# The Great "Damp" Myth!



## mixie (Mar 29, 2011)

I demoed a Never Summer Lotus and Roxy Envi and GNU B Pro on three consecutive powder days in quickly tracked out resorts. 

i read your whole post, and sorry. that Never Summer was damp as fuck compared to the rest. I suggest trying one if you already have not. 

As 'damp' or whatever you want to call it was, I ended up buying the Roxy *because* it was less damp then the Lotus. Or rather to say the Roxy had more life to it. I'd love a Lotus sized up as a pow board tho. 



What do you call that? Snap? Pop? meh, generic words used to describe a feeling, so it's all subjective.


edit: no i did not read the post above mine before posting. awesome


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

How did I know you'd be first to respond!!! :laugh::cheeky4:

Okay but would the theoretical piece of solid steel have the same stiffness as the theoretical piece of high density foam?

And if one material doesn't transfer the energy as well, where does the energy go? Transferred back to the snow in the form of deflection? Heat buildup in the board?

The trouble is unless you're riding the two boards over the same snow, with the same boots, same bindings, etc. it's pretty subjective to say one FEELS a certain way vs. the other.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

mixie said:


> I demoed a Never Summer Lotus and Roxy Envi and GNU B Pro on three consecutive powder days in quickly tracked out resorts.


But I guess that's what I'm getting at, maybe the stiffness was way different on the Roxy, hence the feeling it gave you vs. the others.

I'm not talking about stiffness you feel when flexing the board in the shop, I mean stiffness when your weight is applied to the board.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Dampening is a real engineering concept, although I'll grant that it's defined in a more touchy-feely way in snowboarding. Dampening is a measure of how quickly an oscillation is suppressed. There's a reason why a wooden tuning fork would be a bad idea -- the nature of wood is such that an oscillation dies out pretty much immediately. By using different materials in the board with different levels of stiffness and flexibility, you can end up with something that strongly resists ringing. By moving some of the mass away from the tips, you can reduce the tendency of the board to ring even more. By playing with the mass and composition of the board so that the resonant frequency of the board is slower than the expected frequency of hits, you actually end up dampening it even more -- kind of like being on a swing and pumping your legs slower than the swing frequency.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Here's the definition from this site...

"Last but not least, vibration dampness is important in a snowboard because it reduces vibrations during a ride. Vibration dampness is the amount of material in your board that reduces vibrations. The more vibration dampness you have, the better your board is. Also if you have a lot of vibration dampness your board's durability increases making it stronger and can handle more terrain. The vibration dampness really helps in chopped up snow."

So assuming that's correct, what material is considered a vibration reducer and what is a vibration transmitter? Does wood absorb vibrations? Remember that according to the laws of conservation of energy you can't eliminate the vibration energy, only convert it into another form of energy. So does wood transfer the vibrations into heat? Is metal (aluminium honeycomb core like my board) a vibration transmitter?

Again we can all say one board FEELS differently, but that's not scientific data. 

Just trying to either bust or confirm this mythical dampness at the bottom of my feet!


----------



## mixie (Mar 29, 2011)

poutanen said:


> I'm not talking about stiffness you feel when flexing the board in the shop, I mean stiffness when your weight is applied to the board.



are you calling me fat?  

but seriously Ive been riding bikes a lot longer then Ive been snowboarding. The difference in a carbon fiber bike versus a steel or aluminum is huge. Of course what kind of wood used makes a difference :dunno:

The roxy was more stiff then the lotus, but less damp. Lotus was softer and damper. In fact it's softness was what I disliked. so what if 'damp' can only be described in touchy feely terms. It's real. 


or...*just demo a never summer* and you will know. After reading about it then riding that thing I thought. Ok now i get it, THIS is damp.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Snowolf said:


> Look at it like a conductor of electricity. The energy potential is there and a conductor allows the electrons to flow very freely through the material. An insulator resists the flow of electrons through the material. The electrons don`t have to be deflected or changed into another form of energy because they do not flow through the material.


But in this analogy, an electrical insulator prevents the electrons from flowing into the substance at all. In a snowboard that would mean that the board wasn't receiving the bumps as much as a less "damp" board...



Snowolf said:


> Another way to look at this is take an ax handle. There is a reason ax handles are not made of steel but wood. The energy of impacting the log you are splitting would travel unrestricted down the metal axle handle into your arms. The wood handle is actually just resistant to bending as the steel handle, but it`s molecular structure makes it an insulator of kinetic energy,


You've never hit a ball with a wooden baseball bat and muffed the hit and had the vibes come down to your wrist? Feels like hell!!! Granted an aluminium bat does seem to transfer those vibes more. And to the axe analogy, I've got a FG handles axe that is the most comfortable thing I've ever swung. It's hollow but has an oval cross section, maybe the design eliminates some of the vibrations?



Donutz said:


> By moving some of the mass away from the tips, you can reduce the tendency of the board to ring even more. By playing with the mass and composition of the board so that the resonant frequency of the board is slower than the expected frequency of hits, you actually end up dampening it even more -- kind of like being on a swing and pumping your legs slower than the swing frequency.


Now resonant frequencies I can understand!!! With the board tuned to the just the right frequency the thing would vibrate so bad the front would almost break off! (just like the tacoma narrows bridge), so I can see designing it for a resonant frequency way off from what you'd ever typically hit on a run.

Here's my underlying thoughts on all this: If wood is a better vibration insulator (I'm going to stop using the word damp) then why do race boards and BX boards use layers of aluminium alloy mixed in with the wood/FG/resin? And how is my board not a vibration whore being an aluminium honeycomb?

I think I can safely put THIS pic on the thread now. But I still want to debate the how and why and figure out what makes a board less/more vibration resistant relative to it's stiffness.


----------



## mixie (Mar 29, 2011)

poutanen said:


> a *vibration whore* being an aluminium honeycomb?
> 
> I think I can safely put THIS pic on the thread now. But I still want to debate the how and why and figure out what makes a board less/more vibration resistant relative to it's stiffness.




lol

I'm really glad my resort is still open :cheeky4:


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

mixie said:


> lol
> 
> I'm really glad my resort is still open :cheeky4:


Yeah I watched a little snowboarding teaser the other day and started having powder cravings! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

I want to go somewhere this summer to board other than some hike boarding around Calgary. Was thinking Alaska but that would involve heli/cat boarding methinks which is well out of my price range.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Snowolf said:


> The molecular structure of a material can also increase it`s ability to reduce the oscillations Donutz spoke of. Just adding a layer of carbon fiber in a deck makes a huge impact on its ability to reduce these oscillations. It is also a flawed hypothesis to assume that this energy has to be converted to some other form of energy. It can be deflected back to the source or by absorption it can be neutralized without necessarily needing to be converted like the way electricity is converted to light and heat.


Are you saying the laws of conservation of energy are flawed?!?!?  If the board receives a vibration, it can't simply absorb or neutralize it as those would defy the laws of conservation of energy. I agree that it can deflect it back to the snow (look at my earlier posts), or considering a vibration is a sine wave and the net effect is neutral... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIT a minute it all makes sense. It's not a linear kinetic shock we're trying to dampen, it's a sine wave! THAT can be dampened with materials. 



Snowolf said:


> You are jumping the gun a lot with that. You might be "confirmed" in your mind but a long way from proving it to anyone else; namely snowboard manufacturers....;


You got it wrong man you got it wrong!!! Myth confirmed means it's true, I was conceding defeat! Myth busted would mean I was right. You never watched mythbusters!?! :cheeky4:


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

damn, you guys are blessed with snow out there in OR....so stoked to see you guys still riding hard.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

poutanen said:


> You've never hit a ball with a wooden baseball bat and muffed the hit and had the vibes come down to your wrist? Feels like hell!!!


Sure as hell does. But that's because the sweet spot on the bat is where the energy is transferred most efficiently to the ball, leaving no energy to transfer down the handle.



poutanen said:


> Here's my underlying thoughts on all this: If wood is a better vibration insulator (I'm going to stop using the word damp) then why do race boards and BX boards use layers of aluminium alloy mixed in with the wood/FG/resin? And how is my board not a vibration whore being an aluminium honeycomb?


Everything's a compromise. Aluminum adds strength and subtracts weight. Maybe you end up with more vibration, which maybe you try to dampen by adding a strip of styrofoam-like material or something.


----------



## Nolefan2011 (Mar 12, 2011)

Absolutely 100% wrong, and I'll leave it at that. Stiffness? Ride a few more boards and see for yourself


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Snowolf said:


> The molecular structure of a material can also increase it`s ability to reduce the oscillations Donutz spoke of. Just adding a layer of carbon fiber in a deck makes a huge impact on its ability to reduce these oscillations. It is also a flawed hypothesis to assume that this energy has to be converted to some other form of energy. *It can be deflected back to the source or by absorption it can be neutralized without necessarily needing to be converted like the way electricity is converted to light and heat. *
> 
> Bottom line is this is simple mechanical energy that can be transferred from one direction to another to absorb. This vibration comes up through the base of the board and then hits your dampening layer where it is then redirected horizontally for example and dissipated like a heat sink does with thermal energy. *It is simply dissipated not converted to some other form of energy.
> *
> ...


I agree with your conclusion (that there are ways to make board damper that are not just based on stiffness). However, I completely disagree with the reasoning above (especially the bold bits) - as poutanen pointed out, that would violate the laws of physics. The energy has to go somewhere, it cannot disappear. For dissipation, it really is a question of the amount of energy involved and how 'spread out' it gets in the process. In your acoustic ceiling tile example the energy is quite 'spread out' so it becomes difficult to measure (but it is still there!). Conversely, try touching a car shock absorber after driving over bumpy terrain at speed for a couple of hours - it will be warm/hot.

Getting back to snowboard dampness, I suspect what is really happening is that boards react differently to different frequencies of vibration, i.e., amplitude of vibrations is reduced to varying degrees across the frequency spectrum.
First let's deal with amplitude: Clearly boards do not have shock absorbers like cares that reduce high amplitude bumps and oscillations. However, all we really care about are small amplitude vibrations like board chatter - and these can indeed be quite effectively dampened with certain (solid) materials. Your rubber pads are one example of that.
The more important aspect is frequency: Fluids based dampeners (like car shock absorbers) are excellent at dampening across a wide range of frequencies. In contrast, solids react very differently to different frequencies (see the example of resonance frequencies). But by combining different materials and constructions techniques, board manufacturers can certainly affect the response across the frequency spectrum.
I believe that the superior perceived dampness of some board (like NS) is due to the fact that they dampen vibrations more uniformly and/or across a wider spectrum of frequencies.


----------



## Basti (Sep 22, 2011)

Dampness definitely varies greatly between boards but that has been discussed plenty in this thread. I just wanted to add how I picture dampness in my little mind. This video is about Ride's Slimewalls and yes, I know there's much more to dampness than the sidewalls. But when I watch the ping pong ball test, that's exactly how I picture dampness and what it feels like underfoot: Ride Snowboards Slimewalls Sidewall Technology - YouTube


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Nolefan2011 said:


> Absolutely 100% wrong, and I'll leave it at that. Stiffness? Ride a few more boards and see for yourself


Thank you for your intelligent contribution!  I`m so glad you know how many boards I`ve rode! 



I think HKTRDR is onto something re: frequencies... Similar to the resonant frequencies mentioned earlier. There are a wide range of surfaces we ride on that can cause board chatter. Frozen corduroy, ice, crust, etc. Also we all are riding different length boards (which would affect resonant frequency), ride them at different speeds over these surfaces, etc.

So to truly be defined as a damp board, the board would need to be able to handle various vibration inducing surfaces, at various different speeds and angles, and not have a resonant frequency induced chatter make its way back to the rider. The trick would be combining this engineering with the stiffness required for a particular aspect of riding.

So far I`ve been thrilled with the T7 over my old wood & kevlar cored board, and I was happy with it for a long time too...

Anyway, thanks for the input all it`s been a fun debate!


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Basti said:


> Dampness definitely varies greatly between boards but that has been discussed plenty in this thread. I just wanted to add how I picture dampness in my little mind. This video is about Ride's Slimewalls and yes, I know there's much more to dampness than the sidewalls. But when I watch the ping pong ball test, that's exactly how I picture dampness and what it feels like underfoot: Ride Snowboards Slimewalls Sidewall Technology - YouTube


The funny part is what a wet noodle the slimewall looks like frozen compared to the ABS. I know you didn`t mean that boards should be built out of the stuff, but I want something to remain consistently stiff at all temps, not be a wet noodle at all temps! 

Like snowolf said, maybe aluminium honeycomb is one of the best materials at being non-resonant. They do use it for helicopter rotors!!! :cheeky4: Just wish the big B didn`t go back to wood in their top end boards. I know wood`s the standard but I`ve never been a wood guy. Wood is for boats and houses... and shoes if you`re dutch.


----------



## mixie (Mar 29, 2011)

poutanen said:


> So far I`ve been thrilled with the T7 over my old wood & kevlar cored board, and I was happy with it for a long time too...
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the input all it`s been a fun debate!


since you don't seem to be picky about what you ride, then perhaps you could buy your girl something nice (and damp?!) from this decade  

she might like to ride more and maybe get better


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

mixie said:


> since you don't seem to be picky about what you ride, then perhaps you could buy your girl something nice (and damp?!) from this decade
> 
> she might like to ride more and maybe get better


HEY HEY NOW!  I'm very picky about what I ride, spent good money on the Burton and she's done well. I even raced with my old board back in the day and was near the front of the pack with it (6th out of 100 or so competitors)

Besides, my GF has a 2010 K2 Luna that she loves, didn't like the K2 bindings so got some end of season Burton Scribes and she's happy. She demo'd a lot of alternative profile boards and still likes her K2 better. She got out 25 times this season!

Oh and I don't buy her stuff, she's very sensitive about being financially independent. So I usually end up buying her gear and seasons passes on my credit card to take advantage of the deals, and then she pays me back when she can...


----------



## lernr (Feb 3, 2012)

So I am curious: how many boards have you tested and owned?

And no, it's not a myth, and it's not just stiffness - even though a stiff board can be damp.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

lernr said:


> So I am curious: how many boards have you tested and owned?
> 
> And no, it's not a myth, and it's not just stiffness - even though a stiff board can be damp.


Why's that important? This thread was just for some fun debate. I've owned two boards. Yeah two. In 19 years of riding. Tested another 10 or so over the years...

I'm not a professional tester but I can tell the difference between a subjective opinion and objective data. :cheeky4:


----------



## budderbear (Nov 27, 2011)

My dad is in carpentry so I've seen my fair share of hammers over the years and what I've come to notice is frequency has alot to do with dampness. With a solid wood hammer your going to feel it. Every time you hit a nail it'll send a few large vibrations down through your arm (which is currently not moving much) and it'll rattle your arm hard which hurts. However if you get a wood hammer with a metal tuning fork and rubber grips, then every time you hit a nail it'll send the same vibrations down the handle only this time the tuning fork will catch some of them and send them right back to the hammer head so that the nail and thing your hammering on takes most of the vibration, and the rubber grips help absorb or dissipate even further. Thats why a normal hammer will make a solid thud and stop at what your hammering, and a better hammer will bounce ever so slighty as your hammer (because the vibrations are being sent back). I think as others have already said alot of vibration has to do with design and materials used (such as rubber) and part of it is being sent back into the snow, or mountain. Then again I'm baked as a pie right now and only have a high school education so I could be talking out of my ass :laugh:


----------



## lernr (Feb 3, 2012)

It wasn't too important to me too. It was just interesting to get a reference point.

As far as objective data, here's what I got:
you have significant experience (depth) with 2 boards and minimal experience in terms of range / variety
there is no evidence of background and / or education in / knowledge of science

Based on these, I am not sure what you were hoping to achieve, except as you say have some fun. You certainly haven't exposed any myths


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Don't think he was trying to. He threw a statement out to the membership for some discussion. This time of year, things are a little slow, so why not?

Keep it up and I'll start posting my groaners in here. THEN you'll be sorry!


----------



## budderbear (Nov 27, 2011)

imagine if your car had a material similar to the hard skateboard wheels as opposed to rubber...  thats why it seems air and porousness plays a role


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

budderbear said:


> Then again I'm baked as a pie right now and only have a high school education so I could be talking out of my ass :laugh:


I dropped out of high school before going back to university in my 20's, I talk out of my ass 99% of the time and the other 1% I'm farting. 

Good analogy though, the hammer/axe/baseball bat analogies are all similar. The only thing I can see different between them and a snowboard is that in those cases you're talking about a single blow to the object, and vibrations being passed down the object to the users hands.

The reason I started with a car analogy is I think it's most similar to the snowboard. You're taking something across a rough surface and attempting to absorb bumps, small and large, and not transmit those to the driver/rider.

In a car, the spring converts the kinetic energy into potential energy, then returns it by pushing back down on the road. The ride would be very rough if there wasn't a damper to convert the kinetic energy into heat energy in the shock fluid. So there has to be some buildup of heat (however minor) in the core of the board or the thing would vibrate out of control...


----------



## TMXMOTORSPORTS (Jun 10, 2009)

Or wood or steel tires.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

budderbear said:


> imagine if your car had a material similar to the hard skateboard wheels as opposed to rubber...  thats why it seems air and porousness plays a role


Okay now here's another angle: If you take a car with factory 15" rims and tires and drive it over a crack in the pavement, you'll barely feel it. Go over some washboard with the same setup and you'll feel it for sure. Now take the same car with the same suspension, and put 18" rims and tires on it (with the same total tire height). The cracks in the pavement are noticed WAY more by the driver, but the washboard doesn't get any worse.

Not sure where I was going with that point. 



lernr said:


> As far as objective data, here's what I got:
> you have significant experience (depth) with 2 boards and minimal experience in terms of range / variety
> there is no evidence of background and / or education in / knowledge of science


What Donutz said. I'll post my groaners here too (haven't posted in the other thread yet) and you'll be double whammied! :cheeky4:

BTW, science is a process, if you understand the process you can participate in a scientific discussion/experiment/debate...


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

TMXMOTORSPORTS said:


> Or wood or steel tires.


Now imagine your rubber tires were filled with silicone shock fluid instead of air... BOOM! Vibration dampening. Only trouble is you'd be massively increasing unsprung AND rotating mass which would drastically hurt the cars performance.

Rims used to be made from wood, and tires were solid rubber.


----------



## budderbear (Nov 27, 2011)

poutanen said:


> Now imagine your rubber tires were filled with silicone shock fluid instead of air... BOOM! Vibration dampening. Only trouble is you'd be massively increasing unsprung AND rotating mass which would drastically hurt the cars performance.
> 
> Rims used to be made from wood, and tires were solid rubber.



Yeh I just got no flats for my mountain bike and there alot smoother ride but I can't get any speed now


----------



## Casual (Feb 9, 2011)

Am I too late?

The energy will be discipated as heat, it does not just disappear. Whatever vibration is not deflected back to the snow will be discipated in the core layers. A metal core would transfer this more efficiently so you would feel it vibrate more and for a longer period. The discipation or dampening will reduce the overall vibration and chatter giving you more control in the choppy shit. It's not just harmonics and sinewaves, it really is dampening kinetic energy. I think it's more like a car than you think. You said the car goes down and stays down.. But that's not entirely true is it? If it were the next bump you hit would rock you.


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

Casual said:


> The energy will be discipated as heat


Is that why I feel warm when I get excited and damp'n myself?????


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Casual said:


> I think it's more like a car than you think. You said the car goes down and stays down.. But that's not entirely true is it? If it were the next bump you hit would rock you.


Never too late!

A perfectly setup car would land off a jump (I'm thinking rally here) and there would be enough dampening to absorb the bump during compression, and basically have almost no rebound. 

Here's a video with relevance to this thread:








BoardWalk said:


> Is that why I feel warm when I get excited and damp'n myself?????


Yes.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

lernr said:


> Based on these, I am not sure what you were hoping to achieve, except as you say have some fun. You certainly haven't exposed any myths


I refer you back to my first post...



poutanen said:


> Okay so maybe I'm bored because the powder is melting like the wicked witch of the west. But I want to open up a controversial debate.


And after all this talk I stand by my original post below...



poutanen said:


> But I think the term "damp" is a bit of a misnomer with regards to snowboards. The board is a spring, your legs are the shock absorbers... :cheeky4::cheeky4:


Your legs are the dampers that absorb 90+% of the loads applied to the system of you and the board on the hill, but board design can be vibration resistant in the frequencies typically found while cruising down a mountain. So maybe the term shouldn't be "damp" but "vibration resistance".


----------



## CheeseForSteeze (May 11, 2011)

Damping is defined in terms of mechanical motion and its translation actually make sense in snowboards. However, whether or not they use that definition is another thing entirely.


----------



## CheeseForSteeze (May 11, 2011)

poutanen said:


> 1) There is no concrete definition of "damp". There are ratings on some snowboard companies websites. But the general consensus is that "it's that feeling when you blast through crud and you don't feel it in your legs". Yeah that's what a stiff board does. It would likely move the snow out of the way instead of riding over it, making it feel like a smoother ride.


The definition of a damper is a device which inhibits motion based on the first of position with respect to time. Or alternatively, a device which increases its force opposite of a system in motion proportionally based on the first derivative of position with respect to time of the system.

A snowboard is just a beam in bending load. The speed at which is vibrates would be this force (not herz, cyclces per second, but that is related) but if you were to put an accelerometer on the tips and measure the peak speed.



> 2) Our boards don't have built in dampers/shocks. When comparing our boards to a cars suspension, they are like the leaf spring on old cars/trucks. You load them up, they spring back. If you take a board and put it on two stacks of textbooks, then drop a weight on the middle of it, the board will deflect down, then spring back up, and back down and back up a few times. If the boards were truly "damp" then you'd drop the weight, the board would go down and stay down.


But they actually do, in fact. Materials have natural resonant frequencies and the length of the board, thickness, composition of the layers etc. all affect how damp the board is. It works on the exact same principle as a tuning fork or any music instrument such as a xylophone. How do they get certain pitch out of certain isophone keys? By making them out of a certain material and making each bar a certain dimension.

What you describe is displacement and devices which react to the 0th derivative of position with respect to time. Or, just position.

By shoving in rubbers, p-tex and whatever else materials, snowboards certainly do change in characteristic dampness.




> Now I know what you're all going to say. I can hear the steam coming out of your ears right now. The types of wood used, weaves of glass, resins, etc. will all have SOME effect on how much of an ideal spring the snowboard is. But generally speaking these differences are going to be relatively minor compared to the major difference people claim when giving opinions on boards during formal or informal board reviews.


These differences aren't minor. They are the principles things like musical instruments, car exhaust systems, airplane fuselage and wing shape etc. are designed around. Do they take a analytic engineering approach when designing it? Probably not, but there's not need to. Trial and error with different materials is more than sufficient.



> Here's my hypothesis: What people are actually feeling is the stiffness of the board. And yes I believe 100$ that various stiffness levels, and what parts of the board are thicker/stiffer can have an effect on the feeling of smoothing out the bumps.


A second order linear system, which is all a snowboard is, will have both those factors come into play. We call the balancing of stiffness and damping "tuning". It's how acoustic systems are designed. If you think the factors are insignificant, then how are all these complicated acoustic systems designed with great precision? And wouldn't it be possible that those factors would at least be somewhat applicable by snowboard manufacturers based on good craftsman instincts to at least a minor degree?



> Never too late!
> 
> A perfectly setup car would land off a jump (I'm thinking rally here) and there would be enough dampening to absorb the bump during compression, and basically have almost no rebound.
> 
> Here's a video with relevance to this thread:


That's known as a critically damp system rather than over or underdamp. There's a whole system of analysis techniques for tuning first and second order linear systems. The most common application, by far, are negative feedback systems.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

Snowolf said:


> 9 inches of fresh powder at Timberline today....


This might sound weird but, think I might have to head SOUTH for some of that snow one of these days! :laugh:


----------



## danm (Jan 16, 2010)

Snowolf said:


> This thread was causing me to experience cerebral hemorrhaging so I had to go do this today and no dampening was required; the soft deep powder did all of the dampening required......:cheeky4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jerkhole!!! I assume you were on the Cobra?!?!?!? 

Definitely getting a 155 this Fall...


----------

