Inca Snowboards

Has anyone ridden or heard about Inca Snowboards? Read about their
dual camber boards online. Their idea is intriguing, but I'm not sure
I completely buy their spiel on dual camber stuff, like some of if
makes sense at lower speeds, but at high speeds I don't see how they
maintain stability. I notice they have raceboards, wondering if anyone
actually uses them.

I checked online and reviews are either highly positive or very
negative. I wonder if they are still in business. I'm still enjoying
my Donek Incline very much, but always nice to keep up with cutting
edge stuff.

I checked online and reviews are either highly positive or very
negative. I wonder if they are still in business.

They are definitely still in business. One of the guys I ride with
occasionally at Mt. Hood knows the owner personally. He has the
Freeride 177 and rides it in powder with hard boots. I often seeing
him making really short, skier-type turns on it, and he picks his way
through trees almost effortlessly on it. He's definitely a better
rider than me, and I've never seen him on anything else in powder, so
it's hard to say what he'd look like on another board in similar
conditions. He says it's pretty soft and flexy, and the dual camber
makes it really turny. I might try to swap rides with him, for my Axis
172 for a few runs sometime.

Mike T

I talked a bit with him about that board. He said he really likes it
because the dual camber lets him vary turn radius in the middle of a
carve just by shifting weight between feet. Like Mike said, he can
make very smooth short radius turns down steep slopes... almost the
same motion as a skier going down moguls. Looks like the board has a
lot of snap off the tail. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that guy could out
ride me any day on a lunch tray, so I'm not going to attribute it all
to a wonder board. But it does sound damn interesting.

One thing he mentioned is that the camber keeps you from getting your
weight totally distributed evenly over the boards base, so it doesn't
glide as well on the flats.

I talked a bit with him about that board. He said he really likes it
because the dual camber lets him vary turn radius in the middle of a
carve just by shifting weight between feet. Like Mike said, he can
make very smooth short radius turns down steep slopes... almost the
same motion as a skier going down moguls. Looks like the board has a
lot of snap off the tail. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that guy could out
ride me any day on a lunch tray, so I'm not going to attribute it all
to a wonder board. But it does sound damn interesting.

One thing he mentioned is that the camber keeps you from getting your
weight totally distributed evenly over the boards base, so it doesn't
glide as well on the flats.

I might finally break down and get a dedicated powder board next year.
One of my criteria is that it has to be both soft-boot and hard-boot
friendly. I'm open to pintails, swallowtails, dual camber, etc, but I
do want something that's good in the trees... swallowtail riders, how
are yours in the trees?

Right now my tentative list of boards to borrow or demo includes:

Prior Khyber
Burton Fish, if warranty not voided by plates
Inca Freeride
Rad Air Tanker (which I've heard does surprising well in trees, even in
the 192 and 200)
swallowtail TBD
Donek Phoenix, if comes in the right size

-Mike T

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:47:34 GMT, "Mike T"
allegedly wrote:

I'm open to pintails, swallowtails, dual camber, etc, but I
do want something that's good in the trees... swallowtail riders, how
are yours in the trees?


My Prior Pow is a 181 (cf my 162 Sasquatch), and I have to admit it's a
handful in the trees. I struggled last year doing runs in tight trees,
mainly on sections where you need to quickly change the direction of
travel. The board is super stiff, and you can't just pivot on the tail
like you can with a short board. Jump turns can be done, but are just a
little more tiring. 50 degree tree runs induce a good cardio work-out!!

If I'm riding tight or steep trees, I'll take the short board. The ST
is for speed.

On open runs or on widely spaced tree runs the Prior rocks. The
stability when the pow gets chopped up is super good as well. It's also
good for big(ish) drops. I was able to pull out of sketchy landings
that I'm not convinced would have work on the shorter board, and landing
in general was nice.

Plus it's a great talking point. Those that know what it is want to
talk about it. Those that don't (I had one girly on a lift go: "oh my
gawd, what happened to your board"), want to know about it. Of course,
some people don't care either way :-)

Iain will be along shortly to rave about the Fish. I'm trying to hook
up with him to blag a free demo, else I'll have to hire one.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - http://rssFAQ.org/

There's still a couple O'Sin 4807 swallow tails up on ebay. PSR has
reccomended the 168 as a tree board. Last I checked Meadows still had
a couple demo fish for sale, basicly unused, for $200. Once I was
suprrised to see Nitro swallow tails on thehouse for sale cheap...
haven't seen them there in a while though.

Someone here was asking about the original winterstick pin tail, the
origin of the fish style boards... I blundered onto pictures here the
other day:

http://www.oldsnowboards.com/Winters...ery/index.html

Inca boards:
I rode with a happy Hawiian a couple of years ago who was
manufacturing them or something. He had a bag full of demonstrators,
and I have some pictures somwhere. I don't understand the engineering
rationale, and I didn't see anybody ride one two days in a row. On the
plus side they were big and floppy, but the whole camber deal makes
very little sense to me in deep powder.

I might finally break down and get a dedicated powder board next year.
One of my criteria is that it has to be both soft-boot and hard-boot
friendly. I'm open to pintails, swallowtails, dual camber, etc, but I
do want something that's good in the trees... swallowtail riders, how
are yours in the trees?

Swallowtails... well, they aren't generally used at major
heli-operators because whilst they might cruise glaciers ok, they're
not much use in the trees & log cuts etc. And of course glaciers are
for novices and can be ridden on just about anything anyway ;-) I've
never seen anyone ride one in heli-terrain two days in a row.

From CMH's website:
"Free-ride & free-style boards are often too short for our deep snow
conditions. Swallow tail boards are used sometimes. They tend to be
quite long, are perfect for cruising & open terrain although in trees,
traverses, side slips & wind packed conditions they are not easy to
work with. A backcountry board will be your best bet."


Think Fish, or Fish clones. I think I'd call them "pin tails".

Burton Fish, if warranty not voided by plates
Not to my knowledge. Been riding them with plates since they arrived.
http://www.wigglesworld.klebos.com/s...fish/index.htm


Iain will be along shortly to rave about the Fish. I'm trying to hook
up with him to blag a free demo, else I'll have to hire one.
He's probably out there using his. They are now standard stock at
Wiegele's for heli-boarding.

phil

(phil) wrote in message
Think Fish, or Fish clones. I think I'd call them "pin tails".
They are now standard stock at
Wiegele's for heli-boarding.

phil

Hey Phil

The Fish is the standard rental at the Whistler Heli operation as
well. However, the guys I saw on them were struggling a bit. I was
out for my first Heli day ever last Saturday at Whistler Heli. There
was about 3 feet of new dry (for the coast) powder. I was on my
Oxygen Shogun 170, while several others were on Fish. It seemed like
the guys on the Fish were having a tougher time than I keeping on top
in the runouts. Perhaps they were just not carrying enough speed as
the terrain flattened.

The snow was way deep according to our guide, who opted for fat skis
instead of her usual 168 supermodel. Is there a point at which the
reduced surface area of the Fish is a liability? I ask because I've
heard almost exculsively good things about the fish, and my local
warehouse store has old stock on sale for $200.

I'm 6' 180lbs, is the 156 big enough or do I need the 160?

Thanks!
Mark

[...] the guys on the Fish were having a tougher time than I keeping on top
in the runouts. Perhaps they were just not carrying enough speed as
the terrain flattened.

It may be that they weren't as good as you, or perhaps their boards
weren't waxed for the conditions, although I'm sure the operator knows
about all that. Meself I seldom walk, but I've had enough practice to
avoid it ;-)

The snow was way deep according to our guide, who opted for fat skis
instead of her usual 168 supermodel. Is there a point at which the
reduced surface area of the Fish is a liability? I ask because I've
heard almost exculsively good things about the fish, and my local
warehouse store has old stock on sale for $200.

Helena? I trust she's well ;-)

I used to ride a 168 Supermodel. Some people would trade those up as
the snow got deeper, although I never bothered. You may have had
"upside down" snow, which is particularly tricky to get forward
momentum through.

Now I'm on 156 Fish, HD/MD, whichever. I weigh 62kgs... most people
would be a bit heavier and may go bigger.

I've had the fish in snow which is as deep as it gets - well over head
stuff - and not noticed it. However I do have a lot of vertical under
my belt and we were on steep stuff (sometimes the avalanche risk
prevents that). There might be a point if the snow is very deep and
you're on shallow pitch where more surface area would help, although
that's actually a fairly rare circumstance and I'd still be on my 156
(too lazy to change).


I'm 6' 180lbs, is the 156 big enough or do I need the 160?
I'd check the Burton specs, but I think you'd definiately need a
bigger board than me: the 160. They're certainly not a handful so it
won't be a problem. A steal at $200 I'd say. I didn't notice any
riding difference in any of the various years' models, graphics aside.

A chap I was with this year was on the 160 and he was probably closer
to your weight.. you can see him on the board he
http://www.wigglesworld.klebos.com/s...s/A19S9076.jpg
One of my other mates is a huge guy (American football player sized)
and he was on a 160. The snow we were in wasn't hugely deep though.
phil

(phil) wrote in message . com...
[...] the guys on the Fish were having a tougher time than I keeping on top
in the runouts. Perhaps they were just not carrying enough speed as
the terrain flattened.

It may be that they weren't as good as you, or perhaps their boards
weren't waxed for the conditions, although I'm sure the operator knows
about all that. Meself I seldom walk, but I've had enough practice to
avoid it ;-)

That could be it. This being my first heli trip, I signed up for the
"advanced" group, but after the first run our guide told me I should
be with the experts.


The snow was way deep according to our guide, who opted for fat skis
instead of her usual 168 supermodel. Is there a point at which the
reduced surface area of the Fish is a liability? I ask because I've
heard almost exculsively good things about the fish, and my local
warehouse store has old stock on sale for $200.

Helena? I trust she's well ;-)

Yep, Helene. She's very well and *very* knowledgeable.

I used to ride a 168 Supermodel. Some people would trade those up as
the snow got deeper, although I never bothered. You may have had
"upside down" snow, which is particularly tricky to get forward
momentum through.

Now I'm on 156 Fish, HD/MD, whichever. I weigh 62kgs... most people
would be a bit heavier and may go bigger.

I've had the fish in snow which is as deep as it gets - well over head
stuff - and not noticed it. However I do have a lot of vertical under
my belt and we were on steep stuff (sometimes the avalanche risk
prevents that). There might be a point if the snow is very deep and
you're on shallow pitch where more surface area would help, although
that's actually a fairly rare circumstance and I'd still be on my 156
(too lazy to change).

That probably had much to do with it as well. The slide risk was
pretty high that day, so we stayed on mellower terrain. The fish guys
seemed to do well on the steeper stuff but slowed down too much in the
flats.


I'm 6' 180lbs, is the 156 big enough or do I need the 160?
I'd check the Burton specs, but I think you'd definiately need a
bigger board than me: the 160. They're certainly not a handful so it
won't be a problem. A steal at $200 I'd say. I didn't notice any
riding difference in any of the various years' models, graphics aside.

A chap I was with this year was on the 160 and he was probably closer
to your weight.. you can see him on the board he
http://www.wigglesworld.klebos.com/s...s/A19S9076.jpg
One of my other mates is a huge guy (American football player sized)
and he was on a 160. The snow we were in wasn't hugely deep though.
phil

Too bad, all they've got at $200 is the 156. I'll keep my eyes open
for a 160.

Thanks Phil!