yyzcanuck

Yeah, I'm reading it and note there is discussion regarding the various shapes but I have yet to see anything that claims the clothoid shape is 'the' thing that 'makes' the Kessler KST. I still believe it's the nose roll-up that is the design feature that produces the defining element of KST. That may change upon further reading and learning but for now... I'm sticking with the abstract statement.

Maybe not famous but last season was really the first time that I saw someone with our logo (be it t-shirt or sticker) displayed and I didn't actually know the person! To me... that's progress!!

Yes, that would be 'da man'.

Any idea who the person on the far left of this photo is? I'd say he's a 'celebrity' of snowboarding origins. . . .

From the article posted HERE: Snowboarder Morison breaks elbow CTVOlympics.ca By Katie Rook, CTVOlympics.ca Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:12 PM ET A broken elbow will sideline snowboarder Matthew Morison during three competitions leading up to the Vancouver 2010 Games robbing him of valuable training opportunities. Morison, who won gold at the Parallel Giant Slalom event in Telluride, Colo. last week, will still be able to compete at the Games following four to six weeks of rest, doctors said. The 22-year-old Burketon, Ont. native fractured the radial head of his left arm during qualifying runs Thursday after he crashed into a net. Coaches have adjusted his training regimen so that he will maintain his fitness through February. Morison will not be able to compete at races in Kreischberg, Austria, Nendaze, Switzerland and Stoneham, Canada in January. The race Morison won was rescheduled ahead of a second race Thursday after warm weather in Limone, Italy forced the cancellation of an event at the beginning of December. Morrison qualified for the Olympic team last season when he claimed his third top-5 finish - a bronze medal at the World Championships in Gangwon, Korea.

A patent abstract is a short technical summary of an invention that includes a statement of the use of the invention. It is primarily used for searching purposes and describes the essence of the patent in layman terms. So, in this intellectual realm, I'm obviously clueless but... I believe the abstract is saying the most important part of the patent is the 'load-dependent shifting of the edge pressure'. We can all go ahead and read the patent application and the description of how all shapes can and may be used to perform this load-dependent shifting but I certainly haven't seen anything that states the most important aspect of the patent is the k©lothoid shape. There are plenty of side benefits to this load-dependent shifting (as noted in some of the previous posts) but I'll be damned if I can find where the most important part of the design is the k©lothoid shape. Maybe someone with a higher education can read and interpret the patent and show me the limitations of my comprehension? Anyone? . . .

Alexa Loo has updated her website... Drop by and have a look around. http://www.alexaloo.com/ . . .

I'm not sure how we'd accurately calculate the taper angle but using simple trig and 173 (effective edge?) as the 'opposite' side, 1 as the 'adjacent' side (2cm taper/2) it would give about 1/3 degree. Doesn't seem significant but maybe it is. It's an interesting thought.

I don't think all the new board designs use increasing sidecut radii from tip towards tail. Mr. Coiler stated earlier in the thread that the tip and tail radii were tighter than the centre and Kessler seems to have a similar design in place (~13m, ~20m ~15m). Sorry, Jack, I've edited this... I meant as noted above in bold.

Fin started it... I know you are, but what am I? He's looking at me! And any other childish comeback you wish to use here!!

Well, I don't think I've ever said the clothoid was better or worse than any other shape. I think I've only been trying to say the important thing isn't the shape but how the shape is used in the board design. I'm not sure it can be evenly distributed along the entire length. I think there must be some areas (2) that are more heavily pressured because of the way the centre camber is being deformed (from convex to concave). To prove or disprove this may be nearly impossible without some sort of stress/strain gauges actually put onto a sliding board's edge. Good luck with that.

Jack, et al... I like this 'peer review' format... it makes a person think. Thanks for all the feedback. Let me try to summarize this again... 1. I don't believe the type of curve (elipse, radius, clothoid parabola) is the important part of the new board designs. One curve may be better than another but by my own admission, I can't tell which type is under my feet. 2. I think the most important part of the new board design is the concave nose & tail camber ends (starts?) within the sidecut shape of the board. Some are calling this a decambered nose. 3. I believe this is the most important design element because it results in a movement of the high edge pressure zone from a concentrated area near the nose & tail, to broader areas closer to the centre of the board. 4. I see this happening because in meaningless tests on a flat surface, I can see the nose roll upward when the centre camber is made flat rather than convex. 5. This roll up of the nose benefits the overall ride by: (a) see item 3 above (b) edge areas close to the nose have pressure reduced and the nose is sometimes even lifted off the snow © provides a smoother more controlled entry into the turn © provides a means for the nose of the board to actually be moved towards the turn direction as the centre camber is made more concave (d) allows for a much shorter nose on the board resulting in the possibility of a much longer static effective edge (measured from widest point to widest point) I think all of these things, combined with Titanal™ construction, huge (2+cm) taper and multiple SCR blending (or some other shape) result in a reduced sliding resistance, easier turn entry, less likelihood of augering in the nose, truer tracking and overall, a less tiring ride. All of these aspects may not be what every rider wants. Some may still want the SCR to tighten at the tail, some may still want plenty of pop in the tail (not Fin, he's getting plenty of that), some may want to continue with glass construction, some may want minimal taper. That's fine by me. To each his own. This thread started with a question about 20 metre sidecut radius and has variously transgressed to name calling, finger pointing and ultimately peer review. I still stand by my original assertion that K©lothoid shapes are not what makes the new boards behave the way they do. Comparing the use of the clothoid shape in civil engineering and snowboarding is pure horse****. It's the decambered nose and the upward motion created by the mechanics of this design that makes this new design what it is. AND... while I'm on my soapbox : I will again say it's best not to compare the SCR numbers of the new board designs with more traditional designs (or for that matter, the curves of a rollercoaster!). Better to be used only for comparing new boards with new boards (SG vs F2 vs Kessler vs COILER vs VIRUS). BUT... you can't ignore them. The SCR (of a manufacturer's board lineup) is important for comparison purposes.

From the article posted HERE: Anderson and Lambert take gold and silver By Katie Rook, CTVOlympics.ca Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:52 PM ET Canadian snowboarder Jasey-Jay Anderson took the gold medal at Thursday's World Cup event in Telluride, Colo. following a duel for the top spot with teammate Michael Lambert. Lambert's second place finish in the parallel giant slalom event is particularly significant because he needs three top-5 finishes to qualify for the Olympic team and to date had none. "After the first and second run I wasn't feeling it...I thought all I can do out there is go out there and attack and attack...," Lambert said in a post race interview. Lambert's approach to Thursday's race, he says, was inspired in part by Alpine skier Manuel Osborne-Paradis who won the Super-G at Lake Louise earlier this month and described his performance as an attack on every turn. "I was just thinking about attacking every single turn," Lambert said. Bronze went to Slovenia's Rok Flanders. Anderson's gold medal is his 57th World Cup medal across all disciplines and his 23rd medal in PGS. Anderson secured his Olympic berth last year when he won the World Championships in Gangwon, Korea. "Tuesday was a bit of a rough day, and today, I didn't expect it, really," Anderson told CTVOlympics.ca. "Obviously I was hoping and I knew I could do it, but it's always a big challenge because there's so many runs to do. "The cool part was how strong the team was this week. We're kicking off this whole thing with four podiums, which is pretty outstanding." The snowboarding veteran called going head-to-head with teammate Lambert "awesome." "It was Mike's first podium, his first finals, and I was glad to be there with him," Anderson said. "I was able to stand up against him, and be the old guy that you can't just push around." At a PGS event staged Tuesday, Matthew Morison won the gold medal while female rider Kimiko Zakreski secured the bronze medal. "Today is definitely going to help build a lot of confidence not only with me but with the team," Lambert said. "We're definitely heating it up."

MEN'S PARALLEL GIANT SLALOM RESULTS Gold - ANDERSON Jasey Jay CAN Silver - LAMBERT Michael CAN Bronze - FLANDER Rok SLO WOMEN'S PARALLEL GIANT SLALOM RESULTS Gold - ZAVARZINA Alena RUS Silver - KREINER Marion AUT Bronze - MORGAN Dave CAN Pink - DOYLE Finton USA

I'm also trying to figure out why the board wants to turn so easily... why it naturally wants to turn when you begin to inclinate the board. I think this is also directly tied to the nose rolling up and into the direction of the turn. This contradicts my thought on how the effective edge is shortening. Hence... brain ready to explode!

Let's pick this up again tomorrow... you have me thinking now. Yeah, the measured effective edge must be longer (by design, compared to a conventional board) but I'm certain that the HLCA is moving toward the board centre as the load is increased. This to me makes the board 'feel' like it's shorter (shorter effective edge?). I know the nose of the board is rolling up as the centre camber is made concave (rather than convex as it is when unloaded). Thinking... thinking... my brain is about to explode!

Try not to take it to a personal level... Leave that to Parabola. OK, I agree, sort of... the static effective edge can and should be measured from widest point to widest point as you state. But as you pointed out earlier, that's not a meaningful or relevant demonstration in this case. The board is a dynamic system. The static effective edge is now put under varying loads during cornering (and to a lesser degree while running flat). This dynamic loading moves the heavily loaded contact area (what nomenclature shall we use for this? HLCA?) along the running length. The greater the loading (decambering?), the more the HLCA moves towards the centre of the board. To me, the distance from the HLCA at nose & tail is the effective edge now. Let's call this the dynamic effective edge?

