Sooperburd
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Profiles
Forums
Posts posted by Sooperburd
-
-
What's wrong with softbooters taking the time to visit this forum? Don't we want more people trying alpine? Sure, try to educate the unintiated, but frankly some of the comments made in this thread make us look like elitist douch bags. Not gonna draw a lot of folks that way.
It was my mistake for thinking this was in the OT. I'll be more careful.
I don't see a problem with hardbooters wanting to have a place all to their own.
In most forums I visit, there's very little chance that I'll meet any of the members. This is the first forum I've joined where I actually could meet a lot of the members. ...and it's the first I've joined with so many hostile people. I will meet some of you this weekend. Are you going to be nice to me since you can't hide behind your keyboard anymore?
I suppose your behavior on this thread might put you in a predicament when we meet. I have admitted where I was wrong. I have a clear conscience.
-
Dude... seriously. :rolleyes:
I've read two_ravens posts (a seriously funny lady and an A+ BOL contributor) twice and for the life of me can not see where she called you a name or passed judgement. She merely stated that if your going to ride without a helmet you might be interested in a new and upcoming treatment for concussion. Which I note she was able to give a pretty decent citation for.
As an aside I wonder what reading the SKES post is like with two_ravens on ignore??? Not as good I'm guessing!!!
I had a misunderstanding and I cleared it up. TR is off my ignore list.
-
and lets take a look at what "sooper" says about himself.. i think it is along the line of "i am a softbooter....." not sure though lol
For some reason I thought this thread was in the OT. I looked again, and boy was I wrong. Well, I learn something new every day.
I've learned a lot about some of you as well.
-
I'm pretty sure the question pertains to your handle "Sooperburd".
It's a misspelling of the name "Plymouth Superbird". The freak of a muscle car that was only produced for 1 year. It was only made in order to fulfill a Nascar requirement that the cars raced in Nascar needed to be real production vehicles.
I'm no Nascar fan, but I love muscle cars, and I appreciate the huevos it took for Chrysler to build something that ridiculous in order to win a few races.
The cars languished on car lots because they were so over the top. ...but Richard Petty won a lot of races that year.
-
YEA,YEA,YEA, only a troll would resist wearing a helmet these days, the best benefit I find from wearing one is better vision at speed, it keeps my head and hence my eyes from bouncing around as much.
jmho,ymmv
...like I said. So quick to pass judgement and start name calling. I think you completely missed the point of Ironbird's post.
-
It is all about risk and choice, not whether we can call each other names. Any facet of life has risk associated with it, and just how much of it you choose to accept is a personal option. For example wearing a helmet while doing any activity, i.e. - snowboarding. If you wear one, great - if not ok then. Who am I, or for that matter anyone else to judge your personal choice.
What's truly scary is that some people feel the need to force everyone to wear a helmet. As a rational and intelligent adult you should be capable of making that decision for yourself, and not have someone else's will forced upon you. If my local mountain made helmets mandatory, I would head down the road and take my business elsewhere. By doing so, it’s not for your benefit - it's to cover their a$$. Helmets first, then what's next? Mandatory body armor, wrist guards, cervical collar, no metal edges, speed limits - where does it end? Do you really need all aspects of your life regulated for you? This concept is insulting, as to say you are not smart enough for your own good so we will have to do it for you. Well gee . . . . thanks mom!<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
For those of you who immediately revert to name calling, what is this third grade? We are adults and by now should be able to express ourselves that way. If you are so narrow minded that you cannot see past your blinders, and have to call someone an idiot, maybe you should take a look in the mirror. Couldn't hurt to get off the high horse either.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Risk is life, choose to embrace it or run away from it - the choice is yours. Just be sure it remains your choice.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
I couldn't agree more. This is why two_ravens is on my ignore list. Name calling is absolutely not necessary here. I forget who said it this (and I'm paraphrasing): "many people on BOL live to get their panties in a bunch". I've never seen a forum that has so many people that are so quick to pass judgement.
I'm a reasonable person. I'm open to discussion and new ideas. Never have I called anyone a name, and never have I dismissed their behavior as ignorant or stupid. We're all adults (or at least we're chronologically adults), maybe some of you should start acting your age.
-
Sooper-
Why would you wear a helmet while riding your bike, yet not when snowboarding? It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Because snow is much softer than pavement. Because I snowboard very slowly through the trees, generally avoid groomers, and spend 80-90% of my time in the bumps.
While we describe icy bumps as "icy", they're not made of ice. They are packed snow, and they are not that hard of a landing.
Like I said, though, if I can find a lightweight helmet that really does offer good impact protection, I'm not opposed to buying it and wearing it. My beef this whole time is that I didn't think the industry was making helmets with decent concussion protection. It seems that I'm mistaken.
-
What does what mean?To be fair to Sooperburd (what does it mean btw?):older/heavier helmet cause more neck injuries esp. in children due to the lesser neck muscle strength that cannot hold back the combined weight of their head+helmet.
I'm pretty sure that my helmet must be much heavier than the standard fare sold today. I'm going to check out some helmets very soon, thanks to many of you on this thread.
-
AFAIK, ending up underwater in a car is dangerous, period.
As soon as the car is submerged, you won't be able to open the doors. You'd have all the time in the world to unbuckle and die free.
Of course, the doors will open once the pressure has equalized. But as long as the car is sinking, the pressure outside will rise faster than water enters the car (unless you're in a convertible). You would have to wait for the car to hit bottom, which, depending on the depth of the waterbody, might or might not improve your chances of survival.
Yes, this is all true. However, I only brought up that situation (of being in an underwater car with your seatbelt on) in order to emphasize my main point that a helmet will not always help.
Please read Neil's link that he posted above. It is very informative.
This quote from that article is eye opening: "[When helmets are worn,] data indicate no decline in fatality incidence (or serious head injury incidence, for that matter...)"
Generally, in accidents at high enough speed, if the helmet actually does protect your head, you'll probably die of something else. I guess the lesson here is, don't bomb down blue runs near the trees. If you want to really haul down a run, stay in the middle. ...and still wear a helmet for the low speed crashes.
-
While I may have said it a little differently :p, this is my point. My Giro G10 helmet is entirely closed-cell foam with a thin veneer of plastic on the outside.
Cutaway view: http://www.khulsey.com/giro_omen_snow_helmet.jpeg
That certainly looks like something that would deform greatly in a crash. I'll look into it. Thanks!
-
Yes, I own one, and it's not like what you describe. I really need to go look at some new designs.What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen a snowboarding helmet? -
No, not EVERY helmet is designed to deform. Every helmet I've seen has only minimal amounts of closed-cell foam that deforms in an impact. Half of that foam's travel is already compressed, just by putting on the helmet.I 100% agree that a helmet that doesn't absorb energy by crushing or deforming is useless or worse. But: What snowsports helmet doesn't crush or deform to absorb energy? Every one out there is constructed from closed-cell foam that is designed to crush with impact, just like any modern bicycle, motorbike, or motorsports helmet.
Ok, I'll concede that air has a fairly limited energy absorption, but it certainly does absorb energy and convert it into heat, which is then (in small amounts) transferred to the air's surroundings. P*V = n*R*T, remember? Yes, air bladder helmets spread the impulse over a longer time and slow down the accelerations felt by the head. That's the whole point!Air bladder helmets do not absorb energy, they simply spread the impulse over a longer time. Most air bladder helmets are designed for relatively light things (like a football or a puck) hitting the helmet, not a head striking something fairly rigid.Football and hockey helmets are designed for blunt impacts with the ground, or the ice. Yes, they defend against a stray football or puck, but a footballs and pucks don't cause concussions. Almost any helmet will protect against cuts, scrapes, and low energy impacts (tree branches, ski poles, etc.). We're talking about concussion protection here.
-
And seat belts cause more deaths :rolleyes:
Yes, seat belts do cause more deaths in certain types of crashes. I don't have data on this, but ending up underwater with a seatbelt on is quite dangerous.
My point is that no study has looked at helmet safety during different types of riding. You guys all glossed over this point when I mentioned it. It's a fact that riding quickly through the trees is more dangerous than through medium-pitch moguls. I can't give you numbers on this because nobody has done the study.
My position is based on my engineering analysis of the different types of impacts, not on anecdotal evidence.
Yep, that link didn't support my point. I shouldn't have posted it in haste.
-
I've had a helmet for over 10 years. I stopped wearing it about 6 years ago for the above stated reasons.I also was one of those who held off on buying a helmet for the longest time.
I agree, hardbooting needs a helmet.After getting into hardbooting last year I finally made the decision that safety is more important, and I still can't believe I was so naive to ride without for way too long.
I would absolutely wear a helmet on a motorcycle. ...but I don't ride motorcycles. I do ride bicycles and I always wear a helmet. Like I said, I choose not to wear one when on a snowboard because of the type of riding I do.Would you ride a motorcycle without a helmet? I hope not.
