EzLounging

I love my Kazu 161w more and more, it feels exceptionally good for turning.

Have no experience with Aeronaut, but it has "progressive" sidecut (more open in front) and Kazu has radial, usually I do not like progressive sidecuts, so this keep me from buying Aeronaut despite positive reviews.

Vanni wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:50 am Fast, precise and lively. Exactly.

are the kazu and the aeronaut so different?
What stopped me from considering the aeronaut is that it is so narrow...

They added wides this year. And dunno about smaller sizes, but my 161 Aeronaut is a couple mm wider at waist than a 160 Kazu with less taper.

I'm on 150/153

I just bought a 154 Kazu, I wanted to size up a bit, to have a board with a longer effective edge

the Aeronaut 153 is narrower than 250mm, but i feel better with boards in 250/255mm range width (even with my tiny 7 boots).

alex wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:26 pm Have no experience with Aeronaut, but it has "progressive" sidecut (more open in front) and Kazu has radial, usually I do not like progressive sidecuts, so this keep me from buying Aeronaut despite positive reviews.

I loved the tighter sidecut in the tail section of my old Nitro Squash, too bad the sintered base was not good, even after a base grind.
Actually, it is still my favorite sidecut ever.

Actually the Kazu 154 I just bought it's me trying to replace my old Squash with a board with longer effective edge than the quiver I own (more stable at speed and with more edge to carve on), more open sidecut radius. I saw also with boards that excel in carving, that nose and tail are slightly rockered, so I took the plunge.
The width of the two board is similar, so it is the sidecut radius (the one in the front, for the squash), setback and taper are similar... the Kazu should be definitely poppier, but then the difference is the camber profile, with the squash being a full but really smooth camber, and Kazu with slightly rockered nose and tail.

Probably there were other boards more suited to replace the Squash, but I don't really know, but this is the reasoning behind my purchase (of course, my whole reasoning was to compare the performances only for groomers, not in powder)

Curious on the forums thoughts. Why are the maximum weight ranges on Capita boards so low? On a Kazu, Mercury, etc etc the max weight on a 154, 153 is 160 pounds? Almost all the other major manufacturers Burton, Mervin, K2, Ride, etc in similar sizes all have much higher maximum weight ranges. I weigh 160 and I prefer a board in the 152-154 size range.

I ride a lot of capita and spring break boards and haven’t really noticed the weight ranges being low (not saying they aren’t necessarily I just haven’t noticed it personally). I typically ride boards in the 156 to 160 range with 57 or 58 being my most common size and the upper end of the weight range is generally around 200lbs. That always seemed pretty consistent with the industry to me. I’m also 190 so pushing up against that limit and I don’t notice the boards being dramatically softer than the listed flex. The mercury and Kazu are pretty stout flexing boards I don’t think there would be a problem at 160 on the 154 provided you/the board otherwise fit. Caveat that with rider weight is only a piece of the puzzle as far as board size goes.

Speeder757 wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:32 am Curious on the forums thoughts. Why are the maximum weight ranges on Capita boards so low? On a Kazu, Mercury, etc etc the max weight on a 154, 153 is 160 pounds? Almost all the other major manufacturers Burton, Mervin, K2, Ride, etc in similar sizes all have much higher maximum weight ranges. I weigh 160 and I prefer a board in the 152-154 size range.

My first instinct is that Capitas are generally pretty lightweight and soft. A K2 6/10 flex feels like a Capita 9/10 to me, for example, so maybe they just don’t want people over flexing them? I’ve always found I can ride Capitas bigger because of this.

side by side, any CAPiTA is gonna feel lighter than a comparable Burton board.

but looking at the specs of the DOA compared to the Process, it really isn't a huge difference, like the 154 DOA & 155 Process are spot on, with Burton keeping the same range for every two sizes, and CAPiTA having a different range for every size.

Ya I'm right at 160 pounds so ideally on most Capita boards 'd have to go 157-158, ish. I'd much rather stay in the 152-154 range. Longer boards also have wider reference stances and I prefer a slightly narrower stance. I was just curious if it wouldn't really be ideal to be at the max weight range on a Capita board.

I get it... but at the same time, they're all just recommendations. As long as the board has the flex/sizing/etc you prefer, ignore the weight range. Another brand might give a different range for the exact same board, which would ease your concern, yet nothing would actually be different.

You don't have to use reference width, so I'm not sure what the issue is there. You'd have to be maxing out the narrowest stance for a slightly wider insert width to force you any wider. Otherwise, you just have to narrow your stance......