ISSA - International Slalom Skateboarding Association

So I was curious about the recent trend of a lot of people switching to Pavel, skaterbuilt, Fullbag and AXE boards. Less people seem to riding Roe's, PPS or turner style boards where the flex is one of the main design features.



I don't want to get into a brand war here just arguing who makes better boards- I am really just curious why riders want flex or no flex and how that effects your riding style.


I personally love a nice damp flex for bigger gates because the board rebounds and lets me get a smooth powerful line.

For tight though I use a formeica composite wood deck which has no flex. I like that for the super TS because in those gates there isn't time for flex.

What do you guys think?

so here's why flex is contraproductive when riding,unless you are a hell of a skater.
we all know that there are only a handful of people out there who make it to the podiums with a flex board
jason for example.
my take:
flex tends to weight and unweight the board from the track,resulting in loss of traction when unweighted during a traction phase.
traction phases are those phases when you can hear the wheels scream on the course,especially during a turn.
most flex board are flat boards,the more concave you involve in a board the less flex-friendly the board will be because the concave staiblizes the board and hinders the flex.
even though it is NOT impossible to build such a board,we will be doing something with a flex-zone sooner or later.
but the flex i am talking about is better interpreted as a snap.a short and quick rebound from the input given to the board,that makes some real sense and that has been tested by my team for a very long time.so i can go and either laminate a rock hard board or a board with a certain memory function,i prefer the latter by the way.
on tight courses stiff boards are preferred,but even there the snap is not contraprodutive,due to the short rebound nature.
skaterbuilt does wood board because he can't do foam boards
roe is way behing today's board development and on the heels of the old pps boards
turner is nice but over and out.

on a side note i want to also tell you that most of the new stuff which can be seen on todays courses originates from our area,one way or the other.
pavel,wefunk and kaliber were pioneering wide and concave and stiff/ semi-stiff boards going back to 2004.
that's when it all started here and from my observations when you follow the time line the same trend happened in the usa at least one year later.i can also remember the airflow c 81 being on the market then,so that should be put into consideration too.


and yes karl no brand war intended from my side either,just some facts.

Donald's on the money, especially with a "full figure" rider. I'm no expert - you've seen me race Karl ! , but there's a huge difference between snap and sloppy. Being a big guy when I ride something flexy the board is all over the place, so I prefer something solid myself.

I guess if a rider has spent a lot of time with a flexy deck, they know how to control it and can use it to their advantage.

I come from the bicycle angle - I like all my steering input translated directly to the wheels. Probably because I'm a crappy rider and hit the gates too late........

I like a little flex...

I guess it's probably a question of what you're used to and what feels right...

Flex boards probably do tend to lose more traction then stiff boards. However once you get used to this, you adapt your technique to your board and you eventually stop losing traction... most of the time.

Thanks for the input.


I have a board with flex for GS and a board with no flex for tight- I just can't make up my mind for hybrid... arrrg.

I learned to slalom on a Performance series (wood) roe. The problem I had with those boards is that they would actually flex out. When they were new, they were very responsive but lost it as time went on.

I love my 36'' pistol because of the response it has and I love my TS board because of how snappy it is. My smaller pocketpistol, I'm less in love with. Still trying to find that perfect setup for hybrid slalom that grips my feet and responds well.

Donald Campbell wrote:on a side note i want to also tell you that most of the new stuff which can be seen on todays courses originates from our area,one way or the other.
pavel,wefunk and kaliber were pioneering wide and concave and stiff/ semi-stiff boards going back to 2004.

Dude Don I remember! Back in 2004 I was that goofy looking kid hanging around the Beer tent after the race talking to you guys! I also remember Don giving me my first wefunk, I knew then you'd be a powerful force in slalom, but man I had no idea!

I am also in favor of flex. Not too much however. I am too old to change my ridding style and seem to perform better with some rebound from my deck.

I do agree with the concept of a stiff board it's just not for everyone. It is still an individual style and technique that has to be the determining factor.

im going to agree with fatboy and donald..

but im going to say this... as a taller but lighter guy, i find that having a small amount of flex is great, beacuse i can get a little bit extra turn out of a board if i need it... plus i makes it a hell of a lot more fun to skate around on it when im not running cones.... i dont think a board should flex to sag.... i think it should be a board with camber that flexs to flat... so that when you drive you compress the board and unweighting the board brings extra speed to the pump... just the same way flexing and extending works on a snowboard... with the little extra pop you are throwing the board forward instead of just pulling it forward with a pump..

just my 0.02 $

Yeah, well if I could still ride my Hobie Flex Cutaway and be a little competitive I would. Actually, I am skating as bad now as I did last season and I'm not on my Hobie

I grew up on flex. I'm 30lbs heavier now than best weight skating in the past. Flex gets a little too loose with today's trucks and speeds - just cannot counter any minor course change at speed with a loosey-goosy deck.

Karl's discussion is medium to stuff flex I think. Something to be said for a little feedback to snap you up and out of a turn when setting up for the next. problem is time to re-compress after those little launches. Everything these days is just too fast for too much "spring".

Claude, I would like to try your decks some time. maybe next trip...
SL

take a look at some of the euro style speed boards (i hate calling them that) but still..

basically some of the guys i have seen in vids ride medium flex pintails.... you can see them going into corners and the boards flexing to the max...


i think like i said in another thread "ride what works for you" is still the best way to go..

I dont really like flex in my slalom boards, i find when driftin on a flexy board when your wheels let go they spring out alot further because the weight is taken off the board.
I really like flex for cruising and carving makes a ride fun, and for a longer dh board it can be nice.

Personally I think torsional flex is more important than longitudinal flex when it comes to maintaining grip, the same way it matters on snow with skis and snowboards. I can think of an awful lot of events (mostly GS/Hybrid) that have been won on some pretty flexy sticks (with good torsional stiffness), and no, not all of them were Jason!

another very good point. ^^^^^^^

I been thinking about this subject for a couple of weeks now. I getting ready to make a new "stiff" hybrid board and I can't decide if I need and camber. I agree most of the new slalom baord are now very stiff now, but what about camber?
1. Does a stiff board board need any camber?

2. Is Camber only useful on flex board?

3. Can you really make a board with the typical materials such as wood/foam/glass that
has no flex? So at what point does camber become not useful?

4. Is Camber uesful for a surf-stance rider?

PG

i think camber on a board that doesnt flex is pretty stupid... personally i dont see why some of you guys LOOOVE your turner foam cores so much... i just dont get it...

yeah camber with no flex is like going to Mississippi and not going to waffle house...
its just pointless to me, your raised up on a platform that gives you the least amount of surface area to stand on..

(best camber in a board i have ridden, the manta... feels odd but its really good)

Adam,the Manta is a sweet foamie made by Alan Sidlo.it has a pretty cool "s"camber that really works well for rear traction.
Now,there is the Big Black,which has a lot of camber,but is sssooooo tortionally stiff(,as martin described his belief,) it definetly is faster than some of the wood formica boards we make.Look at the midnight special,Lavin took that to 47.6 mph and raced it in the hybrid.Oles took third all around in the open at the dixie cup riding the same deck all three races.i do think a quick snappy flex is key,and as Adam described it should load to just above flat when you stand on it.
Lastly,look at the Oles Sled Zepplin that drops this week,concave,radically "s"cambered with the rear truck mounting in the kicktail.Flex and camber are far from dead.cfav

Paul Graf wrote:I been thinking about this subject for a couple of weeks now. I getting ready to make a new "stiff" hybrid board and I can't decide if I need and camber. I agree most of the new slalom baord are now very stiff now, but what about camber?
1. Does a stiff board board need any camber?

Depends on how the rider wants it to feel.

Paul Graf wrote:2. Is Camber only useful on flex board?

Yes. Camber on a stiff board is a board with a bow in it.

Paul Graf wrote:3. Can you really make a board with the typical materials such as wood/foam/glass that has no flex? So at what point does camber become not useful?

Well, that depends. Let's face it - a board made with 1" rock hard maple will have SOME flex. It just may not be noticeable. Flex in a foam/glass board can be manipulated in several ways (layers of glass, thickness of the core, density of the bonding agent. Manipulate them enough and a board will be light and rock hard. Does seem, though, to be a lot of effort when a piece of wood would accomplish the same goal.

Paul Graf wrote: 4. Is Camber uesful for a surf-stance rider?

Camber is not a stance-oriented feature. It's a flex feature.

Camber is the positive position of the board. Fully-flexed is the negative position. Flat would be neutral. Camber is nothing more than a means of accentuating the flex and thus giving the board more responsiveness throughout the range of board's flexing.

Why have a flexible board?

Contrary to what many believe, flex really doesn't improve pump. It's not like the board going up and down somehow generates forward momentum. Pump is the result of leg strength, upper body strength and torque transmitted through the feet to the board. If flex mattered for pump, then in theory Richie would be faster on a flexible board than his Axe. I don't think that's the case.

So what does flex do?

Simple: it alters the turning radius of the board. Think about this: a flat board is heeled over into a toe-side turn. The front truck turns in and the back truck turns out. That's the maximum turn the board can execute.

If, though, the board is flexible the turning radius is reduced by the action of the board "turning" the front truck farther in and the back farther out. This coupled with the low rocker position of the board in a maximum turning position leads to greater turning power, tigher turn and a little bit better traction.

I do better with pictures sometimes than with words when it comes to matters of engineering, science and such, so this should illustrate what I'm describing:



Someone said a flex board is at a disadvatage because flexing UP will reduce traction. That may or may not be true. But why worry about it? The board is only "up" when travelling straight from cone to cone. So is traction an issue when going in a straight line? As soon as the board is turned, inertia will cause the board to flex "down" and once again traction is increased through the radius of the turn.

It's all physics, man.

One other thing about flex.

There is no such thing as a standard "soft", "medium" or "stiff" flex. What is stiff for a 150 pound rider is probably a medium for a 185 pound rider and downright squishy for a 220 pounder.

When considering a flex option ALWAYS take into account YOUR weight and how YOU want it to feel. If you want a soft feel (meaning it bounces when you look at it,) tell the manufacturer your weight. A good board builder will match the response YOU want to the board YOU buy. If you want to spend hundreds for a board with the same flex characteristics as a slab of marble but you weight 250 pounds, be sure the manufacturer knows a board is being layed up with 35 layers of glass and a core 3/4" of an inch thick.

Why anyone would want a foam core board too stiff to give is beyond me, but some people do some things I'll never understand.

Wesley Tucker wrote:

Paul Graf wrote: 4. Is Camber uesful for a surf-stance rider?

Camber is not a stance-oriented feature. It's a flex feature.

Camber is somewhat stance-oriented. If you place both of your feet DIRECTLY over the axles, then there will be no moment (bending forces) available to flex the board, and a board with flex will (in theory) ride identically to an infinitely-stiff board.

Camber vs stiff will be most noticeable for a rider with a middle-of-board stance -- like a parallel skiing stance (see avatar of Wes).

Wesley Tucker wrote:Why anyone would want a foam core board too stiff to give is beyond me, but some people do some things I'll never understand.

Foam core construction produces a light weight board. You need to know Newton's 1st & 2nd Laws of Motion understand why a lightweight board is useful.

Newtons 1st Law states:
A body will remain at rest or in a uniform motion in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Newton 2nd Law:
a body acted on by an unbalanced force will receive an acceleration that is proportional to the force and is in the direction in which the force acts. This law is also refered to as the acceleration law

Accelerating force : F = Wa/g

Where F = accelerating force (the skaters pump)
W= Weight of Board
a= acceleration produced by F
g=gravity

The W/g is commonly known as Mass of the Body
W = Mg or M = W/g
The force required to give a body a definite acceleration is proportional to its mass
This is why it requires less force to slam a lightweight door QUICKLY shut then it does a heavier door or less force to pump a lightweight board quickly up to speed then a heavy board.

So in theroy the lighter the board the less force it takes to produce acceleration.

But wait (weight) there is more...................

Newton 1st law is also known as the inertia law.

Inertia is the resistance to change in motion. A skater has to change the motion of their board each time they turn.

F1 = Inertia Force

The inertia force is always equal in magitude to the accleration force.

F1 = F = Wa/g

The lighter the board the less force it takes to change its direction (turn) while its in motion.

This is why some people like light weight boards


Back to the subject of Camber. If you construction 2 decks using the same materials & quatities - one with camber and one without camber - the camber board would be the stiffest of the two. This is why the heads of doorways are arched, bridges are arched and the dome roof is an architectural wonder.

will a little flex help or hurt a rider??? I don't know.

Paul Graf wrote: Back to the subject of Camber. If you construction 2 decks using the same materials & quatities - one with camber and one without camber - the camber board would be the stiffest of the two. This is why the heads of doorways are arched, bridges are arched and the dome roof is an architectural wonder.

I'm not quite sure about that... If the board was blocked at both extremeties than sure, the one with camber would be the stiffest, but this isn't the case.

Patrick Allan wrote:

Paul Graf wrote: Back to the subject of Camber. If you construction 2 decks using the same materials & quatities - one with camber and one without camber - the camber board would be the stiffest of the two. This is why the heads of doorways are arched, bridges are arched and the dome roof is an architectural wonder.

I'm not quite sure about that... If the board was blocked at both extremeties than sure, the one with camber would be the stiffest, but this isn't the case.

On the Camber board the top "skin" is in the tension state and the bottom "skin" is in compresive state. Would not both forces be still working against each other when weight is applied to the top of the camber making the board stiffer without added thinkness?, more so then a flat deck where the top & bottm skin are in a more neutral state?

maybe I am wrong

Looking at this subject from a purely scientific point of view is all well and good
but really has nothing to do with the rider/ board combo as a whole. To me, it's all the small little subjective details tallied together that give me either confidence or trepidation on any particuliar setup....

So to make my point, I've noticed that a board with a flex that "I feel" is right for "me" seems to snap back under me in an accelerating fashion as I finish turns (whether cambered or not)...

When I ride planks I feel I have to do all the work to "take" the board with me
to the next cone. This works great for high frequency TS courses where you can't be bothered with waiting for a flexy type deck to quell before you ram the next input down
it's throat.... I'm all about the TS.........NOT!!!!!!

In my mind a cambered deck is just a spring with some extra travel built in...and depending on how you as a rider interpret what you're feeling can be either an advantage or a hindrance.

Only the clock really knows.

Patrick Allan wrote:

Paul Graf wrote: Back to the subject of Camber. If you construction 2 decks using the same materials & quatities - one with camber and one without camber - the camber board would be the stiffest of the two. This is why the heads of doorways are arched, bridges are arched and the dome roof is an architectural wonder.

I'm not quite sure about that... If the board was blocked at both extremeties than sure, the one with camber would be the stiffest, but this isn't the case.[/quote

What did you mean by "If the board was blocked at both extremeties"?

Justin

Patrick meant like a bridge to use the comparison of Paul.... I guess....

The missing link(s) in your formulas are "buttressed" and or "anchored". A "flying" or "floating" arc (camber) is nothing more than a geometric shape..

Karl- Like you, I prefer a stiff concave deck on supertight flat, tight, and hybrid/general courses and I only ever seem to want flex/camber on bigger hybrid/general and giant courses. I also find I like the camber to be very low like in the range of 1/10" to 1/4" max. However, the more I ride, the more I like stiffer and lower camber on big courses as well.

My G/S board is all wood, 1/10" camber and fairly stiff but at a 22" wheelbase it's just right and flattens out when I stand on it (I competitively ride nothing but Subsonic's now and my G/S board's 1/10" of camber was more of an accidental artifact of wood species mixes of birch and maple during the lamination than an intentional act on Scott's part when he made it for me). I'm not even close to being the fastest guy in G/S but I just feel more comfortable in general on a non-camber stiff concave board and if I had to "one-gun" it at a race I would definately choose a stiff concave non-cambered deck to use just for consistency in all events. Once a board becomes cambered and flexible it becomes more finicky and specific to a narrower range of courses. More camber=more finicky=narrower range of optimal use.

Also, I think that everything I have said applies more to those of us who ride with wide surf stances and our feet over the trucks. Camber does more if one's feet are between the trucks. Camber also in my opinion slows the response unless it's very dialed-in to your weight and wheelbase.

I do own a PPS Chickenwing, PPS Mollica Redeye, Roe 32" Bullet(wood/fiberglass), Fiberflex GS Lite and had a Roe Unlimited foam and Fiberflex Freerider(Paul Price) and for sure they are all great decks, but I find myself more comfortable and confident on my all-wood Subsonic decks (With some added PPS C-foam on the tail heel-lift and front foot concave). Scott gave me full permission to use my spendy foam cores if I felt like I needed them for whatever event but so far I have felt like I performed better on stiff concave noncamber on just about everything.

Torsional flex- A lot of people try to eliminate it. However, Kenny Mollica's Redeye model is designed to be MORE torsionally flexible so you can use your front foot to twist the deck and get even more turn response and pull-type of pump from the front end leaving the back end less tilted, and thus the wheels turned less and more perpendicular to the arc of your turn. My "Pauliwog" shape has a large front end to better use the front foot this way and I do twist my deck somewhat similarly but not as much as Mollica since mine has diagonal carbon stringers on the bottom to resist torsional twist, but I feel like that feature helps give me a smidge more power when pumping with my front foot because it has that resistance . Then again, that could all just be in my head and I think my days in the "A" class may be numbered if not over so take all the above with a grain of salt.

By the way, it was good seeing you and everyone smoking it at the Dixie Cup 2006. - Paul