Official 2020 Gear ...
 

Official 2020 Gear Thread  

Page 83 / 100
  RSS

awd1105
(@awd1105)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 235
17/03/2019 10:31 am  

Demoed the 154 Alpha yesterday. I would've preferred the 160W, but it ripped anyway. Gripped turns really well on piste and handled predictably on the boardercross course. My personal test was to point it and try to crank a heelside circle when the run flattened out. It washed out, but I have no doubt it would've held if I was riding the right size. 

Super fun, but hard to be too hyped when riding it too small. Considering it as a purchase next season. 

Ontario | Boots: Driver X | Bindings: Genesis X, Union Progress FC | Boards: CaféRacer & CaféRacer+ 159 / Cheetah 159 / LandLord 163


ReplyQuote
tierarzt
(@tierarzt)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 378
17/03/2019 11:05 am  

Is the effective edge as long as it looks in the photos? Is it stiff? I'm 150lbs size 10 boot probably going to with the 162. 


ReplyQuote
Greg
 Greg
(@g3greg)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 68
17/03/2019 2:01 pm  
 
Posted by: Lalune

Anyone knows what Burton pants(bib) are these camo ones that Darcy Sharpe wears? Pretty sure the top is the AK Anorak but cannot figure out the bottom.

Or does anyone has Burton softgood catalog to share? I know it might be couple hundreds pages though.

Thanks in advance guys!

IMG 8811

I did see the soft goods catalog and it's very similar stuff, a few new patterns, a few new colors, always have the staple colors. No free bird jacket next year. Darcy almost always wears the cyclic stuff.


ReplyQuote
optionrider
(@optionrider)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 31
17/03/2019 8:25 pm  
Posted by: awd1105

Demoed the 154 Alpha yesterday. I would've preferred the 160W, but it ripped anyway. Gripped turns really well on piste and handled predictably on the boardercross course. My personal test was to point it and try to crank a heelside circle when the run flattened out. It washed out, but I have no doubt it would've held if I was riding the right size. 

Super fun, but hard to be too hyped when riding it too small. Considering it as a purchase next season. 

Thanks for the feedback! If you don't mind me asking, whats your h/w? I'm debating between the 54 and the 58 and I'm 6'1/200, only considering the 54 because of such a long sidecut radius.


ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
17/03/2019 8:30 pm  

Why so short?


ReplyQuote
awd1105
(@awd1105)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 235
18/03/2019 5:50 am  

The 154 was all they had. The entire length of the board is basically EE, it felt like. Nose and tail are basically nonexistent past the contact points.  

I'm about 5'8/210 with gear, 9.5 Driver Xs. 

I've been spending a lot of time on the Korua Cafe Racer 59 this season so I've gotten used to having more width to play on. 

I rode the Alpha 54 with +24/+12, 22" wide, and it felt good but I just couldn't get over wanting more board under me. I throw a lot of weight and momentum into my turns so I'm sure I would've had way more fun on a 160W. 

Endeavor Alpha

...and before anyone asks, no, it's not asym. Just the camera angle. 

This post was modified 6 months ago by awd1105

Ontario | Boots: Driver X | Bindings: Genesis X, Union Progress FC | Boards: CaféRacer & CaféRacer+ 159 / Cheetah 159 / LandLord 163


GD liked
ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
18/03/2019 12:04 pm  

I read that, just wondering about optionrider

I can see why someone would choose to size down on a board like that, because it has more edge, but then you’re just coming back down toward what you normally ride, just with no nose and tail kicks. The point of those boards is to ride them more like a normal size, or even a little longer, and then you have a lot more edge than normal, which is the sensation the board is built for. Not that their are “rules,” but...

Obviously they are still different, but same category… The diamond blade wouldn’t be the diamond blade in a 154. It’s really easy to ride the 163, but you are doing so in a different way, which again is the point of the board. They’re super fun!


awd1105 and Mig liked
ReplyQuote
tierarzt
(@tierarzt)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 378
18/03/2019 12:40 pm  

Yeah and these aren't actually super-wide. 254 waist 308 nose on 162. Being a US10 boot I'm going for 162 for that reason. That and, as you say, this board is designed to be different to your other boards. I want as much edge as I can possibly get!


ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
18/03/2019 12:47 pm  

Yeah, 162 would be my pick as well.

It should be noted that at the speed you will ride a board like that, you won’t really notice a wider waist. I’m surprised it’s that narrow on a model like that. Even with size 9s, you can easily boot out when you are actually carving at a steep angle on a normal/narrow waist. But, that’s not what most people are doing I guess 😜


ReplyQuote
tierarzt
(@tierarzt)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 378
18/03/2019 1:04 pm  

This is the one thing that puts me off actually. I already have a 254 waist board. If I am getting this as a legit euro-carving board, should I actually go wider? Like say get the 160 wide at 263 waist? 


ReplyQuote
Elektropow
(@elektropow)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 603
18/03/2019 1:12 pm  
Posted by: Spenser

Yeah, 162 would be my pick as well.

