Forums Splitboards Which Board Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total) Author Posts June 7, 2013 at 1:25 pm #578746 John 22 Posts I have splitboarded on 3 continents in all snow types and terrain. I am interested in a shorter more versatile board then my previous Prior BC 172 Split. In steep narrow couloirs or wind effected peaks the 172 was too long. Great in pow! The Prospector or the Khyber XTC look interesting in a 163X or similar size. June 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm #668699 peacefrog 376 Posts What are you looking for in terms of stiffness, pop, camber, taper etc? June 7, 2013 at 6:15 pm #668700 John 22 Posts I am looking for something shorter that will have good edge hold in the steeps, quick manuverability, and enough float for deep powder. I like a board that returns energy, so pop, yes. Most of my boards are cambered, haven’t spent much time on some of the new rocker profiles. Never been on a tapered board. My 2 most recent boards of reference are the Prior BC and AMF. June 7, 2013 at 7:27 pm #668701 peacefrog 376 Posts I’m a big fan of the solution, but if you don’t like stiff boards (7 out of 10 and up) that’s probably not where you want to go. If you do like a stiff board than the solution has great pop (best of any split I’ve ridden), it’s got a great shape for float which lets you go shorter but still planes on shallower slopes. It’s go regular camber under the bindings with a rocker nose and a little rocker on the tail. I find this a good balance it gives you float and maneuverability without much sacrifice to stability at speed or “rocker washout” when landing jumps. The magnatraction on the outside edge is nice. It comes in handy most when your conditions change from pow to ice. It’s also nice to have magnatraction on the inside edge-it could be psychosomatic but it seems like it side hills better. People have said they had issues with the 1st couple of years products but that is not my experience. It also seems like what QC issues they had was resolved when they switched factories. June 13, 2013 at 1:33 am #668702 John 22 Posts I may ride what I have and wait on new board, that is with new boots and bindings. June 13, 2013 at 11:05 pm #668703 barrows 1490 Posts John: what size are you, height and weight? I found my limit in board lengths this year when I demoed a Chimera Dum Dum at 160 cm. It was too short, just not enough board in front of me for my 6’1″ body. Good learning experience. Now I now for sure that I need something around 165-168 for an all around board, big enough for stability, short enough to be able to get it around quickly when necessary. June 14, 2013 at 12:22 am #668704 John 22 Posts Barrows, I am also 6’1″ and 165lbs. I have 3 172 length boards I love to ride in powder, and a Prior 168 AMF I ride on resort conditions. After spending time in some time in the Cordillera Mountains and over a month in Antartica with my Prior 172 BC, I realized it was not the right board. Being the only boarder, I was not able to get much feedback from my ski buddies. I skied the last 2 winters in Northern BC with some European boarders that were on shorter boards (155-160) and they were loving it. Steep off-piste, wind effected up high, spines, flutes, then deep powder. Bottom line is, I want a board that will handle steep wind slab, crust, chunder, and surf the powder. I used to carve 360s on an old 172 K2 Eldorado with Klickers and Yaks, yes I had to bend and twist the board. What is your opinion of the Khyber, and what do think about length on a tapered board? Thanks for asking! June 14, 2013 at 1:46 am #668705 barrows 1490 Posts John: We are the same size. I ride predominantly in Colorado, which is a mix of big mountain type terrain, and relatively tighter terrain (trees and technical steeps). I ride boards from 166 to 173, and have had experience with even longer boards up to 181. Open pow, sure the big boards are really fun, but my 172 Mace is a little big for tight trees, and really technical spots. I do not like going very short though, and consider the lower limit for someone our height to be around 165 or so. I recently tested a 160 Chimera Dum Dum, and it was too short, resulting in a lack of stability at speed, and even causing a fall when I attempted to power up the fore section of the board. Board length, and fore and aft stability are linked, if the board is too short, there is a danger (and in technical steeps the danger can be considerable) of going over the nose, and starting a “starfish” or “tomahawk” type fall. If the tail is too short, there is the danger of wheelie-ing out if one gets into the back seat a little too far, it is nice to have a little tail to give some push back. A taller person needs a little more length, because the taller one is, the higher their center of gravity is. I consider length in two ways, more surface area for increased float, and more stability as described above. Contrary to what some believe, increasing taper (Khyber) or adding significant rocker, do not add float. Float come from surface area, and shape only influences it a little in comparison. What high taper boards do, is ride with a nose high attitude (in