# Help board size CustomX 158W vs 162W



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Hello folks, This my first post in the forum, and I'm excited to be here! Thanks in advance for helping me with your opinions.

Summary: I'm torn between picking 158W and 162W custom X. I'm ~6ft. Weight fluctuates between 175-185. Boot size 11.

Details:

For background, I started snowboarding last season, progressed relatively quickly going 3-4 times a week. I learned snowboarding on Rossignol scope 157 mid-wide. Full camber, mid-stiff flex (around 7/10). I do mostly carving; I ride zero park. I consider myself an intermediate.

As I started to really get and understand carving this season and how the sidecute works, I felt my board was a little short for me and wanted more stability so I decided to buy a new board. After a ton of online research and narrowing down to a few boards, I made the leap and made an order for a Burton custom X 162W.

When riding I was under the impression that my 157 board is slightly short for me. However, I realized that on Burton's size chart, 158W seems to be the right size and 162W is too long (I'm too light for it's weight range). 

I haven't used my board yet, I can still exchange it for 158W. I'm torn because the charts are telling me I should get the 158W, but I'm worried I'd go with it but still find it small.

What do you folks think? Given the custom X is going to be relatively more aggressive than my current board, is 162W too long? In general, how do you describe or define whether a board feels "too short" or "too long" for you?

My major concern is not being able to flex the board properly as it is designed and not being able to use the sidecut properly due to that. I did some search on the forums here and found several folks with similar weight and confusion in board sizes (also, sigh, bindings but that should probably be another post) but couldn't make a good conclusion out of it.

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Probably should mention that I naturally prefer a slightly wider stance. Perhaps that contributes to my feeling of the board being short


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Also one of the things I should probably mention is that I'm in a very different place in Rossignol weight chart. They seem to recommend longer board for my weight (161-168). Don't know if it's any relevant.

Just speculating, could it be perhaps their board construction is different and thus attributing to my feeling of my board being too short?


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

too lazy to look up the effective edges, go with the longer one. if your rossi was a rcr board, a 158w custom x will have more effective edge.


----------



## Craig64 (Jul 16, 2015)

You're sort of on the bottom of weight for the 162W. How heavy are you with all the gear on 185+. I was thinking that a 162W was the right size for me at 98kg kitted up with gear but grabbed the 166W. This board is pretty stiff and so fast.:wink: It takes a bit of familiarising with as it's an aggressive step up.> but it carves so hard. The only negative I give it is that it requires 110% concentration with whilst you are getting in tune with it's characteristics. I did a review of it recently.:nerd:

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/burton/249786-18-burton-custom-x.html


----------



## Craig64 (Jul 16, 2015)

This guy doesn't seem to have a problem with the stiffness in the Custom X.:surprise:




:thumbsup:


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Thanks a lot for your replies! 



jae said:


> too lazy to look up the effective edges, go with
> the longer one. if your rossi was a rcr board, a 158w custom x will have more effective edge.


I'm assuming by RCR you mean rocker-camber-rocker? My rossi is full camber. I tried to look it up online but unfortunately can't find the specs to look up its effective edge  I did find the sizing chart for rossi 2010 though, and I'm on the high weight range of that board.



Craig51 said:


> You're sort of on the bottom of weight for the 162W. How heavy are you with all the gear on 185+. I was thinking that a 162W was the right size for me at 98kg kitted up with gear but grabbed the 166W. This board is pretty stiff and so fast.:wink: It takes a bit of familiarising with as it's an aggressive step up.> but it carves so hard. The only negative I give it is that it requires 110% concentration with whilst you are getting in tune with it's characteristics. I did a review of it recently.:nerd:


Thanks for sharing your review! I'm very excited to try it. I haven't weighed myself with my gear, but I would imagine not more than a few lbs difference?


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Err, I did reply through the "reply" button but for some reason it says a moderator has to approve my post first 0_o


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

I'm gonna guess the guy in that picture is Ryan Knapton  ?


----------



## LALUNE (Feb 23, 2017)

Craig51 said:


> This guy doesn't seem to have a problem with the stiffness in the Custom X.:surprise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm, is it my eye or his base is yellowish?



shadowdancer851 said:


> I'm gonna guess the guy in that picture is Ryan Knapton  ?


Terje.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

So, my reply was somehow deleted because it contained quotes. I'm confused, what did I do wrong? :/

I was saying my old board is a full camber, not rcr, and I don't think my weight with gear is much more.


----------



## Craig64 (Jul 16, 2015)

shadowdancer851 said:


> So, my reply was somehow deleted because it contained quotes. I'm confused, what did I do wrong? :/
> 
> I was saying my old board is a full camber, not rcr, and I don't think my weight with gear is much more.


Is it possible to have a demo ride on each size. You've already bought one so that can be a problem if you ride the one you've got and realise the 162W is too big. This board will be a great deal stiffer I felt it instantly on the 1st turn the difference between a Custom and a Custom X. As it's stiffer you need to muscle it around a lot more. Everything with the Custom X becomes so much easier when it's done with high velocity.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Demo would have been a great idea but it's not an option unfortunately. I haven't used the one I bought, and I can only return it if its new; so I still have the option of choosing between both as long as I didn't use it yet :/

I think even my current board is relatively stiff, but perhaps 162W might be too much work. Sigh, so confused. I was hoping maybe someone tried them both.


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

I didn't see in the description any mention on free ride or powder so I dont understand why for your height and weight, you are thinking about a 162 that on top of that is wide.

If I would have to choose, I would choose the Custom X 158 regular or the 160 regular, not the wide models, you just dont need them. The wide option is for those guys that really have big foots. I wear a size 10 boot with a 158 regular and 1 cm boot size plus on my custom would have 0 impact on my board.

As per specs:
Custom X 158: Waist: 249, Weight: 145-185, boot size: 8-10+
Custom X Wide 158: Waist:258 Weight: 130-180, boot size: 10+ - *Again I wouldn't even consider this size for you*
Custom X 160: Waist:250 Weight:155-195 boot size: 8-10+

Take in consideration that the Custom already supports boot size 11 at the 152 size.

The 162W is way over the top for your specs.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Thanks Jonny for your input! 

- I mentioned explicitly in my first post why I want to get the 162, but perhaps you missed it: I currently ride a camber 157 board, and I feel it's on the shorter side for me (it actually is, looking at rossi's size chart for this board, I'm on the high end of the weight range). I mentioned my main use is carving on the mountain, no park.

- The custom X is actually not available for 159W, are you perhaps looking at a different year's model? I would paste you a link but the tool won't allow me. If you look at Backcountry/Evo/REI you'll see the 158W in stock.

- I'm buying a wide because my boot is 11, and because my current board is mid-wide (254 waist) and I like it. I also occasionally boot out still, so wide is welcome for carving.

- "Custom X Wide 159: Waist:258 Weight: 130-180, boot size: 10+ - Again I wouldn't even consider this size for you", it sounds like you're looking at an out of date chart. Here's this year's chart:

Custom X 158 254 150-200 8-10+ (Only this size and up support boot size 11, how come 152?)
Custom X 158W 262 150-200 10+ Large
Custom X 162 256 180-260+ 10+ Large
Custom X 162W 264 180-260+ 10+ Large

I obviously fit right between those two in terms of weight and boot size; I'm not sure I remotely understand how you call this a size you wouldn't consider for me.. am I missing something?


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Either will work... part of the issue is your relative newish to carving...a 158 is certainly doable...but when you start really opening it up the speed, a 162 will feel more stable and give you more effective edge to lock in trenches. A few minutes ago weighed in at 183# and yesterday was riding rode 163 in the morning and 158 in the afternoon. It took me less than 1/2 run to say to myself...should have stayed on the 163.

