A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Snowboarding
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Board Recommendations (and what's wrong with blaring Waylon Jennings)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 19th 05, 02:49 AM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 05, 03:05 AM
Dmitry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 19th 05, 03:07 AM
Dmitry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 19th 05, 03:47 AM
Dmitry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 19th 05, 11:00 AM
Switters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 05, 02:04 PM
Champ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 05, 02:55 PM
Waco Paco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 05, 04:27 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 05, 05:30 PM
Edog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 19th 05, 07:18 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.