Libtech Skunk Ape

[seemore 66]

Hi guys

 

I still haven't decided on a new board but have just got a great deal on a Skunk Ape.

 

Has anyone got any input?

 

Tthe widths seem comparable to the Hovercraft the main difference being the swallow and narrower tail.

 

Seemore

[gozaimaas 61]

What size board are we talking and how many kegs do you weigh? Do you have big feet?

[seemore 66]

It's a 161 comparing it to the 160 Hovercraft I weigh 85kgs (so close to 90 with everything on) and wear a us 12.5 boot.

 

seemore

[gozaimaas 61]

Skunk ape. contact 1210, sidecut 8.5, no taper, twin shape, 13mm setback, c2 cam/rock/cam and magnetraction edges

 

Hovercraft. contact 1220, sidecut 9.5, 11mm taper, directional shape, 20mm setback, camber under foot with big rocker nose and magnetraction.

 

On those specs the hovercraft smashes the skunk ape for powder riding.

Then you have the fact that the skunk ape has the remaining 400mm (1610mm -1210mm contact) of board length divided equally between the nose and the tail so 200mm each. The hovercraft on the other hand has a much better use of its 380mm. It has 280mm of nose and only 100mm of tail, this will make it work a lot better in the deep stuff for a directional rider. Add the nose rocker of the hovercraft and you have a winner by a long long way IMO.

[seemore 66]

Yeah I was hoping it all wouldn't add up It's a great looking board I would love to ride it

 

I have it advertised on Gumtree at the moment I bought it with a whole heap of other stuff that I wanted so I will see if I can get a buyer.

 

The hovercrafts are expected to arrive in Perth next week.

 

seemore

[gozaimaas 61]

The skunk ape would be awesome in aussie/NZ conditions

[seemore 66]

good hopefully someone will buy it then

 

seemore

[Yuki-Uma 0]

I loved my new Skunk Ape in 2011 after being on a Burton ride for a few years

I took my Skunk Ape to Japan this year 2012 with my new Hovercraft

I retired my Skunk Ape after the 1st ride on the Hover, the poor ape creature never came out of the board bag

 

cheers

[snow_hippie2 0]

I found a 172 Skunk Ape great on Japanese pow but I haven't tried the Hovercraft to compare it with.

 

I get the impression you shouldn't be comparing a 161 Skunk Ape with a 160 Hovercraft. 160 is the biggest size Hovercraft make, whereas Skunk Apes go up to 180. For your weight a 169 would be good. You might find it out-performs a 160 Hovercraft in powder. I'm dubious about whether shorter powder-specific boards can really give as much float in pow or stability on the runs as a much longer board.

[seemore 66]

Cheers Snow Pony

 

It looks like some guy is coming round tommorrow to have a look at the Skunk Ape so it will be the Hovercraft I think.

 

Snow Hippie I really like smaller boards when surfing I go for smaller boards I am not old eneough to ride a Mal yet I was even thinking of going for the 156

 

Seemore

[ippy 66]

i uised to get in this argument with jynxxie a lot. The big question is, have you tried one? If not, you maybe should. They have a place. That place isnt massive chutes or bare face ice walls or anywhere that requires a really solid edge or massive long open lines, but instead its great for smaller flatter terrains where youre just dicking about in deep pow and need a bit of float to push you through. The nose wont sink without a serious effort, and youre pretty much free to just surf it all in a nice centered stance without feeling you should be ass centered (thigh burn) and back foot steering your board. You just ride it like a normal board knowing full well it aint sinking. Its great fun. I really dont understand a few things on this whole argument:

 

(I promise im not having a go, just like to discuss stuff )

 

First, why the suspicion. Its been a few years now. Surely we're passed this? Ive never heard a single person on any forum say "this fish kinda sucks for pow!" The only complaint ive heard about the hovercraft is quality control from the factory theyre built in. No ones complained about the design of the board and that it fails to deliver in the area its marketed for.

Second, why do we all assume that one board kills it all in the backcountry? Its like assuming one type of freestyle stick is the best for everything? The backcountry has a lot of different terrain, and they all have different requirements and different styles of board that benefit them. Want super fast nippy turns a la BM or gozaimaas, then go swallowtail; want to blast chop on big ice faces then go long on a nice damp ripper like the summit; want to just cruise around fluffy pow then why not pick up a fish? Want to just dick about doing a bit of everything and maybe even popping onto the park line or cruising the groomers, then why not grab a malolo or a slasher?

