ohh ****!

[GeoffV]

Bruce did you decamber tip and tail or try to just replicate the 58 Madd?

I'd prefer to have a Coiler nose on that thing than the Madd nose.

I hope the test riders out West get some firm and icy conditions as this is where these short boards should really shine.

Great write up Bruce keep plugging away at your innovations

[Mellow Yellow]

Bruce - consider me in line... looks like what I need for North Caroliney

[Call me jack]

I like this board. it's growing on me :D

[Bruce Varsava]

Board does have my Slalom decam nose which has been revised and smoothed out from previous ones, same decam tail as a stubby. This is why I was hunting out some softer snow today as I only rode an original Madd in softer snow and did not like it at all. It wanted to overturn and toss me over the front. Seems the smoothed out nose and tail elevations have helped that out which makes it much more versatile. While doing some testing about a week ago with a few various sized boards on an icy day which had a few real dark hard spots, I found what worked best if you wanted to turn tight were only the shortest boards or you could ride longer boards with long sidecuts (14m ish). Kinda makes sense as the longer tight turning boards just could not get enough pressure to bend the ends into their preferred arcs since you could not hammer on them. So if you want to turn tight and on hard surface, sub 160cm seemed to work best.

Board is going to Mike T for testing in Oregon then to California for some more late season action. Already have numerous ideas for tweaks but will wait till I get expert opinions.

BV

[Jack M]

Nice. We need a proto out east in December for testing, not February. :p

I agree, Madd 158 in anything approaching soft snow is pointless. I mean, unless you like doing 700 turns in one run. Really only shines when it's very firm or ice.

[Bruce Varsava]

Nice. We need a proto out east in December for testing, not February. :p

Quit getting picky, that board you got last Feb was already next years 2011 model:biggthump

[CaRtharsis]

homina homina homina.....

why do you have to make this, and a bx board next year?? you have any idea how many nights i'm going to have to spend on the couch with the dog?

I hear that. My wife finally clued in on Sunday that the black board in teh garage is not the same board I started the season with. I tried to pass it off has her having a poor memory by she is pretty sharp that girl. My own fault for leaving it out, and having her take measurements from it several times while Bruce and I were figuring out my VSR. I'm just going to have to be a little more careful next season when Bruce builds me another!

[Beckmann AG]

It has substantially more camber than any board I have built

Would you mind providing a more exact camber measurement for the glass Angrry? And how does that value compare to the yellow metal proto?

Madd 158 in anything approaching soft snow is pointless. I mean, unless you like doing 700 turns in one run. Really only shines when it's very firm or ice.

Them there is just plain ol' crazy talk.

[Jack M]

Them there is just plain ol' crazy talk.

If you would ride anything other than a 158, you would know. :p ;)

[Bruce Varsava]

Would you mind providing a more exact camber measurement for the glass Angrry? And how does that value compare to the yellow metal proto?

Not a true comparison as they have a slight different decam which affects the measurement, While at ECES I checked out a newer Madd 158 and it had 15mm. My glass carbon has 14mm with decam so its about the same. The yello Angrry metal had about 9mm.

My legs are just getting back to normal 4 days after testing those things. No need for a gym membership when going hard on 9m

BV

[Sultan Guy]

I hear that. My wife finally clued in on Sunday that the black board in teh garage is not the same board I started the season with. I tried to pass it off has her having a poor memory by she is pretty sharp that girl. My own fault for leaving it out, and having her take measurements from it several times while Bruce and I were figuring out my VSR. I'm just going to have to be a little more careful next season when Bruce builds me another!

:lol::lol::lol:

OK. Note to self. When I order my next new snowboard, have it made exactly the same color as anything I already own!

[Beckmann AG]

Thanks, Bruce.

Of the numerous 158's I have ridden, those with 17-19mm of camber seemed to ride better than those with less (say, 8-13mm).

