# Sizing By Weight= Bullshit



## Mammoth Lifty

So I've noticed a trend on the forum about people asking what size board they should ride and everyone bases it off weight. I don't think that weight should be a big deciding factor in what size board you buy. It seems mostly about riding style and personal preference. I've seen guys that are 150 pounds ride 165's and guys 200 pounds ride 151's. What do you guys think? Is weight a huge deciding factor when you buy a new stick?


----------



## cav0011

For powder boards kinda. The purpose of weight is to provide a guideline. Also companies design boards for certain weights so they perform as intended. Having said that I tend to ride shorter boards


----------



## linvillegorge

Weight is a huge factor. You put a 200# guy on a 151 jib stick and he's just gonna be overpowering the shit out of it. On the flip side, you put a 135# hard charger on a 162 stiff ass plank and he's gonna have a real hard time maneuvering that stick in tight spots. Height is the overrated factor. Unless you're really short and heavy or really tall and skinny it doesn't play much of a role at all.


----------



## SkullAndXbones

i go with my riding style because i like to ride fast and i want that stability at high speeds so i'll always ride longer boards. i'll never buy a board under 164. my weight has fluctuated a lot over the years do to laziness, then deciding that i need to lose weight and going back and forth like that but my normal weight is about 170 and i'm 6'0".


----------



## Nivek

You can also find video's of people shooting themselves in the leg for fun. Doesn't mean that's how we all should have fun. 

What happens as a person gets bigger. They exert more force on the board by gravity and usually strength. The things that change on a bigger board are surface area and usually stiffness. Surface area ensures that the greater friction from more downward force is overcome correctly, and the stiffer board behaves as designed under greater weight.


----------



## radiomuse210

I know people who ride short boards over the suggested weight limit and have known girls to ride longer, stiff boards (neni springs to mind - and whether this kind of board choice is advised, I don't know: but if they are stoked riding it, then that's what matters) - so I'm sort of on the fence. I personally stay within the weight guidelines of the board I'm riding - although I have developed a preference toward staying in the upper end of the weight range (ie shorter board but still within the weight range - and I'm only 100-105lbs, so pretty short to most folks). I'm looking at getting a board where I'm more in the middle of the weight range and something a touch stiffer just to expand my riding a bit. 

I had a Burton Feelgood Flying V, which is described as a "happy medium" and that thing felt stiff to me - especially in the middle. Getting it to flex was a chore - and that was on the short end of my size range. So this year I'm riding a cm bigger than that, a notch or two softer, but with a longer effective edge (7.5cm). Then from there I might venture onto that other board I mentioned above: more mid-flex feel and a few cms bigger, if I feel the need for it. Based on my experiences, I think preference definitely comes into play as far as where you fall along the suggested weight scale. And sometimes even beyond that.


----------



## KayZ

Being one to ride one of the extremes (200 lbs, board is 156) I kinda agree. 

The sizing charts are a general guide line of what to start your search with if youve never known anything about snowboards... so they serve that purpose.


----------



## F1EA

The problem is people think the weight references are straight directions or mandatory stuff. It's not. It's a reference.

So when a manufacturer says the board is mid-flex, good for pow float and edge hold... they are referring to a certain typical rider profile given by the weight range.

You can choose whatever size you want based on what you understand, but the manufacturer's weight and recommendations are the baseline.

There's no way a manufacturer will say this board is mid-flex and has a certain edge hold without referencing it to someone. A 100 lbs little asian girl will never get the board to feel even remotely similar to a 235 lbs football jock.

So yeah.... I use the manufacturer's weight ranges as a guide to size up or down or stick to the middle based on what i want the board to feel like.


----------



## 2hellnbak

I think they both factor in to a point. If you weigh 140 lbs but your are 6'2" you aren't going to have fun on a 151. If you weigh 262 lbs but you are 5'4" and ride a 165 you won't have a good time.

A lot of this is also very dependent on your ability and the terrain you ride.


There is a balance between the two. When I picked out my Ultra Dream the suggested weight was something like 135 to 190 lbs. I weigh 180 ish depending on the year and time of year and how much beer I drink during said time of year. I picked this board based upon the fact I can ride deep powder with a centered stance on a jib board in a size 153, so I should be able to slay the pow on a 158 that's more all mountain/powder oriented. It will also be OK for groomers etc.

I factored in, that I have hiked the ridge at Loveland and had no real problem riding down the very same hill in deep powder on a 153 Artifact center stanced, and a 158 cambered board set back, a 153 K2 flatline board that was soft with a centered stance(cheap board), a 164 Burton Bullet (set back) and other boards I don't remember. I am right about 5' 11".

Like said, this is just a GENERAL way to figure out about what board you should ride. The real ticket aside from experience is going to a shop and talking to the guy selling snowboards, telling him what you are into and going from there. 

There are too many factors to take in when it comes to board size. If you have a good shop available they will know what you should be standing on when you ride down the hill..


----------



## SkullAndXbones

radiomuse210 said:


> I know people who ride short boards over the suggested weight limit and have known girls to ride longer, stiff boards (neni springs to mind - and whether this kind of board choice is advised, I don't know: but if they are stoked riding it, then that's what matters) - so I'm sort of on the fence. I personally stay within the weight guidelines of the board I'm riding - although I have developed a preference toward staying in the upper end of the weight range (ie shorter board but still within the weight range - and I'm only 100-105lbs, so pretty short to most folks). I'm looking at getting a board where I'm more in the middle of the weight range and something a touch stiffer just to expand my riding a bit.
> 
> I had a Burton Feelgood Flying V, which is described as a "happy medium" and that thing felt stiff to me - especially in the middle. Getting it to flex was a chore - and that was on the short end of my size range. So this year I'm riding a cm bigger than that, a notch or two softer, but with a longer effective edge (7.5cm). Then from there I might venture onto that other board I mentioned above: more mid-flex feel and a few cms bigger, if I feel the need for it. Based on my experiences, I think preference definitely comes into play as far as where you fall along the suggested weight scale. And sometimes even beyond that.


don't tip toe around it. dive right in. strap on a 170 and show that board who's boss.


----------



## radiomuse210

SkullAndXbones said:


> don't tip toe around it. dive right in. strap on a 170 and show that board who's boss.


:laugh: I can't imagine how I would even begin to handle a 170 board at my size. I immediately think of riding a plank of wood. It would be sluggish at turns due to lack of leverage (feet too small and not enough weight to flex) yet be able to hurdle me down the hill at break neck speeds. Especially since I've been hanging in the upper 130s with my board size (low 140s for my next board). Who knows - maybe if I had a ton of experience under my belt, I could get down the mountain without feeling totally out of control. And perhaps if I was used to riding boards longer for my weight. 170 is a beast for me though!

Or maybe with a few drinks in me.


----------



## wrathfuldeity

If the person is at an advanced-expert level...weight is BS
skillz is #1
style is #2
terrain & snow is #3
^these factors will determine the size and profile of the board.

If the person is at the intermediate-advanced level...weight is relevant
the board size and profile will be a factor.

If the person is at a beginner-intermediate level...weight is BS
they have no skillz
they have shit for style
they are at the mercy of the terrain and snow
the size and profile of the board will matter...but they will not know it...cause they think its the size of their nuteez that matter


----------



## SkullAndXbones

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. that ends that debate


----------



## Phedder

When my first board died (factory defect, 158) I was left riding an old staff board for 2 weeks. 151 Burton, flat board, mid flex. I was 220 at the time and I still had a blast on that thing. Clocked myself at an average of 60km/h on one run, and dialed in all the basic grabs on it as well, 20-30 ft kickers. At 210lb I was riding 20-30cm of powder on a 156 Skate Banana, again having a blast. Are there better boards and sizes for doing those? Of course. Did that stop me enjoying myself, hell no!

I've got a 157 traditional camber board for park next year and a 161 Highlife for charging, haven't ridden either yet but I'm sure they'll both be a blast to ride as well. 

People over analyse way too much, keep it simple and find the joy!


----------



## jtg

If you understand the physics of how a snowboard makes a turn, it's pretty clear that weight has everything to do with determining size for a given snowboard. Just because some people ride well outside the recommended ranges does not mean they are changing the forces applied to the board.


----------



## ItchEtrigR

It's just a guideline, but I feel it's important. 

Is it something set in stone? No.

Will it effect the ride? Sure. 

Can you ride something your out of range for? I do all the time. 

Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.


----------



## neni

ItchEtrigR said:


> Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.


Define _properly_ sized  :hairy:


Of course weight is an important variable, you can't neglect physics... but as wrong it is to say weight is BS, it is also wrong to say it's the _only_ determining factor. It's simply only _one_ - important, tho not the only - factor, as wrath indicated nicely 

Mixture of skill level, riding style n purpose (terrain, snow conditions, personal preference), weight - then loooong gap - and then height (only matters for the extremes as mentioned by linville). Charts just can give limited dimensions and should be taken as what they are - references. Not more, not less.

Really think that this calculator is useful cos it covers more than only the height/weight variable otherwise used in charts SnowLifts.com - Snowboard Size Length Calculator

(BTW: radio, if you check that calculator, you'd see that my boards are "properly sized" . Recommended: all mtn 154, BC 157. I ride all mtn 153/6, BC 156/8. Nothing extraordinary there. The long ones you may have seen in other posts were just demos not available in my preferred size).


----------



## chomps1211

wrathfuldeity said:


> If the person is at an advanced-expert level...weight is BS
> skillz is #1
> style is #2
> terrain & snow is #3
> ^these factors will determine the size and profile of the board.
> 
> If the person is at the intermediate-advanced level...weight is relevant
> the board size and profile will be a factor.
> 
> If the person is at a beginner-intermediate level...weight is BS
> they have no skillz
> they have shit for style
> they are at the mercy of the terrain and snow
> the size and profile of the board will matter...but they will not know it...cause they think its the size of their nuteez that matter


^^^*THIS*^^^



jtg said:


> If you understand the physics of how a snowboard makes a turn, it's pretty clear that weight has everything to do with determining size for a given snowboard. Just because some people ride well outside the recommended ranges does not mean they are changing the forces applied to the board.





ItchEtrigR said:


> It's just a guideline, but I feel it's important.
> 
> Is it something set in stone? No.
> 
> Will it effect the ride? Sure.
> 
> Can you ride something your out of range for? I do all the time.
> 
> Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.


I find myself wondering,… What do you suppose the "Proper" weight range is for *THESE* boards???? :laugh:

/thread :hairy:


----------



## Wiredsport

Mammoth Lifty said:


> I've seen guys that are 150 pounds ride 165's and guys 200 pounds ride 151's. What do you guys think? Is weight a huge deciding factor when you buy a new stick?


Hi,

The issue here is not that weight is being (correctly) used to select a specific board but rather that tip to tip length is (incorrectly) being considered as a valuable indicator of performance.

There are 165 cm (for example) big mountain boards that are designed for 150 lb riders and there are ultra short freestyle boards that are designed for heavier riders. 

Every board designer uses weight and foot size as the basis for any given size in the model they are designing. The dimensions and construction elements that are used will center on an actual/hypothetical rider's specs.

There is a weight range in which a board will perform well in regards to its designed use (typically 40 -50 lbs or 20 to 25 lbs above or below the "design" rider).

Can you ride a board outside of that range? Absolutely. You can slide down a snowy hill on anything  The Signal guys prove that every third Thursday.

But...for riders that are looking for an intuitive, consistent riding experience in a normal range of conditions and want a board to perform up to the full potential of its design, they will want to stay as close to centered in the given weight range as possible.


----------



## radiomuse210

chomps1211 said:


> ^^^*THIS*^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find myself wondering,… What do you suppose the "Proper" weight range is for *THESE* boards???? :laugh:
> 
> /thread :hairy:



I watch this every time someone posts it. Probably my fave ETT.


----------



## chomps1211

radiomuse210 said:


> I watch this every time someone posts it. *Probably my fave ETT.*


Without a doubt! They have lots of cool episodes, but this is by far their best!


----------



## earl

Hi, my first post.

I agree with the original poster. Length(well contact/effective edge really) based on weight = bs

I think height - then ability and weight considered together.

Why? 2 Reasons.

1) I'm 5'7 - stance width 22". If I was taller it would be wider and vice Centre of balance blah... A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well. Too easy to go over the end. Board too long for height then it is difficult to apply/re-leave pressure to the tips. 

As a aside - when tall people's stance width on a short board results in bindings closer to the tips which in effect makes the board stiffer than if they where set at reference. 


2) The board doesn't have a clue how heavy you are. All it knows is how much force you can apply to flex it. A 150lb expert rider can probably apply more force than a 200lb beginner.

imho, if someone asked me to recommend then a board - I would recommend length based 90% on height. Then if they were a beginner/int get board of that level i.e. not stiff. If they were advanced - they can apply more force so get a more advanced board i.e. stiffer. But the length stays within the same general range (dependant on application of course)

I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum. I've owned 20+ boards i the past from 165 to 149cm. I'm happiest on a 154-156. The newest addition to my quiver is a 152 ladies board (10US boots setup duck no issue) and I absolutely bomb around on it.

I wonder if mfgers put weight guides on not only as a general guide but also as a liability thing. If they said 5'7 rides a 154 and a 300lb guy snaps one then it's technically 'not fit for purpose' and they could be sued?

anyway my 2c.


----------



## deagol

Also, we have habits...

When I started a million years ago, I was on a very stiff foam-core board that worked good in powder but was horrible on normal snow (Burton Elite 145). That was many years ago and I gained weight and height and got used to longer boards. I did the online calculator Neni posted and it rated me at a size about 5-7 CM shorter than I ride, but as it states, it's just a starting point. My personal habit is for longer boards, so that is what I am used to and would have a harder time on something as short as a 155 CM. Riding style leans more to freeriding and not park, so that is of course a factor. I don't love moguls, but can get by when I need to.


----------



## td.1000

Just because it's not the only factor doesn't mean it's bullshit.


----------



## F1EA

td.1000 said:


> Just because it's not the only factor doesn't mean it's bullshit.


^ this.

Also, earl up there is not exactly "average build". So when you're either too tall or too heavy be prepared to make some estimates. Also if your style is very specific or leans too far in a certain direction, be prepared to make other estimates. What makes you "happy" is totally subjective, companies can't go with a happiness factor range.

So... where to start? I think weight is not bad.


----------



## Manicmouse

What about if you go from early 20s fit dude to early 30s unfit dude 10kg heavier? Same height obviously 

Basically I need to get fucking working out


----------



## Dutty

earl said:


> A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well. Too easy to go over the end. Board too long for height then it is difficult to apply/re-leave pressure to the tips.


I don't know about that... I'm 6'5" and I have ridden my friends short boards plenty of times. Never have I even been close to going over the end of the board. 
I think weight is way more of a deciding factor, as it will affect how much you flex the board and how well you float when the snow is deeper. That being said, your preference for what fits your riding style overrules all. You can't say "you are 180 lbs or 6'2" so you need to ride this size board." But those things should certainly factor into your decision.


----------



## radiomuse210

neni said:


> Really think that this calculator is useful cos it covers more than only the height/weight variable otherwise used in charts SnowLifts.com - Snowboard Size Length Calculator
> 
> (BTW: radio, if you check that calculator, you'd see that my boards are "properly sized" . Recommended: all mtn 154, BC 157. I ride all mtn 153/6, BC 156/8. Nothing extraordinary there. The long ones you may have seen in other posts were just demos not available in my preferred size).



Hah it's interesting the bits and pieces we pick up about people on forums - but then miss other things. I had this impression of you riding big boards for your size. :laugh: 
That size calculator is a little flawed for me - I think below 108lbs and 5'0 it gets inaccurate. It has me on a 144-147, which is on the big end for me. In fact, I personally don't like going beyond a 142 in total length (but effective edge does play a factor, so I look for boards around 139-142 with longer EE).


----------



## freshy

I agree with the general consensus that it's a rough guide line. But having said that the old way of sizing a board by standing it up and having it end between you nose and chin has always worked for me too.

The biggest factor IMO is the terrain and snow conditions. If you ride where it's steep and get fresh powder consistently you want to go bigger, ride hard pack and park you can ride shorter.

Once you have enough experience to know what you are looking for you can make the call to go bigger or smaller than the weight recommendation. 

Definitely not as complicated as some make it out to be.


----------



## Noreaster

radiomuse210 said:


> Hah it's interesting the bits and pieces we pick up about people on forums - but then miss other things. I had this impression of you riding big boards for your size. :laugh:
> That size calculator is a little flawed for me - I think below 108lbs and 5'0 it gets inaccurate. It has me on a 144-147, which is on the big end for me. In fact, I personally don't like going beyond a 142 in total length (but effective edge does play a factor, so I look for boards around 139-142 with longer EE).


I'm 110lbs at 5'4 and I've never ridden anything below 146, in fact I think 149-150 is ideal for me. But then I can ride boards for up to 157-159 in length, understandably I have to alter my riding style to get the best of them. Have a couple of mens' boards in my quiver and I demo men's boards regularly.


----------



## radiomuse210

Noreaster said:


> I'm 110lbs at 5'4 and I've never ridden anything below 146, in fact I think 149-150 is ideal for me. But then I can ride boards for up to 157-159 in length, understandably I have to alter my riding style to get the best of them. Have a couple of mens' boards in my quiver and I demo men's boards regularly.


This is where that preference piece comes into play.  I'm around 100lbs at 4'11 and definitely feel my sweet spot is in the upper 130s - low 140s. But like I said, I focus more on effective edge/contact length. The 136 I have has the same EE as a 142 Roxy - I didn't investigate further to see if their profiles are also similar, which I would do if I were actually looking to buy. My old board in the same size and profile had an EE of 7.5cm less. So I pretty much sized up while only increasing board length by a cm. This is my all-mountain freestyle board, so I wanted to keep it small. My next board will be a 142 - 6cm longer in overall length as well as EE. I was looking at the Smokin PYT - the 139 has an EE 6cm longer than my current board, which is another good example of keeping the size down but not losing out on edge length. I like to keep the total length down while keeping the EE up.  I had a lengthy discussion with Wiredsport about this - looking at EE/contact length rather than overall length.


----------



## chomps1211

radiomuse210 said:


> …….I was looking at the Smokin PYT - the 139 has an EE 6cm longer than my current board, which is another good example of keeping the size down but not losing out on edge length.* I like to keep the total length down while keeping the EE up.  I had a lengthy discussion with Wiredsport about this - looking at EE/contact length rather than overall length.*


By any chance did you keep a record of that conversation? PM's or emails etc? Just thinking out loud that that information in a condensed & coherent form might make for a good, general informational thread. I mean that information and general guidelines on height/weight vs length vs EE,..? That would be good information for anybody regardless of weight and height!

Just throwin' that out there if you did keep it!  :jumping1:


----------



## TimelessDescent

radiomuse210 said:


> This is where that preference piece comes into play.  I'm around 100lbs at 4'11 and definitely feel my sweet spot is in the upper 130s - low 140s. But like I said, I focus more on effective edge/contact length. The 136 I have has the same EE as a 142 Roxy - I didn't investigate further to see if their profiles are also similar, which I would do if I were actually looking to buy. My old board in the same size and profile had an EE of 7.5cm less. So I pretty much sized up while only increasing board length by a cm. This is my all-mountain freestyle board, so I wanted to keep it small. My next board will be a 142 - 6cm longer in overall length as well as EE. I was looking at the Smokin PYT - the 139 has an EE 6cm longer than my current board, which is another good example of keeping the size down but not losing out on edge length. I like to keep the total length down while keeping the EE up.  I had a lengthy discussion with Wiredsport about this - looking at EE/contact length rather than overall length.



You're definitely thinking in the right direction. Sounds like you and wired probably weighed pros and cons already, but keep in mind a slightly longer board will be able to handle a higher speed through chunder etc. Look at the Palmer Halo for example. its 149 cm in length and caters to womens riders up to 120lbs...meaning you would be able to ride it easily. Theres a good clearance going on with the Palmer Halo at only $75 brand new. Hard to believe since its an award winning snowboard.


