Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

Skiboards

Info, conditions and gear related to skiing or riding Colorado Peaks, including the 14ers! Ski/Ride Trip Reports
User avatar
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:01 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Skiboards

Postby Eaglevu » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:52 pm

After seeing Karhu's skiboards for sale in MountainGear catalog, I decided to surf the web for other brands. Found these interesting sights:

http://www.skiboarding.org
http://www.skiboards.com

Anybody ever use these things? How do they perform in the backcountry and above timberline? How is the weight? How much weight can they support?
-Eaglevu
(Member of the "EVEREST IS TOO D_MN HIGH!" party.)

User avatar
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:59 pm
Location: Denver

Postby Lane Meyer » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:07 pm

There's a joke about these things...

What's the hardest part of snowblading?



Telling your parents you're gay.




Sorry if that offends anyone. :D
This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?

User avatar
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Trento, Italy

Postby bustaheel » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:28 pm

I'd guess no floatation, there's no way to release. Pretty much worthless for anything but messing around on the bunny hill.
Probably nowhere but in Boulder would one encounter strippers who spend there vacations trekking in Nepal.

User avatar
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: Golden

Postby Carl » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:01 pm

That skiboarding.org site pretty much sums it up...

"It is easy to do, less expensive than conventional snowriding equipment, allows you to ride faster with more control, is totally fun and turns the entire mountain into your personal playground from the first day."

If you want to ski much better than you actually can, and are not concerned about image, at all, or that most people, and at some point even you, will think you're cheating and look like an idiot, go for it. I encourage many of my out of town guests to use a couple pairs of these I have lying around - they have fun and I don't have to stick to the groomers.

In powder, lean back or be prepared to roll forward.

User avatar
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:01 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Postby Eaglevu » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:21 am

What turns me on about these skiis is there size and functionality. I am going to China, next year, to climb Muztagh Ata. The highest, longest ski run in the world. This kind of ski could get me down any type of snow (mashed potato, boilerplate, etc.)., and work just like a snowshoe on the accent. And at <130cm, it would fit perfectly in my duffle bag during the voyage between home and basecamp.
-Eaglevu
(Member of the "EVEREST IS TOO D_MN HIGH!" party.)

User avatar
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Nidderdale, North Yorkshire

Postby pvnisher » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:51 pm

I bought a pair of them in college because I couldn't afford real skis and bindings. Got the skiblades w/bindings for $80 or so. Skied on them exclusively for 1.5 years.
I was a beginner when I got them and they were a lot easier to use than the longer skis I had been renting. It definitely sped up my learning curve. Plus, I ended up having a lot of fun with them because you can turn so fast, slide sideways, etc.
You don't have super speed, that's for sure. And they seem to be a little unstable, but then they're so maneuverable that you're in control. It's a little different but pretty easy.
And since the edges are short they aren't fabulous on hard ice, but on everything else (powder included) you can get by. Just lean back in powder. As far as being easy to transport, big plus over regular length skis!

How were you going to use them as snowshoes??

User avatar
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Denver

Postby CarolinaGirl » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:24 pm

this will be my first winter here so i've never gotten to ski in colorado snow before.. but i've owned a pair for the last few years skiing out in west virginia and north carolina and i loved them. i know they're probably a joke out here, and long skis definately have their advantages over the skiboards, but i do have to say that i have a really fun day on my skiboards- turning in those things is just a blast. it just depends what you want to do with them, they're not gonna be that great in deep powder.
'From the highest of heights to the depths of the sea
Creation's revealing Your majesty...'

User avatar
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:01 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Postby Eaglevu » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:00 am

pvnisher wrote:How were you going to use them as snowshoes??


The ones that Karhu sells ('Meta' & 'Karver') come with climbing skin material mounted into the bottom, like the old style XC skiis use to. If a particular brand or model doesn't have it, you can buy the strap/stick-on skins for them.

I am hearing the term 'snowblades'. I think there is a difference between -blades and -boards. Blades are under 90cm and boards are 90-130cm. I have seen people use snowblades (or 'bigfoots') at the resorts. Since I am a stocky 6'0" blue/black skier, I would have a hard time staying upright on them. Skiboards look more stable.

FYI - Looking at the current trend in alpine skiis, it would appear that short and fat is the way to go.
-Eaglevu
(Member of the "EVEREST IS TOO D_MN HIGH!" party.)

User avatar
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:59 pm
Location: Denver

Postby Lane Meyer » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:31 am

Eaglevu wrote:I am hearing the term 'snowblades'. I think there is a difference between -blades and -boards. Blades are under 90cm and boards are 90-130cm. I have seen people use snowblades (or 'bigfoots') at the resorts. Since I am a stocky 6'0" blue/black skier, I would have a hard time staying upright on them. Skiboards look more stable.

FYI - Looking at the current trend in alpine skiis, it would appear that short and fat is the way to go.


The names are interchangeable. From about.com: Snowblades are short shaped skis, typically 90-130cm, and are also called skiboards. Snowblades use traditional bindings, so you can use your own boots to ski with them.

I think that Salomon called theirs snowblades, and that's probably why it's a common name for them.

Not to knock the posters that use them (really, no offense meant), but look at where they're using them....both Virignia skiers using them on hills, not a mountain in the backcountry. I don't think these things should be used in any sort of backcountry. They're fine for people that want a shorter learning curve and an easy, fun day on the groomers, but their length will make them useless off-piste.

Yeah, there has been a trend towards shorter shaped skis for carving. But for backcountry a little length will be your friend. If you're a stocky 6' guy, you should probably be on something at least 175cm that's fairly wide under foot (75-79) with a good sidecut.

Saying there is a trend towards short and fat is relative, too. I used to ski 200 to 205 before the advent of shaped skis, but now I'm on a 181. So for what I used to ski, that is short and fat.
This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?

User avatar
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Postby firsttracks » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:01 am

When I was racing back East in college in the late 1990s, many of the elite ski academies and racing programs were using Snowblades for training. They are a great tool for teaching balance and carving, and improving your race technique on hardpack groomers. Make fun of them all you want -- the fact is, they are a great tool.

I have also been very curious about the Karhu Meta and Carver for the past several years. I would love to try a pair. Luggage space is always tight on expeditions, and the fact that you don't need a separate bag to haul them across the world is a huge bonus. I might pick up a pair this winter to compare them with snowshoes and my AT set-up.

User avatar
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:59 pm
Location: Denver

Postby Lane Meyer » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:17 pm

I think usefulness in the backcountry comes down to basic physics and surface area. I can't see how these could replace snowshoes for going up, and I think they'd be worthless for going down. I understand the appeal of something smaller and more transportable or packable, but I just don't see them as a backcountry alternative.

Since I've never used these for anything other than teaching kids how ski off the 'magic carpet', I can't say they won't work. I'm just thinking logically and looking at the surface area and weight distribution when you get into anything deep and guessing they'd dive right in and make for a difficult day.
This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?

Postby Bean » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:21 pm

Snowlerblades are worthless and suck.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests