# Sticky  Rocker, Camber, and everything in between



## Wiredsport

Looking around at all of the current board designs at the SIA show in Denver a couple of weeks ago was cool as always, but also dizzying. Board profiles (camber, rocker, etc.) were still the top story, with every booth showing off their favorite flavor (or in most cases flavors). It made me think how confusing it would be for a newer rider to make a board choice in the current market and how hard it would be to feel confident in their selection. There are now so many varieties out there that it is hard to stay on top of them all. 

I thought it might be helpful to start a thread here that showed the basic profile types all in one place without the marketing spin. There are definately many sub categories of each, but these are the broad strokes. 











*Traditional Camber* 

Pros - Tried and true performance. Great rebound which helps transition from edge to edge and also adds to pop for ollies etc. Longer running surface means good speed and edge bite in carves. Boards can be ridden shorter than some other designs without sacrificing running surface.

Cons - The contact points of the effective edge (roughly the boards wide points) are in constant contact with the snow. That can mean caught edges and some hard take downs.

*Rocker*

Pros - Easy turn initiation. Lifted wide points even when weighted means less caught edges. There are many varieties of this design which include various degrees of rocker, asymmetrical rocker (nose lifted more than tail, rocker center point shifted more towards tail, etc.) and multi-stage rocker.

Cons - Lost running surface, lost rebound, lost edge grip (many rocker designs get around this by using other design elements to add grip back in).

*Flat* 

Pros - Maximum Stability. Longer running surface. Boards can be ridden shorter.

Cons - No inherent rebound. Without additional measures these boards tend to feel less lively. The contact points of the effective edge (roughly the boards wide points) are in constant contact with the snow. That can mean caught edges and some hard take downs.

*Camber-Rocker-Camber*

Pros - Reestablishes much of the lost running surface inherent to camber and some of the rebound. There are many different varieties of this design which alter the placement of the camber and rocker elements as well as the dimensions of those elements.

Cons - Potential for more catchy spots due to the multi stage profile.

*Rocker-Camber-Rocker*

Pros - Reduces the issue mentioned above from traditional camber where the wide points create catch spots. Good rebound. 

Cons - less running surface than conventional camber.

*Flat with lifted contact points*

Pros - Reduces the issue mentioned above from Flat where the wide points create catch spots. There are many variations of this design. Some have so long a flat spot that they are very close to flat. Others have so little flat spot that they might better be called "Rocker with a little flat spot".

Cons - less running surface than Flat.

*Flat-Rocker-Flat*

Pros - Reestablishes much of the lost running surface inherent to camber and some of the rebound. This design has a little smoother weighted profile than Camber-Rocker-Camber...

Cons - ...but a bit less rebound and pop.


----------



## Nefarious

This deserves a sticky. Good form, WS.


----------



## Smokehaus

Very nice! A simple representation of each style is much more easy to understand for most people than a description.


----------



## tj_ras

this helps me alot since im just getting back into the game and all this new stuff is confusing. but could someone tell me what each one does? flows website has descriptions of each profile/design but they all just make it seem like each profile/design type does the same thing, or maybe its just the way im reading it.


----------



## jdang307

This thread is almost complete. We just now need you to tell us which one is best.


----------



## Hodgepodge

Nice! I might include the benefits of each later, with your consent, WS.


----------



## Wiredsport

tj_ras said:


> this helps me alot since im just getting back into the game and all this new stuff is confusing. but could someone tell me what each one does? flows website has descriptions of each profile/design but they all just make it seem like each profile/design type does the same thing, or maybe its just the way im reading it.


I'll take a crack at that, but please understand that these will be sweeping generalities and that all of the other elements of board design will also play a role.

*Traditional Camber* 

Pros - Tried and true performance. Great rebound which helps transition from edge to edge and also adds to pop for ollies etc. Longer running surface means good speed and edge bite in carves. Boards can be ridden shorter than some other designs without sacrificing running surface.

Cons - The contact points of the effective edge (roughly the boards wide points) are in constant contact with the snow. That can mean caught edges and some hard take downs.

*Rocker*

Pros - Easy turn initiation. Lifted wide points even when weighted means less caught edges. There are many varieties of this design which include various degrees of rocker, asymmetrical rocker (nose lifted more than tail, rocker center point shifted more towards tail, etc.) and multi-stage rocker.

Cons - Lost running surface, lost rebound, lost edge grip (many rocker designs get around this by using other design elements to add grip back in).

*Flat* 

Pros - Maximum Stability. Longer running surface. Boards can be ridden shorter.

Cons - No inherent rebound. Without additional measures these boards tend to feel less lively. The contact points of the effective edge (roughly the boards wide points) are in constant contact with the snow. That can mean caught edges and some hard take downs.

*Camber-Rocker-Camber*

Pros - Reestablishes much of the lost running surface inherent to camber and some of the rebound. There are many different varieties of this design which alter the placement of the camber and rocker elements as well as the dimensions of those elements.

Cons - Potential for more catchy spots due to the multi stage profile.

*Rocker-Camber-Rocker*

Pros - Reduces the issue mentioned above from traditional camber where the wide points create catch spots. Good rebound. 

Cons - less running surface than conventional camber.

*Flat with lifted contact points*

Pros - Reduces the issue mentioned above from Flat where the wide points create catch spots. There are many variations of this design. Some have so long a flat spot that they are very close to flat. Others have so little flat spot that they might better be called "Rocker with a little flat spot".

Cons - less running surface than Flat.

*Flat-Rocker-Flat*

Pros - Reestablishes much of the lost running surface inherent to camber and some of the rebound. This design has a little smoother weighted profile than Camber-Rocker-Camber...

Cons - ...but a bit less rebound and pop.


----------



## JoeR

This is an excellent reference tool. Both the diagrams and the descriptions are very clear -- among the best I've seen.

I have just one comment, which concerns the two popular hybrid configurations that you have accurately listed as "Camber-Rocker-Camber" and "Rocker-Camber-Rocker." The companies that use these camber types tend to name them from the inside out, i.e., they start with what's between the bindings and then go to what's under the bindings or at the tips. Camber-Rocker-Camber becomes just Rocker & Camber, or R.C. (as Never Summer calls it), and Rocker-Camber-Rocker becomes Camber/Rocker, or CamRock (as Nidecker and Jones call it).

Hopefully this will help avoid any potential confusion about how these configurations are employed by board makers.


----------



## AAA

Another variation is the cambered board with a lifted tip and tail. Kessler started this in the snowboarding world for racing, with others quickly following. It's been "the" design that is putting riders on the podium. Alpine riders in general have embraced the technology.

Coiler NSR2 (New School Race) with lifted tip and tail:









From Catek's website, NA dealer for Kessler, "What is it that makes Kessler boards so special? According to Hansjürg Kessler, the most important component of the boards' success is the KST shape – an advanced, multi-radius sidecut, combined synergistically with a totally revolutionary nose shape, camber profile and taper to ensure fantastic edgehold as well as incredibly efficient and smooth turn initiation and completion.

Unlike other board designs, which can overpressure the tip and tail during a turn (exhibited as a tendency for the nose to "dive" or "plow" during turn initiation, and the tail to "hook" at the end of the turn), the Kessler KST shape redistributes edge pressure, so that the nose feeds smoothly into the turn, providing maximum acceleration and optimal edge pressure distribution. The tail of a KST board releases cleanly and smoothly at the end of the turn. The overall smoothness of the KST shape increases rider control and safety, reduces skidding, and ensures maximum speed throughout the turn.

And what about the construction? Well, Kessler has been specializing in titanal construction snowboards for years. Since vaulting onto the US scene with Philipp Schoch's Gold in the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, Kessler titanal boards have racked up an overwhelming number of wins. Kessler has continually tested and refined board construction techniques, and produces the most advanced, most copied, and most envied titanal boards in the world.

Hallmarks of the Kessler construction are superior torsional strength, with a supple longitudinal flex pattern that enables the board to track unerringly over difficult race conditions. The boards provide tenacious edgehold, smooth tracking, and a damp, controlled ride.

It all adds up to a world-beating product, and CATEK is very excited to be able to offer Kessler boards to North American riders."

In my own words, the lifted (of decambered) tip allows faster/snappier carve initiation. It slices through the snow, guiding the way to decamber the more stable cambered main section. The result is less chatter and more stability. The lifted tail allows a cleaner, faster release that isn't as "hooky" as traditional all-camber shapes. As the Kessler description alludes to, these boards are also generally being made in conjuction with chatter dampening titanal lamination(s) and modern progressive sidecuts, which are usually tighter in nose through more open in the tail, to fully compliment the benefits of the lifted tip/tail design. These boards are generally made for balls out, high speed carving with very high edge angles. A side benefit, though, is that if the rider is skidding turns (ie; at much lower edge angles), the lifted tip and tail are not at a high enough angle to be engaged, so the board skids around like a much shorter board, with only the cambered section biting the snow. So my 182cm Coiler for example, rages full length in carves, but rides more like a 160-something board at slower, skidded speeds, in crowds, etc. :thumbsup:


----------



## Inky

AAA said:


> Another variation is the cambered board with a lifted tip and tail. Kessler started this in the snowboarding world for racing, with others quickly following. It's been "the" design that is putting riders on the podium. Alpine riders in general have embraced the technology.
> 
> Coiler NSR2 (New School Race) with lifted tip and tail:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Catek's website, NA dealer for Kessler, "What is it that makes Kessler boards so special? According to Hansjürg Kessler, the most important component of the boards' success is the KST shape – an advanced, multi-radius sidecut, combined synergistically with a totally revolutionary nose shape, camber profile and taper to ensure fantastic edgehold as well as incredibly efficient and smooth turn initiation and completion.
> 
> Unlike other board designs, which can overpressure the tip and tail during a turn (exhibited as a tendency for the nose to "dive" or "plow" during turn initiation, and the tail to "hook" at the end of the turn), the Kessler KST shape redistributes edge pressure, so that the nose feeds smoothly into the turn, providing maximum acceleration and optimal edge pressure distribution. The tail of a KST board releases cleanly and smoothly at the end of the turn. The overall smoothness of the KST shape increases rider control and safety, reduces skidding, and ensures maximum speed throughout the turn.
> 
> And what about the construction? Well, Kessler has been specializing in titanal construction snowboards for years. Since vaulting onto the US scene with Philipp Schoch's Gold in the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, Kessler titanal boards have racked up an overwhelming number of wins. Kessler has continually tested and refined board construction techniques, and produces the most advanced, most copied, and most envied titanal boards in the world.
> 
> Hallmarks of the Kessler construction are superior torsional strength, with a supple longitudinal flex pattern that enables the board to track unerringly over difficult race conditions. The boards provide tenacious edgehold, smooth tracking, and a damp, controlled ride.
> 
> It all adds up to a world-beating product, and CATEK is very excited to be able to offer Kessler boards to North American riders."
> 
> In my own words, the lifted (of decambered) tip allows faster/snappier carve initiation. It slices through the snow, guiding the way to decamber the more stable cambered main section. The result is less chatter and more stability. The lifted tail allows a cleaner, faster release that isn't as "hooky" as traditional all-camber shapes. As the Kessler description alludes to, these boards are also generally being made in conjuction with chatter dampening titanal lamination(s) and modern progressive sidecuts, which are usually tighter in nose through more open in the tail, to fully compliment the benefits of the lifted tip/tail design. These boards are generally made for balls out, high speed carving with very high edge angles. A side benefit, though, is that if the rider is skidding turns (ie; at much lower edge angles), the lifted tip and tail are not at a high enough angle to be engaged, so the board skids around like a much shorter board, with only the cambered section biting the snow. So my 182cm Coiler for example, rages full length in carves, but rides more like a 160-something board at slower, skidded speeds, in crowds, etc. :thumbsup:


Interesting, I totally want to try an alpine setup one day


----------



## JoeR

AAA said:


> Another variation is the cambered board with a lifted tip and tail.


That's already covered in Wiredsport's guide as Rocker-Camber-Rocker (the diagram caption makes this explicit).


----------



## AAA

Yes and no. The more common RCR version is more extreme. Race/carve version is more subtle and typically combined with other mentioned attributes.


----------



## Wiredsport

Remember these old Look Lamar boards from the early 90's? 










Ahead of their time in terms of using rocker and lifting the contact points.

The Morrow spoon was an early cambered model that lifted the contact points with base contouring at the tip and tail. First Rocker-Camber-Rocker at the edge line?


----------



## Wiredsport

mpdsnowman said:


> Hybrids...thats all you need to know..
> 
> Here's mine.. Flow merc 153 love the thing..


MPD,

Please take a shot of your Merc shooting straight at the sidewall with the lens at the same height as the board with the board on a smooth hard surface (not carpet please). That really shows of the profile and lift points...and the Merc/Venus have a pretty cool profile story 

I think it would be cool if we could get a bunch of photos in this thread that show popular boards shot in that same way. A lot of times the actual profile that shows up after production is pretty surprising.


----------



## tj_ras

Thank you wired. Those descriptions are really gonna come in handy when i go to pick out my board for next season since i really wanna start hiting the park more then the slopes.


----------



## jdang307

How about the Bataleon TBT? Yes it can fit into the "cambered" description, but the upturned edges make quite the difference no?


----------



## Wiredsport

jdang307 said:


> How about the Bataleon TBT? Yes it can fit into the "cambered" description, but the upturned edges make quite the difference no?


I recently wrote this in another thread:

Consider this: TBT basically combines two profile technologies. The boards are cambered if you follow the line of the center base, but if you were to follow the edge line, they are Rocker-Camber-Rocker due to the TBT lifted edges at the tips and tails. TBT does not lift the edges in the mid section, so you go from the cambered portion where the edge and the base are at the same level to the tips where the center remains cambered while the edges rocker upwards.


----------



## baronofbacon

Word on the street for 2011/12, bataleons tbt raised all edges throughout their boards. Including mid section. I think Lobster will have the same...?


----------



## Wiredsport

baronofbacon said:


> Word on the street for 2011/12, bataleons tbt raised all edges throughout their boards. Including mid section. I think Lobster will have the same...?


Hi Baron,

The mid sections of all of the 2012 boards are still all single base with the triple base not starting until further out on the boards. That is one of the core features of the design. The various versions of TBT all vary where and how significantly the TBT begins after the flat (edge to edge) mid section as well as the relative width of the flat section in relation to the raised edges on the TBT portions. I think what you may be referring to is that the TBT extends all the way out to the tips now.


----------



## baronofbacon

I was pretty unclear by the description I got on the new ones, I definitely could be wrong. I havnt actually seen the new line. Only pics, but they werent detailed with the tbt. Gotta say though, new graphics look sick.


----------



## phile00

That morrow board reminds me of TBT. It's crazy to see that most of this tech existed a long time ago. Inca made gullwing camber in the late 90s. Why didn't any of these old school base shapes take hold? I thought that was pretty interesting as well.


----------



## Chaos Theory

my good ol' camber seems sooooo, vanilla.


----------



## Cebulski

*Reverse Camberrrr*

Reverse camber is the best, PS like this vid on facebook please ill win a contest it takes like two seconds! Login | Facebook thanks


----------



## Wiredsport

A few from the real world.

Rocker
Camber with lifted contact points
Camber-Rocker-Camber


----------



## Inky

I heard that forum's making flat-camber-flat for 2012


----------



## cncsd

I find it really interesting that around tradeshow season last year, every was talking about how reverse camber and its variations were on the way out and camber was going to be back in full force. But this tradeshow season, the talk was reverse camber was here to stay. There are a hand full of pro models that have embraced reverse camber shapes for next year.


----------



## Inky

I think a company should sellotape a camber board on top of a rocker board so it has camber pop and stability and rocker playfulness and float. It'd have the best of both worlds, like Hannah Montana, only more manly and, er, a snowboard.


----------



## SnowRock1

This is a great thread... I have been out of the game for a bit but gotten bit by the bug again and looking forward to getting out a bunch more and will be looking to get a new set-up.. my current board is like 6 years old but in good shape. This was very helpful as my preliminary research had me head scratching a bit.


----------



## Slickdilla

So what is best for a beginner/learning? Easiest to learn on?


----------



## Wiredsport

Slickdilla said:


> So what is best for a beginner/learning? Easiest to learn on?


Rocker or Flat with lifted contact points are likely the two easiest profiles in terms of the first few days of riding. BUT, as with all things in design, if you get something, you give something. They are initially easier because the contact points and much of the running surface has been lifted. Those surfaces are less available to the rider as they progress. That is great for some types of riding and less advantageous for others. Please note that most riders get through the part of the learning curve where this is a major issue in a matter of a few days, so they are really better advised to rent during that period and then buy a board based on the type of riding they want to do.


----------



## CrooklynSeal

I use the DH 2.4, Rocker-flat-camber-flat-rocker... is what they say.. I think PRIOR does something similar? know anything about PRIOR, better than RIDE?


----------



## dragunovowned

hey wired i read all the stickies and thanks for the info its been a big help. my question is i was advised by two members to start with a traditional camber not rc board to insure i don't develope bad habits and another member said it would be better to start with a rc board so im not spending more time learning to get up rather then riding. 
which do you think is a better way to start traditional or rc?


----------



## killclimbz

The bad habits argument just doesn't hold up to the sniff test. Bad habits are bad habits and any style board. Rocker boards are a tab bit easier to learn on. With the current trends, I doubt many will be going back to a cambered deck anytime soon. Sure there will be a market for it, but I doubt it'll be the mainstream. By the time you get to the point where you might want to ride a cambered deck, you'll have no problem with it.


----------



## dragunovowned

killclimbz said:


> The bad habits argument just doesn't hold up to the sniff test. Bad habits are bad habits and any style board. Rocker boards are a tab bit easier to learn on. With the current trends, I doubt many will be going back to a cambered deck anytime soon. Sure there will be a market for it, but I doubt it'll be the mainstream. By the time you get to the point where you might want to ride a cambered deck, you'll have no problem with it.


thanks man i really like this board but was unsure since it was rc Libtech Skunk Ape C2 BTX Snowboard | Peter Glenn


----------



## Wiredsport

dragunovowned said:


> hey wired i read all the stickies and thanks for the info its been a big help. my question is i was advised by two members to start with a traditional camber not rc board to insure i don't develope bad habits and another member said it would be better to start with a rc board so im not spending more time learning to get up rather then riding.
> which do you think is a better way to start traditional or rc?


You will hear both opinions on this. 

Some generalities:

Starting on camber will teach you _something_ about using your edges (and the beginnings of carving) pretty early on in the game. This comes at the expense of some hard take-downs and a bit slower learning curve during the first few days. 

One thing to consider will be what you eventually want to do. Do you see yourself favoring speed carves on East Coast hardpack, cord ducking powder runs, spending your day killing the park?

Keep in mind that Reverse Camber does not always refer to one thing. It is fairly commonly used as a catch-all for all of the technologies other than camber. There are big differences in how much _ease_ each of these will contribute early on to your riding.


----------



## DropShop

Haha thanks for this man. But after going through all that, I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick with the traditional camber.


----------



## broken

I have a question about traditional camber and reverse camber boards. I read online somewhere that when choosing a reverse camber board, you'd want to select a size a tad bit smaller than a traditional camber board, is this true? And if so, is there an explanation for this reason? Thanks.


----------



## Gruber1922

broken said:


> I have a question about traditional camber and reverse camber boards. I read online somewhere that when choosing a reverse camber board, you'd want to select a size a tad bit smaller than a traditional camber board, is this true? And if so, is there an explanation for this reason? Thanks.


Yeah, I've heard that too. It doesn't necessarily mean you need to buy a smaller board; more you can go shorter without loosing the advantages to the longer board. Sorry, I'm not great at explaining things. I mean, it really comes down to if you want a shorter or longer board. RC basically gives you the option to go a little bit shorter and still keep what the longer boards give you. I'm not exactly sure why.


----------



## Wiredsport

broken said:


> I have a question about traditional camber and reverse camber boards. I read online somewhere that when choosing a reverse camber board, you'd want to select a size a tad bit smaller than a traditional camber board, is this true? And if so, is there an explanation for this reason? Thanks.


Hi Broken,

I am glad you asked this question because that type of misinformation is all over and is responsible for a lot of riders ending up with poorly size boards.

As a generality, the opposite is true. A traditional cambered board (along with dead flat boards) have the longest running surface if all other elements are equal, and will "ride" the longest. Reverse camber boards (original rocker, banana) lift the contact points and, even when weighted, have a smaller snow contact surface than conventional cambered boards. So, all things equal, you would need to go longer on a RC model to match a cambered model.

BUT, all things are not equal. 

First off, *Length*, which describes only the tip to tail length of a board is a truly useless measurement. The shape of the tip and tail can change length by up to 6 cm on board that have the identical running surface and effective edge. You will see this become even more evident in the upcoming season because flatter tips and tails are being used again on many shapes. Just blunting the tip and tail will shorten any given board by 3-4 cm without having any real impact on the way it rides.

Also, please keep in mind that reverse camber refes to a number of different technologies and there are huge variances within each.


----------



## broken

Gruber1922 and Wiresport, thanks for those explanations, this technology definitely confuses the masses. But thanks for the clarifications.


----------



## broken

Now I have a follow-up question...

I am looking to get a snowboard for the upcoming season because I have only ridden rentals...the rentals thave I've ridden was a 150. I'm looking at the Stepchild Latchkey and wondering should I go for a 148 or a 153?

Any info would help. Thanks!


----------



## Wiredsport

broken said:


> Now I have a follow-up question...
> 
> I am looking to get a snowboard for the upcoming season because I have only ridden rentals...the rentals thave I've ridden was a 150. I'm looking at the Stepchild Latchkey and wondering should I go for a 148 or a 153?
> 
> Any info would help. Thanks!


Hi Broken,

Thanks again.

As mentioned above, you cannot determine the correct board size based on length. Without knowing the specifics of the rental boards that you used, we will need to start from scratch. What is your weight and foot size?


----------



## broken

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Broken,
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> As mentioned above, you cannot determine the correct board size based on length. Without knowing the specifics of the rental boards that you used, we will need to start from scratch. What is your weight and foot size?


I am 5'7", i weight about 160, and I wear a size 9.5.


----------



## Wiredsport

broken said:


> I am 5'7", i weight about 160, and I wear a size 9.5.


Hi Broken,

In an effort to keep this thread focused on new technologies and not specific product recs, I sent you an offline message. I hope that is OK. Kindly check your PM.

Thanks!


----------



## BoardInsiders

Great list.
I may have missed it, but how about adding S-shaped camber?
Rocker - Camber and Rocker - Flat


----------



## Wiredsport

BoardInsiders said:


> Great list.
> I may have missed it, but how about adding S-shaped camber?
> Rocker - Camber and Rocker - Flat


So that I understand, are you asking about a Rocker-Camber-Rocker design that then has an extra flat section on either the tip, tail, or both?


----------



## BoardInsiders

Wiredsport said:


> So that I understand, are you asking about a Rocker-Camber-Rocker design that then has an extra flat section on either the tip, tail, or both?












I suppose in theory S-shaped Camber could be categorized as Rocker - Camber - Rocker, but I think there are too many differences, and should have it's own category.
For one it usually has just Rocker - Camber or Rocker - Flat, (with a standard contact point at the tail of the board - not raised). The second difference would be that the highpoint of the traditional camber is usually in the back 1/3 of the board and not in the middle. Also, most often the purpose of this shape is pow riding, as in the Burton Fish or the Rome Notch.

Thanks for the list. This is a much needed piece of info for everyone. I have been keeping one for the last 4 years and it's good to see a good one like this.


----------



## Wiredsport

BoardInsiders said:


> I suppose in theory S-shaped Camber could be categorized as Rocker - Camber - Rocker, but I think there are too many differences, and should have it's own category.
> For one it usually has just Rocker - Camber or Rocker - Flat, (with a standard contact point at the tail of the board - not raised). The second difference would be that the highpoint of the traditional camber is usually in the back 1/3 of the board and not in the middle. Also, most often the purpose of this shape is pow riding, as in the Burton Fish or the Rome Notch.
> 
> Thanks for the list. This is a much needed piece of info for everyone. I have been keeping one for the last 4 years and it's good to see a good one like this.


Yes, there are many additional twists and variations (and more to come I am sure). 

Thanks for the pic!


----------



## ttchad

*Which of the new designs stands out the most?*

It was difficult to purchase a board with only effective length and flex patterns. I truly cannot decide what I need for next year. Too many damn options and with the market hype it is hard to tell what works. So which of the hybrids carves the best and is made in the US!
-I sold my BSOD Speed tribe"STIFF like morning wood".
-Sold my 167 Arbor Roundhouse! Even stiffer and way too big. 
-My old Lib Tech JL Phoenix was too loose and made me nervous. I did have to hit the edges with a file!
-My Rome MOD just does not carve that well but has the best pop without a doubt.
-I rode the NS heritage in powder and loved it. We just do not have powder at my local hill. How is it on ice, groomers and windblown?


----------



## bobsy852

Just been looking at next seasons DC snowboards and caught this video:


At about 1:06 in he mentions a new board with "skate camber"?
I just wondered if anyone could explain this version of camber to me? 
From his explination I'm under the impression that it's like traditional camber but with the ends remaining in contact with the floor instead of the very tips bending up?
If I'm right, what were the pro's and con's of this system?


----------



## Wiredsport

bobsy852 said:


> Just been looking at next seasons DC snowboards and caught this video:
> 
> 
> At about 1:06 in he mentions a new board with "skate camber"?


He is saying that this is flat-camber-flat. We did see a few boards with that config on display this year, but when we laid them flat they actually had camber in the mid section leading into flat sections and then lifted contact points which made them really more a variety of rocker-camber-rocker. I did not check out these DC boards so they may indeed be true flat-camber-flat. Expanding the flat at the contact points could provide some extra freestyle stability out there for butters, etc, but it would come at the expense of catchy edges (as with dead flat boards). Consider that the reason for lifting the contact points in original rocker was to achieve that looser feel and reduce snagged edges.


----------



## bobsy852

Thanks for that mate! I found a couple of vids on youtube as well about their new tech which helps too! Liking the sounds of this design, as it sounds like it could help for when I finally start freestyling!


----------



## tterby1

i warn you now alpine is a workout. im new to the stile and i like it a lot but if your not prepared its a lot of work.


----------



## sidewall

Wiredsport, I've been riding a long time, always camber. I like carving and charging out of turns- do you think someone like me would like a 
Mervin C2 board? I've been looking at a Billy Goat.


----------



## Wiredsport

sidewall said:


> Wiredsport, I've been riding a long time, always camber. I like carving and charging out of turns- do you think someone like me would like a
> Mervin C2 board? I've been looking at a Billy Goat.


C2 is incredible tech when paired with Magnetraction. You get insane bite and precision, still have a good bit of the stored energy you enjoyed with full camber and reduce the contact point snags and hard take-downs that you you would just as soon forget. The BG is a top notch Freeride deck. I am very biased, but I have also spent some ear to ear days on the BG and can suggest it to anyone who wants a no holds barred all mountain/freeride stick.


----------



## sidewall

Thanks for the info. I'm 6 ft tall 170, do you think the 162 is a good size?


