Snowboard width sizing is very important and I will outline why in more detail below.
It can seem difficult to get this right but this post should help to make it easier.
There will be width sizing charts further down in this post.
However, anyone can just post a width sizing chart and you wouldn’t know how accurate it is or what the reasoning behind it is.
So before looking at the charts I suggest you read the rest of the article first.
UPDATE: Note that this post has had a major update as at February 23rd, 2018. This has been a long time in the making and I have done a lot of research, using real life data, to update my tables and whilst they were fairly accurate before, I feel like they are now even more fine-tuned. But do note all of the assumptions outlined under the charts below.
How to define the ideal width
There are two schools of thought on the best width of a snowboard.
School of thought #1: The best width for you is where your boots overhang on both the heel edge and toe edge by anywhere between 1 & 2 centimetres (1/4 to 3/4 inch).
School of thought #2: The best width for you is when your feet are roughly exactly the width of the board at the inserts (where the feet will be on the board – i.e. where the bindings are) or a little over. In other words, in bare feet your heel would be right on the heel edge and your toes right on the toe edge (at your binding angles).
It should also be noted that this should be measured using the “underside of the board” as this is the side of the board that makes contact with the snow. The top side of the board is typically narrower due to the angle on the edges of a snowboard.
……………..So which one is correct?
Both!
Yes they are actually both right and are actually essentially the same thing. This is because when your feet take up the width of the board edge-to-edge then your boots are likely to hang over 1-2cm (1/4 to 3/4 inches) on both heel and toe side (for a total of 2-4cm of difference between foot length and boot length) – depending on the profile of the boots.
NOTE: The lowest profile boots I’ve seen add around 2cm total to the length of your feet and the longest profile I’ve measured added 4.5cm compared to the length of the foot.
Both schools of thought are the same for the same reasons too. Which brings me to the importance of getting the width right.
Why Does Width Matter?
School of thought number 2 suggests that the feet should be edge to edge (or a little over) as it is your feet that apply pressure to the edges when you’re turning the board.
Whilst there is a bit of leeway (a little bit inside the edges and you won’t notice it at all), if your feet are too small for the board (i.e. don’t reach the edges) then it is going to be harder to apply pressure to the edges which will make turn initiation more arduous and the board will feel heavy and less responsive.
NOTE: People who are lighter in weight will notice this even more if they are too far inside the edges. People who weight more won’t be as effected by this as they have more force to apply pressure with.
But too much overhang would violate school of thought number 1. The reason there is an upper limit on the overhang in school of thought 1 is that too much overhang and you risk dragging a boot in the snow on hard turns – obviously not what you want!
As a rule, 5mm overhang of feet on both toe and heel edge (max total overhang of 10mm) should be the maximum foot overhang and 4-5mm inside the edge of board total (so roughly 2mm on heel-edge and 2mm on toe-edge) should be the maximum “underhang”.
This translates to boot overhang of around 20mm (2cm or 3/4″) per edge, as the maximum (depending on boot profile of course – a low profile boot means your feet will have the freedom to overhang further and still maintain a boot overhang of 20mm or less – and a boot with longer profile will mean there is less room for foot overhang).
Foot underhang doesn’t change for low profile boots – you still ideally want to not go more than 2mm per edge on your feet, regardless of boot profile.
You can probably get away with up to 2.5cm (1 inch) of overhang on the heel-edge and 2.5cm (1″) toe-edge, in reality – but to be on the safe side it is better to try to stay under 2cm (3/4″) – especially if you like to lay down some deep carves.
If you can’t get your overhang even on both toe and heel edge, it’s better to have extra overhang on your heel-edge than on your toe-edge. This is because it’s easier to get lower on the toe-edge – so drag is more likely. For example it’s better to have 2.5cm (1″) on your heel and 2cm (3/4″) on your toe, if you have total of 4.5cm (1 3/4″) of overhang, than to have 2.5cm on the toe and 2cm on the heel.
TIP: If you can’t set up your bindings so that the toe and heel have equal overhang, always go with more overhang on your heel than your toe.
Width Sizing Tables
Unfortunately the width at the inserts (where the bindings go) of snowboards is not something that snowboard companies publish when they release the board specs. This would certainly make it a lot easier and I can only speculate as to why this information isn’t released.
What is published is the waist width, so this is what we have to go with to make an estimation of the right width (most companies also publish tip and tail width but waist width is a more accurate way to estimate the width at the inserts).
Due to brand variances, differences in side cut, stance width variations and binding angles it is difficult to get this completely accurate in a chart. However as a general guideline the following tables should get you close.
If you would like to know more about these variances and how much impact they can have check out the “extra reading” section below.
Factors such as boot profile (which is essentially how much difference there is between foot length and boot length), thickness of the base plate of your bindings and the bevel on the toe and heel of your boots will also play a part.
Remember that you do have a bit of room to play with and you don’t need to get this exact, but getting close is a good idea, IMO. The charts below should help you to get close.
The further away from the average foot size (i.e. the narrower or wider compared to the “normal” your feet are), the less accurate it will be – and the less board options there will be.
The following charts were created by compiling information from various width sizing charts in addition to intensive research into the average side cuts, reference stances and waist width of hundreds of different boards (by creating diagrams of those boards and measuring different feet sizes against those diagrams). I have also measured the width at the inserts of a number of different snowboards in different lengths and widths and from different brands and part of the process of creating this chart was to find the average ratio of width at waist to width at inserts.
Basic Charts
These are the basic charts. They are pretty much what you will usually see, but I didn’t think they provided enough accuracy. But at a quick glance this is roughly where you might fit.
Men's
Waist Width Range (mm) | US Men's Boot Size | |
|---|---|---|
NARROW | 240-245 | 6-8 |
REGULAR | 245-250 | 8-9.5 |
REGULAR | 250-255 | 9.5-10.5 |
MID-WIDE | 255-265 | 10.5-12 |
WIDE | 265+ | 12+ |
Women's
Waist Width Range (mm) | US Women's Boot Size | |
|---|---|---|
NARROW | <235 | <6 |
REGULAR | 235-240 | 6-7.5 |
REGULAR | 240-245 | 7.5-8.5 |
REGULAR | 245+ | 8.5+ |
Refer to the “what If I don’t own boots yet” chart further down for foot sizes in inches + other boot measurements (UK, Euro).
The Following Charts break it down a bit further but are still subject to the same variances (e.g. boot bevel, boot profile).
Men’s Waist Width Chart
This chart has been updated after further research and I have now created two charts to take into account binding angles, where previously there was just one chart.
Not sure of your preferred binding angles yet?:
>>What Snowboard Binding Angles Should I Use?
NOTE: The Maximum Width is based on foot size. The Minimum Width is based on boot size.
When Back Binding is at 0°
Men's US Boot Size | Foot Size (cm) | MIN at 0° (mm) | MAX at 0° (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
6.5 | 24 | 232 | 237 |
7 | 24.5 | 235 | 240 |
7.5 | 25 | 239 | 244 |
8 | 25.5 | 242 | 247 |
8.5 | 26 | 245 | 250 |
9 | 26.5 | 248 | 253 |
9.5 | 27 | 251 | 256 |
10 | 27.5 | 254 | 259 |
10.5 | 28 | 258 | 263 |
11 | 28.5 | 261 | 266 |
11.5 | 29 | 265 | 270 |
12 | 29.5 | 269 | 274 |
13 | 30.5 | 275 | 280 |
14 | 31.5 | 281 | 286 |
15 | 32.5 | 287 | 292 |
When Back Binding is at 15°
Men's US Boot Size | Foot Size (cm) | MIN at 15° (mm) | MAX at 15° (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
6.5 | 24 | 224 | 234 |
7 | 24.5 | 228 | 238 |
7.5 | 25 | 231 | 241 |
8 | 25.5 | 234 | 244 |
8.5 | 26 | 237 | 247 |
9 | 26.5 | 240 | 250 |
9.5 | 27 | 243 | 253 |
10 | 27.5 | 247 | 257 |
10.5 | 28 | 251 | 261 |
11 | 28.5 | 254 | 264 |
11.5 | 29 | 258 | 268 |
12 | 29.5 | 261 | 271 |
13 | 30.5 | 267 | 277 |
14 | 31.5 | 272 | 282 |
15 | 32.5 | 277 | 287 |
These tables are based on a number of assumptions, including:
- That there is a 3cm difference between foot size and boot size on an average snowboard boot
- That a 27.5cm foot will fit into a US10 boot – which is also consider a mondo print of 280mm. The idea of a mondo-print is that it fits the foot of the same length – so a 280mm (i.e. 28.0cm) would fit a foot of 28.0cm. In reality I have found, especially these days, it’s usually 0.5cm less – i.e. a 27.5cm will fit in a US10 (280mm mondo), a 29.5cm foot will fit in a US12 (300mm mondo). But if this assumption is not the same for you, then simply follow the charts above and base your maximum on your foot size and your minimum on your boot size.
- That the ratio of the width at the inserts compared with the waist width of that board that you are looking at will be similar to the average ratio of the boards that I tested. This shouldn’t make a huge difference unless the ratio of the board you are looking at is significantly different to the average that I used.
- The width at the inserts measurements that I took for the ratios that I used, are based on reference stance. A wider or narrower stance would produce different results. However, this difference shouldn’t be too significant.
- Difference in ratios for wider and narrower boards: A different ratio was used for wide boards, regular boards and narrow boards – based on averages for those sized boards
- Adjustments made for large sized boots, based on assumptions about boot bevel and outersole footprint: An assumption was made about boots that were larger than a US12 that there would be elements about those boots, typically that made them more able to get on a snowboard including being lower profile, and having a reasonable bevel on the toe and heel. This may not necessarily be the case and I highly recommend ensuring that you get low profile boots if you have a larger boot size (in my experience Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans boots have the lowest profile – DC and Thirty Two are somewhere in the middle and Salomon and K2 Boots tend to have a longer footprint).
- Adjustments for narrower boards and wider boards: Some subtle adjustments have been made to recognize that The total amount of foot underhang allowable is greater for narrower boards as there is less board to have to put pressure on, the overall width of the board is narrower, therefore it’s easier to apply pressure, so the underhang allowable can be greater. The amount of underhang allowable for a wide board is less because the board is wider overall (not just at the waist) and inserts. So your feet need to be closer to the edges to maximize leverage as there is more board to move.
If just one of these things is different it’s not likely to make a significant difference. But if there were a lot of these things (and they were all moving in the same direction) then it’s the accumulation of all of those differences could lead to a significant difference.
Women’s Waist Width Chart
This chart has been updated after further research and I have now created two charts to take into account binding angles, where previously there was just one chart.
When Back Binding is at 0°
Women's US Boot Size | Foot Size (cm) | MIN at 0° (mm) | MAX at 0° (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
6 | 23 | 221 | 231 |
6.5 | 23.5 | 224 | 234 |
7 | 24 | 227 | 237 |
7.5 | 24.5 | 230 | 240 |
8 | 25 | 233 | 243 |
8.5 | 25.5 | 237 | 247 |
9 | 26 | 240 | 250 |
9.5 | 26.5 | 243 | 253 |
10 | 27 | 246 | 256 |
10.5 | 27.5 | 249 | 259 |
11 | 28 | 252 | 262 |
When Back Binding is at 15°
Women's US Boot Size | Foot Size (cm) | MIN at 15° (mm) | MAX at 15° (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
6 | 23 | 213 | 223 |
6.5 | 23.5 | 216 | 226 |
7 | 24 | 219 | 229 |
7.5 | 24.5 | 222 | 232 |
8 | 25 | 226 | 236 |
8.5 | 25.5 | 229 | 239 |
9 | 26 | 232 | 242 |
9.5 | 26.5 | 235 | 245 |
10 | 27 | 238 | 248 |
10.5 | 27.5 | 241 | 251 |
11 | 28 | 245 | 255 |
If you think you are going to need something bigger than a 250mm waist width then you will probably have more options in the men’s snowboards.
These table are based on a number of assumptions, including:
- That there is a 3cm difference between foot size and boot size on an average snowboard boot
- That mondo print is typically a good fit – e.g. a 250mm (25cm) mondo print will fit a 25cm foot. If this is not the case for you, use your boot size for the minimum and your foot size for the maximum
- That the ratio of the width at the inserts compared with the waist width of that board that you are looking at will be similar to the average ratio of the boards that I tested. This shouldn’t make a huge difference unless the ratio of the board you are looking at is significantly different to the average that I used.
- The width at the inserts measurements that I took for the ratios that I used, are based on reference stance. A wider or narrower stance would produce different results. However, this difference shouldn’t be too significant.
- Difference in ratios for wider and narrower boards: A different ratio was used for wide boards, regular boards and narrow boards – based on averages for those sized boards
- Adjustments for narrower boards and wider boards: Some subtle adjustments have been made to recognize that The total amount of foot underhang allowable is greater for narrower boards as there is less board to have to put pressure on, the overall width of the board is narrower, therefore it’s easier to apply pressure, so the underhang allowable can be greater. The amount of underhang allowable for a wide board is less because the board is wider overall (not just at the waist) and inserts. So your feet need to be closer to the edges to maximize leverage as there is more board to move.
Aggressive Riders/Carving
If you’re someone who likes to get really low in a carve, who likes to really get up on that edge, then it’s a good idea to add 2-4mm to these tables to give you that extra room to ensure toe and heel drag is unlikely. If this is you, I highly recommend low profile boots, in order to prevent your feet from being too far inside the edges.
Beginners
If you are just starting out snowboarding you can afford to be overhanging more as you aren’t likely to be getting up on your edges as much. But if you buy a snowboard and plan on keeping it for a while, then you’ll still not want to have too much overhang.
If you intend to upgrade your snowboard after the beginner phase, then you can afford to have a little more overhang than is suggested here.
What If I don’t Own Boots Yet or Don’t know my Size?
If you do not own boots yet, don’t know your boot size or need to convert into US sizes for the charts above, then you can measure your feet and compare them to the table below to get your boot size.
Snowboard boots are made with a foot length in mind and as well as having sizing such as US 10, EUR 45 etc they also have something called a mondo-print which is the foot length that the boot was intended for – more on this here.
Foot Length (cm) | Foot Length (inch) | Men's US Boot | Women's US Boot | Euro Boot | UK Boot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 7.87 | 2 | 3 | 31 | 1 |
20.5 | 8.07 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 32 | 1.5 |
21 | 8.27 | 3 | 4 | 33 | 2 |
21.5 | 8.46 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 34 | 2.5 |
22 | 8.66 | 4 | 5 | 35 | 3 |
22.5 | 8.86 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 36 | 3.5 |
23 | 9.06 | 5 | 6 | 36.5 | 4 |
23.5 | 9.25 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 37.5 | 4.5 |
24 | 9.45 | 6 | 7 | 38 | 5 |
24.5 | 9.65 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 38.5 | 5.5 |
25 | 9.84 | 7 | 8 | 39 | 6 |
25.5 | 10.04 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 40 | 6.5 |
26 | 10.24 | 8 | 9 | 41 | 7 |
26.5 | 10.43 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 41.5 | 7.5 |
27 | 10.63 | 9 | 10 | 42 | 8 |
27.5 | 10.83 | 9.5 | 10.5 | 43 | 8.5 |
28 | 11.02 | 10 | 11 | 43.5 | 9 |
28.5 | 11.22 | 10.5 | 11.5 | 44 | 9.5 |
29 | 11.42 | 11 | 12 | 45 | 10 |
29.5 | 11.61 | 11.5 | - | 45.5 | 10.5 |
30 | 11.81 | 12 | - | 46 | 11 |
30.5 | 12.01 | 12.5 | - | 47 | 11.5 |
31 | 12.20 | 13 | - | 47.5 | 12 |
31.5 | 12.40 | 13.5 | - | 48 | 12.5 |
32 | 12.60 | 14 | - | 48.5 | 13 |
32.5 | 12.80 | 14.5 | - | 49 | 13.5 |
33 | 13.00 | 15 | - | 49.5 | 14 |
33.5 | 13.20 | 15.5 | - | 50 | 14.5 |
34 | 13.40 | 16 | - | 51 | 15 |
Conversions to Euro sizes can vary a lot between brands. Below are the conversions of some of the major snowboard boot brands. The Euro sizes in the above table are an average of all the sizings in the table below.
Foot Length (CM) | Euro evo.com | Euro 32 | Euro ADIDAS | Euro BURTON | Euro K2 | Euro RIDE | Euro ROME | Euro SALOMON |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 31 | - | - | - | - | 33.3 | - | - |
20.5 | 32 | - | - | - | - | 34 | - | - |
21 | 33 | - | - | 34 | - | 34.7 | - | - |
21.5 | 34 | - | - | - | - | 35.3 | - | - |
22 | 35 | - | 36 | 35 | - | 36 | - | 34.5 |
22.5 | 36 | - | 36.7 | 36 | - | 36.7 | - | 35.5 |
23 | 36.5 | 36.5 | 37.3 | 36.5 | 36.5 | 37.3 | 36.5 | 36.5 |
23.5 | 37 | - | 38 | 37 | 37 | 38 | 37 | 37 |
24 | 38 | 38 | 38.7 | 38 | 38 | 38.7 | 38 | 38 |
24.5 | 38.5 | - | 39.3 | 39 | 39 | 39.3 | 38.5 | 38.5 |
25 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 40 | 39.5 | 40 | 39 | 39 |
25.5 | 40 | 40 | 40.7 | 40.5 | 40 | 40.7 | 40 | 40 |
26 | 40.5 | 40.5 | 41.3 | 41 | 40.5 | 41.3 | 40.5 | 40.5 |
26.5 | 41 | 41 | 42 | 41.5 | 41.5 | 42 | 41 | 41.5 |
27 | 42 | 42 | 42.7 | 42 | 42 | 42.7 | 42 | 42 |
27.5 | 43 | 42.5 | 43.3 | 42.5 | 42.5 | 43.3 | 42.5 | 42.5 |
28 | 43.5 | 43 | 44 | 43 | 43.5 | 44 | 43 | 43 |
28.5 | 44 | 44 | 44.7 | 43.5 | 44 | 44.7 | 44 | 43.5 |
29 | 45 | 44.5 | 45.3 | 44 | 44.5 | 45.3 | 44.5 | 44 |
29.5 | 45.5 | 45 | 46 | 44.5 | 45 | 46 | 45 | 44.5 |
30 | 46 | 45.5 | 46.7 | 45 | 46 | 46.7 | 45.5 | 45.5 |
30.5 | 47 | - | 47.3 | - | 47 | 47.3 | 46 | 46 |
31 | 47.5 | 47 | 48 | 46 | 48 | 48 | 47 | 46.5 |
31.5 | 48 | - | 48.7 | - | - | 48.7 | - | 47 |
32 | 48.5 | 48 | 49.3 | 47 | 49 | 49.3 | 48.5 | - |
32.5 | 49 | - | - | - | - | 50 | - | - |
33 | 49.5 | - | - | 48 | 50 | 50.7 | - | - |
33.5 | 50 | - | - | - | - | 51.3 | - | - |
34 | 51 | - | - | - | - | 52 | - | - |
Sources
32 - 32 Wesbsite
Adidas - Adidas website
Burton - Burton website
K2 - K2 website
Ride - measurements from their boot sizing chart
Rome - Rome website
Salomon - Salomon Website
Measuring your Foot Length
To measure your foot length, place your heel flat against the wall and measure along the floor from the wall to your big toe.
Alternatively place your foot on a piece of paper and mark each end of the foot on the piece of paper and then measure between the marks.
NB: Your snowboarding boot size may not be the same as your normal shoe size – and sizing may vary.
Want more Accuracy?
If you want to be completely sure you are getting the right width before you buy and are fussier about this, there are a couple of other options. i.e. if you have narrowed down your choice to a particular board but want to make sure the waist is fine before you buy.
Option #1: You could try measuring your foot and contact a store and ask them to measure your foot length against the width of the board at the inserts and at your preferred binding angles if you know them (if you don’t know your binding angles use this as a guide).
I haven’t tried this so not sure how accommodating they would be – but assuming they want your sale they should do this I would imagine.
Option #2: Go into a physical snowboarding shop and place your feet on the board at the angles you think they will be at. If the run from edge to edge (on the underside of the board) or overhang by up to 5mm on toe-edge and heel edge (10mm total overhang) – or underhang by up to 2mm on toe-edge and heel edge (4mm total underhang) then your good.
Option 2 would be the most accurate way of knowing, of course, it just requires you going into a store physically. Of course, you don’t necessarily have to buy in store if you can find a cheaper price on line (and can resist the sales staff’s charms!)
Option #3: Contact me using the comments below and I can let you know my opinion on the particular snowboard you are looking at.
This won’t be millimetre perfect but should be slightly more accurate than your average width sizing chart.
Buying Snowboards
As the average snowboard boot size for a male is between 8.5 and 11.0 US Men’s (remember snow board boot size can differ to normal shoe sizes – they’re usually the same but can fit 1/2 size smaller or 1/2 size larger (or even up to a whole sizes in some cases). The most common waist widths are going to accommodate for those sizes.
Hence, the largest number of men’s snowboard options fall within a certain waist width range. So there are more options for those waist width ranges than others. And the further from those “normal” ranges you get the fewer the options become.
But there are still plenty of options for those with smaller and larger feet.
Similarly for women’s boards – the more common sizes are more catered for.
Boards too Wide in Your Length
Sometimes a balancing act needs to be made between the best length for you and the best width. Usually there will be a good width in your length. But not always. If you are someone who can’t find a board narrow enough for your feet in your most suited length, it is often necessary to compromise a little bit.
If you decrease the length a little bit then this counteracts the fact that the board might be wider than ideal. A shorter length board is more agile, and a board that is too wide for you is less agile. So going shorter brings some or all of the agility that you loose with the extra width. Also, the extra width adds back stability for landings and float in powder that is reduced by going with a shorter length.
What Next?
Now that You’ve Hopefully figured out your width 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 length range and to find a board that will suit the way you like to ride and where you like to ride.
>>Find Your Snowboard Length Range
>>Find Your Style of Snowboard
Already know your length 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
EXTRA READING
How Much Margin for Error?
Fortunately there is a bit of room for error in width sizing of snowboards as has been mentioned.
This is a good thing because it’s always going to be hard to tell exactly what the width at the inserts is. This information isn’t generally published and waist width (narrowest point of the board at the centre of the board) measurements (which are published) don’t give you the exact picture.
There are several variances that can affect the width at insert compared to the waist width, namely
- Side cut radius (how sharp the angle of the curve is)
- Stance width
- Binding angles
Thankfully none of these things makes too much difference. Binding angles make the most differences – which is why I now have 2 men’s and 2 women’s tables above, to account for different binding angles.
Sidecut Radius:
I compared the difference at insert for a board with a waist width of 252 and a side cut radius of 6.5m and one with 9m.
252 waist width at 6.5 sidcut radius = 263 at insert
252 waist with a 9 sidecut = 260mm at insert
So that’s a difference of 3mm. This is starting to become significant however this is an extreme case. As boards are designed with a certain width in mind the difference in side cut between boards with a 252 waist width would seldom be this wide.
In fact, out of 175 men’s freestyle boards I analyzed, the largest variance of side cut radii at any given waist width, was 1.25metres and the average variance was only 0.57 metres.
The variance of 1.25 metres was on boards with waist widths of 264mm. The difference in width at insert even at 1.25 metres of variance was only 1.5mm (difference between the width at insert in relation to waist width, caused by side cut variances).
In most cases the difference would be much less (and I suspect with a larger sample size that the variance at waist width 264mm would move closer to the average) – probably less than half of this in most cases. So we’re looking at around a 0.5mm to 0.75mm difference – so not too much to worry about there.
For freeride boards the side cut variances between different boards may be more extreme.
I’m a total geek with this stuff and I know it!
Stance width:
Even a whole inch wider or narrower than the reference stance width (and it’s unlikely that you will be that far off the reference width if you have the right length of board) only increases or decreases the width by 1.5mm with a 6.5metre side cut radius – so that’s with a sharper than average curve.
The lower the radius the sharper the curve and 6.5 is on the lower side. The higher the side cut radius the less difference the variance from reference stance will make.
Side cut radius tend to be a smaller number (so a sharper curve angle and therefore make more difference for stance widths) on shorter length boards and women’s boards. But they shouldn’t make any more difference than 1.5mm per inch (25.4mm) of stance width variance, given that the experiment above was conducted using a 6.5m side cut, and very few boards will have a side cut smaller than that.
Binding Angles:
This probably makes the biggest difference and is particularly the case for certain binding angle set ups.
For example if you have front foot 15 degrees and back foot 0 degrees, the back foot is going to be flat on the board meaning that it will essentially be longer than the front foot.
i.e. if the front foot (at 15 degrees) was to span the board perfectly from edge to edge then the back foot (at zero degrees) could have overhang of up to 4-5mm on both the heel-edge and the toe-edge of the foot (total 8-10mm of overhang).
In some cases though, the back foot might be at maximum overhang and the front foot might have slightly more underhang than is ideal on the front foot. But it shouldn’t be the case that this is too extreme in most cases.
With a setback stance the back binding (always on the same or less of an angle than the front binding) is usually on a wider part of the board and the front binding is usually on a narrower part of the board (closer to the waist width) and can completely or somewhat offsets the differences made by the differing binding angles (depending on the board and the binding angles used).
With a lot of freeride boards the tail is narrower and the nose is wider, however it’s still usually the case that the width at the back inserts is a little bit wider than the front inserts, even as it’s tapering to the back binding.
Other Variations:
Boot bevel, the profile of the boot, and how thick your base plate is (i.e. how high off the snowboard you are) will also have some effect on how wide your snowboard will need to be.
Width sizing is definitely the most complicated part of snowboard sizing and the hardest part to get accurate – but it is also an important part. The width sizing charts earlier in this post can give you some idea but they will never be entirely accurate.
Usually, however, they don’t need to be millimeter perfect and you should be able find something that works for you fairly easily that fits within the margin of error.
Wow Nate,
This info has kinda blown my mind.
It has also made choosing my next board harder than I realised it was going to be.’
I was looking at something like the Lib Dynamo or the Capita Aeronaut –
But with a foot size of 255mm in a DC Control US8 – neither of these boards are going to be narrow enough at the inserts are they? Even running the back binging at 0 degrees.
Im around 177cm and 82kgs and looking for an All Resort Freestyle/ride directional shape.
Hi Barney, thanks for your message.
Sorry to make it harder, but hopefully it will help you to get it right!
With your boot size, what I would do is size down the length. Sizing the length down a bit is a good way to compensate for any negative effects of the width being wide for your feet.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 159, but with 8s, I would size down around 3-4cms, if possible. So, for the Dynamo, I would be looking at the 156 and the Aeronaut the 155 (the 157 would be a possibility, but I would be erring 155 in this case). Those sizes should work well for you, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome Nate thanks – that helps a lot.
I thought I might have to look at different boards due to being at the upper end of the weight range in those sizes.
You’re very welcome Barney. And yeah, I wouldn’t be worried about being at the upper end of the weight range.
Hello,
I’ve been riding the wrong size boots (11) for a while, and since I had large Burton step on bindings, it took me a while to buy medium step ons bindings to size the right boot. My feet are 27.3cm and I sized down to a 10 in Burton photons and that seems correct now. Since I’ve been riding 11s for the past 3 years all of the boards I have purchased have all been wides. I’m 45 years old, 5’10 and 195-205 pounds. I have fairly strong legs and a decent build and I have never felt like any of my wide boards have been less than responsive or hard to turn. My most recent have been a Custom X 158w and a Hometown Hero 160w. The custom X 158w feels very responsive to me. The only board I have that has felt like I’ve had to put some effort into it is my Endeavor Archetype 164, 264 waist width. I expected that since I sized it up more for powder. So my question is, should I worry that I should have purchased the regular width boards? I also appreciate the additional dampening of the wide boards on my knees at 45 yrs old. Am I missing out on a lot of potential responsiveness and I don’t realize it? Or am I overthinking this? Oh, and when a place my feet at my binding angles at the inserts it seems like I am pretty much touching edge to edge. Thanks in advance. And your website and advice is amazing.
Hi Shawn, thanks for your message.
I think you should be OK, based on how you’ve experienced wide boards so far – and if you do change and really like the change, you might have to re-stock your whole quiver! From what I’ve learned it tends to be lighter riders or those with less strong legs that have more trouble with wider boards. I don’t like to go wide (unless I size down the length a bit), and I’m not that small (180lbs) and wouldn’t say I have week legs, but they’re also not super strong or anything. But I think I’m about the cut off. Most smaller or less strong than me would have more issues with wide boards than those who are stronger/bigger.
In terms of changing boots and bindings and whether that will affect things, I would say in terms of boots it will have little to no effect. The leverage that’s being applied to the board comes mostly from the feet, IMO, so having boots that are longer might add a little something to that leverage, but I imagine it would be minimal going from an 11 to a 10. The bindings might have a little more of an effect – the medium will have a shorter baseplate and how close that base plate gets to the edges does have more of an effect of applying leverage to the edges more easily, but while I’d say it’s a greater influence than the length of the boots, it’s still not going to be a huge thing – and again, it’s likely to be a bigger thing for lighter, less strong riders than otherwise.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate! I’m a 5’8 male with size 7 us boots and I weigh 140lbs. I really struggle to find a board within the proper length and waist width for myself (even with womens boards). How much should i be willing to compromise in terms of waist width and board length in order to find a happy medium? I’m looking to get a board for park/freestyle that I can also do a bit of all mountain with.
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 152, but most will be wide in that length for you, so I get your dilemma here. What I’d do is look for something that’s around 149. Something that’s still a bit wide for your boots, but reducing that length to compensate.
Something like one of these would be a good bet, IMO:
– Burton Good Company 148
– Rome Agent 148
– Capita Ultrafear 149
– GNU Headspace 149
– Never Summer Proto Slinger 149
These should all go really well in the park for you, but can handle the rest of the mountain with as well, to an extent, so long as your not really bombing it.
Hope this helps
Nate,
I am looking at picking up a capita navigator 158 but I am a bit concerned about the size. I am 180lbs and will be wearing a size 10.5 boot. I am mid-intermediate skill wise and will likely not be laying it over to aggressively. Do you think the 158 will be wide enough.
Thanks!
Hi Zac, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – way behind atm!)
You should be good width-wise on the 158, IMO. I measured the Navigator at 270mm at the front insert and 266mm at the back insert. Anything that’s at least 265mm at the inserts will be good for 10.5s in most cases, in my experience. If you were riding in bulky boots (some have a longer outsole than others) had a flat back binding angle (something like 0 degrees or 3 degrees) and were laying pretty aggressive carves, then you may run into some boot drag. But in most cases, you’ll be good with that width. I’d personally be comfortable with that width with 10.5s.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late)
Hi Nate! Thank you for this awesome resource and for taking the time to respond to me and others in the comments. It’s greatly appreciated. If you have a moment, I would love to get your take on the ideal board setup for me. Here’s my details;
Looking for help with snowboard width size and board recommendation.
Height: 6’3” / male
Weight: 180
Boot size: 10.5 Burton Ion
Age: 42
Location: predominantly ride at Mammoth CA
Rider level: intermediate to advanced. 30 years of riding experience. 25 to 30 days per season.
Current boards: NS Easy Rider 158w, NS Shape Shifter 158
My current snowboard (Never Summer Easy Rider) is slightly stiffer and heavier than I prefer. I also miss having more camber underfoot as I feel like I have to ride the NS ‘centered’ at all times or it washes out. I ride the Shape Shifter on powder days.
Ideal board: Looking for a playful, forgiving true twin that I can use to cruise groomers with my wife who is a beginner/intermediate. Because my wife is learning and slower than me, I like to challenge myself by riding switch (50% of time) and learning ground tricks/side hits. I’ve become strong at riding switch and really enjoy it. I’ll take a few laps through the mini-park occasionally for fs/bs 180s and simple features like boxes, but due to my age, I’m not getting crazy in the park.
I’m looking at the Capita Indoor Survival and Capita Spring Break Resort Twin. The reviews on the Indoor Survival sound awesome, but I worry it’s slightly more aggressive than I need and will require I stay very ‘dialed in’ when riding. In contrast, the Spring Break sounds slightly more forgiving, given more rocker in the tip and tail, and won’t punish me if I make a small mistake. Any thoughts on either of these boards given my preferences? Other boards you would encourage me to consider?
Next is the size of the board. Given my weight, it seems like the 158 is the right length, but where I’m tripped up is the width with the 10.5 boot. The indoor survival has a waste width of 26.0 but also has ‘magnitraction bump’ which makes it deceptively wider at the mid-point. Thoughts on if the regular 158 would work or do I need to go with the 158 wide?
Thank you!
Hi Joe, thanks for your message
I would be leaning Resort Twin in this case. The Indoor Survival is something you’ll want to be more dialed in on, the Resort Twin is more playful and forgiving, like you suspect. From what you’re describing, I think the Resort Twin is a good match. I can look at others if you’d like, but if you want to keep it simple, I think the Resort Twin should work well.
I think the 158 in the Resort Twin would be a good bet and should be easily wide enough for 10.5s, IMO.
If you went Indoor Survival I’d say 158 as well. You shouldn’t need to go wide on it. It’s still going to be around 269mm at the inserts, assuming a roughly 22″ (560mm stance width), which is plenty for 10.5s, IMO.
I imagine part of why you find the Easy Rider stiffer and heavier is because it’s the wide version. If a board is wide for our fit, the torsional flex tends to feel stiffer, because it takes more effort to apply leverage to the edges. And wide boards are naturally heavier vs the same length in a narrower board. The Easy Rider isn’t super light to begin with, but it’s not much heavier than average in the regular version. The Indoor Survival and Resort Twin are relatively heavier than a lot of Capita boards, but they are what I’d call mid-wide, so given their extra width they are pretty light. And the regular width 157 Easy Rider was still a little heavier than the 156 Resort Twin and Indoor Survival that I weighed. In the wide version that would be noticeably heavier.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
This is such a good page.
And it’s so kind of you to answer all these comments.
Buying the right board with my bootsize has always been tricky.
I would love to get your opinion on my board choice if you have a moment.
I just ordered a board and realized that I am 2cm over the edges.
I am wearing US 11 vans infuse (my weight: 158lb) and in my long snowboarding life I learned that I am right on the edge between being able to ride a mid wide board and needing a wide board. Now before I am unwrapping the board I am considering selling it again.
I am a good rider. I do like to carve and I ride a lot of powder and uneven Terrain at whitewater skiresort BC.
I picked the Yes PYL uninc DCP in 157.
Waist width is 261, rear foot only 26.7.
Do you think 2cm over the edges is fine to ride deep pow and carve it up or should I find a wider board?
My back foot angle is usually -3 or -6
Thank you so much for this awesome page.
Hi Moritz, thanks for your message.
It’s a close call for sure. 2cm overhang per edge is usually fine (assuming that’s your boot’s overhang), in my experience. Now, I wouldn’t say I’m doing any super high angle carves or anything, but I do like to carve relatively aggressively, particularly when the conditions are right and the board is well suited for it.
Looking purely at the numbers, with the footprint of the size 11 Infuse being around 31.3cm and 26.8cm at the back insert (I rode the 155 PYL Uninc last winter and measured the back insert at 26.7cm and front insert at 27cm, so I’d expect the 157 to be 26.8 at the back and 27.1 at the front, but I see YES measures the 157 at 26.7/27.3), I would expect a 4.5cm total overhang (or 2.25cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering) – all assuming reference stance width. A 3 degree binding angle wouldn’t make much difference, and a 6 degree not that much more (overhang savings per 3 degrees aren’t linear) – some rough numbers to work off for overhang savings at different binding angles:
Binding ° overhang savings
3° 0.36mm (0.04cm)
6° 1.6mm (0.16cm)
9° 3.54mm (0.35cm)
12° 6.36mm (0.64cm)
15° 9.6mm (0.96cm)
18° 14.12mm (1.41cm)
Typically I’d be OK with that much overhang. But it’s borderline, particularly if you’re heavy carving. Powder does mean that you’re going get boot drag easier, but it’s typically not a problem unless it’s really wet snow. In light dry powder, you’re going to be getting boot drag, even if you’re underhanging, in most cases, but it shouldn’t affect your ride. Wetter, heavier snow is a different story – but again it’s relative as you won’t sink as easily into wet snow – and its slower so you’re more likely to be point and shoot.
To be safe, I’d probably go minimum 27cm at the back insert, given your 3-6 degree back binding angle. You might get away with it, but I’d say it’s risky.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello Nate,
Thanks for the really great website! And sorry for my english, iam from Switzerland🙂
I have a question about snowboard sizes.
I have already driven the nitro team gullwing 157 wide (first board) and the second board bataleon global warmer 154 (not wide and funny board)
Iam 79 kg and 179 cm, boots EU 44.0-44.5
Bindings Union Force ca +14 / – 10
I’m looking for a snowboard for All mountain, freestyle, carving a liitle bit powder and flatricks/small jumps…
I want to try more carving and allmountain, but still remain a little playful.
I have to decide for:
– Jones Mountain Twin 153 wide
– Jones Mountain Twin 157
– Jones Mountain Twin 156 wide
Do you have any advice on which size I should take?
Thanks a lot and greets from Switzerland.
Hi Kevin, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 158/159, but given you want to keep it a little playful, I think sizing to the 156W or 157 would be a good bet. I think the 153W is getting a little too small.
Width-wise, if your boots translate to a 28.5cm Mondopoint, then I think you’ll be fine on the 157. If they translate to a 29cm mondopoint, the 156W would be the better bet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Aloha Nate.
Thank you so much for your write up. You have probably answered this so my apologies ahead of
Time.
My son is 5”11-6ft. He’s got size 10 boots. He only weighs 135 lbs though. I’m trying to buy him a board. He’s a beginner.
Being that he is so light what size and width boards would you be looking at?
I been trying to get him something maybe a little less length maybe 152-154 but the width for his shoe size is prett narrow. Many are around 248-251 waist width. For example ride agenda is 152 but with width 251. Gnu gwo is 153 but 248 wide. Nitro prime raw has a 155 at 254 waist width.
Just figured I’d see if I could get some input. Much appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
Hi Gopal, thanks for your message and happy thanksgiving!
I would put your son’s “typical all-mountain” length at around 153, so, I’d try not to go any longer than 154, particularly if he’s a beginner. Even that’s longer than what I’d typically recommend, but taking into account that he’s likely to add weight in the near future, I’m guessing? – then going in that 152-154 range gives him some room, so he doesn’t outgrow it too soon. Optimally for right now, I would be looking at something in the 148-150 range, if he’s never snowboarded before. Or more like 150-152, if he’s snowboarded, but not much yet. But when kids are still growing I understand there needs to be some leeway to let them grow into a bit. I just wouldn’t go too far with that notion – if he goes too big now, he will likely struggle with it. Something in that 152-154 range gives him something now that shouldn’t be too difficult to manage but at the same time he won’t outgrow too soon.
In terms of width, it’s going to depend on a few things, but for the most part I wouldn’t worry too much about it at his stage, with size 10s. As a beginner, he’s not going to be riding aggressively enough to get boot drag on most men’s boards in that size range.
If you go with the Prime, I would go 152. It’s going to be well wide enough, IMO – and a much better length for him, IMO, than the 155. The Agenda 152 would be fine width-wise, IMO. The GWO 153 is narrower – so that’s the only one that’s really going to be pushing it width-wise of those 3. You’d likely still be OK, but given there are other options (and there are others besides the Prime and Agenda) that are a safer bet, it might be wise to go for the slightly wider options.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Thanks for this article! I’ve read it multiple times and learned allot of it. Still i’m struggling with making a choise for my first snowboard and its waist width.
I currently have in my possesion a Rome artifact PRO 153 and a Rome artifact PRO 155W. I have to send one of them back. I also have the union strata bindings L. The 153 has a waist width of 25.4 and 27 on the binding side. The 155W has a waist width of 26.6 and 27.5 on the binding side. My feet are 28.5cm in length. I don’t own boots yet.
My dilemma now is that i would love to keep and ride the 153. I actually dont want a wide board because I really want a board thats verry responsive. I will have much less of that with the wide one. Also I have big feet but i’m only 170cm in height and weigh 70KG.
On the other side I don’t want to fall down all day because of catching edges either…
So in theory i should go for the wide but my heart says to go for the 153. Do you think it could work with the 153? I’m no beginner at snowboarding but no proffesional either. I’m not someone thats carving with his hole body on the floor, just doing some runs with higher speed and taking some jumps.
Kind Regards,
Jens
Hi Jens, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – life keeps getting in the way!)
I measured the 153 Artifact Pro at 266mm at the inserts. If you get into 10.5 boots, then you shouldn’t have any issues with the 153 width-wise, IMO. If you end up in 11s, then it’s pushing it more. In that case, I’d want other factors to be in my favor – i.e. +15/-15 binding angles – or similar – something with at least 12 degrees on the back foot. And low profile boots.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late)
Hi Nate,
Thank you for you’re reply!
I now bought boots that fit me, Vans Aura Pro and they are size 11,5 US. I placed them in my bindings on the 153. I made a slightly steeper surface and turned the board to check the max I could go before booting out but stil it’s hard to be certain if this wil be a problem or not… (also took pictures of this) i have a toe and heel overvang of 2,5cms with my boots on -15/+15. If i watch this video i’d like to believe i can go for the 153. I just dont want to have dangereous situations when i want to go full on the breaks and i cant stop because of heel drag.
https://youtu.be/GNJ70GPmync?si=-QV1BvJ57KwFfwyc
Hi Jens
I’m usually the first to advocate for not going wide, if you don’t have to. But the key there is if you don’t have to. I think there are more cases where you don’t have to versus what a lot might think. But in some cases you really should. In this case, it’s a very close call. Your toe and heel overhang sound about what I’d guestimate them at with Vans Aura Pro 11.5s (I got 2.6cm per edge, but only 1mm in it).
In terms of 2.5cm overhang, that’s the max I would want to go but you may get away with it, depending on how deep you want to carve and terrain you’ll be riding in. In softer snow, there’d be a greater risk of boot drag and carving on higher angles you’d be at greater risk too. However, in the case of not being able to break, if you were in softer snow, then I would imagine that wouldn’t stop you from stopping, even if your boots were dragging – that situation would be more in hard/icy snow, where the chances of boot drag are less. Also to consider is that when you are needing to stop like that, you’re probably not at an angle that you would be in a deep carve. I haven’t thought of that particular scenario in terms of boot drag – I’d only considered in relation to carving, but you make a good point. No guarantees of course, but in that scenario, I don’t think it would be an issue, with 2.5cm overhang. And assuming you were trying to stop on your heel edge, it’s more difficult to get those steeper angles on the heel edge than on the toe side, so typically I’d be more concerned with the toe side edge for boot drag.
tldr; if you’re going to be doing high angle carves, then I think you’d be really pushing it with 11.5s. The fact that you have low profile boots and you’re at +15/-15 is definitely in your favor though – and if you don’t foresee yourself doing any big angle carves in the near future, you’ll probably get away with it, for now.
Hi Nate!
First of all, I want to point out how precise and helpful your guides are… really an amazing work.
I have a question regarding a Ride Shadowban that I’ve been eyeing for this season. I’m a light rider at ~140 lbs, 5’11” tall, and I wear size 10 US K2 Maysis boots (external length 30.2 cm). I’m torn between the 154, 157, and 155W. Considering that I love to carve and have had some toe drag issues with my last board, which of these sizes would fit me best?
P.S. For width at the bindings, the 154 is 26.3 cm, and the 157 is 26.5 cm.
Thanks a lot in advance!!
Hi Geremia, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – life keeps getting in the way!)
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154, so I would be leaning 154, though the 155W is certainly doable, particularly if you’re concerned about boot drag.
With your boots being 30.2cm on the outsole and the 154 at 26.3cm, you’re looking at an overhang of 3.9cm (or roughly 2cm per edge), if you were riding with a back binding that was at zero degrees. I would personally be comfortable with this width – and even more so with more angle on the back binding. If you were getting boot drag on you last board, then I would check the width at inserts on that (if you still have it – if you don’t let me know the brand/model it was and I can see it’s something we’ve measured.
If the 154 is a similar width at inserts to your old board, then I’d go 155W. But if the 154 Shadowban is wider at the inserts, then I’d go with the 154. I think it’s overall the better size, IF you don’t get boot drag with it.
Hope this helps (if it’s not too late)
Hello Nate,
felt in love with the Libtech Cygnus. And unfortunately I can only get it in 157cm. I normally ride a 161 board.
I have Nitro Club Duo Boa boots in US 10.5 / 28.5 MP / 43,75. The outer size of my boots is 31,7 cm.
Cygnus width in 157 is 26,1 cm, my current board has 26,4 cm. I dont carve very high edge angles and normally have +15 and -9.
Does the width fit?
Hi Nico, thanks for your message.
We haven’t tested (or measured) the Cygnus, so can’t say for sure what the width at the inserts would be. But based on other Lib Tech boards, it’s very likely to be between 26.8cm and 26.9cm at the inserts. With your angles and boot length and how you carve, I think you should be fine width-wise on the 157 Cygnus. Straight across you’re looking at around a 4.8-4.9cm total overhang or 2.4cm per edge (if you had perfect boot centering). With your 15 degree angle on your front foot you’re looking at more like 3.8-4.0cm total overhang and on your back around 4.4-4.6cm (note that each successive increase in angle gives a greater decrease in overhang than the previous angle increase – i.e. it’s not a linear formula).
TLDR; you should be all good with those angles, your boot length and how you like to carve, assuming you don’t have more overhang on your toes than your heels and overall the overhang is relatively even on both toe and heel edge.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for the awesome guide!
Right now I’m torn between the 149 and 153w version of the Jones mountain twin, I’m 160lb and wear a size 9 boot, waist length is 24.4cm for the 149 and 25.7 for the 153w. I worry that the 149 would be too much of an over hang but 153w might cause an under-hang since the spec sheet recommends boot size >9.5. My weight is also slightly over the upper range of the recommended weight range for the 149(110-160lb). These are the only two size in stock so options like 154 and 151 is not available right now. Just curious to see what you think about the sizing situation?
Additionally, how will the Bataleon thunderstorm compare to the mountain twin? I’ mostly doing resort grooms and powder but would hope to get into some more mountain soon. Thanks again for all the guidance!
Hi David, thanks for your message.
If you could also let me know your height, that would be great. While weight and foot size are more important than height, IMO, I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor. But I suspect that the 149 is likely a bit small. Width-wise, you may be OK, depending on your binding angles, stance width, the profile of your boots (depends on brand and model) and how deep you like to carve. If you can let me know those things it would help, but likely I think you’d be OK width-wise as the Mountain Twin is a little wider at the inserts than you’d think when just looking at waist width.
The 153W is a bit wide to be optimal, IMO. If you were going to go Mountain Twin, I think it’s likely that the 151 or 154 would be better and I wouldn’t compromise on size. I’d either wait for the new model or go with something else, rather than compromise on size. But if you coudl let me know that extra info, that would be great, to help confirm.
– your height
– boot brand/model
– binding angles
– stance width
– how deep you like to carve
The Thunderstorm is a little more directional than the Mountain Twin, but otherwise relatively similar-ish kind of board. The main differences, IMO, are:
– The Thunderstorm a touch softer flexing, but very subtly
– Thunderstorm a little better in powder
– Mountain Twin a little better in icy conditions
– Thunderstorm a little quicker turning at slower speeds
– Mountain Twin a little better for switch
Otherwise fairly similar performance.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I’m looking for a new all mountain board with powder/tree/freeride focus for a one board quiver. I’m an experienced rider with 25 years of riding background and I tend to ride about 10 days in a year. I look for powder and off piste almost as much as I can, but want the board to be able to handle other types of riding as well (although I rarely go to park). When on groomers I like to go pretty fast, but my riding buddies vary in skill level, so I want the board to be fun in some lower speeds as well. I’ve been looking into Jones Stratos or Hovercraft 2.0 as well as Burton Hometown Hero or Flight Attendant – or something similar to those. Or Lib Tech Orca.
I’m 164 cm (so about 5’5″) and weight 58 kg (130 lbs). My foot is 24,5 cm long, but when testing Burton boots I think EU 40,5 or 41 would have been the best sizes (maybe I’m allowing too much space in the boots?) I feel that looking at my height and weight, the board should be about 148-150 cm (or maybe a few cm longer because of my preferred style?), but the boards that I’ve been looking at are wider than your recommendations (Jones also has width at bindings – very helpful!) Also, the manufacturer’s own recommendations for foot sizes tend to suggest longer boards than would be optimal for my height/weight. What’s your take on these? Any opinions on the boards I’ve been looking at or other suggestions?
Also, what’s your opinion on volume shifted boards like Orca? They don’t play by the same rules – so should be downsized according to the manufacturer’s instructions, but are they still cumbersome or slow to turn? Never got to try one myself.
Hey Toni
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of volume shifted boards, it really depends on foot size and the relative length you go with. So while they are sometimes a good option, they still have to play by the rules of physics, so unless you size down their length, relative to your foot size, they are going to be slow to turn as you’re still going to struggle to get leverage on the edges of the board. You could size down to 147 and it does get narrower at that width, but you’re still looking at a roughly 26.5cm at the back insert (assuming a roughly 530mm (21″) stance width. You might ride with a narrower stance, but even so probably no narrower than 26.2cm. This is still 1.7cm wider than your feet. Since you’re sizing down, it might be OK, but I don’t think it would end up being super quick edge to edge for you. Going to 144 would likely be good edge-to-edge but I think it’s getting too small overall. And even if the surface area was OK, you’re still likely to lack stability at speed when you’re on edge. When you’re on edge, the board doesn’t know how wide it is – by going down to 144 you’re going to have a pretty small effective edge and edge hold and stability on a higher speed carve aren’t going to be great, so I wouldn’t go that small.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 149. With a freeride type board you can go a little longer, given most freeride boards have a smaller effective edge to overall length ratio, because more of the total length is outside the contact points vs an all-mountain and freestyle oriented boards (so effectively you take advantage of that extra length in the nose only in softer powder and it doesn’t come into play on harder snow, except in terms of swing weight – which, while it does affect how quickly you can whip a board around, it’s not by that much – the most detrimental thing of that extra swing weight is for spinning, but if you’re not doing that, then the powder benefits outweigh the small downside).
Note that it’s your feet, rather than your boot size that has the most influence on applying pressure/leverage to the edges of a board, so even if you’re in a longer board, it’s not going to supply much more leverage on the edges, as most of it is coming from your feet.
Given that you want to be able to have good float in powder and also still have good maneuverability at slow speeds (for trees and when you’re riding with slower riders) I would opt for something a little longer, but in a more mellow flex. The extra length will help when you’re in the powder and even out the loss of stability by going with a softer flex vs a stiffer flex, but at the same time be more agile and better at slower speeds than a stiffer, more aggressive board would be at that longer length. Hope that makes sense.
With all that in mind, I would go Hovercraft 2.0 over the Stratos – or even go a little softer and go Mind Expander. But the Hovercraft 2.0, in my experience, has mellowed out a lot from the original Hovercraft and I think is something that would work well for what you’re describing – if it comes in a suitable size, which we’ll take a look at soon.
Similarly, I would go Hometown Hero over Flight Attendant, as it’s a little softer/more mellow. I would also consider the Deep Thinker, which is at least as soft/mellow, probably more, but it’s lighter and snappier. That may not be something you want, but the option is there. Between the Hometown Hero and Deep Thinker, I would go Hometown Hero (or Skeleton Key) if you want something a little damper/smooth or the Deep Thinker if you wanted something lighter and snappier – but it will feel more chatter than the other 2, in my experience.
In terms of sizing, when I say longer, I think it depends on the width. If it’s a good size for your feet, you could go longer, but in reality you’re likely to to find they are a bit wider even around that length. So, I think going around that 149 mark is probably going to work best, given that they’ll still be overall bigger, in terms of length/width combined.
For the Hovercraft 2.0 I would go 148 – it’s going to be fairly wide at that length for your boots, but still not quite as wide as the Orca and it’s a mellower flex than the Orca, in my experience, so should be easier to whip around at slower speeds.
For the Mind Expander I’d go 150. It’s quite wide at the front, but quite narrow at the back (some serious taper) – overall surface area very similar to the Hovercraft 2.0 148 (also really handy that Jones show surface area!)
For the Hometown Hero I’d go 148.
For the Deep Thinker I’d say there’s not a suitable size.
For the Skeleton Key, I’d go 150.
Some options you may not have considered:
– K2 Passport 149
– Capita the Navigator 151 (or 147 if you wanted to go smaller, but I think you’d be good with the 151 on this one, and it allows you to go longer without going too too wide)
Hope this helps
Thanks for the detailed reply, Nate!
A few small follow ups: Seems like there is already a good selection of boards to choose from! Thanks for the suggestions. They all seem like very good choices. I hadn’t really looked into K2 before, but looking through the catalog, Excavator also looks promising – and actually quite similar to Hovercraft 2.0.
One main difference seems to be that Hovercraft has much longer effective edge compared to the others. Hovercraft’s effective edge is also much longer than Burton Hometown Hero’s or similar boards’. Capita Navigator has a similar effective edge length in 151 cm size than Hovercraft in 144. Others have shorter edge lengths even though they are longer in size. Is that what affects boards’ stability at speed or are there also other factors? So if going for Hovercraft, should I also be looking at 144 or are there other factors to consider? Of course the surface area would be smaller in a shorter board and would affect float.
Thanks in advance 🙂
Hi Toni
We haven’t tested the Excavator, but on paper it looks like it could be suitable.
Effective edge is one factor. In terms of stability at speed, effective edge affects this, when you are carving at speed, even if just a little on edge. A larger surface area however does help with stability at speed also. When you’re right up on edge, it doesn’t really come into play, but if you’re flat basing or only a little on edge, particularly in softer snow, then it does come into play. Camber profiles also affect stability at speed – typically speaking the more camber, then better stability. And the stiffness has a big affect on stability at speed. A stiffer board, all else being equal, will feel more stable at speed vs a softer flexing board.
For the Hovercraft, you could consider it in 144. I think that would be within range for you for sure. As you’ll probably guess by now, you’d be sacrificing a bit of stability at speed and powder float, but get better maneuverability.
Hey Nate,
Thanks a lot for this article. I don’t know if you could please help me. I got the burton hometown hero 2021 156W. My boots are burton Ion 11.5. It seems like I have a bit more than 2 cm longer on heel and toe edge, boots wise. I didn’t really feel the overhang as I wasn’t a big carver but this winter I really want to get deeper into carving. Is this too much overhang ? Thanks!
Hi Marc
Thanks for your message. With 11.5 Ions I would imagine you would be good in most situations, but could be borderline, depending. I would say you’re looking at around 4.8cm of total overhang (roughly 2.4cm per edge), assuming a zero degree binding angle and 560mm (22″) stance width.
With increased binding angles you will decrease the amount of overhang. It won’t be noticeable with 3 degrees (<1mm) but with 6 (~1.5mm), 9 (~3.5mm), 12 (~6mm) and 15 (~10mm) you get some savings. Note that it's not linear, so with each increase in binding angle, you get a greater increase in overhang savings.
In terms of stance width, you'd be looking at around 2-3mm for every 1.5" (40mm) of stance width increase. Or if you were narrower then that would increase overhang.
With 2.4cm per edge, I think you'd probably be OK. If you're looking to get really deep with your carves, like eurocarving, then there would be risk of boot drag. But I've personally not had issues with that much overhang.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
Your website is incredible, here is where im finding more information about this world. Thank you a lot for your work.
I have some seroius problems deciding about what snowboard to buy.
I´ve been snowboarding for almost 15 years, doing it like 6-8 days per season. I like to go fast, do carvs and explore some variable terrain. I am recently starting to go find some powder so i want a board that is going to make me improve in this but that also is a one quiver board. I mean, i want to use it every day i go, sometimes i go with my little brothers and i like to do some spins, switch a little bit etc…
Im 28 years old, and my length is 184 cm and my weight is 78-80 kg. My foot size is 45 eu, 11 us.
I´ve been investigating a little bit about the jones montain twin and the avigator 2.0, also some capita boards like the navigator… i dont konw…
I also want to know if i need to go wide on the snowboard i buy, because of my foot sice…
Just in case this info also helps, i consider myself a good surfer, a surfed almost every day for 18 years and i continue to do it a lot.
Thank you a lot again
Hi Joanes
Thanks for your message.
The Mountain Twin is a very good option for a bit of everything, in my opinion, so it would work for sure. But if you wanted to optimize it more for speed/carving, then the Aviator 2.0. Just not as easy to spin and not as good in powder. A good in between, from Capita would be the Capita Mercury. The Navigator would work as well, but won’t be as good for switch/spins for when you’re with your younger brother. So, I would be looking at either the Mountain Twin or Mercury, if you’re looking for that all round kind of board. If you wanted something that was better at speed/carving, but still as good in powder, but a little more board to handle (stiffer) and not as good at slower speeds, you could also look at the Jones Ultra Mountain Twin and Capita Mega Mercury.
Width-wise, you’ll likely need to go wide for most boards, but not all.
In terms of length, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. Both the Mountain Twin and Mercury are a little wider than normal for their regular widths, so if you were to go 160 MT/UMT and 161 (or even 159) Mercury/Mega Merc, then you may be able to go regular width, depending on the profile of your boots, binding angles, stance width and how you like to carve. If you could let me know those things, then I can give you a more accurate sizing opinion.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for this super comprehensive article!
I’d be keen to get your 2c on this; I’m about ~135lb, 5ft6 and a size 8-8.5 boot.
Headed to Japan soon and have an opportunity to pick up this pretty unique board for a bargain at a local shop: https://jp.deuscustoms.com/products/pt21-haflinger-black (It’s 148 / 245mm waist width with a big taper)
I’m a little wary that 245 might be at the absolute min. limit for my boot size based on your article as I’m pretty keen to try some deep carves with it.
What’re your thoughts?
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
Assuming 8.5 boots, you’d be looking at around a 29.5cm outer sole length, assuming an average profile boot. For deep carving I would be looking at no more than 2cm of overhang per edge, meaning, if you have a 0-3 degree back binding angle, you’d want the width at inserts on the back binding angle to be at least 25.5cm wide. With a 24.5cm waist width, it could well be that wide, but not necessarily. There’s a pretty broad range of differences between waist and insert widths (anything from 5mm to 20mm wider at inserts vs waist, though most typically between 8mm and 15mm), and having not measured this board it’s hard to say where it falls.
If you have a 6 degree binding angle on the back insert, then you’d save 2mm of overhang. And then at 9 degrees, 12 degrees and 15 degrees, you’d save more. If you had low profile boots, then you could save at least 5mm (at which point you’d have no issues, IMO) or if you were in 8s, then you shouldn’t have any issues, unless they were really bulky boots. If you already have boots, then if you could let me know the brand/model, that would help. And if you know your binding angles, that would also help.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much for getting back to me, that’s super helpful, and exactly what I was unsure of.
So essentially to be safe I need the insert width to be about 5mm wider on each edge than the waist width?
I’ve got a pair of DC Control (2019) boots in a size 8. Previously had a pair of burtons in a size 8 too but have fit an 8.5 in a pair of Ride and K2 boots I’ve tried.
Haven’t picked up bindings yet but thinking along the lines of Malavitas.
In terms of angle, planning to do a bit of experimenting on this but would be keen to try 0 tail / +12-15 nose initially.
Let me know what you think.
Really appreciate your help Nate!
Actually given how fine I’m cutting it on the waist width, and it being a powder/carver board – I’m starting to wonder if I’d be overpowering the overall board with my height/weight and boot specs…
Hi James
Thanks for the extra details.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 150, so going to the 148 is a little shorter. And often you would size up for a freeride board, though don’t have to, especially if you’re going to be riding trees. So in terms of height/weight, I don’t think you’d be overpowering it too much. In terms of having that extra leverage on the edges of the board, by having it borderline narrow, it’s more about your feet than your boots. Given you’re in 8s, it’s unlikely your foot length will be longer than 26cm. Assuming the back insert is around 25.3-25.5cm, which is likely, then you’re feet aren’t overhanging that much, so whilst that will give you good leverage on the edges, I don’t think it will lead to overpowering it too much from that. But it would depend on the flex of the board too, particularly the torsional flex. I couldn’t find anything about it’s flex. If it’s a softer board, then you may overpower it, if it’s stiffer, then you’d be unlikely to over power it too much.
In terms of overall width, with your DC Control, you’d probably be looking at a 29cm outer sole length. Assuming around a 25.3cm or even if it was as narrow as 25cm, you’d likely be good width-wise. It would be less certain with an 8.5 boot, particularly K2, which don’t tend to be low profile – and without knowing that back insert width, it’s hard to say how much overhang you’d be likely to have with an 8.5, but I’d say you’d be all good with your DC Control 8.
Hey Nate
Leaving this here for future references, maybe it’ll help someone.
I finally got to test the Lib Tech Stump Ape 161, I love it. The width is perfect, and the reduced length really helps with maneuverability. My boots are centered on the board and I have great control over it on both edges.
I paired it with Burton Malavita bindings. I tried multiple Rome and Union bindings before, but unfortunately none of their bindings would fit my size 15 Burton Imperial boots 🙁
Thanks once more for the help <3
-Ionut
Hi Ionut
Thanks for the update and insights. And great to hear the Stump Ape is working well for you!
Hey Nate,
This winter I want to purchase my own snowboard, as I have been riding rentals for many years, so today I ordered a Jones Mountain Twin 156W, with Jones Orion L Bindings and then I panic-canceled the order. The problem is, that I am not sure what width to look for, since I have quite a big boot for quite a low weight. Adding more to the problem is that I don’t even have snowboard boots yet, since I would like to try them before buying and there aren’t any decent shops in my country. Currently, I am looking at the Bataleon Whatever 156W, and thinking if 168mm width is too much. How should I go about choosing my gear?
About 46EU boot,
68Kg,
178mm
all-mountain
Based on a day typically ride +15, -15
Thx in advance
Martin
Hi Martin
Thanks for your message.
With your foot size. If you have around a mondo 30cm foot, I wouldn’t be worried about boards being too wide, unless they are wider than typical wide boards. But the average wide board will work well with your foot size, IMO, so long as you get something in the right length. For your height/weight specs, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155. If you’re more of a beginner/low intermediate rider, then you could size down from that to make it easier. But if you’re a solid intermediate rider or up, then something around 155W would be a good bet, IMO. In that case I think you could manage a 156W. The Whatever 156W, because it’s a softer more playful board, would be easier to manage than the Mountain Twin 156W. But I think you could manage that as well (again assuming at least solid intermediate) as it’s still a fairly easy going board.
But if you were wanting to look at a wide board in a length in that 153-155 kind of range, let me know and I can do a search for you. If you could just let me know a little more about your riding. Firstly, what would you consider your ability level? Secondly, how do you like to ride? e.g. fast? or more casual? deep carves or more easy going turns? park jumps? boxes/rails? sidehits? trees? are you often riding in icy conditions? Do you ride in powder? Like to ride switch? Spins? Butters? Anything you can tell me about your riding will help in finding the right board.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the quick reply! My level based on the scale you provided is 5/6. Since I get to do proper snowboarding only when going to places like the Alps or the Caucasus once a year, I like to do a bit of everything, one day after snowfall I will go to the tip of the mountain for the pow and the other I will do some jumps in the park, so really need a versatile board. In my home country, there are only a few “resorts” with a couple of 100m slopes (search Nomme Lumepark for info) so I do mainly park. Also worth mentioning, is that I usually go as fast as I can and sometimes ride switch.
Today I looked some more into the boards and loved the Bataleon Thunderstorm 156W. Is that a good option? Also could use some binding recommendations.
Thanks in advance
Martin
Also to clarify I’m not worried about boards not being too wide, but them not being wide enough. The board I canceled had a width of 259mm, which I think is too little, but is 262 better, or do I need even more.
Hi Martin
Ah I see. The Mountain Twin is a board that is a little wider than the waist width makes it look. The width at inserts on the 156W is going to be around 271mm at the front insert and 272mm at the back insert (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width). Not sure what brand boot you’re riding, so I’m not sure which mondo size your 46s would translate too (EU sizes tend to be different mondopoint sizes depending on the brand). If you’re a mondo 29.5, then I think the Mountain Twin 156W would be wide enough, but would depend on a few things, like binding angles. If your boots are mondo 30, then it would be more borderline.
Thanks for the extra info, re your level/style of riding.
The Thunderstorm 156W would be a good choice too, IMO. Width-wise, you’re looking at around 272mm at the front insert and 274mm at the back insert, so a little wider than the Mountain Twin. Again, if you’re mondo 30, it’s going to depend on binding angles (and the profile of your boots) as to whether you’ll find it wide enough. With mondo 29.5, it would probably be OK in most scenarios.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all of the info.
I’m having a hard time choosing my next board and I’m hoping to get your input.
I’m looking for a board that I can use to bomb groomers, carve, and ride powder. I would also like to be able to learn to eurocarve on this board.
I’m 6’3″ – 235lbs and my boots are size US13 Burton Ions.
I’ve been looking at the Jones Flagship recently. I think this board ticks most of my boxes, but I’m concerned about the width. According to Jones’ website the width under inserts for the back foot is 27.99cm.
I measured my Burton Ions and it seems like they are between 32.5 and 33 cm in length (not sure if I’m measuring them correctly). This seems like it’s stretching the “stay under 2.5cm boot overhang per edge” rule — 33cm – 27.99cm is about 5cm (2.5cm per edge).
I currently ride -15 on my back foot, but was thinking of trying a posi/posi stance with this board, which would mean I’d probably be somewhere around +6 on the back foot.
Do you think the Flagship is a reasonable board for me? If not, do you have any suggestions?
Thanks!
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message. Around 33cm for US13 Ion sounds about right to me. By my measurements, measuring a US10, it was 2.3cm over mondo. The 13 will have a mondo of 31, so 2.3cm over mondo would be 31.3cm. It could be more low profile in that size, so that sounds about right. With a +6 degree angle, you’re only really going to save around 1-2mm, which would give you like 2.4mm per edge at best. This would be perfectly fine for a lot of people but since you’re aiming to eurocarve, it makes that kind of overhang riskier. The Ions do have a bit more toe bevel than average, which will help, but with eurocarving that back foot boot could still be a drag issue.
If you wanted to make sure of it, you could look at the following (all boards that are good at speed, carving and powder, but in wider sizes):
– Never Summer Proto FR 166DF (the DF stands for drag free – the waist is 284mm and the back insert width will be around 293mm – and this is based on measuring it with a 21.5″ (545mm) stance width. With a wider stance width you’ll be on a wider part of the board, so you can add 2-3mm to that, assuming you’ll be closer to a 23-23.5″ stance width. This would get you to around 1.7cm overhang per edge.
– Capita Black Snowboard of Death 169W – not as wide as the Proto FR 166DF, but still quite wide, with a 274mm waist and estimated back insert width of around 284mm at the back insert. This would only get you down to around 2.25mm per edge, but gives you a little more leeway. This is assuming a stance width of 23″ (585mm).
– Arbor Crosscut Camber 170W – a 274mm waist like the BSOD, but width at back insert more like 288mm and that’s with a 540mm (21.3″) stance width. With a 23″ stance width, you could add 2-3mm to that, so looking at around 1.9cm per edge overhang here.
– Arbor A-Frame 170W – basically the same board as the Crosscut but stiffer – so same as Crosscut camber in terms of dimensions. This is what I would go with for what you’re describing between this and the Crosscut Camber.
A few other options in more all-mountain/aggressive all-mountain category. I could look at these for you too, if you wanted, but just looked at Freeride here, so give you a bit more in terms of powder vs the more all-mountain options.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I really appreciate it.
To make sure I understand, is eurocarving the only situation where I would be at risk of toe drag? I’m trying to understand if the Flagship would be viable for aggressive non-euro carving.
If the Flagship would be viable for everything except eurocarving I might get it and then look for a more specialized board for eurocarving during end of season sales.
I’d love to see which all-mountain/aggressive all-mountain options you’re thinking of.
Thanks again for the advice.
Hey Tyler
Yeah, I would be comfortable with the overhang you’d get on the 169W Flagship for anything but eurocarving.
In terms of aggressive all-mountain, some options could be:
– Nitro Team Pro 165W – 272mm waist and around 283mm at the back insert with a 540mm (21.3″) stance width – so looking at around 286mm if you were closer to a 23″ stance width
– Arbor Brian Iguchi Pro Camber 167W – 270mm waist and around 284mm at the back insert, again assuming a 21.3″ stance width – so around 287mm with a 23″ stance.
– Nitro Pantera 169 – we don’t have any experience with this board, and it looks super stiff, so only if you want to go super stiff, but it’s 272mm at the waist and if it’s similar to other Nitro boards we’ve measured it will likely be similar to the Nitro Team Pro at the back insert.
Hey! Thanks for all the information. I still find myself stuck between choosing the Ride Shadowban 155W and 157. I am 190 lbs and 6’1’ riding Ride Lasso US 11, 29 cm Mondo. The 157 is 26.5 cm at the insertions and I worry it will be to narrow. I will ride mostly small to medium parks and some backcountry ride a couple times a year. I like carving a lot too. I Normally ride with an angle of 12/9 degree.
Hi William
Thanks for your message.
At 265mm at the inserts with 11s and the fact you like to carve, I think it’s pushing it. Probably too narrow and the 155W would be the safer bet. And it’s not super wide or anything by the looks of it either, so I think it would go well with 11s. For your height/weight, I would put your typical length at more like 161, so you could also think about that size, which is likely wide enough. If you were to go longer, I would go for the 161 rather than the 160W. The 155W is small for your specs, IMO, but doable if you like to ride shorter sizes and if you’re happy to sacrifice a bit of stability at speed and float in powder for more maneuverability and better park performance.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate! This article is very helpful, thank you for putting it together. For this season I’m planning on getting a Yes. Hel Yes but have been struggling on the size. I’m 5 ft 7 in and weigh 143 lbs but my boots are a women’s 5.5. I was leaning towards a 149 as I’m on the heavier side of the weight recommendations but am not sure due to the larger waist width. Part of me thinks it should be fine since I am on the heavier side. I was wondering if you would think that would be okay? Do you have any advice on the trade offs of weight and waist width. Is there hard limit of a certain waist width that I should stay away from?
Hi Christina
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t necessarily say there’s a hard limit of waist width to stay away from, but if you’re going to go with anything wider than like 230mm (and even then…) I would size down the length to compensate for the extra width. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 150, assuming an advanced level, so for the Hel Yes, I would size down to the 146. The 149 wouldn’t be crazy big for you or anything, but the 146 would be more optimal, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond! It is much appreciated.
I was wondering what size you’d recommend for the capita paradise… the 147? Or maybe even down to 145?
Hi Christina
I think both would be options. The Paradise is a little narrower than the Hel Yes, so in that sense, you may not need to size down as much. However, it also has more effective edge vs overall length, so that comes into it as well. I think if you’re an advanced rider and prioritize stability at speed over maneuverability at slower speeds, then I would go 147. If the other way around or an intermediate rider, then I’d be leaning 145.
Hello Nate!
Thanks for such a great article! I’m riding for 20 years already, but this is the best tech intro I’ve ever seen. I also tried to read some comments, but I haven’t found an answer for my question.
I’m riding quite aggressively in the park and like jibbing and jumps and usually have been using freestyle snowboards. But my tall, weight and sizes are not ordinary and I can’t found perfect snowborad for me yet. Every time it’s a compromise in something. I’m 74 kg and 172 cm tall with a small feet of 7,5 US boots. Today my board is Salomon Villain 153 and I feel that geometry and width (250mm) of this board are not perfect for me. This board is great for rails but edge control is not enought for me. At the same time, my previous Nitro Bad Seeds 152 where waist width was 252 mm had much more edge control and it was a pleasure to ride it. Such experience only confuses what to choose:-)
So, according to your recomendations, I need a really narrow snowboard of 245 mm or less width, but suitable for 74 kg. I’ve never seen such snowboards anywhere. Can you reccomend any brands, or models, or where I can find such snowboard? I will be very grateful for any useful information!
Hi Lev
Thanks for your message.
In this case you might sometimes have to go a little shorter than you otherwise might to compensate for the width. Going a little shorter will help to bring back some edge control/agility.
Firstly in terms of length. For your height/weight specs, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156. However as you’re mostly riding in the park, I would be looking at a range of 150-154. So I think you’ve been going well length-wise with your boards. But given that they’re wide for your feet you could size down even more, to compensate for that width.
Before getting into some options I want to offer a potential explanation for why you may have found the Nitro Bad Seeds 152 better for edge control vs the 153 Villain. While 152 is only 1cm less in terms of overall length, the Bad Seeds 152 has a running length of 111cm (I looked at specs of the 2016 model) and the Villain (looking at the 2022 model specs) has an effective edge of 119cm. Now the effective edge and running length are different things and the effective edge on the Bad Seeds will be longer than it’s running length, but it’s not likely to be close to 119cm. A big difference in effective edge would likely make the Villain feel quite a bit bigger than the Bad Seeds and it’s likely to be at least 2cm shorter in terms of the effective edge. Also while the waist width on the Villain is a little narrower it looks like the tip/tail widths are wider on the Villain. Not sure about the width at inserts as I haven’t measured either, but overall, they may well be a similar width feel, but the effective edge is significantly different.
Bataleon Evil Twin 151 (247mm waist)
Nitro T1 152 (246mm waist)
Nitro Beast 151 (241mm waist)
Yes Greats 149 (245mm waist)
Burton Blossom 149 (244mm waist)
Note that I haven’t ridden the Beast or T1, so couldn’t say for sure, but the Beast looks to be a really stiff board. So make sure you look into specs on those to make sure they’re suitable for what you want. The Blossom is also stiffer (refer to the link above for our full review).
The Greats is wider than it looks, which is why I’d size down again to the 149. It’s also got more effective edge compared to overall length than the average board, so you’re not loosing effective edge there by going shorter. See review linked above for more details.
Hope this helps give you some good options.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your deep and detailed answer! You suggest an interesting explanation why the Nitro Bad Seeds 152 can be better controlled than the 153 Salomon Villain. I haven’t thought about effective edge and running length as a huge factor. This factor was less important for me than weight limits and form of the snowboard. I should keep this in mind now.
Also I read specs for all suggested snowboards and it was very interesting. I’m still not sure about the choice and would like to share my thoughts.
First of all, I’m affraid of choosing snowboard close to the limit of permissible weight. All my previous experience shows that it will be very easy to break this board. Nitro Bad Seeds was broken twice by me:) Despite this fact I continued repairing it and riding because of the perfect feeling. The same situation with breaking was with Nitro Swindle 149, Capita Horrorscope 149, DC PBJ 149 and so on. It has been good result: not to break it in one season:) Thats why I moved to bigger boards, but usually they are good for high speed and jumps, and not felling good at jib. So always it was a compromise in something:)
Also I’ve tried Mervin factory snowboards, but they are too heavy and stiff for me (Smoking, Lib Tech, GNU).
Now lets look at snowboards you suggest:
– Bataleon Evil Twin 151 (247mm waist) – Max 174 lbs
– Nitro T1 152 (246mm waist) – Max 165 lbs.
– Nitro Beast 151 (241mm waist) – Max 155 lbs
– Yes Greats 149 (245mm waist) – Max 160 lbs
– Burton Blossom 149 (244mm waist) – Max 150 lbs
My weight is 163 lbs now. And according to the specs, only Bataleon has some weight reserve (if only it is really so). I really think I need to try this Bataleon! Some specs are not so clear for me (3BT for example) , but overall impression is interesting. The only problem now is that I don’t see 151 lenght in shops in my coutry. I’ll try to find it.
BTW have you heard something about chineese snowboard brands with narrow waist? I’ve read somewhere that in China or other asian coutries there were special snowboards line with narrow waist because small feet here is more comman.
Hi Lev
Thanks for the extra information. Really interesting that you’ve broken so many boards. I haven’t broken a board (except once when I wrapped it around a tree at some pretty serious pace, so I wasn’t too surprised!) and am often on the upper limits of the weight recommendations. But a legit concern for sure, given you’ve broken so many.
I have heard of some asian made boards that are narrower, but not being there I don’t really get much information about them. Only really from the occasional comment on here mentioning them (e.g. the other day someone mentioned the Far East edition of the Jones Mountain Twin). I don’t know if other brands have specific Asian editions, unfortunately, it’s not an area I have a lot of experience/info on. But probably worth looking into. But I think the Evil Twin would suit you well, after getting used to the 3BT. It’s a really agile board, in my experience, and really catch-free too, in my experience, so I think you’d like it on jibs.
Dear Nate,
I was riding really aggressive at that time and thanks god sometimes I had my money back by warranty. Nowadays my riding is more chill and safer:)
If I finally could find Bataleon Evil Twin I will try to write you my feedback about this board.
Thanks one more time for your recommendations! And good luck with your project!
You’re very welcome Lev. Hope you can find something that works for you and look forward to hearing from you. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate!
Really loved the research you’ve done! Great article!
I guess you can help me with my problem of choosing the right size of the board.
My weight 78kg (planning to decrease is by 2 I hope :D). My foot size is 26.5cm.
And I cannot decide between two sizes of Jones Ultra Mind Expander: 150 or 154.
I like carving, still learning it, so not good as pros. Plus love powder days with forests, training surf turns. Trying to understand which size is greater for me. The tip on Jones’ website suggests that ME should be 154 and UME 150-154, but what is exact different and how I will it feel on the slopes – I don’t know… Please, help me 🙂 Thank you in advance!
The reference to the board: 513-3449-ultra-mind-expander-snowboard (replace with this any jones’ board page)
I even asked tech support there: they suggested 150 for quick turns and 154 for better shoe size. And it’s like I would prefer 150 but I’m really scared it won’t feet my shoe size..
Hi Eugene
Thanks for your message.
If your feet are 26.5cm, then I think it’s likely you’ll be in either size US9 or US9.5 at the longest. Could even be in US8.5. With that boot size, you will have no issues with the 150 being too narrow, IMO. I’d happily ride the 150, boot size-wise, with US10s. Front insert no issues, with how much taper this board has. It’s very wide at the front. Going to be around 276mm at front insert (assuming a 22″ stance width), which is wider than a lot of wide boards. Because of all that taper it is considerably narrower at the back, but should still be 260mm at the back insert, which is a width I’ve never had issues with even with 10s. IMO the 150 is a better width for your foot size – you will get better leverage on the edges vs the 154 and your boot size shouldn’t make it too narrow, IMO. I mean if you were in bulky profile 10s and riding with a back binding angle of 0-3 degrees kind of thing and rocking euro carves, then yeah sure, but with 26.5cm if you’re in 10s, then you’ve likely sized your boots incorrectly.
Whether the 150 is the right length for you or not, is another question. Can you also let me know your height? Weight and foot/boot size are the most important sizing factors, but I like to take height into account as well, as there is a leverage factor, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you for the reply! Really glad you answered ^_^
My height is 165cm.
I’m also much worried about the effective edge length… My 151 Salomon Super 8 has 1125mm length but 150’s Jones UME has only 1098mm. My Super 8 doesn’t keep my on icy slopes when I carve. I thought I would consider 1130mm of 154’s UME for better stability when carving…
I’ve got EU 41.5 Adidas boots (US 8.5).
Hi Eugene
Thanks for the extra info.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156. Given this board is wider, I would size down for it, given your foot size. The 154 is still going to be wide for your feet overall, so you’d want to go down to at least the 154, IMO. But the 154 is doable. The 150 is doable too though, if you wanted to have a more agile ride.
Vs the Super 8 151, you’re looking at something wider overall with the UME 154, but not by too much and the effective edge is very similar when looking at the Super 8 151 vs UME 154, as you’ve pointed out. So, I’d say they will feel fairly similar size-wise, which would have me leaning towards the 154. For reference, below are width for each for waist, inserts and tip/tail.
Super 8 151: waist 254mm, front insert 264mm, back insert 263mm, tip/tail = 302/294
UME 154: waist 256mm, front insert 280mm, back insert 264mm, tip/tail = 300/280
UME 151: Waist 252mm, front insert 276mm, back insert 260mm, tip/tail = 295/275
Note this is based on a 22″ stance width.
So while the front insert is significantly wider on the UME 154, the tail is narrower and back insert is about the same. The nose width pretty similar too. I would say that the 154 UME would feel a little longer overall, given it has a touch more effective edge and overall at least as much width.
On the UME 150 the front insert is still significantly wider than the 151 Super 8, but the rest of the width dimensions are narrower on the UME 150. With the effective edge also being quite a bit shorter, it’s likely that the UME 150 will feel shorter than the UME 154 feels longer vs the 151 Super 8. So, said in another way the UME 154 will feel closer in size, probably just a touch bigger and the 150 UME will likely feel more noticeably shorter.
So, I think it comes down to whether you want to go fractionally longer or more noticeably shorter in feel. Note also that the UME is stiffer than the Super 8.
Wow, thank you for such detailed answer!
More and more I am considering to go with 154
You’re very welcome Eugene. Hope you have a great season. And if you think of it, let me know what you go with in the end.
Hey Nate,
I just got a nitro dinghy for the next season with the idea for carving and powder and a bit of all mtn (as well as a trip to Japan but still want to enjoy it outside of the japow when I get back home), I’m an advanced all mtn rider and I would like to say I can ride fast usually about the 50s to 60s area I got it in a 155cm, But I was wondering if my boot size was too small for it, as I just sized my boot down as I fit better in it so I went from an 8.5 us men’s to an 8 us mens my weight is 156 to 158 Ibs and I’m 6ft and I have ridden on decks this wide before ( Like a 154 K2 Excavator and decks similar as well as longer decks in the 159 range and had little to no problem) but I was in size 9 to 8.5 and I just want to know if its going to make a big difference or none at all.
Hi Benny
Thanks for your message.
Thanks for your message. If you’ve been fine on boards that wide before, I don’t think you’ll have any issues. When it comes to a board being too narrow, then it’s the boot size that matters. But when it comes to a board being too wide, then it’s more down to the foot size. Most of your leverage is coming from your feet, so the size of the boot doesn’t make much difference, IMO. So, unless your feet have actually shrunk, I don’t think it will be noticeable.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Do you know what a good range for the width at inserts would be for a size 14 boot with binding angles of +15/-15?
Thank you!
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
Making an assumption that your boots are an average profile – which is around 3cm longer than the mondopoint of the boot – then I would say you’re looking at around a total length of 35cm (but if you could let me know the make/model of your boot, we could potentially adjust that number).
With a 15 degree angle, you can usually reduce overhang by around 1cm.
Ideally you wouldn’t have more than 2.5cm of overhang on each edge, so around 5cm of total overhang, so ideally you’d want the board to be around 290mm at the inserts. But with lower profile boots, you could reduce that to more like 280mm, so depending on your boots profile. If you were able to measure the outersole of your boot, that would help to be more accurate. Also, if you knew your stance width, that would also help (a wider stance width means you’re on a wider part of the board, so the width at inserts is wider where you’re setting up).
It’s pretty hard to find boards with 290mm plus width at inserts (though there are few and I could certainly recommend some if you’re looking to go to that kind of width) but there are more options when you can dial back to 280mm width at inserts.
It will also depend on how you ride. If you don’t really lay into deep, aggressive carves, then you should be able to get away with a little more overhang too.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply!
I have the Burton Swath boots. I ride a 23 inch stand width. Id say my riding style would be described as all mountain freestyle. I like to get aggressive with my carves here and there, but not primarily how I ride. Any board recommendations would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you!!
Hey Jon
When I measured the Swath, they measured 2.8cm longer than mondo. But Burton boots also tend to have more toe bevel than average, so that gives you more leeway, so to put a number on it, you’re looking at closer to 2.3cm over mondo.
So that I can be looking in the right length range, can you also let me know your height and weight specs.
I’m 6’3″ and weigh about 215 lbs.
Again, thank you for all the help and resources you provide!
Hi Jonathan
Some options to look into:
All insert widths below are estimate for a 23″ stance width.
– Bataleon Whatever 162W: 274mm waist, 291-292mm at inserts. Just note this is a more playful option. See review for more.
– Bataleon Thundetstorm 162W: 268mm waist, 280-281mm front insert, 282-283mm back insert.
– Bataleon Goliath or Goliath+ 164W: 268mm waist, 283-284mm at inserts.
– Nitro Team 162W or 165W: 270mm waist on 162W, 272mm on 165W. 281-282mm front insert and 283-284mm back on the 162W and 283-284mm front insert and 285-286mm back on the 165W.
– YES Standard or Standard Uninc 162: 268mm waist, 285-286mm inserts.
– Jones Mountain Twin or Ultra Mountain Twin 165W: 267mm waist, 282-283mm front insert, 283-284mm back insert
Jones Mind Expander Twin 162: 268mm waist, 283-284mm at inserts
Hope that gives you some good options to explore.
–
Hey Nate
Thanks for the article, it’s the best one I’ve found so far.
I’m looking to buy a board + bindings and I could use some advice.
I’m 196cm tall, 92 kg. I own a pair of Burton Imperial size US 15.
I’m an intermediate rider, I like my board to respond pretty fast, although I don’t want it to be unforgiving once I get a bit tired and my game is not 100% anymore. I’m not a fan of extreme speeds, but rather moderate ones.
I ride on-piste, often in less-than-ideal conditions, on icy slopes. I don’t hit the park, but I occasionally jump off bumps for fun.
The board I’m looking at is LibTech Skunk Ape II. Considering my boots, I’m thinking to link it to the boots with some Burton bindings, was thinking at the Genesis (but also considering Malavita or Cartel). I’d like some that respond well but are not harsh on my knees.
The board sizes I’m looking at are: 165W, 169W or 170UW.
Can you help me with advice on the board size and bindings?
Thanks!
Hi Ionut
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, given your specs and how you describe your riding, I would be trying to keep your length to no more than 165W (unless you’re used to and ride longer boards than that typically?), but my concern is that the Skunk Ape 165W isn’t wide enough. With a waist width of 26.8cm and a likely insert width of around 27.6-27.8cm (I haven’t measured the Skuk Ape II but based on other Lib Tech boards, this is where I would estimate it to be at the inserts).
And your boot length is likely to be, even with the Imprerial’s being quite low profile, around 35.6cm. So that’s around 7.8cm of overhang with no angle on your bindings. But even if you’re riding with let’s say +15/-15, you’re still looking at around 6.8cm of overhang – or 3.4cm per edge, which is more than I’d be comfortable with. I mean you might get away with it, if you don’t really carve very deep, but it’s a risky amount of overhang, IMO. One option could be to get risers, but otherwise, I would recommend trying to get something wider. I think you’d be good on the 170UW but it’s longer than I’d typically recommend for your specs.
Note that this is assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width. And at your height, I’m guessing you like a wider width than that. Depending on how much wider, you can gain some leeway there. I find that you typically get around 2-3mm of extra width for every 40cm of width, e.g. if your stance is 600mm, then you could be looking more like 281mm at the inserts, but it’s still going to be more overhang than ideal.
You could look at something like the Nitro Team (or Team Pro) 165W, which is a little wider. Likely (assuming a 600mm stance width) around 285mm at the inserts. Reducing that overhang to more like 3cm per edge, which is more doable, but still pushing it. The Nitro Magnum 167W is a similar width.
Another option is the Nidecker Escape 162XW, which is a similar width to the Nitro options above.
But if you wanted to be really certain of width, you could look at the 162DF or 166DF Never Summer Proto FR. With DF standing for Drag Free. These are 284mm at the waist, and looking at around 294mm at the inserts. Though this is a more challenging and less forgiving ride than the others mentioned.
In terms of bindings, those bindings should all be fine on most of those options. If you were to go Proto FR though, I would go with stiffer bindings. For the Skunk Ape II you should be good with one of those (note thought that I haven’t ridden the Skunk Ape as it’s something that I can’t accurately test as it only comes in wide sizes and my feet are too small for it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I currently ride on a very old 163 board, with a waist width of 260. And as you can imagine, I do get drag, but not very often, as I don’t carve extremely low – but I want to up my game 😉
The options you gave me made me look further. Unfortunately the NeverSummer Proto FR seems too challenging for me, and the other options don’t offer that big-of-an increase in width.
This made me look further and I found 2 other boards to add to the list. I’m also happy that all have edge hold technology, which will help me on the icy slopes on which I usually spend my time 🙁
Which one would you recommend?
– Nitro Magnum 163W – waist width 270
– LibTech Stump Ape 161W – waist width 283
– LibTech Skunk Ape 165W – waist width 268
Thanks a lot again for the advice!
Hi Ionut
From those you mentioned:
– Nitro Magnum 163W – waist width 270 – this is certainly an option. As I mentioned the Magnum 167W in my last reply, I’m assuming you’d prefer to keep the length a little shorter. This is going to be a little narrower than the Nitro Team 165W, but not by much – still looking at around a 283mm inserts width, assuming a 600mm stance width. Still certainly more than the Skunk Ape 165W and the board you’re currently riding, for sure. The Magnum looks to be (haven’t ridden it) a little more mellow than the Nitro Team. The Nitro Team isn’t super aggressive or anything, but it is full camber, and with the Magnum, it has rocker tip and tail, so will help it to be a little more easy going.
– Lib Tech Stump Ape 161W – waist width 283 – this is defiantly going to be wide enough and could definitely work. Not a board I’ve ridden but if you were wanting to really be sure of that width, then this looks like a good choice on paper, IMO.
– Lib Tech Skunk Ape 165W – waist width 268 – discussed this in my last reply – you’re looking at around 276-278mm at the inserts, which is less than on the likes of the Nitro Team 165W, Nidecker Escape 162XW and Magnum 167W, which we discussed.
Thanks a lot Nate!
I went for the Stump Ape 161W to be sure of the width.
Next on the list I have the Nitro Team 165W or Magnum 167W, If I’ll feel the need for a longer board in the future.
Thanks again for the website and the time and effort you put into helping us!
Cheers!
You’re very welcome Ionut. Hope the Stump Ape treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hello Nate!
The site is awesome!
I’m 6’1, 200 lbs with size 14 US feet and have always struggled with toe/heel catch when carving hardpack and getting bindings big enough to fit size 14 US boots.
Thankfully, Burton now do their step on boots bindings in a size 14 US with a specific XL binding to match.
I’ve used K2 wide boards in the past, but think I really should be on something wider. I’ve been looking at the Nitro Magnum which has a 270 waist in a 162.
Do you know of any other boards that would suit my flipper like feet?
Best regards,
Will
Hey Will
Thanks for your message.
Some other all-mountain options include:
Nidecker Escape 162XW (272mm waist)
Nitro Team 162W (270mm waist)
Nitro Team Pro 162W (270mm waist)
Or if you wanted to go more playful, more all-mountain-freestyle, then you could look at the Bataleon Whatever 162W (274mm waist).
Or if you wanted to go more freeride, there’s the seriously wide Never Summer Proto FR – 162DF (284mm waist).
I’ve just done a search in the length range 161-163. Could look at other options outside of those lengths, if you wanted, but hope that gives you a few to look into. Note also that there were a couple of other more beginner options, but it doesn’t sound like your a beginner, so I left those out.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thank you very much for your detailed response!
The Escape and the Whatever look pretty good for the money and easier to get hold of in the UK. Have also looked at the Bataleon Party Wave 159 (280 waist).
Essentially I want something that will fly in the backcountry, but needs to have good speed and edge hold as I’m often out with skiers on crappy ice.
Thanks again for the website!
Cheers
Hey Will
I would be erring towards the Nidecker Escape then. It’s better in icy conditions and at speed than the Whatever and Party Wave, in my experience. And better than the Whatever for powder.
Hi Nate, thanks again for your excellent insight!
I’ve had a proper look at my boots (Burton Photon), they are actually a US 15, coming up at 34 cm long.
On my current board, I’ve been living with 26cm waist, 27.2 cm at inserts, not ideal and has kicked me off a few times carving!
I do like the short/fat style of board and was favouring the partywave+ but put off with what it might lack in edge hold on steep ice (often end up on this in the Alps).
To this end I’ve been looking at fattys that have decent edge grip:
GNU gremlin 161: 27.5 cm wide
Ride superpig or warpig 158: 27.7 cm wide
Libtech Stump Ape 158 or 161: 28.1 or 28.3 wide
Bataleon Partywave+ 154 280 wide (last years model)
Any thoughts on whether the gremlin would be wide enough?
Thankyou!
Hi Will
I would be leaning either Gremlin or Stump Ape, in terms of getting the best you can in icy conditions. For reference, the width at inserts of those two should be around:
– Gremlin 161 (275mm waist): 286mm front insert, 284mm back insert
– Stump Ape 157 (281mm waist): 291-292mm front insert, 287-288mm back insert (I haven’t measured this one, so it’s just based on other similar Lib Tech/Gnu boards, trying to take into account taper, sidecut and setback)
– Stump Ape 161 (283mm waist): 293-294mm front, 289-290mm back
– Nidecker Escape 162XW (272mm waist): 281mm front insert, 283mm back insert
That’s all assuming a roughly 560mm (22″) stance width. So yeah, if you wanted to be really sure width-wise, then the Stump Ape would give you that, but in any case with those, you’d be getting a good bit more room than with your K2.
Hey Nate,
Greetings from Argentina.
Thank you very much for putting together all of this valuable information. I very much appreciate it!
After two years of renting gear, I’m now able not to fall and control the board. I plan to do snowboard every year so I’m thinking about getting my own equipment now.
I live in a country where there are no many options in terms of snowboarding equipment, however, I saw one combo option that I’m very interested in:
I’m 178Kg. (I think this is 5 10).
100KG (220 pounds).
Mondo: 27.6
Do you think these options would be good choices for me?
Board: Nitro Prime Raw, 159W (width 270, length 1170
Bindings: Nitro Rambler M
Boots: DC Phase, 10.
Thank you very much in advance!
Hi Enrique
Thanks for your message.
The Prime makes a great first board, IMO, and length-wise, I think it’s good. My only hesitation is that it’s the wide version. With 27.6 mondo feet, it might feel a bit wide. Given that you’re a bigger guy, it’s more doable (with a bit more weight to be able to apply to the edges, it doesn’t matter as much when it’s wider as it does if you’re lighter). So I think overall it should be OK, with my only hesitation being the width of it.
The Phase are a good boot choice as a beginner – and for you, because they’re not super soft or anything I think they should work well. The Bindings are a little stiffer than I’d typically recommend for that setup or for a beginner, but again, because of your specs, I think you will be fine with it. So, overall, I wouldn’t say it’s ideal, but I think it will work for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, how are you?
First of all I want to thank you for the work you do, your guides are super informative and very well explained.
I’m about to buy my first board + bindings
I measure 184 cm (6′ 1″ aprox) , I weigh 85 kg (190lb aprox) and my boots are 10.5 us.
I have burton ruler 10.5 boots and the board+bindings that I liked are
Nitro Prime Raw Snowboard 2023
Rambler Snowboard Bindings 2023.
I am 39 years old and I think i’m an advanced beginner (I can go down all slopes without falling, I can turn although with some difficulty in some cases). I’m only interested in going down the slopes, maybe a little off-piste, no more than that.
According to my profile I was thinking of going for 158 (256 waist) but after reading your article I think that I could go for 159w (270 waist, it seemed very wide for boots 10.5?) or I should go for 162 (258 waist, I’m worried that it might be too fast for me?)
I certainly appreciate your comments.
Greetings from Argentina!
Hi Gabriel
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at more like 160/161, but given you’re a beginner, I think the 158 would be your best bet, lenght-wise. In terms of its width, I think it should be wide enough. If you were going to have a 0-3 degree back binding angle and were going to be carving deep (e.g. eurocarving) then I think it would be a bit too narrow, but for your purposes, and particularly with Burton Rulers, which are pretty low profile, that width should be just fine for you, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Looking for some advice for my next snowboard setup
My Details:
– 182cm tall
– Weight, 140 Pounds
– Shoe size, US11 But US10 for boots
Current set up:
– Random Facebook Marketplace Burton Board
Looking to buy:
Binding:
– Keen on Union Ultra, not sure if I should go medium or large?
Board:
– GNU Headspace not sure if i should go 155 or 152 for boot overhang and preformance
Also my riding style is 10-20 foot jumps and lots of rails I only ride terrain park
I know to make the correct decision I would need to go into a shop, but as this isn’t an option for me would really appreciate your thoughts to assist my decision making.
Thanks in advance!!
Hi Connor
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154. Given you’re only riding in the park, I would go down to the 152, rather than up to the 155. In terms of width, it should be fine. In some cases might be pushing it, depending on
1. Your binding angles – if you ride with something like +15/-15, then that gives you more leeway width-wise than if you were rocking a straighter back binding angle
2. Carving. If you’re laying down elbow deep carves, kind of thing, then that increases the chances for boot drag. If you’re not, then you’ve got less chance of boot drag.
3. Your boot’s profile. Some boots have a bulkier profile and some have a lower profile. Naturally a lower profile boot will reduce the chances of boot drag. If you can let me know the make/model of your boots, I can probably tell you if they’re lower profile or not.
So yeah, if you could let me know what your boots are, your binding angles and about your carving, I can give a more accurate prediction as to whether you’ll be OK width-wise on the 152.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Looking for some advice as no shops near me currently stock the board, bindings or boots I’m after so I’ll have to purchase online.
My Details:
– 182cm tall
– Weight, 88kg
– Shoe size, US11
Current set up:
– Ultrafear 155, 255mm waist.
– Bindings, large union contact pro from 6 years ago
– Boots, Nike Kaiju, US 10.5
Looking to buy:
Boots
– Burton Photon (either US 10.5 or 11.0, not sure which size will fit me better)
– 10.5 should be OK however not sure if they will accommodate a custom foot bed?
Binding:
– Keen on Union Ultra, not sure if I should go medium or large?
– Not to keen on them but would consider Burton Cartel/Malavita if they fit in a medium?
Board:
– Keen to give the DOA a try but not sure on size
– DOA 155 Wide, waist width 258mm, tips 302mm
– DOA 156, waist width 252mm, tips 298mm
– DOA 158, waist width 254mm (least preferred option), tips 300mm
Also my riding style is small to medium park and all mountain, like to butter, press and hit side hits.
I know to make the correct decision I would need to go into a shop, but as this isn’t an option for me would really appreciate your thoughts to assist my decision making.
Thanks in advance!!
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Firstly in terms of sizing the DOA. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160. However, given that you’re used to riding a 155 Ultrafear and given your riding style and the fact that the DOA is a board that can be ridden in a shorter size, I think going 155W would be your best bet, especially if you end up in an 11. The 156 is probably going to be fine in 10.5s, if that’s what ends up fitting you best, given that you’re looking at Photon’s, which are pretty low profile, but it would be pushing it in 11s, IMO. The 156 has a width at inserts of 262mm. With 10.5s and not-too-straight-a-binding angles (i.e. if you were rocking something like +15/-15 then that gives you more leeway width-wise than something like +18/-3 for example), I think you’d be OK with that, given they’re low profile, but as a very general rule of thumb, I like to see 265mm+ for 10.5s and 270mm plus for 11s. If you were on 11s, I think the 155W would be the safest bet. And it’s not super wide for a wide board, so I think it would suit 11s well. The 155W wouldn’t be too wide for 10.5s either, so you could certainly go that way even with 10.5s.
The Ultra, Cartel and Malavita would all be a match for the DOA. My preference on the DOA is to go a little stiffer with bindings, but they are all certainly a flex match to the DOA, so they’d all work. I think you’d get into the medium Ultra with 10.5 Photon’s but it would be pushing it with 11s. If 11s, I would go large. The medium might be OK with 11s, but it would be risky. No guarantess, but I’d surprised if you didn’t get into a medium for the Cartel/Mavavita with Photon 11s. The Large would also work, but I think you’d get in the M fine.
In terms of buying in a shop, it can be hit and miss, depending on who you get. You might get someone super knowledgeable, who has a lot of experience riding different boards and dealing with riders with different needs and experiences (and can get their own personal board biases out of their line of sight) that can really help you into the right gear. But it’s a mixed bag and you can just as likely get someone with little experience or little skill in determining what might be best for different people. And there’s also the factor of wanting to make a sale and sell you something that they have in stock. So it can be a bit difficult to navigate sales staff in a shop. You can end up with a really good experience or a not so good one. In terms of boots, it’s always best to try on, if you can. If you have to buy online I would recommend getting two different sizes and returning the one that doesn’t fit as well (assuming they have a good return policy). If you don’t want to do that – if there’s a store that stocks the brand you’re looking at, then trying on in that brand first (fit in models between brands can differ a little for sure, but it gives you a better idea about how the boot you want is going to fit as it’s usually similar between models within a brand, even if not exactly the same).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Seeking a second opinion. At the start of the season I purchased a Rome agent 158 wide thinking I would be using size 11 boots as I have in the past. I ended up using Rome libertine size 10 boots. I’m considering swapping my 158 wide agent for a 157 but I’m not sure if the width would be acceptable. The Rome libertines seem fairly low profile and I normally ride with 15° front and -12° back binding angles. According to the spec sheet the 158 wide has a waist width of 264 mm and the 157 has a waist width of 254 mm. I am 6 ft 2 in tall and weigh 180 lbs. I’m staying on the shorter side of board length because of more freestyle oriented riding.
Thanks
Hi A.J.
Thanks for your message.
If it was me, I would 100% switch to the 157. With 10s you should be all good width wise on the 157. Personally I like to go for the narrowest option that won’t cause boot drag. IMO, you shouldn’t have any issues with boot drag on the 157, so that’s what I would go with. Others have less complicated relationships with wide boards but I don’t typically get along with them, unless I size down a fair bit in length (9.5 to 10 boot size).
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate,
I’ve got an old Bataleon Boss 157. Its waist is said to be 255. I’m an 11 in Vans Infuse. Think this will work, or is the board too narrow? I’m also 6-1 165, if that helps.
Thanks and best,
Hi Chester
I haven’t tested or measured the Boss, but my experience with Bataleon twins is that they tend to be 11mm more at the inserts than they are at the waist. So you should be looking at around 266mm at the inserts, assuming a roughly 560mm (22″) stance width. If your riding a wider stance, then you can add 1-2mm to that and if narrower take off 1-2mm depending on how much wider or narrower.
In my experience the Infuse are pretty low profile, so I think it’s doable, depending on a couple of things.
a. your binding angles – a 15 degree angle will give you considerably more leeway than a 0 degree angle for example.
b. how deep you like to carve or are likely to carve on this board. If you’re carving deep, then naturally a higher chance of boot drag
If a. and b. are in your favor I think you should be all good, but if you’re looking to rip deep carves or have a 0-6 degree binding angle, then I think it would be pretty risky in terms of the chance for boot drag.
Hi Nate,
I am still riding an old 2002 Salomon Definition at 156 and I am looking at upgrades. I am considering the 154 Super 8 Pro but I am concerned about width on the board. I typically squeeze my foot into an 8 inch Salomon boot and I’m 5’4 150lbs. I think the 156 was always a bit too big for me but I learned how to ride it aggressively and love it. I generally like to do freeriding and maybe some small side hits on powder days. I love going fast and find the Definition always held it’s edge at speed and was very responsive. I ordered some new Dialogue boots as my old malamutes fell apart. Just curious if you think I can/should go with the Super 8 Pro in 154 or perhaps look at something totally different.
Thanks,
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Could you let me know your boot size – to confirm what an 8″ boot translates to.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 152. But with a freeride board like this you can err a little longer – and given you’re used to a 156, the length at 154 isn’t a concern. I think it’s a good length for you. Whether or not I think the overall size would work will depend on the width of your current board to some degree and when I get confirmation of your boot size that will help too. If you could measure your boards width (I haven’t been able to find specs on it and also would be good to get width at inserts). To measure the width at inserts, measure the width on the base of the board, from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge (as opposed to top sheet) and if you could also measure the waist width (narrowest part of the board) that would help too.
Sorry I meant 8 US for boot size.
Looks like the rear insert is 25.7 – middle 24.9 – front 25.5 cm
Hi Nick
You’d be looking at around
rear insert is 26.7 – middle 25.8 – front 26.8 cm
on the Super 8 Pro 154. Which is significantly wider. Combination of that length and width with your specs and size 8 boots, I think is getting a bit too big. Likely to feel bigger than your current board in 156, IMO.
If you’re looking to stick with Salomon and looking at that more directional ride, the Highpath 153 or Sickstick 153 would be better size-wise, IMO.
awesome, thank you
You’re very welcome Nick.
Hi I’m a 10.5 boot and 6 foot 2 about 210 lbs. Looking to get a GNU gwo board. Not sure if I should go with the 159 regular or 159 wide. Regular is 255 waist and wide is 267 waist. What do you think?
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t specifically measured the GWO, but based on other similar GNU boards, I’d say the width at inserts is likely between 260mm and 263mm. That’s a little borderline for 10s but would be fine in certain scenarios and might be pushing it in others. i.e.
a. binding angles: if you’re riding with a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees) then it could be pushing it if b. and c. below aren’t in your favor
b. profile of boots. If you have low profile boots you have a better chance of being good with the regular
c. if you already do, or think you will in the near future, be ripping deep carves, then you’d have a greater chance of boot drag on the regular
Typically I would go longer for your specs too – but if you’re a beginner or getting this for your park board, then I think 159 should be fine. And depending on a. b. and c. will depend on if you should go regular or wide.
Hope this helps with your decision
I’m would say I just made it into the intermediate stage. I think I’ll go with the wide and maybe a 162 length. Looking for an all mountain board. Thanks for the help!
Hi Mike
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163 for your height/weight. So I think 162 is fine in terms of length. But with 10.5s, the length/width combo is borderline too big. I think it’s probably just doable, but not ideal. I think the 159 is probably overall a little small, but if you’re going to go wide, then I would be leaning 159W. Again, the 162W is doable, if you think you want to go bigger, but I’d be leaning 159W if you’re going wide.
Hi Nate,
I would really appreciate your advice. I’ve been snowboarding exclusively Whistler/Blackcomb my whole life on a 1997 Ltd 151cm. Unfortunately I don’t know snowboarding specs (only ridden the same board!) but I know that my board is symmetrical twin shape and it is exactly the width of my size 9 woman foot. I have loved every minute on this board but sadly it has cracked in two places irreparably and I must replace her.
I would call myself advanced except that I stay OUT of the terrain parks :). I love blacks and double blacks and powder runs. What would you recommend? I am 5’7. Thank you so much for any suggestions you have! I would really like my next board to last me another 25 years.
Hi Wendy
Thanks for your message.
I would look at something from the following, given your riding style:
>>Our Top 5 Women’s Freeride Snowboards but you could also check out >>Our Top 6 Women’s All-Mountain Snowboards
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your weight. I like to take height into account for sizing, but weight and foot size are the more important factors, IMO. If you were able to narrow down your choices to 2-4 boards, I would be happy to give my opinion on sizing for each (some boards are sized differently).
Hope this helps
Hi, I will be glad if you help.
I’m not a beginner, I’ve been riding for a long time, I roughly understand what I want, but I’m interested in your opinion, because your site and you are cool.
My height is 183 cm, weight 78 kg, shoe size 290.
Interested in freeride and carving, I chose a Weston Backwoods snowboard, but I’m thinking about size 160 or still 160w, with a wide waist, but I’m afraid it’s too big and it will be hard to turn, what do you think? or even 157w 😅
Fix Magnum L
Boots 32 TM 2 XLT us 11
What do you think, a good kit?
Weston Backcountry
Fix Magnum
ThirtyTwo TM 2 XLT
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t tested any Weston boards, so don’t know anything about the backwoods, but size-wise, I would be leaning either 160 or 157W. I think the 160W is getting a bit too big when taking into account width and length. I would put your “standard all-mountain size” at around 159. Given your style of riding, sizing up a touch isn’t a bad idea, so I think length-wise, 160 is just right. Whether or not it’s wide enough is hard to say as I haven’t measured any Weston boards, so I’m not sure how wide it will be at the inserts. With a 259mm waist, it’s possible it will be wide enough for 11s, depending on your binding angles and stance width. But certainly no guarantees it would be wide enough. The 157W would work. It would be sizing down a little bit, but it’s also on the wider side for 11s. Not too wide, but wider than ideal, but sizing down in length will overall make it a good size for you, IMO. The safer bet width-wise, but if you were able to get on the 160, that’s what I’d be leaning towards – just couldn’t say for sure if it would be wide enough.
I’d say the Magnum and the TM 2 XLT would be a good match to the board.
Hope this helps
Thanks 😉
You’re very welcome Michael. Happy riding!
Thanks again Nate for the great content I finally know just about everything to know for my next snowboard setup! Also, what do you recommend for socks inside snowboard boots & any brands of socks or brands of pants & jackets & boots & impact shorts I should get? Any info provided is greatly appreciated. Also, a recommendation on best CO resort for All Mountaineer in March that may have powder and some good jumps would be fantastic! This is my dream getaway for 2 days! It looks like my last comment may have disappeared or maybe it is waiting on your answer before it posts back on the website? I forgot in my last comment to mention I use a +15, -15 duck stance on a react 159 or I think more likely 162 snowboard that I got new for between $100-$200 new at play it again sports. I want to choose a good board this time preferably a little stiffer but I think I’d like shorter and wider. Any suggestions? Also, I’m definitely an All Mountaineer style rider!
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message.
Typically with 10s, particularly with +15/-15 binding angles and lower profile boots, I wouldn’t go wide, but given you want to eurocarve by the sounds of it, you could go a little wider. I’ve never heard of the React snowboard, so I’m not sure if it’s particularly narrow or not.
Given you want to ride powder but also want to be able to ride switch well, want something fast but also want to hit jumps, I think something like an aggressive all-mountain board would be a good bet. You can check out some good options here.
Size-wise, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 163, but given you’d prefer to volume shift a bit (wider but shorter), you could certainly look at going like 158W-160W.
I would be happy to give specific sizing suggestions for individual boards, if you were able to narrow down to your top 2-3 choices.
For socks, I would go with snowboard specific socks for a couple of reasons. a. because they will be made of materials that will wick away sweat and b. they have padding in the areas where you’ll typically want it. My preference for material is Merino wool, but there are other material options that work well too.
For impact shorts, you could check out the only ones I’ve tried are these.
For jackets and pants check out this and this.
For boots, first check out the following:
>>How to Choose Snowboard Boots
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Then depending on the flex of the board, will depend on what boots you get. But given what you’re describing and for your specs, you’re likely to want to go at least 6/10 flex, and likely stiffer. See below for some options:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Thanks for all the info on the website. I’m going to let everyone know how helpful your information is! This is the closest I have gotten to choosing a board in forever. My old one was a cheap 162 and my toes dragged. I just bought burton step ons large with medium bindings. I am 5’10 240 lbs size 10 burton step on boots andButton step on medium bindings. I am intermediate level and want to carve with my back and stomach almost touching the snow. I also want to go fast and hit jumps. I would prefer a smaller board than my last one and a wider one as well. I would also like to ride regular and goofy. I am going to CO this month and never really got a chance to tide powder but I’m hoping I’ll find it for the first time in Vail. However, I also would like a board that can hold an edge for the ice on the east coast. What board and size and width and shape would you recommend for my burton step on boots and bindings this month and the future? THANKS!
-Andrew
Hi Nate —
Love your site and this article is super helpful. Wow! Such great info. Thanks so much.
Would love your advice on this. I’m not sure how to proceed.
I am a long time skier and a pretty new snowboarder.
I have an unusual body type, in that for a guy, I am average height, but really light: 5’9″, 135 lbs.
(FYI – I usually ski on women’s performance skis and love them… my weight flexes them much better than equivalent men’s skis.)
I was thinking about doing the same thing with snowboarding as I look to buy my first board rather than renting all the time. So, I’ve been looking at women’s boards — two early thoughts were Rossignol Myth (154) or Roxy Dawn (152)
The problem is that I have regular sized mens feet — I own K2 Raskos in 9.5 and they fit well.
But… they aren’t shorter on the profile and seem to be fairly true to the 9.5 size, which means that (based on your numbers above) it looks like I should be aiming for a waist width of around 250, with a little leeway on that.
FYI – I typically ride +18/-3 with my bindings.
250 seems hard to find in a less expensive women’s board. Looks like most are in the 240, 245 max range.
Instead of looking for a women’s board, should I try to size down? (I was aiming for a 152ish length?)
Should I find a more flexible men’s board?
Should I try and find a smaller profile set of boots? (Would prefer not to do this as my boots fit me well.)
Would love your thoughts. Thanks.
Hi Morgan
I think in your case your best bet is to look at men’s boards – and there are plenty of softer flexing options going around. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 152, but as a beginner, and if you want the flex to feel softer, then you could size down a bit from that. Something around 150 would be a good bet, IMO, for what you’re describing.
The width of women’s boards is going to be too narrow for a majority of women’s boards for your boot size. But as I said above, with snowboards, you will find there are a lot of softer flexing options (more so than for skis from what I understand), so you should be good. For some good beginner options, check out:
>>Our Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
52 yr old female who just wants to enjoy days out w my snowboarding kids.
Goal: To go down greens and not fall too often!
I’ve rented 151, 145, 140, and was only able to handle the 140.
I think I am looking for a Hybrid Camber. Something that stops easy and will help me not catch an edge.
In Southern CA, so packed and some ice, w an annual trip to powder in Utah.
Any suggestions? And thank you!!!
#NoNeedForSpeed
#greens>blues
I wear a size 9 men’s boot (only whole sizes at the rental shop. 8.0 men’s is uncomfortably tight).
Regular women’s shoe size is 9.0
Hi Amanda
Thanks for your messages.
Can you let me know your height/weight, so I can take them into account for sizing. I will take into account your experience on the sizes you mentioned too, and also with how you want to ride and your level etc. But that will give me a more complete picture. Also, can you let me know if you plan to buy your own boots or keep renting? If you plan to buy your own boots, then I suspect you would end up in a women’s 9.5 (men’s 8.5).
Once I have that info, I can do a good search and let you know a few good options to consider.
165 lbs
5’7″
I ride regular. A bit switch just because I end up the wrong way. 😉
I would like to/plan to purchase step-ons or rear entry (not sure which is better/easier?)
I’ve ridden 5x. Was able to progress to very sloppy S-turns w out falling too much.
I really just want to be able to stop, and make it down a green run/groomer with some confidence. 🙂
Thank you so much!
Hi Amanda
Thanks for your message.
In terms of sizing, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” closer to the 151 – but given that it sounds like you preferred the 140 to everything else and because it doesn’t sound like you plan to ride hard/fast at all, ou could definitely size closer to the 140. I wouldn’t go quite as small as 140 though still. And you’ll likely find (unless you tested performance rentals) that the rental board was probably heavier than most boards you’ll buy, so it will be easier to handle something a little longer. With all that in mind, I would be looking in the 142 to 146 range.
I would check out the following:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
Which I think would all be suitable. If you can narrow that down to the 2-4 boards that you think you like the sound of/are available to you and I would be happy to give you specific sizing on each one – and make sure they’re going to be a good width too.
In terms of step-ons or rear entry, I would be leaning Rear Entry – not because they’re easier to get into, but because there aren’t yet any step on setups that are beginner friendly enough, IMO, in terms of not being soft enough to be forgiving enough for beginners. Whereas, there are softer, more forgiving rear entry bindings (and you can put any boot into rear entry too).
From your list, I love the Nitro Electra. It is beautiful, but probably too skinny.
The K2 first lite would be slightly wider, but the Burton Stylus is the widest.
All three of those are nice.
I am also looking at the K2 Dreamsicle or the Rome Royal, both in line w the Burton Stylus width.
Rear entry bindings would be perfect for me as well.
Hi Amanda
Yeah unfortunately the Lectra is probably going to be too narrow for you. Even if you went to the 146, which I think would be doable for you, it’s still a bit too narrow.
The First Lite, in 146, could be doable if you were to be riding +15/-15 binding angles and new for sure you were going to fit a women’s 9.5. But it’s pretty borderline without having certainty over boots – and if you’re binding angles were different (i.e. a straighter back binding angle) or if you wanted to experiment with different angles, it would be pushing it.
I think you would be fine on the Stylus 142 width-wise. It would still be on the narrow side, but I think you would be OK so long as you weren’t planning to be doing any deep carves any time soon. And by the sounds of how you like to ride, I’m guessing you won’t be riding super aggressively or anything.
The Dreamsicle in 146 would work, IMO as would the Rome Royal in the 144.
For rear entry bindings, I think the Flow Juno would be a good bet. For boots, I would check out the following to get some ideas.
>>My Top Women’s Beginner Boots
>>My Top Women’s Freestyle Snowboard Boots
Even though the second list says freestyle, it’s just a naming thing and you don’t have to ride any freestyle in them. But there’s some in a good flex range in there.
HI Nate, awesome site….thank you for everything you do!
Well, I’ve got a few boards and I’m really trying to get sizing down straight. I’m 6′, ~180lbs and a size 11.5 US boot.
I’ve got a 159W in a Yes Basic and it’s pretty much fine. I tried a 156 in Yes Greats and I really liked it, but I know that’s pretty wide at the inserts. I tried a 159W in a freeride board and I struggled with turning it and when flipping it over and doing the barefoot test in my stance/angle, my feet did come up short on it by a bit…it was .5cm wider than my Yes Basic at the inserts.
Ok ,now I’m interested in a 157 Shadowban that is about .5cm thinner at the inserts than my Yes Basic 159W (which I feel fit me best) . My heel hangs over about 1/2 inch with my toes about flush with the board and am not sure if I can fit this board or do I just move up to the Wide version (160W) and deal with the extra 3 cm in length? I’m trying to fit a smaller board as I like it to be a bit playful, turn quick between trees, 180 jumps, etc. I’m honestly not sure if I’m hurting myself by going smaller (less stable? worse for landings?) or if I’m better off given the better playfulness of a shorter board.
Would love to know what you think and thanks again!
Mike.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
What Freeride board was it that you tried? It might be that part of it was if it was considerably stiffer to what you’re used to. Because that often causes a board to be harder to turn. That extra width will certainly have played a role as well, but it might have been the board as well.
I haven’t measured the Shadowban, but if you say it’s 0.5cm narrower than the Basic at the inserts, then it’s going to be around 26.4/26.5cm. With a regular profile boot, you’re boot would be around a 32.5cm long – which would be around a 6cm total overhang (or 3cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering). If you’re riding with a 15 degree angle or similar on the back foot, then you’d be looking at around 5cm total overhang (or 2.5cm per edge), which is getting to a doable level (assuming your carves are moderate but not too deep), but at 3cm per edge would be too much, IMO. If you have lower profile boots that would help give you some leeway too. But without low profile boots and straighter angles I think it’s pushing it. The width on the Basic 159W is about the narrowest I would typically recommend for 11.5s.
But yeah, take into account with your Basic that part of the reason it will feel easy to turn is because it’s an easy turning board generally. And whilst the width will also affect, there are other factors too.
The Shadowban isn’t one I’ve ridden but from what I know of it, it’s not supposed to be an overly stiff/aggressive board, so you might find that it’s fine to turn in the 160W. But again, I haven’t ridden it, so couldn’t say for sure.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
It’s great, as usual. I really appreciate you taking so much time to answer in-depth. You’re the best.
You’re very welcome Michael. Happy riding!
Hello Nate
Greeting from Hong Kong.
I love everything of this website and I have spent several evenings on reading your articles.
I am a total beginner on snowboarding. I am just back from a trip to Niseko and I manage to do some S turns on the double green slopes, LoL
I am at a dilemma which may need your opinion. I am abit skinny while I have bigger feet.
height: 178cm/5’10”
weight: 62kg / 126lbs
foot size: US 10.5
bare foot length: 28.5cm
I am looking at the burton instigator flat top. struggling if I should go for 145 or 150 or 150W
Thanks so much for your time.
cheers
Wilson
Hi Wilson
Thanks for your message.
I think the 150W would be your best bet. I think you’d probably get away with the 150 width-wise, given you’re a beginner and probably not railing any deep carves yet, but it might cause some issues when you start to lean into your edges more. And the 150W isn’t super wide either – it’s a really good width for your foot and boot size, IMO.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 152/153 (assuming 62kg is the accurate weight – which translates to 136lbs, rather than 126lbs). But sizing down, as a beginner is a good idea. I think sizing to 145 would be too far down – and also too narrow for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I’ve got size 10 Thirty Two Lashed Double BOAs looking for a new all mountain freestyle board. I’ve heard really good things about the Ride Shadowban, but the width of the board has me a little concerned – I’m 5’8″ 145 lbs, so I would imagine the 151 or 154 cm would be best for me, but those board widths are 148mm and 151mm. Would you recommend looking for a wider board? I’ve also considered the Yes Standard UnInc, Capita Mercury, and Rome National which all have either 153cm 253mm or 154cm 254mm options.
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
I’m yet to test the Shadowban or measure it, so I’m not sure what it’s like at the inserts. But if it’s like other similar Ride boards, then it’s likely around 10mm wider at the inserts versus the waist.
Which would put the 151 at around 258mm at inserts and the 154 at around 261mm at the inserts. I would be confident with the 261mm insert width, and it’s pretty likely the Shadowban would be that or close. If you were riding with a really flat back binding angle it could be pushing but I’ve never had any issues with that kind of width with 10s using +15/-15 binding angles.
The 151 might be pushing it. You could get away with it, but would want to be riding with something like +15/-15 angles for sure, to give you a bit more leeway. I’ve ridden boards as narrow without issue, but using lower profile boots than the Lashed. The Lashed aren’t bulky or anything but not particularly low profile, in my experience, either.
In terms of length, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 153cm. So, I think you’d be good on the 154cm. But it would also depend on what you’re used to riding. If you’re used to riding noticeably smaller, then I would be leaning a little shorter.
I haven’t ridden the National, but the Standard Uninc and Mercury are two boards I really like, particularly the Standard Uninc. Standard Uninc is wider than it looks though, so I’d be leaning 151 (if there was one) for that.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Currently looking at the Ride Agenda size 152.
I’m 5’7”, 150 lbs, US 8 shoes.
The waist width of the 152 is 251mm while the 149 is 250mm. Would the 152 work fine for me? I believe the Agenda has a shallower sidecut but I’m not sure how to read the three sidecut values.
I’m a beginner right now but expect to have a lot of days on the mountain before ending the season and progressing quickly. All mountain freestyle.
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message.
I think the 149 would be the more ideal beginner size for you, given the width and your boot size. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 154cm. But would take off some length for the width. Which would put you good at 152, but because of the beginner factor as well, taking off a bit more length would be ideal. The 152 wouldn’t be wrong and is a size that will last you longer through your progression. So ideally 149, but 152 isn’t anything crazy big for you or anything.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Fellow Canadian here! I’m just wondering if I could get your opinion before I go ahead and buy my gear. I’m a complete beginner, probably rode 3-4 times max on old passed down gear. Wasn’t the best experience tbh. I used a 154 Uninc burton board (from 2004), boots that were a full size smaller and some crusty bindings that went over the top of my feet (not the new ones that covers the whole toe part) So I’ve been spending time reading all of the best beginners gear and came up with some choices. As for the board, I am choosing between the K2 Standard and the Rossignol Evader, size wise I’m still unsure of (maybe around 152-154?) I am currently 5’5-5’6 around 176 lbs. As for bindings, I think I am going with the Union Flite Pros since I found someone selling locally for cheaper. Boot sizing, I will have to try one in store because I really want to get the proper size. I usually wear 9.5-10 in sneakers. Which I think would fit in the medium bindings.
Hey Ralph
Thanks for your message.
Both the Standard and Evader are great choices for a beginner and should feel way easier to ride/progress on versus the 2004 Burton Uninc. Size-wise, for the Evader I would go 154 and for the Standard it’s a close call between the 152 and 155, but I’d be leaning 152 for that easier progression. Though the 155 wouldn’t be wrong. I would put your “standard all-mountain size” at around 156/157, but as a beginner it’s a good idea to size down.
The Flite Pros are a great match to either of those boards, IMO. Assuming you end up in 9.5 or 10 in boots, then the Mediums are your best bet. With 10.5s it would depend on how low profile the boots are (which largely depends on the brand) as to whether you’d go M or L, so if you can I would get your boots sorted first.
In terms of boots, trying on in person is the best way, so good to hear you’re able to do that. Some things to think about when you’re in store trying on:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
All the information you have put together on this site is awesome. So glad I have found it. Really cool of you to respond to all the comments like you do as well.
I’m looking at getting the Lib Tech Skunk Ape. I have size 14 feet and 6’3″ 225 lbs. I usually ride bindings angles +15/-15. I am wondering if I need to go with the 170UW or if I would be fine on the regular wide version at a shorter length. I’ve never ridden a board as long as a 170 and I’m a bit apprehensive with the extra length.
I am also open to other board suggestions if you have any. I am an advanced rider. I would classify my riding style as all-mountain freestyle. I ride primarily in New England, but I take lots of trips out west as well. Thank you for all the work you do with this site and all the great information you put out there!
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
I think something like the 165W or 169W Skunk Ape would be pushing it. I haven’t measured it, but based on other Lib Tech boards, I imagine that the width at inserts at a 22″ stance with would be around 276mm. You might have a wider stance width than that, given your height, so let’s say 278mm. Typical boots are about 3cm longer than mondo. The Mondo on a 14 is 32cm. So the outerboot is likely around 35cm. So that would be around a 7.2cm total overhang. With 15 degree angles you’ll get around 1cm leeway, so that’s around a 6.2cm of boot overhang. Or 3.1cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering. Which is pushing it. If your boots are low profile and let’s say for example are only 2cm over mondo, then you’d be looking at around 5.2cm of overhang – and if you had an even wider stance, you might be able to get that overhang to around 5cm (or 2.5cm per edge). In that case it’d be more doable, particularly if you aren’t doing any deep carves or anything. But that’s best case scenario and would probably require close to a 24″ stance width.
To get a bit of extra width the following could work (depending on your boot’s profile and your stance width). Note that these are all based on a 22″ stance width – at a wider width you can a couple of mm:
– Nitro Team Gullwing 165W (estimated width at inserts (WAI) 283mm)
– Nitro Team Camber 165W (estimated width at inserts (WAI) 283mm)
– YES Standard 162 (283mm WAI estimated) or Standard Uninc – could also go 167 – it’s not wider, but if the 162 seems too short
– Arbor Element Camber 165W (284mm WAI estimated)
– Bataleon Goliath 167W (288mm WAI estimated)
Hope this helps with some options
Thanks for the reply! So seems like the Skunk Ape may not be the best option. The Yes Standard looks like a good option for sure. I’ve also been looking into the Never Summer Protosynthesis DF for next year if they continue it. Probably 162. I have Burton boots so that should help me a little bit with the lower boot profile. I hate having big feet haha! Thank you for the recommendations I’ll check them all out.
You’re very welcome Jon. Hope you find a good match!
Hey Nate! I’ve only been boarding for 3 or 4 years now but have found your website and info thoroughly brilliant and helpful, so thank you for sharing in such depth! I’m a total addict to it all!
I’ve just returned from a French trip and am nursing an ab injury from falling after turning on to my toe edge. I’ve been trying to work out the reason for the fall, and I think it’s from sizing up on my Burton Step Ons to a US14 (every other size below killed the sides of my feet, I’m usually a US 12-13). I just got my board out and measured with the boots in the bindings, and I think the overhang is way too big, especially on the steeper slopes. Details are:
Burton Instigator board
Front boot at 18 deg has a 3cm toe overhang and 2.2cm heel overhang.
Right (back) boot at 12 deg has a 3.3cm toe overhang and 2cm heel overhang.
I’m now an intermediate rider so was thinking it could be a good time to upgrade, and also get a wider board. I’m 6’2 and 220lbs. I have no interest in park or freestyle at my age (51), just happy on groomers and trying to up my speed and carving game. I’ve been considering the Never Summer Proto FR 166DF, the Bataleon Goliath, and the Lib Tech Skunk Ape although I’m not mad on having a much longer board than the 165 that I have. Obviously the Instigator is a very soft board, but with my size maybe a stiffer board would be better?
Any tips would be massively appreciated if you have time.
Thanks again and all the best, Jon
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
First thing to mention is that, if you can, I would try to have more heel overhang than toe overhang. Reason being that it’s easier to get deeper into a toe side carve, so toe drag is more likely than heel drag. So if you could get those toe and heel overhang numbers reversed you would have less chance of boot drag.
Another thing to think about – if the smaller sizes were creating pain on the sides of your feet it could be that you have wide feet? If so, then it might be that a wide boot model – in a 13 potentially – would be a better fit. For Step Ons, I know they do a Burton Photon Wide Step On model. Think that’s the only wide Step On option. Not sure if you have wide feet or not, but something to think about.
But if you’re looking to upgrade your board anyway, then no harm in looking wider. I would say the 165W Instigator is around 280mm at the inserts (assuming a roughly 22″ stance width – a little more if you have a wider stance and a little less if you have a narrower stance). But your overhang numbers make sense for a 280mm insert width from a quick calculation, so it’s likely somewhere close to that.
The Proto FR 166DF would give you around 294mm at the inserts (Again assuming a roughly 22″ stance width) – so considerably more. So much more that I think it would be too big overall, when combining length and width. Also, the Proto FR is a much stiffer, more aggressive board than the Instigator, so it’s a big step up – and then you would stepping up the size noticeably, when taking into account length and width. If you were to go Proto FR, I would go 162DF. I think that would be a much more manageable size and would give you the same kind of width leeway.
You wouldn’t be gaining any width with the Skunk Ape over the Instigator, I wouldn’t think. I haven’t specifically measured the Skunk Ape, but based on other lib tech boards, you would be looking at around 276mm at the inserts on the 165W. So you’d likely actually be going narrower. Even if you went to the 169W, you’d be looking at a very similar width – and that would be going too long, IMO. You’d have to step it up to the 170UWm would give you plenty of width (similar to the DF Proto FR) but again, IMO, overall too big.
For he Bataleon Goliath, you’d be looking at around 281mm at the back insert for the 164W. That’s the length I’d prefer to see you on, but you wouldn’t be gaining any significant width on the Instigator. If you stepped it up to the 167W, you’d be looking at more like 288mm at the inserts, which would be a good amount of extra width – but again overall size on the big side for you, IMO. Though not to the same extent as the Proto FR 166DF or Skunk Ape 170UW.
Some other options to consider (all insert width estimates assume 22″ stance width):
– Nitro Team Gullwing 165W (estimated width at inserts (WAI) 283mm – not much more width but something)
– YES Standard 162 (283mm WAI estimated)
– Salomon Sight 166W (285mm WAI estimated)
– Arbor Element Camber (284mm WAI estimated)
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hey Nate!
Thank you SO much for taking the time to give such a detailed reply. It really is such a minefield out there, and also an expensive game when it’s hard / almost impossible to try the boards out first. Your advice is so appreciated.
Re boots – yep I do have wide feet, and my boots are the Photon wides. I used to have the Ruler a size down in US13 which were fine, but the step ons definitely need sizing up for me.
I might have a go at the Yes Standard – seems to tick a lot of boxes, especially the icy edge hold which will be good for some of the Norwegian slopes that we’ve been to. Seems like a good progression from the Instigator.
I like the idea of the Photo FR 162DF but as you say may be too much of a jump for me, I’m definitely not an advanced rider yet.
I did ride a Bataleon Whatever 162W last year for a few runs which I also liked, but not sure on the edge hold if I’m honest. But that was maybe me and not the board. May give that another go…
Anyway, thanks again and I’m looking forward to progressing and trying one of these new boards.
Take care,
Jon
You’re very welcome Jon.
Yeah, I wouldn’t call the icy edge hold on the Whatever terrible, but it’s not great either, in my experience. Certainly not as good as the Standard (which in my experience is really good in icy conditions).
Hope whatever you end up choosing treats you well.
Thanks Nate, I have ordered the Standard so looking forward to trying it out when it arrives!
Final question for you on Bataleon – would you say the Party Wave + at 157 is also a good / better option over the Goliath for an intermediate rider on groomers mainly?
All the best,
Jon
Hi John
I haven’t ridden the Party Wave + (or regular Party Wave) – just started testing Bataleon last winter, so still working through a lot of their collection. So couldn’t say for sure, but the Goliath is a good resort board. I’ve only ridden the Goliath + but that wasn’t anything too difficult to ride or anything, so the Goliath, which is supposed to be softer flexing, should be all good for intermediate level. The Party Wave + could work for groomers, but from what I can tell is more setup as a powder board. If you’re not looking to ride switch and don’t mind less pop (which I’m only guessing is the case with the Party Wave + since it has Bataleon’s “low camber” vs the “medium camber” on the Goliath), then it could work on groomers. But again, having not ridden it couldn’t say for sure.
Which one did you end up going with?
Hey, sorry only just saw your message on here!
So I ended up getting the Goliath 167w, as well as the Yes Standard 162. I’ve just got back from a few days in Norway, and I only took the Goliath with me as I didn’t want to be going back and forth changing boards, and I wanted to give it a good go for a few days.
The first half day I struggled with the stiffer board compared to the soft flex of the Instigator, but by the afternoon I was flying. I was going faster and more stable than ever, and that extra stiffness (once I got used to it) seemed to suit me. Slightly more effort to initiate turns but after a few runs got to grips with it. I didn’t catch an edge the whole trip, riding flats was easier on this board, no toe or heel drag, and it seems like a great board to improve my riding. Held the icy patches pretty well too.
I’ll be going away again soon where I’ll take the Yes Standard and see how that compares to the Goliath.
Did you choose a board?
Hi Nate!
I am 6’1 180lbs. Riding a 28MP (10US) K2 Ender. I just bought a Lib Tech Dynamo 162 (Waist – 25,8). My back Binding is round -3, -6. Stance 21,5, 22 depends on my mood. Overhang Shoe in Binding Toe – 2,2cm, heel 2,3cm
Just did the Donek Measurement too. I get values between 26.4-26.7 optimal WW.
I want to ride Pow when possible, on piste butters and every sidehit, 180s, 360s just playing around and here and there a lap through the park.
Do you think i can get away with the 162 (25.8)or be ebtter with the Wide (26.8)?
Thanks for your work!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
The Dynamo 162 should be around 266mm at the inserts (based on measuring the 159) with a 22″ stance width. I measured the k2 Ender (2020 model last I measured it) at 3.6cm over mondo – so around 31.6cm for a size 10. That leaves roughly 5cm total overhang (2.5cm per heel and toe, assuming perfect boot centering). With a -3 or -6 angle, you wouldn’t get much difference to that, but maybe 2.4cm per edge with a 6 degree angle. Oh wait, you’ve measured overhang, sorry, just saw that. With 2.2cm on toe and 2.3cm on heel, I would personally be pretty confident with that. Now, I don’t rail super deep carves, like eurocarves or anything, but I do try to get relatively deep in carves and haven’t had issues with that kind of overhang before. If you are carving super deep though, it could cause boot drag. But if your carves are pretty standard, you should be all good. And unless you’re doing super deep carves, I would go with the narrower option every time, personally.
Hope this helps.
Hey Nate!
thanks a lot. i think what you are doing is great, keep it up!!!
wish you all the best!
Daniel
Thanks Daniel!
And you’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome season!
Thanks for the most comprehensive Articles on snb sizing I have ever read. I have Just ordered a Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker 156W – I am 180cm 85kg and have an US11.5 boot size. Do you think this was a good choice size wise? I am wondering if I need a wide board or can go with normal size (maybe longer?). I am just a bit afraid of negative impact of having a wide board…
Update: cancelled that and got T.Rice Pro in 157W instead.
Hi Jakub
Thanks for the update. Size-wise, I think you’re good there too.
Hi Jakub
Thanks for your message.
I would go wide with 11.5s. The negative impacts of a wide board are typically only felt if the board is wide for your feet. If your feet are close to the edges of the board, then there are no leverage issues – with 11.5s the assumption is that your feet will be close or even slightly over the edges at the inserts, so you shouldn’t have leverage issues, which, IMO, is the main downside of a wide board. With your size feet you shouldn’t have that problem. And if you went regular width you would be risking boot drag.
In terms of length, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” closer to 160 for your height/weight specs, but given that you’re used to a 154, I think the 156W should be fine. And that sizing down is going to further negate any impact of the board being wide, though as stated above, most negative aspects of a wide board shouldn’t be felt by you anyway.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!!
Amazing article, I need it your opinion please.
I’m about 6’2 weigh around 205 pounds & wear a size 14 boot. I’m having difficulty with the overhang on most boards. I’ve never owned a board but Im a pretty experienced snowboarder & want to be able to get away with a smaller board for terrain parks, spinning, trees off terrain, etc. I also love to carve & cruise had high speeds & I don’t want a smaller flexier board to take away from that. Any recommendations with sizes & board types?
Hi Samuel
Thanks for your message.
Always going to be some compromise if your looking for that variety for things, so looking somewhere in the middle to try to do everything well, if you’re just going to have one board. If you have a quiver you can size appropriately depending on what you would use each board for.
I think a good range to look at in terms of length would be 160-162 for what you’re describing, so it’s not too long for your trees/park/spins etc but not too short for speed/carving.
In terms of width, with 14s, you’ll want to go wider than even a typical wide board, IMO, particularly if you’re going to be carving fairly deep.
I would look at the Never Summer Proto Synthesis 159DF (the DF stands for drag free). It’s got a nice wide width and should suit your riding style well. It’s a little shorter than the length range I mentioned but being as wide as it is, I think it’s still a good length.
The Yes Standard Uninc 162 (you could go regular Standard too, but for what you’re describing, my instinct is the Uninc model) is also an option as it’s pretty wide too – not as wide as the Proto Synthesis in the 159DF but wider at the inserts than you would think by just lookin at the waist width.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First of all I wanted to say thank you for all your effort you put into this. It was extremely helpful!! I’m finding myself in a position that all my options (for a snowboard) are either slightly too narrow, or too wide.
To give you some context:
Height: 5’10”
Weight: 160-165 lbs (72.5-75 kg)
Snowboard boot: 10.5 US Mens
Current Snowboard: Rossignol Men’s District (159 cm length; 25.2 cm wide waist)
Once I set up my bindings to what feels comfortable (regular stance 15°/-6°), my boots have an overhang of 1 inch on both my toes and heels. So going back to what I saying before: it’s either that, or go to a ‘wide’ board and have the issue of it being slightly too wide on the scale you provided.
What would you recommend is the better option of the two?
Hi Carl
Thanks for your message.
with 10.5s you’ll often find yourself on the cuff between regular and wide. But there are quite a few regular width boards in your length range that will be wide enough (and even some wide boards that aren’t as wide as others), so you shouldn’t need to compromise. If you can let me know your riding ability and you’re riding style (basically anything you can tell me about how you like to ride, e.g. Fast, slow, trees, park, powder etc), then I can give you some options
Hi Nate! I just found this page, and can’t believe that you consistently put in the effort to help everyone here for years!
I’m just getting into snowboarding, finally going for the first time next week. Unfortunately, I tend to hyperfixate and got a bit of a gear bug, along with all the cyber sales this year. The entry snowboard I was looking at went on a half off sale, and I just couldn’t resist lol. However, it’s on backorder until February, so I’m stuck waiting, although I already got bindings in for it. (I’ll be using a rental for the first lesson, then have a coworker lending me a board until mine comes in)
I’m still just a bit anxious and overthinking numbers, so I’d love to have a second opinion if maybe I should change the size of it before it comes in.
Height: 5’5″
Weight: 115
Boot: 7.5 women’s
Board: Chamonix Wolf 146 (WW 234)
Bindings: Chamonix Barrats Medium.
I know these aren’t mainstream brands, but I’m still hoping you can give some advice on whether I’m in the right ballpark, or if I should size down to the 142?
Based on some virtual snowboarding (legit kind, not arcade) and a skateboarding background, I’m pretty confident I’m more interested in more of a freeride/carving style, just cruising down slopes, which is why I went up a little from what I think is my “average” estimate. It’s hard to tell though, since my height/weight combo seems to throw off most size calculators (I had one tell me 128, honestly)
Not quite sure on binding angle yet, I’m guessing I’m going to move away from +15 -15 pretty quickly, getting somewhere in the +12 -3 range, although we’ll see if I go that far in the back.
Thanks!
Hi Alyssa
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain size” at around 144. But as a beginner, I would take off 3-5cm, as a rule of thumb. Even with a more freeride carving style, I’d still be erring towards the 142 for the Wolf, given you’re just starting out. The board itself looks, on paper, like it should work well as a beginner board, but I would be leaning 142. But yeah, definitely don’t go 128!
With binding angles I would say to experiment once you’ve got the basics down, to see what feels best for you. A more “forward stance” like +12 -3 is typically better for a freeride/carving style, but everyone’s body’s are different, so exactly what that ends up at will depend on what feels best for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Just curious, how do you calculate the footprint length of a boot?
I measured mine (28.5cm US10.5 Burton SLX), it’s like 28cm, even lower than my foot size!
This is because naturally the geometry of boots is curved from foot bottom to upwards, and I measure somewhere close to bottom.
When I measure the points where risk of dragging its like 30.5cm, but these points are really far away from the foot bottom
Hi Ismail
Thanks for your message.
To keep it consistent I measure with the boot to the back of the wall and use a square at the front of the boot to ensure that I’m measuring correctly. Trying to measure the sole at the bottom is tricky as each boot feels different and there’s no obvious way to measure each boot exactly the same. To make comparisons between boots, this is the most accurate way to do it (apart from measuring angles with boots strapped into a board and ensuring the same boot centering etc each time, but that’s too time consuming to setup for each boot, unfortunately – and I don’t even know how I would work that so that it’s a consistent test – there’s likely a way to do it this way, but it’s too time consuming unfortunately).
But every boot has toe bevel (and sometimes a little heel bevel, but usually less pronounced), i.e. is curved – and some have more bevel than others. I try to roughly measure toe bevel as well – but again, it’s not super accurate as to where it’s measured each time, so I take these measurements with a bit of a grain of salt. In terms of boot drag, it’s usually on the end of the toe of the boot (or end of heel on a heel side turn that will hit first) even if that’s higher up, so that’s the point that’s the most useful to measure to anyway. The fact that there’s that bevel, just allows the kind of overhang that we can get away with. Without the bevel, then we’d have to be more conservative with the amount of overhang that we would be able to allow. Which would then mean that our feet would be further from the edges of the board, making it harder to apply leverage to the edges of the board, so the bevel is certainly taken into account.
Hope this helps/make sense
Hello Nate,
Thank you, its pretty much
Hi Nate!
Amazing article. I am facing a little struggle regarding the first setup.
My specs:
Weight: 141 lbs (64kg)
Height: 5,7 ft ( 173-175cm)
Foot size: 7.5 US (40EU) 25.5cm
I ended up choosing Bataleon Disaster + board in 148 length which is perfect for my weight according to the sizing on their website. But the thing is that the width of the board is slightly bigger than is suitable according to my foot size. Could this be an issue?
The boot I am planning to buy is Burton Moto in 40,5 EU size (7,5 US). But since in the boot top chart you have mentioned that the outer footprint is smaller, I could also consider a Burton Mint in mondo 25,5 cm if it is better for width.
The usual Disaster in length 144 seems to be perfect for my specs but, I do not really like the graphics and colours of the board and also I do consider sometimes going though the whole mountain, not only staying in the park, therefore looking towards 148 board.
So yeah, the question I would like to ask you is: would it be a mistake buying The Disaster + in 148 length if the width of the board is slightly (half size) bigger than it should be? And secondly should I look towards the Burton Mint boots according to the issue with the width of the board and Moto boots having smaller footprint?
Forgot to mention, that the stance is (-15:15+) or (-9:15+) goofy.
I really hope you understood what I was trying to say.
Appreciate your time and assistance!
Best wishes,
Richard
Hi Richard
Thanks for your message.
I think the 148 is a good size for you. For your height and weight specs I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 152. The 148 is a little wide to be ideal for your boot size. However, it’s not super wide and given that you’re sizing down from that 152, I think it’s a really good fit. As a beginner, you do want to size down anyway, but I think it’s still enough of a size down and that size should suit you really well, IMO.
I get what you’re saying with the boots. You’re wondering if having a longer outsole would help with the board being slightly wider. I would say it doesn’t (at least not to a significant degree), because ultimately you’re providing leverage on the edges of the board from your feet, more so than from the boots – so with a longer outsole on the boot, your feet aren’t getting any longer – so if there is any extra leverage, I would say it’s pretty insignificant. I would say you can go too wide for your feet, but never too wide for your boots and you can go too narrow for your boots but never too narrow for your feet, if that makes sense.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks so much for this article! I’m a female snowboarder with the following stats:
Shoe size: 8 US
Height: 5’5 (166 cm)
Weight: 100 lbs (45kg)
Skill level: intermediate-advanced
Style: Mainly ride groomers, but looking to advance and do more carving/powder terrain.
I’m thinking about getting a 143cm men’s snowboard with 249mm waist width and a flex of 6 (out of 10). Could that work for me? What size, width, and flex snowboard would you recommend?
Hi Audrey
I think the flex would be good for what you’re describing but the width is pretty wide for your feet, IMO. I think 143 is a good length for you, but in a narrower width. If you were going to go that wide, I would try to go with a shorter length.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m a beginner. I have been out snowboarding 3 times now and really enjoyed it, so I’m looking to pull the trigger and buy my own equipment. As someone new to the sport, your website has been tremendously useful, so I appreciate it.
I’m 5’6″ tall, 155 lbs, and I wear a US men’s size 8.5 Burton Ruler Wide. So far I only have the boots, and I’m looking to seek your opinions about boards and bindings before I make the purchase. My first choice board is the 2023 Nitro Prime Raw as I heard it’s good for beginner and I really like the design. The only problem is that the smallest size is a 152 cm with 252 mm waist width, and I’m afraid that might be a tat bit too wide or do you think it’s doable? My second choice board is the 152 cm 2023 K2 Standard with 247 mm waist width.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the above as well as bindings recommendation that you have for each of the boards.
Best,
Mainghor
Hi Mainghor
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 154cm. As a beginner it’s a good idea to go a little smaller, so length-wise, I think around that 152cm is fine, length-wise.
With 8.5 boots though the Prime 152 is a little on the wide side. If you were able to size down a little more, then that width wouldn’t be an issue (e.g. if it came in a 150 or something) but the combination of length/width makes it a little on the big side. It’s not what I would call undoable though. But the Standard 152 is a better overall size, IMO, because it’s a better width for your feet. So that’s what I would go with. Both are very good beginner boards, so I’d go with the K2 Standard as it has the more optimal size for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. I think my setup will be the K2 Standard 152 with the medium Union Flite Pro. I’m actually really excited and looking forward to using my own gear this season.
You’re very welcome Mainghor. Hope the setup treats you well and you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate,
Loving all of your reviews and other guidance, massive help.
I recently got a Jones Mountain Twin, 157. My boot size is only 9, so should have no worries with heel or toe drag. I did reduce the reference stance from 58 to 54, it seemed a bit wide for me.
I mounted the bindings and have the boot mostly centered over the board.
Toe side, I can flip the board almost 90° before the toes touch.
On heel side, it probably gets to around 80°, but it isn’t the boot touching, it’s the back of my Step-On binding.
Is this of any concern? Should I shift the bindings forward a bit, but then have slightly more toe overhang compared to heel (excluding the binding…)?
Thanks again!
If I can post links, you can see what I mean here:
Heels
Binding
Toes
Hi Gareth
Thanks for your message.
I don’t imagine you’ll have any drag issues if you’re getting an 80 degree angle before the heel cup hits. You’d have to be doing a pretty hefty heel-side carve (like eurocarving) to have any issues there, IMO. I mean, if you were able to move it forward a little bit without offsetting your centering too much, you could try it, if you’re worried about it – but unless you’re really going to be eurocarving, I wouldn’t anticipate issues with that. Most of use can get lower on our toe side carves than heel side, so having that on the heelside is preferable to having less angle on the toe side. That said, with the angle you have on the toe side, you can afford to have a little more overhang there, if you needed to. But honestly, if you’ve got your boots centered and you’re not doing any mad eurocarving I would leave it.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I’m on the search for my first snowboard and I am a bit lost of wich width I should pick,
My option for the snowboard would be the Bataleon Chaser, (no idea wich bindings or the size of the bindings either)
My size is 179cm of height and 90kg of weight,
My boots are the Adidas Tactical Lexicon ADV in a US 11.5.
I suppose I should go for the 159cm, but should I go wide or regular?
Thanks so much, your blog it’s super helpful!
Hi Balived
Thanks for your message.
I would say the 159W would be your best bet. Even though the Tactical Lexicon ADV are low profile, with 11.5s, you’re still probably better off going wide. But if you could let me know a couple more things about your riding to confirm. What ability level would you describe yourself as? How do you like to ride, if you’ve developed a style – i.e. deep carves, high speed, casual, trees?, powder?, park? – whatever you can tell me about your riding helps.
Hi Nate,
this is a very helpful guide but I’m not confident still in buying a wide, where there are some XW boards available now, and given my height and feet size.
I’m 6’6, UK size 12.
I’m looking at the Nidecker score 162W, or Nidecker Escape 162XW. These boards because they’re in my price range and I like the shape, but open to more options.
Thanks in advance
… I stand +/- 15 degrees
Hi Rudi
Thanks for your message.
If you could also let me know your weight, which is important for sizing for length. And if you could also tell me some more about how you ride. Ability level? Do you ride fast or more casual? Trees? Park? Big deep carves or not? Whatever you can tell me about your riding helps. If you could also let me know your boots, if you have boots already (some are more low profile than others).
Width-wise, you’re likely good on the Score 162W, with +15/-15 angles, so long as your not in too bulky a boots. On the Escape 162XW, it’s a little wider, as you know, and I’d be more confident on that, even with not so low-profile boots. If you don’t have boots yet, then I’d certainly look at low profile boots. There’s no downside to them and with UK12s, they might help you get on a narrower board.
But yeah, if you can fill me in with more details, I can take a look at some other options and also give you a more accurate opinion on the suitability of the width of the Score and Escape.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate thank you a lot for the answer!
I would describe myself as a beginner, I can do the turns easily now on blacks and I’m about to try and learn how to carve this season. I want to be able to do resort and trees, powder… etc, the park it os something I’m a bit indiferent right now.
Wich binding angle should I pick in your opinion also?
Thank you!
Hi Balived
I’d stick with the 159W with this board, based on what you’re describing and your specs.
In terms of binding angles, most important thing is that you’re comfortable, so experimenting is a good bet, but given the style that your leaning towards, a more forward stance is probably your best bet. You can learn more here.
Thank you so much Nate, you were super helpfull!
Balived.
You’re very welcome Balived. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hello Nate! First, thank you so much for your generosity in sharing all this knowledge with us! I want to buy my first snowboard, bidings and boots. But I have very small feet. Depending on the brand of boot I can wear a 6.0 or a 6.5 US. I’m very interested in jones weaver (formerly dream catcher) and never summer proto synthesis. But I’m not sure which size to choose (148, 145 or 142) and if these models are suitable for me (considering my features)… Could you help me? Below I give the information you need. If you know of another model that fits what I want I would appreciate it.
Foot size: 6 or 6.5 (23.1 cm)
Height: 5’5 (165 cm)
Weight: 122 lbs (55kg)
Skill level: intermediate 5
Style: between all-mountaineer and all-Mountain Freestyler (more to the side of all-mountaineer). I want to improve my carving, I like to enjoy a powder around the tracks when possible and I’m starting to take small jumps and learn some ground tricks.
Thank you!
Hi Andressa
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard length” at 145. However, I would size down to 142 for either of those boards, because of boot size. I think the 142s in both would work well size-wise. The Dream Weaver I think would be the most suitable for you, given that you want to ride powder. It’s a better board for powder than the Proto Synthesis, IMO. It’s not as good as it for riding switch, but can still do it OK, if that’s something you like to do.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much, Nate!
You’re very welcome Andressa. Thanks for using the site. Happy riding!
Hi Nate! Me again…Just one last question…As a third option I also found interesting the abor swoon camber which has a narrower waist (147 – 23.55 and 143 – 23.35) but I would sacrifice a little powder (most narrower boards are not so good in powder )…do you think it would be better because it is more suited to my foot size or wouldn’t it make much difference between her and jones (142-23.6), considering that jones is better in powder? In the case of arbor, would it be better to keep the choice in the smallest size, 143?
Thanks again and sorry for my Englis (I’m using the google translate…😅)
Hi Andressa
The Swoon Camber – and most Arbor boards, are wider at the inserts (where the bindings go) than they look at the waist. The 143 is narrower overall than the 142 Dream Weaver, but not by a lot. And because you want to ride powder, I would still go Dream Weaver. If you did go Swoon Camber, I would go for the 143 for you.
Thanks again!
Hey,
I was wondering if what size you thought would be best for me. I am 6ft tall, size 10 boots, 140lbs, and an advanced rider. Do you think a waist size of 252 on a 161cm board is too skinny or what size waist and board do you think would be ideal for me?
Thanks.
Hi Mason
Thanks for your message.
Depending on your typical binding angles (when you’re bindings have more angle on them, there’s a bit more leeway width-wise) and the profile of your boots (some are bulkier than others) you should be good on most regular width boards of something that length. With a 252mm waist, you should be fine most of the time, unless you have quite a flat back binding angle and bulky boots. The width at inserts isn’t uniform across boards either, so a 252mm waist can mean anything from 257mm at the inserts to 270mm at the inserts depending. So it would depend on the board, but in most cases you should be good with regular width.
Note however, that I wouldn’t typically recommend a board that long for your specs.
Hey Nate,
First of all, thanks again for all of your advice and apologies in advance for this kinda long post. Based on your advice in a conversation in another thread, I just got a Jones Mountain Twin 162W and I’m stoked! I had been debating the 162W or the 165W (I’m 6′ 2″, 230lb) but went down to the lower size since I’m still very early in my progression.
The board arrived today and I figured I would take a closer look at the measurements to make sure there wouldn’t be any issues. I think I can get away with what looks like a slight amount of overhang compared to what’s recommended in this article but wanted to get your opinion.
At the reference stance inserts, the board measures exactly 11in (279mm) directly across. I’m assuming this simulates a 0 degree binding angle. I measured the bottom of the board which is slightly wider than the top.
My feet are Mondo 30 (Specifically they measure 297mm) and I plan to get US12 Burton Step-on Photons when they come back in stock at my local store.
For a 0 degree angle it would appear my feet are 18mm longer than the board which is above the 10mm guidance in this article. But, if I’m reading correctly the real concern with overhang relates to the boots and not the feet.
Your review for the Step On Photons notes that the boot has a 24mm difference between mondo and outer sole (at least for the US10’s you used). Assuming it’s the same difference for US12/Mondo 30, at a +0 angle this would mean the boots would have a total overhang of 45mm (324mm boot on a 279mm board). The article mentions that I can probably get away with up to 50mm of overhang, but ideally it should be below 40mm for deep carves.
So based on all this I think I’ll be okay. I’m between a 4-5 in skill (low intermediate at best) so I don’t think I’ll be laying out the deepest carves for a bit and will very possibly be on a bigger board more suited to my “normal” size when I get to that point anyway. Plus, I’m guessing that if I use basically any type of angle on both feet other than +0 on this board it will likely remove the overhang concerns even when carving.
Do I have all that right?
Thanks,
Terrence
Hi Terrence
Thanks for your message. You understood everything really well. And I think you should be fine. In terms of overhang it comes down to the boots. Underhang is more determined by feet. So assuming your boot overhang is fine, it won’t matter if your feet are overhanging more than the recommendation. You’ve understood it correctly that the foot overhang in this article is used more to predict the boot overhang. In your case, I think the US12 Burton Step Ons should be fine with that level of overhang. And with Burton boots, they have quite a bit of toe bevel which will also help. And yeah, with a bit of angle on your bindings, it will reduce that overhang as well. So yeah, long story short, I think you should be all good width-wise on the 162W MT.
Yo Nate thanks so much for the site! I think I’m overthinking this but I got a good deal this off season on a demo Neversummer Harpoon 152 with 261cm waist width.
I bought the board blind (never tested a short-wide before!) – wanted something freeriderish but not super stiff or anything (once tried a flight attendant and kicked my butt)
Now the bad news: I’m US8/8.5 (26cm mondo) boots. Is the board too wide for me? I’m 73kg/160lbs
I think my normal size is around ~156cm for nice groomer cruising and some carving.
I cannot return the harpoon so fingers crossed it’s not too wide for next season
Thanks brother!
Hey Quentin
Thanks for your message.
Given your boot size, I think ideally you’d size down a little more for a short wide with your weight (and with 156 being your typical size). But I wouldn’t say it’s way too big or anything like that. I think you’ll get away with it. I think ideally you’d go down to a 149/150 with a short wide. Hard to say for sure how much that extra size is going to affect the ride for you, but I don’t think it’s going to be unrideable or anything, but I also wouldn’t say it’s ideal. Would definitely be curious to hear how you find it, once you get a chance to ride it next season.
Shoot. Forgot to include, I’m on the ice coast, artificial/natural snow, hard with icy patches,
Hi Eric
Thanks for your message.
Given you’re looking for something more forgiving, I think those boards would all work – and in terms of width, don’t think you’ll have any issues with a 12 Burton on any of them. The Jones Frontier is probably your best bet – as it’s not super aggressive, but it’s not as playful as the other 2. The Typo is really quite playful, IMO, and might be a little too playful for what you’re looking for. The Jibsaw in between, but yeah, I think the Frontier should work well. The Frontier is the wider of the 3 as well, if you were still worried about width – even though the waist width is only 1mm wider, it’s wider at the inserts versus the other 2. I would say that the Typo and Jibsaw are a little better in icy conditions, but the Frontier is still good in icy conditions, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Sizing Mondo (i.e. a 28.3cm foot should fit an 11.5) isn’t fool proof by any means, and practically speaking it’s often not accurate, so I’m not surprised you fit best in a Burton 12. My largest foot is 27.3cm and technically that would put me in a 9.5 but for Burton (and most brands) I fit best in a 10. There are a few brands I get in a 9.5, but it’s not the majority.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the info! So how about a non-wide version? Is a 157 or 159 non-wide Jibsaw an option (waist 25.3, 25.4 respectively)?
Just want to say the work you are doing here is truly noble and selfless. Whatever higher being you follow should reward you generously in the afterlife…
Hi Eric
Apologies for the slow reply. Have had some personal things to sort out.
I think they’re going to be too narrow for 12s – or even 11.5s, if you were to fit into those. I would stick with wide for your boot/foot size.
Hey no problem at all. Really appreciate the responses. Hope all is good with personal stuff.
Hi. Wow, great article. I’d love to get your help sorting boots and board widths. I’m 5’11”, about 190 fully loaded, and typically wear an 11 or 11.5 running shoe, though a worn in Burton Moto Boa size 12 is about the perfect length; an 11.5 is too much toe against the end. Where I’m thrown off is my largest foot is measuring about 28.3cm on the ruler.
I’ve been looking at the following boards based on my weight, shoe size / burton boot size
Jones Frontier 161W 26.4 waist
Yes Typo 163W 26.3 Waist
Rossi Jibsaw 158W 26.3 Waist
Typical Stance is +18 / +6 to +9, though I’ve been trying out less forward biased stances, down to like +3 on the rear. I’ve been riding off and on since the early 90s and I’m over the aggressive full camber boards I grew up on. Still like to carve but need some forgiveness. I am looking at Burton Step-on boots/bindings, something with a medium flex.
Would be awesome to get your thoughts (though hoping you don’t recommend against the Jones as it’s on it’s way already)
Hey Nate!
I’m looking at buying the lib tech cortado womens snowboard. I’ve heard that it’s wider than usual snowboards so I’m not too sure if I should buy it. For reference, I am 5’3, 140 pounds, size 8 boots, and intermediate rider.
Thanks!
Hi Iris
The Cortado is wider than usual, but is the kind of board you size down for because of that width. Usually I would say to go around 145-147 for your specs, as an intermediate. But in this case, you could size down to the 142 to make up for the width, if you were happy to go short-wide. The 145 would be doable, but on the big side overall.
hi Hello
I want to buy a lib tech skate bana 2021 snowboard.my first snowboard and im a beginer The store I want to buy has 2 models of 159 cm and 162 wide. my height is 182 cm and weight is 86 kg and foot size is 44.5(us11), what size should I buy?
Hi Kianoosh
Thanks for your message.
Unfortunately both aren’t the best sizing options. As a beginner, for your specs, the 162W is too big. Even as a more advanced rider it’s on the big side, depending on how you want to ride, but for this board and as a beginner, I think it’s too big. But with US11 boots, the 159 is too narrow. The 159W would be the best option – or even the 156W. If you really have to choose between the 159 and 162W, I would go 159 and hope it’s wide enough. As a beginner, you might get away with it width-wise, since you’re less likely to be laying down any deep carves, but it’s pushing it width-wise.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I am looking for the Salomon Sight or a similar snowboard as a beginner (around 7 days experience some years ago). Which size will fit me? 158w, 159, or 162w?
Height: 5’7
Weight: 200 lbs
Boots size: Adidas 43.5 (EUR)
Thanks a lot!!
Georg
Hi Georg
Thanks for your message.
An Adidas 43.5 translates to a US9.5 (sorry my brain works in US sizes), so I think you could go with the regular width fine. So I would be leaning to the 159. The 158W would be fine too – it’s not super wide or anything, but I think the 159 is your better bet. The 162W too big for you, particularly as a beginner, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Looking at Burton Hideaway for my wife, she’s 5’7″ 130lbs and boot size 9-26cm. She’s a beginner and was wondering if size 144 with waist width of 237 will be good for her or better go with the 148cm waist 240.
Her bindings are Burton citizen size L.
Also for myself boot size 10.5 or 28cm 6′ 195lbs with stance +15 -8 what would be the minimum waist and largest waist i should go with?
thank you and great article
Hi Nelson
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, for your wife, I would be leaning towards the 144 being a beginner. If she was more advanced, she could go to a 148, but I’d err shorter with her being a beginner. I think 144 would be a good length. In terms of width, if she is riding with a bit of angle on both bindings (e.g. not like a 0-3 degree binding angle on the back binding), then I think she’ll be fine with the width on the 144. Even with flat angles like that, she might get away with it anyway as a beginner – as she likely won’t be driving any hard carves at this stage.
There are a lot of factors that go into how wide or narrow you can go (like how low profile your boots are) – and the width at inserts (which differs compared to the waist depending on the board) is a more accurate measure but with those binding angles, I’d be looking in the range 254 to 261, in terms of waist width.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate for the quick reply and advice!
Placed the order for the 144 for the wife. 🙂
As for myself Im an intermediary rider that’s back into snowboard after a long break. Took the kids for the first time this season and they loved. We are getting season passes for next year.My two young boys are shredding on the learning hills. I started to post some videos on IG: fb_xteam if you want to follow their journey.:)
My current set up is Burton moto boots 10.5 and Cartel X bindings L est. Board is Burton Custom 2014 158W. I’m 6feet and 195lbs.
Im looking for a playful and easy to ride board to learn buttering, jibbing and small jumps. Mainly to learn tricks and have fun with the kids. Which Burton board would you recommend and size ?
I could consider other brands if burton does not have any good option. If going to other brand can you suggest bindings as well since my current one is an EST. Thank you so much for all the help!
Hi Nelson
Checked out the vids – great job! My 6 year old is loving his snowboarding this year too – he started a couple of years back, but this is the first year he’s started to really enjoy it and start exploring more territory.
First board I would check out for what you’re describing is the Process Flying V. It’s really playful. Not great in icy conditions, but if you don’t plan to bring it out in those, then it’s really fun and good for jibbing, buttering etc.
But if you wanted a more camber dominant option, the Kilroy Twin (which has a different name for the 23 model – but essentially the same board – but just to note, in case you were going to wait for 23 models) is worth looking at. It’s camber, but it’s soft flexing. Or the Process Camber – though it’s not quite as soft – so there wouldn’t be as big a difference from your Custom. Would certainly be more playful and you would notice the difference, but if this is going to be your dedicated playful board, I’d be leaning more to the Process Flying V or Kilroy Twin.
I’d say the softest most playful is the Name Dropper. Didn’t have a 22 model but if you can find one in a 21 model. But if you did go with the Name Dropper, you’d likely want to change bindings. The Cartel X would over power that board, IMO. Even on the Process Flying V and Kilroy Twin, the Custom X is borderline too stiff, but on those you might get away with it. On the Name Dropper, probably not. Size-wise:
– Process Flying V: 157W would be your best size. And not super wide for a wide board. If you wanted to make things more maneuverable you could go to 157. It’s a little narrow, for your boots, but if you weren’t going to be laying deep carves and rode with angles like +15/-15 or similar, I think you’d be fine with it width-wise in Burton Moto’s (which are low profile). In fact with those angles and the low profile boots, I think you’d be fine on the 157.
– Kilroy Twin: 155 – this would be going quite small for your specs, but if it’s going to be your dedicated playful board I think it could work. Again width-wise, I think you’d get away with this, assuming binding angles of +15/-15 or similar (something that has at least a decent angle on the back binding angle).
– Name Dropper: 158 – or you could go 155 – but in that size, it might feel a bit too noodly – and as mentioned, I think your bindings would be too much for it.
I think those options would work well for what your wanting, but if you wanted to check out other options, also check out:
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
Hi Nate!
WOW amazing info here! You are awesome.
I am a brand new boarder, and have only used rental equipment the two times I have gone. I love it though and want to invest in my own gear to make this more fun.
I am a small person at 5 ft 3 in and 105 lbs. I had a lot of trouble controlling the rental board on turns and esp toe side as it was a 146 and felt very big and heavy. I also had a lot of heel lift in the rental boots.
My foot size is about 24 cm. I am looking at the Burton stylus 138. The waist width is 240mm. Based on the measurements would this board be a good fit for me? I am thinking I am a size 6.5-7 boot based on charts but my foot is very skinny and I want to try on in person to be sure. But trying to order the correct size board and bindings.
Thanks tremendously for your articles, they have taught me so much.
Hi Shawna
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, 146 definitely too long for you, IMO. Rental boards tend to be heavier as well, which would add to the weight. But even ignoring the weight of the board, that length is too long for your specs.
I think 138 would be a great length for you. As a more advanced rider you could go up to like 141/142, but for right now 138 is perfect, IMO. Width-wise, it’s a little on the wider size for your feet, but it’s not anything too crazy-wide or anything. With 24cm feet, I imagine you’ll end up in 7s or 7.5s. But trying on in person is the true test and maybe you’d fit into a 6.5. But I’d suspect 7 or 7.5. With narrow feet, it’s likely that the 7 will be the better fit over the 7.5. But again, trying on is the true measure.
But yeah, in terms of the board, I think it would work for sure. On the wide side, so if you wanted to be really fussy, could look at something narrower, but overall it’s a good choice, IMO. And going to be way different to your 146 rental boards!
Hope this helps
Thank you! This is so helpful. I cant wait to get my own set up and feel the difference from that rental. Went to my local shop and I measured into a nitro boa size 7.5. While I was there they suggested the Capita BOAF in a 142. But with the research I’ve done that feels like it may not be the best board for me at this point.
That being said I was looking at your top 10 beginner boards and saw the nitro Lectra. Its width looks more narrow, and your review sounds like its perfect for my ability and what I need. Would that be a better suited board for me, based on my specs and ability? I found it at a shop somewhat local in a 138.
Trying to make the smartest purchase here, and I cant tell you enough how much I appreciate your help and your amazing site.
Thank you!
Hi Shawna
I think the BOAF would be too aggressive for you at this point, as a beginner. It’s def not a beginner board. And whilst 142 isn’t like way too big for your specs, it is on the big side for your specs whilst your a beginner.
The Lectra would be a much more fun and easier board to learn on, IMO.
The 138 is a great length, IMO, the only concern is if it’s a little too narrow. I think you would be fine with it with the Nitro 7.5s, IF you have binding angles like +15/-15 or at similar. Something with at least a good bit of angle on the back binding (I single out the back binding, because your front binding is typically never going to be super flat across the board – like at the very least 9 degrees, and even then most have it on a greater angle thn that). As a beginner, you’re likely not to have any issues on the width of the Lectra given you’re likely not leaning into any super deep carves just yet – so you’d probably get away with it even with a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees kind of thing) but as you progress and get up on your edge a little more, that’s when it could start causing boot drag problems.
Thank you Nate! your help has been invaluable.
This makes sense about the BOAF. I will definitely go with either the Lectra or the Stylus in the 138. Thank you for breaking down the angels of the bindings. That definitely makes sense. And I definitely want to have the best board for my skill level so I can learn easier and get those skills down. Looking at the waist width of the two there is about a 12 cm difference. Which one would you recommend overall?
Thank you again!
Hi Shawna
I think the Stylus would be the safer bet width-wise and would give you the option to change up your binding angles if you wanted to. And it’s still in a good range for your foot size. I think you probably would get away with the Lectra, but there is some risk of boot drag there, especially if you start to progress quite quickly with carving.
Hey Nate,
Is the capita Mercury size 153 with a waist width of 253 a little too wide for boot size 8 feet? I am 145 lbs and 5’8.
Hi Colton
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, IMO it’s a little too wide for 8s. Doesn’t mean you couldn’t ride the Mercury – but I would size down to the 150 in your case.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for posting all of this helpful info. I’m 5 ‘ 8″ and weigh 155 lbs. My shoe size is 10.5 US (27.5 cm foot length) and I fit nicely in a Ride Jackson size 10 boot. A couple of years ago I bought a Salomon Craft 156 (2019 model). I didn’t pay attention to at any info other than board length when I purchased it. Recently I looked up the specs and it’s pretty wide for a 156. It measures 30.2 at the tip and tail and 25.7 at the waist. It seems like they could have almost listed this as 156W. According to your chart I’m at the max range for my foot at a 15 degree angle. At 15 degrees my foot fits exactly edge to edge on the under side of the board at the inserts, which measures about 26.6 straight across. I’m wondering if you think this is still within my range for an all-mountain board or if I would benefit from sizing down a bit.
Thanks,
Rory
Hi Rory
Thanks for your message.
Firstly in terms of width, I don’t think it’s too wide. I think it’s at the wider end of your range, but still within a good range. I typically like a board width that’s less than 265mm (straight across) – with a right foot 27cm and left foot 27.3cm. But I can ride wider than that – but that’s kind of the ideal for me – that 260-265mm range. If the board is a little short for my specs, then I find it easier to go wider. Waist width – does play a part as well though – typically I find: between boards with the same insert width, the one with the narrower waist tends to be more agile and easier to ride.
I wouldn’t call it a wide though – wides typically start at around 270mm at inserts.
Length-wise, I would consider your “standard all-mountain” size to be around 155cm – assuming a relatively advanced level of riding.
I think in this case, because the width is at the upper end of what I would consider the ideal range for both length and width, then maybe borderline on the big side. But it’s nothing crazy big for you or anything. You could certainly ride a little smaller if you wanted though. This would partly depend on your style of riding too – e.g. if you like to bomb carve hard and hit powder, then I don’t think it’s too big. But if you prefer to spend quite a bit of time in trees and doing some freestyle stuff or simply are just a more casual, playful kind of rider, then I think you could benefit from sizing down a little bit.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks, this is super helpful. I’m glad to know the board isn’t overly wide for my foot length and still within my range overall. I would describe my riding style as more casual and playful most of the time. I live in NYC so I’m usually riding east coast resort groomers. I was planning a trip to Utah when I bought this board and was hoping it would be good for a variety of terrain and snow conditions out there. It felt good cruising at high speed, but I did have some difficulty winding through the trees and getting from edge to edge on the steeps. I wasn’t sure if the board was too big or if I just needed to get used to it. My Craft is a great board, but I think I’ll size down a little next time so it’s is a bit more nimble. Thanks so much for your input!
Best,
Rory
You’re very welcome Rory. And thanks for visiting the site. Let me know if you need any help choosing your next board. Happy riding!
Hey Nate,
I want to buy the Rossignol One 2022 board. I wear size 10.5 32 Tw2 boots. I’m about 5’8- 185lbs. What size should I get. 157W or 156 reg. No freestyle just hard charging side hits when possible.
Hi Jesus
Thanks for your message.
I would probably actually look at the 159. Given that you don’t do any freestyle and like to charge hard, I think that extra length would be good to have for you. And the 159 should be wide enough for your boot size. The 156 is bordering on too narrow, but the 157W a little too wide, IMO. I think the 159 would be spot on for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello!
Thanks for taking the time to make all of these recommendations. It has been interesting just reading through all of the variations. I am considering a return to snowboarding after a decade away. I am 6’4″, 235ish lbs, and wear a US14 boot. I’ll be riding mostly groomers at a beginner level. Last I rode I had a Burton Dominant 160 but I never really knew if it was the right size or not. I’ve looked all over and your article and consequent sizing info is the most helpful things I have found. That said, I am still wondering what length and width I should be after.
I had looked at some options from Salomon, like the Sight 162W and 166W but the waist widths of 260mm and 262mm seem too narrow. I had also seen this brand Niche who has a board called the Pyre which is only 160cm long but has a waist width of 275mm. Is 160 too short?
I’m not sold on any one brand at this point, just trying to sort out what ranges I should be considering. Super open-ended questions so I thank you for your time and patience!
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, the Sight is probably too narrow – it’s wide’s aren’t particularly wide. For the Pyre, I think 160 is getting a bit too short – if you had smaller boots and needed to size down because of the width, then it would be a doable size, but with 14s, you won’t need to size down. Also, though I haven’t ridden the Pyre, it doesn’t look on paper to be a beginner friendly ride.
Generally speaking, as a beginner (high end beginner?) I would say something around 162-164 in length. With 14s, you’ll want to go quite wide too.
Some options include:
– Burton Instigator Flat Top 165W – this is going to be borderline too soft for you though, even as a beginner. But being a little above that size recommendation we set, I think it would work
– K2 Raygun 164W
– Never Summer Snow Trooper 164X – it’s a bit more than a beginner board – but pretty easy going and certainly could handle as a high end beginner, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I was wondering if you could help me with seeing if my set up is proper 🙂
I currently just upgraded my board to the Salomon Lotus Women board 142, My current binding are the Union Juliet 2017 binding in size Small. I’m wearing a size 7 Vans Aura boots.
The size small binding fits my board and boots well at the moment (but I’m on a 130 board which is why I upgraded. ) I was wondering if my binding is still fine for the Salomon Lotus board or would I need to upgrade ?
Ps Love your website 🙂 Its so helpful!!
Hi Christy
Thanks for your message.
Ideally you’d be on medium union bindings for your new board. However, the small should be doable. The Medium would give you a little more leverage on the edges – being a longer binding on what I assume is a wider board compared to your 130. But so long as you can center your boots OK (as in even heel and toe overhang) – which you should be fine with, given that you’ll have heel cup adjustment on the Juliet and can run the disc vertical in addition to that, if the heel cup adjustment isn’t enough for centering – then you could stick with the small Juliet. If you’re not able to get proper boot centering (doesn’t have to be perfect), then it’s more worth it to upgrade bindings.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Amazing info, thank you.
Can you help me also a bit.
I am 179 cm and 72 kg with boot size 9.5-10.
7 yo of riding a week per year, all-mountain with still begginer+ level i think (can do some ollies, smal popups, powder, but never park, pipe and can’t switch 🙂
15 / -10 guffy
Last 5yo riding DC focus 149 (my small love) never had any issue with width (or just did not recognize it).
Now need to change the board and looking for bathaleon Whatever, as the reviews are amazing, but lost in size. better 154 or 157 for me?
Appreciate your hardwork!
Hi Vlad
Thanks for your message.
I’d put you at around 157 as your “standard all-mountain” length, but that typically assumes a relatively advanced level. Given that you’re still high-end beginner/low intermediate, taking off a bit of size makes sense – and given that you’re used to a 149, it also makes me err shorter. So whilst the 157 certainly wouldn’t be way off, I’d be leaning 154 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
My brother told me about your awesome website! It’s amazing how much detail you go into and everything you do to help the community, thank you!
I didn’t know if you’d mind just offering a bit more advice..? Me and Bro are heading to Austria next month boarding and this will be the 6th/7th time I’ve been snowboarding and would class myself as an intermediate.
I’m looking to treat myself to buying my first ever snowboard as I’ve always rented previously. The options I’ve been looking at are the YES Typo and one of the Burton Customs, however not settled on which model yet.
I’m really struggling what size board I should be looking at. I’m 6ft 5″ tall and about 90kg with a boot size of UK12. With my height and weight I’d imagine I’d be looking at maybe the tallest board they do and wide, but I wouldn’t want a board that’s going to be a pain to turn and not very nimble. I’d like an all mountain board that gives me more performance over a rented board and can help me gain ability on the mountains and become a better snowboarder.
If you had any suggestions or comments on snowboards I should be looking at and any bindings recommendations I’d be grateful appreciative!
Cheers dude.
Dave.
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
I think the Typo would suit what your describing. Only question mark would be width. Even the wide options aren’t super wide and with UK12s, even the 163W is pushing it in terms of being too narrow. For the Typo I think the 163W would be the best length too – in this case it’s the longest/widest, but generally speaking you wouldn’t necessarily go with the longest/widest board. I would say something 161-163. Some boards come in much longer sizes and I wouldn’t go longer than 163 for you.
In terms of getting on the Typo width-wise, I think it’s risky for your boot size. If you were riding with binding angles +15/-15 or similar, had low profile boots and didn’t really carve that deep or want to carve that deep, then you’d probably get away with it – but otherwise I’d look to go wider.
If you were to go Custom, then the 162W is probably your best bet. It’s a little wider, though not hugely, so it’s still borderline.
For reference:
– Typo 163W around 271mm at inserts
– Custom 162W around 275mm at inserts
These are both assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width. If you ride with a wider stance width (which you might well do at your height), then you would get more leeway there. E.g. with a 600mm stance (23.6″), you’d more likely be at:
– Typo 163W around 274mm at inserts
– Custom 162W around 278mm at inserts
In which case the Typo is probably still borderline, but the Custom I think would be doable.
Between the Custom Camber and Flying V.
The Camber version is more advanced. I’d say you’d want to be a solid intermediate rider with good technique. The Flying V is an easier rider.
The Camber version is better for carving, has more pop and has better edge hold in hard/icy conditions. The Flying V version is better in powder, feels softer flexing, more playful and quicker edge to edge.
Bindings will depend on the board you end up choosing.
Hope this gives you more to go off – and if you want any other suggestions, let me know.
Hi Nate
Such an amazing website – so helpful! I’m on the cusp of Beginner level 4/Intermediate level 5 in terms of ability, and I’m looking for a new all mountain board that’s easy to ride, fairly loose and catch free but provides enough performance for me to progress into once my confidence builds (probably something on the freestyle end of all mountain). I’ve found a Never Summer Snowtrooper (2019 157W) and wondered if you thought it would be a good choice? I’m 5′ 11″, foot size 28.5cm (UK 10 boot) and weigh ~72kg. Any thoughts/suggestions would be much appreciated!
Cheers!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
IMO the Never Summer Snowtrooper is a great choice for what you’re describing.
Size-wise, I think the 157W works too. I would put you roughly at around 158cm for your “standard all-mountain length” – as a beginner/intermediate rider, it’s a good idea to size down the length a little, but given your not a complete beginner, doesn’t have to be too much – and with an easy going board like this, I think you’d be fine sizing down just 1cm. And with UK10s, you do need to go wide, IMO. And the 157X isn’t ultra wide or anything – a good width for UK10s, I’d say.
The Snowtrooper makes my list of top intermediate boards – which was created precisely for what you’re after – something still easy enough to ride, but with more performance than a pure beginner board – something that take you further into your progression than a purely beginner board can.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much Nate, that’s super helpful – looking forward to giving the Snowtrooper a go! If you have any thoughts on compatible bindings, suitable for my level that would be be great. I currently use a pair of strap ins but open to trying speed entry.
Cheers
Chris
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I would be looking at something around 5/10 to 6/10 in terms of flex. For the Snowtrooper you could even ride something 4/10 flex, but I’d be leaning 5/10 to 6/10, that way if you go to a stiffer board sometime in the future you may not have to change up your bindings – and 5/10 to 6/10 match this board well too, IMO.
Something in that range from one of the following would work well, IMO:
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
Thanks Nate, that’s so help!
Cheers
Chris
You’re very welcome Chris. Happy riding!
Hey Nate,
I started the season after a long hiatus by buying a volume-shifted powder board that ended up being way too wide for my liking and I realized that powder is far and few between here where I am located. I’m trying to find a good all-around mountain board that I can throw around way easier but still charge hard on steep groomers and lay down some deep trenches. I’m a male, US size 7 boot at 135 lbs and 5″4′ (163 cm). I would put myself at an intermediate-advanced level. I can certainly handle wider boards but the powder board I was using was about 261 mm at the inserts; it was like carving with a boat. A few good deals I’ve picked up and available local to me:
Burton Custom Camber 150
K2 Outline 149 (I have this one on hand – 249mm @ front insert, 251 @ back insert)
Yes Ghost 149
Thoughts on these? Other suggestions? Thanks, Nate!
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t tested the outline (or had anyone test it), but the size sounds the best to me. I would put you right at 149 as your “standard all-mountain” length, so all good for length, and the width would be really good for your boots, IMO. So size-wise, I’d say it’s the best option. But otherwise can’t say much about the performance of the board.
For what you’re describing, assuming your not hitting too much deep powder, the Custom Camber and YES Ghost would work really well, IMO. And length-wise the 150 Custom Camber and 149 Ghost are great lengths. But they are on the wide side for you, IMO, and without downsizing at all for the extra width, they are overall borderline big. But it would also somewhat depend on what you’re used to. But purely based on specs and how you describe your riding they’re borderline too big.
For reference:
– The Custom Camber 150 is likely to have a width at inserts around 257mm. That’s assuming a 530mm (20.9″) stance width. If you ride with a narrower stance width, it would be a little narrower than that.
– The Ghost 149 is likely to have a width at inserts around 256mm. That’s assuming a 540mm (21.3“) stance width.
If you think those sizes could work, both of those boards would work well, IMO. They won’t be great in deep powder, but will be fine for shallow powder.
Hope this helps
Nate –
I just purchased the Gentemstick Spoonfish 152 – and I’m a little concerned about the toe/heel drag on the back foot. I’m 5’9” and 150ish lbs and wear a size 9 boot (Vans Verse). The spoonfish 152 has a 252 waist, so I thought I’d have no issues – but it’s a very directional tapered board with a set back stance (what I was looking for) and the back insert width is essentially the same width as the waist (252) with maybe a mm or 2 more depending on binding placement. I would preferably like to set my stance with back foot at 0-3 degrees. When I measured the overhang on the board with my boot, I got varied results – but somewhere between 1.5 – 1.75” of total overhang (3.81 – 4.445 cm). I’m an advanced rider and like to get moderately low/aggressive with my carves. I was hoping to keep the overhang at 2cm or less on both heal and toe side. Based of your experience should I be concerned about that extra .445 cm (.22 front and back) or do you think I’m good to go? I appreciate your advice and sorry if I’m getting too nit picky on this!
– Jonathan
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your message – and worth getting a little nit picky to make sure you get it right, IMO.
Surprising to hear that it’s the same width at the inserts! I haven’t come accross a board like that (except in a couple of cases where there was a magnitraction bump right at the waist, which made the waist sound wider than it was – and in those cases only seeing around 3mm of difference. Just to make sure – did you measure the width at the back insert from the base side of the board (outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge) or on the top sheet?
I’ve never had any issues with drag from anything less than 2.5cm of overhang, so I’d say it’s OK. Ideally 2cm or less, but more to be on the safe. In reality I haven’t experienced issues going a little over 2cm. I would say that I carve relatively deep, but nothing crazy – not getting down to eurocarve or anything.
With 9s and a 252mm back insert width, I think it sounds doable, in any case. If the Verse you have measure the same as what I measured, and in 9s, then they’re likely around 29cm, which would suggest total overhang of 3.8cm, assuming a zero degree angle.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Appreciate the info on your site! Great work! Hoping to get a little advice on what size board to consider for upgrading my set up. I’m 47, rode about a dozen times back in college, took a break for 25 years, then got a used board last year and went a dozen times in one season. Fell in love with boarding again. I definitely don’t feel like a beginner skill wise, maybe more intermediate – ride greens and blues in the Midwest, some blacks, hit smaller jumps and the occasional rail. Mostly love to carve and do side hits. Plan to get out west a few days each year also.
My used set up is just a low end 5150 Stroke 164W – 26.2cm waist I believe. I’m 6’2” 220lbs. I have new Nitro club hybrid boa boots size 13. Love the boots but want a new quality board and bindings. I’ve been looking into the Never Summer PS or Harpoon, Burton Custom FV and the Ride Warpig. From what I can see they all seem to be good options for a variety of riding styles and have wider options. A couple questions related to that.
For the NS PS with my boots etc would you recommend going with the drag free option or could I get by with just the standard wider version?
Any feedback or advice for either fit or performance on the other boards I’m considering?
Thanks for anything you can pass along.
Jason
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of length, I think you’re good around that 163/164 size for an all-mountain board. Something like the PS, which is what I would call all-mountain-freestyle, is the kind of board you can ride a bit shorter – it has quite a bit of effective edge versus overall length. So, if you can get on it width-wise, the 160X would certainly work. In terms of fitting on it width-wise, a couple of things. I would say it’s around 274mm at the inserts. This is borderline too narrow, depending on a couple of things:
1. binding angles. If you’re rocking something like +15/-15 or similar, then you’ve got a bit more leeway
2. boot profile – a lower profile boot will help you to get on a narrower board, naturally. I haven’t tested any Nitro boots, so I’m not sure how their profile compares to other boots.
3. how deep/hard you carve. If you’re rocking eurocarves or similar, then it might be pushing it for width, even if the above two things are in your favor. But if you’re not carving super deep or anything, then you don’t have to go as wide
Another clue is the board you’re currently riding. I haven’t tested anything 5150, so I don’t know what it’s like at the inserts – could be anything between 266mm and 280mm. But my guess would be that it’s fairly close to the PS. But if you wanted to check, you could measure it – take the measurement from the base of the board, from the outside of the metal edge to outside of metal edge, where the center of your bindings would be. If you haven’t had any boot drag issues on it and it’s around 274mm or less, then you’re probably pretty safe on the 160X PS.
If you have a straighter back binding angle and like to carve really deep, then you could look at the DF size. I would almost go to the 159DF if you did that though – with that extra width it’s getting pretty big, so you’d probably be good on the shorter of the 2 DF sizes.
Some things to note about the PS:
– It’s not great for powder. Anything less than a foot or so and you should be fine, but when it gets deeper, can be an effort to keep the nose above the powder (a back leg burner in deep snow).
For the Custom FV I’d say 162W. Probably around 274mm at inserts as well – so the above width conversation applies. Is a very versatile board but note that the Flying V profile, I have found, is not very good in icy conditions. Also, it has a looser feel to it. That’s not a good thing or a bad thing, but more of a preference thing. Some prefer a more stable feel – some even a really locked in feel, and others a looser feel. I would say that the PS is more stable than it is loose, but just bordering on the semi-loose side. The Custom FV is loose. I’d class the Custom FV an all-mountain board.
The Warpig and Harpoon are more what I would describe as Freeride boards. All be it, more mellow than your typical stiff freeride board. So more geared towards powder, speed, carving etc more so than anything freestyle. You can still hit side hits with them of course, but just not quite as good, IMO and less park/freestyle geared than the other 2. To help make sense of that think of it like a scale of street/jib | freestyle | all-mtn freestyle | all-mountain | freeride | powder – all-mountain boards are the most versatile, with all-mtn freestyle being almost as versatile but typically not great in powder and freeride also being fairly versatile but tend to lack the freestyle side of things.
The Warpig I would go 159 and you shouldn’t have any issues with width on that one, it’s really very wide – probably around 287mm at the inserts – so more like the DF sizes of the PS.
The Harpoon, again, I’d go 159. It’s not quite as wide though, so it’s getting on the small side for you. Width at inserts I would say is around 272mm at the back inserts and 279mm at the front inserts. It’s borderline in terms of width on the back insert and also given that it’s not wide for your boots, sizing down to 159 doesn’t really make sense. And it’s not like the PS, in terms of effective edge versus overall length – for example the 159 has a 119cm effective edge versus 123.6cm effective edge on the 160X PS.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate! I’ll mull over your info, gives me several options to consider. I did also look at the list for top 10 all mountain boards since that’s really what I think fits my style best. Seems like several are on the edge of being too narrow for me. Are there 2 or 3 boards you would recommend in the all mountain intermediate category that should fit a 13 well? I have been riding +15,-9 most often. Thanks.
Hi Jason
The YES Standard is the first that springs to mind – in the 162. It’s wider than it looks. Assuming around a 560mm (22″) stance width you’d be looking at around 281mm at the inserts on that one. With a slightly wider stance, it would be even wider. I think that would be a great fit for 13s.
The Mountain Twin is also a bit wider than it looks. If you were to ride the 162W at the 600mm (23.6″) reference stance on it, it would be around 278mm at the back insert (277mm front insert). Narrower if you were to ride a narrower stance than that though, of course.
