![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
|
I'm a new boarder, only been riding for a couple of years in MI, WI, and some CO. I know, WI right.
Anyway, I'm currently riding a Rome Manual 159 with Mission bindings. I like the board, but looking to move to the NS without toe drag and looking at the Legacy. I do mostly groomers and buttering, but it's a lot of work with a cambered wide board. Anyway, not sure what size to get, 156 or 159. I'm 5'10' and 190. I like the current length I ride, but thinking of something shorter to be more playful. I guess it's only 3cm so it's not that big of a deal, just looking for suggestions. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 826
|
Quote:
If you want more playful and you're coming from a cambered board, then I'll think you'll get what you want in the same size NS RC board. I'm 6'2", 190lb and I dropped from a stiff 164 camber to a 161 SL-R. I debated whether to drop further to a 158 and am very glad that I didn't. The RC tech makes the 161 as playful as 153-155 cambered board, but gives you the performance of a longer cambered board when you want it. The RC tech makes a big difference to the response and "playfulness" factor without sacrificing effective edge and speed. Besides, you can unload an NS board on here any time you want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
|
I wear a size 13. I have Vans Auras that I love. I wish I could squeeze into a 12, but no go.
My Rome is 26.4cm wide now. The 156 Legacy is 26.1cm wide, not sure if .3 cm would make a difference, but it might. Man, i hear the best things about NS, my friends all have SLs and love them. I've been looking on the forums for one, but no go yet. I do like the graphics on the 2012 ones though. Basically the same, but with a little more color. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 826
|
Quote:
I dunno about dropping all the way down to a 156 though. That's gonna feel like a tiny little thing and I think you'd miss the 5cm of effective edge when you want to venture outside the park. To each his own, but I think you're going to notice a big increase in "playfulness" just going from regular camber to RC tech in the same length. Drop a size in length and add in the tech change and the playfulness factor will go thru the roof. At lower speeds (less force), the cambered tips aren't really engaged on the snow. You're riding on the edge between your feet, making it really easy to turn and spin. Feels like a much shorter board. Great for moguls/trees where the speed is not a concern. Add force/speed and the cambered tips get in contact and boom, you've got the whole effective edge engaged and it rides very close to the same length cambered board. Great for a higher speeds on groomers where edge hold at speed is a concern. Problem is that shorter boards are a little softer and you're 190. There's a point at which speed is less of a factor and your weight alone will generate enough force to bend the board and engage the tips. Then you're effectively just riding a short cambered board and not really getting the benefits of RC Tech. If you're hucking it in the park all day and just want less board to thrw around, then okay. I don't know where that magic point is, but I think you'd be fine on the 159. I'm your weight and on a 161. I could see dropping to a 159, maybe...if I had to, but a 156? I'd really notice that on the groomers. Last edited by Bones; 04-10-2011 at 09:22 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
|
Thanks Bones, that explanation of how RC works makes total sense. I think I will shoot for the 159 or 161.
I was just going to MI and WI mostly, but my job has a long contract out in CO so I'll be going out that ways regularly the next few years. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|