Jump to content
Bomber Online Forums
glenn

Gilmour bias...

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

Sometimes happy is good.

 

Yeah, but sometimes happy is just ignorance in disguise. :-)

 

33 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

Aren't those Burton plates still available under the Ibex name?  If so, just get a new pair of what you have, and ride toward the nearest sunset.

They had been, but seem not to be in production any more (I couldn't find anyone selling them new, at least). A place called 'Carve Company' - seems to be based out of Switzerland, and targets Euro/Pure type of folks - seem to be selling the old Burt/Ibex plates now, under a new brand. (http://carvecompany.com/) They were pricy enough, though, (same price as the F2's, plus shipping from Europe), that the F2's seemed to be a better deal - that was before it was suggested that the F2's might be too stiff, though. (Was it you who pointed out that possible issue to me?) But, you're right, if the F2's end up being too stuff, the Burton/Ibex/CarveCompany bindings might be the next step. (Those F2s are so damned sexy, though! And, I'm then still faced with using something like the old Burton Unicant to achieve any lift/cant on them - another factor in my wanting to move beyond the old Burtons.)

Interesting observation on the turn completion - I hadn't considered that. It was never a problem on my SL board - quite the opposite, I can't tell you the number of times I ended up hooking the tail on the SL board, and taking unplanned sojourns across the hill, up the hill and/or occasionally off the hill. But, the geometry of the MK is pretty significantly different than the SL (MK has pretty dramatic setback), so it could be that what wasn't a problem on the SL is now a problem on the MK. What would be the recommended tweak to try to affect that on the MK? I'd be happy if it'd hold the tail a little longer toward the end of the turns, for sure.

Sadly, I have 'jazz hands' (I think its more like 'hula hands', LoL...) in pretty much all terrain, at least when I'm carving - one arm is usually sticking up in the air at one angle or another. <:o)

33 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

Regarding bias and boot shells:

It's not so much the toe and heel edges of the boot that matters, it's the transposed contact point at your heel bone and metatarsal heads that count. Those are the load bearing parts of your foot, and 'a' means of transmitting inputs to the board, so they should be located similarly with regard to the edges. When in doubt, bias toward the toes.

 

Yeah, I've always just concentrated on having the toe side of the boot (ie, front/side of boot shell around my pinkie toe area) lined up with the toe edge, and the diagonally opposite heel boot side/rear (so, for me, the left/rear side of the boot shell) lined up with the heel edge. I'll have to look at things and try a little carpet surfing to try to figure out where the actual pressure application points actually are. Glad you bring that up!

Thanks for everyone's input, thoughts and advice on this - I'm finding this very helpful!

Edited by jim_s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jim_s said:

BTW, I laughed when that video started - even w/o the image, I could have immediately known you were on a MK - I've never ridden another board that sounds like like the MK. It growls through the carves - almost sounds like its sliding, w/ the noise, but its leaving a razor-thin line behind! :-)

You ought to hear it on N.H. Hard Chalk!! It does indeed 'growl' as it cuts!  But, the pitch of that noise still isn't the same as most Madds (though it it is close to the Carbon=topped BX).  I'm guessing, but I think it could be 'tuned' a bit better? Maybe Guitar strings woven into the fiberglass..[?] Or, Not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eric Brammer aka PSR said:

You ought to hear it on N.H. Hard Chalk!! It does indeed 'growl' as it cuts!  But, the pitch of that noise still isn't the same as most Madds (though it it is close to the Carbon=topped BX).  I'm guessing, but I think it could be 'tuned' a bit better? Maybe Guitar strings woven into the fiberglass..[?] Or, Not.

 

Yeah, my first trip down the hill on the MK - and it was in pretty darned nice conditions, I first thought that I was somehow skidding my turns (even though it felt like I was on freaking rails), then I thought maybe I have some huge burr on my edges that I'd somehow missed, but that wasn't it - finally realized, it was just the board growling like a banshee. I love the sound now. :-)

I'd definitely mention that to Sean as an MK v2 improvement - more authentic Madd sound! :-)

Edited by jim_s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jim_s said:

(I think its more like 'hula hands', LoL...)

Your location puts you closer to Broadway than the Islands, so....Jazz hands.

 

If you think of your platform (boot ramp plus binding cant/lift) exclusive of 'you', a load placed on top of the front binding would trend toward the toe side. That same load placed on the rear binding would trend forward toward the tip, and also toward the toe side.

If you think of the boot cuffs as levers, the mechanical advantage will be biased to the toeside on the front binding, and toward the heel edge and forward on the rear binding.

