Coiler Contra Free Ride (CFR) Hybrid 164

[Xargo]

In order to not spam the board porn thread with too much info, I'll post some specs for discussion about my new wide Contra here. So the Contra I just received two days ago is some kind of space age hybrid design. I don't know specifically what Bruce did but the result is spectacular. He said the design of the board is about 80% hardboot and 20% softboot design. I haven't ridden a softboot Contra so don't have any idea how they ride but I do have a 247mm wide hardboot Contra ECC and this new hybrid design is way more forgiving without having lost any of the carving performance (first impression).

I didn't think it would be possible that rather short (136cm ee) 300mm wide stiff carver with 16m scr could be fun to ride in slush but it is! Just magical. Yesterday was slush and today we got some 10-15cm of fresh snow (rare this late) on top of icy groomers (slush was groomed after freezing yesterday evening) and the board worked great on "pow" as well. I just didn't expect that. Also when I hit an icy spot where the fresh snow was wiped clean, the edge would bite like crazy. I did expect the board to have crazy good edge hold though so that wasn't surprising.

Carving performance seems to be very similar to my hardboot Contra (also with 16m scr) but I haven't had a chance to really do consecutive turns yet because of the fresh snow forming too many moguls. So jury is still out but first impressions are looking really really good.

Does anyone else here have these hybrid designs? Bruce said he has made some but I hear it's pretty new thing.

Sidewall specs say this is 7.6 (or 7.8, it's a bit smudged) + 9. Contra ECC is 6.7 + 9 (but it's 10cm longer overall and I think the difference in ee is even larger).

Edited April 30, 2023 by Xargo
Added photo showing both boards, 164 Hybrid on the left

[Xargo]

Got confirmation from Bruce. It's 7.6 flex. Some pics from today:

Too soft to drag my body too much so I'm afraid I have to disappoint by not posting any butt up pics.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting shape, reminds me a little of an old-school board but can’t quite put my finger on which one. Is that tail raised much?

I’m interested to hear Bruce’s explanation for this new hybrid construction, though! 

His flex numbers are not absolute and technically don’t transfer between board types, but 7.6 seems damn stiff to me. Are you a bigger guy? 

[Xargo]

182cm, 82kg and mondo 270 shoe. Remember that shorter the board, the bigger the flex number with the same "stiffness" since there's less displacement. I didn't ask Bruce to go for any specific flex number but just told him how I want to ride the board. I did ask for a stiff nose and tail and mid soft between the bindings. I also ride the board with rather wide stance (58cm).

Tail is raised less than I thought it would be. 15mm from the floor to the base when I'm standing on top of the board. Though I did tell Bruce not to raise the tail and nose too much because this board is designed to carve with the flex so a lot of tip rise would make the tips contribute in bending the board too much. This is one thing I dislike about the Contra ECC nose. It makes the board turn too fast if I load the nose. I did detune the nose though and now it's much better. Didn't do any detunes with this new board and no problems with the tips at least so far.

I tried to ride switch a bit as well and that worked pretty well. I don't really ride switch though (yet).

I would also like to hear more about these hybrids. I only know this works really really well for what I wanted and the 80/20 figure but everything else is pretty much mystery for me.

I have Lib Tech Short & Fat as well and I'm going to sell that board now (or hang it on the wall). This birdie does everything better and so much more.

[crackaddict]

3 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

reminds me a little of an old-school board but can’t quite put my finger on which one.

This one?  Sims Freestyle 165 circa 1992: very little sidecut depth and straight sections at the ends of the effective edge.  Not as wide of course but the shape is reminiscent.

 

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Similar era — I think it was a wider early-90s Burton Air with larger sidecut! 

[dhamann]

22 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

reminds me a little of an old-school board

maybe a Mystery 6 ground. has the ring of an alarm clock. an M6 and a mystery air.

[Xargo]

Interesting. I did think the shape had an old-school vibe but didn't realize it was that close to real vintage boards. I started snowboarding in the mid nineties so haven't ridden any of those classics.

At first I thought of a different shape and graphics but didn't like how blunter noses worked in a wide board so I made new graphics that worked with this kind of shape. Actually these graphics would have worked better with a longer board but I wanted to keep the board short.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Interesting, I haven’t given much thought to nose shape for carving purposes. What was your experience? 

[Xargo]

Oh, the last comment was just regarding how the graphics would have looked. I mean the blunt nosed wide board aesthetics.

If you mean this part though, I can elaborate a bit more.

On 4/30/2023 at 5:21 PM, Xargo said:

This is one thing I dislike about the Contra ECC nose.

If you go for extreme edge angles and think about what kind of line the board would like to draw, the shape depends on how much you muscle the board and thus decamber it. Now if you think about what happens in nose section of the board where the nose is raised, it rises even more. That's not a problem if the sidecut of that part doesn't engage but if it does, the nose will bite and turn the board more than what might be intended.

