utahcarver Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 The snowboard community et al has got the (now) universal snowboard insert (4x4, 8 pack, etc.) system for mounting snowboard bindings to boards. Add to that standardized INTEC and FAST systems for step-in heel assemblies on hardboots. The one exception to the community being the red-headed stepchild of snowboarding who continues to insist that 3 bolts are better than 4 for mounting bindings to boards. B=13 and other quasi-masonic symbolism from Jake, why?. Why hasn't anyone (read: industry principals) come up with a universal flex rating system for snowboard flex patterns? Perhaps, I'm too myopic in my view as a snowboard consumer to believe that it's just a simple rating system that's needed. Is such a system possible? I believe once the current snowboard producers admit that most of what they produce is the same cookie-cutter pablum for the masses with only annual graphic changes that vaguely mimics a magician on stage pretending to make believe that the world is continually changing before his audiences' eyes will the tide begin to turn. Hasn't anyone else thought of this? If I'm 180 lbs. and 5 foot 9 inches tall and want to ride a 11.2 sidecut radius what is the relative stiffness rating I would need in a snowboard? Please help me understand why this is still uncharted territory for snowboard manufacturers. We can send a man to the moon.... Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ar(angel Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 use your best James T. Kirk voice when saying this out loud, don't forget to include the pauses.....:D All kidding aside, this does seem like a question that gets asked alot here. Doesn't Coiler or Donek have a rating guide for this? Seems to me that someone has posted something like this before? How about some of those engineers I always see posting formulas on here....there's intelligent life out there somewhere......dare to go where no man has gone before :D Paul (expendable crewman in the red shirt) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror70 Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Without getting in to details and ignoring social factors, the reason for the lack of a rating system is that there are too many variables involved for the rating system to be even a little bit useful. Now, a manufacturer could rank their own boards in order of [perceived] stiffness, but it's not something that you could simply place a number on and then compare against boards from other manufacturers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCrider Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 saw an interesting adaptation to a small manual press when visiting Tremblant. It had an adjustable platform to rest tip and tail on and a transducer on the head of the ram. Digital read out of the pressure required to flex the board or ski. They would use this to properly match skis in a pair for team racers. They would also record stiffness of new boards and track how long they would retain their stiffness. This shop tunes boards for Jasey-Jay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywalker Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Hi, I can't see any problem that would keep anybody from introducing a valid rating. I think, something like nose stiffness - overall stiffnes - tail stiffness and torsional stiffness would be easy to measure and give us a decent hint about an estimated board behaviour. But "we" are nobody. This few carvers aut there, that are interested and knowing enough to want and understand these numbers... it may be 0.5% of all customers. I also think, the bobsi is by far not exact enough... but a good way to start. If everyone of us starts measuring all his boards, and if all this data is collected somewhere, there will be a rather good database. I really would whish there was some space to collect all these Bobsis! Burton Prob could easily be solved by special mounting plates from binding manufacturer... and much easier by burton themselves ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Houghton Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I agree with the other comments. I have used BOBSI to measure the flex of more than 50 boards. and I can now manually flex a board a guess it's BOBSI number pretty close. But it means nothing if you're comparing boards with different construction. An obvious example would be an Oxygen from a few years ago, even flex throughout the board. Compare that to the new 170 Madd, stiff nose and softer between the bindings. The Madd's BOBSI number is probably a 10, and the Oxygen is about 12.5 BUT the Madd rides stiffer because of the nose. Then consider the CF butterfly, another variable. The only method would be more like the shock dyno they use for automotive dampers, giving you a performance curve for each deflection, demonstrating how the board flexes at, say each cm of effective edge at each mm of deflection at the center. I think it's more fun just to ride them and find out. Research is so much fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 in all honesty I think its because snowboarding, no matter how technical, is still viewed as a "youth" thing not to be taken all that seriously, Even by some of the companies involved based on the way they and their riders behave. Trash talking "urban" youths sliding rails and the like doesnt exactly inspire a feeling of need for standardization does it? as for burton...the 3 hole is intentionally proprietary, a way to maintain a large market share. Sneaky? Dunno... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywalker Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 There was a Bobsi Database mentioned in some older posts. Does anyone know anything about it? Does it still exist? Would anybody be interested in such a database to compare most of the board models? maybe even see, what works for whom?? Just asking ;) Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dragon fly jones Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Every manu would have to use the same variables such as cores, core density, which fiber glass, bu tri quad, is there rubber metal plastic or something else in there, what about shape of the deck, base density, hand laid up, machined, inserts, etc etc etc. So a burton, would have be made like a head, like a dynstar to get a fair comparison. Like all ford engines are different than hemi, are different from the chevy, porsche, ferrari etc etc, it is all apples and oranges. The stiffness is in the eye of the beholder and who wants such a simplistic view anyway, snowboarding is dumbed down enough, let's not erode it any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-Carves Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 The Swoard comes in exactly those flavors. You can buy the stiff, medium or soft flex board precisely for that reason. Part of their argument for this hinged on the fact that a heavier rider needs a stiffer board then a lighter rider. At least when I got my Swoard, that was case. I understand they are making some changes to the new boards but I'd imagine they'd still offer different flex ratings. 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.