bschurman Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I am thinking about having a board made that will work well for the ice/steeps and after this past years ECES I definately want a shorter board with a smaller sidecut. However, how small of a sidecut can I go until I am sacraficing stability at higher speeds? Is 9.9m on a 166 too small a sidecut or should I push that a little to 10.5? Is that even enough of a difference in sidecut to matter? Should I keep the sidecut and push the board length a few centimeters for more stability? I hope that I am thinking about this right and I thought I would pose this to the forum and glean some information off all the smart people here. Your help and knowledge is extremely appreciated. Thanks, ->Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I am anxiously waiting to see how the Madd 170 handles these types of conditions :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamran Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I am caught a dilemma like that. Last saturday I tried my Proton 178 (14m scr) for the first time and it was indeed far more carving material and stable than my other 163 cm (9.5 mscr)board. BUT, it was not easy to go in the middle of the crowded part of the slope and I needed ROOM to get myself through. I'd like to know what's best to address this prolem: 1. Get a board with the same scr (14m) but shorter length (like proton 172) 2. Get a board with shorter length and shorter scr (like LTD 170cm , 11.4 scr) Note to myself: practicing harder and getting better with the same long board and long scr should also help my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy S. Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I can't say that I've experimented much with a variety of lengths/sidecuts. That said, my Volkl 163 SL RennTiger is pretty stable at high speed. I got clocked at 60 on it not long ago and it was very stable at that speed (that was in a straight line). It also carves very well. It may be the rider though, because I think Chooblaykhan is speaking of the same board in his post above as the one that didn't do too well. In my experience, what happens between the ears is more important to your speed than what happens below your feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by bschurman I am thinking about having a board made that will work well for the ice/steeps and after this past years ECES I definately want a shorter board with a smaller sidecut. However, how small of a sidecut can I go until I am sacraficing stability at higher speeds? Is 9.9m on a 166 too small a sidecut or should I push that a little to 10.5? Is that even enough of a difference in sidecut to matter? Should I keep the sidecut and push the board length a few centimeters for more stability? I hope that I am thinking about this right and I thought I would pose this to the forum and glean some information off all the smart people here. Your help and knowledge is extremely appreciated. Thanks, ->Ben Hi Ben, It looks kinda funny, because I am selling my POGO Impact right now, but gee, when I read your post, I have to point you to their website: http://www.pogo.biz/shop/product_category_displayE.php?cPath=24_42&language=en I don't know how tall and heavy you are, but am pretty sure you find exactly what you are looking for... Ray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeoffV Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Ben, I thought Bruce was making you some special super Coiler for that? Also your Madds should rip through any ice once we figure out how to ride them:D I'm looking forward to testing my 170 out on an ice day. With Mike's tuning job and a MADD it will come down to skill and trust that the board will hold on a boiler plate.:p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Ben, have you read the Physics article? I'd have to say that I think a 9.9 would be pushing the lower limits for a 166. The old Burton FP157 had a 9.57m radius. IMO, I don't think anything shorter than than the Madd 170 (in radius or length) is <i>necessary</i> for ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlpentalRider Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by chooblaykhan I am caught a dilemma like that. Last saturday I tried my Proton 178 (14m scr) for the first time and it was indeed far more carving material and stable than my other 163 cm (9.5 mscr)board. BUT, it was not easy to go in the middle of the crowded part of the slope and I needed ROOM to get myself through. I'd like to know what's best to address this prolem: 1. Get a board with the same scr (14m) but shorter length (like proton 172) 2. Get a board with shorter length and shorter scr (like LTD 170cm , 11.4 scr) Note to myself: practicing harder and getting better with the same long board and long scr should also help my problem. based on your scenario, going with option 1 doesn't gain you anything. You can go with option 2 which would help, or pick option 3 which is get a board with the same length, but shorter sidecut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurman Posted November 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Geoff, the board I am thinking of is the super special Coiler but I am thinking about options for it before I talk to Bruce about the final details. I wanted to see what was reasonable before requesting it. I am sure that the MADDs will be great in the ice and I can't wait to learn to ride them but I would like to play around a little too. Jack, I just reread the physics article but I am interested in the practicality of it all. The section on the Prior and Burton comparison was helpful. But something like what length sidecut radius is practical for a specific condition or board length. Is a shorter sidecut better for boilerplate or is a longer one better? Does it really even matter. Is effective edge more important for that type of condition. Or, would a 9.9 meter sidecut be practical on a 195cm board. Probably not but it might be interesting t? If you have a 9.9 meter sidecut you are limited in your speed in a carve without chattering. All things that I know very little about and I appreciate all the replies. Thanks for all the replies. I am still formulating what I want so please keep 'em coming. Also, thanks for the offer on the Pogo. But I have a place in the Coiler line and one more board in the house would put me over the top with the wife. Thanks, ->Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by bschurman Jack, I just reread the physics article (shudder) I apologize for the botched formatting that resulted from the migration to the new website. Is a shorter sidecut better for boilerplate or is a longer one better? I would say shorter so that you can get your carve around without having to go too fast or spend too much time in the fall-line. This was discussed in this thread. -Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Bschurman, what are the tentative specs on your "super special" Coiler? I'm waiting on a couple of boards from Bruce as well and I'm having a similar dilemma. Through my emails with Bruce, he mentioned that a tighter sidecut will help keep speed under control on ice. He also said the Torsion Plus lamination done in a light version helps on ice as well. One of my boards was set to be a custom PR 173cm GS board with a 13.2m sidecut, 4mm of taper, and all the fixin's. But after reading all of the Board Reviews, threads about ice, and thinking about the terrain I ride on & my current quiver--I've been debating about modifying my order to a board with a smaller sidecut like the 175 RaceCarve with a 11.5m radius, 2mm of taper, optioned with WCC, and Torsion Plus light. The board should be very stable at all speeds and rip tight or long GS arcs on a variety of conditions--especially on hardpack & ice. I notice that Bruce has a new 168 Race Carve with a 11.5m radius. I'm sure that board with the optional SBT would be a force on the ice!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurman Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by Enzo Bschurman, what are the tentative specs on your "super special" Coiler? I'm waiting on a couple of boards from Bruce as well and I'm having a similar dilemma. Through my emails with Bruce, he mentioned that a tighter sidecut will help keep speed under control on ice. He also said the Torsion Plus lamination done in a light version helps on ice as well. One of my boards was set to be a custom PR 173cm GS board with a 13.2m sidecut, 4mm of taper, and all the fixin's. But after reading all of the Board Reviews, threads about ice, and thinking about the terrain I ride on & my current quiver--I've been debating about modifying my order to a board with a smaller sidecut like the 175 RaceCarve with a 11.5m radius, 2mm of taper, optioned with WCC, and Torsion Plus light. The board should be very stable at all speeds and rip tight or long GS arcs on a variety of conditions--especially on hardpack & ice. I notice that Bruce has a new 168 Race Carve with a 11.5m radius. I'm sure that board with the optional SBT would be a force on the ice!! I currently have the 180 race carve and it is great on the ice. I have the TPL but no WCC on it is great board for that. But I want something a little smaller that I can bring around fast before I am going mach 1. Currently I am thinking about modifying a 166 PR SL template of Bruce's to a more forgiving design. I believe that the board is very unforgiving and quite technical so I want to soften this up a bit. I haven't really talked to Bruce too much about it yet as I am not on in the current build cycle yet and I know that he is a busy man. So I was just putting my fealers out there so that I can ponder it for a while. But I know Bruce will come up with something great. Thanks again, ->Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurman Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by yyzcanuck Give that a look over Ben. Very nice indeed... Indeed a delicious option. However, I don't think it's different enough from my 180 RC. So I am going to stick with the 166 SL and make some tweaks there. I kind of miss having a really turny board in the quiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tigger Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 hello there i used to ride the 163 renntieger too but if you want to make high speedcarves on hard slopes the board will chatter a lot, you are out of this boards speedrange (due to the 9mradius) if its faster than a slalomrace. by far the best solution i could test were the virus rocket and lightning, with a shaped radius. you can push these boards like 9m slalom boards and ride them relaxed at high speed on the edge. my guess is that their huge camber helps a lot on ice. cheers tigger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.