"Mainstream" EC boards

[surfiver]

Hello

I am really keen on getting on of your boards but to be perfectly honest I wouldnt be able to afford one; so I am looking for some parameters such that I can hunt for a bargain board on the "mainstream" market which comes closest to the one you make. At the moment I am riding a Burton UP 156....I am quiete pleased but think it might be a bit too narrow....
So, what is it that makes the EC boards you build so special? what makes them more suitable for EC than, say an F2 Speedster SL? is it the flex which you cant really quantify? what are the parameters of your boards i.e. width, length, sidecut etc?

keep on riding

Iver

[fivat]

Hi surfiver,

Objectively I have never found a board in the "mainstream" market that was close enough to the protos made by Jacques. However a model that I liked was the Nidecker Proto. But its prize of about 800 Euros (= 800 $) is really expensive for a common board (not a proto, despite the name)

We have developed the EC technique parallel with the boards. If Jacques had not made protos for me (and himself) during these last 10 years, I would not be there writing to you. I would have sold my hard boots for a long time

So, what is it that makes the EC boards you build so special? what makes them more suitable for EC than, say an F2 Speedster SL? is it the flex which you cant really quantify? what are the parameters of your boards i.e. width, length, sidecut etc?

You can find many responses in this site. And other ones will be in the new pages coming very soon, before Christmas. I can tell you that Jacques' board conception distinctly stands out from what has been made for years in the industry. The production is expensive... We have made no concessions.

-Patrice Fivat

[MennoB]

I happen to have one of those Nidecker Proto's.

In what respect do they differ from your own, custom, EC board?

[fivat]

I happen to have one of those Nidecker Proto's.

In what respect do they differ from your own, custom, EC board?

I have tested the Nidecker Proto 3-4 years ago. The "new" boards are probably not really different: the technical blabla that one can read in most of the catalogs hides a lack of boards evolution (alpine and other boards) One can even observe a regression for some models: tri-directional fiber is replaced by bi-directional fiber (for economical reasons), what unfortunately reduces the torsion stiffness!

The Nidecker Proto, besides its unjustified prize, gave me some pleasure. One of my friends, to whom I taught EC technique, own this board and is able to perform nice laid turns. But there are really many differences with the protos made by Jacques. Here are some of them:

- There is only one size available (167 cm) for a male whose weight is in the 65-85 kg range. Our future EC boards will pre-build in three different board lengths with three different flexes for each length! So they will be matched perfectly the riders physical characteristics (this "custom" idea is a new concept by itself).

- The radius (8,6 m) is too small! This restricts the board performances to small turns only and low speed. This is what my friend and I felt. Our EC boards have about 13 m radius, one can do big turns of course, BUT small turns too. Indeed the flexes are not too high, and one can bend the board to make small EC turns, if wished.
Most Nidecker models have small radius and the tendancy is to go still lower apparently (the Megalight III has a smaller radius than my old Megalight I for example!). I suspect many manufacturers to follow this idea for a precise reason: such boards are easy to turn, what compensates the technique of many riders or beginners. This is a commercial concession!

- The width (20,7 cm) is not bad, but still lower than ours.

- I don’t know how Nidecker controls the torsion stiffness of their model, but from what I can see in their website there is nothing special or innovative. Jacques' new concept distinctly stands out from what has been made for years in the industry. Inserted in the snowboard core, a very sophisticated carbon fiber device allows us to control accurately the torsional stiffness distribution. The highlight of this technology is that it has insignificant effects on the longitudinal flex. Thus, the flexion and torsion parameters can be tuned separately, authorising unprecedented combination of flexion/torsion!

More information will be available in the new web pages, this month!

-Patrice Fivat

[cmachine]

Hi MennoB

I happen to have one of those Nidecker Proto's.

I've been riding a proto 167 for 2 years and during this time I thought it is the best board I've ever had ....... UNTIL I'VE FOUND THIS WEB PAGE!

The limitations I feel when riding the proto are the ones that are described on this page. It's difficult to go deep at high speed (too small radius 8.6m!). This is written here in this forum, but also my own experience.

This is why I intend to buy a EC board this year. I'm curious about the differences between these two boards.

Regs
Olaf

PS: The proto is an expensive board too