Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

What's your favorite mass produced softboot carving board


JRAZZ

Recommended Posts

@Eboot 

1. Forget the Knapton Twin, Donek has some better carving directional models.

2. The Korua Bullet Train is better than the Cafe Racer for carving and they make it in titanal, which is essential if you want a great board that will rip through the NE ice.

3.  Don't buy a compromise board to save a few bucks, buy a great board and then resell it if you don't like it.  Give the softboot thing a real chance.  You're not likely to fall in love with it on a glass all-mountain production board.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also...  @Eboot

What's your mondo boot size?  What do you weigh?

I recommend at least 2cm wider at the waist than your mondo size for intermediate carving and 4cm for expert black diamond carving.

My girlfriend Martina has been riding my old NeverSummer Ripsaw X 160 with an 8m radius and a 264mm waist.  In the production board universe that Ripsaw X is meant for a full size man who rides hard, Martina is 110lbs and size 25 boot but this board is too narrow for her and she's booting out after only one season of carving (she rides steep angles too: 39/27).  The stiffness is about right for her though.  Crazy right?

Think about that before you buy a production board.  What they sell as a "very stiff long-turning wide carving board" is actually only suitable for green runs unless you have tiny feet and you're 50lbs lighter than the minimum recommended rider weight. 

Guys like Malcolm Moore and Tommy Bennett test ride these boards and say things like "best carving board ever!".  Those guys can't do what you aim to do, they're carving green runs (poorly), pay no attention to their board reviews.

What you want is a Coiler Contra T3 169 12m.  If you tell me your mondo size and weight I'll recommend a width and flex.  I'm hoping Bruce will make one for Martina with a 27.5 waist, 5.7 stiff.  Mine are 6.0 and 6.6 stiff, I rode a third one in this exact shape at 6.4 stiff as well as the T4 version in a 14m radius.   If you can't get a Coiler for this fall try Winterstick or Prior; they're more expensive than Donek but they're metal; worth every penny, especially on "east coast hardpack". 

Sell that 250mm waisted SG to some unsuspecting G.O.R.Bie, I would consider it for Martina but it's too narrow for her.

 

Edited by crackaddict
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, crackaddict said:

I recommend at least 2cm wider at the waist than your mondo size for intermediate carving and 4cm for expert black diamond carving.

---

What you want is a Coiler Contra T3 169 12m.  If you tell me your mondo size and weight I'll recommend a width and flex.  I'm hoping Bruce will make one for Martina with a 27.5 waist, 5.7 stiff.  Mine are 6.0 and 6.6 stiff, I rode a third one in this exact shape at 6.4 stiff as well as the T4 version in a 14m radius.

Agreed about the board width sizing.

Btw. Bruce mentioned something about hybrid boards where he mixes soft and hardboot designs. Do your boards have this and/or have you tried such a board? My wide Contra is going to be a hybrid but not having ridden any softboot Coilers, I'm unsure what to expect other than it being awesome. 😉

My current Contra is 6.7 stiff hardboot design and the boot setup is quite soft. Softer than stock Malamutes for an example but with better lateral support. 46/55 angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Xargo said:

hybrid boards where he mixes soft and hardboot designs

Meh.

High performance equipment is always purpose specific, no compromises.  A slalom board is not appropriate in a GS race, a downhill mountain bike is not a commuter.  An all-mountain board that is supposed to turn tight in the trees, float in powder, fly in the park and rip the groomers is just plain bad at everything.

My hard boot Coilers are 210mm wide, my soft boot Coilers are 296mm wide.  So what, you're gonna buy a 260 and imagine that it's good for both?  It's too wide for smooth hard boot transitions AND too narrow for drag-free softboot carving.  A waste of titanal if you ask me (and you did).

The whole "quiver of one" idea is ill-conceived.  It suits the manufacturers and retailers well but not the high performance rider.  If you want the best performing equipment, pick one boot type or buy two boards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, crackaddict said:

Meh.

