why hardboots?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:27:06 -0600, Neil Gendzwill said (and I quote):

BTW Baka makes a strong point for carving he
http://www.geocities.jp/costbeck//snow/cb_carving.mpg

Nice work!

Thanks! Just don't ask to see me riding the pipe.
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

On 15 Mar 2004 00:23:21 -0800, Arvin Chang said (and I quote):
Baka Dasai wrote in message
...
It's not the fact that the sport is sold with a fantasy, it's the nature
of that fantasy. Why doesn't the fantasy include people railing turns
down steep icy groomers, or even in powder?

I put this out for the mere purpose of debate. Would you believe that
the "fantasy" doesn't include people railing turns down icy groomers
because most people don't consider that fun. The advertising isn't
geared towards it because people (that is to say males between the
ages 8-30) don't care about carving...

Not my experience. They seem pretty interested in it when they see it.

Your right, in that many (most?) people prefer to cruise around the
mountain in an upright, gentle manner. I haven't seen much hard boot
advocacy aimed at them. It's the expert soft-boot carvers (a
significant proportion of mid-week riders that I see) that are the focus
of the advocacy.

I agree, but how many people is that? That's must be no more than like
1-2% of the snowboarding population... why would anyone pay thousands
of dollars on tv and magazine ads for such a small niche.

You're from California, right Arvin? I think our different perspectives
might be coming from some pretty big regional differences. In the last
three years I've seen soft boot carving absolutely take off in
popularity. Almost 1 in 2 mid-week riders are now carving. I think
they got the idea from the skiers, not the hard-boot snowboarders.
Carving skiers are *everywhere* here. But the idea has taken hold, and
you can see ordinary riders madly trying to copy the carvers. Everybody
is either doing it, or trying to.

What you see as 1-2% appears to me as the forefront of a swelling unmet
demand. A major trend in the making, yet one for which the industry is
completely unprepared.

My point is that people are
incorrectly blaming the decline of alpine snowboarding on snowboard
companies and resorts (they would do so if there was a profit to be
made)

Well, I think it's a lot more complex than that. As I alluded to
elsewhere in this thread, I think it's largely a fashion thing - alpine
snowboarding became old school and uncool about 10 years ago. These
things move in cycles though. You're probably not old enough to
remember when ballet skiing was cool.

when the true reason is that many people (perhaps wrongly) don't
like to carve.

Sure, but that hasn't stopped the ski industry selling a lot of carving
skis.

Or to put it another way, carving may be just as inappropriate as
freestyle to serve as the basis for selling the sport, so not why not
use it?
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

Ok, this gives some more reasons to drive there and maybe camp out
for a night on weekend. When do they usually close Meadows for the
season?

Closing day this year is May 2.

They don't use their winch cat every day though... you might want to call in
advance about that.

Now I'm curious what the hell is going on with plate bindings and
standards.
There are a couple of listings on eBay for old Burton plates (I gather
they're
pretty crappy), and it also looks like they're somewhat proprietary and
I'm
not sure they'll fit my boots. There's a mention about some sort of heel
modification
to Intec standard, what's up with that?

The Intec standard is a step-in mechanism. Here is what an Intec compatible
binding looks like (note the heelpiece):

http://www.bomberonline.com/Store/bi...td2_stepin.cfm

You then swap out the heel pads on your boots for the

http://www.bomberonline.com/Store/ac...heel_assem.cfm

The same Bomber TD2 binding outhout Intec:

http://www.bomberonline.com/Store/bi...2_standard.cfm

I haveno idea if your boots can accept Intec heels, and since you're trying
not to spend too much money you'll probably want to go for a "traditional"
closure binding.

Basically, I need some reasonably frugal way to try plate bindings ($270
for new
Catec or TD2 is too steep and just not worth it for me now). Any
recommendations
given that boots are a done deal?

Well, you've obviously done some reading on Bomber of Freecarve.com or
someplace else since you know the TD2 and Catek are the most often
recommended bindings in the freecarve community! (I have one of each and
have a hard time choosing which one I like better)

If you're not too heavy (say 170 pounds or less) some Burton race plates,
*without* any proprietary step-in mechanism, might be a good place to start.
They can be had used on eBay or Bomber';s classifieds for pretty cheap. The
main complaint against Burtons is that the bails eventually break. You
might want to ask this question on the bomberonline forums if you haven't
already done so.

If you wind up in my neck of the woods in late April or May 1 -2 look me up,
my ankle should be ready to go by then.

Dmitry wrote:
"Neil Gendzwill" wrote

Partly, although I don't point my shoulders downhill, they're lined up
with my binding angles - straight downhill would be too rotated. A more
forward-facing stance is a big advantage anytime you want to make tight,
quick turns, like on a bump run. It lets you do more with just your
legs without having to involve your whole upper body.


Not sure if I can agree. In both cases your neand and your ass are going
along some smooth line downhill and your legs are jerking back and forth,
right? The big difference is that with high angle stance it's harder to
bend because the ass-legs joint is not very good at bending sideways.
(even though it's a ball joint

The ass-legs joint is fine at bending sideways enough for this purpose,
watch any good skier in the bumps. One more bump benefit: If you're
straight across, the axis of the bend is straight across. If you're
angled, it's closer to the direction of movement. This is an advantage
in bumps also because you can suck up the bumps better when your knees
are bending closer to the fall line - this is partly why good skiers
will always slay good riders in the bumps.

Ok, so do you think that a setup with hard boots and a board like a Donek
Axis is an ultimate all-mountain riding tool? Just asking for your personal
preference/opinion.

Yes, absolutely. My own ride is a Prior 4WD (very similar board) with
Raichle 224s (softer hard boot). One nice option is to look at the
Coiler AMX 169 or AM 172 - they are available in a 23 cm waist width,
which would let you use some pretty relaxed angled if you want and also
give you lots of float. They're also available in 19 or 21.5 cm I
think. One nice thing about Coiler is that the stiffness is tuned for
you - tell Bruce your weight, riding style and what you're looking for,
and he builds to suit, no extra charge. But the Donek Axis and
competitor Prior 4WD are also very popular boards in this category. My
old Prior has had the biscuit and I'm just trying to figure out where I
want to go next - it's an old 165 and a little on the soft side compared
to the newer boards.

Neil

Neil Gendzwill wrote in message ...
Dmitry wrote:
"Neil Gendzwill" wrote

When I rode hardboots on a freeride board (25 cm waist), I used 35
degree angles. Now that I'm on an all-mountain board, it's 45. You
don't have to go to a narrower waist, but you should absolutely go to
steeper angles. Unless you're already at 30 plus in softies.


But.. Why? To be able to ride with the shoulders pointing downhill?

Partly, although I don't point my shoulders downhill, they're lined up
with my binding angles - straight downhill would be too rotated. A more
forward-facing stance is a big advantage anytime you want to make tight,
quick turns, like on a bump run. It lets you do more with just your
legs without having to involve your whole upper body.

Another advantage is to be able to get your ass to pressure the edge on
a heelside. If you ride flat angles, toesides are OK but on heelside
you have your ass hanging off the side. We call this "sitting on the
toilet". With higher angles, you get your butt more over the edge which
means your bodyweight is pressuring the edge more, thus you trench better.

A third advantage is that higher angles let you ride a narrower board.
You don't have to go narrower, but if you do you'll find the edge to
edge quickness that results from dumping 4 or 5 cm of width on the board
to be pretty cool.

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.

Neil


I'm just a newcomer to hardboots myself, but have similar impressions
as Jason. There is definitely more response and power with hardboots.
I've definitely noticed being able to tuck in your butt in and over
the board gives you better heelside pressure. I actually found I could
do it when I switched back to softboots and it have noticeably helped
my heelside turns. Higher angles allow you to get you butt tucked in
more easily, especially if you aren't very flexible or don't have very
good control over individual muscles, but you can do it. When trying
to figure out the proper body mechanics, I found myself being reminded
of the yoga classes I've taken where the instructor asks you to do
tiny subtle muscle adjustments that are sometimes beyond me at my
current level of ability. After riding hardboots for a little while, I
get a similar feeling in which if you are an expert rider on
softboots, you will be able to simply "feel" out the slight
adjustments you need to make to rider on hardboots (so it won't feel
that dramatically different). However a complete beginner would have
no clue as to how to dynamically position there body properly (whether
it be in softboots or hardboots).

Baka Dasai wrote in message ...
On 15 Mar 2004 20:06:22 -0800, Arvin Chang said (and I quote):
Neil Gendzwill wrote in message ...
Arvin Chang wrote:

Are you saying that you think complete beginner will choose chose
alpine setups over freestyle setups when presented the option. Or are
you claiming that a beginner/intermediate snowboarder (most common
level of ability) would jump at the chance to switch to alpine setups
when told about their advantages and disadvantages.

Neither. 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

I would agree with that. I personally recommend stiffer freeride
boards over freestyle models and stiffer boots. Also I can see the
wisdom in starting out beginners with like a 25/10 stance instead of
something like a 15/-15 stance.

I'd like to see a wider range of hard boots, extending down to a
softness that approaches current soft boots. Why? The boot/binding
interface is *so* much better with hard boots - you get step-ins that
work, and even the non-step-ins are quick, easy, reliable, and have a
reproducible fit. It just makes more sense for hard boots to extend in
softness down to soft boots, rather than soft boots trying to get as
stiff as hard boots.

I agree that I would like to see a wider range of hard boots, I think
I recall someone on Bomber posting about this "hybrid" boots
(Dynafit?) that are somewhere in between in stiffness. I don't know if
it makes "more sense for hard boots to extend in softness down...
rather than soft boots" going up in stiffness. I would prefer it both
to come towards the middle, so people can choose what ever boot and
whatever binding they prefer as everyone is biased one way or the
other (for instance you are biased towards hardbooters and I'm still
biased towards softboots at the moment).

On a purely realistic level, US hardboot manufacturers just don't have
the resources to do it though. Burton pulled out of hardbooters, UPS
is almost non-existent, Head's boots are $350 minimum. Raichle boots
are the most common and from what I've seen not much development has
been put into them (I consider heat moldable liners completely
separate from hardboots since they exist in ski and softboots as
well)... there are still as heavy and clunky, with crappy buckles as
ski boots were nearly a decade ago. I admit I've only seen 6 models
(including the latest Suzuka)) of Raichle boots, but Mike T has
checked out a bunch and has told me the newer ones are pretty much the
same.

On the flip end... contrary to what Jason said (I read it from a post
by Neil). Softboots have come a LONG way in the past 10 years, they
are much stiffer, more supportive, and more comfortable than they were
even a few years ago. There are over 20 boot manufacturers just in the
US alone, heck I think Burton alone makes more boots than Raichle,
Head, and UPS combined. Again on a pure realistic viewpoint, I see
softboot manufacturers as having more money and resources to be able
to bridge th gap between stiff, but clunky hardbooters, and light, but
floppy softboots.

I think hard boots *used* to exist in this niche, and they were used
with all-mountain boards at shallow(ish) angles of around 20 to 45
degrees. But this sort of setup fell out of favour. Why? I really
think it was largely fashion - the original "new school" took up
snowboarding as "skateboarding-on-snow", and set themselves up in
opposition to anything that resembled skiing.

I would agree with that conclusion... especially about the distancing
themselves away from skiing. However, I only started snowboarding in
junior high school in the mid 90's so I only saw the tail end of that
era (went straight to Clicker step in bindings after like 3 days on
straps). I definitely felt the anti-skiier sentiment in the early
days.

It was a major trend, and every manufacturer got on it. But it was a
baby and bathwater situation, and the industry has been a bit slow to
get off it, even though the circumstances have changed.

I agree that there have been a slow reemergence of getting more
technical snowboard gear. Again I came into the sport just as the old
trend was ending, but some of my older friends told me about it.
Sorels and Workboots were replaced by taller and stiff booters.
Bindings when from highbacks to midbacks and low backs to allow for
tweakability of grab back towards highback and now highbacks with
wings (like my Salomon SP4 shaped) that give you more support and
response, even at higher stance angles. People went from riding really
soft short boards for jibbing towards longer, stiff boards for
freeriding (my friend is like 6'2" 190+ lbs and used to ride a 148!!!
now he rides a 163 I think).

--arvin

BTW I have to admit, I love the fact that a thread about hard boots is
currently the most active thread on this newsgroup!!!!

Neil Gendzwill wrote in message ...
Dmitry wrote:
"Neil Gendzwill" wrote

Partly, although I don't point my shoulders downhill, they're lined up
with my binding angles - straight downhill would be too rotated. A more
forward-facing stance is a big advantage anytime you want to make tight,
quick turns, like on a bump run. It lets you do more with just your
legs without having to involve your whole upper body.


Not sure if I can agree. In both cases your neand and your ass are going
along some smooth line downhill and your legs are jerking back and forth,
right? The big difference is that with high angle stance it's harder to
bend because the ass-legs joint is not very good at bending sideways.
(even though it's a ball joint

The ass-legs joint is fine at bending sideways enough for this purpose,
watch any good skier in the bumps. One more bump benefit: If you're
straight across, the axis of the bend is straight across. If you're
angled, it's closer to the direction of movement. This is an advantage
in bumps also because you can suck up the bumps better when your knees
are bending closer to the fall line - this is partly why good skiers
will always slay good riders in the bumps.

I agree with Neil on this point.

Ok, so do you think that a setup with hard boots and a board like a Donek
Axis is an ultimate all-mountain riding tool? Just asking for your personal
preference/opinion.

Yes, absolutely. My own ride is a Prior 4WD (very similar board) with
Raichle 224s (softer hard boot). One nice option is to look at the
Coiler AMX 169 or AM 172 - they are available in a 23 cm waist width,
which would let you use some pretty relaxed angled if you want and also
give you lots of float. They're also available in 19 or 21.5 cm I
think. One nice thing about Coiler is that the stiffness is tuned for
you - tell Bruce your weight, riding style and what you're looking for,
and he builds to suit, no extra charge. But the Donek Axis and
competitor Prior 4WD are also very popular boards in this category. My
old Prior has had the biscuit and I'm just trying to figure out where I
want to go next - it's an old 165 and a little on the soft side compared
to the newer boards.

I've been told by Mike T Axis is a lot of fun, but a touch too stiff
sometimes. Of course now you can't get to him to *stop* talking about
his new Coiler AM 184

I've switch off my Burton UP 162 with Raichle SB224 for a recent Prior
4WD 174 demo and then a older Prior 4WD 169 I borrowed from someone. I
found the 174 a bit long and stiff for my 5'8" 145 lbs frame. However
once I go it on edge and flexed it, I could carve nice tight turns...
the drawback was that I was tiring out quickly and had to actually
stop a few times down the mountain to take a break (I usually like to
run down the around half the slope before stopping). I haven't had an
impression of the 169 yet because I've only had a chance to ride it
once so far and the conditions were frozen death cookies in the
morning, changing to heavy slush in the afternoon (I actually switched
to my freestyle board and rode the park after lunch)... it could be my
imagination but the 21.3 cm waist made the board feel slow edge to
edge compared to my Burton UP, which has a wide waist itself. I think
a lot of it has to do with the snow conditions, so I'm reserving
judgement until I ride it more.

I've been told by Mike T Axis is a lot of fun, but a touch too stiff
sometimes. Of course now you can't get to him to *stop* talking about
his new Coiler AM 184

Coiler *PR* 184 - a GS board

In any case, I find the Axis perfect for open runs off-piste including steep
powder bowls. I find it too stiff in moguls and tight trees. I'm
weighing the idea of trying something of the same genre but less stiff, but
it would probably *complement* my Axis rather than replacing it and it's
pretty far down on my list at this point in time. Higher on my list is a
powder stick and a couple more true alpine boards with varying sidecuts.

Mike T