As far as I know, nitro gives a running length spec and not an effective edge spec. There are a lot of factors that go into how a board rides, and comparing 2 boards like that with different camber profiles, flex patterns, and construction, would be challenging by just looking at a couple of the boards specs. I get that you are looking for the ‘why’ for certain specs and how they change the board performance, but with one board to compare to, that will be challenging. More effective edge does usually mean it will feel bigger on edge. Waist widths of comparable boards will change the torsional flex and how the board gets on edge, but that can also be effected by the side cut. My assumption with the profile and construction being different and the flex rating scale between the 2 companies the nightshade will be a much more playful board. 149 sounds real small for your weight, but thats up to you and your riding style/conditions.

 

If you want to be scientific about it, first realize that most of these numbers are completely made up without regard to any sort of standard across companies whatsoever, and usually no standard even within the same brand. The width and effective edge measurements are usually fairly accurate, but some brands will measure from different spots or call them different things like "contact length" and "running length" and sometimes between brands they'll use the same terms for different things.

Then there are the variables which are many. Effective edge means when you put the board on edge on say, a table, what's the distance between where the board contacts the table in the nose and where it contacts on the tail. But you could measure this any number of ways and it MATTERS. What angle do you have the board at during this measurement? All boards have a spot that's at least a cm or two where the nose/tail transitions out of the camber bow, and this changes where that contact point is. If you're on a camrock board where the rocker starts well before the widest part of the nose/tail, the effective edge will be functionally shorter when the board is on edge at certain angles. So the numbers are, at best, a relative measurement with a lot of wiggle room. Sure, an effective edge of 130cm is going to feel different than 110cm, but in general if you're comparing different boards by effective edge, all else isn't equal.

Flex numbers are total bullshit, and seem to always be between 4 and 8 (and very rarely do you see a 4 or 8) on a scale of 10 which is ridiculous. Flex 1-3 just doesn't exist apparently. You might see a 9 or 10 but this typically just indicates "stay away from this board if you're a park rat and/or also we put carbon it in for pros and dentists." So really we have about a 4.5-7.5 scale for flex, and usually those numbers are relative to the category the board is in. A "6 flex" park board is probably going to be softer than a 6 flex freeride board. Still, if you think about how ridiculous it would be to measure this and distill it down to a single number on a board with a core that's profiled to flex differently all along its length (e.g. softer nose, stiffer tail) you begin to see the problem with these numbers - they are a total oversimplification designed for marketing boards so you have the illusion of scientific rigor when comparing them.

What you should take from all this is that these numbers should be taken with a shaker full of salt, and should put the board into categories like "soft/medium/stiff," "freestyle/freeride," and "intermediate/advanced/expert." Those are your three axes.

A Rome Freaker is a stiff freestyle advanced board. A Niche Maelstrom is a stiff freeride expert board. A Salomon Huck Knife is a medium freestyle advanced board.

Figure out what category of board you want, then read/watch the subjective reviews and figure out if the board in question is in that category, and where it falls in the binary "sucks/doesn't suck" category. Most boards don't suck. A board that you like that you ride a lot is going to be way better than a board that's conceptually awesome but you only ride every once in a while.

My all-time favorite board is a 2017 Rome Mod. I have two - a 159 and a 162. But last season I rode a Rome Freaker 158 90% of the time because the conditions (mostly shitty) and where I was riding (small mountains) were suited to it, and then after like 10 days I just grabbed it because it was familiar. Whatever board you use most will become your favorite that you gravitate to - the specs don't matter a whole lot as long as you're in the right ballpark.

 

I'm not just interested in the board recommendation itself, but more about the science/logic.

This sounds like a bat signal for @Nivek

A lot of what has been said is true. Unless you measure a board yourself, you're going to see some fuzziness on some of these numbers. I suspect comparing numbers within the same brand, or better yet the same model, will be a better comparison.

For example, when I bought my Nerd Superposition I was debating between the 157 and 160. They have almost the same width at the reference points (boot clearance), taper, and other specs. However, the effective edge is 3 cm different and the sidecut is slightly different. I went with the 160 because I was willing to give up some tighter turning ability for stability and more edge contact.

Ignoring specific boards, there are some connections between certain measurements and behavior. For example:

• Taper: float because the tail will sink more than the nose
• Sidecut: turning radius due to the shape of how the edge grips
• 3D shaping: lifted contacts reduce catchiness, shape can sometimes increase float
• Width: turn responsiveness due to the leverage boot soles can make, float in volume shifts due to volume of the surface area, etc
• etc...

