Mountain Slope .951

[yamifumi]

10 hours ago, pow4ever said:

Are there instruction for the boots? 
What does dot on the cant disk meant?
 

yamifumi: 
How do you center your 951 on SG binding currently?

if center by bail/sled:
Both Front/back foot:  the boot center mark point is about 1cm behind binding center.
 

Mountainslope website has good indication of where to start. I guess you can call that “instruction”

the dot on can’t disk indicates, which disk is with no cant (I believe 2 dots...) and other ones are for either inward or outward cannt.

i center my boot center to SG binding center and has been good but maybe I will start to play like @slapos said .... 

[charliechocolate]

Anyone know how much their shells weigh? Interested to know it compares to UPZ. If lighter, I wonder if you even feel the difference when riding.

[Mr.E]

Not appreciably lighter. 

I've seen you asking about boot weight in a couple of threads. What's your issue? I've never noticed boot weight on the board, only when hiking. And no race boot is a great hiker anyway.

I have a pair of light Fischer AT boots (less than 1kg per boot). Even with those I don't notice the boot weight on the board.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Mr.E

[charliechocolate]

I picked up a pair of carbon backlands and have been amazed at how light they are. Since then, I have been wondering why decades old hardboot designs can't keep with the times.

I have no issues with boot weight when riding but as a matter of convenience, I would like lightweight snowboard-specific boots for the gruelling hikes from the parking lot to the lodge 

[philw]

It's hard to know if the difference is psychological or real, but I still think about it a fair bit when riding with the Backlands.

I was thinking that those who like heavier boots can strap a bag of sugar between their feet to bring back the feel of 1980s hard snowboard boots and still benefit from the performance of carbon fibre and modern plastics across temperatures

[My own motivation to halve the weight of what I put on my feet was mostly lugging the things in hand-baggage around the world, which is considerably easier with the Backlands. Any riding benefits are incidental. That said, I prefer lighter snowboards to heavier ones too. ]

[Mr.E]

You are comparing two boots designed for two different ends. Light touring boots are great, but don't feel or preform like a race boot. From the liner to the shell to even the buckles, there are performance reasons the 951, UPZ and Deeluxe boots weight more. 

My 951 are stiffer across the sole, deform less in the lower, have a stiffer, talker and more supportive cuff, more supportive/ warmer liner, beefier buckles and a more robust/ longer travel spring system. All stuff I want on piste for a carving board.

My Travers (and your Backland) are optimized for a different environment and riding experience. I use mine as a softboot replacement in bounds or for touring. Ride nothing like my race boot.

It's not a matter of not keeping up or not being modern. Take a look at modern race ski boots, they still weigh twice what backlands do and for good reason.

 

[slapos]

Zipfit grand Prix sidewinder 285 mp height in the 951 C shell. @bigwavedave

Edited February 9, 2020 by slapos

[pow4ever]

On 2/6/2020 at 1:09 PM, charliechocolate said:

Anyone know how much their shells weigh? Interested to know it compares to UPZ. If lighter, I wonder if you even feel the difference when riding.

upz 26.5 with DGSS - 1.84 kg
MS 951 shell B world cup - 1.68kg

This is done with a cheap travel luggage scale so take it with grain of salt.  single boot.

a while back:  A review on SG GS 185.  The term that stood out to me was "beefy".
I didn't quite understand it until I got one.
These MS .951 just seems well beefy.

[pow4ever]

More setup question on 951

spent first day on it And getting feedback from carving friends that It seems i can’t bend as low as I can on the deeluxe in the back foot.

i feel something is off but can’t quite put my finger on it.  Could be lack of snow time cobweb, new boots...

To me the flex Of 951 is pretty “soft”/at least on par with track 700(fore/after)

laterally it’s stiffer but in a good way.  Don’t know how but it made dealing with bumpy snow easier?

stilling trying to dial things in...

Was anything stood out to you in your 951 journey?

Current plan of attack:

decrease little bit of Spring preload
Decrease stance width by 0.25”
Increase back angle by 3 degrees

next: 

decrease heel lift

then I am out of idea.

 

[slapos]

What sort of springs did you run on tracks ?

Maybe the movement available fore/aft is smaller.

Maybe you need a touch more forward lean as a starting position?

Notice that 951 offer a stepless adjustment of the forward lean as opposed to deeluxe or standard upz

[Jack M]

10 hours ago, pow4ever said:

decrease little bit of Spring preload
Decrease stance width by 0.25”
Increase back angle by 3 degrees

I did similar things.  Decreased spring preload on rear boot, increased on front boot.  Decrease stance width 0.25".  Increase rear binding angle slightly.  Increased forward lean on rear boot, decreased on front.  Removed outward cant on rear binding, now just running 6 toe, 3 heel, no cant.

I feel the fore/aft flex is completely controlled by the spring system.  The tongue itself is quite soft, basically a non-factor as far as I can tell.  Laterally I feel my WC's are stiffer than UPZ and Deeluxe, and I like that.

Haven't weighed them, but right out of the box I was quite surprised at how light they are in my hand.  I think this improves "handling".  Flex seems entirely independent of ambient temperature. 

Put it all together and I feel no need for different material or design.  Call it "old" all you want, it just works.

[bigwavedave]

This is where I'm at now. Subtle changes, getting pretty close to where I like it.

Going 6° on both toe and heel lift made a difference for me

 no canting 

same wide stance (20"), same angles (inside the edge of board)

No preload on springs 

No forward lean on front and ¾" on rear (measuring from the bottom pin to the spring base). Still playing with this and it's so easy on the hill.

