# 252 Waist Width With Size 10.5 DC Status?



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

I'd go wider. I'm a 10.5 and my all mtn board is a 24.8. I can get away with it most of the time because I ride the ice coast, but when the snow softens up or gets deep I get a lot of drag. My park board is a 25.5 and is much more suitable for a 10.5 profile IMHO.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

JENKS said:


> Will a 252 Waist Width Work With Size 10.5 DC Status Boots? Or Too Small?


Impossible to know. Waist width alone is irrelevant in determining whether a board is wide enough or too wide.

What matters is foot size (not boot size) and width of the board at the inserts. After that you can look at overhang.


----------



## JENKS (Oct 23, 2012)

hktrdr said:


> Impossible to know. Waist width alone is irrelevant in determining whether a board is wide enough or too wide.
> 
> What matters is foot size (not boot size) and width of the board at the inserts. After that you can look at overhang.


That makes sense. I measured my bare feet and they are 10.25 inches. Unfortunately I can't measure the board. It is a 2012 Ride Highlife UL in a size 158 regular.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

JENKS said:


> That makes sense. I measured my bare feet and they are 10.25 inches. Unfortunately I can't measure the board. It is a 2012 Ride Highlife UL in a size 158 regular.


Get the the tail width and average it with the waist width to get a "estimate" of the width at the inserts. Same with the tip width. At least it will be closer than using strictly waist.


----------



## JENKS (Oct 23, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Get the the tail width and average it with the waist width to get a "estimate" of the width at the inserts. Same with the tip width. At least it will be closer than using strictly waist.


The tail width is 300, tip width is 300 as well and waist width is 252 those added up to 552 divided by 2 = 276. My foot size 10.25 inches multiplied by 2.54 to get centimeters is 26.035. Do you think this will work?


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

JENKS said:


> The tail width is 300 and waist is 252 those added up to 552 divided by 2 = 276. My foot size 10.25 inches calculated into centimeters is 26.035. Do you think this will work?


That should be fine.


----------



## JENKS (Oct 23, 2012)

Cool. Thanks for your help guys. Sorry it was a little difficult. I am going to buy this board rite now.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

What the hell does foot size have to do with board width? You're determining heel and toe drag. That's dependent on the outside profile of the boot, which can vary by up to a full size depending on the model. Then you'll have to figure in sidecut radius and stance width along that radius. You're dealing in terms of millimeters here. So choosing a waist width is really just a general rule, and by my experience 25.2 is too narrow, generally, for a 10.5 boot, unless you're riding boiler plate.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

Extremo said:


> What the hell does foot size have to do with board width? You're determining heel and toe drag. That's dependent on the outside profile of the boot, which can vary by up to a full size depending on the model. Then you'll have to figure in sidecut radius and stance width along that radius. You're dealing in terms of millimeters here. So choosing a waist width is really just a general rule, and by my experience 25.2 is too narrow, generally, for a 10.5 boot, unless you're riding boiler plate.


Mostly wrong - read wired's excellent explanation (e.g., here).

Foot size is the primary determinant for proper board width, as it determines to what extent the rider can have proper edge control. Standing on the board with naked feet in the usual riding positions, the toes/heel should just be at the edge of the board or have slight overhang.
Size/dimensions of the boot will indeed determine toe and heel overhang/drag, but that is strictly a secondary concern.

You are correct that sidecut radius and stance width are important, as they affect width at the inserts - which I had already pointed out is the key dimension, rather than waist width.
But your generalization is not correct in my experience - 25.2cm WW should be enough for almost all 10.5 size boots almost regardless of sidecut. For instance, the GNU Billy Goat 159 has an even narrower waist and nose/tail than the board described by the OP and it still works just fine with 10.5 size boots.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Extremo said:


> What the hell does foot size have to do with board width? You're determining heel and toe drag. That's dependent on the outside profile of the boot, which can vary by up to a full size depending on the model. Then you'll have to figure in sidecut radius and stance width along that radius. You're dealing in terms of millimeters here. So choosing a waist width is really just a general rule, and by my experience 25.2 is too narrow, generally, for a 10.5 boot, unless you're riding boiler plate.


Hi Extremo,

Measuring barefoot size is the correct foot measurement to use for determing the correct board width. Here is some more info on that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS:

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

PPS:

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

Now go ride!*


----------



## Sick-Pow (May 5, 2008)

Nice blog wiredsport, a gift to us all! 

You guys left out board taper too, as a factor of measurement.

I will only add the reason no measurements are taken at the inserts is people adjust stances, so you would need an entire separate graph of all combinations, not practical. Also, stance angles completely change the measurements and overhang.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

Wow...that's completely impractical. For the effort all that would take I'm not sure there's much benefit. You'd literally have to measure every board you were interested in. I have a hard enough time determining what I want already. Think about how limiting this would be. Imagine your favorite board with a reported waist width didn't match the your foot length. Then you couldn't get the board. Ok, so you might argue 1 or 2 millimeters doesn't make that much of a difference, just determine your range. So then what's the point of this at all? If you're looking to get into a millimeter range, just use waist width as a guide and know there will be a standard variation based on differences in geometry. You're essentially wasting your time even thinking about this.

PS - And where is the common sense in all of this? 

Anyone who rides boilerplate regularly knows ideally you want as narrow a board as possible for quickest edge to edge transfer. But that same board is going to leave you hanging up at every turn in powder. Riding conditions aren't figured into this equation which are more practically significant than the predetermined geometrical theory you've proposed. Just sayin.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Extremo, 

Thanks for that reply! 

I won't argue at all if any rider does not want to go through the process. I can assure you however that many riders have been let down by making uninformed (and very expensive) board purchases. The next time around the bit of extra work that is required to get it perfect seems well worth the small effort that is required. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Sick-Pow said:


> Nice blog wiredsport, a gift to us all!
> 
> You guys left out board taper too, as a factor of measurement.
> 
> I will only add the reason no measurements are taken at the inserts is people adjust stances, so you would need an entire separate graph of all combinations, not practical. Also, stance angles completely change the measurements and overhang.


That is buried in there around the middle :laugh:. Stance angle is really easy to factor in:

"how do you interpret this info to get the correct width? Well that depends a little on stance angle. If you ride a 0 degree stance, you will want your foot size to be the same as the width of the board at the inserts or up to 1 cm greater. If you ride at an angled stance, you will want to measure the board across at the angles that you will be riding. Again, you will want your foot to at least match this measurement or exceed it by up to 1 cm."


----------



## smokebelch109 (Nov 6, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).
> 
> Second, measure the board you are considering. This measurement is easy. It should be taken at the inserts. Try to measure at the inserts that you will be using to achieve your stance position. If you are unsure about this, simply measure at the center of the insert cluster (that will still be very close). Be sure to measure using the base of the board, not the deck. This is important because the sidewalls on many boards are angled in, and will therefore give you a smaller measurement on the deck than on the base. For our example's sake, let's say the measurement is 27.54 at the center insert.
> 
> ...


Hey Wired, so after reading this advice i have obeyed but want your input. Great post btw.

Height: 6"4
Weight: 190lb
Foot: 29.5cm
Neversummer Heritage 162cm
Width at insert: 27.0cm
Stance angle 15/-15

At that angle i will roughly lose 1cm off the effective length of my foot across the board, never thought Pythagoras Theorem would EVER come in handy, i think i owe my maths teacher an apology. This still leaves me at 28.5cm vs a 27cm board width. Is this too much?

I posted my height etc to make sure i'm looking at the correct board length. I asked the shop to measure the Heritage X also but they dont have it in stock, will i be ok with a regular heritage or should i look in to sizing the heritage x too?

Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

smokebelch109 said:


> Hey Wired, so after reading this advice i have obeyed but want your input. Great post btw.
> 
> Height: 6"4
> Weight: 190lb
> ...


1.5 cm is great. .75 cm toe and heelside is a solid fit. Personally I would rather go a narrower and get the extra resonsiveness but the wide (X) will be ~ 1cm wider and will leave you enough overhang for great leverage.

Thanks!


----------



## smokebelch109 (Nov 6, 2012)

I did wonder wether you meant 1cm either side of the board. great stuff, i just wish i could trial both!


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

Extremo said:


> Wow...that's completely impractical. For the effort all that would take I'm not sure there's much benefit. You'd literally have to measure every board you were interested in. I have a hard enough time determining what I want already. Think about how limiting this would be. Imagine your favorite board with a reported waist width didn't match the your foot length. Then you couldn't get the board. Ok, so you might argue 1 or 2 millimeters doesn't make that much of a difference, just determine your range. So then what's the point of this at all? If you're looking to get into a millimeter range, just use waist width as a guide and know there will be a standard variation based on differences in geometry. You're essentially wasting your time even thinking about this.
> 
> PS - And where is the common sense in all of this?
> 
> Anyone who rides boilerplate regularly knows ideally you want as narrow a board as possible for quickest edge to edge transfer. But that same board is going to leave you hanging up at every turn in powder. Riding conditions aren't figured into this equation which are more practically significant than the predetermined geometrical theory you've proposed. Just sayin.


I think that's the whole point of the exercise, isn't it? To find a board that is both narrow enough to provide great leverage, while not being too narrow to create drag. That's the common sense in all of this.

I wear 7.5 boots and that fucks me out of a lot of the wider boards. Hell I hopped on a Coda 153 and you could BARELY see my boots from underneath the board. But I never noticed any sluggishness on hardpack/ice.

It's a guideline but unless you're in a perfectly narrow range, it isn't going to be black and white.


----------

