Phil

Erik, good post. VLAD's post is a good one, but is over complicating this issue. In other words, what he is saying is true, but is not the first place to look when it comes to natural and unnatural turns. Think of natural and unnatural more like goofy and regular. One turn generally feels better. One direction of aerial spin feels better. Some people struggle less with this than others, but almost every skier experiences it. If you ever watch skiing halfpipe comps, you will hear the announcers talk about natural and unnatural spins. The same issue exists in biking. I used to race MTB Downhill, Dual Slalom, and BMX. Most people have one turn better than the other. If in fact he was at a hill where he turned right more, that would not account for the fact that he is not pressuring the tips of his skis on his left turns. In this case, he would just have less base burn on the left side, not base burn in a different place.

When I say "back seat" I am not saying that he is buttering his tails. Base burn only from the heal back would be a result of only riding your tails (a fun time, especially carving - try it sometime). Being in the back seat just means that he is not pressuring the tips on his left turns, which would cause base burn right where you are talking about. Good logic. Of course, then you would be getting more base burn.:)

I would venture to guess that he is using the whole ski on his right turns and getting in the back seat on his left turns. Almost everyone who skis has a natural and unnatural turn. When doing MA on skiers, it is usually pretty easy to spot which is which. Here is one for you which is sure to get me flamed - I would bet that those boarders who face the nose of their boards when riding get base burn farther up their heelside edge than they do on their toeside. As tex said, this could be a wax issue for some, but others should take note where they are applying pressure while they are riding. Repeated base burn in the same place does not lie.

200cm

Unfortunately, there are times when VLAD is right. I hope that the majority of the time he is wrong. The snowboard school that I just left was not anything like that. Of course, we had two instructor training clinics every weekday and three on the weekends. I feel that the instructors were very well trained. They did not take their boards off (unless it was a last resort to help a REALLY bad student) and they did not stand around yapping. If they did, they would hear about it from a supervisor, a trainer, or me. I have also been to a few mountains where it is the exact opposite. Generally, a bad instructor is still better than a well intentioned friend. The best thing is to find out from locals who the better instructors are and take a lesson with them. Unfortunately, when you get a beginner package, you get whoever they give you. Zoltan is right about the equipment, though. Most mountains are using equipment that actually helps you to learn. Find out if your mountain is one of them.

Kin I git a amen bruthas?

Barry, Is that you in your avatar?

BShaw - I guess that the question is - what do you consider the definition of carving to be? It sounds like your definition of carving and the popular definition of carving are at odds. I have taught and coached halfpipe for years. One of the most basic skills I work on with students and athletes is carving. You can also ride ANY modern board in the halfpipe. In the same way, you can carve on any modern board (with sidecut). And no, turning and carving are not the same thing. I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you on that.

Hey, don't be a man made snow snob. On another note - hey looky - Jay is back.

Every time I go out west or get a powder day in the east, I enjoy myself. At the end of a trip out west, I am always ready to come back home to the hardpack. I really do enjoy it every bit as much if not more. Fav. conditions on my race sticks - when it thaws and they groom it before it refreezes. They you get frozen groomers that don't show skidded turns at all, but when you carve, there is just a pencil thin mark on them. The stuff is just so fast. AHHHH, delicious. Don't ever fall on the stuff, though, it will ruin your day. So I guess that I am somewhere between groomers and ice/boilerplate.

Uggghhh! Sorry Zoe. That really sucks. Best wishes for a speedy and full recovery. MTB'ing will be great rehab. Let me know when you are ready.

Hey Chubz, Two hours to the SE there is cord like that every morning. And of course, there was cord like that at MAC Tracks as well. - Missed ya.

Now that was funny.

Leedom makes 3XL helmets for people with 64cm watermelons. Boeri makes a 3XL in some of their models, but they only go to 63cm. BTW... Is this one of those "my buddy has a problem" questions where your buddy is really you? ;) I wear a 2XL and I know this guy with a gargantuan melon that needed a helmet one time. He wore my XC MTB helmet and it looked like a yamika. Oh, how I wish that I had a camera.

Thanks BlueB and Nate for the in depth replies. Thanks Jrobb for doing the paper test. I see your point, but my results were different. I am sure that user error is involved here somewhere. Most of all, thanks for my new paper snowboards. I printed them on card stock to make them more durable and easier to work with. I also glued wedges on both of them to give them the same tilt angle. It still seems like the longer board is a tighter arc. The center of the longer board sits behind the arc of the shorter while tip and tail cross that arc seemingly making a tighter arc - the shorter arc is covered up by the longer board. In any case, you have challenged me. Until we move to a new house, I cannot get my reference materials out of storage. With the arguments that you have made, I will concede that I may be misreading or misunderstanding the whole thing. I would still like further proof. The board lengths and sidecuts from the manufacturers still seem to support my argument. Thanks again for the good discussion. As far as the F2 SL 163 vs. 166. If you are big and heavy - like me (Scuff - I have one inch and 10 pounds on you), go for the 166 - it is a no brainer. I have had and still have models of both. They perform very similarly, only the 166 is definitely more stable. As you have found, there is no comparison to a Burton FP.

Leave it to a reporter that knows nothing about snowboarding to call it a "frontside turn". :D

I am trying to work through this, but I am having trouble with the math. I don't understand why, if there are different sidecut depths, that the tip/waist/tail measurements are the same on both boards? In any case, I have to get going to the mountain. I look forward to discussing later.

This is my line of thinking. However, I don't see how just adjusting the longitudinal flex would make the turns the same. There is still a sidecut depth that decambers at a certain angle. The idea is that the longer board has a similar sidecut depth due to the longer SCR. The added effective edge makes it more stable IMO. I think that the longer board is also a little stiffer. This is my experience from owning both boards, not math. I love to learn, and if you can show me in a real world application where more decambering makes the same turn, I would even enjoy being proven wrong. Did you do the paper test? Am I over simplifying? The paper test clearly shows a tighter arc given the same SCR on different lengths due to further decambering. BTW, no, I am in NO WAY qualified to talk about math. I understand that Nate's calculator is proving my theory wrong, but when I am seeing what is happening in front of me, it is hard to believe the math (maybe because I don't understand it anyway), so how do you explain that in a non-mathmatical way? I am one that would need real world proof, not mathematical. Figure out how to disprove the paper test and I will be more inclined to believe it.

Wow, I won't lie to you guys about the fact that I am frustrated with you calling me out like this. If two boards of different lengths have the same sidecut radius, the longer board will have a greater sidecut DEPTH. BlueB touched on this a little, but made the false assumption that it is simple geometry when in fact it is not. At the same angle of tilt, the longer board with the greater sidecut depth (same sidecut radius) will decamber more, causing a tighter arc. So, if you will humor me, take out a piece of paper and make a circle by tracing something (I used a CD) or using a compass. Now cut out two different length "boards". Tilt the shorter "board" to your desired tilt angle and trace the arc on the paper. Now tilt the longer "board" to the same angle and trace the arc on the paper. Let me know the results.3 As far as your scientific approach, check out the book thatI referenced below. Wow, that board would really turn tightly. Unfortunately, you would really have a hard time getting out of that turn. Imagine the tip/tail width on that board..! It would be so unwieldy. You cannot throw out other board characteristics, but they are not as important in determining possible turn radius which was the O.P.'s question. Are they the same length? If they are, then the same tilt will produce a different turn. If the 12m board is longer than the 9m board, you are only proving my point. For example. Here are the specs for F2's GS boards: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="98%" align=center border=1><TBODY><TR><TD class=board_specs>Board Length </TD><TD class=board_specs_length align=middle>168 </TD><TD class=board_specs_length align=middle>173 </TD><TD class=board_specs_length align=middle>177 </TD><TD class=board_specs_length align=middle>183 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Effective Edge (CM) </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>151.5 </TD><TD align=middle>156.5 </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>160.5 </TD><TD align=middle>166.5 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Side Cut Radius (M) </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>13 </TD><TD align=middle>14 </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>15 </TD><TD align=middle>16 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Nose Width (CM) </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>22.6 </TD><TD align=middle>23.3 </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>23.4 </TD><TD align=middle>23.9 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Center Width (CM) </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>18.6 </TD><TD align=middle>19 </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>19.2 </TD><TD align=middle>19.6 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Tail Width (CM) </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>22.6 </TD><TD align=middle>23.3 </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>23.4 </TD><TD align=middle>23.9 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=board_specs align=left>Construction </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>Sandwich </TD><TD align=middle>Sandwich </TD><TD class=board_features align=middle>Sandwich </TD><TD align=middle>Sandwich </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Notice as the boards get longer, the sidecut is longer as well. These boards are all made for the same GS course, but if they had the same sidecut on the longer lengths as the shorter lengths, the longer boards would be "too hooky" as BlueB put it. Unfortunately, all of my books are in storage because I am working on moving, so I cannot reference any of this stuff for you. It would be better if I could quote the experts, but alas, I cannot. I can only give you my dated paraphrase. I hope that it was enough. If you don't want to take my word for it, do some investigation of your own, check out The Simple Geometry of Skiing I believe that this is where a lot of stuff comes from, but like I said, my books are in storage (in another city) so I cannot verify.

Sidecut AND running length determine turn radius. A board with a 160cm running length and a 10m radius is going to turn tighter than a board with a 140 cm running length and a 10m radius.

I guess my point is that we get caught up in a lot of board tech when the bottom line is that a good carver is a good carver. It is about the rider more than it is about the board. An expert carver can outcarve most of us (hardbooters) on a soft setup. I have been outcarved by guys who are riding duck stances on freestyle noodles. I would bet that they would outcarve about 85% of the BOL'ers as well. They are just better athletes with better (more effective and efficient) technique. Would they carve better on hardboots? Of course, but if it ain't broke, they're not going to fix it. There are also hardbooters that can regularly outride park/pipe rats on their own turf. It's not what you ride, but how you ride it. That's my $0.02 - and I will be a hardbooter to the end.

Wow, this thread has gotten complicated - where to start? First of all, someone suggested an instructor. Where do you live? A good instructor would go a long way. As far as which leg forward, you already answered that question. Cindy makes a good point about skating and such, but as you look around, you will see a mixture of prosthetics used for front and rear leg. There is no rule, only recommendations. The bottom line is that everyone is different. Is it that regular is regular and goofy is goofy regardless of amputee status? Could be. Then again, it could be the difference in devices and how they are set up. Maybe some are better suited for front leg duties and some are not. In any case, prosthetic leg front will be more conducive to "windshield wiper turns" because one would tend to try to drive the back of the board around with the healthy limb in back. On the other hand, with the healthy limb in front, you would be more encouraged to do steering movements. As many amputees have shown, though, skating can be done with the prosthesis as the rear leg. Heelside skating would be more conducive to a prosthesis because of the lateral loading and abduction and adduction movements. Generally ad and ab duction are easier with AK's. As I tell all beginner students, though, toe or heelside skating is generally another personal choice made by feeling - much like goofy or regular. The other recommendation that I have for you is to get the lowest stance angles that your setup will allow. This will allow your legs to work more seamlessly together. There is only one plane of movement in most AK prosthetics, where there are several in a human leg. This should be capitalized on by using low angles. Offsetting this recommendation is the fact that you are in ski boots which work better at high angles (that is what they were intended for). Should you decide to go with the higher angles, I would recommend considering outriggers: If that would make you feel too much like you are going back to skiing, just use them until you get better at it and then lose them. Some more device questions - What kind of knee is it? What kind of foot? There is some logic that a user adjustable foot should be locked in dorsiflexion to ride. That is good logic, but there are some drawbacks. If you have a user adjustable foot (I know that there is a tech. name for them, but wifey is sleeping, so I can't ask her what it is), it is not made for heavy activity. Also, since you are riding in ski boots, there will already be some dorsiflexion inherent in your setup. If you are able to lock the knee in a slightly flexed position, it may be helpful as well. Check with your prosthetist about that. Now for technique. In my opinion, you should learn to ride more with your front foot to start. Most good hardboot riders can ride one footed. The really good ones can carve one footed. Let that be your goal for now. There are a lot of people that I am sure would disagree with me on that one, but I am just sharing my opinion. Let the prosthesis come along for the ride for now. Employ steering and tilting as you would on skis. I am sure that if you were a ski racer, you have done plenty of one footed skiing. This will be very similar. When you get better and want to carve, just employ tilting with no steering. On a similar note, yet off topic, here is a double BK amputee rider. More pics: AK c rail.bmp

Here I go stealing Boostertwo's pictures again - I am going to have to pay him royalties.;) Snowboards carve. 28 cm waist (I think):

It's late tonight, I taught SB classes all day and I have been grading papers for hours (for a snowboarding class, no less). I will respond more tomorrow when I have some rest. Next important question: Where are you located? Look for a PM as well, so we can take the discussion to emails. edit: unless you don't want emails, you may want to enable the email function of your profile.

Bummer. No problem believing that it *happened* during a mellow carve, but I don't think that anyone will believe it was *caused* by a mellow carve. It seems that there must have been something else in that board's past. It looks like a traumatic break.