Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums banner
41 - 60 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
I think for truly deep you need to size up the EA. I sized up from the 154 156 cm sizes I usually ride to a 158 archetype. The taper makes the back foot narrower so I can see if I was on a 154 cm archetype yeah I may need more float. I couldn’t find the waist width on Korua’s site to compare specs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think short-fats have people thinking you should downsize on all powder boards. More traditional powder boards were generally sized up. I love my Tailgunner 166, and I'm sure part of that is just how big that board is. Float comes from displacement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
I think short-fats have people thinking you should downsize on all powder boards. More traditional powder boards were generally sized up. I love my Tailgunner 166, and I'm sure part of that is just how big that board is. Float comes from displacement.
Agreed, I went 160w for my archetype over the 164 to get maximum total surface area/displacement, the size of the nose is my guess on why I don’t run into submarine issues, I would definitely recommend sizing up/going wide with the archetype

also love my 166 Tailgunner, tremendous deck though I have found the AE floats a tad better for me
 

·
Registered
korua dart/ride twinpig
Joined
·
3 Posts
I bought a Korua Dart this season so deepest ive been in is about 10 to 12 inches but I love everything about it so far. really nice on hard pack for charging and carving and perfect in the powder so far. I have not tried going crazy fast in powder yet tho.I also find it supprisingly good on side hits wich is not the reason I bought the board at all. you can't go wrong with a dart.

but, I have never tried an archetype. hopes this helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
Agreed, I went 160w for my archetype over the 164 to get maximum total surface area/displacement, the size of the nose is my guess on why I don’t run into submarine issues, I would definitely recommend sizing up/going wide with the archetype

also love my 166 Tailgunner, tremendous deck though I have found the AE floats a tad better for me
Yeah, there's no replacement for displacement. It's interesting you're getting more float from the EA- wouldn't have guessed that. Guess it's not too surprising given the tail, but that board really looks like a modified twin to me. What's it like riding hardpack and chunder with the EA slammed back? Any strangeness with the sidecut arise? Have you tried slamming the TG back? I think I'm a little behind the reference stance, but I've never slammed it all the way back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Wood Input device Mouse Table Composite material

Wood Automotive design Flooring Floor Material property

Hood Wood Bumper Automotive design Rim

Reposting it again. My Archetype 160W vs CR 159 (Dart 156 geometry) I used to own (now I keep the CR 164). It’s not about volume/surface, that is fine with the 160W at 195 lbs, but that short cambered nose with the low upkick.
I keep both the Archetype and the CR for various conditions/riding styles/mood but for a deep pow I’d always pick the CR over the Archetype.

The K2 SP mentioned here also outfloats the Archetype, zero nose-diving issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
Yeah, there's no replacement for displacement. It's interesting you're getting more float from the EA- wouldn't have guessed that. Guess it's not too surprising given the tail, but that board really looks like a modified twin to me. What's it like riding hardpack and chunder with the EA slammed back? Any strangeness with the sidecut arise? Have you tried slamming the TG back? I think I'm a little behind the reference stance, but I've never slammed it all the way back.
To start I prefer backfoot driving, it’s why the step back rocker on my moss maybe my favorite powder/snow surf profile. I say that because the archetypes deep swallow and my propensity to want to lean back match well for float.

In regards to when I have the AE slammed and want to carve I’ll lean my weight forward to activate the front contact points for longer carves and stay back as I prefer right s carves and slashing 180 degrees slarves.

* I always ride with a multi tool and will move my bindings midday as things rut out, that said if I’m in 18 or less inches of pow the archetype floats me great while staying at reference

In regards to the tail gunner the float is also tremendous, I ride it one set of bolt holes back from reference, we are in a dry spell so I’m thinking of going to reference and seeing how it rides. I love the stability of the tail gunner on top of its float, heavy set back freeride decks are my favorite go to stick and the signals 166/273 sizing is fantastic for our west days. If signal ever takes the nose of the WoW and puts it on the Tailgunner it may become my perfect quiver of one deck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,744 Posts
I think short-fats have people thinking you should downsize on all powder boards. More traditional powder boards were generally sized up. I love my Tailgunner 166, and I'm sure part of that is just how big that board is. Float comes from displacement.
Only on boats. Float on snowboards or skis comes from normal force.
 

·
Premium Member
Endeavor BOD, Fix Magnum, Burton Driver X
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
Just found an interesting article: Simulation of a snow avalanche model test using computational fluid dynamics | Annals of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

the experiments confirmed that the viscous behavior of fluidized snow is similar to that in the Bingham model. Therefore, fluidized snow can be treated as a Bingham fluid.
It was fluidized snow, or moving snow like in an avalanche, not riding over stationary snow. Interesting nonetheless! I recall you pointed out that fluid dynamics doesn't work for snow on a similar thread.

Sorry, don't want to take this down a rabbit hole... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,744 Posts
Just found an interesting article: Simulation of a snow avalanche model test using computational fluid dynamics | Annals of Glaciology | Cambridge Core



It was fluidized snow, or moving snow like in an avalanche, not riding over stationary snow. Interesting nonetheless! I recall you pointed out that fluid dynamics doesn't work for snow on a similar thread.

Sorry, don't want to take this down a rabbit hole... ;)
Fluid dynamics describes the flow of liquids and gasses, but could probably be applied on solids like sand and snow in some cases. It’s just not what produces the lift on a snowboard. The lift comes from packing enough snow under the board to produce a normal force equal to the downwards force. So if anything you'd want to have reversed 3D hulls that funnels snow in under your board... not away from it :D

Shouldn’t float come from surface area of the board?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely, we're just fooling around because of some old posts about 3D hull shapes on snowboards. Surface area gives us float. Displacement is really used in fluid dynamics and Archimedes principle and such.
 

·
Premium Member
Endeavor BOD, Fix Magnum, Burton Driver X
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
The lift comes from packing enough snow under the board to produce a normal force equal to the downwards force. So if anything you'd want to have reversed 3D hulls that funnels snow in under your board... not away from it :D
That makes a lot of sense!

C'mon NS, make a reverse 3D triple-cambered deck?! :D
 
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
Top