Skiboards Rule

[DanielB]

I have been skiboarding for, man, I guess 7 years now. Wierd, time flies.

I started in 1997 on the Kneissl Bigfoots :-D . They were so much fun, a little slow, haha, but a blast.

Then a Hiatus as I learned snowboarding, but It just wasn't as much fun as Skiboarding.

In 1999 I bought a Pair of Microski AMX Pros. They were actually really good, really well made.

Then I bought a pair of Canon M7s in 2000. What pieces of c*ap they were. They shattered after a pretty short jump, and the bindings came about (I fixed them) a week before their death. They were over-rated garbage.

Then I bought the Line Bullets in 2000 (f*ing canons :-D ). Man, these things are on a whole other level. The craftsmanship, the control. I like to cruise most of all and I was beating my friend on his Solomon 164cm X-Scream Twin Tips, on the hard ice. He still would beat me on the soft stuff.

This year I was going to go long like it seems everyone is doing now. Stopping in the slush bummed me out. But i've changed my mind.

I'm staying short and I'm getting those Reactor Release Bindings and I'm going *alls to the wall in 2005.

*Peace

Please tell me your skiboarding bio.

[DanielB]

Wow, those Mix 120cm look sweet. Looks like true competition for best made Skiboards.

Now someone tell me honestly, what's better.

The Mike Nick Pro with Reactor bindings

or

These new Mixs with Spruce Risers and Solomon bindings?

[tommy]

there 110cm but go with the mixes. i would say anyway.

(just another thing why do alot of americans say "solomon" and not "salomon"???)

[DanielB]

I think maybe because of Solomon Smith Barney. But is that investment firm American ?? :-D

[kirk]

The Reactors are too heavy for most skiiers, so they are FAR too heavy for skiboards in my opinion.

[DanielB]

Thank you for responding. It's a pretty package, but yeah, I can see weight being a problem.

Do the Spruce/Salomon bindings release in the heel also?

My FF Aluminum bindings have been great, but I would rather have the Spruce Release if they do what they are suppossed to do.

[Tex]

The binding on the spruce is just a regular ski binding. It has a din setting on the heel and the toe, if that's what you mean. They have worked really well for me. So far they have only released on hard falls. They haven't prereleased yet. I think it is all in how you set the DIN. They recommend setting the heel a little looser than the toe, since forward falls are more likely on skiboards than regular skis. Hope this helps.

PS, the 40x40 is great. I have a narrow pair of Edges and a wider pair of Snowjams and they are easily interchanged, although I had to get extra wide brakes for the snowjams.

[DanielB]

Thanks Tex

[jsinger]

You might also want to consider a new aluminum Riser just released by Spruce. It uses Rossignol Axium 200 Scratch bindings that are DIN 3.5-11. SBOL will have them in stock next week.

[fluxgame]

Jeff:

I don't suppose you'd consider bringing a pair of those new Risers for people to try out at Mountain Creek in a couple weeks? I'd love to be able to try them out before buying.

[Greco]

yes, jeff will be bringing a few pairs for people to try while at creek.

11 days!

[Branden]

They are on the heavy side but I got a pair of 1080 Salomon 1080 Pro's so they aint that bad.

Like I stated in a previous thread. Any ski over 100 cm by US Ski Law must have a releasable binding.

**Branden

[Greco]

hey where can i read this US Ski Law?

[tommy]

i dont think its illegal is it, im sure you could wear a 180 ski with non releaseables if you reallllllly wanted to. im sure its just insurance wont pay up or anything if your using something over 100cm with non releaseables. i think thats the case here in europe.

[Ian.cap]

Yeah, sounds more like an insurance thing. It's not like Sno-Po can arrest you for having non-releasables.

[Greco]

he talked about this "law" in two different posts, that's why I wanted to try and get him to tell us where he read this or at least more info on the "law"

g

[Branden]

I work for a ski shop and a ski mountain in connecticut. People with skis 100+ that dont have a releasable binding are not allowed to ski at the resort. Yo wont be arrested, no exact law. but Connecticut mountain rules I know for sure. As for the cops obviously they wont arrest you. Even if they did who cares, we'd still ride em. If you grind a rail on state property you can get arrested fined up to 1000$ and be sued for distruction of property. Me and my friend were attempting this kick a$$ rail at the local HS and 10 minutes later a boarder was arrested cause he was scene attempting it by a cop. But will that stop us. HELL NO. Laws where ment to be broken.

The only good law: What goes up must come down.

*Branden