 

But, the thing is all of these boards can do all of this stuff... just like a stairmaster is going to kill every feature inside and outside the park regardless if "objectively" there might be boards better suited to "tabula rasa person A" for that specific box, or that superpipe or that 30 footer, or those trees, or that bouncy as hell cruddy shitheap. But obviously we arent tabula rasa. We bring a world of preference to every new board we pick up based on what weve ridden in the past and the sizes we're comfortable riding. My slasher is a 164, i rarely pull it out just because it feels too long. Im 80 damn kilos. Its fine., but im used to riding 157 range board so it feels a bit over long for just mucking about.

 

Even ignoring this point, I really dont get why people insist theres one powder tech to rule them all and that we all need to be on that to get the ultimate performance. Theres so much preference, and so many advantages to each of the styles. They arent just designed after all with the same objective in mind or to all ride one type of terrain. Nor are they designed with only one thing in mind. Theres loads of different considerations going on in the design. And almost all of them are the starting point for the rider. Theyll still do what they like on it anyway and find a way to make it work regardless. Mu and his fish etc.

 

Taper works, its been shown to work over and over, people are happy with it. Would they be happier on a massive stick? they could be, then again it might just be one of those boards they never bother pulling out unless theyre absolutely sure that they are on the longest gnarliest lines because its just a bit of an effort. It might also feel too long, too different, and too dull to want to really be on it for most of their time and for most of the riding they do.

 

Dont get me wrong though, if you love long camber boards, thats cool, itd be nothing less than irony for me to tell you youre doing it wrong and you should pick up a taper board, but i will say its going to give you another way of approaching the terrain and another tool in dialing in your preferences. You might love it, or you might hate it, but id be hard pushed to agree that its going to not perform.

 

Which brings me to the point that "performance" comes with the qualifier of "preference", Objectively my forces give me more performance than my contacts. But at what? With what style? Riding how? And who is riding with them? My quiver killer gives me more "performance" than my indoor, but it sucks trying to tone the thing down and just dick about a bit. It performs really badly on days i cant be bothered bombing runs. Its powder performance also blows on a 157 for a 175lb behemoth who does not enjoy massive thigh burn. This performance doesnt tell the full story. It might be great at one thing, but its just as likely its going to suck at something else. And that something else might be something you really also want out of your ride. Its not a quality of the board, but more a statement of preference. My forces give me more response than contacts, but yeah, sometimes i actually need less. MTX gives me more grip than reverse camber, but sometimes i dont want to feel like im on/off rails. A longer board will give me a longer edge and likely a solid long radius, but maybe i want a board i can throw about a bit mroe or just relax on. My reverse camber nose might be awesome for powder, then again maybe im getting bounced to crap by crud instead of blasting through it. Performance needs to come with the qualifier and admission that we might just be referring to one or two specific things and generalising the entire ride of the board to those features. I mean i loved the berzerker, it performed awesome everywhere i took it, my review was nothing less than utterly glowing. But i recognise that its specific to what i wanted out of a board and what compromises with "performance" in other areas i was prepared to tolerate. The kill it all came with the (explicated) qualifier that it meant for me since it did exactly what i wanted to do in the terrain i wanted to ride and the style i wanted to ride it.

 

Its all daft i know but i love the abstracts of language more than i love the abstracts of riding

[seemore 66]

Thanks Ippy

 

And in rapping it all up what are your thoughts on the Skuknk Ape compared to the Hovercraft for powder?

 

Seemore

[gozaimaas 61]

 

I get the impression you shouldn't be comparing a 161 Skunk Ape with a 160 Hovercraft. 160 is the biggest size Hovercraft make, whereas Skunk Apes go up to 180.

If you read the spec comparison I did above you will see they are perfectly matched for comparison. The effective edges are almost the same and the total nose/tail length is almost the same. The hovercraft just takes length off the tail and adds it onto the nose which works. If you went to 169 on the skunk ape you would still only get a 245mm nose length because its a twin. If you are a directional rider then a twin shape is going to suck in powder compared to directional shapes

[gozaimaas 61]

what did you ride last year seemore?

[ippy 66]

Thanks Ippy

 

And in rapping it all up what are your thoughts on the Skuknk Ape compared to the Hovercraft for powder?

 

Seemore

 

I got none. Gozaimaas pretty much schooled us all on specifics.

[seemore 66]

what did you ride last year seemore?

 

I have ridden my 156 fish old model for the past 2 years which I really liked I just wanted a new board and I was going to buy a hovercraft but bought a deal on ebay which came with a skunk ape and thought it looked pretty good.