Yikes!– Getting smashed in the head (=helmet) by the metal frame of a fast approaching lift -
Maybe you are. I'm totally serious. Progesterone is the latest first line treatment for limiting brain damage in head injured patients. Higher levels at the time of injury also provides protection. You can look up progesterone - it actually is not a a specifically female hormone, although females generally have higher levels than males. You don't like the helmets you've seen, so there's a proven alternative for you.
I just added you to my ignore list. Have a nice life.
-
This is BOL you're going to get both.
As far as intelligent discussion goes I'd be really interested in reading any recent scientific papers that support your claims about transmission directly to the skull.
Here's one. I have a problem with studies that show how "helmets reduce the risk of head injury by this or that percentage". None of the studies take into account the type of riding that is done. Certainly, if you like to fly through the trees, a helmet will reduce some kinds of head injury.
If you spend all your time in the moguls, away from other skiers and trees, a helmet will increase your chance of concussion. This is because a helmet has a larger surface area than a a head with a beanie on it. The beanie head will hit the snow and travel deeper into it before stopping, while a helmeted head will stop faster, increasing the deceleration.
I'm in complete agreement that carvers on alpine equipment need helmets, but other types of riding are not necessarily safer with a helmet.
-
A real push by the press last week may drag politicians into this debate soon. The point was made that helmets for the most part don't prevent concussion. I wear a helmet because i think it could lessen injury. If they are mandated by law will it advance the standards to include more protection from concussion ? For Sale Glass coiler: and 7 foam and plastic helmets.
:AR15firin:AR15firinLike I said, build a kevlar shelled, air bladder helmet (like the ones the NFL players get) and I'll be the first one to buy it.
-
OK, I'll post up just so we have the official signature. :D
But some may want to take a different approach - recent research shows that progesterone has a very strong protective effect for the brain in the event of head injuries. Sooperbud, maybe you should ride like a girl? I can point you toward a source of good quality progesterone cream.
Wow. Are we in junior high?
-
ignorance is scary!
I figured I'd get intelligent discussion from my post. I didn't expect to be insulted. Call me what you like, but I am certainly not ignorant.
I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I understand the physics involved very well, and I made a rational decision to not wear my helmet based on the types of riding I do and helmet design. My mechanical engineering peers agree with me that the forces are not diminished by a helmet that doesn't absorb the impact. Only a helmet that deforms to absorb an impact will actually decrease the deceleration of the brain.
You should be careful that you're not getting a false sense of security from a helmet that doesn't absorb an impact and simply transmits the force directly to the skull.
-
I stopped wearing my helmet a few years ago for a couple of reasons:
1. Whiplash. I push myself hard on the moguls and I routinely go over the handlebars. Every time (without fail) I rode with a helmet, my neck would hurt for a few days afterward. Since I stopped using the helmet, I very rarely have neck pain.
2. A term I define as "Helmet Enabling". Now that I don't ride with a helmet, I have drastically reduced my speed in the trees. I no longer have a false sense of security from the helmet, and therefore, I don't go too fast in the trees and always stay well in control.
3. In my opinion as a mechanical engineer, 10 years ago Helmets did not defend against concussions in snowsports. This one has probably changed, but my main beef with them was that they would not provide any more padding than the two layers of thermal beanie that I wear instead. Thusly, they didn't protect from concussion because there was zero shock absorption advantage over 2 thick fleece beanies. Yes, they were definitely protecting from lacerations, but they were not reducing the amount of deceleration felt by the brain (and in many cases, they would increase that decceleration).
I should try some helmets on and check out the technology. If they are actually lightweight nowadays, and actually providing concussion protection, I might get back in one. Certainly if I get an alpine setup, a helmet is totally necessary.
I wish someone made a kevlar shell (for impact resistance) helmet with adjustable air bladders on the inside (for concussion protection), similar to NFL helmets, I'd buy one today.
-
I agree that muscles do not work in isolation. The issue on which I disagree with you is on maximum force.Sure I do. Your muscles do not work in isolation from each other. To think that a rider using high angles is not recruiting his or her glutes, for example, in a quick turn is wrong and based on a lack of experience with an alpine setup.Say you are laying on your left side, knees bent 30°. You have a stack of weights on top of your right foot. You'd be able to lift (for the sake of argument) 100 pounds with that right leg by abducting the entire leg away from your body.
Now, visualize laying on your back, legs bent 30°, and a stack of weights on top of your right foot. You'd be able to lift substantially more by the kicking motion in this exercise than what you could on your side with an abducting motion.
The major muscle groups used (of course, not in isolation, nothing is in complete isolation) in the kicking motion are the same ones we use for walking and running, and are therefore more powerful. The abducting motion's major muscle groups (again, not used in isolation) are just not as strong as the ones used for the kicking motion.
