New snowboard after 9 years!? - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 5 (permalink) Old 07-23-2007, 03:38 PM
richedie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
New snowboard after 9 years!?

Hey guys!

I am a long time rider but have riden the same Burton Canyon for almost 9 years! I think it is time for a new board! Currently I have the Canyon 168 and Mission bindings also from about 1998. I had a serious injury last year snowboarding, causing me to have me one should reconstructed. I have pretty much laid off the jumps and tricks and have been concentrating on big mountain riding, trees, groomers, powder, etc. I love the Canyon but it is time for new blood. I am about 6'3", 205 lbs with size 12 boots. Mostly riding East Coast but get out west when possible.

I have been checking out all the new Burtons and I see they brought back the SuperModels, the Customs look good as do others. However, it was mentioned I check out Rome snowboards(guys who designed some of the top Burston boards) and Lib Tech for their new Magne-Traction boards. I have been doing some research and they sound interesting. I see they have a new wide series Magne that goes up to 190!

Hey, I am for anything that gives me mores stability in riding. Does anyone have a suggestion on size. Stick to 168 or maybe go to a 172? If I stuck with Burton, is it worth it to go top dog or stick with the middle of the road boards. For example, you can get the Custom or Cusotm X, etc.

Thanks!

Rich
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 5 (permalink) Old 07-25-2007, 08:37 PM
richedie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
bump

bump for you all!
post #3 of 5 (permalink) Old 07-26-2007, 02:45 PM
Veteran Member
 
Flick Montana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Beech Grove, Indiana *sigh*
Posts: 4,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't comment on Burton since I've never used them, but I can say that Rome makes top notch stuff. I haven't ridden any back country slopes that required a bigger board than a 161. I'm 6'3 as well. My board isn't incredibly stable, but I spend my time going side to side more than straight down so I've done ok with a 158.
Flick Montana is offline  
post #4 of 5 (permalink) Old 07-29-2007, 02:04 AM
CanAm89
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Burton is still the biggest name in snowboarding, but it seems that their prices have exceeded the curve of the price/technology ratio you see in other companies. Basically- less bang for your buck.

I say take a good look at Rome and Never Summer. Both are big competitors and you will be getting a much better board at a smaller price. I just bought a Rome Flag today to replace my Burton Bullet, as the Bullet simply was not what I wanted in a board, and felt kind of cheated by burton on it.

I have heard nothing but positive things for Rome and Never Summer.
post #5 of 5 (permalink) Old 08-12-2007, 08:24 PM
richedie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Thanks guys!

I have just kind of fell into liking 165-168 as the size I like. I like extra stability at speed. I separated my shoulder two years ago and ripped it apart requiring reconstructive surgery. I am a little cautious now, LOL.

Anyway, you guys think it is time to hang up my 99-00' Burton Canyon? It still rides well but I don't know since I haven't riden anything else since I believe 1999. I also have the original 1999-2000 Mission bindings and they are still in great shape! I thought about the new toe cap bindings but I read an interview with Todd Richards where he says those new bindings cause toe drag! Yikes. I have size 12 boots.

I am pretty much down to a used Burton Baron, new Custom X Wide, Rome Flag or Lib Tech Skunk Ape magna traction.
How much cheaper are the Rome boards compared to Burton? Are the bindings simiar with the Rome and Lib Techs? I am kind of unfamiliar with these companies but I do know all new Burton bindings have that toe cap.

The Rome Flag really has me interested and the 168 has 164 for waist width, that is great for me. It looks like the bindings are very adjustable, but I know nothing about their different bindings although I think one talks about a design for less toe drag.
I believe I would also want a directional board and believe the ones I am considering are all directional, not twins. When they say centered, doesn't that indicate the stances is right over the sidecut even though it is still direcitonal? I see some companies list boards as centered, some directional, some sitting back, etc. Burton says 25 back on the stance location for the Custom X. What does that mean. Back from the sidecut? So dows that indicate the Rome Flag is more centered? Remember I am a freerider.

Maybe I can use my Burton Missions on any board I buy.

Thoughts???

Thanks!

Last edited by richedie; 08-12-2007 at 08:44 PM.
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome