| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which would be better for me (PS3)? |
| 142 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 137 |
|
100% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Ediktid Chick Criminal

Joined: 19 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 City: Sacramento
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: RECOMMENDED BOARD LENGTH FOR PS3??? |
|
|
Hey. I'm like an intermediate boarder. I weight like 160 and I'm 5'11". I want to get the new Liquid Force PS3 and I see they are coming out with a 142 lenth in it. Should I get the 137 now or wait for the 142? Right now I ride the LF Omega 139 and I'm working on backside toeside 180s (w2w).
thanks.
kristen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
intotheflats PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Posts: 5492 City: Port Clinton, Oh
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
at 160lbs, a 137 would be right for you. Unless you actually prefer a longer board like I do. A 142 is pretty big for someone only weighing 160, but it is all preference. _________________ Does this rag smell like chloroform?
*2011 wakeboarder.com fantasy football champion* |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ediktid Chick Criminal

Joined: 19 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 City: Sacramento
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wat weight range would you recommend for a 142? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ediktid Chick Criminal

Joined: 19 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 City: Sacramento
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i've ridden 139 for years so im not sure if i like longer. i've had the fusion 139 (2004) and now the omega 139 (2005). before that were more 139 boards but i want into wakeboarding as much back then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
intotheflats PityDaFool Who Posts This Much


Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Posts: 5492 City: Port Clinton, Oh
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
a 142 would be for probably 175lbs and bigger. But if you are used to a 139, going down 2cm or up 3cm won't ba a huge difference. If you where to ride both the 137 and the 142, you would notice a size difference, but going from a 139 either way, it will be a small difference. _________________ Does this rag smell like chloroform?
*2011 wakeboarder.com fantasy football champion* |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
B_Fool Soul Rider

Joined: 15 Aug 2004 Posts: 373 City: Cen FLA
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How was the demo? Did you like the shape and how it rode? _________________ I had ribs for lunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ediktid Chick Criminal

Joined: 19 Aug 2005 Posts: 50 City: Sacramento
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
would the 137 be faster because it's smaller? what differences would I notice? i haven't tried them out yet because they aren't available in my local board shop just yet. i am going to buy one at www.wakeside.com or www.buywake.com instead. thanks for your help!
kristen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pooser Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 4738
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think the 142 would be faster coming into the wake because you sit higher in the water ths having less drag but the 137 would be more responsive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rideawakeboarder Guest
|
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm like 180 pounds and 6'1"... would the 142 be a better choice for me?
-josh |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pooser Wakeboarder.com Freak

Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 4738
|
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rideawakeboarder, thats would be the reccomended size. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rideawakeboarder Guest
|
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Headless Chicken, the way you said the 137 would be more responsive... was that just because of her size or would it just be more responsize in general? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|