Really Wide Boards - What are the negatives?

[FightingForAir]

I'm interested in thoughts from those who've ridden all different widths of skis and skiboards. I've heard the talk about wider boards not being as quick edge to edge, but that's not very real to me since I don't ride that way anyway ... making rapid edge to edge transitions like a pro mogul skier.

So, aside from not being as quick edge to edge, what are the liabilities/downsides of really wide boards .. like 125 mm, 130 mm, 135 mm at the waist ?

Also, since I'll never ride moguls like the pros, what are the downsides of wider boards if using the Joe Nevin green-line or blue-line techniques? Are even those methods through moguls that much easier on narrower boards? If so, why?

Thanks in advance for the input.

[mhealey]

I've ridden the Bantams, KTPs, and Condors as well as random skis here and there, so I don't have a lot of experience on narrow boards for comparison, but so far I seem to prefer wider boards. Opinions vary from person to person, but I don't think there is one major downside to choosing a wider board. I like the fact that edging is not "on" or "off", it's more of a "dimmer" feeling. I can lean into a turn a little bit and have the edges drift to control my speed, or I can lean hard into a carve and get the board high up on edge and turn really fast. Typically when I ride moguls I do the blue line technique and I don't have any problems because of width underfoot. The only time my Condors felt awkward was when I put them on immediately after riding a 60mm underfoot straight ski for about an hour (just an experiment, I literally pulled the skis off my wall and took them to the mountain, they are from like 1985). The Condors felt extremely weird because I was trying to ski with them instead of skiboard on them. Once I remembered all you have to do to turn them is pivot and lean, they felt natural again.

[Bad Wolf]

Technically, is there any performance advantage to a wider board apart from the obvious float?

The fastest boards I have have are the skinny Lines MNPs. So it can't just be surface area.

[jjue]

Fascinating subject and one that really gets to the core of skiboarding and some of it's difference from skiing .
In discussing width we also need to factor in length , and stiffness, camber and rocker ... I am going to discuss non park free riding certainly other issues involved with park riding , jumps etc. For me the primary advantage of wide skiboards is off the groomers in variable snow where the width for any given length of skiboards gives increased stability side to side and also more flotation . The primary disadvantage of wide boards is , as has been alluded to , the more difficulty in getting them on edge and carving , and going side to side quickly . However, and this is really important because of the short length of skiboards a wide skiboard that would be really a dog on groomers in a long ski length , can really be carved very well and gotten on edge quicker and with much more ease just because of the short length .. Also because of the short length a tremendous amount of force can be developed on a very short edge really helping the carve ( hockey skate effect) . To me , low camber and rocker really helps the maneuverability of a wide board and helps to negate some of the negative effects in terms of quickness edge to edge and manuverability. I have recently ridden lots of moguls on the longer narrower Spruce `125 and the much wider and shorter Rockered Condor . Both boards are rockered and have zero camber and have the same surface area . Both are the nicest skiboards I have ever ridden in moguls . I do both the Blue line and Green line technique with both boards and can do fall line nice mogul riding with both boards . I find both quick edge to edge . Yes the Spruce 125 is quicker edge to edge but the RC is much shorter . Overall the shorter length of the RC trumps the much narrower dimensions of the the 125 and I prefer it in moguls . A long ski the width of the RC would be pretty nasty and difficult to manage in moguls .. but no issue with the RC and in fact it is my favorite mogul skiboard !
The particular design of the RC for me combines a short 110 skiboard , with huge width to add stability in variable snow and flotation in powder, and yet the Rocker and zero camber makes it really manuverable for a big wide 110.
For me there is no downside in the width at all in all conditions and it makes a 110 skiboard have a much wider performance envelope then a narrower 110 and puts it performance wise right up there with the much longer longboards or even long skis .

But let's do a thought experiment .. if I was just going to ride moguls and groomers what would my ideal board be .. probably the Spruce 125 cut down into 110 length ,it would be a nice manuverable rockered zero camber skiboard that would be a total blast and be quicker side to side then the RC . but , and here is the big but .. I don't really want a board like that .. In my riding I am always looking to go off piste into variable snow into trees and side country etc . and so I want a board that will have the widest performance envelope that can handle all conditions with ease .. and so for me it is a no brainer ... I like the manuverability of the 110 length but I really need to go wide to get that edge in the off piste variable softer snow , crud etc.... lucky I can have my cake and eat it too!

[FightingForAir]

... I want a board that will have the widest performance envelope that can handle all conditions with ease .. and so for me it is a no brainer ... I like the manuverability of the 110 length but I really need to go wide to get that edge in the off piste variable softer snow , crud etc..

This is why I did the Yeti build - cambered length of a 110, super-wide, rocker and lots of surface area. I'm hoping I've found my sweet spot. I will find out on Sunday.

Thanks for the thoughts Jack. Appreciate it.

I'm also hoping Wendell sees this and chimes in. I remember him mentioning a few times that he does not like wider boards in moguls. I'm interested in hearing more of his thoughts on why.

[bbryanblr]

My .02 from a long time snowboarder.

Wide skiboards (I have '10 Condors or as my daughter calls them "wizard of Oz skis") really melt where I came from and where I want to be together. When I started to show interest in this sport, I did so for two reasons:

1. To move some of my equipment over (snowboard boots, bindings, etc).
2. To move some of my board skills over (slarving, wide foot print, etc).

So of course I was looking the way of the Condors off the bat. In just my short time on them this season, I feel like I am off to a great start on both.

When I ride my board, I am in all sorts of terrain and can adapt with very subtle moves. I love that feeling on my board and am stoked to get that feeling on my Condors late in '13.

I started down the path of the Chickens but quickly realized it wasn't what I was looking for. I know they aren't "skinny" but I have no interest in skinny boards.

[slow]

It would be interesting to hear riders with recent experience on both the soft ALP and the early model soft regular Condors since those two skiboards are the closest we have to being the exact same except for width.

IMO what is important with a wide waiste skiboard is having a true zero base angle and no high ptex underfoot. If base ground flat edge to edge, I find the dimmer switch effect of the extra width to be negligible when edging.

As for moguls, if you ride the troughs, I suspect shorter and narrower is better because of the need for quick reation. If you ride as Nevin teaches, does it matter?

[Bad Wolf]

Also, since I'll never ride moguls like the pros, what are the downsides of wider boards if using the Joe Nevin green-line or blue-line techniques? Are even those methods through moguls that much easier on narrower boards? If so, why

I have never heard of Joe Nevin, so I went to the Bumps site last night and looked up the Green/Blue line theory. It was interesting to have someone describe what I had discovered on my own. I really enjoyed taking on the bumps for the first time this year and experimented with different lines and boards. Riding the troughs was too fast for me and I found myself unable to take off speed to stay in control. On the shorter, tighter turning, Jades I found myself using the Green Line, which has you turning tightly into the backside of the mogul you start on. Once I moved up to the longer Slapdashes, I found it much easier to take the Blue Line and bank off the front side like a race car driver.

The MNPs and Slapdashes are the same length, but I found the wider Slapdashes to be more maneuverable in the bumps. Perhaps it's because the wider platform gives more stability and produces more of a sliding turn. They are easier to land jump turns on too.

[kirk]

No one else will probably mention the park perspective, so here it is:

Advantages:

- landings are easier: coming down with a bigger footprint spreads the weight on impact
- takeoffs are easier and more consistent: since you have a bigger footprint, when you jump, you avoid an edge digging into the takeoff, throwing your balance off
- rails are much easier: the extra width on rails gives you so much more support, especially on one-footed grinds


Disadvantages:

- more weight underfoot: there is a little more weight on each foot, making your feet a bit less nimble

[wjeong]

This is why I did the Yeti build - cambered length of a 110, super-wide, rocker and lots of surface area. I'm hoping I've found my sweet spot. I will find out on Sunday.

Thanks for the thoughts Jack. Appreciate it.

I'm also hoping Wendell sees this and chimes in. I remember him mentioning a few times that he does not like wider boards in moguls. I'm interested in hearing more of his thoughts on why.

For me, I just don't see the need to go any wider than 115-117 under foot. The Sherpa, 125 and Marauder are plenty wide for me. Going wider is just overkill and requires more effort to turn. For just mogul skiing, I like my Atomic 120. With the skinny waist, it's the easiest for me to maneuver in the bumps. It's not playful to ski or very versatile though so I don't like skiing it that often. I ride it about 1 day a year. I only have ridden the 125 this season. The 125 with the rocker is just as fast turning as the Atomic, but way more fun. I don't feel that there would be anything to gain by making the 125 wider. So far, It's my do everything board. One thing I do notice on the 125 is that the ride can be harsh with such a short contact length. I feel every bump in the snow. It really has no suspension like a conventional board. I think you'll find the Yeti has a much smoother ride than anything shorter with it's longer contact length. I really don't think the extra width will give you an improved ride except in really deep powder. Now the extra width in powder may be a help or a hindrance. With the added float, you may find it becomes too fast in the trees. Hopefully, the rocker will give you the maneuverability to handle any extra speed. I think you'll need to ride the Yeti an entire season and then go back and revisit the Sherpa or Marauder to get a clear idea of how the Yeti compares. I hope you like your new board and can give us a great report after you ride it.

[FightingForAir]

Technically, is there any performance advantage to a wider board apart from the obvious float?

The fastest boards I have have are the skinny Lines MNPs. So it can't just be surface area.

For me, it seems, I can be a little lazy and less precise with wider boards and they don't bite me. The narrowest waist boards I've been on the last many seasons have been Spruce 120s, ALPs and Revolts. My preferred rides in the past have been KTPs, Condors and Sherpas.

I always seemed to catch edges more often on the narrower waisted boards. I'm sure much of this has to do with my lack of extensive riding/skiing experience, but I don't have that happen nearly as much on wider boards.

There's something I don't get aside from the mogul or quick edge to edge issues: As I've gone around to shops... looking at boots, skis and gear, I've heard many people talk about how wider waisted sticks just don't carve as well. I've always been curious why people think that would be so. Is there any real substance to that claim?

[valmorel]

The biggest advantage of ultra wide is the 'cool factor'

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[wjeong]

For me, it seems, I can be a little lazy and less precise with wider boards and they don't bite me. The narrowest waist boards I've been on the last many seasons have been Spruce 120s, ALPs and Revolts. My preferred rides in the past have been KTPs, Condors and Sherpas.

I always seemed to catch edges more often on the narrower waisted boards. I'm sure much of this has to do with my lack of extensive riding/skiing experience, but I don't have that happen nearly as much on wider boards.

There's something I don't get aside from the mogul or quick edge to edge issues: As I've gone around to shops... looking at boots, skis and gear, I've heard many people talk about how wider waisted sticks just don't carve as well. I've always been curious why people think that would be so. Is there any real substance to that claim?

I suspect your edge catching is due to overly sharp tips and tails rather than width related. The problem gets worse as camber and stiffness increases. I don't catch edges on anything I ride. Wider usually equates to less edge grip on skis. That's not necessarily true with skiboards. The Sherpa shows us that. So I think it's said correctly about wide skis not carving well.

[Bluewing]

One thing I do notice on the 125 is that the ride can be harsh with such a short contact length. I feel every bump in the snow. It really has no suspension like a conventional board.

I am going to hijack this thread but I think it is an interesting tangent. Wendell - I noticed the harshness in the 125s at Kirkwood - in fact, that was one of the biggest aspects of my initial reaction to them - they really wore me down in those hard and choppy conditions.

I wonder if the harshness is because of the short contact length and zero camber so, therefore, no suspension or bump absorption? I also wonder if the sidewall construction of the 125s contributes to this - reason for asking is that the 120s have such a damp ride, especially for a board of that length, which I think is partially due to its flex profile and also due to the cap construction. I only spent a short time on the RCs in soft spring conditions - do people who have spent a lot of time on the RCs find them to ride harsh in hard, choppy conditions?

[wjeong]

? I also wonder if the sidewall construction of the 125s contributes to this - reason for asking is that the 120s have such a damp ride, especially for a board of that length, which I think is partially due to its flex profile and also due to the cap construction. I only spent a short time on the RCs in soft spring conditions - do people who have spent a lot of time on the RCs find them to ride harsh in hard, choppy conditions?

It's not the sidewall. The marauder is sidewall. With almost no camber and medium flex, the ride is about as smooth as it gets.