why hardboots?

(Jason Watkins) wrote in message . com...
I think I may like jumping better in hardboots too. I've always been
concerned about rolling my ankles in my boots on landings, and facing
more forwards just feels better flying through the air. I don't like
the idea of missing the landing a spin and digging the board in with
hardboots.

Rolling you ankles is probably not going to be an issue. Jamming your
ankles because you landed on a flat. Or twisting your ankles because
you crashed and landed funny or possible, but specifically rolling
your ankles will probably not happen. Hardbooters will protect your
ankles a bit more that softboots. However they are not ideal because
in general they tend to be very heavy. Also they are very susceptibly
to slight weight shifts that might occur if you land off balance and
you will get stuck in a "groove" or an unintentional carve and likely
slide out. Is that what you meant when you said "missing the landing a
spin and digging the board"?

As for facing forwards, you are facing forwards - with your head.
Turning your shoulders perpendicular to the hill while in the air,
which leads to the board turning perpendicular as well - is a bad
habit maybe novice park riders have. However, with your learning
curve, I'm sure you should be able to get use to it after only a few
days.

I believe you already saw Jason's post on the responsiveness and power
hardboots bring to your riding. That was a big reason why I switched -
I could never get my softies to work responsively enough, and my feet
were killing me from having the straps as tight as I wanted. I suspect
modern softboot setups are much better, I haven't ridden softies since
around 1990. But people like Jason tell me that it hasn't changed so
much that I'm tempted to go back.

I should log more days on hardboots before I state an emphatic
opinion, but I believe you can do quite well with todays softboot
equipment. A pair of stiff boots, flow bindings and 30ish angles on a
narrow freeride board could get pretty close to hardboot style riding.

Hey, Jason do you really think that softboots and bindings haven't
changed that much in the past 15 years? Neil, I would say that
softbooters have come a long way since then... you still might not
like them... but I think the level develop seems to be faster than
hardboots... at least with the Raichle model designs I've seen (I own
a pair of SB224s).

Rolling you ankles is probably not going to be an issue. Jamming your
ankles because you landed on a flat. Or twisting your ankles because
you crashed and landed funny or possible, but specifically rolling
your ankles will probably not happen. Hardbooters will protect your
ankles a bit more that softboots.

I can attest to this after my recent ankle injury. I went off somewhere
between an 8 and 12 foot drop that I didn't see because of pretty much zero
visibility and landed totally flat. (Totally my fault)My ankle did not roll
but it did twist and it did get jammed. Hard. 2nd degree sprain, and
needed an excellent job by an excellent chiropractor to make it so I could
take a semi-normal step without crutches. (Sprain is still healing, foot is
taped up).

I shudder to think what that impact would have been like were I in soft
boots though. I suspect I would have dislocated the ankle, which would be
an even longer recovery. Not to mention having to cut the boot away from my
foot!

Mike T

Rolling you ankles is probably not going to be an issue. Jamming your
ankles because you landed on a flat. Or twisting your ankles because

Maybe rolling isn't the right word. I've done it a few times now,
hyper extended my ankle joint laterally against the binding heelcup.
Actually, the last few months have been the first time in a year that
my ankles havent hurt every day, so I think it may finally be healed.
I don't intend to do it again tho, and my ankle problems were one
thing that got me interested to give hardboots a solid try.

slide out. Is that what you meant when you said "missing the landing a
spin and digging the board"?

Trying a spin or the like and over/under rotating or not getting back
on axis for the landing, then digging in the nose, tail or some other
part of the board while still in the high speed tumble. I do get the
feeling that if it was voilent enough, the hardboots might save my
ankle at the price of snapping my lower leg.

Here, check out http://classic.mountainzone.com/olym...animation.html
and imagine doing a tumble like that after botching a jump... imagine
what would happen if you tumbled directly onto the nose or tail
hard... and imagine doing it with stiff cuffs around your shins.

As for facing forwards, you are facing forwards - with your head.
Turning your shoulders perpendicular to the hill while in the air,
which leads to the board turning perpendicular as well - is a bad
habit maybe novice park riders have. However, with your learning
curve, I'm sure you should be able to get use to it after only a few
days.

I suck at jumps, but of course I know that much . In both softboots
and hardboots my "home" position is with my shoulders/hips
perpendicular to the long axis of my front foot. So with softboots I'm
mostly looking around my shoulder, whereas with hardboots I'm closer
to just facing forward. I like facing forward more, and while I
haven't hit a table on the hardboots yet, visualizing it in my head, I
can tell I'd like the more forward stance (for straight airs).

around 1990. But people like Jason tell me that it hasn't changed so
much that I'm tempted to go back.

Hey, Jason do you really think that softboots and bindings haven't
changed that much in the past 15 years? Neil, I would say that
softbooters have come a long way since then... you still might not
like them... but I think the level develop seems to be faster than
hardboots... at least with the Raichle model designs I've seen (I own
a pair of SB224s).

That was an opinion Niel infered for himself based on my post, not
something I said. I wasn't snowboarding more than 2 years ago, let
alone 15 ;P. I like my softboots, I think they're a really well
designed product. And now that I've tried a stiff pair of the flows, I
really like those too. I think the equipments pretty good, and it
looks to me like it'll keep getting better at a pretty fast pace. I
imagine a sort of hybrid boot with rigid plastic inserts sewn into a
soft boot... that's what I picture a freeride snowboard boot looking
like in say 4 years. I suspect if I could find a pair of clicker boots
narrow enough I'd like those too.

I'm underwhelmed by the Raichle boots. My new ones are 423's, which I
imagine are almost the same as your 224's. They strike me as very
bulky, heavy and awkward... and the rachet buckles suck. I also don't
like how the entire shell deforms when you flex the ankle. I mean,
pick up a pair of Alpine Touring boots and see the difference...
they're designed to flex forward too (in walk mode) but they have
proper buckles, real soles with some tread, and are amazingly
lightweight. If I stick with hardboots I'm pretty sure I'll end up
trying pairs of UPS and Head boots just as alternatives. I had a
chance to try on a pair of UPS boots for a few seconds... they were
much lighter, and I remember liking how they fit. I would have bought
them this season if I could have gotten my hands on em. Same goes for
the softer versions of the head boot... but the sellers only had the
stiff race version :/.

I have an old pair of Raichle 123 shells, and there's no fundamental
difference between them and the 423's... makes me think that the basic
Raichle SB boot design hasn't had much improvement in a decade. If
they made an AF boot soft enough for me, maybe I'd like that.

Jason Watkins wrote:

Hey, Jason do you really think that softboots and bindings haven't
changed that much in the past 15 years? Neil, I would say that
softbooters have come a long way since then... you still might not
like them... but I think the level develop seems to be faster than
hardboots... at least with the Raichle model designs I've seen (I own
a pair of SB224s).


That was an opinion Niel infered for himself based on my post, not
something I said.

I didn't mean they hadn't changed, I meant that despite the changes they
still had some of the same problems - not responsive enough, strap pain,
heel lift. They've gotten better but not enough better to inspire me to
spend the money to try them out. I think the soft boot/binding
interface is fundamentally flawed but at least work continues on making
it better. It might need some real innovation to inspire me to change -
the Flows are a good start.

The hard boot/binding interface is a much better design, but the problem
is no progression on the boot end. Tons of improvement for bindings
though. Have a look at the latest Catek and Bomber bindings, they're a
world away from anything Burton has ever sold.

The boards are getting much better too, as anyone with skill, a press
and some riders for feedback can do a ton of development work for only
cost of materials and their time. Whereas boot molds are a whole
different thing, money-wise. With the market so small, the major
players have stopped improving their designs and the smaller players
can't afford to get into it. Raichle's SB series has had the odd update
but I don't think there's a ton of difference between a 123 and whatever
they're calling them now (Lemans?). I like my 224s though.

Neil

At Chamonix the average skier standard appears to be much better than
the average snowboarder. Skiers get down more stuff without sliding
down it on their arses. It's not that most boarders can't "carve" in
the sense of "extreme carving", they simply can't turn their boards.
It's that bad.


I'm saying that a stiffer setup and more forward angles would
help most people ride better for what they do. Hard or soft doesn't
matter to me, I just don't buy a freestyle board, flexy boots and duck
stance for the recreational rider. There's no reason to ride straight
stances unless you want to ride switch. All they do for recreational
riders is make it easier to skid down the hill on their heels.

Absolutely, 100%.

I don't believe that people ride crap gear (hard or soft) with
unsuitable stances because they want to sideslip. I think they do it
because the marketing pushes them to that gear, it teaches them that
it's ok to ride badly, and they don't think anything better's
attainable. I would guess they'll get bored pretty quickly though: how
are board sales these days?

Why does it matter? I'm not sure. Perhaps I just don't want my friends
to think I'm athletically crap just because I snowboard ;-)

(Jason Watkins) wrote in message . com...
slide out. Is that what you meant when you said "missing the landing a
spin and digging the board"?

Trying a spin or the like and over/under rotating or not getting back
on axis for the landing, then digging in the nose, tail or some other
part of the board while still in the high speed tumble. I do get the
feeling that if it was voilent enough, the hardboots might save my
ankle at the price of snapping my lower leg.

Here, check out http://classic.mountainzone.com/olym...animation.html
and imagine doing a tumble like that after botching a jump... imagine
what would happen if you tumbled directly onto the nose or tail
hard... and imagine doing it with stiff cuffs around your shins.

Yes, I have spun off axis several times before and it's not fun.
Realize that the rider is going rather fast in that video, and he's
riding a long and very stiff racing board. A shorter, softer freestyle
board is less likely to do that as it wouldn't be able to load that
much spring it it, and it won't catch as waily, but that's not to say
you aren't going to suffer if you screw up a jump.

In general I don't think you really should depend on the hardboots for
added protection, while it might protect your ankle... you are much
more likely to injury your knee, which is even more delicate than your
ankle. Either way, the best way to avoid injury is not to crash, and
if you are doing jumps, an alpine setup will be less than optimal.

As for facing forwards, you are facing forwards - with your head.
Turning your shoulders perpendicular to the hill while in the air,
which leads to the board turning perpendicular as well - is a bad
habit maybe novice park riders have. However, with your learning
curve, I'm sure you should be able to get use to it after only a few
days.

I suck at jumps, but of course I know that much . In both softboots
and hardboots my "home" position is with my shoulders/hips
perpendicular to the long axis of my front foot. So with softboots I'm
mostly looking around my shoulder, whereas with hardboots I'm closer
to just facing forward. I like facing forward more, and while I
haven't hit a table on the hardboots yet, visualizing it in my head, I
can tell I'd like the more forward stance (for straight airs).

Makes sense. I didn't feel a difference between the two body positions
when going into the air. Main thing I noticed is how heavy/stiff
boards hardboots are, making it a bit more difficult to ollie, grab
and especially tweak your grabs (although I'm not very good a tweaking
grabs anyway). I haven't tried doing spins, but the stiffness and
weight seem to be negative factors in my opinion. For me, I think it's
best to use alpine setups for alpine riding and freestyle setups for
freestyle riding.

I'm underwhelmed by the Raichle boots. My new ones are 423's, which I
imagine are almost the same as your 224's. They strike me as very
bulky, heavy and awkward... and the rachet buckles suck. I also don't
like how the entire shell deforms when you flex the ankle. I mean,
pick up a pair of Alpine Touring boots and see the difference...
they're designed to flex forward too (in walk mode) but they have
proper buckles, real soles with some tread, and are amazingly
lightweight. If I stick with hardboots I'm pretty sure I'll end up
trying pairs of UPS and Head boots just as alternatives. I had a
chance to try on a pair of UPS boots for a few seconds... they were
much lighter, and I remember liking how they fit. I would have bought
them this season if I could have gotten my hands on em. Same goes for
the softer versions of the head boot... but the sellers only had the
stiff race version :/.

I have an old pair of Raichle 123 shells, and there's no fundamental
difference between them and the 423's... makes me think that the basic
Raichle SB boot design hasn't had much improvement in a decade. If
they made an AF boot soft enough for me, maybe I'd like that.

Yea, the Raichle SB224's are from 1997 and their current model from
2004 doesn't feel look that much different. Both are rather
unimpressive, almost pieces of junk in my opinion. I just bought some
Oxygen boots on Ebay like Dmitri, they are a bit lighter and have
better looking buckles, I'm told that they are a bit soft though...
hopefully I'll get a chance to try them up this season. There is some
noise on Bomber about a new Virus/UPS boot coming out next season...
we'll see how it goes.

Neil Gendzwill wrote in message ...
Jason Watkins wrote:

Hey, Jason do you really think that softboots and bindings haven't
changed that much in the past 15 years? Neil, I would say that
softbooters have come a long way since then... you still might not
like them... but I think the level develop seems to be faster than
hardboots... at least with the Raichle model designs I've seen (I own
a pair of SB224s).


I didn't mean they hadn't changed, I meant that despite the changes they
still had some of the same problems - not responsive enough, strap pain,
heel lift. They've gotten better but not enough better to inspire me to
spend the money to try them out. I think the soft boot/binding
interface is fundamentally flawed but at least work continues on making
it better. It might need some real innovation to inspire me to change -
the Flows are a good start.

I see. I agree that with your bias towards carving performance, the
softboots aren't going to be what you want. In particular for softboot
carving you have to rely much more on the strength of your legs to
increase you edge angle (inclination of the board) whereas with
hardboots you can use the stiffness of the hardboots to tip over the
board - which is much quicker and powerful. However, responsiveness
isn't the only factor and in fact too much responsiveness maybe less
than ideal. I believe that it is a matter of preference. As such I
respectfully disagree with your claim that softboots/binding interface
as fundamentally flawed in general (although I don't question that
hardboots/plate bindings are better for hard carving).

Strap pain and heel lift occur because about poor boot/binding fit. If
you find a good fitting pair of boots and bindings they won't occur.
For me, I've had more buckle pain (equivalent to strap pain as the
boot/binding feature roles as slightly shifted) and heel lift in my
hardboots, also due to a poor boot fit. I believe if you pump all the
time and money people put into getting their hardbooters to fit right,
the heat moldable liners, the boot fitting, the adjusting and
tweaks... I think you will likely have a well fitting pair of boot
regardless of soft or hardboots.

The hard boot/binding interface is a much better design, but the problem
is no progression on the boot end. Tons of improvement for bindings
though. Have a look at the latest Catek and Bomber bindings, they're a
world away from anything Burton has ever sold.

I agree with the most recent Catek and Bomber bindings look extremely
well designed and manufactured, and the older Burton bindings don't
look very sturdy - makes me wonder how crazy you guys were to ride
plate bindings years ago

cost of materials and their time. Whereas boot molds are a whole
different thing, money-wise. With the market so small, the major
players have stopped improving their designs and the smaller players
can't afford to get into it. Raichle's SB series has had the odd update
but I don't think there's a ton of difference between a 123 and whatever
they're calling them now (Lemans?). I like my 224s though.

I agree that boards are getting much better in general (freestyle,
freeride, alpine, etc). I can also see why innovation in boot design
has stagnated due to the lack of economies of scale in hardboot
production.

However, even without changing the shell mold... I feel like there
could have been several upgrades to the boot materials - that heavy
plastic is like a decade old and it's not like that aren't using new
stuff in their ski boots. I have trouble believeing that the same new
materials cannot be used in the existing boot molds.

Especially buckle and cant design. To put it mildly, the Raichle
buckles are *horrible* any ski boot or even a rollerblade boot have
much newer and better working buckles. It shouldn't be that expensive
to buy a different buckle and attach to the exist shell, does it? Same
with the cant adjusters... those should be relatively cheap and easy
to redesign and insert into the exist shell design. I think this is
mainly Raichle's fault, but the lack of customers is not reason enough
for the lack of improvements.

