Weird behavior with my Bataleon Goliath. - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-14-2010, 10:57 PM
Veteran Member
 
john doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Look for differences in the bindings. Just because the disks are set to the same angle doesn't always mean the boot will sit at that same angle in the binding. Also look at the shape and angle of the binding's foot bed and toe/heel boot centering. Those little things could effect your riding.
john doe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-15-2010, 10:15 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,351
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phile00 View Post
Hmm, interesting. I'm going to post pics tomorrow. Without taking my bindings off I want to say the back binding is on the inner most inserts, with the base plate being moved in even further than that. And the front binding is also on the inner most insert, but centered over it. I think this is my problem, but what sucks is I'm going to have to go with a wider stance width than I want to just to be able to ride the board properly, whereas on my EVO-R (which is a twin), I set it exactly at the stance with I wanted and it performs like a champ...and the board is 2cm longer!
Hi Phile,

Bataleon does the design work to get their inserts in the right spot for their technology. So if you go by the center 4 inserts on each cluster as having the spec setback of 1 cm (to the real effective edge and running surface of this triple based board), then by the adjustments that you have made, it sounds like you are now set with no setback or possibly even a forward of center position (depending on how much adjustment you have on your disks).

Let us know.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wiredsport is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-15-2010, 10:44 PM Thread Starter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK here are a couple of pictures. I removed the bindings for the second picture to show you exactly where my baseplates were.

They are both on the innermost inserts, but the front is in the center of the baseplate, and the back is as far in as I could get it in order to achieve a 19.75 inch stance width. Is the reference stance width the middle four inserts? If so, that's too wide for me

I'll try centering the baseplate on the innermost inserts and see how that works out.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0488.jpg (95.9 KB, 44 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0490.jpg (82.4 KB, 35 views)

Last edited by phile00; 02-15-2010 at 10:47 PM.
phile00 is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 12:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
rode my (new to me) Jam today, and this time out i didnt feel this extra locked in feeling at all, like i did a little bit last time out.

any chance u can stand to try and ride a bit wider than ur normal, just to see if the problem goes away?
( how is it that you're riding this narrow anyway? all u kids seem to rock out with wiiiiide stances )
RickB is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 12:12 AM Thread Starter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
rode my (new to me) Jam today, and this time out i didnt feel this extra locked in feeling at all, like i did a little bit last time out.

any chance u can stand to try and ride a bit wider than ur normal, just to see if the problem goes away?
( how is it that you're riding this narrow anyway? all u kids seem to rock out with wiiiiide stances )
I had a wider stance originally, and for some reason I just felt like it was harder to spin and less comfortable on jumps. It sounds odd, since a wider stance should make jump landings more stable, but that's how I roll I guess

My 151 Never Summer EVO-R with a 19.5" stance width is freakin' PERFECT.
phile00 is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 09:08 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,351
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phile00 View Post
OK here are a couple of pictures. I removed the bindings for the second picture to show you exactly where my baseplates were.

They are both on the innermost inserts, but the front is in the center of the baseplate, and the back is as far in as I could get it in order to achieve a 19.75 inch stance width. Is the reference stance width the middle four inserts? If so, that's too wide for me

I'll try centering the baseplate on the innermost inserts and see how that works out.
The problem was that you had adjusted your whole stance forward on the board so that you had removed the 1 cm setback entirely and possible gone forward of "centerred". This will usually cause poor results on boards that are designed with setback. If you were to use the innermost inserts and center the disks that would give you the manufacturer designed 1 cm of setback. You want to go even narrower than that so if you adjust in symmetrically using the disk holes, you will maintain that 1 cm of setback. If you can not get your exact stance using the same holes on each disk, then adjust the front disk further back, not the back disk further forward as you had originally done. This will return you to very close to the design of the board and will likely solve your problem.

Hope that helps.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Wiredsport; 02-16-2010 at 09:11 AM.
Wiredsport is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 09:56 AM Thread Starter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
The problem was that you had adjusted your whole stance forward on the board so that you had removed the 1 cm setback entirely and possible gone forward of "centerred". This will usually cause poor results on boards that are designed with setback. If you were to use the innermost inserts and center the disks that would give you the manufacturer designed 1 cm of setback. You want to go even narrower than that so if you adjust in symmetrically using the disk holes, you will maintain that 1 cm of setback. If you can not get your exact stance using the same holes on each disk, then adjust the front disk further back, not the back disk further forward as you had originally done. This will return you to very close to the design of the board and will likely solve your problem.

Hope that helps.
I understand what you're saying and will try it, but since I still have more board out in front of me, it's a tad confusing. I wish I could see the board geometry on paper, I think that would help me understand it better.

What's odd to me is that I adjusted it so that the front of the board is still 1cm longer to the effective edge than the back...
phile00 is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 10:16 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,351
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phile00 View Post
I understand what you're saying and will try it, but since I still have more board out in front of me, it's a tad confusing. I wish I could see the board geometry on paper, I think that would help me understand it better.

What's odd to me is that I adjusted it so that the front of the board is still 1cm longer to the effective edge than the back...
This has to do with triple base. On the setback triple base boards, the areas of lifted edge on the nose is longer than on the tail, so true "effective edge" is not related to the wide points (contact points) but to where the edge would actively engage. I highly suggest using the inserts as your basis for determining the start point for stance and discard the old rules of thumb that were based on trad cam technology. Those rules do not apply to any of the different rocker board varieties or triple base boards. The inserts are already 1 cm "setback" to what bataleon has guaged to be the boards "real effective edge" and they do a great job with getting that right. So, if you stay balanced within the insert clusters, you are staying true to the design and you will be good to go.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wiredsport is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 11:14 AM Thread Starter
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
This has to do with triple base. On the setback triple base boards, the areas of lifted edge on the nose is longer than on the tail, so true "effective edge" is not related to the wide points (contact points) but to where the edge would actively engage. I highly suggest using the inserts as your basis for determining the start point for stance and discard the old rules of thumb that were based on trad cam technology. Those rules do not apply to any of the different rocker board varieties or triple base boards. The inserts are already 1 cm "setback" to what bataleon has guaged to be the boards "real effective edge" and they do a great job with getting that right. So, if you stay balanced within the insert clusters, you are staying true to the design and you will be good to go.
That puts it into perspective, I definitely understand now. I knew that it was a stance problem all along, but I didn't know why. Now I do. sorry you had to mention it twice, though. I know you mentioned earlier in the thread how the TBT affected the effective edge differently than other base designs. I'm not normally this obtuse, I swear. Thanks so much for the help. I honestly don't know that anyone else would have figured out the "why".
phile00 is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 02-16-2010, 11:31 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,351
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phile00 View Post
That puts it into perspective, I definitely understand now. I knew that it was a stance problem all along, but I didn't know why. Now I do. sorry you had to mention it twice, though. I know you mentioned earlier in the thread how the TBT affected the effective edge differently than other base designs. I'm not normally this obtuse, I swear. Thanks so much for the help. I honestly don't know that anyone else would have figured out the "why".
Stoked to help.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wiredsport is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome