skatha Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 I'm 5'5" and weigh 130-135 lbs. I bought a Dynastar 4807 178 mainly because I loved the graphics.... There is a 4807 168 up on Ebay now.... Realistically, the 168 is probably the better length for me, or is it? Can I handle the 178? I'm an intermediate skills rider, prefer the blues... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 ride it and find out! Id say the 168 would be sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 Have you ridden the 178 yet??? What is your boot size, and do you plan to use soft or hard with the 4807? My wife has the 168 and uses it with size 23 softies. No overhang at all even at her usual 18/6 angles. She has a lot of trouble putting it on edge on hardpack, and she says it's great for surfing but scary in the trees due to the amount of effort it takes her to turn it quickly in a non-surfing fashion. She prefers her Fish 150 for powder riding. Although I'm not sure she's ready to give up on the 4807 yet. I have the 178. Flex-wise there really disn't much difference between the two. The same is true of waist width - the 178 is only 2 or 3mm wider. I suspect it boils down to two things: 1) If your feet are teeny like my wife's, either boiard may be too wide. Since it's so soft in the torsional direction, unwanted width will have a profound impact on your ability to put it on edge when you want to 2) Are you heavt enough to bend it in soft snow at the speeds you ride? If you ride fast, probably yes. If not, probably no. And this may not matter. If you use a more surfy technqiue, bending the board is not so necessary. If you are like my wife and ride powder and trees with a technique that is more akin to how she rides everything else, than it may make it not work as well. Just my opinion, others may disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 there are hardly any limits to how long you can go as long as the board is not too stiff the 68 for sure would be better in-bounds though for crud busting and hardpack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utahcarver Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 I'll second D-sub on this and say ride it. 4807's hold their value. So, go ride it soon before the season ends. Even in spring slushy conditions you'll still get a good read on whether the boards' length is for you. If it isn't your ride, sell it and get the 168cm. Yep, go ahead and buy the 168cm on eBay and then you have it if the 178cm is too long. You can always sell the 178cm here or on eBay, right? BTW, I'm biased toward you riding the 178cm because I believe longer (powder) boards compel the rider to feel more of the 'surfy' feel and they are quite a bit more stable at speed. And, I'm on an adrenaline buzz from riding all morning in 10 inches of powder on a 200cm Tanker. It'll take all afternoon watching the NASCAR race at Bristol and a nap to calm down a bit. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 but mark...there's a huge tendency here on bomber to get people on WAY TOO BIG boards! a 135 pounder on a 178? I dunno...honestly... when I lived in Steamboat I probably weighed 185-195 or so, and all I had for a freeride board was a morrow revert 156. in steamboat. some of the lightest snow around. it worked fine. definitely TRY the 178 since you have it, but...I think it might be too much board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utahcarver Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 D-Sub: Okay, point taken on a 135lb'er on a 178cm. So, maybe we should ask Skatha why she bought the 178cm? I would love to have her ride it and excel with it, though. Again, I'm biased in favor of the longer powder board. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 well, on a long, wide open bowl run she'd probably be in HEAVEN, but...anywhere else I think even the 168 might be a bit iffy? I mean hell...I ride a 171 for my all around freeride board, and I weigh 230 now! (damn. I need to lose some weight) skatha...have you ever tried a fish or malolo or that type of board? spoon nose pintail type thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonerider Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 I'm 5'5" and weigh 130-135 lbs. I bought a Dynastar 4807 178 mainly because I loved the graphics....There is a 4807 168 up on Ebay now.... Realistically, the 168 is probably the better length for me, or is it? Can I handle the 178? I'm an intermediate skills rider, prefer the blues... I 'm 5'9" 150 lbs and I found the 4807 168 fun on open bowl powder and on firm groomed runs... it was ok in trees, but a little bit of a pain to swing through steep, tight tree runs. On shallow tree runs it floated really well. I got the board from someone who's wife tried it and didn't like it for trees either (he sold is 178, we all prefer the Fish for trees). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skatha Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 My boots are 25's and I would ride in plates.... I'm thinking that the 178 will end up being a display piece, but I will try it, just for giggles...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 plenty of folks here that would buy it. me, even, possibly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 My boots are 25's and I would ride in plates.... Same size as mine. I ride it at angles in the high 40's. quite a bit of underhang, but I like it that way because it doesn't react as fast and has a more surfy feel that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skatha Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 plenty of folks here that would buy it. me, even, possibly Ain't selling it...it's too purdy...(southern accent required to get full effect) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Here is what the 4807 on flat light, chopped up, ultra soft conditions with 4" to 6" afternoon piles can do. My 174 Prior 4x4 didn't have a chance. Oops I'll have to research posting pics...first timer. Thanks Dave. :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy T. Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Ain't selling it...it's too purdy...(southern accent required to get full effect) Skatha, If you take this for a ride and decide you want a 168 I will trade you for mine. I bought it about a month ago brand new in the plastic and have only rode it twice so it is still in perfect condition. Let me know if you are interested. Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ-PS Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Skatha, I don't often tell people that a board is too big, and if you are riding steeps in super light champagne powder the 178 will be totally beauty. However... If you have to take it through tighter trees or your powder isn't as much light and fluffy as it is heavy and packed, go for the 168. At the end of the day you will feel more like you rode the board instead of constantly fighting it. Congrats on getting one anyway, they are really fun boards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Sub Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Here is what the 4807 can do on flat light, chopped up, ultra soft conditions with 4" to 6" afternoon piles can do. My 174 Prior 4x4 didn't have a chance.Oops I'll have to research posting pics...first timer. Thanks Dave. :o badass! dunno why the prior wouldnt work...mine was working gorgeously in the chop last time I was at mammoth. In fact, it worked so well I didnt even think about the fact that it was soft/chop until later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pow Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Ain't selling it...it's too purdy...(southern accent required to get full effect) ^swallowtails tend to be that way, dont they? I have yet to see one change hands... does it happen? forgive me, im on the east coast and have yet to see one in person:smashfrea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bricky Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Skatha, I have a brand new, never been ridden, 168cm O'Sin 4807. I have always wished I had the 178. Can we trade, even up? Bricky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 badass!dunno why the prior wouldnt work...mine was working gorgeously in the chop last time I was at mammoth. In fact, it worked so well I didnt even think about the fact that it was soft/chop until later! Not sure why but the 4807 carves in conditions that make most riders head for the lodge. Kind of freaky the way the V-nose flops around without loading up. Not the greatest in trees or hard cord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Not sure why but the 4807 carves in conditions that make most riders head for the lodge. Kind of freaky the way the V-nose flops around without loading up. Not the greatest in trees or hard cord. I think the "not great in trees" is a matter of opinion and body weight. My wife can't turn her 168 in trees, because she's lighter and has teeny feet. My 178 turns on a dime in trees, especially when there's fluff in there, I weigh 65 pounds more than she does though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 I think the "not great in trees" is a matter of opinion and body weight. My wife can't turn her 168 in trees, because she's lighter and has teeny feet. My 178 turns on a dime in trees, especially when there's fluff in there, I weigh 65 pounds more than she does though. Yes it is relative to the rider. My 4807 competes with a 156 Fish HD and a 178 Nitro Powder Gun. Soon there should be a 162 Malolo, which will push the 4807 to crud-carving indefinitely. Am I compensating?...oh yeah, I need all the help I can get. :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.