For years, I had a problem when it came to snowboard pants. Heck, even jeans or ANY pants for that matter. Being 6’3″ with a 36 inch inseam makes finding pants that actually fit a challenge. Most of the time, they’re either too short or make you look like you’re rocking waders. And let’s be clear, rocking waders sucks. So once I found a pair that actually fit, I refused to let them go.
In my case, that meant stockpiling Special Blend pants. They were comfortable, gave me plenty of room to move and, most importantly, actually worked on my tall frame. Eventually, though, I ripped my last pair beyond fixing and was forced to enter the wonderful world of finding men’s tall snow pants all over again. That’s what led me to the Burton [ak] Cyclic GORE TEX 2L Pants. That’s what led me to the Burton [ak] Cyclic GORE TEX 2L Pants.
I originally bought the Cyclic because I wanted a durable shell with serious weather protection that came in a tall size. I then spent an entire El Niño season riding them through everything from heavy wet snow to blower powder and warm spring days. And years later, they’re still in my rotation. But here’s the important update: they’re no longer the pants I reach for first. That honor now goes to the Outdoor Research Snowcrew Pants, which are more comfortable for the majority of my resort days. The Cyclic still gets plenty of use, especially on warmer spring days when I want a shell without added insulation.
So, do I regret buying the Burton [ak] Cyclic? Not at all. The fact that I’m still wearing them years later says quite a bit about how well they’ve held up. They just have some tradeoffs that became much clearer after spending more time in other snow pants.
The Verdict
If you’re looking for a premium shell pant that can handle nasty weather, last for years and transition especially well into spring, the Burton [ak] Cyclic remains an excellent choice.
They’ve kept me dry through the kind of heavy Sierra snow we lovingly call gorilla snot, and after years of beating them up, they somehow still look almost new. Where they fall short for me is fit and everyday usability. With only a base layer underneath, they’re comfortable and move well. Start adding more insulation, though, and the thighs and legs become tighter than I prefer. And while the cargo pocket is HUGE, there’s only one.
Best for: Riders who run warm, want serious weather protection, value durability, ride in a wide range of conditions or need Short, Regular or Tall sizing.
I’d look elsewhere if: You prefer a roomier fit, regularly wear thicker layers underneath your pants or want an insulated resort pant for colder chairlift days.
Men’s Burton [ak] Cyclic GORE TEX 2L Pants Specs
Type: Non insulated shell
Construction: 2 layer GORE TEX with fully taped seams
Waterproof Rating: 28,000 mm
Breathability: 17,000 g/m²
Fit: Regular fit with articulated patterning
Inseams: Short, Regular and Tall
Venting: Mesh lined inner thigh vents
Pockets: Zippered handwarmer pockets, two rear pockets and one cargo pocket with an internal tool sleeve
Durability Features: Triple needle reinforced stitching, reinforced cuffs and bungee cuff elevators
Warranty: Lifetime
MSRP: $439.95
Buy from: Backcountry.com or EVO
How the Burton AK Cyclic Fits and Layers
Fit is probably the biggest reason I ended up buying the Burton [ak] Cyclic in the first place. At 6’3″ with a 36 inch inseam, finding snow pants that are actually long enough without swimming around my waist is surprisingly difficult. The Cyclic comes in tall sizing, which immediately put it on my short list. Length wise, they’ve been great. No rocking waders here.
With just a base layer underneath, the articulated fit gives me enough room to bend, carve and move around on the snowboard without feeling restricted. Where things start to fall apart for me is when temperatures drop and I want another layer underneath. Throw on thicker fleece pants and suddenly the Cyclic gets noticeably tighter through the thighs and legs. I even tried Burton’s Carbonate Layering Pants, a lower bulk waffle grid mid layer they made at the time. They helped, but still didn’t give me quite enough room.
And that’s important because I like my snowboard pants BAGGY. Not early 2000s dragging through the parking lot baggy, but loose enough that I can squat, bend and twist without thinking about what I’m wearing. I’ve also found I need to work a little harder to stay warm these days. Maybe I’m getting older. Maybe I’m just carrying around less natural insulation than I used to.
For most winter days, I pair the Cyclic with a Smartwool Intraknit Thermal base layer. It removes winter’s extra bite without adding much bulk and works really well underneath a shell like this. When highs drop into the teens, things get more complicated. Normally I’d simply add more insulation, but the Cyclic limits how much I can comfortably layer underneath before it starts feeling restrictive.
That’s the tradeoff. If you run warm or normally wear only a base layer, you may never care. If you get cold easily or prefer a genuinely roomy snowboard fit, pay close attention to sizing.
Weather Protection and Spring Performance
If fit is where I have some complaints about the Burton [ak] Cyclic, weather protection is where these pants absolutely deliver.
I bought them heading into an El Niño winter, which turned out to be a pretty perfect testing ground. I wore them through everything from cold blower powder to heavy Sierra storms where the snow had enough moisture in it to qualify as gorilla snot.
And through all of it, staying dry was never really something I had to think about. That’s exactly what I want from a shell.
When snow is coming down sideways, you’re sitting on a wet chairlift or you’re riding through snow that seems to turn into liquid the second it touches you, the last thing you want to wonder about is whether your pants are going to soak through. The GORE TEX shell and fully taped seams have done their job extremely well over the years.
