# Board advise for a tall guy



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

Depends on your riding style and snow conditions. 

For playing around, cruising on groomers or or going in the park, I think the 162 W would be fine, but if you are more into fast carving the 162 might be a bit short. It might also be a little short if you ride deep powder a lot. 

But if you are an intermediate level rider who likes to cruise around at medium instead of extreme speeds, and like to spin/butter etc probably a good length. Demo if you can.


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

Lamps said:


> Depends on your riding style and snow conditions.
> 
> For playing around, cruising on groomers or or going in the park, I think the 162 W would be fine, but if you are more into fast carving the 162 might be a bit short. It might also be a little short if you ride deep powder a lot.
> 
> But if you are an intermediate level rider who likes to cruise around at medium instead of extreme speeds, and like to spin/butter etc probably a good length. Demo if you can.


Well at this point I'm fairly sure you could call me intermediate, got a lot of catching up to do!
I like to do a little bit of everything, some cruising, jumping and some occasional powder.. I'm not the kind of guy who goes flying down the mountain at breakneck speeds, if that's what you wanted to know.. nor do I do any daredevil stuff in the parks which my life insurance company might frown upon!

Oh and last but not least, I got my weight wrong, I’m roughly 95kg which should translate to 210lbs and not 220!


----------



## Amplid::: (Jul 10, 2013)

Go bigger than 62W... that's a very small board for a man of your stature for all-mountain riding.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Amplid::: said:


> Go bigger than 62W... that's a very small board for a man of your stature for all-mountain riding.


I second this. I'm 105 kilos, 195cm, thats 230lbs and 6 feet something. With US13 foot size.

168W is the least you should look at. 162W is a freestyle board, not a all mountain. 

I got 4 board and the shortest one is 179cm. 
My softie is 180cm and this is soo much fun.


----------



## jml22 (Apr 10, 2012)

Status has some boards on clearance still


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

Thanks for all the replies guys.
A short update as well.. the store where I will buy my gear from has been able to get their hands on a 165cm version of the Burton Custom Wide 12/13 at a VERY reasonable price, 290€, I believe they retailed for almost 600€.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Dont be scared of a big board. You will throw it around like a small guy throws a 155. My fav boards are 180


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

ETM said:


> Dont be scared of a big board. You will throw it around like a small guy throws a 155. My fav boards are 180


Hey ETM, thanks for the advice.
I'm starting to get confused here, I remember that back when I first started it was all about getting a board somewhere between your shoulders and nose based on what you wanted to do with it.

Now when I read on Burtons site it seems to be all based on weight and not height... 

I even checked their board finder and it tells me that the 165cm board would be a great fit!


----------



## miplatt88 (May 13, 2013)

I am 6 5 and I ride a 157w... But then I only weigh 180 lol I am planning on getting a 
162w this year though.


----------



## Dago91 (Mar 13, 2013)

Everyone that I ride with here in CH says weight not height.

Im 6'4 195 size 13US and I ride a 161 or 162cm

It all depends on the type of riding you do but for all mountain at your specs I would not go any lower then 165cm


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Between shoulders and nose is a very rudimentary way to size boards and is quite often wrong.

That would put someone like me on something from a 147-160... Sure, I can ride boards in all those sizes, but I don't want an all mountain board in a 147 or a jib board in a 160.

For you be looking at 162-167 and wides.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

A 165 will work but being a big guy you have the luxury of being able to have a really long effective edge which means a lot of edge hold which = you riding faster with more stability. 
My shortest board is a 164 and it feels like a toy to me.


----------



## BigAL (Feb 19, 2013)

I'd also look into Nitro for their Magnum board, all mountain slayer with a super wide base. My board of choice for cruising around. IMO


----------



## Justin (Jun 2, 2010)

Im 6'6", 200lbs, i have owned boards from 158 to 167. Currently i ride a 160w for park and 163w for big lines and pow days and may downsize to a 162w. Its just personal preference. I have ridden deep out of bounds pow on a 158 flow era and was fine for the most part (some drops are hard to ride out on that size). I would say look for something in the lower 160s but that is my preference.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

ETM said:


> Dont be scared of a big board. You will throw it around like a small guy throws a 155. My fav boards are 180


This!



ETM said:


> A 165 will work but being a big guy you have the luxury of being able to have a really long effective edge which means a lot of edge hold which = you riding faster with more stability.
> My shortest board is a 164 and it feels like a toy to me.


And this!



ziggy said:


> Hey ETM, thanks for the advice.
> I'm starting to get confused here, I remember that back when I first started it was all about getting a board somewhere between your shoulders and nose based on what you wanted to do with it.
> 
> Now when I read on Burtons site it seems to be all based on weight and not height...
> ...


Indeed, the board are made to match a weight first. Kepping an eye on a riders height for sure, but you can find a 165cm board and a 180cm board that match your weight. And unless you're goind to do 360-540-720 rotations longer one will give you more stability(read as speed), float and more fun, if you can handle it. It's not hard at all.


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

Hey again guys.
Thanks once again for all the replies, some real cool info I didn't consider.

I ended up pulling the trigger on the Burton Custom 165w, Burton Mission EST bindings and a pair of DC Phase snowboard boots for only 475€, which to me was a pretty sweet deal!

I figured that at this price I can afford riding this board the upcoming season and worst case scenario if I feel it's too short or whatever buy another one next year!


----------



## Patto (Jul 14, 2013)

Hi guys, looks like I've come to the right place.
I am also a large chap who likes to ride zee mountain, have had enough of hiring and keen to grab my own kit.
I am 6'4 and 260 pounds, size 12 foot in US. I would say I'm an intermediate level rider, prefer to cruise down the mountain throwing in some big turns and hurling myself off the occasional kicker, nothing to fancy. I am wondering what board people would recommend I get?
Oh, last of all, most of my riding will be done in Australia now, so not loads of POW. However, I will still do the odd trip to Europe or Japan for some of the good stuff if that effects peoples suggestions!? :dunno:

Thanks in advance for your help and time folks!

edit - Here in oz things are pretty expensive. I found a deal through the states that had a 2013 burton bullet (wide) 164 for about $360 USD (postage included)


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Burton Bullet is a crap for a 260 lbs guy. 
My opinion is to go with a custom board to match your weight, or with a long, stiff freeride board, something 170. Prior, Donek. Or at least some Lib tech Skunk Ape. 
But looks like people tends to ride some smaller boards, as I get from this forum without any specific reason.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Patto said:


> Hi guys, looks like I've come to the right place.
> I am also a large chap who likes to ride zee mountain, have had enough of hiring and keen to grab my own kit.
> I am 6'4 and 260 pounds, size 12 foot in US. I would say I'm an intermediate level rider, prefer to cruise down the mountain throwing in some big turns and hurling myself off the occasional kicker, nothing to fancy. I am wondering what board people would recommend I get?
> Oh, last of all, most of my riding will be done in Australia now, so not loads of POW. However, I will still do the odd trip to Europe or Japan for some of the good stuff if that effects peoples suggestions!? :dunno:
> ...


Oz-japan = 2 different boards if you can afford it, and if you can afford japan you can afford a japan board ;-) Its sooooo worth it. Birdman 170 or 180 for japan.

As for oz anything 164 and up will do, look for long effective edge and camber or cam/rock/cam.
Get your boards out of the states now while they are cheap.

Also I have a 2XL goretex oakley jacket brand new if any of you lurches want it AU$250


----------



## BigAL (Feb 19, 2013)

Patto said:


> Hi guys, looks like I've come to the right place.
> I am also a large chap who likes to ride zee mountain, have had enough of hiring and keen to grab my own kit.
> I am 6'4 and 260 pounds, size 12 foot in US. I would say I'm an intermediate level rider, prefer to cruise down the mountain throwing in some big turns and hurling myself off the occasional kicker, nothing to fancy. I am wondering what board people would recommend I get?
> Oh, last of all, most of my riding will be done in Australia now, so not loads of POW. However, I will still do the odd trip to Europe or Japan for some of the good stuff if that effects peoples suggestions!? :dunno:
> ...


I'm a big dude as well, but a park oriented type. So IMO I'd recommend the following boards that I also use.

Lib tech as mentioned
Nitro Magnum
GNU Riders Choice


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

TLN said:


> But looks like people tends to ride some smaller boards, as I get from this forum without any specific reason.


No kidding eh?:icon_scratch: I think the wolfman & his 36,000 posts brainwashed that into people

Short boards are good for when you're a beginner &/or park rats.

Damn, chimed in too late.
I woulda said go bigger to. Oh well, I'm sure you'll love it:thumbsup:


TT


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

timmytard said:


> No kidding eh?:icon_scratch: I think the wolfman & his 36,000 posts brainwashed that into people


I'm not an everyday visitor here, haven't seen any of 36k posts here 
But mostly in every topic I see here people asking something:
-What board should I get if I'm a 200+ lbs guy and gonna cruise all the mountain. Just a bit of a tricks, but prefer some carves.
And then people saying something like: 
-Get a 159 board, that's so much fun!
-No, better get a 155 board. 
-I'm riding my GF's 150 board while I'm 240lbs and I'm fine. 
-Hybrid-fkin rocker do everything for you, get a 10cm smaller then usual.
-I got a 162cm board. I give a 165 board a try and it SOOO MUCH differecece, it is not that maneuverable
-Modern tech and rockers will give you're a ton of a float in pow and so on... 

Or kinda like that.
Yep, may be I'm reading wrong topics, or something, but I definitely see a tendency here. 

Check out NS size chart on EVO: Click me!

The longest Raptor in it's Wide X version says: 169 for up to 220 lbs. 
Same for longest Heritage X: 220 lbs. 
Longest board in a NS range: Legacy 174 says 190-240lbs and more. 
BTW: I owned a Legacy-R for 4 seasons. Yep, it's not stiff at all for 230 lbs. 

We do all understand that board works better for weight in middle of the range?

And then see what are the advises? Burton 164 Wide on a web site says: 164W is for guys up to 210lbs. 

Cannot get why do all the people tend to advise such a short boards that are definitely out of range? Well, that's really interesting not only to me, but to some more people on a local boards.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

TLN said:


> Cannot get why do all the people tend to advise such a short boards that are definitely out of range? Well, that's really interesting not only to me, but to some more people on a local boards.


I'm 120lbs and ride a 158 and am happy with it. Yes, I have a smaller one but only cause the biggest size of the model was "only" 153 and I liked it a lot for riding moguls. Don't like smaller boards, they don't have the stability, float, edge.The guys I'm riding with all have boards around 164 and are around 190lbs. Could be a regional thing :dunno:


----------



## stan_darsh (Mar 10, 2013)

i think it depends on where you ride too... here in NM, a lot of trails are narrow, and smaller boards provide good maneuverability. if i was somewhere where i could go wide as fuck on turns and not worry, my biggest deck would be more than a 158 as it is now...


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, I'm 215 and I just went from a 164w to a 158, and I have a hard time looking at this photo and believing that I'm too big for it.


----------



## Justin (Jun 2, 2010)

TLN said:


> I'm not an everyday visitor here, haven't seen any of 36k posts here
> But mostly in every topic I see here people asking something:
> -What board should I get if I'm a 200+ lbs guy and gonna cruise all the mountain. Just a bit of a tricks, but prefer some carves.
> And then people saying something like:
> ...



Not to be confrontational but have you spent much time on a smaller board, or do you ride in a way or place that a smaller board would make sense? If someone doesn't always ride pow or doesn't spend the whole day laying down euro carves then why ride a huge deck? 

Get a deck in the size that will do the things that you want to do best and is adequate in the other aspects that you don't enjoy as much. I like to ride switch alot, there are times that i am in terrain or a day here and there where i don't ride a big portion of the day switch, but i still ride twins and not swallow tails because the vast majority of the time it makes sense for the way i want to ride. There are a couple times a year that a swallow tail or larger board would make sense but i can still ride my boards in those conditions no problem the 5% of the year that i ride in those conditions.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Well, I'm not saying about bit pow or sometyhing. 

For example, The Deacon saying he's riding NS SL (As I can see) in 158 being 215lbs and about to get even shorter. I posted a link to NS chart on evo com, and SL 158 rated there for 125-175lbs. Difference is 40lbs, and we all know, that typically board works better when riders weight is in the middle of recommended range(So difference in that case gets closer to 50-60 lbs) And I do believe that manufacturers know what they're doing, and their charts are pretty much correct. 

I know it won't be a problem riding a board smaller then you need, but why so many people do that? And why do all people advise newbies to get the board with suggested range below their weight?


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

It has definately become mainstream to ride shorter and shorter boards but there is no right or wrong answer. My personal theory is to ride as big as I can handle, some ride as small as they can get away with

park rats, tricksters and noobs = short boards
carvers, speed demons and powder junkies = big boards

We all fit in here somewhere, you just have to find what works for you, everyone has a different happy place. Experimentation is key.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

TLN said:


> Well, I'm not saying about bit pow or sometyhing.
> 
> For example, The Deacon saying he's riding NS SL (As I can see) in 158 being 215lbs and about to get even shorter. I posted a link to NS chart on evo com, and SL 158 rated there for 125-175lbs. Difference is 40lbs, and we all know, that typically board works better when riders weight is in the middle of recommended range(So difference in that case gets closer to 50-60 lbs) And I do believe that manufacturers know what they're doing, and their charts are pretty much correct.
> 
> I know it won't be a problem riding a board smaller then you need, but why so many people do that? And why do all people advise newbies to get the board with suggested range below their weight?


NS does not have a size chart. The one you are referring to was dreamed up by Evo, but is by no means 'official' or based on NS input - in fact, NS actively discourages the use of size chart.
We have been over this many times on this forum.


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

ETM said:


> It has definately become mainstream to ride shorter and shorter boards but there is no right or wrong answer. My personal theory is to ride as big as I can handle, some ride as small as they can get away with
> 
> park rats, tricksters and noobs = short boards
> carvers, speed demons and powder junkies = big boards
> ...


I agree with this, I weigh 185 and ride a 158 unless there is deep snow. I don't really charge, prefer to cruise and mess around on the hill so my non powder board is one where I'm top of the weight range. 

If the OP has similar style then he could go 162W I think. 

Boards are getting a bit shorter as some mfrs such as burton are changing the core to allow this.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

What about Burton? Link is in my post  Burton has the official specs and ranges.
Bullet 164W stands for 210 lbs maxx (170-210, say 190 average?) and people advice it to 260 lbs guy? Maybe Custom X at it max length?


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

This is one of the more interesting discussions on here recently.

I agree with ETM. You just need to find the right board length and type of board for your riding. That will take experimentation and your needs will probably change with time and where you ride. 

I weigh 175 and stand 6ft and half an inch. I have a light athletic build.

I personally started out on a 165 heavily cambered very stiff atomic dream raider. It carved better than any other board I have owned and it was pretty good in open powder fields too. Its still in my board rack and I have been thinking about giving it a blast this next year. Just that explosion out of the carve and into the next:thumbsup:.

I went down to 161 and stayed with posi camber which was a good move for me, just gave me more ability to play around and start freestyling more as well as much tighter turns in the trees where I spend a lot of my time.

Now I mostly ride 157-158 hybrid camber boards and find they have helped me take my freestyle to another level, but still give me solid carving ability (though not as good as before) and are fine in powder up to 30cm or so.

I have a 161 for deeper powder days and that works well for me. I could easily ride a much bigger deck depending on the terrain, but I ride lots of tight trees and like to stay nimble.

I like to carve, but I want to freestyle a lot too so I have found the sizes that I prefer and the type of flex and profile I like.

I will keep experimenting and hope to try a Burton raduction deck this next season in a 152 or so, they say it floats:dunno:.

These days even some long decks (Birdman) have a much more nimble shorter effective edge with a long rockered nose that only comes into play in powder. Seems like a great solution to get great float and keep that agile responsive feel for tighter turns.

If I am not mistaken that is also how your boards work ETM?

If so what is the effective edge on your 180 and what length of say burton custom would be equivalent?

Its like you added on a powder nose that stays off the snow on hardpack right?

The only reason I am not running a birdman or something like that is because I am really enjoying spins (360 but working on 5s) into powder at the moment. 

I like to stay smaller to land switch and also to get the board around quicker.

I made my own swallowtail last year and it came out sweet, I love how it rides regular, but I also discovered how much I enjoy riding switch and so I only took it out once last year.

Most days I ride 30% or more switch and just don't want to give up that option for a whole day. Maye half a day pow session is OK.

Lets not turn this into a longer board user Vs shorter board user argument. Everyone has different priorities.

I certainly recommend to try lots of different stuff and feel out your own sweet spot.


----------



## Patto (Jul 14, 2013)

some great responses here people. i would be lying if i said its given me much clarity on the original question but i feel much more informed about my options and they stuff i need to be thinking about! thanks very much for all your input and time :thumbsup:


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

The 180 swallowtails i built had an effective edge of 1360mm. This was the same as my burton supermodel 172. Edge hold is beyond incredible.
The 180 birdman has an effective edge of 1220mm and has noticably less edge hold. 
Effective edge length makes a huge difference as far as stability and carving performance goes.

I just started drawing up some new shapes tonight actually. This year I am experimenting with large and multiple radius side cuts.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Dreampow. When you say the shorter effective edge is nimble and agile I believe those are traits of a small side cut radius. Shorter effective edge just gives less traction.


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

Lots of good info for all us tall people looking for a board.
Can't wait to try my relatively short board a try, but I guess it's still a bit early for that!

Personally I made my choice based on the following factors:
Since I have been inactive for so long, I thought it might be nice with a reasonably agile board.
Secondly I didn't want to spend extremely much, yet I wanted a quality board so I bought it now during the summer sales, obviously the availability is limited so you end up getting the best match under the circumstances.

Considering what I've read here, the results I got on the burton board finder etc. I feel I could've done a lot worse than a 12/13 Burton Custom 165w! 

This way I feel I've got a good enough board to progress and get back to where I left off, yet I didn't spend so much that I'll feel guilty should I want to upgrade later on to a taller/different board!


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

ETM said:


> Dreampow. When you say the shorter effective edge is nimble and agile I believe those are traits of a small side cut radius. Shorter effective edge just gives less traction.


Interesting. Tell me more. 

I personally think of it (perhaps incorrectly) like the length of the wheelbase in a car. A car with the front wheels and back wheels closer together will be quicker to turn and turn tighter than a car with a long distance between the two. In this case our front and back contact points. 

Though thats not the only factor it seems to be important in how nimble the board is or is not.

Maybe thats clearer than my comments on effective edge, perhaps I should have said distance between the contact points.

Of course the shape of the side cut is important too, would like to hear your breakdown on that.

Since I can't ride my boards right now at least I can learn more about them:thumbsup:.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

dreampow said:


> Interesting. Tell me more.
> 
> I personally think of it (perhaps incorrectly) like the length of the wheelbase in a car. A car with the front wheels and back wheels closer together will be quicker to turn and turn tighter than a car with a long distance between the two. In this case our front and back contact points.
> 
> ...


Sounds logical to me, but only half the math. Two boards with the same distance between contact points, but one has a longer effective edge would have a deeper sidecut, which should help it turn sharper. There's so many vaiables, which is why it's SO challenging to objectively compare boards. That's why the only REAL way to know is to ride them. (because obviously even boards with identical geometry will perform differently for different people). I guess that's why there's a new "help me pick a board" thread every few hours. :laugh:


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

TLN said:


> What about Burton? Link is in my post  Burton has the official specs and ranges.
> Bullet 164W stands for 210 lbs maxx (170-210, say 190 average?) and people advice it to 260 lbs guy? Maybe Custom X at it max length?


Original poster corrected his first post, says he weighs 210. I checked the burton site before replying in my recommendation hat he could do 162 depending on his riding style. 

He should of course demo first as that's the best way. 

I think that if you are not a hard core, aggressive carver, nor riding deep powder you can be 10-20 lbs heavier than the burton specs and be plenty happy, a shorter board will turn and spin easily, and as long as you don't really hammer down the hill you'll probably never feel the instability of the board being a bit small. 

If the OP is going to be bombing at 50 mph then he should be in the bottom end of the range but if he's cruising blues and mellower blacks at 25-30 mph the shorter board will be stable and good for messing around. 

Riding style is key.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

dreampow said:


> Interesting. Tell me more.
> 
> I personally think of it (perhaps incorrectly) like the length of the wheelbase in a car. A car with the front wheels and back wheels closer together will be quicker to turn and turn tighter than a car with a long distance between the two. In this case our front and back contact points.
> 
> ...


Im at work so this is a quick answer. IMO what you said is true if you are doing a skidded turn. If you have an edge in its all about sidecut.


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

I'll be looking forward to your in depth reply. 

I am certainly in agreement that the nature of the side cut is a very important factor. I would genuinely like to learn more about side cuts and how they affect performance.

I also think the distance between the front and back contact points is important even when on edge (carving). 

For example my 165 atomic has the deepest sidecut of all my boards. Maybe even the thinnest waist although I would need to double check. 

I know for sure it also has the biggest turning circle of all my decks even though the 161 Volkl has a shallower sidecut and wider waist.

Surely these two factors combine?

Also the profile must surely influence the turning ability/radius a lot.

I didn't know you worked in the winter down there, I thought you were hauled up in your truck in the mountains waiting for the next snowfall.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Friday could be 100cm storm. Ill be there


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Lamps said:


> Original poster corrected his first post, says he weighs 210. I checked the burton site before replying in my recommendation hat he could do 162 depending on his riding style.
> 
> He should of course demo first as that's the best way.
> 
> ...


100% true. 10-20lbs over charts won't be a problem at all, but what about 40-50-60 lbs? 
Usually what I see people advise some 158 board with a specs like 125-175 for a guy over 220 pounds, saying: it'd be better in park and freestyle. Now Imagine 220+ lbs newbie doing freestyle )))



ETM said:


> Dreampow. When you say the shorter effective edge is nimble and agile I believe those are traits of a small side cut radius. Shorter effective edge just gives less traction.


People say (about alpine boards, but this works for evetyrthing), that flex is the main thing here. You can put a board with 18-20m radius in a 4m arch in carved turn.

Here's the idea on this. I wanted to post it yesterday, but decided to read more posts. 
May be people getting boards waaay shorter they need because of a lack of a skill? I mean how to do a proper carved turn? 
When you know how to push a board in a turn, you won't like staying out of the weight range. 
Again, for non-skilled riders, their weight is like a brute force for a small boards: they make it turn whatever they want, and when using appropriate riders get some force from a board, and it's not turning that quick. 
Skills I'm talking is ability to push a board into a carved turn, not your ability to do 540s


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

TLN said:


> 100% true. 10-20lbs over charts won't be a problem at all, but what about 40-50-60 lbs?
> Usually what I see people advise some 158 board with a specs like 125-175 for a guy over 220 pounds, saying: it'd be better in park and freestyle. Now Imagine 220+ lbs newbie doing freestyle )))
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that 50 lbs over spec will be way too much barring park use. 

I know that the Burton Nug has a much longer ie stiffer core in it to allow the rider to take 10 cms off, core stiffness is important in matching board to weight. 

I also think that there are a lot of riders who have a bit of a golf mentality, they fail to take the extra club, they take the seven iron and hit a wide shot when they should hit the six iron, knowing their limits. 

How many guys do you see out there laying down high speed carves, taking their burton custom X (for example) to its real performance envelope. I see a few, but I see many guys riding who don't go that fast, have ok technique but not great and I bet if you took 5 cms off their boards they would ride better.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

I got an idea of how i see this. (I'm not a golf player, hehe)

It's like playing a computer game on different difficulty levels:
-You can take a newbie level if you're child, and all the monsters will be easy to kill, fun to play, you can do many mistakes and still be fine. You can play, and have fun, not even turnin your brain on. You're get less experience and less stuff from monsters when playing this difficulty.
-Default is normal: you better think on what you're doing. Need to spend some time thinking, but you will get more satiscation when doing it all right. And you still can have fun, once you'll have some more experience. 
-And the true hardcore level: You gotta be concentrated on doing the right things, be fast and smart, because anyone can kill you with a hit. No hints, tips or tricks, everything is for real. Playing this level you get twice as much in-game experiece and many interesting stuff. But when you get your result and like it - you feel that time is really well spend. 

