Opinion on Donek stiffness

[philfell]

We have and still do work with world cup racers who repeatedly request the same stiffness. If the boards are too stiff for an athlete, the coach and athlete are both unaware of it.

I feel like you are talking about Smith in the above quote....He is on Kesslers now.

All the US riders who have World Cup spots do not ride your boards anymore. The only person from the US who started a World Cup last year on your boards was Dustin. I like Dustin, and feel he has improved a ton over the past few years and will continue to get better. But for his board, ask Cas about it and he'll tell you. True Cas is not Dustin's full time coach, but he has worked with him some last year when Dutin was going to Steamboat in his freetime. Plus Cas has worked with far more full time world cup riders than Dustin's full time coach..........

Sorry to highjack the thread here, but I feel Sean's statement is somewhat mis-leading, and was directed to say I don't know what I'm talking about. Sean I'm excited to see you metal stuff develope. I liked some of the metal boards Colavito had of yours a few years ago. And the board Sean had last season was an improvment over many of the boards I've seen of yours.

Back to the original topic, I remember when Laura got that board. Remember that the shape is an old style shaped race board. Great for railing turns and going fast, but not so well for the newer style PGS courses. So if you are getting it for a freeriding board it will work great for you, but for PGS you may want to consider a different model.

[Pow]

not a racer, and dont think i will be, but thanks for the input phil

[Donek]

Heard from a rider this spring you have been working with some other fabrics, possibly along the lines of some of the Virus fabrics? How are they turning out? Carbon fiber mixes, etc.

The metal construction has really been my focus this last season. We do seem to entertain the idea of other fibers every now and then, but the engineering always puts me back in my place. We did use carbon in the metal construction, but it is in a very unconventional orientation. I still don't see conventional fiber orientations as a viable option for a durable construction. The carbon in our metal boards all goes edge to edge.

in regards for wide metal:

Sean: I remember, it might have been last summer, you were asking around about bamboo as a construction material for your alpine boards. Anything ever materialize out of that? sounds like itd be interesting if its not too wobbly for higher speeds. Ohh, and is solid black ok for the topsheet on an olympic core because im pretty sure ill be able to afford that now.:D

Solid black is fine on the olympic. On the bamboo, there seems to be a real durth of reliable sales reps in that market. They never return e-mails or calls. I am in the process of trying something that has little chance of working, but worth the effort none the less. I have purchased some Paulownia trees and will try growing them on our property. We are on the border of their winter tolerance and may find them dead next spring. If they survive, we'll begin planting more and eventually harvest our own wood. Paulownia is a rapid growth tree. I'm reasonably confident it is the same wood Mervin uses, although Mike Olsen tends to tell stories pretty convincingly.

[Donek]

I feel like you are talking about Smith in the above quote....He is on Kesslers now.

All the US riders who have World Cup spots do not ride your boards anymore. The only person from the US who started a World Cup last year on your boards was Dustin. I like Dustin, and feel he has improved a ton over the past few years and will continue to get better. But for his board, ask Cas about it and he'll tell you. True Cas is not Dustin's full time coach, but he has worked with him some last year when Dutin was going to Steamboat in his freetime. Plus Cas has worked with far more full time world cup riders than Dustin's full time coach..........

Sorry to highjack the thread here, but I feel Sean's statement is somewhat mis-leading, and was directed to say I don't know what I'm talking about. Sean I'm excited to see you metal stuff develope. I liked some of the metal boards Colavito had of yours a few years ago. And the board Sean had last season was an improvment over many of the boards I've seen of yours.

Back to the original topic, I remember when Laura got that board. Remember that the shape is an old style shaped race board. Great for railing turns and going fast, but not so well for the newer style PGS courses. So if you are getting it for a freeriding board it will work great for you, but for PGS you may want to consider a different model.

I don't quote myself all that often, but here goes:

We have and still do work with world cup racers who repeatedly request the same stiffness.

I believe your above comments support that statement.

I think most of the people involved in this discussion are not racing. Therefore your comments are probably better suited to the race forum or in private.

[~tb]

Metal Doneks are arriving? How exciting!

Sean - can you tell us a bit more, in terms of how you would describe the difference in ride between two Doneks that are exactly the same, except for construction (one metal and one Olympic). I really like the FCII 175 I bought two years ago, but I often wish I had made the order for an FCI instead (small feet, and I like high-ish angles). I know that metal has a reputation for making boards super damp and quiet, but with the tradeoff of lost livliness. I like the liveliness of my FC II, but I'm wondering with a metal FC I would feel like in comparison and if it would still be as lively.

queequeg,

I am probably one of a small handful of riders who have been able to ride an olympic construction donek and a "latest construction" metal donek in the same shape. So I thought I would spend my 1 post for this month to respond.

I have ridden a 185 olympic Donek and a 185 metal Donek with everything else left the same (stiffness, sidecut, waist width, core taper etc, etc). I really quite enjoy the metal board. I have found that the board can go anywhere and do anything and is built solid. I have been riding the board with Catek OS2's with no plex plates as Sean asked me to try my hardest to break it. Nose rides, tail spins, harder than needed carves, stuffed into moguls, hit 3 trees (2 at SES one on the East Coast) HARD and no signs of any damage.

On to how the board rides. As I said above, I love this board compared to the olympic. It chews up variable terrain and ice better than the olympic construction. On one day, I switched between the olympic and the metal every other run and I could really feel the difference, especially on ice and when in rutted conditions. The thing I found interesting about the Donek Metal compared to some of the other metals out there is that I felt that the Donek did a better job of maintaining some of its livelyness. I don't know what to attribute this to but I think it is that the board was left at an 18.5 cm waist width where as most of the race metals and AM metals right now have gone wider. It could also have to do with the core and or flex pattern that Sean uses. I can see that the Metal 185 I have right now will cause my 3 other 185s to collect a LOT of dust. The torsional rigidity of the board is great.

The only thing I think I would change if I were to order another Donek Metal 185 would be to soften the board a hair from where my standard construction and olympic construction 185's are.

Speaking of soften, I would love to give a short discertation on Donek Stiffness rating scale, but I have to get to work (where I am not allowed to post to forums:-()

Ill check back tonight though

~tb

PS: incase someone is inclined to ask, here are the other metals I have had the pleasure of riding: Prior metal 183 and 186, Coiler Metal AM 17?, Coiler Metal 18?, Virus Metal 17? and 18?, Alpine Punk Split tail Metal 188, Older Kessler 18? Metal, Donek 171 FC1 old construction Metal, Donek 185 Hybrid metal, Donek 185 new construction metal.

[BadBrad]

Just another data point here.

I am also in the 160-170 lb range. I demo'd a few boards last year, including one metal board, and the Donek FC was the one that I had the most fun on. It was a 167 FCII, and I believe the stiffness rating was 7.0. I loved its liveliness, and the stiffness felt just right for me. I am not a super aggressive or fast or strong rider, and I tend to like shorter boards than most, and this board seemed to be the perfect length and width and stiffness for me. To me, the metal board felt dead and slow to respond to inputs in comparison to the FC.

[queequeg]

Thank you ~tb!! This is exactly the information that I had been hoping for. I think I'm going to have to buy a metal Donek FC I when they hit the market.

queequeg,

I am probably one of a small handful of riders who have been able to ride an olympic construction donek and a "latest construction" metal donek in the same shape. So I thought I would spend my 1 post for this month to respond.

I have ridden a 185 olympic Donek and a 185 metal Donek with everything else left the same (stiffness, sidecut, waist width, core taper etc, etc). I really quite enjoy the metal board. I have found that the board can go anywhere and do anything and is built solid. I have been riding the board with Catek OS2's with no plex plates as Sean asked me to try my hardest to break it. Nose rides, tail spins, harder than needed carves, stuffed into moguls, hit 3 trees (2 at SES one on the East Coast) HARD and no signs of any damage.

On to how the board rides. As I said above, I love this board compared to the olympic. It chews up variable terrain and ice better than the olympic construction. On one day, I switched between the olympic and the metal every other run and I could really feel the difference, especially on ice and when in rutted conditions. The thing I found interesting about the Donek Metal compared to some of the other metals out there is that I felt that the Donek did a better job of maintaining some of its livelyness. I don't know what to attribute this to but I think it is that the board was left at an 18.5 cm waist width where as most of the race metals and AM metals right now have gone wider. It could also have to do with the core and or flex pattern that Sean uses. I can see that the Metal 185 I have right now will cause my 3 other 185s to collect a LOT of dust. The torsional rigidity of the board is great.

The only thing I think I would change if I were to order another Donek Metal 185 would be to soften the board a hair from where my standard construction and olympic construction 185's are.

Speaking of soften, I would love to give a short discertation on Donek Stiffness rating scale, but I have to get to work (where I am not allowed to post to forums:-()

Ill check back tonight though

~tb

PS: incase someone is inclined to ask, here are the other metals I have had the pleasure of riding: Prior metal 183 and 186, Coiler Metal AM 17?, Coiler Metal 18?, Virus Metal 17? and 18?, Alpine Punk Split tail Metal 188, Older Kessler 18? Metal, Donek 171 FC1 old construction Metal, Donek 185 Hybrid metal, Donek 185 new construction metal.

[Pow]

speakin my language, BadBrad! I'll be interested to hear what tb has to say about stiffness once he gets back in here.

[Donek]

Thank you ~tb!! This is exactly the information that I had been hoping for. I think I'm going to have to buy a metal Donek FC I when they hit the market.

While the construction may not be on the web site, I have all the materials in stock, so you can order whenever you like. We are filling orders all summer long.

[~tb]

speakin my language, BadBrad! I'll be interested to hear what tb has to say about stiffness once he gets back in here.

So here is my take on the Donek Stiffness Scale (sean will probably point out how wrong I am).

The stiffness scale can only be used to compare boards of approximately the same length. For you engineers out there, think of it as the stiffness of a beam. Lets try this hypothetical example:

If you were to go to Home Depot and buy an 8 foot long 2X4, you would be able to hold it like a snowboard and flex it and feel it move. Lets call that a stiffness of 5. You then take that 2X4 and cut it into 2 pieces, one being 2 feet long and the other being 6. each of these has the same stiffness of 5 still, however when you flex it, the 6 foot section feels much stiffer than the 8 and the 2 foot section feels so stiff that you can't flex it at all yet these would all still have a stiffness of 5.

My practical experience with the scale is that it can help you/sean tune a board in from where it was to where you want it to be, but it is not as useful for comparing a 163 to a 171 to a 185.

I have a "185 Brown GS" and a "195 Brown GS." The 185 has a stiffness of 9.6 while the 195 has a stiffness of 10.0. These 2 boards when flexed side by side feel about the same stiffness. If anything, most people would say that the 195 actually feels softer.

As for the feel of metal . . . I agree that with any metal you will loose some of the feel of the board. Some people like that, some people hate it. I think the Donek metal I have strikes a better balance than some of the others I have ridden. Many people talk about that 1 board that everyone will love. . . Im convinced that it will never exist with how different everyone's tastes are. As soon as you get enough feedback and pop back in a board, someone is going to feel that its too nervous and lively. As soon as you get a board that rides as smooth and damp as the best metal boards, some people are going to say that the board feels dead and sluggish. Im spoiled, I currently have the best of all worlds in my 185's. I have a 185 olympic, a 185 Metal and a 185 "hybrid" all of the exact same shape that give me whichever feel I want for a given day. Ask me to choose just one for the rest of my life and it would be the metal or the hybrid (for now . . . but Im sure the next technology is hovering just around the corner).

[Donek]

So here is my take on the Donek Stiffness Scale (sean will probably point out how wrong I am).

The stiffness scale can only be used to compare boards of approximately the same length. For you engineers out there, think of it as the stiffness of a beam. Lets try this hypothetical example:

If you were to go to Home Depot and buy an 8 foot long 2X4, you would be able to hold it like a snowboard and flex it and feel it move. Lets call that a stiffness of 5. You then take that 2X4 and cut it into 2 pieces, one being 2 feet long and the other being 6. each of these has the same stiffness of 5 still, however when you flex it, the 6 foot section feels much stiffer than the 8 and the 2 foot section feels so stiff that you can't flex it at all yet these would all still have a stiffness of 5.

My practical experience with the scale is that it can help you/sean tune a board in from where it was to where you want it to be, but it is not as useful for comparing a 163 to a 171 to a 185.

I have a "185 Brown GS" and a "195 Brown GS." The 185 has a stiffness of 9.6 while the 195 has a stiffness of 10.0. These 2 boards when flexed side by side feel about the same stiffness. If anything, most people would say that the 195 actually feels softer.

Todd's done a pretty good job of explaining things. I've considered replacing it with a different scale, but always see problems no matter how it is set up. I don't see a good way of generating an intuitive scale.

[BDZal]

I used to ride an older Lisa Kosglow 175, one of the ones with taper and an 18.5 cm waist. I'm not sure what the flex was, but it was softer than the one you're looking at. I weighed about 135 at the time. It was a perfect flex until I put on a few pounds and got stronger. That board was a lot of fun. The combination of length and sidecut is great.