# Riding a "wide" board with a size 10 boot - what Yes thinks



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Was about to pull the trigger on a regular 161 Yes typo then I read their advice on wide boards, which has made me consider a 159W instead. I'm 200lbs and wear a size 10 boot - width on the 159w is 26.1. I generally prefer 159 size board over 161 so I'm seriously thinking of going wider this year...thoughts? Here is the Yes take on width, direct from their website:

"At YES., we tend to do things a little differently. Some of these things run counter to some widely held beliefs in the industry or habits that the snow-majority has fallen into. We understand that a shop, a friend, or another company’s website/spokesperson may have told you the exact opposite of what we’re saying here, but that’s only because they’re wrong. And we’re right.

In simplest terms our boards can fall into 2 categories. TRADITIONAL and NON-TRADITIONAL. Even our traditional boards have some non-traditional thinking into their design, but for the sake of finding the right size for you we’ll use these terms, ok?

TRADITIONAL:
Libre, Emoticon, Basic, Typo, Jackpot, Standard, TDF, Greats, Hel YES., PYL.

When looking at any of these models you can use the trusty standard of; if the board sits between your chin and your nose, then it’s a good length for you. That’s with you and the board standing up lengthwise – understand? Don’t have the board in front of you? - Then measure that zone. Don’t have a metric tape? - Then convert the inches to cm’s via any number of means readily available on your phone.

One thing we want to stress while we have your attention is that far too many people are not riding boards wide enough because they believe a wide board will be too heavy, or too slow edge-to-edge. While theoretically this belief is not without merit, functionally it means that far too many people are dragging their toe-and heels on a regular basis and missing out on one of the most joyful aspects of snowboarding which is: leaning over and TURNING. All our wide’s have not just been widened, we’ve adjusted the turning aspects of the design so that the boards are just as lively and responsive as the narrower versions.

Remember; the traditionally accepted width of boards was established when the average foot size was an US 8 / MONDO 21.5 or an US 9 / MONDO 24.0. Now the bulk of boot sales are a US men’s 10 / MONDO 26.5. Which means anyone riding a regular width board with a size US 10 / MONDO 26.5 is dragging their toes. And if they’re not dragging their toes, then they’re not leaning over on their turns enough and they’re missing out on some fun.

We at YES. encourage you to have fun when you snowboard. We want you to feel joy. Aren’t we awesome?

In conclusion: If you have a size US 10-10.5 / MONDO 26.5-27.5 boot, then please, seriously consider a wide. If you have a size US 11 / MONDO 28.5 boot, do not ever consider anything other than a wide when looking at these “traditional” models."


----------



## phillyphan (Sep 22, 2016)

I'd personally go w/ the wide. Everything is pointing towards the 159W. You said you prefer a 159. Yes' research and statement tells you a wide would better suit you. You weigh 200 lbs which is enough weight to throw a wide board around edge to edge.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

give it a go and update how it turns otu. but they say they measure their boards by the chin method...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Remember; the traditionally accepted width of boards was established when the average foot size was an US 8 / MONDO 21.5 or an US 9 / MONDO 24.0. Now the bulk of boot sales are a US men’s 10 / MONDO 26.5. Which means anyone riding a regular width board with a size US 10 / MONDO 26.5 is dragging their toes. And if they’re not dragging their toes, then they’re not leaning over on their turns enough and they’re missing out on some fun.
> 
> We at YES. encourage you to have fun when you snowboard. We want you to feel joy. Aren’t we awesome?
> 
> In conclusion: If you have a size US 10-10.5 / MONDO 26.5-27.5 boot, then please, seriously consider a wide. If you have a size US 11 / MONDO 28.5 boot, do not ever consider anything other than a wide when looking at these “traditional” models."


Hi Scotty,

Just guessing here, but that reads like it was written by an SEO guy stuffing keywords for search traffic, not someone in design or product sharing real info. Every one of those Mondo sizes is way off. 21.5 Mondo is a youth size 3.5 not Men's size 8 (and men's 8 has never been the average foot size when snowboarding was a sport). 24.0 Mondo is a Men's size 6 not size 9, 26.5 is size 8.5 not size 10, etc. 

The rest of the info is equally...well, enough said.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

Yeah all the sizing info is waaaaaay off.

That said, I'm a US10 who's been converted to wides. Similar weight to you as well. If you like to carve, and carve aggressively, a wide is a necessity IMO. When you think about it, us riding something with a 260 waist is similar to a size 9 riding a 252ish waist, which no one would bat an eyelid at. The ability to lean over that much further, and the added stability and float is worth any very minor delay in edge to edge response, which I haven't noticed. 

But, I've also never ridden a YES. If they made The Greats in a 160 with a 260 waist I'd be all over it. (Sidebar, why the hell did they make that board in 2cm increments!? 151,54,57,60 opens it up to more riders.


----------



## Brewtown (Feb 16, 2014)

For me it depends on the board. I'm a size 11 and generally like wides, however some stiffer boards become cumbersome. Since you mention Yes specifically one of my buddies with a 9.5/10ish boot size had a wide model of the PYL which he swapped for a regular width this year and said it was a big difference. If your talking about a mid to soft flexing board though then I wouldn't hesitate to go wide.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty,
> 
> Just guessing here, but that reads like it was written by an SEO guy stuffing keywords for search traffic, not someone in design or product sharing real info. Every one of those Mondo sizes is way off. 21.5 Mondo is a youth size 3.5 not Men's size 8 (and men's 8 has never been the average foot size when snowboarding was a sport). 24.0 Mondo is a Men's size 6 not size 9, 26.5 is size 8.5 not size 10, etc.
> 
> The rest of the info is equally...well, enough said.


Disagree. It's part of Yes' Board Sizing Guidelines, which you can find in their support section, not something pulled together for generating traffic! And very much related to their board design principles.

http://www.yesnowboard.com/support/sizing-guidelines

The fact that they are off by 1 mondo size with normal shoe sizing is irrelevant to their main point, which is if you wear a size 10 or 10.5 boot you should be on one of their wider boards not regular. Which is why they say:

"*In conclusion*: If you have a size US 10-10.5 / MONDO 26.5-27.5 boot, then please, seriously consider a wide. If you have a size US 11 / MONDO 28.5 boot, do not ever consider anything other than a wide when looking at these “traditional” models."

I find this advice interesting because it runs contrary to a lot of the dogma about wide boards not being optimum for performance etc. Yes obviously disagrees.