You can put here every modern game: WarCraft, StarCraft, CallOfDuty, NeedForSpeed, CS GO, Diablo III, or whatever. Same for snowboarding. 



Lamps said:


> I see many guys riding who don't go that fast, have ok technique but not great and I bet if you took 5 cms off their boards they would ride better.


Or they can improve their technique and then handle their boards like it's 10cm shorter, easy to turn, but 10cm longer on a high-speed carves. It's like chosing an easy level or nightmare when it was default


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

TLN said:


> May be people getting boards waaay shorter they need because of a lack of a skill? I mean how to do a proper carved turn?
> When you know how to push a board in a turn, you won't like staying out of the weight range.
> Again, for non-skilled riders, their weight is like a brute force for a small boards: they make it turn whatever they want, and when using appropriate riders get some force from a board, and it's not turning that quick.
> Skills I'm talking is ability to push a board into a carved turn, not your ability to do 540s


I agree that being way over (30~50 lbs) the weight range is not very smart unless its a pure park board. 


Ziggy went with a board that according to the charts (which as has been mentioned are not the be all and end all) is bang on the upper limit for his weight. No problemo. In fact a good choice as he said himself speed is not his gig.

As it happens I personally land within the "allowed" weight range for all the boards I own and for the longer freeride decks I am plum in the middle of the range. 

Thing is you seem to be *assuming* that people who ride shorter boards are not good riders and *cannot carve properly*, at least thats the way you posts come across.

My riding buddy formerly took 2nd place in the all Japan carving event (judged on speed and style). He weighs about 160 and rides a 156 or 153 Yonex. 
Hardly a long board nor a specialty carving deck, a regular shape. He can flatten his body to the snow in a eurocarve with a duck stance.

He is teaching me at the moment, but the point is you don't need a super long deck to master carving.

As it happens I do enjoy high speed carving and find a 157 ample though my 161 decks are better in that department.

You and other bigger dudes can give much needed input on these threads and I agree people shouldn't be afraid of bigger decks. 

But we don't need the attitude of "you ride shorter decks because your technique is not good enough". If you are going to post stuff like that at least we need to see a video of your amazing carving skillz.

Let people ride what they want to ride.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Additional to the weight, riding style and skill level you already mentioned, I’d say, one has to add other variable: what you’re used to ride

Some size calculators spit out that the appropriate size for my weight would be something around 148 (that’s also the size, most demo tent dudes want to give me). But I’m used to rather long/stiff boards, and I don’t have the skill level to rapidly adapt to extremely different (smaller) boards. That’s what I observed last season, when I was trying many different boards and sizes. 

(Some examples: Volkl Coal 168: turn initiation if slow was rather hard, but the faster the easier and I was able to carve with it; exhausting but rewarding. Carving a Raptor 164 was easy and fun. Even if both of these boards are bigger than the Flagship, I found them easier to carve. With the Flagship 158 I can do deep carves IF I concentrate and use all my force . Whereas on the Ride Farah 153, I have to reduce the amount of force significantly, but it still works. But on a NS Raven 146 demo I was totally lost. The board slipped away in every turn I wanted to do, I completely failed to adapt to this board :blink
There were others, always with the same impression. Those below 153 made me feel like I have to ride like a different person. The huge ones were a bit bulky and harder to turn, but manageable. Everything around 155-158 was good. 

I rather take a board that’s on the upper range of what would fit my weight and surely don't ride it as well as someone with more weight but have the challenge to learn to push it even harder, than to stay on a smaller board and end up cruising, cause the board doesn’t hold :dunno:


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

dreampow said:


> I agree that being way over (30~50 lbs) the weight range is not very smart unless its a pure park board.
> 
> 
> Ziggy went with a board that according to the charts (which as has been mentioned are not the be all and end all) is bang on the upper limit for his weight. No problemo. In fact a good choice as he said himself speed is not his gig.
> ...




I dont think TLN is trying to talk down to anyone.
There is some truth in what he says, but again it comes down to what makes the individual rider happy.
Some of the aspects of board design that appeal to you could be my worst nightmare.
Short effective edge, raised contact points eg.rocker and the likes are, in a way like taking an f1 racing car and specing bad suspension and poor tyres so the car slips and slides all over the place. To me this is not nimble or agile but loose and sloppy.

Horses for courses again.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

I would like to end this thread by saying I can scientifically prove that I have more fun on my 180's than you guys have on your 156's 

I just cant be bothered posting the proof right now.:laugh:


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

I'd still like to hear more on side cuts.

The board that I ride the most at the moment is a 157 and has an effective edge of 1250 that would appear to be the equivalent of most 160 or 161 decks because of the blunted tips. It wouldn't appear to be a small effective edge for my weight range.

The sidecut raduis is 7.35. 

I honestly don't know what that means. I know how it feels when I ride, but any chance of you dropping some tech talk on side cut radius?


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Short radius sidecuts are hooky and something that a rider like yourself will enjoy. I have found myself wanting a bigger arc in my high speed turns so i am building boards with 12, 14, 16 and 18m radii to find my own sweet spot. 
Instead of having to smear the turn at high speed like I do on my 9m radius board I should be carving. The trade off is I will have to smear my turns at slower speeds and when i need to turn sharply, this is how I ride through the trees in powder anyway so the way i see it I shouldnt lose any performance in the trees but I can gain euro carver status on the piste. Now where did I put my onesy lol


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

dreampow said:


> Ziggy went with a board that according to the charts (which as has been mentioned are not the be all and end all) is bang on the upper limit for his weight. No problemo. In fact a good choice as he said himself speed is not his gig.


I guess the point is, I went with a safe choice which couldn't really backfire for now.
I'm sure that by the end of the upcoming season I'll be able to make a way more educated decision on the length/type of board I want, based on my experience on the board I just bought!


