Packing for a trip to Japan can be daunting. There’s only so much room in my bags. What do I bring?
I had seen enough from the Proto CT in fresh snow in Utah that I thought I should be OK bringing only it and a splitboard, but I was still nervous, as the reports of deep snow in Niseko border on legendary.
The first test actually came in Myoko, where we essentially had the best lift on the mountain to ourselves on a 10”+ powder day. The terrain in Japan is much different than I’m accustomed to in Utah. Instead of rocky, jagged, and steep, what we were riding was mellow and playful, with pillows and trees everywhere. In places, though, it was flat enough that speed conservation became an issue.
The Proto CT takes a little effort to bring up to plane in powder, but only maybe slightly more than most dedicated pow boards, thanks primarily to the degree and placement of its rocker. Personally, I like to lean back a little and steer with the tail of the board, and the Proto CT allows me to do that with minimal effort. Some boards don’t, and if you want to sit on a board’s narrow tail with your weight forward, the Proto CT is probably not what you want strapped to your feet in fresh snow.
I ride park “opportunistically,” but actually rode more in Japan than anywhere else last year. I found the Proto CT to be adequate, but not ideal, in all regards. As a true twin, its swing weight is predictable, and despite its relatively stiff flex, the rockered profile will allow you to press it. On both natural and man-made jumps in Hakuba, the amount of pop available in the Proto CT was a pleasant surprise—surprising because damp, heavy boards and “pop” are not often mentioned in the same sentence.
Once back in Utah, I caught a few more storms and was able to get the Proto CT into the bell-to-bell-type conditions that I had originally bought the board for. I noticed that while it handled day-old chop well, I found myself leaning back and using the rocker to basically “float” over it rather than “plow” through it, as I would with a stiffer, cambered board. I don’t mind this at all, but some old-school powder purists might.
While the Proto CT handled a season of punishment better than several of my last boards, and the bases of the board proved to be remarkably durable, it did come away with several sections of significantly bent edge and one small crack. While neither was catastrophic, I did learn that the Proto CT is not indestructible.
The Proto CT also feels a bit heavy for its class (it seems significantly heavier than the Gnu Rider’s Choice, for example). Some may see that as a negative—a few people that I ride with handled the board and commented specifically on its weight—and those who spend a high percentage of their time riding park might be turned off by its relative heaviness. That said, I did not notice it while jibbing around the mountain, and found it to be well balanced with a low swing weight. For most riders, the weight of the Proto CT is not going to be the difference between stomping a spin or not.
Bottom Line
The Proto CT performs exactly how I wanted it to. Are there other boards I’d rather have in my hand on First Tram on an 18” powder day? Yes. But in that case, would I want something else two hours later? Yes. And are there other boards that I’d rather have strapped on for a park session? Yes again.
For those who would prefer to “set it and forget it” and make slight adjustments to their riding style rather than their equipment as conditions change, I don’t know of a better ride than the Proto CT. And it seems that others feel the same, since the Proto CT remains virtually unchanged for 12/13.
Hey there…thanks for the review. I’m stuck between 2 boards to bring out to the interior BC with me (can only fit one)…my 154 Proto CT and my 153 Arbor Westmark. Though you probably haven’t ridden the Westmark…I’d appreciate your opinion on the matter as you seem to have good experience riding pow. Althought most ppl immediately jump and say bring the proto cause the Westmark is a ‘park board’ and the proto is sitffer. However, at my weight 125lbs (yes…im a feather), the Westmark is beefy enough to free ride with (though a bit tiring on groomers due it its full centre reverse). However, I was wondering if it would fair better in the pow b/c of its full centre reverse?
Thanks!!
Hey, JL. Having ridden center reverse and flat camber park decks in virtually every kind of powder, I can safely say that the Westmark should perform pretty well, despite the fact that I haven’t been on it. The Proto is also rockered between the inserts and behaves very similarly in untracked snow. Where I give the NS the edge, though, is when that pow becomes tracked and variable. Also, the short sections of camber outside the bindings give the edges a little more purchase on firm or groomed snow and the combination of stiffer flex and damping in the CT should make for a more stable ride at speed.
I know this review is older, but Im on a budget trying to find the very same quiver killer you write about. I am feeling totally torn on which way to go and was hoping you could give me a quick word, lance. I have two major considerations that differ from you in choosing decks. 1) I ride in the east (Vermont). My issues with proper powder choices, unfortunately, rarely come up. In fact, my primary consideration is, “how will the board handle on ice and pavement-pack?” haha. Sad, but true. 2) I weigh about 235, after my morning dump. Every sizing chart I see for Never Summer tops out around 215 for recommended weight, so I’m worried about response. I wanted to put this out there, because I see you actually referenced my alternate choice I’m torn between: the GNU Riders Choice. From what I have been reading, the magnetraction and camber of these boards are seemingly engineered for crappier conditions and bulky dudes like myself, at least when it comes to pop. Any advise would be much appreciated.
Randall,
You’re right – your considerations are definitely different than mine, although my CT has seen its fair share of ice. I don’t think you can really go wrong with either of these decks, but one thing I’d take a look at in regard to length is effective edge – According to each manufacturers published specs, the 160W CT has a longer effective edge than the 166W Rider’s Choice, which would level the playing field on hardpack, even if not in powder. The camber profiles are very similar and handle relatively well in EC conditions, and Magnetraction does add some “grip,” in my experience, whether you want it or not. i haven’t been on the latest iteration of the RC, but I imagine it’s more lively with a little more pop than the CT. The CT, however, is still my favorite all around board for its ability to handle any condition I throw at it and the fact that it’s still intact 100+ days later. Pray for snow!
-LP