View Full Version : Surface Area Comparisons
This season is the season when skiboards hit the big leagues surface area wise . The Icelantic crew likes to advertise that their Icelantic Scout 143 has the surface area of a 180cm shaped ski in a short but fat format . Well here is a rather astounding comparison chart. ( this is a down and dirty calculation but is fairly accurate as a comparison tool for twintips , take the side cut dimensions in cm and add them , divide by 3 and multiply by the length in cm to get estimated surface area )
Icelantic Scout 143 1788 sq cm Surface Area
Spruce Sherpa 130 1807 sq cm
Summit 125 1713 sq cm
Revel8 Condor 110 1712 sq cm
Spruce 120 1508 sq cm
Revel8 Alp 110 1466 sq cm
VaticDart
10-22-2007, 08:21 AM
I was going to get the Icelantic Scouts or Nomads for this season to have a bigger board to accompany my 120s, but then I found out about the Sherpa 130s through your post on the off-season testing. Amazing that they have more surface area than the 13 cm longer Scouts! Between that much surface area and the Powder Plates, they should be absolutely astounding powder boards.
We've been getting teased for the last month or so with an early winter here in Washington. It snows, and then the snow level goes back up. Eventually though... it will come.
Another interesting surface area comparison :
Alp 110: 1466 sq cm
Revolt 105: 1400 sq cm
Ktp 101 : 1464 sq cm
In another post , Kirk talked about his goal of squeezing maximum float into a traditional 100cm length . I think he succeeded very well :)!
tyberesk
10-22-2007, 10:10 AM
yea he def did. The condors/ktps are uber wide
SkaFreak
10-22-2007, 11:01 AM
Wow, that makes me wish that I had enough cash to buy a pair of ktp's this year. I have a pair of EMP's that could use replacing, but not the cash to buy new boards quite yet. Guess I'll have to give it another season or two.
tyberesk
10-22-2007, 12:04 PM
with these 2 new wider skiboards comming out...i was wondering how wide you can really go?
*visualizes a snowboard strapped to each foot*
Originally posted by Aqua
*visualizes a snowboard strapped to each foot*
This is a picture of a prototype skiboard created by a group of engineering students at the university of utah .. it is a center mounted BURTON MINI-Chopper 111 kids snowboard one on each foot , , mounted with telemark bindings for climbing and with custom climbing skins
while it was great in powder it was a bit unwieldly on the firm snow . Perhaps this MIGHT be the outside limit on a 110 board , eh ???
http://www2.eng.utah.edu/me4000wiki/uploads/Chumbley/Chumskin1.jpg
a while back there really was a picture posted of a guy they saw in the lifts with a fullsize snowboard strapped to each foot
Originally posted by nate
a while back there really was a picture posted of a guy they saw in the lifts with a fullsize snowboard strapped to each foot
Yeah , I was thinking of putting that pic up , but that is way too long to be a proper skiboard , looks like a big twintip ski to me :)!!!
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l88/jjue/freaky.jpg
thanks, seeing that again was fun even though its not really even close to skiboards
hahaha! oh man thats hilarious, thanks for the laugh. :D
I'd love to see that guy riding down the slopes
Manlenium
10-23-2007, 12:03 AM
I would shake that guys hand when he reached the bottom.
CrazyBoy-1
10-23-2007, 01:10 PM
That is pretty extreme. I would think that at that width carving would be a very demanding exercise in control. As wide as they are it must take a lot of effort to crank them over on edge.
valmorel
10-23-2007, 01:27 PM
Do you think he had to buy TWO lift tickets :-)
anaesthetic
10-23-2007, 04:23 PM
LOL!!
That cracks me up! Needed some tension relief after the 12 hour day working.....
Ouch, my sides still hurt from the freestyling the other night (coughing, sneezing, laughing)
winterparkrider
10-23-2007, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by CrazyBoy-1
That is pretty extreme. I would think that at that width carving would be a very demanding exercise in control. As wide as they are it must take a lot of effort to crank them over on edge.
