Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 109 Spliff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bad Wolf
    replied
    The 2016 109 Spliff

    Originally posted by valmorel View Post
    Yes I think so. It makes a surprising difference if one is used to a flat binding. Using the Attack toe piece I don't really find any performance difference between the Riser and a fixie but as you say, there is a marked difference in feel. With earlier toe pieces there was really too much rock for such wide boards. It never mattered much when skis were less than 70mm wide underfoot. Boy how things have changed.
    Tough question, but do you think it would be worth upgrading my Risers to the Attack 13s? The work is easy, but the cost would be about $180. I think I'm happy with them on the 120s but I'm worried about the "slop"'on the wider Spliffs.

    Leave a comment:


  • valmorel
    replied
    Originally posted by Bad Wolf View Post
    Interesting, that would make a difference if we are going for a more upright stance. Is this the "ramp angle"'skiers refer to?
    Yes I think so. It makes a surprising difference if one is used to a flat binding. Using the Attack toe piece I don't really find any performance difference between the Riser and a fixie but as you say, there is a marked difference in feel. With earlier toe pieces there was really too much rock for such wide boards. It never mattered much when skis were less than 70mm wide underfoot. Boy how things have changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bad Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by valmorel View Post
    Check your toe/heel heights on the Risers. You will probably find the heel is higher than the toe. Ski bindings are made this way but it promotes a different amount of forward lean than a fixie which is level. This changes the skiing stance and takes me longer to adapt to than the overall height gain. I have often wondered about packing the toe piece to get them level, but inertia sets in . . . . . .
    Interesting, that would make a difference if we are going for a more upright stance. Is this the "ramp angle"'skiers refer to?

    Leave a comment:


  • valmorel
    replied
    Originally posted by Bad Wolf View Post
    I was thinking that as I wrote it. Perhaps both. The extra leverage is nice but it's so high compared to the FFs I feel somewhat disconnected to the boards.

    I stated out on composite bindings, then had direct fix on my Summit Customs, then tried the Summit Risers before going to non release with the FF Pros. With non release bindings I forget the binding is even there, it's like being connected directly to the boards. Then I spent last season in my snowboard boots, which was sooooo comfortable, but soft bindings seem to promote a slarvy style of riding, which I didn't always want to do.

    So.........I want to start the season on my 120s and my only option are the Risers. They are not bad, and you do get used to the extra height after a while, but it's not the same connected feeling you get with non release. I could put non release on the Spliffs, but at 110cm that is outside of my comfort zone for risk tolerance.
    Check your toe/heel heights on the Risers. You will probably find the heel is higher than the toe. Ski bindings are made this way but it promotes a different amount of forward lean than a fixie which is level. This changes the skiing stance and takes me longer to adapt to than the overall height gain. I have often wondered about packing the toe piece to get them level, but inertia sets in . . . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Bad Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by sempai View Post
    Good impact or bad?
    I was thinking that as I wrote it. Perhaps both. The extra leverage is nice but it's so high compared to the FFs I feel somewhat disconnected to the boards.

    I stated out on composite bindings, then had direct fix on my Summit Customs, then tried the Summit Risers before going to non release with the FF Pros. With non release bindings I forget the binding is even there, it's like being connected directly to the boards. Then I spent last season in my snowboard boots, which was sooooo comfortable, but soft bindings seem to promote a slarvy style of riding, which I didn't always want to do.

    So.........I want to start the season on my 120s and my only option are the Risers. They are not bad, and you do get used to the extra height after a while, but it's not the same connected feeling you get with non release. I could put non release on the Spliffs, but at 110cm that is outside of my comfort zone for risk tolerance.

    Leave a comment:


  • sempai
    replied
    Originally posted by Bad Wolf View Post
    For me, a 15mm difference in stack height is really significant. When I added an extra riser pad to my FF Pros to help with leverage on the wider Blunts and XLs, the 5mm difference made a huge impact on performance.
    Good impact or bad?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bad Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Gromit View Post
    May I humbly suggest that you read valmorel's thread on the Attack 13 bindings and Spruce Risers for further information and opinion?
    I'm familiar with the thread and how the adjustable toe piece is makes a much more secure connection. Whilst this would definitely give better feel and response, I'm not convinced this is enough to put the overall set up on par with a non release binding. I didn't see that comparison in the thread either.

    Perhaps the variance for me is here;

    Originally posted by Gromit View Post
    Yes, the stack height (topsheet of skiboard to sole of ski boot) at 40mm is about 15mm more. IMHO that makes little difference, in practice. Without the usual slop, inherent in a bog-standard, release binding's toe pieces but not in the toe pieces of the Attack 13's, increasing the stack height by such a small amount has negligible effect.
    For me, a 15mm difference in stack height is really significant. When I added an extra riser pad to my FF Pros to help with leverage on the wider Blunts and XLs, the 5mm difference made a huge impact on performance. The Spruce Riser is three times that height. There is also the feel of the rubber pad versus the aluminum riser and the difference in weight distribution and flex.

    I still think it's worth considering as I'll be on Spruce Bindings anyway this year. Anything that brings the feel closer to a non release binding would definitely be a plus. Of course I'm still holding out hope for a direct fix solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gromit
    replied
    Spruce 2015 Pro Prime Plus Risers & Release Bindings

    Originally posted by Bad Wolf View Post
    By "the equal of any non release binding in ability" are you just referring to the connection or the entire set up? I feel that my bindings on risers produce and very different feel and ride characteristics over my non release bindings due to the differences in height and weight distribution.

    Just asking, I've looked at the Attack 13s a few times but not pulled the trigger because of the riser.
    The entire set-up. Tyrolia Attack 13s and Spruce Risers as a system.

    I noticed no difference when I switched from RVL8 Receptors to Attack 13s and Risers. Yes, the stack height (topsheet of skiboard to sole of ski boot) at 40mm is about 15mm more. IMHO that makes little difference, in practice. Without the usual slop, inherent in a bog-standard, release binding's toe pieces but not in the toe pieces of the Attack 13's, increasing the stack height by such a small amount has negligible effect.

    May I humbly suggest that you read valmorel's thread on the Attack 13 bindings and Spruce Risers for further information and opinion?
    Last edited by Gromit; 09-02-2015, 02:08 PM. Reason: Corrected thread hyperlink

    Leave a comment:


  • Bad Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Gromit View Post
    I'll be using release bindings. Spruce Risers with Tyrolia Attack 13 bindings. The equal of any non-release binding, in ability.
    By "the equal of any non release binding in ability" are you just referring to the connection or the entire set up? I feel that my bindings on risers produce and very different feel and ride characteristics over my non release bindings due to the differences in height and weight distribution.

    Just asking, I've looked at the Attack 13s a few times but not pulled the trigger because of the riser.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gromit
    replied
    I've pre-ordered some Spliffs too - Release bindings

    I couldn't resist the Spliffs or that brilliant graphic on the topsheets, so I've pre-ordered a pair too.

    I'll be using release bindings. Spruce Risers with Tyrolia Attack 13 bindings. The equal of any non-release binding, in ability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gromit
    replied
    Originally posted by jjue View Post
    Perhaps Valmorel and Gromit will comment on the differences as I know they have ridden both boards. ... The main difference in design is that the new board is cambered with less pronounced rocker , the Rockered Condor is zero camber with more pronounced Rocker. The width and length and side cut are as you say similiar but I do think that the different camber, rocker design will cause the boards to have significant differences in performance in different conditions and also different from the regular Condor which is cambered but not rockered. Basically we now have three super wide 110 boards .. one with big rocker and zero camber, one with less pronounced rocker and + camber, and one with no Rocker and + camber .
    I haven't ridden the Blunt XLs in moguls really and there weren't any at the snow dome to try the Spliffs in. A couple of seasons back, I rode down a steep, narrow mogul field in The Three Valleys on Blunts (the original 88cm ones). Those were epic. Mega manoeuvrable! Amazing fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjue
    replied
    Originally posted by ashman View Post
    I think they are "quite" similar RVL8 Rockered Condor.. and I have to ask if they have the same Maneuverability and the same predisposition to Moguls..
    Perhaps Valmorel and Gromit will comment on the differences as I know they have ridden both boards. ... The main difference in design is that the new board is cambered with less pronounced rocker , the Rockered Condor is zero camber with more pronounced Rocker. The width and length and side cut are as you say similiar but I do think that the differenet camber, rocker design will cause the boards to have significant differences in performance in different conditions and also different from the regular Condor which is cambered but not rockered. Basically we now have three super wide 110 boards .. one with big rocker and zero camber, one with less pronounced rocker and + camber, and one with no Rocker and + camber .

    Leave a comment:


  • Wookie
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill View Post
    ..... Tuned-in skiboarders know the 120 remains the gold standard......
    Amen. Testify brother Bill.

    Originally posted by valmorel View Post
    The tail support is really good so if you get back on the tails it's OK, but more importantly, because the board has a neutral feel, pressuring the tails a little doesn't immediately cause the board to get off line. It's not the kind of board you would need to blunt the tails just to get it to behave, it's great straight out of the box, so a comfortable upright stance works really well.
    I am sooooo excited about these boards. My only worry is the wife will steal them. I gave her the option to preorder two sets but she passed on the opportunity.

    Leave a comment:


  • valmorel
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill View Post
    Wookie didn't need his ESP to predict that my preorder's already in. Tuned-in skiboarders know the 120 remains the gold standard. We'll see soon enough how this bad boy stacks up.

    Valmorel, your comments about the board being suited for "upright" boots caught my attention. I'm sure you can guess why ;-) Is there some aspect of the ride quality that lends itself to this? Jack noted at shredfest last year that the upright riding style must be popular in Missouri.
    The tail support is really good so if you get back on the tails it's OK, but more importantly, because the board has a neutral feel, pressuring the tails a little doesn't immediately cause the board to get off line. It's not the kind of board you would need to blunt the tails just to get it to behave, it's great straight out of the box, so a comfortable upright stance works really well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Originally posted by rickylink View Post
    .... The stability is brilliant, a lot like a 120 actually,

    You had me at "a lot like the 120". I think I stopped reading there.

    Note to Greco The "a lot like the 120" text needs to be a hyperlink to the preorder page just for me, Sempai, and Bill. And rickylink!!
    Wookie didn't need his ESP to predict that my preorder's already in. Tuned-in skiboarders know the 120 remains the gold standard. We'll see soon enough how this bad boy stacks up.

    Valmorel, your comments about the board being suited for "upright" boots caught my attention. I'm sure you can guess why ;-) Is there some aspect of the ride quality that lends itself to this? Jack noted at shredfest last year that the upright riding style must be popular in Missouri.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X