----------



## radiomuse210

chomps1211 said:


> By any chance did you keep a record of that conversation? PM's or emails etc? Just thinking out loud that that information in a condensed & coherent form might make for a good, general informational thread. I mean that information and general guidelines on height/weight vs length vs EE,..? That would be good information for anybody regardless of weight and height!
> 
> Just throwin' that out there if you did keep it!  :jumping1:


We talked a little in private and then he asked me to make a thread about it to help others. Some other people chimed in and then Wiredsport gives me his verdict. At the time, I was ready to sell the 136 and take a loss - then get the 140. It would have been a pain but I was ready to do it if it made a big difference. He assured me that I've already sized up a good bit - 7.5cm - and that sizing up AGAIN would probably be too much at this time. Now when I progress further - and if I want to start going faster and down steeper runs - then yes, sizing up is definitely a good option. But for a freestyle board that I'm not going to take bombing down the mountain, it's a good transition board. Once I feel the 136 is getting chattery and not holding up to what I want to do, then hopefully I'll be ready money-wise to upgrade again. Hope to get a couple seasons out of it though and then keep it for practicing in the park. 

Here's the thread (btw in that thread I was 105lbs, but I'm at 100lbs now due to some snowboard-workouts I've been doing):

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/147058-effective-edge-vs-board-length.html


----------



## radiomuse210

TimelessDescent said:


> You're definitely thinking in the right direction. Sounds like you and wired probably weighed pros and cons already, but keep in mind a slightly longer board will be able to handle a higher speed through chunder etc. Look at the Palmer Halo for example. its 149 cm in length and caters to womens riders up to 120lbs...meaning you would be able to ride it easily. Theres a good clearance going on with the Palmer Halo at only $75 brand new. Hard to believe since its an award winning snowboard.


Yup this is definitely something I've kept in mind. When I was sized for a board the first time, it was using my height in a shop. So I thought I was getting the correct size for my new board - turns out it is on the small size for my weight. It's not ridiculous and the effective edge is a good bit longer than my old board, so I will gain some edge hold - but I'm sure it won't be as stable as a bigger board if I pick up a good bit of speed (which I don't do often). That may change, which is why I'm already looking at a few bigger options to compliment this board (and maybe even replace it). I'll look at that Palmer...wonder what the EE is on that board? And what a price!


----------



## chomps1211

radiomuse210 said:


> Here's the thread (btw in that thread I was 105lbs, but I'm at 100lbs now due to some snowboard-workouts I've been doing):
> 
> http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/147058-effective-edge-vs-board-length.html



After seeing the link, I was wondering how I missed that thread? I see now that you started that thread right after I was discharged from the hospital after my second surgery. I imagine narcotic pain killers and lots of sleeping affected my memory of it! :laugh:


----------



## TimelessDescent

radiomuse210 said:


> Yup this is definitely something I've kept in mind. When I was sized for a board the first time, it was using my height in a shop. So I thought I was getting the correct size for my new board - turns out it is on the small size for my weight. It's not ridiculous and the effective edge is a good bit longer than my old board, so I will gain some edge hold - but I'm sure it won't be as stable as a bigger board if I pick up a good bit of speed (which I don't do often). That may change, which is why I'm already looking at a few bigger options to compliment this board (and maybe even replace it). I'll look at that Palmer...wonder what the EE is on that board? And what a price!



I was browsing boards a few days ago and I remember the Halo 149cm sticking out because it was so cheap. Of course its a carryover model and I just looked and couldnt find it so it may be sold as of now. The new version of the halo comes in a 146 at its smallest from what I have found which could be a better fit if you decided to go that route. Keep doing good research and keep asking questions and the right board will find you.


----------



## radiomuse210

chomps1211 said:


> After seeing the link, I was wondering how I missed that thread? I see now that you started that thread right after I was discharged from the hospital after my second surgery. I imagine narcotic pain killers and lots of sleeping affected my memory of it! :laugh:


:laugh: yeah wiredsport was a big help...I can't wait to get on the board and see how it actually rides! And then go from there to really fine tune where I want to take my riding. I'm only a few years into it and a solid intermediate - I just know I'm not a fan of bombing down hills and I like to cruise and play around (on these small east coast mountains). I was hoping this board would hold me for a few years...but if I end up starting to enjoy going fast and carving over more freestyle riding, a bigger board will definitely be on the menu! I love getting new gear...just not the process of saving up money forever and then dropping that chunk of dough! Hopefully will have that squared away by next season!


----------



## ItchEtrigR

earl said:


> Hi, my first post.
> 
> I agree with the original poster. Length(well contact/effective edge really) based on weight = bs
> 
> I think height - then ability and weight considered together.
> 
> Why? 2 Reasons.
> 
> 1) I'm 5'7 - stance width 22". If I was taller it would be wider and vice Centre of balance blah... A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well. Too easy to go over the end. Board too long for height then it is difficult to apply/re-leave pressure to the tips.
> 
> As a aside - when tall people's stance width on a short board results in bindings closer to the tips which in effect makes the board stiffer than if they where set at reference.
> 
> 
> 2) The board doesn't have a clue how heavy you are. All it knows is how much force you can apply to flex it. A 150lb expert rider can probably apply more force than a 200lb beginner.
> 
> imho, if someone asked me to recommend then a board - I would recommend length based 90% on height. Then if they were a beginner/int get board of that level i.e. not stiff. If they were advanced - they can apply more force so get a more advanced board i.e. stiffer. But the length stays within the same general range (dependant on application of course)
> 
> I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum. I've owned 20+ boards i the past from 165 to 149cm. I'm happiest on a 154-156. The newest addition to my quiver is a 152 ladies board (10US boots setup duck no issue) and I absolutely bomb around on it.
> 
> I wonder if mfgers put weight guides on not only as a general guide but also as a liability thing. If they said 5'7 rides a 154 and a 300lb guy snaps one then it's technically 'not fit for purpose' and they could be sued?
> 
> anyway my 2c.


As everyone is saying its just a guideline to follow, in most situations will someone slotted in the middle for a 154 by weight will be able to drift 5+/- cm, more or less depending on board design. And from there you take your stance width into account if your looking to ride it as intended. These are just guidelines, and limits can be stretched but by doing so you change the characteristics of the ride designed by the board manufacturer.


----------



## Wiredsport

earl said:


> Hi, my first post.
> 
> I agree with the original poster. Length(well contact/effective edge really) based on weight = bs
> 
> I think height - then ability and weight considered together.
> 
> Why? 2 Reasons.
> 
> 1) I'm 5'7 - stance width 22". If I was taller it would be wider and vice Centre of balance blah... A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well. Too easy to go over the end. Board too long for height then it is difficult to apply/re-leave pressure to the tips.
> 
> As a aside - when tall people's stance width on a short board results in bindings closer to the tips which in effect makes the board stiffer than if they where set at reference.
> 
> 
> 2) The board doesn't have a clue how heavy you are. All it knows is how much force you can apply to flex it. A 150lb expert rider can probably apply more force than a 200lb beginner.
> 
> imho, if someone asked me to recommend then a board - I would recommend length based 90% on height. Then if they were a beginner/int get board of that level i.e. not stiff. If they were advanced - they can apply more force so get a more advanced board i.e. stiffer. But the length stays within the same general range (dependant on application of course)
> 
> I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum. I've owned 20+ boards i the past from 165 to 149cm. I'm happiest on a 154-156. The newest addition to my quiver is a 152 ladies board (10US boots setup duck no issue) and I absolutely bomb around on it.
> 
> I wonder if mfgers put weight guides on not only as a general guide but also as a liability thing. If they said 5'7 rides a 154 and a 300lb guy snaps one then it's technically 'not fit for purpose' and they could be sued?
> 
> anyway my 2c.


Hi Earl,

Stoked to have you here on the forum. You sound like a fully committed and STOKED rider who gets his days in. Love it!

A few things:

If anyone were to suggest that weight should be used to find a single tip to tip board length for a given rider we would be right there with you saying no way (just as we would if height or any other metric was used to establish a single "length" for any given rider). The most important point here is that _no rider has a set length that will be correct in all boards_. Tip to tip length will vary greatly depending on on the board's designed intent.

That is very different however than saying that weight does not matter in choosing a new deck. 

You mentioned that you are 210 lbs. There is no hiding 210 lbs from your board. Skill will not do it, experience will not do it. Gravity will have her way . Your weight will overflex and distort too soft a board for your weight. Can you ride such aboard? Absolutely, and you may even prefer it, but it will be distorting and will not be performing to the design intention. 

Conversely, a strong and experienced rider may be able to twist, flex and control a stiffer board (to a certain degree) than their spec would suggest. But, this will require and increased amount of constant "muscling" and will again move the rider from the designed intent of the deck. It will always take away some of the easy going and intuitive nature that the board (hopefully) had.


You wrote, "A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well." and "I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum." 

These are great examples of associating a rider with a given board size. At 210 lbs you fall in the designed spec of boards from 150 cm up to 167. You will find dozens of riders here that are 6'2 (myself included) that own boards in the 151-155 range that are designed for our weights and that we love. 

STOKED!


----------



## radiomuse210

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Earl,
> 
> Stoked to have you here on the forum. You sound like a fully committed and STOKED rider who gets his days in. Love it!
> 
> A few things:
> 
> If anyone were to suggest that weight should be used to find a single tip to tip board length for a given rider we would be right there with you saying no way (just as we would if height or any other metric was used to establish a single "length" for any given rider). The most important point here is that _no rider has a set length that will be correct in all boards_. Tip to tip length will vary greatly depending on on the board's designed intent.
> 
> That is very different however than saying that weight does not matter in choosing a new deck.
> 
> You mentioned that you are 210 lbs. There is no hiding 210 lbs from your board. Skill will not do it, experience will not do it. Gravity will have her way . Your weight will overflex and distort too soft a board for your weight. Can you ride such aboard? Absolutely, and you may even prefer it, but it will be distorting and will not be performing to the design intention.
> 
> Conversely, a strong and experienced rider may be able to twist, flex and control a stiffer board (to a certain degree) than their spec would suggest. But, this will require and increased amount of constant "muscling" and will again move the rider from the designed intent of the deck. It will always take away some of the easy going and intuitive nature that the board (hopefully) had.
> 
> 
> You wrote, "A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well." and "I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum."
> 
> These are great examples of associating a rider with a given board size. At 210 lbs you fall in the designed spec of boards from 150 cm up to 167. You will find dozens of riders here that are 6'2 (myself included) that own boards in the 151-155 range that are designed for our weights and that we love.
> 
> STOKED!



^^^ Boom. And there you have it. i trust this guy when it comes to sizing boards - I feel like he's got a great grasp on it. Plus the willingness to help is awesome.


----------



## ITBVolks

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Earl,
> 
> Stoked to have you here on the forum. You sound like a fully committed and STOKED rider who gets his days in. Love it!
> 
> A few things:
> 
> If anyone were to suggest that weight should be used to find a single tip to tip board length for a given rider we would be right there with you saying no way (just as we would if height or any other metric was used to establish a single "length" for any given rider). The most important point here is that _no rider has a set length that will be correct in all boards_. Tip to tip length will vary greatly depending on on the board's designed intent.
> 
> That is very different however than saying that weight does not matter in choosing a new deck.
> 
> You mentioned that you are 210 lbs. There is no hiding 210 lbs from your board. Skill will not do it, experience will not do it. Gravity will have her way . Your weight will overflex and distort too soft a board for your weight. Can you ride such aboard? Absolutely, and you may even prefer it, but it will be distorting and will not be performing to the design intention.
> 
> Conversely, a strong and experienced rider may be able to twist, flex and control a stiffer board (to a certain degree) than their spec would suggest. But, this will require and increased amount of constant "muscling" and will again move the rider from the designed intent of the deck. It will always take away some of the easy going and intuitive nature that the board (hopefully) had.
> 
> 
> You wrote, "A 150lb 6'2 tall person riding a 154cm board (based on weight) doesn't work well." and "I'm 5'7 and 210lb with 300+ days. By weight I should be riding a 163cm minimum."
> 
> These are great examples of associating a rider with a given board size. At 210 lbs you fall in the designed spec of boards from 150 cm up to 167. You will find dozens of riders here that are 6'2 (myself included) that own boards in the 151-155 range that are designed for our weights and that we love.
> 
> STOKED!



Great timing on these posts as I find myself in the weight conundrum as we speak....

I'm a 6'2" ~240lb guy looking to buy a new deck for 2015. As I've aged, I've gone from a skinny 170lb college basketball player and runner to a power lifter gym rat. I really struggle with finding something "rated" to support my girth. lol

So I find myself looking at decks today in the range I'd prefer to ride 158'ish but with ratings maybe covering 200lbs - I'm increasingly concerned with performance as deck flex rated as mid flex for most is soft for me. That said - I don't want some beast 165+ stiff monster either. 

Certainly makes board decisions tough....


----------



## Wiredsport

ITBVolks said:


> Great timing on these posts as I find myself in the weight conundrum as we speak....
> 
> I'm a 6'2" ~240lb guy looking to buy a new deck for 2015. As I've aged, I've gone from a skinny 170lb college basketball player and runner to a power lifter gym rat. I really struggle with finding something "rated" to support my girth. lol
> 
> So I find myself looking at decks today in the range I'd prefer to ride 158'ish but with ratings maybe covering 200lbs - I'm increasingly concerned with performance as deck flex rated as mid flex for most is soft for me. That said - I don't want some beast 165+ stiff monster either.
> 
> Certainly makes board decisions tough....


Hi Bro,

Lots of great options out there for your weight (we just need to be a little selective ). Please let us know your foot size as well. The type of riding you do and your common riding areas will also be helpful.

STOKED!


----------



## ITBVolks

Looking for an all mountain ripper. Foot size depending on boot is 11-12 (2014 Burton Rulers sz-12/ 2014 Contact Pro's).

Looking for an all mountain freestyle board. Something I can rip natural terrain but still take me through laps in the park if I so desire. I like to get out and ride the thing hard. Big hits and spins. In the northeast so not a lot of pow but wouldn't object to something that can be ridden through the trees in the deeper stuff....

I think I've narrowed it down to the Jones Mtn twin in 158w/160, Salomon Assassin 160w or the DOA in 160. Just not sure if these are up to the task. I think the Assassin in 160w is rated closest and I think where I'm leaning but the DOA calls to me.... lol


----------



## Wiredsport

You are right on the cusp there. Lets dial it in and get it right 

Please measure your foot using this method:

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).


----------



## ITBVolks

Looks like I'm about 27.30cm heal to biggest toe.


----------



## neni

radiomuse210 said:


> Hah it's interesting the bits and pieces we pick up about people on forums - but then miss other things. I had this impression of you riding big boards for your size. :laugh:
> That size calculator is a little flawed for me - I think below 108lbs and 5'0 it gets inaccurate. It has me on a 144-147, which is on the big end for me. In fact, I personally don't like going beyond a 142 in total length (but effective edge does play a factor, so I look for boards around 139-142 with longer EE).


K, one may be a tiny tad out of the range as stiffness comes into play. The lower weight range of the Flagship 158 was indicated as 120lb when I got it in '13 (I'm 120lbish); due to a little flaw I got it replaced recently by a '15 - but for this '15 they now give 130lb as lower range. So I'm actually curious, if and how it will ride differently, if I'll feel the shift and won't be able to keep up with it. Very curious, as the '13 was an eye opener, simply loved to ride it. Let it snow!


----------



## Wiredsport

ITBVolks said:


> Looks like I'm about 27.30cm heal to biggest toe.


Awesome.

27 cm is the size that will be printed inside all US size 9 snowboard boots. 27.5 cm is the size that will be printed inside all US size 9.5 snowboard boots. 

Boot size is actually not relevant for determining board width but foot length definitely is.

This info should rule out all mid-wide and wide options for you. Any wide variation would be a performance killer, especially in your area.