----------



## redlude97 (Jan 9, 2008)

scotty100 said:


> Disagree. It's part of Yes' Board Sizing Guidelines, which you can find in their support section, not something pulled together for generating traffic! And very much related to their board design principles.
> 
> http://www.yesnowboard.com/support/sizing-guidelines
> 
> ...


pull a size 10 boot from 10 years ago and pull a size 10 with shrink tech. The difference it probably close to an inch. They don't address this at all.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Scotty, 

They are off by up to _4.5 shoe sizes_ on those conversions and every one of them is off by more than the difference of width between their wide boards to their normal boards. ...and "between the nose and the chin"... that takes the already damaging single body part advice (that I thought we had finally heard the last of) and expands it to a range. Please measure between your nose and chin. 3 or 4 inches? That is over a 10 cm range that they are suggesting. That range is greater than the entire range of size options for the Pick Your Line for instance. 

Pretty sure this is just an overzealous web guy.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Hmmm
Depends on the boot brand, footprint and stance angles I guess.

I'm going to side a bit with Wiredsports in that he ALWAYS references the width at the inserts and your FOOT size. Obviously, drag has to do with the BOOT size/footprint. But the actual performance goes with your foot size and how it falls within the board. Or at least thats what I thought.

Wide boards are fine. But also, some manufacturers' wides are wider than others and some boots are bigge than others. Maybe Yes are not that wide? Don't know, can't really go out and start measuring and comparing.

The other thing is up to the chin...... i guess that applies to "avg build" people. If you're short and bulky or really tall and skinny ...... well, i really doubt it would work the same way. 

I'm "average built" so in my case, I guess the whole to the chin thing is not going to be too far off. But for others.... 

I think Yes has the right "attitude" but maybe let a bro brah write this text


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Scotty,
> 
> They are off by up to _4.5 shoe sizes_ on those conversions and every one of them is off by more than the difference of width between their wide boards to their normal boards. ...and "between the nose and the chin"... that takes the already damaging single body part advice (that I thought we had finally heard the last of) and expands it to a range. Please measure between your nose and chin. 3 or 4 inches? That is over a 10 cm range that they are suggesting. That range is greater than the entire range of size options for the Pick Your Line for instance.
> 
> Pretty sure this is just an overzealous web guy.


Again, the point being made here is not the accuracy of their mondo to shoe size conversion. No one is arguing that. The point being made here is being able to ride their traditional boards in a wide with a size 10 boot. They claim their designs allow this, which is interesting as it runs against popular consensus that you should only be on a wide size 11 up.

Pretty sure it's their design thinking, not an "overzealous web guy".


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

idk man, why make normal size boards then? just make them all wide with that logic.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

scotty100 said:


> The point being made here is ...


...that you are missing it. 

Yes doesn't design boards fundamentally different than any other company. Boards, feet, and boots are all a certain size. Being too small on a wide board makes the ride very different and creates certain problems. Too large on a normal board makes the ride very different and creates certain problems. Everything is a tradeoff. Yes hasn't found some secret board design that changes everything. Sorry, it just isn't true. The same trade offs apply to Yes boards as any other. 

In the end no one gives a shit what you want to ride - knock yourself out on whatever you choose. As long as you are having fun no one cares. I have size 6.5 feet and weighed 160 lbs. and rode around for a while on a 162w Canyon. You know what, I had fun. No one pulled my pass, but I also didn't go around telling people that Burton was wrong for not marketing that board to me. 

Just stop trying to convince people here that a blurb on a company web site that is literally riddled with obvious errors is actually some secret code that only you can understand. 

Just. Go. Ride.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

^Lol. Did you read any of the first post? Yes is exactly claiming they make their traditional boards differently. That's like, you know, the whole point of the thread...i.e. you can ride a Yes wide with smaller boot size.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

Everyone understands that is what they claim, but no one believes what they claim, particularly not based on a poorly written and factually wrong blurb on the web site. I think what is confusing everyone else is that you seem to buy it.


----------



## Motogp990 (Mar 10, 2013)

I personally don't think you'll notice too much of a difference between the wide and regular width board, when the length is only a few cm's apart. 159, 159w, 161 and 161w.

I bought a 161(wide) PYL a few years ago, which I still have and ride, and I was wearing size 12 boots at the time.

Over the past 2 season's I have downsized my boots to 10.5 and 9 this season. I don't want to make this long post any longer, so we'll leave the boot sizing for another day haha.

I bought a yes basic 161 (regular width) at the beginning of this season.

I currently weigh 190ish but my riding weight has been up to 210ish.

I have ridden the PYL with size 12, 10.5 and 9 boots. And the Basic with 10.5 and 9 boots. Personally the only real difference in width I noticed was mental. Regardless of the boot size and board combo I rode, I didn't really find the width made a significant difference in edge to edge transition/riding characteristics.

If you're going to ride the Typo in any pow, I personally would get a wide, but that's me.

Fwiw, I prefer long-ish (161 is the shortest board I own) and trad camber boards.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Wiredsport said:


> Scotty,
> 
> They are off by up to _4.5 shoe sizes_ on those conversions and every one of them is off by more than the difference of width between their wide boards to their normal boards. ...and "between the nose and the chin"... that takes the already damaging single body part advice (that I thought we had finally heard the last of) and expands it to a range. Please measure between your nose and chin. 3 or 4 inches? That is over a 10 cm range that they are suggesting. That range is greater than the entire range of size options for the Pick Your Line for instance.
> 
> Pretty sure this is just an overzealous web guy.


Damn you Wired. Now you've got me measuring my nose to chin....

It's 3" (7.6 cm)

My shortest board is 159. My longest 165 = 6cm.

Almost perfect match hahahahaha lol chin to nose it is then


----------



## robotfood99 (Mar 19, 2016)

If Yes was trying to make a case for wide boards, this blurb is an utter fail. Did they mean US 10 or Mondo 26.5? Scotty, you seem to have locked in on US 10, but to me its the Mondo part that sticks out and begs the question - what size did they really mean? If they made a mistake with the US size and are saying ppl with Mondo 26.5 should consider wides, good luck with that. If they made a mistake with the mondo size (more likely) and are trying to say US 10 and up should be on wides, then may be, but damn, get your act together and read what you are preaching. It doesn't take much to fire up the editor and correct the misinformation.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Kenai said:


> Everyone understands that is what they claim, but no one believes what they claim, particularly not based on a poorly written and factually wrong blurb on the web site. I think what is confusing everyone else is that you seem to buy it.


So I emailed Yes and told them you thought they were fucking clueless about their own products - they emailed me back and said they thought you were a dumb cnut who knows fuck all about board design. 

I think they might have a point.


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

scotty100 said:


> So I emailed Yes and told them you thought they were fucking clueless about their own products - they emailed me back and said they thought you were a dumb cnut who knows fuck all about board design.
> 
> I think they might have a point.


can you copy+paste said email?


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

Narrow boards stink in comparison to wide boards.

Fact.

I used to ride normal width boards, but to get what I wanted out of them my sizes were getting ridiculous.

