Is there a big difference between the two? From what I have seen SBX boards tend to have longer SCRs, they have rounder noses (I believe there was some rule in SBX racing that prohibits hammerhead shape SBX boards). Maybe stiffer so they can absorb landings better?
Just wondering if y'all have felt any noticeable difference with SBX boards. If they are just carving boards with larger SCR then that's not that big of a deal
Just wondering if y'all have felt any noticeable difference with SBX boards. If they are just carving boards with larger SCR
Exellent question!
Let's look at alpine race boards versus freecarve boards first because there's at least one very important difference. Racers don't want to finish their turns, they want to be in the fall as much as the gate placement will permit. Freecarvers want to maximize g-force and control their speed with the shape of the carve. Right? My goal is to achieve a certain feeling and a near perfect track, the racer's goal is to finish the course as fast as possible. So the requirements for the boards are very different. Different turn shapes are desired, but especially at the end of the turn.
For SBX specifically, the boards are narrower with longer sidecuts. These guys don't want high edge angles because that will slow them down and turn too tightly, so they don't need the width that a freecarver does to reduce boot drag. They need the stability of a long sidecut and the stiffness for speed, but they also need enough flex to get through the whoop-dee-doos at the start of the courses and get out ahead of the competition.
High performance soft boot freecarve boards are designed to finish their turns and to achieve high edge angles. The extra width is there to reduce boot drag at these high angles.
So no @skoonk, don't buy a BX board for freecarving unless you have tiny feet and won't drag your boots on a 260mm waist.
It is my personal opinion that some of these boards marketed for freecarving are just detuned race boards, particularly among the fancy European brands. My feeling is that they don't put much effort in R+D for freecarving designs and that their main board testers are racers, who don't freecarve in the same way that we do (I say this without any good evidence, sorry). That's why I started working with builders like JJA, Coiler, Exegi and Trench Snowboards; I wasn't satisfied with what was available, it wasn't just about the width. I suspect that some of the top Asian brands are doing much more R+D because there's more competition there amongst the top brands and carving is much more common than in the West. But their needs are different too because their riding styles are different. I don't need to test a 260mm waist Ogaska to know that I'm gonna boot it out on anything steeper than mid blue runs. I don't want to run 45/33 degrees because I feel like I lose the advantages and versatility of the soft boot stance, and I don't want to retract my knees at initiation because I find it slows me down too much and I lose momentum that I could be using to build g-force. These are just my personal preferences and opinions, but I like my soft boot carving boards extra wide.
I'm just slaying...
This question came up in conversation with Jasey the other day and there's another huge factor to consider that I didn't mention last time.
It's grip. SBX boards aren't nearly as grippy as freecarve boards, and intentionally so. Grippy boards are slower, not ideal for racing but highly desirable for freecarving. Not the slowness in particular but the extra grip. This grip makes the boards more forgiving so they'll stay in the carve and allow the rider to express themselves through their body positions and movements, adding some elements of style. A less grippy board will demand more precise technique and leave less room to diverge from it.
Additionally, freecarve boards will have a tighter average sidecut radius than SBX race boards generally, though expert freecarvers in soft snow with lots of room might enjoy a big sidecut too.
I'm just slaying...
@wild-cherry You've talked about "grip" multiple times, but what really goes into it? I know effective edge plays a huge role just through sheer surface area, but a lot of people swear by Mervin's breadknife-esque wavy edges, saying it cuts better and offers more grip (I'm personally skeptical but I've never actually ridden a Mervin board)
Also, SBX boards aren't particularly shorter than freecarve boards so there must be something more to it than effective edge.
"Shut up Tyler"
@emilecantin yeah, you're right. A lot does go into grip. Titanal, for example, adds a ton of grip, but it slows the board down too. Different resins yield different levels of grip too, again trading off with speed. Jasey has a million secret methods of adding grip to a design and finding the optimal balance for a particular application.
Magnatraction is a gimmick. It will grip better than the same board without magnatraction but only when you're sliding down an icy slope perpendicular to the fall line and trying to stop. It won't help when carving, and it's so difficult to sharpen these wavy edges by hand. Those people that "swear by it" are not experienced carvers, and what they mean by "grip" is not quite the same thing.
"Grip" is actually a complex concept and something I'm only beginning to understand. Think of it this way, even if it's only a simplified analogy: a gripper board will sink deeper into the surface which makes carving easier but also displaces more snow and thereby slows down the rider. To hold maximum speed through a turn you wouldn't want to be sinking in so deep, but you don't want to be slarving either, which also displaces snow and loses energy to friction. So it's a very delicate balance for racing and highly dependent on the surface conditions too. A racer might want a less grippy board for the first run of a PGS, but then more grip for the second run when the course is all rutted out and they need to hold the edge through the roughness.
The JJA C4/ Big SB G4 is a very high grip design and construction, highly suitable for freecarving but too slow for high level competitive racing.
I'm just slaying...
Mervin's breadknife-esque wavy edges,
I haven't been on one either... but the lasagne camber also puts the waves in the other dimension, which probably improves grip at lower edge angles (the magnetraction itself will stick out at higher edge angles).