 

Bat signal seen. I’ll get back to this when I have some time.

 

There are a lot of factors that go into guessing how a board rides, much of them being intangibles that you can put on a piece of paper. All things being equal spec wise, a Lib will ride different than a Capita that will ride different than a Ride. Each brand has a personality based on their proprietary tech stories and the engineer behind them and where they source their materials.

Stiffness, camber profile, effective edge, sidecut, and waist are good starting points for data comparisons. For all these comparisons, we are going to assume that the boards are identical except for the spec at hand.

Stiffness: First things first, numbers are barely comparable within a brand, and nearly useless comparing different brands. I guarantee you a Bataleon 6 and a Jones 6 are massively different. Not to mention the way we stand on a snowboard inherently means it has 3 distinct flex zones automatically, even before an engineer gets in there and plays with the core profile and composite positions. Now, a stiffer board is more powerful, more stable, with better edge hold. Also they take higher levels of rider effort and input. For pop specifically there is a level of diminishing return for stiffness that is dependent on the person riding it and their strength, technique, style, and preference. If the board is a certain stiffness and you are of a certain strength or pop it a certain way, that extra needed effort may essentially be a diminishing return if you only ever fully engage it 20% of the time. So, you could get 20% more pop from stiffer board vs a softer one, but if you properly engage the softer board 50% easier than the full camber, that might be worth it. Do you want 80% pop 80% of the time, or 100% pop 20% of the time? So, stiffer is not always better. Just depends on the person.

Cambers: Full camber is the most "locked in" requiring the highest input effort. It also gives the most back and has the most power on edge. Where you can get some interesting results though with this is when we start to talk about ease of access to the flex through the camber. Full camber takes the most effort to engage and will pop the most, but, same diminishing return idea as stiffness. There is also pop styles, if you grew up learning to ride in the 90s then you likely engage the middle of the board before sending that power through the tail, i.e. how you pop full camber. If you do this with full effort on a full rocker board, shit feels weird. They don't snap the same. Someone that just wants to roll back and push into the tail is likely to get more out of a board with rocker in the tail. Someone that just wants to smash their tail into the snow and push off their back foot is likely to get one better with something with rocker between the feet since they wont be engaging that section anyway.
Easiest way to look at profiles is using the term engagement. So, again with all other specs being equal, the level of engagement goes, most to least: Camber, early rise, camrock, flat, flat to rocker, rocker/camber, full rocker.

Effective edge: This is a great place to look in terms of sizing, and how I often convince ladies to upsize their all mountain or floaty boards. Boards designed of certain sizes are designed around certain weights regardless of effective edge. But what EE can tell you is how the board will feel in terms of relative driveability. Someone coming from a Capita Space Metal can essentially upsize into a Ride Magic Stick with little fear of the larger size really FEELING that much larger in driveability cause the larger Magic Stick overall length is mostly in the nose and after the contact point. So the driveable snowboard from contact to contact on the size up could in fact be shorter than the park style board at one size smaller. Another good example, I have a Nidecker Sensor 53 and a Gamma 57. Nearly identical EE. Now, the Gamma 57 supports me and has the stability and whatnot of a 57, and the Sensor that of a 53 (cause they differ in every spec other than EE), but the on groomer driveability is very similar.

Sidecut: Generally look at it as a smaller number will turn harder sooner through it's engagement. There is a ton of other shit going on here than just that with every brands special sidecut sauce, but that's the gist. Smaller radius turns more earlier and is thus more nimble at slower speeds, larger radius turn slower and are thus more stable at higher speeds.

Waist: Overall, narrower are more nimble and less stable, wider are more stable and less nimble. That's kind of it. However, and regrettably only a handful of brands actually give it, width at inserts is way more valuable. A board with a 25.5 waist and a 9.0 sidecut will be narrower at the inserts than one that is 25.2 and 7.6 sidecut. So when you're looking at width and how nimble a board will be, you do also have to pay some attention to sidecut. Now, if you see a radius difference of like 7.6 to 7.8, that's pretty minimal in terms of effective width and in this specific comparison when you're primarily looking at width, treat those as the same.

Now you put all those things together and shit hits the fan a bit. Camber has made a huge resurgence in the last few years, but I have historically been able to point towards nearly any kind of ride experience from any camber you want. And I could find a full rocker board that would pop harder and hold an edge better than full camber boards. Cause mixing all these things together with even more nuanced construction concepts like laminates, composites, core profiles, where the core profile compares to sidecut and camber profile, contact point radius, camber height, base profile, bend transition points and where that compares to sidecut, sidewall material, wood species, grain direction, volume concepts, taper, sidecut theory... gets complicated. I could give a 2 hour ted talk and not even hit half that shit.

Every brand wants their boards to be rideable everywhere, at least in the marketing. Pay attention to where they suggest the board is intended to be, and then consider their language with that context. While the truth is that every board CAN be ridden anywhere, in terms of optimizing your choice you should assume that is NOT the case and read their marketing with that lens.

Now for the easy part, recommendations of your options. Definitely the 49 Nightshade. The 53 is more than you need for the riding you're doing when you already have the 52 Nitro. The Crux is super similar just wider, and will be stiffer regardless of what the numbers say.

 

. I could give a 2 hour ted talk and not even hit half that shit.

Do it coward.

 

First of all, high-five as another Victoria Pro rider. I don't see that board often, and was sad to see it discontinued. I might have to come back and post a follow up because I was planning to sleep when I stumbled across this post.

@Nivek already did the detailed part so I am just going to do the easy part as someone who rode the same board as the OP, pay quite a lot of attention on flex and width, and really got into ground tricks / buttering (and also have 3 boards for that purpose).

One thing I would just like to quickly get out of the way is that I actually wonder if 152cm for an all-mountain board is right for your weight. But, if you find it reliable and all, then maybe there is nothing to it.

@Nivek mentioned it, but flex can't be compared between brand, and frankly speaking I find that Nitro flex rating within the brand is very unreliable. Our Victoria Pro is rated a 8, but unless mine is defective new, I would barely rate it a 6. On the other hand the Nitro Beauty (2022) is rated a 8, but I would quite happily give it 9.5 or round it up to 10. One of my riding buddy uses a Team Pro, a "unisex" model but really more calibrated towards a male rider with a flex rating of 8 swapped board with me, and we both agree that the Beauty is the stiffer board. I like Nitro boards but their flex rating is honestly awful.

I'd say that the width (at the insert) and the flex make a big difference especially if you are small footed. Since I find the Victoria Pro surprisingly soft, and a bit narrower, I am able to go 155cm and find it very, very manoeuvrable even at 135lbs. The Team Pro at 152cm though is wider and significantly stiffer find significantly less nimble. The Beauty at 150cm is stiffer but noticeably more narrow is once again more manoeuvrable, but although -still- not as much as the 155cm Victoria Pro. However my sensitivity to the width of a board is partly due to my foot size. In most case my toes and heel aren't reaching the edges requiring more leverage before I can engage those edges, and the wider the board, the slower it takes for me to go from edge to edge. Most guys on the other hand have no such issues, with many having to worry about the boots going too far out and catching the snow (drag) when carving.

What I am getting at is that aside with flex being so unreliable without checking them out yourself (or at least have a consistent reviewer's feedback) and the width being linked to your foot size, trying to mathematically work out what is ideal is not really realistic.

Got to go now but since I got really ground tricks and bought three boards for that purpose I might come back and give my two cents about my opinion on the kind of boards that might be good.. keeping in mind that I have no experience with Niche boards so won't be able to say how viable those are.

 

Thanks guys, appreciate all of this feedback - and hello to another Victoria Pro fan, @TooNice. I'm curious why this comment:

One thing I would just like to quickly get out of the way is that I actually wonder if 152cm for an all-mountain board is right for your weight. But, if you find it reliable and all, then maybe there is nothing to it.

This is always a bit of an issue for me because at 5'5" and 165lbs, I'm "heavy for my height" and a lot of board size charts end up putting me on something longer than I'm comfortable with because, in addition to being short, I am proportioned with shorter legs and a long torso - so my 'natural stance' is even narrower than that. Even if I could find a longer board driveable/manageable, it's cancelled out a tiny bit by the fact that I either have to put my feet closer than the reference stance on the inserts so there's too much board on either side of my feet, or I have to stand a little uncomfortably wide and then I can't ride with optimal body positioning.

I assume this can't be all that uncommon; most human bodies don't fall into "average" range on all of their various dimensions, but I don't see much talk or see any brands ever really address it other than to emphasize things are somewhat customizable, shrug.

