# Need a new deck



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

Hey there! Just joined the forums, been boarding for about 10 yrs on a Burton I bought used 10 yrs ago. I think it's time for a new deck. I am 37yrs old, 6'0", and 190lbs. Price my last concern - I want to find the right board and haven't thought about it at all so I have a lot of learning to do... Here are my thoughts and questions:

How I ride:
I don't mess with terrain park. I am a blue course rider that seeks powder as often as I can find it. I ride at Copper Mountain mostly often with my 13yr old son and 10yr old daughter. I am not into jumping, tricks, moguls, etc. I like smooth sweeps and tight turns and POWDER

New boards that I have been looking at:
NeverSummer Raptor 
Raptor/Raptor X | Never Summer Industries
NeverSummer Heritage 
Heritage/Heritage X | Never Summer Industries
NeverSummer F1 
Premier F1 | Never Summer Industries

I really dig the CO styling of the Heritage. 

Questions:
Are these boards too technically advanced for me? (I don't even know what I mean by that)
What non-NeverSummer boards should I be looking at?
I don't see a weight / height guidelines chart on NS site to help me figure out the right size to get, how do I find that out?

thanks in advance...


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit (Jun 27, 2009)

as for the board being too much for you i dont think you will have a problem there at all. im not 100% sure about sizing but i think somewhere in the 161-64 range should be a decent place to start.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

A good size for you would be a 159 or 160. Wide if you have size 11.5 boots or higher.

As for those NeverSummer boards, they get rave reviews around here. I'm sure you'll end up with a NeverSummer, but I'll toss a few other suggestions in there.

K2 Turbo Dream: This is a great all-mountain board with an all-mountain rocker. This is going to be a blast to ride in powder. It has a stiffer medium flex and handles speed very well due to the harshmellow technology. This tech dampens the board.

K2 Turbo Dream Mens Snowboard 2011

Ride High Life: This is an all-mountain/powder stick. It is a directional snowboard with a flat camber in the tail and a low profile rocker in the tip. This is absolutely a blast to ride in powder. I don't get much powder here, but what little I did have was so fun to surf on with this board. It also handled the groomers extremely well due to its stiffness. Another outstanding aspect of this board was how it carved. The torsional rigidity had me powering out of my turns.

Ride Highlife Snowboard 2011


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Somewhere around a 161 is a good place to look. I'd also take a close look at the Arbor lineup. Maybe an A'Frame? They are super gorgeous...


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Nivek said:


> Somewhere around a 161 is a good place to look. I'd also take a close look at the Arbor lineup. Maybe an A'Frame? They are super gorgeous...


The A-Frame will probably be my next board. Or maybe the Wasteland. Currently on an Arbor Element and love it. 

If you're riding mostly powder, I think a 162 would be good for your weight.


----------



## KIRKRIDER (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry ..Just stoked! ;P
This should rip the groomers and surf like a dream on pow....I'll tell you in a couple of months..























MountainManCO said:


> Hey there! Just joined the forums, been boarding for about 10 yrs on a Burton I bought used 10 yrs ago. I think it's time for a new deck. I am 37yrs old, 6'0", and 190lbs. Price my last concern - I want to find the right board and haven't thought about it at all so I have a lot of learning to do... Here are my thoughts and questions:
> 
> How I ride:
> I don't mess with terrain park. I am a blue course rider that seeks powder as often as I can find it. I ride at Copper Mountain mostly often with my 13yr old son and 10yr old daughter. I am not into jumping, tricks, moguls, etc. I like smooth sweeps and tight turns and POWDER
> ...


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

thats a beautiful board, what is it?!


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

A-frame or Abacus


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

'09/'10 Arbor A-Frame


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

You guys are recommending a longer board than needed for this guy. 162 isn't going to be as fun as a 159 or 160. I would recommend a 162 to a 200lb person. I mean, you can totally ride a 162, but you aren't going to get the control of a 160 plus the board will be stiffer than it's stated flex since you are underweight for it. If you go with a rockered board, you can do a 158 or 159 easy without losing any float in the powder.

Honestly, with all the camber and sidecut tech out right now, there is no need for lengthy powder boards. The only scenario that I can think of why someone would want a long board for powder is back-country and off-trail powder hunting. Since you are doing a mix of groomed runs, I again highly recommend that you stick with 158-160.

By the way, Arbor makes really great quality boards. The entire brand also looks gorgeous to boot. Very artistic designs.


