Donek Web Site, 2nd Board recommendation

id no@idea wrote in message ...
Arvin Chang wrote:

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

You talk about 'extreme' and 'all that work'. Hardly - it was simple
stuff and took around 20 mins!

Ok... to everyone else on the thread, who thought id's talk was
enlightening?

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.

We should ponder that for a bit (why there appears to be a discrepany
of opinions, as oppose to everyone being in agreement). I can see
where a softer flex allows for slower speed turns, which would be
useful in tree powder. Can you think of an explanation on why you like
the stiffer board for powder? Were you doing big bowl 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.

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

Really? I didn't find that surprising... but I was probably just lucky
in guessing it that way.

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).

Having more lift with a bigger nose seem intuitive... but the flex is
less so for me. I guess I can see if the board is already tilted up
and the nose flex "up" even more, it helps maintain the higher angle
of attack. Let's not forget that the stance is really setback...
weighting down a tail a lot more as well.

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!

Uh huh... uh huh... uh huh... ok I think you took my comment a
little too literally. Unfortunately for me, out of all of those I've
only been to Kirkwood... but it's now my "local mountain. so it's
all good.

--Arvin

This is wierd. I seem to have got myself in the position of defending my
right to spend my time as I please and to post on rss!

Arvin Chang wrote:

Ok... to everyone else on the thread, who thought id's talk was
enlightening?

I made two technical posts. Mike and Neil (both guys I respect) responded.
If you want antisocial, take a look at this:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...oogle%2BSearch
(or put "sidecut shapes" into google groups)

useful in tree powder. Can you think of an explanation on why you like
the stiffer board for powder? Were you doing big bowl powder?

As I say, it was 5 years ago - and it was the only board I rode that
season. An a/b comparison today might well give a different result

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


Really? I didn't find that surprising... but I was probably just lucky
in guessing it that way.

So you accept that the equation applies? To me it's a *big* step to say
that a snowboard on solid snow behaves just like an aircraft wing in
air. I'm a little disappointed no-one challenged it! Care to defend it
while I shoot it down?

Uh huh... uh huh... uh huh... ok I think you took my comment a
little too literally. Unfortunately for me, out of all of those I've
only been to Kirkwood... but it's now my "local mountain. so it's
all good.

I was at Kirkwood in 2000. It was a great trip - my 165 wide was waiting
for me and I had 3 weeks great Tahoe riding with og. I've been talking
to Steve about a follow up visit this January so maybe we get to argue
face to face :-)

Iain

id wrote:
Where's your local hill, Neil? BC/Alberta if I recall

I'm in Saskatoon, so my local hill is Blackstrap. I don't ride there
much - even if I wanted to, the combination of weather, snow conditions
and personal schedule seems to keep coming up craps for me. The closest
real hills are Banff (Sunshine/Louise), so if we go for a weekend trip
it is usually there. I'll be in Panorama for the school break (riding
Feb 14-18 inclusive), that's the only firm trip planned so far. Also
shooting for a weekend in Fernie sometime in December, plus another
weekend trip in late January with all my sword-swinging friends.

Neil

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:14:47 GMT, Christopher Cox
wrote:

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

I think this will be year 4 for the board, with about 90 days on it so
far. I think the tail was initially injured by trying to sink it in
some hard snow to stand it up! This is not a manufacturing defect, and
since it's right at the tail the board works just fine. I've had it
repaired once, and will have it repaired again, but eventually the
injury is going to spread due to water penetration.

-- Robert

useful in tree powder. Can you think of an explanation on why you like
the stiffer board for powder? Were you doing big bowl powder?

As I say, it was 5 years ago - and it was the only board I rode that
season. An a/b comparison today might well give a different result

I'll jump in here - going back to my Salomon FRS 165 example,

I actually did enjoy the FRS 165 on open powder bowls of moderate pitch,
where gaining too much speed was never an issue. However I scared the crap
out of myself whenever I took it into the trees or down an extremely steep
powder run where I wanted to make some turns to keep from going Ludicrous
Speed. (Think, The Wall at Kirkwood. After dropping in off the
cornice, I liked to make a couple of quick turns to shave off the momentum
of dropping in... )

I was able to manage the board in those situations in hard boots only.
Softies - forget about it!

Mike T

Neil Gendzwill wrote:

I'm in Saskatoon, so my local hill is Blackstrap. I don't ride there
much - even if I wanted to, the combination of weather, snow conditions
and personal schedule seems to keep coming up craps for me. The closest
real hills are Banff (Sunshine/Louise), so if we go for a weekend trip
it is usually there. I'll be in Panorama for the school break (riding
Feb 14-18 inclusive), that's the only firm trip planned so far. Also
shooting for a weekend in Fernie sometime in December, plus another
weekend trip in late January with all my sword-swinging friends.

Checks atlas. Saskatoon - got it.
I spent a couple of weeks in Lake Louise and liked it a lot - great
terrain. If it got Sunshine's snowfall it would be hard to beat.
Panorama: lots of vert, good carving, but not that much snowfall if I
recall.
Fernie: I need to get there!

Iain

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:04:43 GMT, id no@idea allegedly wrote:

Fernie: I need to get there!

It rocks

A couple of nice steep bits ala Red Mountain, but mostly good bowls.
Could do with more lifts from the base to avoid bottle necks, but probably
doesn't get jammed that much. Yikes, it's almost 5 years since I was
there!

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - http://rssFAQ.org/

id wrote:

I spent a couple of weeks in Lake Louise and liked it a lot - great
terrain. If it got Sunshine's snowfall it would be hard to beat.

I love Louise, and it's real purty too. Carving-wise, if you're not
having fun bombing Men's or Ladies' Downhill, you're more jaded than me.
Or maybe you just don't have the chops yet, in which case head over to
Larch chair for fun carving with a little less tilt.

Panorama: lots of vert, good carving, but not that much snowfall if I
recall.

I haven't been there in 20 years but that was my impression then.
People keep telling us how much it's changed so we're checking it out
this year.

Fernie: I need to get there!

Fernie's great if it's not raining. A buddy of mine has a condo in town
that he rents me for cheap so that's a bonus.

Neil

I was at Kirkwood in 2000. It was a great trip - my 165 wide was waiting
for me and I had 3 weeks great Tahoe riding with og. I've been talking
to Steve about a follow up visit this January so maybe we get to argue
face to face :-)

Iain

I agree with Iain across the board on this thread.

I prefer a stiffer board for powder so it does not wallow and
stiffness can make up for some length and width imo.

id wrote:
This is wierd. I seem to have got myself in the position of defending
my
right to spend my time as I please and to post on rss!

This exactly the reason why I wanted to stay out of you subthread - I
could just tell it was going to lead into a quagmire debate. Hence why
I was reply to Mike T's posts and not yours directly because I knew you
would want to debate the point and I didn't really feel like debating
points that I felt were "moot". Before I start, this will be my last
post on this matter. You are free to reply as you want, I just don't
feel like spending more time on explaining why I didn't want to spend
time discussing a moot point with you in the first place.

I think this is mostly a misunderstanding. As I mentioned before, I
don't think your calculations are clearly incorrect (as you first
assumed), and even if I don't think their are particularly helpful, I
do not believe that you shouldn't have posted them at all (as you also
just assumed). You can post to the newgroups as much as you want (I
mean Mike T and I spend more time here than you, so it's not like we
have a right to say anything about spending too much time on RSS).
However, in the same way, I am free to have my own opinions about
whether posts were helpful or not (like like on Amazon), these are
personal opinions and do not claim to speak for the group as a whole.

Let's go back to the original comment I made.

lonerider wrote: ========================
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!
================================================

See the smiley face? The comment was made in a light-hearted joking
manner. But you took it fully serious and became very defensive
immediately.

id wrote :========================
Ouch!
My first degree is in engineering (admittedly some time ago)... 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
================================================

I try to explain how this was a misunderstanding on my choice of words
and I also mentioned how you we taking things to seriously.

lonerider wrote: ========================
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.

[from another post]
ok I think you took my comment a little too literally
================================================

You start seeing what I mean, but still are looking for a fight

id wrote :========================
....
If you want antisocial, take a look at this:
....
I'm a little disappointed no-one challenged it! Care to defend it
while I shoot it down?
....
so maybe we get to argue
face to face :-)
================================================

You can see while, still light-hearted, you are still looking for a
heated (but civil) debate - and keep encouraging me to challenge you on
any of the previously "discussed" points - after I said three times
that I wasn't going to. And this was precisely what I wanted to avoid.
I suspect no one else wanted to challenge you for similar reasons. I
made the mistake of making even a side comment to Mike about it... and
look at how much time I've had to spend at once explaining my opinion
and yet still saying I don't want to spend time debating/arguing with
you about it... can you see the irony of the whole situation.

Ok, I think that should explain my position pretty clearly... and
that's all I'm going to write on this topic.