I had a Rossignol with magnetraction, traditional camber underfoot & rocker in the tips. It did grip really well on ice. Rather than spreading your weight over the entire effective edge, it's concentrating it at various points that can dig in. But it just wasn't as smooth carving and frozen corduroy sounded like a zipper.
Now my 'ice' board is a Niche Maelstrom, which just has traction bumps by the inserts. I really like this in icy conditions as it brings some more traction underfoot. Some boards that have sharp contact points will really dig in at the tip & tail. If those loose traction it can be really unsettling... partly because they're way out there and have leverage over you, and partly because there's only one other strong contact for grip. It's a bit like Subaru AWD... one contact slips, but you've still got 3 others that grip.
I think early board designs really focused on getting pressure out to the tips. Some of those contact points really dug in. Now a lot of boards will have some early-rise, flat spots, or even rocker in the tips... along with much smoother contacts (reverse sidecut at the tips). Some even have a digressive sidecut, where the SCR opens up at the tips for smoother engagement.
But yes, Effective Edge rules. The C4 is the only board that I've dragged my butt on. Torsional stability is solid, but dampening vibrations really helps it hold a line as well. It just powers through shit, rather than getting bucked off course.
The hammer heads do have limitations in choppy terrain though, as they can dig more than you'd like (I have a Freecarver 6000 as well). I think they inherently run a bit of a speed deficit... whereas something like a Korua is built to glide at lower pitches and not necessarily 'finish' your turn either. These were designed by a previous F1 Snowboard engineer. My Korua Trenchdigger prefers to race down the fall line and the basic construction can be limiting if you want to turn it across a steep hill (it just doesn't hold the tail pressure). It's made to change direction but then keep on moving.
The 6000 gets a bad rap from some freecarvers and I get it. The turn radius is fairly consistent as you really don't want to tighten it up. It's not carving different arcs in the snow. But there's some interesting engineering in there that makes it work. Obviously the C4/G4 has some unique engineering as well. What I find surprising is that while both are very grippy, neither one feels overly locked in. With the C4 I can stivot and slarve if I need to (like when I try to follow James on the Revi steeps). I'm not sure why that is. The 6000 has some 3D which probably helps. I think the C4/G4 is just really good at spreading the force over the entire effective edge, so it's not like one contact is biting really hard (and doesn't abruptly step out if you loosen grip).
Big White, BC, Canada
The hammer heads do have limitations in choppy terrain though, as they can dig more than you'd like
Well, I have buried my C4 in soft snow a couple times...
My understanding is that torsional stiffness in the tip and tail is also a big component of grip, but @wild-cherry brings up a good point regarding how deep the board digs into the snow. One would think that shape has a much bigger impact on this than resin type.
I'm actually confused on how resin type and board construction would affect grip. The impact on stiffness / flex patterns is obvious, and maybe vibration dampening too, but I struggle to see how it would affect it otherwise.
I understand there are some trade secrets involved, but I'm a curious man 😉
"Shut up Tyler"
One would think that shape has a much bigger impact on this than resin type.
One would think this yes, however... Jasey has made me multiple boards in the same shape but different constructions and it has blown my mind! Most of the C4 protos were in the same shape for example, but the ride characteristics were wildly different. I was amazed and enlightened, having assumed previously that shape was the most important factor.
But yeah, Jasey knows from experience which resins are suitable for race boards and which for freecarving, which are best for intermediate and advanced carvers, and which the experts and elite level carvers want. And it's not just the resins, the entire construction needs to be in harmony with the specific resin, and of course the shape, for the highest performance.
This is next level board design. I've picked up a few things from Jasey but mostly what I've learned is that I know nothing and should just step aside and let him do the designing... I do some testing and feedback to him in words and video, but I would never assume to tell him how to make the board better, I only describe how I want it to feel different, and he figures out how to achieve that.
As soon as I described the ride characteristics that I wanted for the C4/G4, he went back to some old notes and was able to nail it with some designs and constructions that he had previously tested and found unsuitable for racing because they might have been too slow, or too grippy, or too slarvy. I was basically trying to match the feel of a Coiler Contra and I was talking about shape, but he had already spoken at length with Bruce about the Contra and had some very different ideas about how to best accomplish the Contra's intent. The Contra works too, but achieves it's ride characteristics (slow, forgiving, slarvy, easy to transition between carve and skid and back again without too much chatter, and easy on the body) with very different methodology, shape and construction.
For 2026 Big Snowboards is offering five different constructions in the same shapes to achieve the feel that the rider wants without needing to go to full custom shapes. Jasey can do this because his understanding of board design is so far beyond most other manufacturers'. 30 years of racing at the highest levels, working with all the best builders of the time, always trying to shave a few milliseconds here and there will inform a person...
With the C4 I can stivot and slarve if I need to (like when I try to follow James on the Revy steeps). I'm not sure why that is.
Me neither! But he did it without using the Contra shape.
I'm just slaying...
