Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Best freeride board for bumpy snow?


carvin29

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In order to stiffen up the shorter (for me) Rossi Jones 168 MW, I installed inserts and Tinkler snow stix to make the nose of this board stiffer for my 200+ frame as I can over drive the nose of most freeride boards shorter than 175. I will give a much more detailed report on how this thing rides once I can really put it through a serious day of riding in mixed and chopped up conditions, but here is my latest try at riding something shorter.

cheers,

sandy

p.s. the tinkler snow stix i am using are the carbon fiber ones and they have already changed the flex of the front of this board tremendously.

post-420-141842304025_thumb.jpg

post-420-141842304026_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glissade brosif 168 9.25 SCR

Winterstick ST 162 10.4 SCR

Steepwater either the plow or the steep are around 10

Rossi Experience 168 is an even 10

I believe that Steepwaters are 11.25m or 11.5m SCR in both 172 and 164 versions. I've got the Steep in bot sizes, I'll try to measure/calcullate tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always felt that for freeride boards, a longer one gets you 4 things:

1. More stability at high speed.

2. Better float in powder.

3. Less agility in the bumps because of increased swing weight.

4. A more painful ride up the lift, as that extra weight tugs on your front foot, knee, and ankle.

Remember this is only for freeride boards. Alpine has its own reasons for going longer.

I found that with my old T6 156, There was no need for more stability at high speed. I was nearly unable to overdrive that board when on edge. Yes, it wasn't well damped, so snow conditions limited my top speed more than anything else. With my JDub, I have not been able to scare myself at any speed. It gives tons of confidence and holds its edge extremely well.

They say that Magnetraction makes your edge more effective, so you don't need as long of a board to really lock into the snow. Therefore, point number 1 above has been trumped by stiffness, dampening, and Magnetraction. This is why I don't need a long board for high speed stability.

Just look at skiers who went from riding 210s a few years ago to riding 180 cm shaped skis. The technology allowed great stability with shorter skis. Magnetraction, in my opinion, is another leap in technology that allows even shorter equipment lengths to feel just as stable at speed as the long stuff.

Now, to point number 2 above. I just don't spend a ton of time in the powder. ...and the stamina I've built up from years of riding moguls has let me really lean on my back foot for float when I need to without tiring myself out. Speed helps float as well.

Points 3 and 4 are pretty much no brainers for me. I go as short as I can to minimize 3 and 4, while trying not to compromise at all on 1 and 2.

Sooooo, I don't feel that I need a long board because mine is really stable at speed, and I can handle the compromises in powder.

I think that you've applied flawed logic to couple of the points above...

1) Stabillity at speed

Is determined by couple of factors: flex, contact edge, dampness, SCR, mass (weight), bigger sweet spot. Flex is a no brainer on smooth snow, I guess. In variable conditions it might vary depending on what you were trying to achieve. Contact edge and bigger sweet spot are also no brainers - longer board, of the same design, always has more then the short one. Mass and SCR are almost always bigger on longer board. SCR effect I do not need to explain (or do I?). Mass gives the board more inertia, directly associated with stabillity. As for dampness, it is normally easier to dampen the longer board.

So, your shorty might feel stable to you, but reallistically, it is no match to a longer board...

2) Float in pow

Shouldn't even be a point of discussion. No replacement for the displacement... Riding the back foot might help you on the steeper slope (it slows you down too), but what happens when you have to cross a flatter deep spot?

3) Agility in bumps

I totally agree with you on this one. Not only the swing weight, but also the moment of inertia is greater on the longer board. Furhter, the long board sometimes just physically doesn't fit in between the very steep tight bumps...

4) Weight on the lift

That's what the foot rest is for...

So, as the OP's original inguiry was mostly about riding bumpy/choppy snow with speed and dampness, I still think that longer board is a better choice.

I the question was riding the moguls or trees, that would have changed the things quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you've applied flawed logic to couple of the points above...
It's not really flawed logic. I was just walking through my personal board length selection criteria. However, I said that I wasn't making a compromise on point 1 in my opinion. Technically I am making a compromise there, because I've ridden some larger big mountain boards and they did give me even more security at speed than a short board.

Certainly, when the powder flattens out, a short board can leave you up the creek without a paddle. I don't ride a ton of powder, and the powder I do ride is 99% of the time in the steep trees. If there's a flat section up ahead, I drop the hammer and haul a$$ on the section leading up to it. ...then I follow someone else's tracks through it. The people I ride with never wait for me because I lost my momentum on a flat section. I'm the one waiting for them.

So, as the OP's original inguiry was mostly about riding bumpy/choppy snow with speed and dampness, I still think that longer board is a better choice.

I the question was riding the moguls or trees, that would have changed the things quite a bit.

Agreed. I was somewhat hijacking the thread when I asked why you guys like such long boards. The feedback I got was very instructive, though, so I can't say I feel bad about it.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a ROZZI fan also.

Previous recommendations +1 on the EXP and JJ. I liked the SULTAN also.

K2 Podium perhaps? I had mine out at SES and I absolutely loved it. It has a tight 7.9 SCR in a 161 but it was super responsive and gave me more response than I ever expected in Colorado snow while carving.

Neversummer makes a few awesome boards too. I'm not a fan of the rocker technology, but the boards are nice. I have a coworker who is super rough on the gear he rides and he has yet to manage to do any serious damages to his despite trying very hard to!

The ARBOR a frame is nice, but I found the wood de-lams baddly in crud on the nose when plowing thru gnarly crusty stuff, so Its not long term durrable despite being a sweet ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from a different thread:

Buell, which rockered boards have you tried? I'm still up in the air as to if I could use one for freeride/carving.

Here are my impressions on the rockered boards I have tried.

10 - 172 Rad Air Tanker - Link to my review which I think is already posted in this thread. By far my favorite free ride board. It carves great even on hero groom (don't know about ice) with plates and softies, rides powder like a dream and handles mixed conditions incredibly well (longer than your 165 length requirement though). It is my go to board for non carving days. The rockered Tanker 172 will blow your mind, but it is, and rides, bigger than a 165 and occasionally I really wish I could have a 168 Tanker.

09 - 162 rockered K2 Gyrator (Gyrators do not carve well except on soft snow. Great powder board though. I ride the 168 because I like a bigger turn, but could get enough float on the 162 for most days.)

09 - 168 rockered K2 Gyrator

09 - 165 rockered Libtech Snowmullet (Very soft in the middle and stiffer nose and tail. I did not like it in mixed conditions because the middle was way too soft for my style even at 145 pounds. Never carved it on firm groom. Even the 165 turned too tight in the powder for me. I could make squiggles with it!) I know other Lib Techs had this same rocker / flex design, but I do not think they all have it.

10 - 162 Venture Storm rockered splitboard (There is a solid version as well. Great board. Definitely carves soft hero groom (don't know about firm snow) but I have some issue with too much tail kick limiting its effective edge. The nose is great though. Hopefully next year they reduce the tail rocker a bit.)

07 - 166 Prior Spearhead (It is more of a very significant decambered nose with full camber under foot than a "rockered board." It rides powder and mixed conditons really well, if a bit different than a true rockered board. It does not carve well, I expect due to a tight sidecut and really short effective edge.)

I have owned cambered versions of the 165 Prior MFR and 160 Prior Khyber and just got to look over (but did not ride) a "hybrid rocker" Prior Khyber the last couple of days.

I am very impressed with its rocker profile. It is mild and smooth. Like an extreme version of the new school decambered nose and tail carve decks. It should carve well (Prior knows how to make carve boards) and still be really great in powder and smoother than most any cambered board in crud. Unlike the K2 Gyrator, the camber / rocker transition seems to flex out into a smooth curve which I think is very important with all the new fangled rocker / camber profiles. It also has a very even flex with no kinks like the Lib Tech.

Based on my inspection of the new Khyber, if you want a 165, look at the hybrid rocker Prior MFR. My cambered version is quite damp and with the mild rocker, it should ride both powder and crud so much better! It is the board that I would be most interested in trying given your parameters.

I would also consider the rockered Never Summers. I have never ridden one and have been turned off by the lack of taper on their cambered models over the last few years, but a rockered board does not need taper to work well. There is hardly a bad thing said about Never Summer and they are reputed to be very damp, if a bit heavy. A friend who is a skilled and trustworthy carver got to test one last season and was very impressed.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
In order to stiffen up the shorter (for me) Rossi Jones 168 MW, I installed inserts and Tinkler snow stix to make the nose of this board stiffer for my 200+ frame as I can over drive the nose of most freeride boards shorter than 175. I will give a much more detailed report on how this thing rides once I can really put it through a serious day of riding in mixed and chopped up conditions, but here is my latest try at riding something shorter.

cheers,

sandy

p.s. the tinkler snow stix i am using are the carbon fiber ones and they have already changed the flex of the front of this board tremendously.

Can we have an updated report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...
Bumping this thread again, has anyone ridden a Prior hybrid rocker?

I like Prior and the Experience as far as shape is concerned, but the Prior has too shallow of a sidecut for my liking and is a bit heavy, but solidly built (it would be better if it had an 11-12m sidecut).

The Experience is really light and as a result, the nose is too soft and by putting the snow stix on it, it negated some of the rocker in the tip. I am looking forward to trying a Flagship 68 to see how the stiffer flex patterns and mellow-mag work out.

Carvin29, please post your thoughts on the Flagship after you get a chance to ride it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve read this thread with interest because I’m upgrading from a 10-year-old K2 Stealth Eldo 164. I’m ready for a board that is more purpose-built for big mountain/sidecountry freeriding and holds an edge better for my 5’10” 200# frame.

Before reading this thread, I was convinced that I had to get a Tanker 172+ and become a longboarder. I was fretting the length issue. I read @Sooperburd’s comments about Magne-Traction and board length. I read @svr’s comments about his modified Rossi Experience MW, including the part where Jeremy Jones said that the Flagship addressed the issue of softness in the Experience. I’m now locked onto the idea of a mid-length, stiff, freeriding boards with mag. I was wondering, besides the Experience and Flagship, which other boards would fit this description?

From what I hear of the Tanker, I’d love to get that too, but I have to prioritize!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve read this thread with interest because I’m upgrading from a 10-year-old K2 Stealth Eldo 164. I’m ready for a board that is more purpose-built for big mountain/sidecountry freeriding and holds an edge better for my 5’10” 200# frame.

Before reading this thread, I was convinced that I had to get a Tanker 172+ and become a longboarder. I was fretting the length issue. I read @Sooperburd’s comments about Magne-Traction and board length. I read @svr’s comments about his modified Rossi Experience MW, including the part where Jeremy Jones said that the Flagship addressed the issue of softness in the Experience. I’m now locked onto the idea of a mid-length, stiff, freeriding boards with mag. I was wondering, besides the Experience and Flagship, which other boards would fit this description?

From what I hear of the Tanker, I’d love to get that too, but I have to prioritize!

Ken, magnetraction is a weird thing. On a cambered or cambered between the feet and nose/tail rockered board I like it, but on a rockered board (like the skate banana) I do not like it.

Additionally, my comments are not designed to make someone choose something other than a tanker as the tanker 200 is my go to board and even though the length can make traveling with it a bit of a pain, I would not give up the ride for anything currently made as it suits my style of riding perfectly for now...

I like to try the other boards coming out so that I can get an idea of what works and how to explain the different changes in tech and design to friends who are riding and looking for gear and you never know how a board will work as we all have different expectations and different styles. I would recommend going out and demo'ing/renting or borrowing as many shapes as you can so that you can build your own baseline of what works for you.

The prime example of this for me is the Jones Flagship/Rossi Experience. Jeremy and I spoke for about 30 minutes at SIA about it (and the Hovercraft) and for him it works and is his perfect board. Now I am not Jeremy and I do not claim to be even close to as good of a rider as he is, but I do like riding in the backcountry and riding powder. I love riding fast (both in hardboots and softboots) and want a board that can handle it all and based on that, you would think that the flagship/experience would be a great and obvious choice. But, I outweigh him by about 60 lbs, have a full size larger feet (I am right in your neighborhood at 5'9" and 210 with size 10.5-11 feet) and my limited style is not like his and the board just does not work for me.

So with that in mind, reading about boards and talking to people in forums like this is a great place to start, but nothing is going to replace on snow riding. Hope you get a chance to try some different models before you invest in your new ride. If not, I hope you can make whatever you choose work for you and boards have changed a lot compared to your stealth eldo, and you are going to find three basic trains of thought/trends when it comes to freeride boards (note: I do not endorse these, but after talking with many different companies at SIA and a lot of shop owners, these seem to be the general trends):

1. Rockered boards allow you to go shorter so pick a board that is the same size or shorter than your current board.

2. Most companies do not make freeride boards longer than 170 anymore (I can only think of Prior, Lib-Tech, Smokin, Neversummer, Venture, Rad-Air, LTB, Nitro, Pogo, Dupraz and a few other European companies) as they do not sell due to trend number 1 and every media outlet in mainstream snowboarding tends to ignore all other aspects of snowboarding (like swallowtails, alpine and long freeride boards). Splitboarding has seen a recent surge due to big name involvement (i.e. Travis Rice and Jeremy Jones) and I think that is good, but it is another aspect of snowboarding that has always been on the fringe.

3. As was mentioned in another post here on bomber, most shop employees are not aware or have not been around the industry long enough to understand the positives and negatives of various innovations in all snowboard applications (alpine, bx, freeriding, splitboarding and freestyle/park) and therefor only make recommendations based on their limited knowledge of a particular product.

Hope that helps you in your search and is not too confusing.

cheers and pray for snow,

sandy

"There is no replacement for displacement, go big ride a Tanker."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Rockered boards allow you to go shorter so pick a board that is the same size or shorter than your current board.

2. Most companies do not make freeride boards longer than 170 anymore (I can only think of Prior, Lib-Tech, Smokin, Neversummer, Venture, Rad-Air, LTB, Nitro, Pogo, Dupraz and a few other European companies)

Sandy, I'm surprised that the feeling is that with rocker you can go shorter. I'd say you can go longer, as it is easier to manouvre! That would give increased float of rocker AND increased float and stabillity of longer length...

Small addition to your list: Steepwater and Elan have freeride boards longer then 170. Just, but still longer... And Donek of course!

KenS, I'd say it depends on your preffered style of riding and prevailing conditions/terrain... For more "plow through" power riding style, I'd say go longer. For more "play the terrain" style, I'd go shorter. For steeper terrain I'd go shorter then for flatter.

Most important factors are the right flex for your weight/style and width for your boot size/angles.

Tanker 172, according to the most posts on Bomber (I havn't ridden it), is a nimble board that feels shorter then the nominal length would suggest.

Look into the Steepwater, really. Old school specs, but solid like a tank and holds an edge like alpine. Inexpensive, too.

As for the plates, I definitelly see the advantage for "bust through" styles, but less for "play the terrain" style. (I'm a home plate builder too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy, I'm surprised that the feeling is that with rocker you can go shorter. I'd say you can go longer, as it is easier to manouvre! That would give increased float of rocker AND increased float and stabillity of longer length...

Small addition to your list: Steepwater and Elan have freeride boards longer then 170. Just, but still longer... And Donek of course!

KenS, I'd say it depends on your preffered style of riding and prevailing conditions/terrain... For more "plow through" power riding style, I'd say go longer. For more "play the terrain" style, I'd go shorter. For steeper terrain I'd go shorter then for flatter.

Most important factors are the right flex for your weight/style and width for your boot size/angles.

Tanker 172, according to the most posts on Bomber (I havn't ridden it), is a nimble board that feels shorter then the nominal length would suggest.

Look into the Steepwater, really. Old school specs, but solid like a tank and holds an edge like alpine. Inexpensive, too.

As for the plates, I definitelly see the advantage for "bust through" styles, but less for "play the terrain" style. (I'm a home plate builder too).

I totally agree that with rocker, you can and should go longer (unless you are looking for a park/pipe board), but what many of the shops staff and industry people are advertising is that you should go shorter and I agree with your addition of the Steepwater and Doneks. I am sure that Sean can build some great freeride decks.

cheers,

sandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With rocker you can go either shorter or longer. They are more maneuverable and they also float better. For me it comes down to the turn I want to make. Shorter will make tighter turns, longer will make bigger turns. Generally I would also think that longer will ride better at higher speed.