It should be noted that at the speed you will ride a board like that, you won’t really notice a wider waist. I’m surprised it’s that narrow on a model like that. Even with size 9s, you can easily boot out when you are actually carving at a steep angle on a normal/narrow waist. But, that’s not what most people are doing I guess 😜

At super high speeds I doubt many will be able to carve at steep enough angles to notice apart from people with really big feet. Aren't boardercross boards relatively narrow to the modern "trendy" fatties? Don't get me wrong, I love not to get bootout and get my nipples to the ground as much as the next guy, but just thinking application wise.

I've yet to find a board I can hit 50+ mph and get that low to boot out on a narrower board... Shit skill probably!


ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
18/03/2019 1:13 pm  

I don’t remember your specs, but that is definitely a legitimate thing to consider. It’s easy to use the diamond blade as a reference when talking about the Alpha… The blade is a 163, I believe 265 waist, and if I remember correctly, 137 cm edge with average 8.8 radius. Sounds like a lot of board, but that is why it rides the way it does. Especially without a very usable nose kick, you are not going to be riding a board like this all over the mountain in mixed conditions. You are going to want to stick to groomers, not just because no nose kick makes it difficult to ride other terrain, but because it will just feel so damn good you won’t want to do anything else, haha.

Once you are going fast, that edge and sidecut is exactly what makes it easy. The width is virtually not noticeable either, and again, part of why it rides so well when it gets what it wants.  It’s a whole new sensation. But, try to dink around or go slower, and it starts to feel like a boat pretty quickly.

If someone is looking for a shorter overall length that still has a good amount of edge, something to ride all over with, but also excels at carving, I don’t really think the blade or alpha are the boards. The answer to that sounds more like a traditionally cambered all mountain board that maybe packs in a little extra edge as compared to average. Or maybe something like a Korua.

As far as the width alone between the regular and wide options, I would say that is up to you how you plan to use it. Personally, I feel like I wouldn’t enjoy the blade nearly as much if it were not on the wider side. But, I would say you just have to be honest with your riding and abilities. If you are truly angling the board to a higher degree, I imagine most would appreciate the width. If you are not, then the regular width, assuming your boots are not too big, would probably be fine and feel better overall.

This post was modified 6 months ago by Spenser

awd1105 and Mig liked
ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
18/03/2019 1:24 pm  
Posted by: Elektropow
Posted by: Spenser

Yeah, 162 would be my pick as well.

It should be noted that at the speed you will ride a board like that, you won’t really notice a wider waist. I’m surprised it’s that narrow on a model like that. Even with size 9s, you can easily boot out when you are actually carving at a steep angle on a normal/narrow waist. But, that’s not what most people are doing I guess 😜

At super high speeds I doubt many will be able to carve at steep enough angles to notice apart from people with really big feet. Aren't boardercross boards relatively narrow to the modern "trendy" fatties? Don't get me wrong, I love not to get bootout and get my nipples to the ground as much as the next guy, but just thinking application wise.

I've yet to find a board I can hit 50+ mph and get that low to boot out on a narrower board... Shit skill probably!

True, but paired with a long sidecut that is comfortable carving at speeds like that, you can actually tip the board up pretty far when going super fast, if your legs are up for the G’s. You are carving harder, yet leaving a larger arc in the snow - the turn is happening over a long distance, rather than a short distance which could prevent you from carving hard that at high-speed. Medium speed and tight carves on a tight radius could be just as balanced as a very long sidecut at super high speed, because the board matches rider input in both cases, despite the riding itself being very different.

That’s the thing too… on decks like these, you hardly notice your speed or how hard you may be carving. You feel it much more on a traditional shape. Or, like that nitro 195 I was riding recently, it was crazy how little of the speed I actually felt. I swear I have never gone faster on groomers, yet it didn’t flinch and I barely felt it. There is just no replacement for having that much edge on a board designed for it… soo fun

its rad how casually you can get low to the ground without bending over. It’s just so comfortable and I’d say pretty easy... the angle/“getting low” is almost just a byproduct of riding the board fast. To stay balanced and stabile, your body pretty much needs to stay nice and sturdy, rather than hunching over to try to grab the ground, like most people following the carving trend. Doing the same on a “normal” board is significantly more difficult.

This post was modified 6 months ago 2 times by Spenser

Mig liked
ReplyQuote
Mig
 Mig
(@migfullbag)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 286
18/03/2019 1:30 pm  
Posted by: Tom

This is the one thing that puts me off actually. I already have a 254 waist board. If I am getting this as a legit euro-carving board, should I actually go wider? Like say get the 160 wide at 263 waist? 

Definitely go with a wider one.

~6' or 182cm | way too fat | US 10.5 - Mondo 28.5
Quiver: Fullbag boards 154 to 181 cm | powder/carving/snowsurf
Boots: Burton Driver X with Scarpa Plus Fit High Liners and custom powerstrap
Bindings: Ride El Hefe | Now Drive


GD liked
ReplyQuote
Spenser
(@spenser)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 2111
18/03/2019 1:33 pm  

Speaking of the blade, I suppose I should directly say... buy a blade! The Alpha looks awesome too, and endeavor is a rad brand to support, as is Fullbag 😎

Other than very specialized brands like Kessler & Donek, Anybody know of other options like these? They don’t seem very common


ReplyQuote
Page 83 / 100
Share: