Splitboard.com Forums

"Now I really have no idea why people say you should go shorter with a rockered board."

Quite frankly, the people who say this are just plain wrong. There is no real technical reason why one would ride a rockered board in a length shorter than what they ride in a traditional cambered board. In fact, if there is any valid difference, it is that one can choose a longer board (and get more float and stability) with rocker, while taking advantage of the added maneuverability which rocker allows.

Longer or shorter on a rockered board are both options and it comes down to preference (and perhaps how board is matched to the rider).

Those who say shorter want to use the added float to ride a smaller, quicker handling board.

Barrows covers the go longer argument.

I ride about the same length rockered boards as my cambered boards had been but am so much happier on rockered

I haven't yet had the base fixed on a stone grinder, not that I have any idea where to get that done anywhere inside 1,000km from where I live either. I usually put my boards in the sauna for a few hours after waxing to allow the wax to soak in, works great!
I had the opportunity recently to test the solution out on some hard icy slopes and I can say that the board is stable at speed but it needs a black slope with icy conditions to get there. I took it out again today on a slope that I can usually get some good speed on, there was a nice 20cm fresh layer of damp snow and zero tracks. Unfortunately going down felt and strangely sounded like I had the hand brake on. On the bottom I checked my gps and the max speed was only 50km/h!
I will be accepting this board as a learning experience and investing on another splitboard next winter.

So i just bought a solution 161, on the Jones website it shows camber
between the feet on this model.This thing sits flat.
Doesn't seem correct to me.Anyones the same? or did you get camber.

Mine is totally flat between the bindings. Mine is also 3 cm shorter than the length printed right on the deck. It's also 3 mm narrower at the waist than advertised. I'm guessing all the specs are off, but I haven't checked the rest.

I havent measured mine(also 163w) but Its looks to be the same size as my 160w mountain twin or 159 legacy and its flat between the bindings

Freightrain, we have the exact same quiver.

The camber between the feet is very subtle. I believe the size difference is because the board has a blunt nose and tail. If it were traditionally rounded, the board would be that length. Effective edge length and contact area are more important than overall length anyway.

the mountain twin got returned to rei you cant tell in this photo but it demlamed behind the heel of my front photo. I had just picked up the legacy the day I took this photo. know that I have about 10 days on it I think its way nicer than the mountain twin was

Both my wife's board and mine both have a very subtle camber between the feet.