Jump to content

burton U.P. 162


Guest thepinealgland
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest thepinealgland

I was on Chris Klug's site and browsing the closeout Burton gear. What I found was a 1999 Ultra Prime 162; I am wondering if anyone has the specs on this board? At 5, 8" 120 lbs. I'm wondering if it may be a bit too stiff for me? The other option is the Factory Prime 160, but I'm thinking this is at least as, if not more stiff, seeing as how it's intended for race. I'd greatly appreciate any insight you guys have to offer. Thanks very much.

Jse

p.s. Maybe i didnt need to start a new thread for this(?) If such is the case I appologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by thepinealgland

I was on Chris Klug's site and browsing the closeout Burton gear. What I found was a 1999 Ultra Prime 162; I am wondering if anyone has the specs on this board? At 5, 8" 120 lbs. I'm wondering if it may be a bit too stiff for me? The other option is the Factory Prime 160, but I'm thinking this is at least as, if not more stiff, seeing as how it's intended for race. I'd greatly appreciate any insight you guys have to offer. Thanks very much.

Jse

p.s. Maybe i didnt need to start a new thread for this(?) If such is the case I appologize.

Seems like a new separate topic, so I don't see why not... the specs appear to be (from the the klugriding.com site).

Length: 162 Radius: 11.21 Waist: 193

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been riding the UltraPrime 162 for about 5 years. The board is just great for me and I'm 5'8" and weigh 150lbs. I find that it's neither too stiff nor too soft (I know some heavier, harder charging riders will disagree with me). With a nice 11ish meter sidecut radius it can do a nice slalom turn or just lay the thing out for a longer gs turn. It's a cap construction board (as opposed to the FactoryPrime) so it's quite lively. Very versatile board.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlpentalRider

based on your weight, the UP should be just right. Burton boards in general are less stiffer then their european counterparts. I think you'll get along quite well with the Ultra Prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I had a similar inquiry a few weeks ago and got a response from Molly at Burton- she helps with Klug's site (and is very helpful). According to these numbers they gave me, you are too light for the 162.

Here is one of my ?'s and her response:

1. What are the weight ranges for the boards below? (i'm assuming they're the same regardless of year, please correct me if I'm wrong).

ULTRA PRIME 56 - 2ND

Length: 156 Radius: 10.25 Waist: 193 mm 110-170lbs

ULTRA PRIME 62 - 2ND

Length: 162 Radius: 11.21 Waist: 193 130-200lbs

ULTRA PRIME 68 - 2ND

Radius: 11.92 Waist: 201 mm 150-230lbs

-----------------------------

Based on these numbers, does everyone still think he should get the longer board?

Also, there is an UP (62 I think) on ebay right now.

---

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlpentalRider

you have to take those statistics with a grain of salt. They are really only a reference to compare that board with other boards from the same manufacturer.

You'll quickly notice that none of the major manufacturers (prior/donek/etc) post weight ranges becuase they really are irrelevent. The skill and riding characteristics of the boarder will determine what sidecut, length, and flex of board they need.

Worst case scenario, the board may ride more like a board with a 12-13 meter sidecut because your friend doesn't have the power to fully decamber it in a turn, although I find it very hard to beleive that a 120 pound person couldn't decamber any length or stiffness of board in a turn.

So basically, my opinion on the subject is that those numbers really only give you a measure of a degree of stiffness in that model line, and should not be treated as actual rules on weight.

The only time I have ever paid attention to them is in regards to powder boards and float capabilities, and even then it's just a guideline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

acording to the Burton rep and K2 people back in 97 both said the same thing to us

at least to get the type of performance the manufacturer intended

you see less weight charts on boards today I think because shop employees always ignored them and related the size to your height and as far as flex ignored that as well and just sold what they thought was hot at the moment

its more of a issue with alpine because its all about the turn ever been on a board thats too stiff it sucks

whem you buy a Coiler Bruce will ask you how much you weigh I doubt its because he is just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by AlpentalRider

I find it very hard to beleive that a 120 pound person couldn't decamber any length or stiffness of board in a turn.

So basically, my opinion on the subject is that those numbers really only give you a measure of a degree of stiffness in that model line, and should not be treated as actual rules on weight.

I agree about that the weight ranges should only be used as a general guideline... but clearly you must weight at least 180 lbs to make that claim that a 120 lbs person should be able to comfortably decamber "any length or stiffness" of a board in a turn. It's tough starting out when you are small/lightweight and people are like "just flex the board more" and it's just really hard to "commit your weight into the turn" until you learn to be more mechanically efficient. We should have a gravimetrically-challenged community group

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlpentalRider

I'll quote myself again "So basically, my opinion on the subject is that those numbers really only give you a measure of a degree of stiffness in that model line, and should not be treated as actual rules on weight."

what i'm claiming is that the weight they publish on the board is the end result of the computations of stiffness, rebound, etc. as well as an assumption on the manufacturer's part as to the level of riding experiance of the purchaser.

Here's my proof:

The Burton T6 162 freeride board is for riders between 150-190.

The Option Signature SM Series 157 freeride board is listed to be for riders between 130-190.

Have thepinealgland demo both boards and he will quickly tell you that the T6 was way better for his weight. The reason for this is the philosophy difference in how Burton sees boards being used vs Option. The Option boards are way stiffer then the Burton board even though both boards are supposedly very stiff in their respective model lines.

Plus and advanced rider will have a much different perspective on a board when compared to a beginner. I would never put a 190 pound beginning rider on an Option Signature SM, wheras the T6 would be manageble by them.

So again my point is to use it as a guideline, especially in decided between boards by the same manufacturer, but to really know if it is going to work for you, you can't judge by weight alone. I would put more emphasis on stiffness, sidecut, etc.

And bobdea, to use a custom board as an example to prove the point is like comparing apples to oranges. When you have a custom built, he will ask you very specific questions about flex, weight, sidecut, riding style, etc to build a perfect board for you. Your weight will give him an indication of how to acheive your proper stiffness which you desire, in which case weight is a critical factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest thepinealgland

Hello. I just wanted to thank you guys for the wealth of information you've provided me with; And to let you know I've decided on the Ultra Prime 162. I have enough power to bend this deck, even if it were a bit too stiff for me. Thanks again.

Jse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...