Gilmour bias...

[David Kirk]

So.....I'm very late to the party and try as I might to understand what the G-bias actually is I'm not sure I get it.

Does the G-bias mean that the heel of the front foot is closer to the heal edge while at the same time the toe of the rear foot is closer to the toe edge? Or.......is it running a steeper binding angle on the rear foot than the front......or....is it something completely different than those two things?

I look forward to being informed!

Thanks,

dave

[barryj]

 

1 minute ago, David Kirk said:

what the G-bias actually is

I'm sure other people, and John G. himself specifically  can add a more detailed explanation but It is offsetting the boot on the binding fore and aft .....so for a regular setup the rear boot it is not centered over the binding...the center point of the boot  is set ahead/past  the center of the binding by setting the toe and heel blocks more forward.......  and just the opposite for the front foot...the center point (which is marked on the underside of the boot). of the boot is behind the center of the binding.   This puts your front foot heel  much closer to the edge to put the pressure where you want it ......all to create better weight transfer to the edge...............

 You have to eyeball where the center point of the boot lines up with the binding....there's no mark on the binding per se.                      That's theory but it works for me! 

[John Gilmour]

13 hours ago, barryj said:

John.  as you know with running bias it pushes the rear binding forward which necessitates higher angles on the rear foot than the front.

On my Kessler 168 I'm at 65/68 ....and if I moved the front binding to the edge I'd be something like 55/68  !!

That just seems opposite of the norm of a somewhat higher angle in the front than the back ??    or..... is the norm old school thinking?

Holy shit, wayyyyyy too much GB Looking at the Kessler , the angles are IMHO way too steep. I don't see any reason why any part of a heel or toe of a boot should be that far inbound....ever.

 

Hmm you might be a cross over slalom waterskier to find being so steep is a go to comfort zone ...though a false one from water skiing ..., but still way too inbound for the board width If that Kessler is 19.5 waist you  might want to go to a 16cm waist if your mondo is under 25.0.

 

 It's all about FITTING THE GEAR TO YOU.... not the other way around. And if it doesn't fit width wise, sell it and buy stuff used that works. A quality used board that fits is way better performance wise than a Super high quality new board that doesn't fit. I should say that a hundred times. 

 

Gilmour bias seeks to ensure ensure that the parts of your feet that are best used for balance and pressure are nearest to the actual pivot of the edge to MINIMIZE the leverage the board and choppy snow has on you. Also to maximize your recovery. It puts your balance points slightly skewed relative to the edge so you aren't in a single pinpoint line of balance somyounhave margin for error. Error happens at high speeds and balance recovery is paramount if you are riding aggressively. 

The paradox of higher angles on the rear ( board is narrower there)  is solved for the rear foot because the toe or heel with the MOST overhang is the rear toe, in part so that the rear heel can be near but not overhanging  the edge of the heel edge and the best balancing part of your rear foot lis slightly overhanging the toe side edge,  ASSUMING THAT by the time the rear toe approaches boot out you have  dug a deep trench giving you more clearance. If it is bullet proof ice you likely won't be dumping the board at over 75 degrees where boot out might  occur.

 

LETS  ALL do a quick test in your bare feet,  ..Everybody ,  YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO GET OFF YOUR COMPUTER OBSESSED ASS TO TRY  THIS ...using the space above the ball of the foot on top  as a platform while sitting press down on the top of one foot using the tips of your toes and wiggle your foot or leg  to simulate being tossed about in choppy snow.  Now move the balance contact  point from the toe tips to the space between the tip of your big toe and the first joint  LOT F'ing BETTER RIGHT?  That's good Gilmour bias control. 

Now! For too much Gilmour Bias move to the first joint of the big toe... wobble right? Less control, less muscle coordination or something...but that is the way it is. That's too much GIlmour bias. And most people that tried it and didn't like it went overboard. It's pretty subtle.  Too much is worse than none at all.

If I were your coach..on the Kessler I'd give you two choices. Either lower your stance angles until the front heel,and rear toe have overhang  and the other heels and toes are at the edge....AND IF YOU DONT LIKE RIDING ANGLES THAT FLAT ....buy a narrower board. End of story But DO NOT "enable" yourself to ride a wide board using Gilmour Bias except it it's say a board loaned to you for that day or run only that was too wide for the angles you like. 

Why? Because  biomechanically  it's not good for your joints to ride inbound. I have a total blah  Rossignol,Judge 168cm swallowtail  , it doesn't turn well, and it's too wide for me. ( I would leave it out for weeks at a time hoping it would get stolen, I left it in a locker at a June Mountain all winter hoping it would get tossed...that board gets ZERO love. The only way I could force the board to work is with tons of Gilmour bias since it is too wide for my 9.5 foot at high angles ...no sense in having a board that doesn't work at all with angles too flat...so I ended up inbound on my front foot. ( No one made a powderboard with enough effective edge for the speeds I ride that was ALSO narrow )And I couldn't GET ENOUGH Gilmour bias on the back without my rear heel being inbound too much and getting washout...so my rear ankle took a beating in choppy snow. Beat up your rear ankle enough, enough years in a row, and your riding will suffer. 

 

NOT IDEAL AT ALL.. 

But I rode it painfully inbound for a long time, just because  I thought each year Hans Jurg Kessler would replace the  AWESOMELY FAST 168 Cross BX board I tore out of in less than 1500 vertical feet ...he never did so finally I decided to find anything to replace it. I'm f'ing cheap about snowboarding , I'll sleep in a car all winter  from January until March   so it shouldn't surprise you that I don't like buying snowboards.

I hate buying snowboards, I was a rep for Sims and Winterstick  so I could buy wholesale . I always buy my boots at the season end for 40% off or on close out  , and I'll ride bindings until I've replaced the buckles 4 times and the straps 3 times held together with beach sandals and shoe goo. My current 1995 Nordica Tr-9  hardboots cost me $14 on eBay and they have $100 of boot fitting spent on them . I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to buying gear. My big splurge was 50% of Union FC bindings  and New F2 Titaniums. 

Part of me feels like I've contributed enough to snowboarding that I'm annoyed paying retail . So that's why I rode a POS  pow deck for about 9 years.  

This year no more POS Rossignol Judge. I got a Jones  mostly because I think the majority of snowaboraders are best served with a medium flexing directional  freecarve board with a powder nose . Showed my support there. 

The Hovercraft still is NOT  an amazing carving board ( probably a Burton Custom X is better) , but for a board that rides powder EXTREMELY WELL and can also carve OK tha was the tradeoff...So this year I rode the ENTIRE Jones Hovercraft line except for the too wide stance  164cm  . The 160 was also too wide  to fix with Gilmour Bias Properly (without being too inbound  (about 1/2" ) on the angles I liked) and had too wide a stance for the angles I wanted to run. I demoed it and decided it was just another "too wide board for me,"then I also tried the 152 cm Hovercraft ,...which was not nearly  as well designed as the 156 cm Hovercraft in terms of the nose blending with the flex pattern . That 156 cm (sweetheart of the line) with my 9.5 foot in Thirty Two Binary Boas and Union FC 2016 bindings  was pretty close to what I wanted running about 40-45 front and 35 rear in the inner most holes.   I DO  NOT RECCOMMEND OTHERS COPY THESE ANGLES... if your boots are not fit properly  AND THE BIAS IS NOT DIALED  RIGHT  it won't perform right. Your foot can not have any lateral roll in soft boots with such high angles. You need a perfect boot fit, perfect socks, perfect insoles, and add any needed cushioning to take up any slop. You need excellent socks too.

Have all of those things and I was able to punish the deck flex pattern enough with 45+ mph pounding chatter laid over in heavy carving snow to marvel at the strength of the epoxy used to keep up with my new carving friend Andre... some giant 6'4" totally in shape Russian  on his 185cm Virus in UPZ hard boots . My board was at the thrashing limit, his virus was not even close to its limit.

That moss (nice pow deck BTW)  that probably should be ridden with soft boots because it it's extreme width. There is a Gentemstick "racer" board swallowtail ( wanted it myself)  that would be much better suited for what I'm guessing to be 26.5 mondo or smaller hardboots given the odd amount of inbound set up on the  Kessler.

The moss probably needs a size 10.5 softboot to work well .

 

YMMV

 

I'm good at dialing people in, but again I don't know anyone who rides a pow set up as wacked out as mine for softboots....and my angles are limiting for deep loose granular (superpowers gone )  and really only EXCELL in packed powder high quality snow .  So I never dial anyone in to a stance as steep as mine for soft. But when the snow is 1/2 way decent, I love being able to have my own style of enjoying the mountain , and twisting the lift. It should look impossible. 

 

Hardboots

 

Err. my hardboot stance was considered steep at one time at 65 60  then dropped to 63 58 then to 60 55 with  Cateks but I run about 58 53 with F2 titaniums on a Madd 170 with an 18cm waist on a fairly flared 10.5M side cut  . If I were on Cateks I'd run 60 55  in part because of the lift height on the Catek OS2 binding.  I'm only NOT on Cateks because I don't have toe clips and I disliked the step ins which heels were too stiff it was killing me inside the boots. 

The Madd 158 let's me go lower in stance angles if I want because at 8.8M side cut it has a lot of flare and no taper.

-and of course, boards with tons of taper and Gilmour bias don't mix due to MASSIVE rear boot overhang. Sometimes I think people choose taper because it forces their rear toe to overhang when "centered"  forcing quasi Gilmour Bias without them realizin it. 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by John Gilmour

[BlueB]

Bwahahahahaha, Barry gets $hit even from JG for too much bias and angles too steep 

[barryj]

22 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

If that Kessler is 19.5 waist you  might want to go to a 16cm waist if your mondo is under 25.0.

Thanks John,   fyi: The Kessler 168 is a 20.2w and my boots are mondo 28

I'll start with resetting my bias......so for readjusting my bias...... how much past/off (binding) center should the center boot mark be?  1/4, 1/2, 3/4 inch??          Currently both of my  boots are  about 3/4 inch+/-  fore and aft  respectively of binding center.

33 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

lower your stance angles until the front heel,and rear toe have overhang  and the other heels and toes are at the edge....

.......if I decrease bias (3/4 inch currently)  that will give me more room to decrease angles.  

[John Gilmour]

10 hours ago, barryj said:

 

I'm sure other people, and John G. himself specifically  can add a more detailed explanation but It is offsetting the boot on the binding fore and aft .....so for a regular setup the rear boot it is not centered over the binding...the center point of the boot  is set ahead/past  the center of the binding by setting the toe and heel blocks more forward.......  and just the opposite for the front foot...the center point (which is marked on the underside of the boot). of the boot is behind the center of the binding.   This puts your front foot heel  much closer to the edge to put the pressure where you want it ......all to create better weight transfer to the edge...............

 You have to eyeball where the center point of the boot lines up with the binding....there's no mark on the binding per se.                      That's theory but it works for me! 

+1. 

Thats a pretty accurate way of putting it. Again it's not a measurement , it's putting the correct part of the foot directly over the edge.

 

I might Ikon and Epic next season, so I can dial you in at Squaw . Assuming you just like to freecarve and finish turns and not skidding the end of turns like a racer. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by John Gilmour

[John Gilmour]

15 minutes ago, barryj said:

Thanks John,   fyi: The Kessler 168 is a 20.2w and my boots are mondo 28

I'll start with resetting my bias......so for readjusting my bias...... how much past/off (binding) center should the center boot mark be?  1/4, 1/2, 3/4 inch??          Currently both of my  boots are  about 3/4 inch+/-  fore and aft  respectively of binding center.

.......if I decrease bias (3/4 inch currently)  that will give me more room to decrease angles.  

28.0 mondo.... oh so you ran away from overhang but went too far. 

why wouldn't you try 58 and 55 ?

looks like a 12-12.5 M vario sidecut pure guessing.

Bias is more about getting the part of your foot over the edge.  So if you had X-ray vision you'd shoot for the 1/2 way in the bevel curve of the edge of your heel being centered over the edge. For every boot brand and model the foot is placed differently inside the boot. 

As a general rule you always have more rear toe overhang than front heel ( which is very minor and should never touch when edged on carpet  at 75 degrees)  the rear toe could touch at 65-70 degrees because no when riding and cutting a trench ( which is deeper by the time it reaches your toe.. That boot out won't occur until  75-80 degrees. 

I hope the trench cutting concept makes sense, obviously the depth of the toeside trench 2 inches off the nose isn't as deep as 3 inches in front of the tail ...right?  That's why you can't have as much heel overhang, because the heel trench isn't as deep at the front heel location .  

 

The steeper front foot angle and heel bias ensures the front toe never could hit. 

For you to like being that inbound, something is out of wack in your set up or technique, it's just way out of the norm. Or you are just some freak of nature bullet proof built guy who can ride a painful set up and not wince. 

If I rode that set up I'd get massive shin bang and probably break my rear ankle.

Do you have any video clips of you carving on YouTube ? 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by John Gilmour

[barryj]

6 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

why wouldn't you try 58 and 55 ?

I could go 58 or 55 on the front foot with the Kessler.... but with the the bias I have currently  the rear foot is to the edge at 68....so 58/68 seemed to radical....even for me.

10 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

As a general rule you always have more rear toe overhang than front heel

Uh.... can you give me a re-starting point.... like  reduce rear bias  to 1/4 inch max and front bias to 1/2 inch max ??

13 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

video clips?

That's a negative...... maybe this week as I'll be at Heavenly  Fri/Sat and Sun.   

[John Gilmour]

1/2 an 1/4 are probably a decent starting point.  Your rear foot should be the same or less than your front foot in angle. I ride about. 3-5 degree differential . 

You need some 1/2 of rear toe overhang.  Being so flat will take several runs to get used to it. My suggestion is to carve a high edge angle and ride it out until you go up hill and gently fall over as you come to a stop.  Just keep increasing the edge angle and aggressiveness until you adapt. 

From your avatar it looks like you drive from the tail using your rear foot Is your board soft so you have to do this?  Fear of nose folding? 

My avatar shows wrong hand positioning, my lead hand should always be off the snow rear hand should be closer  to front boot cuff... for technically more solid freecarving But it's just a glam shot with a bunch of  snow spray 40+ copper bowl Aspen Ajax Madd reissue 170 (sold it not riding an original in this shot ...you can see the 170 flex is too soft for me it's a 2 hyper flexed to make for max angle and snow spray).  This nose of the reissue was so soft I sold it because I would come too close to folding it.

Edited April 19, 2018 by John Gilmour

[barryj]

11 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

1/2 an 1/4 are probably a decent starting point.

Ok I'll reset with this, 1/2 inch max front foot bias and 1/4 inch max rear foot bias and see how much that allows me to decrease angles.

12 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

You need some 1/2 of rear toe overhang

"1/2 inch rear overhang" goes against the ever so popular Fuego method of little to no overhang.... but that would additionally help me decrease the rear foot angle even more........

15 minutes ago, John Gilmour said:

your avatar

 That avatar is the only shot I have ever seen of myself and it's not from one of my best days......... but I do like a softer board for my 225lbs........ well actually my thighs and knees like a softer flex board.   Riding a board for my weight my legs are shot in a couple of hours...... with softer flex boards I carve all day.

[workshop7]

On 4/14/2018 at 1:34 PM, John Gilmour said:

I would have more toe overhang on the rear toe on that set up. And not as much but some heel overhang on the front, then your angles get to go down a bit too.

 

the only time I run inboundis when I can't get a narrower board. If you really rail at 90 degrees and really no one does, even me in softboots intentionally over dumping  then your need no overhang.  I think about 75 degree is the true max and even then with trench you have clearance. Glare ice is the only time you might want to reduce that, but in glare ice I don't think you go beyond 45-60 degrees of tilt.

Thanks John but my stance needs no adjustment.  I had been working on dialing in for a long time.  Trust me, I've tried it all and ended up here.  The last two seasons have been the most comfortable and effective riding I've ever done.  The pics of my stance (yellow boots on a MK) were placed here by the moderators.  I do appreciate the time you've taken to help me and others, and I have the utmost respect for you and your place in alpine snowboard history.  However, my stance is just right.

Edited April 19, 2018 by workshop7

[John Gilmour]

5 hours ago, workshop7 said:

Thanks John but my stance needs no adjustment.  I had been working on dialing in for a long time.  Trust me, I've tried it all and ended up here.  The last two seasons have been the most comfortable and effective riding I've ever done.  The pics of my stance (yellow boots on a MK) were placed here by the moderators.  I do appreciate the time you've taken to help me and others, and I have the utmost respect for you and your place in alpine snowboard history.  However, my stance is just right.

Well that's great. Everyone is a bit different. When you find something you like stick with it until, you see someone else with a new theory that seems to work well. I rode 16.5" stances and 65 degrees on my Checker Pig G6 for years, until The F2 Checker board race boards came out, went wider, flatter. And then with the Madds ended up wider still.

I think Barry has gone for a softer board with a tighter stance that he can easily flex at 225 lbs so the board isn't exerting much force back on him, that allows him to ride the stance he rides . If he was looking for higher speeds deeper carvers and more force into the snow he would have to,go with more conventional flex and angles. His current set up will not carve deep arcs over 35 mph  IMHO.

Btw I really like the Graphics on the MK. 

Barry, this is for a traditional stance of less than 63 front and less than 58 rear...more likely 59 front and 55 rear on your board with your boots. you should have maybe 1/4 -1/8th on the front heel of overhang and say 1/4 - 1/2 on the rear. If your board is soft, you might tend to overdrive it at 225 lbs and yes your legs will be shot with a traditional stance on a traditional medium to medium stiff caring deck carving deeper trenches at speed....but isn't that the whole point? You get more fit and your skills improve together.

tall people with bigger feet tend to have a lot of leverage on boards and tend to ride steeper....in part b cause they just can. Andre the Russian guy I rode with rides very high stance angles on his 18cm virus, because he can, and also because he has to,with a 29.0 shell. And because that board works best really heeled over somhe can't have any drag at inclination over 55 degrees at all.

A stance like your on a softer board let's you drive from the rear of the board and really do tighter turns at lower speeds. It's fun but not fast. If you want performance you go with the traditional way, if you want to just carve and trench at low speed  that's what a softer board will do for you. It's not invalid ...for instance. I rode a F2 M.A.D. In the 1990s at Wachusett Mt. ( kinda like a early Hovercraft) with 1000 ft vertical drop in part because by the time I got up to speed for fast deep turning, the hill was over in 3 turns. Having a softer flexing wider directional board  let me screw around and have. more fun while going slower and getting 30 deep trenches in instead of just a few each run, all while being very easy on the legs. Thrilling? No, but fun yes.  Did it make me a better rider, no, but I got to mess around with buds on freeride boards going their speeds and still trenching all over the place.

Edited April 19, 2018 by John Gilmour

[barryj]

John.   why do I need any overhang?     Can you show me a photo on your setup of rear foot (1/4 -1/2 inch max )  toe overhang?   ....       I could see 2 or 3 mm,  but a 1/2 inch ??

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by barryj

[Mig]

2 hours ago, barryj said:

John.   why do I need any overhang?     Can you show me a photo on your setup of rear foot (1/4 -1/2 inch max )  toe overhang?   ....       I could see 2 or 3 cm,  but a 1/2 inch ??

Currently,  I know I boot out with anything more than 3cm on toe side. 

1/2 inch = 1.27 cm