Ultimate powder board

[Jon Dahl]

Is there such a thing as the one magical stick that will slay deep unconsolidated powder? Ride trees with abandon, yet be able to run big open pow fields at high speed with total stability? Does this ideal stick HAVE to be as long as some current boards? Can we do more with less.. length-wise? Camber, rocker, sidecut, flex, nose/tail shape, length, width?

After spending a few seasons on swallowtails, big freeride boards, and looking at other thought options out there, I have started to wonder about what would make the ideal deep pow stick, one that would allow me to ride trees, yet have the stability at high speeds needed for my riding. What really has me rethinking this is a look (finally) at Lib-Tech's Banana Hammock. a 160 length pow stick, with rocker, and a reversed sidecut. Yes, this thing is just over 30cm at the waist. Think riding a wakeboard in pow. Burton's redesign of the Fish has some nose rocker, then camber past that. Tinkler's pow stick is a rockered quasi-swallowtail with a large standard sidecut, from all appearances. The Preflex boards are all rocker and so stiff there is no flex.

So, post up some thoughts, based, please, on experiences on real pow guns. How would you answer this question? What design features would you use to build the ultimate deep pow gun?

My thoughts have been leaning towards this: 160 length. 29 waist. 14m sidecut. 1.5 cm taper. Abreviated swallowtail type nose. Flat base between the bindings, with 8mm rocker out at the tip, ditto to the rear of the board. Stiffer flex, with rocker you do not need too much flex. At my 165 lb. riding weight I think this may be more than enough to do everything inside this ride parameter.

[utahcarver]

Prior to 2007, I would have asserted that Dmitri Milovich had it right in 1976 with his swallowtail design. I have never ridden a finer piece of art and function than a 165 Winterstick Swallow, hands down, the most perfect snow machine. But, it kept snapping in front of the front boot due to the extreme pressures applied to it. Foam cores and resinated skins fail at high speeds and pressures. The skins (fiberglass top/ptex bottom) literally delaminated from the foam core. If the Milovich/Stoveken/Moss' design could ever be updated to modern materials and design, it might look like a cross between a Dupraz (which, admittedly, is an updated version of a Winterstick Roundtail), a APO (which, is RR's attempt to replicate a Winterstick Swallow), and a Tanker 192 or 200. This design would work best in wide open powder fields (like in Europe) which are truly above treeline.

A shorter version, say 175-185 has yet to be manufactured consistently. The latest incarnation of Winterstick might have been a feeble attempt to fill the void of which you have inquired into. I firmly believe that the perfect powder board has yet to be manufactured. Again, IMO, Milovich came the closest so far. Nitro came close, too. The shoulders of the deck need to be broad to provide flotation and strength. The back portion of the board needs to be shallow to provide 'sting'. Thus, taper is another concept which has to be a consideration into a PERFECT powder board. Rocker is what Milovich built into his designs which is counter to the concept of camber in alpine boards and any board which can excel on groomers. Hence, the quest for the perfect powder board needs to be more focused.

A perfect powder board for the western US might not be a perfect powder board for the northeastern US. Enter the Fish. Which is a watered-down version of Milovichs roundtail from the mid-70's. Yes, I'm an adherent of the Winterstick design. But, I also know it's limitations and I'm willing to admit them. B seems to have filled a niche which has satisfied myriad powder and tree powder sessions in both the east and west. I'd like to think that B has all the answers and might one day build the perfect beast (park, pipe, pow, carve) but, I'm not going to wade through all of the horrible graphics and fashionable clothes that B ('We are are a snowboarding company') that I'm supposed to wear to be cool to wait for the perfect pow stick.

Prior has it's powstick, which is a notch-tail like the Tinkler notch-tail. I'm not saying that's bad. It just seems like a step back. The Tinkler Notch with it's rockered shape seems to have a lot of promise. That said, I'd like to ride all of them and experience it all. Like last season.

I rode a Tanker 200 and a Wasatch Mojo 181 and I loved the Tanker more. The Tanker is a twin-tip and the Mojo is a swallowtail. I rode the Mojo with softies and it was exceptional in performance in both steeps and trees. The Tanker (with hardboots) shined on both powder, chop, and groomers. The Mojo lacked the torsional rigidity to adapt to groomers. Which is how it was designed to function. So, until a board is manufactured in which all the functions of a swallowtail/AM/raceboard are considered, we're left with the current offerings. Frankly, I think that it's going to take new materials, new designs, and a creative genius like Milovich to reach another level in both powder riding decks and AM boards. I think Tinkler has the best shot at it. Maybe Olsen? Prior?

