Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 481
Bond, remember that you're talking 6cm here - less than three inches. I'm about your weight. I never ride anything under 180 in the trees. You quickly calibrate and learn to make fast turns on longer boards.

The real penalty of a shorter board comes in float and stability. Think about it like this: To achieve the same float (weight/surface area) as a 160 lb rider on a 160 cm board, a 200 lb rider would need to ride a 200 cm board.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:51 am
Posts: 635
Taylor wrote:
Think about it like this: To achieve the same float (weight/surface area) as a 160 lb rider on a 160 cm board, a 200 lb rider would need to ride a 200 cm board.



WTF? You can't be serious. Funny how when god created the metric system, he left in the correlation between pounds and centimeters just for us snowboarders. This statement makes no sense. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 481
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand this shredgnar. Surface area to weight ratios are one way to understand the powder buoyancy of a board given a rider's weight. The more weight per unit surface area, the less float. The less weight per unit surface area, the more float. If one assumes roughly similar board widths, board length can be a proxy for surface area because surface area increases proportionally with board length. The units of measure are irrelevant... Pounds per square or linear inch, pounds per square or linear centimeter -- they all work to express a ratio.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:51 am
Posts: 635
Taylor wrote:
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand this shredgnar. Surface area to weight ratios are one way to understand the powder buoyancy of a board. The more weight per unit surface area, the less float. The less weight per unit surface area, the more float. If one assumes roughly similar board widths, board length can be a proxy for surface area because surface area increases proportionally with board length. The units of measure are irrelevant... Pounds per square or linear inch, pounds per square or linear centimeter -- they all work to express a ratio.



But your ratio is flawed. Would a 1lb rider be able to ride on a tiny 1cm board just as well as a 190lb rider on a 190cm board. You are only taking into account one dimension of the board, length. Think about shape, width, rocker and other factors, not to mention snow density, speed, and slope angle. Sure, a long board will give you better float, not arguing that. But I'm saying that the logic that cm's relate directly to lbs and float is flawed because you are taking into account all of the variables and the two units that you are using are not directly proportional to each other, therefore they do not correlate.

You like long boards, that's cool, live your life and love your long boards. But when a newb comes asking for some sound advice, don't tell him to just hop on a scale and weigh himself (in lbs) and that's the length of board he should have (in cms). :lol:


BTW Bond, get the 168, at 210lbs, you need the bigger board.

I don't know, on second thought, I'd maybe look into a 210 cm board if you can find one, or else you'll probably sink to the bottom of the snowpack. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:53 pm
Posts: 9
Maybe I should just ask K2 to make me a 165 and split the difference!

Seriously, thanks for all the differing viewpoints; it's almost a re-run of the 2 excellent arguments I got in store. I get flotation, but haven't seen that many powder days here (I'm a Brit who moved to Calgary 4 years ago) so one of the arguments presented was that on the heavier stuff masses of flotation isn't required.

Any BC/Alberta riders who can comment on 'typical' conditions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 481
"the two units that you are using are not directly proportional to each other"

I think you're wrong here. As I stated, length can be a proxy for surface area because, given equal widths, surface area increases proportionally with board length.

I'm not saying other factors don't matter; they do.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:01 pm
Posts: 793
Location: Colorado
Taylor, you ride the biggest boards I have ever seen (or heard of). You are the exception. I recommend anybody starting to ride something close to what they like and prefer. 180cm in the trees is insanity to me.

You don't need a long board for float and stability, I float just peachy on a 164. Sure extra float would be great, but not at the expense of all that extra. In fact I am probably going to downsize to 162 this year.

And remember a centimeter here and a centimeter there doesn't mean much. Most companies incorrectly measure their boards anyway; 159cm boards are the most popular, but 160cm are too long and don't sell :roll:

Gonna have to agree with Ol'Russman too. I don't care for K2 or Chinese boards, buy American! Better yet, buy Colorado! And I still ride Switch step-ins on resort days when side-country is not on the menu.

_________________
Talking about snowboarding is like dancing about architecture...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:53 pm
Posts: 9
Pedro: I agree, buy local when you can! My custom ClydeSnowboards 'Whiteboard' (just plain white, no graphics!) was hand-made here in Calgary. Tried to get Jason to make me a split but he couldn't get the hardware. Sadly it looks like he's gone, website wasn't updated for ages and is now down.

A Canadian Prior would be nice, but the kit price of the Panoramic was hard to beat. I looked for a used board for ages, but they usually had no skins/hardware etc. so the price was the same as a Voile setup.

My K2 FatBob lasted years of abuse in Scotland, heather, rocks, ice and even snow once in a while, so I'm happy to try them again. I may be back in a year or 2 asking what I need for my next board, and willing to splash some more cash. For now, affordable is good for getting started, and I'm betting K2 saw that opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:57 am
Posts: 152
Location: Canada
Bond wrote:
MAny BC/Alberta riders who can comment on 'typical' conditions?


Depends on where you're heading to regularly. But the bigger factor as always is just what we happen to have fall - and what happens right after that. Lake/sunshine can have good pow in the surrounding areas, but I find the lake area to get too much wind. A face will either be scoured way too quickly, or lee sides can load up dangerously after a good dump and blow. Fernie and up north/west of there at invermere had some *amazing* blower last year. Too much at fernie in fact (an early season in bound slide there....early january i think?)

Plenty of goods in the eastern rockies just have to go out there and find it. When buying a split you have to consider that, yes, not every day is going to chest-deep-choker-scream-my-face-off-all-run but thats what you *will* find. And as long as you have something that can get you through those *OK* days, but will work AMAZING in the conditions you enjoy (which unless you're missing your sack should be POW! lol) then you've got what you need IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:43 am
Posts: 48
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Just want to add another factor to the float discussion. This one is very important:

SPEED

I would say that a 156 snow mullet (or similiar) would be faster through the trees merely because reaction times are quicker with less board to throw around. So the extra speed would match your extra area :twocents:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:23 am
Posts: 35
Location: Vermont
AndyT wrote:
Just want to add another factor to the float discussion. This one is very important:

SPEED

I would say that a 156 snow mullet (or similiar) would be faster through the trees merely because reaction times are quicker with less board to throw around. So the extra speed would match your extra area :twocents:



Speed is one of the most important things to keep in mind, the faster a rider goes the more float "plane" and simple! The other thing is, not all trees are equal! Some tree areas on the right side of the map are totally diferant then the ones out west or north west. We have tight old hardwood forests that sometimes only offer sight for one turn at a time. A slower tighter turn is the only way to get through. With that said the the longer the board you are on the tighter you will feel you need to turn before you catch a tree. Bottom line for me is longer then 164 with regular camber is going to catch the tail in tight trees. I rode a Nitro Pantera 160 wide for the last 3 seasons and did it all. Won the weekly GS, wiggled trough tight trees, rode off the summit of Mt. Washington and shreaded every last bit of corn in the spring. At full GS speed the 160 is a little twitchy on ice. No problem theading the neddle in the trees. Enough float in the pow. I'm going to upsize (168cm) with the 30/70% rocker flat profile of this board. The rocker should do away with the catch feeling in tight turns and should slarve and smeer turn on the open stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:17 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Seattle, WA
Kickin Chickin wrote:
I saw the rep in my are at the shop I work in and he said he was 98% sure that the tail of the 168 is not wider then the tip. type o! if anybody still cares.


Yep, it's not the. According to the page on K2's site (http://k2snowboarding.com/snowboards/k2-panoramic-splitboard-kit), on the 168, tip width is 30.73 and tail width is 30.84.


That said, I ordered a 158 kit last week and just got a pair of the Spark Blazes as well. So looking forward to riding it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: K2 Panoramic splitboard 2011/2012
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:16 am
Posts: 481
Kickin Chickin wrote:
AndyT wrote:
Just want to add another factor to the float discussion. This one is very important:

SPEED

I would say that a 156 snow mullet (or similar) would be faster through the trees merely because reaction times are quicker with less board to throw around. So the extra speed would match your extra area :twocents:


Speed is one of the most important things to keep in mind, the faster a rider goes the more float "plane" and simple!


Other design features being equal, an advantage of longer boards is they plane at lower speeds and lower board angles relative to the snow than shorter boards. A planing board is more fun and easier to control than one that's shovel-buried plowing.

Another factor that hasn't been raised in this thread is the issue of rider height. Taller riders generally use longer boards because, given equal body weight, the mechanical leverage exerted over a board increases with body height.

Image

This is probably the single greatest factor affecting how stable or unstable a given board length (again, other design features being equal) feels to a rider - more important than but related to weight.

People generally ride board lengths that are within 5 - 10% of their body height. For instance, I am 190 cm tall (6'2.5) and I ride a 187 split and 195 resort board, but many who are my height ride boards around 170 -- all within about 10%. The average height of men in the U.S. (over 20) is 177 cm; coupled with the fact that much of the board market targets sub-adult adolescents (who are shorter and lighter) this helps to explain why the vast majority of production decks are between 155 - 170 cm long.

_________________
Craig Kelly is my co-pilot
195 Glissade Big Gun
187 Donek Custom Split
181 Venture Storm Solid and Split
173 Rossi Race DIY Swallowtail Split


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  








Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group