I will ride the 172 rockered Tanker anywhere. It is maneuverable enough for the trees and is very stable at high speed. In really crappy bumped up stuff it is a bit scary in the trees but I do not ride those conditions in the trees. In normal chopped up powder it is very forgiving. I would not ride a traditional 172 cambered board in the trees on a powder day as they do not react nearly as quickly. I am 145 pounds.

I fully agree about the shop employees not knowing there stuff. I just dealt with that an hour ago.

I got to see the Hoovercraft finally. We will have one to test shortly. There is a lot less length of rocker in the nose than I expected and a lot more camber. It has no real tail though, so combined with the blunt nose, it is really much more like a board in the mid to upper 160s. Due to the almost alpine like tail the bindings look really set back, but I expect they are much less set back on the effective edge and sidecut than they appear. Not a lot of taper and it was pretty heavy for its size. I really do not know what to expect.

I also saw the Flagship. Camber between the feet, rocker in the nose and less in the tail. There was a kink at the transition between the camber and the rocker that seemed a bit harsh. It was about midway between the front foot and the nose. Flex seemed nice. Nose is reasonably stiff, midsection a little softer.

Subtle but long magnatraction bumps. It really makes the sidecut look all chopped up into different sections. Magnatraction, from what I can tell, is more of a skidding thing than a carving thing. That said, steeper lines are skidded.

It is an interesting combination of concepts. I am not excited enough to run out and buy one, but I would be interested in riding one to see what it is like in various conditions.

I still think the Prior MFR hybrid rocker is a great option for an all around freeride board. Oh yeah, and the 172 Tanker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you all for taking the time to five me thoughtful reactions. I will definitely be taking many of these points under advisement.

The prime example of this for me is the Jones Flagship/Rossi Experience. Jeremy and I spoke for about 30 minutes at SIA about it (and the Hovercraft) and for him it works and is his perfect board. Now I am not Jeremy and I do not claim to be even close to as good of a rider as he is, but I do like riding in the backcountry and riding powder. I love riding fast (both in hardboots and softboots) and want a board that can handle it all and based on that, you would think that the flagship/experience would be a great and obvious choice. But, I outweigh him by about 60 lbs, have a full size larger feet (I am right in your neighborhood at 5'9" and 210 with size 10.5-11 feet) and my limited style is not like his and the board just does not work for me.

Sandy, I take your point here but I was under the impression that you quite liked your Rossi, albeit as a secondary board. If not, are you looking to sell it? ;)

I would very much like to try some of these boards, but does anyone know how I might do that in then Seattle area? The only opportuity I saw for this was a demo tent at the top of Skyline @ Stevens Pass on random days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you all for taking the time to five me thoughtful reactions. I will definitely be taking many of these points under advisement.

Sandy, I take your point here but I was under the impression that you quite liked your Rossi, albeit as a secondary board. If not, are you looking to sell it? ;)

I would very much like to try some of these boards, but does anyone know how I might do that in then Seattle area? The only opportuity I saw for this was a demo tent at the top of Skyline @ Stevens Pass on random days.

Ken,

The Rossi was fun, but it was not fun enough to keep, so I sold it last season...If you would like to try a Tanker 200, i would have no problem meeting you at Stevens to give one a try, but I do not have any other boards as I sold all of my shorter boards. I am still looking for another shorter board so that I can ride with the family as the 200 just was not designed to be ridden slow. ;)

cheers,

sandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Okay, just completed 5 days on my new board in Colorado. Overall, I'm disappointed. The board is simply not damp and beat the **** out of me on choppy snow. Part of me thinks this is due to me using Burton C02 bindings because a lot of people have remarked the board soaks up chop well, etc.

In powder, the nose works awesome and the board pivots very well on steep terrain. It carves well on groomers and the big sidecut is a lot of fun.

I am thinking of a couple of different approaches to help with dampness- either try a pair of Burton P1 bindings or add a layer of rubber or something under my bindings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...