----------



## IdahoFreshies

2cm is not going to be a deal breaker. but you are probably better around the 158-160 area. 162 is a bit much, especially for an east coast rider


----------



## Wiredsport

sidewall said:


> Thanks for the info. I'm 6 ft tall 170, do you think the 162 is a good size?


Please post up your foot size as well.

Thanks!


----------



## sidewall

Size 11



34567


----------



## IdahoFreshies

162 is a bit too big like i said. keep it at or under 160. at size 11 you dont need a wide board either just fyi. anything over size 12's is when you need to start being concerned with boot overhang. and even now alot of companies are making bindings with toe lifters on the front of the bindings so you dont have toe drag.


----------



## Wiredsport

sidewall said:


> Size 11
> 
> 
> 
> 34567


162 will be very fun and will be pretty ideal in terms of width. You will have all likely freeride stance options available for your size 11's without problematic toe drag issues. The 159 is a hair softer but also narrower and with your specs, I like you on the slightly larger board. I would not worry at all about the minor flex difference. The thickness in the center of this deck is noticable reduced (gotta love C2) and allows for a lot of rider controlled twist. The Flex ratings do not reflect that.


----------



## sidewall

Thanks man!


----------



## otisdelarosa

The snowboard that you use reflects what kind of snowboarder you are. Very interest post. But no matter how great your board is, it is still up to you how to improve your turns and glides. 





----------------------------------------------------------------
Snowboard Vacation | Snowboard Fun


----------



## snowman55

What profile is best for mostly free riding with some buttering and occasional park riding? 

My guess would be a hybrid (rocker-camber-rocker).


----------



## Wiredsport

snowman55 said:


> What profile is best for mostly free riding with some buttering and occasional park riding?
> 
> My guess would be a hybrid (rocker-camber-rocker).


Hi Snowman.

There are great options in both Camber Rocker Camber and Rocker Camber Rocker for what you have described. Also consider that brands like K2 produc only variations of flat (and flat rock) and that many riders dig some of those for your description as well. 

In Rocker Camber Rocker there are great boards that will do what you are looking for. The Flow Infinite is one awesome example.


----------



## boarderinblack

I’m planning to buy a new playful soft board for mainly park/ground tricks and partly mountain freestyle/powder. 

I’m 5’11 tall and weigh 138 lbs. My boot size changes between 9.5 and 10. I checked forums/review sites and i’m a little lost on what to look for: RCR or CRC or anything else? I would like any advice or opinion as you experienced...


----------



## Wiredsport

boarderinblack said:


> I’m planning to buy a new playful soft board for mainly park/ground tricks and partly mountain freestyle/powder.
> 
> I’m 5’11 tall and weigh 138 lbs. My boot size changes between 9.5 and 10. I checked forums/review sites and i’m a little lost on what to look for: RCR or CRC or anything else? I would like any advice or opinion as you experienced...


Hi,

There are a LOT of fun designs for what you are describing. Rocker boards and flat-rock boards are both great profiles for soft play boards as well. They will fight you a bit on the freeride / hard snow side of things. RCR is a great option for the middle ground. Did you have your eyes on any specific models or brands?


----------



## Liv4Sno

Tagging along...


----------



## ju87

boarderinblack said:


> I’m planning to buy a new playful soft board for mainly park/ground tricks and partly mountain freestyle/powder.
> 
> I’m 5’11 tall and weigh 138 lbs. My boot size changes between 9.5 and 10. I checked forums/review sites and i’m a little lost on what to look for: RCR or CRC or anything else? I would like any advice or opinion as you experienced...


if you like your Megalight, you might also like the YES Jackpot and/or the Basic. camrock profile from the same factory


----------



## boarderinblack

Wiredsport said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are a LOT of fun designs for what you are describing. Rocker boards and flat-rock boards are both great profiles for soft play boards as well. They will fight you a bit on the freeride / hard snow side of things. RCR is a great option for the middle ground. Did you have your eyes on any specific models or brands?


I understand that a soft longitudinal and torsional flex for a park board is a big compromise in edge grip and stability for big mountain and freeriding. Therefore, I don’t expect an impressive performance like my megalight but I would be glad to see that it is capable to handle mountain pretty ok. I would like your opinion RCR’s performance compared to CRCs in tricks… 

As I said before, I’m planning to use this board for mainly for park, aerial and surface tricks and partly hit the features on mountain and tree runs. I had chance to ride with horrorscope and skate banana on groomers before but no idea about their performance on off-piste. 

I don’t have any specific model or brand in my mind but I can give a list of boards I have checked…

*Neversummer Evo
*Neversummer Proto
*Rome Reverb
*Rome Factory
*Yes Jackpot
*Gnu Carbon Credit
*Gnu Parkpickle
*Capita Ultrafear
*Bataleon Evil Twin
*DC Ply
*Salomon Riot
*Libtech Banana Magic

You may add others that I forgot to include in the list. Thank you for helping me...


----------



## boarderinblack

ju87 said:


> if you like your Megalight, you might also like the YES Jackpot and/or the Basic. camrock profile from the same factory


Thanks for reply... I like my 158 megalight's performance in freeriding but cant imagine of performance 150 Jackpot/Basic compared to CRCs especially in tricks and park.



Liv4Sno said:


> Tagging along...


Feel free to tag along with me, may force be with us


----------



## Wiredsport

*Neversummer Evo
*Neversummer Proto
*Rome Reverb
*Rome Factory
*Yes Jackpot
*Gnu Carbon Credit
*Gnu Parkpickle
*Capita Ultrafear
*Bataleon Evil Twin
*DC Ply
*Salomon Riot
*Libtech Banana Magic

There are a lot of fun boards on that list (using many different profile technolgies). The Parkpickle and Carbon Credit are both Flat Rocker Flat with the addition of Magetraction for extra grip. The Evil Twin is a classic camber shape but with the addition of TBT which lifts the edges at the contact points and effectively makes it Rocker Camber Rocker. That is a very fun board which is very well reviewd for the usage you are describing. The Park Pickle (multiple Good Wood winner) is as well. The Flat Nitro Rook (multiple Good Wood winner) is also a strong suggestion. Many of those are very inexpensive right now.


----------



## boarderinblack

Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. I would like to ask your opinion about RCR’s performance compared to CRCs in terms of ground tricks(especially tail press, tail press backside, nollie frontside, frontside nosepress, tick tack, butter)…


----------



## Wiredsport

boarderinblack said:


> Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. I would like to ask your opinion about RCR’s performance compared to CRCs in terms of ground tricks(especially tail press, tail press backside, nollie frontside, frontside nosepress, tick tack, butter)…


Happy to help with some generalities. Presses, butters, etc. become amazingly easy and catch free when you lift the contact points (wide points)a bit. For that RCR has the edge biut sacrifices a bit of power and immediacy. CRC redirects the central rocker back down to the snow at the wide points with the addition of the extra cambers. Park/Freestyle boards with that design tend to be a little more powerful and dynamic feeling but sacrifice a little looseness. These are generalities but they hold true in most instances.


----------



## suigeneris1ad

*Just a lil help to confirm my decision*

Hello y'all!!..im new to the site and glad to have found an informative community..i just wanna ask and see if someone can help me finalize my decision....im fairly new to the sport but totally addictive to it...i currently ride a forum seeker size 154cm. I am 5'7 and about 165lbs...i have been browsing, researching and wanting to buy a rockered board...i have been told that if im gonna go rocker, i have to go lesser size. Now i read on another reply here that its not necessarily true...i have narrowed my choices to Gnu carbon credit 150 or 153 cm; Gnu park pickle 150cm; or the Arbor roundhouse rx 155cm...now i really like the Arbor rx 155cm but hesitant coz of someone said that if i go rocker, i have to get it shorter...please help me finalize my decision and maybe suggest other stick that maybe good other than what im looking at....thank you and good day to all!!


----------



## timmytard

I haven't ridden any of the boards you have pointed out but the 2 dif hybrid camber decks that I have owned 155 & 157 I wish I would have gotten bigger ones.

TT


----------



## suigeneris1ad

Hey TT, mind if i ask how tall are you and your weight?...so it should be ok for me to get the Arbor RX 155cm?..like i said i ride a 154 camber seeker, so going longer is not gonna hurt?...and by the way, i plan to go all mountain, more free riding and less park....


----------



## Wiredsport

suigeneris1ad said:


> Hello y'all!!..im new to the site and glad to have found an informative community..i just wanna ask and see if someone can help me finalize my decision....im fairly new to the sport but totally addictive to it...i currently ride a forum seeker size 154cm. I am 5'7 and about 165lbs...i have been browsing, researching and wanting to buy a rockered board...i have been told that if im gonna go rocker, i have to go lesser size. Now i read on another reply here that its not necessarily true...i have narrowed my choices to Gnu carbon credit 150 or 153 cm; Gnu park pickle 150cm; or the Arbor roundhouse rx 155cm...now i really like the Arbor rx 155cm but hesitant coz of someone said that if i go rocker, i have to get it shorter...please help me finalize my decision and maybe suggest other stick that maybe good other than what im looking at....thank you and good day to all!!


Hi,

Please let us know your foot size as well. Weight and foot size are the two must-have requirements to get yousized up correctly. Rider height is not a factor.

Stoked!


----------



## timmytard

suigeneris1ad said:


> Hey TT, mind if i ask how tall are you and your weight?...so it should be ok for me to get the Arbor RX 155cm?..like i said i ride a 154 camber seeker, so going longer is not gonna hurt?...and by the way, i plan to go all mountain, more free riding and less park....


Just under 6 feet & about 165lbs


----------



## Wiredsport

timmytard said:


> Just under 6 feet & about 165lbs


Hi Again, 

To clarify, height is not a factor, only weight and foot size. What is your foot size?


----------



## suigeneris1ad

hello,
I wear size 10 or 10 1/2


----------



## Wiredsport

suigeneris1ad said:


> hello,
> I wear size 10 or 10 1/2


Great,

A few notes. 

The RX is a directional twin while Park Pickle and Carbon Credit are true twins. That is a noticeable difference and we should find out a little more about the riding that you want to do. 

Rocker boards have less contact length that cambered boards of the same length. To many, they already feel "shorter" than a similar cambered board in the same length.

PS: You are looking at an amazing group of decks so all we need to do is narrow down to the best model for your specific needs and choose the perfect size.

STOKED!


----------



## suigeneris1ad

Thank you Wiredsport!...I appreciate all your input. i think I'm going for the arbor element rx 155 cm..and paired with a union contact pro bindings. Based on my understanding of your post, contact points on the rockers are decreased compared to the regular cambers and with that in mind, a 155cm rocketed board will be a good choice for me. This choice of board will probably be perfect for my weight and size, and still be able to achieve my need of manuevarbility and control, speed and lightness and stability of ride....I hope i'm making sense and hopefully i'm right with my analysis and decision.

thank you very much again!


----------



## Wiredsport

suigeneris1ad said:


> ....I hope i'm making sense and hopefully i'm right with my analysis and decision.
> QUOTE]
> 
> That is a great do it all board for your specs. Your understanding of the reduced contact length on rocker boards is correct. Have a great time on your new ride.


----------



## DeepSnowWA

Which one is better for park riding?


----------



## Wiredsport

DeepSnowWA said:


> Which one is better for park riding?


Hi,

Were you asking about the two specific boards above or about all of the profiles in general? 

Thanks


----------



## Sogorul

What kind of profile would you recomend for a non park rider ... and i get powder 3-4 day a season?


----------



## Wiredsport

Sogorul said:


> What kind of profile would you recomend for a non park rider ... and i get powder 3-4 day a season?


We greatly prefer to suggest specific models as there are exceptions to this but there are awesome boards for you in all three of the following profiles:


Camber Rocker Camber (EC2, Mustache, Gullwing, etc)
Rocker Camber Rocker (Pop Cam, Camber with lifted contact points)
Camber


----------



## Sogorul

thanks i just orderd a burton hero 2010 and i hope it will do the job


----------



## ig88

Sogorul said:


> thanks i just orderd a burton hero 2010 and i hope it will do the job


Why 2010, very good deal?


----------



## Sogorul

its 400 Euros with Burton Mission Est bindings and from where I am from its a very good deal


----------



## bodero

Hi, hopefully you guys could give some assistance on a good type of board as I have no idea what to get when it comes to rocker/camber.

I am 6'5", ~180 lbs and a size 13 boot.

I mainly ride groomers with some park and powder mixed in. Looking for a board that can do it all. 

I currently ride a Nitro Voltage 163. 

Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport

bodero said:


> Hi, hopefully you guys could give some assistance on a good type of board as I have no idea what to get when it comes to rocker/camber.
> 
> I am 6'5", ~180 lbs and a size 13 boot.
> 
> I mainly ride groomers with some park and powder mixed in. Looking for a board that can do it all.
> 
> I currently ride a Nitro Voltage 163.
> 
> Thanks


Rocker Camber Rocker is amazing for that mix.


----------



## bodero

Thanks WS. Is 162-163 a good length?


----------



## Wiredsport

bodero said:


> Thanks WS. Is 162-163 a good length?


That will depend entirely on the model that you are considering. Tip to tip cm length is a poor indicator of performance aor intended rider range. Were there any specific models that you were considering? I will be very happy to help you with those.


----------



## bodero

I’m not too sure on the models but a few brands I was looking at were Gnu, Lib Tech and Never Summer if that helps at all. 

Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport

bodero said:


> I’m not too sure on the models but a few brands I was looking at were Gnu, Lib Tech and Never Summer if that helps at all.
> 
> Thanks


All are great brands, but none of those produce this design. Thos two brands are the biggest proponents of Camber Rocker Camber profiles. Some of those will be good choices as well.


----------



## bodero

Okay; thanks for your help.


----------



## ttchad

C3 Rocks! Awesome edge hold without being over the top!


----------



## Jean-Thomas

Hello guys,

I have been riding classic camber boards for the last 20 years. 
My main strength is groomers: I know how to handle speed, carve, do quick turns, etc. My weakness: jumps! I catch edges a lot when landing so I am pretty much scarred of doing jumps.

I want to improve my jump skills, and this is where i have discovered that hybrid cambers could help me. But I have also discovered that there were 2 kind of cambers:
- A: camber-rocker-camber, like the Lib Tech Jamie Lynn
- B: rocker-camber-rocker, like the Jones Mountain Twin

I know those 2 boards handle very well speed on groomers, which is of course my MAIN concern, but which one of those 2 will help me improve my jump skills and be the most "catch-free" on landings?

Thanks,
JT


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi JT,

This will depend a bit on the model that you are considering. Both profiles are much more catch free (landings and otherwise) than traditional camber. You will find options that will be incredible for you in both styles.


----------



## Jean-Thomas

Hello Wiredsport,

There are only 2 models left on my shortlist:
- Lib Tech Jamie Lynn
- Jones Mountain Twin


----------



## Wiredsport

Which Jamie Lynn were you considering? Phoenix or Classic?


----------



## Jean-Thomas

the C2-BTX one, so with the rocker between the bindings and camber below the bindings.

and the Jones Mountain Twin is the opposite: rocker after the bindings and camber between the bindings.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Jean,

The C2 Jamie Lynn is a great board for you. the Jones spec shows camber limited to inside the inserts. If correct, it can not do much there. Most boards that show that design actually have the camber extending well outside of the inserts. I am unsure if that is the case with the Jones. If it is you may want to revisit that one. Possibly another user who has that deck will be able to psot up some pics of its profile.


----------



## Jean-Thomas

the camber on the Jones stops now AFTER the inserts on the 2013 model (on the 2012 model it stopped just at the binding).


----------



## Wiredsport

That would make sense as the other design offers no advantage but their website still shows this info:










Mountain Twin


----------



## Jean-Thomas

so would you recommend the Mountain Twin or the Jamie Lynn regarding my program?


----------



## Wiredsport

Jean-Thomas said:


> so would you recommend the Mountain Twin or the Jamie Lynn regarding my program?


The Jamie Lynn will be exceptional for what you are looking to do.


----------



## caunyd

Hi guys. I do mostly freeriding. I want to go fast with good control on my turns. I'm 5'7 140 lbs . My regular shoe size is 9.5 . Which profile board would be best for my requirements? And if you could recommend specific models, that would be great. Thanks in advance.


----------



## P8899

I have only been riding for 4 seasons no expert on the subject. But I like Hybrid Rocker with + camber under foot & rockered nose opposed to traditional cambered board. 
I ride in the north east (upstate NY) conditions I ride in are mostly hard pack, PP, LG but we get occassional powder dumps now and then of several inches to 2+ feet of snow per event thanks to lake effect. been riding trad camber until week ago. huge difference for the better w/+ camber underfoot to tail & rockered nose (very popularfree ride shape now find it on the Burton baracuda & many freeride boards now) board very easy & quick to turn flys over bumps & tracked out pow where Trad camber tends to dig in superior float in the pow & can ride with more upright stance all this and near equal if not equal edge hold (I got 2012 Atomic Banger 162 I'm 5'8" 140)

board in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ9QZ3VxZ48


----------



## Wiredsport

caunyd said:


> Hi guys. I do mostly freeriding. I want to go fast with good control on my turns. I'm 5'7 140 lbs . My regular shoe size is 9.5 . Which profile board would be best for my requirements? And if you could recommend specific models, that would be great. Thanks in advance.


STOKED!

Where do you typically ride (what area of the world)?


----------



## caunyd

Hi Wiredsport, I'm riding in Southern California, mostly Mt. Baldy and Mountain High . Thanks.


----------



## poutanen

caunyd said:


> Hi Wiredsport, I'm riding in Southern California, mostly Mt. Baldy and Mountain High . Thanks.


Everyone will have their own thoughts on this, but if you're freeriding in variable snow, and you want to go fast and have good control, nothing beats camber. I ride camber with a lifted front nose as my main freeriding board. Love it!


----------



## Wiredsport

caunyd said:


> Hi Wiredsport, I'm riding in Southern California, mostly Mt. Baldy and Mountain High . Thanks.


The last two posters have given great advice, Camber works great for what you are looking to do. A little bit of rocker at the tip and tail to lift the contact points (Rocker Camber Rocker) works incredibly well. There are a lot of models and nuances that are great. A sub category here are the 3D options (Bataleon, Rome) which also provide tons of edge hold and keep the contact points out of harms way.

Camber Rocker Camber offers some amazing options as well. Never Summer, Mervin Brands, etc.

Please let us know if there is a specifc brand that you were leaning towards and we will be happy to drill down some more specific suggestions.


----------



## caunyd

Poutanen, which board do you have?

Wiredsport, could you recommend specific boards for both rocker-camber-rocker and camber with a lifted nose.

I don't have a specific brand in mind. I just want a board that's a good value; good quality at a cheap price, hopefully.


----------



## Wiredsport

caunyd said:


> Poutanen, which board do you have?
> 
> Wiredsport, could you recommend specific boards for both rocker-camber-rocker and camber with a lifted nose.


Those are actually two ways of describing the same profile. 

Rome is one of those companies that still does a lot of camber. From the Crossrocket which is an all mountain board with Rocker Camber Rocker and No Hang ups to full on Camber models like the Reverb with Stay Positive camber (which is a mind blowing board).


----------



## poutanen

caunyd said:


> Poutanen, which board do you have?
> 
> I don't have a specific brand in mind. I just want a board that's a good value; good quality at a cheap price, hopefully.


Wiredsport's going to be far better than me at suggesting boards here. I've got a very specific freeride only board that wasn't cheap at all. However I think the lifted nose (or very mild RCR) profile is really nice to ride.

Most (all?) of the Jones boards have some version of RCR. The mountain twin is camber underfoot, with rocker starting right at the binding inserts. The flagship is more of a traditional camber board with a lifted nose. Prior offers some of the same types, but they're not particularly cheap either.

The other thing to look at are some of the boards wiredsport makes in house. He doesn't mention his boards here because I think he doesn't want to come across as spamming the forum, but it looks like the Camp Seven Roots, and the System D.O.A. offer some form of RCR profile. My neighbour got one of the wiredsport boards and it's constructed well and seemed to ride nice for the neighbour (I haven't had a chance to try it myself).


----------



## zackmorris

What's the best board for strong carves/freeride and catch free design on spins? Sometimes I land a jump and instantly catch an edge. I usually spend my day hitting boxes/kickers but I do love to freeride the trails.


----------



## Wiredsport

zackmorris said:


> What's the best board for strong carves/freeride and catch free design on spins? Sometimes I land a jump and instantly catch an edge. I usually spend my day hitting boxes/kickers but I do love to freeride the trails.


Strong carves and catch free spins pull you towards opposite ends of the design spectrum. Carving favors a lot of planted edge on the snow while catch free spinning prefers at least the contact points lifted and possibly more. Boxes prefer boards that you have very little edge down. 

Because you want to carve, spin and hit park features on one deck (and many riders do that) you want to shoot right up the middle in terms of design. There are boards in the shorter camber section Rocker Camber Rocker category that will be awesome. Same is true of Camber Rocker Rocker. TBT is a contender as well.


----------



## zackmorris

Awesome..appreciate it bro!


----------



## poutanen

One other option you could look into would be a flat board. Sort of the middle ground for everything. Although it seems like less and less builders are going flat now?!? :dunno:


----------



## zackmorris

poutanen said:


> One other option you could look into would be a flat board. Sort of the middle ground for everything. Although it seems like less and less builders are going flat now?!? :dunno:


I rock a completely flat twin shaped board now. It's great just didn't know if there was a better option for my riding style.


----------



## Wiredsport

zackmorris said:


> I rock a completely flat twin shaped board now. It's great just didn't know if there was a better option for my riding style.


Hi Zack,

Please set your board down on a perfectly flast surface and see if the contact points (wide points) are touching the flat surface. Even boards that are sold as dead flat rarely are. Almost every one is actually some variation of flat rock.


----------



## zackmorris

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Zack,
> 
> Please set your board down on a perfectly flast surface and see if the contact points (wide points) are touching the flat surface. Even boards that are sold as dead flat rarely are. Almost every one is actually some variation of flat rock.


Salomon Riot Review - The-House.com

This is what I have. I'm too lazy to grab my board out of my jeep LOL!


----------



## Wiredsport

zackmorris said:


> Salomon Riot Review - The-House.com
> 
> This is what I have. I'm too lazy to grab my board out of my jeep LOL!


Check it out when you have a chance. Dead flat boards are VERY sticky as the contact points are always down. I am unsure if anyone actually makes one anymore.


----------



## zackmorris

best pic I took...don't have any flat counters or tables.


----------



## ItchEtrigR

Is there a reason flat boards are being abandoned by the industry? I like the way they ride and was surprised to see the new 2014 slayblade with a new cambered shape... I have the 2011 slayblade and thought they where onto a good thing there with the all flat shape.


----------



## Wiredsport

zackmorris said:


> best pic I took...don't have any flat counters or tables.


Got it. It would actually need to show the whole deck so we can see what is going on outside of the bindings. Most "flat" decks are flat (or in many cases lightly cambered) between the bindings but, surprisingly, still are lifetd to various degrees at the contact points.


----------



## zackmorris

Wiredsport said:


> Got it. It would actually need to show the whole deck so we can see what is going on outside of the bindings. Most "flat" decks are flat (or in many cases lightly cambered) between the bindings but, surprisingly, still are lifetd to various degrees at the contact points.


Ah my bad! I'll look at it when I get home. I honestly think it's completely flat besides tip/tail.


----------



## Deacon

So, I posted in my intro that I'm riding a '07 K2 Union 164 that I purchased used. My post purchase research tells that this is a park board, but I'm wondering, with all the new tech, if it really wouldn't be classified as that any more. K2s site claims "hybritech" technology. Whatever, I set it on the kitchen table and it sure appears to be regular rocker. It also says its an "intermediate/advanced" board. I'm in the market for next season and being a freeride guy, I'm wondering kind of where I should be looking.


----------



## Wiredsport

The Deacon said:


> So, I posted in my intro that I'm riding a '07 K2 Union 164 that I purchased used. My post purchase research tells that this is a park board, but I'm wondering, with all the new tech, if it really wouldn't be classified as that any more. K2s site claims "hybritech" technology. Whatever, I set it on the kitchen table and it sure appears to be regular rocker. It also says its an "intermediate/advanced" board. I'm in the market for next season and being a freeride guy, I'm wondering kind of where I should be looking.


Hi Deacon,

Hybritech was actually a constuction design where the board was essentially cap construction at the tip and tail and sidewall constuction through the running surface. I was thinking the Union was cambered. Laying base down on the countertop is it a smile or a frown?


----------



## Deacon

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Deacon,
> 
> Hybritech was actually a constuction design where the board was essentially cap construction at the tip and tail and sidewall constuction through the running surface. I was thinking the Union was cambered. Laying base down on the countertop is it a smile or a frown?


You're right, I mixed them up. It's definitely cambered. I'm a dummy. :blink:
That said, I learned to ride on this board, will I break my neck if I just switch to rocker, or are the rc hybrids what I should be looking for. I'm definitely a freeride hard charging style (probably more medium charging still). The only air I'm looking for would be lips and the like.


----------



## Wiredsport

The Deacon said:


> You're right, I mixed them up. It's definitely cambered. I'm a dummy. :blink:
> That said, I learned to ride on this board, will I break my neck if I just switch to rocker, or are the rc hybrids what I should be looking for. I'm definitely a freeride hard charging style (probably more medium charging still). The only air I'm looking for would be lips and the like.


A few q's. What area(s) of the world do you ride? What is your weight and foot size?


----------



## Deacon

Wiredsport said:


> A few q's. What area(s) of the world do you ride? What is your weight and foot size?


I ride midwest groomers, I'm 225 with about a 10.5 (thats what my faction boa's are). It can get pretty chopped up and icy, especially at night around this time of year.


----------



## Wiredsport

The Deacon said:


> I ride midwest groomers, I'm 225 with about a 10.5 (thats what my faction boa's are). It can get pretty chopped up and icy, especially at night around this time of year.


You won't benefit at all from Reverse Camber. Your current board is very soft and that also is not ideal for your area and your style of riding. Camber, RCR and CRC are three profiles that will work well. Did you want to stick with K2 or were there other brands that had your attention?


----------



## Deacon

Wiredsport said:


> You won't benefit at all from Reverse Camber. Your current board is very soft and that also is not ideal for your area and your style of riding. Camber, RCR and CRC are three profiles that will work well. Did you want to stick with K2 or were there other brands that had your attention?


No, i'm not caught on any brand at all. I got my board and bindings for $189, buying a cheap used setup to make sure i was gonna enjoy it was cheaper than a few rentals. I've been trying to navigate vendor webpages, but I'm having a hard time deciphering all the hyperbole. I think that my Union is a mid-wide board as well, and from what I've read here, I probably don't need that. my budget for a good board is going to be $400-$500, but I know I need to get my boots first. That's in another thread... :dizzy:


----------



## Wiredsport

The Deacon said:


> No, i'm not caught on any brand at all. I got my board and bindings for $189, buying a cheap used setup to make sure i was gonna enjoy it was cheaper than a few rentals. I've been trying to navigate vendor webpages, but I'm having a hard time deciphering all the hyperbole. I think that my Union is a mid-wide board as well, and from what I've read here, I probably don't need that. my budget for a good board is going to be $400-$500, but I know I need to get my boots first. That's in another thread... :dizzy:


I have some strong suggestions for you. Feel free to PM.


----------



## BoardChitless

What about triple base technology(TBT) from Bataleon?

Where does that fit...


----------



## Wiredsport

BoardChitless said:


> What about triple base technology(TBT) from Bataleon?
> 
> Where does that fit...


All Bataleon boards are conventional Camber down the centerline. At the edges the tip/tail contact points are raised by the lifted base segments.


----------



## BoardChitless

Wiredsport said:


> All Bataleon boards are conventional Camber down the centerline. At the edges the tip/tail contact points are raised by the lifted base segments.


So, is this a segment of its own... or does it fit in somewhere in your figure/classifications that you gave? 

I ask, because I am really interested in either buying the Bataleon Omni or Lib Jamie Lynn, and I conceptually think, both boards may fit my style.

In short, what would TBT be closest to in your figure... the Gullwing Camber???


----------



## Wiredsport

BoardChitless said:


> So, is this a segment of its own... or does it fit in somewhere in your figure/classifications that you gave?
> 
> I ask, because I am really interested in either buying the Bataleon Omni or Lib Jamie Lynn, and I conceptually think, both boards may fit my style.
> 
> In short, what would TBT be closest to in your figure... the Gullwing Camber???


It is Camber.


----------



## Dago91

Hello.. Im looking to get a new board setup for next season but I have a few questions.. 

- I have only ever ridden camber type boards.. current board 2005 burton baron wide 162cm w P1 bindings.

- I use to ride in so cal. (Bear,Summit,Mt.High, Mammoth) but now I live in Switzerland so as you can imagine I have access to some of the best mountains in the world. The Alps are alot of groomer, off piste Pow and in the later months like now abit more hard packed kinda icy. I want a board that handles Pow and groomers well, not really hitting park anymore but use the whole mountain as a park for jumps, spins etc.

-After alot of research i am leaning towards the rome agent rocker wide 160cm w the mtn pop tech that is camber/rocker/camber. How much different is it then traditional camber? Will there be a huge learning curve? What does rocker feel like under foot?

I believe this board is the closest to traditional camber with the rocker but am not too sure. Any pros and cons.. to the C/R/C?

If not the agent rocker any other recommendations?

Also thinking about getting the Burton Cartel bindings or the flow NXGT bindings.. any thoughts, I like the NASTY system idea on the flow but how safe is it?

Thanks for any feedback.. Joe

My Specs: 6'4 195 lbs size 12 US boots
Current Board: 2005 Burton Baron wide 162cm / Burton P1 Bindings


----------



## Wiredsport

The Agent Rocker is Camber Rocker Camber. It is an excellent choice of the Alps and for your style of riding. It keeps the weighted contact length very well planted and does amizingly well at holding a strong edge on ice. You will notice the biggest benefit in powder where it (in itself) has an advantage over trad camber.

The NX2's will be a great choice. They are a responsive and predictable binding that offers incredible transfer of power for freeriding.

STOKED!


----------



## Dago91

Wiredsport said:


> The Agent Rocker is Camber Rocker Camber. It is an excellent choice of the Alps and for your style of riding. It keeps the weighted contact length very well planted and does amizingly well at holding a strong edge on ice. You will notice the biggest benefit in powder where it (in itself) has an advantage over trad camber.
> 
> The NX2's will be a great choice. They are a responsive and predictable binding that offers incredible transfer of power for freeriding.
> 
> STOKED!


Thank you so much for your feedback wiredsport!

- So you recommend the flow bindings.. my biggest concern is are they safe?
I ride a vans aura boot.. will this boot be too wide for the flows? I was thinking about getting rome 390 boss bindings but from the research that I have read on this forum they seem unsafe or less reliable?

- Also do you know if I really need to get a wide board? Do I lose anything from going wide?

Here are the specs of my old board..

Length:
162 cm (see options menu for other sizes) 
Effective edge:
126 cm 
Waist width:
22.62 cm 
Sidecut radius:
8.57 m 
Stance width:
[reference] 21 in 
Stance setback:
25 mm back 
Core material:
Super Fly II wood 
Base material:
Sintered P-Tex 
Recommended Use:
Intermediate to advanced all-mountain riding 
Warranty:
One season against defects in materials and manufacturing

-What numbers/measurements are important here for deciding non wide/ wide?

Thank you so much for your help! Even more stoked about getting the agent rocker now!


----------



## Deacon

Dago91 said:


> Thank you so much for your feedback wiredsport!
> 
> - So you recommend the flow bindings.. my biggest concern is are they safe?
> I ride a vans aura boot.. will this boot be too wide for the flows? I was thinking about getting rome 390 boss bindings but from the research that I have read on this forum they seem unsafe or less reliable?
> 
> - Also do you know if I really need to get a wide board? Do I lose anything from going wide?
> 
> Here are the specs of my old board..
> 
> Length:
> 162 cm (see options menu for other sizes)
> Effective edge:
> 126 cm
> Waist width:
> 22.62 cm
> Sidecut radius:
> 8.57 m
> Stance width:
> [reference] 21 in
> Stance setback:
> 25 mm back
> Core material:
> Super Fly II wood
> Base material:
> Sintered P-Tex
> Recommended Use:
> Intermediate to advanced all-mountain riding
> Warranty:
> One season against defects in materials and manufacturing
> 
> -What numbers/measurements are important here for deciding non wide/ wide?
> 
> Thank you so much for your help! Even more stoked about getting the agent rocker now!


Snowboard Fit Tips Part One


----------



## PalmerFreak

I just wanted to post for those of you considering the switch from traditional camber to a hybrid like LibTech's C2. 

I've only ridden traditional camber boards (Palmer Carbon Circle and Carbon Circle II) and was a bit leary of making the change. I'm 45 and didn't want to have to learn how to snowboard all over again. 

I decided to bite the bullet after getting some feedback on this forum and bought a 2013 LibTech Travis Rice 157 about two weeks ago. I'm happy to report that there hasn't been much of a learning curve. I took it easy my first few runs but was back up to speed pretty quick. I don't ride in the park or jib, I just like to go fast on groomers and the occasional powder. My first day out it was in the 40's and the hill was pretty choppy but the T.Rice carved right through it. The T.Rice is stable at higher speeds and it's much easier to control at lower speeds than my Carbon Circle II. 

I'm heading out to my local hill tomorrow and the conditions should be excellent. I'll update this post if I have anything else to add.

UPDATE: Just got back from my local hill and conditions were perfect - sunny and about 17 degrees. The hill was groomed up nice but a little icey. The T.Rice was just as stable at speed as my Carbon Circle II - maybe more so - which surprised me a bit. Oddly enough, I feel more comfortable on the T.Rice after only being out on it twice than I do on my Carbon Circle II - it's a sweet ride. 

So, from my experience, I would say that a veteran rider who is looking to switch from a pure hard-charging camber board to a LibTech C2 profile (keep in mind that the T.Rice is one of the stiffer C2 decks) shouldn't have that large of a learning curve. I realize that this is a blanket statement and results may vary, but again, it's based on my experience with the T.Rice. There have been some reviews on the C2 boards being a bit squirrelly at higher speeds but I don't think I'll ever approach 40-50mph - I would guess I'm in the 30mph range.


----------



## Dago91

The Deacon said:


> Snowboard Fit Tips Part One


Thank you Deacon


----------



## Dago91

PalmerFreak said:


> I just wanted to post for those of you considering the switch from traditional camber to a hybrid like LibTech's C2.
> 
> I've only ridden traditional camber boards (Palmer Carbon Circle and Carbon Circle II) and was a bit leary of making the change. I'm 45 and didn't want to have to learn how to snowboard all over again.
> 
> I decided to bite the bullet after getting some feedback on this forum and bought a 2013 LibTech Travis Rice 157 about two weeks ago. I'm happy to report that there hasn't been much of a learning curve. I took it easy my first few runs but was back up to speed pretty quick. I don't ride in the park or jib, I just like to go fast on groomers and the occasional powder. My first day out it was in the 40's and the hill was pretty choppy but the T.Rice carved right through it. The T.Rice is stable at higher speeds and it's much easier to control at lower speeds than my Carbon Circle II.
> 
> I'm heading out to my local hill tomorrow and the conditions should be excellent. I'll update this post if I have anything else to add.


Hey thanks man! It's always nice to hear from someone making a similar transition.. Look forward to hearing more feedback.


----------



## PalmerFreak

Dago91 said:


> Hey thanks man! It's always nice to hear from someone making a similar transition.. Look forward to hearing more feedback.


No problem at all - I'll post more tomorrow.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi ****,

Rome and Flow make extremely strong and reliable gear. The warranty and breakage rates for these companies are among the best in our industry. They are tough, well designed and both companies have many years and many iterations behind them. Both are backed with awesome warranties and support from people that ride. Safe? It is snowboarding. It is inherently unsafe 

Great gear helps with that.

STOKED!


----------



## Dago91

Wiredsport said:


> Hi ****,
> 
> Rome and Flow make extremely strong and reliable gear. The warranty and breakage rates for these companies are among the best in our industry. They are tough, well designed and both companies have many years and many iterations behind them. Both are backed with awesome warranties and support from people that ride. Safe? It is snowboarding. It is inherently unsafe
> 
> Great gear helps with that.
> 
> STOKED!


I agree with your statement about snowboarding being inherently unsafe .. However from what I have read about Rome bindings there are too many working parts that could and usually do break.. not to mention the non ratchet side of the binding just coming off. As far as the flows go you hear mixed reviews but you also hear the high back just comes unlocked and the cables have a tendency to break in some way. Now I have never had an issue with my P1 bindings or the Missions that I had before that.

I love the fast binding option of the flows because im getting older and I like the look of the Rome bindings but what I read in these forums the 390 bosses scare me. So would the cartels be a better maybe safer choice or have you heard of issues with them as well?


----------



## NWBoarder

Every binding can and probably will have some kind of an issue. It's just the nature of the beast so-to-speak. Buy what suits your style man. I love my 390 Boss bindings, and so far they have held up well.


----------



## Dago91

NWBoarder said:


> Every binding can and probably will have some kind of an issue. It's just the nature of the beast so-to-speak. Buy what suits your style man. I love my 390 Boss bindings, and so far they have held up well.


Cool man thx for the feedback.. do you use your 390 boss bindings as all mountain? How do you like the auto strap feature? Does it work well?


----------



## NWBoarder

Dago91 said:


> Cool man thx for the feedback.. do you use your 390 boss bindings as all mountain? How do you like the auto strap feature? Does it work well?


Yep, they're my all mountain bindings. Actually, they're just my bindings now. I mount them on whatever I'm going to ride for a particular day. I tried keeping my Union Flites mounted for park days, but I quickly realized that my 390 Boss were just better feeling for everything. I refuse to use my Union's now because my Rome's are just that much better. And the auto strap works pretty good. You just have to make sure that you have them adjusted right.


----------



## Wiredsport

Dago91 said:


> I agree with your statement about snowboarding being inherently unsafe .. However from what I have read about Rome bindings there are too many working parts that could and usually do break.. not to mention the non ratchet side of the binding just coming off. As far as the flows go you hear mixed reviews but you also hear the high back just comes unlocked and the cables have a tendency to break in some way. Now I have never had an issue with my P1 bindings or the Missions that I had before that.
> 
> I love the fast binding option of the flows because im getting older and I like the look of the Rome bindings but what I read in these forums the 390 bosses scare me. So would the cartels be a better maybe safer choice or have you heard of issues with them as well?


Hi ****,

These are arguably the most reliable binding companies out there. By in large that is the reputation they have earned over the years. While I am certain there are exceptions, the events you have mentioned are in no way the norm.


----------



## Dago91

Wiredsport said:


> Hi ****,
> 
> These are arguably the most reliable binding companies out there. By in large that is the reputation they have earned over the years. While I am certain there are exceptions, the events you have mentioned are in no way the norm.


Cool Gents Thank you all for the feedback most helpful!! I think im going all Rome on my next setup


----------



## PalmerFreak

Dago91 said:


> As far as the flows go you hear mixed reviews but you also hear the high back just comes unlocked and the cables have a tendency to break in some way.


I've been riding Flow's for about 6 years and have never had a problem with the high back coming unlocked on its own or with the cable system. I've gravitated towards their higher-end binding (NXT-FRX) and I think that most of the quality issues come from their lower end bindings - you get what you pay for.


----------



## Dago91

PalmerFreak said:


> I've been riding Flow's for about 6 years and have never had a problem with the high back coming unlocked on its own or with the cable system. I've gravitated towards their higher-end binding (NXT-FRX) and I think that most of the quality issues come from their lower end bindings - you get what you pay for.



I like the Idea of flows and appreciate the info. Were your flow bindings hard to get dialed in? Did you go from traditional two strap bindings to the flows? If so do you feel the flows are overall easier to bind in? Im looking at the NX2- GT with toe strap and the NX2- AT.. does the toe strap really make a difference in response? The price diffrence for the two are about $50 bucks.

Thx for the info..:dizzy:


----------



## PalmerFreak

I started with the Burton step-in system which was quite crappy and went directly into Flow's so I don't have any experience with traditional strap bindings. 

None of the Flow's that I've owned have the toe strap - I think this years models are the first to offer it.

I put a pair of 2012 NXT-FRX bindings on my new T.Rice about a week ago and it took me about 20 minutes to get them in the ball park at home and maybe another 10 minutes of adjustment once I got to the hill and made a few runs. I think there's YouTube videos for setting them up if you need more info.

This may be the wrong thread for discussing bindings so I apologize to the Mods if I'm out of line.


----------



## Dago91

PalmerFreak said:


> I started with the Burton step-in system which was quite crappy and went directly into Flow's so I don't have any experience with traditional strap bindings.
> 
> None of the Flow's that I've owned have the toe strap - I think this years models are the first to offer it.
> 
> I put a pair of 2012 NXT-FRX bindings on my new T.Rice about a week ago and it took me about 20 minutes to get them in the ball park at home and maybe another 10 minutes of adjustment once I got to the hill and made a few runs. I think there's YouTube videos for setting them up if you need more info.
> 
> This may be the wrong thread for discussing bindings so I apologize to the Mods if I'm out of line.


Thx for the info.. yeah I also apologize to the Mods for derailing this thread abit.. not my intention.


----------



## Hose91

*Another Advice post...*

Here's my situation and request for advice. 

215 pounds, size 10.5 boot, 30 days on the snow in the last two seasons after growing up on skis. Learned to board at Mammoth 10 years ago while stationed in San Diego, and been off the snow until I became the faculty advisor for the local college alpine/snowboarding club team where I teach. I'm a 43 year old male, been riding in the US mid atlantic area (PA, WV, MD) while accompanying our alpine ski and snowboard team. Squarely an intermediate rider who is still mastering the fundamentals of being dynamic, bending the knees, getting comfortable with speed, and staying stacked over the board. I'm generally ok at dynamic skidded turns and I can probably carve a little in the right conditions. I cannot ride the steep bumps smoothly (I tend to "shop for my turns" and its aggravating. I can get down, but not on a smooth line. I find a steep groomer is a blast, and have only been in powder one time (and it kicked my ass, though I can see the appeal, I think). My park interest is in the smaller jumplines and ride on features, with some intent to progress to being able to 180. I've not tried to pop onto anything, and definitely still working on being comfortable in the air off any sort of kicker (park or terrain). 

I have been riding a 2011/2012 Rome Anthem 161 with what Rome calls Hybrid Ripit Camber, which looks to me like Camber with lifted tips, or maybe an RCR with a larger Camber section that ends outside the bindings. Although I have no other real data points, it seems to like the dynamic skidded/basic carves, it's fast, and has some pop in and out of turns, and is pretty stiff but damps out the chatter well. I've been pretty pleased on the east coast hardpack and the times it's thrown me have been rider error for sure. 

Here's the issue. Relocating this summer to the Pac NW (Seattle) for the long haul. Going back to grad school for a year as I transition out of the military, so should get some good time on the snow next season, probably calling Stevens my new home mountain, although I've got family in Portland and Bend, so plan on seeing Hood and Bachelor (and hopefully Whistler and Baker) pretty regularly over the next decade or so. I grew up near White Pass and would love to get back there to see the new back area they recently opened up with new lodges and high speed lifts. 

So, in light of my new riding environment and in hopes of expanding my skills, I am looking to add to my "quiver" if you can call two a quiver. I'd like something softer than my Anthem and more friendly to learning the ground tricks while slowly progressing in the park/jumplines, capable of groomers (because I'm going to be on some sort of groomer nearly everytime I go to the mountain, I think), but also powder friendly (assuming I'll see more of that in the NW than on the east coast). I also find riding switch seems difficult on my Anthem (though admittedly I don't practice enough) and I'd like to do that in conjunction with learning to butter/spin/180's to increase my options for having fun on the snow which means a twin or asymetrical twin, maybe. Given all that, some overlap with my current board is probably inevitable. 

I'm thinking about a Camber-Rocker-Camber board. I'm not stuck on any specific brand, but I like that Gnu is handbuilt in the NW (Park Pickle or Riders Choice, probably), and I like the looks of the Arbor line in general, or I could get another Rome or NS deck, and I'm definitely ok with buying this years models as opposed to the cutting edge 2014s. I'll hopefully eventually get to the point where I can appreciate and take advantage of cutting edge, but for now, a discounted 2013 board is just fine. On the binding front, I've got Rome Mobs (not the Boss or 390, just straight Mobs) on the anthem, and they seem just a bit soft (plus the forward lean adjustment screw is gone on one of them), so I'm looking for an upgraded set of bindings as well, which is another thread, but might tell you about my riding experience thus far. 

So it's time for the sanity check. Reasonable to add a new board? I could see bringing two to the mountain most days. I've ready through the 17 pages in this thread, and look forward to any feedback/advice.


----------



## Wiredsport

Welcome back (home) to the great PNW! Stoked for you.

You are starting out with a great board as a base and you will have a lot of fun adding in something new. Camber Rocker Camber is a great way to go. The Rider's Choice (161.5 cm) is a strong example and the Rome Agent Rocker (159 cm - Also CRC) or the Arbor Westmark (159 cm - with Arbor's System Rocker and Griptech) will be amazing alternates. 

You have the right idea and a little extra help from a new deck will be all it takes to have you hitting all your goals. 

STOKED!


----------



## poutanen

Didn't know where else to post these pics. Took them a few weeks ago to compare camber and RCRs of the 4 boards we own.

From left to right: Prior Brandywine 153, Burton Custom 156, Burton T7 159, Virus Avalanche 160. Bottom, 8 year old tabby.










Prior Brandywine: moderate camber under foot, tips start to rise about 6" past each binding.









Virus Avalanche FLP AFT: moderate camber under foot, no early rise on the tail, early rise on the nose beginning about 8" from the inserts.









Burton Custom: slightly more camber than the Prior or Virus extending out to each tip.









Burton T7: FUKIN CAMBER BABY YEAH! You could park a German WWII tank under this thing...


----------



## seriouscat

What's the camber of the tabby?


----------



## poutanen

seriouscat said:


> What's the camber of the tabby?


He puts the T7 to shame!!! :laugh:


----------



## Some Guy

This thread seems like a good place to ask this. I plan on getting a new board soon if possible. I do most my riding on the Austrian alps. I tend to ride mostly hard pack and off piste and powder if possible. Never park. I am 16 years old and plan on using the new board for the next three years minimum. I weigh 140lbs and have a size 12 boot currently (which I plan on replacing as well). I am looking at the burton custom and custom x. Both boards are camber. Would I be better off going with one of these boards or a board with a combination? If I would be better with a combination board some suggestions would be helpful. I don't really care what brand. Those boards just caught my eye.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Some Guy,

Are you mostly laying down carves and surfing the pow or are you all mountain freestyling it?

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## Deacon

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Some Guy,
> 
> Are you mostly laying down carves and surfing the pow or are you all mountain freestyling it?
> 
> Please measure your foot using this method:
> 
> Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe *(the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider)*. Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


I'd check both feet too... i think most people have some difference in size between their feet. My left is a half size bigger than my right, but i think some guys are even more.


----------



## Some Guy

Wiredsport,
I plan on riding mostly on hard pack and near the hard pack. Any jumps would be from natural terrain. These will probably be few and far between. The odds of me hitting a fresh powder dump are extremely low as I live in Germany by Nuremberg and ride most weekends at least one day. The locations are planned before the season starts. 

My larger foot measured 27.6225cm from toe to heel.

Edit: left out I will be doing more carving and when I'm off piste, I will be more or less surfing if there is enough snow. I've only been riding about two seasons but I have been riding with expert skiers the entire time. This has caused a quick progression in skill on piste and in areas we don't have to hike to get to.


----------



## Wiredsport

Got it. Camber is really fun for what you are looking to do and if I were riding primarily in your area, I would have a straight camber board in my quiver. The Custom in 154 is a great choice. The 152 in the Custom X will also work, but you are on the lighter side so you will not likely want the extra stiffness unless you really love a stiffer board. 27.6 is a size 9.5/10 shoe and does not require any extra width.

STOKED!


----------



## Some Guy

Thanks a ton, Wiredsport! i will buy boots before anything else. i wear mostly running shoes in 11 1/2 us size. i will have to try boots in person, no internet orders there


----------



## Wiredsport

Some Guy said:


> Thanks a ton, Wiredsport! i will buy boots before anything else. i wear mostly running shoes in 11 1/2 us size. i will have to try boots in person, no internet orders there


Yessir,

Boot sizing is wild these days. Foot size is all that matters for determining board selection, but of course you want great fitting boots (regardless of the size that the MFG puts on the tag).

Stoked for you!


----------



## Some Guy

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but how should a boot for standing without any bindings or anything on?


----------



## Wiredsport

Some Guy said:


> I know this is getting a bit off topic, but how should a boot for standing without any bindings or anything on?


Hi,

Did you mean how should boots fit? If so, these are the tips we suggest.

Your boots should be snug!

The most common complaint about boots is that they are too loose, not to tight. The junction between rider and board begins with the boot, as it is in the most direct contact with the rider. When fitting boots, use the following method: A. Slip into the boot. B. Kick your heel back against the ground several times to drive it back into the boot's heel pocket. C. Lace the boot tightly, as though you were going to ride. *NOTE: This is where most sizing mistakes are made. A snowboard boot is shaped like an upside down "7". The back has a good degree of forward lean. Thus, when you drop into the boot, your heel may be resting up to an inch away from the back of the boot, and your toes may be jammed into the front of the boot. Until the boot is tightly laced, you will not know if it is a proper fit.* D. Your toes should now have firm pressure against the front of the boot. As this is the crux of sizing, let's discuss firm pressure: When you flex your knee forward hard, the pressure should lighten, or cease, as your toes pull back. At no time should you feel numbness or lose circulation. Your toes will be in contact with the end of the boot, unlike in a properly fit street or athletic shoe (snowboard boots are designed to fit more snugly than your other shoes). When you have achieved this combination of firm pressure and no circulation loss, you have found the correct size!


----------



## Some Guy

Thanks a ton Wiredsport! I just learned my boots are too big. I wanted new ones anyways


----------



## chemisiq

Hi guys, a new joiner in the forum here.

Thank you for the very comprehensive post, Wiredsport.

I am a beginner-intermediate goofy snowboarder currently looking into Rocker-Flat-Rocker snowboard (ex: K2 Grenade). What is the benefit of this board in comparison to Rocker-Chamber-Rocker board (ex: Flow Merc)? I mainly ride all-mountain freeride on major powdery/ minor slushy terrain.

Open to any suggestion for board type. :laugh:


Thanks.


----------



## Wiredsport

chemisiq said:


> Hi guys, a new joiner in the forum here.
> 
> Thank you for the very comprehensive post, Wiredsport.
> 
> I am a beginner-intermediate goofy snowboarder currently looking into Rocker-Flat-Rocker snowboard (ex: K2 Grenade). What is the benefit of this board in comparison to Rocker-Chamber-Rocker board (ex: Flow Merc)? I mainly ride all-mountain freeride on major powdery/ minor slushy terrain.
> 
> Open to any suggestion for board type. :laugh:
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Stoked Chemisiq,

A few things. The Merc is actually Camber Rocker Camber (not Rocker Camber Rocker - I know, this stuff gets crazy sounding). It looks like this:










The idea there is to keep a lot of contact area and drive while still benefiting from the looseness of rocker.

The K2 deck (I think you mean the Brigade) is almost entirely flat with a bit of lift at the contact points. That leads to a very stable board but at the expense of energy and ease of transitioning from edge to edge in carves.


----------



## Floyd

Hey, new to the forum and snowboarding in general, but looking to upgrade my board. I've rode about 20 times, but am able to navigate blacks, ollies, ect.

I was wondering which style is best for which kind of conditions. From what I understand rocker is better for powder and camber is better for the harder snow? I live in Vail and usually ride Vail and BC. I'd say about 1/4-1/3 of the days are powder and the others are not.

I'm looking for something for mainly freeriding right now, and maybe progress to a little park toward the end of the season.

What do you think would be the best fit?

I've heard good things about NS and Lib, specifically the NS Proto CT, which I've heard can hold an edge like a Camber, but can also float through powder.

Your input is appreciated! Thanks!


----------



## xMazayx

Check out some Lib & GNU boards, different kinds of rocker but thanks to Magne Traction they hold edge quite nice in icy conditions. I ride Gnu Carbon Credit myself, mostly in Middle/Eastern Europe which is often icy and I'm happy with MT. Although CC is one of the cheapest board they make.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Floyd,

A solid all mountain freeride board will be a great choice for you. You will want something that can charge on groomers and get you some float lines in the trees and bowls. While there are rocker boards that are designed purely for pow, that is not the norm. Full rocker boards are most typically freestyle oriented and not what you are after at the moment.

The Proto that you mentioned is a great choice. Camber Rocker Camber is an amazing option. On many boards it can offer you a great balance of float, easy control, bite and power.

Another awesome option is Rocker Camber Rocker (pop cam). 

Stoked that you get to ride big Western Mountains. That makes choosing gear easy


----------



## Floyd

Thank you so much for your help. I have just one more question... which bindings do you think would go best with this board and my style of riding? I know absolutely nothing about bindings. Thanks again


----------



## Wiredsport

Stoked to assist. I have PMed you a few great options, but I am of course very biased. You will get a lot of great suggestions here and in the bindings forum as well.


----------



## SprainedTongue

What a great thread. Very helpful even to riders who've been around a long time but aren't familiar with all the latest gear.

I'm one of those older guys, I've been riding very stiff camber decks like the older Burton Custom or Balance for 19 years. Often these days I don't have the aggression needed to get the whole edge down on those stiff boards. When you're not charging hard enough to get it fully engaged things get very tiring, you have to use a lot of care to hold an edge when such a small amount of it is in contact with the snow, and having those contacts so far out makes you rock a lot as they bounce over bumps.

I'm going to be riding a little mountain this season, Seymour in Vancouver, so I think it's time to add a smaller, more easy going board. I saw a few Gnu decks on clearance from last year, I'm looking at the impossible and the rider's choice. The difference seems to be in the camber profile, EC2 vs C2. I wonder if anybody could explain the difference in ride between those two?

My priorities for this deck would be fun on groomers and jumping ability. Groomer time would be lots of fooling around switch, bs 180 ollies off rollers and drops, and playing on the side hits. Park time would be <20ft jumps, no rails/boxes and no halfpipe. I'm looking for a short, flick-able board so powder ability doesn't factor into this one.


----------



## Wiredsport

> I'm looking at the impossible and the rider's choice. The difference seems to be in the camber profile, EC2 vs C2. I wonder if anybody could explain the difference in ride between those two?


Hi ST,

Deciphering Mervin's profiles is...ummm...not all that easy. Their info-graphics and videos do very little to make that easier (and in this case make it more confusing). 

Simply put, C2 is what we have been referring to in this thread as Camber Rocker Camber. EC2 (Elliptical C2) is essentially the same basic design but with a slightly different camber shape and an extra (very minor) radius which slightly lifts the contact points when weighted.

The idea is that EC2 is a slightly easier going version of C2, aimed to further reduce catchiness, give extra float in pow, etc.


----------



## SprainedTongue

I don't care about float in pow for this one or "edge catchiness" in anything so I decided whichever was stiffer to hand was getting the nod. (For the record that's the impossible.) Thanks for the info in this thread.


----------



## DOFPIC

*T Rice Pro or T rice pro horsepower*

I am considering buying one of these boards in the 157 length. the flex and dimensions are all the same. Anyone have any experience and is the horsepower model worth the extra 140 bones? Looks to me the only difference is a lighter weight and maybe better materials but does it really make it ride better in pow, park and groomed? Anyone know?


----------



## Bebtester

Wired sport, this seems like a good place to ask...

Looking for advice on selecting a new board.

I've been riding for 8 years, mostly at a small resort in Indiana on almost entirely man made snow, might go out west occasionally, or east for a quick vacation. I enjoy cruising, can ride the blues, sometimes the blacks, not a big park rider.

I'm 51 years old, 5'6" tall, 162 lbs. 

I ride a 2010 Flow Merc 151 now, looking to upgrade to a higher quality board with a sintered base.

I have looked at the Burton Custom Flying V and the Lib Tech Skatebanana, both have been recommended by local shops. After reading the forums here it looks like the Banana is a park board, maybe not so good for cruising? I think they recommended it because of the good performance on icy conditions.

Any advice on these 2 or others is welcome. Also looking for advice on size, is 154 too big for me?


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

What is your foot size?


----------



## Bebtester

*Foot size*

I wear a size 8 Burton Moto boots, fit me we'll, very comfortable, btw, I ride flow bindings right now too, broke my leg near the ankle several years ago and the Flows allowed me to get back ino the sport without pain.


----------



## Wiredsport

Bebtester said:


> I wear a size 8 Burton Moto boots, fit me we'll, very comfortable, btw, I ride flow bindings right now too, broke my leg near the ankle several years ago and the Flows allowed me to get back ino the sport without pain.


Got it. 

Since this thread is primarily about profiles lets start there  All 3 of these boards (Merc, Custom V and Skate Banana) use essentially the same profile (a mild version of Camber Rocker Camber) when all of the marketing fluff is stripped away. That is certainly suitable for you, but are you looking for something new feeling? 

On your harder snow the difference between Sintered and Extruded will not be a very noticeable factor unless you are really interested in maximizing your high end maching. 

So...lets figure out what it is about your current board that you want to improve on and suggest from there.

STOKED!


----------



## Bebtester

*Thanks for the help!*

I'm looking for something with better edge control for turns, less skipping when turning hard, better stability at faster speeds. My impression is that the Merc is an entry level board, looking to upgrade to something better.


----------



## Wiredsport

Got it. How much time do you spend in the park, riding switch, general freestyling?


----------



## Bebtester

*Riding style*

Haven't spent much time in the park, would like to try some smaller features. Mostly cruising the groomers, riding over the natural bumps and drops, riding switch maybe 10%. I like to be able to tackle the steeper hills but spend most of the time on the blue runs.


----------



## ACairngormFace

This thread does not mention what situations the profiles would shine in best.


----------



## Wiredsport

ACairngormFace said:


> This thread does not mention what situations the profiles would shine in best.


Unfortunately, that is not a good idea as the same profile can be altered for different applications. for instance some Rocker Camber Rocker boards are designed as freestyle and park specific riding when the camber section is very short and the outside rockers are emphasized while other models are freeride oriented where the camber will extend almost out to the contact points. It depends a lot on the design and the other elements as well. Profile is a very important factor but it does not tell the whole story.


----------



## ACairngormFace

Wiredsport said:


> Unfortunately, that is not a good idea as the same profile can be altered for different applications. for instance some Rocker Camber Rocker boards are designed as freestyle and park specific riding when the camber section is very short and the outside rockers are emphasized while other models are freeride oriented where the camber will extend almost out to the contact points. It depends a lot on the design and the other elements as well. Profile is a very important factor but it does not tell the whole story.


Thanks for the informative reply :thumbsup:


----------



## poutanen

Yeah and personal preference plays a big part as well. It's like saying Stiff = Freeride and Soft = Park. It's a decent generalization, but experienced riders will always change that norms for their own needs.


----------



## Bebtester

Any opinions on the Rossi One or Templar Magtek models, looks like they would be a good option?


----------



## Wiredsport

Bebtester said:


> Any opinions on the Rossi One or Templar Magtek models, looks like they would be a good option?


Magnetraction or Griptec will be help with grip and edging on hardpack and ice. I think you would really enjoy C3 from Mervin. Have a look at boards with that tech. It will give you great bite and will take the bulk of your riding to the next level.


----------



## rcboxer

Great thread, thanks for all the help and info wiredsport!!!

I got me a season pass this year to bear mountain  I use to ride a lot but haven't much lately. Last year I went out a few times and am excited again. I have an old GNU Hasselhoff 150-152 board regular camber. I think I bought it new in the mid to late 90's. Any way I want to start playing on fun boxes and maybe trying to learn some small rails this year. I like jumps but nothing huge. And I kinda like the smaller squirly feel of a board. I do some reason want a GNU again but really it doesn't matter to me what brand board I get. Anyways, any suggestions on a fun board or board style for me?  size 11 boot.


Thanks!!!


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

rcboxer said:


> Great thread, thanks for all the help and info wiredsport!!!
> 
> I got me a season pass this year to bear mountain  I use to ride a lot but haven't much lately. Last year I went out a few times and am excited again. I have an old GNU Hasselhoff 150-152 board regular camber. I think I bought it new in the mid to late 90's. Any way I want to start playing on fun boxes and maybe trying to learn some small rails this year. I like jumps but nothing huge. And I kinda like the smaller squirly feel of a board. I do some reason want a GNU again but really it doesn't matter to me what brand board I get. Anyways, any suggestions on a fun board or board style for me?  size 11 boot.
> 
> 
> Thanks!!!


This is my second season, so I guess you probably have more exp. than me, however I am officially a dark blue so I have some authority  as far as your question goes, it's all about personal preference. I am a freestyle/park person because that's what is most appealing to me. As a result, I really like the regular camber that your old board has because it's easier to butter, Ollie, etc. If you are interested in doing some fun boxes or rails or anything freestyle, I suggest the regular camber. It's all personal perference and what you feel more comfortable on. I hope I could help answer your question  have a good time shreddin


----------



## rcboxer

Snowboard Sloth said:


> This is my second season, so I guess you probably have more exp. than me, however I am officially a dark blue so I have some authority  as far as your question goes, it's all about personal preference. I am a freestyle/park person because that's what is most appealing to me. As a result, I really like the regular camber that your old board has because it's easier to butter, Ollie, etc. If you are interested in doing some fun boxes or rails or anything freestyle, I suggest the regular camber. It's all personal perference and what you feel more comfortable on. I hope I could help answer your question  have a good time shreddin


thanks for the reply!!! I still do like my board even though its older. So You think there is much difference between what I have now compared to a new camber board? Another words should my board be just fine for that style riding?


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

Bebtester said:


> I wear a size 8 Burton Moto boots, fit me we'll, very comfortable, btw, I ride flow bindings right now too, broke my leg near the ankle several years ago and the Flows allowed me to get back ino the sport without pain.


Ok first off, I'd like to say that being 51 years old and snowboarding is a major achievement! Wow! Hopefully I'll be able to board when I'm in my 50s. (I'm still a teen) 
Anyway... If you are looking for a cruiser board and not an "end your life by jumping off a 5 story ramp" kind of board, I suggest a banana-shaped board with the base of the nose and tail higher than the middle of the board. This camber will have more forgivingness than most other boards. It will also make carving easier. As far as the length and width, there's some rules of thumb. The board's length should be within your shoulders and the top of your head. I like my boards at chin level because I'm 5'9" and 138 lbs. the heavier you are for your height, the longer of a board you will want. Also, the longer the board, the more stable and smooth. If you want a really smooth, nice ride, and you plan on having a good time, get a board that is around eye level. For a size 11 shoe, your board should be a medium to wide width. Determine this by setting your boots in your bindings and then on the board you are interested in. If the bindings stick out more than one inch on both sides, you might want to try a wider board. If the boots hardly hang over on the sides, take it down a notch. 
If a board is too narrow, your boots will drag in the snow if you carve hard. If it is too wide, you won't have as much leverage when cornering and will make it harder to carve. 
I hope I could help solve some of your questions. Keep riding!


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

rcboxer said:


> thanks for the reply!!! I still do like my board even though its older. So You think there is much difference between what I have now compared to a new camber board? Another words should my board be just fine for that style riding?


If you like your board, there is no reason to buy another one. That's how I see it. Besides, for what you want to do, your board is perfect! (In my opinion) have a good night


----------



## Wiredsport

rcboxer said:


> thanks for the reply!!! I still do like my board even though its older. So You think there is much difference between what I have now compared to a new camber board? Another words should my board be just fine for that style riding?


Hi RCB,

There are huge differences in boards since the mid 90's (many of the biggest changes not being in profile at all). Cores have improved a lot with newer cores largely being milled to allow well considered flex zones. Board weights have come down significantly. Laminates and laminating processes have improved. Many more...and more refined sidecut options are available. Magnetraction is now present on all Gnu models. Etc.

And then there are the profiles  Even if you were to stay with camber, there have been notable improvements made there as well.


----------



## Bebtester

*Thanks for the advice*

Appreciate the advice here, this is a great place to see a lot of options and opinions. I ended up getting the 2014 NS Proto HD in a 154 size. After mounting my bindings the width looks to be just right. Can't wait for some snow so I can get out there and ride!


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

What performance difference is there between a stff board or a soft one? I think I like softer ones, but I haven't ridden on stiffer ones


----------



## LuckyRVA

Generally softer boards are better for jibbing. Stiffer boards are more stable for charging.


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

Thanks for the clarification. Have a good season


----------



## rcboxer

Wiredsport said:


> Hi RCB,
> 
> There are huge differences in boards since the mid 90's (many of the biggest changes not being in profile at all). Cores have improved a lot with newer cores largely being milled to allow well considered flex zones. Board weights have come down significantly. Laminates and laminating processes have improved. Many more...and more refined sidecut options are available. Magnetraction is now present on all Gnu models. Etc.
> 
> And then there are the profiles  Even if you were to stay with camber, there have been notable improvements made there as well.


THanks good info :thumbsup: I'll be teaching my boys snowboarding this season. They started last season and they are learning fast lol. I am looking at the Rome boards. Looks like maybe a rocker flat rocker board might be fun. Since I won't be flying down the hills this season I want to get something fun while going slower.

I think the GNU Metal Guru looks like something that might work for me. Also looking at the GNU Street series but concerned how it would ride if I feel like bombing down the hills.


----------



## Snowboard Sloth

Hey man! first off, I'd like to say that you sure know how to start a thread! All of my questions about camber were answered. 
I would like to know how performance changes from a stiff board to a soft board. I already know that a really stiff board can get through more powder and ice, and that a really soft board will make it easier to do things like buttering, but is that it? I'm a freestyle/park guy so I won't be hitting huge powdered mountians or anything however I will be doing jumps and jibs.


----------



## Wiredsport

Snowboard Sloth said:


> Hey man! first off, I'd like to say that you sure know how to start a thread! All of my questions about camber were answered.
> I would like to know how performance changes from a stiff board to a soft board. I already know that a really stiff board can get through more powder and ice, and that a really soft board will make it easier to do things like buttering, but is that it? I'm a freestyle/park guy so I won't be hitting huge powdered mountians or anything however I will be doing jumps and jibs.


Great question and (of course) not so simple to answer.

While it is very true that jib boards (for instance) are all softer than race boards it is also true that there are big variances in stiffness within any category. Some jib boards are going to be relatively firm while others are noodles. Most current boards have multiple flex zones so even a "soft" board may have stiff sections (and vice versa). Also important, flex changes by size within any given model so the 152 may be notably softer than the 156 of the same board. The best advice you can get on flex is to determine what a specific board was designed to do and then use the manufacturer's weight chart to center yourself in the intended user range for the size that matches your weight.

Here is some info from our fit tips:

Trying to get an accurate idea of how a specific board will flex in comparison to others? Watch out! There is more marketing misinformation and straight out nonsense published about flexibility than about most other elements of snowboard fit. Finding the correct flex (stiffness and feel) is crucial, but it won't be found in a single number printed on a fit chart. Let's clear one thing up straight off. There is no industry standard for flex. That is to say, what one company considers a "4" has no direct relation to another company's "4" or "Medium Soft", or "Less Harsh". That's correct, boards that carry the same number may (and usually do) have an entirely different feel. OK, so that makes it tricky to compare one brand to another, but what about within a brand? Even here, big problems exist. Most brands are still putting a single flex rating on an entire model. That is to say, this year's Travis White pro model gets a flex rating of "2", but what? It's rated a 2 in both 149 cm and in 163 cm? Hey now, the chart says that those two sizes are rated for riders separated by 70 lbs, how can the flex rating be the same? Wait, you say, they are rating the overall flex of the model so it could be compared to other models of the same brand of a similar size. The problem there is that board designer's change the flex of each model at different size breaks to achieve the feel that they are after for that specific model. In other words, the difference in flex between a 149 and a 154 in one model may be far greater than the flex difference between those same sizes in another model. Additionally, many times a rider will be deciding between two sizes of the same model. Does the 157 really have the same flex as the 159? If so, why are the weight ratings for those sizes so different? The biggest confusing factor, however, comes from the improvements in flex control technologies that have evolved over the past decade. A board that is designed to have a buttery soft tip and tail with a firm mid section flexes far differently than a constant flex board designed for a similar rider size. It is not that it is necessarily more or less flexible, but that the flex characteristics are entirely different. To get around this issue, certain companies have switched from a flex rating to a feel rating. This is a step from bad to worse. There is simply no way to compare these complex relationships in a single number or term. It would be equal to comparing a tangerine to a pineapple using a fruitiness scale, rated 1 to 10. What is the answer? The only way to figure out the flex component is to dig deeper. Getting the info on the core weight range that a model and size were developed for and understanding the flex characteristic of that model is the only way to get the correct flex for your needs.


----------



## DrGwiz

Amazing thread, just spent the past hour or so reading all the posts while I was at work.

So I'm looking at getting a new board. Still riding a Forum Warrior that I got years ago. I believe it's a full camber. After reading everything I'm leaning towards rocker camber rocker or camber rocker camber.

I'm 5'8'' (who cares), 156 pounds and wear a size 9 shoe (important parts). I ride in western and northern Michigan which isn't anything too crazy, mostly groomers. I plan on doing some smaller jumps on this board and getting some air off natural features and doing some butters. I'm not going to be doing any rails or boxes or half pipe. 

I was looking at the K2 Happy Hour as this looks like it might fit my needs but wanted to see if there are any other options that you might recommend Wired, or tell me if I'm thinking about things correctly. Thanks for the help in this thread!

Edit: Forgot to add that I will probably be using this board for snowkiting too on a frozen lake that's normally covered in snow as well, getting some air with the kite.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

Because of your edit (kite/frozen lake) I would suggest Camber or Rocker Camber Rocker. Kiting imposes a very unique dynamic that requires constant and capable one sided edging. I would rule out any models with primary flat or rockered sections.

STOKED!


----------



## DrGwiz

Awesome, and if I left out the snowkiting what was your recommendation going to be (just out of my own curiosity).


----------



## Wiredsport

DrGwiz said:


> Awesome, and if I left out the snowkiting what was your recommendation going to be (just out of my own curiosity).


There will be many boards in the CRC and RCR profiles that would be awesome for you.


----------



## rcboxer

Hi thanks for all your info on this thread. I have a question cuz im not sure which to get lol

I want the new gnu street. I'm thinking I want the 152, but possibly 154. leaning towards the 152 because I ride an old gnu 150-252 hasshaulff camber board. IT has 114 effective edge. It feels good to me but i want to get a playfull fun board. I am riding with my two boys this year teaching them to ride. 9 and and 8 year old I just want to play on smaller jumps fun boxes butters and stuff. Do you think the 152 street is going to be too small for me since its a rocker board. iT has 116 effective edge which is two more cm then the camber board i ride now. or should I go 154 with 118 effective edge? i am between 180 185 pounds with a size 11 shoe. 

thanks for your time


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

There would be no advantage to the 152 at your specs. As always, we highly suggest that you take tip to tip board length out of your buying decision and focus only on the intended rider for the model you are considering. You are either right at or over the max rider weight for the 152 (the board will best perform as intended when you are centered in the range). You are best centered on the 157 cm size in this model.


----------



## rcboxer

Wiredsport said:


> Hi,
> 
> There would be no advantage to the 152 at your specs. As always, we highly suggest that you take tip to tip board length out of your buying decision and focus only on the intended rider for the model you are considering. You are either right at or over the max rider weight for the 152 (the board will best perform as intended when you are centered in the range). You are best centered on the 157 cm size in this model.


Cool thanks for that, Good info :thumbsup:


----------



## J-Dizzle

*Can 2 Burton Flying V's have different camber style?*

I just got a new 2012 Burton Sherlock in the mail. I lie it on the floor and its definitely Camber-Rocker-Camber, according to the diagram on the first page of this post. 

My friend's Custom Flying V is R-C-R. 

They both say Flying-V.

Is my new sherlock defective?


----------



## Wiredsport

You Sherlock should be Rocker overall with two cambers under the inserts.






Your friend's Custom Flying V should also share that profile. Any possibility that he has the standard Camber Custom?


----------



## Sol

*New Board*

Im a advanced snowboarder, ive been going to slopes since i was 10, and for christmas this year im gonna buy a board, and i was wondering if i could buy a board and then get a custom bottom decal for it, if so where is the best place to do this


----------



## Jeng

*setback?*

Hi, I'm from belgium and as we have no mountains at all in our little country me and my friends went indoor for a couple of times to learn how to snowboard and fell in love instantly. 
The first 2 times were on a flat burton rental but after that I started to experiment with rocker, camber, crc,... but i hate the loose, wobbely feel of rocker and after the 4th time I just bought a board!
This would be the 2011 imperium parabellum... 158, slightly tapered, 2cm setback and camber profile (flex 6), as I'm not the park oriented guy,and wanted to go freeride-ish. 
At first I was scared that it would be too difficult to ride but goddamn, this baby rocks! It's really light, precise as hell, holds it's edge and in pow, floats like a surfboard! And surprisingly, I don't catch edges as much as expected...:yahoo:

2 disadv.: - on bumpy slopes, the 158 is a little to long for me bc i'm only 5ft9 and weigh 154 lbs size 8, it's not agile enough to go around 3ft diameter bumps, so i have to jump some of them
- because of the setback and taper, I can't ride switch 

So I wanted to buy a second board, more flexible, to practice my switch riding, maybe try out some groundtricks, can you help me out?
Like I said before, just hate the loose feeling of rocker, I want to have control over my board, catching edge is me not being smooth enough  with that in mind, came up with only 2 possible board types: flat or tbt, what do you think? I'm scared that the tbt won't hold the edge as good when I wanna try and carve?

Jeng


----------



## Jeng

*playground*

oh and I ride the alps! tignes and portes du soleil this year...

Jeng


----------



## tonicusa

Bataleon are cambered decks, so some of them hold an edge and can rail carves, like the Enemy, and the Jam. I used to own both about five years back and they were great. But last year I bought an Evil Twin and it rode nothing like an earlier version I had owned when Bataleon first launched. It sucked, I don't know if they have made design changes you should ask some TBSt fans here. Im not crazy about flat decks especially for free riding. I like a board with some camber for that.


----------



## Jeng

Thanks Tonic! That's what I thought about those curled up edges...
And for freeriding I have my parabellum, it's perfect! The flat would be for learning how to ride switch and buttering here and there... but I want to be able to ride it on whatever slope I run in to... I tried a crc, but even that kind of deck, imo is too sloppy, I want precision


----------



## KillinIT

Can someone show me what the profile for the lib tech darker series looks like, and also the gnu Eco genetics....

I'm totally lost when it comes to this banana box, c2 reverse floater, beaned beams and Maximus traction and all

Srsly though, what's the best profile/rocker combo for straight shredding, like all mountain ripping and steep hard laid out turns????

Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport

KillinIT said:


> Can someone show me what the profile for the lib tech darker series looks like, and also the gnu Eco genetics....
> Thanks


The Darker series is C3 and the Eco is C2. Both are variants of Camber Rocker Camber.


----------



## KillinIT

Wiredsport said:


> The Darker series is C3 and the Eco is C2. Both are variants of Camber Rocker Camber.


OHHHHHH 

Wow, I get it now :blink:

Thanks you very much for that response:eusa_clap: :bowdown:

I owned an altered genetics for years and always noticed the (iirc, and now that I understand) C2 BTX profile in the base, it's all starting to make more sense.

Looking at it, I notice in/with the C3 BTX design Mervin softened the rocker and camber which (if I understand this correctly) obviously have different pros and cons....

I would guess the C3 BTX design would make the board slightly less quick to transition front to back edges albeit more stable, also I notice that by softening the angle/degree of camber/rocker profile/relationship the C3 design looks to put your corners in contact with the snow at all times, again, this comes with pros and cons

As I stated above I rode the first gen altered genetics, bought it when it first came out. It was unlike anything ever seen or ridden before, it was like riding kinetic energy, if you were/are a rider that really knows how to push/use a board to work for you you would appreciate this stick, it did for you, it gave back, aggressively too, it wasn't effortless mind you, but that was the beauty of it, the harder you laid into it the more it gave back, I never found that boards "limits" so to speak, only my own, if I could hold against the feedback of the board it was always there, it did really well in pow too

So I'm wondering....

I know there's a certain amount of personal preference and limited experience that ultimately makes a persons opinion, let's face, how many of you/us have ridden every board type enough to make an informed real world statement...?

That being said, which between the two - C3 & C2 BTX designs - would have the most benefit to an all mountain free ride free carve, chute droppin, back country rider? 

And furthermore, is one going to be better for heavier snow conditions than the other? 

I'm really sorry for the novel here :huh: thank you for your patience....it's been a few years since I've been involved in the sport, I had kids, sold my gear (snow, climb and mountain bike) and literally haven't done or looked into a thing in years. So I really appreciate the help in making a decision to getting me on the best board for me.

Thanks again:thumbsup:


----------



## KillinIT

Actually, after looking at a direct comparison of the two, I know for a fact I want the C2 BTX design :thumbsup:

:yahoo:

Thanks again for the picture comparison :bowdown:

You single handedly helped me decide on which board I'm getting


Even though I think the new one has an ugly design....(the lib darker series is sooo sik) I'm gettin the new GNU Eco Gen, 158cm and maybe some flow bindings, that's another can of worms in itself :dizzy:

Thanks again, I'm gonna go make a phone call now


----------



## Wiredsport

I wish I could give the one answer to that which would suit all riders...but you nailed it. Personal preference. Like you, I love the AG.


----------



## LuckyRVA

Wiredsport said:


> The Darker series is C3 and the Eco is C2. Both are variants of Camber Rocker Camber.


For the sake of adding of adding to the discussion...The supposed C3 camber of my Libtech Hot Knife looks nothing like the image above. It looks like straight up camber. I see no rocker at all. I'll see if I can post some pictures tonight.


----------



## KillinIT

Jeng said:


> Hi, I'm from belgium and as we have no mountains at all in our little country me and my friends went indoor for a couple of times to learn how to snowboard and fell in love instantly.
> The first 2 times were on a flat burton rental but after that I started to experiment with rocker, camber, crc,... but i hate the loose, wobbely feel of rocker and after the 4th time I just bought a board!
> This would be the 2011 imperium parabellum... 158, slightly tapered, 2cm setback and camber profile (flex 6), as I'm not the park oriented guy,and wanted to go freeride-ish.
> At first I was scared that it would be too difficult to ride but goddamn, this baby rocks! It's really light, precise as hell, holds it's edge and in pow, floats like a surfboard! And surprisingly, I don't catch edges as much as expected...:yahoo:
> 
> 2 disadv.: - on bumpy slopes, the 158 is a little to long for me bc i'm only 5ft9 and weigh 154 lbs size 8, it's not agile enough to go around 3ft diameter bumps, so i have to jump some of them
> - because of the setback and taper, I can't ride switch
> 
> So I wanted to buy a second board, more flexible, to practice my switch riding, maybe try out some groundtricks, can you help me out?
> Like I said before, just hate the loose feeling of rocker, I want to have control over my board, catching edge is me not being smooth enough  with that in mind, came up with only 2 possible board types: flat or tbt, what do you think? I'm scared that the tbt won't hold the edge as good when I wanna try and carve?
> 
> Jeng


After reading through your post I feel like you need to do one thing, it's crucial.

Develop your balance...with a balance ball, walking a couple 2x4's nailed together laying on edge, sitting on a large ball, squats and compression jumping...

Here's why, you're not into park style and want to free ride, but you are leaning away from the CRC profile that really suits all mountain free riding and carving.

I feel like a CRC profile lends itself nicely to carving and linking turns, and steep hard pack corners, it sounds like you don't like how the board transitions and that feeling usually stems from a balance standpoint, but everyone's different and you really may just prefer a different profile board, however no board shape, profile type or construction method will give you better balance and that's the key, balance and strength to to maintain balance

You couldn't pay me to ride another type of board profile for all mountain riding, I just finished going through the board buying process myself and found more education of product in 3 days than I ever learned in 10 years before, gotta love the net:thumbsup: and I basically got the newest version of the board I had a few years ago, but it's funny that it took me several years dozens of boards and a bunch of money to figure out what I did in three days on the net, and I came to the same conclusion:

After years of trying to find my soul board I found the GNU Altered gen

Fast fwd a decade

After three days of internet searching, and ultimately one gentlemans answer to my request on this forum, I concluded that the GNU Eco Genetics best suited my needs

Pretty much the same board, just came to the end result of getting my new "soul board" in a much shorter and less expensive manner

I looked at dozens, tried to talk myself out of a Mervin product, and couldn't, then thought why would I, they're the shit and have always been good since their inception to the industry, and they're practically my neighbors so I gotta support the locals when at all possible

On that note, take a peek at the C3 BTX construction found on Mervin boards, you might like


----------



## KillinIT

LuckyRVA said:


> For the sake of adding of adding to the discussion...The supposed C3 camber of my Libtech Hot Knife looks nothing like the image above. It looks like straight up camber. I see no rocker at all. I'll see if I can post some pictures tonight.


