maddman

Will do.

I was only citing the accepted industry definition of the period (shifted sidecut axis). Technically, by your logic, most alpine snowboards are asymm.s, given the fact that the nose and tail aren't alike. Your own personally-accepted use of asymm., all joking aside, is really "bilaterally asymmetric", as when the two outside edges are unlike. The accepted asymm.-period definition, (that is,based solely on industry/mfr. literature), pertains to a longitudinal asymmetry on the mediallateral axis... If we're playing the bombastic game of semantics then, almost all alpine boards are asymmetric, being as they have flat tails and rounded noses:D I move that we stick with the accepted industry norm of the period, which defines an asymm. as a board with a shifted sidecut: toeside apex is forward of heelside apex. This design, and that of bilaterally aymmetric sidecut, is very likely destined to fail in any attempt at 'comeback, due to the unavoidable and obvious inability of the flat deck to run straight, given the offset sidecuts from one side to the other.

So was I, this is what a dual radius sidecut refers to. The "blended" adius sidecut you cite was referred to as a 'progressive' or 'dynamic' radius sidecut during the asymm. "what were they thinking?" heyday. Neither is an essential component of the asymmetric snowboard.

Try not to misinterpret my point- I was speaking to the necessary actuality of the coaching/instructing split: An effective instructor needs to instill new ideas on students, who are likely seeing the associated technique presented for (their) first time, so she/he needs to present 'rules'. An effective coach functions under the presumption that the athletes have already learned 80% or more of their technical needs, and is there to assess tactical approaches of each athlete, while occasionally suggesting technical 'revisions'. This is a necessary difference that has existed for at least century before snowboarding came to be. It's not a rift or a battle, but rather an essential divergence of style for effective training, as we move up from the trunk of the newbie to the various branches of learning....some advanced athletes will diverge up a competitive branch, others will continue up a stylistic limb. Neither is wrong, and both are absolutely essential. Educational Snowboard culture still has much to glean from the trials of Educational Ski culture. Some questions are best left to coaches, others to instructors. An instructor will be more inclined to tell you how to do something, while a coach may be more inclined to suggest an exercise by which you may find your own solution.

"Rotary Pushoff" -ATM (later ATS) :D

Then it's a dual-radius sidecut. "Asymmetric", by original industry useage, referred to a 'shifted' sidecut, regardless of similarity (or not) in sidecut radius from side to side. The "asym days" did not start in '90, but in '86 with Hooger then in '87 with Hot. There were MANY manufactures making production carving boards between '90-'95, I'm not sure whom Big 3 pertains to, but I hope my Mdd is included there. (What makes a company a "Big 3" in carving boards? I've never heard this, sounds cool!)

I borrowed the video from HASRAC on facebook

I meant no disrespect to Jack, who I presume is a vet of racing. I agree that cuff angle presets, combinant with canting and ramping is unnatural. When presented with unnaturally-cluttered complication, I opt for removing vectors, not adding newer, even more unnatural compensatory vectors. I have also noticed that higher level racing vets and really good coaches espouse a "ride the set up that works for you" philosophy, while recreational-riding instructors tend to promote a very polarized "That is wrong, this is right" philosophy. I have learned more from coaches than from instructors, but I'm sure that many more learn more from instructors. I am no great rider by any stretch, I have rarely run through a course and haven't even ridden snowboards that long, but I understand human mechanics (Phd candidate) and can convey ideas and see performance-inhibiting discrepancies. I do not mean to impugn anyone else when I say that Billy Bordy conveys ideas exceptionally well like a successful world cup coach (which it sounds like he is).

No, just because we need to bias our movements to compensate for our diagonal attitude over our decks, decks need not be re-engineered so that one sidecut is ahead of the other, as this creates uneven flat-running and, more importantly, a need to add another physical compensation, that of front-to-back CG change from one turn to the next. The approach of using asymmetric board profiles really forces the rider to add another cumbersome movement into a technique that could benefit, already, from further refinement. The key failing in the asymm. concept is that they address a symptom, not a cause. The cause being our diagonal attitude over the board The symptom being our diagonal edge bias. Sometimes recreational ski-education thinking engenders over-engineered shortcuts from addressing our core causes. Pinheads drove me from skiing, to a degree, when it became apparent that they were becoming the paradigm offset in the association. That being said, some of the truly thoughtful examiners and dev. team luminaries of the early 1980s (nod to Willie Tate) made it possible and enjoyable for me to enjoy my (Rocky Mtn.) "full", as lev. III was referred to in the "Flock of Seagulls" era.

Look at the fact that board design ha moved to all-symmetrical. As long as we ride them diagonally or sideways, we will bias our body position, regardless of board profile. Perhaps the fact that all modern skis are now patterned after symmetric racing snowboards ("shaped" skis) is equally overwhelming to you? We're more likely to see variations and evolutions of body mechanics than of board profiles, as the board, itself, needs to interface symmetrically with the snow.

And you tried this on a worldcup race tour, yes?

Or at a level which one who doubts this may have not yet achieved

I respectfully disagree Binding angle definitely dictates the angle at which mass and center of gravity cross the board. also In an heelside my cuffs are extended up, and in a toeside they are flexed forward and back a little more especially at the finish of the turn, which varies with regard to placement over my sidecut

It is unfortunate that anyone would say try riding on flat feet is "the worst advice ever". This is what happens when people refuse to try something new I think and they stop developing as riders. Terekhov, who suggested that you try flat-footing?

The last 4 inches of my heel are the most crucial edges on my deck, and the last I would ever detune.

I agree. this is why we should ride with the 'cants' we were born with.

I mean no offense, but detuning a board because a rider is having difficulty running straight is a cop-out shortcut from resolving the cause.

My two monsters are the best thing that has ever happened to me. May yours be as well. Warm congratulations!

Try riding with your bindings mounted flat, with no heel or toe lift. This was suggested to me by an ex-BOL member and it changed my riding. this way, standing flat allows the board to track flat...otherwise, as it was explained to me, our middle ear and our physical consciousness think we're on flat feet when we're relaxed, and we really aren't: due to the lifts. My turns improved dramatically and I ride more smoothly, now.

your board's symmetric, right?

How many do any of you own at one time?

Whoa! VLAD!!! Where have you been hiding? get in touch with me please I need some coaching!

2nd generation Logical, Glossy gray, white spiral ladder graphics, purple/pink base graphics...used. cheap. New York City area

I just read that the Swiss Freelap timing system is now being distributed in The USA. Does anyone know how I can contact them? I have tried the Swiss emails with no luck, and i am very interested in obtaining a set fro my alpine training. http://www.freelap.ch/test_joomla/