Board width - what is going on???

[lonbordin]

30 minutes ago, WinterGold said:

Also the reason for this thread! Why is that so? For whom are the manufactures producing???

I participate in https://www.reddit.com/r/snowboarding/ as do others on the BOL forum.  Hardboot outreach, LOL.

There is an aversion to width and length so much so that manufacturers now offer a mid-wide, which is a joke.  So much of today's snowboarding is focused on tricks and spins so having a smaller board and lighter weight is very important to many, also much of today's snowboarding is done away from the resort (urban snowboarding).  Predictably there's also a problem, boot out.  When Ryan Knapton posts a video invariably boot out becomes part of the discussion as does the width of his board and his personal dimensions/setup.

The good news is that soft boot carving is definitely the new hotness.  It looks like most advanced softboot boarders are opting for a least two boards, a smaller park board and a larger all mountain board.  I suspect the 2018 line will have some wider decks advertised as carving boards to monetize the trend.  Also softboots are now being offered with reduced footprints aka Burton's Shrinkage™ Footprint Reduction Technology or the like which brings the footprint down nearly a complete boot size.

5 minutes ago, philw said:

but perhaps they're all perfectly sized people with reasonable feet like me ;-)

Perfect little people living in their own perfect little world. ;-)

Edited January 19, 2017 by lonbordin
Forgot SB size...

[Neil Gendzwill]

People on /r/snowboarding are shocked at any suggestion of length over 160.  Recently there was a 250 lb guy asking if a 157 designed for a min weight of 120 lbs was suitable??? They are constantly recommending normal width boards to people with size 12 feet. It's ridiculous.

[TLN]

Agree, I see that constantly on snowboardingforum dot com. Someone 240lbs asks for a board to bomb the hilss and carve and people start telling to get a 160 or maxx 162. insteaed of longest BX board he can get.

[Jack M]

39 minutes ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

People on /r/snowboarding are shocked at any suggestion of length over 160.  Recently there was a 250 lb guy asking if a 157 designed for a min weight of 120 lbs was suitable??? They are constantly recommending normal width boards to people with size 12 feet. It's ridiculous.

I hate stupid people.

[WinterGold]

1 hour ago, Apex Insider said:

For alpine boards, the racers drive the market and they all want narrow. Most are using plates of some sort so they don't worry too much about boot out. And if boot out is still a problem, then the board builder will tell you to make your binding angles steeper. If you don't like it, they tell you to buy custom.

It works for the racers, because in reality they are only using two shell sizes.

I still think that even for racers a wider array of board widths would be advantageous. But for them going the custom route is not really a problem most of the time. 

It is still funny that guys with a US size 7 ride the same board width as the guys with US size 11 ... it can't be ideal for both, but they make it work, because it is the easiest way - just like most of the normal carvers.

And every carver, who needs a bigger shell than the pros, should also ride a wider board! And that is what the production boards are made for as well (just look at their descriptions!). So the standard 20cm for male riders over and over again, doesn't cut it ...

[Apex Insider]

1 minute ago, WinterGold said:

It works for the racers, because in reality they are only using two shell sizes.

I still think that even for racers a wider array of board widths would be advantageous. But for them going the custom route is not really a problem most of the time. 

It is still funny that guys with a US size 7 ride the same board width as the guys with US size 11 ... it can't be ideal for both, but they make it work, because it is the easiest way - just like most of the normal carvers.

And every carver, who needs a bigger shell than the pros, should also ride a wider board! And that is what the production boards are made for as well (just look at their descriptions!). So the standard 20cm for male riders over and over again, doesn't cut it ...

It's a matter of economics. The carving market is not big enough to justify making serial boards with multiple widths.  And even with custom, there are only so many templates and so many CNC tool paths you are going to maintain. 

[philw]

10 minutes ago, Jack Michaud said:

I hate stupid people.

Sadly they all have votes. I believe the positive approach is not to hate the people, but to hate the stupidity ;-) Or in the case of snowboarding, just ride rings around them.

But those forum people use tiny boards because they can't and don't turn. They don't mind that they're double the manufacturer's length, because they're side slippers. It's like snow-plough skiers trying to find the right sized ski. It doesn't matter: any will do. The trend away from skate tricks may help with that.

[WinterGold]

5 minutes ago, Apex Insider said:

It's a matter of economics. The carving market is not big enough to justify making serial boards with multiple widths.  And even with custom, there are only so many templates and so many CNC tool paths you are going to maintain. 

Of course I understand that!

I still hope that manufactures will find a way to better accommodate the market.

For example - 175 is a perfect allround length for carving and a lot of guys in my area love this size (next to their SL boards). Now in most ranges the 175 is the women's GS board. Despite the different flex (which doesn't seem to be too much of an issue for most riders), these boards are even narrower - 19cm. So the guys use ridiculous angles to adjust to the board width. It hurts just to watch them ...

[lonbordin]

I do so like to be proven right. 

Bataleon Evil Twin & Carver Snowboards 2017-2018

https://whitelines.com/snowboard-gear/news-previews/2017-2018-snowboard-product-preview-avant-premiere.html

Edited January 19, 2017 by lonbordin
Probably won't be any wider... but who knows...

[SnowboardingJ]

I mentioned it to the people who I rode with all the time, going wide to "eliminate" boot overhang in "duck" stance should not be the route to go.  It only works up to a point, unless one rides soft hero snow all the time.

[Maxlanaudiere]

35 minutes ago, SnowboardingJ said:

I mentioned it to the people who I rode with all the time, going wide to "eliminate" boot overhang in "duck" stance should not be the route to go.  It only works up to a point, unless one rides soft hero snow all the time.

How does going wide to eliminate boot overhang not the way to go ? I tried carving on hardpack icyish slopes with a normal width deck angle 15/-15, size 10.5. Toe side and heel side were disengaging because my boot was pushing the board away from the slope.

Back on my roundhouse wide no boot overhang = yay can carve low again = happy me ! 

Or maybe something got lost in the translation and I didn't understand your point.

Really am confused about this statement.

 

[SnowboardingJ]

57 minutes ago, Maxlanaudiere said:

How does going wide to eliminate boot overhang not the way to go ? I tried carving on hardpack icyish slopes with a normal width deck angle 15/-15, size 10.5..........Back on my roundhouse wide no boot overhang = yay can carve low again = happy me ! 
 

 

Do you mind sharing the width of the board?

By looking at your profile, I am assuming you were riding Head Holster 163W with Burton Malavita?  Or was it Flow or SP etc... without having a heel loop?

It works up to a point, but the key word is "eliminate". 

Ryan's video showed a 31.2cm width board, if his shoe size is less than size 8 with Burton binding, I am guessing it would be boarder line eliminating overhang.  However, if he were to use Flow or SP binding, it would completely eliminate any overhang.

Edited January 20, 2017 by SnowboardingJ

[Maxlanaudiere]

Ack I need to update my profile when I get back home. As for the width I'll measure it over the week-end.

Let me try to rephrase my question. If I have overhang how does going to a wider board not the way to go ? To which point would it stop "working" ? Why only on hero snow ? 

Alright hope that one works.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Maxlanaudiere

[Erik J]

3 pages in and I still have no idea what you people are talking about. 

[lonbordin]

15 minutes ago, Erik J said:

3 pages in and I still have no idea what you people are talking about. 

Reading comprehension is a learned skill.

[Erik J]

pagh qech reH ghaj 3 pages neH 'ej vIghel nuq SoH nuvpu'

is that better?

[SnowboardingJ]

57 minutes ago, Maxlanaudiere said:

Ack I need to update my profile when I get back home. As for the width I'll measure it over the week-end.

Let me try to rephrase my question. If I have overhang how does going to a wider board not the way to go ? To which point would it stop "working" ? Why only on hero snow ? 

Alright hope that one works.

 

I agree with Jack saying get alpine (and ride steep angle) if one really wanna carve.

Yes, maximum tilt can easily be done duck stance, in toe side!

We can ask how Ryan ride steep on hard ice condition on heel side. 

"Apex" also mention about penalty, the biggest penalty would be heel side edge hold in my book.

Toe side underhang, no problem, I find heel side with overhang about half a cm to a cm was boarder line ok for me (GNU/SP binding, no heel loop, therefore, the boot was the overhang part).  It can handle a few hard days, depends how hard. 

 

I have gone underhang (flow binding, about less than a cm underhang) as well, worked ok when we were at Mammoth with record snowfall, something like 10 feet in a week.

Trip to whitface, that setup was no fun.

 

May be other people can chimp in?

 

 

Either way, to enjoy hard days, ride hardboot, steep angle!  I only wish I was on hardboot earlier.

It's even more fun on hero days.  I save my soft boot for the day when it dumps and the day after that, plus early and late season.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SnowboardingJ

[Erik J]

The softboot industry dug their own grave a long time ago by pushing away from any sense of real turns. Park, rail and jib was rammed down the throat of a new rider. Carving or, heaven forbid, hardboots were just not marketed as being cool enough for the masses.

If softboot carving is coming back around then it would be smart for the big board manufacturers to follow the trend with products to sell to people. But we all know where to find a board that does what we want. 

So at this moment in time, if you want to ride 0 deg angles on your soft setup and you don't want over hang, either get a board to match your feet or cut your toes off. Or you could, I don't know, change your angles.

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

20 minutes ago, SnowboardingJ said:

"Apex" also mention about penalty, the biggest penalty would be heel side edge hold in my book.

Toe side underhang, no problem, I find heel side with overhang about half a cm to a cm was boarder line ok for me (GNU/SP binding, no heel loop, therefore, the boot was the overhang part).  It can handle a few hard days, depends how hard. 

 

I have gone underhang (flow binding, about less than a cm underhang) as well, worked ok when we were at Mammoth with record snowfall, something like 10 feet in a week.

Trip to whitface, that setup was no fun.

Yeah, keep this in mind; Put your Toes just on the edge. Any 'underhang' ought to be on the heelside. Why? Leverage, and tactile feel! On heelside (as long as you're not duck-stanced, but using a directional stance, and have the highbacks set right, both in lean, and in pivot along the horseshoe; so, lowbacks, ducks, need not apply here) your lower legs exert pressure to the edge, BUT, also can push leverage to edge Ahead of the bindings, and then, also, as the turn finishes, behind the binding. Duck , however, places that leverage only BETWEEN the bindings, thus shortening the length of edge engagement horribly to your stance width. So, you've got, with correct highbacks (I like ones with power-wings, the extra leverage fore-aft helps a lot!), or hardshells (also with correct forward lean, and/or not-too-soft rabnaser springs) a decent Lever, that if used in a timely manner, will compensate for underhang quite nicely. Now, I don't usually 'feel' when my heelcups drag until too late, and I react too slowly at times. Bad form? No, but, the Heelside works mostly 'slow-twitch' muscles, with only the ankle (ie, lifting the toes, or relaxing them) being able to react quickly enough to change up after 'feeling' some drag. Toesodes, though, are using many 'quick-twitch' muscles, from the toes themselves (tip-toe, or just squeezed) on thru the ankle, and, even the knees can react quicker, as they're in 'run mode', not doing jump-absorption duty. So putting my toes 'at risk' of booting out s better in that I can react once I feel the 'drag' hitting. Even so, I strive for being able to tilt up through 80* if possible on all my boards. But, the bias is to tuck those heels inboard more, especially with softboots.

[SnowboardingJ]

37 minutes ago, Eric Brammer aka PSR said:

Yeah, keep this in mind; Put your Toes just on the edge. Any 'underhang' ought to be on the heelside. Why? Leverage, and tactile feel! On heelside (as long as you're not duck-stanced, but using a directional stance, and have the highbacks set right, both in lean, and in pivot along the horseshoe; so, lowbacks, ducks, need not apply here) your lower legs exert pressure to the edge, BUT, also can push leverage to edge Ahead of the bindings, and then, also, as the turn finishes, behind the binding. Duck , however, places that leverage only BETWEEN the bindings, thus shortening the length of edge engagement horribly to your stance width. So, you've got, with correct highbacks (I like ones with power-wings, the extra leverage fore-aft helps a lot!), or hardshells (also with correct forward lean, and/or not-too-soft rabnaser springs) a decent Lever, that if used in a timely manner, will compensate for underhang quite nicely. Now, I don't usually 'feel' when my heelcups drag until too late, and I react too slowly at times. Bad form? No, but, the Heelside works mostly 'slow-twitch' muscles, with only the ankle (ie, lifting the toes, or relaxing them) being able to react quickly enough to change up after 'feeling' some drag. Toesodes, though, are using many 'quick-twitch' muscles, from the toes themselves (tip-toe, or just squeezed) on thru the ankle, and, even the knees can react quicker, as they're in 'run mode', not doing jump-absorption duty. So putting my toes 'at risk' of booting out s better in that I can react once I feel the 'drag' hitting. Even so, I strive for being able to tilt up through 80* if possible on all my boards. But, the bias is to tuck those heels inboard more, especially with softboots.

 

In "Duck" stance:

Toe side, high angulation can be achieved easily by bending knees.  90 degree angulation can easily be achieved without inclination.  (body center over board with edge angle of 90 degree)

However, even with highback set at 45 degree (even at 45 degree, our ankle would prevent us from bending this far without sprain), without any inclination (crucial in riding hard condition), high angulation could not be achieved due to bio-mechanism, thus resulting less edge pressure on hard surface.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SnowboardingJ

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

25 minutes ago, SnowboardingJ said:

In "Duck" stance:

Toe side, high angulation can be achieved easily by bending knees.  90 degree angulation can easily be achieved without inclination.  (body center over board with edge angle of 90 degree)

However, even with highback set at 45 degree (even at 45 degree, our ankle would prevent us from bending this far without sprain), without any inclination (crucial in riding hard condition), high angulation could not be achieved due to bio-mechanism, thus resulting less edge pressure on hard surface.

 

I don't get where you're taking this, but, I believe you misunderstood something from my post? 'Angulation', in terms of bio-mechanics, is in referral to the body position, over the board, in regards to the slope you are on. Thus, if your shoulders are level with the riding surface (as seen often in CMC's riding, perhaps less so in mine..) you have good angulation (also refer skiers such as Ted Ligety). So, I'm confused with that. When I "Tilt" a board on edge, I reference the board from flat to it's surface, up to 90*. While 'I've gone past 90* on certain terrain features, it's so rare  and fleeting as to not be of any concern, other than bragging rights or 'why you crashed in the pipe'... Your mention of 45* at a highback, if in forward lean, isn't possible with a human foot secured in the binding, unless used as a torture device? So, binding angle, perhaps? I don't ride softboots up at those angles, because the highback is then BEHIND my leg, not helping much at all in edge-pressure moves, but it will influence the bending of a board.  Sorry, but nearly 3 decades of Instructing is in my background, 4 decades on a snowboard. If we are to share in ideas, we at least need to be on the same page with what we are referring to. And, I don't say this to be impolite, because, if my essay is read wrong, well, then, I've got a problem that I need to fix!  So, please feel free to PM me, or post here what's on your mind, just so we're clear, one way or another... 

[SnowboardingJ]

2 hours ago, Eric Brammer aka PSR said:

.... 'Angulation', in terms of bio-mechanics, is in referral to the body position, over the board, in regards to the slope you are on. Thus, if your shoulders are level with the riding surface (as seen often in CMC's riding, perhaps less so in mine..) you have good angulation (also refer skiers such as Ted Ligety).......

 

....Your mention of 45* at a highback, if in forward lean, isn't possible with a human foot secured in the binding, unless used as a torture device?.....

 

....If we are to share in ideas, we at least need to be on the same page with what we are referring to. And, I don't say this to be impolite, because, if my essay is read wrong, well, then, I've got a problem that I need to fix!  So, please feel free to PM me, or post here what's on your mind, just so we're clear, one way or another... 

Thanks for clarifying "angulation"

http://beckmannag.com/softboot-snowboard/instruction/05teaching-modulesdecriptions/220-inclination-and-angulation

what i was referring to was board angle related to the slope or ground:

 

In "Duck" stance:

-Toe side, high edge angle can be achieved easily by bending knees.  Assuming the angle is 90 degree between foot and lower leg, without inclination a 90 degree edge angle can easily be achieved by bending the knee with the lower leg parallel to the ground or slope with the center of mass over the board. Any upward movement would then translate to downward pressure, thus pressuring the edge downward.

 

-However, even with highback "forward lean" set at 45 degree (even at 45 degree, our ankle would prevent us from bending this far without sprain (yes, we are on the same page here)), without any inclination (crucial in riding hard condition), high edge angle could not be achieved due to bio-mechanism, thus resulting less edge pressure on hard surface.

----  (in order to achieve 90 degree edge angle) with forward lean at 45 degree, one's lower leg has to be at 45 degree in related to the ground.  With less forward lean, our lower leg has to get even closer to the ground in order to achieve high edge angle.  With our lower leg more parallel to the ground, pushing the thigh would translate less and less downward pressure.

 

If I did not explain myself clearly, please let me know, I can send image to further illustrate my thought.

 

 

 

"....Put your Toes just on the edge. Any 'underhang' ought to be on the heelside...."

Unfortunately, this is where we are not on the same page.  Given the difficulty on pressuring the heel side edge, "underhang" (everything inside the board including boot, heel loop etc.) ought to be on the toe side in order to have that extra grip on the heel side that is needed.

 

It is always nice to have a constructive discussion without being call name.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SnowboardingJ

[RCrobar]

Hello:

SnowboardJ, very interesting post.  Several weeks ago I started a thread asking 'how far can a board be tipped over?'  My hope was to better understand edge angle, board width and how it related to boot out.  This proved to be a more difficult question to get a definitive answer.  

Being a certified long time hardboot nut-ball, I moved to plan B.  What I did was get a 32" monitor and started to watch a LOT of Youtube videos of all kinds of carvers; hardboots, softboots, racers, extremecarvers, etc.  By freezing hundreds of pictures on screen, placing painters tape on the screen on the angle created by the base of the board tipped up on edge and the surface of the snow, then using a large protractor ... I recorded WAY too many base edge angles to see if there was a pattern of any type.  I feel there was a pattern, which lead me to this idea of couple edge guidelines:  The 2-4-6-8 and/or the 30-60-90 guidelines for base edge angle as a way to better understand or predict 'boot out.'

I found that skidders are probably tipping their board up on edge about 20 degrees.  People just learning to carve a few turns tipped their board up on edge about 40 degrees.  The aggressive softboot carvers, like the many Japanese videos around right now are pretty consistently tipped their board on edge around 60 degrees. and Extremecarvers and racers were often in the 80 degree range.  This is the 2-4-6-8 idea.  To simply things even more, the 30-60-90 seemed easier.  30 = new or easy carving, 60 = aggressive hard carving, and 90 = extremely hard carving.  These guidelines could help a rider better predict boot out when carving.  Yes, there were exceptions, but there was a definite pattern.

 

Now, this comes back to SnowboardingJ's diagram explaining that edge angle on the snow does not influence edge hold ... which I agree with.  When watching/freezing softboot carvers doing a fully laid out toeside extreme-type carves, their were a few examples I found where different riders had their bodies fully on the snow, but the edge angle from one rider to another could vary by as much as 20 degrees ... on a toe side turn only.  Yet, both riders carved a great turn and got up and rode away ... just interesting.

Boot out, the boards' egde angle with the snow all relates back to the original 'board width' question started by Winter Gold.  For me personally it has lead me to experimenting with risers to make the numbers work.

So, before all the engineers and kitchen physics engineers get their shorts in a bunch .... I am NOT claiming anything here!!  Just having fun, just enjoying a good discussion, so don't take this post too seriously as I am not!

It's raining a LOT here, this is what happens when it does!

Cheers

Rob 

Here I am a bunch of years ago, trying to figure out how to not 'boot out'

 

[Corey]

Note that it doesn't take too much force from body parts touching the snow to come to equilibrium at a much higher lean angle.  So, basically, we're cheating into a lower lean angle by touching the snow.  Try to get very low, now reproduce it without touching the snow at all - you can't.  

Also, the board sinks laterally into the snow varying amounts which leads to more boot drag, but the softer it is the more toe/heel contact can be tolerated.  

[BlueB]

10 hours ago, SnowboardingJ said:

Couple of things wrong with these pics... 

Pic 2 I like as it shows the Resulting Force Vector and that's what actually matters. However, the CM is placed in wrong position. It is pretty much on top of one's pelvis, within body, unless you place both hands on one side or stretch one leg out... 

Pic 1 has more wrong stuff. Let's start with sentence "Edge angle to snow surface is irrelevant to edge hold", which is very wrong. It's common sense - stand still on flat ice, flat skis, then have someone gently push your boots sideways and you'll skid. Then balance over the angled edge and suddenly there is no skid. Of course, that brings us back to the Resulting Vector from Pic 2 and that is what the Pic 1 should be showing, not just the plain direction from CM to the edge. 

The ideal edge angle to the snow is the one that offers ideal compromise of opposing the Resulting Force Vector AND driving the edge into the snow for the grip. So it can not be 0 and it can not be 90. You guessed by now... ideal is about 45, depending on the situation. Yes racers and EC riders go higher then that, but that is to: 1) tighten the turn radius, 2) oppose the centrifugal force of tight turn at high speed. 

Assuming that the edge angle is optimal for what we are doing, the RFV has to line up with the Axis from CM to the edge. CM to the inside (turn) of Axis and we fall (or EC a bit). CM to the outside of A and we highside or change the edge to the next carve. 

Last but not least, the RFV needs to be longer then A. That excess is the "edge bite" or how much force is driving the edge into the snow. Too little and we slide. Too much for the snow conditions and we slide again...