The Official Burton Thread

[Vanni]

Flying V was ass.

this

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

this

IMO although same concept, I think C2 is done better.

and also this

[MarkusM]

I don't mind flying V at all. Makes riding a twin super fun in the powder, I don't notice that much of a downside in any conditions other than super hard packed. I think cambered twins with early rise is the best overall do anything bend though.

i think that twins are overrated and would much rather be on a directional board for a do everything kind of ride.

[jota]

Flying V was ass.

this

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

this

IMO although same concept, I think C2 is done better.

and also this

Totally in line with all this. I have a Sherlock that I no longer ride and it was great at the time but now with the passage of time I realize that fv was a poorly designed system compared to other concepts like c2 (Especially in changing situations where you come out of powder between rocks and enter in marble ice zone)

What I don't understand is why they didn't redesign it... they could have improved it a bit... in the end the concept has its place in the market

[SJF_NH]

I'm on Team Flying V Sucks Ass.

[AyAyRon]

I don't mind flying V at all. Makes riding a twin super fun in the powder, I don't notice that much of a downside in any conditions other than super hard packed. I think cambered twins with early rise is the best overall do anything bend though.

i think that twins are overrated and would much rather be on a directional board for a do everything kind of ride.

Well that is very inline with current trends so your choices are endless basically.

[AyAyRon]

Flying V was ass.

this

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

this

IMO although same concept, I think C2 is done better.

and also this

Totally in line with all this. I have a Sherlock that I no longer ride and it was great at the time but now with the passage of time I realize that fv was a poorly designed system compared to other concepts like c2 (Especially in changing situations where you come out of powder between rocks and enter in marble ice zone)

What I don't understand is why they didn't redesign it... they could have improved it a bit... in the end the concept has its place in the market

Are you sure nothing had changed about it on any models since its inception?

Anyway for FV lovers (if there are any anymore) its still available next year in the custom and process and equivalent womens models.

[pow_hnd]

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

myself as well

[jclinares]

Flying V was ass.

this

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

this

IMO although same concept, I think C2 is done better.

and also this

The fact that Flying V was ever offered in the Custom X is probably the most offensive thing Burton ever did to snowboarding That was just morally wrong.

IMO, the Mervin equivalent of Flying V is the Banana Hybrid profile that's in the Skate Banana and the GWO. That profile should have been pulled from the market years ago. It's as much ass as the Flying V.

C2 is fine. C2x is actually pretty good. Not something I'd own, necessarily, but I've enjoyed demoing boards with it.

Now we just need Nitro to get rid of its Gullwing profile, and Never Summer to stop using a photo of my latest mogul line as a reference for their camber profiles, and we'll be golden.

[AyAyRon]

Flying V was ass.

this

I'm frankly shocked how long flying v stuck around for.

this

IMO although same concept, I think C2 is done better.

and also this

The fact that Flying V was ever offered in the Custom X is probably the most offensive thing Burton ever did to snowboarding That was just morally wrong.

IMO, the Mervin equivalent of Flying V is the Banana Hybrid profile that's in the Skate Banana and the GWO. That profile should have been pulled from the market years ago. It's as much ass as the Flying V.

C2 is fine. C2x is actually pretty good. Not something I'd own, necessarily, but I've enjoyed demoing boards with it.

Now we just need Nitro to get rid of its Gullwing profile, and Never Summer to stop using a photo of my latest mogul line as a reference for their camber profiles, and we'll be golden.

This doesn’t really make sense to me as the banana doesn’t have any camber while the Flying V boards I’ve ridden have decent camber underfoot. They are both pretty squirrels to skate or push on though for sure. And I can’t image anyone out east wanting to be on any center rockered board ever.

[Spenser]

According to Mervin, and some of the BTX boards I handled over the years, they have the tiniest fraction of camber around each foot, but it's so minimal I wouldn't count it. It's sort of like slightly overbuilding it so it ends up perfectly flat as the board breaks in.

The first C2 board I had was a 2010 Lando Phoenix. It was labeled as BTX, but wasn't. They hadn't really defined all the nuances in their profiles at that point

Seems obvious that C2 is the equivalent of flying V, and BTX is the equivalent of v-rocker