NateW

Where's the proof of misadjustment? I don't see it.

Nice board, Al. That diamond-plate topsheet is great.

I've heard of broken Bombers so I know it's possible. If I knew of something stronger, I'd ride that instead. But Intec Bombers haven't failed me yet, so I continue to recommend them. The Burtons that let me down were 100% metal. I don't remember the model name. Old-school 5-hole bolt pattern. I really liked the design, they had some flex built in, but in a way that looked pretty strong (and probably was pretty strong) but the bails bent too easily.

I know what my problem is... Most of my binding failures have been from park riding, hitting a mid-sized jump with a little bit less speed than I should have, thus landing on the 'knuckle' rather than the steeper landing slope. (This is something I never do deliberately, but accidents happen.) I separated the top and bottom parts of an all-metal Nitro bindings, then ripped the screws out of the (metal) baseplate, then gave up on those. Bent the crap out of some Burton bails (similar scenario but smaller size - that one happened in moguls). Switched to Bombers and Cateks. Had similar issues when I was running bails (TD1, Catek WC), but never actually bent or broke the bails. Switched to intec and haven't had a problem since. Never had an issue "just riding" or even "just carving" except once when I was trying to find the right spacing between the toe and heel with bail bindings. If you run too tight, the boot sole deforms and this contributes to surprise release. Intec satisfied me, but Fintec made me very happy.

After breaking one binding, and cartwheeling down the hill with one leg out, and knowing that there's a more robust product available... would you replace the part you've already proven isn't strong enough? Maybe once, but not twice. I'm sure there are plenty of people who ride less robust bindings and don't break them, and it's great that they have more affortable options that meet their needs. For those of us who have broken too much already, Phil said it best: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=265873&postcount=20

...which is another reason I ride intec, and more recently, fintec. The heel blocks seem stronger than bails, and there's relatively little stress on the toe bails so I don't worry about those at all. The aluminum heel do blocks wear out, but at least that's a problem that you can see coming well in advance.

Yes. I've broken all-metal bindings from Burton and Nitro, and flailing down the hill with one boot loose is terrifying. Whatever advantage the F2s might have, it's not worth it to me if the bindings are any less strong. How often to the pros break bindings? I vaguely remember hearing about a top-tier PGS rider with a large collection of spare parts for Burton bindings.

I don't know what racers see in those other bindings. I'm am sure there's something - I'm sure they've made informed decisions. Conventional wisdom says it's about flex, and that seems plausible enough. However it's not worth it to me. I got tired of breaking bindings a long time ago, but TDs have been good to me. I'm honestly afraid to ride anything that looks less robust. When I see racers on bindings that look as robust and reliable as TDs, I'll consider riding what racers ride. Until then I'll be riding TDs because they inspire more confidence that anything else I can find (Cateks being a very close 2nd).

I wonder what would happen if a big-name rider did a short segment on hard boots in a video from Mack Dawg or Matchstick or whoever, and said a few positive words about it. And I don't mean carving, I mean ripping everything on an all-mountain alpine board. Seems to me that's the kind of publicity that would change kids' attitudes. I don't expect to ever see it happen, of course. :)

Sanchez, I can help you out too. I ride Stevens, I'm hoping to get up there every weekend and quite a few Wednesdays too. Maybe on a weekend before the snow falls, but my weekends are pretty booked right now. A couple tips in the meantime: I've heard that if you multiply your inseam measurement by .6 you get a pretty good starting point for stance width. That also agrees with my inseam and stance width, so I like that guideline. :) Angles on Trench Diggers are very easy to adjust on the hill, you just need the right hex key. I usually carry one just in case. Stance width only takes a couple minutes with the same hex key. What kind of trouble are you having with the setups you've tried so far?

When I got my first proper alpine board, skidding was kind of hard at first. It was the same length as the freeride board I was on before (and it was an all-mountain alpine board, so the edge was only slightly a longer) but felt like I had an extra two feet of edge working for me. Which is probably about right... the tip and tail of a soft board won't bite much, but with a stiff board, the whole edge is working for you. It only took a day or so to get used to keeping the board flatter for skids, and pretty quickly it just became normal. Alpine boards skid to a stop the same way freeride boards do, you just have to make finer adjustments. Now when I ride a soft board, that feels weird.

I thought UPZ were going to feel weird, but in fact I can barely feel the difference. With Raichle boots I was riding 3 degree cants front and rear, and was originally think about getting a 6 degree cant disc for the front and 0 rear with UPZs, but after I actually rode them I dropped that idea, and I'm still riding 3/3 with no plans to change. I guess I'm less picky than I thought I would be. Your mileage may vary. Raichle boots have some forward tilt to them as well - less than UPZ, but more than a ski boot.

Must. Have. One.

I have moderately wide feet and that's half the reason I prefer UPZ to Raichle. The other half being my scrawny ankles. I have no idea about the stiffness of the shell colors. I use Fintec heels, t-nutted, with the stock screws holding the toe ledge on.

^ What he said...

I like Ecto, the flaming bird, and the metal ones very much.

Tex already posted what I was going to say about T-nutting. My UPZs fit my feet WAY better than Raichle 324s or AF600s. It just depends how closely your feet resemble the feet that were used to design the boots. I want to buy another pair of UPZs so I can get rid of the 324s that I'm keeping for backup. I wasn't pleased with the stiffness of the UPZs at first, but then I learned to accept it, and now I wonder why I rode those floppy 324s for so long. :)

I'm pretty sure I have boards set up like this, I think it's fine.

If that's your back foot, and the nose is to the left of the photo, then I'm guessing you'll be fine. (EDIT: I was talking about the original photo.) I like a centered stance too. "Keep your weight forward" seems to be the #1 piece of advice in snowboard instruction and I think students and instructors alike could spend a lot less time worrying about keeping your weight forward if they just moved their stances forward in the first place. :)

I just stumbled on a ski maker's site that reminded me of this conversation... http://on3pskis.com/?page_id=50 sidecut length - rocker length = running length Close enough, anyway.

You have a good point in #2 there. I had assumed that we'd measure effective edge with the base flat, and therefore a 'new school' board would get an effective edge measurement significantly shorter than a traditional board of the same overall length. Like 30-40cm shorter maybe? But yeah, if it's measured with the board on edge then it would be in the same ballpark, perhaps a bit longer. So it looks like either the FLC line has the same profile as the WCR (with new sidecut and taper), or those specs were copy-pasted with tweaks to the sidecut row.

These boards have the same effective edge length as the WCR boards, so I'm guessing they don't have the "decambered" tip and tail that the NSR, Kessler, etc, are using.

If you haven't had your board detuned, try it. It helps a lot.

:lol: Well played!

Am I the only one to whom the post above seems like a pretentious non-answer? Let me try: Because accidents happen, especially under stress. If you aim at someone to "intimidate," and you flinch (suppose it startles you when he drops everything, or turns to run away) then you may be in the position of having shot someone without legal justification.