Killer Loop
YonnyH
skiing, lightest skis available. Just because some company has an oh so
rad image and is owned by "real" riders doesn't mean they know anything
about building the things. In my time in this business I've seen alot of
piss poor product and worse warranty service from some of the smaller
"garage based" manufacturers. And just because they put this name on
stupid sunglasses has zero bearing on the new board line's quality or
rideability.
Actually, I dislike KL's product manager and have no real interst to
promote them. But I can't believe all the flak KL's taking on-line based
on nothing but their failure to hire Jager Di Paola Kemp Design like
Burton did to invent a bullet proof totally ruled rad image to conceal
their corporate selves.
Jack Michaud
(Jack wrote):
> > None of this changes the fact that the odds are against K-L having a good
> > product.
>
>
> Why not? Why are the odds worse than for any new snowboard company?
>
> Tom
>
The odds are against them more than a ski company making boards for
obvious reasons. But the odds are against them more than a new board
company for a few reasons. First, chances are that KL doesn't know much
about snowboarding and is in it for the bucks. Chances are that a new
snowboard company is comprised of snowboarders who know what they're
doing and are in it for making a living out of what they love.
Second, chances are that both KL and any other new company are sending their
designs off to some manufacturer, so where do you want your designs coming
from, a sunglasses factory or serious snowboarders? Third, KL's first
priority is sunglasses. They're really just getting their feet wet in
snowboarding, and if it doesn't work out then they are still in
business. A new board company is jumping in with both feet, all or
nothing. Ride is a relatively new company and they did it right. They
got a team together, made a reliable product, did some good advertising,
went public, and now have a solid foundation in the snowboarding industry.
But really, I wouldn't buy a board from a new company in it's
first year no matter what. I'm even skeptical about the first year
burton introduces a new product. Take the first PJ for example, it had
an asym tail and a sym nose. What's up with that? And the Stat's, the
first re-born sym race boards, were said to loose their snap after one
season.
Also, there is really no reason to buy a KL when you could spend
the same ammount of money on an established board company with a
history. It's just an unwise investment. You don't know who really made
the board, you don't know who designed the board, you don't know if they
even care about snowboarding, and you don't know if they're going to be
making snowboards next year or a few years down the road. There is just
no logic in buying a KL.
-Jack
ps, as we were informed that KL is owned by Benneton, then that improves
the chances somewhat. However, I am going to stick to snowboard companies.
SkiRaceInt
the chances somewhat. However, I am going to stick to snowboard
companies"
Killer Loop is owned by Benetton, which also owns Kastle skis and Nordica
ski boots.
Perkins Miller
Technical Editor
Ski Tech Magazine
gsw
>
>ps, as we were informed that KL is owned by Benneton, then that improves
>the chances somewhat. However, I am going to stick to snowboard companies.
I thought Killer Loop was owned by Bausch and Lomb?
Jack Michaud
They are, but I think that B+L is then owned by Benneton, a huge
conglomerate type thing like 3M, Beatrice or BASF.
-Jack
gmic...@hopper.unh.edu
UNH Engineering '96
"control for smilers can't be bought."
VerbCom
>But I can't believe all the flak KL's taking on-line based
>on nothing but their failure to hire Jager Di Paola Kemp Design like
>Burton did to invent a bullet proof totally ruled rad image to conceal
>their corporate selves.
While I sort of agree with your basic sentiment that marketing is a dumb
reason to accept or exclude a company, I disagree with your choice to use
Burton as a negative example. If you think Burton or JDK have an easy job
selling the world's largest snowboard company to an incredibly bro-down
backyard marketplace, you're not paying much attention. The wild stabs
they've occasioanlly taken at smoking or swearing are evidence that it's
not easy keeping the small-time image when you're ruling the world.
I, for one, applaud the "do everything right" approach that Burton has had
for the last many years, and wish they would just stand up tall and say
screw all the bro-bra, image-conscious nitwits. They provide consistently
good product and market it well from head to toe. What's not to like?
****************************************************
You never really know which way is up or down until you go ahead and spit.
RailSlide1
Burton as a negative example. If you think Burton or JDK have an easy job
selling the world's largest snowboard company to an incredibly bro-down
backyard marketplace, you're not paying much attention. The wild stabs
they've occasioanlly taken at smoking or swearing are evidence that it's
not easy keeping the small-time image when you're ruling the world.
I, for one, applaud the "do everything right" approach that Burton has had
for the last many years, and wish they would just stand up tall and say
screw all the bro-bra, image-conscious nitwits. They provide consistently
good product and market it well from head to toe. What's not to like?<<
this guy could teach alot of people a thing or two. that's the word, in
that quotation above. I've never understood why the hell anyone doesn't
like burton. Burton friggin invented what we now call "the snowboard,"
they publicised it, they hold the world famous U.S. open, and they
produced the highest quality snowboards every year. then, some fuckin
punks start raggin on them because they aren't "hard core." Yeah well
who's to say what's hard core: the people who invented the sport or the
people who started snowboarding a year ago and now act like they know
everything. well to all of you who disrespect the company from which
snowboarding came, fuck you and your stupid shit, and that's what's what
JMTelfer
>they publicised it, they hold the world famous U.S. open, and they
>produced the highest quality snowboards every year.
Maybe they should try enforcing their patent on the snowboard and get
their just rewards... (hint: this is a reference that although Burton has
more to do with where snowboarding is today than anyone else, there are
reasons for their many detractors).
-j
Donald Hayler
: >Burton friggin invented what we now call "the snowboard,"
Uh, maybe the reason they bought the patent was to make sure that no one
else enforced it. They have said that they have no intention of using
that patent ever. So there.
--
-- Don
-----------------http://fas-www.harvard.edu/~hayler----------------------------
.Sig? We don't need no stinkin' .sig!
Crispin Cowan
Donald Hayler <hay...@scws40.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Uh, maybe the reason they bought the patent was to make sure that no one
>else enforced it. They have said that they have no intention of using
>that patent ever. So there.
Actually, the histories I've read indicate that Burton *did* try to
enforce the patent, and only retreated to the position of "we just
bought it to protect everyone" when it became apparent how unpopular
enforcement would make them.
Note that while I still think Burton makes some of the best gear going,
they haven't always had the most soulful attitude. Early in the
history of snowboard competition, Jake objected to the inclusion of the
half-pipe event, claiming that "that's not snowboarding." He wanted it
to be racing only.
Caveat: I wasn't there, so this is all hearsay. On the other hand, I
doubt very many other users of this newsgroup were there, either :)
Crispin
-----
Dr. Crispin Cowan, CS post-doc, Synthetix Project
Oregon Graduate Institute | Electronically:
Department of Computer Science | analog: 503-690-1265
PO Box 91000 | digital: cri...@cse.ogi.edu
Portland, OR 97291-1000 | URL: http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~crispin/
What goof decided that the number of days in a week should be a prime number?
Jack Michaud
>>Burton friggin invented what we now call "the snowboard,"
>>they publicised it, they hold the world famous U.S. open, and they
>>produced the highest quality snowboards every year.
>
>Maybe they should try enforcing their patent on the snowboard and get
>their just rewards... (hint: this is a reference that although Burton has
>more to do with where snowboarding is today than anyone else, there are
>reasons for their many detractors).
Such as??
Jake Burton Carpenter had a patent pending on his "invention" probably
before you even knew that something called a snowboard existed, i.e.
before 1980. I tell you, if I ever think that I've invented something
that is going to catch on, you can be damn sure the first thing I do is
patent it. Of course he patented the snowboard! The fact that he
doesn't try to enforce it is only testament to his good will and love for
the sport.
SURFSNO
>Jake Burton Carpenter had a patent pending on his "invention" . . .The
fact that he doesn't try to enforce it is only testament to his good will
and love for the sport.
The name Burton exists no where in the patent you refer. In fact, it was
purchased, not authored, by the Burton Corporation.
Not discounting Mr. Burton's "good will and love for the sport", but his
company did attempt to enforce their "purchase". Had they been successful,
the sport would be dramatically different today.
Surfsno
JANE PAULEY
: Such as??
: Jake Burton Carpenter had a patent pending on his "invention" probably
: before 1980. I tell you, if I ever think that I've invented something
: that is going to catch on, you can be damn sure the first thing I do is
: patent it. Of course he patented the snowboard! The fact that he
Didn't Burton BUY THE PATENT from some guy?
-paul
VerbCom
>their just rewards... (hint: this is a reference that although Burton has
>more to do with where snowboarding is today than anyone else, there are
>reasons for their many detractors).
>
Point taken, and I agree. But at least that's all over. I'd like to think
it was all a matter of a few good people being misled by evil lawyer
types.
Stephen Sandve
>From: sur...@aol.com (SURFSNO)
>Subject: Re: Burton whiners (was: Re: Killer Loop)
>Date: 15 Sep 1995 12:46:14 -0400
I believe that Burton bought the Patent so they wouldn't have some
non-snowboarding types enforcing the patent and bogging the whole industry
down with bogus legal mumbo jumbo
Steve-O
/---------------------------------------\
the VERT page
http://www.vert.com/stephen_sandve/
stupid name... cool page
\----------------------------------------/
Jack Michaud
>
>The name Burton exists no where in the patent you refer. In fact, it was
>purchased, not authored, by the Burton Corporation.
>Surfsno
Huh huh... aol.
-Jack
slinkster
Jack Michaud <gmic...@hopper.unh.edu> wrote:
>In article <43afc2$j...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> cri...@helix.cse.ogi.edu (Crispin Cowan) writes:
>>
>>Note that while I still think Burton makes some of the best gear going,
>>they haven't always had the most soulful attitude. Early in the
>>history of snowboard competition, Jake objected to the inclusion of the
>>half-pipe event, claiming that "that's not snowboarding." He wanted it
>>to be racing only.
Well, keep Jake's viewpoint and background in mind. He started
snowboarding as an outgrowth of Snurfer racing. To him, racing and
freeriding are what snowboarding is all about. And I don't think
anyone's going to try to claim that Jake was instrumental in the early
stages of freestyle (there is a reason that people refer to Terry Kidwell
as the Father of Freestyle); he came from a surf background, ultimately,
not a skate background. So while Jake could perhaps have been more
open-minded in the early days about what constituted snowboarding, I can
certainly understand that, at the time, he would have been more
interested in race events than freestyle events.
>There's some truth to that. If you rip in the pipe, but can't carve a
>good turn down an intermediate run, then well, you can't snowboard.
>Granted, I'm sure that nobody falls into this category, but I feel it's true.
True; and conversely, I don't think the statement holds in reverse (ie,
if you can carve beautiful turns but can't land a 360, you can't
snowboard -- if this is the case, most people would agree that you're
simply not interested in freestyle).
Ultimately, though, who cares? Part of what I like about snowboarding is
that everyone (who's any good, at least) has their own style. Whether it
incorporates lots of tricks or lots of carving (or, in some cases, both)
is secondary.
--Mark
Jack Michaud
I agree with everything else you said, so it's not here.
>
>Ultimately, though, who cares? Part of what I like about snowboarding is
>that everyone (who's any good, at least) has their own style. Whether it
>incorporates lots of tricks or lots of carving (or, in some cases, both)
>is secondary.
>--Mark
Well, me, sort of. At Sugarloaf, the halfpipe is almost half way up the
mountain. That means that you have to ride both to and away from it. If
you are a hazard on the trail on your way there or from, then you don't
belong in the pipe, ripper may you be, you should be in a lesson.
slinkster
Jack Michaud <gmic...@hopper.unh.edu> wrote:
>Jake Burton Carpenter had a patent pending on his "invention" probably
>before you even knew that something called a snowboard existed, i.e.
>before 1980. I tell you, if I ever think that I've invented something
>that is going to catch on, you can be damn sure the first thing I do is
>patent it. Of course he patented the snowboard! The fact that he
Actually, it was some other guy who never really became part of the
industry who patented the snowboard. I can't remember his name off the
top of my head... Burton bought the patent off him in the late '80s or
something because he was beginning to make warning rumblings about
wanting to enforce the patent or something. At this point, the story
starts to conflict, depending on who you ask. What I've heard is that it
went something like this: Jake felt that since this guy was endangering
the entire snowboard industry, it should be up to the industry's leaders
in general to do something, so he sent out letters to other industry
leaders (presumably Tom Sims, Kemper, etc) asking if they'd be willing to
make contributions to help buy the patent. Evidently some people saw
this as a form of extortion. At any rate, Jake ended up buying the
patent himself and not enforcing it on anyone.
--Mark
slinkster
Jack Michaud <gmic...@hopper.unh.edu> wrote:
>Well, me, sort of. At Sugarloaf, the halfpipe is almost half way up the
>mountain. That means that you have to ride both to and away from it. If
>you are a hazard on the trail on your way there or from, then you don't
>belong in the pipe, ripper may you be, you should be in a lesson.
Oh, yeah, I agree with you completely. But it stands to reason to assume
that anyone who's going to have the control necessary to pull off
difficult moves in the pipe is also going to have at least enough edge
control to make it down the run to and from the pipe without injuring
people. True, lots of jibbers don't know how to carve a turn; but let's
face it, whether the turn is carved or not is secondary. What's
important, ultimately, is that there ARE controlled turns.
Sure, it would be nice if everyone who's good at one facet of the sport
were good at all of them, but that's not realistic. The fact is that
people have differing interests. The local jibkid may not give a rat's
ass about carving a perfect turn, just as I'm really not very interested
in pulling 720s or something.
And to be honest, this is all getting academic anyway. Everyone I've
ever met who rips in the pipe or the park makes pretty good turns too.
Generally the people I see sideslipping down to the pipe and park are the
grommets who aren't much good at tricks yet either.
--Mark
Doug Taylor
>
>My point basically is that all the people I've known who rule in the pipe
>or the park are good freeriders as well.
As an 100% alpiner, I have to admit that there is much truth in this
statement. People who RULE in the pipe (as opposed to flounder)
are simply good athletes and can be versatile as hell. If you want
objective proof, check out Bertrand Denervaud: ISF 1st in the pipe;
7th PS; 18th GS; 1st Overall (for stats, see http://deepcove.com/isf/).
And how about Michelle Taggert. At Vail last season, she got Gold
medals in the pipe, PS, and GS in the same competion, the only
rider ever to sweep..
Truly, these are athletes who set an example to follow, eh?
--
-- Doug Taylor
dta...@future.dreamscape.com / "This statement is false"