If he had a bigger base plate and about an inch or two of lift he could really kill it in the deep and kinda steep. I dont think he would have much lateral control on anything over 40 deg pitch. Would stand a good chance of braking his ankle or top of his foot
Manlenium
11-04-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by jjue
This is a picture of a prototype skiboard created by a group of engineering students at the university of utah .. it is a center mounted BURTON MINI-Chopper 111 kids snowboard one on each foot , , mounted with telemark bindings for climbing and with custom climbing skins
while it was great in powder it was a bit unwieldly on the firm snow . Perhaps this MIGHT be the outside limit on a 110 board , eh ???
http://www2.eng.utah.edu/me4000wiki/uploads/Chumbley/Chumskin1.jpg
His stance would have to be massive.
Originally posted by Manlenium
His stance would have to be massive.
Maybe if we were in the saddle all day long like these cowpokes at the STEAMBOAT downhill race we might be able to ride skiboards that wide :)!
http://img.timeinc.net/skinet/content/images/2007/jan/ski0107cba.jpg
cmbruin
11-11-2007, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by jjue
Another interesting surface area comparison :
Alp 110: 1466 sq cm
Revolt 105: 1400 sq cm
Ktp 101 : 1464 sq cm
In another post , Kirk talked about his goal of squeezing maximum float into a traditional 100cm length . I think he succeeded very well :)!
Hey Jack,
What are dimensions and surface area of your custom 110 woods?
Originally posted by cmbruin
Hey Jack,
What are dimensions and surface area of your custom 110 woods?
The Summit Custom 110 Woodie is 140-110-140 with a surface area estimate of 1430 sq cm
cmbruin
11-12-2007, 12:51 AM
Thanks Jack.
Manlenium
11-12-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by jjue
Maybe if we were in the saddle all day long like these cowpokes at the STEAMBOAT downhill race we might be able to ride skiboards that wide :)!
http://img.timeinc.net/skinet/content/images/2007/jan/ski0107cba.jpg
At least they are not assless chaps:p :p
I wanted to bump this thread back to the top , as there has been some questions as to surface area calculations , and comparisons of different boards. , the simple way I do the surface area calculations here is the same way that Icelantic Ski company calculates the surface areas of their skis and makes for interesting comparisons .
oxenboxin
11-11-2008, 11:22 AM
Thanks Jack!
Yeah, this is a fairly rough estimate. Basically it's estimating an average width for the board and pretending it's a rectangle. I had been thinking about pretending the boards were pairs of trapezoids, and estimating that way. There's got to be a way to do it with calculus, though. One could integrate over the length of the board for the varying width. Maybe someone nerdier than me wants to figure it out for the common good. ;)
valmorel
11-11-2008, 11:34 AM
To get it dead right, you have to use what is called a 'sag' formula, from the bow Sagitarius is holding. Being a numbnuts, I cant remember it just now. When my wife gets home (optics lecturer) I will ask her and post it up if you want, but frankly, lifes a bit short as it is......................
DennisEvans
11-11-2008, 11:35 AM
I know we did this in geometry but that was three years ago and I don't remember much from that class.
CrazyBoy-1
11-13-2008, 10:34 AM
Don't some programs like SnowCAD-X have a feature that calculates surface area? You'd have to model the board accurately to get the right number, but it might be easier than complex math.
anaesthetic
12-02-2008, 06:53 AM
I read something on the other forum about optimum rider weight/skiboard surface area for float in powder. They said that going over 1lb/square inch was sinking territory. 1sq cm = 0.155 sq inch.
e.g. my weight = 135lb. KTP surface area = 2x1464 sq cm= 454sq in.
135/454 = 0.3lbs/sq in. So I should float nicely on KTPs.
I wonder if JCX factored surface area of two skiboards into the equation, cos you'd have to be 454lbs to sink on KTPs according to this!!
Or is jjue's surface area calculation for two skiboards?
(area = (tip width+tail width+waist width)/3 * length)
valmorel
12-02-2008, 07:22 AM
Not sure I would want to believe stuff just because someone prints it Annes. At 135, you might do better in soft with ALPs, because the extra length helps with pitch control, which gets tiring if you have to fight it, but KTPs would be good too.
oxenboxin
12-02-2008, 07:49 AM
Don't forget to take into consideration the weight of all your gear. With boots, bindings, jacket, backpack, etc. you could be adding quite a few more pounds. Of course, this is all just a wild guess times an estimation...
