Flat Back

[kirtap]

Maybe I'm missing some obvious reason, and if so, just point me to it, but what is the purpose of the flat/square back. To me, it looks like it would make no difference in riding a twin tipped board as opposed to a board with the flat back. Is it just to make it more directional?
Thanks.

[Mike Ford]

well, since we don't have to go backwards, it's nice and convenient when you're leaning your board up against something. The flat back helps it stand up better:D

[Frappe]

On a twin-tip board, effective edge length is sacrificed to make that curved tail.
On a square-tail board, you can extend the effective edge to nearly the very end of the board, if you want.

Yeah, they stand up a lot better too.

[k_t]

I thought that the square tail was kept on the alpine boards to keep us entertained in the lift line with all of the funny(?) questions.

[Derf]

Less overhang, less useless weight, less vibrations, it's what I would think.

[rikytheripster]

2nd with mike, efective edge is a big one.

[Jack Michaud]

...is one that most riders should ask themselves - "why does my board have a huge upturned tail?" Unless you're riding fakie 40% of the time or you spend <i>a lot</i> of time in the park/pipe, you don't need that giant tail adding to the swing weight of your board. I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

[Phil]

Yeah Jack, but then they would look different than the other people's boards. Isn't that what it is all about?:D

[Scott Firestone]

For the older Prior 4WD (I think 1999 model year or earlier), the tail is much more flat/squared-off than the newer models. The older boards are better on the groom, and the newer boards have better maneuverability through the trees.

[lonerider]

Originally posted by Jack Michaud
...is one that most riders should ask themselves - "why does my board have a huge upturned tail?" Unless you're riding fakie 40% of the time or you spend <i>a lot</i> of time in the park/pipe, you don't need that giant tail adding to the swing weight of your board. I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

Personally, I would want a rounded tail if I'm riding switch 10% or more of the time. It's useful for traversing a steep slope or riding flats when you legs start getting tired (riding switch)... not to mention that it's fun to pop a 180 off a natural bump. I've been riding my Madd 170 switch a bit and it's just a little "touchy" riding switch down the slopes on it (ontop of have 60/55 angles) and/or trying to spin a simple small 180 off a bump (travelling no more than 5-10 feet in the air). But that's just the way I ride myself.

I don't agree with the swing weight argument... true it does add swing weight... but if it were that important... people wouldn't be getting 180+ cm boards vs stiffer 170-175 cm boards with longer sidecuts (from my understanding). The main people who care about swing weight are freestylers doing spins, no? I mean even a 160 cm twintip is going to have a lot let swing weight than a 175 cm alpine board. Is there something else I didn't think of?

[Steve Dold]

Originally posted by Jack Michaud
I think most snowboarders would be better served on a BX style board than any current freeride board.

Exactly! Fin let me demo an F2 Speedcross when he was in Tahoe a few days ago. It was big fun, it did everything, carved well and was so easy to ride. I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

[lonerider]

Originally posted by Steve Dold
I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

They tend to cost a lot more than the noodle-ly boards in most shops too. Wait, isn't that a hardboot BX board?

[D-Sub]

Originally posted by Steve Dold
Exactly! Fin let me demo an F2 Speedcross when he was in Tahoe a few days ago. It was big fun, it did everything, carved well and was so easy to ride. I'm surprised more people aren't on BX boards. Well, not surprised. Shop shelves don't have them and most people don't want to try anything different than what their friends are riding.

http://sportstop.zoovy.com/product/NIDECKSUPERX169

[lonerider]

Originally posted by D-Sub
http://sportstop.zoovy.com/product/NIDECKSUPERX169

Nice price... does anyone else think a 169 cm board with 7.8 m SCR and a 25.3cm waist to be a bit odd? Wouldn't to lead to a super stiff board that is slow edge to edge (even for a softboot BX board) that is squirrelly at higher speeds?

[Jack Michaud]

Originally posted by lonerider
Personally, I would want a rounded tail if I'm riding switch 10% or more of the time. It's useful for traversing a steep slope or riding flats when you legs start getting tired (riding switch)... not to mention that it's fun to pop a 180 off a natural bump. I've been riding my Madd 170 switch a bit and it's just a little "touchy" riding switch down the slopes on it (ontop of have 60/55 angles) and/or trying to spin a simple small 180 off a bump (travelling no more than 5-10 feet in the air). But that's just the way I ride myself.
Right, and you could do all that on a BX board. You don't <i>need</i> a full freestyle shape to do any of that. (and all freeride boards are basically a full frestyle shape - just different construction)



I don't agree with the swing weight argument... true it does add swing weight... but if it were that important... people wouldn't be getting 180+ cm boards vs stiffer 170-175 cm boards with longer sidecuts (from my understanding).
Right, swing weight doesn't matter <i>as</i> much to carvers, but that wasn't my point...



The main people who care about swing weight are freestylers doing spins, no?

Yes, but also freeriders - people who want to both carve and not carve, in softboots. A shorter board with low swing weight is more important to them in the trees and bumps and just for general maneuverability. But if they could have an extra 5cm of edge length with a BX board of the same overall length, it would carve better and handle more speed.

That's why I believe most softbooters who mostly just cruise the mountain should really be on BX boards.

As for why race boards have square tails, well, it's just about maximizing edge length for more speed and edge hold. Race/freecarve board tails are usually 5cm worth of non-running length. Race/fc board noses are usually 15cm. You could make a twin tip race board, but it would be 10cm longer for no real reason. I'd rather ride a 170 than a 180 if the 180 isn't going to be any faster or more stable than the 170.

Like I said, having a twin tipped board is only <i>necessary</i> for logging lots of time riding fakie and for launching/landing big airs switch. For casual fakie antics, a BX style tail is plenty. And behold and lo, that's what is on the all-mtn carvers like the Axis and 4x4, etc.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Originally posted by lonerider
They tend to cost a lot more than the noodle-ly boards in most shops too. Wait, isn't that a hardboot BX board?
The Speedcross is a 22.5 cm waist board. I saw a guy in Panorama on an Eliminator, that's one bad-ass looking freeride board. Quite short and low nose, shorter kick than usual, 25 cm waist. Just the sort of thing aggressive all-mountain softboot guys should be on, IMNSHO.

[Phil]

Jack - I agree with everything that you have said so far.

I just wish that they would have a BX style board that is wide. I do not know of one, does anyone else?

BTW I am talking about a board for softies.

[bobdea]

when on softies I need 26 to 27 cm at the waist or I heel or toe drag
I wear a 11 and don't like going beyond 30* angles
it might be slow edge to edge but once you get used to it its no big deal

that sidecut is tight but some boards if the are built right do just fine with a tight radius they just take your fine edging skills up a level
a great example of that was the burton balance those boards I always wished they made a bigger and slightly wider version because they railed very well
those were boards meant for the pipe but they were quite stiff and had a tight sidecut radius

[lonerider]

Originally posted by Jack Michaud
Right, and you could do all that on a BX board. You don't <i>need</i> a full freestyle shape to do any of that. (and all freeride boards are basically a full frestyle shape - just different construction)

...

Like I said, having a twin tipped board is only <i>necessary</i> for logging lots of time riding fakie and for launching/landing big airs switch. For casual fakie antics, a BX style tail is plenty. And behold and lo, that's what is on the all-mtn carvers like the Axis and 4x4, etc.

I see, I took the comment in the wrong context. I thought you were referring to BX boards with with "flat backs" and not ones will "rounded edges" but limited rocker like a Donek Axis or a Prior 4WD compared to a full twin tip like a Donek Twin or a Prior AMF. Actually, I should have realized it since I remember someone saying all BX boards have to have rounded corners. I agree with what you are saying.



Yes, but also freeriders - people who want to both carve and not carve, in softboots. A shorter board with low swing weight is more important to them in the trees and bumps and just for general maneuverability. But if they could have an extra 5cm of edge length with a BX board of the same overall length, it would carve better and handle more speed.

That's why I believe most softbooters who mostly just cruise the mountain should really be on BX boards.


Oy, the quoting system is a little weird (doesn't double quote anymore, or maybe it's just my own text). Yes, I see what you are getting at... but I think Steve's comment comes into play - people are not going to scour the internet/earth for hard to find/pricey BX boards. Ontop of that... most people wouldn't be able to use the the extra edge length anyways (in the same way they don't use the twin tail) although I bet that more people "try" to carve at high speeds than ride switch.

[bobdea]

I wish all my boards had the round tail like a BX deck I love it
so guess what my future coilers are all gonna have

[Kirk]

I just wish that they would have a BX style board that is wide. I do not know of one, does anyone else?

The Nidecker BX (NBX) has 25.0 waist in the 164 model and a 25.5 in the 168. Not sure if that's considered wide, but I own a 164 and that puppy is WAY wider than anything else I in the collection! The thing floats nice, carves very well, and handles the chopped-up crud too. Check 'em out here: http://www.nidecker.ch/en/produits.php?value=index_board

The NBX is in the AST line. I own the previous year ('04) Project TM (same board).

[Jack Michaud]

The F2 Eliminator seems to be it for true BX softboot boards on the market. The 164 has an effective edge of 135, and waist width of 25.4cm. The Nidecker NBX isn't really a BX board, imo. Their 164 has an effective edge of 126cm.

[lonerider]

Originally posted by Jack Michaud
The F2 Eliminator seems to be it for true BX softboot boards on the market. The 164 has an effective edge of 135, and waist width of 25.4cm. The Nidecker NBX isn't really a BX board, imo. Their 164 has an effective edge of 126cm.

Why don't you view it as a BX board? Still too much of a tail? (I'm not familiar with Nidecker boards).

[Jack Michaud]

Originally posted by lonerider
Why don't you view it as a BX board? Still too much of a tail?

Yes. A Nidecker NBX would have to be 173cm long to equal the running length of the F2 Eliminator 164.

Before you start to think that perhaps the Eliminator has too little tail, consider the F2 Speedcross (their all-mtn carver). The 165 has a running length of 140.

[Phil]

"Before you start to think that perhaps the Eliminator has too little tail..."

I don't really think that any board has too little of a tail. Unless you ride really deep powder or slush, or the the halfpipe wall is severely kinked (and maybe a few other scenarios that you guys could think of) a small tail will do. For that matter, barring the above conditions, a small nose works as well. You know the questions that we all get - people ask me all of the time how you can ride switch with that flat tail. I then point out the nose - it is not that different. Race boards really don't have much nose either.

I was stoked when BX boards started showing up. They are a great idea. I have size 15 feet, though, so if I was going to ride the necessary angles to ride a BX board - I would rather just ride a race board and hard boots. I love the idea of a BX board, but unless someone would make one with a 27 waist or so, I will have to pass. :(

[Kirk]

The Nidecker NBX isn't really a BX board, imo. Their 164 has an effective edge of 126cm.
I'll be the first to admit that I have no BX racing experience, but I'm not sure that the effective edge length variable is going to determine this board's effectiveness as a BX board. I don't ride BX nor do I see myself doing it in the near future, this is my all-mt. answer for now and it works very well. It does hold a carve at speed impressively and floats very nice in the deep stuff - this is why I like it. I do know that the NBX is Nidecker's answer for a BX board and their R&D and racing team would probably disagree with your assessment there Jack. It would be interesting to get some info. on how these boards compare to eachother as far as performance in BX from team riders' perspectives. I did note that the 164 Eliminator and the 164 NBX have a very similar scr (8.6/8.8 m). I'll probably get a chance to ride the NBX 168 in the next couple of weeks. I'll let ya know.