Mike Johnson's S-Camber

Slalom Skateboard Decks forum

Moderator: Marion Karr

Post Reply
Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Mike Johnson's S-Camber

Post by Mike Johnson » Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:41 pm

I pressed this shape up last week and currently giving it a beating around the cones.

Image

oh yeah 17 1/2 wheelbase 23" long 9 1/2 wide seismic 110's and flashies.

Tod Oles
Lone Stranger Racing
Lone Stranger Racing
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Blanco, Texas
Contact:

Post by Tod Oles » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:41 am

Mike,

Nicely done sir! Would you mind posting a pic showing the decks top shape? or is that top secret? Thanks, Tod

Leonardo Ojeda
Venezuelan Racer
Venezuelan Racer
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stamford, CT and Venezuela in the heart
Contact:

wich ends its front?

Post by Leonardo Ojeda » Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:30 am

I remember when i tried KMG s camber, it was kind of hard to turn at first, he and GBJ were talking about it and it came up that maybe the Indiana guys were sellign the deck the wrong way, meaning that the deck instead of be ridden using the down angle on fron, it should be ridden pretty much like the hognose from Bozi, u know, using the concave of the deck as a pocket to the foot.

cause they say that as the fron part has a negative angle it will take steering from the front, and the opposite happens on the back, so u have to readjust the steering and trucks with lots of wedges to create the desired angle.

so, its this a good concept or its there another good explanation?

Leo
"I`ll see you at the end of the hill"

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:16 am

Image

The deck is wide to provide enough leverage to get the trucks working and Im really not fussed about how it looks but just that it works good so it was a case of cut out and get the grinder on the wheel wells until it dont bite anymore. The rear was angled to cut down steer but to be honest it doesn't work with these trucks and they still turn as much as the front for some reason. For flat pumping you get up to speed very very fast although the decks that short flex isn't an issue, must be the angle of the deck and foot position. I'm gonna press up a 30" version next week and see what that does.

Adam Trahan
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Adam Trahan » Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:07 pm

thanks for posting the pics and story on this board.

that's weird, the back is definately tuned steering out compared to the front. seismic 45 degree has pleanty of quick steering. have you ridden a board with this short of wheelbase before? the tail whips instead of follows with the detune?

weird.

maybe some alu seismics 40 and 30 plates are the prescription? i'de go a little narrower say 110mm version and 8.5" deck.

*grinning*

work on the esthetics later as you are. get the s camber profile down, figure out a adjustable wedging system that is quick and easy for you to dial in a setting. i dig it that you are working it yourself, pressing up boards and doing it. cutting edge stuff.

please keep us updated on your project.

my hat is off to you.

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:20 pm

Adam, thanks for the advice, unfortunately my slalom gear is always done on a budget so the 110's will have to stay on for the near future at least but yes the length of the deck does tend to make the rear a little whippy but i think if i extend it a little say 30" length and kill the rear with a new school truck i've got hanging around it should be quite a lively but stable beast. I've just had an afternoon skating around on it and its so turny its scary.

Gareth Roe
RoeRacing Team Captain
RoeRacing Team Captain
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Seattle, Washington
Contact:

Mike's S-Camber

Post by Gareth Roe » Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:17 pm

Mike-
Great job! Keep it up and let everyone know what you come up with. You may want to try a wedged Tracker RT-S or an Indy 101 on the rear to take some more of the stearing out of the rear end - just a thought.
Gareth

Wes Eastridge
WesE
WesE
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: northern Virginia, suburb of DC, USA

Post by Wes Eastridge » Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:35 pm

Leo,
A reversed S-camber is not something to pursure. If you want a “pocket” for the front foot, it’s best to add a toe-block to an existing deck, or even just building up a pocket under the griptape with extra layers of griptape (or other kinds of tape). I haven’t seen KMG using that deck in any of the races I’ve been to (which have been many).

If an S-camber board doesn’t turn enough, I would just add more wedging under the trucks.

Glenn S
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:00 am

Re: sumfin cooking

Post by Glenn S » Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:59 pm

Image
Mike,
In the above picture can you please state which end is the front?

Those older plastic seismics are 45* to start with. And the newer ones come in 45 and 30.

If the right side above is the front then it looks like you've "dewedged" the 45* seismic very extremely. I'm gunna take a guess and say at least a 10+ degree dewedge. Making the front 35* or less.

If the back is to the left then you've wedged it just a tad making the 45 degree seismic 48 or so.

Now if it is just the opposite then 48front/35rear could work, but you might like 48/30 better.

For a front truck with that kind of geometry(seismic/pvd same thing) my feeling is 45 to 50. And for the rear you could go 27-33.

Either way with that s-camber shape you've got there you'll need custom wedging with those siemics.

Also, even if you go with 45-50 front and 27-33 in the back I would say that you also want to go with a tad harder spring than the yellows in the back as well.

One of the reasons that I asked if the front was to the right was because it looks as if you'd have been more matching what Gareth has done if you flipped the deck and as the picture below with the front being to the left. But if you compare the two decks yours has much more curve.

Image
Image

Adam Trahan
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Adam Trahan » Sat Nov 08, 2003 2:45 am

Mike Johnson wrote:Adam, thanks for the advice, unfortunately my slalom gear is always done on a budget so the 110's will have to stay on for the near future at least but yes the length of the deck does tend to make the rear a little whippy but i think if i extend it a little say 30" length and kill the rear with a new school truck i've got hanging around it should be quite a lively but stable beast. I've just had an afternoon skating around on it and its so turny its scary.
Mike, check out Glenn's upside downside. it's definately a reality check but i tell you, more get's done thinking for yourself tooling along BUT if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

you can sell blanks, a few s-camber blanks right here and get yer equip money beaucoup.

tangent: in kiteboarding, i spent a LOT of money on a liquid force picklefork kiteboard. come to find out, a plywood shape, no rocker, varneshed with some padding and a couple of dakine windsurf foot straps work much much better! a group from MIT progresses the verve with what they call "ZERO PRESTIGE" it's so anti corp and it works and works well. if i could lay up boards, and i did when i was young, i would but i'll stick to buying technology ala ROE.

it's still so inspiring to see the creativity on any account.

cjech Glenn's thingy out, he is saying something with the photo's...

thank you again for sharing.

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:35 am

Glenn the front is the left side and its got a subtle rocker or angle which puts about 8 degrees of steer in the truck and the rear is dewedged via that harsh camber.......look at it this way when you're about to push off on a deck or even to run a short distance the leading foot from toe to heel actually tips 8-10 degrees in order to prime and power the muscle groups in the thigh rather than the smaller groups in the calf so when you push off you actually transfer 30% more power into the push off. You can try this at home by putting your toes on the floor and pushing down, now try putting your heel down and pushing down, can you feel the difference?

So i have a rocker that produces more power and more steer to the deck. The center line of the deck has a subtle w concave which fills up the arch of the foot leading to 20-30% more foot contact on the deck itself.

The w concave thing is something i worked on with a gal at my university where she was working on a project for a UK company on footwear for people with disabilities and i had done some work on how people stand and work on slippery surfaces. The upshot of this is that we determined a kind of scholl index where foot surface area is dictated by substrate. Using the index 1-10 i got an index of 8.92 for the w concave deck and 4.50 for a standard flat deck a hell of a difference.

The rear where the positive camber is actually has a neat little pocket or dip which fits the rear foot (or your power foot) really well so that when its locked in it rarely moves. The upshot of this deck is that when you're actually skating it you can push carves and turns easily perhaps so easily that even though the rear has so much detune it turns better than on a flat standard deck. I'm not sure whether or not this is a good thing at the moment.

Gareths deck if you look close is almost a mirror image in terms of shape but upside down (or perhaps mines upside down) but my rocker and camber produces two things;

1. More sympathetic front leg angle for bigger muscle groups and more power in a single push.

2. The positive camber gives more power to the rear actually forcing the front of the deck down when most of the weight is on the back of the deck.

Where Gareths deck will definitely eat me up in fast gs courses i think mine will possibly be better on tighter, flatter courses although i cant compete at all with the quality and weight of a Roe deck

Today i'll put on my Tracker rts/x combo and see what that does but i'm thinking that it will give even more turn. I'll also set up the new school truck for the rear as i guess that will kill most of the turn. Im very happy and thankfull for people giving their input to the deck anyways, sometimes when your stuck in a cold workshop you get blinded to simple things and tend to forget more experienced deck builders have probably utilised a design and discarded it as unworkable.

A thousand thanks.

P/S the 30" longer version is in the press right now and i'll post pics of that see what everybody thinks. Also Glen i'm going to hunt down some of the newer seismics and try those wedged angles you suggested, cheers.

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

out the press

Post by Mike Johnson » Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:07 pm

New shape came out the press this morning...its got some of the attributes of the above deck but with a somewhat extended wheelbase of 19"

Image

excuse the pooch who is looking with a very beady eye


you can see the improved camber here with a definite improvement in the rear foot area.

Image

Deck bottom sprayed black gives a good idea of the curves.

Leonardo Ojeda
Venezuelan Racer
Venezuelan Racer
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stamford, CT and Venezuela in the heart
Contact:

Post by Leonardo Ojeda » Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:03 pm

Now, i am pretty confused, i think that mike*s model is better for TS because the front will add steering and the back will take it, producing more traction and stability.

I would love to see somebody trying both decks and then flip them upside down and post the differences.


That longer version looks sick, maybe u have something in your hands going on, now try a pool version and a DH one :)


leo
Last edited by Leonardo Ojeda on Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I`ll see you at the end of the hill"

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:12 pm

Leonardo Ojeda wrote: That longer version looks sick, maybe u have something in your hands going on, now try a pool version and a DH one :)leo
I've done an s-camber pool version that doesn't work at all for some reason and the DH prototype is being ridden by Luke Wetherall, a UK Downhiller, but what I really want to get wired is a deck that acts as a rocket for fast acceleration on a course with little effort....kind of like a deck which makes "average" riders competitive. That camber at the back is real sick, you can actually feel it push the deck through a pump.

Leonardo Ojeda
Venezuelan Racer
Venezuelan Racer
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stamford, CT and Venezuela in the heart
Contact:

Post by Leonardo Ojeda » Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:21 pm

Good mike, do u have pics of the DH board??

again, i would like to see riding imporesions of the decks riddend upside down and normal way, wichever way they are.


leo
"I`ll see you at the end of the hill"

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:33 pm

yeah but if you turn the deck upside down you get low steer front and high steer rear and i've tried out decks with rear steer (scary) you need low steer rears cos thats where most of the traction is needed....when you get a lot of heelside turn in a truck the toeside rear wheel lifts up losing traction (thats why you have offset trucks to lessen the wheel lift) the s camber forces the deck down at the rear when most of your weight is involved in forcing the leverage over the front truck....

i'll try to find some pics of luke riding the DH thing

Leonardo Ojeda
Venezuelan Racer
Venezuelan Racer
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stamford, CT and Venezuela in the heart
Contact:

Post by Leonardo Ojeda » Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:58 pm

ok, so there are 2 S-camber concepts, compare the pic of the Roe with your deck, the Roe is similar to the santa cruz I suppose and also to the Indiana S-camber. but you have a unique design which I think is the way it should be.

We have to wait the Roe riding impressions.

Keep your inventions coming!

leo
"I`ll see you at the end of the hill"

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:52 am

ok its called the W camber rather than the "S".... cutting edge LOL!!

Jack Quarantillo
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:15 am
Location: G'burg, MD, USA
Contact:

Post by Jack Quarantillo » Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:27 pm

Whatever happened with this project?

Winter?

Q

Mike Johnson
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mike Johnson » Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:23 am

No Jack i dont stop for nothing at all, i'm using the deck most of the time and it sticks to the feet like glue and performs excellent....i've found a funny little application for the shape as an boingy ollie deck with a twin kick. I've made a MKII where the camber is in a slightly different position, i'll post pics later on.

Just an update, the MKII went boo ha and had a major snappage, and so did the MKIII i think it was a problem having major curves and little in the way of concave to stiffen it up....MKIV has less curve and more concave and strength. It has a little pocket for the back foot and some foot ache concave for the front.

Post Reply