The point being, if you accept that your primary inputs to the board are tilt, and  how you direct pressure with the soles of your feet, well, you're all over the map just standing there.

So, once underway, you may not be able to 'stand' where you need to stand in order to get the outcome you want. At least in terms of turn shape, and therefore speed control.

And this is where a fully adjustable binding, regardless of rigidity, is a decided asset.

 

Edited by Beckmann AG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SunSurfer said:

Jim, a stance that is comfortable is a good thing. Maybe just print yourself a set of wedges to replicate the stance of your old bindings, and work on technique to get the board more steeply angled to make shorter radius turns. In the Intermediate Clinic video from 2013 SES Corey talks about and demonstrates engaging the downhill edge as you traverse and carving round and through the fall line to the next traverse as a strategy to shorter turns on steeper slopes.

 

Thanks, SunSurfer, but rail angle and sharp turns don't seem to be a problem on the MK - its pulling a super sharp turn when I ask it to, and rails to ridiculous angles, almost without regard to what the snow (or ice) surface is like  - my problem (vis-a-vis the concussion) is that its very easy to let it have its way, and not quite complete the turns (but still feel rock solid stable), and before you know it, you're approaching Mach speed and Bad Things can happen fast. (In my case, someone cut in front of me - totally within their right to do so, as they were downhill), and I tried to do a hopping edge switch at about 40-45 mph, caught the toe edge when I came down - board wanted to suddenly do less than 45 mph, body didn't get the memo - and pile-drove my skull into the slope.

But, yeah, I'm kinda torn between starting out with a replica of my current angles, lift, cant, etc (ie, on the new F2s), and see how the bindings themselves feel (ie, just one variable change), and then play with the various other variables, or just go for the gusto, and try what more experienced tweakers believe will be a better/smarter setup, and see how that feels. (In truth, at this point, I just want to get the head back into working order and get back out on the slopes - on *any* setup! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lonbordin said:

Yep, those were the one's I'd found, but I figured for the price (same as the F2's), plus shipping from Europe, that the F2's made more sense. (This was before it was pointed out to me that the F2's are in reality - especially for someone like little 'ole me - just about as stiff as something like the TD's. But, if the F2's end up being too stiff (in truth, having ridden on the Raceplates for so long, I'm not even sure I'd know what 'too stiff' means - I guess I'll know it if/when I feel it), it looks like 'downgrading' to these 'Carve Company' iterations of the Raceplate will be the next logical step. (Talk about venerable - first Burton, then Ibex, now Carve Company - clearly, the old design has withstood the test of time quite well!!) Part of the motivation to move on from the Burtons though (beyond just the fact that my Raceplates are nearly as old as the hills I ride on...) is the fact that to get my preferred lift/cant, I need to use the old Burton Unicant, which in addition to being old and brittle, takes up a fair bit of real estate on the board, and I was thinking that it might be affecting the board flex, based on a picture or two I saw of my board in mid-carve, though I've been reassured that any effect is likely minimal, at most.

Edited by jim_s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, just found @Beckmann AG's binding config info (http://beckmannag.com/hardboot-snowboarding/hardboot-binding-configuration), and it is filled with all kinds of educational nuggets (and which also support's @SunSurfer's suggestion that the rear inward cant isn't necessarily a good thing).

I'm clearly going to have to do some experimentation with some of this stuff - as noted previously, sometimes happiness is just the result of ignorance. <:o)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jim_s said:

For the sake of learning, @BlueB - what's your thinking/reasoning on this?

You can ride just as efficient (arguably more efficient) without bias. For clarification sake, I talk about bias in relation to the edges, not where the boot sits on the binding. 

Heel turn feels front heel biased for most people, as is, while the toe turn feels rear toe biased for most. Why go and push that even further with binding bias? 

The whole bias idea almost made sense with old school narrow stances, where everything was happening closer to the waist. With modern setups and technigue, one should strive to be efficient with both feet in both turns. 

Experiment with heel bias on the front foot, then without it, and observe the initiation of the toe side turn, for carved and short radius sliding turns. Try different pitches. Let us know what setup was easier. 

Last but not least, why would you rob yourself of, of few degrees lover binding angles? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BlueB said:

Last but not least, why would you rob yourself of, of few degrees lover binding angles? 

Your meaning being that the bias will necessarily increase the binding angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Binding bias,  (together, or individually) can be a useful means of tuning board response. E.g., most soft-boot bindings come out of the shops mounted with heel overhang, and functional toe underhang.

And that's a liability for the rider, as the heelside is hyper, and the toeside dull in response.