----------



## earl

You've got to ask yourself 'who are the people who want to know what sized board to buy'. Not you or me Wired .. and not most of the people who reply to this thread. I bet most of us here have a number of boards or have been able to try a fairly large range of lengths in our time. Despite what the charts say - i know what I like and for what - just down to sheer days on the snow (one feature of being old)

So we are talking about newbees here really. And in reality it doesn't matter as the result seams to be the same. 

Take me for example. I walk into a shop looking for a all mountian board for a Int/Adv rider. They ask me for my weight 210lb + gear, they look at the chart for a Custom and grab a 163 which has a recommend range of 165-205lb. They stand it next to me - it looks stuoooopidly long, they stand a 158 then a 156 then a 154. Tell me I should choose go the 158 if I'm more freeride, 154 if I'm more freestyle, 156 if I'm into a bit of both.. blah.. blah... The 154 is below my noise, the 156 on it. They say I could get away with a 158 because I've heavy for me height If I was beg/int the length would have been the sameish but they would have recommended a Clash or something instead. 

So no matter what metric you use to get there weight or height - you generally arrive at the same place.

I was at a indoor snowdome tonight and for the most part people had boards between the bottom of their neck and their noise. 

Ok in the old days the guide was between chin and noise but the sport is more freestyle orientated now days and maybe boards designed has progressed where a given deck can tolerate a wider range of weight/force onto which it's applied. I suspect boards now days have a relatively longer effective/contact edge compared to their over all length than they did 20 years ago (apart from the Morrow Lunchtray of course... that was all edge!) (ignoring big mountain freeride/pow boards...) 

Not trying to start a argument here.. just trying to put some theory into what I've noticed.


----------



## earl

Hey and thanks for the welcome Wired. 

Yea I love my boarding - tried lots of other things but nothing feels the same - you know exactly what I am talking about. 

Earl.


----------



## radiomuse210

neni said:


> K, one may be a tiny tad out of the range as stiffness comes into play. The lower weight range of the Flagship 158 was indicated as 120lb when I got it in '13 (I'm 120lbish); due to a little flaw I got it replaced recently by a '15 - but for this '15 they now give 130lb as lower range. So I'm actually curious, if and how it will ride differently, if I'll feel the shift and won't be able to keep up with it. Very curious, as the '13 was an eye opener, simply loved to ride it. Let it snow!


I'm sure you'll feel a difference getting into it - but hopefully it won't take long to adjust and won't feel too stiff for you. You're a pretty experienced rider, so I think you'll be just fine. I'm anxious to ride my new board as well!  two more weeks for me!! 
I've broken the time down into manageable chunks: this weekend, one full week of work, next weekend, two days of work, three thanksgiving/family time/school work focused days off, then SHRED TIME!


----------



## Noreaster

neni said:


> K, one may be a tiny tad out of the range as stiffness comes into play. The lower weight range of the Flagship 158 was indicated as 120lb when I got it in '13 (I'm 120lbish); due to a little flaw I got it replaced recently by a '15 - but for this '15 they now give 130lb as lower range. So I'm actually curious, if and how it will ride differently, if I'll feel the shift and won't be able to keep up with it. Very curious, as the '13 was an eye opener, simply loved to ride it. Let it snow!


I also have '13 and wanted to demo '15 one, but I won't get to ride in earnest till mid January. Curious to read your impressions of the new FS.


----------



## Wiredsport

earl said:


> Take me for example. I walk into a shop looking for a all mountian board for a Int/Adv rider. They ask me for my weight 210lb + gear, they look at the chart for a Custom and grab a 163 which has a recommend range of 165-205lb. They stand it next to me - it looks stuoooopidly long, they stand a 158 then a 156 then a 154. Tell me I should choose go the 158 if I'm more freeride, 154 if I'm more freestyle, 156 if I'm into a bit of both.. blah.. blah... The 154 is below my noise, the 156 on it. They say I could get away with a 158 because I've heavy for me height If I was beg/int the length would have been the sameish but they would have recommended a Clash or something instead.


Stoked for the response Earl (and I completely got that you were not looking to be argumentative). This kind of sizing does happen still when you walk into some shops. Best advice there - walk back out . It bums us out because it can turn riders off to the sport. Nothing sucks energy like poorly selected gear.

In your example the shop dude started with a decent basis for a good sizing suggestion by considering weight (hopefully he considered foot size as well). From there on however...he needs to be taken off sales and put on cleaning up wax . 

Sure the 163 he grabbed might have been a design match for your weight and foot size, but (hopefully) the shop also had a selection of models in a variety of other sizes that would also match your specs. Hopefully he acknowledged that you were an experienced rider, listened to your preferences, asked about the boards that you were riding and that you liked riding and then found you some options that suited you. 

To complicate things, there are riders who have specs that the industry on the whole does not design for. For instance, a 250 lb guy is not going to find himself nicely centered in any board's weight range. A dude with a size 7 foot and heavy, or 14 and light - same issue. There are actually a lot of these riders out there. It becomes a matter of compromise to find them the best possible match for their specs. 

Stoked that you are here, bro. We are actually saying the same thing. The *misapplication* of sizing methods is maddening.

PS: The Lunch Tray...and remember the Spoon? Morrow was a big hitter back then and they came up with some majorly innovative stuff. 

STOKED!


----------

