Riding the Horse

[Steeps]

Oh, good news! I've had it in my head that they were longer. The Spliffs do so well that I haven't seriously toyed with the idea of a dedicated powder board... yet. Had at least one day last season where I could of used them.

Thanks Courtney! I keep looking at those triple blacks on the Bohemia map and wondering how they measure up to my home turf... might have to catch a meetup once travel's an option again. Or host one... will have room for guests by next season, and my neighbour's got two rental cabins right next door. Either hole up at the Horse or do a full Powder Highway trip... Red's only about 3 hours from Spokane, Washington.

[ysb33r]

All I know is Spliffs float good. I'd love to try some RCs out, but the need for releasable bindings makes them less attractive as a resort board. When I finally get a touring setup sorted I'll be more likely to look for a pair. It'd be fun to try a pair of Blunt XLs out to see what all the hype is about, but not sure how well they'd translate to the stuff I like to ride.

I had a question about Spliffs on groomers, so thought I'd upload a short carving vid:

(I like to "pendulum carve" - keep my torso relatively upright while swinging my legs out from the hip down)

KH is generally crap as far as grooming goes (it's mainly a freeride hill, and management pays minimum wage to their snow cat drivers), so this was probably the best corduroy I'll find this season! Otherwise, I'd call it about a 6.5/10 by Western Canadian standards, firm underneath but with the ridges soft enough to get an edge in. Silver Star was my home hill growing up, and it's very well-groomed. I'm spoiled by Eastern standards, from what I've seen posted.

Conditions at the Horse are usually consistently good in the alpine, but the lower mountain sometimes warms up, then re-freezes. It's entirely possible to get powder up top and ice crud below. Life got a lot better when I learned to slarve, but I'll take good carving when I gets it!

RCs are 110cm. You can use NR with them.

Sent from my Mi Note 10 Pro using Tapatalk

[Courtney]

Cruising! Loving these videos, that looks like such an awesome spot and great snow. Glad to see you're out having fun!

[Steeps]

All I know is Spliffs float good. I'd love to try some RCs out, but the need for releasable bindings makes them less attractive as a resort board. When I finally get a touring setup sorted I'll be more likely to look for a pair. It'd be fun to try a pair of Blunt XLs out to see what all the hype is about, but not sure how well they'd translate to the stuff I like to ride.

I had a question about Spliffs on groomers, so thought I'd upload a short carving vid:

(I like to "pendulum carve" - keep my torso relatively upright while swinging my legs out from the hip down)

KH is generally crap as far as grooming goes (it's mainly a freeride hill, and management pays minimum wage to their snow cat drivers), so this was probably the best corduroy I'll find this season! Otherwise, I'd call it about a 6.5/10 by Western Canadian standards, firm underneath but with the ridges soft enough to get an edge in. Silver Star was my home hill growing up, and it's very well-groomed. I'm spoiled by Eastern standards, from what I've seen posted.

Conditions at the Horse are usually consistently good in the alpine, but the lower mountain sometimes warms up, then re-freezes. It's entirely possible to get powder up top and ice crud below. Life got a lot better when I learned to slarve, but I'll take good carving when I gets it!

[newbie2011]

How did you calculate surface area? I normally do width at waist x running length, which is a good enough approximation for determining floating capability at rest.

I was trying to be as accurate as I could, worried that cutting too many corners might get some boards closer than they actually are. So it's all of the green parts: the sum of two half circles (could not think of a better approximation for tips and tails) plus a big trapeze minus the side triangles. This is the most general case which works for all, as it covers the Spruce boards,even though for the RVL8 the trapeze becomes a rectangle.

I think you have a better analogy on the boats. I have started investigating water ski physics and it is probably a good approximation of powder skiing as long as the dynamics of liquid H2O is ignored.

Water ski is an excellent idea, but I'd lack the physics knowledge to dig deeper into it, indeed, the boats analogy made me understand empirically the big picture

[ysb33r]

Nice table, Bad Wolf !

How did you calculate surface area? I normally do width at waist x running length, which is a good enough approximation for determining floating capability at rest. (Of course once your start moving , more of ski is in contact with the snow so the actual effective surface area is different).

I think you have a better analogy on the boats. I have started investogating water ski physics and it is probably a good approximation of powder skiing as long as the dynamics of liquid H2O is ignored.

[newbie2011]

Great table, would you mind if I posted it on the FB page for the folks there to see?

No problem whatsoever, glad that you find it useful, feel free to share it, it's for the community's benefit anyway. I've been off FB for a few years, the only thing that's tempting me to get back is The Skiboard Connection

[Bad Wolf]

I'm speculating as well, but I'm still lean toward the opposite, but cannot prove it. In my mind we decamber the boards when we have our full weight on the middle of the boards, like on flat, hardpack or when we lean forward and put pressure on the tips. In deeper snow, when we have our weight mostly on the tails, or at least on the back part of the boards, we're not pressing the tips at all, even though they are still in snow, but will they decamber without weight ? Not at all, completely, or to some extent ? Have no idea



Like you, there's long since I've forgot all the physics that I've learn in school, I tentatively remember we'd be exerting two forces, vertically the gravitational one and a horizontal one, friction related, but I can be completely off here and unable to figure how it would apply to cambered boards in powder
The best explanation I've found regarding the rocker angle, was an analogy to boats: low angle and long rocker will be similar to a speed boat, going fast in smooth conditions, while steeper angle and shorter rocker would be more like a tugboat, being able to break any kind of waves and not be bothered by irregularities. This would make the XLs and Spruce 125/Ospreys the ones that would go fastest in smooth powder; while SII, Spliff, Blunt, Crossbows, Slingshots, Shepras would be the most maneuverable for different conditions. And the RCs would be the jack of all trades, having a longish rocker and the steepest angle
(below listed only the rockered board)

	Area cm2(one)	Rocker height	Rocker length	Rocker Angle	Camber
RVL8 Rockered Condor	1494.66	10	170	3.3°
Spruce Sherpa	1482.20	5	110	2.6°	6
Spruce Osprey	1482.20	8	300	1.5°
RVL8 Spliff	1404.09	3	100	1.7°	6
RVL8 Blunt XL	1360.16	5	220	1.3°
Spruce Crossbow	1316.53	2	80	1.4°
Spruce Slingshot	1300.96	3	75	2.3°
Spruce 125	1296.64	6	250	1.3°
RVL8 Blunt	1194.56	4	110	2°
RVL8 Sticky Icky Icky	1097.26	2	80	1.4°	5

Great table, would you mind if I posted it on the FB page for the folks there to see?

[newbie2011]

The counter-argument is that in reasonably deep powder, the cambered area of the board is still in contact with the snow, and still providing float despite the camber. It would be rare to have a situation either in hardpack or powder where one is making full snow contact (i.e. not in the air or tail surfing) and not compressing the camber into contacting the snow.

Pure speculation, of course...

I'm speculating as well, but I'm still lean toward the opposite, but cannot prove it. In my mind we decamber the boards when we have our full weight on the middle of the boards, like on flat, hardpack or when we lean forward and put pressure on the tips. In deeper snow, when we have our weight mostly on the tails, or at least on the back part of the boards, we're not pressing the tips at all, even though they are still in snow, but will they decamber without weight ? Not at all, completely, or to some extent ? Have no idea

The physics are a bit confusing for me here, but in essence you have a flat projection first and then when the tails sink the projection changes. However as this point it is going beyond my level of knowledge. What I do know is that the angle that the from base of the ski forms with the snowline is more important in this case. This determines the drag/force on the ski. What you do have is the force (coming from the snow) pushing against the front part of the ski base. On a rocker the way I understand it is that it will flex more and as such as be pushed above the snow level and exposing more of the base to the glide. Whereas on a stiffer board the lift is not so much and the ski will dip into the snow more, thus exposing the bindings and boots more which in turn cause more friction and could even lead to rapid decelaration.

