Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:54 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:27 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Denver
Unruly Baker wrote:
Killclimbz wrote:
So far no issues with the skinnin'. I took her out on Buffalo Pass last weekend. Had to break trail all day, threw in a few kick turns and steep slopes. Climbed like a champ. So far I have not had any issues with the set back on the touring brackets.


Do a bracketed test. Go skin and break trail on the Summit, then same day/same snow do it on another more "typical" board. Then I'll be sold.

Sorry, I'm a skeptic. :wink:

UB


No worries man, I do have a relatively new 166 Freeride, that I could do that with. I was using it right up until I got the NS Split. So far, I haven't really noticed a difference. Again the full length skins probably help a lot.

Maybe I'll do the test, but it will probably be next season. This board is just too much damn fun to ride right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 30
Location: Western Washington
I've got a solid Summit 161 & dig it the most. I was looking for a shorter board for steep pow runs in the trees and the Summit really delivers. It works fine on the groomers too once you get used to it wanting to turn.

I don't find it so nice on hardback, especially the late afternon chopped up crap. Riding flat on a narrow cattrack is also ill advised.

It rides very similar a Fish but maybe a bit more damp and without the silly 3-hole binding pattern.

T.



powderjunkie wrote:
I questioned the shape too, but when I rode one it was really, really good. Long pow nose and the tapered/extened tail works in pow. No leg burn, the tails drops in the pow just right to keep the nose up and on hardpack it still rails.

_________________
-she ain't revved 'til them rods is thrown...
www.crowmountain.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 549
Location: Stowe, VT
I got to ride a Summit 161 and a Fish 160 this weekend, and Corbeau's analysis is spot on. They both performed admirably in the trees, but the summit didn't throw me around as much in the crud due to it's damping. I just looked at the NS website, and as I suspected, the 167 summit has the same effective edge as a 160 Titan! I'd be tempted to go with a longer board than the 161 to improve the edge length for icy hardpack, but then I wonder what would happen to the good tree performance. :( Oh well...

Shep


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:27 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Denver
How much do you weigh? I am over 220lbs and find the 167 is a nimble little minx for me in the trees. I never did get a chance to demo the shorter and longer versions to compare with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 549
Location: Stowe, VT
I'm 170lb since I got lazy last year... I'm only thinking that I liked the tree-turning due to it being a fairly short taper tail (of course, short is relative. My front country board is a 158... yay new england hardpack). and if you turn around and add 6 cm, you've got to be losing some quick-turn ability. Would the increased edge-length improve hardpack performance more than the increased length would slow down it's turning????

I have no idea. But I wouldn't mind finding out if I can find a 167 to demo some time.

Shep


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:27 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Denver
Well for you weight the 161 is probably better suited for you. Of course it also boils down to ability and preference. I generall ride boards in the 160's though with my weight several manufacturers recomend boards that are over 170 in length for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 549
Location: Stowe, VT
I definitely think the 161 was a great board for me in the conditions the summit is designed for, but, being the greedy bas**** that I am, I was wondering about best-possible edging performance in icier conditions, hence my interest in comparing and contrasting the 161 with the 167. overall, I do like the board though... The 167 would probably float me like crazy... :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:22 pm
Posts: 296
Location: Switzerland
Killclimbz's Summit 167 and my Khyber 165 next to each other.

You will notice that the touring bracket is mounted at almost the exact same location. The summit has it maybe 1/4" further back, but not more.
I do not have any problems skinning and I am not aware of other people having problems with the Khyber neither.
If you wish the touring bracket could probably be slightly moved forward since the binding inserts are still quite some distance away.

Image

Image

But hey what really counts is how it rides....
and that looks pretty good to me !!!
Image
Rider: Killclimbz
Photo by HikeforTurns


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FrankH and 12 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