# Gnu B-Nice or Roxy Ollie Pop



## Ocho (Mar 13, 2011)

I haven't ridden either but have a Gnu board with C2BTX. I like the pop the C2 provides with the BTX.

Both are Mervin, so you're good there. But I'm pretty sure the B-Nice is only BTX, whereas the Ollie Pop is C2BTX.

Depends on what your gf is looking for - if she's coming from a reg cambered board, she might like some pop.


----------



## lilfoot1598 (Mar 7, 2009)

I would go with the Ollie Pop, mainly because the 145 Gnu B-nice may be a tad long for her. 

Review here: Snowboard Review: 10-11 Roxy Ollie Pop C2 BTX – Shayboarder.com


----------



## Ca-Pow (Mar 27, 2010)

My wife loves her b- nice. Very forgiving.


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

lilfoot1598 said:


> I would go with the Ollie Pop, mainly because the 145 Gnu B-nice may be a tad long for her.
> 
> Review here: Snowboard Review: 10-11 Roxy Ollie Pop C2 BTX – Shayboarder.com


What size would you guys/gals recommend her? 
She currently rides a 145, should she go to 143?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

zeeden said:


> What size would you guys/gals recommend her?
> She currently rides a 145, should she go to 143?


Please let us know her foot size as well. 

Thanks!


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

She is a size 6.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

zeeden said:


> She is a size 6.


Got it. The 141 Ollie would be my top choice. The B Nice 145 (I am unaware of the 143 that you mentioned) is the same width at the inserts as the Ollie 141, but she does not require the extra 3 cm of contact length. The 145 Ollie is up to 23.9 at the waist and 24.7 at the center inserts which is overly wide for her small feet.


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

*141 Gnu B-Street*



Wiredsport said:


> Got it. The 141 Ollie would be my top choice. The B Nice 145 (I am unaware of the 143 that you mentioned) is the same width at the inserts as the Ollie 141, but she does not require the extra 3 cm of contact length. The 145 Ollie is up to 23.9 at the waist and 24.7 at the center inserts which is overly wide for her small feet.


141.. that changes things. We were set on getting a 145 ollie from a local shop here. They don't have a 141 ollie they also sold their 145 b nice. Although there is a Roxy Ally 143 and a Roxy Sugar 142 left.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

zeeden said:


> 141.. that changes things. We were set on getting a 145 ollie from a local shop here. They don't have a 141 ollie but there is another store with a 141 b-street. What do you think?
> 
> Thanks again


Hi Zeeden,

I wrote the following in response to another post here a few days ago, but it applies here as well:

*Length, which describes only the tip to tail length of a board is a truly useless measurement. The shape of the tip and tail can change length by up to 6 cm on board that have the identical running surface and effective edge. You will see this become even more evident in the upcoming season because flatter tips and tails are being used again on many shapes. Just blunting the tip and tail will shorten any given board by 3-4 cm without having any real impact on the way it rides.*

Have a look at the Gnu specs below. The 141 B Street has a running length of 108 cm (exactly the same as the B Nice 145 cm) but it 23.7 at the waist where the B Nice is only 23.4 (it is also still wider at the inserts where it counts). That is to say that the B-street 141 is actually a _bigger_ board than the B Nice 145. They are of course, designed for different types of riding as well.










Additionally width matters *a lot* for women with small feet. Keep in mind that a women's 6 is the same as a men's 5 shoe size (TINY). Her foot is only 23 cm long. These boards are all over 23 cm at the waist and are all over 24 at the inserts. That is not ideal (although for small footed riders there is no getting around it). It robs a rider of leverage and control if they are not at or over the edges. We need to try to keep the width as narrow as possible for this rider. That factor will have the greatest impact on her enjoyment.


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

I see what you are saying. I'll keep that formula in mind. Thanks again


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

zeeden said:


> I see what you are saying. I'll keep that formula in mind. Thanks again


If I haven't bored you yet, this might help as well:

*How wide of a snowboard do I need? Where is the width of a snowboard measured? What does width mean in terms of my boot size?

Let’s start by talking about measurements, because this is where a lot of the confusion arises. The most common width measurement that is provided by manufacturers is "waist". The waist is measured at the narrowest point near the middle of the board (usually). But like with all things in snowboarding, different brands measure different things. Some measure the midpoint between the tip and tail and call that "waist". Others simply provide a measurement they call, "width", but do not really specify what width they are referring to. 

If that has you a bit confused, don't worry, because regardless of where these "waist" measurements are taken, they are not very useful for what they are typically used for. Most people think that this measurement is a good indicator of what foot size a board will handle. It is not, and for a simple reason: you do not stand at the waist, you stand at the inserts. A board's waist measurement is always less than the measurement at the inserts and often the difference is significant. Additionally, two boards with the same waist dimension, may have very different measurements at the inserts, depending on each board's sidecut. Measurement at the center insert is a much better way to compare boards for shoe size compatibility, but for some odd reason, manufacturers do not publish this info.

OK, so now we have told you why we think the commonly provided measurements are pretty silly, but what good does that do you? You still need to know how to figure out the correct width for your new board. Well, here comes. There are two easy steps to getting it right every time. 

First, measure your bare foot. It is important that you do not try to use a boot size. It is also important that you measure in centimeters, because the board measurements that you will be comparing to will be in cm. Here is the method that we suggest:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters). 

Second, measure the board you are considering. This measurement is easy. It should be taken at the inserts. Try to measure at the inserts that you will be using to achieve your stance position. If you are unsure about this, simply measure at the center of the insert cluster (that will still be very close). Be sure to measure using the base of the board, not the deck. This is important because the sidewalls on many boards are angled in, and will therefore give you a smaller measurement on the deck than on the base. For our example's sake, let's say the measurement is 27.54 at the center insert.

Still with us? You are almost done. You now have a way to compare foot size to board width where it matters, but how do you interpret this info to get the correct width? Well that depends a little on stance angle. If you ride a 0 degree stance, you will want your foot size to be the same as the width of the board at the inserts or up to 1 cm greater. If you ride at an angled stance, you will want to measure the board across at the angles that you will be riding. Again, you will want your foot to at least match this measurement or exceed it by up to 1 cm. So using our example above, this guy has a foot 28.57 cm that exceeds the board with at the inserts 27.54 cm by 1.03 cm at a zero degree angle. But, when he angles his feet to the 15 degree angles that he rides, voila, he has .10 cm of overhang for a perfect fit.

But wait a second. Are we saying that you should have overhang, even with bare feet? Yes. You will need overhang to be able to apply leverage to your edges and to get the most out of your board. 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch of boot overhang for both toe and heel is ideal, and will not create problematic toe or heel drag. Remember that boots typically add 1/2 at both the toe and heel to your foot measurement from above, due to padding, insulation and the outer boot materials. We do not suggest using the boot length to size boards though, as the extra padding etc, cannot be used well to create leverage, that has to come from your foot itself. We highly recommend that riders do not choose boards where their feet do not come to or exceed the real board width.

OK, that's all well and good, but where can you get the information on board width at the inserts if the manufacturers don't provide it? That's easy. Email the store that carries the board(s) that you are considering. Give them your foot length in cm (and your stance width and angles if you know them). They will be able to provide you with the width at the inserts that you will be using and can factor in your stance angle as well to get you the exact overhang that you will have with bare feet.

PS:

Once mounted, the best way to test is to put your (tightly laced) boots into your bindings and strap them in tightly. It is important that you have the heel pulled all the way back into the bindings heel cup or the test won’t help. On a carpeted floor place your board flat on its base. Kneel behind the heelside edge and lift that edge so that it rests on your knees and so that the toeside edge is angled down into the carpet. Now press down with both hands using firm pressure, one hand on each of the boots. This will compress the board's sidecut and simulate a turn on hard snow. You can change the angle of the board on your knees to become progressively steeper and you will be able to see at what angle you will start getting toe drag. You will want to repeat the test for your heelside as well. If you are not getting drag at normal turn and landing angles, then you are good to go.

PPS:

Also a note about boots: Boot design plays a big role in toe drag as does binding ramping and binding base height. Boots that have a solid bevel at the toe/heel drag less. Many freestyle boots push for more surface contact and reduce bevel. This helps with contact, but if you have a lot of overhang with those boots it hurts in terms of toe drag.

Now go ride!*


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

My girlfriend has such small feet. I'm finding it hard to find a decent board with the guide posted above. Her bare feet are 23.5 cm. Since i cannot find an Ollie Pop size 141 with the width of 23.5 nor a 145 GNU b-nice. I found a comparable board from this seller, its a 143 Roxy Ally, the width is 23.7. 

Will it make much of a difference for her?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

At her size, I would suggest going with the narrowest option. Every mm counts when you are already in the _too small _zone.


----------



## cocolulu (Jan 21, 2011)

I've been eye'ing the Arbor Cadence for next year, and the 139 has a waist width of 232mm, and the 143 has a waist width of 234mm. Just a thought...


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

So last question, I promise. If I can't find a board now i'll wait next season to buy at regular price.

I found a Burton Feel good smalls for girls. its 137 in length and 23.4 cm in width OR A 141 and 23.5 cm in width.

I didn't want to have to go through the girls route because there may be different technology than women's boards.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

zeeden said:


> So last question, I promise. If I can't find a board now i'll wait next season to buy at regular price.
> 
> I found a Burton Feel good smalls for girls. its 137 in length and 23.4 cm in width OR A 141 and 23.5 cm in width.
> 
> I didn't want to have to go through the girls route because there may be different technology than women's boards.


The feelgood 137 will start dropping under her running surface / effective edge threshold. The 141 Ollie remains my top choice for her.


----------



## zeeden (Sep 29, 2008)

cocolulu said:


> I've been eye'ing the Arbor Cadence for next year, and the 139 has a waist width of 232mm, and the 143 has a waist width of 234mm. Just a thought...


Thanks, that would be a perfect size for her. I'll add it to the list.


----------



## lilfoot1598 (Mar 7, 2009)

Wired: For small-footed riders, I have found that torsional stiffness affects the way a board rides more than a small difference in waist width. I don't notice a small difference in waist width, but I immediately notice when I'm on a stiffer board. Soft waisted boards work very well in compensating for waists that are too wide. I wear a size 4 boot, so all boards are ridiculously wide for me.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

lilfoot1598 said:


> Wired: For small-footed riders, I have found that torsional stiffness affects the way a board rides more than a small difference in waist width. I don't notice a small difference in waist width, but I immediately notice when I'm on a stiffer board. Soft waisted boards work very well in compensating for waists that are too wide. I wear a size 4 boot, so all boards are ridiculously wide for me.


I feel for you lilfoot. This is one of those imperfect situations where we will not be able to hit the fit we would like exactly due to the products not being in production. While there are certainly other factors in play (such as having the correct stiffness for your individual weight), width is remains critical (although, as mentioned above, waist width means nothing). At 110 lbs this rider will have many options that have a good flex for her, but unfortunately, none that have the correct width.

A special note on waist widths and smaller boards: It is far more important on small boards to pay attention to the width at the inserts and not the waist. That is because sidecut transitions happen quickly on small boards (by that I mean that it is very common for them to have a bigger difference in width between the waist and inserts than on larger sizes). So, if the board has a deep sidecut, it may seem like a narrow option from the waist measurement, but end up quite wide at the inserts.


----------