But you gotta protect those toes from the razor fangs of snow weasels and such, so the practice persists.

However, if you do it 'wrong', the effect is like making your steering wheel easier to turn one way, and harder to turn the other way. And you wouldn't do that as a matter of course.  Particularly not if you were to drive around on a slick surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 12:03 PM, jim_s said:

Ok, so I'll bite. I'm setting up a relatively new board (I've thus far gotten 5 days on it this season), with new bindings (I swapped my old Burton Race Plates to the new board back in December, and have been riding with those, but have just purchased a pair of F2 Titanium Race bindings, and am going to put those on the board now). SO, this is a good time for me to give some thought/consideration to my binding setup, vs just duplicating what I've got presently (which was as close to a duplication as I could get to what I had with the same Raceplates on my old Board - a Donek 158 SL board - on my new board - a Donek MK.)

I ride in size 26 UPZ RC10 boots. The MK has an 18cm waist, and is approx 18.4 cm wide at the disk center of the front binding, and approx 18.6cm wide at the disk center of the rear binding. My stance is narrow - right around 42cm. I ride with both boots leaned pretty far forward, and with a fair amount of heel lift and inward cant on the rear foot (with the old Burton Unicant, its hard to quantify the lift/cant angles, but from some measurements, and a little trig that I applied to them, I'd say its a safe bet that I'm at about 6deg of heel lift and 2 deg of inward cant.) Front bindings are dead flat on the board. Some further measurements and calculations seem to show my front stance angle is around 61-62 deg, and my rear is around 58-59 deg.

I can't claim to currently adhere to any particular binding setup approach, other than I basically sight down vertically from over the top of the board, and have things aligned so that there is really no boot overhang at toe or heel on either boot. (I guess this is closest to the Fuego Box method, LoL. :o) Having come from a skiing background long ago (I've now been hardbooting way longer than I ever skied, however...), I was used to side pressure on the boot cuffs to carve, so I suspect I've always gravitated toward steeper angles than I actually needed, just due to the familiar feeling of pressuring the sides of the cuffs, and the fact that I much prefer to face the direction that the board is headed, vs some significant angle off of that.

Now, the truth is, this all works for me - I'm comfortable on pretty much any on-trail terrain, I think I carve pretty well (I like the small, tight boards - evidence the old SL and the new MK, so I'm not attempting to drag body parts on the snow - I much prefer the faster-cadence, shorter-turn, less-relativistic-speed type of riding, on generally narrower trails. I don't feel a need to shake things up, but if there's a direction I should consider experimenting with a bit, I'd be interested in doing so, since I'm about to mess up my current setup to some degree, anyway.

So, with this minimal amount of information, what would be the suggested approach to biasing my setup??

18.0 cm wide with a 26.0 shell on UPZ that gives you tons of options...except for bias... ha ha 😖

 

Gilmour bias is helpful for people whose feet run a bit too big and can run a little flatter on a board that is too narrow.  If you end up on a board that is too wide for you....well bias can reduce the amount of struggle but should just be kludge for a day and you should dump a board that is too wide as it will stress your ankles over time.

Riding  a snowboard that is too wide for alpine carving, will force you to ride a flatter stance which will bias your turns towards the toe side weakening your heel side.

A lot of people run the heels and toes to the edge and call it "done" . Theoretically done this way you could  ( if the upper boot did not hit the snow first) tilt the board to 90 degrees with no drag. 

So you might want to ask yourself, "If I were to tilt the board to 90° -where with the board take me?"  Well for a board designed with too much camber it would turn left if you were leaned to the right at 90 degrees. It would run away from you. 

( Been there done that)

 So you are more interested in leaning a board less than 90 degrees and then setting up for no boot out.

I had my board dialed perfectly , got a core shot in combo with "extra unintended  magnatraction " bulging edge , dropped it off at Buzzs boards in Vail ( they claim zero failure rate on this repair in 20 years) . And git it back with the bindings changed. 

 

So so now I'm having to set my bias again, and I decided to mess with more settings and it's easy to get lost. 

If you feel too aggressive heel bite , along with hop and chop, and being too locked in on heelsides that are highly tilted and leaned over ....you overdid your bias with too much heel overhang.  ( obviously boot out by going even further eliminates lock in and is bad or dangerous as it causes the edge to let go completely ) 

 

If you feel that your board is "gently " releasing on heelsides turns and you can "reset  the lost heel edge"  then you don't have enough front  heel bias. Obviously if you went overboard and lost the edge from full boot out you can't reset it without doing something drastic.

