Jump to content

snovvman

Member
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by snovvman

  1. Hi, similar to this idea: https://forums.alpinesnowboarder.com/topic/38945-it-worked-straight-to-plate-binding-mount/ , I am wondering if there is a way to mount the TD3 binding directly to the board without the subplate and cant disc. I understand why hard boots/riding style/narrow board requires an elevated stance, but I would like to stand closer to the board. I also have a set of Catek OS2, but it is still too high. It would be great if I can mount the TD3 directly to the board if there is a center disc that can fit in the round center hole. Any ideas or other thoughts? Thanks.
  2. Interesting... I suppose what needs to be determined is whether the foot is slipping within the liner or if the liner is slipping inside the shell. The "nastro grip", or alike, would work well for liner slipping in shell. Thanks.
  3. I can tell you that the T700 is most certainly NOT narrower. It does have more volume/space in the toe area. I just got a pair and promptly returned it because it was too stiff for my use (all-mountain, freecarve). I bought a pair of UPZ last year and returned that too. I found that, while they are nice boots, they were too stiff and lacked range of motion. The SB (325) I found are the narrowest (at least in the toe area). How old are your 325? I find that the newer thermoflex liners have a nice deep heel cup area. For that to be effective, you will need the right footbed if you have narrow feet. Take a look at http://www.yoursole.com/
  4. Thanks Mike. I enjoy the Plow but wanted a narrower board. I just bought a Steep. Cheers. Edit: Here is a thread I started some time ago asking about the specs for a Steep 164: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=19654
  5. You win. Those are pretty nasty.
  6. Presuming the bindings parts are complete, I will take it. Email on the way. Thanks.
  7. With this, I presume Catek does not come with enough short set screws to support both bindings riding in the "low" configuration? That is one element of concern. I see that OS2 addressed the repeatability issue, but it still seems a pain to disassemble and transfer when compared to a TD3. As far as I can tell, one must remove the kingpin, then the power plate, then the disc, along with all the hardware, o-ring(s), and spherical nut. With the TD3, assuming the blocks are out of the way, it's just the four binding plate screws. Is my understanding incorrect? Thank you.
  8. Thank you for taking the time to meaure. Do you have the long or short plate? On the washers, I presume they are the "spacers" as described by Catek? My understanding is that the kingpin mounts directly over the plate (with an o-ring between) and one would only add spacers to add room for cant/lift? I am having trouble visualizing how (or why) the spacer would need to be _above_ the plate. Thanks again.
  9. With my M27 224s, I've seen a couple boot fitters, have tried stretching/punching the shell, remolding the thermoflex w/ extra toe caps, use supportive footbeds, lift under the footbed, patiently waiting for it to pack out, and more. My toes are still crushed. A pair of unmolded thermoflex inside a M28 123 still felt tight, hence the move to the 700T. I'm just hoping the M28 700T won't be TOO big. I can make up for a bit by using the thick Sole footbed. What is the exact measurement of your larger foot? Thanks.
  10. Thanks for your reply. With hard boots' inherent thick sole added to an overall stack height, it is not a ride I particularly enjoy. I find that standing to the board allows me to have better board feel and control. That said, I like the TD3's suspension system and easy install/removal/transfer while the OS2's adjustability is very nice. The Bomber's extra stack height is unattractive, but so is the complexity of install/removal/transfer of the OS2. I see that you have a set of OS2s on sale. I will send you an email about that. Does Burton still make plates? Intec? I will take a look at Ibex. How is F2? Cheers.
  11. I found this thread: http://www.catek.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=112 It seems like the TD2 is 39mm from board to toe/heel block, while the OS2 is 32-33mm. I read that TD2 and TD3 have the same net stack height. Can somone please confirm that board to toe block is ~39mm? I'd much appreciate it if someone can post some 0-degree TD3 side pictures. Thanks!
  12. Thank you for your affirmations. I can't wait to try the 700T in M28. The 224 in M27 was just WAY too tight in the toe area no matter what I did. With the larger toe area, I'm wondering if a M27 in 700T would actually be better. I have now also read more than one posts that the AF/700Ts are not "small calf" friendly. I don't have huge calfs. I hope they won't be a problem.
