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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
* 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 03:36 PM |
Donek Freecarve 163 alpine board for sale | Mike T | Marketplace | 1 | February 4th 04 07:49 PM |
Donek Wide too "fast" a board for me? | Johnny1 | Snowboarding | 18 | December 6th 03 06:19 AM |
Burton Dominant Sizing------Please help | Lee | Snowboarding | 5 | November 21st 03 05:22 PM |