United Shapes

[Vanni]

Cadet specs are all wrong for me, the 150 has a super tight sidecut, and the 154 is too wide for my tiny feet

But after the SickStick, I know that I know nothing

I no longer have certainties

[benjinyc]

154 is what I ride, size 8 feet. 175lbs. it's perfect. I still have a nos 158 that I thought I'd need for trips out west but as I mentioned here, the 154 floats so well for me, but somehow it's nimble and still quick edge to edge. I'd say the only thing it's not so great at is butter/presses, but that's not something I really care about, the torsional stiffness it has generates good snap for turns

[G.D.]

Awesome summary @Spenser. Think the DR might not be what I'm wanting these days, as much as it saddens me bcos love the shape.

Cadet sounds great, wish it came in a 157. And slightly more mid-wide in ww. Otherwise, sounds like a sweet board. I def can't do the smaller size, not a fan of anything with < 7.5m SCR; I prefer to draw out my turns more often than not and really dislike the hooky feeling that comes with tighter SCR's, personally.

[peruna]

@Spenser you've got me reconsidering snagging a 156 Deep Reach now, I already knew the width was a hair more than I wanted, but having you say the 156 would be fun when you definitely ride a longer board than me puts it into perspective. And like @G.D. I like my turns more drawn out. I really need to find a way to demo U.S. boards...

[Spenser]

Glad there was at least something to get out of my ramblings, hah

Not saying this will translate to every rider and every size, but if I had to guess the 162 radius based on how this board behaves, I would say something like 8.3 - and it's so adaptive. Considering picking their brain about how they blended the sidecut.

Totally understand what alex has said about it not having a sharp or defined front contact that he seems to prefer (and I like that too for certain boards/days), but I think the smooth, "elongated" nose contact is part of what I like about it so much. Same with a fullbag nose, the squash, etc

@SJF_NH I can see becoming "that guy." Another day on it. This thing is so refreshing. Feels like meta planted an AI chip in my brain and a snowboard appeared under my feet. Can't get over how smooth everything feels. It's not telling you what it wants to do, nor flipping a switch to "on" position with edge engagement, you just ride it and it "becomes" the turn. I feel like I'm flying. Makes me feel like I have more energy. Fountain of youth.

More high praise, and I don't get this from most boards - but the way I connect with it, and the vibe I get from riding it makes me think about Craig Kelly's ball analogy. You just head down the slope, dancing wherever it feels right, whatever comes to mind, becoming one with your flow. If I think back on boards I recall having that particular connection with, the first one that comes to mind is the mullair - coincidentally, they share a whole lot of design features.

* Don't let my personal stoke influence purchase of any particular board, I'm just trying to give feedback and relate it to others

[kimchi]

New cadet: Feels a hair stiffer tip to tail ... wanted a bit more angulation to create the same tighter turn, and it's better at faster, larger turns.

I'll have to try one at some point. This sounds like they just about addressed my biggest (mild) complaints about the Cadet 1.0.

[Spenser]

New cadet: Feels a hair stiffer tip to tail ... wanted a bit more angulation to create the same tighter turn, and it's better at faster, larger turns.

I'll have to try one at some point. This sounds like they just about addressed my biggest (mild) complaints about the Cadet 1.0.

Exactly, and I think for me the bigger (also mild) thing was the nose not feeling quite as stout as I like.

You're familiar with the orbit… like I said, it clearly struck me as asking for a tighter turn yesterday because of the way it engages.

[Spenser]

Got nerdy last night and measured specs to run through an arc calculator, to see what the average physical radius of each board came out to. Measurements were effectively identical to spec sheets, so ended up going with the latter for consistency. Not scientific & doesn't account for design nuance or progressive blends, but that's not the point of the rudimentary experiment

Interestingly, almost every board calculated within 0.35-0.4m larger than listed radius - not sure why, but I was only looking to compare differences anyway. An outlier was the new cadet at 0.56m larger - perhaps suggesting its "effective sidecut" is slightly larger than spec? I noted earlier that the temperament from old to new seemed like a larger jump than the 0.1m on paper - in this case they calculated to be 0.31m apart. Seems like a more realistic difference, given how they felt on snow back to back - and it's a fair enough comparison given they are the "same" board.

The cheater had the largest jump from spec at about 0.75m, which also better fits the way it feels on snow compared to others I've had near 8.5m - granted, it's a pretty different board from those.

Otherwise, the differences generally made sense, given what I felt on snow. I'd even say they reflected my experience a bit better than spec sheets.

So what does this mean? Nothing really, but kinda interesting.

[Muskrat]

Horizon finally showed up! Loving the plain top sheet with these bindings. It hand flexes a good bit stiffer than the old BSOD I have and should be a great replacement for that piece of the quiver. Little top sheet damage so they knocked another chunk off the price for me on what amounts to a lift line ding.

IMG_3560.jpeg (3.48 MiB) Viewed 2452 times

IMG_3561.jpeg (2.55 MiB) Viewed 2452 times

[Spenser]

On that note, in case anyone hadn't heard, Tucker got fastest time at LBS on the horizon 59.