Forums Splitboards Big board, long sidecut, nose rocker & camber underfoot…
Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #633936
    Wasatch_Don
    101 Posts

    I’ve drank the industry kool-aid and have consistently bought shorter boards for powder over the years:

    195 Voile Swallowtail -> 180 Voile Freeride -> 178 Prior Spearhead -> 170 Prior Khyber

    I totally love the Khyber for tight chutes and trees but once it opens up I start to miss the longer edge and additional surface area of a bigger board. I especially notice if I happen to smack some crud in the middle of a high speed turn. I think for next year I’ll add a longer big mountain board to the quiver to make sure I have the right tool for the job.

    The discussion in this thread is fun because on one side you have people arguing that shorter boards are better because they rock tight areas and then you have others saying bigger boards are better because they can charge big lines. My answer is “D. All of the above”. I just need to buy more boards 🙂

    For people that want to ride one board for everything, pick what you do the most of… a good rider is going to compensate and still have a great time. I rode plenty of tight chutes on my 195 and had a blast and charged some big lines on my 170 with a huge grin.

    My hope for next year is that I’ll have some better big mountain options to chose from, there are definitely more freestyle type of boards out there right now. It’s what you see at the resort, we just need more backcountry-specific boards.

    #633937
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    I agree with WasatchDon, to a point. I am 6’1″, and the biggest boards I have ridden have been the Matt Goodwill 179 from Morrow, and the old Gnu RaceRoom at 178. Both these boards could be manuvered in tight spots (with effort), and they charged at speed, and truly excelled when one was at speed and suddenly had to deal with hitting some buried avy debris, or other anomalous snow condition. The long edge contact was really nice as well, making for a super stable ride on edge.
    In my mind the biggest drawback of large boards is really weight, so I am settled on the idea of boards right around 170 for giving me the best versatility for my riding.
    eh c. I do not find the rocker on the nose of the Storm to be any problem, or think that it is “huge”. I like the nose rocker, and think it provides a big advantage, as it eases turn initiation (less abrupt hooking) floats up nicely in the pow, but most of all, it helps when dealing with inconsistent snow (runnels, avy debris, sastrugi) as a traditional camber nose tends to want to catch on any obstacle it encounters.
    As for tails, I prefer to have some tail kick, as backing up is sometimes necessary in tight spots, but I have no need for a huge tail like the Jones boards have-those who want to ride powder switch, or land airs switch will like the big tail, but to me it is just extra weight.

    #633938
    ehcarley
    411 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    eh c. I do not find the rocker on the nose of the Storm to be any problem, or think that it is “huge”. I like the nose rocker, and think it provides a big advantage, as it eases turn initiation (less abrupt hooking) floats up nicely in the pow, but most of all, it helps when dealing with inconsistent snow (runnels, avy debris, sastrugi) as a traditional camber nose tends to want to catch on any obstacle it encounters.
    As for tails, I prefer to have some tail kick, as backing up is sometimes necessary in tight spots, but I have no need for a huge tail like the Jones boards have-those who want to ride powder switch, or land airs switch will like the big tail, but to me it is just extra weight.

    To be clear, I haven’t ridden the storm, but just looking at ones that friends had, it seemed excessive, but if it works, so much the better.

    #633939
    buell
    534 Posts

    My thought on the Venture Storm (we had last year’s 162 split) is that the tail rocker is too extreme. I have ridden other rockered boards with less tail rocker and they do not have the issues I found with the Storm.

    If the rocker is slight enough that the full edge length is in contact with the snow when the board is slightly on edge (this is definitely not the case with the Venture), I think a lot of the issues of tail rocker will be minimized and the benefits (there are a couple of new turn types possible) can be mostly maintained.

    I thought the nose rocker was fine, but I think they could cut off a few centimeters of the pointy tip and have a shorter board that rides the same.

    #633940
    barrows
    1490 Posts

    Buell: good observations. One of my riding partners has a 2010 Storm, and I have the 2011. As far as I can tell they come from the same mold, ie same rocker profile. There is a difference though, the 2011 is quite a bit stiffer in the nose and tail, Klem has confirmed this with me, and hand flexing demonstrates it as well. The increased stiffness should reduce the effect of the rocker.
    I only have one day on the board so far, and will report more after I have gotten it out in more situations-I am concerned how it is going to handle in the steeps, and will certainly report in on that. As noted, my peliminary point of view is that I would prefer a little camber through the midsection and tail of the board. more later.

