Forums Splitboards Why havent anyone made a snowboard like this? Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 23 total) 1 2 → Author Posts December 16, 2010 at 5:37 pm #573874 Eirikverlo@gmail.com 42 Posts http://www.dpsskis.com/ski/lotus138 If anyone made a snowboard like this, it would have been an awesome powder snowboard! I like the hugely tapered tail, and submarine shape, and its fattest far from the nose. I think a snowboard like this would float like a dream, and initiate turns easily. Do you agree? December 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm #633042 ehcarley 411 Posts They have. It is called the Banana Hammock, made by Lib Tech. Well, not exactly I guess, the tail isn’t tapered. But its got the reverse camber, reverse side cut action going on. December 16, 2010 at 10:12 pm #633043 Eirikverlo@gmail.com 42 Posts I have seen the hammock, but the dps lotus havent got reverse sidecut, its got a pretty small sidecut and i think it would be more aggressive(?) than regular reverse sidecut, and i think the lotus shape handles better on the hardpack December 17, 2010 at 12:16 am #633044 Scooby2 620 Posts We have, just not on the web 😉 Actually the tapered nose is a design that really does not apply well to snowboards in my opinion. I reckon skis are real soft at the tips and people have taprered them because it is harder to control all that surface area so far away from your single foot that you have to pivot for control. On a board, with your 2 feet located 2 feet apart you have a lot more leverage and control over the tip, Because you have so much more leverage over the tip on a board there is no reason to reduce the amount of surface area up front where you really need it in deep pow, and you can keep the front a lot stiffer than skis too. Really the same goes for reverse sidecuts, no point on a snowboard, no point at all. This is an example of board design following ski design, the same as camber underfoot for my :twocents: no point on a snowboard. December 17, 2010 at 11:54 am #633045 Eirikverlo@gmail.com 42 Posts I think I would disagree with you Scooby2, because the widest part is towards the mid of the board (/skis), you would get the floatation a little bit in front of the binding instead of in the tip, which makes the board easier to manouver (really quick turns) and it makes you lay all the weight between your feet. A board like this would need a pretty big nose rocker so the skinny nose would stay on top, ofcourse This board, like the Hammock would be for deep powder days ONLY, and the nose and tail does not need to be stiff, to make it playful in the powder. I think it would be a funny board to try out! @scooby2 wrote: We have, just not on the web 😉 Does anyone have any pictures? I am really curious how it would look like, and how it would ride! December 17, 2010 at 6:01 pm #633046 walove 65 Posts the hammock is a freestyle pow boards too, meaning switch pow IS happening, and a center weighted stance is happening. The taperd nose means easy switch pow landings. What i want to see is a board like the hammock with a smidge of sidecut between the feet to get you back to the lift. twin pow resort board. like the dps or a other new pow skis December 17, 2010 at 6:43 pm #633047 Scooby2 620 Posts Eirik, you are right that the fat in the middle skis and boards would be more pivoty and looser to rotate, think snow saucer, but the (not freestyle) board that will pull itself into a turn really quick when banked and that turns quick off the rail and still has a lot of speed out of turns and push-back from low density snow will be the one with plenty of rocker and full surface area all the way through the board’s length. I will work on some pics. My point is that with the ergonomics of skis, they are harder to rotate and pivot than boards are, and the tips are more prone to get knocked around away from where you want them to go. I think that is where the oval outline is better applied. Think about sitting on a chairlift -I know, its painful- but if you have a ski on your foot it is really easy for someone to push the tip of the ski around aginst your will. If you have a board strapped on both feet, you can push someone over with the nose of the board with all the leverage your two legs have. So, why are skis longer and boards shorter? I think part of it is you need longer skis to get functional surface area, but mostly boards all lean towards freestyle, rotations, hand rails etc. and not float, responsiveness, speed and drive in low density snow. January 2, 2011 at 7:13 am #633048 sickpow 46 Posts @scooby2 wrote: We have, just not on the web 😉 Actually the tapered nose is a design that really does not apply well to snowboards in my opinion. I reckon skis are real soft at the tips and people have taprered them because it is harder to control all that surface area so far away from your single foot that you have to pivot for control. On a board, with your 2 feet located 2 feet apart you have a lot more leverage and control over the tip, Because you have so much more leverage over the tip on a board there is no reason to reduce the amount of surface area up front where you really need it in deep pow, and you can keep the front a lot stiffer than skis too. Really the same goes for reverse sidecuts, no point on a snowboard, no point at all. This is an example of board design following ski design, the same as camber underfoot for my :twocents: no point on a snowboard. Camber is pointless? Camber seems to be out of fashion at the moment, but from my own experience, in pow, camber is actually much faster, rising to the top faster, and seems more stable. Rocker feels like a lot of pivoting to edge rather than turning. Maybe its body size too. January 3, 2011 at 7:02 pm #633049 Scooby2 620 Posts Ah, let me refine that a bit, camber is by no means pointless, but I think putting a little camber just between your feet is of as much use as the camber on the old 145 cm freestyle board with a 27 inch stance, the edge in the middle just gets turned off. I have not ridden the new semi rockered boards yet, but have tweaked my own boards to have lots of stability, float and drive in turns. I am a speed junkie and just like to make banked-carved pow turns, no smears at all (fanatically so). It could be that the rocker boards mfg now are just a bit too soft in the nose still, so the bend too much and they plow instead of plane over pow, making them slower, hard to say. If you think about it all boards traveling at speed in powder or soft spring snow do not have a cambered profile, they are flexed into some degree of rocker. So flex as well as the initial camber or rockered shape is every bit as important to having a fast board through pow. Too much curve (shape and flex together) and the board will push snow like a small freestyle board and go slow like a freestyle board. As far as tails go, if the tail has a preshaped rocker and is pretty soft like a cambered board’s tail, the tail really will not hold as much pressure against the snow, so it wont give a lot of float to the board in dry snow. I have the thought that a board or skis rocker should decrease from front to back for maximum flaot or push-back in truly dry snow, but have yet to make such a board. Also size and weight are huge, when I step down from a 185 to a 175 in dry snow, I exit each turn noticeably slower. Maybe the looseness of a rockered board feels good when you are riding a big long board, and not so good on a 160 something where it is just too loose and not so floaty to begin with? February 15, 2011 at 9:16 pm #633050 Eirikverlo@gmail.com 42 Posts Well, guys… Seems like the Atomic dudes read this forum! Say hello to 11/12 Sir Floatalot! Regular camber between the feet, big rocker in the tips, and ofcourse early tapered nose and tail! I think this will rip the pow, but not the hard stuff. 8 meter sidecut, and the board is in 163, dont know about other sizes. Any thoughts? By the way! look at the binding to the left, wtf is that? February 15, 2011 at 9:43 pm #633051 barrows 1490 Posts Scooby: I mostly agree with your ideas, but, on a splitboard, a little camber underfoot is a good idea to allow for more efficient skinning-and I really do not think a little camber here would hurt the ride performance in any way (of an otherwise rockered board). My Venture is flat through the midsection, and one definitely uses a little more energy when skinning uphill with it, I am convinced that just a little camber could make the skinning way better. February 16, 2011 at 12:30 am #633052 grubbers 150 Posts @Eirikverlo@gmail.com wrote: By the way! look at the binding to the left, wtf is that? probably the binding for the atomic poacher. i like the looks of that board, i’d love to take a couple laps on one. February 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm #633053 Scooby2 620 Posts Barrows, here’s a point to ponder on the skin track through various types of track conditions, do your skins have more purchase when your foot is over a hole and all of the skin in front of your foot is engaged in the snow and all of the skin behind your foot is engaged in the snow as well, but no skin touching snow under your foot? Or do your skins have more purchase when only the area under your foot is touching the snow Or when your weight is 50/50 on your touring bracket and heel riser versus when all of your weight is on your heel riser. Also, how much of an arc is your board bent into as the second or third in a fresh broken track? This one might be unique to Utah, I know February 16, 2011 at 5:33 pm #633054 barrows 1490 Posts Scoob: I have enough experience skinning now on both rocker and cambered boards that I am certain a little bit of camber through the middle and a little towards the tail of the board would save energy on the uptrack. I can make my Venture skin fine, but it does take a little extra energy, and my partners now on the same board agree. Around here, one usually experiences slippage on steep spots, especially when the track is beaten out by snowshoers or even booters! I know, sacrilage, but that is the way it is around here sometimes-especially in Rocky Mountain National Park. Usually no problems when setting a new track, or skinning in a recent track in newish snow conditions. We have a lot of windboard around here as well, and if all the force is concentrated just in the tiny area directly under the heel lift, there is just not enough friction sometimes. Love my board though, and I am not going to switch just for this reason-my point is to think about an ideal board… February 16, 2011 at 11:08 pm #633055 Taylor 794 Posts Barrows’ experience is consistent with mine – a bit o’ camber is more efficient and grips better on really steep sections. The only exception is that I like breaking trail on a rocker board in deep fresh snow – makes for sort of a soft trot that feels natural. On the topic of ultimate split boards… For lack of being able to buy one in production lines, I’m having a custom deck made right now to my exact specs. Pretty exciting and fun. More on that soon. @sun_rocket February 20, 2011 at 1:45 am #633056 b0ardski 251 Posts I’ve been waiting for a shape like sir floatsalot since rocker got popular. Having tried full rockered skis & boards I’m not sold. I’ve always thought early rise & early tip taper works well in pow(the powder tips on my original old grocer proves that) but I want that push back I get from camber well beyond the bindings at least half way to the tips. If the size and graphics of that atomicwere aimed at a 200# adult I’d want one. I loved the radon ct 169, but it was still a bit short and soft for me. October 2, 2013 at 1:09 am #633057 firstlight 721 Posts . Adam West www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au www.splitfest.com.au www.snowsafety.com.au www.mrbc.com.au www.backcountryglobal.com www.alpinefirstaid.com.au October 4, 2013 at 6:54 am #633058 firstlight 721 Posts I’ve been riding this board all season and I must say WOW! In the Ozzie corn this thing rocks :rock: :rock: :rock: I was unsure of the 163 with reduced effective edge, small side cut radius and long nose, I imagined it would be too small for me. I was wrong!! My touring buddy recons this is the board I ride the best on! My other go to boards are – DIY Rossi experience 168 Wide – 167 Rossi XV I’ve templated a 174 for Japan with 13M sidecut and kept the nose and tail lengths long for the POW we are going to ride over there. Just have to make a new jig for the press as the specs are crazy. 1740 Nose 312 Tail 288 Nose length 500 Tail length 360 Setback 110 I’m also considering the K2 Ultrasplit, spent time with Kyle Miller and thats his new full time board and he loves it. The future of board design is getting exciting Cheers Adam West www.firstlightsurfboards.com.au www.firstlightsnowboards.com.au www.splitfest.com.au www.snowsafety.com.au www.mrbc.com.au www.backcountryglobal.com www.alpinefirstaid.com.au October 4, 2013 at 11:35 am #633059 PeRi 110 Posts I tried the new K2 Ultrasplit and it really surprised me! awesome board, great shape, floats really effortless, a bit stiff (not as much as I’m used to) and quite reactive. completely different world than the Panoramic I didn’t notice it has such a huge rocker though! www.splitboardmag.com October 9, 2013 at 1:37 pm #633060 JMAutio 59 Posts I guess the shape discussed in the topic is now available 😀 But about the latest pics in the topic, I never noticed the new K2 split had channel-mounts, I was so confused about the hilarious advertisement video last season 😀 Anybody have any insight on this? Is it licensed from burton, can it be seen on other brands next season too? I guess Burton has a patent for the solid board channels, but does it actually also cover split setups? Why does the K2 split only have dual slot pucks on one side? I remember when Forum originally came up with the channel mount system. Burton was dismissing the system in their brochure ca. 1998, claiming that such a channel makes the board flex kinked :thumpsup: Well, years went by and eventually burton claimed in their brochure that a channel system is the best system ever 🙄 Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 23 total) 1 2 → You must be logged in to reply to this topic.