Choosing Snowboard length was traditionally considered to be as simple as the length from the ground to your chin. This will sometimes be the right length snowboard but only coincidentally.
Snowboard technology over the years have left this technique obsolete and there a few factors that influence the length of a board, namely:
- Weight
- Riding Style
- Ability Level; and
- Height
Weight
Weight is the most important factor in determining the length of the board – the weight of the rider, is certainly more important than the height of the rider.
Why is weight the most important factor?
Snowboards are designed with a certain flex in mind. However that flex is also influenced by the weight of the rider. If you are too heavy or too light compared to the weight the board was designed for, the flex won’t behave in the way it was designed to – and the way you were told it should when you bought it.
If you are too heavy for the board (i.e. the board is too short for your weight) then the board will flex more than it should.
If you are too light for the board (i.e. the board is too long for your weight) you won’t be applying enough pressure to make the board flex how it should.
So try to be within the weight range for any given board. Then you can take into account other factors. A lot of snowboard manufacturers will release the weight range for each size of a particular board.
A good first step is to fit within that range. The range is usually quite high so we need some other factors to narrow it down a bit to get a more accurate length.
Snowboard Companies that show Recommended Weight Ranges
The Table below shows some of the major snowboarding brands and which do and don’t, to the best of my knowledge, provide weight ranges. If you know of any others just leave a comment below and I’ll add it to the table.
UPDATE: This table was updated April 26, 2019. When I first published this table (late 2014) there were 5/15 that didn’t publish weight ranges. Now it’s just 2/18, so a vast majority now do.
Snowboard Brand | Publish Weight Range |
|---|---|
Arbor | YES |
Bataleon | YES |
Burton | YES |
Capita | YES |
DC | NO |
Endeavor | YES |
GNU | YES |
Jones | YES |
K2 | YES |
Lib Tech | YES |
Never Summer | NO |
Nidecker | YES |
Nitro | YES |
Ride | YES |
Rome | YES |
Rossignol | YES |
Salomon | YES |
YES | YES |
It’s not necessary to be right in the middle of the recommended weight range. For example if the range is 110 – 150lbs you don’t have to be 130lbs!
Weight recommendations are helpful, but I would consider them to be general guidelines and not hard and fast rules. Often weight recommendations cover a wide range so aren’t that accurate and brands can change these, year to year, without any real changes to a board.
Typically these days weight recommendations are based on your weight without gear. It used to be based on weight with gear but this has changed. And this makes sense as you are less likely to know what you weight fully loaded with gear.
Note: As you can see in the table above, not all manufacturers release weight range information and they don’t take height into account at all. There are tables further down this post which should help you to get a good idea of the best size for your height and weight.
Ability Level
The ability level of the rider can also influence the length of the board. This is pretty easy though. Generally speaking if you are a beginner then go with a shorter board (3-5cm shorter). Anyone intermediate and up should not take ability level into account when determining length.
A longer board is more difficult to control. Therefore beginners are often recommended to choose a slightly shorter board than a more advanced rider might go with.
Riding Style
Besides influencing factors such as flex of board, set back of stance etc, the rider’s style can also influence the length of board that he/she chooses to ride.
This is also pretty basic though – if you are a freestyle rider then go between 3 and 6 centimetres shorter (depending on preference) and if you are only into free-riding then go a 2-4cm longer (again this will also depend on preference and some rider’s like to go more or less extreme than this).
The length sizing tables further down in this post will show the length for an all-mountain rider. Take off 3-6cm for a freestyle board and add 2-4cm for a freeride board.
If you’re not exactly sure of your style you can check out the article at the following link.
Height
Whilst definitely not as important as weight, height is still somewhat of a factor – partly because a taller rider will weigh more than a shorter rider (with the same build). But also because the taller rider will typically have a wider stance (though not always).
If a tall rider ends up on a board that’s too short for their stance width, then either they won’t be able to set their stance width as wide as they would like – or they will be at the widest possible stance and that may not be the best position on the board for them.
In the same vane, a shorter rider may end up not being able to go as narrow as they would like on a longer board – or they might end up feeling like they have too much board outside the inserts.
The Length Charts
The tables below show estimates for board length based on height and weight. Once you have found that, you have found what we can call the “standard length”. From this you should adjust the length for style preference (and ability level if you are a beginner).
This might be the same as the standard length or different depending on style and ability. This is what I like to call your “real length”.
I like to then choose a range of heights that I am happy with so that I can have the option of a wider range of boards and a couple of centimetres either way isn’t going to affect my riding in any noticeable way.
Choosing Your Length
Right, let’s check out the charts below.
I consider the standard length to be the “all-mountain” “non beginner” length of board. For example if the length in the chart according to your height and weight is 160cm then this is your length if you are an intermediate or above all-mountain rider.
So for example if you’re a freestyle rider you might take 3-6cm off that and go with a 154-157cm board. If you are a beginner you might go with a 155-157 and if you are a dedicated free-rider then you might bump it up to 162, 163 or 164.
Go through the charts below and select the table that fits your height and then scan across until you find your weight.
For example, I am 6 foot tall and weigh 180lbs (81kg). So I find myself on the table and find my “standard length” to be 161cm. I am not a beginner – however I do lean towards freestyle riding so I take 3-6cm off and find my “length range” to be 155-158cm. However I am not a purely freestyle rider – probably a 60% park, 40% downhiller – so I go with the higher end of the range there – 158cm (see how it can be very preferential).
So with my real length at 158cm I now consider any board that is 157-159cm because 1cm either way won’t be noticeable – but will widen the range of boards I can choose from.
YOUTH TABLE
Men’s Tables
Women’s Tables
Keep in mind that this is a rough guide and if you can find the suggested weight range for the particular board that you are interested in then this is a good gauge too. The above table should find a size that fits somewhere in that range.
What Next?
Now that you’ve hopefully figured out your length range, it’s time to find out some other aspects to get you on your perfect board. Check out the following to find a good snowboard width range and to find a board that will suit the way you like to ride and where you like to ride.
>>Find Your Snowboard Waist Width Range
>>Find Your Style of Snowboard
Already know your width and style, then check out our Top 10 Snowboard Lists, which are organized by style of board (e.g. beginner, all-mountain, freestyle, freeride etc).
>>Snowboarding Profiles’ Top 10s Lists
What Length do you ride?
I always keen to learn other rider’s set-ups. Please feel free to leave a comment below with the length board you ride, plus your height, weight and riding style.
Any other comments or questions always welcome too.
Hi Nate,
I’m currently looking to replace my old board (of 160cm) that I bought used some five years ago. This will be the first time I’m buying a brand new board, which I plan on to use for some time (I’m 21 now).
I consider myself an intermediate rider who mainly rides groomed. I’m 184cm and weigh about 81kg. Right now I’m looking at the Nidecker Escape, but I can’t decide whether to get the 162W or the 165W..
As of now I’m mainly going for speed on the slopes. I am thinking of getting a bit more into doing jumps and tricks, but this will not be my main style.
Which length would you recommend? According to the chart I should go for the shorter size, but I fear that going for the shorter one, I would miss out on stability on high speeds or that getting to high speeds becomes more difficult.
Hi Joris
Thanks for your message.
As an intermediate rider with your specs, I would usually say more like 158-160 in terms of length. However, since speed is your main thing, then going up to 162 isn’t too much of a stretch and will help with stability at speed. But I wouldn’t go as long as 165, with your specs. That’s getting pretty big. Even if you mostly like riding speed, there are times when you can’t charge all the time, right, when the 165W might feel a bit like a tank. I think the 162W is already bigger than what I would typically recommend for you, so I wouldn’t go longer than that, if I was you. In terms of going wide, I assume you know you need a wide board right?
If you were doing more jumps/tricks at the moment, then I’d say go down to 159W, but since that’s not your focus, I think you’ll get away with the 162W.
However, if you don’t need a wide board – and I wouldn’t go wide, unless you need to – then the 159 is probably the only option, if you’re set on this board – as it looks like they only do wides longer than 159 in the Escape.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for you reply!
Yeah the wide was already a given. I don’t know why, but I had the (misplaced, apparently) feeling the 162 was on the short side for my specs and style. Thank you for clearing this up!
As for the 159, I agree with you that this would be suitable if I would really start spending my day in the spark, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Also, currently I’m riding a 160 board and I have ridden 163 before, both of which I never had to feeling that they were too big.
In any case, thanks for helping me realise that 165 is just too big
You’re very welcome Joris. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate my name is Chris I’m a beginner snowboarder who likes to go fast and I mainly go to two ski resorts near me I’m 6’6 215 pounds and am I’m trying to decide between burton instigator flatboard 160w or 165w
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, as a beginner, I think the 165W is your best bet, particularly as you like to ride fast. The 160W is getting on the shorter side for you, IMO. It’s doable – and would be very easy to learn on, but you might find it wanting in terms of stability at speed, particularly as you progress. If you’re on smaller resorts, then sizing down is often a good idea, but even if that’s the case, I think 165W is the best option for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m 5’3″-5’4″ about 127 lbs(without gear). I considered myself a lower intermediate rider. My shoe size is 7, I bought the Felix BOA Snowboard Boot. I’m checking on Burton feelgood flying v, and currently struggling between 142cm and 164 cm. Most of the time I go for the all-mountain. Will 164cm too long for me? If I go for 142cm, will it a little shorter for me in the near future? Which one do you recommend?
Thank you!!!
Hi Ying
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call, but I would be leaning towards the 142 for you. As an low intermediate rider, that’s certainly going to be the best size for you, for right now, IMO. But shouldn’t become too short, even as you advance. At least not for a considerable amount of time. I think it’s also the better width for you. Finally, taking Burton’s weight recommendations into account (I take manufacturer’s weight recommendations with a grain of salt, but I do take them into account, and they can work as a nice tie breaker if sizing is close) I think that also favors the 142 over the 146.
So, whilst the 146 isn’t a bad choice, and I think it could work for you, I think the 142 would work better overall.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your suggestion Nate. I tried 146cm three times, I’m getting used to it now compared to the first day. Should I stick with it or do you still suggest I go for 142cm?
Hi Ying
If you think you can feel comfortable on the 146, you could stick with that. In theory, I think 142 is the slightly better choice, but 146 isn’t too far off either, so if you feel comfortable on it, it’s definitely an option.
Hi, good stuff here! I could use some help: I’m 5’8″ and 155 with 10.5 boots. I’m an advanced rider, grew up in the park but now in my 40s I mostly just try to ride pow, but still want an all mountain board so I can take a chill lap through the park every now and then and blast a few kickers. I’m looking at the LibTech Jamie Lynn Dagmar, and am trying to decide between the 157MW, and the 160. The width measurements are all pretty close to each other (about .2cm more in the 157MW), seems like the biggest difference is the 2cm extra effective edge in the 160. Would like your input if those extra 2 cms are going to noticeably help in the deep pow and worth the maneuverability I might lose while cruising groomers/park, or if I should stick with the 157 which is technically more suited to my height/weight? Thanks!
Hi Josh
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157MW is your best bet. The 160 will float better in powder – just because of slightly more surface area overall, but I think the maneuverability lost outweighs the powder float gained in this case. For your specs, I think the 157MW is going to be a better overall balance between factors.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello, i am thinking about Capita Super DOA between 156 (waist width 25.2) and 155W (waist width 25.8).
I am somewhere between intermediate to advanced rider. 70% all mountain, 30% park.
I am 180cm height and 83 kg weight with 28,5 cm foot length (just measured), strange because my Burton Imperial boots are 295/44.5eur/11.5us (written on boots). Before i had much smaller boots by 1 size or 1,5 (one and a half Ride). It seems like Burton oversized these boots. Probably these Burton boots will not fit for board 156, but maybe it could be a solution to buy other brand and one size smaller boots for example Ride (my foot can fit in one size smaller Ride boots). Or it will be on the edge to catch heel or toe edges?
So the question is, should i be okay with 156 or i should go with 155W?
Is there a big difference between wide and regular board? Always i was thinking that if there is a possibility it’s better to chose regular board, because it’s easier to control.
In advance, thank you for your comment.
Hi Vaidas
Thanks for your message.
A lot of boots I don’t fit in my mondo-print size. I have 27.3cm feet and the only brand I fit in for a 9.5 is Adidas. For most others, I need a 10 and in some cases a 10.5. So, I’m not too surprised you’re in an 11.5 Burton with 28.5cm feet. That said, the 11.5 Burton will likely be too big for the 156. It would be risking boot drag. The 155W should be fine, but even then is running potentially a little narrow – it’s not an overly wide board. I think even with 10.5 Ride boots, you would probably be better on the 155W. You could probably squeeze on the 156, but the 155W would give you more leeway. If you’re someone that likes to carve quite deep, then I would go 155W, even on 10.5 boots. If you tend to ride less aggressively, then you should be fine on the 156 with 10.5s. On the 155W, if you ride aggressively, then I think even that will be too narrow for 11.5s. You’d possibly be OK but there’s still some risk there. If you ride less aggressively, then the 155W should be fine for your 11.5s.
But yeah, with 28.5cm feet, I don’t think you’ll have any issues in controlling the 155W – you should be able to get plenty of leverage on those edges. Wide boards are only harder to control, if your feet are too small for them. For your feet, you should be all good with that width of board. With your specs, you could even look at the 158W. If you prefer shorter boards, then the 155W would work, but you’re in range for the 158W too.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
When buying a powder board is finding the length similar? My son rides 153 Capita Scott Stevens Pro and Never Summer Fun Slinger. He is looking at the Capita Spring Break Slush Slasher for xmas. I am clueless on which length to buy him and should I stick to what his other boards are?
Hi PJ
Thanks for your message.
Definitely get that it can get confusing! And the answer is that it depends. Some powder oriented boards are designed to be short wide (like the Slush Slasher – more on that later) and others are regular width. For regular width powder boards, you want to size a little longer than you normally would. The effective edge is usually shorter on a powder board because they usually have long noses – and that extra length is outside the contact points, so only really comes into play in powder. Overall having more surface area helps with float in powder plus a number of other factors (like long nose, wide nose, short narrow tail, rockered nose, setback stance etc). So that’s probably more than you needed to know! But yeah with a regular width powder board, usually at least a couple of cms longer and for a short/wide, where you are getting that surface area from width, rather than length, you tend to go shorter (which makes them great option for riding powder in the trees).
The Slush Slasher is a short wide, so I would say go at least as short as the 147 and potentially even 143. I can give you a more accurate size recommendation. I would just need your son’s height, weight and boot size. But yeah, for that board, which is particularly wide, you’re probably looking at at least 5cm shorter and up to 10cm shorter.
Hope this helps
Thank you for your help.
You’re very welcome PJ. Good luck in your search
Hi Nate,
You have helped me in the past when I bought my first board a few years ago when it came to finding a board for my foot size. I’ve now done 4 seasons and love it.
I normally ride a 150 and just bought another 150 (Never Summer Maverix LT) which has the perfect waist width for my smaller feet and they say the board can be ridden as if you are riding a board 10cm up or down.
My main concern now is. Last time I got on my old 150 I was 64kgs now I’m 73-74kgs. I am 5ft5. I’m a bit worried I’ve made the wrong decision getting another 150 and that it may be too small..I plan to lose weight so if I do lose it the size will be perfect again.
Your thoughts there?
Hi Byron
Thanks for your message.
I think you should be OK still on the 150, even with the extra weight. With your specs, at 64kg, 150cm is bang on, IMO, for an all-mountain size at a relatively advanced level. But looking back at old messages for your foot size, I think even the Maverix LT 150 is on the slightly wider size – not overly for sure, and still within a good range, but at the wider end of that range, IMO. At 73kg, you could add 3-4cm for sure, but I think with it being on the wider end of your range, then sizing down a little isn’t a bad idea. So yeah, I think it’s still fine for your new weight, and would be even more fine if you were to drop a little. So yeah, I would be happy with that size for that board, for your specs.
Hope this helps
Really appreciate the reply Nate thank you again.
But difficult to find a board that I like that fits my foot whilst being short and carry a bit too much weight. Considering I do tree riding mostly the shorter 150 should be easy enough to throw around. I just have heard such good things about the Maverix for trees that I just had to get one.
Thanks again for your help and putting my mind at ease.
You’re very welcome Byron. Hope you have an awesome season and your Maverix treats you well!
Hi Nate
Love the site, and the info has been really helpful in trying to find a new board.
I have just bought a Yes Emoticon 143cm for my wife but I’m worried that it’s a little bit on the long side for her
She’s 5ft and approx 125 lbs.
I was really keen on it as she’ll want something that turns easy and she always struggles in ice and we seem to end up riding plenty of icy conditions.
If she doesn’t like the Emoticon do you have any other boards that would be suitable and what size should we be looking for?
Emoticon is toward the top end of our budget.
Thanks
Darren
Hi Darren
Thanks for your message.
For your wife’s specs, I think around 143cm is a good size, for an all-mountain board at an advanced level. If she’s an advanced level, then I think it will be fine. But if she’s more of a beginner, or even like low intermediate, then she might prefer something more like 139-141. Doesn’t sound like that much difference but it does make some difference. But if you have the ability to ride it to see if she likes it first, then there’s certainly no harm.
Some good alternatives – also good in icy conditions and easy turning, but in smaller size:
– GNU Chromatic 141
– GNU Gloss 140
– Arbor Poparazzi Rocker 141
Those are the only ones that come to mind in that price range. The Rossignol Frenemy would also be a good option, assuming at least an intermediate level, but the smallest size is 144.
But yeah, I think she’ll probably be OK with the Emoticon in 143, but if not, those are some good alternative, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate,
Some great suggestions there, the GNU boards look like they might be perfect for her.
She is more of a low intermediate so the Emoticon 143 might be a bit long for her, although she will spend almost all her time on groomers.
A friend also suggested Salomon Rumble Fish and I have found a 2019 board in 140cm that comes in well below budget so might look into that.
Thanks again for your advice Nate
Darren
You’re very welcome Darren.
Yeah the Rumble Fish is an option for sure. It’s just a little more advanced versus the other 3 I mentioned, but if you’re wife is low intermediate she should be all good on it. I didn’t mention it due to the price, but if you can get the 2019 model for cheaper, then that’s definitely an option too.
Hope you and your wife have an awesome season
Hey Nate, appreciate the detailed post! Big fan of the site.
Last year I got a 158W Capita DOA after some research. I’m 6’2 and 200lbs size 12 boot. Based on your article though I should prob be on a bigger board. Only got a 4 day trip to breck last year with the DOA and honestly it was fine. I’m somewhat advanced. I do like 70% mountain and 30% park.
Only part that was sorta sketchy was bombing a groomer at ~35 MPH…board got a little wobbly. Didn’t hold great on morning ice (but what does).
So…question is: do you think it makes sense to sell this board and get a slightly larger one? The board was super fun and overall no issues, but your post on sizing makes me paranoid that I’m missing out on benefits of a bigger board!
Thanks again dude. Keep up the site!
Hi J
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t mind that size for you, if it was predominantly a park board, but for as an all round board, with a 70/30 split, I would say the 161W would be the better size all round.
And with that larger size you would definitely get improved stability at speed. You would sacrifice a little in terms of park, IMO, but gain in terms of stability at speed, float in powder and for hard carves. I’m not too surprised you liked the board in that size for everything but higher speeds. A longer board would certainly give you more stability at speed – that’s the main thing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, I am an intermediate snowboarder who mostly snowboards in Japan – I am keen to improve mainly my riding thru trees, pow, freeride and switch. Dont mind a little park to practice some board slides and small jumps every now and then. I’m thinking of getting The Equalizer – would you recommend a 142 or 146? I am 5″3, 110lbs.
Hi Dee
Thanks for your message.
I would go 142 for you, for sure. I think the 146 would be too long for your specs, especially given that you’re wanting to ride through trees. Even the 138 would be doable for you but I think 142 is still probably the best middle ground between float in powder/stability at speed – and maneuverability/park. But I would be debating between 138 and 142 – and lean towards 142.
I wouldn’t say the Equalizer is ideal for switch or riding the park, but certainly doable if those things are secondary for you vs trees/pow/freeride.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much Nate! Yes it does, very much. Switch and riding park are secondary for me so that’s good to hear!
You’re very welcome Dee. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I am happy I finally found this website, thanks a lot for your work!
I am a beginner in snowboarding, beginner level 4 based on your table. I am a female with height:169cm, weight:54kg and feet EU size 39.
The funny thing is, I live in this country where snowboarding is becoming popular just last 4-5 years and we don’t have much professionals who can guide correctly. The reason I am mentioning this is because I learned snowboarding with the board that the renting place gave me, it was Salomon Craft rtl16 with the size of 152cm. Now after surfing your website, I understood that this board was definitely much larger than what I was supposed to get. It was very hard at the beginning, but on the other side I’ve come to level 4 in one season actually and I started very much enjoying riding it closer to the end of the season. I just ride in slopes in mountainous terrains, with fresh snow sometimes, nothing special. Now I am thinking of buying a board myself but now I have a real dilemma, especially after surfing here. I was hoping to buy Rossignol Frenemy 153 because I was thinking maybe I should go with boards particularly for ladies and one cm doesn’t matter, but after reading your posts I am starting to think that maybe I should go smaller to become more confident and move to the next level? For the smaller sizes here I found only Salomon Wild card 150 (which has bigger weight requirement as I found 60-90kg), Burton Stylus 152, 147, 142 and Ride Compact 150, 147, 143. What do you think, should I go smaller size with my features or should I stick with 152? Also would it matter to have women’s snowboard vs for instance Wild card in this case?
Many thanks and looking forward to hearing from you.
Hi Asel
Thanks for your message.
As a beginner I would usually recommend going for something around 142-144 for your specs – and maybe more like 143-145 given that you’re a high-end beginner. So, in my opinion 152 is too long. But since you are used to riding a 152, going as low as that might take a bit to get used to. But I would still not go much longer than 147. Maybe looking at 146 to 148 is a better option.
The biggest issue with going for a men’s board is that they are often too wide. For your foot size, I would go no wider than 243mm at the waist. I’m not familiar with the Salomon Wild Card (is it a rental board?) and can’t find much info on it, so I’m not sure how wide it is, but that would be my biggest concern for you. But also at 150 I think it’s a bit long for you too.
From those options, I think the Ride Compact 147 is probably your best bet. I’m guessing it’s a 2017 or earlier model, since from 2018, they no longer do a 147. But that’s definitely no biggie, it was still a good beginner option back then. The Stylus 147 would also be a good option, but the thing in favor of the Compact is that it’s a more all-mountain board which suits how you describe your riding more so than the Stylus which is more freestyle focused. You can certainly still learn on something like the Stylus and don’t have to ride freestyle on it, but if you have no interest in riding freestyle in the future, then the Compact is a better option, IMO. If you do have an inkling towards freestyle riding, then the Stylus would be a great choice.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for putting together such an awesome site. After taking some time off for a few years, I got back into riding last year. I did a trip to Whistler and realized that I needed all new everything. My boots were in really bad shape, and it really contributed to a lot of pain during my trip. I came home and revaluated everything, including my stance, thanks to you.
So far, I’ve used the information from your site to do some off season shopping. First step was get a pair of Ride Deadbolts, followed by a pair of K2 Lien AT bindings. Now I need to upgrade my board.
I do most of my riding in Vermont. So that means lots of groomers with the occasional powder day. I consider myself a strong intermediate rider that can handle steep, icy, and even powder. Last season I started getting more time in the trees (getting better), and I forced myself to do moguls too. But it feels like my board isn’t nimble at all, and feels like a boat when turning sometimes. I think part of my problem is that it might be too long, and to old.
The board is a 2010 Ride Fleetwood 165 that is actually pretty good for carving on hard pack as well as in powder conditions. I’m 6’0″ and 215lbs, so I’m a bigger guy. I don’t do park at all (I’m 42), so I think I’m looking for more of a freeride or all mountain board.
What do you recommend?
Hi Cameron
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I don’t think 165 is miles off for your specs, but I think coming down a little in length from that is a good idea. Something around 162, 163, would be a good bet, IMO.
In terms of width, can you let me know your boot size. Given that you had the Fleetwood (which is a wide board) I’m guessing you need a wide board, but just want to make sure.
If you haven’t already check out the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
I’d say stick to something max 7/10 in terms of flex (and minimum 5/10) both in terms of your ability level and how you describe your riding. Going too stiff can make a board difficult to turn quickly, particularly in tight situations at slower speeds, like in trees and moguls in some cases. Going shorter also helps there, so if that’s the main factor then you could even take a couple more centimeters off. But don’t go too soft either, because then it starts to effect your stability at speed and carving, which is why I’d say no softer than 5/10 and even then. I think the sweetspot for you is 6/10 or 7/10 in terms of flex.
Since you’re used to traditional camber with your Fleetwood, I’m thinking nothing too different, unless you feel you’re looking for wholesale changes. But if you want to keep some sort of familiarity, then I think hybrid camber is a good way to go. Essentially that means camber between the feet and under the bindings (usually depending on how big the camber section is) and then rocker towards tip and tail. That rocker can help increase edge to edge and is just a bit more forgiving than full camber. If you wanted a big change then you could look at some Hybrid rocker options (Rocker between the feet and camber underfoot and towards tip and tail). This is usually a looser feel but often leads to quicker edge to edge transitions.
Let me know if you want to bounce any particular boards off me after checking out those lists and we can see if we can narrow it down further for you
Nate,
I wear 11 in street shoes but was able to size my boots down to 10.5. I used to have a Burton Baron and I remembered having issues with toe drag, hence why I got the Ride.
For boards, I’ve been looking at the Yes PYL, Capital Mercury, and the Jones Mountain Twin. They all appear to handle speed well, have good edge control, and quick turn initiation. With the PYL, can you still Ride switch with that setup?
Hi Cameron
Yeah 10.5 is definitely on the cuff. Some rider’s wouldn’t have any issues with toe drag on regular width with 10.5s and some do. Without knowing the specs of the Burton Baron, but assuming it’s not overly narrow, then going wide again might be prudent. Ride boots are quite low profile though, so that does give you a bit of leeway. Going narrower would also help with quick turn initiation, but obviously boot drag is a bigger issue, so want to make sure that doesn’t happen. It’s likely that the boots you were using on your Burton Baron would have had a much larger profile, but still hard to say. That said, the Fleetwood looks like it’s really quite wide (270mm waist from what I can tell). So going for something wider, but not that wide would have it’s advantages with edge to edge transitions for sure.
You can ride switch on the PYL. It’s not a natural switch rider but it’s doable. It’s not as good as the Mercury or Mountain Twin riding switch.
The PYL size-wise, I would say it’s a weight up between the 160W, 164w and 165. Even though we were talking about sizing down, the PYL has less effective edge compared to overall length than something like the Fleetwood, so even riding the 165 would feel smaller than your current 165. If you wanted to go quite a bit shorter then the 160W is doable, but I’d probably be leaning towards the 164W or 165. The width at inserts is likely to be roughly:
PYL 160W: 270mm at front insert 267mm at back insert
PYL 164W: 275mm at front insert 272mm at back insert
PYL 165: 268mm at front insert 265mm at back insert
Front and back insert measurements are different because of the taper of this board. For reference, the Fleetwood would be roughly 281mm at the inserts. That’s a much rougher guess, based on other Ride boards I’ve ridden but you can test it out yourself. The Width should be measured on the underside of the board, at reference stance. So any of those sizes would give you a narrower ride, but should be too narrow.
The Mercury 161, which would be the only size I would really consider for you, is roughly 267mm at the front inserts and 268mm at the back inserts. It’s slightly wider at the back because of the slight setback stance (so the back insert is at a slightly wider part of the board) and it has no taper. Again, this is considerably narrower than your fleetwood, but still wider than the average regular width board – and I don’t think you would have any issues with Ride 10.5s on this.
The Mountain Twin. Between the 161W and 164W. Again, even though the 164W isn’t much shorter than your current ride, it’s considerably less effective edge than your current ride, so should feel a lot smaller than the 1cm difference suggests. The 161W is roughly 272mm at the front insert and 273mm at the back insert. So plenty wide enough, IMO, but still coming down in width vs the Fleetwood. The 164W is roughly 274mm at the front insert and 275mm at the back insert.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate,
Thanks again for this detailed analysis. I am going with the PYL – I think it’s going to be a terrific upgrade from where I am now. It looks like the 164w and 165 have the same amount of effective edge, but the 165 has a larger sidecut radius. Which is the better board for me? I am still thinking about the 160w, but will I still have decent float for when I have powder conditions? Their site says the 160w is more for riders up to 210lbs, and I’m on the upper upper end of that range.
Hi Cameron
You would certainly get more float out of the 165 and particularly the 164W vs the 160W, but the 160W would still float well enough, just for the way the board is designed, but yeah certainly not to the same level as the longer options. The PYL has more powder friendly specs than the Fleetwood, but in 160W is much smaller, so that might even out to about what the 165 Fleetwood is – given it’s large surface area from the width and the extra length. Hard to say for sure, but I don’t think going 160W PYL would float worse than the 165 Fleetwood.
That said, I think I would be leaning towards the 165 for you. I think with 10.5 Ride boots you shouldn’t have any difficulty width-wise with it, and that extra narrowness over your current board will really help with nimbleness. That and having less effective edge, should make it feel like a smaller, and certainly more nimble ride. I don’t think the 160W or 164W would be bad choices for you, but based on all the info, I would be leaning towards 165.
Hi Nate
Awesome site and sooo helpful. Thanks so much.
After a lot of deliberating I have finally decided to pick my self up a 2020 YES Standard, but argh what size should I go for? I’ve narrowed it down to either 159cm or 162cm.
I am 6ft, I weigh 14stone (but hoping to lose a bit of weight at some point), I’m shoe size 9.5UK but might get some new boots this season and am thinking of going for 10UK. I’m looking at getting some Burton Mission bindings (size L, do you think these’ll be too big?).
My ability level is Intermediate level 5 (using your Ability scale).
I snowboard once a year for about a week in Europe, so want something fairly easy to just step on and go each year but also not going to hold me back or be too much for me. I’m also confident at riding fast so don’t want anything to slow me down or to have much chatter.
I was going to get the YES Standard 159cm, but now I think I fit better into the 162cm weight range but 162 it just seems so big! I normally ride or rent a 159cm which generally feels fine but ultimately want to get the right size for what I want as I’ve never been told and just used the old, it lines up with your chin method and stuck with 159cm from there.
Help 🙂 What do you think?
Super thanks
Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
Firstly size-wise. Generally speaking I would say around 162cm in terms of length for your height/weight, as an advanced rider. But there’s a lot of room for interpretation when it comes to length, beyond just height and weight. For example, how wide the board is for your foot size, the types of riding you’re doing, what you’re used to riding and just personal preference sometimes comes into it too. As an intermediate (level 5), I would use around 160, 161 as a starting point.
Given that you like to ride fast, then going longer helps in that respect – longer typically means more stability at speed & better float in powder, all else being equal. Going shorter usually means more maneuverability at slower speeds, shorter/sharper turning, better for buttering, flat-land tricks, jibs, spins etc.
Given that the Standard is a wider board, then sizing down a little can be a good idea, if it’s on the wide size for your feet. The Standard 159, is likely to have a width at inserts of 275mm. Given that you have UK9.5 feet (even if you go for UK10 boots, it’s the feet that are applying pressure to the edges, ultimately. For me that’s just on the wider side for your feet – not ultra-wide by any means, but certainly on the wider side. So, given that, sizing down a little, is a good idea, IMO. And definitely not too narrow for UK10s.
Based on everything, including that you’re used to 159, I think that the 159 is your best bet. The 162 will give you more stability at speed for sure, but it’s also going to be quite wide for your feet and with that extra width and extra length, might feel quite big.
The Standard, in my experience is certainly that kind of board that you can just step on and ride without having to warm into it much. And I feel comfortable riding it at speed (I rode the 156 – 6’0″, 185lbs, US10 boots). I wouldn’t say it’s the dampest board in the world, but it’s relatively damp. It’s snappier/livelier than it is damp, but it’s not super chattery either.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thanks so much for your reply. I just wanted to ask quickly before I buy the Yes Standard 159cm, is there much difference between this board and the new 2020 Jones Mountain twin? that was the other board I almost went for before deciding on the Yes Standard. Given what I’ve said above would you still suggest the Yes Standard was the best choice over maybe the Jones Mountain Twin 160cm?
Thanks Nate
Kind Regards
Joe
Hi Joe
The Mountain Twin would certainly fit the bill as well, from what you’re describing. The main differences between the Standard and Mountain Twin, IMO:
1. The Standard is more buttery. It’s softer tip and tail than the Mountain Twin, which is a little more challenging to press on. Not sure if that’s a factor for you or not. Overall flex feels about the same. But the Standard is maybe a little stiffer between the feet and softer tip and tail.
2. The Standard just feels a little more snappy/poppy to me. The MT isn’t pop-less but the Standard has a bit more in that regard.
3. The dimensions: The Standard is wider overall than the regular width MTs. In saying that the MT is quite wide at the inserts vs the waist as well. Part of that is due to a wide reference stance – 600mm (23.6″) – and of course, if you were to bring that stance narrower than reference, then it wouldn’t be as wide at the inserts in a narrower stance. The 160 MT at reference is likely to be around 269mm – so not as wide as the 159 Standard, but still should be fine for your boots, even if you’re in UK10s. Effective edge on the MT 160 vs the Standard 159 is really close, so that’s not really a factor, IMO. And sidecut radius is relatively close too. Though with the slightly deeper radius on the Standard it does lend itself to slightly tighter turns but there isn’t a huge difference there.
But yeah, the MT would suit what you’re describing, and it’s a relatively similar board, but there is enough different about it as well.
Argh Nate
Thanks you so much for your reply. Thought I’d give you a quick update. I went to buy the Yes Standard and they’d sold out of 159cm! I’m now looking at the Mountain Twin. Would you still think the 160cm Mountain Twin would be ok for me?
Many Thanks
Joe
Hi Joe
Hate it when that happens! You finally make a decision and then it’s not available.
But yeah, for the MT, I would say the 160 is the best bet for you. You could ride 162 as well for the MT, that’s definitely an option, if you think you prefer longer boards, but at an intermediate level, and if you were to drop some weight, as you mentioned in a previous reply, I think the 160 would be your best choice.
Hey Nate!
Excellent write-up and super informative. I’ll be reading through the rest of your guides in the future.
I’m 6’2″, hover between 180-190 (right at the 180 mark currently and will likely stay that way this season), and have a boot size of US 11. This season will be my first time ever snowboarding and I want to make sure I’ve got everything figured out before I start pulling the trigger on things.
I’ve been browsing around the last few weeks and found a pretty good deal on a 2019 158MW Arbor Element. I don’t want to purchase something just for the sake of it being on sale, but wanted to see if that size would fair well with my novice status, boot size, and weight.
I’ll be doing a lot of basic slopes to get my bearings, and will learn my personal preferences as I go.
Appreciate any advice you can bestow upon a newbie! Thanks again.
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I think the 158MW Element would work well for your specs, as a beginner. So, size-wise a good call.
In terms of being a good learning board, it’s a decent option, without being ideal. It has a nice easy going camber profile which will help with turn initiation and linking turns in the early days. But it’s just that little bit stiffer than ideal for a beginner. Preferably I like to see beginners on something soft to medium soft (up to 4/10 flex – with 1 being the softest and 10 being the stiffest). The Element is more medium (around 5/10 flex) – so not far off, and wouldn’t be the worst to learn on, but if you wanted a less steep learning curve and a board that would give you faster progression/confidence, then going a little softer is recommended.
From Arbor something like the Arbor Foundation or Arbor Formula Rocker are the best beginner board bets.
Also check out the following for more options:
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
But yeah, the Element is doable, so you would be OK to learn on it, just not completely ideal.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Have my eye on arbor element. Cant make up my mind between 158MW, 159 and 161.
I’m 6’1 fluctuate between 195-205 lbs. My boot size is 11, however I have 11.5 boots because they were best deal at the store haha (however, these are pretty slim so the length on them are almost as long as some 11s).
Bit of a background, I mess around on everything when I’m on the mountain. I usually look for the more forgiving side of things when I’m snowboarding since I only snowboard about once a year (unfortunately). I am an avid surfer, so I like being playful and smooth.
Thanks,
Clint
Hi Clint
I would say 161 or 162MW for your specs, if you were riding more aggressively, but since you’re looking for a more forgiving feel, then I think going a little smaller is a possibility, but it’s pushing it. I rode the 161 Element (2019 model) and it measured 265mm at the inserts. That’s on the narrow side, but doable for 11s. So, if you have low profile boots and aren’t riding too aggressively, then that should be fine. Going to the 159, it’s only 1mm narrower, so I think you’d get away with it too. I find I’m comfortable with anything down to 255mm at the inserts (with size 10s) with 11s, I think I would be comfortable down to 265mm. So those boards are right on the edge of being too narrow, but maybe not crossing it.
For reference I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots. I would have preferred the 159 personally, over the 161, but you’ve got a little bit of size on me. So yeah, if you want to keep things narrow, then I’d be going between the 159 and 161 – assuming you’re not going to be euro carving or anything, I think you should be fine width-wise on those. Just because you like to keep things more forgiving, I would be leaning towards the 159 for you, but the 161 would definitely work too.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Great Nate. Thanks for the info. Just what I needed ! Appreciate the help!
You’re very welcome Clint. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate!
I’m a 169 cm female. I weigh roughly 135 pounds and I usually ride a 148.5 board. I’m fairly intermediate all mountain rider. I don’t do a lot of park riding although I’d like to get into it a bit more. I do enjoy going off some natural features. I also live one the east coast so it’s icy most of the time, but I do go powder hunting whenever I get the chance. Anyways. I’m buying a new board. I’m thinking the Velvet GNU, however really set between the 147 and the 150. I like riding fast when I can, and I think the mid flex is in favor of that. I’ve ridden 145 and 146 cm boards in the past, in powder and moguls and between the trees non-the-less, yet these were obviously very tiring and too short in my opinion for the type of riding I was doing. I’m just really in the middle b/c I’m afraid the 150 will be too long? I also don’t want to feel like the 147 is too short either. Do you know what I mean?
Hi Esther
Thanks for your message.
Usually I would say, as an intermediate rider with your specs and looking to ride a bit more freestyle, and given that you like to ride moguls/trees, to go 147. But there’s a lot of factors to consider. Since you’re used to a 148.5 and you’ve found you didn’t get on with shorter boards in the past, that pushes more towards the 150. But I would need more info about those other boards.
Shorter would certainly be more work in powder – but for moguls and trees, usually shorter is better. Longer is certainly better for speed though. Without knowing the specs of the other board you rode it’s hard to say though. They might have been stiffer? More or less effective edge vs the overall size. If they were twin boards that would affect how they rode in powder and their camber profile would affect powder, as well as turning etc. So it’s quite hard to say.
Can you let me know what you’re current board is. If it’s got considerably more effective edge than the 147 Velvet, then it’s probably going to be better going 150, but if not, then I would be more likely to go 147. If you can get back to me with that info, that would help in making a recommendation.
Hi Nate!
Haha. Powder trees. I agree on the shorter end for the trees though. Although I was sinking.
I had an old Morrow Sky, that was the 48 board, it was a true twin, flat bottom. I don’t remember the flex.
The shorter boards were both K2. The they were both camber and true twin. Mid flex I think. I borrowed these from friends to try them out. The main problem is on powder days, even though we don’t get them every other day here on the east, I sank hard. Especially trying to get to lifts. And had to adjust my stance and set it back as far as it would go.
tsk tsk tsk. I REally want to go for the Velvet. The Bnice is working its “That 70’s Show” Vibes and I like it, but there’s just something about the Velvet.
-E
The last board I owned was the Morrow. Got rid of it when I moved south. It was a bit old too. But yeah, just been going north for a couple years now and really want to get another board instead of hoping on everyone else’s.
-E
Sorry I keep replying in multiple messages.
The effective edge of the 147 is 1070mm and the 150 is 1100mm. So 3 cm.
The 48 for the Bnice even though I know it’s not the same board, it’s got a similar rocker type. and its effective edge is 1120 for comparison.
Hi Esther
B Nice vs Velvet
The B Nice has more rocker in the profiles, and very little almost non existent camber. Whilst all that rocker helps for float in powder and makes for easy edge-to-edge transitions, it’s not that great for stability at speed or for carving. And the B Nice is a rather soft flexing board too – which is also not great for speed/carving. It does have that extra effective edge, which helps for speed but those other factors kind of cancel that out. In trees in powder, it would be fun for sure, but when trying to ride at speed it’s going to feel wobbly, and given that you’re intermediate and like to ride at speed sometimes, I don’t think it would be that suitable. And even though that rocker helps in powder for sure, it’s still a true twin board with a centered stance, so it’s not going to be amazing in powder. The Velvet certainly better for speed carving, having a slightly stiffer flex (though I’d say still on the softer side of medium) and having a bit more camber in the profile. Still not overly camber dominant, but more than the B Nice. Not going to be great in powder still though, also being a centered twin. Going 150 vs 147 would give you a bit more float – but also make it slower to initiate turns in trees etc. But because it does have less effective edge vs something like the B Nice, that does mean you can go a little longer without sacrificing too much maneuverability because more of that length is outside the contact point.
From what you’re describing, I would certainly go 150 Velvet before I went 148 B Nice.
Note that anything twin/centered is only ever going to be so good in powder. You could look into a slightly directional, slightly setback board. Nothing too crazy if you’re looking to get into some freestyle/park riding, but something subtle there could help with float.
If you’re really set on either the Velvet or B Nice, then I would go Velvet, and if you want that extra float, then 150 – which is going to still fine to ride otherwise, I would say, but maybe not quite as good for learning freestyle/park. Or if you’re open to other suggestions, you could look into something from like the Never Summer Infinity or Rossignol Frenemy or Capita Paradise (still twin/centered but with a bit more nose and tail). And you could also check out this list – though the 3 that I think would be most suitable for you, I did just mention there.
>>Top 10 Women’s Intermediate Snowboards
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks! Yes I was just looking into those these past few days as well!
Im 163lbs 6ft size 9 want to but the 2019 architect Endeavor 150 is that going to be to small endeavour specs page makes it seems to say it won’t be ?
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message. Whilst the Archetype is a little wider, and whilst you’re technically within the weight recommendations, I think it’s still too small for you, personally. I think 154 would be a better size for you. You would fit on the 150 width-wise, but I think you’ll find it quite small. You could ride it but you would likely get a different feel from it than what’s intended for. It would feel softer and more playful than in a longer size and loose some stability at speed and float in powder. Whilst weight is the most important factor, I would still say at your height, that you would want to be more in the lower to middle end of the weight range, rather than the high end, if that makes sense.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
i want to buy a GNU Hyperkyarve and can‘t decide between the 154 and the 157.
I‘m 176cm (wearing socks) , 78kg , boot size 8,5. Since deep deep pow is rare in my region i ride a 154 Skate Banana for park, butter, trees, groomers and everything else. For a bit more (carve) stability and still having fun at freestyling , should i stick with 154 at the Hyperkyarve or go for the 157?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Sven
Thanks for your message.
I think for that style of board, for your height/weight specs, that 157 would be your best bet – and would be a better compliment to your 154 Skate Banana in your quiver, IMO. The 154 is better suited to your boot size (I’m assuming US sizing) – and sizing down to that is certainly an option. But I would be leaning towards the 157 as a better quiver compliment with your Skate Banana. However, if you’re getting it to replace your Skate Banana, then the 154 does then become more appealing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Very useful hints.
Thank you Nate!
You’re very welcome Sven
Hiya Nate,
I am going up for a demo day next weekend and have a list of boards that I hope to try but I want to try to narrow it down.
Currently I ride a 2008 (yes, she’s an old girl) Roxy Sugar, 156cm Camber and a 46cm stance with 2 cm set back. The problem I have with her is that my stance is a little two short now that I have gone from beginer to a intermediate to advance rider. I have always riden with maxed out stance width and there is no room to play around with a set back stance for the powder we do get in Australia (took her to Japan and she was fine on the groomers but hit a powder patch on the side of a run and spent 10 minutes digging myself out as an example).
I don’t ride park but I do want to learn how to do little freestyle all mountain jumps, butter and carves. I would also like to learn tree riding as we have some pretty fun side country here is Aus. Based on that I have been looking at directional boards with good pop so the hybrid rocker/camber profile and a mid flex.
I’m 6 foot and a curvy girl (auto immune means my weight fluctuates and I have no idea how much I weigh currently). I know that I want to stick to 156 or a little higher. Don’t feel I need anything over 160 as I like shorter turns.
Of the following list which do you think I should try from best to worst or if you have any suggestions that aren’t on the list that would be cool also.
*my on paper favs so far.
GNU T2B
GNU WHIP *
CAPITA BIRDS OF A FEATHER
SALOMON SIGHT
SALOMON CRAFT
JONES TWIN SISTER *
JONES FLAGSHIP *
JONES DREAM CATCHER
JONES FRONTIER
Hey
Thanks for your message.
I would cross of Birds of a Feather for a start – just because it’s a centered board and not great in powder, so to me it doesn’t sound like something that would suit what you’re describing. The Salomon Craft the same – it’s a true twin and sounds like you want something directional.
The T2B isn’t completely twin, but it’s not that directional either, so I wouldn’t make that a priority.
The Sight is directional, but it sounds like it would be too beginner for you.
The Dream Catcher/Frontier would definitely work for what you’re describing – so I would definitely get on that/them. The Dream Catcher only goes to 154, but I would still try that and see what you think. To go to 156, you would need to go Frontier – so I would try that too and compare.
The GNU Whip is a little stiffer than medium on paper, but GNU tend to be a little softer than they’re stated flex, in my experience, so I think that would be worth a try.
The Flagship also stiffer than medium, and in my experience feels significantly stiffer than medium. You could try it anyway if you wanted, but certainly not medium flexing.
The Twin Sister would be worth a try too – it’s not as directional as Dream Catcher/Frontier but still a little directional and very versatile.
So I would say, in order:
JONES DREAM CATCHER
JONES FRONTIER
GNU WHIP *
JONES TWIN SISTER *
JONES FLAGSHIP *
GNU T2B
CAPITA BIRDS OF A FEATHER
SALOMON SIGHT
SALOMON CRAFT
Hope this helps
Awesome,
Thank you very much.
You’re very welcome. Hope you have/had fun at the demo day!
Hey Nate,
Do you think the width of the board matters? I’m the same weight as you, should I get a 155w for freestyle, which would maybe feel slightly larger?
Or should I stick to something 156w-157w (I want to ride the mountain a bit also).
Thanks,
Jarod
Hi Jarod
Thanks for your message.
Yeah width definitely matters, IMO. For a few reasons – a. getting leverage on the edges of the board b. boot drag and c. stability on landings and d. surface area for powder.
With 11.5s though, I would say you’ll definitely need to go wide on most boards.
If you were using it predominantly as a powder board and had something else for riding faster, then I’d say 155 would be absolutely fine. If you’re using it as you’re only board and something you want to ride the mountain on too, then I would go at least 157W for you.
Going shorter for wider boards is a good idea, if you’ve got smaller feet – as going a little shorter can make up for the lack of leverage on the edges (to bring back some maneuverability). But if a wide board is already a suitable width for your foot size, then I wouldn’t go too short, if that makes sense.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for this post, it’s really great! Learned heaps.
So I picked snowboarding in about 3 days. I had a rossignol 151 I think. I did a season on weekends then I haven’t been back at it for like 6 years! I want to buy another board and kit. I have put on a little weight and am currently loosing it, not sure how that works with choosing a board. For an all mountain board it says 151 i think for me. I am 161cm and weigh 72kg but my more usual weight is 67-68. I was intermediate… should I go bigger now or because I haven’t done it in ages, stay smaller? Also, I have wide and flat feet. I had burton boots and my feet would get so sore, just ache so bad all over… I have done a lot of reading and research and think Burton, Thirty Two and Salomon are the widest but all the research speaks about guys and not women… help? I take it that I shouldn’t buy my bindings until I have chosen my boots? Cheers
Hi Becks
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of boots, ideally you would choose those first, and then you can match the board and bindings to the boot size. But if you know pretty close to what the boot size is going to be you could take an educated guess on bindings. But yeah, ideally you’d choose the boots first.
I don’t have wide feet and though I’ve researched it a lot, I’m guilty of not knowing whether it translates to women’s brands. But you could check this out for some ideas (but admittedly is male dominated input):
Wide Snowboard Boots for Wide Feet
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Burton and Salomon both have wide options for men’s boots, but not for women’s. Salomon boots (the non-wide options) tend to be narrower than most, so they’re probably not the best bet. Burton boots do tend to be a little wider, even in non-wide versions (and also have “Asian-fit” options, which are also wider), but if you haven’t had a good fit with them in the past, then it may not be the best bet. Thirty Two definitely worth trying. If at all possible it’s best if you can try on before buying to make sure the fit feels good. For flat feet, I would say the best thing to do is to go for a custom footbed insole. If you can get the width right, I think that would go a long way to finding comfort.
Length-wise for your board, I would say for your specs (assuming 161cm and 68kg) – I would be looking at something around 147 to 149 at an intermediate level, ideally, IMO. For your current specs, 149-151 but I would size for the specs that you are likely to be for most of the time you have the snowboard.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate thanks for taking the time to answer questions. I am 6’1” 170 pounds(tall and thin) boot size 11.5 . I did a demo on the 2019 Rossignol Templar size 158 and liked it a lot. Only problem is that I had some minor heel out so wanted to buy either the 156 wide 259 waist or the 159 wide 260 waist, more worried about length of board. I like a little bit of everything all mountain, free style, park. I am almost thinking to buy both sizes 156 park 159 all mountain but they are only 3cm apart and the 156 wide says 130-170lbs so I would be max on that one and 159 wide says 140-200lbs. Wondering your thoughts on it. I would consider myself intermediate-advanced Thank you.
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
Not surprised that you got a bit of drag on the 158 with 11.5s, so yeah going wide is a good call.
You could definitely ride both 156W and 159W with your specs, and I wouldn’t be too concerned about being at the top of the weight recommendations for the 156, especially given that you’re wanting to ride freestyle and park on it.
Pros of going 156W is more nimble at slower speeds, better for freestyle/park (apart from like super large jumps), more butterable. In terms of edge-to-edge speed, the 156W is going to be more similar to the 158 vs the 159W.
Pros of going 159W include more stability at speed, better float in powder and better for long arcing carves.
The 156 is likely a very similar surface area to the 158, possibly even a little more because of that extra width. So in terms of powder, the 156W would be very similar to the 158 – and the 159W a step above.
Because you mention park and freestyle, I would be leaning slightly towards the 156W, and if you ride trees a bit, then that gives another tick in that direction. But if you want to maximize powder, speed and carving, then 159W is certainly within your range too.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Went with the 156W, have a binding recommendation based on what I said? All mountain, free style, park? Thanks
Hi Jeff
I would say go for something with around a 5/10 flex or 6/10 flex. That should be a good match with the board. In terms of then being good for freestyle, I would make sure to get something that’s got good board feel/butterability. The following lists have some options with those specifications, if you want to check those out.
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
If you have any other questions after checking them out, let me know.
Hi Nate,
In the market for a camber dominate park board. Have some question about sizing. I’m 6’1 175lbs 10.5 Vans Boot and ride both medium jumps and intermediate jib features. Would a 155cm 25.5mm GNU headspace be too small? Do I need a wide board?
Thanks
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
Given that you’re going to ride it predominantly in the park (by the sounds of it) I don’t think 155 is too short. I would go longer for an all-mountain board for you, but as a park board, I think 155 would work well. Should certainly be fine for medium jumps and intermediate jibs, IMO.
In terms of going wide, with 10.5s you’re right on the cuff. With Vans that gives you a bit more leeway (as they’re quite low profile) to go regular. For the Headspace specifically, I’d say you’d be fine on the regular width. If you were going to be using it for big aggressive carves and riding with a quite a straight back binding angle, then it might be a little narrow – but in the park – assuming you’ll be riding with close to a mirror duck stance and not going to be using for any euro carving or anything like that, I’d say you’ll be perfectly fine.
Advantage of going wide, is that it would give you a more stable landing platform. But you would loose a bit in terms of nimbleness.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m toying up between the 153cm and 156cm 2019 Salomon Assassin.
I’m 5’9 65kg size 8.5 boot
Coming from an old Ride Profile 156cm and mainly looking for an all mountain board that I can also have some fun on when with my kids on easier slopes (40+ rider). Not doing park, rails or big jumps.
Would it make much difference which I go with?
Tom
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
I think you would be the perfect fit for the 153 with your specs. However, since you’re used to riding a 156, you could certainly ride the 156 too.
The main differences, which would be noticeable but relatively subtle:
The 153 will be more nimble, faster edge-to-edge, better in trees, and better for freestyle type stuff, if you’re doing smaller jumps, side hits, ollies, butters, spins etc. Better for riding slowly with the kids – more maneuverable at slower speeds.
The 156 will be more stable at speed, better for big carves and float more easily in powder.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi!
I want to buy the gnu space case and I have doubts between the 153 and the 156 … I accept recommendations…
Im 5´8¨ -170 lbs – 9 boots, intermediate level++ and 40 years
I actually ride with skate banana 152 2012-13
and nitroT1 156 2006 aprox (tradicional camber)
With the C2X I need more size or less??
Im all terreain, but more in park, flat tricks, butter and no big big jumps…
thanks! and srry for my english
Hi Alejandro
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards the 153 for you. For an all-mountain board, I’d say 156 would be better. But for a freestyle board that you’ll be mostly using in the park and for freestyle, then I think the 153 would work well for your specs. You could certainly still get on with the 156 but the 153 would be my pick for you, in this particular case.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi,
I’m a male, 168cm tall, weight around 65kg, wear size US 8 boots . I have seen a used 2018/2019 Capita DOA 148cm board for sale and really interested in buying it.
I am after a shorter board as want to do more freestyle and park with this board. Do you think 148cm DOA would fit me? I m a bit concern about the bindings wouldn’t fit (will probably get a size M of either Union Force or Burton Malavita).
Regards,
Curtis
Hi Curtis
I think 148 would be a really good length for the the DOA, for your specs.
Width-wise, it’s also a really good width for 8s, IMO.
In terms of bindings fitting, you wouldn’t have any issues with either of those on there, IMO. The measurements on the footbed for those two bindings are as follows (both based on 2019 models of those bindings):
– Malavita Medium: 22cm with no gas pedal extension and 23.7cm with gas pedal extension
– Force Medium: 24.4cm with no gas pedal extension and 25.1cm with gas pedal extension
With the 244mm (24.4cm) waist of the DOA (which would be roughly 25.2cm at the inserts – based on measuring a different sized DOA). So should be fine.
Hope this helps
Sorry, one more question. Should I go with a West X or should I stay with the non-wide West? I see the waist is 256 vs. 266. Thanks.
Will
Hi Will
Thanks for your messages.
Certainly the 160X or 162 non-wide would be more nimble vs the 164X.
The 162 has a 256mm waist and I would predict around 264mm at the inserts, which is pretty narrow for most 11s. If you’re on low profile 11s and ride with +15/-15 binding angles or similar, then it’s doable, but it’s on the narrower side and would be risky with other angles/boots. This also depends on how aggressive you like to carve as well. The more aggressive you carve the wider you will need. I think going for the wide (predicted around 274mm at the inserts) is probably your best and safest bet. I ride 10s and don’t like wide boards, but anything up to around 265mm at the inserts work fine for me – so with 11s, that would translate to 275mm.
Between the 160X and 164X.
The 160X will be a more nimble, easier going ride. When you do go in the trees you will appreciate this size. And if you’re riding more on the casual vs aggressive side, this will be an easier going board to ride. But it won’t be quite as good in terms of stability at speed, float in powder or for big arcing carves vs the 164X.
Hope this gives you more info to go off for your decision
Thanks, Nate. I went with the 160. We’ll see how it goes.
You’re very welcome Will. Hope it goes well for you. Happy riding!
Hey Nate:
I’ve been riding a 2006 or 2007 Burton Canyon 162 forever and finally looking to upgrade. I’m 6’0″ 220 lbs size 11 boot that lives in the Midwest and does mostly freeride out in Colorado for a few days per year. I’m almost 40 so besides when by buddies bring me to the trees, I’m mostly on groomer, so just freeride but I hold my own fine on the black diamonds. I’m looking at a Never Summer West X and caught between a 160 for maneuverability and a 164 because of my weight. I realize the board is going to be more maneuverable than my Canyon for sure, so I’m not sure it matters. What do you think?
Thanks.
Will
Correction. My Burton Canyon is a 164.
Hi Nate,
I was shopping for a new board and found your work. THANK YOU SO MUCH! You have helped me immensely. You have an unbelievable amount of knowledge, display it so clearly, and seem to have covered every topic imaginable.
I’m looking into the Jones Dream Catcher, but I am struggling to decide whether I should go for the 145cm or 148cm. I am a female, wear US size 6 boots, weigh 115lbs, and am 168cm tall. I’d say I’m an advanced/expert rider…definitely a solid level 5 by your definition. I spend most of my time on tight tree runs, moguls, chutes, in bowls, and looking for powder, but also like trying small jumps, tricks, and boxes.
I’ve been told that the Dream Catcher can feel a bit shorter and was therefore recommended to get the 148cm. While I’m fairly tall, I also don’t weigh much and have smaller feet, so it is important to me that I can manoeuvre the board easily through tight and fast turns…which led me to consider the 145cm. BUT, I also don’t want to sacrifice stability and float (although we don’t get a huge number of powder days up where I am).
I know either choice would probably work, but would love to hear your input.
Thanks again!
Kim
Hi Kim
Thanks for your message.
Usually I would say with this board, as an expert rider, that you could ride the 148. It is a board you can ride a little longer. But it’s also a wider board – even wider at the inserts than most boards compared to the waist. I recently had the 148 in my office, and it measured 255mm at the back insert and 253mm at the front insert. With size 6s, your feet (which are ultimately what put pressure on the edges) would be well inside the edges, which makes it more difficult to apply pressure to the edges making a board feel heavier and slower to turn. Now, the Dream Catcher does also have quite a wide reference stance – and that’s measured at reference stance, but even on a narrower stance, it’s going to be quite wide for size 6s.
Usually I would say that around 144, 145 would be a great size for your specs and ability – but for this board this would be sizing down just a little. But being wider, sizing down can bring back some of that agility that is lost by being wider. I would predict that the Dream Catcher 145 would be around 253mm at the back insert and 251mm at the front insert. This is still quite wide and even if you brought the stance in it would still be quite wide for 6s, IMO. So the 145 is still wide for you but since it’s shorter, it would be the better size overall, IMO.
Some other, slightly narrower options to look at that would suit what you’re describing, IMO, would be:
– YES Hel Yes 146 (239mm waist but predicted width at inserts more like 245mm for that board – still wide for your boots and maybe the combination of length and width is getting on the big side but certainly narrower than the 145 Dream Catcher – and you’re getting a lot more effective edge (111cm vs the 107.3cm on the Dream Catcher).
– Never Summer Aura 146 (235mm waist – predicted width at inserts around 243mm – again still wider than ideal, but better. And again you get a lot more edge (potentially too much) – 112cm)
– Capita Jess Kimura Pro 146 (235mm waist – predicted width at inserts around 244mm. Effective edge 109.4cm)
– Capita Jess Kimura Pro 142 (229mm waist – predicted width at inserts around 238mm. Width wise this is the best option for you, IMO. It’s going a little shorter so you’d have to decide if it was too short. With effective edge of 106.2cm it’s almost as much as the Dream Catcher 145cm. Advantage to going smaller like this is that you would get a more nimble board – especially with it also being narrower, so would work really well with trees, moguls and jumps, tricks and boxes. But it would sacrifice a little in terms of float in powder and stability at speed). And even though that’s by far the narrowest option, it’s still on the wider side for you – with size 6s, you’ve likely got feet around 230mm – so with the 238 width at inserts your feet are still going to be inside the edges (but within a good range, IMO) – so going shorter isn’t necessarily a bad thing in this case – the only thing that I would be considering here is if it’s enough effective edge for you.
There aren’t many narrower options that I can think of in that kind of length, that would suit your style of riding (though I’m sure there are some, but not that I can think of). That’s not to say that the 145 Dream Catcher wouldn’t work but I just wanted to give you some other options to consider. I think the Dream Catcher really suits what you’re describing, but just whether the sizing suits that well. But yeah I would say 145 Dream Catcher over the 148 for sure.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m just looking for a new board and found your page.
Nice work! Thanks a lot!
BUT:
I really wonder because it seems as if I’m riding my boards much too long.
With 1,80 m and my 66 kg I used these boards
– Supermodels 164
– Eldorado 159 (when I remember right)
– F2 Supersonic 164 & 161
– F2 Respect 164
– Swoard Dual 163
I think I know a good bit about carving and wood say they all worked really fine for me on all kinds of tracks and also in the backcountry. Still having both supersonics I can say that the longer one always was my favourite. You think everything should have been more pleasant using shorter ones? 😉
I’m riding since the early 90s in Europe, coming from the hardboot-section why I usually rode high angles. Due to problems with my back I started duck-riding (21° / -15°) this year – my back loves it. But now I need a wide board the avoid toe-drag; I nearly decided for wide magnum – boards over 270 mm are pretty rare. After reading all these tables I would go for a 159.
Bad idea? Thanks for your thoughts and comment
PS: no tricks accept 360s when I find a matching edge
Hi Dieter
Thanks for your message.
Board sizing used to be done purely on height, so likely you were used to those sizes if you’ve been riding since the early 90s. And once you’re used to a size, that definitely plays a part in choosing future sizes. Since you’re used to riding longer, then going around 156 (which is what I would otherwise recommend for you) is probably not a good idea in your case. But if you’d never owned a board before then that’s what I would recommend. But personal preference also comes into it. If you prefer to have your board more stable and more carvy and aren’t as worried about it being nimble or for riding freestyle, then going longer is fine. But also with technology improving, boards are becoming more stable without having to necessarily be ridden long to be stable, so that comes into it too. I think people typically rode longer boards back then, so coming from that background, that’s what you’re used to.
All that said, if you’re going to go for a wide and aren’t used to wide boards, then sizing down a little bit isn’t a bad idea. In which case the 159 might be a good option for you for something like the Magnum, rather than going into the 160s.
But if you could also let me know your boot size and the make and model of your boots, that would help to see which width would work best for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m having a little dilemma. I’m like 180-185 lbs and like 6’1 3/4” with a 10.5 boot size.
Currently I have a pretty stiff mountain board (Flex: 8/10) which is a 160 and I remember it feeling kind of big to me (for jibs & spins atleast) but it’s good for it’s purpose. I just bought a bunch of new gear, board included – for the purpose of majority park/freestyle & the occasional groomed runs. The board I got is the Salomon The Villain 2019 – 155W but my conscience is telling me I should’ve gotten the 158… My thought process was that based on how big the 160 felt that a 155 would be appropriate for freestyle, and that a 158 was too close in size to the 160 that I already have… What are your thoughts? It’s eating me alive and I have to make the decision soon because I would want the right size before my trip. Also what is your opinion on stance width and angle? I’m experimenting with that – I’m running -15/+15 angle and in the middle of the standard 4 bolt mounting.
Thanks again,
Michael
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
Since your using it predominantly for freestyle riding, I think the 155W can work for you. I wouldn’t suggest that length as your daily driver, or do everything board, but as a board that you’re going to be riding predominantly freestyle, I think that will work. And with that extra bit of width that offers you a good platform for landings – and in that sense makes up for some of the disadvantages of going shorter. And given that you already have a 160 for other things, and that you find that quite big, I think it’s a good compliment to your quiver. The Villain will also be softer, and feel a little softer again, going with the smaller size – but that’s often a good thing for freestyle, and it’s also another thing that makes it a good compliment vs the board you already have, IMO.
In terms of angles, I like +15/-15 for freestyle riding. Especially if you’re going to be doing 180s or 540s or the likes, where you’re taking off and landing switch. I like the feeling of feeling the same both ways for freestyle riding in particular.
The other thing with the Villain is that it does have a 120.5cm effective edge on the 155W, which is a lot of effective edge for a 155, so it won’t feel that short, I would say.
Stance width: I would probably look to go a little wider than reference – just because of your height and because a lot of people (myself included) like to go with a bit of a wider stance for freestyle riding, as it offers a more stable feel. Reference on the 155W is 56cm, but you might want to go out to 58cm or 60cm (depending on how adjustable your bindings are stance-width-wise). But this definitely isn’t a must and I find the best way is to experiment and see what you like the feel of the best. Also see:
>>Snowboard Stance Setup
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I am looking to purchase my first snowboard where I can continue to improve my skills and ride long-term. I feel as though I am in between the beginner level 3 stage – the intermediate level 4 stage. I was looking for an all-mountain board and considering the Rossignol Frenemy as an option, especially since I live on the east coast where it can get pretty icy. However, it appears as though the smallest size is 144cm. I am 5’2″ and range from 115-120 pounds. I am a size 6 boot.
Do you think this board would be too big for me?
If so, based on my height and weight, what size board would you recommend?
Would you recommend any other boards instead?
Thank you for your feedback!
Ashley
Hi Ashley
Thanks for your message.
I think the Frenemy is a good option, but the 144 is the smallest size, as you say, and I think it’s probably just a little long to be ideal. Not far off, but I would be trying to get something between 140 and 142, if you can.
Check out the following, for a list of boards that I consider really good for beginner going on intermediate riders:
>>Top 10 Women’s Intermediate Snowboards
In terms of hard/icy conditions, the Roxy Ally, YES Emoticon and Rossignol Frenemy are probably the best, but the Arbor Poparazzi, GNU Velvet, Salomon Rumble Fish and Never Summer Infinity not too far off either.
Hope this helps
Thank you for your feedback!
I was really set on the Frenemy but since the Frenemy is probably too long for me, I have been looking at other options. I have been considering the Never Summer Infinity, GNU Velvet, and the GNU B-Nice. As I mentioned before, I am probably in the early intermediate stages of riding and I am looking for an all mountain board. I am about 5’3″ and fluctuate between 115-120 pounds, size six boot. I want to progress my skills but I also don’t want to grow out of the board too quickly. I also live on the east coast so I do keep in mind icy conditions.
What are the main differences between the boards I listed above? I know the GNU B-Nice is softer than the other two, so I don’t want that to be a problem as I progress to more difficult hills. What would you recommend?
Thanks so much!
Ashley
Hi Ashley
If you’re looking for all-mountain, and something that can grow with you, then I would probably cross off the B Nice, just as it’s more freestyle and for all-mountain riding you will probably grow out of it very quickly.
The Velvet and Infinity would be good options though and fit what you’re describing well, IMO.
Infinity is going to be a little softer flexing than the Velvet, though just by a little. The Infinity will be better in powder (if you like the idea of going off-groomer), and just a little more all-mountain oriented, with the Velvet being more all-mountain-freestyle. The Velvet better for riding switch for sure. Everything else fairly similar performance-wise.
Either would certainly work, but I would be leaning towards the Infinity, just because I think the 142 would be the better size for that board for you vs the 139 or 143 of the Velvet.
Hope this helps
Hi again!
I think I have finally decided on the GNU Velvet. I have tried on many boots. The only boots that seem to have been a good fit so far are the Vans Encore. I have also been considering the Burton Limelight, although I do feel some pressure points with them and a little bit of heel lift so I am unsure about them. Might go with the Vans because of how comfortable they felt. Hopefully they aren’t too soft? I think the pair I tried on was the 2016 version…
Now, I have been looking for bindings. I was looking at the Burton Lexa’s. However, I am not sure if they were too advanced for me? (all-mountain early-intermediate rider). I can get them for a good price right now, so the price with them is not a problem. Can I have your feedback? Would those bindings work well with my board and ability level? Are there other bindings you would recommend for the GNU velvet?
Thank you so much!!
Ashley
Hi Ashley
The Encore a probably just a little soft to be ideal for the Velvet, but doable. And fit is the most important thing with boots, IMO. But flex is a close second. If you could find the Vans Encore Pro in your size they might be a better bet. Just that little bit stiffer than the regular Encore and a good flex for the Velvet, and will likely fit the same.
The Lexa is just a touch stiffer than ideal for the Velvet/intermediate level, but doable. Ideally, maybe the Escapade or Scribe if going Burton, but if you have a deal on the Lexa it’s not way off.
For some other options, check out:
>>Top Women’s All-Mountain Bindings
>>Top Women’s Freestyle Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I’m looking to buy my first snowboard, hopefully one that is suitable long-term as I improve my riding. I still consider myself a beginner (I can link turns), but progressing fairly quickly this season. I ride mostly groomed runs, but once I improve, I want to try out powder and park. I may consider buying specific boards for these if I like it enough, but that would be much further down the line. For now, I ideally want a board that can handle a little of everything.
I’m 5ft. tall, my weight fluctuates between 100-110 lbs. without gear and boot size is women’s 6. I’ve been eyeing the Nitro Lectra and based on your chart, the 138cm would be best. However, this seems to be a rare size and sold out almost everywhere, even with other snowboard brands unless I go with kid size boards. I am wondering if you think the 142cm would be uncomfortably long? Should I stick to looking at boards in the 138-140cm range? For reference, rental shops have mostly been sizing me at 140cm and other less specific charts I’ve found online have given very large ranges that run up to 146cm.
I’d appreciate any advice. Thanks!
Hi Jane
Thanks for your message.
It can be hard to find boards in those sizes, but I would try to stay no longer than 140cm, if I was you. You might be OK with some a little longer, and the Lectra is a pretty easy going board, so you’d probably get away with the 142, but less ideal.
Since it sounds like you’re progressing well, and want something that stays with you for a good while, you could also check out the following to see if there was anything suitable in there and if they had anything in that size range.
>>Top 10 Women’s Intermediate Snowboards
GNU Velvet comes in a 139 (with 226mm waist) which would be a good size for you, IMO and good width for your boots. I believe there’s a 139 available currently if you look at the link under that board. But look through the others and see what you like the look of, as some of the others might still have suitable sizes still available.
Hope this helps with your search
Hi Nate,
I bought a Yes Typo 155 with Union Strata M bindings (US9.5 Vance Aura Pro) at the beginning of this season and progressed really fast over the intermediate level, riding every weekend for 1-2 days. I ride all-mountain, groomers mostly, powder if the weather fits, a bit of fun park too, but enjoy the curves and the speed a lot.
I was offered a Yes Basic Decade for a great price and can choose between the 155 and 158 version, and I don’t know which one to choose. I am 178cm, 75kg. I’ll be selling my Typo to a friend who just got out of the beginner level. I know it will help him progress really fast.
According to your table the Decade 158 would be more fitting, but I’ve never before riding anything larger than 155 before. What will be different if I’d go 158 with the Decade?
Will the Union Strata fit for the Decade?
Thanks a lot! Love your page, it’s filled with a lot of useful information. Helped me a lot in buying the Typo and I really enjoy the board.
Cheers
Jakub
Hi Jakub
Thanks for your message. Awesome that you’re progressing well!
I haven’t ridden the Decade (but heard really good things about it – and not surprised given the specs and the similarities to the Typo). I would estimate that the Decade would have a flex feel (by my feel) of 6/10 (YES rates it 7/10), based on other similar YES Boards – the Typo I would rate as 4.5/10 (YES rates it 6/10). The Strata is what I would put as a 6/10 flex, so I think it would be a great match for the Decade, so no need to change your bindings, IMO.
Size-wise, it’s a tough call. At an advanced level, you certainly could ride the 158 – and it would give you a bit more in terms of stability at speed, and for hard carves – and for float in powder. But not as good for park riding. The other thing to think about is that the Decade is already a little stiffer, and with a bit more performance – so even in the 155, you should get an improvement in terms of stability at speed. If you feel you would comfortable on 158, then that’s certainly an option (taking into consideration the things I mentioned above) – but if you would be more comfortable sticking with 155, that’s certainly a size within your range too, for your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Very helpful information!
I recently purchased my first board at a local ski shop after years of renting. I really like this Ride snowboard and the guy at the shop sold me a 154cm. For reference I am a 5’3”, 140lb size 7 boot, female. He said based off my weight this would be a prefect size board for me. (Based off of rides recommendation of 115-160+lbs) But now after reading more into it online, I’m worried it may be too long since the board comes up my eyes.
I haven’t tried riding the board yet but I’m not sure if I should try returning it for something smaller? I’m worried I will have a hard time manuevuring the board, but I’m more of a cruiser and don’t plan on doing any sort of tricks or jumps.
Would you recommend using it and going to a smaller board later on if I do decide to do more park riding?
Hi Lo
Thanks for your message.
In my opinion 154 is too long for you. How much too long, would depend on the board, but I can’t think of a board that would be ideal in a 154 for you, unless you were riding deep powder all the time. Even though weight is an important consideration, it’s not the only consideration, IMO. On balance I wouldn’t go longer than around 148cm, depending on the particular board and depending on your ability level. If you can let me know the model of board that you were looking at, I can give you my opinion of what I think would be the best size for you.
I would say that a 154 is also likely to be too wide for size 7 boots too, so it’s going to be long and wide – and probably hard and not that fun to ride for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Looking into Never Summer Proto Type II X 161 or 158. I’m 6’0 205 size 12 boot. I’ve been riding for 15 years, I would consider myself an All-mountain rider (intermediate) I mainly ride on the east coast but occasionally come out west. My current board is a Ride Kink 09, I feel like it is too narrow for me. My question to you, can I get away with the 158x or would I find the 161 more appealing to my size.
Hi Jake
Thanks for your message.
I think the 158 would work for you length-wise, for this board, which can be ridden a little shorter. Also as an intermediate rider, you might appreciate going a little shorter. So, usually I would say around 160, 161 would be a good all-mountain length for you as an intermediate rider, for this board, the 158 would work, IMO. The downsides to going shorter in this case would be float in powder – it wouldn’t be as good on the 158 for you. But it’s not the greatest floater anyway, so if you’re going to be seeing a lot of powder, then I would probably be looking at a different board, anyway. The shorter 158 will also have a slightly softer flex feel than the 161 for you. Usually going shorter would mean a drop in stability at speed, but with the effective edge on the PT2 being longer compared to overall length, I wouldn’t worry too much about that. But the softer flexing could affect that.
But overall I would still say 158 in terms of length is a good bet, for this board.
Width-wise, I would say that it should be wide enough for you, depending on the profile of your boots and depending on your binding angles. I would be using something similar to +15-15 on this board anyway – as it’s an asym, so binding angles shouldn’t be an issue. But for a more accurate opinion, if you could let me know the brand/model of your boots and also the size of your Kink.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Quite a lot of great info – good work!
I’ve recently bought my first board after years of renting (with all the issues you mention in different articles – getting used to a different board every time, not quite the right settings/board, etc).
After a lot of research and thinking clearly about my own preferences (having ridden loads of different boards over the years), I’ve decided to go for the following gear:
– Burton Ripcord 154 (zero camber) board;
– Burton Freestyle Re:Flex (size L) bindings;
– Burton Ruler (9 UK) boots.
My main reasons for picking all of this gear were to have something of my own that would suit my own riding style. I’ve never been a very “adventurous” rider and would stick to groomed runs most of the time, with a little bit of off piste in powder every now and again. I found that the years that I rented a slightly shorter board with plenty of flex I ended up feeling much more at ease due to the “playful” and more forgiving nature of the board.
I’m about to hit the slopes in a couple of weeks, first Val d’Isere and then Val Thorens in March and wanted to get as much advice regarding the correct set up for the new gear. At the moment I’ve just set it up with a +15 on the front and -6 in the back. As I tend to ride directional 90% of the time I have in the past got the back foot to -3 or even 0 while the front has always been +12 or +15. I’ve set my stance width at 51cm (I’m 177cm tall and weigh 77kg). I’ve also set the bindings back to minimum lean and rotated the backs to be parallel with the board.
Any specific advice (besides trying different set ups to see what feels best) as this will be the first time riding with my new gear?
All your valuable experience and advice would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
Tiago
Hi Tiago
Thanks for your message.
In terms of setup a lot of it comes down to feel and experimenting, like you say.
I think those are good binding angles to start with. Once you’ve had a go with them there, I would try something more towards a forward stance, since you ride directional most of the time. To get a feel for the difference, I would try something that’s different enough. Maybe something like +21/+3 or +18/+3 and see how that feels. Take note of what you preferred between that and +15/-6 and then I would try something in the middle (maybe +18/-3 or +15/0) and decide from there which you preferred the best.
In terms of stance width, that sounds quite narrow to me. And with the reference stance on the Ripcord 154, being 56cm, it’s quite far off reference. Again, you could try it at that and then try something wider to see what you prefer. Or you could start at reference stance (56cm) and then try something narrower, and see which you prefer.
Also, check your boot centering to make sure you have relatively even toe and heel overhang. If you’ve got slightly more heel overhang that’s fine (I would go with slightly more on the heel than toe if you can help it – or completely centered, but not more overhang on the toe. It should be quite easy to get centered on the channel system, so it shouldn’t be a problem, just knowing to check that.
The only other thing would be to make sure your toe and ankle strap are centered when you tighten them over your boots.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to get a setup after renting/trying friends boards for a few seasons. I would say I’m still at a beginner level closing in on intermediate.
I’m outside your charts for height, coming in 6’6″ and 230lbs. Looking at your tallest chart I’d be on a 167. Though that seems maybe a bit long?
I’ve ridden a 163W custom-x and a 159W joystick. The custom-x felt stable but was a bit difficult to maneuver quickly. Whereas the joystick was easy to turn, but felt a bit wobbly at speed. I would like an all-mountain board.
Anyway, I’m currently looking at the Never Summer Snowtrooper X (I have size 13 boots). And am wondering if I should go with the 160 or 164 given my previous experiences.
Also, do you have boots and binding recommendations for that board? On boots preferably ones with a wider toe box.
Thanks so much for your time and help!
Glenn
Hi Glenn
Thanks for your message.
You tried 2 very different boards there and in very different sizes. So, definitely no surprise the results you felt between them. The Custom-X is a very aggressive board and hard to manage at any size if you’re not used to a board like that. And definitely an advanced level board. It’s stiff and has full camber. So I don’t think the size for that was the problem, just the type of board. The Joystick is (was) a much softer board with a much more forgiving/playful camber profile. Add to that the shorter size and being wobbly at speed but easy to maneuver is exactly what I would expect, for sure.
I think the Snowtrooper is a great choice. It’s a great board for exactly where you’re at. High-level beginner going on intermediate. It will be closer in feel and flex to the Joystick rather than the Custom X. But won’t be quite as loose as the Joystick (from what I can tell from what I’ve heard and looking at the specs – not something that I’ve ridden though).
Size-wise, I would go with the 164X for your specs. It would still be sizing down a little from what you could ride (at a more advanced level) but should provide you with more stability at speed and more float in powder and be better for carving. But it should still be maneuverable enough. A lot of the difficulty in maneuverability you felt from the Custom X would have come down to the stiff flex and aggressive camber profile. The softer more forgiving Snowtrooper will be more maneuverable size-for-size. Yeah, going smaller will bring even more maneuverability, but will cost you in stability. I think the 164X would be the best middle ground between the 2.
In terms of bindings, I would look at something with around a 5/10, 6/10 flex. Even though I would rate the Snowtrooper as a 4/10 flex, going a little stiffer on the bindings isn’t a bad idea when you’re a bigger guy. Same for boots.
I would look at the following:
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
In terms of boots with a wider toe box, I would say Adidas are the widest (of the brands that I look at). And they’re also really low profile, which helps when you’ve got 13s. But there are other options also with typically wider toe boxes. Check out the following for more info on a number of brands:
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thanks so much for the reply!
I looked through your reviews of bindings/boots that you linked as well as went down to my local shop and tried a bunch on. I found the Adidas were nice in the toe box, but just didn’t feel right in the heel for me. I did however like the Burton Ruler and Burton Imperial boots. I’m leaning more towards the Imperial just for that bit of added stiffness as you suggested.
For bindings, I am between the Burton Genesis and the Union Strata. But leaning towards the Genesis due to some quality issues Union apparently had in the past with their bindings. Maybe it’s not an issue any longer, but it’s having that bit of peace of mind of going with a brand who’s been doing it forever…
Lastly, when I mentioned I was interested in the Never Summer Snowtrooper to the guy at the shop he suggested I take a look at the Yes Typo. I noticed you had a favorable review of the Typo under your all-mountain boards. What are your thoughts on a Typo 163W for my level? Is it too much board? I see other sites have it listed as a beginner-expert board, so maybe it’s worth considering?
Thanks again for your thorough and knowledgeable responses!
Glenn
Hi Glenn
Thanks for your message.
Sounds like Burton boots are the way to go for you if they are fitting the best.
I haven’t had any quality issues with recent Union bindings, so both are options, IMO. But the Genesis is a seriously good binding, so you can’t go wrong there.
The Typo would also be a great option for you, IMO. And the 163W a good size for you too. It’s another one of those boards that’s just beyond a pure beginner but good for a high-end beginner, to low-end intermediate and leaves plenty of room to grow with it too (along with the Snowtrooper is in my list of Top 10 Intermediate boards).
Yo Nate,
Found a good deal on a 2013 burton custom x 158 with medium size genesis bindings and need some help.
I’m 6’, 195lb and size 11 burton moto boots been riding for a long time but haven’t bought a new board since 2004 (burton custom x 164).
You think a 158 will be too small for me? I do want a board that is a bit more nimble and poppy than what I have now.
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Usually I would say to go for something around 162 for your specs for this type of board. So usually I’d say go 162 Custom X but since you’re looking for something more nimble, the 158 is certainly a possibility. Width-wise, it’s borderline for 11s. Since you have Burton boots that gives you a bit more leeway, but it would still be pushing it a little if you ride with a straight back foot. But if you ride with a reasonably angled angle on your back binding, then you should be OK. Actually, looking at the 2013 Custom X, it’s quite a bit narrower than the current Custom X. So I would say that it’s too narrow. Though in saying that, the 2004
Also, ideally, a stiffer boot would work better with the Custom X, which is quite a stiff board. Though the board will likely feel less stiff as a 158 as it is as a 164 or 162, for your specs, but still quite stiff. Also, I would match the Custom X with slightly stiffer bindings than the Genesis too, ideally.
But yeah, my biggest concern is that the 2013 Custom X 158, would be too narrow for your boots.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, Great articles!!! I’m 6’5/275 lb with a size 14 foot. Been riding the Lib Tech 180 Skunk Ape which has fit great but it’s pretty beaten up so was looking at their 172 with a 26.8 waist or 170 with a 28.5 waist. Does the wider waist make up for the slightly shorter board? They also have a 195 with 26.1 waist but that sounds a bit too big(and narrow). I’m more of an all-mountain cruiser(too big for the parks), mostly Intermediate runs with some Experts thrown in. Which would you suggest?? Thanks so much for your thoughts.
Hi Jake
The 170, with the 28.5 waist, might be a good option. Since you’re used to a 180, going down to a 170 would certainly be a noticeable drop, but that wider waist does make up for it in some areas. Certainly in terms of stability when flat-basing and for float in powder, the wider board makes up for the length. And then going shorter allows for a more nimble turning board, than would otherwise be the case with a wider board. But for 14s, the 285mm waist isn’t crazy wide, anyway.
The advantage of going for the 172, is that you don’t drop as much in terms of effective edge, compared to the 180, which will be easier to adjust to, coming from the 180. If you’ve been fine with the width of the 180, then you’ll likely be fine with the width of the 172W. But the 170UW would give you a bit more leeway in terms of width, to reduce any risk of drag.
Assuming you’ve been fine with the width of the 180, I think the 172W would be the safer bet, as something that’s more similar to your current board, but I like the idea of the 170 for you, as it would allow you more leeway in terms of width and more room to get lower on carves, if you like to carve it up.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
So I’m going to piggy back of this post b/c it’s similar to mine. I ride a 168 Nitro Magnum. But it seems to die on my on cat walks and feels a little squirely. I also wash out sometimes on that heel edge. I’m thinking I need a bigger board was was looking at the Skunk Apes. I’m 6’7″ 270 with a size 15 boot. I do wear the Burton lower profile boots that supposedly fit like a 14. Riding style is same as above. Cruisers, crud, pow when I find it. No park. Decent amount of bumps just to mix it up. I was debating between the 170 skunk ape and the 172 skunk ape. But I’m torn between the wider/shorter 170, or the longer/narrower (even narrower than my Nitro) 172. Thoughts?
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
I think going a little longer could certainly help. With 15s (even Burton 15s), I would be concerned about the 172 being too narrow, so I would be looking at the 170 (285mm waist width). It’s wider than what you’re used to but still a good width for 14s/15s, IMO. And there are some advantages of going a little wider – like better float in pow, and the ability to really get over the edge without any fear of dragging a boot. Wider isn’t likely to lessen the board dying on cat tracks, but the little bit of extra length should help there.
The other option, if you were OK with staying with the same board (all be it an updated version), but in a longer length, would be the 171 Magnum.
Hope this helps
Jason,
I just checked out the Nitro. Great waist size for the shoes but effective edge only 1180. The Skunk Ape 170 UW effective edge is 1270 and their 172 is 1310. For the Skunk Ape 180 I have now, it has a 268 waist and I use Burton risers on the bindings with size 14 Burton boots and it has worked fine(though I don’t know how much less response you get using the binding risers). The Burton Custom 170W has nice waist (270) and effective edge (1335) for guys like us. In the end, I’ve ridden Lib Tech for 13 years and they get it for bigger riders. Plus, I had an issue come up and they took care of it right away even out of warranty. They were so great to deal with.
HI Jake
Yeah I see on Lib Tech’s website that the Skunk Ape shows 127 for effective edge on the 172, but in their catalog and on some other places I’ve seen it, it looks like it’s 131, which would make more sense to me.
With Riser’s that certainly gives you more leeway, making the 172 perhaps the better way to go, if there’s going to be no risk of drag. Not sure how it effects response as they’re something I’ve never used.
In terms of your stability at speed, extra width only really adds stability for landings and when flat-basing. Usually you wouldn’t be riding flat out on a flat base, so going with more effective edge is usually better for stability at speed – more edge in contact with the snow that way. Assuming you’re going to be on edge at speed, going longer will be better for stability at speed. But certainly for riding powder, that extra surface area (and the 170UW will likely have a good bit more surface area overall than the 172), is going to improve float.
One other thing that may change things on this Nate. Just saw that the contact length for both the above, 170 UW and 172 W is 127. Would that mean that for both boards, there is 127 cm making contact with the snow-hence since the 170 UW is wider, there’d be more surface on the snow with the 170 than the 172 ?? If that is the case would the 170 be better for speed for me?? For stability?
thanks for all your help on this, much appreciated!!
and on this, the 170 has an effective edge of 1270 while the 172 has an effective edge of 1310.
Nate,
Thanks so much for your time as well as insight on these boards and explaining the details on how to read the stats. When spending so much money on a board, it’s nice to know exactly what I’m getting!! Fantastic site and info. You da man!!
You’re very welcome Jake.
Hope you have an awesome season!
Ended up going with the Lib Tech Skunk Ape 172. With the risers its fantastic. Rides great and I could probably get away without the risers but I had them previously so just stuck them on. Great board and Lib Tech always stands behind their product. Also tried out there 195 Dough Boy. SO FUN!! A must for anyone. Turned very well and holds an unbelievable edge. Flies down the mountain and through powder.
Hi Jake
Thanks for the update. Awesome that the 172 Skunk Ape is working well for you. I can’t even imagine riding a 195, but sounds like it was a blast! Even in the picture it looks gigantic.
Hey, Nate, I’m 5’11 185-190 10.5 boot I ride 60% park 40% mountain. I can’t decided between the 156 or 158 DOA?
Hi Stan
Definitely a weight up and both sizes would work. I would be leaning towards the 156, largely because of the 60/40 Park to Mountain. And also because I like the 156 for that board (6’0″, 185lbs, US10). Though it’s a very close call, and I do tend to lean towards slightly shorter. Also, with 10.5s, the 158 gives you just that little bit more width. I’d say the 156 would be fine with +15/-15 angles, or similar, but with a straighter back binding angle, could be risking being a little too narrow.
Hope this gives you more info to go off
Awesome thanks it gives me a ton to go off. You were talking about the 158 giving me just a little bit more room for my 10.5 boot. I have a couple question’s about bindings. It’s a question I saw brought up a few times on the binding page. Which is better for me with a 10.5 boot a pair of Union M/L or L/XL and which do you perfer the force or the Atlas. The bindings would be going on the DOA. I wear a pair of Burton Moto Imprint 1’s quick lace & just got a pair of 10.5 DC Control BOAs. I’m also curious about your thoughts on the Malavita’s.
Thanks again for the knowledge & help.
Hi Stan
With Burton 10.5s, I would say go Medium. With DC is a tighter call, but I would still probably go Medium. I think you should fit the DC 10.5s in there – and the Large might be pushing it for width on the board. It would fit the boots fine, but Union base plates tend to be quite long in their Large size, so there would be some risk that they could be too wide for the board.
M/L and L/XL are Union’s old sizings, but M/L translates to their M now and L/LX translates to their L now.
I really like the Malavitas. They are the control bindings I use for testing, so I’m very familiar with them. They work well with the DOA too, IMO. Although, I think I would personally go with something just a little stiffer overall for the DOA. But they would certainly work with it.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m currently looking for as close to a quiver killer/daily driver board for my first board. Been riding at least a few times every season and feel it’s time to get my own but need some insight to dial in the perfect ride.
I am 5’8″, weigh 157 lbs, and wear a 8.5 boot.
I would say my skill level is between intermediate-advanced when it comes to going down groomers and steeps. I typically like to ride fast, link carves, hit the side hits/naturals if I can, ride through the trees, and love the rare powder day (even if my back leg is done the next day).
When it comes to the park I’m a beginner. I like to hit the small jumps (15-20 feet) but want to step up my game to bigger jumps and be consistent with 180s and 360s. I’m not good at jibbing. I’d love to improve but the jumps are a bigger priority for me. They’ll come after. Butters and switch are also slowly coming along.
Overall I feel like I split my time 25% in the park (when I ride with friends) and 75% of the time all over the rest of the mountain.
Here are the boards I’m looking at:
Capita DoA 154cm
Capita Mercury 155cm
Capita Outerspace Living 154cm
Jones Explorer 156cm
Jones Mountain Twin 157cm
Would you recommend these sizes or should I go higher? Also any board recommendations out of these would be awesome. I was thinking the DoA or the Mercury were probably the best fits.
Love what you’re doing here.
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
Between the Capita boards, the DOA would work better for the park than the Mercury, IMO, but not great in powder. Otherwise would certainly work for what you’re describing. The Mercury would be a better option for powder, but as you see powder rarely, it’s not necessarily the most important factor. The Outerspace Living would also work for what you’re describing and would work well for park and better for powder than the DOA but not quite as good as mercury. The Outerspace Living is a more playful/less dynamic option that’s not quite as good for carving/speed, IMO.
The Mountain Twin and Explorer are also better in powder and, like the Mercury, what I would consider “all-mountain” boards, with the DOA and OSL “all-mountain-freestyle”.
For more details, check out:
>>Capita DOA Review
>>Capita Mercury Review
>>Capita Outerspace Living Review
>>Jones Mountain Twin
>>Jones Explorer
Size-wise, I think those sizes look good, except, I would go 154 for the Mountain Twin. You could ride the 157 too, but I think the 154 would be a better fit. For the others, those are the sizes I would have recommended for you.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate I left an early comment and got to thinking. I’m 5’11 (180 cm) 190-195lbs (86-88kg) 10.5 boot I’m curious is the 156 or the 158 DOA better for me? I ride all mountain and find myself in the park as the day comes to a close. This might sound dumb but are weight charts taking into account the ‘gear’ your wearing or not? If so with the boots and everything I’m over the 190lbs weight limit for the 156. What are your thoughts? Which should I ride? Thanks for the help! Your great!
Hi Stan
Weight recommendations are typically without gear, according to those I’ve talked to from a couple of different of brands. So, you would fit inside Capita’s weight recommendations for the 156. As per my other comment, I would be tempted by the 156 for more park performance, but the 158 is probably the safer bet, and a little better for all-mountain riding. But personally I would go 156 for that board, to have it more freestyle/park focused.
Hi Nate – Hoping you can help me along with all the others! I am a 5’6.5″ 111 lb female, with a 9.5 shoe size. I am currently debating between the Jones Dream Catcher 145 (23.8cm ww) and 148 (24cm ww). I am hesitant of the 148 because of my weight and my level (I am at a level 4 beginner intermediate level, linking turns very comfortably and looking to progress with this new board). I currently ride an old 146 Salomon that I bought off ebay. Any advice to sway me one way or another? Thank you!
Hi Celeste
Thanks for your message.
I think the 145 would be the better length for you. Even though the Dream Catcher is the kind of board you can ride a little longer, I think the 145 for your specs/ability would be the best option.
Width-wise, both options would be cutting it fine, in terms of potentially being too narrow. However, if you ride with binding angles something like +15/-15 (at least with a reasonable angled back binding angle), then I think you should be fine width-wise. With a straighter back binding angle it would be riskier width-wise.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Very informative article, and I’m glad to see that you’re still actively answering these questions. I’m 6’3″, ~195 lbs, 11.5 US boot and just bought a 158MW Arbor Element as my first board. After receiving it in the mail I’m second guessing if it is too short, since my previous rentals were in the 160-165 range.
I would consider myself low intermediate, as I only snowboard once or twice a year. I don’t plan to do park, mostly just enjoy carving groomers or powder if I’m lucky. I was thinking the shorter board could have a more surfy/playful feel, but I also don’t want it to be too squirrely at speed. The Element is fully rockered with a 6 flex rating, and the effective edge on the 158MW seems decent at 1210. Will I be fine with the 158MW, or should I consider upsizing to the 162MW?
Thanks,
Rob
Hi Rob
Thanks for your message.
Ordinarily I would say that something between 160 and 162 would be a good range for your specs/ability/style of riding. But, like you say the 158MW does have a lot of effective edge for a 158. Most boards in that 160 to 162 range would have a similar effective edge (that’s being very general, but a lot of boards that length sit in and around that effective edge). The 162MW has the effective edge that I would typically see on boards more like 164, 165. That’s not to say that it’s necessarily too long for you, but it’s interesting to note.
I rode the 2019 Element in the 161 last spring and it did feel a bit long for me. I would have preferred to ride the 159 or possibly even 157, though I think the 159 for this board. I am 6’0, 185lbs (at the time), with size 10s.
Unusually, the 158MW has more effective edge than the 159. I double checked their catalog and website and they’re consistent, and it looks like the other wide models have more effective edge per length too, compared to the non-wide models, so it looks like they do shape the wide models differently.
The 158MW would certainly be more playful and forgiving than the 162MW for you and more maneuverable at slower speeds. The 162MW would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed.
Hope this gives you more info to go off.
Hi Nate!
I’m 6’4 1/2 about 195 lbs and a size 12 or 13 boot. I’m pretty set on the Jones Explorer but also considering the Yes Standard.
I want something I can do some moguls and trees in but am worried about giving up all my float. Is a 161W too small for me/ should I go for a 164W on the Jones Explorer?
Thanks!
Craig
Hi Craig
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t say something around 161 is undoable for you. Particularly if you ride a lot of trees. However, the Explorer is something that I usually recommend to ride a little longer than you normally would, just as it has a shorter effective compared to overall length compared to most boards. So, in the case of the Explorer I would be leaning towards the 164W. And that would give you just that little bit more in terms of width.
For the Standard the 162 would be a good size for you, IMO. For that board, I wouldn’t see any issue with going for that length. In fact the 162 Standard has practically the same effective edge as the 164W Explorer.
I wouldn’t say an outright don’t-do-it, for the 161W and I think you’d probably enjoy it in trees, but overall I would be leaning towards the 164W for you, for that board.
Hope this helps
Great post, I am 5’10” and weigh about 170lbs. I am looking at a DC 150cm freestyle board. I wear size 10 boot. Is this board too small for me? I am a mix of all-mountain and freestyle type of rider. Any suggestions before I make a purchase?
Hi Jonah
Thanks for your message.
If it was going to be your dedicated freestyle/park board, then I would say you could get away with it (assuming the width is OK – but without knowing the model, I’m not sure). But as your only board, this is going to be too small for you, IMO. I would be looking closer to around 157, 158 for your specs, for an all-mountain board, assuming a relatively advanced level. You could certainly go shorter for a more freestyle focused board, but if you’re going to be using it for all-mountain riding as well, I wouldn’t go as short as 150, if I was you.
Hope this helps
Hello, Nate,
Your article is great!
I am 189 cm high, 86 kg weight, my boot size is 47 EU (Burton Moto) size (14 US), level – begginer to intermediate, more all mountain rider, but most happy in a powder.
I am thinking about Burton Ripcorn 2019 snowboard 62 W. What do you think? Is it good for me (length and width)? More worry about width…
Thank you in advance,
Ugnius
Hi Ugnius
Thanks for your message. I replied to your previous message on the Top 5 Beginner Snowboards page, but I’m guessing you haven’t seen it. I have copy pasted it below for you:
Hi Ugnius
Thanks for your message.
I think the Ripcord would be a good option for you, based on what you’re describing. But I suspect that it would be pushing it too narrow for your boot size. You might be fine to begin with, but once you start getting more up on edge, you may well get boot drag issues. Even with low profile Burton boots, I wouldn’t want to go narrower than roughly 265mm at the waist for your boots.
I think the better option for you would be the 160W Burton Instigator. It’s a reasonable amount wider (265mm waist) and should give you a bit more leeway. Also I think the 160 is a good length for you at this stage.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Great website & amazing advices! Very impressive longevity!
I went through all the messages (very interesting) but still double guessing:
* I am 31 years old
* 6 feet tall (183cm)
* 150-160 LBS (68-72kg)
* 11 US size (k2 maysis)
* Beginner level
** Last time I was on a board I was 20 year old, but in a week I was able to handle the board enough to feel secure on red track
* Eager to try everything: freeride / freestyle
I am hesitating between K2 Standard 56W & 59W:
* I am worried to out grow the 56W too fast.
Thanks in advance,
Geoffrey
Hi Geoffrey
Thanks for your message.
I can understand your concern about growing out of the smaller 156 too fast, but I feel like the 59W is going to be too big for you, especially as a beginner. It would be an appropriate length for you as an advanced rider, but as a beginner – going that long – and with it being on the wider side for 11s too, is overall looking like quite a big option to get started on. I would be concerned that it would slow your progress and your technique could suffer. And I don’t think the 156W is overly short for you either. I would say 154 to 156 for you at a beginner level, so the 156 is at the higher end of that specturm, so I would say it would be good to get you to an intermediate level.
The Standard is something, in any size, that you will likely want to upgrade from at some stage anyway, and I feel like going 159W you would want to upgrade anyway but with it you wouldn’t progress as quickly and potentially with a less clean technique if you find that size hard to handle. Whereas, the 156W you should progress better on, IMO. It’s impossible to say for sure, but that would be my prediction.
Hope this makes sense/helps
Thanks a lot for your feedback and your time!
He went with 156W, can’t wait to try it 🙂
Thanks again,
Cheers,
Geoffrey
You’re very welcome Geoffrey. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate,
I just ordered the slash brainstorm 154 cm. This is the first snowboard that I have purchased. I spent all last season renting. I’m wondering if I might have been better off with the 151 cm now though? I’m 5’6, 145-150 pounds, boot size 9.5 (US) 23 years old beginner-intermediate. I’m into all mountain riding with more time bombing the mountain and trying to hit natural terrain/powder than the park, but still some time in the park. Do you think I made the right choice?
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
I probably would have suggested the 151, but the 154 is certainly a doable size for you. Particularly for when you’re bombing and hitting powder, the 154 should be perfectly fine, but when you’re in the park you’ll likely have preferred the 151. And the 151 would still be fine for powder and bombing for your specs, IMO. So, whilst I would have been leaning towards 151, you’re certainly not way off with the 154 – and the 154 will have some advantages over the 151. If you have no way of exchanging it or really don’t want to exchange it, then you could look at a shorter board specifically for the park at some point down the line.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hey Nate,
I just bought the Jones Explorer 159 cm. I’m just shy of 6’0, weigh about 180ish, and have a size 11.5 boot. I’m wondering if I should return the board and step up to the 161w. The guy who sold me the board thought I would be good on the 159 cm but after doing some research, maybe I should have gone bigger? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Hi Joe
Just replied to your other message. And yeah 159 too narrow for you, IMO.
Since this is the kind of board you can ride a little longer, I would be leaning towards the 161W, but the 158W would also work.
Hey Nate!
Fist of all thank you so much for your extremely useful website and incredible job replying to all the posts! I explored your article and your answers to girls with similar specs to me, but I’m still not convinced. Please help me to make right choice. So, anyway I’m an intermediate all-mountain rider with an athletic build: 165 cm tall and weigh 145 lbs. I’d like to buy KLASSY C2X. According to GNU’s suggested weight range for this particular board I should go for the 145cm board based on my weight. Taking into account all info I’ve already known I understand that this length might be short for me. But I have a lot of doubts, because my current board is an old Burton Feather 144 and I’m used to it. At the same time, I want so much to make some progression, have stability at speed and float in powder.
Would love to get your thoughts.
Thank you in advance,
Johanna
Hi Johanna
Thanks for your message.
In my opinion the 148 would be the best size for you, but the 145 would work too – I wouldn’t say that it’s overly too short, but I would be leaning towards the 148.
I would say something around a 149, 150 would be a good advanced level size for you, so, as an intermediate you can certainly take some size off, but the 148, I think, is taking off enough. The other thing is that the Klassy is going to be a more aggressive board and a better carver and have more stability at speed than the Feather, even in the same size. So going 145 you would still be getting more in those areas even without sizing up. In terms of powder, the Klassy, I would say is fairly similar to the Feather, in terms of powder performance. Both boards are setback and have a tapered directional shape. The only thing that would make the Klassy a little better in powder is a faster base (particularly if you ever get wet, sticky powder). But going up to the 148 will certainly give you better float than the 144 Feather, IMO.
But a couple of reasons why I would be leaning towards 148. 1. I think it fits your specs better. 2. Since you are athletic, then you should be able to handle the length fine, even at an intermediate level – and it’s still a couple of cms down and 3. It’s a size that you could stay with even as an advanced rider. So, whilst it might take a little getting used to the extra length to begin with since you’re used to riding the 144 Feather, it’s a size that you could stick with forever if you wanted to.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Dear Nate,
Thank you so much for your helpful reply!!
Just one more question, do you think I will be able to handle the 151? Should I choose it if I want to gain a higher level? As far as I understand, with rocker in the middle of the board it is a little easier to turn regardless. At the same time extra length would give me more stability at speed. What do you think about it? I’d love to hear your opinion.
Cheers,
Johanna
Hi Johanna
I think you could handle the 151, but I think the 148 would be the best size for you.
The rocker in the middle does help with turn initiation but it’s a stiffer board than what you’re used to with the Feather and it also has a fair bit of camber, which the Feather doesn’t have any of (it’s flat in the middle then rockered tip and tail). The rocker in GNUs C2X profile isn’t overly prominent compared to the camber. So whilst that rocker will help with turn initiation there are other factors too.
The 151 will give you more stability at speed compared to the 148, and more float in powder. But there’s a trade off. It will also be less maneuverable at slower speeds. If you go too long, then the added benefits of that length can come with some negative effects too. And potentially the 151 might be quite difficult to handle, which could effect your confidence and control, particularly on steeper terrain. How much so that would be the case is difficult to determine, but I think the 148 would be a better option at this stage. Also, going from 144 to 151 is quite a big difference and would be a much bigger adjustment to make, compared to what you’re used to.
So, whilst I wouldn’t say an outright no to the 151, I think the 148 would be a better length for you, IMO, overall.
Dear Nate,
Thank you for taking the time to write this detailed reply! I really appreciate it. Thanks for being so helpful!
You’re very welcome Johanna. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I’m looking at a Burton Process Flying V 2018,
I’m 5ft7 and around 133-140 lb and there’s only the 157 left.
This is the first snowboard i’m going to buy and i’ve been riding for about 3 seasons,
I ride everything equally (not much parks wher I live) but i would like to explore more tricks and small jumps.
Is it too long or good ?
Hi Charbel
Thanks for your message.
157 is going to be too long for you, IMO. The longest I would go for you is 152 – and that would be a good size assuming a relatively advanced level. Intermediate level, I would be looking at something around 150. So, if you’re set on the Process Flying V, then I would go for the 152 in the 2019 model (if you can’t find a 2018 model in the 152) or go for a different board.
Hope this helps
Hi,
My name is alex and i am 5’5” and 138lbs, size 7.5 US, i rode a flow era 150 that i felt to be big and a rome gang plank 149 that i liked.
I want to buy now a capita DOA, and i want to choose from 148 and 150 both of them support my weight, what do you think i should get?
Also i learned last year to snowboard so i think i am a beginer.
Thanks a lot!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t personally recommend the DOA for a beginner. But neither would I the Gang Plank. However, the DOA is a little more aggressive in terms of camber profile than the Gang Plank, so even less suitable, IMO.
However, if you’re set on the DOA, then the 148 would definitely be the better size for you. A better length and a better width for your specs, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi,
Thank you very much for help, i am am aggresive person in terms of sports and i am the kamikaze type, but i was concerned about the effective edge because is a lot smaller than gang plank, 111 capita vs 115 gang plank, and i thought that 148 is small for me, but thanks for the recomandation, i snowboard since last year and i already have 3 boards :))), a littlr maniac 🙂
Thank you very much,
Alex
Hi Alex
If you are already an aggressive rider, then you might be OK on the DOA. I would still go 148, but if you really want extra length, then it is also down to personal preference, so you could go 150 if you wanted. Any reason why you don’t want to get the Gang Plank? Or do you already have it?
Hi, i started snowboarding last year and i have the gang plank, i actually have 4 boards.
Flow era 150
Gang plank 2017 149
Pathron sensei 151
And now the DOA 148, that arrived two days ago :))
Hi Alex
That’s quite the collection already!
If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with the DOA, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Also, i was concerned about the waist, capita 24,4 cm and gang plank 24,8. I am a men, my height is 167-168cm, tranlslated into 5’55”-5,6” and foot mondo is 25,5(7.5us), i hope it fits 🙂
Hi Alex
With US7.5 boots I would be very surprised if the DOA 148 would be too narrow for you. In my experience it should be fine width-wise.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking at the Burton Skeleton Key for all mountain riding.
I’m 5’9″ and 175lb size 9 boot.
I think I’m leaning towards the 158 as I love carving bigger radius turns. It is fairly wide though at 258mm which is my only concern. I’m right in the middle of the 158 weight range too.
The 154 is a touch narrower at 256mm.
Would love to get your thoughts.
Cheers
Pablo
Hi Pablo
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t personally ridden the Skeleton Key, so this is just based on specs. Ordinarily, I would say 158 for you, based on the fact that you love to carve big radius turns. But it is the kind of board that I would size down for, as it’s a little wider. Which makes the 154 more appealing for your specs. Personally I would choose the 158 for me (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boot) but usually I would go for something around 159-162 for a freeride board. But for your specs, I would say the 154 is probably a better match for this board. The only thing that makes me hesitate a little is that the 158 will still be better for big arcing carves (and more float in powder). But I feel the 154 would be better for everything else for you. So, it’s a weight up between that, IMO.
If I had to choose, I would say 154 for you. But the 158 could work.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hey Nate,
I bought for my girlfriend a Roxy Sugar Banana 146 and i’m not sure if it’s a good lenght for her.
I’m thinking about changing on 142.
She have only recently started last season so she’s begginer. She is 158 cm and weight about 59kg (130lbs). She will ride 95% on the prepared slope.
From your table she should have 145 cm.
What is your opinion? In next seasons 142 will be too short? Or 146 is too long to learn now?
I hope she can ride on this board not only one season 🙂
Thank you,
Regards
Kuba
Hi Kuba
Thanks for your message.
I would change it to the 142. It’s going to be an easier length to learn on for sure for her – and it will still be a size that she can ride as she progresses. Certainly she could still be riding that length for a few years. She could even ride something like a 140 as a beginner, so that 142 size is a good balance between something that she can learn on and something she can keep riding for years. So yeah, IMO, you should change to 142.
Hope this helps
Thank you for helping me make decision Nate!
Your article is very helpful for somebody who looking for new equipment!
I was hesitant because this board is soft and I thought that the shorter one could be unstable.
I’m going to change it today!
You’re very welcome Kuba. Thanks for visiting the site!
Hey man this is great intel. I’ve been snowboarding for a while but never bought a new board and now it’s all so different. I have a 58 and a 62 now but those are all old tech.
I’m 6,2 255 and never really in the park any longer. Looking at a 61.5 and a 64.5. The weight makes me want to go longer but I wonder will it just feel like a tank? Maybe i’ll enjoy the extra edge? (perhaps I should just go on a diet lol)
Thanks for any tips either way!
Hi Brandon
For your specs, I would recommend the 64.5. I think, especially given that you’re not looking to ride park much anymore that it will give you more in terms of carving, and stability at speed. That said, since you’re used to shorter boards, the 61.5 wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I would be leaning towards 64.5 for you. What board are you looking at? The particular board can also influence length – and influence how much of a tank it will feel like. Also, do you ride trees a lot?
Hey man, thanks a ton. Trees happen so something to consider. Looking at the T Rice Pro. For regular groomers is there any downside to the added length? I go out west a few times in search of powder so that may be a factor also?
Best,
Brandon
Hi Brandon
The only downside to going longer on regular groomers is less agility at slower speeds. So for times when you’re in heavy traffic or slow zones, then there’s usually less agility when riding slow on a longer board.
The T Rice Pro is actually a board that I personally like to ride a little shorter. 2 reasons. Firstly, because it’s a little wider, even in the non wide sizes and secondly, because it has a lot of effective edge relative to overall length. For this category of board I usually ride something around a 157 – but for the T Rice Pro, I prefer the 155. So, for you, I think the 161.5 might be the best option, depending on boot size.
As always great info man, greatly appreciated! If we are ever on the hill together beers on me!
You’re very welcome. Cheers for the beers offer!
Hey Nate,
Apologies because I left another comment somewhere else, but I think that this is a more relevant place for it and I am not sure that the other one went through.
I am a beginning snowboarder (not quite consistently linking turns but linking some) and am wanting to purchase the Arbor Ethos. I am having trouble deciding between the 144 and the 147. I am between 5’6″ and 5’7″, 120lbs. The boots I have are Vans Aura, size 9 women’s, but I may end up returning them. Thus far Vans seem to be the only boots that hold my heels in place, but I may try to get my hands on the Hi standard as they seem to be less stiff.
Anyway, I am not sure if the width of the 144 board is too narrow for my big feet. I would love to be able to grow with my board for awhile, so I worry about outgrowing the 144, but everyone seems to recommend going for the shorter board as a beginner.
Would love any advice! Thank you so much!
Hi Jordan
Thanks for your message.
I think the 144cm would be a better length for your specs and as a beginner. And it’s not a size you should grow out of too quickly either, IMO. I would say around a 146 at an advanced level, so even at an advanced level, 144 isn’t too far off that, so you could definitely still ride that length at a more advanced level, IMO. And it will be a better length for you now, so that’s what I would go with.
In terms of width, I think you could go as narrow as the 234mm waist on the Ethos 144, if you’re riding with a reasonable angle on your back foot (e.g. if you’re riding something like +15/15). If you’re riding with a straighter back foot (i.e. 0-3 degrees), then you probably want to be looking at at least a 240mm waist width. If you’re not yet settled on your angles, but think you would be fine with riding something like +15/-15, then I think it should be fine. This is all based on size 9s. If you end up in a different size, then that would change slightly.
The Hi-Standard are certainly softer than the Aura, so if you’re looking for something softer that would be a good option, IMO.
Hope this helps.
What is a good size for someone who is 177 cm and 125 lb male?? My skill level is intermediate – advanced and I am looking to do more freestyle. Thanks
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, and given that you want to ride more freestyle, I would say something around 145 to 150, but I would probably only go as short as short as 145 if it was going to be your dedicated park board. So closer to 148 to 150 would be a good length, IMO, to ride more freestyle but still be able to ride the rest of the mountain as well.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
Have been reviewing this site for some time (great site) and hope you can give me a steer on this. I have been boarding for around 8 years and usually get 10-15 days a year on the mountain.
Started out with a 158 Burton clash, then 5 years ago picked up a 159 Lib attack banana. I generally just like bombing down the hill, enjoy the powder and am trying to ride switch more and do a few little spins etc.
Have been looking at the Capita DOA, few of my friends have them in there lineup and really rate them.
STATS
6’0 tall
85kg
Size 10UK (11US) Burton Ion
Burton Malavita (M)
Half of my wants to go smaller and try a 156 but I think based on my stats and riding style the 160 would be a better shout. Really just wanted to get your view?
Cheers
Harry
Hi Harry
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, for this board, I would say the 158 would be a good bet. If you rode a lot of park, then the 156 would be a good option but if you’re mostly on the mountain, then a little longer is better. I would say around 160 to 162 usually for your specs, but for this board, I find it’s a nice board to size down with. The 160 would give you a bit more float and be a bit more stable at speed, but wouldn’t be as good for jumps, spins, etc, which is something that this board is great for.
In my opinion it’s not a great board for powder, but it’s OK. You’ll just have to work a little harder in there to keep the nose afloat. If you haven’t already, you can check out my DOA review at the link below:
~ Capita DOA Review
In terms of width, with US11s, I would say that the 156 is probably too narrow anyway. The 158 might be wide enough if you ride with a reasonable angle on your back foot (e.g. if you ride +15/-15 or similar). If you ride with a straighter back foot, then the 158W would be a better width. And if you did go for the 158W, then that would give you a bit of extra float, compared to the 158 as well. If you were to go 160, then you should be fine with most binding angles, width-wise. But if you were to ride with a very straight back foot (e.g. 0-3 degrees) then even that might be pushing a little too narrow.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your reply. general concern with the Wide sizes is speed of turn and I currently ride 12-12 so should be okay with normal width. I guess 158 it is then, the ION boot is pretty small footprint with the M Mala bindings so overhang shouldn’t be an issue. Anything else you think worth considering? Had look at YES The Greats as well.
Cheers
H
Hi Harry
With +12/-12 and Burton Ions, you shouldn’t have any issues on the regular width 158, so that’s what I would go with. I usually only recommend going wide if there are going to be potential toe/heel drag issues, but I doubt there would be with your setup.
YES Greats is a, excuse the pun, great board, so that’s definitely an option too. Check out the following for more options for similar style boards:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hi Nate,
Thank you so much for your incredibly detailed answer about the Custom but also for the extra information about the Flying V. I was interested in that board too but I was worried about it being a little too similar to the Merc because the shape seemed like almost the same when I checked. After checking one more time just now, I realized that the part under the feet is actually different (flat vs camber if I’m correct).
Do you think that makes a very noticable difference between the Flying V and the Merc? Both Custom models are quite expensive and the board I’ll get will probably be the last one I buy for the next 5/10 years, so ideally, I would like it to allow me to do things that the Merc can’t. I would like to keep the Merc and switch between the two boards to enjoy as many aspects as possible as I progress. This was the main reason why I oriented my choice towards the Custom in the first place.
However, I am also worried about the Custom being to advance for my level. I really liked the information you gave me about the board but I am also a little worried about the edge catching part. I actually started snowboarding with camber rentals but if was low entry level ones, then bought the Merc to do some butters and enjoy going between trees. Does the Custom will be that hard to use for someone my level or will it just require me to be a little more careful?
Anyway, I still have a few months left before buying my next board so I can put more thoughts into it and I’ll research more about the Flying V too. Thank you again for your help.
Have a good day!
Hi Vince
The Flying V will certainly feel different to the flat-to-rocker on the Merc, and the Flying V version still has that extra stiffness over the Merc. The Flying V is basically rocker between the feet, camber under the feet and rocker towards tip and tail, whereas the Flat-to-rocker on the Merc is basically flat between the feet and continues to be flat under the feet and then has rocker towards tip and tail.
But the Custom (camber) will certainly be more of a difference to the Merc than the Custom Flying V. So, if you’re looking at keeping the Merc, then something like the Custom (camber) would be more of a difference.
With that Traditional Camber, some intermediate level riders can find it quite catchy and unforgiving. Whilst other intermediate level riders seem to get on fine with it, so it depends. So, I think it would be doable for a solid intermediate rider with good technique – whereas the Flying V would be easier for someone just moving into that intermediate phase. But I definitely get your desire to want to keep a board for a long time, especially one that costs quite a bit.
Hope this gives you more info to go off, and you can also check out the following, to give you some other options.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hi Nate,
I really appreciate your quick and complete answers and I will keep your precious advice in mind when I make my choice, probably between the Custom and the Custom Flying V, but I will also check out the other boards you recommend. I will buy the board during winter, so hopefully, I can find a place where to try these boards before making my final choice.
Anyway, thank you so much for your hard work and for taking the time to fully answer each question. Your website is amazing and I learned a lot of things thanks to your guides. I’m looking forward to reading your 2018-2019 reviews!
Vince
You’re very welcome Vince! If you think of it at the time, let me know what you choose.
Hi Nate,
First of all, I’d like to thank you for this wonderful article. It really helps understanding better how to choose a snowboard, especially for someone like me. However, I am still a little bit confused about which size to choose for my next snowboard.
“Quick” background explanation : I’m 180cm, 85 kg (trying to go back to 80 before winter) and my shoe size is 10′. I started snowboarding about four years ago (best experience ever, why didn’t I start earlier?!), bought a Flow Merc 2015 with soft bindings and got to an intermediate level (no problem going down any slope, linking turns, starting to small jumps and learning to do a few butter tricks). I really enjoy my board since it is very hard to catch an edge with it but I find it not very stable now that I am starting to go down slopes faster and that I try jumps. I started thinking that it is time for me to try something else and I started getting tempted by the new Burton Custom 2019.
I was checking out the official website and the sizing charts gives this numbers:
156 61-90kg / 158 66-95kg
My goal is just to go down the mountain and to enjoy the maximum of things: speed, small jumps, a little bit of powder and a little bit of freestyle (butter and 180/360, no more than that). Which one of the two do you think is the most polyvalent for my height? I feel like the 156 might be the right one but I prefer to check with you first so that I don’t something stupid.
I would also like to ask for your advice. I decided to go with the new Burton Custom for two reasons : 1st, the new model is absolutely beautiful and very classy and 2nd, it seems to be one of the most popular snowboards and I would like to see the different between an entry model like the Merc and what seems to be considered like one of the best snowboards. Do you think I am making a good choice going for the Custom, considering my level and the fact that I have currently have a Flow Merc (will I really see a huge difference between the two)?
Anyway, thanks again for all the information you already provided. I put your website in your favorite and I am looking forward to read more reviews and articles as I get better at snowboarding.
Thanks in advance, Vince.
Hi Vince
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of size, I think both would work for you. If you were to remain at 85kg, then I’d say go 158, but at 80kg, then both are options. The 158 will be a little better in powder and a little more stable at speed and the 156 will be better for freestyle tricks, like spins. So, whichever is more important to you. Depending on the size of your Merc, the Custom will already be more stable at speed, even for the same length.
Comparing the Merc to the Custom (this is assuming your talking about the Camber version of the Custom rather than the Custom Flying V:
1. The Custom is stiffer, but still not overly stiff, so it would be a good step up – and also for doing things like spins and other tricks you wouldn’t want it too stiff – and also going too stiff now would make a much harder board to ride – so I think it would be a good step up in terms of flex anyway. I would say the Custom will be noticeably stiffer than the Merc but not overly stiff. 3/10 for the Merc and 6/10 for the Custom, to put some numbers on it.
2. The Custom is going to feel a lot more aggressive overall. Not just the extra stiffness but also the fact that its all camber. That camber profile is going to give it a very different feel to the flat to rocker profile on the Merc. Flat-to-rocker is typically a very easy going profile. Traditional camber, like on the Custom, is going to be faster, better for carving and provide more pop. But its also going to be more unforgiving of errors and make it considerably easier to catch an edge if you’re not using good technique. It’s not something that’s easy to skid your turns on.
3. The Custom has a sintered base, which is going to be faster and smoother, but will also require waxing more often.
There are a few other differences, but those are some of the big differences. Certainly the Custom is a higher performance board – but also one that’s more challenging and more aggressive to ride. I would say that the Custom Flying V would be an easier transition. It’s more intermediate friendly and less catchy. You still get the increase in flex and you get some camber in the profile, but there’s also still a good bit of rocker. The Custom Flying V won’t be as good at speed and won’t be as good for carving and won’t have quite the same pop – but it will be a lot more forgiving of skidded turns/more catch-free, easier to butter, a little better in powder and a little easier to ride in uneven terrain.
Hope this helps with your decision
I would like your opinion on a snowboard for my daughter. She is set on either the, Salomon Rumble Fish or Salomon Wonder. In my opinion, neither are a great fit. She is an intermediate – advanced all mountain rider, 5’8″, aprrox. 160 pounds and wears a women’s 10 boot. I feel the Wonder length and weight range is better fit but more of a beginner board and a narrow width. And the Rumble Fish, appears to be a board more her level but she would max the weight range in the 152. I appreciate any opinion you may have. Thanks!
Hi Nelson
Thanks for your message. In my opinion:
1. The Wonder isn’t really a beginner board. It’s certainly easier going than the Rumble Fish, but I would still rate it more of an intermediate to advanced board. A less aggressive ride than the Wonder, so if she is more of an aggressive rider, then maybe less suitable but for her ability it’s suitable, IMO.
2. Size-wise, I would say something around a 154 would be a good length. But size does come down to personal preference too sometimes, so if she prefers something shorter then she could go shorter if she wanted or if she preferred something longer then she could too (although not in those 2 boards). I wouldn’t worry too much about the weight recommendations. Those guidelines are somewhat useful, but I personally only use them as rough guidelines and wouldn’t worry too much about them, if your daughter isn’t necessarily inside those guidelines. I mean if she was way off, then I wouldn’t recommend it but if she’s close to those, I wouldn’t worry. There are other factors at play, and those guidelines can be misleading sometimes, IMO.
Anyway long and short of it. I would recommend the 154 for the Wonder and the 152 for the Rumblefish. But I think she could get away with the 150 for the wonder fine, if she prefers something a little shorter (depending on width, which I’ll get into next).
3. In terms of width, the 154, 150 Wonder and the 152 Rumble Fish are on the edge of being too narrow but it will depend on binding angles. I would say to look at something in the range of 238mm to 248mm in terms of waist width, if she rides with a reasonably angled back binding (i.e. 12-15 degrees) and between 246mm and 254mm at the waist, if she rides with a fairly straight back binding angle (i.e. 0-3 degrees). From what I’ve measured Salomon boards tend to be narrower at the inserts compared to the waist width, compared to the average board. So you might want to add a couple of mms to those minimums. So if she rides with a reasonable angle on the back binding, then I think all 3 boards (150, 154 wonder and 152 Rumblefish) are an option. But if she rides with a straighter back foot, then it becomes riskier.
4. Another thing to consider is the style of each board. The Wonder is more of an all-mountain (do-it-all) kind of board and more of a cruiser. The Rumble Fish is still a very versatile board but is more freestyle oriented. Better for the park than the Wonder but not going to be as good in powder. And less of a cruiser and more aggressive in terms of feel.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I found your article and the huge number of questions and your replies incredibly helpful. I am looking for a new board for my wife. She is fairly new to snowboarding but is at an beginner to intermediate level – linking turns easily, riding powder etc but not confidently carving.
She really loves the Jones Hovercraft which I know is more for advanced to expert but suits her riding style….she has no interest in the park etc and we have found a good price on past season’s boards.
We are heading to Japan next season (we live in Australia) and want a board for the powder but also carving on the groomers. She is currently about to give birth to our first baby but anticipates weighing about 65 kilos or 143-145 pounds before we go. However she is only 5’2″ and has size 6 boots. I realise that she is at the upper end of the weight recommendations for the 146 (100-150 lbs) but she is short and has small feet and is also not at a level to really shred in the powder but we plan on making to Japan most seasons moving forwards – she will get plenty of practise over the next few years (I am a very keen snowboarder haha).
Despite being at the upper end of the weight recommendations, I was thinking that the 146 might be more suitable than the 150 as it would be easier for her to turn etc. I would really appreciate your advice as you are so knowledgable on all things snowboarding. Thanks Nate!
Thanks in advance, Geoff.
Ps. I am really impressed you are able to reply to what is a huge number of questions on your site.
Hi Geoff
Thanks for your message and congratulations on your first baby! (we are due our second in August)
Given that your wife is beginner to intermediate and all the above stats, then I would typically say 144 to 146 is a good length to go with, so I definitely wouldn’t go as long as 150. I take those weight recommendations with a bit of a grain of salt as they don’t take into account other factors and they differ so much between brands.
But also to take into account is that the Hovercraft, even in the 146, is quite wide for a size 6 (244mm at the waist). Usually with a board like this, that’s wider, I would suggest sizing down a little if it’s a bit wide for the boots – you still get that width for float in powder, but you gain more maneuverability by sizing down a little. If you’re looking at 2019 models, the Hovercraft now comes in a 144 (241mm waist), which is a size I would also seriously consider for her. That’s what I would be leaning towards. The 146 would give her a little more in terms of float in powder, but I think the 144 would be overall more manageable for her specs/ability.
The other option in the Jones line is the Mind Expander – still very powder oriented but a little more easy going (a little softer flexing). For 2019 the Mind Expander will have a women’s version in a 142 (240mm waist), 146 (244mm waist) and 150 (248mm waist). Even though Jones’ weight recommendations only go up to 63kg for the 142 model, I would seriously consider that size (if you were to consider the Mind Expander). It’s wide for a 6, so sizing down a little like that would help to make it easier to manage. But the 146 is an option too, with the biggest advantage being more float in powder. Again, I would cross the 150 off.
Anyway, hope this helps with your decision and let me know if you have any other questions.
Hey 🙂
I am 181cm tall and 72-74kg of weight.
im looking between the 156cm space case and the 159cm space case. GNU.
I like to ride fast and go everywhere on the mountain, while also going past the park making some jumps and some jibs (not that often (jibs)). also i enjoy biig jumps :).
i would say im advanced/expert.
which one would you recommend for me? for a all mountain/park board!
thanks in advance ! cheers :)!
Hi Rodrigo
Thanks for your message.
That’s a tough choice. Both would work for you. If it sounds like you were more park oriented, then I’d say definitely 156, but because you want the Space Case for riding the whole mountain, because you like to ride fast and because you like big jumps, the 159 becomes an option. It’s a close call.
The 159 would offer more stability at speed, and a more stable landing platform for those larger jumps but would also be more difficult to butter, more difficult for spins and more difficult for jibs, IMO. So there’s going to be a compromise there.
Have you considered the 157.5cm GNU Rider’s Choice? Or are you looking more for that C2X profile that the Space Case has? I think the Space Case would work but it’s hard to decide which size is best. I think if you spend more time outside the park than you do in the park, and if when in the park you mostly hit big jumps and don’t do too much in the way of spins and don’t tend to do more playful things like butters and what not, then the 159 would be fine. But if you spend quite a bit of time in the park and also like to hit small jumps, do spins and like to get more playful sometimes, then the 156 is probably the better bet.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate
So I’m new to snowboarding
Use to be avid skier and tele
Haven’t been on the snow for prob 8 years other than some snow shoeing
I’m 59, 5’’7”, 168 and fairly athletic.
Fell into this older Sims Horizon board but it’s only a 152cm vs thae chart above suggest I use a 156cm. Is it worth me checking out this board?
Thanks Nancy
Hi Nancy
Thanks for your message.
Even though your experience as a skier likely gives you a head start over most, I would say that coming down in length is still a good idea. I usually recommend taking off 3-5cm for beginners, which would put you around 151 to 153 – but maybe a range of 152 to 154 would be the best to look at for you, given your past experience on snow.
This would put the 152 Horizon in range in terms of size. My biggest concern would be the camber profile. The Horizon has a “traditional camber” profile (basically all camber from contact point to contact point). Traditional camber is more difficult to learn on and makes it easier to catch an edge. A less aggressive camber profile (something that has a good amount of rocker) is what I would usually recommend to anyone who’s new to snowboarding. Again, I’m not sure if your experience on skis would counteract the difficulty somewhat, but I would usually recommend a more forgiving camber profile for beginners.
Here’s more on what I would recommend in a beginners snowboard.
>>How To Choose The Best Snowboard For A Beginner
And here are some options if you did decide against the Horizon.
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
In terms of size and flex the Horizon would be fine, IMO, my biggest concern would be the camber profile.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
Im new to snowboarding and im looking to buy my first gear.
I’ve seen most of your beginner advice guides but it gets a bit confusing.
For starters i’m thinking about getting the horrorscope board and maybe the vans Aura for boots, as for binding i have no idea.
I would be thankfull if you could recommend me some stuff like sizes and whatnot.
I’m 170cm tall, weight is around 70kg and my shoe size is normally between 41-42.
Thanks in advance,
João
Hi João
Thanks for your message.
Generally speaking, as a beginner and with your specs, I would say something in the 150cm to 152cm range, in terms of length for you.
In terms of width (based on a US size 9, which is usually the same as a 42), then I would say anything with a 248mm to 253mm width, if you ride with a straight back binding (e.g. 0-3 degrees) and you could go as narrow as 240mm if you ride with a 15 degree angle on your back foot. I understand that you aren’t necessary sure of your preferred bindings angles at this stage, so going with something 245mm to 250mm is a good bet.
For the Horrorscope the best size would be the 151cm for you, at this stage. The 252mm waist is slightly wider than that range we looked at – but that is typical of a park board like this. This is a good beginner board and a great option particularly if you think you want to get into riding the park or if you want to use it as your park board once you have progressed and upgraded to another board.
The Auras are a good beginner choice too, IMO.
For more beginner options for boots and beginner binding options, check out the following:
>> Top 7 Beginner Boots
>>Top 5 Beginner Bindings
For sizing bindings, check out the following:
>>Snowboard Binding Sizing
For sizing boots, check out:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your reply, it does help.
My decision is kind of locked in the horrorscope and the Auras at this point :).
I’m looking forward to the park rides but in case i decide to change directions later on i’ll just upgrade to a new board and stay with the horrorscope for the park.
As for bindings i’ll check your articles and get something that matches the Auras.
Not sure about the angle but for me it feels natural to ride with a straight back.
Thanks alot for your help and for the time you put into helping others, it means alot.
Best Regards,
João
Hi João
You’re very welcome. Hope your setup works well for you. If you think of it, once you’ve had a chance to try it all out, let me know how you get on.
Hey man,
Great thread and info.
Im a resort to free rider, groomers to pow trying to hit as much natural features and cat walks. Tend to avoid the park laps.
I’m 6’2” at 95Kg and normally go for 161 to 164.
Lately picked up the Lando Phoenix with the shallow mag. Went for the 160, my thinking is the increase edge contact due to the curves of the mag it will ride and hold like a 164.
What’s your thoughts on tech like mag allowing same or similar performance on a shorter board?
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t say that magtek makes a board ride longer, in my experience. The main thing that it helps with, IMO, is edge-hold in hard conditions. It certainly helps you hold your edge in a carve, and at speed when the conditions are on the harder side, but I don’t feel like they ride longer in any other sense. The Lando has fairly mellow magne-traction from what I hear (not a board I’ve had the chance to ride).
But that’s not to say that the 160 is the wrong size for you (and it’s the longest version of that board) but I wouldn’t say that the 160 would ride like a 164 in my experience with other Lib Tech/Magne-traction boards. In some sense yeah, in terms of grip in harder conditions but not in all senses.
I’d say the thing that most makes a board ride longer, is more effective edge. If a board has a lot of effective edge, compared to length, then it will feel like a longer board – as the effective edge is what you’re feeling when you ride rather than the overall length, except in powder where you’re using all of the board (and overall length also effects things like spins). I’m not sure what the effective edge is on the Lando as Lib Tech only publish Contact Length, rather than effective edge, so I’m not sure if it’s got a long effective edge for the length or not.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Was wondering if you could help me out here. I’m 5’7 and currently 155lbs, but can get up to 165lbs pretty easily, depending on the season. I’m also not a full beginner but I’ve just started getting into the park features at the resorts. Anyway, I found a good deal on a 2017 “Launch Hitmaker” and picked up a 152, taking into consideration that it fit my weight range; specs are here:
Launch Hitmaker Snowboard
Unfortunately, the site I picked it up from messed up and sent me a 149. I emailed them about the mistake and they apologized, unfortunately this was the last model and size they had so if I send it back it’ll be for a refund as opposed to an exchange. I’m a little hesitant to do so due to the fact that I got it for pretty cheap. I technically fit within the 149’s weight range, 125-165lbs but I feel like being on the higher end of its weight limit might affect the way it rides. Or am I overthinking it and I’m actually okay to keep it? I own a 154 Salomon Craft and a 155 Flow Era already so I’m looking for a shorter park board. Is it too short or fine for jumps/jibbing purposes?
Additionally, I’ve noticed that the Hitmaker has a slightly wider waist to length ratio in comparison to other boards. The 149 claims to have a waist width of 250mm when my Craft is 251mm and my Era is 252mm. Does that have any effect to rideability other than being able to fit a larger boot?
Sorry I have so many questions I just want to know if this board is worth keeping. Thanks a lot!!!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
Given that it’s going to be your dedicated park board, I think 149 will be ok for you. It’s certainly on the shorter side, but since you have other boards for riding the rest of the mountain, I think it would be fine. I wouldn’t worry too much about being on the higher limit of the weight recommendations – those are guidelines only, IMO. And the biggest thing you will notice by being at the higher end of the range or above the recommended limit, is that the board will feel softer flexing than it would for someone more in the middle of that range. And since it’s going to be your park board, having it a little softer, particularly as you’re starting out in the park, isn’t a bad thing.
Going shorter is an advantage in a couple of ways
a. makes jibs easier to start out (IMO)
b. makes the board more agile overall, which can help with the approach to features
c. easier to spin with.
The biggest downsides of going that short, compared with if you got the 152 would be
a. stability on landings
b. stability at speed (particularly for approaches to large jumps where you need to be hitting them at a faster speed)
Often park oriented boards are a little wider. I would say the main reason for this is to add stability for landings, so that counters the issue of that for going too short.
I would say that if you are just starting out in the park, that this length is going to be absolutely fine. The only thing will be when/if you start hitting large jumps, something a little longer might be preferable but to start with this length is fine, IMO. And if you do start hitting larger jumps, you could do that on your Flow Era anyway (a good jumping board, IMO).
Hope this helps with your decision.
P.S. I know nothing about the Launch Hitmaker specifically, this is just generally speaking
Hi Nate (again!),
I’d like to add that my 150 board is less maneuverable in carving steep terrain or it took more effort for me, but liked the speed and stability I was able to get with it. I’d like a size where I get both. Which would be better 145 or 148 Never Summer Proto Type Two. Again, I’m 5’5″ weigh around 113 and wear size 6.5.
Thanks again,
Valerie
Hi Valerie
See my reply above
Hi Nate,
I am looking into purchasing the Never Summer Proto Type Two but am uncertain if I should get the 145 or 148. Currently, I ride a very old K2 150. I am 5’5″ tall, weigh around 113 lbs and wear a size 6.5 shoe. I consider myself an intermediate all mountain rider. I don’t do so much freestyle, but wouldn’t mind doing a few jumps here and there.
PS. I posted an hour ago, but didn’t know if it went through.
Thanks!
Valerie
Hi Valerie
Thanks for your message.
Ordinarily I would say 100% the 145. But since you’re used to riding a 150, that comes into it. I am still leaning towards the 145 though but the 148 is an option if you don’t really want to go too much shorter than you’re existing board. But I’d say that the 145 would still be well stable enough at speed for your specs, and would offer you more maneuverability than the 148. The other thing to take into account for this board is that it has a longer effective edge compared to overall length than a lot of boards, so riding the 148 would be likely similar to your current 150, in terms of effective edge (I couldn’t say for sure without knowing the effective edge of your current board but if I had to take a guess).
Normally I would have said 145 100% and in fact would have had you weight up the 142 and 145, but given your current board size that changes it a bit. But I would say 145 is your best bet, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! I went with your recommendation and got the 145. Can’t wait to try it out!
You’re very welcome Valerie. Hope it goes well for you. If you happen to remember, let me know how you get on once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hi Nate,
I am thinking of getting the Never Summer Proto Type Two and can’t decide on the 145 or 148. I’m an intermediate level boarder. Currently I ride a very old K2 150. I am 5’5″ and around 113 lbs. Which would size would be better for me? Thanks, Valerie
Hi Nate!
Thanks for your work – this website has been super helpful in picking out my next board. I wound up finding some great end of season deals on a YES The Greats 2018 – 154 cm and Burton Genesis bindings. Unfortunately I won’t be able to ride them until next season, but I wanted to ask your opinion on my board length.
I’m just under 6′ tall and typically vary between 175-180 lbs. I’ve been riding since I was little, but am just now getting back into it. I’d say I’m an intermediate to intermediate/advanced rider, looking to spend more time on jumps in the park, freestyling around natural features on other runs, and working on my switch riding. Being in the midwest, I don’t get much opportunity for powder and the runs are pretty short and often icy. Would you say 154 is in my comfortable range, or should I take advantage of the free returns and pick up a 158?
Hi Connor
Thanks for your message.
I feel like the 154 is a little small for you. I think you would be fine on the 156 (and that’s the size I like with this board 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots) as this is the kind of board that you can ride smaller, but I think the 154 might be a getting just a bit too small. Not unrideable for sure, but you’ll sacrifice a little in terms of stability, particularly at speed. The 158 would be a better option than the 154 for you, IMO. And the 156 maybe the best size, especially given that you are trying to up your freestyle game. So yeah, I’d say you’d still have a lot of fun with the 154, with some limitations, but ideally a little longer.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate! Im a total beginner and found some deals on boards online that ill practice with next winter. Im 6’2 205lbs and wear size 11 shoes. I found a deal on boards, one is 159cm and the other is 162cm wide. Any recommendations on which one you might be better for me? Its the Burton Ripcord. Thanks!
Hi Adam
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, and as a beginner, I would recommend something roughly 159 to 162, so both would be options. The 159 would be a little easier to ride to begin with and be more maneuverable at slower speeds. The 162 would be something that you could ride for longer, but it’s still the kind of board that you would want to upgrade from eventually, even at that size.
In terms of width, with size 11s (assuming your boots will be the same), the 159 is a regular width board and has a 257mm waist width. This would be fine so long as you had binding angles of +15/-15 or similar (i.e. a reasonable angle on the back binding – 9 to 15 degrees). With a straighter back binding angle, this would be risking being too narrow. The 162 is a 162W (a wide board) and has a 261mm waist width. This would be fine for size 11 boots regardless of binding angles.
So, both would certainly work, and it might depend on what you expect your binding angles to be and how long you would want to keep the board for before upgrading. If you want the option of binding angles, and want to keep the board for a longer term, then the 162W. But if you are happy to use certain binding angles for now and would be more willing to upgrade sooner, then the 159, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi there! Thanks for the informative article. I just noticed that the base on my 2008 Ride Concept TMS 161 separated and peeled back at the color changes in the P-tex. I am now looking for a new board. It seems that the closest current board is the Ride Berzerker. I am 34 yo, 5′ 9″ and 210 lbs. 9.5 boot size. I am a very experienced rider that will ride any trail (or lack of), and have been all over… Poconos, New England, as well as Colorado. I ride mostly downhill, carving and cruising.. With the occasional bomb. I don’t do much Park, but if I see a small jump or rail, I’ll take it. I primarily see groomed, as I am usually in the Poconos unless on a trip. The Berzerker comes in a 159 and a 162. Seeing as I run a 161, I’m not sure if a size up or down is in order. I have had board shops say that my board is too big, but the ride sizing chart says otherwise. What do you think? That You!
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I would say something around 161 would be about right for your specs, for this kind of board. So I’d say 162 is the best bet. The other thing is that the Concept 161 had a 1254mm effective edge and the 162 Berzerker also has the 1254mm effective edge – so in that sense it’s closer in size to your 161 vs the 159 which has a 1228 effective edge.
But that said, it doesn’t mean you couldn’t ride the 159, if you felt like you wanted something a little shorter. Pros and cons to going shorter:
Pros: more maneuverability at slower speeds, better in trees (IMO) and better for freestyle things
Cons: Less stable at speed, not as good on big carves (IMO), less float in powder
These differences will be subtle but definitely still noticeable. On balance, I would say 162 (and it’s more in line with Ride’s weight recommendations) but the 159 would be doable, if you wanted to size down a little.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Thank you, Nate! I went with the Berzerker 162. Any recommendations for bindings? I am currently running 2008 Ride SPI’s. At this point, I am down to the Ride Capo’s. Any pros/cons?
Hi Nick
I think the Capos will work with the Berzerker. But just note that they are quite stiff bindings – likely stiffer than SPIs (though that’s only based on what info I could find on those). They would be on the stiff side for the Berzerker but certainly doable. Pros for the Capos are that they are really responsive, really comfortable and have good dampening/shock absorption. Cons – biggest con for me for the Capos was their board feel – I just felt like they didn’t flex that well with the board (for butters, tweaking grabs and that kind of thing). You can read more about my experience with the Capos at the following:
>>Ride Capo Review
If you wanted to stick to ride the other option is the LTD, but it’s not a binding that I’ve ridden. Some other options:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thank You, Nate. I just ordered the Capos from Evo.com after reading your article and doing some research. I can’t wait to try everything out next season. Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Nick.
