xy9ine Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 pondering my next board purchase (perhaps not till next season, but i'm a neurotic analyzer). i had a 177wcrm previously, which died an untimely death. i've been offered discounted pricing from prior, so will be buying from them. currently deliberating between the single and dual radius designs. anybody have experience with both to provide a comparative analysis? vsr sounds good on paper in terms of versatility, but i'm concerned w/ losing a bit of the energetic 'pop' off the tail (no idea if this is valid). more forgiving, but less fun perhaps? also considering going shorter (169 or 173). the 12.25m donek i'm on is pretty fun (esp. for the smallish mountain i typically hang out at). the (12m) 173wcrm would be a close fit, but the 169 flc (11-13m) might also work, plus have that bonus je ne sais quoi... thinking out loud. any helpful ruminations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Go with the flc. The vsr is incredible and makes it so much more fun due to the versatility of the scr. I rode the wcr for years, and the flc is hands down the superior board. Not sure where you got the idea that there is less spring off the tail, because this thing will launch you if you make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Not sure where you got the idea that there is less spring off the tail, because this thing will launch you if you make it. just pure conjecture on my part that less 'hook', might equal a less energetic turn exit. yours is the positive reinforcement i was looking for. just need to chose a length... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I have a 187, and I can make it do some pretty tight turns. Also, the combo of metal and rocker make it really flickable. I say go longer then normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RideGuy Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I've owned both last years 169W and this years 173W. Being only 4cm longer I'm surprised how much longer the 173W feels, but I guess it's do also to the larger sidecut radius and it seems a bit stiffer as well. I've only had one day on it and the conditions were not that great. I'm going out on Friday to give it a good workout. I'll be able to give it a better comparison to the 169W as the snow should be pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Hi Perry! FLC will give you a bit more variation in turn shape and better all-mountain capabillity. WCRM will carve rounder and more predictable turns. I'd go 173 for carving mostly, 169 if I wanted to trash it a bit in the moguls and steeps... Some Priors have "turbo" camber, if the pop is what you are after. Doug's 183 is still in my garage waiting for another test ride - it must have close to 1" of camber. No need in my opinion. You can have a go on my Kessler 168 BX narrow, to give you an idea of VERY variable SC. You'll have to wait for hero snow condition, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Houghton Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 +1 for FLC over WCRM. More versatility, still lots of POP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 anybody have experience with both to provide a comparative analysis? Yes. http://www.bomberonline.com/articles/newhotness.cfm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 good info there. spending a bit more time on my current single radius / no taper donek makes me think the decambered tail w/ taper is more suited to what i like to do - multi radius, from tight fall line 'j-turns' / slarving, to big gs carves. the tail is a bit less willing to release & whip about compared to my old tapered wcrm. i'll be ordering a wide regardless, so should make for a versatile one board quiver (or as close to it as i need). now deliberating between a 173 & 177flc. both have 12/14m sidecuts. what to do (my wrcm was a 177 @ 13m). hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Houghton Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Go big Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 or go home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 now deliberating between a 173 & 177flc. both have 12/14m sidecuts. what to do (my wrcm was a 177 @ 13m). hmmm... What do you weigh? If you're less than 180, I'd say the 173 will be a more versatile snowboard. Same sidecut, so it should carve similarly to the 177. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 i'm 165. if i can get them to do a hammerhead nose again, i'll gain a bit of effective edge as well. sold on 173! for the moment... thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 i'm 165. if i can get them to do a hammerhead nose again, i'll gain a bit of effective edge as well. sold on 173! for the moment... thanks! oh yeah... definitely 173. No need for the hammer head either. The stock nose is plenty effective, and will give you more versatility in variable snow conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Eh, dont let weight play too huge a factor. I weigh 160ish and love my 187. And i will second leaving the stock nose on. Im not sure what this whole craze about hammerhead noses is, but it considerably reduces the versatility of boqrds Plus, you live in bc. Slopes are big and wide. Go with the 177 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RideGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I finally got to take the 173 out in some good snow today. Was my second time on it (too much time on skis). I take back what I said about it feeling longer than the 169. It doesn't feel that much different at all. Still able to crank out some super tight turns. This board is fun as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy12 Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I'm in the same boat. Pretty much settled on the FLC 173. Was thinking 177, but wanted more versatility. Now, if I can raise the scratch..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I'm in the same boat. Pretty much settled on the FLC 173. Was thinking 177, but wanted more versatility.Now, if I can raise the scratch..... Who says a 177 isn't versatile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 177 as carver only. Ok, length is usefull for slush busting too. 173 to do it all, steeps, moguls, play the snow features... It really depends on how often you plan to bust out your BX board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 haha, you guys. I demand concensus! my logic was that the 173 w/ stubby nose would come close to the effective edge of the 177. that said, the decambered tail and dual radius would improve versatility over my old 177 hammerhead 177. and since the 173 and 177 share the same scr... what's a couple inches? for what it's worth my old hammerhead was just fine in varied conditions. had a great 8" powder day once; surprisingly effective the nose decamber is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colintkemp Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 "I demand consensus." Good luck here!!! Idea: given you're in BC, can you demo some Priors in the 177 and 173 lengths? I'd go 177 FLC over 173 or 177or 173 WCRM. But I like longer boards and I'm the raddest carver on the mountain. [G.N.A.R. points] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xy9ine Posted January 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 colintkemp - IM BETTER THAN YOU! leaning towards the long now... arghh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Go long. It will make you a better rider. And it just looks cool carrying a board taller than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoom Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Have you verified the SCRs with Prior? From looking at the FLC specs on the Prior website, I think the 12/14 SCR on the 177 is a typo. The SCRs increase 1m per length increment on all but the 177 (10/12, 11/13, 12/14, 12/14, 14/16). In addition, the nose and tail widths of the 177 are .1 cm narrower than the 173, which would indicate a larger SCR on the 177. If the goal is to open up more terrain to carving (steeper, narrower, banked features and other playful terrain, more crowded runs or days), then IMO, shorter, lighter, and turnier is more versatile and more fun. That's to a point, of course, but a 173 FLC is not a short board by most people's standards (155 effective edge). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 And it just looks cool carrying a board taller than you. Then he'll have to go at least 183... I'm pretty sure that 173 scr = 177 scr is a typo. And all the rest of what Zoom said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.a472ba65815fa47d0ab2a79a7ad0a06f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.