The picture is exaggerated of course, but crudely and basically explained, the materials are shaped or grained in such a manner to retain or resemble that basic shape and everything is pressed and capped together, essentially "storing" energy in the base, flexing a certain way and popping a given amount.

You won't be able to see the profile as easily as you can feel it if you were to slowly run the palm of your hand down the board but more so back and forth across the waist/middle of the board from edge to edge, here is where the profile is most profound

On my Gnu AG I actually thought I over tightened the bindings and pulled the base up, it was the C2 BTX design profile and has much more rocker and less camber and it actually did have a visual profile of a "W" in the base. I always noticed it when I waxed


----------



## Wiredsport

To confuse things even more, Mervin has more than one C3. The image below is for DC3 but each C3 deck essentially has its own flavor of C3.


----------



## wwynne23

I'm looking at Rocker-Camber-Rocker and wanted to see my options. Was thinking of getting a Rossignol Templar Magtek as my main snowboard. Do you guys have any other recommendations in this category


----------



## Wiredsport

wwynne23 said:


> I'm looking at Rocker-Camber-Rocker and wanted to see my options. Was thinking of getting a Rossignol Templar Magtek as my main snowboard. Do you guys have any other recommendations in this category


Rossignol's design for Amptek is, "The original rocker infused with camber between the feet".

That puts the rocker in a place where it does not really have access to the energy benefit of traditional camber which allows the camber to act like a powerful spring under body weight. The major benefit of RCR is that energy combined with slightly lifted contact points to reduce snags and hard take downs. 

Consider an RCR deck like the Flow Quantum if you are after that energetic feel.


----------



## wwynne23

Great that looks good.

What I'm basically looking for is a board that will be about speed over tricks. I learned on Camber and enjoyed the control you get with it, but wanted to avoid the times when the board catches and you go flying. 

Am I looking for RCR or CRC?


----------



## Wiredsport

wwynne23 said:


> Great that looks good.
> 
> What I'm basically looking for is a board that will be about speed over tricks. I learned on Camber and enjoyed the control you get with it, but wanted to avoid the times when the board catches and you go flying.
> 
> Am I looking for RCR or CRC?


There are great options in both profiles that will suit your needs. I would also take a strong look at the Gnu Riders Choice and similar models. Those are terrific in this category in CRC.


----------



## The Chairman

[/URL][/IMG]

Some of you may have seen our early season release of the Ripsaw CR. I just wanted to post this comparison of our CR to C3.
Seems a lot of companies are going backwards with camber. I personally would rather have fuel injection in my car rather than a carburetor... CR falls under the RC umbrella and is the perfect hybrid of RC Tech and Camber without losing the playful shape.


----------



## poutanen

wwynne23 said:


> What I'm basically looking for is a board that will be about speed over tricks. I learned on Camber and enjoyed the control you get with it, but wanted to avoid the times when the board catches and you go flying.


Not to sound negative, but I always see this as a pro of alternative camber profiles. Well that's like buying an auto-trans because you suck at driving stick! It's not a fix, it's a compromise. If you're catching edges you need to work on technique, not buy a band-aid solution!

That said, I like RCR or camber with (lifted tips) a lot for it's ability to float better in powder, while still carve like a champ.


----------



## wwynne23

Yeah I hear you- I switched from learning on a Camber where I got the technique down and wasn't catching too much, and after two seasons I switched to a rocker for the playfulness. It was so much fun, but I want something that gives the energy of the Camber board and that you have to initiate carves with the right way. 

I'm looking at this and thinking of pulling the trigger-thoughts?

Rome Agent Rocker Snowboard 2013 | evo outlet

Rome Agent


----------



## Jeng

KillinIT said:


> After reading through your post I feel like you need to do one thing, it's crucial.
> 
> Develop your balance...with a balance ball, walking a couple 2x4's nailed together laying on edge, sitting on a large ball, squats and compression jumping...
> 
> Here's why, you're not into park style and want to free ride, but you are leaning away from the CRC profile that really suits all mountain free riding and carving.
> 
> I feel like a CRC profile lends itself nicely to carving and linking turns, and steep hard pack corners, it sounds like you don't like how the board transitions and that feeling usually stems from a balance standpoint, but everyone's different and you really may just prefer a different profile board, however no board shape, profile type or construction method will give you better balance and that's the key, balance and strength to to maintain balance
> 
> 
> 
> On that note, take a peek at the C3 BTX construction found on Mervin boards, you might like


I feel kinda offended because i've always had a good balance, I think...
Never had problems climbing trees, walking on my hands or to do wheelies 

But I'm not in the position to jump to a conclusion that soon about a type of construction. It's only my second year in snowboarding (5th day on the mountains) and the crc I tried was more like the C2 maybe it's because of that that I felt it was less grippy? But what I've learned from here is that I need to test more specific constructions to know what I'm talking about! 

The C3 BTX doesn't look that bad at all! Maybe when the shop has anything like that for rent, I'll try it out. But I have a board which is perfect imo for all mountain freeriding, so that's not what i'm looking for... I want something a noob like me can learn to butter on, but is a little more forgiving then my board.
Not too much, if I make a mistake, I wanna feel it


----------



## gixxerdk

Hey WS let me first say that you are the reason why I signed up onto this forum, I'm 28 been snowboarding since the 90's. Even though I'm considered advanced/expert, I have no knowledge of terminology and the new technology that is out. Iv'e used my trusty airwalk snowboard from the 90's LOL and finally its time to retire it and get in the loop with all the hype. 

My Airwalk board is I believe flat camber and was wondering if I would have a lot of trouble with CRC? As I'm learning I feel that CRC is what I'm after. I'm in the East so very rarely do I see powder, mostly groomers/hard/ice. My style of riding is aggressive all mountain, love to hit the long sweeping carves after charging straight down the mt(reminds me of dragging a knee on a motorcycle). My downfall is at the end of the day the humpy, choppy, uneven terrain. This type of terrain just does not work well with my style of riding. Do I need a more stable board, or do I just need to navigate around it? My airwalk is a 155, if I decide on a CRC do I stay at the same length?

Few boards I'm eyeing: Lib Tec Lando Phoenix- Never summer SL- Rome Anthem- Burton Antler. I came up with these on thegoodride.com and just narrowing down with features/styles/etc. Would be great if you could suggest a few.

Thanks WS!


----------



## Wiredsport

Stoked to assist Bro. 

I do not see you having any problem transitioning to CRC. Lets dial it in though and figure out what you already have. My gusess is conventional Camber due to the age (but it well could be flat by now  ). Please upload a pic of the profile of your Airwalk when you have a chance.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> Stoked to assist Bro.
> 
> I do not see you having any problem transitioning to CRC. Lets dial it in though and figure out what you already have. My gusess is conventional Camber due to the age (but it well could be flat by now  ). Please upload a pic of the profile of your Airwalk when you have a chance.


Testing upload with phone.


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> Testing upload with phone.


Not working. Send higher res and larger photos.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> Not working. Send higher res and larger photos.


How about this?


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

So what you have there is a conventional cambered deck. There are certainly great options for you in Camber Rocker Camber. What is your weight and foot size?


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> Hi,
> 
> So what you have there is a conventional cambered deck. There are certainly great options for you in Camber Rocker Camber. What is your weight and foot size?


9.5-10 depending on brand, I'm 5'10 180lb. My airwalk is 155 but from tip to tip including the bends is 157. Is conventional cambered same as regular camber?


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> 9.5-10 depending on brand, I'm 5'10 180lb. My airwalk is 155 but from tip to tip including the bends is 157. Is conventional cambered same as regular camber?


Yes, regular camber. Because of the age of your board you, even more than most, are in for a big change. You are very well centered in terms of weight an foot size with the average, straight up the middle snowboarder. That leaves almost all options available to you. A great CRC deck to add to your list would be the Gnu Riders Choice.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> Yes, regular camber. Because of the age of your board you, even more than most, are in for a big change. You are very well centered in terms of weight an foot size with the average, straight up the middle snowboarder. That leaves almost all options available to you. A great CRC deck to add to your list would be the Gnu Riders Choice.


Big change in a good or bad way?:laugh: Hope I dont have to spend a day relearning.. With the info I gave you on my airwalks boardsize do you suggest I get a 155 or 157? How are boards nowadays measured? 

I will order from you if you carry the board I pick!


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> Big change in a good or bad way?:laugh: Hope I dont have to spend a day relearning.. With the info I gave you on my airwalks boardsize do you suggest I get a 155 or 157? How are boards nowadays measured?


sizing depends entirely on the model that you are considering. Depending on the model (and the rider spec that it was designed for) this can vary 6-7 cm. In the Riders Choice you will want the 157.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> sizing depends entirely on the model that you are considering. Depending on the model (and the rider spec that it was designed for) this can vary 6-7 cm. In the Riders Choice you will want the 157.


Thank you so much WS! I feel like I'm back in the loop!


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> sizing depends entirely on the model that you are considering. Depending on the model (and the rider spec that it was designed for) this can vary 6-7 cm. In the Riders Choice you will want the 157.



Quick question WS, what size should I get for never summers, cobra, heritage, sl? Which model would you pick?


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> Quick question WS, what size should I get for never summers, cobra, heritage, sl? Which model would you pick?


The SL 158 would be a solid choice. It would really be a decision of how important Magnetraction is for you.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> The SL 158 would be a solid choice. It would really be a decision of how important Magnetraction is for you.


What is your reasoning to get the 158 instead of the 155? As always thank you for your valued opinion!


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> What is your reasoning to get the 158 instead of the 155? As always thank you for your valued opinion!


This quote:

"I'm in the East so very rarely do I see powder, mostly groomers/hard/ice. My style of riding is aggressive all mountain, love to hit the long sweeping carves after charging straight down the mt"

+

180 lbs

Those elements scream for the longer size.


----------



## poutanen

Wiredsport said:


> Those elements scream for the longer size.


Exactly! I'm 180 pounds and have been on everything from a 153 to a 166 in the last couple years. The big 166 is actually a lot of fun for the high speed stuff, nothing like a 2' nose to help tame the crud!


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> This quote:
> 
> "I'm in the East so very rarely do I see powder, mostly groomers/hard/ice. My style of riding is aggressive all mountain, love to hit the long sweeping carves after charging straight down the mt"
> 
> +
> 
> 180 lbs
> 
> Those elements scream for the longer size.


Thanks WS, I have this fear with 158 boards because I tried out the Burton Blunt 5 years ago and I kept washing out. I had no idea what I was doing wrong and blamed it on the 158, but since learning very recently I realized that the Burton Blunt has a rocker camber lol.


----------



## Wiredsport

gixxerdk said:


> Thanks WS, I have this fear with 158 boards because I tried out the Burton Blunt 5 years ago and I kept washing out. I had no idea what I was doing wrong and blamed it on the 158, but since learning very recently I realized that the Burton Blunt has a rocker camber lol.


Yes. Washing out would not be the symptom of going too long. The opposite is actually true, washing out is a symptom of not having enough edge to stand up to your specs. It is common for riders to switch to a rockered model in the same (or even significantly longer) length and end up feeling like they are washing out. This is because even with the longer overall board, they have lost true contact length and true effective edge length. Effectively they are riding a shorter board with a bigger number printed on it.

This is why we repeat this so often: tip to tip length in itself means nothing.


----------



## gixxerdk

Wiredsport said:


> Yes. Washing out would not be the symptom of going too long. The opposite is actually true, washing out is a symptom of not having enough edge to stand up to your specs. It is common for riders to switch to a rockered model in the same (or even significantly longer) length and end up feeling like they are washing out. This is because even with the longer overall board, they have lost true contact length and true effective edge length. Effectively they are riding a shorter board with a bigger number printed on it.
> 
> This is why we repeat this so often: tip to tip length in itself means nothing.


Perfectly explained! Thanks ws! I'm glad everything makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Ressy5955

*Trying to change boards....*

Right now i ride the, ride crush 155cm 2012/2013...i like to hit the whole mountain from blue's to double black and hit jumps inbetween. Im from the east and go from the pocono's to vermont every snowboard season. I want a powder board being that im going out to jackson hole in march but also dont want to give up the forgivingness of my board. Pretty much i want a board thats great for the east and great for the west on occasion since i want to try out the glades. My ride crush was great but want something for the all around boarder that likes everything about the mountains. 5'9 160lbs i need a little advice.... I was looking at the lib tech and gnu boards and like the btx models.... But i will take other suggestions


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

When you wrote that you want a powder board do you mean that you are looking for a powder specific board or something that will do well in the pow but will also rip at your local East coast spots.?


----------



## larrytbull

Hi,

looking to buy my daughter her first board, she is 7 and growing. 
size 2.5 foot 57 lbs.
She is a beginner. I took her to local board shop and she saw a 2010-2011 k2 Kandi snowboard she liked and it is really reasonably priced less than $90. She is young and will not ride what she does not like so it limits me on choice. the size on it was 129. the k2 sizing chart was all over the map so it is hard for me to discern if this board will be good for her. I also like that it will probably be usable for more than a year or 2 while she grows. Before I pull the trigger on this, I want to ensure that this is not too much board for her. also looking for other sugesstions

thanks


----------



## Shanejones

Hey guys I'm new to the forum looking to upgrade my board and wanted some advice on what camber or rocker/camber boards are good for a budget of around £400. I do mainly all mountain/free ride, I tested out the ride buckup board last week and thought it was good but just wanted to see what other boards there are for my price rage. Also is the buckup classed as as all out camber or a rocker/camber/rocker board any help would be great, foot size 9 weight 16st

Cheers shane


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Shane,

Stoked that you are looking at this design. The Buckup uses what in Ride speak is Hybrid Twin Rocker (vid below). For the sake of consitancy, we have been calling that Rocker Camber Rocker (RCR). 

The brand names (such as Hybrid Twin Rocker) came out when it was very hard to sell a board with the word Camber as the dominant part of the name. Now that there are a lot of riders looking for camber boards again that has changed / is starting to change. The best way to think of RCR is "Modern Camber" or "Camber with less Catch".

PS: On this board the camber section is very slight (ride calls it a micro camber). In the vid below check out the board when it is laid flat on the table before they overlay the white camber graphic on it (at about 0:20). It does have a very modest camber in the mid section but this deck borders on flat rock. I would not count on the micro camber for producing a lot of stored energy in itself.


----------



## Shanejones

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Shane,
> 
> Stoked that you are looking at this design. The Buckup uses what in Ride speak is Hybrid Twin Rocker (vid below). For the sake of consitancy, we have been calling that Rocker Camber Rocker (RCR).
> 
> The brand names (such as Hybrid Twin Rocker) came out when it was very hard to sell a board with the word Camber as the dominant part of the name. Now that there are a lot of riders looking for camber boards again that has changed / is starting to change. The best way to think of RCR is "Modern Camber" or "Camber with less Catch".
> 
> PS: On this board the camber section is very slight (ride calls it a micro camber). In the vid below check out the board when it is laid flat on the table before they overlay the white camber graphic on it (at about 0:20). It does have a very modest camber in the mid section but this deck borders on flat rock. I would not count on the micro camber for producing a lot of stored energy in itself.


Hi thanks for the info so is this not good as a all mountain board then? I tried a k2 hit machine today to to see the difference without the camber and I did prefer the buck up, trouble is there's isn't much to demo at the moment I really like the look and sound of the neversummer cobra but need to demo something with a similar camber/rocker/camber setup any other boards that people could recommend for all mountain?


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Shane,

Both of the boards you have mentioned were designed primarily as freestyle boards. Before you buy I would suggest demoing a few freeride boards as that is what you are doing most. STOKED!


----------



## Shanejones

I was told buy the people in the shop that they were abit of an all rounder what boards do you think would be good as a freeride/all mountain me and my misuses are doing are CASI training next November so wanted something that would mainly be good to shred down the mountain with the odd park ride


----------



## Wiredsport

Shanejones said:


> I was told buy the people in the shop that they were abit of an all rounder what boards do you think would be good as a freeride/all mountain me and my misuses are doing are CASI training next November so wanted something that would mainly be good to shred down the mountain with the odd park ride


Hi Shane,

In my opinion these designs are a bit low on the stored energy side to be considered true freeride boards. There is a group of riders who prefer to ride freestyle designed models for everything but I know that you will be pleasantly surprised when you get on a freeride designed model. I am sure that some other users will chime in with some strong suggestions for you along those lines.


----------



## Ancient One

I have read most of this thread and have a really stupid question (and yes there are stupid questions). I started riding in 1995 and have always ridden cambered boards. Currently on a lightly used 2008 Nitro Pantera (157). I rarely (anymore) catch edges or go down, but have concentrated on skiing the past few years (I know, I know, but this year want to mostly snowboard. The skiing also accounts for the light use of the Pantera). I am mostly an all mountain cruiser-groomers and powder when available. Now on to the the question: would I see any benefit by trying some of these new designs? Forgot to mention I am an old guy-68.

Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport

Ancient One said:


> I have read most of this thread and have a really stupid question (and yes there are stupid questions). I started riding in 1995 and have always ridden cambered boards. Currently on a lightly used 2008 Nitro Pantera (157). I rarely (anymore) catch edges or go down, but have concentrated on skiing the past few years (I know, I know, but this year want to mostly snowboard. The skiing also accounts for the light use of the Pantera). I am mostly an all mountain cruiser-groomers and powder when available. Now on to the the question: would I see any benefit by trying some of these new designs? Forgot to mention I am an old guy-68.
> 
> Thanks


Hi AO,

Stoked for the question. In short, yes. You are likely familiar with some of the profiles from your skiing (skiing borrowed these technologies from snowboarding...and made good use of them). Most of the new freeride skis are Rocker Camber Rock (early rise rocker is a common ski term) or rocker. What skis have you been using/enjoying?


----------



## Ancient One

Thanks Wired Sports,

I have been using Fischer RX8 for most of my hard pack groomer skiing-they have traditional camber and are a GS cut designed for ski-cross; and some Fischer all mountain skis (name escapes me at the moment-hey I am old) that have a small rocker in the front and back with a camber in the middle-these work well on pretty much everything including powder. The RX8's are 172cm and the others are 177CM

Thanks


----------



## tonicusa

I'll buy that Pantera if you ever want to sell it. I would be careful wasting too much time venturing too far off from traditional camber. I would recommend something like the Lib Darker C3 which will have a lot of the control you are used to with camber but just a little more catch free playfulness that can make riding interesting and expressive. Another profile that isn't too far of a departure is the Camrock profiles in YES and Jones boards. I prefer the Libtech C3 profile personally and highly recommend the Darker in a 158. Good luck.


----------



## linvillegorge

Yeah, I'd recommend something RCR which is camber between the bindings and rocker in the tips. It's my favorite camber profile. All the great edge hold and pop of camber, but playful in the tips and catch free. Best of both worlds IMO. But, like most things in snowboarding it really comes down to personal preference. There's no real right or wrong answer.


----------



## Wiredsport

Ancient One said:


> Thanks Wired Sports,
> 
> I have been using Fischer RX8 for most of my hard pack groomer skiing-they have traditional camber and are a GS cut designed for ski-cross; and some Fischer all mountain skis (name escapes me at the moment-hey I am old) that have a small rocker in the front and back with a camber in the middle-these work well on pretty much everything including powder. The RX8's are 172cm and the others are 177CM
> 
> Thanks


Perfect, that will be great for reference.

The profiles that you have been skiing on are designed to yield the same results in skis and snowboards.

Camber is going to give you maximum edge hold and energy with the potential downside being that they require you to stay on them and they tend to be the most catchy of all profiles. Additionally there are alternate profiles that will float better in pow. You already have camber well covered with your Pantera. 

You can achieve the same kind of quiver diversity that you have in your skis by adding an RCR model as others have suggested above. RCR is essentially an early rise at the tip and tail of an otherwise camber board. The placement of the early rise varies by model as it does with skis. This variance largely determines how much looser and floatier the board will feel in comparison with traditional camber (...and also how much edge grip and energy will be sacrificed). Longer contact RCR boards will be an excellent choice for you. Mervin's C3 that was mentioned above is really RCR as well with the addition of a subtle dip between the bindings.

A lot has been written here about Camber Rocker Camber and suffice it to say that there will be many excellent options in that profile as well that will on the whole be easier going than your Pantera while retaining a good amount of grip and drive.

If you are looking for something looser again you may want to explore some models with all mountain Rocker profiles. Some of Arbor's Mountain Rocker boards are terrific examples (insert biased dealer opinion).


----------



## Ancient One

Thank you all especially Wired Sports. Once the snow falls, I will do some demoing and see if any of the altenative cambers strike a chord with me. I have always liked the "woody" look of the Arbors, so who knows.......


----------



## poutanen

linvillegorge said:


> Yeah, I'd recommend something RCR which is camber between the bindings and rocker in the tips. It's my favorite camber profile.


My fave too, feels similar to full camber on groomers, but much easier on the legs in powder...


----------



## kino

hi wiredsport,

Currently I (female) ride a 152 Never Summer Proto CT 2013. I feel like the board is a tad too long for me and feels a little stiff when i try presses/ollies. 

While i love its stability for going down fast, i would like to try to be more playful going down the mountain and also hitting small jumps/ollies and rails. I aware that because it is a mens board, the stiffness could be a little too much for me.

So I’ve decided to get a 152 Mountain Twin Sister as my next board as from the blurb, it is a playful board but also stable for going down fast. 

I weigh 136lbs and 5 feet 6 inch tall with size 8.5 US nike mens boots.

Ive been reading about snowboard profiles and discovered that the proto has a crc profile while the mountain twin sister is rcr profile.

How much different should the ride be between the proto and the mountain twin sister due to the different profile? The proto is my first board so I don't really have anything to compare it to ><

thanks for your help!


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Kino,

Very stoked for the question!

There is a lot different about those boards in terms of tech, but even so the end result will not likely solve your issue. 

On the Jones side you are moving to a female specific core which is designed to be a bit lighter and easier flexing. But in 152 cm the core is not notably softer _and_ the glass is triax rather than the Bi-lite/Carbonium from you Proto. And the Proto Superlite core on the 152 is mild flexing as well. This is effectively a wash in terms of layup.

So moving on to profile the RCR of the Jones uses an ample camber section underfoot and extending out a good ways. This contains a good amount of power. The rocker sections are significant and that will loosen up the feel a bit. The NS has a bit more weighted contact area but with CRC you do gain some measure of rider input as to how much of that stays in contact.

Overall you will notice a small move towards a looser more easy going board but if that is your primary goal I would suggest looking at a female specific model without Triax. In the Jones I would suggest downsizing to the 149 if you do go that route.


----------



## kino

thank you for your reply wiredsport! 

So if I understand correctly, the proto and the mountain twin sister in the end is 2 very similar boards albeit with different profiles?

I am thinking of downsizing to 149 but I'm a little bit worried with overhang for my boots because translated to women sizing, it is a US10.5


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi,

Very pleased to assist. The boards represent two very different approaches towards getting to a very similar place . 

The 149 is 4 mm narrower than the 152 and will be better for your 8.5 foot. It is 25.2 at the inserts which is ideal for and 8.5 men's foot (which is 26.5 cm) when you factor in normal stance angles. 

PS: A men's 8.5 foot equates to a women's 9.5 (and is the new "average" women's foot size). 

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## kino

cheers Wiredsport, your input has made me feel at ease to get the 149.

Although I just did my last day for the season up in the mountain and i feel like i can flex the proto more so I will probably keep playing with it as you mentioned that the boards have similar end result despite the different profiles.


----------



## JonnyYoung

*Difficulty choosing new board...*

Hi there,

Looking to get a new board to replace one that I have been riding for about 16 years!.... finding it hard to get good advice... saw this forum and saw all the great advice...

been looking at reviews and these boards look good.... capita defenders of awesome 156, Yes greats 156 or Salomon Assasin 155... but open to other suggestions also...tempted by the capita but is their FK rocker shape any good for powder float? as I believe it goes turn up, small rocker, flat, camber, flat, small rocker, turn up... heard the rocker on the greats is better for powder as it is a normal cam rock profile & more camber & rocker? Similar to the Assasin? 

into charging down groomers in europe, doing lots of km's, hitting jumps, and searching for fresh tracks and powder when possible off the side of runs/in trees etc... but also one that could be used in the Uk a bit indoor and on their small boxes/rails and jumps... so would the capita more mellow camber profile work better for everything? (think the flex is slightly mellower also?)

basically an all mountain board with a profile that is good at everything (pref centered twin so switch is easy also)... Not an easy ask I know...any advice on which would be best?

Many thanks in advance for any help/advice offered folks... thanks Jon


----------



## kosmoz

JonnyYoung said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Looking to get a new board to replace one that I have been riding for about 16 years!.... finding it hard to get good advice... saw this forum and saw all the great advice...
> 
> been looking at reviews and these boards look good.... capita defenders of awesome 156, Yes greats 156 or Salomon Assasin 155... but open to other suggestions also...tempted by the capita but is their FK rocker shape any good for powder float? as I believe it goes turn up, small rocker, flat, camber, flat, small rocker, turn up... heard the rocker on the greats is better for powder as it is a normal cam rock profile & more camber & rocker? Similar to the Assasin?
> 
> into charging down groomers in europe, doing lots of km's, hitting jumps, and searching for fresh tracks and powder when possible off the side of runs/in trees etc... but also one that could be used in the Uk a bit indoor and on their small boxes/rails and jumps... so would the capita more mellow camber profile work better for everything? (think the flex is slightly mellower also?)
> 
> basically an all mountain board with a profile that is good at everything (pref centered twin so switch is easy also)... Not an easy ask I know...any advice on which would be best?
> 
> Many thanks in advance for any help/advice offered folks... thanks Jon


Forget it, get assasin in your size and don't think about new board until it lasts.


----------



## JonnyYoung

Hi Kozmoz,

seriously considering it as looks good with lots of tech... but worried about a review I read on good ride saying that at high speeds it became unstable... (auto butter/wash out they say...)

saw the review here.. Salomon Aassassin Review, Price Comparison & Buyers Guide

any thoughts? is it good at high speed?

thanks for your input...


----------



## Deacon

JonnyYoung said:


> Hi Kozmoz,
> 
> seriously considering it as looks good with lots of tech... but worried about a review I read on good ride saying that at high speeds it became unstable... (auto butter/wash out they say...)
> 
> saw the review here.. Salomon Aassassin Review, Price Comparison & Buyers Guide
> 
> any thoughts? is it good at high speed?
> 
> thanks for your input...


That site is great if you want to collect a ton of bad information about a great variety of snowboards. :no2:

fwiw, I read "auto-butter" as "we don't really know how to ride".


