|
|
|
| Q&A: Slalom Pro Mike Maysey (2489 Posts)
|
| Topic |
Info |
|
Camber...
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Sheesh...my grammar stinks. You'd never guess I went to college would you? Anyway, I think camber has everything to do with traction but a couple other things I didn't mention are, generating speed and shock absorption. I think camber does all these things. I'm curious what an optimal camber measurement would be? Would it be something based on what the board is being ridden for...TS, HS, GS...or is it something that should remain constant with variations coming in stiffness or should I say firmness? Of course, we've established that TS boards should be stiffer that GS, but what else plays into the camber/flex dillema?
|
|
|
|
|
Camber?? Cosmetic or Functional
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Gareth,
You should be more of an expert on camber than me, but let me give my understanding. After all, you make boards, I simply ride them. Anyway, here goes...I 'think' camber has to more to do with traction than anything else. If I push down into a turn on my board, doesn't the board flex? Sure it does. That's when the greatest amount of downward force is being excerted. I do this to initiate a turn. I push through the turn with the board compressed and as I finish my turn and unweight, the stored energy in the deck is pushing me out. I believe these two forces acting together generate traction. My feet pushing against the deck, the deck pushing against my feet and those two forces driving the wheels into the ground. If this were true, I would think you could run harder wheels on a stiffer board and have traction and by the same token, a softer board would need softer wheels to hook up properly. If this is true, I ran Avalon 80's on my relatively soft FullNose at the Worlds. I tried it with 85's all the way around, but didn't feel like they hooked up enough through those offsets about 2/3 of the way down the course.
|
|
|
|
|
continued...
|
|
On 1/29/2003 GBJ
wrote in from
(68.49.nnn.nnn)
ooops! something in my code made the whole rest of my post drop away. I wasn't trying to just show my board. My point was in response to Hamm's question about higher camber and stiffer boards. The board noted in my last post is found to be tall, stiff and tippy by almost anyone whose ever stepped on it. It's over 12 years old, and I've weighed about 210 lbs. for all of those 12 years, and this thing has still never flexed to flat.
Gareth, Why camber? Good question. In the aforementioned cutaway, with it's stiffness and tall camber, I've always imagined that the flex pattern (particularly since my weight's generally between the trucks) resembles an "M". Kind of like the McDonald's arches, but not nearly as extreme. It seems to me that the more my weight flexes that camber into this "m" shape, the box construction of the board generates increased resistance against the smae action. It is this conflict that is generating energy that is being stored as the flex increases and released as the flex releases. It has always occured to me that this is the "snap" that I'm feeling. This would be my feeling about high camber and box-construction decks. Beyond that, I'm no scientist and have done no high-speed strobe studies of the flex pattern of my boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Flex, Wheelbase and Camber
|
|
|
Why are slalom boards cambered???
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Gareth
wrote in from
(12.228.nnn.nnn)
Mike-
Why are most slalom boards cambered? I know that most people like their boards to be flat or just about flat when standing on them - but why? A flat board, if built properly, can be just as responsive and have the same snap and amount of energy return as a cambered board. Snow skis and snowboards are cambered so that the riders weight is distributed along the entire edge evenly when carving a turn - this is not the case with slalom skateboards.
Is it for aesthetic reasons? The look of a cambered board may just look "cooler" than a flat board to some people! There are those really nice old photos that Dan Gesmer has of his trucks on a black Turner Needlnose (Richter 7.1) that accentuates the amount of camber on these boards. Now that LOOKS fast!!!
Is it that a flat board is easier for someone to learn slalom on? Recently, I overheard a group of newbies at one of our local sessions talking about how hard it is to "...get used to this hump - it is like standing on the roof of an old VW. Here, try this flat board - it is easier to ride!"
Is camber in slalom boards a "required feature" because that is the way almost every manufacturer has historically built them? "All slalom boards must have camber - its just the way they are built!"
So; Mike, (Anyone, Bueler, Anyone...?) why are slalom boards cambered?
Looking for answers - Thanks!
Gareth
|
|
|
|
|
Who should ride your boards?
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Wesley Tucker
wrote in from
(152.163.nnn.nnn)
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
What I just wrote reminded me of something. As I just said, "Don't forget, a "medium" flex board for a guy weighing 160 would be a "very soft" flex for a guy weighing 210."
Well, if you are a guy (or girl) weighing a little on the light side and you go to a lot of trouble and expense to get really good skate equipment, be very careful about who you let your boards. If you weigh 150 or 160 pounds and get yourself a really cool Roe medium flex board, be very hesitant about letting some 240 linebacker ride your stick! That's a great way to watch your investment sag to the ground and become some fiberglas scrap!
We all want to be generous and spread the word and get as many people involved in the sport as possible, but letting anyone ride anything might not be the best idea. A board made for you is made for someone with your weight. Anyone weighing more than 30-40 pounds than you do could really flex out the glass and ruin your stick.
When I got back into skating about this time last year, my weight had been around 210 for almost ten years. I started skating a lot in the South Carolina heat and humidity and by July my weight had dropped to 185 (it's now down to 177.) When I started skating again, I only rode one board: my H-Bomb. Hell, if Hester could ride it, I know it would hold me! :-)
Then, after I dropped 15 pounds and got down to around 195, I started riding my very stiff Orange Summer Ski cutaway. Another 10 pounds later and I'm now riding my two softer (but not the same,) Ick Sticks. When I got to 180, I set up my full nose Summer Ski and it's now back in the quiver (I rode it in the qualifying rounds at Avila Beach.) I have one board left, which is a medium flex cutaway Summer Ski, that I may or may not ever ride again. My plan is to actually start spending a little money on some NEW BOARDS and let the vintage stuff retire gracefully.
As I said, though, be careful who you let ride your boards. Don't let your zeal for evangelism or sense of community lead you to let people who really shouldn't be on your boards end up doing the unthinkable. Besides, there's nothing more vicious to watch than see a foam-core board "sag out" with someone on it at speed! It's not a pretty picture! (I've don't it twice on my own board!)
P.S. Hey, Gilmour! Would you let Big Tod Drescher ride any board he wanted to try?
|
|
|
|
|
...and now Camber
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Hamm,
I was down at Steve Evans' place last weekend and we did some slalom practice. We of course talked about these types of things. From what I gather, a TS board should have greater camber than a HS or GS board. If you check out www.icksticks.com...you'll see what I mean. The shorter boards have greater camber than the longer ones.
Anyway...more food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Camber specs
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Wesley Tucker
wrote in from
(152.163.nnn.nnn)
Hamm,
I can't answer that. As far as I can remember, camber was never an option when ordering a board with either Bobby or Rick Howell. I spec'd length, wheelbase and flex for my weight. (Don't forget, a "medium" flex board for a guy weighing 160 would be a "very soft" flex for a guy weighing 210.)
I had six Turner Summer Skis over the years (still have three) and five Icks (still have two foam boards and one flat wood core.) The camber on all the Summer Skis, including the full nose, is pretty much the same while both foam Icks have the same camber height.
Another factor to consider is not only camber height but also camber "position." Some boards are almost a perfect arc from nose to tail with the camber high point dead center. (I believe even the current FibreFlexes still have this configuration as does my Santa Cruz Hester H-Bomb) Others, like my Turners, have the camber forward with the high point at around a 35/65 split.
|
|
|
|
|
flex, wheelbase & now CAMBER
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Hamm
wrote in from
(63.175.nnn.nnn)
I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but is it safe to assume that the stiffer TS board would be more likely to have greater camber. Wesley? JG?
|
|
|
|
|
flex vs. wb
|
|
On 1/29/2003 David E
wrote in from
(63.74.nnn.nnn)
I have two identical set-ups, except one deck is stiffer
(due to more plys) they both have exactly the same Wb.
The softer deck is faster for me on a timed tight course (5.5'-6' centers 60 cones) due to the fact it is easier to initiate the pumping action and get the thing up to speed and then continue accelerating through the end of the course. On the stiffer board its just far more difficult to get the necesary energy into the deck, particularly if the push is limited, to get the thing up to speed.Also its as if the deck flexs around each cone in a way my stiffer
deck cannot.