If the board is working you...its because you don't have the technique/skills down. Ripping carves on a cambered stiffy is relatively effortless....its more of just a matter of concentration and keeping the balls swinging low (i.e., managing the speed anxiety/comfort).

edit...as for width...a narrower board is quicker edge to edge...but if carving and digging trenches you don't need the quick edge to edge...but more the stability to lock in an edge and a wider board will dig in better...at your size 11 go for the wider. my 2 pennies


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

Ooooh what a disaster  sorry for that. Already fixed my original post.



shadowdancer851 said:


> - The custom X is actually not available for 159W, are you perhaps looking at a different year's model? I would paste you a link but the tool won't allow me. If you look at Backcountry/Evo/REI you'll see the 158W in stock.


Yep was seeing the last year model, sorry for that.



shadowdancer851 said:


> - I'm buying a wide because my boot is 11, and because my current board is mid-wide (254 waist) and I like it. I also occasionally boot out still, so wide is welcome for carving.


Still dont see the advantage in this. You can still fit a 10,5 boot size on a M binding, so for me the 11 may as well fit on an M binding (not recommended) if the boot has the shrinked footprint. So in theory, the 11 boot size is the first size of the L binding and if the 154 model already supports the M or L binding, the 158 or the 162 really dont need to be wide just to support your boot size 11. 



shadowdancer851 said:


> - "Custom X Wide 159: Waist:258 Weight: 130-180, boot size: 10+ - Again I wouldn't even consider this size for you", it sounds like you're looking at an out of date chart. Here's this year's chart:
> 
> Custom X 158 254 150-200 8-10+ (Only this size and up support boot size 11, how come 152?)


Again my mistake mentioning the 152 from last year. But use the 154 for the same purpose. Check here: 
https://www.burton.com/ch/en/p/mens-custom-x-snowboard/W18-106891.html
Go to the sizing area and you will check that the 154 already supports L bindings.

Thanks for pointing me that i was using a 2017 reference table from burton gear and i just realized it. I still stick to my guns that you are perfectly served with a regular custom x either 158 or 162 and you dont need the W model.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

@wrathfuldeity, thank you for sharing!

That's exactly what I was thinking. If the longer size is going too be a little difficult to control in the beginning only that's fine by me as long as I can grow into it. It's a board I intend to keep for a while so I'd be worried that after a while the 158W would feel limiting.

Did you ride the custom X as well, or were they different boards? I'm asking because Rossignol charts recommend me 161-168 while Burton charts indicate I'm at the far low end of weight range for 162W. I'm worried that I wouldn't weigh enough to flex the board as it should be.

P.S I'm currently at exactly 183 lbs too.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Jonny, thanks for checking and coming back!

I'm actually not quite sure yet which size bindings I want. I currently ride a burton freestyle bindings in medium size; I barely fit it (my boots are ride trident). The straps are stretched out all the way, and my toes are outside of the binding more than I'd like. Though, that sounds like a topic for a seperate post lol.

If you don't mind me asking, why the preference for regular vs wide? Have you tried both and developed a preference for one over the other? Do you particularly not like wide boards? After looking into a bunch of resources, I'm inclined to think wider is generally better for carving.

That aside, my current board has almost the same width as the regular 162 (2mm difference), and I'd prefer my newer board to be slightly wider than what I have now.


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

shadowdancer851 said:


> If you don't mind me asking, why the preference for regular vs wide? Have you tried both and developed a preference for one over the other? Do you particularly not like wide boards? After looking into a bunch of resources, I'm inclined to think wider is generally better for carving.
> 
> That aside, my current board has almost the same width as the regular 162 (2mm difference), and I'd prefer my newer board to be slightly wider than what I have now.