High performance equipment is always purpose specific, no compromises.  A slalom board is not appropriate in a GS race, a downhill mountain bike is not a commuter.  An all-mountain board that is supposed to turn tight in the trees, float in powder, fly in the park and rip the groomers is just plain bad at everything.

My hard boot Coilers are 210mm wide, my soft boot Coilers are 296mm wide.  So what, you're gonna buy a 260 and imagine that it's good for both?  It's too wide for smooth hard boot transitions AND too narrow for drag-free softboot carving.  A waste of titanal if you ask me (and you did).

The whole "quiver of one" idea is ill-conceived.  It suits the manufacturers and retailers well but not the high performance rider.  If you want the best performing equipment, pick one boot type or buy two boards.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The board will be 300mm wide with 16m scr and 136cm ee but the construction will somehow mix soft and hardboot designs (I'm guessing flex patterns and such). I don't really know what that means but Bruce recommended that for me and thus I thought I'd ask if you (or someone else) has already ridden such a board since Bruce said he has made some.

The result what I'm hoping for is a wide softboot carver with the power of an alpine board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, crackaddict said:

What's your mondo boot size?  What do you weigh?

Thanx for the comments Crack!  This was the initial impetus for looking for a 29+ waist.

I am a 28.5 at 190 pounds, 5' 11"
I will ride with a positive rear angle, as high as is practical for soft boots.  I have ridden north of 160/155 all my looooong life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eboot said:

28.5 at 190 pounds

You need a Donek.  As far as I know they're the only manufacturer who will build a board with a waist wider than 295mm.  Get a 305mm waist at least.

 

5 hours ago, Xargo said:

wide softboot carver with the power of an alpine board

You'll need a very stiff interface to pair up with such a stiff board; boot stiffeners and Flux XV or Ride A10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crackaddict said:

You'll need a very stiff interface to pair up with such a stiff board; boot stiffeners and Flux XV or Ride A10.

Agreed, I'll test Spark R&D Dyno DH + Hawx Ultra XTD with DGSS springs first. Another option is Nidecker Kaon-CX and Salomon Malamutes or Ride Insanos. Luckily I've been gathering a lot of options for years so I'm sure I can find something that'll work. At this point I don't know what stiffness rating the board will end up being but I should know soon enough. It's being built atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not mass produced, but massive; Donek Hazelwood 200.  My new all-time favorite soft boot carver.

I have had it for years but really just put it in service recently. When I ordered it, I drew a pencil line around a traditional camber Tanker 200 (Māori theme) and requested the same shape/ geometry Hazelwwod. On groom,  it rides nothing like a Tanker, (but in a good way).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I’m not sure about going incredibly stiff for a softboot setup. Why? 

I say that as someone who asked Bruce to make my Contra Freeride a bit stiffer just for kicks. It’s a 7.0 which is more than he recommended. Yes I have stiff bindings and boots. The board has been really awesome in limited use this year but I’ve noticed it bounces me around more in mixed conditions and when I leave the groomers.

So we’re getting back to use: if you’re on soft boots but sticking to groomers only, then sure. Personally in that case I’d rather put on the hard boots, but different strokes. With soft boots I’d rather be able to mess around a bit more and ride a variety of terrain in addition to carving, and I think that gets a lot more difficult if the wide board is essentially a specialized carving-only groomer tool. 

Different strokes! 
 

14 hours ago, Xargo said:

The board will be 300mm wide with 16m scr and 136cm ee

Sounds amazing. What’s the overall length? 

Edited by ShortcutToMoncton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

Personally I’m not sure about going incredibly stiff for a softboot setup

Interesting topic. 

I learned a lot riding three Coilers this season in the same shape with different stiffnesses, and last year I had two JJAs with identical shapes in different stiffnesses also.  My opinion is this: same ride, but stiffer is faster and makes a significantly wider turn.  There's a big difference in maximum speed/ maximum edge pressure when you up the stiffness, and equally so with the minimum speed required to initiate.  The boards each still do their thing and each can carve any slope, the softer ones just do it slower with tighter turn shape.  So I ride the softer ones in variable conditions and the stiffest ones for bigger, faster turns on good groom.

