Donek

OK. I'm missing it. Have you posted pictures of your system? What thread?

Jack is a pretty savy guy. That is the price goal on this system. He guessed it based on very few cues. I know I can do it based on the plate and uhmw parts, but machining that stainless was a pain. I'll probably have to farm it out. We'll have to see where the price comes in. Is it possible to cnc punch 1/8in stainless? Is that the correct term for those cnc machines that do sheet metal work?

I've got one of those. Send over your ideas. If they can be done cost effectively, perhaps they will be integrated.

Unless Hangl has modified their pattern, this is not their pattern. I ran some boards with that pattern for prototyping last year. It's similar, but not the same thing. The Apex guys may have slots in their mechanism to accomodate both. I didn't look at that aspect of their design.

I have made the foot movement argument over and over myself. I thought I'd get on the plate I rode and immediately fall over because I was unable to pedal the board. That did not happen. I believe I have already found about 1lb I can shed from it's mass. That's an estimation, but I see no reason I can't be down to about 5 lbs. A 184 with plate and bindings mounted to it is a beast. It's amazing what an additional 5lbs feels like when you pick up a board.

Such a thing hinges on the ability to make it fit a 4X4 hole pattern of non standard dimensions. This is a big issue. Making something like this fit around all the hardware is quite tricky. There is not a standard stance width that everyone uses across the spectrum, making it even more difficult. Weight reduction is accomplished by making parts as small as possible. Slotted parts are bigger and heavier. I'm not saying it can't be done, as I haven't even really tried, but I see significant hurdles to such a proposal.

The cost will be considerably less, but the volume will be nothing like skateboard production, so I'm certain it won't be that inexpensive. I think we're likely to be quite a bit less than most of the others.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_M2k9PvFQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_M2k9PvFQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

E-mail sent. I think you'll be surprised at how competitive shipping is.

You may have another option. If the board has a machine gun or 4X2 hole pattern you could use more than 4 screws (depending on your bindings) and dramatically increase the retention strength of the setup.

I preach 3 turns. I believe that is supposed to be the ASTM standard. Boards with metal laminates typically get very thin compared to fiberglass boards. We had a number of boards with the thinnest available inserts in them this year. Properly finished, that insert will allow 3 turns, but does require extremely carefull finish work. A tap may gain you a half turn or so, but be sure to count turns on the screws when you mount your bindings. I remember making calculations regarding this in a mechanical design class, but can't find a direct reference in my text book from that class. I did a bit of googling and found these links: http://www.boltplanet.com/Un/un.asp?txtseries_page=UN http://www.spiralock.com/technology/about_technology/torque.html I also found the following quote on the practical machinist forum: "Guys, Thanks for all the links. I had heard that 3 full threads gave full strength. I didn't realize that more than 6 threads was useless." But then this followed: "you can't trust the first two thread turns on a bolt as the threads may not be fully formed to engage properly" Not much help, but perhaps you'll find additional help from those links.

Hammond is on a 201 and MacDonald is on a 205.

I'm pretty sure Ryan has won the race 3 or 4 years in a row on a Donek designed specifically around him and that race. Looks like Johnny Hammond came in 5th on a Donek as well.

The Razor is designed as a carve specific board for softies. The incline is very carve oriented as well with a more traditional shape. The saber is our bx model with decambering a lot of rubber and a large amount of taper. It really wants the fall line. I have also done some 200cm freeride shapes similar to the tanker if you want to go that direction. If you have something specific in mind, let me know. Customs are the same price as the stock shapes.

The file was never hosted on Bomber's server. It is sitting at the other location and then linked to. When composing a message, look at the top of the window. You'll see a small icon that looks like a mountain in a box. That is your insert image button. You can cut and paste the url of the image that you want to appear in your message there.

You can try in the morning.

Catek, doesn't even like to received vendor orders via e-mail. Place your order through the web site.

I'm almost always here, but I prefer to talk after noon as I reserve the time period of 6:00am to noon for production.

Unless you are trying to compare two boards from the same manufacturer in the same construction, such a measurement is virtually useless. Every manufacturer produces a flex pattern that is different from anothers. Unless you plan to plot the shape of the curve that the board bends to and compare it to that of another manufacturers, you stand to learn very little from such a measurement. Give me a call and we can discuss what you like in detail before beginning to build your board. I'm confident I can translate your needs into a stiffness that will be appropriate. I've been successfully doing this for many years.

Based on Plate theory (the model I used for determining laminate stiffness) a variation of 20% in core stiffness will only affect the laminates stiffness by 0.62%. This is because the core stiffness has much less affect on overall stiffness than the the outer laminates (ie metal and carbon). As an interesting note 0.004in (0.1mm) will affect the laminates stiffness by the same 0.62%. I've seen variation in lumber properties that probably excede 60% to 70% within the same species, but have stopped using that supplier. I think my process is a little less susceptible to variations in lumber densities because my cores usually have lumber from multiple trees. I laminate blocks and resaw them on a saw mill. The properties of multiple trees will average out. As I understand your process, you laminate core blanks one at a time, most likely using laminates from the same board to produce one blank. As a result, you probably encounter greater variation in core blank properties from one blank to the next. My cnc, can typically reproduce the same core from one day to the next accurate to about .002in (0.05mm). There is a small variation there, but it is quite small (less than 0.5% I estimate) I guess my earlier statement was really with respect to predicting and repeating results before the materials are actually touched. Your technique of adjusting after production obviously works well, but does require extra work.

In general the metals are way easier to ride. We can make them softer longitudinally, so it's easier to flex the board and get it to turn. The vaiable sidecut gives you the ability to make subtle changes in turn radius without even thinking about it. A metal will help you get to the next level.

I've softened up the metals quite a bit, but I can easily stiffen them. The boards are so much damper and more torsionally rigid, that longitudinal stiffness is not really a requirement. When I change the width of a board, but leave the stiffness the same, the cores profile is recalculated to generate the same stiffness. This allows me to build two boards that are identical in flex even if the width and sidecut radii are different. To my knowledge there isn't another manufacturer in the industry that has such control over the stiffness of their boards.

You can have whatever you like. The specs on the web site are just starting points. If you want a longer sidecut, it's no problem at all.

I can just make that dimension actually. It doesn't give me any room to play on the width of our metal, but if I'm carefull, I can do it.

The metal boards do tend to have a fair bit of offset to the tail resulting in a shovel that feels a bit softer than the tail. The softer shovel on the glass axxess that you describe is no different. You will, however, find that there is really no need or reason to dive onto the nose of the board. Single radius boards tend to need a little more coaxing to initiate, so people have a tendency to really push on the shovel to tighten up or start the turn. The metals use a variable sidecut radius that is tighter in the shovel, making such movements unnecessary. You can ride the board very centered while moving your center of mass no more than about 5 inches foreward and 5 inches back to use everything the variable sidecut has to offer. The carbon laminate does have the tendency to prevent overloading of the nose as well. You'll get thrown back in the center usually if you go too far forward on the board.