![]() |
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You talk too much theory, don't look around at people snowboarding!
Use the pros as an example, because we know they can edge.....right? -snip freestylers- sure, and if you look at pro racers I bet you'll find no overhang on any of their setups... Mike T, you don't know simple physics! If your feet are nailed to a 2' wide board, you'd never have the power to edge it at speed. If your feet are nailed to 9" wide board, you'd easily tip it over, carve it hard, and have some toe drag ....so you add risers to lift your foot off the snow, just like raceboarders, for the clearance. Your example is analogous to general relativity where mine is analgous to quantum mechanics ![]() I am talking about keeping the board width constant, and choosing stance angles. My claim is that the difference in leverage on the board between "a small amount of overhang" and "no overhang" will be small. In fact I claim that the differences you will notice will be more due to the position your bosy is in, in a given stance angle, and the axis on which you flex your boots. Example: I get slightly more power out of 21/12 angles and 3/8" overhang than I do out of 36/27 angles and no overhang. BUT, I believe it's because I'm flexing the boots (Malamutes) where they are stiffer in the lower angles. My Malamutes are actually not that stiff along the diagonal, and when I set up a stance where I try to flex them along the diagonal, less power goes to edging. Again - all I am trying to say is that "a small amount of overhang - say 3/8 inch" does not inherehtly offer substatntially more leverage than "no overhang; boots lined up over edge". Mike T ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Christopher Cox" wrote So after considering it for awhile, I figure the optimum board width would seem to be the following: The amount of width required accommodating your bare foot in your riding stance. Because I like to occasionally ride park and ride out switch, I find angles +15 front –5 rear comfortable. On my Palmer Crown and Zuma Surf H.C. Carbon, my rear bare foot has little or no overhang. [skip] Anyhow, that’s my technical stab at the problem. Technical implies you gotta have some good reasons for what you're suggesting. You provided none. Why would a board width that's equal to your foot size be optimal? Beats me. How do you like your Crown? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:51:17 GMT, "Mike T"
allegedly wrote: You talk too much theory, don't look around at people snowboarding! Use the pros as an example, because we know they can edge.....right? Using the pros as an example doesn't make sense to me. Sure we can aspire to how they ride, but they're at a different level completely. Also, if indeed they are cramming their feet into boot sizes too small, that doesn't help us. Most of us wasnt to be comfortable on the mountain all day, not cramping our feet up for a 40 second run down the pipe. Again - all I am trying to say is that "a small amount of overhang - say 3/8 inch" does not inherehtly offer substatntially more leverage than "no overhang; boots lined up over edge". I can rail much harder on my Sasquatch (280mm) than I can on my Canyon (268mm). - 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/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:55:14 -0600, Neil Gendzwill
wrote: OTOH the only time most soft booters see an inclination approaching 45 degrees is when they're skidding down the hill on their heel edge on a slope that's too steep for them. heh. It's November, so I've re-subscribed to rss. Nice to see things haven't changed too much. -- Champ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
dakh wrote:
"Christopher Cox" wrote So after considering it for awhile, I figure the optimum board width would seem to be the following: The amount of width required accommodating your bare foot in your riding stance. Because I like to occasionally ride park and ride out switch, I find angles +15 front –5 rear comfortable. On my Palmer Crown and Zuma Surf H.C. Carbon, my rear bare foot has little or no overhang. [skip] Anyhow, that’s my technical stab at the problem. Technical implies you gotta have some good reasons for what you're suggesting. You provided none. Why would a board width that's equal to your foot size be optimal? Beats me. You seemed to have missed the preceding paragraph ______________________________________________ In reality you do not want any overhang, that would be your foot overhanging the board OR your board overhanging your foot. It’s all a matter of leverage and how the rider will be transferring work to the edge of the board. Too wide of a board would be mechanical advantage against the rider _______________________________________________ How do you like your Crown? Love it. More of a board than a rider of my caliber would use, but it definitely makes up for my mistakes. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can rail much harder on my Sasquatch (280mm) than I can on my Canyon
(268mm). Ditto for me on the narrower versions of the same boards - Wide (260mm) vs. 2000 Custom 160 (248mm IIRC). Mike T ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hi Guys. First Time Poster | philip246 | Alpine Skiing | 3 | March 18th 05 05:13 AM |
Suggestions for Christmas-time skiing | Rodney Somerstein | Alpine Skiing (moderated) | 21 | November 24th 04 09:02 PM |
The Snowboard FAQ | Switters | Snowboarding | 4 | September 22nd 04 07:51 AM |
Snowboard FAQ - updated | Switters | Snowboarding | 0 | February 5th 04 07:54 AM |
broken snowboard | sporty.zimowe | Snowboarding | 2 | December 3rd 03 03:43 PM |