On our steeper GS course (Spyderco in Golden CO) the stiffer board holds better in the wide off-sets, because of the additional torsional-rigidity that a stiffer deck always seems to have. And the speed required to get the thing pumping and carving is there, right away due to the added gravitational force.
but hey, what do I know,..cool discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
This Is Great Discussion
|
|
On 1/29/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
This stuff is GREAT! Keep it coming.
|
|
|
|
|
Tiny decks for GS- why it is possible....
|
|
On 1/29/2003
John Gilmour
wrote in from
(68.160.nnn.nnn)
Short wheelbases are really only advantageous in either tight courses (that fit them) or in courses that start with low speed and on flat pitch with wide gates (allowing the racer to double pump hte crap out of the slow top of the course where time is mounting "quickest". Such was the case at LaCosta 2001 where a racer could double pump or even quadruple pump the top to get going faster. Now in order for this to work the course has to be relatively untechnical after that...... if there is a gate requiring a lot of traction and you don't have enough room to "modifiy your line with a "double turn" a la Steve Olson, you're screwed again. But given an un technical fast course you can convery your lateral pumping style to a "vert style" of transition pumping IFFFF the hill is steep enough (which La Costa was) and of course you have to be going fast enough to make this type of pumping style work as it won't work under 15 mph. And your board would have to be stiff to make this work- or you would lose all of your "vert pumping power" in the flex of the deck. In La Costa 2001 I was just lucky that the course and hill fit those criteria so I was able to post a good qualifing time- my mistake at the time was not running Extracks.
BTW Brent Kosick proved it.
|
|
|
|
|
Flex
|
|
On 1/28/2003 tk
wrote in from
(24.128.nnn.nnn)
Yes, from my own short slalom experience Wes is spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
Flex & WB
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Hamm
wrote in from
(63.175.nnn.nnn)
TK, So at the risk of abridging it, you in esssence agree w/ Wesley's orginal point. Which is sorta what I was trying to get to in a indirect sorta way.
Well Mike, there you have it, your boards are all screwed up!
|
|
|
|
|
stiffer better???
|
|
On 1/28/2003 TK
wrote in from
(24.128.nnn.nnn)
Hamm, I think a stiff deck tracks good for me in tech GS but is difficult to "keep down" through a larger arc. Softer decks in gs seem more forgiving . If the course is loose and super fast I don't feel a med or soft flex would be any slower since you are relying less on pump to make speed and more on control of the speed.
PS HI Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Flex
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Farid
wrote in from
(209.86.nnn.nnn)
I'm kind of getting what's going on with flex, but doesn't the ability of the board to "snap" or be damped also have something to do w/ it? My needlenose is stiff and it snaps back fast. If I'm in a rythem WITH the board, no problem, I can use the power and energy that the board gives back to me. Problem is if I get out of synch, it bucks me. With my full shaped GS board (w/ a 22" inner to inner wheelbase and I'm also using for hybrid), it is neither soft or stiff without much snap, maybe a little more of a damped ride. On long drawn out courses it has a nice tranfer from cone to cone. Now, problem w/ this board and the longer wheelbase is the torsional stifness. The rear trucks "pop" back into axis w/ the front in a tight section and I just start plowing cones. So, from my riding (which is not at the competitive level) I like the sensation of my needle nose for tighter stuff - but, I am wanting something stiffer, both vertically and torsionally, for GS. I also want it to be damped with a progressive return to "center" (or its
uncompressed shape.) I figuring that I can power more through turns and have the deck run flatter so I can utilize the trucks turning ability more so I have less factors upsetting the balance. Also of note: I ride w/ a semi-parallel stance, so I don't have my weight over the back trucks a la surf stance. I have riden softer boards and it feels like I'm going in a million directions, both in tight and GS.
So, am I going backwards in the way I want my board(s) to be? (Specifically my GS.) Is there a consensus on what the greater percentage of what the top guys ride on any given course? Are we basing our "facts" on the vague "science" of feel? Mike! We need your help!
|
|
|
|
|
Flex & Wheelbase
|
|
On 1/28/2003 Hamm
wrote in from
(63.175.nnn.nnn)
great post TK, the clock doesn't lie. In keeping with this line of thought, is the stiffer board faster on GS as well, or just TS/HS courses?
|
|
|
|
|
Flex and WB
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Terry
wrote in from
(24.128.nnn.nnn)
My Stiff Roe Unlimited is a bear to work through a tough course or a slow course. It forces me to really pump hard to turn and burn. It is not easy. But, the timer has told me that it always faster than a softer deck of the same wb.Always.
I am messing with Wheel base tests now and I am leaning toward longer wheelsbases (I was schooled by Gilmour using short WB's) and a tad softer in the flex dept.I want to ride the longest WB I can get through a course. At Morro I rode a small WB when I should have rode a longer 23" or so. I payed dearly for that mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Flex vs. Course
|
|
On 1/28/2003
GBJ
wrote in from
(68.49.nnn.nnn)
For me, what a softer flex offers is more control of speed and a sensation of being able to soak up more speed when braking. That's why you're most likely to see me on something soft on a GS course where acceleration AND deceleration are both important. I still have a 90kg Quicksilver that'll come out from time to time that I call my "Safety Board". It is by far the softest of my racing decks, and comes in handy when I'm having trouble fitting one of my more finicky, higher performance decks through a course (mentally OR physically). My sense is that the softer board is likely to be easier to put through almost any course, while the question is whether the softer board has an adverse effect on your peak performance capabilities.
