# Never Summer Proto or SL?



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

The Proto more playful, the SL more damp. Proto is true twin, carbonium topsheet. I don't think there is anything you can do with one, that you can't do with the other.


----------



## ukaszeklp (Jun 10, 2009)

Also SL will give you more float in powder due to the factory setback.

Looking on this boards it is tough decission. I would say that to answer this question you need to decide how much freeride do you want to do on this board.

If you want to do it all board park, all mtn stuff and don't want to sacrifice much of freeride abilities SL would be better choice.
If you are looking for board that would be ridden mostly in park, pipe and groomers with ocassional freeride I would get Proto.


----------



## kushum (Feb 24, 2011)

anybody else that has experience with any one of these or both. any info is appreciated. Also this board is mainly going to be ridden on california mountains. Maybe a trip to vail or whistler.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I haven't been on the SL yet, but I will say the Proto is more geared towards freestyle. Yes, they have the same flex, but the Proto isn't as damp. This means the Proto has a more lively feel underfoot. This type (or lack thereof) of dampening is great for jibbing because you can feel what's underfoot. If you jib, then you know that achieving that "locked in" feeling is a good thing.

I'm sure you can jib with the SL, but again... the Proto would be better at that. The way I see it...

SL = All Mountain freestyle board for someone that rarely, if ever, goes into the park

Proto = All Mountain freestyle board for someone that does a good mix of park in his riding

I would also theorize that the SL will be a better pow board.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

I own an sl and find this board is good for hauling ass,it destroys groomers and will hold an edge on just about anything.I gain a certain confidence when I am riding it that I dont get with other boards.
Park is not where you want to find yourself on this board, it is very stiff and IMO the NS camber profile is terrible for park. You really want a full reverse camber board for park so I really would not recommend the sl for that type of riding.
IMO you need 2 boards, the sl for all mountain and something else for park, you just wont be happy with a compromise.


----------



## hhaidar (Feb 1, 2011)

Having ridden both boards I want to chime in a put in my .02 cents. Both are great all mountain freestyle boards, and both are more playful than your Custom X. As ETM says the SL is great for hauling ass. It rails on groomers and felt super stable to me. I DO have to disagree with the "never summer camber profile is terrible for park." and "you need to be on full reverse camber for park" I'm not sure why you think that, but NS hybrid camber works great in the park. At any terrain park in the world you will find riders on boards ranging from rocker, camber, to combinations of the two. My NS evo is my favorite park board I've ever owned...just saying.
Back to your question though. The biggest deciding factors between the two are prety simple, 1. would youprefer to ride a twin or directional board? 2. would you prefer a more aggressive or more mellow sidecut. Good luck with the decision..you will be happy however it works out!


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

I just dont like the ns rocker camber profile for goofing around, it gives a very direct feel and as I said (in my opinion) you want something a bit more loose for park style riding.
The sl is also a heavy board, you will notice the weight difference over most boards.


----------



## kimchijajonshim (Aug 19, 2007)

Own the original SL-R (2009 I believe) and I've ridden a few days on the Proto. SL's have supposedly gotten lighter and less damp than the one I'm riding, so keep that in mind. My SL right now is softer, but it also has 50 days worth of accumulated break in. I THINK the SL was stiffer when it was new, but it was close. The Proto has phenomenal pop. Clearly the superior board in this respect. The Proto is MUCH livelier and allows for better feeling about what's going on underfoot, whereas the SL soaks up crud better. Proto will likely be lighter. I think I like the shape on the SL more. Don't know it's the sidecut or core profile or what, I just love the way that board feels. I could be happy with either one as an everyday board.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

You might like the slight setback Kimchi 

I also agree with HHaidar. The Evo is my favorite freestyle board now. I don't really jib rails though. I look for broken trees. Have 0 issues with the camber profile for that.


----------



## B.Gilly (Jul 23, 2008)

kimchijajonshim said:


> Own the original SL-R (2009 I believe) and I've ridden a few days on the Proto. SL's have supposedly gotten lighter and less damp than the one I'm riding, so keep that in mind. My SL right now is softer, but it also has 50 days worth of accumulated break in. I THINK the SL was stiffer when it was new, but it was close. The Proto has phenomenal pop. Clearly the superior board in this respect. The Proto is MUCH livelier and allows for better feeling about what's going on underfoot, whereas the SL soaks up crud better. Proto will likely be lighter. I think I like the shape on the SL more. Don't know it's the sidecut or core profile or what, I just love the way that board feels. I could be happy with either one as an everyday board.


They are noticeably lighter this season. Compared last seasons 155 to this seasons today and you notice it right away


----------



## kushum (Feb 24, 2011)

thanks for all the response guys. For the ones that been on the proto, how did it feel hauling ass down the mountain? I'm still 50/50 on decision so it's going to come down to probably how heavy the boards are, cause i like a light board, and how it does going fast downhill.


----------



## kimchijajonshim (Aug 19, 2007)

B.Gilly said:


> They are noticeably lighter this season. Compared last seasons 155 to this seasons today and you notice it right away


Have you had the chance to ride a 2012 SL? If it has comparable pop to the Proto, I might swing one of those for my new everyday board over the Proto.



Leo said:


> You might like the slight setback Kimchi


I set back the Proto. Still like the way the SL handles turns at speed better. I can't be sure, but I suspect it's a function of sidecut, which is pretty aggressive on the 157 Proto (735 vario) compared to the 158 SL (750v). I might go up to the 160 Proto for the bigger sidecut radius (761v), or I might get another 158 SL.



kushum said:


> thanks for all the response guys. For the ones that been on the proto, how did it feel hauling ass down the mountain? I'm still 50/50 on decision so it's going to come down to probably how heavy the boards are, cause i like a light board, and how it does going fast downhill.


If weight's important to you go with the proto. Even if the SL is lighter than it was, the Proto should be lighter.


----------



## B.Gilly (Jul 23, 2008)

Kimchi it has been a long time since I was one them but it is sticking in my head that the Proto was a bit more poppy. I usually jot down notes when I ride a board so will have to look for them to see if I noted anything else.

Got a lot more time on the Proto and only a little bit on the SL so the Proto sticks in my head more. I normally ride the Heritage and was looking for something softer this season and opted for the Proto over the SL. From reading your other posts here and there it looks like you might be happier on the SL.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

i have the same question...

i was thinking of getting both the proto and the SL...

one for more fun and other to bomb... but i think they might be very similar...

do you think would be better the proto+heritage combo?

thanks

i am 6.2 and 215... can i get away with the proto 157 because of the big efective edge?

and the SL or heritage would be better the 161? or 158?

thnaks


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

@Raines if I was going to get to NS boards and the Proto was one I would go for the Heritage. I would be afraid that Proto/SL are too similar to one another.

You'll be OK On the 157 Proto. Maybe the 158 CTX if you have bigger feet.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

david_z said:


> @Raines if I was going to get to NS boards and the Proto was one I would go for the Heritage. I would be afraid that Proto/SL are too similar to one another.
> 
> You'll be OK On the 157 Proto. Maybe the 158 CTX if you have bigger feet.


thanks

i am 10.5 burton boots


I will send for the PROTO. then i see if i like and then think of the heritage

i have a bataleon tha jam 161 that i use to bomb


THANKS


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

I've seen people charging sick lines with the NS Revolver (wider Evo) and the Proto is a bit more stiff than that... If you really want something more playful, go for the Proto, as I feel the SL will be too similar to your Custom X. I'm riding a Lib Tech T. Rice Pro HP, and I'm getting the Proto as my more playful park board.


----------



## GeoFX (Oct 25, 2007)

BigmountainVMD said:


> I've seen people charging sick lines with the NS Revolver (wider Evo) and the Proto is a bit more stiff than that... If you really want something more playful, go for the Proto, as I feel the SL will be too similar to your Custom X. I'm riding a Lib Tech T. Rice Pro HP, and I'm getting the Proto as my more playful park board.


How are people now comparing the SL to a hard-charging board like the Custom X?? Wasn't the SL revamped prior to the 2010-2011 season to be lighter, softer, and poppier? Isn't the Proto just a twin-tip version of the SL with the damping of an Evo? So basically same stiffness with it being a tad lighter due to the carbonium topsheet. If you compare the specs between a 154 Proto vs. a 155 SL, their effective edges are the same (the blunted tips of the Proto offsets the SL longer length w/r/t EE) with the Proto having a little more aggressive sidecut. I bet if you set the SL centered, they would ride pretty similarly (the SL is a directional twin which is basically twin flex like any other twin-tip but with a factory set-back). I think it's genius of NS to sell the Proto for an extra $40 for essentially the same board (minus the CT). 

Check out CfC's review last year and claims it pretty darn soft and lively. For 2012, NS further lightened up the core and added Carbon VXR laminates for even more pop and liveliness. 

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/25192-never-summer-sl-2011-review.html


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

for 1.86m , 90 kg and 10.5 burton could i use the 158 SL for all mountain or should it be the 161?

thanks

does it have more edge like the proto?


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

at 1.86m and 90kg I would prefer the 161 if your definition of "all mountain" is mostly ripping groomers or natural terrain. If your version of "all mountain" also includes the terrain park, I'd probably downsize to the 158.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

Raines said:


> for 1.86m , 90 kg and 10.5 burton could i use the 158 SL for all mountain or should it be the 161?
> 
> thanks
> 
> does it have more edge like the proto?


I say 161 if you are really thinking all mountain -- if you want to jib with it, 158.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

Some park, but just jumps... dont like rails or boxes...

So the options are 

160 proto or 161 SL... will the proto 160 "ride" like a longer board than the 161 SL du to efective edge?

Is the proto a better quality board? much faster base?

thanks guys


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

The Proto is a bit less damp so it will be slightly more chattery at higher speeds but better for jibbing than the SL. People have been saying that the SL is softer and more poppy than in past years, and thus a really good option for all mountain and jumps, just not jibs. I still think the SL, even with slightly shorter effective edge, will be more stable at high speeds because it will have less chatter.


----------



## ecks (Oct 6, 2010)

The proto is chattery at high speeds but not significant enough to really throw you off. I haven't tried out the SL but I can imagine is more stable than the Proto at speeds especially since you size down on the Proto. If you plan on bombing it down the mountain, even 50% of the time then I would stick to the SL but for me I chose the Proto because I liked how fun it was to ride and really allowed me to enjoy riding instead of having the urge to bomb it every run.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

thanks guys

As there is no proto 157 i will try the proto 160... and if there isnt ... then the SL 161 or maybe 158... yet to decide as i have the jam 161.

I hope they have the proto as i think is a better quality board


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

Is the SL a twin shape?


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

Raines said:


> Is the SL a twin shape?


Directional twin. Twin shape, with setback. Not sure if the flex is twin or directional


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

jdang307 said:


> Directional twin. Twin shape, with setback. Not sure if the flex is twin or directional


thanks

so if i put the bindings more to the front holes will be almost a twin?

nice


----------



## Bayoh (Dec 17, 2010)

I believe the flex in the SL is the same tail and nose, but the sidecut is asymmetrical. Or it may be the other way around...(I always figured the stance setback is what made it a bit harder for me to fully press the nose). Either way it's not a true twin.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm too lazy to read every fucking fan boys response and I'm an asshole. Get the SL save the cash unless you fucking need to have a true twin and golf ball topsheet.


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

Raines said:


> Some park, but just jumps... dont like rails or boxes...
> 
> So the options are
> 
> ...


