Jump to content

TimW

Member
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TimW

  1. What are the dimensions on those? Currently planning on 178 length, 24.4 waist, 160 eff.edge and 12.5m radius. I am a bit in doubt on the radius (if it is too small to my liking)
  2. I must add that 'all' for me is just carving hard and riding powder. I mostly ride with my family and dedicated powder days are rare. Now I have dedicated HB and SB boards, and pick a board for the day. I regularly end up doing a powder run on a 20 cm waist, or carving groomers on my SB powder board. In the past I have built 22cm boards that carved great and were already much more enjoyable in powder. Now I will build a 24cm board, bit bigger nose, channel in the tail so the base in tail is rockered along the center. I don't expect the same HB performance as narrow boards, but close, and much improved powder riding.
  3. So you are suggesting a 172x19cm board, but with full rocker? I'd expect powder riding would improve, but it would suffer dramatically anywhere else. You will ruin it's alpine board qualities, and for that price you might just improve the powder riding from very poor to poor. You would be far better of with a compromise. Lower camber a bit and increase width. A 22cm wide board is much nicer in powder then 19cm and still perfect for freecarving. Reducing camber, but not eliminating it. Nose and tail rocker starting a bit earlier. Maybe bit more taper and setback. Bigger nose. etc. At least that is the direction I am going with my "one board that does it all" attempt. Wild idea if you really want full alpine board dimensions with rocker: A tension rod along the top of the board, that you can tension to pull it into a rocker when you want to ride powder.
  4. Yes you got me confused for a second too, as I think of friction as the resistance in my direction travel. Then I realized you must be a side slipper..
  5. The stiffness number is just a number for comparison. Stiffness needed also depend on board length, sidecut radius, weight, design, torsional stiffness, etc.
  6. Always nice to think about how a snowboard behaves: On hard snow (no significant trench), turn radius is mostly determined by the sidecut and edge angle On soft snow, turn radius /shape is mostly determined by board flex and pressure exerted by rider. With stiff laminates like used in alpine boards, the core only contributes 15-30% of the stiffness. The stiffness is quadratic with the thickness (only the core contribution is 3rd power with the thickness) You can quite easily build a board within 10% accurate of your design stiffness A bit on camber: The stiffness multiplied by the deflection of the board distribute pressure towards tip and tail. Deflection consist of camber (first the board needs to be bent straight) and deflection in the turn. If you turn tighter (increase edge angle), the board deflects more so the pressure on tip and tail increases. But you also exert more pressure on the board (because of the tighter turn). So with a soft board, most of the extra pressure will end up under your feet (because the board is not stiff enough to get it to the tip and tail). WIth a very stiff board, most of the extra pressure will go to the tip and tail (because a lot of force is needed to increase the deflection). A board with a lot of camber will need little stiffness to distribute pressure to the tip and tail. On the other hand, because of the low stiffness the pressure on tip and tail with not increase a lot when you increase edge angle. A board with little camber needs more stiffness to distribute pressure. However, the pressure on tip and tail will increase a lot more when the edge angle (and thus board deflection) increases. I did the math in the graph below for boards with different amounts of camber. Shown is the stiffness needed to distribute a given % of the total pressure to the tip and tail. Camber is given as a percentage of sidecut depth. E.g. if you take a board with a 100% camber and a stiffness of '7', at 45 degree edge angle you get a certain pressure distribution. If you carve a shallower turn, the stiffness is lower than would be needed to get the same relative distribution, so more pressure ends up underfoot. The same at higher edge angles, because of the lower stiffness it cannot get all pressure to the tip and tail, and you could overpower the board. Now if you'd go for a 33% camber board and you make it with a stiffness of 11 to distribute the pressure at 45degree edge angle. However this stiffness would be too much at 70 degrees, and bring a lot of pressure to the tip and tail. So the board would have a narrow operating window, being soft at low angles, much to stiff at high angles. The bottom section of each curve would be where you get a proper operating window. So a 100% camber board with ~7 stiffness would be nicely responsive from 30 to 60 degree edge angle, a 50% camber board with 9 stiffness would have it operating window at higher edge angles. Hope this makes sense
  7. How was the camera mounted here? looks good.
  8. Hip rotation works exactly as @johnasmo described for me too.
  9. Nothing. Over 30 years old...
  10. Ouch, sorry to hear that. hope you have a speedy and good recovery. PS. That brace looks like it would fit in a sb binding....
  11. I have read through a few pages and well..... There was actually a video of him on the first page, see screenshot below. I guess it depends on your definition of carving.
  12. Yes please share the link! I doubt it is for G-force pulling edge loading carving, but I'd like to check it out. I have seen discussions before on reducing effective edge (thereby reducing sidecut depth), instead of increasing sidecut radius,to get a longer turning radius. Honestly I don't see 100cm working without serious body dragging, but new ideas are always good to evaluate.
  13. @Corey nice vid! I can understand that Bruce and Sean were a bit hesitant, as it changes the character a bit, but I also think I will like the lower angles more. @lowriderI have been thinking about a skwal but doubt I will like it. So it will not get priority, building is time consuming and I have a few others planned. Maybe if I bump into a used one.
  14. Great to get so much feedback! Thanks! I have to agree on this one I had the same with the shorter boards, when my riding developed they became too easy to overpower, whenever there was a softer spot I would lose it. Over 20 years ago though, with a modern board built to my weight and liking it should be better. But all the responses convinced me that I should add a shorter board to my quiver. Not a 145, but consensus seems on a 160ish, 145-150 EE board as a turny board for busy days. Currently thinking along the lines of a 22cm wide, lowish camber, metal board. This should keep things a bit calm. Of course a high camber carbon pogostick is also fun but I don't see myself riding that all day and keeping up with it. Most of you seem to have quite narrow short boards. If my memory serves me well I quite liked the little more width that the asyms had. Bigger feet might be a factor there.
  15. I'd like to get your opinion on short boards for hardboot carving. 'race style' carving, loading that edge. Do short boards work for you? And if so, how short? The reason for asking is that I built the board below for my daughter. 145x24.4 cm, 115 eff.edge. Somehow this board appeals to me, I feel like building this board with proper stiffness and putting my plates on it. My sane mind tells me this is ridiculous. But it does trigger me to try something different. Typically I like long effective edge, stable boards, so let's go the opposite way. So what's the shortest that worked for you? and for reference, how tall are you? For me, my F2 Beamer 162 felt too short, Nidecker extreme 163 felt OK ( longer eff. edge), everything after that was >170 and that felt much better. 191cm tall.
  16. Lucky you that you just dislike the slomo. I also dislike the overdone body dragging. When hands start digging a trench it is too much for me. Nothing against EC (e.g. Jacques Rilliet makes it look great IMO), but some overdo it. Edit: Guess it is also the slomo that makes the body dragging stand out more, think it would look better to me without slomo.
  17. @Jack Mmy reasoning was the same, although I am not actually sure what hardness level I like. I never got to installing a spring system on the Deeluxe, so my options were walk mode or locked, 2 pretty extreme options. Pretty sure I will like a bit more of support. Laterally I am sure I like decent stiffness at higher binding angles, but with Intec a bit softer shell should be good. But nowadays the only option is pretty much to buy some boots and hope you like them. Glad I am not on too tight a budget anymore.
  18. Just ordered the XC12 boots. Thanks for the advice!
  19. Thanks @lonbordin and @SunSurfer, excellent reference info on sizing! Think I will go for the UPZ XC12. Not interested in punching out a 312 shell to become a 324, so I will order a 324 then.
  20. @teachso you are in a 312mm shell? @lonbordin saw that you are also in a 312 shell with 290 (cm???)feet. What would you say for 295? 324 shell? 295 is on the upper end for the shell according to (all of their) their size chart(s), from that I would guess it is a pretty safe choice: Anyone with feedback on the liners? Should I count on having to get new ones? @SunSurferthanks for the compliment!
  21. Thanks for the feedback guys! @SunSurfer how is the sizing on the UPZ boots? I saw EC12 and RC12 for 500 euro in a webshop, but noticed that they recommend to go up .5 to 1 size (european) from your shoe size. If I follow mondopoint I need to go 1 size down from my shoe size. I understood that the liners UPZ has no (flo liners) are better than the old ones, can anybody confirm? @lonbordin I am 6'3 / 1.91 and 80kg/180lbs. Your experience does not sound too good for the new Deeluxe buckles, thanks for that input! @barryjHow do the 700 compare to 325s? Did you notice much difference from the different design while riding? @slaposI'll pass on the S5's, I would have .5 a finger then, a bit too much of a performance fit for me. I like comfort! Just overdoing it a bit on my current boots .
  22. Looking to buy new hardboots, but since we are spoilt for options nowadays, I'd like to get your opinions. Currently I have Deeluxe LeMans, 2003ish, with Intec. Ride them in walk mode. This is OK for me, but there is certainly room for improvement. I use Technica ski boot liners in them. Preferred them over the (non-TF) wrap liners. Boots are mondo 30, my feet are ~295, pretty sure a size smaller shell would be OK. Generally not that critical on boots, my feet seem to be easy going. Small video to give you an impression of my riding (best quality I have, not really into GoPros and such ) List of options: Deeluxe 325 / 425: Well I know these, probably would buy just the shell and custom liners (and a spring mech.). Are the TF liners much better/different than the normal ones? Deeluxe 700: A bit softer shell as I understand? How do these compare to the 325? Is the asym cuff good or bad? UPC RC12 / XC12 / EC 12: With the heel position, will there be any fitting issues on a large TD2 and large F2 titanium (mondo 295)? How do the compare to the deeluxe? XC12 or EC12 with the long spring box seems to be the better option for me (being used to riding walk mode)? The swoard EC12 package does not seem to bad a deal with additional springs and tongues. UPZ AT8: Don't seem to be very popular. Worth considering to make the choice a bit more complicated? Mountain Slope: by far the most expensive option since I would also need new bindings. Also worried on side to side flex. Hated the side to side flexibility of Burton reactor / burton race plate combo, at the time I put a steel pin through the heel of the boot with hooks on the binding to eliminate flex and that was a huge improvement to me. So I don't really see a reason to go MS. Please let me know your thoughts, feedback much appreciated.
  23. Well, you are a hardbooter converted to softboots, so you do not make sense to us anyway! Anyway, I have Northwave Domain (w Ride el Hefe) for softboots. Plenty stiff for me, I'd say stiffer than me Deeluxe LeMans fore/aft, more flex sideways (vs. Intec!). But in your reasoning, I agree there is a difference between stiffness and supportiveness. The hardboots feel more supportive to me. Boot length is similar, but on the softboots this is right at the sole, on the hardboots it is much higher up. Only at the forward lean mech. the hardboots is longer, but there the highback would be on the sb. (Mondo 30)
  24. I'd guess it is not loss of tension, but the boot and tonque being flexed too much and the tongue pushing the buckle open. If you (almost) fold a curved part like the tongue, it will flatten out sideways. This will make it push against the buckle. If you twist the tonque to the inside before you buckle your boot (away from the buckle) this may help. But the real solution (if the cause is over flexing) is a stiffer spring/less forward lean on the boot. BTW my lemans boot sometimes opens as well on some days, other days I have no issues. I twist the tonque when this happens, but it will move back slowly while riding.
  25. Running less heel lift on your rear boot will probably result in you flexing your boot more. This may well worsen the buckle issue. If you stick to the 6deg cant and put your cuff more upright, your body position should stay similar, but with less rear ankle flex, and hopefully less unbuckling.
×
×
  • Create New...