C4 New Drop

Thank you for your reply, @wild-cherry .

Actually, I recently discovered your YouTube channel and have been watching your videos. The train ride with Jasey-Jay was really cool! I saw there’s even a video nearly 30 minutes long, but since I still have trouble fully understanding native English, I’ve been watching it little by little. It looks like you also ride boards with plates, so I’ve really been wanting to hear your opinion.

The type of slope we are imagining here in Japan is about the same width as the one you and Jasey were riding in that short train ride clip, with an ideal gradient of around 25° to 28° for comfortable carving. Personally, I found floating plates too heavy, so even if I use a plate this time, it would probably be something more like the APEX Gekko Stealth—a separate-style system.

Could you tell me what the sidecut radius is for the C4 166, C4 169, and G5 168? Also, I’d like to know more about the optional grip system for the C4 (I can’t quite remember the exact name).

Posted by: @spar_snb

↑

Could you tell me what the sidecut radius is for the C4 166, C4 169, and G5 168? Also, I’d like to know more about the optional grip system for the C4 (I can’t quite remember the exact name).

@spar_snb The C4 166 sidecut is average 12m, the C4 169 hasn't been designed yet but it will be about a 13m, the G5 and G3 are average 13m.

I just found out there are a couple of extra C4 166 available now, one mid flex and one soft flex.

29/30 original C4 buyers opted for the Extra Grip System (EGS) so I talked the 30th into it and now it's standard on all C4s.  

Jasey also has one G3 168 soft flex ready to ship.  It's the same shape as the G5 but it's fiber construction (no titanal).  This one is cheaper too, and lighter.  I like the fiber construction myself for good soft corduroy.  It has more pop and it handles better off piste.  I'll be riding mostly fiber construction next season when the conditions are good.  In April though, with all the refrozen snow and death cookies (ice balls) on top, the titanal is my preference.  The G3 will be faster and less forgiving than the C4.  (The G3 and G5 have a 297mm waist, the C4 166 has a 292mm waist.)

@wild-cherry So for the C4 we got (with approximate values for the 169 version)

Length	EE	WW	SC
169	144	300	13
166	142	292	12	
162	139	286	11

How does the flex differ between the different boards? Are they made to be somewhat comparable or will the narrower boards also be a bit softer? (I'm trying to figure out if I should ask if the soft 166 is still available or wait for the next batch and get a 162)

@superfelix Thanks for the chart!

Each of these sizes is available in three different flexes, soft, mid, and stiff.  So there are nine choices for the next round...

It's always tough to choose the one "perfect" board, that's  why I have so many...

And the board that's perfect right now may be too small or soft by next season too.  Or it might be perfect for steeps on chopped groom but a little boring on green runs, or lovely on greens but super intense on steeps and too fast for absorbing serious chop.  Or awesome in soft groom but way too fast when the corduroy is firmer and the runs are narrow or crowded...

And it's not even simple to use boot size as a guide because an intermediate carver won't drag nearly as much as an expert because he's not angulating the board as high.  And an expert carver who rides Asian style doesn't need (or want) as much width.  And two otherwise identical riders might even have enough difference in stance angles such that one requires a much wider board...

Roughly speaking though, one can choose a size based on factors like boot size, height, the firmness or softness of the snow they generally carve (soft or low density high elevation snow is slower and the trenches are deeper), the terrain they carve (steepness, the width of the runs, and the crowd density) their preferred stance angles, carving style, and skill level...  Their age and overall fitness, how aggressively they ride or hope to ride, marital status, ethnicity, eye colour, hair colour, sexual orientation etc...

And then within that size, a stiffer board is going to be faster and carve larger radius turns.  It will hold more speed and edge pressure but it will also need more speed to initiate.  (The speed range is higher.)

As the effective edge increases so does the sidecut radius, so these three sizes have roughly the same sidecut depth and are intended to make about the same size turns for different size riders.

All this doesn't really make the choice any simpler does it?  This is why I usually have a conversation with each client to try to put them on the right board and make sure they understand the choice they are making.  Once a client has a board, it's much easier to communicate what they want for the second one because now there's some context and I can ask whether it's too fast or too slow for example and how much boot drag they are experiencing.

Anyway...  The C4 166 soft flex sold yesterday (and the G3 168 too).  Jasey has two C4 166 mid flexes in stock, one with original resin and one with the new resin (new resin is a hair faster).  

All the high performance boards on my list of ten have sold too (except the C4 166 mid flex with the base damage, I decided to keep that one for a demo board so I don't have to keep moving bindings and risers around for every regular rider who wants to try a board).

I have only one high performance wide board left that I would sell, it's a soft flexing Coiler Contra 169 with 12m radius and 290mm waist.  Quite similar to a C4 166 soft, but even softer.  It's well used, but a fantastic board with lots of life left in it.  I had two others made in this same shape but stiffer I liked it so much (this one was quite soft for me).   This was the board that the C4 was based on.  Not the shape or even the materials, but the ride characteristics: very forgiving and easy to carve, easy on the body, goes gently from carve to slarve and back to carve without heavy chatter, it carves a slightly wider trench and so this design helps the rider keep their speed down and stay in control, and it holds every turn as Coilers are famous for.

More info here: carversconnection.com/community/postid/1509/

Posted by: @wild-cherry

↑

@superfelix Thanks for the chart!

