# Hi I'm Tiff! :D



## jae

welcome. GET YOUR BOOTS FIRST! :grin:

hopefully you'll have a easy time finding the right gear for you. if you have any questions feel free to ask.


----------



## ctoma

jae said:


> welcome. GET YOUR BOOTS FIRST! :grin:
> 
> hopefully you'll have a easy time finding the right gear for you. if you have any questions feel free to ask.


I second that. Please post a photo of your bare feet so another member from this community can assess the physical characteristics of your feet.


----------



## Vortxe

Alright come on guys don't be scaring her off now, she has come here for the support and knowledge of other boarders. 

I do agree with getting your boots first, but if you can get your entire kit set up at once I recommend doing so. Easier to adapt and such.
One thing that you should think about is what kind of board you would want to end up getting, so if you want to get a park board since you
had mentioned that you want to end up in the park some day. Or perhaps just get an all mountain as typically you cant go wrong with that, 
and on the days that you really want to try hitting up the park you could either use your board or rent a park board from your local shop.

Anyways, welcome to Snowboarding Forum. Hope you enjoy your stay!


----------



## hikeswithdogs

Boots first, no question 

Good luck and have fun!!!


----------



## WasabiCanuck

First tip.....

Buy some gear girl. Damn rentals usually suck. Your riding will progress way faster with your own stuff. Even low quality gear that you own will be 10 times better than any rentals and last several seasons. You have probably spent several hundred on rentals in the past few years and that would have gotten you a set of half-decent gear.

Second tip...

You probably already know this since you can ride but here it is anyhow. Above-all make sure your boots fit right. Lots of guys on here can help you with fitting advice, hence the joke about feet pictures haha. Wiredsport in particular is religious about boot fitting, has lots of knowledge, and is always willing to help.



On a side note: I have snowboarded in Australia before. I was at Thredbo in 2002 for a few days. Fun little mountain and we had decent snow. Alot of people talk shit about Australian snow but I had a great time when I was there, maybe I just got lucky. Funny seeing Kangroos and Wombats on the way to mountain. Anyhow welcome.


----------



## Tif

Thanks everyone! I'll be visiting a few shops in Melbourne when I get there to try on boots as each of them stock a few different brands. I'm thinking to spend a little more on boots to get a higher end one (more sectioning in the laces, fit etc.) in hopes that I'd appreciate it more and it'll last longer. There wasn't much information on the boot buying guide other than fit, but are there different types of boots for different styles of riding?

As for the board, I'm still at a loss to what sort of camber I'd be after or what 'level' of board to go for. For example, is a NS Infinity too advanced for me?


----------



## jae

should be a fine board, but might want to look into something a little more aggressive, if you want to stick with NS, I'd recommend the women's proto. otherwise I'd recommend a RCR or camber profile.


----------



## Tif

ctoma said:


> I second that. Please post a photo of your bare feet so another member from this community can assess the physical characteristics of your feet.


Check out my attachment. I reckon I'd need to go up a size to accommodate the hair.



Vortxe said:


> Alright come on guys don't be scaring her off now, she has come here for the support and knowledge of other boarders.
> 
> I do agree with getting your boots first, but if you can get your entire kit set up at once I recommend doing so. Easier to adapt and such.
> One thing that you should think about is what kind of board you would want to end up getting, so if you want to get a park board since you
> had mentioned that you want to end up in the park some day. Or perhaps just get an all mountain as typically you cant go wrong with that,
> and on the days that you really want to try hitting up the park you could either use your board or rent a park board from your local shop.
> 
> Anyways, welcome to Snowboarding Forum. Hope you enjoy your stay!


I think I'm looking for an all-mountain board. I've only ventured into the part once or twice but I'm not confident enough to give it a full go just yet so I don't even know if I'd really enjoy it but I know I love cruising down the slopes, throwing in a few tricks (or at least progressing to) and landing drops.



WasabiCanuck said:


> First tip.....
> 
> Buy some gear girl. Damn rentals usually suck. Your riding will progress way faster with your own stuff. Even low quality gear that you own will be 10 times better than any rentals and last several seasons. You have probably spent several hundred on rentals in the past few years and that would have gotten you a set of half-decent gear.
> 
> Second tip...
> 
> You probably already know this since you can ride but here it is anyhow. Above-all make sure your boots fit right. Lots of guys on here can help you with fitting advice, hence the joke about feet pictures haha. Wiredsport in particular is religious about boot fitting, has lots of knowledge, and is always willing to help.
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note: I have snowboarded in Australia before. I was at Thredbo in 2002 for a few days. Fun little mountain and we had decent snow. Alot of people talk shit about Australian snow but I had a great time when I was there, maybe I just got lucky. Funny seeing Kangroos and Wombats on the way to mountain. Anyhow welcome.


Australian animals are beautiful! I've never seen a love wombat before, so you're lucky! I might hit up Thredbo next year as I've never been. I've never been to the snow outside of Australia so I have nothing to compare it to


----------



## XxGoGirlxX

Troll Feet! :grin:

Welcome to the forums and addiction >


----------



## chomps1211

XxGoGirlxX said:


> Troll Feet! :grin:
> 
> Welcome to the forums and addiction >


Naw,..! Dems Hobbitses feets if ever I saw 'em! :grin:

Juss strap those puppies into the binders bareback & Ride!! >


----------



## Tif

chomps1211 said:


> Naw,..! Dems Hobbitses feets if ever I saw 'em! :grin:
> 
> Juss strap those puppies into the binders bareback & Ride!! >


Yeh, hair is great for insulation and cushioning.


----------



## ctoma

I don't know about the rest of the members here but that photo of the feet... so damned sexy!!!


----------



## poutanen

So as far as the board goes, at this point size is more important than camber profile, tech, etc. etc. etc. Buy something that you're in the centre of the weight range for (i.e. if you're 70 kg, buy a board with a 60-80 kg weight range).

This way you'll have something short enough to really work on turning progression, but not so short that you'll overpower it when you start getting quick.

Above all: have fun


----------



## Tif

jae said:


> should be a fine board, but might want to look into something a little more aggressive, if you want to stick with NS, I'd recommend the women's proto. otherwise I'd recommend a RCR or camber profile.


So I've finally made my way into a shop and they have, what I believe, is a great sale on. And I'm currently eyeing the NS photo type 2 and a Capita jess kimura. Any thoughts on these and what other boards I maybe should consider?


----------



## Tif

poutanen said:


> So as far as the board goes, at this point size is more important than camber profile, tech, etc. etc. etc. Buy something that you're in the centre of the weight range for (i.e. if you're 70 kg, buy a board with a 60-80 kg weight range).
> 
> This way you'll have something short enough to really work on turning progression, but not so short that you'll overpower it when you start getting quick.
> 
> Above all: have fun


The last rental board I used was 140cm but according to all the sizing guides that was too small for me. Currently weighing 57kg, I'm looking at buying a board that is around 142-145cm. However, my weight tends to fluctuate between 52-58kg depending on my training season. It'll be interesting once next winter rolls around to see how much of a difference length to weight ratio will make. 

I forgot to add in the last post, picking up the NS proto type two was incredibly light compared to the other boards! And having a feel in person, I like it's mid flex profile. Same with the Capita Jess Kimura. Both not noodles but has nice pop to it (look at me attempting lingo; did I do it right?). I had a look at the Salomon gypsum and Rossi Diva magtek and they both felt too stiff.


----------



## Phedder

Tif said:


> So I've finally made my way into a shop and they have, what I believe, is a great sale on. And I'm currently eyeing the NS photo type 2 and a Capita jess kimura. Any thoughts on these and what other boards I maybe should consider?


We still don't know your stats, weight and boot size specifically. 

