Donek

I'm working on it, but have this terrible tendency to put it off another day.

I really appreciate all the feedback guys. As I stated the graphics I posted here were my relatively unskilled attempts. I have some really cool stuff from JK, Steve Fleck, and Ken Delrossi. I've listened on the retention of the bird. While I'm not 100% sure what we'll do here, I do have a couple versions that retain the bird and meet the other needs this logo had intended to fill. Hopefully, I can get the web site finished in the next week or so and everyone can see all the cool new stuff we've got available for next year. Thanks for all your input.

As many of you know I am no graphic artist. I did, however throw together some fast artwork for prototypes this past summer. I am switching topsheets on everything, so I am attempting to put together a varried graphic offering. I have a couple of people well known in this market producing some stuff, but I'd like your feedback on these graphics I did.

In addition to the new race shapes, we'll be making modifications to the FC and Axxess line to bring them in line with the newer technologies.

There's a bit about our testing in the vendor forum. We'll be releasing new specs soon.

The one I picked up at SIA felt quite heavy and very flexible.

It doesn't matter how your feet are placed on the board, the center of pressure will always be under the riders center of gravity. This will result in subtle (or not so subtle) changes in pressure on your feet. If you take a look at the newer board designs implementing variable sidecut radii from the tip to the tail of the board. You'll find that this is done to allow the rider additional control of turn shape based on fore and aft pressure. Such designs lend credibility to the fact that the location of therider's center of mass's is very dynamic. As a result there isn't much need to adjust for a small displacement from toe to heel side. The objective of good board design is not to pigeon hole the rider into one turn or the exact same situation turn after turn. It's goal is to give the rider the means to use all the tools at his disposal to manipulate and alter each turn so it is different from the last one.

Chris Massaro was involved with that film. I sent him out a few boards and some stickers. I've never seen the entire movie, but do recall seeing a Donek sticker inside a snow cat as well.

The first balloon press I saw was made by Matt Nipper at Aggression. It was probably in 1989 to 1990. The first Clam shell balloon press I saw was made by Rob Price at White Elephant in Calgary. That was about 1994 or 1995. I doubt they were the first to do it, but they were the first I witnessed.

I use a scissor press with my own tooling system that allows for size changes in 3 minutes. We can lay up a 150, put it in the press, lay up a 200, pull the 150 retool and press the 200. It's very fast and flexible. Adjusting camber is a bit more difficult though.

If he's using a cantenary curve, it's probably as simple as adjusting the center to the height he wants and then dialing down the nuts on all the others. It could probably be done with a blow gun applied to the correct side of the nut.

It's a pretty common press design Jack. A gator track or bar blanket is used in just about every ballonn press used. He does not appear to have heated the press although it could be added at a later day. He'll undoubtedly be putting a caul plate on top of the board before pressing which will eliminate any impression from the gator track. This looks to be a fixed cavity design, but it may open and close like a clam shell or scissor press. Without seeing the back side, it's tough to tell.

When I shoot, I'm not there for any other purpose. I will frequently make 5 to 10 stops on a single run with the intent of getting the best shot I can. For me, it simply isn't possible to keep your subjects happy if you are on a board. Getting in and out of your board is a pain. Relocating 15 to 30 feet with a board attached to one foot is cumbersome. Getting low is harder to do and most of all you can't swivel at the hips as easily. If your only objective is to get great pictures, skis are going to provide the best platform. Short ones are best. When shooting a race, I find that abandoning my board/skis at the bottom of the course is best. Hiking the course provides the opportunity to scout the best position/angle. If I start at the top on a board or skis, I rarely get the best spot and I have to find a place to stash my board. I then wind up moving around a bit, but feel tied to my gear. At the end of the race I'm tired and the last thing I want to do is hike up to my board. Sliding or walking down to it is easier.

Don't bank on it. My smugmug sales cover the cost of professional hosting plus a little extra each year. people do not go to a web site to purchase photos after an event. The only way to make money is to sell during the event. You'll find more sports photogs complaining about how impossible it is to make a living in that field these days.