I'm anxious to try this out.I'm not saying you can ride moguls like you do without strong legs, but in order to keep stable you need a strong core too. Many riders from other sports (like cycling) have very strong legs and little core strenth. These people, when SB'ing can be particularly susceptible to comprimised body positions as their lower body movements cannot be "damped" by the core. To not have a tired core after a day of shredding moguls is not a sign that you don't need it as much as the legs, but that you're not using it as much as you could.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. No harm done.In the original post, the author asked about a technique for riding bumped out pitches of the type you see at Squaw Valley. Generally, Squaw is more in line with KH than the run in your video, where if you fall, you stop soon after. I was trying to explain why I think the line you're showing is somewhat innappropriate, unless you want to risk everything.
Ohh, I understand. I was thinking something else entirely. This definitely needs a softer binding and boot, right?I'll give you a hint: How might you flex your ankles in either turn if you wanted to create MORE edge? I certainly didn't want to suggest less.
Yep, I'll keep this in mind. I think, though, that the turning frequency that I'm interested in is something that I can't rely too much on the sidecut to achieve. I'm talking 3-4 turns per second when things get hairy. Yes, this is approaching the turn frequency of skiers on competition mogul courses.Counter rotation is not bad and it definitely has its place in snowboarding. Many moves can't be made without it, so I would never suggest anyone try to lose it, but it can be made with less effect on the upper body, specifically the arms and shoulders. We like to think of the countering force as coming from the upper abdominals of the core. Rather than resisting or creating the turning force with a movement of the upper body, which can create instability. Think about tensing the abs as something to counter against instead. I mentioned this because you're swinging your arms around and getting caught behind in places.
I totally agree. The snow in the videos was much slower than I am used to, but I was still trying to show the technique I use on faster snow.If you were riding a WC mogul course, on a board with no sidecut and not posting on a site where people come to talk about edging in general, I'd agree. As your chosen pitch was less steep, you could emply more edging before the scrub. If you're coming into the scrub too hot because of this, use more edge in the scrub. This would call for more advancement of the board under your core at completion to centre over the back foot for max pressure control. If you try a more edgy scrub with your pivot point still under the front foot, you'll wash.
Your BoS is your board. Essentially, what you're trying to do to allow your upper body to stay quietly in the fall line during an entire turning cycle (Which youu know). Isolate the countering forces between your upper abdominals and your heel and toe edges. Without strong edging, it's your upper body creating the turning force and not the board, which you paid good money for and might as well use. At this point, you'll probably find that the played, floppy board isn't killing it like you thought it was.
If you're talking about the old Gnu 160 that I wanted to try, that board was quite forgiving on the softer snow. It definitely won't be so nice when the snow gets icy, though.
I think I understand your point about using the core more and shoulders less. I should be putting my quickest inputs into the board utilizing the largest reaction mass possible. Only using my shoulders and arms, I'm leaving out a good sized mass that can be used to provide even more powerful inputs to the board. When I'm not putting the most powerful movements into the board, the larger reaction mass means less flailing. If I have this right, thanks for being patient and explaining this to me!
-
Thanks for all your input, Rob. I have a lot of questions, though.
I don't agree. While I am no doctor and don't know the names of all the muscles, I have a mechanical engineering degree. Certain body positions clearly have better power for certain types of movements than others. If the movement is kicking the board from side to side, the running muscles (quads, butt, and hamstrings) are clearly better suited for this than the muscles used for jumping jacks. Do you disagree?The act of "Steering" shouldn't be hampered by the angles of your stance. This is more a function of practice than anything.
Maybe so, but after a long day of nothing but moguls, my core isn't sore. My legs are plenty sore, though. No leg strength, but lots of core strength does not a good bump rider make.There is no substitute for a strong core. With a weak core, these positions will still be possible, but can only be sustained for short periods.
What is your point of this story? Are you trying to say the slope in my videos isn't as steep as the ones you ride? So what? The runs in the videos are actually the only bump runs I've hit at Jane this year because there are too many rocks protruding on the steeper ones. I can certainly ride anything I want with plenty of speed and finesse, but I'm not going to trash my board for the sake of showing you thousand-plus posters how tough I am. Sorry for getting crass, I just don't see the place in telling us all about the stuff you ride in a post that is clearly critiquing my riding. I don't want you to get the wrong idea, though, I'm very glad you took the time to watch my videos and comment. But I digress...Thanks for the video. It's important to this discussion to see the degree of pitch that you're riding in order to reference it to the OP's terrain, KT at Squaw.I was just at Kicking Horse in Golden yesterday on a CASI level 4 shred day. Two of our lead guys work and live there, so of course were super amped to get us on to the gnar. The day started with 50 degree bumps. No ****.
