The Official Mervin Manufacturing Thread

[Kevington]

I think its also the that case he can do the things he can do because of his size. He’s just a stompy beast in the Jamie Lynn mold.

[sunokeru]

Yeah I have it in 156. It has a middle of the road flex . Rides short . Feels damped but still gives u feedback what's underneath. Floats great for its size .Wish I had gotten the 159.
Really like it though

Thank you for the feedback. Just curious on size. I’m about 165 lbs. I just bought the 156cm. Maybe I should have gone 159? Usually I’m riding 155 aeronaut

It's not quite this simple, but the aeronaut has significantly more edge than the rig. 55 aero is 121cm (a lot for the overall length), rig 56 is only 103. Pretty typical for Mervin these days. You will have noticeably less edge, but more kick on each end, particularly the nose, so it should float better and feel more maneuverable. Aero will bite groomers and firm snow better. I don't think it's a "size up on the rig because of edge" thing, but you could if you wanted, and then it would be a little bit wider as well. They could be used the same way, but have some key differences.

Is EE not about the location of the contact points/transition zones while length of nose/tail kick is based on running length/camber profile?
You can still have a seriously long EE on a board that has long nose kick (thinking Hovercraft etc).

[C.Fuzzy]

T Ricky is still on his same wavelength

IMG_0456.png

It always surprises me how out of shape he looks for how hard he rips. Everytime I pack on the weight I ride a ton worse.

Weird comment but ok… as a general rule the bar isn’t set super high for snowboarders, the workouts most of the pros do are odd at best, also for those who take their sport seriously I can’t imagine anyone being more of an example of an actual professional athlete then Travis, also it’s the off season he’s probably chilling on his boat.

Thanks for the explanation. Here I was thinking it was a pretty average conversational comment about how much more difficult I, myself, from my experience from riding since the 90's, find carrying extra weight while snowboarding compared to one of the GOATS of the sport. It's a great load off my mind to know he's good and professional and he sails in the summer time, and so my observation is weird.

[jclinares]

Thank you for the feedback. Just curious on size. I’m about 165 lbs. I just bought the 156cm. Maybe I should have gone 159? Usually I’m riding 155 aeronaut

It's not quite this simple, but the aeronaut has significantly more edge than the rig. 55 aero is 121cm (a lot for the overall length), rig 56 is only 103. Pretty typical for Mervin these days. You will have noticeably less edge, but more kick on each end, particularly the nose, so it should float better and feel more maneuverable. Aero will bite groomers and firm snow better. I don't think it's a "size up on the rig because of edge" thing, but you could if you wanted, and then it would be a little bit wider as well. They could be used the same way, but have some key differences.

Is EE not about the location of the contact points/transition zones while length of nose/tail kick is based on running length/camber profile?
You can still have a seriously long EE on a board that has long nose kick (thinking Hovercraft etc).

Yes and no. In your example of the Hovercraft, it's actually very comparable to the Aeronaut. The 156 Hovercraft has 122.5 cm. of EE, which is basically the same board length-to-EE ratio of the 155 Aeronaut. The Aeronaut packs a ton of EE in the shape, when considering how it's being marketed. What Spenser is trying to say is that the Lib Rig has a very short EE for its lengths, as a mild volume-shifted board. Even Lib's marketing says you should upsize a little for it, but ultimately, it's the rider's decision to make, once they're aware of what they're getting into.

But, in general, Mervin is not known for a ton of EE on their boards. Of course, your point is also valid in that shaping of the board does affect how much nose and tail you'll have after the EE. For a ridiculous example, the 173 Nitro Cannon only has 114 cm. of EE, lol.

[peruna]

I'm always kind of confused when brands say "Running Length" vs "Contact Length" instead of "Effective Edge". Like EE has a definition, and I understand how Burton uses RL, but do other brands all measure the same things when they're talking about RL or CL? Does Lib mean EE when they put CL on their spec sheets?

[Kevington]

I'm always kind of confused when brands say "Running Length" vs "Contact Length" instead of "Effective Edge". Like EE has a definition, and I understand how Burton uses RL, but do other brands all measure the same things when they're talking about RL or CL? Does Lib mean EE when they put CL on their spec sheets?

