Curious questions from an occasional hard-booter

[snovvman]

I have been snowboarding for many years, having been a transplant from skiing for many, many years before that. When I first started snowboarding, I hated the soft boots and missed the hard ski boots. I eventually got used to the soft boots although I do everything possible to make my soft boots as stiff and supportive as possible.

My soft set up is K2 Clicker step-ins with modified soft boots to be very stiff. The bindings are the carbon fiber, and add very little weight to the board. The boots are relatively light as well. I stand about 45-50 degrees front and ~30 degrees rear. I ride a 4807, Amp, & Supermodel. The hard set up is Raichle 324 with Intec, and some Raichle step-in bindings.

I jump into the hard setup on groomers because I very much enjoy the "high" of flying through large sweeping turns and feeling the centrifugal force.

Background

With the Clicker set up, I basically stand directly on the board. I feel very connected to the board, have great leverage, and can move the board swiftly. The board feels very "controllable" through deep, bumps, trees, ice, and so on.

With the hard-boot setup, it's great to make sweeping gouges in the snow and lay down low, but I do not feel comfortable in anything but groomers. It feels like 1) The boots/bindings add more weight to the setup, and takes more enegry to move/change direction, 2) I am standing much higher from the board itself, and somehow affecting my leverage (as in body input to affect the direction of board) efficacy.

Curious questions

Is what I am experiencing typical, or do I simply need to get more used to hard boots on snowboard?

1) Is it true that hard setup is not as good through non-grommed conditions, such as ice, trees, bumps, etc. I know many will say that "I'm just as good through... with hard..." I'm looking for an objective analysis here. Given the added weight and height (from the board), does it somehow change the physics of the ride?

2) Do I simply need to get more used to the hard boot setup, or will the closer-to-snowboard, less weight setup (Clicker) always be "functionally" better in varied conditions because of its inherent physics?

3) Clearly, the more mass there is, the more energy is required to make something change direction. I do believe the advantage is with the Clicker here. However, what is, then, the physics of standing higher than lower in relation to the board? How does this change leverage and operation? I know the "lift" is required to allow the board to go vertical through carves, but are there other advantages that I have not yet realized?

Thanks for reading. I seek your wisdom and input.

Cheers.

[Transistor Rhythm]

I always thought it's the alpine board not the hardboots that make it harder to ride crappy conditions. Haven't tested it out fully though, but the softer, shorter and wider a board is the better it seems to handle in those circumstances. Are you riding the same board with both setups?

On my old Hot Special I can follow jibbers around all day long doesn't matter how crappy the slope is, we seem to suffer alike. On any bigger, stiffer and less wide board I can do it too - but I'm not having anything remotely resembling fun doing it.

[Donek]

You haven't really mentioned your stance on the two setups. A soft setup is very forgiving of an innapropriate stance. Being off by an inch on width or a few degrees on your angles on hard boots can make a huge difference in your ability to perform. There are a lot of different opinions on stance choices, but the best one is yours. If you're uncomfortable, having a tough time getting low, find one leg fatigues more than another, chances are altering your stance will improve things.

Your stance width should be somewhere close to the distance from your knees center of rotation to the bottom of your heel. Mine is about 1.5in narrower than that measurement. If your feet naturally turn out, your back foot should be turned out the same amount. My feet turn out about 20 degrees. I ride 60deg front and 40 deg back.

[Jack M]

I agree with Sean (Donek) about the sensitivities of stance setup in hardboots. However I don't recommend splaying your feet more than about 5 degrees unless you are naturally very duck-footed. Much more than that and your knees are going to be fighting each other.

The light weight of softies is definitely better in trees where you HAVE to make a turn RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, I've found that with the right board and right stance, I don't need to ride softboots anymore for anything. Sure it took a lot of practice to get to that point, but it's very do-able and enjoyable.

[bumpyride]

Just spent 3 days riding through knee to thigh deep powder up at Crystal Mt. Struggled the first day on my Coil. I then dug out my Old Burton Amp 5. No problem. The board floated as well as anything else I saw on the slope. It's the board, not soft or hard boots that is going to determine how you work in powder.

I'm riding 66-45 on my narrower alpine boards. I change to about 54-35 on the Amp, and on those rare days on a Swallowtail it goes down to 45-30. The difference (for me) is the amount of leverage that you lose as you go wider. I try to keep the toes of the boots at an angle just before boot-out. I ride at 17.5 inches between centers on bindings.

I can pretty much guarantee you that higher angles and hard boots in deep snow will result with more control and quicker turns with no loss of floating than you'll see with soft boots, and no loss of the surfy feel in powder.

I know that a lot of guys on the forum hate riding in the walk mode, but that's where it's at for riding in fluff. We had a poll earlier this year that checked for member's input on riding in the walk vs the ride mode, and surprise, the actual percentage of injuries in the walk mode was less than the ride mode (but not by a significant percentage).

My freeride boards weigh significantly less than the typical softboot setup. I'm using F2 Intec Comps, and they are pretty darn light, and my Amp 5 with bindings weghs 10.75 lbs, my coiler 156 with bindings weighs 9.75 lbs, and my Ultra Prime with bindings weighs 9.5 lbs, and the Ultra with both boots weighs in at 18.75 lbs.

[kjl]

I find in hardboots, due to the severely limited lateral flexibility, moving your weight around the board requires larger movements of the whole body than on softboots. It makes it more cumbersome to do quick turns. I don't particularly feel like the weight or mass of the system really matters that much. And I've ridden softies with and without risers/powerplates, and again I don't feel like the slight change in geometry really affects my maneuverability.

If you're going for a mostly carve-oriented setup, I agree that it's better to keep the angles of your front and back foot similar, but I do think it's easier to do quick, slashy, skiddy turns (like if you're in bumps or trees or chutes or whatever) with a flatter back foot like how you're riding.

[tufty]

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.

[BadBrad]

Unlike most of the posters here, I am a struggling terminal intermediate since I only get to ride a half dozen or so days a year, and I feel the same way as the original poster about a hardboot setup. I really struggle in the bumps and crud, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to turn quickly to venture into the trees on an alpine setup. I have seen guys easily ride stiff narrow race boards backwards down steep bumpy junk, in tight trees, and so on, but I can't do it.

A soft boot setup is more forgiving for us beginner-intermediates. The increased ankle flexibility helps (I do put my boots in walk mode for riding in bumps), but I think the biggest factor is that the shallower stance angles allow you to throw the back end of the board around easier. And in the bumps the ankle flexibility gives a wider balance point.

[bumpyride]

Unlike most of the posters here, I am a struggling terminal intermediate since I only get to ride a half dozen or so days a year, and I feel the same way as the original poster about a hardboot setup. I really struggle in the bumps and crud, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to turn quickly to venture into the trees on an alpine setup. I have seen guys easily ride stiff narrow race boards backwards down steep bumpy junk, in tight trees, and so on, but I can't do it.

A soft boot setup is more forgiving for us beginner-intermediates. The increased ankle flexibility helps (I do put my boots in walk mode for riding in bumps), but I think the biggest factor is that the shallower stance angles allow you to throw the back end of the board around easier. And in the bumps the ankle flexibility gives a wider balance point.

Brad,

I'd suggest you try different angles in bumps and crud. My angles are determined mostly on my natural body physics. I've tested this many times, and it comes out to work best where my body is the most balanced. This is my test:

Find a moderate grade hill where it's iced up significantly enough to get a good long slide in your street foot gear (tennis shoes, hiking boots etc). Take a running start and slide with your shoulders pretty much perpendicular to the fall line. Coast to a stop and see what angles your feet are pointed. Mine invariably end up at 66 degrees front and 45 degrees rear. This gives me the greatest platform to be able to balance front to rear, side to side. This is much like a martial arts stance, where you have to be able to go in all 4 directions. This is where my feet go. It may not be that way for anyone else, but I don't think it varies much.

In bumps and crud, and even on a groomed slope, there are different planes that the board is subjected to, and you must accommodate or adapt to. When you're in a perfectly balanced position you're most able to make the differences in steerage and regain you centered position, and continue on your way.

Now everyone is different, and what's good for me is not the norm, but it works and works really well. Nearly all the people I've taught have been set up on a modified (45-30) derivative of this. 90% of those have been able to link a couple of turns within the first 2 runs down the bunny hill, so I feel pretty confident in suggesting that you try it. When I first started out snowboarding, I took a screwdriver and changed my angles every other run till I found out what felt the best. 55-40 is about where I ended up the first year (I knew early on I was never worried about riding switch). Subsequent years have put me at 66-45 for quick edge transition.

Just a suggestion.

[tufty]

A soft boot setup is more forgiving for us beginner-intermediates. The increased ankle flexibility helps (I do put my boots in walk mode for riding in bumps), but I think the biggest factor is that the shallower stance angles allow you to throw the back end of the board around easier. And in the bumps the ankle flexibility gives a wider balance point.

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.

[Dave ESPI]

"Right tool for the job".

Carvers Carve.

Pow-boards Float.

Parkers Jib.

If you want to be "ALL MOUNTAIN" you need to set up and comprimise.

I have 2 BX boards and one is set up as a hardboot, the other as soft. One I can rip turns on, the other I can fly thru the air and land firmly even the sketchiest of dropzones. A 147 is far easier to navigate trees with than a 174..... catch my drift?

Its why we have quivers.... (and some of us are versitile in such, not just all carvers). I bring both kinds of setups with me to mountains So I can be assured to have fun nomatter what conditions are..... you are paying for a lift ticket. ALways nice to swap out a board than to ride in crap all day and beat yourself up...(especialy in the spring).

[snovvman]

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.

[NateW]

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.

I vote yes.

I rode soft boots for a few season before switching to hard, I now ride hard boots for everywhere, and I don't miss soft boots at all. I have to admit, it's been so long since I rode a soft setup that I've almost forgotten how they work, but I don't feel like my gear is a detriment in any way. I spend the majority of my time in the terrain park, the rest split between steep groomers and off-piste moguly freeride stuff.

On the one hand, I've been riding for ~20 years now, and with enough practice anything is easy. On the other hand, if I thought hard boots had real drawbacks I would not have abandoned soft boots 15 years ago. There are people who prefer soft boots for some things, and while I'm not going argue the point with them, I just don't feel the same way.

Hard boots = more support = more control, and I don't think I have ever wished that I had less.

Stiff board = more grip from the edge. If there's a drawback to alpine gear that's probably it. With a soft board, the section between your feet is working for you, and the tip/tail are just along for the ride. With a stiff board, the whole edge is working for you. When switching to a stiffer board it takes time to adjust, as I have to make finer adjustments to the edge angle to skid it around smoothly, as I need to in bumps and even on groomers when you're traveling too slow to carve. When switching to a softer board, that all gets a little easier, more forgiving, whatever you want to call it.

I switched from freeride to alpine gradually, going narrower in steps - 25cm, 23cm, 21cm, 17cm (oops), 19cm (aaah), 19cm, 19cm. Every time I went narrower I thought I'd find a drawback or lose some versatility, but it wasn't until 17cm that I felt I'd lose something. And I still wish I hadn't broken that 17cm board because I still wonder if I was just doing it wrong. :)

15 degrees sounds like a lot of splay though. I rode that way for a couple years when I first started riding hard boots (45F/30R, 25cm waist), but in retrospect I don't know how I managed. I'm much happier with 5 degrees of splay. If I accidentally set a board up with more, it bothers me as soon as I get moving.

The motivation for this, of course, is that hard boots will potentially allow me to actually ride better under all conditions AND carve hard.

I think they do / they will.

Sorta related: http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25394

Next time I'll see if I can get some off-piste video.

[NateW]

Unlike most of the posters here, I am a struggling terminal intermediate since I only get to ride a half dozen or so days a year...

I really struggle in the bumps and crud, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to turn quickly to venture into the trees on an alpine setup. I have seen guys easily ride stiff narrow race boards backwards down steep bumpy junk, in tight trees, and so on, but I can't do it.