----------



## JonnyYoung

thanks Deacon..

finding it really hard to get good advice... did question the review as the assassin appears to be quite popular....(& good wood award etc)

so many opinions out there though...& in shops....dont want to buy a dud....

thanks again


----------



## F1EA

JonnyYoung said:


> thanks Deacon..
> 
> finding it really hard to get good advice... did question the review as the assassin appears to be quite popular....(& good wood award etc)
> 
> so many opinions out there though...& in shops....dont want to buy a dud....
> 
> thanks again


The 3 boards you mentioned up there are good boards. Get a 3-face coin and flip for it.


----------



## mikeg

JonnyYoung said:


> thanks Deacon..
> 
> finding it really hard to get good advice... did question the review as the assassin appears to be quite popular....(& good wood award etc)
> 
> so many opinions out there though...& in shops....dont want to buy a dud....
> 
> thanks again


Found an Angrysnowboarder review, a little more trustworthy compared to the good ride.

2015 Salomon Assassin Snowboard Used and Reviewed -


----------



## SnowDogWax

Boards Boards Boards! What might not apparent to a rider until they become more accomplished. Is how important boots, bindings and riders style is to making your board sing. Last year went through a number of boards with Van boots & Union Atlas, Contact, & Force bindings. Then switched to Solomon with Cartels those same boards seem to take on new life.
As 2014-2015 starts with Diodes, DriverX, 32 Prime, which I feel better meets my free ride hard charging rider profile that include boards like Darker Series, Rossi XV, and GNU Hot Knife.

Bought boots, bindings, boards for hard booting, & GS racing. Here is my the GS board Coiler Metal 179cm.


----------



## GrizzlyBeast

Whatever board you choose....make sure to go with a full camber profile. 

Rocker is no "new" or "progressive" tech. It was invented many years ago and then thrown out like yesterdays trash. I have no idea why they would bring back a previously failed design lol. Oh I forgot... you can float better in 3 ft of powder when your board is shaped like a bathtub. Because just about every single time I go to the mountain theres always at least 2 to 3 feet of powder waiting for me. :finger1:


----------



## poutanen

GrizzlyBeast said:


> Whatever board you choose....make sure to go with a full camber profile.


Who the hell are you? :facepalm1:


----------



## SnowDogWax

Think Grizz has lots of :sarcasm:

OR

Loves to.... :flamewar:


----------



## chomps1211

poutanen said:


> Who the hell are you? :facepalm1:


He's a world renowned expert on hard carving and setting up a snowboard! He has been magnanimous enough to come here and generously expound upon his expertise to let us all know we have all been doing this so very wrong all these years! 




in other words,….. He's a trolling retard (…and seriously OCD) loser! :loser:


----------



## Phedder

GrizzlyBeast said:


> Whatever board you choose....make sure to go with a full camber profile.
> 
> Rocker is no "new" or "progressive" tech. It was invented many years ago and then thrown out like yesterdays trash. I have no idea why they would bring back a previously failed design lol. Oh I forgot... you can float better in 3 ft of powder when your board is shaped like a bathtub. Because just about every single time I go to the mountain theres always at least 2 to 3 feet of powder waiting for me. :finger1:


:facepalm1:


----------



## GrizzlyBeast

poutanen said:


> Who the hell are you? :facepalm1:


Not all of us have 1400 for a Kessler the Ride.


----------



## GrizzlyBeast

SnowDogWax said:


> Think Grizz has lots of :sarcasm:
> 
> OR
> 
> Loves to.... :flamewar:



You guys act as if noone else prefers full camber except for me lol. 

You will only get a glimpse of me this season...then will be blasted by a tremendous powder cloud....instantly putting you into a five second whiteout situation.


----------



## lab49232

God it must be time for snow, hating on someone for saying camber is where it's at? Maybe not for this guy, camber isn't a great park option but let's reestablish what a camber profile is vs a reverse.

Let's be fair regardless of what we ride. Almost none of us get to ride enough powder to be worried about float often, let alone for it to dictate the camber story of the only board we own. He's right there. If you're building a quiver a full reverse for float is a must have, but about 90% of riders never get to experience snow good enough to need proper float to prevent tomahawking.

Second reverse camber helps prevent edge catches that's a given. But you know what else prevents 100% of edge catches? Edge control and not getting lazy. TBT, Reverse Camber, No Hang Ups Rocker, all of it is designed to make it so the rider doesn't have to learn proper edge control or can just not pay attention to their riding which is something people on this forum tend to normally complain about...

Third Full camber has the best performance at speed/edge control, and tons of preloaded power. That cant be debated. Long effective edges are grippy and responsive and camber is explosive compared to rocker.

Don't get me wrong, I ride hybrid cambers nearly exclusively. They're fun, surfy and relaxed which is what I want as I am lazy, far from a perfect boarder, and hate falling. But if we really want to be honest with ourselves, if were riding resorts and riding the way snowboarding is supposed to be done, full camber is technically the best design for performance.


----------



## ridinbend

It's not about the camber comment, it's about his mindset that "riding camber with a positive stance is the only real way to snowboard".



poutanen said:


> Who the hell are you? :facepalm1:


A straight laced, most likely virgin, stalker weirdo from Ft. Collins, Co that was probably homeschooled by his mom, in a basement, who always told him "no matter what people say, whatever "you" think is what's right".


----------



## Mizu Kuma

lab49232 said:


> God it must be time for snow, hating on someone for saying camber is where it's at? Maybe not for this guy, camber isn't a great park option but let's reestablish what a camber profile is vs a reverse.
> 
> Let's be fair regardless of what we ride. Almost none of us get to ride enough powder to be worried about float often, let alone for it to dictate the camber story of the only board we own. He's right there. If you're building a quiver a full reverse for float is a must have, but about 90% of riders never get to experience snow good enough to need proper float to prevent tomahawking.
> 
> Second reverse camber helps prevent edge catches that's a given. But you know what else prevents 100% of edge catches? Edge control and not getting lazy. TBT, Reverse Camber, No Hang Ups Rocker, all of it is designed to make it so the rider doesn't have to learn proper edge control or can just not pay attention to their riding which is something people on this forum tend to normally complain about...
> 
> Third Full camber has the best performance at speed/edge control, and tons of preloaded power. That cant be debated. Long effective edges are grippy and responsive and camber is explosive compared to rocker.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I ride hybrid cambers nearly exclusively. They're fun, surfy and relaxed which is what I want as I am lazy, far from a perfect boarder, and hate falling. But if we really want to be honest with ourselves, if were riding resorts and riding the way snowboarding is supposed to be done, full camber is technically the best design for performance.


I love Camber and Camber Dominant Hybrids, but damn, Rocker or some form of it in Pow Pow!!!!!


----------



## francium

GrizzlyBeast said:


> You guys act as if noone else prefers full camber except for me lol.
> 
> You will only get a glimpse of me this season...then will be blasted by a tremendous powder cloud....instantly putting you into a five second whiteout situation.


Lol I guarantee on a pow run you wouldn't be blasting past any good rider on their hybrid board.


----------



## chomps1211

*edit deleted*
(Reason) This is a Long Time, very helpful and informative thread and doesn't need 23 pages of OT bs!


----------



## poutanen

GrizzlyBeast said:


> Not all of us have 1400 for a Kessler the Ride.


While I have been on a KTR (which is about as heavily cambered a board as I've ever seen), I don't own one. My primary board has some front rocker, early rise nose, whatever you want to call it, and I actually find it a better carving board than the KTR, but that's for different reasons.



lab49232 said:


> Let's be fair regardless of what we ride. Almost none of us get to ride enough powder to be worried about float often, let alone for it to dictate the camber story of the only board we own. He's right there. If you're building a quiver a full reverse for float is a must have, but about 90% of riders never get to experience snow good enough to need proper float to prevent tomahawking.


I would say in Western Canada about 50% of the riders spend more time off piste than on... And it [rockered nose] isn't to prevent tomahawking, it's to help with the rear leg burn, and help with control. If the board floats better naturally, you can stand in a more neutral position, instead of leaning back when riding powder. As all of us *should* know, leaning back is NOT the way to ride aggressively.

For the provinces/states that basically never have powder (and no a 6" dump of powcrete is not powder), then I agree camber is likely the way to go.



lab49232 said:


> Second reverse camber helps prevent edge catches that's a given. But you know what else prevents 100% of edge catches? Edge control and not getting lazy. TBT, Reverse Camber, No Hang Ups Rocker, all of it is designed to make it so the rider doesn't have to learn proper edge control or can just not pay attention to their riding which is something people on this forum tend to normally complain about...


Agree 100%. This is why I say a Burton Custom camber is a great board to learn on. Get the basics down and then start playing with alternate profiles.



lab49232 said:


> Third Full camber has the best performance at speed/edge control, and tons of preloaded power. That cant be debated. Long effective edges are grippy and responsive and camber is explosive compared to rocker.


This can be debated. Camber profile has no _effect_ on effective edge. :happy: As mentioned above, my board is a 160 cm board, with 140+ cm effective edges. A Burton Custom X 164 has 128 cm of effective edge, but way more camber than my board.

My board is WAY better at edgehold on hardpack than a Custom X.



lab49232 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I ride hybrid cambers nearly exclusively. They're fun, surfy and relaxed which is what I want as I am lazy, far from a perfect boarder, and hate falling. But if we really want to be honest with ourselves, if were riding resorts and riding the way snowboarding is supposed to be done, full camber is technically the best design for performance.


So many variables in riding: what resort, what snow, off piste, on piste, etc. etc. is very hard to generalize like that. If I were riding nothing but powder all day, I'd probably stick to the Nitro Slash 166 that I've got. It's got a big funny water ski nose, a hybrid camber shape, etc. And it's actually long enough to have decent edgehold.

If I was spending my time on chopped up groomers riding at extreme speeds, I'd probably want a Kessler the Ride (because you can tell when riding it, it's a machine designed for SPEED).

But I, and I'm sure many on this forum, ride a mixture of things all season. It can be a 3' powder day one day, and hardpacked groomers the next. Usually it's not a powder day, so at least some of my time is spent on groomers, but then I'm always venturing off piste to find what powder is left. For that, we need a board that is a compromise. For me, an RCR camber profile is that compromise. For others, it may be something else.


----------



## F1EA

RCR = where it's at.


----------



## Mizu Kuma

F1EA said:


> RCR = where it's at.


Best hybrid profile for sure!!!!!


----------



## chomps1211

I was supposed to be getting a "Brand New" Never been ridden or had binders mounted on it,.. 164 Atomic "Don" for $60 off CL!!! (TT turned me on to it,.. Thanks TT!!)

It's a BIG, full camber, setback mountain charger! Still trying to get with the seller to finalize the sale. I wanted it because (...since it was so cheap) it's a reg width board and my Full Camber Arbor is a Wide which I really don't need for a sized 10.5/11 boot. 

I really love my 163W Arbor, camber, setback and all! But after the last 2 seasons of regularly riding shorter, reg width hybrid profiles,..? My Arbor feels hard to turn and get up on edge whenever I got it back out on the hardpack! (…It was _GREAT_ tho when I got it out in the corned out, chopped up, push piled and mounded soft spring conditions!!) 

I want this Atomic to see if a reg width camber board was more fun and easier to ride. 

Having said _ALL_ that rambling stuff,.. I *really* do want to get my hands on and ride *an RCR profiled board* so I can compare it at speed to my CRC Proto!!! (late edit) Last season I started getting a lot more comfortable with some real speed. (45-50+ mph) However the CRC of my proto felt a little squirrely when I hit those speeds on the hardpack. I understand that RCR might feel more stable!


----------



## SnowDogWax

RCR profile is stable and mostly catch free.
You do feel more stable at higher speeds, you don't get that little jerk as with CRC.
Easy to get on edge. 
Found RCR boards can be ridden 2-3cm longer than full camber. board..


----------



## deagol

this is an interesting thread. And there is some truth to one of the controversial posts about rocker. It is not "new" since it was a feature of the old Sims Kidwell (named for Terry Kidwell). It was supposed to be a good halfpipe board by the standards of those days.....had a lot of rocker, was described as a "noodle" by those who rode it.


----------



## augie

chomps1211 said:


> I *really* do want to get my hands on and ride *an RCR profiled board* so I can compare it at speed to my CRC Proto!!! (late edit) Last season I started getting a lot more comfortable with some real speed. (45-50+ mph) However the CRC of my proto felt a little squirrely when I hit those speeds on the hardpack. I understand that RCR might feel more stable!


 I too am very interested now to try a RCR board. I love my NS SL-R, but miss the ease-ability to carve really aggressively like my old camber board. The SL-R feels like it just wants to cut a sharper/tighter radius than desired and then the rear washes out if I try to force it otherwise. After watching some EC and Euro tutorials, I know I have some flaws in my technique, but still, the camber board excelled at it. don't get me wrong, you can slice and dice your way down, but the camber just felt like it naturally wanted to the follow the radius that best fit me. Its hard to describe, and I am probably butchering it. but it's the one and only thing I miss after switching to CRC. Curious if RCR will be better at this? or if it's just a particular model, side cut, flex combo.


----------



## fastaction

Well everyone being curious has got me compulsive and curious aswell. I like riding switch and finally got that down on my proto HD 2013-14 that it feels normal. I still cant charge as fast as riding regular but nothing awkward about riding switch anymore. Ive got a Yes PYL that just need a bit more snow for me to test out what this RCR is all about. ATM my fav board has been the 154cm PROTO HD, suprisingly I thought the 152cm proto ct I had was more surfy on powder, but my proto hd charged it harder. Might be just me.


----------



## Wiredsport

RCR is and awesome profile. One thing to consider however is how different RCR profiles can be from one another (true of all of the general profile categories in this thread).

Consider that RCR is a variation on Camber. When Camber was the only game in town every style of board from Big Mountain to Asym Carver to Park to Jib were all built on the camber profile. The same variety is available to RCR and it actually opens itself up to even more variations. RCR can be configured to work well with any riding style. It can be directional or twin, stiff or soft, symmetrical or asym, etc.

The placement of the transition between the larger camber section and the smaller rocker sections has a huge impact on performance. We are finalizing design right now on two new RCR profiles (really a lot more than that because each size in each profile is actually different but...). One of these has the transition closer to the wide point and one a bit further away from the widepoint. We are talking about 3-5 cm (depending on size) of transition placement difference and the effect on performance and feel is dramatic.


----------



## poutanen

That moment when you're searching walmart.com for waterproof camberas...

Oddly enough their website doesn't know anything about a cambera.

Apparently my fingers automatically find the "b" on the keyboard after I type "cam".

:facepalm3:


----------



## JH84

I forgot to pick up my board from REI and rode my buddies old Burton supermodel. So much more pop and I felt way more locked in at high speeds than my flow drifter.

It's been a few years since I've rode a camber board. Think I'm going back!


----------



## Jimi77

WiredSports - thanks for the info on the camber/rocker profiles. Last time I bought a board, it was pretty much traditional camber and the skate banana was just starting to gain popularity. Now every manufacture offers 4-5 different profiles.... Thanks for bringing some clarity to the matter, you really helped narrow down my selection. :10:


----------



## TooNice

Can anyone comment on the characteristics of Rocker-Flat-Rocker and what kind of riding they tend to be designed for (I am sure it depends from board to board, but if there is any tendency I'd like to know).


----------



## tralald

TooNice said:


> Can anyone comment on the characteristics of Rocker-Flat-Rocker and what kind of riding they tend to be designed for (I am sure it depends from board to board, but if there is any tendency I'd like to know).


i find it to be the best profile for rails and small jumps, you get most/all the advantages of rocker and only half of the disadvantages.
used to love it, but got a capita doa this season and when i tried my old capita indoor suvival this season i hated it, felt super sloppy when turning...


----------



## Wiredsport

TooNice said:


> Can anyone comment on the characteristics of Rocker-Flat-Rocker and what kind of riding they tend to be designed for (I am sure it depends from board to board, but if there is any tendency I'd like to know).


Stable and loose. Those are the primary qualities of flat rock. What you get is a flat section between the bindings and then at some point (varies by model) the flat breaks to rocker. Where this occurs determines how stable and how loose . The longer the flat the more stable and the less loose and vice versa.

A couple of important notes. 

1. This is the least energetic profile. There is no inherent stored energy in flat rock. 

2. The stability mentioned is primary stability which comes from having a large flat surface to stand on. This does not equate to stability at speed. That tends to come from long contact lengths ( which flat rock does not have) and readily planted effective edge.


----------



## Bertieman

Hey wired, any chance you could write up a different explanation for the lib tech model profiles, if you've had the experience with them?


----------



## Wiredsport

Bertieman said:


> Hey wired, any chance you could write up a different explanation for the lib tech model profiles, if you've had the experience with them?


Hi Bertie,

Mervin (Gnu, Lib, Roxy) has a complex naming structure for their line. It is important to note that they actually use unique profiles within many of their named categories so in reality there are more than the eight general profiles that they actually detail for Lib and Gnu. In terms of the general categories we are using for this thread. the Lib and Gnu lines can be simplified to:

*Camber*: TT, C3 BTX (camber with a dip)
*Rocker*: BTX, !BTX! (rocker with double dips)
*CRC*: C2 BTX, EC2 BTX, XC2 BTX, C1 BTX (specialty directional)

I will be happy to compare specific models for you which is a lot more valuable than the generalities above. Let me know what you are looking at


----------



## Bertieman

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Bertie,
> 
> *Camber*: TT, C3 BTX (camber with a dip)
> *Rocker*: BTX, !BTX! (rocker with double dips)
> *CRC*: C2 BTX, EC2 BTX, XC2 BTX, C1 BTX (specialty directional)
> 
> I will be happy to compare specific models for you which is a lot more valuable than the generalities above. Let me know what you are looking at


Thanks for the quick reply. I understand what their profiles looks like, so I'm looking for more of a single response that explains what each profile excels at.

I'm in new england so I don't prefer having a pow board, split board, etc, I'd rather just have 1 or 2 all mountain boards. I have the hot knife which I found pretty bad in powder (talking 20-30 inches). Maybe setting it back would have helped. I also didn't care for the hot knife in large mogules because I didn't find it damp at all, at least compared to a never summer SL. 

Being that I've never ridden camber, how much does the hot knife actually replicate camber? Is it really close, or somewhere between camber and something like the C2?

Anyway, I've been looking into the gnu riders choice C2 PBTX, attack banana EC2 BTX, and the trs XC2 BTX. Do either of these profiles prove more damp than the C3 or better in powder? Carving? Faster base? (co-sintered hot knife vs the TNT base).

Thanks!


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Bertie,

Profile is a single factor in the much broader performance picture. For example there are "damp" camber boards and very harsh feelling camber boards. That attribute is primarily impacted by core materials, thickness distribution, and laminates. Profile has much less of a role there.

To answer you Q about the the Hot Knife, it is a camber board. The subtle dip in the middle is a nuance feature and does not dramatically impact ride. So, rest assured, you have ridden camber  (although only one flavor).

The Attack Banana is a fairly neutral design but EC2 possibly goes further than you would like in terms of relaxed profile for your east coast riding as described above (especially for more "normal" years that this past season).

The Rider's Choice is the Money board in Gnu's line for All Mountain. C2 is a highly versatile profile and the other elements have been balanced to match. This would be my choice for you.


----------



## ridinbend

Pretty decent guide to a lot of companies various camber types. 

Guide to snowboard camber types -


----------



## SnowDogWax

ridinbend said:


> Pretty decent guide to a lot of companies various camber types.
> 
> Guide to snowboard camber types -


quite an extensive review of camber types:eyetwitch2:







:snowboard2:


----------



## Mahihkan

I am an old school freerider. I love my carves. Last year I picked up my first rockered board. A Never Summer Chairman. While I adjusted to it, I never did fall in love with it. I am going back to a cambered board this year. Right now I am eyeballing the Jones Flagship which is cambered under foot, however appears to have a touch of rocker at the contact points tip and tail. My question is, how will this feel when I ride it? For those who know Traditional camber to ride it, how does the bit of rocker tip and tail feel to carve in comparison?

Gracias


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> I am an old school freerider. I love my carves. Last year I picked up my first rockered board. A Never Summer Chairman. While I adjusted to it, I never did fall in love with it. I am going back to a cambered board this year. Right now I am eyeballing the Jones Flagship which is cambered under foot, however appears to have a touch of rocker at the contact points tip and tail. My question is, how will this feel when I ride it? For those who know Traditional camber to ride it, how does the bit of rocker tip and tail feel to carve in comparison?
> 
> Gracias


Hi Mahihkan,

Stoked that you are getting a new deck! To keep the terms clear, The Chairmain is a CRC model and the Flagship is RCR. There are big differences in the way these perform in relation to true rocker and true camber. Your Chairman had a lot more weighted surface contact length than would true rocker boards and the Flagship will have significantly less than a true cambered board. The transitions from camber to rocker on the Flagship begin early with the nose rocker being very long (the RCR is directional). Let's get your basics so we can know better where the Chairman fell short for you.

Weight
Foot Size
cm size of your Chairman
Typical Riding Area


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Mahihkan,
> 
> Stoked that you are getting a new deck! To keep the terms clear, The Chairmain is a CRC model and the Flagship is RCR. There are big differences in the way these perform in relation to true rocker and true camber. Your Chairman had a lot more weighted surface contact length than would true rocker boards and the Flagship will have significantly less than a true cambered board. The transitions from camber to rocker on the Flagship begin early with the nose rocker being very long (the RCR is directional). Let's get your basics so we can know better where the Chairman fell short for you.
> 
> Weight
> Foot Size
> cm size of your Chairman
> Typical Riding Area


Thanks for the reply. I am 6'2", 195lbs and have Size 12 feet? My ChairmanX is a 169. I ride everything at the hill with the exception of the park. I also take it regularly into slack country/out of bounds stuff. The exception is backcountry, where I use my split. 

Where I dislike the Chairman is when the snow is beginning to pack out and the board simply doesn't feel like it wants to carve fluidly no matter how hard I pump into the edges. It feels washy under foot. Much different than my old Burton 168wide traditional camber.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> Thanks for the reply. I am 6'2", 195lbs and have Size 12 feet? My ChairmanX is a 169. I ride everything at the hill with the exception of the park. I also take it regularly into slack country/out of bounds stuff. The exception is backcountry, where I use my split.
> 
> Where I dislike the Chairman is when the snow is beginning to pack out and the board simply doesn't feel like it wants to carve fluidly no matter how hard I pump into the edges. It feels washy under foot. Much different than my old Burton 168wide traditional camber.


Got it. What model was your old Burton? Also, let's check one more thing for good measure 

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> Got it. What model was your old Burton? Also, let's check one more thing for good measure
> 
> Please measure your foot using this method:
> 
> Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


28.7cm
Burton Canyon


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> I am an old school freerider. I love my carves. Last year I picked up my first rockered board. A Never Summer Chairman. While I adjusted to it, I never did fall in love with it. I am going back to a cambered board this year. Right now I am eyeballing the Jones Flagship which is cambered under foot, however appears to have a touch of rocker at the contact points tip and tail. My question is, how will this feel when I ride it? For those who know Traditional camber to ride it, how does the bit of rocker tip and tail feel to carve in comparison?
> 
> Gracias


The Flagship will feel somewhat like a shorter full camber board with better float. But it will still feel like camber.

If you go a bit longer, you will get a hell of a lot better float and feel slightly shorter edge. If you go a bit shorter you will feel a lot less edge but still a bit better float than full camber...

You're probably looking at 165-169 depending what style, terrain and snow you want to do...


----------



## Mahihkan

F1EA said:


> The Flagship will feel somewhat like a shorter full camber board with better float. But it will still feel like camber.
> 
> If you go a bit longer, you will get a hell of a lot better float and feel slightly shorter edge. If you go a bit shorter you will feel a lot less edge but still a bit better float than full camber...
> 
> You're probably looking at 165-169 depending what style, terrain and snow you want to do...


Cool. I can relate to that. 

I feel less than Dialled in on my CRC NS 169 Chairman. For this reason, I have wondered whether I would have been better off with the 165. That said I was dialled right in on my old full camber board at 168cm. 

If you were me and looking at a RCR Flagship, would you be inclined to go 165 or 169? (I.E. Shorten up the board a few cm's or keep it long)

I know I should get out for a demo day, but until then..:chin::chin:.


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> Cool. I can relate to that.
> 
> I feel less than Dialled in on my CRC NS 169 Chairman. For this reason, I have wondered whether I would have been better off with the 165. That said I was dialled right in on my old full camber board at 168cm.
> 
> If you were me and looking at a RCR Flagship, would you be inclined to go 165 or 169? (I.E. Shorten up the board a few cm's or keep it long)
> 
> I know I should get out for a demo day, but until then..:chin::chin:.


Hmmm depends what terrain and riding you want to do...

I'd say the 166 should be plenty good for you in almost any case. 

I havent ridden the Flagship (and wouldnt buy it for me cause it's pretty stiff). But in general the Flag is pretty stable, so with that profile and flex it doesnt need to be that long. But again, depends on terrain and what you like.

Also, your foot measurement says you should be ~US11. So maybe US 11-11.5 i don't think you need Wide at ~166 or so


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> 28.7cm
> Burton Canyon


Got it. The first thing you can do to greatly increase performance (particularly edge response) is to downsize your boots. 28.7 is on the smaller side for size 11 in snowboard boots. Also importantly, 28.7 does not require a "Wide" board particularly if you are looking at the largest board sizes in a model. Your current Chairman Wide is 26.7 cm at the Waist (but nothing happens at the waist). You will be at ~ 27.7 cm wide at the inserts that you use (depending on where you mount) and you will lose ~1 cm more to common stance angles. This puts your 28.7 bare feet likely inside the confines of the board's edges. We are looking for barefoot overhang to develop the leverage you want to control those edges when it gets packed out.

The boots will make a huge difference and a narrower board width will complete the picture.

In terms of profile, RCR is a variety of Camber, but, on the Jones for instance, where the nose rocker begins just in front of the front inserts, that is a very different experience than your Canyon (which had meg-planted contact area). You are looking at great boards but I am not convinced that they will get you the feel that you are looking for. Why not consider a true Camber board?


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> Got it. The first thing you can do to greatly increase performance (particularly edge response) is to downsize your boots. 28.7 is on the smaller side for size 11 in snowboard boots. Also importantly, 28.7 does not require a "Wide" board particularly if you are looking at the largest board sizes in a model. Your current Chairman Wide is 26.7 cm at the Waist (but nothing happens at the waist). You will be at ~ 27.7 cm wide at the inserts that you use (depending on where you mount) and you will lose ~1 cm more to common stance angles. This puts your 28.7 bare feet likely inside the confines of the board's edges. We are looking for barefoot overhang to develop the leverage you want to control those edges when it gets packed out.
> 
> The boots will make a huge difference and a narrower board width will complete the picture.
> 
> In terms of profile, RCR is a variety of Camber, but, on the Jones for instance, where the nose rocker begins just in front of the front inserts, that is a very different experience than your Canyon (which had meg-planted contact area). You are looking at great boards but I am not convinced that they will get you the feel that you are looking for. Why not consider a true Camber board?


Thanks for the boot advice. I will look into it.

I have been considering a traditional camber board. However with all of the different profiles on the market, I would feel remiss in not at least exploring my options. I have been riding boards of various kinds since I was in elementary school(skate, surf and snow) and have always been curious to change things up. I don't plan on selling my NS, just having more options. Really I am debating between a trad camber and a RCR profile. The Flagship has the RCR. All I have been led to believe tells me RCR has superior float in the pow to traditional camber. I also understand they are typically ridden in shorter lengths. These points have my interest. I spend a lot of time in powder.

How different will the RCR feel from the CRC profile of my NS? I can only speculate at this point, so I ask. I am really debating whether I should give this profile type a try or not.

K2, Capita, Prior and Burton seem to produce traditional camber boards, but there aren't many out there that I see. What in today's market would be similar to what I had in the Canyon? 

Thanks for your continued help.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> Thanks for the boot advice. I will look into it.
> 
> I have been considering a traditional camber board. However with all of the different profiles on the market, I would feel remiss in not at least exploring my options. I have been riding boards of various kinds since I was in elementary school(skate, surf and snow) and have always been curious to change things up. I don't plan on selling my NS, just having more options. Really I am debating between a trad camber and a RCR profile. The Flagship has the RCR. All I have been led to believe tells me RCR has superior float in the pow to traditional camber. I also understand they are typically ridden in shorter lengths. These points have my interest. I spend a lot of time in powder.
> 
> How different will the RCR feel from the CRC profile of my NS? I can only speculate at this point, so I ask. I am really debating whether I should give this profile type a try or not.
> 
> K2, Capita, Prior and Burton seem to produce traditional camber boards, but there aren't many out there that I see. What in today's market would be similar to what I had in the Canyon?
> 
> Thanks for your continued help.


There is a LOT of variation in RCR. Before the "Rocker Revolution" when all boards were sold as "camber" there was already RCR. These boards simply had the actual contact points set a bit inward of the wide points. That type of "Camber" still exists today although now it is marketed as RCR. On the other side of the spectrum you have RCR boards that have very short camber sections like the Flagship. They feel entirely different. It sounds like your main issue with your NS is not its pow performance but rather how it performs on firmer snow. There are a lot of options out there but possibly check out the Rome Blur in 162 cm.


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> There is a LOT of variation in RCR. Before the "Rocker Revolution" when all boards were sold as "camber" there was already RCR. These boards simply had the actual contact points set a bit inward of the wide points. That type of "Camber" still exists today although now it is marketed as RCR. On the other side of the spectrum you have RCR boards that have very short camber sections like the Flagship. They feel entirely different. It sounds like your main issue with your NS is not its pow performance but rather how it performs on firmer snow. There are a lot of options out there but possibly check out the Rome Blur in 162 cm.


YOu are correct. It is in carving the firmer snow where I am disappointed in the Chairman. I sense it is the rocker under foot that feels weird to me. I have heard the expression 'washing out' which may be what's happening.

I have looking into more boards. The Burton Custom and Flight Attendant which are both cambered, the Prior MFR which is cambered, the Capita Supernova and I am still considering the Jones Flagship.

The Flight ATtendant has my attention for its setback stance and camber. 

Anyone have experiences with ripping on these all mountain boards?


----------



## Wiredsport

Flight Attendant is another strong choice (in 168 cm). It has a lot less effective edge than your Chairman 169 (129.5 cm compared to 135 cm) so do not go shorter. The narrower width and your new size 11 boots  will help even more. 

STOKED!


----------



## poutanen

I've been on a Prior MFR, good board. If you really want to go carving, you need a board like the Virus Avalanche FLP AFT. With an effective edge of 140 cm on a 160 cm board, no traditional board can come close for edgehold. It's also not punishingly stiff, and has a mild camber profile with an early rise nose (sort of an RCR without the first R)... Not cheap, but a lot of board for the money.


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> Flight Attendant is another strong choice (in 168 cm). It has a lot less effective edge than your Chairman 169 (129.5 cm compared to 135 cm) so do not go shorter. The narrower width and your new size 11 boots  will help even more.
> 
> STOKED!


:laugh2: I am not sure I want to buy new boots at this point, but we'll see. I don't know how wide the 168 Flight Attendant is at the bindings, but a size 12 boot shouldn't be a deal breaker should it? 

...and I guess I will need some special gizmo to mount my Union Bindings to the Burton.


----------



## Mahihkan

poutanen said:


> I've been on a Prior MFR, good board. If you really want to go carving, you need a board like the Virus Avalanche FLP AFT. With an effective edge of 140 cm on a 160 cm board, no traditional board can come close for edgehold. It's also not punishingly stiff, and has a mild camber profile with an early rise nose (sort of an RCR without the first R)... Not cheap, but a lot of board for the money.


The Avalanche FLP AFT is an interestingly spec'd board. Is there a dealer in Canada for them?

How does the MFR handle?


----------



## SoCalSoul

Mahihkan said:


> :laugh2: I am not sure I want to buy new boots at this point, but we'll see. I don't know how wide the 168 Flight Attendant is at the bindings, but a size 12 boot shouldn't be a deal breaker should it?
> 
> ...and I guess I will need some special gizmo to mount my Union Bindings to the Burton.


From most important to least important...

Boots >Bindings>Board


----------



## poutanen

Mahihkan said:


> The Avalanche FLP AFT is an interestingly spec'd board. Is there a dealer in Canada for them?
> 
> How does the MFR handle?


No dealer in Canada for the Virus. They're handmade in Germany to order (hence the cost). I've arranged group buys in the past for people in Canada and the states. Where in Canada are you? You're welcome to try my board if you're ever in the Banff area.

The MFR handled really well. It's a solid ripper that's for sure. I ended up buying the Prior Khyber with the Carbon-Kevlar option on one of their thanksgiving sales last year. It's a fantastic board for our terrain in the rockies. Prior makes a good board.


----------



## Mahihkan

SoCalSoul said:


> From most important to least important...
> 
> Boots >Bindings>Board


Fair enough, but my boots are good. I am not here to be convinced I need a half size smaller boot, 25 years of riding has taught me to appreciate the value of all my gear. I am here to discuss board profiles and how they translate to the experience under foot.


----------



## Mahihkan

poutanen said:


> No dealer in Canada for the Virus. They're handmade in Germany to order (hence the cost). I've arranged group buys in the past for people in Canada and the states. Where in Canada are you? You're welcome to try my board if you're ever in the Banff area.
> 
> The MFR handled really well. It's a solid ripper that's for sure. I ended up buying the Prior Khyber with the Carbon-Kevlar option on one of their thanksgiving sales last year. It's a fantastic board for our terrain in the rockies. Prior makes a good board.


The Prior is appealing, though this FA has really begun to tickle my nards.

I spend my riding time in the Nelson area. Lots of snow.


----------



## Mahihkan

...and FWIW I have always maintained that my goggles are my most important piece of gear. If I can see it clearly, then I can slay it.


----------



## poutanen

Mahihkan said:


> 25 years of riding has taught me to appreciate the value of all my gear


25 years ago I was riding size 10 boots... Now I'm in an 8 and I may order a pair of Burton Driver X size 7.5 shortly.

The mantra of boots > bindings > board is a pretty good start point for *most* rider issues.

Also, no board is magic. All the styles and all the base profiles in the world can't make up for the sheer physics of Longer Effective Edge = More Edge Hold

There's a thread on here somewhere where we compare effective edges of longer boards. It's worth looking at. The traditional boards will never hold a candle to things like the Kessler Ride, Virus Avalanche, Volkl Coal Race, etc. That said I've been on all three of those boards, and the Avalanche is the only one I would consider a true freeride board out of those three. The other two are too stiff.


----------



## F1EA

Flight Attendant 168. Do it. It could be 166 to 168 and you're fine.

No worries about the boots unless they're old models and have big footprint. Depending on your angles and stance width... you'll know if the width is ok once you set it up.

I think Union is compatible with channel as they have metal discs. Worst case, it's a specific channel disc which Union should have/supply. Not really a gizmo.

Keep your boots and your boot size if that's what you're comfortable with.


----------



## Mahihkan

poutanen said:


> 25 years ago I was riding size 10 boots... Now I'm in an 8 and I may order a pair of Burton Driver X size 7.5 shortly.
> 
> The mantra of boots > bindings > board is a pretty good start point for *most* rider issues.
> 
> Also, no board is magic. All the styles and all the base profiles in the world can't make up for the sheer physics of Longer Effective Edge = More Edge Hold
> 
> There's a thread on here somewhere where we compare effective edges of longer boards. It's worth looking at. The traditional boards will never hold a candle to things like the Kessler Ride, Virus Avalanche, Volkl Coal Race, etc. That said I've been on all three of those boards, and the Avalanche is the only one I would consider a true freeride board out of those three. The other two are too stiff.


So I transferred my bindings and boots from a cambered board onto a new plank that is mostly rockered, is slightly narrower with a longer effective edge. I come here to discuss the board profile because after a season of riding rocker underfoot, I am not entirely digging it and want to get back to a mostly cambered profile. Your advice is that I need new boots?


----------



## Mahihkan

F1EA said:


> Flight Attendant 168. Do it. It could be 166 to 168 and you're fine.
> 
> No worries about the boots unless they're old models and have big footprint. Depending on your angles and stance width... you'll know if the width is ok once you set it up.
> 
> I think Union is compatible with channel as they have metal discs. Worst case, it's a specific channel disc which Union should have/supply. Not really a gizmo.
> 
> Keep your boots and your boot size if that's what you're comfortable with.


Right on! The boots aren't that old, a couple of seasons. I will certainly look into going smaller as I can see the benefit, but Vans I have been using are by no means huge.

For shits and giggles I measured up the width on an old Supermodel 168 from back in the day. She was smaaall waisted, and carved like a dream to my memory, so it's hard to imagine the FA should give me grief


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> Right on! The boots aren't that old, a couple of seasons. I will certainly look into going smaller as I can see the benefit, but Vans I have been using are by no means huge.
> 
> For shits and giggles I measured up the width on an old Supermodel 168 from back in the day. She was smaaall waisted, and carved like a dream to my memory, so it's hard to imagine the FA should give me grief


FA should be great.

Also Yes Pick your Line, but biggest size is 165 which is a bit borderline for you..... Doable, but if you're looking for carving/edge hold and float, 166+ is better.

I'm 170lbs boot size 11 and ride 159-165...


----------



## taco tuesday

Mahihkan said:


> Wiredsport said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flight Attendant is another strong choice (in 168 cm). It has a lot less effective edge than your Chairman 169 (129.5 cm compared to 135 cm) so do not go shorter. The narrower width and your new size 11 boots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> will help even more.
> 
> STOKED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I want to buy new boots at this point, but we'll see. I don't know how wide the 168 Flight Attendant is at the bindings, but a size 12 boot shouldn't be a deal breaker should it?
> 
> ...and I guess I will need some special gizmo to mount my Union Bindings to the Burton.
Click to expand...

You're union discs may be channel compatible. If not, they do make compatible discs. Hit them up.

You might need different screws though. I don't remember what the issue is, maybe the regular screws are longer so you can't get the bindings to tighten all the way? I remember someone having a problem. I just used the channel screws from my girlfriends burtons.


----------



## poutanen

Mahihkan said:


> So I transferred my bindings and boots from a cambered board onto a new plank that is mostly rockered, is slightly narrower with a longer effective edge. I come here to discuss the board profile because after a season of riding rocker underfoot, I am not entirely digging it and want to get back to a mostly cambered profile. Your advice is that I need new boots?


It's a whole package. Certain profiles, shapes, etc. can amplify issues with other parts of the setup. The bottom line is that having the perfect board for your needs, and the perfect bindings for your needs, will feel like shit if the boots aren't dialed in. Even half a size makes a world of difference.

In addition to that, aren't you on the border of needing a wide board? Having the right size boots would be crucial in your case. I have much smaller feet so it's not much of an issue for me.

My biggest piece of advice? Demo a bunch of boards. That's the only way to really try all the different profiles. My buddy loves some of his flying V (CRC) boards, I'm not into them at all...


----------



## Mahihkan

F1EA said:


> FA should be great.
> 
> Also Yes Pick your Line, but biggest size is 165 which is a bit borderline for you..... Doable, but if you're looking for carving/edge hold and float, 166+ is better.
> 
> I'm 170lbs boot size 11 and ride 159-165...


I actually did check out the Yes PYL a couple of days back. I can't remember why, but I didn't short list it for some reason. May have been overall length and width being small. I am 195lbs, so I really don't want to be sinking in the pow on tree runs, there is nothing worse.


----------



## Mahihkan

taco tuesday said:


> You're union discs may be channel compatible. If not, they do make compatible discs. Hit them up.
> 
> You might need different screws though. I don't remember what the issue is, maybe the regular screws are longer so you can't get the bindings to tighten all the way? I remember someone having a problem. I just used the channel screws from my girlfriends burtons.


Thanks for the pic. I will compare it against my bindings later when I get home.


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> I actually did check out the Yes PYL a couple of days back. I can't remember why, but I didn't short list it for some reason. May have been overall length and width being small. I am 195lbs, so I really don't want to be sinking in the pow on tree runs, there is nothing worse.


Yeah probably because 165 is maybe a touch on the short side for you. If you wanted it for groomer cruising. Ok.

But in Nelson...... go bigger 

Good thing about FA and PyL is that radius is tight so you'd be ok in trees and everywhere not just big open terrain.


----------



## Mahihkan

F1EA said:


> Yeah probably because 165 is maybe a touch on the short side for you. If you wanted it for groomer cruising. Ok.
> 
> But in Nelson...... go bigger
> 
> Good thing about FA and PyL is that radius is tight so you'd be ok in trees and everywhere not just big open terrain.


Most of the big open stuff will be backcountry and I will be on my split anyhow. This would be used for riding through glades and stuff accessed through traversing and boot packing just out of bounds. 

I am getting the sense that the FA is the one.


----------



## Wiredsport

The Pick Your Line 165 has 123 cm of Effective edge compared to 129.5 on the Flight Attendant 168 and 135 on your current Chairman 169 Wide. 12 cm of effective edge would a huge drop. 

Regardless of if you get new boots in size 11 (get new boots in size 11) your foot length is 28.7 cm. Far more than profile, this is almost certainly why you had a poor experience on the Chairman 169 Wide and enjoed your old Canyon. Width matters. I think you will love the FA 168 cm. For sure consider downsizing your boots. That will change your world.

STOKED!


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> The Pick Your Line 165 has 123 cm of Effective edge compared to 129.5 on the Flight Attendant 168 and 135 on your current Chairman 169 Wide. 12 cm of effective edge would a huge drop.
> 
> Regardless of if you get new boots in size 11 (get new boots in size 11) your foot length is 28.7 cm. Far more than profile, this is almost certainly why you had a poor experience on the Chairman 169 Wide and enjoed your old Canyon. Width matters. I think you will love the FA 168 cm. For sure consider downsizing your boots. That will change your world.
> 
> STOKED!


I am not sure I follow you entirely. The Canyon and the Chairman are both wide boards, Canyon being a few mm wider. Neither gave me issues with width. The Canyon was simply a much more enjoyable board. I much prefer not having the squirrelly feeling of the rocker between my feet. 

Anyway thanks for the help. Good luck with your boot sales!:laugh2:


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> I am not sure I follow you entirely. The Canyon and the Chairman are both wide boards, Canyon being a few mm wider. Neither gave me issues with width. The Canyon was simply a much more enjoyable board. I much prefer not having the squirrelly feeling of the rocker between my feet.
> 
> Anyway thanks for the help. Good luck with your boot sales!:laugh2:


Plus the rocker in the center makes it being a wide not such a big deal. I've ridden 2 NS wide boards..... #1 ) they are not that wide, #2 ) wide doesn't matter much because the rocker makes it very easy to turn anyways.

The reason you didnt feel at ease with the board is the profile. Plan and simple.

That said...
You should get more boots, boards and bindings


----------



## Mahihkan

F1EA said:


> That said...
> You should get more boots, boards and bindings


:laugh2:I can only agree. More gear FTW!


----------



## Mahihkan

FWIW, I tried on a pair of size 11 boots today. There is no way that they are my size unless it's normal to ride with curled toes these days. I am not size 11.


----------



## F1EA

Mahihkan said:


> FWIW, I tried on a pair of size 11 boots today. There is no way that they are my size unless it's normal to ride with curled toes these days. I am not size 11.


Yep. Trust your feet.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> FWIW, I tried on a pair of size 11 boots today. There is no way that they are my size unless it's normal to ride with curled toes these days. I am not size 11.


Hi Mahikan,

If your foot is 28.7 cm as posted earlier then your Mondo size upsizes to 290. This is a straight measurement without conversion. The length of your foot. All snowboard boot manufacturers convert to 290 to size 11. Your size 12 boots will have 30.0 (cm) or 300 (mm) printed inside. That is, by the mondopoint standard, the foot measurement that they were designed for. You may want to measure your barefoot width as well. That is often an issue.

Regardless of the boot size that you will choose, if your correct foot length is 28.7 that is the measurement that you would want to use for determining the correct board width. Your foot length will be compared to the board width at your stance angles *at the inserts* - waist width is not helpful for that purpose.

If you want some help with all of that check these threads:

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boots/157737-snowboard-boot-size-web-tool-mondo-74.html
http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boots/187194-petition-more-wide-snowboard-boot-options.html

STOKED!


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Mahikan,
> 
> If your foot is 28.7 cm as posted earlier then your Mondo size upsizes to 290. This is a straight measurement without conversion. The length of your foot. All snowboard boot manufacturers convert to 290 to size 11. Your size 12 boots will have 30.0 (cm) or 300 (mm) printed inside. That is, by the mondopoint standard, the foot measurement that they were designed for. You may want to measure your barefoot width as well. That is often an issue.
> 
> Regardless of the boot size that you will choose, if your correct foot length is 28.7 that is the measurement that you would want to use for determining the correct board width. Your foot length will be compared to the board width at your stance angles *at the inserts* - waist width is not helpful for that purpose.
> 
> If you want some help with all of that check these threads:
> 
> http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boots/157737-snowboard-boot-size-web-tool-mondo-74.html
> http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boots/187194-petition-more-wide-snowboard-boot-options.html
> 
> STOKED!


I must have f'd up with the measure then.


----------



## timmytard

Mahihkan said:


> FWIW, I tried on a pair of size 11 boots today. There is no way that they are my size unless it's normal to ride with curled toes these days. I am not size 11.


Ok, did you just put your foot in them?

Or did you put your foot in them, smash your heel against the ground, then tie them while holding that downward pressure?

So your foot stayed that far back in the boot?

I do that every single time & my boots are packed out a bit.

After doing that, did you stand straight up?
Straight knees?

That will smash your toes into the end of the boot every time.

I wear size 10 shoes.
Size 11 work boots, they still fit comfy & my foot doesn't slop around in them when I work.

I smash & cram my feet into a size 9 if I can.

Oh yeah, it's fucking horribly tight for the first (depends which model of boot)

Until they pack out a little bit, then they're only just super tight, & not painful any more.

Your boots shouldn't be comfy, definitely not out of the box.

If they are?
They are WAY WAY too fucking big.

Tight=precision

You want lightning fast initiation?
It ain't happening in sloppy boots.


TT


----------



## poutanen

timmytard said:


> Your boots shouldn't be comfy, definitely not out of the box.
> 
> If they are?
> They are WAY WAY too fucking big.
> 
> Tight=precision
> 
> You want lightning fast initiation?
> It ain't happening in sloppy boots.
> 
> TT


Exactly, I find my boots fit like hockey skates at first (really sore all over, but no specific pressure points). Then they pack out to a comfortable, tight, performance fit pretty quick...

First few days in a proper fitting pair of new boots is not fun.


----------



## Mahihkan

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/me...ear-picture5337-2017-flight-attendant-168.jpg

2017 Flight Attendant Profile Image


----------



## Oatz00

This was really good reference!

Thanks!


----------



## Wiredsport

Yeah! There have certainly been a ton of variations added to each of the profiles we had originally described. We should probably add a new top level profile though for back foot / backset camber. It has been around for a while now and is showing up in larger #'s in product lines and on the mountain. This is really a very unique profile rather than a variant and should be considered on its own. Of course there are a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) variants even to this profile. But for fact, if you get a light pow day and an opportunity to demo a backset camber model...it may change your world. 
:crazy7:


----------



## Mahihkan

So am I correct in observing that the above top profile features camber under the rear foot only? How common is that now?


----------



## Wiredsport

Mahihkan said:


> So am I correct in observing that the above top profile features camber under the rear foot only? How common is that now?


This profile type would group designs where the camber is positioned so that front foot weighting has either little or no effect on the camber zone (camber is controlled by the rear foot). This is significantly different than on camber boards where both feet are shifted back within the camber zone.


----------



## Mahihkan

Wiredsport said:


> This profile type would group designs where the camber is positioned so that front foot weighting has either little or no effect on the camber zone (camber is controlled by the rear foot). This is significantly different than on camber boards where both feet are shifted back within the camber zone.


it looks like two boards in one; the split personality


----------



## Mihai Cristian

*advice*

Hy everyone. Can you please tell me, what is more suited for a beginner between Rocker-Camber-Rocker (Camrock), Camber-Rocker-Camber (Gullwing) or a full rocker? Ride will be mainly on slopes, no park, no offpiste(or very little offpiste). I consider myself begginer even if i ride for 3 years now, but i got stock in "leaf", and only last year i managed to do some S-turns. I have a Volkl Dash 2011/2012 with easy camber and as what i understand it more difficult to learn on a camber board. A friend of mine just got a full rocker and he was like me, even worst, but now he did turns so easy with his full rocker board, from the first ride with it. Sadly i couldn't go with him to test the board.


----------



## Snow Hound

Best or easiest? Many of us who have been riding for a while learnt on straight camber - I'd argue that this would give you the most solid fundamentals and make you a better rider in the long run. It'll also be the hardest and most painful. If you want an easier time of it but still have a board that will allow you to progress past an absolute beginner my vote goes to CRC.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mihai Cristian said:


> Hy everyone. Can you please tell me, what is more suited for a beginner between Rocker-Camber-Rocker (Camrock), Camber-Rocker-Camber (Gullwing) or a full rocker? Ride will be mainly on slopes, no park, no offpiste(or very little offpiste). I consider myself begginer even if i ride for 3 years now, but i got stock in "leaf", and only last year i managed to do some S-turns. I have a Volkl Dash 2011/2012 with easy camber and as what i understand it more difficult to learn on a camber board. A friend of mine just got a full rocker and he was like me, even worst, but now he did turns so easy with his full rocker board, from the first ride with it. Sadly i couldn't go with him to test the board.


Hi Mihai,

Volkl's "Easy Camber" is another name for RCR. The camber section ends inwards of the wide points and the camber section itself is very mellow. This is a relatively catch free design in comparison with classic camber.

Let's find out more about your specifics and see if we can find another element that may be snagging you.

Please post up your weight, foot size, and current board size.

Please measure your foot using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).


----------



## Mihai Cristian

I have 177cm, 73KG. My foot size is 26cm. I already have boots Rome Stomp Navy Boa Size 8 (40.5 EU). Curent bindigs are Raven S600. Current board size...hmm...on the invoice it says 155CM, if i measure it i get 153 but on the graphics, near the binding i have the number "56", so this could stand for 156cm...so i am not so sure about the size. But on the below link i don;t see size 155, so i don't think this model has a 155 version, like it says on the invoice.

snowdb.com/catalog/voelkl/2012/dash

Now i see it says wide on the link :\. How can it be wide? I only wear size 8, and the boot is at it's limits. Wide is for people with big foots.

Later edit: I measured the waist also and i got 248mm, so according to the site above it is a 153cm. But that "wide" specification i think is wrong.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mihai Cristian said:


> I have 177cm, 73KG. My foot size is 26cm. I already have boots Rome Stomp Navy Boa Size 8 (40.5 EU). Curent bindigs are Raven S600. Current board size...hmm...on the invoice it says 155CM, if i measure it i get 153 but on the graphics, near the binding i have the number "56", so this could stand for 156cm...so i am not so sure about the size. But on the below link i don;t see size 155, so i don't think this model has a 155 version, like it says on the invoice.
> 
> snowdb.com/catalog/voelkl/2012/dash
> 
> Now i see it says wide on the link :\. How can it be wide? I only wear size 8, and the boot is at it's limits. Wide is for people with big foots.
> 
> Later edit: I measured the waist also and i got 248mm, so according to the site above it is a 153cm. But that "wide" specification i think is wrong.


Hi Mihai,

It is not at all unusual for a board's actual length to be different than the "name" length. Let's get a width measurement (edge to edge) at the inserts that you are using. Please also post some pics of your setup showing your bindings and with boots tightly laced and fully strapped in to the bindings.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

*here it is*

I think, one mistake i've made is that i set a 0 stance. Being a directional board i should move the bidings a little bit more to the tail, correct?

Oh and by the way i am riding with my right foot in front (i am right handed also). Sometimes i ride switch, not because i want to but because the board rides me, instead i ride her... Also, i have a narrow feet and my heel raises a little bit. Do you have any trick i could try to keep the heel in place? I am using some ski/snowboards socks from Blizard, it helps but not entirely.


----------



## MMSlasher

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Mihai,
> 
> It is not at all unusual for a board's actual length to be different than the "name" length. Let's get a width measurement (edge to edge) at the inserts that you are using. Please also post some pics of your setup showing your bindings and with boots tightly laced and fully strapped in to the bindings.


What? No "strip your foot butt naked and kick you heal up against a wall"? Are you evolving :grin:


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Mikai,

Please also take a photo of the base of the board showing the toe and heel overhang of the boot in the same photo. The width measurement that we need is from edge to edge, measured on the base of the board (not the deck) directly under where your bindings are mounted.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

I hope i got it ok...















































I don;t know it doesn't display the images above...but here is the link to the gallery: postimg.org/gallery/1q3rkjpy2


----------



## poutanen

Mihai Cristian said:


> I think, one mistake i've made is that i set a 0 stance. Being a directional board i should move the bidings a little bit more to the tail, correct?
> 
> Oh and by the way i am riding with my right foot in front (i am right handed also). Sometimes i ride switch, not because i want to but because the board rides me, instead i ride her... Also, i have a narrow feet and my heel raises a little bit. Do you have any trick i could try to keep the heel in place? I am using some ski/snowboards socks from Blizard, it helps but not entirely.


Hi, at this point I think lessons would benefit you much more than a new board. A 153 is about the right size for you in length, and the easy camber should be no big deal. Lessons are really important in the beginning, and then there's a period you can spend a while learning on your own, then a lesson every year or so can help get you over a hump.

That said, has anybody ever tested you to find which is your dominant front foot? There's a few tests for this, the push test, the slide on ice test, etc.

Boot fit is also much more important than camber profile. You mention having heel lift. Head on down to your local shop and try on as many pairs of boots as you can. Mid-week during the day would be best. They should fit snug, with minimal heel lift. There are many good resources on here for proper boot fitting.

