Forums Splitboards Big board, long sidecut, nose rocker & camber underfoot…
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #574002
    nedrapier
    235 Posts

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

    I am still waiting for someone to do a longer sidecut (11 meter radius) board with an early rise tip (tip rocker) and very slight camber from the middle of the board through the tail-I think this would result in supreme versatility and retain the stability and skinning performance of a cambered board.

    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…

    #633917
    sickpow
    46 Posts

    Sounds like a Jones solution.

    #633918
    whistlermaverick
    312 Posts

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

    Why do most splits look like twin boards?

    @j.memay

    #633919
    Snurfer
    1448 Posts

    @nedrapier wrote:

    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…

    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.

    Shark Snowsurf Chuna
    Voile V-Tail 170 BC
    Voile One Ninety Five
    Spark R&D Arc

    #633920

    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.
    :doobie:

    #633921
    sickpow
    46 Posts

    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.

    #633922
    sickpow
    46 Posts

    @whistlermaverick wrote:

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

    Why do most splits look like twin boards?

    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?

    #633923
    Snurfer
    1448 Posts

    @sickpow wrote:

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

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

    Shark Snowsurf Chuna
    Voile V-Tail 170 BC
    Voile One Ninety Five
    Spark R&D Arc

    #633924
    Taft
    287 Posts

    @sickpow wrote:

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

    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.

    #633925
    BGnight
    1382 Posts

    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.

    #633926
    Taft
    287 Posts

    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.

    #633927
    sickpow
    46 Posts

    @Snurfer wrote:

    @sickpow wrote:

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

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

    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.

    #633928
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    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.

    @sun_rocket

    #633929
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    @sickpow wrote:

    @Snurfer wrote:

    @sickpow wrote:

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

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

    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.

    I’m a similar size, but I respectfully disagree with this thinking on board size. I think people should experiment in decimeters rather than centimeters. Here’s why:

    All things being equal, shorter boards simply do not provide the float or stability of longer boards. While I can calibrate my riding to turn a long board in the trees (quite easily, actually), physics precludes a short board from providing (1) the stability I need and want at the end of a 40mph arc, (2) the stability to bust a big fast turn through choppy snow, or (3) the braking power I might need in a suddenly tough situation.

    In addition to being more versatile, the stability of a long board affords more comfort with speed and adverse terrain, allowing you to charge terrain faster, more aggressively and more smoothly without being board-limited. That “speed security” creates physical and mental space for progression–it changes how you engage the mountain by widening what your body and brain perceive to be possible.

    I could go on, but this is why I take the opposite view: I prefer to ride the longest board I can get away with, not the shortest.

    @sun_rocket

    #633930
    Snurfer
    1448 Posts

    Enjoyiong everyones insights… While I’m personally sold on bigger boards, I appreciated Brook’s perspective one why he likes a smaller board (Yes, you heard me right, we agree on something 😀 ).
    I’m still trying to wrap my mind around bigger guys riding small boards :scratch: Perhaps its the terrain being ridden. Regardless, if it provides them with stoke, so be it…

    Shark Snowsurf Chuna
    Voile V-Tail 170 BC
    Voile One Ninety Five
    Spark R&D Arc

    #633931
    Scooby2
    623 Posts

    Taylor wrote:

    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.

    . . . and I am waiting for someone to buy one, :thumpsup:
    kidding really, no way I could get any boards done this year. 😥
    Are you in UT?

    #633932
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Got my fist day in on my 2011 Venture Storm. Snow conditions were not that great, variable from one turn to the next, breakable crusts, windboard, dust on crust, some sections of pow. The board is really easy to turn, pivot, drift, and the rocker does help the float. This initial excursion has so far solidified my belief that the tail rocker is a bit of a liability for directional riders. The board seems to be too loose, and to get it to hold through the middle of the turn takes an effort. Of course, I need more time on it to really come to any conclusions. Of course for those looking to ride switch tail rocker makes sense, but with as much taper as the Storm has it seems purpose built to be a directional board. The Jones boards seem too freestyle oriented for me (huge tail) and the stance options do not work. But I love the nose design-JJ has designed the best nose ever, and close watching of Deeper really shows this feature in action.
    I would like to see Venture go to an early rise tip, combined with slight camber through the mid section and tail for the Storm-and go to a much longer radius sidecut (11 meter on the 166, 11.5-12 on the 170). This approach would also differentiate the Storm more from the Zephyr, making the Storm more for the directional rider seeking a truly high performance freeride board, and the Zephyr the board for the all arounder who wants to throw some switch riding and tricks into their riding.
    Yes, I love the TB (I have a solid one) and I expect a TB with an early rise tip would be very nice indeed…

    #633933
    nedrapier
    235 Posts

    Ace, thanks all, very interesting to read, and to see both sides of my internal debate!

