phile00

Firstly, It was my impression that the majority of pro snowboarders still ride cambered boards. So which riders at what companies actually use these newly designed bases while in competition? With all these newly applied base theories out on the market, I'd be interested to know what the pros really prefer behind closed doors.

Regarding all of the new bases, each company has their own take on rocker, rocker with camber, camber with rocker at the tip and tail, flat, and any combination in between. When you add different sidecuts and different flex profiles the variables increase. I feel like there are a crippling amount of choices out there and it sucks because demo days are far and few between for most of us, and on top of that there is a huge lack of board reviews out there. And because most board reviewers aren't engineers, the conditions are variable, and the equipment attached to the board is different, I feel like the board reviews start to glom together in one big mass of confusion and cluelessness. And that's not a knock on reviewers, it's just that there's too many variables regarding conditions and technology and the choices are too similar.

The real solution is to be able to demo all boards

Shocktroop531

It's all about the power of the banana for me. last season, I rode a Lib Tech for the first time, and I was immediately a changed man. I'll never go back to straight up cambered.

Qball

As an example, Travis Rice never used the normal banana tech and stuck with camber (with magne traction) until he switched over to the new C2 banana shape.

My favorite shape is the rocker/camber like C2 and never summer's RC tech. Try not to get caught up in the all the buzz words these companies throw around, a lot of the stuff is more marketing than it is function.

I don't think it sucks that there are so many different options out there though. Variety is a good thing and you just have to learn how to weed out the bullshit.

phile00

I own a Neversummer EVO-R and a Bataleon Goliath. Both great boards. I'm definitely a fan of NS's RC tech. There are two board techs I really haven't tried yet, and they are flat and camber between the bindings, rocker outside (like YES boards, and to a more mellow degree Ride boards, and the like).

From a philosophical standpoint, I honestly thing that too many choices can be crippling for a consumer. Check out this TED talk on the Paradox of Choice. It's pretty compelling. Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice | Video on TED.com

BurtonAvenger

Someone fails to do research.

__________________
Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it!

Roundabout136

Check out my review of the 2010 skate banana in the review section.

The new technology's kick ass. Jump on it.

JoeR

I get to post this lovely thing again:

JoeR

That would be the best of all possible worlds (well, almost the best -- the time invested would be a huge transaction cost ) -- but the question is, how can you make an informed decision without demoing all, or maybe even any, boards?

Btw, I think a lot can be learned from reviews, if you focus on the most thorough ones and then extract their common elements. As a Ride buyer, I will say that Mr. Tidbit's reviews on the Ride Nation forum are extremely helpful. Not only does he describe the characteristics of the boards in great detail, but he posts photos of the actual terrain/snow conditions he and his wife ride on the boards being reviewed, and has even posted GPS read-outs showing his downhill speed.

The crucial first step in choosing among the bewildering variety of camber options is to RULE STUFF OUT. You don't need to consider everything carefully. Don't be stymied by the quest for the "perfect" board; it doesn't exist. Limit your more in-depth consideration to a few options that you reasonably believe will be suitable, and the task is much more manageable. In my case, I eliminated many potential options right away, just to cut the project down to size:

• traditional camber -- I was coming from a camber board, so I wanted something different.
• pure rocker -- For my all-mountain/freeriding needs, this wouldn't have been suitable.
• eccentric designs -- Single-company specialties such as Flying-V and Triple Base Technology may be very nice, but I wasn't inclined to be experimental when putting up my own money.

This left me with two major groups of boards: flat or cambered in the middle with rocker on the outside, and rockered at the middle with camber on the outside. I chose to focus on the former group because I thought it would present the easiest, most predictable and comfortable transition from a regular camber board. I narrowed my search to a small group of 4-5 boards with similar tech, so I never felt adrift in a sea of choices. Someone else could have applied different limiting principles and arrived at a completely different set of final options. The key is not to flinch when restricting your choices.

wrathfuldeity

Newbs and intermediate don't know...thus at the mercy of others.

Experts and pros select the board to match what they want to do and the presenting conditions/terrain with knowledge that there are often some compromises; and adjust their technique to take advantage of the design and when there are compromises.

Personally, a twin cambered, mag with medium flex...covers alot of bases

__________________

Shocktroop531

I wish I had the money to be able to have many different boards for different conditions. I'd love to try that Travis Rice Banana Hammock (full rocker) board on a deep pow day. but the thing would be worthless on non pow days