vtmecheng

@Horton we need a “Holy Crap” reaction!!!

Have you tried a size 13/14 Vapor? May feel tight at first but so long as it’s close enough you can heat mold the liner for a bit of extra space. Use it with a reflex and you will have a nice release setup.

We all should appreciate that Rob posted this 30 minutes before his first pass!

I am sorry that you have spent a few hundred on failed RTPs. I know personally how much it sucks to have expensive gear fail early, I had a $200 handle fail in the rubber after a season. It sucks. What is most important is that you didn't get hurt due to the failure, you checked gear and didn't keep skiing past the usable point. Are there no shops in the UK that sell binding overlays? Maybe some of the pros from the UK know where to get stuff and you could reach out either through this site or Instagram. Just a thought, I haven't looked into it.

"Nightmare" seems like a bit of hyperbole. The RTP didn't fail on you mid-set and cause a horrible crash. You were smart and checked your gear. It does suck for something to not last. My current Radar ARTP is on it's last legs after only two seasons and I want to switch to the D3 because of that. At least replacement parts can be purchased for most of the rubber RTPs so it's not $100+ each time.

Thank goodness I never went to double boots. Tried it once and it was horrible. On binding height, Corey Vaughn talked about it some in a TWBC podcast. His rear leg is a bit shorter and the T-Factor has a thicker sole. To balance that out he has put plastic under his RTP. Corey stated that the spacer has a big impact on how the ski feels. Just one more example, though if @twhisper says it that's probably enough proof for us. I do something similar since I'm on a MOB. The Radar ARTP is a bit thicker and I made plastic shims that go between the ARTP and the binding plate. That way I don't add stiffness with either a more rigid single spacer (separate layers can bend easily) or by raising the binding plate up (that would have the same effect as an I-beam). I've played with the number of shims to make sure I can get to a good position. It makes a big difference.

I like using the thinner plastic and making the zip tie holes closer to the edge. My goal is for the plastic to fail if my arm gets stuck but it’s more than strong enough to stop the handle from going over my head.

Got a cat litter bucket from a friend that has a rectangular cross-section. I cut a few guards out from that. Just drill some speed holes in it and holes for zip ties. Good to go, only cost is a bit of time, and made specifically for my handle and where I want it to be located. Definitely get nicer zip ties like Ty-Rap and they will last.

I figured you knew and covered most or all of those issues. Never hurts to mention in case one wasn’t known or thought of.

Big issues I had with Givego. 1) Some of the coaches listed wouldn’t respond. I personally reached out to a couple of them and they told me that they had requested to be taken off the platform and it didn’t or they said that they were taking a break due to other life things. 2) Video responses were limited to 2 minutes. I had a couple responses get cut off. That’s a stupid limitation. 3) Customer service sucked when there was a problem. All of these seem like easy fixes: Stupid easy that you will be all over: Take coaches off when requested and give people money back when service isn’t provided. Also easy: 2 minute response limit is often too short. I get a limit so that the site doesn’t go way beyond a storage limit but it needs to be reasonable. Allow coaches to click an option to temporarily suspend taking new videos. Thinking when a pro has a couple tournaments in a row and needs to focus on themselves or just wants a vacation. I hope this works out in the long run. Givego was great for connecting with different coaches to find a style that works for each individual. Thank you for picking up what they dropped.

Holy crap these are good!

As with everything, it’s up to the user to decide what makes them comfortable. The MOB isn’t a new system and I can attest to it working when needed (having “tested” it more times than I like to admit). Again, to each their own. On weight, it is heavy compared to other options. That said, I use a rear toe plate and figure some double boot setups aren’t much different. I’m also not going to 39-41 off so that little weight isn’t going to be the defining factor. On boot type, that’s 100% personal preference. Some love the classic Reflex (like @Horton), a different Reflex, the Vapor, or a classic rubber. You will see many here say that you can pry their Tfactor out of their cold dead hands. My foot and body structure aren’t like anyone else’s and that plays a big part. It’s a lot like snow skiing in that you have no idea what you like until you try it and almost no one lets you demo the higher end options. Sorry it isn’t easier.

My vote is Vapor with release. addition: I like the Vapor with the MOB. It is comfortable and easy to adjust while being higher performance. I don’t know of a way to test bindings.

I think there are more Nautique events, which means more opportunities since most want to get a WR behind their sponsor boat.

Coming from a ski boots, I definitely understand the benefits of a tight fit. In snow skiing, too much boot volume is a horrible thing and many end up going down a size because of this. I am currently using a Radar Vapor boot and just ordered a size down to try for this specific reason. I wasn’t sure if Joel uses a sock for a tighter fit or because he just likes the style. I would think that a thin neoprene sock would be better for performance than a standard nylon but haven’t compared personally.

The real question everyone wants to know. What’s up with the sock on his front foot?

Terry is clearly a good guy and a great coach. I firmly believe that matching the coach to the skier is important and not all coaches work for all skiers. I personally went through a few real good coaches that just didn’t convey information to me in the way that my brain could really act on. It wasn’t until one specific coach that things started to click into place. That skier-coach match made a big difference to me.

That explains your opinion of them.

@Than_Bogan I said it is a hypothesis to test, not that it would be a positive test. The problem with the easy approach alone is that you can’t know if the measured change (or no change) is caused by the ski changing or poorly controlled measurement techniques. I believe the first step is to conduct controlled experiments in order to determine if the hypothesis is true. If true, then determine if a simplified measurement technique can be used.

I’ll start by saying that I have no interest in going down this rabbit hole, it’s too close to my career and I just want to ski. Someone else can have this “fun.” The hypothesis, as I understand it, is that ski use results in changes to the natural frequency of the ski. There are a couple of potential ways that I can think of to test this hypothesis. 1) Hold the ski in a support that is firm and consistent. It cannot change between tests. The frequency of the test setup must be designed so that it is well outside of the primary modes of the ski in the clamped configuration. Mount an accelerator to the ski. It must be hard mounted or the mount should provide consistent transfer of motion (I’d probably start with screwing into a binding insert). Hit the ski at a consistent location away from the support and acquire the acceleration for modal analysis of the frequency spectrum. Do this though out the ski’s life and see if the prominent powers change frequencies. 2) Clamp the ski to a vibration table with an accelerometer, following all the stipulations above for clamping and gauge mounting. Perform a vibration sweep, recording input and output accelerations. The transmissibility is calculated and the results compared though out ski use. There may be other ways to test as well, these are just my first thoughts without really spending time on it. I can see some potential challenges. Consistent setup and measurements are critical. The data acquisition needs to be done correctly, with proper sampling rates and anti-aliasing filter applied. The clamp may not be strong enough to keep from creating its own frequency mode and not damage the ski. Also, the sensitivity of changes in frequency with wear may be too small for capture in these methods. Maybe both are no big deal. I like the idea of seeing if something like this provides useful info. I have used modal changes during “large input” dynamic shock tests in order to determine the time that plastic strain begins to accumulate (waterfall frequency spectra are great for that). Again, this is too much like work for me and I just want to ski. More power to whomever does something with this.

@Sedge any progress on adding ski protection after the V?

I use Radar screws and still have one or two that always come loose. Been the front RTP screws this whole season.

I have a couple screws that I have to tighten a touch before every set. I’ve tried new screws and no difference. Others I ski with find the same. Luckily we all check screws before each set.

You are not bringing your ski but are considering your boat? What am I missing?

I have no knowledge on how fast a ski degrades. It makes sense that it would have to simply by the forces applied and flexing it goes through during every pass and the materials of construction. The bending results in tensile and compressive stresses that have to be high, along with shear stresses at the laminate interfaces. This is a funny topic where I ski because of a guy who used to ski with us. He loved telling other skiers that their ski brand is crap and already broken down, no matter the age. I got a new ski once and on my second set he told me it was broken down already because that brand is crap. Now, whenever someone PBs we inevitably say, "you would have gotten through that pass but your ski is just broken down." Makes for a good laugh.