Kessler 168 vs 171?

[GeoffV]

I am surprised @Jack Michaud has not commented on the comparison yet. We both have the 168 KST and have fallen in love with the Kessler “magic”. If you are 175lbs+ and an experienced rider the 171 will be to soft for you. I rode it at one of our ECES events and was over flexing the nose of the 171. 

[Jack M]

53 minutes ago, GeoffV said:

I am surprised @Jack Michaud has not commented on the comparison yet. We both have the 168 KST and have fallen in love with the Kessler “magic”. If you are 175lbs+ and an experienced rider the 171 will be to soft for you. I rode it at one of our ECES events and was over flexing the nose of the 171. 

I've never ridden the 171, so I am not knowing.  But yes, there is something special about KST, I can feel it.  The 168 feels like it has the turn size of a short board with the comfort of a long board.  And it will agreeably carve longer or shorter while other boards want to carve within a narrower band of radii.  As for the 162, I haven't ridden that either.  On paper, the only difference is the length, and the radius range of the 162 is 7-12m and the 168's is 8-12.  I'm not sure if there is more to it than that.  I got 1st and 2nd in two USASA Slaloms this year on the 168, so it seems to work for SL for me at 190lbs.  I'm having a 175 made with a 10-14m radius range... #yolo #midlifecrisis

[philw]

Kessler's recommended weight ranges  for "the Alpine" are reassuringly small and from experience with the 156 SL I'd say they're spot on.

I've not ridden his other stuff, but looking closely at the weight range, "the Alpine" is clearly not a single design simply scaled for rider weight.

The 171 specifically has a very low minimum rider weight for a long board in 2017 - that looks like an alternative to my 156 for people who like motorways and high speed rather than busy resorts with moguls and speed cops. The 168 is for bigger people, or perhaps faster speeds.

[daveo]

1 hour ago, philw said:

The 168 is for bigger people, or perhaps faster speeds.

Nope actually. I would say any female could ride this reasonably successfully. It's the only board in the range which is that way. Not a terribly fast board either. I mean fast, but not blisterngly by any means.

[1xsculler]

It seems to me the 168 is, as has been stated earlier, sort of a "tweener" board, i.e. neither a slalom nor a GS board but a good all around board for us freecarvers.  The 171 is the GS board for lighter riders and with a 9-16 SCR which wouldn't likely be considered a turny board or an ideal freecarve board. The 162 would be a very turny race board with its 7-12 SCR, and not so well suited to freecarving on groomers.  Correct me if I'm off base which I frequently am.

Edited April 28, 2018 by 1xsculler

[philw]

5 hours ago, daveo said:

Nope actually. I would say any female could ride this reasonably successfully. 

Perhaps you misread my comment or the  specifications - both specifically state that it's for bigger people. 
If you're riding a board designed for heavier riders than you, then you'd need to ride it at faster speeds.: if you're not fatter, you could be faster, as I said.

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding women riders, who in my experience are just as strong as males, kilo for kilo.

[Neil Gendzwill]

28 minutes ago, philw said:

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding women riders, who in my experience are just as strong as males, kilo for kilo.

That's just not true.  Kilo for kilo, men are stronger, which is why we separate competitors in strength-based sports by both gender and weight class.

[daveo]

36 minutes ago, philw said:

Perhaps you misread my comment or the  specifications - both specifically state that it's for bigger people. 
If you're riding a board designed for heavier riders than you, then you'd need to ride it at faster speeds.: if you're not fatter, you could be faster, as I said.

No I didn't misread your comment.

7 hours ago, philw said:

The 168 is for bigger people, or perhaps faster speeds.

Neither of these are true. Ask any of the owners of 168s here on the forum. I am one of them, but don't take it from me. From my experience I would say it is as easy to bend as the 171 GS board and the 156 SL board. If I remember correctly, this resonates with an email I had from Hansjuerg a few years back (regarding the 171 only, though, we didn't discuss shorter boards in that exchange.).

38 minutes ago, philw said:

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding women riders, who in my experience are just as strong as males, kilo for kilo.

Assuming you've just missed my point here, but here you go. Females are, in general, lighter than males.

 

IN CONCLUSION (opinion alert), I would ALMOST go as far as to say that the weight range for the 168 is almost mispecified when comparing it to the rest of the The Alpine range. But then again for its target audience (non racers), perhaps it's not.

