Quiver thoughts

[lafcadio]

...but it's metal. That does not seem to compute...? What's the deal here?

I talked with Sean about this at ECES and he says that the side cut is tighter in the tail than the nose to approximate the energy off the tail like the old glass boards.

I've not had a great experience riding a metal board yet, but of the metal boards I tried, I disliked the Proteus the least. I think I probably just need to give it more time. I find it difficult to have fun on a new board in a few runs.

[Jack Michaud]

Jack you are killing me I had the same thoughts after testing some of Seans boards. I want some serious tail pop back in my life. I rode the Proteus 180, it was a great board, damp but still lively if that makes sense. I was very impressed with it. What I really wanted to try was the 180 Carbon-fibre topsheet that Sean had at the ECES, but it was a popular board and was always out on the hill. Maybe next season I'll see if I can test some glass-carbon boards.

Geoff, you can just ride one of "your" Madd 170s, right?

New school decambered VSR shapes in a glass/carbon board thats what I want.

Yeah, that's a bit different.

Never had a metal board but I get back to my no decamber old shaped Burton FP 178 and Wow everything is great, my thought is that decamber and the other new things are useful for racing but not for everyday carving.

Not true. Decambered nose is a huge benefit for freecarving. It aligns the upturn of the nose with the sidecut much better. The nose slices instead of plows. It also rides over ruts and bumps more smoothly.

[tahoetrencher]

"HUGE benefit for freecarving"

Maybe theoretically, yes.

But couldn't an inefficiently shaped nose add energy to the board?

Slower in the gates for sure, but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

Just asking.

[Buell]

Decambered nose is a huge benefit for freecarving. It aligns the upturn of the nose with the sidecut much better. The nose slices instead of plows. It also rides over ruts and bumps more smoothly.

I fully agree with this. Another thing it does is takes some of the load off the nose and tail at turn initiation and brings it toward the middle of the board. That helps make the board less hooky and reactive.

I have never ridden a non-metal decambered nose board so it is hard to say for sure but decamber could be as important as metal in the advancement of our boards

I had an early Prior Metal and an early Coiler Metal. Bruce sent the Bachelor crew one of his early metal decambered prototypes. I knew immediately that board was a huge step forward from my non-decambered metal boards. In the spring conditions that day with slush on one side of the run and ice on the other side, that prototype just killed my two metal non decambered boards for ease of riding. It made such an easy transition between the different snow consistencies.

[tahoetrencher]

That seems to be the current feeling, Buell.

But as to "taking the load off" the board,
is that always a good thing?

[lonbordin]

My recent trip to CO was my first shot a trying decambered boards. (Yeah, years behind the curve...)

It was like someone took the brakes off. Completely off. Wheeeeeeeeeee!

I spoke to a highly regarded boardmaker about this phenomena... his simplified (by me) take was that cambered noses were one of the easiest ways to put on the brakes. No need to really crank turns.

For me... I'll be getting a new board before the next season!

[scrapster]

I have a small quiver of decambered glass softboot boards. It's probably stating the obvious, but allowing for more edge length while still having a "loose" feeling to the board is a huge benefit for an all-around daily rider. Ride it relaxed, ride it hard, all depending on your mood.

[Jack Michaud]

"HUGE benefit for freecarving"

Maybe theoretically, yes.

What? No, I and plenty others have felt it first hand.

But couldn't an inefficiently shaped nose add energy to the board?

Yes, in a bad way.

Slower in the gates for sure, but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

To your legs in the form of upset and fatigue, and to the edge in the form of loss of grip. Of course there is a limit, and too much decambering can make the nose feel vague or even floppy. That limit also varies with board length. But done properly, a decambered nose wins every time, no question.

[Buell]

That seems to be the current feeling, Buell.

But as to "taking the load off" the board,
is that always a good thing?

I did not say it takes load off the board. It takes it off the furthest points of the board and brings it closer to the middle which increases the rider's power over the board, among other benefits.

From riding cambered, decambered, and rockered boards in all kind of snow conditions, I say absolutely yes, it is a very good thing.

[tahoetrencher]

So is that all you ride now because it is so much better?
A full metal jacket; all decambered?
Do you ever miss the loaded glass feel as some quite accomplished carvers here seem to?
Can a glass board be more fun sometimes if harder on the legs?
Maybe that's just nostalgia.

I benefit from a large quiver and truly never ride a board more than 2 or 3 times in a row.
I like adjusting to the different feedback of individual rides.
I don't like being "comfotable" too much on piste.
Doesn't mean I'm not occasionally solid.

[lowrider]

Decambered nose, metal front, glass back half anyone? Let's put it all in one and see how it rides.

[Beckmann AG]

but where does that speed (energy) loss migrate to?

Surface distortion. As in relocating 'snow'.


The effect of nose de-camber in choppy surfaces is akin to altering rubber compounds/inflation pressure in ATB tires in lieu of a functioning suspension fork. The nose will 'climb out' of the 'virtual hole' before attendant shock loads disrupt the rider; as the softer rubber compound will create a slight delay before the tire deflects off, say, a root or rock.
In both, the rider stays upright, to proceed apace.

One sensor on the boot and one on the board can tell worlds about what the board is doing and what the binding is damping out. put that setup on a bunch of different boards and collect rider opinions, and you're in your way to figuring out what the 'bad' frequencies are.

Regarding 'bad' frequencies, how would you plan on discerning which frequencies would be 'naturally occurring', and which are created as byproducts of 'unintentional' rider input? Do you tune a board based on rider preference given a possibly sub-optimal skill level, or do you build based on a theoretical ideal that may not yet have immediate market application?


Material and geometric manipulation has been used for years in alpine skiing; based on intended application, skill development of the end user, marketing strategies, etc.
What sells well is not always in the 'best interest' of the sport, or the development of the athlete.

Glass, metal, rubber, nose camber/de-camber are all part of the feedback/proprioception loop. If one is in a position to make use of it, on both subconscious and conscious levels, more information is generally a good thing.

Some drivers prefer Cadillac cush, while others prefer the raw agility of a tuned GTI.
Each may be viewed as inherently 'wrong' based on application, operator skill or motoring identity, etc.

[Jack Michaud]

The effect of nose de-camber in choppy surfaces is akin to altering rubber compounds/inflation pressure in ATB tires in lieu of a functioning suspension fork.

Sounds like you're saying it's a band-aid? I would disagree with that. I'd say it's more like going from little or no front suspension to having a decent one.

Are MTB/moto riders who grew up with inferior or no suspension better riders than those who did? Perhaps. But soon we will never know.

I started my Brother-in-law on an old Rossi Throttle. Then I let him try my Coiler. Guess which one he likes better? Is this a bad thing? Will he ever become an expert carver? I think he could, and sooner on the Coiler, because the journey will be more enjoyable and inspiring.

Some drivers prefer Cadillac cush, while others prefer the raw agility of a tuned GTI.

I don't think it's like that. On a board with full camber, the "design" of the upturned nose seems like a complete afterthought. A decambered (aka rockered) nose better marries the curve of the upturn with the curve the sidecut will be when the board is tipped up on edge. Like this:

decambered nose:


full camber:


Look at the point where the nose of the board is actually engaged with the snow. It's very far up the nose. The abrupt upturn of a full camber nose participating in the carve really does not seem like a good thing to me.

I actually went from riding the Madd 180 in the bottom picture to borrowing Ben's NSR 185 in the top picture. Mind = blown.

Incidentally this is why I think the Rossignol Avenger Ti looks like a bad idea - full camber plus hammerhead? Guess they want that nose hook to be as close to the snow as possible! Like they want the nose to hook back up the hill!

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/aveng...frontside.html

[BlueB]

I had some Avengers (there are few models I believe) in hands while ago. From what I remember the camber to shovel transition was very early and gentle, you could call it decamber, in line with Priors and some Coilers. They looked like they would rip.
I actually think that I prefer the small decamber (Prior, Coiler) over hal nose approach (Kessler, SG) for freecarving. Also, radial and VSR feel better then NSR, again for freecarving, while NSR feels faster.

I agree with few posters who suggested that damping has to do more with rubber then metal, but we should really define what "damp" actually meant, as it seems to have different meanings for different people (we tried few times before, over the years).
To me the legendary damp/lively, often perceived as one, should be split in few categories:
Dampness - ability of the board (or system) to absorb "bad" vibrations
Liveliness - willingness of the board to rebound/return energy AND to be "manhandled"
Tracking - ability to stay on desired direction through less then perfect conditions

To me, it seems that those characteristics are affected by vaious parametres (in random order):
Dampness - dissimilarity of natural resonance of the materials used; mass; system (damping by friction, shear, decupling, etc)
Liveliness - mass; geometry (sidecut/profile); flex pattern
Tracking - geometry; flex pattern; edge hold (another can of worms); and mass to a lesser extent (or is it?)

[Helmut Karvlow]

Jack, what about F2 carbon Silberpfeil? I rode my Madd 170 at Stratton this year for the first time in 3 years and forgot how much fun it was!

[Jack Michaud]

Honestly I've never heard of any Silberpfeil owners who loved them. A good Madd 170 was a great board, but I want something wider and with some nose rocker.

[Beckmann AG]

Sounds like you're saying it's a band-aid? I would disagree with that. I'd say it's more like going from little or no front suspension to having a decent one.

In the original paragraph it should be clear that the inference is more towards prophylaxis.

While simulating the simpler effects of a suspension system, nose de-camber, like decreased rolling resistance, simply aren't.
Unless one is playing at marketing; in which case, 'game on'.

Consider the similarities to the contemporary 29er ATB. Less rolling resistance generally translates to riding more difficult terrain with less difficulty. What required more skill of a rider on smaller wheels may now be 'cleaned' by a rider of lesser skill. With or without the assistance of a suspension fork.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless that rider enters into a potentially dangerous situation under the assumption that they are 'good to go' when in fact they are not.


When you consider the many accounts of bodily harm on this forum, one could reasonably conclude that a better understanding of the 'limits' involved, combined with board construction that provides a subliminal warning in the form of dissonance when those limits are approached, might prevent some of the trauma.

Are MTB/moto riders who grew up with inferior or no suspension better riders than those who did? Perhaps. But soon we will never know.

For every generation of athlete, there will always be those who have an innate 'feel' or sense for what they are doing. These athletes are the ones who can fully exploit changes in materials, geometry, advanced damper valving etc, as they are not using them as 'buffers'. They tend to go faster, and wreck with lesser frequency, regardless of what is underneath.

And they tend to look a bit different while in action, so yes, in fact, you will know.


While your brother in law benefits from current construction, in that he has more fun/hr, and will likely stick with the sport, perhaps you would not be the rider you are today, had you not started out on 'lesser' boards.


I'm certainly not suggesting that newer shapes are 'bad'. Far from it. Nor am I suggesting that all novices pay their dues on a Kemper Apex.

Rather, full cambered boards needn't be binned prematurely.

For a skilled user, cambered boards (and skis) may provide more usable feedback, (particularly at 'tip in') and this feedback serves an important part in skill development.

And they really don't 'plow' unless you stand on them in a way you shouldn't.

[astrokel]

I have never ridden a non-metal decambered nose board so it is hard to say for sure but decamber could be as important as metal in the advancement of our boards

Buell,
Couldn't you consider that the rockered Tanker has a "decambered" nose that's not metal? I realize its not the full package and that the one you reviewed is rockered tip to tail but my experience with the new tanker with the flat under the bindings is that it does still have that "pop" off the end of the carve... way more pop than my Coiler AMT stubby.

[kieran]

Jack, what about F2 carbon Silberpfeil? I rode my Madd 170 at Stratton this year for the first time in 3 years and forgot how much fun it was!

the original and carbon variants are too narrow in the waist for Jack, probably. the silberpfeil vantage otoh is > 21cm.

[Buell]

Buell,
Couldn't you consider that the rockered Tanker has a "decambered" nose that's not metal? I realize its not the full package and that the one you reviewed is rockered tip to tail but my experience with the new tanker with the flat under the bindings is that it does still have that "pop" off the end of the carve... way more pop than my Coiler AMT stubby.

In the broad sense that is true but I was referring to carve board to carve board. I don't want to make anything other than very broad (and cautious) generalizations when comparing a wide freeride board to a hardboot carving board.

[Jack Michaud]

In the original paragraph it should be clear that the inference is more towards prophylaxis.

Ok. I still disagree. Nose decamber fixes the fact that snowboards were previously designed basically in 2D. Exactly what happens at the point where the sidecut ends, the camber ends, and the nose upturn begins was previously either disregarded, or incompletely solved. The function of the nose of a snowboard used to be thought of similarly as the front end of a toboggan. The problem with that was, our toboggans need to function while tilted up on edge, and bent into a new shape. When tilted on edge, unfortunately the upturn of the nose becomes an active participant in the carve. The relatively tiny radius of the curve of a traditional nose upturn cannot possibly work in continuity with the rest of the sidecut. Nose decamber addresses this. So I don't think calling it prophylaxis is really fair.

While simulating the simpler effects of a suspension system, nose de-camber, like decreased rolling resistance, simply aren't.
Unless one is playing at marketing; in which case, 'game on'.

It is not a marketing gimmick. Skis and snowboards are finally working the way they should have been all along. Are you thinking of the yellow Coiler prototype I had you try? That board seemed like it had too much nose decamber. Of course there is a limit to the usefulness.

When you consider the many accounts of bodily harm on this forum, one could reasonably conclude that a better understanding of the 'limits' involved, combined with board construction that provides a subliminal warning in the form of dissonance when those limits are approached, might prevent some of the trauma.

I don't think the effect of nose rocker is so drastic that it gives false confidence. I think it is still pretty obvious when you are about to lose an edge. Furthermore, I really feel like nose rocker helps maintain edge hold that might have been lost on a traditional board.

For every generation of athlete, there will always be those who have an innate 'feel' or sense for what they are doing. These athletes are the ones who can fully exploit changes in materials, geometry, advanced damper valving etc, as they are not using them as 'buffers'. They tend to go faster, and wreck with lesser frequency, regardless of what is underneath.

I would like to meet this superhero who can win WC races with a traditional board, no plate, stiff bindings, and ski boots, against the current competition.

I'm certainly not suggesting that newer shapes are 'bad'. Far from it. Nor am I suggesting that all novices pay their dues on a Kemper Apex.

Rather, full cambered boards needn't be binned prematurely.

For a skilled user, cambered boards (and skis) may provide more usable feedback, (particularly at 'tip in') and this feedback serves an important part in skill development.

But that feedback is merely what is going on under the sharply upturned nose, not what the rest of the sidecut is doing. I don't find it necessary. Again though, there is a limit to how much decambering works well.

And they really don't 'plow' unless you stand on them in a way you shouldn't.

All I can tell you is that stepping off a Madd 180 and onto an NSR 185 gave me an immediate sensation that the nose was "slicing" more cleanly. Had I never ridden a decambered nose, I would go right on believing nothing was wrong with my traditional board's nose. I used to love that board to death. Just like I used to love my red 1998 Factory Prime. But time marches on and things have gotten better, not worse.

[tahoetrencher]

I think there is a world of difference other than nose profile between the new Madd and the NSR.
Attributing all to the nose belies the other thoughtful posts you have made here.

I remember getting my red team fps around '94-'95 season?
You're 1998 wasn't red unless you painted it?
Time to calibrate the way back machine Chumley?

[xy9ine]

again, i say - what about the new donek freecarve? it's a decambered vsr glass board; sounds fun.

transitioning from my kesslers to the prior atv, i'm always surprised by the playful poppy-ness of the (primitive) glass board. i'd love to try a modern construction glass board (and keep the metals for ice days). the cheaper price (and possible increased durability) are attractive as well.

[Jack Michaud]

I think there is a world of difference other than nose profile between the new Madd and the NSR.
Attributing all to the nose belies the other thoughtful posts you have made here.

I agree, but I wasn't attributing it all to the nose. We just happen to be discussing nose decamber.

I remember getting my red team fps around '94-'95 season?
You're 1998 wasn't red unless you painted it.
Time to calibrate the way back machine Chumley?

Factory Prime retail history:
95 some sizes were maroon, others were gray, with a black pattern that sort of looked like an abstract tire track.
96 was silver with reddish-pink sidewalls
97 was blue with green sidewalls
98 was red with orange sidewalls
99 was yellow with red sidewalls.
00 was black with green sidewalls
01 was black. I forget the sidewalls.

Maybe team boards were different.

[Jack Michaud]

again, i say - what about the new donek freecarve? it's a decambered vsr glass board; sounds fun.

Yes, although I would probably want to customize the waist width and sidecut radius. The stock shapes are 2-radius, with the longer radius in the tail, according to the website. I'd want a 3-radius sidecut like 12-14-13 or 11-13-12, nose-mid-tail. Of course this is just a keystroke for Sean. I'm also talking with him about a glass-carbon combo layup.

[Shred Gruumer]

[QUOTE=Jack Michaud;376235] Im a homo glass board and assysm I luvQUOTE]

What are you a lesbian? Oxess Carbon,, nuff said doooch!

[Jack Michaud]

What are you a lesbian? Oxess Carbon,, nuff said doooch!

Yeah I don't have $2000 for a snowboard, guy!

[BlueB]

There is definitely a problem with ubrupt nose rise. Even before the decamber/metal revolution, I felt that Priors, Burtons and Generics (didn't ride too many Coilers back then) sliced way better, with their very gradual smooth nose rises, then the other old school boards.

[Beckmann AG]

OK,.........worse.

(Sigh)

Misconstrue much?

1. If nose de-camber prevents a rider from stuffing the nose in uneven conditions, thereby preventing injury, subsequent wound infection, or damage to the ego, then it is certainly fair to refer to that aspect of the design as prophylactic. That's hardly a pejorative.

2. I did not say that de-camber is a marketing gimmick. I said (and could have composed the sentence more clearly) that it was not appropriate to call it a suspension system. To refer to it as such would be considered a marketing ploy.

3. I made no reference to edge hold or loss thereof. Rather, a board with de-camber will be less punitive in the event a rider of lesser skill uses outsized movements in moving from one edge to the other. If that rider were to use the same tactics on a cambered board, they would likely ride at a slower pace until such time as the resultant dissonance was resolved by way of skill development.

4. Re: 'superhero'. I made no suggestion of this scenario. You might notice, however, that at least one Canadian organization is finding success with the Dalbello Krypton (a ski boot).
The widespread use of isoclines will eventually swing the pendulum back toward a stiffer interface, and the sport will evolve; it is only a matter of time, circumstance, and genetics.

5. Re: feedback. "(particularly at 'tip in')" The de-cambered nose does not provide as much feedback in this area. Some riders don't care, and wouldn't notice anyway. Others do notice, and do care.

6. I'm not arguing efficacy of design, but offering observations pertaining to cause and effect, (with reference to precedent in other areas), and the possible impact on skill development. Some might find that useful.

I hope the previous clarifies sufficiently.

[WinterGold]

Hi Jack,
I must confess that I haven´t read the whole discussion here, but you know what is funny?
Your initial quiver suggestion is exactly what some pros used this season.
They use their SL and GS boards also for freecarving, but when they are out just for fun (and the conditions are good!), they also use a middle length non-metal board. At least some of the SG riders. Their quiver -
- 2x SL - FullRace 163
- 2x GS - FullRace 185
- FullCarve 170 (sometimes even with plate ...)