The "New" Madds

[dirk109]

Note from the Administrator

This thread was taken off the forum for a few days until we could deal with this when we got back from the Session in Aspen.

The original poster of this thread was found to be a banned member who is registering under false names to post on the forum. This member is taking advantage of all of us and seems to have once again shown his level of maturity with his online actions.

However, we did not want to completely remove the thread as the responses have been very good and informative. So we have put the thread back on but removed the text from the banned member.

Thanks for your understanding on this everyone.

Fin

BomberOnline

[moxie]

New vs. old as in the 2004/05 boards vs the 90's or the second production run vs. the first?

[Mike T]

I've got a new 170 (1st run) and the flex is sweet. It's a bit softer than I was expecting and at 195 pounds I feel I am at the upper weight limit of the board. The more aggressively I ride it i.e., the more I bend it the better it behaves.

I find it doesn't like to point downhill so much at high speed, but I wasn't expecting it to, if I want to go Mach Schnell I ride my Coiler PR 188.

I wanted the board so I'd have something I enjoyed riding on ice and chalk where I want to make tight turns and control my speed, and it's great for that!

[D-Sub]

careful, youre messing with some sort of secret society here. apparently beyond criticism. youre gonna get flamed. watch.

I have no experience with anything but the board that is in my rack right now, and I havent even ridden that one due to utter disappointment with the horribly sloppy construction of the topsheet. It looks like a stoned monkey put it together

the board itself looks ok, but the topsheet...well...ugLAY!

[Guest johann]

Did you check the graphic? Cause I hear the one's with the backwards graphic ride way better than the other ones.

[lonerider]

Originally posted by dirk109

Ok, I didn't want to say anything untill I gave it a fair chance, But has anybody else found the "New" Madds to be Junk? The flex is all off, They are a ridgid as heck and are torsionaly not sound. The old ones rode so much better. What the hell happend?

That's odd. I would have never described the Madd as "rigid" - I was expecting a super stiff board, but when I rode it, it was very smooth at slower speeds as well - and I only weight 150 lbs (which is apparently "lightweight" around here). What do you mean torsionally not sound... I have taken the board down some medium-fast runs and it still remains responsive and stable for me (although I hear larger riders find it a little soft and nervous when boming).

Anyways, could you elaborate?

[D-Sub]

I thought everyone wanted super stiff boards?

maybe youre too light for yours? I dunno...

this is gonna be fun though!

[Mellow Yellow]

I'm curious.. are you refering to the new production Madds with the green sidewalls vs the new production Madds with the red sidewalls????

[gdboytyler]

Well if anyone is so disgusted with their new MADD and want to get rid of the board, I'm willing to offer up $100, an Oxygen Proton 149 that's in great shape and a well used Burton Asym Air 161(?).

I'll take either the 158 or 170.

[Kirk]

From veteran Madd owners/riders, I would certainly be interested in overall comparisons from the older or "original" production boards to the "new" boards. I mean a comprehensive comparison, e.g. performance: flex, edge-hold, stability, etc as well as overall finish quality:base, topsheet, etc.

As a new-comer to the Madd scene, I can honestly say that I've observed some flaws in overall finish of the boards and I've never flexed an original next to the recent production decks... but HOLY CRAP these things (the "new" ones) ride AMAZING! I have a few nice carving/race decks from 161-183 and plenty of room to ride 'em out here in the West (along with our "wussie" snow of course :rolleyes: ) and I keep grabbing that Madd 170 (when it's not an ultra-wussie soft, powder day) as my first choice!

As for a comparison of longitudinal flex to my other boards, I find it very similar to other GS decks- it's NOT ultra stiff and I don't think that it was intended to be. My SL deck is "stiffer" when I used a side-by-side flex comparison. All this is, of course, very subjective. There are several variables in the make-up of the board that make it perform the way it does. I would be interested in some feedback from other Madd veterans out there.

[pokkis]

I've been riding with green sidewalls and the red sidewalls of the new production Madds and both seem to work great way.

The worst part for me with Madd's is that i have now less time with my dearly loved 188 Burner and 175 Swoard :D

[Fleaman]

By the posts I have read, I feel that the reputation that Madd had might be lost. I guess when you don't have a hand in the pot(construction) anything could happen.

Other than the ability to hold on Ice, nobody seems to have anything nice to say about the boards.

The only way to save face and redeem themselves is to host a MADD(BBAM) Kegger.:D With gogo dancers and lots of schwag.

[D-Sub]

In their defense, the general consensus is that the boards DO ride well!

seems like it would only take a minor adjustment to get them to look/hold up as good as they ride?

[mirror70]

The boards ride as well as any other flavor-of-the-month board does. Last season, that board was Donek. This season, it's Madd.

[Fleaman]

Coilers never go out of style, they are like a pair of jeans, comfy and cool!

I wonder if I could get jeans with flames on them?

[Kirk]

1st off, Anything rides "Sweet" out west

Please, this mantra is getting really old.

Don't kid yourself.

Though new to the Madd thing, I've had enough days on this thing in a variety of snow conditions, resorts and trail systems to make an educated comparison to many other decks I've owned and borrowed/demoed over the years. For ME, the board out-performs other decks in many ways. So I don't believe I'm kidding anyone, MYSELF in particular.

2nd, I have asked my friend CmC make the 1st hand comparison. He will go deeper in to detail later.

I am sincerely interested in hearing the details. I acknowledge that I took a "leap of faith" by purchasing a Madd w/out a demo run first (as many others did as well). It WAS people like cmc, PSR, and JG that initially intrigued me about this product. I did a lot of reading and asked lots of questions, but never demoed - risky (my wife thought so too!) It WAS that reputation that made me leap. No regrets.

As I read on the Catek forum not too long ago, it seemed that people like Eric (PSR) and cmc gave the "new" Madd decks a thumbs up? Why the change of opinion - were the demos different than the production decks that followed?

PSR on 12/26/04: "...The cool thing is that they're back! The better thing is that they're as remarkable as they were 8 years ago." found here: http://www.catek.com/forum/read.php?f=1&i=1943&t=1943

Mike T asked on 12/9/04: "Hey CMC - have you ridden one of the "new batch" Madds yet? Do they ride just like the old ones?"

cmc responds on 12/9/04: "The 170 rode just like the 'old' 170."

found here: http://www.catek.com/forum/read.php?f=1&i=1676&t=1676

I formed my own opinion after riding mine (and I had it before these opinions were posted) - I love mine - it's not for sale! But I too would like to know why there's an apparent "change of heart". I am interested in hearing the details from these riders since they have time on both "new" and "original" decks. Just want to know - so dirk 109 (or ~CmC), lets hear it!

Long post, sorry :o

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

I can't speak of a comparison with the original Madd snowboards. Love to add one to the quiver of course. I do know I spent at least 1/2 of each day for the last 3 out of 5 and had a ball on the 180cm. It had a very stable and predictable flex/ride in the mix of conditions I have ridden it. They seem to be making some pretty happy riders here at SES 2005!!! There are indeed more high quality , well thought out and incredibly well crafted alpine boards then I have every seen in one place. Well, except maybe DD collection. It was pretty soft well groomed runs at Hyland today with BIG BLUE SKIES FINALLY!!.

What a day!! Hard to not like any board that is a part of this much fun. Wish you all could be there. Glad I am. Bryan

[bobdea]

Originally posted by dirk109

1st off, Anything rides "Sweet" out west. Don't kid yourself. 2nd, I have asked my friend CmC make the 1st hand comparison. He will go deeper in to detail later.

The only thing that the 'new madds' have similar to the old style is that they have the same shape and carry the hefty price tag. All materials have been changed. Why would the new ones be the same? Change the materials, your flex patterns will change, harmonics are way off.

If anyone has a say, it would be me. I have logged more days on the Madd boards than anyone person could imagine. 4-158s, 3 170s and a 180. The new madds are ok and some of them barely reach the ok level. A few of them got hit right and perform well. My 170 that I got is going back where it came from. It was a poor excuse for a Madd. The overall flex pattern and torsional flex are very wrong.

Why? Because JG had no part. Those that are happy with theirs--excellent. I felt compelled to say something as if their is any board I choose to ride, it is the old style madds. Ive been getting a lot of calls from highly skilled riders around the country asking me and telling me that they feel the same way about these New Madds.

~CmC

I would not ride a madd or at least the 170 I had it, would be a bit soft but one ice soft is good

my board rocked but it was too soft for me if it was a good bit stiffer I would have given up a testicle before I gave up my 170

I liked it very much

mine was right in there with my coilers as far as the way it rode

I have have ridden allot of boards and a Madd is every bit as good as everything else I have been on but it has its own unique feel to it

if you don't like yours, good sell it to someone who will put it to good use

but ride it first and see what its all about first

[Fleaman]

are you drunk?:D

[dano]

If you come from Barre...

WIll Madd be releasing "new" 158's? That the board I'd like to have on a crowded slope. From what I hear anyway.

ds

[lonerider]

Originally posted by dirk109

1st off, Anything rides "Sweet" out west.

Hi Dirk, don't confuse the West (Colorado, Utah, California) with the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, BC). You probably heard of the record snowfalls in Baker and Bachelor and what not... but the reality the snow conditions at places like Mt. Hood, Crystal, even WHISTLER... can be variable... even down right crappy by even New Englanders standards. I ride in Tahoe now (where there really isn't any ice to speak of), but I grew up in NY/Boston and rode most of the hills in New England.

As for CMC, he is a very knowledge and experienced rider and I believe him if he thinks that the news Madds aren't as good as the old ones. But what do *you* think about the board. Can you describe in your own words why you don't like the Madd?

Now, I do believe a lot of people bought the Madd because it was the flavor of the season. I got one mainly because it sounded like a decent board for me (from what I understand it really wasn't meant for people with big feet or weighed over 180) that was cheaper than a Donek or Prior, and supposedly faster to build than a Coiler. That being said, while I don't think my Madd is the second coming but I do like the board.

[bobdea]

I was pretty drunk!

but yeah I still think Madd makes some great decks

[D-Sub]

Originally posted by lonerider

(from what I understand it really wasn't meant for people with big feet or weighed over 180)

curious...where did you hear this? I dont remember hearing anything of the sort.

Im well over 180...?

oh well. mines on its way elsewhere. a gift from a certain BV coming on sunday night. woohoo!

[Mike T]

I recall JG on a previous thread saying the target weight for the Madds was 135 - 195. I'm 195 and like I stated earlier on this thread I feel I am at the upper limit. Maybe even over it, not sure I would ride this board at all on soft groomed, but that's not what I bought it for.

I need to log a lot more time on my 170 but even now I cannot see myself ever feeling as passionate about it as I do my two Coilers.

Hindsight being 20/20 I might have picked a Coiler RC 175 or FC 173 over the Madd 170, if for no other reason that my weight.

[D-Sub]

guess I was sleepin in class on that day:)