Both of those boards would be great all mountain freestyle options. Not too stiff, not too soft. For more speed and aggressive riding I'd say the Kimura Pro, for slowing down and playing around a bit I'd say the Womens Proto Type 2. Harder snow I'd take the Kimura, Slush and powder the Proto. 

They'll both be good and able to adapt to most types of riding and snow, just depends where your preferences lie and what each board has advantages in.


----------



## Tif

Phedder said:


> We still don't know your stats, weight and boot size specifically.


Opps, my bad, thought I'd posted that buuuuut I didn't. My stats: 161cm, 57kg, athletic and good looking, US size 6 boots, 230mm bare feet (left and right), anatomically correct arches and precisely 10 toes. 

Snowboard boots to be confirmed, so far I've only managed to try on one pair of boots that fit. Visiting another shop in hope of more variety after lunch. I've called them in advance but they reckon I'll be hard pressed to find boots in my size at this time of year because it's end of season sales. Id still like to take advantage of cheap boards and bindings even if I don't can't find boots now. I'll just have to wait out on boots until the new season stuff arrives so i can get the pair I want.


----------



## jae

Tif said:


> Opps, my bad, thought I'd posted that buuuuut I didn't. My stats: 161cm, 57kg, athletic and *good looking*, US size 6 boots, 230mm bare feet (left and right), anatomically correct arches and precisely 10 toes.


lololololol 10


----------



## bksdds

jae said:


> lololololol 10


Sounds like your type Jae. :laughat:


----------



## Rogue

Tif said:


> The last rental board I used was 140cm but according to all the sizing guides that was too small for me. Currently weighing 57kg, I'm looking at buying a board that is around 142-145cm. However, my weight tends to fluctuate between 52-58kg depending on my training season. It'll be interesting once next winter rolls around to see how much of a difference length to weight ratio will make.
> 
> I forgot to add in the last post, picking up the NS proto type two was incredibly light compared to the other boards! And having a feel in person, I like it's mid flex profile. Same with the Capita Jess Kimura. Both not noodles but has nice pop to it (look at me attempting lingo; did I do it right?). I had a look at the Salomon gypsum and Rossi Diva magtek and they both felt too stiff.




I'd say go for the 145 and the Type Two looks super awesome. I have a GNU Ladies Choice and I definitely want to demo the type two when possible. They seem to be pretty similar (at least from the model I currently have) and I'd love to give it a go. I think the Jess Kimura deck is more freestyle oriented whereas the type two is more all mountain. Let us know what you end up with and how it goes!


----------



## Phedder

Given your feet are only 23cm long, and you're riding in Australia, I'd suggest the 142 Kimura Pro. Just checking their specs, the 142 has a waist width of 22.9cm, and you'd still notice a considerable step up in performance over your 140 rental board. 

If you really want the Proto, I'd suggest getting stiff boots and stiff bindings. The 142 has a waist width of 23.4, and the 145 23.6. What that means is at the inserts and with binding angles taken into account, your feet are probably going to be around 1.5cm inside the edges of the board, meaning you'll really struggle to get proper leverage over the boards edges. Even at 22.9 the Kimura is still a tad wide, though I'm sure your rental board has been too wide as well.

This site has you bang in the middle weight range for the 142 Kimura as well, if you get any lighter the 145s would certainly be bigger than you need for the conditions you ride, both length and width. http://www.melbournesnowboard.com.au/products/capita-jess-kimura-2017


----------



## jae

bksdds said:


> Sounds like your type Jae. :laughat:


truely madly deeply.


----------



## Tif

Phedder said:


> Given your feet are only 23cm long, and you're riding in Australia, I'd suggest the 142 Kimura Pro. Just checking their specs, the 142 has a waist width of 22.9cm, and you'd still notice a considerable step up in performance over your 140 rental board.
> 
> If you really want the Proto, I'd suggest getting stiff boots and stiff bindings. The 142 has a waist width of 23.4, and the 145 23.6. What that means is at the inserts and with binding angles taken into account, your feet are probably going to be around 1.5cm inside the edges of the board, meaning you'll really struggle to get proper leverage over the boards edges. Even at 22.9 the Kimura is still a tad wide, though I'm sure your rental board has been too wide as well.
> 
> This site has you bang in the middle weight range for the 142 Kimura as well, if you get any lighter the 145s would certainly be bigger than you need for the conditions you ride, both length and width. http://www.melbournesnowboard.com.au/products/capita-jess-kimura-2017



I was at that store this morning! Unfortunately they're fresh out of 142's and I don't know of any other shops in Melbourne that has it.  by the way, this is what my feet look like on the 145 proto. 

Will keep online shopping in the mean time.


----------



## Rogue

Phedder said:


> Given your feet are only 23cm long
> If you really want the Proto, I'd suggest getting stiff boots and stiff bindings. The 142 has a waist width of 23.4, and the 145 23.6. What that means is at the inserts and with binding angles taken into account, your feet are probably going to be around 1.5cm inside the edges of the board, meaning you'll really struggle to get proper leverage over the boards edges.[/url]


So my 23.5 cm feet are really struggling to push my 24.2 and 24.7 waist width snowboards around???


----------



## Phedder

Rogue said:


> So my 23.5 cm feet are really struggling to push my 24.2 and 24.7 waist width snowboards around???





> I’ve been an on and off snowboarder, averaging weeklong trips every second year or so since ~2010


I'm thinking you might be _juuuuuust_ a little more advanced and aggressive of a rider than Tif. I'm not against wide boards, my next purchase will be one. But for her size, experience, and where she's riding, there's really no need to go much bigger. 

Tif if you really want the 145 and it's all that's available, I'm sure you'll adapt. Having center rocker will make turn initiation and edge to edge response a bit easier anyway, but that response will be dulled compared to something more appropriate for your foot size. If you're a more aggressive rider, go for the 145 Proto or 146 Kimura. For cruising and learning some freestyle, the 142's will be fine, and still a big upgrade from your 140 rental board.


----------



## Rogue

Phedder said:


> I'm thinking you might be _juuuuuust_ a little more advanced and aggressive of a rider than Tif. I'm not against wide boards, my next purchase will be one. But for her size, experience, and where she's riding, there's really no need to go much bigger.
> 
> .



Or I just bought snowboards without putting too much stock into waist width:embarrased1: 


I'm a little grouchy posting at work, but I just was wondering how much of a difference that can make is why I posted that. I'm also wondering if it's different for women's boards because we don't have wide models. I think if we all bought decks based on foot size then we'd be riding shortys? I mean am I supposed to be buying based on foot size? Well now look, I'm totally thread jacking!! I have read threads about it in the past but I think my eyes glazed over. :shrug: Carry on...


----------



## Phedder

This thread has some good insight;

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/144778-small-boot-snowboarders-support-group.html

A lot of talk about how finding more appropriate width boards made a world of difference. Personally I've never ridden a board with a wider waist than my foot is long, though I'd love to give it a try, and I actually want wider boards for aggressive carving. But I sure as hell notice a difference in edge to edge response from 25.2 to 26.0, though sidecut, board profile and stiffness all play a big role there too.


----------



## Deacon

Rogue said:


> Or I just bought snowboards without putting too much stock into waist width:embarrased1:
> 
> 
> I'm a little grouchy posting at work, but I just was wondering how much of a difference that can make is why I posted that. I'm also wondering if it's different for women's boards because we don't have wide models. I think if we all bought decks based on foot size then we'd be riding shortys? I mean am I supposed to be buying based on foot size? Well now look, I'm totally thread jacking!! I have read threads about it in the past but I think my eyes glazed over. :shrug: Carry on...


It's just leverage. If you're aggressive with your body, then a wide waist can actually be a benefit, due to having almost no chance of booting out when you get her up on edge. That's where the stiff boots come in, they'll turn your ankles into levers instead of hinges.


----------



## Rogue

@Phedder that's because you're a guy and have more sizing options, i.e. regular, mid wide, wide. I looked at multiple boards and if I went by my foot size alone I'd be bottoming out in almost every snowboard --138, 142, etc. 


Maybe this is where asym side cut comes in handy


----------



## Tif

I've certainly considered waist widths while checking out various boards. I've even started a thread about it under equipment-->boards but that discussion never really took off. Thanks for your link to the other thread, Phedder but there seems to be mixed opinions regarding matching foot length to waist widths, but I can certainly see the advantage in leverage. 

Same boat as Rogue, I bottom out in everything. So far, I've found that Capita makes the narrowest boards in relation to length. But that really means that I'm limiting my choices to just that brand.

Shopping update: I've tried out a range of boots from Deeluxe, Salomon and Thirty Two... My favourite fit so far is a Salomon Ivy Boa Str8JCKT (size 23.5, however no size smaller in stock). This is rated as a mid flex boot.


----------



## bksdds

I think these women know what they want/are doing.


----------



## neni

Rogue said:


> I'm a little grouchy posting at work, but I just was wondering how much of a difference that can make is why I posted that. I'm also wondering if it's different for women's boards because we don't have wide models. I think if we all bought decks based on foot size then we'd be riding shortys? I mean am I supposed to be buying based on foot size? Well now look, I'm totally thread jacking!! I have read threads about it in the past but I think my eyes glazed over. :shrug: Carry on...


I have found not even one women's board narrow enough to suite the usual width advice of Wiredsport :dunno:
Seems as if women's decks all are just wide. 

I _did_ however feel a big difference from sizing down from super wide - for my feet- men's 158 decks to decently narrow women's boards. Each mm loss of width made a difference in how much effort I have to induce into turns. Life is so much easier with leverage on your side 

Hope one day there will be slim but long n decently stiff boards. Like a 157 with waist of ~24. Mayve there's an universal formula broken with that ratio and a board with those specs wouldn't slide, but I'd like to try it .


----------



## Rogue

neni said:


> I have found not even one women's board narrow enough to suite the usual width advice of Wiredsport :dunno:
> Seems as if women's decks all are just wide.
> 
> I _did_ however feel a big difference from sizing down from super wide - for my feet- men's 158 decks to decently narrow women's boards. Each mm loss of width made a difference in how much effort I have to induce into turns. Life is so much easier with leverage on your side
> 
> Hope one day there will be slim but long n decently stiff boards. Like a 157 with waist of ~24. Mayve there's an universal formula broken with that ratio and a board with those specs wouldn't slide, but I'd like to try it .



Exactly, if I followed that advice I wouldn't be riding the NS Swift which has waist width of 25.7. I definitely noticed a difference riding my Jamie Lynn over my Ladies Choice (aside from very different profiles etc) it takes much more effort to maneuver. The term plank comes to mind at times lol Of course a more narrow deck will be beneficial but not necessarily over sacrificing for length.


----------



## Seppuccu

Welcome to the forums, and remember to focus on BOOTS NOT BOARDS first! 

I think neni and Rogue have pretty much nailed it when it comes to waist width. All of you who are religious about waist width ought to compare waist width of female boards to length of female feet. And then bulk some.  Or just lose a few, fatso.


----------



## Seppuccu

Oh, and about boots... Reasonably there *should* be some supply of female Burton boots left, so try to try some of their higher end stuff, like Felix or Ritual. They run pretty much true to size, so if you DO have perfect feet  a US size 6 *should* fit you. Should.


----------



## Tif

Sorry if this is a dumb question... but why do you need to buy boots before buying a board? There are great sales on boots, boards and bindings at the moment and I'd really like to take advantage of that. However, I'm currently struggling to find boots in my size so I'm willing to forfeit the discounted prices and wait for new stock to come in to get the right fitting boots. Does this mean I shouldn't buy board and bindings now despite knowing what length to go for?

