Quiver thoughts

[kieran]

going with coreys frequency talk and throwing in a bit of synth talk, it sounds like jack wants a board with modulated attack, smoothed delay-sustain, and unconstrained release. (adsr envelope modelling)

smooth and absorbent while decambering, controllable while in that position, and explosive on exit. isn't that what virus boards are made of? ;)

[AlexJ]

Never left glass, that's all I ride except the metal Oxess GS board. Have yet to Gel with a metal board. Hopefully some day I will find one to fit my freakish oddball riding abilities.

[John H]

Love the ride/feel of my Coiler VSRM which is my go to board but on those days when conditions are right, read not ice, I'll get out the Virus Evo III. Even though the Virus is metal/carbon/??? it is very snappy and lively compared to the Coiler. The Virus has some of the properties of a carbon board and some of the properties of a metal board, not as damp as a metal board and not as snappy as a non metal board but pretty close. Certainly feels different than a Coiler/Prior/Kessler. Sounds like the Proteus might be similar in feel to the Virus.

Edited March 31, 2012 by John H

[~tb]

I think that there are certain frequencies of vibration that make it hard to ride, and they don't line up with those that make us think 'lively'. It seems that current metal construction sucks up those bad ones especially well, and the artists are learning how to bring back the 'yee-haw' ones us freecarvers like.

I've witnessed similar tests with a big data acquisition system in vehicles. Certain frequencies can be surprisingly loud without people getting annoyed, but some others irritate people if they're present at all. This test would be tough to do as the equipment tends to be too big for a backpack and/or really expensive. This is the stuff automakers test to great lengths to ensure they deliver what their target audience expects.

You might be surprised. I have a 2 channel frequency recording system set up that fits into 2 pockets, or EASILY into one of those camel back packs (without the bladder).

I agree with you though, it is about getting rid of certain frequencies, without getting rid of them ALL.

[Corey]

You might be surprised. I have a 2 channel frequency recording system set up that fits into 2 pockets, or EASILY into one of those camel back packs (without the bladder).

Cool! I've only seen big units that'll do into the kHz range. One sensor on the boot and one on the board can tell worlds about what the board is doing and what the binding is damping out. put that setup on a bunch of different boards and collect rider opinions, and you're in your way to figuring out what the 'bad' frequencies are.

[lafcadio]

...but it's metal. That does not seem to compute...? What's the deal here?

I talked with Sean about this at ECES and he says that the side cut is tighter in the tail than the nose to approximate the energy off the tail like the old glass boards.

I've not had a great experience riding a metal board yet, but of the metal boards I tried, I disliked the Proteus the least. I think I probably just need to give it more time. I find it difficult to have fun on a new board in a few runs.

[Jack M]

Jack you are killing me I had the same thoughts after testing some of Seans boards. I want some serious tail pop back in my life. I rode the Proteus 180, it was a great board, damp but still lively if that makes sense. I was very impressed with it. What I really wanted to try was the 180 Carbon-fibre topsheet that Sean had at the ECES, but it was a popular board and was always out on the hill. Maybe next season I'll see if I can test some glass-carbon boards.

Geoff, you can just ride one of "your" Madd 170s, right? ;)

New school decambered VSR shapes in a glass/carbon board thats what I want.

Yeah, that's a bit different.

Never had a metal board but I get back to my no decamber old shaped Burton FP 178 and Wow everything is great, my thought is that decamber and the other new things are useful for racing but not for everyday carving.

Not true. Decambered nose is a huge benefit for freecarving. It aligns the upturn of the nose with the sidecut much better. The nose slices instead of plows. It also rides over ruts and bumps more smoothly.

[tahoetrencher]

"HUGE benefit for freecarving"

Maybe theoretically, yes.

But couldn't an inefficiently shaped nose add energy to the board?

Slower in the gates for sure, but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

Just asking.

Edited April 2, 2012 by tahoetrencher

[Buell]

Decambered nose is a huge benefit for freecarving. It aligns the upturn of the nose with the sidecut much better. The nose slices instead of plows. It also rides over ruts and bumps more smoothly.

I fully agree with this. Another thing it does is takes some of the load off the nose and tail at turn initiation and brings it toward the middle of the board. That helps make the board less hooky and reactive.

I have never ridden a non-metal decambered nose board so it is hard to say for sure but decamber could be as important as metal in the advancement of our boards

I had an early Prior Metal and an early Coiler Metal. Bruce sent the Bachelor crew one of his early metal decambered prototypes. I knew immediately that board was a huge step forward from my non-decambered metal boards. In the spring conditions that day with slush on one side of the run and ice on the other side, that prototype just killed my two metal non decambered boards for ease of riding. It made such an easy transition between the different snow consistencies.

[tahoetrencher]

That seems to be the current feeling, Buell.

But as to "taking the load off" the board,

is that always a good thing?

[lonbordin]

My recent trip to CO was my first shot a trying decambered boards. (Yeah, years behind the curve...)

It was like someone took the brakes off. Completely off. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

I spoke to a highly regarded boardmaker about this phenomena... his simplified (by me) take was that cambered noses were one of the easiest ways to put on the brakes. No need to really crank turns.

For me... I'll be getting a new board before the next season!

[scrapster]

I have a small quiver of decambered glass softboot boards. It's probably stating the obvious, but allowing for more edge length while still having a "loose" feeling to the board is a huge benefit for an all-around daily rider. Ride it relaxed, ride it hard, all depending on your mood.

[Jack M]

"HUGE benefit for freecarving"

Maybe theoretically, yes.

What? No, I and plenty others have felt it first hand.

But couldn't an inefficiently shaped nose add energy to the board?

Yes, in a bad way.

Slower in the gates for sure, but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

To your legs in the form of upset and fatigue, and to the edge in the form of loss of grip. Of course there is a limit, and too much decambering can make the nose feel vague or even floppy. That limit also varies with board length. But done properly, a decambered nose wins every time, no question.

[Buell]

That seems to be the current feeling, Buell.

But as to "taking the load off" the board,

is that always a good thing?

I did not say it takes load off the board. It takes it off the furthest points of the board and brings it closer to the middle which increases the rider's power over the board, among other benefits.

From riding cambered, decambered, and rockered boards in all kind of snow conditions, I say absolutely yes, it is a very good thing.

[tahoetrencher]

So is that all you ride now because it is so much better?

A full metal jacket; all decambered?

Do you ever miss the loaded glass feel as some quite accomplished carvers here seem to?

Can a glass board be more fun sometimes if harder on the legs?

Maybe that's just nostalgia.

I benefit from a large quiver and truly never ride a board more than 2 or 3 times in a row.

I like adjusting to the different feedback of individual rides.

I don't like being "comfotable" too much on piste.

Doesn't mean I'm not occasionally solid.

[lowrider]

Decambered nose, metal front, glass back half anyone? Let's put it all in one and see how it rides.

[Beckmann AG]

but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

Surface distortion. As in relocating 'snow'.

The effect of nose de-camber in choppy surfaces is akin to altering rubber compounds/inflation pressure in ATB tires in lieu of a functioning suspension fork. The nose will 'climb out' of the 'virtual hole' before attendant shock loads disrupt the rider; as the softer rubber compound will create a slight delay before the tire deflects off, say, a root or rock.

In both, the rider stays upright, to proceed apace.

One sensor on the boot and one on the board can tell worlds about what the board is doing and what the binding is damping out. put that setup on a bunch of different boards and collect rider opinions, and you're in your way to figuring out what the 'bad' frequencies are.

Regarding 'bad' frequencies, how would you plan on discerning which frequencies would be 'naturally occurring', and which are created as byproducts of 'unintentional' rider input? Do you tune a board based on rider preference given a possibly sub-optimal skill level, or do you build based on a theoretical ideal that may not yet have immediate market application?

Material and geometric manipulation has been used for years in alpine skiing; based on intended application, skill development of the end user, marketing strategies, etc.

What sells well is not always in the 'best interest' of the sport, or the development of the athlete.

Glass, metal, rubber, nose camber/de-camber are all part of the feedback/proprioception loop. If one is in a position to make use of it, on both subconscious and conscious levels, more information is generally a good thing.

Some drivers prefer Cadillac cush, while others prefer the raw agility of a tuned GTI.

Each may be viewed as inherently 'wrong' based on application, operator skill or motoring identity, etc.

[Jack M]

The effect of nose de-camber in choppy surfaces is akin to altering rubber compounds/inflation pressure in ATB tires in lieu of a functioning suspension fork.

Sounds like you're saying it's a band-aid? I would disagree with that. I'd say it's more like going from little or no front suspension to having a decent one.

Are MTB/moto riders who grew up with inferior or no suspension better riders than those who did? Perhaps. But soon we will never know.

I started my Brother-in-law on an old Rossi Throttle. Then I let him try my Coiler. Guess which one he likes better? Is this a bad thing? Will he ever become an expert carver? I think he could, and sooner on the Coiler, because the journey will be more enjoyable and inspiring.

Some drivers prefer Cadillac cush, while others prefer the raw agility of a tuned GTI.

I don't think it's like that. On a board with full camber, the "design" of the upturned nose seems like a complete afterthought. A decambered (aka rockered) nose better marries the curve of the upturn with the curve the sidecut will be when the board is tipped up on edge. Like this:

decambered nose:

full camber:

Look at the point where the nose of the board is actually engaged with the snow. It's very far up the nose. The abrupt upturn of a full camber nose participating in the carve really does not seem like a good thing to me.

I actually went from riding the Madd 180 in the bottom picture to borrowing Ben's NSR 185 in the top picture. Mind = blown.

Incidentally this is why I think the Rossignol Avenger Ti looks like a bad idea - full camber plus hammerhead? Guess they want that nose hook to be as close to the snow as possible! Like they want the nose to hook back up the hill!

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/avenger-82-ti-tpx_RA1EF01_product_ski-men-skis-all-mountain-frontside.html

Edited April 2, 2012 by Jack Michaud

[BlueB]

I had some Avengers (there are few models I believe) in hands while ago. From what I remember the camber to shovel transition was very early and gentle, you could call it decamber, in line with Priors and some Coilers. They looked like they would rip.

I actually think that I prefer the small decamber (Prior, Coiler) over hal nose approach (Kessler, SG) for freecarving. Also, radial and VSR feel better then NSR, again for freecarving, while NSR feels faster.

I agree with few posters who suggested that damping has to do more with rubber then metal, but we should really define what "damp" actually meant, as it seems to have different meanings for different people (we tried few times before, over the years).

To me the legendary damp/lively, often perceived as one, should be split in few categories:

Dampness - ability of the board (or system) to absorb "bad" vibrations

Liveliness - willingness of the board to rebound/return energy AND to be "manhandled"

Tracking - ability to stay on desired direction through less then perfect conditions

To me, it seems that those characteristics are affected by vaious parametres (in random order):

Dampness - dissimilarity of natural resonance of the materials used; mass; system (damping by friction, shear, decupling, etc)

Liveliness - mass; geometry (sidecut/profile); flex pattern

Tracking - geometry; flex pattern; edge hold (another can of worms); and mass to a lesser extent (or is it?)

[Helmut Karvlow]

Jack, what about F2 carbon Silberpfeil? I rode my Madd 170 at Stratton this year for the first time in 3 years and forgot how much fun it was!

[Jack M]

Honestly I've never heard of any Silberpfeil owners who loved them. A good Madd 170 was a great board, but I want something wider and with some nose rocker.

[Beckmann AG]

Sounds like you're saying it's a band-aid? I would disagree with that. I'd say it's more like going from little or no front suspension to having a decent one.

In the original paragraph it should be clear that the inference is more towards prophylaxis.

While simulating the simpler effects of a suspension system, nose de-camber, like decreased rolling resistance, simply aren't.

Unless one is playing at marketing; in which case, 'game on'.

Consider the similarities to the contemporary 29er ATB. Less rolling resistance generally translates to riding more difficult terrain with less difficulty. What required more skill of a rider on smaller wheels may now be 'cleaned' by a rider of lesser skill. With or without the assistance of a suspension fork.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless that rider enters into a potentially dangerous situation under the assumption that they are 'good to go' when in fact they are not.

When you consider the many accounts of bodily harm on this forum, one could reasonably conclude that a better understanding of the 'limits' involved, combined with board construction that provides a subliminal warning in the form of dissonance when those limits are approached, might prevent some of the trauma.

Are MTB/moto riders who grew up with inferior or no suspension better riders than those who did? Perhaps. But soon we will never know.

For every generation of athlete, there will always be those who have an innate 'feel' or sense for what they are doing. These athletes are the ones who can fully exploit changes in materials, geometry, advanced damper valving etc, as they are not using them as 'buffers'. They tend to go faster, and wreck with lesser frequency, regardless of what is underneath.

And they tend to look a bit different while in action, so yes, in fact, you will know.

While your brother in law benefits from current construction, in that he has more fun/hr, and will likely stick with the sport, perhaps you would not be the rider you are today, had you not started out on 'lesser' boards.

I'm certainly not suggesting that newer shapes are 'bad'. Far from it. Nor am I suggesting that all novices pay their dues on a Kemper Apex.

Rather, full cambered boards needn't be binned prematurely.

For a skilled user, cambered boards (and skis) may provide more usable feedback, (particularly at 'tip in') and this feedback serves an important part in skill development.

And they really don't 'plow' unless you stand on them in a way you shouldn't.

[astrokel]

I have never ridden a non-metal decambered nose board so it is hard to say for sure but decamber could be as important as metal in the advancement of our boards

Buell,

Couldn't you consider that the rockered Tanker has a "decambered" nose that's not metal? I realize its not the full package and that the one you reviewed is rockered tip to tail but my experience with the new tanker with the flat under the bindings is that it does still have that "pop" off the end of the carve... way more pop than my Coiler AMT stubby.

Edited April 3, 2012 by astrokel

[kieran]

Jack, what about F2 carbon Silberpfeil? I rode my Madd 170 at Stratton this year for the first time in 3 years and forgot how much fun it was!

the original and carbon variants are too narrow in the waist for Jack, probably. the silberpfeil vantage otoh is > 21cm.

[Buell]

Buell,

Couldn't you consider that the rockered Tanker has a "decambered" nose that's not metal? I realize its not the full package and that the one you reviewed is rockered tip to tail but my experience with the new tanker with the flat under the bindings is that it does still have that "pop" off the end of the carve... way more pop than my Coiler AMT stubby.

In the broad sense that is true but I was referring to carve board to carve board. I don't want to make anything other than very broad (and cautious) generalizations when comparing a wide freeride board to a hardboot carving board.