And, then there's Europe. Nils, what happening on your side of the pond?

When will winter be here?

Mark

[svr]

For me the tanker 200 fits for my style of riding. I have experienced a lot of both the positive and negative effects of other boards and hope that we have not seen the last of the innovation for the kinds of boards for people who are interested in the non-jib/park/pipe/freestyle/race arenas. I have a secret project in the works that will hopefully mix a lot of different innovations from various powder, am/freecarve, and freeride boards and when it is done I will post pics and a ride report once I get it on snow.

cheers,

sandy

[tex1230]

If you're ONLY talking powder, and don't throw any spin tricks, a swallowtail is the best I have experienced. (NO FAKIE!!!!!)

I really liked the early wintersticks, but the best I ever rode was a big Rossi undertaker - I think 196?

That being said, The best powder weapon I have ridden in the last 5 years was a pair of Volant Spatulas - yeah - I know - skis

the original reverse/reverse...so if Lib made a bigger version of the banana hammock, I'd try it in a heartbeat...but I'm mot going out on a 160cm board in deep powder no matter how cool it sounds.

[b0ardski]

The 186 nitro diablo was very much like a tanker, wish I could've ridden the undertaker. that was before I could ride switch without the heellside "brainstem plant".

The grocer I rode to death is 186, 24 waist, with big powder tips. Long tips with a gradual curve, a few cms of reverse side cut at the tips.

I think that if that shape had rocker at about 10cms of the tips and still had sidecut & camber beyond the toe/heel pressure points w/med. flex, it would be near perfect for my 180# surfy/carvy style.

Bigger guys'll need 200, smaller a 170. I agree w/ Tex, 160 is for 120#ers.

I refuse too give up carvability, I've had to traverse wind scoured sketch to get to the goods too many times to abandon versatility or switchability.

Skied spatulas & rode the biggest skatebannana 162.

I'm not sold on full rocker, but want something with a profile like a recurve bow.

[Jon Dahl]

First, I'd ride a 160 in deep pow, IF it worked! Otherwise, I agree with ya. If open pow fields were the only consideration, I would never have asked this question. All of the swallowtails I've ridden have ruled, I rate my 192 Tanker as a close second for pow only. Anywhere else, the Tanker just kills it. It is probably the best single all-rounder I have seen, period. Just wondering if a truly all around pow only stick really NEEDS to be that long. Tight trees are a reality even where open fields of pow are, as in traverses and accessing them in the first place. Width is more important for float and speed in the deep stuff, so why can't a board be designed that would deliver w/o being overly long for the trees?

So, with the input given here so far, let me do a little redesign. 160 length, as before. The nose would be similar to the Prior spearhead in shape, only a bit abbreviated, and 34cm wide. Sidecut 14. Taper @ 1.5cm. Round tail similar to ATV. Rockered as previously stated, 8mm ft/rear with the base flat between the bindings. I am willing to give up a little carveability, but not the ability to do traverses. Also willing to struggle a bit going back to the chair (when inbounds) to achieve the other goal, 'cause there is no free lunch. Whatcha think?

[b0ardski]

I don't think you give up very much powder performance by going tips rocker over full rocker.

But you definately giveup the majority of carvability by going full rocker.

Also, a low tail negates switchability in deep snow; a little taper & extra setback on pow days lets you surf the pow & keep the fakie option.

I do use a 165 & 173 for tight trees & early season bushwhackin'

[utahcarver]

Is there such a thing as the one magical stick that will slay deep unconsolidated powder? Ride trees with abandon, yet be able to run big open pow fields at high speed with total stability? Does this ideal stick HAVE to be as long as some current boards? Can we do more with less.. length-wise? Camber, rocker, sidecut, flex, nose/tail shape, length, width?...

...My thoughts have been leaning towards this: 160 length. 29 waist. 14m sidecut. 1.5 cm taper. Abbreviated swallowtail type nose. Flat base between the bindings, with 8mm rocker out at the tip, ditto to the rear of the board. Stiffer flex, with rocker you do not need too much flex. At my 165 lb. riding weight I think this may be more than enough to do everything inside this ride parameter.

Jon, for your weight and snow conditions I would agree with the 160cm length. Maybe add 5cm if you are not going to spend a lot of time in trees. You've got it nailed with the 8mm rocker at the tip and tail. It may surprise you and others that swallowtails can be made to ride fakie if but for a moment during (on snow) spins. I've seen it done and I've tried it myself and succeeded on several occasions. As for the taper and sidecut, I'd consider a more accelerated taper (4 or 5cm taper and 7 or 8m sidecut). I'd also recommend a 34 or 35cm width at the shoulders of the board, just in front of the lead boot/foot. I know this sounds extreme but, with these parameters, you'll have a tree-slaying pow-stick. What you'll give up is a bit of stability at speed. But, on open powder fields you'll be in full control by staying on edge and pressuring the nose instead of using the tail as a powder-brake. No more leg burn because of trying to ride the board untrimmed.

Keeping a powder stick trimmed out (as flat to the surface of the snow as possible) will allow you to have increased control and surprisingly, will give you a carving sensation in deep snow similar to carving soft/packed powder cord. Instead of skidding your pow turns you'll be carrying your speed through your turns and not 'bleeding off' speed. Check out 'April's Footage' and watch Milovich do what I'm telling you. This documents that DM was doing in 1976 what Jake and Tom hoped to be doing almost a decade later. He's held on by an elastic strap and a bit of grippy deck cones, no binders. Kind of a NoBoard predecessor. Biased opinion, Yes. Does DM's design work, Yes.

Until someone produces a swallowtail that has pronounced rocker, 165 to 195cm in length, has accelerated taper and sidecut, I'll stick with the Tanker lineup. This board would not be 'groomer-friendly' and would not be a performer on packed snow and icy conditions. It is specific to soft snow conditions. Maybe someone out there might consider a limited swallowtail build to test the market.

Mark

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYjF2zXEv8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYjF2zXEv8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[b0ardski]

Jon, for your weight and snow conditions I would agree with the 160cm length. Maybe add 5cm if you are not going to spend a lot of time in trees. You've got it nailed with the 8mm rocker at the tip and tail. It may surprise you and others that swallowtails can be made to ride fakie if but for a moment during (on snow) spins. I've seen it done and I've tried it myself and succeeded on several occasions. As for the taper and sidecut, I'd consider a more accelerated taper (4 or 5cm taper and 7 or 8m sidecut). I'd also recommend a 34 or 35cm width at the shoulders of the board, just in front of the lead boot/foot. I know this sounds extreme but, with these parameters, you'll have a tree-slaying pow-stick. What you'll give up is a bit of stability at speed. But, on open powder fields you'll be in full control by staying on edge and pressuring the nose instead of using the tail as a powder-brake. No more leg burn because of trying to ride the board untrimmed.

Keeping a powder stick trimmed out (as flat to the surface of the snow as possible) will allow you to have increased control and surprisingly, will give you a carving sensation in deep snow similar to carving soft/packed powder cord. Instead of skidding your pow turns you'll be carrying your speed through your turns and not 'bleeding off' speed. Check out 'April's Footage' and watch Milovich do what I'm telling you. This documents that DM was doing in 1976 what Jake and Tom hoped to be doing almost a decade later. He's held on by an elastic strap and a bit of grippy deck cones, no binders. Kind of a NoBoard predecessor. Biased opinion, Yes. Does DM's design work, Yes.

Until someone produces a swallowtail that has pronounced rocker, 165 to 195cm in length, has accelerated taper and sidecut, I'll stick with the Tanker lineup. I hope this encourages someone out there to consider a limited build to test the market.

Mark

<OBJECT height=344 width=425>

 

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYjF2zXEv8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT>

What he said:biggthump:biggthump:biggthump:biggthump

TRIMCARVES

[Bullwings]

powder scares me. you can't see what's under it and then your leg goes "snap, crackle, pop."

Of the boards i've had, Tanker 182 was awesome in the powder, although i have yet to try a swallowtail. I'd love to give a 185 undertaker a spin in powder. I've been eyeing that board for about 3 years now (was 2005 the last year Rossi made them?). I just can't justify a pow specific board since we rarely get pow days here - and rarely anything deeper than 6 inches. I only get good powder on big trips to bigger, higher altitude mountains that receive more precipiation through the winter.

With that said, i always just compromise with good all-mountain boards that do well in powder - see atv and tanker.

[Dave*]

Key points for the ultimate powder board are powder type ( wet coastal vs dry interior powder) and terrain ( steep and tight trees vs wide open high altitude stuff)

Being a coastal rider who loves trees I am willing to trade off a bit of floatation ( width and length) for maneurverablity, a well designed nose can make up for a lesser surface area ( Prior ATV, Burton Fish, Option Northshore).

Being a certified board collecting junkie, I either own one, have demoed it , or am scheming a way to ride it.

Two powder type decks that I demoed last season that stood out were the 178 Dupraz and the big Prior Spearhead. Both had a long gradual nose for good float with effective edge reduction for more maneuverablity, a 178 with the same edge length as a 160 round tail is more than quick enough for the tight stuff.

I am seriously considering buying either the Dupraz or a custom Spearhead ( narrowed slightly, stiffened a lot). Both of these two are coming close to my ideal powder deck.

[BlueB]

So cool reading about pow, sitting here in Europe at +35C. Bring it on boys!

Just few brief thughts:

Open stuff - got to be a swally. Nothing compares in speed and feeling.

Bring the trees into the picture and it changes completely. Something shorter, softer has to be better. I'm kinda ok only on 3800 169. It's probably one of the most versatile boards.

Tanker is great in almost all conditions, but simply sucks in the trees - just too big, at least for our tight steep stuff.

I have pretty high hopes for a Hammer split-tail (not a swallowtail) that I picked last year but never tried. It has big soft nose, freeride type tail but split to the rear binding. Should be quite manouvrable in trees.

4807 is close to what could be an ideal all-round pow board. Maybe if it just had a slightly upturned tail for emergency switch and a length in between the 2 existing ones. I still find the 178 too big for the trees. Big soft boat nose acts as if you had rocker and the stiff tail will carve up a storm when needed.

Verdict: There's no perfect pow board. You always have to compromise on something. Pick the right board for conditions...

Looking forward to come back t BC and to the beggining of the winter...

[bobdea]

So cool reading about pow, sitting here in Europe at +35C. Bring it on boys!

Just few brief thughts:

Open stuff - got to be a swally. Nothing compares in speed and feeling.

Bring the trees into the picture and it changes completely. Something shorter, softer has to be better. I'm kinda ok only on 3800 169. It's probably one of the most versatile boards.

Tanker is great in almost all conditions, but simply sucks in the trees - just too big, at least for our tight steep stuff.

I have pretty high hopes for a Hammer split-tail (not a swallowtail) that I picked last year but never tried. It has big soft nose, freeride type tail but split to the rear binding. Should be quite manouvrable in trees.

4807 is close to what could be an ideal all-round pow board. Maybe if it just had a slightly upturned tail for emergency switch and a length in between the 2 existing ones. I still find the 178 too big for the trees. Big soft boat nose acts as if you had rocker and the stiff tail will carve up a storm when needed.

Verdict: There's no perfect pow board. You always have to compromise on something. Pick the right board for conditions...

Looking forward to come back t BC and to the beggining of the winter...

the tanker 177 is probably my favorite in the trees maybe give the 173 three a shot?

[Jack M]

a Banana Hammock type board with reverse sidecut should work best in powder, because powder is mostly a fluid, not a solid. Riding powder is a closer cousin to wakeboarding than it is to snowboarding on packed snow.

disclaimer: I don't ride much powder and have never ridden any powder-dedicated board.

[tahoetrencher]

Then the "best" powder stik is unavailable to you. Just the graphics of the Original Undertaker (198 cm) will leave poop in your diapers.

Despite comments to the contrary this one is just fine in the trees but

shines at speed in an open bowl.:D

[Jon Dahl]

Appreciated all the inputs. I think utahcarver understands this one the best, though. But I do not believe that 3-4cm of taper is needed once you factor in the rocker. I also do not think that reverse sidecut is needed either. The Banana Hammock has almost no nose kick up or tail either. Now I wish I had the facilities to build two boards, one with taper, and one w/o. Perhaps I am going to have to do the mad scientist thing mid-winter and see what the results are! Keep it coming!

[nils]

hey mark :) nice to read that ST experience of yours...

Here in France, people over 30 with some experience ride ST, or big boards like tankers....extreme freeriders ride twin tips in the same league as the Winterstick Severe terrain, or strong nideckers in the 165 cm sizes for quick turns...kids, grommets and FS addicts ride 160cm FS all on the back foot with stretched front leg, doing the windshield wipers on the powder which is just ugly but some rip in the air so be it :)...And in the middle of all this, the Dupraz D1 has some good success with roots people living near the mountains or wanting something different....

btw, if any of you want to build up an interview with questions to ask to Serge Dupraz, i happen to see him once in awhile here in Lyon where his son studies so i can organize to ask him a few stuff with a digi cam...just let me know :)

BR

Nils

[nils]

to add to that taper subject, I remember i did a complete study of all ST on the market it was in 2002-03 i think and the average taper of all the ST was 1,85cm....the boards over 3 cm taper have the reputation to be over turning on harder snows and be powder only....I remember trying the winterstick in La Grave and it was the top choice for pow, but such a nightmare on backside narrow icy paths wanted to kill myself !

Nils

[philw]

Clearly there's more to board design to length; as with skis, length goes up and down with fashion and it's unhelpful to consider that without looking at the rest of the board's design parameters. My current choice is the Fish/ Malolo designs. You sacrifice a little top speed, but then boards are so much faster than skis so I don't care. The responsiveness is the opposite of what you would call "stability". I'm comfortable with that at any speed. I don't particularly know which specific design features contribute to the performance of these boards, but I guess it's mostly edge outline as I'm not sure how flex works in powder.

I expect what people like depends a lot on your style and where you ride. You may need different wax between BC's coast and the Monashees, or Utah for that matter, but I don't feel the need for a different board. The fashion is a bit different in Utah, and the "in bounds" pitches are characteristically different from BC. France, well I mostly ride on piste there so I can't comment, although the tree line is in a different place which [where I ride] mostly means fewer trees. I should say I use my powder boards primarily on heli/ cat accessed terrain; I don't ride hard pack on the same boards which I think would be horrible.

The Burton taper designs are interesting because they seem to work for everyone from powder beginners to people who work in the stuff every day. Most people who haven't ridden them do sneer at them, me included until that first run.

I ride wakeboards on water, although I'm not sure that helps much. I haven't ridden the new Lib Tech stuff although I will in due course. I've not ridden the new Fish yet.

[Jon Dahl]

I would appreciate you asking some of these very questions of Serge. What I am looking to accomplish would be a tree board for deep unconsolidated pow, that would deal with speed well. I'm not looking to get rid of my swallowtail or Tanker. Just for something that would charge tight stuff, yet be stable at speed. Hence the desire to minimize taper w/o getting too long in the process. I believe rocker in deep pow would do this. So ask away!

Philw, I wouldn't mock the Fish, it is a good board in it's own right, I just think we could learn from it and develop past it.

And again, thanks all of you!

[svr]

Jon,

I will not give up my secret project until it is complete but from talking to you in the past and from what has been said here, a board that is really close to what you are looking for would be something like the gentem stick magic38 it is very similar in concept to the winterstick roundtails (with a slight swallowtail):

Length 1680

R.Length 1119

EF.edge 1289

Nose 300

Tail 296

Waist 250

Sidecut R 8330/8080

setback -30

Tapered 2

Strance 480-560

The bad thing is the price of these boards is pretty high 165,900円 (roughly US$1540). the gentems are great for tree riding and were designed with terrain in Hokkaido wihch is kind of like treeriding in the Pacnorwest and for your body size they would do well, but I am a bit bigger than you so they are too soft for my liking.

[scotts.Scheinman]

Dupraz, amazing in pow pow

watch the hardbooter.com video

[philw]

There's also the Future Snowboarding test from the other year.

I don't know enough about fluid dynamics to guess what may work best in powder. Sounds like a PhD project, if it's not already been published.

I rode with someone on spats. I'm not sure precisely what rocker gives you in powder - would anyone care to suggest a mechanism for what is going on there?

[Jack M]

I rode with someone on spats. I'm not sure precisely what rocker gives you in powder - would anyone care to suggest a mechanism for what is going on there?

Think in 3D: rocker works together with the reverse sidecut. Wakeboards and surfboards have rocker. The idea, I believe, is that since you're riding on a fluid, the board causes the fluid to take the shape of the turn. This is the opposite of riding on a solid (packed snow) - the solid causes the board to take the shape of the turn. So it would make sense to me that the boards would have to be shaped oppositely.

I think this is what's going on: since the widest part of the board is in the middle, when you tilt the board up on edge, the middle of the board goes deeper into the fluid than the ends. This provides your base of support. Since the ends of the board are far less deeply submerged, they are free to be pushed around. So the middle of the board becomes the pivot point for turning.

Hmm... maybe standing with your front on or just behind this pivot point is the way to go... hence the overall shape of the swallowtail boards. I don't know why that tail shape came about though... seems like a surfboard style pin-tail would be effectively equivalent, more durable and easier to build.

I dunno, I just came up with that just now. I think riding powder or water is more dependent (completely dependent?) on steering - I don't think any board shape will turn itself just by being tilted up on edge like a board will on solid snow. EDIT: No... wait, I think a board with rocker and reverse sidecut would turn itself in powder, when tilted up on edge. The rocker would make the board want to turn, the reverse sidecut would help the board pivot.

Anyone?

[tex1230]

overall shape of the swallowtail boards. I don't know why that tail shape came about though... seems like a surfboard style pin-tail would be effectively equivalent, more durable and easier to build.

the notch in the swallowtail allows the tail to sink a bit - keeping the nose up. you can do the same with a pintail, but it takes away from the effective edge when on the hard pack. The pintail design works well with a reverse sidecut (like a surfboard) but would be very difficult to design into a traditional sidecut board.