Kuma Board Company

kumaboardcompany · Faceplant Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 13

Hey all, just a little shameless self-promotion / fishing for input...

Used to post on here a while back when we first started Kuma Board Company up in northern Massachusetts. We took a break to work on some new things and fix some old things, but we're back live now. SO, if y'all have a couple minutes to go check out our site (www.kumaboardcompany.com) and shout out whatever feedback you may have, it'd be much obliged. Also, if you're on the Twit and care to follow us, we've got an account there, too (@KumaBoardCo).

Thanks for any comments.

Cheers,
John

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 26, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject:

90 bucks

whats the concave on your boards like? Looks great from what I can see.

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 26, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject:

Oh theyre flat ahah

kumaboardcompany · Faceplant Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 13

11RANDOMNESS All our decks right now have the same 2.7" continuous rocker. Other than that natural curve on the top surface that comes from the rocker (see pics on the site), yep they're pretty flat. And yep, they're $90 (for now).

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 26, 2012 2:59 pm Post subject:

Well if I have any suggestions it would be to make a concave model. You could just use one of your boards you have now, and then use extra plys and like stair step them for the cocktails and concave and then you can sand them down into shape.
I wouldnt charge more than 200 for them though because then people might just go get a WM

88skisupreme · Backside 180 Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1342 City: ATX

I'd say go heavier, not lighter. I'm not into the super heavy boards myself but a 4 pounder doesnt sound that appealing.

kumaboardcompany · Faceplant Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 13

11RANDOMNESS We've toyed around with the idea of a concave, composite board, but it would (in all likelihood) be in the form of a bottom-up redesign rather than modification of any existing shape (different wood, different layering, possibly molded shaping etc.). As for the price point, we're going to try to keep all our decks steady below the $200 mark, barring those unpleasant, unpredictable market catastrophes independent companies have so much fun with Bang Head

88skisupreme Our first heavier decks will hopefully be out in the next couple months. With that, we'll be moving away from all-wood construction and adding fiberglass and composite wood layering, should be looking at a 7-9 pounder for the production model. Eventually, we are hoping to stock the full spectrum of shapes for all riding styles. As a matter of personal preference, I tend toward a lighter board for wake-to-wake and a heavier deck on the surface, but I also ride with folks who swear by 12-14 lb tanks for all-around use. As we move forward, we'll certainly be playing around to see what works and what doesn't with the skating crowd.

Gratzi for the notes!

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 26, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject:

Yeah I just personoly dont like flat decks Confused

Captain Oblivious · Faceplant Joined: 24 Jul 2012 Posts: 10

I could be totally wrong but isn't there a reason that almost all skates are 3 stage? I was told that a continuous rocker just did not work with skates. I could be totally wrong though.

TTUFAN24 · Posted: Jul 27, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject:

Captain Oblivious, great name

88skisupreme · Backside 180 Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1342 City: ATX

continuous rocker flat deck, the CWB Lucky is back! Smash

TTUFAN24 · Posted: Jul 27, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject:

88skisupreme, my man. love the CWB Lucky

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 27, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject:

yeah if your making a new board,
1. 3 stage rocker
2. Concave
3. >$200
People will snatch those up like crazy.

kumaboardcompany · Faceplant Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 13

Thanks all,

Actually pressing up a couple concaves this and next week to try some new shapes for the coming year. So, thoughts from the crowd:

1. Blended continuous to 3-stage rocker (with a slight rocker in the center blending to a more aggressive kicktail at the edges) OR aggressive 3-stage rocker (i.e. flat center base (somewhat) abrubtly shifting to the rocker near the kicks)?
2. For the concave, we've been playing around with both shaped wood and fiberglass/composite core kicktails and sidewalls. Any input as to preference from a swing-weight perspective?
3. Keeping on the swing-weight/concave topic, who's got thoughts on kicktail angle, aggro vs. mellow?

As a pulled-out-of-the-arse guestimate, hoping to drop first-run decks around $160-$180 + shipping once final shapes are laid out.

Also, don't hate on the Lucky. Nuthin' like a 14.7" fin to really lock-in on those edges Smash

w@kelife · Ollie Joined: 07 May 2012 Posts: 91 City: Tavernier

i would pick up one of those concaves

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 28, 2012 11:20 pm Post subject:

I might not have the most insight on this but from what I understand the 2nd rocker option with a flatter base would make faster board right? So thats what I would go with. Idk how to get allot of pop out of a rocker line so I am stumped their. Id prob say a more aggressive kick tail. For that price id def buy one!

kumaboardcompany · Faceplant Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 13

11RANDOMNESS As far as "fast" we could be talking a couple things:

Typically, a blended rocker line will be faster edging wake-to-wake than an aggressive 3-stage.

As for pop, an aggressive rocker will be quicker snapping off the water (= bigger ollies) and will have a more favorable neutral-point-to-kicktail swing point (= 'faster' transition into spin/flip tricks).

I'm generalizing a bit but that's the general idea.

11RANDOMNESS · Posted: Jul 29, 2012 8:11 pm Post subject:

Id go with the option with more pop personally