jeudi 13 août 2015
:laugh: sizing advice...?
Posted on 05:13 by Immigration
d
Lol, sorry for it, but yes, I've a question considering sizing burning under my nails. Been thinking too and fro all summer long and still insecure. I'm bit afraid of down-sizing... (just a gut feeling, maybe it is unnecessary). Maybe some knowledgeable input, educated guesses or experiences of you will help to calm my unease.
Stats:
Rider weight: 120is lbs
boot sizes : 24.5cm Mondo/US mens 6.5/Eur 39
The board at question: Jones Flagship
FS 158 with waist width 25 cm
FS 154 with waist width 24.6 cm
and for comparison’s sake the women’s version, Jones Mothership
MS 156 with waist width 24.5 cm.
The idea:
I'm thinking of getting the FS 154.
So far I had the 158; was my go to every day/condition board for '12/13, and - after adding the MS 156 to the quiver - the "perfect condition early morning groomer bombing n carving and shred open terrain wide turn pow" deck.
But I can't ride it properly with duck angles which I recently adapted; I just seem to be unable to get enough pressure on the back leg like this and thus I still have alpine-ish fwd angles for that deck. However, I would prefer to ride with duck angles meanwhile. After reading a lot on foot size and board width recently, I suspect that the width of the 158 could be bit too much, borderline too wide: manageable with a certain stance, not manageable with a different stance. Thus I'm thinking of getting the FS 154, since that one would have a similar waist to the MS 156 which works great with duck angles.
The question:
However... I'm bit shy of sizing down. The 158 has this super stable freight train ride I so love. I've never tried a 154 and won't be able to demo one.
Will this downsizing affect the stability of the deck?
If the -4cm would bugger stability, this would nullify the sense to get one at all, since it's its high speed stability trait (superior over the MS 156) which makes me wanting to keep the deck in the quiver.
I know I'm in the splitting hairs compartment here... but it actually is a crucial get it yes/no information. I'm trying to decide if this size may be a step into optimization - or call it perfection - direction.
Stats:
Rider weight: 120is lbs
boot sizes : 24.5cm Mondo/US mens 6.5/Eur 39
The board at question: Jones Flagship
FS 158 with waist width 25 cm
FS 154 with waist width 24.6 cm
and for comparison’s sake the women’s version, Jones Mothership
MS 156 with waist width 24.5 cm.
The idea:
I'm thinking of getting the FS 154.
So far I had the 158; was my go to every day/condition board for '12/13, and - after adding the MS 156 to the quiver - the "perfect condition early morning groomer bombing n carving and shred open terrain wide turn pow" deck.
But I can't ride it properly with duck angles which I recently adapted; I just seem to be unable to get enough pressure on the back leg like this and thus I still have alpine-ish fwd angles for that deck. However, I would prefer to ride with duck angles meanwhile. After reading a lot on foot size and board width recently, I suspect that the width of the 158 could be bit too much, borderline too wide: manageable with a certain stance, not manageable with a different stance. Thus I'm thinking of getting the FS 154, since that one would have a similar waist to the MS 156 which works great with duck angles.
The question:
However... I'm bit shy of sizing down. The 158 has this super stable freight train ride I so love. I've never tried a 154 and won't be able to demo one.
Will this downsizing affect the stability of the deck?
If the -4cm would bugger stability, this would nullify the sense to get one at all, since it's its high speed stability trait (superior over the MS 156) which makes me wanting to keep the deck in the quiver.
I know I'm in the splitting hairs compartment here... but it actually is a crucial get it yes/no information. I'm trying to decide if this size may be a step into optimization - or call it perfection - direction.
:laugh: sizing advice...?
Categories: :laugh: sizing advice...?
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire