Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:52 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Burton Split-S 165 v 170
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:59 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Spokane
i own a 170 and sadly i have found that the length is a little too long for the type of riding i usually do here (tight east coast trees like those found in VT).

thus the board is a little harder to turn in tight situations than i would like... basically the board works me over. yeah, i know get in better shape :) but i can ride my 160 or my 164 customs and do quick turns all day, the 170 is simply not as nimble and its weight is a factor too.

in contrast i've been out west with the 170, and in big bowls where i don't have to string together 50 short radius turns in a row (like in VT), but bigger carves, the 170 is great... however, the fact remains, that i do live here on the east and would still like to do some touring in VT and the Daks with the 170 splitty, but its looking like its just "too much board" for the job.

so, this makes me think that the 165 split would have been a better decision on my part... problem is i have not ridden it, and thus don't know if its really much more nimble than the 170 and wieghs much less...

so, that said, has anyone ridden both boards and care to comment on the performance of the 170 vs the 165?

i am pondering the sale of the 170 and either a) getting the split 165 or splitting my own board of a shorter length...

comments welcome. tia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 351
Location: bozeman
I haven't ridden both, but I do have the 165. I wanted the 170 but was unable to get it so I went with the 165. I am actually really happy with the shorter board. I am 6'2 and 180 and usually ride a 167. The 165 is really nice for tight chutes and trees. It also helps with those dreaded kick turns on steep switchbacks. Hope that helps a little bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:59 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Spokane
lifelinksplit wrote:
I haven't ridden both, but I do have the 165. I wanted the 170 but was unable to get it so I went with the 165. I am actually really happy with the shorter board. I am 6'2 and 180 and usually ride a 167. The 165 is really nice for tight chutes and trees. It also helps with those dreaded kick turns on steep switchbacks. Hope that helps a little bit.


hey, thanks man... yeah it does help confirm my suspicions somewhat.

if anyone else that has feedback on the matter, please feel free to jump in... thx.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:57 pm
Posts: 4966
Location: California
I've ridden both.

I'm 5'7'' and 155lbs. Last year I rode them as my two main boards. The 170 was my big powder stick for the deep days and the 165 was my “go toâ€Â


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:51 am
Posts: 44
I tried the 170 once only, and own a 165. The major drawback with the 170 is I think when going uphill. It is 3cm wider than the 165 which means more of it scaping on the sides of the trail when going up with skiers.
As for going downhill, I am 183cm high for 70kg and my 165 works like a charm although I push a lot on the board (pretty aggressive riding style). I don't find it too short, altough I usually ride a 167 Fastback. It floats really well.
I say go for the 165 if you can find one.

PS BCrider would you have a photograph of this board handy by any chance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:16 am
Posts: 43
Location: Switzerland
i'm 6'2" 190 and at resorts ride a wide 159 (Never Summer Legacy), and thus get the float of a longer board and the turning of a shorter board.

i got the 163 Never Summer Legacy Split from the Blaho Brothers, and find that it is more difficult to make tight turns (going down a single-track), being used to a shorter, more maneuverable board.

1 cm wider is roughly equal to 6-7 cm length as far as surface area (napkin calculation for 160 length, 25cm waist)

AFAIK, the Blaho Brothers/Never SUmmer is the only manufacturer to make a wide split.

_________________
Get Some!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:51 am
Posts: 44
keep in mind that if you uste skier trails going uphill, the wider the board is, the more you will "scrape" against the side walls of the trail, and the more tiering the skinning gets. I wouldn't take a wide split up, but that's because I ride mostly with skiers. If you only ride with splitters, wide might be a good option.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: knuckle dragon and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  





Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group