No sweat! I did use the Snowboard Sidecut & Carve Radius Calculator to reverse engineer the nose and tail width too but those would just be wild guestimates so I didn't want to include them...

Posted by: @wild-cherry

↑

Each of these sizes is available in three different flexes, soft, mid, and stiff.  So there are nine choices for the next round...

At least I've narrowed it down to two options! 162 or 166 soft flex, if board-doctor is happy with a soft then I'm sure I will be too. Small feet and typically very firm snow.

Posted by: @wild-cherry

↑

Anyway...  The C4 166 soft flex sold yesterday (and the G3 168 too).  Jasey has two C4 166 mid flexes in stock, one with original resin and one with the new resin (new resin is a hair faster).  

All the high performance boards on my list of ten have sold too (except the C4 166 mid flex with the base damage, I decided to keep that one for a demo board so I don't have to keep moving bindings and risers around for every regular rider who wants to try a board).

And I suspected the 166 soft was already sold, but it's not like I'll be seeing any snow until December anyway... Just crossing my fingers the next batch will be ready by then!

Posted by: @superfelix

↑

At least I've narrowed it down to two options! 162 or 166 soft flex, if board-doctor is happy with a soft then I'm sure I will be too. Small feet and typically very firm snow.

Yeah, even the soft flex is off the charts stiff when you compare it to production boards.  Like a 12/10 for stiffness or close by most manufacturers scale.

The 6mm waist width difference between the 162 and the 166 is kind of a lot...   I managed to ride the three 162s Jasey sent me to test, but I wasn't happy in that size.  I had to make a lot of accomodation to mitigate boot drag.

@board-doctor has mondo 25.5 boots but they have a big boot sole length and overall girth so the shell is bigger and longer on the outside than my Insanos at 26.5.  (I forget which model boot he was riding last week but it was clearly designed for comfort and warmth.)   That difference in boot shell size is greater than the 6mm waist width difference.  What I'm saying is, don't opt for the 162 unless you also have a low profile boot and binding (or intend to upgrade once boot drag becomes a problem).  The narrow waist is very nice on firm snow but boot drag sucks real bad, so...  Choose carefully.

But yeah, size 25.5 and firm snow?  C4 162.

I'm riding Vans Verse (actually 260 mondo) with the bindings at 24/12.  I think there's less than 5mm of underhang all around.  That's with the M/L Cleavers adjusted all the way forward.  These bindings wouldn't work with a smaller footprint boot.  When James strapped in his 265 Ride Insano the difference was HUGE, with so much heel bias he didn't want to ride it!  I don't think it's just the size of the boot, but also how it sits in the heel cup as well.

I tried my 260 Insano in Flux CV-LTD, and they centred up well... but I just really don't like that boot.

So far I like the 'soft' flex 166, as it allows me to really tighten up the 12m turn radius.  In sub-optimal conditions it's still too fast for me.  Maybe someday I'll want more, but I'm definitely not there yet.  I haven't tried the 162 but I'm not sure I'd want to give up the length (effective edge).  I'm around 185lbs now though... and I need to get back down around 160lbs.

Posted by: @board-doctor

↑

so much heel bias he didn't want to ride it! 

It's true.  I didn't even make it half a run before I asked to switch back...

Posted by: @board-doctor

↑

I'm riding Vans Verse (actually 260 mondo) with the bindings at 24/12.  I think there's less than 5mm of underhang all around.  That's with the M/L Cleavers adjusted all the way forward.  These bindings wouldn't work with a smaller footprint boot.  When James strapped in his 265 Ride Insano the difference was HUGE, with so much heel bias he didn't want to ride it!  I don't think it's just the size of the boot, but also how it sits in the heel cup as well.

I tried my 260 Insano in Flux CV-LTD, and they centred up well... but I just really don't like that boot.

So far I like the 'soft' flex 166, as it allows me to really tighten up the 12m turn radius.  In sub-optimal conditions it's still too fast for me.  Maybe someday I'll want more, but I'm definitely not there yet.  I haven't tried the 162 but I'm not sure I'd want to give up the length (effective edge).  I'm around 185lbs now though... and I need to get back down around 160lbs.

Interesting from the both of you! Thanks @wild-cherry

I actually have about 1 mm on each side of underhang on my 164 Shorty on the front foot and maybe 0-1 mm of overhang on the back foot (depending on 18° or 15° back foot angle), with my current mondo 265 boots and 30° front foot and 18°/15° back foot angles.

But I'll definitely be sizing down my boots next season for a better fit in general. I've already reserved the two smallest men's sizes (mondo 255 and 250 or 260 I don't remember which) of ThirtyTwo TM2 Wide for next season so I'll try them and see what to choose. From a good Swedish store this time! I visited when I went up north so no more ordering from abroad!

I'm also really looking at a pair of Flow NX2 bindings too.. 

@wild-cherry although I follow you quite a while, I’m new-ish on the forum and am not aware of how frequently JJA delivers a batch of new boards (with the 169 in mind). Will this be at the start of next season or through the whole year?

Hey @ronaldb 

I'm hoping to announce the next batch within the month but of course it's not up to me.  If you're on the waitlist you'll know as soon as I do: carversconnection.com/waitlist/

I have two brand new JJA C4 166 Mid Flex ready to ship right meow for anyone who wants one.