Comparing Snowboards - a spreadsheet

[JRAZZ]

I would say that my day job is 95% Excel but that would be a gross understatement.

 

Anyway, using spreadsheets causes you to see the world in a tabular way (e.i. when you have a hammer everything is a nail)

So naturally, trying to make sense of the world I tried to compare snowboards using a spreadsheet. This endeavor is bound to fail simply because the flex characteristics of the board matter so much and I have no way to measure that. I doubt this is a meaningful comparison but it still is a fun activity (for me at least - don't judge).

 

This spreadsheet is comprised of snowboards that I own or have owned and have been able to measure. Feel free to open and add your own. Please add only board that you have measured. I find that what manufacturers report can vary wildly! (for example, Bruce is spot on while Never Summer lie outright)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Spgu8msUnKMVzKMjE0_3O0DFbbgra67Kv4LKfoiF4QE/edit?usp=sharing

 

Measure the following::

• Overall length (cm)
• Effective Edge (cm) - the distance between the widest point in the nose to the widest point in the tail
• Sidecut (m) - this is the reported sidecut - whatever the manufacturer says
• Waist (cm) - the narrowest part of the board
• Tip width (cm) - the widest part of the tip
• Tail width (cm) - the widest part of the tail
• The last 3 cells are calculated automatically.

 

I sorted the list by the calculated sidecut/effective edge (as a measure of "turniness"). I figure that this is a good a place as any to start.  I don't know if this has any real value - maybe someone with more experience can tell me if this is a valid comparison and if the sorting method makes sense.

 

[lonbordin]

1 hour ago, JRAZZ said:

Sidecut (m) - this is the reported sidecut - whatever the manufacturer says

How do you deal with VSR? For example a board I recently purchased is VSR - ~9m - 11.5m 13.5m

 

[JRAZZ]

I put the sidecut as reported. Look at the Coiler up there. That column is more for information.

The spreadsheet takes the tip, waist, and tail width along with the effective edge and tries to calculate an average radius based on that. It usually calculates on the high side (I may try and fix that in the future) but at least it's consistent across all the boards so "should" give us a basis for comparison. 

[SunSurfer]

There was an online SCR calculator built by a guy called Nate ??? which if I remember correctly also calculated the effective SCR as the boards incident angle to the snow changed. 

[lowrider]

I fear this thread is going to get political and should be banned ! (perhaps a graph of board thickness as well as core construction type of wood , glass weave biaxial or triaxial and  number of carbon strands, titinal is solid or slit ,single or dual camber, as well as mentioning if scr is blended arc or blended straight segments as in mega magnatraction without the wavy edge.) Please stop this thread before it gets out of hand !

[lonbordin]

slit titinal... mods lable this NSFW!  dear me....

[snowwjob1]

Let's not forget weight range, base material, or secret construction, asym,directional.wow please don't do this. 

[Corey]

It is also interesting to note where the maximum thickness/stiffness of a given board is.  I see a trend in modern boards that the core is thicker under the rear foot than the front foot.  I believe that relative stiffness shifts fore/aft for the Coiler 'balance' vs. 'energy' models.  

Also, Donek boards are noticeably thicker at the tip and tail than Coiler boards. 

[JRAZZ]

Like I said, exercise in futility but still fun

Rode the F2 and the Coiler back to back and gosh if I know how to describe it. The F2 is super turney while the Coiler is a damp beast that loves to go fast. Not sure this is born out of this spreadsheet. 

[daveo]

2 hours ago, Corey said:

Also, Donek boards are noticeably thicker at the tip and tail than Coiler boards. 

Hmmm. My Donek was the thinnest board tip and tail. 

[Chouinard]

Interesting thread. It is what’s needed to broaden the appeal which is the subject of another thread. Toss in rider characteristics like height, weight, mondo, stance width, riding angles, experience level, pitch preference, condition preference, bindings, objective ride performance characteristics and then multiregress the mess and you’ll have a pretty accurate guide for picking a board for a given rider and his/her riding expectations.

This forum is loaded with data but it is closely held by the members.

Collect significant leg, ankle and foot physical characteristics along with boot and liner preference and you could have a very accurate boot selector.

Collect significant riding characteristics, weather tendencies, pitch preferences, preferred riding days, etc. and you could have a very informative guide of the best places, pitches and times to ride.

These are the things that make it easier to access and enjoy the sport.

It only works if a significant number of riders across the forum (age, experience, location, etc.) participate. The same 20-30 riders responding won’t work.