 

But as you and Ippy mention I don't ride switch and only ride groomers for additional speed or to get from stash to stash so the hovercraft makes sense I just wanted some feedback

 

seemore

[ippy 66]

you could go bananas and pick up a fishcuit.

 

Really fat waist width, and allegedly rides like a much longer fish for it. Its kinda like the fish and the nug had a baby. I remember reading an interview with jake burton yipping on about how hes really into the nug and wants to kinda work around that concept. A 150 into the pow? teehee, shock the peoples. One dude picked it up last year on trusnow, i told him adamantly he was imagining it and that there was no such thing, he was right, i was wrong, and he freaking loved it once he took it out.

[snow_hippie2 0]

If you read the spec comparison I did above you will see they are perfectly matched for comparison. The effective edges are almost the same and the total nose/tail length is almost the same. The hovercraft just takes length off the tail and adds it onto the nose which works. If you went to 169 on the skunk ape you would still only get a 245mm nose length because its a twin. If you are a directional rider then a twin shape is going to suck in powder compared to directional shapes

Yes, the effective edge for the 160 Hovercraft and 161 Skunk Ape are almost the same - 1220 versus 1210. So you'd expect the Hovercaft to do better on pow. But the 169 Skunk Ape's effective edge is 1270, and for the 180 it's 1370. I'm guessing that means the bigger Skunk Apes have more surface area than the 160 Hovercraft, which would help float on pow. So a heavyish person might be better off on it. I know there are other factors but I don't think effective edge should be completely discounted.

 

I agree if you never ride switch, a twin shape needlessly adds some length. I'm not super technical and I've never ridden a powder board so I've got to admit I don't know what effect nose length has. But on my 172 Skunk Ape (I weigh 100kg) the nose never stuck and I was amazed how the board kept moving on almost flat powder.

[ippy 66]

in truth and another consideration, i genuinely dislike twin rockers in pow. Theres this feeling i get on my scope when im riding it (indoor fk for all intents and purposes), that its sliding out longitudinally. I dont think theres an expression for it. its like wheelying because you just dont have that tail really stomping in. Its why i cant pick up a deck like the gyrator. It seems like itd make a great board for float, but its just that like of bite in the tail that puts me off (actually i shoudl go and see if theyve changed it - im going off the gyrator from 2 years ago in my memory here)... yeah still the same. Im just not a fan of twins in pow at all. I also dislike riding camber in pow. In steeps its different, but in pow, when you know its starting to pull a bit and youre sat on your tail and having to not only keep that nose from diving, but also keep your balance because youre doing almost 100% of your steering with one foot. I dont like that feeling at all. I had it last season at kagura on the riot and the season before on the quiver killer and it just didnt work for me. I know lengthening helps, but then im nver pulling that board out for anything BUT extremely deep days. And who wants to throw $500 on a board you use once or twice a season if that? I dont. But im cheap. My boards have to have a bit of versatility to them so i get my moneys worth from them

[gozaimaas 61]

If you read the spec comparison I did above you will see they are perfectly matched for comparison. The effective edges are almost the same and the total nose/tail length is almost the same. The hovercraft just takes length off the tail and adds it onto the nose which works. If you went to 169 on the skunk ape you would still only get a 245mm nose length because its a twin. If you are a directional rider then a twin shape is going to suck in powder compared to directional shapes

Yes, the effective edge for the 160 Hovercraft and 161 Skunk Ape are almost the same - 1220 versus 1210. So you'd expect the Hovercaft to do better on pow. But the 169 Skunk Ape's effective edge is 1270, and for the 180 it's 1370. I'm guessing that means the bigger Skunk Apes have more surface area than the 160 Hovercraft, which would help float on pow. So a heavyish person might be better off on it. I know there are other factors but I don't think effective edge should be completely discounted.

 

I agree if you never ride switch, a twin shape needlessly adds some length. I'm not super technical and I've never ridden a powder board so I've got to admit I don't know what effect nose length has. But on my 172 Skunk Ape (I weigh 100kg) the nose never stuck and I was amazed how the board kept moving on almost flat powder.

Nose length is an awesome thing to have on a pow board as it allows you to have a gentle upslope rather than a shorter sharper one like normal boards have. Think speed boat hull.

[snow_hippie2 0]

Nose length is an awesome thing to have on a pow board as it allows you to have a gentle upslope rather than a shorter sharper one like normal boards have. Think speed boat hull.

that makes sense, thanks.