Oh and I'm not talking about 45 degree lean, I'm talking about freecarving  heelsides lean closer to 60° -  70° +

setting toeside bias is easier because you want to set it close to "boot out"  but just barely "not boot out " on firm snow.

Really try to never be inbound on your front toe ( stresses rear ankle)  and not be inbound on your rear heel ( really bad heelside performance after the turn apex)

 

Jim running with too much forward lean on the front can make your heelside engage too early similar to too much heelbias .and can get you stuck difficult to transition back to toeside from being fully heeled over.

 

Edited by John Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 1:42 PM, SunSurfer said:

You posted that you're pretty happy with your current stance, but you're clearly thinking that with a 2017 board and new bindings it maty be time for some changes. In a thread on biasing bindings towards the edges, you may want to think of other changes first.

How tall are you, and how long are your legs? 

Currently, unless you are very short, you appear to have a very short stance and rear foot inward cant which will jam your knees together. That approach was current in the 90s, but many have moved to longer stances. As an example, I'm 182cm tall, with a 90cm inseam and ride with a 54cm stance distance at about the same binding angles as you, with no canting on either binding, just around 6 degrees of rear heel and front toe lift, wearing UPZ RC10s. I'm also an ex-skier turned snowboarder.

Find Jack Michaud's "Separate Zee Knees" tech article. A longer stance will give you a longer base of support over which to balance and a bigger sweet spot within which to ride.

Here I'm riding a Donek MK at SES 2017, with the binding setup I've described above. I like making the same kind of turns you do. You can't see the turns but you can hear them. If you turn the volume up Pow4ever critiques my riding at about 55 seconds in (there can't be too many other riders with that combination of suit & helmet!).

The F2s you've bought should have come with a series of wedges able to provide both heel/toe lift and 3 degrees of cant (lateral tilt). If you change nothing else just get rid of the inward cant on your rear binding.

Looking at you front boot, you are really far inbound on your toe on the MK which makes toeside initation tenuous and less aggresive and makes you more prone to chatter and clumps. YMMV 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 7:46 PM, jim_s said:

Yeah, my first trip down the hill on the MK - and it was in pretty darned nice conditions, I first thought that I was somehow skidding my turns (even though it felt like I was on freaking rails), then I thought maybe I have some huge burr on my edges that I'd somehow missed, but that wasn't it - finally realized, it was just the board growling like a banshee. I love the sound now. :-)

I'd definitely mention that to Sean as an MK v2 improvement - more authentic Madd sound! :-)

Thinner boards frequency would find resonance at a higher pitch. That's why it sounds that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Gilmour said:

Looking at you front boot, you are really far inbound on your toe on the MK which makes toeside initation tenuous and less aggresive and makes you more prone to chatter and clumps. YMMV 

BTW, that video isn't of me or my board - that's @SunSurfer's MK.

I've unknowingly been a follower of the 'Fuego Box' method of binding setup - I eyeball the edge of the boot and board from overhead, and line them up. (Sounds like I could actually afford a little more overhang than this method provides...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jim_s said:

I've unknowingly been a follower of the 'Fuego Box' method of binding setup - I eyeball the edge of the boot and board from overhead, and line them up. (Sounds like I could actually afford a little more overhang than this method provides...)

http://www.donek.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/angle_guide.pdf

The zero overhang is a good baseline for ease of setup.  I'm not certain how Sean developed this guide... but a little overhang isn't going to get most folk into trouble.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lonbordin said:

http://www.donek.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/angle_guide.pdf

The zero overhang is a good baseline for ease of setup.  I'm not certain how Sean developed this guide... but a little overhang isn't going to get most folk into trouble.

 

The other direction that Donek provides for arriving at that is here (can't recall who pointed me to it, but somebody on here)

https://www.donek.com/width-calculator/

Based on my boot size and trying various angles, it shows a 64-65 degree rear angle to arrive at an 18cm width. Even my line-of-sight/Fuego approach results in a shallower angle than that -  just under 60 deg. So, clearly, there's a little wiggle room in those various calcs.

Seems that something in the neighborhood of 60 is probably about right, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John GilmourI'm riding 65 front and 60 rear with mondo 29 UPZ RC 10s in the  SES 2017 demo MK video. In the still the board is in the middle of a turn and way out from underneath me, so the parallax effect is substantial with the view coming from a Gopro mounted on my chest.

See video @ 00.03 to see true relationship between front boot toe & edge.

