Help me choose the right length and stiffness

Post by **rastapasta** » Monday 28 December 2009, 16:55

Hi together

This is my first post on this forum and I am writing this because I need some support for choosing the right board for my purposes
I am expercienced hardboot rider with about 20 years of experience on various raceboards. My last two boards were F2 Silberpfeil 161, which IMHO is nice board for icy slopes and narrow carved turns but much to aggressive in softer snow (the nose digs in when putting even slightly too much pressure on the front leg), so I took the decision to go for the "real thing", the SWORD.
Now my problem is that with my weight of 67kg, my size of 171cm and my boot size Mondo 26 (Raichle 125) I am somewhere between a 161M or H and a 168S or M. I sometimes also ride my völkl monocarver with a length of 175 cm, so I am not afraid of riding the 168. On the other side, given the crowded slopes I prefer a board for medium speed and radius, which would favor the 161. Can somebody give me advice?

BTW is there a somewhere a picture of the "rubber tail"?

Alex

Post by **Felix** » Monday 28 December 2009, 21:44

You should definitely go for the 168M.

Raichle boots in 26.5 (this is the shell size, as there are no Mondo 26 shells) is far to big for the 161. I even considered going for the 175 with 26.5 Mondo boots.

If you measure the outer lenght of the boots, you'll see that you're on the border between 168 and 175.

Post by **Arnaud** » Tuesday 29 December 2009, 9:51

I don't totally agree with Felix

My weight is about 78-80 kg and I use both 168M and H. M flex is perfect for steep slopes and hard snow.
You are much lighter so maybe 168S would be also a good alternative.

Regarding boots size, I use Head Stratos in 28 Mondo and this is perfect on 168. In the past i used Raichle 124 in 28.5, and that was also OK with 168.
So imoh, you won't have problem with the boots size on 161.

rastapasta wrote:I prefer a board for medium speed and radius,

May be 161 is better for this. In this case 161 H is better to avoid nose diving.

Post by **Felix** » Tuesday 29 December 2009, 10:14

Well I'm using 48°/54° with Mondo 26.5 Raichle 325 on my 168M, If I go down to 45/51 I often bootout. (I use 48/54 on my SL/GS boards (~20cm middle width ) - which I don't incline as high however).

If you go for the 161 you will probably have to ride around 51/57 or even 54/60.

Of course you can take the 161, but then you won't be able to ride <50° on back foot.

Post by **Arnaud** » Tuesday 29 December 2009, 10:26

46/47° rear with Head 28 on 168.
26-26.5 shell is much shorter, even for Raichle (which are a little bit longer than Head).

Post by **Arnaud** » Tuesday 29 December 2009, 23:10

I checked on Eaglefly's board : 161M and Head 26.5 : 45° rear.

Post by **Hans** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 12:30

161H - for normal riding, if you follow the charts on the webiste this is the board for you.

168M- for a rider that can push it hard to aggressive with your little weight and if you have more than normal legstrength.

Don't make the fault to overestimate yourself. I have seen enough people here buying boards that were too stiff. Just email the Swoardguys here. They have the most experience. They tested these boards at the utmost.

Also consider the radius of the boards.

Post by **Transistor Rhythm** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 12:39

Wouldn't that be just the other way around? H is for more aggressive and muscular riders?

Post by **Hans** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 14:13

Transistor Rhythm wrote:Wouldn't that be just the other way around? H is for more aggressive and muscular riders?

The 161H is a smaller board and therefore easier to bend for relative smaller and lighter riders. The taller you are the futher away your weight is from the board the easier it will bend. Just simple physics.

Post by **Transistor Rhythm** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 14:21

You are right, I didn't read the numbers right.

Post by **pokkis** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 14:41

Plus H in one length is not as stiff as H in another length, if i recall it correctly, ie these hardness figures are relative.

Post by **rastapasta** » Wednesday 30 December 2009, 16:56

Thanks guys for the lively discussion

This morning I had 69 kg on the balance (too much heavy food during these holidays...) and I have quite strong legs, so the 161M and the 168S are no longer an option.
Felix made it clear that the Raichle x25 has a quite long sole and indeed the measured boot length is exactly 30cm. If I stick to the board selection table this leaves me with the 168M. Ok, this may not be the best option for close turns, but from my experience with the F2 Silberpfeil and other boards I know that the key for smaller radiï has much more to do with having confidence in the grip and the stability of the board and not so much with board design parameters and from this point of view the 168M will be great. It's already ordered!