The Official Bataleon Thread

[eleveneightnate]

Thinking of finally trying a Bataleon this season. Love 3BT or hate it? I’m all ears. I’m more and more into surfing these days and wouldn’t mind the looser feeling. The new Evil Twin+ is on my shortlist.

[Spenser]

Absolutely to each their own, but personally, TBT and that general style of 3D base is perhaps the one and only board design I truly dislike and absolutely avoid. I don’t mean spoon nose where it’s pretty much all outside the contact points, but TBT, whatever Rome called it, and so on.

Back when I was doing Rome syndicate, they sent me a prototype butterknife that was actually fairly stout, unlike the soft production model. It was kind of fun, but I only really rode it in powder, and hated it on groomers. Then they sent me a crossrocket, and it wasn’t as bad, being a slightly larger & stiffer board, but I still hated the 3D stuff. I’m a pretty staunch advocate for a regular camber profile, for the precision and feedback, among all the other factors. I can see how 3BT designs would be good for those who maybe want the backbone and pop of camber for freestyle stuff, but very catch-free and loose along the edge.

I think a lot of what I didn’t like just came from what I would call being inconsistent. Ultimately you can get used to anything and learn to have fun on it, even if it’s not really your jam. But with those boards, they felt like saucers in general, until you tipped it enough on edge, and then it was inconsistently engaging and always fluttering between those two extremes. Again, that’s just me, as a very “edgy” rider.

That said, I do think it has a viable place in board design, and there are people who love it. On the other hand, Gilson & their “soft edge” is pure bullshit, but that’s a different topic.

[pow_hnd]

In short, I’m with Spenser. Not my cup of tea, but there are some people that love it, different strokes.

I whole heartedly agree with the inconsistency in the way TBT and 3D decks ride, except in pure pow, so unless it’s a cat/heli day not for me, and even then I like trad camber under foot out past the inserts, even in pow, camber under foot makes decks turn better and have more “life”.

[eleveneightnate]

Absolutely to each their own, but personally, TBT and that general style of 3D base is perhaps the one and only board design I truly dislike and absolutely avoid. I don’t mean spoon nose where it’s pretty much all outside the contact points, but TBT, whatever Rome called it, and so on.

Back when I was doing Rome syndicate, they sent me a prototype butterknife that was actually fairly stout, unlike the soft production model. It was kind of fun, but I only really rode it in powder, and hated it on groomers. Then they sent me a crossrocket, and it wasn’t as bad, being a slightly larger & stiffer board, but I still hated the 3D stuff. I’m a pretty staunch advocate for a regular camber profile, for the precision and feedback, among all the other factors. I can see how 3BT designs would be good for those who maybe want the backbone and pop of camber for freestyle stuff, but very catch-free and loose along the edge.

I think a lot of what I didn’t like just came from what I would call being inconsistent. Ultimately you can get used to anything and learn to have fun on it, even if it’s not really your jam. But with those boards, they felt like saucers in general, until you tipped it enough on edge, and then it was inconsistently engaging and always fluttering between those two extremes. Again, that’s just me, a very “edgy” rider.

That said, I do think it has a viable place in board design, and there are people who love it. On the other hand, Gilson & their “soft edge” is pure bullshit, but that’s a different topic.

Thanks for the info, definitely helpful. It really is a polarizing design. My Stalefish has 3D shaping in the nose, but it ends before the contacts points like you mentioned.

I’ve been on camber boards since I started back in 2004ish (minus a brief couple seasons on a Fastplant which was flat). I’m probably too “in my ways” at this point to dive into 3BT. As much as I love a surfy/loose trucks feel, I also love feeling locked in and precise on snow. Hoping I can find somewhere here in CO to demo one this season, but if not I’ll be hesitant to drop $600 for something I might hate.

[Spenser]

Hah, loose trucks save lives. I used to leave my front one loose enough that one time the nut & hangar flew off when I ollied up a sidewalk, came down on the kingpin and got slammed. So dumb. But that’s still a turning & response thing, you’re not sliding around on super hard wheels just because you have loose trucks, so I can see how the same person likes camber precision.

I do not like a “loose trucks” feel on snow though, which is why I use responsive NOWs with hard bushings and like stiff camber boards with plenty of edge.

Definitely demo first, unless you can throw the $$ around

[Yeti]

I don’t like 3bt/3d within the contact points. I can see the benefits but only if implemented on the tip of the nose (float and moguls). A good example of a proper 3d implementation is Amplid Surfari.

[coleslawed]

it took me a minute to get used the uprise fenders (Arbor’s version) on my Annex, felt very loose when flat based, but still had full engagement once on edge.

[Shredder]

I rode the first year Camel toe in japan (2013) as I was curious about the tech. In bottomless pow it was fun but very boat hull like- pushing through snow. rather than planing. But on groomers and harder snow it felt too loose and unstable carving. I much prefer camber with early rise.

[C.Fuzzy]

Skill should fix what tbt is trying to do. But if some people like it, that's all they should care about.

[kimchi]

it took me a minute to get used the uprise fenders (Arbor’s version) on my Annex, felt very loose when flat based, but still had full engagement once on edge.

More or less my experience. Briefly owned an Arbor Crosscut, was impressed with how well it held once I got board angle. Don't have a real read on how "Uprise Fenders" differ from TBT or "Spoontech", but didn't mind the lifted contact points in practice.