----------



## jpb3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Leo said:


> You guys are recommending a longer board than needed for this guy. 162 isn't going to be as fun as a 159 or 160. I would recommend a 162 to a 200lb person. I mean, you can totally ride a 162, but you aren't going to get the control of a 160 plus the board will be stiffer than it's stated flex since you are underweight for it. If you go with a rockered board, you can do a 158 or 159 easy without losing any float in the powder.



I totally disagree. I think many people are riding boards that are too small for them. I am 6'2" and 200-210lb and have been riding a 165 for a decade. My first board was a 172, but that was 18 years ago and it was probably softer than most modern freestyle boards. I guess if your into Freestyle going small is a good thing, but if your into bombing runs, carving or just hunting POW than the longer the better IMO. My riding partner who is pushing 40 years old and is a bit lighter than me (200lb) rides a 172 and he has been riding 20+ years. He is one of the best riders I know having learned at Jackson Hole while being a bum for 5 years in the late 80's early 90's. 

I own a 156 that I let newbs or small guys ride, but you'll never find me on anything smaller than a 160+ board, with 165 being ideal. I just purchased a new NS Heritage in 165 as well to replace my old cambered Heritage.

BTW I love Copper and for that mountain you need an all mountain slayer, not some short freestyle board. I have ridden my 165 Heritage through Union Meadows in chest deep fluff and would not want anything smaller underneath of me, even in the trees. I think the 162 would be perfect.

You can't go wrong with any of the NS boards you posted, though the F1 is going to give you the smoothest ride b/c of how much damping it provides. Seriously though, any one of them is just going to amaze you so pick the one you like the best!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I understand why you would disagree. From what you have described, you subscribe to tradition. If you're on a cambered deck, then by all means go longer. You are absolutely right about the board being more stable for bombing runs if it is longer. That's because the bigger the board for your weight, the more stiffer it will flex.

However, the OP said he is doing cruisers and powder surfing. There's no need for a 162 for his riding style. Especially if it is a ROCKER board. Rocker boards inherently float in powder without the need for boning out the back leg or setting your stance back. This means you no longer need to go so big. Look at any correct snowboard size chart and you'll see that the 160 is perfect for him.

The days of picking out a snowboard based on how far it reaches up your face are gone. So are the days of buying surf board sized boards for powder riding. Too much advancements in snowboard technology have been made for that tradition.

Want to know why your 156 sucks for you? Because that is a pure jibstick size for your 210lb self. Nothing personal, I just dislike people being misinformed about these things.

As for your never riding anything under 160, that's fine. 162 is your median size. Anything below 160 for a 210lb person is pure freestyle.


----------



## jpb3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Leo said:


> Want to know why your 156 sucks for you? Because that is a pure jibstick size for your 210lb self. Nothing personal, I just dislike people being misinformed about these things.
> 
> .


Thanks Captain Obvious! I bought the 156 for its intended purpose, which is a spare board for new guys or guests who are smaller and/or inexperienced. Opinions vary, but I can tell you from riding in CO at least 12 times a season for the last 5 years that I would want something larger than 160 underneath me, rocker or cambered. I am far from misinformed, in fact I called NS and had a 20 minute conversation with them this summer before I ordered my new Heritage in 165 b/c of the new R/C tech I was unfamiliar with. To each his own..............


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

thanks for the input guys, the banter is quite helpful, i need to go look up and understand better the terms rocker/camber i am not clear on that...


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

No need for personal attacks or sarcasm buddy. I didn't say you were misinformed. I was saying that you are giving him the wrong information. You are basing your advice off of personal preference which is in fact misinformation FOR HIM. You're very comfortable with what you ride so that is the correct way for you. However, you shouldn't recommend something based off your personal preference to someone.

Also, nobody mentioned anything about your skill level. Skill level has nothing to do with equipment advice. Someone who doesn't even snowboard can give excellent gear advice based on training. In fact, it might even be more objective at times since a non-snowboarder is completely unbiased. But we all know that there are far more mistakes out of non-snowboarding retail employees. That was just an extreme example.

Like I said, for what you do, I'm sure your sizing is perfect. But your median size in fact is 162. You go with 165 because you hit pure powder dumps and bomb down runs as you have stated. That's perfect, but not necessarily perfect for the OP.

He weighs 190lb. 160 is the median size for him. He does mellow cruisers and surfs pow. 160 is great for his needs.

Edit: By the way, boards have weight charts. It would help to look them up. Some boards are made specifically for you to go down a few sizes. Take the 2011 Burton Nug for example. They want you to at least go down 6cm than your normal. The perfect starting point is to look at the weight chart and find the size where your weight falls in around the middle. This will be your median size. It's a good size for all-around riding. Ideally, you should have multiple boards for multiple types of terrain. Pure Powder? Get a longer size. Pure freestyle? Go with shorter sizes. All-mountain? Go with the median size.

Here's a good article about board camber technologies MountainMan:

http://www.angrysnowboarder.com/?p=4397


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

i am searching for a thread that will help me understand camber vs. rocker better (anyone know of a link?) not finding it yet...


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I edited my post above with a link to an article about camber tech.

Here's another guide from our site that gives you a broad overview of snowboards:

Buying Guide | Snowboards Shred-O-Pedia

Here's our article about rocker tech:

Reverse Camber Technology Shred-O-Pedia


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

The Angry Snowboarder Blog Archive Camber Theories Explained

Check out BurtonAvenger's blog...


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> The Angry Snowboarder Blog Archive Camber Theories Explained
> 
> Check out BurtonAvenger's blog...


Beat you to the punch Killy Poo


----------



## walove (May 1, 2009)

when you get a little older you'll understand, and get a bigger board. At 165lbs i moved up to a 165cm rockered board last year and loved it, now im looking for something longer. The long contact length allows for a different weight distribution in turns that isn't really possible on shorter boards. A long board lets you carve pow instead of leaning back and wiggling around, and those flat powder fields that were impossible to cross on a smaller board, are now your private stash. If your planing to crank more turns then pop a lot of ollies then go for the longer deck.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I mean, how old are you? :laugh: I'm not that young by any means either. 29 this year. The big 3 0 is around the corner 

165lbs on a 165 deck... that is the surf board length I am talking about haha. I don't doubt for one second that it is better in powder. It will just suck for groomers when compared to something more your weight range.

As for turning, that's sidecut. In powder, just surf.

On the powder note, I really want to try the T-Rice Banana Hammock.

By the way, I've been on a 158cm cambered board. I hover around 185lbs. Bombing, carving, cruising are all a non-issue with my board and size. Seriously, the board's build and tech play a huge role. Next season I am getting a 156/157 rocker or hybrid deck. I demoed everything from 153 - 165cm rocker/cambered boards this year. 156 was my favorite size in a rocker or hybrid. I do a mixture of freestyle though. For my weight, I would go with a 159 or 160 rocker for more powder riding.


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

ah, great stuff, thanks for the links~!


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Leo said:


> You guys are recommending a longer board than needed for this guy. 162 isn't going to be as fun as a 159 or 160. I would recommend a 162 to a 200lb person. I mean, you can totally ride a 162, but you aren't going to get the control of a 160 plus the board will be stiffer than it's stated flex since you are underweight for it. If you go with a rockered board, you can do a 158 or 159 easy without losing any float in the powder.
> 
> Honestly, with all the camber and sidecut tech out right now, there is no need for lengthy powder boards. The only scenario that I can think of why someone would want a long board for powder is back-country and off-trail powder hunting. Since you are doing a mix of groomed runs, I again highly recommend that you stick with 158-160.
> 
> By the way, Arbor makes really great quality boards. The entire brand also looks gorgeous to boot. Very artistic designs.


I'm using myself as a point of reference. I'm 6'1", 185 lbs and ride a 161 Element. I tried a 158 and it didn't feel as stable. But the main problem he may run into is width. Bigger guys need more real estate to set their paws on. I wear a size 12 and had toe drag on the 158. On the 161, I had a little overhang but no drag as far as I could tell.

Personally, I would recommend demoing both. He's in CO, so it shouldn't be a problem to find an Arbor rep.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Leo said:


> I understand why you would disagree. From what you have described, you subscribe to tradition. If you're on a cambered deck, then by all means go longer. You are absolutely right about the board being more stable for bombing runs if it is longer. That's because the bigger the board for your weight, the more stiffer it will flex.
> 
> However, the OP said he is doing cruisers and powder surfing. There's no need for a 162 for his riding style. Especially if it is a ROCKER board. Rocker boards inherently float in powder without the need for boning out the back leg or setting your stance back. This means you no longer need to go so big. Look at any correct snowboard size chart and you'll see that the 160 is perfect for him.


