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

Snowboard suggestions for heavy guys?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 23rd 05, 06:51 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 24th 05, 04:14 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 24th 05, 01:22 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 24th 05, 11:26 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 28th 05, 03:22 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 28th 05, 04:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
Hi Guys. First Time Poster philip246 Alpine Skiing 3 March 18th 05 06:13 AM
Suggestions for Christmas-time skiing Rodney Somerstein Alpine Skiing (moderated) 21 November 24th 04 10:02 PM
The Snowboard FAQ Switters Snowboarding 4 September 22nd 04 07:51 AM
Snowboard FAQ - updated Switters Snowboarding 0 February 5th 04 08:54 AM
broken snowboard sporty.zimowe Snowboarding 2 December 3rd 03 04:43 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.


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