Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Madd original vs. reissue


MarkJeangerard

Recommended Posts

Hello Bomber Online Forums!

It's been a while. So much so that I don't even know which internet provider was registered to my old BOL account. So, new me... here... 

I've read Fin's posts and am so sorry to hear about the situation with Bomber.  

Before last month I hadn't carved in 6 years or so. Living in Vegas for several reasons - it's been a good choice except for the carving - the local hill is fun, but not big enough for my single running Madd 180. I met a snowboard collector who took me to Brian Head for the first time at the end of the season last year. 3 hours from the house, wide open trails, low crowds. Perfect. A few weeks ago I dusted off the Madd and buckled up the Suzuka's to see if the mold still fit. On my first day I rode 6 hours straight, I was so stoked. Took half a week to recover. But I could not understand how carving dropped out of my life. Regardless, I need to make up for lost time. The thing is, our local hill is very narrow. The 180 is just too much depending on conditions and traffic. I wish my trusty old 170 were working, it would be perfect. Alas, I let too many people try it out and the inserts have failed. So, I asked my friend the collector if he could find one. 

He posted a picture of me on face book with the board and got a response that read along the lines of, "That's a reissue. It sucks." I asked him to ask the person who responded to clarify with what, specifically, the differences were. The person responded with, "Reissues suck." That wasn't exactly the answer I was looking for so I decided to bring my questions here. 

I had intended to ask only what the differences were between the original and the reissue because, quite frankly, that 170 is the best snowboard I've ever ridden. By a long shot. So, if I am to consider purchasing an original Madd at twice the price of the reissue then I need to know if it will be something I will like. If they are that much different perhaps I want the Suck board and not whatever the Not Suck board is. But then it dawned on me that the Original Madd is what, 20+ years old? The reissue 10+ by now? Maybe, just maybe, snowboards have gotten better. 

I read the Madd Killer thread. From it I gleaned some pertinent bits of information:

  • Still no answers on the original vs. reissue other than the base material was superior on the original. 
  • Looking at the images I posted - that Madd 170 with the single binding there in the picture? Every single thing that every single person said about the Donek MK is, for real, exactly applicable to that there Madd 170. I'm not kidding. That's how that thing rides. No exaggeration. I expect that it's possible that everything except the tail spring could be deemphasized on the Madd, but every characteristic I read about could certainly and accurately be applied to that board. 
  • I'll be talking to Sean about binding options with the MK tomorrow. 

So... Questions...

  1. What are the primary differences in between the original and reissue Madds?
  2. Is it even worth investigating the differences in the Madd vintages, or should I just move on?
  3. Can the inserts be reconditioned? That board is in pristine condition. I would love to ride it again. 
  4. Does anybody know what that 170 is? Shaggy, are you still around here? You told me once that it had some outstanding features, but I have forgotten. 

 

PS - I let a friend who worked at a snowboard shop talk me into letting him try a steel fiber reinforced epoxy "thread filler" on the bindings of the 170. It detached upon landing 15 or 20 feet of flat air after crossing the catwalk separating upper and lower Parachute at Santa Fe. I don't remember how I brought that thing to a smooth(ish) stop without hurting myself, but I did. I do remember thinking that had I been airing an edge transfer, as I had been known to do there, I could have sustained real and possibly debilitating damage. 

IMG_20180308_191906_2.jpg

IMG_20180308_192011_5.jpg

Edited by MarkJeangerard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The re-issues ride very well, but they tend to be somewhat less durable, on account of an epoxy problem.  

The carbon butterfly is thinner, and again, had a tendency to separate from the rest of the board. 

The reissues were also less consistent in terms of camber profile.  Some had more, some less, and on the really hard snow, the less wasn't more.

I have not yet had the opportunity to ride an MK, but odds are good it will not have as much camber as an original, or one of the better re-issues. Some don't seem to notice or care, but camber does matter. 

If your brass inserts are stripped, those can be repaired using 'Recoil' thread repair inserts, though you will probably want the use of a drill press,  a specific sized end mill to core out the remains, and will need to modify the tap in the kit to get full insertion of the repair thread. I've done this a number of times, and the boards repaired came apart long before the repaired inserts got loose.

So if the insert itself isn't loose, this may be an option.

If you like the ride of the boards in the picture, you will most likely appreciate the ride of an original. The greater dilemma is falling back in love with something you cannot then replace.

Regarding the 're-issues suck' thing. There are a lot of boards out there that don't ride well. There are just as many, if not more, riders who don't ride well, as well.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These reissues do not suck, they're actually really good.  The ones with the blue topsheets kind of sucked, and those were the ones with the epoxy problem.  Your 180 looks like a 2005.  I had one and loved it.  Your 170 looks like a 2006 or 7 which were also great.  I'd say it's worth repairing or even t-nutting to get another season out of it. Your 170 surely makes a longer turn than the MK, which turns very tight.

The difference between the originals and reissues is a matter of great folklore around here.  There are many differences... not really worth getting into it as the originals are very hard to find, especially a 170.  Also, they can never be reproduced exactly because some of the materials are no longer made, and the tooling and molds were destroyed in a fire or some such catastrophe at the factory in Italy.  The Donek MK is the path forward if you want a 158-like ride.  If you want a board like your 170, a guy here had a custom Donek 172 made with the request that it be made like the MK only longer, check it out here: http://forums.bomberonline.com/topic/45745-donek-custom-172/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sherlock er.... @Beckmann AG Thank you for the honest and very helpful reply. I brought the 170 to the local SB shop tuning guru and he refused to touch it. Saying that there was no way to tap it without destroying the board. I am going to take your instructions to local machinists until I find one comfortable with the procedure, I think... I might have gotten lucky with both of those boards in that they have, in my experience at least, decent camber. The 170 has just over 3/4" right in front of the rear foot. And while both exhibit sloppy epoxy work, neither has delammed yet. That 180 has seen many long, energetic days on the snow. 

@lowrider I was about to tell you to, "get stuffed" when it occurred to me that I will be buying a Donek very soon. I will not touch the Madd until I have ridden the Donek, which may not be until next year. If the Doenk is everything I think it is going to be you will be first in line for the 170. It is a very special board. I let it loose a couple days at one of the ES events. Good carvers were spooked by it's aggressive turn in.

@Jack Michaud Jack, thank you for your input. Yeah, in the facebook conversation it seemed like the person who responded had a chip on his shoulder. I had read an inkling in the MK thread about a longer version, but I missed the thread you linked. My only concern with the MK was that it might be a little too tight for my enjoyment. I am also 5'10" and 190lbs and I like my tight board to allow light bulb changers when the mood strikes. I will hopefully demo an MK next year but I'm buying the 172 without hesitation. If you click my profile, Sean built that twin tip Incline last year, or the year before. It is decambered out near the ends.... whooo boy.... it holds like (crazy?) on hard pack, and chop doesn't even exist in my world. (Cheap phone picture edited in MSPaint. The board is actually gorgeous.)

Thanks everyone. Had I not come here I would have put off finding a machinist for another year and never have known about the MK. Sometimes I isolate myself too much. How I had let this community slip out of my mind, I'll never know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the inserts of your 170: the first re-tap in threading you should attempt would be 1/4"-28 tpi (same screw that early Sims boards used), as it is a few thousandths bigger, and 28 tpi is really close in pitch to the 6mm's 25 tpi. If you go bigger yet ( second attempt at tapping ), go with 5/16",24 tpi.That's 2mm bigger than a 6mm screw, and as such, some bindings won't readily accept that large a screw without modification. Do Not use a heli-coil! It won't hold with enough sheer strength. Also, stay away from using an 8mm screw, as the coarseness of the threading will make for a sloppy tapping. I just aquirred a re-issue 170 from this bst forum. I used to be one of those guys who took riders who were demoing Madds boards, and give them tips on how best to ride those boards. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of buying a re-issue if I thought it 'sucked'. Now, with the M.K., I am stoked it is out on the market. CMC put a lot of time and effort to get these made. But, I will wait until a longer version debuts. Been waiting almost 2 decades already, another year or two won't dampen my enthusiasm much. The MK as it is now, is as good as the original 158, but my legs don't work like they used to...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eric Brammer aka PSR said:

On the inserts of your 170: the first re-tap in threading you should attempt would be 1/4"-28 tpi (same screw that early Sims boards used), as it is a few thousandths bigger, and 28 tpi is really close in pitch to the 6mm's 25 tpi. If you go bigger yet ( second attempt at tapping ), go with 5/16",24 tpi.That's 2mm bigger than a 6mm screw......

Mixing the metric and US units is just imprecise. Metric 6mm machine screws have a 1mm pitch but there are 25.4mm approx per inch.

11 minutes ago, Eric Brammer aka PSR said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done properly, 'Recoil' type repairs are often stronger than the parent thread material.

FWIW, this board was retired when it broke behind the rear binding, shortly after I noticed the topsheet delaminating in that area. Made for an interesting situation where you can start, but not complete a turn.

 

Edited by Beckmann AG
comma chameleon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

Mixing the metric and US units is just imprecise. Metric 6mm machine screws have a 1mm pitch but there are 25.4mm approx per inch.

 

Be real.. I'm a Machinist: if I put in every frippin' detail, you'd die of boredom before the explanation was done. "25" tpi is good enough to make the point that continuing to utilize Metric Threading is a bad solution. IF you ever put a 6mm into a '88 Sims, You'd Know the threads are quite similar; until you try to back that metric screw out of the board!! Next time, if it appeases you, I can source a few Machinist's manual, right down to the EXACT SIZES And PITCHES; but I see no point in being That Anal.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MK has just as much, if not more, pure edge hold than original 58s, but the originals still feel to be more versatile with turn shape as well as more quiet and stable underfoot. 

