A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Snowboarding
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Donek Web Site, 2nd Board recommendation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 12th 04, 07:37 PM
Neil Gendzwill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

id wrote:

A couple of interesting things from this:
* because lift is proportional to speed squared, lift (or flotation)
will increase rapidly with speed - you'll really sink if you go slow


The moral of the story is - mach schnell in das powder, baby! And if
you're doing it in the trees - well, that's why god made kevlar gloves
and goggles.

One of my fondest memories is my one and only trip to Island Lake Lodge,
this would have been around '95. I guess they hadn't had too many
snowboarding clients yet at that time. Fat skis were just getting
popular - they had some to rent but most of the clients were skeptical.
The guides said they'd never seen anyone go as fast in powder as I
was. I'd just wait for the lead guide to get to the stop point and
then let 'er rip. My ride at the time was a 164 Asym Air and race plates.

Of course, Craig Kelly bought the place out a year or two later and then
those guides would have really been astonished.

Neil

Ads
  #22  
Old November 12th 04, 08:12 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Have you tried Fastback?

I demoed the 00-01 and 01-02 models. Very nice boards, but more
traditionally shaped and a lot less stiff than the FRS. (The FRS was
shaped halfway between a traditional freeride and a Donek Axis - with a very
short, low tail - and I think, a tighter sidecut in back which I wasn't a
fan of)

Actually, the Fastback is the closest thing I have ever tried to the
Incline/Wide. If Donek didn't exist I would most likely own one. Very
similar sidecut in similar lengths, but a little more nose length/less
effective edge on the Fastback. Now I haven't tried one recently, but my
only complaint back then was the "synthetic feel" I have described a number
of times on this newsgroup - most boards get harder to flex the more you
bear down, the Salomons at least in those days was more of a constant flex.
Very good rebound, but not very soulful, and they had a tendency to want to
carve the same shape turn all the time unless you really worked at it.

But I'm just picking nits, the Fastback is probably my favorite freeride
board (of those that I've demoed) that I never owned.

Mike T




  #23  
Old November 12th 04, 08:13 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

* you'll get a lot more lift from yer west coast cement than from the 3%
fluffy stuff in Utah


I don't count west coast cement as powder - we get a bazillion "fresh snow"
days at Mt Hood, but precious few "powder days", for example two season ago
it was never both cold and snowy enough for a real powder day.

All my my comments refer to those precious few "powder days"

Lift (and drag) will increase with angle of attack. The effect of a flexy
board is to increase the angle of attack at the nose relative to the tail,
thus keeping the nose up and reducing rear leg burn caused by too much
lift at the back. The same is achieved by a wider nose than tail (e.g.
Fish and derivatives)
Now where's that bottle of wine?...


Stop telling me how much fun my 4807 is going to be! It's warm and sunny
today, damnit!

(Time to go tool around on my Tierney board - www.tierneyrides.com. Best
way to quell snow-joneses that I have found yet!)

Mike T




  #24  
Old November 13th 04, 12:14 AM
Christopher Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Robert Stevahn wrote:

SNIPAGE/SNIPAGE


I need a second board anyway, because my Incline is delaminating in
the rear. It's only a matter of time before it gets bad enough to
require replacement. Phoenix sounds like an interesting 2nd board.


Could you embellish on this? How long have you owned the board? What
kind of delamination?

Thanks,

Chris


  #25  
Old November 13th 04, 02:26 AM
lonerider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike T wrote:
My wife has the Incline 150, so I have a pretty good idea how stiff

the 156
would be, and the answer is, still pretty stiff. (lonerider has the


Incline 155 - same stiffness as 156W - comments?).


Yes, in short, the Incline 155 is still going to be too stiff.
There is no way in my mind that going from a 160 Incline to a 155
Incline is going to give Robert the type of ride he is looking for (as
I mentioned I got a much much softer Fish 156MD). The Phoenix will not
be a noodle in my opinion, but there is not point in arguing when you
can try it out. It's funny... everwhere else in the "real world" people
are worried about stuff being too stiff... except online, where alpine
hardbooters lurk! I just found myself recommending ThirtyTwo's
stiffest boot (the Forecast) to freeriders and part-time freestylers
and said you could probably "survive" in the Team-Twos for
freeriding... while I bet the Team-Two is plenty stiff for most people.
It's only a matter of time before I start claiming cement-encased,
lead-lined boots are the way to go.

P.S. IMHO, with a 9.5 boot, the Wide is as good a choice as the

Incline on
average, better for some, worse for others. The last time Iain and I


engaged in a calculation-intensive thread, it was on this very topic



I'm am not getting anywhere near Iain's pseudo-physics subthread!

  #26  
Old November 13th 04, 05:04 AM
Kevin Morrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ping, Kevin Morrison... you still planning to demo Phoenixes and Twins at
Mt
Hood over Thanksgiving? I'm curious to see what the Phoenix feels like,
especially if you've got the 165.



Hey Mike,


I haven't been on in awhile so sorry for the delay. I will be down at Hood
Thanksgiving weekend still waiting on boards though. I will keep you
posted.



--
Kevin Morrison
Donek Snowboards
Northwest Rep
206-227-3073


  #27  
Old November 13th 04, 10:58 AM
id
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lonerider wrote:

I'm am not getting anywhere near Iain's pseudo-physics subthread!


Ouch!
My first degree is in engineering (admittedly some time ago). I've
always found it interesting to try to quantify things, particularly when
you can draw significant conclusions from first approximations. Also -
any excuse to think about snowboarding in powder!
I was initially surprised when Mike said that moving to the wide board
made such a difference in terms of flotation - so it pleasing to see
that the theory matched the practice. It was also interesting to bring
the different rider weights into the equation.
With regard to the speed effect, we all know that you get more flotation
if you go faster and I thought it would be interesting to look at that
too. Dimensional analysis suggested that the speed term needed to be
squared to make the units balance. I then looked up the formula for lift
on an aircraft wing, e.g.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Win...t_formula.html
and there was the same formula with the density, foil area and squared
speed term. This supported my original analysis which used lift
proportional to area. In the wing formula there's also a coefficient of
lift dependent on airfoil and angle of attack. This is analogous to the
snowboards shape and flex characteristics.
I recall you have a technical background? In my experience, anything
pseudo can be quickly demolished by the genuine expert. If you think
that's you, I invite you to bring it on! If what I've proposed is right,
then great. If it's wrong and we can improve it, then that's great too.

Iain

  #28  
Old November 13th 04, 11:00 AM
id
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Neil Gendzwill wrote:

One of my fondest memories is my one and only trip to Island Lake Lodge,
this would have been around '95. I guess they hadn't had too many
snowboarding clients yet at that time. Fat skis were just getting
popular - they had some to rent but most of the clients were skeptical.
The guides said they'd never seen anyone go as fast in powder as I
was. I'd just wait for the lead guide to get to the stop point and
then let 'er rip. My ride at the time was a 164 Asym Air and race plates.


Excellent.
Where's your local hill, Neil? BC/Alberta if I recall

Iain
  #29  
Old November 14th 04, 12:17 AM
Arvin Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

id no@idea wrote in message ...
lonerider wrote:

I'm am not getting anywhere near Iain's pseudo-physics subthread!


Ouch!
My first degree is in engineering (admittedly some time ago). I've
always found it interesting to try to quantify things, particularly when
you can draw significant conclusions from first approximations. Also -
any excuse to think about snowboarding in powder!


I was initially surprised when Mike said that moving to the wide board
made such a difference in terms of flotation - so it pleasing to see
that the theory matched the practice. It was also interesting to bring
the different rider weights into the equation.
With regard to the speed effect, we all know that you get more flotation


Oh, I definitely believe in trying to quantify things, even if it is
just approximation. And I think I shouldn't have chosen, the term
"pseudo" as it have a different connotation than what I was looking
for (not the fake science definition that I should have realized it
would be interpreted as). I was thinking of like pseudo-code, where
the basic solution is correct, but just the exact details are left
out.

I just felt like your calculation took things to an unnecessary
extreme - all that work, and there were no real revelations. I have
done some of the calculations you mention previously, for my own
personal understanding (i.e. surface area of Incline vs Wide), but I
felt the real question was whether stiffer boards are harder to use in
powder and so I think that there was a lot of work on an area that
wasn't really that important because everyone already agrees that
wider boards float better, heavier riders need bigger boards, and if
you ride faster, it is easier to stay on top of powder, it is easier
to float on heavy snow than light snow. If you could explain why a
wide nose pintail like the Fish floats more easily (combine the
equations for relative surface area with the lift equations) that
might be interesting. But again, while I often get into equations (see
my post on the protective factor of wrist guards - that is
pseudo-physics too!) I think it should be used only if it will shed
light on the topic at hand.

And about an excuse to think about snowboarding in powder... don't
torture yourself like that... go out and snowboard!

--Arvin
  #30  
Old November 14th 04, 10:32 AM
id
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arvin Chang wrote:

I just felt like your calculation took things to an unnecessary
extreme - all that work, and there were no real revelations.


At the beginning of the thread we were talking about flotation. Robert
said he was sinking. Mike said one board floated him and another didn't.
I'd added my own experience. I think it was bang on topic to quantify
the relative flotation provided to each of us and I for one was
surprised at the result: Robert had more flotation than any of us!
You talk about 'extreme' and 'all that work'. Hardly - it was simple
stuff and took around 20 mins!

I have
done some of the calculations you mention previously, for my own
personal understanding (i.e. surface area of Incline vs Wide),


Ah, I wondered if I'd trod on some toes...

but I
felt the real question was whether stiffer boards are harder to use in
powder


Sure, that's a question. I had Nitro Naturals 169 5 years ago and that
was one stiff mother! It was a ******* to ride everywhere except powder
where it was sweet - which seems to be contrary to current opinion. But
I've not made an A/B comparison recently - or thought much about it.

and so I think that there was a lot of work on an area that
wasn't really that important because everyone already agrees that
wider boards float better, heavier riders need bigger boards, and if
you ride faster, it is easier to stay on top of powder, it is easier
to float on heavy snow than light snow.


But it's kind of nice to bring it together in a simple equation - for me
the speed squared term was a surprise

If you could explain why a
wide nose pintail like the Fish floats more easily (combine the
equations for relative surface area with the lift equations) that
might be interesting.


I've had a Fish 156 HD for 2 years and a 160 for one. Moving the area to
the nose, moves the lift there too (as per the equations!). If the lift
is at the front then your weight will be supported at the front through
your front leg, rather than the back one. The flex at the nose will also
tend to move the lift forward (increased angle of attack at the front
compared to the back, as the nose flexes). Also, because the tail sinks
more, the board will be stable with a higher angle of attack, generating
more lift per unit area of the board (need to think a bit more about
this last point).

And about an excuse to think about snowboarding in powder... don't
torture yourself like that... go out and snowboard!


Um, why not got snowboarding right now instead of posting? Lots of
possible reasons: it's dark outside, I've only got 30 mins before
supper, the local hill looks like this http://www.snowdome.co.uk/
But don't feel sorry for me. I've managed to average 4 weeks riding a
year over the last 10 years and visited some special places: Kirkwood,
Baker, Red Mountain, Steamboat, Les Arcs, Chamonix (to name a few). Last
season, I managed 2 weeks in Chamonix with heli-drops in Switzerland and
Italy including descents where no-one had yet been down that season, let
alone that day. Next seasons looking even better. Believe me there's no
torture involved!

Iain





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fakie board recommendation Skitzo Snowboarding 9 May 13th 04 11:03 PM
Board bags recommendation GB Snowboarding 6 March 5th 04 04:36 PM
Donek Freecarve 163 alpine board for sale Mike T Marketplace 1 February 4th 04 08:49 PM
Donek Wide too "fast" a board for me? Johnny1 Snowboarding 18 December 6th 03 07:19 AM
Burton Dominant Sizing------Please help Lee Snowboarding 5 November 21st 03 06:22 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.