# Never Summer: Warlock vs Funslinger



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

I was wondering if anyone here has ridden both of these models and can give a comparison.

I know some of the basic differences in shape and sidecut, but I'm curious about the ride differences on these two. I'm in the land of no demos, so I can't just go out and try them.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

I've rode both back to back, but not extensively, at a demo day. about 3 short runs each slush and ice. 6ft 217lb at the time, size 10.5 boots, genesis. board both 156. both of them rip. 

while the warlock's shape makes it seem smaller, it's thicker and heavier. the warlock does have better swing weight though. rocker camber vs ripsaw, I did prefer the funslinger because of the ripsaw profile, but the warlock wasn't bad because the contact point flex was stiffer. 

the funslinger felt more sharp edge to edge while the warlock was a bit slower(not by much but it's noticeable) and surfier because of the bigger rocker in the middle. I did like the softer torsional flex of the funslinger, but the warlock wasn't that bad either it's similar to the proto. the last demo warlock I rode was a fucking plank, this one was not, talked to the rep about it he said the first demo batch was built wrong so they redid it. I was charging 30mph no problems on both, wasn't pushing it though because I was riding shorter boards.

slinger had better pop for me, but I suck at ollies.

@The Chairman is right about the warlock being more jump focused and slinger more jib. if you want a board for butters/charging/side hits, go slinger. if you're doing kickers/charging/pow go lock. you should read the warlock thread.

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/196001-sneak-peak-16-17-never-summer.html


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Thanks @jae

I just found this on the thread you referenced:

Having ridden both the Funslinger and Warlock models extensively I can tell you that they are definitely a different ride from one another. The Funslinger is going to be softer in the middle of the board and stiffer in the tip/tail area. This allows the board to flex through the middle of the board smoother making ollies much more responsive and powered up. You can lift your front foot up and then power into and jump off of your back foot to pop the board much more like you would on a skateboard rather than the weird ollie from the center of the snowboard that most cambered boards seem to have. Though this can be said about all the boards in our line do to our rocker and camber profiles, just non more so than the Funslinger in my opinion. The middle will only flex until you reach your foot and then the stiff tips come into play and really push back against the snow giving the board tremendous pop. This combined with our Ripsaw profile with enhanced camber (more camber outside of your feet) really make this board an absolute blast to rip around and ollie things all over the mountain. The Funslinger is also an asymmetrical board with a deeper side cut on the heel edge allowing for a fast stronger turn on your heel side edge. The Ripsaw profile also rides best when you are really forcing the board on to the entire edge with every turn. Because the board is softer with wide blunted tips, it still ride well in pow and all over the mountain. It is geared towards rail/park riding though it excels all over the mountain if you like a more flexible ride.

The Warlock is a brand new model for us going into next year, and has a completely replaced the Evo/Revolver models of this current season. The Warlock is not just a new shape however, it is a new shape, new side cut, new core profile and rides totally different than the Evo/Revolver. The first thing you will notice about the Warlock is definitely the shape though. Huge square nose and tail that keep this "freestyle" board at home in the deep stuff just as much as the park. With the squared out nose and tail shape the main contact points (right where the nose and tail kick up, and the place your edge has the most pressure against snow) are increased as well. If you compare the main contact points on the average snowboard you will see the Warlocks are much larger. For example a Proto HDX 158's main contact points are about 2 inches long, where as the Warlock 154's main contact points are about 4 inches long. That is just that much more of your edge really digging into the snow making for incredibly stable hold on edge. The Warlock is also going to have our Original Rocker Camber profile, which allows for a bit more of a relaxed easy going ride. You can foot steer the board much easier on to it's edge over the Ripsaw profile, where you need to force the board a bit more. This also makes the board easier to turn at lower speeds when compared to our Ripsaw profile on the Funslinger. I find this crucial, especially if your like me and you like to ride steep, deep, tight trees where being agile is essential. The Warlock is also going to be a little bit stiffer of a board all the way through the tip and tail. Though it is not a stiff board by any means, just stiffer than the Funslinger and softer than a Proto. The flex is also very consistent through the entire board, in comparison to the Funslinger which is soft between your feet and then real stiff in the tips. 

