johnasmo

They are revisions to the sidecut profile. My photo quota is used up, but if someone can post the following image from my google drive to this thread, you can see the differences. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZhQHlZt3CRsfX9Dx6ZI-LeuNnfE-oc99/view?usp=sharing To make examples directly comparable to @GeoffV's Contra, which is a 174 with a sidecut depth equivalent to a 12.5m radial, I generated each as a 174 with 12.5m and 35mm setback. The one labelled Contra V4 is essentially the first public generation of Contra. It went through 2 prototypes and 3 iterations of the math being used to produce the shape. Only I have a V1 proto, V2 was the second proto, and V3 through V4 are that shape but with different approaches to the math. V3 using clothoid transitions and V4 fitting cubic splines against parameterized control points so that length and radius could be adjusted more consistently for each order. Now I'm using motion equations to shape the curves, but that's a topic for another day. KK is a hybrid of the original Contra shape with a traditional VSR as represented by a K168 shape. I included in the graph what that shape looks like when resized from 155 effective at 10.8m to 156 effective at 12.5m. The Coiler KK is roughly 60% Contra, 40% K168 shape. The Winterstick "Montucky" version is 60% K168, 40% Contra. The latest shape is the AC, based on my judgement from riding the others. It's nose shape leans more to the original Contra but tail shape to the 60% Contra KK. This is the era of CNC core shaping. If you want a unique shape and can draw a graph of the radii along length that you want, it's relatively easy to get a custom shape. I can help with the tool paths. The sidecut profile sets the stage for Contra behavior, but the core profile and overall stiffness complete the story. My KK and AC have similar close stiffness measurements, but the AC has a higher carbon ratio. These cores complement each other well; my AC behaving as more stiff and aggressive and the KK being more compliant to caution with ice and low vis. And from Winterstick and Donek builds, I'm seeing how the interplay with different camber, rocker, and torsion play a big role too in how the resulting boards feel. It's important to remember that these are all custom builds for individual riders; there is no mass produced version. Mileage may vary. Bruce's 0.3mm full titanal construction, low camber, "+9" rocker builds feel the smoothest to me, but others may prefer to try non-metal options for more pop. I prefer boring boards where I can turn up the excitement by choosing steeper runs.

I think what @crackaddictis getting at is* that there are factors that affect your preferred or necessary overhang. If you are just concerned with achieving zero overhang/underhang, then it's just boot size and binding angles, but angles and overhang are not one-size-fits-all. Tight radius softboot boards don't need to be high on edge to control speed by carving. Long radius boards need to be nearly vertical without boot-out to control speed by carving. Slope, speed, and skill determine whether you really need zero overhang. If your slope, speed, skill don't have you high on edge, but you still ride wide boards with zero overhang, maybe you're a masochist? I for one don't ride softboots with zero overhang. I use softboots for surfing soft snow on wide boards and hardboots for carving hardpack on narrow boards. Rolling wide boards on edge with zero overhand on hardpack is simply not comfortable -> uncomfortable riding is not fun riding -> softboot carving on hardpack is not fun. The physics just don't work for me and my size 12 boots. Investing time and effort (and gear) to carve wide boards in softboots doesn't make much sense to me when I can have *so* much more fun and comfort doing it on narrow boards in hardboots, but that's me. Same goes for surfing pow, why would I want to do that in hardboots with high binding angles? Choose the board based on the snow you will be riding, then ride that board the way it's the most fun to ride it. Simple really. Angles and overhang will vary.

Aww. I wanted them to think I rode switch for those shots.

Here's some spring carving advice from @dredman posted on Whitefish Videos:

Here's one really from Whitefish. Still a @dredmanshow, but without the fisheye. Includes a new perspective on tail gunning, and some slush carving advice from Dave.

+1 on custom footbed (by a bootfitter) if you pronate at all. Cheaper than new liners and probably is at the heart of the matter. The boot shell isn't going to move; if you pronate or supinate your parts will bang up against the shell forming hot spots. It's not like in a pair of sneakers or other pliable boots.

Board choice - opposite of ice day; go longer and stiffer, less torsionally rigid (if that's a choice in your quiver). Don't try to touch the snow. Keep knees bent to suck up the chop. Most of all, don't worry about perfect carves. Slarve, carve, ski rhythm, whatever, just enjoy the soft snow.

Not crowded. Smooth grooming. Sunshine. Is this a deep fake or did you die and go to carving heaven?

Hmm... The Nidecker binding looks interesting. I hadn't heard about those yet. I respect the brand. My favorite all around resort soft boot board is the Nidecker Megalight. Wonder why they aren't branding the new binding as Flow? They own both Flow and Now bindings, after all. I've used Flow bindings on my softboot boards for a long time, but have added a couple pair of these lately and really like the comfort and ease of entry/exit: https://www.thesplitboardshop.com/product-page/sp-bindings-slab-mountain. Not quite as simple as Flows, but can still be done on the move, and I think it feels the most like a normal strap-in when done. I pull the highback partway up, then lock down the strap, then complete the highback. I still use a lot of Flows, but frankly I haven't liked any of their models as much as the M11 line from a decade ago. Simple, reliable, proper fit. The Pro-11 line before that was too stiff (in retrospect), and the models that came after always seemed to have some annoyance. I haven't bought any in the last 5 years though, so I don't know if the quality came back up after Nidecker acquired them. I'm not interested in the Burton step-on because it relies on the boot for support, and hello, it's a "soft" boot. I got into Flow bindings because I liked how supportive they could be regardless of how soft your boots got over time. The Clew offers the support of a typical strap-in (which honestly isn't much compared to old-school Flows), but I don't trust the rest of the mechanicals enough to be an early adopter.

I think a confidence inspiring board can let you progress your riding quite a bit. That's been my experience anyway. Whenever a new board lets me do what I can already do more confidently and easier, that opens more room push beyond what I was doing. I can go to a new place and learn the techniques needed to operate there. Time in the saddle is necessary to let your brain's defenses get accustomed to what is possible. But you have spend some of that time pushing at the edges of your current boundaries if you want to expand them. When a board has friendly manners at your current limit, then it's easy to spend a lot of time there and beyond, so yes, I think your Contra will help you overcome that reluctance to commit. Be willing to change your style some. Be aware that your style may change to meet the requirements of your new boundaries. For example, the harder my Contra's let me push my riding, the less I touch the snow. I'm squatting and angulating more, laying it out less. Just a little trailing hand drag. I'm more focused on managing my center of gravity relative to board tilt, keeping my body parts away from the snow, getting the board higher on edge earlier in my transitions. There's been some mention of spooky slip sliding, but one of the things I think Contras do well is slarving/sliding while higher on edge. That is, you can throw it into a bit of a slide and let it hook up. Or when its icy and the your edge gives out, it skitters a bit and hooks up again. Just put the board high enough on edge, weight the center of the board, stay balanced, and it should behave like a ski. That's an equal part of what makes them confidence inspiring along with the edge hold when locked in a trench. Some advice to work on hesitation -- spend time getting used to how it skids and engages on edge. You've got to train your brain that it's going to be alright even if the carve doesn't work out as planned. Adjust your form to squat down more, staying stacked low over the board, leaving more range of motion to deal with slipping. Hesitation won't stop until you train you brain that carving down hill from the transition is safe.

They were all made for my weight, but as prototypes with custom sidecuts, core profiles, and laminate combinations, they are part of discovering what the right flex measurement should be in the first place. Bruce's flex measurement is a way for him to adjust a reference build in a consistent way, but first builds are unknowns. Feedback from riding builds informs whether their flex numbers ended up being stiff or soft for the target weight. I have a mix of stiffnesses not so much by design but because prototype outcomes are hit or miss. His numbers are a measure of deformation under a static weighting. Even boards with the same measurement can have different dynamic behavior based on the laminates. T3 vs. T4. Carbon vs. glass ratios. S-glass vs. e-glass. Four, six, or nine ounce weaves. Unidirectional, bidirectional. Rubber. Bruce This mix has a lot to do with the feel of the board and whether it remains comfortable as the snow gets rougher.

