Neuffy

...He just needs to make H.264 HD available.... Then it'll be the same wine.

Actually, you want your plate binding to be at the _correct_ tightness, not just ultratight. Overtightening (as I did...once) results in the toe clip not fully engaging, and it can easily get caught/flip off. By overtightening, I mean having the length of the plates set as though your boot is shorter than it actually is. But yeah, the first day of hardbooting is an awesome memory to have. The first hard carve that I got stuck in is my most vivid memory of that day (just season before last...).

What about a snowboarding variation on the Salomon hybrids? Actually, are those decent for skiing either? I'm considering getting a pair for my girlfriend, who will be starting to ski this winter.

Ah, so you fold the nose...yeah, that would make sense. Alternatively, you could have the board skid out from under you and slam into the ground directly, with essentially no downward dissipation, which would suck. (Although on the note of folding the nose, I am ever so grateful that my Coiler for all my intents and purposes cannot fold its nose.)

I've gotten _way_ better at freestyle since switching to hardboots. I no longer have to fear snapping my rear ankle on landing (over-flex). Then again, I was at somewhere 40+ degrees in softboots by the time I switched. With hardboots, all you have to do is make sure that you damn well HIT the landing. I think I'd kill myself if I tried to land flat, so I don't land flat. The extra control of hardboots makes it easier for me to control landings, and so I actually go way bigger now than I ever did in softboots. The other side: If you want to do rotation, then it's harder. The angles make landing straight/360 jumps a breeze relatively, but 180s are brutal. Tweaking is essentially impossible. Grabs are difficult. Again, landing flat will kill you. Although, I did something once that makes me wonder: I landed essentially flat after overshooting the landing, landed on edge into a carve and it seems to me that I dissipated the downward energy by powering the board into a very deep, very sharp carve. Went back and saw a carve that was tighter than any I've ever seen from myself. Is this a viable landing technique? Then again, take this all with a grain of salt. I'm not a park monkey at all, and far, far, far prefer natural jumps, preferably with fresh powder.

Joking. Joking. Yeah? I was trying for a tongue-in-cheek tone, and it appears that I failed. Dreadfully sorry. In any case, there are a hell of a lot of factors that influence board length. Predominantly preference, but there are a few others. For example, if I'm going to be going powderhunting in the trees (or going on a very busy slope), I'll want something a little shorter, but for pretty much everything else my personal preference so far has been for the longest possible board, as that's just what my riding technique seems to lend itself to. As near as I can tell (for freecarving at least), it's mainly preference. I can't wait to try a 200+ board...although finding one designed for someone under 200 pounds will likely require a full-on custom purchase.

Give it a few years, and we'll see. Looks somewhat promising though. Unfortunately, ATP Synthase Decouplers looked DAMN promising for weight loss back in the 20s/30s....but we know what happened with those (death, blindness, a huge number of other side effects).

Yes. Board length is based upon height, board stiffness is based upon weight. Height = Individual's height - 10 cm. I'm 186 cm tall, I'm on a 177. Almost right. :D (So...how...wrong? Am I?)

All I know is that I want a Samus (Aran) suit. If someone needs references, just mention it. Until then, I'll just have to look at getting a spine protector and hip pads. Unfortunately next summer's Europe trip is draining the budget to near-nothing this year...so :( I'm really not looking forward to my first hard from-behind collision...

Rule: 2 seconds urban, 4 seconds highway is pretty standard, although 2 seconds universal is taught a lot of places. and... Ah...I see. Yeah, the no-brake, no-slowdown, sudden lane change is nasty. Remember, though: I live in Canada. We aren't so sue-crazy here (yet...), so we don't have many "staged" "accidents".

I'd like a full face _cover_, but not a chinguard. I wear a full face helmet for cycling, because sliding on cement/asphault sucks. I like my cheek and chin skin! Well, I'll only wear the full face helmet if I'm going to have to go downhill. 60+ km/h is too fast to slide at. Snowboarding, however, I'm just too damn scared of catching in while sliding. I'd love a smooth, non-catchable full-face/head helmet though. Something space-agey and rounded. Something that actually comes into contact with your chin, forhead, everything. Just make it something that I _cannot_ catch. Actually, a question: Is there such a helmet?

Problems from non-carvers (well, usually, hopefully): - People not understanding the "blind spot" on heelside. I actually sliced a goodly portion out of someone's (new, very pricy HEAD) skis because he came _way_ too close while I was carving hard on heelside (and yes, all my turns up to that point had been predictable, uniform carves). -- People who perform large jumps without having a spotter. This is just reprehensible. You _have_ to have someone slowly go down to check the landing before you jump. Yes, theoretically no one should be in the landing from a kicker or any other terrain, but it happens - it isn't always obvious where the landing is, or that somebody would be jumping over a given terrain feature. It is the responsibility of the jumper to confirm that the landing is clear before jumping. My general policy is to _not_ say that I'm coming, but simply to pass as safely and with as much distance as is possible. (Same with biking on a bike path.) I'm just afraid that people will move the wrong way. It seems they usually do. Those below should pretty much never yield to those above, also. Yielding increases the incidence of accidents, as the those who yield will get in the way of those who are coming from behind/above, and have realigned their motion to go for the empty spot (which the yielder just moved to...). If it is a narrow trail (and I cannot get by), however, I will inform them of my presence and request that they move to one side. bullwings - um...no, just no. If the SUV is going 60 mph then why the hell are _you_ going 60 mph right behind them? Minimum 4 second interval at 60 mph, remember? No, you don't need to follow this, but it is _entirely_ your fault if an accident occurs. It is perfectly all right for me to slam on my brakes for _any_ reason, at _any_ time. It is your responsibility to not be following too closely. That wall didn't come out of nowhere...you were following too close, and going too fast. The person in the rear _always_ is at fault. Same as the uphill person on the hill. Things certainly become more complex when we add in carvers though...considering how much time we spend moving sideways on the hill...Although, if you're still on a slope, I feel that the one who is uphill is at fault, regardless (unless of course someone is going uphill....). Oh, and yeah. Straightliners are just scary, I agree.

When I was in Lake Louise we had a few "bottomless" (as in, I never found the bottom) powder days. My Coiler AM177 with 21.5 cm waist was Perfect, after I moved the bindings back. Remember, however, that I was doing a (fairly steep) bowl, not trees, so I had _speed_. I actually don't think I've ever gone so fast on a snowboard before or since. For the flatter, couple-feet-of-powder days, bindings in normal position were fine if I didn't mind leaning back whenever I wanted to fully surface.

...is the testing problem. With alcohol (a drug with a much stronger effect, IMO) you can actually do a blood test, and absolutely know if someone is drunk or not (or at least know that if they're below 0.05, they damn well are not drunk). With pot, you can't do that. With the amount of time THC stays around, it's just not testable. The only way I'll ever support legalization of pot for drivers (I think it should be absolutely legal for anybody not driving/operating heavy machinery/using a gun/etc) is if we adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" stance. Basically, if you test positive for THC, and you've been involved in an accident, or have been stopped by a cop, then you are considered to have been "driving under the influence." If people who smoke pot can accept this, then I'm fine with it being legal. Unless and until we develop a better test however, there is no way in hell it can be considered a fully legal drug. [And don't anybody start on the "But..but...pot doesn't affect my driving!" Sure, it's not nearly on the scale of alcohol, but...well, I've known some treeplanters, as well as some other people I would most certainly not want driving while high.]

Yeah, Derf. That's quite possibly the worst site I've seen in at least a year. For people who ride really, really low angles something like that would probably make sense. Once you're at 30+ degrees though, I'm not sure it's necessary. Build quality would be sorta critical, too. Here's a thought: How about a device like that, (for hardboots, likely) [two ideas, actually] Device 1: Dynamic, spring-controlled angle changes. You would have ~5 degrees shift in angles possible. No clue if this would work at all. Device 2: Insta-set binding angles. Push a button, twist into place, reset button, locked in. No tools, <5 second switches.

Err...whoops. Sorry. Yeah, the Brownian ratchet looked so nice...too bad :( A true free energy device is impossible, yes. If or when someone gets one to work, great. I'll embrace that technology wholeheartedly. But...they'd damn well better have a working demo. Actually,...hm... Anybody know anything about CoolChips? Apparently they're a peltier replacement system being developed, but I don't know if they ever panned out. Basically they use electricity to transfer head, making one side of a small plate hot, and the other cold. IANAP (I am not a physicist) but I wonder what the calculations look like for producing a heat-gradient engine that produced its own gradient using a system like this. Probably energy production would be in the far negatives, but hey. Hm...in any case, does anyone know if CoolChips panned out?

Yeah, that's basically about it. I'm not expecting anything, but if they make it work, great! Until then, they should keep their mouths shut.

Until they come out with a >0 energy output demonstration that can be externally verified, they might as well be calling it "magic." Sort of like fusion.... I have trouble getting excited about any energy source that isn't verified, considering that fusion has been "10 years away" for .. er... fifty years? There have indeed been power sources based upon angled magnets. However, the flaw is that in those cases they all demagnetized the magnets, taking the energy from this process. So...not so great there, as it takes more energy to remagnetize the magnets than you got out of them. They seem to be claiming the same thing, but without demagnetization? If Steorn can make this work, they'll make billions, at the least. But until then, there isn't much point. Make it work, and I'll buy a 5000W version (assuming it's affordable). Until then, there isn't much point in anybody getting excited. If they do have independent validation, and manufacturing isn't WAY overboard expense-wise, then this will really, really take off. But everybody's been burned so many times before, that they need to publicly prove it works, first. [Oh, and I guess I sorta agree...this is like Darwin's work. His very early work. However, evolution has been positively ratified, independently tested, etc. We know that (at least micro-) evolution works. So...when they do that to this, then the analogy works.] Edit: I just watched their demo. That's....utter nonsense. If you pull something away from a magnet using 40 kJ, you're damn well not getting >40 kJ back when you let it be pulled back. Edit2: Sinecure: That's an awesome spoofblog. One of the best ones I've seen. Fairly well done story, as well.

Sorry, I'd love to, but I've got it disassembled for the summer. (Yes, I do use the headphones sometimes during the regular year.) I'll be putting it together, probably for december though.

Um...soft boot setup? I've never seen the extremecarving guys using softboots. The ones in that video are Northwave .900s: older, BTS-style spring-backed hardboots. [unless I missed something. In that case, please correct me.] Yeah, for icy slopes, inclination will normally kill you. I finally figured that out at the end of my first year of hardbooting. However, with the proper setup, inclination is doable on ice. I used a K2 freestyle board with that serrated edge grip thing, and ... wow. I could just crank it over and never slip on ice. Too much maintainance for my taste though. For good snow though, inclination is awesome. Fully committing to the carve is one of the best feelings I get from snowboarding, if not the best. Personally, I like cross-under (quick, overflexed) and cross-through when I feel like using energy. I use cross-over when I'm lazy. Sometimes even just cross (as in, I keep my legs straight all the way through the carve _and_ the transition - only works on perfect, groomed or very flat snow). Actually, I think I like plain cross the most. With straight legs snowboarding is so easy, and you just stand there letting gravity and the hill take you down.

Goofy = right leg forward. But I step forward with my left, as that's what I do if I'm stepping into a strong kick, which would involve my right leg moving through the air. Edit: My right foot is forward while I am on a snowboard. When I am not on a snowboard, and I am pushed forward, my left foot moves forward to catch myself. Edit2: Although...for non-carving, swishy-swishy (No, I don't know another term for it, and yes, I did just make that up) I have my front (right) foot in place, and swivel my rear foot around it...

Regarding the "push someone forward and see which foot they stop themselves with" idea...it just plain doesn't work. I guess it might work if we were all more-or-less blank slates...maybe. There are a huge number of activities that will set it up so that if you are pushed forward and catch yourself with foot[1] then foot[2] should go forward. I catch myself with my left foot. I'm hardcore goofy. I think this comes from kicking. I'm much stronger with my right foot/leg, and so I put my left leg forward so that I can whip around my right foot in a horizontal snap. It would be interesting to see a chart of statistics on how people's correlation is. Eg. Right/left handed; right/left leg best for kicking; right/left leg goes up for single-foot jumping; running and sliding with one foot forward; etc. Actually, I think the foot-forward slide might work out well...can anyone with decent experience with new snowboarders confirm/deny this?

I've got a pair of headphones with the earpieces wired to the outside of the earflaps (actually, wired into the mesh grid, staying about an inch away) and the head(loop, thing that usually goes over your head)piece going through the clip at the back that also holds my gogglestrap. Basically, this means that they headphones are about 2 inches away from my ears, and I have to listen at _very_ high volumes (as in high volume settings). It also means that I can hear everything around me, no problem. This was a $10 solution, and it works for me. I guess eventually I'm going to break the headphones, but oh well.

Just to clarify (and correct me if I'm wrong) but doesn't "folding the nose" happen specifically while carving on hardpack (on piste, not in deep powder, etc)?

Oh, yeah. The AM has been working out awesomely. That, and I'm now poor. I'm going to school fulltime, going to Europe next summer, going to Latin America the summer after that...etc. No, the AM177 has just been _perfect_. Carving, powder, chop, jumps, whatever - no problems. Well, one issue. 177 is a wee bit long for tight trees. Due to said trees, winter before last (the winter I got it) I had my worst snowboarding accident on it. I was going through tight, tight trees, and I almost made it back onto the path. Unfortunately, I couldn't avoid this one last tree, so I hit it with my rear toe, knee, hip, chest, helmet. Dead stop, with me standing against the tree I just hit. Fifteen minutes later (and incidentally, 20 minutes after the lifts stopped), I'm buckling up again, and the binding had been de-configured by the impact with the tree (not that I had noticed this). First backside carve, and my rear foot pops out, and somehow the back of my upper rear arm hits the front edge of the board. Foot-long, black bruise, as well as all the other bruisings. I'm just happy I didn't break/tear/pull anything. I ended up going down 1/3 the front face of Lake Louise sitting on my board. Just sit between the bindings, hang onto the one in front of you, and control speed by creating plumes with your boot heels. So I guess I need a powder board, and a GS. (Perhaps a 200+ 16m+...one can dream. It'd just be for the -30, only person on the mountain days though ...) Speaking of burying the nose, I can't remember where, but somewhere I've got a video of a bunch of Swallowtail powderboarders attempting frontflips by dipping the nose...