Corey Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 It's way easier to sideslip a short board than a long one on uneven terrain. ;) That's what 90% of the general snowboard population around here does. We like longer stuff as our priority is different. They think we're as uninformed and ignorant as we think they are. Doing a 630 into a frontside boardslide on a rail to a 270 out is going to suck with a 192. Carving at 40 mph is going to suck on a 145. Ignore the sales kids, they're just doing what's necessary to sell whatever boards they currently have in stock. You can make decent money just telling people what they want to hear and moving product - without knowing much of anything about the sport. It's sad but true. See most general sports stores in malls for an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allee Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Doing a 630 into a frontside boardslide on a rail to a 270 out is going to suck with a 192. But it would be epic to watch. of course, it would have to be a rockered 192. Camber wouldn't cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 this is funny I DH skateboard with a bunch of guys who don't/won't comprehend the difference between a Never Summer Heritage and a Donek Sasquatch I try to explain things like side cut and it goes over their heads. And these aren't your normal kickflippers these are guys who understand not just the diference between freeride, Tech DH and 60mph highway runs but that different boards are required for each. The snowboard industry did a very good job of convincing everyone to use a plug and play system to choosing gear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 But it would be epic to watch. Haha, so true! I'll cheer you one while you try. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two_ravens Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 But it would be epic to watch. of course, it would have to be a rockered 192. Camber wouldn't cut it. I bet Steve Pro is working that out on the 210 Diablo, - waiting for the video.... :D:lurk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Is a cambered 186 swallow good enough? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpinegirl Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 so, that was really a rhetorical question. i don't understand why we get so hung up on board length when the discussion turns to displacement. of course a larger rider requires greater displacement whereas a lighter rider requires less to achieve the same outcome. the world of snowboarding is filled with many many poor riders who all lack the necessary strength and coordination to effectively control a snowboard in varying conditions. most folks have absolutely no idea that they can become better riders and move with greater efficiency. so mediocre becomes an acceptable norm. most snowboards are sold to this segment of the market. automatically assuming that it is essential to put someone accustomed to riding a 149cm deck onto a longer powder board which will have a very large nose seems rather odd. if you really want a longer deck don't go with a fish, that isn't what they were built for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Doing a 630 into a frontside boardslide on a rail to a 270 out is going to suck with a 192. Carving at 40 mph is going to suck on a 145. But it would be epic to watch. See this is why I don't do rails, at 40mph I would just clear them and land on the snow beyond. Well that and I tried a kiddie rail (in softies) on an icy day about 3 years ago, and totally taco'd myself on it when I slipped off it and my edge couldn't get any purchase in the ice. Ribs hurt for three weeks. I have 50/50'd a 12' flat ride-on jump-off box in plates with UPZ RTRs in TD3 step-ins set at 60/60 angles if that counts for anything. Hmm maybe Fin could market the TD3s as a freestyle binding now to boost sales?:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 There are a surprising number of similarities happening on both the Freestyle and alpine side s of deck construction Food for thought. If you are heavy, there is NO replacement for DISPLACEMENT. Burton Nug... Sorry, not quite convinced. From the description "stiff along the entire length" there doesn't seem to be much difference from what I used to experience riding a Nidecker Nano (132cm) in softies. The board was diff along it's entire length, much more similar to the stiffness of an alpine deck. But then it has to be, because with a short nose you can directly apply more pressure and it would fold easily otherwise. Also with a shorter nose you need a stiffer board to get the same effect out of an ollie, as the lever arm back is shorter. The Nano was fun to screw around on (skateboard deck analogy is quite appropriate), but it was a complete submarine in any depth of powder. That being said it was of course a normal cambered board. If the nug had huge rocker that would help enhance its float and it really isn't all that short as it comes in a 150cm (longest). Back when I was 185lbs in the early 90's I occasionally rode a 156 in pow, that being said it really blew when compared to riding a 171 Kelly Slopestyle in the same conditions. At 215 lbs (on a light day) I wouldn't want to ride anything under 167 in the kind of dry powder we get out in Banff. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 the world of snowboarding is filled with many many poor riders who all lack the necessary strength and coordination to effectively control a snowboard in varying conditions. most folks have absolutely no idea that they can become better riders and move with greater efficiency. so mediocre becomes an acceptable norm. most snowboards are sold to this segment of the market. No doubt about this. I have avoided our local snowboard shop for several years fearing that their mental retardation may be contagious and terminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Alpinegirl, I value your comments, could you kindly expand on what you said here? automatically assuming that it is essential to put someone accustomed to riding a 149cm deck onto a longer powder board which will have a very large nose seems rather odd. Why is this odd? I'm not trying to here, I'm trying to learn:smashfrea. I just assumed she would want more surface area under her than with her current board (149cm standard production board) if she were going to go through some trees and powder. Sure it might take her a few runs/hours to get the hang of it, but I thought overall that this would be less tiring than weighting the back knee/quads all day. I know that, for me, when I first got on my dynastar 3800 163cm in powder...it was like...effortless. Whereas with my other softboot board (156cm burton t6) I had to struggle to stay afloat. Also, I balked at the idea of riding a softboot board that was 163cm until I tried it and there wasn't much difference for me. Length doesn't scare me anymore, and I'm hoping to get my gf to the point where she feels the same. Should I try to find something around what she's used to, but with more of a powder/ + surface area shape? What would you recommend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 time to call up your custom board manufacturer of choice. Look at the Prior Khyber with a modified waist width (don't get the custom, it will be too wide). Got one last year that isn't even the new fangled rockered model and still like it. I got the stock width and its about 2 cm wider than ideal (but manageable), so in the future I'll upgrade to the custom rockered edition with a custom waist. I started out years ago on softies (while learning from a hardbooter) on a Donek incline that was a 163! Length is manageable and has been made the beast by jib monkeys. I bought my own in a 155 incline, sold it when I switched to HBs, wish I hadn't, so that's another good one to look into. I should also note that I am 5'-2" tall and my Khyber, which I use ONLY in powder and trees, is a 160. Now I have more junk-in-the-trunk than your 135lb gf AND ride only hardboots, but I'm just supporting the point that she can definitely handle a 156. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Powder is powder. What's to be confused about?There's a difference between knee deep in the resort and bottomless in the backcountry. Maybe some ice coasters consider ankle deep fresh to be powder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 not to mention Sierra Cement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Angie, Thank you - very informative. It's a hunk of $$ to buy a new board but I've learned, at least with snowboarding, that getting it right the first time is always cheaper in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian M Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 This thread makes me laugh! I've had similar experiences of course; many people just can't wrap their head around riding long, fast, stiff boards. To NickG - I learned to ride on a 163 Nortech Rebel when I was about 14. I think soaking wet I was about 110lbs and 5' tall. No problem at all. When I moved out west and was riding deep powder, I went to a 169cm Option Supercharger. You certainly loose maneuverability in the trees as you go longer, but gain stability and float on the fast, steep, open stuff. In the end it's up to your girlfriend to prioritize what is more important to her. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Yo-k_LKn_Y?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Lends new meaning to "go big" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Dahl Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I now feel like a wussy on my 192 Tanker...and those Wingerguns are real sweet! Havin' trouble pulling the trigger on one at $1300 plus and shipping on top of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I now feel like a wussy on my 192 Tanker...and those Wingerguns are real sweet! Havin' trouble pulling the trigger on one at $1300 plus and shipping on top of it! Jon. No, you shouldn't. In proportial comparison you on a 192cm is the same as me on a 250cm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian M Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 ^ Wicked video! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingbat Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Is a cambered 186 swallow good enough? :D Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carvin29 Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yeah its funny how short a board people are riding. On another message board, I'm telling a guy who is 6'3" 205 he should get a 164 and not a 161. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpinegirl Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 so i may regret responding but i am committed to cold hard facts and will clarify some statements i have made. anything about the nug. the directional powder nug indeed has rocker resulting in a tremendously upturned nose and i believe an elongated contact point combined with 5mm taper and longer nose to allow for greater powder potential and is available in lengths up to 152cm. simple facts. i never stated that the fish wasn't made for powder. i was just noting that the fish was designed to offer the same amount of displacement as relatively longer decks, hence riding a significantly longer fish because long is what works in powder is not respecting how the board was designed to work in powder. the fish was not designed to be ridden longer than need be. yes, giant surfy turns in powder are amazing and lend themselves well to riding longer decks, however the fish was purposefully designed to achieve the same outcome in a shorter length, while gaining maneuverability in the trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.oldsnowboards.com Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yeah its funny how short a board people are riding. On another message board, I'm telling a guy who is 6'3" 205 he should get a 164 and not a 161. Met a guy (getting new glasses) that is in his twenties, 260lbs. I would guess about 6'-3" perhaps. We of course ended up talking "Snowboards". I asked him, "so what length are you riding, a 158cm?" , he looked at me strangely and said "Yes, how did you know?". I just smiled. Knowing he had said he liked the park and that most shops in the Portland don't have anything longer than that. When I told him I ride a 200cm he suggested I have my eyes checked caus they don't make snowboards that big A fish is no doubt fun. It is not however the fish was purposefully designed to achieve the same outcome in a shorter length, while gaining maneuverability in the trees. The first 20 seconds I am traversing a low angle pitch of deep snow in order to get to the run I was after. I think it very , very unlikely anyone else would have made it clear over there unless they were in my track. Safe to say I would not have been able to traverse these conditions on a fish. Shorter boards are excellent on very steep and tight trees. Both of which I can choose to do on a longboard if I have the skill and desire. The same can not be said of a short board riding in deep snow traversing or surfing lower angle terrain. "There is NO replacement for displacement" <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NJGFPC-kNUw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What did you think of the video report of the nug? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.