Splitboard.com Forums

Here's a quote from barrows that seems to be in line with what plenty of others are after:



Why don't more people ride or at least consider the Prior Pow Stick? 10.6m radius, rocker, stiffish flex, awesome powderirity... I doubt it's the lack of switch options, and with the long sidecut, taper and short tail it should be good on icier steeps too. Good skinning with plenty of float, carves like a demon, smooths out chop. 172, but should ride like a shorter board given the relatively short effective edge and the reasonable weight (lighter than the 168 Backcountry, eff. edge only a sneak longer than 165 BC)

The specs seem to point to a board with that "supreme versatility"

What's not to like? Serious question, I'm tempted...

Sounds like a Jones solution.

Solution.....centered, little taper,shorter sidecut, it does have a small effective edge though

Why do most splits look like twin boards?

I've been tempted as well, but the Prior's are pricey.$$$
True, a 172 swally rides more like a 161-163 twin tip because of the large rockered nose, and the tail split allowing the rear foot to become the pivot point in soft snow. Depending on the geometry of the tail and the snow conditions you could be looking at a 156-ish ride at times.

This is just opinion, but most people were introduced to this sport in the Ski area, and most were told to ride a specific size. I think Chin level or something like that ..... I think the park and tricks came next, and that s where the sport has gone and why would you want to change the norm . At least most people don t want to.. ..

It s unfortunate because riding big boards in Pow pow is just amazing, and its really not that hard to ride them through the trees...and or on anything else in the POW. That s one of the main reasons I ride, THE POW.

What all should consider is having a quiver of boards, so they can really get a good feeling for all kinds of different boards. Of course that cost lots of money, years under your belt, and in my case a great understanding splitboarding wife.

For the most part people ride too big of boards for terrain. Smaller is better for a snowboard. Its not skiing.

Rocker is VERY personal I believe and the fad of ALL boards with rocker will decline ( i hope).

I do not like rocker, I like camber to power in and out of turn in pow. I feel camber is MUCH faster in and out of turns beyond 90% rider 10% board.

edit, long weekend.

That is pretty much a false statement, as all the Volie boards are tapered, all the Burton's are tapered, the new Never summer is tapered, the original Venture split is tapered, the Solution is directional rocker with blunt nose and tail, should I go on?

Care to quantify better? Also curious how much you weigh?

I feel 100% opposite as you do. the trend towards smaller boards is driven by park riders and media. but i'm not going to try to change you mind.

Sounds like the Tom Burt 172
They offer nose rocker.

Length 172.0
Nose Width 30.0
Tail Width 29.6
Waist Width 25.7
Sidecut Radius (M) 11.0
Nose Length 20.3
Tail Length 16.1
Effective Edge 135.2
Stance Offset 3.0

As for longer vs shorter I'm 145lbs and have always ridden 166's, but have seen the light w/ nose rocker and am loving boards in the 161-163 range much better. Unless you're straight running 2k chutes in AK or dropping 40ft+ cliffs then longer than 164-67 isn't buying you anything IMO...unless you're a bigger guy of course (like Tom Burt)
Riding a slightly shorter board in Tahoe now allows me to use more of the terrain "properly" where on a 166 I feel I'm blowing by shit so fast I'm always like "fuck, i should have hit that". Not to say bombing shit is bad (I can bomb just as fast on a 162 fwiw). Shorter is better in most tight chutes and technical lines too.

I'm between 155 and 160 pounds. in bounds I can get away with 157+ but prefer a 160-165. add 20 pounds of gear, water, food. and I like a 165 - 170.

in tight chutes big boards are a bit of a hand full. but in 60+cm of boot pen even my prior backcountry 168 feels small.

have yet to try rocker. when my 165 khyber dies my next pow board will be something with rocker/traditional camber.

220lbs with touring gear. 6.3 feet.

smaller is better IMO for the terrain people are on. If you are ripping AK 2,000ft+ steep ass runs all season, then sure, the biggest you can handle.

But after ridding tons of different boards, I think it should be the opposite, the smallest you can get away with, for control and fun.

BTW, going small is not from jibbing or park, it is from the jumping and kickers and landing in pow.

Someone else mentioned that boards all look like twins, another false statement. There are so many tapered splits out there it is sick!

Camber for snowboards will come back around in fashion in full force I hope.

I think Barrows is right on with his thinking about less sidecut and no tail rocker. It's a real bummer that nobody is making a real big gun split board for bigger, advanced riders. Somebody needs to.

I'm waiting for someone to make a split that is...

- 180 - 190 cm
- 12-13m radius sidecut
- up to 26" stance width
- directional; with a pin or blunt kick tail
- rockered slightly in the nose / cambered otherwise (and in the tail)
- moderately tapered
- at least 27cm at the waist
- stable and damp at high speeds, especially in fast large radius turns

...I'll probably have to have a custom deck made.