Eastsiiiide Posted February 7, 2023 Report Share Posted February 7, 2023 In Mark's description for the SF, it's described as also good for softboot carving. Anyone tried it that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted February 7, 2023 Report Share Posted February 7, 2023 Description says waist width up to “23 cm+”, whatever that means. If he can’t make at least 27 cm then I wouldn’t consider it for soft boot carving. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwavedave Posted February 7, 2023 Report Share Posted February 7, 2023 My SF was more akin to a race SL, hardboots only. I think he was thinking that the SF could be made as a crossover board for someone looking to get into hardboots. The Thirst CC is a similar scr to the SF, but is likely more softboot friendly. Best to talk to him. His daughter rides all his boards with softboots. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastsiiiide Posted February 8, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2023 On 2/7/2023 at 2:56 PM, Neil Gendzwill said: Description says waist width up to “23 cm+”, whatever that means. If he can’t make at least 27 cm then I wouldn’t consider it for soft boot carving. Interesting. Why? I'm guessing this boils down to the geometry of angles/boots/bindings in relation to overhang/leverage/stiffness/control, but I'm not certain that there isn't some other factor inherent to a wider board that's involved in your minimum width preference. Is there? I seem to recall that swoard favored slightly wider shapes for extreme carve-oriented boards, and some discussion about why wider is favorable (better structural stability as the board approaches vertical orientation during a carve, because there is simply more structure there?). Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastsiiiide Posted February 9, 2023 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2023 On 2/7/2023 at 3:40 PM, bigwavedave said: ... Best to talk to him. His daughter rides all his boards with softboots. Also interesting. I'm sure I'm going to end up testing this for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted February 9, 2023 Report Share Posted February 9, 2023 6 hours ago, Eastsiiiide said: Interesting. Why? I'm guessing this boils down to the geometry of angles/boots/bindings in relation to overhang/leverage/stiffness/control, but I'm not certain that there isn't some other factor inherent to a wider board that's involved in your minimum width preference. Is there? Yes, just straight geometry. Unless you have teeny feet and run steep angles, 23 cm is too narrow for soft boots. The conventional width of 25 cm is doable if you intend to run steep angles, like near the limits soft boots support. Right now I am on a mid-wide (26.3 cm) running a pretty standard forward stance (12/27) with size 10 boots. I think I would boot out if I could lay it over as hard as I can in hard boots. It is OK for now as I did not get this setup for dedicated carving. 1 1 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.