If you happen to think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to try it out.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for writing such an informative article. I’m in the process of finding my first board but I’m still a little lost with the sizing. I’ve only boarded 4 times before (2 days in Perisher Valley and 2 days in Whistler Blackcomb) and rented my board every time. I’m between 5’3″-5’4″ and weighs 120lbs. I was looking at getting 142cm but now wondering if a 138-140cm board would be better as I’m still trying to perfect my turns without falling (ha!). Currently looking at the 138cm Burton 2017 Genie board or a second hand from gumtree/fb marketplace. Thoughts?
Cheers.
Hi Serena
Thanks for your message.
I think something around 140, 141 would be a good length for you at the moment. But if you wanted to go a little shorter to 138, that would work too. It just might mean that you would be wanting to upgrade a little sooner than you would on something a little longer.
The Genie is a great beginner board, so that’s a good choice, IMO. If you buy second hand, just be careful that you get something that will be good to learn on. Even in the right size some boards will be hard to learn on.
>>How To Choose The Best Snowboard For A Beginner
Hope this helps
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your reply. I do regret not checking the size of the boards I’ve previously rented. Do you think a Burton Clash 2009 in 145cm would be too long?
Hi Serena
Yeah, in my opinion that would be too long for you. And also potentially too wide – but if you can let me know your boot size (or shoe size, if you’re not sure of your boot size) I can recommend a width range too.
Hi Nate! I just began riding this year, but managed to get out nearly everyday this winter for a few hours. I was looking to get a new board, as I bought an older used board that I am currently riding (Burton Stigma 148). I am 5″ 7″, 125lbs, and am looking at the Rossignol Frenemy (great sale on it now) as I ride hard snow in the Midwest, mostly. I don’t really go in the park, but do like small jumps, and am interested in learning some ground tricks. Is this board ok for me, and is 147 or 150 best??
Hi Lisa
Thanks for your message.
The Frenemy sounds like it would a good match for you, IMO. Size-wise I wouldn’t go as long as 150. The 147 would be a good size for you, IMO. I would be more debating between 143 and 147. As a beginner the 143 would have a case but as you’ve got a good number of days under your belt already – and since your used to a 148, the 147 would be your best bet, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks, Nate! I bought the 147, and love it! I rode it for a few hours, and was really pleased with the difference in my riding. It is so much faster and more maneuverable than my old board! Thanks again, Nate!!
You’re very welcome Lisa. Awesome that it’s working well for you. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, I’m 1’88cm and about 94kg and a good intermediate.
Started and been riding a boron omatic 160 since I started and think it’s time for an upgrade.
Looking at the Jones Mountain twin 158w or 161w also a Jones ultra Mountain twin.
What do you reckon? I want a board that I can develop in and am not a park rider more of a all Mountain
Hi Patrice
Thanks for your message.
I think the 161w would be the better size for your specs and your riding level. I think the Mountain Twin is probably the better option over the Ultra Mountain Twin, unless you like stiff boards. I rode the 2019 model of the UMT recently and it is really quite stiff. That’s the first time I’ve ridden it, so I don’t know how much softer the 2018 model is supposed to be, but the Mountain Twin is a great intermediate to advanced board. The UMT, in my opinion more of an advanced to expert ride.
Looking at the catalog, Jones have rated the 2019 model 9/10 for stiffness and they rated the 2018 model 7/10 – so it does seem as though they’ve stiffened it up a bit for the 2019 model that I rode but I would still say the Mountain Twin is the safer bet – and yeah for you I’d go 161W over the 158W.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate – I’m 6’1 and 200 lbs. I don’t do any freestyle stuff, just carve down the hill. I haven’t updated my gear in 20 years!! I want to get the shortest board possible (for ease of transport). Would say the most important feature would be a board that is easy to control and holds up at higher speeds. Suggestions for length, width, stiffnees. thanks. Joseph
Hi Joseph
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I would say something around 163 for your specs and the style or riding you’re describing. But it sounds like you want to go shorter. I think you could go as short as 157, 158, or possibly shorter, but I would go for something that’s on the stiffer side, to make up for the shorter length – i.e. so you still get that stability at higher speeds that you might loose with going for a medium flexing board that’s a bit too short for you.
Also, you’ll need to think about width – if you go too short you could end up with something too narrow as well. If you can let me know your boot size, I could suggest a width range for you, if you’d like.
Going shorter/wider might also be an option in terms of riding powder – going for something like a short/wide is a good option for sizing down. Do you ride in powder much?
Hi!
I have just bought a Roxy Sugar Banana 142..
I’m 5’7 and weigh around 138lbs. On the board specific weight ranges i fit, but slightly worried as on all of these charts (this post and others) it seems to be on the short size. The upper weight on the 142 is 150lbs, and 170lbs on the next one up (146).
I’m definitely a beginner- I have only recently started actually going on the pistes as opposed to the learner’s slopes, so I suppose shorter is better as you say, but have I overdone it?
I haven’t had a chance to try it yet- but have been having lessons on a 149 board which i often find quite challenging to turn (obviously experience being a very big factor).
Should I return the board for a slightly longer 146 while I still can?
Hi Kristina
Thanks for your message.
I think the 142 will be fine for a little while for you, and since you’re still within the weight range, that’s a least one tick. But those weight ranges are quite broad, they’re saying at 60lbs you can ride that board – which unless you were 6’2″ and 60lbs (which I’m not even sure is possible?) would be very long, IMO – so those weight recommendations are to be taken with a bit of a grain of salt, IMO. I think the 146 would be the better size for you.
I think it would still be a good size for learning on, but would also stay with you a bit longer. The 142 will be very easy to turn but will start to lack once you start to ride a but faster (IMO). So, on balance, I would say 146 would be the best option.
But 149 would be a little too long, IMO, for you, and I’m not surprised that you had a relatively hard time on it. There may be other factors that made it harder to turn, as well.
So, I’d say that the 142 certainly isn’t useless by any means – it’s something you’ll be able to ride and should find very easy to turn on. But I think the 146 is the better size overall, especially if you want the board to stay with you for a little while.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate,
Really enjoyed reading through your article and all the comments.
I’ve been boarding a few years , probably around 15 days in total if you count 3 boarding holidays.
Id prob put my level at around a low intermediate level .
I can link turns no problem, I can carv steep slopes as long as they’re not too icy as I’m not the most confident of riders. High speed isn’t really my thing neither are parks or powder…i much prefer just carving down the slopes and the occasional un groomed sections of the piste (nothing too testing).
I’m 172cm and around 78kg ,
I’m uk size 9.5 boots.
I ride a 2013/14- 155 stepchild powder sucks (camber) snowboard.this is the board I learnt on , I had no idea about snowboarding or styles ect when I bought it I just wanted my own to learn on.
I feel like sometimes the board is very twitchy and catches edges quite alot , especially at low speeds ?
I feel after reading your articles I would be more suited to a rocker profile? As for flex and length I’m really not sure I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction please? Would you say If be classed as an all mountain rider?
Thank you
Hi Nathan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would class you as an all-mountain rider – or at least, I would say that an all-mountain board would be most suited to you. All-Mountain or all-mountain-freestyle.
I don’t think you have to go for something that’s full rocker (aka continuous rocker) but certainly something with rocker in the profile is a good idea, to make it less catchy – whether that’s a hybrid rocker (rocker between the feet and camber to tip and tail) or hybrid camber (camber between the feet and rocker tip and tail). Either way will make for a less catchy feel.
Since you’re an intermediate level, I’d say something medium flexing is a good idea, 5/10 or 6/10 would be a good way to go – but I wouldn’t go any stiffer than that as an intermediate rider and based on your description of how you ride. Softer flexing means more agility at slower speeds. So, if you felt you wanted to go softer you could do that but maybe not too soft – so a 4/10 flex would also be ok.
In terms of size, I would say something around a 155 (154 to 156) is a good way to go for your specs and as an intermediate rider. So I think your size is good, but I think you’ll appreciate something that isn’t full camber (assuming you’re on full camber at the moment). I don’t know stepchild snowboards well, so I’m not sure.
If what you’re riding is already around that 5/10, 6/10 range for stiffness, then it might be that you’d like something a little softer. In which case I would go for the Never Summer Snowtrooper, YES Typo or YES Libre (all-mountain options) or the YES Basic or Never Summer Warlock (which are all-mountain freestyle options).
But if you want to go for that mid-flex then check out the following for some options.
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
They won’t all be 5/10, 6/10 so check the flex for each board.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much for all the info and advice Nate – it really helps! Just one more question, if I was to go for a more playful mid-flex board such as the Jones Twin Sister would I stick with the shorter length 146 or size up to the 149? Also would this be decent on hard pack and ice?
I guess I am questioning if I really need a semi-aggressive board for the small hills we have here…
thanks again 🙂
Hi Sarah
Yeah I would still say 146 for the Twin Sister. In terms of hard/icy conditions, I would say it’s pretty good – about 4/5 (based on the men’s version (Mountain Twin). Same goes for the Dream Catcher. The Hel Yes would be a little step better, IMO. But Jones boards do tend to be reasonably good in hard/icy conditions.
So I went out today and got the Twin Sister 146 and a pair of Burton Escapade bindings 🙂 (both on sale too).
Can’t wait to try them out tomorrow!
Thanks again for your advice!
You’re very welcome. Let me know how you get on.
Hi Nate,
Love reading all the solid advice on your website and hoping you can help me too :). I am 5ft 4 (163cm) 128lbs, boot size US 6. About a level 5/6 intermediate snowboarder. I have been riding a long time but this season have been getting back into it after a long break and going a couple of times a week.
For the longest time I was happy just carving down hills, I like speed, but now I am starting to attempt some small jumps, riding switch and would like to work on these skills more so I do want something light and poppy but also decent carving in packed snow.
I am in Ontario and we mostly have groomed runs/some ice, no powder. Looking for an all mountain type of board.
I currently ride a (v old – 2005!)) Burton Feather 147, the boards I have been looking at are the Burton Feelgood Flying V, and the Burton Feelgood (with a Lexa binding), but I worry that the 144 is too short and the 149 too long if I want to learn tricks.
I was also considering the Ride Saturday 146 or Hellcat 147.
The Yes Hel Yes in 146 also seems like a good choice maybe. There are some other brands which have great reviews such as Jones and Never Summer but they are harder to get good deals on here in Canada.
Which size/brand do you think would suit me best? I am getting confused reading all the reviews!
Thanks for you help!
Sarah
Just adding a bit…After doing more research I am leaning away from the Burton boards and feeling my top choices are between the Yes Hel Yes 146 or maybe the 149 is better or the Jones Dream Catcher 148. They seem most suited to 80% freeriding 20% freestyle which I think I am aiming for…
For bindings I was looking at the Now Vetta in a small size…
Thanks again!
Hi Sarah
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I would say something around that 145, 146 mark, given that it sounds like you’re at a relatively advanced level. If you were just going to be freeriding then you could, but wouldn’t have to, add a bit of length to that. But given that you want to get into a bit more freestyle stuff, I think something around that 144 to 146 is a good range to look at.
Both boards are semi-aggressive but both can ride freestyle – and both can ride in icy conditions.
The smallest Dream Catcher is 148 but it does ride a little smaller – it has a smaller effective edge compared to overall length. It actually has a smaller effective edge than the 146 Hel Yes, so in this case, 148 would be ok.
Both boards are on the wider side for size 6. But, unless you went shorter there aren’t too many similar options in that length that would be too much narrower. The Never Summer Aura would be another option and is a little narrower (235mm waist).
Your Feather is probably a similar width, so you should be used to that. I’m not sure about the 2005 model though (it doesn’t come in a 147 anymore).
Another thing to note is that both the Dream Catcher and Hel Yes are likely to be a good bit stiffer flexing than your Feather (assuming it resembles the recent models). So that’s something to get used to – but by the sounds of your style/ability, that’s going to be a good thing once you get used to it.
I don’t know NOW bindings well but the Vetta could work to match either of those boards – based on specs. Though that would be the softest bindings I would pair them with. And yeah small would be the size for them for 6s. In terms of flex, I would say something 6/10 or 7/10 would be best. But 5/10 is doable. The Vettas are 5/10 according to their specs. I think they would work but if you wanted other options, check out the following:
>>Top Women’s Freeride Bindings
>>Top Women’s All-Mountain Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First of all, awesome article, thanks for taking the time to write this up and respond to everyone on here…
I’m a beginner, 6’2″/185lbs, size 12 boot. Did some lessons and progressing along fairly well. I picked up the Never Summer Snowtrooper 162cm, but concerned I need the wide for my boot size, and looking at getting the 160 wide instead. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message. Sorry for the late response – have been testing boards all weekend and today.
Yeah, with 12s, I would say a wide board is a safer bet. Especially once you start getting higher on your edges in your turns and once you start carving, you might start having issues with boot drag. You might get away with it now, but pretty soon that’s going to start to be too narrow for you, IMO.
I like the 160 length for you, so I agree that the 160X would be your best bet for the Snowtrooper and would be a good width for 12s.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I’m looking at the YES Greats 152 but I’m not sure if it’s the right size for me. I’m 5’5, 135lb wearing a US size 7.5/Mondo 255 boot. I’m an intermediate rider on the east coast so I don’t really see much pow, it’s all icy hardpack.
I’m torn between the Greats and the Salomon Assassin 150, which looks like a much better fit for me on paper. Comparing the two, the Greats has a significantly longer effective edge (117cm on the Greats 152, 113cm on the Assassin 150) and contact length (112cm on Greats, 103cm on Assassin). Based on the specs alone, it seems like the Assassin would be much more maneuverable, but the Great’s deep asym sidecuts might make it comparable despite it being longer.
What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I agree that 150 is going to be a better length for your specs. And that extra effective edge on the Greats is going to make it feel even longer. So that points to the Assassin again.
A greater difference between effective edge and contact length usually means a slower, smoother turn (all else being equal) and less difference between effective edge and contact length leads to faster, sharper turns and a more twitchy feel. There are other factors at play that effect this too, but this is typically what that would mean, with all other factors being equal. But the Assassin certainly does feel like a smoother turner and the Greats a sharper turner.
The deeper heel-side sidecut also contributes to the YES being a sharper turner, particularly on the heel edge. This helps with keeping this maneuverable as well as that low effective edge to contact length ratio. But overall I still think that the Assassin 150 would be a better fit for you.
Both would be similar in hard/icy conditions, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi – I’m looking at a Rossi Templar 158 (only size they have left at a good price). Would this be a good board for me? I’m 6’1, 185lbs with size US11 boots. I’d describe myself as on the lower end of intermediate, would be able to ride groomed and pow but also dabble in the park.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I think the 158 could definitely work for you. And it’s the kind of board you ride groomer, pow and park on.
The only thing for me is the width.
I would say it’s a bit too narrow for 11s. If you have low profile boots (e.g. relatively recent Adidas, Burton, Ride or Vans) and had binding angles like +15/-15 (i.e. a reasonable angle on the back foot, then I think you’d get away with it. But otherwise I think it’s getting too narrow. The 159W would be the safer bet, but I understand that you only have the one size available.
You might get away with the 158, but it would certainly be risking being too narrow for your boots.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the quick reply – I usually ride 15/15 so that should be ok – i guess what i will need to pay attention to is the profile of the boots that i get.
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Aaron! Yeah definitely go for a low profile option if you grab the 158.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great article!
I’m an adult female 5’2” (158 cm), around 100 lb, boot size US 5. I’m a beginner, planning to ride groomed trails mostly. Based on your article for beginners, I’m looking into Rossignol MYTH 139cm. Do you think this length will be OK for me?
I’ve tried rented Rossignol Accelerator L 145 cm. I’ve managed to turn somehow, but it’s definitely too large.
If you think that 139 cm is too large for me, could you suggest something smaller in a similar price range as MYTH? I don’t want to buy a kids’ snowboard and at the same time not sure if I can afford something much more expensive. Thanks in advance.
Hi Maria
I think something around 139cm would be a good size for you as a more advanced rider, but as a beginner, I think it would be best on something around 135, 136. There aren’t a lot of options in those sizes for women’s boards but there are some. I’m not surprised you found the 145 too big!
With size 5 boots, it’s also important to find something that’s narrow as well – so compromising on going a little longer than 136 to get a narrow option might be a good idea. So the Myth in the 139 is relatively narrow (234mm waist) but , but I would say it’s doable but that’s the longest and widest I would go for you.
The other options are the 136 Tesla (232mm waist width) – which gives you something a little shorter/narrower – but costs a little more too unfortunately ($50 more when full price) – unless you could find a pass season’s model for cheaper.
The K2 First Lite is another option at 138cm and 232mm waist – but it’s also the same price as the Tesla.
I think the GNU gloss would be a great choice for you – it comes in a 136 with a 226mm waist – size wise, I think it would be the best option – it is also the same price as the Tesla and the First Lite.
Unfortunately there aren’t too many women’s boards as cheap as the Myth – but if you wanted to go with that, I think it’s doable – still longer and wider than ideal but doable.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, thanks so much for this post! It’s very thought out and is helping me figure myself out. 😛
I’m about 5’9″ish at about 165lbs. I’m currently riding a 158cm, but found an awesome deal for a 154cm that I’ve been obsessing over. I’m generally a freestyle rider, nothing fancy, but calming down a bit as I’m getting a little older. Think I’d have fun with the shorter 154 board but don’t want it to feel like I can’t get around as well in my all-mountain board. What do you think? BTW, the board is a 2018 Bataleon Boss 154. Thanks!!
Hi Jak
Thanks for your message.
For your specs and for that board, I think the 254 would be a good pick. I’d put you on around a 157 for an all-mountain length but since you are inclined towards freestyle riding (even if you’re calming it down a bit) and because this board is on the freestyle side of all-mountain, I think the 154 would be a good choice.
Since you’re used to a 158 it will take a little bit of getting used to, but I think you’ll like it. You will sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder going down from 158 (how much this is the case would depend on the model of board you’re currently riding) – but overall I don’t think a 154, with your specs, would have issues getting around the whole mountain.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great site, thanks for all the useful information.
I’m a beginner and looking at a Salomon Sight, I’m 180cm and 68kg (without gear), boot size 9.5-10, will the 156cm board be too long?
Also, any thoughts on Drake King bindings (L 41-43.5)
Cheers
Darren
Hi Darren
Thanks for your message.
156 would be doable for you but ideally for your specs as a beginner, I would say a little shorter would be better, 152 to 154 – probably leaning towards the higher end of that range because of your height. So the 153 Sight becomes an option there. The only thing with the 153 would be width. If you ride with a reasonable angle on your back binding (e.g. 12-15 degrees) then I’d say you’d be fine even with size 10 boots for the 153 width-wise.
But if you ride with quite a straight back foot (0-9 degrees) then it’s risking being a bit narrow for 10s. With 9.5s you’d probably be ok with all but the straightest back foot (0-3 degrees). With the 156 I’d say you’d be fine regardless of angles for with 9.5s but might be getting too narrow still if you ride with a very straight back foot on 10s.
So depending on which boots and which binding angles, I’d say 153 at this stage would be the better size but 156 is doable and would be the better choice width-wise depending on angles/boot size.
I don’t test Drake bindings so I couldn’t say first hand anything about them, but they certainly look like they would be a good flex for a beginner. And the Large sounds like an appropriate size for your boot size (regardless if you end up in 9.5s or 10s).
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply. Really appreciate the help and advice.
Cheers
Darren
You’re very welcome Darren
Hey Nate,
I am 178cm , 86KG and am looking for your opinion on purchasing Capita Warpspeed 160 as it’s the only board that offers sizes similar to what I rode so far – 156,158,159.
I am aware of the fact that this is a step up in terms of length, but I’m a huge fan of Capita boards(I got the OuterspaceLiving 158) and am wondering if 160 would be a bit too much + the stiffness is 7.5.
I am now improving my carving technique and am enjoying every single second of it on the OuterspaceLiving, so I’m wondering if Warpspeed 160 is a sure upgrade and it won’t break my legs :D.
The table you create says that I’m right on target :D.
Please let me know.
Regards,
Emil
P.S.: This webpage is my go to page when somebody asks me about which snowboard length to go far. It’s detailed yet clean straight to the point information. Big thanks!
Hi Emil
Thanks for your message.
The Warspeed is a bit of a step up from the Outerspace Living and going longer will also be another step up, but if you think you’re ready for that, that’s up to you.
My biggest concern would be whether it was too wide for you. The Warpspeed is a wide board and in the 161 it’s got a 264mm waist width and 308mm tip and tail. Unless you’ve got quite big feet, I feel like it will be too wide for you. And since you’re riding the 158 Outerspace Living, I suspect that you would find the Warpspeed too wide. But if you can let me know your boot size, I can more accurately give you my opinion on whether it’s too wide or not.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for replying, boot size is 10.5.
I’m aiming now for a wide board as I would love to lean more when I’m on my heels and 25.30 seems to be too narrow.
I’m opened as well to any suggestion you might have regarding wide board size I should aim for, it’s the first time I’m focusing my research on this type of boards.
Also, I was looking over Bataleon the Carver, Lib Tech HotKnife 159W, GNU Mullair 159W as well, but I found a very good deal for the CAPITA Warpspeed.
Thanks again,
Emil
Hi Emil
Generally speaking, I would say something around 251mm to a max of 261mm at the waist for size 10.5s if you ride with a reasonable angle on your back binding (e.g. 12-15 degrees). If you ride with quite a straight back foot (e.g. 0-3 degrees), then more like 258mm to 263mm at the waist, roughly speaking.
So, the Warpspeed 161 is maybe just doable, if you ride with a straight back foot, but otherwise I would say it’s still too wide. I’d say the same for the Hot Knife. The Mullair and the Bataleon Carver are more doable width-wise, IMO.
The Capita Mercury 159 would be a good choice too – a little wider, a little longer – basically the Outerspace Living on steroids and setback/directionalized and widened. If you wanted to stick with Capita, I would say that would be a great choice.
Thanks for replying, indeed I ride 15/12 angle on my bindings. You make a strong point and thanks for taking the time to explain it so detailed, I really appreciate it. I was thinking of Capita Mercury 159 but does it compare to Mullair or Bataleon the Carver in terms of grip? I saw some posts that I doesn’t have that much grip in hard snow.
Hi Emil
I’d say the Mercury probably isn’t as good in hard snow as the Mullair, but it’s not bad. A little better than the Outerspace Living is. And just as good as the Warpspeed, I would say (though I haven’t ridden it as it’s too wide for me to test). I’m not sure about the Carver as Bataleon isn’t a brand that I test.
Ok, thank you.
Thank you, really appreciate the detailed feedback.
Regards,
Emil
You’re very welcome Emil
Hi Nate,
Thank you so much for this website. It is a true wonder for a data nerd like me. It’s definitely the most comprehensive and helpful site I’ve come across.
I’m looking into buying a Jones Twin Sister. Trying to decide between the 146cm and 152cm. I’m 5’6″ and about 150lbs w/gear. My rentals have typically been in the 146-148cm range.
I have a few seasons under my belt– love carving and bombing hills, but am also trying to get more into jumps and switches. I would guess I lie more on the side of an all-mountain(aggressive) rider.
If I did go with this board, do you have any recommendations for boots and bindings? I’ve been renting for a while and looking to make a long term investment
I really appreciate you!
Hi Brittany
Thanks for your message.
This is going to be annoying but I think the 149 would be the best size for you for the Twin Sister. I’m guessing that you’re availability is only between the 146 and 152, since you haven’t mentioned the 149?
IMO the 152 is getting a bit long for you for this board and the 146 is getting a bit short. So it’s a tough call for sure. Especially as the 149 would be a great size, IMO. If you do have availability for the 149 go with that AND ignore the rest of this message. But if you really have to go with one of those two sizes, there are pros and cons to each.
The 152 will be more stable at speed and have better float in powder. IMO it would also be better for carving.
The 146 will be more maneuverable at slower speeds, better for learning switch, better for jumps and will be quicker edge to edge.
Because there is 6cms between the two boards, these differences will be quite noticeable.
But if you’re not totally set on this board, then something 148 to 150 would be a good range for you, IMO, for this type of board.
In terms of boots and bindings – going with something with a similar flex is a good place to start. So for the Twin Sister something around 5/10 to 7/10 would be a good way to go. Check out the following for some options:
>>Top Women’s All-Mountain Bindings
>>My Top Women’s All-Mountain Snowboard Boots
If you need to expand those into more options, let me know and I can give you some alternative options with a similar flex.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thanks very much for this extremely useful summary!
I’m currently thinking of replacing my old Custom X with the 2018 version. My previous model is a 160cm and I’m now torn between the 158 and the 162 mainly because of the weight ranges Burton gives for both.
I’m 6’1” and 175lbs. According to your table the right length would be around 161-162 and is also what I think would be a good option since I’d like to use this board only for carving and maybe a couple of rides off piste if the pow is too tempting. Burton however suggests a weight range of 180lbs+ for the 162cm version so that I’m just on the lower end whereas I’d be bang on the middle for the 158.
Do you have a recommendation what I should do (maybe simply have an extra portion for breakfast…).
Cheers
Dom
Hi Dom
Thanks for your message.
You would have sat right in the middle of their weight recommendations for the 2017 model in the 160. But Burton have not only changed the sizings but they’ve also changed their weight recommendations (across all of their boards). For some of their boards nothing has changed, except their weight recommendations, so in some cases their change in weight recommendations certainly don’t reflect changes in the boards. In this case there were other changes made to the Custom X – but I still get the feeling that their weight recommendations have changed independently of those changes.
The 2017 162W recommended weight range was 165 to 205 – so whilst you would have still been on the lower end of that range, you would have been within it.
So, I think you could still get on the 162, and the weight recommendations are guidelines, IMO, not hard and fast rules.
However, a few things to consider:
1. The new Custom X is a wider board. The 2017 Custom X 160 (and at least back to 2014 and probably longer) had a 250mm waist and 294mm tip/tail. The 2018 158 has a 254mm waist width and a 297mm tip/tail – so wider in the 158 than the 2017 was in the 160. The 2017 158 had a 249mm waist and 293mm tip/tail. So from there it’s gone quite a bit wider. With extra width, it’s often a good idea to go shorter – so in that sense the 2018 158 is closer to the 2017 and previous 160. The 2018 162 has a 256mm waist and 300mm tip/tail. So it’s not only longer but also a reasonable amount wider than the 2017 160.
This could also be a reason why they increased the weight range recommendations – as it requires more effort (weight can help with pressure) to apply pressure to the edges of a wider board (depending on your foot size of course).
2. Personally I would ride the 158 of this board (and I’m 6’0″ and 185lbs, size 10 boot) – but I do tend to prefer something slightly shorter than average, especially on a stiff board like this one – and I’d prefer the width on the 158 to the 162. So I would also typically be 161, 162 on the chart, but for this board, and in general, I like to go a little shorter than that – one reason for that is that I like to play in the trees and even when I’m on a more aggressive board like this, I like to try to find little jumps to hit, and I personally prefer something a little shorter for that. But if you’re mostly carving, then that’s a different story.
3. The 2018 162 is in a couple of ways more similar to the 2017 and previous 160 – it has the same side-cut radius of 8.2m (the 158 is ever so slightly different – 8.1m) and more noticeably and more importantly a very similar effective edge. The 2018 162 has a 1255mm effective edge – compared with the 1250mm effective edge on the 2017 160 (very close) – the 2018 158 has a 1215mm effective edge – a noticeable amount shorter.
So in that sense, the 2018 162 is closer to the 2017 160.
So in a couple of ways the 158 is more similar to the old 160 and in a couple of ways the 162 is more similar. The biggest changes are with the effective edge and the width. So, it’s a really tough call. But overall, if carving is your main thing, then the 162 is going to offer you the same effective edge as you currently ride and in terms of carving that’s going to be the most similar in terms of feel. But just note, that with the extra width and length, that it’s likely not to be as quick edge-to-edge as your current narrower 160. Though it will have more float in powder. The 158 is still going to be a good carver and probably balances out to a similar surface area overall as the 2017 (and prior) 160. So you wouldn’t loose anything in terms of powder, I would say. Note also, that the 162 is likely to feel a little stiffer than the 158.
Hope this gives you more info to go off
Hi Nate,
Thank you so much for the detailed comparison! That’s very helpful.
I indeed also looked at effective edge and width and based on the effective edge slightly leaned towards the 162cm simply as you said because it’s very similar to my old 2009 model (that already was 2500mm waist btw) with effective edge and the width difference between 158 and 162 are ‘only’ 2mm.
You make some valid points though especially with respect to the width difference to my old ride. I’m on a 10UK Burton biot so a couple of extra milimeters actually are quite good for me but not sure if a step up by 6mm would take it a bit too far and make the board much less manouverable. Especially with extra length and generally stiffer feel.
I actually had the chance to test ride the 158cm for an hour a couple of weeks ago and liked the feel despite the impression that it felt a hint too short. Hence my initial plan to go for 162 but after reading more and your input now I’m not too sure anymore.
In terms of carving behaviour and stability at high speeds do you think the 3cm less effective edge will have a significant impact? I tend to ride quite fast always on the edge so stability here would be very nice to have. Equally quick edge to edge and turns…
Will need to make a call before the weekend though when I’m taking the new board out – whichever it’ll be :).
Cheers and thanks so much again!
Dom
Hi Dom
On a UK10, I’d usually say something at least 254mm at the waist, and only then if you have a reasonable angle on your back foot (i.e. 12-15 degrees) – now, it doesn’t sound like you had any drag issues with the 250mm waisted 160, so that’s not something that’s a deal breaker, but the 256mm waist of the 162 shouldn’t be an issue for your boot size, IMO. Still maybe not going to be as fast edge-to-edge but the difference might be negligible with UK10s. i.e. you’ve probably maxed out your leverage on something around 254mm at the waist, roughly speaking, so going 250mm compared to something like 254mm probably isn’t going to make any difference that you would really notice – and the difference between 254 and 256 isn’t going to be huge either, if that makes sense. If you were on US10s (UK9s), then it would be a different story, but with UK10s, I wouldn’t worry too much about the width.
And since you tend to ride fast, like to carve and are used to an effective edge around that 1250mm mark, then I would be leaning more towards the 162 more now.
I would predict that the difference in width will have less effect on your edge to edge speeds, than the difference in effective edge will have on your stability at speed and your feel in carves. That and the fact that you felt the 158 feel a little short. 3cm of difference in effective edge is quite a lot, so I’m not surprised you felt that.
Either size would still work, but based on all the info, I would be leaning towards the 162 for you.
Hi Nate
Thanks so much again for your help. Think the points you raise make absolute sense and this also reflects my impression. I’ll stick to the 162 as initially planned and will let you know how I get on :)!
Thanks a lot again
Dom
You’re very welcome Dom. Look forward to hearing how you get on!
Hi Nate
I guess I’ll stay with 152. If it will be too big for park Maybe I will buy specific park board. Anyway I just want to start learning 😉
But thank you very much for help and great site!
Jakub
You’re very welcome Jakub.
Hope the board goes well for you once you get a chance to ride it!
Hi Nate,
I just bought never summer proto 2 (also thanks to your recommendation) and it seems to be great snb.
I’m just wondering, if it’s not too big for me. I bought smallest one, 152. And I’m 168cm and 66kg with 8 US size boots.
Should I consider smaller one? There are only woman ones (does it matter?)
I want to start riding more in park, but like all mountain freestyle style.
Anyway thanks again for great recomendations and help 😉
Jakub
Hi Jakub
If it feels a bit big, then going to the women’s sizes is fine, it doesn’t matter – usually the biggest thing is that they’re narrower, so you’ve got to watch out that you don’t go too narrow on a women’s board. But you should be fine on the 148 (238mm waist) or 151 (240mm waist) Women’s Proto Type Two in terms of width, as long as you go with binding angles like +15/-15 (which is recommended on this type of board (asym) anyway).
At 151 you’d only be going 1cm shorter but you’d also be going narrower (both in terms of waist and in terms of tip/tail width) so it will feel noticeably smaller. The 148 would also be suitable for your specs so that would be an option too.
Sizing down will have it’s pluses and minuses. You’ll loose a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder – but you’ll gain more maneuverability at slower speeds and will be easier to learn tricks on.
I wouldn’t go any longer than 152, but you can go smaller for this type of board, if you want to. What length was your old board – you mentioned it was quite small. It might be that you’re used to a smaller board and be more comfortable and have a preference for that – in which case going into the women’s sizes might be a good idea.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
I measured them and actually they have same height except widest parts of board are not on same spot. PT2 has them little bit heigher.
And old board felts small on mountain but it was my first real good board so I actually don’t know :). And I’m not at home right now but it was GNU 150 made by marvin (or sth similar).
Do you think 148 or 151 will do that much difference? Also I bought new Burton Cartles M. I guess it will do fine as all mountain (freestyle) but will be little more difficult on parks?
I won’t be able to try new PT2 in next month and a half unfortunately. And I ordered it from a foreign shop so need to find out if I can change it to some other one.
I’m still very exited from new board and thank you very much again for help
Jakub
Hi Jakub
Thanks for the extra info.
Yeah the PT2 has pretty blunted tip and tail, so I’m not surprised that the contact points on the PT2 are higher for the same length board.
I think the 148 would make a significant difference in terms of both length and width. The 151 wouldn’t be a huge difference in terms of length but it is quite a bit narrower than the 152 men’s version, so you would definitely feel the difference, more so from the width than the length with the 151 vs 152.
Hi Nate
Yeah it’s bit narrower and I’m afraid it will be too narrow for 8.5 US boots. According to your tables I’m actually super fine with 152 from width point of view. Also on NS site, 151 has bigger sidecut: 151 – Vario 761/723 and 152 – Vario 725/690. Don’t know, if this makes significant difference.
Hi Jakub
The sidecut will contribute to a different feel, so definitely some difference there, but not heaps of difference. Usually the shorter lengths of boards will have deeper sidecuts (smaller number = deeper sidecut) than the same board of a longer length. But when you cross down into the women’s sizes it doesn’t necessarily work that way.
But if you look at the women’s version, the 151 (the longest of the women’s version) will have the shallowest (largest number) sidecut of all the women’s sizes – and the men’s 152 will have the deepest (smallest number) of all the men’s versions.
I wouldn’t worry about this too much though.
I think the 152 that you have will be fine for you – but just wanted to give you those options as you were concerned about the 152 being too big.
Hi Nate thanks alot for this awesome website I have told many friends about it over the years. A little background about me I am 22 years old and have been riding for 9 years now, and consider myself an advanced all mountain/backcountry rider. I ride a couple weeks out west every year and 5-10 days out east on the hardpack. I currently ride a Rossignol Magtek XV 159 out west and my brothers 152 skate banana when I go out east. I am shopping around for a Rossignol Jibsaw as a board for days on the hard pack to advance my park riding (currently hitting straight airs, boxes, and small grabs). I was wondering which length you would recommend for me if I would like to ride it out west on groomer days in the park/all mountain and on the east coast as well for park and all mountain. I am between the 155cm and the 157cm. If you think the 157cm will limit me at all with spin progression let me know and I would greatly appreciate it! I am 5’9″ and 165-170lbs with no gear on, and am a size 9 shoe so width is no issue.
Hi Marc
Thanks for your message.
I would say go for the 155. It’s going to be the better option for that board for your specs, IMO. I think the 159 is a good size for you for a freeride board like the XV but for the Jibsaw the 155 would be better than the 157. I’d say purely for just riding the mountain and if you weren’t worried about park/freestyle progression, then maybe something around 157 would be a good way to go – but I’d definitely go 155 for what you’re describing. The width will be better for 9s too.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!
Thank you so much for all your knowledge. Your site is my go to place for all things snowboarding and gear. You’re amazing
So I am 5’8.5″, ~170lbs, and a size 9 boot.
Looking at the Arbor Coda Camber.
I’m a pretty 50/50 freestyle/freeride rider hailing from the easy coast. Mostly ride groomers and park in all sorts of variable eastern snow conditions.
I love to carve through medium to steep hills but also love to hit every single side-hit, roller, and kicker I can find. I am a better freerider than I am a freestyler, but I’ve been focusing on improving my freestyle game. I lean towards the jumps much more than I do getting techy on rails or buttering and jibbing around.
I’m definitely planning to start taking a few trips out west and hopefully to the legendary pow of Japan. And I’m curious as to what board length can do it all for me.
I’m planning on getting a dedicated freestyle stick next year once I improve my game in that aspect but for now I need a one board quicker that can decently satisfy my needs from future backcountry runs to resort groomers and park. I guess you could say I want this board to be the ever slightest more freeride-able than freestyle but I still want it to be a decent length to progress my freestyle with and not be too cumbersome to spin and jump with.
With all this said, I’m looking at the Arbor Coda Camber. Trying to see if I can find the 2015-2016 model, but if not, I’ll get the current one.
What size do you think is better for me between the 153 and the 156?
Thank you so much for all your help!
I would say I’m an intermediate-advanced freerider and beginner-intermediate freestyle.
Thanks again!
Hi Phil
Thanks for your message.
For the Arbor Coda Camber I would say definitely the 156 for you as a balance between freeride and freestyle. That’s a better do-it-all length for you, IMO. For your specialist freestyle board that you get later on you could go to something around 153cm – but for a more all-round length, I would go with the 156. For a specialist freeride board, you could jump up to 158, but on balance I think the 156 is a good size for you for do-it-all.
Sounds like you’re pretty sold on the Coda Camber, but if you’re looking for other options that are in that do-it-all mode, check out the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Thank you so much! Was leaning towards the 156, and you definitely help me feel confident about it. I will keep in mind that 153 length for my dedicated freestyle stick in the future. Your knowledge is top-notch.
Any thoughts on the Arbor Coda Camber? Have you had a chance to ride it? I noticed you didn’t have any reviews on it. But just curious.
Thanks again Nate!
Hi Phil
You’re very welcome.
I haven’t ridden the Coda Camber, unfortunately. Arbor isn’t a brand that I currently test. Just based on specs, I’d say the only potential downside I can see with it is how good it will be in powder, given that it’s centered and with a camber profile. It sounds like they’ve tried to develop the tip/tail to work well in deep snow, so that might help it in powder – but again, I don’t know how well it works first-hand. Arbor do have a good reputation, but I just don’t have a way to test them at the moment.
Hope this somewhat helps!
Hi Nate great website congratulations.
I’m gettin in love whit the idea of buying my self a jones flagship.
I’m 173cm for 86-90kg with 10.5 feet.
According to chart my lengt should be 159 but the flagship come in 158 or 161.
Witch one is mine?
Before of sizing; I’ve 14 year practice on the snowboard, I learnd on a alpine board and then i passed to a forum 157, i did not remember the name but a stiff board anyway.
I’m mostly a downhiller not strictly a freerider.
Am I falling in love with the wrong board?
Hi Stiggia
Thanks for your message.
If you’re an advanced rider (which it sounds like you are) and you don’t ride freestyle or not a lot of it, and since you’re used to a stiffer board, I think the Flagship is a good choice for you.
In terms of size, I think the 161 would be your best bet for this type of board and the kind of style that suits this type of board.
Just note that this is quite a narrow board and with size 10.5s you need to be a little bit careful. If you have a reasonable angle on your back foot (i.e. 12-15 degrees), then you should be fine on the 161 in terms of width. But if you have a straighter angle on your back foot, particularly if it’s quite straight (i.e. 0 – 3 degrees), then it would be pushing it to be too narrow for your boots. If you do have quite a straight back foot, then I would say the 159W is a better option.
So yeah, depending on binding angles I would say either 161 or 159W.
Hope this helps
This site is very detailed, conglatulation.
I’d like to have an advice.
I’m in love with the jones flagship and i’m sure i’m gonna buy myself one sooner or later.
I’m 173cm and 86-90kg with 10.5 feet.
Acoording to the chart my lenght should be 159.
The flagship come in 158 or 161 witch one i choose?
Thanks
Hey Nate,
Thanks so much for all the useful info on this site! I just had my first Snowboard season, and it was so hard but so fun! Can’t wait to get my own gear and get really into it! with your tips and articles as the backbone of my research I’m so ready to get myself geared out!
Thanks again!
Jo
You’re very welcome Josephine. Awesome that you loved your first season of riding (it only gets more fun – and easier too!). Definitely getting your own gear will really help with your progression too.
Hi Nate,
I weight 163lbs/ 74kg, I’m 170cm tall and I ride 153cm RIDE Helix, I like carving, I like doing some butters but I’m mostly into learning on park jumps right now. Helix is weird, I think this 153cm isn’t like others 153cm because of that shape. Do you think it’s too short for me, should I go for longer one next time?
I’ll be very grateful for answer.
Hi Michał
Thanks for your message.
I think something around 156, 157 would be a good length for you, assuming you are at a reasonably advanced level. I would usually size down a bit for an all-mountain-freestyle ride like the Helix – so I don’t think 153 is way off for you. But maybe 154-156 for that type of board. More like 156-157 for an all-mountain board.
The Helix is an asymmetrical board – so the heel side sidecut is different to the sidecut on the toe side. I enjoy asym boards, but not everyone does. The weird looking tip and tail doesn’t affect the ride really (except maybe psychologically) as it’s all happening past the contact points. Some asym boards don’t do this with the tip and tail – you can have asym without it looking that way. So it’s not a hugely weird shape really, but asym isn’t for everyone.
Also note that the Helix is quite an aggressive ride. It’s full camber and not the most forgiving if you get off your game. Certainly something for a more advanced rider, so if you consider yourself more intermediate, then it may not be the best fit.
So yeah, you could go a little longer – how much longer would depend on the type of board you went for (but from what you’re describing an all-mountain-freestyle board is probably a good fit, in which case something 154-156 would be a good range to look at, IMO – but it might be that you would prefer something a little more playful/forgiving than the Helix?).
Hope this helps
Thank you for very long, specific and professional answer, I got my board stolen yesterday when I was in France ;-; and I’m buying next Helix. 153 was a bit unstable at higher speeds and a bit sketchy on landings but won’t 155 be hard to spin?
Hi Michal
Bummer that you’re board was stolen.
The 155 will be a little harder to spin than the 153 but it won’t be a huge difference. You shouldn’t have too many issues spinning the 155 in my opinion. And on balance it would be the better size, IMO. What you gain in stability and landings will outweigh the spin factor, I would say.
Thank you, I really appreciate yor help 🙂
You’re very welcome Michał. Hope you have a great rest of your season!
Hi Nate!
Thank you for all of your intel and patiently answering questions.
Although I have been to Whistler/Blackcomb and Tahoe almost every year for 2-3 days at a time for the last ~8 years, I would still consider myself a beginner and I’m finally buying my own gear in hopes of boosting my confidence and finally getting better. I don’t have aspirations to ride int the park or go especially fast for now, I just want to be comfortable boarding for fun and to keep up with my friends.
I am deciding between the Rossignol Tesla Amptek 2017 $230 (143 or 148) and the Ride Compact 2017 $270 (143 or 147). To be honest even though the Rossi Tesla is on your Top Beginners Boards list, I am leaning towards the Ride Compact because I simply favor the graphics more. Am I naive to choose the Ride Compact over the Rossi Tesla because of looks? My next question is length… I am just below 5’4″, 140lbs w/o gear, and wear a 8.5 US women’s shoe/ usually 8 boot. I’m stuck between sizing down for my ability level and initial confidence and sizing up to increase longevity… not to mention worrying about my big feet fitting on the board! If it helps, I’ll probably end up buying the Burton Citizens bindings per your recommendation, but M/L?… you really should be sponsored if you aren’t already!
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Hi Natalie
Thanks for your message.
Generally not a good idea to buy on looks (I did it with the first pair of snowboard boots I ever bought – and it wasn’t a good choice!) but in this case, you can, because the Compact 2017 is suitable for a beginner level – so if that’s what you prefer the graphic of, no problem’s there. The Compact wasn’t far off making the beginner boards list.
In terms of size, I would say around 149 for you, for an all-mountain board at an advanced level. As a beginner I usually recommend taking off 3-5cm, which would put you in the range of 144 to 146. However, since you aren’t a complete beginner and do have a few years experience behind you, I think you could handle going up to 147 for the Compact or the 148 of the Tesla.
In terms of width, with size 8 boots, you could go as narrow as something with around a 232mm waist, but only if you ride with a decent angle on your back binding (e.g. if you ride +15/-15 or similar) but, even if you ride with a straight back foot (e.g. 0-3 degrees) then you should still be ok on something 238mm and up. So you should be fine on any of those options if you ride with any kind of angle on your back foot (i.e. 6 degrees or more) – and if you ride with a straight back foot, then the 147 Compact and 148 Tesla will still be fine – the 143s would probably still be ok, but there’d be a greater risk of them being too narrow. Add around 4mm to those if you were in 8.5s
For the bindings, if you get Burton boots and their 8s, then you can fit in either, but the M is probably the slightly better option, IMO – but not much in it. But if you get another brand, end up in 8.5s, or if you don’t get boots before you get the bindings, then L would be the safer option.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much Nate! I actually just found the Ride Compact for $150 on Sierra Trading Post this morning and they only have 147cm left so I have literally been refreshing this page all day awaiting your trusted advice 🙂 I will definitely send all of my friends to your site for help in the future!
You’re very welcome Natalie – and thanks for sending your friends over!
Hope you enjoy your new gear and have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, I am a 5’5 female rider weighting 114 lbs (without gear). I am an advanced snowboarder with more than 15 years of experience. I want to buy a Jones twin sister and I only drive piste (5% Deep powder). Before I had a 143 völkl melody camber board that felt okay but sometimes felt a bit unstable when going really fast. Would you recommend me getting a 143 or 146 twin sister board? Thanks a lot!
Hi Sarah
Thanks for your message.
I don’t know much about Völkl boards but just based on the specs that I’ve read, I’d say that the Twin Sister would be a more stable ride than the Melody – so even going with the 143 should add some stability, IMO.
But you could get even more stable for speed on the 146 and, as an advanced rider, I think something around that 145 mark is a good length for your specs. So, I think 146 is definitely an option – but the 143 is also an option. If you were spending more time in powder, then I’d say 146 for sure, but since you spend more time on piste, there are pros with going with the shorter and pros to the longer, depending on what you get up to when on piste.
~ The 146 will provide better float in powder, more stability at speed, and be nicer for wide carves
~ The 143 will be better for tricks, spins, jibs etc and better in the trees, IMO, and more agile at slower speeds
So if you’re main game is riding fast and carving, then I’d say go 146 – but if you like to ride a bit of freestyle and/or like to ride trees a lot, then I’d lean more towards the 143.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot Nate! That really helps! The truth is, I don’t do. many tricks anymore – I am mostly going snowboarding with some skiers- who drive fast – so no time for tricks and just carving. So then I would choose the 146. The only thing I am afraid of is that it is more exhausting/ I need much more power with a longer board..Right now I literally almost don’t have to do anything when snow conditions are good, I just move my hips a bit and my board drives curves. Do you think 3cm will make a lot of difference here?
Hi Sarah
You’re very welcome.
3cms will be noticeable. It’s not going to be a whole new world but you would notice the difference if you were to ride the 143 and then the 146 straight after. I would say that the 146 would be harder work at slower speeds than the 143 – but will be more stable and easy to ride at faster speeds. If you’re worried about going too long, the 143 is probably the safer bet for you – and if you’re going for the Twin Sister this is likely going to be more stable in general than your previous board, even in the 143. So it’s not a bad choice. I think you could handle the 146 and you’d get some advantages at speed and in powder on it, but if you’re concerned about it being too long, then stick with the 143. Like I say, if you were going to be spending more time in powder then I’d say definitely 146, but it’s a weigh up between the 143 and 146, given that you will be groomers most of the time.
Great help!!!thanks a lot, Nate! Will recommend your Page! ???
You’re very welcome Sarah. Thanks for the recommendation!
Hi Nate,
Awesome post. I am having trouble deciding between a Jones Airheart 146cm and a 149cm. I am 5’5″, roughly 130 pounds, and have been riding a 147 Burton Feather for over a decade. My boot size is 8 and skill level is advanced. I am typically on groomers, every now and then powder, and prefer control while going fast. I may try learning how to ride switch. Please help!
Hi Candace
Thanks for your message.
Both would work but I would be leaning towards the 146 for you. The width should be fine for either for size 8s.
But there are pros and cons – the 146 would be more agile, quicker edge-to-edge, and better for more freestyle oriented things and better in the trees. The 149 would give more stability at speed and more float in powder. So, if you like to ride fast and want that extra stability, then the 149 would give more of that. Another argument for going 149 is that if you’re used to a 147 Feather, then that would probably feel as long as the airheart 149 – since that back then (I had to go back to the 2006 Feather before I could find a 147 – so I assume your’s is at least as old as 2006) it was a fully cambered snowboard. That said, the technology these days does allow you to ride a little shorter.
This probably hasn’t made your decision any easier! Generally speaking I would say 146 and 146 would be easier for learning switch on – but if you’re mainstay is speed and you want extra stability there, then go up to 149.
In terms of bindings from the other comment, that would all still apply for the 146 as well. It’s not too much different in terms of width.
Hope this helps
Hi,
I’m 5.7″ and 160lb.
Looking to buy a Forum Peter Line 151 cm.
Is it too short? I’m a beginner/intermediate and I mostly ride slopes and freestyle.
Any advice is welcome
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message. I would say something around 156 would be a good length for you, at an advanced level and for an all-mountain board. But it’s a good idea to take off length as a beginner – and for a more freestyle oriented board like this too. As a rule of thumb 3-5cm at a beginner level – so you could get away with 151cm – it’s the shortest I’d go for you – but for this style of board, and since you’re a beginner – the 151 would work, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I have read through the article and a lot of the comments and you know a lot about boards and sizes and was wondering if you would be able to recommend a size of board for me?
I am a female, 5’4″, weighing around 150lbs. I am a just starting to snowboard.
I have also narrowed down some snowboards that I am looking at purchasing, one is the Rome – Royal. I have read a lot of good reviews on how its an awesome board for beginners. Then there is the Niche – 17/18 Minx – it seems like a good board and I am attracted to the brand because its environmental friendly. However, I did read one of your comments to another boarder about how the Niche Minx isn’t the best board for beginners, so do you think I should stay clear of that board until I am a little more advanced?
Thank you,
Hi Paula
Apologies for the slow response – got a stomach bug which has laid me low past couple of days.
In terms of size, I think something around 147 to 149 would be a good range to look at.
I think the Minx isn’t a bad beginner’s choice. I think I’d like to see a bit more rocker in there to make it more so, but overall, it’s a good beginner option, I would say. It’s got the right kind of flex.
For sizing, I would say:
~ Minx: 149
~ Royal: 147
My biggest concern would be the width of them. Both of these boards are quite wide for their size. If you could let me know your boot size, I can see if they would be suitable width-wise.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!!!
Fantastic information! I’m buying a new board and I’m torn Size wize on what to get. I’m 5’4 and 124 lbs and looking at the GNU ladies choice in a 142.5 or 145.5?? Or possibly the GNU Velvet. I’m currently riding a 145. I bought a salomon gypsy last season in a 146 and wasn’t a fan could never quite click with it. Im on the higher end of intermediate and want to get more into park this season but also want something that will hold up decently all mountain/on powder days. What size would you suggest??
Hi Marielle
Both sizes are suitable but I would be leaning towards the 142.5.
This is for a couple of reasons. Whilst I would put you on a 146 for an all-mountain board and if you were at an advanced level, I find it’s a good idea to take off a bit of length for an all-mountain-freestyle board (which is what I would consider the Ladies Choice) and also for an intermediate level, I would take off some length. It sounds like you’re pretty close to being at that advanced level, so that’s probably not as much of a deal, but the all-mountain-freestyle board is something that I like to size down for a little bit. The Salomon Gypsy is something that I would also consider an all-mountain-freestyle board, so I probably would have sized down a bit for that too – to the 143. It might be the case that you have the 147 for the Gypsy as well – as I don’t think they do a 146 – unless it’s a really old model?
Another reason to go 142.5 over 145.5 is that you are looking to step it up in the park and finally because of your experience on the Gypsy – though that could have been other factors as well as length, e.g. you might not have liked the feel of the camber profile.
The 145.5 will be better in powder – just having more surface area it will do that, and it will be better for stability at speed.
The 142.5 will be better for jibs, spins, buttering and just all-round in the park, IMO – and also better in trees and just gives you a bit more agility in general, especially more maneuverability at slower speeds.
It might be the case that the 142.5 is better for your boot size too, but if you could let me know your boot size and I can recommend what would be better width-wise. It might be that the 147 Gypsy was also a bit wide? What’s the 145 you’re riding at the moment?
If you’re planning on keeping the 145 you have now, then I’d say 100% for the 142.5 – if you’re planning on getting rid of that and using the Ladies Choice as you’re only board, then it’s a weigh up between the 142.5 and 145.5 but I would still be leaning slightly towards 142.5 based on the above.
Hope this helps
Ok I lied it was the Salomon wonder in a 146 not the gypsy, wasn’t thinking haha. Right now the 145 I’m riding is an older Burton lipstick. The deck on its all rocker so it took a little while getting used to the camber/rocker/camber on the wonder. But aside from that it just felt heavy and I had to put a lot into it to get it around. I didn’t think from a 145 to a 146 would make that much of a difference. I wear a 6.5 boot! I’ll be keeping the 145 for sure I always end up going back to it sometimes.
So probably go with the 142.5?? Stability won’t be a big issue??
Thank you 🙂
Hi Marielle
Ah that makes more sense that it was the Wonder.
I think you’ll still be fine in terms of stability on the 142.5. It will be shorter and a little narrower than your current Liptstick 145 – but it’s a little more stable in terms of it’s camber profile (rocker between the feet and camber towards tip and tail – the camber sections adding stability) and in terms of being probably a little stiffer flexing – though not by much – but overall, I don’t think you’ll have any stability issues and I think the 142.5 is a better size for riding in the park for you and it’s a good compliment to your Lipstick in the 145. And I think the waist width is a better match for your boots too – that narrower width should make it easier to apply pressure to the edges for 6.5s.
Hope this helps
Hi Mate,
Interesting reading. I’m 5ft11 85kg Uk10 Have been using a 160cm wide Option Supercap but have found this very cumbersome. Don’t board too regularly but am comfortable on the piste. Looking to get a new board before I go this year but not sure on size. I have been looking at between 156 and 159cm. Do you think this is the right range? Just want to enjoy the slopes.
Thanks
D
Hi D
Thanks for your message.
I think 160 is an ok size for you as an advanced rider but if you feel you’re more at an intermediate level, then you could definitely take some length of that. Also, a lot of it is also down to personal preference so if you think you do, or would, prefer something at a shorter length, then there’s no reason why you can’t go shorter. So, I think something 157 to 159 would be good to look at for you, if that’s the case.
I’m not familiar with the Option Supercap (or any Option snowboard) so I’m not sure about the specs for this but it might also be that it’s quite stiff – if that was the case, then that could add to that cumbersome feeling – particularly at slower speeds. A softer flexing board is typically easier to maneuver at slower speeds.
In terms of width, I’d say go at least 254mm at the waist with UK10s – an only that narrow if yo have binding angles that give you a decent angle on the back foot (e.g. +15/-15) – with a straighter back binding, you’ll want to go wider than that. So you’re kind of on the cuff of whether you’ll need a wide model or not – it depends on the board and your binding angles.
From what you’re describing, I think either an all-mountain or all-mountain-freestyle boards would suit you well. You can check out the links below to get some ideas, if you’d like.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, Fantastic information, thank you! I am an improving beginner and purchased a 2014 K2 bright lite- 149. I am 5’4″, 130 lb (w/o gear) and I wear an 8.5 boot. Everything I have read leads me to believe that this board will be too big. I am taking casual lessons now on Midwest (packed) hills and have tried a 140 and a 145. I can borrow an old Ride Solace 142 to ride until I improve to intermediate and can use the K2. But my real question is whether the K2 is ultimately too long and I should look for a shorter board? I read your best beginner boards and I like the look of the YES emoticon but don’t really want to invest another $400 at this time. What are your recommendations? Thank you for your time.
Linda
Hi Linda
Thanks for your message.
Even at an advanced level, I would say 149 is a little big for you, unless you were getting a specific board to ride in powder. I would put you on around a 147 at an advanced level, for an do-it-all type board. As a beginner I would say drop 3-5cm off that 147, which would put you in the 142 to 144 range. As an intermediate rider you could ride something 144 to 146 and should be fine. But I think even at an intermediate level the 149 is a bit long for you.
The Ride Solace in the 142 is a better length for you at this stage, but I would be hesitant to recommend it for a beginner just because it has a full camber profile. This type of camber profile is usually quite catchy – it is quite a soft board by the looks of it, which is good as a beginner but I would be worried about the full camber-ness of it.
The Emoticon would be a great choice for you, IMO but totally get that’s another big investment. For that the 143cm would be the best size for you for the fastest progression – but the 146 would be the kind of size that you could ride at a really advanced level – and it’s the kind of board that you could still ride and enjoy at an advanced level too. So there are pluses there. The 146 would be a steeper learning curve but would be a board you could keep indefinitely, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you!
You’re very welcome Linda!
I’m back!!! So, per the earlier emails, I am hesitant to lay out additional funds on the Yes emoticon, but have found a deal on the Rossignol Tesla Amptek 2017- 143 for $229 @ evo.com Thoughts on that for me? Also, what do you think about the flow haylo bindings – rear entry for beginners? Sounds cool and easy but will it be secure enough? Thanks again, Linda
Another question….I asked about the Flow Haylo bindings, but I do already have the Ride vxn bindings. Comparing the 2, which is better for an improving beginner? thanks, Linda
OMG, I am full of questions! Sorry I didn’t get them all out on a single query…. The hill in Midwest are icy, so if I didn’t want to purchase the Yes emoticon 146 until the next year or 2, would you recommend the Rome Royal 2017 – 144 or Rossignol Tesla Amptek 2017 – 143 if I bought it today?
thank you, hopefully for the last time today:), Linda
Hi Linda
Questions are good! They help to get you to the best decision.
I think the Tesla would be a great option for you, and the 143 would be a good size to go with – and then if you plan on moving to the Emoticon or something like that in a 146 at some point, I think that would be a good board progression for you.
In terms of edge-hold in icy conditions, I would say there’s probably not a lot of difference between the Royal and the Tesla. Neither will be as good as the Emoticon, IMO, but will be ok.
I haven’t tested Flow bindings in a few years, so I can’t really comment there – but I’d say that the VXN are certainly beginner friendly, so I don’t see any reason to change there, unless you’ve been having issues with them.
Hope this helps
Hi, I’m not sure what level boarder I’d be considered, probably beginner, but I like to carve down the mountain, and everyone in a while try a jump. Here in Arizona we don’t get to snowboard a whole lot. I probably go one or two weekends a year. I’m 5’4″ and 125lbs, I just bought a board over the summer and looking at it now I realize it’s only 139cm. Is this going to be too small for me, ? I don’t want to spend my weekend on my face if I go to the top of the mountain and carve down. I’ve always have rented a board and never thought to ask what size they were
Hi Alexis
I would put you on a 146 – at an advanced level, and as a beginner I usually recommend taking off 3-5cm. So that would put you on a range of 141 to 143. So, I don’t think the 139 is a miles off, but, especially given that you like to carve mostly, and that you’re definitely not a complete beginner by the sounds of it, possibly even intermediate, ideally something more like 142 to 144 would be a better length.
So, I don’t think 139 would be un-rideable for you, but also not ideal, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hello, Nate!
First of all, thanks so much for the very informative post and all the replies, this is an amazing source of guidance and info.
I’m looking to purchase my first board, and comparing all specs sheets and some of my personal traits, I’m arriving at mixed conclusions. It’d be great to hear from you on this.
This will be only my 2nd season, and I rode for the first time a couple of years ago, for a week, in Snowmass/Aspen. At the end of that first period, an instructor I had commented he believed I had come to the start of an intermediate level.
Also, I really enjoy riding down the mountain, but would like to learn a few tricks and maybe a few jumps as well, as I progress. With this in mind and after quite a bit of research on different boards, I’m thinking about going for a Capita Outerspace Living as my first board. Would you say it’s a legit choice?
After choosing the board, comes the choice of board lenght. I’m 5’9″ (176cm) and weigh 187 lbs (85kg), athletic build, with a 9 shoe size (boot should be around that, which I will check in person to be sure). What I’ve gathered so far is this:
– From the charts, purely based on my weight and height: board should be 159cm.
– From my skill level: board should be a bit shorter.
– For riding down the mountain and learning more speed: board should be a bit longer.
– for learning tricks, jumps, etc: board should be a bit shorter.
It sounds like a 159 or 160 board would last me a longer time, but I don’t want to make my learning process a pain because of it. All in all, would 159 be a good size in your opinion?
Thanks a lot and all the best,
Kaue
Hi Kaue
Thanks for your message.
I would put you no a 159 at an advanced level, so I think you can come down from that length as an intermediate rider. Also for an all-mountain-freestyle board like this you can come down in length a little – and since you are wanting to learn tricks then going shorter than 159 is also a good idea. I think I would be weighting up between the 156 and 158 if I was you.
It sounds like you’ve definitely being doing your research and I concur that a longer length is going to be better for speed and a shorter length will be better for more freestyle type stuff. A longer length also gives you more float in powder. A shorter length will give you more maneuverability at slower speeds and generally faster edge-to-edge speed for short tight turns.
So you’ve got to weigh up between the 156 and 158, IMO, depending on what is more important to you. But it’s not like the 156 will be terrible at speed and it’s not like you can’t ride freestyle on the 158 – but you’re just going to get a little extra either way. But I wouldn’t go as long as the 160 for you – even at an advanced level, even if you weren’t doing that much freestyle, the 158 would be better for you for this board.
Oh yeah, and I think this would be a great first board for you – at an intermediate level, this is a great choice, IMO – and given that you want to try some freestyle stuff but still want to continue to improve your riding over the rest of the mountain.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate,
Your answer was incredibly helpful, thanks so much for the input!
Best,
Kaue
You’re very welcome Kaue. Hope you’re having a great season!
Hey Nate
I’ve been boarding with my wife for about 4 years. We’ve started racking up the miles now, mainly on groomers but like to get into the pow where possible. My wife has started to get bad pins/needles in her feet, numb legs and bad leg pains, which is impacting on her enjoyment and her time on the slopes. We only get out about 2 weeks a year and I know a day on the slopes comes with its normal aches and pains but this seems excessive. We’ve been down the boots route, had them refitted (as two independent retailers confirmed they are the correct size), had new foot beds fitted and also purchase some ridiculously expensive snowboarding socks! We’ve looked at and tweaked her; stance, bind angles, width, setback and lean. She’s also tried to loosen her boots and binds right off, to the point the toe strap came off! I’ve spent many hours reading various websites, including yours which is EXTREMELY HELPFUL *
We’ve just returned from a trip and unfortunately the problem continues * and I’m wondering if a bad combination of kit could be the cause? She is 5’5 and 65kg. Looking at your chart, she seems to have the correct length board, although I can’t find a weight guide for the board. She has the following kit:
– Nidecker Divine 2013, 152 with Medium flex
– K2Murals 2013/2014 Medium
– Burton Mint 6.5UK or 8.5US
The only thing I can see which looks significantly different to my setup is her boots/binds. Although the bind sit nicely on the board (about 0.5cm away from the edge on both sides) her boot seems to hang over the front of the bindings by about 4.0cm. The K2 size guide says the max boot size for a medium binding is 7UK and the foot bed is extended to its maximum, making it 25cm but the boot sole is 30cm.
Any ideas/suggestions? Do you think it could be a kit issue or am I going completely mad? I don’t mind purchasing new kit if it gets her enjoyment back!
Cheers
Karl
Hi Karl
Thanks for your message.
I can’t see anything obvious gear-wise that might be causing this issue. If the boots fit properly and there aren’t any pressure points there. Have you tried different boot brands? Different brands tend to fit a little differently and some are more suitable for certain foot types than others. But if she isn’t experiencing any pressure points, then it’s probably not a boot issue. Also, is she getting much in terms of heel-lift in her boots. If her heels are lifting a lot, then she would have to be working a lot harder on her toe-side turns.
In terms of loosening the boots off, this might help with pressure points, but if it her feet are too loose in there, that could be another thing that might be making her exert more effort than necessary to initiate turns.
In terms of bindings, I couldn’t say for sure, but I wouldn’t have thought that the boots being on the max end for the bindings would be likely to cause any issues. In terms of toe overhang, having that much overhang is actually likely to make toe side turns easier as you’d be getting a lot of leverage – the only thing that I would be concerned about there is toe drag, but if she’s not dragging her toes, then there’s nothing wrong with that kind of overhang. Although, does she have equal overhang heel and toe side? That sounds like a lot of overhang for 8.5s on a 243mm waist width board (what binding angles does she use?). If you can, it’s a good idea to try and get equal overhang heel and toe – if anything more overhang on the heel edge is preferred as it’s more difficult to get low in your turns on the heel edge than it is on the toe edge – and also because it’s less likely to drag your heels. If you can set up her bindings so that they’re more evenly overhanging that would be a good thing to do regardless. I’m not sure if you can with those particular bindings, but a lot of bindings you can adjust the heel cup back to get further back if you need to, in addition to moving the bindings themselves back towards the heel edge.
I don’t have personal experience with Nidecker boards, but just reading up about it, it doesn’t seem overly stiff (medium flex from what I can see) assuming that she is at least at an intermediate level. Although, the boots and bindings are soft. Usually I recommend that the boots and bindings be at least in the same flex level as the board or slightly stiffer. Softer boots and bindings struggle to drive a stiffer flexing board. So, ideally, if she’s riding a medium flex board, she should also have medium flex boots and bindings to be able to drive the board easier.
The length of the board is probably a bit longer than I would normally recommend for her specs. I would say something around 149cm for her at an advanced level. If she is more of an intermediate rider then taking a couple of cms off that isn’t a bad idea either. So, if you consider her an intermediate rider, then 147-148 would be a better length than the 152 she is on, IMO. Being on a board that’s longer than ideal can make it physically and technically harder to ride – and can also make it feel stiffer than it is at a shorter length.
The width shouldn’t be too wide for 8.5s though. A board that was too wide for her, would make it physically harder to put pressure on the edges – but a 243mm waisted board shouldn’t be too wide for her boot size – also it sounds like there is some overhang there, which again suggests that it’s not too wide.
The last thing to think about it technique. Has she tried having a lesson? A good instructor should be able to find and fix glitches in technique. It could be a case that it’s her technique causing the issues. Again, I couldn’t say for sure, but this is another avenue worth exploring.
Those are the only things I could think of. Certainly no guarantees that any of this will fix the issues, but if you do look to change gear, I would say this:
~ Make sure boots have minimal heel lift
~ Try out different brands of boots to see which feel the best and have the least heel lift (but still without pressure points)
~ Match board, boot and binding flex as much as possible – if anything is stiffer than the rest it shouldn’t be the board, IMO
~ Make sure bindings are centered as much as possible width-ways and if there’s more overhang on either it should be on the heel side
~ If you change boards, go for something 147cm to 149cm – that would be a better length, IMO
~ Try out a private lesson. These are invaluable anyway. I try to get at least one each year myself to make sure my technique is still looking good and fixing any bad habits I’ve started to do (and always learning new stuff too).
Hope this helps and gives you some more ideas.
Hi Nate, need your help. I’m looking to buy my first snowboard, I’m beginner. On March 2017 I received snowboarding classes and it was my first time snowboarding. I’m 1.78 high, 102 kg, 10.5-11 shoes size.
Please could you say me which are the snowboard’s specifications I need to buy? What’s the correct board I need to buy?
following yours instructions, I saw this snowboard, is this snowboard good for me?
Nitro Snowboard on Kijiji
Thank you very much
Hi Rene
Thanks for your message. I don’t demo Nitro gear but based on some specs I saw, I think it’s possibly too stiff for you as a beginner. A stiffer board is much more difficult to ride and very unforgiving of errors, making it hard to learn. Also I couldn’t find info on the camber profile but from what I could tell, this board was discontinued in 2007, and back then most boards were traditional camber – which is also more difficult to progress on. But as I say, I haven’t ridden it so I couldn’t say for sure but I suspect that this wouldn’t be the best beginner’s choice.
Generally speaking, I would say that something around a 162 would be a good length for you as an advanced rider. As a beginner, I would take off 3-5cm from that length. So I would look at a range of 157 to 159.
In terms of width, if you end up with 11 snowboard boots, then I would go with a minumum of a 254mm waist width – and only then if you have +15/-15 bindings angles (as in a decent angle on the back foot). With a straighter back foot, you’d want to go wider than that. With 10.5s you would be able to take a couple of mms off that waist width.
Take a look at the following list to get some options that are good for beginners:
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
Specifically, I think the following would work well, depending on boot size and binding angles.
~ Rossignol Templar 159W (260mm waist)
~ Capita Outerspace Living 160 (256mm waist)
~ Burton Process Flying V 159 or 159W
~ YES Typo 159W
~ Never Summer Snowtrooper 159
~ YES Libre 159W
Hope this helps with your search
Hello Nate!
I just sent you a message a little bit ago and I was wondering if you thought that a Never Summer Raven 154 might fit the bill? I’m not sure how you receive your e-mails so I will restate all my stats. I love to ride down tree runs and in powder. I do occasionally ride on packed snow and down “normal” runs. I don’t do any park stuff. I would think that I’m at an intermediate level. I’m nervous to go super fast but I can zip in and out of trees well. I am 5 foot 6.5 inches and 153lbs.
Thanks for your help!!
Heather
Hi Heather
Thanks for your messages.
In terms of length, I would put you at something around 152 to 153cm. However, I think you could go a little shorter than that if you wanted, for a couple of reasons. a. Shorter is better in trees (IMO) as it gives you better maneuverability, especially at slower speeds and b. because one of the big advantages of going longer is to get more stability at speed – if you’re not that interested in bombing super fast, then you don’t need that extra length. Of course you don’t want to go too short because you want some stability at speed – and also because you get better float in powder from a longer board, and since it sounds like you ride powder a bit you wouldn’t want to go too short. So I think something around 149 to 151 would be a really good length range to look at for you. Though what you’re used to riding comes into it as well – if you’re used to anything significantly longer or shorter then, that might need to be revised.
The Never Summer Raven would work for you I think. However, I think the 151cm would be the better size. And given that they don’t make this board any more, it might be harder to find sizes – but if you found a 151cm, then that’s what I would say would be better. Also the Raven isn’t ideal for riding switch. It’s not that bad either, definitely doable but if you wanted something that feels the same in both directions, then it’s not ideal. Apart from that I think it would be a great choice. The Aura is the closest equivalent to the Raven out of the current NS boards. The Aura is also a great option if you’re looking for something a bit stiffer and it comes in a 150cm, which I think would be a good length for you. Again, the only down side is for riding switch, though it’s definitely doable.
The Ripsaw would be great for riding switch and if you’re looking for something quite stiff, then this is a stiffer board. However, it is a men’s board and whilst that doesn’t discount it automatically, it might be too wide, depending on your boot size. If a board is too wide, it can feel slower from edge to edge and harder to initiate quick turns – since you like the trees, then I think going too wide isn’t a good way to go, unless you went substantially shorter – and since the shortest size for the Ripsaw is the 153, I think that would be too long, assuming it’s already too wide. But if you can let me know your boot size, I can give you a more accurate recommendation width-wise.
The Infinity and Proto Type 2 are both rated equally for flex by Never Summer – but from my experience with the men’s equivalents, the Proto Type Two actually feels stiffer – it feels more like medium (5/10) and the Snowtrooper (men’s equivalent of the Infinity) more like medium-soft (4/10). I think a big reason for this is that the Proto Type Two has the Ripsaw Rocker profile and the Infinity/Snowtrooper have the Original Rocker Camber (there’s more camber in the Ripsaw Rocker profile). The Proto Type Two is also going to be better suited to riding switch – actually ideally suited for switch, IMO. The Infinity not as good – still definitely doable but not quite as good. So out of those 2, I’d say that the Proto Type Two is the better option from what you’re describing, though the Infinity would be better in powder.
I would say that the Aura 150cm or the PT2 151cm would be great choices for you. The Aura’s biggest downside for you, being that it’s not ideal for switch (but still ok) and the PT2s biggest downside being that it’s not as good in powder.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
It’s so awesome that you answer comments!! I am looking at getting a new board this year as my never summer has taken a beating. I generally do all tree runs and some limited amount of groomed runs. Lots of powder and sometimes packed if the conditions aren’t the best. I don’t like the idea of a directional board because I tend to switch directions in a pinch. I am 5 foot 6.5 inches and 153lbs. I want to stay with a Never Summer Board and was maybe thinking the Ripsaw or the Infinity or the Proto(this one might be too soft). Do you think that you could give me suggestions both in length and board based on this criteria? It would be great help!
Thanks so much for your time
Heather
Hi Nate, I need your help. I’m looking at getting a Capita DOA. What size for 80 kilos (without stuff) 183cm, Burton Ruler 11 boots and union atlas l/xl bindings? 160 or 158w. I’m Intermediate all mountain rider, I like speed and carve but in this year i would like learn easy flat tricks. Thanks!
Hi Kuba
Thanks for your message.
I think the 158W or 158. I would put you on something around 160 for an all-mountain board, at an advanced level but this is one of those boards that you want to take a bit of length off for – and especially as an intermediate rider. If you ride with angles like +15/-15, then I would say you could get on the 158. But if you have a straighter back foot, then the 158W would be the better bet.
One thing about the DOA I found after riding it with medium-soft bindings and stiffer bindings is that it definitely rides better with stiffer/more responsive bindings. But the Atlas would be a good match, so no issues there.
The other thing to note is that this board is quite aggressive. Since you like speed and carving that should be fine, so long as you’re a solid intermediate rider – not a board for beginners.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the helpful article, it was awesome and useful. After reading thru all the snowboard reviews, I would love to get some recommendation from you. Since I’m gonna travel to Whistler soon, I am considering to get myself a snowboard. I’m 173cm, weighing at 70kg with a Men’s boot size of US 8.5 and in term of ability wise, I’m an intermediate (skill level probably close to 5, based on your level system) I’m more inclined to an all mountain snowboard as I love dealing with powder snow on groomed slopes & off-piste on backcountry since I’ll be mostly snowboarding in Japan but again not forgetting icy hard snow in other country/mountain like Australia or New Zealand. I’m not into any parks or jib, by having said that means i will be handling switch, speed & maybe doing some little tricks like ollie etc.
I have trouble deciding among this snowboard which i have shortlist after reading the reviews:
1. Never Summer Snowtrooper – 154cm or 156cm?
2. Never Summer West – 154cm or 156cm?
3. Slash Brainstorm – 154cm or 157cm?
So which would you recommend? I’m open to other suggestion too.
Your help & feedback is much appreciated. Many thanks!
(Please ignore the previous post, as I’m not sure if i had send it thru earlier due to network error)
Hi K.S
Thanks for your message.
I agree that all-mountain is the best option for you based on your description. I think something freeride might be an option in the future but at a high intermediate level – and also given that you still want to ride a bit of switch and do ollies etc, then all-mountain is definitely the best option.
I think the Brainstorm and the West are both great options. You could go Snowtrooper too and it wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I think you’ll get more out of the West. If you were closer to that beginner level, then I’d say Snowtrooper – but at your level, I think you’ll appreciate the extra performance of the West.
Other options are the Rossignol One (great in hard/icy conditions but also in powder) and the Jones Mountain Twin.
In terms of sizing, I’d say the 156 for the West. You could also get away with the 154, but I think the 156 would be the better size for you. The pros to going 156 over 154 are slightly more float in powder, slightly better for carving and slightly more stable at speed. The pros of the 154 over the 156 are that it would be easier for butters, jibs, and a little more agile, particularly at slower speeds. But these differences will be subtle as it’s only 2cm – still noticeable but subtle.
For the Brainstorm, you could go with either again, but I would be leaning towards the 157 for you. Pros and cons for going shorter or longer same as above. But since you say you like to ride Powder in Japan, then going slightly longer rather than shorter is a good idea.
Though one argument for going to the 154 size, is that they would probably be a slightly better width for your boot size – but I still think the 156 and 157 are better sizes overall.
For the other boards I mentioned, I would go with:
~ Rossi One: 156
~ Mountain Twin: 157 (but 154 is an option too)
Size does also come down to personal preference somewhat. So if you know that you prefer shorter, then that’s a factor too – and in which case you could go with the shorter options.
Hope this helps with your decision and hope you have an awesome trip to Whistler!
Thanks, Nate! Will take your recommendation to go with 156 on West. Rossi One looks like quite a good choice too, but I don’t seem to be able to find that in Vancouver. Quick question, will 156 board end up a bit long when it comes to hard/icy condition? I have also read that 2cm differences is very minimum.
Lastly, I am also considering between 2 bindings, which would go better on West?
1. Flux DS?
2. Burton Cartel?
Hi K.S.
I’d say you’ll still be fine on the 156 for icy conditions. 2cm is subtle but in my experience riding other boards in two different sizes just 2cm apart it is noticeable but definitely subtle.
If you’re looking for the Rossi One in Vancouver, try Sport Chek.
For bindings, either of those would be good choices for those boards. I’ve ridden the DS on both boards (they’re my main demo bindings) and they worked well. The Cartel’s would also work well though. It’s a tough choice between them, but if you want more details on them to weight them up, check out my reviews of them below, if you haven’t already.
~ Flux DS Review
~ Burton Cartel Review
Hope this helps
Thanks buddy! It was a great help.
You’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate I love your site first off! I am trying to decide on either a 155X or 157 “Normal” PT 2. I am 6′, 175lbs, and size 11 boot. I ride a 2013 Flow ABT 159 now and it’s great for speed and POW but wanting something a little more flexible and fun that I can use for all around riding when the snows not pounding. I feel like the PT 2 is the way to go but really caught up with the size question. I really like the idea of going wide to size down but don’t want to cause myself problems either. I am an intermediate moving to advanced rider and wanting to work on trees and small jumps more this year so thinking the shorter board that’s more flexible is the way to go. Help please! I am open to suggestions on different boards too!
Hi Tim
I think the PT2 would be a compliment for your quiver.
In terms of size, I think the 155X would be a good size. You would probably be fine on the 157 (252mm waist) in terms of width, assuming you were riding with a +15/-15 stance (which is recommended on the Proto Type Two because of the Asym tech) but that doesn’t mean you have to go on it. With the 155X being wider, and at the wide end for your boot size (assuming +15/-15, again), then that adds some stability back in terms of what is lost for the size down, particularly for landings from jumps, ollies etc. Also being wider can sometimes slow down edge-to-edge speeds, but going shorter increases those edge-to-edge speeds/maneuverability.
And going a little shorter will help for things like spins, butters and for riding in the trees.
I don’t think the 157 is wrong for you either, but I would be tempted to go 155X if I was in your shoes, particularly given that you already have a 159 in your quiver and because the Proto Type Two is something you would typically size down for anyway (which you’d already be doing with the 157 but not as much). Also the 157 is pushing it too narrow for you – I’d say you’d be fine, but it’s probably the narrowest you’d want to go.
So both would work, IMO – but I’d be leaning towards 155X, just because I think it would be a better compliment to your existing board, and better for the trees, which it sounds like you’re going to be doing more of.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m trying to pull the trigger on a new board and can’t decide on a size. I am 6’1, 220lbs, size 12US shoe. I’d say I spend the majority of my time on groomers and occasionally will run through the park. I’m looking at some all mountain boards and can’t decide between the Proto Type Two X in the 161x or 164x. I’m also considering the Never Summer West 160x or 164x. I’d say I’m an intermediate to almost advanced rider. I am comfortable in all conditions and terrain.
Appreciate any advice you can throw my way.
Thanks man,
Zac
Hi Zac
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would go with the Proto Type Two as it sounds like you don’t hit that much powder. But if you do ride powder reasonably regularly, then I’d say West. The PT2 will be fine for occasional powder but I think you’d appreciate the West more if you were riding it a lot.
In terms of size, I’d say 161X for the Proto Type Two and 164X for the West.
The reason, I’d go a little shorter for the Proto Type Two is that it has a lot of effective edge comparted to the length (blunted tip and tail). So you’re actually getting almost as much effective edge on the Proto Type Two 161X as you do on the 164X West. Also the 161X is actually wider tip and tail than the 164X West. Usually I would recommend sizing down a little for the Proto Type Two. And I think 161 is a good size for you anyway if you seldom see powder.
Both sizes will be a good fit in terms of width for your your 12s.
You can also check out my reviews of those boards if you’d like, for more details.
>>Never Summer Proto Type Two Review
>>Never Summer West Review
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I’m 6’2 220 lbs I’ve been on a 156 most of my life, hit anything from parks to bowls and chutes never had a problem with it I’m getting the new capita doa in either a 158w or 160 which would you recommend. I think I’d prefer the 158w but id like to get whatever would be best for me.
Hi Connor
Thanks for your message.
Usually I’d say to go longer than 158 for you, longer than 160, even. Depending on your boot size, I’d usually say 161W for the DOA for you, which is still shorter than what I would say for a more all-mountain board – but for this board, you can go a bit shorter. But then taking into account that you’re used to and by the sounds of it are fine with a 156, then you could get away with the 158W, if that’s going to be your preference for length.
But just so I can make a more accurate recommendation, can you let me know your boot size. It might be that the 160 is better overall.
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’2, 193lbs, and a beginner with size 12 boots. With gear, that puts me at a 164 on your chart, and considering my beginner status, I’m thinking a 161. However, the boards I’m looking at on your Top 15 beginner boards list range from 160W-163W with waist widths ranging from 260mm to 268mm.
All your top beginner x lists mentioned that a stiffer flex(around 4-4.5/10) is suitable for heavier and more athletic beginners, of which I am both.
My “ideal” board would probably be a 161W with a 263mm waist width. How much should I prioritize getting a board as close to that as possible as opposed to other considerations like flex and board style?
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
Size is definitely important but so are other factors – something too stiff can be hard to ride and makes learning difficult, a camber profile that’s “catchy” is also not recommended. But if you go too long that can also make it difficult to ride.
Weight recommendations are based on your weight without gear, so assuming you’re around 190lbs without gear, then I’d say anything from 158 to 161 it’s a good range to look at. Length is important but there is a bit of leeway.
So if you can get something as close as possible to ideal in terms of camber and flex and get within that length range, then you should be in a good place.
For size 12s, I would say anything from 260mm to 268mm – however, it also depends on your binding angles – if you’ve got binding angles like +15/-15, then you could go closer to that 260mm mark but if your back foot is straigher – i.e. if you were to go with angles like +18/-3 or something, then you’ll need to go wider. I understand you may not know what binding angles you prefer yet – but something like +15/-15 is the most common these days.
Keeping in mind the above comments re binding angles the following could be some good options:
~ Rossignol Templar 159W (260mm waist) – or even 162W if you really wanted to go longer but the 159W would be a better beginner size for you, IMO.
~ Burton Process Flying V 159W (260mm waist) – or 162W (as per above)
~ YES Typo 159W (261mm waist(
~ Never Summer Snowtrooper 160X (263mm waist)
~ YES Libre 161W (260mm waist)
~ Rossignol Circuit 161W (263mm waist)
And pretty much most boards on this list would have a size suitable for you. The ones I’ve mentioned have a flex between 4/10 and 5/10. To narrow it down further think about whether you’d like something that’s all-mountain (do a bit of everything) or more freestyle oriented) and also if you think you’ll be riding in icy/hard conditions often.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much Nate that helps a ton.
I had most of those boards on my list so I’m glad I seem to be looking in the right places.
Most of my friends that snowboard are much more experienced and they thought that under 160 would be too short but I’m glad that it’s not.
One more question though, if I were to get boots with a reduced footprint, would the 263mm waist boards be too long at that point? I’m seriously considering the Adidas Tenzca boots.
Hi Ben
Yeah, definitely as a more experienced rider, I wouldn’t go under 160 for you but as a beginner you can definitely go shorter (and shorter is easier to ride so will help you to progress faster) – and in the past snowboard lengths were decided purely based on your height, whereas weight is a much more significant factor for sizing these days.
In terms of going with reduced footprint, it just allows you to get on a slightly narrower board but it doesn’t effect the wider end of the scale. Your feet are ultimately what are applying pressure to the edges of your boot – so when you get into a reduced footprint boot, your feet are still providing the same amount of leverage as they would in a boot with a larger footprint. But since the outersole is smaller, it means that you can a little narrower and have less risk of toe drag. So, put another way, it extends the minimum width you can get on but doesn’t affect the maximum width – so you would still be fine on those 263mm waists – and you will better fit on those that are more around that 260mm waist width – keeping in mind what we discussed re binding angles in the previous message.
Hope this makes sense.
That’s a great explanation. Thanks so much for your help.
You’re very welcome Ben. Hope you have a great season!