What is Powder

[rgzip]

There are a lot of questions asked about how different models of skiboards do in powder, and there are a lot of very generic answers (condors/ktps are great in powder MJ’s are not) and some detailed answers, But I don’t every see any addressing what powder is.

Now at first glance this seems to be an easy answer (The white fluffy stuff we all want ) but in my experience it actually covers a large array of snow conditions. Does it make since to try and define this a little to help in better answering these questions when they come up?

I’m 5’10” and 175lbs. and spent most of my time in the northwest. There is a good likelyhood that What I consider deep powder riding is different then someone from the eastcoast or midwest.
I have ridden many different sizes of skiboards. While there is little doubt that riding out of bounds on a day after a mass dumping is best handled with sherpas or condors, for the everyday "powder" riding I may encounter riding the trees at my local hill I would be perfectly comfortable on my ALPs and in fact would not hesitate to try some BWP’s in most cases.

My concern is that some of the new people looking to select boards may be thinking of 4” of fresh as deep powder and think they need sherpas when in actuality any of the revevl8's could be perfect for them.
Any thoughts?
(To much time on my hands I need to get to the mountain!!!)

[slow]

Excellent point rgzip.

Another consideration is the base. 4 to 6" of powder on a groomer is much different that the same amount in buried moguls previously untracked or groomed. Or is it champagne powder that moves out of the way or wet snow that is like pudding.

I am struggling with giving my opinion on criteria. All I can say is that you know you are in some type of powder when you are no longer depending on your edges for control, but are trying to negotiate the terrain as if your skiboards are water plane floats. In most cases that would be in more than 6" of light fluffy snow that moves away when riding.

[SkaFreak]

Eh, I'd even include some heavier snow as powder. Basically if it is deep enough that you don't touch anything but loose snow and not crusted over I consider it to be powder. But slow's analysis of riding methods changing is a good one. You don't need sidecut or edges to ride powder. Hence the reverse sidecut skis you see out there for powder, like the pontoons and spats.

[slow]

Eh, .......

SkaFreak, I did not know you were Canadian.

I like your definition of powder being not touching anything but loose snow.

[CrazyBoy-1]

A fascinating question indeed.

I'm an East Coast rider, so I rarely see fluffy powder. On my trips to Jay Peak I've encountered some, and I agree with the change in riding style. In deep powder (knee to waist deep) riding skiboards is a lot like water skiing. The technique changes from carving to point-and-shoot.

I think there are many forms of powder though, and I've seen different descriptions for them. For example, at Mt Bohemia last weekend, we were riding in snow that was definitely deeper than my waist level, however, it wasn't fluffy at all. It had been melted, refrozen, and melted again many times. There was a local woman who described it as "mashed potatoes," and I find that description very apt. To me, that was still powder, but it was in a different form. I often see people refer to "packed powder" or "crusty powder" when recounting a skiboarding experience. I always imagine that the snow was at least a foot deep to qualify for that description. At that point, there isn't much for your edges to grab, and you switch to the floating style of riding. Even with the change in riding style as a gauge, there is definitely a change in how the snow reacts to your boards depending on how long its been laying on the slopes.

I like rgzip's mention of rider weight and smaller boards. I was impressed with how well Dave (Fourdown) did at Jay peak on his BWP's in snow that was well of knee-height. On that same day, I was on my 1996 Lines which are only 87cm long (with 16cm widths). In deeper snow, I had no trouble getting through as long as the slope was fairly steep. The same applied at Mt Bohemia. On flatter sections, I lost all speed and had to "snowshoe" my way out.

With regards to board selection, perhaps there should be a more in-depth description of what is meant by powder. I know that I expected to need the Condors in conditions where the Lines, KTP's, or Revolts would have sufficed. The question then would be; how do we clarify the powder issue for new riders/buyers.

[jjue]

good thread and a important one ... i guess the question is what boards work in " powder"

it is important that it is not just the depth of powder that is important but its consistency .. heavy denser wet powder needs less flotation then dry champange powder , which requires boards with more flotation

also slope angle is very important . the steeper the slope the less flotation is needed

the more the snow has been broken by other riders, the less flotation is needed as well ..

what most of us are doing with skiboards is looking for the minimum size to successfully float us through the " powder" we mostly find at our resorts or in our backcountry or off piste riding .

most skiers at our tahoe resorts on pow days are riding much fatter and bigger pow boards then are really necessary or perhaps even desireable for the type of pow conditions we have.

after much experimentation for me , at my weight . ( 190 lbs ) . , the type of float that i need in most all conditions I get at the resort or in the backcountry in Tahoe powder conditions are supplied by flotation of a Condor or Sherpa ... less and I am not so happy , more is not necessary ...

[slow]

Let's also not forget that more surface area should translate into less slope required to negotiate soft powder.

I am anxious to hear powder hound Jack and valmorel's thoughts on this complex topic.

EDIT: Like my mother kept telling me, you learn more by listening than talking. I should have waited for Jack's post, instead of typing this one.

[bec2745]

i rode in about 3 inches of slush today and yo be hinest i felt like i was riding the same way technique wise as i would in 8in of pow

[rgzip]

A fascinating question indeed.

I was impressed with how well Dave (Fourdown) did at Jay peak on his BWP's in snow that was well of knee-height. On that same day, I was on my 1996 Lines which are only 87cm long (with 16cm widths). In deeper snow, I had no trouble getting through as long as the slope was fairly steep. The same applied at Mt Bohemia. On flatter sections, I lost all speed and had to "snowshoe" my way out.

I know that I expected to need the Condors in conditions where the Lines, KTP's, or Revolts would have sufficed.

This is exactly what I am talking about. I am afraid that there are many people new to skiboarding that are interested in other boards in the Revel8 line up but after reading about "powder boards" feel they need the KTP's or Condors for powder, when in almost all cases the other boards would do just fine.

[rgzip]

what most of us are doing with skiboards is looking for the minimum size to successfully float us through the " powder" we mostly find at our resorts or in our backcountry or off piste riding .

most skiers at our tahoe resorts on pow days are riding much fatter and bigger pow boards then are really necessary or perhaps even desireable for the type of pow conditions we have.

...

I think you are onto something here.
"successfully float us through the " powder" we mostly find where we ride and at our size"

[jjue]

I think you are onto something here.
"successfully float us through the " powder" we mostly find where we ride and at our size"

Folks are having great fun in powder on BWP's ,Revolts, Alps , KTP's , Condor's ,120's and Sherpas , the important thing to understand is that all our modern skiboards can perform well as all mountain boards in all conditions including powder .. the key is to match one's size to the type of snow one gets off the groomers at YOUR resort , and see what works for you ...

Valmorel and I were discussing this very thing the other day ... for him in the AlP's the 120 has all the float he needs , where as for me climbing and descending in bottomless backcountry snow all winter .. I find the 120 undergunned for me float wise , and do better on the Sherpa and the Condor which have significantly more float ... but that certainly does NOT mean that everyone needs a Sherpa , Condor or regular pow ski for that matter to enjoy powder .... the other less floaty boards are off the map fun in most resort pow conditions.

[valmorel]

Seriously interesting point this. Here in Europe we tend to get many short storms as opposed to a few big ones, so we regularly get dumps of three to six inches of fresh, but rarely the several feet of fresh we saw in the Tahoe backcountry this SFest. I usually consider myself to be riding in powder any time my skis DONT sink right down to the base, but to be honest, I think this question has too many variables to have any kind of difinitive answer.
Certainly, Ska has a very close analysis with the comment about how turning style changes. Even flotation is not a very good guide, as all that happens with smaller boards is that they sink a little farther down to where the pack is a little denser.
One thing I am sure of, two inches of fresh over a hard base aint pow!
Maybe pow starts when the boards are completely buried

[slow]

................but to be honest, I think this question has too many variables to have any kind of difinitive answer..........

Although I agree that there are too many variables for a definitive answer, IMO surface area is a dominate variable. More surface area makes the ride easier on the legs, less fatiguing and more enjoyable especially on long powder runs.

For me, the Condor's float made all the difference in the world as to whether I kept going in the afternoon at Shredfest II. With less surface area than the Condors, I would have had to drop out of the pack sooner in the afternoon due to fatigue.

[jjue]

This fatigue issue is an interesting one ... one of the issues is the pure virgin untracked powder slopes which are quite rare at ski resorts vs mashed potato refrozen broken crud which is the powder that is more common at ski areas ... i actually find it easier to pilot lower surface area boards in virgin untracked pow as long as the slope is steep enough .. the snow is uniform and you just have to concentrate on getting the right amount of weight to the tails ... in mashed potato resort pow .. the snow consistency varies hugely during a run , and there is the constant need to adjust your balance fore and aft on your board , things that help fatigue during repeated mashed potato resort runs include 1/ youth ! -young legs 2/ more surface area 3/ more length in the boards 4/ set back bindings....5/ going faster and carrying more speed through the crud -as the boards become more stable and less pitchy the faster you go ..