# Burton Custom X or Flight Attendant



## GDimac (Nov 19, 2015)

law2ence said:


> Hi everyone, I'm looking to buy my second snowboard and I'm down to the Custom X and Flight Attendant. I mainly ride in resorts (snow is not that great 50% real snow, 50% man made) and like to carve and ride fast. I heard both boards are great for speed and carving and I was wondering what the main differences between them are and which one would fit best for me?
> 
> I'm 5'9" and weigh 180lbs, would the 156" be better or the 158/159"?
> 
> Thanks.


I've owned both (still own the '17 CX). Both are fun for what you want, but if your focus is mainly charging hard, CX is awesome at it and just rips. And esp if you don't see that much powder, and ride harder snow conditions regularly like I do, CX would be the better fit imo. FA would be better for pow, between the 2 and is slightly less aggressive and a slight notch below in stiffness. 

I waiver around 180lbs-175lbs and I've had both the 56 and 58, the 58 is way better in terms of stability for carving and on jumps. So I'd go the 58.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

law2ence said:


> ...and like to carve and ride fast...
> 
> I'm 5'9" and weigh 180lbs, would the 156" be better or the 158/159"?
> 
> Thanks.


Both sizes seem pretty short for your weight :dunno: (I'm 120lb and ride camber boards in that size range for carving...)


----------



## GDimac (Nov 19, 2015)

neni said:


> law2ence said:
> 
> 
> > ...and like to carve and ride fast...
> ...


The 58's still technically within the weight range and I have no issues with it and I'm just under the 180 mark. Def better between his 2 options, at least.


----------



## law2ence (Sep 11, 2017)

The reason why I was looking for the 156" or 158" is that these sizes were the most comfortable for me. I'll probably be getting the 158" thanks for the feedback!


----------



## Fiddsy (Jul 12, 2015)

law2ence said:


> I mainly ride in resorts (snow is not that great 50% real snow, 50% man made).


Sounds like Oz!


----------



## BearJoo (Sep 24, 2017)

I just got the 17 FA in a 159, I'm 5'9" and 210. If that helps you with your sizing issues. A lot of people talk about height but really a board doesn't know how tall you are just how much weight you're putting on it. I just upgraded from a 146 nug which by all standards I was too big for and it handled just fine getting thrashed around by me.


----------



## Fiddsy (Jul 12, 2015)

BearJoo said:


> I just got the 17 FA in a 159, I'm 5'9" and 210. If that helps you with your sizing issues. A lot of people talk about height but really a board doesn't know how tall you are just how much weight you're putting on it. I just upgraded from a 146 nug which by all standards I was too big for and it handled just fine getting thrashed around by me.


I would have thought the 162 would have been a better size/fit for your weight..

Im 5'11" 210 with size 12 boots n bought and ridden the 162W FA


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

Fiddsy said:


> I would have thought the 162 would have been a better size/fit for your weight..
> 
> Im 5'11" 210 with size 12 boots n bought and ridden the 162W FA


210 is just above the recommended weight range for the 162 even. That style of board should always be ridden sized up a little in my opinion. I'm just under 200 and ride a PYL 161 and it's replacement is definitely going to be even longer.

Sent from my ONE E1001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

^ Agreed, but coming from a 146 Nug he's going to be blown away with or without the extra 3cm.


----------



## BearJoo (Sep 24, 2017)

Phedder said:


> ^ Agreed, but coming from a 146 Nug he's going to be blown away with or without the extra 3cm.


That's what I was thinking plus I fluctuate between 200 and 210 depending on how busy I am at work ?. And a little shorter is fine for me cause I'll probably get into the trees and need the maneuvaribility of the shorty. Now I'm just debating bindings


----------



## Fiddsy (Jul 12, 2015)

Snow Hound said:


> Fiddsy said:
> 
> 
> > I would have thought the 162 would have been a better size/fit for your weight..
> ...


Think the recommended for the 159 is like 150-200 and the 162 is 180-260


----------



## BearJoo (Sep 24, 2017)

Yeah but coming from having been on a 146 for almost a decade I didn't want to go too big. Plus I like to dive into the trees and too big of a board will keep me out of them I think. Making quick cuts on that tiny 146 made the trees a breeze


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

Fiddsy said:


> Think the recommended for the 159 is like 150-200 and the 162 is 180-260


----------



## BearJoo (Sep 24, 2017)

Just looked at that same chart for another thread ?


----------

