The Official Burton Thread

[scrub]

I forget if this was posted, the Barracuda that is only available to certain First Chair tiers

[jbrorbs]

If that's your size preference, I don't see why you couldn't just go with whatever is closest to your normal boards, though I wouldn't go any smaller than them. If that's the 56, I wouldn't overthink it much further. It's true that the 160 would be slightly better for your weight, but preference rules, and it wouldn't be a massive difference.

Keeping in mind that listed length is only material length, I would also compare the effective edge to the boards you're familiar with. For example, let's say the 56 edge is actually slightly longer than what you normally ride - you should be good to go.

RE: not your daily driver - if you want it to be your slightly more stabile & floaty board, 160 is the no-brainer.

Thanks Spenser. Comparing effective edge to my current boards I ride the most. It looks like the 160 is closer in specs. Probably the right call.

[Spenser]

If that's your size preference, I don't see why you couldn't just go with whatever is closest to your normal boards, though I wouldn't go any smaller than them. If that's the 56, I wouldn't overthink it much further. It's true that the 160 would be slightly better for your weight, but preference rules, and it wouldn't be a massive difference.

Keeping in mind that listed length is only material length, I would also compare the effective edge to the boards you're familiar with. For example, let's say the 56 edge is actually slightly longer than what you normally ride - you should be good to go.

RE: not your daily driver - if you want it to be your slightly more stabile & floaty board, 160 is the no-brainer.

Thanks Spenser. Comparing effective edge to my current boards I ride the most. It looks like the 160 is closer in specs. Probably the right call.

Gotcha, and that makes sense to me as well. Sounds like it's the kicks on the HTH that are slightly longer than your other boards, making the overall length a little longer. So you'll get your familiar size on groomers/etc, but a slight benefit from the kicks in soft snow

[kimchi]

IMO depends on if you're optimizing for home or travel trips. I'm about your size (6', 210 lbs, size 10/10.5 boot) and wouldn't ride bigger than a 158/59 in the Midwest and could pretty easily get away with a 155/56. In Montana, 160 would be my absolute minimum, more like 162/63.

[jclinares]

I think the family tree wave tracer was directional Flying V

That is whack, tbh. Looks like, hardly any of the benefits of regular backseat camber, and all the drawbacks of Flying V, with even more lift

[jota]

it's Directional Flying V, not regular Flying V …to me it's basically backseat camber

Screenshot 2025-01-14 at 3.53.28 PM.png

That shape is what they used to call “S rocker” and they used it in several models like the Barracuda. Very different from Flying V as it is fully directional and is great if that is what you are looking for: a camber under the rear foot and directional ride

While some places called the profile on the barracuda S-rocker, it wasn't. Different profile. S-rocker is what was on the fish, malolo, landlord, and some others. You were standing on a camber platform, where the nose was lifted to some degree depending on model. "Directional camber" is what they used to call S-rocker, not directional flying V.

The barracuda had directional flying V as shown in the diagram, and I don't recall any other board that they used it on. Reverse camber overall... center rocker, where the board would teter back & forth on the floor. As opposed to S-rocker & directional camber, where the board sits stabile on the camber.

Simply put - one is rocker with camber under the back foot, while the other is camber with a lifted/early rise nose

Yes, that was what confused me, since I wasn't riding fishes at that time, and in fact it was Burton's own catalogue that called the Barracuda S Rocket. I guess they were still lost in defining the shape identity of their boards

[jota]

I think the family tree wave tracer was directional Flying V

That is whack, tbh. Looks like, hardly any of the benefits of regular backseat camber, and all the drawbacks of Flying V, with even more lift

I stopped using the Barracuda because it was fine in powder but in hard snow or "complicated situations" the pronounced asymmetry of the shape was very evident in riding.

[casjcade]

I think the camber section is mostly to get some pop in the tail. Moss Snowsticks has several boards with this profile too, calling it "Step Back Rocker", better description I guess, seems to have a slight camber under front foot on some of them, so very similar to "Flying V" or "Skate Banana C1". Grip on hard snow as expected, but they vary alot based on sidecut and effective edge, even if they used the same profile. The one I have is 168, 1.1 m effective edge, and 13 m sidecut I think?

[Oldhead]

If that's your size preference, I don't see why you couldn't just go with whatever is closest to your normal boards, though I wouldn't go any smaller than them. If that's the 56, I wouldn't overthink it much further. It's true that the 160 would be slightly better for your weight, but preference rules, and it wouldn't be a massive difference.

Keeping in mind that listed length is only material length, I would also compare the effective edge to the boards you're familiar with. For example, let's say the 56 edge is actually slightly longer than what you normally ride - you should be good to go.

RE: not your daily driver - if you want it to be your slightly more stabile & floaty board, 160 is the no-brainer.

Thanks Spenser. Comparing effective edge to my current boards I ride the most. It looks like the 160 is closer in specs. Probably the right call.

Also, with Burton wide boards, I would add at least 1 to 1 1/2 points to the stiffness rating over the standard width.

[jbrorbs]

If that's your size preference, I don't see why you couldn't just go with whatever is closest to your normal boards, though I wouldn't go any smaller than them. If that's the 56, I wouldn't overthink it much further. It's true that the 160 would be slightly better for your weight, but preference rules, and it wouldn't be a massive difference.

Keeping in mind that listed length is only material length, I would also compare the effective edge to the boards you're familiar with. For example, let's say the 56 edge is actually slightly longer than what you normally ride - you should be good to go.

RE: not your daily driver - if you want it to be your slightly more stabile & floaty board, 160 is the no-brainer.

Thanks Spenser. Comparing effective edge to my current boards I ride the most. It looks like the 160 is closer in specs. Probably the right call.

Also, with Burton wide boards, I would add at least 1 to 1 1/2 points to the stiffness rating over the standard width.

Fair point. The extra stiffness probably wouldn't have been much of an issue beings that I was outside the recommended weight range. I did end up going with the 160 though.