    …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

    Yes, Yes, Yes! If I think back to, say, my 5 most overwhelming moments ever on a snowboard, more than half have been big super G turns on a swallowtail, nothing quite like having that much board under you, spreading the pressure of a fast turn in soft snow and really letting you rail it…

    Totally agree with Taylor too, especially the “speed security” thing..

    BUT, Brooks has hit the nail on the head for the other side when he says shorter boards allow you the time to play around with things a bit more.

    If you’ve just spent 4 hours touring up 4000 feet, is it a bit of waste to Johan straight back down again in less than a minute? I remember finishing runs on my swallow, looking back and seeing my buddies on 160s only half way down, still having a ball…

    And I don’t know where whistlermaverick was coming from with the “all boards look like twin tips” comment, but I think he has a point (it might not be the same as the one he was trying to make though!)

    There are some obvious exceptions (Fish, Storm, swallows, Dupraz etc) but if you took the inserts out and the graphics off the average all mountain shape, you might have to look quite closely to tell the nose from the tail. seems funny when you think of other directional things, like boats, surfboards, aeroplanes, dolphins…

    Even the really direction shapes still keep the classic round kicktail, even though they’d be rubbish to ride fakie. That’s really why I asked the question, I guess. If these shapes so directional already, why keep this roundtail appendix? Why not at least go flat, with hardly any rocker, like skis used to be before they started making them for all the kids skiing the park and dropping 50ft cliff backwards? And once you’ve done that, why not a swallow? Unless there’s a really sound reason I’ve not been considering?

    More and more are, though, so maybe it’s just a fashion thing that has needed to gain some momentum?

    Edit: barrows, sorry, I spent a while writing that and missed yours, I was hoping you’d post soon about how you like the Storm. Mixed feelings so far, then? It’s the tail rocker that puts me off that one…

    #633934
    nedrapier
    235 Posts

    If you’re interested, here’s what’s prompted all this mulling: I’m off on a camping/touring trip for 2 1/2 weeks at the end of the season, and it would be uber-shit to case the Mojo early and be boardless for the rest of the trip, so I’m thinking of getting another and taking the Mojo as backup. I like the look of the Prior hybrid rocker and the Backcountry seems like an obvious choice. I keep going back and forth between the 161 and the 165 and then I think “F**k it, exactly why isn’t the Powstick a bloody brilliant choice?” for all the reasons at the start.

    So:
    The “go for the length I’ve settled on over the years, but with the rocker giving me more manouverability” option? (165BC);
    The “go short and fun but with the rocker giving me similar float” option (161BC);
    Or the “quite a lot of my riding doesn’t involve trees, do I ever ride switch anyway, and F*** it, why not?” option (the 172 Powstick)?

    Ho hum…

    me: 155lbs, 5’11”
    current split: 166 camber mojo
    Mostly ridden solids 165-168
    Also have a 2001 176 Powstick: stiff, heavy with short, rounder nose shape with very little rise – amazing in pow and on groomers, but a bit of a handful making slower turns in interesting places when the snow gets heavier and choppier.
    Rode a 185 Swell Panik Global for a week a few years ago, softer flex, especially in the nose which had 40sm of smooth rocker. 40cms. much lighter than the Prior, much easier to handle.

    #633935
    ehcarley
    411 Posts

    @nedrapier wrote:

    And I don’t know where whistlermaverick was coming from with the “all boards look like twin tips” comment, but I think he has a point (it might not be the same as the one he was trying to make though!)

    Even the really direction shapes still keep the classic round kicktail, even though they’d be rubbish to ride fakie. That’s really why I asked the question, I guess. If these shapes so directional already, why keep this roundtail appendix? Why not at least go flat, with hardly any rocker, like skis used to be before they started making them for all the kids skiing the park and dropping 50ft cliff backwards? And once you’ve done that, why not a swallow? Unless there’s a really sound reason I’ve not been considering?

    More and more are, though, so maybe it’s just a fashion thing that has needed to gain some momentum?

    I think that on a snowboard, everyone has to ride switch for a short distance every once in a while- i.e. traversing through tight trees to get to a more open spot.

    I have to admit, the shape of the storm doesn’t entirely make sense in my head. That board has HUGE rocker on the nose. It does look like 2011 has mellowed some, but last year’s was crazy. Why not camber it under foot, or mellow out the tail rocker. Like Barrows says, you lose a lot of power from the rocker tail. And when the rocker is as severe as the storm is, I would imagine you lose a lot of power.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.