effective edge compared to length for a non-pow board
 

ive done a search and couldnt find the answer to my question but when looking at a non-powder board, can you look at effective edge instead of overall length?

while there are boards of similar length their effective edges may differ alot, or boards of different lengths can have very similar effective edges.

im wondering when ignoring the float from the overall size of the board, can one look to the effective edge to choose a board? how would a board with a smaller overall size but larger effective edge compare to a larger board with a smaller effective edge or similar effective edges but differing lengths? any insight would be appreciated.

I don't think you've got a lot to worry about, most non-pow boards are of a similar shape so the effective edge doesn't differ greatly. I know with rocker skis it's an issue as the weighting is based in the center of the ski, but snowboards are different.

There are some decks with blunted tips that mean you can ride them a bit shorter because the edges are pushed closer to the tips because of the shape, but I don't think anyone really goes into exactly how long the edges are. More like, oh, the tips are blunted, maybe i'll go for a 155 rather than a 159 or something.

Yes, if you are riding outside of the park (where overall swing weight is more of a factor)... effective edge is more important than overall length as that is going to be the dominant factor in how the board "feels" when you are actually riding on the snow - it's like how wide your tires would be on a racetrack.

Boards with blunted tips like (like my Proto CT 154) often have effective edges that make them ride like board 2-3 cm longer (in an extreme case my old Jipan 150 had the same effective edge of a 155 board). The drawback to having blunted nose is that board isn't as good riding up and over cruddy snow and also staying a float in powder (although reverse camber helps riding in powder and is often compensates for this)

Now I add the caveat that manufacturers vary a little in how they report effective edge.

Board specs should show the effective edge or contact length. For example, Lib Tech shows the contact length on their specs. A blunted TRice 157 has a contact length of 121 while the 157 skunk ape has 117 and the 161 skunk ape has 121....so it may be correct to assume the 157 TRice carves similar to the skink ape, all other things being equal.

However, I don't know if other things like flex are also affected by the board size...i.e. a smaller length will feel softer even though the contact length is the same :dunno:

Good point. My previous comment is with the caveat "all others things being equal" and that is almost never true.

Here's my basic gross simplification

Long board length, short effective edge (like my Never Summer Summit) will turn on the snow like a much shorter board, the big nose will blast through cruddy snow and float well in powder. Drawback is higher swing weight (so spins over 360 are going to be harder... note I specifically say spins OVER 360... if someone talks about swing weight for just a 180... then they are not very good park riders and are doing them wrong).

Shorter board length, long effective edge... low swing weight (easier spins), but still have more control and stability at speed and on steep. Drawback is that the board will not ride over cruddy snow as easily (longer nose soaks up the shock a bit) and also will be more likely to submarine into deep powder.

thanks for all the info. when i bought my first board i just kind of looked for something long enough that wasnt super expensive. now that im really looking into board specs and looking for a certain style board, there is so much more information clouding any decision. i was looking at the NS line and how on their freestyle boards, the effective edge is larger than other boards i was looking at that were 3+cm longer. i was looking to go no smaller than 162/163 but lets say i grabbed a NS 160, would i have problems in a couple inches of fresh snow? ive never ridden in powder and cant imagine that faceplanting from the nose diving would be much fun, so im just wondering if this type of thing is a problem in a small amout of powder. ill be able to ride my much longer board i have now if i make it into the powder.

No, you will not have problems riding a Never Summer in a few inches of snow. As I mentioned, I was grossly simplifying the issue, how the nose is "curled" upward is important too... and Never Summer (among other companies) has it figured out. I have a Never Summer Proto CT 154 and it was fine in snow 6-8 inches deep.

It mostly happens when you are riding over a foot of fresh of snow and you get some air over a drop or a mound of windblown powder... if you shift you weight too far forward you will land like my friend in this video. It's actually not very painful to flip in the powder... the problem is that it is very difficult, tiring to get back up afterwards as your body is stuck in what feels like quicksand (you board can be buried under a lot of heavy snow and your arms just plunge through the snow so it is hard to push yourself up).

im 6'5" 250 right now, recently started working out and dropped about 10 lbs already and hopeing to get down to 225-230 by next season. this is my issue is i didnt want to go below 163 because i feel thats about as small as i could feasibly go down to. however im having trouble finding freestyle, true twin boards that size let alone larger. but in terms of effective edge, the NS boards are much closer to the 168w ride antic than the 163 boards ive been looking at

even the 166w gnu riders choice has a smaller effective edge than the proto or revolver

As snowolf said, i prefer longer boards tham most people and snowolf prefer slightly shorter than normal (we just have different preferences). Among other things I really like laid out carved turns (usually less dynamic)... where as snowolf likes.more dynamic skidded turns.

I had a friend who is 6'7" 220 with size 15 boots switch from a nitro natural 170 to a never summer legacy 166 (wide version of sl) and he loves it and rode in the 8-10 inches of fresh snow (storm total was 60 inches) last week. I actually tried to get him on 163 wide but he thought the length change would be too much to grt used to.

What size boots do you have?