Jump to content


Supporting Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


crackaddict last won the day on January 17

crackaddict had the most liked content!

1 Follower


  • Location
    Revelstoke, BC
  • Home Mountain/Resort?
    Revelstoke Mountain Resort
  • Occupation?
  • Current Boards in your Quiver
    Thirst: 9SW 195, 8RW 185; Exegi: Double Wide 168; Coiler: T4 187 Prototype, T4 NFC 181 and 178, 2x T3 NFC TT+ 178, Mega-Classic 186, VSR AM 171; Donek: Sabre SRT 165; Furberg Freeride 168, Freeride Split 162; NeverSummer: Ripsaw 164, 25 Split 162...
  • Current Boots Used?
    UPZ RC10 w/ fintec
    Head Stratus Pro w/fintec
    Dynafit Neo px (for Phantom Splitboard Bindings)
    Ride Insano
    Burton Driver X
  • Current bindings and set-up?
    TD3 Step in, 3 deg rear, 3 deg front, 55/60 deg stance angles, 20" wide
    Drake Podium and Ride El Hefe 18 and 30 degrees, 21" wide, Phantom Splitboard Bindings
  • Snowboarding since
  • Hardbooting since

Recent Profile Visitors

1,612 profile views

crackaddict's Achievements


Contributor (3/6)



  1. I want to try some different bindings this season, I'm only interested in high-end super stiff models. Maybe a Now O-Drive or some Flows? How about a Catek FR2 Pro EVO? I want to try used before I buy new so I'd be happy with something beaten up, a few runs will be enough to know if it's right for me. Once I find something better than the Drake Podium FF, I'll buy myself a new set. Mondo 27. Thanks boys.
  2. Guaranteed you'll like the "hardboot lifestyle" way better with another board... Just about anything with titanal built after 2010 will do you. You could probably trade your relic for a used Coiler, there's a market for vintagte snowboards. If you insist on riding it though, look for three hole centre discs for TD bindings, F2 or Burton Race Plates. I probably have something kicking around the board room, maybe even boots for an almost local aspiring hardbooter.
  3. Indeed we do lack a standard metric for board stiffness, but @BLOODTYPEZX10Rdeserves credit for trying. Mark's "Flex Index" is about the closest thing we have. Maybe it's time to take this brilliant concept and perfect it. Just as a longer board should have a larger radius for a given turn shape, the longer board also needs to be stiffer. When you apply pressure to a board (i.e. when you turn it) that pressure is applied largely at the ends of the effective edge. So with a longer board you're applying that pressure further out from the centre, and therefore with more leverage. If you have two boards with the same sidecut depth but one is longer, that one will turn tighter unless it's also stiffer. It's difficult to compare board stiffness if the effective edge is not the same. Hand flexing doesn't work: a short board will necessarily feel way softer than a long board even though both might be perfectly suited for the same rider. Enter the flex index... To determine flex index, we place 2.25" wood blocks under the board so that the distance between their inner edges are lined up with the ends of the effective edge, and the distance between them is the same as the ee. Then put a bathroom scale between the bindings and step on it until the centre of the board just touches the ground. Record the weight showing on the scale (in lbs) and divide it by the effective edge (in mm I think) to get the flex index for that board, expressed as a decimal. This is an excellent metric that can be used to compare boards of different lengths. It measures the stiffness per unit of length. It doesn't tell you anything about the flex pattern or the torsional rigidity of course, but it's a very useful number. However, something always bothered me about it. I wonder if dividing by ee isn't somewhat arbitrary. For example, maybe we would get a more accurate metric if we divided by the square of the ee, or the square root of the ee (or 2x or 4x the ee...). I believe Mark invented this metric so that he could make boards that are suitable for riders he hasn't met or riders who haven't demo'd Thirst boards. He'll ask you to measure the index of a board you like and then use that as a benchmark for your new Thirst. This works great among boards of similar lengths, but may or may not work as well as the difference in effective edge gets bigger. Other metrics don't work at all. We talk about stiffness sometimes as a target rider weight, but this is somewhat meaningless because it's very subjective. The rider's skill, aggressiveness, style and preferences all need to be taken into account, not just their weight. I learned this season, for example, that the words "super stiff" will be interpreted very very differently by a builder like Jasey-Jay Anderson than it will by a Sean Martin. So how do we perfect the flex index metric? I think it's an empirical question. I've never done it, but I've thought about it a lot and discussed it at length with Mark (who seems to be satisfied with his flex index as it is). I propose that we each take a few boards of different lengths but which are all in a comfortable stiffness range, measure the readings on the bathroom scale and then see which formula best expresses their stiffness "feel" while riding. This would be very useful when buying used boards sight unseen, or when trying to describe your preferred stiffness for a first board with a new builder. Even on your second board with the new builder, terms like "10% stiffer" are somewhat subjective and meaningless without a flex index or similar metric. (Does 10% stiffer translate to 10% heavier target rider weight? Not really.) So let's play with this formula a bit and see what works and what best expresses the subjective stiffness feel while riding. Or not. The flex index is very close and very useful as it is. It would be extremely useful if more builders used it and if we all used it when we're selling our used boards.
  4. Ya, that's pretty much a direct quote, and it is true. I came to that realization after measuring the depths on a bunch of boards in my quiver and finding that there was a surprising amount of consistency between boards of vastly different lengths. If you don't believe me, go to your boardroom and lineup your boards in the order of the turn size you feel they make. Then measure the sidecut depths and see if the order isn't almost identical. This is (almost) correct. @johnasmo knows what he means but he didn't say it quite clearly; the two metrics do of course describe the same thing so long as the boards are the same length (well, same effective edge). The depth metric takes into account the length of the board and is therefore the better metric and more accurate predictor of turn shape if you only look at one or the other. If the length is constant then of course they tell you the same thing. But radius tells you very little if you don't know the ee, and if you look at both, then you're also looking at the sidecut depth, even if you haven't done the math. Of course, there are many many factors that contribute to turn shape. My thesis is only that sidecut depth is a better predictor than radius, not that either of them tells the whole story or predicts perfectly every time. Let's take an example with two boards of the same depth. The depth for this example will be 2.25cm. The first board is 165cm long (150cm ee) and the second is 185cm long (170-cm ee). Do the math and find that the radius of the 165 is 12.5m and the radius of the 185 is 16m. Now it gets a little subjective but assuming that the boards were made for the same rider and well designed, the turn shapes wouldn't be that different. A little bigger maybe for the 185, but not 28% bigger as the pure radius number would suggest if you only looked at that one. So in this case, neither number fully expresses the expected turn shape, but the 0% difference in depth is closer, I maintain, than the 28% difference in radius, and therefore sidecut depth is a better predictor than sidecut radius. Q.E.D... No point getting absurd @SunSurfer, I can't compare the turn shape of a 6m long board (which would be 149m radius by the way with your 3cm depth) with the turn shape of a 150cm board at 7.6m radius any more than I can compare the radii... 149m radius is meaningless in our world, we don't ride anything close to that. But let's look at a more extreme example if you like, but something in a more familiar range. Keep your depth of 3cm, which is a bit high but not absurd. Let's take a 1.5m board as you suggest but a 1.5m ee and so around a 165 total length (about as short as grown men ride for carving), and let's compare it a 2m long board with a 185cm ee (about as long as I've ever seen). The radii would be 9.4m and 14.3m respectively, so that's a 165 with a 9.4m scr and a 200 with a 14.3 scr. The 200 will probably turn bigger sure but not 52% bigger as the pure radius number would suggest. A 14.3m scr is tiny for such a long board, and it would turn very tightly indeed. So the depth is still a better predictor, even in the extreme, though the thesis is more valid among comparable boards. It can give one an idea of how much to increase the radius of a new longer board to achieve the same turn shape as a favorite current board, for example. One more extreme example: two boards with the same radius but different lengths. Say... the 165 and the 200cm boards above, both with an scr of 25m this time. Now which one turns tighter? The 200 right? The one with the bigger sidecut depth. See what I'm getting at? So again, the sidecut depth is not a perfect predictor, but it is better than the radius if you're only going to look at one number. Which of course you're not; you're going to look at least two of the numbers (out of the three: ee, scr, and sidecut depth), and any two define the third uniquely anyway so the point is moot. But I'm glad someone noticed my idea, even if it took a year. It was meant to provoke discussion and analysis, which it finally has, even if it's not really the topic of this thread.
  5. Bump? Have I succeeded in getting anyone to try this trick? Have you guys had any success yourself? Write about your experience below? I also had many many 270s before my first complete 360. Just lean back and power through... @slapos: Sweet man! Beautiful. @Jonny: I'm guessing you ride LFF/regular right? The rotation of the earth helps with counter-clockwise 360s in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise 360s in the southern hemisphere. That explains why the heelside is easier for you. This effect is even more pronounced as you travel closer to the poles, and at the winter solstice which is the only time I can do a 1080...
  6. Oh my goodness... Now the FOMO is palpable...
  7. This is pretty much my only trick. The crowds love it and not many people can do it, but it's not that hard to learn and it's not dangerous. These are my best tips, give it a try. As long as you end up on your feet it looks cool. What the heck else are you gonna do with all that kinetic energy at the end of your run? Don't waste it on a skid stop, you came out to make turns right? There are at least a few variations to the carved 360, I classify them according the shape of the track they make (the perfect circle, the spiral, the teardrop...). More on those below, what's described here first is the toeside spiral. 1. Head check: I said it's not dangerous, but that presumes there's no one behind you... That moment as you're coming around and traveling back uphill straight at that oblivious oncoming skier will make you question some very recent life choices... Head check both sides before you start, abort if your zone isn't clear. 2. Equipment Any hard boot setup will work, soft flexing boards are better, soft tails are best. It'll work with the same technique in soft boots; a wide board with no overhang is best though I have seen it done in somewhat decent style with stock setups. 3. Terrain choice Flat and wide is the easiest place to learn. Funner if there's a natural bowl shape or quarter pipe, but harder too since you have to constantly adjust your position for the rapidly changing fall line. When you choose a feature, try to approach such that you reach the highest point before you've carved 180 degrees so that you can start gaining speed again. 4. Approach Start with a lot of speed. Initiate your turn wide and gentle so that you can keep almost all your momentum through the first 90 degrees. I tend to start in a bit of a tuck and just tip the board over a little to start. Any chatter or skid through the initiation will slow you down too much to finish in good style. Minimize the snow displacement by carving wide and shallow to start. Keep your weight balanced over both feet rather than forward as you might initiate a tighter turn on steeper terrain. 5. 90 to 180 Degrees Put your hand down, carve deep, tighten up the turn radius and start shifting your weight back. Extend as normal through this part of the turn, but get your weight mostly on the back foot. Like way back; the front of the board should start popping up out the snow by 180 degrees. It might help to put your front hand on your front knee, extend that front arm and hang off the knee to lean far back. This is key. The further back you can get your weight, the tighter your turn radius and the more likely you can get all the way around before you stall. 6. 