Gabe T Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Out of curiosity. what does Kessler use? .3? .4? Something else? In past conversations with Bruce, he said that most started out development with .4 and that Kessler was the first to custom order the .3; I would assume that's what they are currently using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Has anyone considered cold rolling a sheet of .4mm down to .3mm? I have no idea if it would affect the surface treatment that aids in the bonding process but it might be worth a test to see if it's a viable workaround. Would effect crystal structure. http://www.capitalsteel.net/news/blog/hot-and-cold-rolling-explained Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckmann AG Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) ^More to the point, the surface treatment might not take kindly to additional cold working. To say nothing of the part where the village rolling mill might not be willing to quote the job. Metal is a convenient means of tuning spring resonance. Other materials might well be more effective, and this apparent crisis may lead to a breakthrough of epic proportions. On the other hand, some riders might just have to fine tune their technique to deal with livelier boards. Edited March 22, 2016 by Beckmann AG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_roboteye Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Would effect crystal structure. http://www.capitalsteel.net/news/blog/hot-and-cold-rolling-explained Yes I realize that, but the aluminum was cold rolled to .4mm in the first place. At the factory where they make .3mm and .4mm thicknesses, is it not logical to deduce that they simply keep rolling the same stock they use to make .4mm down until they get .3mm? Therefore the only real variable is how the surface treatment will react to being rolled as far as I can see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRAZZ Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Interesting read (for some ): http://skibuilders.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2767&highlight=vibration+dampening I get a sense that the shape of the core is more important to damping than the materials. Titanal and VDS probably DO affect dampening but their major contributions would be in weight (which does affect dampening). What about Aramid (Kevlar)? It's slightly stiffer than FG and really really good in stretching. Compressive strength? Really only needed on the top side - can be done, again, with the correct shape. So what am I thinking about? An engineered shape (to reduce vibrations between 20 and 80 Hz). Layup to increase torsional rigidity (45 degrees top and bottom) with a unidirectional or a 90 degree layer of kevlar to help "pop". Maybe use some microfiber filler on top to increase compressive strength. (I do need a project for the summer...) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Yes I realize that, but the aluminum was cold rolled to .4mm in the first place. At the factory where they make .3mm and .4mm thicknesses, is it not logical to deduce that they simply keep rolling the same stock they use to make .4mm down until they get .3mm? Therefore the only real variable is how the surface treatment will react to being rolled as far as I can see Then it was annealed. And no an anodizing coating would definitely not withstand the cold rolling process. The issue with cold rolling is the creation of work hardening. The more a material is worked cold the more stress induced into the grain structure, and the stiffer/harder it becomes. If a piece is overworked the structure becomes so stressed that it as a very good chance of cracking on it's own. If you could find someone to cold roll it, then reanneal it, I'm sure it would work. Figuring out the correct process for that would be daunting and I bet AMAG would be the last to give guidance. https://www.amag.at/fileadmin/user_upload/amag/Downloads/AluReport/EN/AR-2009-3-EN-AR_3_09_EN_Sports.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Interesting read (for some ): http://skibuilders.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2767&highlight=vibration+dampening I get a sense that the shape of the core is more important to damping than the materials. Titanal and VDS probably DO affect dampening but their major contributions would be in weight (which does affect dampening). What about Aramid (Kevlar)? It's slightly stiffer than FG and really really good in stretching. Compressive strength? Really only needed on the top side - can be done, again, with the correct shape. So what am I thinking about? An engineered shape (to reduce vibrations between 20 and 80 Hz). Layup to increase torsional rigidity (45 degrees top and bottom) with a unidirectional or a 90 degree layer of kevlar to help "pop". Maybe use some microfiber filler on top to increase compressive strength. (I do need a project for the summer...) I wish he had done a glue up of a board with titanal in it. Then maybe he would have seen lower peaks of magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shred Gruumer Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 So why no collaboration for mill run of material?.. one word !! Oxess.. If you havn't demo'd a Carbon Carbon Oxess XXR...now is the time. Instead of saying" feels as good as metal".. I'll say "Metal almost feels as good as the Oxess XXR". Been riding them for years.. No breakdown of camber, less fragile (or Italian...Fragilly). still pop and damp as heck..no Glassy feel.. Just sayin.. I do love Coilers though!!! go Bruce go!!! RSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe T Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I headed off on vacation shortly after the test ride so I’m a bit late with this. The .4mm test board was a Nirvana Energy 174. I also had a similar Nirvana in a 172 length (.3 mm) to do some back to back comparisons with. Snow conditions were a bit on the soft side. Comparatively, the .4mm felt stiffer. I sensed a feeling of stiffness in the front and a slower initiation compared with the .3. The sensation of stiffness did not persist through the turn; once the edge was engaged, it gripped up nicely and felt very stable. It also felt damper compared with the .3mm with less than the usual pop. I wasn’t quite sure what was causing that feeling of stiffness and thought it may have something to do with the added torsion from the thicker metal. Interestingly, Bruce mentioned that from a bench test, it measured up at about the same stiffness as a standard model. In comparison, the .3 felt smoother and more responsive in the early phase of the turn. A fellow rider that tried it after me did note that he felt a significant improvement with the initiation upon adjusting his bindings to a more forward position. Bruce did not try the board until the following day. There was a warm up overnight so conditions got real soft. ‘Miserable’ as he put it so not optimal test conditions. His initial thoughts were that the board’s mid section was a bit too soft such that there was not enough resistance to transfer sufficient bend to the nose. Note that in order to offset the stiffness from the added metal, the core thickness was reduced in the middle and then proportionately through the rest of the core. I’m guessing some tweaking of the core profile is in order for the next build. Given that all materials work in concert to deliver the overall flex characteristics of the board, other adjustments will likely come into play to achieve the desired effect. Will leave that up to Bruce to work out, but I didn’t get the sense it was too far off from where it needs to be. We can only hope! Here is some video from one of my last runs on the board. Edited March 23, 2016 by Gabe T 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRAZZ Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 Can you guys do a 1:1 comparison with a .3 board? It would be interesting to know the difference in stiffness (how far it bends with a specified weight) and the difference in weight (back of the envelope calculation estimates 180g difference for two .4 sheets). If you think about it, it's another 2/3rds of a sheet added to the board. That you say it felt damper somewhat strengthens my belief that the main factor in damping is weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe T Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Can you guys do a 1:1 comparison with a .3 board? It would be interesting to know the difference in stiffness (how far it bends with a specified weight) and the difference in weight (back of the envelope calculation estimates 180g difference for two .4 sheets). If you think about it, it's another 2/3rds of a sheet added to the board. That you say it felt damper somewhat strengthens my belief that the main factor in damping is weight. I’m not sure I’m interpreting your question correctly. Are you suggesting a board be built with .4 tiitanal with an identical mix of other composite materials from a proven .3 build? I did mention that Bruce did do a stiffness measurement against a .3 Nirvana and they measured up pretty close to each other. Not sure about the weight differences though. Also, didn’t quite get your comment about “2/3rds ... added”. Is it not 1/3rd? ... adding another 0.2 to what was 0.6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRAZZ Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Sorry, ruminating. Let me clarify my rumblings. I had thought Bruce built a 174 nirvana that is exactly the same as a "regular" board (aka, one with .3mm titanal sheets) but he had replaced the .3 titanal sheets with .4 just to see the difference it would make. If this is not the case then all I had written above is moot. the 2/3rds thing. I was just noting on how much the difference in weight would be. A board made with 2 .4mm sheets would weigh the same as a board built with 2 .3 sheets AND another 2/3rds of a sheet. It's a significant weight gain and I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe T Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 The ultimate goal is to replicate (or exceed) the feel and performance of proven .3 builds using the thicker metal. I’m not sure that building a board with .4 metal with no other adjustments would be advancing that cause; probably would just mean one extra proto to build! : ) As mentioned in my post, one of the adjustments made in the original proto was a reduction to the core thickness as a means to offset the added stiffness from the thicker metal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUD Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Interesting read (for some ): http://skibuilders.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2767&highlight=vibration+dampening I get a sense that the shape of the core is more important to damping than the materials. Titanal and VDS probably DO affect dampening but their major contributions would be in weight (which does affect dampening). What about Aramid (Kevlar)? It's slightly stiffer than FG and really really good in stretching. Compressive strength? Really only needed on the top side - can be done, again, with the correct shape. So what am I thinking about? An engineered shape (to reduce vibrations between 20 and 80 Hz). Layup to increase torsional rigidity (45 degrees top and bottom) with a unidirectional or a 90 degree layer of kevlar to help "pop". Maybe use some microfiber filler on top to increase compressive strength. (I do need a project for the summer...) Cool article. BUT, don't lump VDS and Titanal, very different animals. Current Titanal construction creates a rather complex constrained layer damping system. With rubber in there as a viscous layer, you could manipulate the damping frequency, but that would probably end up a very dead board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 The ultimate goal is to replicate (or exceed) the feel and performance of proven .3 builds using the thicker metal. I’m not sure that building a board with .4 metal with no other adjustments would be advancing that cause; probably would just mean one extra proto to build! : ) I'm no mechanical engineer, but that's probably the first thing I would do is to build two boards identical except for the titanal layer so that I could get a baseline on the differences. I don't like wiggling too many inputs when I'm figuring stuff out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted March 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Ahh, but if you kept the bending moment of inertia (stiffness) the same between the two boards, you have an apples-to-apples comparison. I imagine that's what Bruce did in the above comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west carven Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 howdy all what ever happened to bamboo core? I know donek did one for the banned snowman. his confederate flag board was one of the first boards made with bamboo, but haven't heard much progress about it. bamboo/rubber combo? for springy/dampness, other ideas out there? carbon/rubber? stamped springy steel? thicker softer wood cores? alien metal technology? too much time, little knowledge... 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.