Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:55 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 355
Here's my second geek out point:
because speed increases lift, you could ride a cafeteria tray down a mountain of pow and float just fine. However, when you turn it slows you down a lot, if you were riding two, three or four cafeteria trays and made a turn, instead of pushing a bunch of snow out of the way, you would push a lot less snow out of the way and you would be redirected more strongly from your turn and exit the turn with a lot more speed. In contrast, if you were riding one cafeteria tray and you make a turn, the board will smear a lot, you'll get a great braking effect and you will make a more gradual actual direction change.

Image

Check out what I think is Jeremy Jones' line in the background of this incredible shot. This terrain is so steep and requires such a narrow line (pivotal turns) and requires so much braking on each turn that a small board makes perfect sense. You dont want tons of surface area in a place like this making these kinds of turns because such a board gives you so much lift and really banks you off your intended line really fast. And the little board lets you pivot and brake and control speed in an instant. In the analogy above, this in one cafeteria terrain/riding for sure. :headbang:


Follow link to this classic Mark Fawcett shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/longb/5753 ... otostream/

The more cafeteria trays you are on in normal steepness terrain the more redirestion or g forces you feel in turn and you carry more speed out of one turn into the next (or you go faster after landing your 3, 5, 7 . . .) :rock:

(and just to undercut my point, that might be a 1993 165cm-ish shawn palmer board that Fawcett is riding in the sims ad above)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:35 pm
Posts: 109
Scooby2 wrote:
Here's my second geek out point:
because speed increases lift, you could ride a cafeteria tray down a mountain of pow and float just fine. However, when you turn it slows you down a lot, if you were riding two, three or four cafeteria trays and made a turn, instead of pushing a bunch of snow out of the way, you would push a lot less snow out of the way and you would be redirected more strongly from your turn and exit the turn with a lot more speed. In contrast, if you were riding one cafeteria tray and you make a turn, the board will smear a lot, you'll get a great braking effect and you will make a more gradual actual direction change.


I'd like to agree with the above and add some personal experience to it. I have two boards I use for powder(Wasatch), one is a 178 Spearhead and the other a 170 Khyber. Both are fat (26.5 waist) and have quite a bit of taper. Both are rockered and "float" extremely well. Even on the shorter Khyber I can drop a 10 footer with full weight on the front leg and not go over the front. I have no problem at all with the Khyber supporting my bulk (6'4, 215lbs). Most people would be fine riding that board all the time but I tend to take the longer board out more often. I only use the Khyber on days where I expect to be riding terrain of at least 45 degrees or steeper. I absolutely love it for those conditions and think it's a great board.

I spent some time last season trying to figure out why I don't like the feel of the board on lower angle terrain and started doing some evaluation of my down tracks. On the longer board, you see a shallow board imprint going into the turn and then a deeper trench where I applied most of the force into the turn. Immediately after this, you see almost no imprint at all then go back to the same shallow board imprint I started with.

On the shorter board you have basically the same imprint going in (I must ride faster?) and then a deeper trench that carries all the way through the turn. After the turn you have a deeper imprint that becomes shallower as I pick up speed again.

Basically, I dig my turns a lot more instead of bouncing out of them like I do on a board with more surface area. Since bouncing turns at high speed makes me giggle like a kid, I gravitate towards boards with more surface area. On steep terrain I jump my turns and love the shorter board with more taper. With the shorter board I feel like I have less tail behind me which also helps on the steeps.

So yeah, the lesson for me is to have the right tool for the job to maximize my enjoyment. I haven't always been able to afford multiple setups and still had amazing days in the mountains. For me, it's an incremental improvement but since I'm at an age where my ability isn't going to increase, I've turned more of my attention to the gear I use. I have a new Spearhead on the way for this year with the carbon upgrade, I'll make sure to post a review.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 145
I'm liking this thread a lot! It seems like people have covered long and short standard width boards pretty well. I like wider 310mm waist shorter 155cm long and full rocker. Flatter between the bindings with lots of tip & tail rocker. People never got into how a wider waist keeps your toes/heels out of the pow so less drag more speed more float. I also think a more rockered board loses less speed in turns so again more float. When you turn. The board is layed on its side and the rocker follows the arc of the turn more so the tip entry to the oncoming snow is plowing less. A cambered board is driving the tip & tail down on a turn and making more drag.
Check this test out from last year. My friend weighs about 145 and rides a Burton Mololo 165 cm I weigh 185 and was riding a 136 cm board with a 380mm waist. A serious reversed sidecut rockered egg. The egg was up and making turns in 30 feet while the Burton was farting for speed for close to 100 yards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 355
I think these true wide boards you made HP are going to really make riding low angle 25-low 30 degree slopes really fun on high hazard days, I can't wait to make one, If you ever bring one to the Wasatch this season I would love to give one a whirl.

Have you considered that having more rocker in the tail than between your feet, effectively reduces the float you get from the surface area behind your feet. I think the most efficient use of a boards base is to have it be a constant curve or perhaps a decreasing rocker radius from front to back. Once your back foot has passed over the pow you have mostly packed down the snow under it, if the tail lifts up off the packed track you made, then the tail isn't really doing any more lifting-or at least as much as it could. I realize if you are really drifting a turn or the snow is steep 3-5% density and real cold that all of the base will probably be generating lift, but in pow where you leave a smooth packed track (when the base isn't drifting sideways, I think a constant radius or decreasing rocker radius gives the most lift per square cm of base.

I think this explanation defeats any purpose of having a narrower nose like on a banana hammock, the nose of the board has to ride over and pack down or at least consolidate the pow into higher density snow, then the area between your feet and out the tail has to spread your weight over the somewhat compressed snow so you bank off it instead of keep plowing it out of the way and having your board drop lower into the pow and go slower.

I ride boards with a ton of rocker in them by today's standards with an even curve, so I wouldn't take all the rocker out of the tail-it's too fun at slower speeds, I would just make the board one radius curve when flexed or a little less curve as the board runs from tip to tail. Unlike surfboards, because snow does not wrap and stick to the base of snowboards and because snow does not rebound the way water does, thinking about snowboard rocker lines differs from what you might be used to thinking about in surfboard rocker lines. You don't really want a flat speed area limited to between your feet. In the snowboard industry camber or flat between the feet is a perceived concession to hardpack stability and really not effective in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 145
Awesome thinking! I'll need to chew on that post for a while. I'm thinking the increased tail rocker lets the tail sink more like those crazy swallow tails. Any time the nose drops into the snow you're pushing snow and slowing slightly. I'm guessing a flatter base is going to be faster than a curved one so flatter between the feet. It may make no difference at all for all I know. I definitely like the extra tail rocker as a safety valve in the trees. Just lean back and turn hard when things get out of control.
Image
eagle lakes035 by Huck Pitueee, on Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 355
I just pick a small tree and hit that one when things get out of control :wink:

I don't mean drop your tail rocker at all, I'm saying question having a flat in the middle and think about the shape and how deep of a of curve your board has with you on it while in motion going straight and in a turn.

This is the curve that I have settled on to, but there's not a whole lot of flex there on, maybe 2-3 inches:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 145
Sounds like you have some friendly trees up there. That split looks really fun. It has a bit more rocker than mine. I actually have rocker in the middle. Over 24 inches in the middle, the board lifts up one eighth inch on either side of center. Not flat but flatter than the rest of the board. I heard what you were saying about trying to stiffen the board to hold the rocker. I have to wonder if a rockered board flattens out as you are riding. Don't tell me that's a Waimea gun in the background!! I always wanted to surf that spot. I was only good up to 20 foot faces though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 355
no, that's a really curvy 8'6", more like a second reef pipe board-not that I surfed there- I liked it for windy 8-10 hawaiian, thought I'd take it Escondido some day but hasn't happened, not sure if I'll ever really want the beatings from waves that that board likes again.

With the exception of a 27 inch stance on a 145cm, rocker increases even between your feet while riding, even when you are going straight. I set up a little measuring device on a traditional board a while back to see how far boards bent during different turns and going straight. My conclusion back then was that most boards bend a ridiculous amount in bigger turns and created tons of drag, not to mention sending you over the front if you didn't lean back. I think in settled pow I was bending boards into less than 3 meter radius turns when going about 35mph.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:57 am
Posts: 1110
Location: Santa Barbara, CA/Ashland, OR
Toe in boards are shorter then traditional big wave guns because they do not require paddling.

Toe in boards are also much much heavier then traditional paddle boards. Some of them even include the ability to add weight..for cutting through chop in giant waves.

Short boards have gotten shorter over the years but wider (as someone pointed out). The pros are using shorter boards because they still float and paddle as well and they can get their jib on while having their tweaker contests. Put any of those guys into 18' Waimea and their going to be on much bigger boards.

So much of this stuff is personal preference, and riding style. There's no such thing as "better".

I personally like a board with a bit of taper (but less then say the Mojo RX) a rockered nose, and medium sidecut. My mojo RX 161 (I'm 5'8" 155) is a bit too fidgety for me at high speeds, but then again when I'm riding the trees or a tight steep chute, it's pretty much just what the Dr. ordered.

A couple of you are getting way out of line in the name of argueing over one particular aspect (board length) or one particular performance measure (float). Just state your preference and why without trying to disprove someone else.

If Barrows is an intermediate, I'm a beginner, and I've been stuck there for 20+ years of riding.

I have never, nor will ever, judge a riders backcountry prowess based on his spinning ability. I judge a rider based on how cool he/she is to tour/ride with, and how they handle big terrain...and themselves.

Anyway, that was my Dad tone kicking in. Now..back to the regularly scheduled internet cockmeasuring.

edit: just don't ask me about TOW in boards...because I don't know jack about 'em. ;-)

_________________
"Winter is not a season, it's an occupation."
-Sinclair Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 145
Scooby2 wrote:
no, that's a really curvy 8'6", more like a second reef pipe board-not that I surfed there- I liked it for windy 8-10 hawaiian, thought I'd take it Escondido some day but hasn't happened, not sure if I'll ever really want the beatings from waves that that board likes again.

With the exception of a 27 inch stance on a 145cm, rocker increases even between your feet while riding, even when you are going straight. I set up a little measuring device on a traditional board a while back to see how far boards bent during different turns and going straight. My conclusion back then was that most boards bend a ridiculous amount in bigger turns and created tons of drag, not to mention sending you over the front if you didn't lean back. I think in settled pow I was bending boards into less than 3 meter radius turns when going about 35mph.


Yea it's like being held in an avalanch to within seconds of passing out over and over for seconds of riding time. That's cool you went full scientist and measured board flex while riding. You rode a 145 cm for testing?? I didn't think anyone else rode short boards. You must be hung like a dinosaur! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 490
Location: Salida, Flagstaff
Scooby what are the dimensions on that split - and how much does it weigh? You built it, correct?

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 355
HP- all my testing of how far boards bend was on 1990 or '91 Nitro diablo 186, I did it back in 1993. It was a fairly soft board, but at least it was really heavy! I fixed a little clear tube and rod system to the nose and tail of the board, I put a spitball in the tube. after making a turn or just straightlining a little pitch I would make a mark on the tube showing how far the spitball got pushed into the tube. Then I went back home an measured how far the board had to bend to get the rod back to where a certain spitball mark was. I settled on the curve generated from just going straight down the lower half of upper cardiff bowl maybe 35 degrees, at about 30-35mph, just the speed where that cambered board got really loose and responsive on a fastish settled pow day and I just made a few light banks barely out of the fall line.

I didn't do any testing on shorter boards, just thought that the possibility might exist that if a stance was super wide -like 28"- on super short board like a 125, the board might bend into a camber in the middle from snow pressure even though the tips and tails would bend up, like a "W" shape. I don't think this would happen with a 22" or less stance on a 150 though.

Taylor, that board is a 184 along the base, 26cm wide, 12m plain radial sidecut. I have another one just like it with a 14m+ sidecut. I can't remember the nose and tail #s right now but I believe it has 3cm or just over an inch of taper. It weighs 9lbs 2 oz with all the hardware (w/o touring/slider plate). I think that is pretty good for a 184, esp. compared to a venture or a never summer. Although the core is massive, 12 to 13mm thick from the nose to the back foot, I only use a single 5.8 ounce layer of Carbon or carbon/kevlar on either side (instead of 23oz glass layers), and it has some channeling in the core up in the front of the board to try to keep it more balanced. It's made from a shaped core of solid poplar, meaning the pre-laminated core is already the shape of the finished board. I can't wait to make one out of a bunch of Paulownia that I have, I'm thinking that might bring down to that of a Voile 171, around 8lbs. I think it is the perfect weight for riding though, the starting point of the rocker makes it really nimble and reactive so the weight kind of calms it down a little bit, but maybe a pound less will be even more fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Float - Length vs width vs rocker vs camber...
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 145
[quote="Scooby2"]I think these true wide boards you made HP are going to really make riding low angle 25-low 30 degree slopes really fun on high hazard days, I can't wait to make one, If you ever bring one to the Wasatch this season I would love to give one a whirl.

Have you considered that having more rocker in the tail than between your feet, effectively reduces the float you get from the surface area behind your feet. I think the most efficient use of a boards base is to have it be a constant curve or perhaps a decreasing rocker radius from front to back. Once your back foot has passed over the pow you have mostly packed down the snow under it, if the tail lifts up off the packed track you made, then the tail isn't really doing any more lifting-or at least as much as it could. I realize if you are really drifting a turn or the snow is steep 3-5% density and real cold that all of the base will probably be generating lift, but in pow where you leave a smooth packed track (when the base isn't drifting sideways, I think a constant radius or decreasing rocker radius gives the most lift per square cm of base.

I agree with the above but with my new board the center of the rear binding is mounted 12.5 inches from the tail. So the tail flip begins at the rear binding. My goal is to have even weight distribution on both feet. It would be insane if I could drive off the front foot like a surfboard. Also I'm not worried about maximizing lift as the wide waist has it covered.

Image
sierrachub015 by Huck Pitueee, on Flickr
Image
sierrachub004 by Huck Pitueee, on Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  





Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group