Splitboard.com Forums

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.





But hey what really counts is how it rides....
and that looks pretty good to me !!!

Rider: Killclimbz
Photo by HikeforTurns