Guest Mattias Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Why doesen´t anyone produce assymetrical boards anymore? Always on my heelside I need to lea as far forward as human possible and on the toeside I have more weigt on my backleg. An assym board would definitly help! So why then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 you should be leaning forward on toeside too. at least for the first 1/3 of the carve. here is one answer: The Rise and Fall of the Holy Asymmetric Empire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamran Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 They do make them in europe. I think it's called "one". Personally, I think it's just a matter of time before assymetrical boards will be back and there will be lotssa smart discussions here about "why it's good again to use assymetrical board". I think assymetrical boards work for a lot of people who ride with lower (sub 45) angles. I find it hard to believe that so many people/racers/big name factories were all "wrong" in making them for so many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy S. Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Pureboarding still makes one. In fact its called "the one". I've ridden it and it is pretty fun. This article by Jack Michaud explains the whole asym thing in more detail than most folks would need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateW Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 I was a very late convert to the symmetrical way of doing things, but in my opinion it really is better. I just needed to revise my technique: shoulders and hips facing forward, ass over the tail of the board (instead of to the inside), knees pointing more forward and less sideways. That enabled me to get even higher edge angles on my heel side than on my toe side (until I started working on my toeside technique to even things out). I think Kamran is right about asym being useful for low stance angles, but even at 45/40 I ride better with the technique describe above than with a softboot-style shoulders-sideways technique. Far as I can tell, the problem with the oldschool / softbooting sideways posture is in a heel side carve your knees have to be extended to keep the edge angle high - so you have to bend way over at the hips to make up for that. In that position it's hard to absorb bumps in the snow, so even little things can throw you, or at least ruin your carve. With a facing-forward posture you can keep your knees bent for good "suspension." Then get high heelside edge angles by bending your hips and spine sideways rather than forward. You can get custom board builders to make you a board with asym sidecuts (I did - 10m toeside, 8.5m heelside) but try revising your technique first. I was lucky in that the first asym custom that I had made for me had a construction defect. By the time the builder was ready to replace it, I "saw the light," changed my technique, and requested a symmetrical replacement (10m both sides). I have not looked back (or faced sideways) since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derf Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 When asyms were popular (and I only had a softboot setup with high angles back then), I was saying to myself: "Asyms are not logical because on my heelside, my weight is mostly on my front heel and on my toeside, my weight is mostly on my rear toes, and both are closer to the center of a symmetrical board than on an asym board." And when I tried a Burton PJ on a demo day, I did not like the smaller turn radius of the heelside because it felt unbalanced. So that's why I always liked symmetrical board, even when asyms were popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mattias Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Actually I don´t want different radius, and I don´t face sideways:p But even if you face (and tights) forward you have to lean more forward on the heelside. This, I think, would be more effortless carving ith a assym board, but I would like the same radius on both toe and heelside. Just about 10 cm further back on the heelside... I´ll chek out the purebording site... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Mattias Actually I don´t want different radius, and I don´t face sideways:p But even if you face (and tights) forward you have to lean more forward on the heelside. Seriously, you should be leaning forward on toeside and heelside. The reason you lean forward on heelside is not because the apex of the sidecut is further away from your heels, it is simply to pressure the nose at the start of the carve. Maybe it is just more natural for you to lean forward on heelside for some reason. I think it probably is for me too. I suppose if you <i>enjoy</i> carving at 40-50 degree angles, then an asym <i>might</i> work for you. However we know now that there are more effective ways to hold an edge on ice. If you don't have to deal with ice, then by all means, have a blast riding however you want. There's no wrong way to have fun. But there are wrong ways to carve ice. Were snowboard companies "wrong" to build asym race boards? Not at the time, but they would be now. Asyms were just a necessary step in the evolution of racing and carving technique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derf Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by Jack Michaud Seriously, you should be leaning forward on toeside and heelside. The reason you lean forward on heelside is not because the apex of the sidecut is further away from your heels, it is simply to pressure the nose at the start of the carve. Maybe it is just more natural for you to lean forward on heelside for some reason. I think it probably is for me too. I think the reason would be that when turning heelside, lo lean on the leg on that side (for me, turning right, as a goofy, means leaning on the right leg, which is in front, on a heelside) and on a toeside, you lean on the other leg (turning left, left leg, in the back), so that's why it feels natural to lean on on front leg on heelside and rear leg on toeside. The other reason would be the one mentionned in my previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mattias Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Well in sweden, where I live, there is unfortunately a lot of ice :( But alpine boards do have great ice grip. When thinking about it I realise that I put more weight on front of the board in the beginning of both toe/heel side turns. It is just that it is so much easier on the toe side. On the heelside it is easier to transfer your weight to the backfoot instead... I guess that it depends on the leverage ratio differences. i.e. you have a lot more power when you transfer it through your toes(or straight through your heels) then sideways. Therefore theoretically it would mean more effortless carving with a assym board (with same radius on both sides). But it seems like no one agrees with me. Have I missed something logical? Perhaps boardconstruction has come a long way so every asym board out there is "crap" except perhaps "pureboarding". Anybody tried it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamran Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Perhaps boardconstruction has come a long way so every asym board out there is "crap" except perhaps "pureboarding". I wish someone from "pureboarding" would bring some input into this discussion as well. I am riding symmetrical boards now and I am happy with them, but like yourself I see assymetrical concept making sense. Especially if I look at all the freestyl/allmountain boarders on the slope and their style of riding combined with low binding angles they use, I think assymetrical boards and their riding characteristics would form a nice bridge for these people to "convert" to alpine(ism). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gtanner Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 I remember a few years back, Bruce made an asym core for a slalom board that my coach was riding (Steve Fairbairn). Steve seemed pretty happy with the board and I was wondering if anyone else has seen an asym core (and symetrical board construction)? I am not sure if Bruce has continued toying with this concept though. -Gord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest christoph Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 First some facts - before the industry stopped making asyboard board all SL World-Champion where using them (last one Karl Heinz-Zangerl) - the reason why the asy are gone is because the aren't very commercial (goofy, regular) The time is the reason why we still ride asy boards, seem like we are to long in the sport. I'm not talking about technical things like some people are doing, I am talking about fun and the perfect turn. Asyboards don`t have only disadvantages there are also a lot of advantages but you have to find them, better you demo a board. After demo for more then 5 years all the symboards (and be unhappy) I decided to build my own ASY. More then One hundred riders are now on my board, are all of them wrong? Good things are always coming back. Ride with me in Aspen Joerg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Originally posted by christoph First some facts - before the industry stopped making asyboard board all SL World-Champion where using them (last one Karl Heinz-Zangerl) True, but slalom racing doesn't resemble freecarving very much. - the reason why the asy are gone is because the aren't very commercial (goofy, regular) Indeed, that was a large factor, however it is also true that people were learning to carve better on ice on symmetrical boards More then One hundred riders are now on my board, are all of them wrong? Not at all. If it's fun and it works for you, then great. I wish I had your kind of snow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamran Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Pureboarding still makes one. In fact its called "the one". I've ridden it and it is pretty fun. Randy, Did you have to adjust your binding angles greatly when you demoed "the one" or did it feel natural and you were comfortable with angles close to your own? wish you a speedy recovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eric-pureboarding Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Jack, I'm sorry but the comment that you can learn to carve better on ice with a symetrical board rather then a asy board is just hillarious. I'm sorry without really getting personal I don't really think that you understood the concept of a asymetrical board. Pureboarding has a history of 17 years. In that time we have thought over 10'000 carvers how to ride. Not all where on asy boards but we can clearly say that the asy board does it's job well. This is just pure experience from our side. I would be very glade to hear your background that gives you the right and the authority to make such comments like in the previous posting. hope to hear from you soon sincerly joerg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Joerg, Click the "www" button below for my background. Based on the pictures referenced above, it looks like you guys don't waste any time riding ice - I'm jealous. I'm not saying asyms ride poorly - I rode an asym for 4 years and had a lot of fun. Fun is the bottom line, if you enjoy riding asyms then keep doing it. But symmetrical boards are simply better. Once I got back on a symmetrical board, the door opened to a new level. Syms have rendered asyms obsolete. It would appear that the entire FIS squad (people who can have any kind of board made for them) agrees with me. Why are syms better? To boil down the many reasons enumerated in my article, quite simply, the best technique for changing edges (cross through) is a quick symmetrical maneuver. Also, it is important to pressure the nose when you start each carve - on both toeside and heelside. The pressure is not somehow concentrated 5 or 7 or x centimeters back on heelside. Check out the videos of the EC guys. You won't see them making any asymmetrical movements. But whatever. If you ride in a place where conditions are typically as good as those pictures, it doesn't really matter if your sidecuts are shifted a little. Have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carp Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nice Picture of the wife and kids...Good looking family.:) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywalker Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Hey, seems like time has come to make enemies ;) ;) First of all: Originally posted by Jack Michaud But whatever. If you ride in a place where conditions are typically as good as those pictures, it doesn't really matter if your sidecuts are shifted a little. Have fun. Sorry Jack, I like your postings. Most of them are clear and based on enough experience. But I think, this is quite a very poor attitude. There are some guys here around, who always reply one sentence, if someone else looks better carving on a picture than they themselves ever did: "Total hero snow". It wasn't his performance, he's not better than me, it's just the grooming. That's the intention to say, right? That's all? To come back to the asym issue and to make some more enemies: What's the concept of asymmetrical boards? Please Joerg, explain to us, who still think like Jack: How the heck do you get pressure on your nose on backsides if the grooming get's harder? In fact most of us experienced this: If you ride with more edge-pressure and more dynamically, your nose on backside ist just too short. This is, because I've never seen anybody moving his center of gravity 10cm to the back to be able to do proper BS. Yes, your extreme sitiing-position helps, but it also brings the CoG much closer to the edge then on a extended, fully laid down turn and in this way keeps the forces lower. I'm planning to