We're really putting the "nerd" in "The snowboarding forum for nerds" today, aren't we?
Spenser wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 1:55 pm
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.
The Kazu is very close to the Aeronaut (it's very interesting to me how both those decks feature a lot of similar stuff), and yeah, on a groomer I can feel the "extra edge" on mine, compared to my previous daily driver (1 cm. shorter, but 5.5 cm. less EE). It still floats very well in power, even with the shorter kick, but I can see why people agree that it requires steeper terrain and higher speeds, in order to avoid sinking. Which is exactly how Kazu rides, so I guess it's to be expected.
Good pow board, but not an unsinkable powder specialist, if you ask me.
Kessler clothoid (aka Palmers feelslikeflyin:)) tightens the sidecut after the rocker/running length in nose and tail to extend effective edge as you press the middle of the board down and change the sidecut in deep turns.
Spenser wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 1:55 pm
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.
A lot of Capita boards also have really abrupt blend zones where the edge meets the nose and tail. It gets even more EE out of the overall length and gives them a very responsive feel.
Spenser wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 1:55 pmAgreed 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.
I agree with the part in italics. I do not think the part in bold is right: Many boards have both lots of EE and lots of kick - it just means that the kick starts well inside the contact points (and the contact points are lifted). Sticking with the Hovercraft example: The 156 has 122.5cm EE (quite a lot) but only 100.5cm contact length (not because it is shifted back but because the nose kick starts well within the EE/well before the nose contact points).
A looooong time ago in the pure camber days EE and contact/running length where (almost) equivalent. It all changed with center rocker and now with setback, CRC, and RCR profiles they are quite different things (again, see the Hovercraft example - but there are many other examples).
In theory, EE should be more about edge hold and carving/turning characteristics, while contact length/kick length should be the bigger factor for float and stability when not fully on edge.
Last edited by sunokeru on Tue Oct 15, 2024 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Agree, but that was not my point. What I was getting at was that EE (relative to board size) does not tell you anything about kick length*. At least that is what I was always taught...
This description is pretty much how I learned it: https://snowboardingprofiles.com/what-i ... -snowboard
* Slight qualification: I suppose it does tell you the minimum total (nose + tail) kick length, as I do not think any boards have the camber extend beyond the contact points/blend zones.
Analysis of these B boards measurements is as follows
Sherlock 154
ee is marked in red and are the points of contact of the board on the ground when it is supported laterally. 1105cm
running length are the points of contact of the board on the ground when the board is flat 930cm
Stun gun 155
Ee 116,5
Running length 1090
sherlock ee and running length measurements and stun gun ee and running length measurements in that positions are what B says in his measurements catalog
A quick mockup I just did based upon how I've understood these differences. The blend between the EE and CL can vary and give different feels for how an edge engages... based upon a number of factors. In my example all the baords would have the same Effective Edge, but different contact lengths.
casjcade wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:21 am
On one of my boards at least, I had to press the camber flat to get the contact length to specs.
I'd assume that's how Burton measures the RL of the Custom Flying V to be the same as the RL of the Custom Camber. Because I've used the Custom FV, and that thing does not sit flat on the ground until you put weight on it, lol.
I thought I had it narrowed down to the lib rig, however, the new GNU Banked Country is peaking my interest. I’ve always ridden traditional camber boards. Tried Flying V on a Burton custom and it was garbage. How is that C3 camber?