Yeah, I've done that a bunch. Eight times in just the last two weeks. March is a crucible of board testing, with the gamut of conditions from hero to rain soaked and frozen. It's a good month for evaluating the pros and cons of boards in a variety of conditions. The Apline 168 is the only Kessler I have. I think it's stock, but I got it used from second owner through the for sale forum. @MR. JOHN DEERE !might have been the original owner. The fact that they turn over shows they are not everyone's cup of tea either. The days I take it out, I ride it first to test the waters while the runs are still smooth. From there I switch to one or more Contras to finish the day. Have never stayed on the K168 to last chair. K168 Pros: It has an almost perfect feeling turn in hard, smooth snow when giving about 80%. The base pressure feels really evenly distributed along the whole edge from low angles to about 45 degrees. Flex and sidecut really in tune. Turn initiation comes on early and progressively with edge angle. Low angle slarving feels fine. Relatively soft so can be carved slow and gentle on icy conditions (testing the waters). K168 Cons: Not so comfortable when the snow isn't smooth, and not so confident in edge hold when giving 100%. The 0.4mm titanal in a 20cm width give it some unforgiving torsional stiffness, and the ends are carrying a lot of the load when high on edge. When the edge doesn't hold, there's drama; not so much for the board, but for you legs. Contra Pros: Kung-Fu grip; edge hold against the fall line. Forgiving suspension. Low drama slippage when high on edge. Take care of the center and the ends will take care of themselves. Contra Cons: Peaky turn initiation; get down or get out. Spooky low angle sliding. The stiffer the board, the more friction the nose seems to create during low angle slip sliding. The Contra is a steeps board, for confidently completing turns fully across the fall line on 40+% grades. The K168 seems most comfortable slaloming on 30% grades, but can throw down on steeps as well. Contra Contraindications: 1) You don't like steeps. 2) You prefer to ease into turns. 3) You only ride AM groom; you don't carve to last chair. I have half a dozen Contras, and their character changes quite a bit based on how stiff they are. Since every build is a custom for someone's width and weight, experiences may vary.

Don't they ship assembled as on the right? Then it's just inward or outward canting that determines which set of disc holes you use. Sidewinders always hide a bolt or two; just something you have to deal with when tweaking setup. At least bolts hidden under blocks can't fully unscrew even if they get loose, so there's a silver lining.

The original Contra shape was trying to maximize edge hold when high on edge and highly flexed. Funny @pow4evermentioning the two-stroke “je ne sais quoi” as the first prototype had the edge hold, but it wouldn't turn in and grab and tighten the turn until a certain angulation (edge angle) was achieved, then bam! I likened it to a piped and ported 2-stroke hitting its powerband. Great fun as long as you avoided being on the wrong side of that band. I.e., don't be tentative; angulate early and often. We made two of the first shape, a 178 12m that I was ordering, and a second scaled down to a 10.5m because Bruce had a hunch. Hesitation doesn't last long on a 10.5, so you hardly noticed the lag, but you could feel it on the 12m. So that gave rise to a little reshaping and a non-linear approach to how the shape would be scaled to different lengths and different radii. After all, you don't want to fall on your side waiting for a 16m to tighten up its turn and arrest your fall. All the 2019 and 2020 Contras would have one of these shapes. During the 2020/2021 season there were two more iterations, varying nose and tail hooks. The most promising in the form of a 173 11.5m Contra "AC". Bruce says he's built a bunch of those this season. These have a broad, thrashable powerband, but there's still a noticable peakiness in the response to angulation. "Get down or get out!" - The Contra Mantra. You don't have to be layed out fast all the time, but it pays to be keeping your board at a steeper angle than your center of gravity all the time. You can unweight or catch air, but use the transition to switch your angulation before diving into the next turn. CG over board perpendicular works, but CG above board perpendicular works better. That's just a carving thing, not unique to Contras. You want confident edge hold? Make sure the angle balancing your CG is pushing the board to the bottom of the trench and not ejecting it out the top. Do not reach for the snow; angulate away from the snow. Board angle steeper than CG angle makes your board a trench digger instead of a skidder. Carving 101. Sometimes you can get away with zero base edge bevel, others not. Eric @skwalguyhad a Donek Skwal that wanted to jackknife so bad when running flat that it felt almost unridable until we put a 1 degree base bevel on it and further detuned the nose. Bruce thinks different thermal properties of the base versus topsheet might also induce some lateral warp at low temps. What's odd about what @GeoffVand @Jack Mdescribed is that is was in fresh snow too. I've only ever noticed the edge tune wonkiness when slip sliding on cold, chalky hardpack. What they described is an indictment of the shape itself.

I got a look at the build sheet on @GeoffV Contra 174x21. The sheet says "stiff tail", but when I run the numbers it looks very much like the latest Contra AC core shape. Its stiffness measurement of 6.7 on the Bruce scale is right in the ballpark for a 174 length and 185 lbs rider. My two favorite boards are both 6.7+9 stiffness but in a 173 and a 172, making them only a tad bit softer for 180lbs. Same deflection under a shorter board is softer. @dredmanhas a 174 WoGoCoCo that is 6.6 for 180, so 6.7 for 185 seems normal. Laminate choices will affect the behavior of the flex in action. My 173 and 172 differ quite a bit in action due to differences in fabric weights and ratios. But the fabric weights in your 174 look very much like those in the Contra AC 173. Your 174 is a 12.5m Contra, and with that stiffness should then behave like a 13m board. A K168 behaves like a 10.8m board or less given its softness. That difference will be felt when switching between them. There is tail hook, but not as much as on a K168. So far I don't know what would make yours take more getting used to. I can go back and forth between my K168 and any of my Contras and don't have to change much in my approach to riding them. I just find them more comfortable and confident when it gets bumpy or soft. The first snow covered day at MCC, I was on a 185 Contra LS most of the day.

The amount of taper on an alpine board is often just a byproduct of aligning the waist with the setback. Even a radial sidecut board may have a small amount of taper to move the waist from center back to the setback. Tapers of 10 to 20 mm, however, are compensating for more than just the setback. They are a good indicator that the nose has a smaller radius than the tail. All bets are off with powder shapes though, as they may be going for a pintail shape regardless of setback.

A 173 Contra AC (AsmoCarve). Hope you like it. It's the most floggable, grippy freecarve board we've done so far. Approach it like an all-mountain race board combo; charges hard through anything, no plate needed. The front binding area can take a lot of pressure, so weight shift is rewarded more than first gen shape. Carve it down hill early with pressure at the front binding then roll back to centered before the bottom of the turn, shift angulation and repeat,all the way down. Got a lot of time on mine. I should write a review. 6.7+9 is same flex as my prototype. I'm 175-180lbs and that is plenty stiff to push it as hard as you like in anything where the front foot can gouge out a trench.

Don't focus so much on the tip radius. The radius between your bindings is more critical to how it will feel under relaxed riding. The REV is probably 9 or 10m across the middle whereas the K168 hits 12m in there. It turns like an 11.5 or 12 when you let up. That means something more radial around 9 or 10 is probably what you actually want for an all day ride, not a 7 or 8m or a K162, which is still 12ish somewhere in there. Also, before buying a new sidecut, compare the flex of your Rev to your K168. Place a couple pair of 2x4s on the ground (or two 4x4 blocks) and lay both boards across them. Stand on them and compare how much and where they bend. Move the blocks around to compare different parts of the boards. The K168 is one of the most even flexing boards I've seen when flexed this way. I think starting with a board you know and telling the builder how you want to change it is the best way to get what you're seeking. Trying random brands and models is educational, but hit or miss on getting what you're after.