pow), even at low speed, so they might keep the nose from submerging, but this is not float, this is plowing. Float is planing, where the entire boards surface area contributes to keeping the entire board near the surface. Also, consider that rocker makes a board of a given length more manueverable-so, rocker allows one to ride a little longer board (other things remaining equal) because it is easier to swivel, pivot, and smear the board when necessary (think tight spots, spines, etc). For me, the Storm 166 with the 26 waist has been the best board of mine for every condition: quick turning enough for the tightest terrain, enough surface area for decent float, and enough length and stiffness to be stable at speed when needed. I am looking for a new board, around 166/167, as an all around stick. I am looking at the Never Summer Prospector 167X pretty seriously for next season. June 14, 2013 at 3:03 am #668706 John 22 Posts Barrows, I have given some thought to your comments. My past boards have been full camber. My favorite skis are full camber, especially in the steeps. Tip dive is not an issue. Wheelie-ing in chunder is. Do you think a board without tail rocker is better in steep technical terrain? June 14, 2013 at 3:18 am #668707 barrows 1490 Posts John: I was skeptical on rocker boards for technical steeps, especially tail rocker as you note. It is risky to talk about rocker alone, separate from the other design parameters of the board, as every parameter matters. If one just randomly adds rocker to a board, without adjusting the flex pattern to suit, it is likely to have some problems in some areas. But, I can easily address this question as it applies to the Venture Storm 166×26. The first season I had this board I was concerned that the tail rocker might be problematic in technical steeps, specifically, that there would not be enough edge hold at the end of the turn when one needs to finish the turn hard across the fall line. Then HFT and I did an early spring descent of the Notchtop Spire Couloir in RMNP (see this vid: http://vimeo.com/21928186). This line is quite steep in spots, with reported pitches the cruxes of ~52 degrees. The Storm worked very, very, well (both HFT and I were on the 166×26 that descent). So, I am not concerned about tail rocker being a problem with a well designed board as a specific thing. And some nose rocker is certainly an advantage, reducing the tendency of the nose to grab really aggressively at the very beginning of the turn. June 14, 2013 at 4:07 am #668708 John 22 Posts Barrows, Great looking couloir! How high is the summit? I have skied a number of Colorado’s Elks 14ers, and some Cascade Volcanoes. I would like to add some bigger snowboard descents in the Elks to the list. Some of the lines I have ridden in Antartica were no-fall lines. I usually ride these with an Ice Axe. My Prior BC was made in ’09. I don’t know how much the specs have changed. It has a rockered tail. Any idea if there have been changes? I’m OK with an early rise tip, but I definitely had a wheelie-ing problem with the BC on technical steeps (50+) on hard snow or chunder. Don’t know if it is due to a soft tail or the rockered tail. I know a hate a soft tails on skis, except breakable crust. In soft snow, steepness does’t matter. I can see how flex is an important consideration, particularly tail flex. When I first started buying snowboards in the ’90s, there was just length, width, and graphics. I think that snowboards are more advanced then skis. Particularly since you can bend and twist them to suit the conditions. I think I need a mid 160s length board with an early rise tip and camber through the tail, and some time on it. I am MP 29, BSL 317, so I guess a 26 waist. I ride a wake board duck foot. I prefer 30/15-45/30 stance on a snowboard. Have you been able to get get a manufacturer to t-nut Dynafit inserts at build? Like to hear your thoughts. Thanks, June 14, 2013 at 1:47 pm #668709 wjb 163 Posts I second the Storm. Coming from 167 ish boards I was nervous jumping up to 171 (to get 27 width, me: 6’3″/195/size 13) fearing it would be Like turning the Titanic. I know it is not a huge jump. Anyhow the Storm at that length is way more playful and easy to turn than the shorter boards I had because of the rocker. It is also way more stable at speed than the others as well. It saved my ass last weekend on Shasta. Allowing me to ride through what previously would have had me tatering. June 14, 2013 at 2:22 pm #668710 barrows 1490 Posts John: I mount Dynafit toes with Quiver Killer inserts myself. On my Chimera I got Alister to leave out the touring bracket and heel piece inserts, so I did not have any extra holes in the core, or the weight of the extra inserts, but I doubt any other (except full custom) manufacturers will be able to do this-they are on a production schedule and making changes is unlikely. I would only expect full custom boards to be able to put in full inserts for Dynafit toes, like Donek and Wagner, maybe Prior… Quiver Killers work great, as long as one does a really good job with the install. Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total) You must be logged in to reply to this topic.