the BMB

Login for message boards, profiles, and preferences.

Burton Fish...156 or 160???

Last post 11-02-2009, 4:22 PM by JAWN. 37 replies.
Page 2 of 3 (38 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  02-26-2009, 7:15 AM 764105 in reply to 754735

    • jahson is not online. Last active: 10-05-2009, 8:54 AM jahson
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on
      01-02-2009
    • Vermont

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    tuff call, i am about 180 lbs, and i feel like the 160 floats better.....

    my 156 feels like it rides just under the snow alot, as opposed to on top of it like the 160( i always figured it was cause im at the top of the weight spectrum for the board). It don't slow me down at all, but i feel like the 160 is a little more stable, for slashing and such...
     
    Both are super fun,real fast,  and kill all other boards in the pow, especially the low angle stuff. Try before you buy if you can so you can decide what works for ya.

    If you do go for a Malolo, don't get a 62, it's way to big for the east coast...thing feels like it needs some wide open powder bowls to ride.....not tight east coast trees.

  •  02-26-2009, 4:19 PM 764574 in reply to 764105

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    I can't get either my fish 56 or fish 60 to submarine, and I am 5'10 probably 190 lbs right now due to winter beers and IPAs. If the nose does go under it instantly resurfaces asking for more white room action.

    jahson is spot on with malolo size. 58 for sure.
  •  02-26-2009, 4:27 PM 764582 in reply to 764574

    • el2ic is not online. Last active: 11-22-2009, 8:40 PM el2ic
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on
      08-02-2006
    • BMB > EL

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    my 56 usually comes right back up.  if not its becuase the grade turned to flat and i lost all my speed.  digging out that big of a nose really sucks.  hehe
  •  02-26-2009, 4:41 PM 764591 in reply to 764582

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    For those who don't normally ride a board as short as a Fish 156, do you feel like there is a tiny board beneath you and therefore a little less stable?  I'm 6' 1" so to a certain extent I like a little length beneath me to keep my center of gravity from getting too far over the board (if you catch my drift).  Or is there just so much nose on the Fish that it doesn't feel that way?
  •  02-26-2009, 4:46 PM 764594 in reply to 764591

    • el2ic is not online. Last active: 11-22-2009, 8:40 PM el2ic
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on
      08-02-2006
    • BMB > EL

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    the board is pretty wide, especially the nose and it provides a high amount of stablity. i dont care what size you ride it in.  the people you ride with will notice it the first day you ride it.  the board leave a hugh track and a lot of spay.  I actually think my fish is too stable and it takes away from some of the fun. I only bust her out now if its going to pure dry fluff on steep backcountry.  otherwise the lolo gets the chore. 

    the tail is uber short and the nose is just the opposite.  its noticable.  but remember this is a pow board.  unless you are not going to be riding steeps and pow then dont worry about it. 

     

    its a great board.  lots of fun and worth the experience.

  •  02-26-2009, 5:13 PM 764622 in reply to 764594

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    I just had to make this decision and went with the 160. I ride a 160 or 162 all mountain and I know it says to size down, but I felt like I could still whip a 160 through the trees, so why not go for the extra float in the bowls. I think I also remember someone on here saying that the whole size down talk on the fish and malolo was kinda bogus/not necessary. leaving for Jackson Saturday and hoping to get my first days on it next week. stoked.

    what would you say is the minimum amount of fresh snow you would need to rationalize taking out your fish over your regular board?

  •  02-26-2009, 5:36 PM 764637 in reply to 764622

    • el2ic is not online. Last active: 11-22-2009, 8:40 PM el2ic
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on
      08-02-2006
    • BMB > EL

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    JusBlaze:

    I just had to make this decision and went with the 160. I ride a 160 or 162 all mountain and I know it says to size down, but I felt like I could still whip a 160 through the trees, so why not go for the extra float in the bowls. I think I also remember someone on here saying that the whole size down talk on the fish and malolo was kinda bogus/not necessary. leaving for Jackson Saturday and hoping to get my first days on it next week. stoked.

    what would you say is the minimum amount of fresh snow you would need to rationalize taking out your fish over your regular board?

     

    12" or more and you really start to feel the advantages of the fish. 

  •  02-26-2009, 6:55 PM 764679 in reply to 764622

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    The guy saying not to size down needs to go back to tapered pow board class.
  •  02-26-2009, 9:47 PM 764836 in reply to 764679

    • Iakona is not online. Last active: 06-19-2009, 1:03 AM Iakona
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on
      12-04-2006
    • Pacific Northwest...No Friends on Pow Days!

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    If you are not going to down size then why buy a Fish.
  •  02-26-2009, 10:15 PM 764883 in reply to 764836

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    because its a killer pow board?

    i personally dont really like sizing down a whole like.  the 56 is perfect, and technically it is sized down from my normal size or 58.. but the taper, setback, and small tail alone make it maneuver like a smaller board and float like a.. fish! hah.  but i certainly wouldnt size up to the 60.. not that my size would require it anyway.

    i might want it if everything was wide open and drawn out though, just cause.
  •  02-26-2009, 10:56 PM 764934 in reply to 764836

    • el2ic is not online. Last active: 11-22-2009, 8:40 PM el2ic
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on
      08-02-2006
    • BMB > EL

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    Iakona:
    If you are not going to down size then why buy a Fish.


    downsizing just gives you that extra agility on the board. without it you would still have crazy float, stability, and speed. probably more of all that since it would be a longer deck.
  •  02-27-2009, 9:35 AM 765133 in reply to 764934

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    im 6'1'' and 200 lbs, which is why I chose not to size down to the 156. had there been a 158 option I probably would have sized down to that, but I felt the 160 would still be a good fit. we will see.

     

  •  02-27-2009, 9:59 AM 765155 in reply to 764934

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    all of that minus manueverability, I have both fishes and know.
  •  02-27-2009, 10:00 AM 765156 in reply to 765133

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    JusBlaze:

    im 6'1'' and 200 lbs, which is why I chose not to size down to the 156. had there been a 158 option I probably would have sized down to that, but I felt the 160 would still be a good fit. we will see.


     



    the 160 with the swallowtail is actually a 156.
  •  02-27-2009, 11:42 AM 765218 in reply to 765156

    Re: Burton Fish...156 or 160???

    not that it matters, but id add 1, maybe 2cm to that.  my 56 is about a cm or so longer than my actual 52.

    but yeah
Page 2 of 3 (38 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML