John E

I thought about this a little more after I posted. I recall that 10 or so years ago, some makers experimented with foam cores. Evidently, these didn't work because you don't see them any more. The strength to volume ratio of foam would be very low. The laminations that give the board the majority of its strength are the outer layers - fiberglass and or carbon fiber. The core serves to separate the outer layers. The farther they are from the central (neutral) plane, the stiffer the board. So, the core could easily be foam if it didn't break down. Maybe that's why foam was abandoned - it broke down under flexing. The core should withstand flexing to extreme deflections without breaking. It just needs to keep the top & bottom laminations separated. I wonder how balsa would hold up (probably not very well)?

I can understand the marketing departments of board makers to avoid tests like these because it may expose their hype. However, each of these tests would be pretty easy to carry out with simple equipment. The fundemental frequency & damping tests would require an accelerometer and a computer to display the data. We make these type of measurements on equipment we design at work. The holy grail of designing a mechanical system intended to move is to make it stiff & light. The easy way to make something stiff is to add material. Unfortunately, this also increases the weight. That's why stuff like carbon fiber is appealing - it has a very high strength to weight ratio. Getting a board to damp out vibration usually involves adding an elastomeric material. Unfortunately, this also adds weight. Anyway, if the makers are not interested in doing & publishing this data, it would involve time & expense on the part of a 3rd party (like Fin). It is also likely that makers would attack the data if their product didn't measure up well. I think it would be interesting from the standpoint of comparing subjective opinions on the performance of a board to how it performs in objective tests. This may advance the development of boards.

Does anyone know what considerations board manufacturers use to decide what type of wood to use for board cores? I know that one local (non-alpine) board manufacturer uses Aspen. I thought this was strange. I would think that if cost were not an issue, a designer would choose wood with the highest strength -to- volume ratio. I doubt that would be Aspen. I would think it would be more like Maple, Birch, Spruce, Ash, or ???. I would think a good board core should be stiff, thin, light & be able to be deformed to a large degree without breaking. Also, do any board makers employ horizontal laminations instead of vertical? If so, what are the advantages of each?

It would be informative to me if there was some way to measure different board characteristics so I could see how they stack up on paper. What I'm thinking is that along with length, width & sidecut radius, other measures such as longitudinal stiffness, torsional stiffness, fundemental frequency and damping factor: 1) If a board were to be supported at the ends & measure how far it deflects under a specific load (say 200 pounds). 2) If one end of the board is clamped & the other end twisted, the number of degrees of twist per pound-foot of torque applied. 3) If the board were clamped at the center & "twanged", it would vibrate at a particular frequency. The stiffer the board, the higher the fundemental frequency. 4) If the board were clamped at the center & "twanged", it would vibrate until the amplitude of vibration fell below some value. This would be a measure of dampening. Regardless of how a board is made, these tests would allow one to compare boards from different manufacturers "on paper". It seems like so much of board evaluation is based on how much fun someone has on the board. This is very subjective and is influenced by so many other factors other than the board itself. Has this ever been considered? Does anyone else think it would be of value? The reason I'm asking on this forum is that it seems like members are more analytical than snowboarders in general.

A bicycling neighbor had this bumper sticker on his car: http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?screen=PROD&product_code=mcs87b&category_code=bicycle Does anyone know of a similar sticker with the ultimate evolution being a snowboarder?

Check out these conditions: http://www.skiloveland.com/snowrep/snowrep.asp I went to Loveland yesterday - best conditions of the season (for me)! Cold in the AM (10 degrees F in the parking lot) & windy all day. Almost nobody there. I have to confess that I was not on my alpine board - I was on soft boots & a regular board. The lift I rode (#8) most of the day had almost nobody on it - maybe 30 people total at the peak. The wind would fill in earlier tracks & I was finding fresh tracks even on the last run. The windpack was firm but not hard. I had to carry some speed to get through it. When I rode the board flat, it would barely leave a track. When I initiated a turn, the windpack would give way in a nice, progressive manner & I'd sink in about 6". On the steeper stuff, I could point the board straight down the fall line in a brief free-fall & then sink in for a nice big round turn with some big compression at the apex of each turn. Fabulous conditions. I didn't want to leave. I got the last ride up the lift at about 3:25 PM. I did some runs on the front side - the groom was truly hero conditions. More snow predicted for the weekend. I'm going to try to get up again. Hard to believe it's April.

Dan - thanks for the input. I will try this over the weekend. I didn't think about the danger of loose bindings. I have some Loctite threadlocker in the garage.

I went yesterday (Wednesday). It was awsome. Best conditions of the year (for me). Spent the early day on lifts 1, 2 & 6. They didn't open #4 & #8 until about 11 AM. I then went over to #8 & spent the rest of the day there. Great conditions. Lots of new snow & pretty windpacked. Probably only 30 people on #8 at the peak. I kept finding fresh tracks & thought each run was better than the last. Got the last lift ride on #8 at 3:25 PM. Then went over to #2 & got the last ride there. I'd like to make it up on Saturday or Sunday - depending what I can negotiate at home.

Have you seen the snow report at Loveland lately: http://www.skiloveland.com/snowrep/snowrep.asp Anyone want to go anytime between tomorrow (4/11) and Sunday (4/15)? Mid-week could be great! - John Ellis

Another question about Cateks & binding angles: There is a "window" in the boot plate that allows one to see the degree marks on the mounting disk. They appear to go from -25 degrees to about 70 degrees. However, there is no indicator so it's judgement on what angle I'm really riding. If I sight down on the mounting disk, there appears to be some marks that are at about 0 degrees. Each mark looks to be at about 10 degree increments. Is there a more sure way to determine angles? Also, since I'm starting out, I'm trying to run the lowest angles possible. The board waist measures 200mm and I'm in 27.5 Raichles. If I make sure that there is absolutely no boot overhang, the binding angles seem quite high (70 degrees +). It would seem like the best way to ensure no overhang would be to put the boots on the board and view it from below (not above). If one sees any boot or binding hardware, you need to increase the angles. This is what results in high binding angles.

So - Mario - how was it on Sunday?

Stopped at a garage sale this AM on impulse. They had a Sims Carve 161 with Catek World Cup Series 1P bindings. The price was so low that I figured I couldn't go wrong and that maybe it belonged to the woman's son or ex and she didn't know anything about it. So, can anyone tell me more about this: Sims Carve 161. Tip=250mm, waist=200mm, tail=250mm. RL=142mm (these are based on my measurements). Serial number = 3650081 I know this is a short board. I'm presently on a Nidecker 163 so this isn't that much shorter than mine. The upside is that my Nidecker has a 189mm waist so I could run lower angels on this board. I'm not familar with the Cateks. I played with them a bit to set the angles but it's not very clear what angles they are set at. Also, they have 4 set screws to set cant & lift. It appears that the central mounting bolt just binds these screws against the mounting disk. After I bought the board, the woman said that she had another board that she thought about selling but that if she did "I'll probably never get back on a board again". It was a Vokl RenTiger (sp?) with Bomber plates on it. So, the Sims was her board & she was just trying to get rid of it. She appeared to be a short (5' 4") 40 something woman. Not your typical hard-booter. I also picked up a Yakima Space Booster roof box that looked like it had never been installed for $40. Anyway, can anyone tell me more about the board & bindings? Are these "museum" pieces?

Dr D. - Thanks for the info. My main fit & comfort complaint is that I have narrow (B) width feet and my big toe usually winds up pushing against the front of the boot. Is it likely that an arch support would "shorten" my foot & help prevent this?

lonerider - I have narrow (B width) feet. I have a pair of 3 year old Salomon F24 boots that fit great until late this year. Now I find that my toes get jammed into the front. Unfortunately, with the F Series boots, the liner is fused to the shell & I can't replace the liners or put anything between the liners & shell. Do you find that the Nitro Team boots work well for narrow feet? I don't know of any local shops that carry them. I'd like to try some out before I bought them.

Has anyone tried WalkFit insoles in their boots? I've heard mixed reactions to their effectiveness but I don't know anyone that has tried them in snowboard boots.

KenW's advice sounds right to me. I believe that some people need fully customized footbeds but most can get by with something more off-the-shelf. The profit margin on the customized footbeds must be huge. When you look at what they are made of and the amount of labor to custom fit them, it doesn't justify the price. It amazes me that in some cases, you buy a pair of boots for $500, take out the liners & footbeds, purchase custom molded footbeds & liners and wind up with what you should have received with the $500 boots to start with. Is it necessary to buy both heat-moldable footbeds and heat-moldable liners to acheive comfort? Why can't this be accomplished with just the liners? I think some bootfitters give you value for your investment & other "ski shops" just want to sell you expensive footbeds.

I have a Nidecker Tornado GS 163 (I think). I'm not that good with it but I can't blame the board. I got it at All Board Sports in Boulder, Colorado.

Last Sunday at Loveland 8:30 AM. Waiting at the base of a lift for another rider. About 6" new overnight. A 20 something skier and his buddy had just made 1st tracks on run adjacent to the lift. He kept saying over and over again (loud enough for all to hear) "Oh my goodness, that was so SWEET!". "Give me high five" "That was soooo sweet" "Oh my goodness" "Give me high five again" and on and on and on... I wanted to go over and slap him and say "If it was so great, what are you doing standing around here - go do it again" or "It's just skiing". Really annoying.

Needanswer - by all accounts, the guys that design & build these boards know much more about what causes them to break than I do. If you can convince them with your reasoning, more power to you.

Gs per second?? In English units, acceleration is in feet/second/second. One G is approximately 32 feet/second/second. You're suggesting that this new metric be in feet/second/second/second? This must be new physics. What breaks things is force or more specifically units of stress (pounds per square inch). When the stress exceeds a certain limit, the board will break. How would the manufacturer know how much stress was applied to the board and under what conditions? If the stress limit of the board is exceeded, it will break, regardless of how long the force was applied. I also am a Mechanical Engineer. That is why I was was questioning the G measure. It makes no sense.

The G Force rating makes no sense. 2Gs with what load? 100 lbs? 250 lbs? What type of gauge would record the force that the board experienced when it broke? Was that load experienced on the snow or when the owner drove over it with his car? How would the company know? An optional "extendend warranty" is probably not a bad suggestion. This is merely a way of spreading the risk (like any insurance policy). It has no effect on how the board is made. The original purchaser buys the policy and if & when the board breaks, it is replaced, no questions asked.

I'm sure that any board manufacturer could make a board that you couldn't break. However, it would be some combination of heavy, stiff and (very) expensive. You wouldn't want to pay for it & you wouldn't like riding it. Snowboards are really just sophisticated plywood. Their primary component is wood. Wood is a natural substance and is not perfect. I doubt that the recent failures of boards were due to "defects". They are more likely due to snow conditions (soft) that allow riders to put huge forces on them. If any object is stressed beyond it's elastic limit, it will break. If the board were made stiff enough that you couldn't break it, it would be too stiff to decamber.

Seems like hardbooting is the quest for high G forces. This requires relatively high speeds and high turning forces. It's great when all works well. However, when something goes wrong, these forces break boards & break bodies.

Vlad - I stand corrected. Someone on an earlier post drew this analogy. I know that slalom / GS terms really apply just to racing. I have never raced - I have no desire to. It really is just short -vs- long radius turns.

Mario - I can be at the Morrison Exit lot on the northeast corner of I-70 and Colfax at 6:15. I'm driving an old white Acura. How late do you plan on staying? My cell is : (303) 513 7438 - John