If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hmm.. Gotta take that back, it was a 174 Palmer Shape. AFAIR it indeed
has less effective edge than it could for its length, while the Channel Titanium has a pretty low shovel so lots of edge for the length. Also tried a 173 Fastback, and it still was easier to handle than the freakin Channel Titanium. Sidecut, stiffness, width - can all make a difference too... I do know the Fastbacks have a nice big sidecut, IIRC 9.1m on the 163 so I'd imagine 10+ on the 173. Sometimes the numbers don't tell the story at all though. Now I'm talking alpine boards - but my longest one, a Coiler PR 188, has a 170 cm effective edge, 15.7 sidecut and feels stiff as hell when you hand-flex it. But it is not hard at all to handle, it is very easy to get the sidecut to hook up and it just kinda "snakes" along. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Edog" wrote I am basically with you except where you say "even on powder days". A 160 cm often does O.K. for me on potatoes, but anything lighter and I'm sinking. What was wonderful about the Glissade 168 was that it rode like a considerably shorter board in the crud (trees, bumps, chutes etc.) and since I'm not going home at noon on powder days, the board I bring must go both ways (bi ?). So I'm looking for a 164+ which is quick, holds an edge, but can cut a sharp carve. Something to dance through the crud, not bulldoze (so boards like the Ride Timeless are out of the question). Really, I want my Glissade back but that is not happening. I don't really see anything wrong with sinking. Sinking and then popping out and sinking back in is quite enjoyable, although maybe more tiring than just floating on top. To me, a good portion of riding powder is in getting the third dimention of it, so I don't really want a board that will always float. Now I can understand if someone wants a monster board for backcountry or cat/heli, but for resort riding a 168 for a 150lbs dude is a bit too much in my opinion. Also, it looks like for flotation shovel size and binding setback actually are just as important as the overall projected surface. One board that I could recommend that feels way shorter than it really is is Palmer Shape. It actually did everything quite well (I tried a 174, not sure if they even made any other sizes). Was surprisingly good (actually, excellent) at high speeds, good edge grip, fast transitions. I was totally alienated by the fact that it just didn't have that springy feeling that my current board a the time had (an old Timeless 158, the exact opposite of Palmer Shape - unbelievably stiff middle section, very unforgiving, mad edge grip, very springy out of a well executed carve). I would probably want to demo it again this year A small bike/snowboard shop somewhere north of Seattle on 405 (or on 99?) had them for demo, I can try to find it again if you're interested. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gendzwill" wrote Geezers these days - can't even read. I said I can _imagine_ how would it be on a big board, after seeing the difference in how it felt on a 164 compared to 160. And trust me, that Palmer feels like a much bigger board, I've ridden a 178 before and it was easier to handle than this one. I'll let you know how it goes with the 200 when I finally get that sucker on the hill (been too cold here/no snow). Man, you don't even have to mount bindings on that monster. Just use it as a sled - lay on top, grab it by the shovel and bomb down! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Edog" wrote irrelevant. I approach uneven ground as providing opportunities for turns: either A) bank off a bump or B) I ride over the bump using it to unweight the board and turn at the top. This is what I mean by dancing on the crud. Board length has little effect on either process. Yeah but with a longer board you have to work a lot harder to turn it, right? Even worse, you can work very hard at turning it but it simply won't turn as fast as a shorter board. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:03:08 GMT, "Dmitry"
allegedly wrote: really interested to know - your riding style, what runs are your favorite, etc.. I'm heavier and taller than you (165lbs, 5'11"), and yet I have a completely opposite idea of what's a good board for Baker. I'm not a Baker boy either, but I've spent a reasonable amount of time there. Usually I'm on my 162 Sasquatch, but 2 years ago I took my Prior 181 Pow out for a blast. In the powder it was great, although I stayed out of the trees with that thing. I found that pretty much anything from under C8 up to Gaby's was a huge grin. In the hard pack though, it's either back to the 162 or hiking. - Dave. -- The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky. http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow - Securing your e-mail The Snowboard FAQ lives here - http://rssFAQ.org/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Jan 2005 14:06:05 -0800, "Edog" wrote:
I am basically with you except where you say "even on powder days". A 160 cm often does O.K. for me on potatoes, but anything lighter and I'm sinking. What was wonderful about the Glissade 168 was that it rode like a considerably shorter board in the crud (trees, bumps, chutes etc.) and since I'm not going home at noon on powder days, the board I bring must go both ways (bi ?). So I'm looking for a 164+ which is quick, holds an edge, but can cut a sharp carve. Something to dance through the crud, not bulldoze (so boards like the Ride Timeless are out of the question). Really, I want my Glissade back but that is not happening. Sorry to trot out a fairly obvious recommendation, but the Burton Custom 160 I used to have was easily the most versatile board I've ridden. It just did everything so well. Why not look at a 160 or 164 (or whatever this years sizes are)? -- Champ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Champ wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 14:06:05 -0800, "Edog" wrote: I am basically with you except where you say "even on powder days". A 160 cm often does O.K. for me on potatoes, but anything lighter and I'm sinking. What was wonderful about the Glissade 168 was that it rode like a considerably shorter board in the crud (trees, bumps, chutes etc.) and since I'm not going home at noon on powder days, the board I bring must go both ways (bi ?). So I'm looking for a 164+ which is quick, holds an edge, but can cut a sharp carve. Something to dance through the crud, not bulldoze (so boards like the Ride Timeless are out of the question). Really, I want my Glissade back but that is not happening. Sorry to trot out a fairly obvious recommendation, but the Burton Custom 160 I used to have was easily the most versatile board I've ridden. It just did everything so well. Why not look at a 160 or 164 (or whatever this years sizes are)? The custom feels awesome, but I have to say that it doesn't last too long. My friend had one and after about a season and a half, the board became too noodly. He had a 158 i think of the 02-03 season. Plus Burton only gives out 1 year warranty..... there are plenty of other brands out there that can exceed it in that department. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The custom feels awesome, but I have to say that it doesn't last too long.
My friend had one and after about a season and a half, the board became too noodly. He had a 158 i think of the 02-03 season. Plus Burton only gives out 1 year warranty..... there are plenty of other brands out there that can exceed it in that department. I has similar issues w/ a 99/2000 Custom 160 losing stiffness and pop quickly. I was in the upper end of the weight range. I have always suspected they simply published too wide a weight range and I was just fatiguing the board with my weight... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mike T wrote: The custom feels awesome, but I have to say that it doesn't last too long. My friend had one and after about a season and a half, the board became too noodly. He had a 158 i think of the 02-03 season. Plus Burton only gives out 1 year warranty..... there are plenty of other brands out there that can exceed it in that department. I has similar issues w/ a 99/2000 Custom 160 losing stiffness and pop quickly. I was in the upper end of the weight range. I have always suspected they simply published too wide a weight range and I was just fatiguing the board with my weight... Yep, same here. I really enjoyed my Custom for its short life. I demoed newer ones, and it is stil a fine board, but I'm not into disposables. I've heard the Custom X is Burton's response to that problem -- but once burned twice shy. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I've heard the Custom X is Burton's response to that problem -- but
once burned twice shy. Eek - $500 or whatever a Custom costs these days isn't enough for a durable board? Scary! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|