As I mentioned before, the Custom X at 154 size already allows you to mount L bindings. If you compare the Custom or the Process with other Burton boards, you will see that these models already have a good waist width in shorter sizes. If you go to a 158 or 162, comparing these models with other models, for example the Flight Attendant, you will see a differences in the waist width at the same board size. I would say the same if you were choosing most of the Lib tech models. All their models ride more on the mid-wide size than in the regular size.
I just dont appreciate the additional transition effort I have to do on a wide board, that's all.
In terms of the bindings, if you dont have a reduced footprint boot from Burton, then you should consider the L bindings. I have 2 pairs of burton boots at size 10 with 2 cartels from different generations. I have to say that the latest Cartel models at size M would confortably manage a boot size 11. Not sure how this works on other bindings but for example i wouldnt say the same from my 2013 Cartel M bindings.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Jonny C said:


> As I mentioned before, the Custom X at 154 size already allows you to mount L bindings. If you compare the Custom or the Process with other Burton boards, you will see that these models already have a good waist width in shorter sizes. If you go to a 158 or 162, comparing these models with other models, for example the Flight Attendant, you will see a differences in the waist width at the same board size. I would say the same if you were choosing most of the Lib tech models. All their models ride more on the mid-wide size than in the regular size.
> I just dont appreciate the additional transition effort I have to do on a wide board, that's all.
> In terms of the bindings, if you dont have a reduced footprint boot from Burton, then you should consider the L bindings. I have 2 pairs of burton boots at size 10 with 2 cartels from different generations. I have to say that the latest Cartel models at size M would confortably manage a boot size 11. Not sure how this works on other bindings but for example i wouldnt say the same from my 2013 Cartel M bindings.


I see what you're saying; I personally don't mind the transition effort since I already learned on a 254 waist board.
I'm considering the new genesis bindings. I think both medium and large technically should work, as 11 fits both on the chart, but the M is gonna ride tight/snug and the L might be a little too big. My ride trident supposedly is marketed to have a reduced footprint, but I don't know how to quantitatively measure that.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

FYI the Burton website (and guides on the phone) recommended the 158W and 162W as well, for my size.


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

shadowdancer851 said:


> FYI the Burton website (and guides on the phone) recommended the 158W and 162W as well, for my size.


Did exactly the same simulation with your specs at the Burton site and I got this:
"Sounds like a 158W or 166W will suit you well. Go bigger for more float in powder or smaller if you're into riding jumps and rails. Need help deciding? Call our Burton Guides"










158 or 166... :surprise:


----------



## robotfood99 (Mar 19, 2016)

How about you keep the 162W and eat A LOT? That would qualify as what the Chinese would call Double Happiness. 

As for bindings, you can go with M and get extra long straps from Burton if needed. Or the L and crank'm down. I'm also between sizes (8) and use M size bindings. If you can return/exchange them like you can your board, try both before deciding.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

Size 11 boots, imo, are generally centered on the board with a large binding. I wouldn't recommend a medium. I've fluctuated between 11-11.5 and I don't think I've ever had to change stock settings on my bindings to center my boot.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

Jonny C said:


> Go to the sizing area and you will check that the 154 already supports L bindings.
> 
> Thanks for pointing me that i was using a 2017 reference table from burton gear and i just realized it. I still stick to my guns that you are perfectly served with a regular custom x either 158 or 162 and you dont need the W model.


He's already said he wants to progress his carving and he can get boot out on his current board. For carving, with a size 11 boot, I'd argue getting the regular model is a waste of his money. What binding the board will fit has nothing to do with it. 

OP I had and loved a 164W at 200lb and a size 9.5 boot. I had zero issues turning it, and could still get boot out. Get the wide for sure, I'd push 162 to grow into over 158 and being comfortable right off the bat.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

I received my order today. The M genesis bindings are definitely too small, so I think I'm going to exchange those for large regardless. I'm sure I can fit in them, but the boot heal doesn't look like it's fitting properly. (as in not hugged properly by the highback)

As for the board, I'm honestly super confused. I placed both my old board and the new burton board next to to each other, and I don't know. The extra length on the new board is intimidating me, I also feel like it has a much longer effective edge. I tried looking up my old board's specs and I cannot find them :/ I only found the rossi scope 2009 specs, but I don't know how similar/different they are than my 2010's.