    #633941
    Taylor
    797 Posts

    I too find the tail rocker in the Storm to be a problem. Here is a review I wrote about it:



    This review follows a season on the board riding a variety of conditions and terrains. For context, I am 6’3″ and 215 lbs. I’ve been riding since 1983; I’m an ex-racer, I like turning, I ride long decks and put a lot of pressure on them.

    I LIKE:

    1. Great turn initiation. It’s quick to initiate and stable to complete small and medium radius turns at low and moderate speeds in soft snow conditions. It pivots quickly and effortlessly in the trees–even at 181cm.

    2. Floats great in pow. Nose jumps right up, tapered tail sinks right in.

    3. Solid feel in most conditions. Solid, stable feel underfoot at low and moderate speeds on most terrain and mixed snow conditions. It handles aggressive forward-pressure up front and in the middle beautifully, yielding a ride that is energetic, responsive and yet stable.

    4. Best construction and enviro ethic in the business. Durable as hell; green materials to boot, climate change advocacy. Major props here, Venture.

    I’D CHANGE:

    1. A cambered tail. The rockered (de-cambered) tail can’t hold as much pressure as I’d like. This compromises acceleration and stability at the end of fast, large-radius turns and undermines edge hold and on steep ice. A big mountain board should excel at both jobs; a cambered tail would fix that. Last year Venture advertised but did not press cambered versions of this deck. I was bummed about that.

    2. Widen the stance. Bigger boards are for bigger people; stance widths should widen proportionally with board length to better fit tall people who ride long boards. I could easily use another inch or two.

    OVERALL RATING: 8.5. Highly recommended for larger people who want a solid, durable deck that aptly handles most conditions and terrain–especially in trees and tighter-terrain pow–who don’t mind spending a little extra for green sourcing, environmental responsibility, and unsurpassed durability and construction.

    With a few design suggestions, I’m a very satisfied customer.

    @sun_rocket

    #633942
    buell
    534 Posts

    @barrows wrote:

    Buell: good observations. One of my riding partners has a 2010 Storm, and I have the 2011. As far as I can tell they come from the same mold, ie same rocker profile. There is a difference though, the 2011 is quite a bit stiffer in the nose and tail, Klem has confirmed this with me, and hand flexing demonstrates it as well. The increased stiffness should reduce the effect of the rocker.
    I only have one day on the board so far, and will report more after I have gotten it out in more situations-I am concerned how it is going to handle in the steeps, and will certainly report in on that. As noted, my peliminary point of view is that I would prefer a little camber through the midsection and tail of the board. more later.

    We had the 2010 Storm. I called Venture to ask them if there were any changes to the board for 2011 and they said the same thing you were told, that the rocker would be the same but it would be a bit stiffer. We really liked the board and would have considered a 2011 if it had less tail rocker than the 2010.

    The biggest issue we had with the tail rocker on the Storm (it was only ridden in nice powder) was that, for both Rebecca and myself, the board was really inconsistent in how it acted when you stomped on the tail to slow it down before heading into the trees. It would often head off in a new direction instead of slowing down. With less tail rocker this should not have been an issue.

    I am pretty sure a rockered board should be stiffer than its cambered counterpart. The changes to the flex might be a good thing.

    My 158 Prior BC split custom 11m sidecut is built. I will be posting it up soon.

    #633943
    Scooby2
    623 Posts

    I think the manufactured rockered backcountry board designs are halfway there now, they are brave enough to put a fair bit of rocker in, but still working there way towards making them stiff enough to not overflex. Also I think there are two ways to go in light of these observations, a board can have camber underfoot all the way out the tail or a constant curve the whole length of the board and a stiff enough tail so it holds a lot of pressure and doesn’t let go. The cambered profile has more rebound at slower speeds and the constant curve had a really wide range from looseness at slow speeds to lots of stabbility and grunt when you really bank it.

    If you have a cambered section only between your feet, then the tail lifts up and gets progressively softer, you have effectively removed a lot of the support and drive away from the tail of your board and all the work is being done from in front of your back foot, as a result the board probably feels washy and too loose behind the back foot instead of drivey and accelerating out of turns. You get a flat spot in the middle of the board and then the tail breaks away from the pow that the front and middle of the board have compressed.
    (Like a surfboard with too thick a tail and without enough fin area for a good wave.)

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.