Have you tried a soft-ish all-mountain alpine board?

(Donek 172 AX comes to mind...)

If my little theory about stiffness and edge grip (edge grab?) is correct, a stiff board might be impossible to master without twice as many days-per-year to practice on it. A relatively soft board would probably be more fun right from the get-go, since you'll spend more time enjoying it and less time ramping up, learning to finesse it.

Bad analogy time:

If riding a softboot setup is like balancing a broomstick in your hand...

riding a soft alpine board is like balancing a yardstick,

riding a stiff alpine board is like balancing a ruler.

It's all do-able, it's just a matter of how much practice you can invest to get there. At 6 days a year, if you're not enjoying the practice, go longer and spend those 6 days having as much fun as possible.

[surfinsmiley]

Unlike most of the posters here, I am a struggling terminal intermediate since I only get to ride a half dozen or so days a year, and I feel the same way as the original poster about a hardboot setup. I really struggle in the bumps and crud, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to turn quickly to venture into the trees on an alpine setup. I have seen guys easily ride stiff narrow race boards backwards down steep bumpy junk, in tight trees, and so on, but I can't do it.

A soft boot setup is more forgiving for us beginner-intermediates. The increased ankle flexibility helps (I do put my boots in walk mode for riding in bumps), but I think the biggest factor is that the shallower stance angles allow you to throw the back end of the board around easier. And in the bumps the ankle flexibility gives a wider balance point.

I'm in exactly the same postion. I just don't get enough time on the slopes to really master Alpine riding. It seems like 80% of the time I go it's snowing and I'll always choose a Powder specific board with soft boots for anything more than boot deep. On the rare day that I go snowboarding and it's not snowing I'll ride an Alpine setup. Nothing like railing groomers in Hardboots in good conditions but for me, I don't think I'll ever really try to ride anything but groomers on an Alpine board.

I just have more fun, at my level, riding different boards in different

conditions. I can always find a board in my quiver that is fun and easy to ride in the conditons of the day.

[Jack M]

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.

Absolutely yes, if you are set up properly. That means dialing in toe/heel lift and cant, stance width and angles. Get it right and you can do it all.

Get a Coiler Schtubby X2 if you are in eastern North America, or a Coiler All-Mtn 172 if you are in the west. These boards literally do anything you want outside of a halfpipe. You can thank me later.

[shawndoggy]

Absolutely yes, if you are set up properly. That means dialing in toe/heel lift and cant, stance width and angles. Get it right and you can do it all.

Get a Coiler Schtubby X2 if you are in eastern North America, or a Coiler All-Mtn 172 if you are in the west. These boards literally do anything you want outside of a halfpipe. You can thank me later.

Photographic Evidence:

(176 Coiler AMT -- OES 2009 Day 2)

[newcarver]

I've been riding hard for 2 yrs after softies for 10. Thing that I have noticed is that on the right board you can do anything that you can on softies. You have to have the right board for the type of riding you are doing though. I have an SG Cult 169 for general riding/free carving. I can carve a stiff softboot setup on most groomers as good as an alpine set up. Softies seem to lack on steeper hardpack. The hard gear has more edge grip. I've noticed this on hard, steep bump runs too. The alpine gear makes it easier in my opinion. I do like softies on powder more, but can still have fun with the hard setup too. I think I would like it equally if I had a boot with a little more lateral flex than what I've been riding. And as said before, the hardboot set up is a lot more sensitive to angles and stance widths, so you have to play around to see what is the most comfortable for you. But, I'm to the point where I think I will ride HB's for everything except deep powder days. You can just get a lot better performance on most conditions.

[tufty]

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.

[NateW]

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.

They jump fine, and I have proof now. :)

http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25394

I've done a little bit of jib stuff, like boxes and small rails, and while that can certainly be done, I kinda suspect that soft boots have an advantage there, especially for boardslides. The wider board means more room for error, and I think it's probably a good thing that the boots are more conducive to letting the board lay flat. I'm not interested in jibbing though, I like my edges too much. :)