With all due respect to your skills as a racer, Mike, which are obviously considerable, it also makes perfect sense that, as a newer slalomer, you would gravitate toward a softer board for the tighter, more technically difficult discipline. The softer board would have made it easier for you to accomplish that style of racing from the beginning. In the meanwhile, your skills have come along to the extent that you can probably DRIVE a stiff board through a tighter, technical course, faster than you used to be able to RIDE the softer board through the same course. Heaven help us all when you come to the full realization that you've come as far as you have while piloting a '48 Studebaker. Heaven help us when you discover the Porsche or Ferrari styles of racing.
|
|
|
|
|
Old Guys' Opinions
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Wesley,
I have the utmost respect for the old guys opinions. Everytime I skate with Hutson or Hester or Ryan or Charlie or Evans...I ask questions and get a dialog going. An exchange of ideas and outlooks. There are so many ways to look at the same problem, why not take into consideration all of them and take out the parts that you like and apply them to yourself and your own ideas?
That's why I ask questions of as many of those guys as I can. I take what they are willing to share and apply it to what I know or think I know and presto...I have a whole new look at something like flex or deck width or wheel shape or whatever.
I can certainly attribute my somewhat rapid rise in slalom to being an open minded sponge around Jack Smith and Paul Dunn early on...then later through getting to know the other greats in this sport like Hester, Ryan, Ransom, Evans...all these guys are great to talk with and are always willing help out if they can.
|
|
|
|
|
flex/wheelbase
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Hamm,
I've asked that very question of some of the top guys from those days, who happen to be some of the top guys still today. Guys like Paul Dunn, Steve Evans, Charlie Ransom, Hester, Ryan...The answer has been the same...today we go quite a bit faster than they did back then. I think the major reason is wheels. Look at the speeds we were going...just a year ago, without the Avalon. That wheel has been responsible for our higher top speeds, I think, moreso than any other single factor in the resurrgence of slalom.
|
|
|
|
|
Old Guys' Opinions
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Wesley Tucker
wrote in from
(205.188.nnn.nnn)
Hamm,
Don't forget Hutson. Although I was a Turner rider as a kid, Hutson was THE MAN and anything he had to say on the subject of slalom was GOSPEL. Hey, how can you argue with the guy's success?
Remember, Hutson rode a FLAT board. His signature Santa Cruz had no camber. Hutson said speed and turning were all a result of STRENGTH. His boards did flex, but mainly to reduce his overall turning radius. Plus, Hutson was the first guy I saw who decided getting wider and wider with trucks was self-defeating. The logic at the time was the wider the track, the greater the traction. (Lot's of fulltracks, sixtracks, wide Gull Wings and so on.) Well, that's true, but eventually you were trying to turn something requiring so much torque you'd end up losing the struggle and "blip!" you'd hit a cone. Hutson rode Bennetts and Haf Traks. And rode them to an almost undefeated race record.
What does all this mean? Well, I take it to mean all the fancy equipment and set ups in the world don't cut it if you go up against a guy who's ripped and really knows his stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
flex/wheelbase
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Hamm
wrote in from
(63.175.nnn.nnn)
I find what Wesley has to say REAL intersting, The part about bring 3 boards w/20" wheelbase, but that have different flex's. I'd love to hear what some other older guys like Hester, Skoldberg, Ryan, etc have to say about that.
I wonder if speeds are greater/ courses more open today than they were back then, thus making the use of the longer board more practical.
|
|
|
|
|
boards
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Arab
wrote in from
(24.24.nnn.nnn)
Mike-I was very upset that the course I set for the Sunday race at Hood got changed, I think had it not been changed you and PD(who went down hard) would not have had a problem with cones. Its all about racing on the course, not about getting through obstacles.
|
|
|
|
|
Flex/Suspension
|
|
On 1/28/2003
Mike Maysey
wrote in from
(66.236.nnn.nnn)
Thanks Wesley. That helps a lot. I'm rethinking my boards now in preperation for the FCR 2003 Series.
Anyone else have an opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