Thanks for the intended helpful comments though. Mileage does indeed vary. Here I am riding with substantial underhang on a 1995 Avalanche 167 with a 24.5cm waist, at 65F/60R, in mondo 29 HSPs at SES 2015 (Thanks to OhD). People can check the accuracy of your diagnosis. Not all alpine snowboarders project their centre of mass over their base of support in the same way.

 

Edited by SunSurfer
check still image details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

@John GilmourI'm riding 65 front and 60 rear with mondo 29 UPZ RC 10s in the  SES 2017 demo MK video. In the still the board is in the middle of a turn and way out from underneath me, so the parallax effect is substantial with the view coming from a Gopro mounted on my chest.

See video @ 00.03 to see true relationship between front boot toe & edge.

Thanks for the intended helpful comments though. Mileage does indeed vary. Here I am riding with substantial underhang on a 1995 Avalanche 167 with a 24.5cm waist, at 65F/60R, in mondo 29 HSPs at SES 2015 (Thanks to OhD). People can check the accuracy of your diagnosis. Not all alpine snowboarders project their centre of mass over their base of support in the same way.

 

As Gforces build the leverage to tilt the board to the toeside will be disproportionately heavy on the rear ankle.  At the speeds in the  video and for snow condition it wouldn't be a problem . You could also have ankles of steel ... I do not. At :08 th picture appears to be perpendicular to the camera ..and it would appear you are inbound quite a bit on the front foot, maybe it's just a weird camera. I I were that inbound on my front  foot  at speed with chatter I would find it hard to reset a lost edge.  I'd be limited to carving under 25-30mph and on good surface only.

 

Err. then again, I'm an odd duck...in that I never ride duck, and I don't care much if my line is wavy and I'm touching the snow so long as I'm going fast and turning and trenching. I figure I'll refine it as I go at the limit (slower way to learn but thrilling and fun).  I do also carve without touching the snow, more so now for increasing leg strength and honing balance than for fun.

I will admit I have more fun pushing shitty gear to its limit now a days, which is why I often use a powderboard and soft boots to carve. I am having trouble with comfortable  fit in my hardboots as the liners have little give and I have  always struggled with hardboots that run too high and have tons of forward lean. (I know I should just book a ticket to see BECKMANN in Maine and figure out these issues). All other boot fitters I have spoken to seem relatively clueless about alpine, its unique force distribution, and how to overcome these issues with great force combined with high speed jackhammers.

One way I reduce these forces is through "Gilmou bias" which is more fun than slowing down.

Edited by John Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Gilmour I'm hitting my late 50s, but I like to keep fit. I got into carving because of the beauty of it that I saw from a chairlift a long time ago. Having broken a hand a few years ago I'm concentrating on carving at slower speeds cause I want to keep doing this for as long as I can and I don't bounce like I used to. Ride hard John, and I hope you keep doing it for a long time. 

Edit: I don't have ankles of steel, I just use the sides of my boot cuffs as levers. 

Edited by SunSurfer
edit added after JGs subsequent post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

@John Gilmour I'm hitting my late 50s, but I like to keep fit. I got into carving because of the beauty of it that I saw from a chairlift a long time ago. Having broken a hand a few years ago I'm concentrating on carving at slower speeds cause I want to keep doing this for as long as I can and I don't bounce like I used to. Ride hard John, and I hope you keep doing it for a long time. 

I often ask people what is  more terrifying going 140mph  in a Ferrari ....or 50 mph in a Pinto with no brakes?  Being dialed in gives you better brakes, not just carving performance, I tell  people their TOP SPEED  limit is being about to come to a complete stop in a single turn. Because you never know if you are going to get to turns  2,3,4, otherwise.

 

Any carving is better than no carving and I think I would crap bricks if I saw my Godson going over 30mph. I just taught him how to lay it over toeside,  yesterday, he just turned 6. ( he learned to ride at age 2, and got 60 days in last year,)  And I spent about 15 minutes dialing in his bias so he wouldn't have so much issue in his turn transitions and it showed an improvement instantly ,.  Point is it doesn't matter how old or young you are... being dialed makes it even better.

We looked like totally annoying parents filming him from all angles with our iPhones ...swarming and swirling around him as he rode.

 

Gilmour has a 6 year old Godson that carves? I know it's not believable ...I mean who would trust JG as a responsible godfather...?

 

Shocking Truth is , I have 2 Godsons. Both from different moms that ride snowboards blazingly fast ...the board is their bitch. Just gotta ride with the older Godson and dial in his heelsides.

 

 So watch me eat my words.. haha. The 6 year old kid will kick my ass before I  get to squander my social security checks on premium wax.

Edited by John Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×