Land vehicles – Skates – Runner type
Reexamination Certificate
1999-02-20
2002-05-07
Olszewski, Robert P. (Department: 2167)
Land vehicles
Skates
Runner type
C280S601000, C280S602000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06382658
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to snowboards and, more particularly, is directed to a snowboard designed with the goal of carving an ideal or “perfect” turn during use.
2. Description of Related Art
This portion of the specification is divided for ease in understanding into the following 3 sections:
A. The Deficiencies of Conventional Snowboard Design
B. The Prior Art
C. General Snowboard Structure
A. The Deficiencies of Conventional Snowboard Design
In order to initiate a turn (also called “carving” a turn), a skier or snowboarder applies pressure to the ski or snowboard in a manner that rotates the ski or snowboard about its longitudinal axis, tilting the ski or snowboard up onto one of its edges (often called the “riding edge”) and deflecting the ski or snowboard away from the skier or snowboarder. Ideally, the riding edge of the ski or snowboard will create a single slender cut into the snow as the skier or snowboarder carves the turn (called an “ideal turn”). This type of turn is desirable because it minimizes the friction or drag on the ski or snowboard as it moves through the turn. In addition, this type of turn is the easiest to control. However, as will be fully explained below, this type of turn has been impossible to achieve with conventional snowboard design.
Snowboards were initially manufactured by ski manufacturers, and most of the initial designers of snowboards were therefore ski designers who understandably borrowed heavily from the accepted wisdom of the ski industry. As a consequence, there are many similarities today between skis and snowboards. For example, both skis and snowboards use essentially the same materials, e.g., fiberglass ultra high molecular weight polyethylenes, either singly or in laminated combinations with wood cores, steel edges, and plastic tops and sidewalls. Also, ski construction, e.g., sidewall, sandwich or capped construction, and techniques of manufacture, e.g., presses, composites and laminating, were transferred virtually unchanged to snowboards.
Of importance to the present invention is the way in which skis, and therefore conventional snowboards, flex longitudinally when in use. Trimble et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,413,371) disclose that conventional skis form a “U-shaped” curve when in use. A skier using a ski that forms a U-shaped curve when in use will be able to carve a turn that approaches an ideal turn without a great deal of difficulty. This is primarily because only one of the skier's feet is positioned on each ski, thereby applying a single, centrally positioned load onto each ski.
In addition, nearly all skis (and therefore conventional snowboards) include a single camber. As a result, when under little or no downward loading, skis rest on two riding areas, one near the nose of the ski and one near the tail of the ski; the portion of the riding edge between these two riding areas does not contact the snow. When making a turn under rider-induced loading, the entire riding edge is conventionally designed to make contact with the snow. See, e.g., John G. Howe,
Skiing Mechanics
108-110 (1
ST
ed. 1983). This has traditionally been accomplished by using side cuts.
Under conventional ski design principles, the relative stiffness of each portion of the ski along its length is considered to be of little importance to its turning characteristics. Significantly, conventional ski design fails to account for the longitudinal shape of the ski when downward loading increases beyond the point at which the riding edge of the ski fully contacts the snow. In other words, conventional ski design focuses simply on ensuring that the riding edge fully contacts the snow, thereby ignoring how the ski bends during turns. In reality, a ski does not stop downwardly flexing once the riding edge makes contact with the snow surface. Under ordinary conditions, the ski continues to flex, both displacing and compressing the snow and forming a downwardly arched curve.
Merely designing a snowboard or ski so that its riding edge fully contacts the snow during turns, while ignoring the shape the board or ski bends into beyond the point at which the riding edge fully contacts the snow, results in poor turning performance, especially in sharp, tight turns.
In fact, it is nearly impossible for a snowboarder to carve an ideal turn on a conventionally designed snowboard (a snowboarder is carving an ideal turn, or is at least approaching an ideal turn, when the back portion of the snowboard follows substantially the same track as the front portion of the board).
Several factors contribute to the poor turning performance of conventional snowboards. First, in contrast to a skier, both of the snowboarder's feet are positioned on the snowboard. Thus the snowboarder applies two non-centrally located loads onto the snowboard during a turn. The application of two non-centrally located loads to a conventional snowboard (which is typically stiffest in its center section) results in a large flattened area in the center section of the snowboard. Consequently, it is very common for the back half of the snowboard to cut its own path through the snow during a turn (sometimes called “plowing”), rather than tracking the path made by the front half. Plowing is most pronounced during sharp turns and is undesirable because it makes the snowboard more difficult to control in turns and greatly increases the friction or drag on the snowboard as it moves through the snow.
Use of side cuts improves the flexibility of the central portion of a snowboard slightly, but far from overcomes the deficiencies of conventional snowboards. In addition, most prior art snowboards have a single camber. As explained in my prior U.S. Pat. No. 5,823,562, a snowboard having a single camber is difficult to control regardless of the longitudinal flexibility of the snowboard.
Finally, to design a snowboard merely so that its riding edge makes full contact with the surface when turning fails to take into account subsequent flexing of the snowboard.
B. Third Prior Art
Representative of the prior art snowboards are Remondet, U.S. Pat. No. 5,018,760, Carpenter et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,261,689, Nyman, U.S. Pat. No. 5,462,304, and Deville et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,573,264.
Remondet shows (
FIG. 4
) a snowboard having a thickness that is at a maximum in the center of the snowboard, gradually diminishes towards the tail and nose portions of the snowboard. Thus, the center section is the stiffest portion of the snowboard. A snowboard designed in this manner is most susceptible to plowing.
Carpenter et al. show (
FIG. 1
) a snowboard having thinner fore and aft sections separated by a thicker central platform having an essentially constant thickness. While a snowboard designed in accordance with the teachings of Carpenter et al. will be easier to control in turns than Remondet's snowboard, plowing is still a substantial problem.
Nyman shows (
FIG. 2
) a snowboard having a single camber and an essentially constant thickness from nose to tail (it is not clear whether the constant thickness is an intended characteristic of Nyman's snowboard, or whether it is merely the draftsman's contribution, for the thickness of the snowboard is not mentioned in his specification). Nyman's snowboard may be a slight improvement over Remondet and Carpenter et al., however, its center section will still remain relatively flat during turns, and therefore, is susceptible to plowing.
Deville et al. disclose a snowboard with a core having a constant thickness in which the torsional and longitudinal stiffness characteristics of the snowboard can be more precisely selected by adding reinforcing members to the surface of the snowboard in various patterns. Deville et al. teach providing less reinforcement in the central portion of the snowboard than within the boot mounting zones. This concept likely improves the turning characteristics of Deville et al.'s snowboard in relation to the prior art; however, its performance undoubtedly leaves much to be desired. In addit
Cuff Michael
North Shore Partners
Olszewski Robert P.
SAIDMAN DesignLaw Group
LandOfFree
Method of making a snowboard having improved turning... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method of making a snowboard having improved turning..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method of making a snowboard having improved turning... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2834895