OK, maybe we need to start with a new, formalized nomenclature for the various elements of snowboard design. Let me offer up another bit of anecdotal evidence. The nose shape of 'new school' boards has been changed drastically from conventional. Why? I think it's because you no longer rely on the conventional nose rise to save you from augering in. Now, the nose is rolled up and will facilitate a much smaller, more abrupt shape (hammerhead). These pics, like the one you posted of Ben, are just moments in time but... look at the nose of the board. It looks like it's barely touching the snow. . . .

In defence of both of those points is this... imagine how much worse it would be if the nose (and tail) were not 'decambered' by design. The conventional board has it's highly stressed, heavily loaded edge areas concentrated at the point where the sidecut radius meets the upturn. With the 'new school' design, that concentrated area of loading is no longer there. It's being rolled up because the SCR ends at a point that is beyond the point where the nose turns up. Put your new board base down on the floor and use your method of determining the running length (paper slid under nose & tail). Now stack a pile of books between the inserts so that it is pushed flat onto the floor at that point. What happens? The nose and tail roll upward (and reduce the running length). Why? The centre camber (convex) of the board transitions into the nose & tail camber (concave) at a point that is closer to the centre of the board than the end of the SCR. Now imagine being able to push the centre of the board even deeper into the floor. The convex centre camber now becomes concave. This new concave centre camber must pivot about some point on the base. That point is the transition to the already concave nose camber. What happens? The nose continues to roll upward even more. Why? The pivot point is the transitional area of two different radius cambers. THIS is the essence of 'new school'.

That's what I'm saying. Put a new board on edge, the centre convex camber collapse and becomes concave, raising the nose and tail off the snow surface. This is because the concave nose & tail cambers make their transition to the convex centre camber at a point closer to the centre of the board than where the main sidecut radius ends. I don't have a drawing to work from but I do have the boards. Put them on a flat surface and inclinate. Push the edge onto the flat surface and watch what happens to the nose. What's important here is the heavily loaded contact patch (of the edge) is no longer at the extremes of the sidecut radius... it's now moved back to the areas where the nose & tail roll up off the snow. It's also a longer contact area now, not concentrated.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. The Titanal™ and taper are significant contributors to the design but... I think the LARGEST contributor to the feel (and measureable performance) comes from how the nose and tail roll up when the centre camber is bent during a turn, thus moving the main edge contact areas towards the centre of the board.

I haven't been here but... possibly photos?

I'm going to go out on a limb here... I think the 'new school' board shapes allow this type of riding because the nose doesn't dig into the snow so deeply. The more the board is loaded (decambered) due to inclination, the more the nose/tail rises or rolls up off the snow rather than digging in and slowing the board down.

I still believe the sidecut shape has very little to do with how (why?) the 'new school' snowboard works. I think that when you look at a snowboard's shape (from the top) manufacturers could use many different shapes "such as ellipses, K©lothoids, parabolas,...". I continue to challenge you (Bola) to prove to me that it's the K©lothoid that makes the Kessler exceptional. I stand by my statement primarily because of personal anecdotal data collection. I've ridden boards with K©lothoid (Kessler) and blended radii (Coiler & F2). They perform similarly, therefore... it's not the sidecut shape that makes or breaks the design. The most important part of the new board shapes isn't the sidecut shape at all, but rather the interaction of the choice of sidecut radii (yeah, blended radii, or K©lothoid, or parabola, or... or...), the choice and positioning of cambers (tip, middle, tail) and the forces of rider weight & board inclination coupled with the board's flex pattern. The above items are what make the 'new school' designs easier to ride, hold their edges better and track cleaner lines. It's a totally dynamic, 3 dimensional interplay. The heavily loaded contact area, that on a traditional design snowboard stays at the point where sidecut is blended into nose & tail, is now moving along the sidecut and the nose and tail are rising and falling dependant upon loads and inclination. K©lothoid be damned! Just a sidenote... was the Parabola named after you?

This race was a 'replacement' for the canceled Limone, Piemonte race... Women's Results HERE: Gold - MAEGERT-KOHLIF. SUI Silver - KOBER Amelie GER Bronze - ZAKRESKI Kimiko CAN Men's Results HERE: Gold - MORISON Matthew CAN Silver - KARL Benjamin AUT Bronze - BOZZETTO Mathieu FRA