Im not sure which board is right for me?

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

Im pretty new to wakeboarding, i do it about 15 times a summer. I live in Wilmington, NC and i wakeboard behind a 18' ft. Grady White, an outboard boat. I pick up board sports extremely fast. Im about 150 lbs. and about 5'7'. My question is which of the boards below would be the best for me? Please help!!

1.) CWB 2007 Pure 140
2.) O'Brien 2007 Player 138
3.) Liquid Force 2006 Stance 138
4.) 2006 O'Brien Clutch 137

These boards have been recammended to me by differant people whom wakeboard all of the time. Im just on the fence of to which one is the best for me. Im looking for a board that has alot of pop of the wake, because my boat dosen't have large wake. Also one that goes a pretty decent speed. Any help would be awsome...thanks!!!!!

jjaszkow · Posted: Feb 04, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject:

This question gets asked all of the time, so there's a lot of information on the forum already on this subject. In addition to searching the forum, you might also want to check out http://www.boardstop.com/boardfinder.php?ref=14 . Considering your weight, you might also find that 135cm boards work well for you.

That said, the best thing to do is to demo the boards you are interested in.

wakeG · Outlaw Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 241

check this out it gives you specks and some ratings and reveiws on those boards, that way maybe if you read what each one has to offer you can narrow in on what you really want http://www.wakeworld.com/BoardGuide/

Blake · Posted: Feb 04, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject:

boarder750, I can honestly say, in 10 years of riding, that a riders technique has more to do with "pop" then the board. I am very keen on all things CWB for various reasons. However, I will simply say this: I dont care what any website suggest or whatever anyone suggest, get one you like. Demo is the best way to do this. I understand that not everyone has access to a board shop, so it makes it hard. However, you know what you can do? Travel! All across America, there is guys like us sitting in board shops that are wanting to help YOU 110%. Also, dont get tied up into the rocker and pop hype. If it was me, I would find a closeout 2006 board, put some money towards a good set of bindings, and would invest in "The Book" learning DVD.

All that said, I like CWB.

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

I was looking for more of a personal opinion between the boards above, or if anyone knows a better choice of boards that you think would be better. I've been "researching" those boards for about 2 weeks now and i would demo them if i could, but i can't. And also someone else above said that i should also look into the 135cm boards...i thought that me weighing about 145-150 are over the weight limit for that length of boards?

Also on the O'brien player, the shape on the tip/tail of the board, how/would that effect your riding. Also isn't the stance wider than normal??..thanks for the websites, i will look into them, thanks!!

Blake · Posted: Feb 04, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject:

boarder750, there is actually no such thing in being too heavy for a board. It is a "feel" thing. And why cant you demo? I just did a google search and found a board shop in your area. They will help you out.

A wider board will ride slower... Again, another "feel" thing. I will tell you my opinion on the boards though.

Player: Basic board. 3 stage rocker which is good for your smaller wake. I am not a fan of the rocker pattern though. I think it truly isnt abrupt enough, and doesnt explode off the wake like you would think. However, I believe it is only around 2.6 or so, which is on the smaller side. The molded in fins are nice, if you want a board that locks in. I dont believe it breaks free that easy though. The tip, although they say it makes it release easy off the top for spins, it doesnt.

Clutch: I dont like this board. It is a random board in my opinion. What I mean is that it wants to ride like an aggressive 3 stage, but just doesnt. It has a small rocker, and just doesnt preform well.

Stance: Would not preform well on your wake at all. You may like the riding style of it though, it just doesnt taylor to your wake.

Pure: Very solid and well preforming board. A great rocker pattern, and breaks free off the wake, and when doing wake slides and the like. Personally, I would go with the Transcend or Absolute though.

I would suggest you demo the boards, but you seem to want to do things your own way, so I will let you decide. I hope I helped you a little.

LakeIolaLuke · Posted: Feb 04, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

get something you can progress on. You don't have to spend a fortune for an advanced board-check ebay. I'd look into a substance, which performs well in all aspects, and you can bolt on a fin if it's too loose. A beginner board is just that, and you will be wanting more very quickly if you get a beginner board

buckthis · Posted: Feb 05, 2007 7:38 am Post subject:

man, why don't you get a surf board, its way tuffer than wakeboarding and your right next to the ocean, it would be like knarly dude

Blake · Posted: Feb 05, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

LakeIolaLuke, I dont think people quite grasp how far you can actually go on a "beginner" board. Then again, most people consider themselves intermediate to advanced riders.

buckthis, you have lost it.

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

If you ride behind a boat with a small wake, you should get a board with a small continuous rocker. That design will perform better all-around (faster on the water, smoother transitions, etc.), and you'll be able to generate better pop with more consistency because a mellow continuous design is more forgiving.

Out of all the Obrien shapes, I prefer the Valhalla--I'd go so far as to say that it's one of the best overall board shapes ever made. It has enough rocker to ride the biggest, steepest wakes out there, but it doesn't slow the board down. Also, the shape is simple and free of the design gimmicks which seem to plague this industry. Anybody can ride it well, and it is very versatile in terms of its fin configurations.

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

on the cwb 138 transcend, on a couple of websites it said that it could ride a person 145 lbs. and up. but on others it said up to 175 lbs. only. Which is it, or does it really effect your rideing feel? Is that the smaller of a board you have, the more skatier feel you get, and the slower you go, and the larger board you have the more solid feel you have, but with more speed? Im pretty confused because other websites are saying completely differant things on this subject?

Blake · Posted: Feb 05, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject:

boarder750, it doesnt mayyer at all. I like to ride a bigger board, because it usually has a tad more rocker, and pops better in my opinion. Not to mention, I feel as though it is better balanced on rails. I am 6' 1" 165 and could go either way. Generally, people go with the smaller of the boards if they spin more in their tricks... I dont really buy into that notion. I personally, can never tell the difference in a few cm.

The length of the board plays little to no roll in how fast it is. The width and the rocker pattern will control the speed. Dont listen to this:

SeaLyon · Posted: Feb 06, 2007 6:56 am Post subject:

boarder750, the CWB 2007 catalog say's ( up to 175) for the 138 and (160 and up ) for the 142. I'm 155 and I would go with the 138.
I sold a state 135 to a guy that weighed 165 last year. He wanted the smaller board because he said it would respond quicker. Point being some people like the feel of a smaller board and some like the feel of a larger board.
If your not way out on the weight limits you'll be fine.

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

I think im going to go with the 2007 CWB 140 Pure with torq/"hinge" technology(what is hinge technology?) bindings. Is this a pretty respectable board in you guy's opinion, or is it not a good board at all. Meaning can, or can i not progress on this board?

All of you have been great help and I thank you!!

SeaLyon · Posted: Feb 07, 2007 7:14 am Post subject:

Boarder750, CWB is a great Board Co. The pure is a new shape for 07 with 4 small molded fins and 2 larger removable fins the 141 is a sharp looking board also. The pure does'nt fall under the beginner line but in the intermediate . I think you'll realy like it. Hinge technology is the way their boots open with a hinge system and cable lock on the back of the boot. ( they also lace up the front).I think they have the hottest boots in the industry.
If you havent seen one check out our web site
www.sealyon.net Hope this helps Cool

Blake · Posted: Feb 07, 2007 7:31 am Post subject:

boarder750, I would shred with it. You will enjoy it, and you will be able to advance further than you would think. You will be able to throw any invert trick you want. Dont just think because you can go wake to wake and throw in a grab you are an intermediate rider, so you need a new board. That board will last you.

As for the bindings, they are great. The only thing you really need is a skate now. They are fun to ride around when you are tired, or need to get from one side of the lake to the other. Not to mention, if you have a buddy with a jet ski, you can always go rip any day of the week.

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

Blake, where exactly are you getting your information on rocker designs?...

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

im getting them from buywake.com, wakeworld, bartswatersports.com, ridewatersports.com...i think thats it, but im going to buy the board from buywake.com...Why?

Thanks for all of the incite and opinions, i appreciate it.

Blake · Posted: Feb 07, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject:

ty540, I am making it up as I go along.

Here, read this:

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

Nice quote. You realize that he says that continuous rocker boards are generally faster than three-stage, and that they're ideal for mellow wakes... which is almost exactly what I said.

In regards to the consistency of the pop, an abrupt three-stage board (e.g. the old hyperlite parks) is terrible for beginners. The pop can be so abrupt that if the rider's weight isn't centered s/he will get thrown off balance very easily. I've ridden most major board designs in the last 10 years (behind my Larson outboard with a very small wake), and, in my experience, continuous rockers perform better without any noticeable sacrifice in the height of one's jumps.

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

So now the CWB pure, having a 2.95 rocker, 3 stage rocker, is bad for me??So basically i'll get more pop off the wake, slow speed, and it will be difficult to go into the flats, because i'll be getting sprayed??Because i thought someone said that this would be a pretty good board for me.Again, i'll be towed behind an outboard boat with not big wake, in the ocean,(if that matters)...does anyone know where i can see side pictures of the board, so i can uctually see the bend, cause all i've ever seen is the top and bottom..on http://www.gotriver.com/cwb_wakeboards_2006_html/cwb_pure_140_wakeboard.htm it said that the 2007 cwb 140 pure has a "subtle" 3-stage rocker, how does this effect the board, or is it on the board that buywake.com is selling and just didn't advertise that?

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

Here's a little more detail about my background and my opinions-- for what their worth). I learned how to ride behind an outboard in the salt water, and still do the majority of my riding behind the same boat. I started about ten years ago, and progressed to the level where I had a few sponsors for awhile (until I moved to Colorado and decided to focus on grad school), so I'm not ignorant when it comes to these things. I've always felt that faster boards are more fun to ride, and continuous rockers generally create a board that carves very smoothly--in other words, they have a good overall feel on the water. The pop is very predictable. This is a very good thing if you're a beginner, and it's never a bad thing. The one potential negative is that you need to carry more speed into the wake with a continuous rocker in order to get the same height (but if you have really good form, the difference is barely noticeable). This makes some spins more difficult, because they are generally easier if you take them straight up and down as opposed to up and out. The thing is, on a small outboard wake you're not going to be taking anything straight up and down, so I never felt that this was a problem.

When I ride an abrupt three-stage behind my boat, I feel like the only major difference is that it slows me down. This is partly because, at least with my riding situation, I usually ride around 20-21mph behind my boat. Any faster than that and the wake becomes completely non-existent. Behind a good wakeboard boat, I ride closer to 25, so slower boards don't plow quite as much.

My overall impression is this. I've had very positive experiences on boards with continuous or blended rockers riding with a small wake. I've seen a number of people struggle because they're riding a shape that is too advanced (i.e., rocker is too abrupt), who start riding better immediately when they try out a mellower board. Thus, if you can't demo a number of boards it would seem that the wise choice would be to select one that is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum--say, 2.4-2.6, maybe 2.7in of rocker.

That being said, I wouldn't put the Pure in the same category as the Parks. And I'm not saying that it, or any other three-stage boards are bad. Over the last few years I've had some three-stage boards that I've really enjoyed. But I've never felt that having a smaller, continuous rocker inhibited me from learning anything.

Blake · Posted: Feb 07, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject:

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

Hmmm... My board has only 2.5in. of rocker, which isn't much for a 143 (valhalla), but I've never experienced this spray that you speak of--not even behind a fully-loaded Super Air.

It just seems obvious to me that if you're riding behind a boat with a small wake at relatively low speeds (which you probably will be), you have more to lose by going with a big three-stage rocker than you have to gain.

SeaLyon · Posted: Feb 08, 2007 6:34 am Post subject:

BLAKE WROTE.
]

boarder750, the subtle means that it wont nearly be as abrupt... Its more curved in, where as a true 3 stage will be flat in the center. Trust me, the board is fine.[/quote]

I have to agree here....All of the CWB pro boards and the faction in the 140 up range are 3.00 to 3.10 rocker. The beginner boards are 2.45 -2.75
The pure 141 is right in between with 2.95. Like Blake said you'll be fine with this board.

Blake · Posted: Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am Post subject:

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

First of all, outboards wakes are not always steep--it depends very much on the boat and the trim. Mine happens to be fairly mellow. I've never ridden behind an 18ft Grady White (a 21ft once, which had semi-steep wake), but there's no way it's going to be too much for ANY board design from the last 5 years to handle.

Second, if you're getting weird spray riding a Marius--which has 3.00in of rocker (for the 140cm)--then there has to be something else going on. Of course some boards will fit certain wakes better than others, and if I was exclusively riding behind a SAN I might something with a slightly more abrupt rocker. But I don't think you should select your board based on one boat if it's not the one you ride behind.

The CWB Pure probably would be "fine." But it is possible--I have seen this many times--that people will not ride well on a board with a large three-stage rocker. I just think that there are many other shapes out there that will
definitely be really good for boarder750 given his riding situation.

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

SeaLyon · Posted: Feb 08, 2007 11:14 am Post subject:

ty540 so what do you sujest?? maybe he should get a kids board ....or maybe a wakesurf and screw some boots on it ? Rolling Eyes

Blake · Posted: Feb 08, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:

ty540, it isnt the fact that these companies specialize in making beginner wakeboards, in the least. They just use a different casting mold, and a completely different design in general. One could make a continuous rocker still have over 3" of rocker... Where as I could make an abrupt 3 stage rocker have 2.5" of rocker. I think he was simply saying since that is a "toned" down 3 stage, it isnt nearly as harsh as, lets say a Parks. I will be the first to say it. What rides well behind one wake, will ride completely different on another. And that is true to when you add ballast or more people to your current boat. However, it is about finding the happy medium that works well all around for your current setup. I am not advocating that a 3 stage rocker is "better" then that of a continuous rocker in the least. I am simply saying that the progressive 3 stage rocker design preforms well all around.

boarder750 · Newbie Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 9 City: Wilmington

Thanks guys...you made it more clear, im deff. goin with the Pure, sorry ty540.

SeaLyon · Posted: Feb 08, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject:

ty540 · Addict Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 603

boarder750, I hope that it is everything that Blake et al assure you it will be. I'm being serious.

Blake, I'm sorry that you found my posts annoying, but I have a pretty good reason for thinking my opinions are legitimate and I want everyone to get the most out of their setup. Hope I didn't offend you or anything.