I think the problem you're going to run into is the lenses you're looking at are not going to compliment your low light needs. I believe the D90 and D300 are the same chip, so the low light capabilities will be very comparable on those two bodies, but f3.5 to 5.6 isn't going to cut it unless you strobe a gym. I know very little about canon, but can assure you that you'll be frustrated and dissapointed with either the d90 or d300 with the kit lenses in low light. F2.8 is doable on a d300, but you need a fairly well lit gym and the images will have some noise.

These were shot with a D700 and Sigma 50-500. I find the D300 and 70-200 combo works a bit better. I just picked up the 200-400 f4 VR. At some point I might take it on the hill, but it's a beast. The lens bag is bigger than my camera pack that will hold 2 bodies and several lenses. Should be great fun for wildlife and sports though.

This is very complex issue, but I'll try to shed a bit of light on it. Most vibrations in boards that are disturbing to the rider happen at a specific range of frequeencies (30-70 HZ). Interestingly enough, the use of titanal laminates alone will eliminate these frequencies. Last season our metal construction had no rubber in it at all. The natural harmonic of these boards is a high pitch ping sound. Those of you who have one have heard them. The metal laminate will basically drive the board's natural harmonic well above the 30 to 70 Hz range. If you pick up any other manufacturers metal boards, you'll find they make a thud when tapped on. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to add a fair bit of rubber between the laminates. While the use of metal alone will eliminate those bone jarring frequencies from 30 to 70 HZ, rubber will alter the boards response to exciting forces and dramatically alter how the board feels on snow. The two materials approach the dampening issue from very different perspectives. The metal alters the natural frequency of the board, while the rubber acts something like a shock absorber you'd find in a car's suspension system. The new boards I'm working on incorporate the use of both metal and rubber.

As I said, at higher levels I think the use of twisting the board is a little less certain. Racers definitely have made the claim that the plate systems reduce the twisting nature of the boards. Having examined both existing plates systems a lot of people felt the degree to which they limit such behavior is minimal. This is the primary reason Fin chose to try locking it completely. Given the current race styles, I think the coaches are training riders to not twist the board. That does not mean it doesn't happen, hasn't been prevalent in the past, or won't work for certain styles. Everyone I've talked to has indicated that Kessler simply looked at what worked with ski racing and adapted it to snowboards. In other words, we've gone full circle. Skiing copied snowboarding and now snowboarding is copying skiing. I'm currently hesitant to discuss specifics of some of the shape prototyping as I don't wish to influence the outcome of testing that's being done by the racers. I will say that I believe a good portion of the shaping changes are a direct result of how the metal influences board performance. If boards were being made out of glass, some of the changes would not be there or would be less damatic. The big question for me is, "Is it possible to generate the same result with a glass board?" The problem with asking such a question becomes, "Is it economically viable to even explore the answers to that question given the momentum of metal construction?" I'm sure I will ponder this and even play with it in the future, but people simply want metal these days. I've learned so much in the last few weeks, it will undoubtedly influence how I approach future glass constructions. I think the primary reason the new shapes are working well is because they look at how to leverage the riders dynamics for better speed. As long as a recreational rider mimics these dynamics, they will feel the board is an improvement. It's not necessarily a completely new approach, it just looks at it from a different perspective. As a result, I wouldn't say it's back to square one, it's just a split in the road that wasn't taken in the past. I didn't have to scrap anything. I had to create some new formulas and make some adjustments to tooling, but the changes were not that difficult to explore.