180 to 270 Degrees Here is the other key technique. Past 180 you're going to be slowing down a lot. You need to maintain momentum and at the same time start standing back up from the deep carve. Do this by pulling your dragging back hand through the snow toward your back toes. This hand serves simultaneously as a moving pivot point to tighten up the carve and as a crutch to help you stand back up. When I look back on my tracks, I can see that the mitten usually touches down early but lightly, gets farther away from my board track (and deeper) as I extend by body up to 180 degrees and then starts to come back closer again. Where the mitten track ends, it's about 20 inches away from the board track - very close to my back toes. Use the back hand like a rudder or an outrigger, as you might use a kayak paddle to turn tight: you're gonna stick it out behind you to the side and then pull it toward the back of the boat/board while leaning back and to the inside of the turn onto and toward the blade/mitten. 7. The Finish Once you get to 270, even if you're stalled, you should be able to regain your feet by pushing off the back hand. If you can come out standing up, look around for the dropped jaws. If you can come out with some momentum and ride past the gawkers you get extra points for the snub. If your board is soft enough to tail spin and you still have a little momentum left, try the 720 flourish. @dredman was the first person I ever saw do this finish (at ATC 2014 I think, whichever was the last one). I was gobsmacked, and immediately began attempting to replicate this fantastic style. (I will forever be trying to keep up with The Dredman...) 8. The Perfect Circle Pretty sure it was @John Gilmour who used to put down five perfect circles arranged like the Olympic rings. That was my original inspiration for the carved 360 (circa 2009) and led to many failed attempts. This variation has a similar initiation, but you'll stay centered on the board and balanced over your edge without dragging your hand or leaning back. As you lose speed toward 270 degrees, find yourself in a position with your knees pointed down toward the snow, your body erect and upright and your board high up on edge. Balance there as long as you can and let the board keep turning. You'll need at least some momentum at 270 to complete the perfect circle, it helps to carve very smoothly with minimal snow displacement. This one is among the harder variations, but it's also the least fun and the least cool looking (unless you do five and describe the Olympic rings of course). 9. The Teardrop This is the track shape that results when you don't have your weight back far enough to match the stiffness and length of your board's tail. I have some pretty stiff boards and some of them would just stop turning as the speed dropped. With practice I learned that I just had to shift my weight even further back on these boards. This is where I start pulling on the front knee to lift that foot and get my center of gravity way back over the tail. 10. The Allez-Oop This one also leaves a teardrop-shaped track, but it's intentional. Usually performed on a little quarter pipe or side hill type feature, you ride out with speed and look very cool. I like to do these where a traversing cat track intersects a fall line run. This one feels great too, like Tony Hawk's Loop of Death only without the death. You should be more aggressive on the initiation, if you go wide you might end up traveling too far uphill and stalling out. So start by leaning more forward and turning tighter. Try to be at your maximum height by about 180 degrees with your weight back and hopefully enough momentum to keep you going until gravity picks you up again. If you're a bit slow, use your backhand like a fixed rigid pivot point. Straighten it out and put a lot of weight on it; keep your body stiff like a one armed yoga plank and kick your board forward. This should feel like more of a hand plant than a hand drag, even though your hand may still be moving. You can kind of fake this one because you have the advantage of the terrain. Sticking out the straight arm and leaning on it usually works to keep me turning through the stall. It feels like cheating but it's cooler than a face plant when I'm out of speed. So don't give up if you stall when your board is perpendicular to the fall line and your head is pointing downhill, stay strong with a lot of core tension and lean hard on that straight arm; a little forward kick and gravity should do the rest. 11. The Backside Harder, more awkward and less cool-feeling, but sometimes the terrain just screams out for a backside three! Same principles: start wide and centered, stay smooth and shift your weight back through the turn, but this time you'll bring your front hand to your front heel to stand back up. Hard to stand back up on the heelside but it can be done with practice. If you have enough underhang on your setup, your board will continue carving a surprising distance while you're sitting on your butt too. So you finish up sitting, but it still looks and feels cool. The backside 360 also affords a great opportunity for the backspin turtle finish if you're into breakdancing... So this is what I've figured out through many winters of trial and error, plus video and track analysis. I hope it speeds you through the learning curve for this trick. It's always hard to put into words what is only known to muscle memory so by all means add your own descriptions and experiences. Different descriptions will resonate with and make sense to different people. Even with all the beta, it's gonna take a few tries. I hope to see more of you guys doing this trick at MCC 2022, and adding your own unique style and flourish. I've added a slow motion video for the visual learners. Note how the front of the board pops out of the snow through the second half of the first 360. That tells you how much I'm leaning back. Watch carefully too the moment when my dragging hand comes off the snow. See how some snow is thrown toward the front of the board? That will give you an idea how hard I'm pulling on that back hand to regain my feet, and which direction the force is applied. Ignore the edge catch face plant, I don't know who left that pile of snow there...
  8. All the boards have sold except the 9SW. Goofy only. $600
  9. Not necessarily worth watching, but if you're viewing this page I have to assume you're not too busy and it's less than forty seconds...
