Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Skiboard Selection Table

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by newbie2011 View Post
    Looks like the table got lost, probably during the forum migration from a while ago, at least for me the original link was not workingClick image for larger version Name:	SkiboardSelectionTable090927.jpg Views:	0 Size:	276.4 KB ID:	262470
    You're right about the migration and what a coincidence, I had just found a bunch of images missing and uploaded them minutes ago. It should be there now. Regarding the table, it's very old, none of the new rockered and rockered/cambered boards are on it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Greco View Post

      You're right about the migration and what a coincidence, I had just found a bunch of images missing and uploaded them minutes ago. It should be there now. Regarding the table, it's very old, none of the new rockered and rockered/cambered boards are on it.
      Everything is fine now, indeed. Guess I'm not the only one looking forward for winter and getting on the forum more often

      Indeed the table is not up-to-date, but it's still very useful I think, maybe we can do something to update it

      I could try to throw some quick code to do the calculations, but I wonder how good an accuracy would we need ? The shape of the skiboards is not identical, to simplify things one would need to cut some corners to have the same formula for the different boards ... Would the total area be considered as the whole skiboard surface or one should consider rocker size and rather calculate the actual footprint of the board ?

      For instance the total area would give something like (with approximations and simplifications of the shapes) :
      --------------------------------- . Total.area.(cm2)
      RVL8 Rockered Condor . . .1494.66
      Spruce Osprey . . . . . . . . . .1482.20
      RVL8 Spliff . . . . . . . . . . . . .1404.09
      RVL8 Blunt.XL . . . . . . . . . . 1360.16
      Spruce Crossbow . . . . . . .1316.53
      Spruce Slingshot. . . . . . . . 1300.96
      Spruce 120 . . . . . . . . . . . .1281.29
      RVL8 KTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1257.34
      RVL8 DLP/ALP . .. . . . . . . . 1215.54
      RVL8 Blunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194.56
      RVL8 Romp.Rigor . . . . . . . .1193.96
      RVL8 Revolt . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160.54
      RVL8 Sticky.Icky.Icky . . . . . 1097.26
      RVL8 Slapdash . . . . . . . . . .1035.86

      Edit: this is actually the total area of only one board, for the floating capabilities I'll have to use the double of these numbers.

      Are these numbers close enough to what is usually used as board's surface area ?
      RVL8 Blunt XL
      Spruce Raptors 125LE
      Revel8 2010 Revolt Trees 105cm
      Spruce Yellow/Red 120s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by newbie2011 View Post

        --------------------------------- . Total.area.(cm2)
        RVL8 Rockered Condor . . .1494.66
        Spruce Osprey . . . . . . . . . .1482.20
        RVL8 Spliff . . . . . . . . . . . . .1404.09
        RVL8 Blunt.XL . . . . . . . . . . 1360.16
        Spruce Crossbow . . . . . . .1316.53
        Spruce Slingshot. . . . . . . . 1300.96
        Spruce 120 . . . . . . . . . . . .1281.29
        RVL8 KTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1257.34
        RVL8 DLP/ALP . .. . . . . . . . 1215.54
        RVL8 Blunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194.56
        RVL8 Romp.Rigor . . . . . . . .1193.96
        RVL8 Revolt . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160.54
        RVL8 Sticky.Icky.Icky . . . . . 1097.26
        RVL8 Slapdash . . . . . . . . . .1035.86

        That's a great table. Really puts into perspective the difference in surface area's of these boards. Despite it's shorter length, look how far up the the table the XLs are, goes to show why they are so popular in powder.
        Just these, nothing else !

        Comment


        • #19
          I will need to search for the original data from 11 years ago. Your surface areas are probably close enough since it is for comparison.
          As to how to factor in rocker, maybe a factor could be used in the area to reflect their greater float. Maybe Jack, Wendell and Rick could estimate what the factor should be since they ride so many different boards in all conditions.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          sigpic


          Osprey, Sherpa, Custom Coda 120WT, Custom DS110, Condor (Green), Spliff

          Custom Twist Out duck foot bindings, Bombers (custom duck foot base plate and 3 pads), releasable S810ti on custom duck foot riser

          Nordica N3 NXT ski boots (best so far)


          Wife: 104 SII & 100 Blunt XL with S810ti bindings on custom "adjustable duck foot" risers

          Loaners: 125LE, 105 EMP, 101 KTP, 100 Blunt XL, 98 Slapdash, 88 Blunts

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bad Wolf View Post
            That's a great table. Really puts into perspective the difference in surface area's of these boards. Despite it's shorter length, look how far up the the table the XLs are, goes to show why they are so popular in powder.
            You're absolutely right, I was focused on crunching the numbers and didn't realized that even without any other computations, the area speaks by itself when it comes to powder ...

            Here is the full table for the boards I've found so far, if anyone has more, let me know and I'll add it
            RVL8 Rockered Condor 1494.66
            RVL8 Condor 1494.66
            Spruce Sherpa 1482.20
            Spruce Osprey 1482.20
            RVL8 Spliff 1404.09
            RVL8 Blunt XL 1360.16
            Spruce Crossbow 1316.53
            Spruce Slingshot 1300.96
            Spruce 125 1296.64
            Spruce 120 1281.29
            RVL8 KTP 1257.34
            RVL8 DLP/ALP 1215.54
            RVL8 Blunt 1194.56
            RVL8 Romp Rigor 1193.96
            RVL8 Revolt 1160.54
            RVL8 Sticky Icky Icky 1097.26
            RVL8 Slapdash 1035.86
            SnowJam 90 997.89
            Allz 94 978.40
            RVL8 Rumspringa 973.92
            RVL8 Tansho 946.31
            SnowJam 99 881.05
            SnowJam 75 828.93
            RVL8 Bantam 743.04
            Originally posted by slow View Post
            I will need to search for the original data from 11 years ago. Your surface areas are probably close enough since it is for comparison.
            As to how to factor in rocker, maybe a factor could be used in the area to reflect their greater float. Maybe Jack, Wendell and Rick could estimate what the factor should be since they ride so many different boards in all conditions.
            That would be great, it's an important factor that this table is not taking into account
            RVL8 Blunt XL
            Spruce Raptors 125LE
            Revel8 2010 Revolt Trees 105cm
            Spruce Yellow/Red 120s

            Comment


            • #21
              I have always used a different rough calculation of surface area by taking the length x an average of the tip , mid board , and tail widths . If you use this type of calculation a similar table is generated in terms of rank order other then the Sherpa and the Ospreys having more surface area then the Condor and Rockered Condor. However , when you look at real life performance there are other factors to take into account . In my experience chief amongst this is the width of the board , especially the width of the board at the mid section of the board where your feet are. Boards like the Blunt Xl which is very wide in the center ride much better in powder then you would expect in a 100cm board compared to a longer board that is narrower in the center. A Rockered Condor for example can have similar float to Sherpa because of the width of the board in the center and the tail which is wider then the Sherpa although a full 20 cm shorter and less surface area to my calculations . Rocker and zero camber also affect float

              In my personal experience of rank order of real life performance in smooth powder I would rank them as follows
              Osprey
              Sherpa
              Rockered Condor
              Regular Condor
              Spliff
              Blunt Xl
              Slingshot
              Crossbow
              AlP

              But , here is the big but , it is not only about float in smooth powder . it is how the boards perform in real life variable junky broken powder crud that is super important for me . , A good example is my feeling concerning the Rockered Condor vs the Spliff and the Blunt Xl . I have come to prefer the Spliff with a set back and the Blunt Xl (center mounted) , and the regular Condor with a custom set back over the Rockered Condor and the Sherpa over the Osprey because of the way they perform in real life variable broken pow or crud . The Rockered Condor because of its high rocker and very short running length , is a handful in broken variable snow unless you have excellent balance and run the boards at high speed which tends to smooth things out .(Which is exactly how Greco rides them ) As I have become older and perhaps a little more balance challenged and liking to run my boards not quite as fast , I prefer boards that I can ride from the tail which requires less fore and aft balance I find that on the Rockered Condor and the Osprey it is hard for me to get back on the tail and control the board that way in variable snow. The Blunt Xl is really a very unique board for me because I can ride the board dead center and not on the tail and yet it works very well for me in variable crud . I think it is because although zero cambered and rockered, the rocker is very gentle and gradual and the board itself is firm enough in the tail with a gentle enough rocker to support pressure back to the tail and has much more fore and aft stability for me riding center . Being so short it is very amenable to on the fly course corrections with fore and aft balance even when running at more moderate speeds and definitely for me seems easier to control my balance then a Rockered Condor or even a center mounted Osprey in nasty broken variable powder and crud.
              Boards :
              Spliffs
              DLPs
              Condors
              Slingshots
              Sherpa

              Boot:
              K2 BFC 100

              Bindings:
              Zero Pro Non release Binding
              Modified Receptor Backcountry Bindings (Bill Version and Slow Version)
              Spruce ProPrime Plus Binding/Riser with Attack 13 GW binding
              Custom Risers with Fritschi Backcountry Bindings (Jeff Singer version 1, Bill version)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jjue View Post
                I have always used a different rough calculation of surface area by taking the length x an average of the tip , mid board , and tail widths .
                I was not sure what kind of approximations I can make without affecting unequally the different boards so I tried to stay as close to dimensions as possible. So it was the green area below - two half circles plus the middle trapeze minus the two side triangles. This is the more generic case - Spruce boards - for the RVL8 the trapeze becomes a rectangle. Tips and tails are probably not really half circles, but I don't think that changes much the total number, or at least it's kind of equally erroneous for all the boards

                Click image for larger version  Name:	board_shape.png Views:	0 Size:	16.2 KB ID:	262488

                Originally posted by jjue View Post
                In my experience chief amongst this is the width of the board , especially the width of the board at the mid section of the board where your feet are. Boards like the Blunt Xl which is very wide in the center ride much better in powder then you would expect in a 100cm board compared to a longer board that is narrower in the center. A Rockered Condor for example can have similar float to Sherpa because of the width of the board in the center and the tail which is wider then the Sherpa although a full 20 cm shorter and less surface area to my calculations . Rocker and zero camber also affect float
                This makes me wonder, for cambered boards like the Spliff, will the rocker be greater once on snow with the board pressured ? I remember seeing a picture - https://forums.skiboardsonline.com/f...016-109-spliff - of Spliffs "manually" pressed at the waist, as if under load, and I think the gap at the top seemed wider that the rocker size as on paper. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but looks like the actual rocker on snow is greater than the value on paper ? Like 6mm camber + 3mm rocker would actually generate ... 6mm ? 9mm rocker ?

                Originally posted by jjue View Post
                But , here is the big but , it is not only about float in smooth powder . it is how the boards perform in real life variable junky broken powder crud that is super important for me . , A good example is my feeling concerning the Rockered Condor vs the Spliff and the Blunt Xl . I have come to prefer the Spliff with a set back and the Blunt Xl (center mounted) , and the regular Condor with a custom set back over the Rockered Condor and the Sherpa over the Osprey because of the way they perform in real life variable broken pow or crud . The Rockered Condor because of its high rocker and very short running length , is a handful in broken variable snow unless you have excellent balance and run the boards at high speed which tends to smooth things out .(Which is exactly how Greco rides them ) As I have become older and perhaps a little more balance challenged and liking to run my boards not quite as fast , I prefer boards that I can ride from the tail which requires less fore and aft balance I find that on the Rockered Condor and the Osprey it is hard for me to get back on the tail and control the board that way in variable snow. The Blunt Xl is really a very unique board for me because I can ride the board dead center and not on the tail and yet it works very well for me in variable crud . I think it is because although zero cambered and rockered, the rocker is very gentle and gradual and the board itself is firm enough in the tail with a gentle enough rocker to support pressure back to the tail and has much more fore and aft stability for me riding center . Being so short it is very amenable to on the fly course corrections with fore and aft balance even when running at more moderate speeds and definitely for me seems easier to control my balance then a Rockered Condor or even a center mounted Osprey in nasty broken variable powder and crud.
                Very valuable insight, at least for me, skiing in the French Alps mostly on groomed and venturing a bit on close by off-piste, it's always a mixture of snows and conditions in the same run, going from icy and hard snow at the top to lots of crud towards the resort, so this ability of a board to deal with all this mix is very important. I was looking to get a pair of RCs, knowing they are a bit of a "special conditions" board, but I'm not sure how often I'll get those deep powder to have them show their whole potential, from what you describe maybe the Spliffs would work better.
                RVL8 Blunt XL
                Spruce Raptors 125LE
                Revel8 2010 Revolt Trees 105cm
                Spruce Yellow/Red 120s

                Comment

                Working...
                X