff drives up the prices on all the little houses with not much stuff. Does a family of 4 really need a 3500 sq.ft. house filled with stuff? Society tells us we have to have the really nice stuff and everyone wants the stuff that we don't have to have. Live within your means and a little smaller footprint maybe things would get back to a normal keel. Speaking of keels, does a person really need that big fancy sailboat with all that stuff. So quit buying expensive stuff just to get that little extra "bling" so that all the stuff goes back down to a reasonable level. How much extra material stuff actually goes into a 8lb. snowboard compared to an "Old School" 8 lb. snowboard. I know more stuff goes into it and the stuff costs more, but that's the point. If everything was not so "having nice stuff" dependent raw materials would go down. How about car stuff. Holy crap you can buy a decent safe care with most stuff in it for $10k new. so why do you need to spend $40k on the same size car with about the same amount of stuff (though more expensive stuff). Does amount spent on stuff dictate relative happiness. Question: How much extra is a 2500 lb.Mercedes Z class (I don't know my classes) with all that expensive stuff worth when compared to a 2500 lb Chevy Impala when the it's crushed at the scrap yard? Again I'm not blaming builders, but all this stuff ends up costing us our happiness stuff, and you can't put a price on that. I'm starting to feel like Andy Rooney, except I trim my eyebrows.

It only took me about 15 tries to figure it out. Thanks for the tip. When you said highlight, I didn't realize you had to highlight, then copy, hit the little quote avatar and then place the cursor in between the quotes and then hit paste. Works slick. Thanks again.

Did actually read the report twice-maybe 3 times and here's what I come up with. I don't think that I'm taking quotes out of context to support a bias, I'm quoting to eliminate things I think are biased and sometimes misleading. Quote: HELMET USAGE IN THE U.S. As a result of industry safety and educational initiatives, helmet usage in the United States has significantly increased over the past several seasons. According to the 2007/08 NSAA National Demographic Study: # 43 percent of U.S. skiers and boarders overall wear helmets, up from 40 percent from the year before; in comparison, only 25 percent of skiers and boarders wore helmets during the 2002/03 season; # 70 percent of children 9 years old or younger wear ski helmets; # 60 percent of children between 10 and 14 wear ski helmets; # 59 percent of adults over the age of 65 wear ski helmets; # The least likely demographic to wear a helmet are men aged 18 to 24 where only 32 percent wear helmets. Me: What this report fails to mention here is the percentages of fatalities of the same age groups. Quote: Notably, helmet usage increases with the skier's ability level. Only 26 percent of beginners wear helmets, 38 percent of intermediates wear helmets while 55 percent of advanced skiers and riders wear helmets. Me: This is part of an explanation of why skiers and boarders that wear helmets go faster-they're more experienced and would likely be going faster and taking more risks anyway. I don't think it's fair to say people are more likely to take more risks because they're wearing helmets in general, but a goodly portion of these people would be doing the same simply because of their skill level. Injuries would of course be hard to quantify if nobody was wearing helmets, because that would be speculative. Quote: In comparison, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports only 20-25 percent of bike riders in the U.S. wear helmets. Me: This I also find disturbing. We're not dodging 2000lb skiers traveling 40+ mph on an asphalt slope with limited visibility running red lights and stops signs. Naturally your chances of being killed are greater if you're t-boned by a car than if you're hit by a 150 lbs simian snowboarder. In Seattle it's accepted that if you ride in the city, sooner or later you'll be hit by a car. You'd be foolish to ride without a helmet in hazardous conditions, not to mention how many people are riding in the single track and extreme terrains because of the advancement of equipment. In general I'd rather hit a snow covered object than a tree or rock on a single track. Quote: SKIING AND SNOWBOARDING REMAIN A REMARKABLY SAFE SPORT Skiing and snowboarding are no more dangerous than other high-energy participation sports. The sport has some inherent risks, but overall the sport enjoys an excellent safety record. During the past 10 years, about 39 people have died skiing per year on average. In fact, the number of skiing or snowboarding fatalities (per million participants) is less than the number of fatalities from swimming or bicycling. According to the most recently available data from 2006, there were 2.07 skiing/snowboarding fatalities per million participants, whereas there were 29.4 bicycling fatalities per million participants, and 72.7 swimming fatalities per million participants(1). We are extremely proud of our industry's safety efforts. Me: Here's where the stats are misleading. Per Participant. What you actually need for a breakdown of relative safety is what they use for truckers/cars and that would be miles driven. Same thing would be for skiers/bikers/swimmers/people flying kites in an lightning storm. That is hours on the slopes/on bikes/in the water/seeing if lightning is really electricity. I notice that they don't mention how many injuries are treated at the large resorts e.g. Vail, per day. I've heard mention that 50 to 75 people are seen per day there, but I don't have that fact at hand. Quote: Indeed, you are twice as likely to die from being struck by lightning than suffer a fatality from skiing or snowboarding(2). Me: I do believe that there's a whole lot more people exposed to potential lightning strikes per year and those are potentially much greater percentages of fatalities (something about hotter than the sun's surface). This is a stupid and self serving analogy. Quote: REVIEW OF MEDICAL LITERATURE ON HELMET EFFICACY While we promote helmet usage, the medical literature indicates that helmets have significant limitations when a skier or rider is involved in a serious accident and the increase in the use of helmets has not reduced the overall number of skiing fatalities. In fact, more than half of the people involved in fatal accidents last season were wearing helmets at the time of the incident. "Even though the prevalence of helmet utilization is rising by 4 to 5 percent per year in the U.S., there has been no statistically significant observable effect on the incident of fatality." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patterns of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 5. Me: This part also disturbs me as I won't disagree on what they're saying, but it's what they're not saying. Sure more than half the people were wearing helmets, but they fail to mention that the more experienced people are the ones that are more likely to wear helmets, and possibly be the ones that would be traveling at higher rates of speed and going where the less experienced ones wouldn't be caught dead (excuse the bad pun). They, I believe are correct that running into a tree at 20 to 30 mph and doing a cross body check into an immovable object and putting your internal organs into a blender with ribs as the blades is not going to help out your chances of surviving with a helmet, or going face first into a tree without the helmet ever coming into contact with a tree,but what about those injuries that are not reported because they are not injuries because a helmet was worn? Let's look at this another way. Take an egg and lay it on a counter. Take a knife and give it a rap, and see how easy it is to break it. Now take an egg and put a piece of foam underneath it and on top of it. Take the knife and see if the same rap will break it. I think not. By the way this experiment is best done around breakfast time and skip the bacon. Quote: Indeed, the most recent review of helmet efficacy in ski accidents concludes that "the salutary effect [of helmet usage] was limited to the less serious head injuries, such as scalp lacerations and mild concussions." Id., at p.3. "[N]o significant effect noted for the more serious head injuries such as concussions more severe than mild, closed head injury, skull fracture and death due to head injury." Id., p. 3. Me: What's not mentioned here is really not statistically able to be quantified. How many severe concussions are saved or downgraded to mild because of the use of helmets. We don't have the facts on our recent headline Natasha Richardson. She was taking a lesson on a beginner hill, and that's all we know. Very ugly thing and it may well have happened to me on my worst fall (backwards fall on an icy cat track at about 2 to 3 mph which dented my helmet and rang my bell a bit, but the only serious damage was my sense of humor and reasoning). Quote: As the medical literature stresses, "[m]ost fatalities appear to occur under circumstances that are likely to exceed the protective capacity of current helmets designed for recreational snow sports." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patterns of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 8. It is true that the most common primary injury in ski and snowboarding fatalities is some sort of head injury - approximately 60 percent of ski fatalities are head injuries(3). However, it is critical to place this into its proper context. "While some sort of head injury is usually the first listed cause of death, most of the fatalities also involve multiple, or secondary trauma sites; single causes of death are not common." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patters of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 2. Me: Exactly what you should be reading between the lines. Another thing that they are failing to mention if the number of people killed on piste or off piste. New equipment has now opened terrain for many more people than previously. Fat skies and powder specific boards have accessed the new terrain to a huge number of people that weren't able to go off in those conditions/areas. The ramifications of venturing out in these conditions can be much more severe, and exposing more experienced (and higher percentages of helmet wearers) to potential danger. So do statistics tell the truth? Yes Do statistics lie? Yes Are statistics helpful? Yes Are statistics harmful? Yes Should all statistics contain codicils that fully explain the nuances of the study? DEFINITELY YES. I think this study is deficient in many aspects. It's still a study that can be helpful if you really read between the lines. I feel it's most deficient in the way that it dismisses the ability of helmets to prevent injuries in general. There's a lot of injuries that are not realized when wearing a helmet and it does not address those sufficiently. What do I take out of this study? Wear a helmet at all times on the slope. PS, Can anyone tell me how to get multiple Quotes in shaded print into the thread. Never learned that one.

I know there's a couple of you out there, and someday we'll maybe meet. Actually this was a cry out for help.

Personally I don't know another boarder, aside from my son, that stays in the bumps 90% of the time (though I know there's a few others), I had to put in Olympic/World Cup because I'd be in my own "Special" Olympics. (Special not as mentally/ physically handicapped-if being 60 is not considered a handicap-way)

Well the Pope says using Condoms increases disease so naturally wearing a helmet will increase accidents. How can you refute God's Messenger's Logic? Too bad we pay for the side effects in both cases.

But I'll still take fun over worrying about what board is best, as long as I can have fun on the boards I have (which I do).

Brad, I'd suggest you try different angles in bumps and crud. My angles are determined mostly on my natural body physics. I've tested this many times, and it comes out to work best where my body is the most balanced. This is my test: Find a moderate grade hill where it's iced up significantly enough to get a good long slide in your street foot gear (tennis shoes, hiking boots etc). Take a running start and slide with your shoulders pretty much perpendicular to the fall line. Coast to a stop and see what angles your feet are pointed. Mine invariably end up at 66 degrees front and 45 degrees rear. This gives me the greatest platform to be able to balance front to rear, side to side. This is much like a martial arts stance, where you have to be able to go in all 4 directions. This is where my feet go. It may not be that way for anyone else, but I don't think it varies much. In bumps and crud, and even on a groomed slope, there are different planes that the board is subjected to, and you must accommodate or adapt to. When you're in a perfectly balanced position you're most able to make the differences in steerage and regain you centered position, and continue on your way. Now everyone is different, and what's good for me is not the norm, but it works and works really well. Nearly all the people I've taught have been set up on a modified (45-30) derivative of this. 90% of those have been able to link a couple of turns within the first 2 runs down the bunny hill, so I feel pretty confident in suggesting that you try it. When I first started out snowboarding, I took a screwdriver and changed my angles every other run till I found out what felt the best. 55-40 is about where I ended up the first year (I knew early on I was never worried about riding switch). Subsequent years have put me at 66-45 for quick edge transition. Just a suggestion.