2020 Burton Snowboards Overview

Comments

1. Hamad says

   September 26, 2020 at 5:18 am

   Hello Nate

   I would like to get your opinion on which board might suit me better, I am looking for a stiff aggressive true twin park board that can be used for jibbing but also landing jumps smoothly. I’ve been hesitant between free thinker and custom twin off axis, any suggestions/advice? I’ve also considered Rome Mod but they haven’t released the 2021 models yet and it doesn’t seem like Mod exists, I think they have something called party mod which is not as stiff.

   Regards

   Reply

   • Nate says

     September 28, 2020 at 10:54 am

     Hi Hamad

     Thanks for your message.

     I don’t test Rome gear, so I’m not sure about the Mod.

     I also haven’t tested the Custom Twin Off Axis, so I can’t compare based on experience, but based on the specs and my experience with the regular Custom Camber, I think the Free Thinker is going to be the more aggressive option, and certainly looks to be the stiffer option. So, if going for stiffer more aggressive is the way you want to go, then the Free Thinker is that. But I would say that the Custom Twin Off Axis is going to be better for jibbing. Personally I don’t like going too stiff for jibbing, so I would err on the softer side of the options for that. But the fact that you’re looking for stiff/aggressive, that aggressiveness might be more important to you than jibbing ability. Also, you may not mind stiffer boards on jibs?

     The other option is the Burton Paramount, which is certainly softer than the Free Thinker, but still full camber and an aggressive ride. But just that little bit more forgiveness for riding jibs. I rate the Paramount 3/5 for jibs versus 2/5 for the Free Thinker on jibs. And for reference, I felt the Paramount at around 5/10 flex and the Free Thinker at 7/10. I imagine the Custom Twin Off Axis to be somewhere in the middle flex-wise. I’ve linked to my Free Thinker and Paramount reviews in the paragraphs above, if you wanted more details on my take on each of those boards.

     Hope this gives you more to go off

     Reply

2. Elsa says

   August 13, 2020 at 7:57 am

   Or would you actually recommend Burton Stylus at 138cm instead of Hideaway / Feather? Cheers.

   Reply

   • Nate says

     August 13, 2020 at 10:46 am

     Hi Elsa

     Thanks for your messages.

     Between the Hideaway and Feather, if you can get the Feather cheaper, then I would go for that. Very similar boards and both very beginner suitable, so you might as well save the money there. I would just make sure to get it waxed before you ride it. Even with a brand new board, if it’s been sitting around for a few years the base can dry out. But otherwise that’s what I would do. If you do go Feather or Hideaway, then definitely 140 for your specs, IMO.

     However, I think the Stylus 138 is probably the slightly better size for your specs. 140 Feather doable though.

     Hope this helps

     Reply

     • Elsa says

       August 13, 2020 at 12:00 pm

       Thanks so much for your quick response and great help Nate!

       seems like Stylus 138 ran out soon for most years even for used boards, and I double-check, it is Feather 2014 that is half the price of Hideaway, will 7 years (counting it can only touch snow again in 2021!) be too ‘dry’ to handle the age? 🙂

       Cheers!

       Reply

       • Nate says

         August 14, 2020 at 11:01 am

         Hi Elsa

         If it’s a new board, the Feather 2014, then as long as it’s been looked after, it should be fine, so long as you get it waxed before you ride it. From the 2014 Feather to the most recent Hideaway, there will be a bigger difference, than something like a 2018 Feather, technology has moved on, but the 2014 should still be a very good option as a beginner board – and for that price, if you need to upgrade fairly quickly, it’s not a big financial investment. But yeah, so long as you get it waxed, if it’s a new board, it should be fine.

         Reply

         • Elsa says

           August 17, 2020 at 11:19 am

           Hi Nate,

           Thanks so much! Much appreciated.
           Fingers crossed I can get to the snow again soon.

           Elsa

         • Nate says

           August 17, 2020 at 11:34 am

           You’re very welcome Elsa. Definitely going to be good to get to snow again soon!

3. Elsa says

   August 13, 2020 at 6:43 am

   hi Nate,

   I’m a beginner, can do S-turn but not consecutively, 158cm, 48.5kg. Am thinking of getting my first board, Burton Hideaway 2020 or Burton Feather 2018 / Feather 2016 (much cheaper still brand new on an auction site) on either 140cm or 144cm.

   Am aware that Hideaway and Feather are almost the same – only difference is the nose and tail radius, which Hideaway is flatter.

   Would you be kind enough to give me some advices? Much appreciation!

   Reply

4. Nick says

   January 29, 2020 at 11:23 am

   Hey Nate,
   I’m looking for some help with sizing on the Burton Fish 3D. I’m 6’1 155lbs. I’m leaning towards the 151 based on Burton’s weight recommendations, but I’m a bit concerned about it being too short for my 6’1 frame. I also have fairly long legs (33″ inseam). The reference stance width on the 151 Fish is 21″, while the 156 is 22″. I typically ride with a 23″ wide stance on my 159 Flight Attendant. I only plan to ride this board in powder, so perhaps I can narrow my stance a bit. What are the advantages, if any, to sizing down this type of board? Will I be less fatigued as the day wears on since there will be less board to control? Or will I have to exert more energy to stay afloat? Do you think the 151 will feel too short on steep terrain?
   Thanks.

   Reply

   • Nate says

     January 30, 2020 at 1:46 pm

     Hi Nick

     Thanks for your message.

     Haven’t ridden the Fish 3D, so I can’t give you any first hand experience but in terms of size, it looks like a short wide. So, in terms of float in powder, you get a little more surface area from that extra width. Sizing down for wider boards is a good idea. The Fish isn’t the widest short/wide going around. Certainly not in terms of waist. But it does have quite a wide nose, and a rather narrow tail (lots of taper). Having not measured it, I’m not sure about the width at inserts but overall moderately wide, so certainly something to size down for, but just how much to size down.

     I don’t ride a lot of short wides, so it’s not an area I have that much experience in. Certainly you will get more float in powder out of the 156, given it has more surface area. But it’s definitely a very powder oriented board anyway, so I imagine the 151, particularly at your weight, would still float pretty well. Going shorter gives you more maneuverability (which can often be list on a wider board). Not going to be great, I wouldn’t imagine, in terms of stability at speed or carving. Really does look like a carving specialist. So on steep terrain, if not in powder, won’t feel that stable I wouldn’t imagine. Certainly going 156 would add stability (at the loss of maneuverability).

     In terms of getting fatigued, being shorter, the 151 would be less board to handle, so in that sense it would be less work. It would feel softer flexing, which is typically less work too. But this board doesn’t look particularly stiff or aggressive to ride anyway. In powder, the 156 would float more effortlessly. But again, it’s designed for powder in pretty much every way (narrow, short tail, wide long nose, heavily setback and looks like plenty of rocker in the nose).

     In terms of stance width, you could go wider than the reference if you wanted. I try to stay relatively close to reference, but I would certainly be comfortable going out to 22″ on the 151.

     Between the sizes, it’s a tough choice. If you want to keep a good amount of maneuverability but still, I would say, good float, then 151 might be the goer. But if you want to maximize float, then you could ride the 156. It would also depend on boot size though. If you could let me know your boot size, that could lean it one way or the other.

     Hope this gives you more to go off

     Reply

     • Nick says

       January 31, 2020 at 7:24 am

       Hi Nate,

       Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. It really is a tough choice. I think my main concern is fatigue, since my back leg is always screaming on powder days. In that case, the 151 may be the best choice. I wear a size 11 Burton boot, so with the shrinkage tech, I imagine I’ll be fine on the 151 (258mm waist). I also love to ride in the trees, so the 151 would probably excel there too. I guess my two biggest concerns are my stance width (if I ride at 23″) and growing out of the board. My goal is to get to around 175lbs, although it’s highly unrealistic (I’m 34 years old and I’ve been the same weight for the last 10 years). In the unlikely event that I gain 20 lbs, do you think the 151 would still perform well?

       Thanks,
       Nick

       Reply

       • Nate says

         January 31, 2020 at 2:34 pm

         Hi Nick

         Add 20lbs I would be leaning towards the 156. The 151 would give off a more playful/softer flexing vibe with an extra 20lbs. If that sounds like what you want, then that’s not an issue, but yeah, I would probably go 156 at 175bls.

         151 should definitely be OK with 11s. I haven’t measured it, but I would imagine it would be narrower on the back insert, given the amount of taper. That would be offset by the amount of setback, but I think it would still work out a little narrower at the back insert – but still not too narrow for your boots, I wouldn’t think. Only thing there though, is that I would usually size down for a board that is wide for your boots. But it’s maybe not that wide for your boots (though I’m not sure what the width at inserts is). That would be the only thing.

         But yeah, if you like trees, I think it would be a really fun size in the trees.

         Going out to 23″ is a fair way out from the reference stance, but if that’s what you find yourself most comfortable with, then I think it’s doable. It will mean you’ll likely be very close to the tail on the back foot, but you usually are on these kinds of boards, anyway. I would try to go a little narrower than that, to see if you’re comfortable with it. Maybe trying closer to 22″ to see how that goes.

         Reply

         • Nick says

           February 7, 2020 at 6:53 am

           Thanks, Nate. I decided to go with the 156. I really appreciate all your help and guidance. I’ll update you once I get it on snow!

         • Nate says

           February 7, 2020 at 3:56 pm

           You’re very welcome Nick and thanks for letting me know. Look forward to hearing how you get on, once you get it on snow!