Weird behavior with my Bataleon Goliath. - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2010, 11:57 PM   #21 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
john doe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,394
Default

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 online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-15-2010, 11:15 AM   #22 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

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.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 11:44 PM   #23 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Default

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 11:47 PM.
phile00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:04 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 245
Default

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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:12 AM   #25 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Default

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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 10:08 AM   #26 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

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.

Last edited by Wiredsport; 02-16-2010 at 10:11 AM.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 10:56 AM   #27 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Default

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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 11:16 AM   #28 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

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.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 12:14 PM   #29 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CNY
Posts: 685
Default

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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 12:31 PM   #30 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

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.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums