trailertrash Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sean Martin of Donek graciously donated a board to the ECES raffle. Thanks to slipping Patrice a handful of persuasion, I won it. I have my choice of a custom board or any board with the olympic upgrade. Currently I have 3 Priors one 4wd (169) and 2 WCR's (161, 175). I weigh about 155 and ride size 25 boots. No idea what to get and actually in no hurry. What do you think I should get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekdut Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 How much do you weigh and how big are your feet? Perhaps go for a longer (180cm+) board with a bigger sidecut than the boards you already have. 186 CMC GSii w/ Olympic would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurman Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Definitly get the 228 CMC SG. That's over 7' of board! Better value that way. It's like shopping at Costco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 As an owner of an Olympic board, IMHO the Olympic upgrade is more worthwhile than a custom shape unless you either have something specific in mind already, or can't find anything you're interested in from his long list of existing shapes. I also sport 25 cm shells, and I like 18 - 18.5 waists - that's angles in the mid to upper 50's at a stance of just less than 20" wide. I've ridden the 186 CMC and would love to try it in Olympic, although I think my next Donek will be a slightly smaller 180 / 14m instead because I already have a Coiler PR 188 which is very similar to the 186 CMC. When customs were $850, I couldn't really justify it - but I ponied up the same amount for the Olympic without hesitation. All I know is, it really works well on my 175 - very quiet ride, very confidence-inspiring, but much easier to do airborne edge-changes than something like a Coiler Superboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinecure Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Get him to make an awesome split tail powder board custom. That way the rest of us can buy it as an already available pattern. 185 length, swallowtail (a la Winterstick), 22-23cm waist, huge sidecut, big pointy nose. Stiff enough in the middle that it won't break. Reinforce the swallow section for the same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 length: 180 radius: 14m waist: 18.5 or 19cm. oh look, that's the stock 180 GS. or if you like the width of your Priors, go 19.5cm. But I would think you'd be able to fit on an 18.5cm waist no prob with 25 mondos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeoffV Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 John, Jack's right try a bigger board and sidecut, you've got everything else in your quiver you need except a bigger board. You'll grow into a bigger board next season for sure they way you've been riding at the ECES :D . I have a 182 Donek with a 18cm waist and 13m sidecut. You are welcome to try it this season or next to see if you'd like the larger board and sidecut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Id get something bigger. . . the way I learned how to ride my 185 was to get a 195. . . The way I learned how to ride my 195 was to get a 205. Get something 10cm(ish) longer than your current "long board." Based on the list of boards sean has, you are better of going with the olympic upgrade instead of the custom. There are several 185ish boards that would fit the bill. just my 2 cents. -Todd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philfell Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sell the gift certificate and buy a titinal Prior or Coiler. Sorry I couldn't resist..........Come on it's funny............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdboytyler Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sell the gift certificate and buy a titinal Prior or Coiler. You need to follow this up with a head to head to head review of a Donek Olympic Construction Board vs titanal Prior vs titanal Coiler. Don't pull any punches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sell the gift certificate and buy a titinal Prior or Coiler. Sorry I couldn't resist..........Come on it's funny............... Phil has definitely let us all know his feelings regarding metal boards. I had a certain goal when developing the Olympic construction. I wanted to develop a board that would provide a smoother ride on harder snow conditions without degrading the durability of the board. In every test we performed with metal, the metal boards had premature failures at the metal bond layer. The Olympic construction uses alternate means of generating a damp ride while maintaining the same durability my customers have come to expect from my product. In testing, all of my world cup racers as well as myself found the Olympic construction achieved our goal of a damper ride better than the metal did. There have been comments regarding the ski industries ability to solve these durability issues. This is, I assume, an implication that small niche market board builders should also be able to spend inordinate amounts of money to solve the same problems. I would argue that is unlikely. There is very good engineering data explaining the metals success in the ski industry and relative lack of success (from a durability stand point) in the snowboard industry. If you examine the board as a simple beam and look at shear flow in a ski versus a snowboard, you will find that the shear in a snowboard is higher than that in a ski of equivalent stiffness. This is because it is necessary to make a narrower ski, of equivalent stiffness, thicker. As thickness increases in a composite beam the shear flow decrease. Thus the shear stress on the laminates of a metal ski is much lower than the shear stress on the laminates in a snowboard. Many builders’ solution to this problem is to place rubber between the metal laminates and the core material. This is a problematic solution though as the rubber becomes the primary shear layer instead of the wood core. This rubber adds a large degree of dampness to the board, but has an even shorter life in shear than the wood core does. As a result, the laminates may stay together, but the board will progressively loose stiffness much faster. I know there are many people who would love to ride the latest and greatest metal board. I am doing some further testing with metal, but using it in a manner that hopefully will not degrade the longevity of my product. If this is successful and the metal proves to be beneficial, you can be assured it will be made available. Until then, I will continue to produce the absolute best product I can and you can be assured it will provide a large number of enjoyable days on snow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I like wood, (and not just in the morning ). Wood has a soul that metal doesn't have. The durablity issue bothers me almost as much. Oh and if it were my choice I'd get the 189 Drescher GS with Olympic construction but that's me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philfell Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sean, I didn't mean anything insulting in my post. It was a light hearted joke. I'm super glad to see you haven't given up on testing and using metal. When I say that ski companies have money to figure it out and small builder don't, that is weak though. Take what ski companies have already figured out. Also there are other small niche builders use metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdboytyler Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Wood has a soul that metal doesn't have. The durablity issue bothers me almost as much. I remember hearing the exact same argument against using foam cores. As far as I know, foam cores died due to loss of camber issue. Hopefully we find out the titanal boards are durable enough for recreational riders. I'd recommend demoing a longer board with bigger sidecut before making your decision. If you figure out you don't want to go longer, get an Olympic construction board that closely matches your favorite WCR. Then sell the extra board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Wood has a soul that metal doesn't have. Having ridden an Olympic and a Metal back to back at SES, I'd have to agree... the Metal didn't do it for me. I understood the appeal but it just wasn't as enjoyable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ong Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 A racer explained to me that metal boards have a very linear flex right from the get go so it seems are built softer to begin with. Maybe race boards are softer in general anyway. Why do you suppose a board that has this characteristic rides better? Why should joe carver care? We need the people who alredy have metal boards to keep us updated as they get 50+ days on it. Longevity and how the camber holds up are foremost in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Download that Olympic PGS video and watch the slow-mo replays. You can see the nose of the metal boards bouncing off the race ruts, but the vibration doesn't seem to affect the rider. Under the feet, the board is quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailertrash Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sean doesn't make a metal board, why is there talk of it in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordy Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I have seen several metal doneks. Sean Is a great board builder and has decided to work around metal becuase he has workrd with metal and feels he has other options. Any Donek you end up with is going to be sweet. Plus the price was right! For the recreational rider I would go with shape over core! Just go fast on the thing John and it will be good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCrider Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Go for the metal hybrid. Its the build I'm after. metal for that tenacious hold and still enough camber and oomph in the tail to porpoise on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Phil et al, Maybe we should take this conversation to another thread and get this thread back on topic for John. that being said. I worked a heap in the demo tent at the ECES and found it interesting to get people's feedback on the several metal boards. Personally, I thought they were a good ride. . . however many people came back disliking the board because it was too damp and they got no feedback and no "pop" out of the board. I would say that it was close to a 50 50 split. I would guess (not being a racer) that the metal boards might be better suited in the race course then in a freecarving sense. As a global alpine snowboarding statement. . . I dont think that they are better. . .just different. Its all in how you ride (or in some cases how your coach rides) and what you want to get out of the board. I could go on at nausium about the difference between board preference as it relates to riding styles exhibited at the ECES. There were some very interesting trends observed that really made me thing about what the "perfect" board is. I came away from the event with a different method of reccomending boards for an individual that MUST start with understanding how they ride. Without knowing and preferentially seeing how an individual rides, I personally refrain from making reccomendations as extreme as the dampness of the metal boards. just my 2 cents. . . of pure opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tb Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 back to the board. . . 182-186 GS board. . . .with olympic construction. There are several on the list that would be just fine for you. at your weight, you might want to stay slightly on the soft side. here are a list of boards that I think you might like. . . (for reverence, your 161 is a 19.5 waist with a 9.8 m radius, and your 175 is 19.5 waist with an 11.9m radius, based on your boots and angle, you could probably go narrower and be happier. I ride 63/60 with 26.0 shells and fit comfortably on an 18.5 waist) 180 GS 18.5 waist, 14m SCR, the bread and butter GS board. 180 Hyunso GS 19.0 waist, 14m SCR, shorter and softer 182 Tower GS 18.0 waist, 14.5m SCR, stiffer, but not too stiff 186 CMC GSaII 18.5 waist, 15m SCR, not too stiff. My "custom" 185 is this board: 185 Stradley GSa _18.5. Based on the name you can see that it was based off of the stradley GS board and simply narrowed down. its an 18.5 waist and 16m SCR. I would reccomend staying "below" this board in stiffness and SCR. Bob will tell you that the board is even too stiff for me at 175lbs. Where am I rambling off to . . . 1) pick a waist width based on your boots and angles 2) stay less than 8.8 on the stiffness scale 3) I would go bigger than your 175 in both length (180-189) and SCR (13m+). If you stay in the above range, you will end up with a "board to grow into." You will be able to ride it, but you will have to work a little to do so. It will fill out the "long" end of your quiver. When you ride the new board, and then go back to your 175, you will be able to ride your 175 much more confidently in all conditions. once again, my 2 cents and oppinion. -Todd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donek Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Download that Olympic PGS video and watch the slow-mo replays. You can see the nose of the metal boards bouncing off the race ruts, but the vibration doesn't seem to affect the rider. Under the feet, the board is quiet. Jack, This has very little to do with the titanal and a great deal to do with the geometry. The tails of the Kesslers are so much stiffer and shorter than the shovels that they can not support the vibrational frequencies you're seeing in the shovel. I've watched these boards on high speed video and compared them to boards I built with similar geometries. They react in the same way without the use of titanal. As an engineer, you know that there are a million different solutions that can bring you to the same result. Titanal is percieved by racers as the band aid that will solve everything. It may impart some nice things to the boards, but no material is going to make an average racer a winner. That comes from hard training, quality coaching and the right board for the rider and coach. It is my contention that the Swiss teams success (this is really the central theme for US racing that surrounds discussions of titanal) has almost nothing to do with Titanal. The Swiss have most likely been reading eveyones posts here on the subject and laughing their heads off. If you examine any successful team in any sport, the coach is the center of attention, not the athlete or the ball. In snowboard racing everyone is focused on the ball (board) and the athlete, nobody looks at the coach. If racing in the US is to be successful there needs to a complete shift of focus. The Swiss are successfull because they have a strong coach who has control of his athletes and works in tandem with a board builder to develop boards that compliment his coaching style and the styel of his riders. Until this happens in the US, our athletes and coaches will continue to seek the band aid that will fix their problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sean doesn't make a metal board, why is there talk of it in this thread? Sorry, just responding to some of the thoughts expressed. I would not worry about having metal or not for a freecarving board. If Sean is confident in his Olympic construction, that's good enough for me. Sean is an engineer and has the science to back up his claims. My point about the slow-mo video was just that racers are going for super damp boards (and flimsy bindings) and the appropriate geometry to deal with race ruts - something we freecarvers rarely encounter. Edit: I agree with Sean's post above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sean doesn't make a metal board, why is there talk of it in this thread? If you're referring to my post, it was a Donek Olympic vs. a Prior Metal. Or perhaps you're referring to Phil's post... 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.