Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Why don't manufacturers.... Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-07-2011 07:20 PM
BurtonAvenger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenom View Post
Scientific indeed.
Back off man I'm a scientist!
02-07-2011 05:25 PM
Phenom
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtonAvenger View Post
You want to know where flex ratings in boots, bindings, and boards come from? It's the marketing team and snowboard team sitting around going well it feels like this so we'll call it a 9 or it's soft we'll call it a 2.
Scientific indeed.
02-07-2011 10:28 AM
BurtonAvenger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenom View Post
Where did those numbers come from then? Did they just pull them out of their asses? Did they try bending the board with their hands and come up with a ballpark estimate? If they can assign meaningless numbers like that to different segments of the boards, why can't they calculate real properties? It's not difficult to cantilever a snowboard.
You want to know where flex ratings in boots, bindings, and boards come from? It's the marketing team and snowboard team sitting around going well it feels like this so we'll call it a 9 or it's soft we'll call it a 2.
02-07-2011 03:05 AM
Cobra While I agree here, I'd just give local shops more business by going, trying for yourself, and buying boards there; or at the very least, trying them there and then buying online.
02-06-2011 11:07 PM
Phenom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nivek View Post
Bataleon is a great example of why not. The ET is a 5/3/5. The Airobic is a 4/2/4. And the Funkink is a 3.5/3.5/3.5. How do you give each one of these boards a single number? The FK is stiffer between the feet than the ET and Airobic, but its tips are softer than both.

Which board is stiffer?
Where did those numbers come from then? Did they just pull them out of their asses? Did they try bending the board with their hands and come up with a ballpark estimate? If they can assign meaningless numbers like that to different segments of the boards, why can't they calculate real properties? It's not difficult to cantilever a snowboard.
02-06-2011 11:00 PM
Phenom
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeR View Post
I believe I just said that.
Yes, among a bunch of other BS.
02-06-2011 10:42 PM
JoeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenom View Post
I never said it had to be one number to describe the flex. Just a simple torsional test and a 3 point bend test and be done with it. If different parts of the board have different amounts of flex than so be it. At least those numbers will be more useful than an arbitrary flex-o-meter.
I believe I just said that.
02-06-2011 09:25 PM
Phenom I never said it had to be one number to describe the flex. Just a simple torsional test and a 3 point bend test and be done with it. If different parts of the board have different amounts of flex than so be it. At least those numbers will be more useful than an arbitrary flex-o-meter.
02-06-2011 09:23 PM
BurtonAvenger Once again it's impossible because if you take a wet lam lay up vs a prepreg lay up the boards ride so different.
02-06-2011 08:31 PM
JoeR It would be virtually impossible to produce a single number that would encapsulate all of a given board's flex characteristics, but it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with a standard system for rating some flex characteristics. A board's width varies almost continuously from tip to tail, but that hasn't prevented manufacturers from providing a "waist" width measurement that, although imperfect and perhaps differently defined from board to board, still offers very useful guidance to buyers. A "center flex" measurement could be calculated at the board's exact midpoint, or its binding reference point, using a standard amount of torque (the proxy for rider weight) and expressing the amount of flex using standard units. Once riders learned how their own weight and riding style related to the standard center flex rating, I think it would be helpful in making comparisons among boards. A standard "torsional flex" rating might be produced in a comparable way.

Of course, all of this would require agreement among manufacturers on the basic units to be employed, but that's certainly not impossible. Convincing manufacturers that it would be in their interest to do it might be impossible, however.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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