You know a board is too stiff when you tilt it over to ride the downhill edge but it doesn't engage and start turning; it just keeps going straight while you balance on the edge momentarily.  It feels tippy and hesitant on initiation.

4 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

it bounces me around more in mixed conditions

I found this too with stiffer boards, but it turned out it felt like I was getting tossed more partly because I was just going faster.  Also true that a too-stiff board won't absorb the imperfections in the surface as well. 

For great cord though, I haven't met a board that was truly too stiff since my old Factory Prime.  JJA showed me a whole new level of stiffness; you gotta be careful when you tell Jasey-Jay Anderson that you want it "super stiff", his scale is about two orders of magnitude higher than the rest.  (I had meant "super stiff recreational" not "super stiff Olympic racer...")

4 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

the wide board is essentially a specialized carving-only groomer tool

My favourite kind!

Edited by crackaddict
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, crackaddict said:

I learned a lot riding three Coilers this season in the same shape with different stiffnesses, and last year I had two JJAs with identical shapes in different stiffnesses also.  My opinion is this: same ride, but stiffer is faster and makes a significantly wider turn.  There's a big difference in maximum speed/ maximum edge pressure when you up the stiffness, and equally so with the minimum speed required to initiate.  The boards each still do their thing and each can carve any slope, the softer ones just do it slower with tighter turn shape.  So I ride the softer ones in variable conditions and the stiffest ones for bigger, faster turns on good groom.

I don't have the empirical experience you have with different stiffness boards but I have thought a lot about the topic and came to the same conclusion than you. I also kept telling Bruce (and others 😉) that I don't think scr makes as much difference with high edge angle turns than a lot of people think but rather it's the flex that determines much of the turn shape. This is why I wanted 16m scr and rather stiff flex to make big turns. My 6.7 stiff 16m scr hardboot Contra turns pretty much the way I want or a bit too sharp. I also like how with the Contra design, it's the mid of the board that does a lot of the flexing. Should be interesting to see how that works with the rather wide 58cm stance I use when riding duck. I'm thinking the wide stance should give me more leverage to affect the turn shape even more than with my current setup.

8 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

Sounds amazing. What’s the overall length? 

164cm or thereabouts. 20cm pointed nose and rather stubby 7cm tail. I don't know the exact specs at this point because I wanted to give Bruce design headroom to aim for as much waist width as possible. That includes going for 132cm ee but if I understood right, 136 is what's happening.

I will be really happy if the board carves great and handles everything else poorly but I'm pretty sure I will like it for pretty versatile riding as well. If not, I have plenty of other easier production boards to ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Xargo said:

... I don't think scr makes as much difference with high edge angle turns than a lot of people think but rather it's the flex that determines much of the turn shape. ...

That seems correct to me.

Obviously sidecut has some effect, but it doesn't work in a simplistic manner, and needs to be considered along with lots of other board design parameters such as taper, sidecut shape, but most importantly flex and how that's distributed. Which I think is why riding boards is better than reading specifications.

I'm not a massive effective edge person either - to me, the actual running length isn't really that important either. As fashions changed my hardpack board length has gone from 1.64m to 1.44m and I'm not riding slower or turning any less. The other design changes which come with that length change (principally I think better construction & flex design) are the key things, not the running or absolute length of the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xargo said:

I also like how with the Contra design, it's the mid of the board that does a lot of the flexing.

Is this what Bruce said?

This isn’t necessarily my impression. The mid has tight SCR between the bindings, but the core is ticker and extends further under the bindings and seems to flex less with weight pressure, rewarding a more centred position. Although admittedly I’m talking more about the alpine board here now, the CFR only got about 12-15 rides since I got it at the end of Jan and mostly in poorer conditions. 

Anyway we’re off topic here now, feel free to move to the Contra thread—I guess back to my point, to me it’s about why the gent is buying a wide board in the first place 🙂

1 hour ago, philw said:

That seems correct to me.

This is funny because you two otherwise seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum board-wise! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

Is this what Bruce said?

Yep, I hope Bruce doesn't mind me quoting him but here goes: "Contra's have a softer mid section and a more forgiving flex than what is used in ECVCs.


They actually measure stiffer on my measuring system as that only measures one spot in the flex but they like to keep bending farther due to the different materials used. Since they have more sidecut mid board, it also needs to flex more to use it."

That is specifically about EC boards though and Bruce told that he makes stiffer tail for those. I haven't ridden "normal" alpine Contra, nor softboot Contra. I do have a second hand ECVC though. Nice board but too narrow for my liking.

Agreed that this talk would be probably better moved to the Contra thread.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2023 at 6:27 PM, crackaddict said:

I recommend at least 2cm wider at the waist than your mondo size for intermediate carving and 4cm for expert black diamond carving.

 

Hi @crackaddict, I have seen your videos on youtube and admire your riding. I am starting to get into more aggressive type of carving and looking for a new board as well. I watch a lot of Japanese/Korean riders riding "hammerhead"-shaped snowboard. I am wondering what is your take on the waist widths of those boards (including the Alloy DO mentioned in this thread)? As those boards typically only have width of 25-26.5 cms. They seem to ride those boards with regular-size foot and positive angles similar to yours without booting out.

 

FYI, I have mondo size 25 boots as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

.. This is funny because you two otherwise seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum board-wise! 

 

The physics doesn't know that.

It's a bit like cars - they all exploit exactly the same physics, but different people choose different vehicles because they want different things from them. Obviously my choice is superior... but other choices exist 😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha I like the analogy, but I actually disagree with it in some key respects.

Just like snowboards, people choose different cars because of their different use cases.

And like snowboarding, auto is hyper-specific to use cases. People with the same use cases actually pretty much drive identical cars. 

Want a powerful all-terrain vehicle that will carry and tow heavy loads? You have a truck with great torque and they roughly look and operate the same.

Want an all-terrain vehicle that won’t carry or tow? You have something that is roughly a Jeep or a Land Rover. 

Want a safe-feeling family/grocery hauler for the busy city? You probably have an urban SUV that has a high COG for comfortably seeing over the mass of people/vehicles around you. They all operate the same. 

Want the above but with more people? Minivan. All Identical. 

Want the above but without the high COG? You have a wagon or crossover. All identical. 

Want to feel close to the road and be quick & nimble? You have a roadster or another small, light, nice power-to-weight vehicle….again, they mostly look and operate the same depending.

Want a powerful ultimate performance car? Supercar, again, all pretty much identical.

The list goes on. No one rides their Silverado in the carving canyons, no one takes their Boxster off-road with a trailer, and no one brings their Odyssey or Jeep to the track. Or they do only for a brief lark. For the most part, when it comes to auto most of the vehicles are built for a certain use case and they look pretty damn identical. 

I think this is mostly the same when it comes to technical specs — the old days of “big-block displacement vs. VTEC yo” are pretty much gone, you take any given class of vehicle and the technical approach is surprisingly similar with some small tweaks. 

Sounds pretty much the same as snowboarding to me!  

I guess what I’m saying here is that I’m already out on the inevitable EV snowboards. You know one of the mass-produced brands is going to introduce a battery-powered binding soon, right…?!?  🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ShortcutToMoncton said:

I guess what I’m saying here is that I’m already out on the inevitable EV snowboards. You know one of the mass-produced brands is going to introduce a battery-powered binding soon, right…?!?  🤣

🤣 Just rode my new electric snowboard for the first time today:

DSC_0214.jpg

Production board too so not even off-topic. 🤪

https://www.head.com/en_EE/sports/ski/technology/emc

  • Haha 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...