bumpyride

Like new condition. Nice for laying out the turns. Just too many boards around. Used sparingly amongst 20 other boards. 160 length, 20 waist, 251 nose and tail, 9.62 sidecut.

I have a 173 180s. Top sheet has some epoxied nicks. Bottom has a pencil line or two, but never been ground so edges are complete. Board has been sitting here for 5 years because I'm almost always off piste. Still stiff and lots of camber. Let me know if that's the board you're looking for, and I'll send pictures.

Heck, I'd go along with that and only ban the skiers that don't do the bumps, and I'd keep the 1/2 dozen Burton Ultraprimes that I already have. That way I'd have someone to board/ski in the bumps with, and leave the groomers for the rest of you guys. Actually I really like my current quiver and I don't think I could break all of them before I croak. I really only ride the Ultraprimes, unless it's a powder day, over 6", or I'm stuck in Duluth on 500' of Vertical. Burton 156 Ultraprime (bumps, steeps, & off piste) Burton Coil 162 for 6" to 10" O'Sin Swallowtail/Burton Fish over 10" And maybe a metal something when I get too old to go off-piste. You know when something works really well for that designated task, why change? Best thing to do is stockpile.

F2 plates

Just goes to show that the old saw, "A good pool player can shoot with a broomstick", holds true for snowboarding.

Best thing for trimming the covers is the break-away blades that are 1/4" wide. They following the contours well and remain sharp fairly long. When they start to dull shift positions or break a couple of segments off. Stanley and Irvin make a pretty good knife to hold the blades.

Just looked up Burton EST. Didn't realize it was just a 2 hole system. Don't know if I would be confident riding just two holes. At least with 3 if you have a failure you have 2 left. Plates would scare me with only 2 screws, no tripod affect for stabilization in more than 1 plane.

I used the Carrier bindings for 10 years and never had a blow out. Another guy Chris who must weigh close to 200 has had the same experience. Carrier bindings are more forgiving and don't transfer energy the same way stiffer bindings do. Your idea, I think is very good.

It's really not all that difficult. What I did was lay the F2 baseplate over the Burton 3 hole pattern. Then looked at which position was the least invasive and ground out the first hole only about 1/16". Then put a screw in that hole and marked out the others that you can see with little blue ink marks, and only removed what was necessary to get the next screw in and repeated for the others. Then I drilled the center hole and elongated the cross shaped slot where the cover plate goes into, and was able to get a couple more positons out of it. Haven't had any problems, and the plate once screwed down has never come loose.

Used a rotozip tool with a little grinding bit and removed almost nothing gave me 6 different disc positions per set of 3 hole. Some of these were able to actually get 4 screws in the 3 hole sets. Hope this helps you out. Did this to 9 sets of bindings and no failures or deflections.

The maximum force that the smallest area of the tibia can take is 1:6£103 bars times 105 N/m2 per bar times 3:2 £ 10¡4 m2 times 2 (for two legs) is Fmax = 1:0£105 N. If we take Fmax = Ffloor when the tibia just breaks, and solving for h=¢h, we get (h=¢h)max = 173 . So, if you don't bend your knees (take ¢h = 1 cm), you will break your legs jumping from only 1.7 m. If you bend your knees 0.5 m, your leg bones may survive a leap from 87 m! (Please don't try this yourself though!! This problem considers only damage to bones{ in fact other tissues in your body could get damaged in a fall from a height of more than a few meters). And if you are falling into something soft and cushiony, or into water, ¢h (and ¢t) are relatively larger. Parachutists are trained to maximize time and displacement of impact when landing by crouching and rolling. And compare a dive to a belly-°op: small ¢h and ¢t during the collision ) hurts more! The more that I boil down the poll, the realization that what I'm really looking for is ratio of tib/fib knee breaks and tears in the ride mode compared to ankle tendon, knee breaks and tears in walk mode. I made the assumpiton that if a boot was able to transfer an amount of stress fro the leg by being able to flex, that it might mitigate leg breaks to some extent. The unknown was how many people have been injured in the walk mode compared to the ride mode. Obviously the MIT study about tib fib compression breaks is not totally relevant, but I would chose to use this until a study came to light disputing my assumption that it takes far less force to cause a break when the leg is allowed to bend. Back to the straw that broke the camel's leg. I also saw a study about ski boots and injuries pertaining to knees and tib/fib breaks at the boot cuff and how much they have increased with higher and stiffer boots where the leg was locked in place. Of course there were other injuries with softer/shorter boots, but not of the same kind. So far I've only broken ribs, that wasn't particularly pleasant and those healed, and now have a bunged up shoulder that will never quite be the same until they can figure out hot to get some teflon in there. Soft tissue injuries may be much harder to heal. Snaping my leg at the boot cuff scares the heck out of me, and even though it may be worse, I haven't been as afraid of an ankle injury. That's another reason for the poll, I wanted to see how prevalant injuries in the walk mode were. I couldn't even imagine trying to get anywhere with bottom half of my lower leg flapping in the breeze and at a 90 degree angle. So anyway, now I'm starting to form some opinions, none of which (so far) will change my riding. Truth be told--Really let's face it, we're all looking for validation for our opinions, but altruistically I'm still hoping that this will help all to make more informed decisions.

Couldn't figure out why last year my riding was less controlled, until I spread my bingings back to where they were the year before (another inch wider).

Perhaps hyperbole would have been a better choice of words. In the scientific sense it would not hold up, and it never was intended to be a totally scientific experiment. I really wasn't about to use it for my Doctorate Thesis, but then how would you have a scientific experiment to prove/dispprove what has actually occurred. I couldn't think of a better tool to at least shed some light on this rather than pure hyperbole by people who have not actually been involved with both types of riding The point is for anyone riding to have a better overview to make a rational decision. No one has quantified any results to date, and that was the goal. I would encourage everyone to try and get as much input as possible. In a smaller sampling the correlation may have a less accurate result so vote. Personally I feel the more information that a person can obtain, allows them to make a much more informed decision on how they ride. It was getting tiring reading people who basically had no basis for their remarks, unless they had actual experience. I always question opinions when they are stated as facts. When asking questions I most always ask "Do you know this or are you just guessing, or do you know for sure?" It's very surprising how many retorts are "I think". I always compliment anyone that says, "I don't know", and tell them that's a much better answer than pretending they know. At least the poll gives people a chance to answer in an anecdote of personal experience . If the poll garners large enough numbers, I would hope that people might use it to guide their final decision, whatever that may be. yyzcanuck Thanks for making your points, they have been taken seriously. Again please vote.

OK, you win. Does it make it any less valid?

I wouldn't totally agree or disagree with that. Anecdotal: Definition, pertaining to, marked by, or consisting of anecdotes. Anecdote" Definition, a short narrative concerning a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature This poll only asks for facts, not narratives. Narratives are placed within the thread, not the actual poll. Obviously we have to rely on personal observations from parties that are involved with the results we're looking for. I don't believe anyone is going to fund a scientific experiment with such a small cross-section of the populus. We're systematically asking all 7000 members of BOL to give us their experiences. We cannot make everyone who Hardboots answer a long questionaire, so we're taking a sampling. Sampling is a valid way for taking a poll, subject to variations. How they assign varaibles-I don't know. Seemed like the best way to get away from opinions and at least cross-section results.

Found this while looking for the force required to break the tib/fib. Only applies to landing a jump, but I figure you could extrapolate a reasonable guess how much more you can absorb when you leg is allowed to flex forward. Scroll down to the last paragraph or two if you're not a techno wonk. jumping.pdf

Were you ascending or descending?

Troublemaker! You're one of those guys that are lucky enough to be in uncertain waters on the poll, although you do ride in the walk mode, and the poll was started to see how what percentage of people that use the walk mode are injured, so use your best judgement.

I would agree with that. The next question would be, "What's the bone structure like with that heavier rider. Good bone density, heavier weight will be able to flex a stiff boot and not suffer any consequences,(up to a point) but what about those guys with the big beer belly and bird legs. Which mode would actually be better for them--I'm guessing the right BTS would be the answer there.

Hey Galen, Glad it wasn't too serious and I can understand the concern. Was really wondering why it let go. Were you just going down the slope, or landed a jump or hit a bump. It apparently didn't fall into the "serious injury" category. And, depending on circumstances, may have prevented something more. That's kind of why I said boot failure doesn't count unless there was a serious injury. I always figured that if something took a measure of force to break it, if the force was disapated it perhaps wouldn't break. You know that old saying, "The straw that broke the Camel's leg". I've heard of a couple of guys breaking their legs at the boot cuff. Stiff immobile boot vs. stiff immobile tib/fib, which breaks first, whereas boot in walk mode has a certain amount of flex which dissapates the intial force on the tib/fib, and that of course can put more force on the tendons in the foot and ankle areas. Thats the reason for the poll. I want to see the actual percentages of serious injuries in both modes. I started out with Burton Torque (3 strap) bindings. I was continually hyperextending my ankles when hitting the troughs in the bumps. That's why I went to try hardboots. Since then, I've never hyperextended again. I've hit a spot where I've completely folded the nose on my up 90 degrees to the slope, and barely felt it in my leg in walk mode. I'm firmly convinced that if I had been in ride mode I would have broken my leg. So I'm trying to find out what's actually happened to others who ride and have had injuries in both modes.

I'm gonna guess walk mode. It would allow forward movement. Not sure if there was a designated walk along with a powder or powder was in lieu of the walk, so unless somebody has a more definitive answer file it in the walk mode.

Could you explain what happened and what caused it? Front leg or back?

Agreed 100% that any help would be appreciated. I did try and take into account all riders with no. 1 and 4 options on the poll. I realize that there will be an inherent flaw in the results simply because not every one on BOL will answer, and I find it difficult on how to resolve which kind of riders would be more likely to answer. It's a crap shoot and I tried to be all inclusive, but results are totally dependent on as many riders participating as possible. The nice thing about the poll is the percentages can be fairly quickly analyzed. If you take the total number of each separately (Walk-Ride) and do the division within that class (Total of injured and uninjured/injured) if you have a large enough sampling, you should be able to justify results. Get your friends and family to answer the poll. We have over 7000 members I think.

Actually I'm just trying to see how many boarders have actually suffered the injuries in the walk mode compared to the ride mode-not what could happen. Just trying to separate the "could happens" from the "did happens" I'm guessing if enough people actually respond to the poll then we may get a somewhat accurate assessment of which is more dangerous. Not trying to tick anyone off, just want some stats.

This is exactly why I thought the poll was necessary. If it didn't cause an injury it's exempt. I really wanted to be able to tell how many people (not equipment) have been injured in the walk mode, and get an idea if there's any drastic differences in %'s Everyone has their own ideas, I am just looking for facts on injuries. Vote.