All the board builders I've discussed twisting of a board with have refered to it as pedaling. It is a very effective technique for beginners if you are able to describe it correctly. Ending a skidded turn can easily be accomplished by twisting the board to disengage the edge at the shovel. This will reduce the drag at the shovel and cause the board to head down the fall line. Retaining the twist as the board is skidded into a slide on the opposite edge will help bring the board across the hill. Relaxing the twist will make the board slide evenly. Repeating the same action (reversed edges) will enable a beginner to complete the next turn. This is an extremely effective teaching technique for a beginning rider who is spatially aware or has an engineering mind. Everyone has experienced side slipping a mountain has undoubtedlt used this technique to control the skid and end it. Next time you're on the hill, make a conscious effort to determine what subtle movements are occuring under your feet to determine how you are controlling the direction of your skid. I don't know a single builder who doesn't consider pedaling to be an integral aspect of board function. At the higher levels, it becomes more ambiguous though. In my experience riding both carving snowboards and carving monoskis, I have observed the lack of twisting control in a monoski makes it far more difficult for me to carve a turn. When Fin rode his HFP, I was very curious to see if he would experience simply tipping over and continuing to go until he hit the snow. It did no happen, which indicates to me that there is more to the differences than twisting. Jack - you sound like me 10 to 20 years ago. I was convinced that there had to be an absolute perfect shape. I built a board that was intended to accomplish the perfect single radius carve at a specific speed and anglulation. Pogue rode it and hated it. Shortly after that, it occured to me that no matter how much you try to control things through shape and flex, the rider is dynamic, so I tried to understand how he can change things. I developed shapes that created edge pressure where it needed to be, while giving the rider the ultimate control over turn shape by bending the board. Downweighting was the key feature, but the riders ability to manipulate the board between his feet is undeniable, so the shapes worked to allow this without negatively affecting the turning system. Today, looking at the variable sidecut radii and flex patterns being used by other builders, things are different. The concept of perfect edge engagement along the entire board is impossible given the dramatic differences in turning radius from the tip to the tail of the board. I never would have imagined it would work, but having ridden it, I've been startled by how wrong I was. It was very important to take into account these variables in designing flex patterns, but they can be made to work extremely well. There is no such thing as the perfect shape sidecut, or bend. They simply have to be engineered to work together while allowing a dynamic rider to correct for their innacuracies.

Klemens was a sponsored rider for a few years in the late 90s. We are in contact, but He does make his boards down in Silverton.

Round 4 on the 185 GS was 25cm (shovel) 20cm (waist) 229cm (tail). I believe this is the final dimension for GS racing, but we're looking for additional feedback over the next few weeks.

Most manufacturers remaining in this market consider Burton's departure a godsend. A company that liquidates product for less than it cost to manufacturer hurts every other manufacturer, thus hurting the entire market by bankrupting the smaller alpine dedicated companies. Burton was not innovating in Alpine. Those of us who remain survive because poor marketing practices have been controlled or eliminated. Burton's choice to leave was based on their inability to sell at full retail, stemming from a lack of innovation, and lack of desire from the consumer to purchase outdated technology. I'm sure they examined the numbers and found that investing in new technology at the scale they wanted to would not be offset by the rewards of such a small market. Burton's departure did not kill alpine, it made it possible for small opperations to be profitable enough to survive and meet the needs of a niche market. Burton is completely justified in not promoting alpine through dollars spent on an olympic team. They have nothing to gain; they are no more a charity than you or I. I have no love for Burton, but their business practices in this case are sound.

Obviously Phil has a great deal more info on the selection process, but I'll try to shed a bit of my understanding on the problem. If you've paid attention to the last two olympic teams, Burton has been the primary gear sponsor. All the athletes were wearing Burton clothing, but Burton doesn't have a stake in the race market. Phil probably knows who will be the major sponsor for the upcoming games and undoubtedly they will not be someone in the race market. What is their motivation for giving racing money? The US manufacturers in the race market don't have enough money to scrape together for sponsorship to make a difference here. Unlike many other countries the US team is funded privately. Since the last games it has been my contention that the lack of funding for the US team resulted in a lack of respect for the coaching staff from the riders. I believe that private teams are the only way to allow the athlete to find a coach they will follow and respect. The only real solution is here is for the athletes and their coaches to organize funding themselves. There are probably a number of people here who would like to see a strong US team with the gear and coaching they need. Follow the example of the highschool teams and have car washes. Find a way to generate pleges for athletes. You could creat a pool of funds that goes to the athletes that qualify for the team. It's not like there aren't the right minds in this community to pull it off. Someone simply has to get it started. Suggesting people donate to individuals will be much less effective. They need a way to donate to a fund that awards the money based on merrit. Doing so will give the athletes additional motivation to work hard.

5 minute epoxy is the worst thing you can use. You need an epoxy that sets overnight.

It looks like Wednesday again.