Why would he get a rocker for freeriding and powder? Personally, I would think a traditional cambered board would be better for that kind of riding. 

Also, I agree a shorter board would be better if he did get a rocker. But we were saying 162 for the A-Frame, which is traditional camber.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

A rocker board is excellent for powder. I wouldn't ever even think about a cambered board for powder anymore. The original purpose of the rocker shape was designed to float in powder and it works great for that. With regular cambered decks, you usually have to set your stance back and put your weight to your back leg to keep the nose up in the pow. You can go with a really long cambered deck for more float and less leg burn though.

The rocker shape is curved upwards. Think of a smile here or a banana. This shape naturally keeps the nose above the pow which means you no longer need to go with a board that is as long as a cambered one for the same float. Essentially, I can get the same or better float on a rockered 156 than I can with a cambered 165.

I did advise him to go with a wide version if his boot size is above size 11. If he is size 11 or 11.5, he will need to check the waist width. Around 26cm being ideal in this situation.

Cambered boards do offer more stability no doubt. However, new technology such as K2's Harshmellow is quickly closing the gap. Rocker and camber hybrids further minimize this gap.

All in all, I will always love my current cambered deck. In fact, I wouldn't trade my 2007 cambered deck for many of the 2011 rockered decks that I demoed.


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

my boot size is 10 (should have mentioned that before)


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

MountainManCO said:


> my boot size is 10 (should have mentioned that before)


Regular is fine for you then. Don't even think about a wide. 10 is my boot size too. Heh, we have pretty similar measurements. You're just a tad taller and heavier.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

MountainManCO said:


> my boot size is 10 (should have mentioned that before)


Size 10, I think you'll be ok on either a 158 or 162. But if I were you, I'd demo both to see which you prefer.


----------



## jpb3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Leo said:


> No need for personal attacks or sarcasm buddy.


I guess I should have prefaced my previous remarks with "nothing personal", as you seem to think by using this phrase before calling someone out makes it all peachy keen Like I said to each his own and my opinion about board length is just that, my opinion. Its all subjective to each person anyways, those who ride deep and steep may get what I'm saying, or they may not. In the end its personal preference. 

Cheers!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

jpb3 said:


> I guess I should have prefaced my previous remarks with "nothing personal", as you seem to think by using this phrase before calling someone out makes it all peachy keen Like I said to each his own and my opinion about board length is just that, my opinion. Its all subjective to each person anyways, those who ride deep and steep may get what I'm saying, or they may not. In the end its personal preference.
> 
> Cheers!


There is a reason why I include that remark when chatting on the Internet. It is actually important to say it online because you can't hear my tone. In real life, I would not have to say "nothing personal" because you'd be able to tell by my un-sarcastic or un-angry tone.

Again, I didn't call you out. You seem to think that I am calling YOU misinformed which I am not. I am simply saying that you are giving someone else the wrong information. It's wrong because you are completely basing your advice on your own riding style and preference. For you, the information is correct. For the OP, it is not.

Cheers right back at you with a shot of Patron. Actually, a sip of whiskey mo betta. :thumbsup:


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Leo said:


> I am simply saying that you are giving someone else the wrong information. It's wrong because you are completely basing your advice on your own riding style and preference. For you, the information is correct. For the OP, it is not.


I don't know if this is really fair. He's recommending a size based on regular camber. You're basing a size based on a rocker. You're both right. 

I'd say the OP should demo a rocker to see if he likes it. If he gets a regular cambered board the a-frame would be pretty sweet.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

vote4pedro said:


> I don't know if this is really fair. He's recommending a size based on regular camber. You're basing a size based on a rocker. You're both right.
> 
> I'd say the OP should demo a rocker to see if he likes it. If he gets a regular cambered board the a-frame would be pretty sweet.


I'm not basing my size on purely a rocker. I told the OP if it is rocker, go with the shorter end. If it is in fact a traditional camber, go with the longer ends.

JP however has only been on a regular camber board in that size and has recently picked up a new Heritage which has a rocker/camber hybrid.

The reason why I give the advice I do is because I have demoed all types of camber tech, everything from 153's to 165's.

I firmly stand by my suggestion that if he is purely powder surfing, go with a 162 (rocker) or higher (cambered).

If he wants a good mixture of all-mountain and powder riding, go with a 158 or 160 rocker. If the board is cambered, he should still go with something above 162 and just deal with it on groomers.

To further toot my own horn I guess, would be to mention that the OP is almost my measurements. Same boot size, 5lbs heavier than me, and a couple inches taller.

Ultimately, it is up to the OP. Being able to demo the various sizes would be the most ideal situation. However, here's the thing; if he gets one that feels too big for him, it is going to be a pain to compensate for the lack of control. If he gets one that is a median size for his weight, he can make slight adjustments to compensate for whatever obstacle he might come across.

So in the end, I'm suggesting he get a size with the least chance of disappointment. Someone that does not firmly know what size board they should be riding should always go with the median size for their weight. This is called a happy medium. It's the best advice I can give for these types of riders.

For riders such as yourself and JP, my advice on size would be horrible since you guys are firmly rooted in your style and preference.


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

The NS Heritage is a RC (meaning Rocker Camber) is that right, which is a hybrid that incorporates both elements? Do i have that right?


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

MountainManCO said:


> The NS Heritage is a RC (meaning Rocker Camber) is that right, which is a hybrid that incorporates both elements? Do i have that right?


pretty much. it's reverse camber in the middle. and traditional at the ends.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Yup! I love hybrid cambered boards the most. Here's an excellent review of the Heritage from someone who is 15lbs lighter than you on a 158 (more reason for you to do a 160 rather than 162 )

He talks about groomer and powder runs through tight and wide trees.

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/equipment-reviews/27020-2011-never-summer-heritage-review.html


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

ok, so, more thinking, more questions

i was getting pretty sold on the Heritage, but in looking at the style chart on NS's website, i am starting to wonder if i should be considering the F1 or the Raptor more than the Heritage since I am a FreeRide and Big Mountain boarder, and wont be spending time in the parks or spinning in the air (Freestyle)

your input requested... thanks!

being from CO, i love the look of the Heritage...


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

read some more here The Angry Snowboarder Blog Archive Never Summer Heritage A Closer Look
and still think the Heritage is probably the board for me...


----------



## B.Gilly (Jul 23, 2008)

MountainManCO said:


> read some more here The Angry Snowboarder Blog Archive Never Summer Heritage A Closer Look
> and still think the Heritage is probably the board for me...


You will not be disappointed with any of the three. The heritage should work really well for you.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

The thing is, you said you were a blue cruiser and powder sniffer. Big mountain freeride is more along the style of hitting big pow stashes and hitting blacks. Freeride boards are going to be real stiff. This is so it can handle steep runs.

If you only cruise blues, pow or groomed, a real stiff board won't be any good to you.

How about I ask this... what do you do more? Blue runs or Powder runs? Furthermore, when doing powder runs, are you hitting blacks?


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

blue groomed cruisers by far, when we get a good dump i will go up to the black bowls looking for pow, but most of the time it is taking what pow i can get stashed along blue runs

and thx Leo (and the rest) for all the input...


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

So not seeing a sizing chart on NS website I sent them the following question in email:

"I am researching boards on your site but can’t find any info about how to determine recommended board length based on height, weight, etc.? Do you have one? Thanks, Taft"

I was a little surprised at their response which came today:
"Hello Taft,
Board sizing is really a personal preference. We do not have any sort of size chart on the site because each person's riding style differs. Park riders prefer a shorter board to aid in spinning and tricks. Powder hounds prefer longer boards for smooth powder riding. The first step in sizing is to determine what and where you mainly ride."

while i know that is true to some point, I have a hard time believing that they have no guidance for a 5'2" 240lbs man vs. a 6'0" 185lbs man.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Do you have any friends that snowboard? Try and get on a 160 and a 162 snowboard. Hell, rent for a day and try different sizes. It won't be totally accurate, but you'll get a general feel for it at least.

*clears throat* I still recommend 160 btw


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

OK, I am locked into the NS Heritage (160... or maybe 162), my current old crap Burton board is a 164 or 165, i forget... and i placed a sticker over the number, lol

now... bindings... I don't know how to evaluate these, anyone care to point me in the right direction? The FLUX TT30's caught my eye. How should I be thinking about this? I have Burton boots that are on the stiff side, I like them a lot and will stay with them.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

You're going to want stiffer bindings for your type of riding. You have stiff boots too so they will complement each other.

Some bindings to consider:

Rome Targas

K2 Auto Evers

Ride Double Agents: Very stiff bindings, but you can adjust the flex on the ankle straps with inserts.


