2nd DRAFT - SKIBOARD SELECTOR - DO NOT USE IT

[slow]

This thread is now obsolete. The "final" version of the 2009 Skiboard Selection Table is now posted as a Sticky.

Thanks for everyone's input.



Based on comments on the 1st version, the table has been totally revamped to reflect:

* minimum rider heights based on SBOL recommendations for releasable and non-releasable bindings for each skiboard
* surface areas of the skiboards are used to establish maximum rider weights for powder (8 sq cm/lb) and all mountain (7 sq cm/lb)conditions/terrain
* a 2x skiboard length is used to establish the suggested maximum rider height for terrain park use

Comments and suggestions are welcome.
http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr206/yaroslow/2009SkiboardSelectionTableB.jpg

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pjBRcAtZ5qFgAdinqWzMuIw

The results confirm the versatility of the KTP and Condor (short in length but large in surface area.)

Revision Log:
* added (purple) groomer bias at 6 sq cm/lb for all mountain
* added Sherpa to all mountain

[Mike W.]

That looks pretty good i like this version of it much better ;-)

So now we need someone to turn this in to an RIA (Rich Internet Application)

[slow]

That looks pretty good i like this version of it much better ;-)


I agree that this version is more appropriate. The complaints to the first version helped me realize that all the building blocks were already in place from the SBOL website (minimum height requirements) or the SkiboardReview website (surface areas).

The minimum rider heights are dictated by the binding type as published on the SBOL website. Note that the minimum height requirements are independent of riding conditions/application. Therefore, the only thing left was criteria for maximum skiboard length for various riding conditions/applications. It is this criteria that I hope other forum members can help flush out.

All forum members,
Please comment on the following criteria that I tried to quantify based on rider's skiboard riding reviews:

Powder Conditions: As Jack pointed out on the first version, surface area and rider weight that translates into float are the overriding factors in establishing the maximum suggested rider weight in powder. So there should be no debate that the surface area to rider weight ratio is what should be used for powder. What should be debated is the actual float value of 8 square centimetres per pound that was used to establish the maximum rider weights.

All Mountain riding: These riders are looking for a balance of float and manoeuvrability and they are willing to sacrifice a little of each but still expect the skiboard to perform well in any condition. Therefore, I dropped the float value by 12.5% to 7 square centimetres per pound of rider weight, which kept the float value at an acceptable level for the occasional excursions into powder, but had a large influence by qualifying shorter skiboards to be considered, thereby providing more manoeuvrability. What should be debated is the actual float value of 7 square centimetres per pound that was used to establish the maximum rider weights.

Edit:
Revised to reflect 7 sq cm/lb in blue for all mountain riders with a bias for powder, and added purple to reflect 6 sq cm/lb for all mountain riders with a bias for groomers.

Terrain Park & Groomers: Float is not a consideration for these application/conditions; rather skiboard length is because of the desire for manoeuvrability. My opinion is that the skiboard’s length should generally be ½ the rider’s height to retain the nimble “skiboard feel”. Except for the Bantam, Tansho, and Allz, it really does not matter what ratio of skiboard length to rider height is used in the suggestion table. Rather the rider needs to decide what is more important to them, the manoeuvrability in a shorter skiboard that meets the minimum rider height for the binding type or the stability (front to back to land jumps or cruise the groomers as examples) of a longer skiboard. In the case of the Bantam, Tansho and Allz, a tall rider (relative to the skiboard) may find that there is inadequate front to back stability. Practically the Bantam is the only skiboard that requires this consideration since the Tansho is appropriate (using the ½ ratio) for riders up to 6 feet, and the Allz is appropriate for riders up to 6 feet 2 inches tall. Whereas, the Bantam should only be considered by riders less than 5 feet using the ½ ratio. Therefore, because of the versatility of the skiboards in this appication/conditions, there really is nothing to debate. It is this versatility that draws many of us to skiboarding.

BTW: do not be offended if I do not reply in a timely manner over the next 1 & 1/2 weeks. I will be in Banff. So just keep posting your replies and I will respond as soon as I can.

[mahatma]

Only the Condors for 200+ lb, all-mountain types with release bindings? Interesting.

[slow]

Only the Condors for 200+ lb, all-mountain types with release bindings? Interesting.

It comes down to the 7 sq cm/lb value. Even within all mountain, a rider may spend more time on groomers and that value could drop to say 6 and then the KTP 101, ALP 110 and the 120 Spruce are good for roughly 230 pounds. This is where I need feedback on riders at the higher weight ranges to nail down an appropriate factor.

BTW: I should probably add the Sherpa into the All Mountain category before SkaFreak sees this post.

Edit: Both of the above have been factored in to the revised Table.

[mahatma]

Slow,

Yea, you might want to dig out the helmet. Ha ha.

[slow]

Slow,

Yea, you might want to dig out the helmet. Ha ha.

I hope he slept in .... I am working on it......done and I do not think he saw it.:D

[jjue]

Very nice Slow ... I think it is great as is .... I do agree with Skafreak that the Sherpa is an all mountain board for big guys ..

[slow]

Thanks Jack.

Not sure if you were looking at the latest that now includes the Sherpa as an all mountain skiboard and the groomer vs powder bias for all mountain. If not, please have a look.

[slow]

Forum members,

Please test your favourite skiboards using the table for your height/weight and let me know the outcome.

[SkaFreak]

Well, I wasn't sleeping in, but I was out of town with no internet access....you're lucky you fixed your ways though. Wouldn't have wanted to let the edges of my Sherpas have a talk with you ;)

But yeah, the chart seems pretty good. The powder bias seems like it might be backwards to me....but then again I am color blind so I might just be screwing that up.

[str33t]

nice work!

but I wonder where you got that values of 8 sq cm/lb for pow and 7 sq cm/lb for all mountain from.

are these estimations based on experience or facts from somewhere?



nice to see my choice of buying revolts for pow for my weight of 150 lbs confirmed :)

[slow]

nice work!

but I wonder where you got that values of 8 sq cm/lb for pow and 7 sq cm/lb for all mountain from.

are these estimations based on experience or facts from somewhere?


nice to see my choice of buying revolts for pow for my weight of 150 lbs confirmed :)

Good question.

It is based on my understanding of some of the expert rider's reviews on this forum that ride Sherpas and 120s in powder and their weights.
I also used my own situation as a reference. No more scientific than that.

[Matthies]

Slow,

This will be a great resource for new riders. But I am confused the last weight section is 210. But is says > 210 which I read as “less than 210.” Its been years since I took elementary math, and that about as far as I ever got in math, but I seem to remember something about the mouth on the < facing the larger number if it meant “larger than” something about the alligator always being hungry so mouth faced the bigger number, everything behind the < was a smaller number. I could be completely wrong, and it may seem trivial, but as a new rider I read that as saying I’m too fat for any boards because I weight more than 210. That might give use fattys the wrong idea, unless at 230 I am too fat for ski boards. :(

[SkaFreak]

Matthies, you do have it a little bit wrong. The way you determine which way the bracket faces is by putting the wide side (alligators mouth) to the larger number. Then, you base what you say on what symbol is out. < is less than and > is greater than because we always read left to right. In this case, the full expression would technically be "rider's weight > 210" if that helps you to understand it a little better.

[Matthies]

Matthies, you do have it a little bit wrong. The way you determine which way the bracket faces is by putting the wide side (alligators mouth) to the larger number. Then, you base what you say on what symbol is out. < is less than and > is greater than because we always read left to right. In this case, the full expression would technically be "rider's weight > 210" if that helps you to understand it a little better.

See this is why I went to law school NO MATH :D

[SkaFreak]

See this is why I went to law school NO MATH :D

Hehe, yeah, I'm in school for mechanical engineering, so I still have to deal with numbers quite a bit.

[Scribbler]

Slow - are you going to add the rest of the boards listed on SBOL? I thought you had (understandably) just listed Revel8 boards, but just noticed that the Allz 94 and the Sherpa are on there too.

Any plans to add the Snowjam and Lacroix lineup to the chart?

Thanks for all your work - it's really interesting.

Scribbler

[slow]

Good point, since the criteria is that the table should cover anything SBOL sells. Give me a few days and I will update the table in the Sticky.

[slow]

slow - are you going to add the rest of the boards listed on sbol? I thought you had (understandably) just listed revel8 boards, but just noticed that the allz 94 and the sherpa are on there too.

Any plans to add the snowjam and lacroix lineup to the chart?

Thanks for all your work - it's really interesting.

Scribbler

Done!:)

This thread is now obsolete. The "final" version of the 2009 Skiboard Selection Table is now posted as a Sticky.

Thanks for everyone's input.