Burton Cascade board length
T. Hariharan
There's a good deal on a burton cascade (2003 board)
at a local store.
They have 158 and 163 cm. I'm an intermediate rider and
I was told that this board is at a fairly advanced one.
I'm thinking of compensating for this by going for the
158 board. Would that be too short for me (175 lb,
5' 11")?
The following text is from the snowboarding FAQ:
"If it's completely unstable, turns too quick, and generally all over the
place, get something longer or less flexible. If it's impossible to turn and
you can't get on with it, get something shorter or more flexible. "
Does 5 cm make a big difference in your ability to
control the board?
Thanks,
Hari
Chet Hayes
A lot depends on what you intend to do with it. A longer board is
better for deeper powder or those that enjoy primarily riding fast
down the mountain. A shorter one is better for parks. If you do some
of both, then you need to compromise or have more than one board.
T. Hariharan
news:b81a861b.03120...@posting.google.com...
I stick to the groomed trails and don't intend to spend time in the parks.
Would like to improve my turning skills and come down the mountain faster
eventually.
I don't want to pick a board/length that's too advanced for me.
Anyone have any opinion on the burton cascade?
Thanks,
Hari
Jason Watkins
I wouldn't listen to much to whoever told you that. A lot of folks at
shops have big egos and empty heads. As far as I've expereinced, none
of burton's current boards are so unforgiving that they could be
called 'fairly advanced'. They all have fairly mellow sidecut and
flex.
> I'm thinking of compensating for this by going for the
> 158 board. Would that be too short for me (175 lb,
> 5' 11")?
One of my friends is about your height and build.. maybe a touch
heavier. He learned on and has continued to use a cascade 163. He has
a really awkward looking technique (butt out, arms in front over nose,
weight all the way on the back of the board), but it works for him. I
don't think the board's really been an issue one way or the other for
him. I've taken a few runs on it, and it feels consideribly more
mellow than my donek wide 161. Very comfortable for mid speed
cruising, handles mixed condition snow ok. The only bad things I can
say about it is the edge hold isn't quite as good, and I didn't feel
quite as confident when getting up to speed. I consider myself
beginner/intermediate, so 'speed' for me really isn't that fast
compared to advanced skiers or boarders. So I don't think you need to
worry about the board being "difficult". If park or pipe is a
priority, the shorter board would be better. For freeriding, I'd pick
the longer. If you're interesting in mastering steep icy expert
slopes, or in going fast, I might pick something different.
> Does 5 cm make a big difference in your ability to
> control the board?
It can. Yesterday another friend was demo'ing burton dominates. He
wants a super short trick board that he can still freeride with, so he
started the day on the 150. He found out real quick it was too short
for him, no edge hold at all. So he traded in for the 154 and said
that was just right. He normally rides a 163.
There seems to be an optimal length and stiffness for a given rider to
have good edge hold and stability at speed. 5cm may matter quite a bit
if you're trying to push away from the optimal for some other reason
(like him going way short).
Best advice anyone can give is to try and find a way to do a run on
the board.
Mike T
> of burton's current boards are so unforgiving that they could be
> called 'fairly advanced'. They all have fairly mellow sidecut and
> flex.
I'll second that. All the Burtons I've tried have actually been quite
beginner friendly.
One thing to remember - just because a board is marketed to advanced
riders doesn't mean it has to be hard for a beginner to ride. If it's
really stiff like a BoarderX board then sure it might be harder for a
beginner to ride. But the Cascade, I believe, evolved from the old
Supermodel (which was also pitched as an advanced board for backcountry)
which is one of the most beginner-friendly boards I can think of. I
started out on a Supermodel *168* (5'10", 190#) and it was a great
choice for learning on!
Mike T
T. Hariharan
> the board.
Trying out the board won't be easy and the store doesn't
allow returns/exchanges. I'll probably go for the
burton cascade 163 and hope for the best.
Thanks for taking the time to write the detailed reply.
Hari
T Ryan Cleary
>One thing to remember - just because a board is marketed to advanced
>riders doesn't mean it has to be hard for a beginner to ride. If it's
>really stiff like a BoarderX board then sure it might be harder for a
>beginner to ride. But the Cascade, I believe, evolved from the old
>Supermodel (which was also pitched as an advanced board for backcountry)
>which is one of the most beginner-friendly boards I can think of. I
>started out on a Supermodel *168* (5'10", 190#) and it was a great
>choice for learning on!
I'll second (third?) this advice. The Cascade, like the Supermodel
(mine is a 173, and I only weigh 195lbs), should be ridden long. I'd
definitely go with the longer board.
-Ryan
Nitro Naturals 165
Burton Supermodel 173
Burton Custom 166
Si
I learned on a Burton Cascade 168. I weigh about the same as you but
am a bit taller. I picked it up, according to my instructor, fairly
quickly. I was with riders who had been boarding the year before after
a couple of days. One thing I would say, if you go off piste at all,
the cascade will really help you out, it absolutely rules in powder.
Si