Where I appreciate the Cyclic even more today is spring. With no built in insulation, I’m not roasting in pants designed for January when temperatures climb. A lightweight base layer works for most spring days, and when the sun really starts cooking, the inner thigh vents dump heat quickly.
That’s where having a true shell becomes such an advantage. They may have lost their spot as my everyday resort pants, but once spring arrives, the Cyclic becomes one of the first pairs I reach for again.
Pockets and Everyday Usability
This is one of those areas where the Cyclic looks perfectly fine on paper but annoys me more in actual use.
The main cargo pocket is HUGE, which sounds great until you realize there is only one.
One.
Seriously? Why?
On a normal resort day, I carry more junk than I probably should. Snacks, a neck gaiter, keys, maybe a small tool and whatever else comes along for the ride. The Cyclic can swallow a lot of it, but stuff everything into one cargo pocket and you start feeling like a chipmunk with a mouth full of seeds.
There are other pockets. I normally use the hand pockets for things like my wallet, while the rear pockets are basically useless to me because sitting on a chairlift with something stuffed back there is uncomfortable.
I really prefer larger cargo pockets on both legs. It spreads everything out and makes it easier to grab what I need. That’s one thing I appreciate more about the Outdoor Research Snowcrew. Two large cargo pockets simply work better for the way I carry stuff on the mountain.
Is one cargo pocket a dealbreaker?
Absolutely not.
But when you’re spending this much on snowboard pants, little details matter. After years in the Cyclic, this is still one thing I wish Burton had done differently.
Durability: Why the Cyclic Costs More
This is probably the biggest reason I continue to lean toward Burton products.
I’ve beaten the crap out of these pants for years and somehow they still look almost NEW.
Seriously.
The cuffs are not frayed or chewed up. The pockets still feel like they did when I bought them. The fabric hasn’t developed that tired look you sometimes start seeing after a few hard seasons. Even the fit feels basically the same as day one, which is honestly kind of shocking.
Construction has a lot to do with it. Burton uses details like triple needle reinforced stitching and articulated patterning in the [ak] Cyclic. Those details cost more, but they also help the pants move naturally without putting unnecessary stress on the fabric and seams.
The cuffs are where the quality really stands out to me. Snowboard pants take a beating from boots, bindings, parking lots and just generally dragging through a ski season, yet mine have held up incredibly well.
The waterproofing has also remained about as good as I could reasonably expect after years of use, with one important caveat: I’ve always followed the care instructions and periodically reapplied the water repellent treatment when needed.
Technical outerwear requires maintenance. Take care of it and, based on my experience with the Cyclic, it can last a LONG time.
That’s ultimately why I don’t regret paying more. When I originally bought the Cyclic, I seriously considered the less expensive Burton Ballast because, on paper, it checked many of the same boxes.
The difference reminds me of buying a Toyota Tacoma with 4WD versus a PreRunner. Sitting in the parking lot, they might look almost identical. But once the snow starts falling, you’re going to be VERY happy you paid for that 4WD.
That’s how I look at the Cyclic now.
Could I have bought cheaper snowboard pants and been perfectly happy?
Probably.
But there’s something to be said for buying gear once and still happily pulling it out of the closet years later. If you’re on snow a lot, ride in nasty weather and tend to beat the crap out of your gear like I do, the Cyclic becomes much easier to justify.
After all these years, I can confidently say I got my money’s worth.
Who Should Buy the Burton AK Cyclic?
I don’t think everyone needs snowboard pants this expensive, but for the right rider they make a TON of sense.
Buy them if you want pants that will LAST. That’s the biggest selling point for me after all these years.
Buy them if you run warm or like controlling your own insulation. There is no built in insulation, so you can adjust your layers based on conditions.
Buy them if weather protection matters. Wet Sierra storms, deep snow and soggy chairlifts are exactly where I’ve appreciated having a quality GORE TEX shell.
Buy them if finding the right inseam is a struggle. Burton offers Short, Regular and Tall. As someone with a 36 inch inseam, the Tall option was a huge reason they made my list.
And thankfully, Burton finally offers some colors beyond the usual sea of black and gray.
I’d look elsewhere if you get cold easily, want built in insulation, prefer a genuinely baggy fit or regularly wear thicker layers underneath your pants.
And if you like carrying half your life in cargo pockets like I apparently do, just remember…
You get ONE.
Would I Buy the Burton AK Cyclic Again?
After all these years, would I buy the Burton [ak] Cyclic again?
Yes.
But now I know exactly what role they’re going to play in my gear closet. The Outdoor Research Snowcrew has become my everyday resort pant because I prefer the roomier fit, added warmth and better pocket setup. When spring arrives, temperatures climb or the forecast calls for wet Sierra snow, though, I’m still happy to pull out the Cyclic.
They’re not perfect. I wish they were baggier. I want another cargo pocket. And when temperatures drop into the teens, I want more room for insulation. But after years of abuse, they still look good, fit essentially the same and keep me dry.
I originally spent more on the Cyclic because I hoped I was buying a better constructed pair of snowboard pants that would last.
Turns out, I was.
If you want a waterproof shell, appreciate having Short, Regular and Tall sizing, ride enough to justify investing in quality outerwear and would rather buy snowboard pants that can last for years instead of replacing them every few seasons, the Burton [ak] Cyclic is still VERY easy for me to recommend.
Just don’t ask me why Burton only gave you one cargo pocket.
