Size of Burton Custom Flying V ??

Posted: 02 February 2011 03:35 PM

Hi,

I decided to go for the Burton Custom Flying V. But I am not sure about the size. For now I chose 163.

Pros:
- More float in powder,
- more stability when carving because of longer edges,
- love the 163’s green/yellow style!
- don’t like the blue-orange of the 160

Con:
- 160 is supposed to be more agile

[SIZE=4]==> Any opinion or experience? Thanks! [/SIZE]

—————
[SIZE=2]I am:
- 38yrs
- riding for 3 years
- 6’00”
- 164lbs.
- Boot 12 (successfully shrinked Salomon F20)
- all pistes, now practicing switch riding and doing little ollies. small tricks on the piste across natural features soon. No park rails, eventually small kickers to come
- 80% piste incl small jumps and tricks, 20% backcountry/powder (planned), 0% park

board so far:
- 2009 Burton Clash 160 (Camber)[/SIZE]

Posted: 03 February 2011 11:08 AM

I’d be looking at the 160, that will put you right in the middle of the weight recommendations. But you are completely right, you need to choose between increased stability and edge hold Vs playfulness and the ability to jib around. 160 Vs 163. If I was choosing edge hold and stability I would probably drop the flying V and head for the standard cambered Custom. The versatility and playfulnees of the Flying V at a standard all mountain length are what makes it different, stretching to a 163 might negat the whole point of riding Flying V in the first place.

Posted: 03 February 2011 11:56 AM

Thanks for your quick reply - good point, indeed!

At first I also thought the 160 would bring a problem in width with my boot, but after comparing the specs (Clash2009 vs CustomFlyingV) I realized this won’t be a problem. Comparing Clash160 and CustomFlyingV163 I’ll loose 2mm at nose, gain 3mm at waist, and gain 4mm at tail. Relevant is my rear foot because it is at a smaller angle, so this would still be fine (this thought by the way completely excludes the 162W, which I didn’t mention yet).

So basically my problem is: Nicer colour or reasonable length? Rationality or heart?

Best regards from Switzerland
Marcus

Spec Details: 
........       CLASH2009  ---CustomFlyingV11---
Modification      160      160      163    162W
Length           1605     1600     1630    1620
Running length   1220     1200     1225    1215
Effective edge   1270     1242     1267    1255
Nose width        304      299      302     304
Waist width       254      255      257     260
Tail width        298      299      302     304
Sidecut radius   7930      814      831     825

Posted: 03 February 2011 12:22 PM

Well if you are worried about foot size, I would consider the 162W. I think a 26cm waist is going to accomodate a size 11US boot nicely. But again the board will feel firmer because you are at the bottom end of the weight recommendations.

Posted: 03 February 2011 12:33 PM

Actually since my 12” boots are fine on the Clash and I won’t loose width on either board, I don’t consider the 162W because of the foot size any more. But I’d prefer the 162W-red to the 160-blue! 

So: Compared to the 160, would I loose more agility with the wider 162 or with the longer 163? Thank you so much!

Posted: 03 February 2011 12:51 PM

2cm of length won’t really make any difference at all, the Flying V profile is much more agile than a standard camber profile so you don’t need to worry about that. It’s really about where you sit in the weight recommendations. The boards are designed to offer to the same flex to each ride in other words if a super light grom picks up a 138 it will feel like a 5/10. If a 190 lb man giant picks up a 163 it will also feel like a 5/10… the flexes get progressively firmer. Being at the lighter end of the scale you will find the 162W and 163 are stiffer flexing than the 160. If you want to enjoy the middle of the road flex it’s best to sit in the middle of the recommendations.

Posted: 03 February 2011 02:07 PM

Ah, I see, that wasn’t completely clear to me yet. Well, I don’t have any questions left, now it’s up to me to decide. Thanks again!

Posted: 08 February 2011 03:14 AM

I can weigh in here, I recently tried A 160 flying V (25.5cm wide) and I am 6’1, 185 pounds, size 12 shoe and I had no problem,  Even at my size I had control and stability except on really icy spots . But if you don’t like the graphic I feel like a few MM’s isn’t worth fussing over too much.