New Snowboard Myths Video and Article!

[Michelle]

You guys have been so patient, and the time has finally arrived - a new Snowboard Myths video! In this video it talks about an article, which we have posted here. See it all below!

We know you guys will have something to say, so post your comments below! Edited March 16, 2016 by Jim Callen

[kieran]

no northwave .950? :D

[lowrider]

Now that's better than shooting a bunch of holes in boards ! When is the sale on left boots coming up ?

[softbootsurfer]

Well Done...Myth Busters !!! :)

[lowrider]

Your not done yet! Get some ski boots and cut them up too! If your still bored after that you can jump in your Subaru and head up to Canada for a visit. I can offer you a cottage for you and your dogs. I'm sure Bruce would take you to a golf course and pummel you !

[big canuck]

Goes totally against what I thought would be the case.....

Crazy. I'm a fatty with wide feet and the hsp still fit me the best.

I don get it. Interesting for sure.

[SunSurfer]

Fin,

The graphs of boot profile at the end of the article seem to assume the width in the boot shell is symmetrically distributed. Is that actually the case, or are the boot cavities asymmetric?

I thought that the boot shell was straighter on the inside of the foot and more curved on the outside of the foot.

Trying to determine how the width is distributed just from the photos introduces significant inaccuracies unless all the photos were taken at exactly the same position for each section.

Can you re-measure and graph both sides of the boot shell profile, showing how the width changes on both sides as the sections progress?

Edited June 3, 2014 by SunSurfer
clarity

[John E]

This is interesting.

I have narrow feet (B width) and wound up with HSPs because I got a deal on them. Many told me that they were best for wide feet. I had Larry The Bootfitter custom foam them for me and they have fit me well ever since.

This study by Fin confirms why they fit well.

[lonbordin]

AWESOME... really kudos Fin. Is there a way to interpolate the data to get a measurement from the bottom of the heel cup to the area of the boot nearest the talus of the ankle. Lots of bootfitters talk about this zone and it's one that affects me as my foot is just about as tall (measuring from the back of the heel to the top of the talus) as it is long.

The red line in the following photo-

Thanks a lot!

PS- Your cut-a-way photos also show the differences in boot ramp quite nicely!

Edited June 3, 2014 by lonbordin
moar

[Strider]

Very interesting. There must be something about how the boots flex/close with the buckles that makes a difference as well. I have mondo 26.5 feet in EE width. I started on SB 124's in the 90's, rode AF's for one season, and am now in HSP's. According to the charts, the Raichle/Deeluxe boots should have been the most comfortable, but they always pinched my feet around the cuneiform to metatarsus bones (area at the beginning of the toes where the wide bony protuberances are on either side) and were painful unless I went up sizes to get extra width there. The HSP's are super comfortable at that point and have never pinched and I actually went down to a 26 mondo instead of a 27. I have used the same liner (thermo wrap model) in each boot so that means that there must be something different going on around the 6 through nine slices in each boot that has more to do with the pinching than just the straight measurements.

Edited June 3, 2014 by $trider
accuracy

[jacopodotti]

Applausi!!!

[CMC]

I think a make up artist and some hair dye for the next vid would be good.

[lowrider]

I think a make up artist and some hair dye for the next vid would be good.

Ouch !

[zoltan]

I'm still trying to digest all the numbers. However, this test doesn't cover the volume of the boots' uppers, and I've found the upper's volume can make a huge difference for how the boot fits. For example, my legs are wiry (some might call them skinny) and my first boots were the Deeluxe SB and even with the boot downsized my foot would move around because I could never get the uppers tight enough. I eventually solved that by adding two layers of boot fitting foam to the inside of the uppers. My own testing found that Head and UPZ uppers were a lot lower volume for a given size than the SB uppers. I didn't test the AF.

[two_ravens]

According to the charts, the Raichle/Deeluxe boots should have been the most comfortable, but they always pinched my feet around the cuneiform to metatarsus bones (area at the beginning of the toes where the wide bony protuberances are on either side) and were painful unless I went up sizes to get extra width there.

