Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Flat Back


kirtap

Recommended Posts

Maybe I'm missing some obvious reason, and if so, just point me to it, but what is the purpose of the flat/square back. To me, it looks like it would make no difference in riding a twin tipped board as opposed to a board with the flat back. Is it just to make it more directional?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mike Ford

well, since we don't have to go backwards, it's nice and convenient when you're leaning your board up against something. The flat back helps it stand up better:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frappe

On a twin-tip board, effective edge length is sacrificed to make that curved tail.

On a square-tail board, you can extend the effective edge to nearly the very end of the board, if you want.

Yeah, they stand up a lot better too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is one that most riders should ask themselves - "why does my board have a huge upturned tail?" Unless you're riding fakie 40% of the time or you spend <i>a lot</i> of time in the park/pipe, you don't need that giant tail adding to the swing weight of your board. I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jack Michaud

...is one that most riders should ask themselves - "why does my board have a huge upturned tail?" Unless you're riding fakie 40% of the time or you spend <i>a lot</i> of time in the park/pipe, you don't need that giant tail adding to the swing weight of your board. I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

Personally, I would want a rounded tail if I'm riding switch 10% or more of the time. It's useful for traversing a steep slope or riding flats when you legs start getting tired (riding switch)... not to mention that it's fun to pop a 180 off a natural bump. I've been riding my Madd 170 switch a bit and it's just a little "touchy" riding switch down the slopes on it (ontop of have 60/55 angles) and/or trying to spin a simple small 180 off a bump (travelling no more than 5-10 feet in the air). But that's just the way I ride myself.

I don't agree with the swing weight argument... true it does add swing weight... but if it were that important... people wouldn't be getting 180+ cm boards vs stiffer 170-175 cm boards with longer sidecuts (from my understanding). The main people who care about swing weight are freestylers doing spins, no? I mean even a 160 cm twintip is going to have a lot let swing weight than a 175 cm alpine board. Is there something else I didn't think of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jack Michaud

I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

Exactly! Fin let me demo an F2 Speedcross when he was in Tahoe a few days ago. It was big fun, it did everything, carved well and was so easy to ride. I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve Dold

I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

They tend to cost a lot more than the noodle-ly boards in most shops too. Wait, isn't that a hardboot BX board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve Dold

Exactly! Fin let me demo an F2 Speedcross when he was in Tahoe a few days ago. It was big fun, it did everything, carved well and was so easy to ride. I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

http://sportstop.zoovy.com/product/NIDECKSUPERX169

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lonerider

Personally, I would want a rounded tail if I'm riding switch 10% or more of the time. It's useful for traversing a steep slope or riding flats when you legs start getting tired (riding switch)... not to mention that it's fun to pop a 180 off a natural bump. I've been riding my Madd 170 switch a bit and it's just a little "touchy" riding switch down the slopes on it (ontop of have 60/55 angles) and/or trying to spin a simple small 180 off a bump (travelling no more than 5-10 feet in the air). But that's just the way I ride myself.

Right, and you could do all that on a BX board. You don't <i>need</i> a full freestyle shape to do any of that. (and all freeride boards are basically a full frestyle shape - just different construction)

I don't agree with the swing weight argument... true it does add swing weight... but if it were that important... people wouldn't be getting 180+ cm boards vs stiffer 170-175 cm boards with longer sidecuts (from my understanding).

Right, swing weight doesn't matter <i>as</i> much to carvers, but that wasn't my point...

The main people who care about swing weight are freestylers doing spins, no?

Yes, but also freeriders - people who want to both carve and not carve, in softboots. A shorter board with low swing weight is more important to them in the trees and bumps and just for general maneuverability. But if they could have an extra 5cm of edge length with a BX board of the same overall length, it would carve better and handle more speed.

That's why I believe most softbooters who mostly just cruise the mountain should really be on BX boards.

As for why race boards have square tails, well, it's just about maximizing edge length for more speed and edge hold. Race/freecarve board tails are usually 5cm worth of non-running length. Race/fc board noses are usually 15cm. You could make a twin tip race board, but it would be 10cm longer for no real reason. I'd rather ride a 170 than a 180 if the 180 isn't going to be any faster or more stable than the 170.

Like I said, having a twin tipped board is only <i>necessary</i> for logging lots of time riding fakie and for launching/landing big airs switch. For casual fakie antics, a BX style tail is plenty. And behold and lo, that's what is on the all-mtn carvers like the Axis and 4x4, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lonerider

They tend to cost a lot more than the noodle-ly boards in most shops too. Wait, isn't that a hardboot BX board?

The Speedcross is a 22.5 cm waist board. I saw a guy in Panorama on an Eliminator, that's one bad-ass looking freeride board. Quite short and low nose, shorter kick than usual, 25 cm waist. Just the sort of thing aggressive all-mountain softboot guys should be on, IMNSHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when on softies I need 26 to 27 cm at the waist or I heel or toe drag

I wear a 11 and don't like going beyond 30* angles

it might be slow edge to edge but once you get used to it its no big deal

that sidecut is tight but some boards if the are built right do just fine with a tight radius they just take your fine edging skills up a level

a great example of that was the burton balance those boards I always wished they made a bigger and slightly wider version because they railed very well

those were boards meant for the pipe but they were quite stiff and had a tight sidecut radius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jack Michaud

Right, and you could do all that on a BX board. You don't <i>need</i> a full freestyle shape to do any of that. (and all freeride boards are basically a full frestyle shape - just different construction)

...

Like I said, having a twin tipped board is only <i>necessary</i> for logging lots of time riding fakie and for launching/landing big airs switch. For casual fakie antics, a BX style tail is plenty. And behold and lo, that's what is on the all-mtn carvers like the Axis and 4x4, etc.

I see, I took the comment in the wrong context. I thought you were referring to BX boards with with "flat backs" and not ones will "rounded edges" but limited rocker like a Donek Axis or a Prior 4WD compared to a full twin tip like a Donek Twin or a Prior AMF. Actually, I should have realized it since I remember someone saying all BX boards have to have rounded corners. I agree with what you are saying.

Yes, but also freeriders - people who want to both carve and not carve, in softboots. A shorter board with low swing weight is more important to them in the trees and bumps and just for general maneuverability. But if they could have an extra 5cm of edge length with a BX board of the same overall length, it would carve better and handle more speed.

That's why I believe most softbooters who mostly just cruise the mountain should really be on BX boards.

Oy, the quoting system is a little weird (doesn't double quote anymore, or maybe it's just my own text). Yes, I see what you are getting at... but I think Steve's comment comes into play - people are not going to scour the internet/earth for hard to find/pricey BX boards. Ontop of that... most people wouldn't be able to use the the extra edge length anyways (in the same way they don't use the twin tail) although I bet that more people "try" to carve at high speeds than ride switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish that they would have a BX style board that is wide. I do not know of one, does anyone else?

The Nidecker BX (NBX) has 25.0 waist in the 164 model and a 25.5 in the 168. Not sure if that's considered wide, but I own a 164 and that puppy is WAY wider than anything else I in the collection! The thing floats nice, carves very well, and handles the chopped-up crud too. Check 'em out here: http://www.nidecker.ch/en/produits.php?value=index_board

The NBX is in the AST line. I own the previous year ('04) Project TM (same board).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jack Michaud

The F2 Eliminator seems to be it for true BX softboot boards on the market. The 164 has an effective edge of 135, and waist width of 25.4cm. The Nidecker NBX isn't really a BX board, imo. Their 164 has an effective edge of 126cm.

Why don't you view it as a BX board? Still too much of a tail? (I'm not familiar with Nidecker boards).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lonerider

Why don't you view it as a BX board? Still too much of a tail?

Yes. A Nidecker NBX would have to be 173cm long to equal the running length of the F2 Eliminator 164.

Before you start to think that perhaps the Eliminator has too little tail, consider the F2 Speedcross (their all-mtn carver). The 165 has a running length of 140.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Before you start to think that perhaps the Eliminator has too little tail..."

I don't really think that any board has too little of a tail. Unless you ride really deep powder or slush, or the the halfpipe wall is severely kinked (and maybe a few other scenarios that you guys could think of) a small tail will do. For that matter, barring the above conditions, a small nose works as well. You know the questions that we all get - people ask me all of the time how you can ride switch with that flat tail. I then point out the nose - it is not that different. Race boards really don't have much nose either.

I was stoked when BX boards started showing up. They are a great idea. I have size 15 feet, though, so if I was going to ride the necessary angles to ride a BX board - I would rather just ride a race board and hard boots. I love the idea of a BX board, but unless someone would make one with a 27 waist or so, I will have to pass. :(

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...