# Contact length vs. effective edge



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

They're the same. It has nothing to do with what size you should be on. A 151 for you is a park jib size.


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

Cheers Nivek! :thumbsup:


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

bobsy852 said:


> Someone told me to check the effective edge of the snowboard but I can only find the contact length statistic of the board so I was wondering if these are the same or different?


Hi,

Efective edge and Contact Length are very different measurements. If correctly measured, effective edge will always be longer than contact length.

I just posted this elsewhere today so I hope a little copy/paste is OK 

The confusion that the OP had posted is entirely common and understandable. Here is an old blog post we did on this. It has only become worse since this was written.

*Board sizing has always been a little tricky, but in the past, there have been a small group of readily available stats that have been very useful for comparison and selection by knowledgeable riders. One of those has been Running Length (AKA Contact Length). As we have written many times, overall board length is a commonly considered, but almost useless measurement. Why? Because the shape and dimensions of a board's raised tip and tail can vary greatly and have next to no impact on the way the board will ride. These variations may change the overall board length by as much as 7 cm without having any significant effect on performance. I can feel some readers out there bristling to say, "but length effects spin weight and rotation". Sure, but in reality the difference in weight is negligible, and the difference you feel in spins is minor at best...and, most importantly for this article, tip to tip length will always be provided, so if it is important to you, it will always be available. Most informed boarders have paid little to no attention to overall (tip to tip) length but have focused on Running Length as a major indicator of a board's true "size". This measurement was highly valued as it gauged the amount of board that would be in firm contact with the snow while riding. The running length was typically taken as a straight line measurement between the two contact points, which on traditional cambered boards pretty well corresponded with the board's wide points at both ends of it's effective edge. So, this really became a wide point to wide point measurement. Some manufacturers would measure this with the camber compressed (weighted) while others would take a non compressed measurement. In either case, the numbers were pretty close. Good retailers kept their own consistent internal measurements.
Enter Rocker. Rocker is an often incorrectly used term that inaccurately groups about twenty different variations on Reverse Camber designs. One confusing factor that stems from the addition of "Rocker" boards is that due to the design of many of theseshapes, the tip and tail, when weighted, are not in contact with the snow. So, how is running length being measured for Rockered boards? Well, that's interesting. For the mostpart, it's no longer being measured at all. Manufacturers that have been providing this measurement for years and in some cases decades, are now excluding the measurement from their literature and websites. Others have simply continued to measure wide point to widepoint, even while this is no longer a true representation of contact length. Our suggestion: Two separate measurements. The fist being true weighted contact length and the second being the wide spot to wide spot measurement. This will allow the knowledgeable board seeker to get an idea of real running length, plus "available" running length (available by selective pressuring, even if not all at once) and wide spot distance to better gauge where the potential catch spots are in relation to rider stance.
But at least for now, Running Length, R.I.P. *


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

yeah Wireds right, I wasn't thinking. In short, contact length is the line you can draw down the center of the board from the contact points. So if you flatten everything but the tip kicks this is what would be touching the table or ground or whatever. Effective edge is the length of metal between contact points.

The average buyer and even the seasoned rider is going to care very little about either of these measurements as they are almost always overshadowed by other characteristics of a board. Shape, sidecut radius, how many radii are used, edge tech, carbon layup... they are all going to effect the way something rides more than contact or ef.edge will. Ef.Edge is a helpful number when you're explaining shapes like the Nug and WWW to someone, otherwise its not something to get hung up over.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Kindly allow me to throw into the mix an alternate opinion. 

We think that running length and effective edge are two very important things to consider when researching a new deck. If it were up to us, the tip to tip length (ie 151, 163, etc) would not be the number printed on the deck, but rather, we wish standard was the contact length (running length). I know, I know, it will never happen, get used to disapointment  Unlike tip to tip length, running length actually does offer a real insigt into how a board will perform (Nivek is correct in saying that this is not the whole story and that other elements certainly count as well). Running length has an effect on stability, speed maintainance, and maneuverability. Effective edge has a related but different importance. It gives an idea of how much edging potential will be available to a rider not only for carving turns (as is sometimes thought) but also as slip resistance and on demand control. 

The more you look at boards and consider them, the more you realize that each design is a give and take (a series of compromises) and that each of the critical factors plays its role in making a board do what it is meant to for its intended rider group.


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

ok, thanks for the lesson though both of you! I really like the look of this small board that's all, and most of my time is spent in indoor slopes and starting freestyle so a smaller board will be good for that I think, I just want to know that it will be able to cope on a mountain slope for the couple of weeks of holidays I take to Europe every year....will a small board be able to cope on a quick blast down a piste?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

bobsy852 said:


> ok, thanks for the lesson though both of you! I really like the look of this small board that's all, and most of my time is spent in indoor slopes and starting freestyle so a smaller board will be good for that I think, I just want to know that it will be able to cope on a mountain slope for the couple of weeks of holidays I take to Europe every year....will a small board be able to cope on a quick blast down a piste?


Happy to help with that but let's get a few more specifics.

What deck are you considering (make, model year)?

What is your foot size?


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

2012 DC Ply 151, I'm a US size 10 boot. 
Being inside most of the year and learning freestyle at the moment (been doing some ground tricks for about a month, but will be looking to start some boxes and rails soon) basically means I'm a park rat most of the year, but I will be going away a couple (may be 3 weeks at most) a year onto some mountains and I'm worried that a small board will just give way on me when I go for a bit of speed on a piste (although it'll be no extreme carving or anything)


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Wired you have a point. With all the different tip profiles running length would be a little bit more of a useful printed size to overall length. But thats a paradigm shift and probably wont happen. But hey, if you go to a shop where they employ knowledgable sales staff, the staff knows how to sift through all the different numbers in relation to the board shape.

I would steer away from downsizing on the Ply. I blame riding a jib size on it not having the pop I wanted. I rode the 151, am lighter than you, and just found the pop lacking. This does lead me to speculate though that in the 153 it will still be average or just below in that department. I got plenty of snap out of the 150 Westmark. Speaking of, maybe look at one of those in a 153? Or maybe a Signal Park Flat in a 152...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

bobsy852 said:


> 2012 DC Ply 151, I'm a US size 10 boot.


I am only seeing a 150.5 cm for this year, then a jump to 153.5. Is the 150.5 the deck you are considering?










definately a big leap graphics wise from that to the 153.5.










All the same, you will be better suited by the larger deck (even indoors) and will appreciate it even more when you get it out for mountain riding.


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

Yea the 150.5 was what I meant as the 151, tell me about it though, the difference in graphics is ridiculous! The 153.75 sucks graphics wise! 
The only other I think I'd consider is the 154MLF - I have a slight worry that this will be too stiff a board to help me progress in freestyle as I really like practicing presses and butters at the moment and don't want a really stiff board to hinder me on this.

I haven't really looked into many other snowboards as all of my snowboard gear is DC haha so I was aiming to keep the snowboard DC....however I do like the look of the FORUM Destroyer, but again, not sure how much of a freestyle deck this is?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

bobsy852 said:


> Yea the 150.5 was what I meant as the 151, tell me about it though, the difference in graphics is ridiculous! The 153.75 sucks graphics wise!
> The only other I think I'd consider is the 154MLF - I have a slight worry that this will be too stiff a board to help me progress in freestyle as I really like practicing presses and butters at the moment and don't want a really stiff board to hinder me on this.
> 
> I haven't really looked into many other snowboards as all of my snowboard gear is DC haha so I was aiming to keep the snowboard DC....however I do like the look of the FORUM Destroyer, but again, not sure how much of a freestyle deck this is?


The MLF looks like a sick board (and I think I am getting a feel for what you like in graphics ). The only concern I would have for you is that it is described by DC as beeing pretty far from your intended use. Carbon tip to tail, stiffer flex, less playful camber profile. 

The Destroyer CD is a great board. It is built for big hits and power pop. It sounds like you want to focus more on presses, butters and flow rather than clearing the biggest gaps. Am I right on that?


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> The MLF looks like a sick board (and I think I am getting a feel for what you like in graphics ). The only concern I would have for you is that it is described by DC as beeing pretty far from your intended use. Carbon tip to tail, stiffer flex, less playful camber profile.
> 
> The Destroyer CD is a great board. It is built for big hits and power pop. It sounds like you want to focus more on presses, butters and flow rather than clearing the biggest gaps. Am I right on that?


lol, yea love the 154 graphics on the MLF but as you say it sounds a bit less playful than I think I want! 

Your spot on with what I'm looking at doing at the moment! Not going to be hitting any big kickers or anything any time soon! 

I guess if I had to keep looking at DC snowboards, the Lauri Pro Tone would probably be a safe bet, my only issues with this are that unlike all the snowboards mentioned so far I have no way of being able to demo the Tone before buying so would be a gamble, and the graphics on that are pretty boring!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

bobsy852 said:


> lol, yea love the 154 graphics on the MLF but as you say it sounds a bit less playful than I think I want!
> 
> Your spot on with what I'm looking at doing at the moment! Not going to be hitting any big kickers or anything any time soon!
> 
> I guess if I had to keep looking at DC snowboards, the Lauri Pro Tone would probably be a safe bet, my only issues with this are that unlike all the snowboards mentioned so far I have no way of being able to demo the Tone before buying so would be a gamble, and the graphics on that are pretty boring!


Got it. I don't know the DC line well at all so I will bow out here and leave it to the DC experts to fill you in on the Pro Tone and other potential DC decks that are designed to be grat butter/press boards. 

Also, possibly look at posts here regarding alternate boards of this type. Most brands build ay least one and you can find the local favs pretty easily.