What is clear though is that everyone seems to agree that more surface area equals less work in pow.
There are a whole lot of things that go into pow riding and I really think surface area calculations are primarily a way to compare different boards with one another . The steeper the slope and the lighter the rider , and the faster you are going the more lift will be generated at any given surface area . I have successfully ridden a Canon M7 99cm skiboard with a full backcountry backpack which puts me at over 215lbs in deep pow , on steep slopes going fast but on more moderate slopes I was way too slow and sinking too much for my tastes .
Interestingly , the KTP , the Revolt , and the Alp are in the same general ball park with respect to float and all are good choices for most folks in deep pow . Certainly at 135 lbs , any of those boards will be plenty of float in pow . The other point to consider is length vs width vs stiffness. . Wider shorter stiff boards like the KTP are more diffcult to get on edge on firm snow especially for light weight folks as Crazyboy pointed out on another thread . In the case of the KTP this is mitigated by the fact that it is short and has a very tight turn radius which I think helps to get the thing on edge especially if you ride aggressively . As Valmorel points out in variable choppy snow , where the snow consistency varies a longer length helps by giving you more help to control fore and aft stability , ie going over the handlebars or falling on your can ... this is much less important if the snow is more even consistency ... Other things to consider are stiffness vs flex in soft snow ... the KTP tends to plow right through snow , where as my ALP which is more flexible has a bit more cushion effect through variable snow ... both ways work , some prefer the softer flex in pow .
CrazyBoy-1
12-02-2008, 09:07 AM
You bring up a very interesting point that I don't think people often consider enough, agressiveness. As you've mentioned before in comparison threads, some boards are much easier to ride casually because of their length/width/flex. In the short time that I had to compare the EMP and KTP last season, I found that the softer thinner EMP was easier to ride gently while the wider stiffer KTP required a bit more attention. However it also handled agressive carving a bit better.
I'm picking up a set of KTP's for myself, and I plan on doing much more back to back riding with them and my EMP's. I'm especially interested in comparing them in powder.
The point about slope angle is also a good one. I rode my Invertigos (90cm) in powder over my knees last year. Most of the time I went very slowly, but on a few steeper slopes I was able to build up some decent speed.
oxenboxin
12-02-2008, 09:13 AM
Other things to consider are stiffness vs flex in soft snow ... the KTP tends to plow right through snow , where as my ALP which is more flexible has a bit more cushion effect through variable snow ... both ways work , some prefer the softer flex in pow .
Why do you think that is, Jack? I know you've ridden boards of all lengths with different flex characteristics through powder. Is it that the softer flex creates more rocker while the board is being pressed into pow?
Interesting question oxenboxin ,
All skiboards are stiffer then soft pow long skis and I really don't thing you get a negative rocker effect or sagging in the middle even in our softer boards ... I really think all our skiboards are relatively stiff with some way stiffer and some less stiff .. it is more of a feel thing , the stiffest boards I have , the Summit woody and the Ktp , both , have a quality of feeling like a stiff airplane wing you control the attitude and float by adjusting your position and the boards just plow through without getting thrown off track ... the softer boards like the ALP and the Spruce 120 , seem to ride , with a bit more cushiony ride , the more flexible tips seem to float up and over broken snow .. with a softer feeling ride in pow ... this is way more of a feel thing and the stiffest board I have the Summit /Lacroix Woody 110 which I cannot bend hardly at all , works very well in pow .. Maybe Brklyncarver , might comment , I know he has ridden the softer flexing boards like the Condor and Spruce 120 in very deep pow as well as very stiff boards like the Woody and the Lacroix boards in the same deep Colorado and Utah pow ...
anaesthetic
12-02-2008, 09:44 AM
Not sure I would want to believe stuff just because someone prints it Annes. At 135, you might do better in soft with ALPs, because the extra length helps with pitch control, which gets tiring if you have to fight it, but KTPs would be good too.
Don't worry I'm not taking this as Gospel ;)
Just thought it was interesting and if properly explained/validated might be useful as a rough guide.....
I was just using the KTP as an example (although they do appeal!)
The original thread was here:
http://www.skiboards.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=2232
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.