The specs I have for K162 are from 2013/14 season. They are: Taper 18 (264/200/246) Side Cut Range 7-12m Side Cut Average 10m Setback 30 Rider Weight 65-95kg The K168 is: Taper 18 (268/202/250) Side Cut Range 8-12m Side Cut Average 10.8m Setback 45 Rider Weight 65-95kg Shape and flex could both differ, but my money is on flex more than shape. Same rider weight, shorter board means probably stiffer, so expect similar turn size but under more pressure. Someone with both would have to compare their flex. Why not just get another K168 to ride without a plate? It's a really fun freecarver without a plate as long as the conditions aren't too bad. Are you really looking for something that turns tighter than that for freecarving?

Turn size is as much determined by flex as sidecut. Which one has the upper hand on any day is determined by the snow. Flex has the upper hand in soft snow; sidecut the upper and in hard snow. I have a 185 with a 10.5 sidecut, but it won't turn as small as my K168 with a 10.8 average because it is way stiffer. But it loves to go fast in soft and bumpy crud where the K168 does not. The K168 is rather soft; maybe the K162 is stiffer. Even though the weight range is the same between them, the K162 could be stiffer as a SL board vs. an all-arounder. If that's the case, don't expect it to turn smaller, just faster. I haven't measured anything off a K162, but for a touted 7-12 to average out to a 10, my guess is that it's a 7-12-9 VSR and that even those numbers are rounded up. The K168 is a 8-12-10 VSR. So the Kessler is likely to have tail hook, a tighter tail than what is at the rear binding, where the REV is likely progressive from tight to long unless it was ordered with "hook" as well. I believe that will make a noticeable difference. Sean offers to hook the tail, but you have to ask for that when you order one.

That's it, right there, that's the whole drill. If you can keep the edge angle steeper than the line from your center of gravity to the edge you are balancing on, voila. The lean comes from balancing over the edge, so getting low comes from turning sharper/faster. The carve comes from keeping the edge higher than the lean. People write volumes about how to go about it.... or you can just think about what carvedog said and "effing get it done."

Shooting at 30 fps might help, but the camera uses a rolling shutter, so likely the 60 HZ flicker of the lighting will still affect some parts of frame. Might make it worse, as instead of having a strobe effect it might be dark bands scrolling through it.

@geoffv Happy to work out a custom sidecut for you. We can start with K168 shape and modify from there. Or start with any of your previous Coiler builds and reshape from there. Core flex pattern plays the biggest role, so we should also look at the core profile and lamination of your Contra to unravel that behavior. The sidecut design currently being used parameterizes nine control points that lay out 8 transitions curves based on curvature change acceleration and deceleration. It can model just about any shape that is practical for a snowboard in a matter of minutes. Deciding how to adjust core profile and lamination layup to match is the time consuming experimental part. That's why there are only a handful of off-the-shelf shapes in play, one of which is a Contra KK, which is a 60/40 blend of the 2020 Contra shape and a K168 shape. The Winterstick Montucky shape is like this, but a 40/60 blend. Most Contra feedback, and my experience, is that they are easy to ride in lots of conditions. Every build is custom, though. I'll see if I can learn how your core is different than others.

No. I start with only 0.5°, using (Orange) Beast base beveler. https://www.beasttuning.com/beast-base Also have 0.75° Beast and a 1.0° Swix guides if needed, but I start small. Don't usually hit base edge again unless to debur scratches. Sharpen using 1° on side edge maybe once a season. Harden with diamond stones.

She grabbed again on the last jump of this year's pairs (mixed team) BX. Vindicated. Indy instead of method, but still a grab.