----------



## Digger (Aug 27, 2010)

Everyone is gonna recommend either union force or Rome 390 boss I only have experience with the force and I love em. The owner of my local shop said the 390 is a great binding but it takes a lil longer to set up. 390 seems to be the craze this year. Either way I think you would be happy force 200$ boss is 230$. Goodluck


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Actually, I don't think the 390 bosses are the best bindings for this guy. He does 0 freestyle. He purely freerides/all-mountain. That means stiffer bindings for his stiffer boots and board.


----------



## Digger (Aug 27, 2010)

What about the force then?


----------



## mdc (Sep 23, 2008)

To the OP...

We are the same age, I've got an inch on you in height and about 10 lbs. in weight. I've been at this for a long long time now. For what you do I'd get a 160+ board, rocker or cambered. 

I have many different boards. My east coast hard pack board is a k2 believer 161. Great fun board to ride everywhere, all conditions. I have a custom made Donek 164 and it's a great board, floats very well in pow and holds an edge very well in hard pack/icy conditions. I also have a Ride Slackcountry 168, it is a complete pow slayer. Very fun, floats better than anything I've ever ridden in pow and ride well in chopped up snow, and on groomers. I have many other boards but these are the main 3 I ride.

As for bindings, look no further than the K2 Auto Evers. Great bindings, so comfy. Find some from last year used and have at it! Since you wear a size 10 go for the L not the XL. I wear size 11 boots and if I had to do it all over again I'd have all large bindings in the auto evers(I have 3 or 4 pair...can't remember).

Check out Donek, they are in CO. and you can get a custom board for $500 to $600.

I rode the NS F1 last year and it was a fun board. Performed well and was good in pow, trees, and groomers. If I needed another board that is what I'd buy.

Enjoy whatever you get, it'll be way better then what you have now.

MDC


----------



## MountainManCO (Sep 7, 2010)

is there an obvious way to know if bindings are designed for freestyle or freeride? so far its not obvious to me, those K2 Evers do seem nice...it seems like the marketing folks describe most bindings and "do-everything-awesomes"


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

MountainManCO said:


> is there an obvious way to know if bindings are designed for freestyle or freeride? so far its not obvious to me, those K2 Evers do seem nice...


The best indicator is stiffness. The stiffer the bindings, the more responsive they will be. The more responsive the bindings, the worse it is for freestyle. Freestyle bindings are softer because they need them to be more forgiving.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

For that boards the only bindings from Union that will mesh well will be the ForceMC's and Datas. Better options are SPi's, Targas, Optimo's, Drones, or SF45's.


----------



## skip11 (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm gonna vote for Rome Targas here. The highback is pretty stiff for a nice heelside response and the ankle strap can be adjusted on how stiff you want it to be. Almost all of the adjustmnets are tooless and Rome also makes the best toe cap in my opinion.


----------



## PowSurfer (Nov 10, 2009)

Arbor A-frame, Arbor Element, Arbor Abacus is a directional fish but works great as an all mtn board that excels in pow. I'd also look at the Jones Line, the flagship or Mountain Twin both look like they would work for you.


----------



## Longin (Jan 15, 2013)

Hi guys and Never Summer fans!

Im getting 2013 Heritage, 99% convinced this is the right board for me(vs Cobra) + I live in Denver for 2 y now, aft this winter going back to Europe and want to bring a piece of Colorado awesomeness with me and NS/CO logo on the white Heritage is SICK!!

stats: 5 9, weight 186-190(prolly will go over 190 in next few years ...),
boot size Salomons Synapse 8 , ( actually older boots size 9 ), 37 y old, bindings - getting new Flow NX2-SEs ,or -ATs

only a free rider/groomers and I like powder very much, riding 5-7 days a season;

my older board was 2002 Head Matrix 160 (camber), i learned to ride on it and its not bad on pow but noting exceptional; and i was 15 lbs LESS then(!);
also rode 2005/6 Nitro ~156-158 few times - was much more fun

so finally my QUESTION - should i go size 158 or again 160 ? i was leaning towards 158 - everyone says that Rocker-Camber thing rides as +4-5 cm size on Powder - but im concerned with my weight now, and putting 10lbs in next years to come;

I am going to LOVE and CARE for my CO Heritage in the next 5-6 y so the question to get the right size - 158 vs slighly longer 160 ?

i know its a small difference, please advice or comment ? OP opnion too ?
thank you!


----------

