Board & Gear - Tall Guy
It would be near impossible to test ride every single bit of new equipment on the market, but I reckon they do a great job!!!!!
I’m pretty sure they state the year/model tested/reviewed along with an image, and in some cases even state comparisons with previous years versions of the same product, including changes and also stating whether or not the changes have made an improvement on previous years!!!!!
Probably be hard pressed to find a more comprehensive site I think?????
Yeah I never said they sucked just to take reviews with a grain of salt!!!
The reason I suspected that was the review site he had seen was you could interpret the 3 out of 5 (a 60% rating) for powder and speed for the GNU as not that great.
Their review of the charlie slasher is obviously from before the 11/12/13 models as they talk about an extruded base (11+ are sintered) yet they embed a 2013 charlie slasher video and picture making no mention of it being an old model in the review. That certainly has potential to be confusing to an ill informed buyer.
This is why forums such as boardworld are so important as people who have ridden the same or similar boards provide valuable input and clarifications.
http://thegoodride.com/snowboard-reviews/capita-charlie-slasher/
2011 Charlie Slasher FK
It’s so refreshing to see an inexpensive Pow board. The Capita Charlie Slasher has no camber from the tail to just a little bit past the binding on the nose. From there it kicks up like a normal rocker board. Its ready for the deep stuff but the inserts aren’t so back on the tail that its overly surfy. In 2011 the Slasher dropped their extruded base for a sintered base which makes the 2011 model much more recommendable. Capita also added another model that is called the Party Shark but its just the Slasher with different graphics and the extruded base from last year. For 2012 Capita dropped the party shark and but the Charlie hasn’t changed much from 2011 except for a few minor tweaks and the addition of a 154 to go with the 158 and 164. The 2013 Capita Charlie Slasher is pretty much the same board as 2012 but with different graphics.
.
!!!!!
Yes I read that but where in the actual review does it mention what year they are reviewing? If you read the speed section they are testing a board with extruded which doesn’t match up with the 2011 heading no matter how much you bold it.
Speed- This stiff beefy board should perform really well but we were worried about the extruded base.
As for the GNU’s powder rating, they state 3/5 as GOOD!!!!!
I’m guessing they are comparing its performance with something such as the Burton Fish, or the Jones Hovercraft?????
Yeah but I have to question a ratings scale that interprets 2/5 (40%) as average and 60% as good. Would have come in handy at school! 
Yes I read that but where in the actual review does it mention what year they are reviewing? If you read the speed section they are testing a board with extruded which doesn’t match up with the 2011 heading no matter how much you bold it.
Speed- This stiff beefy board should perform really well but we were worried about the extruded base.
I always read something in its entirety!!!!! 
Anyways we have gone wildly off topic. My main point which I think we generally agree upon in the GNU is a pretty sick board. A fear of it not being good enough for Whistler powder and lacking speed is largely unfounded. It’s also advanced enough that the large majority of us keyboard warriors would never push it to it’s limits.
Yeah but I have to question a ratings scale that interprets 2/5 (40%) as average. Would have come in handy at school!
Maybe request that they have a rating of 2.5?????
I’m pretty sure that the word “good”, along with a rating of 3 out of a possible 5, would classify it on the positive side of the scale more than the negative side?????
But hey, I never finished my schooling!!!!!
Anyways we have gone wildly off topic. My main point which I think we generally agree upon in the GNU is a pretty sick board. A fear of it not being good enough for Whistler powder and lacking speed is largely unfounded. It’s also advanced enough that the large majority of us keyboard warriors would never push it to it’s limits.
I agree completely!!!!!
Yeah but I have to question a ratings scale that interprets 2/5 (40%) as average. Would have come in handy at school!
Maybe request that they have a rating of 2.5?????
I’m pretty sure that the word “good”, along with a rating of 3 out of a possible 5, would classify it on the positive side of the scale more than the negative side?????
But hey, I never finished my schooling!!!!!
Yes you would think so just comments like this
GNU Riders Choice - Seems to lack a bit of float in powder and is slower but apparently a very solid overall board. Not surprising why it keeps winning awards. Not the craziest of boards but let’s be realistic here, I’m not an advanced boarded (yet) so it’s probably a smart choice. Thanks drc, it’s on the list.
Worry me which is why I jumped in and added my 2c i.e decent in the Pow he’s likely to encounter, pretty fkn quick, advanced board.
Keep in mind it may not have even been referring to the TGR review I just jumped to conclusions. I think taking any review with a grain of salt is a healthy habit to form.
I agree completely!!!!!
Maybe Fledz didn’t read the whole review either?????
All good, it was one of them yep and this EXACTLY why I’d rather get on forums and get a bit of a discussion going, rather than rely on reviews only. Their review threw me off a bit. You’ve sold me on the GNU
So…. 162W or 158W? (Specifically for Whistler).
All good, it was one of them yep and this EXACTLY why I’d rather get on forums and get a bit of a discussion going, rather than rely on reviews only. Their review threw me off a bit. You’ve sold me on the GNU
So…. 162W or 158W? (Specifically for Whistler).
Glad to hear we were able to help. Here’s GNUs recommended weight range (in lbs)
158W: 130-220 +
162W: 140-250 +
166W: 150-280 +
At 95kg ~210lb with intentions of all mountain/powder and not much park I’d be inclined to go the 162W. The extra length will help with stability at speed, gives you more edge to work with and additional float in pow. With your overall size and a flex rating of 6.5 it will still be plenty playful/manoeuvrable.
If you were planning on doing nothing but free-riding in steep and deep stuff even the 166W wouldn’t be a crazy choice. But for a one board quiver the 162W is probably a safer bet.
It’s worth waiting for a few opinions from the other guys on here though as I’m in a completely different weight category 
Hi Fledz!!!!