Anyway, my Nitro is from 2021, so for that year, at least, the 152 listed a weight range of 100+ so I was like, ok.. let's go. The boards I was riding comfortably before that were 149, so jumping up to 152 felt scary enough to try without demo-ing, 155 would have seemed too much of a jump. I haven't had any "issues" but I don't know what issues I would even look for? I could probably handle the 155 now without much concern but I find the 152 is serving me well.

And big thanks to everyone else's input - especially @Nivek, you understood the assignment haha! This is really helpful to read through. Although,

Now for the easy part, recommendations of your options. Definitely the 49 Nightshade. The 53 is more than you need for the riding you're doing when you already have the 52 Nitro.

Unfortunately I literally just pulled the trigger on the 153 Nightshade earlier this week (sale!)... I hadn't seen your reply and part of my logic was the above, but now I'm overthinking it... the weight thing does really mess with this process for me, and because I haven't ridden enough boards to know firsthand what it would even feel like to be 'too heavy' for a particular board. The Nitro has been a dream, so.. this whole process has been less about solving a gap or need or problem and more a function of adding something that would unlock some new things. In this case I'm technically within the window on Niche's size chart for the 149, but at the upper edge, so I wondered if I'd be more likely to overpower it and the flex.

Guess we'll see how the 153 feels in a few months... Maybe it ends up splitting the difference and becomes my new daily driver, or maybe the length cancels out the whole reason I'm getting it and I end up regretting my choice.. fingers crossed. Either way, thank you guys for all the perspective, I appreciate it. And I would watch that TED talk, Nivek!

 

Thanks guys, appreciate all of this feedback - and hello to another Victoria Pro fan, @TooNice. I'm curious why this comment:



This is always a bit of an issue for me because at 5'5" and 165lbs, I'm "heavy for my height" and a lot of board size charts end up putting me on something longer than I'm comfortable with because, in addition to being short, I am proportioned with shorter legs and a long torso - so my 'natural stance' is even narrower than that. Even if I could find a longer board driveable/manageable, it's cancelled out a tiny bit by the fact that I either have to put my feet closer than the reference stance on the inserts so there's too much board on either side of my feet, or I have to stand a little uncomfortably wide and then I can't ride with optimal body positioning.

I assume this can't be all that uncommon; most human bodies don't fall into "average" range on all of their various dimensions, but I don't see much talk or see any brands ever really address it other than to emphasize things are somewhat customizable, shrug.

Anyway, my Nitro is from 2021, so for that year, at least, the 152 listed a weight range of 100+ so I was like, ok.. let's go. The boards I was riding comfortably before that were 149, so jumping up to 152 felt scary enough to try without demo-ing, 155 would have seemed too much of a jump. I haven't had any "issues" but I don't know what issues I would even look for? I could probably handle the 155 now without much concern but I find the 152 is serving me well.

Snowboards are typically sized mostly by weight and boot size. That is primarily what is going to determine how the board feels for you. My stance is narrower than reference on almost every board i have owned. If you aren’t looking for more stability out of your board, and enjoy your board then there is no worries. For some reason people think longer boards are scarier though when you would do fine.

 

About the board length, I am also in the school of thought that weight and boot size matters the most. I can see how height might theoretically matter the harder you carve: someone taller will have the centre of gravity further from the board when balancing on an edge, and that should affect the amount of pressure on the edge due to leverage. However I suspect that this is still less significant than weight and boot size unless you are once again dealing with someone who stray significantly away from the "average".

About the stance, as @wsouthlaw87 mentioned, don't worry too much about reference. As long as you aren't setting it forward (centre or back is fine), just use a stance width you are comfortable with (e.g. for me, 51cm is ideal and anything between 50-52cm is fine, and I've yet to use a board when I can't set it to that.

Incidentally, while my I am 164cm / 61.5kg (shy of 5'4" @ 135 lbs) now but at one point I hit 150lbs making me short but heavy too. But even after my diet, I am enjoying my Victoria Pro at 155cm (I note that Nitro only released the 149cm and 155cm for one season before discontinuing that line so you would not have been able to find anything other than 152cm in 2021). At any rate, if it is serving you well, then it's all good. This is actually not hard science (*), if you ride something that is considerably too small, you will probably find it very unstable, but from the sound of it, you are riding yours with confidence, so it's all good.

(*) It seems that different manufacturer also lean towards different size recommendation for the same weight range. This is not just about the shape of the board etc., I do think for instance that Nitro and Jones tend to suggest going longer than, say Burton even on boards that are fairly similar in shape / size / purpose etc. Based on many charts though, at 165lbs 152cm is on the smaller side.

I have no idea what a 5 flex for a Niche Women's board is like, but I think that it was the right choice to stick to a women's board simply because men's board are usually stiffer than the equivalent women's board (a few years ago I would have said "always", but again, I found an outliner with the Nitro Beauty which I found equally as stiff as the Men's Beast - at least for the 2022 model).

This might not be an absolute rule, but assuming decently well made modern camber boards, I'd say that a stiffer board has more potential for higher ollies, but a softer board is easier to learn an ollie on. However if you go too soft, you might not notice when that you've loaded optimally, so I don't recommend a complete noodle either. But if you go too stiff, you have to apply quite a lot of power to load the board, the board will fight back the entire time meaning that you have less time to find the sweet spot for loading the board. The pay off can be great but it's less forgiving (and more tiring).

So I think that a medium flex board (an accurate 5 to 6) is good place to start (making your pick reasonable), though this is again a place where a heavier rider might be able to / might want to go a bit stiffer since you are relying on your bodyweight to bend (load) the board, and a stiffer, poppier board will help you get more air.

TBH, I am not sure if my Victoria Pro is just defectively soft or something (I haven't met anyone with that board in the mountain; though the demo staff at Nitro checked my board and said it seems about right), but I actually find my Victoria Pro soft enough to effortless to ollie, especially compared to other 8/10 flex board that I've used. I will be curious as to how you find your Nightshade compares to your Victoria Pro in actual use.

As for the length, I don't think that 153cm will be an issue when it comes to straight ollies, side hits, rollers etc. However, for the purpose of presses and butter tricks, ollie / nollie spins etc. people usually recommend going a bit smaller. In that sense going up from your existing board might seem like an odd choice.

However if 165lbs non-beginner were to ask my opinion on the length they should go for, I'd probably say 154-156cm for freeride/all mountain, 152-154cm for park/all mountain freestyle, and 150-152cm for heavy jib/ground trick focus (this exclude wide/powder board made to ride short). In that sense, I feel that the length of your new board is fine as long as the rest (flex, width etc.) is well suited for you.

I hope that you'll find the Nightshade to be what you need. IF it turns out that it's not quite right for what you want to do, I'd suggest giving Capita's Bird of a feather (mid-soft) or Salomon's No Drama (mid) a demo if you have the chance. For ground tricks I am using some Japanese boards that is hard / expensive to buy outside Japan, but I can vouch for those two as widely available boards that I can enjoy playing around the mountain with (I feel the Capita is kind of easier to learn on, but the Salomon is -just right- for me, and I really enjoy ollieing on it. The effort to pay-off ratio is just right for me).

 

Taller people have a higher centre of gravity and a greater likelihood of going over the nose. In that regard, I think the nose length is more important than the overall length. If you're more setback on a directional board, you can get away with a shorter board.

I'm 172 cm and like to have a nose of at least 55cm (centre of binding disk to the tip of nose). Preferably 60cm or more for pow.

My last 156 directional twin was only 53 cm of nose (54cm stance; 49cm tail). It was certainly usable, but it was more of a chore off-piste. For comparison, my 153 Stalefish is 60/53/40 and feels perfect in fresh snow (it's also wider with 3D).

{apologies to those that use freedumb units}

 

Can’t spell center right and don’t know how to measure. Unfortunate.

I have definitely gotten too far forward in soft slush and in deep snow on small volume shift boards. Not ideal. Its not possible on my 143 pow surfer to get over that giant nose.

 

If you were me, which would you pick? ...
I'm not just interested in the board recommendation itself, but more about the science/logic. ...
Perspectives welcome.

I'd ride them all, then decide which is more fun to ride.

I'm my experience of snowboards, you can't work out much from the numbers, other than a relative comparison between boards of the same model. You can isolate one particular metric and pontificate about it, but that's not going to tell you much about how a board design feels in practice. To me, different snowboards are interesting precisely because you have to ride them differently to get the best from them. It's not about working out Taguchi style what measurements your optimum board should have, it's about working out how to get the board to behave as the designer intended. Which is why I'd start by riding the things.

 

@TooNice - thanks for your added comments, I appreciate all of it. We'll see how the Niche compares to the Nitro, (I'll let ya know what I make of the flex difference!) and it's good to have some more suggestions if the Niche lets me down.

I'm actually onto the search for new bindings for the Niche - I've got Ride DVA's on the Nitro which have been fine, but figured I'd use the excuse to try a new pair of bindings on the Niche - what bindings have you found ideal for the same use case here? I'm seeing a bunch of recs for Union Legacy's but haven't done my research on the general category yet.

@philw - yes, of course, if I had the ability to demo lots of things this would all be moot. Unfortunately I don't have access or opportunity where I live and ride most often. When you have to buy something outright before you can even get on it, it makes understanding the logic of the specs even more important. Plus I am just the kind of person who likes to learn; I'd listen to @Nivek's threatened TEDTalk out of sheer curiosity even if I wasn't shopping around.

 

Sorry we're only jumping on this thread now. We've got a fair bit of experience with the original question through our Quiver series. Are we too late to the party?

 

Happy to hear your thoughts! I did just buy the Niche Nightshade so I'm excited to try that out, but I'm not expecting it to replace my Nitro Victoria Pro, which I do really love. Since you're here, though, I'm curious: I did notice you're no longer selling that model - did you just discontinue the "Pro" version, or did you fold the Pro tech into the regular version of the Victoria?

 

Any time you get a new board is a good time. Enjoy the Nightshade.

Before diving into the original question, yes some of the Victoria Pro tech was folded into the regular Victoria. With that being said, the Victoria is still a lot of board. You must really know how to ride. Tidy.

As for the original question, I jumped on a call with two of our head designers yesterday and put it to them. Like the other comments they were quick to point out that specs like radius will have more of a profound impact on the board feel than something like overall length. Despite that I asked them to rank the three specs you provided in order of impact on overall feel. Here was there unanimous answer:

1. stiffness/flex
2. effective edge
3. overall length

How do designers know this? Its thanks in part to the Quiver series. With our Quiver series we wanted to test basically what you are talking about and we've been doing that for more than 10 years now. The premise of the Quiver series is that we remove variables such flex. We do this by having all boards in the series have the same Powercore II core and Biax laminates. From there Tommy and the team start playing wth shapes, set-back, different radius, nose shapes etc. The whole "experiment" has been a tonne of fun and yielded some hammers such as the Dinghy, Cannon and Banker.

Hope this provides some insight. Happy to answer anymore questions. We really enjoy board designer theory questions like this.

P.S. If you have the chance, try the Banker. It rips a turn as hard as a Victoria but has a simpler core and less fibreglass.

 

As for the original question...

Thanks for this, Andrew. I wasn't too familiar with the thinking behind the Quiver series, so it's interesting to hear about that. All good info - I appreciate the insight!

 

I'd not disagree with "Nitro's" analysis.

I can ride longer or shorter board designs. But I must get the correct stiffness/ flex in any specific design.

Those other things (and more) affect the feel of each board design.

I can tweak my riding style to get the best out of different board designs, but what I can't do is change my mass. Hence getting that right is essential.

 

Hi. I will try to keep this as brief as possible but the context is sorta relevant so thanks in advance for reading.

In my research, I'm wondering what variables make the biggest difference here.

Perspectives welcome.

There are several sides to the calculus. The board side (designer's side of research, data and data pool/sampling and design principles and assumptions). The actual terrain and conditions which may or may not be in constant change. And the rider side. Of course the rider side carries the most gravity (or weight). And calculating the rider side is of course, based on expectations, skills, experience. Expectations is mostly managing and marketing to the expectations (presumptions) of the market and marketers. And the skills and experience (or lack thereof) of the rider. The rider's gravity also is fluid; i.e., their expectations, skills and experience are influenced by their ability to manage their focus (anxieties, expectation, energy management and response) to the terrain and conditions which may or may not be a wonder filled or hellish experience. Duh... of course, only the rider determines and experiences what vector is important... and is the rider's sovereign determination.

Vector analysis is just a tool, but it is based on a lot of theory, and theory forms the hypothesis which is based on presumptions/assumptions which may or may not be applicable.

Value is in the eye (experience) of the beholder (rider)... thus they create their and experience their experience. I presume that most riders are out there to "expand" their experience... otherwise known as "chasing the dragon."

Ahh we are in the season of mental masturbation and dreaming... fuck'n snow dammit.