Spruce Mountain Skiboards - 115 CM Crossbow Longboards

[Wookie]

They say that Christmas time is a time of happiness when a jolly old man from the North spreads joy by delivering presents to everyone on the "Nice" list. Well if this is true I've been very good and Christmas has come early at my house (and Santa's workshop is in New Hampshire not the North Pole.)

Thanks to Santa Jeff (and FexEx) I give your first look at the 115 Crossbow from Spruce Mountain Skiboards:



LET IT SNOW! LET IT SNOW!

Before comparing them to other boards let's just talk about these in isolation. The construction looks solid, no less than what I would expect from a perfectionist like Jeff Singer at Spruce. These are sidewall constructed. White sidewalls and black bases. The pics (both above and on https://www.spruceski.com) do not do justice to the topsheets. They really came out nice and the "CTS" graphics pop a lot more than they did when Spruce used them on the last batch of Spruce 120s. The primary colors are deep black and white with grey and green accents. The rocker is very gentle at both ends with a modest camber underfoot. As anticipated they have 2 sets of 4x10 inserts to allow for a center or a setback riding position. The tip of the board has a very tall rise that is more pronounced than anything in my quiver. It should make crud busting and powder riding a joy.



Now how do they compare to other boards? Pictured above from left to right are the following:

• 105 CM RVL8 Revolt Cities (no Ricky they are not for sale)
• 109 CM RVL8 Spliff
• 115 CM Spruce Crossbows
• 120 CM Spruce 120s

The waist width is comparable to the Revolts while the sidecut seems to be closer to the 120s. I do not currently have my RVL8 SIIs for comparision (out on loan for the day) but they really do look like the Spruce 120s and SIIs had a love child. These appear to be a directional skiboard not a symmetrical skiboard with a more pronounced tip than tail. It also appears that the side cut starts a bit further back from the tip than it does from the tail employing a design detail found in many long skis today that gives you a crud busting shovel at the tip that doesn't get in the way when you carve. As far as stiffness goes these appear to lean toward the soft flex end of the spectrum. Certainly softer than my 120s but this may just be at the tip and tail as the construction underfoot is very robust. Only time on the hill will tell the real story.

So when will I get this out to test drive? I am hoping this week but with the holidays it may have to wait until after Christmas. I'll post my thoughts after my first ride but if you have a set headed your way or order a set tomorrow and beat me to the hill feel free to share your thoughts on this thread to keep the conversation going.

If you are interested, Spruce starts sale to the general public tomorrow (12/19/17). Follow this link to order and for more information: https://www.spruceski.com/store/p50/...Skiboards.html

[Toro]

Beautiful! Can't wait to hear how they perform on the mountain!

You mentioned these are sidewall constructed, are all Spruce boards moving to sidewall or just the Crossbows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wookie]

You mentioned these are sidewall constructed, are all Spruce boards moving to sidewall or just the Crossbows?

I am not sure if all Spruce boards are moving to sidewall over capped construction. The last batch of Spruce 120s was capped construction but my 125LEs (preproduction Raptors) were sidewall construction.

For me I prefer sidewall construction. Some don't like that the sidewalls chip a bit and prefer capped construction. For me the chipping is a minor nuisance and a badge of honor. Sidewall, IMHO, gives the skiboards a high end ski look and more stiffness across the board for edge grip.

[Tom91381]

Awesome write up, be nice to know how they do on both sides of the states, and with people of all sizes too. I’m small in comparison to most, standing at 5’9” and weighing in at 155. I’m wondering if these are more geared to the larger framed and stronger then the normal person.
Anyone out near California want to test these out anytime soon? I have a pair on order and I’m willing to get as many that want to give them a test run when I receive them ..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm just the FNG--== ****ing new guy

[macrophotog]

Christmas came early for a few of us! Thanks Wookie for saving me from typing - I can say ditto to everything he said. I also agree with the softer flex, but really think that it is more in the tips and tails because the camber underfoot appears to be more robust than the 120’s as I recall them. For another comparison, these tips/tails are stiffer than my 2012 Rockered Condors.

I plan to ride these on Thursday so hope to post a review soon after. I am excited to ride these - they are very sharp looking and in hand show significant promise!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kocho]

Can you guys snap a photo from the side with the skis on a level surface, like a table, to see the side profile?

I think soft tips are generally good for versatility in softer conditions. The stiffer center might still provide good stability and edge hold.

But weren't these supposed to be symmetrical? I prefer directional as forward is where I am facing most of the time , just was confused, I guess.

As for bigger vs smaller riders, it is not a simple choice. I think a lighter and less aggressive rider should avoid overly stiff boards regardless if board size. Heavier or more aggressive riders might benefit from stiffer and bigger boards. But there is a wide range of preferences and riding styles. Most skiboards are fine for most riders, except at the extreme weight ranges and snow conditions combinations - don't want a heavy rider on short skinny boards in deep soft conditions for example.

[macrophotog]

Can you guys snap a photo from the side with the skis on a level surface, like a table, to see the side profile?

I think soft tips are generally good for versatility in softer conditions. The stiffer center might still provide good stability and edge hold.

But weren't these supposed to be symmetrical? I prefer directional as forward is where I am facing most of the time , just was confused, I guess.

As for bigger vs smaller riders, it is not a simple choice. I think a lighter and less aggressive rider should avoid overly stiff boards regardless if board size. Heavier or more aggressive riders might benefit from stiffer and bigger boards. But there is a wide range of preferences and riding styles. Most skiboards are fine for most riders, except at the extreme weight ranges and snow conditions combinations - don't want a heavy rider on short skinny boards in deep soft conditions for example.

I can post a photo of the side profile tonight (unless Wookie beats me to it). These boards are symmetrical in the width profile (138-112-138), but the tips appear to have quite a bit more rocker in them showing them to be naturally a more directional board as Wookie mentioned.

[Wookie]

Can you guys snap a photo from the side with the skis on a level surface, like a table, to see the side profile?

See below. These are just some quick shots with my iPhone. I would taken better reference shots on my workbench but the background would have been very cluttered and there is a 7th grade Science project currently in residence. The tip of the board is facing right:

(I inserted these as embedded Flickr files so if you click on them you can get to the higher res originals)

Full Board



Tip



Tail

But weren't these supposed to be symmetrical?

Only Jeff can comment for sure on the design but he has never made a symmetrical board. Even the 120s are directional though it's barely noticeable. I have not measured them but to my eye the tip raises higher than the tail (not the rocker but the portion beyond the sidecut). The side cut at the tip seems to stop sooner than the tail. When you stack these reversed you can see the differences in symmetry (or lack thereof).

I can post a photo of the side profile tonight (unless Wookie beats me to it).

You are a better photographer than I am so please feel free to post some pics when you can.

These boards are symmetrical in the width profile (138-112-138), but the tips appear to have quite a bit more rocker in them showing them to be naturally a more directional board as Wookie mentioned.

The side cut is 138-112-138 but I think the widest part of the tip is slightly further back from the end than the widest part of the tail. Please compare your boards and verify. I suspect that the setback position, like the SIIs, will feel like the more natural center of the skiboard. Testing this week to vet that out.

[valmorel]

If I remember correctly, the running base of the 120 (the bit that sits on the snow) was symmetrical, and the binding was dead centre of this. But the tip was longer than the tail, giving the appearance of a directional board, but was in reality symmetrical. I suspect the Crossbow is the same?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[Wookie]

If I remember correctly, the running base of the 120 (the bit that sits on the snow) was symmetrical, and the binding was dead centre of this. But the tip was longer than the tail, giving the appearance of a directional board, but was in reality symmetrical. I suspect the Crossbow is the same?

This is exactly what I am trying to describe with the Crossbows.

[macrophotog]

The side cut is 138-112-138 but I think the widest part of the tip is slightly further back from the end than the widest part of the tail. Please compare your boards and verify.

This is correct - the widest part of the tip is further back than the widest part of the tail. It reminded me of how some powder boards are built where the shovel is narrower than the widest part of the tip.

[Kocho]

Thanks! Wow, a lot of tip and tail in the air ... They must ski short And a lot of camber too. Keep us posted on how you find them on the slopes later this week.

[macrophotog]

Thanks! Wow, a lot of tip and tail in the air ... They must ski short And a lot of camber too. Keep us posted on how you find them on the slopes later this week.

I haven't measured it out yet, but I think the design specified running length is just over 93cm.

[sempai]

Thanks! Wow, a lot of tip and tail in the air ... They must ski short And a lot of camber too.

The tip and tail height really stands out. A side-by-side pic with the SII would be interesting to see.

[Wookie]

The tip and tail height really stands out. A side-by-side pic with the SII would be interesting to see.

Ask and ye shall receive:

The angles to get these photos exaggerate things a bit but you can really see the more pronounced Tip and Tail.

Side by Side



SIIs overlay on Crossbows



Profile w/ SIIs in foreground
<-- Tail --------------- Tip --->



Tips aligned



Tails aligned