[1xsculler]

2 hours ago, daveo said:

No I didn't misread your comment.

Neither of these are true. Ask any of the owners of 168s here on the forum. I am one of them, but don't take it from me. From my experience I would say it is as easy to bend as the 171 GS board and the 156 SL board. If I remember correctly, this resonates with an email I had from Hansjuerg a few years back (regarding the 171 only, though, we didn't discuss shorter boards in that exchange.).

Assuming you've just missed my point here, but here you go. Females are, in general, lighter than males.

 

IN CONCLUSION (opinion alert), I would ALMOST go as far as to say that the weight range for the 168 is almost mispecified when comparing it to the rest of the The Alpine range. But then again for its target audience (non racers), perhaps it's not.

What would suggest for a weight range for a stock 168 Alpine?

Edited April 27, 2018 by 1xsculler

[Buell]

The stiffness of the production Kesslers might vary from year to year, but they seem pretty consistent.

Kesslers are amazingly friendly boards in their way. They are damp, have great edge hold, and all the design aspects work extremely well together. They will let you do things that other boards cannot pull off. What makes Kesslers more difficult to ride is that they do not slow down coming out of turns. They can handle the speed, but you have to be able to deal with it and you  have to work harder to control it.

The 168 I owned was from about 8 years ago. I consider it the freecarver in the Kessler lline. Both my wife (130 pounds) and I (145 pounds) could ride it fine. It was very forgiving. It seems to have a broad weight range. I felt the 171 was easier to bend for me, but the narrower waist could have made it feel quicker edge to edge with my 25m feet. Ultimately, the 168 was a bit too wide for my wife's (23m) and my little feet.

The stock 162 SL from about the same time was too stiff for me. I could get away with riding it if I stayed right over the edge. If I got off the edge just a bit, it would chatter out on me. I just needed more weight.

The 171 GS (for light riders) from a year or two later hand flexed really soft, particularly in the nose. I thought it would be too soft for me, but it rode really well and had a lot more backbone than I expected. It was very friendly. I sold it because it was a softer board than I wanted to ride (and I had a 175 SG GS that I loved to ride).

Since that time I have been riding a 162 SL (on my second one) built custom for my weight.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Buell

[bigwavedave]

21 hours ago, 1xsculler said:

It seems to me the 169 is, as has been stated earlier, sort of a "tweener" board, i.e. neither a slalom nor a GS board but a good all around board for us freecarvers.  The 171 is the GS board for lighter riders and with a 9-16 SCR which wouldn't likely be considered a turny board or an ideal freecarve board. The 162 would be a very turny race board with its 7-12 SCR, and not so well suited to freecarving on groomers.  Correct me if I'm off base which I frequently am.

If you look at the specs for the 3 most popular European "off-the-shelf" race boards, they each have a "large" (or "tweener"?) SL board in their race line-up-- Kessler (168), SG (163xt) and Oxess (164). Oxess and SG also  have a recreational carving line, Kessler does not. Each race line-up has wider waist boards (~20cm range) for for bigger feet, bigger stronger riders (often referred to as the "men's race board) and boards with a narrower waist (~19cm range) for smaller feet, smaller rider (often referred to as the "women's board").

While the K168 is a nice size for a recreational carver, it still has a racy variable sidecut of 8-12m that will not want to complete turns as easily as a narrower range side cut. If you are still working on perfecting your carved turns you might be better off getting a custom board made for your weight and preferred width and sidecut. A custom board from Thirst, Coiler or Donek will cost about half as much as a new Kessler.  Kessler 168's are rare on the used market.

 

[daveo]

1 hour ago, bigwavedave said:

If you look at the specs for the 3 most popular European "off-the-shelf" race boards, they each have a "large" (or "tweener"?) SL board in their race line-up-- Kessler (168), SG (163xt) and Oxess (164). Oxess and SG also  have a recreational carving line, Kessler does not. Each race line-up has wider waist boards (~20cm range) for for bigger feet, bigger stronger riders (often referred to as the "men's race board) and boards with a narrower waist (~19cm range) for smaller feet, smaller rider (often referred to as the "women's board").

While the K168 is a nice size for a recreational carver, it still has a racy variable sidecut of 8-12m that will not want to complete turns as easily as a narrower range side cut. If you are still working on perfecting your carved turns you might be better off getting a custom board made for your weight and preferred width and sidecut. A custom board from Thirst, Coiler or Donek will cost about half as much as a new Kessler.  Kessler 168's are rare on the used market.

 

Okay as an owner of both Kesslers and SGs and with a custom Oxess in the works, let me just set this straight. Then I'm not going to chime in again regarding these boards and just let the misinformation spread like the plague. Now I don't know much about boads and I'm generally biased and opinionated, but I know this much is true:

Kessler:

The 168 DOES want to complete carves, moreso than the 1.5-1.62 SL and 1.71-1.85 GS boards. It is purely a freecarve board, which could probably handle its own on an SL course.  In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a LONG STABLE SL board

SG:

The tweener (lol?) board for the SG is the 170. In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a SHORT MANAGEABLE GS board. This board is also easier to complete turns when compared to the 150-163 SL boards and 170-185 GS boards.

The FC board was easier for me to ride than the FRT 170. Noticeably easier to turn at low to medium speed.

The 163XT was made by popular request for riders with bigger feet who want to ride at more 'normal' angles. It is the first board of its kind and more may be on the way pending demand. The same goes for the Soul 159. A metal version has been made and this may extend more into the Soul range pending demand.

Oxess:

There is no such 'tweener' for Oxess. The 164 is purely an SL board. It's akin to the 185-19m/21m GS board.

Edited April 27, 2018 by daveo
brain not working .. as usual

[daveo]

On 4/27/2018 at 7:36 AM, philw said:

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding women riders, who in my experience are just as strong as males, kilo for kilo.

How did I glance over this without realising how contrary to common sense it was...

Perhaps check this website: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting

The lightest male category lifter literally has a higher world record than all the female weight categories except the heaviest weight category (unlimited weight) female. So only the 108kg female was stronger than the 68kg male. Additionally, she is the strongest and best female lifter to walk the planet. Ever. She holds the snatch, c&j and total world records. And the 105kg male category lifter still lifted 100kg total more than her ... And he's over 3kg lighter ...

Anyway, back to snowboarding eh?

Edited April 28, 2018 by daveo

[bigwavedave]

1 hour ago, daveo said:

Okay as an owner of both Kesslers and SGs and with a custom Oxess in the works, let me just set this straight. Then I'm not going to chime in again regarding these boards and just let the misinformation spread like the plague. Now I don't know much about boads and I'm generally biased and opinionated, but I know this much is true:

Kessler:

The 168 DOES want to complete carves, moreso than the 1.5-1.62 SL and 1.71-1.85 GS boards. It is purely a freecarve board, which could probably handle its own on an SL course.  In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a LONG STABLE SL board

SG:

The tweener (lol?) board for the SG is the 170. In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a SHORT MANAGEABLE GS board. This board is also easier to complete turns when compared to the 150-163 SL boards and 170-185 GS boards.

The FC board was easier for me to ride than the FRT 170. Noticeably easier to turn at low to medium speed.

The 163XT was made by popular request for riders with bigger feet who want to ride at more 'normal' angles. It is the first board of its kind and more may be on the way pending demand. The same goes for the Soul 159. A metal version has been made and this may extend more into the Soul range pending demand.

Oxess:

There is no such 'tweener' for Oxess. The 164 is purely an SL board. It's akin to the 185-19m/21m GS board.

"tweener" was not my term, hence the quotation marks. You have essentially agreed with me in the above post. I have owned and ridden them all too and spent enough time with WC/FIS racers to know. Just saying that the K168 has a place in their race line-up and yes , if you had to choose a Kessler for an average  adult male recreational rider the 168 or 180 would be okay. After owning and riding several off-the-shelf Kesslers, SG, Rev and Oxess, I found I prefer a race build with a "recreational" side cut for all day riding. It's so easy and less expensive to get a custom build from one our "local" builders. That would be my recommendation for the O.P. who seems to be struggling with getting his carve on. I don't think a Kessler is the answer. 

