The Official CAPiTA Thread

[SJF_NH]

The above is next-level EL. Which is terrifying for a numbers stupid like me...

[YukonCornelius]

Sidecut feels very short, much shorter than FA 168 or Transmission, too short for my liking, so I was shocked when came home and checked specs sheet that it is 8.7m. I measured it and it is exactly 8.7m!

I'm bad at maths so forgive me if this is a stupid question but how on earth are you measuring the sidecut radius?

The math is quite simple really and you always have calculators for everything available, to skip the math, for example:
sidecut.jpg
https://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2. ... moreless=1

When measuring, just skip section of sidecut where radius is not consistent, in this case I took ~10 cm off from contact points.

love this, thank you for sharing!

[Kevington]

Sidecut feels very short, much shorter than FA 168 or Transmission, too short for my liking, so I was shocked when came home and checked specs sheet that it is 8.7m. I measured it and it is exactly 8.7m!

I'm bad at maths so forgive me if this is a stupid question but how on earth are you measuring the sidecut radius?

The math is quite simple really and you always have calculators for everything available, to skip the math, for example:
sidecut.jpg
https://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2. ... moreless=1

When measuring, just skip section of sidecut where radius is not consistent, in this case I took ~10 cm off from contact points.

This is awesome!!

Yung Pythagoras over here.

[sunokeru]

Sidecut feels very short, much shorter than FA 168 or Transmission, too short for my liking, so I was shocked when came home and checked specs sheet that it is 8.7m. I measured it and it is exactly 8.7m!

I'm bad at maths so forgive me if this is a stupid question but how on earth are you measuring the sidecut radius?

The math is quite simple really and you always have calculators for everything available, to skip the math, for example:
sidecut.jpg
https://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2. ... moreless=1

When measuring, just skip section of sidecut where radius is not consistent, in this case I took ~10 cm off from contact points.

The geometry calculation is quite straightforward and but I question the applicability in practice. The issue is that we are dealing with a (relatively) small segment of a large circle, which is why Height measure (the sidecut depth) is so small relative to the chord (the 'linear' effective edge, not accounting for the sidecut depth - but the ratio would still extreme even if the curvature is taking into account).

As a result the calculation of the sidecut radius is *extremely* sensitive to this height measure. Hence, an accurate estimate of the sidecut radius relies on a very accurate measurement of this height/sidecut depth - beyond the accuracy that can reliably be achieved in most field observations.

Case in point: In your example a +-1mm difference in the height/sidecut depth changes the sidecut radius by >0.5m in either direction.

[/nerd ]

[kimchi]

I'm bad at maths so forgive me if this is a stupid question but how on earth are you measuring the sidecut radius?

The math is quite simple really and you always have calculators for everything available, to skip the math, for example:
sidecut.jpg
https://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/rad2. ... moreless=1

When measuring, just skip section of sidecut where radius is not consistent, in this case I took ~10 cm off from contact points.

The geometry calculation is quite straightforward and but I question the applicability in practice. The issue is that we are dealing with a (relatively) small segment of a large circle, which is why Height measure (the sidecut depth) is so small relative to the chord (the 'linear' effective edge, not accounting for the sidecut depth - but the ratio would still extreme even if the curvature is taking into account).

As a result the calculation of the sidecut radius is *extremely* sensitive to this height measure. Hence, an accurate estimate of the sidecut radius relies on a very accurate measurement of this height/sidecut depth - beyond the accuracy that can reliably be achieved in most field observations.

Case in point: In your example a +-1mm difference in the height/sidecut depth changes the sidecut radius by >0.5m in either direction.

[/nerd ]

This. The math is pretty straightforward, but damned if I could accurately measure the equation inputs. I can barely measure my windows for replacing my blinds to the quarter inch, much less sidecut depth to the mm.

[alex]

Sure, if you cannot measure arc height accurately - do not bother. You should play with the calculator and see, how your estimated measuring tolerance will affect the result, in this case 0.1mm accuracy is needed. Personally I can measure with better than 0.5mm accuracy with just high quality rulers and with 0.05mm accuracy with my high quality caliper (but this is much more complicated). You can also measure board with at measurement points and calculate arc height from there, this way you can double the measurement accuracy.

Of course, most importantly, normally this is completely unnecessary anyway.

[alex]

I know it's a bit different than this Kazu, but with my previous camber-to-tail, the general consensus here was to set it a little bit back from the suggested inserts. I did it, and it rides beautifully.
Also my understainding is that Fawcett mount the bindings set back, from the standard suggested stance, even in this Kazu version.
Maybe is worth giving a try.

Thank you for the tip, Kazu felt so balanced at reference setback (20mm), so I probably would never have tried it other way, but now I did, set bindings at 40mm setback, front innermost inserts, rear at reference, to provide my stance of ~54cm, and this works perfectly. Still very balanced, did not feel any need for excessive front foot pressure, but now did not feel "lack of nose" anymore. Btw, this is now as much setback as possible for ~54mm stance.

Also, I set rear binding at +15° and my muscle memory immediately remembered that this (+33°, +15°) is how I was riding almost whole last season, just my "normal" memory forgot this over summer. Now I do not have rear ankle issue anymore.

20241217_162251.jpg (55.86 KiB) Viewed 8854 times

[Vanni]

I'm glad it helped

(still tempted to buy a 154...)

[jclinares]

Gonna have to try moving my bindings back a little, next time I take my Kazu out (probably not until February, unfortunately). Last season I rode mine at reference, and it felt really good, ngl.

Regarding your review, @alex, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially with how the board turns and how stiff it was (if that's a 6.5 flex in Capita's scale, the day they release a really stiff board, it'll just be a wooden beam).

I got to ride plenty of icy conditions in Argentina a few months ago on it, and honestly, I didn't love how it did. Felt like I had to really push into it, to get it to bite. But my previous DD had edge tech and no taper, I haven't ridden the Flight Attendant in many years, and never ridden the Transmission, so we're definitely using different comparison points.

One thing I'll say is that the Kazu rides powder very well. I imagine it rides it even better now, after the redesign added some rocker to it. Remember that the original model was designed for steep powder freestyle, and the idea of the new shape is to make it more versatile as an all-mountain board, including low-angle pow, which I think it did. It's not an unsinkable powder specialist, but I rode mine in Whistler last year, while we got almost 1 m. of snow in 48 hrs., and it held up beautifully. Yes, it's a board that prefers steeper runs, go fast, and ride aggressively, but riding it at the reference stance in more mellow pow fields, I didn't feel like I was going to sink the nose and tomahawk into powder at any point.

[Vanni]

Friday I used my 2019 Kazu, it was a really cold day, with a foot of fresh and light powder. In some places even two feet.
Before the season I brought it to a ski shop to have a base grind. Before the base grind it was a little bit slow (which is really strange for Capita), now everything seems perfect. The board is super fast, let's see in the next few days how it goes.
I don't know if it was the base grind, the light powder, or also the steepness of some pow field, but it did an egregious work in powder.
Maybe it was a combination of the 3.
It did really well also in low angle powder, I didn't have to work too hard to stay afloat.
I'm really happy with the performance