# How will a snowboard that is too long feel?



## bntran02

I'm evaluating if I could use a longer snowboard. I currently ride a Ride Decade 156cm and thinking about the Ride Highlife UL 161. The next step down is 158 which might be too small of a difference compared to my current board. I don't have the luxury of trying it out before I buy.

Height: 5'10"
Weight: 166lb
Boot Size: 10.5
Style: All Mountain speed charger (marked trails only). No interest in trees or parks.
Preferred Terrain: 50% groomers, 50% fresh pow
Terrain Experience: 35% groomed, 35% hard pack, 20% ice,10% fresh pow
Experience: 11 Days on rentals, 20 days on Ride Decade

I'd love to get the 161 but would hate to have shot myself in the foot because it's too long. How will it feel if it's too long? Will a 158 make a big enough difference to justify it instead?

Thanks for any input


----------



## triumph.man

for one, i would think it's harder to carve


----------



## Minny2Mountain

If I were you I would go to a 161. I'm 6'1'' 170 and ride a 163 for the type of riding you described and it kills it at speed and stability. No reason to buy a board 2 cm larger IMO.


----------



## redlude97

I'm 180lbs and ride mostly 156-158 boards. Get the 158


----------



## lonerider

triumph.man said:


> for one, i would think it's harder to carve


The board will require more effort to manipulate... which is not exactly the same thing as harder to carve as once you do get the board on edge, it will be more stable and have better edgehold which are two things that make carving easier. The extra effort will be noticeable in bumps and trees (were you will want to be quick and nimble).

I'm 5'9" 150 lbs and I've riden board up to 178cm in length and if you know what you are doing - they can be fun to ride. However in this case I wold say go with the 158. Length is only one of many differences between boards and don't feel like you have to change you size to feel a difference.

I would not be afraid of longer lengths... but at the same time there is no reason to go long unless you specifically want the benefits that come with longer board (more effective edge, more stability at high speed).


----------



## srdeo

I agree with lonerider. In a way its actually easier to carve with longer stiffer board at higher speed. Its much easier to make your board hold edge. But if you dont already know how to carve it's going to be harder to turn and less maneuverable. you have to also remember that you are going from mid flex to stiff flex board. so that is already like adding little bit of length. 158 or 159 stiff board would be good all arounder especially for riding resorts. You can definately go with 161 if you are good at carving (especially if you plan on keeping the decade around). Or i would at least check out highlife UL 159 wide. I think with 10.5 you will be ok with wide. wider board will give you little more stiffness and it's 159. overally it's going to be as stable as 161 regular width but more maneuverable given your feet is big enough.


----------



## bntran02

I appreciate all the helpful responses but I am still a little torn.

I feel that I am already a very proficient high speed carver and that I could really benefit from the 161 length as lonerider stated. I am generally very quick with switching edges on my current board to point where moguls don't really bother me.

But if a stiffer board alone brings the same benefits of a longer board like srdeo stated then maybe the 158 would be plenty. Ride rates The Decade to Highlife stiffness rating as 6 vs 9.

Going wide is a good idea but not really an option. My Decade's waist width is exactly the size it needs to be (Just a tad bit of overhang). The Waist widths are 249,252,254,263 for the Decade 156, HL 158, HL 161, HL159W respectively. I'm no expert but I think 263 from 249 is too wide.

I intend on keeping my Decade board around for a little while as a backup but my intention is to replace it.

Will the "effort to manipulate" be _that_ much greater with a 161 vs 158??


----------



## lonerider

bntran02 said:


> Will the "effort to manipulate" be _that_ much greater with a 161 vs 158??


No, it will not be that much of a difference, but it is noticeble. The only concern we all have is that you might be surprised by the combination or the increased stiffness AND length. Realize we are making educated guess based on basically a few lines of information.

It sounds like after reading what the potential pitfalls are, you still want to go for the 161... then go for it as 3 cm is not a huge difference in terms of length (just don't come back blaming us if it is not what you wanted).


----------



## Milo303

Ok, I ride all of my boards long.

I weigh around 180-200 usually but my diet slipped and I've dropped down to 165.

However, I'm a firm believer in riding boards slightly longer than what the new weight to length scales recommend.

My play board is a 59, my big boy board is a 63. Both wides as I have large feet, so I get even more surface area.

Here's the thing, you WILL adjust to having a slightly longer board and you WILL be able to make it do everything people on smaller boards are doing. It will take more effort, and a little more time to adjust, but in turn you will become a better rider imo.

On the flip side, your buddies may be downsizing as far as they can go, and they will pay for it on powder days.

If you're wanting to be as close to a one stick quiver guy as possible, get the slightly to long board and adjust to it.

With that being said, and your options being a 58 and a 61, I think you should go with the 58 unless you plan on gaining some weight.

The 58 is already pushing the longer side for your overall size and the 61 may be a bit goofy. 

And about waist width, you DO NOT need a 263 waist width with size 10.5 stompers. My feet are much bigger than yours and I go with a 260 and up, unless you're some mega carver and touch your nose to the snow mid carve.

The 58 will be a perfect do everything size for you imo.


----------



## bntran02

After flip-flopping between the two sizes _numerous_ times for several days I eventually clicked "submit order" on the 161cm and here is why:

1) I found a nearby store that had a 161 in stock and the difference between my current board vs the new one was not noticeable. My tests were just simple bend tests.

2) I got in contact with a representative at ridesnowboards to somehow compare the stiffness of the two boards and was told that a board's rating is only *relative to other boards in the same year*. i.e: A board rated at 6 one year would be "upgraded" to 9 or 10 if all boards stiffer than 6 were removed from their lineup.

3) The same person also said that the stiffness "feel" can be significantly reduced depending on the rocker/camber profile. *A board's stiffness then becomes meaningless unless compared to other boards with the exact same profile*.

4) Also that the challenge for me would not be adapting to the new stiffness but more akin to adapting to a new rocker/camber profile with a different level of pop and dampness. This adaptation would have to occur regardless of size. According to him, 161 was a good size for me because I have no intention of going in the park.

Wow...This whole "how is a long board gonna feel" thread pushed me to do a lot more research about what to expect and how to compare two boards with a 4 year generation gap. Thanks for any and all responses and I hope that I was able to share some information did you did not already know.


----------



## Nefarious

If it's no problem, you should toss up a review once you get a few rides on it. I've been thinking long and hard about the Highlife for the last few weeks. 

I ride a 158 in a NS Evo, so I figure I'll size up and go at least 161 for this beast. Then I'll have as complete of a quiver as I need. The Evo gives me the playful aspect and the Highlife will allow me to crush the sound barrier. :cheeky4:


----------



## bntran02

Nefarious said:


> If it's no problem, you should toss up a review once you get a few rides on it. I've been thinking long and hard about the Highlife for the last few weeks.
> 
> I ride a 158 in a NS Evo, so I figure I'll size up and go at least 161 for this beast. Then I'll have as complete of a quiver as I need. The Evo gives me the playful aspect and the Highlife will allow me to crush the sound barrier. :cheeky4:


I would love to but it's pretty unlikely that i'll get a chance to go before the season is over. I live in Texas and have already gone 3 times this season so a 4th trip may be pushing a different barrier (my budget)


----------



## triumph.man

i would rather have gone riding xxx more times than opt to purchase a new board. it's the rider and not the board that makes you a better rider. but to each their own



bntran02 said:


> I would love to but it's pretty unlikely that i'll get a chance to go before the season is over. I live in Texas and have already gone 3 times this season so a 4th trip may be pushing a different barrier (my budget)


----------



## bntran02

triumph.man said:


> i would rather have gone riding xxx more times than opt to purchase a new board. it's the rider and not the board that makes you a better rider. but to each their own


Agreed. Story changes if you also have a wife to pay for with expensive accommodation _needs_.
i.e: Board: $200 - 500. Trip with wife: $2000 to infinity


----------



## Nefarious

I know this feeling very well. You chose wisely. I avoid taking my wife on trips when possible. I love spending time with her, but her "basic needs" are that of a small village. :laugh:

No worries on the review. I'm most likely going to buy it either way. As my riding progresses, so does my desire for speed and stability.


----------



## Triple8Sol

There are other factors that effect the stability and agility besides length, such as sidecut radius, effective edge, width, weight, etc... Plenty of factors. Everyone else as pretty much summed it up though, so go with what is in your range. Don't size too far up/down.


----------



## srdeo

yeah please let us know how the new board is working for you. Length, longitunal and torsional stiffness etc..
How it ride on different part of mountain.. steeps, moguls parks carving etc


----------



## ETM

You only ride in a specific way so you have the luxury of being able to ride a board that is designed for the type of riding you do instead of a "do it all" stick like most people ride which isnt great at anything but ok at most things.

You should have a look at racing boards and see what features they have, and also what they dont. You would more than likely enjoy a stiff board with a large sidecut radius and heavy traditional camber. I would not be worried about overall length as much as effective edge length.


----------



## srdeo

I think he made a pretty good choice. I am assuming by race board you mean hard boots.
He said he is a charger not a carver. By charge i think he mean he likes to bomb downhill, not make half circles.
Chargers ride with the base flat alot and point the board downhill (along the fall line), carvers ride cross the fall line (at top of the turn). I think chargers usually become somewhat of a carver, but i dont think he is there yet because he hasnt say a thing about carving.
Plus i think regular boards are little more versatile than hard boots.
And depending on where he rides hard boots may be out of question. (small hills, not the best of grooming etc)


----------



## bntran02

srdeo said:


> I think he made a pretty good choice. I am assuming by race board you mean hard boots.
> He said he is a charger not a carver. By charge i think he mean he likes to bomb downhill, not make half circles.
> Chargers ride with the base flat alot and point the board downhill (along the fall line), carvers ride cross the fall line (at top of the turn). I think chargers usually become somewhat of a carver, but i dont think he is there yet because he hasnt say a thing about carving.
> Plus i think regular boards are little more versatile than hard boots.
> And depending on where he rides hard boots may be out of question. (small hills, not the best of grooming etc)


Hm...i never thought about the difference between charging vs carving. To me carving is just snowboarding in a way that leaves a very thin grove in the snow which I do often. To be more specific, I generally go _down_ the fall-line more often than _across_ it like the way you defined "carving". I like to go very vast which, like you said, usually involves some level of carving. When I am "charging" I am usually on edge and not flat based and leave the thin grove in the snow. As far as the boots go, I already have two pairs and never planned on getting another pair. I have a stiffer Boa style and a more flexible Traditional style boot.

I typically ride in large resorts on marked trails in Colorado, Utah and Lake Tahoe. My most recent trips this year alone have been to Copper Mountain, Loveland, Squaw and Park City.


----------



## srdeo

if you ride those resort, you can look into hard boot/alpine boards. Carvers basicly stay in carves longer thru the turn so they stay in a turn till their board is cross the fall line then switch edge. (making two half cirles). Since the alping boards are much stiffer with much larger sidecut, you can ride much faster and still hold an edge. Look into bomberonline.com or alpinecarving.com there are alot of information and i think bomber has store in Colorado where you can demo them. And what you describe as carving is also carving not just to an extent alpine riders to do. The way you ride is a more of a boardercross like riding. Alpine board is more of a sports car than regular boards and made to turn at high speed. you can take 50mph 90 degree turn in civic but it would be much easier in Porsche. Boardercross boards pros use are like a mix between all mountain board and alpine boards. A lot of alpine boards were used in the past in boardercross also, but they have disappeared since then. From what i've heard, the way the course is set up these days don't give hardboots any advantage.


----------



## bntran02

Nefarious said:


> I know this feeling very well. You chose wisely. I avoid taking my wife on trips when possible. I love spending time with her, but her "basic needs" are that of a small village. :laugh:
> 
> No worries on the review. I'm most likely going to buy it either way. As my riding progresses, so does my desire for speed and stability.


So, I was able to perform various types of voodoo magic and got my wife to cut back on her "necessities" and squeezed in a 4th trip! So, as promised i'll share my thoughts. But before that i'd like to first say that I have really only ridden two boards in so my "review" will be more like a comparison between my old 2008 Ride Decade and my new 2012 Ride Highlife UL. Since they are both ride boards they will be easier to compare. Also I may not be experienced enough to point out exactly how a board performed or felt better. 

I snowboarded for two days at copper mountain and loveland. Conditions were:
*Copper mountain* started with powder up top and icy everywhere else. As the day progressed, the mountain soften and the slush moved uphill. Dirt patches were all over and crust were in all places that looked like powder.
*Loveland* was nothing short of amazing! About a foot of fresh powder had fallen at the base and much more at the top. I may even say that this is hero snow thought this would be my first experience with it so I cannot compare.

*Here are my thoughts:*
*Stiffness*: The decade had a stiffness of 7 while the highlife had a stiffness of 9. To be honest I felt no difference in stiffness. Mr. Tidbits, who appears to be a Ride employee on the ride forums, clarified this stating that a stiffness rating depends more on the rider and is only comparative to other boards in the same year. This level of stiffness worked out for me because it shortened the time taken to get use to the new board. 

*Length*: Like the stiffness, I could not feel the difference in size (156cm vs 161cm). This is good because the benefits of a longer board are still realized without losing maneuverability. I did a few mogul runs and did not feel like the board was too big for it. In fact, it felt exactly the same. Perhaps a longer board is just my inherent preference.

*High Speed*: I was not able to push my speed limits because of _extremely_ variable conditions but I can definitely say that this board is more stable at higher speeds. My top speed was measured at 31mph (a little higher because GPS-based measurements do not take into account changes in altitude). At that speed I felt no instability and was only slowed by dirt patches and such. My typical top speed is around 40mph but I begin to lose confidence in my Ride Decade before that.

*Edge Hold*: The edges hold much better in all conditions. The highlife rides like most boards flat-based but engage a nice edge and it cuts through anything at any speed! It's like snow bumps aren't even there. 

*Dampening*: I hear a lot of fuss about this category but i felt that there is only a small difference in dampness. Perhaps my expectations were too high in that the board was going to be perfectly smooth all the time. Only more time will tell...
_Edit_: Crud felt just as great as fresh powder. An amazing feeling!

*Carbon*: The decade had carbon array 3 vs 5 on the highlife. The Carbon array is suppose to help the transfer of energy from your bindings to key points on your board. This was definitely noticeable for me when making micro adjustments in my turns as I was constantly dodging dirt, avoiding rocks or branches.

*Weight*: This board is light. Very light. In fact, my 156 decade felt much heavier than my highlife. I compared this by taking lifting one board on each hand simultaneously without bindings. 

*Profile*: Traditional camber on decade and hybrid for highlife (rocker nose, micro-camber underfoot). See more below...

*Powder float*: In one word, Amazing! I used the standard bindings placement with no set back. I started the day off naturally leaning back to pull the nose up. Very shortly after I realized it was not necessary to lean back at all. No more than 30 minutes later I had fully adjusted and was standing fully centered and having a blast. I went through varying levels of snow and just trusted the board to do it's thing. This board does have its limits. About 2-3 feet of powder was at the top and I found myself needing to lean backwards a bit. None of this was possible with my decade board.

All in all, I really enjoyed the two days spent with my new board and can't wait till next season to further push the limits. Hope this helps somebody out there thinking about the highlife.


----------



## poutanen

bntran02 said:


> *Length*: Like the stiffness, I could not feel the difference in size (156cm vs 161cm). This is good because the benefits of a longer board are still realized without losing maneuverability. I did a few mogul runs and did not feel like the board was too big for it. In fact, it felt exactly the same. Perhaps a longer board is just my inherent preference.


Funny you mentioned this, I went from a 153 to a 159 a few years ago. At the same time I increased my stance width by about an inch. I didn't notice the board being longer at all (from a negative point of view), but I did notice a very different feel in the stance width.

The board was about 4% longer, and the stance width about 5% wider...


----------



## bntran02

poutanen said:


> Funny you mentioned this, I went from a 153 to a 159 a few years ago. At the same time I increased my stance width by about an inch. I didn't notice the board being longer at all (from a negative point of view), but I did notice a very different feel in the stance width.
> 
> The board was about 4% longer, and the stance width about 5% wider...


Oh yes...I forgot to mention that my Decade had a stance width of 21" vs 22" on the highlife. That's the "default" width for each board. This could be why the boards felt similar as the extra width made up for the extra length.


----------



## Basti

I've found that people tend to lend specific meaning to board length. A 158 counts as a freestyle/all-mountain stick while a 160 is thought of as a freeride board. 160 seems to be some kind of magical barrier when it comes to snowboarding.

I had the same kind of thinking for a long time and usually rode a 155 at 175lbs. When I switched to a 160, I found (like you guys) that it didn't feel like a longer board but gave me so much more stability without giving up maneuverability.


----------



## Skaiste

Hi, I just brought new snowboard and i'm kinda small . I'm 1'58 inches and my snwboard is 1'46 inches. It's little bit highway chin but with boots its to chin. When I was in a shop, shopper told me that they don't have any smaller ones ( it was the smallest), and he said I can grow more and its gonna be perfect. But riding it can take time to pratice with longer one. I tried and actually It's better for my with longer, it might sound weird but its waaayy faster...The curving is the same. Actually you first should rent one time longer next time shorter. I at the first time had longer, I liked it a alot, and second time I had shorter,actually It was weird and I didin't like it :/ So it depends on what is better for you. Everyone says shorter is easier to control and itsfaster . Thats not true longer is more fun to ride and longer is more stable and stuff and holds edge wayy better. So you might like it,its should be all good . Good Luck :thumbsup:


----------



## hlhcheer

*155 splitboard too big?*

I am 5 2 and weight 115...i am trying to buy a splitboard and am curious if this is just too large for me?


----------