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

Wiredsport said:


> Got it. I don't know the DC line well at all so I will bow out here and leave it to the DC experts to fill you in on the Pro Tone and other potential DC decks that are designed to be grat butter/press boards.


Well I would like to thank you for your input so far Wired! I may demo the MLF just to try it against the 153.75PLY and see how they compare. I think the PLY will be ideal for me just a shame about the graphics on the larger model! :thumbsdown:


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

yes definitely demo, but I think if you really want to stick with DC you're going to want to look at the Tone. Rocker and a softer flex but still enough snap to satisfy.

You don't have to stick with DC though... so maybe check out the Signal Rocker Light, Bataleon FunKink, Arbor Westmark, or a Flow Verve.


----------



## bobsy852 (Mar 24, 2011)

Thanks again Nivek! I suppose the tone is flat between the bindings so should be quite stable, it's just a shame my local dome wont stock it to demo!  
True, I don't! Thanks for the other suggestions, I'll look into those too! Also checked out the Ride DH2 the other day, the guy in the shop recommended that to me, and I liked the look of that. He offered me a free demo on that so might take him up on that one!


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Yeah demo it, but if you're looking for something playful you probably don't want a DH2. Its a manly jump stick with goobs of pop.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

So I'm doing some research on my current board (160 Proto HD) and one I'm interested in (160W Salomon Assassin) and have some questions about effective edge. 

The Proto has an EE of 1290 and a waist of 255, where the Assassin Wide has an EE of 1110 and a waist of 262 and also is hybrid camber or rock out camber with flat between the feet. 

I enjoyed the Proto but not as much as I wanted to. It still felt a little squirrelly at high speeds and just not exactly what I had hoped for it to do. So I'm thinking the assassin will be a bit more locked in at speeds but the EE is significantly shorter than the proto but the proto has CRC. 

Anybody know what the difference in having a shorter EE will be on a hybrid camber versus the proto with CRC and a longer EE? 

I have had some significant tailbone injuries in my early days of snowboarding, but my level of riding has gone way up (since moving to Bend 4 years ago) and I want to "dabble" in the park/man-made jumps a bit more with my AM (not powder oriented AM board) board but am just curious if that shorter EE will come into play? 

Note. I dont want a park specific board. This board will be my groomer/light powder/natural feature/park play around board. Proto just didn't seem to happen, and I put close to 20 days on it. 

Hopefully this makes since to someone. Nivek? Wired? BA?
Cheers


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Ridinbend,

The Assassin is not likely going to be the board for you. Confidently connecting more edge with snow is going to help you lose that squirrelly ride that you are experiencing with your Proto. The design of the Assassin will take you further from that goal. It is designed from a pow and freestyle ancestry and gets there by using a prolonged lifted nose and tail in combination with RCR (with a flat spot) which already shortens contact length (and effective edge). That reduction of edge and contact will leave you with a looser but less stable ride on hardpack and ice. NOTE: The 18 cm of difference in effective edge between these two boards is enormous. I would highly suggest demoing before making that change.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

I suspected that. Thanks for confirming. I'm all over Salomon right now about getting their demos up here this year for the dirksen derby. Last year they premiered the derby board and didn't even bring it to their riders own derby event. Fail. Thanks again.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

What is your weight and foot size? What area/conditions are your riding most?


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> What is your weight and foot size? What area/conditions are your riding most?


6ft 210 11.5 boots and I ride mt bachelor year round. Mostly off piste natural terrain/features, powder, but during early season low tide it's pretty much groomers. Board would be about perfect except for reducing EE. I was just curious how much the different camber shape would effect the actual contract length. It would be used much less for powder as I have a 63 and 66 sick stick.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Got it. You are right on the edge. Lets dial it in a bit. What stance width and angles do you ride?

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm duck footed so I ride 18, -18 @ 23-23.5 and my foot was 26.6cm and really wide with high arches.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

ridinbend said:


> I'm duck footed so I ride 18, -18 @ 23-23.5 and my foot was 26.6cm and really wide with high arches.


Got it.  This is a big part of the issue. 26.6 is actually under a size 9 in snowboard boots. I completely understand that you have needed to go to a larger (and longer) boot to accommodate your wide, high arched foot. In terms of board control, however, only foot length and angle matter so we need to use the 26.6 measurement for board sizing.

You cannot consider any wide or mid-wide boards. In fact, you will gain a lot of control by looking at the narrowest available options. Your proto is 25.5 at the waist but is 26.6 at the center inserts. That means that when you factor in your stance angle your barefoot toes and heels are within the confines of the edges. That is going to rob you of control, edge to edge positivity and is the reason why your board is feeling squirrelly. 

Fix this one issue and you will open up a new world of control. You are in for the best season of your life!


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

That's quite interesting. I switched to now drives after the new year which I felt made a huge difference. I assume that could/would be from the energy distribution through the bindings. Thanks a bunch bratha I will be doing more detailed research from this point out. Cheers!


----------