  10. Not sure if this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but it makes me laugh... No one shows up in the morning here unless there's fresh snow. Milles and miles of perfect cord all to myself! (Mind you, it snows almost every day.) Today I rolled up at 8:45, fifteen minutes after the lifts opened and parked right next to the handicap spots. I estimate that there were less than 150 people on the mountain at 10am. Traffic is so light this season that sometimes when it doesn't snow I can't tell whether a run was groomed the previous night or the night before that! And who cares anyway? It's all smooth and it's all mine!!! Not looking forward to the boomerang effect expected next winter when everybody and their dog is planning a vacation, but very grateful for the empty slopes right now. It helps that Revelstoke is a small town of only 10,000 and very far from any major urban centers, and also that Canadians overall are taking the covid restrictions seriously and riding local.
  11. Okay... While helping a tourist figure out his Donek today, the opportunity presented itself and I got a few seconds of video. Not my best turns of the day, and not the steepest runs in Revelstoke, but it's something to back up all my trash talk... Set your volume at maximum for the full experience.
  12. All the Coilers are sold! Who knew these were so popular???
  13. That's right Neil, but that's only part of the story. A board with a higher scr also needs more angulation for the same size turn as a smaller radius board, and more angulation means more boot out. I was riding 12/27 flat on the Exegi last year but that didn't work at all for the Jasey-Jay (14m vs 17m scr, same 300mm waist). It took most of December to figure out the necessary angles and lift, the boot modifications were also required because of the stiffness, and also not anticipated. As I've said elsewhere on the site, board width is not just about how big your feet are, it's also about how hard you carve. I've never ridden a zero boot out soft setup; there's always a compromise. It's true this board is quite an extreme design (the next one might be 15m scr). The Exegi has a 14m scr and I wanted the JJA bigger and faster but 17m was maybe too much for such a short board. I didn't anticipate the extra boot out, but the angles and lift are working for me now. - I'm rockin' it! You have to remember too that a 17m scr on a 145cm effective edge does not equal a 17m scr on a 185 with 170 edge. On the shorter board there's far less sidecut depth with the same radius. Radius should increase as the boards get longer to maintain a consistent sidecut depth. Sidecut depth is a better predictor of turn shape than sidecut radius. So why high angles and lifts with average size feet on a mega wide board? Because I was booting out with my old setup and I still do sometime with this new one too. The JJA has very little sidecut depth and it's very stiff and so I need extreme angulation and high edge pressure to turn tight enough to keep my speed under control on steep terrain. But that's exactly what I asked for. I like to carve with a lot of power input and angulation; I wanted a board I could push into as hard as I like and this one has stretched my limits. My carves are huge and fast, the turns just go on and on as I drag my elbows, thighs and butt all the way across the hill. Very satisfying. Boards with high sidecut depth or low scr just pop out of the turn when you push on them, this one won't come around unless I keep pushing hard and don't let up. Love it! And no, I don't have quads of titanal; what I do have are abs of steel! My strong core allows me to maintain even edge pressure and absorb a lot of chop and chatter. This is what separates me from most of the advanced carvers on this site. My technique is also excellent and I ride very aggressively, but my core strength is the foundation of my powerful style. I was a full time rock climber for ten years, sandstone cracks were my specialty (hence the moniker "crackaddict"). The training made my core and my upper body very strong, but moreover, success in that sport requires the ability to recruit a very high percentage of muscle fibers at once, this is known as "power". So while my legs are not particularly strong, they are powerful for their size, especially when compared to riders who might have big strong quads from mountain biking for example, which is a much more endurance oriented sport. I mention this partly to brag of course, but also because people should know that if they want ride stronger, they might want to work on their core strength and muscle recruitment/power - leg strength and endurance only get you halfway. Also... Boards for sale.
  14. Three boards sold: 180 T3 Coiler, 180 T4 Coiler, 185 Coiler Mega Classic. Gonna be some big smiles next weekend... Remaining Boards: 178 T4 Coiler Nirvana Energy in excellent condition, 2018 but hardly ridden, one substantial but cosmetic ding in the nose, otherwise in near mint condition. 20cm waist, 12.5/13m dual sidecut. $350 Thirst 9SW 195 asym goofy. In excellent condition; some topsheet scuffing but the base and edges are perfect. $700 Donek 164 Sabre SRT 12m sidecut, 31cm waist, p-tex topsheet, excellent condition. Was $1000 USD new; this is not the cheaper Knapton Twin, this is a hard charging directional carver with Donek's secret race construction. $500 Exegi DoubleWide 168 14m sidecut, 30cm waist, excellent condition. Better carver, faster and stiffer than the Donek, also cheaper. $400 Open to offers... You can feel good knowing that the money you spend will go to a great cause: Jasey-Jay Snowboards.
  15. The new setup and the only thing I want to ride right now, is a JJA TCX 166: 300mm waist, 17m sidecut, mega-stiff, super heavy, T4 titanal, rubber and carbon construction. With barely any sidecut depth I have to angulate a ton to avoid hitting trees on this monster, so I've increase my binding angles and added lifts. 21/36 degrees with 3/8th lift has reduced boot-out, the Drake Podium bindings are not my stiffest binding, but it's the one with the lowest profile heel cup. I also put UPZ Flo liners (mondo 26.5) in my Driver X boots, and plastic tongues from Head Stratos Pro boots between the liner and the boot tongue. Two plastic tongues actually in the front boot, and World Cup Booster Straps on both. It's amazing how much speed and stability Jasey-Jay is able to achieve with so little effective edge (145cm)! I had always thought I needed longer boards for turns like this. The TCX is as fast and stable as the 180 Coilers in the photo but more fun, especially in soft snow.
  • Create New...