# Setback Stance NS Snowtrooper



## SnowHound (Dec 7, 2007)

Hi Guys,

So I have a 156 snowtrooper and was wondering how should I setup my bindings. Should I set them up to "center" them as much as possible with the natural setback of the board or could I set them up like a directional board and set the bindings back

As of right now there is about 2 inches more board on the front than the back. Will this impact my riding at all? I'm more of an all mountain/free ride kind of rider and don't do much park at all if that helps at all.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

That board only has a half an inch if setback, so if you're centered in the inserts, you should have one inch more nose than tail.

With CRC boards, I like to be centered over that center rockered section. I just think the ride weird if you try to set the bindings further back, but give it a shot and see what you think.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

According to the specs I read on EVO,.. it's a true twin board. Your bindings should be centered on that board. Now most people will tell you you can set up and ride a twin with a setback for POW conditions. 

I don't know if that will work well with that boards particular CRC profile! Setting it up like that might put the camber sections in less than optimal position under your binders. But then again,.. _that_ might not be such a problem if you're riding in deep POW. (…it would likely be a little strange, if not completely unridable,.. riding it like that on the groomers!)

I'm sure there will be additional feedback from the gallery if I am completely full of shit on that! 


-edit-


linvillegorge said:


> That board only has a half an inch if setback, so if you're centered in the inserts, you should have one inch more nose than tail.


Fuck!! OK,.. Now *I'm* pissed! I went back and carefully read all the specs on that board this time! Linville's right. There is a set back built into the inserts when using the boards center points. 

At what point in the last 3-4 years did the meaning of *"True Twin"* get changed to also include a board with more nose than tail length???? My 2011 Arbor is a *directional twin,* setback deck. It was designed with 2" of setback in it. My 2012 NS Proto CT and Rome GR are both *true twins*. They are the same length tip & tail from my bindings when centered! When did *that* change??? Why wasn't I informed!  :lol:

Shit,.. I feel like such an idiot! :shrug:


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

Chomps, why would you check the specs on evo instead of on the Never Summer website?
I often find second party websites have inaccurate information.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

GreyDragon said:


> Chomps, why would you check the specs on evo instead of on the Never Summer website?
> I often find second party websites have inaccurate information.


…just happened to be the first link I clicked on that's all! Why? Were the specs wrong on EVO? I'm not familiar with the snowtrooper myself! I like my Proto, but It's not like I'm a total NS fanboi! (…never did like Kool Aid!)


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

It's slightly set back. 

It's just a newer but improved SL, no?

I'd center it on the bindings, because I'm assuming it's centered over that middle rocker linville is talking about.

I set my proto back a little when I was in Whistler because it dumped for two days. But it always felt a little weird and I didn't like it. Twitchy. Centered it when I took it back to Bear and it rode much differently and I really liked it.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> According to the specs I read on EVO,.. it's a true twin board. Your bindings should be centered on that board. Now most people will tell you you can set up and ride a twin with a setback for POW conditions.
> 
> I don't know if that will work well with that boards particular CRC profile! Setting it up like that might put the camber sections in less than optimal position under your binders. But then again,.. _that_ might not be such a problem if you're riding in deep POW. (…it would likely be a little strange, if not completely unridable,.. riding it like that on the groomers!)
> 
> ...


EVO did not call it a true twin, but a true twin *shape*. Before blurting out an exasperated 12+ line post, maybe read what it actually says. . .


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> EVO did not call it a true twin, but a true twin *shape*. Before blurting out an exasperated 12+ line post, maybe read what it actually says. . .


*????????????????????????*
:WTF:

I _did_ read what it said,.. It lists the boards shape as,.. *TRUE TWIN!!! * 









…So , having read _that_, what the _FUCK_ should I have assumed it's _TRUE_ shape was???? _Directional???_ Which was my point all together!! Last time I checked this sort of thing, a deck with a "set back stance" was by it's very definition,.. A _directional_ board!!! _NOT_ a "True Twin!" 

When _exactly_ did "True Twin" *stop* meaning *TRUE FUCKING TWIN?* Huh?? :blink:

...AS for how many lines of text I "Blurt Out?" I'm not sure who pissed in your corn flakes, but it twernt ME! Seriously,… WTF?? Am I using up all *YOUR* bandwidth or sum shit????? :shrug: :eyetwitch2:  Get cable biatch!!


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

he knows it is 12 lines because he reads the line as it loads on his page over the dial up interwebz services....


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

here is the neversummer sites description....

The new Snowtrooper builds on our proven flex and forgiving feel of the legendary SL/ Legacy models and takes it to the next level. *It features a new slightly setback functional shape and Extended Rocker Camber (EXRC) profile*. Carbon VXR coupled with Vario Powergrip Sidecut provides groundbreaking edge hold and response. The EXRC makes the Snowtrooper snappy, agile, and improves float. Versatility defined, the Snowtrooper is equipped and ready for any terrain.


I would set back the stance as the board was built to be ridden that way.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

:lol:
Thanks Argo! I don't feel quite so testy now knowing that I wasn't the _only_ one who read that "pissy" quality in SG's reply! :shrug:

Now, I know that technically a true twin is simply a board that is the same shape at each end. The nose and tail are the same shape & width etc. My Arbor,.. being directional, is wider at the nose than at the tail along with having more nose than tail length from the bindings.

But since this Snowtrooper has a setback,.. however slight it may be. I presume the camber and rocker sections of the boards profile are moved back accordingly as well to keep them in the proper position under the bindings,.. Yes?

So regardless of whether or not the nose and tail are the same shape and width,.. the Snowtrooper is _NOT_ in reality, a True Twin shape nose to tail when ridden,.. correct? Isn't that _exactly_ what it means to be a "Directional" board?? What am I missing here?

I am also aware that some decks have a true twin shape but they have _Directional *Flex*_ built into them,.. But the ones I've read about were not setback. So they _would_ be a true twin!! No??

This is where my confusion and aggravation over looking like an idiot after posting that erroneous information on how to set up a _True_, True Twin! Is _that_ the distinction we have to make now,..? Between calling one a True twin setback, the other a _True_, True Twin??? :blink:  :facepalm3:

That's almost as bad as this new CRC-EX-BFD,WTF label Neversummer has adopted for what _was_ a simple CRC, RCR profile! (That Libtech/Gnu, whatever CBT2WTFR2DTOO labeling for their various profiles gives me serious agita!!) :laugh:


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

Shawn white is the only guy that needs a twin.

Nobody else does, nobody.

You guys don't need or want a twin.

Even rocket ship shaped boards, with a foot of set back, ride fakie.

Well enough for the amount of riding your gonna ride it fakie.

To make it ride better in both directions.

You are taking away it's ability to ride better in one direction. 

100% of you guys who buy twins, ride them in one direction, 99% of the time.

Don't try & lie to me. You might maybe do one turn, that's it. Not even 2.
2 is way harder than 1, that's linkin' it up.

I never ever see that.
One only, all you guys are full of shit.
But really, you're fucking you're selves.

I'll just keep watchin'.


TT


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

timmytard said:


> 100% of you guys who buy twins, ride them in one direction, 99% of the time.
> 
> Don't try & lie to me. You might maybe do one turn, that's it. Not even 2.
> 2 is way harder than 1, that's linkin' it up.
> ...


Um, no.
I ride switch ALOT!
Riding in one direction constantly would bore me to tears.
Try riding down a 6 km run at Whistler switch - ALL THE WAY! Very satisfying.

Check those blanket statements before making them TT.

And yes, two of my boards are true twins. The third is a directional twin with a whopping 0.5" setback.


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

GreyDragon said:


> Um, no.
> I ride switch ALOT!
> Riding in one direction constantly would bore me to tears.
> Try riding down a 6 km run at Whistler switch - ALL THE WAY! Very satisfying.
> ...


Start at 7th heaven at the end of a sunny day, stay right, finish at fairmont patio. 

Ride regular or switch or fakie or upside down, who cares. Doesn't get any better than that.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

GreyDragon said:


> Um, no.
> Riding in one direction constantly would bore me to tears.


you should go faster :happy:


----------



## OU812 (Feb 2, 2013)

I have an SL which is basically the same board, almost, and the way I understood it and someone described it to me, I think it was NS directly is like this. Place your bindings normally, as if it was a true twin. The setback stance is built into the board, into the sidecut. So set your bindings up as a mirror image of each other in terms of which bushings you mount them to, stance width. You'll be in the middle of the sidecut but set back. I hope I described this correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

OU812 said:


> I have an SL which is basically the same board, almost, and the way I understood it and someone described it to me, I think it was NS directly is like this. Place your bindings normally, as if it was a true twin. The setback stance is built into the board, into the sidecut. So set your bindings up as a mirror image of each other in terms of which bushings you mount them to, stance width. You'll be in the middle of the sidecut but set back. I hope I described this correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong.


+1. That's how I ride my SL.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

OU812 said:


> I have an SL which is basically the same board, almost, and the way I understood it and someone described it to me, I think it was NS directly is like this. Place your bindings normally, as if it was a true twin. The setback stance is built into the board, into the sidecut. So set your bindings up as a mirror image of each other in terms of which bushings you mount them to, stance width. You'll be in the middle of the sidecut but set back. I hope I described this correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong.


Every board is designed to be ridden centered in the inserts whether it's a true twin or a heavily setback directional rocket.


----------



## OU812 (Feb 2, 2013)

linvillegorge said:


> Every board is designed to be ridden centered in the inserts whether it's a true twin or a heavily setback directional rocket.


I'm a retard, sorry I misread the OP. Nevermind :blahblah:


----------



## flow-boarder (Oct 23, 2014)

chomps1211 said:


> :lol:
> Thanks Argo! I don't feel quite so testy now knowing that I wasn't the _only_ one who read that "pissy" quality in SG's reply! :shrug:
> 
> Now, I know that technically a true twin is simply a board that is the same shape at each end. The nose and tail are the same shape & width etc. My Arbor,.. being directional, is wider at the nose than at the tail along with having more nose than tail length from the bindings.
> ...


According to this article on shapes I would say that the snowtrooper is a directional twin not a true twin - I think evo is just making shit up!

Snowboard Shapes Explained


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

GreyDragon said:


> Um, no.
> I ride switch ALOT!
> Riding in one direction constantly would bore me to tears.
> Try riding down a 6 km run at Whistler switch - ALL THE WAY! Very satisfying.
> ...


Try riding a 6 k run at whistler, haha, no thanks.

If you're riding a 6k run, it's a green, a winding cat track.

those suck, I don't do those.

I'm talkin' on the mtn, not the road.


TT


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

flow-boarder said:


> According to this article on shapes I would say that the snowtrooper is a directional twin not a true twin - I think evo is just making shit up!
> 
> Snowboard Shapes Explained


Well,..! I hate to admit it, but looks like you are correct. Evo is just making shit up! (…which is ironic considering the reputation "The Good Ride" has for putting out bogus information!) 

This is the video description for the Snowtrooper taken right off of NS's company web site.
 
At 30 sec in, they give the _REAL, OFFICIAL_ description of the boards shape. 

So Greydragon was also right!! :facepalm3: No more getting my board specs & information off of second hand sites, no matter how trusted they are! (…and he just _knows_ how much I hate having to admit that!) :lol: :laugh: 

The up side is,.. I am also correct in my understanding of what has, and still does constitute a "_Directional_" Ride!!! :jumping1:


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

Anyone can ride switch on a groomer, if they can't?

That's one more reason why they don't need a twin, they can't ride forward good enough yet.

Twins are for half pipes & Shawn White. That's it.

Everyone should go buy a board shaped like a rocket ship, with a round tail of course.

So you can ride switch.


I let Pat Bridges try one of my Dupraz', as soon he he put his lead foot in he started laughin' & said "you do a lot of switch ridin' on this thing?"
That's when I started laughin' haha I told em "you'd be surprised how well it rides with 6 plus inches of set back."

It's fully ducked out, because I ride it fakie. 
Not on roads, in the deep.

Ten min before that, in the cat, when I told Pat he could ride it. He asked how wide the stance was?
I said pretty wide.
He laughed & said that's not an answer. Haha, I told him I have no idea, I've never measured it & I have no idea what the angles are.

He thought that was pretty funny too.

TT


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

timmytard said:


> Anyone can ride switch on a groomer, if they can't?
> 
> That's one more reason why they don't need a twin, they can't ride forward good enough yet.
> 
> ...


:lol: Hahaha! Why am I not surprised to hear that you are a _"Fly by the Seat of your Pants"_ kind of rider? :lol:

While I still really like both of my twin decks,.. and they are super easy to handle switch? I really can't argue with TT's statement because I first learned how to ride switch on my own directional, set back board!!  (_…although mine only has about 2" of setback built in to it_.) It is a _true_, all mountain, directional board Tho!! The nose is longer & wider than the tail,.. it's full camber too! And,… I've got vid of me riding it switch, top to bottom on a couple of our (…admittedly lame by comparison,) 3/4 to 1 mile long Mich. greens & blue runs! :hairy: :happy: <_ this is me being smug!_ lol! 

TT,..? You really ride with 6" of setback on your POW board?? Now obviously I'm no expert, and wouldn't really know what does or doesn't work well in the steep & deep. But that sure seems like helluva lot of setback! Is that a normal, or common amount of setback for a dedicated POW deck? Just curious.

:hairy:


----------



## ItchEtrigR (Jan 1, 2012)

Shaun White won all his medals on a full blown directional. There is nothing twin like in Shauns boards, even the nose & tail have a different shape.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

chomps1211 said:


> :lol: Hahaha! Why am I not surprised to hear that you are a _"Fly by the Seat of your Pants"_ kind of rider? :lol:
> 
> While I still really like both of my twin decks,.. and they are super easy to handle switch? I really can't argue with TT's statement because I first learned how to ride switch on my own directional, set back board!!  (_…although mine only has about 2" of setback built in to it_.) It is a _true_, all mountain, directional board Tho!! The nose is longer & wider than the tail,.. it's full camber too! And,… I've got vid of me riding it switch, top to bottom on a couple of our (…admittedly lame by comparison,) 3/4 to 1 mile long Mich. greens & blue runs! :hairy: :happy: <_ this is me being smug!_ lol!
> 
> ...


Well everyone seems to have their own philosophy on what works best.
Hence all the fuckin' weird shaped boards at varying lengths.

I don't know the spec on them all, but just out of curiosity, I'll compare a stack of powder boards to see what the difference is between them.

Most are pretty much the same, more than half of what "people" call powder boards.

Are not powder boards to me, they have one or two attributes of a powder board, but they're still to much like "twin" shape, flex, setback....


The Dupraz is fairly unique though.
From the tip of the nose, to the center insert, in the set, is 25 inches.
Tip of the tail to the center insert, in the set, is 19.5.

I'm not sure how super unique that is?
I'm sure there's a tonne of other boards with that much or more?

What's different, the inserts are set forward of the center of the sidecut.

On shitty local conditions, it slays everything.
It snows lots, but then rains & freezes.

I take it through everything. For all the shit ridin' I do on it, I set it up with maybe a cunt hair forward of center of the inserts, but really close to center of the inserts.


Something you would never really do on a normal board.

So forward of the center of the sidecut, but still way set back on length.
that's what I ride the shitty shit with.

it does snow here though sometimes, sometimes for a week.

When that happens, I slam the back binding all the way to the rear & adjust where I want my front foot from there.
Which is where I throw the deck on the ground & hop on the muther fucker.
Get a feel for it.


I don't know how much setback the Dupraz has if you center the stance on the inserts? Lots prolly 8 inches.
Technical :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah: to me.

But when it's slammed it's only just behind center of sidecut.

Which is what I & everyone else has been ridin' switch with for the past 30 years with.

Standard snowboard, set back for powder, just behind center of sidecut.

Hard to explain, it's a good read, Serge has been makin' snowboards since the 70's.


TT


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

timmytard said:


> Well everyone seems to have their own philosophy on what works best.
> *Hence all the fuckin' weird shaped boards at varying lengths….*
> TT


Lol! Yeah, I really _should_ have known better than to ask _that_ question the way I did! When you consider all the different board shapes like swallow tails, tapered, square, asym etc? What exactly is Normal Right,..?? :lol: :dunno: I guess It's just that I always thought 2" was a lot of setback. Especially when you consider that boards like this snowtrooper are only rockin' a half to an inch setback. By comparison, 6 inches just seemed _HUGE!_ *(…a-a-a-a-and you WISH that that's what she said!)* :lol:

Now, even tho I did learn how to ride switch on my directional, setback board,..? It was absolutely necessary for me to take a lesson in order to figure it out. :blink:

Prior to getting some instruction and a few tips & tricks from the instructor on how to do it? I couldn't link _one single turn_ riding switch without eating shit bigtime! :dunno: One lesson, with a few dozen successfully linked switch turns, and It was less than 2-3 days before I shot the vid I mentioned of me going top down an entire run switch! 


*God,..!!!!* _I *Love* Snow Sliding Sideways!!!!!_
:hairy:


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Holy shit balls, is it not enough to already have a thread dedicated to sucking that board's sack? You love it, we get it. We're stoked for you!

What in the world does it have to do with this thread though?


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

linvillegorge said:


> Holy shit balls, is it not enough to already have a thread dedicated to sucking that board's sack? You love it, we get it. We're stoked for you!
> 
> What in the world does it have to do with this thread though?


:question:

Uhh,..? Whahwho,.. huh??


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

chomps1211 said:


> :question:
> 
> Uhh,..? Whahwho,.. huh??


timmy and that Dupraz


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

linvillegorge said:


> timmy and that Dupraz


:lol: Ok,.. Whew! Thought I was havin' a stroke there for a second. I could _read_ the words,.. but I couldn't _comprehend_ the words! :laugh:


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

linvillegorge said:


> Holy shit balls, is it not enough to already have a thread dedicated to sucking that board's sack? You love it, we get it. We're stoked for you!
> 
> *What in the world does it have to do with this thread though?*





linvillegorge said:


> *Every board is designed to be ridden centered in the inserts whether it's a true twin or a heavily setback directional rocket.*



It has lots to do with it.

K, pay attention. I don't expect you to fully understand on your first read through.

See, while it is true. I do, want too fuck the shit out of my Dupraz ladies.:embarrased1:


You just don't understand there little feller 
I'm tryin' too learn you sumptin' there bucker-roo.

Teach a man to fish.:blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:


Not when the inserts are forward of the sidecut, & 6.5 inches set back on the length.

Think about that for a second........

I scribbled up a diagram & everything, but I kinda don't want to post it, just so I can hear what your thoughts, on what happens when you do that to a board.

Does that really do anything?

You tell me?


TT


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

timmytard said:


> Try riding a 6 k run at whistler, haha, no thanks.
> 
> If you're riding a 6k run, it's a green, a winding cat track.
> 
> ...


Whistler "Peak to Creek" run. Blue run, not green. Not a cat track.
Switch all the way. Went back to the top and rode switch all the way again.
And I regularly ride black runs switch as well. Riding one direction bores me.

And ask any CASI certified instructor Level 2 or higher: we have to be able to, and demonstrate that we can, ride switch in ANY terrain.
I believe that certified instructors are considered snowboarders, so that makes your 100%, 99% of the time statement wholly inaccurate. :hairy:

As I said, stay away from blanket statements.
(And the bad batch of weed you seem to be smokin' lately.:happy


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

GreyDragon said:


> Whistler "Peak to Creek" run. Blue run, not green. Not a cat track.
> Switch all the way. Went back to the top and rode switch all the way again.
> And I regularly ride black runs switch as well. Riding one direction bores me.
> 
> ...



You musta got that from someone else? I don't have a bad batch, never have.
I don't really care.
You ride your twin, awesome. Stay on that groomer.

I'll wave to ya. Toodles.

I think your bull shit anyway. Sure you may be able to do that, but I doubt you actually do.
TT


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

GreyDragon said:


> Whistler "Peak to Creek" run. Blue run, not green. Not a cat track.
> Switch all the way. Went back to the top and rode switch all the way again.
> And I regularly ride black runs switch as well. Riding one direction bores me.
> 
> ...


No, I stand by my statement.

I ride with instructors, quite a few boards that I've picked up over the years is because of a CASI that I ride with at Cypress.

He's even older than me, over 50 I'm positive?

He doesn't do the same type of riding I do.

He's a hard booter, I like drops, ridin' over shit & am generally nowhere near groomed runs.

That's where all those shitty people are, tryin' to ride fakie, haha

Of course you and all the other superstar instructors know how too.
You have to, like you said.

But yeah, I'm calling bull shit on the fact that you actually do that.


Sher you can & you will when you have too.

But you guys already know how to do that, so you don't unless you have too.

I see lots of instructors. When they're riding for themselves, I don't see a lot of switch ridin'


TT


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

The instructor at Cypress I know, I regard him as one of the best snowboarders in the world.

He rides hard boot boards, set up the wrong way.

I have ridden other peoples boards setup regular, I can do just fine.

He digs trenches like that's the way he rides.

Rarely do I see him riding fakie though when he doesn't have to or he's mot practicing.

I'm sure the same goes for you?

Post up a video of yourself riding lets see how much switch riding your doing.

Not the video entitled "switch riding" either.



TT


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

timmytard said:


> No, I stand by my statement.
> I'm calling bull shit on the fact that you actually do that.
> 
> TT


LOL!
The last position of the vanquished. :deadhorse:


----------



## SnowDragon (Apr 23, 2012)

timmytard said:


> The instructor at Cypress I know, I regard him as one of the best snowboarders in the world.
> 
> He rides hard boot boards, set up the wrong way.
> 
> ...


How about you post a video of 100% of the snowboarders in the world NOT riding switch?:happy:
That's your claim.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

GreyDragon said:


> How about you post a video of 100% of the snowboarders in the world NOT riding switch?:happy:
> That's your claim.


YouTube


TT


----------



## redlude97 (Jan 9, 2008)

chomps1211 said:


> Well,..! I hate to admit it, but looks like you are correct. Evo is just making shit up! (…which is ironic considering the reputation "The Good Ride" has for putting out bogus information!)
> 
> This is the video description for the Snowtrooper taken right off of NS's company web site.
> 
> ...


Not sure why you are stuck on this distinction that them referring to it having a true twin shape means it has no setback, and how you managed to skip over the very first paragraph on EVO's description


> If you've got some pow stashes that need to be hunted down and a mountain that also needs to be shredded, the Never Summer Snowtrooper Snowboard is the board to get the job done. *Directional twin with a setback stance* gives you unrivaled pow shredding ability. The board flex is playful and snappy without being overly burly or aggressive. *The true twin shape with a setback stance* gives you a touch of directional stability for freeriding in all conditions. This specially blended shred-stick was made in Denver, CO with extra cheeseburger grease and spilled Coors, so you know it's good for you!


or where they list the setback as 0.6". But I guess they must be lying.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

chomps1211 said:


> *It lists the boards shape as,.. TRUE TWIN!!! [/I]*
> [/B]
> 
> …So , having read _that_, *what the FUCK should I have assumed it's TRUE shape was???? Directional??? Which was my point all together!! Last time I checked this sort of thing, a deck with a "set back stance" was by it's very definition,.. A directional board!!! NOT a "True Twin!"
> ...





redlude97 said:


> Not sure why you are stuck on this distinction that them referring to it having a true twin shape means it has no setback, and how you managed to skip over the very first paragraph on EVO's description
> 
> or where they list the setback as 0.6". *But I guess they must be lying.*



You're not sure? :blink: _Really??_ OK,.. Why don't you go ahead and save the _"Smug"_ for your family, friends, or gf,.. whatever? Cuz,.. How can you "*not*" be sure" when the answer is quoted *right in you own post??*

We've got four or five fucking pages to this thread, where I have asked over and over,… "At what point did a board that is Listed, described, pictured, spec'd, What-fuckin'-EVER, When did it change that a deck described ANYWHERE in it's specifications as a "TRUE TWIN?" When did it *STOP*, being a True Twin??

…as for what I did or didn't miss? Again, I've already explained that I went straight to the listed spec's for the board. _AND_ I missed that!

I've already given my "mia culpa" for that on the first page as well! 



redlude97 said:


> …..or where they list the setback as 0.6". *But I guess they must be lying.*


*

Right here: On EVO's Snowtrooper page, at the bottom right with the listed specs,….. :dry:
(Hint) it's the third row up from the bottom, where it says "setback" and then 0.6!! :blink:








….looks like I'm not the only one who is capable of "missing shit?"

So, yet once more I suggest saving the "Smug" and oh,.. I dunno,… :finger1: ...maybe????

:hairy:

My point has been, (…and still is) I am well aware of Twin SHAPED boards, and that they may be sporting setbacks,directional flexes and whatnot,… But any set back to a board, means it is NOT a TRUE twin when ridden. When Ridden!!! 

Which is an important distinction in my mind as that is exactly what the fucking thing is meant to have done to it. So WHY describe it ANY FUCKING WHERE as a true twin? When it's only really a true twin sitting on the shelf or hanging on your wall?????

:question: *


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> You're not sure? :blink: _Really??_ OK,.. Why don't you go ahead and save the _"Smug"_ for your family, friends, or gf,.. whatever? Cuz,.. How can you "*not*" be sure" when the answer is quoted *right in you own post??*
> 
> We've got four or five fucking pages to this thread, where I have asked over and over,… "At what point did a board that is Listed, described, pictured, spec'd, What-fuckin'-EVER, When did it change that a deck described ANYWHERE in it's specifications as a "TRUE TWIN?" When did it *STOP*, being a True Twin??
> 
> ...


You still do not get it. EVO did not call the Stormtrooper a True Twin *board* - rather, they described it as a directional board/directional twin with a True Twin *shape*.

True twin *shape* ≠ True twin *board*.

There are a number of board models that have a true twin shape, but have setback, directional flex, and/or a directional profile - i.e., directional twins.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> You still do not get it. True twin *shape* ≠ True twin *board*.
> 
> There are a number of board models that have a true twin shape, but have setback, directional flex, and/or a directional profile - i.e., directional twins.




_Nooooooo,…… _ _You_ don't get it! 

I don't know how many fucking times I have to state that I am well aware of, and already accounting for the board's _ OUTLINE!_ The boards _PERIMETER_ shape! I don't give a flying fuck at this point what the board's,… "_shape_" is! And I'm done wasting time arguing about it. 

*THE ONLY TIME THAT BOARD IS A TRUE TWIN,..? IS WHEN IT'S SITTING ON THE SHELF!* 

If you *ride* it,..? :blink: It's a directional twin! 


I'm out!!!


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> I don't know how many fucking times I have to state that I am well aware of, and already accounting for the board's OUTLINE! The boards PERIMETER shape! I don't give a flying fuck at this point what the board's,… "shape" is! And I'm done wasting time arguing about it.
> 
> *THE ONLY TIME THAT BOARD IS A TRUE TWIN,.. IS WHEN IT'S SITTING ON THE SHELF!*
> 
> If you *ride* it,..? :blink: It's a directional twin!


Which is *exactly* what EVO said...

At this point you are just trolling.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> Which is *exactly* what EVO said...
> 
> At this point you are just trolling.


Fuck you it is! :finger1: 

Now *That,..* That was a troll! :hairy:


I'll explain this slowly and with small words,...
I did a quick google search to check the specs on a board for the OP of this thread. The first link I clicked was EVO. I quickly scrolled down and scanned the page to get to the listed specs for the board. (…I believed I didn't _need_ to read every word of the description in order to get the boards TRUE specs,… _that belief was wrong as I *now* know!_)

My point then as NOW,.. When a boards page lists a specification,.. _(and I don't give a rat's ass about semantics at this point,)_ When you list it, post a graphic, call it's "shape," anywhere in the specs, whatever,.. When you post a graphic that calls the board a _TRUE_ twin,..?

….Then I don't think it's all that unreasonable that a person seeing this, would leave the site believing that they had just discovered that the board is a True twin!! Which it *ISN'T!!!!!*  

If I were searching that deck because I was considering buying that board for myself,..? Then I would have read _every_ word of the description, on that, and many other sites pages before I made a decision. In that instance I would have discovered what they were doing and the discrepancy between what I understood to be _universally_ true about a TRUE twin, and what's apparently acceptable to call a true twin now!! 

That was not why I was searching that board in the first place,…! :dunno:

Regardless,...


The Snowtrooper is _NOT_ a true twin,.. It _NEVER_ was a True Twin,.. It will never _BE_ a True Twin! (…unless you hang it as wall art!) 
It's a Directional twin! 


It _only_ has a Twin shape. *THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S A TRUE TWIN BOARD!*  And if things have changed so much that "_now_" it does mean it's ok to list it, anywhere in the specs as True,..? Well then,.. Fuck them, fuck you and fuck it!


----------



## trapper (Jan 15, 2013)




----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> My point then as NOW,.. When a boards page lists a specification,.. _(and I don't give a rat's ass about semantics at this point,)_ When you list it, post a graphic, call it's "shape," anywhere in the specs, whatever,.. *When you post a graphic that calls the board a TRUE twin,..?*
> 
> ….Then I don't think it's all that unreasonable that a person seeing this, would leave the site believing that they had just discovered that the board is a True twin!! Which it *ISN'T!!!!!*


That is a strawman argument: No graphic (and nothing else) ever called the board a true twin, other than in shape.



chomps1211 said:


> If I were searching that deck because I was considering buying that board for myself,..? Then I would have read _every_ word of the description, on that, and many other sites pages before I made a decision. *In that instance I would have discovered what they were doing and the discrepancy between what I understood to be universally true about a TRUE twin, and what's apparently acceptable to call a true twin now!!*


So many words to say a simple thing: You were wrong.



chomps1211 said:


> Fuck you it is! :finger1:
> [...]
> The Snowtrooper is _NOT_ a true twin,.. It _NEVER_ was a True Twin,.. It will never _BE_ a True Twin! (…unless you hang it as wall art!)
> It's a Directional twin!
> ...


Again: The only one who described the Snowtrooper as a true twin board was *you*. And you were wrong and have been backpedaling ever since - no amount of verbal diarrhea and insults is going to change that.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Previewing this post before I sent it, I saw your little bullshit addition to this argument. So let me start off again by saying 

Fuck You!!!
:finger1:

Let me approach this from another direction,…

_YOU_ go ahead and tell me then,.. What is the difference between a "Twin" shaped board, and a "TRUE" Twin shaped board?


Twin is twin, is it not,..?? It means they're the same front to back, No?
If that's not true,.. explain to me how a "Twin" shape can be anything but the same at either end? How is a twin shape different than a True twin shape??

Why then would you need to make a distinction between Twin and "True" twin?? 

When I see a board listed as "Twin?" I know I need to dig into the description a little deeper before I can be sure I've got ALL the details for the board correct!

Until _this_ "F'd" up discussion,.. Whenever I read, saw, noticed anywhere in a board's specifications, description etc,..  _"True"_ Twin? I felt confidant in my new found understanding of any particular board's details, that *that* board would be,….

*Identical,* Tip & tail Mirrored shaped
*Identical,* Tip & tail Mirrored camber/rocker profile
Centered Stance, *Identical,* length Tip to Tail from bindings.

So again I ask,.. 

What is the difference between Twin and True twin that you (..and EVO) find it necessary to focus on Semantics about the word "Shape" in order to believe you are winning this argument?


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Snow can't come soon enough, apparently...

:no1:


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> Previewing this post before I sent it, I saw your little bullshit addition to this argument. So let me start off again by saying
> 
> Fuck You!!!
> :finger1:
> ...


For instance, I am aware of at least one board with a nose that is wider and longer than the tail, that is described by its (major) manufacturer as a (tapered) twin. So clearly some people make a distinction. But apparently this is "not ok" with or "reasonable" to chomps, the arbiter of all snowboarding terminology...


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Donutz said:


> ….Snow can't come soon enough, apparently...




:no2: We've actually _GOT_ snow! Have had for weeks! The shitty little locals here actually have been open since before Thanksgiving!! 

Not that it does _me_ any good! (…that probably explains a little of my slight,………. _Irritability??_) :blink:  LoL!

SO Donutz,.. Please! You, Trapper, somebody,.. _ANYBODY,_…!
Explain to me how, why, there is a distinction between "Twin" and "True" Twin.

WTF am I missing? Twin is Twin,.. No??? When is a Twin, _not_ a Twin?? 

Up until now, whenever I have seen the phrase True Twin? I have been confidant that it mean a centered stance, Bi-directional deck!!!

Put it this way,..
...I pick up two chicks in a bar, They're sisters,.. _Twins_ in fact! We go up to my room only to discover upon reach around, that one of the sisters is sportin' *a Big Ol' Woody* under her dress!!! 

Should I have asked earlier if they were actually *"TRUE TWINS???"*  :eyetwitch2:  Cuz in the _only_ way that it counts,..? *THEY'RE NOT!!!!*  

It doesn't matter that they tell me they only claimed they were _shaped_ as true twins!!!!! :rofl2:


How is this different! (_…I mean besides the fact that "Homie Don't Play Dat!_)


----------



## larrytbull (Oct 30, 2013)

chomps1211 said:


> :no2:
> 
> Up until now, whenever I have seen the phrase True Twin? I have been confidant that it mean a centered stance, Bi-directional deck!!!
> 
> ...


:bestpost::bestpost:


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> For instance, I am aware of at least one board with a nose that is wider and longer than the tail, that is described by its (major) manufacturer as a (tapered) twin. So clearly some people make a distinction. *But apparently this is "not ok" with or "reasonable" to chomps, the arbiter of all snowboarding terminology...*


Well Ok then,.. _*FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!!*_ :facepalm1:

_"I am aware of at least one board with a nose that is wider and longer than the tail, that is described by its (major) manufacturer as a (tapered) twin."_
_THEN IT'S *NOT* A FUCKING TWIN,.. *IS IT??????*_
It's a "Tapered" twin! That's what I would expect to read in it's description! In the past, that is exactly what I _have_ read in various board's descriptions!!! The exact same thing goes for the phrase "Twin!"

Just like, "Directional twin!" Just like my Arbor! It was listed, described, graphed,.. whatever, as a _Directional Twin_, set back, All Mountain Cambered Board!

If it _has_ a setback,..? _IT'S NOT A TRUE TWIN!_ It may well be a Twin,.. but it's _not_ a *True* Twin!!! Not in Form, Shape, Set-up, riding, impressions, fantasy, practicality,.. Nothing!



*That's* My Muther Fucking Point!!!! That has _ALWAYS_ been my Mother Fucking point! Throughout this _entire_ ridiculous God Damned argument,….!! Why is this so difficult for you to get????


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> If it _has_ a setback,..? _IT'S NOT A TRUE TWIN!_ It may well be a Twin,.. but it's _not_ a *True* Twin!!! Not in Form, Shape, Set-up, riding, impressions, fantasy, practicality,.. Nothing!
> 
> 
> 
> *That's* My Muther Fucking Point!!!! That has _ALWAYS_ been my Mother Fucking point! Throughout this _entire_ ridiculous God Damned argument,….!! Why is this so difficult for you to get????


Because you actually do not have a point - setback has got nothing to do with shape. A board with setback can be a true twin shape.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

larrytbull said:


> :bestpost::bestpost:


Thang-Que,.. Thang-Que bury mush!


