120s on snow

[valmorel]

Got to use the Spruce 120s on snow for the first time today. This is how it went:
Turns: Compared to a 98, getting into a turn is a fraction slower. That split second that the turn is transmitted to the board is a fraction longer. This is probably due to the extra length, but may also be the special flex (more on this later). It is not a problem, just a difference, and has a HUGE upside....stability. Unweighting like you would with skis makes no difference. Just like a shorter skiboard, unweighting is not needed, just turn. Once the turn is initiated, it is extremely easy to control or vary. Real tight turns are a breeze, possibly even tighter than a 98, which is saying something, and switching to the opposite turn is easy, instinctive, and fast. Big GS turns are harder because the boards naturally want to turn tighter and tighter. The secret is to weight the tail slightly thru the turn. This opens up the turn radius and stops the tip pulling round beautifully. Dont you just love it when boards respond properly to changes in technique?
There seems to be loads of edge grip, which allows for greater and greater confidence at higher and higher speeds. This is the first skiboard I have ever ridden that allows "Riding the Tails". You can do this on a medium slope, the kind of pitch you would just about be happy to schuss. Make small linked turns down the fall line, but do it with the weight right back on the tails. this is what the Pro mogul skiers do. Like that, boy do these motor!

Stability: These give a beautifully stable platform. I guess I had forgotten what it was like not to have to watch every little nuance in the snow surface. These boards just float right over. Very easy to ski with the boards very close together too, even in turns, so very cool for the stylists. Now these babys have to be the easiest thing on planet Earth to ride fakie. Also real hard hockey stops work just fine. this cant be done on 98s as they chatter over the snow surface.
These would SO be the boards to ride in poor viz, because they dont get stopped by little heaps of snow that you dont see.

Tricks: Flat spins are very easy, with the tips not catching at all, but I found I had to be going a little faster than on a 98 to make them work best. No 98 can land jumps this easy though. They take it to a new level. Take offs are easier too because the extra length plus the soft tip dont throw you back so much on the kicker. Fakie is a breeze, but watch the acceleration as these guys take off in a hurry.

Stance: Centred. Perfect. Because the tails respond properly to input instead of taking control. It is a lovely feeling to be carving a turn with the ski doing ALL the work instead of my legs.

Effort: Hugely less tiring than 98s. I went back to the 98s to check, and was a bit surprised at what I found. I could feel myself using my muscles differently on the 98s. On the shorter boards, soft snow patches "grab" at them and slow them down. This means that we all ride with muscles in tension to hold us rigid in a fore and aft plane, as well as vertical, to resist our momentum when this slowing occurs. This does not happen on the 120s, so we dont need to do it. It also makes it easier to stand more upright.

Bottom Line: This is what happens when skiboarders design skiboards for skiboarders. Straight off these bad boys feel like skiboards. You could never mistake them for short skis, they are light years more advanced. This seems to be in no small part due to the flex characteristics. Jeff Singer spent the best part of a year analysing the flex required to make a longer skiboard work. The result was so surprising it seemed illogical, and he almost didnt do it. But it works!
Once again Spruce have given us a product that expands the sport whilst remaining true to the faith.
If you have a question not covered in this review, please feel free to email me at drs2@freeuk.com

[PureVenom]

This could be bad...I mean...where does it end. We had a standard before...NOTHING over 100cm was considered a skiboard. Now there is a 110cm and thats cool but now 120's 130's? Might as well go get the smallest pair of twin tips you can find and call them skiboards if thats the case. Mix did a cool thing and pushed the limits with the 110cm but lets face it. Is somone trying to fuse out skiboarding completely? First starting a line of "releasable skiboard bindings" and now trying to call a 120cm ski a skiboard? Whats next? We all going to start using poles too? It just sounds all to wierd to me. We are riding a VERY thin line here and it seems like we are starting to come dangerously close to crossing it. Once that happens...we can say goodbye to skiboarding (the sport we love so much and have all takin shit for doing)all together.I'll stick with the a 100cm and under and non releasables for myself thank you. Sorry if this offended anybody. I'm not trying to diss anyone or anything. It's just my observation of where some people seem to be heading with this sport.

[valmorel]

Yea PV, its a tricky one for sure. I have ridden short twin-tips though, and they just feel like short skis. These 120s feel like long skiboards if that makes any sense? Its nice to have the extra option too, but I can see they might not be for everyone.

[Ian.cap]

As I stated in another thread:

“I think expanding the Skiboarding arsenal is great. While our numbers are still small and we are a niche market to begin with, there are "sub-niches" of that as well. Just like the need for another board with an H-Block, backcountry boards are needed too.”

While I agree that the "rules" are being challenged, I feel that as long as it rides like a Skiboard, it's a Skiboard. I had serious buyer's remorse for the first few days of owning my ALP's because they felt more like a ski. Now I cannot imagine going into the woods on a powder day with anything shorter. As much as I wanted to keep using them, my BGP's just couldn't handle deep pow.

And if these go into production I would definitely use my Bombers. That's what health insurance is for.

[valmorel]

Hi Ian-cap................First off, forget "remorse". These guys ride like a true skiboard from the first moment. They also have "character", which for me means they respond in different ways to different types of input. Keeps it interesting.
With regard to the Bombers, when Spruce designed this board they were very concerned about safety. If you handle one you can see why. There is a huge amount of real estate here. Consequently, they made the binding mount 100x40, not 40x40. That way, if you want to use fixed you must get into some engineering.

[TheCrazyKid]

how do they compare to other boards?

[PureVenom]

Okay so if say the line mini chronic(133cm) rides like a skiboard than it should be called a skiboard? That makes no sense. It's a ski not a skiboard. It may ride like a skiboard and look like a skiboard but it's not a skiboard. There are all kinds of "mini ski's" or "trick ski's" on the market that might do the same but you notice they are not sold here. Why? because they may be as short as skiboards but they are still NOT skiboards. Yes we need certain boards for different conditions for sure but that doesnt mean trying to make skiboards as long as ski's. If we did then like I said before there would be no seperation between the two sports and skiboarding would just phase out.

[Ian.cap]

I just don't feel that 120cm is a "ski". I'm not an engineer and I don't know all that much about the tech but I know what I ride. I spend a lot of time in the woods and need that little extra length.
As I said before, I first felt the ALP's at 110 was too long but I pre-ordered them sight unseen/ridden because my needs were met with that extra length. There is nothing like a few feet of freshies and I'm sorry, 99cm just doesn't cut it. As a sport and in the realm of competition and such, sure, cap off the length at 99. But do we need to inhibit development for niche markets within our community?

Jeff clearly spent a lot of time developing these from the stand point of a rider and lover of the sport. Only more rider reviews will help settle this issue but anything that brings money into our community makes sense to me.

My two cents is as a sport we should probably cap it off at 120 because yes, we are getting closer to crossing that line. But if someone is going to make a set of boards that I've day dreamed about for many seasons, I'm buying it. Even with the releasable bindings!

[PureVenom]

I don't know....I'm not dissin a 120cm thing at all but it should be exactly that..."in it's own little niche"somewhere. If you really like riding pow then skiboarding is probably not the sport. I like to ride pow and I do it on my 94's (not too deep fo course)but if I was as serious about it as you seem to be. I would be riding some good short twin tips or something. Skiboards were never intended for riding deep pow. I'm glad we are talking about this for sure though Ian. This is a good discussion that has been talked about before and I wish more people would join in and talk about it. This way we can gauge what people are looking for out of our sport and the direction it takes. So thank you. For me I just think longer is bad for the sport. And here's why. The more people that ride longer boards...they will keep wanting that extra little bit of length and then a little longer before they just end up saying screw it and crossing over to twin tips. I know I find myself going from 90cm to 94cm to now 98cm. I will still ride all 3 sizes but you see how that happens. A bit bore speed,a bit more stability etc..We have already lost riders to twin tip. I understand the guys that are pro need to make money and thats mainly why they switched over...cool. It's the people that arent pro that we don't want to lose. We want to keep the next generations skiboarding and pushing and loving the sport as much as we do. There are plenty of ways to push skiboarding to the next level without going longer with our boards. Again thanks for talking about this.

[Ian.cap]

As for back country riding, yeah you're right, Skiboards are not the first thing most would choose. But for me I wouldn't strap on anything else. Never really liked skiing and never got too into snowboarding. My love of inline skating got me into this sport (and subsequently out of inline) in 96 or so and with or without poles, longer skis just don't do it for me. While a 120 is massive by comparison to a 98-99, I'm comfortable still calling it a Skiboard. Not thrilled about the need for releasables (something I never thought I'd consider) but if safety is that much of a concern, I could change my opinion.