Of course it's also possible to do this intentionally but the way I want to ride, I want to control the turn shape by bending the mid part of the board and load the nose to maximize grip. Thus I specifically asked Bruce for a nose shape that doesn't rise much until it's narrow enough to not contribute in the turn by nose biting even if I load the nose quite a bit. Long pointed nose does this wonderfully so I can get more nose rise without the nose bite.

I still don't have enough runs with this new board to say for sure but it looks like I can load the nose a lot more without nose biting too much. Blunt nose would have worked as well but the rise would have needed to be less than with this new CFR. I'm not saying that blunt nose with a lot of rise is bad, just that it doesn't work for me (this is pretty much the only thing I would change about Contra ECC if I was ordering it now).

Contra ECC has 36mm nose rise and CFR has 40mm. As mentioned, detune helped with the Contra ECC nose bite but looks like this CFR doesn't need it so looks like a successful design change.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I guess I haven’t put much thought into nose design and turn initiation. I haven’t noticed much of a difference with the hammerhead shapes other than you can obtain a longer effective edge with a shorter board length. Every race board has a hammerhead nose shape and they get high on edge?

[Xargo]

8 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

I guess I haven’t put much thought into nose design and turn initiation. I haven’t noticed much of a difference with the hammerhead shapes other than you can obtain a longer effective edge with a shorter board length. Every race board has a hammerhead nose shape and they get high on edge?

True, the main difference is that when a racer loads the nose, he wants to turn pretty sharply. When I load the nose, I still want to do a big radius turn and just load the nose to make sure I have good grip. Of course the grip is also important in racing.

I only have one race board (Kessler 185 GS, don't know the specific model but with titanal topsheet) and that has 34mm rise and 14mm rocker at the contact point. My CFR has essentially zero rocker at the nose contact point. I measured 1.5mm but not really in controlled enough environment, so essentially zero.

This week I've trenched the CFR nose 10cm deep in soft snow and haven't had any problems. Also flex plays a major role in how tight the nose will want to turn the board. I asked Bruce for a stiffer nose for CFR so that's also a key difference compared to ECC. That said, it's still a lot softer than the nose of the Kessler.

All this doesn't mean that I would think that nose rockers and/or blunt noses with significant rise are bad. I just didn't want that for the kind of riding I do but I still wanted to have rather big raised nose for soft snow. This nose design works for me.

[Xargo]

Here's a series of 3 photos showing the problem with the ECC nose. In the first image the board tracks nicely (notice the lack of spray) but there's not much room for error because the slope is rather firm (well groomed though):

In the second photo the nose has already bounced once but that wasn't too bad and I could somewhat recover. But in this photo you can see that the nose has "overturned", bent a lot and I'm doing my best to maintain grip (at this point it's basically game over already):

Then just two frames later you can see how I've failed to maintain the grip and there a major nose bounce:

After that I couldn't recover anymore and the turn was a failure. I didn't even load the nose much in this example. This was before I detuned the nose. After the detune, the nose wouldn't bite like this anymore in firm snow so this turn would work just fine with the current ECC setup. However, detune doesn't help in softer snow where the nose trenches and that's where the CFR with improved nose design comes in. Now I can ride ECC when groomers are good and then switch to CFR when the conditions get worse. I also have second hand ECVC with Bruce's "hybrid nose" and that doesn't have this same problem what ECC has.

I specifically asked for this nose shape for ECC to ride pow a bit, so my own fault. Just didn't realize it would work like this.

[Xargo]

... but back to the hybrid bit. This is my 3 board quiver for the next season. I've ridden the CFR only with softboots for now but today I got solid board pucks so I'm going to test it with AT boots tomorrow. The idea is that I can swap between softboot and hardboot setup using those quick release bindings. I also like how Spark R&D system is so thin. I dislike risers:

Conditions are too soft to do anything with the ECC but with this setup, those Hawx XTD boots fit to all of these three boards (I just put those softboot Spark Surge bindings there for reference, I do have tech toes for that split). Of course it's also possible to ride the CFR with Surges and softboots.

[Xargo]

Just a small update about the binding/boot setup. I've ridden the board now with two of my favorite softboot bindings (Salomon Quantum and Nidecker Kaon-CX). Quantums are already enough to power the board. Kaon-CX gives more support but sadly the heel loop is rather thick so bindings are dragging in slush even with board this wide and -21/+21 angles. Kaon-CX will probably be my choice for hardpack but that's a test for the next season.

Hawx XTDs worked great but I felt like I didn't need the extra response to power this board. Still nice to be able to ride alpine and duck setup with same boots but I didn't ride ECC now for these last days of the season. I also tried Surges and those worked great. Kind of in between Quantums and Kaon-CX in terms of support but the footprint is much smaller than Kaon-CX and about the same than Quantums. Enjoyed Surges so much that I didn't switch back to "normal" softboot bindings for the closing day. This is with Surges:

Next season will be amazing. Massive thanks to Bruce for making my dream board reality!

[Xargo]

So I've been out with the board three times this season and I think I found my favorite binding setup. Nitro Machine with Phantom Carver ankle straps. -21/+21deg 58cm duck stance. The heel loop does come a bit over the board so I have to watch out on a softer snow with the heelside turns. I've been using old Salomon F4.0 which aren't that stiff and I have used them quite a bit so basically mid flex boots now. I wanted to first try soft boots and only go stiffer if I feel like I need it. Looks like these work fine.

Conditions have been great for this early season. Some tracks from my first test session with the board this season:

Yesterday the slopes were also very well groomed and firm but not that good weather. The board held an edge really really well. Had such a great time so I tried to film a bit today but it was poor visibility and the surface was too soft... Oh well, still got some footage and it was nice to learn to trust the board as I couldn't see much of the surface details:

Does that last turn qualify as an EC-turn?

Can't wait for the black slopes to open. Now I'm limited to some 21deg slopes.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Xargo

[johnasmo]

On 4/30/2023 at 11:04 AM, crackaddict said:

This one?  Sims Freestyle 165 circa 1992: very little sidecut depth and straight sections at the ends of the effective edge.  Not as wide of course but the shape is reminiscent.

 

I've been trying to convince Bruce to let me transition the sidecut to straight by the time the camber switches to rocker, but he's hesitant to let me bake that into the sidecut templates.  He does a few different lengths from each template.  Maybe someone needs to specifically order one that way?

I thought 16 was crazy for anyone whose name isn't James.  Glad it's working for you.  It's basically a Contra-BX 16, which under closer examination is a 18.5 - 13.9 - 16.9 - 15.8 - 21.  He's built a lot of that shape for Korean riders, but thus far only up to 14m.

[Xargo]

8 hours ago, johnasmo said:

I've been trying to convince Bruce to let me transition the sidecut to straight by the time the camber switches to rocker, but he's hesitant to let me bake that into the sidecut templates.  He does a few different lengths from each template.  Maybe someone needs to specifically order one that way?

I thought 16 was crazy for anyone whose name isn't James.  Glad it's working for you.  It's basically a Contra-BX 16, which under closer examination is a 18.5 - 13.9 - 16.9 - 15.8 - 21.  He's built a lot of that shape for Korean riders, but thus far only up to 14m.

Thanks, I'll take that as a big compliment.

Just to make sure, are those sidecut numbers from nose to tail? I always mix these kinds of things up.

If I understood Bruce right, I think he was mostly concerned that the big scr wouldn't work with 136cm EE. I already had 16m Contra scr in my EC-board (which works great with softboots, just too narrow) so I was pretty confident that this would work too.

What would be the intended improvement with those straight sections? I'm always up for testing new stuff and considering I'm very much in the process of getting another one of these excellent boards so I have a spare, it could be maybe with some small tweaks (I'm just hesitant about using some of the rather short 136cm EE for straight sections). Though as far as I understood, the rocker is pretty minimal in my board because my earlier hardboot EC-Contra had issues with the nose turning too tight and thus I specifically requested for less rocker and slower nose rise. This new board works beautifully even when I load the nose hard. It's very important when I ride those black diamonds (which I got to ride yesterday and it was stellar).

No footage from that slope though because it was overcast when I rode it but I can now confirm that this kind of duck heelside works great with this setup at least with 29° steep slope (the steepest part I measured). This is from a much mellower slope but shows the nose loading pose pretty well (I probably load the nose even more when riding steeps, oh and no setback to let me do the same thing switch later):

Here are some heelside tracks from the 29° section of that black diamond slope, really impressed by how well the board tracks:

The surface was really well groomed man made snow and it was -20°C that morning. Funny how that looks so flat without any cues for how steep it really is.

Here are three runs from yesterday in reverse chronological order (these are all from red runs, I wouldn't dare to attempt that black diamond with alternating hands selfie stick just yet anyways):

 

[dhamann]

modernized

[johnasmo]

7 hours ago, Xargo said:

Just to make sure, are those sidecut numbers from nose to tail? I always mix these kinds of things up.

What would be the intended improvement with those straight sections?

Yes, tip to tail.  Sharing the full details of your sidecut here.  There are a number of control points with parameterized relationships to one another as well as to effective length and setback and stance positions.  The specific parameters of those relationships define the overall shape of a model.  The control points are then navigated using constant acceleration or deceleration of curvature.  That makes for a continuously changing radius with no abrupt changes to curvature.  Then the shape is scaled so the sidecut depth matches a "radial equivalent" depth of desired radius.  I think sidecut depth equivalence is a better predictor of how it will feel than average radius.

The Contra shape already goes to longer radius at the ends, but well short of becoming straight, and thus far not parametrically integrated with the tip and tail de-camber of "early rise" core profiles.  Unless the builder sands back the sidecut as part of blending to the nose and tail shapes, there could be sidecut curvature all the way to the end of the effective edge.  But if the base has already transitioned from camber to rocker by then, there's no need to add any sidecut-induced flex and little ability to anyway since there's no further edge contact to lever against.

My thinking is that being straight there would better spread the edge pressure back from the very end of the effective, making it grab and seek less.  You're build, with the more gradual drawn out nose decamber, sort of points in that direction.  The effect of the "low-rise" rocker should be more noticeable than what I'm proposing anyway.  What happens to the sidecut in the first or last 150 mm of the effective isn't of much consequence compared to the shape of the rocker in that area.  I just like to make the math elegant.

That said, the longer these drawn out noses and tails get, the more the effect on the sidecut should be considered.  I've already got decamber compensation control points in my design worksheet.  Just waiting for a build that needs them.  I could even inflect the sidecut curvature past straight into the other direction to make a big floaty nose like on a Jones Mind Expander.  Any takers?

[Xargo]

15 hours ago, johnasmo said:

I could even inflect the sidecut curvature past straight into the other direction to make a big floaty nose like on a Jones Mind Expander.  Any takers?

Well the idea with the second sample of this CFR would be to tune it a bit towards pow riding so kinda yeah. That said, what little pow I've ridden with the current board, it works great so I probably don't need more nose than what I currently have but I have to think about it a bit. What I'm more interested about is deep shallowtail. Something like this but with the 16m sidecut design and flex of my current board:

 

But I like the thinking regarding that sidecut math. Another thing I've been thinking about is if you guys have tried symmetrical Contra sidecut. I mean pretty much mirroring the nose for the tail. I know this works against the directional principle of the design but the way I pressure those heelside carves, I feel like I hardly have any weight on my back foot (especially when riding steeps). This got me thinking that if the tail would have the same sidecut design than the nose, maybe that would be good for switch carving and wouldn't affect "normal" high edge angle riding much. Though admittedly I do pressure the tail more during the toeside turns but with duck stance, it's the heelside turn that is more demanding anyways so I'd rather tune the board for that.

In any case I need to first try how the current design works when carving switch. It's so damn good that I'm hesitant to make any big changes. At the moment I'm feeling like sticking with the current specs and adding that shallowtail and the straight sections.

Oh and thank you so much for sharing the sidecut design. I have this illness of being an engineer that I really appreciate the data. Looks kind of like owner's manual to me where I can read how to best ride the board.

[johnasmo]

17 hours ago, Xargo said:

Another thing I've been thinking about is if you guys have tried symmetrical Contra sidecut. I mean pretty much mirroring the nose for the tail. I know this works against the directional principle of the design but the way I pressure those heelside carves, I feel like I hardly have any weight on my back foot (especially when riding steeps). This got me thinking that if the tail would have the same sidecut design than the nose, maybe that would be good for switch carving and wouldn't affect "normal" high edge angle riding much.

I bet it would be easier to talk Bruce into building a true twin tip than into building a swallowtail.  I can see it being a hassle to deal with the edges on that.

@dredmanchatted with Sean Martin and Ryan Knapton last spring about building a Donek Knapton Twin with a Contra sidecut.  The Knapton Twins are radial right now.  Sean already has the worksheet for doing the new "Turner" alpine model, and it would be super easy for him to mirror the shaping parameters front and back and have a true twin tip.  That's exactly what was talked about, but I don't think he ever got around to building a prototype.

[Xargo]

13 hours ago, johnasmo said:

@dredmanchatted with Sean Martin and Ryan Knapton last spring about building a Donek Knapton Twin with a Contra sidecut.  The Knapton Twins are radial right now.  Sean already has the worksheet for doing the new "Turner" alpine model, and it would be super easy for him to mirror the shaping parameters front and back and have a true twin tip.  That's exactly what was talked about, but I don't think he ever got around to building a prototype.

Thanks for the info. At the moment I'm thinking it's probably best not to make too many changes after all (but that straight section tweak sounds safe enough), especially if Donek could do Contra sidecut variations. Hell, I'm not even sure if I enjoy switch carving but I try to get everything ready while I can still get these amazing boards.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Xargo

[Xargo]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:56 PM, Xargo said:

No footage from that slope though because it was overcast when I rode it but I can now confirm that this kind of duck heelside works great with this setup at least with 29° steep slope (the steepest part I measured).

Now I've got the footage. This is what the board was designed for and it does it very very well: