Sidecut profile & long axis flex profile - interaction and performance

[lordmetroland]

3 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

@Chouinard
Not familiar with the DOE acronym. What does it stand for?

[Chouinard]

A DOE is a planned set of tests on the response variable(s) (KPOVs) with one or more inputs (factors) (PIVs) each at two or more settings (levels) which will:

•Determine if any factor or combination of factors is significant

•Define prediction equations

•Allow efficient optimization

•Direct activity to rapid process improvements

•Create significant events for analysis

•Learning the most from as few runs as possible; efficiency is the objective of DOE

•Identifying which factors affect mean, variation, both or none

•Screening a large number of factors down to the vital few

•Modeling the process with a prediction equation

•Optimizing the factor levels for desired response

•Validating the results through confirmation

The only thing missing here is the bong.

3 hours ago, JRAZZ said:

We deep into engineer speak. I believe the intent is "Design of Experiment"

this

[Chouinard]

6 hours ago, lowrider said:

 

DOE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Not necessarily. There are two guys that ride Whitefish with a bottomless pit of boards that are uniquely qualified to do this.

Make the results public for all our talented board builders Donek, Coiler, Thirst, etc. and the race would be on. 

[NateW]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:27 AM, Jack M said:

@crackaddict 

The calculation of turning radius = sidecut radius * cosine(edge angle) is an approximation.  It kind of gives you the projection (shadow) of the sidecut onto the snow when the board is up on edge.  In real life the ends of the board will pinch in further, because the length of the board is fixed while the length of the projection is not.  I think deeper sidecut = more pinch.

The carve calculator that I had on my web site ~20 years ago worked by projecting the sidecut onto the snow. SCR wasn't an input, but sidecut depth was. I thought "scr * cos(angle)" was too simple to be accurate, but when I compared results from that approach and my approach, they were so close to identical that I figured the differences were probably just due to the quirks of floating-point arithmetic.

I never did the algebra to prove this, but I'm still pretty sure that all my extra arithmetic just reduced to calculating the SCR from 3 points and then doing a cosine.  

I don't think my math took board length "contraction" into account though.