# Size up from recommended? Tall skinny dudes?



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

zmargoli said:


> Hey peeps,
> 
> New to posting on the forum and not lurking. Yayz!
> 
> ...


Agility also comes from the sidecut and flex. If the 156 is somewhat freestyle oriented (ie tight turn radius and mid flex) you should be fine. It'll definitely float better and will be better for speed than the 153.

My wife rode a 156 all last yr and shes like 130lbs. She was ok and rode it everywhere; but prefers her new 152 which is slightly softer, tighter radius and full camber, for groomers.

I'm sure shell want to bring the 156 for when theres fresh snow.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm 5'11" 150 pounds, I ride a 154 but have ridden longer. A lot depends on your personal preferences and the specific board. With the right technique, plenty of lighter guys handle big boards. Honestly, I doubt you'd even notice the 3 cm if you did a blind test. I tend to set my bindings out one insert because of height. And play with it and see what works best for you.


----------



## Romo (Oct 17, 2020)

What happened to measuring the length to fit between your collar bone and chin?


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

Romo said:


> What happened to measuring the length to fit between your collar bone and chin?


Size of snowboard only relates to the weight of the rider.
Height is only used by rental shops to rush people out the door.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

When it comes to the abnormal I typically move you up and down the aggressiveness scale. Though for you being under 6 foot, it doesn't matter as much, you're not average, but you're not THAT far off. If you are that concerned about it, add 30lbs to your weight, find the appropriate size for you then, then effectively (if possible) "model down" instead of size down. A great example is if you were looking at the Arbor A Frame. The Crosscut is essentially a mellowed out version of that board, nearly identical just softer and less or no carbon. So, keep the same size as if you weight more, but instead of looking at the A-Frame, look at the Crosscut. Instead of a mid flex park board, size up on a more jibby board. That way your center of gravity wont be locked into a too small range on the shorter board, but you also wont feel underweight on it. Modeling down can be done across brands too, just depends on what you're looking for. 

Strength and skill matter a hell of a lot too. I weight about 150 and ride anything (not including volume shift stuff) from a 150 to a 165. If you are a strong rider and a technically skilled rider, you can overcome "upsizing" just fine. I do it all the time. So does my protege. Easily weighs 110 on a fat day and prefers the 56 Simple Pleasures to the 51. Way under ideal weight for it, but he likes the stiffness. 

TLDR; If it feels good ignore the charts.


----------



## NT.Thunder (Jan 4, 2020)

Romo said:


> What happened to measuring the length to fit between your collar bone and chin?


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

125lbs here; my preferred freeride board size is 156, because I have long legs and a wide stance, and am used to long boards and am generally old n stubborn and just like that number. 

If you're tall n skinny, stance width on weight sized boards could become an issue, I.e. too narrow. If so, and you therefore intend to size up, go for a not overly stiff board, I.e. go for softish-medium flex to compensate for the lack of weight you can put on the deck. If you oversize on a stiff board, be prepared to work real hard for your turns. Every turn.


----------



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

I like sizing down as much as possible for most things except big mountain freeride that's not through trees. I used to be 6'3" 160lbs, and started on a 163W. 

I have a 164W and a 195 now. They only come out when I want to ride groomers fast or there's a wide open powder day. They suck through tight spots.

Shorter is always better for tight spots like trees and moguls... It doesn't matter if you're capable of riding a long board if it doesn't fit between bumps. I think this is true regardless of your size and weight...a 151 is going to maneuver around things way better than a 162 no matter who is on it.

You have more leeway than I do. A 156 is still an average size board all things considered.


----------



## MrDavey2Shoes (Mar 5, 2018)

@Nivek who is this mysterious protege we continue to hear about?


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

A freaking Texan we hired site-unseen 5 years ago. I took the opportunity to fill his feeble and fresh 19yr old brain with all my knowledge and wisdom. Oh and learnt him to ride narrow and double posi. Kid rips a hard ass heelside. Support him and his buddies by buying a Keystone Surf Club Teita (Japanese carving hand plane). He's like 5'10, 110lbs, and wears a size 6 boot. Vans, K2 Lineups, and a Niseko Pleasures 56.


----------



## MrDavey2Shoes (Mar 5, 2018)

Posi posi vibes only, I love that.


----------



## WigMar (Mar 17, 2019)

That Teita is pretty cool too. I'm against getting my hands on the snow because I've got hardware in both of my arms. Maybe a Teita would give the glide necessary to make it safer on my skeleton.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

Its a new sensation to get used to, and generally not for balls out speed anyhow. Its inspired by the Moss dudes so think that style of carving. Relatively low impact, very controlled.


----------



## snow & pow adventures (Oct 28, 2020)

Manicmouse said:


> Size of snowboard only relates to the weight of the rider.
> Height is only used by rental shops to rush people out the door.


Back in the days (90') that was the only way of measuring snowboard length we all knew. Not only rentals  and it worked ok.




drblast said:


> Shorter is always better for tight spots like trees and moguls... It doesn't matter if you're capable of riding a long board if it doesn't fit between bumps. I think this is true regardless of your size and weight...a 151 is going to maneuver around things way better than a 162 no matter who is on it.


Not really. Size doesn't really matter that much in trees. Other factors/stats are more important. Maybe when you compare 170sth to 150sth ...but 152-162 doesn't really change much.


----------



## BoarderHack89 (Mar 1, 2020)

Idk what you guys are eating and drinking but I’m 6’0 205-210 lbs and lean. ? My wife is 5’7 125 lbs and doesn’t had much fat to spare. Anyway I think in the end you are just gonna have to ride some boards and see what you like, really it’s the only way.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

snow & pow adventures said:


> Back in the days (90') that was the only way of measuring snowboard length we all knew. Not only rentals  and it worked ok.
> 
> Not really. Size doesn't really matter that much in trees. Other factors/stats are more important. Maybe when you compare 170sth to 150sth ...but 152-162 doesn't really change much.


"Ok" isn't a standard to aspire to.

Disagree with 152-162 not changing much. Boards built for lighter riders are noodles for heavier riders.


----------



## snow & pow adventures (Oct 28, 2020)

Manicmouse said:


> "Ok" isn't a standard to aspire to.
> 
> Disagree with 152-162 not changing much. Boards built for lighter riders are noodles for heavier riders.


Haha of course Ok isn't a standard we want, I'm just saying in past, we didn't care that much  At least me and my boys here.


Board sizes - not comparing two different riders. For the same rider, the length isn't that much of a factor in trees. Of course if you skilled enough to rip fast through forest.


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

snow & pow adventures said:


> Haha of course Ok isn't a standard we want, I'm just saying in past, we didn't care that much  At least me and my boys here.
> 
> 
> Board sizes - not comparing two different riders. For the same rider, the length isn't that much of a factor in trees. Of course if you skilled enough to rip fast through forest.


Well.. the expert rider riding since the 90ties isn't typically the guy who asks on a forum about board sizes. 

When giving advice for other riders asking on a forum, it's helpful to abstract ones recommendation to the one who asks, not to one's own level, IMHO. (Funnily, I experience this lack of abstraction often by expert riders... some guys of my pack are so good, they can ride any board in any conditions, drunk and blind... they became too good to give recommendations to us not so good riders as they totally forgot how it is to not ride natural on anything.) 


(BTW: we didn't care about long boards in the 90ties, as boards all were rather long, but they were also quite narrow, which gives a different riding feel than the same length of a nowadays deck which are wider than the oldschool decks. Aaaand... we didn't care as we didn't know anything else. If we would have had a '20 board to compare, if we'd knew how a modern well sized board would feel, we may would have cared)


----------



## snow & pow adventures (Oct 28, 2020)

neni said:


> Well.. the expert rider riding since the 90ties isn't typically the guy who asks on a forum about board sizes.
> 
> When giving advice for other riders asking on a forum, it's helpful to abstract ones recommendation to the one who asks, not to one's own level, IMHO. (Funnily, I experience this lack of abstraction often by expert riders... some guys of my pack are so good, they can ride any board in any conditions, drunk and blind... they became too good to give recommendations to us not so good riders as they totally forgot how it is to not ride natural on anything.)
> 
> ...


Totally agree. Not sure thou, why you picked me to reply too  I'm not giving any advice here, just correcting the statement about the size of the board and treeriding. Also, I'm not saying it doesn't matter - it doesn't matter THAT MUCH 

"we didn't care as we didn't know anything else" - this is it. Some of us couldn't even afford a board  Now I have plenty lol


----------



## drblast (Feb 28, 2017)

Around here going through trees is often like riding a poorly designed banked slalom course. The trees are close together, snow is warm and wet snow-ment, and ruts from other people are well worn and if you're 6'+ trying to navigate that while not hitting your head on branches it's quite a challenge and every little bit helps.

Shorter boards in situations like that help a ton if you're at my skill level which is better than most people at the resort, but not pro. 10cm is a huge difference. I know because I own both and it's way easier to ride the shorter boards.


----------



## Manicmouse (Apr 7, 2014)

@neni - "I'm not so good" whilst also posting photos from her epic off-piste riding  I'm not buying it, I'm sure you're way better than you think you are - or you're very humble


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Manicmouse said:


> @neni - "I'm not so good" whilst also posting photos from her epic off-piste riding  I'm not buying it, I'm sure you're way better than you think you are - or you're very humble


Haha, right, maybe, well... not really, lol. Just realistic. 
It always depends on to whom you compare to . In my pack, I'm the least advanced 🐣🐌. By far. I've no problem to admit that. It's not a competition, and I still learn and progress every season, in my own slow manner.


----------

