Asyms are Rad!

[Rob Stevens]

Now that I have your attention, does anyone have an opinion (ha) on asymmetrical sidecuts?

I'm thinking about a custom FR board that would have a deeper sidecut on the heel.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from the builders.

[MUD]

Now that I have your attention, does anyone have an opinion (ha) on asymmetrical sidecuts?

I'm thinking about a custom FR board that would have a deeper sidecut on the heel.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from the builders.

Jack, Jack Michaud to the red courtesy phone......:D

[tex1230]

I think butron had a few of those in the early 90s - maybe the Air series - right after they did the Asym Air.

As I remember, it worked pretty well - I think the idea was abandoned along with asyms due to cost...

[queequeg]

Now that I have your attention, does anyone have an opinion (ha) on asymmetrical sidecuts?

I'm thinking about a custom FR board that would have a deeper sidecut on the heel.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from the builders.

I wouldn't do it. But even if I did, the deeper sidecut would definitely go on the toeside and not the heel ... I can carve way tighter and harder on the heelside than I can on the toeside.

[Rob Stevens]

Honestly, I'm not looking to start ****, but **** would be ok, too.

To be clear, the board's outline would look normal, but the sidecut would be deeper on the heel edge.

[tex1230]

Rob, don't you mostly ride backcountry anyway? sidecut differences won't really be noticeable in powder...

This worked well for intermediate boarders who had trouble leaning the board on heelsides - IMHO this was as much due to flimsy highbacks of the day as it was to bad technique.

[MUD]

I had a Santa Cruz Tau back in the day. It was a really neat board. Worked really well for our conditions. The only bummer is I really didn't know how to carve back then, or at least didn't care if I did. I don't remember which edge was the smaller diameter or by how much. On the Tau, they were not off-set, just different diameters.

G3 and a few other companies are doing it these days with Tele skis and it works REALLY well.

[Jack M]

maybe you can get one of those old Nitros on ebay.

[Rob Stevens]

So, this is really a low binding angle problem, as I see it.

With low angles, I can bend the knees and get almost 90 degrees of edge angle and lots of deformation, while still keeping my hips high on my toes.

On the heels, to get even 45 degrees of edge angle requires much lower hips and 90 degrees is almost impossible.

With knees and ankles going "the wrong way" to edge, the hips are really counted on for the heelside turn, when it comes to tipping the board up.

The question is will a deeper sidecut generate more deformation and a tighter arc on the edge you can't angle as much?

I'm glad the title sucked Jack in.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I'll ask the dumb question - why not change your stance to something more functional? (Two can play at the loaded statement game)

[Rob Stevens]

I'll ask the dumb question - why not change your stance to something more functional? (Two can play at the loaded statement game)

Riding the forward stance would be more functional for turning, no doubt. Sliding turns? For me, not so much.

I leave them low for FR because I could never get the same stability jumping and landing with high angles. I just felt more "braced" tip to tail, better able to resist falling towards the tip or tail.

Of course the turning part suffers, so I'm looking for a way to help with that, while keeping my +25 -5 stance.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I thought you were symmetrically duck for some reason... anyways, I buy that. I don't jump much.

[Jack M]

The question is will a deeper sidecut generate more deformation and a tighter arc on the edge you can't angle as much?

I can't imagine why it wouldn't. That's what sidecut is all about, right?

I'm glad the title sucked Jack in.

you may consider me duly sucked.

[Skwalleur]

Asyms are Rad!

Jörg at Pureboarding would agree!

[Rob Stevens]

Jörg at Pureboarding would agree!

Now that's a flat back foot for alpine.

It looks like his back foot angle is lower than the degrees of offset of his edges.

[Rob Stevens]

I can't imagine why it wouldn't. That's what sidecut is all about, right?

So this could be an asym with some hope, then?

[Jack M]

So this could be an asym with some hope, then?

Absolutely. And even shifted-sidecut asyms make sense if your technique and binding angles put your center of gravity in different places on toe/heelside. It's just that above about 45 degrees I don't think riding like that makes sense.

[Kimo]

I partially agree with queequeg in that if I did something like that, I would make the toe side edge the smaller radius edge. The reason, however, is different. Assuming you're only talking about sidecut radii, not offsetting sidecuts, your plan has one major risk. Because your CG shifts aft on heelside, washing out is more of an issue. Proper technique and conditioning should be able to compensate for this. However, when you also decrease the sidecut radius for a given length board, you are also decreasing the stability of the board and increasing its tendency to washout, perhaps more than your ability to compensate for washout.

You could go the other way and increase the radius of the toe side edge, but I'm feeling that you're happy with the performance on your toe sides.

In conclusion, I think there are two better solutions than what you propose. The first is the aforementioned better technique and conditioning. The second is trying a board with your same dimension except a little LESS stiff.

That's my take...

ps I think I've gotten my heelside technique to a pretty good level, but my stamina is still lacking and I end up having problems (especially) with my heelside technique (as in washout etc) as the day goes on.

[Rob Stevens]

It's not washing out, it just comes around slower.

I want a tighter arc with less edge angle.

[Kimo]

It's not washing out, it just comes around slower.

I want a tighter arc with less edge angle.

It's not washing out now, but it might if you decrease the radius. One would need to have the board length/sidecut radius your working with now to have any idea if destabilization is a risk.

[Petrol]

This worked well for intermediate boarders who had trouble leaning the board on heelsides - IMHO this was as much due to flimsy highbacks of the day as it was to bad technique.

I have two old Aysms and love them...

intermediate? yes.

when aboard riding 60 front, 57 or so rear, 16" stance and loving the wind in my face

[b0ardski]

I rode the camber out of a 186 nitro diablo in the 90's. 10m toeside, 9m heelside twintip centered side cuts. I didn't notice the difference in powder but I could feel it on the groomers. I rode it at around 20r/32f on plates. I do think it could be beneficial for a duckfooter due to narrower heelside pressure points.

I think the Santacruz had more difference in toe/heel radii.

[Rob Stevens]

I partially agree with queequeg in that if I did something like that, I would make the toe side edge the smaller radius edge.

I could see that with higher angles. Sometimes I feel that I'm only bending my back knee strongly. With low angles, it can be really easy to bend both knees equally and get a tight arc.

I'm pretty sure that the average low angle experience (soft or hardboots) is one where the heel turn is a bigger arc.

The reason, however, is different. Assuming you're only talking about sidecut radii, not offsetting sidecuts, your plan has one major risk. Because your CG shifts aft on heelside, washing out is more of an issue.

This relates to stance angles as well, where at high numbers your hips do seem to move back to the tail a bit more. Low stance and you're moving you hips more to the inside of the turn to generate the same edge angle.

Proper technique and conditioning should be able to compensate for this.

I think I've run up against something that could make your good technique better. This, combined with no overhang and very slippery highbacks / baseplates could be cool (like these swell Nitro's I'm looking at right now). You're right that there are other techniques like, back foot pivoting or "tailing", that can jump a carved board up to a higher line. I'm looking for a ride that would come around without having to give the extra effort that tailing requires.

I am out of shape, no doubt. I feel like I can only hold my form for about 10 higher speed carves, before I start to burn and get sloppy. 10 turns or 100, though, the sensation has been repeated enough to get me thinking that I might actually spend perfectly good money on this.

However, when you also decrease the sidecut radius for a given length board, you are also decreasing the stability of the board

Do you mean straight running? It could be sqirrely with two different sidecuts.

Good points. Now we're thinking.

[Kimo]

Straight lining would definitely be affected. I don't know how much. My Burton Alp is horrible straightling, but that's an offset sidecut, not what you're contemplating.

I have a board that's a 185cm length and an 11m radius. I got it for basically the same reasons you stated you want to try this different heelside radius experiment. It is fun and had the desired effect of improving my riding in slow, tight runs, but with any amount of speed it starts to become unstable and washes out on the heel sides. I then had the good fortune of finding a 175cm/13m GS board that was a bit softer. It made a huge improvement in my carving (toe and heel) and doesn't washout when the speed gets higher.

My point is, at least from my experience, you'd probably see more improvement in your riding (especially heelside), aside from technique/fitness, by trying a softer board than a board that has a small(er) edge radius.

[Kimo]

Ooooh! I just noticed your the refrigerator haiku guy. That's my favorite haiku.