  13. With no lift/cant, does anyone know the height of TD3 and Catek OS2 w/ D3? I looked and looked but found no data regarding how high the interface sits from the board surface. I've read countless posts comparing TDx & Cateks, but have not seen a comparison between the OS2/D3 & TD3. I know TD3 & OS2/D3s are relatively new. I like the adjustability of Cateks but I also like Bomber because it's Bomber. One factor of concern is how high (distance from board to boot) TD3s puts the rider. I like the feeling of being closer to the board and I don't know if OS2 will offer this without comparitive data. At the same time, I do like the TD3's isolation strategy. I'd appreciate any input on this subject.
  14. I modified my rear foot F2 Intec heel with lower rate main pin springs so that I can easily step in while I'm on the chair. The spring is not so weak that it causes reliability or safety problems. I am wondering if the Fin-Tec can be opened up to have the main pins springs exposed and if they can be changed to my preference. Thanks for any information. Cheers.
  15. Thank you again sir. I think I will pull the trigger on the 700T.
  16. http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=157945&postcount=13 http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=218337&postcount=20 These two posts have are from threads that made mentions. I remember seeing references in a few more places. I will look more when I have time.
  17. I am now considering the 700, having read that it has a larger toe box area. Perhaps a 28M would be just right with the 700. I am concerned about shaving a thermoflex liner and how that might affect integrity and future re-molding. Coming from a SB224, and knowing that 700T is supposed to be stiffer (but research seems to suggest that the current 700T is actually softer in flex than the 325T), I am wondering if the 700T can be as good of an all-mountain/freecarve boot as the SB224? I'd much appreciate some input on this. I am also curious about the asymmetrical flex offered by the 700T. Is it "all that"? I fail to see how asymmetrical can result in a more stiff "feel", as it is written on Bomber's FAQ. Thanks for any information.
  18. Cheers wjhom, many thanks for taking the time to write and sharing your experience and observations. I find your words very helpful. I can see how the higher cuff would result in more applied leverage when one goes to bend the boot, I can also understand how the boot/binding interface can contribute to lateral play. Having read everything, I am puzzled how the high-end boot (advertised as "racing") can be less stiff than the mid-range model. I believe it, I just don't understand it. I've read posts where some suggested that the flexibility may change at different rates along the Deeluxe line as temperature drops, yielding a stiffer overall 700T. Since all of Raichlee/Deeluxe are made from similar materials, I don't see how that can be true. All of the marketing propaganda talks about the 700 being stiff/race, even Bomber's FAQ states so, but most everyone's real-life experience seems to be the opposite. I started out looking for a new all-mountain, freecarve boot that will allow me to spend more time in the hard-boot fun: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25397 Currently on 224s, I thought 225s might be the right choice. I was also interested in the 325, but since Bomber is out of my size, and now seeing that they are [relatively] stiff, and that the 700T is actually less stiff than the 325, I am wondering if the 700 can be my new all-mountain boot? The asymmetrical flex is interesting too--color scheme notwithstanding. How did you resolve the shin-bang? Thanks again.
  19. It would appear that the color choice of these boots serves for some inherent obscelecence. That is, they look old already so you are forced to update after some time. The light gray/blue of the 225 will also date quickly, but in modern times, there is nothing that compares to the 700T. I thought the 08-09 is gaudy, 09-10 just keeps getting worse. I am considering the current 700T, but having trouble getting over the look...
  20. Thanks very much for your insight. I presume the flex you describe is forward/ankle flex? What about lateral flex and the practicality of using the 700T as an all-mountain boot? Please comment. Thanks again. Edit: Now that I'm thinking about the 700, I suppose I have to get over the white/red color combination...
  21. Thanks guys. I think my foot is more shaped like Donald Duck--fairly narrow in the rear and wider in the toe section. I commented on the on the 700 vs. SB because I read in several posts that when compared to the SBs, 700s are more "roomy" in the same size. I assumed it was because of the longer shell internals corresponding to the external length. Having just read about installing BTS on HSPs, I will give them another look. (Edit: Bomber is out of M28s!, ugh!). Were I to go with a 29, I Just don't want to be swimming in it. I heed the point about going to a boot fitter. As my next trip to a resort is indeterminate and money is burning a hole in my pocket to buy (trying to help stimulate the economy), I'm tempted to buy two different sizes and return the one I won't use...
  22. My foot measures about 278mm. In a 295mm shell SB224, with a 27 thermoflex properly fitted (toe caps during molding), molded footbed, and thinnest socks I can find, my toes hurt and feel like they are unsually "pushed" together. I can't make through the day in these boots. I have even tried shell stretching but no joy. I am looking to replace the boots. I just tried putting some unmolded 28 thermoflex into a 303cm (28) SB shell, and it still feels tight. I know they pack out, but I will actually lose a bit of room with a footbed due to the location of my heel and frontal thickness. Thing is, my feet do not have large volume and I wear normal width shoes. I have to use footbeds to properly fit into ice skates and some shoes due to low-volume. Thanks for Mike T & YYZCanuck, http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9739 I see that the 700 shells are larger than SB. Given all the above, I am actually thinking about going to a SB in size 29. Am I crazy? I know most will recommend that I go to a 28, but perhaps it won't be enough for comfort. Question: Where exactly does the Swizzle Stick™ go to make the go/no go measurement? With my foot in the boot without liner, I can barely see the plastic foot base (piece that comes off). Clearly, there is more room as I go up on the heel, but am I looking for the smallest distance somewhere along the way? Thanks for any input.
  23. Hans, thanks for your response. I found this thread started by you: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=16933 The information was helpful. Thanks again to YYZCanuck as well. It would appear that while the 700 has more forward flex (softer), but the lateral flex is less (stiffer) than the 325. Would you agree?
  24. I spent most of the morning reading old threads on this subject, and looked at YYZCanuck's site (excellent information, thanks). I was not able to find anything conclusive. Some of the pages I looked at: http://www.deeluxe-jp.com/product_alpine.php http://www.deeluxe-hardboots.com/ http://www.yyzcanuck.com/deeluxe_boot_comparison.htm http://www.yyzcanuck.com/E_tech_article08.htm Everything "on paper" seems to indicate that the 700 is stiffer. And although the 700 seems to share the same plastic hardness as the 325, I presume its structural design makes it more rigid. At the same time, I read many threads with people describing how the 325 is relatively stiff, perhaps STIFFER than the 700. I am looking for an all-mountain/freecarve boot to replace my 224 and was eyeing the 225, but I would buy the 700 if it is not much stiffer. Your input/information would be much appreciated.
  25. Thank you everyone for your input and information. My stance width is ~19.5", which is about .5" wider than my knee's center of rotation to the bottom of my heel. I tend to dial back my stance when riding soft, and go more forward when riding hard, with a fairly consistent 15-degree spread between the front and back. I still have trouble increasing the rear foot angle because I keep feeling like I want to rotate my foot "out". I understand that any "all mountain" or multi-purpose deck would be some form of compromise. One would not expect a track car that can carve turns on paved surfaces to do well in mud or snow, nor would I expect a all-terrain vehicle to turn high Gs. The same obvious logic applies to shorter/softer/wider boards versus longer/stiffer/narrower boards and their pratical applications. There is no disagreement nor confusion here with resepct to the "right tool for the job" concept. Through my years of riding, I learned what I like and what works for me: 1) Relatively narrow boards. An all-mountain board with 25cm waist is too wide for me. I like them at 24cm or less. It's faster going from edge to edge. 2) Boards with a large SCR. When I turn, I lean on the edge of the board. I don't skid. (The "falling leaf" is a great analogy). When the board has an SCR of 9.5 or less, I find the turn to be too tight. I like making larger arching turns. 3) I like stiff(er) boots that offer good toe and heel support. Typical soft boots don't work for me. Apropos to the above, I recently picked up a Steepwater and hope to try it soon. What I am mostly interested in understanding is if hard can be as good (if not better) on crud, through trees, ice, bumps, and any other non-grommer conditions as the soft set up, plank notwithstanding. I know "anything is possible" and "if one works hard enough..." But to qualify the above question, I want to know if a hard boot (standing taller, more total weight) can "function", based on physics and geometry, as well as soft under these varied conditions. For example, I don't want someone to tell me that with any tire, if you're a good enough driver, can handle snow fine. Snow tires work better than race tires on snow because of its design and construction, no matter how you slice it. I suppose it's the way my brain works. If I can understand the science, then I can apply it into action. The motivation for this, of course, is that hard boots will potentially allow me to actually ride better under all conditions AND carve hard. BTW, love this statement: "Optimus Prime is a hardbooter So is Robocop" Thanks again. Edit: I just bought the BTS. I never liked the 5-position because it did not give enough forward flex when locked and walk mode is too soft. I'm hoping that it can provide just the necessary forward lean while maintaining support.
×
×
  • Create New...