# Weird behavior with my Bataleon Goliath.



## crazyface (Mar 1, 2008)

oyu shouldnt have any problems with it grabbing because TBT is designed to do just that.
the effective edge is defferent on a bord with TBT. u might have it so that the back binding is further away from the raised back edges than the front binding is from the raised front.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

I've had a similar issue to this before...

My fix was taking my back binding from a -15 to a -12

What's your angles?


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Milo303 said:


> I've had a similar issue to this before...
> 
> My fix was taking my back binding from a -15 to a -12
> 
> What's your angles?


My angles are 15/-15.. 

Maybe I'll try moving the back binding to -12.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

crazyface said:


> oyu shouldnt have any problems with it grabbing because TBT is designed to do just that.
> the effective edge is defferent on a bord with TBT. u might have it so that the back binding is further away from the raised back edges than the front binding is from the raised front.


I didn't have this problem when I had my autos on it, with the default stance. I haven't had any problems with it till I tried to reduce my stance width. It felt so odd and so wrong after I strapped in. You might be right about the binding position in reference to the bevel. If I go back to the first stance I used, and it behaves better, then I found a major downfall for this board.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

What are the measurements for each of your bindings to the center inserts in each of the insert clusters? This should include any on disk adjustments that are in play. This board has a stock setback of 1 cm.


----------



## Mr. Polonia (Apr 5, 2009)

if setting ur stance, and ur binding angles wont fix the problem, lay your board down vertically on its edges and with a marker mark the contact points.
From that reference mark, slightly detune your edges about 1/2-1 inch INTO the effective edge on both the tip and tail.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Mr. Polonia said:


> if setting ur stance, and ur binding angles wont fix the problem, lay your board down vertically on its edges and with a marker mark the contact points.
> From that reference mark, slightly detune your edges about 1/2-1 inch INTO the effective edge on both the tip and tail.


That is not likely the answer with a triple base board. The edges at the contact points have over 5 mm of lift. If they are snagging this is likely to be a setback issue or a sizing problem. Some photos of the setup would be really helpful since there are a lot of possible culprits.


----------



## Mr. Polonia (Apr 5, 2009)

Wiredsport said:


> That is not likely the answer with a triple base board. The edges at the contact points have over 5 mm of lift. If they are snagging this is likely to be a setback issue or a sizing problem. Some photos of the setup would be really helpful since there are a lot of possible culprits.


please fill me in on what da hell a triple base board is...never heard of such a thing. Is this something that only bataleon makes?


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

TRIPLE BASE TECHNOLOGY | BATALEON SNOWBOARDS | Triple Base Tech, the best thing to happen to snowboards since edges.
The Angry Snowboarder Blog Archive Battle of the Base Technologies: TBT vs BST


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wiredsport said:


> What are the measurements for each of your bindings to the center inserts in each of the insert clusters? This should include any on disk adjustments that are in play. This board has a stock setback of 1 cm.


Hole to hole on the baseplate is 5cm change


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Mr. Polonia said:


> if setting ur stance, and ur binding angles wont fix the problem, lay your board down vertically on its edges and with a marker mark the contact points.
> From that reference mark, slightly detune your edges about 1/2-1 inch INTO the effective edge on both the tip and tail.


Yeah I already marked the effective edges, that's the odd part... I set my bindings up according to them.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Mr. Polonia said:


> please fill me in on what da hell a triple base board is...never heard of such a thing. Is this something that only bataleon makes?


It's pretty sweet tech


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

phile00 said:


> Hole to hole on the baseplate is 5cm change


I asked my question poorly. In relation to the center inserts in each insert cluster, how far setback are you. For example: centerred on the front cluster, 1 cm back on the back cluster. 

With triple base boards where there is offset, the area of lift is not equal on the nose and the tail. Traditional effective edge measurements based on the "contact points" don't apply.


----------



## BoardTheSnow73 (Apr 25, 2009)

Make sure to check your forward lean. I had a similar problem with my heel edge catching because my back binding had more lean than the front. So when I leaned into a corner, the back part of the edge got pressed down before the front. 

It sounds like you might have the opposite problem. If you have less forward lean on the back than on the front, when you transition from heel side to toe side the back part of the edge will get let down first, rather than initiating the turn with the front foot.

Just a thought...it could be an easy fix:dunno:


----------



## RickB (Oct 29, 2008)

i saw a youtube clip (i think) with some guys reviewing some bataleon boards and one or two guys mentioned this "hanging on to a carve" feeling.

recently i bought a B'leon Jam and i only have a few runs on it so far but, i did feel this phenomena a lil bit. Not enough to bother me.

(F^kcing love the board though, might be a big believer in TBT.. but i gotta get out there s'more to be sure)


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

I still think you should change your angle.... I know it's weird, but I had the exact issue your mentioning and changing my angle fixed it.

Basically my body wasn't liking the angle so my leg was wanting to twist toe side therefore catching an edge


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

RickB said:


> i saw a youtube clip (i think) with some guys reviewing some bataleon boards and one or two guys mentioned this "hanging on to a carve" feeling.
> 
> recently i bought a B'leon Jam and i only have a few runs on it so far but, i did feel this phenomena a lil bit. Not enough to bother me.
> 
> (F^kcing love the board though, might be a big believer in TBT.. but i gotta get out there s'more to be sure)


I never bothered me till I messed with my original configuration. I'm going to have to try and move it back.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wiredsport said:


> I asked my question poorly. In relation to the center inserts in each insert cluster, how far setback are you. For example: centerred on the front cluster, 1 cm back on the back cluster.
> 
> With triple base boards where there is offset, the area of lift is not equal on the nose and the tail. Traditional effective edge measurements based on the "contact points" don't apply.


Hmm, interesting. I'm going to post pics tomorrow. Without taking my bindings off I want to say the back binding is on the inner most inserts, with the base plate being moved in even further than that. And the front binding is also on the inner most insert, but centered over it. I think this is my problem, but what sucks is I'm going to have to go with a wider stance width than I want to just to be able to ride the board properly, whereas on my EVO-R (which is a twin), I set it exactly at the stance with I wanted and it performs like a champ...and the board is 2cm longer!


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Milo303 said:


> I still think you should change your angle.... I know it's weird, but I had the exact issue your mentioning and changing my angle fixed it.
> 
> Basically my body wasn't liking the angle so my leg was wanting to twist toe side therefore catching an edge


I'll tweak that and the forward lean as boardthesnow73 suggested too. I want to have a whole day out in front of me so I don't feel rushed. Last time I want I only have 4.5 hours with slow lifts and my EVO-R worked. So I went with that in lieu of messing with the Goliath.


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

Look for differences in the bindings. Just because the disks are set to the same angle doesn't always mean the boot will sit at that same angle in the binding. Also look at the shape and angle of the binding's foot bed and toe/heel boot centering. Those little things could effect your riding.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

phile00 said:


> Hmm, interesting. I'm going to post pics tomorrow. Without taking my bindings off I want to say the back binding is on the inner most inserts, with the base plate being moved in even further than that. And the front binding is also on the inner most insert, but centered over it. I think this is my problem, but what sucks is I'm going to have to go with a wider stance width than I want to just to be able to ride the board properly, whereas on my EVO-R (which is a twin), I set it exactly at the stance with I wanted and it performs like a champ...and the board is 2cm longer!


Hi Phile,

Bataleon does the design work to get their inserts in the right spot for their technology. So if you go by the center 4 inserts on each cluster as having the spec setback of 1 cm (to the real effective edge and running surface of this triple based board), then by the adjustments that you have made, it sounds like you are now set with no setback or possibly even a forward of center position (depending on how much adjustment you have on your disks).

Let us know.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

OK here are a couple of pictures. I removed the bindings for the second picture to show you exactly where my baseplates were.

They are both on the innermost inserts, but the front is in the center of the baseplate, and the back is as far in as I could get it in order to achieve a 19.75 inch stance width. Is the reference stance width the middle four inserts? If so, that's too wide for me  

I'll try centering the baseplate on the innermost inserts and see how that works out.


----------



## RickB (Oct 29, 2008)

rode my (new to me) Jam today, and this time out i didnt feel this extra locked in feeling at all, like i did a little bit last time out.

any chance u can stand to try and ride a bit wider than ur normal, just to see if the problem goes away?
( how is it that you're riding this narrow anyway?  all u kids seem to rock out with wiiiiide stances )


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

RickB said:


> rode my (new to me) Jam today, and this time out i didnt feel this extra locked in feeling at all, like i did a little bit last time out.
> 
> any chance u can stand to try and ride a bit wider than ur normal, just to see if the problem goes away?
> ( how is it that you're riding this narrow anyway?  all u kids seem to rock out with wiiiiide stances )


I had a wider stance originally, and for some reason I just felt like it was harder to spin and less comfortable on jumps. It sounds odd, since a wider stance should make jump landings more stable, but that's how I roll I guess 

My 151 Never Summer EVO-R with a 19.5" stance width is freakin' PERFECT.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

phile00 said:


> OK here are a couple of pictures. I removed the bindings for the second picture to show you exactly where my baseplates were.
> 
> They are both on the innermost inserts, but the front is in the center of the baseplate, and the back is as far in as I could get it in order to achieve a 19.75 inch stance width. Is the reference stance width the middle four inserts? If so, that's too wide for me
> 
> I'll try centering the baseplate on the innermost inserts and see how that works out.


The problem was that you had adjusted your whole stance forward on the board so that you had removed the 1 cm setback entirely and possible gone forward of "centerred". This will usually cause poor results on boards that are designed with setback. If you were to use the innermost inserts and center the disks that would give you the manufacturer designed 1 cm of setback. You want to go even narrower than that so if you adjust in symmetrically using the disk holes, you will maintain that 1 cm of setback. If you can not get your exact stance using the same holes on each disk, then adjust the front disk further back, *not* the back disk further forward as you had originally done. This will return you to very close to the design of the board and will likely solve your problem.

Hope that helps.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wiredsport said:


> The problem was that you had adjusted your whole stance forward on the board so that you had removed the 1 cm setback entirely and possible gone forward of "centerred". This will usually cause poor results on boards that are designed with setback. If you were to use the innermost inserts and center the disks that would give you the manufacturer designed 1 cm of setback. You want to go even narrower than that so if you adjust in symmetrically using the disk holes, you will maintain that 1 cm of setback. If you can not get your exact stance using the same holes on each disk, then adjust the front disk further back, *not* the back disk further forward as you had originally done. This will return you to very close to the design of the board and will likely solve your problem.
> 
> Hope that helps.


I understand what you're saying and will try it, but since I still have more board out in front of me, it's a tad confusing. I wish I could see the board geometry on paper, I think that would help me understand it better.

What's odd to me is that I adjusted it so that the front of the board is still 1cm longer to the effective edge than the back...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

phile00 said:


> I understand what you're saying and will try it, but since I still have more board out in front of me, it's a tad confusing. I wish I could see the board geometry on paper, I think that would help me understand it better.
> 
> What's odd to me is that I adjusted it so that the front of the board is still 1cm longer to the effective edge than the back...


This has to do with triple base. On the setback triple base boards, the areas of lifted edge on the nose is longer than on the tail, so true "effective edge" is not related to the wide points (contact points) but to where the edge would actively engage. I highly suggest using the inserts as your basis for determining the start point for stance and discard the old rules of thumb that were based on trad cam technology. Those rules do not apply to any of the different rocker board varieties or triple base boards. The inserts are already 1 cm "setback" to what bataleon has guaged to be the boards "real effective edge" and they do a great job with getting that right. So, if you stay balanced within the insert clusters, you are staying true to the design and you will be good to go.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Wiredsport said:


> This has to do with triple base. On the setback triple base boards, the areas of lifted edge on the nose is longer than on the tail, so true "effective edge" is not related to the wide points (contact points) but to where the edge would actively engage. I highly suggest using the inserts as your basis for determining the start point for stance and discard the old rules of thumb that were based on trad cam technology. Those rules do not apply to any of the different rocker board varieties or triple base boards. The inserts are already 1 cm "setback" to what bataleon has guaged to be the boards "real effective edge" and they do a great job with getting that right. So, if you stay balanced within the insert clusters, you are staying true to the design and you will be good to go.


That puts it into perspective, I definitely understand now. I knew that it was a stance problem all along, but I didn't know why. Now I do. sorry you had to mention it twice, though. I know you mentioned earlier in the thread how the TBT affected the effective edge differently than other base designs. I'm not normally this obtuse, I swear. Thanks so much for the help. I honestly don't know that anyone else would have figured out the "why".


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

phile00 said:


> That puts it into perspective, I definitely understand now. I knew that it was a stance problem all along, but I didn't know why. Now I do. sorry you had to mention it twice, though. I know you mentioned earlier in the thread how the TBT affected the effective edge differently than other base designs. I'm not normally this obtuse, I swear. Thanks so much for the help. I honestly don't know that anyone else would have figured out the "why".


Stoked to help.


----------



## phile00 (Jan 7, 2009)

Moved the based plates evenly as you mentioned. It rode perfect. It's all back to normal now  Man, my Goliath is so nice now that I have it dialed in perfect. I can carve switch with ease.


----------