69's 72's 74's 
Then I accidentally got a Never Summer Heritage X 56

Thought it was a regular width at first.

It turned out to be my all time favorite deck.
Although I did still want it a cunt hair longer maybe 160?

It held an edge better than longer boards.
Less effective edge, BUT I could get it way farther on edge.

Was stiffer/burlier which I liked.
Floated better & was more nimble in tight spots.

Since that board I no longer ride normal width boards.

They suck in comparison.

Here's Carly the SUPER hot ticket checker at my old mtn.
She's tall but only about 130 tops heavy.>

[ame]https://vimeo.com/158567883[/ame]

She's in size 9 chic boots, which is about an 8 in men's? 
She has no idea she's on a 160W 
It's set up for my 9's, so close to optimal for her.



YOU HAVE TO CENTER YOUR BOOT ON THE BOARD, NOT THE BINDING ON THE BOARD.

For small booted people on wide boards, that means move your bindings closer to the toe side edge.


TT


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Scotty,

This writer is referring to "Wide" as though it is one thing - it is not - and he is basing his comments it on the waist width (nothing happens at the waist). There is no industry standard for "Wide", "Midwide", "Normal", etc. 

Within Yes's own line they have "Wide" boards that are narrower that some of their "Normal" options. ("Wide's" down to 25.6, "Normal's" up to 25.8). 

Getting this right for any particular rider is important to their riding but it does take a little work. You need a barefoot measurement and a the actual board width at the inserts that the rider will use. You then need to make an adjustment for stance angle. With those simple ingredients you can make a great width to width comparison and you can intelligently select the barefoot overhang that best suits your style. 

Toe drag/boot drag is an entirely different beast. It involves boot sizing, boot contouring, binding style (lift and contouring), etc.


----------



## 70'sskater (Mar 20, 2014)

Scotty
*I'm 200lbs and wear a size 10 boot - width on the 159w is 26.1. I generally prefer 159 size board over 161 so I'm seriously thinking of going wider this year...thoughts?*

I think 26.1 is fine, wide boards for me are more along the lines of 26.8, 27.0 etc. For a size 10 u can get by fine with 26.1.
.
TimmyTard, what size boots do you wear and what size boards are u riding. I'm a 10.5 and a have a 162 Snowtrooper 25.6 and a Amplid Morning Glory 26.0 but I havent had a chance to ride it yet. looking for something more aggressive than the Snowtrooper


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Scotty,
> 
> This writer is referring to "Wide" as though it is one thing - it is not - and he is basing his comments it on the waist width (nothing happens at the waist). There is no industry standard for "Wide", "Midwide", "Normal", etc.
> 
> ...


Agree no standard on "wide" and that nothing happens at the waist, however depending on where the waist width measurement is taken, if nothing else it's an indicator of how wide the board will be at the inserts. Wider at the waist, wider at the inserts...

I believe the point Yes is trying to make here is that it is perfectly fine to ride one of their traditional boards in a wider size if you have a size 10 boot and up because they believe that they have designed their boards to do so thereby avoiding what they see as all too common problem of too much overhang causing too much toe / boot drag.

This shift in thinking seems to be in line with this discussion on wider boards from earlier this year:

http://www.snowboardingforum.com/boards/200489-all-mountain-freestyle-board-options.html

In particular Nivek's quote in this thread would support what Yes is doing and be in line with TT's opinion...

Quote:
_Originally Posted by GreyDragon View Post
Just out of curiosity, do you know why the waist width on the Aether is so wide? 26.2 on a 158? Seriously?_

*Helps keep it stable and eliminates any boot drag. I've ridden the 58 and there isn't a slow in speed. If you look at the industry and where it's going, it's going wider. We've figured out how to make boards easy to get up on edge and keep them there, so for most, wider is better.*

Hence my question in the original post...


----------



## redlude97 (Jan 9, 2008)

timmytard said:


> Narrow boards stink in comparison to wide boards.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> ...


what was the point of posting someone ruddering around on a green to prove that wide boards are better?


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

70'sskater said:


> Scotty
> *I'm 200lbs and wear a size 10 boot - width on the 159w is 26.1. I generally prefer 159 size board over 161 so I'm seriously thinking of going wider this year...thoughts?*
> 
> I think 26.1 is fine, wide boards for me are more along the lines of 26.8, 27.0 etc. For a size 10 u can get by fine with 26.1.
> ...


I have 9-9.5 booties weighing in @ an earth shattering buck fifty five.
Been able to downsize the boards I ride about 5-10cm's.
160Wide feels just perfect for what I like to do.

I think you'd like the trooper a lot more if it was a wide model.

Wide models ARE more aggressive.
They're stiffer & you can put em farther on edge.

Better edge hold, cause you/I can put the board close to a 90-degree angle (or more)

Harder cranked turns, cause your board sinks in to the snow.


TT


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

redlude97 said:


> what was the point of posting someone ruddering around on a green to prove that wide boards are better?


For one, Carly is like the hottest chic you've ever seen. Hahaha
She's like 6 foot 1 smokin' body and super sweet.
I'll try and update that with some better pics>.

2ndly
She's a chic with size 9 girl booties.
Which translates to about a men's size 8

Would anyone in here suggest a 160 Wide to a maybe 130 pound chic?
On her 4th day of snowboarding ever?
I'm thinking no?

99% of You guys would simply believe there's not a chance in he'll she'd be able to ride it?

I posted it to show you that it ain't hard, not even for a hot chic with a little experience under her belt. (That's where I wanna be)


TT


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Agree no standard on "wide" and that nothing happens at the waist, however depending on where the waist width measurement is taken, if nothing else it's an indicator of how wide the board will be at the inserts. Wider at the waist, wider at the inserts...


Hi Scotty, that is actually the incorrect info that we are trying to stomp out by deemphasizing waist width. The width at the waist does not indicate the width at the inserts and very commonly a board with a narrower waist will be wider than another model at the inserts or vice versa. This is a function of sidecut shape only and really should never be used for foot size comparison. 



scotty100 said:


> I believe the point Yes is trying to make here is that it is perfectly fine to ride one of their traditional boards in a wider size if you have a size 10 boot and up because they believe that they have designed their boards to do so thereby avoiding what they see as all too common problem of too much overhang causing too much toe / boot drag.


This is where we get into trouble. Yes has many different "wide" widths across there line. The difference between their various "wide" widths is bigger than the difference from their "normal" to their "wide" widths in a given size in many instances. Also in terms of the industry these wide widths are other brands normal widths in many instances.

A Tadashi Wide, for example, has the same waist (ughhh, waist) as an Rome Artifact "normal" at 25.6 (neither of which is particularly wide). 

I am definitely for any brand opening up a discussion on width and working to help riders find the best width for their style...but...this only works for specifics. If you aren't comparing actual foot measurements at actual stance widths and angles to actual board measurements at the actual foot placements then you are really driving the discussion in the wrong direction.


----------



## redlude97 (Jan 9, 2008)

timmytard said:


> For one, Carly is like the hottest chic you've ever seen. Hahaha
> She's like 6 foot 1 smokin' body and super sweet.
> I'll try and update that with some better pics>.
> 
> ...


yea, not creepy at all...


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

while Carly actually rode that 160 westx pretty well, put her on a 146-149 funslinger non wide and she'll be having a better time. if you ask her to pick between the two, my money is on that she'll pick the funslinger.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

Counterpoint: put Carly on a garage door. Literally take a garage door and mount some snowboard bindings. One piece doors sans windows are clearly better for this application. (Note: center the boots to the door, not the bindings. Bindings will be slightly more toward the toe edge.) Wax it real good. I would recommend only riding the six pack lift - solo. Send her down the hill. She is going to love it!


----------



## shitty shredder (Feb 6, 2016)

scotty100 said:


> So I emailed Yes and told them you thought they were fucking clueless about their own products - they emailed me back and said they thought you were a dumb cnut who knows fuck all about board design.
> 
> I think they might have a point.


Pretend you're an adult, or go somewhere else.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

jae said:


> while Carly actually rode that 160 westx pretty well, put her on a 146-149 funslinger non wide and she'll be having a better time. if you ask her to pick between the two, my money is on that she'll pick the funslinger.




Why's that?
Cause YOU think that board is too wide?

I've owned & ridden the narrower chicks model.
Have had a handful of regular width one's too.

After riding the wide models, I prefer the wides.

I set them up properly for smaller boots, they perform better.

So why exactly, are you so confident that she would like the poorer performing narrower board?

And, go.......


TT


----------



## jae (Nov 27, 2015)

timmytard said:


> Why's that?
> Cause YOU think that board is too wide?
> 
> I've owned & ridden the narrower chicks model.
> ...


you're an advanced rider. noobs, beginners, lower intermediates have trouble with edge control. while I'm sure you setup the board to be an easier ride, there's no denying that people have trouble with not just getting on a edge, but with swing weight, flex and overall weight. especially if they don't know how to properly ride. you use those narrow boards until booting out becomes a problem. many never see that problem. if you never boot out, why ride wide?

why do you think it's a poorer performing narrower board? it's a board for a different person. we all ride differently. I used the funslinger because it's the same profile, softer flex, and has the ideal waist width for your friends size 8's. beginners don't want to tackle steeps, they just want to ride without falling down.


----------



## shitty shredder (Feb 6, 2016)

Yeah, TT, you're out to lunch here. She looks horrible on that thing, exactly how I'd expect someone on a board that is too wide looks. All you are doing is slowing her progression. If you want her to get better faster, get her off that thing.

I rode wider boards (accidentally, without realizing) for years. Yeah you can still ride. It just sucks. Now that I have properly sized boards, I'll never go back. Every once in a while I try one out, and yeah, they suck. Sluggish edge to edge, can't make subtle ankle movements, have to lean much further to engage edges. Unless all you're doing is trying to float in powder, then that's different.


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

shitty shredder said:


> Yeah, TT, you're out to lunch here. She looks horrible on that thing, exactly how I'd expect someone on a board that is too wide looks. All you are doing is slowing her progression. If you want her to get better faster, get her off that thing.
> 
> I rode wider boards (accidentally, without realizing) for years. Yeah you can still ride. It just sucks. Now that I have properly sized boards, I'll never go back. Every once in a while I try one out, and yeah, they suck. Sluggish edge to edge, can't make subtle ankle movements, have to lean much further to engage edges. Unless all you're doing is trying to float in powder, then that's different.


Yeah, but you are, and please don't take this the wrong way, well, you are a shitty rider. :grin:


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

jae said:


> you're an advanced rider. noobs, beginners, lower intermediates have trouble with edge control. while I'm sure you setup the board to be an easier ride, there's no denying that people have trouble with not just getting on a edge, but with swing weight, flex and overall weight. especially if they don't know how to properly ride. you use those narrow boards until booting out becomes a problem. many never see that problem. if you never boot out, why ride wide?
> 
> why do you think it's a poorer performing narrower board? it's a board for a different person. we all ride differently. I used the funslinger because it's the same profile, softer flex, and has the ideal waist width for your friends size 8's. beginners don't want to tackle steeps, they just want to ride without falling down.


She absolutely loved riding it, said it was was way easier than her Elan Inverse 155?

I believe, that if you/someone else doesn't like it or thinks it's more difficult, that there's a 99% chance you haven't set it up properly.

I've never seen anyone other than someone I've already shown, set their wide board up properly to ride with small boots.
Not one.

Don't knock it, till you tried it.

I prolly wouldn't have bought a wide model had I known that's what it was.
As I got used to it, it out performed ALL the other decks I've previously owned.

ALL of them, do you know how many boards that is?
Neither do I? Haha but I have close to a 100 right now:surprise: & have had over a thousand easy.>


TT


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

​


Kenai said:


> Yeah, but you are, and please don't take this the wrong way, well, you are a shitty rider. :grin:


Oh no I won't take that the wrong way.

How could I, you said please. Haha

Post up your superstar videos please.


TT


----------



## Kenai (Dec 15, 2013)

Simmer down TT. Go back and reread my post and the person I quoted and I'm sure you will catch up. It was not exactly a subtle joke.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty, that is actually the incorrect info that we are trying to stomp out by deemphasizing waist width. The width at the waist does not indicate the width at the inserts and very commonly a board with a narrower waist will be wider than another model at the inserts or vice versa. This is a function of sidecut shape only and really should never be used for foot size comparison.
> 
> This is where we get into trouble. Yes has many different "wide" widths across there line. The difference between their various "wide" widths is bigger than the difference from their "normal" to their "wide" widths in a given size in many instances. Also in terms of the industry these wide widths are other brands normal widths in many instances.
> 
> ...


I'm struggling to get your point regards my original post/question - the Yes Typo 159W, the board I'm interested in, has a waist width of 26.1. If you have a size 10 boot, Yes recommends serious consideration of this wider size rather than a regular (narrower) width. However, you disagree with that because you think Yes should instead be more specific regards width at inserts, stance width and binding angles before suggesting a size 10 should be on a 26.1 at the waist board, correct?

Other mnfrs such as Niche are now building regular wider boards for every day all mountain use - some of which, like the Niche Aether, have waist widths (26.2 on the 159) bigger or the same as other brands' "wide" boards. But regardless, the point remains you shouldn't ride such a wide board with a boot under size 11, unless the mnfr is more specific on width at inserts, stance width and binding angles etc. Correct?


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

scotty100 said:


> I'm struggling to get your point regards my original post/question - the Yes Typo 159W, the board I'm interested in, has a waist width of 26.1. If you have a size 10 boot, Yes recommends serious consideration of this wider size rather than a regular (narrower) width. However, you disagree with that because you think Yes should instead be more specific regards width at inserts, stance width and binding angles before suggesting a size 10 should be on a 26.1 at the waist board, correct?
> 
> Other mnfrs such as Niche are now building regular wider boards for every day all mountain use - some of which, like the Niche Aether, have waist widths (26.2 on the 159) bigger or the same as other brands' "wide" boards. But regardless, the point remains you shouldn't ride such a wide board with a boot under size 11, unless the mnfr is more specific on width at inserts, stance width and binding angles etc. Correct?


Good point^

So how wide is the Typo at the inserts?

A waist of 261 is not too bad. I'd ride that.... in fact, that is about perfect for size 11.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

I get the importance of width at the inserts, but really 90% of boards have a sidecut radius between 7-9m, which with the same waist width would account for a 2-3mm difference at the inserts. That's not making or breaking it for anyone.


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

jae said:


> you're an advanced rider. noobs, beginners, lower intermediates have trouble with edge control. while I'm sure you setup the board to be an easier ride, there's no denying that people have trouble with not just getting on a edge, but with swing weight, flex and overall weight. especially if they don't know how to properly ride. you use those narrow boards until booting out becomes a problem. many never see that problem. if you never boot out, why ride wide?
> 
> why do you think it's a poorer performing narrower board? it's a board for a different person. we all ride differently. I used the funslinger because it's the same profile, softer flex, and has the ideal waist width for your friends size 8's. beginners don't want to tackle steeps, they just want to ride without falling down.


It snows LOTS here.

Wider just works better, for around here.


TT


I still think 99% of You just didn't have it set up right. 

You can't just borrow a wide from some big samsquantch footed dude and ride it without doing anything to it.
You have to move the whole binding closer to the toe side edge.
That's above & beyond the pic above.

You guys did all that first, before you tried it right?

They don't set up wide boards for little footed dudes, so unless you did the adjustment yourself, it wasn't set up right.

If you demo a wide, unless you know to change it, it will not be set up right.

I agree, they suck ass to ride that way.
Not even rideable in my mind.

So unless you ALREADY knew & did that adjustment YOURSELF it wasn't set up right.

Just saying.


TT


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Phedder said:


> I get the importance of width at the inserts, but really 90% of boards have a sidecut radius between 7-9m, which with the same waist width would account for a 2-3mm difference at the inserts. That's not making or breaking it for anyone.


Hi Phedder,

2-3 mm is actually a big deal in width, although the variance at the inserts on "same waist" boards can be up to 5mm. Please keep in mind that the difference between "Normal" and "Wide" width boards in the same model is very often that same 5 mm (most commonly between 4 and 8 mm). That is all we are talking about. It seems like a tiny measurement but it has a huge impact on riding so it is worth getting it right.

Sidecut Radius is a very different beast. That is not a board measurement, but is actually a measurement of the complete circle that a board would make when carving on its given sidecut (the radius of that circle is measured). The problem with using this measurement is that various sidecuts are currently in use and two boards with the same sidecut radius will often have very different insert width measurements on a same width board. This is because various sidecuts (bi radial, flat, tri radial, constant, etc) accelerate the curve at various points along the sidecut (or not at all). This is actually the biggest reason why width at the inserts varies so greatly on "same waist" boards.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> I'm struggling to get your point regards my original post/question - the Yes Typo 159W, the board I'm interested in, has a waist width of 26.1. If you have a size 10 boot, Yes recommends serious consideration of this wider size rather than a regular (narrower) width. However, you disagree with that because you think Yes should instead be more specific regards width at inserts, stance width and binding angles before suggesting a size 10 should be on a 26.1 at the waist board, correct?
> 
> Other mnfrs such as Niche are now building regular wider boards for every day all mountain use - some of which, like the Niche Aether, have waist widths (26.2 on the 159) bigger or the same as other brands' "wide" boards. But regardless, the point remains you shouldn't ride such a wide board with a boot under size 11, unless the mnfr is more specific on width at inserts, stance width and binding angles etc. Correct?


Hi Scotty,

That is not correct and for a number of reasons.

The page you quoted suggests "anyone riding a regular width board with a size US 10 / MONDO 26.5 is dragging their toes. And if they’re not dragging their toes, then they’re not leaning over on their turns enough and they’re missing out on some fun." Mondo error aside, this is treating "regular" boards as though they are all one thing. As you noted above many "Regular" boards are wider than boards marked "Wide". And again, none of these widths are at all new for Regular or Wide boards. These are all very common measurements.

To compare a boot size 10 or size 11 (or any other boot size for that matter) in comparison to a width term (Normal, Wide, Mid Wide) is ill advised on both ends. To do it right we need to compare actual board width (not a width term) at the inserts that will be used (not waist) to an actual foot measurement (not boot size) at an actual stance angle. 

We always try to avoid terms that draw this discussion away from the specific in favor of the generic.

So, lets do the Yes Typo 159 Wide that you are considering. We have it at an even 27.0 at the center inserts. What is the barefoot measurement of the rider? What stance angles. What stance width?

STOKED!


----------



## kingslay (Jan 15, 2015)

I dont know about all this... 

There are so many factors that make it impossible to say what WW is right for what boot sizes...
Brand of boots, angles, stance. width of tip and tail. sidecut, taper, tecnique of riding, terrain, snowconditions etc etc...

My only rule is to measure the overhang and if it´s more than 2cm at each side its too narrow.

With my size 11 (adidas) boots i can eurocarve the hell out of my 24,8WW Burton Brushie reissue... 
According to the text on the yes website this should be impossible...


----------



## timmytard (Mar 19, 2009)

kingslay said:


> I dont know about all this...
> 
> There are so many factors that make it impossible to say what WW is right for what boot sizes...
> Brand of boots, angles, stance. width of tip and tail. sidecut, taper, tecnique of riding, terrain, snowconditions etc etc...
> ...


This part I don't get, the measuring of the overhang?
Your magic number is 2 what's the correct number?

Well that's gotta be zero, if there's a number it's gotta be 0.

That's not how I determine how much overhang I have.

I put it on the floor & tilt it on edge like I'm carving, if it's a camber board you have to compress the camber to get an accurate reading.

Keep tilting until it hits.
That's the magic number right there.
You don't need to know what it is, you just need to know, that's as far as you can tilt your board when riding it.

If one side touches way before the other side it needs to be adjusted so they are both roughly the same.

I'd say more than half of all snowboarders out there, don't have the setup, set up properly/for optimum performance.
In one way or another.


