Donek Freecarve vs Metal FC

[jburk]

Are these two boards the same shape, camber, dimensions, etc, and differ only in the laminate sandwich composition?

For those that have had the chance to ride both, how does the ride compare between the two?

Never having had the opportunity to ride a metal board myself, I won’t be able to relate when someone will invariably describe it as “more damp”, so please take pity on me and use a different adjective. 

[BlueB]

The old glass FC was a completely different board then news metal FC... I don't know if there was an modernised version of glass FC. 

[snowboardfast]

If no one answers on this forum you could contact Donek snowboards and they would be able to explain the diffrences in the 2 boards. They are making the glass free  carve again with newer dimensions. 

[Eric Brammer aka PSR]

I can't say a thing about the 'new' freecarve Glass board, but the old one was Lively, Smooth, flexed nicely, until you exceeded it's grip under high-pressure turns, usually on very firm snow. Then it 'fell apart' and you went elsewhere, usually along the fall-line (oh, that's why it's called...that...) on your knees/back. The METAL allowed for a damper ride, better edge-hold, but lost the 'nimble+lively' feel. A better Race board, and a decent hard-park deep carver, it also could deal with raised plate systems.  But, is power steering lost on a Porsche?? The newer non-metal boards I've been on from Donek make me think, and hope, that the 'glass' Freecarve has no power-steering, but better tires, and the 911 is ready to Rally again.

 

[SunSurfer]

5 hours ago, jburk said:

Never having had the opportunity to ride a metal board myself, I won’t be able to relate when someone will invariably describe it as “more damp”, so please take pity on me and use a different adjective. 

Not damp, as in "wetter", more as in "damping ratio"  (see below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio

I haven't ridden a board I thought was overdamped. Possibly a custom raceboard might be overdamped (and also overly stiff) for a weekend warrior. 

The metal in most boards seems to have been Titanal 0.3mm 

https://www.amag.at/en/our-aluminium/sporting-consumer-products/sporting-goods/amag-titanalr.html

but recently, due to supply issues, Bruce Varsava @ Coiler has been working with 0.4mm Titanal. I own a 2017 Nirvana Energy with 0.4mm Titanal, and my experience with it at ATC 2017, and that of other more experienced riders, is that this thickness seems to also add to the torsional rigidity of the board, i.e. the edge hold is a step up from the equivalent 0.3mm Nirvana. Mine soaks up the bumps so well that though I ride many of my other boards with a full isolation plate, I'm very happy to ride this Nirvana without.

[jburk]

OK, damping as the characteristic rate for which an oscillating system returns to its initial static state after absorbing energy makes a lot of sense in this regard.  I spent a lot of time back in the day tuning suspension on motorcycles and then later mountain bikes.  Wheeled suspension systems that I'm familiar with are interesting in that they provide separate damping circuits and adjustments for compression and rebound damping; if only snowboards could do the same.

In the context of how damping relates to a snowboard, I'm guessing the primary motivation is absorption of energy imparted by the surface ("smoothness"?), with the tradeoff being how quickly stored energy is returned from the system (is that what a lot of people refer to as "pop"?).

[snowwjob1]

I just ordered a FC with the secret construction which is supposed to be Sean's first time on the FC. It has similar specs to the Metal FC. I recommend talking to Sean about what you want out of your board and then make your decision.

[Corey]

1 hour ago, jburk said:

In the context of how damping relates to a snowboard, I'm guessing the primary motivation is absorption of energy imparted by the surface ("smoothness"?), with the tradeoff being how quickly stored energy is returned from the system (is that what a lot of people refer to as "pop"?).

The best physical analogy I can think of is riding a road bike with very high pressure in the narrow tires.  That's like a fiberglass board, passing a lot of the high frequencies through to you.  Then take the same bike and use wider slicks but at 50 psi and ride over the same surface.  That's like a metal/rubber board, with less of the 'noise' making it to you.  Ignore traction/resistance/etc. as the analogy falls apart other than the vibrations making it back to the rider.  

You can have a damp board that has a pop at the end of the turn, and you can have a lively board that has no pop at the end of the turn.  From talking to the various board makers, that 'pop' is more of a function of tail stiffness and tail sidecut radius.  

[jburk]

48 minutes ago, corey_dyck said:

The best physical analogy I can think of is riding a road bike with very high pressure in the narrow tires.  That's like a fiberglass board, passing a lot of the high frequencies through to you.  Then take the same bike and use wider slicks but at 50 psi and ride over the same surface.  That's like a metal/rubber board, with less of the 'noise' making it to you.  Ignore traction/resistance/etc. as the analogy falls apart other than the vibrations making it back to the rider.  

Thanks, that's something I can easily relate to.  Rode everything from track bikes with 140 psi tires to full-on downhill sleds with 3.0 tires and 22psi.  Granted the track bikes were only ever ridden on smooth wooden track surfaces, at the velodrome I mostly rode at you could still feel the difference between the vertically sandwiched boards below the stayer's line and the plywood on the high banks, while the downhill bikes would roll over rocks the size of golfballs with almost no feedback.

[Beckmann AG]

Metal v glass is like tubulars v clinchers, four stroke v two stroke, or Lennie Small v George Milton.

Or like the compound Hutchinson is using in their XC tires today, v what they were using circa 2001.

 

Haven't recently scanned the geometry, but when I spec'd my metal FC a few years ago, the revised glass board had an 'early rise' nose.

I like my metal FC, and it's built very much like the original glass boards. It does handle differently though.

Both versions are quite capable and user friendly.

If you have experienced the kind of 'speed wobble' that chucks you off your line, and out of a turn, the metal board will resolve much of that nastiness without additional skill development.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Beckmann AG

[b0ardski]

On 9/25/2017 at 9:24 AM, jburk said:

OK, damping as the characteristic rate for which an oscillating system returns to its initial static state after absorbing energy makes a lot of sense in this regard.  I spent a lot of time back in the day tuning suspension on motorcycles and then later mountain bikes.  Wheeled suspension systems that I'm familiar with are interesting in that they provide separate damping circuits and adjustments for compression and rebound damping; if only snowboards could do the same.

In the context of how damping relates to a snowboard, I'm guessing the primary motivation is absorption of energy imparted by the surface ("smoothness"?), with the tradeoff being how quickly stored energy is returned from the system (is that what a lot of people refer to as "pop"?).

snow stix

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by b0ardski