burton's "twin-like" vs "directional twin"

[TacoJohn]

I know in the grand scheme of things this really doesn't matter....but
its bugging me

I can wrap my head around true twin & directional. I can get my head
around the idea of a directional twin. But what the hell is the
difference between burton's definition of "twin-like" vs "directional
twin"? I mean looking at the specs of similar sized boards that are
consider either type have huge overlap. There was no mention of twin
like in the 2007 catalog.

Twin-like "versatility & added pop of a directional flex and shape but
w/ a twin tip & tail inspired shape for turning & landing switch"

Directional twin "get the look of a twin tipped freestyle board but
with the all mountain versatility of either a directional stance or
flex pattern....shape is designed to give more pop in the tail and
making it easier to maintain control"...blah blah blah" ( i know "or"
but keep reading below)

looking thru the 08 catalog you can find examples of "twin-likes" w/
negative or even cores & "directional twins" w/ either negative or
even cores....almost all of each type have symmetrical tail & nose
widths like a true twin....tail & nose length on some "twin likes" are
similar to "directional twins" with set back... i think there are
directional twins that have centered stances

like i said the marketing is bugging me....

[Christopher Cox]

Hey Taco,

I read this piece too. I took it to mean that the physical ******d
appearance is a twin, but the tail or shovel is stiffer. As far as what
you/they want to call it, twin like or directional twin, it seems all
the same to me.

Till I ride one, I would not be able to tell you the advantages.
Which means I probably should not have posted this, BUT, with all the
traffic this group gets, it is a "at least someone posted a response"
type of post....:-)

Chris


PS Arvin, where are you with all of your typical wisdom?