The classic 170 is more stable at stupid speeds than the reissue 170s (I know that they weren't entirely consistent).  Both feel relatively soft to me now even at 160lbs.

The reissue and original 180s felt very different.  I regret letting go of the reissue 180 that I had, and the inserts on my original 180 scare me.  Both turned big but felt very different under foot.

Just my $0.02 given time on my current quiver.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, now that you mention it, you've just added two more traits that I love about my Madds. The 180 is extremely versatile. And I don't just mean size. I have always been able to change turn shape at any phase of the turn. Scrub the nose? Feather the tail? Flat slip for a second in the middle of a turn then punch back into a trench? It's all cake. I ride extremely confidently on that board knowing that if I get in over my head I've got a library of outs. It's definitely softer than any other 180 I've ridden but it was the board that replaced my Prior WCR185 and I remember the Madd being more stable at speed then. (Haven't gone really fast in a while.)

That's the 180 in my icon picture in 10" of over night fresh and snow falling so fast my lines disappeared every other run.

The 170 has all the characteristics That people are ascribing to the MK albeit, necessarily slower and larger I would think. It was (is) literally violent at turn in, lightning quick edge to edge, could hang on to full weight light bulb changers without losing speed, and most of all it had that Madd comfort factor: quiet, stable, predictable, willing, and readable to the smallest degree.

Ok. Maybe I'll fix that first and ride it. See what I think then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarkJeangerard said:

That's pretty much the thought process I was going through yesterday when I ordered my Custom 172 from Sean. So I guess my new plan is to ride that first then think about what I want to do with the Madd.

Plus, I'm going to concentrate on hitting a couple of demo days next season. 

What are the specs of your forthcoming custom 172?  Just curious to see if Sean is making you something similar to what he made for my custom 172.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, workshop7 said:

What are the specs of your forthcoming custom 172?  Just curious to see if Sean is making you something similar to what he made for my custom 172.

I typically won't buy anything I don't demo.  But I really trust this forum. Ya'll speak a language I understand and I've seen a few of you ride. 

Based on what is written here I would have ordered the MK if I were in my 40s. But I turn 57 in a few weeks... I thought maybe something slightly less turny. So I called Sean and asked him if I would like the MK or your board better. Based on my weight and fitness level we decided I would be very happy with your board. Sean said changing the waist to 18cm won't change the ride significantly.

Thanks for pioneering the cut, good sir. And thanks for lending it to Jack so that he could as his assessment to yours.

I've always wanted a Donek with a green Swift topsheet. :)

Edited by MarkJeangerard
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Erik J said:

As a diehard Madd fan. I have to agree with this.

That 170 is fixable and should be fixed just because. 

The single most precious thing in my life is snowboarding.

I've got a mind full of memories - stories of epic days on epic days.

Riding in waist deep champagne powder, our wakes blowing 20 feet into the air in front of us, off our thighs and chests. Only able to see where we were going for a brief moment as we leaned out at the beginning of each  turn.

Porpoising through a sea of little hollow tubes of ice 1" thick and 5" long that tinkled like shattered glass as we slashed through golden aspen under a platinum sky.  

Raging air to transfers over freshly corded Paymaster rollers in a group of 15 hardbooters who found the Keystone mountain engineers grooming in the middle of the afternoon.

The single most precious thing in my snowboarding is my Madd snowboards. Because those memories are just that. Gone by. But my Madds give me that epic feeling every time without fail. Other snowboards need the proper conditions to come through.  

If I don't find a machinist in town who has utter confidence before starting I will find a proper home for the 170. There's a reason I haven't let anyone have a go yet, even though I've talked to 3 separate people.  It is, in my opinion, a perfect snowboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MarkJeangerard said:

Sean said changing the waist to 18cm won't change the ride significantly.

What size are your feet?  Are you sure about that 18cm?  I liked workshop's 19cm, but I have size 28 boots.

I think you'll love the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW...I had an MK. Didn't get along with the 18cm at all. Im in size 30.5 RC10's . Would boot out on my heelside on firm snow even running way steeper angles than any of my other boards. I sold it and now I'm on an SG 162 full race with a 20cm waist which I love as my short turny groomer day board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29.5 here. While I have a history of stance angles between 12 and 67 degrees, and have always been comfortable switching between, even run to run, it has been a few years since I've ridden in that window. I'll probably be mounting the board at 70 or so. Yip. I'm one of those guys. Nope, never ridden a Skwal or monoski. And only ever skied just to try something that would put me back to day one. 

I just like carving with steep angles. I have no ACLs, I wonder if that has something to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/9/2018 at 1:25 AM, Beckmann AG said:

I have not yet had the opportunity to ride an MK, but odds are good it will not have as much camber as an original, or one of the better re-issues.

2006/2007 Madd F2 170 sitting  over the 2018 Donek Custom 172. 

IMG_20180330_133600_10.jpg

Edited by MarkJeangerard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...