the 1,000,000th dervish question thread

**BobGnarly** · 11-15-2009 11:25 PM

hey there i used the search function and couldn't find much comparing the old design dervish vs. the new design dervish. I'm definitely looking to get a used derv for x-mas, but idk if theres any difference in weight/flex/nose and tail/etc. on the old design vs the new one. help me! thanks and happy skating

-Hoyt

**Cann0n** · 11-15-2009 11:36 PM

You didn't look hard enough.

First, you won't get an old dervish unless it's used.

The only major difference are the holes where the trucks drop through.

The new design has a longer hole because of torsional flex. It allows the nose/tail twist more, instead of busting in half.

/thread.

**huntaboi_808** · 11-15-2009 11:45 PM

used boards flex might be not as lively and you might bottom out more easily
need to get grip, might be eaten up already
wood might be shaven down on nose/tail and edges

**Cann0n** · 11-15-2009 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by huntaboi_808

used boards flex might be not as lively and you might bottom out more easily
need to get grip, might be eaten up already
wood might be shaven down on nose/tail and edges

Yes. I had to throw some grip on my dervish. Its nose/tails are flat and squared from scrapping the road.

**thatoneblahguy** · 11-16-2009 12:05 AM

whats up with everyone trying to make their redundent thread title not sound redundent?

"alright, i know that i saw this question somewhere, but because i mention it in the title, its alright"

not trying to be a douche, just pointing something out

**Amfab** · 11-16-2009 02:11 AM

I hate to be redundant, but pointing out redundancy is redundant.

**Cann0n** · 11-16-2009 07:26 AM

I hate the redundancies too, but redundantly pointing out redundant redundancy is pretty redundant.

Got all 5 redundancies in that one!

**BobGnarly** · 11-16-2009 08:08 AM

nah i know to use the search function first, but i couldnt find the answer to what i thought would have been a common question, and i didnt want 18,000 dudes who are for some reason angry all the time going "why don't you use the search function f'n n00b?"lets keep it light hearted, boys, its supposed to be fun!

**Big Dev** · 11-16-2009 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by BobGnarly

nah i know to use the search function first, but i couldnt find the answer to what i thought would have been a common question, and i didnt want 18,000 dudes who are for some reason angry all the time going "why don't you use the search function f'n n00b?"lets keep it light hearted, boys, its supposed to be fun!

yeah but the search function is cool too

**Amfab** · 11-16-2009 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Amfab

I hate to be redundant, but pointing out redundancy is redundant.

**Wolfin** · 11-16-2009 02:10 PM

Every redundancy is a redundant redundancy.

**skater101** · 11-16-2009 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by BobGnarly

hey there i used the search function and couldn't find much comparing the old design dervish vs. the new design dervish. I'm definitely looking to get a used derv for x-mas, but idk if theres any difference in weight/flex/nose and tail/etc. on the old design vs the new one. help me! thanks and happy skating

-Hoyt

The old dervish design had smaller cutouts. Loaded made the cutouts longer (I believe an inch or two) because the smaller cutouts cracked often. The longer cutouts created a stiffer flex. I had the old version 2 years ago (Flex 2), and after 2 years of riding it, the flex began to get really saggy (I was 146ish pounds). I bottomed out a lot when carving too hard, going over bumps and humps, and sometimes when I did stand up 180s. I've had the newer version with the longer cutouts since March last year (Flex 2, and I weigh 150ish pounds now) and I really love the Flex. It hasn't sagged at all, no bottoming out, and very very responsive. Hope this helps.

**Cann0n** · 11-16-2009 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfin

Every redundancy is a redundant redundancy.

So, what about repeats?

**thatoneblahguy** · 11-16-2009 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cann0n

So, what about repeats?

repeating a redundancy is redundantly repeating

**DHBM** · 11-16-2009 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Amfab

I hate to be redundant, but pointing out redundancy is redundant.

sigged

10sigs

**Cann0n** · 11-16-2009 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by thatoneblahguy

repeating a redundancy is redundantly repeating

So duplicated redundant redundancies is the same as repeating repeated duplicates? What about repeated redundancies and duplicated redundant repeating redundancies? Are clones considered a redundant duplicated repeat?

Bleh... this is monotonous...