The direct line, with 45 degree displacement of the board, was not an option. If you did not complete each turn and finish across the fall line, you were f u c k e d. Not just a fall, but a good chance of a trip to the hospital would be the result of letting your speed get away from you.
Only a couple of the boys could really dominate it and ,again, they did it with short radius turns, fully finished, with early edge changes and narrow lines of displacement. Of course, following the unevenly spaced and erratically sized troughs was a complete non-starter, unless you were ok with side-slipping alot.
Beleive me, some of the older level 4's were doing just that. Not that they couldn't do it under the right conditions, but these were not the right conditions.
You're talking about the bending of the ankles? If so, I can see how it would simplify the movements. Is the point to keep the board really flat to the snow while turning?Sooper... If you're into it, I'd like to comment on the vids. Normally, the last thing to come into the picture is planar and dorsiflexion of the feet in a turn.
I understand how counter-rotation is bad for carving, but how is it bad for riding moguls? The force of turning the board must come from legs and core acting on the stationary body on top. Therefore, I don't see being able to make these quick, powerful turns without some counter-rotation, especially without ski poles in my hands. What am I missing here?Without it, a rider can have all the knee and hip movement possible, but still require counter-rotation to fully execute a complete turning cycle.
Excellent idea. I'll try this.If you wanted to, you could use groomed terrain to set yourself up an imaginary slalom, where the "gates" were as tight together as you could handle.With a very narrow track in mind, attempt the most turns you can fit into a given amount of vertical.
The goal is fast feet with a stable uper body.
There's no time for slarving when your speed really gets up there. Try telling Olympic mogul skiers that they need a more carving type movement. It's just not possible because the moguls come at you too quickly.Right now, you are countering the boards turning force with opposite movement in the shoulders. This comes from a very flat, unedging board throught the middle phase of the turn. You will still "scrub" in the same way and in the same place, but be "slarving", with more turn shape, beforehand.
What do you mean by Base of Support, and how is it different from upper body countering?Your Centre of Mass will now be stabilized from the Base of Support rather than the upper body countering. -
Useful - it's good to see boarders taking the challenge.
You beat me to it: it's all good, but those do look rather friendly.
I'm pretty sure you can't turn as quickly with that stance as a race stance, but it's good to know it can at least be done. It would, as you suggest, be interesting to see that on less friendly bumps. I'm not particularly a sceptic, more just curious how it would look.
I think I can turn more quickly with my stance than with higher binding angles. With my lower body pretty much perpendicular to the board, I'm using my quads, glutes, and hamstrings (all powerful muscle groups) to turn the board with my back foot. With more forward angles, the abductors and adductors (much weaker muscles) are the muscles used to turn the board. The weaker muscles simply can't put the same amount of power into the board as the stronger muscles, resulting in slower, more labored turning.
In addition, I'm sighting the line ahead and I can see when I really need to make fast turns. When a fast turn section comes up, I lean more downhill and unweight my back foot. This makes lightning fast turns even easier.
On icier, more defined bumps, I increase my speed over what's in the videos. These nebulous moguls are difficult to sight a line on. The icier ones are actually better for me, and more fun in some ways.
-
Jane got a lot of snow last night, resulting in somewhat nebulous bumps today. It didn't make for a good demonstration of the zipper line. However, you can see how quiet the upper body can be when you sight a long line.
...and yes, I think I was going faster than that skier.
Some notes:
Certainly these could be considered hero bumps, because they are waaay too forgiving with all the snow we got last night. They don't really showcase the zipper line because of this. I'm praying for crappy snow so I can get some real video of the zipper line!
One thing that is visible is the quick turning. There's no reason you can't make really fast snap turns and still keep a quiet upper body. Sight the line.
Another thing that is very visible is the pendulum action. You can see my board going way to the left and right of my CG. Again, sight the line as far ahead as you can.
Also, the (mostly) silent upper body. While these bumps are more forgiving than those on the video in page one, my upper body is MUCH quieter. Heck, even my wife's upper body movements are less pronounced than those on the page 1 video. ...and this is only her 3rd year snowboarding!
Oh, and I can't figure out how to imbed these videos directly onto the thread. A forum search turned up nothing. Can someone help me with this?
Finally, a funny story. The audio is dubbed over on the wife video because there was a dude on the lift calling out my name. He's an old buddy of mine and I feel like such a jerk because I had my tunes cranked and I couldn't hear him calling my name.
:AR15firin:AR15firin
Helmet needed?
in Carving Central
Posted
I was going to say that!