I used to have the 2009 Never Summer SL 155... last winter I managed to get demo the 2012 boards via their traveling demo tour. Rode the Proto CT 154 and the SL 153 (5'9" 155 lbs - errr that's 175 cm, 71 kg) - I didn't read the whole thread... but on the last page or so.... I would recommend the SL 161 as you are a good 20 kg heavier than me (a 158 would be for someone 80 kg I guess). The Proto CT is noticeably less damp than the SL, but more fun in the park. I agree that any talk of "true" twin shape or centered stance is garbage (for people who can't ride switch or spin well).


----------



## stimyg (Nov 10, 2011)

Jumping on this thread here, same question as in another --

I'm looking at getting the SL, trying to decide on a size. I'm male, 155 lbs, 5'7", size 6.5 boot, moderately advanced. Will be be riding 70/30 downhill/park. Trying to decide between the 153 vs 155. Thanks for ur thoughts.


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

stimyg said:


> Jumping on this thread here, same question as in another --
> 
> I'm looking at getting the SL, trying to decide on a size. I'm male, 155 lbs, 5'7", size 6.5 boot, moderately advanced. Will be be riding 70/30 downhill/park. Trying to decide between the 153 vs 155. Thanks for ur thoughts.


I'm 5'9" 155 lbs, size 8 boot. I demo'd the 2012 SL 153 and 155 when their demo tour came to Lake Tahoe. I would suggest the 155 (I own the 2009 SL 155 and just got a Proto CT 154 for my park board). The 153 was pretty fun and playful... but I think you'll prefer the slight extra stability you get at higher speeds compared to the extra playfulness since you are mostly freeriding.


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

stimyg said:


> Jumping on this thread here, same question as in another --
> 
> I'm looking at getting the SL, trying to decide on a size. I'm male, 155 lbs, 5'7", size 6.5 boot, moderately advanced. Will be be riding 70/30 downhill/park. Trying to decide between the 153 vs 155. Thanks for ur thoughts.


Either would work well. On that size boot I'd go shorter for the narrower waist. I'm 145 and rode the 151 just fine.


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

jdang307 said:


> Either would work well. On that size boot I'd go shorter for the narrower waist. I'm 145 and rode the 151 just fine.


To be clear, I think you would be fine on either, but I still suggest the 155 for better stability as I mentioned before. Narrower will give you a little bit quicker response edge to edge... but it's a minor difference based on the specs I saw (.6 cm) and I've ridden boards with a 16cm-18cm waists. The SL is pretty quick edge to edge anyways.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

lonerider said:


> I used to have the 2009 Never Summer SL 155... last winter I managed to get demo the 2012 boards via their traveling demo tour. Rode the Proto CT 154 and the SL 153 (5'9" 155 lbs - errr that's 175 cm, 71 kg) - I didn't read the whole thread... but on the last page or so.... I would recommend the SL 161 as you are a good 20 kg heavier than me (a 158 would be for someone 80 kg I guess). The Proto CT is noticeably less damp than the SL, but more fun in the park. I agree that any talk of "true" twin shape or centered stance is garbage (for people who can't ride switch or spin well).


thanks

Sorry i didnt understand about the last part about twin shape and stance... Does the SL ride good in switch?

thanks


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

Raines said:


> thanks
> 
> Sorry i didnt understand about the last part about twin shape and stance... Does the SL ride good in switch?
> 
> thanks


Yes, it rides fine switch.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

lonerider said:


> Yes, it rides fine switch.


the SL is twin shape isnt it?

so if i put the bindings a litle forward it will be almost as a true twin?

thanks


----------



## lonerider (Apr 10, 2009)

Raines said:


> the SL is twin shape isnt it?
> 
> so if i put the bindings a litle forward it will be almost as a true twin?
> 
> thanks


I'm actively not responding to this post.


----------



## Raines (May 1, 2011)

thanks anyway


----------



## stimyg (Nov 10, 2011)

Great, thanks. I'm leaning towards the longer board for the extra stability.

Of course rereading all this is making me think about the Proto again. Ha. (I know they're really similar and it gets to be kind of a ridiculous debate at some point.)


----------

