ak pro; any thoughts?

same show less gravity. my ak 103, vegas bazooka . i'm such a child.

FLY GI !

OK, let's rewind

Quote:

just started the sport. flying a crossfire2 5meter. want to get a deck.

I'd personally start cheap... Learn on something you can trash then get a nice board. Lower end MBS or GI

Quote:

Originally posted by arkay OK, let's rewind Quote: just started the sport. flying a crossfire2 5meter. want to get a deck. I'd personally start cheap... Learn on something you can trash then get a nice board. Lower end MBS or GI

So true arkay... if you're new, you don't need a top of the line deck, who know's if you're going to want to be doing rotations, grabs and whatnot. I'm still doing fine on a sooped up MBS core 90. Also, I really think the Pro 90 shoulld be included a bit more in this conversation. It's 100 less than the GI and has just as good of performance.

Kite sponsors don't tell you what kind of board to ride :D They ride Trampa because it's the best nobody told Adam he has to ride Trampa. Pretty sure Peter Lynn didn't tell any of the other riders that either. Why would your sponsor make you ride a sub-par board?

MBS has a fairly large pre-owned seller base, and I think you would have a lot of fun on a Core or Comp 90. They make a very nice product, especially considering the market they have to fulfill.

I think that the point B-Roc is trying to make is that there is an element in sponsorship that can be a little decieving. It's not unusual for a rider, no matter what the sport, to utilize equipment that may not be what they would normally pick if they were not sponsored.

This does not mean that the equipment isn't good.

But, it may not be what the rider would choose if it were up to them. Part of being sponsored is making sacrifices to keep your sponsors happy. As a result you make due with what your sponsor supplies or with what they request you ride because they made a sweetheart deal with another manufacturer.

To believe that sponsors don't tell thier riders what to ride is naive. I know U.S. Ski Team members who have lost sponsorships and shots at the Olympics over equipment choices that were counter to thier sponsor's wishes. But the choices were made for personal perfomance or safety reasons. That's how high level professional sponsorships can go sometimes.

If Adam was given the ultimatum to quit riding Trampa because PL wants him to ride somthing else he'd have to make a descision as to which sponsor he'd be willing to lose. And after, you Sean personally would know nothing about this ultimatum, would you still ride what Adam is riding or stick with what up to that point was known to you as the end all best product? My guess is you would go where Adam goes.

That's how sponsorship works.

"Pro Level" in my expirience are PAID sponsorships. Not just equipment, and expenses but BEING ON THE ACTUAL PAYROLL of the manufacturer. I'm a Peter Lynn sponsored kiter, I'm at the top level of my chosen discipline (speed) but I wouldn't introduce myself to someone as a "Pro Snowkiter". Peter Lynn is my only contractual sponsor. I have other companies that supply me with gear that are my "Supporters". They supply me with the gear because I'm going to use it, use it well and promote it. But I am not bound by contract to use thier stuff.

I think people throw the term "Pro" around a little too easily these days. Anyway enough about this sponsorship nonsense.

C Allen, I agree with Arkay. There's no reason to go nuts and blow a wad of cash on something until you get a skill set down and decide you really like it. Go with something that has a lot of good feedback as a starter board and go from there.

Unless you have knack for picking up stuff fast. Then I say go freakin nuts!:wee: