Are ALPs Skiboards?

[fluxgame]

So this one's going to sound like flamebait, but I'm honestly interested in some opinions on this...
I was doing a little reading a while back and seem to recall that the "strict definition" of a skiboard requires that they're under 100cm in length. It seems like the ALPs then, being 110cm, shouldn't be considered skiboards at all (I'm guessing this is why Greco can't sell them with non-releasables premounted). Is there some magic number where the skiboarding community stops beliving a couple of boards are skiboards? I've seen a lot of criticism of Line on this forum (no, I'm not trying to support them, I don't know the whole history there), for abandoning the skiboarding community. What would happen if Adam or Ben (sorry to put hypothetical words in your guys' mouths) decided they wanted something just "a little" longer? Where's the cut-off? Don't get me wrong, I love my 90cm Five-O's, but I'm also seriously considering a pair of ALPs for the extra stability. Just wanted to provoke a little discussion.

[bailey]

theyre skiboards
they definately dont feel like skis

[tommy]

ah yes but go on newschoolers.com on there alot of the people said that if anything was under 150 cm they would classify that as a skiboard and there all skiiers.

[Ian.cap]

After riding the ALP's for a few weeks now I can say they are definitely a skiboard. My opinion is they feel more like a ski than other boards out there, but that's not a bad thing. The control of a skiboard is there. I would even like to see a board a little longer and wider for deeper powder. There should obviously be some kind of cap on length, but we ain't there yet.

[valmorel]

Ceeeee-man-ticks! Oh boy, I guess we all knew this was coming. Seriously though, I guess at some point someone (or a group of someones) is going to have to "define" a skiboard, as without a definition, we could never have a valid competition, but somehow rules turn me off. ALPs? oh YES.....lead me to em!

[bailey]

the people on newschoolers.com are also extremely ignorant towards everything other than skis

[Jeff Miles]

they also bag against each other....on the stupidest shit..lol

[tommy]

Originally posted by bailey
the people on newschoolers.com are also extremely ignorant towards everything other than skis

yeh i know but theres alot of skiiers on there so effectively thats saying some skiiers would easily see skiboards that are 110cm are still skiboards. (from what they said)

[bailey]

true say

[Jonny W]

the alp's are skiboards for sure, they don't feel anything like skis. me and bailey both hit urban rails first time on the boards, the only thing i noticed is that its easier to land and they go alil faster.
easy
jonny

[zenderfall]

"they also bag against each other....on the stupidest shit..lol"

We've done the same:

1. 8-hole boards
2. Poles

I'd love to one day put those two bags in the past tense, but somehow I think I'll be seeing them in another topic soon.

As far as classifications are concerned, we all know ALP's are 110, and *someone* out there's bound to make a 120, or even a 130 cm skiboard. It's going to happen. After a year (or two) some of you folks will think ALP's aren't long enough or wide enough and then the board starts growing. And then what? Where do skiboards end and skis begin?

What if they made a 125 cm skiboard that's aaaaaaaalmost as narrow as a twintip ski. Would you call it a long skiboard or a short twintip ski? How would it handle? Like a a skiboard that's hard to maneuver or a twintip that's easy to turn?

I say make a decision fast, because if we really want to stay true to the sport, we have to *define* what the sport is, and stick to it.

[allz]

yup, sometimes we need to define something, soetimes not, so...but i think this is the time when we need to think..

hm, so why there was that definition about skiboards: up to 99cm and 4 hole bindings? is it bad definition? why then we were living some 4 or 5 years (i dunno how long) with THIS definition, and now there is 110cm, its ok, but when there will be 130cm, whats then?

I dont get a clue about this, then maybe we dont need definition at all? i DONT know.

Greco, maybe you could put some word about that, it might help ;)

[McShane]

as i said earlier in another thread (don't remember which one) - we are not riding centimeters, we are not riding the name of skiboards. are we? we are riding for our utmost pleasure.
so, no definition needed!!!
Zenderfall's got a valid point here, and i'v said it before: the tendencies will lead us where there is no big difference (in width and lenght) between current skiboards and twin-tip skis. ones will get longer and the others will get wider/shorter.
and if you take a 149cm "skiboard" and 151cm "twin-tip ski" - are they essentialy different enough to carry distinct names? i don't think so!

just go out and do what you feel like doing, and don't think about the terms and definitions!

[Ian.cap]

Of course this debate is far from over and there are valid points on both sides. But if we are to define the sport and not just be considered short skis, we will have to set guidelines of some sort. In all (or most) of our minds, Skiboarding is its own sport. Many of the people who helped pioneer this sport have turned their back to it. Some even go as far to say that Skiboarding and Skiing are the same. If we want to maintain independence from other winter sports, people who are (and not) familiar with Skiboarding need to know why and how it's different.

[valmorel]

Ian.cap is right. I guess if we want to call ourselves skiboarders instead of skiers, or something else for that matter, we have to say how a skiboard is different from a ski. The difficulty, apart from the fact that I, and I suspect a lot more of you also, am hard wired to object to rules, is that rules ALLWAYS stifle development and creativity.

[McShane]

do you ride for the name of skiboarding???

[Ian.cap]

I ride because I love to, not for image or name. I'm 30 years old with two young daughters, so the last thing on my mind is the "image" and "cool factor" that are so important to youth culture. The point is we're all here in a skiboarding forum. Why not just post this stuff on a skiing forum? Because while it's akin to it, it's not skiing. So we either have to push for definitions to move this sport forward or just be the "easy ski" that many view it as. If there's no point in creating a niche for us, than Greco and the rest of us are wasting a lot of time and loot helping this sport stay alive and independently defined from other winter sports.

[Roussel]

once that gap between the 110 cm skiboards and 140 cm twintips is closed, we might not even have a sport anymore.

[Ian.cap]

Not trying to raise another debate here, but does it just come down to pole usage then?

[Roussel]

no, i think it comes down to how u can ride the boards. i dont ride my skiboards like skis cuz of the side cut and the symetical shape of the boards.

[Roussel]

cuz it would be almost impossible to ahve a 140 board with a 6 or 7 m sidecut.

[Ian.cap]

Roussel , there's a hint of sarcasm in my last response. Inflection is lost in this type of medium. I just mean that if we don't set some kind of defining line that everyone accepts, then the only perceived difference one day may just be the pole usage.

[matthew]

fuck dude i think skiboarding has a totaly difforent style then skiing its not the same you cant ride a pair of twin tips like skiboards so dont freek out about skiboards turning to twin tips cause its not going to happen and if we do get a 120 cm. board thats supper wide for powder rideing that would be great we need it we are missing one of the greatest things about other snow sports hiting backcountry with hip deep pow i think it would bring more people to the sport

[Ian.cap]

I ride, so I know there are major differences between the sports. I am not looking to pigeon hole the sport with "rules", just trying to help define the differences to help it grow as its own entity. Regardless of what we know, the perception of most non-skiboarders is that we just ride mini-skis. Of course we help to educate people with every question they ask on those lift lines, but there's a long way to go before people outside the sport recognize it as its own thing. I would love to see wider tips for the woods and pow. My BG's have gotten me to some really nice pow stashes, but like you said, they need to be bigger to really handle it well. We have a sport that’s on life support right now. It blew up then started to shrink. We have the power to keep it alive and as long as we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll get there.

[valmorel]

I think we are off life support and into intensive care. We have gained a couple of core manufacturers and they are beginning to innovate again.
Question.......if a 120 board turns up, who would ride it fixed bindings?

[Ian.cap]

I'm hooked on non-release. I was wary with the ALP's, but there's no way I'd choose releasables at this point. Even at 120.

[tommy]

break your leg and insurance doesnt cover it, uh oh.

[matthew]

i would ride them with fixed bindings

[tommy]

Originally posted by matthew
i would ride them with fixed bindings

ride 120s with non realease?? i dont think i could.

[Quicksilver]

Well heres my .02 . I think that a skiboard becomes a ski when it is too hard to control the boards without poles. What that limit is, I dont know. All I know is that if a 120cm board comes out, Im not buying it because thats not what I want. The reason I got into skiboarding is because I didnt want to have to use poles or big awkward skis. I think anything over 110cm is overkill. But I wont object to any manufacturers making any boards cause its for the better of the sport. Also, I agree that skiboarding needs to be jumpstarted, Im just not sure how to do that since everyone looks at it as a simple, easy sport.

[zenderfall]

Then if that's the case, Skiboards have one more challenge to take on before people can accept it: overcoming powder. That is a skiboard's inherent weakness.

We have no powder specific boards, some do better than others (like my BG Pros) and some say the ALP's ride powder pretty good.

Have you ever noticed the shape of a powder snowboard? It looks like a fish. Have you also noticed how skiboard is shaped? Almost like a miniature snowboard, with deep sidecuts and broad front/back. I'm sure you might by now know where I'm leading, and of course, you also realize you wouldn't want to ride a set of powder skiboards fakie either.

Perhaps not exactly like a fish, but probably more of a broad front end and higher tips. With this kind of skiboard, the choices for skiboards become complete:

Park
Carving
Woods
Backcountry
Powder

I never really believed in all-mountain anyway. All-mountains just either do ok or subpar on everything.

Just a suggestion.

[Ian.cap]

I'm all for a powder specific board and have been sketching one for some time now. Jay gets hammered with freshies, well not yet this year, and I almost bought twin tips this year because of it. I'm glad I got the ALP's instead and they do handle the pow here pretty well. I'm interested to see what the guys say when they come back from Whistler though. I also want to try the BWP's because their specs have a fatter tip like the BG's. When you say a fish like board, you're talking about Winterstick, right? If so, my friend knows the owners of Winterstick and we were actually discussing getting together about a skiboard for powder. I'm not sure if they'd be interested but it's worth a shot. I wasn't sure what a market there'd be for it either since most seem to favor terrain. I could be wrong about that. Not trying to generalize, just basing that comment on what I read here. I'm too old to get crazy in a park, but give me some dense woods and I'm all over it. POW! POW! POW!

[Quicksilver]

I never even thought about the powder side of things, being that Northeast Pa isnt exactly the powder capital of the world. That is a really good idea to make boards specific for the kind of terrain that you will be riding. I agree about the all-mountain thing also. I used to use Line X-flys as my main boards and let me tell ya, they werent exactly great at anything. So, I think the skiboarding industry(as small as it may be) should think about taking a different approach to skiboard manufacturing in the sense that all people might not be in the market for park boards or all-around boards. Instead, they should focus on making four or five different types of boards that fill all the catagories that a ridier will use them for primarily.

[kirk]

I remember someone made a swallow tail skiboard back in the day... Imperial maybe? Anyone know?

Also, wouldn't a tree, backcountry, and powder board be the same thing? I could be wrong, but I tend to see all of them as the same.

[Ian.cap]

They are pretty much the same yes, but the backcountry or powder needs a fatter board. So far of all the decks I've tried, the BG's have been the best in the woods. Just big enough to keep you on top of most powder and small enough to zip through trees with ease. Still haven't really gotten enough pow here yet to say for sure which Mix does it best. Now that Adam is in state I'm sure we'll get some good reports from him as well but I'd love to see something like the line prophet in "our size". I'd buy that in a second. I'd love to be able to make it, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

[Greco]

it was a really early canon model, like '96-'97



Originally posted by kirk
I remember someone made a swallow tail skiboard back in the day... Imperial maybe? Anyone know?

Also, wouldn't a tree, backcountry, and powder board be the same thing? I could be wrong, but I tend to see all of them as the same.

[fluxgame]

When I started this thread I was more or less aiming it at the kind of responses I saw here (http://www.sbol.ws/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?threadid=524). To me, it seemed unfair that there was so much criticism of Line for shifting their focus to twin-tips when skiboards seem to be slowly moving in that direction. Obviously this thread hasn't gone in that direction and you guys don't think skiboarding is either. After reading all the responses up here though, I think the discussion went in a much more interesting direction. Here's my take on it.

Skiboards are skis.

Before you rip me to pieces, consider that race skis, twin tips, and fatty powder skis all share the same name. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a skier devoted to any of those styles who thought the others are the same sport. The term ski is really pretty broad. So, despite that fact that form follows function, shouldn't we be focusing on the style of skiing that skiboards allow us to do? Do the ALPs have a similar function to skiboards of a more "traditional" length? Or, (to drift back to my original point) what is it that the ALPs allow you do do that can't be done on (for instance) the Chronic or Twelve Sixty?

[Ian.cap]

I was never too big into skiing but I have been inline skating since 1990 or so. When I found skiboarding in an inline catalog I got hooked. When I finally tried it in 98 I knew I found the tool to let me do all the things I dreamt of on inline that I couldn't do on skates because of friction and the other laws of physics that get you put in the hospital. For me Skiboarding feels like inline. The ALP's are the first boards that have felt pretty close to that grip feel you get on skates. I feel plugged into the snow with them on. The BG’s rock in the woods on powder days, but the handling of the ALP’s is much sweeter. And yes, SKIboards are Skis. But they ride differently than the other ski types you mentioned. Not just the in the use of poles. I Skiboard like I skate, I couldn't ski like that. I'd get killed. It is a hybrid sport. We're riding wee snowboards. It’s not the second coming, but it’s a great sport that needs some more respect. OK, it’s the second coming.

[SBtx82]

I think that Skiboards are more based on width then length. You can make a 120 or 130cm pair of boards as long as they're nice and wide. The best way to find out how long you can make a pair of boards is to test it. It would be hard to do though because you would have to get all of these longer boards made to find out how long you can go until you feel uncomfortable. It would be a real pain is the ass but its the only way to find out.

[kirk]

one of the big things to me that separates skiboards from skis is the ability to integrate inline soul tricks into them. skiboards are, in my opinion, ideal for rails, and there is a TON that you can do on rails with skiboards that would be nearly impossible on skis.

Other than that, there is a distinct feeling when riding that separates skiboards from skis. Skiboards feel more free, like skating, in general.

[Roussel]

skiboards are a type of ski i agree, but we arent accepted in the skiing community as a serious sport, so we make our own community.

[phillycore]

As a former skier, I'm inclined to agree with Ian here.
The length DOES make the difference between twin - tips and skiboards. Twin tips are getting wider and skiboards are getting longer. Eventually the two will meet somewhere in the middle. I REALLY believe that 120cm's is the MAX where you'd actually be able to skate (effectively) on skiboards. Anything longer than that starts to really decrease on the things that skiboarding allows you to do. It's that freedom and range that defines what skiboarding is. It's also the only way to truly seperate the difference between the two. Just to make you think here....
If skis were cars, and snowboards were trucks.....skiboards would be the el'camino's, subaru brats of the early days. If things don't get a seperation line of some sort you end up with what we now call the SUV.... not a car, not a truck, doesn't resemble either really....and you pretty much merge twin tips and skiboards together. Uh that would suck!!! There is obviously huge differences between the two which is why we are all here.
Let's work on getting some sort of set in stone definition.
Although we had that at one time too....

The more I think about it the more I agree that a true skiboarder doesn't need poles. (I use them, but I don't feel that I use them because I have to in order to skiboard... I use them because I feel that I have to because of my physical condition and skill level)

So a skiboard / skiboarder TO ME is...

Under 120cm's long BUT over 9.5cm's wide with twin-tips
SHOULD be symmetrical
SHOULD be 4 hole standard binding pattern
SHOULD be without poles
SHOULD be willing to grow the sport
SHOULD be willing to test their own abilities to the EXTREME


But that's just MY opinion....




Originally posted by Ian.cap
I was never too big into skiing but I have been inline skating since 1990 or so. When I found skiboarding in an inline catalog I got hooked. When I finally tried it in 98 I knew I found the tool to let me do all the things I dreamt of on inline that I couldn't do on skates because of friction and the other laws of physics that get you put in the hospital. For me Skiboarding feels like inline. The ALP's are the first boards that have felt pretty close to that grip feel you get on skates. I feel plugged into the snow with them on. The BG’s rock in the woods on powder days, but the handling of the ALP’s is much sweeter. And yes, SKIboards are Skis. But they ride differently than the other ski types you mentioned. Not just the in the use of poles. I Skiboard like I skate, I couldn't ski like that. I'd get killed. It is a hybrid sport. We're riding wee snowboards. It’s not the second coming, but it’s a great sport that needs some more respect. OK, it’s the second coming.

[zenderfall]

"Under 120cm's long BUT over 9.5cm's wide with twin-tips
SHOULD be symmetrical
SHOULD be 4 hole standard binding pattern
SHOULD be without poles
SHOULD be willing to grow the sport
SHOULD be willing to test their own abilities to the EXTREME"

I would have to say that's a good start, but so many of the good manufacturers have boards that fall out of the above *should* specs.

Snowjam 90's are not symmetrical. Line makes 4-hole NON-standard binding patterns. Longer, skinnier boards (like the old Snowjam 99) may be very hard to use without poles.

I definately agree with the last two, of course, they're not technical definates but every rider should abide by them!

I think a good start would be under 120cm length. Any longer than that would compromise the ride characteristics that a skiboard has. The question, though, since we currently do not have a production 120cm skiboard, would anyone know for *absolute sure) that that length would be too difficult to ride as a skiboard?

Of course not. But I say someone should make just 1. or 2. or 10. And send them out to the best skiboarders, and have them say *YES 120 is the longest you can go* or *hell no! 120 is TOO LONG! 110 is the definite end of a skiboard!*

I'm pretty sure that the snowboard inventors, including Jake Burton Carpenter, probably made a ton of contraptions before he established his limits. And limits, as you already found out through this thread, provide definitions-which make for a solid, respectable sport.

[valmorel]

When we start to think seriously about this kind of set up, we allways end up in the same place. Rules/specs stifle development and innovation. Last winter we probably would have said top limit 100 cm, then the ALP may never have been made, and that would be a loss to all of us.
Somehow, we know the difference between a ski and a skiboard because of how they ride, but how can we define that? We cant!

[allz]

ok, i found this : Andy Stewart interview.

With all that's going on, I have to ask this. Do you think the sport can still progress if the 99cm limit stands?

Personally I think a skiboard is under 100cm with no poles and a ski is over 100cm with poles. thats it simple as that. I don't know why companies are making longer skiboards, they aren't skiboards. Skiboarding doesn't need longer boards to progress the sport, it needs more people who will keep pushing the limits of skiboarding(under 100cm). Think that people who are going to longer boards are being lazy, on bigger boards it is a lot easier to go bigger and land, on skiboards it is harder to go big . . .

http://www.tsrealm.com/tsr4/andystewartint.php
all other text,interview !

[tommy]

Do you know if Canon has any plans of creating +99cm skiboards? if so, will you be riding long skiboards?
That is Classified, but I will let you in on the secret. As far as I know they aren't making a +99cm skiboard, they are however planing on making twin tipped skis. Look for the skis aswell as the skiboards hitting designated Shops and Online Stores like SkiboardsOnline.Com around the end of January beginning of February.

what the blimey govenor?

[Ian.cap]

Nice find!

There's also style to consider. I just got off the mountain with my ALP's. When I first got them the felt more like a ski than any other board I've tried. Again, not that it's bad, just different for me and it took some time to get comfortable. After about 10 days on them now I can say that they handle just like a Skiboard should. I could not ride a ski the way I ride a Skiboard so while there needs to be some definitions, longer may not be so bad as long as the ride stays the same. I guess the question is best answered by those who ski both Twin-Tip and Skiboards. There the only ones qualified to say where the dividing line is.

[Roussel]

i think a big point u people are forgettting is the side cut.

skiboards have small radius side cuts around 6 or 7 meters. which is what makes them so manuverable.

twin tips have radii of around 15 or 16 meters.

[valmorel]

Its still amazing how few people are aware of skiboards. I just got back from a trip, and during the week I went out group skiing on a couple of days. Only skiboarder in the group, but it generated HUGE interest. I was riding wide boards too, which allways seems to generate more interest than the typical "Snowblade" format.
It is allways the short length, manouverability, and ability to do tricks that impresses.

[allz]

""Speaking of longevity, Canon is coming out with Long tip skiis a la Line and Salomon. Right now they are only available to team riders but the evolution continues.""

this is from frontsideincfilms (http://www.frontsideincfilms.com/news/sportnews.html)

<<ok those are very OLD news, but just interesting things come out of that, some of them i never heard or red before! :eek: