# Effective Edge



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

Was looking through some board specs, and was wondering if a smaller board with similar/more effective edge than a longer board of the same profile would ride similar/longer. For example, Burton's website states that the 159 Flight Attendant has 1210mm of effective edge. The Custom X in 156 has 1212.5mm of effective edge. Would the boards ride similarly in terms of carving/stability even though the Custom X is shorter?


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

The FA rides bigger than it is, I think due to width and some float in the nose. 

The use of carbon to stiffen the Cx is probably it's defining characteristic. 

Very different decks.


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

Got it, but if the decks were more similar in profile, does effective edge trump board length in determining how it would feel when carving?

And in the case of FA vs Cx, wouldn't the fact that the Cx is stiffer make it feel more stable (on groomers) even at smaller sizes?



Lamps said:


> The FA rides bigger than it is, I think due to width and some float in the nose.
> 
> The use of carbon to stiffen the Cx is probably it's defining characteristic.
> 
> Very different decks.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

enjoy said:


> Got it, but if the decks were more similar in profile, does effective edge trump board length in determining how it would feel when carving?


With a similar profile, flex pattern, and sidecut, the board with the longer effective edge, even if it is shorter in overall length, will hold a better edge while carving. Even more so at higher speeds and harder snow conditions.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

The rocker in the tip/tail typically reduces effective edge.

You will find boards with flat and positive camber have longer effective edge than RCR boards of the same total lenght.

The loss in eff edge from the rocker is substituted with better float... let's say it's a "loss" if you want edge hold and stability on hardpack and a "win" if you want float.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

F1EA said:


> The rocker in the tip/tail typically reduces effective edge.
> 
> You will find boards with flat and positive camber have longer effective edge than RCR boards of the same total lenght.


Not quite true. The effective edge is not variable and does not depend on camber profile. It is measured from widest part of the nose to widest part of the tail (contact points). So for a given board, no mather what camber profile is used, you will still have the same effective edge length once the board is angled and the edge is fully engaged with the snow.

That being said, a board with a camber dominant profile, where the camber extends well outside of the bindings, will hold a better edge than the same board with a rocker profile, even if they have the same effective edge.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Mig Fullbag said:


> Not quite true. The effective edge is not variable and does not depend on camber profile. It is measured from widest part of the nose to widest part of the tail (contact points). So for a given board, no mather what camber profile is used, you will still have the same effective edge length once the board is angled and the edge is fully engaged with the snow.
> 
> That being said, a board with a camber dominant profile, where the camber extends well outside of the bindings, will hold a better edge than the same board with a rocker profile, even if they have the same effective edge.


Oh yea you're right. 

What i said has a different name from effective edge. When a + camber lies flat amd unweighted, the contact length is longer than a rockered... so would you say the board with the rocker meeds more carving angle to engage that same effective edge?


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

F1EA said:


> Isn't effective weight the contact length with the board flat and unweighted? Or is that contact lenght?


Yes, that is the contact length. Most often referred too as the running length.



F1EA said:


> If you look at a + camber flat... the length goes all the way to the contact pts. If you look at a + camber with rockered nose, the length is a bit shorter because the contact is raised.


It is a misconception. The running length is never equal to the effective edge, or at least should not be, on what people now call a "traditional" camber. If it is, I don't want to ride that board! It will be super sketchy when runned flat base, super catchy when transitionning from one edge to the other between turns, and with increased chance of catching an edge when sliding around. It does not engage in a turn smoothly.

Even back when boards where mostly all cambered, all well designed ones had a few centimeters of difference between the running length and effective edge. As an example, almost all Burton boards where cambered in the 90s and early 2000s and had a difference of about 5 cm between the running length and effective edge. Meaning the contact points where just a couple of millimiters of the snow and for about 2.5cm long, which is enough to make the board super stable without being too catchy.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

F1EA said:


> Oh yea you're right.
> 
> What i said has a different name from effective edge. When a + camber lies flat amd unweighted, the contact length is longer than a rockered... so would you say the board with the rocker meeds more carving angle to engage that same effective edge?


Yes. And the pressure to the portion of edge outside the bindings will not be "transmitted" as well as on a camber dominant board.


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

Makes sense, I'm looking into switching the FA for a full camber board as I don't see much of if any pow in Tahoe (at least in the last few years). Definitely like the board, just seems a bit of a mismatch for my conditions.

Was looking at something like the Custom X and Mod Camber for a groomer charger and was thinking I could downsize to 156 as the EE is greater on both boards even though the board lengths are shorter. Given that they're all camber boards (FA mostly) and that I like my 159 FA, seemed like I could enjoy the same stability/carve while having a smaller board for maneuverability. Also appears that the Mod and Cx are both stiffer, which could add more of a feeling of stability.



Mig Fullbag said:


> Yes. And the pressure to the portion of edge outside the bindings will not be "transmitted" as well as on a camber dominant board.


Wouldn't you say that for a board like the FA, you would not really engage the edge near the rocker nose unless you were applying a huge amount of pressure so the EE would just be the camber profile?


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

enjoy said:


> Wouldn't you say that for a board like the FA, you would not really engage the edge near the rocker nose unless you were applying a huge amount of pressure so the EE would just be the camber profile?


The more you angle the board, the more edge will engage towards the nose, until you reach the angle where the contact points engage. But usually, the board angle you need to reach to do so is not very steep. I have not ridden the FA. Only handled it in a shop. But from what I remember, the nose contact points where not super high off the ground. For the nose contact points to engage only when the board is severely angled on edge, they would have to be seriously high and kind of useless.


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

Got it, but I'm assuming the Burton website would account for this when calculating the EE. For the 159 FA, still comes out to less than the EE on the 156 Cx and Rome Mod. So in theory, these boards should be just as stable if not a little more at carves despite the shorter length? 



Mig Fullbag said:


> The more you angle the board, the more edge will engage towards the nose, until you reach the angle where the contact points engage. But usually, the board angle you need to reach to do so is not very steep. I have not ridden the FA. Only handled it in a shop. But from what I remember, the nose contact points where not super high off the ground. For the nose contact points to engage only when the board is severely angled on edge, they would have to be seriously high and kind of useless.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

enjoy said:


> Got it, but I'm assuming the Burton website would account for this when calculating the EE. For the 159 FA, still comes out to less than the EE on the 156 Cx and Rome Mod. So in theory, these boards should be just as stable if not a little more at carves despite the shorter length?


If the effective edge is shorter on a longer board compared to a shorter one, its simply because the nose and/or tail length is longer. Nose and tail length are measured from widest point to the tip, along the base, just to avoid confusion. Real overall length is equal to nose length + effective edge + tail length.

If we are talking strictly carving, the effective edge is one of the most relevant specs, but not the only one. Sidecut, flex pattern, and taper also come into play. But as a general rule, with similar specs, the board with more effective edge will hold an edge better and at faster speeds. Nose and tail length can be kept very short to pack the edge hold of a way longer board into a smaller size board.

Look at the board on the right. It is the Fullbag Diamond Blade 163cm which I designed mainly for carving groomers, but still handles all around riding very well. It packs 137.5cm of effective edge because nose and tail are very short.
Fullbag Hammerhead, Lifer, and Diamond Blade

The one on the left in the following pic, is the Fullbag Blunt Diamond 162cm which I designed mainly for pow riding, but will handle carving on hardpack better than most pow boards. It has 121cm of effective edge because of the long nose.
Fullbag Blunt Diamond

Although both boards have almost the same length, they have a massive difference in effective edge and nose length, amongst other things, which makes them handle very differently whether while carving, or riding pow.

Here's a vid of the Diamond Blade in action, just for the fun of it... 
http://youtu.be/TGq2r6HRHHQ


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

Mig Fullbag said:


> If we are talking strictly carving, the effective edge is one of the most relevant specs, but not the only one. Sidecut, flex pattern, and taper also come into play. But as a general rule, with similar specs, the board with more effective edge will hold an edge better and at faster speeds. Nose and tail length can be kept very short to pack the edge hold of a way longer board into a smaller size board.


Thanks man very helpful. I'm guessing stiffer flex generally means more of a stable feel and lower sidecut radius equates to more of a tight carve?

Those boards look sweet!


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

enjoy said:


> Got it, but if the decks were more similar in profile, does effective edge trump board length in determining how it would feel when carving?
> 
> And in the case of FA vs Cx, wouldn't the fact that the Cx is stiffer make it feel more stable (on groomers) even at smaller sizes?


are you trying to choose between these two boards or is this a purely theoretical exercise - there have been some very good answers about how effective edge affects a board's performance, all other things being equal. 

If you're picking between boards then it's more about the full set of board stats and how they ride. 

If you have found a deal on a 156 or 159 in Cx or FA and are trying to convince yourself the size will be ok even if it's different than what you usually ride that's also another exercise.


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm trying to pick between a few full camber boards over the 159 FA I already have because I don't see any pow.

Considering boards like the Rome Mod and Cx and noticed they had higher EE at each size so was wondering if downsizing to 156 would change carving feel/stability significantly even if EE is similar. I understand other things like flex (believe these boards are stiffer), taper and sidecut come into play but given that they're all mostly camber and medium/stiff to stiff, EE should be a big factor in carving feel right?

Interested in downsizing for maneuverability/spins if it doesn't affect stability/speed (I liked the stability of the 159 FA).



Lamps said:


> are you trying to choose between these two boards or is this a purely theoretical exercise - there have been some very good answers about how effective edge affects a board's performance, all other things being equal.
> 
> If you're picking between boards then it's more about the full set of board stats and how they ride.
> 
> If you have found a deal on a 156 or 159 in Cx or FA and are trying to convince yourself the size will be ok even if it's different than what you usually ride that's also another exercise.


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

enjoy said:


> I'm trying to pick between a few full camber boards over the 159 FA I already have because I don't see any pow.
> 
> Considering boards like the Rome Mod and Cx and noticed they had higher EE at each size so was wondering if downsizing to 156 would change carving feel/stability significantly even if EE is similar. I understand other things like flex (believe these boards are stiffer), taper and sidecut come into play but given that they're all mostly camber and medium/stiff to stiff, EE should be a big factor in carving feel right?
> 
> Interested in downsizing for maneuverability/spins if it doesn't affect stability/speed (I liked the stability of the 159 FA).


Having recently demo'd the flight attendant on groomers I didn't find it that stiff, more of a rider friendly board. I think that stiffness is much more important than EE when you're talking small differences in EE or same EE. Put specialized boarder cross stuff aside as EE and side cut are way different. 

So I'd say that the stiffness of the CX will far outweigh the EE aspects. You could downsize to the 156 CX and I'm sure still have a more stable setup but it's a very different ride. Likely you'll find it less maneuverable. 

I base this assessment on riding a CX once a year or so and riding a Vapor as my primary board. The vapor is in the CX theme, just a tad softer, but still a lot stiffer than the FA.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

A bit of clarification. 

Effective edge is not the measurement between the tip and tail widepoints. That was the _old way_ (prior to the various new profiles) of measuring contact length (AKA running length) and is still the most commonly used measurement for contact length in manufacturer literature.

Effective Edge on the other hand follows the curved sidecut of the board. So while it measures that arc between the tip and tail widepoints, two boards with the same measurement from widepoint to widepoint in a straight line can have very different effective edge measurements. Effective edge will always be longer than contact length.










Sidecut radius is another important measurement (and is also often confused with effective edge). Sidecut radius is measured by taking the radius of the circle that any boards sidecut would produce if it were to be fully extended. This tells a lot about the turn that any board _wants_ to do.










STOKED!


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Mig Fullbag said:


> If the effective edge is shorter on a longer board compared to a shorter one, its simply because the nose and/or tail length is longer. Nose and tail length are measured from widest point to the tip, along the base, just to avoid confusion. Real overall length is equal to nose length + effective edge + tail length.
> 
> If we are talking strictly carving, the effective edge is one of the most relevant specs, but not the only one. Sidecut, flex pattern, and taper also come into play. But as a general rule, with similar specs, the board with more effective edge will hold an edge better and at faster speeds. Nose and tail length can be kept very short to pack the edge hold of a way longer board into a smaller size board.
> 
> ...


Nice!
Do you also make these?
Longboard


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

enjoy said:


> Burton's website states that the 159 Flight Attendant has 1210mm of effective edge.
> 
> The Custom X in 156 has 1212.5mm of effective edge.
> 
> Would the boards ride similarly in terms of carving/stability even though the Custom X is shorter?


Effective edge can co-relate to edge hold. Same length effective edge should have similar edge hold. Longer edge, better grip.

A Virus Avalanche FLP AFT 160 has over 140 cm (1400 mm) of effective edge. :hairy:


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

Wiredsport said:


> A bit of clarification.
> 
> Effective edge is not the measurement between the tip and tail widepoints. That was the _old way_ (prior to the various new profiles) of measuring contact length (AKA running length) and is still the most commonly used measurement for contact length in manufacturer literature.
> 
> ...


Is contact length the same as running length? Or is one measured sitting while in it's resting position (i.e. camber up) and one measured sitting while loaded (flat)?


----------



## totalsiib (Oct 9, 2014)

Contact length is also know as running length. This number is always less than the effective edge.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

enjoy said:


> Thanks man very helpful. I'm guessing stiffer flex generally means more of a stable feel and lower sidecut radius equates to more of a tight carve?
> 
> Those boards look sweet!


Yes, and thanks!


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

F1EA said:


> Nice!
> Do you also make these?
> Longboard


Yes! I have have been skateboarding since 1975 and snowboarding since 1979.


----------



## enjoy (Sep 26, 2014)

I agree that after riding the FA it wasn't as stiff as I had expected. Handflexed the Cx in store and it was definitely noticeably stiffer so I can see why it would feel less maneuverable. Leaning towards the Mod now as the Cx may be a little too aggressive for what I'm looking for. Thanks!



Lamps said:


> Having recently demo'd the flight attendant on groomers I didn't find it that stiff, more of a rider friendly board. I think that stiffness is much more important than EE when you're talking small differences in EE or same EE. Put specialized boarder cross stuff aside as EE and side cut are way different.
> 
> So I'd say that the stiffness of the CX will far outweigh the EE aspects. You could downsize to the 156 CX and I'm sure still have a more stable setup but it's a very different ride. Likely you'll find it less maneuverable.
> 
> I base this assessment on riding a CX once a year or so and riding a Vapor as my primary board. The vapor is in the CX theme, just a tad softer, but still a lot stiffer than the FA.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Extremo said:


> Is contact length the same as running length? Or is one measured sitting while in it's resting position (i.e. camber up) and one measured sitting while loaded (flat)?


Contact Length and Running length have historically been the same measurement. Snowboard factories have used them interchangeably as two names for the same thing. They measure a straight line from the tip widepoint to the tail widepoint. These names have been in use since the time when all boards were cambered and are actually awful names in the current era of multiple profiles as they do not measure what the sound like they measure .

There is no industry standard measurement that measures either true unweighted or weighted "contact" length although that measurement is interesting as well. Some brands (Burton is a great example) are starting to put weighted running lengths on their boards.


STOKED!


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

Wiredsport said:


> Contact Length and Running length have historically been the same measurement. Snowboard factories have used them interchangeably as two names for the same thing. They measure a straight line from the tip widepoint to the tail widepoint. These names have been in use since the time when all boards were cambered and are actually awful names in the current era of multiple profiles as they do not measure what the sound like they measure .
> 
> There is no industry standard measurement that measures either true unweighted or weighted "contact" length although that measurement is interesting as well. Some brands (Burton is a great example) are starting to put weighted running lengths on their boards.
> 
> ...


I'm curious, does a longer effective edge always mean a longer contact length? For instance, I ride a Capita mid-life 155 that has a 120cm effective edge, I was looking at a Capita DOA 156 with an effective edge of 124. Does that mean, all things being equal, the contact length has to be longer as well on the DOA?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Extremo said:


> I'm curious, does a longer effective edge always mean a longer contact length? For instance, I ride a Capita mid-life 155 that has a 120cm effective edge, I was looking at a Capita DOA 156 with an effective edge of 124. Does that mean, all things being equal, the contact length has to be longer as well on the DOA?


Hi Bro,

Good question.

The effective edge on the (1 cm) longer board is 4 cm longer than the shorter board. That is significant and indicates that the longer board will have more of an available grip advantage than the overall length might suggest. 

In terms of "weighted" contact length, the effective edge alone gives us no indication if that would be longer or shorter. That will vary by profile design. Rocker (for instance) will always have a shorter "weighted" contact length than true camber as a portion of the rockered profile will never make flat surface contact even when weighted.

In terms of "old definition" contact length (tip wide point to tail wide point) the difference between effective edge and contact length could vary from one another by a much smaller measurement than it could with weighted contact length as it is primarily the difference in depth of sidecut that changes that measurement.

Specifically:

The Midlife is touted as flat from widepoint to widepoint, but actually breaks upwards a tiny bit before the widepoints.

The DOA is really RCR (with flatspots) and its camber also breaks upwards a bit before the contact points.

In terms of weighted contact length (only) these two designs are very similar. How much the weighted contact length will differ will depend on the placement of the upward breaks before the widepoints.

It might be interesting to weight both of your boards and take a quick measurement of the weighted lengths.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Bro,
> 
> Good question.
> 
> ...


I really wish companies would list weighted contact lengths. That way I know I'm getting the longest board possible with the shortest length. It would really help out those of us who ride strictly hard pack and ice.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Extremo said:


> I really wish companies would list weighted contact lengths. That way I know I'm getting the longest board possible with the shortest length. It would really help out those of us who ride strictly hard pack and ice.


I am with you on the listing. In relation to this portion of the board it would be cool to see:

Effective Edge - best indicator of grip on hardpack and ice.

Weighted Running Length - important indicator in combination with WTW (wide to wide) for determining available speed and float. More valuable for hardpack. Also has value for visualizing how easily and positively effective edge can be engaged on hardpack/ice.

WTW length (AKA old contact length or running length) - important indicator in combination with Weighted Running Length for determining available speed and float. More valuable for pow.

Radius - most valuable for determining a board's turn preference.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Mig Fullbag said:


> Yes! I have have been skateboarding since 1975 and snowboarding since 1979.


Wow awesome hahaha :
A buddy of mine rode a TM37 and another rode an Elise. Good boards!! solid quality.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

F1EA said:


> Wow awesome hahaha :
> A buddy of mine rode a TM37 and another rode an Elise. Good boards!! solid quality.


Thank you very much F1EA!


----------