Contact length is a straight measurement from where the base touches a flat surface at each end. Two boards with the same EE could have quite different contact lengths if for example one was full camber and the other had rocker at each end.

I always wondered if Mervin used contact length because magne traction would make the EE longer, or impossible to accurately measure due to it waving in and out rather than being a clean curve.

Contact length is only really useful for comparing one Mervin board to another and kind of gives an impression of the camber profile more than it tells how much edge will be in the snow once the board is angled.

[jclinares]

I'm always kind of confused when brands say "Running Length" vs "Contact Length" instead of "Effective Edge". Like EE has a definition, and I understand how Burton uses RL, but do other brands all measure the same things when they're talking about RL or CL? Does Lib mean EE when they put CL on their spec sheets?

Actually, you're right, and I was misusing the numbers in the Mervin spec sheets. Already changed my previous comment, although I've seen all three terms used interchangeably (a mistake, probably). I suspect @Kevington is correct in that Mervin uses contact length instead of EE because the magne-traction would throw the EE number out of whack.

Essentially, EE is the amount of metal edge that is between the two main contact points of a board. And the original definition of running length is the straight line between the contact points at the base, when the board is flat on a surface. IMO, effective edge is a more telling number, and has become a standard measurement for the mainstream manufacturers; because unless you're really worried about stability when riding on a flat base, I'd say the measurement of the edge available to ride on is more important.

[casjcade]

I'm always kind of confused when brands say "Running Length" vs "Contact Length" instead of "Effective Edge". Like EE has a definition, and I understand how Burton uses RL, but do other brands all measure the same things when they're talking about RL or CL? Does Lib mean EE when they put CL on their spec sheets?

Yes, it's the length of the board that's in contact with the floor when you press it down, from comparing boards and spec sheets. Effective edge could be more.

[Kevington]

I'm always kind of confused when brands say "Running Length" vs "Contact Length" instead of "Effective Edge". Like EE has a definition, and I understand how Burton uses RL, but do other brands all measure the same things when they're talking about RL or CL? Does Lib mean EE when they put CL on their spec sheets?

Actually, you're right, and I was misusing the numbers in the Mervin spec sheets. Already changed my previous comment, although I've seen all three terms used interchangeably (a mistake, probably). I suspect @Kevington is correct in that Mervin uses contact length instead of EE because the magne-traction would throw the EE number out of whack.

Essentially, EE is the amount of metal edge that is between the two main contact points of a board. And the original definition of running length is the straight line between the contact points at the base, when the board is flat on a surface. IMO, effective edge is a more telling number, and has become a standard measurement for the mainstream manufacturers; because unless you're really worried about stability when riding on a flat base, I'd say the measurement of the edge available to ride on is more important.

I can see why running length could be useful in that it is an absolute measurement of the length of the board minus nose and tail. EE is still variable based or side cut radius where a tighter radius will give a higher number for EE but the board won’t ‘ride’ any longer than one with the same running length and a larger radius.

[Spenser]

Agreed that is what EE refers to. The radius of the two boards in question is close enough that the curve won't matter for the comparison. So to simplify, thinking of edge as a portion of the total length, two same-length boards with notably different edge lengths will have different kick lengths. One offsets the other, generally speaking. Of course, you can then offset the edge to get a longer nose kick, but if you keep the edge length, you also shorten the tail kick when doing so.

I might be misunderstanding the hovercraft example? As above, the reason it can have a long edge and also a long nose kick is because the edge on the tail goes all the way to the end - it's heavily offset to the rear. Its EE would be shortened if they gave it a more traditional tail kick like the rig. Anyway, maybe we actually agree and are just thinking about this topic differently

The kazu comes to mind as another example of capita packing in a lot of edge. One of the first things I notice when I see that board is the kicks aren't very long, which is how they're able to do it. Or the orbit… 124cm on the 57. I guess it has a slightly longer nose kick, but not like a pow board, and the tail kick is very short, hence how they pack in the edge length. That's my general preference - I get to have plenty of edge on a board that also floats very well directionally, and I don't need much tail kick.