Did you try them with BTS? I find that significantly changes (and for me improves) how the boot deforms when flexing. (Or maybe they pinched just standing and not while flexing, in which case, never mind..... :) )

Edited June 4, 2014 by two_ravens
had a thought!

[snowmatic]

Great work, but pleasy keep accurate!

- "Deeluxe SB (299mm), Deeluxe AF (295mm)" is wrong. Twist the 299 / 295 for to be right.

- why the ones have 11 slyces of shell, why the others only 10. (Yes I know, the ones are shorter with thiner liners and good for riders which whine about freezing toes)

- MP27 is not like MP27. Burton 27 and UPZ 27 is more like an 26.5.

- Shell size switch every two MP half size at Deeluxe, while Aigner UPZ step-up every three half size.

- where are the plastic-inlays, which is a part of the boot concept (Raichle SB has, AF has no, Blax-Dalbello commes with a thick one which shape depends of boot size, UPS-Aigner's has no)

- for to be accurate, measuremets should be done with inlay (if there is), with liner and with insole of liner.

Carver might discuss about the boot volume. It's way better to fit boots, than to discuss about boots. Liners are part of the boot concept, that's important. I mean I can fit all of that 4 shells on my local store (they keep Head Stratos Pro on stock/shelf). There are differences you will only feel, if you fit them. Every boot model was designed out of a specific last (shoe forms).

*****************************************************

One much more interessting thing of this cuts would be the wall thickness. Keep Your eyes to the Raichle-SB shell lower sections. Wall of shell is very thin there. No other boot of that 4 different shells is similar to SB shell. So we get much more ability for a side-flex and rolling the feets/boot than all other boots are capable. Damped flex of shell side-by-side, which gives you a way better "forgiving" ride on plate-bindings was the goal for to go, comming from the Raichle SB-121 (Snowboarder) shell. So no sidewinder bindings have been required then.

This improvement was the reason why Raichle SB-series boots became that popular and why hardbooting became so popular with them too. Raichle SB hardboots had been than as flexy/stiff like stiffest softboots, but whith more controll and nice progressive foreward and side-flex. You can flex your legs easy to any direction you want, similar to softboots.

Raichle SB boots became the most selling hardboots ever on the World! Others stay way behind.

Unfortunately now-a-days Deeluxe SB-shells are to stiff (harder platics) compared to them of the Years at 2000. The difference is huge.

If you switch from a SB shell to an AF shell it's very different. It's like you choose another brand.

Due to the older age and havier weight of todays hardbooters and the longer and more torsional stiff boards, Deeluxe AF shell and UPZ's seems to be yet the boots for to go.

Riders of FIS gate racing, choose stiffer boots (e.g. ski-boots) too.

On the other side FIS marketing headquater recognite the last time actual gate racing format failed (very low reputation). There are remaining only some dozens gate riders on each country of the alps. If you look up to recently published rider lists for 2014/2015, we can find countrys where national team was shrinked from 8 (m&w) to only 3 top-level riders for Worldcup. How many WC rider will be found for 2014/15 in US and Can?

Sometime industry should keep it rather to mainstream demands (like softbooting makes it), than to things which can fail totaly in a couple of Years.

*****************************************************

There is one other point to discuss about rolling feets / side-by-side flex:

canting and lift on bindings

There are many sugestions and discussions choosing the right cantings - Extrem carvers, tiny waist boarders, gate racers.

If you choose boots unlike SB shells (Northwave, UPZ's, AF) canting realy matters. Feeling depends on the amount of flexing the board.

Choosing a SB hardboot it doesn't matter that much. Usualy build-in canting and lifts like we found on popular Snowpro's or Fritschi's, comming with 3° are fine. Even most rider are flexing the board only for a short time during a turn and feels than very comfy riding the board all the day on slope and outside of slope.

*****************************************************

I like to ask Bomber/Donek: Why not slicing other shells too?

The two generation of Burton's (easy to get in US), maybe the Oxygen and Kastinger/Drake/H²O.

What about the F2-Proflex hardboots.

And Northwave shell, if available for free.

*****************************************************

foot would move around because I could never get the uppers tight enough

Which SB boots You use? The ones with good old straps or the ones with ski-buckles?

Edited June 4, 2014 by snowmatic

[zoltan]

Which SB boots You use? The ones with good old straps or the ones with ski-buckles?

The ones with the old straps. But it wasn't an issue with the straps, it was an issue with the uppers having a huge volume.

[b0ardski]

I was hoping to see the foam slices put back together, comparing the full shape of the construction foam filler would give an easier to see comparison of the volume distribution throughout the shell.

[Québec man]

It Will be cool if you test the flex of this 4 boots.... :D

[evnewsphoto]

What's funny is that I have had three out of 4 of these, progressing from SB (used for years), to AF then UPZs, and I would have sworn the AFs where the tightest toe box! Funny how things are perceived by your foot. But I also can attest to the better heel hold of the UPZs and overall love my UPZs, but I have heard the rumor that the are "sized" a size to big (26 is really 27 and so on). Fin can you test that? My 26s feel a bit big and I need to crank the buckles and pad the ankles with foam but very comfy. Who has such huge ankles by the way? This is a problem with every boot I have had. Thanks Fin!

Everett

[SunSurfer]

Now slice the other boot of each pair horizontally, parallel to the sole.

[kipstar]

I definitely noticed the issue of a 27 boot from UPZ being a shorter, smaller volume boot than the Deeluxe/AF 27.5; I could not even get my foot into the 27 size shell of the UPZ at all, and once in (using my old packed out liners as a double check) it was next to impossible to get the buckles closed over my foot; my foot was just too big to fit in the shell, confirmed with the liner out.

The reason is that the UPZ shell seems to be running across 2.5-3 sizes whereas the Deeluxe runs across 2 sizes. What this means is a 26 size shell Deeluxe would be probably slightly smaller than the 26 UPZ which is the same shell as the 26/26.5/27, but a 27 UPZ is definitely smaller than the 27 deeluxe, and then the next size up the UPZ 27.5/28/28.2 is larger than the Deeluxe 27/27.5.

Somewhere online there was a table that summarized this;

http://www.sportkostner.com/en/upz/rc10

What I discovered when I tried the UPZ on is the 27.5, 28 and 28.2 (probably meaning the 28.5) are the same shell size all 309mm long, so if you are using thermo liners, they are all the same boot.

I believe Dan Yoja's table is therefore not quite right; not a huge issue if you are not buying a half size, but it's a major problem if, like me, you were already being shoehorned into a Deeluxe 27.5 in terms of length and forefoot width.

The heel pocket size of the 28 UPZ is about the same as the Deeluxe 27 which is reflected in the numbers produced in the myths video, with similar width and the way the UPZ buckles work, as well as the stiffer plastic, made the UPZ even though the boot was longer, a more positive fit for me even though the boot was actually longer than what I needed (marginally); the next size down was just too small - I was between sizes, but the AF series after seeing the heel falling apart, I decided time for a change ;-).

I also found that the toe volume of the UPZ despite the claims of being larger than the Deeluxe, doesn't seem to be larger, in part due to the way the shell closes; the deluxe you can run zero tension on the front toe buckle at least with the zip style buckle adjuster; the UPZ by comparison is very difficult to do the same because the tongue buckle is riveted with less adjustment in the clasp; it seems to always be positively closed with some tension on it.

What this means for a buyer is that you cannot use Dan Yoja's chart or any other chart if you are at the end of the shell size spectrum (ideally you want to be the largest foot to fit into the shell but this is an issue if you are just fractionally bigger than what can conceiveably be fitted into that shell size); rather you need to check the size.

[fin]

North Wave: Yea, we thought about this as well but two issues 1) hard to get a hold of one 2) not really a modern boot that is even remotely available. This boot has been out of distribution for close to 15 years. Yes, racers feel this is the only boot they can use to win in but it is not really a boot that you can even get.

lonboardin: that is a good dimension to have, I agree. hard to interpolate from our cut up sections. What I think would be better would be to create a tool that could go into a complete boot and make that measurement. Like a bore or snap gauge. One issue you will always. have is as you move up a boot the parts become more flexible and part of the collapsing aspect of the boot. The top cuff is the most variable here. So there couple be some guessing here.

Sunsurfer: Agree, the sections of each boot are not perfectly lined up relative to each boot model. This would have been more difficult to do. Your best bet is to take the graphs and offset them to match more perfectly. But this was the best we could do with what we had. I think the shape aspect does actually make sense: yes, the inside of your soot is more straight but it has more "undercut" due to the arch. So i think that is where you see more of a curve on the bottom measurements.

Zoltan: measuring the top cuff of the boots proved VERY difficult and extremely variable. There is just too much flexibility and variance there. It is more a function of how long and short can you make the straps to fit the calf size going in them. And most of the boot issues we see are based from the fit in the lower section, so we stuck to that for that test.

snowmatic: changed the sole lengths to correct size. thank you for pointing out. have different number of slices due to different sole lengths and other variation in the boots. We started cutting 1" from the rear most point on the point. Just how it turned out. Nothing we can do about the various differences in shell sizes for a M27. We have to pick a standard at sometime to get this started. M27 is the classic mid size for all boots, so that is what we went with. This is not meant to be the do all, say all test for these boots. There are WAY too many variables in boot fitting to say that this test is the ONLY thing to determine what boot will work for you. So treat all these numbers as only a tool to help make the final decision. They should never be used as the only method to decide.

[fin]

North Wave: Yea, we thought about this as well but two issues 1) hard to get a hold of one 2) not really a modern boot that is even remotely available. This boot has been out of distribution for close to 15 years. Yes, racers feel this is the only boot they can use to win in but it is not really a boot that you can even get.

lonboardin: that is a good dimension to have, I agree. hard to interpolate from our cut up sections. What I think would be better would be to create a tool that could go into a complete boot and make that measurement. Like a bore or snap gauge. One issue you will always. have is as you move up a boot the parts become more flexible and part of the collapsing aspect of the boot. The top cuff is the most variable here. So there couple be some guessing here.

Sunsurfer: Agree, the sections of each boot are not perfectly lined up relative to each boot model. This would have been more difficult to do. Your best bet is to take the graphs and offset them to match more perfectly. But this was the best we could do with what we had. I think the shape aspect does actually make sense: yes, the inside of your soot is more straight but it has more "undercut" due to the arch. So i think that is where you see more of a curve on the bottom measurements.

Zoltan: measuring the top cuff of the boots proved VERY difficult and extremely variable. There is just too much flexibility and variance there. It is more a function of how long and short can you make the straps to fit the calf size going in them. And most of the boot issues we see are based from the fit in the lower section, so we stuck to that for that test.

snowmatic: changed the sole lengths to correct size. thank you for pointing out. have different number of slices due to different sole lengths and other variation in the boots. We started cutting 1" from the rear most point on the point. Just how it turned out. Nothing we can do about the various differences in shell sizes for a M27. We have to pick a standard at sometime to get this started. M27 is the classic mid size for all boots, so that is what we went with. This is not meant to be the do all, say all test for these boots. There are WAY too many variables in boot fitting to say that this test is the ONLY thing to determine what boot will work for you. So treat all these numbers as only a tool to help make the final decision. They should never be used as the only method to decide.

[Neil Gendzwill]

One thing you could have done is use the boots to mould some foam or something then measure the result. You'd still have to destroy the boot but you'd get a closed measurement.

Or could you measure from outside, mark the spots, use callipers to measure plastic thickness at that spot, then subtract that?