Decisions, decisions...

[kelvin o]

Hey guys,
The 2D's are ready and it's time for the final decision and I'm still wavering between the 161 and 168 (I've put in an order for the 168 but...). I've read a bit back on the list and found some helpful info but I can't help but ask what the present Swoard rider's think of their ride, what size/flex they have and their riding weight (I'm 5'-6", 145 lbs). I hope this isn't too prying but I'd really like to get it right since it'll be quite a big purchase... THANKS!!!!
Kelvin

[Hans]

It won't be a surprise, every SWOARD is easy to ride. This 2D seems even more forgiving than the former 3D. Have fun with it. I am 185 lbs (85 kgs, sometimes more) and I can't even push it through the sides.

Greets, Hans.

[nils]

K,
Really don't feel scared by the board size, because, as Hans stated it, they are easy to ride, even in the big sizes. I'm not sure what 5'6" is in cm, but really pick a board that is designed for you. The 168 will of course be more stable than the 161.

Nils
PS: just got your order thnx

[vkrouverk]

I'm 5'5" and ca. 150 lbs (165 cm and 68 kg) and ride 168 M Swoard. I don't feel, that my board is hard to ride or anything like that. But I do not have local mountains nearby and I try to choose such locations and time for my riding trips, that there is very few people on slopes, so I have no problems with longer sidecut and board. If you are riding on crowded slopes, then shorter board would be perhaps better idea, but if you think that it won't be problem, then I'm sure that 168 with proper flex won't be problem for you.

[kelvin o]

Thanks for the comments all are appreciated.

Yeah, difficulty is not really the issue, I've been riding for a while so I have a decent technique. I have a Proton 164GS that's great fun but needs quite a bit of room to turn and requires alot of effort if I get into a tight spot. So I was wondering about the space requirements that the 168 Swoard would need as opposed to the 161 (it IS only 7cm longer so I can't imagine that it would demand THAT much more but who knows...) I guess the issue is the difference in flex between the two, if the 168 is that much stiffer than the 161.

Another way of putting it is I'd like the Swoard to be more versatile in where I can go with it than the Proton. Is the flex of the Proton and the Swoard pretty close or how much stiffer is one more than the other. If the Proton is stiffer I would probably go with the 168. If flexier then I would go with the 161. Does this make sense? Thanks again!

[Hans]

Don't be worried, you can board the 168 as a slalomracer or as a bigturn GS board. These boards are real versatile. And since the 2D is a little softer like the SWOARDteam described as the board I have (former 3D), I wouldn't worry at all. So go for the 168, you won't regret it. The 168 will also float better in soft snow than the 161. About the flexibilty? Yoo can't compare any board to the SWOARD with the ATCmatrix in it. The longitudal stiffness of the SWOARD is relatively soft, but the torsional stiffness is high/hard and that's where the stability comes from (I am not that technical, but that's what I learned from boards). You can all read this in former reviews from the SWOARD. Have fun with your new 168.

Greets, Hans.

[kelvin o]

Hans, what do you mean by "I can't even push it through the sides?"


Sounds good guys, Thanks for the input.
I think I'll stick with the 168. Nils, can't wait for the board! Thanks again!

[Hans]

Hans, what do you mean by "I can't even push it through the sides?"


Sounds good guys, Thanks for the input.
I think I'll stick with the 168. Nils, can't wait for the board! Thanks again!

Once I had a Nidecker Proto 162. When I forced this board when carving I went 'through' it and the board couldn't bear the forces of my weight and power (i had muscles in the early days). Well, with a SWOARD no chance with that. Even with my 86 kgs the board holds well.

Greets, Hans.