Forums Splitboard Talk Forum Why do splitboarders ride such long boards? Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 87 total) 1 2 … 5 → Author Posts December 13, 2012 at 6:04 am #577831 JNK 77 Posts With snowboards now becoming overly and overtly rocker’d and less and less cambered, why do we still see people riding 168s, 172s, and even bigger? I’m 6’1″ and 165/170 lbs and never have ridden anything bigger than a 160 resort or split. I’m not a complete newbie but I guess I’m pretty much self taught. Should I be sizing up for my split? I always understood that you can pretty much ride the same size no matter what and where you’re riding. I get that longer boards provide better float on pow days but who’s getting super deep pow days every time they go out into the backcountry? I have a Venture Storm for my (resort) powder days but that thing only comes out when it’s deep. And that’s only a few times a year. So, I understand that it always “depends” what the correct size is for any particular rider but why and how do you size your own board(s). Specifically, what size is your resort vs split? Thanks! December 13, 2012 at 7:30 am #663013 FloImSchnee 291 Posts @jnk wrote: Specifically, what size is your resort vs split? My old split: Venture Zephyr 169. My new split: Prior Spearhead 178. My resort board for treeruns: Jones Hovercraft 160. (just bought it, don’t know yet if I like such short boards) My resort board: LTB Classic Long 192. I’m 191cm tall and weigh 78kg. Or 6’3″ / 172lbs in the imperial system. (why do US guys actually measure boards and persons in different scale units?) I love the float of these long boards in powder. Where others need to straightline to keep enough speed, I can make turns with my 192cm board. Apart from that, traversing to and from powder fields from groomed slopes is much easier. And on groomers I love the high-speed stability and carveability of such long boards. December 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm #663014 singlewhitecaveman 242 Posts JNK wrote: …..Should I be sizing up for my split? /quote] ….who’s getting super deep pow days every time they go out into the backcountry? /quote] In general, the answer to to your question is that people are riding longer boards in the BC so they can go faster and float better. Makes sense, right? That said, I personally ride the shortest board I can that I feel doesn’t compromise the ride down. So, at 5’7″ 140lbs, that’s a 154 pintail, a 160-165 directional, and a 178 swallowtail. JNK wrote: ….. ….who’s getting super deep pow days every time they go out into the backcountry? /quote] Plenty of people! :rock: December 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm #663015 JNK 77 Posts I need to ride with different people! 😀 Just kidding. I’ve met and had the greatest time with everyone I’ve ridden with. I wish there was a better way to demo different size splitboards ’cause now I wonder if my LibTech Lando Phoenix split will be able to handle a deep day. It’s a 160. December 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm #663016 Killclimbz 1165 Posts Well do keep in mind you are probably going to weight 10-30lbs more with your pack, depending on what you are doing and carrying of course. That alone typically means you are going to want to size up a bit. That said, I pretty much ride about the same size deck as I use for the resort. The rocker thing gives you a lot more room to play with however you like. December 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm #663017 PedroDelfuego 758 Posts @killclimbz wrote: I pretty much ride about the same size deck as I use for the resort. +1 :thumpsup: December 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm #663018 classicauto 152 Posts my shortest kick around resort board is a wide 156 GNU carbon credit…. My typical solid is about 160cm My split is a 165 AMF….its sized up a bit but not a heck of a lot really IMO. I mostly wanted a bit longer split for the added speed stability (the 156 is super jittery for me with the pedal down), but really I think I could get away with something much shorter and thereby lighter in most scenarios…. I’m 188cm or about 6’2″ I do get the big board thing in a way but like most stuff in life its all about what you like/what works for you December 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm #663019 Ecobrad 2068 Posts Saving spot in thread for Snurfer to post up picks of his 200 cm swallowtail and other big rigs. He’s also gonna rant a little bit about style and make a wise crack about his own age. Carry on. :disco: :disco: December 13, 2012 at 11:43 pm #663020 ShredLife 85 Posts @ecobrad wrote: Saving spot in thread for Snurfer to post up picks of his 200 cm swallowtail and other big rigs. He’s also gonna rant a little bit about style and make a wise crack about his own age. Carry on. :disco: :disco: in that case i’ll save Barrows’ spot and just leave it at i ride shorter boards than he does :doobie: December 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm #663021 hockeyfan1500 3 Posts Im 6′, 170lbs. I ride a 157 solid, and a 159 split. I tried a 165 and 170 split, and thought they were too long. We ride trees all the time, so the shorter board helps ME navigate better, both bc and the now very rare in bounds days. December 14, 2012 at 12:15 am #663022 barrows 1490 Posts A lot will depend on riding style and skill level… I am 6’1″ and 170-175 lbs. The smallest board I will ever ride is a 166. Right now, I use a 172 and 173 splitboards. I rarely ride lifts, but when I do, I’ll ride my 172 cm Tom Burt. I ride plenty of tight trees (OK, not VT tight, but CO tight) and have no problem quickly turning 170+ cm boards in the trees, especially with rocker. Rocker makes a board much easier to turn quickly, so one can ride a bigger board if they want to, for more float and stability. If you cannot turn a 170+ rockered board quickly enough to confidently ride western states trees I would suggest that your skills are lacking. My point of view is that it is relatively easy to make a long board turn quickly through the application of skill, but it is impossible to make a short board stable at high speed. Also, nothing beats surface area for real floatation… December 14, 2012 at 12:18 am #663023 Snurfer 1448 Posts Sorry to disappoint Brad, but if you consider three to four inches to be “so much longer” the only thing I can offer is this, ride what you like and dont sweat it. Shark Snowsurf Chuna Voile V-Tail 170 BC Voile One Ninety Five Spark R&D Arc December 14, 2012 at 12:23 am #663024 barrows 1490 Posts Just heard from Trapper that the new Scott Newsome (first fully certified splitboard guide in Canada) model will be a 173. Now, Scott, being a guide, will carry a bigger pack (safety gear, etc) than most splitters, so he probably needs a little more stability and surface area to support the extra weight. December 14, 2012 at 12:40 am #663025 Taft 287 Posts Scott is also a man on the large side. or at least compared to my skinny self. I top out at 160 pounds and dont ride a board shorter then 164. though I do have a very old Scott Newsome board from when he rode for Atlantis which is a 157 tapered. as they say, run what you brung. December 14, 2012 at 3:48 am #663026 Powder_Rider 498 Posts Long or Short??? This why I got the 11/12 Fissile Splitboard 172 cmon closeout from REI. So I could ride Deep Pow and tight trees. The Fissile has a directional, powder profiled nose that is bigger than anything else in the Prior lineup. It also comes with the shortest radius sidecut that we make. This crazy combination has an early rise tip for enhanced powder float while delivering unparalleled mobility. The Fissile also offers stability at speed, you can step on your front foot and straightline with confidence or shift back and turn on a dime. The shape naturally lends itself to soul riders who love to generate power off even the smallest terrain features. It’s crazy good and is quickly becoming a favourite of powder friends worldwide! SEE vimeo.com/55394765 Mind you, I really like my 163 cm Venture Storm Splitboard for all conditions. I use to ride a 178cm Prior Backcountry, but is was too much board for me. I’m 5’10” @ 190 Lbs. I glad that I now ride much a shorter board. I even ride a 156 cm Fish at the resort. December 14, 2012 at 6:03 am #663027 tiltedworld 406 Posts @killclimbz wrote: That said, I pretty much ride about the same size deck as I use for the resort. The rocker thing gives you a lot more room to play with however you like. +2 :thumpsup: I am +2-3cm on my resort solid, but +1 on my powder board. That said I am 5’6″ 160lbs and ride a 158cm solid, 160cm split pow board and a 161 regular split – so much bigger for my relative size. Anything shorter than a 156cm seems like a skateboard to me. December 14, 2012 at 4:15 pm #663011 Snurfer 1448 Posts Because these posts always end up the same way, perhaps its logical that board length be characterized in a similar way to skate decks; skateboards and Longboards. The majority of skate decks break down to the 28-32″ range (e.g., 71-81cm) and the longboard range 36″-44″ (e.g., 91-112cm). Comparing these categories its easy to see that snowboard length debates, for all the merits, can seem a little obsessive. I guess I need to recognize that when most people talk about sizing-up they are talking about very minimal increments, typically a few centimeters, or just slightly larger than the diameter of a beer cap (or two). I hope this illustrates why some us view this as an imperceivable change underfoot. Not because its wrong, technically flawed, or whatever, but simply because we are talking about two distinct board categories and as such, two completely different riding experiences. As far as experiences go; like each of us, I can only draw conclusions from my own. Having ridden everything from a 140-ish to 200 I’m partial to a bigger board. There are traditionally very few days where a small board (in my case a 163cm) allows me to find the experience I seek on the terrain I ride, but on those few days the 163 is quite fun, and in fairness, skinning can be much less of a slog. However, breaking trail in deep fresh pow is better on the bigger sticks. On the other 80-90% of the days its just a complete suffer fest of strait-linning, and riding nose up on the 163. If you’ve ever struggled to get up on a slalom water ski, behind an under powered boot, this is exactly my experience on boards less than 170cm. :nononno: Hope this make sense, and whatever you choose to ride just have fun! :guinness: Shark Snowsurf Chuna Voile V-Tail 170 BC Voile One Ninety Five Spark R&D Arc December 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm #663028 shredgnar 643 Posts I prefer a longer board not so much for the float, but for the extended effective edge. I ride a 168W Jones Flagship and have ridden the same board in smaller versions and they performed fine. But I like to go very fast on occasion and having the longer effective edge allows me to have more confidence in the boards edge hold during high speed turns. For reference, I’m 6’2″ and pushing 200 lbs so a bigger board is not unheard of for a guy my size anyway. December 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm #663029 mej 81 Posts I’m 6’6″ and 195 lbs and I ride a 168 split. My resort board is a 173. I like the short board for easy kick turns and less weight. Also, I end up riding through a lot of brush and down super narrow trails, and I feel like the shorter board pays off there. I haven’t ever tried a longer split though. Haven’t noticed any issues with floatation, even with my splits which are minimally tapered. December 15, 2012 at 1:08 am #663012 saign 330 Posts The way I see it, a lot has to do with riding style and personal preference Xavier De La Rue 5’7″ 190 rides a 167 Jones 5’8″ 150 rides a 161 Travis Rice 5’11” 180 rides 161.5 for kickers and mini golf 164 for AK I’m 6’1″ 180. I usually ride between a 160-64. I grew up with a huge park influence. My solid is a T.Rice 161.5 and my split is a venture zephyr 164. I’ve rode solid cambered 164’s before and loved them, rockers make it easier to turn. If I was to go to AK I could ride my 61.5 but I would probably want a 64-68 because I’d just want to point it. I think the next solid I buy will be the Rice 64 as I used to be 175 and wouldn’t mind a little more float and stability at high speeds. That being said I can still haul balls on my 61.5 Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 87 total) 1 2 … 5 → You must be logged in to reply to this topic.