Stance setback and sym / asym quiz for carving whizzes

[Fastskiguy]

Not to beat this one to death,

You know, I think we'll see the return of the asym board someday and a lot of these naysayers will be eating a small amount of crow. Why? Because...as many have stated...the toeside and heelside turns are a lot different. They just are.

[b0ardski]

I love asyms

but the variables in offset angle and how that affects flex patterns are a manufacturers nightmare. Burton was the only one I've seen that listed offset as a basic stat like effective edge. I have a couple primes, one is 11* and one is 16*, my mistral i somewhere inbetween. Since I ride relatively low alpine angles the 11* offset feels more natural to me.

Symetric flex patterns are much easier to keep consistant throughout production and asyms become a can of worms.

Tooling up for this is more or less why John McGuinnis told me he wouldn't build a asym twin tip for me.

[Jack M]

The angle of your bindings does not dictate the angle at which your center of mass crosses the board.

Also your boot cuffs are in the same place relative to the sidecut whether you're in a toeside or heelside carve.

[Donek]

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.

[kjl]

As NateW and others have pointed out, it all matters where your center of gravity is, and not where the heels and toes of the boots happen to lie. People have used this fact to opine that asyms are bad, but I have yet to hear anybody discuss this on the forum before:

In a "natural" powerful stance to maximize angulation on a toeside turn, does a normal rider's center of mass tend to move towards the nose or tail? And in a natural, powerful stance to maximize angulation on a heelside turn, does the center of mass tend to move towards the nose or tail?

I think with my body, a natural toeside turn would tend to shift my center of weight backwards, as bending the knees and leaning away from the snow at the hips/waist tends to shift everything back towards the tail. It's only through lots of practice that I've been able to incorporate that weird sideways leaning pencil-pinching thing to bring the weight forwards again on the toeside turn.

Similarly, I think the most natural heelside stance has the weight forwards, over the front foot.

I'm just guessing a lot of other people feel this way as well (heelside turns strongly on the front foot, and toeside turns sometimes sitting back on the back foot).

If the goal is to have my weight centered on the sidecut radius, I now actually want to try riding the opposite-side asym (a goofy asym, even though I am a regular rider). It might be interesting to sit comfortably back in a toeside turn on the back foot without having to concentrate so hard on pushing that front shin down, and have the sidecut radius actually be centered while I do so, and vice versa on the heelside.

[b0ardski]

If the goal is to have my weight centered on the sidecut radius, I now actually want to try riding the opposite-side asym (a goofy asym, even though I am a regular rider). It might be interesting to sit comfortably back in a toeside turn on the back foot without having to concentrate so hard on pushing that front shin down, and have the sidecut radius actually be centered while I do so, and vice versa on the heelside.

Good luck on those heelside turn initiations:lol:

comfort is going to elude you like a scared rabbit.

[maddman]

The angle of your bindings does not dictate the angle at which your center of mass crosses the board.

Also your boot cuffs are in the same place relative to the sidecut whether you're in a toeside or heelside carve.

I respectfully disagree

Binding angle definitely dictates the angle at which mass and center of gravity cross the board.

also

In an heelside my cuffs are extended up, and in a toeside they are flexed forward and back a little more especially at the finish of the turn, which varies with regard to placement over my sidecut

[Jack M]

+1 to what Sean said.

In this era of top WC/Olympic pros buying multiple $1500+ custom boards a season, I think we would have seen asyms regularly on the podium by now if they made any sense at all. "Look to the world cup to see the cutting edge" - Bordy. Hmm, no asyms, gee whiz.

[Jack M]

I respectfully disagree

Binding angle definitely dictates the angle at which mass and center of gravity cross the board.

Maybe at an intermediate level.

[maddman]

Maybe at an intermediate level.

Or at a level which one who doubts this may have not yet achieved

[Fastskiguy]

I think the case for asyms in theory is simply overwhelming. All you have to do is look at any high level rider on a heelside and toeside. It's asymmetrical. Most of you guys are doing some kind of crazy angulation on heelside whereas you just can't contort your body that way toeside. The body position during the turn is not symmetrical. Thus the optimal board shape and flex isn't either. I think it's fair to say we don't understand what the best shape is....but clearly it isn't the same. Maybe we're in a phase where designs is progressing rapidly on symmetrical boards and that is a good thing. But ultimately asymmetrical boards will prove to be superior.

[maddman]

I think the case for asyms in theory is simply overwhelming. All you have to do is look at any high level rider on a heelside and toeside. It's asymmetrical. Most of you guys are doing some kind of crazy angulation on heelside whereas you just can't contort your body that way toeside. The body position during the turn is not symmetrical. Thus the optimal board shape and flex isn't either. I think it's fair to say we don't understand what the best shape is....but clearly it isn't the same. Maybe we're in a phase where designs is progressing rapidly on symmetrical boards and that is a good thing. But ultimately asymmetrical boards will prove to be superior.

Look at the fact that board design ha moved to all-symmetrical.

As long as we ride them diagonally or sideways, we will bias our body position, regardless of board profile.

Perhaps the fact that all modern skis are now patterned after symmetric racing snowboards ("shaped" skis) is equally overwhelming to you?

We're more likely to see variations and evolutions of body mechanics than of board profiles, as the board, itself, needs to interface symmetrically with the snow.

[kjl]

is your center of gravity always in one place over your board?

Haha, no, definitely not. But my center of weight definitely tends towards the tail on toesides, and tends towards the nose on heelsides. Does nobody else experience that, really? I mean, I'm kidding about the opposite asym thing - I like my symmetrical board just fine, but I would guess that my experience is common, that your weight naturally wants to drift back on toesides (and yeah, I can push the weight forwards if I want to, but my body isn't necessarily happiest there), and your weight naturally wants to drift forwards on heelsides. I find it quite difficult to, say, carve a heelside turn in hardboots with my weight on the back foot, or carve a toeside turn with my weight on the front foot. Therefore my toeside sidecut should be set back and my heelside sidecut should be pushed forwards, right? :D

Just for kicks, I will totally pledge to borrow Joerg's goofy asym Pureboard #1 at the next SES and ride it regular footed. It will be totally awesome for me if it works, and totally awesome for everybody else if it doesn't.

[Fastskiguy]

But my center of weight definitely tends towards the tail on toesides, and tends towards the nose on heelsides. Does nobody else experience that, really?

Just want to report that I experience that.

[kjl]

I think the case for asyms in theory is simply overwhelming. All you have to do is look at any high level rider on a heelside and toeside. It's asymmetrical.

I agree: logically if you look at it, the snowboarder stance (alpine in particular) is in no way symmetrical around anything. If the "perfect" sidecut offset turns out to be 0, it's just a happy accident, but there's absolutely no reason it should be that way due to the mechanics of the human body...

Look at the fact that board design ha moved to all-symmetrical.

You all heard it here first: the breakthrough KJL asym design is a backwards asym. If 5 cm toeside sidecut offset forwards is bad, 0 cm offset is better (since all the WC podiums are symmetrical), maybe the problem is that they haven't pushed it far enough that direction: there's no real reason not to try -1, -2, ... -5, until it stops getting better, right?

If anybody here wins a WC race using a reverse asym board, you owe me a beer. :D

[Fastskiguy]

Look at the fact that board design ha moved to all-symmetrical.

As long as we ride them diagonally or sideways, we will bias our body position, regardless of board profile.

Perhaps the fact that all modern skis are now patterned after symmetric racing snowboards ("shaped" skis) is equally overwhelming to you?

We're more likely to see variations and evolutions of body mechanics than of board profiles, as the board, itself, needs to interface symmetrically with the snow.

Skis are symmetrical because our turns on skis are (supposed to be) symmetrical. It's the bias in our body position on snowboards that makes asymmetrical boards theoretically better. You might say "but it's a fact that asymms suck" and obviously it's true but just because in the past asymmetrical boards have been eclipsed doesn't mean they always will. It just seems so obvious that these turns are different so the board should be a little different on one side than the other.

[maddman]

No, just because we need to bias our movements to compensate for our diagonal attitude over our decks, decks need not be re-engineered so that one sidecut is ahead of the other, as this creates uneven flat-running and, more importantly, a need to add another physical compensation, that of front-to-back CG change from one turn to the next.

The approach of using asymmetric board profiles really forces the rider to add another cumbersome movement into a technique that could benefit, already, from further refinement.

The key failing in the asymm. concept is that they address a symptom, not a cause.

The cause being our diagonal attitude over the board

The symptom being our diagonal edge bias.

Sometimes recreational ski-education thinking engenders over-engineered shortcuts from addressing our core causes.

Pinheads drove me from skiing, to a degree, when it became apparent that they were becoming the paradigm offset in the association.

That being said, some of the truly thoughtful examiners and dev. team luminaries of the early 1980s (nod to Willie Tate) made it possible and enjoyable for me to enjoy my (Rocky Mtn.) "full", as lev. III was referred to in the "Flock of Seagulls" era.

[Fastskiguy]

decks need not be re-engineered so that one sidecut is ahead of the other,

I'm not sure that's the next direction for asyms...they did that awhile back and found it wasn't so great. Maybe the next direction will be a tighter sidecut on the toeside or softer flex or and additional rubber layer or something. Maybe the length of the edge will be shorter on one side than the other. Heck, if I knew I'd be rich I tell you! There are a lot of ways a board can be asymmetrical, not just where the sidecut is located. The reason I think it'll be back in some form is simply that our toesides and heelsides are so different, it would have to be some freak of physics if a symmetrical board was the ideal shape for both.

[*Ace*]

Asyms.

I need to get back on that PJ sometime this year.

Keep an eye out for the violet rose topsheet making a return sometime in the near future. Not an asym, but something just as funky...

jzus.bmp

[Fastskiguy]

Asyms.

I need to get back on that PJ sometime this year.

Keep an eye out for the violet rose topsheet making a return sometime in the near future. Not an asym, but something just as funky...

Jesus is goofy? Really?

[boarderboy]

Back in the latter days of the original foam/glass longboard era, a fellow named Carl Ekstrom built and sold a lot of asymmetrical sticks. (I remember a mag shot of the elderly Ekstrom admiring an asym Burton snowboard in La Jolla!)

If memory serves, a few other shapers experimented with this.

Granted, you're much more free to move your feet around and bias your weight with ankle/toe pressure on a surfboard (Thank God!!), but still asym snowboards have always made intuitive sense to me.

I'm too mentally lazy to follow the physics/engineering/diagram arguments on BOL, but I hope this winter to experiment with my old M6 with its stiffening SnowStix. (The two Stix are asymetrically deployed.) The wide M should be a great platform for the 31.5 AT's I now wear.

Really would be interested in feedback from one of today's Pureboarding asym riders.

BB

[KingCrimson]

Funny thing is, Prior was the only one of the current "big three" making production carving decks during the asym days (90-95 sound right?) and as far as I know, the WCR (which, according to Prior.com, start production in '90) was always symmetrical.

Another interesting thing, Prior would have never been plagued with the logistical issues that Burton would have had trying to produce goofy/regular boards in correct numbers.

Madmann- No disrespect, but if a board with different radii on the heel/toe edges isn't an asym, then what is it?

[carvingchef]

here is a goofy asym that can also be ridden regular if you want to

[Fastskiguy]

If one sidecut isn't ahead of the other, than the deck is not an asymm.

you're confusing dual radius sidecut with asymm.

I'm glad we're finally down to semantics and that's a good thing :)

[Fastskiguy]

here is a goofy asym that can also be ridden regular if you want to

I thought that binding setup came with a torsion bar! ;)