Like you, there's long since I've forgot all the physics that I've learn in school, I tentatively remember we'd be exerting two forces, vertically the gravitational one and a horizontal one, friction related, but I can be completely off here and unable to figure how it would apply to cambered boards in powder
The best explanation I've found regarding the rocker angle, was an analogy to boats: low angle and long rocker will be similar to a speed boat, going fast in smooth conditions, while steeper angle and shorter rocker would be more like a tugboat, being able to break any kind of waves and not be bothered by irregularities. This would make the XLs and Spruce 125/Ospreys the ones that would go fastest in smooth powder; while SII, Spliff, Blunt, Crossbows, Slingshots, Shepras would be the most maneuverable for different conditions. And the RCs would be the jack of all trades, having a longish rocker and the steepest angle
(below listed only the rockered board)

	Area cm2(one)	Rocker height	Rocker length	Rocker Angle	Camber
RVL8 Rockered Condor	1494.66	10	170	3.3°
Spruce Osprey	1482.20	8	300	1.5°
Spruce Sherpa	1459.80	5	110	2.6°	6
RVL8 Spliff	1404.09	3	100	1.7°	6
RVL8 Blunt XL	1360.16	5	220	1.3°
Spruce Crossbow	1316.53	2	80	1.4°	6
Spruce Slingshot	1300.96	3	75	2.3°	4
Spruce 125	1296.64	6	250	1.3°
RVL8 Blunt	1194.56	4	110	2°
RVL8 Sticky Icky Icky	1097.26	2	80	1.4°	5

[ysb33r]

It's true, but this happens on groomers. I've probably not expressed myself clearly, but I was thinking about camber vs rocker _in powder_, where there's no more real carving. I was imagining that the camber kind of goes away, which I realize it doesn't make sense, cannot be true, the rider will not be able to use it like you describe, for carving, but the board will not suddenly become flat by itself. And with the weight being more on the back of the boards (again, in powder), the XLs probably have a larger tail end - weight baring - area than the Spliffs, so despite the slightly greater total area of the Spliffs, the XLs could actually provide more tail support. ( them being shorter, I don't suppose they are flexier, so the flex should not impede on the flotation comparison )

The physics are a bit confusing for me here, but in essence you have a flat projection first and then when the tails sink the projection changes. However as this point it is going beyond my level of knowledge. What I do know is that the angle that the fron base of the ski forms with the snowline is more important in this case. This determines the drag/force on the ski. What you do have is the force (coming from the snow) pushing against the front part of the ski base. On a rocker the way I understand it is that it will flex more and as such as be pushed above the snow level and exposing more of the base to the glide. Whereas on a stiffer board the lift is not so much and the ski will dip into the snow more, thus exposing the bindings and boots more which in turn cause more friction and could even lead to rapid decelaration.

[Steeps]

I'd have to look at the rear rocker numbers on the two... I always figured the spring action of the camber should provide more tail support (in terms of being firm and responsive, not just float).

The counter-argument is that in reasonably deep powder, the cambered area of the board is still in contact with the snow, and still providing float despite the camber. It would be rare to have a situation either in hardpack or powder where one is making full snow contact (i.e. not in the air or tail surfing) and not compressing the camber into contacting the snow.

Pure speculation, of course...

Uploaded a little bit of footage on clearing a trashed-out single black run... not a spectacular video but a reasonable example of why I love the Spliffs for less than perfect conditions. It was all fairly soft snow and lots of mini moguls. Just keep light on your feet, get the knees ready for bigger bumps, and let 'er go...

[newbie2011]

In laymans terms, the purpose of camber is to reduce reverse camber. This in turn helps that the projection of an angulated of the slope is closer to a circle rather than an elipse, which in turn allows the rider to obtain a carved turn rather than skid turn. It is for this same reason that a fully rockered board is usually better turned using slarving rather than carving.

It's true, but this happens on groomers. I've probably not expressed myself clearly, but I was thinking about camber vs rocker _in powder_, where there's no more real carving. I was imagining that the camber kind of goes away, which I realize it doesn't make sense, cannot be true, the rider will not be able to use it like you describe, for carving, but the board will not suddenly become flat by itself. And with the weight being more on the back of the boards (again, in powder), the XLs probably have a larger tail end - weight baring - area than the Spliffs, so despite the slightly greater total area of the Spliffs, the XLs could actually provide more tail support. ( them being shorter, I don't suppose they are flexier, so the flex should not impede on the flotation comparison )

[ysb33r]

I know, but ... hmmm, I might have misunderstood how exactly camber works, in my mind once you're on the boards and the boards are weighted, the camber goes away, the bases would be rather flat, maybe even so in powder, where the feet are closer as we don't switch much weight from one leg to the other.

