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 3 of 3 (38 items)   < Previous 1 2 3
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  02-27-2009, 12:45 PM 765266 in reply to 765156

    • Bdawg is not online. Last active: 29 Dec 2009, 10:10 AM Bdawg
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on
      03-04-2008
    • Methville USA

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

    Piranha_57_NW:
    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.
    Huh...? Is this because of the squared surface area JG was talking about in the taper video?
  •  02-27-2009, 12:57 PM 765280 in reply to 765156

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

    Piranha_57_NW:
    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.

    so for my size, you think i went with the right one?

  •  02-27-2009, 1:45 PM 765312 in reply to 765280

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

    Yes you did. when measuring it, you have to take the swallowtail into account. So from the nose of the board to the swallowtail, the board is actually 4cm shorter than when it had the pintail.

    Trust me, it will be perfect.
  •  02-27-2009, 2:19 PM 765347 in reply to 765312

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

    cool...appreciate your help
  •  02-27-2009, 5:31 PM 765590 in reply to 765347

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

    anytime.
  •  03-11-2009, 9:26 AM 774275 in reply to 765590

    • Ihmant is not online. Last active: 13-10-2009, 4:27 AM Ihmant
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on
      03-11-2009
    • Riga, Latvia

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

    I read the whole topic and still could not understand.

    In US mesurment I am 6ft tall (1.82m) and 165lbs (74kg) foot size 10.5/11. I usually ride a 159 T6, should I get the smaller 156 Fish for pow days, and why is the smaller size better? I always thought that a longer board gives more stability at speed?!
  •  03-11-2009, 9:29 AM 774277 in reply to 774275

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

    156 unless all you ride is big open terrain with very little features.

    you can size down because of the shape, its not hard to understand.  the nose is a lot wider and longer.  it has a lot more surface area on your nose than your 59 does.. hell, it has more than probably a 165 or so does, easily.. i forget what it was, piranha said something about that a while ago.

    its about float, which mainly comes from the difference in surface area between the nose and tail.  fish has lots of nose, and very little tail, so the nose floats and tail sinks.  you dont need a long board to ride pow.  shorter size makes it more maneuverable.  and again, you have lots of nose, so higher speeds are still very stable.
  •  11-02-2009, 4:22 PM 846378 in reply to 774277

    • JAWN is not online. Last active: 11-05-2009, 12:26 PM JAWN
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on
      11-02-2009

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

    Thanks to everyone who has chimed in on this thread. It is helping me with this same exact decision. I'm still debating it some. I want my powder board to fill all my powder board needs. Yes, I love riding trees but I also love riding the steep open bowls. I typically ride a 160/161 as my all-mountain board. I'm 5'11" and weigh 170-175 (not in board gear). I love going top speed down open runs but I also love the trees. Mammoth Mountain is my main local mountain but I travel as much as I can to get me some strange (steep and deeps).
Page 3 of 3 (38 items)   < Previous 1 2 3
View as RSS news feed in XML