TT


----------



## kingslay (Jan 15, 2015)

I dont know if i said that correct. English is not my first language... so of course i center my boots. And what works for ME is a maximum heel/toe overhang of 2cm (measured from the baseside from the edge to the tip of the boot) depending on camberprofile like you said and binding/footbed height is a factor too. But thinking about it your method it could be the better one!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi TT,

I completely agree with the last thing you wrote. That is a great test when you are in the mounting stage. We suggest roughly the same process in our fit tips. Snip:

*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.*

But, this does not mean zero overhang. We suggest just over the edges up to 1 cm barefoot overhang (toe and heel). You can season your overhang to taste within this range by board selection, stance width, and stance angle. With a modern boot that will lead to zero toe drag in almost all situations. 

Kingslay's approach can work in some instances but because it uses boot size it relies on A. the boot being well sized (which we know is very often not the case ), B. the rider being at the maximum correct foot size for their boot size (example 27.6 and 28 cm feet are both the correct fit for a size 10 boot), C. the boot not having excess padding/material which can extend the boot significantly but does not help develop leverage. For these reasons and others it is best to avoid using boot size and go directly to the source (the bare foot).


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

My wider board is a 161 Fish.
ww262 sidecut 6.4.

I get some overhang on the rear foot with US11 boots, but not toe drag at all. 

In groomers I am MUCH happier with say the 159 Landlord at ww253 radius 7.5 than on the Fish (which is only Mid-wide by Burton standards). I'm guessing i'd get some toe drag if I carve real hard. That's why I moved my rear angle from +6 to +9. I prefer the +6, but +9 is cleaner..... i can do +6 on the Fish. 

More overhang than on the Fish, and I would prefer if it was ~256ww. But going all the way to 262ww would almost kill this board for me.

Yes it can be ridden if wide. Yes it will float better if wide. Yes i could do more carve angle. Yes it will be fun no matter what. Personally..... I'd prefer the normal width.

That said... if Yes says their boards can be ridden at wide, I guess I should try one and see if that's the case and how you like it. I dont really care what they say (or any manufacturer).... if I ride it and like it at my angles and size, i'd dig it.

So I guess all this discussion is moot.

I say just get a wide and see how you like it. If you like it, awesome. It will float better, that's fo sure.


----------



## SNW_GHST (Jul 5, 2016)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi TT,
> 
> For these reasons and others it is best to avoid using boot size and go directly to the source (the bare foot).


I think you got him wrong... Its not about bootsize. He uses the actual boot to see how much overhang he has when the boot is correctly centered. 
If you already have boots that could the best way to go and then using the method you and TT decribed! If you already have lets say Northwave Boots you will have significantly more overhang than someone with same size Burton or Adidas boots... Just a thought...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

Hi Ghost,

Yes, we for sure agree on that method for determining potential boot bite with a given boot. That works very well but we like to only suggest that for setup in relation to boot drag, not for determining the correct board width.

For determining the correct board width using boot size, and even a specific boot, causes a lot of avoidable errors. As we see in so many threads here, a lot of riders are using boots that are 2, 3 and even 4 sizes too large. If they size their board based on the boot they will get a board that is far too wide for them. This is very common and very expensive, which is why we harp on it so often. It also turns a lot of new riders off to the sport and frustrates many others. 

If the boot fits correctly for the mondopoint size of the foot, that is a lot better, but we like to point out that each mondopoint boot size covers a .5 cm foot size range. For example a US size 10 boot is designed to cover the foot length range from 27.6 cm to 28.0 cm. That .5 range is a big deal in terms of board width. .5 cm is often the difference between a "regular" width and a "wide" width in the same model. This is important because even if the boot fits riders at the smaller end of their boots range can still be stuck well within the confines of the edges, in a poor leverage position. This can be entirely avoided by using barefoot length.


----------



## SNW_GHST (Jul 5, 2016)

Yeah ok i see... Completely agree if you´re looking for a whole new setup... I thought that it was about adjusting board width or finding a good board width to a given setup.


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Mar 9, 2016)

I'm struggling with a regular/wide board decision (NS type two). I run a size 10 boot (and I believe its the correct size). The regular board is 25.2 and the wide is a 26.3. I really want to be able to lay down some nice euro carves and get the board at an angle, but it seems like I'm in between the two sizes and either will work, just not sure which way to go.


----------



## Phedder (Sep 13, 2014)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> I'm struggling with a regular/wide board decision (NS type two). I run a size 10 boot (and I believe its the correct size). The regular board is 25.2 and the wide is a 26.3. I really want to be able to lay down some nice euro carves and get the board at an angle, but it seems like I'm in between the two sizes and either will work, just not sure which way to go.


I'm running 3 wide boards with size 10s, and the Type 2 is the easiest of them edge to edge, and arguably the easiest to carve. Center rocker = easy to initiate the turn or swap edges, aggressive camber under foot and at contacts = it bites fast once on edge. If you're a strong rider, go wide. If it was something stiffer and more camber dominant, I'd suggest a demo first, but the Type 2 really is an agile board.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty,
> 
> That is not correct and for a number of reasons.
> 
> ...


Ok fair enough. That sounds logical to me. Although perhaps Yes are only talking about their boards in that context, no one else's?

Here's my stats: stance width-22" (sometimes 22.5), angles 12,-6; bindings K2 Formula large, burton malavita medium - boot burton photon size 10.

159w on a typo - doable?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Ok fair enough. That sounds logical to me. Although perhaps Yes are only talking about their boards in that context, no one else's?
> 
> Here's my stats: stance width-22" (sometimes 22.5), angles 12,-6; bindings K2 Formula large, burton malavita medium - boot burton photon size 10.
> 
> 159w on a typo - doable?


OK, Here it comes 

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).


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> I'm struggling with a regular/wide board decision (NS type two). I run a size 10 boot (and I believe its the correct size). The regular board is 25.2 and the wide is a 26.3. I really want to be able to lay down some nice euro carves and get the board at an angle, but it seems like I'm in between the two sizes and either will work, just not sure which way to go.


If you don't mind measuring...Please let us know your barefoot length using the method in the post above. Always best to start right there.

STOKED!


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> We suggest just over the edges up to 1 cm barefoot overhang (toe and heel).


1cm toe and 1cm heel i.e. total 2cm?) Where? Barefoot at the waist? At the insert straight? Or at the insert at ones angle?


I've a 24.5 foot. Board ww is 24.3. At the insert it's 25.3. At my angles distance edge to edge goes up to ~28cm, i.e. if standing barefoot at my stance n angle, the board is ~3.5cm wider than the foot (1.5cm for toe and 2cm for heel). I assume, that's "wide"...?