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> Because you actually do not have a point - setback has got nothing to do with shape. A board with setback can be a true twin shape.


:finger1::finger1::finger1::finger1::finger1:

*IN EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED DISCUSSION I HAVE EVER HAD OR READ ABOUT IN THIS FORUM OR ELSEWHERE, TRUE TWIN HAS ALWAYS REFERRED TO HOW A MUTHER FUCKING BOARD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RIDDEN!!!!!!!! IT HAD LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH IT'S ACTUAL SHAPE! 

NOW,.. WHEN TALKING ABOUT A BOARD THAT WAS ONLY DESCRIBED AS "TWIN", THAT HAS SOMETIMES INCLUDED OTHER VARIABLES THAT COULD BE THROWN INTO THE MIX TO EFFECT HOW IT WAS TO BE RIDDEN,… 

"TRUE" TWIN HAS IN THE PAST ALWAYS MEANT,.. CENTERED AND IDENTICAL FRONT TO BACK, TIP TO TAIL WHEN RIDDEN!!  *

So Once again,.. (and for the final time) I bid you, _FUCK OFF!!!!!_

:finger1:

-EDIT-

*Now,* I'm out!  (..or so I thought! :huh: ) 
*sigh* even I'm getting sick of this. But I have as yet not been given a real, answer. One that makes sense and logically addresses the *twin/true twin* distinction! Dammit! I'm done trying to be funny or mad or insulting,… I just want an answer that explains it, not someone just parroting _"The Shape!" "The Shape!" "The Shape!"_ over and over again!!!


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Donutz said:


> Snow can't come soon enough, apparently...
> 
> :no1:


I am about to tackle plenty of snow: Daily Snow Reports | 360niseko

While chomps with his gimpy back can continue his assholic online antics. Maybe there really is such a thing as karma...


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> I am about to tackle plenty of snow: Daily Snow Reports | 360niseko
> 
> While chomps with his gimpy back can continue his assholic online antics. Maybe there really is such a thing as karma...


OFFS!!! :eyetwitch2:

YOUR MOMMA! :finger1:

You still haven't answered my question,.. so fuck off bitch!

Address the issue I brought up or forever be an asshole yourself!

I keep inquiring, asking for the distinction between the two, and you still haven't addressed it!

Twin is twin! If _True_ Twin isn't about the "RIDE?" Why make the distinction at all? BTW,.. That Snowtrooper is a CRC board. Is the CRC profile centered? Or is it set back by that .6"???


If it is,….? _ IT'S NOT A *TRUE* TWIN IN *SHAPE* EITHER!!!!!!!_



-edit-
Seriously,.. Somebody _PLEASE_ fill me in on the difference! If twin means twin? If it's always and forever ONLY been about board shape,..? _WHY?_ Why was there _Ever_ a need for a distinction between the two? I'm serious,.. Why ever even use a term like "True" twin? 

Are you claiming that from the beginning, Twin was and has been, simply concerning the rounding off of the shape of boards tails? That the term is _ONLY_ about the tech stepping away from squared, swallowed, or notched tails as in the antiques and powder decks? 

If someone can't explain this distinction to me, I am going to stick with the definition and understanding I have garnered about this subject since I first started reading and learning about boards and snowboarding from the time I began participating here! :dunno:


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> OFFS!!! :eyetwitch2:
> 
> YOUR MOMMA! :finger1:
> 
> ...


Your 'question' has been addressed multiple times. Why do you have such a problem with people applying the term 'twin' to specific aspects of a board (shape, flex pattern, etc.) as well as to boards as whole?

Clearly there are people making a distinction between a true twin *shape* (completely symmetrical with identical tip and tail measurements) and a true twin *board* (true twin shape and also centered reference stance, symmetrical flex patterns, etc.). And it is not just an artificial or semantic distinction, since there are indeed boards that are completely symmetrical in shape, but have a setback stance and/or a directional flex pattern, etc.



chomps1211 said:


> BTW,.. That Snowtrooper is a CRC board. Is the CRC profile centered? Or is it set back by that .6"???
> 
> 
> If it is,….? _ IT'S NOT A *TRUE* TWIN IN *SHAPE* EITHER!!!!!!!_


Actually, since you insist on being pedantic about this, that would be the *profile*... Does the standard that you are holding everybody else to not apply to yourself?



chomps1211 said:


> Are you claiming that from the beginning, Twin was and has been, simply concerning the rounding off of the shape of boards tails? That the term is _ONLY_ about the tech stepping away from squared, swallowed, or notched tails as in the antiques and powder decks?
> 
> If someone can't explain this distinction to me, I am going to stick with the definition and understanding I have garnered about this subject since I first started reading and learning about boards and snowboarding from the time I began participating here! :dunno:


I am not claiming anything. However, several people clearly make that distinction (EVO, NS, Salomon, etc.). Why do you have such a problem with that and why are you shitting all over that?


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Not tonight dear. I'm getting a headache.

The question about twin vs true twin is a good one. The drama, not so much. How about someone opens a question to that effect. I'd be interested in the answer as well, TBH.


----------

