Stance setback and sym / asym quiz for carving whizzes

[carvingchef]

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

NO, that's optional and it costs extra

[maddman]

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?

Then it's a dual-radius sidecut. "Asymmetric", by original industry useage, referred to a 'shifted' sidecut, regardless of similarity (or not) in sidecut radius from side to side.

The "asym days" did not start in '90, but in '86 with Hooger then in '87 with Hot.

There were MANY manufactures making production carving boards between '90-'95, I'm not sure whom Big 3 pertains to, but I hope my Mdd is included there.

(What makes a company a "Big 3" in carving boards? I've never heard this, sounds cool!)

[maddman]

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

"Rotary Pushoff"

-ATM (later ATS)

:D

[KingCrimson]

Then it's a dual-radius sidecut. "Asymmetric", by original industry useage, referred to a 'shifted' sidecut, regardless of similarity (or not) in sidecut radius from side to side.

The "asym days" did not start in '90, but in '86 with Hooger then in '87 with Hot.

There were MANY manufactures making production carving boards between '90-'95, I'm not sure whom Big 3 pertains to, but I hope my Mdd is included there.

(What makes a company a "Big 3" in carving boards? I've never heard this, sounds cool!)

By big 3, I mean Prior, Donek, and Coiler. They are the 3 North American companies with cutting edge technology (no pun intended) that don't only cater to racers. Based on Prior's track record with trying new things, even prematurely at that (Early Metal WCRs), I don't think it's too wild to assume that they would have experimented with and/or produced asyms if they felt the design was of significant benefit.

Mind you, I wasn't born until 93, so I missed a good chunk of all that! The timeframe of I used 90-95 comes from Jack's article, where he stated "In 91, Burton went totally asym with its alpine boards, as did most of the industry around that time." I think it's reasonable to assume that this was the high point in asym production.

Fastskiguy was talking about a board where one side would have a tighter radius than the other, NOT a blended radius that opens up towards the tail. That is what I tried to reiterate.

[maddman]

So was I, this is what a dual radius sidecut refers to.

The "blended" adius sidecut you cite was referred to as a 'progressive' or 'dynamic' radius sidecut during the asymm. "what were they thinking?" heyday.

Neither is an essential component of the asymmetric snowboard.

[KingCrimson]

Okay, so we're talking about the same thing, regardless of terminology. (or lack thereof! :);)) Again, I ask you by what sense of the word does that not constitute an asym?

From the 'Almanac- There are also twin-tip asyms. The only difference is the sidecut radius on toe and heel side. It allows either regular or goofy stance, with the smaller sidecut radius at the heel. For 2005, Santa Cruz made a few jib decks with an asym sidecut: The TT Viking and TT Revolver had deeper sidecuts on heel side. The heel side was marked with a foil stamp.

[Fastskiguy]

Okay, so we're talking about the same thing, regardless of terminology. (or lack thereof! :);)) Again, I ask you by what sense of the word does that not constitute an asym?

I'm pretty sure that his definition of "asymmetrical" is specifically one sidecut a little farther forward or back than the other. I think he's considering boards with different flex/damping/sidecut radius/running lenth on each side as "not asymmetrical" as long as the center of the sidecut is in the same position on each side. I'm sure he can elaborate, I probably shouldn't speak for him.

I'm going with "if one side is different than the other then it's asymmetrical" so a board with an extra rubber layer on one side is an asym, even if the outline is symmetrical. But only because the board is different on one side than the other ;)

Purely semantics, right? Asyms will rule again someday!

[KingCrimson]

Fair enough.

But if an asymmetrical snowboard isn't an asym, then what is it?

I look at it this way: It's probably not likely we'll see another widespread asym production, so it's silly to debate it. So what do you do when there's nothing to argue about? Get into semantics!

In regards to the boards, I suck equally on both sides, so for me there's no need to upset that balance!

What gets me every time is some of Bruce's posts. I mean, he's pumping out incredible products, simply by feel! Astonishingly, no amount of armchair engineering has resulted in anything like his templates. Except maybe Shred, but who knows if he even has chairs in his house.

HAHA, I even have you fooled:lol:

Never once have I used a equation to develop anything on my boards. The piece of metal wire and a pencil is the honest truth in how I get my sidecut templates. You just keep blending them together to get the desired results.

Thickness is simply done off hand drawn graphs. I regret to inform you I am still in the dark ages but I find eliminating all the time it would take to utilize the technology can slow you down a bit when you are especially doing one offs all the time. Of course there is massive tech in the materials I get but I just assemble them using judgment and previous data. My biggest foe is wood as it always varies so there is definitely a " touch" involved that I get a better feel for by doing most things manually. If I could have totally consistent trees, then I would be laughing!

BV

Take a long piece of wire from something like a mig welder, draw a bunch of different radii and cut them out as accurate as you can. Then take a few of those radial sidecut templates and lay them over each other to get the desired result. Use a router to copy that to the new template and blend in the sections with a bit of block sanding.

Trade secret is secret no more:biggthump

BV

I was hoping to come up with a stupid pun about semantics and semitics, but I just couldn't come up with anything funny that combined the two words.

[maddman]

I'm pretty sure that his definition of "asymmetrical" is specifically one sidecut a little farther forward or back than the other. I think he's considering boards with different flex/damping/sidecut radius/running lenth on each side as "not asymmetrical" as long as the center of the sidecut is in the same position on each side. I'm sure he can elaborate, I probably shouldn't speak for him.

I'm going with "if one side is different than the other then it's asymmetrical" so a board with an extra rubber layer on one side is an asym, even if the outline is symmetrical. But only because the board is different on one side than the other ;)

Purely semantics, right? Asyms will rule again someday!

I was only citing the accepted industry definition of the period (shifted sidecut axis).

Technically, by your logic, most alpine snowboards are asymm.s, given the fact that the nose and tail aren't alike.

Your own personally-accepted use of asymm., all joking aside, is really "bilaterally asymmetric", as when the two outside edges are unlike.

The accepted asymm.-period definition, (that is,based solely on industry/mfr. literature), pertains to a longitudinal asymmetry on the mediallateral axis...

If we're playing the bombastic game of semantics then, almost all alpine boards are asymmetric, being as they have flat tails and rounded noses:D

I move that we stick with the accepted industry norm of the period, which defines an asymm. as a board with a shifted sidecut: toeside apex is forward of heelside apex.

This design, and that of bilaterally aymmetric sidecut, is very likely destined to fail in any attempt at 'comeback, due to the unavoidable and obvious inability of the flat deck to run straight, given the offset sidecuts from one side to the other.

[tex1230]

This design, and that of bilaterally aymmetric sidecut, is very likely destined to fail in any attempt at 'comeback, due to the unavoidable and obvious inability of the flat deck to run straight, given the offset sidecuts from one side to the other.

Sorry but I have to call bull**** on this. Running flat on an asym is easy if you have good balance. Granted, I've ridden an Asym a total of two runs in the last 18 years, but I had hundreds of days on them in the 80s and 90s and never had a problem running flat and straight.

You seem to have a boatload of knowledge stored up for someone who, by your own words, has not done much snowboarding...

... I am no great rider by any stretch, I have rarely run through a course and haven't even ridden snowboards that long, but I understand human mechanics (Phd candidate) and can convey ideas and see performance-inhibiting discrepancies...

[Fastskiguy]

They work but not any better so why bother ?

We could run piezoelectric stuff inside and have a different frequency damped on each side then market the hell out of it. Just trying to think outside of the box here :) All we'd need was a couple of world cup wins.....

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

So, who got banned , or walked away from BOL around Feb 2008 ??

I tend to suspect those that do not at least list the area they are from.

I agree with Tex, you are indeed no newbie to snowboarding sir.

You seem to have a boatload of knowledge stored up for someone who, by your own words, has not done much snowboarding...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddman

... I am no great rider by any stretch, I have rarely run through a course and haven't even ridden snowboards that long, but I understand human mechanics (Phd candidate) and can convey ideas and see performance-inhibiting discrepancies...

__________________

[OhD]

One factor that affects the tendency to chatter (besides too much spare time and opinion) is the ratio of moving mass to the spring and damping forces opposing the motion. On heelside, the lower leg has to move with the board since ankle flex can soak up only a small fraction of the impulse due to the short offset between ankle joint and heel edge. On toeside, the ankle flex can absorb more travel, so the lower leg doesn't get launched so hard with each impulse. The momentum of the moving lower leg is absorbed by the upper leg and core muscles, which are equally powerful on either edge (more or less). Boots have a fair amount of damping (friction) in the flex, so the ankle flexing soaks up a lot of the impulse that otherwise would launch the board off the snow. Less boot flex results in less damping effect. Therefore, on heelside you have more mass and less damping, so the springs get worked harder, the natural frequency of the bounce is lower and the amplitude tends to be larger.

Think of it in terms of vehicle suspension: heavy wheels, short spring travel and stiff shocks versus light wheels, longer springs and softer shocks. On really smooth surfaces, the former (heelside) might pull a little higher cornering force, but as soon as it gets bumpy you need more compliance and less unsprung weight to keep the rubber on the road or the steel on the ice.

[Fastskiguy]

One factor that affects the tendency to chatter (besides too much spare time and opinion) is the ratio of moving mass to the spring and damping forces opposing the motion. On heelside, the lower leg has to move with the board since ankle flex can soak up only a small fraction of the impulse due to the short offset between ankle joint and heel edge. On toeside, the ankle flex can absorb more travel, so the lower leg doesn't get launched so hard with each impulse. The momentum of the moving lower leg is absorbed by the upper leg and core muscles, which are equally powerful on either edge (more or less). Boots have a fair amount of damping (friction) in the flex, so the ankle flexing soaks up a lot of the impulse that otherwise would launch the board off the snow. Less boot flex results in less damping effect. Therefore, on heelside you have more mass and less damping, so the springs get worked harder, the natural frequency of the bounce is lower and the amplitude tends to be larger.

Think of it in terms of vehicle suspension: heavy wheels, short spring travel and stiff shocks versus light wheels, longer springs and softer shocks. On really smooth surfaces, the former (heelside) might pull a little higher cornering force, but as soon as it gets bumpy you need more compliance and less unsprung weight to keep the rubber on the road or the steel on the ice.

Makes sense but I chatter the crap out of my toesides compared to heelsides. Maybe I need to run a reverse bilateral asymmetrical board!

[KingCrimson]

Semantics continued..

Maddman- My logic would be as such if I hadn't been specifically stating sidecut each and every single time; this is furthered by referring to the WCR, which is not an asym by either of our definitions, as being symmetric.

Further questioning some of your posts, how do you know what period correct asym terminology is? Unless you're like me, in which case you've been relentlessly reading about alpine snowboarding for the past year trying to pick up on every little piece of theory. But then again, that would kill your credibility, just like mine.

Oh- and sorry for the confusion over the blended versus billaterally dissimilar radii. Calling it a 2 radius sidecut was confusing; I expected them to be referred to plurally.

Fastskiguy- Maybe if you made a singlespeed snowboard, it would have more soul, more authenticity, and be a proverbial sign for "My bawlz are as big as my 700c wheelset"

[Fastskiguy]

Fastskiguy- Maybe if you made a singlespeed snowboard, it would have more soul, more authenticity, and be a proverbial sign for "My bawlz are as big as my 700c wheelset"

I'm building up a (soulless) 26'r now....I'm thinking the little wheel might be faster. Stronger, stiffer, and spins up faster. I've been on 700's for awhile but my climbing has just sucked in recent years. Might be just getting older...but I'm blaming the bike for now.

You guys remember the piezoelectric ski damping thing from awhile back, right? It had a little light that blinked on and off. Supposed to be really smooth. But then everybody decided it was a gimmick. But what about the extra rubber layer on the toeside or something?

[BlueB]

You guys remember the piezoelectric ski damping thing from awhile back, right? It had a little light that blinked on and off.

Head still has it in most of their skis and some of the snowboards. Thy call it "intelligence" system and have the "i" as the prefix on those models.

[KingCrimson]

Head still has it in most of their skis and some of the snowboards. Thy call it "intelligence" system and have the "i" as the prefix on those models.

Yep, my Head Monster iM 77's have various sily words, Liquidmetal, intellifibers.

Supposedly, the Liquidmetal is capable of returning 100% efficiency, for example if you had a leaf spring, and applied 100 pounds of force it would return 100 pounds. Somehow you're not wasting energy heating it up as it flexes? It exists as an object, so there is definitely friction between molecules. :rolleyes:

The intellifibers aren't very damp either, leaning the skis against the wall and kicking them on the binding plate (What? I was curious!) makes the pair clack quite a bit more than a metal Coiler does. That's my precision test. As for real world performance, who knows, I suck!

[KingCrimson]

You know, this was fun when your story was more plausible.

Kinda like Operation Repo is a great show until you find out it's fake.

Hey you deleted your post! Meanyhead!

[BlueB]

I managed to read the "ghost" post before it got deleted. Quite commical...

Always quote the people you argue with, so they can't change their post and make you look like a fool, or talking to yourself.

[maddman]

I managed to read the "ghost" post before it got deleted. Quite commical...

Always quote the people you argue with, so they can't change their post and make you look like a fool, or talking to yourself.

Will do.

[Bordy]

Ok I'll bite a bit on this thread, since we have covered lots of this before, and since King Crismon is just a young kid with a few years under his belt, and is really trying hard to share his thoughts and I think he gets it so I'll kick in and see if he agrees, or not, and its really just a statement from me.

My thoughts are as such, Your foots a lever thats what OhD is putting out.

Making the board work on the same axis and pressure inputs would be the dreamest set up ever, Lots of posters can imagine over engineering so many ways to make this happen. It would be great if these flexes and dampning propertys are also adjustable in a dream world, cool thing is some of the plate sytems are evolving. this way.

Wouldn't it be sick if the board radius was blended in way to help a riders weakness and increase their strengths One rider may like the toe side different then the heel perhaps a softer flew under just the heel side rear foot, You could really go crazy and pick your set up.

Have some builders tried it, yep. Did I ride a board that the builder told me was beating Kesslers in testing and was all sorts of Asym on lots of axis, yep did it work? Yep, was it fast? Yep. Could a rider win a world cup on it? Perhaps. The right rider on the right course, Say Gorgone laces 10 in a row on the right firm snow that only gets a little high rut? Yep It could be on the Podium.

The current crop of race boards are pretty good, but it may be changes like mentioned in this post that make them just a little bit faster, of course it could cuase them to blow up into little pieces.

Finding out is the fun part, I 'll try it.. Wanna take a run?

[KingCrimson]

Have some builders tried it, yep. Did I ride a board that the builder told me was beating Kesslers in testing and was all sorts of Asym on lots of axis, yep did it work? Yep, was it fast? Yep. Could a rider win a world cup on it? Perhaps. The right rider on the right course, Say Gorgone laces 10 in a row on the right firm snow that only gets a little high rut? Yep It could be on the Podium. ?

That's where I was trying to head before I got sidetracked. I couldn't find the original post about the messed up asym board though, glad you posted.

Thanks for your post Bordy!

[caspercarver]

My first carving board was an F2 Beamer. i loved it. then they came out with a carbon fiber Beamer which i still have. after i snapped my go to board (prior metal) i dug out the old F2 and rode it mostly the rest of the season. i have never had an issue with riding it flat or straight. it is not tricky, difficult or hard. it is a little tricky riding it switch though, tail tends to dig in (shameless plug) want to see an asym in action?

http://www.vimeo.com/4474212

[Bordy]

Fun little vid. Great pop into and out of directions, I had almost ever model Beamer made when the were new thanks to F2, We were riding switch when they came out I have old scholl vid of my self landing 5s and 7s and tring 9s on the old blue one, great board! I even broke one out at ECES for a day a few years back, some one made a great coment on this forum about me passing them switch while talking on my cell phone at speed,( of course answered it while riding;)) on it.

In response to your Vimeo statement about carving switch, Blindside a vid shot in 93 has footage of my buddy Dave carving switch draging his hands,On A speedster then on a Kildy 69, Also Will Garrow and my self do a pretty good job of laying out EC carves fakies, there was some footage in Size Doesn't Matter of me riding a Kessler race stick switch, also some one has video of me running Ruthies run in Aspen switch at speed with knees and hips draging in the snow on my 200 Silly Good during SES!

Good work!