Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

How long should I go? 172 or 177 - Help!


h2orider

Recommended Posts

I need a new board(s) and was thinking about getting an Axis. Not sure how long I should go or even if this is a wise choice. Some reference: I weigh 195 and 6' tall. I used to ride a Burton Coil 172 and had good fun with it on powder, trees, although it had a bit too much flex and would not hold as well on hard fast carves or icy conditions. I'm now riding a 162 Burton factory prime. It's fine for really tight snappy carves on groomers, but I don't have much fun with it anywhere else. I guess what I'm looking for is something similar to the coil except that I need the board to handle better on fast hard carves and less than perfect conditions (north east/Okemo). When I hit the snow my primary intention is to carve it up, although I don't want to be stuck on groomers all day. Since the axis is stiffer than the Coil, will this resolve the carving issue or should I go to a 177? Will the 177 be too much of a boat? Do I make any sense or am I losing my mind? Any/all opinions/suggestions are much appreciated.

Thanks,

Carlos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Sean can help you but if you check the stiffness indices on the specs page here you'll see:

172 > 162 by 14%

177 > 172 by 23%

182 > 177 by 11%

So there's a real step up when you move to the 177 even though it's only 5 cm longer. I think the 172 is more of a true all-mountain design and the 177 is more of a wide carver, just by the numbers. My vague recollection of email exchanges with Sean is that the longer Axis (Axes? Axises?) are that way by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the '03 Axis in a 172, I'm 5'10" and 195#. If I could only have one board that very well might be the one. I did demo the 177 and 182 from the same year (after I bought my 172) and have to agree with what Neil said: The 172 is a true all-mountain warrior and the larger sizes felt more like a wide alpine board. The 172 is IMHO plenty stiff for carving, if you're looking for speed the radius might be a bit tight but the tigher radius is great for steeps and trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I demoed the 167 at the Snowperformance camp this weekend. I'm 150 and 5ft 9, strong enough to work a board, and the 167 was a breeze for me to ride. One of the other girls took out the same board, she was only about 138, again no problems. They're an easy board to ride, and the length doesn't seem to be a real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im 6'2" 185 and ride the 177. Its a great board and (to me ) rides pretty stiff. It feels stiffer than my FC 179 actually. I have had it on all types of terrain and it can do just about anything I ask it to. Great carver but can be a little chatty on the ice. JMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 5'6", 58 years old, and weigh about 155. In March '04, I demoed the 167 at Copper. I liked it on the groomed, but when I got it in the steeper bowls, I kept catching the tail whenever I tried jump turns. Sean graciously added the 162 to the bottom of the lineup. I bought it and it works great for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Randy S.

Caveat: I like long boards.

I demoed the 172 and 177 the first year they came out (like 3 years ago). I was surprised that I didn't like the 177 nearly as much as the 172. I was 5'10" and 190 at the time.

Call Sean and speak with him.

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.



  • Recently Browsing

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