# Board Design - Explain SetBack in detail



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

Hi all!

I'm a Norwegian snowboarder/splitboarder who has become more and more design interested the past few years.

I would really appreciate if someone, in detail please, could explain to me how the setback on a snowboard is calculated. When I'm measuring the boards that I own it just seems to me that I didn't have this figured out:huh:

If you read the specs on a board and is says that it has zero set back, what does that really mean? Zero setback with respect to what?
-The waist of the board?
-The contact length?
-The full length?
-The weight distribution?

Let's say that the setback is calculated with respect to the waist of the board. My Lib-Tech Birdman 180, apparently, comes with 4" setback.
What does this really mean?
Let's say that 24" stance width is the middle inserts on each side:
Then the inserts (the center ones) would be placed 12" to each side of the waist if the Birdman came with zero setback.
If you then are going to give this board 4" setback, do you just move the inserts (both sets) 4" further back on the board?

That's what I thought companies meant when they listed a board to come with X" setback. But this doesn't seem to be correct when I consider my fleet of boards.
Is the term setback just a loose expression?:dizzy:

I'm hoping someone can explain this to me, as in-depth as possible please,
it would really be appreciated. I can explain, perhaps in a different thread, why I need to figure this out.


----------



## Justin (Jun 2, 2010)

Full length of the board. The stance is centered when it comes to waist width. The insert pack is set in 4" back of center on your board. Z set back means that the pack is set to the middle of the board so as long as you keep your bindings in holes relative to either tip you will have a centered stance.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

(----::::----|----::::----) twin 
(--::::------|--::::------) setback

you measure the tip of the tail to the last insert

you measure the tip of the nose to the first insert

The difference would be the amount of setback

Your measurements might be wrong because you might be measuring wrong you have to take into account the shape (camber, rockered tip + tail) 

For instance my 161 brigade measures 158 in height with a straight edge, but the board is 161 before pressing it to shape.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

True setback is not measured on the full lenght of the board.



Big_Norwegian said:


> I would really appreciate if someone, in detail please, could explain to me how the setback on a snowboard is calculated.


 It usually is based on the effective edge of the board, which is measured from the widest point up front to the widest point in the back, when the board is on its edge. You then find the mid-point between both insert packs. If the middle of the effective edge coincides with that mid-point, you have zero setback. If that mid-point is shifted towards the rear, that distance is your reference setback.



Big_Norwegian said:


> When I'm measuring the boards that I own it just seems to me that I didn't have this figured out:huh:


Some companies twist the measurements to fit their marketing or to make it simpler to understand by the majority of riders who are not interested by the true specs of the boards. I have measured boards listed as 158cm who actually measured 162cm.



Big_Norwegian said:


> If you read the specs on a board and is says that it has zero set back, what does that really mean? Zero setback with respect to what?
> -The waist of the board?
> -The contact length?
> -The full length?
> -The weight distribution?


With respect to the effective edge. At least, that's what it should be.



Big_Norwegian said:


> Let's say that the setback is calculated with respect to the waist of the board. My Lib-Tech Birdman 180, apparently, comes with 4" setback.
> What does this really mean?


Don't know how Lib measures setback, but I have held a Birdman and there's no way it has 4" of setback when measured the "traditional" way. 



Big_Norwegian said:


> Is the term setback just a loose expression?:dizzy:


I think most companies are affraid to list the real specs. They are probably affraid to confuse the basic rider or to loose some "cool factor" by sounding too tech. Too much tech does not translate into "cool" marketing. 



Big_Norwegian said:


> I'm hoping someone can explain this to me, as in-depth as possible please,
> it would really be appreciated. I can explain, perhaps in a different thread, why I need to figure this out.


I hope I helped you. I love talking specs! I know just by the numbers if I will like a board or not.


----------



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

Thanks Mig Fullbag, that was the kind of answer I was looking for!
I will do measurements tomorrow and post back the findings.
I also believe that the term 'effective edge' is measured from the widest point of the nose to the widest point of the tail. Hence, tomorrow I will tilt my board on the side and measure it the best I can.
Online spec states that the Birdman 180 has a contact length of 122cm. I must admit that I'm not 100% sure on how this is calculated either, but I believe that if you take the full length and subtract the length of the nose and the tail (if they are stated in spec) then you get the contact length (no matter how much rocker/camber stuff you have going on...).

If I now seem to have this SetBack-thingy figured out, I have one more question:
Does the waist always follow the inserts?
Meaning, if you "decide" to give your design 4" setback then the waist follows so that the waist is always centered between the inserts?
This would make sense and the Birdman (which is a 'very' directional board) seems to follow this guideline.

I believe that a board where you place the inserts a lot off from the waist would ride really strange...


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

^^^What he said. 
When you design a shape you have nose length, effective edge length and tail length. Setback should always be in relation to the effective edge only, I actually ride all my own pow boards with zero setback. A properly designrd board just does not need setback to float.
And yes I would say my 180 birdman has zero setback in relation to the effective edge.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

As soon as you start measuring from tip to inserts etc you are assuming the nose length us equal to the tail length which is not always the case, especially on pow boards.


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

All too confusing for the consumer if you ask me. It seems there is marketing setback and builders/designers setback, from my experience with boards all I have owned have the reference stance centered in relation to the effective edge and moving the sidecut bias around the length of the board determined the marketing setback even though to a builder it would mean zero setback.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

As soon as you start to look at a board in 3 parts it all becomes perfectly clear.
Nose-effective edge-tail.


----------



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

ETM said:


> As soon as you start to look at a board in 3 parts it all becomes perfectly clear.
> Nose-effective edge-tail.


I'm not sure if I follow you. 'Nose Lengt' + 'Effective Edge' + 'Tail Length' does not equal 'Total Length' of the board....in my head it is really a lot more complicated than that.
The effective edge can stretch into both the nose and the tail, a good example being the Jones Hovercraft.
Another question then becomes, when holding a board in hand, how do you really measure the 'nose length' and 'tail length' ?


----------



## Mizu Kuma (Apr 13, 2014)

I think where ETM is comin from, is that the Nose/Tail start where the Effective edge end!!!!! * Correct me if I'm wrong!!!!!

The true centre of the Effective Edge is the point at which you measure the offset (Setback) of the centre of the inserts!!!!!


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Big_Norwegian said:


> I'm not sure if I follow you. 'Nose Lengt' + 'Effective Edge' + 'Tail Length' does not equal 'Total Length' of the board....in my head it is really a lot more complicated than that.
> The effective edge can stretch into both the nose and the tail, a good example being the Jones Hovercraft.
> Another question then becomes, when holding a board in hand, how do you really measure the 'nose length' and 'tail length' ?


No, you are thinking 3 dimentionally. You have to think of it 2 dimentionally, a piece of base material flat on the bench. 
You mark your tail length, you then mark your effective edge length followed by the nose length. This gives you the total length of the board. No amount of camber or rocker can ever change this. 
The upturn of the nose can (and should IMO) come into the efective edge length a bit but that does not make the nose longer. The nose is non effective edge, when you put the board on its edge the nose is not a part of the action, the rockered part at the front of a hovercraft as you mention is therefore is part nose part effective edge. 
The original tail-effective edge-nose length has not changed


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

This is a bit of an oddball board I built recently but it illustrates this perfectly. Its got a 10cm tail, 140cm effective edge and 10cm nose . That gives 160cm total. 




Now look what I did with the nose rocker, it extends deep into the sidecut. The nose is still only 10cm long but the rocker section is probably 22cm long. So in pow it will ride like a long nosed board but when on edge only 10cm of that length at the front is non effective. The 140cm effective edge is fully engaged.


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

Maybe these "definitions" can help:

Overall length: measured from tip to tail all along the base.

Nose length: measured from widest part up front to the tip of the nose.

Tail length: measured from widest part in back to the tip of the tail.

Effective edge: measured from widest part up front to widest part in back.

Contact length: lenght of board in contact with the floor (snow) when the board is laying flat.

Taper: difference between the widest part up front and widest part in back.


So Overall length is equal to Nose length + Effective edge + Tail length.

The portion of Effective edge that blends into the nose and tail rise equals Effective edge - Contact length. Companies rarely give both of these measurements, and never give how much of this length is distributed to the nose and to the tail. It is somewhat irrelevant in full rocker boards, but a great indicator of how traditional camber and RCR boards will handle (or any other board that makes contact with the snow between foot and widest part of board).


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

If you zoom in on that pic of the base material you can actually see the pencil lines showing nose length, effective edge length, tail length, centre of sidecut and centre of stance.


----------



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

Thanks a lot for clarifying some of these terms for me guys!

What you guys are saying makes sense. It is the specs given online by manufacturers that have confused me.

To again use the Jones Hovercraft (164) as an example, online spec say:
Total length: 164 cm
Contact length: 126 cm
Tip length: 28 cm 
Tail length: 10 cm

Here the Contact Length + Tip Length + Tail Length = Total Length

Hence, in this case Contact Length equals Effective Edge.

The may get away with it as the call it "TIP length", not NOSE length.

I'm really grateful that you guys take the time to give me full on good, detailed answers. I'm the kind that appreciates details

I've been drawing some boards in 3D software, but I need the specs to be totally correct and correspond with the behavior I want from the board(s) before I have them built. Hopefully I'm attending a 3-day snowboard building workshop with the same guys that said they could build my (demanding) design. As per today I don't have a workshop myself, but I'm hoping to "solve" that and get into building

BTW, that was a funky looking board ETM 
Well done, looks like you have done a really good job:eusa_clap:
Do you use a home built press?
Do you outsource the cutting of the wood core to cnc company?


----------



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

ETM said:


> If you zoom in on that pic of the base material you can actually see the pencil lines showing nose length, effective edge length, tail length, centre of sidecut and centre of stance.


I see it. And if I'm correct I also see that you have given that board some SETBACK :yahoo:


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

No problem at all mate.
I do it all myself in my garage ;-)
Post up your shape if you can, im interested, thats exactly why I started building. I wanted something I couldnt buy.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Big_Norwegian said:


> I see it. And if I'm correct I also see that you have given that board some SETBACK :yahoo:


The marks on the base are centre of sidecut. The front set of inserts are centre of sidecut and the back ones are 8cm setback ;-)


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

Big Norwegian: Post your shape! Interested in seeing it too and curious to find out what design features you are looking for that you have not found in other boards.

ETM: went through the entire thread on your boards several times before joining the forum. Beautiful creations! It was one of the deciding factors for me to join. Love your shapes. Outlines are somewhat similar to what I am doing.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Mig Fullbag said:


> Big Norwegian: Post your shape! Interested in seeing it too and curious to find out what design features you are looking for that you have not found in other boards.
> 
> ETM: went through the entire thread on your boards several times before joining the forum. Beautiful creations! It was one of the deciding factors for me to join. Love your shapes. Outlines are somewhat similar to what I am doing.


Cheers man!


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

ETM said:


> The marks on the base are centre of sidecut. The front set of inserts are centre of sidecut and the back ones are 8cm setback ;-)


That setback is what's really going to make it work in powder, not just the nose rocker...


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Mig Fullbag said:


> That setback is what's really going to make it work in powder, not just the nose rocker...


Yes it will be interesting to see how it goes. I like to ride my boards centre of sidecut because I really enjoy holding a nice hard edge on the hard pack but most of my boards have more like 15cm tail and 30cm nose so they helps a lot in the pow.
This one being a full twin will highlight the effect of setback on a twin shape, I really hope I can just ride it centred though and enjoy maximum control of that massive edge.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

This pic is also a good illustration of what nose/tail/effective edge length can do to a shape, both boards have the front inserts at centre of sidecut yet they are drastically different to look at.
Specs on the left are 10-140-10=160 total and on the right 30-125-15 =170 total


----------



## Big_Norwegian (May 22, 2014)

ETM said:


> The marks on the base are centre of sidecut. The front set of inserts are centre of sidecut and the back ones are 8cm setback ;-)


And there you kind of lost me again......:icon_scratch:
I thought you placed your inserts as "a pair" on your board....?
Meaning, you consider what normal stance width is, maybe 22", then you find center point on your effective edge and measure 11" to each side, and this is where you place your center inserts.
If you have "The front set of inserts are centre of sidecut" that to me sounds like you are assuming a standard stance width and have placed the front inserts accordingly.
If you then move the back ones 8cm further back than what would be 'normal' you would potentially end up with a very wide stand.......?

Your "weird-shape-flat-end-board" looks cool and I'm betting that looooong edge will feel awesome in groomers/hardpack. Though, not to criticize, I would expect the board to dive pretty fast in powder(especially crusty powder), even with rocker in the nose and set-back. It almost has the complete opposite nose compared to the Furberg board.

When it comes to the shape that I hope someone can build for me, it is not completely ready in terms of all specs, and my skills in 3D software are not good enough to draw it as per now (it's hard to make surface bend in 2 directions....). But I can try to explain;
It would be around 170+cm (for my weight) and have a long, pointy ("rocket shape") nose with reverse sidecut. But as the nose has "normal" rocker I wan't it to somewhat have "sideways" rocker as well, meaning the sides curve upwards.
I want mellow camber between bindings, magne traction along the edge.
For the tail I want it to be sort of a swallow tail (looking at it from above), like the Jones Hovercraft-ish, but I want the center 10-12cm (looking at it from behind) to curve upwards and hence create a "channel" that stretches maybe 20cm into the board along the board's direction (becoming shallower and shallower until it flattens out with the base of the board).

I know this is probably as demanding as a design gets, but I think that tail could kick ass


----------



## Mig Fullbag (Apr 15, 2014)

Big_Norwegian said:


> And there you kind of lost me again......:icon_scratch:
> I thought you placed your inserts as "a pair" on your board....?
> Meaning, you consider what normal stance width is, maybe 22", then you find center point on your effective edge and measure 11" to each side, and this is where you place your center inserts.


That's where ETM placed is most forward set of inserts for his front and back foot. Since he builds the boards for himself and knows his stance, he placed the most forward set of inserts on the front and rear pack centered on the effective edge.




Big_Norwegian said:


> If you have "The front set of inserts are centre of sidecut" that to me sounds like you are assuming a standard stance width and have placed the front inserts accordingly.
> If you then move the back ones 8cm further back than what would be 'normal' you would potentially end up with a very wide stand.......?


Let's say his stance is 22". When he puts his bindings in the most forward set of inserts on the front and rear pack, his stance is centered. When he uses the middle set of inserts on the front and back pack, it gives him 4cm of setback. When he uses the rearest set of inserts on the front and back pack, it gives him 8cm of setback.



Big_Norwegian said:


> Your "weird-shape-flat-end-board" looks cool and I'm betting that looooong edge will feel awesome in groomers/hardpack. Though, not to criticize, I would expect the board to dive pretty fast in powder(especially crusty powder), even with rocker in the nose and set-back. It almost has the complete opposite nose compared to the Furberg board.


I think what ETM went for with that shape is a carver for groomers/hardpack that can still be ridden in softer snow and powder by setting is stance back. I don't think the goal was to make it a pow performer. It is the complete opposite of a Furberg, not just in the nose shape.



Big_Norwegian said:


> When it comes to the shape that I hope someone can build for me, it is not completely ready in terms of all specs, and my skills in 3D software are not good enough to draw it as per now (it's hard to make surface bend in 2 directions....). But I can try to explain;
> It would be around 170+cm (for my weight) and have a long, pointy ("rocket shape") nose with reverse sidecut. But as the nose has "normal" rocker I wan't it to somewhat have "sideways" rocker as well, meaning the sides curve upwards.
> I want mellow camber between bindings, magne traction along the edge.
> For the tail I want it to be sort of a swallow tail (looking at it from above), like the Jones Hovercraft-ish, but I want the center 10-12cm (looking at it from behind) to curve upwards and hence create a "channel" that stretches maybe 20cm into the board along the board's direction (becoming shallower and shallower until it flattens out with the base of the board).
> ...


So you want a tail similar to the Völkl Selecta and a 3D convex nose similar to the TJ Brand boards. Should be a very cool board. I also have been working on a design that uses 3D profiles.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Everything mig said there is correct. Thanks mate ;-)

That design is a tough one to build for sure. To do the 3d stuff cost effectively you need to use a vacuum bag rather than a press which has its limitations as far as pressure goes. It probably wouldnt get the tail profile pressed down hard enough to conform to the mold shape.
I would say unless you are going to produce a cnc 3d top and bottom mold you will be struggling to get it to work.


----------

