tufty

An automated email response would, at least in my book, be worse than none whatsoever, especially if the Catek boys & girls have other stuff to do to put food on the table at the moment. Knowing how easy it is to set up a payment system and not have anything else behind it, I'd personally much rather have a belated, but human-generated email. All of which is a bit irrelevant, because I can't afford to order a pair of Cateks. But if I could, I wouldn't be whinging about 4 days :) Simon

The Blast is, if you'll forgive me, a blast. More nervous than the Shine, and a much better ride (although a little unforgiving in the bumps and crud).

This.

Ummmm - whuh? I hate to go all wikipedia on you, but assertations like this are *really* {citation needed}. Helmets are likely to reduce the incidence and severity of minor head trauma, the sort of thing you get from banging your head on the hardpack. There's a lot of studies showing this, and nobody is arguing with that. But when you start talking about major accidents, smacking into trees / pylons at full chat, you're talking about the sort of accident that a helmet is *extremely* unlikely to help with. You've already stated that you ride at the speed dictated by the carve, and not the other way around. So we'll assume your speed is effectively constant with, or without, a helmet. Now, without a helmet, you are more conservative about hitting a little air. I'd say that's probably a fairly significant risk reduction, all it takes is one bad landing and you're looking at a wipeout, and the possibility of a bang on the head. Sensible enough. However, you also say youre you're more conservative about carving near hard objects, despite the fact your helmet is unlikely to save you if you do hit one at speed. Before, you said: ...which is somewhat at odds with the fact you've just stated flat out that you personally *do* take more risk when wearing a helmet.

Here's a silly argument taken from a peer-reviewd journal. You know, actual science, as opposed to "I don't believe it therefore it's not true". I don't think there's any argument that wearing a helmet reduces the direct effect of head impacts, at least when talking about minor accidents (which, thankfully, most accidents are).

Oh, you spoilsport. We haven't had a helmet "debate" for ages. Interesting report, btw. Here's a selective quote. I'm not arguing for or against that, but a little anecdote... Yesterday I was at Courchevel, boarding with a couple of friends. My board was not waxed due to a certain tit (me) leaving his rucksack at the top of the mountain the preceding day, in said rucksack being his block of wax. Conditions were about 2" of fresh powder on top of recently fallen and bashed snow - a bit too soft for hard carving, to be honest, but hey. Courchevel have a speed trap. It's on a very shallow slope (no steeper than a "bunny" slope), you go from a standing start, 50m, and are clocked at the exit. I was clocked at over 50kph (more than 30mph). That's 30mph after straightlining 50 yards, from a standing start, through powder, on a slope where it was hard to actually get moving to start with given the unwaxed state of my board. Later, we checked one of the group's GPS units. It reckoned an average of over 65kph on the slopes; this was on heavily tracked, unbashed pistes (what the locals round my way would call "trafole"; half way between powder and moguls, "mashed potatoes" if you like). I do not consider myself to be in any way "fast". And no, I don't wear a helmet. I don't condemn anyone for wearing one, though.

That's my feeling too. Take the board that is right for the job, and the boots that you're comfortable with. The weight of the bindings and boots (of whatever type) is negligible unless you're carrying the board on your back and snowshoeing up to run your favourite bit of inaccessible backcountry; when you're riding they are so close to the pivot point that you'll see more difference from whether you had a big breakfast or "coiled off a big one" before going riding. Likewise, the "lift" of plate bindings is, IMO, largely irrelevant to 99% of riders; adding lifts to soft setups is usually to provide more clearance than to provide more leverage. For me, the upside of hardboots on any board are: 1 - Comfort (YMMV on this) 2 - Control afforded by stiff boot (yeah, I know, Malamutes, yadayadayada, but see 1 above and 3 / 4 below) 3 - Control afforded by a rigid attachment 4 - Ability to run lower angles without bootout. Downsides? I don't actually see any, although I'm no park monkey so I have no idea of hardboots are good enough for park use. Get the right board, wear the boots you're comfortable riding in. If that means a soft setup and a hard setup, that's fine too.

I would argue that a soft boot setup is actually holding you back, and that what's actually more forgiving is the *board* you're riding in softies, and the way you're riding it. Riding an alpine like a freeride / softy setup is going to hurt, one way or another. Alpine planks, stiff, no-compromise boards aimed at winning races, running high angles, are horrible in mogul fields. Even worse if they have an SCR over about 9m. Expecting to have fun in bumps and crud (even allowing for the variation in values of "fun") on an alpine board is about as realistic as expecting to have fun on a swallowtail on icy hardpack. Alpine is most fun on nice, smooth, hardpack, preferably with poles jammed in it at regular intervals. That's what it's aimed at. The vast majority of "consumer" freeride boards are a horrible compromise, they need to float a bit on powder, sort of carve a bit on the hardpack (but mainly do the "falling leaf") and not look too ridiculous (doing the falling leaf) in the snowpark and boardercross. It's not a question of what type of boots you have on the plank, it's that the plank is, frankly, vile to ride. Not that the majority of "consumers" will ever notice, of course. If you want to ride crud and chop, and still be able to carve relatively hard, then get a good all mountain board. If you want to carve as hard as humanly possible, get a full-on alpine rig. If you want to ride powder, get a dedicated powder gun. It doesn't matter what the boots are : Personal choice and all that. Me, I like hardboots, even if it does mean that, in the rare times I take out the freeride board, I have to set the throttle back to 50% to avoid overdriving the board itself.

First off, I came to hardboots after riding clickers for years. I tried straps for a while, but hated them, and even clickers left me with hyperextension on the achilles from time to time - just that latter issue is enough to keep me in hardboots forever. I still find my AF700's too soft, though, so go figure. 1) I think a lot of this has to do with alpine boards being somewhat unforgiving. In bumps and crud, a hardcore alpine setup won't let you slow down (that way lies quad burn or simply being spat off for being a pussy), but isn't really rigged for churning through it either. So either you wimp out a bit, which hurts one way or another and isn't fun, or you go for it, and the chop hurts you instead. You can have it both ways, though, with a decent all-mountain board, hardboots and plates. Personally, I live with the pain of chop on a purely alpine board, and I'm looking for a swallowtail to slap plates onto. 2) Yes you do, no it won't. You may, however, never move over to "fully alpine", it's a personal choice. In response to the second part of this, I actually went out and put on my old clicker boots to see the difference with my various hardshell boots. The clicker boots, despite being fairly rigid as "softies" go, were by far the most sloppy, mainly due to being lace-up rather than buckles. Next up, my trusty SB225s, followed closely by by my AF700s, then my AT boots (Garmont Adrenalines), my Nordica N5.1s and finally the XWave 10s. Yes, I *do* have far too many boots, as my wife will testify. So, in theory, the light weight and "directness" of the clicker approach should win, but in the end the result is crappy, simply because of sloppiness of the boots (and maybe some wear on the bindings / boot clips). I certainly couldn't see myself living with clickers on an alpine board even if the boot-out issues could be somehow magically resolved. If you want "direct" in a hardboot context, you go fintec, although I (somewhat perversely) find that far too harsh a ride, I like the "slop" in my somewhat aged snowpros. 3) I don't think the mass issue makes the slightest bit of detectable difference.

****ty luck, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" I've never had a bale open up when riding (yes, I'm aware that the irony fairy is now looking at me hard), and only once when on a lift (thank the lord for leashes), and I don't personally know anyone who has. I *have* had stepin systems (on softies) do "partial engagements" resulting in foot release. I've also had insert pullout (which was "amusing", to say the least), and I know someone who rides intecs who's had total heel failure. But, as I said, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Bale release is rare, and usually* down to misengagement or maladjustment. Partial engagement of stepin systems is rare, and usually* down to poor maintenance. Insert or heel pullout is rare. Most of these are undetectable until they happen. Riding alpine gear is risky, you're often pushing your equipment towards its mechanical limits. Assume the risk. Accept the risk. Embrace the risk. You are taking a risk when you put your boots in the bindings and start off down the hill, there are potentially catastrophic consequences, and that in most cases, should the gamble not pay off, the fault is entirely your own. Simon * IMO, IANAL, YMMV, TNSTAAFL etc

I could dig out the figures, although they treat all snowboards as snowboards, might not be very relevant. The skinny is that the majority of ski evacs are knees, snowboards major in wrists, shoulders and head trauma.

It's an SB-series boot with DIN soles, much like the Free-Zone. Raichle made them for a short period (2001 only if memory serves), I'm not sure which SB-series boot it matches in terms of stiffness. I think I would probably find them *waaaaay* too flexy for skiing in, but I like my ski boots like I like my spirits - hard. Peronally, I'd get a pair of snowboard boots for snowboarding in, and a pair of ski boots for skiing in. My wife, of course, would rather it stayed as that, without the "rando boots for alpine-touring in, and , and, and ....".

Or don't hold the pole at all. Both feet strapped in, no need to hold the pole. Oh, and BTW. "Poma" (Pomagalski SA) are merely one manufacturer of ski lifts, including, but not exclusive to, button lifts, t-bars, fixed and detatchable grip chairlifts, gondolas, funiculars and cable cars. Always makes me laugh when I hear americans talking about "riding the poma" - all our lifts are made by Poma or one of their subsidiaries.

Heads are longer than the equivalent sized SB series Raichle / Deeluxes (by 12mm at mondo 28.5). Raichle's 26.0-26.5 SB shells are 285mm from toe to heel, I'd certainly expect the same sized Stratos to be around 295mm toe to heel but I'm not sure where the shells change on the Stratos range.

not unless you have a ski that's stiff enough to withstand the forces it would endure. The lacroix skwals in particular have a reputation as "steel bars". Skwals are insane. Going to a skwal from an alpine rig is sorta like the step from a softboot freeride rig to harbboots and alpine. Almost the same, but - "more".

I'm trying to resist a "at least you've got wood" gag, but it's hard to do. Ankle injuries suck. Hope yours is dealable-with.

Keep the rescue patrol busy, too. They're *really* good for tib/fib breaks.

Can't really comment on that one, the "going postal" thing is wierd, and probably more of an expression of media overload than anything else. Certainly firearms were nothing new around my parts, but they were mainly zip guns (mainly modified airguns or cap guns, there were a couple of modded staarting pistols doing the rounds too), probably because of the UK's predeliction for g*n c*ntr*l. At least 2 people I was at school with died due to shotgun injuries, but one of those was self-inflicted. There were a lot of sawn-off 12 bores about, and more than a few crossbows. That's only the projectile weapons. knives, chains, etc were commonplace. And I don't even come from some hairy inner city, I come from the middle of frickin' nowhere. Maybe if we'd had them, I wouldn't have been stabbed in the leg aged 13. Go figure. None in my class. A girl in my slightly younger brother's class "famously" had an abortion at age 14. My ex-wife's mother was 14 when she got pregnant. My grandmother was 15. And globally speaking, having kids young is only scandalous dependent on society's norms. I coach hockey, and teach english (not necessarily in that order). All I see is kids. But then I *am* one of the degenerates I went to school with, and I'm not only having kids, I'm teaching them too. We might be responsible and well adjusted, but we still know how to (and will) break your arm if you pull a knife on us :)

No. Kids today are tame compared to the punks I hung around with. Did a lot of stuff I'm not overly proud of in my youth, and as a group we were a ****sight harder than any of the kids I know today. We were nasty. Before us it was the "greasers" of course, and the "Teddy boys" before them, and after us came the skinheads, so it's not really like it's all that new.

Likewise for slaloming hard on drag lifts. I caught a couple of lads doing exactly that last week. First time, no worries, head over and explain the danger to them. 15 minutes later, I see them doing exactly the same thing, only harder - actively trying to derail it. Unluckily for them, my boss was with me. He pulled them over and cancelled their 2 week passes. Woops. In an unrelated note, a few weeks back I saw something I never want to see again - a chairlift derailed on 2 pylons, cable and chairs down *hard* onto a slope. Mercifully, no injuries, but 2 pylons and (probably) a cable to be replaced, just before the big holidays. Seeing a cable and 6 chairs smashed into a slope sends shivers up the spine.

Scarpas fall apart, and fast. Exploding buckles, cant adjuster pullouts, stripped plastic straps, etc. I had 4 pairs fail in one season before demanding a refund. Garmonts are a far better boot (although still fragile as fsck); this year's Garmonts are much better than the old ones (for starters, the rivets don't pull through, as they have started actually *gasp* using washers behind them). Yeah, I destroy boots. The only boots I've ever managed to hang onto for long are my SB225s, and 2 pairs of Nordicas (one pair of TR9s which eventually completely fell apart under heavy duress[1], and a pair of Alpine boots that were also bombproof) Simon [1] Skiing 500m vertical of "almost totally grass and rock" because you can't be bothered to queue for the lift down, and "hell, it's a laugh, let's go for it", tends to overstress your boots. buggers the base on your skis, too.

Yep. Except... ...it's the front of the edge that cuts the trench, the part of the edge that is usually detuned to be dull. :)

Probably. I'm riding / wearing Garmont Adrenalines at work, which is basically the "bloke" version - they are orange. Relatively stiff for an AT boot (although not as stiff as the Endorphins). A reasonable fit out of the box, vastly improved by binning the footbeds and putting something better in their place. You may find that the instep rivet on the foot strap closest to the ankle causes rubbing and blisters when combined with the original footbed (I did). You'll be looking at steeper angles than with a snowboard oriented boot (as per usual, the sole is quite a lot longer) and slightly less adjustability (you have "ski" and "walk" mode, with no variations inbetween, no differing positions I've found, and you'll not be able to add a BTS without some shell surgery. Simon

Yeah, there's a bounty of "a pair of baggy pants and some twintip skis" if you manage to t-bone a boarder. You only get a belt if you manage to take out a skwaller. I asked why there's no staff allowed on snowboards. It's to do with insurance - all our skis are adjusted and regulated, *with the settings written down* - if you blow out a knee it only passes as a work accident if you haven't touched the settings. Which is a bit of a laugh, as the shop who do that adjusting managed to cnut up my bindings, setting them to 11 <insert spinal tap joke here> instead of the 7 they should be set to if I say I ride "agressively" (I don't). So, if I do wipe out, there's no release, and there go my knees, maybe a quick tib/fib, and I don't have the right to wind them down to sensible / safe settings. And the shop aren't open during the hours I'm available to get them reset... Guess who's skiing *very* carefully? As for ages, I see all ages, from a girl of 15 or so carving *very* nice lines on a silberpfeil, up to a guy of (at a guess) getting on for 60, doing much the same on an asym. My finger-in-the-air guess is that most are 30 or above, mainly because that's the age where you can buy your own gear without worrying about it too much, and even if there are a few shops that hire alpine gear, there aren't many and what there is is hidden in the store cupboard. The same tends to hold true for the freeride board owners who know how to handle their boards, too. Having loads of alpine gear for rent would just mean loads of people doing the "falling leaf" on alpine rigs. [/ramble]

Nah, worse than that. Boots *and* skis provided. aves me chewing up my gear, I guess, but means my new-old-stock B3s are gathering dust.