I too have the SB224s and personally I think they are an unimpressive
sign and extremely outdated. Even if they were designed back in 1997,
they still feel 5-10 years behind ski boot designs... and looking at
the latest Raichle designs, things still haven't changed. I just got
a pair of Oxygen boots, which appears to use much newer light
materials and better buckles... don't know about the shell design
until I use it, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

On 18 Mar 2004 00:20:06 -0800, Jason Watkins said (and I quote):
I'm underwhelmed by the Raichle boots. My new ones are 423's, which I
imagine are almost the same as your 224's. They strike me as very
bulky, heavy and awkward... and the rachet buckles suck. I also don't
like how the entire shell deforms when you flex the ankle. I mean,
pick up a pair of Alpine Touring boots and see the difference...
they're designed to flex forward too (in walk mode) but they have
proper buckles, real soles with some tread, and are amazingly
lightweight. If I stick with hardboots I'm pretty sure I'll end up
trying pairs of UPS and Head boots just as alternatives. I had a
chance to try on a pair of UPS boots for a few seconds... they were
much lighter, and I remember liking how they fit. I would have bought
them this season if I could have gotten my hands on em. Same goes for
the softer versions of the head boot... but the sellers only had the
stiff race version :/.

Just as a counterpoint, I've recently switched from the Blax/Head
Stratos to the Raichle 423. To wear out a very worn cliche, these
took-my-riding-to-a-new-level. Really, they are just so much more
responsive that when I went back to the Stratos for a day I ended up
cursing myself for having let myself be held back by them for 3 seasons.

It's not a fit issue, 'cos the Stratos actually fit better, even
compared to the Thermofit liners in the Raichles. The Stratos are too
soft laterally (perhaps the Stratos Pro are significantly stiffer in
this regard, but somehow I doubt it). They're also not as tall. Both
these things make it easier to initiate turns, but harder to control the
turn at speed.

The Stratos are much better suited to shallower angles, where the
lateral flex will be more of an advantage than a disadvantage. They'd
be good boots for a wider powder or all-mountain board.

Also, the Raichles are much lighter!

I do like the spring system on the back of the Stratos though. The
5-position lean adjustor on the Raichles is a dumb design - when it's
locked, the cuff can't move at all, making the boots really stiff, but
when it's unlocked, it moves too freely, making the boots too soft. A
spring is the way to go, but from most people's reports the spring on
the AF700/Indy is too stiff and doesn't have a wide enough range of
forward lean adjustment. I want something like this:
http://www.carver.cc/gallery/photo.p...9&exhibition=3

I've realised even moreso how hard it is to buy boots. The things that
really matter to you when riding are almost impossible to judge when
trying them on in the shop. For instance, the lateral stiffness issue
can't be felt in the shop. You really have to ride them to know whether
you'll like them.
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:02:14 GMT
"Dmitry" wrote:

anyways... many resorts groomed steeps by having their Snowcats
lowered down with a winch. It's kind scary to think about it, but
I've seen it done.

Ouch. I'd pay just to see that!! Not even talking about riding that.
What resort?

I saw them preparing pistes that way in Livigno (Italy

neuro

I'm underwhelmed by the Raichle boots. My new ones are 423's, which I
imagine are almost the same as your 224's. They strike me as very
bulky, heavy and awkward... and the rachet buckles suck. I also don't
like how the entire shell deforms when you flex the ankle. I mean,
pick up a pair of Alpine Touring boots and see the difference...
they're designed to flex forward too (in walk mode) but they have
proper buckles, real soles with some tread, and are amazingly
lightweight. If I stick with hardboots I'm pretty sure I'll end up
trying pairs of UPS and Head boots just as alternatives. I had a
chance to try on a pair of UPS boots for a few seconds... they were
much lighter, and I remember liking how they fit. I would have bought
them this season if I could have gotten my hands on em. Same goes for
the softer versions of the head boot... but the sellers only had the
stiff race version :/.


The Raichle boots are certainly not without their faults!

I continue to use them mostly because they fit my narrow feet with skinny
ankles, and also because replacement parts are readily available. (And
I've needed them - specially the cant adjusters whcih break almost
immediately if you're heavier like I am)

The UPS 5-buckle model that wasn't available for purchase this year looks
intruiging to me and I just might have to try a pair on sometime. However
I'm also cautious about switching boot models because it always takes me a
number of riding days to get used to any new boot model... and usually I
have to rebake the liners more than once in order to make up for some
shortcoming!


I have an old pair of Raichle 123 shells, and there's no fundamental
difference between them and the 423's... makes me think that the basic
Raichle SB boot design hasn't had much improvement in a decade. If
they made an AF boot soft enough for me, maybe I'd like that.

Yep, it's pretty much been the same design since the 100 series, whenever
that came out.