Motogp990 said:


> I personally don't think you'll notice too much of a difference between the wide and regular width board, when the length is only a few cm's apart. 159, 159w, 161 and 161w.


This is very interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot do such comparisons cos no model I've tried comes in different widths at the same length so my experiences stem from different sizes or even models (i.e. adding additional variables into the equation which I'm aware of that this is a disturbing factor to draw conclusions).

The closest thing I could compare is that I had the same _shape_ (men's n women's model of the Flagship) in 152/154/156/158., with ww from 24.1 up to 25cm. Each step down, was hugely recognizable to me; board got increasingly "light-footed". Whereas I had to throw all my weight via shins into the 158/25, I could ride the 152/24.1 with subtle ancle movements. I had _assumed_ that the gained leverage from mm's reduced width was the _main_ factor since other models with ~157 length but narrow waist ~24 rode similarly light footed (I'm aware of the disturbing factors from slightly specs differences). 

So yeah, your observation challenges my assumption . I'd love to find out if it's rather the length, or really width which makes the bigger difference, not by draw conclusions from obervations with various variables but with only 1 changing variable...

Just came accross the Venture Tempest when googeling which is built at the same ww of 24 in different lengths. Would be very interesting to ride their 148 v 156 (the 156 being the main target of interest because however yet unclear I'm abt if length or width being the main factor when it comes to light-footed riding feel, I _know_ that length is the main key to stability). Hmmmm... will be PITA to organise to try them. They simply don't exist over here :dry:


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

neni said:


> 1cm toe and 1cm heel i.e. total 2cm?) Where? Barefoot at the waist? At the insert straight? Or at the insert at ones angle?


Hi Neni,

We always give our hardest push towards suggestions based only on actual placements. By that I mean barefoot at actual stance angles and stance widths in comparison to a specific board model and size at the inserts that will be used. In a perfect world there would be no width terms such as Wide, Mid-Wide, Standard...and Waist Width would be banished from product literature . We suggest an overhang range of just over the edges to 1cm for both toe and heel (so, above zero up to 2 cm total). This is what we consider the sweet spot. It strikes the optimal balance of leverage and drag elimination/reduction. 

The hardest part exists for riders like yourself (I remember your situation ) and us _big foot boyz_ who are further out on either side of the sizing spectrum. With your smaller 24.5 feet you will not find a spec that puts you in this range on many of the boards that you want to ride. This leaves you with less options and takes whole categories of boards off of the menu for you...unless you choose to deal with a board that is less than ideal in terms of width to get at another benefit (longer effective edge, etc). I am stoked that you dig in and go for it on these boards. I am stoked that Timmy's future ex wife is learning to shred on the stick that she has. But...what you noted about your Flagships is definitely width related. There is an ideal and the closer we can get riders to that ideal the happier they are going to be.


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

Phedder said:


> I'm running 3 wide boards with size 10s, and the Type 2 is the easiest of them edge to edge, and arguably the easiest to carve. Center rocker = easy to initiate the turn or swap edges, aggressive camber under foot and at contacts = it bites fast once on edge. If you're a strong rider, go wide. If it was something stiffer and more camber dominant, I'd suggest a demo first, but the Type 2 really is an agile board.


Yep. Boards with rocker = wide not such abig deal


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> OK, Here it comes
> 
> 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).


I wear a size 10 burton photon which is a good boot size for me. So let's assume we've already gone thru your foot measurement process and we've arrived at the size 10 photon as the boot I should wear...can you tell me if this boot is doable for the 159w typo at the stance width and angles I mentioned? Not dissing your foot measurement advice just want to stick with the photon for this hypothetical exercise...! Thanks


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> I wear a size 10 burton photon which is a good boot size for me. So let's assume we've already gone thru your foot measurement process and we've arrived at the size 10 photon as the boot I should wear...can you tell me if this boot is doable for the 159w typo at the stance width and angles I mentioned? Not dissing your foot measurement advice just want to stick with the photon for this hypothetical exercise...! Thanks


Hi Scotty,

The Mondopoint foot length range for a correctly fit 280 (size 10) boot is 27.6 cm to 28.0 cm. The width of the 159 Wide at the center inserts is at 27.0 cm. You are going to lose ~1 cm on your front foot and about .5 cm on your back foot to your stance angles. So, it is most likely that your bare feet will be significantly within the confines of the edges (how much will depend on your actual foot measurement). Of course if your actual foot measurement is smaller than 27.6 this will be an even bigger issue. Again, to do this right we need those measurements but look at me getting pushy . Your current Burton Photons have shrinkage/footprint reduction. With a current binding you will have no boot drag on either the 158 or 161 ("normal" width) boards in the same model. Going to the 159 "wide" model would also get you none but at the cost of reduced leverage.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wired - when you say I'm going to lose 1cm on the front foot do you mean the toe edge of my boot will be 1cm back from the edge of the board?

I agree with you waist width dimension is useless in this context.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Wired - when you say I'm going to lose 1cm on the front foot do you mean the toe edge of my boot will be 1cm back from the edge of the board?
> 
> I agree with you waist width dimension is useless in this context.


Hi Scotty,

What I meant there is that as you increase stance angle you lose effective foot length in relation to the width of the board. An easy way to test this is to put your toes lightly up against a wall at a 90 degree angle. Now pivot your foot on your heel until you are at the stance angle for that foot. The new distance between your toes and the wall is a decent estimation of how much effective foot length you will lose to stance angle.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Ok - but in terms of boot overhang, zero on the 159w at those angles?


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

scotty100 said:


> Ok - but in terms of boot overhang, zero on the 159w at those angles?


Hi Scotty,

You will definitely have boot overhang. Did you mean boot drag? You would need to go over 2 cm wider than this wide model to have zero boot overhang with your 280 mondo boots. While the max foot length for a 280 boot is 280 the boot length will always be longer. How much longer depends on the boot but there is typically at least 1 cm (of liner, outer and sole) in front of the toes and behind the heel. Boot overhang, however, does not equal boot drag.


----------



## wstrom (Dec 12, 2016)

*Hey guys!*

Hey guys, Borrowing this thread a bit!

Hey man! 
I really need some help with the sizing of a new board and boots. A big problem is that there isn't a shop near me where I live...

I have red a lots of guides and threads on this forum about sizing.
The problem is that I'm still confused if I need a wide board or not. Consider that I'm size 10-11( messured my foot to some where around 28cm) And if I need a large or medium sized binding. That's why I'm so confused if I must have a wide and a large binding to reduce the toe/heel drag 

I'm really open minded when it comes to brands, when picking a board. The boards that I have really got interested in are: Burton process, Capita DOA, Nitro team or something like that. I don't really know if I want a hybrid camber board or just a camber board. I ride mostly park and sometimes some freeriding. But for the most time I ride park. And consider that I ride 15/-15 for the most time, sometimes I switch up the - to 9-13 just for fun.

I'm 5 feet 11 inches and weigh about 155-160 lbs

Would really appreciate if you could take the time to help me !

Take care !


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

Wiredsport said:


> Hi Scotty,
> 
> You will definitely have boot overhang. Did you mean boot drag? You would need to go over 2 cm wider than this wide model to have zero boot overhang with your 280 mondo boots. While the max foot length for a 280 boot is 280 the boot length will always be longer. How much longer depends on the boot but there is typically at least 1 cm (of liner, outer and sole) in front of the toes and behind the heel. Boot overhang, however, does not equal boot drag.


Got it, thanks. Good info.


----------



## scotty100 (Apr 3, 2012)

wstrom said:


> Hey guys, Borrowing this thread a bit!
> 
> Hey man!
> I really need some help with the sizing of a new board and boots. A big problem is that there isn't a shop near me where I live...
> ...


Get your boots sorted out first before you think about board and bindings. Most important thing you do...check out the boot section for all you need to know on boot sizing. Either order online with somebody with a good return policy if you get the wrong size or better yet, consider waiting till you hit the mountain and find a local snowboard shop there to get fitted in person...size 10 or 11 can be tricky according to particular brand esp. for bindings...


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

wstrom said:


> Hey guys, Borrowing this thread a bit!
> Consider that I'm size 10-11( messured my foot to some where around 28cm)


Let's get this very accurate.

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).


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Mar 9, 2016)

Wiredsport said:


> If you don't mind measuring...Please let us know your barefoot length using the method in the post above. Always best to start right there.
> 
> STOKED!


I measured my foot at its about 28.5cm and I'm using a size 10 boot. I have a 158W Type Two on the way so hopefully thats okay!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> I measured my foot at its about 28.5cm and I'm using a size 10 boot. I have a 158W Type Two on the way so hopefully thats okay!


Hi,

28.5 cm is mondo 285 and converts to us 10.5 in snowboard boots. Your actual stance width and stance angles you are going to determine if the normal or X version will be the better choice. Please confirm that 28.5 measurement and let us know your stance specifics.


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Mar 9, 2016)

I have a 46cm stance (from closest point to closest point on my feet) and usually run around 13 degrees.


----------



## kingslay (Jan 15, 2015)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> I have a 46 inch stance.


:huh:  picture please


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> I have a 46cm stance (from closest point to closest point on my feet) and usually run around 13 degrees.


Hi Cap,

Please confirm that you are measuring center of foot to center of foot. 46 cm is 18 inches which is not a typical stance width measurement for adult dudes.


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Mar 9, 2016)

Is 58cm more like it? Thanks!


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> Is 58cm more like it? Thanks!


Yessir. 22.8 inches. 

On the 158 X you are going to be right on the borderline of your barefoot overhanging or being within the confines of the edges (at your given stance width and angles an a foot measurement of 28.5). This will depend on the specifics of your foot shape. I would suggest that when you get the board, stand on it at your stance width and angles (centered edge to edge) and determine your overhang/under position. If you are under, I would switch out for one of the "normal" width boards.


----------



## greedy greg (Nov 8, 2016)

I was on a 169 Pantera Nitro midwide for a long time. Size 11.5 boot. Suffered from toe drag but just dealt with it. This season I got a Capita Warpspeed 169, which is 68 at the waist. Not super wide like 70 or 71, but definitely wide. It was like unleashing a beast. I can totally tell the difference when really laying hard carves. What I don't notice at ALL is any hint of it being slower edge to edge. It is worth looking into if you like to ride *fast*. However, if you don't truly carve (and 95% most certainly do not) a wide probably isn't necessary with a size 10 boot.


----------



## cap7ainclu7ch (Mar 9, 2016)

Wiredsport said:


> Yessir. 22.8 inches.
> 
> On the 158 X you are going to be right on the borderline of your barefoot overhanging or being within the confines of the edges (at your given stance width and angles an a foot measurement of 28.5). This will depend on the specifics of your foot shape. I would suggest that when you get the board, stand on it at your stance width and angles (centered edge to edge) and determine your overhang/under position. If you are under, I would switch out for one of the "normal" width boards.


Thanks for the advice. If its that close, do you think its really that important? I already have the wide in the mail, and honestly if its around 99% as good as the regular I will probably just stick with it).


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

cap7ainclu7ch said:


> Thanks for the advice. If its that close, do you think its really that important? I already have the wide in the mail, and honestly if its around 99% as good as the regular I will probably just stick with it).


I would definitely put your bare foot on the board as above and see where you fall. You may be perfect but if it turns out that you are within the confines of the edges we would want to look at that. This is a tipping point thing. Great to Average to Poor all happens very quickly when you move through the edge line. Please let us know how it turns out.


----------



## Wiredsport (Sep 16, 2009)

greedy greg said:


> I was on a 169 Pantera Nitro midwide for a long time. Size 11.5 boot. Suffered from toe drag but just dealt with it. This season I got a Capita Warpspeed 169, which is 68 at the waist. Not super wide like 70 or 71, but definitely wide. It was like unleashing a beast. I can totally tell the difference when really laying hard carves. What I don't notice at ALL is any hint of it being slower edge to edge. It is worth looking into if you like to ride *fast*. However, if you don't truly carve (and 95% most certainly do not) a wide probably isn't necessary with a size 10 boot.


Hi Greg,

It does feel awesome when it all lines up! Your 11.5 is (295 Mondo) is definitely playing in a different game. That is 1.5 cm larger than the size 10 (280 Mondo) of the subject. In many cases that 1.5 cm difference is 3 times the difference between a "Normal" and a "wide" board in the same model. This is why it is so important to match foot to board rather than to rely on the marketing terms "normal", "wide", etc.

Very stoked that you found your Cord Killer.


----------



## Pablo$ (Oct 10, 2020)

Don't hate, but I'm reviving this thread from the crypt. Size 10 on a Yes wide? Hold my drink...

For shits and giggles I picked up a new uninc basic 156W for super cheap. Size 8.5 Ruler SOs, 8 in Acerras. I'm taking it out on some freshly dumped/slightly warmed-up spring chop this weekend. I'll report back.


----------



## 16gkid (Dec 5, 2012)

Pablo$ said:


> Don't hate, but I'm reviving this thread from the crypt. Size 10 on a Yes wide? Hold my drink...
> 
> For shits and giggles I picked up a new uninc basic 156W for super cheap. Size 8.5 Ruler SOs, 8 in Acerras. I'm taking it out on some freshly dumped/slightly warmed-up spring chop this weekend. I'll report back.


You're late to the party, volume shifted boards have been around for a while, don't fear the waist width, unless you've been skipping leg day😆


----------

