newcarver Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Anybody riden both of these boards? Seems like the specs would make the jones like a new version of this classic. Would like to try one out someday. Wonder how it would handle the groom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twelsch42 Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 How can a pow-board top-out at a length of 160. REALLY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bora20 Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 How can a pow-board top-out at a length of 160. REALLY? Because it is missing 12" of tail on it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 How can a pow-board top-out at a length of 160. REALLY? Because it is missing 12" of tail on it... Yeah the stance setback is 20cm (that's just shy of ~8" for the unconverted). I personally like how the board is actually regularly cambered. Admittedly this is a little odd as I think anything that is purely a powderboard would be better as a fully rockered deck. As this board is cambered hopefully this might mean that we could be looking at a shift back towards normal camber between the feet with early rise (decambered, or rockered) noses and tails. This would be similar to what we are currently seeing on alpine decks. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Hovercraft has 20mm setback, not 20cm. So just under an inch. Regular camber under feet but plenty of rocker in the nose. I checked it out in a local shop this week and it looks like a really really fun board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Hovercraft has 20mm setback, not 20cm. So just under an inch. Regular camber under feet but plenty of rocker in the nose. I checked it out in a local shop this week and it looks like a really really fun board. Nope it's 20cm. See the link below to the hovercraft on the Jones site. Setback is given in cm. http://jonessnowboards.com/index.php/product/hovercraft And while I'll agree 20cm of setback seems like a lot check out how far the inserts are back on the drawing of the top sheet. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Do you really believe all his directional boards have between 20cm and 25cm of setback? I'm pretty sure the cm vs mm thing for the setback is a typo on the website. http://www.jonessnowboards.com/index.php/product/flagship http://www.jonessnowboards.com/index.php/product/solution I have held the board in my hands and inspected it. There's no way it has 20cm of setback, althought I will admit it looks to be more than 20mm. Most of the review sites list the setback as 20mm or 0.78". Here are a few of them: http://www.thegoodride.com/womens-boots/991-jones-hovercraft-snowboard-review.html http://www.backcountry.com/jones-snowboards-the-hovercraft-snowboard http://www.rei.com/product/822737/jones-hovercraft-snowboard-20112012 http://www.fluofun.fr/matos/jones-snowboards/the-hovercraft-156.html I clearly remember last year's specs as having it listed at 20mm, since I ride nothing under 60mm of setback and it kind of turned me off. Looks like the only change they made from 2011 to 2012 (except adding new lenghts) is bringing the insert packs closer together to change the min/max stance range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Tat Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I agree with the comment about the other two boards. I'd suggest that the typo could be 200 mm as well because based on the drawings of the board, compared to the other two, (flagship and the solution) its inserts look way back, ie there is minimal tail compared to nose. BTW if Jones is referencing the insert packs setback to the center of the SCR, which is not uncommon, then there could certainly only be 20mm back of that point, with the entire SCR shifted toward the rear of the board to provide taper and increase float. This would explain why the inserts appear so far to the rear on the drawing of this board but not the other two with a similar setback. Anyways I haven't actually had my hands on one of these and am basing my comment on the site specs, which certainly could be in error. So I'll leave it at that. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Yeah the stance setback is 20cm (that's just shy of ~8" for the unconverted). I personally like how the board is actually regularly cambered. Admittedly this is a little odd as I think anything that is purely a powderboard would be better as a fully rockered deck. I'll try one if I come across it, although I too doubt that the set back could be that large. I've ridden most reverse-cambered powder boards and I'm broadly unimpressed. Reverse camber seems really good for powder skis (I'm told), but it doesn't seem to work the same for snowboards. Many boards like the Fish worked better before they started adding fashionable reverse-camber. So I guess I'm saying that I can see why they built it with a proper camber, because it works. A decambered nose doesn't really work the same way in powder. You don't have the edge loading issue which Kessler etc were fixing for piste boards. But then powder board noses were always designed a bit differently - perhaps they're just using a modern word for an old thing. 160 - sounds pretty big for a powder board these days; they're mostly just not designed to be ridden huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Dahl Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Just got a 159 Stepchild OG powder board-last season's model. Seems like a better substitute to me. Good taper, has camber and reasonable setback to the bindings, decent nose to it. Mt. Baker testing to follow. Needed something for trees here, Tanker too much there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWboarder Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 My buddy has last years 156 and he is 180lbs and strong... no sweat for him in the trees and on pow. I rode it once and found it to be ridged as heck with a large scooping nose that helps it carve. I am a believer. The set back is substantial but im not sure exactly how much. the technology makes sense if you look into it. I was very tempted to nab the 2011 160. Im 230 lbs and think it would serve me well. Plus it is an amazingly beautiful board. Already have a softboot pow board.<O:p</O:p 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.