phile00

Last season I rode the Nitro Sub Pop, The Bataleon Goliath, and the Never Summer EVO-R.

The Nitro had rocker betwen the bindings and camber under foot. Even with REALLY detuned edges for dedicated park riding, I was surprised I didn't die going through chop and sketchy conditions considering the noodley nature of the board. I attributed it to the base shape. I also rode the NS EVO-R, which has RC tech of course. It's similar to the Nitro, but the camber is more after the bindings rather than underneath. I didn't detune the edges on the EVO, but I felt the same way. It handled great everywhere considering it's a park deck. It handled better than the Sub Pop for obvious reasons but I took it out on some harder terrain and it did get kind of sketchy in chop, but nothing I couldn't handle. Just had to speed check at times unfortunately. EDIT: This is just my experience with these particular rocker shapes last season and how I think these shapes may be beneficial in general, and is not a comment on said boards being "quiver killers".

YES! was one of the few companies aside from Rossignol to have camber under foot, and rocker at the nose and tail. It's a tech I've yet to try out, but it's compelling because camber helps transfer energy, not just for pop, but for good carving performance. And the rocker at tip and tail makes it more catch free.

Companies like K2 and Ride are using little or no camber with slight rockers at the tip and tail. I'm curious about this shape and I'd really like to demo a board with this tech. Specifically the k2 Parkstar and Slayblade and the Ride DH2.4 and Machete. I've read some reviews and something about the flatter designs just doesn't seem optimal to me. Carbon stringers or rods might make up for the lack of pop, but I don't see how it will make up for equal carving performance when compared to a cambered deck. When the deck is unweighted as you're transitioning from edge to edge, that energy from camber flexing up and down is lost on a flat deck. The obvious problem with camber is that it makes a deck more catchy

Honestly when all is said and done I'd hedge my bets on designs such as the Hybrid Prorize, Camrock, and TBT since they have some form of traditional camber under foot. As I said though, I'm real curious about these flat and mostly flat designs.

Anyone who has ridden boards with the different base shapes mentioned please chime in with your thoughts. In the end it's really just the boarder, but these technologies are making boards more specialized rather than more convergent obviously. k2 pretty much switched to camberless decks. Is flat really the quiver killer design?

linvillegorge

I really like NS's RC camber, but IMO, the Evo is the wrong board for an attempted quiver killer. I'd look more to the SL or Heritage for that. I love my Evo, but like you said, it's going to buck you around pretty good in chop. Nothing that can't be handled, but if I was looking for a do everything stick, I'd go with something a tad stiffer.

Triple8Sol

You're oversimplifying things. Alternative rocker shapes aren't the only thing effecting the ride quality. Board length/width, flex, dampness, sidecut radius, etc... all play a factor. I've owned an NS Evo and Nitro TG, and neither felt "sketchy" to me. They aren't great in chop/crud because they're softer and less damp boards, and not made for that. Assuming that another tech is better, when you haven't tried it, seems pretty asinine.

__________________
14 NeverSummer Proto HD . 13 Never Summer Cobra . 12 Gnu Rider's Choice C2PTX
14 Now Drive . 13 Now IPO
13 NB x 686 580

phile00

If it sounded like I was painting it as a quiver killer, I wasn't. I just threw my experience with base shapes up top.


This is obvious, but board length/width/flex/dampness/sidecut are things that are pretty cut and dry. The jury isn't out on base shapes yet, and I believe it's the last piece in the formula for making a true quiver killer. I figured maybe people understood that I understood that as I wrote this post. And as I'll point out again, I know the EVO isn't made for riding in chop and whatnot.

My assumptions aren't asinine, they are simply educated guesses. I have yet to demo/own a flat board, or a camrock type board and I've expressed that I'm interested in trying them. I make no claim as to what does and doesn't work in my OP. It's just a post asking people's impressions and me taking a stab at what I think makes sense, so calm down there killer. EDIT: Notice my choice in words "I'd hedge my bets on..." I think maybe you misinterpreted the tone of my post. My apologies if I didn't articulate myself properly, or I've offended you in some way.

BurtonAvenger

It's a snowboard it goes down a hill. I've owned or ridden everything you're talking about each has pros and cons. I still stick to 90% rider 10% equipment.

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

phile00

Not gonna argue with that. It's definitely the truth, but it's something to talk about while I sit here waiting to ride I wish I lived closer than an hour-thirty from a mountain, but I own a business. Base designs intrigue me for some reason since they really do change an very old design.

All bullshit aside I have a few snowboards and I find it really annoying. My goliath pretty much does what I need it to do, bindings centered. That said, I wish burton would license out their channel and EST system. I'd love to be able to set my bindings back for pow runs and double diamond runs with the same ease the EST system allows. I've never actually used it, but it looks really quick when you want to make a change. I think that would end my search. But I've never been comfortable in Burton bindings, although I think they make great boards.

BurtonAvenger

FUCK EST you'll love it till the damn thing slides on you. Saw some crazy prototype stuff this past weekend at the Dewsh Tour with silicon injected impact plates totally fucking weird. That shit if it takes off is going to change the way people look at boards.

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

binarypie

I ride really fucking hard and have never had a single problem with EST.

Perhaps you are either over torquing or under torquing the bolts?

__________________

phile00

Yeah, the possibility of it sliding seems sketchy as fuck, but man it would be so sweet to be able to give myself setback that quickly. As I said, I'm not a fan of being forced to don a proprietary all Burton setup.

To speak very broadly, the future evolution of board design is when you can have one board that can literally adapt to any condition. Key word there is adapt, rather than just "put up with".

That's tech you mention sounds pretty sweet. What's the main benefit it?

phile00

Interesting. If people like yourself ride really hard and never experience problems, perhaps the problem isn't EST and The Channel tech, rather, it's the variability in its manufacturing process. This would explain why some people swear by and some people hate it. You have to admit, as BA said, something like this only needs to fail once to be scary or even catastrophic.