Zero camber downsizing? - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 07-31-2010, 08:58 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Zero camber downsizing?

Does zero camber tech (e.g., K2 Flatline, Salomon Flat Profile, etc.) allow one to downsize board length vs. camber (for a given weight) due to the increased contact area. I guess it'll be easier to keep the nose up in pow but am wondering if performance in hardpack would be comparable to a longer, cambered board.

Thanks!
GeoFX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 07-31-2010, 11:21 PM
Veteran Member
 
Milo303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wouldn't recommend downsizing like you would with a reverse board

And I do like the edge hold of my Capita Horrorscope FK

From my experience flat tech doesnt seem to work much better in POW then regular camber. I would put it in between regular and reverse which is kind of obvious actually.

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. Thatís my religion." - Abraham Lincoln
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedition View Post
Moral of the story: If your going to rob people, wear a diaper.
Milo303 is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-01-2010, 12:24 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo303 View Post
I wouldn't recommend downsizing like you would with a reverse board

And I do like the edge hold of my Capita Horrorscope FK

From my experience flat tech doesnt seem to work much better in POW then regular camber. I would put it in between regular and reverse which is kind of obvious actually.
If the idea behind downsizing on a reverse camber board (i.e., rocker) is because of increased contact area(that results in more float for a given length vs. traditional camber)...wouldn't the same hold true for a zero cambered board?

Thanks!
GeoFX is offline  
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-01-2010, 12:42 PM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mountains
Posts: 11,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
You don't downsize with reverse camber that's just their marketing on it. Think about it you actually lose contact if you ride rocker due to the contact points being moved in from the tips. Zero camber is one giant contact point as you have nothing lifting the edges off the snow at all, think of it like a well broken in board. Ride zero camber with the size you normally would.

Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it!
BurtonAvenger is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 08:54 AM
Leo
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 6,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actually, I was under the impression that you can downside with a rocker based on float. Meaning, you will have the same amount of float with a rocker 156 as you would with a camber 161.

www.aGNARchy.com Reviews and David Z's rants
Leo is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 09:33 AM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo View Post
Actually, I was under the impression that you can downside with a rocker based on float. Meaning, you will have the same amount of float with a rocker 156 as you would with a camber 161.
I think the idea is that if you're talking about powder riding, then yes, you can afford to downsize. If you're talking about everyday riding than you probably don't want to (as BurtonAvenger said, it makes sense that you wouldn't since the contact area has decreased).
Snowfox is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 07:36 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtonAvenger View Post
You don't downsize with reverse camber that's just their marketing on it. Think about it you actually lose contact if you ride rocker due to the contact points being moved in from the tips. Zero camber is one giant contact point as you have nothing lifting the edges off the snow at all, think of it like a well broken in board. Ride zero camber with the size you normally would.
I thought the reverse camber downsizing guidelines was because of increased float too. Yes, cambered boards have contact points longer than reverse camber boards for a given length but I thought "float" was a function of contact area, not two points along the effective edge(like a cambered board). Rocker boards and zero camber boards would have more contact area vs. cambered boards.

Isn't increased contact area a good thing for all conditions (including powder and hardpack)?

Thanks!
GeoFX is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 07:44 PM
Veteran Member
 
Milo303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It is because of float, and imo it's partly true

You can't go downsizing a ton but you can loose a couple clicks

The reverse boards just allow for easier float in the sense that it require as much leaning back to get the nose up

It's not really about surface area.... Just that more of the board is pointed up instead of just the very tips of the board

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. Thatís my religion." - Abraham Lincoln
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedition View Post
Moral of the story: If your going to rob people, wear a diaper.
Milo303 is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 08:07 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milo303 View Post
It is because of float, and imo it's partly true

You can't go downsizing a ton but you can loose a couple clicks

The reverse boards just allow for easier float in the sense that it require as much leaning back to get the nose up

It's not really about surface area.... Just that more of the board is pointed up instead of just the very tips of the board
Sounds reasonable to me for both alternative camber types with respect to float. Also, the increased surface area for both reverse camber and zero cambered boards should allow for easier turn initiation in all conditions.
GeoFX is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 08-02-2010, 08:48 PM
Veteran Member
 
linvillegorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Evergreen, CO
Posts: 8,638
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Well, I know my 158 Evo-R doesn't come anywhere close to providing the float that my cambered 160 Heritage does. 12" or less and it doesn't matter, but I'm reaching for the Heritage everytime on knee deep plus days.
linvillegorge is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome