Splitboard Stats Comparison

36-24-36?  HAHA, only if she’s 153.  Midnight insomniac fun times.  Couldn’t sleep last night, eyes were tired but my body was wired, hoped that looking at numbers would put me to sleep.  A-man threw a comment in the other day asking about splitboard price comparisons, which made me think that could be part of something bigger,  consolidating stats for most of the commercially available splitboards together in one place.  I say most and not all as the splitboard scene seems to be a lot like snowboarding circa-95 and every week there’s a new company coming out, or a new mfr releasing an OEM split.  I’ll update this as I remember and have time, or as people drop comments saying I missed something.

My hope is that there’s some value (probably more helpful if the columns were sortable but I know zero html….) in this as some sort of a pre-purchase decision making matrix, though obviously the data below is very high level.  As it’s missing things that are damn important to your decision such as camber/rocker profiles, flex patterns, etc. I’d say the data is only valuable to use as an early comparison to weed out things blatantly wrong for you, like a 26+ width on a size 6 boot.  Another thing to note is that boards are listed as a twin if their nose and tail widths are the same, but most (all?) of them actually have a directional flex so they are only twin in shape and not true twins.  Anything labeled as ‘pow’ under shape are boards with a very distinct, singular focus shape – think swallowtail or fish – and not just boards with longer noses and bit tapers.

If the manufacturer’s name is hyperlinked it links to the article I did on their 2011-12 splitboards.  The links at the specific model level will bring you to the manufacturer’s page for that model so you can get the full story on a particular board.  The last column links for buying online are for those of you that aren’t fortunate enough to live near a good shop that stocks a selection of splits and should only be used if you can’t find something locally.

If you notice anything wonky, or want something added, just drop a comment.

UPDATE:  I quit being lazy/stupid and figured out how to make this sortable and searchable.  That’s right, any ol’ a-hole can blog, but it takes a special kind to go the extra mile for their peeps.  There’s still some wonkiness with the links not coming over when I changed formats, but I’ll get that fixed.  Enjoy!

[table id=1 /]

9 comments to Splitboard Stats Comparison

  • Justin

    good heads up! added, also caught a mistake on the venture section, i put sidecut depth as opposed to radius.

  • a

    Has there ever been any explanation as to why these are so expensive? Ten more feet of steel edge and a different jig for drilling inserts? What is it? Licensing to Voile or something? Seems crazed. Collusionary? Tinfoil hat time? Does tinfoil even exist?

  • Justin

    good Q. my guess is one part low production runs/no economies of scale (the burton, k2, rome, etc. boards are considerably cheaper than the others), one part the tip/tail clips, two parts voile licensing fee. last year’s non-voile t-rice was $769, this years with voile is $969, same board otherwise…

  • Justin

    oh, and last year’s non-split rice hp was $696, so they charged about $70 to cut your board, add an edge and seal ‘er.

  • a

    wasn’t last year’s t.rice lacking inserts?

  • Justin

    yeah, that was my unmade point – that this year’s board which is the exact same construction, shape, etc. as last thing is $200 more only due to the Voile inserts and the K-clips, so apparently a good chunk of the price of splits is the licensing fee (with K-clips at $50 retail assuming $25 wholesale)

  • a

    got it.
    you do get two things, instead of one, so it makes sense splitboards are twice as expensive as (already expensive) solid snowboards

  • Justin

    LOL! i think it makes sense in a ‘why does a dog lick his balls’ type way more than anything

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>