What would you do first - Skiing or Snowboarding ?

[goldblum]

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

[Silver993tt]

goldblum said:

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

Have to disagree with that. I skiied for more than 15 years and the board is definetely more efficient and hence quicker on a shallow gradient than any skis I've seen when starting off from the same point. The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

[Beardy10]

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

Have to disagree with that. I skiied for more than 15 years and the board is definetely more efficient and hence quicker on a shallow gradient than any skis I've seen when starting off from the same point. The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

Well of all the arguments you can have pro ski or board I really don't think a marginal (and personally I am not sure about that) advantage of a board over ski's on a shallow gradient is anything to write home about. It's certainly insignificant compared top the fact snowboards are useless on the flat and....I've seen boarders with poles a few times which has made me laugh!

[Silver993tt]

Beardy10 said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

Have to disagree with that. I skiied for more than 15 years and the board is definetely more efficient and hence quicker on a shallow gradient than any skis I've seen when starting off from the same point. The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

Well of all the arguments you can have pro ski or board I really don't think a marginal (and personally I am not sure about that) advantage of a board over ski's on a shallow gradient is anything to write home about. It's certainly insignificant compared top the fact snowboards are useless on the flat and....I've seen boarders with poles a few times which has made me laugh!

well, the discussion is about a specific instance on the slopes. Regardin boarders with pole, well they're simply quite inexperienced, it's easier when you've come to a complete halt simply to unclip one binding and use one foot. Using something like Flow bindings it's an easy 2-3 second operation with one clip.

[goldblum]

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

Have to disagree with that. I skiied for more than 15 years and the board is definetely more efficient and hence quicker on a shallow gradient than any skis I've seen when starting off from the same point. The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

"The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

"

Lol.

[Silver993tt]

goldblum said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

ZesPak said:

Silver993tt said:

goldblum said:

I'm not sure a board has much more contact area than a pair of skis.Also a board is much wider so it would be slower pushing through the snow in front.

Yes, quite a bit more. I run a 162 which is the same length as many skis but is had a significantly wider contact area than a pair of skis. It's the reason why downhill racers try and avoid jumping to high on crests - they need to stay in contact with the snow surface to keep/gain speed, more contact = greater speed.

Sorry, 162 is a pretty big board (i run a 158), but in ski terms, that's midget ski's imho. I never skied with anything less than 175 since I was 16.

You are right though that a board will have more carrying surface. But then it needs it, because it also has a larger frontal area.

More or less my point.When I first started skiing the skis were as tall as me and I'm 6'1"!They're only a bit shorter now.(I don't go in for tricks/jumps etc,

the knees and back protest too much)If the piste is flat or a slight decline,especially on non corduroy,skis have the advantage.

Have to disagree with that. I skiied for more than 15 years and the board is definetely more efficient and hence quicker on a shallow gradient than any skis I've seen when starting off from the same point. The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

"The skier ineveitably has to use their sticks when the board is still moving unaided.

"

Lol.

yes Lol, that's my reaction when I'm still moving, you finally understand

[blueg33]

I too think a board glides longer on a shallow gradient as long as its been pisted, but skiers and poles will win if the flat section goes on too long.

In my experience boarders tend to prep the base better and more often than skiers and this makes a huge difference. The guys I go with are all good skiers but mostly use hire kit. I use my own board and prep base and edges myself. My board glides for longer than the skis. Its a 164 and is fairly stiff which also helps.

[JM16v]

I skied for years before switching to boards.

I didnt find it that hard to learn. Glad I learnt as I have no desire to go back! I was bored with skis and have way more fun on a board cruising about with my mates, riding some powder, or jibbing around the side of pistes, hitting the park etc.

But i will say learning to snowboard will probably be more painful to start with.
Buy some wrist guards... Youll probably catch your edges a lot at the start and falling back can fking hurt.

We cant answer what you would prefer, you have to try and get used to both to make a proper choice.