unable to delete post
There's a new ski boot in the land - Dodge. Thoughts? - Page 2
- 16,243 Posts. Joined 1/2000
- Location: about 85% of the time now at Steamboat.
- Select All Posts By This User
If ski gear were stereos, we'd all have quivers of exotic amplifiers and maybe one in 5 of us would have a reasonable speaker system that fits the listening space.
Remember the adage of "spend half your budget on speakers"? I think it might be high time we started spending half our quiver + boot budget on boots.
ah the Bose decade? Seriously though, to make your point, most people don't buy the right audio/visual equipment, Most try to buy the largest screen and not the best image, most buy speakers that are too big or even too small but "fit" the room and don't piss off the wife and then mix the sub woofer to an annoying muddy mess; most dont have thier amps and/or processors setup properly or even have their LCD/Plasma's calibrated correctly; so applying that to skiing; If you start with a boot that is not best best for your foot and then fail to have it properly fit you have done the equivelent. The difference is that in all cases you should buy what's appropriate to the situation and need. I don't need a $1,500 boot to get the appropriate fit. But in a few seasons, the CF will most likely be widely used and improved. not to mention a lot less money!
..., most buy speakers that are too big or even too small but "fit" the room and don't piss off the wife and then mix the sub woofer to an annoying muddy mess; most dont have thier amps and/or processors setup properly or even have their LCD/Plasma's calibrated correctly; so applying that to skiing; If you start with a boot that is not best best for your foot and then fail to have it properly fit you have done the equivelent. The difference is that in all cases you should buy what's appropriate to the situation and need.
I am familiar with all that even though that represents a redirection of the analogy from the original intent. The analogy still holds.
Perhaps not; you're fortunate. I know folks that _do_ need that level of expenditure on boots+fitting combined. The point of my analogy was that $1500 for boots is only expensive if we are trained to an expectation that boots will be le$$ than 1 pair of skis + bindings.
Who trains us to have that expectation? The lucky set that don't need the expense.
I don't believe this for a second. CF is a product in demand in many sectors, including military and security. There is simply not enough CF made for demand in other sectors NOT to affect sports-app pricing. Then consider that CF final product shaping requires intensive process work that does not lend itself to commodity manufacturing methods.
As a specific example, CF skate boots, both inline and ice, have not changed their price structures in almost 20 years in spite of their almost unversal adoption at all competitive levels of the sport.
No, more like being annoyed at friends who have spent $3-5000 for the Bose system of the "moment" -- booming sound that hurts my ears. This despite my encouraging them to listen to my system first. Sonically, Bose can't touch Ohm or Aperion, which cost a fraction of a Bose system. And no, your results will not vary from this statement. Sorry for the highjack -- Back To Dodge!
- 2,517 Posts. Joined 12/2007
- Location: Summit County
- Select All Posts By This User
Having read his posts and talked with Geoffda, I don't think it is simply about fit- rather this boot has higher performance than a plastic boot that fits you just as well. Remember, these things are about half the weight, have a smaller profile and according to Geoff, make it easier to tip the ski and get higher edge angles...this might mean more to racers than freeskiers, but eventually, I would expect to see CF used for touring boots.
Stiff carbon in touring boots would be awsum because /for the same stiffness as current boots/ it would weigh less.
As to "better off with softer boots", not on the downhill bits.