# The struggle of small feet



## ashwinearl (Jan 19, 2010)

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

Don't let anyone tell you that small feet isn't and issue and to 'just ride' There is a gap in available snowboards of narrow width boards for someone who isn't a kid. I have been compiling a list of boards that tend towards the narrower side. The list is skewed for lengths around 149, but most of the models make one for your length.


----------



## essie52 (Mar 19, 2014)

Napoleon said:


> I am in my 5th season of snowboarding and starting to pick on things I realized I'd been doing wrong. None of my friends board, so I never had anyone to really answer questions.
> 
> When I first started, I was set up with a size 8 boot. I've always dealt with foot pain and cramping and just figured it was the insoles. After going to a better boot fitter, it turned out my boots were always too big. I should have been wearing a size 7 or 7.5. Which brings us to today...
> 
> ...


Try being a 5.5 shoe sized female.


----------



## Napoleon (Feb 27, 2013)

I read that thread already and got pretty much no answer. Ashwinearl - from reading your post, you weigh A LOT less than me. Meaning, you could pick up a narrow board (151N for example). My issue is that I weigh 180 lbs and a narrow board, I worry, wouldn't be able to handle that. However, a regular width board can handle the weight, but leaves too much space between my toe and edge to get effective pressure. 

I can still board, but I do notice that I have to work EXTRA hard to get pressure on my edges. I just wonder what is the better choice - 1) reg. width board and just have to work harder to get pressure on the edge or 2) narrow board that isn't built to hold 180lbs.

Probably be easier when my bodybuilding days are over and I "un-mass" myself, but for now, I need to deal with the problem.


----------



## Irahi (May 19, 2011)

Napoleon said:


> I just wonder what is the better choice - 1) reg. width board and just have to work harder to get pressure on the edge or 2) narrow board that isn't built to hold 180lbs.


Size 7 feet, 165lb here.

This depends on the kind of terrain and speeds you ride at. If you're mostly on groomers and aren't doing anything particularly gnarly, then a narrower board will be better, even if it's softer. If you regularly need to handle suboptimal, choppy, or any soft snow conditions, then a regular width board of the appropriate stiffness will be better.

I find that as long as I stick at most to ~250 waist width, it's not too bad. Over that starts to get really bad for groomers. ~240 waist widths don't make enough of a difference to offset how flimsy the boards in that category tend to be, I really think I'd have to be at more like 230 for it to make enough difference to be worth it, but at that point you're into 140cm women's boards or kids boards that are completely useless.


----------



## ashwinearl (Jan 19, 2010)

Look up the posts from wraithfuldiety regarding narrow boardrs for non lightweight.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Napolean,

Everything starts with your barefoot measurement and your weight. Then consider your stance width and angles. That will give you the full picture. What is your barefoot measurement?

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).


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

Napoleon said:


> I just wonder what is the better choice - 1) reg. width board and just have to work harder to get pressure on the edge or 2) narrow board that isn't built to hold 180lbs.


Napoleon - I have been asking the same question and I'm not sure anyone can answer it. I am 170 - feet measure 24.4 with Wired's method. I got some advice on another site that suggested trying a board at the top of the weight range. For example, a women's Jones Flagship 156 is relatively narrow for most boards and tops out at 180 lbs. 

Is it ideal? Perhaps not, but literally no one makes a narrow board with a high weight range. It is mostly a matter of physics and it isn't on our side!

I am going to start trying a few if I can find them to demo just to feel the difference. At least I know there are some better options than my current Custom Flying V.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

ashwinearl said:


> Look up the posts from wraithfuldiety regarding narrow boardrs for non lightweight.


wut does a narrow board make my ass look fat:facepalm3:


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

Medium binding is okay as long as the straps can be shortened enough and your boot is centered on the board when fastened.
Don't be so carried away with the perfect setup. Most of the time you won't even notice.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

wrathfuldeity said:


> wut does a narrow board make my ass look fat:facepalm3:


:lol: :rofl3:

You're lucky! It's My _Ass_ that makes _my_ ass look fat!!!  :rofl3:


----------



## ashwinearl (Jan 19, 2010)

Haven't ridden these, but from reading, maybe look to the boards marketed as women's free ride. They might have relatively narrower waists but be on the stiffer side.

Jones flagship women's, Atomic Polarity, Arbor Push, Option Trinity,


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

There are ways to deal with this. Start with bindings that offer a mechanical advantage on edge since with smaller feet you won't have the same overhang. Now and Flow. With Flow shift the binding so it's a little toe biased cause the cable in the highback will compensate on the heelside.

Next, put your ego in a safe box and don't be afraid to ride a women's deck. One of the guys i work with is a 7-7.5 and does this if he needs to. He has had quite a lot of fun on the Women's Flagship and Arbor Swoon Camber for next year. 

Take the camber profile and sidecut into consideration as well. The more rocker it has the faster it will be edge to edge. A 24.6 waist with a 7.3m sidecut will probably be about as fast edge to edge as a 24.8 with a 7.8m.

Boots, this is about fit first as always, but remember that a stiffer boot will offer better advantage on edge sonce you can put more weight into the top of it and less on your actual foot. It'll steer the board with your legs instead of your feet though, so know it will feel different.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

ashwinearl said:


> Haven't ridden these, but from reading, maybe look to the boards marketed as women's free ride. They might have relatively narrower waists but be on the stiffer side.
> 
> Jones flagship women's, Atomic Polarity, Arbor Push, Option Trinity,


Highly doubt you will find a Trinity...not many made and iirc last made in 2005....Option Bella and Option Signatures (men's version of the Bella) can be found. One of the problems with older women's boards...is that the stance widith are not wide enough.

edit: also consider using riser plates

2nd edit...here is an ancient bella stiffy....iirc circa 2001/2

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Option-Bell...243085670?pt=Snowboarding&hash=item2336ca5766


----------



## Jimi77 (Feb 15, 2015)

I second the idea of riser plates.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

I would avoid risers at all costs. Less board feel and it will mess with the way modern boards are designed and tuned to flex.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Nivek said:


> I would avoid risers at all costs. Less board feel and it will mess with the way modern boards are designed and tuned to flex.


^ Disagree...it depends on how the plates are designed...I made mine...out of high density plastic...same stuff of cutting boards; and the same exact foot print of the bindings...and thus will not effect the flex of oversized plates like the "Palmer plates". The only thing with flex is that you have a bit more power/angle/leverage to torsionally flex because of the angle...imho not a bad thing for the small footed. I use these 20mm plates on my charlie slasher 164 which has a waist width of 26 cm (boot size 7)...anyway its still abit slow edge to edge response because of the width but at least I can get a decent edge angle on the groomed.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

The dead spot didnt get bigger, but what's gonna flex more, a binding, or a binding with a 20mm UHMW block underneath it?


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Nivek said:


> The dead spot didnt get bigger, but what's gonna flex more, a binding, or a binding with a 20mm UHMW block underneath it?


imo the main part of the flex is the board...of course dependent of the flex of the board....but sure there will be some flex at the binding dependent on how stiff the bindings are and perhaps the riser block. But because of the riser you get more leverage because of the change of the elevated pivot point.


----------



## Jimi77 (Feb 15, 2015)

Ironically, risers were originally for the big footed.

I worked in an adaptive program for years and risers and cants can definitely help with leverage. 

Reduced feel isn't a bad thing either - it's a matter of preference.


----------



## flips712 (Dec 10, 2011)

*List?*



ashwinearl said:


> Read this thread:
> http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/144778-small-boot-snowboarders-support-group.html
> 
> Don't let anyone tell you that small feet isn't and issue and to 'just ride' There is a gap in available snowboards of narrow width boards for someone who isn't a kid. *I have been compiling a list of boards that tend towards the narrower side. *The list is skewed for lengths around 149, but most of the models make one for your length.


Hi Ashwinearl, 

Can you please share the list of narrower boards that you've been compiling? Thanks!


----------



## flips712 (Dec 10, 2011)

Hey wrathfuldeity,

Can you post a picture of the riser plates you made if it's not too much trouble? Thanks!


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

flips712 said:


> Hey wrathfuldeity,
> 
> Can you post a picture of the riser plates you made if it's not too much trouble? Thanks!


some and a bunch of others

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos?tab=wq#photos/114215022719963410889/albums/5669825768548069409


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Just saying as the board was mentioned several times in this thread:

I'm riding a '14 Jones Mothership 156 (the '15 version is called "women's Flagship", specs are the same). 
My feet measure 24.5cm. I use a stiff size 7 US men's boot and Lexa bindings.

Board/set up works very well with this foot size, be it quick transitions or long drawn-out carves.


----------



## ashwinearl (Jan 19, 2010)

flips712 said:


> Hi Ashwinearl,
> 
> Can you please share the list of narrower boards that you've been compiling? Thanks!


Attached are jpgs from a spreadsheet. Note the first four boards are current or past boards. These are all around the 146-150 length but you can see the brand/model to see if they have the length you are interested in.

Some not on the list yet
Flow Jewel
Nitro Cheryl Mass
Ride Hellcat
Salomon Sabotage

Hope this helps someone.
Today my current favs are Capita BOF/ Jess Kimura Pro, Signal Vita Wavelength, Salomon Gypsy, Ride OMG, all RCR. In traditional camber, Arbor Eden, Atomic Polarity, Atomic Fallen Angel, Prior Slaylok. 

A lot of my filtering is based on what is available used and looking for best bang for buck.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

another board...is an old solomon lush circa 2009, it was jamie anderson's pro model, a stiffy cambered twin for park


----------



## Irahi (May 19, 2011)

ashwinearl said:


> These are all around the 146-150 length but you can see the brand/model to see if they have the length you are interested in.


The problem is that women's boards inexplicably get far fatter as soon as you get above 150 lengths. The Flow jewel for example @ 152cm is 249mm wide, which might as well be a men's board, even though it's quite narrow a few sizes down.

It's just another thing to be both wary of and bitter about.


----------



## kirbster (Jan 25, 2012)

I have 25.5 feet and weigh 190 in all my gear. For years I rode a NS Premier 159(25.4 waist width) with the bindings centered on the board and wondered why it was so hard to get on my toe edge in softer snow or steep terrain. 
Moving my bindings as far to the toe edge as the discs would allow helped a lot but you still don't have the leverage you would with a narrower board.
I've ridden my GF's 157 Raven(24.0 waist width) and I can get it on my toe edge just by thinking about it and it's blast to ride, however I don't like how it tosses me around in choppy crappy snow. I think it's a combination of the over all reduction in length and width together not just the width. It didn't float as well in powder as the premier but it didn't submarine either.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

wrathfuldeity said:


> Highly doubt you will find a Trinity...not many made and iirc last made in 2005....Option Bella and Option Signatures (men's version of the Bella) can be found. One of the problems with older women's boards...is that the stance widith are not wide enough.
> 
> edit: also consider using riser plates
> 
> ...


I sold a Bella to a girl earlier this year,she's moving back to Germany.

It's for sale.


TT


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

timmytard said:


> I sold a Bella to a girl earlier this year,she's moving back to Germany.
> 
> It's for sale.
> 
> ...


I've also owned & rode a 54 Bella, cause some 9's are the size of 8's

Never Summer chic boards are the best ones (haha only other ones)
that I've ridden, but they can handle it, better than a lot of other guy boards I've ridden.

The Lotus was just a skinnier & softer Premier F1, I believe?

I wish they made bigger chic sticks, 57 was the biggest, but I'd be all over a 62-65. 

I just clicked Wraths link & I had the 54 of that year, mine was identical.
Same color & everything. haha


TT


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

I've got 7.5 feet, about 145lbs. The Proto HD in 152 is just ever so slightly the right size when I stand barefoot. 24.4 ww.

Thinking of a custom Prior AMF, or maybe even this year's (2015) Jones Women's flagship, which doesn't look like a girl board (unless that base is pink, online it looks red).

Wanting something more beefaroni than the Proto, I had an Arbor Coda (25.0) and a K2 Happy Hour, both of which I ride fine but indeed are too wide.

So ... is that base pink or red?


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

jdang307 said:


> I've got 7.5 feet, about 145lbs. The Proto HD in 152 is just ever so slightly the right size when I stand barefoot. 24.4 ww.
> 
> Thinking of a custom Prior AMF, or maybe even this year's (2015) Jones Women's flagship, which doesn't look like a girl board (unless that base is pink, online it looks red).
> 
> ...


Why don't you buy my Infinity?

At 156 the ww is 23.9
& it's mint.

TT


----------

