I want a slalom board -

[David Kirk]

The Kessler 168 vs. 171 thread has me thinking and rather than drift that thread I thought I'd start another.

I'm looking at picking up a slalom board for next season and would like to get some input for the group. I've been riding hardboots for 30+ years and carving hard for about 25 years. I'm 6'4" tall and weigh about 185 lbs. I'm an ex pro cyclist and, as cocky as it sounds, I have have no trouble generating power. I'd say I'm much more of a race-carve kind of guy than a surf-carve or Euro-carve kind of rider.

For the past 15 years or so I've been riding handbuilt team boards made in the Rossignol race room (usually 181's or 191's - radius in the 18-20m range) but this past season I bought a Kessler Alpine 185 and, not surprisingly, it changed my riding life. I love the speed, control, edge hold, and the way it wants to find the fall line but can still be made to come across the hill. On occasion I might want the board to be stiffer but otherwise it seems ideal. I'm running it with Gecko plates and TD2's. I live in Montana so ice is a non-issue......the snow being too soft to carve hard is much more common.

The only downside of the Kessler 185 is that it's happiest going fast and wide and on busy days with traffic, or days where the fresh grooming is on the narrow side, I find the idea of a board with a tighter radius attractive. I enjoy the 185 so much that I was thinking that I'd pick up a Kessler 168 to use on those days where I want to take up less room at lower speeds.

Reading the 168 vs. 171 thread makes me second guess my plan. I wonder if someone with my size/weight/riding style would be happy on the 168? Some are saying that the 168 is more a freecarve kind of board and I think I'd like more of a true race SL board.

So....finally...to the question! Is the Kessler 168 a race board I should consider or should I be looking at something else? If not the K168 what shortish radius board should I consider?

Thanks in advance for your input -

Dave

[Buell]

The stock Kessler 162 SL or a custom Kessler SL are great options.

The stock 162 SL I rode is a lot more board than the 168 that I had.

I had a 157 SG SL for a while. It could be amazing to ride but was less forgiving than the Kessler SLs and needed firm snow to work well. In soft groom, it was difficult to ride. I don't know for sure, but the current model 163 SG SL is probably similar. If you deal with softer groom, my experience is that the Kesslers SLs perform well in a broader range of conditions.

[bigwavedave]

What Buell carefully states about comparing "stock" Kesslers is important as there are a lot of custom Kesslers out there, so if you're shopping the used market you want to verify that that it;s made for someone similar to you. I don't think there are any custom SG's. Likley most Donek Revs are custom. I had the opposite experience of Buell where I had a 163SG that I loved and it could do anything well. I also had 2 different 162 Kesslers that were custom made for lighter (but strong) racers, but didn't work well for heavier me. A stock one likely would have worked well.

That being said, if I were to pick a SL sized Kessler for riding in western mountains, it would be the 168. I only rode one once, but the specs for a stock one show that it's pretty turny and made for a full sized rider. And, since there are far less of them out there, you're less likely to come across a customized one.  

The 157 SG (and the stock 156 Kessler) are the "women's" boards  (lighter, smaller rider), but many women racers ride the 162 Kessler for it's wider range sidecut, but customized for their weight. 

 

[Buell]

55 minutes ago, bigwavedave said:

What Buell carefully states about comparing "stock" Kesslers is important as there are a lot of custom Kesslers out there, so if you're shopping the used market you want to verify that that it;s made for someone similar to you. I don't think there are any custom SG's. Likley most Donek Revs are custom. I had the opposite experience of Buell where I had a 163SG that I loved and it could do anything well. I also had 2 different 162 Kesslers that were custom made for lighter (but strong) racers, but didn't work well for heavier me. A stock one likely would have worked well.

That being said, if I were to pick a SL sized Kessler for riding in western mountains, it would be the 168. I only rode one once, but the specs for a stock one show that it's pretty turny and made for a full sized rider. And, since there are far less of them out there, you're less likely to come across a customized one. 

The 157 SG (and the stock 156 Kessler) are the "women's" boards  (lighter, smaller rider), but many women racers ride the 162 Kessler for it's wider range sidecut, but customized for their weight. 

 

I did have a 175 SG GS that was one of my favorite boards ever. It would do anything I wanted and had a nice broad range. BWD, it does not surprise me that your 163 SG was great. I just never quite got along with the 157 SL.

I ride a custom Kessler 162 SL for my 148 pounds. I wanted a bigger turning board than the stock 156.

Based on the 168 I owned, it will be too soft for David if he occasionally finds the 185 a bit soft. The stock 162 SL has a lot more backbone.

David, you could contact Hansjuerg Kessler about his boards. He is very friendly and responsive. I have called Kessler before and Hansjuerg actually answered the phone.

[Jack M]

I would think the 162 will simply be too short for a 6’4” dude, but I’ve never ridden one. I’m 190lbs and I love my 168 and have raced it in SL. I think whichever one you get, if it doesn’t work out you could easily sell it for a small loss. Think of it as a rental fee. 

[Buell]

6'4 would have some leverage!

Kessler might have a 165 length custom SL or a custom 168?

 

[Jack M]

And I’ll second the notion of contacting Kessler directly. I’ve been dealing with Hansjuerg on my custom 175. 

[daveo]

Well this is what it rides like at 4pm in the afternoon on a chopped up 40odd degree pitch run. About 190cm/180lb.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by daveo

[1xsculler]

Awesome, high angle, great angulation, board bending carving, IMHO, Daveo.  Not that I'm in a position to judge.  Is that, a stock K168?  You're, basically, 6' 3" tall and weight 180 #s, right?  