I had the opportunity, over a few days time, to put some hours on the yellow proto back in February, and while it was a solid ride, it seemed as though something was 'lacking'. In literal back to back comparisons with my current (admittedly flogged) 158, the proto seemed a bit less tractable, and wanted 'larger' rider inputs.

Some of this can be attributed to the location of the bindings, as I did not have the time to fully realize the optimum setback for my weight (alas, I had to give it back).

While the proto felt more 'clamped' to the hard-pack (in a good way, mind you), I had a better sense of where my feet were with the 158, and I felt I could re-arrange my base of support with less effort.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the glass version compares.

Keep up the good work.

[big canuck]

Whats the word here? Some other guys must have ridden this thing... Nekdut?

Looks so cool.

Give it up boys.

thx

k

[nekdut]

Sorry, still waiting to get my hands on it. Soon I hope! :)

[Bruce Varsava]

Word is it is close but still needs a few tweaks so I won't be selling any till next season sometimes. Mike T tested it and found it was OK but still lacked in holding onto longer carves and was a bit bouncy. Probably a stiffness/camber issue. Also when out in Copper I had a chance to squeeze an original or two and they definitely were more damp. I know why and just need to find the materials if possible and fit them into my procedures.

While direct comparisons are nice I doubt I would ever want to try to exactly duplicate the original as I will still be using less aggressive nose elevations so this will no doubt affect the way it initiates but also should make it more of an all around ride.

BV

[Bruce Varsava]

Thanks, Bruce.

Of the numerous 158's I have ridden, those with 17-19mm of camber seemed to ride better than those with less (say, 8-13mm).

I had the opportunity, over a few days time, to put some hours on the yellow proto back in February, and while it was a solid ride, it seemed as though something was 'lacking'. In literal back to back comparisons with my current (admittedly flogged) 158, the proto seemed a bit less tractable, and wanted 'larger' rider inputs.

Some of this can be attributed to the location of the bindings, as I did not have the time to fully realize the optimum setback for my weight (alas, I had to give it back).

While the proto felt more 'clamped' to the hard-pack (in a good way, mind you), I had a better sense of where my feet were with the 158, and I felt I could re-arrange my base of support with less effort.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the glass version compares.

Keep up the good work.

IMO a metal version with the carbon butterfly will be the best chance at a good ride. I doubt fooling around with binding placement would have made the protos much more original like. The sidecut on the demos was longer than an original and with the decam nose it would surely slow down initiation.

BV

[Beckmann AG]

I doubt fooling around with binding placement would have made the protos much more original like.

Perhaps, but I suspect I would have liked the board a bit more if the grippers were in the right place. I had already moved the bindings forward twice, in 1cm increments, and each move improved the ride characteristics. If I had equal footing on both boards, the comparison would have been more valuable, at least for me.

Looking back, the longer sidecut does explain a few things. You may have spoken to this elsewhere, but should I assume the sidecut was not radial?

From your perspective as a builder/materials manipulator, what function(s) (ideally) should the carbon butterfly serve?

I doubt I would ever want to try to exactly duplicate the original as I will still be using less aggressive nose elevations so this will no doubt affect the way it initiates but also should make it more of an all around ride.

Despite comments to the contrary, I find both the originals and the reissues to be fairly versatile, so long as I match my inputs to the prevailing snow conditions. You appear to be part way there already, so you might as well finish the journey...

[Jack M]

When I tried that yellow proto, I moved my bindings around and I think I got them in the right spot for me. I still felt the board was too stiff and rode too long.

[Bruce Varsava]

I agree the yellow was better suited to 200 lb ish riders. The red one was a bit more suitable for us lighter folks. Those were the first 2 protos built over a year ago and it lead to the development of my SL stuff and more user friendly Angrry boards for last season. I still can't wait to do the higher camber metal/ carbon version as I think that will be the one to work real well if I can dial it in.

Mike T has the glass proto and I'll try to get him to write his findings on it. From my understanding, it needs to be more damp and a bit softer as you have to be right on it or it gets a little upset and lets you know

BV

[Bruce Varsava]

Perhaps, but I suspect I would have liked the board a bit more if the grippers were in the right place. I had already moved the bindings forward twice, in 1cm increments, and each move improved the ride characteristics. If I had equal footing on both boards, the comparison would have been more valuable, at least for me.

Looking back, the longer sidecut does explain a few things. You may have spoken to this elsewhere, but should I assume the sidecut was not radial?

From your perspective as a builder/materials manipulator, what function(s) (ideally) should the carbon butterfly serve?

Despite comments to the contrary, I find both the originals and the reissues to be fairly versatile, so long as I match my inputs to the prevailing snow conditions. You appear to be part way there already, so you might as well finish the journey...

From what I measure the original sidecut is something like 7/11/9m

The yellow model was 8.5/11/9.5

I agree that matching input could make the originals more versatile but riding it in soft snow scared me pretty good. I'm too lazy to think that much and like a buffer zone for self preservation so I went with a less aggressive nose sidecut and elevation.

The carbon butterfly allows for the mid section to be stiffer esp in a torsional way. In my glass torsion plus models which were built from approx 1998 onwards, I would internally put in a butterfly of biax glass to boost the torsion mid board and have it taper out towards the end so the board will be more supple and less grabby from near the ends . The extra biax was usually stopped approx 6" in from the end of the effective. The carbons fabric orientation in my carbon/ glass proto was not ideal for torsional stiffness as it was 0/90 fabric with nothing running at 45 to increase torsional more than longitudinal stiffness. Just did it to see what happens and also it looks cool.

This brings up another issue is that I have no real idea of the fabric type and orientation in the butterfly of the originals. The reissue I took apart had a similar 0/90 single carbon layer. Are all originals butterflies painted? I have only seen that type.

If anyone has a broken or otherwise unusable original I would be glad to do the autopsy to see if any other sneaky tricks are in there.

BV

[Beckmann AG]

On my original, it appears there is a fine weave overlay(0/90) over the carbon (which appears to be more than one layer). This overlay looks more like fiberglas than it does carbon...?

I still can't wait to do the higher camber metal/ carbon version as I think that will be the one to work real well if I can dial it in.

i'll support that notion. Will this version incorporate a 45deg weave, or just the 0/90?

[Beckmann AG]

I still felt the board was too stiff and rode too long.

I realize a gentleman, on principle, tends not to reveal such things, but what is your current weight?

[Bruce Varsava]

On my original, it appears there is a fine weave overlay(0/90) over the carbon (which appears to be more than one layer). This overlay looks more like fiberglas than it does carbon...?

i'll support that notion. Will this version incorporate a 45deg weave, or just the 0/90?

Can you see the carbon on your original or is it painted? On the reissues there was a lot of very fine glass, 4 layers I think, but not on the butterfly. The butterfly looked like it was just a single layer of carbon.

I would ideally like to do the butterfly both ways to feel the difference but that gets into a lot of work since the end stiffness would be less on the 45/45 if the core was left at the same thickness. Therefore I would have to thin the core a bit to compensate so that throws in another variable.

Think I'll go golfing and ponder it:biggthump

[Beckmann AG]

I don't think I would call it painted, more of a dark translucent tone. It appears there is a heavy gel-coat over the entire topsheet as well.

Maybe it's 'Fauxbon'? Fauxbon-fribe? Several layers at that. Either way, a very fine weave.

The reissues appear to have only one sheet. When the glue lets go, I snap that section off.

Good saw for snow analysis in an avvy pit.

I would ideally like to do the butterfly both ways to feel the difference but that gets into a lot of work since the end stiffness would be less on the 45/45 if the core was left at the same thickness. Therefore I would have to thin the core a bit to compensate so that throws in another variable.

So realistically, how many protos would you have to build to determine the 'correct' recipe?

[Jack M]

I realize a gentleman, on principle, tends not to reveal such things, but what is your current weight?

178 lbs naked. you're welcome for the visual.