I totally see the need for "rules" to keep our sport alive and more importantly to help it grow. While I'm a proponent of a 120, I also firmly believe that's where the cap should be. I see what you're saying about pushing it a bit longer until we blur the line, but I don't think this is it. This sport is on life support, small niche products like this will only help fuel innovations by funding research and development. Spruce is loyal to this sport. As far as I know, they don't make products for other winter sports. Having passion for the sport is what we need from our companies and sometimes pushing the boundaries is the only way to see where they are.

[allz]

aha, my opinion is such like PureVenom's ;)
just - i dont know how to say it in english - not my "default" language :D..so...

first i saw skiboards - there was a rule - 100cm, so i saw just 99cm and under, i saw videos back in 2001 (first time i saw these incredible things) and - i love skiboarding in way i saw them first time, and sorry - i dont like that every year from last season now limit is 10cm longer and longer, was 110, now 120...nope - i dont like such a "skiboards" , but hey -who like them ride them, but I WILL NOT call them skiboards.

Skiboards in my heart = 100cm and UNDER!
and when i see old video - those guys where awesome, soooo big jumps, soo smooth landings, spinnings, flips and all big shit they done on skiboards...we have so big place to push limits up to those limits which was in 1999 or 2000..and we can go further.

Skiboards - twintip skis - this is not the same - please do not make frankenstain :(

[Ian.cap]

If we are again lucky enough to one day have a competitive sport with more events, I agree that there should be a cap in those competitions and it should be 100cm and under. That is how we all found this sport. I don't think a few longer boards will kill the sport. As much as I love my ALP's and look forward to a release of 120's, I would still take my Gunderson's over every board I've ridden so far because.

All I'm saying is I shouldn't have to "leave my sport" on powder days.

And allz, you did a better job writing in your non-native language than most do who learn it as their first.

[valmorel]

Actually, PV has hit the point, but not expressed it the way I would. How about this: when we want to progress from 98s, where do we go? Up till now the only option has been 160 up twin tips, and these are skis by any other name. Nobody wants to replace the sub 99s, we just want the magic of skiboards, but in a length that will handle ANYTHING the mountain can dish out.
Introducing longer product such as the Epic 110 and the Spruce 120 allows people to have another option WITHOUT losing them to skis. This way the revenue remains with core companies instead of going into ski development. That way we all gain and the sport does not lose riders.

[allz]

oh, i see- in this point Valmoler - i am agree with you 50%

ok, 80%.

those 20% - is for that i dont like longer boards
80% for you, because it is true - those riders will stay at "skiboards" .. not skis !

but i dont know if that could help skiboading!

if i love skiboarding so much, i will ride them all the time - or - i can buy extra pair of skis - real twintip skis and smash the powder. only because if i would like powder so much. but i will stay in skiboarding.

and, those who switch - liek - for money thing - those will never stop 120cm ski skiboard thing. if "he" switch - he is switching, thats all - no 110 or 120 cm skb will hold him.

i know realy good person, my friend guigui from France, he loves skiboarding, but in the same time he ride skis some time, its normal.

i dunno, this is soooo slippy question... hehe

hope some day someone will do the main conclusion.

[Ian.cap]

While I have no problems with those who "go both ways", personally I don't like longer skis. As large as 120 is, it's a far cry from a 160 ski. And this being a niche within a niche, in the end it just keeps money in the sport. A 120cm with an H-Block - sure, you've gone too far but adding to the inventory of the sport is good in my opinion.

[PureVenom]

Valmorel...you kinda got what I meant but...more like this.

The longer you go eventually you want to go longer.Once you ride 120cm especially..after a while you will go hmmm...the 130's and 140's are starting to look good for more speed and stability. Then...it's all over at that point. You don't want to offer anything even close to a twin tip or the crossover process begins. Again...just my point of view. If you don't offer any size close to twin tip sizes most generally people won't want cross over to twin tip. Keeps the sports very seperate.There are more places to explore other than length. Tip height,tip width,camber,strength,new materials and overall design. Things like that can help skiboarding tremendously.

[valmorel]

Actually PV, for myself I rode long skis for nearly 20 years and dont EVER want to go back. I love the way skiboards feel, the freedom and the low hassle factor. I mostly ride wide 98s, currently SB10s and Mike Nicks, but they are a bit marginal for all mountain freeride, which is what I like to do best. These 120s give me all mountain performance without losing the true nature of skiboards. In my case, I would never have moved up to a 150-160 twin tip, I would have carried on with my 98s. Now with the 120 I dont have to compromise.
Also, they are FAST! This is going to make it much easier to ride in mixed product groups, and hopefully turn more people on to skiboarding.

[PureVenom]

I understand completely..I used to ride long ski's for years and years too....but for somebody who never has gone riden big ski's before might be pulled that way. See we know we don't want to go back those days. Unfortunately a "ski" or twin tip ski starts at like a 133 now. Thats not such a far cry from 120 anymore but I see where your coming from.

[Ian.cap]

As someone who didn't ski much before Skiboarding, I can say there is no appeal that skiing has to me. Not knocking it, it's just not for me. I debated last year whether to get a set of twin tips but it's just not the same. Again, I totally see 120 is getting close to that line but there's a big difference from a big winter sports manufacturer making smaller skis and a core company dedicated to the sport that researched and developed a product with the riders in mind. That's my, well I guess I'm up to at least 8 cents now.

[PureVenom]

lol....eight cents is about right. I guess this could be debated over and over.I suppose thats why nobody joined in our conversation. I'm sure that ski will find it's niche somewhere for powder riders who don't want a full size ski. That's cool. Lets also keep our focus on the new company's and their support of okiboarding and riders too. We need them to survive.

[Ian.cap]

Agreed.

[Greco]

it's all about the turning radius.

g

[Ian.cap]

Stop on a dime and give you nine cents change.

[SkaFreak]

Haven't dropped into the forums for a bit so didn't get a chance to get involved in this conversation. I personally don't think that anything over 100 should "offically" be a skiboard. Those who ride them for fun should definatly not be shunned for it, but just don't call them skiboards. Also, as to boards not handling what you throw at them, my Canon M7's have handled EVERYTHING I've ever run em through. They blazed through double black tree trails, and had no issue taking the steeps of the Taos Ridge one day after a powder day. Honestly, there are boards under 100 that will work for almost every application out there. Unless you are doing some absolutely insane gaps (like chad's gap) where you need the extra speed or insane steeps with cliffs, you don't need em. Viva la skiboards, and may they never become twin tips.

[McShane]

to be honest, i didn't read too carefully everything of what has been said.
but here's my two c: the sport one chooses should serve him/her, not the other way round! noone should limit his/her will and potential just because it is not allowed by rules. if you feel going longer, do it; if you don't need it, fine! and nobody should really care if the thing he rides is called skiboard or ski; this is just a tool you use to fill your passion.

certainly, there is an evident tradeoff between stability and freedom when goin longer. and each rider personally should find the best fitting point.

so, should one call it a skiboard or a ski??? why the fcuk should i care?!? i do what i do for myself not for the names and definitions of the sport ;)

[allz]

everyone and everything must have a name !!!

so, why do ya have name Oskars? ... why?

thats why skis or skiboards u ride must called sumtin, skis or skiboards, ...but some word must be.

and u cant call skis 130cm long the same like some other thingy 130cm long..skiboards, fuck no!

ah, i realy dont care - i know that skiboards are 100cm and under - that will be all the time.

[kirk]

One of the biggest freedoms in skiboards for me is being able to have a big fall and bounce right up. The 120s don't even have the option for a non-releasable binding, and I feel that this is where the change may be. The 110s can be ridden with non-releasables relatively safely, but the 120s may be that little bit too much. I still support them being made, but I just personally dont have any interest in trying a skiboard like that.

[PureVenom]

Mcshane you might go back and read the posts more carefully.We were not talking about ones right to ride what they want.
You are right there of course they should. Nobody was debating that.The debate was where do you draw the line of whats a skiboard and whats not.Just for the purity of the sport alone.I think kirk may have just hit it on the head with the binding issue for sure.

[xxjzattaxx]

now the thing that i got confused at at first and am dealing with is the skiboard foundation thing... i forgot what it is called (place where you buy pro or am) they define skiboards 100cm and under on there site and to my belief this still has not changed... i am a open guy so i saw the 110's and put the two together and didnt figure much of it.... that and greco a q. isnt it with any type or ski/ skiboard/ snoboard that the deeper the side cut on you ride it and the more flex you have the sharper the turn will be? so could this just be a really cut and flexible trick ski?

[valmorel]

I think we will see more boards over 100 cm this coming winter from several manufacturers. I dont think it matters much what they are called. If you feel uncomfortable calling them skiboards, perhaps we can come up with another name? The important thing here is that guys who want skiboard type performance but with a little more base area and length can buy product from skiboard core companies instead of the big global manufacturers. That way we continue to invest in the future of our sport.

[Ian.cap]

I'm just catching up with the post again. I think Kirk has a great point about the bindings and it's something that I'm willing to accept but it puts me more on the fence in this debate. But as Valmorel just stated and I mentioned before, supporting core companies who are dedicated to our sport can only help us all in the end because we can remain our own industry and not a department of a larger manufacturer.

The other thing to think about is larger riders. Riders over a certain height/weight can ride a 99, but the size of the boards really limit the fun they can have.

[valmorel]

There is also the issue of speed. I dealt with a lot of enquiries last winter from skiboarders who were having trouble generating enough speed when out with their ski buddies. Longer boards solve this for sure.

[Ian.cap]

Most definitely. In the woods it's fine but I always had a hard time keeping up on the trails with my friends who snowboard or ski. The ALP's took care of that though. I bombed down a run one day and at the bottom one of my snowboarding friends said "I couldn't have caught up with you if I tried".

[xxjzattaxx]

idk why but for me speed has never been an issue i lead the pack of all my friends cause for some reason im faster, it might be that i hot wax every other time i go but i have snojam 90's and as soon as i get back and have money im getting mnp's so ill have an extra 8 cm to play with speed

[valmorel]

I guess the fact that you want the extra 8cm kinda proves the point!

[PureVenom]

The other thing to think about is larger riders. Riders over a certain height/weight can ride a 99, but the size of the boards really limit the fun they can have. [/B][/QUOTE]

? I am 6'1 200lbs and I ride 90's,94's,and 98's. There are no limitations. I actually prefer my 90's over all of my others. I smoke skiers and snowboarders alike on my 90's and yes sometimes a bit more length is required for pow but but that doesnt prove any point. An 8cm increase is only 3in. Going from 98cm to a 120cm your talking about 9 inches difference.Thats a freakin huge jump. Didnt we already come to the conclusion that skiboards will always be 100cm and under? Also that 110cm was pushing it (okay) and that longer than that will find its own niche as something but not as a skiboard? Too long and you cant use skiboard bindings. Unless you want to risk tearing your knee apart. So you have to move up to releasable "ski" bindings. Sounds more like a trick ski like jz said.So how is building something that is NOT a skiboard going to help our sport? That is what is confusing me. I am all for new things and everyone has their needs as far as riding is concerned and you have to have products to meet those needs. Thats cool but...that does not help skiboarding. It helps those who like to ride deep powder that dont want a big bulky ski to do it. I mean...you could go out and buy a pair of atomic carve 120's or Rossi. skier-x if thats the case. So....we are not breaking new ground here. There are all kinds of "ski" manufacturers that already offer this option.

[McShane]

Originally posted by allz
everyone and everything must have a name !!!

so, why do ya have name Oskars? ... why?

thats why skis or skiboards u ride must called sumtin, skis or skiboards, ...but some word must be.

and u cant call skis 130cm long the same like some other thingy 130cm long..skiboards, fuck no!

ah, i realy dont care - i know that skiboards are 100cm and under - that will be all the time.

BS, i'm sorry ;)
PS. my name was given to me by my parents to "differentiate" me from other human beings, to have my official files, etc. the name represents my physical, mental, and other traits.
skis/skiboards have their names, e.g. canon m7 or rossignol scratch. (if you push me, i'd say comparing skis to skiboards is the same as comparing human races)

[McShane]

Originally posted by kirk
One of the biggest freedoms in skiboards for me is being able to have a big fall and bounce right up. The 120s don't even have the option for a non-releasable binding, and I feel that this is where the change may be. The 110s can be ridden with non-releasables relatively safely, but the 120s may be that little bit too much. I still support them being made, but I just personally dont have any interest in trying a skiboard like that.

maybe this is the best criterion for defining skiboards vs. skis - i.e. skis is something you cannot ride with non-releasables. i know this may offend some people here, but the lenght/width measures seem too unreasonable

[PureVenom]

Yes...your right the length and width are too unreasonable for non release bindings. Thats why the came up with the spruce riser but we are not really "comparing" ski's to skiboards. What the whole thing is about is should a 120cm (thingy at this point) be considered a skiboard? For all the reasons listed above thats pretty much a no. It is still cool and sounds like a shit load of fun in powder but it should have it's own niche. Since ski manufacturers already make 120cm ski's sounds to me like thats their market. They were saying that it can help the sport of skiboarding. Well since it's not a skiboard how does it help? That was my question. We pretty much established that true skiboards will always be 100cm and under. I support them 100%(not that my support matters or anything) as having a cool ski that rides better than a traditional "ski" and I hope they sell a boat load of them for sure but... 120cm is still just too long in my opinion to be a skiboard.

[McShane]

well, i don' t really care - call it what you will, it does not change the thing per se. does it? ;)

[PureVenom]

You dont really care? Okay...Obviously you must a little bit or you would not have even posted on this topic man. And no...it doesnt change what it is. This was just a friendly debate on if it was a skiboard or not. And by the way...I was agreeing with you.

[Ian.cap]

So where exactly are we in this debate? Is it sidecut? Is it length? Is it binding options? Should we take a poll? Can't we all just get along? Sorry, couldn't resist.

[PureVenom]

LOL.....I hope we can all get along. Who knows where we are with this. I thinks it's a bit of all of them. It's not like its a big deal it was just a discussion. I just wish it could be winter all year round. I want to be back on my board NOW!!!

[Ian.cap]

I hear ya on that!

I'll just address one thing though. As for my comment of the 120 being good for the sport, that was rooted in the fact that Spruce is a dedicated company. Jeff doesn't seem to have any intentions of leaving this sport for another market because he genuinely loves the sport. The "help" comes from an increase in revenue to a core company that could be used for further advancements for our sport. Mass produced soul plates for example. There are a lot of needs we have that are not being met by "outside" companies. My feelings are that giving my hard earned money to people dedicated to the sport is better than giving it to a company that makes the equipment solely for the profit.

But this can all be deabted until we've got blisters on our fingers.

So, how do ya'll feel about a 130? or even a 140?

[PureVenom]

I totally respect that. Good core companies are hard to come by these days and we need them all. Believe me its hard and for sure not cheap to get started in this industry.130's and 140's? This is where I was going in this thread. No if's,ands or but's about it. Those are ski's for sure...lol. Sounds like spruce could become the next great ski company.Going to those sizes though they will be competing with line,4 front,Armada etc...as well as the big boys Rossi,K2,Solomon etc... Tough company to be in with. I wish Jeff all the luck in the world in his company and I hope he does contribute stuff that will help the skiboard industry as well.

[McShane]

Originally posted by PureVenom
You dont really care? Okay...Obviously you must a little bit or you would not have even posted on this topic man. And no...it doesnt change what it is. This was just a friendly debate on if it was a skiboard or not. And by the way...I was agreeing with you.

sure thing! ;)

i didn't want to argue, just to point at apparently irrelevant discussion over the names, because it is how you and i ride what matters, not how you call it (i've been saying it not only about boards but about tricks as well)

[valmorel]

I have ridden the 120s a fair bit now, and I must say that I "feel" like a skiboarder when I am on them, not a skier. That certainly was not the case for the Atomic 120s. They felt like skis, and I had to control them like skis, and move like a skier on them. When I ride the Spruce 120s, I am a skiboarder in my head, but I dont care if you want to call them something else. Any good suggestions? Curvies? Hourgees? Phatstix? Hey....I like that, yea...Phatstix!
Flew over the Alps today.....depressingly green. Six more months!

[PureVenom]

Yep!!!! 6 months till we are riding again.....unless of course cali has another winter like we did this year. Skiboarding in October was nice this year. Hell...they are still riding in Mammoth. Last day will be July 4th....major party there...closing day and the 4th of july. I cant wait to ride again. I think I need to find a place where there is snow all year round and a nice temp of 35 or 40 degrees. I'd move there in a second.

[McShane]

there is such place in germany: http://www.zugspitze.de/

[Greco]

scheisse, now you tell me. i'm leaving on saturday! :(

[PureVenom]

Well there we go!!! Your so lucky G. Have a boat load of fun man.

[McShane]

umh, i'm sorry! i did not know you're still in germany (thought you were there just for few days around the rock festival).

but next time you'll know ;)
(i know, kids from latvian snowboarding association are going there for summer camps every now and then...)

[allz]

hm, oh oh my Greco:

i said that few time - in e-mail in PM' s and so on.

i said there is a place near from Munich (70km) where to ski, snb or skb - there is a camp, last day to ski is sumtin like 14th June.

There is a big park and, hm - i said that last year already,. ...!

G - i am right ! aight?

allz

[snojam]

Originally posted by PureVenom
Okay so if say the line mini chronic(133cm) rides like a skiboard than it should be called a skiboard? That makes no sense. It's a ski not a skiboard. It may ride like a skiboard and look like a skiboard but it's not a skiboard. There are all kinds of "mini ski's" or "trick ski's" on the market that might do the same but you notice they are not sold here. Why? because they may be as short as skiboards but they are still NOT skiboards. Yes we need certain boards for different conditions for sure but that doesnt mean trying to make skiboards as long as ski's. If we did then like I said before there would be no seperation between the two sports and skiboarding would just phase out.

i couldnt have said it better myself
i have a pair of pretty short twin tips, but i would NEVER call them skiboards

[TreeLover]

Hhhmmm...very delayed reaction...After reading this whole discussion over I've come to the conclusion that the main thing that worries me about having skiboards over 100cm is that shorter boards will get phased out...I mean, originally skiboards were 90cm or shorter (I think the original MNP was the longest at the time at 94cm) and there were plenty of boards in the high 70cm to low 80cm range...now that people are preferring the 98cm and 99cm boards, we're seeing virtually no companies making boards less than 90cm...so if more and more skiboards come out in the 110cm to 120cm range does that mean that 90cm boards will eventually also get phased out cause that is definetly my favorite length personally and I'm sure other people feel the same...it would be a real shame if you couldn't find any companies making new boards in the 90cm range!

[zenderfall]

I believe I said a while back that the limit of skiboards should be based on something other than length, and that length should just be limited "naturally".

My whole case for this fell right to the bindings:

A real skiboard has a 40x40 or what some people call 4x4 mounts, which were borrowed from snowboard mount systems. Snowboards use this same pattern.

As long as a standard 40x40 "skiboard" mount can attach to the board with "standard" screws, it is a skiboard.

See where this leads:

Naturally, a skiboard would not be able to go further than say maybe 133 or 140 or even approach 120 simply because the manufacturer would feel it's unsafe to ride such a length with non-releasables. This naturally limits skiboards to a short length.

Releasable bindings are an option, of course.

Of course, if you use this definition you also fall into this issue: Are 8-hole direct-drilled binding (meaning they use no threaded reinforced holes) boards considered skiboards?

In this definition, no they wouldn't be. Call them Snowblades, Skiblades, Kid's toys, learner's tools, beginner skis, call them what you want. I can live without 8-hole boards as part of "Skiboards", and I know many on this forum can do the same.

Many learned on 8-hole boards, including me. They have a place in this world, to me they were a great learning product, but to promote the sport, I'll say they're not among skiboards.

It is a bold statement, but if you think about it carefully, it helps the industry a lot. You create a market for not just the boards, but for binding manufacturers as well. Skiboard companies can concentrate on making boards with 40x40 instead of licensing crap plastic bindings and including them in their product. Their only standard is to make boards 40x40 SAFELY, which means limiting their length. Skiboard binding manufacturers can concentrate on making quality crafted bindings that are great grip, solid, and look nice, with the only factor that they be 40x40.

How awesome is that?


So where does this leave this new player, the one with the 100x40?

I call it a hybrid, a mix between a ski and a skiboard. Awesome product, great ride, but it's a hybrid-probably what I'd call a successful first step in crossing a skiboard with a ski. But of course, it's not a skiboard.

I know many people, especially the owners of this board may disagree, but that's what I think. That's what I think a skiboard is, and should be. With a solid and simple rule as this, maybe skiboarding can go further....

[Greco]

i don't have a problem with that. i hate 8 hole boards and agree with you that the 120 is a hybrid, even though it rides like a skiboard.

g