Kessler 168 vs 171?

[1xsculler]

According to the specs the 171 is designed for about a 20 # lighter weight rider than the 168 and the 168 is an all around board whereas the 171 is a race board.

What else should one know before thinking about buying one of these boards?

[workshop7]

Hi 1xsculler,

With all due respect, if you can not tell the difference between your Coiler SL and your Rossi Slayer, I would strongly recommend that you not spend the money on a Kessler right now.  If you keep riding you’ll eventually get to the point where you can tell the difference between different boards.  A little more time will give you the ability to perceive small changes like moving your bindings forward or backward on a given board or tell the difference between the ride characteristics of a Nirvana Balance, Energy and V-cam all of the same length and width.  Once you get to this point in your progression it will then make sense to buy a board that is among the most expensive available.

Dave

Edited April 19, 2018 by workshop7

[bucky]

171 is for lighter/junior GS racers

Edited April 19, 2018 by bucky

[David Kirk]

As I understand is the 171 is a GS board for light/smaller riders while the 168 is a slalom board for full size riders.

dave

[BlueB]

4 minutes ago, David Kirk said:

... the 168 is a slalom board for full size riders. 

That would be the 162. 168 is more of a freecarve. 

[Neil Gendzwill]

Either way, I don't think it will be a magic bullet for whatever ails you.

[daveo]

168 is the freecarve oriented board. It has a slamom-esque size sidecut, friendly flex and likes to finish. Easiest board I've ever ridden. On the other hand the SG Full Carve 170 is similar in all respects but has a GS sidecut on a 170 length. These two make the perfect brothers. It's like SG and K made a deal before producing these boards.

Anything smaller than 168 is a SL board, anything longer is a GS board. The 171 is a GS board for lighter riders, 185 is for larger stronger riders and 180 is in between. Same deal for the smaller than 168 sizes.

If you ask me, the K168 is the magic bullet for what ails EVERYONE.

[jburk]

49 minutes ago, daveo said:

Easiest board I've ever ridden.

<thread hijack> I demo’d a Thirst Superconductor yesterday, it may very well make a serious claim to this title.  

Apologies, back to Kessler vs. Kessler. </thread hijack>

[daveo]

6 hours ago, jburk said:

<thread hijack> I demo’d a Thirst Superconductor yesterday, it may very well make a serious claim to this title.  

Apologies, back to Kessler vs. Kessler. </thread hijack>

So I take it you've ridden a K168?

And no, a thirst super conductor is in no way even near in contention for the easiest board I've ever ridden.

[jburk]

Relax, it was meant as a humorous aside. 

No, I haven’t been fortunate (or solvent) enough to ride the 168. I had a K162, admittedly a very different beast, one that has to be ridden with deliberation and purpose, but very forgiving for all that.  I inquired about a custom 168 (stock is almost 2 cm too wide for me, and I’m on the lighter side at 165-170), and it looked like the bill was going to be upwards of $1700 USD with shipping and duty.  Too rich for my blood…

If you’ve been able to also ride the Thirst (“effortless” comes to mind when I think about it), I’d be very interested in your opinion on it, perhaps in a PM or a new thread in the carving board forum, I’ve pulled this thread too far OT as it is. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by jburk

[bigwavedave]

13 hours ago, David Kirk said:

As I understand is the 171 is a GS board for light/smaller riders while the 168 is a slalom board for full size riders.

dave

...agree, and the 168 maybe for a more open SL course.

I have owned a 180 and 162 and have demoed a 171 and 168. While the 168 is a nice all-around recreational size for an adult male rider (as is the 180), it's still a race board that will always want to go faster. In order to complete turns across the hill it has to be driven rather than ridden.

[lowrider]

Unless your dealing with different side cuts the main consideration dealing with different length is basically the real estate you have available to ride on. I would think all other considerations would be more in the relm of personal preference.

[bigwavedave]

When comparing stock Kesslers, the boards with the ~19cm waists have a flex and scr for smaller/lighter riders, often referred to as "women's boards".

The waist widths in ~20cm range are the men's boards, made for heavier/stronger/larger riders.

SCR's are designed for navigating either a SL or GS course.

[daveo]

3 hours ago, jburk said:

Relax, it was meant as a humorous aside. 

No, I haven’t been fortunate (or solvent) enough to ride the 168. I had a K162, admittedly a very different beast, one that has to be ridden with deliberation and purpose, but very forgiving for all that.  I inquired about a custom 168 (stock is almost 2 cm too wide for me, and I’m on the lighter side at 165-170), and it looked like the bill was going to be upwards of $1700 USD with shipping and duty.  Too rich for my blood…

If you’ve been able to also ride the Thirst (“effortless” comes to mind when I think about it), I’d be very interested in your opinion on it, perhaps in a PM or a new thread in the carving board forum, I’ve pulled this thread too far OT as it is. 

So my previous message just sat in the text editor and didn't send....

...

because I've never ridden a thirst superconductor

[daveo]

2 hours ago, bigwavedave said:

When comparing stock Kesslers, the boards with the ~19cm waists have a flex and scr for smaller/lighter riders, often referred to as "women's boards".

The waist widths in ~20cm range are the men's boards, made for heavier/stronger/larger riders.

SCR's are designed for navigating either a SL or GS course.

Erm not entirely true for the 168 though, it's an anomaly among the range. Same as the SG Full Carve 170.

[bigwavedave]

1 hour ago, daveo said:

Erm not entirely true for the 168 though, it's an anomaly among the range. Same as the SG Full Carve 170.

The SG Full carve line up is marketed as their "recreational" carvers, likely with a more radial side cut, as opposed to Full Race Titan.  I have only owned and ridden the 163 Full Race Titan and have no experience with the Full Carves (so I'm just guessing based on the specs),  but the Full Race Titan line-up also has a similar anomalous SLsize called the 163xt and might be the equivalent of the anomalous Kessler 168. 

I would agree that out of the Kessler line-up, the 168 is the closest to a medium-sized-resort recreational ride , but I wouldn't recommend it for the O.P. for the reasons I stated in my first post in this thread.

[daveo]

19 hours ago, bigwavedave said:

The SG Full carve line up is marketed as their "recreational" carvers, likely with a more radial side cut, as opposed to Full Race Titan.  I have only owned and ridden the 163 Full Race Titan and have no experience with the Full Carves (so I'm just guessing based on the specs),  but the Full Race Titan line-up also has a similar anomalous SLsize called the 163xt and might be the equivalent of the anomalous Kessler 168. 

I would agree that out of the Kessler line-up, the 168 is the closest to a medium-sized-resort recreational ride , but I wouldn't recommend it for the O.P. for the reasons I stated in my first post in this thread.

My bad. Full Race Titan 170 is what I meant.

And no, I've spoken with Sigi directly regarding this, the 163XT was created because of racers with bigger feet requesting a wider board. He says it also works well for extreme carving style riding.

And no, the geometry is the exact same from the FRT and FC models. The flex is slightly different due to the absense of metal. FRT are harder to initiate turns and require more energy in general, they have a more difficult ride at low to medium speeds (the speeds most of us ride at), they have a higher maximum speed (which, let's be honest, none of us can go World Cup racer fast), and have better edge grip on ice at higher speeds (I don't encounter any ice, thankfully).

Edited April 20, 2018 by daveo

[piusthedrcarve]

7 minutes ago, daveo said:

 My bad. Full Race Titan 170 is what I meant.

.......

And no, the geometry is the exact same from the FRT and FC models. The flex is slightly different due to the absense of metal. FRT are harder to initiate turns and require more energy in general, they have a more difficult ride at low to medium speeds (the speeds most of us ride at), they have a higher maximum speed (which, let's be honest, none of us can go World Cup racer fast), and have better edge grip on ice at higher speeds (I don't encounter any ice, thankfully).

I owned FR 163 and FC 170 and tried FRT 170.  Yes, their geometry is same.  Only noticeable difference between FRT and FC was feel.   Max speed? and better edge grip? seems marketing verbiage.  I could push FRT harder since the extra metal layer gave me more confident.   I chose FC since it was more fun.  But IMO, a quiver killer is FRT. 

[daveo]

5 minutes ago, piusthedrcarve said:

I owned FR 163 and FC 170 and tried FRT 170.  Yes, their geometry is same.  Only noticeable difference between FRT and FC was feel.   Max speed? and better edge grip? seems marketing verbiage.  I could push FRT harder since the extra metal layer gave me more confident.   I chose FC since it was more fun.  But IMO, a quiver killer is FRT. 

Those were my personal sentiments. I have not ridden a 163XT, that was just over email.

Definitely a higher max stable speed and better edge grip on ice, no question about it.

You're essentially saying that metal doesn't give better edge grip on ice and more stability at high speeds. (??)

[1xsculler]

12 minutes ago, piusthedrcarve said:

I owned FR 163 and FC 170 and tried FRT 170.  Yes, their geometry is same.  Only noticeable difference between FRT and FC was feel.   Max speed? and better edge grip? seems marketing verbiage.  I could push FRT harder since the extra metal layer gave me more confident.   I chose FC since it was more fun.  But IMO, a quiver killer is FRT. 

Please decipher the acronyms for me.

[Neil Gendzwill]

FR = full race

FC = full carve

FRT = full race with Titanflex

 

[piusthedrcarve]

3 hours ago, daveo said:

Definitely a higher max stable speed and better edge grip on ice, no question about it.

You're essentially saying that metal doesn't give better edge grip on ice and more stability at high speeds. (??)

Max speed comes from confidence in control.  Metal definitely boost confidence on not-so-ideal conditions and rider may push hard and ride faster.  Grip on ice is more of geometry & flex pattern of the board than construction materials, IMO.  I ride at east coast where 'icy' is normal.  I have more confident on few glass boards and will choose the decks over any metal deck on ice.  But If I had to choose between FR and FRT on ice,  I would choose FRT tho.  

Edited April 20, 2018 by piusthedrcarve

[bigwavedave]

SG boards:  https://www.sgsnowboards.com/snowboards/

FC=full carve (glass, no metal)

FRT=Full Race Titan (titanal, aluminum alloy)

FRT ProTeam  essentially same as FRT, with different graphics and price.

I notice you have a Coiler NFCB. I had one and thought it was about the easiest ride I've ever been on. Based on Bruce's all-mountain design, it's great on a variety of conditions from ice to soft snow.

The race boards you're comparing here have a flex pattern that give you more acceleration through turns. Definitely a more exiting ride.

 

[1xsculler]

6 hours ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

FR = full race

FC = full carve

FRT = full race with Titanflex

 

Thanks for the clarification...assuming you meant FRT = full race with Titinal.   Titanflex means F-2 Titanflex bindings.

Aren't there many free carve boards with Titinal as well.  I believe the Kessler 168, a free carve board board,  has Titinal in it as well as almost all Coilers and some Doneks..

[Neil Gendzwill]

Yes, titanal.