----------



## Snow Hound (Jul 21, 2012)

You could just stay at home on the Internet obsessing about inconsequential details and never go snowboarding again. Problem solved!


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Snow Hound said:


> You could just stay at home on the Internet obsessing about inconsequential details and never go snowboarding again. Problem solved!


Lol, that's what I worry will happen if I don't decide soon 

I think I'm gonna return the 162W and go for 158W. REI carries 158W so I can return it within a year and get the 162W instead if I decide it's too short for me. I don't have the same option with 162W, they're out of stock.

Thanks folks for your input!


----------



## Craig64 (Jul 16, 2015)

I saw guys in Japan riding powder boards that were over the top of their heads. Bear in mind they weren't that tall, but size didn't seem to worry them. 

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

shadowdancer851 said:


> I received my order today. The M genesis bindings are definitely too small, so I think I'm going to exchange those for large regardless. I'm sure I can fit in them, but the boot heal doesn't look like it's fitting properly. (as in not hugged properly by the highback)
> 
> As for the board, I'm honestly super confused. I placed both my old board and the new burton board next to to each other, and I don't know. The extra length on the new board is intimidating me, I also feel like it has a much longer effective edge. I tried looking up my old board's specs and I cannot find them :/ I only found the rossi scope 2009 specs, but I don't know how similar/different they are than my 2010's.





Snow Hound said:


> You could just stay at home on the Internet obsessing about inconsequential details and never go snowboarding again. Problem solved!





shadowdancer851 said:


> Lol, that's what I worry will happen if I don't decide soon
> 
> I think I'm gonna return the 162W and go for 158W. REI carries 158W so I can return it within a year and get the 162W instead if I decide it's too short for me. I don't have the same option with 162W, they're out of stock.
> 
> Thanks folks for your input!


Quit being an old lady and get your balls out of your purse! 
REI runs out of a lot of stuff so the 162w might not be available later. The 162 might give you a spank'n at first, but you just got to commit. A lot of snowboarding is getting beyond, "getting stuck in the head" If you only ride from your head, you are doomed to the "MEH", whining and other lodge tribble. Realize that the art of the carve takes some time to develop. Fuck dude you are talking yourself out of the ride, instead of getting stoked. whatever....


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

wrathfuldeity said:


> Quit being an old lady and get your balls out of your purse!
> REI runs out of a lot of stuff so the 162w might not be available later. The 162 might give you a spank'n at first, but you just got to commit. A lot of snowboarding is getting beyond, "getting stuck in the head" If you only ride from your head, you are doomed to the "MEH", whining and other lodge tribble. Realize that the art of the carve takes some time to develop. Fuck dude you are talking yourself out of the ride, instead of getting stoked. whatever....


Honestly at this point I have both and I'm still debating which one of them to return. Are you saying the 162W will be way more fun to carve once mastered, for my body weight?


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

shadowdancer851 said:


> Honestly at this point I have both and I'm still debating which one of them to return. Are you saying the 162W will be way more fun to carve once mastered, for my body weight?


Da carves will be trenchier on da big board bra. Da grom board will be bedda for da snaps and floaters bra. Yu no da rei will take back da used boards so fin da won u shred as best on bradda. Take a hit of my ganj bra and da spooks in ur hed will shudafugup yo. Mahalo and shred.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

ridinbend said:


> shadowdancer851 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly at this point I have both and I'm still debating which one of them to return. Are you saying the 162W will be way more fun to carve once mastered, for my body weight?
> ...


I need some of what this guy is having


----------



## dannyboy617 (Nov 10, 2017)

Go with the 162 W.

It will be a challenge at first. But you will grow into it. Your legs will get stronger and your technique will improve.

You will be able to grow into the 162 W.

If you were into more all mtn riding, doing some park I would recommend the 158. But considering all you want to do is carve, go with the 162.

I am 5' 11" and weigh 185 lbs. I ride a 162 Rome Mod which is a full camber board that is a little less stiff than the custom x. Very fun to rip down groomers and hit jumps. It is clumsy when going slow, but I don't like to go slow.


----------



## LALUNE (Feb 23, 2017)

Craig51 said:


> This guy doesn't seem to have a problem with the stiffness in the Custom X.:surprise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Taking a second look, I would argue that Terje was actually on a Speed Date with Custom X base graphic. The X would have a blunt nose, this looks roundish. 

It's funny how Burton "customizes" pros' boards to sell more particular models.

To OP, get the 162W.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

LALUNE said:


> Taking a second look, I would argue that Terje was actually on a Speed Date with Custom X base graphic. The X would have a blunt nose, this looks roundish.
> 
> It's funny how Burton "customizes" pros' boards to sell more particular models.
> 
> To OP, get the 162W.





dannyboy617 said:


> Go with the 162 W.
> 
> It will be a challenge at first. But you will grow into it. Your legs will get stronger and your technique will improve.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Yes, after some more comparison, I don't think the 162 is that much bigger than my current board so I think it should be Okay. I think I'm gonna stick with the 162W.

Let's see who else is gonna swing me back again to 158W :wub: Oh how much I love being so decisive


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

I decided to take the 162W for a test drive yesterday with my new genesis EST bindings. Man it was fun! I'm happy I went with the 162W; I think the 158W would've felt very similar to my old board and I would have outgrown it quickly. 162W also didn't feel as tall as I expected it. Only downside is the higher sidecut radius; on heal carves the arc feels noticeably wider. And man it is stiff. I thought my old board was stiff, I was wrong lol.

Otherwise, great board! Perhaps I should leave a review


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

shadowdancer851 said:


> I decided to take the 162W for a test drive yesterday with my new genesis EST bindings. Man it was fun! I'm happy I went with the 162W; I think the 158W would've felt very similar to my old board and I would have outgrown it quickly. 162W also didn't feel as tall as I expected it. Only downside is the higher sidecut radius; on heal carves the arc feels noticeably wider. And man it is stiff. I thought my old board was stiff, I was wrong lol.
> 
> Otherwise, great board! Perhaps I should leave a review


Ahhh...u will grow into it...and come to appreciate the stiffness...as u get shot out to the next trench. Btw your stated downside...is because of your technique...especially on heelside. All good things with some time.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

wrathfuldeity said:


> Ahhh...u will grow into it...and come to appreciate the stiffness...as u get shot out to the next trench. Btw your stated downside...is because of your technique...especially on heelside. All good things with some time.


Thanks! Yeah I'm definitely happy I went with the 162W, it already feels more stable. And I know it's may be the binding not the board, but I felt dampness over the bumpy stuff compared to my old board.

In regards to healside carve, I'm comparing what I feel in comparison with my older board, using the same technique I feel the circle is wider. Also, the sidecut radius is indeed greater (8.2, compared to probably 7.9 on older 157 board) so it's not just my technique.


----------



## Osman31ci (Jan 16, 2018)

Custom X is a very unforgiving board. I dont recommend it for your riding level. Get a hybrid camber board like NS, Libtech or GNU. You would appreciate it a lot more. That Custom and many other true camber boards are gonna slow down your progress.. dont make the same mistake I did son.


----------



## shadowdancer851 (Jan 30, 2018)

Osman31ci said:


> Custom X is a very unforgiving board. I dont recommend it for your riding level. Get a hybrid camber board like NS, Libtech or GNU. You would appreciate it a lot more. That Custom and many other true camber boards are gonna slow down your progress.. dont make the same mistake I did son.


Well you know what, part of my review is I wanted to say I don't get the saying that customX is very unforgiving and only for advanced riders. 


I rid the board for about 3 hours on blue runs, and was waiting for it to slam me or waiting for some dragon to shoe up and come burn me alive when I do a wrong turn from all the stories I heard about custom X but nothing really happened. Yes I can tell its aggressive, it really wants to turn, it's catchy, but yeah many camber boards are catchy too. I skidded some turns just fine and didn't get the idea behind why skidding was a big no no on this board. This is all with a board that is a size up. 

I fell only once, but that was due to my technique and I would have fell the same on my old board. Other than that I really enjoyed it.

Perhaps learning on a camber board made the custom X a good transition.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Jonny C said:


> Custom X 158: Waist: 249, Weight: 145-185,
> Custom X Wide 158: Waist:258 Weight: 130-180





shadowdancer851 said:


> Here's this year's chart:
> 
> Custom X 158 254 150-200
> Custom X 158W 262 150-200


This is a strange weight evolution. Increasing the weight range while shortening the effective edge (according to evo charts, the 158 has ~2cm less EE in '18 vs former years). A board originally built for hard changing and then they wanna put a 200lb on a 158, which may be ok for skidding but sure not for aggressive carving? Do they want to attract more intermediates scared by size to buy the name...? :dunno: 

Anyone here has ridden the current _and_ former models of the same size? How do they compare, how did the riding feel change?


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

neni said:


> This is a strange weight evolution.


According to The Good Ride, they just did this to and I quote "reflect the poor health condition from the average American rider"...
So technically I dont think that they've improved anything on their boards to support the additional 20 pounds.
But the fact is that before, Burton would recommend boards on the bigger size range. They had the board suggestion tool like Lib Tech has now and I remember also trusting what Burton recommended me for all mountain riding in terms of sizing. They recommended me a 158 board that was 2 cms above the true size. When I did the same simulation the following year, the Burton tool was already suggesting me that I should buy the 156 board although nothing changed on the board from one year to the other.
I wrote Burton about it, asking why in one year 158 is recommended and in the other the 156 is recommended and they told me this:

Email from Burton in 2015:
"_Hi,

The board chooser is not an exact science, so please do not worry.

Over the last few seasons the fashion is to ride slightly smaller boards, this is probably why you are now told that a 156 is the better option.

The boards are generally lighter now, and they are using some better materials, but on the whole not much has changed._"

So now they've ended the board chooser tool but they continue to adjust the sizing according to the "current trend", not changing anything on the board tech.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Jonny C said:


> Over the last few seasons the fashion is to ride slightly smaller boards, this is probably why you are now told that a 156 is the better option.
> 
> ...but on the whole not much has changed."


Lol. Interesting. _Fashion_ beats physics, of course.


----------



## zc1 (Feb 20, 2017)

There were actually quite a few changes to the Custom X this year vs last: decreased effective edge, decreased setback, decreased sidecut radius, and increases in all widths (tip, waist, tail).

The Custom X is a funny one for me. I have a 2015-16 156 cm. I'm 175-180 lbs. It's narrow and very quick edge-to-edge, but not nearly as aggressive, stiff or good of a carver for me as my prior AMF 156 cm. 

Edit: I was considering a 158 Custom X for this year but picked up a 158 Aviator, instead and have been very happy with that.


----------



## Jonny C (Mar 16, 2017)

zc1 said:


> There were actually quite a few changes to the Custom X this year vs last: decreased effective edge, decreased setback, decreased sidecut radius, and increases in all widths (tip, waist, tail).


Dont forget that the email received from Burton was back in 2015 when no additional tech or changes were done on the Burton Custom range. They simply changed the weight range to be more adapted to ride on reduced size boards.
The tech on boards like the nugget I get it but there is no additional tech from 2013 till 2015 that would justify these changes discussed by email back in 2015. So it's just a "trendy" thing.
This years Custom X a few things changed, they also changed in the Custom range but they have minimal impact on the ride and not sure if those changes are relevant for the weight range change.


----------