join you at the Carving Session in Davos, I'm really looking forward to ride the #1. Then there is a chance to compare.... and maybe to think a new way... ;) As always: Only my 2 EuroCents Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Originally posted by skywalker Sorry Jack, I like your postings. Most of them are clear and based on enough experience. But I think, this is quite a very poor attitude. There are some guys here around, who always reply one sentence, if someone else looks better carving on a picture than they themselves ever did: "Total hero snow". It wasn't his performance, he's not better than me, it's just the grooming. That's the intention to say, right? That's all? No. I don't think that picture looks better or worse than me, so that's not my issue. All I'm saying is that the paradigm shift from sym --> asym --> sym was a result of people searching for better ways to carve on ice and in race courses. If you don't usually have to deal with ice, then an asym technique and an asym board are all you need if that's your preference, and that's fine. But if you're waiting for asyms to make any kind of renaissance, you're going to be waiting forever, and it's not simply due to the economic difficulties of asyms. If you'd rather believe it was an industry-wide conspiracy to kill off asyms, well, I don't believe that. The rebirth of syms happened at a time when many more snowboard companies were still in alpine. It had much more to do with the emergence of guys like Fawcett, Jacoby, Kildevaald, Anderson and others who started kicking butt on syms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamran Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 The difference between sym. and asym. concept is still very interesting to me (apparantly to others as well) and every now and then the topic rises here. I had seen Jack's article a long time ago but I felt I had to read it again. It's well written and and it gives you a great amount of information in a few paragraphs. I hope he keeps up the great work he's been doing. I have published several papers as first and second author in major international scientific journals (medical and biomedical engineering) and so I know it's not easy to just write an article. Being an author myself, I looked whether this article was peer reviewed and I also looked for some references. unfortunately none was cited. I'd like to read more about this so I'd really appreciate it if Jack would provide some references to back his reasoning about asym. being obsolete. I realize there are not a lot of publications about this topic yet I'd like to make sure that this is not a one man's idea. By the way, did the invention of automatic transmission in cars make the manual transmission obsolete too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellow Yellow Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 asyms stink cause they look funny...... :p woohoo woohoo hoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derf Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Originally posted by kamran By the way, did the invention of automatic transmission in cars make the manual transmission obsolete too? Just a little OT note on this: It's funny that in Europe, around 15% or less of the cars have an automatic transmission and in North America (Canada included), 75% of cars have an automatic transmission. I know it is because of fuel consumption, but I think there may be more to this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest christoph Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 What are we talking about, carving and fun or racing? It can be true that you need a narrow board for racing because it has a quicker edge to edge transition. But do you realy like the style and the way they are riding in the races? To me it rather looks like a pure fight to get the next turn! What I'm up to is a perfect turn, a freedom and harmony in carving, a day on the edge in every single turn. I like to ride this way in any conditions on every kind of snow. That for I don't need a narrow board for racing ....... I need a carving board thats relyable and that works in any conditions. In my opinion it's exactly this developement from the racing empire that ruined hardboot carving! For me riding on narrow boards with steep angles is perfect under certain conditions but it limits my ability to ride in others. => I got back to a "flat" setup and I'm happy I made it. :) To ride a "flat" setup I needed a wider board that's perfect for carving and that works also under any other conditions. Yes it's true ..... on narrow boards the asym concept is useless ..... I guess it has to something to do with the board width and the angles. On wider boards the asym concept works perfect, faster edge to edge transition than on a similar symetrical board. Now to you Jack, you tell us about racing stile and write yourself that your not racing. You say developpement has led to the point where we are now ....... that's true .......... but I don't want to be there! What about Joerg's invitation to meet him in Aspen? ..... He's there now! For me, this pic from Silversurfer shows perfectly where snowboard carving comes from and how I like it. Hi Skywalker, I'm looking forward to meet you in Davos at the Carving-Sessiohn and to discuss some of this issues with you. Maybe we manage to work out why the #one works so perfect eventhough everybody says the asym is crap. And again to Jack, about carving on icy slopes! © PureBoarding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordy Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Wow, wouldn't it be just horrible if there were different styles involved in the snowboarding world. I mean it just sounds so improvable that different board shapes and designs could work differently for different riders, why in the world would you, as a rider want gear that worked well best for you? I mean we should all use what some one else says works best, because that way we will hinder the sport from growing, and that’s what we truly need to keep alpine snowboarding all to ourselves. Heck why would we want to share what works best for different riders under different conditions or even consider that other gear may have practical worth to other riders. That way it may break down the whole hardbooting community and massive amount of manufactures involved in the major battles for supremacy. Stop and think! Thanks to anyone making any product anywhere on the Planet regardless of shape, cost, practicality or usefulness to others. Some one some where is stoked on it and if it works for only one person then so be it. What is important is it still works, and it could very well be what works best to let that person ride at there peak level, just because you choose to ride some thing different does not make you right and them wrong. If it has 2 edges then it must be what I want to ride! 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.