[David Kirk]

Nice riding daveo.....and a really fun looking slope.

I wonder if anyone has had a similar experience to mine with the Kessler? The 185 I bought new this past winter is the only Kessler I've ridden and it seems to be a bit less stiff than is ideal for me in the midbody between the feet. If I'm riding a narrow slope or wanting to keep speed down I will pull up on my front toe and rear heel to help de-camber the board and tighten the turn. When I do this with the Kessler it feels a bit soft and this makes me wonder if they expect most riders to fit a plate to it which of course would keep the rider from using it that way.

Have you felt that daveo on your 168? Anyone felt that on any of their Kesslers?

dave

[Buell]

My custom, built for me, 162 SL is pretty beefy. I have to control speed by cutting in the nose. I cannot flex the middle significantly to tighten the turn.

Curious what others have to say.

[bigwavedave]

A stock board won't have added inserts like UPM, so should be built to ride fine without a plate.  

All the Kesslers I've had were custom from racers and had extra inserts for various plates. The 180 I had rode great without a plate and it was my only board for a couple of years.  I had two different 162's that were made for lighter riders and didn't perform well for me. Maybe a plate would have helped, but I don't like plates. I think the shorter boards are less forgiving of being overpowered if you're too heavy for it. The 180 I had was also built for a lighter rider (racer) and was perfect for me.

The stock 168 I rode ( a couple of runs on frozen cord) felt as stiff as my custom Rev (I'm 185lbs), although not great conditions to really get a feel for it. It was a board a young racer was selling as he had gotten it thinking he could use it for GS--much too stiff for him. Selling it after he found the 171 much more appropriate.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by bigwavedave

[Jack M]

FWIW, my stock 168 has UPM inserts.  It was made in Switzerland, I got it from Bomber in the fall.  And my stock Austrian-made 180 has UPM inserts too.

[David Kirk]

Hey BWD - are you saying that a stock Kessler would not come with UPM inserts? I wonder if maybe that has changed because the 185 I purchased new this past winter came with UPM inserts....and the Kessler site shows many of the stock Alpine line coming with both 4x4 and UPM like my board was constructed with.

My gut tells me that the stock board did not have UPMs in the past but that they made a running change.

 

dave

 

[pokkis]

10 hours ago, daveo said:

Well this is what it rides like at 4pm in the afternoon on a chopped up 40odd degree pitch run. About 190cm/180lb.

 

That slope is not even close to 40 degree. looks more like 40 %

Edited April 30, 2018 by pokkis

[Tanglefoot]

My Kessler 168 feels slightly stiff for my 160 lbs, so I would think 185 lbs is within range for most conditions. (BTW, a Coiler built for my weight will be softer.) The 168 is a board that gives me more confidence than I have on similar boards, and I especially like the way it initiates a turn very quickly and positively without having to load the nose very much. Definitely handles a lot like a slalom board.

[daveo]

8 hours ago, pokkis said:

That slope is not even close to 40 degree. looks more like 40 %

You may well be right, just going from memory. Although, 40deg is still in my head.

40% = 36deg?

[Jack M]

Yeah I'm not getting a feeling of 40 degrees there either.  The steepest part of White Heat at Sunday River is 35 degrees.  Steepest part of KT-22 at Squaw Valley is 43 degrees.  Corbet's Couloir is 53 degrees.  A 100% slope is 45 degrees.

 

http://www.skibum.net/do-it-up/comparing-steepness-of-ski-trails/

[pokkis]

40% is bout 22 degrees

Edited April 30, 2018 by pokkis

[daveo]

Right. Well I'll get back to you both next season on that one. It is the second steepest slope at the mountain I believe this one is steeper than the downhill course at the 1998 nagano games. Same mountain.

[daveo]

25 minutes ago, pokkis said:

40% is bout 22 degrees

You are definitely incorrect on it being 22degrees. But I will get back to you next season on that, since I don't mountain bike, I won't be going up there during summer

[bigwavedave]

14 hours ago, Jack Michaud said:

FWIW, my stock 168 has UPM inserts.  It was made in Switzerland, I got it from Bomber in the fall.  And my stock Austrian-made 180 has UPM inserts too.

Each of my used custom Kesslers had a different insert pattern for various plate systems (Hangel, , Vist and Allflex). The first two I had were from back when all Kesslers were custom made--before the white topsheet option and the addition of the Swiss cross to the "R". 

I had simply referenced the pictures on the Kessler website which shows (current?) stock boards with standard inserts and assumed they were representative of a stock board. Seems it would make sense, since insert patterns are evolving every few years with new plate designs and UPM ain't so universal anymore. 

I'm thinking those Bomber Kesslers  were from the first year Kessler started making "stock" boards and maybe Fin was hoping to pair them up with Boiler plates?

Edited April 30, 2018 by bigwavedave
looked up the various inserts on my boards

[pokkis]

40% is 22 degrees. But your slope looks slightly steeper, from pic estimated 25-27 degrees

[Jack M]

24 minutes ago, bigwavedave said:

I'm thinking those Bomber Kesslers  were from the first year Kessler started making "stock" boards and maybe Fin was hoping to pair them up with Boiler plates?

Bomber sold stock Kesslers for several years.  My 168 has the current sexy p-tex topsheet with the "grain" surface finish, for lack of a better term, so I think it's a 2018 model.  The website doesn't show the topsheet in detail, I think the pictures of the boards on the site are just drawings.

[bigwavedave]

So, maybe all manor of inserts are hidden under that ptex topsheet and you just have to drill for them (so I've heard)?