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

Donek Web Site, 2nd Board recommendation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th 04, 07:31 PM
Robert Stevahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Donek Web Site, 2nd Board recommendation

Hey, it looks like Sean got the site updated with the new products.
Excellent! http://www.donek.com/

I'm in the market for a 2nd board. I have a 160 Incline now. I like it
very much, but it doesn't do everything well for me. In particular, I
find it to be not very maneuverable in the trees, and it sinks like a
lead weight in powder.

I'm 5'8", 155-160lbs, 9.5 boots. Flow bindings at this point.

I mostly freeride, and there's not that much powder at my local hill,
but plenty of trees. I'm just getting into the park some, but mainly
just straight jumps. I don't ever see myself in the pipe, but who
knows.

I'm considering the Phoenix, but wonder if it is "all mountain"
enough. Looks very soft, and I've never ridden a noodle board before.
Would I be disappointed on the groomers and bumps?

I'm also considering the 156 Wide, thinking it might be a little more
maneuverable and should certainly float better when I need that.

Do any of you (besides Sean!) actually have a Phoenix? Can you
(including Sean!) compare it to a Wide?

Thanks in advance!

-- Robert
Ads
  #2  
Old November 10th 04, 09:55 PM
lonerider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey Robert, I'm in the same boat as you... I'm 5'8" 152 lbs, size 8
boots with Catek Freeride bindings. I also found that my 155 Incline
doesn't do trees well for me - making me think that you won't be happy
with a 156 Wide.

I actually picked up a Burton Fish 156MD on Ebay for around $120 -
there are still several on auctions/sale which I have no doubt you
could get one in the $140 range. That is an awesome board for trees and
powder (the short sidecut radius and taper make it extremely quick
turning)... it is very good in sloppy/chunky/slushy snow as well and
can carve a good line at medium speed... although it is not a going to
bomb steeps for you (but the Incline will so it is a perfect combo).

That being said... knowing the style of the original Donek boards, I
can't believe that the Phoenix is not going to be very carveable and
all-mountain as those are the type of boards Sean has been building for
years; you don't change the "character" of your board overnight. The
Incline 160 is a very stiff 4.2, sufficient for a 190 lbs rider, the
155 is 3.4. The Phoenix 160/160W is 1.7/2.0 so it's about half as
stiff, probably leaving it in the medium-medium stiffness range and I
think should be adequate (especially compared to the Twin 160 1.0
index.

Then again... why ask when you can try it out? As far as I know Sean is
still into giving *free* demos of his boards. If you are interested in
seeing how they ride.. call him up and have him mailing you a board or
two to compare. If you like it... take it... if not, I strongly
recommend the Burton Fish 156HD for you. It is a very, very, very fun
board... limited in the exact opposite way of the Incline.

--Arvin

P.S. If you do demo the Phoenix... let me know! I am planning on
getting on in 2-3 seasons I've sufficiently used my old park/pipe
board. I was thinking about going with the Prior AMF in a few years...
but now that Donek has come out with a similar board... I might stick
with them (especially if I get to try it out, unlike Prior).

  #3  
Old November 10th 04, 10:06 PM
Neil Gendzwill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lonerider wrote:

I was thinking about going with the Prior AMF in a few years...
but now that Donek has come out with a similar board... I might stick
with them (especially if I get to try it out, unlike Prior).


You can try a Prior out - just plan a vacation to Whistler, and demo to
your heart's satisfaction. Maybe not so convenient as the Donek
demo-by-mail, but any excuse for a trip...

Neil

  #4  
Old November 10th 04, 10:15 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I was thinking about going with the Prior AMF in a few years...
but now that Donek has come out with a similar board... I might stick
with them (especially if I get to try it out, unlike Prior).


You can try a Prior out - just plan a vacation to Whistler, and demo to
your heart's satisfaction. Maybe not so convenient as the Donek
demo-by-mail, but any excuse for a trip...



Ping, Kevin Morrison... you still planning to demo Phoenixes and Twins at Mt
Hood over Thanksgiving? I'm curious to see what the Phoenix feels like,
especially if you've got the 165.


  #5  
Old November 11th 04, 06:01 PM
Jason Watkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The last couple times I rode my wide 160, I detuned (dulled) maybe the
last 5cm of the sidecut at the tail. Made a very noticible difference,
suddenly the tail got 'swishy'. I'm not completely sold on it, and may
go back to a sharp tune all the way... but it may be worth trying if
you want to get some maneuverability out of your incline.

I'm roughly your weight, and the wide 160 floats me like a block of
styrofoam in a bathtum. The wide 156 should have plenty of float.
  #6  
Old November 11th 04, 06:59 PM
id
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Stevahn wrote:

I'm in the market for a 2nd board. I have a 160 Incline now. I like it
very much, but it doesn't do everything well for me. In particular, I
find it to be not very maneuverable in the trees, and it sinks like a
lead weight in powder.

I'm 5'8", 155-160lbs, 9.5 boots. Flow bindings at this point.


I'm surprised the 160 won't float you in powder. I've ridden my 165 wide
in every different powder condition and flotation has *never* been an
issue. OK my board's bigger but then I'm 6'5" and 185 lbs! Could it be a
speed/technique thing - you say you don't get much powder at your hill:

I mostly freeride, and there's not that much powder at my local hill,
but plenty of trees.


So with the manoeverability problem in trees, are you riding ice/crud in
there or is it powder? If it's the former then shorter with more flex
should help. If it's the latter, then I agree with the Fish suggestion -
but I do wonder if it's just a question of speed/confidence on your
current board.

Iain
  #7  
Old November 11th 04, 07:18 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm surprised the 160 won't float you in powder. I've ridden my 165 wide
in every different powder condition and flotation has *never* been an
issue. OK my board's bigger but then I'm 6'5" and 185 lbs! Could it be a
speed/technique thing - you say you don't get much powder at your hill:


The Incline 160 did not float me in powder either, but the Wide 161 floats
me very well. The two boards have the same sidecut and stiffness... only
different in width, nose length, tail length. That extra width seems to
make all the difference for flotation!

I mostly freeride, and there's not that much powder at my local hill,
but plenty of trees.


So with the manoeverability problem in trees, are you riding ice/crud in
there or is it powder? If it's the former then shorter with more flex
should help. If it's the latter, then I agree with the Fish suggestion -
but I do wonder if it's just a question of speed/confidence on your
current board.


Either way, I think you'll find a wide 156 will be too similar to your
Incline 160. It will still be relatively stiff, making it not maneuverable
enough for you in the trees. If you want to stay with Donek - perhaps you
might look at a Phoenix? (And tell us all about it if you do, many of us
are curious!)

BTW, I find my Wide 161 "just right" in trees, but I am heavier (195
pounds), and have about 400 riding days under my belt, and I tend to like
stiff boards... so I am not surprised at all that you find it a lot to
handle in trees at your weight, and doubly so if you're not as experienced.

Mike T



  #8  
Old November 12th 04, 09:05 AM
id
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike T wrote:

The Incline 160 did not float me in powder either, but the Wide 161 floats
me very well. The two boards have the same sidecut and stiffness... only
different in width, nose length, tail length. That extra width seems to
make all the difference for flotation!


(Warning: procede with caution - unproven theory below!)

I'll try to understand that. For a *first* approximation I think that
lift (and therefore the rider weight that can be floated) will be
proportional to board area. So relative to the 160 incline we have
Board Flotation index
160 incline 1
156 wide 1.05
161 wide 1.08
165 wide 1.11

So Mike's right, the effect of increased width on flotation is
significant - nearly 8% more for a 161W compared to a 160

Next lets try a relative flotation factor for each rider on his board
benchmarked from Roberts weight (flotation index divided by rider weight
index) :
Rider Weight index Board Flotability
Robert 1 160 1
Iain 1.18 165W .94
Mike 1.24 161W .87

Conclusions:
* Mike has least flotation relative to his weight but is probably
travelling fast!
* I think 160 should float Robert
* Robert moving to a 156W gains 5% more flotation and reduces stiffness
by 4.2 to 3.4 (but still a lot stiffer than the Pheonix). But other than
in powder, the extra width will be a disadvantage with US 9.5 boots

Iain

  #9  
Old November 12th 04, 04:41 PM
Mike T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Conclusions:
* Mike has least flotation relative to his weight but is probably
travelling fast!


I admit it does become a little more tricky to float at lower speeds, but
not *that* tricky! My wife bought me an OSin 4807 178 for my birthday last
year (steeply discounted) which is a fish-tail board with a long powder
nose... can't wait to find out how *that* floats in the powder. (It's
almost as wide as my 161W, too)

* I think 160 should float Robert


I'm sure there are other factors to consider, but yeah, given Robert's
weight versus mine, I suspect the Incline 160 does provide adequate
flotation for him...

.... but the stiffness could be an issue too. I've some frustrating
experiences with really stiff boards in powder, for example my old Salomon
FRS 165, which makes the Incline/Wide/Sasquatch feel like a noodle. I love
super-stiff boards for carving on hardpack, but in powder, without the
resistance of the hardpack, they are mighty difficult to bend at sub-light
speeds. Robert, I don't know what your experience level is, but at your
weight the Incline 160 is probably quite stiff. (Jason Watkins - any
comments? You're lighter and ride a 161W...). If the board is stiffer
than you'd like in powder, mistakes get magnified since you can't bend the
board as easily to correct. On the other hand, in your mistake-free
comfort zone, you can just weight your back foot and enjoy the ride...

* Robert moving to a 156W gains 5% more flotation and reduces stiffness by
4.2 to 3.4 (but still a lot stiffer than the Pheonix). But other than in
powder, the extra width will be a disadvantage with US 9.5 boots


My wife has the Incline 150, so I have a pretty good idea how stiff the 156
would be, and the answer is, still pretty stiff. (lonerider has the
Incline 155 - same stiffness as 156W - comments?).

IMHO, if you are looking for a dedicated powder / trees board, you want
something noticeably softer than what you use to carve groomers on. (That
OSin 178, despite being quite long, is by far the softest board I own.
It's a hair flexier than my wife's Incline 150). I haven't ridden the
Fish yet - but I agree with lonerider, it's worth a serious look. (BTW I
bought my wife a Fish 150 via eBay so she can keep up with me when I ride
my OSin :; )

Mike T

P.S. IMHO, with a 9.5 boot, the Wide is as good a choice as the Incline on
average, better for some, worse for others. The last time Iain and I
engaged in a calculation-intensive thread, it was on this very topic


  #10  
Old November 12th 04, 04:45 PM
Sean Martin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert,

My first suggestion for you is to verify that you've got your bindings
mounted in the appropriate location on the board you have. You should have
received a mounting instruction sheet with the board indicating the
appropriate mounting and placement of the bindings. If you didn't get it,
or no longer have it, I would be happy to e-mail you another one. Your
position on the board has a huge affect on the performance of the board in
various types of terrain. Moving toward the tail will definitely improve
the boards performance in the trees and powder. Too far back and you will
start to loose some carving performance. Moving forward will destroy the
boards performance in powder and the trees and teach you to carve the board
in the back seat. 9 times out of 10, binding position on the board is the
solution to peoples problems.

Now for the phoenix. I purposefully did none of the initial testing of the
phoenix in an effort to make it something different. I listened carefully
to the people who were testing it and made the changes they requested or
made changes in the engineering that generated the results they were looking
for. I was of course striving to make a board that railed an exceptional
turn at the same time. Most of the testing was done in the trees,
attempting to make a board that had a tremendous amount of manueverability
in tight situations. The testers were very satisfied with the results. It
was also tested in the park and pipe. Those testers were also very
impressed. When they were all happy with the ride I finally took the board
out and rode it. I feel that we did an excellent job of meeting the needs
of the powder, tree and freestyle performance while maintaining exceptional
carve performance. As for comparing it with the wide, I think they are
quite different boards. I think you should check your stance location and
then try to demo a phoenix.

--
Sean Martin
Donek Snowboards Inc.

http://www.donek.com/
phone:877-53-DONEK

"Robert Stevahn" wrote in message
...
Hey, it looks like Sean got the site updated with the new products.
Excellent! http://www.donek.com/

I'm in the market for a 2nd board. I have a 160 Incline now. I like it
very much, but it doesn't do everything well for me. In particular, I
find it to be not very maneuverable in the trees, and it sinks like a
lead weight in powder.

I'm 5'8", 155-160lbs, 9.5 boots. Flow bindings at this point.

I mostly freeride, and there's not that much powder at my local hill,
but plenty of trees. I'm just getting into the park some, but mainly
just straight jumps. I don't ever see myself in the pipe, but who
knows.

I'm considering the Phoenix, but wonder if it is "all mountain"
enough. Looks very soft, and I've never ridden a noodle board before.
Would I be disappointed on the groomers and bumps?

I'm also considering the 156 Wide, thinking it might be a little more
maneuverable and should certainly float better when I need that.

Do any of you (besides Sean!) actually have a Phoenix? Can you
(including Sean!) compare it to a Wide?

Thanks in advance!

-- Robert




 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fakie board recommendation Skitzo Snowboarding 9 May 13th 04 11:03 PM
Board bags recommendation GB Snowboarding 6 March 5th 04 04:36 PM
Donek Freecarve 163 alpine board for sale Mike T Marketplace 1 February 4th 04 08:49 PM
Donek Wide too "fast" a board for me? Johnny1 Snowboarding 18 December 6th 03 07:19 AM
Burton Dominant Sizing------Please help Lee Snowboarding 5 November 21st 03 06:22 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.