Right now I'm heavily leaning toward getting the NS proto type 2 in 145cm, since the jess kimura is no longer available.


----------



## Seppuccu

Fair enough, buy bindings and board first. Just bear in mind that once you've finally found a pair of boots that fit your feet perfectly...they might not fit in your bindings. It's perhaps not super common, but it happens.


----------



## poutanen

What he means is: Don't scrimp on the boots to get a "fancy" board. Good boots and a cheap board are better than a good board and cheap boots any day.

I should say good fitting boots. Ultimately fit is THE most important aspect of boots. Try on as many pairs as you can. They should be very snug, with no sore points, and it's okay for your toes to touch the front when standing straight up, as long as they don't touch when you get into an athletic stance.

Good luck and enjoy


----------



## Tif

So I've decided to go with the NS proto type 2. According to Melbourne snowboards website, I sit smack bang in the middle of 145cm. But compared to all other board brands, this seems pretty long! Most other brands, I'd be on 142. Is it just a never summer thing to run longer? 

A couple of reasons for me to size down from the recommended length to 142cm I. The NS... Smaller waist width, Australian snow conditions and teal base (instead of the black in 145). 

What do you guys reckon? I've already got the 145 sitting at home. Should I keep it or exchange it?


----------



## jae

I'm looking at the ns catalog and they don't have a suggested weight on their boards. Get the 142 if you want to do park, 145 if you want to go fast. 142 if you want to focus on butters. If you ever want to go to japan or canada like aussies love doing, go 145. 


I like black bases for easy non ugly repairs.


----------



## Argo

lol, its 142 vs 145, that is 3cm and basically nothing. If it was 138 vs 147 that would be totally different. A narrower 145 will likely even have less float than a wider 142 due to basic math with surface area..... 

Dont over think it so much. If you over think anything, do it on the boot purchase.


----------



## Wiredsport

neni said:


> I have found not even one women's board narrow enough to suite the usual width advice of Wiredsport :dunno:
> Seems as if women's decks all are just wide.
> 
> I _did_ however feel a big difference from sizing down from super wide - for my feet- men's 158 decks to decently narrow women's boards. Each mm loss of width made a difference in how much effort I have to induce into turns. Life is so much easier with leverage on your side
> 
> Hope one day there will be slim but long n decently stiff boards. Like a 157 with waist of ~24. Mayve there's an universal formula broken with that ratio and a board with those specs wouldn't slide, but I'd like to try it .


Hi Neni,

You are absolutely right.

Burton
K2
Rome
Ride
Gnu
Salomon

Great brands. Number of Women's boards they produce above 155 cm? Zero.

Women looking for any board, regardless of width at longer lengths (especially in terms of contact length and effective edge, where it actually counts) have precious few choices. Small footed women have no correctly sized options in longer boards. Why? CASH. Retailers, and in turn brands, are petrified of longer women's boards. They are notoriously poor sellers and production has backed of to nearly non existent. They are gun shy of women's boards over 150 cm in general, but specialty women's boards give them fits.

You are also correct that small footed women are largely overlooked in more "normal" sized boards as well. Size 8 and up will have many options for a textbook fit. 7.5 gets tough. Below that, its a compromise. Small footed men (especially at heavier weights) are also almost entirely overlooked. But, they can at least find a good fit on a women's board. 

I completely get why advanced female riders who are looking for the benefits of longer effective edge and longer contact length have gone to the available options. If the ideal is not produced, look for the closest available. Find it, buy it, rip it. It still snows, even on an imperfect world .

STOKED!


----------



## neni

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Neni,
> 
> You are absolutely right.
> 
> Burton
> K2
> Rome
> Ride
> Gnu
> Salomon
> 
> Great brands. Number of Women's boards they produce above 155 cm? Zero.
> 
> Women looking for any board, regardless of width at longer lengths (especially in terms of contact length and effective edge, where it actually counts) have precious few choices. Small footed women have no correctly sized options in longer boards. Why? CASH. Retailers, and in turn brands, are petrified of longer women's boards. They are notoriously poor sellers and production has backed of to nearly non existent. They are gun shy of women's boards over 150 cm in general, but specialty women's boards give them fits.
> 
> You are also correct that small footed women are largely overlooked in more "normal" sized boards as well. Size 8 and up will have many options for a textbook fit. 7.5 gets tough. Below that, its a compromise. Small footed men (especially at heavier weights) are also almost entirely overlooked. But, they can at least find a good fit on a women's board.
> 
> I completely get why advanced female riders who are looking for the benefits of longer effective edge and longer contact length have gone to the available options. If the ideal is not produced, look for the closest available. Find it, buy it, rip it. It still snows, even on an imperfect world .
> 
> STOKED!


Small local brands _do_ produce that kind of boards over here, and they seem to sell in the small number they produce, so there's hope that more girls will chime in. 

On the local splitfest I had the opportunity to demo a Radical Snowflake split (http://www.radical-sports.com/produkt/snowflake/); 153cm with 23.7cm waist. _That's _ a decent edge length AND awesome leverage. Gosh, that board was fun to carve the hardpack we had that day. The solid they produce comes in 157cm with a 24.2 waist. 

This guy even goes a step further and even does his Zen women's board in 161. His girl's 156 has a ww of 23.9! (zensnow.com | Women?s Snowboard 156 board rides just _great_. 
If I check the brand I usually buy, Jones (because they produce women's boards of decent length and rather on the narrow side)? Their women's Flagship with an equally narrow waist would be a 148 :eyetwitch2: 148 is a toy, IMO. No decent edge length to work with and loss of stability at speed.

But... the price tag is a different story :dry: 

I made the compromise to size down to a women's 152 Flagship; step by step, from initially a men's Flag 158 to men's 154, and women's 156. That 152 with it's 24.1cm waist offers the best leverage I can get without having to get below the "toy-threshold". I miss every cm of lost length, but the gain in leverage outplays the disadvantages of length loss. Well... one day I'll get a Zen board. Right now, I'm still too happy with the Jones compromise to justify the 1300$ a _perfect_ length/width ratio would cost.


----------



## Wiredsport

Hi Neni,

I know that you know this but just for clarity, waist width is tricky because nothing happens at the waist. Width at the inserts that you use is the key.

On that snowflake (and not knowing the board) we could surmise from the 24.2 waist that the board would allow barefoot edge overhang at women's size 8.5 to 9 at normal stance angles. Not bad, but still a bit sad for those ladies below size 8.

It is astounding how small a foot size range all women's snowboards are designed for. Have a look at the total width range for women's boards from any of the major brands (including all sizes of all models). It is typically ~ 1 cm (one boot size) from the narrowest board to the widest board that they produce...and that 1 cm is focused largely to allow an ideal fit for foot sizes between sizes 8 and 9.

Even so, I am always very stoked to see smaller companies and custom builders that are making killer gear for women shredders.


----------



## Rogue

Women have far less options when it comes to gear and the fact that we are out there killing it on the options we have is a testament to our grit and ability to ride what we have. Be it "toy" sized decks as Neni likes to call 148s or beastly planks, we shred them all.


----------



## f00bar

I'm all for women to have options, except at 2am.

As for board size when you get over 150-2ish isn't it perhaps easier just to pick from the myriad of mens boards that start in that range?


----------



## Rogue

f00bar said:


> I'm all for women to have options, except at 2am.
> 
> As for board size when you get over 150-2ish isn't it perhaps easier just to pick from the myriad of mens boards that start in that range?


That increases width even more....

Ladies choice ww 151 is 244 men's riders choice is 251 as an example


----------



## f00bar

Rogue said:


> That increases width even more....
> 
> Ladies choice ww 151 is 244 men's riders choice is 251 as an example


But your options do open up to more than the RC. So while Gnu may not have one that fits the bill maybe some other brand does have a narrower mens that does. 

And you are talking about a .6cm, 1/10in on either side, so to say it wouldn't work across the board for women I'm not quite sure, though maybe not for you.

I just think sometimes the male/female board is a bit too defining. Based on size and skill there's some room to negotiate. I know we've had plenty of threads on guys wondering if a womens board is more for them.


----------



## neni

f00bar said:


> But your options do open up to more than the RC. So while Gnu may not have one that fits the bill maybe some other brand does have a narrower mens that does.
> 
> And you are talking about a .6cm, 1/10in on either side, so to say it wouldn't work across the board for women I'm not quite sure, though maybe not for you.
> 
> I just think sometimes the male/female board is a bit too defining. Based on size and skill there's some room to negotiate. I know we've had plenty of threads on guys wondering if a womens board is more for them.


What's your barefoot length in cm (no joke) and your current board?


----------



## Rogue

f00bar said:


> But your options do open up to more than the RC. So while Gnu may not have one that fits the bill maybe some other brand does have a narrower mens that does.
> 
> And you are talking about a .6cm, 1/10in on either side, so to say it wouldn't work across the board for women I'm not quite sure, though maybe not for you.
> 
> I just think sometimes the male/female board is a bit too defining. Based on size and skill there's some room to negotiate. I know we've had plenty of threads on guys wondering if a womens board is more for them.


I know you're trying to be helpful, but you're completely missing the point and iirc those threads primarily deal with men who have small feet for men's boards.


----------



## neni

f00bar said:


> I'm all for women to have options, except at 2am.
> 
> As for board size when you get over 150-2ish isn't it perhaps easier just to pick from the myriad of mens boards that start in that range?


Look at the stats 

When a guy comes to this board saying he's wearing a US 10 and looks for a wide board, everybody goes "nay, you don't need a wide, you just loose leverage!". Now... US 10 is about 28cm. (28cm!) Even wide boards will be more narrow at the waist than 28cm, not only by mm but by cm. Even a Mountain Twin 161w would be still be 2cm (!) more narrow. 

Now telling me I shall take a men's deck, say the MT, say 158 cos that's a length I like, with its waist of 25.8, that would be 1.5cm _wider_ than my feet are long. That's about as telling the US size 10 guy, nay, you don't need a wide, you need a XX wide of ~29.5cm waist...

(Yes, nothing happens at the waist, but since we lack insert measures...).


----------



## chomps1211

Rogue said:


> I know you're trying to be helpful, but you're completely missing the point and iirc those threads primarily deal with men who have small feet for men's boards.





neni said:


> Look at the stats
> 
> When a guy comes to this board saying he's wearing a US 10 and looks for a wide board, everybody goes "nay, you don't need a wide, you just loose leverage!". Now... US 10 is about 28cm. (28cm!) Even wide boards will be more narrow at the waist than 28cm, not only by mm but by cm. Even a Mountain Twin 161w would be still be 2cm (!) more narrow.
> 
> Now telling me I shall take a men's deck, say the MT, say 158 cos that's a length I like, with its waist of 25.8, that would be 1.5cm _wider_ than my feet are long. That's about as telling the US size 10 guy, nay, you don't need a wide, you need a XX wide of ~29.5cm waist...
> 
> (Yes, nothing happens at the waist, but since we lack insert measures...).


^This^

Come on fellas,...! :blink: Any woman could tell you that 1cm in width makes _*much*_ more difference than 1cm in length in matters of performance!! > :rofl3:


----------



## f00bar

chomps1211 said:


> ^This^
> 
> Come on fellas,...! :blink: Any woman could tell you that 1cm in width makes _*much*_ more difference than 1cm in length in matters of performance!! > :rofl3:


But the strange thing is they are insisting they don't want it.


----------

