Forums Splitboard Talk Forum Opinions on taper x sidecut Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total) Author Posts February 2, 2006 at 5:37 pm #567446 splittilps 154 Posts So I’m going to replace my Burton for next season and I’m on the fence between 2 diff’t boards (Prior BC 168 and NS T5 168). Dimension-wise, these decks are very similar except the Prior has 0.4 cm of taper while I think the NS has none. BUT the Prior has a sidecut radius of 10 m and the NS has 8.85. Do you think the Prior’s small bit of taper would even be noticably different compared to the NS? How big of a difference do you think the different sidecut radii would make? Any other opinions? February 2, 2006 at 6:12 pm #586264 Jon Dahl 384 Posts .4 taper helps the board to release from a turn. 10 vs. 8.85 will equal more stable at speed when turning. Yuor choise will be determined by riding style. Do you ride faster and turn longer and maintain board energy while doing so? Get the board w/ the 10 sidecut. Skid most of your turns, and ride slower? Go with the 8.85 sidecut board. If all other board factors are equal, of course, and the best way to decide will be to ride both. February 2, 2006 at 6:41 pm #586265 Unruly Baker 333 Posts I run a 06′ NS T5 168, although the specs look like it does not have taper, it does have a directional shape, and rides like tapered boards in powder. And if you get a chance to check one out in person notice the difference in shape of the nose and the tail of the NS. It rides like a tapered board due to this nose/tail shape in deep snow, even though technically the board is non-tapered. On chop it is so stable and damp and on hardpack it can rail and hold an edge like no other boards I have ridden. It is a little too stiff to ahve fun doing butters and stuff, but I use mine for charging, not jibbing around. One other thing, the NS construction blows the Prior construction out of the water, Prior offers quad glass as an option and builds a good board, but everything else is pretty much run of the mill “normal” construction from a materials and technique standpoint. The NS uses pretensioned and precured glass and carbon stringers, and P-tex sidewalls, rubber dampening at the edges, good wood core and is a much more damp yet snappy board. The NS will retain it’s snap and camber for a much longer time than the Prior. I have spent a lot of time on both brands, and NS gets my $$ everytime. The prior will probably be slightly lighter. But I have had a 165 T5 for 3 50+ day seasons and it still rides like new even after heavy abuse. I have not noticed any drawback to the tighter sidecut on the NS, but I have noticed advantages such as being able to hold edges on harder snow better and easier to carve short radius turns. I have not noticed any drawback on long radius high speed turns and no issues straightlining things due to the tighter sidecut. My $0.02 UB February 2, 2006 at 6:47 pm #586266 mtnrider 740 Posts @jon Dahl wrote: Skid most of your turns, and ride slower? hmmm…I don’t agree w/ this analogy much. Skid turns…ugh. UB wrote “The NS uses pretensioned and precured glass and carbon stringers, and P-tex sidewalls, rubber dampening at the edges, good wood core” That is all pretty much industry standard stuff. Nothing special. Do they use the precured glass in their split lay-ups? Interested to know. How do you know that the NS camber will last longer than that of the Prior? If there is no dimensional change in the nose to tail width it’s not a tapered board, and has pretty much nothing to do with a directional shape board having a different radii on the tail than it doesn the nose of the board. February 2, 2006 at 7:39 pm #586267 Unruly Baker 333 Posts Pretensioined precured glass is not an industry standard. There is only 1 supplier for that material, I use them in my industry (aerospace) and to my knowledge Prior is not on their list of customers, it is a very short list. NS will make a split with precured pretensioned if you ask Bently. And for $800+ he better be using all the good stuff. As for the camber/snap issue, no, I don’t have back to back proof. But in theory, based on laminate design, and how pretensioned precured glass behaves, and asssuming good interlaminer bonding and adhesion to the core (on both the Prior and NS), and all other things equal, the NS will retain camber and flex longer. By using pretensioined precured glass after repeated compressions (flexing the board) the glass fiber goes to it’s neutral state during each compression, rather than buckling which is what non-pretensioned precured glas does during repeated compressions, this will allow the NS to retain flex and camber. As the glass buckles, the camber goes away, same with the flex. I was not trying to bash Prior boards, they are very nice boards. But as an aerospace engineer specializing in high end composite sandwhich structures, the NS design, materials, and construction are by far the best in the industry, and NS has done a tremendous amount of testing to learn that. When I see Prior on the cover of the “High Performance Composites” journal maybe I’ll change my tune, but for now only NS has that honor, which is typically held by structures for the F-22 raptor and Joint Strike Fighter, Porsche, Ferarri, and other high end structures. As for P-tex sidewalls, to my knowledge only NS, Arbor, and Unity use it. Everyone else uses ABS. But I could be overlooking someone. I am sure Prior uses ABS. ABS is prone to cracking when cold. Anyway, don’t want to get into a pissing match on the internet. Sorry if I offended anyone with my opinion. Over and out, B February 2, 2006 at 7:40 pm #586268 splittilps 154 Posts I understand how the difference in taper is supposed to relate to the ride but I question whether a 4mm taper is something that you truely will notice – especially in soft snow. As for sidecut and my riding, I do it all so I don’t want a board that is superb at straightlining and going super fast if it means it will be a terrible pain to make tight-radius turns (skid turns? – puhlease!) in narrow chutes or trees. I would love to hear more about construction differences though. I think “rubber damped, carbon stringers, pretensioned, blah blah blah” are just key words that all board companies throw around but are completely meaningless to the average rider. Most boards seem to have some form or another of all that same stuff but there’s never been a comparison that definatively shows how each (ex pre-tensioned vs quad-glass, rubber damped edges vs carbon fiber forks) compares to the other. I doubt it would even be possible. February 2, 2006 at 7:44 pm #586269 splittilps 154 Posts UB, no need to appologize, I’m learning a lot from you. You’d make a good snowboard rep. February 2, 2006 at 7:49 pm #586270 Unruly Baker 333 Posts One more thing too, it is not “what” materials are used so much as “how” the materials are used. And this is more than marketing driven BS. If you get a chance to ride a new NS and a new “insert board manufacturerer here” board do it. THen ride a 1+ year old used NS and a 1+ year old used “insert board manufacturerer here”, you will notice a difference. I am not a rep, just a aero engineer with a snowbaording problem, I am trying to become a snowboarder with an aero engineering problem. UB February 2, 2006 at 8:47 pm #586271 Jon Dahl 384 Posts You can turn a 10 m sidecut as tight as a 8.85 (if you have any technique), but the 8.85 will not be as stable at faster speeds. It’s just a simple function of design. And I did say if all other things are equal. Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total) You must be logged in to reply to this topic.