I suggest trying these things before worrying about replacing the board.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

When i was a kid and did ice slide, i used my right foot. Also, in the begining, at first year when i got my board i tried both feet, left and right and it felt better with my right foot in front. I want to change the board, mainly because last year i put my nephew on a board and it was instant love for him also. He got me gelous, after 3 days he rided far better then i was after 2 years, but being a kid you have less fear and you learn so much faster. So i want to pass him my Volkl (he is taller then me at 14 years old... 178cm) and get a new one for me and i said to myself, well , if i change the board i should get something that would help me more initiate turns, progress more. But there are so many variations of boards and so many opinions and i got confused. But maybe you are right and i suck if i didn;t progressed in 3 years . I will also get a lesson with an instructor, see what i'm doing wrong, but like i said, i still need to change the board.


----------



## Snow Hound

I can pretty much guarantee that you need to get your weight further forward - to commit more weight to your front foot. Almost everyone struggles with this at first.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mihai Cristian said:


> I hope i got it ok...


Hi Mihai,

Got it. You have two significant issues that are holding you back.

1. Your foot is 26 cm but your board is 26.4 cm at the inserts that you use. When you factor in stance angle, your feet are going to be ~1.5 cm inside the confines of the board's edges. That makes riding very difficult for new riders as it becomes difficult to leverage the board's edges.

2. You have your bindings mounted so that you have a significant amount of heel overhang and negative toe overhang. This makes it extremely difficult to get positive toeside turns and leads to that board driving you feeling that you mentioned. 

I am very confident that once you have corrected your gear issues that your learning curve will see a dramatic upturn .


----------



## Mihai Cristian

ok let me see if i understood...the bindigs are mounted in the wide part of the board and this is wrong. Also, i need to move them more to the edge on the toes, because the heel is very back.


----------



## Wiredsport

Mihai Cristian said:


> ok let me see if i understood...the bindigs are mounted in the wide part of the board and this is wrong. Also, i need to move them more to the edge on the toes, because the heel is very back.


Not quite. The board does not narrow enough (even at the innermost inserts) to fully correct this problem. Only a narrower board will do that (suggested). I would not suggest changing your stance width if that stance width feels correct. In terms of your heels being too far over the heelside edge, yes they are. We are looking to center your feet so that you have an equal amount of toe and heel overhang. Again, we are trying to center your feet, not the boots or the bindings.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

Here is the photos with the new settings. I moved the bindigs to the point where i have 26CM. Also I made the nose longer then the tail and put a 0 degree on the back foot (right is the same, 15) so i would force myself to only ride with the right foot forward.

https://postimg.org/gallery/vw230stc/


----------



## Wiredsport

Mihai Cristian said:


> Here is the photos with the new settings. I moved the bindigs to the point where i have 26CM. Also I made the nose longer then the tail and put a 0 degree on the back foot (right is the same, 15) so i would force myself to only ride with the right foot forward.
> 
> https://postimg.org/gallery/vw230stc/
> 
> If it's not ok, i can move the binding back to the edge because inside the binding, the pad on witch the boot stay, is adjustable. I can slide it forward. Now is fully backed


Hi,

Your foot is still much too far off the heel edge. Sadly it looks like your bindings have no other settings that will allow for your foot to be adjusted further forward. This binding is too large. This combination of too wide a board and poor centering will make riding very difficult.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

Well, they are at their maximum limit. As you can see in the image bellow i can't move the bindings more, to get a biger overhang toe...


----------



## Mihai Cristian

If i get the Raven Gravy 2016 board, gullwing profile, what bindings should i get? And also, what lenght? 151 or 154? I think that i should go for a 151 (freestyle) based on my height (177cm) and 73-74 Kg.

Here are the sizes:


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Mihai,

Yes, your binding is also simply too large for your foot and has no adjustment to compress it further or move it forward. As you can see you are not reaching the toe ramp. I would suggest a binding that is designed for your 260 Mondo foot. That will allow you both correct positioning within the binding and correct positioning on an appropriately sized board.

Do you have access to the board that you are considering? We are unable to tell from that info sheet what the width is at the inserts. Waist width should not be considered. 

I think we may be struggling a bit with language so please let me try to show you what I am referring to. Please take the bindings off of your board. Please take off your socks and stand on the board where your bindings were at the same stance width and angles. Please center your feet between the edges when you do this. Please post photos of this.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

Ok, thank you so much for helping me. I will do the photos later on today, as i am at work now.


----------



## Mihai Cristian

This are the photos, back and front.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Mihai,

I hope that this is helpful for visualizing the issue. Your foot with zero degrees is just short of the edges. Your angled front foot is significantly inside the confines of the edges. We would like to see your bare foot just overhanging the edges for both toes and heels. That alone will make your riding much more positive feeling as the board will transition more easily from edge to edge and will allow better leverage and control when you are on edge. This is especially true for newer riders. Your second issue is actually what is causing you even more difficulty. The size of your bindings is moveing both of your feet back over the heelside edge (and by quite a lot). Inside your boots your toes are going to be far back from the toeside edge. 

My suggestions: 

First, find a binding that is made for a 260 mm foot (US size 8 in snowboard boots). This will allow you better centering on any board and will allow you to take advantage of the binding's features, such as toe ramping, which also will help you develop leverage. 

Then, go stand on some boards. Don't be embarrassed to whip off your socks and stand on some decks barefoot. You are looking for overhang (both toe and heel). Do you have access to boards where you are? If not are you able to order online?

I can suggest a few products that I know will work for you but it sounds like yo may have limited access to gear. Is that correct?


----------



## Mihai Cristian

I live in Bucharest, Romania so yeah i have some snowboard stores but they are more online orientated. We have some good stores in Brasov, wich is a mountain city but i can t go to another city just to test boards. I will try to see if i can view in store the raven gravy as they said the 154cm board is into the deposit and maybe they can bring it to the store to see it.


----------



## chewoot

Until a week ago i never realised that a profile of a board would make so much difference. I have been boarding since 1998 back when a board was a flat plank. I have been riding a NS since 2012 which is a rocker camber profile. I replaced it this year with a Jones Mountain Twin which is a camber rocker profile and disliked nearly ever minute i rode it. In powder it was a great board but on the flat hard pack it felt as squillery as hell. Needless to say its now on Ebay.


----------



## Oldman

Doesn't change how you feel about it, but Jones Mountain twin is an RCR ( rocker / camber / rocker) profile and is one of the most well received, well loved all mountain boards out there.

Different strokes


----------



## MVNY

Mihai Cristian said:


> Well, they are at their maximum limit. As you can see in the image bellow i can't move the bindings more, to get a biger overhang toe...


Hey there... I believe you have your mounting discs positioned incorrectly.

The slots should go tip-to-tail, not edge-to-edge.

You should be using the heelcup on the binding itself, along with any possible toestrap adjustments to adjust toe/heel overhang. Once you have your boot centered, with equal overhang on each edge, then adjust your toestrap and ankle strap so they close properly when tightened.

I hope this is helpful!!


- Matty


----------



## Nocturnal7x

MVNY said:


> Hey there... I believe you have your mounting discs positioned incorrectly.
> 
> The slots should go tip-to-tail, not edge-to-edge.
> 
> You should be using the heelcup on the binding itself, along with any possible toestrap adjustments to adjust toe/heel overhang. Once you have your boot centered, with equal overhang on each edge, then adjust your toestrap and ankle strap so they close properly when tightened.
> 
> I hope this is helpful!!
> 
> 
> - Matty


I have Ride revolts circa 2010/11. I don't see any adjustment for the heel cup. I feel like my boot is a bit over the toe edge more so than the heel. (I do have forward lean all the way forward...)

When adjusting the footbed toward the toe edge a bit, this appear to allow the boot to sit back toward the heel more.

Does this make sense?


----------



## SGboarder

MVNY said:


> Hey there... I believe you have your mounting discs positioned incorrectly.
> 
> The slots should go tip-to-tail, not edge-to-edge.
> 
> You should be using the heelcup on the binding itself, along with any possible toestrap adjustments to adjust toe/heel overhang. Once you have your boot centered, with equal overhang on each edge, then adjust your toestrap and ankle strap so they close properly when tightened.
> 
> I hope this is helpful!!
> 
> 
> - Matty


Incorrect. Most disks the slots can go either way for tip-to-tail or toe-to-heel fine tuning. Much more common to use for the latter/as in picture.


----------



## spiritbuffalo

Very informative.. Thank You!! 

That said.. Are boards measured from tip-to-tip on a straight line OR measured along the rocker & camber which makes the measurements longer. 

For example, my board size from tip-to-tip straight line = 152.4cm; then I measured along the contours of the rocker & camber = 155cm. 

Unfortunately, when I got it, the size was not etched or printed on the board.

Any input is appreciated.. Cheers!!


----------



## Wiredsport

spiritbuffalo said:


> Very informative.. Thank You!!
> 
> That said.. Are boards measured from tip-to-tip on a straight line OR measured along the rocker & camber which makes the measurements longer.
> 
> For example, my board size from tip-to-tip straight line = 152.4cm; then I measured along the contours of the rocker & camber = 155cm.
> 
> Unfortunately, when I got it, the size was not etched or printed on the board.
> 
> Any input is appreciated.. Cheers!!


Hi Spirit,

Great question. The answer will be unsatisfying. 

There is no industry standard for what needs to be measured. Hypothetically, the most common measurement is a straight line from tip to tail (not following the countors of the board). But (and this is a huge but) many (most?) decks do not match the length that is printed on the deck. 1 or 2 cm off is very common. 3 or 4 cm off is not uncommon. The "size" printed on your board should be considered a marketing term only.

But...tip to tip measurement is a very poor indicator of how a board will perform. It is most valuable for determining the bag size that you should buy . Factors like Effective Edge and Weighted Running Length will be much more useful. 

STOKED!


----------



## MVNY

This might be helpful...

https://whitelines.com/snowboard-gear/advice/how-to-set-up-your-snowboard-bindings.html


----------



## Alan2he

Great info! Thank you.


----------



## ibo_nito

Hello to everyone, newbie here...
Guys I need your opinion. I've recently purchased a new board which was claimed having a CamRock profile, but when it arrived I was a bit surprised. Am I blind or the board is missing a rocker?


----------



## snowklinger

ibo_nito said:


> Hello to everyone, newbie here...
> Guys I need your opinion. I've recently purchased a new board which was claimed having a CamRock profile, but when it arrived I was a bit surprised. Am I blind or the board is missing a rocker?


1. what board is it

2. kinda hard to tell from picture

3.pls wave at Kosmov's dashcam


----------



## ibo_nito

snowklinger said:


> 1. what board is it
> 
> 2. kinda hard to tell from picture
> 
> 3.pls wave at Kosmov's dashcam


It's YES Standard 16/17 year model.
Is this any better?


----------



## snowklinger

ibo_nito said:


> It's YES Standard 16/17 year model.
> Is this any better?


yea u just got rockered tips bruh

ride it like u stole it!


----------



## Phedder

Press the camber down and see what happens...


----------



## Wiredsport

ibo_nito said:


> It's YES Standard 16/17 year model.


Hi ibo,

You are looking good. That is the nature of RCR (Rocker Camber Rocker). Essentially a camber board which breaks to rocker before the tip and tail wide points. Here is Yes's Diagram:










Where the board breaks to camber (dimension of the Camber section vs Rocker sections) will drastically change the performance of the board. Most often (as with your board) the break is surprisingly close to the wide point making it hard to distinguish from conventional camber...but the difference when riding is pronounced.


----------



## ibo_nito

@snowklinger, @Wiredsport,
Thank you guys, appreciate your replies! The reason why I was worried about the profile is that it differs so much from my older Standard (14/15) with a camrock. I was expecting something similar (well, maybe less pronounced), and when I've received the board it didn't look any close :nerd: OК, anyways it's a great board and maybe it's time to improve my riding technique finally, :smile:.


----------



## SGboarder

Wiredsport said:


> Where the board breaks to camber (dimension of the Camber section vs Rocker sections) will drastically change the performance of the board. Most often (as with your board) the break is surprisingly close to the wide point making it hard to distinguish from conventional camber...but the difference when riding is pronounced.


Sorry wired, you're normally spot on and great with the fact. But the above is at best misleading - even 'conventional camber' boards have the break before the contact points (ie have slightly rockered tips). A board with the camber all the way to the widest point would not be fun to ride...
There is no 'hard' difference between RCR and 'conventional camber' so some RCR boards are what used to be just called camber.


----------



## Wiredsport

SGboarder said:


> Sorry wired, you're normally spot on and great with the fact. But the above is at best misleading - even 'conventional camber' boards have the break before the contact points (ie have slightly rockered tips). A board with the camber all the way to the widest point would not be fun to ride...
> There is no 'hard' difference between RCR and 'conventional camber' so some RCR boards are what used to be just called camber.


Hi SG,

We mostly agree on that. I have posted in this thread that most camber boards now do break before the Wide point and are really subtle RCR (what the manufacturer call them does not change the actual profile ). It was not always so. In the beginning RCR was primarily very early rise in comparison. Now the two have (in most instances) come closer to one another and some are the same. That is the marketing side of things. There are big differences in feel between a board where the break is on or very close to the wide point and ones that are further away. Subtle differences there are very notable in performance.

STOKED!


----------



## ibo_nito

Wiredsport said:


> Hi ibo,
> 
> You are looking good. That is the nature of RCR (Rocker Camber Rocker). Essentially a camber board which breaks to rocker before the tip and tail wide points. Here is Yes's Diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the board breaks to camber (dimension of the Camber section vs Rocker sections) will drastically change the performance of the board. Most often (as with your board) the break is surprisingly close to the wide point making it hard to distinguish from conventional camber...but the difference when riding is pronounced.


Hi Wired, are those dashed vertical lines on the diagram marking spots where a transition camber->rocker supposed to begin? The board I've got looks more like a Yes's modern camber, to be honest. With even more pronounced camber :grin:
[ame]https://vimeo.com/180848762[/ame]


----------



## Wiredsport

ibo_nito said:


> Hi Wired, are those dashed vertical lines on the diagram marking spots where a transition camber->rocker supposed to begin? The board I've got looks more like a Yes's modern camber, to be honest. With even more pronounced camber :grin:
> https://vimeo.com/180848762


Hi,

In theory, yes. Those lines would indicate the turn from camber to rocker but in reality it is just to show that there _is_ a turn from camber to rocker. They are rarely (if ever) drawn accurately.


----------



## ibo_nito

Wiredsport said:


> Hi,
> 
> In theory, yes. Those lines would indicate the turn from camber to rocker but in reality it is just to show that there _is_ a turn from camber to rocker. They are rarely (if ever) drawn accurately.


First of all I really appreciate all your answers!
Back to the question - any camber board can be called a camrock then. Which is not fair, IMO. If I was to buy a camber I'd go with the TDF :|

My front finger is on a contact point, and the camber goes all the way to it. Ideally it would be nice to hear anything from Yes, but I don't belive in miracles. My cat says wtf dude!? :grin:


----------



## Deacon

ibo_nito said:


> First of all I really appreciate all your answers!
> Back to the question - any camber board can be called a camrock then. Which is not fair, IMO. If I was to buy a camber I'd go with the TDF :|
> 
> My front finger is on a contact point, and the camber goes all the way to it. Ideally it would be nice to hear anything from Yes, but I don't belive in miracles. My cat says wtf dude!? :grin:


No, your cat is saying "go shred that thing, bruh, and stop obsessing over details."


----------



## F1EA

Deacon said:


> No, your cat is saying "go shred that thing, bruh, and stop obsessing over details."


Yes.

987654321


----------



## Mig Fullbag

sgboarder said:


> sorry wired, you're normally spot on and great with the fact. But the above is at best misleading - *even 'conventional camber' boards have the break before the contact points (ie have slightly rockered tips). A board with the camber all the way to the widest point would not be fun to ride...
> There is no 'hard' difference between rcr and 'conventional camber' so some rcr boards are what used to be just called camber.*


quoted for thruth!!!


----------



## F1EA

SGboarder said:


> Sorry wired, you're normally spot on and great with the fact. But the above is at best misleading - even 'conventional camber' boards have the break before the contact points (ie have slightly rockered tips). A board with the camber all the way to the widest point would not be fun to ride...
> There is no 'hard' difference between RCR and 'conventional camber' so some RCR boards are what used to be just called camber.


Both are right.

Wired is saying almost the same you are. Just that he's saying what a 'true' full camber would be. Whether that's what manufacturers call it or not.

In any case.... why would someone look at a sketch and assume his board would perfectly match that. Those camber figures are sketches.

Hence the cat facepalming.


----------



## ibo_nito

F1EA said:


> Both are right.
> 
> Wired is saying almost the same you are. Just that he's saying what a 'true' full camber would be. Whether that's what manufacturers call it or not.
> 
> In any case.... why would someone look at a sketch and assume his board would perfectly match that. Those camber figures are sketches.
> 
> Hence the cat facepalming.


Dude, I didn't assume it should perfectly match. It just supposed to be a camrock, not a camber in fact, that's it.
OK I see where it all goes, sorry guys for all this flame, appreciate all your answers and opinions.


----------



## SGboarder

ibo_nito said:


> Hi Wired, are those dashed vertical lines on the diagram marking spots where a transition camber->rocker supposed to begin? The board I've got looks more like a Yes's modern camber, to be honest. With even more pronounced camber :grin:


Dude your board looks exactly like the diagram. The rocker is very subtle (if it was steeper your board would ride like a snowplow). Also as others have said, stand on the camber section and see what happens to the tips.

Strongly recommend to stop obsessing about what the board looks like in your living room and just ride the damn thing.


----------



## F1EA

SGboarder said:


> Dude your board looks exactly like the diagram. The rocker is very subtle (if it was steeper your board would ride like a snowplow). Also as others have said, stand on the camber section and see what happens to the tips.
> 
> Strongly recommend to stop obsessing about what the board looks like in your living room and just ride the damn thing.


https://goo.gl/images/oCz8P1


----------



## bazman

@ibo_nito - I have the same board in a 156, and it's definitely RCR. See attached pics - I've put green leaves to show where the contact points are. From your pics it does look like your one has less rocker than mine - maybe due to size difference?

Added a photo of my old Rome Anthem for comparison - that's a full camber board 

Cheers, Barry


----------



## Wiredsport

F1EA said:


> Both are right.
> 
> Wired is saying almost the same you are. Just that he's saying what a 'true' full camber would be. Whether that's what manufacturers call it or not.


Hi guys,

Yes, that is correct. As I wrote on the first page description for Camber, "Cons - The contact points of the effective edge (roughly the boards wide points) are in constant contact with the snow. That can mean caught edges and some hard take downs." This remains true today. It does not mean that the contact point will line up exactly on the wide point but rather that it is very close and that it is close enough that caught edges are more of an issue on these boards. 

A Camber board that is "eased" by 1-2 cm I do not consider RCR. Get up to 4 cm and I do consider it RCR. I would not argue if you want to move that line based on your experience. I do think it is valuable in understanding board design and I know that we have spent a lot of time on that dimension (which does not stand alone and must be incorporated with all other design elements). 

Now, marketing being what it is there is nothing to keep a brand from calling a board RCR and having it measure as less eased than other camber models or vice versa. We also see many "flat" boards that are actually subtle camber, rocker boards that are mostly flat or subtle CRC, etc. 

STOKED!


----------



## ibo_nito

bazman said:


> @ibo_nito - I have the same board in a 156, and it's definitely RCR. See attached pics - I've put green leaves to show where the contact points are. From your pics it does look like your one has less rocker than mine - maybe due to size difference?
> 
> Added a photo of my old Rome Anthem for comparison - that's a full camber board
> 
> Cheers, Barry


 @bazman thanks, man! That is what I was expecting to get. Your board looks exactly the same as mine older Standard does, or a board (16/17) in TGR's "on table" review. RCR. Look at mine, it's a bit different, isn't? :smile: OK, it has a micro rocker and it's time to stop this discussion :smile:


----------



## Bryan Ferry

Great thread. I've trawled through a lot of it but not every page, so apologies if this has already been covered. I'm wondering if a camber board would be suitable for a fairly proficient beginner/intermediate who is aiming to progress on to jumps and carves? Or would a hybrid or full rocker be more suitable at this stage? I'm guessing it's probably a case of horses for courses.
Ta.


----------



## Wiredsport

Bryan Ferry said:


> Great thread. I've trawled through a lot of it but not every page, so apologies if this has already been covered. I'm wondering if a camber board would be suitable for a fairly proficient beginner/intermediate who is aiming to progress on to jumps and carves? Or would a hybrid or full rocker be more suitable at this stage? I'm guessing it's probably a case of horses for courses.
> Ta.


Hi Bryan,

STOKED that you are getting started and that it is going well! You can absolutely start on Camber. Everyone did (as that was the only option) for most of snowboarding's history. There are more than a few riders that would tell you that this will lead to better technique in the long run. You are going to get some hard take downs and the learning process tends to be a little more punishing but it is entirely doable. RCR is also a great choice as this is really an eased version of Camber which can maintain a lot of the benefits but will greatly reduce the punishment.


----------



## Bryan Ferry

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Bryan,
> 
> STOKED that you are getting started and that it is going well! You can absolutely start on Camber. Everyone did (as that was the only option) for most of snowboarding's history. There are more than a few riders that would tell you that this will lead to better technique in the long run. You are going to get some hard take downs and the learning process tends to be a little more punishing but it is entirely doable. RCR is also a great choice as this is really an eased version of Camber which can maintain a lot of the benefits but will greatly reduce the punishment.


Thanks for the reply. I've been on a rocker board (Arbor Foundation) for the last couple of years and it's been absolutely great. With even my basal level of edge control it's virtually catch resistant. It never occurred to me that every board I'd ridden before that had probably been cambered, so now I realise I am very familiar with the camber slam downs. I just assumed rentals were flat or something . So, given that I learned to ride on camber boards, and considering my natural inclination for purism in practically every pursuit I can see myself going the full camber way. Probably one at the softer end of the spectrum like the Arbor Coda Camber with its upturned fenders. Plus having seen a preview of the 2019 model I'm even more enticed (can't post links yet!).


----------



## Craig64

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Bryan,
> 
> STOKED that you are getting started and that it is going well! You can absolutely start on Camber. Everyone did (as that was the only option) for most of snowboarding's history. There are more than a few riders that would tell you that this will lead to better technique in the long run. You are going to get some hard take downs and the learning process tends to be a little more punishing but it is entirely doable. RCR is also a great choice as this is really an eased version of Camber which can maintain a lot of the benefits but will greatly reduce the punishment.


The 1st Board I bought was a full camber Custom 165W. :snowboard4:

Never looked back.:thumbsup:


----------



## Daniel Furgatch

*camber or Flying V*

I have the Burton Amplifier and the Custom Flying V. The Custom feels like riding a wet noodle compared to the other one. I only carve at the moment(haven't tried boxes etc...) I want something stiffer but am afraid of the camber which the Burton guy said I should get. So, for a lower intermediate carver, which would be better---Custom camber or the Custom X Flying V? --looked at Free thinker also, but really stiff camber.


----------



## Craig64

Daniel Furgatch said:


> I have the Burton Amplifier and the Custom Flying V. The Custom feels like riding a wet noodle compared to the other one. I only carve at the moment(haven't tried boxes etc...) I want something stiffer but am afraid of the camber which the Burton guy said I should get. So, for a lower intermediate carver, which would be better---Custom camber or the Custom X Flying V? --looked at Free thinker also, but really stiff camber.


Custom Camber is not that hard to ride. If you want to carve hard always go camber. The stiffer the board (less forgiving) the harder you can carve.


----------



## kriegs13

Daniel Furgatch said:


> I have the Burton Amplifier and the Custom Flying V. The Custom feels like riding a wet noodle compared to the other one. I only carve at the moment(haven't tried boxes etc...) I want something stiffer but am afraid of the camber which the Burton guy said I should get. So, for a lower intermediate carver, which would be better---Custom camber or the Custom X Flying V? --looked at Free thinker also, but really stiff camber.


Custom Camber fershizle. Even if it provides a challenge from the get go, it won't take you very long to progress in to feeling comfortable on it. I've never rode a Custom X but I can't, for the life of me, make sense of why it would be a good idea to get that board in flying v.


----------



## Engage_mike

I just wanted to post that this is an excellent resource...Choosing a board was so simple at one time...now the variations are unreal...I wish I lived in a place where getting to a mountain was no big deal and I could demo all the different profiles. Anyways. KUDOS  thanks for the post


----------



## MODO

And on and on these companies r going to keep trying to come up with new weird things to ad and change the snowboards, WHY 😳 simple to make u all think your getting something cool and different And to take your money Remember it’s a business. Read the reviews, all the boards do everything great. All the bullshit u here from these companies. They make it sound like u buy this new design and presto u will become a great snowboarder. What a joke🤪🤪🏂🏂


----------



## Manicmouse

MODO said:


> And on and on these companies r going to keep trying to come up with new weird things to ad and change the snowboards, WHY 😳 simple to make u all think your getting something cool and different And to take your money Remember it’s a business. Read the reviews, all the boards do everything great. All the bullshit u here from these companies. They make it sound like u buy this new design and presto u will become a great snowboarder. What a joke🤪🤪🏂🏂


The worst thing is the bloody new spade tips, instantly making all round tip snowboards look old  Damn it I must get one...


----------



## WigMar

Manicmouse said:


> The worst thing is the bloody new spade tips, instantly making all round tip snowboards look old  Damn it I must get one...


Nice popsicle stick grandpa!


----------



## 16gkid

WigMar said:


> Nice popsicle stick grandpa!


Twin dildo shape is a classic design😂


----------



## MODO

LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. VERY GOOD HOMES I LIKE TO C THAT ONE 🤪🤪🤪🤪🏂🏂🏂🏂🤙🏻🤙🏻🤙🏻


----------



## Rumors of War

New member who just got back into riding after a 16 year hiatus. I'm 5'11, 270, size 11 feet, and currently rocking a Burton Johan 163. I bought new boots and bindings (Burton cartels) and am looking at getting a new ride at the end of the season. I'm down 30lbs and working on losing another 50 by next season. I'd like something all mountain that leans toward freeride and will rip in the powder. I'm thinking something in the 165 range. Please hit me with some recommendations.


----------



## NT.Thunder

A post on FB of his new NS Proto FR witth triple camber on FB, some gold replies - would love to try though


----------



## Wiredsport

Rumors of War said:


> New member who just got back into riding after a 16 year hiatus. I'm 5'11, 270, size 11 feet, and currently rocking a Burton Johan 163. I bought new boots and bindings (Burton cartels) and am looking at getting a new ride at the end of the season. I'm down 30lbs and working on losing another 50 by next season. I'd like something all mountain that leans toward freeride and will rip in the powder. I'm thinking something in the 165 range. Please hit me with some recommendations.


Hi Rumors,

Stoked that you are back to the shred! Rider height is not a factor in board sizing, but barefoot measurement is crucial to getting this right. Please measure your feet using this method:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters). For width please place the inside (medial side) of your foot against a wall. Please then measure from the wall out to the widest point on the lateral (outside) of your foot.


----------