I'm considering making something that has the range of motion of a dgss, about another ½" for toeside, although I might get where I want just by increasing forward lean, as it doesn't have that locked-in feeling of spring systems that came standard on other boots.

 

[pow4ever]

On 1/12/2020 at 3:09 PM, Jack M said:

 "Something about my technique was causing the rear tongue to twist out of position towards the tail of the board and shin-bang would ensue.  I solved this by running the stock booster strap between the liner tongue and the shell tongue."

@Jack M

I did the same thing and shin bang problem went away but it seems to be chewing up the stock strap.
Do you have a picture on how you have it setup? 
The stock strap is too wide to go between liner/shell tongue without it take a "sharp bend".

~50k vertical feet so far and it gets better and better.  Didn't think boots will make much difference in riding but it does.

Thanks all for short circuiting dial in time. 
Feel like the "2nd mice get the cheese"  

[Serajam]

Hello everyone,

could you please give me a good advice, how to select right size of .951

I have 29,  29.1 mp size.

Do I have to go for smaller shell and moldable inner boot?

I have been always struggling with my heel going up in toeside turns (upz boots correct size, deeluxe track 700 -1 size,).

Thank you

[Mr.E]

https://www.mountain-slope.com/shop/

Probably a D shell and moldable liner, or possibly a C shell, custom liner and possibly some boot fitting and shell work depening on your foot.

For reference, I have a 27.5 flat/ weighted foot (low volume, flat, low arch). I am comfortably wearing a B shell with a molded liner and no shell work.

[1xsculler]

On 1/12/2020 at 7:47 PM, Beckmann AG said:

Ramp measured 9.6 in the pair I had in the shop.

UPZ is +/- 12.

My UPZs have a 10° ramp. 

[bigwavedave]

Really liking these boots especially after getting ZipFit liners. After some experimenting, I ended up with 6° (~1" F2 lift) under both feet, front toe and rear heel. No canting.

Widened my stance a bit to accommodate the lifts by moving binding center from 19.5" to 20".  In order to get heels and toes equidistant from the edges I always end up moving the binding heel & toe blocks to the extreme ends of the plate. This actually gives me a 20.5" stance width if measuring the distance from toe to toe of bindings.  

With UPZ's I had 6° (~1" F2 lift) front toe, and 3° (~½" F2 lift) rear heel. I think I also used a little outward cant.

[rst]

On 1/26/2021 at 10:46 AM, bigwavedave said:

Really liking these boots especially after getting ZipFit liners. After some experimenting, I ended up with 6° (~1" F2 lift) under both feet, front toe and rear heel. No canting.

Widened my stance a bit to accommodate the lifts by moving binding center from 19.5" to 20".  In order to get heels and toes equidistant from the edges I always end up moving the binding heel & toe blocks to the extreme ends of the plate. This actually gives me a 20.5" stance width if measuring the distance from toe to toe of bindings.  

With UPZ's I had 6° (~1" F2 lift) front toe, and 3° (~½" F2 lift) rear heel. I think I also used a little outward cant.

which UPZ shell size did you have? which 951 shell did you get?

do you like liners which come with 951?

Edited February 8, 2021 by rst

[bigwavedave]

23 minutes ago, rst said:

which UPZ shell size did you have? which 951 shell did you get?

do you like liners which come with 951?

UPZ m28, 312 shell

MS shell size C

Got them used with the 1st gen liners which were not great.  The newer liners (past 2 years?) are supposed to be much better.

[rst]

I did read on another forum that it comes (B size) with couple volume reducing insole under liner.

is it true?

Volume wise, does it have less volume than UPZ? I mean shell internal volume

[Jack M]

13 minutes ago, rst said:

Volume wise, does it have less volume than UPZ? I mean shell internal volume

In the heel/ankle area I'd say they're similar.  In the ball of the foot area I'd say MS is wider.  I had to get my UPZs punched for width there, and I would have gotten them punched a second time if I didn't move on to MS.  Haven't had to modify my 951s at all other than molding the liners.

[rst]

looks like I have to think toward size A to get the narrowest possible

[Jack M]

2 minutes ago, rst said:

looks like I have to think toward size A to get the narrowest possible

Measure your foot in centimeters.  That is your mondopoint size.  Then look at the MS size chart below.  Just a guess but I would think it is more difficult to punch a boot for length, and that there is less leeway to do so.  That said, my bigger foot measures 28.4cm and I am in the C shell and I'm very glad I didn't go D.

[rst]

5 minutes ago, Jack M said:

Measure your foot in centimeters.  That is your mondopoint size.  Then look at the MS size chart below.  Just a guess but I would think it is more difficult to punch a boot for length, and that there is less leeway to do so.  That said, my bigger foot measures 28.4cm and I am in the C shell and I'm very glad I didn't go D.

never worked for me

I ride upz 24.0 (heat molded them of course) in the smallest upz shell

this is how it works for my feet [26.7]

I'm supposed to have next size of upz shell, but it feels like WAY TOO LARGE

 

PS

not advising anyone to go shell size down, but this is the way which keeps my feet like boots made of concrete

Edited February 8, 2021 by rst

[Jack M]

7 minutes ago, rst said:

I ride upz 24.0 (heat molded them of course) in the smallest upz shell

this is how it works for my feet [26.7]

That seems like a radical difference, but hey if it works for you then great.  Sounds like the A shell is for you.  I have tried the "race fit" in the past.  Never again.