But I never thought about how elastic and responsive camber actually is, you mean that if the board is not fully weighted, it immediately goes back to a slightly arched position ? Close to its natural shape ? If I lift my foot off the snow at rest it's certainly the behaviour, I was imagining that while riding this happens to a lesser extent, but there's no reason for that, without weight on the middle of the board, it will keep the cambered shape, or at least a large amount of it.

That would make indeed for a smaller floating surface in powder, as the weight will be more on the tails, or back half of the board, not the whole of it. And because of the camber, part of the front half will not take active part in smoothing the powder.

Does any of this make any sense or I'm completely clueless ?!?

In laymans terms, the purpose of camber is to reduce reverse camber. This in turn helps that the projection of an angulated of the slope is closer to a circle rather than an elipse, which in turn allows the rider to obtain a carved turn rather than skid turn. It is for this same reason that a fully rockered board is usually better turned using slarving rather than carving.

Sent from my Mi Note 10 Pro using Tapatalk

[newbie2011]

Those more technical than me may explain this better. There are many variables as to how much a ski will decamber..... the amount of camber, the stiffness of the ski, the ski length, the skiers weight, the amount of force in the turn, the hardness of the snow surface and the edge angle, to name a few. In reality your ski will flex as you weight and unwieght it during a turn, so it is most likely in a constant state of change. It's the fore and aft contact points on a cambered ski that give the edge "bite". On a fully rockered ski, it starts flat underfoot and then becomes more rockered as it becomes weighted, so by nature it should have more float and less bite.

I was more or less aware of those considerations, but I was thinking - wrongly - that they will mostly apply to skiing on groomed. In deepish powder and not a steep slope, when most of the boards will go throughout the snow, with only tips being more afloat, I was thinking the board gets decambered, because it's in contact with the snow. But I realize it's not true, in such snow our weight is on the bottom half of the boards, so the front gets some pressure, which comes from below from the snow, but no weight from above to make it flat. So the bottom part is carrying weight and actively helping with flotation, but some part of the front half is somehow more passive, acting more like a snow buster, rather than adding 100% to the flotation area.
Actually for the Spiffs is probably not the whole story, as they do have rocker, so part of the front does help with floating, regardless of how much weight the front gets.
This reasoning was in the context of the other thread, where boards are compared in regard to powder capabilities, and it seemed to me that the major criteria was board area. Now I see that things are more relative than that, which could make the XLs float more than the Spliffs, despite the slightly lower total area. In the snow conditions I've mentioned above, not in the extreme slopes Steeps is riding
I'm still not sure which of rocker angle or rocker length has more of an impact; but I (hopefully ) understand better the cambered vs rockered issue

Edit: reading online for explanations of the same features in skis, it looks like a long, low rocker is aimed at giving sustainable speed (like in untracked terrain), while a steeper rocker will provide more mobility and pivot-ability (say riding in trees) . Lesson learned

[Bad Wolf]

I know, but ... hmmm, I might have misunderstood how exactly camber works, in my mind once you're on the boards and the boards are weighted, the camber goes away, the bases would be rather flat, maybe even so in powder, where the feet are closer as we don't switch much weight from one leg to the other.

But I never thought about how elastic and responsive camber actually is, you mean that if the board is not fully weighted, it immediately goes back to a slightly arched position ? Close to its natural shape ? If I lift my foot off the snow at rest it's certainly the behaviour, I was imagining that while riding this happens to a lesser extent, but there's no reason for that, without weight on the middle of the board, it will keep the cambered shape, or at least a large amount of it.

That would make indeed for a smaller floating surface in powder, as the weight will be more on the tails, or back half of the board, not the whole of it. And because of the camber, part of the front half will not take active part in smoothing the powder.

Does any of this make any sense or I'm completely clueless ?!?

Those more technical than me may explain this better. There are many variables as to how much a ski will decamber..... the amount of camber, the stiffness of the ski, the ski length, the skiers weight, the amount of force in the turn, the hardness of the snow surface and the edge angle, to name a few. In reality your ski will flex as you weight and unwieght it during a turn, so it is most likely in a constant state of change. It's the fore and aft contact points on a cambered ski that give the edge "bite". On a fully rockered ski, it starts flat underfoot and then becomes more rockered as it becomes weighted, so by nature it should have more float and less bite.