[daveo]

1 minute ago, bigwavedave said:

"tweener" was not my term, hence the quotation marks. You have essentially agreed with me in the above post. I have owned and ridden them all too and spent enough time with WC/FIS racers to know. Just saying that the K168 has a place in their race line-up and yes , if you had to choose a Kessler for an average  adult male recreational rider the 168 or 180 would be okay. After owning and riding several off-the-shelf Kesslers, SG, Rev and Oxess, I found I prefer a race build with a "recreational" side cut for all day riding. It's so easy and less expensive to get a custom build from one our "local" builders. That would be my recommendation for the O.P. who seems to be struggling with getting his carve on. I don't think a Kessler is the answer. 

Love the term tweener, I'm going to bring it backinto fashion with you  

I recently did see a pretty fresh K168 in the classifieds go for USD500...

I think we agree on most things actually, except I can't agree with you regarding the local builders (I've owned Coiler, Donek AND aPprior which I almost forgot about, although it was one of those AMF boards), I do think a K168 is everyone's answer to everything on the slope  kinda joking kinda not.

[Neil Gendzwill]

23 minutes ago, bigwavedave said:

It's so easy and less expensive to get a custom build from one our "local" builders. That would be my recommendation for the O.P. who seems to be struggling with getting his carve on. I don't think a Kessler is the answer. 

This.  He already has the board he needs, a new one is not going to be a fix.  I mean, if he has the cash and just wants a new board for the collection, great.  Otherwise it's like the golfer who figures the latest, greatest driver will fix his swing.

Come to think of it, if you want to throw money at the problem then a better solution would be a few weeks vacation in a resort that has a good hardboot instructor and some private lessons, or alternately head for somewhere with a big hardbooting crew willing to help.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Neil Gendzwill

[Jack M]

2 hours ago, daveo said:

How did I glance over this without realising how preposterous it was...

Daveo, please keep it respectful.

[daveo]

5 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

Daveo, please keep it respectful.

I actually do think the quoted text was preposterous by definition though...

 

There we go. Edited to look nicer.

Edited April 28, 2018 by daveo

[Erik J]

Great, now I have to put another board on my want list. 

You guys are killin me. 

[1xsculler]

Use a new mid-life crisis as your excuse and never get wants confused with needs..

[Heinz]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 6:27 PM, daveo said:

Okay as an owner of both Kesslers and SGs and with a custom Oxess in the works, let me just set this straight. Then I'm not going to chime in again regarding these boards and just let the misinformation spread like the plague. Now I don't know much about boads and I'm generally biased and opinionated, but I know this much is true:

Kessler:

The 168 DOES want to complete carves, moreso than the 1.5-1.62 SL and 1.71-1.85 GS boards. It is purely a freecarve board, which could probably handle its own on an SL course.  In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a LONG STABLE SL board

SG:

The tweener (lol?) board for the SG is the 170. In terms of sidecut SIZE, you can kind of liken this to a SHORT MANAGEABLE GS board. This board is also easier to complete turns when compared to the 150-163 SL boards and 170-185 GS boards.

The FC board was easier for me to ride than the FRT 170. Noticeably easier to turn at low to medium speed.

The 163XT was made by popular request for riders with bigger feet who want to ride at more 'normal' angles. It is the first board of its kind and more may be on the way pending demand. The same goes for the Soul 159. A metal version has been made and this may extend more into the Soul range pending demand.

Oxess:

There is no such 'tweener' for Oxess. The 164 is purely an SL board. It's akin to the 185-19m/21m GS board.

"tweeners" on Oxess are available (Models 2019):

Model     Type      Length     Radius        min. Width    Stance
RXR166  Carving  1.66 m    9.5 m          184 mm        480/520
SXR166  Carving  1.66 m    9.0/11.0 m 200 mm       480/520
WXR166 Carving  1.66 m    9.0/11.0 m 210 mm       480/520

Stiffness may be ind. chosen!

 

 

[barryj]

K168!   Release the Kraken....aka: Kessler!!

 

 

[1xsculler]

Well, four runs on the new, custom for 60-80 kg, Kessler 168, four on the same custom, NFCB170.

I wish I could tell you the $1600 K was night and day better than the Coiler but you all know I would be speaking with forked tongue. 

Both great boards... maybe like the C even a little better. Too much of a novice to have a valuable opinion. 

The conditions are so good at Crystal right now we’re cancelling out at Solitude and Will wait for a later date when it sucks at Crystal.