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

I'll say that I feel confident that dropping from a 64w to a regular 58 and updating the tech 7 years means I won't be losing much in terms of at speed stability.

Oh yeah, and I'm on a diet anyway so quit calling me fat. :laugh:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

The Deacon said:


> Oh yeah, and I'm on a diet anyway so quit calling me fat. :laugh:


:laugh: 
Just to say... being slim isn't gold as well. I'm always cold, continuously starving. Eat as much as any 200lbs guy, got energy bars stored in the handbag/car/stable/office/backpack... I'd prefer to have some buffer :laugh:


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Well, at first I wanna say that I didn't want to offend anyone here. Sorry, if I did. 
English is not my native language, and it's far from perfect when it comes to details. 



dreampow said:


> Thing is you seem to be *assuming* that people who ride shorter boards are not good riders and *cannot carve properly*, at least thats the way you posts come across.


I can assume, that people who can carve bell get benefits from both sides: same maneuverability as you get with shorter boards and more stability on a higher speeds. 
When I started looking into carved turns I realized that I can go faster, and feel safer on a high speed. This made me more confidents when riding trees and tight places. 
Hope you get the idea.

I did not offend anyone?



dreampow said:


> You and other bigger dudes can give much needed input on these threads and I agree people shouldn't be afraid of bigger decks.
> 
> But we don't need the attitude of "you ride shorter decks because your technique is not good enough". If you are going to post stuff like that at least we need to see a video of your amazing carving skillz.


Yep, that is pretty what I want to say. Longer boards is fun, and really worth trying. 
I decided to post some shots, so you can check out carving skillz. Not pretending to be a super-carver though. You can even decide not even to read my posts afer 



dreampow said:


> I'd still like to hear more on side cuts.


typically: 
small sidecut: less effort to turn. Board wants to go tight turns. Less stability on speed.
bid sidecut: require more effort to turn. Boards wants to go big turns, and requite skills to make it tight. Stable on a high speeds.


Some photos and videos from the different side of a globe. 
This is waht you think of Kazachstan? :laugh:









Typical winter in where I live[season 2012-13]: 


Riding 180 cm Donek [season 2012-13]: 
  

Some carving skills[season 2012-13]: 

   

I've prepared about 20 photos, to show, got some crazy gear shots here, and some carving progress of my ass. Let me know if this is appropriate in this topic. 

Forum says: "You have included 11 images in your message. You are limited to using 10 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again." Gonna post it after someone make a post after mine. If you don't mind for sure.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Powder [12-13 seaso]:



March 2011, got some shots from a new camera ad a lens 
.

You can see how much the boards bends when you press it harder.


January 2011. I'm "jibbing" on Legacy174, and Ivan shreds on his Dupraz D1 178. 



Trying to carve on a seep powder, 2011 January.:


Carving on 174cm Legacy in March 2011:


I also was on a "races". It was a simple a slalom course just for fun. Check out the bindings. Small boys *8-10yrs spend a 4-5 mins spinning the nusts on a binders before ride. 



2Mods: Feel free to drop all the photos, or move it to appropriate topics.

And I can got to sleep now. Its' 1AM something here.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

@TLN: thanks for the pics (I'll never claim again that I'm carving :blush:)

BTW, only thing I knew about Kasachstan was that you breed some of the most beautiful horses (also hard to get here )


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Hope you like it ) 

Well, that laid-down shots on top are some cheating... It's an alpine board.  
But the rest shots are softies, bet all are duck stance. 

Yep we have some horses, check out 1st photo in prevous post. 
I'd like to tell more about Kazachstan, as people thind this is a desert and terrorists. We do have some stuff, that can be intered for some of you: like travelling, backountry and many more, but this is offtopic in a thread.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Dude can carve ^^^^^

Getting these fundamental basics of snowboarding to such a high level is something I think a lot of riders fail to master. They are popping 540 in the park but doing skidded turns all over the mountain. This results in some niche skills but doesnt make them a gun rider IMO even though you know they think they are due to the technical nature of the tricks they can do.

Johnny standard these days just wants to do tricks and the way board designs as a whole have gone reflects that.


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

TLN said:


> Hope you like it )
> 
> Well, that laid-down shots on top are some cheating... It's an alpine board.
> But the rest shots are softies, bet all are duck stance.
> ...


Good skillz:eusa_clap:.

Now I know you are worth listening to. 

For a second language your English is excellent too:thumbsup:.

I wasn't offended and I think I understand what you are saying, just comes off better when you focus on recommending longer decks rather than implying that shorter decks are for inferior riders. 

As I mentioned with my buddy who took second place in all Japan carving event, such is not the case. He can do what you do on your alpine on a softie (and a short deck).

I am taking lessons from him and working to improve my carving just as much as I want to improve my freestyle.

I am certainly open to try a board with a much bigger side radius, perhaps I will get the chance this winter. 

The way I see it we are all stoked to ride and that is some pretty good common ground, though we all have different preferences its good to keep the big picture.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

ETM said:


> Dude can carve ^^^^^
> 
> Getting these fundamental basics of snowboarding to such a high level is something I think a lot of riders fail to master. They are popping 540 in the park but doing skidded turns all over the mountain. This results in some niche skills but doesnt make them a gun rider IMO even though you know they think they are due to the technical nature of the tricks they can do.
> 
> Johnny standard these days just wants to do tricks and the way board designs as a whole have gone reflects that.


You nailed it. I used to be able to do the odd 540, but I haven't even tried one in years.

Sometimes when I'm solo, I'll scope out a dude or two & see if they'll come with me into my new favorite area "Danger Permanently Closed"

I tell them it's pretty gnarly in there, most of them say yes.
Until we get there I've yet to have any takers.

Except one chick from france, with only 3 years under her belt:bowdown:
Mind you, she did say she used to ride with Victor Delarue


TT


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

dreampow said:


> I wasn't offended and I think I understand what you are saying, just comes off better when you focus on recommending longer decks rather than implying that shorter decks are for inferior riders.
> 
> As I mentioned with my buddy who took second place in all Japan carving event, such is not the case. He can do what you do on your alpine on a softie (and a short deck).


Well, you right. Actually, I've advised to use the charts from manufacturers, and they're typically say 168 for a 220 lbs. Smaller lengths for a part rats, but 1st year rider with 100 kilos is far from usual park guy 

I'm quite curious about euro-style laid turns on a softie. Can you post a video - this will be really cool! There's quite big carving community, and sofitie question is really interesting for many people
Softie euro style linked turns videos are quite rare. I've see some interesting videos from Japan and Korea, but with alpine board.
This march was posted a video with a guy doing lined turns on a softie. Other that that I don't remember any.

Here's the video:




Some "Specs": 2012 lib tech travis rice pro, 51/45 angles, 61 kilos(135 lbs)
Video dated march 2013, and guy is saying, he started snowboarding in february 2012(!!)

And here's a video what are alpine boards capable of:


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

Nice vids TLN.

I don't have any footage of my buddy, but I absolutely promise to get some this year. Watch this space.

He competed and took 2nd several times in the all Japan carving more than 10 years back and doesn't have any of the footage. He also took 3rd in the all Japan pipe, but that was further back still. A 10 year full pro rider for Yonex and then worked for 10 years as a coach with the Yonex pro team. 

Now he owns a board shop in Kyoto and we do some guide tour work together (I am just helping out really).

What he can do with a softie is very impressive.

Here is the link to his shop and it has a few shots of him (no carving all air) on the front page although the writing is in Japanese.

WELCOME NUPLI

Here is another video of some Japanese pros with some very solid carving, all on shorter decks with duck stances. A few shots show some body flat to snow carves, not quite as flat as the alpine dudes, but still I would rather be able to do what they do on a softie than ride alpine any day. 






Each to their own.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Japanese are generally small dudes though so it means little in the context of this thread. If you were to check his kg to effective edge length ratio it is probably higher than someone like myself on a big deck.

To revert to a car anology (again lol) a certain tyre might provide sufficient traction for a light car but be totally useless for a heavier car.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

I just did the math on myself and my "big" board. 105kg /136cm = 0.77kg/cm ratio.
Run the numbers and see what you guys get.


----------



## Deacon (Mar 2, 2013)

ETM said:


> I just did the math on myself and my "big" board. 105kg /136cm = 0.77kg/cm ratio.
> Run the numbers and see what you guys get.


97.5kg/123 cm = .79kg/cm

not much different.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Ok, let's do some math:

1. Alpine Prior 4WD 179:
105/152=0.69
2. Donek Incline 180: 
I got no specs, neither got a manufacturer, but if i do the math right it have around 146:
105/146=0.71
2. Legacy-R 174:
105/136=0.77

Obliviously, this numbers, won't make much sense, because 
-different stiffness
-different torsional stiffness
-different sidecut

I can do a lay-down turns on a 4wd, it's quite hard to me to push donek to it's limits, and I'm easily played with 4WD in different conditions.


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

My stats 78 kilos / 125cm = 0.62 kilos per cm.

This is a pretty good stat to work with. 

Another good one would be weight divided by total surface area of the deck. That might give us some insights into float.

Those guys in the video are pretty short, but some are quite stocky. 

My buddy is almost 70kg although a lot shorter than me.

Anyhow TLN asked to see flat to snow carving with a duck stance on a softie, so in that sense its relevant.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

You're all a bunch of nerds.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

dreampow said:


> My stats 78 kilos / 125cm = 0.62 kilos per cm.
> 
> This is a pretty good stat to work with.
> 
> ...


Interesting to see that you have less weight per cm of effective edge than me. This means your board actually rides bigger for you than mine does for me.

If i could easily work out the cubic centremeters of my board I would but its a bit hard due to the irregular shape.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

My birdman stats are 105/122= 0.86 No wonder it feels so loose to me. 
This is showing there is a massive correlation between this kg/effective edge ratio and the way a board rides and hopefully giving some perspective to the smaller guys out there who recommend small boards to bigger guys. Also to people who only look at total board length when they choose a board.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

Guess I need like a 300cm board.... Fuck that


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

ETM said:


> My birdman stats are 105/122= 0.86 No wonder it feels so loose to me.
> This is showing there is a massive correlation between this kg/effective edge ratio and the way a board rides and hopefully giving some perspective to the smaller guys out there who recommend small boards to bigger guys. Also to people who only look at total board length when they choose a board.


Erm, is 122 not the contact/running length for the 180 Birdman, as opposed to EE?


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

Argo said:


> Guess I need like a 300cm board.... Fuck that


Haha hardly. Im just trying to show how to think on a level playing field when it comes to boards vs weight.


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

Guys ) That's totally useless in terms of a grip, floar and so on. That simple math will not do it. 
Check out:

Oxess BX 163 16.0. EEL=143cm. 
My Donek have at least like that, say 145-146cm.

My owm weight is a constant.
So you really gonna say Donek got more grip and better carveable?


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

ETM said:


> I just did the math on myself and my "big" board. 105kg /136cm = 0.77kg/cm ratio.
> Run the numbers and see what you guys get.





TLN said:


> Guys ) That's totally useless in terms of a grip, floar and so on. That simple math will not do it.
> Check out:
> 
> Oxess BX 163 16.0. EEL=143cm.
> ...


Sure, one might argument that if you compare very different boards it's like comparing apples and oranges. But even if you compare rather similar boards, the calculation leads to nonsense. e.g. two camrock boards: Flagship 158 EEL 1140mm -> 0.48 kg/cm and Ride Farah 153 EEL 1158mm (yes, slightly more than the above) -> 0.47 kg/cm result in a similar ratio, but very different riding feeling. Now, one can still argument, that even similar boards have lots of variables that make them still ride differently and thus the simplificated ratio only leads to useful (comparable) estimations if other variables are reduced.

Ok, now eleminate other variables like shape, stiffness and so on and take the very same board model: To reach the 0.77 kg/cm ratio ETM reports, I would have to find this board in a size with 71cm EEL :blink:. I doupt this size exists :laugh: but assume, it would... you really think, I would have the same riding feeling as him...?


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

neni said:


> Sure, one might argument that if you compare very different boards it's like comparing apples and oranges. But even if you compare rather similar boards, the calculation leads to nonsense. e.g. two camrock boards: Flagship 158 EEL 1140mm -> 0.48 kg/cm and Ride Farah 153 EEL 1158mm (yes, slightly more than the above) -> 0.47 kg/cm result in a similar ratio, but very different riding feeling. Now, one can still argument, that even similar boards have lots of variables that make them still ride differently and thus the simplificated ratio only leads to useful (comparable) estimations if other variables are reduced.
> 
> Ok, now eleminate other variables like shape, stiffness and so on and take the very same board model: To reach the 0.77 kg/cm ratio ETM reports, I would have to find this board in a size with 71cm EEL :blink:. I doupt this size exists :laugh: but assume, it would... you really think, I would have the same riding feeling as him...?


Discussion was not really about the overall "riding feeling" but about edge hold and carving.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Discussion was not really about the overall "riding feeling" but about edge hold and carving.


"Ok, now eleminate other variables like shape, stiffness and so on and take the very same board model: To reach the 0.77 kg/cm ratio ETM reports, I would have to find this board in a size with 71cm EEL*. I doupt this size exists**but assume, it would... you really think, I would have the same * edge hold *as him...?"

Does it sound any better now? :dunno:


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

*whispering:
And now think about that same board under heavier rider diggs more into snow(because of a bigger pressure)


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

TLN said:


> *whispering:
> And now think about that same board under heavier rider diggs more into snow(because of a bigger pressure)


Correction: More force, not more pressure. The kg/cm calculation is also for pressure on the edge, assuming the entire mass of the rider is acting upon it. That is of course not true and there are a bunch of other forces involved, but it _might_ be reasonable to assume that these are proportional to rider mass, in which case the simple formula should still work.

(Note: I am aware that technically pressure is force/area, but for practical purposes we can treat the edge as one-dimensional in this calculation.)


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

The point I tried to make is that one should be careful with taking a simple proportion (the mass/edge) and then draw conclusions out of it (make a model out of it). 

There IS a rider mass to edge length ~ edgehold correlation, but not following this simple formula, not even closely. The assumption, that this simple linear regression y=ax (y being the weight, x being the length, a being the coeficient) "should work" for any conclusions in edgehold (e.g. how good the edgehold would be, how heavy a rider should be for a certain edge length to get the same edgehold) is just illegitimate.

Thinking this proportion gives you any information (is a simple model) would lead to the statement, that I have the same edgehold on the same board model with a 71cm EEL (55y=0.77a*71x) as ETM with his 136cm EEL (105y=0.77a*136x). A simplification is only useful, IF you can get a meaninful results out of it. But this y=ax is so obviously wrong, that you already know, the model is bad. Its just a proportion. Not more. No conclusions. It doesn't work.

To get a model out of this proportion, you either need a constant b, or the model might not be linear. To determine that, you need a bunch of riders of different weight with same skills and a bunch of boards of the same model with different sizes. Then you can calculate a simple model (simplified cause you eliminated the skill and board variables) and the you might draw conclusions. But not out of the simple proportion


----------



## dreampow (Sep 26, 2011)

Everyone relax.

No one suggested that this was the be all and all calculation. As far as your comments go we might as well also say that EEL is irrelevant because there are so many other factors like flex and profile.

But clearly it is not irrelevant it is something worth knowing which is why you all know it.

Is it the sole factor that determines carving ability? No, but it clearly plays a major role.

Creating a ratio with the riders weight and EEL gives you an idea of the amount of force at work on any given cm of your edge.

I don't think that its anything concrete, but its definitely interesting to note that as a riders weight goes up they will need a proportionally longer EEL to get the same kind of grip all other things being equal (we know full well that all other things are not equal in the real world).

I would wager that a similar effect can be observed with rider weight / surface area. If so this would account for why bigger riders need more specialized decks to get the same amount of float as a lighter rider.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

Nivek said:


> You're all a bunch of nerds.


mg: & it's gettin' worse


TT


----------



## TLN (Sep 7, 2010)

timmytard said:


> mg: & it's gettin' worse


mid-summer crisis  



dreampow said:


> Creating a ratio with the riders weight and EEL gives you an idea of the amount of force at work on any given cm of your edge.


Here comes the skills factor. 
Someone can push his edges deep into the hardpack and have a pencil wide carve. Someone it trying to rotate the board to the smaller radius and get a skidded turn, instead of doing wider, carved and predictable carve line. 
This is actually what I meant before, when comparing the boards lengths. It's easy to push a shorter board into the carve, and longer board(with bigger scr) require a bit more skills tp do it. 



dreampow said:


> I don't think that its anything concrete, but its definitely interesting to note that as a riders weight goes up they will need a proportionally longer EEL to get the same kind of grip all other things being equal (we know full well that all other things are not equal in the real world).


Ok, check this out:
Alpine racers have a two slalom disciplines: SLalom and GiantSlalom.
Typical mens SL race board are 162-164cm, this is true for all the WC board makers: Kessler(162cm), Oxess(162 and 164cm), SG (163cm). So we can say this is one size for all the riders. Generally SL board is 162cm long. Also SCR is also the same: around 11m. This board are used by all the mens racing, beginning from a 50kilos up to 90kilos and may be even more. 
Of course board have differences, but the EEL and SCR are pretty much identical. So different riders get same grip without increasing EEL or something.
For GS situation is a little bit more interesting: typical men ride 185GS with average SCR of 19-20m, liter men (or heavier women) ride 180cm. That's all. We can even say, there's one length for WC: 185cm (all manufacturers). Aging all the changes to match the riders weight are inside of a board: flex, material, radius, so difference in EEL is nothing compared to racers weight.
I'm not a racer, but know a little bit about.


----------



## ziggy (Jul 12, 2013)

I see you guys got quite busy discussing some other stuff too!

Just wanted to let you know that the board arrived the other day, I spent last night installing and setting everything up.

Here she is:


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

ziggy said:


> I see you guys got quite busy discussing some other stuff too!
> 
> Just wanted to let you know that the board arrived the other day, I spent last night installing and setting everything up.
> 
> ...


Sweet! You've got a big advantage with being so tall: men's gear in decent colors :thumbsup:


----------