To sum it up, if you are looking for an awesome freestyle deck that can ride the whole mountain, but focus on park/rails I would say go Funslinger. If you are looking for an awesome freestyle deck that can ride the whole mountain and focus on park/jumps go Warlock. They both ride pow well enough, but the Warlock will also ride better/easier in the deep stuff.
Harry DeBoer
Shipping Manager Never Summer Industries
AKA The Ripper Shipper.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

I am still learning to improve my ollies, so you had my attention with the pop of the Funslinger- but I'm more likely to hit a jump than I am to hit a rail...but I like boxes. It sounds like butters with the Funslinger are better, but the Warlock does trees better. I like both, so I hate the trade off here. It's annoying.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

while he says stiffer in the nose/tail area, I'm guessing he's talking about the stiffness in relation to the board, and not comparing between the two, because the lock is fucking stiff in the nose/tail. otherwise yeah, reviews came out similar.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

That's how I took it too, that the Funslinger was softer in the middle and stiffer in the tail which helps with the pop.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

ripsaw feels more like camber. the rocker in the middle is a lower profile. so you still get the benefits of a CRC board, but with the aggressiveness of camber. I actually don't like CRC and rocker, but I love the ripsaw profile. it's what all CRC boards should have aimed for. I read from others rome's mtn pop rocker 2.0 is close. 

what ripsaw does for me. gives me the stability of camber, and aggressiveness of camber, but still gives quick edge to edge transitions and float. less washy than normal CRC, but more washy than camber. the rocker's just the right amount for playfulness. I've had no problems with the Type2 in trees and pow, but did have to backseat more than normal compared to a average CRC board. did not push the bindings back. 

while I love ripsaw, it's no replacement for camber, just a happy marriage. other CRC's need to see a therapist. 

ripsaw is aggressive for beginners though.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Sweet, thanks for the info.

This will be a tough call decision, especially without the benefit of a demo, because it sounds like I'd like some from each of them.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

If you want both get the type2. Ive been having trouble getting it to really pop and so has pheddar, but talking to mattyb he has no trouble. Get it in a 157 makes it much more playful. It's still stable too.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

I considered the Type2 as a compromise between the two- but it sounds significantly stiffer. I've shied away from the Proto because it's too similar to my current ride, at least the old Proto was too similar.

I think I'm going to keep looking for demo opportunities or a killer deal on one of them, you basically added the Funslinger to my short list. If I don't find either, then maybe I'll go with the 155 Marhar Lumberjack, because that was a lot of fun too. I was just hoping to compare it to something else.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

You can find a great deal on slingers. Lumberjacks are sold out. A 157 type2 demo felt like a noodle when i was 230 but was stable AF. All signs point to the slinger though.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Yeah, my Legacy went from park board to all mountain when I dropped 70+ lbs LOL

Now I'm looking for an actual soft board instead of a relatively soft board. Parker sniped a Lumberjack from me yesterday, but I'm throwing a bunch of money aside tomorrow so that I don't miss out on the next deal. I really like the shape of the Warlock, it's probably influencing my desire for it...


----------



## Alonzo (Dec 30, 2015)

sabatoa said:


> I considered the Type2 as a compromise between the two- but it sounds significantly stiffer. I've shied away from the Proto because it's too similar to my current ride, at least the old Proto was too similar.
> 
> I think I'm going to keep looking for demo opportunities or a killer deal on one of them, you basically added the Funslinger to my short list. If I don't find either, then maybe I'll go with the 155 Marhar Lumberjack, because that was a lot of fun too. I was just hoping to compare it to something else.


Dude, I wouldn't worry about the Type Two being too stiff. I have a 160x and it's a noodle. It's a fun board for sure - really, really easy to ride, super forgiving, agile. It's not a poppy board at all, but it's a nice ride.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

My 160 doesn't feel like a noodle, firm 5/10, torsionally 6/10. Lots of people consider a 5 a noodle though. Demo 157 felt like it was a 6.5, torsion 4. Rides similar. It's definitely not stiff though.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

jae said:


> If you want both get the type2. Ive been having trouble getting it to really pop and so has pheddar, but talking to mattyb he has no trouble. Get it in a 157 makes it much more playful. It's still stable too.


I figured out I wasn't having trouble getting it to pop, it just had none :crying: Every other attribute of the ride I loved, but for how I ride my twin boards, pop ranks pretty highly on the what I need scale hah. Huck Knife, Endeavor Cobain, Funslinger, Flight Attendant, Super 8, Custom X. All pop much better (obviously more camber helps) Still don't know why the Type 2 doesn't, I'd still have it if it did. 

Sabatoa, FWIW I absolutely love the Funslinger as a dicking around board, I put up a review somewhere. Yes it will loop out on you if you push it too far, but if you know the limits of the tip and tail, and stay centered when riding at speed the board's there for you. I bombed a messy slushpile groomer to get the final lift last spring in NZ, trace had me at 70 or 75km/h and I felt totally comfortable. I'd be surprised if you weren't happy with one.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

What bindings do you guys pair with the Funslinger? The Marhar Lumberjack had Rome 390 Boss, I had no complaints.

Have you taken it into any halfpipes?


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

I had '14 Restricted Cartels on mine, just a cartel with malavita ankle strap. No half pipes, never had access to one.


----------



## AmberLamps (Feb 8, 2015)

I had more fun on the Slinger, (ended up buying one) after demoing both. The slinger does great on jumps, has good pop, and really lays an edge with the ripsaw profile. It just felt more locked in to me than the warlock which I like. The warlock takes a little more effort to lock in the edge. Slinger won it for me. It really is a great all around board I'm 175-180 riding a 157w. I like the wide (size 11 boots) and it gets great float in pow (just set the bindings back).


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Of the two, you guys convinced me to focus on the Funslinger. I'm 225lb/102kg, I normally ride a 163 but I'm leaning towards the 157x instead of the 160x because I loved the swing weight on the little Lumberjack.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

sabatoa said:


> Of the two, you guys convinced me to focus on the Funslinger. I'm 225lb/102kg, I normally ride a 163 but I'm leaning towards the 157x instead of the 160x because I loved the swing weight on the little Lumberjack.


154x! 10char the T2 has pop... just can't find it. I know it's there somewhere....


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

jae said:


> 154x! 10char the T2 has pop... just can't find it. I know it's there somewhere....


hah, the Lumberjack was a 153 and it was getting knocked all over the place in the heavy wet slush. Trying to compromise between going smaller without getting something that will get beat up in heavy chop.


----------



## AmberLamps (Feb 8, 2015)

sabatoa said:


> Of the two, you guys convinced me to focus on the Funslinger. I'm 225lb/102kg, I normally ride a 163 but I'm leaning towards the 157x instead of the 160x because I loved the swing weight on the little Lumberjack.


At 225 i would go at least 160x for you. Your gonna lose the pop on 157 imo


Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

AmberLamps said:


> At 225 i would go at least 160x for you. Your gonna lose the pop on 157 imo
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk


nah, I was fine on a 156 normal @217, 157x has more surface.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

The plan is to get under 220 too, bottoming out in the 205-215 range.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

I think 157X would be good too. I was on a 156 around 200-210lb, if I found a deal a 157X would definitely have a place in the quiver again. I've actually still got the 156 but it's no good to me now sitting back in NZ, and holds enough value it's worth selling at the start of our season once I'm back there!


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

sabatoa said:


> Of the two, you guys convinced me to focus on the Funslinger. I'm 225lb/102kg, I normally ride a 163 but I'm leaning towards the 157x instead of the 160x because I loved the swing weight on the little Lumberjack.


160 at least. At >200lbs you will fold the 157 in half by just looking at it and whatever little pop there is will get squashed under your yeti feet.
And swing weight is a myth.


----------



## AmberLamps (Feb 8, 2015)

SGboarder said:


> 160 at least. At >200lbs you will fold the 157 in half by just looking at it and whatever little pop there is will get squashed under your yeti feet.
> And swing weight is a myth.


Yep

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

It looks like you already have this sorted out but I will second the thought that the Warlock is significantly stiffer. I rode them back to back in short demo sessions at Killington and the Funslinger was noticeably softer and, for me, a lot more fun to play around on practicing butters and spins. 

If I had found a deal on a 153 earlier I would have bought it, but I picked up the Arbor Westmark instead. Of course two weeks after I got the Westmark I finally found the deal on the 153 Funslinger!


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Kenai said:


> It looks like you already have this sorted out but I will second the thought that the Warlock is significantly stiffer. I rode them back to back in short demo sessions at Killington and the Funslinger was noticeably softer and, for me, a lot more fun to play around on practicing butters and spins.
> 
> If I had found a deal on a 153 earlier I would have bought it, but I picked up the Arbor Westmark instead. Of course two weeks after I got the Westmark I finally found the deal on the 153 Funslinger!


Yeah, of the two it sounds like a no-brainer based on what you guys are all saying. I was getting caught up with the shape on the Warlock, I really dig it, but the Funslinger has the characteristics that I'm looking for here.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

SGboarder said:


> 160 at least. At >200lbs you will fold the 157 in half by just looking at it and whatever little pop there is will get squashed under your yeti feet.
> And swing weight is a myth.


He's just had two 200lb+ guys say they had a blast on the 156, for me it had plenty of pop. Yes I could fold it in half but that was half of the fun, being able to manipulate the board so much. For the purpose of a soft board to muck around on that can still handle all mountain riding, the 157X will serve him well. Now if he wanted a soft board for more all mountain freestyle riding, then I'd say the 160X. Point is if you're not intending on bombing with it or hitting 40ft+ kickers, I think the 157X would be more fun.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

SGboarder said:


> 160 at least. At >200lbs you will fold the 157 in half by just looking at it and whatever little pop there is will get squashed under your yeti feet.
> And swing weight is a myth.



Pfffft!! Been riding a 157 Proto CT @ 2-fitty!!!! ...and that's *before* getting geared up. He'll be fine!!!


----------



## Sons of Thunder (Mar 24, 2015)

Wow I thought this forum was full of a bunch of prancing fairies weighing in at 160 riding their 151 noodle boards lol. Does this mean my 161w is too big for me at 225?!


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

Sons of Thunder said:


> Wow I thought this forum was full of a bunch of prancing fairies weighing in at 160 riding their 151 noodle boards lol. Does this mean my 161w is too big for me at 225?!


Hah, search for "big man thread", there's a bunch of us clydesdales here. 

I ride a 163w at 225 for all Mountain...I rode it at 293+ too.


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

Phedder said:


> *He's just had two 200lb+ guys say they had a blast on the 156, for me it had plenty of pop.* Yes I could fold it in half but that was half of the fun, being able to manipulate the board so much. For the purpose of a soft board to muck around on that can still handle all mountain riding, the 157X will serve him well. Now if he wanted a soft board for more all mountain freestyle riding, then I'd say the 160X. Point is if you're not intending on bombing with it or hitting 40ft+ kickers, I think the 157X would be more fun.


And he had at least 2 other guys tell him that the 157/157X is not enough board. Opinions...


----------



## AmberLamps (Feb 8, 2015)

I guess it all depends what you are going to do. For my riding style at his weight 157x would be to freaking small. Unless you're just cruising around and buttering and shit, sure get the 157. If you are going to be taking it all around the mountain, hitting booters, Pow lines, side hits, then get the bigger one, its only going to be more fun IMO.


----------



## sabatoa (Jan 18, 2011)

My Legacy is the all mountain ride, pow runs, and my terrain charger. The Funslinger will be my goof-off board for for butters/presses, spins, ollies, side hits, boxes/mellow rails, and small jumps (under 10 feet).


----------



## SGboarder (Jun 24, 2012)

chomps1211 said:


> Pfffft!! Been riding a 157 Proto CT @ 2-fitty!!!! ...and that's *before* getting geared up. He'll be fine!!!


Proto CT was significantly more board than the Funslinger. CT is stiffer than the Proto HD, which is at least as stiff/stiffer than the Proto T2, which is stiffer than the the Warlock, which is stiffer than the Funslinger. 
Also no disrespect but you're a beginner rider, so for that the CT was plenty of board. Very different story once you start asking more from your board.


----------



## AmberLamps (Feb 8, 2015)

Im 175-180lbs and sometimes i wish i went bigger than the 157x...thats all im saying

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

for a quiver of 1, a 157x wouldn't cut it. you don't normally get a funslinger to be your quiver of 1, you get it to fuck around like a side piece. from what sabatoa is asking from the board, I think the funslinger 157X is probably his jam. if he felt like this was going to be his main ride, definitely bump the size up, but then he would also have to increase the stiffness so he could ride harder/faster. might as well buy a proto then.


----------



## Alonzo (Dec 30, 2015)

For what he's looking to do, I'd say a Rad Air Tanker or a Pogo Maverick would be the best bet.


----------