The Nitro Team Gullwing 162W is 270mm at the inserts and around 280mm on the back insert, 278mm on the front insert (assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width.
Thanks man! Will definitely check those out. Really appreciate the feedback and the website.
You’re very welcome Jason. Happy riding!
Nate, got a follow up based on your recs. I am looking into the Yes Standard, very interested in it, seems like size and design has a lot of what I’m looking for. However I’ve noticed it’s seems to be categorized as more of and advanced/expert board. I’m definitely intermediate, is this still a board that I should consider? I’m debating between this and the NS PS 159DF – really want a wide board so I don’t have to worry much about toe or heel drag. Thanks.
Hi Jason
To me, the Standard is very much an intermediate and up board. It’s still fine for more advanced rider’s but I’d consider it fine for intermediate riders. I would say mid-level intermediate riders – rather than that space of just transitioning from beginner to intermediate. But I’d say the same about the PS. The Standard is no more advanced than the PS, IMO.
Thanks a ton! Been very helpful!
You’re very welcome Jason. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
All of your reviews & feedback are amazing!! Thank you!
I was interested in getting the Gnu Gwo 159cm. I can find much information as per the sizing chart and boot sizing. I am 5″11 about 175-185lbs. My mondopoint is just between 28/28.5 so I can wear a size 10.5 or 11 boot. Would you recommend getting the 159W if I were to get the size 11’s? Thanks again for all the great work!!
Hi Sean
Thanks for your message.
With 11s, I would go to the 159W, yeah. I haven’t measured the GWO, but GNU boards typically have a small difference between waist width and width at inserts. That said, the GWO is wider at the tip and tail than other GNU/Lib Tech boards. That doesn’t always mean wider at the inserts, but usually does. So for a typical GNU twin, I’d say around 262mm at the inserts, but with the GWO, it’s likely a little wider than that. If I had to guess around 264mm at t inserts. But still narrow for 11s, IMO. You might get away with it, if you weren’t going to be doing any really deep carving, had +15/-15 binding angles or similar and had low profile 11s. Then you’d probably be fine, but otherwise it’s risking it a bit.
If you were to end up in 10.5 boots, then I think you should be all good. Only case when it might not be, is if you were really railing your carves (e.g. eurocarving) with bulky boots and a fairly flat back binding angle.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Looking at getting the Never Summer west bound in 160cm. Has a waist width of 25.7. I wear a UK 12/ US 13 boot – do you think this will work? On the website says should take a 8-12 boot….
Previously have ridden a 159cm (26 waist width) Burton bullet and havent had any issues with this.
Thanks!
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
Typically I’d say that it’s too narrow for US13 boot for sure. But given that you rode the Bullet with no issues, you might get away with it.
You’re looking at around 267mm at the inserts on the 160 West Bound (WB), which is likely less than on the Bullet (haven’t measured the Bullet, but based on other Burton boards, I’d say it’s at least 270mm at inserts. With 13s, you’re looking at at least a 33cm outsole, so you’re looking at a total overhang of around 6.3cm (or roughly 3.1cm for heel side and 3.1cm toe side, depending on centering of boots). That’s more than I’d typically recommend. But if you’re not railing your carves super deep, have a reasonable back binding angle and low profile boots (the 33cm prediction is based on low profile boots already though), then you might get away with it, given that you didn’t have any issues on your Bullet.
However, it’s pretty risky, IMO. Going with one of the wide sizes (if you could find one) would be recommended.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great info. I just picked up a 2019 ride twinpig 148, I am a size 8 in boots, 5’6, and 133 lbs. I was wondering if the union stratas size M would work well with this set up? I feel like my feet may be too small so if you could help clarify things I would really appreciate it. Do you think I should have gone with a 142? The main reason I went with the 148 was because I plan on making this my daily driver and I felt like the 142 would be too playful. Also if you have any boot recommendations for this set up I am all ears!
Thanks, Seiyu
Hi Seiyu
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I probably would have said 142 for your specs. Even like 145, if that was a size. I’d say around 150 for your specs for a daily driver, if in a better width for your feet. As a wider board, sizing down is recommended. You are sizing down subtly by going to 148, but ideally would size down a bit more.
In terms of Strata, I would go with the M. You should be fine in terms of fitting your boots in there. And it’s the better size for the board. You would likely be able to get into the S binding, but given the width of the board, having the extra length in the baseplate of the M, will help to give you a little more leverage on the edges. So yeah, M for sure, IMO.
In terms of boots, I’d be looking at something around that 6/10 to 7/10 flex range to compliment both board and bindings and given you want to use it as your daily driver. Whilst the Twinpig is a little softer than medium, from what I hear (haven’t ridden it yet, but have one on the way), I think it will feel a little stiffer for you, in the 148 size. If you were to change to the 142, then a 5/10 or 6/10 flex in the boots would likely be a better bet.
Some good options in those flex ranges:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I am thinking about buying a Jones Twin Sister or Mountain Twin. I am not sure which to pick and what size would be best… I am 5’9” 150 lbs with a women’s size 10 boot.
If I go shorter I think the 151 MT might make more sense for the slightly increased waist width 24,8 (as opposed to the 152 Twin Sister with waist width 24,6). Or is it fine to ride a women’s size 10 on either of these?
And if I go longer, would it make more sense to do the women’s 155? Or men’s 154? Seems like according to the specs either should work for my boot. So maybe the women’s board would make more sense then?
I am getting conflicting advice on length generally. I am intermediate to advanced, riding weekly in Michigan and 1-2 trips out west per year. I’d love to have one board that does it all. Is 154/155 too big for me? 15+ years ago I rode a Ride 154 but boards have changed a lot since then. For the past few seasons I’ve rented or borrowed gear of varying sizes. I am just riding for fun and to get outside, athletic but risk averse as I’m getting older 🙂 Seems like most people I talk to in the midwest advise going shorter… but I’m hesitant.
Thanks in advance!
-Tanya
Hi Tanya
Thanks for your message and great questions.
I would say your length maxes out at about 153 for your specs. So, it’s not far off going to that 154/155 range, but I think 151/152 for the MT/Twin Sister makes the most sense for what you’re describing. Boards have changed a lot since then – and also sizing has changed too. It used to be mostly based on height, but weight and boots size – and how you like to ride, ability level are all, IMO, more important than height. Though I do still take height into account, it’s less important than those other factors.
Between the Twin Sister and MT in those sizes, I would say go Twin Sister 152. IMO it will be wide enough for women’s 10s. Even just based on waist width, you should get away with it width-wise, but on top of that the Twin Sister is wider at the inserts versus the waist, than the average board, so you get a bit more leeway there. The 152 will be around 260mm at the back insert and 258mm at the front insert at reference stance. Plenty wide enough for women’s 10s, IMO. Even if you were to ride it narrower than reference stance it should be all good.
I think that size would be pretty much ideal for you. The 151 MT is doable as well. But I’d be leaning 152 Twin Sister for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi really good article. I am a beginner I lean towards freestyle. I weigh 62kg, my height 5’7. Size 10 feet
and snowboard length 151.
What snowboot size should I get?
And what binding angles is ok for me? Thanks
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
Boot size will depend on what boots fit you best. If you’re a 10 in normal shoes, then you’ll likely be a 9.5, 10 or 10.5 in snowboard boots, depending on the brand. If you’re able to try on in person, check out the following to get an idea of what the right fit should be:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
If you’re unable to try on in person, the following might help:
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
For binding angles, it depends what feels most comfortable to you. But given that you lean towards freestyle, some kind of duck stance is a good idea (+15/-15 or similar) or even a slight duck (e.g. +18/-12). Something that makes riding switch more comfortable/natural.
I’m not sure if you’re also asking about whether the width of the board will be OK? If so, can you let me know your what board (brand, model) you have.
Hope this helps
Hello! This information is awesome! Thanks for the research! I have size 12 burton photon boots, they are a bit tight, toes feel the end but doable. Like 0 deg on back foot and looking at the NS 2022 Harpoon in 157cm length and 26.4 waist. This will be my powder, easy small park jumps, cruising with the kids board but a little concerned on width at back foot on a hi speed carve on hard snow if I take it there. That board looks sick! Thoughts? Thanks a bunch, Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I rode the 156, which was 270mm at the back insert. Which is pretty borderline for 12s, IMO. The 159 would be around 272mm at the back insert, which is still be borderline for 12s, IMO. Having Burton boots does help your case though, being low profile, but that 0 degree back binding angle doesn’t help.
I measured the Photon at around 2.6cm longer than mondo, making the 12 likely around 32.6cm long. With the width at inserts being around 272mm on the back insert, you’re looking at around 5.4cm of overhang. Depending on how you get your boots centered that’s roughly 2.7cm (just over 1″) of overhang on the heel and toe. Which is pushing it, if you’re going to be carving quite deep. One thing that’s in your favor with Burton boots, other than just the shorter profile, is that they have a higher toe bevel on the boot than the average boot – meaning you can carve at a deeper angle than you’d be able to with a lesser toe bevel (average of all the boots I’ve measured for toe bevel is 2.4cm – the Photon I measured was 3.4cm – this isn’t a super accurate measurement, but there is definitely more toe bevel on them than the average boot). Whether that’s enough to let you get away with it is hard to say, but that does work in your favor.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hello Nate,
im a 191cm 90kg guy looking for a new board. I had the burton instigator 165wide and it just feels way to long. Im curious what is the smallest size that wont be to short for me. Currently looking at 157w burton freethinker or 159 killroy. Im just concerned that the board will be impossible to handle at higher speeds although i feel the 165 is way to big and hard to manouver. Thanks for the reply.
Hi Jure
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think 165 is a little big. I’d say 163 at most, assuming an advanced level, for an all-mountain board. But you could definitely size down from that for a number of reasons – 1. personal preference 2. if you’re riding freestyle a lot and/or trees, then sizing down a bit can help 3. Beginners and to lesser extent intermediate riders can benefit from sizing down a bit.
I probably wouldn’t go shorter than 158 – and only that short if you’re going to be predominantly riding freestyle and/or trees. The smaller you go the more you will affect your stability at speeds. But that said, there are other factors that can affect your stability at speed – like how stiff the board is. With the Instigator being a very soft board, going to a stiffer board, even if you go shorter, you want loose any and probably still gain some stability at speed, depending on how short you were to go.
The Freethinker is quite an aggressive board – a big step up from the Instigator. Going down to 157 would mellow it out though – and for your specs, I think you’d feel that size a little softer flexing than I did. It’s getting on the small side for you, but doable, just. Just don’t expect it to be quite as stiff/aggressive as I found it (which might be a good thing, depending on how stiff you wanted to go). The Freethinker is also full camber, so you’d be getting that more technical ride – less forgiving of errors than something like the Instigator. But if you feel like your technique is in a good enough place it’s an option – and going 157W would, as I said, certainly mellow it out a bit.
Which Kilroy model are you thinking? Kilroy Twin? Kilroy 3D? I take it you’re looking for something with a freestyle flavor?
Also if you could let me know your boot size? That would help to confirm sizing as well.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for the reply you’re a true gem. My style consists of a lot of mid to high speed rides with buttering, hitting side jumps and I got solid on riding switch thats why I want a true twin. I basically wanna ride with style and integrate butters to all my rides as best as I can. I also like the occasional powder and tree run but its not the main thing for me.I am not a big fan of ultra high non stop carving speed rides and big jumps. . With the instigator I could feel the softness not helping during higher speed runs and I couldnt butter with confidence because of the directional shape. Also I feel my technique is good enough to handle a more advanced board and am ready to move forward.
I was looking at killroy process but I find it a bit too soft as I dont mind putting in a little bit more effort to bend a stiffer board If that means getting more stability on the faster runs.
I wear a US size 12 on BURTON MISSION EST BRKY L.
I want to add that I stumbled on this page and I cant stress enough how grateful I am. You really are a uniqe person and page to reply to all shreders in need of advice and been doing this for years. Hats off to you sir and your org thank you in advance for your intake.
Hi Jure
Thanks for the kind words!
Yeah for what you’re describing, the Kilroy Process would be a bit too soft, IMO. And it sounds like you should be able to handle the Freethinker fine, particularly as it won’t feel super stiff to you in the 157W. With 12s, definitely the wide version.
It’s certainly on the smaller side for your specs, but for your riding style it could work. I’d say it will be fine in the trees, because of that smaller size, it should be maneuverable enough. But when there’s deep powder (whether in the trees or not) it’s probably going to be hard work. Even in a bigger size it wouldn’t be a great powder floater – and going smaller will only make it worse in that sense. But in shallower powder it should still be OK and if you’re not worried about how it performs in deeper powder, then I think it can work in that size.
Hello Nate,
I just bought a Burton Ripcord Flat Top 159 cm for my boyfriend as present. We are both beginners and have rode only rented boards previously. He is 180 cm, 72 kg and wears boot size 9.5 us (43 eu).
According to the specs on Burton site, size 159 cm for this board goes with binding size L, however it looks like an M would fit him better. I’m not sure how the binding size affects the board stability and so on.
Do you think it would be a problem to use bindings size M on this board or should he go for L? I would really appreciate your input, I’m at a loss on this one.
Thanks,
Ioana
Hi Ioana
Thanks for your message.
When looking at binding sizing, I first look at the boot to binding match. If you could go either size based on your boot size, then I look at the board. When it comes to matching with the board, if it’s a wider board, then the large binding tends to work better. A longer baseplate just gives you a bit more leverage on the edges of the board. When it comes to Burton bindings, they tend not to be that long in the baseplate, so I would also say L for a Burton binding on the 159 Flat Top, ideally. For some other brands an M would be fine. But for a 9.5 boot, he is better off going Medium in the bindings, IMO. It will be a better boot fit – and that outweighs the advantages of the little bit of extra leverage he would get from going with the large binding, IMO.
As a side note, I think he would have been better going with the 157 Ripcord. 159 isn’t way off, so he should be fine, but ideally I would have gone 157.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot, this is really helpful.
Ioana
You’re very welcome Ioana.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking at a Salomon Sight 153, I have UK size 10 feet and I’m using Burton Ruler UK 10 boots, however with the Shrinkage Reduction Technology the footprint comes out at a UK size 9.
With a pair medium bindings (Burton Mission)-would this be ok???
Many thanks,
Lewis
Hi Lewis
Thanks for your message.
Even with lower profile boots in that size, it’s still borderline too narrow. If you’re a beginner and not really going to be railing your carves yet or anything and you’ve got +15/-15 binding angles or similar, then I think you should be fine, you’ll get away with it, IMO. If you’re really leaning into your carves and/or have straighter binding angles, you could be risking boot drag there. No worries with the binding size on their, but the bindings won’t make your boots any shorter.
Hope this helps
What a nice article. Looks like having US 7 boot size my “dream” to ride the Jones Mountain Twin (248 waist width) won’t come true.
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
The 151 Mountain Twin would be wide for your boots, IMO. But depending on your specs it might still work. For boards that are too wide, sizing down length-wise often helps. If you could let me know your height and weight, your ability level and how you like to ride (e.g. aggressive or more playful? Trees? Park? Butters? Powder? High speed mostly or more slower speeds? etc – anything you can tell me about your riding helps) – then I can give you my opinion as to whether the 151 could work in the Mountain Twin. And if I don’t think it would work, I can look for other options that I think would work, if you’d like?
Nate,
I’m 136 lbs, 5’6″.
By the way. I can’t center my boots with burton cartels size S perfectly. I have 2cm overhang on the heel side and 1cm overhang on the toes side. The bindings just can’t be shifted towards toes more. I don’t feel buch problems with it but if it makes sence I can switch to Union which are more ajustable. What do you think?
Thank you.
I’m considering MT as an all-mountain daily driver. I have specific boards for park and pow days.
Hi Max
For your specs, I think 151 is a good length, but with it being wide for your boots, overall it’s on the bigger side. But if you’re an experienced rider and are used to a certain size, it could still work. What are the sizes of the boards you have currently?
In terms of that overhang, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Ideally centered, but if you’re going to have more overhang on one edge or the other, I personally prefer to have a bit more on the heel, so I’d be fine with that kind of difference. I wouldn’t want any more difference than that. If it was like 2.5cm heel and 0.5 cm toe, I wouldn’t be comfortable with that personally. So I think that’s the biggest “off center” that I’d go, but I’d be fine with that.
Great, I thought any “off-center” is bad. I have Jones Hovercraft 148 (ww249) for pow and carving. It is relatively slow edge to edge. It’s not playful. I’m so happy in pow.
Never Summer Evo 147 (ww 241) for flat tricks, jib, kickers, and so on. It feels like slippers. I don’t even notice I have a board on my feet. I’ve been using it as an all-mountain. Now I want smth more stable, a bit stiffer and with camber under feet.
Aside from the MT I’m considering Capita DOA which appearance I like more and specs fit me better (150/ww246). But I’ve heard many opinions that the MT works better for the way I want to ride.
Hi Max
Centered is the ideal, but a little off I find is OK.
Yeah DOA is better size for sure. Could work, depending on what you’re after. MT is better in powder, uneven terrain and is more buttery (IMO). But both are similar for speed and carving. DOA a little better for jumps and riding switch. DOA is what I consider all-mountain-freestyle, with the MT more all-mountain (aka do-it-all).
Another all-mountain option worth looking at is the YES Standard, which comes in a 149. It is on the wider side for you still. It’s 245mm at the waist, but roughly 257mm at the inserts. For reference, I’d say the MT 151 would be roughly 261mm at the inserts and the DOA 150 more like 254mm at the inserts. This all based on a roughly 22″ stance width. With a narrower stance width, you could take some length off these. Roughly 2mm for every 1.5″ of stance narrowing. So, If you were riding at more like 20-21″ for your stance width, then the Standard more like 255mm, DOA 252mm, MT 259mm.
The Hovercraft is likely (haven’t ridden it or measured it, so can’t be sure but at a guess based on other Jones boards) more like 260mm+ at inserts and the Evo (again a guess as I never rode it) more like 248-249mm based on other Never Summer boards. I think that Evo is a really good width for you – and you could even go a little narrower than that too. But given you probably want to go a little bigger for your all-mountain board, I think something like the Standard 149 could work – I think you could definitely ride 151, if it was in a good width – around that 250mm or less at the inserts. With the Standard it’s a little wider than that, but you get that little bit of a size down in the length.
The other option is the Capita OSL 150 (242mm waist) – roughly 253mm at the inserts – but that’s based on a 22″ reference, so more like 250-251mm probably, assuming your stance width is a little narrower than that. It’s a little softer flexing than the others (MT, Standard and DOA I felt all at around 6/10 flex, the OSL more like 5/10 flex) but the sizing is really good.
Other option is looking at women’s boards, if you were OK with that. But all good if you didn’t want to, as I think one of those (DOA (depending), Standard or OSL) should work well in your quiver.
Nate – Thank you for the great information. Apparently I’ve been on a slightly too narrow board for the past 15+ years & would love your input/advice for my next purchase. I’m 49 years old, looking for an all-mountain board for groomers, trees + some park, in that order.
I’m 6’3″ 215 lbs with a 11.5 boot (Ride Boa, not sure the model name). I’ve been on a Ride Timeless which, as I said is old, and is old school true camber. I’m just a little over 3/4″ overhang heel and toe.
Considering Jones Mountain Twin 165W, Arbor Crosscut Camber 165MW, possibly Arbor Brian Iguchi Pro Camber 163MW… and am open to any all suggestions. Thanks in advance! Keep up the great work!
Chris
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Around 3/4″ of boot overhang actually sounds OK to me. What size Timeless do you have?
But if you were looking to change anyway, I think the sizes that you’re mentioned for those boards should work well for your specs and how you describe your riding. I haven’t ridden the Crosscut Camber, but based on other Arbor boards I’ve ridden, that (and the Brian Iguchi Pro Camber) will feel the closest to full camber, if you were looking to stick with a similar feel in that sense. The Mountain Twin is still camber underfoot, so the feel isn’t going to be as different as if you went for something like a Hybrid Rocker (rocker between the feet and camber to tips and tails) but you get some rocker towards the tips and tails – which gives a more forgiving feel – and also improves powder float.
Of the 3 boards, the Mountain Twin is the softer flexing (6/10 by my feel) and the most easy going/forgiving. The Brian Iguchi Camber, more like 7/10 and based on specs of the Crosscut Camber, probably around 7/10 as well. Sounds like you’ve quite an old model of the Timeless – and I think they’ve been around since the early 2000s, so I don’t know how yours feels. I rode the 2018 model of the Timeless (the 2019 model was the last time they made it), which was the stiffest board I’ve ridden. So that model I found super stiff. Not sure how your model would compare to that – and of course it won’t be as stiff now after riding it for so many years. But if it was close to as stiff as the 2018 model was, then just wanted to note that you’d be looking at a big difference in flex going to something like the Mountain Twin and all round just a way more forgiving, easy going ride. Whether that would be too much of a chance from what you’re used to is the big question.
I think it depends on how aggressively you want to be riding. If you want to really bomb and lay down big carves, then it’s probably going to be too forgiving for you, but if you’re riding more casual (doesn’t have to be super casual, the MT can handle some speed), then it could be a good fit. If you’re still looking to ride quite aggressively and don’t want as drastic a difference to your current board, then Crosscut Camber or Bryan Iguchi Camber would be your better bets, IMO. Between those 2, I think it depends on whether you want to prioritize stability at speed over maneuverability at slow speeds (e.g. trees) and park. Size for size, they’re probably pretty equal, but with the Iguchi being a little smaller, it will be a little easier to maneuver and take through the park. You wouldn’t loose much in terms of stability at speed, but you’d loose some versus the Crosscut Camber 165W, I would imagine. But again, this is based on specs and experience with other Arbor boards, as I have yet to ride the Crosscut Camber. Also overall, the Iguchi would be a little better for park, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the reply! My Timeless is a 164 & is a 2004 model (give or take a year). It has really held up over the years.
Lots to consider here as I didn’t think about the Jones MT being not stiff enough, as I would like to stay somewhat within the same range of my current board. Also, it seems with an 11.5 boot I’m kind of right in the middle of the standard vs wide or mid-side decision… and agree the 3/4″ hasn’t been a problem, so maybe a standard width is actually the right call for me.
I probably need to check them out in person and/or demo before pulling the trigger.
Thanks again – really appreciate the advice.
You’re very welcome Chris.
If you liked the idea of the Mountain Twin but wanted stiffer, check out the Ultra Mountain Twin – it’s pretty much literally just a stiffer version of the Mountain Twin.
First off, thank you for this post it has been super helpful. I am looking at getting a 159 Gnu Antigravity and am having a hard time deciding between the 257 and 267 waist width.
Here are some of my specs:
Height – 6-1
Weight – 185
Shoe Size – 11
Boot – Vans Hi-Standard Pro
I am currently riding a 156 Skate Banana with a waist width of 265 (which I ride with a duck stance). I know its only 2 cm larger, but 267 seems like a pretty wide board to me. I probably won’t ride this switch too often, and am going to set my bindings neutral; 15-18 degrees for the front and somewhere around 0 for the back. To me, the 267 is going to make it hard to initiate turns, but on the other hand, I may have too much toe and heel drag with the 257. I am leaning towards the 257 because that is bigger than most regular boards and I don’t think I will have too much overhang? I figured I would get an expert decision before making the purchase!
Thank you!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
GNU/Lib Tech boards tend to have a small amount of difference between the waist width and width at inserts and the antigravity is no exception. At the inserts, the 159 is around 265mm at the front insert and 264mm at the back insert, so it’s not as wide as the waist width suggests (on average boards are around 10mm wider at the insets compared to the waist). IMO, that’s too narrow for 11s, particularly given that you’ll be riding with a 0 degree back binding angle.
The 159W, though sounds quite wide with a 267mm waist, is likely around 274mm at the back insert, 275mm at the front. This isn’t massively wide for 11s, IMO. With 10s, I tend to ride boards with insert widths between 260mm and 265mm – sometimes a little narrower and sometimes a little wider. With 11s, that’s the rough equivalent of 270mm-275mm. So I think the 159W is the better bet, based on that.
Your Skate Banana will likely be the same thing. I haven’t had a chance to measure the Skate Banana yet, but it’s very likely to have a similar difference between waist and inserts (though the inserts will be the same width at front and back, being a twin). So you would still likely be going a couple of mm wider at the inserts versus your Skate Banana (if you wanted to double check, measure at the base of the board, from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge, at the middle holes that your bindings surround). But with that flat back binding angle you go with, I think that should be fine. The 159W Antigravity is in a good range for 11s, IMO, even if at the wider end of that range.
Note also that waist-width itself can also affect how turns feel, but width at inserts is important as that’s where your feet actually are – and it’s from your feet that you apply leverage to the edges.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! I am glad I reached out before buying the board, could have been bad!
Again thank you,
Matt
You’re very welcome Matt. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hello,
I rode the article and I’m happy to found it.
I have a 12 size Burton Photon Boot with 32,5-33cm profile. My new Never Summer proto synthesis df 162 has a waist around 29,5 cm where the boot will be attached.
My overhang with the boot at the toeside is around 2cm and at the heelside around 1 cm.
Someone told my, the board is too wide but in some videos or tutorials the guys are standing in the same way or it looks like.
I’m very tall, 198cm…
What do du mean, is the board perfect for me or too wide? I don’t want to get a bootout.
Eurocarving is not importend but I like to make some good deeper carves, also I wanna ride some rails and boxes…
Thx and greetings from Germany 🇩🇪.
Sven
Hi Sven
Thanks for your message.
So you have the 162DF then, if it’s that wide at the inserts. It is on the wide side for 12s, but that said, I think you could get away with it. With lower profile boots like the Photon, when there is no concern with boot out, it’s really your foot size that matters the most in terms of it being too wide or not. If your feet are around 30cm, then I think you will be fine. Some people end up in boots too big for them – or just the fit only works in boots that are quite long for their foot size. If you have a foot size around 29cm, then I think the board will be too wide for you.
If you do end up keeping it, I would try to shift the overhang a little bit though – if your bindings can do it – so that you’ve either got even overhang (1.5cm toe, 1.5cm heel) or a little more towards the heel (e.g. 2cm heel, 1 cm toe), rather than the other way around.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thx for answer!
My Boots fits me very good, they are not too big. I guess I’m a bit between this wide board and other boards with my foot/boot length. I have the Burton Genesis Binding and i can try to shift the binding a bit more to the heel. But with the Combo-Disc I’m quite limited with the setting.
If i compare my Boots on the Proto Synthesis DF to the setting help in this article, i would say it goes well togehter. 1.5 cm overhang on both sides should be working…my feelings.
If i would take this board (163x) in a less wide size, it would be 26.6 cm width waist, and i dont know how is the width at the inserts. Maybe 1.5cm more like the DF?
I’m also interesting in the Capita Superdoa in 163w with 26.3 cm width waist and the GNU Riders Choice 162w with 26.8 cm width waist. But i dont know the width at the inserts. I guess the width will be too short for me and i risk a bootout or feel the boot in the snow…
Do you know the width at the inserts (last inserts to noise and tail) for these bords?
Should i try the DF?
Sven
Hi Sven
Firstly width at inserts for the boards you mentioned, roughly:
– PS 163X: 275mm at inserts
– Super DOA 163W: 273mm at inserts
– Riders Choice 162W: 276mm at inserts
But those are all based on a narrower width than you’re likely to riding those sizes. So you can add at least 2mm to those and depending on stance width could potentially add more.
– PS 163X: 277mm at inserts
– Super DOA 163W: 275mm at inserts
– Riders Choice 162W: 278mm at inserts
With Burton boots (which have a fair bit of boot bevel, as well as being lower profile, I think you’d likely get away with those widths, depending on binding angles. If you’re riding like +15/-15, then I think you’d be fine on the PS 163X and RC 162W. The Super DOA might be pushing it though. I would err towards the narrower width of these over the 162DF PS. If you were going to be Eurocarving and especially if you were going to be Eurocarving AND had something close to zero degrees on your back binding angle, then I’d be leaning more to DF.
Also, I would predict the 162DF to be more like 290mm, plus at least 2mm for a wider stance width = 292mm. So if it’s more like 295mm, then you might even be at 280mm on the PS 163X, which I think would be wide enough.
Hi,
thank you very much for your point of view. It could be that the PS is less as 29.5cm width.
Did you rode the Never Summer PS and the GNU Riders Choice or GNU RCC3?
What Board is more fun for butters, rails, little jumps, carving, agressive ride, forgiven board ?
The PS has a rocker in the middle and camber under the Bindings. How is the nose and tail? Will I not get stuck with this board so quickly?
Sven
Hi Sven
I have ridden all of those boards.
The RC C3 is the most aggressive ride of all 3, but it’s still not ultra aggressive. The Rider’s Choice is the most playful of the 3, with the PS in the middle. The Rider’s Choice is quite playful and the most forgiving of the 3, but you can still ride it relatively aggressively. I’d say that the Rider’s Choice is also the best for butters and rails. RC C3 best for jumps, IMO, but all 3 are great for jumps. For more details, you can check out my reviews of them:
>>Never Summer PS Review
>>GNU Rider’s Choice Review
>>GNU RC C3 Review
The PS has rocker between the bindings, camber under the bindings and towards the tip and tail, then goes flat just before the contact points. The RC C3 and Rider’s Choice also have rocker between the feet and then camber underfoot and towards the tip and tail. But on the RC C3, the rocker between the bindings is very subtle – it’s mostly camber. It’s also pretty subtle on the PS – it’s more camber than it is rocker for sure. The Rider’s Choice I would say is also more camber than rocker, but it has the most rocker of all 3 options.
I didn’t really understand what you mean by “Will I not get stuck with this board so quickly?”
Just wanted to thank you, the charts were a big help in purchasing my first set of new boots and new board prior to this season.
Yours seems to be the most in depth treatment of this issue out there!
You’re very welcome Nate. Hope you have an awesome season when it rolls around!
Hi Nate,
I first want to say thank you so much for this article. I am on my second time reading the entire article just trying to digest all the amazing information. I feel I am in a very difficult situation and I am hoping you can help me with finding the best snowboard that I can buy as my first snowboard.
Here is my specs;
Weight: 190 lbs (90kg)
Height: 6’4”
Boots: Size 15 (Burton Freestyle imprint 2)
Bare foot size: 32cm
I did some researches and got some informations from people who works at the ski rental shop or somewhere similar and they did not satisfied me enough and I realized that I need some pro advice from somebody like you. I usually cruise around but I have always rented a different boards at different places. Time to get a good one for me!! So I know I definitely need a “wide” board but I am not sure if should I go “double wide”.
I have a rental guy that send me this board and sent this message “ The board is a 154 because of the blunted tips at each end meaning the cut off with the square ditch the board is actually a 159 effective edge which means it’s a 159 just the tips which never have contact with the snow have it cut down to 154 to give the board a shorter feel without sacrificing any of the actual length of the effect of edge of the 159.” The board is “Gılson” brand. I can send you the pictures thru e-mail if you like to check it out. I could not make sure on the dimensions of the board.
I would be so happy to get some board advices from you.
Thank you in advance.
Hi Mehmet
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, with regards to the blunted tip/tail board. For sure a 154 can sometimes have the effective edge of a typical 159 (and can also be the case visa versa) – and that can be fine, depending on what you’re looking for. Typically blunted tip/tail boards are best for riding freestyle – you get that same effective edge, but have less board to swing around for spins etc. The biggest downside to blunted tip/tail, is riding powder – or slush or chunder or anything like that. The tip/tail of the board doesn’t have contact with the snow on a perfect groomer or nicely groomed park. But when things get messier – and particularly for powder, having a really blunted tip and tail can have you sinking pretty quick. The 154 with an effective edge typical of a 159, might ride like a 159 on a nicely groomed run, but get it in powder and it will feel like a 154 in powder!
So it kind of depends if you’ll be wanting to ride this board in powder or not – or even slush or anything like that. Also to note, that a lot of boards differ in effective edge versus length. There’s not like a set effective edge for a 159 or anything like that. There’s a wide range of effective edges for 159s depending on the board. There’s a typical range, but it’s not like “most 159s have xx effective edge” or anything like that.
Now to sizing:
With 15s, you will want to go quite wide. Wider than a typical wide, unless certain factors play in. e.g. if you ride with +15/-15 angles or similar, have low profile boots (which you do), and don’t really carve that deep/aggressive (i.e. not getting that high on your edges), then you can get away with something a little narrower.
But I would be leaning going wider than a typical wide board.
Given that your boots are going to be around 35.5cm on the outersole, I would try not to go narrower than 29cm at the inserts of a board, which means, depending on the baord, going at least 275mm at the waist, and likely at least 280mm. Even then you don’t want to be someone that carves too hard (e.g. euro carving) or you could still run into issues.
I’m going to infer that you’re about an intermediate level. But correct me if I have that assumption wrong.
Some options for boards that I think will be wide enough and suit your height/weight specs and your riding style:
– Never Summer Proto Synthesis 159DF (280mm waist width) – you could also look at the 162DF as well – DF stands for Drag Free – it’s there ultra wide sizing. This is what I’d call all-mountain-freestyle – but you certainly don’t have to do any freestyle on it. It’s good for just riding groomers. Doable in powder, but if you’re riding deep powder, not as good.
– Never Summer West Bound 160DF (284mm waist) – this isn’t getting a 2022 model, so you’d have to try to find a 2021 model. This would be the better option, if you were riding more powder.
– Ride Warpig 158 (277mm waist width) – this could be borderline too narrow still, but might be doable.
– Lib Tech Stump Ape 160W (283mm waist width) – this is a more powder oriented board though
There are other options too, but they tend to be more powder specialist. There’s also other options that are a little more advanced. So, if you’re more of an advanced rider, let me know and I can show a few more there.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate thanks for the excellent advice. Yes, as you guessed, I’m at an intermediate level.
First of all, I really liked Never Summer Proto Synthesis. I was particularly attracted to the fact that it was drag free, but I was not sure about its size. I think it feels like I can stay more balanced on the 162 than 159. But the other thing is that the waist width is 280, which made me a little worried. Do you think it will have a big impact? But I loved the board.
Secondly;
Never Summer West Bound 160DF is my second favorite board and has a 284mm waist which is wider than Lib tech stumb ape but the board literally out of stock in almost everyshop. I will have to look that up again.
You also mentioned that Lib tech Stumb ape is more powder oriented.. Would that be problem on groomers ? Also you know big size is means more weight so do you have any idea which board is would be the ligthest ?
Hi Mehmet
For your boot size, I wouldn’t be too worried about a 280+ waist width. You will have plenty of leverage on the edges of the board, so it shouldn’t feel like a boat. If you’re really worried about maneuverability, then sizing to the 159DF, I don’t think you’d have any maneuverability issues. And it should be stable enough at that length for you (the PS has quite a lot of effective edge versus overall length – not super blunt tip and tail, but quite blunt). Also, if you’re worried about weight, going 159DF will be a little lighter than 162DF. You will sacrifice some stability at speed with 159DF versus 162DF, but you will gain maneuverability and ease of riding. And the 159DF definitely shouldn’t feel unstable at your specs, IMO.
Yeah no 2022 model for West Bound, so it will be harder to find – I haven’t seen any DF sizes in the West Bound available.
Stump Ape has quite a lot of taper and is super directional. The downside on groomers is that it’s harder to ride switch (if you ride switch at all or want to learn) and with all that taper some people find that the tail can wash out a little, when you’re doing big carves. It’s great for in tight places, like trees when you’ve got to quickly kick the tail out – but when you’re properly carving on groomers, you don’t want that tail skidding out.
Neither Lib Tech nor Never Summer have super light boards and I haven’t weighed the PS, West Bound or Stump Ape, so I can’t say how they compare to each other. If you’re worried about weight, then erring on a slightly smaller of the options – like PS is probably the way to go.
another board would be the k2 party platter the largest version is 28 width and still below 160 in length. If you want a true twin check out the spring break powder twin.
Hope it could help
Hey Nate,
Important details I left out…..6’2 170lbs size 10 boot.
So I measured the backside of the board, straight across the width of the board, between the inserts. So 3 sets of inserts above the tape and three sets below and I got just a hair over 27cm, a bit narrower in the back. Not really worried about the back foot. When I put my foot on the backside of the board across the inserts at about 15 degrees there’s maybe 1cm tops of space. With the boot strapped into the board it looks to be about perfect. Seems to be a bit more heel overhang than toe but I can adjust the binding. Honestly it looks to be a good fit I’m not too worried about it anymore. Only problem is that I have to stare at it for another four months before I can ride it lol.
Thanks for taking the time to respond man. I really appreciate it.
Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for the follow up.
In terms of length, I think your right on for your specs for that length for that board, so all good there, IMO.
In terms of width, it’s on the wider side for 10s, and if it was a wider wide board, I’d be more concerned, but with the 2021 Essential Service being not that wide for a wide board, I think you’ll be fine. Around that 27cm at the inserts is definitely at the wide end of the range, IMO, but you probably get away with it. If you find it an effort to change edges, then you might want to consider going narrower, but I think you’ll prob be OK.
In the case of too much overhang, I would usually say having a bit more heel than toe overhang is a good thing (because toe drag is more likely than heel drag), but in your case with too much overhang not being an issue, if you can center up the overhang, I would do that. If you can’t then a little more on the heel edge is all good – just get it as close to centered as you can.
Hope you have a sick time on it, when the snow starts falling again!
Hey Nate,
I just bought a Gnu Essential Service 159w from a local shop. I went there three different times and two of the sales people led me to this board and a third salesmen said it would work just fine for me. After finding this page I’m a little concerned that the board may be too wide for me. I snowboarded for close to ten years through my teens and am now just getting back into the sport at 36. I bought a pair of 32 TM-2’s that fit me well. I havent bought bindings yet. When I stand on the board with bare feet at 0 degrees my feet are just about flush from toe to heel with maybe a 1 to half cm total overhang. However when I put either foot to about 15 degrees there’s probably a solid cm of underhang between toe and heel on both feet. However with the boots on the board, and tilted roughly 15 degrees there’s maybe a total of about 1cm overhang between the heel and the toe, so maybe 0.5cm on each side. The board measures about 27.75cm straight across the front inserts and about 26 and a quarter across the back inserts, board measures 26cm at the waist. Did I buy too wide of a board?
Thanks for the great website.
Joe
Hi Joe
It certainly sounds on the wide side to me but nothing outrageously wide or anything. If you could clarify a few things for me.
1. When you observed the overhang and underhand of your feet – did you observe it compared to the top sheet of the board or the base. The important measurement here is at the base, rather than the topsheet (and there’s an angle from the top sheet to the outside of the metal edge on the base). If you measured to the top sheet’s edge, then there’s a stronger chance that this board is too wide.
2. Your measurements for the width at inserts, I just want to clarify, because I have quite different readings. For the 159 (non-wide) version I have measurements of 256mm at the back inserts and 258mm at the front inserts. So I would predict that for the 159W it would be more like 266mm-267mm on the back insert and 268-269mm on the front insert. You have around 262mm on the back and 278mm on the front insert, so it’s a much bigger difference between front and back insert than I would be expecting.
a. did you measure at the base of the board or the top sheet?
b. at what location did you measure? I would typically measure at around the reference stance, which is likely where the center of your bindings will be. So when you look at the inset pack (set of 2 x 6 holes) the set of holes that are the 3rd in from the center of the board on both front and back insert. If this isn’t where you measured from, if you can measure from there (but on the base side of the board), that would be great.
3. Can you also let me know your boot size. I can work out roughly how long the boots are from the size and the model of boots (I have measured TM-2s fairly recently). Also if you could measure your feet that would be helpful too.
The Essential Service (2021 model) isn’t super wide for a wide board, so depending on those measurements and on your boot/foot size, it might be OK, but if you can clarify those things that would be great.
Note that the 2022 model is a completely different beast (but I’m assuming you’ve got the 2021 model there, as there isn’t a 159W in the 2022 model and also because the 2022 model isn’t tapered, so there shouldn’t be much difference between front insert and back insert).
Hey Nate,
Thanks for an incredible article! I’ve been reading through your comments about your recommendations but was curious your thoughts about my next setup. I’ve been riding for about 15 years and I’m 6’2” 185 pounds with a size 12 foot. I ride mostly park, but love to charge the groomers and escape to the back bowls on powder days.
I’m currently looking to purchase some Burton Ion’s and having a really tough time choosing the size of my next board. The nitro team pro 162 wide looks perfect for my foot size, but a little worried about the board size for the park. I’m also considering something around 160 wide as well, but unsure about the minimum waist width. I typically set my bindings 10, -5 but that can change depending on the type of snow i’m riding.
Cheers!
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
I think, given that you’re predominantly riding the park, that sizing down a little in terms of length from 162 makes sense. I think that would be a good all-mountain size, and I think that you’d like that size for the powder days in the back bowls, but like it as much in the park. Given that it sounds like you spend more time in the park than anywhere else, I think sizing down from that a bit is a good idea. I think around 159/160 would work.
In terms of width, you can get away with going a little narrower if you’re going to be getting Burton Ions (quite low profile). And it will also depend on your riding style. If you like to get really deep into your carves (e.g. eurocarves), then you’ll need to go a little wider than if you don’t go super deep. It’s pretty tough to put an exact minimum waist width on it, since boards differ at the width at the inserts versus waist width, so the charts are a rough estimate.
For the Team Pro I would go 159W for what you’re describing, and for that board, it should be fine width-wise particularly with Ions. I would be confident on that board with those boots. I’m not hitting any eurocarves, but I like to try to get relatively deep on carves. So yeah if you like the Team Pro and your only concern is the size, then I think that’s a good option, but I’d opt for the 159W in your case, based on how you describe your riding.
This is assuming you’re looking for a one board quiver of course. I think that’s the best balance size-wise for everything you want to do, given you spend more time in the park.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome, thanks so much for that Nate! I’ll shoot for something around 159-160W. I’ll put the eurocarves on hold until I can afford two boards. Thanks again for your thoughts!
You’re very welcome Sam. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate
Thanks a lot for this very helpful article. I’m uncertain a bit by choosing the right Jones Solution Splitboard in terms of if I should go for the wide version or not. And I would be very happy if you could tell me your opinion.
I’m around 82kg / 180 lbs and have a Deeluxe Spark XV Boot from year 19/20. The boot has a bigger footprint than my past boots, the boot is size US 10 (EU43, Mondo 28cm). I also ride in late spring on hard snow and steep terrain and I want avoid heel or toe drag.
Would you go with the Solution 164 (Waist Width 254, Tip 299, Tail 286) or the 162wide (Waist Width 263, Tip 307, Tail 294)?
Thank you a lot in advance and best regards
Renzo
Hi Renzo
Thanks for your message.
I would personally be confident width-wise on the 164, with 10s. But I haven’t ridden Deeluxe boots, so I’m not sure how big the footprint is. If it’s really big then it might be pushing it. You definitely won’t have any issues on your front foot. The 164 Solution is around 271mm at the inserts (assuming using the reference stance width of 600mm). The back insert will be more like 266mm. That’s a width I’d certainly be comfortable with personally with average or low profile boots, depending on binding angles.
If you’re riding with a very straight angle on the back foot (e.g. 0 degrees, 3 degrees), you’re leaning hard into your carves and the Deeluxe Spark have a particularly large footpring, then I would go 162W. If you ride with a good bit of angle on your back foot (e.g. 9-15 degrees), then that gives you a bit more leeway. Still if you like to really lean into your carves and those boots have a large footprint, it’s still borderline though. If you can let me know the length of your boots (by placing the heel against a wall and using something to form a straight line down from the toe of the boot and measuring from the wall to that point – hope that makes sense!) that would help too.
(note that this is all based on the Flagship as I haven’t ridden the Solution, but with the Solution being the split version of the Flagship, the same dimensions apply)
Hello Nate
Thank you a lot for your answer and your expertise, I appreciate it a lot.
I’ve measured my boot, and the footprint of it is 317 mm / 12.5 inches. My backfoot angle is +14 degrees (front foot 25 degrees).
Would you recommend the 164 with this footprint and binding angle?
Thank you a lot for your time and best regards
Renzo
Hi Renzo
With a 14 degree angle I would be confident on a lower profile boot, but that is quite a bulky boot. I find the average is around 3cm over mondo. With a mondo of 28, that’s 3.7cm over Mondo, which is quite a lot. You’re looking at total overhang of around 5.1cm (straight across). With your binding angle, you can take a bit off that, but you’re still borderline. If it was more like 4.4cm overhang (i.e. 3cm over mondo for the boots), then I’d be confident to pull the trigger on the 164. I think you probably still get away with it, but it’s riskier for sure.
I would probably still go 164 over 162W, if it was me, because I’ve ridden with that kind of overhang and haven’t had issues – and because I don’t typically like the feel of wide boards, but I would be setting it up so that I had a bit more overhang on the heel edge than the toe edge (can tend to get a deeper carve on my toe edge). Not so that it’s too much different, but a little extra on the heel edge.
Hello Nate
Thank you a lot for your answer and opinion. You helped me a lot and I will go with the 164.
It is really a bulky boot, but very comfortable for my feet.
Thank you and best regards
Renzo
You’re very welcome Lonzo. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate,
I first want to say thank you so much for this article. I cannot thank you enough for this as it has given me some hope. I am on my second time reading the entire article just trying to digest all the amazing information. I feel I am in a very difficult situation and I am hoping you can help me.
I am a 33 year old male and Beginner-Intermediate snowboarding level. Body, Shoe, Foot, and Board Specs:
Height: 5’3
Weight: 115 lbs
Boot: Nike Zoom Kaiju size 7.5 (25.5cm Mondo)
Right now I have a Never Summer Harpoon 142cm (245mm waist width), but I am looking for a freestyle/park board and am having a ton of trouble finding something.
After going to a few shops and talking to a bunch of customer service sites I have been recommended a few boards:
Capita Birds of a Feather – 140cm-146cm (226-235ww)
Bataleon Stuntwood – 140cm (241ww)
Salomon The Villian Grom – 138cm-143cm (238-240ww)
Can you please HELP me?
Thank you in advance
Hi Kenyon
Thanks for your message.
Firstly in terms of size, I think you could ride as long as 145/146 for your all-mountain board, but since you’re looking at getting a freestyle/park specific board, I would look at around the 139-142 range.
In terms of width, assuming you’re going to be using a duck stance given that it’s a freestyle board, then I think you can go as narrow as 234mm at the waist and potentially even narrower depending on the board or up to around 245mm waist. But again it depends on the board. Some with a 245mm waist might end up being a little wide at the inserts, but some will be fine.
I don’t have any experience with Bataleon boards, but in terms of sizing, the Stuntwood does look like it would work.
Birds of a Feather: To get one that’s wide enough, I think you’d have to go to the 146, which I think is getting a bit long in terms of your freestyle/park board. Also, depending on what you’re after, it could be on the stiffer side. If you still looking for something around that mid-flex for your park board, then it could certainly work, but if you’re looking to go for something quite soft and playful, there are better options.
Villain Grom: I don’t really deal much with youth boards, but size-wise I think the 138 could work well. The 143 would also certainly be a doable size too. I haven’t ridden the regular Villain, but by all accounts it’s a good freestyle/park board and based on other similar Salomon boards, this is certainly an option, assuming it performs similarly to the men’s version.
Some other options that could work:
– Arbor Cadence Camber 140 (232mnm waist). Whilst this is narrower than I’d typically look at if you’re just looking at the waist width, it should be wide enough at the inserts. There’s a quite a big difference between the width at waist and width at inserts on this particular board (and this is pretty typical of most Arbor boards). Looking at around 246mm at the inserts on this one. A mid-soft flex – around 4/10.
– Burton Rewind 141 (237mm ww). Also mid-soft – around 4/10
– Rossignol Meraki 140 (240mm ww). Mid-soft – probably closer to 3/10 to 3.5/10
– Salomon Oh Yeah 138 (238mm ww). Something if you wanted something really soft, forgiving, easy going. 3/10 flex.
– Salomon Gypsy 138 (238mm ww). 4/10 flex – maybe bordering on 4.5/10. Equivalent to the Villain
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for the response. I ride my stance at +15/-15 (-12)
It definitely helps a bunch because I almost pulled the trigger on Capita Birds of a Feather in a size 142 or 144.
I hope I am not asking for too much, but do have any Male board recommendations that would fit my size profile? All of the boards listed were Women’s and I do not mind a women’s board, but I would like for the graphic to be a little less on the feminine side.
Also again thank you so much for all the help. I truly appreciate it.
Hi Kenyon
With the search I did for the 139-142 range, there weren’t any men’s freestyle boards that fit the bill (within the brands that I search). Extending the length to 144, I found the following:
– K2 WWW 144
– YES Basic 143
– GNU Money 144
Note that there isn’t going to be a 2022 model for the K2 WWW so you’d have to find a 2021 model (or earlier) in that size). There is going to be a new K2 Geometric which comes in a 144, and it’s a pretty similar board, but stiffer. So depending on how stiff you wanted to go, that could be an option. The WWW was rated a 4/10 stiffness. The Geometric is rated a 6/10 stiffness.
And there are plenty of youth boards in that 139-142 size range. I don’t really know youth boards that well. But of course you’ve already looked at the Villain Grom. There are lots of other options in that size range there, if you wanted to go shorter but not women’s.
Hi,
I have a 25.2 waist 153 Lib Tech Dynamo and 32 10.5 Boa’s on a size Large Union Atlas binding. Medium bindings are tough to get into. Do you think I will have drag at 15 degrees + 15- on Union Large bindings? Thanks
Hi Jamison
Thanks for your message.
You’re looking at roughly 260mm at the inserts (straight across) on the 153 Dynamo, which is pretty narrow for 10.5s, IMO. With +15/-15 angles that certainly helps give you a few more millimeters of leeway.
I haven’t measured a Large Union Atlas, so not completely sure their length, but the Medium Atlas is 24.4cm on the top of the footbed and 23cm on the bottom of the baseplate (when gas pedal not extended). Based on the difference between Medium and Large with some other Union bindings, I would guess that the Large Atlas would be around 26.3cm on the top of the footbed and 24.9cm on the baseplate (with no gas pedal extension). Depending on where the binding is setup you’ll probably be OK in terms of binding overhang (remembering we’re talking overhang over the metal edge, not over the edge of the top sheet), but hard to say for sure without setting them up. You certainly shouldn’t have any baseplate overhang – only thing would be footbed overhang, which is higher up, so you’ve got more leeway there, if there is minor overhang. If you already have the bindings you could measure them and set them up yourself and see. But yeah, if you’ve got no baseplate overhang, and none or very minimal footbed overhang, then you should be good in terms of binding overhang not being an issue for drag.
In terms of the boots, they’re borderline on that board. I like to go 265mm plus for width at inserts with 10.5s. That said, I have ridden 260mm insert width boards with 10.5s and haven’t experienced drag, but it’s cutting it close. The +15/-15 angles help. Can you let me know the model of 32 boots you have. Even within brands some models can be lower profile or more bulky. If they’re lower profile then that certainly helps. 32 boots tend to be either a little low profile or about average.
The one other thing to think about is how aggressively you like to carve. If you like to carve really deep, then you have less leeway for overhang. If your carves aren’t that aggressive, then you can get away with more boot overhang.
Hope this helps
That’s a lot of research, but my question is why don’t snowboard boot manufacturers publish the actual size of the boot footprint like they do on ski boots. A size 9 is different from company to company. I think a boot footprint chart would be more beneficial in determining what width of board is comparable.
Hi Dan
For sure it would be great if they did publish a boot footprint! Wasn’t aware they did that with ski boots. I’m probably missing something here, as I’m not a skier, but what would be the benefit of publishing the footprint of a ski boot? Without giving it too much thought, I can’t see a reason why you’d worry about how long a ski boot was – to me it would be more beneficial to know this for snowboard boots.
Hi Nate,
The amount of work you did to compile all this data is incredible.
I just got back into snowboarding this season after a 20 year hiatus. Thankfully I was able to pick it back up quickly.
Back in the day I rode a nitro pyro 161 (wide…I think) . I didn’t think too much about dimensions, pretty much trusted what the guy at the shop said.
This season I rode the burton LTR 160W and an M-3 158 ( don’t know the model name but it had fireworks on it). The 160 W felt a little “boaty” and for the 158 I definitely dragged my heals a few times.
Since there are a bunch of boards on sale now I’ve been itching to get one.
The ones I’ve been looking at are:
Rome agent 160 (25.6 ww)
Capita outerspace living 160 (25.6ww)
Ride machete 159w (26.1ww)
Lobster stomper 159 (25.63 ww)
K2 afterblack 160 (25.7ww)
I’m 6’0, 208lbs but working my way below 200 and wear the DC scout boots in size 10. Based on my stats and your guide, these all seem like good choices.
When I use the automated board sizer on some of the websites they suggest the regular width boards mostly. I figured it might be better to get some human input so I reached I reached out to two different sellers but got two different answers (specifically about the Rome sizing. ) one said go regular with a M/L binding and the other recommended the wide width board within L/Xl binding.
That confused me a bit and since I’ve seen you give a bunch of advice on this topic I figured I’d reach out.
At age 41, ride wise, I’ll spend most of my time on the trails with some butters here and there. I’ll occasionally hit the terrain park but only for the smaller jibs and jumps.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks again for setting up this guide.
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Typically with a 10, I would be leaning towards regular width, and I think that holds true in this case. For some boards, it’s better to go wide for a 10 and depends on a few things. But For those you’ve listed, I think you should be good on the regular width board. The DC Scout isn’t the lowest profile boot (quite bulky) from when I measured the 2018 model. But even with that bulkier boot, I think you should be OK. Not sure of the width at inserts of the Rome and Lobster boards there, as I don’t currently test those brands, but with that waist width, they’re likely fine. For the OSL and Afterblack 160s, I would say you should be all good. And for the Machete, the regular widths are probably too narrow, so going 159W would make the most sense in that case. Probably bordering on being too wide though, is the only thing, but the regular widths risking being too narrow.
I’m not sure about M3 boards (never tried one), so I don’t know typically how narrow they tend to be at the inserts compared to the waist. Also, there’s a chance that your bindings were setup too close to the heel edge (i.e. not centered properly). Everyone’s different, but I personally find it more likely to get toe drag than heel drag.
Length-wise, I think you’re good at those lengths.
Some other things to take into account apart from the low profile-ness of the boots are binding angles and how deep you like to carve. If you like to really rail your carves and you have a very straight back binding angle, then you increase your chances of boot drag.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply! That definitely helps.
Best regards,
Ken
You’re very welcome Ken. Happy riding!
Hi Nate
Thank you so so much for your work.
I have narrowed it down to a Gnu Riders Choice with A Salomon District HPS binding in size L and Ride 92 boots in Size 11. Would the Riders Choice in 175.5 with a waist width of 25.5 be a good fit ?
I have reached out to Salomon and Gnu and a local shop and all of them say it is perfect, yet I have had such a bad experience buying stuff last year, that I really want to make sure.
Thank you so so much in advance
Flemming
Hi Flemming
Thanks for your message.
GNU/Lib Tech boards aren’t typically as wide as their waist width suggests. Versus the average board, they tend to have less difference between the waist width and width at inserts (where your boots will actually be). So, whilst the waist width sounds a little wider than normal, the width at inserts on the Rider’s Choice is only around 262mm. So a difference of 7mm between waist and inserts. Some boards have as much difference as 17mm, so waist width can be really deceiving.
Personally, I’m comfortable with anything around 260mm at the inserts with size 10s. And to be fair, I’ve ridden as narrow as 256mm at the inserts and didn’t have issues. But the equivalent with 11s is 270mm (or 266mm if you want to risk a little narrower). So, IMO, the 157.5 Rider’s Choice would be too narrow for your size 11 boots. Ride are relatively low profile, but even then I wouldn’t personally risk going that narrow. The 158W sounds really wide, but in reality the width at inserts is probably around 275mm, which is fine for 11s, IMO. Waist width does also make a difference to the maneuverability of the board, so that’s worth taking into account and I can understand having 11s and not wanting to go too wide, but you also don’t want boot drag and there’s certainly risk of that with the 157.5, IMO.
There are other boards that have a narrower waist that would be wide enough at the inserts for 11s. But for the Rider’s Choice, I would go 158W if I was you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply. I went to the local shop and performed all of your tests.
I definitely don’t want to go too wide, since I had a wide board last year and it was nothing short but horrible riding it. It would’ve been the same width as the 158W.
I decided to go for the 157.5 and it looks fine with the boots and everything attached. I wanted to go as minimal as possible. I decided to trust the local shop guy that said it is fine. I hope I won’t regret it. It is definitely on the narrower side. About 26.6 at the inserts. I will try it on the weekend and will let you know. I really hope I won’t regret it.
Thank you again and best regards.
Flemming
Hi Flemming
Thanks for the follow up. I’m surprised you got 26.6cm at the inserts – was that at reference stance. Sounds like it’s at a wider stance than reference, but if it’s at the stance that you’ll be riding it at, then that’s the main thing. Look forward to hearing how you get on.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to buy Yes PYL and confused between the 156 or 159 size. what will you recommend.
weight: 145lb
Boots size – 9/9.5
height-5’8″
Hi Yogi
For your specs, I’d go 156 for sure. And width-wise, should be all good for your boot size, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!
Dude thank you for all the time and effort you put into all this, we appreciate it.
I just picked up a Lib Tech Orca 144 and I’m a size 8 boot. I’m leaning towards Ions or Acerras for boots, but I’m pretty positive I’m going to pick up some Malavitas. My question is whether I should go small or medium on the bindings. I like to go fast and be on my edges a lot, and I’m worried small bindings will make it tough to go toe/heel on such a wide waisted board. But I also worry about getting more binding than I need and having excess weight and drag.
Thanks so much man!
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Medium for bindings. I think for the best boot fit, probably small, particularly if you end up in Acerra’s, but Medium will still fit 8s and the Medium will be a better fit to this board. The main reason I say medium, is that the small will be well inside the edges of the board and that will reduce leverage on the edges. Medium will be a little heavier than the small, of course, but I think the extra leverage you gain from the longer baseplate will outweigh that. Definitely no issues with drag with Medium Malavitas on the 144 Orca.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
I love your site! Thank you for posting all this amazing info.
I was hoping you could help me figure out if the Rossignol Gala 146cm is a good option for me based on my specs. I am concerned this board might be too narrow for me. I’m a beginner, been riding for two years and starting to feel comfortable connecting turns. I currently ride a wildflower Morrow 148 I bought from a friend but this board feels too stiff and perhaps too long for me.
Female
Boot size 9US (Salomon Scarlet)
Height: 5’ 6”
Weight : 132
Also, if this is not a good option what would you recommend? Thinking about getting the Burton citizen bindings.
Thank you!!
Hi Karina
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think 148 is a little long. It’s not way off and as a more advanced rider and depending on the specific board, it could be a suitable size, but as a beginner, I’d go a little shorter. Something around 143-146, would be a good bet.
But yeah unfortunately, I think the width would be pushing it and going a little wider would be a good idea, IMO. I’d try to go at least 238mm in terms of waist width to be on the safe side.
Some good beginner options:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
Or if you feel like you want to step up just a little bit – and feel like you’re getting to that high-end beginner level, then you could also consider:
>>Top 10 Women’s Intermediate Snowboards
Hope this helps
Nate, thanks for your response, I truly appreciate it. I’m trying to decide between the niche minx 146 and the Yes Emoticon 146. I mainly ride groomers, and don’t see myself venturing to the park anytime soon, do you think one of these two might be a good option?
Thank you
Hi Karina
I think both would work. The Minx is a little more park focused, but still good for groomers. The Emoticon is also a really good groomer board, IMO.
Hi Nate,
What board size, bindings, etc would you suggest for a 5’3, 153lb beginner female with a sz 8 shoe?
Thanks,
Christy
Hi Christy
Thanks for your message.
As a beginner I would say to look in the range 145-147 and even 148 should be fine, in terms of length.
For a size 8 shoe you should be good with a majority of the widths of boards in that length-range. As a rule of thumb I would look at roughly 232mm to 242mm in terms of a waist width.
For bindings sizing, it will depend on the brand of bindings you go with and in some cases can depend on the width of the board too. I find it’s a good idea to choose the board and boots first then the bindings to match both. In terms of flex of bindings (and same goes with boots), try to match the flex of the board (or at least close to). In your case as a beginner, a medium-soft board bindings and boots works best, IMO.
Hope this helps
I forgot to mention the width vs boot size is what I’m concerned about.
Hi Al
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would be most concerned about the width on the 157 – and even if you’re not riding that aggressively and roughly +15/-15 angles, I still think it’s too narrow. At 157, I think it’s also a little short for your specs too, even at an early intermediate stage. The 159W would be the ideal size for you for the Afterblack and unfortunately, IMO, the 157 is going to be too narrow.
Nate,
Awesome read!! I have a tendency to over research and sometimes over think decision, no always a bad thing. So your in depth articles on board sizing (actually all articles) are perfect for my mind set.
Anyway, I am relatively new to boarding. Ski’d my entire life but just got board with it. No monster mountains here in the Upper Midwest. I made the switch last season. I’d say I’m in the early intermediate stage riding normal and beginner rising switch. I need to work on that. I was told I picked it quite a bit faster than most. I’m currently 46 so you won’t see me in a terrain park. I’ll leave that for the younger generation who heal quicker. I enjoy carving down a slope at a leisurely pace just enjoying it.
I have been renting and was looking a directional board, but honestly, I don’t like 90% of the graphics out there. I found a board that would fit my style that had ok graphics, the K2 broadcast. While kicking that around, I stopped by the shop for another reason and wondered back to look at the boards again and found the one (looks anyway), the K2 Afterblack. The camo/blaze orange combo os me, I love bow hunting. It’s a twin and more of a freestyle board, but the graphics sold me.
Here’s the issue, the only one they have is a 157. I am 5’11” and 205ish lbs (need to ditch the food baby and get down towards 185, but that’s another story). K2 is sold out of the 159w and I wasn’t having luck finding one on line. I have test fitted boots and want to go with the K2 clickers. I am always with skiers. My boot size is 11.5. I can squeeze into an 11 bur i feel the toe has too much contact with the boot. In the 11.5 my toe just lightly touches the boot tip when standing straight. Based on everything I have read of yours and looking at the board specs, the 157 seems to be boarder line with the 11.5 boot. I have not measured my binding angle, but I am closer to the +15/-15 stance.
I want to continue to work in riding switch so I’m ok with the twin board. I plan on keeping the board for a long time. Based in my long rambling note, what’s your opinion on the 157 Afterblack for me?
Thanks in advance and keep up the writing/research.
Hi Nate!
I was hoping to get my first set of snowboarding gear this year and really needed help with it all. I would say I am a beginner level 4 and looking towards improving. I have always rented gear so am unsure of what to buy. I am 5’7 and fluctuate around 148 lbs. My shoe size is woman’s 9.5 wide and I ride goofy footed. If you could recommend the length of the board and width with what bindings to get that would be amazing. I also would like to know more on what angle you would recommend for my level to angle my bindings at.
Hi Lewie
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I would look in the range 148-150 for your specs/level.
Width-wise, roughly speaking around 240mm minimum waist width is probably a good bet. But it does depend somewhat on the board, you binding angles and the particular boots you get.
I think this list, given a progressing level 4, would be a good bet to look at for boards:
>>Top 10 Women’s Intermediate Snowboards
But if you wanted to go for a more beginner board, also see:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
For bindings, I would try to decide on the boots and the board first – as they bindings you go with will partly depend on those. Boots first, is a good way to start. Because if you end up in 9s or 10s, rather than 9.5s, then can make a difference to the width of board you go with. But if you’re unable to try on first, then we can certainly still choose a board in a good size. The size of bindings you go with will also depend on the boot size and the brand of bindings you go with.
Some good boot options to check out:
>>My Top Women’s Beginner Boots
>>My Top Women’s Freestyle Snowboard Boots
>>My Top Women’s All-Mountain Snowboard Boots
For binding angles, it largely depends on how you feel most comfortable riding – and I always encourage people to experiment a little to see what feels most comfortable for them. Roughly standing in different stances and imagining yourself riding. Bending and straightening your knees. And then try that in a few different options can help figure out where you might be inclined, so you don’t have to keep remounting your bindings too often to experiment when actually riding.
The most common beginner setups would be +15/-15 and +15/0. Setting up +15/-15 has the advantage of making switch riding easier to learn. So if you have interest in being able to ride in both directions, then that’s something to consider. If you think that doesn’t interest you, then a more forward stance would be worth going with, if it’s comfortable for you. The most important is what feels best.
More on binding angles:
>>What Snowboard Binding Angles Should I Use
Hope this isn’t too much info at once, and hope it helps. Let me know if you narrow down to some gear choices and want a sizing opinion for specific boards.
Nate thank you!! This info was amazing and I read multiple articles in your website to help me out. I was able to go into a store to test boots out but because I have wide feet only came across one pair that felt perfect. For boots I ended up going with the Rossignol Alley Boa in a size 9 and the board I got was a hello yes in a 152. I have yet to get the bindings so would love recommendations!
Once again thank you,
Lewie
Hi Lewie
Awesome that you have boots and board sorted!
For bindings, I would look at something with around a 5/10 flex. Anything from the following with a 5/10 flex would be a good bet:
>>Top Women’s All-Mountain Bindings
>>Top Women’s Freestyle Bindings
In terms of sizing the bindings, check out:
>>Snowboard Binding Sizing
If you’re unsure about the bindings fitting the board or sizing or are debating between options, let me know.
Hey Nate. Great article!
I’m 6’2”, weight 165-170, size 12-13 boot. Intermediate all-mountain resort rider.
Looking at a Solamon Dancehaul which is a wider board apparently. Can’t decide between 152 vs 157.
Hi Doug
Thanks for your message.
That’s a tough one. If it was me, I would go 152 (6’0″, 175lbs), but I wear 10s (sometimes 9.5s), so for me I would want to size down because of the width of this board. However, since the width of the board is actually well suited to your boot size, I’m not sure if sizing down that much works. Which makes me want to say 157. But this board has obviously been made to size down on – and Salomon’s weight recommendations suggest more 152. But with the board not being wide for your boots, that’s going pretty short for your specs. So I’m inclined to say 157, but it’s a tough read on this one. I haven’t ridden this board either, so I don’t know the feel of it, which would help to give a more accurate opinion. If there was something in between, like a 154, 155, I might be more confident in recommending something, but this one is a tough call.
Hope this somewhat helps
Nate,
Great article but I could use some additional guidance. I’m 15, a high-beginner looking to buy an all-mountain board. I’m 5’10”, 130lbs and wear a size 12 boot. I’ve been renting at the mountain until now and they have me in a wide board but I don’t remember the length. The only wide board I can find in my local shops is a Salomon Craft 157W. The shop owner advises I would be fine with this board despite the weight range on the board being 145-210. I am mostly interested in carving turns and not much in terrain park. Would appreciate your thoughts on this board and generally appropriate size board for me.
Thanks
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
IMO 157W is definitely too big for you. I don’t think the Craft would necessarily be a bad option, but in that size it would be a bad option, IMO.
I would put you at more like 150,151 – and potentially even less as a beginner. But given there aren’t many wide boards in that size-range, you could compromise up to 152, but I wouldn’t go longer than that at your weight.
Some options that I think would work well, and are wide in shorter sizes:
– GNU Money 150W
– Burton Instigator 150W
– Capita Horrorscope 151W (though it’s more of a freestyle board than an all-mountain board)
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great Article. I recently bought a Capita Horrorscope 155cm board. I am 6’1 145lbs. I got fitted for a 10.5 boot and am really worried I got the wrong width of board. Barefoot my toes and heels are right on the edge. I am heading to Colorado next weekend and need to calm my nerves to see if I need to return my board and get a wide board instead. I am a beginner so not too much action from me on the slope. Please share your knowledge and help me put my anxiety at ease.
Also, I am getting union flite pro Size Large as my binding if that helps with anything.
My heel hangs off about half an inch off the back side.
Scratch that last comment, my heel barely hangs off, less than a 1/4 of an inch
Hi Alex
Thanks for your comments. I don’t think you will have any issues width-wise with the 155 Horrorscope with 10.5s. I think that should be a good width. And Large Flite Pros should be fine to fit on the board too. I haven’t measured Large Flite Pros, but based on the Medium Flite Pros I’ve tested/measured and using the difference between M and L for other Union bindings, I don’t think you should have any issues there.
Hope this has eased your anxiety and hope you enjoy your trip!
Hey Nate!
I need to buy a board in the next 2-3 days and im not sure what width to choose (10.5 boot size).
My weight is 80kg/176lbs and im a beginner. I’ve been looking at these 2 boards:
Capita Outerspace Living 158cm: 25.3 waist width
Capita DOA 158cm: 25.4 waist width.
Would these work or will they be on the upper limit? Looking to hearing your thoughts!
Thank you!
Hi Andi
Thanks for your message.
I think the Outerspace Living (OSL) is doable. It’s what I would call suitable for high-end beginner bordering on intermediate, rather than complete beginner, so if you’re more at the start of the beginner specturm, then it will be a steeper learning curve than a pure beginner board for sure, and at the upper limit, but potentially doable, if not ideal.
The DOA is a more technical board, in my experience, so between those 2, I would go OSL for sure.
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your height. Weight and boot size certainly more important for sizing, but I like to take height into account as well.
Width-wise, the 158 should be wide enough with 10.5s.
Hope this helps
Hi!
Height: 181cm
Weight: 80kg
Bootsize: well i bought a pair of romes that i thought will be fine which are 11 size. I’ll return them tho cuz i feel pressure points on one of my foot. Do you think 11 is too big for the standard version?
Thanks!
Hi Andi
Thanks for the extra info.
With 11s, the regular width is probably a little wide. Not sure how Rome boots typically fit as it’s not a brand that I test, so I’m not sure what you would fit in other brands, but assuming you end up in an 11, I would go with the 155W in the OSL, if you have that size available. That length is still within your range, and the width should be good – wide enough but not too wide. When you’re in that 10.5 to 11 range some wide boards can be too wide, but for the 155W, I think it would be a good width for 11s and that would be a good length for you right now too. Overall that’s the size I would go with if you have it available.
I’ve looked in all available shops from where i can buy and the only wide version is the 157W which has a waist width of 262mm. Now the thing is i have to order it online and im not sure what my boot size will it be (10.5 or 11). 26.2 is a bit too wide for a 10.5 or is it safe to order it for both boot sizes?
Dont know if this matters but my bindings size is L.
Thank you, Nate!
Hi Andi
Binding size could matter, if you didn’t go wide, but it would depend on the brand/model of your bindings. If you can let me know that I’ll have a better idea.
If you could get in 10.5s, I would try to go regular width, but in terms of it being too wide – that really comes down to foot size, so which boot you end up in doesn’t really matter. For being too narrow it comes down to boots – i.e. if your boot is too long and could cause boot drag. A board can’t really be too wide for your boots, but can be too wide for your feet, if that makes sense. It’s your feet that ultimately apply pressure to the edges of the board. With 11s you kind of need to go wide to reduce the chance of boot drag. But with foot size, you can be over hanging the edges, so long as your boot doesn’t overhang the edges. But you don’t your feet underhanging too much (a little is fine). I think if you’ve got a foot size of 28-28.5cm, you will be fine on the wide board regardless of boots you get into. But if you’ve got shorter feet than that, I would try to get into a smaller boot and go for regular width.
Hi Nate, love your site, all this information is extremely helpful! Would greatly appreciate your input as I look to buy my first board. I’m 5’10, 160, size 9.5 boot – looking for an all-mountain board. Definitely a beginner now (started this season, have only gone twice and am able to link turns and do S turns decently) but looking to progress quickly to an intermediate level and want to buy a setup for the long-term. I’ve decided on the Lib Tech Cold Brew but unsure if I should go with the 153 or 157. I don’t play on hitting the park and 157 seems to be standard based on my metrics, but what’s leaning me towards 153 is the fact that I’m still a beginner currently (though I don’t mind using rentals for 4-5 more days or however long I need to improve to use it) and primarily that the board seems to run pretty wide (keep reading that the Orca, for example, needs to be sized down significantly but not sure if this is solely due to volume-shifting vs width). Any help / input would be appreciated, cheers!
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
As a beginner and with the width being a little wider than normal, I would be leaning towards the 153. Lib Tech boards tend not to be as wide as they look based on waist width – but with 9.5s, it’s still on the wide side and waist width itself does affect maneuverability too. So those 2 things combined I would be leaning towards the 153.
Hope this helps
Appreciate it! Cheers
You’re very welcome David. Happy riding!
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the article – this is the best one by far that I’ve found on this subject. So here’s my situation – I have a new board, boots and bindings downstairs, a little Christmas present I got for myself. I’m 5’11”, 176 lbs. I’ve been riding a couple times a year on rental/borrowed stuff, but this year I decided to send it on a season pass and some gear so that I can actually spend some time and progress. I don’t know exactly what kind of riding I’ll do the most – I’m initially drawn to the park but my friends like backcountry/trees/pow when we have it, and I’ll be riding with them a decent amount, so I researched a board that could do everything, possibly with a little lean towards the park and I settled on the Burton Process 157. I figured the 157 would be a little easier to maneuver than the 159 or 157w which would help in the park/trees, but just for context I rode a borrowed K2 163w last year which was like riding a door for me lol but I made it work without a ton of trouble. Anyways, I had to order the board online because it was sold out at my local shop, but I went in and bought the boots and bindings in person – K2 Darkos size 11 and Burton Reflex Cartel X’s size L. The K2’s were the most comfortable/best fit for my foot and the Cartel X’s were just going to look the best with the board lol. Didn’t even think about heel or toe drag when I got them, just made sure the bindings would fit on the board and took off. Today before I put them together I decided to do a little research, and learned that I was for sure going to be cutting it close.
So I found out that the 152 waist width is a bit narrow for size 11 boots, and the Darkos that I got are one of the larger footprints that you can get apparently. I tried to measure the angles by setting the bindings on the board at +15 -15 and got the angles
Front: Heel – 50*
Toe – 77*
Back: Heel – 57.7*
Toe – 68*
but those are approximate because I didn’t mount the bindings just in case I end up needing to return the board, I just lined them up and held them in place. I’m not going to be laying down euro carves tomorrow, but I want something that isn’t going to limit me and definitely don’t want to be in a steep spot, carve hard, boot out and hurt myself. I’d prefer to just put my stuff together and ride, but if I need to make some exchanges then I’d rather do that than be kicking myself for not doing it next season. Also, if it is a problem, I’m not sure what the best route for fixing it would be – sizing up to a 159 or 157w, moving to est bindings for better adjustability, (the reflex ones are terrible for the front/back adjustability that would be nice, especially on that front heel), or trying to find a lower profile boot. Any advice?
Thanks
(Also, sorry if this is a duplicate comment, my first one didn’t show up)
Hi Braedon
Thanks for your message.
Got your first message here too – just had to be moderated before being published – but I deleted it, just so there wasn’t a duplicate.
At 50 degrees that heel side front foot is a concern for sure, even that back heel side could be an issue. And with K2 11s on the 157 Process, even without knowing those angles, I would typically consider that a too narrow.
All the options you suggest would make a difference for sure. Getting better boot centering would allow you to get that heel angle better, it’s just whether you’d end up with too little on the toe side then. Lower profile boots would definitely help, for sure. But I think you’d want to do both of those things in order to make it doable – and even then. I think getting the 157W is the best bet. It’s not a super wide board for a wide board – a good width for 11s, IMO. And certainly would be narrower most likely than the 163W K2 you borrowed – and at that length and width combined, I’m not surprised you found a board of that size like a door. I think the 157W Process is just the right size for your specs, IMO. That’s the size I would have suggested in any case. And that seems to me the easiest solution in this case too.
Hope this helps
Thanks! That does! I did read up a little bit about boot sizing too and I think I will be downsizing my boots – I wear a size 10.5 shoe and everything I’ve read is saying that an 11 is way too big, and after trying them on with my thinner snowboard socks I’m not sure what I was thinking when I bought them (or the guy who fitted them for me). If I downsize to a 10.5 would you still recommend going with the 157W?
Hi Braedon
Low profile 10.5s and keeping at those +15/-15 binding angles and I think you would be fine on the 157. If you go for the Darkos again, might still be better to go with the 157W.
Sounds good! Also just one other question I thought of – I would consider myself an advanced beginner/low intermediate rider at the moment and I read your article on the top ten intermediate boards – I saw the process flying v was on there but not the regular process, although the regular process had a higher overall rating. If i’m going to be exchanging the board anyway would you recommend the purepop or the flying v? From what I’ve read the flying v would be nice for powder and trees with it being more agile (which might also help in the park a bit too), and might also help me learn switch easier, but not quite as good at speed or carving, and sacrificing pop. I am really just wanting a board that I can take anywhere and that I can progress and learn on, possibly leaning more towards park, I like the idea of a board that can hold its own a bit better in the powder but I don’t know realistically how many pow days I’ll have…so I’m torn. Additionally, I’ve always ridden camber boards, so I’m not sure how I would like a looser feeling board (although I did borrow a 155 camber this weekend and even though it was too small I loved how agile it was – maybe a similar feel to a rocker-centric board?). Thanks so much for all the help choosing between the two, also any other board recommendations are welcome!!
Hi Braedon
I think the Process Flying V is certainly an easier riding board and typically better suited to a high-end beginner/low intermediate. But if you’ve been used to riding camber and haven’t had any major issues with it, then I think the Process camber will be fine. You’re pretty much spot on with the pros and cons of each, with the Process Flying V being a little more agile, better in pow and a little easier for learning switch, doing butters and jibs etc and the process camber more pop and better for carving and speed – and a little better edgehold in hard/icy conditions too. Process Flying V certainly a little looser feeling too – that’s not a good thing or a bad thing, but some like a looser feel and some prefer a more stable feel.
Hellllo:)
I’ve got a question. So I bought a Snowboard with a 242mm waist and I wear Nitro Boots in Size US9 now I have a hang off of 2,7 cm on each side but I would I say I have high bindings (Nitro Cosmic ) I tried to calculate my angle and it’s definitely higher then 50 Degree on each side. I would say between 50-65 degree. I’m riding for 7years and I want to ride in the park do you think the Setup is okay?
Hi Nico
Thanks for your message.
That is more overhang than ideal. Just so that it’s clear – you’re measuring that overhang in relation to the metal edges at the base right, rather than the edges of the topsheet?
Assuming that’s the case 2.7cm per edge is more than ideal, but can be doable depending on how you ride. I haven’t tested Nitro bindings, so I’m not sure how high it raises the boots off the board, but certainly if they do raise the boots higher than normal, then that does allow for a greater angle when carving.
If you’re closer to that 65 degree angle, and you’re predominantly riding freestyle and you don’t lean super hard into your carves, then I think you’ll be fine. But if you do like to really lean into your carves, I think it’s going to be pushing it.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate! Could you please help to choose the right snowboard for me. My height is 190cm, weight 80kg, boot size 12US (aprox. 31cm length).
I’m currently riding with RIDE DH2 157. Burton Custom bindings L, and Burton Ruler 12US boots.
Generally, I like this setup, it allows me to do some butter, freestyle, etc, but it totally sucks when I try to deep carve, I mean like very high angle close to 70-90. My boots start to drag the snow and I fall.
So I want to buy a new board, which would allow me to make those deep turns in carving and also, hopefully, still give some opportunities for flat and freestyle.
I checked many different online calculators which suggest me board length around 158-162 and width 160-166, but I suppose it would still make my boots overhang at the board and cause the drag..
I also checked most of boardshops in my city, and the widest and the most suitable for me in terms of parameters I found was NIDECKER ESCAPE. Either 162XW with 272 width or 169xw with 276 width.
So, which one you would suggest me and why?
Thank you very much in advance for your reply!
PS. I ride 15 -15 stance, about 53cm between bindings width.
Hi Ivan
Thanks for your message.
With the +15/-15 angles that helps, but the 53cm stance is pretty narrow, which means you’re on a narrower part of the board. If you’re going to stick with that kind of stance width, then you’ll probably want to go a little wider than what I would typically suggest for 12s, particularly with wanting to carve really deep.
Some overhang is fine. Even at a 90 degree angle, some overhang will still be fine. If you had zero boot overhang you wouldn’t have a lot of leverage on the edges, but given you’re wanting to get to those kinds of angles, you’ll want the overhang very minimal.
One Question: Was your DH2 the 157 or 157W. If it was the 157, then I’m definitely not surprised you were getting drag with 12s.
Length-wise, I would agree around 159-162 is a good range to look at. So if you go with the Nidecker Escape, I would certainly look at the 162XW rather than the 169XW. I think you would be fine with the width on the 162XW. Can’t say for sure of course, but with 12s, you should be fine on that width. I don’t test Nidecker boards, so I don’t have any personal experience with the Escape – and it’s not something I’ve measured at the inserts, so I don’t know how wide it would be at the inserts versus the waist width.
If you’re able to look outside those options at all and really want to go super wide, you could look at something like the Never Summer Westbound or Never Summer Heritage which come in DF (drag free sizes) and are super wide. But I would imagine you will be fine width-wise on something like the Escape.
Or if you wanted a similar option to the Escape at a similar width, the Nitro Team 162W would also be suitable, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much for this big open answer! I’ll definitely check boards you recommended!
I still can’t understand whether my DH2 is wide or not) I bought it so many time ago) I always thought its WIDE but after I’d checked this model recently there is no 157w, lol)
One more question. When you say, a little overhang is ok, what length you mean? How many cm on heel and toe can overhang on board for those deep angles, approximately? Like 0,5cm from each side?
Hi Ivan
I did find a 2013 model of the DH2 which had a 157W. Not sure what year yours is.
Hard to say for sure what kind of overhang would be OK for those kinds of angles. Even 75 degrees is a pretty serious angle to be running. But if you really think you’re getting to that 90 degrees, then you probably do want 0.5cm per edge at most. But otherwise, you could have up to 1cm, even if you’re running close to 80 degrees. Also note that this overhang is over the metal edge. Not over the edge on the top sheet if that makes sense. i.e. if you have a 1cm overhang past the metal edge, then you’ll have like a 1.5cm overhang over the edge where it meets the top sheet – or like 1.3, 1.4 or whatever, but the overhang should be measured against the metal edge. That’s what I always do my measurements to and that’s what waist widths are measured to as well.
Yea yea I understand it. So my shoes overhang about 2-2.5cm both heel and toe of the edge, not top of board.
And I found a board you’d recommended. Nitro Team. Its dope as well and cheaper almost 2 time because of the season 19. Going to grab it next monday probs!
Thanks for all of your advices, you are good man! Good luck and take care 😉
Hi Ivan
Nice work finding the deal on the Team! You’re very welcome and happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I just finally found boots my size.
I never thought I would have another problem with the width of the board since I was doing ski but I can’t find boots anymore. I crave going down a mountain for the last 15 years.
I think I’ll have to do a custom board but I don’t want to spend 1000$ on a board if I have the choice and I’m not even sure if they can do my size.
Do you know what I should do?
Here my chart :
7’1″, 240pds, 18us Boot size… 30y/o
I found the widest board around 285 with the Lib Tech Skunk Ape HP C2 snowboard on my research. Do you know wider?
Ohhh and I’m living in Montreal, Canada
Thank you for your help
Hi Vincent
Thanks for your message.
Your the first size 18 I’ve come across, so I will try to help, but it’s not a size I’ve come across before. At a guess I would say that a size 18 would be roughly 38-39.5cm depending on the boot. The only boot I know of in an 18 is the Ride Bigfoot, but I’m guessing there are others. In a ride boot, I’d say an 18 would be around 38.5cm long. Something like the Lib Tech Skunk Ape 170UW (285mm waist) would probably be around 291-295mm at the inserts – based on the difference between waist and inserts on other Lib Tech boards. So that would leave an overhang of at least 9cm, which is certainly more than you want. That would be around 4.5cm per edge. That is with angles straight across the board, so that would come down depending on your binding angles, but only subtly.
If you’re riding with a really wide stance that would also put you on a wider part of the board, but even then I would still say you’re still looking at more than 8cm overhang, which isn’t ideal. I’ve never had any experience with them, but you can get “binding risers”. These essentially raise your bindings off the board, which increases the angle at which you can carve without getting boot drag. I think if you got those you would likely be fine. It’s just whether or not you wanted to be raised above the board or not.
Some other options with a similar waist are:
– Never Summer Heritage 164DF (the DF stands for Drag Free) – 285mm waist
– Never Summer Westbound 166DF – also 285mm waist
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
It’s finally black frdiay and I can’t decide between the Capita DOA 155W and the Rome Party Mod 156 as my park board.
My boots are the salomon dialogue focus boa in 11US and my bindings are the union strata.
The only stance that I’ll be riding is +15/-15.
The waist width of the DOA is 25.9 and it’s 30.2 / 30.2 on nose and tail.
Meanwhile the Rome Party Mod has 25.4 waist width and I couldn’t find the nase and tail width.
Do you think the Rome Party Mod would be doable with the +15/-15 angles or is it too risky?
Hi Hendrik
DOA 155W is likely around 266mm at the inserts. With your boots and +15/-15 I think you should be fine there. Note that the width at the contact points isn’t always an accurate indicator of width at inserts, even with the waist width, but it is some indication, so annoying that Rome don’t show that spec. I don’t test Rome gear, so I don’t know how Rome boards typically are at the inserts versus the waist. So there’s a chance that it could be even wider than the DOA 155W or it could be quite a bit narrower. Width at inserts versus waist width tends to range anywhere from 5mm difference to 15mm difference, so it’s hard to say having not measured any Rome boards before.
So, it could be doable, but without knowing any more information it’s really hard to say.
Hi Nate!
Following question please:
I want to decide between the Jeremy Jones Splitboard Solution (20/21) 165W or the 167 –
my bare foot lenght measures 28,0 cm. I am 192 cm tall, my weight ist 78 kg.
– 165W: waist width: 26,6 cm
– 167: waist width: 25,9 cm
My current board is a Burton cascade 173 with a waist width of 25,4 cm. Very seldom, a little toedrag on pistes, but not in the backcountry..
Binding angles: front: 18°, back: 6°; stance: ~ 60 cm.
The thing is, I wear Salomon US 12 (EUR 46 1/3), with a mondo of 29,5 (no joke, I have 28 cm feet, and feel very well in that boots). (My average sneakers size is ~EUR 45) Of course I should buy new boots with a less overall lenght to decrease toedrag..
With the 165W I would have more width and therefor less toe- or heeldrag,
with the 167 I would be more reactive…
What would you do?
Thanks for your help!
Kind regards,
Till
Hi Till
Thanks for your message.
If it was me, I would ultimately look to fit in smaller boots and try to get on the 167. Ultimately it’s your feet that apply pressure to the edges of the board and with 28cm feet, I think they would work better on the width of the 167. Of course it’s the more expensive option, as you’d have to get new boots, but that’s the way I would go personally.
If you try other brands of boots, you might find you get in a smaller size. With 28cm feet, I would usually expect you to fit in a US10.5 or at most a US11. In which case you should be fine in terms of boot drag on the 157, regardless of how low profile the boot is. If you with something low profile, that gives you a little more leeway too – and then even if you were to end up in an 11.5, you would likely still be good. One thing to consider is whether you have wide feet. It could be possible that the Salomon fit best in the 12, because of wide feet? Salomon boots are a little narrower than the average boot, in my experience. So going for a wider boot, might allow you to fit in a smaller size.
The back insert on the 167 Solution is around 271mm, which at a 6 degree angle with Salomon 12s, I would typically say is too narrow. That’s why I would recommend trying to get smaller boots. However, it’s likely wider than your Cascade, so you would get a little leeway vs the Cascade, even if you went for the 167 with your current boots. One thing you could do is get the 167 and see how it goes with your boots, with the idea in mind that you could change up your boots if you’re getting toe drag. There is the risk that you aren’t able to fit in anything smaller than 12s, but I suspect you should be able to at least in a brand.
The 165W is getting pretty wide for your foot size, IMO, so if you can avoid going that wide, I would.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey there,
I am stuck on deciding on a new board for myself. I currently have the Chamonix Haute 166cm long with a waist width of 266mm. I just got new Burton Ruler BOA size 12 US boots which have the footprint reduction tech. I am looking at getting either the 2021 Burton Custom or the Yes Standard.
Height: 6’4″
Weight: 210lbs
Boots: US12
Angles: Normally ~ +15/-3 but mix it up sometimes.
———————————–
<>
166W with a waist width of 266mm.
170W with a waist width of 270mm.
<>
162 with a waist width of 268mm.
167 with a waist width of 266mm.
———————————–
I am a pretty aggressive carver and like to bomb from time to time, usually board on groomers, some side hits, minimal parks. I have been comfortable my longer(ish) board because I am tall, but I hear that going for a slightly shorter board with a wider WW can be a lot of fun. So the Yes Standard 162 sounds great with the 268mm WW, but what is your professional opinion? Is that too short of a board for me? Do any of the four board options I have listed above sound perfect for me?
Cheers man!
I don’t know why the board names aren’t there, but the first two are the Burton Custom and the second two are the Yes Standard.
Or I even considered the Nitro Team because is has a 162W with a WW of 270mm. hahah as you can tell I am very indecisive.
Hi Steven
Thanks for your messages.
In terms of length, I think something around a 164 is a good way to go in terms of length, so if you go Custom I would go 166W over the 170W.
For the Standard, I think the 162 could definitely work for your specs. Would certainly be a different feel to your current board, I would imagine – I’ve never ridden the Chamonix Haute – but I think it would definitely work for your specs/what you’re describing.
The Team in the 162W would definitely work too, IMO. It’s a little more of an aggressive ride than the Standard, which sounds like it might suit you (the Standard isn’t un-aggressive – it’s not super playful, but it’s in between, if that makes sense – the Custom and Team are more aggressive than it).
For reference the following are what I would expect the width at inserts to be on those options:
Custom 166W: 277mm
Custom 170W: 281mm
Standard 162: 282mm
Standard 167: 281mm
Team 162W: 282mm
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thank you for the helpful article. I appreciate how you’ve laid it all out for new people getting started.
I wear a size 9.5 in my K2 boots and I bought a 152cm K2 Standard board. According to the K2 description, the 155cm board has a 249mm width.
Does this mean the board is too narrow for my feet? According to your size chart it looks like it.
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
It depends on a number of factors, but I don’t think the 152 is necessarily too narrow for you. Since you’re buying the Standard, I’m going to assume you’re a beginner? But correct me if I’m wrong. Assuming beginner level, you will have a smaller likelihood for boot drag, as you won’t be really getting up on those edges, most likely. So that gives you more leeway to start with.
But even disregarding that, I think you can get away with a 247 waist width with 9.5s, if you’re riding with a bit of angle on your bindings. If you’re riding with a completely straight back foot (i.e. 0 degrees), then that would allow for a greater risk of boot drag. Even if you ride with a straight back foot, I think you get away with it at this stage, given you’re probably not going to be riding the board that aggressively. Assuming the 152 is a better length for you, I wouldn’t go up to the 155 just for the width. I think you will get away with the width on the 152.
Hope this helps
Thank you!
You’re very welcome John
Hey Nate,
Been looking into getting a new board this season which would be the Niche Maelstrom. I’ve been doing some research and can’t seem to find a good answer on whether my boots will fit either on the 163 or 166 version.
I ride a 11.5 DC Travis Rice, am about 6’3″ tall and 180lbs.
I’m worried about the rear taper when carving a bit harder, but everything I’ve heard about the board is great otherwise and I’d really like to be able to ride it this year.
Cheers from Canada and thanks for your help,
Cole
Hi Cole
Thanks for your message.
I rode the 160 and the width at the inserts on that was: 266mm at the back insert and 268mm at the front insert. That has a 256mm waist and I rode with a 540mm (21.3″) stance – so quite a narrow stance. On the 163, you’re looking at around 270mm on the back insert, with a similar stance, but if you were to move to let’s say a 580mm stance width, for example, you’re probably looking at more like 272-273mm wide at the back insert.
From the DC T Rice boots that I’ve measured, they’re fairly low profile (2.6cm longer on the outersole versus the mondo of the boot). So I would predict that the 11.5 T Rice is around 32.1cm long. Assuming the wider stance on the 163, that would equate to a 4.9cm total overhang.
Which I think is doable, depending on a couple of things. Firstly, depending on binding angles. That overhang is straight across the board – with some angle on that back binding, there would be a little more leeway. Secondly, it depends on how hard you’re carving. If you’re like Eurocarving, then it might be pushing it. But personally I would be happy with that level of overhang, particularly if you can get a little more overhang on the heel – e.g. if you were roughly 2.7 overhang on the heel and 2.2cm on the toe, then I would personally be comfortable with that. Note that I like to carve but wouldn’t say I’m a super aggressive carver.
I’d say you’d definitely be fine width-wise on the 166. However, IMO the 163 would be a better length for you. But length is sometimes down to preference and if you know that you like to go longer and you’ve ridden boards around 166 and liked them, then gotta certainly take that into account.
Hope this helps
Hey there,
This is some great information, thanks for putting this together! I’m having a very hard time choosing the correct size for my next board and I was wondering if you could give me your opinion? I’m looking at the custom x.
I’m 5’8, ~155lbs without my gear (usually have a pack with me with water and stuff), size 8 boot. I’d say I’m an advanced rider who likes to spend time all over the mountain, trees, and carving hard. I currently have a Burton Deep Thinker in 157, older custom twin 156 (249mm waist width), and a 154 skeleton key. I’ve also ridden an endeavor BOD in a 154 which I liked as well.
This board will be my resort, carving, do-it-all board. My main concern is waist width and effective edge. I enjoy riding my 156 Custom twin a good amount, I like the edge it offers, and I feel like the waist width is great for my boot size. I enjoyed my 157 Deep Thinker a lot too, the stability and speed it offered was great. But at 252 waist width, it did feel sluggish when I wasn’t at speed in tight spots.
I enjoy maneuverability but also want to be able to get veryyyy low on carves if I want to. I’m wondering if the 154 Custom X or 156 (or bigger??), would be ideal for me. I originally thought the 154 would be good cause since it’s stiff, it’ll still offer the stability I’m looking for while being maneuverable and probably ideal waist width. But the effective edge on the 156 is more ideal for my riding I think, but the waist width might slightly be too large for my boot. I’m torn. Which size would you go with for the type of riding I do? Would you go even higher than a 156?
Thank you in advance!
Jon
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
Great questions and you bring up some great points.
Based on your specs and how you describe your riding, I would be leaning towards the 154. I agree that the debate is between the 154 and 156, and I don’t think the 156 would be the wrong choice, but the 154 is my instinct on this one. I wouldn’t go any longer than the 156. The Custom X is a little stiffer than the Deep Thinker, IMO, so I certainly don’t think the 154 is going to feel too soft for you. Given sizing (smaller boards always feel softer for the equivalent rider), the 154 Custom X will likely feel similar flex-wise to the Deep Thinker, at a guess.
You have a good point about the effective edge, but given how good the Custom X is on a carve and at speed, I think you’ll be fine there and it will give you that little bit more maneuverability for trees. Certainly some sacrifice on stability at speed and hard carves, but I think the 154 would still serve you well there. And that little bit of a smaller width will be helpful for your boot size.
The other reason I lean towards the 154 as your resort do-it-all board, is that you already have a 157 Deep Thinker in your quiver. I think the 154 would be a compliment.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your response earlier about the Stratos. I think I’m pretty set on it. Only concern I have is waist width. The stratos 159 has a WW of 25.6, I think reference stance on front insert is ~26.6cm, and for back insert probably more around ~26.9 cm. based off of some videos I’ve seen. I like to carve pretty hard, so I’m a little worried about boot overhang with 10.5 reduced footprint boots, Ride Insano’s. I keep my stance at +15/-9
I’d rather not go into the 160’s for the Stratos. But if that waist width seems to narrow, I’ll most likely go with the 159W for the Flagship which is 26.3 cm of WW.
If you have any recommendations, or insight, It’d be greatly appreciated. Thanks Nate!
Hi Tim
The measurements I got off the Stratos was 270mm at the back insert and 271mm at the front insert – measured at reference stance 20mm setback. I rode it at a 560mm stance width (because the reference stance of 600mm is too wide for my tastes), which was 268mm at the back insert and 269mm at the front insert. The difference between back and front insert in this case wasn’t that great because the taper offsets the setback (i.e. with a setback stance and no taper, the width at the back insert is always greater, but when there’s taper things get narrower – with enough taper and not that much setback, the width at the back insert is sometimes a good bit narrower. In this case slightly narrower at the back – it’s more so on the Flagship).
Not going to claim 100% that my measurements are perfect, but I do measure carefully and always measure twice to confirm – and if the two measurements don’t match, I will measure a 3rd or 4th time to make sure which is most accurate.
It’s possibly that the person in the video rode with a greater setback stance to get those measurements – that might account for the difference. The other thing is whether or not they measured at the base, metal edge to metal edge or not. Or potentially they didn’t measure that carefully (or I could have got it wrong too, of course).
The size 10 Ride Insanos that I tested measured 31cm on the outersole (measured with the boot flush against a wall and measured from longest point on the toe to the wall), which is 3cm greater than mondo-print. Assuming the 10.5s have the same difference, they’re likely to be around 31.5cm. Assuming my numbers are correct, that would be a total overhang on the back insert of 4.5cm at reference stance (if you were to ride it with a narrower stance, like I did, then more like 4.7cm total overhang) – with no binding angle. A little more leeway with that 9 degree angle.
I would personally be comfortable with that, especially if you could the toe edge to 2cm (and have a little more overhang on the heel edge), but even with perfect centering I would be comfortable with that. I wouldn’t say I’m a super hard carver, but I’m not super casual either.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate,
first of all, greetings from Austria! I came across this article and kept reading and reading. I’m also a person who is focused on details and how little changes can make a big difference in how the board feels.
Right now I’m riding the Salomon Villain 158W from 2017, but I think it’s time for a new park board, because that one is slowly falling apart after 3 seasons riding park. Also i want to maybe size down a bit because I’m more into jibs than into hitting big jumps.
Maybe you can help me with my decision:
1.) Capita Ultrafear 155 or 155W from 2020
or
2.) Capita Horrorscope 155W or 157W from 2020
My specs are:
age: 27
Weight: 180lbs with gear (~ 80 kg)
Height: 6’0″ (~185 cm)
Foot size: 26cm
Boot: size 11 (Vans Encore, they are extremly small cut on the toes for a size 11)
Stance angles: +15 front / -15 rear
Type of riding: Park
Riding Level: small to mid jumps, rails, jibs
With the Ultrafear i have another struggle, because i don’t know if i should take the 155 or the 155W.
On their size chart they say with the 155 you can go up to 11,5 size boots and the 155W starts at 10,5.
So with my 11 size boots im on the upper limit for the 155, and on the lower limit for the 155W.
What would you recommend? Should i take the 155 altough I’m on the upper limit with boot size and rider weight, or take the 155W?. Or do you think a 155 in general is so small for me, and i should go with the Horroscope 157W?
Thanks and have a great day,
Lukas
Hi Lukas
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of the width for the Ultrafear 155. The width at inserts on the 155 is 265mm. That’s on the narrow side for 11s, but not undoable. Given that you have +15/-15 binding angles and that your boots are low profile, I think you would get away with that. And with 26cm feet, I think you will appreciate the maneuverability of that board more than you would the wide size. Certainly even going to 155W from your current Villain 158W you’ll notice that extra agility anyway, but I would still be leaning towards the 155 regular width for you, taking everything into consideration. This is assuming that you’re not going to be laying down any hard carves on the board or anything (not that it’s a board suitable for that anyway) – if you’re looking at predominantly riding in the park, then I think you can ride that width.
In terms of length – most brands, as far as I’m aware, set their weight recommendations for weight without gear. So assuming roughly 170lbs without gear, you come in under that recommended maximum. In any case I take those recommendations with a grain of salt. They’re worth looking at, but I like to take everything into account and I think the 155 would be a really good size for you, for this kind of board and the type of riding you’ll be doing on it, particularly given that you’re looking to ride jibs and small to medium jumps.
I would also personally go Ultrafear over the Horrorscope – just like it more.
So yeah, I would go Ultrafear 155 overall. The 155W Ultrafear wouldn’t be wrong for you either, but I would be leaning towards the 155. This is all assuming US11, rather than UK11 for your boot size.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Very interesting post about sizing thanks a lot for all the info.
Currently dealing with the wide size dilemma because a board I received as a gift, and I only have 20 days to return it if doesn’t fit for me. Perhaps you can supporting me in the decision to keeping it 🙂
K2 Marauder 158W
Tip Width: 305 mm
Waist Width: 256 mm
Tail Width: 301 mm
Weight: 185lbs (90kg)
Height: 5’11″ (180cm)
Boots Ride 92 Size 12 US (very low profile)
Riding angle +15/0 or +25/-10
The difference with the next board in line, 163W, it is only 1 cm average in all the width dims. but the seller doesn’t have it :'(
I put my boots over the pucks installed on the board and they overhang 20 mm each at the toes and heels when playing with the stances angles.
What do you recommend.
Thanks!
Hi Frank
Thanks for your message.
I think you should be fine. Typically I would say it’s a little narrow for 12s, just based on waist width – but given that you have 20mm overhang on toes and 20mm overhang on heels, I think you should be fine. I would personally be very comfortable with that level of overhang.
Also, I think the 158 is a good length for you. If you were to go up to the 163W, that wouldn’t be as suitable a length for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much Nate!
You’re very welcome Frank. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I always seem to be coming back to your site again and again for all my snowboarding technical knowledge! I love how informative your articles are, and have personally found my boards through your recommendations. I started with the Rossignol Frenemy 147, then moved onto the Jones Twin Sister 149. I’ve definitely had a lot of fun on both, in particular JTS, as it’s much more stable at the speeds I like to ride.
I’ve recently been eyeing the Nitro Squash women’s board. My purpose for the board would be to introduce into my quiver a free-ride board that’s great in pow, off-piste and trees, but also strong on groomers (I want to improve doing proper carves). Though, I am a little worried about catching edges more easily on the full camber, as I’ve only had the hybrid camber profile (ie. rocker tips). Prior to seeing the Squash, I had been (and might still) consider the Jones Hovercraft.
I haven’t quite convinced myself fully to part with the money just yet, but doing my research. The two sizes available are 148 (240mm WW) or 152 (245mm WW), and I’m not sure which suits me best. Both Squash and Hovercraft are swallow tail like shape, and have a real setback stance.
Below are my specs:
Level: Based on your levels, I’m around Intermediate Level 5/6
Weight: Approx. 143lbs (65kg)
Height: 5’5″ (165cm)
Boot: Size 7 (24cm)
Intended riding angle for this board: Likely +15/0
I have a few questions which I hope you can help out in:
* What would you say the pros and cons between the Squash and Hovercraft might be, for my riding purposes and skill level?
* Would you recommend one size over the other for me?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Melissa
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t tested either the Squash or Hovercraft, so this isn’t speaking from personal experience, but generally based on the specs of the boards and how I’ve found other boards with similar specs.
Firstly, in terms of size, with a freeride board (depending on the width) it’s sometimes a good idea to go longer, to accentuate powder float, stability at speed and big carves. But if you’re looking to also ride trees, then I wouldn’t go too long as shorter often helps in the trees – so you will want to find a balance between the two. I would say you’re around 149 for a “standard all-mountain size” so something around there to get a balance between float, stability but also maneuverability for trees, I think makes sense.
For the Hovercraft, I would definitely go 146 for your specs. It’s a little bit of a wider board, so sizing down a little makes sense, so going down a little from 149 is a good call, IMO, so I think 146 would end up being a really good size, IMO.
For the Squash I would say 148. I think 152 would be getting a little long/wide for your specs, particularly since you are looking to also ride trees with it.
Looking at the specs and from others say about the two boards I would say:
– The Hovercraft is probably a little easier to ride. A little less aggressive – and probably more in line with an intermediate 5/6 level
– The Squash is predominantly camber by the looks of it, and looks to be maybe a little stiffer too. So that might just be a little aggressive for what you’re looking for. I’ve heard some say that it prefers to straight line it, which wouldn’t be as beneficial in the trees.
– Also, I think the Hovercraft is probably a better quiver compliment to what you have. Even though it’s the same brand as your current board, and the Squash would certainly be very different to the Twin Sister, since you’re looking to compliment with something that’s better in powder and trees, I just feel the Hovercraft fits that mold better.
– The Squash is likely a little better for hard carves, but probably something that you want to already be nailing carves on before you get onto it. The kind of board that can take good carving skills to the next level. But the Hovercraft still looks good for carving, and possibly even a better carving choice, given that you’re still looking to improve your proper carves.
So yeah, IMO, I would be leaning towards the Hovercraft 146.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Big fan of the site and using it now to purchase my next board – based on your reviews have decided I’m going to order the Yes Standard.
I’m needing your expert opinion on the correct board size for me.
I’m 184cm, 85-88kg and wear a Size 10.5US boot.
I’d consider myself an intermediate rider who mainly just freerides/cruises, and is looking to advance my skills in the often hard/icy/groomed conditions.
156 or 159? as based on specs it seems I can fit both.
I haven’t found my ideal stance angles yet so assume something around +15/+0.
Look forward to your reply!
Many thanks,
Scott
Hi Scott
Thanks for your message.
I’d be debating between both those sizes for you too, but I would be leaning towards 159 for you. A combination of height/weight and boot size and given it doesn’t sound like you do a lot of freestyle/park kind of riding? I really like the 156 and not far off your specs, but I like to ride a bit of freestyle, have slightly smaller boots and just a little less weight. So I just think a combination of slightly bigger boots/weight and little to no freestyle riding (correct me if I’m wrong there though), I think the 159 will be the best size for you.
Should have no issues fitting on the 156 width-wise, even with a straight back foot, but overall I think the 159 is the slightly better fit for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks heaps Nate. I’ve actually just pulled the trigger on a 2020 Never Summer Proto Type Two – took a gamble on the Size 157 but was too good of a deal to pass up! Will see how she goes. Cheers, Scott
Hi Scott
You’re very welcome. The PT2 a great board too. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on.
Thanks Nate, will do!
I see you rode the same size when you tested the PT2 and we’re around the same specs.
Do you think the 157 is the ideal size for me? (10.5us, 85kg, 6ft) or do you think I’d be better suited to the 160. Got the board demo, unused and only the one size option unfortunately.
Much appreciated!
Hi Scott
I think the 157 will work. I’d probably say 160 ideally, mostly because of the way you describe your riding. I would, for sure get the 157 for myself. But it’s the kind of board I would be riding a lot of freestyle on – and going shorter is better for that. Just get a bit more flex and feel out of the shorter size. But if you’re looking to get more stability at speed, that kind of thing, then I think 160 for your specs. But the PT2 is the kind of board you can ride a little shorter – the effective edge on the 157 is typical of boards 160+ (which is often the case with all-mountain-freestyle type boards, that have shorter tip/tail). For example the effective edge on the 157 PT2 is closer to that on the 162 YES Standard.
So, I don’t think you’re going to find it overly short. It’s just got more of a freestyle focus to it, but still a great board that I’m sure you’ll enjoy and the size definitely works, IMO
Thanks so much Nate, really appreciate your input!
Looking forward to trying something a bit shorter as would usually go the size up if given the choice.
I kind of just do a bit of whatever at this stage and am looking to get some consistent runs in with the board to try and master the basics.
Thanks again mate!
Hey Nate!
Trying to decide between the Salamon Sight 155w vs 158w. I am a beginner looking to do mainly all mountain but learn how to do some simple tricks.
Skill Level: Beginner
Weight: 185
Height: 5’8
Boots: Size 10 32 zephyr
Thanks, dude!
Hi Ian
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, as a beginner, I would go 155W over the 158W. With 10s, you could almost consider the 156 too, but this board is quite narrow in the regular widths and not that wide in the wides, so I would say 155W is the better way to go.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, looking at getting my 13 yr old daughter the Salomon Gypsy 2019 for a sharp price, not 100% sure which size to go for, she kinda falls under two sizes, so either the 147 or 151. She’s 55 kgs ( 120 lbs ) womens US 10, 5′ 8″ & at an intermediate level, the 151 would give her more width for her boot size & to grow into but i guess the 147 would be more manageable, your thoughts would be much appreciated, cheers Phil
Hi Phil
Thanks for your message.
Can definitely see your dilemma between those sizes, but I would be a little weary of going up to 151 at this stage. I think the 147 is the better call. It’s the better size for her right now, IMO and still leaves some room to grow. The 151 would certainly leave more room to grow, but right now it might be a bit big to be fun.
Width-wise, I think she should be fine on the 147. It’s on the narrower side for Women’s US10s, but I would say doable, particularly if she’s riding with binding angles like +15/-15. But even if she has a straighter back foot, I don’t think it will be too narrow. No guarantees of course, but I think she will get away with it.
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks again Nate
You’re very welcome Phil
Nate, volume boards will become game changers for the aging advanced all-mountain rider like myself: 48 y/o (Winter 2020); 5’7″ and 185-190 lbs. Hoping to get down to 175-185 by next season. But, need to keep it real. Volume sizing makes it confusing on what to choose. I am a committed Never Summer rider and looking forward to the new Harpoon. I will be coming down from a 158 NS Cobra (298/253/298) to either 152 (310/261/297) or 156 (314/262/301). Any recommendations?
Also, bindings…Union Atlas, Stata or Salomon Highlanger? I ride with Salomon Synapse Boa. Fit and vibration reduction are primary for my aging knees. Any other recommendations?
Thanks!
Hi JV
Thanks for your message.
It’s going to depend largely on boot size. I would say probably the 152, assuming around 180lbs. 156 wouldn’t be sizing down much for the extra width, but it might be OK, depending on boot size. But I suspect that 152 is the way you’ll want to go. I rode the 156 (I’m 6’0″, 175lbs at the time I rode it, size 10 boots). But I would be interested to try the 152, I feel it’s likely the size I would prefer for that particular board. The 156 was good, but I suspect I would like the 152 and I would suspect the same for you too, particularly if you’re under 10 for boots.
In terms of bindings, they are all good options – and all have good shock absorption, with the Strata just that little better than the other two, in that respect. In terms of fit, they all have good quality straps and plenty of adjustability and should fit well, assuming you get the right size. Theoretically the Highlander might fit the Synapse the best, given that they are most likely designed with Salomon boots in mind, but I haven’t ridden Salomon boots in Salomon bindings. However, good bindings these days do very well to fit any brand of boots, so I wouldn’t put too much weight into that. There isn’t a bad choice among those 3, IMO, but if you wanted to weigh up more options, you could check out the following, which include all 3 that you’ve mentioned (Atlas and Highlander in 2nd list and Strata in first list):
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Your response is helpful. I wear a size 9 boot and ride medium size bindings. Sounds like the 152 is the way to go.
I will check out your reviews for selecting the bindings. Some great deals out there right now. I’ll be sure use your links for finding the best price.
Thanks again.
You’re very welcome JV. Yeah I would go 152 for you, if it was me.
Thanks for using the links, much appreciated. Hope the setup treats you well.
Hey Nate – honestly man, thanks so much – your articles has been the snowboard basics wikipedia for me.
I had kind of a dumb question that I couldn’t wrap my head around while looking for a board online; it might just be because of my lack of equipment experience, but why are some boards SO wide even at the shorter sizes (NON-wide boards). For example I was looking at the Rossignol Sawblade which had a seemingly wide 153mm waist width from sizes 155 all the way down to 145! What’s up with that? It confused me a ton considering most boards around a 150-153 in length seemingly are 145-150?
Does this mean a guy like me with a 8.5 US boot size should look elsewhere?
Hi Stan
Oh yeah sorry, I completely forgot this about the Sawblade. It’s super rare for that to be the case. Not many boards like this. For a very large majority of boards, the width narrows as boards get shorter. It’s so uncommon, I didn’t even think about it for this one. So yeah, for 8.5s the 150 Sawblade is certainly wider than ideal, IMO. So totally understand why you’d be confused there!
Man, seriously rad research and overall detail here, so helpful. Here is the situation I am trying to decide on. I am 5’11 162 pounds with a 10.5-11 boot. I have a friend with a 2018/19 161 Jones Solution Split that I want, but on paper it will be a little too narrow. Believe it listed at 252 at waist. I ride 12/15 Degrees in the front and 0 in the back. I haven’t picked out bindings, but I would more than likely go with sparks r&d. I’m 40 years old so I don’t ride too hard anymore. On other words I’ll dig into turns but I won’t be kissing the snow. Curious, what you think, would I have too much over hang or would the board work?
Hi Cory
Thanks for your message.
The Solution (essentially the split version of the Flagship) is quite wide at the inserts vs the waist width, especially if you ride it at the 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. On the 161 I would predict that the width at the back insert would be 264mm and the width at the front insert 269mm. If it was the other way around, then I would say no problem, but given that it’s your back foot that will have the zero degree angle, that’s where it’s cutting things close, particularly so if you end up with a size 11 boot.
I think you would be OK, depending on a couple of things. Firstly, it will depend on your boots. Some boots are more low profile than others. If you were to get into a low profile 10.5 boot, then I think you would be OK based on what you’re describing. But anything else – like a non-low profile 10.5 or a low profile 11, might be risky. You might get away with a low profile 11, if it’s really low profile.
So, I think it’s going to depend on your particular boots, the actual size you end up in, and the stance width you ride. In some cases I think you get away with the 161 Solution width-wise. In other cases there’s more risk of too much overhang.
Sorry after all that, I just realized you are looking at a 2018/19 model! Which had different specs. So, you’re actually looking at around 266mm on the back insert and 263mm on the front insert. The 2019 model had considerably less taper. So with the setback (meaning your back binding ends up on a wider part of the board) not cancelled out as much by the taper, the width at the back insert is actually a little wider on that model. Everything above though, pretty much still applies, but you’ve got a couple of millimeters more leeway.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for doing this! HOLY… I applaud your research & dedication to us riders! Took me like 10 minutes to scroll to the bottom of the page and it looks like you’ve basically responded to everyone.
Height: 5’11” 1/2
Weight: 195
Boot Size: 11.5-12 (really should be a 10.5 but I have wide feet from bunions)
Angles: 15 Degrees in the front / -9 Degrees in the back
Got my eye on Libtech Goldmember splitboard. My options are a 159 (mid-wide, waist width of 260mm) and a 163 (mid-wide, waist width of 264mm). The challenge is that I am stuck in between sizes and I don’t want to regret getting the wrong size after dropping some serious cash…
My resort board I am currently rocking a 161.5 Pointy 2017 TRice Pro HP (non-wide, waist width of 260mm) I have size 12 boots and with my stance angle, I don’t really ever boot-out with having a little overhang on both edges. I kinda wish I went with the 159 Goldmember a few years ago or the 157W TRicePro as my resort board for easier grabs and spins. I realize with Splitboards it’s better to go a few CM’s bigger since your hunting for powder… but I am really hesitant to go with the 163 as my 161.5 already feels pretty long and I float fine in pow with it even with a heavy pack!
What are your thoughts? Would I be okay pulling the trigger on the 159?
Cheers,
Riley
Hi Riley
Thanks for your message and your comments.
I would say something around 161 is a good length for your specs, give or take. So I think that puts both in your range – so I can certainly see the dilemma there.
One thing to note – given that it sounds like you have 10.5 “feet”, then going with wider boards is still wide for your “feet”. Ultimately it’s the feet, rather than the boots, that are applying the pressure to the edges. So even though you’re in 11.5-12 boots, your feet are more suited a more narrow board. I find personally that sizing down a little in terms of length really helps when a board is on the wider side for my feet. So, in saying that, going to the 159 might make good sense. Going a little shorter rather than a little longer to accommodate that little bit of extra width. That said, the 260mm waist on the 159 Goldmember certainly isn’t super wide for 10.5s, so you wouldn’t want to size down too much. But 2cm isn’t heaps, and given that you feel like your 161.5 T Rice Pro is a little long, I would be leaning towards the 159.
Then of course would have to consider if it’s wide enough for your boot size, given that your boots are sized up. Certainly on the narrow side for size 12s, but given that you’ve gotten on fine with the T Rice Pro, I don’t think that would be a big concern.
One more thing to note – have you tried wide specific boots. You might be able to find something that can accommodate your width in a smaller size – of course only if you had any thoughts of changing boots. Also if you’re riding a more low profile boot, that can help to reduce drag too, if you are concerned about it. In this case I don’t think it would be an issue, but something to consider for the future, if you were to go for something narrower (i.e. if you were to change your resort board sometime down the line).
Wide Snowboard Boots for Wide Feet
>>My Top 12 Low Profile Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Nate!
Thanks for the quick reply and yeah… having weird feet sucks!
Great point about wide boards and having too small of “feet” but not necessarily boots. I’ll keep that in mind when I’m due up again for a new resort board. Sounds like my 161.5 T Rice Pro then has actually been a blessing in disguise as far as fit.
All of your above points a great and make a whole lot of sense. I am blown away by how great of resource your website is and how in-depth the explanations are. I will most definitely point my friends and new riders to come here.
I have not looked into wide boots, but I will now! That really sounds like the key solution here. I feel really good about getting that 159 Goldmember split and am looking forward to mowing some pow in the backcountry!
Cheers Nate.
You’re very welcome Riley. Hope the Goldmember split treats you well! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow
Well… I wasn’t planning on it but I just got a really really good deal on a 2019/20 T-Rice Orca as well. It was too good of a deal to pass up… Got the 153cm based on some online research (and that’s what Travis rides for everything given we are the same height and weight). Likely will be selling my 2016/17 161.5 T-Rice Pro in due time if this new board is what everyone says it is… Have you ridden one? What’s your take on that board?
Hi Riley
I did get on the 2021 model of the Orca just recently. Was the first time I rode it. Unfortunately didn’t get it in any powder, so couldn’t test that aspect, but powder is one thing that you can quite reliably rely on just looking at the specs for, and the specs suggest it would be awesome in powder.
I think powder would be it’s strongest point, but it was a good board for other areas too.
The edge-hold in icier conditions was awesome (as is often the case with Lib Tech boards, the Orca no exception) and it felt nice and stable at speed, especially for a 153 (I rode the 153 too). I wouldn’t say it’s a bomber carve, but can definitely carve on it, for when you don’t have it in powder. I didn’t find it the most maneuverable at slower speeds, but it wasn’t a slug either. It’s quite wide, which I usually feel makes a board a little slower edge-to-edge. Sizing down to 153 certainly helps in that regard though.
Feels quite stiff – I’d say around 7.5/10, when riding generally, but was more buttery off the tip and tail than I was expecting, given it’s flex.
It feels quite damp, didn’t feel that much chatter, even in places that I normally would. It smashed through crud well too.
Size-wise, it’s sizing down quite a bit for your specs, but this board is made to be ridden shorter. I never felt like I was on a small board on the 153. You’ve got a little weight on me, but your foot size isn’t too far different, so I think sizing down is definitely something you wanted to do for this board. It would have been a debate between the 156 and 153, but I certainly think the 153 will work for you.
For reference, I measured the width at inserts as 276mm on the front insert and 275mm on the rear insert (the setback basically cancels out the taper in this case, in terms of width at inserts). So certainly on the wide side for 10.5 feet (so sizing down warranted) – but should be plenty wide enough for 11.5-12 boots.
That’s all I can think of right now. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the info. on your site, I’ve found it a great help trying to narrow down a board to upgrade mine with.
I have an old K2 Brigade 163W (’09/’10, something like that) that I bought secondhand, that was in ok condition when I got it. A couple of small filled areas on the base, but it’s been fine for me as a beginner.
It took a bit of a hammering in the queues for the lifts during a trip to the French alps a couple of weeks back, and has started delaminating on the nose, aswell as the side of the tail where it looks like someones edge has carved about 5mm into my top layer.
I could probably repair it… Or I could treat myself to a new board…
During the trip, when I got warmed up, I got back into linking turns, tried out some powder for the first time and loved it, and managed to land my first jump! (natural feature, not park) I’d like to progress to do more of that.
So, after reading some of your articles on length, width, weight, etc, I have a better knowledge of what spec to look for.
My stats are;
6′ 4″
About 95kg
UK size 12 boot
All mountain/some powder/natural feature jumps.
I’d consider myself a beginner, but quite progressive when it finally clicks!
I like the sound of the Arbor Foundation 162MW, but it’s slightly narrower than the suggested 270mm min. width for my boot size, at 262.5mm. The Arbor Formula Rocker 162MW is slightly wider at the waist at 266.2mm.
I’m considering boards slightly narrower than the min. allowing for being a beginner.
I was drawn to the Jones Frontier as some places suggest it could be an accessible board, available as a 161W (reducing length by a few cm as a beginner), and close to the right width, but I think your opinion is that it would be too much for a beginner. If it were based on looks alone, I’d have it!
Arbor boards for my level seem hard to find in the UK, but I really respect their attitude on sustainabilty and environmentally friendly materials, aswell as with Jones.
Any thoughts and a little push in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! 🙂
Thanks,
James.
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I definitely think you can look a little narrower than that 270mm waist width, given that you’re more of a beginner. And length-wise, something around 161-163 is a good bet for you, IMO, so I think you’re looking at a good size range there.
The Formula Rocker would certainly be a good choice and gives you that bit more leeway in terms of width over the Foundation, so I think that would be a good bet.
The Frontier is probably just that little step too far to be ideal, IMO.
GNU, Lib Tech, Niche & Capita are also environmentally focused brands, so you could check out some of theirs too, if you wanted more options. I think the Formula Rocker is a solid choice for what you’re describing, but if you wanted to check out some of their more beginner options, the following could work too.
– GNU – Carbon Credit 162W
– Lib Tech – Skate Banana 162W
– Capita – couldn’t see anything suitable, in a suitable size
– Niche – nothing really suitable either
Burton are also focusing more and more on sustainability, so you could look at the Burton Instigator 160W or 165W.
Hope this helps
Brilliant, thanks for the extra advice!
I think you’ve made up my mind on the Formula, but I’ll check out the GNU and Lib Tech, along with the Instigator too.
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome James. Let me know what you go with and, if you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you get it out on snow.
My wife wears a size 6 women’s boot, the recommended snowboards’ waist width on Burton.com are 238 mm and 240 mm which seems wider than the suggested waist width for her boot size. It may also be because Burton doesn’t offer anything less than 238 mm for women. Would it be okay to go up to 240 mm?
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
Not ideal, IMO. The width at the inserts on a board with a 240mm waist from Burton, is likely to be close to around 250mm, which is likely around 20mm wider than the length of your wife’s foot. Being this far inside the edges can make it more difficult to initiate turns. Certainly can make it more effort physically. If you’re definitely set on going Burton, then I would go as narrow as you can.
If it’s possible you could size down in terms of length. If a board is too wide, then sizing down in terms of length can counter some of the negative effects of being too wide. So, depending on your wife’s specs, that could be an option. I can give you my opinion on length sizing too if you wanted. I would just need your wife’s height, weight, ability level and how she likes to ride – aggressive, jumps? Riding fast? Powder? or just likes to cruise the groomers etc.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate, I appreciate your help! Yes, she is 5’2” and 115 lbs. She is an beginner to intermediate rider cruising groomers only and occasionally powder whenever we’re lucky, (we live in Florida). She is somewhat set on Burton and even considering a girl’s Burton. She rode the Burton Yeasayer 140 this past time and loved how it handled but I think that she was just fitted with the wrong size board every other time we went. Although she did like the 140 at 240 mm waist width, I do wonder if she could have even more control on an appropriately sized board. Thanks again!
After looking further, the Burton Hideaway 140 may seem compatible with her riding style and has a waist width of 235 mm. Is that still too wide?
Hi David
Certainly a lot better in terms of waist, but still on the wide size for 6s, IMO. But more manageable for sure. As per my last reply, something like the Yeasayer Smalls 138 is a good bet, given that she’s ridden that particular board before and liked it, and it also has that 235mm waist, but just in the slightly shorter length, which I think would work well.
Hi David
Thanks for the extra info.
Size-wise, I would say something around 138-140 would be a good bet for her specs, as a beginner/bordering on intermediate, rider. So going 140 wouldn’t be sizing down, IMO. Sounds like she enjoyed the 140 Yeasayer, but like you say always good to size as well as possible. I think the Yeasayer Smalls 138 (235mm waist) would be just that bit better in terms of length and waist combined. 235mm waist is still on the wider side for size 6, IMO, but it’s a lot better, and going down that little bit in length, I think that makes it a good fit in terms of combination of length and width. Given that she liked the 140 Yeasayer she was on, then going Yeasayer is a safe bet, as you already know she likes the ride. But I think tweaking the size to the 138 Smalls version, would make it that little bit better again.
Thanks Nate! I really appreciate your help. Your site has been tremendous in helping me pick out my board as well. Great information and resource unmatched by any other snowboard info website!
Thanks David! And you’re very welcome. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I’m thinking of buying a 2nd hand equipment for my kid of 12 who’s newbie to snowboard. The idea is to spend less or around the same that I would for the rental during the upcoming winter holidays. My son is 155 cm x 50 kg and has a foot of 25 cm (boot 26MP). I found a Head Concept JR 130 cm x 23.5 wide (bindings included) at reasonable price. Do you think it would fit well for him?
Thank you in advance!
Cheers from Italy
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I think ideally you’d be looking at something around 133-137, even as a beginner. But 130 is doable. Should be an easy size for him to ride but just something that he’s probably going to grow out of quite quickly.
In terms of width, it’s on the narrower end for his boot size. If he’s riding with +15/-15 binding angles (which is pretty standard these days, particularly for kids starting out), then I think he gets away with that width, but again, it’s something he’s probably going to get too big for fairly quickly.
If it’s something that you’re planning on just having for a season, then I think it will work.
Note: I don’t have any experience/knowledge of Head boards, so as to the suitability of the actual board, I’m not sure.
Hope this helps
Nate,
thank you very much for the useful insights!!
In your opinion would the board size work for my younger son of 8 who’s 131cm x 27.5 Kgs with a foot of 22 cm (boot 23MP)?
P.S. I found another 2nd hand board which is more expensive than the first one but newer: Rossignol Scan Amptek 130cm (2015) + Burton Mission bindings (size S).
Thanks again for your kind support!!
Aaron
Hi Aaron
I would say 130 is a little too big for your 8 year old. I’m not an expert on youth sizes though to be honest. But I would say that 120 would be a better bet for him. But wouldn’t be too long before the 130 would be suitable for him, so if you did get it as a stop gap for your older son, you could definitely get use out of it when your younger son gets a bit bigger.
The Rossignol Scan is a very good beginner option (easy to ride board). Again with the size, same thing applies as per the last reply.
Hi Nate, thanks for the article.
I am using ride boots which is sized 11US (29cm), and I am having my first beginner board.
From the article, I should choose snowboard woth width above 255. But most of the boards I see are 250 – 253. Would that be a problem if I choose one of these or must choose board with width above 255?
(I want to be all mountain freestyle)
Thanks,
Leo
Hi Leo
Thanks for your message. Apologies for the slow response – a bit behind after vacation.
As a beginner, there’s less need to go wider, as you won’t be carving yet. You won’t be getting as high on your edges, so you can probably get away with going for a slightly narrower board – a regular width board. But if you plan on getting a board that you want to keep for a long time, then you might want to look into a wide board. Depending on the length most regular width boards go up to around 256mm at the waist, sometimes a little more for really long boards. Wide boards tend to start at around 258mm for shorter wide boards. So yeah, if you were going to get a board to progress on and plan on upgrading after a while, then you could go regular width, but if you want something that you can hold on to for a good while, then I would go a little wider.
Some good beginner board options.
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
Or if you wanted something a little more advanced to stay with you longer (but not so advanced that it will affect your progress), check out:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’3″ 1/2 weigh about 180 – 185 boot size 11. I’m purchasing a burton custom should I got 158 w (what they’re recommending on the burton website) or 160w?
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
The Custom’s next size up from 158W is 162W. If there was a 160W, then I would debate that. But between the 158W and the 162W, I would go 158W. I think it’s the better size for your weight. Also, with 11s, it’s probably too risky to go on a regular width Custom, but also the wide is on the wider end of the range for 11s (not massively wide, but on the wider end), so going for the shorter option is better – and that fact would probably lean me towards 158W, even vs 160W, if that was an option. And finally, it’s more in line with Burton’s weight recommendations. Even though I don’t consider those the be all and end all, if there’s a debate between 2 sizes, then that’s a good way to tie break. So yeah, I think the 158W would work well, certainly vs the 162W.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the very detailed and informative guide!
I’ve been eyeing the Capita Outerspace Living since last season and finally pulled the trigger. However, I didn’t check the waist width and only went by the length of my previous board as a reference.
I’m 5’8, 145lbs, with a US 8.5 boot size. I purchased the Capita OSL 150 which has a width of 242mm whereas my previous board was a Flow Viper 151 with a width of 246mm. I ride at a +15/-12 angle and had no trouble on my Flow Viper. I was just hoping that the 4mm difference will not cause any issues for me and wanted to hear your expert opinion on the matter.
Thanks again,
Doug
Hi Doug
Thanks for your message. Apologies for the slow response – a bit behind after vacation.
I think the waist width of the 150 OSL shouldn’t be an issue with 8.5s and those angles. No guarantees of course, but I don’t think you should have any issues with that setup.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, thanks for the great articles and helping so many people out..!
I’m looking for a new board. I ride mainly park (like 80-90% of the season) since I don’t have an easy access to big mountains or powder. I spend my time riding mainly rails/boxes and small jumps, maybe a couple pipe runs a season. On the groomers I like laidback carving, sometimes bombing straight down the hill just for fun, but mainly I just cruise, try to butter and jib around. I’m 5’10” and 145 lbs (without gear, about 150 with gear.) My shoes are womens us size 8 (might go for a 8.5 next.) Currently I have a 153 flat-rocker board (medium-soft flex), but want definitely a shorter one next. I wanna be able to butter and do presses easily, but it’d be nice for the board to have a bit more pop. I’m regular but ride a lot in switch aswell. Oh and I think my stance is either +12/-9 or +15/-12.
I was looking for some Capita boards, but lately I’ve been drawn to Gnu, especially Ladies Choice. I also noticed Velvet and B-nice, but don’t know so much about those two. I wonder what are the biggest differences between those and which one would serve me the best. The hybrid profile and asym shape seem interesting. I’m wondering if the 151 is the best length, what are your thoughts would the 148 be too short? And then what about the waist width..? That I have actually never even thought about. And if you have any other suggetions for a board, I’d love to hear those. Thanks! 🙂
Hi Jen
Thanks for your messages.
I think that the Ladies Choice would be a great option for you. Assuming you’re relatively advanced in the park. It’s going to treat you the best on jumps and in the pipe. The B Nice is probably a little more playful and easier to butter, but I think overall the Ladies Choice would be the best bet. But if you like you’re riding super casual and want to stick with something medium-soft, then the B Nice is certainly an option. The Ladies Choice is a medium flex board. But still butters quite well – it’s certainly going to have more pop than the B Nice.
Length-wise, I think around 153cm is a good length if you were predominantly riding all-mountain, assuming an advanced level, but since you’re mostly riding park, then I would certainly go shorter than that. If you were more like 60/40 groomer/park, then the 151 might be the best bet, but since you’re mostly in the park, I would go for the 148 Ladies Choice.
Width-wise, you should be fine whether in an 8.5 or 8 on the 148 Ladies Choice, particularly with those binding angles.
So yeah, I think Ladies Choice 148.5 would be a good choice for you, but if you wanted to weigh up some other good options, check out the following (refer to the score breakdowns for how they perform in each different factor):
>>My Top 5 Women’s Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
I found your website a few years ago, but never got around to post any comments/questions.
It’s really awesome that you put so much research and time into it, and whenever I have the snowboard bug, I always come back here to read some reviews or check some advice.
Having said that, I do have a couple of questions regarding which snowboard size to get.
I’m an intermediate rider and spend most of the time on groomers, occasionally enjoying the available powder snow and was thinking about getting one of these 2 boards:
1) Capita Mercury, either in 155 or 157
2) Capita Kazu pro, either in 154 or 157
I’m 41, 5’9″, 160lbs, boot size 9 US (Burton, 32).
Capita snowboards seem to run a little wide, so I’m really not sure which sizes I should be looking at (I usually ride a Burton Custom camber 154, and tried the Yes Basic 155 a couple of years ago).
Any advice?
Thanks!
Hi Miguel
Thanks for your message.
I would say 155 Mercury and 154 Kazu. I think those are the best lengths for you and the widths aren’t quite as wide as they look. Both boards aren’t that much wider at the inserts vs waist width, so they’re not as wide as they seem. For reference:
– Mercury 155: around 262mm at the back insert, 261mm at the front insert
– Kazu 154: around around 258mm at the back insert, 260mm at the front insert
– Custom camber 154: 259mm at the inserts (depending on how old your Custom Camber is)
– YES Basic 155: 260mm at inserts
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for your reply, I ended up getting the Kazu 154 a few days ago.
Now can’t wait for the holidays to try it out 🙂
Thanks again
Hi Miguel
Thanks for the update! Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new deck!
When Back Binding is at 0°:
24.5cm foot size = 240mm
30.5cm foot size = 280mm
30.5-24.5=6cm
280-240=4cm
Why the differences not proportionaly equal?
Hi Sunny
Thanks for your message
Shorter riders typically have narrower stance widths (which is a generalization for smaller feet, is that the rider will be shorter, which isn’t necessarily the case, but more often than not is) then the stance width is typically narrower, which means the width at the inserts (because the insert location is closer to the center of the board) is on a narrower part of the board. Remember that this is trying to predict a “waist width” for a particular foot size/boot size – as it’s the waist width that is published and not width at inserts. Every board is different at the inserts vs the waist anyway, so it is just an estimation, based on the published information that people have. That’s why I always measure the width at inserts for all the boards I test, but I can’t test every board, so some estimates need to be made based on waist width.
Also, without going into it again, as I have it in the post – check out the assumptions made under the tables, under the heading “These tables are based on a number of assumptions, including:” Especially look at 4,5,6 & 7.
Also, it’s taking into account the availability of board sizes in reality. In an ideal world where you could get any size imaginable (which is true to some extent if you were to get a custom board, but that’s not who this post is for), then it would be more proportional – though not completely proportional, taking into account what I mentioned above. But this is taking into account some compromise that needs to to be made at the extreme ends. For those whose feet are outside the normal – either on the large size or on the small size – there is more compromise that needs to be made to fit.
Hope this explains it/makes sense
Hey Nate!
I recently discovered your page and I must say, that I love it. You put so much work into this stuff. I really appreciate it. Hat off!
Anyway, I am on a market for a new freestyle board. I am around 175 lbs and I am wearing Burton Photon wide 10,5 US boots.
I can say that I am an advanced allmountain raider but still learner in a park (I am very comfortable with medium jumps, tried some larger ones already but nothing crazy. I already master same basic grabs, but I am still learning some spinning tricks and more technically complex tricks – 360s grabs, method, …). Therefore I am looking for something which will help me to improve my park riding.
For freeriding I have Skeleton key 158 so this field is covered. I have been on a Skeleton key TWIN (it is still mid-wide board 266 mm inserts width) for 2 seasons, but because of manufacturer’s defect I needed to send it back. It was OK board overall, but it did not have that much pop, which really bother me. It also opened my eyes that I don’t need wide board. Turning experiences with it were way better than with my other wide boards which I had (Burton Sherlock 158w, Burton Joystick 159w and Burton Custom 158w).
I much more into jumping than jibbing (I hit a box or a rail time to time but that is all), therefore I think Burton custom camber would be a solid choice, as it has much more pop. Because I reduced my boot’s size from 11,5 US to 10,5 US I am not completely sure which size to choose. So I am looking for the size, which will allow me playing around and to do tricks in park. I also do not planing to do any extra aggressive carving with it. So something smaller than my normal size (158). Many people already recommended me the 156, some also 154W. As far for the 156 goes, it has a ~262 mm inserts width – 560 mm stance width, which I think is still OK for me. But if I go with 156, which bindings should I pair with it? M or L size (I am thinking about Cartel or Malavita). I now have Cartels in L size, which fits well but the straps are a bit too long. Therefore I need to tighten them to the max – sometimes clippers hit the shell of the bindings… But I am afraid that its baseplate would be too long for the 156. But if I go with M size, I am afraid they will be to tight…
What do you think, should I go with the 156 and M bindings or with L. OR will be the 156 too narrow and I should go with the 154W and L bindings?
Kind regards,
Jake.
and my freestyle stance is something between +13/-13 and +15/-15.
Hi Jake
Thanks for your messages.
Given that you aren’t going to be doing any aggressive carving on the board, and that you liked the turning experience on a narrower board (not surprised there at all!) – I think the 156 would be fine for you in terms of width, especially with Burton boots at those binding angles. The 154W is going to be roughly 267mm at the inserts, so it’s not overly wide, so it’s doable too – especially if you wanted to go shorter.
In terms of bindings, I don’t usually use Large for Burton bindings, but my brother does (Large Cartels), and when I measured them, they were 235mm on the base plate (without any extension) and 250mm fully extended (2017 Model). So, I don’t think you’ll have any issue with the Large being too long on any of those options. I also think you wouldn’t have any issue fitting into a medium (I ride with US10s and always ride medium Burton bindings, with plenty of room – I have ridden in US10.5s in them too, and no issues.
Assuming your looking to stay with Burton, I would also consider the Burton Paramount. That’s a mean board and as poppy or even more so than the Custom – and it’s a true twin, centered stance board – so just that little bit more freestyle oriented, if you wanted a more specialized freestyle board in there. You can check out my review of the Paramount for more:
>>Burton Paramount Review
Or if you wanted something softer flexing but still full camber and plenty poppy – you could look at the Burton Kilroy Twin (formerly named the Burton Kilroy Process)
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you Nate! It really helps a lot!
I wish you a great season!
Jake.
You’re very welcome Jake. Hope you have an awesome season too!
Hey again Nate!
I have an additional question and I did not want to open a new question, so I posted below my previous question, I hope it is okay…
Anyway, I am just back from my local shop and they hold both Customs (156 and 154w), but unfortunately they do not have the Paramount. I measured the waist of them at my stance width and measurements are as follows: 156 ~ 263 mm and 154w ~ 269 mm. My longer foot length is 284.5 mm and if I take into account my normal freestyle stance angel (+13/-13) I overhang the 154w for 8.4 mm, which is in the range (max 10 mm and min 4 mm), but I overhang the 156 for 14.6 mm which is almost 0.5 cm out of range. And as I found on your blog, it is better to have a slightly wider board for freestyle. Would be the 156 too narrow in that case?
Regards,
Jake.
Hi Jake
Thanks for the update.
Yeah having that bit of extra width, I like for landing jumps – just gives you a bit more of a landing platform. So you’ve got to weight that up with maneuverability too. But given that the 154W is a good width for your feet, IMO, I don’t think that you’ll have too many issues with maneuverability – especially given it’s shorter. And going with 154 in terms of length is also adding a bit more difference in terms of your overall quiver vs your 158 Skeleton Key. Note that at 269mm at the inserts it’s very similar to the width of your Skeleton Key. If that’s fine, then no issues there. But if you wanted to go narrower, you wouldn’t be with the 154W. The 154W, being shorter and wider, is more freestyle oriented but the board itself isn’t fully freestyle oriented like something like the Paramount or Kilroy Twin, so it would certainly still be good for all-mountain freestyle.
Whilst the foot overhang on the 156 sounds like a lot, in terms of overhang I’m more concerned about boot overhang. When it comes to “underhang” I go by foot – because I don’t like my feet too far inside the edges, as it makes it more difficult to apply pressure to the edges. However, when it comes to overhang boots are more important (as too much can lead to boot drag). The Photon Boas that I’ve measured (2019 model) were 2.8cm longer than mondo. The mondo of 10.5 boots is 28.5cm. So I would predict the boot length of 10.5 Photon Boas to be around 31.3cm. That’s a total of 5cm boot overhang. Or 2.5cm per edge, if perfectly centered. Typically that wouldn’t be an issue, and I’ve happily ridden with that much boot overhang before. If you were going to be doing a lot of aggressive carving with the board, I might be more worried about that kind of overhang, but if not, I think it’s doable, if you were wanting to go for that narrower board feel. Also note that Burton boots have quite a bit of toe bevel (how much the toe of the boot lifts up) vs the average boot. That gives you a bit more leeway in terms of toe drag too.
It’s a tight call between the 2 options. Hopefully this gives you more to go off
But again, it would be freestyle/allmountain board, not strictly freestyle
Hey Nate,
Thank you for your replay! How do you measure boots? Do you measure just the length of the area which is in contact with a floor (something similar to the running length of snowboards) or do you measure the overall length of boots. Because I tried to measure mine a time ago (Burton Photon wide 2019) and they are almost 32 cm long. But I will try to measure them again, but more precisely this time 🙂
Regards,
Jake.
Hi Jake
I measure the total length of the boots. I do it by placing a ruler up against a wall and then placing the boot on top so that the heel of the boot is touching the wall. I then use a square which sits flat against the ruler and push that up until it touches the toe of the boot and then take the measurement where the square intersects with the ruler. I use a square or else it’s easy to angle forwards or backwards without it – like if you were to use a finger or something to point down to the ruler from the front edge of the boot. Hope that description makes sense!
Not sure if the wide version of the Photon is longer, as I haven’t measured any Burton wide boots. But I wouldn’t think it would be. But it’s a possibility
Also, do you maybe have the measurements of the inserts width for Paramount 155 or Custom twin 156 ?
P.S. sorry for multiple replays :/
Hi Jake
I haven’t measured the Custom Twin, but it’s almost certainly the same as the Custom 156. The measurements are very similar. If not identical I would say within 1mm.
The Paramount 155, I would predict to be 264mm at the inserts (the 158 is 267mm at the inserts, so it’s likely that the 155 will be 264mm or very close).
Thank you for both replays Nate 🙂
Yes, boots measuring is completely clear now, I will try to measure my boots again when I come home from work latter today. I will let you know, it the wide model is any longer than the normal one.
I am really thinking now to get something else than custom… I have read in your Custom’s review that it is torsionally stiff, which is not something you would like to have to learn new spins I guess. Although, I really miss its pop now 🙂 But, if Paramount has similar pop as Custom and if it has softer torsional stiffness (does it? Did you rate it when you tried it), it would be a better call. Or do you think something else would be better, maybe something from the Kilroy family or even the Process?
I had the Skeleton key twin 154 for my freestyle/allmountain riding before, and I really think I have progressed the most with that board. But unfortunately I needed to send it back, due the manufacturer’s defect. So, something similar would be perfect, but with a little more pop, which is the only thing I missed about the Skeleton key twin.
Hi Jake
I would say that the Paramount would be quite similar to the Skeleton Key Twin (I haven’t ridden the Skeleton Key Twin – but just based on specs). Looking at the 155 vs the Skeleton Key Twin (SKT) 154, the Paramount 155 is a little narrower overall, though at the inserts quite similar (you mentioned that your SKT 154 was around 266mm at the inserts – the Paramount 155 is around 264mm at the inserts) and a little narrower waist and contact points. The SKT 154 also has a bit more in terms of effective edge vs the Paramount 155. The Paramount has their Superfly II 700g core which is the same as on the Paramount.
But they’re both mid-flexing (assuming the SKT feels about mid-flexing in reality) and camber boards. The Paramount has their Superfly II 700g core which is the same as on the Paramount.
I found the Paramount to have loads of pop (for more details check out the review). I can’t compare it directly to the SKT, but certainly more pop than the Skeleton Key. I found it great for spins too – easy to get the spin around and felt light too (check out the review for more there too). And yeah easier to spin, IMO, vs the Custom.
The Kilroy Twin is quite similar to the Paramount but is a softer flexing option. It has the same effective edge, sidecut radius, width etc. It has the Super Fly 800G core vs the Superfly II 700g. But yeah the main difference, IMO, is that it’s softer flexing. But yeah also certainly an option, if you like the sound of the softer flex.
Hey Nate!
Thank you for this great breakdown! It really is helpful! I think the Paramount would be better for me as the Kilroy twin has softer flex, which mean it has less pop than the Paramount, which makes it more a jib board.
From your previous comments I assume that you have not tested Burton Custom twin yet. I heard that the new twin (2019 and 2020 models) are a little softer than the normal Custom. Do you have any information if this is true. It is specified as a park board so I guess it should be slightly more manoeuvrability, so therefore torsional flex should be softer? It also has different squeezbox that the normal one.
Or is it just a twin copy of a normal one?
Hi Jake
No, I haven’t ridden the Custom Twin, so I couldn’t say for sure. Only thing I have to go off really is specs, and Burton rates them as the same flex. But it’s hard to say because usually brands rate the flex of the core, from what I’ve heard – and the overall flex can be very different to the core depending on everything else (fibreglass, stringers etc that surround the core). I can see that the Custom and Custom Twin have different fibreglass – but not sure if that will make it feel stiffer, be roughly the same or make it feel softer. In theory what you’re saying is true that it’s likely designed, or at least should be, to be an easier spinner, but I couldn’t say for sure.
So yeah, it’s not just a twin copy, there a couple of things – the off axis squeezebox as you mention, and the fibre glass and a couple of other things, but not sure how that affects the ride.
Hey Nate,
Just a quick update. I measured my boots (Photone wide 10.5 US) again, but more precisely this time. And the length is 31.3 cm indeed. I still have not decided which board to take but you really helped me a lot! Thank you again!
Live long and prosper,
Jake.
Hi Jake
You’re very welcome and thanks for the update. Hope you have an awesome season! Let me know what you go with in the end
I just found a pretty good deal on this year Paramount 155 so I will probably pull the trigger on it. And all thanks to you and your review!
Anyway, I am still very curious about the custom twin (this year or last year model) as it is a little different as 2017 model. But cant find any review on it. I feel I might like this one but I am not sure about its flex (as we already talked about). It has a squeezebox which Paramount doesn’t. Do you think that lack of squeezebox is a big con for the Paramount?
Hi Jake
I can’t say I noticed that it didn’t have squeezebox, so I wouldn’t say it’s a big deal. I felt the Paramount had more pop than the Custom, so I certainly in that respect I didn’t miss it. Not massive amounts more, but still felt it had a little more. I’m sure the Custom Twin would also be a good choice for you, but the Paramount certainly isn’t lacking in pop, IMO, and is a board I had an awesome time on.
Gosh darnit, I wish I could try them both befor I grab one, but I hope I won’t miss that sweet deal on a Paramount. I contacted the nearest burton test center and I hope they have both to try, but I am afraid I won’t be able to try the custom tween. I feel like they don’t promote this board that much and there really are no reviews on this board ( for newer models 2019 or 2020). Anyway, THANK YOU again! Is there anyway to support you and you awesome work (besides shop’s links)?
Hi Jake
You’re very welcome. Hopefully they have both for you to try!
You can visit Contribute to Snowboarding Profiles if you’d like to contribute. Thanks for using the site – and I’ll be curious to hear what you go with in the end, and if you get a chance to test both.
Dear Nate,
I forgot to mention that yes, I had boot out problems with my old Custom once in a while.
Quoting myself from the ‘boots width’ page:
“On the other hand, I am still struggling with deciding if to purchase a Free Thinker 160 or a 160W.
Such a bummer, because I have been watching about 40 videos (some of them several times), reading all resources I can find online and I go back and forth constantly.”
What I did so far is to draw lines on a yellow cardstock to measure my foot at the 15 -15 and 8 -8 binding angles. 15 -15 is what I use and will continue to use, but I also tried 8 -8 just because I had the pencil on my hand.
Let me explain the numbers I wrote:
256mm is the waist width of the Free Thinker 160
263mm is the waist width of the Free Thinker 160W
265mm is the width at inserts of the Free Thinker 160 (as guessed by my good friend Nate)
273mm is the width at inserts of the Free Thinker 160W (as guessed by my good friend Nate)
So, the pictures you see (sorry I am not a foot model) are of my heel starting at board edge. I know I should place my foot in between both edges, but it was super difficult to measure correctly. So, this way I can split in two the difference between the measurement from my toe end and the toe edge of the cardboard lines (fake board).
https://flic.kr/p/2hJU1BG
https://flic.kr/p/2hJWCWz
Notice that in theory, I have about 3mm of overhand between the end of my toe and toe edge (1.5mm when slit in two) at 15 degrees for the 160 (265mm at inserts).
And, I have about 5mm of underhang between the end of my toe and toe edge (2.5mm when slit in two) at 15 degrees for the 160W (273mm at inserts).
That foot is my shorter foot (260mm) and my longer foot is 267mm.
I read a lot about how snowboarding companies have been pushing narrower boards for years but the truth is that they should be a bit wider even for boots my size. My doubt is about how much of a compromise would it be to go with the 160W. Would the sacrifice in turning be significant? Carving is not all of what I am going to be doing, but it is something I really want to get into without booting out.
Boy, I am so puzzled! And a bit stressed to be honest with you. I mean, good stress. I feel so lucky for everything I have, don’t get me wrong. It is this self inflicted non sense has been driving me crazy and I cannot wait to buy one of the two boards, so I can start riding as soon as I possibly can.
You have helped me a lot already! I know this is bonkers but any extra bit of helpfulness will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much again Nate!
Always a pleasure to read your content.
Peace,
Ben
PS I started a new Reply because I didn’t have a Reply link under your latest reply. I guess we reached the limit 🙂
Hi Ben
If it was me with the same measurements, I would go with the 160. But I prefer my boards narrower and having more effortless turns. And because Burton boots are quite low profile (and on top of that, have more toe bevel in the boots vs other boots that I’ve measured the toe bevel on (quite hard to measure toe bevel, so not that accurate, but roughly speaking they have more toe bevel, which does help with boot drag.
But in saying that, the 160W isn’t going to be ultra-wide. But I know for myself, riding 10s, that I typically prefer boards with 265mm width at inserts or less. With a couple of exceptions – like the YES Greats and YES Standard, which are over 270mm at the inserts, but are narrower at the waist. So, that’s what I would choose, but 160W would certainly give you more leeway, if you’re going to be really railing those carves – like euro carving. I do like to carve relatively hard, but I don’t eurocarve or anything like that.
I know that’s throwing one way and the other, but personally I would go 160 if I was in your shoes. But I also don’t think 160W would be a bad choice.
Dear Nate,
I wanted to thank you very much for all of your help. I really, really to appreciate it.
I really know what you mean when you wrote: “The mountains, in a strange way, feel like home to me.” It is in what I call your SDNA (your Soul DNA) which is what you were born with and snowboarding is part of it. I feel the same way about many things in my life, one of them was when I moved to the United States. Anyhow, I don’t want to bore you or shift out of topic too much.
About 45 minutes ago, I went ahead and purchased a 160 regular size Free Thinker. Mainly because of these four reasons:
1) The amazing advice you gave me throughout your answers and website articles.
2) Because worse case scenario, I could buy a second cheaper board that is wider mainly for euro-carves if I ever get hooked on such deep low to the ground extreme carves.
3) The percentage of deep carves will be considerably lower for me, so I rather benefit all the other types of riding instead.
4) The extra stiffness of the regular Free Thinker already makes the board less flexible compared with a regular Custom. So going with the regular size instead of its wide cousin will compensate with maneuverability loss especially at edge to edge turns.
That’s all my friend! I wish I could buy you a beer. If you ever get down south the border to the beautiful state of New Hampshire; let me know, I can get you one of my buddy passes and we can go ride together at Okemo Mountain Resort or Mount Sunapee. Beer is on me!
Once again: THANK YOU SO MUCH NATE!
Peace,
Ben
Hi Ben
Soul DNA – I like that! And if I make it to New Hampshire, I will hit you up for sure.
I think your reasoning is sound and you’ve made a good choice. Let me know how you get on once you’ve had a chance to take it out on snow.
Hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome season!
Friend,
My wife and I will be glad to meet you if you ever make it to beautiful New London, NH. I am living you my number on a different message so you can delete after moderation. I will be happy to share a buddy pass with you at Mount Sunapee 🙂
Yes! SDNA is a concept I want to include on my next book. I think it is scientifically impossible to prove, but our hearts prove us otherwise.
Thank you so much for all of your recommendations. My Free Thinker 160 will be here on Monday and I will report back to you after I have a chance to take it out on the snow. I cannot wait!!!!!!
You too brother. Enjoy a fantastic season!!!
Cheers!!
Ben
Hi Nate!
I’m having hard time to decide about the size of a new board, maybe you can help me out:
I’m 6’3’’ (191cm) , 178 pounds (81kg), shoe size US 11.5 (vans).
I’m looking to get a Bataleon Fun.kink and based on some calculators and info in this web, it seems that I should go for a 162W.
My level of riding is intermediate level, mostly all-mountain style but like to do some off-piste and have some fun as well.
I have a GNU Carbon 158 at the moment (which I find it a bit small by the way)
Do you think I will be fine with the 162W (267mm waist width) or should I go for something else, since this fun.kink only comes in 157, 159w(265mm ww) and 162w ?
Thank you very much for your help
Have a nice day !
Hi Jose
Thanks for your message.
I don’t test Bataleon gear currently so I can’t say anything specific about the Fun.kink, but size-wise I would say it would be between the 159W and 162W for your specs. I would be leaning towards the 162W for you for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because you said you find your Carbon Credit small. Secondly because it sounds like you ride the mountain more than freestyle or park – so you’re wanting to get some good speed out of it, float in powder etc, more so than tricks etc. If that’s correct, then going longer is a good idea.
In terms of width, I have no idea how Bataleon’s width at inserts go. I know with GNU boards they’re typically not that much wider at the inserts compared to the waist width vs the average board, but not sure with Bataleon. But with 11.5s, I’d say you would need to go wide. Is your current GNU wide?
!Hi Nate,
Thanks for your prompt and detailed answer. Indeed I would define my style as all-mountaineer or free-ride rather than park or freestyle(too old for that :D). I’m riding a GNU CF that belonged to a friend of mine and it is not a wide board. Actually, i measured today and I have an overhanging of around 2cm in the front + 1.5 cm on the back with my Vans boots and bindings. I have a +/-15 degrees binding setup, but I could go for a 12 or so. So I guess I will go for the 162 wide board then. Thanks !!!! Have a good one !
All your articles really help a lot ! Good job !
Jose
You’re very welcome Jose. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate!
I’m 5’11’, 215 pounds, shoe size US 10.
About to get a Burton Custom X and based on my fit, they recommend me a 162 or a 162W.
I am at a lower intermediate level of riding but I would like to start carving a bit lower to the ground.
I am tempted to go with the 162W which has a Waist Width of 264mm. Planning on also going with the Step On bindings and boots.
Do you think I will be fine with the 162W (264mm waist width) instead of the regular 162 (256mm waist width)?
Thank you SO much for your help man!
Peace,
Ben
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
Firstly I agree with the length at around 162. In terms of width, I wouldn’t personally go wide, but wide will be doable for you.
The 162 is going to be around 263mm at the inserts. I also ride US10s and I’ve never had any problems with boot drag at that kind of width – and I prefer the quicker edge to edge transitions of a narrower board, so that’s what I’d go with. The 162W is going to be around 271mm at the inserts. That’s wider than I personally prefer to go, but it’s not super wide by any means. I’m 185lbs, so I don’t have as much leverage on the edges as you would, so that would make the 162W more doable for you compared to me. I still don’t think you’d have any issues on the 162, but I think you could ride the 162W and be fine, if you wanted that extra leeway with width.
In terms of the board itself. It is an awesome carver. However, at a low intermediate level, it’s not the board I would recommend for improving your carving. The technical nature of the traditional camber and how stiff that board is, make it really only an advanced to expert board, in my books. If you really want to go traditional camber, then I would suggest going with something a little softer flexing ideally – like the Burton Custom (which is also a great carver, but more manageable). And there are of course other options too. The Custom Camber (non “X” version) is the same dimensions as the Custom X, so size wise I would be looking at the same as you would for the Custom X.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you SO much Nate for your lengthy and super helpful answer! I am now considering a different board after reading your reply. I love the Custom X, but for what you said and what many others said even on the Burton’s website reviews section, it is super stiff. It’s a huge investment for me, so I rather play on the safer side.
I looked at the Flight Attendant, but I think I rather stick to Custom since the only board I have is a Custom from 2004 and I prefer switch riding than directional.
Still undecided about the width. Lots of people complain on the Burton’s website about the regular sizes they make being a bit narrow. Quoting one review: “When I really tried to carve this board out however I found some issues keeping a heel edge . To my dismay I feel the board is a little too narrow for 11 boots (162) . A word of warning to others the board selection guide shouldn’t be trusted as the final say when it comes to boot sizes bordering the larger side of things . I really regret purchasing the regular width and wish that I had made the choice to go with a wide board.”
I know he’s a size larger than me, but it is not the only person talking about most manufacture’s standard sizing for their ‘regular’ boards, many people agree them to be a bit narrow in general. Not saying I want the extremes of Ryan Knapton (amazing channel and tutorials by the way) because I know I am not even close to being an expert and certainly cannot handle those widths but really makes me wonder if the Custom (not X) 162W would be a safer bet against boot-outs.
Anyhow, I will try to make a decision soon so I can start riding very soon.
Thank you SO much again Nate! Have an awesome season!
Best,
Ben 🙂
Nate,
Would the Burton Free Thinker 160W be a better choice for me? It is a bit shorter than the Custom 162W and the waist width is 263mm compared to the 264mm of the Custom 162W.
The Free Thinker 160 has a waist width of 255mm compared to the 256mm from the Custom 162.
I was talking with Burton’s help desk today and they recommended me the Free Thinker because it is not as stiff as the Custom X but a bit stiffer than the regular Custom and it is a true twin deck.
Thank you so much man!!!
Ben
PS I’m 5’11”, 215 pounds and US10 size boot.
Hi Ben
Yeah the Free Thinker could definitely be an option. And yeah, certainly in between the Custom and Custom X, in terms of flex. Not something I would usually recommend for someone who describes themselves as lower intermediate, but since you’ve been riding a traditional camber for so long, you’re certainly used to that, and it would just be getting used to the extra stiffness. But yeah, I would say more doable than Custom X for sure.
Being a twin has pluses and minuses. Great for freestyle and great for riding switch – and since you said you like riding switch it will help there. Though the Custom isn’t bad switch either, but still not as good as the Freethinker. I actually prefer a little bit of a directional feel for carving, but certainly carving on a twin is all good too. Really not suited to powder at all though. So, certainly that’s a weak point for the Free Thinker – the combination of being a twin and being traditional camber.
Going 160 as opposed to 162 will help to make it more manageable in terms of the flex. It’ll feel a little softer than it would in a slightly longer size.
You can see more details of what I though of it, at the link below. I’ve also added my Custom and Custom X reviews, in case you haven’t checked those out either.
>>Burton Freethinker Review
>>Burton Custom Review
>>Burton Custom X Review
I didn’t measure the width at inserts when I rode the Free Thinker, but based on the typical for Burton boards, I would say that it’s likely to be around 265mm at the inserts for the 160 and around 273mm at the inserts for the 160W.
Based on what we end up with in terms of boot size, I would still be leaning towards the regular width for you, especially if that foot measurement is accurate. But the 160W isn’t going to be mega-wide for you either I don’t think. So if you really want that extra width, I think it’s doable. Just know that it will take more energy to leverage the edges.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Ben
Thanks for the extra info.
I know the old Custom X (2017 & older models) used to be considerably narrower than it is now. But Burton boards in general aren’t narrower for their regular widths than other boards. They’re pretty standard width-wise. Their waist widths are standard and the difference between the waist width and width at inserts is standard too. So, I’m not sure what they’re basing it on that their regular widths are narrow. I have measured a lot of boards of different brands for width (at the inserts) rather than at the waist, and Burton is very typical.
And yeah with 11s, especially if they’re doing hard carving, then for them I would go for the wide. But with 10s, I wouldn’t personally. That said, you still could go wide, but I don’t think you have to. And based on your other comment and your foot size, I suspect you could get into smaller than 10s anyway, but I’ll cover that more in my response to your other post.
What size is your old 2004 Custom? That could also be another clue to determine if it’s necessary to go wide for you.
Dear Nate,
Thank you SO very much for all this great info. It is helping me a lot. Let me tell you where I am now and also replying to your question about my current board:
My Current Board
It is a Custom 158 from the 2005-2006 season. It has a Pegasus graphic on the bottom layer with a yellow background. It also has a 10th anniversary seal on the top layer under the tail binding. It measures 9.75” (247.65mm) at waist width. It measures 10” even (254mm) at inserts. Both measurements were taken at your recommendation: “using the “underside of the board””. And at 0 degrees.
Free Thinker
I read your review and it is fantastic. Most likely the very best one in the entire internet. Super informative!
Because I already have a Custom and I had a great time for 14 or so years, I think going with the Free Thinker is my best bet. Thanks to you and the guys at Burton who advised me against the Custom X due to my riding level and how stiff it is. So again: THANK YOU NATE!
And because I already have a Custom, I can always take it with me and switch boards depending on the snow conditions or style I want to ride that day.
The other reason why I decided on the Free Thinker, is because yesterday I talked to a buddy of mine who is an advanced level snowboarder and has been riding since he was a kid. He told me we do not get tons of snow here in mid New Hampshire / Vermont so the powdered days are just only a few every season. My mountain of choice (since I have a season pass) is Mount Sunapee in New Hampshire. So, he really advised me on shorter boards and a 160 being a bit shorter than the 162 matches my weight range.
Boot Size
I went ahead and ordered a US10 but I will tell you more about that over at your ‘Boot Width’ page because having the information there might help others as well.
Wide or Not to Wide
That is the question. I have my bindings set to an 8 and -8 degrees on my old Custom. I am (or was) planning to set my new bindings at 15 and -15 to begin with. So, based on the following information:
“I didn’t measure the width at inserts when I rode the Free Thinker, but based on the typical for Burton boards, I would say that it’s likely to be around 265mm at the inserts for the 160 and around 273mm at the inserts for the 160W.” I can perform the following tests when my new boots arrive on Monday:
A) I can place my new boots over my old Custom and add the millimeters difference between the waist widths, 247.65mm of my old Custom and the 263mm of the Free Thinker.
B) I can also cut a piece of paper at 273mm and then draw a line at 265mm to compare with ‘at inserts’. And them place the bindings with boots on top to see what the hang is over both edges. I can also try both 8 / -8 and 15 / -15 angles to see how the hang holds.
I can report back to you here, so my answer can advance your immense snowboarding wisdom and hopefully help other readers.
Sounds like a plan? Any suggestions?
Hi Ben
Yeah that would be awesome if you could post that info here once you’ve got it.
Sounds like the 2006 Custom was really quite narrow, like the old Custom X used to be. But modern Burton boards aren’t that narrow, at least not the ones that I’ve ridden/measured, which is a good number of them. That would give me more confidence that the 160 (regular width) is your best bet, especially if you haven’t had any issues on the width of your 2006 Custom.
Hi Nate, compliments for the article!
I recently heard about a third school of thought:
Boots even 2 cm smaller than board width.
This way you can tilt the board a lot more (like laying on the snow) and go deep carving on ice, on soft snow, or whatever, without limitations.
Any opinion?
I’ve heard some people telling that there’s no need to tilt the board that much… but I feel that sometimes the edge just can’t cut the ice if you don’t lay down.
Cheers!
Hi Stefano
Thanks for your message.
Certainly for rider’s who are looking to euro carve or just really aggressively carve up on edge, then going with something wider is a good idea. So yeah there’s definitely a case for going wider if you’re that kind of rider. And there’s definitely point in getting high up on the edge, if you enjoy doing it! I know it’s a long article, but that is why I included a small “Aggressive Riders/Carving” section that mentions going wider in that case.
But I’m not sure about having boots 2cm inside the edge – IMO that would be taking it too far. Assuming a boot with an average outersole, that would mean the feet would be roughly 3.5cm in from each edge – which is a lot. From my experience with wide boards, that would require a lot of effort to initiate turns – and would mean something very slow edge to edge. If you didn’t have issue with those 2 things, then it would be fine, but most people don’t want to have to make a lot of effort to turn. It can get pretty fatiguing. But also, there would be no point being that far inside – if you had boots to the edge (but without overhang) it would still be wide for your feet, but it would give you the ability to get high on those edges but not make things as difficult/slow. But even for most aggressive carvers, a little bit of overhang is still fine – but maybe try having a little less.
You bring up a good point though – there is a broad spectrum of what people prefer. I had some one comment recently how they wore size 12s and hated wider boards. Always went regular width and never had any issues. Then others with 11s sometimes fine that even wide boards can be too narrow, depending on how wide, so there’s definitely a spectrum. But generally speaking, in my experience, others I’ve talked to and I would say for the typical rider, trying to get feet as close to edge to edge as possible is generally the way to go. If you’re wanting to get those carves deeper, then by all means go a little wider. But going that far inside doesn’t sound like fun to me or necessary.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for this great article, and need your advice.
I just begin snowboard about 5 days, already have K2 MAYSIS(US size 9), considering Yes Basic 155 (or 152?) with union Force M(or L?)
Below is my spec:
Male
Weight: 165lbs (75kg)
Height: 5’9″ (178cm)
Actual foot size: 27cm
Boot: size 9 (K2 Maysis US 9)
Hi Siva
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise for the Basic, I would go 155. 152 would be doable for you, but maybe just on the short side for your specs. You’d be fine with either, but I would be leaning towards 155 for you.
In terms of bindings, if you go with the Force, definitely go M not L. L will be too big for 9s and potentially too big for the board too.
Ideally, I would say go with bindings just a touch softer flexing. The Force aren’t too far off as a beginner choice, but ideally something a little softer. Though with the Maysis boots they’re not an ideal flex for a beginner either, so going with the Force would be OK. But ideally the Contact Pro or STR with the Basic, if you’re going Union.
Hope this helps with your decision
I’m a beginner to the sport. Have done two green carpets already. Still in
the learning process. Looking for my first ever Board to practice with.
My height is 6.2″
Shoe size 12.5
Weight 210lb
What Board, bidens and Boots can you recomend me ?
Thanking you for your help.
Best regards,
Alton
Hi Alton
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, for your specs, and given you’re a beginner, I would go for something in the range 159-161.
In terms of width, you’ll certainly want to go wide with your boot size – at least 260mm in terms of waist width.
Check out the following for some great options for your first gear:
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
>>Top 5 Beginner Bindings
>> Top 7 Beginner Boots
If you’ve got any questions on any of those or need to narrow down your options, or need some extra options, let me know.
Hope this helps
I’m 6’0, 180lbs, size 11 boots, +15/-15 stance. Still pretty much a beginner hoping to start linking turns and progressing further this season. Definitely not ready for jumps or tricks yet.
This past spring, I worked with my local shop and ended up purchasing a 2019 Burton Instigator 155cm with large bindings (mostly because of the end of season discounts).
Now I’m wondering if my board is too small and/or narrow for me. I am also wondering if I will progress past the Instigator quickly and recently I have been looking at the Yes Basic.
Is my Instigator too small? Should I continue with the Instigator 155cm this season or consider upgrading to a board that fits me better and will last longer as I progress? And if I were to upgrade, what size should I consider on the Yes Basic?
Thanks for all the info!
Hi Erick
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, as a beginner, I would be looking at the range around 156-157, so I don’t think 155 is too far off there. I sometimes ride boards (similar specs to you) that are 155 even. Though not an all-mountain board like this – but for in the park. But as a beginner, I think it will be fine for you.
Width-wise, it’s on the narrow side for 11s for sure. And if you were going to be holding onto the board for a little while, then I’d say you’d want to go wider. But as a beginner, I think you’ll get away with it. It’s unlikely you’ll be getting high enough on your edges at this early stage to be risking boot drag.
In terms of whether you’ll grow out of it too soon? It depends no how often you’ll be going up. If you’re going to be doing like a 30 day season, then yeah, it’s probably something you’ll grow out of in the season, depending on how fast you progress. But if you’re only going to be doing 4-5 days per season, it’s something you could easily keep progressing on for at least 1 season and probably more like 2. If you are planning on going quite a lot this season, then I think it’s a good bet to go with something like the Basic, which offers a bit more in terms of progression and can stay with you for longer. But if you’re not doing that much, then I would stick with the Instigator for now.
Size-wise for the Basic, I think the 156W would suit you the best at this stage.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello Nate,
As many others have said in the comments, I really appreciate your dedication to replying to each comment made on your article, it’s certainly impressive!
I was hoping you could help me decide between two boards. I am 6’4″, 230lbs with a size 13 boot at 15/ -15. I ride about 40% groomers/trails, 30% pow and 30% trees.
I am between the Never Summer Big Gun 169 with 266mm waist width and the brand new Never Summer Heritage 164 DF at 285mm waist width. My heart tells me the Big Gun because I like the shape, the graphics and the set back but my brain tells me the Heritage because it might be better for my riding style and the width would be rad for carving and pow. What do you think? I am set on Never Summer because they are made in the US and offer a very generous military discount.
Thanks again
Hi Pete
Thanks for your message.
I think you would get away with the width on the Big Gun 169, with 13s and +15/-15, but like you say that DF size in the Heritage would give you more security in terms of getting some really deep carves in. In terms of powder, whilst the Heritage 164DF has more surface area than the 169 Big Gun, which certainly helps with powder, I would still imagine that the Big Gun would be better in powder (I haven’t ridden either board, but based on specs and experience with other Never Summer boards). It has a tapered shape, and more setback (which encourage the tail to sink and the nose to float) and it has a directional camber profile, which also helps in one-direction powder riding. I would say it’s also a better carver overall, based on specs, but would have that added risk in terms of width, with 13s, if you were carving really deep.
Another option would be the 168X West Bound (new board for 2019-20 season). 269mm waist width, so a little more than the Big Gun, but not by a huge amount, and not to the extent of the 164DF Heritage. The West Bound will also have DF sizes but it has 157DF and 160DF. And I would be concerned that the 160DF wouldn’t have enough length for you.
Tough call. I don’t think there’s a bad option there, but it would depend on if you were willing to take the chance with the narrower options, that have some potential for drag, if you’re getting really low on your carves, but may well still be fine. Or going for the drag free security of the 164DF Heritage.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate, I appreciate your detailed reply! I hadn’t even considered the West Bound! Like you said, I think it is impossible to make a bad choice. Based off your size assumptions above for 13s, I think I am below the assumed measurement with my boot coming in at about 12.75″. So I think I’m going to go with the Big Gun since I love pow and carving and hope it shouldn’t be a problem. My board now is 262mm wide and I really haven’t had any issues but its a park board so I also haven’t been able to do as intense of carves the Big Gun will allow.
Thanks Again!
You’re very welcome Pete – glad I could help
Hey Nate.
I’m a big guy, 6’7″ and 230 lbs. I currently use a pair of Adidas Response Adv boots size 13 but their actual footprint is the same as my older size 12.5 Nitro boots. I opted for the size 13 Adidas because my 12.5 Nitro hurt my toes while riding to the point of actually quitting for the day. My current board is a Elan El Grande, 167cm height and 28.4cm waist. By binding angles usually are +15, -6. I have 2 questions:
1. Should I go for a smaller size boot but with heat moldable liners like the Adidas? My mondopoint would be 300mm. Store fitting is not an option because Adidas boots are not available in my country( i like the Adidas footprint shrinkage) and I have to order online.
2. I would like to purchase a Bataleon Stallion board. Options are 164cm with 26.9 waist and 167cm with 27.5 waist. Which one would be better ?
Btw I still consider myself as beginner
Thanks
Hi Andrei
Thanks for your message.
Whilst 300mm mondoprint is supposed to fit a size 12 boot, I have found in practice with most that I’ve spoken to, that it’s more likely you’ll have to go half a size, sometimes more from your mondo. Feet are weird though, and some people are perfectly fine in going with what’s supposed to fit their mondo. So I’m not surprised you’ve had to go for size 13 with a 300mm mondo. I don’t test Nitro gear currently, so I don’t know what their reduced footprint is like, but for the Adidas Response, you’re pretty safe to treat a 13 like a 12. Is there a reason you’re looking to change from your 13 Adidas Response? If they fit well I don’t see any reason to change. You should be able to get on anything with a 265mm waist width and up just fine – so there are plenty of snowboard options in that range in the kind of length you’re looking at.
Length-wise, as a beginner, with your specs, I think anything from a 164 to 167 would be a good range to look at. That would make both the Stallions options – with the 164 being an easier progression. However, the Stallion looks to be quite an advanced board – and quite stiff. So, if you’re a beginner I don’t think it would be a good option anyway. In fact, just looking at the specs of the Elan El Grande (I haven’t ridden either board) – it looks more suitable as a beginner board – though you don’t have to go quite that wide if you didn’t want to.
I think the following would be great options for you, if you weren’t set on getting the Stallion:
– Never Summer Snowtrooper 164W
– Burton Instigator 165W
– Rossignol Circuit 166W
– Rossignol One LF 165W (a bit of step up from the other 3 but doable for a beginner, if you wanted something just a little more advanced)
But if you’re set on getting the Stallion, then go for the 164, IMO, because the flex won’t feel as stiff, and it would be easier to progress on than the 167.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot Nate. As I said before Adidas boots are not available in my country so i have to order then online. I was thinking that I would fit in a size 12 boot also seeing that the liner is heat moldable. This is just an effort to reduce my foot print as far as possible. I think I will just see how it goes with a narrower board than my current one and then decide if I should try for a smaller sized boot. As far as boards go thanks for your recommendations but I’m really set on Bataleon. I think i will go for the Bataleon Goliath which is also 1,64w and waist 26,8 as the Stallion but with a flex of 6 as opposed to 8. Thanks again for your input
Hi Andrei
I think that’s a good way to go about it – see how your current boot goes. If it’s comfortable and fits well, then I wouldn’t change unless you really had to. The Goliath a better choice, IMO, so a good call there too.
Thanks Nate! I now wish i had found all this info a few years ago when I first started. It would have spared me a lot of bruised knees and but cheeks. I really didn’t think board width matters and i was falling a lot. Silly me … awesome info
You’re very welcome Andrei. Hope you have an awesome season next winter!
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the great article and extremely useful comment section!!!
Would really appreciate your help
I’m beginner++ rider
Age: 32
Height: 6′ / 183 cm
Weight: ~185 lbs / 84 kg
Binding angles: +18 front / -9 rear
Boots: ThirtyTwo binary boa US10.5 (I measured the length of the boots 310 mm)
Stance width: 22″
Looking to buy Yes Typo 158(Waist 253 mm)/159W(Waist 261 mm) or Yes Libre 159W(Waist 258 mm)
I really like Typo for its edge hold(Underbite). But looks like Typo 158(Waist 253 mm) is too narrow and Typo 159W(Waist 261 mm) too wide. Maybe Typo 161(Waist 254 mm)? As I understand Libre 159W(Waist 258 mm) should work for me. Not sure though because of tip/tail width 303 mm. Could you please share your thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Alexander
Hi Alexander
Thanks for your message.
I recently rode the Typo 155 (2020 model) and the width at inserts was 259mm – so I would estimate that the it’s around 261mm to 262mm at the inserts on the 158. With 31cm boots, that leaves you around 4.9cm total overhang (2.4cm per edge) straight across the board. With a 9 degree angle on your back foot, that’s going to give you a bit of leeway. Couldn’t say for sure, but getting pretty close to that 2cm threshold (which in fairness is quite conservative). So, I would say you’d probably be fine on the 158 – especially as a beginner, as you won’t likely be getting super high on your edges, at least not for a while. But no guarantees of course.
In saying that, the 159W wouldn’t be hugely wide for you at around 269, 270mm at the inserts. Probably wider than ideal, but certainly not excessively wide. Length-wise I would much prefer to see you on the 158 or 159W vs the 161 – and the 161 wouldn’t give you that much more leeway in terms of width anyway.
The Libre is actually a little wider at the inserts vs the waist. I rode the 2019 Libre 158 and that measured 267mm wide at the back insert and 265mm at the front insert. That has a 252mm waist. So, I would estimate that the 159W Libre would be 273mm at the back insert and 271mm at the front insert. So, it’s getting on the wide side for you, IMO. The 158 Libre would be a better bet.
But out of the Typo 158, Typo 159W and Libre 159W, I would personally go for the Typo 158, but if you’re worried about the width, then the 159W would work too – and I would go with that over the 159W Libre.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you very much!!!
Let me ask you one more question about bindings?
In one comment you wrote that bindings should be as close to the edges as possible ideally not overhanging it.
I borrowed Union Atlas 2019 Large size from my friend and have my own Atlas 2019 but size M(Did not use them so far and can exchange for Large one or return). Looks like my boots fits both but M size on the narrow side.
Union Atlas 2019 Size M: Base plate max length when angle at 18 degrees = 242 mm; Length 9 degrees = 236 mm; Length 0 degrees = 234 mm; Base plate width 96 mm
Union Atlas 2019 Size L: Base plate max length when angle at 18 degrees = 265 mm; Length 9 degrees = 262 mm; Length 0 degrees = 260 mm; Base plate width 100 mm
As you can see the base plate length is more when rotated. It’s due to the atlas base plate form factor (not just round on toe/heel edges but more square). So with Atlas M size bindings under hang about 10 mm each side and with L size over hang 3 mm each side
Probably i need just return them and get different brand/model. But in general which way to go in this case when you have to choose.
Thanks,
Alexander
Hi Alexander
Good question. I would go for the under-hanging Ms personally. I would go for good boot fit first (which it sounds like you fit fine in both), then I would look at making sure you can get good boot centering. With the heel cup adjustment on the Atlas, you can probably get good centering on either the large or medium, if your boots are fitting in either well. Ideally, you want to be as close to the edge without going over – it can give you just that bit more leverage, but it comes after those other 2 things in my book. And I would rather underhang a little than overhang. I have gotten away with a little overhang, so might be OK. But the consequences of too much overhang is greater than the consequences of underhang. So the slight overhang is going to be the riskier option.
The other thing is that you can adjust the gas pedal (toe ramp) on the Atlas. If you haven’t adjusted that yet on your mediums, that should give you an extra 1cm of length there – and reduce that underhang. For the 2020 Atlas that I rode in the winter just gone, I measured the top of the base plate at 240mm (from center of the back of it to center of front) without any gas pedal adjustment and 250mm long with the gas pedal fully extended. So, I’m guessing you haven’t extended the gas pedal? But yeah, just looking at pics I took of the 2020 Atlas, it doesn’t have a lot of rounding on the ends.
It’s also the case I find a lot that, in order to center your bindings, that the back of the bindings won’t extend to the heel edge, but you can often get the front to the toe edge (just depending on the how the heel cup is set up. So if you’re finding that your closer to the toe and there’s a bit of gap back to the heel I wouldn’t worry too much if the base plate gets closer to the toe edge than it does to the heel edge – a lot of the pressure going to the heel edge comes through the highback anyway.
But yeah, boot overhang (or even more specifically your foot length in relation to the width of the board is more important, IMO – getting the bindings close to the edges is ideal, but not as crucial.
Hi Nate,
You are right i haven’t extended the gas pedal. Actually i just removed it and measured the base plate itself. I got the idea. Hope to try it Mammoth CA next week.
Thank you!!!
Alexander
You’re very welcome Alexander. Let me know how you get on. Awesome that Mammoth is still open this time of year! Enjoy!
Hey Nate,
Great article and this is super informational. I am looking to buy my second snowboard and wanted some input.
I’ve been looking at:
Lib Tech Orca (either 147 or 153)
Salomon Sickstick (151 or 157)
I am very interested in “Short/Fatty” boards, but I worry about the “underhang.” What do you think? Would these boards have too much underhang?
Personal info:
Height: 5’09”
Weight: ~185 lbs
Shoes size: 8 1/2~ US
Binding angles: Going for +12/-12 or +12/-15 or +15/-15
Thanks in advance,
Jacob
Hi Jacob
Definitely going to get a bit of underhang on any of those choices – but that’s the case with anyone on short-wides.
I haven’t ridden either of these – and haven’t ridden a huge amount of short-wides, but what I have ridden, I’ve never found them to be hugely maneuverable, when they get too wide – even going shorter to compensate. But I suspect in a lot of cases I needed to go even shorter than I did.
If the specs on Salomon’s website for the Sick Stick are correct, it actually looks like the 151 is wider than the 157. However, the 157 wouldn’t be really going that short for your specs – so wouldn’t really be sizing down that much, IMO – but would still be wide for your boots, so not sure that would be a good size. The 151 would be even wider for your boots, but would be a significant down-size. Out of those I would still say the 151 is the better option.
For the Orca, the 147 has a 257 waist width, which isn’t crazy wide. Still wide for US8.5s, but going that much shorter would definitely compensate for maneuverability – whilst that extra width would add back some stability and surface area. The 153 is getting significantly wider, and will have a large amount of foot underhang. 153 is a lot shorter than for a traditional shape snowboard length for you, IMO, but it’s whether it’s shorter enough to add back enough maneuverability given the width.
Short/wides are the boards I’ve had the least experience with, and I’m yet to really fall for any of them (and I haven’t ridden either of these two) so take this with a grain of salt, but my instinct says 151 Sick Stick. With 147 Orca next, then 153 Orca.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Great article! This is my goto reference when looking at boards
I’m a beginner that is looking to buy my own equipment for next season. I already bought boots, Rome Stomp size 11.5 (mondo 29.5). I measured the boots and they are roughly 330 mm long toe to heel, however they have some bevel in the toe and heel.
I am now looking for a board to progress with.
I’ve been looking at:
Rome Mechanic 157W (waist 264 mm)
Yes Basic 159W (waist 261 mm)
Yes Typo 159W (waist 261 mm)
I would perhaps be more interested in the Yes Typo, but I worry about the overhang. What do you think? Mainly regarding overhang, but about the boards in general for a beginner looking to progress.
Personal info:
Age: 37
Height: 5’11” / 181 cm
Weight: ~180 lbs / 80 kg
Binding angles: Going for +12/-12 or 12-15 / (-12)-(-9)
Hi Robert
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, ideally a little shorter than 159 might be better. That would be a really good advanced level size for your specs, IMO, but as a beginner it’s a good idea to go a little shorter. Something around 155 to 157 would be a better length, IMO. But you could stretch it if you’re a high-end beginner.
I don’t test Rome gear currently, but it sounds like the Stomps are about average in terms of being long or low profile – thanks for providing the measurement, that makes things easier to look at.
The Typo 159W, based on measuring a different size, is likely to be around 270mm at the inserts (where the bindings go), so you’re looking at around 3cm of overhand on the heel and 3cm of overhang on the toe (if perfectly centered and going straight across the board). With the angles that you mention, that will come down a bit. Couldn’t say for sure how much, but likely to be around 5cm of total overhang at a guess (2.5cm heel and 2.5cm toe). To be really safe you probably want to get that down to 2cm per edge, but I personally often ride with more overhang than that and haven’t run into any issues yet. I don’t imagine you would either. Certainly no guarantees, but I think you should be fine width-wise. The 156W is likely to be more like 267mm at the inserts, so a little narrower, but I still think you would get away with it, and I think that would be the better length as a beginner.
Same goes for the Basic, which is the same shape as the Typo.
I haven’t measured the Rome Mechanic so I couldn’t say for sure, but it looks like it would give you a little bit more leeway width-wise, but like I say, I think you would be fine on the Typo or Basic. Mechanic would be a good length too.
The Basic is probably the slightly better beginner option than the Typo, but the Typo is doable for a beginner, and would last longer progression-wise. The Typo I see as a great board for a high-end beginner, close to that intermediate level.
If you’re still concerned about the width and want to play it safe, then I think the Mechanic would work (without having actually measured it), and I could also look into other wider options, but I think the Typo (slightly steeper learning curve) or Basic would be great options. The 156W being the better size, IMO. 159W doable, but ideally 156W.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi your website is brillant very informative. I just have one question and it’s about the WW of my new arbor Bryan Iguchi Pro camber it’s 159 with a WW of 25.25 and I’m a size uk10 I’m really hoping this will work? Also I’m looking into getting flow nx2 and the adidias response boots. Any advice you could give would be amazing. Thanks
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
With UK10s you’re on the cuff and will work better with regular width for some boards and wide for others.
In your case, I think you’ll be fine for a couple of reasons.
a. Because the Brian Iguchi is quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist. Based on measuring a different size Brian Iguchi, I would estimate the 159 would be roughly 267mm at the inserts. Which is quite wide for a 252.5mm waist width.
b. Because you’re looking at Adidas Response boots. When I measured the Adidas Response (in a US10, but the low profile-ness should translate) it was only 2.1cm longer than it’s stated Mondo. So if you have a UK10 with mondo 29cm, then the UK10 Adidas Response is likely around 31.1cm long. In that case, with the 26.7cm width at inserts I think you’d be absolutely fine.
If you ride with a very straight back binding angle, and really like to get low in your carves (like eurocarving) then there would still be some risk of drag. But in all other scenarios I would be fairly confident you wouldn’t have any issues on this board width-wise, if you get the Response.
I don’t test Flow gear currently, so I’m not sure in terms of the NX2s – but size-wise, looks like you would fit into either an L or XL. But for your case I would go with the L, just because the XL could be a bit big for the board. Since I don’t currently test Flow gear, I’m not sure of the foot bed lengths of their different sizes, but to be on the safe side, I would go with the L and based on their sizings, that should fit your UK10s fine. And since you’re going Adidas Response, you’re riding a boot closer to a UK 9 in terms of length, so that would have me leaning even more towards the L.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply all your advice has really helped put my mind to rest I’ve been looking everywhere for answers. Your website is a great think. Now I can’t wait to ride it. Thanks again
You’re very welcome Daniel. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to test out your new gear.
Hi,
I’m interested in getting a B-Pro but am not sure about sizing. I’m 5’4″ and 115-120 lbs. I wear a size 6.5 boot. Someone at Evo recommended that board for riding moguls and in the trees on icy days. Should I get a 143 or 146?
Thanks!
Hi Beth
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think the 143 would be the best size. Especially so if you’re going to be riding trees and moguls a lot. But even in general, I’d still say 143.
It’s a great option for icy conditions, so I’d agree there. It’s pretty quick edge-to-edge too, so in the trees that’s definitely a plus. Not a great board for powder – so not as good for powder days in trees, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks! That was super helpful.
But, now I’m wondering about my current board. I have a Gnu Hyperkyarve in a 148. I absolutely love it but they’re not making it again next year. I was thinking about buying another one to either have on hand in case something happens to the original board, or to possibly turn into a split. Thoughts on that size? If I get the B-Pro, maybe the Hyperkyarve would be more of a fast groomer and powder day board.
Hi Beth
Especially given that your Hyperkyarve is 148, then I think the B Pro 143 would be a good compliment. So, yeah then I would use the Hyperkyarve for bombing and powder for sure.
Strange that they haven’t continued the women’s Hyperkyarve, when they still have the men’s version in the line. The GNU Klassy is quite similar to the women’s Hyprekyarve, not the same but quite similar – maybe they decided they were too similar to keep both?
Hi Nate,
Thanks a million for your advice! I absolutely LOVE the 143 B-Pro! Do you know what the equivalent Gnu or Lib board would be for a 6’1″ man who weighs 190 and wears size 10 boots? I want my partner to be as happy as I am in the trees and on icy moguls, so I’d like to get him a similar board.
Thanks!
Hi Beth
Awesome that you’re loving your B-Pro!
In terms of the closest equivalent men’s version, I would say it would be the Lib Tech Hot Knife for 2020 models. I don’t think they’re making a 2021 model, but there should still be 2020 models available. It’s a sick board, IMO. It’s not exactly the B Pro, but I would say it’s the closest equivalent. Size-wise, for your partner, I’d say either 159 or 162. With size 10 boots he shouldn’t need to go wide. Between the 159 and 162, I would say the following:
– The 159 would be more agile, better in trees and moguls (IMO) and better for freestyle stuff (jumps, spins, jibs, tricks etc).
– The 162 would be more stable at speed and float better in powder (though not a particularly good powder board anyway)
I would personally be leaning towards 159 if I had his specs (which I pretty much do – 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots) for this board, but either one of those sizes, depending on what he wants to maximize would certainly work.
If looking at 2021 models (which aren’t out yet, but if you had an eye on next season for this) – the closest equivalents would be the Lib Tech TRS C3 (going to be a C3 camber version of the TRS for 2021) or the RC C3 (which is a C3 camber version of the Rider’s Choice, which will be coming out next season). I’ve very recently ridden both of these and they are awesome decks. But yeah, if you’re looking to buy now, then I’d go for the Hot Knife.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks you for the great guide and for keeping up with the comments for all these years. Impressive, to say the least!
I’m around 67kg (~148lbs), 182cm (~6′), UK boot size 11 (Salomon) which would be around US 11.5.
I’m a complete beginner with only one resort trip behind me. My first renting wasn’t the most enjoyable experience so planning to get a decent all-mountain board from the get-go and brush up my skills in a local snowdome in preparation for next season.
Was looking at Capita DOA 156 and K2 Believe 157 but then realised they’re 252mm and 250mm waist width which probably be too narrow for my boot size so I’d need to look for a wide/medium wide option.
So I guess it would it be about 157W-158W (~260mm) waist for my specs? Don’t really have a particular board in mind and these are just what I came upon so far so any advice on board selection would be appreciated!
Hi Igor
Thanks for your message.
As a beginner, for your specs, I would say something around 154-156 would be a good length to look at. And yeah, with your boot size, you’ll need to look at wide boards, for sure.
I would check out the following:
The first list is for the easiest/fastest progression and the second list, is for boards that will still be easy to learn/progress on, but will be a slightly steeper learning curve, but last you longer in terms of not needing to upgrade as quickly as you advance.
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
The boards categories are labelled, so if you’re looking all-mountain, just look for the categories labelled there. Let me know if you have any questions about any boards, in particular.
Hope this helps
Awesome, thank you for the advice! I’ll be looking into an intermediate board as a long-term investment and the way they’re labeled makes it really easy to choose.
Will the width of Salomon Sight 155W (25.6cm) work for me or would I want to look at something slightly wider?
Hi Igor
I would say you’re better to look for something a little wider. The 155W sight isn’t the widest wide board – in fact there are some regular width boards that I ride that are wider at the inserts than that (I haven’t measured the Sight but based on other Salomon boards I’ve measured I would say that it’s not wider than 265mm at the inserts, which, IMO would be a bit narrow for your boots). You might get away with it but it would be risky, IMO.
Hey Nate,
I’m ~130lbs 5″10, been riding 154 the last few years.
I just upgraded from 9.5US K2 Maysis to a 10 K2 Thraxis, and I’m wondering about my next board width.
Ordered a SuperDOA 154 with 250mm waist width, wondering if I should stay with it or up it to 156 with 252mm waist width?
Hi Nadav
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, for your specs, I would say stick with the 154. I would even say go a little shorter, if you weren’t already used to a 154. But preferably I wouldn’t go longer than 154 if I was you, at 130lbs.
Width-wise, I think the 154 will be fine if you ride with +15/-15 binding angles or similar. With a straighter back foot, it might be pushing it for width, especially with K2s having a longer boot profile.
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate
Thanks for the well written article and research.
I am 5’10, 145 lb and wear 10.5 (US) size DC boots, advanced-expert rider.
I ride 50/50 park and all mountain, and after reading up on everything I could on snowboard size I went with the Evil Twin 156W, but feels I made a wrong choice, so would like to get your opinion on it.
It carves well as there are no toe/heel drags and the 3bt helps with initiation on with edge to edge, but feels slightly heavy on spins and maneuverability.
Should I have gone with a 154 or 157? The width had me worried and when I talked to an EVO rep they recommended me 156W over the 157 because of my boot size. I wanted a board that I could do jumps/rails but also euro-carve.
Debating if I should continue riding the board or sell it and get a different size.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
Bataleon is a brand that I don’t currently test, so I can’t say for sure, as I haven’t done any measurements of it and haven’t ridden it before. But a few things:
Length-wise, based on your specs, ability and riding style, I would say something around 154 is a good length. So 156 isn’t too far off in terms of length, but in combination with the wide board, it might be overall a little big. And there is quite a bit of effective edge on that board vs overall length, so going a little shorter than that probably isn’t a bad idea.
Width-wise, without knowing the width at inserts vs the waist width for the evil twin – it looks like the 154 is quite possibly too narrow, especially if you are wanting to eurocarve on it. Usually I’d say if you ride with +15/-15 angles and/or have low profile boots, you should get away with that width, but if you’re eurocarving it’s probably pushing it. The 157 would give you a bit more leeway, but then I think that’s getting too long.
The width on the 156W looks like it’s pretty wide (but again without knowing the width at inserts it’s hard to say because it can vary a lot). Assuming it’s around 275mm at the inserts, then that’s getting into too-wide territory for 10.5s, IMO (if you’re not sizing down to compensate for it).
Note also, that there’s always a bit of a trade off. Going a little shorter will definitely help with spins and with maneuverability (and that maneuverability in turn can help with spin initiation). And going narrower also helps with maneuverability. But going shorter also reduces stability at speed and float in powder – and going shorter and narrower gives you a less stable landing platform. So there’s always a trade off, but in this case, if there was a 154W, which was slightly narrower than the 156W, I think that would be the ticket.
So sizing could be an issue here for sure. It could also be that the board doesn’t agree with you – it’s not something that I’ve ridden so I couldn’t say for sure.
Some other options if you weren’t dead set on the Evil Twin
– YES Greats 154 – should easily be wide enough, but most likely not quite as wide as the 156W Evil Twin (also – even though the inserts are quite wide on this board, the waist is still quite narrow, and I find comparing 2 boards with equal width at inserts, but different waists, that the narrower waist is more maneuverable). And going a little shorter I think would also help there. Width at inserts roughly 270mm.
– NS Proto Type Two 155X – 261mm at the waist, but (based on measuring other lengths) it’s probably around 269mm at the inserts, which should be wide enough, without being too wide.
If you wanted to stick with the Evil Twin, then the 154 would be preferable, I would say (without having ridden it) – but my biggest concern is that it’s too narrow, which is likely why you were recommended the 156W.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you Nate for your breakdown.
I’ve just measured Bataleon width at the inserts and its about 27 cm.
The Bataleon has a loose surfy feel due to its TBT shape and could be the reason why as I now know I prefer a more locked precise feeling while riding. Unfortunately there is no 154W, perhaps in the future I’ll have to be more careful with my board size choice.
Going to try and sell the Bataleon for now, maybe ride it a few more times for fun.
I recently purchased the Ride Warpig 148 cm, it’s 26 cm width and about 27 cm at the inserts. Though that sounds like it’s too short for my weight the width makes it very stable yet very nimble for tricks. I think because of my height/weight/boot size combo I may be restricted to shorter fat boards.
I also tested the 156 Capita DOA during a demo and that felt quite nice as well. Still playing with the width as it’s always different with side cut radius of each board, and DC boots are quite fat compare to other boots (I have wide feet so burton is too narrow). Do you think the perfect board for me is somewhere around perfect board is 151-154 cm and maybe 252-255mm width?
Hi Dan
I would say, ideally something around 153-155 for an all-mountain board – and something 150-153 for a more freestyle/park kind of board. So for the Evil Twin, I would say going 154 over 156 is better, as it looks like it’s more of a freestyle or all-mountain-freestyle kind of ride (I don’t test Bataleon gear currently). If you’re riding it all-mountain-freestyle, then I think 154 would be ideal.
Width-wise, the 156W isn’t actually overly wide if it’s 27cm at the inserts. I find my ideal insert range is between 26cm and 26.5cm (with 10s) – so for 10.5s that’s more like 26.5cm to 27cm. Just to make sure, did you measure that from the base of the board – metal edge to metal edge – or on the top sheet? Anyway the width might actually be fine (based on that the 154 definitely too narrow though, IMO). If you’re going to ride it anyway, see how you feel on it – you might find you like it a little longer.
In terms of ideal waist width range – I think that 252 to 256 range is probably a good rough range. But it’s hard to say as a lot of boards are very different at the inserts vs the waist. One board with a 252 waist, might only be 257 at the inserts which is probably going to be too narrow – and another board with 252 at the waist might be 265 (or even more in some cases) at the inserts which is likely to be fine with +10/-10 angles.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for such informative article. I’m a beginner rider, I can link turns and rarely fall now and wanted to move on from renting to my own equipment.
Been looking at Arbor Formula Rocker and hesitating between 159MW and 161 MW. Would 159MW be fine for my size or go longer?
I’m 195cm (6’5), 75kg (165lbs) US boot size 12.
And if I can’t find Formula in my size would Arbor Whiskey be an alternative? Or is it too stiff for a beginner like myself?
Appreciate the advise.
Cheers
Hi Mikhail
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, and as a beginner, I think the 159MW would be the best option. The 161MW isn’t far off but for your weight, I would be leaning towards 159MW.
The Whiskey isn’t a bad beginner’s choice. It would be a slightly steeper learning curve. It’s a good high-end beginner/low intermediate option. So not a bad alternative. Stiffer than ideal, but definitely not crazy stiff or anything – mid-flexing.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, cool to see you still responding to people years after writing this post. I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling my own experiences with your charts though. My shoes tend to be 14, and my boots tend to be 13, but these both flip. Current boots are size 13 Maysis. I’m 6 foot 3, and 225ish pounds. Bindings are Re:Flex, and I’m usually at +18/-15.
I’ve been skiing or riding for about 20 years. Used to be an all-mountain rider, but now currently ride 95% in the park, almost every day here in Summit County CO. I’m definitely NOT a gear-head though–in fact, I’d love nothing more than to have an equipment manager deal with all that shit for me lol. So here I am.
I bought a 2019 59W Evil Twin this year, and I’ve already broken the edges in a bunch of spots, ripped one edge out that is currently replaced with an epoxy edge, etc. At $500 for less than one season, I pretty much decided I’m done buying new boards (plus replacing ripped pants, broken helmets, ripped gloves, really adds up!!). So I’m left to scrounging for good used Park boards at great prices.
I ended up here from Google, cuz I found a great deal on a 2014 158 Defenders of Awesome, and the waist of 254 had me a little nervous so I compared it to my current boards. My 62W Flight Attendant has a waist of 264 (btw, I really do NOT like this board–not at all playful, not great at really anything except maybe bombing down groomers, but who gives a shit about that? I digress…). My 59W Evil Twin has a waist of 266. Both of these have always felt totally fine width-wise.
But then I remembered I also spent a couple weeks riding a 2015 NS Proto HD, which was either 57 or 60, which would have waist sizes of 253 and 255, respectively. That is, 1mm difference from the DoA. I didn’t take that board in deep powder, but I don’t recall ever booting out.
But, to my main point… In the park, I like to be in the 158ish to 160 range, and your chart for 15 degrees puts me, with my size 13 boot, at a “minimum” waist of 267… That’s just freaking massssssive to me. The only board I can even think of in that territory is the Twinpig/Warpigs, but which I admit I haven’t ridden (sounds fun even!)
However, when it comes to actual “overhang” on my brand new (to me) DoA, at the widest stance at 26” and +18/-15, the overhang comes out to be roughly 1 and 3/16 inch on the heel, and 1 inch on the toe. But, even for how wide I like to ride, 26” just felt tooooo wide, even tho I’m experimenting with going wider right now. Moving out a couple inches recently has really stepped my game up… I feel like mostttt park riders do go as wide as they comfortably can lol. Interestingly when I moved to a more comfortable 24.5” stance, the overhangs didn’t really change. TBH I found it a bit hard to measure though, because the toes/heels of the Maysis, on top of the Mission binding footpad, reallllly curves away from the deck.
But, what REALLY matters, right, is what kinda edge angle can u get before you boot out one way or the other, right? So I did the edge tests, and at 26” stance, I got a toe edge angle at roughly 66* (degrees) and a heel edge angle at 60*. Moving in to 24.5” really didn’t make it too much worse, coming out at roughly 61* on the toe and 67* on the heel.
I’ve heard before that 60 degrees is the minimum you really want, and at either 26” or 24.5” I got better carve angles than 60 degrees on both heel and toe. Agree/disagree with this rule? Especially for park, I can’t imagine a scenario where you’d carve more than 60*.
So yea, that’s my real trouble with this article here. Maybe it’s my odd combination of park riding, being large, tall, big feet, wide stance, and then also the boot and/or bindings creating a pretty decent curve/gap between the deck and the bottom of ur foot…. But it seems like this board can be plenty acceptable, despite being wayyy outside of the range you recommend.
Curious if you have any thoughts…if my logic/knowledge is just off somewhere, or whatever. Like I said, I’m def someone that loves to ride way more than the gear nonsense
All the best,
Hi Zach
Thanks for your message.
Yeah measuring that overhang you really need a way to accurately measure it so that you are going straight down from the heel and toe of the boots – but measuring by angle is a really good way to do it as well. This article is intended as a rough estimate as there are so many variables. Also, not everyone can measure their boards before they buy – so this is intended to help those out with rough waist width measurements. You can see my extra article at the link below, which discusses measuring angles:
>>Picking the Best Width for a Snowboard
Based on that, if you’re not going to be doing any hard carves, then you probably won’t have any issues with your current setup, IMO. But if you went out and did some Euro Carves in soft snow, you could have boot drag issues.
Moving your stance width wider, typically adds width – simply because it puts you on a wider part of the board. But choose the stance width that you’re most comfortable with. And at the end of the day, if you have a board setup and it works for you, then that’s all good. The point here is to help give people a rough guideline, who don’t already have a setup. But definitely your style, the particular boots and bindings you have, binding angles, stance width – all those things can make a significant difference when added up. Typically for 13s you’re going pretty narrow there, IMO – but it seems to work for your particular setup – but probably wouldn’t work for other setups and styles.
But yeah, main thing, if you don’t run into any issues, then all good!
Oh yeah and Flight Attendant definitely not a playful board and certainly not a park board – but great for carving, bombing and float in powder – and for some that’s all they want to do.
Thanks for your input. Good to hear of all the different setups and how they work.
Idk what my point was anyways lol, but thx for the reply ! Awesome you’re giving all this help to randos all these years later 👍
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great article and taking the time to answer all of the questions.
I’m 1m86 (6’1), 97kg (213lb) en boot size 11.
I have been snowboarding for about 10 years, of wich the last 5 years on a ride Wildlife 164.
I broke the board so looking for a new one. I’m an all mountain type that avoids the park. I love speed and carving and would like something more aggressive.
I was looking at the Arbor iguchi pro (aggressive all mountain freeride).
The second board i’m looking at is the Never Summer proto 2 (agressive all mountain freestyle)
I think i like the NS more cause it doesn’t always have to go fast to be fun.
For the NS i was wondering if i should go for the 161X or the 163X. I think the 160 would be to small with the waist size of 25.4.
What would you suggest?
Thanks in advance,
Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
I think the 161X would be your best bet for the PT2. At a stretch you might get on the 160 with +15-15 angles, but if you’re looking to get some aggressive carves in, then you’ll probably want that extra width. From measuring a different size PT2, I would estimate the width at inserts (at reference stance) on the 161X to be around 273mm, which I would be a good width for 11s. And sizing down in length a little for this board I think works well, so 161X over the 164X. You could definitely still ride the 164X with your specs, but I would be leaning towards the 161X for you.
Yeah certainly if you still want to have fun riding slow at times, then the PT2 is a good option. For some other aggressive all-mtn-free, all-mtn-free and aggressive all-mtn options check out the following, but I think the PT2 161X would work well for what you’re describing. So long as you don’t ride too often in deep powder – that’s one downside of the PT2 – not great float in powder.
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
I am 171 lbs, 6’0, and wear a US 10.5 boots that are quite compact on the outside. I like freeriding but adding some freestyle in natural features.
I hardly ever ride in the park and never do jibbing.
I am hesitating between a Jones MT Twin 157 (25.3cm) and a 158W (25.8cm)
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
Those would be the sizes that I would be weighing up for you too.
Since you’re on low profile boots, I would say that you wouldn’t have any trouble on the 157, if you ride with a reasonable amount of angle on the back foot – particularly if you ride it at the reference stance. The 157 measures 266mm in width at the back insert at reference stance, which I would be confident would be wide enough for 10.5s with bindings at an angle. So in that case, that’s what I would go for.
However, if you were going to be riding it at a narrower stance width, and/or if you ride with a straighter back binding angle or still want to experiment with binding angles, then I would say go 158W, to give you that extra leeway – particularly so, if you like to rail your carves.
Hope this helps with your decision
Yeah, it definitely helped!
Thanks a lot Nate, I really appreciate it. Your guide was really complete, but I was hesitating since I’m kind of “on the border” with my 10.5size…
I ride +15/-12 and a little wider than the reference stance so I guess there wont be any problem.
Thank you!
Dave
You’re very welcome Dave. Yeah with those angles and your stance width, I’d say that the 157 will be a good size for you. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, Nelson here. Firstly this is the most informative and interesting article I have ever read on this topic. Amazing!
I’m glad there’s someone out there as into it as myself.
As a snowboarder with a boot on the larger side (11.5 Burton Ion) I always find myself doing a bit of research into brands and board sizes and although I think your article has given me enough info answer my question I thought I’d ask your professional opinion for confirmation. Just for reference my weight is 81kgs or 180lbs and my height is 6’2”
Ok here goes,
I have bought a 156 Endeavor Ranger which has a waist width of 256 but they also come in a 157w size which has a width of 263. This board will be dedicated to park/freestyle/all mountain twin. I would be setting it up at +15/-15 due to potential switch riding. Although this ranger series runs on the larger side of normal as far as waist width goes, should I be looking at swapping for the 157w for this board to perform as it’s supposed to for me or am I just being a bit anal about sizing?
In addition to that last question I’ll add that I’m not really a park rat or anything I’m usually into all mountain freestyle and when possible trying to find a bit more deeper stuff and tree runs (usually when I head to japan as I live in Australia) so I have a Burton Deep thinker in 157w (I think I probably should’ve got the 160w but oh well) it’s Mild Directional, taper, setback camber with slight rockered nose. Sort of my all mountain freestyle/groomer/daily driver and I was thinking of also getting an Endeavor 162 archetype for those really deep days. Are these three boards the makings of a good quiver or is my sizing/shapes too similar?
I like to buy Endeavor and Burton boards because I’m fond of the channel and my est bindings.
Thanks so much in advance, your opinions and discussion will be greatly appreciated.
You’re welcome to post a reply again on the page but if you could reply in an email as well it would be really awesome. My email is [email removed for privacy]
Thanks Nate you’re awesome!!
Ps I’ve included links to all the boards I’ve mentioned!
Ranger
Deep thinker
Archetype
Hi Nelson
Thanks for your message.
I don’t currently test Endeavor boards, so I’m not sure what they’re typically like at the inserts compared to the waist. So, it could be pushing it for width. Since you have Burton boards, and are going to ride +15/-15, I think it’s probably doable, but risky. I think the safer bet would be to go 157W (or even 155W) – and the width of those is in a good range for 11.5 boots, IMO.
As a quiver:
I wouldn’t say that the Deep Thinker and Archetype are that similar. The Archetype looks to be very powder oriented, certainly with more taper (30mm vs 7mm on the Deep Thinker) and a bigger setback to note a couple of differences. And being in the 162 vs the 157W of the Deep Thinker will also add to that difference, so they’re certainly not going to be the same, but similar in some ways, with the Deep Thinker what I would call more “Freeride” and the Archetype more towards being a powder specialist.
As a 3 board quiver, I would say to go Range in the 155W, since you’ll have the 157W Deep Thinker as your daily driver, and you could use the Ranger more as a freestyle specialist (even if for riding freestyle over the mountain rather than the park). Then you’d have the Archetype 162 for the deep days.
If you were going to do a 2 board quiver, with Archetype 162, for example, then I would go 157W for the ranger.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your detailed and prompt response.
Just to add, the width at inserts at reference point (22”) on the 156 Ranger is 266mm on the base. I’m sure it won’t make any difference but I’ll set it up at 23”
I guess I’m trying to find a way to avoid the hassle of changing it for the 57w or the 55w. Probably better to just get what works best for me right…
Anyway I really appreciate your honest opinion. Keep doing what you do. You’re an amazing help to all us snowboarders.
Thanks!
Nelson
Hi Nelson
Thanks for the extra info.
Going wider usually gives you a bit more width, as you get further up the sidecut. Just from a quick measurement of one of my boards, comparing the width at reference vs the width 1″ wider than reference, I found that it went from 265mm to 267mm. So, a couple of mm. It’s not exact for your board, but likely similar. So, you could probably get out to 268mm at that 23″ stance.
With 11.5 Burton’s my guess is that they’re likely around 32cm in length roughly, which would give you around 5.2cm of overhang (2.6cm heel, 2.6cm toe if perfectly centered) – that’s straight across the board and that would reduce with +15-15 angles. So weighing all of that up, and assuming you aren’t going to be doing any deep carves on that board, I think you would get away with it. Will be on the narrower side for sure, IMO, but might get away with it.
Thanks Nate,
I really appreciate all your help.
All the best!
You’re very welcome Nelson – happy riding!
Hi Nate, great article and your feedback in comments is really helpful too. I’m hoping you can provide some quick input for my case:
I am 5’8″, 175lb, sz 10 Thirty-two boots. I ride ~13deg front foot, ~6deg back foot.
I am looking for an all-mountain board, and based on my research the Burton custom camber would be a good match for my riding style and for variable terrain.
I currently have a 156 Custom Flying V Twin, and I just do not have the control I want for aggressive carving. I used to have a Forum 154 (I don’t remember the style… it was a craigslist banger….camber and I believe a freestyle board, but I pressed it hard in all conditions). I thought the FV would be an upgrade but I hate it.
I am interested in the Burton Custom camber 154W (size chart – CUSTOM, 154W, 258waist, 120-180lb 10+boot, binding LARGE). And I am wondering if the wide waist will be a disadvantage.
The article mentions some tradeoff between length and width… based on sizing charts for my weight/boots… I could probably ride 156reg or longer comfortably…. But if I go with the 154W am I still in the sweet spot for having an agile ride? I’m really trying to capture the feel of the old board I had where I made significant improvements in my riding.
Thank you for any advice!
Brett
Hi Brett
Thanks for your message.
Yeah sizing down if you’re going wider can be a trade off you can make to get back some agility from the extra width. However, in your case it’s probably not necessary to go that way, but you still could, and it would give you a bit of extra width to be sure of no boot drag, if you’re going to be aggressive carving. And in truth, the 154W Custom isn’t that wide for a wide board, so it’s actually a reasonable width for 10s, if you’re going to be railing your carves, especially if you have a relatively straight back binding angle. The only thing, since it’s not overly wide for 10s, is whether sizing down isn’t necessarily a good thing in this case. It would give you more agility at slower speeds, and I know you’re trying to replicate your old Forum 154, but that would be my question.
Having a little more effective edge, can really help with carving, and stability at speed, and by going down to 154W Custom, you’re dropping effective edge vs the 156 Custom Twin Flying V. Yes, you’re gaining in edge-hold and carving with the camber profile (so going to be better than the Flying V in that sense – which isn’t a very good profile for carving, in my experience – even with a shorter effective edge), but my biggest question would be whether you wanted to drop that effective edge. Possibly the 156, or even 158, if you’re mostly going to be carving/bombing and you’re quite an advanced rider, would be better options. The 156 wouldn’t give you as much leeway width-wise, but should still be OK, unless you’re really railing your carves and ride with a very straight back binding angle. The 158 should be fine width-wise, I would imagine. If you’re also riding freestyle type stuff, something around 156 might be the best bet.
As far as all-mountain, traditional Camber boards with a medium flex go, the Custom is a good option and 154W might be fine for you, but it’s whether or not you want to drop that effective edge and whether the 156 or even 158 might be better.
Some other options are, if you’re not concerned about having a setback or aren’t as worried about powder performance (traditional camber or practically traditional camber):
Arbor Coda Camber
Lib Tech Hot Knife
Capita Outsiders
Salomon Ultimate Ride
Or some stiffer flexing options:
Burton Custom X
Slash ATV
Jones Aviator
GNU Billy Goat
to name a few. But yeah medium flex, setback, all-mountain, traditional camber, I would say Burton Custom, it’s just which size.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate, thank you for the thoughtful and complete response. I’m going to try my luck with the 156!
You’re very welcome Brett. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
This is a great article, and website in general, with tons of valuable info! Big up for sharing this with the crowd.
I have a fairly simple question, I believe. I would really appreciate your toughts before I go buy my 2nd deck 🙂
I have a good deal price for a Jones Explorer 164W at a local shop. (Other option could be a Ride Berzerker 167W) Based on research I think the explorer would suit me very well. My only concern is width.
My specs:
Intermediate rider, 10-15 days in a season
Height: 189 cm
Weight: 105 kg
Feet lenght: 31,0 cm
Booth: Ride Fuse 13 US
Stance: 58,5 cm
Stance angles (currently): +15/-6
Current deck: Nitro prime 163W
Thanks if you share your thoughs.
Best,
David
Hi David Thanks for your message. Based on other Jones boards I have measured at the inserts (I haven’t done so for the Explorer yet), I would imagine it would be around 278-280mm at the rear insert at reference stance (which is 60cm on the Explorer, so a little narrower – but probably only be around 1mm – if you were to ride at 58.5cm. The Prime 163W (based on measuring the Team Gullwing) is likely to be around 282mm at the rear insert but you could test that for yourself (measured on the base of the board). Based on that you would be looking at something a little narrower than what you have – up to 5mm narrower. If you haven’t had any issues with drag on your Prime, which I imagine you probably haven’t being relatively wide, you might be OK on the Explorer. Ride boots tend to be quite low profile, so that certainly helps, so you can treat them as closer to 12s. With 6 degrees on the back foot in 12s, and with Jones typically having a slightly bigger difference between waist and inserts, I think you should probably get away with it. It’s going to be on the narrower side, and there’s no guarantees but I think you should be fine width-wise on it. The Berzerker 167W is likely to be narrower at the inserts (based on measuring the 162 which only has a 7mm difference between waist and rear insert). Roughly around 272mm at the rear insert, which I think would be quite risky with 13s at 6 degrees. Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for a great article and website overall. I’m fairly new to snowboarding, but getting more and more into it and thus, for the first time, paying serious attention to the kind of board that would be the best for me. Appreciate, if you could give a bit of advice…
My personal “specs” are:
– height 182 cm
– weight 95 kg (+/- 3 kg depending…)
– foot size 27,5 cm
– boot Burton Imperial, US 11 / EU 44
– stance varies (still looking for my preference), but currently around +16/+12. At times I ride duck as well, in order to learn ride switch better.
– stance width approx. 54-55 cm, though I haven’t experimented with different stances.
My current board is a Head Matrix 159 (could be 10 years old, don’t know exactly) and it feels alright – though I don’t have much to compare it to. The width of the board is 25,6 cm at waist and some 26,5 at bindings. I haven’t suffered (or noticed) too much toe / heel drag, but on the other hand I’ve kept the binding angles at a minimum of 9 degrees to avoid it. Also, I wonder if this becomes more of an issue as I improve and learn to carve better.
I would like to do a bit of everything on a board: go fast, carve agressively (here I compensate my limited skills with strong legs to some extent), jump a bit and ride switch. I ride in powder whenever I get the chance, but as it’s not that often, a lot of riding will be on groomers in all conditions.
After some research, I’m thinking that Loaded Algernon would be a good fit with what I’m looking for –
a bit advanced for my current skills perhaps (I think I mainly fall into the “intermediate” level), but a kind of board that I could keep for a long time.
Even more so, I would like to get the choice right. With the Algernon, my main concern if the width, as I seem to fall between sizes. Based on your article and tables, I’ve concluded that my ideal width would be around 254-258 (largely depending on the angles, though). The Algernon, however, has a waist width of 250 in size 157 and 262 in 160w, with sidecut radii of 8,5m and 8,69m, respectively.
The 160w would clearly be the safer choice in terms of toe drag (and allow experimenting with less extreme angles), though I’m not sure if it’s necessary. The 160w also more suited for my height (again referring to your tables), as well as puts me more in the middle of the weight range. However, my concern is, whether with the wider board I would give up too much maneuverability.
So the question is, whether size 157 or 160w is better suited for me? Or, whether neither is good enough a match and I could reach a better performance with another deck that has different sizing?
Appreciate your thoughts on the above, as well as if you would suggest another board that might be a good choice for what I’m looking for. E.g. one option is Jones Explorer that you reviewed as an aggressive all-mountain board (though based on what I’ve read I’d assume the Algernon is slightly better at carving and jumping).
Hi Jussi
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Loaded Algernon, so I can’t really compared it to others.
But length-wise I would say that something around 160 would be a better size for you than 157.
Width-wise, the 157 is likely to be too narrow and be a big risk for toe drag. Typically boards are between 5mm and 15mm wider at the inserts than they are at the waist. But, based on looking at images and the sidecut of the Algernon, I would say it’s unlikely to be no more than 260mm at the inserts, at a guess. I know it’s only 5-10mm narrower than what you’re currently on, but that can make a difference. And as you improve with carving and get deeper into carves, it does become more of an issue as you say. So, with 11s, I wouldn’t recommend a board with that width, unless you knew it to be wider at the inserts.
The 160W should be fine width-wise. Only thing is that you say you have 27.5cm feet. So, boot-wise, the 157 is likely too narrow (and on the short side, IMO) but foot-wise, the 160W with the 262mm waist is likely on the wider side for your feet. But definitely the safer option (and the better length, IMO).
If you’re worried about the sizing, then looking at something like the Explorer or Capita Mercury could be an option (as something that will work for you as an intermediate rider but can also be aggressive as you progress). Size-wise, I would say 159 for the Mercury – which should have enough width, without being too wide (266mm at the inserts). And 162 for the Explorer. A little narrower, but should be fine with Burton 11s. And the Explorer is something you can ride a little longer, so going 162 for that particular board would be a good idea, IMO.
But that’s not to say that the Algernon wouldn’t work (in the 160W) it’s just a board that I don’t know that much about.
Hope this helps
Thanks very much Nate, it helped a great deal!
Explorer 162 it is, based on probably being in the sweet spot sizewise and likely also better fit for my skills now and in the near future.
You’re very welcome Jussi. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Thanks again, it’s really been a great season. The Explorer has served me well. However, now I’m looking for a splitboard for more backcountry riding and am wondering, if Jones Solution would suit me. Given my specs above, what size would you recommend?
Hi Juss
Thanks for your message, and awesome that you’ve had a great season, and have been getting on well with the Explorer!
I have to admit that Splitboards are outside my area. So, for specific splitboard recommendations, I’m not really knowledgeable there.
Based on specs the Solution is definitely going to be a stiffer board, and likely a step up vs the Explorer. If you think you’re good with that, then it’s certainly an option. But it’s not something that I’ve ridden as it only comes in splitboard. Jones do a lot of split boards – as far as I know more than anyone else (of the brands I look at anyway) – they made 8 different men’s split boards in 2019 models – plus 2 women’s and even a kids split board. So, they probably know what they’re doing when it comes to split boards, and since you know and like your explorer, maybe a good way to go with Jones. They do actually make a split version of the Explorer, if you wanted to get a similar feel but in a split board – but if you wanted something different, then they have:
Jones Solution
Jones Carbon Solution
Jones Hovercraft Split
Jones Ultracraft Split
Jones Storm Chaser Split (with 2 new sizes for 2019, the 152 and 157)
Jones Explorer Split
Jones Mind Expander Split | New for 2019
Jones Mountain Twin Split | New for 2019
as options. But like I say I can’t really say much as I know very little about split boards.
Hope this somewhat helps
Hi Nate –
Great info!
I’m looking to purchase a new board. I’m coming off an old school camber Solomon.
175 lbs
Boot is size 9
Height 5’ 7”
Been riding 20+ years
Riding style is all mountain, limited park at this point. Want something that can handle frequent riding on east (VT, NY, etc) but will still perform in pow during trips west.
Now that my 8yr old son is starting to ride I’ll split my time slow cruising the Mtnwith him and then harder charging all mountain riding without him.
Any recommendations for a board? Was looking at Jones Mtn Ultra Twin and Solomon Assassin?
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Based on what you’re describing, I think something that can do a bit of everything is a good way to go. The Assassin is what I would consider all-mountain-freestyle, but bordering on all-mountain. Not quite as good in powder as something like the Ultra Mountain Twin, but doable in powder. The Ultra Mountain Twin is quite a stiff board, and not something that I found that easy to ride slow, so I would look more at the Mountain Twin (non-ultra).
Both boards are pretty good in icy conditions (I’d say 4/5, if I had to put a number on it).
Also check out the following, which I think has several good options for what you’re describing:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hey Nate great article
I’m looking at either a 2019 Rome Mechanic or 2019 Yes Basic and am having a hard time choosing between the two as the specs are similar. The Yes 152 has a waste size of 250 but the Rome 153 waste size is 252. What size would you recommend. I’m like a soft intermediate and ride mostly resort groomers and don’t really hard carve or get too much on edge. But still looking for a board to progress with as i can ride blue runs comfortably and can manage to get down easier single black runs
Height – 5’6
Weight – 146lbs
Shoe size – 10US in a Ride Anthem boot
Binding – Ride EX large
Thanks for any advice
Shawn
Hi Shawn
Thanks for your message.
The specs are similar in some ways, but are quite different in others. One major way they differ is that the Mechanic has a flat-to-rocker profile (rocker towards tip and tail, flat between the feet. Whereas the Basic has a hybrid camber profile (rocker towards tip and tail with camber between the feet).
Waist width-wise, I think both would work fine for size 10 Anthems. Length-wise you could even go 150 for the Mechanic. For the Basic I think 152 would be the best size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thanks for the awesome advice!!
Regards
Shawn
You’re very welcome Shawn. Hope you have an awesome season!
Wow seriously I love this technical article. One of the most rational/clear out there.
Question.
I have Capita DOA 152 (waist width 248mm), I wear size 8 boots and have M size Union bindings. Angles +15/-9. Do you think this is a good length to get, or should I upgrade to 154 (due to waist width concern, or other concern)?
(I intend to do all mountain groomers/carving & park with this board, and don’t care too much about its tree/freeride/powder performance.)
Hi Gary
Thanks for your message.
With 8s, you should be fine with the 248mm waist width. In fact, it would be a better width for 8s than the 154, IMO. Which length is better would depend on a few things. I would be happy to give a length recommendation too. Would just need your height, weight and ability level).
Hope this helps
thanks!
height: 5’9
weight: 145lbs
ability level: intermediate (3rd season now; 30 days total); no problem going down most runs; dialing in proper carving posture; learning beginner tricks, etc.
Hi Gary
I think the 152 is the best length for you for the DOA, so I wouldn’t go up to the 154. And the 152 should be absolutely fine width-wise, so I’d stick with the 152.
Hi Nate,
First of, I’m impressed by your passion and determination to answer every question and query in such depth – kudos to you!!
I am currently looking to buy board and bindings, and need your help on size. I am looking on a Capita DOA with a set of Union Force bindings.
My “stats”
1,76 cm
152lb (69 kg)
10,5 US (44 EU) – ThirtyTwo TM-2 boot
Skill: Intermediate ++
Binding angle
+15/-13 (ish)
Style of ride
Mostly Mountain, but will hit the park once in a while. I am looking for an all-around board thats playfull and responsive and rides both ways.
Initially I was going for the 156 with a waist at 252mm. However I am a bit worried about potential drag, which is why I am considering the 155W board with 258mm waist.
I am not going for very deep carves, however I do like to try to get low in the turns once in a while.
Whats your take on this?
Another quick question, will I be able to fit my boots in a medium set of Union Force (I will rather ham them a bit smaller, than larger) – or should I go for the Large version?
THANKS in advance,
Best regards
Jakob
Hi Jakob
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the 155W would be your best bet. Whilst you’ll probably be OK on the 156, width-wise, the 155W would certainly be a safer bet, and given that it’s not overly wide, it’s not going to be too wide for 10.5s, IMO. Also, I think 155 is a good length for you. I would be debating between 154 and 156 for you, length-wise anyway and probably leaning towards 154 for this board, but the 154 is risking even more to be too narrow, so the 155W, is about perfect, IMO.
I would say you’d be fine in Medium Force with 10.5 Thirty Twos. I haven’t put 10.5s in a Union binding but I prefer Medium for my 10s and don’t feel they’re at the limit. So, no guarantees, but I’d say you’d be fine with Medium.
Hope this helps
Thank you for your input – I will properly go for the 155W 🙂
You’re very welcome. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate! Thanks for the awesome article! I have just one question – I can’t understand how to read the Men’s Waist Width Chart table. For example I have size 14 US and I am looking at the 0° table. So I see two values: min of 281 mm and max of 286 mm. How do I interpret these values? Is this the suggested range for the board’s waist width? But from what you are saying in the beginning of the article on maximum overhang and underhang it seems that the board width can vary by 14mm: from (foot length – 10mm) to (foot length + 4mm). So I don’t understand why the range here is just 5mm. Is it because 5mm difference in the waist translates to 14mm difference at the inserts?
And then in the comments you said that the minimum width for size 14 boots is 265mm which does not correspond to any value from the 2 tables. So it got me completely confused :-).
Could you please tell me how to read these values and what is the recommended range for size 14.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message.
It’s not an exact science, since the footprint of boots is different between brands and sometimes even models. And the boot bevel is also different. And also, the width at the inserts of a board varies compared to the waist width, depending on the board. One board with a 255mm waist could have a 260mm width at the inserts or a 270mm width at the inserts depending, so there’s nothing exact here.
The calculations for larger boots and smaller boots are based on a number of assumptions. If you look under the charts, you’ll see a list of assumptions that have been made. These charts are a rough estimate of what to look for. Note also, that I don’t have personal experience with boots in this range. I ride 10s myself and whilst I have measured boots between 8 and 12, I haven’t measured anything outside that range, so outside that range, is less accurate.
The comment regarding 265mm minimum for 14s, was based on the fact they were Burton boots (low profile) and that the rider in question was a beginner. Beginners aren’t likely to be really railing the edges, so boot drag is less likely.
For a size 14, I would highly highly recommend low profile boots and if doable for you, binding angles that have a reasonable angle on both feet. If going with something like Adidas, Vans or Burton your 14 would be more like a 13 on the outersole. With Something like that plus something like +15/-15 as binding angles, you could probably get away with something around 267mm at the waist (again depending on the board as it can vary at the inserts).
But in a boot with a regular profile, and a 0 degree angle on the back foot, I would say more like 280mm at the waist, at least, in which case looking at a custom board is probably a good idea. There aren’t too many boards that wide – unless you’re looking for a short/wide surfy kind of board.
Hope this makes sense
Hello Nate,
really a cool website. I enjoy it a lot.
I’m an intermediate rider and the typical all mountain guy. Looking for do everything gear.
I`m 187 cm with 96 kg.
The board is a Yes Standard 162 waist width 26.8 cm. The Boots are Nitro Team Tls in US 13 mondo 31 cm. The measured outsole distance is 33,5 cm.
Will I have any problem with boot drag? Or should I go for another board or boot? Quite uncertain at the moment.
Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards,
Oliver
Hi Oliver
Thanks for your message.
The 162 would be a good length for you for this board, IMO.
In terms of width, I think it should be OK, depending on binding angles. The 162 Standard is roughly 281mm at the inserts (based on measuring the 156 at the inserts). Going straight across the board, that would mean 2.7cm overhang on both toe and heel (assuming centered boots). This is more than ideal, but can be OK, if you’re not doing really deep carves. However, with some angles on the bindings, it should give you more leeway. So if you ride with something like +15/-15 or similar – at least with a reasonable amount of angle on the back foot, then I think you should be fine with the width.
Having a 2.5cm difference between Mondo and outersole length is quite low profile, so switching boots wouldn’t give you much more leeway. Maybe with Adidas or Vans, but it would be a subtle amount.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thank you very much for your reply.
It is kind of strange. I tried the Adidas tactical ADV and the right size for me in these boots is US 12, mondo 30, measured outsole length 31,5 cm.
I will take them instead of the Nitros.
I think that should work out perfectly fine with the 162 Yes Standard!?
Nest regards,
Oliver
You’re very welcome Oliver.
I agree that the Tactical ADV 12s would be a good bet for the Standard 162 and absolutely no issues with overhang there.
very helpful – thank you, Nate!
You’re very welcome Simon. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, thank you so much for all your help – great article. I’m looking to purchase Flagship and would like your advice on sizing. I’m 5’10, 175lbs, size 10 boot. I’m trying to decide between 161 and 158. I like the idea of having a more responsive ride so in addition to powder, carving I can take this board to trees, moguls, etc. Do you think I can get away with 158 249mm and size 10 boot (i ride burton boots +15/-15) or should i just go with 161? Appreciate your help!
Hi Simon
Thanks for your message. Apologies for the late response – on vacation, so a little slower responding at the moment.
I think the 158 would be the best length for you, and I think the width on that should be fine for Burton 10s at +15/-15. Also, I rode the 158 in the spring with +18/-6 angles (Vans 10s) – and had no issues. The width at inserts are 260mm at the rear insert and 263mm at the front insert, which is pretty typical of boards with 250 to 252 at the waist.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate after measuring my foot, it seems i am somewhere between 24.0 – 24.4 cm in foot size. Am a 5’6, 145-150lbs, advanced rider looking for a good freeride/powder board, but struggling to find a suitable board for my specs. Do you have any board recommendations, and what waist width i should look at or could get away with. Have been looking at the Flight Attendant, K2 Broadcast, and the Womens Flagship, and NS Aura. Just wondering what your thoughts are.
Hi jj
Thanks for your message.
Length wise, for a freeride board, I would say 153-155 but it also depends on what you’re used to. In terms of width, I would say between 235m and 242mm at the waist, but if you had to go a little wider, then going a little shorter could work too.
So, for the Flight Attendant the 152 would be a good choice, IMO. It’s just on the wider size for your feet, but it’s a little shorter too, so I think that could work well.
The 153 Broadcast could also work size-wise, but I think the Flight Attendant a slightly better size, IMO (also I haven’t ridden the Broadcast so I couldn’t say anything about it).
But certainly women’s Freeride boards are an option too.
Women’s Flagship 154 or 152
Aura 155 – or 152 if you prefer to go shorter.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate, I am new to this Snowboarding sport not much snow here in the West of Aus, however we have enjoyed a couple of trips to the snow in NZ. I am 55 y old, 180cm and weigh in at 82kg. I just purchased a Jones 159 Explorer, Burton ruler size 10 US, Union SRT bindings L, I set up my gear with + 21/ -3, currently a width of 520 mm with tip of board to center of front binding = 560mm and back of board to center of rear binding=500mm. It feels comfortable on the carpet so looking forward to a trip soon. My problem is the front binding over hangs the board by 5-10 mm the back binding finishes flush both sides of the board. I don’t seem to have any adjustment to correct the over hang. Am I in trouble maybe should have got the M bindings but I purchased L on advice. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Regards Steve
Hi Steven
Thanks for your message.
Union bindings tend to be longer in the base plate, so I’m not too surprised there. Especially with a 520mm stance. That’s going to be bringing that front foot rather close to the waist, compared to the reference stance of 600mm on that board. I suspect it wouldn’t be as much of an issue at the reference stance. But you of course want a stance width that your comfortable with. Boots overhanging is fine, but bindings overhanging can certainly be problematic. Ideally as close to the edges without overhanging is what you want with bindings, so it doesn’t sound ideal. I usually always recommend M for those with size 10 boots. I have 10s and I always prefer M in Union bindings – and it does give you that leeway with regular width boards.
Only time I would say get an L for Union bindings is if you’re riding a boot with a large footprint, or if you’re on a wide board and want that extra leverage from the longer baseplate. But for Burton boots, I would definitely have said go with M for Union.
One thing. If it overhangs ever so slightly over the edge on the top sheet, you might be OK, but if it’s overhanging the edge on the base, then you’re risking binding drag on carves. You could try it and see how it goes, but I suspect you’ll run into problems if it’s that much overhang over the edge at the base.
Hope this gives you more to go off.
Hi Nate.
Thanks for the great article.
I am now buying my snowboard gear, and I’m looking at bataleon directional twin snowboards with 3bt.
In particular, I’m looking at the Goliath. They offer sizes 156(255mm waist), 158wide(263mm) and 159(255mm). Additionally, they also have bataleon whatever in 157(253mm).
I believe I fall right on the edge of the sizes.
As a rider, I want to do all mountain stuff with some freestyle elements, like butters and occasional jumps. I believe I prefer flowy buttery ride over max speed carving. I will also be spending time in powder quite frequently(moving to Japan).
I’m 183cm, 82kg, I have US size 10.5 K2 Renin boots, foot length of around 280mm, and Burton Malavitas in medium.
Can you please recommend which sizes would be best and why. And maybe you also have some other boards in mind that would fit my style and size.
Thanks,
Rene
Hi Rene
Thanks for your message.
I don’t have any experience with Bataleon boards, personally, so I can’t say much about the particular boards, but I can give you my opinion size-wise.
I am pretty much the same specs as you (except boots are 10s, rather 10.5s).
Length-wise, for an all-mountain-freestyle type board (which is what I would consider the Goliath, based on the specs), I like to go around 157, 158.
Length-wise, for a more freestyle/park oriented board (which is what I would consider the Whatever, based on specs), I like to go between 155 and 157.
Width-wise with 10.5 K2s, if you ride with +15/-15 angles or similar (i.e. something with a reasonable angle on the back foot), then I think you would be fine with those, though the 156 Goliath may be pushing it. With a straighter back foot, I would say that the 156 Goliath would be really pushing it and potentially even the 159. If you ride with like a completely straight back foot, then the 158W is probably your best bet.
Overall, since you’re going to Japan and will be spending a fair bit of time in powder, I would be leaning towards the 159 Goliath or the 158W (depending on typical binding angles).
Personally I prefer boards with a bit of setback in powder, and both of those are centered, though that doesn’t mean you couldn’t add a bit of setback for deep days with those. And since I haven’t ridden Bataleon, I’m not sure how much difference the 3BT makes in powder. If you’re interested in other options, I would check out the following, which I think would suit what you’re describing well.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But yeah, out of those options, I would be leaning towards 158W or 159 Goliath.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I’m in a bit of an opposite pickle here as I have a Rome Ravine 158 (259mm waist) that I really want to squeeze onto but from my own measurements, it’s pretty marginal. I normally wear a US 12 boot in Thirtytwo but have an Ion US 12 available – could even move down to an 11.5 if that’s what it would take. I’d normally go 15/-9 for a board like the Ravine and I’d ride close to the widest stance. What do you think? Would it be within the range to be able to get a Vans or Adidas boot onto it or would the Ion be enough? Thanks heaps!
James.
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
I couldn’t say for sure, but I think you would be able to just squeeze it with an Ion 11.5 with rear binding angle of -9. Based on my measurement of an Ion 10, I would expect the length of an 11.5 Ion to be 32.2cm for the outersole. And based on other Rome boards width at the inserts (I haven’t measured the Ravine though) I would imagine the Ravine would be roughly 26.8cm at the insets at the reference stance – but if you go wider it could be wider than that again. With a -9 angle, I would estimate roughly 5cm of total overhang (2.5cm for toe and 2.5cm for heel if boots evenly centered). In my experience going 2.5cm over I’ve never had any issues. I think sticking with 2cm over is the safer bet, but I’ve never had issues with 2.5 – and if you can get your boots so they’re a little more over the heel, rather than the toe that would reduce chances of toe drag. Also Burton boots tend to have a decent toe bevel on them, so that should help too.
But, if you already have the board, then you could measure the width where you’re boots will be based on your stance width and see what it measures as. The measurement should be taken from the base of the board, not from the top sheet.
It would be more risky with 12s though.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I am really looking forward to the upcoming season since i will ride own equipment for the first time. I rented my stuff past years and made bad experiences in terms of toe/heel drag.
I recently bought the Adidas Response Boa Boots size US 11 1/2 (EU 46). The boots have a length of 32cm.
I’m still advanced beginners level, looking for a hybrid camber board for allmountain riding and i’m planning to keep the board next years.
It’s even hard to find boards with a waist width > 26,8 in this category, and i’m a bit unhappy because my big feet seem to make the variety of recommendable boards quite small.
Whats the minimum waist width you would choose and can you recommend any boards fitting them feet / boots?
Thanks for the article and greetings from Germany
Hi Felix
Thanks for your message.
Since you have Adidas boots, which are the lowest profile going around these days, you can likely get away with 260mm at the waist with Adidas 11.5s, regardless of binding angles. If you happen to know your binding angles and they’re something like +15/-15, then you could go narrower. But to be on the safe side, go with 260mm minimum. There are plenty of all-mountain options, in wide models that will have this kind of waist width.
You can check out the following for some good all-mountain options:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
I would say there’s a couple in there that would be too stiff for you at this stage (Arbor Coda Rocker and Niche Story). But most are intermediate friendly. But if you’re worried they’re above your skill level, then something here could be an option.
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
I’m also looking at creating a list of boards that are a bit above beginner, that would suit riders that are advanced beginner/going on intermediate. I haven’t finalized the list yet, but the likes of the following would be likely for it:
~ YES Typo
~ Never Summer Snowtrooper
~ Capita Outerspace Living
~ GNU T2B
~ Arbor Whiskey
~ Burton Process Flying V
~ YES Libre
~ Rossignol Templar
You should be able to find wide models for most of the options there and in the lists I linked to above.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the article, probably the most detailed out there.
I’m intermediate-advanced, 5’10, 145 lb, and my boot size is 10.5 DC Control, with focus in free style, I ride 10/-10 for angle
I’m choosing between the Bataleon Evil Twin 154 (250mm) or the 156W (264) mm, the REP at evo recommended 264 cause it’s the safer bet.
Which do you think is better? I think I fit somewhere in the 252-255, and my boot is quite large as it doesn’t have the Burton shrinkage tech.
Thanks
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I think with a 10.5 DC Control that the 154 Evil Twin will be too narrow. Even with 15 degree angle I think it would prob be too narrow. I do think the 154 would be the better length for you, especially so given that you have a freestyle focus, but it is likely too narrow for you unfortunately. The 156W is going to be on the wide side – and that combined with the extra length will make it on the bigger side overall, but it would certainly be the safer bet.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate,
You gave me some precious advice a few months ago about buying my second snowboard. Thanks again for the help! I decided to go with the new Burton Custom camber and I’m going to buy the 158 model in a few weeks. Unfortunately, I’ll have to wait for December to be able to use it so I thought I would come here again to do some reading (great article again) to learn more about bindings and boots.
Based on your article, I feel like the Custom 158 (254mm) should be fine for me (181cm, 90kg and 44 EUR/10.5 US) but I thought it would be better to check with you before buying the board. Also, I’m not sure about the kind of boots and bindings I should get. Would it be better for me to buy low profile boots or anything will do? Also, I’m thinking of getting the Malavita or the Cartel but I’m not sure whether I should go for the M or L size. My size seems to work with both and the charts for the Custom boards say M/L for the 158. What would you recommend?
Lastly, I’m sorry because this is a little off topic on this page, but what would you recommend between the Malavita and the Cartel? I am not planning on hitting big jumps. Just small and mediums ones, a lot of groomers and some fun on the sides powder/jumps/walls, and also a little bit of riding between the trees.
Thanks again for your time and awesome articles.
Have a good one!
Hi Vince
You should be fine on the 158 Custom width-wise. The only thing would be binding angles. If you ride with a very straight back foot (e.g. if you ride something like +18/+3 or something like that, then it’s probably getting a bit narrow. But if you ride with more of an angle on your back foot, I think you would be fine.
There’s no downside to getting low profile boots, so it’s not a bad idea. The most low profile (of the brands that I look at) are Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans, in my experience. There should be one of those that fit you well. Just to note Adidas are typically great for those with wide feet. Vans aren’t good if you have a high arch. If you do go low profile, then you’ll probably be fine on the 158, regardless of binding angles. Still maybe pushing it a little with like a 3 degree back foot, but should be OK.
With 10.5s you could really go either M or L for Burton bindings. Though, if you get low profile boots, then I think Medium would work best. If not, then go Large.
Between the Malavita and the Cartel I would say the main differences are that the Cartel is slightly more responsive, but only by a little bit. The Malavitas have a little better board feel and a little more shock absorption. Overall the Cartels are a little stiffer, though the Malavitas highback is probably stiffer than the Cartel’s. But the Cartel’s baseplate is stiffer. For the 2019 model, the Malavita got a new toe strap, which is a good improvement over the old one. So a better toe strap than the Cartels, if that’s a factor for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the super fast and detailed answer, as usual. I really appreciate it!
I usually ride +15/-6 or +12/-9 but I might try new angles with the Custom, especially if I get into carving. I think I’ll follow your advice and get low profile boots to make sure everything goes well.
As for the bindings, the Malavita sounds very nice. Do you think they would me more suitable for my riding style? Groomers but some jumps and tricks on the side, and a little bit of powder/trees.
I have a last question: are there any Burton low profiles boots that you would recommend with the Malavita/Custom board to do enjoy a little bit of everything, on the budget side (200/300 USD)?
Again, thanks so much for the amazing help.
Hi Vince
Yeah you should be fine with those angles, especially if you go low profile. And then you would have a bit more leeway to experiment with angle too.
I think the Custom and the Malavita would still both work for what you’re describing, but if I had to choose, I would go Malavita.
Boots-wise I would say the Burton Ruler or Ruler BOA would be your best bet in that price range for your setup. The Swath or Swath Boa would also work well as would the Imperial, but they’re a bit more expensive.
Hi Nate,
I checked the ruler BOA and they seem great. I’m gonna try to find them in a shop to see how they feel.
For the bindings, I think I’ll go for the Malavita if the budget allows it. If not, I’ll go with the Cartel.
Anyway, thank you so much for your advice. It really helps.
You’re very welcome Vince. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate, I’m looking forward for my third season on snow with a board and I’m thinking about buying a new one for this season. I’m 6’3 height, 167lbs and riding 12US boots. The board I’m looking to is rome mechanic 157mw and I’m not quite sure if this board isn’t too short for me, can’t decide if I should look for something else or order this one. Thank you in advice.
Hi Deividas
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157W would be a good size for you, depending on your ability level. Assuming your somewhere between high end beginner and solid intermediate, I think that length would work. Some boards at that length might be a little short, but the Mechanic does have a decent effective edge (compared to overall length) and I would say that you would be able to get a wide enough stance on it, given that you can go out to a 640mm stance. It’s a good size for your weight. Sometimes being tall means that you can get a wide enough stance width on shorter boards, but I think the Mechanic is going to allow a wide enough stance for you.
It’s a pretty versatile board, so if you’re not sure of your style yet or need a board that can do a bit of everything then it works for that. It’s also something that would be suitable for a high-end beginner to intermediate rider, assuming that’s about where you’re at.
Width-wise, I think it would be a good fit for 12s too.
Hope this helps
Right now I am riding a Men’s 159 Salomon Answer but want to go back to a Women’s Snowboard. I am getting a new setup this winter. I have bigger feet so I have a mens 10 with a mens Medium binding. I am looking at the Burton Feelgood Flying V size 152 (largest it comes in). That has a waist width of 244mm. I am a goofy rider and usually have a 15/9 setup. I am also 5’11”. Do you think that board will be too small for me and my boots? Thank you for your time.
Hi Kabrina
Thanks for your message.
I think you would be safer going at least 247mm at the waist for your boot size and binding angles. This is only roughly speaking because the waist at the inserts will differ for each board, certainly between brands, compared to the waist.
In terms of length a 152 might be a good size for you but it will depend on your weight. If you can let me know your weight, then I can make a more accurate length recommendation – and can then see what I can find in those lengths that would be a suitable length. Also, if you can let me know roughly your ability level and how you like to ride (jumps? park? trees? deep carves? powder? speed? etc), then I can more accurately match a board too. The 152 Feelgood Flying V might be suitable but I think it would be risking being too narrow.
Thank you for the information. My weight is 150 pounds. I have been riding for around 13 years so my skill level would be intermediate/advanced. I like to ride groomers but do some back country/trees as well. I am not riding the park or going off any jumps. I like the hybrid layout of the Feelgood. Is there a board you recommend instead?
Hi KaBrina
Thanks for the extra info. I think something around a 155 would be a good length, based on your specs, riding style and ability.
If you can find a Feelgood Flying V in a 2018 model, that came in a 155 (245mm waist). They only cut out the 155 model for the 2019 model. It’s still cutting it close width-wise, but it’s close and a better length for you, IMO. I found a 2018 model (checkout link below) if you were interested in that. They made a couple of tweaks for the 2019 model, but it’s still very close to being the same board as the 2018 model (but with a different graphic).
>>Burton Feelgood Flying V 2018 at evo.com
Some other options, if you want to be more sure of the width:
~ Nitro Mystique 155 (246mm waist) – very similar profile to the Feelgood Flying V
~ Jones Twin Sister 155 (247mm waist) – I think this board would suit your style very well
~ Burton Yeasayer Flying V 152 (247mm waist) – if you wanted to go shorter then this is an option. A little softer flexing than the Feelgood Flying V and less performance
~ Never Summer Aura 155X (246mm waist) – for the 2018 model they made a couple of sizes in wider sizes – looks like they’re not offering it for the 2019 model – but I did find a 2018 155 model here
Hope that gives you some doable options.
Sorry for the delay in response. All of your information is helping so much. Thank you!! I just had one more question. I’m definitely taking into consideration those women’s boards you mentioned but what if I went to the mens burton flying V. The Custom X Flying V either the 154 (250 waist) or 156 (252 waist). Since I have been riding a mens board should I just stick with a Mens board?
Again thank you for all of your help!!
Hi KaBrina
No reason why you couldn’t go for another men’s board, assuming the specs fit, which I think they would for the Custom X Flying V. However, I think that board will be too stiff. The Custom Flying V (the one without the “X”) would be more appropriate and would be a good option for you, IMO – and would also save you $150 compared to the Custom X Flying V.
Size-wise both 154 and 156 would be suitable, but I would be leaning towards the 154 for you. You could certainly ride the 156, especially since you’re used to a 159, so that wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I would be leaning just towards the 154.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I’ve been looking at the arbor Clovis, I’ve been having trouble deciding on a size. I’m 5’11-6’ and I normally ride either a 154 or 155 but those are both freestyle boards. The big problem is I ride 11.5 boots so it’s hard to find a board wide enough. I do ride either 12 or 15 degrees (twin setup) so that helps. I ride a lot of terrain and am an advanced rider but I would greatly appreciate the advice. The Clovis comes in a 157 (256mm waist width) 159 (257mm) and a 161(258mm), what would be the best option?
Hi Nate,
I’ve been looking into the arbor cask for this season but I’m not sure what size to go with, I have size 11.5 boots which is the biggest issue, I’m ~6 ft and 150 pounds. I normally ride between a 154-155 but those are mainly freestyle boards. I’m a advanced level rider and I ride a lot of terrain from powder to groomers to trees. The Clovis comes in a 157 with a 257mm waist width which is what I would ideally want but it also comes in a 159 (258mm) and 161 (259mm) I was hoping to get a recommendation from you!
Thanks
Tyler
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message.
NOTE: The Clovis isn’t a board I’ve ridden so my comments are just based on specs.
For this board, I would go with the 159 for you. It’s something you can ride longer, because it has a small effective edge compared to overall length (due to a very long nose – 33cm on the 159). This long nose helps with float in powder but doesn’t come into contact when riding groomers. So yeah, for this reason it’s the kind of board you want to ride at a longer length, IMO.
In terms of width, with 11.5s, it could be pushing it a little bit, depending on your boots and binding angles. If you ride with a duck stance – something like +15/-15, then you should be fine on the 159 (257mm waist) but that’s as narrow as I would recommend on 11.5s. If you have low profile boots (e.g. recent Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans), then you would have a bit more leeway in terms of binding angles. You could even consider the 161 for this board – even that still only has a 1153mm effective edge, which some freestyle boards have on something as short as a 150.
You also mentioned the Cask in your comment, but I’m guessing that was a Typo?
Hope this helps
Thanks for the advice nate!
You’re very welcome Tyler. Hope you have an awesome season this winter!
Yikes! I’m a beginner have tiny feet (US 6) but am average height (5ft 5) so the board I was planning on getting (Burton Stylus) will be too wide for me 🙁
Which beginner boards should I look at that will be narrow enough for me? I currently have Burton citizen bindings in small and Burton mint boa boots in US 6.
P.S Obsessed with your site! Getting me so excited for my first season as a newcomer to snowboarding, BC & Canada overall!
Hi Anna
Welcome to BC!
A couple of good narrower beginner options, off the top of my head:
~ GNU B-Nice
~ Arbor Ethos
In some cases you might need to make a bit of a sacrifice and go for something that might not be ideal width-wise but go for something a little shorter in length as a compromise. But if you could also let me know your weight (length is more about weight than height these days), then I can work out what a good length for you would be, and then take both that length and width into consideration and find a size that works for you.
Hope this helps
Thank you! Loving it here and so excited for winter. I’ve bought so many different lift passes. Can’t wait. I’m 50kg/111 lbs.
I’ve also been looking at the k2 first lite which looks like it could be narrow enough?
I’m headed to the Lonsdale friends & family sale and the Whistler turkey sale in a couple of weeks so hoping to pick up a bargain there!
Hi Anna
Thanks for the extra info. I would suggest looking at a range of 138cm to 140cm in terms of length. So, the following
K2 First Lite: 138 (232mm waist)
GNU B-Nice: 139cm (226mm waist – this is pretty much ideal in terms of waist and length, IMO)
Arbor Ethos: 138cm (231mm waist)
Roxy Sugar Banana: 138cm (226mm waist)
But yeah, I think the K2 First Lite will be narrow enough in the 138.
Hope you can find a good deal at one of the sales!
Hey Nate,
Looking to pick up a Jones Mind Expander but can’t decide between the 158 or the 162. I’m 6’1”, 155lbs, and wear men’s US11.5 boots. On my freeride deck my stance is 20/9. On all mountain I usually go with 15/-6. My preferred stance is 58cm, but I do switch that up from time to time for a different ride. Based on what I know about the board, I think I’ll provably go with my all-mountain set-up. Any advice would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
Eric
Hi Eric
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Mind Expander but what I understand of it, it’s something you can ride a little shorter. For your specs, I would actually be debating between the 154 and 158 in terms of length. I think the 162 would be too long for your weight for this board. However, width-wise, the 154 would be really pushing it – probably a little narrow for 11.5s. But I think you would be fine on the 158 in terms of width, with +15/-6 angles.
So yeah, I can’t really give you specifics on this board, unfortunately, but based on what I know about it, and all the information I have, I would say go 158.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I hope you are well.
Was hoping you could help me with my board choices.
Here are my stats:
Male
5’7
154lb
Foot size 253mm wear size 8 us boots.
I’m an intermediate rider looking for a fast chargind do it all board.
I’m considering getting a woman’s board simply because the widths are better for me.
After something stiff enough to handle speed well but still fun. Does say a 6/10 on a woman’s board the same stiffness as a 6/10 in a mans board on manufacturer sites? Just worried they may be too flexy in comparison.
Looking at the following in the biggest sizes:
Yes Hel
Ride Hellcat
Jones Twin Sister
What waist width, lengths and boards would you recommend?
Thanks
Elliot
Hi Elliot
Thanks for the message.
In terms of length, I would say something around 153, 154 for your specs, level and given you want to ride fast.
In terms of width, ideally something between 240 to 245mm, IMO – a little narrower or wider would work too, depending on binding angles.
But if you still wanted a men’s board, you could go a little shorter to counteract the extra width. I wouldn’t go too much shorter, given that a longer board is better for riding at speed. So something like the following could work:
~ Jones Explorer 152 (249mm waist)
~ Ride Wildlife 151 (248mm waist)
~ Jones Mountain Twin 151 (248mm waist)
~ Slash Brainstorm 151 (247mm waist)
~ Never Summer West 152 (248mm waist)
~ YES Standard 151 (248mm waist)
Or if you’re not too concerned about float in powder, then you could also look at some all-mountain-freestyle options. Let me know and I can look into some of those.
But no reason not to go women’s board either. I would say they typically feel a little softer, for a given flex rating, but not by heaps. Maybe take off 1 – so a 6/10 might feel more like a 5/10.
For the boards you mentioned, the:
~ YES Hel Yes: 155 (244mm waist)
~ Jones Twin Sister: 155 (247mm waist)
~ Ride Hell Cat: 154 (248mm waist)
You could also go a size down on those, but those sizes would be better for speed and will feel a little stiffer flexing than the shorter options, too.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks so much for the response.
The men’s boards you suggested took great just worried they may be a little short in length for my style of riding.
I would definitely consider an all mountain freestyle, something that charges the whole mountain would be great.
Really don’t mind between a guys or a girls board, as long as the fit is good and the board is still enough to charge.
Also noticed the Jones Dreamcatcher 154 24.4 waist and a little stiffer than the twin sister. That and the 155 yes hel are my current favourites but I’m interested in your knowledgeable opinion.
Ive owned a Bataleon Goliath 156 and a Libtech TRS 157, both we’re way too wide but I didn’t know any better haha. Both were good in steeps and pow though.
Something similar ish in flex and fits me would be great! Just want to get it right this time.
Thanks for your time Nate!
Kind regards,
Elliot
Hi Elliot
Yeah if you’re looking to keep your length at least 154, then I think one of those women’s boards options would be your best bet. Going longer men’s typically means going wider too. In terms of all-mountain-freestyle, there’s the Capita Outerspace Living in a 152, which actually has a 243mm waist, but shorter than you’re looking for. The 154 has a 248mm waist.
Or there’s the 2018 YES Greats, which is 249mm at the waist, but again is getting on the wide side for you. The 2019 Greats is wider, so that’s not really an option.
In my experience I’ve found the TRS to feel around a 5/10 in flex (though Lib Tech rate it a 7/10). I’ve always felt it as a 5/10 – maybe 5.5/10 at most, so I reckon the 154 Dream Catcher and 155 Hel Yes would be pretty similar in terms of flex as the TRS 157.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the response.
Yeah I think around 154 is going to be the best for all around riding!
Also found the 2019 Bataleon Storm 156cm and 244 waist. Could be good but worried it may be a little long.
I love the yes greats but yeah too wide I think.
I think the Yes Hel could be the winner but will wait for a little more info on the storm.
Thanks for putting me at ease regarding the flex.
Cheers,
Elliot
You’re very welcome Elliot.
I don’t test Bataleon boards currently, unfortunately. So, I can’t say anything about them from experience. The Storm is new for 2019 though, I think, so yeah might be able to find out more about it closer to the season.
Hi Nate,
I posted here a few years ago when I was a beginner and I am now looking at getting a new board.
I ended up riding a K2 Raygun 150 as it was the best suited I could find at the time. Now after doing 2 full seasons I am looking at upgrading but I am a bit worried about my boot size (being US 7).
I mainly ride off piste and in the trees and want to find the ideal board for that.
Current thoughts are:
– Never Summer Peacemaker (152) which has 254 WW and 7.3 side cut
– Never Summer Proto Type 2 (152) which is 248 WW and 7.25/6.90 side cut (the side cut is narrower in the middle)
– Never Summer Proto Type 2 (151) womens which is 240 7.61 / 7.23 side cut
Don’t really want to go with the womens board though. I like the Peacemaker because i can set it right back for Powder for when I go to Japan but its a little on the wider side.
What are your thoughts or options that would be suitable for myself with a small foot who likes to ride trees. I get bored on groomers so I never ride them.
Thanks,
Hi Byron
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think something around that 151-153 mark is a good length for you, assuming your weight is relatively similar since that last time we were discussing it.
In terms of width, with a 7, out of what you’ve chosen the 240mm waist on the Women’s Proto Type Two would be the best, but I understand if you didn’t want to go with a women’s board. But since you like to ride trees it would be advantageous to have that edge-to-edge speed – and going too wide (without compensating for length) usually means slower edge-to-edge transitions.
The other thing I would say is that neither of these boards are particularly suited to off piste – at least not when the powder is deep. Yeah, the Peacemaker has the setback inserts which helps but still not ideal. And at that width, I feel like it might be pretty slow in terms of edge transitions, which is something that I personally hate when I’m in the trees. You could size down to the 149 and that would help but it would still be pretty wide for you, IMO.
Since you’re not big on groomers and would prefer to get in the trees most of the time (and I don’t blame you!), then you could look at some of the new shapes that are coming out – and I think these would be a good fit for your specs too. Most are still fine on groomers, but, for me, they’re designed to be optimal in the trees. The boards listed below are still wider than optimal for a traditionally shaped board for you, but their designed to be ridden shorter but wider. I don’t test these kinds of boards yet (just don’t have the time for now but hope to in the future) so I can’t vouch for them personally, but I think they would be a great match for what you’re describing. And they’re all more freeride oriented than the Peacemaker and Proto Type Two.
~ Never Summer Shaper Twin LT 146 (247mm waist) – this would be the best option if you like to ride switch sometimes, but prob not as good in powder as the others
~ Jones Mind Expander 146 (248mm waist)
~ Capita Navigator 147 (241mm waist)
~ Never Summer Matrix LT 145 (246mm waist)
Or something like the Lib Tech Cold Brew 145N (249mm waist) could work too.
Hope this helps and gives you some options
Hi Nate, thank you for such an informative article. I was wondering if I could get your opinion. I am thinking getting the Arbor Formula for my first board. But I am not sure if I should get the 161 regular (253.5cm in width) or the 162MW (262.5cm in width). I am 6 feet 3, 190 lbs, planning to get the size 10.5 32 Lashed boots. I asked some friends and they told me regular version would be fine and it is easier to initiate turn. But some are saying there will toe drag if I go with regular version. XD
Since I am a beginner, I guess i would start with duck stance and I guess the regular version should be fine? But when I test some other stances(like back feet fairly straight), I don’t want my toe getting in the way. Could you help me decide what would be better for me? Thank you.
Hi Roy
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I think something around 161 is a good length, so I think you’re looking at good lengths.
In terms of width, the 161 should be fine with 10.5 32 Lashed with relatively angled binding angles, like you say. But you would be pushing it with straighter binding angles. But in saying that, as a beginner, you are less likely to be really getting up on the edge, so even with a straight foot, it’s not likely to be an issue. Also, since Arbor boards tend to be (at least on the ones that I’ve measured) wider at the inserts, compared to the waist, than the average board, which also gives you a bit more leeway.
IMO I think you should be fine on the 161 regular width, and it’s likely to be an easier board to initiate your turns on, which is going to make it easier to ride and progress on.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much! I will go with the 161 reg version.
You’re very welcome Roy!
I’m 150 pounds, 5’9″ and 10.5 shoe size. I tele ski and wear 28 in the Scarpa T2s but it’s painfully tight. I think I will go closer to 28.5/Euro 44/US 10.5 for snowboard boots which is what I wear for mountaineering boots for wildland fire. (I don’t have snowboard boots yet..). Anyway, looking at a few boards like Voile’s Spartan or maybe Venture’s Paragon. For the Spartan was thinking the 158cm/256mm waist. For the Paragon, there are so many options I’m not sure. With tele the stuff I do includes climbing peaks and going down the mix of windpacked faces into powder glades and trees, along with skinning local ski hills in the evenings. So I guess a mix of two questions here, regarding if you think the boards I have in mind would be good, e.g., for freeriding in situations where the terrain requires some performance, but also would be fun when you want to find little jumps, 180 to switch, etc. Other question being what you think about the 158cm/256mm waist Spartan for me? I skateboard a lot and although it may suck at first, I’m okay going longer with a snowboard as I will ride it for a while. And wow, this is great information you have posted, thank you so much!!
Hi Tedly
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think 10.5s are going to be the most likely size for you for snowboard boots, you never know until you try them on, but that’s most likely. I’m US10 for shoes and US10 for most brands of boots (though for 32 and DC I need 10.5s).
In terms of length, I would say something around a 155 for an all-mountain type board for your specs, given a relatively advanced level. But you could certainly add some length for a more freeride oriented board/style. So going up to 158 wouldn’t be way too long in that sense. But would certainly be more suited to your freeriding ventures than for jumps/180s etc.
In terms of width, if you ride with a very straight back foot in terms of your binding angles (e.g. 0-3 degrees), then the 256mm waist might be running a bit narrow for 10.5s, though if you were to get something low profile (like recent Adidas, Vans, Burton and Ride) then it should be fine at any angle. If you have a greater angle on your back foot (anything 6 degrees or more) then I’d say you’d be fine on most boots.
For the Venture Paragon, it looks like the 157 would be the most appropriate size, given that the 156 would be too narrow. The 157, with a 260mm waist, should be fine for any angles/boots you end up on.
As to how suitable these boards are, I can’t really comment too much on that, as I don’t have any experience with these brands and also don’t test split boards, so that’s also outside my area of expertize.
Hope this helps
It does help! Thank you so much for running such as awesome site and answering our questions! 🙂
You’re very welcome!
Hi Nate, this is a great post it was so informative and well thought out! So I need your opinion… I’m buying my own gear this year and my specs are a bit different from your normal girl.
Height: 5’9
Weight: 140
Shoe: 9.5-10(in regular shoes) / 10.25in
Level: beginner – intermediate
Some of my friends has suggested I check out men’s boards instead of women’s because of my size.
I really want to buy Arbor’s Poparrazi Snowboard.
Hi Vy
Thanks for your message.
First of all, in terms of width – with 10.25in feet, you should get into a 9.5 fine and possible even a 9.0. It’s hard to know for sure without actually trying them on, but I would be surprised if you had to go to a 10. So I’m going to base this on a 9.5. If you are also looking at getting boots, check out the following for how to fit snowboard boots.
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Width-wise, for 9.5s, I would say to look at something in the range of 235mm to 245mm in terms of waist width, if you ride with a reasonably angled back binding (i.e. 12-15 degrees) and between 243mm and around 250mm at the waist, if you ride with a fairly straight back binding angle (i.e. 0-3 degrees).
In terms of length, I would say 148 to 150 would be a good range to look at for your specs and ability level. Whilst there are some men’s boards in that range, there are more women’s boards in that range, and if you can go with a women’s board, I would. So, personally I wouldn’t recommend a men’s board for you.
The Arbor Poporazzi would definitely be suitable for your ability, IMO. And I think the 150 would be a good length for you – or even the 147, if you felt like you wanted to go a little shorter. The only thing would be the width. If you ride with binding angles like +15/-15 or something similar i.e. a reasonable angle on the back foot, then I think you would be fine width wise on the 150 or even the 147. From what I’ve measured with Men’s Arbor boards as well is that they tend to be wider at the inserts than the waist would suggest. For example the Arbor Coda Rocker is 264mm at the inserts and 251mm at the waist. On average there’s about about a 10mm difference between the waist and the inserts (some more some less), so Arbor tend to go a little wider at the inserts compared to the waist, based on the men’s boards. That said, I think both the 150 and 147 would still be too narrow if you ride with a quite a straight angle on your back binding.
So yeah, long story short, I think the Poporazzi would be a good choice, depending on your binding angles.
You could check out the following for more options too:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
I think the following would also be great intermediate level options, for you:
~ Rossignol Frenemy 150 (241mm waist)
~ YES Emoticon 149 (241mm waist)
~ Never Summer Infinity 149 (236mm waist)
~ Capita Paradise 149 (239mm waist)
~ Arbor Poporazzi 150 (237mm waist)
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks very much for the detailed article.
I had not really thought too much about board width, until I bought a Lib Tech TRS 161.5cm, which was a great board but I was finding it really hard to ride and initiate turns. After some research, I discovered it was 260cm wide – not ideal with my 25.5 size feet / boots.
I currently ride a variety of boards, with a variety of waist widths 250 to 254mm, with my normal board being a Jones Solution Carbon 161cm with 252mm waist width. This seems to work OK, but is still a bit of a compromise (bit too wide, not quite long / big enough for my weight).
I was wondering if you could recommend some board for me to look at as you seem to have a good overview of board specs for width and length / rider weight trade off.
My specs:
Height – 5ft8″
Weight – 215lbs
Boot Size – 25.0-25.5 Mondo (foot measuring around 25) – variety of boots Deeluxe Spark XV 25.0, DC TRS 25.5, Adidas Blauvelt 25.5
Bindings – variety, normally size medium in Union
Binding Angles – front +18 to 24 degrees, back 0 to -9
Riding – advanced rider, freeriding only (no park or freestyle) off-piste whenever possible but a lot of bashing pistes in between powder days, like to ride fast hence have normally ridden longer boards (160cm +) although have a couple of boards 155-157cm that I use for occasional fun / cruising days.
I am looking for a free ride board suitable for my weight, foot size and riding – having had a quick search, I am struggling to find a suitable free ride board for someone over 210lbs with a waist width < 245 – 250. I would also be interested in your thoughts on one of the current range of Powder specific boards that will work for piste laps that seem to have become popular last season that would work for someone with small feet.
I would be most grateful for your thoughts / suggestions on some boards for me to check out for the upcoming season. I looked at the Gnu Mullair in a 161 (252mm) or 159cm (250) but this does not seem like a significant improvement over the Jones Flagship 161 I am riding at present although the 159cm has a width of 250 and rider weight to 210+lbs and seems like a board well suited to my type of riding. All of the powder specific boards with directional design and flat tail / swallow tail all seem to be super wide.
Many Thanks,
Lewis
Hi Lewis
Thanks for your message.
Powder boards aren’t an area that I put a lot of time into, so I’m not that clued up with them, but yeah the trend is for short wide boards. So you typically ride them shorter than what you normally would. The shorter length allows the board to be more agile with the increased width making up for the surface area – so in powder, that means you can ride a shorter board but have the surface area of a longer board – with the agility of the board hopefully having been still as good as if it were narrower, by making it so much shorter. The biggest advantage of these boards as far as I can see, and from the fairly limited experience I’ve had on them, is for the trees. I personally really like having a shorter board for the trees – so when you can have that but still have the surface area for floating in powder within the trees, then that’s awesome. But you do loose effective edge, and whilst some are supposed to be good on groomers, you are loosing that effective edge which is going to help with stability at speed and edge-hold when carving. That’s my take on them anyway.
In terms of a traditionally shaped Freeride board, it is going to be a compromise between length and width for you, if you want to get something over 160. But one thing to keep in mind, is that those weight recommendations, IMO, aren’t written in stone, and if you’re not within them it’s not a definite no to that board.
The Mullair is certainly a good option, IMO. I rode the 2019 model recently in the 159 and I measured the inserts at 258mm at the front inserts and 256mm at the back insert. That’s quite narrow at the inserts for a 159 – and for a 250mm waist. So overall, that’s a narrower board. The Jones Flagship 158 that I also rode this season, which has a waist width of 249mm, has a 260mm width at the front and 263mm width at the back insert. So, even though its 1mm narrower at the waist, it’s overall a little wider. Translating that to the 161 Flagship (252mm waist) and it’s likely to be around 263mm at the front insert and 266 at the back insert. Whereas the Mullair 161 (252mm waist) is likely to be 260 at the front and 258 at the back. (NOTE: That the Mullair is wider at the front insert and the Flagship is wider at the back, some boards are one way and some the other, or their the same). So you’d get a little narrower out of the Mullair 161 and if you wanted to go down to the 159, then you’d get narrower again.
And there’s one other option, which is the Ride Berzerker – it isn’t necessarily a freeride board as such, but is close to it. It’s what I would call an aggressive all-mountain board. Not going to be quite as good in powder as the others mentioned but definitely made for bombing and carving. This is one of the narrowest 160+ boards I’ve come across. I measured it at 256mm at the front insert and 257mm at the back insert (250mm at the waist). That was for the 162. It has a weight recommendation of 140-190 but I wouldn’t look too much into that. They have a 160-220+ weight recommendation on the 163W – so they obviously up their weight range for their wide boards (whereas some companies have the same weight range for their wide and regular boards, so weight ranges can be misleading, IMO). So yeah, that’s another option in terms of something that’s quite narrow for its length.
Hope that gives you some options
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for the reply, and in particular the specs on the width at the inserts which gives me a much better idea on the effective width of the boards in riding terms. I have continued to search for narrow free ride type boards, and after a couple of hours of web searching the Berzerker was one of the only other longer boards I found with a reasonable waist width.
I think the Mullair is probably most suited to my riding and would most likely be better in Powder – I was thinking of picking one up in the end of season sales, however they seem completely sold out in Europe. I will have a look to see if I can pick up a deal on a Berzerker and if not will wait for next season and hopefully try both before buying one. After years of having boards that are wider than I need (and not knowing any better) it would be great to try a board closer to what actually suits my boot size. With regard to rider weight range I agree with your comments and will treat this as guidance as there are big variations between manufacturers for similar sized / dimensioned boards – probably won’t hurt for me to lose a few pounds anyway though!!!!!!
Thanks a lot for the information – can’t wait to get a narrower board and for the snow to come back!!!
All the best,
Lewis
You’re very welcome Lewis!
If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with and how you get on, always curious to hear others’ thoughts. I did my last day for this season today – already looking forward to next season!
Hey Nate,
Thank you for the informative article, and site in general. I’ve learned a lot from your articles and it has helped my during my search for a new snowboard.
My specs:
-Height: 185 cm (6’1)
-Weight : around 70kg ( 155lbs)
-Boots: Ride lasso (11)
-Bindings: Burton Cartel (L)
-current snowboard: Nitro team 2014 gullywing 159 W ( 266 waist width, and at the inserts 279 if I measured correctly)
-Advanced rider, most of the time I like to carve, aggressively, and hit the park from time to time, and do some freeriding. I also like to incorporate some freestyle into my riding on the groomers or offpiste. Basically I ride agressive all-mountain. This season I’m going to try to work on my switch to improve the freestyle aspect of my riding, so a twin or true twin is a big plus.
I’m looking for a more aggressive board compared to my current one, to better suit my riding style. I’ve narrowed my list down to 4 boards, but the only thing I’m worried about is the width of the board, because of my bootsize and the way I like to ride ( going deep in carves). I currently have 1,5cm toe overhang, and 1,9cm heel overhang on a nitro team 159W and haven’t had any problems on this board, with these boots and bindings so far.
My list:
-Yes Ghost TDF 159 (ww 263 + the 1,5mm, from their midbite tech that makes it slimmer on the waist)
-Salamon Assasin pro 160W (ww262)
-Never Summer Ripsaw 160W (ww264)
And also the Nitro team, camber, 159W, but I’m more intrested in the above, but I’m keeping this one on the list, if the others are too narrow.
I’m leaning most towards the Salamon Assasin pro, but this also has the slimmest waist width out of them. Will I be fine on this board, or should I pick one of the other ones, or even go for the nitro team just to be safe?
Hi Jels
Thanks for your message.
I measured the 2019 Team Gullwing 2019 159 at the inserts and it was 262 at the back insert and 260 at the front insert. This has a 252mm waist. Typically wide boards have about the same difference between waist and inserts as non-wide versions. Not necessarily but usually. Also, the 2014 model could be different. But if I had to predict I’d say the 159W Team Gullwing would be 276mm at the back insert and 274mm at the rear insert. So you’re measurement of 279mm would be close to that – and could well be the correct measurement for the 2019 model as well – but i’d say it’s certainly 276 to 279 anyway.
I’ve actually measured the Assassin Pro 160W and that measured 269mm at the waist (Salomon boards are typically not that much wider at inserts than waist compared to other brands).
I rode the 2019 Ghost 156 and the waist at the inserts on that was 269mm. The waist on the 156 is 258mm, so I imagine the 159 would be 274mm at the inserts.
I rode the 2019 Ripsaw 159 and that had a width at the inserts of 264mm – and that has a waist width of 254. So a guesstimate for the 160W would be 274mm at the inserts.
With Ride 11s, for most any of those options would be fine. But since you like to carve deep the Assassin Pro is a small risk. I’d say you’d probably still be ok, but there’s a bigger risk than the others. I’d be very surprised if you had any issues on either the NS Ripsaw 160W or the YES Ghost 159.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m Vee from Thailand, I’m really appreciate for your help. I’m a beginner and would like to buy my first snowboard. I’m tall 168 c.m. and weight 68 k.g. my shoe size 9.5 U.S. I’m not sure the GNU carbon credit board size 150 c.m can fit my shoe size 9.5 US without toe or heel drag or not? The waist width is 24.5 c.m
GNU Carbon Credit Asym
Hi Vee
Thanks for your message. I think the Carbon Credit would be a good board for you and the 150 a good length. In terms of width, it’s on the narrow side for 9.5s but I’d say it would be fine assuming you ride with +15/-15 binding angles of similar – this type of binding angle setup is recommended for this board (because it’s asym) anyway, so that’s the angles I would go for with this board anyway.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
My apologies if this posts twice, but I don’t think it went through the first time.
I’m a small guy (5’4″, ~120-130lbs, 25.0 boots) looking for the next board to add to my quiver. I’m an advanced rider who has been riding for 8 years. I love carving up the groomers on the east (ice) coast and of course finding fresh pow when I head out to west. I’ll hit natural jumps when I’m freeriding, but I’m not really into park.
My current gear is:
Boards: NS Lotus 149 (ww 235); K2 WWW 142 (ww 243); Ride Fever 147 (ww 240). As I’m a small guy, I don’t find the WWW super noodly, but it is clearly softer than the Lotus or Fever. I still take it out occasionally when I just feel like playing around. My favorite and primary board is the Lotus, but I think it may be a few mms too narrow as it’s not as easy to get into a seriously deep carve as the other boards.
Boots: Burton Supreme, women’s size 8 (25.0 mondo)/Burton Ion, men’s size 7 (also 25.0 mondo).
Bindings: Small cartel, but I’m hoping to pick up the genesis with my new board purchase 🙂
Goofy rider +12 on the right, -9 on the left.
Right now, my top contender is the NS Aura 150. It has a waist width of 237. As I feel like the Lotus with the ww of 235 is a bit too narrow, I’m not sure if I should go for the 151X with a ww of 243? Or perhaps just 152 regular with ww of 238? I’m also open to other suggestions for an aggressive freerider.
Also, I just wanted to thank you for putting all this info together. This site has been the most helpful resource I’ve found on this topic!!
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
If you feel like the width may be a little narrow for deep carves on your Lotus, then the 151X is probably the best bet for the Aura, just to give you a bit more leeway. Going to the 237mm waist of the 150 wouldn’t likely give you much more room at the inserts vs the Lotus you have, so if you feel the Lotus is slightly too narrow, then 151X would be the way to go, IMO.
Hi Nate hey im 175cm tall 86kg with all my gear and body armour on and have medium size bindings with 32 lashed boots size 10.5
Im looking at the salomon huck knife 155 and was wondering if that be ok or whether i need to go 155w ?
i have other boards for powder and all mountain so this will mainly be a twin freestyle butter and small an medium jump board.
Im worried if i go for the wide it will be harder to butter and flex.
what you think the 155wide or will i get away with the 155 ?
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
I think it would depend on your binding angles, largely. I measured the 158 Huck Knife at the inserts earlier this year and it was 263mm. The 155 would be roughly 261mm at the inserts, which is about the minimum I would recommend for 10.5s at a 15 degree angle. So if you were to ride with +15/-15 angles, or similar, then I think you would get away with the 155.
But if you ride with a straighter back foot, then the 155W would be more appropriate. I measured the 155W at 267mm at the inserts (at the reference point). Which isn’t crazy wide, so you wouldn’t be going super wide on the 155W for your boots. Definitely 155W for binding angles less than 15 degrees, but with 15 degrees, I think you should be able to get on the 155.
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate.
My shoe size is 13. (thirty two binary boa)
I bought a board 169W (lib tech skank ape), 268mm waist. I ride +15 -15 Overhang 2,5cm and 3cm.
Can return this board??
Give please advice.
Hi Jo
Thanks for your message.
It’s not necessarily too much overhang there – you might get away with that – it’s hard to say for sure though. But if the 3cm is on the heel edge and the 2.5cm is on the toe edge, I think you will be very close to being ok on it. One question as well, just to make sure – are you measuring the overhang against the metal edge or the edge on the topsheet? This should be measured against the metal edge.
It’s always hard to say whether you’ll get toe/heel drag, but that’s getting into the risky territory (assuming you’re measuring against metal edge).
If you do end up exchanging you might want to look into the Nitro Magnum 168 (278mm waist) or Nitro Team 165W (272mm waist) – if you feel like you don’t want to risk it.
Hope this helps
I measured it again: Overhang 2,5cm and 2,7cm. it’s a pity to change this board. I do not know what to do.
Hi Jo
I think you’ll likely be ok with that but I couldn’t guarantee it. If you like to get in some really deep carves (like euro carving), then I would be less confident but if not, I would say you’ll be ok with that kind of overhang – but again, no guarantees.
Hey Nate, I’ve been looking into buying my first snowboard. With that said, I’m currently considering a 2017 Rome Mechanic. I recently went and had my foot sized for boots, and so I will probably be wearing size 11 boots. With this in mind, I believe I should be getting a mid-wide board to go well with this size. I am also guessing that I should get large bindings to go with this. I just wanted to check and see if I was correct with that assessment. And also, as a beginner, maybe bordering on intermediate, should I go for the mid-wide board of 154cm or 157cm. I am about 5’11” tall and weigh about 160lbs. Thanks for any help you can give.
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
With 11s it really depends on your binding angles – and also the boots length (some 11s are longer than others). If you rode with quite a bit of angle on your back foot (e.g. 12-15 degrees) and you had low profile boots (e.g. Adidas, Burton, Vans, Ride), then you could get on the 156 Mechanic (253mm waist) but if you ride with a straighter back foot, aren’t sure of your angles yet, or aren’t going for low profile boots, then the mid-wide options would be safer bets. Also, if you were to end up on 11.5s, then mid-wide is safer bet for sure.
If going mid-wide, I would be leaning towards the 154MW for you, but the 157W would also work. Just would be a slightly steeper learning curve and progression would likely be a little slower. I would say as a beginner, something 154 to 156 would be a good length range to look at – but since you’re bordering on intermediate, 157 does come into play. But the other reason that I’m leaning towards 154MW is that going a little shorter, when having the extra width of a mid-wide can be a good idea.
Hope this helps with your decision
Oh yeah and with regards to binding size, it will depend on the brand – check out the following to see what sizes to go for depending on the brand:
>>Snowboard Binding Sizing
Hi, Nate.
Thank you for the article – super informative.
I’m sorry to ask but I just can’t figure it out by myself even using info in the article.
Currently deciding on Burton Off-Axis board (2018).
Thinking about 152 and 155 size.
My specs:
Height – 171cm (5’6 foot)
Weight – 72 kg (159 pounds)
Boot Size (US) – 9.5 (27.5 cm)
Stance – (-15) / (+15)
Style – mountains and parks with some freestyle and jumps (without rails)
Skill – intermediate
What size should I get?
Thank you in advance, it’s a bit hard to determine taking into account my height and boot size.
Hi Dan
You could ride a 155, but at an intermediate level and given that you like to do a bit of freestyle, I think the 152 would be the better length for you for this board.
In terms of width, you shouldn’t have any issues with 9.5s on the width of the 152, given that you ride with +15/-15 angles. If you rode with a straight back foot it might be pushing it, but with angles like that should be no issues.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Amazing article! But now i’m a bit more confused what width range is good for me, can you help me?
I am 159 cm, weight about 50 kg (110 lbs). My bare foot size is 240 and my Burton Mint Boa boots is 7.5 (maybe going for 7 at some point, cause 7.5 is a bit big).
I have been looking Capita Paradise 143, waist width is 233 but i’m afraid that is too narrow? What is the right waist width range? According to multiple size chart i thought min width is 236 for my boots, but is it?
Hi Noora
Width is a complicated beast – partly because we are predicting waist at inserts based on the waist width and partly because there are a lot of variables (different length outer-soles for the same inner-sole, depending on brand & binding angles, being the major ones).
So with a lot of angle on your back foot (which will always have the same or less angle on it than the front foot) you can afford to go narrower than if you ride with a straight back foot. The same goes if you have a boot with a smaller outer-sole – it’s not as long so you can go narrower. With all these factors, it’s usually the case that recommendations for min width are relatively conservative – for example a 7.5 in a long footprint boot with a straight back foot would likely be too big for a 233mm waisted board. But with some angle on the back foot and/or a lower profile boot it’s ok. But for a general chart, that’s not going to be taken into account, understandbly.
But with Burton boots (which are low profile), you should have no problem getting on a 233mm waist width, regardless of binding angles, IMO. If you ride with any kind of angle beyond like 6 degrees, then you’ll be even safer getting on there. So Paradise 143 is perfectly fine in terms of width for you, IMO. And if you get in 7s at some stage, you’ve got even more leeway.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much!
I have at least 5 degrees angle for back foot and will go to 7s. Now with big smile on my face i will order Paradise!
Appreciate your advice very much! 🙂
You’re very welcome Noora. Hope you enjoy your new board and let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hey Nate,
i just wanted to share my decision to you.
I think i locked to a Bataleon Evil Twin, don´t know when i will buy it, but i probably will. Maybe i buy the 2018, when the new model is out to get a better price.
Do you have any experience with it, or even some objections?
Konrad 😀
Hi Konrad
I don’t test Bataleon boards currently, so I couldn’t say first hand, but the Evil Twin sounds like it would suit how you describe your style – I would say it’s an all-mountain-freestyle board. But I can’t speak from experience on this one. What size were you thinking?
Hey Nate,
I was thinking of an 156w what do you think.
I even concidered, getting the Capita DOA, if i found one that is in stock, because it is a bit cheaper and one of the most sold boards this year. The DOA also is a “classic” board without a 3bt base. I heard, that the Evil Twin hasn´t the best edgehold, i don´t know it thats a rumor. probaply enough for me idk I think i will decide between those two. They both got wide models.
Hi Konrad
I think you could ride the 156W, but the 159W is also an option.
The 156W will be more freestyle focused (on an already freestyle focused board) for you. Better for spins, butters, jibs and better for trees.
The 159W will give you a more all round size for your specs that will be better for all-mountain – better at speed, better for powder, better for carving. And could definitely still ride freestyle on it.
156 would be the smallest end of the range for you, IMO. But it also comes down to personal preference, somewhat and if you like the idea of a shorter board over a longer one, then that’s something else to take into account. For your height/weight, I would say something around 161, 162 for an all-mountin board and take anywhere from 3cm to 6cm off for a freestyle oriented ride – so you’re in the range for both, IMO. I would be leaning towards the 159W for you, but the 156W is definitely doable if you prefer the sound of that.
For the DOA I would say 158W is the best size for you.
Thank you Nate,
you helped alot and i am very thankful.
I don´t need the board now so i have some time for my decision, but i will definately remember your words.
Please keep up your great great work.
Konrad 😀
Hi Nate,
In need of some advice. I am looking at the Jones Explorer 156 and the MT or UMT in 154.
I am 5’6, 150lbs without gear and I currently ride a Burton Custom Flying V 151cm (248mm waist) with Mission Reflex Bindings in Medium (toe ramp fully extended) and size 10 Vans Aura boots.
My binding angles are usually 12/6
My main issues with my current setup is I can’t really center my boots over the board. I feel like I am heel-heavy but can’t adjust forward because the toe ramp of my binding are at the very edge (maybe 0.5mm gap on back foot at 6 degree angle) and if I bring the toe ramp in at all than the bindings won’t line-up well with the contour of my boot sole.
Additionally chatter at speed, and edge-hold but I am aware these are issues commonly attributed to riding a undersized board generally and Burton’s Flying V profile specifically.
I suppose my main question is the relative importance of 2cm in length (154 MT/UMT v. 156 Explorer) or the 2mm in waist width (250mm v. 252mm).
According to your chart, my ideal waist is 252mm (exactly the Jones Explorer 156). But I feel like it’s slightly too long. To me the MT/UMT 154cm sounds just right for board length but it has a 250mm waist.
Also flexing the board and buttering: Explorer is a 6/10 and MT is 7/10. Given that a longer board is harder to flex, do these essentially cancel each other out and flex the same or is either board easier to flex/would be more playful? (I read a lot of reviews that said the 17/18 MT was too stiff and UMT is only going to be more so).
I ride the whole mountain, especially in the trees and powder if there is any. Charge groomers and searching of natural features and side-hits. I’ll also do a few park laps and hit the small/medium jumps. I don’t really ride switch and if I do a 180 i’ll ride it out and revert to my regular stance.
I know it’s all personal preference and I suspect the board length will have a larger impact on the feel of the ride but I am wondering your opinion. I personally think the specs of the Explorer suit me better (I’ve been eyeing this all year) but sizing of the MT is better.
I know 156 is also not that long but I do like a smaller board for its nimble skate-like feel. Would you recommend against a 152 Explorer (249mm waist)? Would the camber profile/mellow mag of the 152 Explorer be enough to correct the chatter and edge issues of my Burton or do you think the chatter would persist.
I also think the burton 2×4 discs allow for more micro heel-to-toe adjustment than the channel discs which would make it easier to center boots over any of these boards.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks,
Jason
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
I agree that something around 153, 154 would be a better size for you. But something to consider is the effective edge of the 156 Explorer (114.4cm) is actually very similar to the 154 MT (114.6) – so they would feel relatively similar in terms of size when carving groomers – you’d get some extra float out of the 156 Explorer in powder – but it would be harder to spin than the MT 154. And the MT 154 I would prefer to have in the trees, if I was you.
Going down to 152 Explorer would have it’s benefits (being nice and agile in trees, nice for spins and park in general) but you would be dropping effective edge, even compared with the Custom Flying V 151. I would be concerned you wouldn’t have enough edge there for what you want in terms of bombing at speed and carving. I think it would still definitely be a step up in terms of edge-hold and chatter compared to the Custom Flying V 151 – but I think you would miss that effective edge.
I’d say you can get a little more micro adjustments with the 2 x 4 discs than the channel discs – more like 0.5cm adjustments as opposed to 1cm adjustments.
I’d say you wouldn’t have any drag issues on the 154 MT in Aura 10s. But there’s your centering issue. Definitely better to have more overhang on the heel, IMO, if there’s going to be more on one side or the other – but preferably not too much. The 154 MT at 250mm waist, 291mm tip and tail, should be a little wider than the 151 Custom Flying V (248mm waist, 289mm tip/tail) at the inserts but not by heaps – but I’d say at least a couple of mm. The Mountain Twin 154 has a slightly wider reference stance width (56cm) than the 151 Custom (53cm). So, if you are currently riding reference, and if you don’t mind the feel of a 56cm stance width, then that would also likely make your binding position a little wider as they would be at a wider part of the board (but I wouldn’t compromise on your stance width to achieve that).
That plus the ability to adjust in smaller increments on the 2 x 4 disc, would likely mean you can improve your centering a little bit on the 154MT, but no guarantees.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hey fellow Nate,
We moved to the midwest this year and i snagged a board off ebay with bindings for riding. Tried to get close but not sure if i may have handicapped my progression a bit.
Me
5’9″
165-170lbs at any given time
27cm foot wearing a US10 Burton highline BOA
Board i bought
K2 Illusion 159 from 2008 i believe.
Ive tried a few different angles on bindings but still have issues.
264mm at the center point between the two mounting points.
270mm at the middle of the front mounting points
274mm at the middle of the rear.
2×4 mounting points for each binding, im on 2 and 3.
My issues
Going down the mountain, the ONLY thing that feels safe/comfortable is plowing/heel edge.
When i go heel/toe/heel/toe while (carving? idk the term for going down the mountain straight just going back and forth) anytime i go into Toe edge side, or come back from toe edge, my edge digs a ton. It just doesnt come natural at all after 4 days on the slopes this year.
The mountain is typically machine groomed/snowmaker with 1-5 inches of powder on occaison. Granite peak is the slope.
My knee to heel is 19 inches, and im riding at 21 inch stance
I get HORRIBLE pain in my knees, typically on my 2nd to 3rd run of the night, im bent over holding my knees. Im 28 with no knee pain in my life, and have always been active and healthy. I dont know if im standing to wide or what.
I will be buying a new board for next season because i feel like this board just isnt the right fit for me.
I feel like there is virtually no flex, its very hard to bend in comparison to my fiances board (she rides and is intermediate, but has always rode her board)
Anything you see in my setup that may contribute to issues in progression for me?
I don’t like a ton of speed, i want to be comfortable riding back and forth down a mountain, no park, not a ton of freshpowder either. I can deal with those if i ever get to that point in my life lol.
Thanks!
Also bindings
Solomon Speedfit Bindings
+15 in the front +10 in the rear.
Hi Nate
Missed this, when I was responding to your other comment. I really know nothing about the Salomon Speedfit, but if you’re going to upgrade to a more modern board, I would upgrade to a more modern binding too – I’m guessing those are also circa 2008? Couldn’t find a lot of info on them.
Hi fellow Nate!
Thanks for your message.
I couldn’t say for sure what the issues can be pinpointed to, but one of the following or a combination of these might be causing or contributing to your issues:
1. In my opinion the board is too wide for you. So it’s going to be hard work, with your foot size, to transition from edge-to-edge on a board that wide. That mean’s your probably having to put a lot of effort into transitioning between edges – this makes it both technically and particularly physically more difficult, in my experience.
2. 21″ isn’t wide for 5’9″ in my opinion. It’s about normal. But everyone is different, so I would definitely experiment with stance width, as well as binding angles (which it sounds like you have been). But that’s not a hugely wide stance at all for your height, so I wouldn’t have thought this would be an issue.
3. I haven’t tested the Illusion and struggled to find flex and camber profile specs for the 2007 or 2008 models. But it’s likely that it’s a traditional camber profile – this is camber all the way from contact point on the tip to contact point on the tail. Most boards of that era were traditional camber, so it’s likely that the Illusion was to. The downside to this is that it can be very unforgiving, especially if you’re trying to skid your turns. It can be a very catchy profile. This is unlikely to be causing your knee pain but could be contributing to your difficulties with linking your turns.
4. I wouldn’t say that it’s overly long for you at 159 but I would say that it’s a little bit too long. I would say more like 155 to 157 for your specs, and what it sounds like your ability level is roughly and the style that you describe. So, whilst it’s not super long, being a bit too long and that coupled with it being too wide, makes this board, IMO, overall quite a bit too big for you.
5. If the bindings are wrong for boot size, wrong for the board, wrong in terms of flex, then that’s also going to be a factor.
So I think a big thing is going to be getting something that’s a better size for you – depending on how you would consider your ability level, I would go for something in one of the following lists. If you feel like you could do with a beginner board for the fastest/easiest progression, then something from the first list. Otherwise something from one of the other 2 lists would be a good bet. But maybe stick to something that’s no more than 5 or 6/10 in terms of flex. And too technical in terms of camber. Hybrid Camber and Hybrid Rocker are fine but maybe not full camber.
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply!
I think i will likely be going with the burton instigator 155.
The Illusion from what i can tell is pretty firm, and so i think i want something leaning on the softer side.
We are going back out this weekend. I wanted to try a different stance style. Is it a no no to put the back binding at the 1-2 holes and the front at the 2-3? the board sits back about an inch already, so that puts me almost centered, and it feels alot easier on my knees when standing on it.
Hi Nate
Yeah with that firmness and being too big that’s probably a big contributor as to why it’s not working for you.
Shouldn’t be any problem centering up and narrowing your stance in the process. The only thing that would be a no-no would be if you were to have a “set forward” stance on the board. But if you move to a centered stance, that’s fine. If by doing what you’re planning puts you in a set forward stance, then you could bring back the front binding towards the center as well. That would give you an even narrower stance but would be better than a “set forward” stance. Or if you wanted to just go a little narrower you could also leave the back binding where it is and bring the front binding towards the waist. That would increase the amount of setback you’re riding with but would also narrow the stance and not quite as much as moving both.
Actually just looking at an image of he Illusion 2008 it looks like it has a 4 x 4 binding hole pattern. This would mean that if you were to move the back binding forward you would be moving it forward by 4cm (1 1/2″) with the setback being 1″, you would actually be moving into a forward stance. So, assuming it is a 4 x 4 pattern (holes 4cm apart), then I would say that’s a no-go. So I would bring the front binding back towards the center instead or move both bindings towards the center.
Unfortunately with a 4 x 4 pattern there aren’t a lot of stance width options, compared with a 2 x 4 pattern (where the holes are 2cm apart) or the channel system (which you will get on the Instigator if you go with that). You have virtually limitless stance width options with the channel system.
And yeah, I think the 155 Instigator is a good choice – and should make a world of difference compared to the board you are on!
Hope this helps
Hey Nate. Great Article and greetings from Germany!
I am kinda tall…192cm.
I weight about 180-185 lbs
It is a little confusing. I measured my foot and it is 29.5cm long which ist a euro 45.5 on your chart, but i normally wear euro 47-47.5(usually a 13 us) in my normal shoes.
I ride a Duck stance but i don´t know my angles exactly. Probably also a 15/-15 or so.
Now my worries:
I am riding for a while now and wanna buy me my own gear.
I am really keen on the Gnu Head Space. Its maximum lenght is a 158 with a waist of 255mm. I really fell in love with this board and i would be pleased to hear a serious opinion.
My backup board would be the capita outerspace living which has a maximum leinght of 160 with a 256mm waist it is like nothing more but both of these boards get much wider on nose and tail.
Is there a way that it fits or do i need to look for a wider board?
Many thanks,
Konrad 😀
Hi Konrad
The idea is that a 29.5cm foot would fit into a boot with a 295 mondo print – but in reality that’s not always the case. And in fact, in recent years, I would say that snowboard boots are tending to fit more like your normal shoe size. i.e. if you usually wear a 10 for shoes, you’re probably a 10 for most snowboard boot brands. Which in practice also translates to fitting into a boot that’s got a higher mondo-print. E.g. I have a 27.3cm foot and it fits best in a US10 usually – so a mondo print of 280 (whereas according to the idea of mondo-print I should fit in a 9.5 (275 mondo-print). Two of my brothers both have 29.5cm feet and they fit into size 12 snowboard boots. Not sure if youève tried on any Snowboard boots yet, but I suspect you will best fit either a 12 or you’ll have to go to a 13, but if you can get in a 12 that’s better, and a 13 might be a bit too much. If you find that you aren’t getting fitting into a 12 and have to go to a 13 to feel comfortable it might be that you’re feet are also wide. If that’s the case then try some 12s in boots that are known to be wider – i.e. Adidas, Thirty Two, DC or a wide specific boot – like Burton’s Ruler Wide.
However, even assuming that you get into a 12, I think the width of either of those would probably be a bit narrow, even with a +15/-15 stance.
If you just plan on riding park and don’t plan on carving on the board, and you get boots that are low profile (i.e. Adidas, Burton, Vans, Ride) and you stick to those +15/-15 angles, then I think you would get away with the width of those, just. But otherwise, there would be risk of toe/heel drag there when really getting up on your edge, IMO.
Otherwise, with 12s, and +15/-15 angles, something between 261mm and 268mm would be a safer bet, IMO.
Though I have seen on some charts that say the 160 Outerspace Living and 158 Headspace will accommodate up to 11.5 boots. So, if you were to go by that, then you would just need to get low profile boots, and you would fit in between there. But I can’t verify those.
In terms of length, for those particular boards, those sizes would be fine for you. If you were going with a more all-mountain board, then more like 162, and if you were going freeride then you could go a little longer again. But for an all-mountain-freestyle (Outerspace Living) and Freestyle (HeadSpace) those sizes are fine, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your reply. It already helped alot.
I was in some rental shoes, i don´t know. Some old Salomons size 13. Maybe it would be best to go to a store, but i live very far from any mountain, so there is no store to go to. If i just knew my board(i rode the same board for two years)… I only know, it was a 158, i had no problem with it. But with those old rental boards, i cant really compare it.
But in theory i too think it may work.
Do you have any other board recommendations if i can´t fit a small enough boot?
I am going for a good all-mountain with a tendency to freestyle/ flat freestyle.
Many thanks already,
Konrad.
Hi Konrad
It sounds like an all-mountain-freestyle board is the way to go for you. Check out the following for some more options in that category:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
To add a couple of other options to that list:
~ Niche Aether 159 (262mm waist)
~ Lib Tech TRS 159MW (260mm waist)
~ Salomon Assassin 160W (262mm waist)
Hope this gives you some more options
Thank you Nate.
I will look into it.
Have a great Day 😀
And thank you again for all these fast and helpful replies,
Konrad ;D
You’re very welcome Konrad! Let me know what you end up going with
Hi,
Amazing and detailed information here, great job!
I have a small question you may be able to help with. I need new boots and like many riders, the local options for trying on boots are thin on the ground. My feet are 275mm and normal width and I have been looking at Vans boots (either Infuse or Sequal). I tried the Infuse in 285 in a shop while on a trip and it felt good lengthwise which I guess means it was actually too big. My question is: do you have any idea about Vans sizing? i.e. are they big or small. I was thinking to just order my true mondo size of 275 but the thought of a boot that is fully 10mm shorter than the one I tried seems kind of crazy!
Hi Kevin
Thanks for your message.
I find that Vans snowboard boots fit me the same as my normal shoe size. So for shoe size, I am a size 10 and for Vans boots I am a 10 (mondo 280mm). My feet are 273mm – so I wouldn’t gt the 275 (9.5) if I was you. I think the 10 (280) is probably going to be the best fit for you. Note that I have quite flat feet – I love the fit of Vans boots – but I’ve talked to people with high arches who say they feel pressure in the tops of their feet. But it sounds like they felt fine to you when you tried them on – and as long as you have normal arches, or flatter arches like me, that shouldn’t be an issue – it’s only been people with particularly high arches that have had issues there.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Hope you are well!
Huge respect to you for helping everyone over the last few years!
I have pretty odd stats for boarding so I was hoping you could give me a little guidance.
5’7
170lb
25.2cm left foot
25cm right foot
15 / -9 angles.
I am mainly a freerider, steeps in the alps and groomers with occasional powder days. I am thinking of ordering a custom 158 AMF from Prior with 243mm waist they have told me this would be roughly 251mm at the centre inserts. Do you think this would be a good option for my stats?
Many thanks,
Elliot
Hi Elliot
Thanks for your message. A good idea to go custom in your case, as it would be hard to get something narrow enough in that kind of length off the shelf.
In terms of that width – with -9 angles, you could go even narrower, but how that would affect the rest of the board, I’m not sure. But I think that’s going to be an ok width overall – whilst you could afford to go narrower, you don’t need to. And that width would give you the option of riding with a straight back foot if you ever had the urge.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the reply!!
Many thanks,
Elliot
Hey Nate,
For my stats if I was to get a smaller board in the future, what would you say would be my ideal waist width range?
Thanks again,
Elliot
Hi Elliot
I’d say ideally around 248mm (24.8cm) at the inserts (for your 25.2cm foot) at a 9 degree angle (though maybe it’s your 25cm foot that is at the back? If that’s the case then probably 246mm at the inserts – wouldn’t change things too much.
So at the waist that’s going to translate, depending on the board to around 239 to 241 at the waist (based on the 248mm width at the inserts). You could probably get away with something a little narrower too, but you probably wouldn’t feel any noticeable improvement – but I think that would be ideal and would allow you good leverage but also allow an overall width of board that is more stable. So, the 243mm waist, 251mm width at inserts of the custom board you’re looking at, does, IMO, sound pretty good.
Thanks for the reply, seems i’m going to be sticking with custom boards as nobody makes freeride boards with 239-241ww for a 170lb guy :).
Yo, I have shoe size 9.5 i am 6’1 and 165 pounds, would the Salomon pulse 156 work well? It has a 251 mm width!
Hi Hannes
In terms of width, that should be fine for 9.5s. In terms of length, I would say that 156 would be a great size for you, if you are a beginner.
If you’re a more advanced rider, then I would say going a bit longer, 158 to 161, would be better – but if you are a beginner, then something 155 to 157 would be a good way to go – which would make the 156 a great size.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I have a bit of a conundrum I would love your help with. I am 5’9 and 160 lbs I have burton ruler size 9 (24.5cm barefoot). I ride a yes basic 155 which is 251 wide. I want to move on to something a bit meaner for carving groomers etc, and I really think I could use a much narrower board. The Gnu Mullair seems like the best choice for me but I can’t decide between a 152 (246 waist), or 155 (248 waist). I am an aging advanced rider! Either is a compromise. What are your thoughts
Many thanks, Tim
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
Width-wise, with size 9s, I think you should be fine on either one, even with a relative straight angle on your back foot. But in terms of length, I think the 155cm is better, especially if you are going to be carving at speed. You could get away with the 152, but I think the 155 will be the better length for you for this board.
It’s going to be narrower than the Basic 155 for sure – it’s got a narrower waist (248mm) and narrower tip (291mm vs the 295mm on the Basic) and a narrower tail (287mm vs the 295mm on the Basic) – so overall would be a narrower ride.
I’m surprised that you had to go to 9s with 24.5cm feet though. In theory it feels like your feet would be swimming in there – but I’m guessing the smaller sizes didn’t fit properly? The narrower 152 (246mm waist) would be a better fit for your foot size, but then, like you say, you would be compromising on length. On balance I think the slightly wider 155 would be a better pick for you – and you’re still getting something narrower than your current board. That’s my opinion, anyway.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much Nate. I’m sorry I made a mistake, my Rulers are size 8, not size 9, and even then they are on the roomy side, so my objective is to get the smallest waist size I can get away with, hence picking the Mullair. Anyway it looks as though I will need to compromise one way or the other, and it is tempting to get a board that is the correct width, as until now (thanks to your wealth of information), I feel riding boards that are too wide has been holding me back.
Thanks again for replying, I have found your information really helpful.
Cheers
Tim
You’re very welcome Tim.
With 8’s you could get even narrower, but I think you’ll definitely see some improvement going to one of those Mullair’s compared to the Basic.
Another option, if you were willing to size down to 152, is the Capita Outerspace Living, which gets quite narrow in it’s shorter lengths the 152 has a 243mm waist and 285mm tip/tail. Not quite going to be the carver the Mullair is (but still not a bad carver).
Actually the Jones Flagship is an option too – the 154 has a 246mm waist and a 288mm tip and 286mm tail. And it’s up there with the Mullair in terms of carving too, IMO.
Thanks Nate, I really appreciate it
Hi Nate
Great article, i was hoping you could help me out!
Im looking to buy a new setup this season and was planing to buy the SLASH Happy Place 2017/18 158 (Lenght) 253 (width) with a sidecut of 7.6m. My current setup is a Burton Descendant 155W with a width of 258. I use size 11 boot and have no problems with my current setup I ride +15 -15 and would like to upgrade to a new board.
Im a bit worried that the board is to narrow and I am gonna catch my toe or heel. I was wondering if i should buy a wide or the Happy place 158 (Regular) is fine
Best regards Simon!
Forgot to notice that my Boots are Burton Motos 11US
And my hight is 185cm and i weight 75kg haha
Hi Simon
Thanks for your messages.
Since you’ve got Burton’s (lower profile than average), then I would look at them as a size 10.5. With 10.5s and a +15/-15 angle, I would say you could get on anything as narrow as 252mm, so, in my opinion, you would be fine on the regular width 158 Happy Place. with a straighter back binding angle and on non-low profile boots, I think you’d be risking it being too narrow – but with your particular situation, I think you’ll be fine there.
In terms of length, I think the 158 would be a good length for you. I’d say for an all-mountain board, assuming a reasonably advanced level, something around 160, 161 would be a good length – but since the Happy Place is a freestyle oriented board, then taking off some length is a good idea. If you are going to be using it solely for freestyle/park and will have another board for other things, then you could even go down to the 156 – but if this is going to be your do-it-all board, then I think 158 is a good length.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
I have a bit problem choosing the right board for me(size and waist/width).
Im :
68.5 inch
70 kg
Foot 40 eu/7 us
I have two pair of boots Dc travis rice(8us),Burton tourist (7.5us).
I have Jones MTW 154,with waist width 250,and Burton Baracuda 161 waist 255..
Im an intermediate rider,very agressive.
I think about the Jones its small for my type of riding..and my baracuda its good for speed control,but not comfort for carving,and full control,i think its too big the waist/width…i ride lot of powder and freeride in my country..
What do you recomand for me ?
Greetings from Kosovo
Hi Granit
Thanks for your message.
I would have you at around a 157 for all-mountain riding – which you can certainly add some length to, given that it sounds like you are a freerider. So you could go for anything from 157 to 160, IMO. So, I am not surprised that you find the MT 154cm too small.
But you don’t necessarily need to go as long as 161 – especially given that it will be hard to find a narrower waisted board at that length.
Since it sounds like a freeride board would be best for you and given your waist and length requirements, I think the Jones Flagship 158 (248mm waist width) would be a great option. It’s a great board and I think the 158 would be a great length for you – and with a 248mm waist, it would be more suited to your boot size. You would be going smaller than your 161 Barracuda but I think you will appreciate the narrower waist and IMO that length would suit you well.
Also, compared to your 154 Mountain Twin, the Flagship is not only 4cm longer, but it’s also stiffer, more suitable for speed, better in powder and better at carving – even without going any longer. So it will be definitely more suitable than your MT for your purposes, not just for length.
Another option is the Burton Flight Attendant 159 (250mm waist). I think this would also work well for you. Not as narrow as the Flagship but still narrower than the Barracuda.
You can also check out my Top 5 Freeride post below for more, but those are the two that come in sizes that would be most suitable for you, IMO.
~ My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
Hope this helps
Great Article!
I’m 5’10”
185lbs
10.5/11 boot depending on boots
Like riding powder in trees(who doesn’t) and side country but still love to lay’m down on the groomers, do some butters and side hits etc.
Had lot’s of boards over the years and feel like the 159 is my magic#
Looking at the Jones UMT 160, Capita Mercury 159, Capita BSOD 159, Lib Lando Phoenix 160 and a few others.
What ya think?
Oh yeah, I’m in my 40’s now so no more park or hucking cliffs…. 25+ years riding. Thanks again.
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
They all sound like good options for what you’re describing – you’ve obviously done your homework.
In terms of sizing the Jones UMT 160 is the narrowest (256mm at the waist, 298mm tip and tail). But depending on your binding angles, this is probably still fine width-wise even in 11s. But if you ride with a really straight back (like 0 degrees, 3 degrees, 6 degrees) then it’s probably getting a bit narrow for 11s. Probably still fine on 10.5s.
The BSOD is also 256mm at the waist, but it’s 303mm at the tip/tail, so it’s got a bit more width in there. But again, if you’re riding 11s with a straight back foot, it could be pushing it. But probably ok.
The Mercury should be ok in most scenarios.
The Lando is 257mm with 300mm tip and tail – so again, I would say that in 11s with a straight back foot, it’s tight.
Otherwise, those sizes sound good – and after 25 years, you know what you like, so definitely wouldn’t want to mess with that length!
Out of those, I would say that the Lando is the least good in powder, but still good enough. I’d also say that the Lando is the most playful feeling, with the BSOD the most aggressive. Also note that the BSOD is quite different for 2018, so if you were looking at 2017 model, that’s a different beast.
Based on everything, I think I would be leaning towards the Mercury for you. Though the UMT is appealing too, depending on your binding angles. But if you’re looking at something a little more playful, then Lando, or a little more aggressive then BSOD.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Thanks again, that’s what I was leaning towards. You have tons of great info on your site. Even with experience it’s nice to have some legit info out there to help the process.
You’re very Jay. Thanks for visiting the site and hope you have an awesome season out there!
Hi Nate,
I am struggling with my new snowboard, whether I should keep it or send it back. I just bought the Never Summer west 164 wide (26.6 waist).
My old board is a nitro with 27.2 waist. The problem are my feet they are quite large. Bootsize 48 also from nitro (Mondo 32.00cm). I might buy smaller ones but i wanna avoid that to be honest. I messured the overhang on the new Neversummer-board.
It’s about 4cm (1,6 inch) at the toes and 3 cm (1,2 inch) at the heels.
The difference to my old board is not that big but slightly higher. So I’m not sure, if I sould keep such an expensive board when the overhang is obviously on the edge 🙁
Hi Robin
That is pushing it in terms of overhang for sure. However, you might get away with that but what I would do, if possible, is play around with the bindings/boots in the bindings and see if you can swap that overhang – i.e. if you can get it so that it’s 4cm on the heels and 3cm on the toe edge, then I think you would be in a safer place in terms of overhang. It’s easier to get lower on the toe edge – so there’s more chance to drag the toes, so it’s better to have less overhang there.
Also, if you are someone who tends to get really high on your edges and likes to do really deep carves, then it’s more of an issue, but if you don’t then you should be fine – but preferably if you can get less toe overhang there. Also, how much toe overhang is there with your Nitro? If that was around 3cm and you didn’t have any toe drag issues, then if you can get this one to 3cm on the toe (even if that means more on the heel), then you should be confident not to get toe drag.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
my thanks for your fast response!
Here are my data: Both with bindings pushed back to the limit.
Nitro: Front Toe 2.4cm, Heel 3.1cm with 18°
Tail Toe 2.3cm, Heel 3.2cm with -15°
Neversummer: Front Toe 2.6cm, Heel 3.6cm with 18°
Tail Toe 2.4cm, Heel 3.8cm with-15°
Hi Robin
Thanks for the details.
That definitely sounds better than 4cm on the toes and 3cm on the heels. Certainly can’t say for sure that it will be fine but sounds better. I’m not too concerned with the toes now. If you didn’t have any toe drag issues on the Nitro, then I don’t think you’ll have any on the West, set up like that. It’s that extra 6mm on the heel on the back foot that would be the biggest concern. So it’s a judgement call. It’s more overhang than I’d normally recommend for sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not doable.
Wish I could be more definitive but it’s hard to know – but that setup does sound better than what it did before. If it was possible to even them up a little that might help – i.e. get a little less on the heel on the back foot? Also, is that how you had the Nitro setup when you were riding it – or did you have more toe overhang than that?
Hey Nate,
again thanks for your time 🙂
Last year my settings were kinda twisted. So on my Nitro I had more toe overhang.
I guess on the heels it was below 2cm and clearly over 3.5 cm on the toes.
Going for these settings probably coming from my first board which was obviously to narrow. So after that i desided to go for the wide Nitro board and to avoid my former trouble (the back corner) i choose the low heel overhang.
Maybe especially because its easier to go low on the toes I wanted to be safe on the back. Dunno if that makes sense 😀
Either way its a tough call. I’d love to keep the NS but im not sure. Furthermore I wouldn’t know any nice alternative to the West.
Hopefully u have some final thoughts 😉
Best regards
Hi Robin
If you had that much on the toes with your Nitro without issue, then you could probably go to something similar again if it’s possible to adjust your bindings to something in between what you originally had (4cm toe and 3cm heel) and what it is all the way back (2.4cm toe 3.8cm heel). So for example if you could get your toes to somewhere between 2.9cm and 3.3cm, that would put your heel somewhere between 2.9cm and 3.3cm. I would feel confident that you would be ok on the heel with something like that, and if you were fine with 3.5cm on the toe before, then you should be ok with something similar to that again. And of course something similar for the front foot.
I think if you could work it to something like that, based on your past experience, then you should be ok. Again, no guarantees, but it sounds like something that could work to me.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I just started snowboarding. My height: 5’9, Weight 155 lbs. Boot: Flow Aero BOA Coiler, Size US 10.5.
Will the 2017/2018 Burton Instigator 155, with a 252 Waist works for me? If not, what do you recommend? Thanks!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
In terms of width, the 252mm waist of the Instigator should be fine as long as you have binding angles that have a reasonable angle on the back foot. E.g. something like +15/-15 would be fine. If you have a really straight back binding angle, then you’d be cutting it tight in terms of being too narrow. Although as a beginner, you most likely won’t be getting right up on the edges yet, so you probably still wouldn’t have any toe drag issues, even with a straight back foot.
In terms of length, I would put you on a 156 at an advanced level and I would usually recommend taking off 3-5cm at a beginner level. However, you would probably get away with the Instigator in a 155, since it’s a very easy going, beginner friendly board. Ideally 151 to 153 for you a this stage, but the Instigator 155 is probably fine.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate! I stumbled upon your site and was wondering if some advice? My husband and I are just getting into snowboarding. We’ve gone twice now and rented, but I’m starting to look into my own equipment and am having a little trouble with the size guides. I don’t think I quite fit the bill for a woman’s board so I was hoping you could help. I’m about 190lbs, 5’10”, size 9.5 women’s snowboard boot. When we went the first time, we didn’t really know anything so the rental place hooked us up with boards that were about chin height, maybe a little lower. The second time we went, we took a Burton LTR lesson and I was on one of those LTR boards that was 144cm. Based on my weight in all of these charts, I’m supposed to be on a longer board but most women’s boards don’t go past a certain size. Is it normal to move to a men’s board? Thanks in advance for your help and advice!!
Hi Alicia
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I would say something around a 158cm would be good for you, as an advanced rider, but as a beginner, you want to size down a bit – as a rule of thumb 3-5cm. So that would put you somewhere from a 153 to 155. This is quite a bit longer than the 144cm LTR board that you were on, but probably still shorter than the previous rental you got. If you felt more comfortable on the shorter LTR board that you rode, then you could possibly go a little shorter than this range, but for buying I wouldn’t go as short as 144cm.
In terms of width, for a women’s 9.5, I would look at something 240mm plus at the waist. And anything up to 250mm at the waist.
So you should definitely be able to get on to some women’s boards – but there’s also nothing wrong with going for a men’s board, if you wanted to look at options there too, that would fit those length and width ranges.
I would check out the following lists for some options these boards are great for beginners, and there should definitely be some sizes that fit you well.
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
>>My Top 15 Men’s Snowboards for Beginners
Hope this helps and gives you some good options
Hi Nate, very cool to see how many people you’ve helped over the years. I am looking at last years Rossignol Magtek XV 163, it has a waist width of 255 and a sidecut of 8.7. I have size 12 boots. Unfortunately I cannot find a 164W to save my life. Realizing this is a bit borderline on width, wondering if you have any firsthand knowledge of this board and if the actual foot placement with bindings might be a tad wider and acceptable? Any thoughts would be appreciated! Thanks!
Hi Sam
Unfortunately, I think going on the XV 163 would be risky for size 12s. Even with a good angle on both bindings and low profile boots, I think no narrower than 260mm at the waist would be safest bet. As far as I know, there isn’t anything to suggest that the width at the inserts is wider than the sidecut would suggest.
You could risk it, but in my opinion this board would be too narrow for your boots.
Hope this helps
Hi!
I had some Nitro 160 over 6 years.
Have M Burton freestyle bindings,burton rulers US10.
My board got legs, and want to buy new one.
I found nice one Uberspoon for small cash 130€. But it is 153, waist 146. I didn’t try it.
I dont do park to much, do lot of freeride over everything, and forest. Nitro 160 was big for me. I love curving on the pist, and do some small jumping, 180, and second side learning.
What do you say?
Hi Bojan
Yeah I would say that a waist width of 246mm is going to be too narrow for size 10s. If you’ve got a back foot binding angle of 15 degrees and low profile boots you might be able to squeeze on, but then it’s still risky, IMO.
In terms of the length, I couldn’t really say what would be suitable for you without knowing your height and weight. If you could let me know your height and weight, and your ability level, then I could recommend a size.
Nitro isn’t a brand that I demo but just from what I know of the Uberspoon, it would be suitable as a freestyle type board but also a reasonable carver. So, it would probably suit what you’re describing. But like I say I don’t know much about Nitro boards.
If you wanted to check out some other options check out the post at the link below. From what you’re describing an all-mountain-freestyle board sounds like the most appropriate.
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Thank you for your advice Nate! I would say I am an intermediate rider. My previous board was a lib tech TRS 157MW (260 WW) so I also think 161 on the Rossi might be too long for me. On the other hand, I don’t think nitro boots are low profile. I ride +18/-6. With this información, do you still think the best option is going for the 159?
Hi Javier
I think that the 159 is going to be too narrow for you. Even with a more angled back foot and low profile boots you’d be cutting it fine, so I think it would be risky to go for that length. With an angle of 6 on the back foot, something 260-266 at the waist would be a better fit. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like any of those sizes are suitable. You could go 161W, but I think that’s getting a bit long, especially as you’re used to a 157.
I think the 157W would be the best size for you for this board.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I am looking into buying a Rossignol One board. I am 179 cm and 85 kg and I have a pair of 11.5 US Nitro Teams. At the shop they got the following sizes:
– 156: 252 WW
– 159: 254 WW
– 161W: 266 WW
Which one of these do you think will fit me better?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Javier
I think something around 159 to 160 is a good length for you assuming you’re an intermediate or up rider. So I would cross the 156 off (and it’s too narrow).
In terms of width, the 159 (254mm) is probably a bit narrow for US11.5s. Maybe if you had binding angles, something like +15/-15, and low profile boots (not sure if Nitro boots tend to be low profile or not), then you might get away with it but otherwise you’d be pushing it and even then you’d be pushing it, I would say.
The Width on the 161W on the other hand is pushing being too wide. And given that it’s already at the longer end of your range (IMO), that extra width might make it too much for you. If you’ve got a very straight back foot – e.g. +18/0 or something like that, then the 266 WW would probably be fine but otherwise it’s getting a bit wide.
So I think if you could fit on the 159 width-wise, that would be the best, IMO. But I think it’s risking being too narrow.
Hope this helps
If none of the above sizes fit me, I’ve found another shop where they sell the 157W size (264 WW). It would cost me 70$ more than the 159 or 161W, but if it was completely necessary I would go for it. What do you think?
Hi Javier
Yeah I think it’s worth it to get the 157W – as per my last response, I think the 157W is probably the best size for you.
Sorry for the duplicate message. Didn’t get to see my previous messages! Thanks a lot for your advice!
You’re very welcome Javier. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate!
I had my son on a 115cm Burton Chopper last year. He is now 11 years old, 54″ tall and 63lbs. His feet grew a little so now his boot will be a kids 4K. So I have to change bindings from the Grom to the junior sized Mission smalls. Do I need to get a wider board now? Someone said I’d need a 125cm of the Chopper for that boot size, but that puts him below the recommended weight. I gotta figure this out before Christmas too. Thanks!
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
I don’t know too much about kids gear specifically, but by my workings, based on a few assumptions, is that he’s probably right at the max boot size he could be on that board and would likely need a slightly wider board soon if not now. Possible that he could get away with it for one more season but hard to say. This is assuming that size 4k translates to 22.2cm (8.75″) foot size – based on this – Blitz Results Kids Shoe Sizing
In which case it’s certainly borderline too narrow on the 115 (213mm waist). By my rough calculations, the width at the inserts on that board would be around 21.9cm (8.6″) (assuming a 380mm stance width). Which would mean, if he rides with a flat back foot (0 degrees), that his foot would be overhanging just a little (boots overhanging more than that of course). Which is fine. But I don’t know what the outersole profile is like on kids boots. If he has more of an angle on his bindings (e.g. if he rode with +15/-15 or something like that) then he’d have more leeway.
But I also wouldn’t be too concerned with the weight recommendations – they are more of a rough guideline, IMO, rather than a hard and fast rule. I think at your son’s height and weight he should be ok on a 125 – possibly the 120 would be better (and I’d say he’d get on the width of that one) but then you might have to upgrade again straight away the following season. So, yeah I wouldn’t worry too much about those weight recommendations (though like I say I don’t know that much about kids gear).
But like I say this is based on a lot of assumptions.
But if you are really worried about that, you could look at a different board but I get it if you were wanting to stay with the same board to give him consistency.
Also, if you put his new boots on the 115 you could look to see how much overhang there is and judge whether or not it’s too much – but that would only be if you were going to be getting the boots/bindings before deciding on whether to get the new board.
Hope this somewhat helps!
Hi Nate,
Great article, really helpful!
I’d like to buy a new snb but still not sure about the waist width.
My spec:
Height: 177 cm / 5ft 9,7″
Weight: 67 kg / 147 lbs
Boots size (Burton US): 10
Ability level: intermediate-advanced
Riding style: All-mountain (mostly groomer and freeride)
I’ve chosen Burton feelgood flying V (2016/17) 155cm with waist width of 245 mm. Now I’ve got Ride Agenda 156 cm with waist width of 252 mm. Is it the 245 mm waist width suitable for me? Also is it ok the board size 155 cm?
Thanks in advance
Iva
Hi Iva
I think you should be fine on the 245mm waist width on the Feelgood Flying V (assuming you it’s women’s US 10). And I think as an intermediate to advanced rider with your specs, that 155cm is going to be a good length too. I would probably say something around 153 to 154 but since you are used to a 156 and since you are going a little narrower and a little shorter, I think that will be a great size for you and you’ll likely notice a good step up in agility on your new board.
Hope this helps
Oh and I forgot to mention I’m 5’10” 170 lbs
Hi Dylan.
Yeah unfortunately I’m thinking you’ll find it a bit wide. I think if it was as at a length shorter than what would be a good length for you, then it might be ok – sometimes wide is ok if you go shorter.
But at that length feels like it’s going to feel wide. I have size 10s and I find anything that wide tends to feel heavy and slow to turn. Now I ride +15-15 binding angles mostly. If you ride with a straighter back foot it wouldn’t be as bad but I still think it’ll be wider than ideal.
Yeah if you ride quite aggressive and really get up on your edges it’s not a bad idea to go a little wider – but I think it’s still looking a bit wide.
Hope this helps and makes sense
So I have an Arctic Gabe Taylor 159 wide board I have Burton custom bindings on it and I wear a size 10 boot and I’m thinking this board might be too wide for me I’m an intermediate level snowboarder and this is my first time buying a board in 2 years and I need to know if I should maybe go return it and find a board that’s a little bit more narrow. And once I get warmed up on the mountain I do tend to write a little bit more aggressive so I’m wondering if it might be fine
Hey Nate,
Great article and wanted your advice. I’m 5’10, 185lbs and wear a US8.5. Thinking of getting the Ride Warpig. Which size do you recommend I get for that, 142/250, 148/260 or 154/270 (Size/Width)?
Thanks,
Ray
Hi Ray
Thanks for your message.
I rode the 154cm last season but felt that it was too big for me – I would have preferred to get on the 148. I’m similar specs (6’0″, 180lbs, US10). So I think I would go 148cm for you too. I think the 142cm is probably getting a little on the small side.
Although your boot size is a little different – I still think that the 148 is the best option. The 260mm waist is wide – but it’s designed that way and the shorter length makes up for it. Where I’d say you’d normally get on a 159-ish – that big reduction in length makes up for the wide width. The Ride rep said that the 154 is supposed to have the surface area of a 160 – so I thought that might be a good way to go – but I do feel like the 148 would have been more fun. And given your 8.5 boots, I think the 270mm waist on the 154 is getting pretty wide (even for a short/wide!).
So 154 is an option but I think the 148 would be a bit better for this board for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Great article!
Can you help me chose the right length of my new snowboard?
I’m trying to decide between Jones Explorer 159 and 162.
I’m 184cm high, have 10,5 US boots, ride 15+, -9 duck stance. I mostly ride off tracks on sky resorts… so uneven terrain, powder, also groomers, no park really, also some jumping but mostly in the powder on the backcountry. I’m an intermediate rider.
I’m guessing I don’t need a wide board, the 25.6mm will be enough for my boot size, but I’m not sure about the length. Will 162 length be too long for some occasional trick and having fun on the groomers and in the backcountry?
I’m not completely set on Jones tho, which one would you prefer for this kind of riding?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Robert
Based on your boot size and your binding angles something around 255mm would be a good way to go, so yeah, I think you’d be fine width-wise on either the 159 (254mm waist) or the 162 (256mm waist).
In terms of length, it’s hard to say without knowing your weight. Weight is a big factor in deciding length. If you can let me know your weight, I can better recommend what I think would be a good length for you.
From what you’re describing about your riding style, and for your ability level, I think the Jones Explorer would work well. If you haven’t already you can check out my review for more.
~ Jones Explorer Review
If you want to check out more options you can look at the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But I think the Explorer would be a good option. If you can let me know your weight, I can recommend what I think is a good length for you.
Hey, thanks for the answer, I forgot to write the weight, so here it is… 84kg.
I’m kinda set for the 162 tho, but not 100% yet.
Hi Robert
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah, I think 162 would be the best bet. You could ride the 159 and there are pros and cons to going shorter – but I think, especially because you ride a lot in the backcountry that the 162 is the best bet for you.
Hello Nate!
I am honestly amazed by your dedication to this page and the patience with which you are answering all these questions! I have one too though.
Height: 182cm Weight: 80kg Boot size: always rented and struggled, was between 27.5-28.5 (measured foot length 27,3cm)
Bindings: +15/-3 Level: intermediate
I am looking for an all-mountain board that would be medium or medium-stiff. Concerning my riding style, I like to carve and would be very keen on further improving this aspect. I know some basic switch tricks and planning to learn some buttering. Little jumps from time to time are also not out of question.
Found a good deal on rossignol one magtek 2017 which should fit my style. Not sure about the size though. 159 comes with 25,4 cm waist which might be rather on the smaller side for me. The other option is 161W but with 26,6 cm waist it’s one hell of a wide board. What do you reckon would be the best option?
(Other deals that I found: Jones Aviator 2016 158W ; Solomon Assasin 2017 158; Head force ikers 2016 162; Yes tdf 159W; Rome crossrocket 161)
Many thanks in advance!
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
That’s a tough one, without knowing your boot size exactly. If you end up in US9.5 boots (which are supposed to fit a 27.5cm foot), then you would be fine on the 254mm waist, even with your relatively straight back foot. But if you end up in US10.5 (28.5), then I would be concerned about the fit onto that 254mm waist – maybe a little too much overhang. Would probably still be ok, but getting on the riskier side. If you end up on a 10 (28cm), then I’d say you’d be fine too.
So, assuming you ended up in a 9.5 or 10, then I think that board would be great width-wise. And if you get on a 10.5, I think you’d still be fine but it woul dbe riskier, given that straight back foot. And I agree that 159 would be the best length for you. And it sounds like the Rossignol One would suit how you describe your riding.
I think the 161W would be getting a bid wide and long for you and the combination of wide and long would make it too big overall, IMO.
The Jones Aviator is another good option – and the 158W is the size I would go with for you (you’ve done your research!) – This waist width would be wide enough even if you are on 10.5s. It would be getting on the wide side for 9.5s though.
The Salomon Assasin is more of an all-mtn-freestyle board – not to say that it’s not an option – still can carve well – but you loose a bit in terms of powder, if that’s an issue. Like the Rossi One, you should be fine on the 158 width-wise on 9.5s and 10s, with 10.5s pushing it a bit. The 157W probably a better option if you end up on 10.5s.
I think the Crossrocket 161 is getting a bit long for you.
I don’t demo Head boards but I think the 162 would be too long as well.
I think the TDF 159 is getting a bit wide for you and I’d almost size down to 156 for this particular board. But also, this is quite an aggressive ride and maybe not really intermediate suitable, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your insights!
Narrowing the choice between rossi one 159 and jones aviator 158W, which one would you personally prefer?
Hi Justin
You’re very welcome.
I’d personally prefer the Rossignol One, over the Aviator – but not by heaps. I just found the edge-hold in icy snow is so good on the One and it’s a little quicker edge-to-edge. But there’s not heaps between them. I’d say the Aviator is marginally stiffer, but not by heaps, if that comes into play at all for you. As an intermediate rider, the One is a little easier going too.
But if you do go for the One, I would try on some boots first, to see what size you will be, if you can.
Hey. I am the guy who ask for help about the machete gt 2017. The problem is the width sizing.The boot size is 32 cm. i have the rode ltd large which are 5 cm less that boots. but when i put the boots at bindings and also in snowboard. Boots are 4 cm more that toe edge and 1 cm more at heel edge . Plz help . i need some advise
Hi Dennis
You should be able to set up your bindings so that the overhang is equal on both heel and toe edge. If you can get it so that overhang is 2.5cm heel and 2.5cm toe, then you should be fine there. If you flip your binding disc around so that the holes are running vertical, then you should be able to set the bindings up so that they are more even over the toe and heel edge.
If you can’t get them quite even, then more overhang on the heel edge is better – since it’s harder to get as low on the heel edge as it is on the toe edge.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for writing this article! I’m having a hard time finding a board I like with the right waist width for my big feet. Could I get your thoughts?
Gender: Female
Height: 5’6″
Weight: 150-160
Boots: Women’s K2 Estate size 10
Bindings: Burton Lexa size L
I’m looking at the Jones Dream Catcher at 154, and the waist width of that is 24.4 cm. Do you think this would be too narrow for my boots and bindings? They don’t seem to make many women’s boards wider than the upper 240s so I’m at a bit of a loss. Any other board recommendations you can think of?
Thanks for your help!
Yamo
Hi Yamo
Thanks for your message.
The 244mm waist of the Dream Catcher could be doable, depending on your binding angles. If you have something like a +15/-15, then you should be fine. If you have a back angle that is 0 or only a very small angle, then this could be a little too narrow – not by heaps, so you might get away with it, but it’s certainly in that risky zone. I would try to get something around 247mm and up if possible, if you have a straight back foot – but if you ride with a decent angle on your back foot, then you should be fine for that board.
I would say, in terms of length, that around that 153cm to 154cm mark is a good length for you – assuming you’re at a solid intermediate or advanced level – which it sounds like you are, given you have the Estate boots and Lexa bindings. And assuming that you’re looking for something all-mountain, given that you’re looking at the Dream Catcher.
The Jones Twin Sister is an option if you were happy to go up to a 155cm – that has a 247mm waist.
But yeah, there aren’t too many options, for women’s boards, in that wider width. I know that the YES Emoticon has a 252mm waist on there 152cm board, which would work I think – a little wider than ideal, but a little shorter too, which would balance that out – but it’s more of an all-mtn-freestyle board than something like the Dream Catcher or Twin Sister.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Yeah, I’m looking for an all-mountain freeride board (that can also handle powder) more than freestyle, I never hit the park. I was also looking at the GNU Klassy at 155, but I don’t know if these boards are getting a bit long now. I’m definitely a solid intermediate, leaning into advanced and I want to get more comfortable riding at steeper and higher speeds. I was also looking at possibly getting a shorter men’s board, either the Jones Mountain Twin or Jones Explorer.
Again, thanks for your help and recommendations!
Yamo
You’re very welcome Yamo.
Yeah you could look at the Mountain Twin (154) or Explorer (152). They would definitely be wide enough. But I think the Dream Catcher sounds good if you could fit on it. Again, I think you would be fine on that, depending on your angles.
I am 16 yr old looking to buy a snowboard. I am 69″ tall, 160lbs, and I have salomon faction boots 10.5. I am looking at Rome factory rocker but don’t know if 158 or 161. and rome reverb rocker 155mw or 157 or 158mw or 160. I want the board to last me i am just at the start of intermediate level and i want to learn to do more tricks and ride in the park but enjoy going down the hill. i like to have my left foot on angle but keep right foot straight. would love if you could help and get back to me soon
Hi Seth
Thanks for your message.
I think the 155W is probably going to be your best bet in this case. Usually, I wouldn’t look at something as wide as a 262mm waist for 10.5s but since your back foot is going to be straight across the board, we need to allow for more space. I think something around 258mm would be ideal – but 262 is too much above that, so should work fine.
The 155 length should work well for you too. I’d put you on a 157 at an advanced level for all-mountain. But since you want to start learning tricks, I think a little shorter helps – and also because you are at an intermediate level – and also the extra width should make up for at least some of the powder ability and stability at speed that you loose by going a little shorter.
So yeah, I’d definitely say 155MW in your case.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate and thanks again for awesome tips – you rock sir!
I’m 6’1 and 185 lbs. I have last years Ride Anthem boots 10,5 US. I ride mostly park and I’m thinking of buying new Nitro T1 and Nitro Zero size M bindings. In local shop I was told that 155 cm T1 is ok for my height and weight, but my foot size can be little tricky with that. They have 155 in store but 158 will come within couple of weeks (I understood that it was sold out or something).
So which one is better for me? 155 with 250 waist width or 158 with 252 waist width? They also have wide models from both but they are 260 and wider.. Is M size bindings good, or should I get bigger ones? My stance is 15/15.
My last board was Ride Kink wide model. A bit too wide actually because it’s 262 and I got it for cheap price (stupid, I know…). I got too traumatic from that experience so I want a normal board this time..
Hi Anton
Thanks for your message.
For me, I find that anything with a 249mm waist and up tends to be fine. It depends on some other factors but that’s usually fine. I wear US10s – but Ride boots tend to have pretty good reduced footprint, so your 10.5s are probably a similar outersole to my 10s.
Length-wise, the 158 would probably be the better size if you plan on using the board as an all-mountain-freestyle ride, IMO. However, if this is going to be predominantly ridden in the park, then you might want to go to 155. But either way, I think they should be fine waist-wise.
The Fast Plant has a fairly shallow side-cut, so the waist at the inserts isn’t going to be as wide as it would be on a 250mm waist with a deeper side-cut – but you are riding +15/-15 which helps.
250mm is certainly at the narrower end for your boots but I would ride it, personally.
But just to note, this is all based on specs as I don’t demo Nitro gear, so I couldn’t say for sure.
In terms of binding sizes, again, I haven’t tested Nitro bindings – but since they say medium up to 10.5 and large starts at 11, then i would go with Medium.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to buy a board adequate to my size (height:206cm/6’9” and weight:135Kg/298lbs) and foot size (17US/52EU). All huge, I know!
I’m still a beginner at all this, only snowboarding for 4 years and always with loaners or rentals that are clearly too short.
2016/17: Head 172wide
2014/16: Quechua 163wide
I’d be willing to pay the extra$$/€€ for a custom made board that fits me perfectly, but everywhere I’ve gone it’s like “walking into a wall” when I get to the waist width vs board length/stance.
From what I’ve read here in this forum, I can go as short as 33cm/173cm (waist/length) but cannot find anyone to do this.
Can you help or recommend some brand that might accomodate me?
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael
Thanks for your message. Always harder to get something that works when you’re outside the specs that most boards are made for. I think going custom is a good way to go. It’s not an area I know well unfortunately. But the following are some brands that I know do custom boards.
~ Lib Tech Custom
~ Donek Custom
~ Prior Custom
Custom boards isn’t an area I’ve looked into too much, but I’m sure there a lot more options out there than those – those are just the ones that I’ve heard of.
I think in terms of length, something 172 to 173 would be a good range to look at in terms of length. In terms of width, I think that you probably want to go at least to 285mm but even then, you’d want to make sure you had some low profile boots. If you were going custom made I would go wider than that, at least 290mm – the custom board makers might even suggest a good width to go with – I think Donek might be one that would potentially.
Lib Tech do make the Lib Tech Skunk Apes in a 170 Ultra Wide, which has a 285mm waist width. The 170 length is slightly shorter than we discussed – but if you were really struggling to find something custom, then that could be an option that you could get away with.
Hope this helps
Hello there and congats for the excellent site here!
I have a question for a specific board. I am thinking buiyng the Burton Custom Twin 2017 154cm legth. The board has a 248mm waist width and a tail/nose width of 289,7mm. I wear a US 10 size DC Phase boot with a medium Burton Cartel bindings. The problem is i wonder if with this board will have any overhanging. Do you find the board’s width sizing alright or is it narrow for my size of boot? I have seen the board and checked my foot on it and it seems pretty close on maximum 5mm limit as you suggest in overhanging. Please help cause i am confused. I also weigh 71kg and iam more than a begginer level, so the board from a perspective of length is good as i prefer it to be more freestyle.
Thank you
Hi Teo
Just doing up a quick diagram, it looks like you’re feet are probably a little bit long for that board. It’s tight. I also ride US10s and I find I can ride anything with a 250mm waist and even 249mm waist. And I know it’s only 1mm but it’s really pushing it. This is based on a 560mm stance width and +15/-15 binding angles.
But there are certainly options in that length that are wider than the Custom Twin.
You might get away with it – but it’s certainly on that range where it would be risking toe/heel drag.
If you want to check out some other similar options, check out the link below:
~ Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
I understand and i can say that i see your point of view. I really like the Custom though. What about the Burton Custom Flying V in 156 cm? It has a waist width of 249mm and a tail/nose width of 291,5 and a sidecut 7,8m. Do you think that suits me? Another option i have is Burton Descendant 155cm with waist width of 250mm, but i dont know if its too soft flex for my bindings Cartel (a bit stiff flex). I have to remind you that im not that experienced but more than begginer. What is your opinion and please what would you choose better? Again thank you tons you are the best.
Hi Teo
The Custom Flying V is more of an all-mountain board compared with the Custom Twin (all-mountain-freestyle) but if you’re ok with that, then you would probably get away with the Custom Flying V 156. It would be less risky than the 154 Custom Twin. I assume you are looking at 2017 models. The 2018 model of the Burton Custom Flying V actually has a 252mm waist on the 156 and a 250mm waist on the 154. 2017 was the last year they made the Custom Twin.
Also, as a beginner/intermediate rider, I wouldn’t go for the Custom Twin – just because it’s a bit aggressive. If it’s the Custom Twin Flying V, then that would be fine.
But if you can let me know your height and weight, then I can also consider what would be a good size for you. It might be that the 156 Custom Flying V isn’t the right length – we want to get the length and width right.
Hey Nate
Well yes im talking about the Twin Custom Flying V not the just the Twin. And yes for the 2017 models. What about the Burton Descendant model of 155cm with a 250mm waist width? Which of the two would you suggest for me? Im 71 kg in weight and 176cm tall (about 5,9 ft). Again thank you for your help. I just have these 2 boards in mind now and im considering buying oone of them.
Hi Teo
Sorry – I forgot to comment on the Descendant in my last reply.
The Descendant is definitely on the softer side, compared with the Customs – it’s more of a medium-soft flex and definitely more freestyle oriented (I would classify it as a freestyle board as opposed to the Custom Twin Flying V, which is all-mountain-freestyle and the Custom Flying V which is all-mountain). You shouldn’t have any problem with the width on the Descendant – it would be fine width wise on the 155cm (250mm waist) and that length would be fine for you.
The Custom Twin Flying V would also be a good length in the 154 for you. It’s a little stiffer flexing so slightly more challenging in that sense for a beginner – but it does have a very friendly camber profile (Flying V Hybrid Rocker) – so you should be ok so long as you aren’t a complete beginner. But, as per previous comments, I think the width is the biggest worry with that board – it might be ok – but it’s definitely risking being too narrow.
The Custom Flying V in the 156 will again be closer to ok in terms of width – but still pushing it. That length is getting on the longside for your specs for a beginner but it’s doable. This is more of an all-mountain board, so it’s the most versatile of the 3. It’s again, not a complete beginner board, but if you’re at a more high-level beginner level, then it should be ok.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great article!
I’m about to buy the 2018 Custom X 162 with Large Genesis X EST bindings.
I’m about 78kg (172lbs), 5’11”, UK size 10 (Burton Ion boots)
Skill advanced, angles both +9.
I ride all mountain, all conditions, very little park.
I’ve ridden a 2008 Custom X 164 with C60 bindings for almost ten years.
I love the board and the length has always seemed just right.
The highbacks are maxed-out (full lean) and I’ve never suffered from toe drag.
Burton have suggested that the 162W would be the best fit but, looking at the specs, I think that the 162 would suffice (it’s wider everywhere than my old 164!)
What would you recommend?
Many thanks.
Hi Jason
I think you will be fine on the 162 regular width based on a number of things.
Firstly, your experience with your current board and no toe or heel drag – with a 164 (254mm waist).
Secondly, I’d usually say something between 254mm and 260mm for UK10s. 254mm would be the absolute minimum – but with Burton boots (reduced footprint) you’re not cutting it as close with 254mm waist. And with the 162cm having a 256mm waist, I think you’ve got even more leeway.
If it was last years Burton Custom X (2017 model), then I would say definitely 162W (260mm waist) or 164W (261mm waist) because the regular lengths were 160 (250mm waist) and 164 (252mm waist) – they would probably be cutting it fine.
But yeah for the 2018 model, you would be fine on the 162cm, IMO – and it’s probably the better option, given that you’re used to a 254mm waist – going to 162cm (264mm waist) wouldn’t be way off – but you would be adding 10mm to the waist, which would be noticeable. Because you’re also dropping 2cm from the length, that would somewhat counteract the extra width – but I still think the 162 is the better option overall for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m 175, 6’1″ with 10.5 shoe size. I was thinking about getting a 2017 158 Burton Custom X with Large Malavita Bindings. Do you think that setup will work for me? I mainly ride all mountain with some park. I understand from what you wrote above, the board might be too small for me in terms of width sizing but if I got Burton boots would that be better?
Also, what are your opinions on Flow NX2 bindings and would you recommend Flow boots with those bindings?
Thank you in advance!
Hi John – replied to your earlier message – but forgot to answer your question about Flow.
Unfortunately, I haven’t ridden any Flow bindings in a few years, so I can’t really comment there. And I’ve never tried flow boots, so unfortunately I’m not much help on that question.
Hi Nate,
I am 175 lbs, 6’1″, shoe size 10.5 thinking about getting a Burton Custom X 158 with a Burton Malavita Large. Do you think that setup will work for me? I mainly ride all mountain with some park. From the information you provided above, the board might seem a little bit too small? Would it work if I get some Burton Boots?
Also, what are your thoughts about Flow NX2 bindings and Flow boots?
Thanks in advance!!
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
I think the length of the 158 would be ok for you and in terms of width, if you’re looking at the 2018 model, then the sizings have changed a bit. 2017 and prior, the 158 Custom X had a 249mm waist width – which would have been bordering on being too narrow for you. But the 2018 model 158 has a 254mm waist width, which would be fine for your boots. If you’ve been looking at my Custom X review, that’s not yet updated for 2018 – so it has the 2017 sizings on it. My Custom X Flying V review however has been updated and shows both the 2018 and 2017 sizings.
>>Custom X Flying V Review
In terms of the board itself, just note that this is quite a stiff aggressive board. If that’s what you’re after, then that’s a good thing, but if you’re not an aggressive rider, then you might not like it. I also wouldn’t usually recommend this board for the park – for me anyway I find it too stiff and unforgiving for the park or freestyle riding. For me, this board is all about carving and speed (which it does really well).
For more details, if you haven’t already you can check out my review on it at the link below:
>>Burton Custom X Review
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I’m 135/140 lbs, size 9.5 Nike Zoom Ites, 55cm wide stance +12°/-12°
I’m currently riding an old Bataleon Goliath 153 with 246mm waist width and I constantly boot out on deep carves.
I’m looking at the Rome Agent camber 154/156 as my next board, wondering if the 253mm waist width of the 154 will be enough to get deeper or if I should bump up to the 156 with 255mm waist width (maybe I’m too light for the 156)
What do you think? Thanks in advance
Hi Davide
Thanks for your message.
I’m not too surprised your getting boot drag on a 246mm waist if you’re getting into some deep carves.
I think you would be fine on a 253mm waist with 9.5s and those binding angles/stance width. In terms of length, I think the 156 is potentially a bit long. But if you could also let me know your height that would be great and I can make a more accurate recommendation. Weight is a bigger factor but height plays some part, IMO. But with a 55cm stance width, if you’re anything under 6 foot, I’d say that 156, at your weight is a little long.
Hi Nate, thanks a lot for your help.
I’m 5’8″ so i will buy the 154
You’re very welcome Davide. Good choice going 154. Hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome season!
G’ day Nate,
great informative page you got here!
I’m 200lb, size 10.5 and looking at the ultra mountain twin.
I can get a great deal on a 160 which is a 256mm waist, i like aggressive riding and carving.
According to your table it would be spot on, just don’t want to “boot out”.
Snow in Australia can get quite soft and slushy in the afternoon. Would a wider board help in these conditions?
Hi Steff
Yeah, you should be good on a 256mm waist width with 10.5s, even with hard carves. But just to get some more details to be more accurate – what binding angles do you use? Also what brand of boots do you own?
A wider board can definitely help in slush as it adds some surface area to help you float over top of it better. Going for extra length does the same thing – but some people don’t necessarily like to go longer, in which case going wider is the better option. In fact, there are a lot of boards going around these days that are designed shorter and wider. So you would typically take off 5+ centimeters from your traditional length for those boards – but the board is wider than you would normally have with a traditional shape. These boards are great for riding slush. I personally only like riding them in slush or powder – but others like them for all conditions. So yeah, a bit more width is good for slush – but might be a compromise for other conditions.
What board are you looking at?
Hi Nate,
tried the Burton Ion which i really liked.
Binding and angles i’m not sure, my current board is a Virus Nightmare with Burton step in binding and hard boots.
Had a Bataleon Goliath as a hire board, bindings were probably @ +-15 and felt ok.
Boards of interest
Jones Ultra mountain twin (wide)
Never Summer Ripsaw (X)
Could you recommend a “slush” board?
Cheers,
Hi Steff
If you go with the Ions, then I would say definitely that 256mm waist is all good (their nice and low profile) and binding angles shouldn’t matter too much then. But if you do end up on +15/-15, then definitely no issues – but you wouldn’t have to stick with those angles though.
I haven’t ridden that many “slush” boards but one that I really liked was the Capita Spring Break Slush Slasher. But some other options might be:
~ Never Summer Instigator
~ YES Optimistic
~ Ride Warpig
~ K2 Simple Pleasures
Not just for slush but these are all short/wide boards that will work well in slush and powder and are fun for a good surfy kind of ride.
Hey Nate,
I’m currently trying to decide between the Yes PYL, Yes Optimistic and Burton FA. I’m 6’3″ 190-195 lbs with a size 12 K2 Maysis boot.
The PYL is definitely my frontrunner as it seems to have better edge hold than the Burton and quicker turn initiation than the Optimistic but the 160W seems a touch too small for freeride/powder at my weight and the 165 only has a waist width of 258. Thoughts on if I can make the 165 work (and if not what you’d suggest from my other choices for powder, bombing groomers and trees in that order)? Thanks!
Hi Grant
Yeah unfortunately I agree that the 160W would be on the short side for your specs. I think something around 165 would actually be a great length for the PYL for you – but I am also concerned about it being a bit too narrow for size 12s. I’d say you could risk it with low profile boots, but K2 boots aren’t known for being low profile.
In terms of sizing:
The Flight Attendant has a 162W with a 264mm waist width which would be suitable – though a couple of extra cms on that even, would be good.
There’s also the Rossi XV. This has what I think would be an almost ideal size for you at 164W (264mm waist) and also has great edge-hold in icy conditions.
The Optimistic is a different kind of board – it’s designed to be ridden at a shorter length – the longest it comes in is a 157cm – as it has shorter tail and nose length and a wider waist width than you’d normally see. There’s quite a few of these types of boards coming out now. The 157 has a 266mm waist – so it would be wide enough for sure. I really like this type of board for the trees. I haven’t ridden the Optimistic so I couldn’t say for sure – but it’s supposed to be good on the groomers, for carving and for riding powder too. Edge-hold sounds like it’s comparable to the PYL.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Hey Nate!
Nate here. I am thinking of buying a Rome Pow Division MT(27). I will have size 11.5 Burton Ions. Will it be too wide? Should I go with the Jones hovercraft instead (26). Thanks!
Hey Nate!
Awesome name!
Ordinarily I would say it’s too wide but when it comes to theses short-wide surfy type boards it’s good to have that extra width – and the shorter length makes up for lost agility and the wider width makes up for the lost stability of the shorter length – if that makes sense. In my opinion that makes these types of boards great for the trees – you’ve still got that stability with the powder but that shorter length can make it easier to navigate through trees.
The Hovercraft is a less extreme version of the short/wide powder board – it’s a little longer and a little narrower – so it’s closer to a more traditional style. So if you don’t want to fully commit to going short/wide it’s a good compromize – but with your boot size, you would be fine on either – just because that’s the way that those boards are designed.
But if you could let me know your height/weight, then I could also make a recommendation as to a good size.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m 6’5″, 230, size 15 boot. I’m coming off a 10-year old 169 K2 that has pretty much the same dimensions as Lib Tech Skunk Ape = 28.4 cm waist width. I ride forward facing angles (+30/+15) and like to carve. Just ordered a Jones Flagship 169w with a 27 cm waist width. Toe/heel overlap won’t be too bad (haven’t mounted binding yet, might return Flagship), but wondering if I should’ve bought a Skunk Ape 170uw instead. Guess my question is, do you think there are performance benefits to a slightly narrower Flagship that might justify dealing with some minimal toe/heal overlap? Or should I just by the widest board I can (Skunk Ape or Elan El Grande) with a 28.4 waist? Thank you!
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message.
I think there are some benefits to having a narrower board – I find it easier to apply pressures the the edges and therefore find I get a quicker edge to edge transition. But you only get those benefits up to a certain point – i.e. more overhang doesn’t gain any extra benefit – but with too much overhang you could end up with toe heel drag. But a little bit of overhang isn’t a problem.
Since you like to carve though, I think that you don’t want more than 2cm (3/4″) of overhang over any side. That amount should be ok but more than that and you start to risk toe and heel drag, especially if you get into some low carves.
For size 15s, I think it would be pushing it a little bit on the 27cm waist. You might get away with it, but you might get too much overhang.
If you do decide to go wider, the Skunk Ape 170UW is def an option as is the El Grande.
The other option would be the Nitro Magnum. This has a 27.8 waist width on the on the 168 and a 27.9 on the 171.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate,
I appreciate the feedback. Great site and very helpful.
You’re very welcome! Thanks for visiting the site
Nice one, cheers Nate,
Also thinking the other option would be to get a new pair of boots which a smaller footprint as if I take the board back I’m not going to get one for the same price as I got the slayblade so would have to spend more money anyway! do you think a smaller footprint burton boot might be ok on the 252 waist board or is it still a bit tight?
Hi Mike
If you got some low profile boots, I think you would be fine on the 252mm waist width. So that’s definitely another option. Adidas, Ride and Burton are the best in the industry when it comes to low profile boots at the moment so they would be the ones I would check out – you can also check out the post below for some ideas.
>>My Top 12 Low Profile Snowboard Boots
That post is separated into boots of difference flex, with what I consider to be the top 3 low profile boots of each level of flex.
Hopefully this gives you some options if you do decide to upgrade your boots.
Thanks again Nate, after looking at my boots again it seems they are US10.5 so UK 9.5 even though it says UK10 on them! So I guess this means they are not to far off the 252 waist width board anyway? and if I got low profile boots would be perfect!
Another quick one, do you have any experience of the K2 slayblade or could you recommend something similar / better it I get get a wider board?
Cheers
Hey Mike
Nice one! That gives you a bit more leeway. With low profile boots that width should be ideal and even with your current boots you’ll likely be fine.
I haven’t ridden the Slayblade but from what I hear of it it’s quite an aggressive all mountain ride. I think an all-mountain board is going to be something that will suit you best based on what you described in a previous comment. I would check out the following link to get some ideas on some good all mountain options.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hi Nate
I’m glad I found this site, it’s very useful.
I’ve been trying to work if I’ve got the right size board could do with a bit of advice if possible. Im 6 foot tall and weight about 80kg and have UK size 10 boots and prob intermediate improving rider. Mostly on Piste but wanting to get into off piste more.
I just brought a 2014 k2 slayblade 158 regular (as it was a good cheap deal and on a Buget!) possibly might take it back if it not going to be ok! Guy in the shop suggested it’s a ralatively wide board and should be fine with UK size 10, but has a waist of 252 and side cut of 8m and not sure if that’s wide enough. What do you reckon?
Thanks
Mike
Hi Mike
I would put 252mm waist as something that was just too narrow. But it’s not likely super narrow for UK 10s. It’s under the minimum that I would normally recommend but it could be doable.
If you could let let me know the brand of boots you have (if you own your own boots) and your typical binding angles (if you know them). Some boots have better outer-sole reduction tech than others (which allows you to ride narrower boards) and if your bindings tend to be on more of an angle you can also get away with something narrower.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the response, I have 2012 salomon dialogue boots would normally Ride with +15 front and-10 to 15 on back. Also have Medium flite pro union bindings although I think I may need to go to a large on those even though sizing on the box says M/L fits up to a 10!
Hey Mike
Thanks for the extra info.
Unfortunately, Salomon Dialogues aren’t really the most reduced in terms of length so that’s not going to help. But having a back binding angle that’s at least 10 degrees does give you a bit more breathing space. But overall I’d say it’s pushing it. It’s a bit narrower than I would like to go. That’s not to say that it won’t work and that you’ll have toe and heel drag issues necessarily, but there is potential for that, especially if you like to carve and really get up on those edges when you ride.
The Flite Pro mediums should fit you ok but you’re right, you are right at the max that their designed for. But if you can get your boots into them and they fit fine (make sure you can get the heel right back into the heel cup) then they should be fine. But large might be a better fit in your case. Either size should fit fine on your board if you do decide to keep it.
The other thing you could do is mounting the bindings on the board and strap the boots into the bindings and measure the overhang (measure it based on the edge of the board on the underside of the board rather than the base of the board). Just make sure you’re still able to return the board (not sure if it’s second hand or new) if you were to screw the bindings in. You could maybe carefully lay them on top, maybe with some plastic sheeting underneath, if you were worried about marking the topsheet.
Thanks for the help Nate, I appreciate it. I think I may try and change the board, do you think I would need a wide board or just maybe just a mid wide board? Would a 161 slayblade be ok with a 254mm waist be ok or something similar to that?
Thanks
Mike
Hi Mike
You’re very welcome.
I think you would just get away with the 254mm waist width. I know it’s only a couple of mm difference but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. The only thing is if you are going to be comfortable on a 161. It’s by no means too big for you, but some people have a preference for either shorter or longer. For example, I’m similiar build to you (6ft, 81kg with equivalent of UK 9s) and I prefer to stay under 160cm usually – but I know others who are a similar build or smaller who like to ride a few cms above that.
I’d say that typically speaking 161 would be a good length for your height/weight though – and the fact that it sounds you’re more into riding the mountain than the park.
I wouldn’t go any narrower than that though. Something between 254mm and 262mm would probably be your ideal range, IMO. So mid-wides and wides should be fine.
Hi Nate,
I must tell you, after browsing the internet for a few days looking for snowboarding recommendations, this thread and your articles are so informative and helpful, thanks!
I’m somewhere between a beginner and intermediate, I had 4 snowboard vacations in the last 3 years, where I learned the basic stuff, snowboarding on blues and recently also reds, trying on both legs. Now focusing on improving technique, more stiff pistes, gain and control higher speeds. After spending 3 days in my last vacation changing equipment, I decided to buy a board, bindings, and boots. I’m snowboarding mainly in Italy and Austria, I’d like a board that will be OK for all types of snow conditions and can hold on hard/icy conditions, as well as muggles. I would like an all-rounder board that I can also learn to jump with, get into the park, and will be easy to maneuver, although it is not my main focus.
Height: 181cm / 5’11”
Weight: 63kg / 139lbs
Boots: size 11.5 (Burton photon boa)
Looking on the following:
1. Yes Basic 156W
2. Capita Horoscope 153W
3. Ride agenda 153W
4. GNU Carbon Credit 153W
5. Arbor WESTMARK ROCKER 154MW
Is any of them can fit me? Any other suggestions? can I look into non wide boards?
Thanks,
Ami
Hi Ami
Thanks for your message.
In terms of width I think that anything with a 255mm waist width up to a 263mm waist would work for you – You can go a little bit narrower, given you have Burton boots, which have good outersole reduction. In the length of boards that I think you should be looking at, I think you will be needing to look at wide boards to get in that range. This is all assuming an 11.5 US boot size. If you have a UK 11.5 size, then I’ll have to look at it again.
In terms of length, I think ideally something between 153cm and 155cm would work best for you.
In terms of the boards you mentioned.
1. YES Basic. I think this would be a good choice and has great edge hold in hard and icy conditions. Only thing is that it’s probably slightly longer than ideal for you.
2. Capita Horrorscope – not known for being great in hard/icy conditions and more freestyle oriented than what you’re probably looking for ideally.
3. Ride Agenda – dito what I said about the Horrorscope
4. GNU Carbon Credit – I think this would be a good option too. Great in terms of length and width for you. Great edge-hold in hard and icy conditions. One thing is that it’s perhaps slightly more freestyle oriented than is ideal.
5. Arbor Westmark Rocker – great in terms of size, and good in hard conditions. But, again, quite a freestyle oriented board.
Here are some other options that would suit your needs, if you can’t decide on one of those.
~ Jones Mountain Twin 155W
~ GNU Metal Gnuru 155MW
~ Niche Story 156
~ Yes Standard 156W
~ YES Typo 156W
The last 3 are, like the Basic, a little bit longer than I would ideally recommend but they are options if you’re willing to go a little bit longer in length.
I think the best options are probably GNU Carbon Credit 153W, Arbor Westmark 154MW, YES Basic or Typo 156W, Jones Mountain Twin 155W, GNU Metal Gnuru 155MW.
Hope this helps and gives you some options to think about.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the help, my boots size is 12 US (Burton) so your assumption and recommendations were right. I might change it to 11.5, as it may be too big.
I have found a new unused 2015 GNU Carbon Credit 153W and I like better the 2015 design. Is it the same as the 2017?
I also really liked the Yes Basic, but I prefer no going to 156W.
Is the Burton Process flying V 155 can also be an option or too narrow?
Thanks,
Ami
Hi Ami
You’re very welcome.
Not much has changed between the 2017 Carbon Credit since the 2015 version. A few tweaks but essentially the same board. I think that would be a good option for you.
I think the Process Flying V would be too narrow for sure – and also it’s not great in hard/icy conditions. If you’ve found a 2015 Carbon Credit in the 153W, I think that’s your best bet – and I’m guessing it’s going for a good price too.
Hi Nate,
I bought eventually a new 2015 GNU Carbon Credit 153W for 250$. Can’t wait for the season to start 🙂
Thank you for your help!
Ami
Nice work and you’re very welcome! I’m also looking forward to the new season already.
Hope you enjoy your new deck
Hi Nate,
I’d like to update with my experience after total of 14 days of snowboarding in Austria and Italy this season. First of all, this is one of the best snow seasons in Europe in the last years, so much snow and low temperatures.
I have the GNU Carbon Credit 153W and Burton Photon size 12, they are a great match. I used 2 types of bindings: Flow Fuse Hybrid L and Flow Five Fusion XL. regarding sizing I’d say the XL fits better but also the L is ok. I preferred the hybrid over the fusion but in any case next season I’d use regular bindings as I didn’t like so much the rear entry.
Now, regarding the ride, the board was great on all types of conditions and slopes, like, groomed, moguls, icy, powder, flat and steep lopes.
It feels like a forgiven board and easy to maneuver. In some cases I almost caught edge and fell but was able to get control again and continue. I did not entered the park but did some easy jumps on the slopes and it was fine. I’m highly satisfied, thank you Nate for your advice.
Now, after my wife saw how a good equipment can make the vacation much better she also wants a buy a board, without dealing with rental of something that does not really fit, pain, exchanging, etc.
I’d like your recommendation and some options for a women’s board:
Height: 160cm / 5’3
Weight: 52kg / 114lbs
Boots: size 7 (Burton boa)
She is a beginner-intermediate and would like a board that is freestyle – all mountain, that will be OK for all types of snow conditions and can hold also on hard/icy conditions, moguls, powder, easy to maneuver and be forgiven.
She is for sure into jumps and would like to get into the park.
Thanks!
Amir
Hi Amir
Thanks for your message. Awesome that you’ve been enjoying your Carbon Credit!
For your wife:
In terms of length, I would say something between 140 & 142 for her specs and as a beginner/ intermediate rider.
In terms of width, with 7s. I’d say roughly 227mm to 237mm at the waist would be a good range to look at.
The following would be good options, IMO – they’re all-mountain-freestyle, good in hard/icy conditions and appropriate for a high-end beginner/ intermediate level:
~ Never Summer Onyx 140 (233mm waist)
~ GNU Ladies Choice 142.5 (232mm waist)
~ GNU Gloss 140 (233mm waist)
~ YES Emoticon 143 (237mm waist) – on the longer side though
~ GNU Velvet Gnuru 139 (226mm waist) on the smaller side. There’s also the 143 (235mm waist) which is on the longer side.
~ Never Summer Proto Type Two 142 (234mm waist)
Hope this helps and gives you some options
Thanks a lot for the answer.
I looked at the GNU ladies and it seems like a very good choice. According to the spec the recommended weight is 50-130 for the 142 and 60-140 for the 145.
My wife weight is 114 lbs but after I consulted her let’s assume it can be easily varies between 114 to 130 🙂
Is the 142 ok even for 130lbs weight or she is better getting the 145?
A few more models I saw in our region are and would be happy to get your option on them are:
1. GNU B-Nice – seems like a more cost effective option that the Ladies choice.
2. Arbor Ethos or Paparazzi 141
Thanks,
Amir
Hi Amir
Yeah, even if she was to go to 130lbs, the 142.5 would still be my pick. She could then ride the 145.5 as well, I would say, but if that’s going to be the max, then I still think 142.5 because that’s going to work a lot better at the lower end of the range (IMO) and will still work at the higher end. The 145.5 is getting too long for her (IMO) for when she’s at the lower end of that range.
The B Nice (142) would work fine. You wouldn’t get the same performance as you do out of the Ladies Choice – it will be an easy riding board – easy to turn, easy to ride – but will lack the punch that the Ladies Choice gives you – but yeah certainly a good bit cheaper.
Arbor Poparazzi (141) would be an option too – I just demoed the Arbor Whiskey today which I would say would be the closest men’s equivalent – and I really enjoyed it. The Ethos actually looks, based on the specs, to be a very similar board to the Poporazzi, only a little softer flexing. The Ethos would be the easiest ride, the best beginner’s choice – but the Poporazzi would offer up just a bit more performance, especially for speed, just as it’s a little stiffer. But both boards, based on the Whiskey) are quite playful but not overly loose feeling at the same time.
I think she would get more out of the Poprazzi, than the Ethos or the B Nice – especially as she progresses into a more intermediate rider – but all 3 of those would be safe options (IMO) in terms of boards that are easy and fun to ride. And the Arbor’s that I rode today seemed to have really decent edge-hold in hard conditions – I didn’t have super hard conditions to ride on – but there were some firmer patches, and they held well in those patches. The B-Nice would also be good in hard/icy conditions.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
My wife bought the GNU B-Nice 142, K2 Haven boots and Union Rosa bindings.
Thanks for your advise, you are running a great website.
We’ll update next year, after she use the new gear.
Thanks,
Amir
You’re very welcome Amir. Looking forward to hearing how your wife gets on with her new gear once she’s had a chance to test it out.
Hey Nate,
Love your articles always filled with great info. I thought I’d pick your brains about something.
I have Salomon Launch boots in a size USA 12 and Burton Custom Bindings L.
I usually ride wide boards but I was lucky enough to get given a new Burton Process off Axis 159. In your opinion do you think there would be too much overhang with this set up?
Extra info
Height 6ft 2″
Weight 176lb
Hi Keith
Sweet to get given a board!
Unfortunately I would be concerned about it being to narrow for your size 12s. I’d usually recommend at least 260mm at the waist width for size 12s. The Process Off Axis 159cm has a 255mm waist width – and not a particularly deep side-cut. That and Salomon boots aren’t generally known for their reduced footprint tech (except for their old F series boots which they don’t make anymore).
But there’s always a chance you would get away with it. Have you placed the boots in the bindings on the board to see what the overhang is like? I would say it’s going to be too much but you never know. It also depends somewhat on how you ride. If you like to carve and really get up on your edge, then I think you’ll have real problems with toe and heel drag. If you’re a more casual rider, you might get away with it.
Is there any downside to trying it or would you rather try to sell it un-ridden if you think it’ll be too narrow? If you’d prefer to try to sell it unridden, then, in my opinion based on the facts, I think it would be too narrow for you.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the advice!
Yeah it was a rad thing to get gifted and I would love to ride it just because of that.
I like to cruise around the mountain really groomers a bit of park, I’m not busting out massively deep carves but I don’t want to wipe out when buttering.
I set it up in my apartment but as I have only ridden wide boards I really don’t have anything to compare it to. The overhang is about 1.4 inches
I can tilt my old board to almost 90 degrees before the toe edge hits the floor. The off axis tilts around 65 degrees until the toes hit the floor, which is still enough of a tilt to clearly see the base graphic and there is no heel drag at all. This is all in my apartment I guess on the snow you would have to account for the angle of the slope and the direction you’re riding in and now we’re getting into way too much math. My gut tells me it will be ok but the stats are tripping me out.
I guess you’re right the only way to truly know is to ride it. I’m going to think about it over the next few days until I crack and make a decision because yeah it would be nice to ride it but maybe in it’s perfect condition I could trade it in at a local shop or get a part exchange.
In terms of being able to open myself up to a wider (or not so wide ;)) selection of boards in the future do you think there would be much of an advantage in picking up a pair of Burton boots size 12 with the size reduction tech or would it still leave me looking at wide boards. I’m pretty happy with the Salomons but if the advantage is worth it I might consider picking up some last season boots.
Thanks
I adjusted the EST conversion plate, I realised the binding wasn’t centred. DOH!
I got about 2.5cm on both heel and toe overhang, cutting it fine and it’s now pretty much a 90 degree angle before that toe hits the deck.
Will be interesting to see if different boots have an affect.
Hi Keith
It doesn’t sound too far off being doable based on what you are saying. I guess you’ve just got to make a call on whether it’s worth the risk of trying it out.
In terms of low profile boots, they definitely do make a difference. In terms of not needing a wide board with a low profile size 12, that would really depend on the board. You still won’t be able to go down and ride anything with a 250mm waist width or anything like that. I would say think of a low profile boot as taking off half a size to a whole size. So a size 12 in a low profile boot would be like a size 11 or an 11.5 in a regular profile boot.
Most boots these days have some degree of reduced footprint but the best boots, in my experience, for this are Adidas, Burton and Ride. With Adidas’ latest models (from 2017) being the ones with the largest footprint reduction. Prior to that it was Burton and Ride (and those boots haven’t become longer – it’s just that Adidas have upped their game this season).
Hi Nate,
Thx for the great article… It’s very useful for me as a beginner.
Im around 5’ 7-8”, 140-145lbs and boot size of 10.5 Burton moto.
Im planning to buy Gnu Metal Gnuru for my first board… So 152(waist width 251) or 155(waist width 253) is suitable for me ? and burton mission M size binding is large enough for my boot?
Thx first….
Edmond
Hi Edmond
For your weight and height and as a beginner, the 152cm board would be a better length.
In terms of width I’d usually say go 252mm or higher for waist width for size 10.5s but since you have Burton boots (which have good reduced footprint tech) the 251mm waist width on the Metal Gnuru 152 should be fine for you.
If I was you I would go for the 152cm.
For Burton bindings you’re right in the middle in terms of sizes and you could go with either M or L but I would say that the M is large enough. I ride Medium Burton bindings when I demo boards. I have size 10s – but they don’t have the same reduced footprint as your boots will have so your 10.5 Motos will be similar in size to my size 10s. So yeah I would go with M for Burton Missions.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. Okay what do you think of this one? They have a 147 and 150
Zumiez Snowboards
let me know! Their are a few more I’ve been looking at that i will send as well
Hi Megan
Was that the Aperture boards? – when I go to the link it doesn’t have a board selected. But there are options for the Aperture Cosmo and Aperture Vice.
When I looked at the 147cm boards for both the Cosmo and the Vice, there isn’t any difference in their specs that I can see, which seems strange to have 2 boards with the same specs – but, assuming those specs are accurate, then I think either one will be suitable. They look like they are beginner friendly and the width will be a good fit for you. I think that the 147cm options would be the way to go but the 150cm boards are also within range – I just think the 147cm would be a slightly better size option.
Disclosure: I know nothing about this brand so I am only going off the specs that I can see.
Hey Nate,
A very helpful article!
My feet are 30.5 cm long and I’m riding +15/-15. Not sure of my stance width, but since I’m 6.6 I guess that it’ll be a little bit wider than normal. My question regards the insert width of the NS West X 164. If I understand you right – the feet should be the same length as the board width (when standing in +15/-15). Is there a way which I can calculate the insert width? Because I’m a bit worried that it may be too narrow. There’s some setback on the board too – which will bring my front foot closer to the waist.
Not sure what to do if the board doesn’t fit – it´s pretty hard to find good all-mountain decks that are wide without being super long (like the Lib Tech Skunk Ape UW).
Thanks in advance!
Tobias
Hi Tobias
Short answer – you should be just right on the West X 164cm which has a 266mm waist width.
In terms of your foot size – this is really where we want to work out what the maximum width you want to go with. Because if the width is too wide and your feet are too far inside of the edges, then you are having to work harder to get leverage on the edges.
In terms of the minimum width you want to go with, this comes down to your boots – if you’re boots are too long for the board’s width that’s when toe or heel drag can happen. But as long as your feet aren’t overhanging too much, then it’s a pretty safe bet that your boots will be fine. But it’s not always the case. For example, some people end up in boots that are longer than the mondoprint of their feet which adds some length.
Also, some boots have a longer outersole relative to the mondoprint of the boot than others. Some brands boots are known to be quite “low profile” – which allows you to get on a narrower board. But certainly if you’re in a 12.5 boot as your foot size would suggest, then I imagine you’ll have no problems with heel or toe drag.
If you don’t yet have boots and are still worried about the waist, check out the link below for some low profile boot options. This will give you more confidence.
>>My Top 12 Low Profile Boots
But, yeah short answer again, I think the West X 164 will be fine for you width-wise.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply Nate!
You’re right about me not having any boots. It’s my third year shredding and I’ve been on rented stuff all the time. My current plan is to buy a board on this years post-season sale and then grab boots + bindings in the autumn when the new gear has arrived, since all boots in my size are pretty much sold out now.
Talking about boot size, my feet are just on the spot a 12.5 – which maybe will be a bit tight since I’m mainly a resort rider. Thinking of getting a pair of Tactical ADV:s in 13 (I’ll of course try the 12.5s too) in the autumn – so my question i the following: Would a pair of 13s be too big for the board or would I have to go with my exact mondosize to fit onto this board? How much difference does ½ a size do to the outer sole?
/Tobias
Hi Tobias
If you go with the Tactical ADVs I would be confident that you would fit well on this board waist-width wise. Adidas boots have very good outersole reduction – so whether you’re on the 13 or the 12.5 for the Tactical ADVs, then I think you’ll have no problems. If you end up with a size 13 in a different brand I would be less confident but I think you would be ok on a few brands.
But if you’re definitely set on the ADVs, then this board should be fine for you width-wise.
Hi Nate,
Great article!!!
Im 5’11”, 160lbs and boot size of 10.5 and I want to switch to Freestyle.
I would like to buy the Never Summer Funslinger 153 with waist width of 250.
Usually I ride waist width of 252 (now I got the NS Proto Type Two 157) and having no problem.
My boots are Burton Ambush with the footprint shrinkage which should make my boot size as a 9.5 boots.
Does it realy work? Waist width of 250 will be OK?
Regards,
Eran.
Hi Eran
In reply to both of your comments. I think you’ll be ok on that 250mm waist. Normally I’d say don’t go any lower than 252mm with 10.5s. But since you have had no issues on the 252mm and you have the reduced footprint you should be fine. The reduced footprint definitely does make a difference.
Hi nate,
Great article!
Im 160lbs, 5’11’ and 10.5 boot size.
I would like to buy the 153 Never Summer funslinger.
Its waist width is 250 and I would like to know if I sould go with the 154X with waist width of 258 (I dont like wide boards…).
I usually ride a 252 waist width and its OK for me.
My boots are Burton Ambush which got the Shrinkage™ Footprint Reduction Technology that should make the boot as if it was 9.5… can I count on it?
Regards,
Eran.
Hey Nate!
I am a totally beginner in snowboarding and I was suggested to buy Ride Agenda 2017 but after reading your articles I think that I will be on the limit. My height is 180cm, 80-82kgs, wearing 10-10.5 shoes. Should I search of something else? I can find a Ride Agenda for 170 dollars which is quite tempting!
Hi Panagiotis
I think the Ride Agenda will be a good choice for you as your first board. A great first board. And the width should be fine. For your height and weight and the fact that you’re a beginner, I would say that the 156cm is the best choice for you. That has a waist width of 252mm. If you get into size US10 or US10.5 boots you should be absolutely fine with that width. And you should get into 10s I would say – or even 9.5s (sometimes with snowboard boots you end up a half size down). So no problems there.
What size is the Agenda that you’re looking at for 170 dollars? Or do you have a choice of sizes. If you have a choice, definitely go for the 156cm. The 159cm would be doable but I would prefer to see you on the 156cm, if possible.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much for your answer! Both heights are available for 170 dollars but I was thinking to go for 159cm because of my weight. The manufacturer gives as maximum rider’s weight 82kgs for the 159cm board and 80kgs for the 156cm.
Hi Panagiotis
I wouldn’t worry too much about those weight guidelines. I would definitely take them into consideration to an extent but if you’re close to it, then I think you’ll be fine. As a beginner it will be easier to learn and to progress on the 156cm. The 159cm will be a trickier learning curve. I am 6’0″ and 83kg-ish and when I was starting out I rode a 159cm and it wasn’t fun compared the the 155cm to 156cm boards that I was previously on. Now, that 159cm may not have been as beginner friendly as the Agenda but I still think the 156cm is the better option for you.
If you are over the max weight recommendation the main thing that will do is mean that the board will feel a little bit softer flexing than what it’s rated as – as you would only be slightly over, it won’t have that much effect. The 156cm will feel a bit softer than the 159cm but that’s not a bad thing as a beginner.
Hi Nate,
So I finally went for 156 with Burton Custom Bindings. Now where is my snow? 🙂
Hey Panagiotis
Good choice, in my opinion. Can’t help with the snow, sorry! 😉
Hello!
Could you please help me with the right board sizing? especially in terms of waist width? I am an intermediate all-moutain rider with Vans Infuse boot sized 11US (I don’t know whether it has any sort of reduced footprint or not). Looking closely at Capita Mercury 2017, or maybe Jones Ultra Mountain Twin. The problem is i have no chance to hold them in my hand and put my foot on it. I am 183 cm height 80 kgs weight, so looking at 161w with Jones and 161 with Capita. Capita’s 26.1 waist confuses me, as it seems just a bit too wide, but at the same time I have heard in reviews that this waist includes their “deadlock” bump and so the real geometric waist would be a little narrower.
Could you please advice?
Hi Alexey
I think both the Mountain Twin 161W and Mercury 161W would be fine in terms of waist width for US11 Vans Infuse boots. No problems there. Vans boots have a little bit of reduced footprint but not that much – about average for the industry.
Great read, thanks for the information
Can I ask a question
I’m after a new snowboard as my old one is looking tired so my question is do I need a wide board or not I’m a size 10 uk shoe and bindings are M/L I’m looking at boards that are from 157 to 160
What is your opinion on this
Thanks
danny
Hi Danny
Thanks for your message. To me your on the cusp with UK10s. I don’t like to say definitely go wide or definitely don’t go wide in your case because I think it depends. That’s why I prefer to look in terms of waist width. Some wide boards are quite wide and would probably be too wide for your boot size and some regular width boards would actually be wide enough for you.
So I would look at something, in terms of waist width, between 254mm and 260mm and you could probably go up to 262mm but I wouldn’t go much wider than that. 254mm would be the narrowest I would go – and if you go to that point it might depend on binding angles, stance width and side-cut to determine if it would be suitable.
Hope this answers your question.
Great article. Getting my wife a snowboard. She is US women’s size 11 feet. Charts look like ideal waist size 252. She likes pretty boards, men’s boards aren’t pretty. Burton Feelgood Flying V is cute, has 243 mm waist width, 7.6 m radius, 530 mm stance width. I get board width of 252.2 mm at stance width. Should be ok? Or will she be overhanging too much?
Hi Jamey
I’d say the width of the Feelgood Flying V would be too narrow at 243mm waist and the overhang would be too much. I think you would want something that is at least 249mm at the waist.
If you’re looking at boards with length 152cm, then I would look at the YES Emoticon. This board is a women’s board and the 152cm size has a 252mm waist width. This sounds ideal for your wife assuming the 152cm length is appropriate. If you you’re not sure of the best length if you can let me know her height/weight and ability level and I can recommend a length for you. But if that length is appropriate then I think that board would be a good way to go.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! She’s 5’9″ 135 lbs ridden a snowboard once. did not go real well. bruised her gluteus. she’ll never be a hard charger. would just take it easy on greens maybe the occasional blue
Hi Jamey
Thanks for the extra info.
She could go for the 152cm Emoticon – but I don’t think it would be the ideal length. Since she is a beginner and going to be a casual rider for the foreseeable future, I think that going shorter than that would be a better option. Something around 147cm to 148cm is probably a good way to go. It’s also important to make sure that she gets a board that is beginner suitable – some boards are much harder to learn on than others.
Because she isn’t going to be charging too hard, then she could probably get away with something a little bit narrower – toe and heel drag is usually only an issue when you’re really getting up on your edges – but you wouldn’t want to go too narrow or it can become an issue anyway.
You could check out this list for some options:
~ My Top 5 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
I think the only appropriate size in that lot would be the Rome Royal 147cm (246mm waist width). I think that would be a great option.
Unfortunately there aren’t a huge number of options for that length/width combination without going into men’s boards. But I think the Rome Royal 147cm would be a great choice. I found it a couple of stores at the links below if you wanted to check it out.
~ Rome Royal at backcountry.com
~ Rome Royal at the-house.com
Oh and you could also look at getting padded shorts for her, if you think it will help her confidence. I swear by them now after breaking my tail bone. You can have a look at the review of the ones I ride but there are women’s options too.
~ Demon Flex Force X Padded Shorts
Hope this helps
Hey,
I’m a size 15 boot (with Burton’s reduced footprint) and I wonder what would be the ideal with for me? Is 265mm+ good enough or do I need to go even higher? (kinda set on the NS West X which is 266 so that’s why I’m asking – looks like a terrific board, but to much toe/heel drag would certainly ruin the experience)
Thanks in advance!
/Toby
Hi Toby – even with Burton’s reduced footprint (which is very good), I would prefer to see you on something more like 270mm+. You might squeeze onto a 266mm but you would be risking potential toe/heel drag issues.
I know this really limits your options because there aren’t too many boards at that width.
Even if you could get a bit closer to that 270mm mark might help.
I know that Lib Tech Skunk Ape comes in an “Ultra-Wide” size that has a 285mm waist width! The length is a 170cm though – I’m not sure what length you’re looking at since both the 164X and 168X of the West have a 266mm waist.
The 165W Skunk Apes has a 268mm waist (with a similar sidecut to the 164X West – so will be wider at the inserts than the West X). I haven’t ridden this board though because they are all wide sizes.
The Turbo Dream 167W has a 269mm waist. This isn’t as nice a ride as the West, IMO. But it’s a decent board and probably a safer width.
The Ride Wild Life 167W also has a 269mm waist.
Hope this helps – those are all I can think of at the moment but I can do more digging if you want more options. Another option would be to go for a custom build
Thanks for the advice! Just discovered that my boots are actually are size 14 – does that make any difference? Otherwise I’ll have to look at some wider boards!
/Toby
You’re very welcome Toby.
If you have Burton 14s, then I think that does make a difference. I think that you should be able to get on the West X (266mm waist width) with those. No guarantees and you would still be at the narrower end but I’d say you would get away with it.
Awesome man! Thanks again! Really hyped for that board (it has got awesome reviews all of the internet) so it would be a bummer to miss it because of overhang.
Hi Nate,
As someone very new to snowboarding, these articles are amazingly helpful! This is my first season snowboarding and therefore i’m a complete novice but i’m loving it and would like to invest in my own gear rather than continually renting. However, I live in Japan and being able to effectively communicate what I need is a challenge, and I want to make sure i’m investing in the right equipment. Therefore any help you can offer re. board and binding specifications would be greatly appreciated (apologies for the basic questioning and lack of technical knowledge):
Height: 169cm
Weight: 66kg
Foot length: 27.5cm
Based on you other article I think I should be asking for a Hybrid Camber or Flat to Rocker camber, with a flex rating of 3-4, centered stance and true twin shape with extruded Base? Waist width 250mm+? I’m afraid the sidecut radius concept is a bit lost on me! Binding should be XL/L.
Are there any other factors which I should be considering when going to buy the board and bindings?
Any feedback you can offer would be wonderful.
Thanks for your time,
Kim.
Hi Kim
Thanks for your message.
You’ve got pretty much everything spot on. Just one caution that not all hybrid cambers and flat-to-rockers are made equal and some can be easier and harder to ride, depending. Also Twin shape and centered stance is preferred but it’s not essential. Directional Twin shape is fine (just probably try to stay away from directional and tapered directional) and a small setback stance is fine but not too much.
In terms of width, then anything from a 248mm is probably a safe way to go – you could probably get a little bit narrower but it would depend on the size and brand of boot you got into. But I also wouldn’t go too wide – no wider than 256mm preferably.
In terms of length, I think that anything between 147cm and 150cm would work well for you.
In terms of boards to look at, check out the link below – not sure what’s available in Japan but hopefully something from there will be available.
>>Beginner Snowboards Reviews
Binding size will depend on the brand and the boot size you get into. But you can check out the following to see the different sizings for different brands (unfortunately there isn’t a standard size):
>>Snowboard Binding Sizing
Like with the board, again look for something with a forgiving flex for the bindings too – around that 3/10 or 4/10 is a safe mark to go with again.
Hope this helps
HI Nate:
I need some help with purchasing a splitboard. I wear size 14 Burton Moto boots with Burton Large bindings. I am currently riding a Rossignol Circuit Amptek at 165 wide. I am hoping to buy online since there aren’t any stores that sell splitboards in my state that I have found. Any suggestions?
Hi Jason
Unfortunately I don’t have any experience with split boards so I can’t really offer any advice on good split board options. I would say though, for size 14 boots (even Burton boots that have reduced footprint tech) that I wouldn’t go any narrower than 265mm wide. That would be an absolute minimum, IMO.
Thank you. I wasn’t looking for advice on splitboard specifically, more about width generally speaking. The 265 is waist width, correct?
Hi Jason
Yes, 265mm waist width. I would try to get something a little bit wider if possible but that would be the minimum
Hey Nate!
I’d really appreciate some help determing which board i should go with.
I actually bought 2 boards and are going to return 1. Like someone elses post i was told to look at the weight range and forgot about the width.
The boards:
Burton blunt -16 159W (259mm waist width)
Nitro Team exposure gullwing 157 (250mm waist width)
177cm
82kg
My boot size i’m not sure yet i’ve tried on burtons 10.5 which i think is the size for me, but maybe a size 11.
I intend to ride stance +15 -3 to 6 on the right foot.
My style is playful mostly on groomer. but like to progress on buttering and small jumps that comes along the mountain. I would say i’m an all-mountain rider.
After trying out burtons size guide for boards it told me a 159W would fit me with size 10.5 but then i read about their shrinkage technology on boots.
What i like to know is 250 waist to small and 259 to big? or is the 159W a good choice for me.
Thanks for the help! Really nice site you got 🙂
Best regards
Gustav
Hi Gustav.
Thanks for your message.
I think that the Nitro Team Exposure Gullwing 157 is probably going to be a bit narrow with that 250mm waist width. That’s getting into toe or heel drag territory for a size 10.5 or 11.0. You would probably get away with it on a 10.5 low profile (boot with shrinkage tech) boot but it would be cutting it fine.
The Blunt is a more playful board too which might be more suitable to what you’re describing. I think the 159cm length will be ok for you so long as you are an intermediate to advanced rider. If you were a beginner then something a little shorter would have been better. But you sound like you are intermediate or up.
Hope this helps
And to be certain, you think that the 259 waist width is a good fit for me?
Thank you so much for The help, really appreciate it!
Hi Gustav
Yes 259mm waist will be a good fit for you, IMO.
Hi.
Great article.
I’m about to order a new board, the Salomon Assassin 16/17. I’m 180 cm, weigh around 80 kg.
I have the burton Ion boot in size US 11, and the Salomon Defender bindings.
Do you think the 158 will work? 253 cm wide. Or do you think I will be better of with the 157W that is 261 wide?
I now have a Salomon Super8 160 that is 264 wide, but I want a more responsive board for all mountain riding.
Greetings from Sweden!
Hi Chris
I think the 158cm would be a good size for you. Since you have Burton Ions, I think that you will be fine with the 253mm waist with your size 11s. Burton have good reduced footprint tech. On some boot brands I would say go for 157W but with your boots you can get on the 253mm waist, which will help the board to be a bit quicker edge-to-edge and easier and snappier to turn with.
So yeah 158cm I think is a good size for you for the Assassin.
Great! Then I go with 158 that was my first choice.
Thanks for the quick reply.
You’re very welcome Chris. Hope you enjoy your new deck and have an awesome rest of the season on it!
Hey Nate,
I would like some advice if possible,
I’ve got a 16-17 Burton Process 155 with a 251mm width and I’m looking to get bindings and boots. When I bought the board I wasn’t looking too closely at the width cause I was so focused on the weight aspect. I’m quite light for my height. Anyway, I normally wear a size 10 or 28.5cm but when I went to the store to try on a pair of Burton Rulers it felt like I needed to go a size up to the 29cm ones, so I did, and even then there was still a bit of contact. (No contact when I bent my knees.) I guess I’m just trying to figure out if I made a mistake in my board purchase. Can you ride large bindings and a 10.5/29 size boot on a 251mm board? Would it definitely be too much to ride it with 29.5?
Thank you,
Matt
Hi Matt
You can definitely get large bindings on the 251mm waist width Process.
In terms of your boots. Firstly, if you have contact at the end that’s fine. If it’s just touching, then that’s fine. But if there’s a bit of pressure on your toes or if the boots are bending your toes at all, then they are slightly too small for you. Perfect sizing would be only just touching when standing up straight and then not touching when knees bent.
If you get in US10.5 boots, then I would be confident that you’d be ok on your board, especially if you go with Burton (or Adidas or Ride) boots as they have a lower profile outersole than other boots. If you need to go with a US11.0, then it’s getting close to being too narrow – but you might still be ok – provided you go for a low profile boot.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate I really appreciate it!
So, was trying on boots today and it looks like I’m actually closer to a 29-29.5cm which I suppose is a US 11/11.5…so that’s a bummer. I live in Japan so finding the right size boot and snowboard seems to be getting more and more difficult. I’m gonna see if I can take the board back tomorrow. I’ve yet to open it so it should be alright.
Is there any board that you would recommend? Any width that you would recommend as well? I was quite set on the Process…
Thanks
-Matt
Would a wide 157 work?
Hi Matt
Yeah it’s probably a bit risky going with the 251mm waist on the 155 Process if you’re going to end up in 11.5s. You might still be ok with 11s if you were to get low profiles but it’s cutting it closer for sure.
In terms of width, the 157W (257mm waist) would be absolutely fine. But I’m not sure about length. If you can let me know your weight and height and I can let you know what I think of the length.
Height: 179cm / 5’10”
Weight: 62kg / 136lbs
I think my measurements are somewhat troublesome with regard to snowboards.
What would happen if I went for the 159? Would it still be too narrow for an 11.5? Would it be too long?
Thanks again for the help!
Hi Matt
You might be ok on a 255mm waist width (which the 159cm has) assuming you were to get Low Profile boots. But I think that length would be too long for your weight.
I’d prefer to see you on something closer to the 155cm mark. I think the 157W would be the best size for you for the Process – and I think it would be a suitable size.
But if you can’t find the Process in a 157W, here are some other options that I think would be good for you – though I’m not sure of the options you have.
~ Jones Mountain Twin 155W (258mm waist)
~ Burton Custom Flying V 155W (256mm waist)
~ YES Typo 156W (259mm waist)
~ Never Summer Snowtrooper 157W (261mm waist)
~ K2 Turbo Dream 157W (260mm waist)
~ Never Summer West 157W (261mm waist)
Those would be some other options if you could find them – but the 157W process would be fine too. Let me know if you can’t find anything and I can hunt a little deeper for you.
They all look to be exactly what I want!
Unfortunately a few of them are not available and the ones that are are grossly overpriced. The only thing that I can find that is fairly close is a Burton Custom Twin Flying V 158W.
Japanese feet tend to be on the shorter side so I guess they just dont really stock the Wide versions…
Would you happen to have any other suggestions?
Hi Matt
So they don’t have the Process in the 157W?
Here are some other options. Again, not sure what they have over there, but hopefully you can find something!
~ Niche Story 156cm (258mm waist) (going to be a little bit stiffer than the Process Flying V but a great all-round board)
~ YES standard 156W (256mm waist) (dito Niche story)
~ Rossignol Templar 156W (259mm waist)
~ Jones Explorer 158W
The only thing with the Custom Twin Flying V is that it’s not going to be as good in powder – it’s more freestyle oriented. The boards I’ve been looking at are what I consider all-mountain boards – which is what I consider the Process Flying V to be – and I’ve just been guessing, since you’re in Japan, that you want something that’s good in powder.
If you’ve mentioned this already I apologize – but can you let me know what your ability level is and roughly your style of riding – how you like to ride – jumps, powder, spins, jibs, casual, bit-of-everything, aggressive etc. Depending on your style there might be some options outside of the ones I’ve been looking at.
No worries my good sir, you’ve been a great help!
All mountain is what I’m looking for, and yes, something that I could use in powder would be most ideal but I would also like to still have a good time on groomers. I don’t feel as comfortable in the air yet but I would certainly like to work on it.
As far as skill goes, I believe I lean toward the beginners side of an intermediate level. I feel like I’m still trying to get it all back after years off the mountain.
I’ll keep searching but so far I’m finding great deals on regular sized boards and unholy price tags on anything with a W at the end of the size digit.
I do greatly appreciate the help!
Hey Matt
You’re very welcome.
Sucks that the wides are priced up over there. I think the boards that we’ve been looking at are really what you would be looking for. Hopefully you can find something reasonably priced.
Feel free to run anything past me if you do find something that we haven’t mentioned and that you think is suitable. And if you want to look at some all-mountain freestyle options, I can make some recommendations – just that they won’t be as good in powder.
Hey Nate,
Thank you sir.
If anything else comes up I will let you know! That being said, I just now found a decently priced ’16-17′ Custom Flying V 158w. I’ve ridden a 160 before and it felt like an absolute battleship, perhaps due in part to the weight range.
I apologize for continuing to trouble you but may I dare ask what your thoughts on the 158w are?
Hi Matt
Ideally I would prefer to see you on something a little bit shorter. I think you’ll just enjoy it more – if you’re getting desperate this is an option. I think the 155W would be a far better option for you for the Custom Flying V though. If you can hold out I would.
I think you will find that length to feel a bit like a battleship too!
135 lbs
6’2″
M
Yea-I’m skinny
Union Force ’17-Large
Nike Zoom Force 1 -11.5
Currently on a Burton Elite 158 waist
Looking at a GNU Carbon Credit Asym BTX
Is 156 too short for me and will I have too much overhang with my feet? Its waist width is 254 OR should I bump up to a 159 with a waist width of 255?
I like a playful board that is good for some small jumpies on the sides of groomed and un groomed runs. No park play here…too old 🙂
Hi Chip
I think that the 156 would be the better size for you. Sizing is predominantly about weight – with some consideration for height – but even with consideration for height that 155 to 157 range would be good for you.
I would however be concerned that the 156 regular width would be too narrow for your boots. Nike boots have some reduced footprint but not that much so I think it would be risky to go with the 254mm width. You might get away with it but no guarantees.
The Carbon Credit does come in a 156W – which has a waist width of 267mm. That would certainly be wide enough – the only question is if it’s too wide. But I think it would be ok. I would go with that over the 156 regular width. And I’d go with it over the 159cm which I think would be slightly too long to be ideal. You could definitely still ride a 159cm but I think you’ll have more fun on the 156cm.
If you wanted to check out some other options that might be similar to the Carbon Credit Asym, check out the links below. But I think you would be good with the 156W.
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
~ My Top 10 Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Awesome! Thanks so much!
So another quick set up question. I’m now leaning towards the METAL GNURU ASYM EC2 BTX 155-in a medium wide (260). Does that soynd good for my specs above?
Also I have unused Union force L bindings I’m not sold on. They seem to have about 1-2cm extra width w my boot in the binding. I’m worried my boot might slide laterally in the binding. I’m also looking at the Rome 390 Boss instead of the Unions.
Thoughts or suggestions?! Love the site, its a go to for me!!
Hi Chip
You’re very welcome.
I think the Metal Gnuru would suit you well – and I think that’s a good size for you – both length-wise and width-wise.
In terms of bindings you could check out the links below for some other options. A little bit of extra width is ok but you don’t want too much in there. Generally speaking with a little bit of room you shouldn’t move around once you are strapped in – but certainly too much space isn’t ideal.
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain Freestyle Bindings
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain Freeride
Hi Nate,
Very helpful article. Only one remark if I Hi Nate,
Very helpful article. Only one remark if I may. You suggest that ‘’As a rule, 5mm overhang of feet on both toe and heel edge should be maximum overhang ..” But the ideal widths and width ranges you provide do not lead to the suggested overhang.
For example, on the tables thought you suggest an ideal waist width of 263 mm (so probably 274 at the inserts) for a Men’s foot of 300mm. This would lead to a 26mm overhang (300 – 274) way more than the maximum you suggest. Am I missing something here?
Thanks
J.
may. You suggest 5mm maximum overhang for foot
Hi Loannis
Thanks for your message.
I think the main thing that you’re missing is that the bindings/boots will seldom ever be going straight accross the board. Even just a bit of an angle can make quite a difference to that length. Also 5mm is probably a conservative maximum. It’s to-be-on-the-safe side.
If you use flat binding angles on your back foot or if you’re really worried about size 12s being too long for a 263mm waist you could certainly go wider if you wanted to be safe. But I don’t think you would have any trouble. I have size 10s and ride on on boards with a width as low as 249mm and sometimes with a narrow back foot angle – but I’ve never had any issues.
The other thing you can do is look into low profile boots (Adidas, Burton & Ride are the best for those) that will take the outersole of your boot down around a size, which gives you a bit more room to play with. The maximum underhang is more important for foot size (you don’t want to be too far inside the edges) but for overhang, it’s the boot size that’s the most important – because it’s that could potentially drag in the snow. So really the 5mm max foot overhang is an estimate to estimate what it will be like once you have boots on. The other thing to remember with boots is that most boots have, at least to some degree, a bevelled end – so it ramps up where the toes are – this also helps to minimize drag.
Oh and just to be clear, in case it isn’t, that 5mm is on both the toe and the heel – so it’s 10mm of overhang all together.
Hope this helps and answers your question.
Hello
If we bear in mind a different stance for back foot and front foot, then the amount of overhang or underhang will not be the same for both feet. What foot should be considered in order to check the conditions stated on this post?
For example: back foot 6º, front foot 21º. The particular numbers are for this questions not so important. But with this example it is possible to see that if the angles are different, then the amount of overhang/underhang will be different.
Thanks in advance
Hi t
You’re absolutely right. The overhang will be different if the front and back binding angles are different. This is often the case – only if you ride with a mirror duck stance is it not the case.
I think the important thing is that the foot with the least angle on it (i.e. the one that will be overhanging the most) which is practically always the back foot – doesn’t overhang too much. But if that back foot/boot is overhanging close to the maximum, then the front foot won’t be to a point that it’s too far inside the edges.
I hope this makes sense and answers your question.
I kneq I’d forget something…. I ride at +15/-10 with bindings mounted at the center of the inserts.
Cheers brah!
Hey Mark
I think the 15 Blunt 157 would prob be a bit too narrow for you. The 16 Process 157W would definitely be a better fit width wise.
For your style of riding I think your looking at the right kind of length – around that 157 mark.
I think the Westmark in the 157MW would be a good option. The Wildlife, in the 158 has a 252mm waist like the Blunt 157 and I think it would be too narrow. I don’t think there would be another size for the Wild Life that would be suitable, IMO. For the Horrorscope, I would say that the 157W or even the 155W – that board is more of a jib specialist though, so it might not be versatile enough.
Also, I think, since you do like hitting boxes, that the Process and Wild Life aren’t ideal. In terms of your style, I think that the Westmark and Blunt (but in the 156W) would be your better options. But the Westmark a better option out of the 2.
If you want some other options, I think the boards at the following link would suit you.
~ Top 10 Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey there! Great article with such thorough in, which is most appreciated! I’m 5′ 10″, 185 lbs, Size 11.5 Thirty Two Chris Grenier Pro boots. I ride all mountain, hitting medium sized kickers in the park, boxes, hips, but never the rails… All in Socal, with the Mammoth and June Mtn trips.
I found a great deal on a 2015 Burton Blunt 157. The waist width is 252 and the Side Cut Radius is 7.8! Still can’t decide between 17 Burton Cartel EST’s (Large) or 17 Union Contact Pro’s (Large).
Do I need to go with a wider board, perhaps a 16 Burton Process 157W, which has a 257 WW? Your recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Also, please feel free to suggest other brands as well. I also have my eyes on a 16 Ride Wild Life 158, 17 Capita Horrorscope, or an Arbor Westmark.
Thanks in advance and have an awesome winter!
Hi Jacob – great advice article. I am from the UK, with U.S. size 16 Ride Bigfoot boots, coming in at 100kg athletic weight. . So far limited to rental boards, lots of overhang and ploughing furrows as I turn.
I am an intermediate rider, limited experience, and need some board suggestions with wide waists to accommodate those puppies. Anything you suggest would be helpful, thanks.
The Ride Bezerker comes in at 168 while the Nitro Pantera is at 272. The shop has fitted size 15 on the Bezerker and there is still overhang not allowing for changes in stance.
Anything you know of any wider then the Pantera.
Hey Jacob
Always tough to find boards that will fit a size 16 boot – but you’re not the first I’ve talked to with boots that size. Good thing is that Ride do have good reduced outersole tech in their boots, so it’s like you’re wearing closer to a size 15 compared to some other brands. That said, size 15 is also still hard to find.
But there is one board that I know of that has an “ultra-wide” size and that’s the Lib Tech Skunk Ape. It’s a 170cm in length and 285mm waist width.
If you can let me know your height (board size is mostly down to weight but height also comes into it a little bit), then I can more accurately recommend whether the 170mm length will be too long for you.
Also, to note. Some overhang is a good thing – but you wouldn’t want to have anymore than a max of 1″ on either the toe or heel edge. So, I’m not sure how much overhang they were getting in store – but a little is ok. If it’s over an inch on either edge, then I would be weary of it.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate need some help.
I am
5’7
160lbs
I wear the 2016 burton ions in size 11
I am looking at the jones flagship in 158. The waist width is 24.9 cm
Will this work for minimal overhang? Or do I need the 159w at 26.3.
One thing I know the ions have “shrinkage” but does that actually work well enough for me to get that board. I don’t want the wide
Hi Jacob
I think that the 158 is the best size for you for that board. In terms of length, it’s what you want for that style of board for your height/weight.
In terms of width, I think you will be ok. It’s on the narrower side but you should fit on it. You’ll have overhang (but that’s a good thing up to a point) but it shouldn’t exceed the max that you want.
I’ll put it this way – I have size 10 boots (little to no shrinkage tech) and I would happily ride a board with that 249mm waist. I wouldn’t go much narrower than that but I would ride that for sure. And you Ion 11s will be similar in length to my non-shrinkage 10s, if that makes sense.
I think that the 159W would be too wide for you.
Hope this helps
Nate,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! That makes perfect sense! I try and ride with a more duck stance too I’m not sure if that helps but I appreciate it.
Thinking about getting now drive binding for this as well. Anything else I should consider?
Hi Jacob
I’m not that familiar with NOW bindings but I think the Drive would work from what I know of them.
If you want some other options that would go with the Flagship, check out the following:
~ My Top 5 Freeride Bindings
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
I forgot to mention, I’m also looking at the Ride Machete. Your thoughts?
I like the Ride Machete – but I don’t love it. I think that the TYPO would be a better option for you. I also think the Machete won’t be as good in hard and icy conditions. It would be similar in edge-hold to the Trick Pony/Custom Camber, IMO.
Hey Nate,
I’m planning on buying a new board, bindings and boots and I am interested in the Capita Indoor Survival or Outerspace Living. My problem is that I am underweight for my height and have relatively big feet. 5’9″ 125lbs size 10 foot (28cm). The 154cm has a waist width of 248mm and the 156cm is 251mm. I’m worried the 156 will be too big for me since I’ve never ridden anything bigger than a 153 and I would be on the low end of the recommended weight range.
Im an experienced east coast rider who has had the same gear for the past 10 years. I ride mostly park but want a board that I can bring out west and ride everything. What size would you recommend? Would it be a good option to get reduced footprint boots to downsize? I also usually ride at +15/-15. Please let me know what you think or if you have any other recommendations. Thanks and great article!
Hi Mike
I would say that the 156cm is going to be long for you. I think the 154cm is the better size or even the 152cm might be better but then you would be cutting it fine on the width. I think currently you would fit on the 248mm waist width – it’ll be on the narrow end of your range, but that has it’s advantages too.
Reduced footprint boots would be a good idea for you, I think. It would make it easier to fit on the length of board that would suit you. If you got something with good outersole reduction (like Burton, Ride or Adidas), then you’d be able to get down to something like a 245mm waist and probably even squeeze onto the 152 (243mm waist) given that you have +15/-15 – having those angles definitely helps.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate.
A question, my board (Flow Verve 154) have waist width 251-252mm.
My bindings Union ST size M, they not overhang.
Height – 177cm, weight – 68kg
My boot (Burton Moto) size is 10, these have a overhang around 2.5 cm (heel 2.5cm and toe shoes 2.5cm), is that a problem?
Thank You!
Hi Dmitry
You should be fine with that level of boot overhang – I don’t see that being a problem.
In terms of the bindings – they should not overhang. You want your bindings to be as close to going from edge-to-edge as possible but without themselves overhanging. You want the boots to overhang a little but not the bindings. Since the bindings are close to the edge of the snowboard it is much easier for them to drag in the snow on a turn. Union ST size M should be a good fit for that board.
It sounds like your bindings and boots are where they should be.
Hi Nate
I’m impressed by the plethora of knowledge and information here. Awamzing site!
I’m in somewhat of a pickle, my stats, 6″2 215 size 13 boot (Burton Ambushes reduced imprint) to size 12. This is my second year snowboarding and I’m also 52. I ride regular stance.
Current board is a Nitro Goodtimes 157W. Waist 264 on that board. Been a great board to learn on and want to keep progressing trying different equipment. I research all my equipment before making purchases but unfortunately bought a Burton Custom Flying V 158W on recommendation from a local shop. Bad purchase after getting home and seeing the across the board reviews on how bad the board washes out not holding edge well in anything but powder. I’m in the Midwest and hard pack, icy conditions are 80% of our winter. So I asked to swap the board and they had me taking a Burton Trick Pony 158 standard out the door. That’s all they had that was close to fitting me as they wouldn’t return the unwrapped board outright. Any way, I felt sick to my gut over it and emptied handed as I’m greatly concerned about the board not being wide enough even tough it’s only 4mm more narrow than the Burton Custom FV. They said it would be fine at the shop. Ugh
I’ve spoke with friends and shop pros who say I don’t need a wide but others say I do. Should I get rid of the Trick Pony? I took my Nitro and Trick Pony side by side and lined up my boots in them. Both overhang 1 inch toe and heel side. When I stand at a 15% angle bare foot, my whole foot just fits on both boards.
I’ve looked at Jones Ultra Man Twin (might be to much board for me), Yes Greats, Burton Custom Camber, Slash Brainstorm to name a few. Just really confused on what to do. I can share a few picks if that would help
Much thanks for your advice
Chet
Hi Chet
I agree that the Custom Flying V isn’t really what you want when you’re always in hard/icy conditions – quite a fun board in soft snow but quite loose and washy in hard and icy conditions.
I really like the Trick Pony overall, and it does have better edge-hold in harder conditions than Custom Flying V (IMO) but still not awesome for those conditions – but definitely a step up.
Even though I definitely normally wouldn’t recommend a 254mm waist for size 13s (even reduced footprint) it sounds like you might get away with it width-wise. 1″ of overhang at toe and heel is the maximum I would go but it’s also doable – hopefully you won’t have any toe or heel drag issues there. Also if it’s the same overhang as your previous board and you had no issues there, you might be ok. Although, I’m curious as to how you have the same overhang on a board with a 264mm waist and one with a 254mm waist. Are you sure the Trick Pony isn’t the 158W?
Typically I would say that something between a 260mm and 266mm waist for a size 12 boot. The waist measurement is not the only factor but gives a pretty good clue.
Jones Ultra Mountain Twin would have better edgehold in harder conditions for sure – as would the YES Greats & Slash Brainstorm. The Custom camber would be better than the Flying V version – similar to the Trick Pony but not as good as the other boards mentioned. I would stick with the Trick Pony over the Burton Custom. If you’re worried about the Ultra Mountain Twin being too much board, then the regular Mountain Twin might be the better option.
Personally I would have stepped your length up a little bit more – to that 160 – 162 range, but if you want a board that is more easy going and a bit easier to turn and maneuver, or if you just have a preference for shorter boards, then there’s nothing wrong with having a 158cm.
It’s a shame they wouldn’t return the board outright for you, especially considering you hadn’t even used it. Also a shame that they just gave you “all they had that was close to fitting”. That’s why I prefer to shop online for snowboards – you just get a lot more options than a local shop will ever have – and you get a much better chance of finding something that fits your physical characteristics, ability level and style more perfectly.
That’s not to say that the Trick Pony is a definite no go – but it’s not ideal for your situation, IMO.
That’s my 2 cents anyway.
Thanks for the .02. What do you think of the YES TYPO as an option? I see it’s in your top 10.
Hi Chet
I think that the TYPO would be a great choice for you. It’s a good all round board and easy to ride and it’s really good in icy conditions so should suit your conditions well.
I think the 159W would be the best size or you could also go 163W.
Hey Nate.
Great article !! I just purchased a Jones Ultra Mountain 157 ( 253 waist ). I have a 11 Burton Concord boot. The toe and heel have exactly 1″ overhang. I’m 5’10 – 148 lbs. I wondering if I should have got the Ultra Mountain 158 wide to reduce overhang…. or do you think I’m fine. I didn’t notice any tow/ heel drag last weekend, but now am second guessing. I really like the board for all mounting riding, but it’s on the stiff side so didn’t want to bump up to the 158W ( 258 waist ) I thought the 158 W might be too stiff with weight range being 140-180 lbs. Does 11 boot in a 253 waist sound out of the ordinary ?
Thanks !!
Hi Brad
I think you should be fine on that. 1″ overhang on both toe and heel is probably the max you want to go – but it’s not too excessive. I’d normally say go with something between a 254mm and 260mm (but there are other variables too). So you’re not too far below that and Burton boots have reduced footprint. I’d say you’re good – and should get really good leverage for turns – and shouldn’t experience toe or heel drag, IMO.
You’re more likely to get toe drag issues than heel drag, so if you do ever experience toe drag you could try adjusting your bindings to give a bit more heel overhang – but honestly I don’t think you’re going to have any problems.
Hi Nate,
Great article and important too i’m surprised there isn’t more information out there about this, especially from snowboard companies. As my foot size is on the borderline, it has me confused though. I am looking at getting a new set up and have my heart set on a arbor westmark camber 157mw which has a waist of 25.25. I’m an intermediate rider 184cm tall, around 80kg, but i’m not sure if that will fit a large binding.
What is the minimum size board a large binding will fit on? my foot size is 27.5cm but i wear a us size 11 sneaker and can’t comfortably fit into a boot smaller than 10.5 which i think will be alright especially with a reduced footprint boot. The boot should fit into both a med and a large binding right? but is the larger binding better for response and board control? assuming it will fit on the board of course.
thanks Shamus
Hi Shamus
Thanks for your message.
I think the Arbor Westmark Camber 157MW has a 26cm waist width. This isn’t a board I’ve actually ridden but I think this is what it’s supposed to be. I think the specs on Arbor’s website has a typo in it. I have seen it listed at other stores with a 26cm waist, and the Westmark Rocker 157MW has a 26cm waist width. I am waiting confirmation from Arbor that this is the case but I’m pretty sure it is – 25.25cm wouldn’t normally be considered a mid-wide.
Either way, a 25.25cm waist width board will definitely fit a large binding. Sizing for bindings isn’t uniform across binding brands, but any brand’s large binding should fit on a 25.25cm – and will of course fit on a 26cm. A medium binding will also fit on a 25.25cm widthed board. This is a very common width.
A 10.5 boot will sometimes fit both a medium and a large binding, but for some brands it won’t fit in a medium – check out the link below to see the different sizings from different brands.
~ Snowboard Binding Sizing
Most bindings these days have an adjustable toe ramp (and some have an adjustbale heel ramp as well) – so most medium bindings can be adjusted to go edge-to-edge on the board to maximize response. That said, a 10.5 is probably best suited to a large for most binding brands (and if you go with the 26cm waist width, the large will be better on the board).
Assuming you are in 10.5 boots, the 26cm waist isn’t overly wide – but it’s on the wider end of ideal – but sometimes a bit of extra width is wanted in a park/freestyle board for a bit of extra stability on jibs and landings – without having to go too long in the length. So I think that the 26cm would be fine for you. But you would also fit on the 25.25cm width (which is what the 159 has).
But I personally think the 157 length would be better for you. The other option is the 156 – but the 25.1cm waist width would be pushing it for being too narrow – but if you get reduced footprint boots (in a 10.5), then it would definitely be doable.
I think the 157MW is probably still the best size for you for this board – even with the 26cm (as opposed to 25.25cm) waist width. But if you think you’ll want more responsiveness, then the 156 is probably the best option. But if you want that extra stability then 157MW.
Hope this helps with your decision.
sweet, thanks for the reply
that makes sense and definitely clears up some misgivings i had with board purchase.
thanks, Shamus
You’re very welcome Shamus. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I’m in the market for a board and was really interested in the ride helix. I was just curious if the 159mw would be a good width for me. I am 5’11”, about 150lbs, and my shoes size is 12-12.5 US.
Some other boards I were considering were the never summer funslinger, capital DOA, and the Jones mountain twin.
I do a little bit of everything, groomers, park, powder, and forest.
BTW this is one the best post on this subject that I have ever read.
Hi Sean
Thanks for your message.
I gather from your message that you don’t have boots yet? If your shoe size is normally 12.5 or 12.0, then I’d say you’ll end up in 11.5 or 12.0 boots (usually half a size smaller but not always the case). If that’s the case then the width on the Helix 159W should be fine. But if you end up size 12.5 boots, then you’d be pushing it in terms of the board being too narrow.
Out of the other boards you mentioned – the DOA would be the most similar to the Helix (what I would categorize as aggressive all-mountain-freestyle). The Funslinger is more park/freestyle oriented and the Mountain Twin is what I would classify as “all-mountain” as in a bit of everything. The Mountain Twin would be the best in terms of powder but wouldn’t be as good as the others in terms of riding switch and for jumps.
Just from what you’re describing as how you like to spend your time, I would probably cross the Funslinger off the list – just because it’s not as all round as the others. Don’t get me wrong it’s a great board but you’ll probably not get the most out of it outside the park and when riding at speed etc.
Hope this helps with your decision. If you want any advice in terms of length and width for any of your other options, let me know.
Hi Nate,
Thank you so much for the quick response. I will let you know how it goes, but I will be a bad judge of that because all I have ever ridden is wide boards. I got my first board (GNU Matador 155W 258mm waist, DC size 9UK boots, even though I am a size 8UK) about 8 years ago and had no clue what I was doing. The guy in the shop sold me whatever as you can see…
This time it was my fault because I knew about the waist size, but I think I got over excited when I found the 2nd hand Bataleon and forgot to check the waist. I thought it was the same as the 155.
I’m off to Solden on Wednesday and will update you next week.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan
Hope it goes well for you. Looking forward to hearing about it. Enjoy your trip!
Hey Nate!
Thanks for all the info, it’s definitely good to know! But it has me second guessing my board decisions now. I am looking to get the Never Summer Proto Type 2-Women’s in 151cm. I wear a size 9.5 boot and was looking to get the Union Trilogy bindings, but after reading sizing info for the women’s and finding a size L isn’t available, I think I will look into the Union Force in Men’s sizing. Will the proto be too narrow for my boots with men’s bindings?
I am an intermediate/advanced all mountain rider, 5’11, 155lbs, and tend to have a mild duck stance. Do you think this will be okay or should I look into other boards?
Thanks,
Mel
Hey Mel
Thanks for your message.
First of all I would be concerned that the Proto Type 2 Women’s 151cm would be too narrow for your boots (regardless of the bindings). They have a 240mm waist.
Secondly, I think, if possible you are better off going with women’s specific bindings – unless you have ridden men’s bindings before and have found them to be fine for you. The only reason I say this is that women’s bindings are designed to better fit women’s feet, ankles and calves. If you know that you are comfortable in men’s bindings and go for the Union Force, then the Medium would be the best size.
The other thing is that typically I would be recommending something slightly longer for you. Something like a 153cm to 155cm. But if you know that you prefer something shorter than that, then you could stick with looking around that 151cm mark. Personal preference does come into it – but I think you could benefit from something with just a bit more length.
In terms of width, I think you would be safer going for something that has a waist width of around 245mm but not wider than around 251mm. If you have Burton or Ride boots, then you could get away with something narrower (possibly even the Proto Type Two 151) – because they have good outersole reduction tech.
Anyway….with all that in mind. Some other options that are similar to the Proto Type 2 are the following – and I have listed some sizes which I think could suit.
~ GNU Ladies Choice 153.5cm (244mm waist) or if you want something shorter then there’s also a 151.5cm which also has a 244mm waist.
~ GNU B-Pro 155cm (248mm waist) or there’s a 152cm with a 244mm waist
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi, I have size 9 feet, and Ivery just bought some 9.5 salomon faction boots as I’m getting into snowboarding and was wondering whether with a 9.5 boot I should get a regular width board or a wide one, thanks
Hi Luca
Definitely a regular width board. A wide board would be too wide for you.
Check out the following link for some ideas on some good beginner boards.
~ My Top 5 Beginner Snowboards
If you want to know a good length for you, let me know your height/weight and I recommend a good size range for you.
Sorry I made a mistake, they only made the board in a 155 (252mm waist) and a 159 (260mm waist)
Also my stance is +15 / -9
Bataleon Riot 2011 at evo
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan
Personally I don’t like boards that are wide, generally speaking. But there are some that you don’t feel that width as much on. I don’t know Bataleon boards well so I’m not sure about the Riot or the TBT structure.
In terms of length, I would have suggested the 155cm – just because of your ability level – going a little shorter is better for freestyle/park riding but it’s also makes it easier and faster to progress on for beginner/intermediate riders. But 159cm isn’t too far off for you – it’s on the longer side but doable – I probably would have recommended shorter rather than longer but since you’re not a complete beginner you might be alright.
Just based on quickly looking at the specs of the Riot, it’s not something I would probably recommend for beginners – but it sounds like you’re definitely not a complete beginner.
Whilst, I don’t think it’s necessarily ideal, it’s not a complete mismatch either. Hope it goes ok for you. Would be interested to hear how you find it.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all this information – unfortunately I only read it after buying a 2nd hand Bataleon Riot 2011 (159) –
Board: Bataleon Riot 2011
Length: 159
Waist 260mm
Height: 173cm
Weight 78kg
Shoe size UK8 / US9 / EU42
Boots: Burton Ruler UK8 / US9
Experience: Beginner/Intermediate (been on about 5 , 1 week trips) – Mainly groomers, but trying small kickers and the odd box.
I was ‘kind of’ aware about waist sizes etc, but was told that because of Bataleon’s TBT structure, a larger waist was not that much of an issue. Bataleon only made this board in a 156 & 159. I felt the 159 would have been better as I am more a freerider than park. Also they claim that this board is a standard width board. Now I am seriously worried about the 260mm waist and I am off to Austria in a few days. Do you think I am going to struggle with this?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Jonathan,
Hi!
I love your site!
I am going on my first snowboard holliday in à month, to Saalbach. Looking so much forward to it!
My boyfriend had been snowboarding for about 15 years now and is the kind of guy who sees a good offer on a nice pair of boots and buys them, I’m the kind of person who tries boots inside daily a week long and decides to change them because I’m not 100% satisfied.. I already planned private lessons and he taught himself, I basically know how a snowboard is build, while he can’t Even tell me which bindings he uses. It’s a funny contrast as I’m driving him crazy with questions he never even thought of while it is his biggest passion. That is where this website comes in so handy!! Thank you! I guess he is the “typical” layed back snowboarder who just enjoys his time on the mountains. I guess I can learn a lot from him when it comes to relaxing and enjoying it.
I bought myself a Burton custom Flying V board, this years model with Burton custom EST bindings. I bought K2 sendit woman boots, size 40,5 (uk 9,5 if I’m correct). I angled my bindings 15 degrees in the front and -5 in the back. After a bit of trying out, the manufacturer preferred snowboard stance seemed to work out the best for me. What do you think of this setup and gear, for a complete beginner? I did read somewhere that you should use woman’s bindings for woman’s boots, but everything does seem to fit very well. There’s barely overhang and the bindings keep my feet very solid strapped on the board. The boots have a soft flex, so I would have a comfortable first experience and so that it would be more “forgiving”, as I’ll probably will make a lot of mistakes. I just couldn’t find a lot about the bindings and boards flex.
I’m by the way 1.80 meters and around 70kg,.
Furthermore, I got a leash to attach my boot to the bindings so I won’t loose my board, I also got a stomp but my bf is saying to wait with that, until I see how I’ll do at the lifts. Something I’m not looking forward too. What do you think?
I got a K2 thrive ski helmet, Oakley goggles ( can’t remember the name, but it comes with 2 different lenses for sunny days and dark days), a Burton snowboard jacket, snowboard pants I found on this app called wish. I gave everything a washing to make it more waterproof. I have Kari traa and burton ski underwear, burton mittens with a fleece glove liner inside, a burton zipper hoodie for on the warmer days where I don’t need a jacket, K2 and X-bionic ski socks, couple of Burton beanies, a lock for my snowboard (for the apres skiing 😉 ), padded protection pants, soft knee guards and I do have wrist guards but I’m not sure if I will use those. Some say it’s better not to use them as you only lead the fraction from your wrist further up into your arm if you would brake something. I have some fleece midlayers and a thin K2 neck tube where you can still breath through.
As I’m so scared of forgetting something or make stupid beginner mistakes that will ruin my first snowboard trip, I wonder if you can spot anything that doesn’t seem right.
I did try snowboarding once for a couple of hours in an indoor ski hall by the way, on my boyfriends board who has the exact same as mine but then an earlier model, that went surprisingly good 🙂
I’m not rich by the way, just lucky to work at a shop where I could get most of my gear with extremely good discounts 😉 have been collecting everything over the last 6 months now and can’t wait to actually trying it in the snow, instead of the living room carpet!!!
Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to receiving some feedback!
Regards from Denmark 🙂
/Laura
Hi Laura
It sounds like you are super organized! Looking over your list I think you have everything you’ll need and more. That should make for a good first snowboarding trip for you.
In terms of the board, it has a medium flex. I’d normally recommend a medium-soft for beginners but it should be suitable for a beginner – especially if you’ve ridden it before and it felt good. My only concern is that it’s a men’s board (only because they are often too wide for women’s boots) but if you say there is some overhang but not too much, then it sounds like the width will be fine. But if you can let me know the size that you bought that would be good.
Burton Customs are definitely great beginner bindings. Again my only concern is that they are men’s bindings – but as you say they fit well with the boots and board, so they should work. The only thing would be whether you get calf-bite issues. Women’s bindings do tend to have shorter high backs for that reason.
The K2 Sendits look like they are great beginner boots – so no issues there.
When it comes to wrist guards there’s a lot of debate surrounding them. I used to always wear them, but I don’t anymore. The same as you, I heard that it just moves the damage further up the arm. I think the jury is still out on that one. I know some that still use them and some that don’t.
For the stomp pad, I think it’s a good idea. They don’t add that much weight to the board and they don’t really have any downsides. They can help when you’re starting out with getting off the lifts to give you a bit of grip and can make you feel more confident. When you’re starting out getting off the lifts can be one of the most daunting parts and there’s no harm in adding a stomp pad. Also check out the link below for some tips for getting off more smoothly.
~ Getting off the lift more smoothly on a snowboard
Great that you can get good discounts – always nice to have.
Hope you have a great first snowboarding holiday! If you want to, let me know your snowboard’s size and I can more accurately recommend whether or not it’s a good size for you. Also, if I missed answering any of your questions let me know.
Hey Nate
I am surprising my wife with a new board and binding this week. I did a fair bit of reading on sizing for her and read some board/binding reviews. She needs all new gear as she has been out of the sport for about 10 years. She is 5’10” with women’s 10 boots and is somewhere between beginner and intermediate.
I got her a GNU B-Nice 154 with some Burton scribe Large bindings. This seemed to be a good beginner board with lots of room to get the skill up. We got some new boots this weekend but she ended up with a men’s Salomon Launch size 9. She liked the way the straight jacket locked her foot down and they fit the best. My real only concern now is that these boots will be pushing the 245 waist size on the B-nice. Thoughts?
Hi Brad
Awesome surprise!
The GNU B-Nice is a good option, I think you made a good choice there. Without knowing your wife’s weight I can’t comment on the length but I’m sure that you chose well, it sounds like you spent some time researching for that.
I think you should get away with the 245mm waist. It’s pushing it being too narrow, and no guarantees but it’s not exceedingly narrow for that boot size.
Nate
Yeah sorry missed the weight she would be 175-180 lbs, so that puts her @ 158 on your charts. This would be 4cm longer than the board she has but taking a bit off for skill level it is close.
Once she gets her skill up i guess we would get her into probably a mens 156/157? This would be a more optimal width at around 250.
Hi Brad
Good idea to size down those few centimeters for beginners so I think the 154 is a good bet. Once she gets more skilled you can always get something with a longer length if she feels like she needs it.
Hey Nate,
Great read – thanks for all the info. Wanted to get your opinion on board width. I’m 5’8″, 175lbs and wear a size 10 Burton Photon Boa with Burton Genesis EST bindings (M). I’m looking to buy the Burton Custom X, either the 156 or 158, but i’m concerned that either length might not be wide enough. Thoughts? I’m an intermediate to advanced skill level, looking for a a good all-mountain board with speed. I’m not in the park, mostly carving hard with occasional moguls. Many thanks!
Hey A.D.
Either should be fine for your size 10 Burton Photons. I rode the Custom X 156 and didn’t have any drag issues. I also have size 10s and was riding with Vans Aura, which don’t have as much of a reduced footprint as Burton boots so you will definitely be fine on either.
Hey Nate
I really would apricated your help. I’m 5’8” somewhat around 163 lb, and I have size 10 Boots.
This season I want to get a new soft flex all mountain/freestyle board to start learning tricks and stumbled on the Burton Process Camber. Now I’m really not sure if I should get the 157cm (252mm width) or the 159 cm (255 mm width).
My Problem is that I´m only a somewhat better intermediate rider and I never used a true camber before so I’m afraid that the 159 will feel to heavy doing turns and not as playfull as I’m used to. Whereas the 252mm width of the 157cm might be a little narrow for my boot size and pherhaps I´m also a litte to heavy for it.
It looks like you have a lot of experience so what would you recommend?
Thanks for your help.:)
Cheers
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I think that the 157cm will be the best size for you for the Burton Process between the 157 and the 159. The 252mm waist width is actually ideal for size 10s and you’re definitely not too heavy for the 157. The 159 would be too long for you in my opinion.
In fact, I think that you’re debate should be between the 157cm and the 155cm. And since you want to start learning tricks, then I would actually be leaning towards the 155cm.
If you’re not sure about going to full camber, check out the link below for some great all-mountain-freestyle options.
~My Top 5 All Mountain Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate,
Thank you so much for the Article. I am having trouble with finding a right sized snowboard. So I recently purchased a ROME REVERB ROCKER SE SNOWBOARD 2016 with a size 157.
I am 5’10” and 155 lb, and I am wearing a Burton Boots with size 8.5. After my purchase, I started feeling that 157 is way too big for me because of the length and the board width. The 157 board has a width of 254 mm, and the recommended boot size is 9.5-11. So I am thinking about returning this item and repurchase for a smaller size.
So, with the size guide showed for this board, Size 151 cm has a width of 249 mm and a recommended boot size 7-9. Size 154 cm has a width of 252 mm and a recommended boot size 7-9. It’s my second snow season, and I am doing a lot of free-riding, but I would love to start with some jumps and tricks. Which size do you think work best for me?
Thank you so much for the help! Much Appreciated!
Hi Jack
If you were an advanced rider and weren’t interested in jumps/tricks, then I would say that a 157 would be a good size for you (in terms of length but a little bit wide in terms of width for the 8.5s.
Because you are in your second season and because you want to start doing tricks, then I think the 154cm would be a more appropriate size. It’s only a couple of mms narrower at the waist – but I think this will still make some difference in terms of the width – and the shorter length would also help with maneuverability and with tricks.
The 151 is also an option – but I think that the 154 is a better compromise. If you were purely riding freestyle, then the 151cm might be a better option. But to get the right balance I think that the 154 would be the best option for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Your writeup is very thorough, thanks.
I neeed a board size recommendation.
I’m getting my first board, I’m 6’1 and weigh ~160lb on top of that, I also wear size 13 boots.
What would you recommend for me?
Your website is a treasure trove of information. Thanks again, for all of the good info.
Cheers,
Samuel M.
Hi Samuel
Generally speaking, I would go for something between 159cm to 160cm. But that’s for your general size riding on the groomers. If you like to ride freestyle a lot, like riding in the park doing spins, tricks etc, then I’d take off at least 3cm. If you like to ride in powder a lot, then I’d add a couple of centimeters. Also if you are a beginner I would take off a few centimeters.
Also, it depends somewhat on the particular board.
For the width for size 13s you’ll need a wide board. I’d go for something with at least a 265mm waist width.
If you let me know your ability level and/or style of riding, I can lead you in the right direction for the particular type of board you should be looking at and a more accurate size recommendation. Or if there is a particular board you have your eye on, I can give you my opinion on the best size for that particular board and whether or not I think it would be suitable.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I was just reading your article and I have a question for you. I just got into snowboarding not that long ago and recently bought a board and bindings. The board I purchased was an M3 Rockstar board and bindings. My dilemma is when I attached the bindings there is ,in my opinion, a lot of overhang. I measured it and it is about 3/4″. I have not gotten too much into the technical part of snowboarding yet, still slowly getting myself up to speed. But, I was wondering if this seemed like too much and if I should take it back and buy a wider board that’ll fit the bindings better.
Hi Adriel
That would be more binding overhang than is ideal for sure. Ideally you don’t want your bindings to overhang the edges at all. You want them to be as close to edge to edge as they can be without overhanging (a tiny bit is ok but 3/4″ is more than you would want). Now this is assuming you are talking about your bindings overhanging? If it’s your boots overhanging then 3/4″ is perfectly fine.
I’m not that familiar with M3 bindings but a lot of bindings will have either have an adjustable toe ramp or heel ramp or both. If the toe and/or heel ramp are extended all the way out, then you might be able to move them in to have them fit the board better.
If they don’t adjust or they are already moved in as far as they can go, then they may be too wide for the board. However, I wouldn’t necessarily get a different sized board. You should match your board to your boots and then match the bindings (which should fit both the board and the boots if you get them in the right size).
If the board is the right width for your boots, then you should get the bindings in a smaller size.
If the board is too narrow for your boots, then you should go for a wider board.
Hope this makes sense and answers your question
Also my binding is a union contact pro medium.
Hi Andre
The 250mm waist will be a good fit for a size 10 boot. I wear a size 10 and I like boards with width around that 249 to 255 width range. That width is really good for you.
In terms of length, I think that the 154 is a good choice for you too. I like the 157 but I’m 185lbs and 6’0″. I think the 154 would be best length.
The Medium Contact pros will fit well on that board too – sounds like an awesome set up! Definitely rate that board and those bindings highly. Hope you enjoy the setup!
Thanks Nate really appreciate it!
You’re very welcome Andre – have an awesome season!
Hi Nate I weigh 165lbs, 5′ 8″ i wear a size 10 burton almighty boot. I was looking to get the never summer prototype two 154. The waist size on this board is 250mm, will this work for my 10 shoe size or should I get the 157 board?
Thanks,
Andre
Hi Nate, I’m 5’10 220lbs and wear a 10 to 10 1/2 boot, I’m looking at buying a ride agenda, would the 161w be a good size?
Thanks
Hi Eddie.
I think that the 161W will be too wide for you. I know that is the one that looks best suited weight recommendations wise – but I wouldn’t go that wide if I was you. If you go with the Agenda, the 159 would be a better size. Also, if you are a beginner, then 159 is a better length for you anyway.
Hi Nate, great article, very informative. I have taken on board the tables as a guideline however I just thought I’d ask directly for your opinion..
My boots are a burton ion 11.5 (29.5) I think and I’ve been looking at a 158 trick pony which is 254 width. Would this be ok or should I go for the wide? Only thing is, the 158w jumps to 264. Oh and also, would this be ok for a L binding?
Thanks in advance
Nelson
Hi Nelson
If it’s a Burton large, then yeah will be fine. And should be fine for any brands large actually. The sizings aren’t universal but I think with pretty much every brands large you’d be fine. But if you want to be sure you can confirm the brand the year (if you know) of your bindings. But I think you’ll be fine regardless to be honest.
In terms of the width of the board, I think you’ll get away with the 154 but it will be on the narrow side – but I think you’ll get away with it because Burton have a pretty good reduced footprint on their boots. 264mm is also ok but at the wide end of a good fit for you. No guarantees, but I think because of the boots you have the regular width 158 should work.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the article and keeping up on the posts here. Very helpful.
I’m just under 6′, 225 lbs, with a size 11 boot. Looking at getting either the NS Proto HD from last year or the GNU Eco Choice but not sure on if I need to go with a wide option or not to make sure it can last for years. Right now I’m riding an old Salomon forecast era 163 and at the time (10 years ago) I was more focused on speed, stability, freeriding and just touched the parks for fun. Want something more playful going forward.
Planning on going with the 160 for NS or 161.5 for GNU. The GNU waist width is 25.8 and the NS width is 25.5. Didn’t see a wide option for the GNU but the NS wide says its 26.5. My stance is pretty standard, regular – directional footing. Considering my boot size, weight and board width for those options, do you think I would be alright going with the regular size? Looking for that all-mountain-freestyle type that can handle me being on it for years to come.
Also, does a wide board really affect the ride?
Any tips are appreciated,
thanks,
Sean.
Hi Sean
I think those sizes for those boards are a good option for you given that you want to do more freestyle and something more playful.
In terms of the width, for size 11s anything above a 254mm waist should be wide enough so I think you’d get away with the regular width.
Overall, I think the GNU Eco Choice is probably your best bet out of those 2. Just that the weight recommendations for the 161.5 go up to 240lbs. This is the only clue I could give really in terms of longevity. Also i think that width would give you a bit more over the other one. Also, whilst I do rate the old Proto HD, I think the Proto Type 2 is a step up – and between the Eco Choice and the Proto HD, I’d go Eco Choice personally.
For me wide boards definitely effect the ride. I have size 10s and if I ride anything more than around a 258mm waist I find it’s slower from edge to edge and less maneuverable in general – just feels a bit lethargic. But there are also advantages of going wider – extra surface area for more stability being the major one. But I personally don’t like the feel of a board that’s too wide. It’s just physically more difficult to get the board responding.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello,
I am a male, 5’5, 135lbs with a size 9 boot and intermediate rider. I currently have a Gnu Carbon Credit 153 and I am wanting to go with a lighter board since I have damaged my left knee over the years and need something a little easier to maneuver. I liked my Carbon Credit so I was thinking of getting another one that is a 147. Would this be too small you think?
Thank you!
Hi Jason
I think the 147 would be a great downsize for you. In fact, I think that 153 is a bit too long for you in general, and downsizing will make it easier going on your body too. The Carbon Credit is pretty easy going in general, so I think the 147 will make it even more easy going and should def be easier on the body.
The only slight concern would be the width. The 147cm has a 242mm waist. But I think that you can swing that. And the fact that it will be on the narrow side will also make for a more maneuverable board. You’re pushing it waist width wise but I definitely like that length for you, so I think it’s a good way to go.
Just so I can give you a more accurate opinion on the width, can you let me know the make and model of your boots.
I have a pair of 2012 Vans boots. Off the top of my head I can’t remember the model, but I believe they are the Aura’s, or at least are extremely similar to them. I also use 2012 Burton Cartel bindings.
Thanks again!
Hi Jason
The Auras don’t have a lot of reduced footprint tech (outersole smaller relative to the boot size) so I am a little bit concerned that the 147 would be too narrow for you. It would be close. The 150 would be fine for waist width I would say, but I do prefer the 147 for you definitely.
Another board that’s quite similar to the Carbon Credit is the Lib Tech Skate Banana. That has a 149 with a 247mm waist width. That would be the best width and it’s down a bit on the 150. I think I’d still prefer closer to 147 but that is a safer width.
The other option, for a similar-ish (but not as similar as the Skate Banana) is the Lib Tech Box Scratcher. It has a 147 with a 251mm waist. This is a good size but it’s leaning towards being more of a jib board.
It’s a tough one. Take a punt on the 147 Carbon Credit, or go 150 Carbon Credit, or 149 Skate Banana or 147 Box Scratcher?
Another option is the Burton Blunt 147 (246mm waist) – biggest downside with that is that it’s not very good in hard or icy snow – so if you encounter that a bit, then I would go with one of the other options.
Hope this helps and hasn’t made your decision more difficult!
I’m leaning towards going with a 150 Carbon Credit at this point. How would you compare it to the 147 Box Scratcher? I don’t ride much in the parks, definitely more of an all mountain type of rider that likes to just cruise around mostly these days.
Hi Jason
Both are pretty easy going boards but the Box Scrather will be more park/jib oriented and the Carbon Credit more all round freestyle or for cruisey all-mountain riding. The Box Scratcher could be used for cruisey all-mountain riding but the Carbon Credit probably better. The 147 Box Scratcher and the 150 Carbon Credit both have an effective edge of 1110mm so they Carbon Credit shouldn’t actually feel much longer.
Between the two I’d agree that the Carbon Credit is the way to go.
Hi Nate !!
If I wear Burton ion us 10,
And 158wide capita doa (waist 260mm)
Will the board too wide for me ? Thank you Nate !
Hi Larry
It’s not excessively wide for you but I think it’s wider than is optimal. I wear a US10 and I’d definitely prefer the non-wide 158 (which has a 254mm waist) doesn’t sound like much difference, but you can definitely feel it.
Thx Nate !!!!!
U a the best !!
Finally , I bought a 158 regular doa !!
Thanks Larry.
Nice work! Hope you really enjoy it! Love that board.
Hi Nate!
I just got my new board, It’s 132 cm long and has 224 width. My foot 23,5 cm – if I step on a board barefoot on inserts and with angle that my binding will be, my foot fits the board perfect – from edge to edge. The problem is that my boots are size 7 (US women) and they overhang about 2,3 cm on each side. Is that going to be a problem? I ride all mountain – mostly park, and my snowboard profile is zero…I would be happy to hear your opinion 🙂
Hi Ann
I think you will be ok. That much overhang shouldn’t cause an issue. No guarantees but I think you should be fine.
Hi! I am a beginner and I got the womens K2 first lite for this year (2017) size 146. I am female, weigh 135lb, I’m 5ft7in and boot size is 9. my bindings offer a bit of rise, but I am wondering if I should add risers to be safe? The waist width is only 136mm, but I read on another thread that it is better to start out with a shorter board.
Regarding stance, right now I have my front foot at 15 and my back foot at 3 I think it is. would it be better to ride with more of a duck stance to minimize over hang?
Hi Amy
Yeah definitely a good idea to start out on a shorter board. I concur there, and I think the 146 First Lite is a good length for you.
It’s certainly on the narrow side for you in terms of width. But I think you’ll be ok as a beginner on it. Heel and toe drag shouldn’t be too much of an issue as you probably won’t be making any hard turns right up on the edge for a while.
If you do encounter problems with toe/heel drag, then you might want to add risers but I would start out without them and see how it goes first.
I would try to stick with the stance that feels most comfortable for you. But try more of a duck stance and if you like it you could stick with it – but if you feel more comfortable with your stance the way it is, then I think that’s the best angle set up to go with.
Hi Nate,
Looking to buy a new board and gear because mine have been used a heck of a lot.
Gender: Female
Skill Level: high intermediate-lower advanced freeriding (Can make a carved turn on edge without doing any type of skidding, have gone down a lot of blue blacks in Colorado and some blacks when there is softer snow or powder) beginner-intermediate freestyle (I can do flat boxes, small-med jumps, ride switch, Ollie, butter, do some switch tricks)
Height: 5’6″
Weight: 165-185 lbs (very athletic with a lot of natural muscle especially in the legs and arms with a large stocky frame, curvy)
Foot measurement no socks: 23.5 cm or 9.3 inches
Preferred type of board: Freeride board on the medium-stiff-stiff side, hybrid camber, mostly camber or full camber, want it to be able to carve groomers with tenacity and stable at higher speeds doing full turns, also be able to at least do decently in powder. I hit some jumps but usually just on the hill and not in the terrain park. I love to ride switch but would use a different board for that probably.
My previous board was a Rome Blue 155. (The waist width on that measures 24cm (or 240mm) across the top sheet at the binding inserts and 25cm across the binding inserts on the underside of the board. I could ride that board fine and LOVED it. When standing on the board in bare feet no socks my feet just sit inside of the toe and heel edge so I could probably go with a 23.5cm waist width?
My current boots are Burton supremes size 8 women’s. I’m not sure they were the right size but I got those because I usually wear size 8 women’s shoes (US) because I have a wide foot and that’s what goes on and they don’t seem to be really big on me so confused on my foot measuring only 23.5 cm. The Supremes have a heel grip in the back of the boot that the heel fits inside of but my heel doesn’t fit so my foot for the most part sits all the way in front of the heel lift area with just enough of my heel in there to turn. A better fit would probably be a size 7 (or even 6.5.) boot that was on the wider side if I had to guess. Concerned about this as I want to get a new pair of supremes but if they have that heel grip my foot probably wouldn’t fit into a 7 or 6.5.
My current bindings are Burton Escapades size Large but again looking to buy a whole new setup. I also have K2 Agogo (Auto)-size medium. Since my foot measured 23.5cm I probably want to buy medium Burton bindings?
The frosty rider board size calculator puts me at a 156-159cm for freeriding and a 155 for all mountain. My main problem is finding a women’s freeriding board in a big enough size but with a small enough waist width. I am guessing I need a waist width of 23.5-24.1 cm? I have looked at men’s boards because of the size 8 boot I’m currently wearing but then I measured my foot and it said 23.5cm….so I think the waist width on the men’s boards would be pretty big. I would definitely appreciate any help-thanks!!
Hi Jerilin
Thanks for your message.
First of all. A great idea to use a different board for your freestyle stuff. That way you don’t have to compromise on your freeride board.
In terms of sizing for your board. Length is somewhat relative to the board. Length calculator’s are great to get you into a good ballpark but the best of a board can vary (somewhat) from board to board. For example a 155 on one board might feel longer or shorter than a 155 on a different board. In terms of the width, you sometimes need to compromise on the ideal length and width of the board. And if the board is slightly wider than is ideal, then getting something a bit shorter makes up for some of that lost maneuverability (and the extra width mean’s you still get that extra surface area for stability). But yeah I definitely wouldn’t go for a man’s board. Anything that would be suitable length-wise will definitely be too wide.
All that said, I think the following options would work for you.
~ Rome Winterland 154 (246mm waist) – the waist is bigger than ideal for you but going that little bit shorter will add back some maneuverability lost in the wider setup.
~ Yes Hel Yes 155 (244mm waist)
~ Jones Women’s Flagship 154 (243mm waist)
All of these boards are Hybrid Camber with camber being their dominant feature. ANd they’re all medium-stiff in flex. They all made my top 5 freeride snowboards for women list which you can check out at the link below.
~ My Top Women’s Freeride Recommendations
As far as boots go. It sounds like you had to go for the 8s because your heel isn’t able to sit right back. The Supreme’s are quality boots but the fit is the most important part for boots, IMO. I would look into Thirty Two boots. They are typically good for wider feet. The Thirty Two Women’s TM-Two would be a good option I think. They are medium-stiff boots and would match the flex of your board well and for freeriding.
If you go for Burton bindings, then yeah, I would go for Mediums. I’m guessing you’ll get into something smaller than a size 8 if your heel fits all the way back, but even if you end up with 8s, you’d still fit a medium Burton. THe Escapades are great bindings. Another option if you wanted to get a bit more response would be the Burton Lexa. If you go for a different brand then make sure you check out sizing for that brand (sizes aren’t universal unfortunately). You can check out the different sizes for different brands at the link below.
~ Binding Sizing
If you want to check out what I think are great freeride binding options for women check out the link below (The Lexa’s are top of that list).
~ My Top 3 Women’s Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps and let me know if you want clarificiation on anything.
Wow-thanks that helps a lot! So do you think I’d be ok with anything in the 225-245mm waist width area then? (If I did my math correctly ha) I will definitely look into the thirty two boots and the Lexa bindings. I looked the thirty two boots up and they have an XLT model that seems similar to the supremes. It also seems it may have that similar heel grip in the back of the boot though. I will probably have to either try the boots on someplace locally if I can or purchase online from a place with a good exchange or return policy because of my wide feet.
What do you think about the Never Summer Aura 157cm for me? It has a 240mm waist width and reviews I’ve read say it’s great for freeriding and carving, does a lot of different things well and also handles powder very well. It also seems to be on the stiffer side?
Rome also made the Rome Gold in 2016 (but discontinued it this year) and that appears to be a similar ride to the Never Summer one I just mentioned. They offer a 155cm length size with a 243mm waist width on their 2016 model. What would be the differences if any between these two boards above? Also how do you think they would compare with the Yes Hel Yes 155cm and the Jone’s flagship 154? Does the Rome and the Never Summer I just mentioned have more camber than rocker or the other way around? Would like to get something with at least 55-60% camber. Just don’t want to go too far in the softer rocker direction if that’s where I would be going with either of these two.
Are you also saying in one of your earlier paragraphs that a stiffer board with a good dose of camber feels or rides a little bigger than the size indicated? So like the Jones flagship for instance–the 154 may handle more like a 157 because of the fuller camber and stiffer flex? If so that seems to make sense.
Thanks again for the help!
Hi Jerilin
I don’t think you should go lower than around a 232mm waist width. And that would only be if you were able to fit into smaller boots. If you still end up in size 8s, then I’d say don’t go any lower than around 239mm. Up to 245mm is fine but if you do go that wide, then I’d recommend choosing a board a couple of centimeters shorter.
In terms of the boots, I think a lot of online places allow you to return, but do make sure that’s the case before you choose somewhere to buy from.
I think that the Aura 157 would be a good option too. One thing to note is that it’s a Hybrid Rocker profile as opposed to Hybrid Camber. So it has rocker between the feet and camber underfoot and towards the tip and tail. It is more camber dominant than rocker though, overall. But the position of the rocker does offer a different feel. It’s a great all round board that definitely leans towards freeriding. Powder, carving and speed are it’s strongest points as well as being great for jumps.
I didn’t think of the Gold. Great carver but probably not as good in powder. It’s a hybrid rocker like the Aura but a bit more rocker in there, so probably a bit more of a rocker feel. Maybe not quite as suitable as the others for what you’re describing.
The Gold is similar in terms of the camber profile and both are around that medium-stiff flex, with maybe the Gold being slightly stiffer. But the Gold also has a bit more rocker in there, compared with the Aura. Also the Aura has a setback stance and the Gold has a centered stance. I think you will like that setback stance, especially when it comes to powder.
Compared to the Hel Yes and the Flagship. These two boards are what I’d call freeride boards, whereas the Aura and Gold are more all-mountain boards – all be it on the freeride end of all mountain. The Hel Yes and Flagship are really focused on powder, carving and speed and aren’t as versatile for other things like riding switch, jumps etc. The Aura is the most versatile of all of them.
I’d say you go slightly more in the rocker direction with the Aura, when compared with the Hel Yes and Flagship and a bit more again on the gold. But still more camber than rocker.
I’d say a stiffer board offers more edge-hold and also a longer board offers more edge-hold – so yeah in a way a stiffer board can feel longer because there’s more edge-hold relative to length. Also with a board that has more effective edge it can feel longer because you’ve got more of the edge in contact with the snow – and it can often be the case that a board with a lot of rocker will have a shorter effective edge (relative to its overall length) so a highly rockered board can feel shorter.
Hope this answers all of your questions and helps with your decision.
Your website is blowing my mind!! SO much good info I NEVER thought of. I’m about to buy a new board, so I’m stoked a stumbled across your blog!
Hey Emmy
Thanks for your message! Glad the blog has helped you. Hope you find the right board and have an awesome season!
Hi nate I’m in a fix…
Have a size 11/11.5 boot
But my board is 26.2 at the inserts is this to much over hang? I haven’t put the board, bindings, and boots together. And can still return it. Should i get a wider board? Thanks in advance
Hi Pat
I suspect the board might be too narrow if it’s 262 at the inserts but I couldn’t say for sure without more information. Can you let me know the following:
1. Can you place your foot on the board at the inserts so that there is even toe and heel overhang and measure how much toe overhang there is and how much heel overhang there is and let me know the numbers. If you know your preferred binding angles you could place your feet roughly at that angle but this isn’t a big deal.
2. What make and model of boots do you have (some boots have smaller outersoles than others)
3. What is the waist width of the board?
If you can answer these questions I can give you a more accurate recommendation.
Hi there,
Suggestions for a 12 year old boy who is about 4′ 10.5 ” and is just under 100 lbs, but is wearing a men’s size 10.5 – 11 boot? Men’s boards all start at lengths that are too tall for him? Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
Hi Heidi
That’s a tricky one! I’d say a board around the 136 to 138cm mark would be a good fit for him. But you’re right men’s boards don’t come in those lengths. Even if men’s boards came in those lengths the width would likely be too narrow. And boys boards will definitely be too narrow.
Have you thought about getting a custom board made? I don’t have any experience with this but it could be an option. It might take a little longer and cost a little more but you should be able to get something made that will fit your boy better than standard models.
Hey Nate,
Really loved the articles, it contains all the information in one place, so a big thank you to you for taking the time to share this with us.
I recently bought a new snowboard, Ride Berzerker 2016 – 159 and am wondering if I’ll be dragging my feet through the snow when turning(too late to think this, I know). This board has a 248mm waist and I have Burton Imperial 10.5 boots(28.50cm).Should I be worried about my feet hanging?
Also, currently I have M Infidel Burton bindings, but thinking of getting a new pair of Cartel, Classic, Mission, should I go for the L or stick with the M size?
Really appreciate your effort.
Cheers,
Emil
Hey Emil
You’re very welcome.
The Berzerker 159 is one of the narrower 159 length boards going around. It could be pushing it with being too narrower but you do have a couple of things in your favor though.
1. Burton Boots have really good reduced outersole tech, so you’re be effectively riding a size 10.0 or even 9.5 boot as far as the outersole is concerned.
2. The sidecut on the Berzerker is quite deep. This means that the waist at the inserts will be wider than it would be on a 248mm waist width board with a shallower sidecut
So I think you’ll get away with it.
In terms of the bindings, you can really go with both either with the 10.5s. I have 10.0 boots and I prefer riding the Burton’s medium bindings – but with that extra half size – either or will be fine. If you have no problems with fitting your boot into your medium infidels, then I’d say stick with mediums.
Thanks you so much for replying.
Emil
You’re welcome Emil. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
I really enjoyed this read. This is really great stuff. The best articles I’ve read throughout my search. After reading your materials I decided I would like to buy my own board for my first full season this year (until now only rental). Naturally I’m still undecided as the options seems endless.
I was hoping you could help me find the right set up board for me.
Height: 177 cm ~ 5’9″
Weight: 71 kg ~ 150 lbs
Foot Size: 255 mm ~ 8.5 US
I’m still a beginner but started to learn switch and hopefully this season I can say I can ride switch and do ollie. Usually I ride all mountain with some icy conditions some part of the year depending on the weather.
I would like my first bindings to be Burton Custom Reflex M with boots Burton Moto or Invader but I appreciate any suggestions.
I’ve narrowed down my list according to my limited budget to:
Ride Agenda 156 2017 + Custom Reflex M 2016
Rome Factory Rocker 155 + United M Black 2017
Burton Ripcord 2017 + Custom Reflex M 2016
DC Focus 156 2017 + Custom Reflex M
Völkl Spade 152 or Nitro Stance 153 with Custom Reflex M
Do you have any board suggestions to help me?
Thank you in advance.
Dragos
Hi Dragos
There are heaps of options out there I know! Sometimes it’s hard to narrow them down. But you’ve done a good job. The Custom Re:Flex Mediums are a great choice and that is the right size for you. And the Burton Motos are also a great choice.
In terms of the boards I think that the Ride Agenda, Rome Factory Rocker and the DC Focus are the best options on that list. You could even go for the Factory Rocker in the 152 size.
Hi Nate,
Female rider here. I’m hoping you can confirm my plan for new gear makes sense.
Height: 5’3
Weight: 130
Boot size: 8.5 (Burton Starstruck BOA)
Style: All mountain East Coast riding
Ability: Intermediate
After lots of research and considering my budget, I decided on the 2016 Roxy Ally BTX in size 147cm. The 147cm board waist width is 240mm which makes me nervous it might not be wide enough for a 8.5 boot. Everything I’ve been reading says I need the Burton Stiletto bindings in Large for them to fit the 8.5 boots properly. Do you think the Medium bindings would be better and fit the board based on the width? There is definitely not as much info out there for female riders so I’m hoping you can help a girl out. Thank you!
Hi Courtney
Thanks for your message. I think anything from a 145 to 147 would be good for you – though it also depends on the board. For the Ally the 147 would be a good size for you.
The width is probably the narrowest I would go with for your boots but I think you would get away with it. If you Feel like there’s too much overhang then it’s better to overhang slightly more onto the heel edge and make sure your toe isn’t more than 3/4″ to 1″ (2cm to 2.5cm) hanging over the toe edge. Try to make them as centered as possible (even overhang on toe and heel) but if you have to then add more overhang to the heel edge.
Typically you would want to get large bindings for size 8.5 boots but I think you could squeeze onto the mediums (no guarantees though!).
Hi Courtenay
I double checked with Burton on this one to make sure. They say that you should probably go with the large bindings. Also that their large size should fit fine onto a board with a 240mm waist width. So, if you haven’t bought yet, it’s probably safer to go with large bindings. But if you have bought and bought mediums, I’m still guessing you’ll fit in them but you’ll need to test them when they arrive to make sure.
Burton boots do have a low profile outersole so the 8.5s would have an outersole of like a 7.5 or 8.0, which is why I think they will still fit on the medium – but to be safe the large is probably a better option – especially as they are sure it will fit on the board
First things first. One of the best articles I’ve read throughout my search for my new gear.
It totally made me realise that the board(s) that I had in mind, might not be the best board for me. But first things first. Do you have any boards you’d advice. #SmallGuy #SmallFeet
Male
age: 27
Weight: 165lbs
Height: 5’7″
Actual foot size: 26cm
Boot: size 8 US (Adidas Tactical ADV)
Stance: 20,5 inch
Stance angles: +15 front / -15 rear (Right foot forward)
Level: Intermediate – Advance (been boarding for nearly 10 years but due to gear issues (my last pair of boots would make it impossible for me to go all out), my skillgrowth was hampered)
location: Belgium – Skiing in Austria
Type of riding: Fun on the groomers, I hit the powder from time to time and I’ll hit the park for an hour when the mood strikes me.
Current board: Ace Salomon 152 (been using this thing for way to long)
I am muscular and have decent physique.
Board ideas : I was consindering a Yes Typo or Yes standard (156). I’dd go for a smaller size but up till now I hadn’t found the boards any smaller available anywhere near me.
Binding : Saw some Burton Cartels and Burton Genesis (both 2016) on sale and might buy those. They’re marked as Small but according to almost every side, they should fit. Don’t know if you have any idea or remarks on those.
Hi DJ
Thanks for your comments.
The YES Standard and Typo are both very versatile (and awesome IMO) snowboards so I think either would suit. The Standard is a little bit stiffer than the Typo and will also be a bit bit in powder, a bit better at speed and a better carver. The Typo will be better in uneven terraina and better with jibs. Both about the same for jumps and riding switch.
In terms of size 156 isn’t a bad size for the Standard for you, in my opinion. The 250mm waist width on that would be the maximum i’d go for you but it should be fine just try not to go too much wider than that. Ideally the 154 might be the best option in terms of getting something slightly narrower but there is only a millimetre in it.
For the Typo they have a 155 with a 251mm waist width or a 152 with a 250mm waist width. I think that the 155 would be the better length but it has that little bit wider in terms of waist. I think that the Standard has better sizing options for you.
For the bindings, I definitely rate both the Genesis and the Cartels and they would suit how you ride well. You will be fine with small bindings in terms of your boots. Your on the cuff between Small and Medium so you would be ok with either. The Tactical ADVs have really good reduced footprint so you’ll definitely fit in the smalls perfectly well I would say.
Thanks for the quick response!
Just one more question. Wouldn’t the smaller size of bindings work against me on the board?
You’re welcome.
Yea the mediums would probably fit better if you were to go with a board around that 250mm width and your boots will be fine in mediums too. I just thought that you only had the option of the small size. Overall mediums probably better but if you can only get small, then those will be fine.
Hey Nate,
Just curious, how come a medium size binding would be better than a small? Wouldn’t the small offer tighter/better fit while also being lighter cause there’s less material?
Jon
Hi Jon
The main reason is the longer base plate gives you more leverage on the edges. It depends on the width of the board. But yeah smaller bindings are typically lighter and that’s definitely a plus, of course – and a snugger fit is always good too, but being on the cuff of sizes (e.g. size 8, between medium and small for Burton bindings – and definitely depends on the brand), you should be able to get a good fit in the medium anyway, if the bindings have good adjustability. But you make a great point and it’s definitely a trade off. And again it depends on the brand. Some brands tend to have longer baseplates than others – e.g. a Medium Union binding will typically have a longer baseplate than a medium Burton binding for example (models within brands vary too).
But yeah that’s the main reason I would recommend a medium, and it depends on the particular board. The other reason I might recommend a Burton medium with a size 8, is if it’s not a low profile boot. In the case of DJ above, they have the lowest profile boot I’ve ever measured, so that’s not an issue, but in some cases a bulkier size 8 may not fit since Burton boots are also quite low profile and their binding sizes are based on their boots.
Hey Nate,
Great info, thanks for taking the time. Quick question: I’m late 40s, experienced snowboarder now living in SE Asia. Spending most of my mountain days in Japan powder. 5’11” and about 180lbs. Looking at the Burton Flight Attendant, but can’t decide whether to go with 159 wide or 162 standard width. Boot size is 11 and binding size would be L. I like the trees, hits on the side of trails, and even the occasional steep bowl with moguls on the face, plus of course the great hokkaido pow pow. I’d love your thoughts on whether to go a bit longer or a bit wider on the board. Thank you. Chris
Hi Chris
First of all, I think that’s a great board choice for you.
I would go with the 162 for a few reasons.
1. It fits you best in terms of Burton’s weight recommendations for that board
2. That’s the length I would have put you on for your height/weight, ability level and the style of riding you’re describing
3. In terms of width you would fit on both and whilst the 159W would give you some extra stability it would sacrifice edge-to-edge speed when compared to the 162.
It’s pretty close and I think either would be suitable and have their strengths and weaknesses but overall I would lean towards the 162.
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. I hate to push my luck, but I have a couple more questions and I’m hoping it may be a slow day and you can answer..!
The Never Summer Twenty Five (reviewed on your site) has also caught my eye. It is rated slightly higher than the Flight Attendant for uneven terrain. So wondering if that may be a better choice. I like to do a lot of off trail exploring and often end up in unique situations that require anything from navigating tight spaces in deeper powder to fighting down an icy face. Would the Twenty Five be better?
Finally, I used to ride the Flow bindings a lot and liked the easy in-out, and the added coverage over the lower laced areas on the boot. I don’t see the Flows much in Asia and am wondering if they are still considered a solid binding or if newer technologies have left the Flows behind..?
Again, thanks and hit me up if you ever get out to Asia!
Chris
Hey Chris
The Twenty Five definitely an option. It will likely be better in those icy snow conditions than the flight attendant and, as you say, a little bit better in uneven terrain. The YES Pick Your Line is another good option for those times you hit the ice.
I can’t say that I know too much about Flow bindings these days. I had to limit the brands that I was demoing and flow was one that I stopped. But I am considering demoing them again – at least a couple of pairs this coming winter/spring. But unfortunately I can’t offer much advice at the moment.
Would love to get to Asia for some riding – will let you know if I do get out that way!
Hi Nate. Excellent article.
I own Nike Lunarendor snowboard Boots size 12. and looking at LibTech TRS 159 midwide
with 260 waist width. my foot is 295mm heal to toe. I ride +15(+18) and -15(-9). I also have burton reflex Cartel bindings. Do you think I will be fine in therms of a heel and toe drag? I tried placing my boots on my friend’s TRS same size and here is the photo.
>>View Pic (Link removed as website linked to no longer exists or can’t be reached)
and this one
>>View Pic (Link removed as website linked to no longer exists or can’t be reached)
Hi David
Thanks for the message and for the pics.
Looks like you’re right at the at 1″ of overhang. This is the narrowest board you’d want to ride but it should be fine. You’ll definitely have an easy time applying pressure to those edges! I am assuming that the heel overhang is similar/the same? If so, you should get away with that. No guarantees of course, but based on the images and the specs I’d say you won’t have any issues with toe and heel drag (again, assuming that heel overhang is similar).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Great article! Super informative and very detailed! I have a question for you on the proper width of a board. I measured my bare foot and it was 265mm which puts me at a 8.5 US shoes size according to your charts. I regularly wear 11 or 10.5 US shoes size. Size 10 boots are definitely too tight. Now I am confused on whether to follow the boot chart or the bare foot chart. I was looking into getting a Never Summer Proto HD but after reading this I was not sure whether to go with the wide board or regular width board. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Weight: 165lb
Height: 5’9″
Skill Level: Intermediate – can ride all trails, hit all jumps, and looking for powder, trees, and jumps
Proto HD: 154cm L and 251mm width
Proto HD Wide: 155cm L and 261mm width
Thanks again!
Alex
Hi Alex
It’s strange that you would be fitting into a 10.5 or 11.0 snowboard boot if you have a 265mm foot length. When you wear your snowboard boots are your toes just brushing the end of the boot? Theoretically your toes will be a long way from the end of the boot if they are 265mm in a 10.5 boot. If your toes are to the end of a 10.5, and your heels are being held to the back of the boot properly, then I suspect your feet are longer than 265mm. You might need to try remeasuring your foot to see.
If your toes aren’t to the end in but the boots feel too tight then you might have wider feet, in which case a boot that is made for wider feet would be a good way to go.
If you don’t yet own snowboard boots, check out the following link to see how they should fit.
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Regardless of all of that, if it ends up that you have size US10.5 snowboard boots, then I’d say you’ll still be fine on the 154 (with a 251mm waist width). That’s as narrow as I’d go but I think it would be better than going wide. If you end up with size 11.0, then I’d say it’s a safer bet to go for the 154X (261mm waist width).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply. I measured my foot with a new ruler and am 100% sure I am a 265mm L foot but I for sure cannot fit into even a 9.5 US boot size. I even tested boots last weekend and 10s were too tight. I cannot be the only one that is off from the chart! Thanks for the advice. I think I will go with the wide version!
Alex
Hey Alex
That’s really strange. O.k. Probably safer bet to go with the wide but I’d buy your boots first if at all possible because you might get on the regular.
Next time you try boots on, make sure they are fitting how they should (not saying that they weren’t when you tried the last time but just to be sure) [see link in previous comment] and if the best fit is still a 10.5 or 11.0, then I’d make a call on the board. It’s always a good idea to choose a boot first if possible. If you do get into a 10.5, then, like I say you’d likely get on the regular width fine.
If you can’t get boots first, then the safer bet is probably the wide version as you say.
You never get tired right. OK so let’s see what you think about me……
187cm
74kg
28.5 Mondopoint –> Thirty Two Leashed 10.5US
I currently ride a Never Summer Proto 157 with a Waist width of 25.4 and a Flux DS in large. I have the issue to slide the bindings total to the toe edge to get them centered. The overhang is evenly 2 cm than.
Somehow it works for me but somehow it feels not right. Is the binding to big? But will a M be big enough? Would it be easier to adjust with a Union over the heel loop?
Will be a wide version of the Proto more sufficient with my boot size? The waist width for it is 26.3 so my overhang would be just a 1cm each side….
Hi Kai
Thanks for your message.
For you I wouldn’t go with the wide version. You have the right sized boots for that board. If you go to the wide version, then you’ll have a harder time applying pressure to the edges of the board which can decrease response and speed of turn initiation – in addition to making your day physically more demanding. That said, you’re not far off the wide version but if you can get on the normal width version (which you should be able to) then I’d stick with that.
The 26.3 waist width is the width at the waist. the waist at the inserts (where the bindings go) will be greater than that and once you have your binding angles it would be even greater. So your foot wouldn’t overhang at all – it will be inside the edges of the board.
The Large DS should be fine for that board size and you wouldn’t want to go to the medium with that boot size. There sizing for medium is 7.0 to 9.5 so your 10.5s would be too big for the medium.
The idea is that you set up the bindings so that there is even overhang on the toe of the boot and the heel of the boot or near enough. The base plate of your bindings should go as close to the edges as possible without going over. Edge to edge is ideal but if they go over a little bit or are inside the edges a little bit then that doesn’t matter.
Flux bindings have an adjustable toe ramp and heel cup so you should definitely be able to get them close to edge to edge. I’ve used the DS on various widths and they fit a pretty wide range. You might just have to play with the toe ramp and heel cup a bit. When your setting up your bindings use your boots so that you know that you have relatively even toe and heel overhang – it doesn’t have to be exact but try and get it close.
Hope this helps.
Hi! Thanks for an great article! I need some help deciding on a new board. Thinking all mountain free ride, and have been looking at jones flagship and explorer. The last two-three years I’ve been riding YES basic and Nitro Uberspoon, both 159. The thing is I broke both of these boards, just in front of the front binding. Think this is due to my weight combined with short and soft (at least the YES) boards. Really like playing around, riding forest trails so dont want a too long board. Dont do much rails/boxes anymore.
Weight 91-94kg (210lb) without equipment and clothes.
Height 187 cm
Shoe size 10US
Riding snowboard every winter for 12 years.
So looking at the explorer theres two options for me; 162 and 164 wide. Ideally i would have a 164 regular width. The flagship could go with 164 or 166, but i think the explorer looks a bit more playfull.
Hey Eirik
The Explorer will definitely be more playful than the Flagship. The flagship is quite a hard charging, quite stiff snowboard. The explorer is a little softer and a little more playful. Still with great response though. By the sounds of how you like to ride/where you like to ride I think the explorer would be the better bet.
I wouldn’t go with the wide option though. Personally i really don’t like riding a board that’s too wide for me. I also ride size 10 boots and typically anything over a 260mm waist width and I really feel like the board is slower to maneuver and takes more effort to maneuver.
I think the 162 for the Explorer would be fine for you, especially as you are shifting up from a softer flexing 159. It will be easier to transition to than going up to a 164. It will take a bit of getting used to at first but once you’re used to it I think it will definitely be a better fit for you than the softer 159s you’ve been riding.
You are within the weight recommendations for the Explorer 162 so I would’t worry about breaking it. I think the Explorer 162 would be a good choice.
Hope this helps.
How do you recognise toe drag ? if your board is too narrow. When I started snowboarding I always rented, usually some anonymous grey horror, but once I went to Italy and was given a short bright blue board that was lovely. I wish that I knew exactly what it was but I dont. I didnt know at the time as I would say I was a beginner, although I had started to go off piste and experiment.
Hi Dave
You can recognize toe drag because you can feel the toe of your boot touching the snow when you do hard turns/carves. More often than not this can cause you to wipe out because it can lift your toe edge off the snow a bit and causes it to loose traction with the snow.
This is caused usually by one of two things, either:
1. Your board is too narrow; or
2. Your bindings aren’t centered properly on the board
Hope this answers your question
Hi Nate,
I’ve been looking at snowboard, specifically the 159 Rome Mod Rocker.
The only issue is the waist width of the board, which is at 256mm. My boot size is 12 U.S and I am currently wearing the Salomon Dialogue. I worried that I might get a lot of toe and heel drag if I purchase this board and that is holding me back.
My binding stance is at +15 and -15.
Do you think I will get a lot of toe or heel drag since my boot will be slightly over 20mm mark?
Thanks
Henrik
Hi Henrik
You’d possibly get away with that width but it would definitely be pushing it and risking drag. I would go for a wider board if I was you. The Dialogue’s don’t have much of a reduced outersole either, to my knowledge (or at least they didn’t) so that won’t help. Maybe if you had a super reduced outersole you might be able to give it a shot but I think you’d really be cutting it too close on a 256mm board without any reduced outersole tech.
Hi Nate,
Do you know any boots that have reduced outer sole tech that you could recommend?
Thanks
Henrik
Hey Henrik
Try checking out my top 12 low profile boots post (see link below).
>>Top 12 Low Profile Snowboard Boots
I haven’t updated this list for 2016-17 so this list is for 2015-16 boots but there should be something in there that suits. It’s likely that the 2017 versions won’t have lost any low profile-ness! And you might be able to find a 2015-16 version which you’ll likely get cheaper. After checking out that post you could check the next link to see if you can find anything that you like for cheap.
>>Men’s Past Season Snowboard Boots at evo.com
Hi Nate! Awesome article! Haven’t found anything close as in depth as this anywhere else. Great Job! All this reading left me a bit unsure as to whether i made the right choice with my new board. My details are the following:
Height: 5’10
Weight: 156 lbs.
Boot Size: 9.5 US/ 42.5 EU (32 Lashed and Burton Moto)
Style: Freestyle
Level: Advanced (18 years snowboarding)
Stance: Front 12 Back -9
I have never really cared for toe or heel overlap. And on my old snowboard (Burton Nug 150 2013) with a waist width of 255mm it wasn’t an issue anyway given my boot size. For this season however I got myself the Burton Name dropper 151. I bought the 151 because I wanted a short board for jibbing. I know that according to Burton’s size chart for the Name Dropper I should have taken the 155 model. But as I said, I wanted to keep it short. Should I have taken the longer one?
It has a waist width of 249mm. Is that too narrow? I mean I’ve always had a small amount of overhang on both sides but since this is not a mid-wide board like the Nug I’m afraid that it could be too narrow.
On the other hand I have last year’s Burton Process 155 with a waist width of 251mm which I use for kickers and I’ve never had any problems regarding toe drag.
Thanks for your advice.
Hi Marco
You should be perfectly fine on the 249mm waist width. In fact that’s almost the perfect width for you. I have ridden boards with a 249mm waist width, with a shallower side cut and a narrower binding angle on my back foot, and not had any problem with toe drag.
The Name Dropper has quite a deep side cut and the 32 Lashed have decent reduced outersole tech and the Moto’s have awesome outersole reduction. But even without those things you would be perfectly fine.
Having toe and heel overhang is actually a good thing. You want your boots to be overhanging a little bit. If there was no boot overhang, then your feet would be too far back from the edges of the board and would make it harder to apply pressure to the edges of the board.
Long story short – the 249mm waist width on the name dropper should be just right for you.
Hello Nate! So I am currently stuck and scared to order my first board, boots, and bindings online. I have done tons of research on this whole sizing process. My problem is figuring out what boot size I will need. I live in Indiana so there is almost nowhere to try on boots. I usually wear a 10.5 or 11. Im 5’11 at 145lbs. I plan on buying the 2016 K2 Ryker boots, but if I choose 10.5 or 11 in size what board width and length should I go for? Would a 10.5 or 11 hang to much on a regular width, do I need to go MW instead? I just dont want to make the purchases and have to send them back right before the season starts. Thanks!
Hey Daniel
Size 11 is kind of on the cusp between regular and mid-wide. For 10.5s I’d definitely be confident that you could go on a regular width board – depending on the actual width of that particular board. But anything that has at least a 251mm waist width and I wouldn’t go any wider than a 260mm waist width. So that means that you could end up on a mid-wide or a regular. Those terms are fairly broad though because one brand’s 156MW might be wider or narrower than another brand’s.
In terms of boots. If you’re usually a size 10.5 or 11 then you’ll likely be a 10.0 or 10.5 in snowboard boots. But this isn’t always the case and there’s always a risk when buying online so make sure you buy from a store that will allow you to return them if they don’t fit properly. If you could send me your foot length, I could suggest a size that you try. If your footlength is 28cm (11.02″) then you’ll likely fit into a size 10.0 if it’s 28.5cm (11.22″) then your best fit is likely to be a 10.5 and if it’s 29cm (11.42″) then you’re likely to need an 11.0.
Check out the post below for more about sizing for snowboard boots.
>>Snowboard Boot Sizing
Also once you get the boots, check out that post again to make sure they fit right.
Also check out this next link for snowboard length size (but also check the manufacturers weight recommendations too).
>>Snowboard Length Sizing
And finally for bindings you can check out this for making sure you get the binding size right.
>>Snowboard Binding Sizing
Hope this helps and let me know if you need any clarifications or if you think you’ve found a board or bindings you might like and I can help you to choose the right sizes and whether or not they are a good choice for you.
Hi Nate,
great article! I’m trying to find my first board after renting in the past couple of years and your email course and website are helping me a lot.
Since the options are many, I thought to ask if you have particular boards to recommend for my profile. Personally, I like a lot the Metal Gnuru 152 but I think it’s too wide for me at 251 mm.
Here my details:
Height: 5’7
Weight: 140
Boot size: 7.5 (Northwave Legend)
Style: All mountain (lots of piste here in Italy)
Ability: Intermediate (level 4)
Thanks! Cheers from Italy!
Hey Stefano
I think anywhere from a 150-152cm would be great for you in terms of length. Remember to also check the specific weight recommendations of the particular snowboard too – if they have them.
In terms of width, can you let me know what sizing your boots are in – i.e. are they US7.5 or UK7.5? If they are US7.5 then 251mm waist is slightly too wide to be ideal. If UK7.5 then 251mm waist should be fine.
In the meantime you could check out my top 10 all mountain boards at the link below. I’ve also added in my top 5 all-mountain-freestyle and top 5 aggressive-all-mountain picks too in case you prefer those style of all-mountain boards. If you like the sound of the Metal Gnuru, then you might prefer the all-mountain-freestyle boards.
There are boards here that are in that 150-152cm range but have slightly narrower waist widths.
>>Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive-All-Mountain Snowboards
These lists are currently set for 2015-16 boards but I will be updating them for 2016-17 soon.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the advice and help Nate!
The boots size is US 7.5. I will definitely check your lists and wait for the updated ones!
Just a curiosity, do you have any thought about Capita Outer Space Living? Looking around I have seen that the size of the 152 should be fine and it seems to be a good all-mountain-freestyle board.
Thanks again!
Hey Stefano
You’re very welcome.
I haven’t ridden the Outerspace Living yet (but I hope to demo it this season) but I’ve heard good things about it. I’ve ridden quite a lot of the Capita line up and really like most of their boards. I think the Outerspace Living would be a good choice. Similar to the Metal Gnuru but a different Camber profile which probably makes it a bit more stable and better for carving.
It would be a great fit width wise for you as well.
Great! It is definitely an option. I hope you will be able to demo it, because I’m really curious about your review. In the meantime I will continue looking around in your website trying to figure out the bindings 😉
Thanks again and great website!
Hi Nate
I really enjoyed your article and the advice you give here is always spot on.
I found myself in a bit of a pickle with new board purchase.
I consider myself an advanced rider. I’m 5.10 and 160 lbs, Nike boots size 9.
I’m currently riding two BURTON Antler Flying V boards.
2014 model, size 157.5 / 25.1 cm waist and centre stance setup +15 -15 for groomers and all mountain shenanigans and 2016 model size 160.5 / 25.4 cm waist, +21 – 9 and 1″ set back for powder days.
As much as I love the smaller Antler riding it gets pretty skatchy whenever snow conditions are less than perfect so I’m looking for a new board that can handle hard snow and ice especially. I chose 2017 Niche Aether but I’m torn between two sizes, 153 and 156. Obvious choice given my height and weight would be the 156 but I’m worried about the waist being almost 1 cm over my recommended size. The Aether is a mid wide board with waist sizes are 25.4 and 25.8 cm respectively. My question is should I get the 156 and loose some manoeuvrability or size down to 153? Your input is much appreciated.
Hey Michal
That’s a tough one!
The Niche Aether is a nice choice but between the two sizes there will be a little bit of a compromise either way. Being an all-mountain-freestyle type board they do tend to be a little wider so you can probably get away with a bit of extra width – but yeah you’ll lose some maneuverability. And obviously more noticeably with the 258 width. That said it’s designed to be a little wider and you could get away with it. The 153 is getting a bit short but if you’re doing a lot of freestyle type things then that’s not necessarily too short.
There’s a couple more options below.
Lib Tech TRS – 157 (253mm waist)
Lib Tech TRS – 154 (253mm waist)
GNU Rider’s Choice 157.5 (255mm waist)
GNU Rider’s Choice 154.5 (252mm waist)
These two boards are also great on ice and great as all-mountain-freestyle type boards. Bit less of a compromise length and width wise.
But if you definitely want the Aether, then I’d be leaning towards the 156. Partly because it’s a size that’s closer to what you’re more used to with your 157.5 and, in this particular case, I think you’d be better to compromise that waist rather than the length.
Hope this helps,
Nate
Thanks a million for your input Nate. I’ve been looking at Lib Tech TRS for a while hoping they would finelly drop the TNT base in favour of sintered but it looks like it’s all the same for 2017.
What do you think of Niche Story. I heard it’s little faster edge to edge than the Aether.
Hey
Yeah still the TnT base for 2017. I’m with you on that though. I prefer the sintered.
I really like the Niche Story. It’s a different kind of board to the Ether. It’s stiffer, more aggressive, more responsive – and yeah quicker from edge to edge for sure. It’s just as good if not better in hard/icy conditions. But won’t be as good riding switch or for buttering as the Aether. Also it’s still a mid-wide and the narrowest waist width is a 258mm.
I demoed the Story 159cm (262mm waist) in the spring and I didn’t feel like the width was too too wide. I have size 10 boots. It seems all Niche boards tend to be wider than average. But I’ve never really felt that they feel heavy or slow to ride – they’ve always felt quick and agile in general. So maybe the 156 Aether might be fine.
Nate-
This is by far the most concise and clear article regarding waist width that I have read- and I have read a lot over the past few years. Thanks for helping to make purchasing the right snowboard a much easier process.
I’m female, 5′ 8.5″, 130 lbs, size 10 Burton Emerald boots- ride East Coast hard pack
With my large boot size it has been a nightmare finding a wide enough woman’s board. For the last several years I have been riding the 151 Roxy Ollie Pop. I love carving on hardpack with this but find exiting lifts and one footing pretty disastrous. I have taken it to the beginner park area and love riding the small fun box 50-50 and jumping little kickers- but, as with on the flats, have some difficulty with stability on landing. The waist width is 24.2 (but think it has a pretty severe sidecut?) which I think is pushing it.
I ride duck in order to reduce overhang, and don’t think I will carve aggressively enough to bottom out. One issue that doesn’t help is that I never feel ‘latitudinally’ centered on the board. I just can’t center the bindings (Forum Faction- men’s medium) and boot combo where it has equal heel & toe overhang. I am athletic but have not progressed as quickly as I thought I would with this board.
Given my problems with stability on the Ollie Pop, I decided to look for a different profile for a new board and try a less aggressive board. I decided on the Yes Emoticon 152 with an advertised waist width of 25.2 and great reviews. Imagine my disappointment when the board arrived today and actually has a waist more narrow than my Roxy! I am so gutted. Somebody screwed up at Yes Snowboards- never thought I couldn’t trust the specs! If you look at the specs for the men’s Yes Basic it makes sense that the women’s waist shouldn’t be as wide as 25.2 as the men’s 155 only has a waist of 25.1!
So, looks like I am back on the hunt. I prefer a women’s board because I find men’s boards heavy & cumbersome (have ridden the 153 Rossi Taipan).
Any recs for a more stable women’s board that has a wide waist? Also need something with decent edge hold. I have scoured most female board specs but maybe have missed something?
Would appreciate any advice.
Thanks again, and apologize for the length of this post.
Hey Patty
Thanks for the message and the details.
Sux that YES got the specs wrong. I wasn’t aware of that – but yeah looking at it it doesn’t make sense the 149 Emoticon has a 241 WW and then then the 152 jumps up to a 252. And, like you say the Men’s 155 has a 251.
I have a few different options at the links below for some wider waisted women’s boards.
~ Rome Lo Fi Rocker – 152cm 248mm
~ GNU Ladies Choice 151.5cm (244mm waist) – this is probably not enough of a step up in width though.
~ Jones Twin Sister 152cm (246mm waist)
~ Rome Romp 150cm (248mm waist)
I think the Rome Li-Fi Rocker would be a good choice. The only downside would be the edge-hold. It’s not bad but the other boards have better edge-hold for harder conditions than it.
The Ladies Choice has great edge-hold and is a little wider – the downside being that it’s not that much wider than what you’ve already got.
The Twin Sister still isn’t probably ideal width-wise but would definitely make a difference and should definitely feel more stable and has good edge-hold. This could be a good compromise.
The Rome Romp is probably a good choice too. Good edge-hold, a little softer so it will be more playful/less aggressive, the width should be wide enough.
Hope these give you some more options to consider.
Sometimes it’s hard to get bindings centered as you say – but if you can it’s good to do. Have you considered women’s bindings? The only reason I say this, is that women’s bindings tend to be designed differently to fit a women’s feet/ankles/calves. If you don’t have any problems with calf-bite or fatigue then you’re probably ok with men’s bindings but otherwise I would try women’s bindings to see how they feel.
Hope this helps,
Nate
Hi Nate-
Thanks for the quick reply and the recs. I will check some of those out.
Re bindings, I do have the Burton Lexa for ladies but it really only goes to 9.5, and my boots did not fit well in the bindings. With those bindings, it was even more difficult to get them centered as my toes extended quite a bit off the end of the gas pedal. I don’t notice any calf issues with the Forums. I also have a pair of Cartels I will probably put on the new board.
Now I have to hope the store will agree to pay for return shipping for the Emoticon- bought because of the incorrect manufacturer listed waist width measurements. Sadly wasn’t bought directly from Yes (they didn’t have the 152 in stock). Grrrr- what a pain.
Thanks again.
Hey Patty
You’re very welcome. If you don’t have any issues with the Men’s bindings, then that should’t be a problem. Definitely give the Cartel’s a go – great bindings, in my opinion.
Hi Nate,
I’d like to ask you for advice – do you think that I should fit in on board which is:
nose: 307mm
tail: 303mm
waist: 258mm
length: 166cm
stance width: 52-64.
My feet is 30cm and I am 194cm tall, 80kg.
Thanks a lot for your advice! I have opportunity to buy this board for nice price, but online, so I cannot try it. Moreover I don’t have boots yet.
Hey Jara
I think that board is bordering on being too long for you and bordering on being too narrow. Ideally, you would want something slightly shorter and slightly wider. But it could potentially fit.
Can you let me know your rough ability level (beginner, intermediate, advanced or expert), how you like to ride (park, trails, backcountry, fast, casual, or a bit of everything?) and also the make and model of snowboard and I’ll be able to give you a better recommendation.
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for your insights!
Just to let you know, I was considering snowboard Nitro Pantera SC. It’s season 2014, so It’s quite cheap (I don’t think that there is much difference between 2014 and 2016), but that is the reason why it’s not available in wide. Now I have Nitro Naturals 175cm (I know, too long :)) (not sure of the year, but around 2004) and I’m dragging with my boots when I’m carving.
I feel that my ability is between advanced and expert. I’m 30 and riding board since 13. I like going fast on slopes or free ride. I really like curving. I rarely go to parks. Sometimes just small jumps (nothing special, no rotations).
Hi
In that case – because you are an advanced rider and like to ride freeride – then I think that the length 166cm is spot on for you – 175cm is really long!
I’m still a little bit worried about the width being maybe slightly too narrow. Can you let me know the waist width of the Nitro Naturals that you are currently riding (I don’t think they’ve made that board since 2006 so I can’t seem to find the specs for it) – the waist width is measured at the narrowest point of the board on the base of the board (not the top sheet). If you can give me that then we can see if the Pantera SC is actually any wider. If it’s not any wider then you’ll be likely to have the same drag issues.
Apart from the width it sounds like the right board for you – but it’s a good idea to make sure the width is right – you definitely don’t want that drag – particularly if you like carving.
Hi Nate,
so my old Nitro Naturals is:
nose: 315mm
front foot binding spot width: 270mm
width: 260mm
back foot binding spot width: 268mm
tail: 314mm
Also I measured my old boots and it’s 335mm long. My foot is 30cm, so it seems that these boots are quite bulky. I’m about to buy new one and some low profile type, so maybe I could end up with length about 320mm. I’m riding with 15 degrees on front foot and 0 degrees on back foot. It looks like I need wide one I guess :/
Also would you go with 166cm long board or 163cm?
Hey Jara
Something wider would be a safer bet. You’d just about get away with it with the lower profile boots I think. But there’s still risk of drag. I think overall with the lower profile boots you’d have a better chance than your current set up but there’s still some risk of drag.
In terms of length I think that 166cm would be ok for you given your style and that you are used to a 175cm. Typically I’d say around a 162 to 164cm would be best for you – but because you like speed and freeriding then a bit of extra length is a good idea. That’s because the extra length can help with float in powder and stability at speed. That said, if you do go for a wider board, then you get some extra stability with the extra width and loose a bit of maneuverability. So in a wide a 163W-164W board might work best.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
so I bought new boots (Burton Driver x, size 45) and the footprint is about 320-330. If I use our math for maximum overhang:
Footprint: 325
Max overhang on front edge: -20
Max overhang on back edge: -20
= minimum binding width: 285
effect of sidecut: -10
= minimum waits width: 275
I think i definitely need to go for wide board, right? And even then, when I look on wide boards, it is usually about 270mm. I don’t understand that – is boot size 45 so gigantic that there is barely any suitable board? I mean all my friends have similar boot size.. Am I missing something?
Thanks 🙂
Hi Jara
Euro size 45 isn’t gigantic 🙂 but is on the higher end. You most likely will need a wide board or at least a mid-wide board. The most important thing is your foot size. You can most likely get away with slightly more than 20mm overhang of your boots. I have used this as a conservative maximum because in some circumstances this might be as much as you’d want to go but in most cases you should be ok beyond that.
Also you have left out one important factor in your calculation and that’s binding angles. Yes sometimes, a binding angle is at 0 degrees (i.e. straight across the board) on the back foot – but usually there is some angle on the back foot – and there is always an angle on the front foot. This actually makes quite a significant difference.
Take a look at this diagram below. This boot is on a 260mm board with an average sidecut. The feet go from edge to edge and the boot overhang is 19mm on the toe edge and 19mm on the heel edge. This is a good fit. The binding angle in this case is 15 degrees.
I wouldn’t worry about this too much. If you are worried about it then go with something that’s at least 257mm waist width and anything up to 265mm. There’s not really a maximum waist width – but if it’s too wide the board will become more difficult to turn. As far as I know a Eur 45 is the equivalent of a US 11 or 11.5 – and that’s what I am basing this on.
I think probably the biggest thing you would be missing is the binding angle – but like I say I wouldn’t worry too much about the specific calculations, you should definitely be fine with a “normal” wide board. You definitely shouldn’t have to go as wide as 270+mm.
Hope this helps,
Nate
Thanks for coming back to me. I decided put the bindings on the board to see what it looks like. I am starting to think that with my current ability I will probably get away with it.
Pictures under the link: http://imgur.com/a/Kf4y0
Want to avoid the pain of the exchange at all cost.
Tamas
Hey Tamas
Thanks for the pictures. Yeah I think you’ll get away with that. Looks like it’s definitely on the edge of overhang but you should get away with it. And like you say, you want be way up on that edge to the extreme for a while anyway.
Hi Nate,
Recently decided to swap the skis for a board and bought my gear already. It was a bit of an impulse buy on the summers sales and I am now a bit unsure sure if my boots are too big for my board. There is definitely a bit of an overhang.
Male
Age: 33
Height: 186cm
Weight: 87kg
Location: London UK
Boot size: 11.5 US
Board: K2 Standard 158cm ( too a few centimetres off the recommended for an easy start)
Bindings: K2 Cinch CTC XL
Boots: Vans Aura 11.5 US
It would great if you could drop me an email with what you think. I have 2 weeks no questions asked returns.
Appreciate your help!
Tamas
Hey Tamas
I think that is pushing it a bit in terms of being too narrow for you. If you asked before you bought I would have recommended to go with something wider – but obviously if you can avoid it, you probably don’t want the hassle of sending it back. That said, if it’s going to cause issues then you’ll want to get it changed.
The best way to decide, because you have the gear already, is to set up your bindings and boots on the board and measure the overhand. Make sure your bindings are centered so that the overhang of the boots is even on both toe and heel edge. Then measure the overhand on both edges. If it’s 2cm or under then you should be good. If it’s over 2.5cm I wouldn’t risk it and I’d send it back. If it’s in between 2cm and 2.5cm then it’s a 50/50 call. This is per side. So if you have 2cm on your toe side and 2cm on your heel side, then that’s fine.
The other thing is that there shouldn’t be any binding overhang. You should be able to setup your bindings so that there is no overhang of the bindings themselves. You can maybe get away with a very tiny bit but if there is significant binding overhang, then you’ll need a wider board.
Good choice on the board length, by the way. Yeah definitely a good idea to take a few cms off when you’re starting out.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Can you help me with the size of a board?
I am 159lb and 5’511″
I use boots burton ruler size 7 and Bindings unión contac pro (s/m)
I want to buy a libtech skate banana and I would like to know which board len will be better for me, if a 151N (waist width 24.2cm) or a 148N (waist with 24.5cm)
Hey Ignacio
I think both would work. For length for you I think anything from a 148 to a 151 would work well for you as a freestyle board. And for your boot size both the 242mm or a 245mm waist width would work. So really either the 148 (242mm) or 151 (245mm) would be a good choice. I hate to sit on the fence with any recommendations but in this case I really think that either would work well.
The only thing I’d say is that if you like to do lots of spins and jibs and that kind of thing then maybe go with the 148. If you like to do larger jumps and ride the trails a fair bit too – not just riding the park, then slightly in favor of the 151.
This is assuming that you are 5’5″. I was confused by your comment as you wrote 5’511″. If you are actually 5’11” then I’d say definitely the 151N.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First off I’d like to thank you for this article, it was very helpful.
I am 180lb and 6’0″, and this is my third year snowboarding. I’m looking at either the Rome Agent Rocker 158 Mid-Wide with a waist with of 26.4 or the K2 TurboDream 160 Wide with a waist wide of 26.30. I have 11.5 inch feet. I don’t own boots yet and don’t know what kind of stance I prefer, because I have only used rentals. Do you think either one of these would work? If not, what other boards would you recommend for me? I’m looking for an all mountain board, with a hybrid profile. Thank you in advance.
Hey Michael.
I think both of those boards would work for you in terms of length and width. Regardless of boots and stance I think those will work. Though it is a good idea to get boots first and then fit the boards and bindings around those. Though you don’t have to do it this way.
If you want to check out some other options, check out my list of what I consider to be the top 10 all mountain snowboards at the link below. All of the boards on that list have hybrid profiles, which is typically the case with all-mountain boards.
>>Snowboarding Profiles Top 10 All-Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I was wondering if you might be able to help me with a mild dilemma,
i’m just trying to work out if a Capita DOA 2016 156 with a waist of 25.2 cm,
would be ok with an Burton US11 Ambush boot, i was told there’s a rough formula of
“Tip/tail width – waist width divided by 2 then added to the waist width will roughly give you the width in the middle of the insert packs.”
If that is the case the i’d assume the size should be perfect for my size boot.
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks, Linc.
Hey Lincoln
Thanks for your message. That formula will get you somewhere close but not that accurate. It’s basically saying that the width at the inserts should be roughly half way between the width at the tip/tail and the width of the waist. It won’t be completely accurate though, because your stance won’t have your inserts exactly half way between the tip/tail and the waist, your binding angles (won’t affect the width at inserts but will affect boot overhang) will change and a lot of snowboards these days have variable sidecut depths. Also some boards have different tip and tail widths – so if that’s the case you’d want to do separate calculations for your front foot and back foot.
For example I just took the measurements for width at inserts of a twin snowboard (so the tip and tail are the same) with waist width of 252, average tip/tail width for a freestyle snowboard and average stance width. Waist width = 252mm, tip/tail width = 295mm. Using that formula – 294-252 = 42. 42/2 = 21. 21 + 252 = 273. So that would tell you that this snowboard would have width at the inserts of 273mm. However, measuring the waist at the inserts of a board with those specs at the average stance and it measures roughly 264mm. So I would be a bit carefuly using that formula. Depending on the board and your stance, you might get it closer – but it might also be further away.
I’ve done calculations of 100s of boards to try to get a range (see the tables above). Of course this will never be completely accurate because board shapes and sidecuts and bindings angles and stance widths and everything are different but I wouldn’t rely on that formula if I was you.
Forgetting all of that! I’ve done a calculation for the DOA 156 and the width at the inserts looks like around 263mm (based on a stance width of 580mm). According to that formula it would be 275mm at the inserts (correct me if I’m doing the formula wrong). So that’s 12mm of difference. Now my calculations may not be 100% accurate but the width at the inserts is likely to be quite a bit less than 275mm.
With all of that said, this is the most elaborate way I’ve come to a recommendation!, you should fit on that board with size 11 Burton Ambush boots. On a normal boot you would be pushing – I would say that it would be slightly too narrow and not worth the risk. But, I think you’ll get away with it because the Ambush boots have good reduced footprint on them – which essentially means that the outer-sole of the boot is less than your average boot meaning you can fit on a narrower board. No guarantees but I reckon you’ll be fine on that board with those boots.
Oh and the DOA – love that board! You can check out my full review of the DOA if you want to learn more about it.
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate.
First off great site!
I’m looking at the YES TDF in size 156. I’m not sure if I need to go for the Mid-Wide or not. The size difference is very minuscule. Its 25cm for the 156 and 25.6 for the 156MW. I have union force bindings, k2 maysis boots size 11. My angles tend to be +15/-12. Do you think i can get away with the 156 regular or do I need the mid-wide?
Thanks,
Terry
Hey Terry
Thanks for the message. You probably could get away with the regular but there would be some risk of too much overhang with the 250mm waist. The mid-wide version would be a safer bet – I would go for that one if I was you. If you had boots with heaps of outersole reduction then you could probably go for the 156 regular width but the K2 Maysis don’t have that much reduction.
Thanks for the reply.
Have you ridden the TDF or have any thoughts on it?
I’ve been looking at that one and the arbor coda camber. Both are about the same price point at this time in the year.
I’m looking for an all mountain board that can handle powder, natural Jumps, and has stability at high speeds.
Which do you think will be more to my needs?
Thanks for the help.
Terry
Hey Terry
I’d definitely say that the TDF would be better than the Coda for this. I haven’t ridden the TDF but the Coda would be too soft flexing and too loose. It would be good on the jumps and decent in powder but speed isn’t it’s forte.
From the boards I’ve ridden I would say that you should definitely consider, if you can find them, the Slash Brainstorm, the Jones Mountain Twin and the Niche Story. They’d all be good in Powder, stable at speed and decent at jumps. I’d say that the TDF would be a slightly better jumper but that those other 3 would be better in powder and the same speed wise.
The other board that you could consider would be the Capita DOA. I love that board. The only downside there would be powder. But for jumps and speed it’s awesome. I’d say similar to the TDF based on the specs but I haven’t ridden the TDF so I can’t say for sure – but the DOA is great for speed and jumps.
To be awesome at all 3 – powder, jumps and stability – The Slash Brainstorm would be my number 1 pick but the other few that I’ve mentioned would also do the job well – as would the TDF (with the only potential weakness being in powder (like the DOA)). I would forget about the Coda though – not to say that it’s bad board but just that it’s not as good for what you’re after.
You could also check out my top 10 all mountain boards if you’re looking for more options.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks so much for the great info on this site. I’m an experienced skier and started snowboarding last winter. I’m able to link turns and do blue trails but still falling! Living on the East Coast, riding is mainly groomers/ice. I have been riding a 151 Gnu B-Nice BTX but am not sure it is wide enough since I have (women’s) Burton Felix boots in size 11. I’d love to hear your thoughts whether this board is ok and if not, suggestions for alternatives so I can get ready for next season. I have been looking at men’s boards but am not sure if they would be more difficult for me to ride as I would be at the lightest end of the weight range. Here’s some more info:
Female
Age: 36
Height: 5’8″
Weight: 130lb
Location: upstate NY
Foot size: 28cm
Boot size: women’s 11/men’s 10
Thanks so much!
Hey Lindsey
Thanks for your message.
I think that the 151cm is a good length for you but, as you have suspected, is probably too narrow (240mm). Ideally something closer to 250mm would be better. You’ve chosen the right board otherwise. It’s a good board for beginner and intermediate riders and it’s great for East Coast conditions.
If you want to stick with women’s boards, then the following are some options (that are still good in East Coast conditions and around that same length, but a little wider).
~ GNU Ladies Choice 151.5cm (244mm waist) – still prob too narrow but would give you a bit more width
~ Jones Twin Sister 152cm (246mm waist) – ” ”
~ Rome Romp 150cm (248mm waist)
~ Rome Scandal 150cm (249mm waist)
~ Yes Emoticon 152cm (252mm waist)
Hopefully that gives you some options. Let me know if you want to consider some men’s boards too and I can look at some options. Keep in mind that with all your snowboarding gear on that you can add around 10lbs to your weight (board weight recommendations are for total weight including gear).
Hope this helps and let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks so much, I really appreciate your help. The width of those boards sounds much better. I am leaning towards the Yes Emoticon but would be curious which men’s boards you would suggest? Thanks again!
Hey Lindsey
You’re very welcome.
I think the Emoticon would be a great choice. I didn’t want to influence you too much but that’s the one I’d go for.
I will take a look at some men’s options and get back to you with what I think.
Hey just noticed that I accidentally put Riders Choice instead of Ladies Choice (Rider’s Choice is the male board equivalent) and Mountain Twin instead of Twin Sister (The Mountain Twin is the male board equivalent).
I’ve corrected them on the original comment now.
That’s great, thanks so much!
Hey Lindsey
You’re very welcome.
Sorry for the late reply – I’ve been away the last couple of days with limited internet access.
I’ve got a few ideas for male boards here – there are a number of options in terms of width as most male boards around that 151cm length have a waist width around 247mm to 252mm. I’ve chosen the following because they are softer flexing so shouldn’t be as difficult to manage and they are within your weight range (all be it that you’ll be at the lower end of the range). And that they’ll be suitable for a beginner to intermediate rider. And also to suit your conditions.
In no particular order.
~ Slash Happy Place 149 (247mm waist) – there’s also a 152 length which could work but the 149 is better in terms of weight range
~ Rome Garage Rocker 152 (251mm waist)
~ YES Basic 149 (248mm) – also a 152cm option but you fit better in the 149’s weight range
~ Never Summer Snowtrooper 152 (248mm waist)
These are options but I still like the Yes Emoticon for you as well – and the other female board options.
If there’s anything else you come across and are considering let me know and I can give you my opinion.
Thanks so much for the men’s board suggestions! One other women’s board I’ve come across that is wide enough (253) is the High Society Scarlet 152. I can’t find much info about it online though. Do you think this would be a good board for me? If not I’ll get the Emoticon. Thanks again for all your help, I really appreciate it!
Hey Lindsey. You’re welcome.
I have to admit I don’t really know anything about High Society boards. From some quick research it looks like it’s got a hybrid rocker camber, a true twin shape and a medium flex. I don’t think it would make a bad board for you but I don’t know enough about it to really say. And I’m not sure how it would do in East Coast conditions either.
Thanks, I just got the Yes Emoticon. Really looking forward to trying it this winter!
Nice one!
Let me know how it goes for you once you’ve had a chance to ride it
Could the Clash 160 with the 254mm waist be an option as well?
Cheers
Hey Lee
Yeah that’s definitely an option too in terms of width – and it could work length-wise but in my opinion it’s just a fraction too long. If I was your weight/height I would go with the 158. But some people prefer slightly longer. It’s up to you – if you are quite advanced and like to ride fast and don’t really get into freestyle and like to find powder regularly then the 160 is a more attractive offer cause you’ll get better stability at speed and float in powder with a bit more length.
Great advice mate! Cheers! Think I’ll go for the 158 and grab myself a pair of Anthems, my style is pretty aggressive, and I mostly carve up the piste and hit some powder when I can but I’ve still got a fair whack to learn, and wouldn’t hurt to improve my freestyle along the way. Better save grabbing a longer board till I grab myself a proper Freeride board. Heard the Clash is a decent floater, should do the job for now.
Thanks again dude! Take care!
Hey Lee
You’re very welcome! Good choice I reckon
So after speaking to one of my fitness coaches today, and taking some accurate measurements turns out I’m 5’10” and I’m now aiming to be somewhere between 155 and 170 lbs by next season. Is it safe to say that the 158 is still the best option for me?
Cheers
Hey
Yeah I’d say the 158 is still the best option.
Hi Nate!
I’ ve got the choice between a Burton Clash (2016) 157W board with a 258mm waist, and a 158 board with a 252 waist. I’m a UK size 9.5 boot (Currently Vans Aura), I’m 5’9″ give or take and should be weighing about 160-175 lbs by next season. What’s the better option of these two boards?
Also, I may be grabbing myself a pair of Ride Anthem boots, any idea what the difference in the footprint is like between that and the Aura? Enough to effect my ideal board width?
Hey Lee
You could ride either board with your boot size. And those lengths are around what I’d put you on too. So either one would work. I would lean to the 158 with the 252mm waist just because it’s probably the better length for you (depending on whether you’ll b 160 or 175lbs) and because if you can fit on a narrower board then I recommend it – unless you’ll be doing a lot of freestyle.
Also the Ride Anthem has a lower profile footprint than the Aura – so if you do go with those boots then the 158 (252mm waist) will definitely be fine.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
This is the smartest post I have read on this subject. I’m trying to decide on board length and waist width, and I would love to hear your thoughts. Here are my specs:
Male
age: 35
Weight: 165lbs
Height: 6’1″
Actual foot size: 28.5cm
Boot: size 10.5 (Flow SoLite Coiler Boa)
Footedness: Goofy
Angles: +12°/-12°
Level: Beginner – Intermediate
Also any specific recommendation regarding the type of snowboard and binder is highly appreciated. Based on your article, I was thinking about never summer Proto HD snowboard with board length=157cm and waist width=253mm, or the same board with board length=160cm and waist width=255cm.
Let me know what you think.
Hey Ron
Thanks for your message.
I think the Proto HD would be a good board for you. Either the 157 or 160 would work. If your looking for a bit more maneuverability or want to get into more freestyle type riding then the 157 is probably the better option but if you’re looking for more stability at speed then the 160. But either will fit for you. In terms of waist width they’re both all good.
I would consider the Proto HD an all-mountain freestyle type board – a medium flex, true twin shape, centered stance – and also suitable for beginner-intermediate riding. Probably not for an absolute beginner but certainly a beginner going on intermediate rider, which it sounds like you are.
You could check out my list of what I consider the top 5 all-mountain-freestyle at the link below for more options for that type of board (the Proto HD is in that list). Note that you don’t have to ride freestyle for these to be a good board – they are great for just riding the trails too if you aren’t looking to ride freestyle at all.
>>My Top 5 Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
In terms of bindings probably freestyle or all-mountain bindings – something with a medium-soft or medium flex would work well. I’ve got my top 5’s for those too if you wanted to check them out.
>>My Top 5 All-Mountain Bindings
>>My Top 5 Freestyle Bindings
Hope this helps – let me know if you want any other recommendations.
Hi Nate,
Great website and article! I’m an experienced rider planning to buy a Jones Flagship, but I’m really struggling with the size. I’m 183 cm tall, weigh around 80 kg and my foot length is 28.4 cm (so US size 10.5). I usually wear size 11 Vans though and for snowboard boots I somehow ended up with size 11.5 Burton Imperial’s (with shrinkage technology, so the footprint is a little smaller). I use Burton Cartel L bindings. Would you suggest I go with the 161 (25.2cm), the 162W (26.3cm) or maybe the 164 (25.4 cm)? Obviously I won’t use this board for the park, but mostly for freeriding and piste charging.
Thank you!
Jeroen
Hey Jeroen
Thanks for your message.
Because your boots probably have an outersole of a 10.5 (Burton’s shrinkage tech is really good) you should be able to get on the 161cm (252mm waist width) – though no guarantees. So you shouldn’t need the wide board. That said the wide board isn’t necessarily a bad option. It will probably feel less responsive though – but be more stable.
If it was me I’d go with the 161cm. The 164cm is definitely an option too. If your freeriding and your experienced then you could definitely handle the 164 if you wanted to go that long – and it will work width-wise.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! That definitely helps. I will first try and go by a shop then with my bindings and boots and set it up on a 161 to see if there’s any drag. Hopefully it works!
You’re very welcome.
Sounds like a great idea. That way you can be completely sure.
Hey Nate,
Awesome webpage – super informative and in-depth knowledge.
My setup: 161 Palmer Honeycomb / L-XL Atlas / Lashed 11
Board size in therms of width is close perfect, I have maybe 5mm of overhang of my bare feet.
But whet it comes to bindings front binding (angle +17) overhang just a little bit on the front and on the back – around 5mm, and this is just a side tip of the front part and side tip of the back part of the baseplate. Just a little bit. But it’s annoying, as you may imagine. Rear binding is fine because it is set on different angle (-5) and is on the slightly wider part of the board. I have possibility of exchanging my bindings to M/L size, and my boot size allows it as the size range is up to 11 for M/L and from 10,5 for L/XL. It is really hard for me to decide weather I should compromise a bit of the response taking smaller bindings but be sure they work correctly with all their surface contacting the board, or leave it as is as one of bindings is fine and other overhangs really small – I wonder if I will ever feel that something is not correct with such small overhang of front binding.
Thanks for your input.
Hi Julian
Ideally you wouldn’t have any binding overhang but if it’s very minimal then I would stick with what you have. You won’t notice it if it’s only very small and shouldn’t effect ride feel. As long as it’s not going to cause any drag and it is only very minimal as you say then I would stick with your L/XL
Hi Nate. awesome article.
I’m new to snowboarding and want my own setup now.
My feet is 27cm
looking at K2 MAYSIS boot size 9.5 or 10 (9.5 is 27.5cm and 10 is 28cm)
and the board im looking at is the Jones Mountain Twin 157 or 162
157 has 25.3cm and the 162 has 25.6cm Waist Width
What I can read from your article, the 157 board should be the one I go for if im going for the ideal Waist Width?
Thanks.
Btw.
Height: 186cm
Weight: 90kg
Hey Rune
The 253mm is most likely the better width for you – but it’s also important to take into account the length. I think that the 256mm width would also be fine – maybe not as good but close enough if the 162cm is a better length for you.
I would have you on the 162cm board if you were an all-mountain ride at an ability level of intermediate or above. However, if you are a beginner then it’s always a good idea to take some length off – shorter boards are easier to control and easier to learn on – as a rule I usually suggest taking off 3 to 5cm – which would be anywhere from a 157 to a 159 in your case.
~ Learn more about length here
Hope this helps – let me know if you have any more questions or want further clarification
Great article!
For the past 10 years I’ve been riding on my Burton 157W (couldn’t tell you the model) and Freestyle bindings, and I’m finally in the market to upgrade. I’ve been having some issues, mostly because of my size/boot size and conditions.
Height: 6′
Weight: 195
Boot: 13 (32 Lashed)
Stance: 15/-9 (most of the time)
I pretty much solely ride on the east coast, so hard pack, artificial, icy conditions. I much prefer all mountain riding to park (only hitting small jumps), and I’m looking for a medium-stiff flex that can handle somewhat aggressive riding, as well as the occasional switch riding. I’m an advanced rider, and pretty athletic as well.
I’m just having a difficult time finding a board that fits me and my style of riding, for the conditions I’m stuck riding in, without costing an arm and a leg. Most boards I’m finding that claim to be wide, still only have a 26cm waist width.
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Ryan
Hey Ryan
Yeah it’s always a bit harder to find decks for wider feet.
If you’re open to going up in length – which I think would be a good move for your height/weight and considering you like it somewhat aggressive. I’d put you no a 161-163cm deck give or take. This would be a bit of an adjustment at first compared with riding your 157 but I think you’d prefer once you were used to it.
Given that you had a 157W before I’d be surprised if its waist width was more than around 260mm so anything 260mm plus should be o.k. assuming you have had any drag issues with your current deck. To be more sure of this you could measure your waist width. The measurement should be done at the narrowest point of the board and should be done on the underside of the board. If you can measure this and let me know then I can say more confidently that 260mm waist should be ok.
Here are some options for some aggressive all-mountain decks anyway – there are some there with some wider widths in case you are worried about that – but I think the best bet here is to measure your current waist width and use that as your minimum. 32 Lashed boots (assuming they’re not also 10 years old) do have some reduced footprint tech so they should allow a slightly narrower board. Anyway, here are some options.
~ Yes Standard 161W (260mm waist) – best at switch on all of these (also just an awesome deck – got #1 in my list of aggressive all-mountain decks)
~ Burton Custom X 162W (260mm) – #5 on my aggressive all-mountain list – but not the cheapest
~ Jones Explorer 161W (264mm waist)
~ Lib Tech Dark Knife 161W (265mm waist) – great in icy and hard conditions – only issue is that it aint cheap!
~ Capita Mercury 161 (261mm waist)
~ Ride Berzerker 162W (261mm) – pretty reasonable price but maybe not as good as the others in harder/icy conditions and maybe not great at switch
More advanced, stiffer flexing boards do tend to be more expensive than other boards so it’s kinda hard to avoid that but there are some cheaper options in there.
Actually now that I think of it I think that the Jones Explorer 161W would be a good bet. It’s got a 264mm waist which should be wide enough, plus it’s got good edge-hold in hard conditions and is also more reasonably priced than a lot of stiffer flexing boards. I’d see if you can find that available but all of the above would work too I think.
Hope this helps and you can find something from that list. Check out the links above for more details.
Hey Nate,
I am 5’7, weigh 176 – would really like to buy a 154 Garage Rocker Snowboard 2015 – would I be too heavy for it? Do you think the 156 would be more appropriate?
Hey Caledo
Not too heavy for the 154.
I think the 154 would be the most appropriate if you are a beginner or if you want to be riding freestyle but if you are a more advanced all-mountain rider then go with the 156.
Hey Nate,
How are you?
I am just getting into the snowboarding and I am looking to buy my first board.
I am a beginner, live out in the East Coast (usually packed snow), mainly ski in Pennsylvania.
I am still at the point of only doing all-mountain (no tricks) and currently still fall when doing basic stuff.
I want to get more serious so I am looking for a board that can help me get better or at least help me not get hurt.
My stats are:
Age: early 40s
Height: 5′ 7
Weight: 178
Boot size: 10 – Thirtytwo Exit Snowboard Boots size 10
Regular shoes size: 9.5-10
I bought a 2005 Burton Clash 57 and a Kissmark M57 from ebay with Salomon Rhythm bindings. I don’t know if the 57 size is right for me, I was looking at possibly a 54 or 56.
I am looking to buy the best board money can buy keeping in mind current skills, area I live in, age and stats.
I was thinking about a Rome Garage Rocker Snowboard 2015 (not sure if I need a 154 or 156) and Union contact pro bindings.
I can get the board at a very good price and I figure I will grow out of the board fairly quickly so this board seems good for a novice that will be looking to buy an intermediate board soon after.
Just wanted to get your opinion on this and maybe you can suggest a better board and bindings.
Thanks.
Hey Cado. I’m good thanks. Hope you are too.
For now I’d like to see you on something around a 154cm. Eventually you’ll probably want to upgrade to something between a 156 and 158. But it’s easier to learn on a shorter deck.
I think the Garage Rocker would be a good choice (the 154cm). And this should be good to take you through the beginner and intermediate phases. Generally speaking that will be a few season’s worth (unless you go heaps like 30 days+) so you wouldn’t have to upgrade too soon. And you’ll want to upgrade in length at some point anyway.
But if you wanted to check out some other good options as beginner decks check out the links below
~ My Top 5 Beginner Snowboards
~ Beginner Snowboards Page
The Contact Pros would work as beginner bindings too. They’ve got a nice forgiving flex. You could also check out the link below for more options.
~ My top 5 beginner bindings
Thanks for visiting – hope this helps.
Thanks for your reply.
So I actually called Rome and let them know that the specs listed on their site for the 154 is wrong. They listed the 154 as being for 125-185 lbs, but in fact they are for 110-165 lbs.
Do you think I can still benefit from this board even at my weight (176lbs)? I thought perhaps the 156 would be better cause of my weight, but I would much rather go with whatever board makes it easier for me to learn.
Also, I took your advice and I got one of the beginner bindings you recommended – the Burton Freestyle.
Thanks again for all you help!!
Hey Caledo
I could be wrong here but I think that the 154 should be 125-185 lbs. The have the 152 as 115-170 lbs and the next size up should increase in weight. I just checked out their website and they have made an error on the weight recommendations but I think it’s for the 156. The 156 is listed as 110-165 lbs. But I don’t think this has been swapped with the 154. I think the 154 is correct at 125-185 and the 156 should be 135-200.
These are the stats that I have and they make more sense, but like I say I may not have all the info – but it would seem weird that the 154 had smaller weight recommendations than the 152 and that the 156 would have smaller than the 154!
I would go with the 154 – it will be easier to learn on for you
Nate,
Called Rome again and they indeed verified they mixed up the 154 and 156 specs.
Do you think I should still go for the 154 or 156 or perhaps 154 Wide?
Thanks for all your help.
Hey
I think the 154 is still fine for you. I wouldn’t go for the wide unless you have between roughly a size 11 and size 13 boot.
I took your advice on your site and went with the 2016 Garage Rocker and again Rome posted the wrong specs on their site. As you would imagine 156 is 125-185lbs and the 154 is 110-165lbs, so even the 2016 has wrong specs. Do you still feel that with this board 154 would be the best fit?
Again, thanks for all your help.
Hey Caledo
I still think the 154 is fine since you are on the beginner end of the spectrum. This size will be easier to learn on. However, if you are really concerned then the 156 won’t be bad – I just think that the 154 would be better. I would put you on a 157 when you are more advanced so 156 is still slightly shorter than that.
You can also check out my length sizing post for more.
~ Snowboard Length Sizing
Hey Nate,
I am just getting into the snowboarding world and am looking at buying my first board. I would consider myself a beginner but I enjoy everything from parks to powder. My stats are:
Height: 5′ 9″
Weight: 145
Boot size: 12
I currently have large Burton Cartel bindings I’m looking to pair with my first board as well as size 12 K2 boots. So far I’ve been looking in the 151-155cm range based on my weight but I’m worried about my boots/bindings being too large. It looks like I need a wide board based on my shoe size. If you could suggest a few budget options that would be great.
Thanks
Hey Tom
Yeah I’d definitely go for a wide snowboard with your size 12’s.
Based on your weight and height and the fact that you’re a beginner ideally I’d go with something at the lower end of that range. Around 150-153 but because of those size 12s you’ll probably have to compromise a little so that 151-155 is probably good but I wouldn’t go longer than 155 at this stage and preferably not longer than 153 if you can help it. But you can definitely find some wides in those sizes.
The thing I’d recommend is checking out the boards at the page below. These are all really good for beginners and a lot of them will have wide options. Check out each board and find which one you like best and which comes in the best size for you.
~ Beginner Snowboard Catalog page (top 10)
From a quick bit of research I think the following from that list that would work well are.
~ Ride Agenda 153W (258mm waist – maybe a little narrow)
~ Rome Garage Rocker 151MW (260mm waist) or 154MW (262mm waist)
~ Rossi Trickstick 154W (262mm waist)
I think any of those would work great for a beginner. Hope this helps
I see that the Rossi Trickstick comes in midwide configurations in previous versions. Would those be sufficient or do I need a full wide board?
Hi
I’m not sure about prior to 2014 but the 2014 and 2015 models have a 154W that have a 260mm or 262mm waist. I think the 2015 has the 260mm and the 2014 262mm. Either one should work for you. Mid-wide is one of those terms that has different meanings. A mid-wide from one brand might be the same as a wide from another.
260mm would be your minimum waist width but that should be fine.
Is there going to be a big difference for me between a 2015 Garage rocker (154MW) and a 2016 Garage rocker (151MW)? The 2015 has a width of 262mm while the 2016 has a width of 260mm but besides that, are there any key differences?
Thanks for all your help
Hey Tom
No big differences betweeen the 2015 and the 2016. There are probably some tech tweaks but this is a pretty established board so it will only be a subtle difference from one year to the next. There might be more difference over say 2-3 years but if you can find the 2015 cheaper then it’s pretty similar.
The only differences I can see is that the 154 is obviously longer but as discussed earlier I think both are within your length range
hey Nate,
Love the article. I’m looking at getting a new board for a trip to Austria (huge mountains). Not sure on the board size.
I’m 6’1 .
175lbs
size 11.5 men
+18 / +3 Binding angle
Advanced Freerider – mainly powder / back country – no parks.
Having a little trouble finding something with the feet and weight combination.
I’d like to get either a K2 Joy driver or rider highlife UL.
only size on k2 that looks like it might work is 162 with 151 waist width and 8.2 sidecut.
The highlife has a 161 with 253 waist width and 7.6 sidecut. Theres also a 164 with 257 waist width and 7.8 sidecut.
I’m leaning towards the highlife 164 mainly because of the larger waist width. However, I’ve never ridden anything that long.
Hi Rory
I think the 252mm and 253mm waist widths are going to be too narrow for you. I think the 257mm would work but that would be the minimum I’d go with for you. The 164cm length on that would work for you too considering you are a freerider – but it will take some getting used to if you aren’t used to that length.
The other option is the highlife 163W which has a 268mm width. This will be on the wider side but would still work. If I was you I’d go with either the highlife 164 or 163W. I’m leaning towards the 163W.
Hope this helps.
oops the k2 is 253 waist width not 251
Hi Nate,
I’m getting a new board for a trip to austria but I’m a little unsure on the sizing.
I’m 6’1
175lbs
11.5 us men
stance +18 / +3
intermediate to advanced freerider mainly powder/back country with occasional trails. no parks.
looking at these board combinations but unsure of the size:
ride highlife ul 161cm length, 254 waist width, 7.6 sidecut
ride highlife ul 164cm length, 257 waist width, 7.8 sidecut
k2 joy driver 162cm length, 251 waist width, 8.2 sidecut
a little unsure about the highlife 164 because i’ve never ridden anything that long. However, I’m going to Austria so the extra length would probably be nice.
Thanks!
Rory
Hi Nate,
This is such a great post on an (indeed) important topic!
I’ve looking on the web for days and I still cannot figure out which board to get so hopefully I’ll be able to use your precious tips 🙂
Basically I will buy the Jones Flagship and it seems I could go with the 158, 159W or the 161 boards for my size/height (5.9′, 163lb). But given the board stiffness and profile, 158 seems the best match for what I want. Problem: my boots are in size 11…
The waist wide of the Flagship is:
158 – 24.9cm –> the length I want but outside the range for boots in size 11
159W – 26.6cm –> might be a good compromise but not sure I need such a large board…
161 – 25.2cm –> best match in term of width but I’d really like to go for a shorter board
Few additional details:
Binding angles: -18 /-6
Flow bindings which are a bit raised up
Do you think the 158 will be to narrow? If so I’ll go for the 159W
Thanks and congrats again on the hard work
Cheers,
Jo
Looks like I’m exactly in the same situation than Scott where you commented:
“This is a tough one because neither the 252mm nor 264mm is ideal. The 252 is pushing it for being too narrow and the 264mm too wide. […] That size 11 boot is hard because it’s always somewhere in the middle of the normal widths and the wides.”
So I guess 249mm on the 158 is definitely too narrow right? 🙁
p.s.: here is the universal answer to all the questions on this page 🙂
YES Clark Transworld Snowboarding
Hey Jo
See my answer to your other post. I have done the measurements and I think the 263 waist width should actually be ok on the flagship for you. The 249 waist would definitely be too narrow I’d say.
Interesting idea there from YES. Definitely one way to get the width dead on!
Hey Jo
Thanks for the comments.
I think the 159W would be the best choice for you. It has a 263 waist width should be fine and the 159 length is all good for you too. I think the 249 waist would be a bit too narrow.
Hey Nate!
I’m.
5’10”
155pounds
Size 11 Nike boot
I’m looking to buy the Capita (Defenders of awesome) board and are looking at these options.
156cm — 8.0 sidecut. — 252mm waist width
OR
155cm — 8.10 sidecut — 258mm waist width
What one do you think I should go with.
Thanks so much!!
– Guino
Hey Guino
I would go for the 155W (with 258mm waist width). The 252mm is going to be a bit narrow for you. Even though the 156 is probably slightly better length-wise – but it’s only 1cm. Depending on your ability the 158W (260mm WW) is also an option. Remember that your weight includes your gear. So you’re probably going to be at the 160lb mark with your riding gear on.
If you’re a beginner to intermediate Rider then I think the 155W would be great but if your more on the highend intermediate or above then I’d go with the 158W – assuming you ride mostly groomers and not so much park. If you ride more freestyle then the 155W all the way.
Also check out my length sizing post for more details.
~ Snowboard Length Sizing
Hope this helps – let me know if you need more clarification.
Nate,
Thanks so much dude! I had a feeling that the 155W was the right choice. Everyone at the shop was saying don’t go wide but I felt like the 156 was too narrow.
Thanks again!
Cheers!
– Guino
You’re very welcome
Let me know what you think of the board once you get a chance to get to the mountain with it
Hi Nate,
Nice post, came across it when I was debating what to do about the waist width on a new splitboard. My current splitboard is a Venture Zephyr 159 with a waist width of 25cm, and side cut of 8.73m, and wanting to go lighter I went out to get a G3 Blacksheep 162 which measures waist width of 25.7cm, and a side cut radius of 9m.
My boot size is an 8.5 ThirtyTwo (foot measures 26.5cm), and want to get your thoughts on the 25.7cm waist width for my foot size. Putting my foot on the board in my stance, I find very little overhang on my rear foot (maybe a few millimeters), and under hang on my front foot by a few millimeters.
I currently find the Zephyr super easy to carve/jump turn/etc. in bounds and in wide open pow, but its stiffness makes it more difficult in tight terrain with trees, really have to get aggressive with the board in those situations.
Specs are:
Height 5 feet 11 inches
Weight 155 lbs
Boot size – 8.5 us mens
Stance angles +15 / 0
Hi Frank
In general I would think that the 257 waist width would be a bit wide for you but the best test is that barefoot test. It makes sense that your back foot – with a +0 angle will overhang more than the front foot (with a 15 degree angle). If you only have a few millimetres of overhang on your back and only a few millimetres of overhang on your back then it’s probably ok. I assume this was done with your barefeet and not your boots? If it’s with your boots then it’s definitely too wide. If it’s with your feet then that would be acceptable.
Also, given that the Blacksheep has a softer flex will make it more maneuverable. So even though it will be a wider deck that softer flex will outweigh that factor in terms of maneuverability in tighter areas. The other bonus of being slightly wider is that it does mean a bit more stability.
Anyway, long story short, I think that the width should be fine assuming that you are using your measurements in the comments above were done using barefeet.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the response. Yeah the test was performed using my bare feet. So it was slight overhang on the rear foot at +0, and slight underhang at my front foot at +15 as expected.
Thanks
Hi Nate,
You’ve got a really great website here which is really informative – Great job!
I was hoping you could advise me please. I have been riding for just over 12 years (only 1-2 weeks per year though) and feel pretty confident. I mainly free ride, on piste and powder when possible. I like carving quite hard. Don’t really do a lot in the park apart from some smallish jumps. I currently have a very old (about 12 years!) 156 F2 board with waist width of 252mm which I have really liked. Have always thought i’d like something a bit longer though, a bit more aggressive and for a bit more stability at speed.
I am…
Height – 5ft 10ins
Weight – 65kgs
Boot size – 10.5 us
Stance angles +27 / -12
I have actually ordered (but could return) a 2016 Salomon Super 8, 157, as I liked the sound and price of it. It has a waist width 260 and I’m just wondering if you think this is OK for me?
Any advice would be fantastic! Many thanks,
Nick
Hey Nick
A 12 year old board! I haven’t seen one of those in a while. I went riding with my mate a couple of years back and he pulled out his 16 year old board (from when he was 12) and boots. By the end of the day the boots were in shreds. But I digress.
I think the 260 whilst slightly wide should feel ok. I think for your boot size this will be fine. If your used to the 252 then it might feel a bit wide. Without knowing the side-cut of your old board it’s hard to say how much wider it will be at the inserts. It’s on the edge of your range but I think that board is designed to be a bit wider.
In short I think it should be fine but if you’re still unsure you could check out my top 6 aggressive all-mountain boards (see link below).
~ My Top 6 Aggressive All-Mountain Snowboards
Hi Nate
I know – 12 yrs is getting on a bit! The old faithful!!
It’s actually arrived today and I’ve just measured it at the inserts without shoes and my heels and toes come just to the edges at stance angles – hopefully it’ll be fine!
Thanks very much for the advice 🙂
Nick
Hey Nick
Perfect! Toes and heels to the edges with bare-feet should give you great pressure for the edges without too much overhang. Just make sure you center those bindings properly and it sounds like you have the perfect width.
Hi 🙂 Thanks a lot for the great article. I came upon it while trying to assemble my second board and find it difficult to choose suitable bindings and boots as there is a really limited choice of women’s boots and bindings offline around my place and I don’t know much about equipment.
I’m: 180 sm, 66 kg, 25.5 mondopoints (Most of my shoes are 39 according to the european system but sometimes I have to go for 40 depending of the producer and as I have lean but long feet).
Currently I’m riding Burton Blunt (2007) 155 + Drake Jade L (at duck stance) + northwave shoes – It was my first board so no base to compare but I am quite happy with it except that my shoes are for bigger footprint so there is always air around my toes even with thicker socks but that has never caused me any problems.
My new Arbor swoon 156 just arrived and it seems great, except that its waist is 24 which is much less than the Burton. My worries :
1) my primary choice for binding is Burton Mission size S – it is man’s bindings so not sure if that matters and is it a good choice for that board. I ride everywhere and like to try new things 🙂
2) I tried the barefoot test and with my usual stance my feet are just touching the edges without being outside of the board but my current riding shoes are on the test’s upper limit. I need new ones anyway but I have really limited choice to try and will probably have to order online – so I’m not sure if I should worry for toe/heel drag and should I search for reduced footprint shoes (would you recommend any?) or should I go for whichever 25.5 mondopoints model I like.
Any suggestions for suitable boots+bindings combination should be much appreciated. Thanks in advance 🙂
Hi Sevda
Thanks for the details.
1) The benefit of going for a women’s binding is that women’s bindings are made specifically to fit a women’s foot shape and lower leg. This would be my reservation with going with a men’s binding – it may not be as good a fit. If you’re looking for the women’s equivalent of the mission the closest match is the Burton Scribe in my opinion or if you were to spend a bit more the Burton Escapade is a great choice.
Also check out some other options at the link below.
~ Top 5 Women’s All Mountain Bindings
And check out the link below to find the right sized binding.
~ How to choose the right sized bindings
2) If your feet are to the edges and your boots are at the upper limit then they are within the limit so I think you should be fine there in terms of the width of your board. I think if you go with boots that fit 25.5 mondoprint then you should be fine.
Again you could check out my top 5 all mountain boots for some options (see link below).
~ Top 5 All Mountain Boots for Women
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions
Thanks a lot for the fast response!
You’re very welcome!
Have fun hitting the slopes!
Hi Nate,
Great website and article! Added it to my favorites.
Now, I’m having trouble deciding between two sizes (Ride Berzerker): 160 wide (259mm waist) or 163 wide (261mm waist).
My specs are:
Length: 1.86 m
Weight: 90 kg
I wear US size 11 Burton Imperial boots with shrinkage tech. I’m not a park rider, mainly backcountry/trees and groomers when powder runs short. So lengthwise, I’d say the 163W would suit me fine, but I have some doubts about the waist width.
What would you suggest? Thanks in advance!
Hi Mark
Thanks for the message.
I would definitely go with the 163W. This is the better length for you and I think either width will work great
Thanks Nate!
The 163W it’ll be 🙂
Ow and apologies for the double post!
All good bro. Let me know what you think of the Berzerker once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Will do!
Hi Nate!
I’ve ridden the Berzerker for a week now and it’s been a blast! Stable and aggressive, exactly the way I like it. Great float in powder and carves like a beast on groomers. Thanks again for your advice. The 163W proved to be the right choice 🙂
Mark
Hey Mark
Thanks for the follow up. Glad to hear the Berzerker worked out well for you. Have an awesome rest of your season!
Hi
I want to go for a ride berserker 163w. However, waist width is just 261 and I wear salomon F4.0 12.5 boots. Will the width of the snowboard be enough for me ?
Thanks for your help !
Hey
I think you should be good with the 261mm waist width. It’s on the narrow side for your boot size but the sidecut radius is reasonably sharp and the Salomon F4.0s have great reduce footprint – great choice of boots by the way.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, sure it helps! 🙂
By the way, can I have your feeling about what I intend to buy ?
I’m a male 1.86m high and weighting 92 kg. No park, just free ride on tracks and powder as often as possible.
I mainly ride edge to edge small carves rather than big one’s (on groomers), and my skill level is good/advanced.
As I said I m about to buy the ride berserker 163w, but before I was thinking about the ride ultralife or jones explorer.
Do you have some advice for me plz?
Thanks. And yes, I’m really happy with my f4.0 🙂
Cheers.
Hey
I think the 163cm to 164cm range is good for you. So you’re on the right track there. To be honest all of those boards would be suitable for your needs.
Which you go with will depend on how aggressive you see yourself. The Ride Highlife UL has a stiffer flex (7/10) than the Berzerker (5/10) so it will be a more aggressive ride. The Highlife is also a little wider – for both I would go with the 163W – but the Highlife has a 268mm waist width and a slightly shallower side cut. Both should be really good in powder. The Berzerker will probably be a quicker turner for those tight turns.
The explorer is around a 6/10 flex-wise – so in between the two ride decks. Otherwise it’s quite similar to the other 2. Maybe in between in terms of quick turns. If you go with the explorer I’d go with the 164W (266mm waist width).
Hope this makes your decision easier.
Yes, you made my decision easier : I realize that I want something for more agressive ride. So I’ll go with the flagship in 165w. More expensive, but I think it worths it.
Moreover, waist width is 266, so it will be perfect with my 12.5 boots.
Thanks for all and cheers from France !
Bye !
You’re very welcome.
The flagship is a great board in my opinion. Hope you enjoy your new snowboard!
Forgot a precision : my fix are sp fastec Mountain xl.
Hi Nate.
First off I just want to say I think your blog is fabulous, and I am a frequent visitor. Keep it up!
I found this article really informative. I recently purchased my first new snowboard. (Previously I was riding a used one I bought from a rental shop). I am beginner to intermediate rider. My stats are:
height: 5’5
weight: 130
women’s boot size: 8.5
board: rossignol gala 146
So my old used board was 144 … which I knew was on the small size, so I thought 146 was sizing up… Except I realize my old board was a men’s board… and the new women’s 146 I think has a smaller waist width than the men’s 144! Didn’t realize this until right now. Also, I have noticed even among women’s boards of the same length, there are different widths, which only adds to the confusion. (The gala I noticed has a slightly smaller width than some other women’s 146 boards I’ve seen).
Do you think the 146 is going to be pushing it, as far as being too small? What do you think would be my ideal board length and waist width? La
Thanks so so much,
Laura
Hi Laura
Thanks for your message.
Yeah women’s boards definitely have significantly smaller waists on average. This is basically just to accommodate for different foot sizes between men and women.
I put you on around a 147cm board so 146cm is all good length-wise.
By my calculations the Gala will be slightly narrow for you. It’s definitely one of the narrower waist widths going around – but it does have a fairly steep sidecut which compensates for that slightly. According to Rossignol the maximum boot size for this board is a women’s 8.5 – so you are just on the edge as far as they are concerned.
The best way to tell if it’s going to be ok is to place your barefeet on the board where your bindings go (and on the angles they will be on) and set your foot so that it’s even in terms of the toe and heel edge. I suspect you’ll have some foot overhang but as long as it’s not more than 5mm on the heel edge and 5mm on the toe edge (10mm total) then you should be good. You may even get away with slightly more but after that its pushing it a bit.
Hope this helps, let me know how it goes.
Hey Nate, great info and website. I’m 43 years old, 5’10”, and weigh 185 lbs, with size 10.5 feet. I am a former pro snowboarder who competed in big air, boardercross, and big mountain events, and spent a lot of time in the backcountry. I don’t ride as much as I used to and need to upgrade my ride from a 6 year old Ride Timeless 164. I like to freeride and still throw some airs and spins, but also love to lay out deep carves on groomers. My Timeless was very stiff, which I like, but I always had some toe drag when really laying it over. Do you think a waist width of 262 mm is too much? It’s hard to find a board that is fairly stiff, 162-164 cm, and has a waist width around 255-258. I’m looking at the Jones Flagship, Ride Highlife UL, Ride Bezerker 163 wide. Any suggestions? Thanks!!
Hey Eric
Thanks for your message. Great to hear from a former pro.
Firstly, I completely agree with the 162-164cm length for you for freeriding based on your height and weight.
I think you’d get away with a 262mm waist width. Especially if you found that the Timeless was slightly narrow (from the research I did the 164 had a 255mm waistwidth and 9.3m sidecut).
I think that the Flagship would be awesome for your purposes. However the 164cm has a 254mm waist, 9.3m sidecut so will be very similar in width to your timeless.
The Berzerker 163W has a 261mm WW and a 7.4m sidecut. That sharper sidecut and wider waist will make that a good decent amount wider than the Timeless and Flagship.
The Ride Highlife UL 164 has a 257mm waist with a 7.8m sidecut. This sounds to me like it would be the best width-wise for you though I think that the Berzerker would also be fine.
Hope this helps.
That was some good reading man. Maybe you can help me out because I am not sure if my new board is a little too wide. It felt like a lot of work to maneuver it today. Could be the flex, length and the CRC profile compared to my shorter rocker-flat-rocker board. Below is the information
Specs:
Sex: Male
Height: 5’9
Weight: 190 lb
Level: Beginner approaching Intermediate
Type: Mainly groomers, enjoy a mix of freestyle and freeride.
Location: Tahoe
Current Board: 2016 Flow Drifter 161 and 2016 Ride Manic 158
Binding Angles: 15+/9- (I usually set my bindings back one spot on the front to narrow my stance.)
Bindings: Flow Fuse Large on the Drifter and Medium Malavita’s on the Manic
Boots Sz 10 Saloman Dialogue
Barefoot Measurement – 280mm
The Ride Manic has a waist width 250 and It is way more responsive. The Flow Drifter has a waist width of 257. I was wearing 10.5 boots until I actually got a good boot fitting and now I am in size 10.
Do you think the Drifter is a good width for me? If not should I try and go down to a 159 which has a waist width of 254 or 255 (have seen both on charts) or should I look at a different board. I got the Flow to have a board with a different profile and something that was more stable when I wanted to charge down the mountain some.
Thanks bro for any assistance you can provide
Hey Randal
Thanks for your message.
I think it’s probably a number of factors that makes the Drifter feel harder to maneuver. For starters the length being a little longer will make it more difficult. I think your ideal size is 159 (but 161 is probably fine especially if you are looking for more stability for bombing faster and steeper).
The width is probably also a factor – I would say the 257 is slightly too wide but not way off.
The Camber profile will also be more difficult to start with. The Rocker Flat Rocker of the Manic is a great profile for beginners and is easier to ride. The Camber Rocker Camber of the Drifter is trickier at first but it’s a camber profile I really liked once I got used to it.
I agree that the size 10 boots is usually right for 280mm barefoot measurement.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions or are looking for any other board recommendations.
Nate,
Thanks for the info bro. I am going to take it out this weekend in and see if I can get it to do what I want. The profile was different at first and I could tell as I got tired I was catching some edges toward the end of the day. I definitely felt like I had more board under me. The Manic feels much shorter when I am riding, but it floated well in powder. We should have some fresh powder in Tahoe this weekend so hoping the Drifter really comes to life. I will more than likely exchange it for a 159 board if I can’t get the responsiveness I want.
Are there any boards you recommend for something with a different profile than the Manic that can charge some groomers and maybe hit some park once in a while. Looking for something stable, but also not too stiff.
Hi Randal
I recommend you check out my lists of what I consider to be the top all-mountain and all-mountain-freestyle snowboards (see links below). Most of these have a different profile to the Manic. You can check out the specs to see which might be best suited to you.
~My Top 10 All-Mountain Snowboards
~My Top 5 All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Let me know how the Drifter goes over the weekend.
Nate,
Thanks again bro. I took it out today and it rode well with the exception of just being hard to initiate the heel edge. It was awesome in everything else. A little heavy on the chair, but not a big deal. I rode the Ride first to get a good baseline and it felt worse than the Drifter overall. I skidded more turns with the Ride and it was not good through the chopped up runs at Squaw Valley. The Drifter handled it well and I did not feel like it wanted to buck me like on the Ride.
Do you think sizing down to a 159 with a waist width of 254 with the same sidecut radius as the 161 would be a better fit. The 161 has a waist width of 257.
Also considering the NS Snowtrooper and Slash Brain Storm. How do those boards compare to the Drifter? Would they be as stable with speed and be able to handle the chop as well? Looking for something that can get some speed while remaining stable and decently damp.
Hey Randal
Great to hear the Drifter felt better this time around. As I mentioned earlier I think that the 159cm would probably be your ideal size but since you already have the manic in the 158 then maybe the Drifter can be your longer board. I think the 254 is potentially better but considering your narrow your stance slightly the 257 is probably fine. How much boot overhang do you get? Also try putting your bare feet on the board on the binding angles you usually use and see if your heels and toes line up with the edge (the edge of the underside of the board). If they do or very slightly under or over hang then you should be good width-wise.
Also try to make sure that your bindings are set up so that they are centered on the board – i.e. the heel edge of the bindings is at the heel edge of the board and the toe edge of the bindings are at the toe edge of the board. Try to have them go from edge to edge but with no overhang.
I definitely rate the Snowtrooper and the Brainstorm (check out my top 10 all mountain snowboards list they’re both on there).
The Snowtrooper is probably the most similar to the Drifter (similar profile and flex). The Brainstorm is a slightly board – very slightly stiffer and with a hybrid camber profile. Both of those boards do have a bit of a setback (15mm, 0.6inch) as opposed to the Drifter which has a centered stance.
I would say that the Brainstorm would be the better option over the snowtrooper in terms of speed and stability.
Hello Nate, I’m italian and i see your website, it’s very helpful, really a good work.
now my question, i’m a beginner and i want to buy my first snowboard.
I’m 181cm tall, 158lbs weight (light) and my boots size is 10.5US
I find a used Burton Clash 2014 157W with Burton freestyle bindings L.
It’s a wide with 258mm width, on the catalog I see the width ref stance is 268mm.
I measure the lenght of boots, is 315mm from heel to toe.
I fear it’s too broad ad fail to turn, becouse when i rent the table the rentshop gave me standard snowboard in i’m learn with this, but reading in internet i see that 10.5 boots is a borderline.
Do you think it’s a good snowboard for me?
Plase help me.
Sorry for my language, thank you in adventage.
Vladimiro.
Hi Vladimiro
Thanks for the info. Your English is fine – I can understand everything you are asking.
258mm waist width is a good width for you. This is not too wide.
I think this is a good length for you too. If you have found a good deal on this board then I think it would be a good choice.
Hey Nate,
Great article. It has helped me a lot when thinking about what board to get next. I have a 25 cm foot and weigh around 130 lbs. Currently I’m looking at the 2015 Yes Hel Yes in either 146 or 152 (both can be had at a great price). The 146 has a 239.0 Waist Width and the 152 has 242.0.
According to your chart the 152 would be perfect but since I’m only about 5’2″ I was thinking about maybe getting the 146.
I am also open to other board suggestions but unfortunately I am somewhat limited in terms of budget (everything is very expensive since I don’t live in the US).
What you do think?
Hi Manuel
I think the Hel Yes is a great choice and if you can get a good price I’d go for it. And you’re spot on with the 146cm length. That’s the one I’d go with. This is more down to weight than height but according to weight and height 146cm is right on the length I’d choose for you.
In terms of width the 239mm waist width is perfectly fine. I’d definitely go with the 146.
Thanks a lot! I mainly freeride and am planning about getting the stiffest bindings/boots I can afford. Does this affect the length that I should choose?
My other board is a 155 so maybe I could just use that when it gets too deep but I’d rather just use one board for everything.
Hey
I would think that a 155cm board would be too long for you – but if you’re used to riding that then maybe the Hel Yes 152cm would be an option. Usually you would go longer (as a general rule I go 2-4cm longer but this isn’t a hard and fast rule) for a freeride board. So the 146cm is your perfect “all-mountain” size. It would do the job for freeriding but you would get better float in powder with a longer board.
You could go for the 152cm Hel Yes to get that extra length – this is probably longer than I’d usually go above your all-mountain size but if you’re used to riding a 155 then I think the 152cm is probably a good option for you.
hi Nate
My height is 5’10”, I weigh 165 to 170 pounds. My boots size is 10.5 US. My stance angle is 10+ by 5-.
I’m looking at buying the new never summer snow trooper and and curious if you could make a suggestion on board size? Thanks in advance, Erik
Hi Erik
Thanks for the message.
In terms of width the 252mm, 254mm and 256mm would all be suitable. In terms of length I’d 100% go with the 159cm if you’re not a beginner and the 156cm if you are a beginner.
Hope this helps,
Nate
Awesome article man! Very helpful! I am about to buy a new board and its a 255mm waist width board. I usually ride with my bindings +15 -15 stance and I have 11.5 boots, so I was wondering if there will be overhang with my stance being set at those degrees.
I forgot to mention that I am looking at the Rome Mod Rocker 2014 159 (255mm) and Rome Mod 2014 160 (256mm). I was also looking at the DC Mega 2016, but it is a 254mm and I really really want the board and it might be too small for me. I am 6 feet tall and weigh 240
Hey Justin
Thanks for your message.
I think for your height and weight you could potentially go longer. I think a 163cm to 164cm if you are an all mountain rider. If you’re more of a freestyle rider or like your board to be more playful/less aggressive then around the 159-160cms would be great. This also depends on your ability level. If you can let me know your ability level and rough riding style that would help length-wise.
In terms of width the 255mm and 256mm are on the narrow side for you. You’d probably just get away with it but you’d be pushing it a bit.
I see the 2016 Mod comes in a 162cm with a 258mm waist width – but I’m not sure the 2014 model had this size or if you would be able to find it. I assume you’re looking at the 2014 models because you’ve found a cheap deal on them?
Looks like the DC Mega’s biggest size is a 159cm with 254mm waist-width as you say. This is again probably pushing it in terms of width for you.
I’ve probably given you more questions than answers so far! If you could let me know your riding style and ability level I can make a more accurate recommendation.
I’m more of an all mountain rider and I am starting to pick up on my Freestyling. I would say I am an advanced in terms of my ability at free ride and beginner in freestyle. That’s why I’m looking at all mountain boards that suits both.
Again thanks a lot! Never met someone on a post so willing to help.
Hey Justin
You’re very welcome.
I would say something between 159 and 162 would be good. A shorter board is better for freestyle riding but you don’t want it too short so that you don’t take too much away from your freeriding. I would definitely try to get something at least a 258mm waist width and up to a 264mm.
So I think the Rome Mod 162cm (258mm WW) would be good. You could also try checking out my top 10 all mountain snowboard’s list and top 5 all-mountain freestyle list at the links below. There should be some options size-wise in there.
My top 10 all mountain snowboards
My top 5 all-mountain freestyle snowboards
Hope this helps – note that I haven’t tried the Mod or Mod Rocker but from what I know these sound like they’d be more than suitable for your purposes.
Hi!
I’m going to buy a new snowboard, bindings and boots soon. I’m 1m77 height (about 5″10) and I choose the Nitro Team TLS size 10 (EUR 43). I have been snowboarding for about 15 years and I really like doing flat (press, butter, switch, 180/360 on small jumps, etc…)
I would like to buy the new Bataleon Evil Twin. In the shop I am used to buy snowboard stuff, they advise me to buy the 156W. I am a little bit afraid of buying a wide board because I heard it is recommended for boot size of 11+ and I have only a size of 10. My bare foot is 26 cm. According to the shop leader (who always gave me good advices for many years and never force me to buy anything), a wide board is nice for doing flat: it is more stable, comfortable and add forgiveness. As well, many customers who did not want to buy a wide board are finally very happy after trying it. My angles are usually +12/-12 (let’s say between -15/+15 and -6/+6).
I am looking for some advices, I do not want to try a wide board and be disappointed… According to the Internet, only a few people would recommend a wide board in my case…
Thanks in advance!
Hey Chris
Thanks for your message. I agree that a wider board is great for the type of freestyle riding you like to do, but I do think that a waist width of 264mm (which the Evil Twin 156W has) is going to be wider than is necessary. I think the 154 or the 157 would be wide enough. I don’t think the 156W would necessarily be un-rideable but you would be sacrificing a fair bit of maneuverability to get that extra stability and forgiveness.
Some people don’t care about loosing that maneuverability and prefer something that wide but personally I wouldn’t but that’s somewhat personal preference. If there was a way you could try a board that wide first that would be a good way to go to see if you like it. It also depends on whether you like to ride the rest of the mountain at all or if you have another board for that.
The other thing I noticed is that you said you have 26cm barefeet but a size 10 (eur 43) boot. This boot sounds like it’s too big for you. Are you sure your feet measure 26cm?
What’s your weight? This is more important than height in determining length. This would help to decide whether the 154 or 157 would be a better length for you. I’m not saying no to the 156W but for me this sounds too wide. It might be great on landings but it will be hard work to maneuver I think.
Hope this helps
Hi,
I want to buy an capita indoor survival or an outdoor living.
I have boot size 10 in my thirtytwo boots.
They are 31,5cm long.
Would the 156 boards fit for me with an 25,1 waist?
Or could i even get an 154?
Or would both be too small?
Thanx for the answer.
And great site by the way!
Hey Matze
The 156cm with the 251mm waist width should be perfect for you. The 154cm with a 248mm waist width would be pushing it on the narrow side. If you can let me know your height weight snowboarding style and ability level I can recommend which length will be best for you.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the informative article! Beginners such as myself definitely appreciate having this info before making the decision on what type of gear to purchase.
Some info about myself:
Height: 5’1
Weight: ~140 – 145 lb
Barefoot Measurement: 24.0cm
Level: Beginner
Two boards I’ve been considering are the Slash Happy Place and Slash Brainstorm. The HP has the option of 146cm and ww of 243mm, but with rider’s weight of up to 139lb. The HP 149cm and Bs 151 both have ww of 247mm (with Bs having a sharper sidecut radius), where my weight won’t be a concern. In these types of scenarios, would it be more important to find a board which fits my weight, or can I get away with the wider boards?
Or if you don’t feel either board is a good fit, what would you recommend?
Thanks in advance,
Will
Hey Will
Thanks for your message.
For starters I would deginitely go for the Happy Place over the Brainstorm because you are a beginner. The Happy Place actually made my top 5 beginner snowboard’s list so this is a really good beginner deck.
In terms of size I would be inclined to go for the 146cm. It is just under the weight recommendations from Slash but it’s a better length for you, especially as a beginner. And in terms of width it’s definitely better too. The 149cm would also be ok but I think the 146cm would be a slightly better choice.
Hope this helps – I’m happy to look into some other options for you but I think the Happy Place 146cm would actually be a great choice for you.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll definitely look into finding a Happy Place 146cm if possible. One question I have about it is that, it seems like the Happy Place is considered more of a freestyle board. If I intend on staying mainly on groomers, is there anything I need to pay particular attention to with learning on that board?
If you can give me other options as well, that’d be great! Considering not many places carry the Slash brand near where I live, it’ll be good to know what else I can look into.
Cheers,
Will
Hi Will
Often freestyle boards are also good for beginners. This is because there are certain factors that are good for both beginners and freestylers – like a softer flex, centered stance etc. A lot of freestyle boards are great for beginners on groomers.
Not all freestyle boards are good for beginners but a lot are. Like the Happy Place.
If you are happy ordering online you can get the Happy Place at the link below (free shipping).
Slash Happy Place at backcountry.com
If you want to learn more about the key specs for beginner snowboards you can check out my post at the following link:
Choosing a beginner snowboard
For more options check out the top 5 beginner boards in the link above. But I think the Happy Place 146 is going to be the best fit but the Ride Agenda 147, Ride Crook 149 and Rossi District 146 are your next best options in my opinion.
Hope that helps
Thank you for all your help and suggestions! I really appreciate it.
You’re very welcome
Hello
I tried sending this message before but it disappeared for some reason 🙁
I’d like to get your expert opinion on what board I should proceed with. I’m one of those situations where I’m a smaller foot but not too small and not to big.
Specs:
Sex: Male
Height: 5’8
Weight: 190 lb
Level: Intermediate
Type: Mainly groomers, enjoy a mix of freestyle and freeride. Would like to work on carving and some switch riding
Location: East Coast Hard Pack / Ice
Current Board: 2013 Rossignol Templar 156 (Used since beginner)
Binding Angles: 15+/9-
Bindings: 2015 Burton Genesis Reflex Medium
Boots Sz 8 Burton Ruler
Barefoot Measurement – 259mm
I’m looking to get onto a new board. Also debating on moving up in size to a 158/159.
I’m finding it hard to find a board that has smaller waist widths, I tend to see an average waist width of 253 in the 158/159 range.
I’m in between on the following boards
1) Libtech TRS 159 – Has a waist width of 253, another forum member provided me with the insert width at the bottom measuring 260mm. So this leaves me 1mm short based on the BOTTOM of the board.
2) Prior MFR – 158 – Has a waist width of 248, radius of 8.5 and a setback of 25mm. The store owner provided a measurement at the front inserts of 257 on the bottom and 250 at the topsheet. Setback of 25mm might be an issue for what I want to achieve?
Which would be the better option for me? I don’t know much about the Prior MFR and hard to find reviews as it is a smaller company. It’s also twice the price as the TRS i’m getting is from last season. But i’d rather go for the better option.
I’m also open to any suggestions you may have for any other mid-flex All-Mountain type boards.
I look forward to your response!
Thank you soo much!
Hi Danish
THanks for your message.
I did receive your original message but it ended up on on of my other posts.
Please go to the following link to see my reply.
The Top All Mountain Snowboards My Top 5
Hello Nate,
Lot of thanks for such a great article!
I am at age: 31
Weight: 172lbs (78-79KG)
Height: 5,9 (180cm)
foot size: 28cm
Boot: size 10-10.5 (EURO 43-43.5)
Level: beginner to intermediate
I brought a 2015 K2 SUBCULTURE board with regular 158cm.
after purchase I found EVO’s size guide which tells that this board can hold boot sizes between 7-9.
EVO size guide info:
Board: K2 Subculture
Size(cm):158
Rider Height (lbs):130-210
waist width(mm): 252
Boot Size: 7-9
The problem is that 9 is too small for me and am planing to buy boots size 10-10.5US with large binding.
What you think about it?
Kind regards,
Temo
Hi Temo
Your right you will probably need a size 10 to 10.5 boot. But I think that will be fine on the Subculture 158. It has a 252mm waist width and a 8.0m sidecut. I think you’ll be absolutely fine on that. It will likely be on the narrow side (i.e. you might have a fair bit of overhang) for you but shouldn’t cause issues.
If you’re really worried about it then it might pay to go with a low profile boot. Essentially what a low profile boot means is that the outersole is smaller than what it would usually be. This can reduce the outersole by up to a size and sometimes even a size and a half. So if you got a size 10 with a lot of reduction then it would be more like an outersole of a size 9. This would definitely put you well within the right width.
Typically Burton are the best at size reduction but there are some other brands that do it well on some of their boots.
If I was you I would check out the Burton Moto’s – they are great beginner to intermediate boot and have good reduced footprint. So if you went for a size 10 in this it would be like an outersole of a size 9 and if you needed a 10.5 then it would be like a 9.5.
If you’d like you can check out my review of the Moto’s at the link below.
Hi Nate,
I just read your article and I think that a lot of people will appreciate it.
I am a 165 LBS and a size 8 (eur 40) and I am thinking of a Libtech TRS 154 do you think that I should go with a 151N?. The Lib tech representative told me that with a 151N I will have a lot of overhang.
Could you please tell me your opinion?
Thank you
Hi Dan
I hate to disagree with the Lib Tech rep – and maybe he knows something that I don’t – but I think the 151N would be ok width-wise. Yes there will be overhang but overhang is a good thing. By my calculations the overhang wouldn’t be too excessive. The sidecut is shallower than your average board of that length which means the width at the inserts won’t be as wide as they would be with a sharper side cut which will add to the overhang but I still think it would be o.k. even if on the high end of overhang.
However, I think the 151 would be too short for you. That of course will depend on your riding style and your ability level and your height. If you can let me know those things I can give you a more accurate recommendation for length, but I suspect that you will want a longer board than a 151. In that case the 154 or even the 157 may be the better bet. And the 253mm width (which is the width on both the 154 and 157) might be on the wide side of ideal but given the shallow sidecut will be within range I would say.
If you can let me know those things – style, ability and height – that would be awesome and then I can make a more accurate recommendation.
Thanks for visiting and I hope this is helpful.
Hey Nate,
Great article, enjoyed reading it !
I’m thinking of getting a new park board this year and I’m really into the salomon villain. I’m 184 cm, around 85 kg and I’ve got a burton ambush eur 44, it says in the inside that it’s US 11/UK 10.
I currently ride a never summer evo 4.0 152 cm but I feel it a bit narrow and not too stable at higher speeds.
I’m looking for something that I can ride outside of the park too but I would say 80% time park. So I’m considering the villain 155 but I dont know if I should get the wide version or not. What’s your opinion ?
Best regards,
Matt
Hey Matt
I would probably go with the wide version of the 155 for in this case.
Because you’ll mostly be using it to ride park that bit of extra width is nice to have for a nice stable landing platform. Also it’s not as necessary to have a quick turning board for park riding so you want need that extra quickness of turn you might get from a narrower board.
I’m not surprised that the evo didn’t feel stable for you. 152cms is definitely too short for your height and weight – even for a park board. I’d see you on a 161cm or a 162cm for all-mountain riding and even longer if you were purely doing freeriding. For park I usually recommend to take off 3-6cms – which would put your park board length at 155cm – 158cm.
I think you’ll find the Villian to be a much better fit. The waist width on the Evo is 244mm – were you getting heel and/or toe drag on that board? Actually the outersole shrinkage on the Burton Ambush is pretty darn good so that may have saved you.
Because you have the low profile boots you would actually be fine on the regular 155cm too. But the wide version would also work. Either way it should definitely feel more stable than the evo would have.
Hope this helps and thanks for visiting.
Nate
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply! I feel the same. Normal width would work, but I feel like the wide would be the right choice. I was only worried because I’ve never had a wide board. In reality my feet are size 10, and I also had an ambush of that size but after a while on the moutain my toes hurt insanely on heel side, so I had to change for 11 becaue i felt that 10.5 wasn’t enough either. The new ambush fits quite nice thought.
regards,
Matt
Hi Nate.
Looking to get a new snowboard for my 13 year old daughter with large feet. Currently, she is riding a Ride Compact 143 with a waist width of 236 mm. I just ordered her new/larger boots, and I don’t think they’re going to fit her current board. With her having a size 10 womens boot, I’m not sure if I should get her a womens or guys snowboard. I’ve been looking at the Capita Birds of a Feather 150cm ww: 241 or 152cm ww: 244 & the Capita Ultrafear 149cm ww: 250 or 151cm ww: 252.
Female
Age: 13 & still growing
Height: 5’8″
Weight: 125 lbs
Boot: K2 Haven size 10 womens (her older sister has a size 11 foot & is 5′ 11″ – skier)
Level: Intermediate
Midwest groomers & park
Thanks,
Kurt
Hey Kurt
Thanks for visiting.
Assuming that your daughter is an experienced rider the Capita Birds of a feather should be ok. It’s not really for beginners or intermediate riders. It’s quite an aggressive board but for an experienced rider it will be great for riding the groomers and in the park – particularly if she likes jumps more than jibs. In terms of size I’d probably put her ideal length for right now at around 147-148cm for that type of riding so no harm in going a little bit longer to allow for some room to grow. I just wouldn’t put it too long – even if she might be riding a 156 or something at some point down the track it will stunt her progress if you go too long now. That said a little bit longer than ideal shouldn’t be too limiting and will allow to grow into it a bit.
In terms of the width even at 241 or 244 it’s looking a little bit narrow. Could probably get away with it though. More so the 244 than the 241 which would mean going with the 152cm length.
Some other options for all-mountain freestyle boards worth checking out if you want:
Ride Hellcat – 150cm, 244mm waist width – a bit less aggressive/more playful than the Birds of a Feather but otherwise quite similar (same camber profile, centered stance, true twin shape)
Ride Rapture – 151cm, 244mm. Quite a bit more playful than the Capita. Quite a mellow board. Otherwise quite similar.
Rome Lo Fi Rocker – 152cm 248mm. Probably the best size-wise in my opinion. Otherwise quite similar to the Capita – but again a touch more playful.
Definitely a good call to get her off the Ride Compact – she has definitely outgrown that by the sounds of it.
Sorry just noticed you also mentioned the Capita Ultrafear. Size-wise I think either the 149 or 151 would work. It’s technically a men’s board but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good board. It is definitely a very different board to the Birds of a Feather. It’s softer flexing (so will be more playful) and I’d say it’ll be considerably better at jibbing so if she likes to hit rails, boxes etc in the park this is probably better than the Birds of Feather but will still be ok on the jumps – and on the groomers. Though the Birds of a Feather probably a slight edge on the Groomers.
So, long story short I think either of the boards you’ve chosen would be suitable or any of the other options I’ve added in there. In terms of width probably the Ultra Fear and the Rome Lo-Fi Rocker are probably the best but I think you’ll be good on any of those.
Hope this has helped – and not made the decision harder!
Thanks for the leads from this old thread Nate. You have a very informative site, thank you. I have a 5’8″ 14 yo intermediate daughter with size 10 women’s also falling into this gap, where length gets too long and she seems to need a 25.0 to 25.4 range board and too much stiffness could be an issue. Utah resident, probably going with an older Salomon Pillow talk, 147 by 25. 4 flat rocker.
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
I am actually in the process of updating these tables after doing more research and more testing and there will be some changes. I haven’t yet completed my research or testing, so don’t want to update things yet – but the women’s widths are going to be narrowed – by how much I haven’t finalized yet. But for a Women’s 10, depending on the binding angles that your daughter uses, you could get as narrow as 24.0cm at the waist. But certainly, you could get down to 24.5cm. It’s still tough to find women’s options with that kind of width at an appropriate length, but it does open up some more options. In fact according to these guys – Donek Width Calculator – she could even go as narrow as 235mm at the waist, with a 15 degree angle on the back foot – or 244mm with a 0 degree angles. I’m not sure that my tables will quite get as narrow as that for women’s 10s. But if so that would open up even more options, assuming she uses angles similar to something like +15/-15.
You can check out some options here:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
In terms of length, if you can let me know your daughter’s weight, then I can recommend a more appropriate length. Length is more a factor of weight than height these days.
It might be the case that there is something more appropriate in a men’s board – but depending on the length, there might still be something doable in a women’s board.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I have this setup that I just purchased. Been riding rentals and this is my first board of my own.
GNU Metal Gnuru (Size: 155 Regular) [Center of Binding Inserts: ~26cm; Center: 25.3cm]
Burton Re:Flex Bindings (Size: Medium)
Rome Bodega Boots (Size: 10 US) [tight fit can’t go smaller]
I like to do superman carves and I’m wondering if the ~1 inch of overhang that I’m getting will be an issue. Boots are a bit bulky but super light (~12 inches long with ~11 inches contact with binding base). The board can get to about 60-70degrees heel or toe before touching the ground. Also, worried about losing my edge on groomers with aggressive carves and drag in deep pow.
Might try to find a size 9.5 boot that I can fit in if I’ll have problems.
Hi Dillon.
Thanks for stopping by. I’ll try and answer all of your comments here. Thanks for the detailed info.
Great that you’ve found boots without heel lift. The Bodega’s aren’t the bulkyist you can get but they’re also not the most reduced either. If they fit well and are comfortable and have no heel lift then I would try to stick with them if you can.
In terms of overhang – by my calculations you should have a little under 4cms (1 1/2 inches) of overhang which should be roughly 2cms (3/4″) on the toe edge and 2cms (3/4″) on the heel edge. In theory this should be fine. It sounds like you are saying a full inch of overhang on both toe and heel. Do you know if your bindings are centered width ways correctly across the board?
I think you should be fine. You do want some overhang. Because you do like your hard carves it does become closer but I think you’ll still be ok. I would wait until you start the season and if they’re fine then all good. If you’re having troubles and want to get something with a lower profile I’d be more than happy to recommend a lower profile boot and try to find something that is similar to the Bodega.
Didn’t mean to post twice, sorry. Checked in the morning and I didn’t see my old post.
I had to set the bindings back to center them with the boots. I use 12 degree duck stance (15 makes my knees sore). Set center, I have more toe. Set back I have more heel. It’s not super even with a 12 duck stance.
What boots would you suggest? Season doesn’t start for a about month here so I have time to swap out. I can’t stand dealing with anything but traditional lacing (quick pull sucks imo and boa fits me weird).
All good – there was some different info in each comment.
If you do feel the need to change then I would recommend the following. I’ve tried to keep these as similar to the Bodega’s as possible but with better reduced footprint. – so traditional lacing, similarish price range, medium flex etc.
~ Burton Rampant – pretty much the same price as the Bodega’s ($10 cheaper), trad lacing, and with great reduced footprint. The only problem with this is that they may have a bit too soft a flex. THey have a flex rating of 4 out of 10. The Bodega’s have a 5/10.
~ Adidas Samba – a bit more pricey but trad lacing, great outer-sole reduction, medium flex.
~ Burton Fiend – Again a bit more pricey but probably ideal for what you’re looking for – 5/10 flex, great reduced footprint, trad lacing, super comfortable.
Those were the closest matches that I found and I think would work well.
Note that I don’t necessarily think that the Bodega’s are going to not work but if you’re really concerned about the boot drag then the above could be some good options. Also you should still try to try these on first if possible, to make sure that the heel hold is good and that they fit well.
Thanks again for visiting Snowboarding Profiles and I hope this was helpful. Let me know if you need anything else.
Hi Nate,
You really know your stuff. I just purchased my first snowboard and have been riding rentals. List below:
GNU Metal Gnuru Snowboard (Regular Width)
Burton Re:Flex Bindings (Size: Medium)
Rome Bodega Boots (Size: 10)
I’m concerned about toe and heel drag because these boots are about 12 inches on the base. I’d say the effective contact to the binding base is about 11 inches but the boot is 12 inches long (curves a bit at the ends). Concerned that I might have a problem on icy blacks and double blacks on the east coast. I like to do superman carves so I really think I’m pushing it here on toe overhang.
Plan to head up to Whistler mountain this year and worried about the powder as well.
Sorry, missed one thing the board is size 155. I measured right at the middle binding inserts and it is about 10 inches. Maybe the boots are just a bit too bulky. I loved them because the weight about the same as a normal pair of tennis shoes and by heel isn’t lifting (I have the problem with most boots).
Hi Nate,
Fantastic article, have book marked it for future reference and to link newbies trying to understand it all.
Just wanting to get your thoughts on a change of boards, width wise. My current park/playful board is a 158 Forum Destroyer Double Dog, Waist width 250mm and Sidecut 7.9m. I’m looking to get an Endeavour Cobain 159, 252 waist and 7.3m Sidecut. I ride a lot of soft, spring snow, and I also like to carve hard, even on my playful boards. I have had issues with booting out on the destroyer in spring slush, whereas on my 162 Flight Attendant the width is usually fine. I’m hoping that the slightly wider waist, and slighter deeper sidecut of the Cobain will give me that little bit of extra width at the inserts to be able to carve a bit deeper/higher angled. I typically ride a 23-23.5inch stance for freestyle, 15/-15 angles. How much more width at the inserts do you think the Cobain’s going to give me?
Cheers,
Sam.
Oh, and for reference I wear a size 10 K2 T1 and weigh 90-95kg.
Hey Sam
Thanks for the comments.
By my calculations:
– Board with a 250 waist width and a 7.9 sidecut – the distance from edge to edge with a 23″ stance width would be 260mm (straight line) and with a 15 degree angle that distance would be 270mm.
– Board with a 252 waist width and s 7.3 sidecut – the distance from edge to edge with a 23″ stance width would be 263mm (straight line) and with a 15 degree angle that distance would be 274mm.
So you are gaining a total of around 4-5mm. So around 2mm on heel side and 2mm on toe side if your bindings are properly centered. This doesn’t sound like much but could be just enough to make all the difference. I calculate that your setup with your Flight Attendant gives you a 275mm distance so you’re getting pretty close to that.
The only other thing you could do is get boots with a high degree of reduced footprint but I’m sure you don’t want to change up the boots too – and the K2 T1s are real nice too!
Hope this helps.
Thanks for that Nate, sounds like I should end up exactly where I want. The T1s are a bulky boot, but actual footprint/length wise they’re almost identical to the size 10 Burton Rulers I had, just far more responsive!
No worries Sam. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Wondering what your thoughts are as I’ve talked to several different people in local shops and have heard different things. I’m buying a new setup, have the bindings and boots and trying to figure out what board to get. I’m looking at the Rossignol One Magtek 2015 model and am planning on purchasing the 156. I ordered size 11 K2 Maysis boots. The waist width I think on the 156 is 25.2 where the wide is 26.4. Do you think I need the wide?
Thanks for your insight.
Hey Scott
Thanks for stopping by.
First of all, great choice for boots – I haven’t tried them but I’ve heard good things. Rossi One also a great board if you go with that.
This is a tough one because neither the 252mm nor 264mm is ideal. The 252 is pushing it for being too narrow and the 264mm too wide. If you are dead set on the Rossi One then I think you would probably get away with either – just. You’d have to weigh up what’s more important to you – risking potential boot drag on hard turns in the 252 and risking having to work harder and a slower response in the 264.
That size 11 boot is hard because it’s always somewhere in the middle of the normal widths and the wides.
Are you sure about going with the 156? or do you think the 159 would be doable? If you can send me your height, weight and foot length that would be awesome (if you’d prefer you can send this privately by visiting my contact page) and would allow me to make a more accurate call on this one.
Hey Nate,
I wish I I listened more to your advice than those in the shops. I ended up buying the One Magtek 156 (regular width). Took it out once and unfortunately the boots hang way too far on the heels where on hard stops I lost my edge completely. Now I’m stuck with a board that is too narrow and need to try and sell it. I have the bindings set as far to the toe side of the board as possible. I don’t have an issue with toe drag but the heals hang way too far off. I’m really bummed out because I am heading to Canada for a trip tomorrow and was looking forward to enjoying the board.
Hey Scott
That’s a shame cause the One Magtek is a great deck. It sounds like the 157 Wide would have been the better size for you if you are getting heel drag. What is your boot size?
Hi Nate,
I really enjoyed this read and have been doing a lot of research on boards over the past month as I would like to buy my own for my first full season this year.
I was hoping you could help me find the right board for me as I have small feet.
Height: 166
Weight: 143
Foot Size: 23cm
My style of riding is mostly freeriding through groomers. The boards I have been looking at are the Libtech TRS 148N and 151N or the Cobra 153. Since I do mostly freeriding I thought the longer lengths ie 153 would be ok. However since I have a very small foot I am not sure what to do.
Do you have any board suggestions to help me along?
Cheers,
Byron
Hey Byron
Thanks for visiting. Check out some options below.
Firstly, I agree that going with a slightly longer board is a good idea if you’re mostly into freeriding – so long as you are confident of being past the beginner phase, as it is harder to maneuver a longer board. I put you at around a 151cm board as a standard size so a couple of cms on top of that is fine for freerifing. For your purposes anything from a 151 to a 154cm would be fine. However, if you are still more of a beginner rider then I would go slightly shorter so probably more 147cm – 150cm.
It’s definitely more difficult finding the right width boards for smaller feet but here are some options below. You’ll probably find that everything will be on the wider end of your ideal range for width but that shouldn’t matter as you will adjust to it (but you don’t want to go too far wider to your ideal range as it’s harder to adjust the further away you are – if that makes sense?!). So I would be trying to find something as close to 240mm width as possible if you can. Maybe going up to 242 or 243mm to give yourself some more options.
Lib Tech TRS 151N – WW = 247 – unfortunately I think this would be too wide for you, in my opinion.
Lib Tech TRS 148N – WW = 237mm – probably ideal in terms of WW but a little short in terms of length. In saying that, if you are still a beginner then this would be ideal. Without knowing your ability level i can’t say for sure but if you are still a beginner then this would be a great choice.
Capita NAS 153cm – WW = 242mm. Just a warning that this is quite a stiff aggressive board. You might be use to less aggressive, softer flexing boards so this may take adjusting to. But if you are an aggreesive freerider then this would be a good option – and would also be good in the backcountry (off piste) if/when you explore it. Would be quite a tricky board to ride if you are a beginner though.
Capita Outdoor Living 150cm or 152cm – WW of 150 = 242mm, WW of 152 = 243mm. A less aggressive board than the NAS (mid flexing). It has a flat camber profile – not sure how you would find that but otherwise this could be a good option.
NS Cobra 153cm: Whilst this is probably the widest you would want to go at 244mm, it’s also an awesome board so if you were to go with it it would be an awesome all-round all-mountain board.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you want me to come up with some more options and I can take another look. Also there is the option of looking at women’s boards if you aren’t happy with any of the men’s options. It’s often then just a case of looking for some neutral looking graphics. But yeah def let me know if you aren’t quite sure of those options and I’m more than happy to look for more options for you.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply. I should have given you a bit more background. I’ve been on ski’s 5-6 times and did my acl on my back leg 6 years ago from rugby and havnt been back since. So I have decided to switch to boarding and will at Big White this entire season boarding 5-6 times a week for the entire season.
So I am a beginner for boarding. So based on that would you think that the cobra would be too big (153)?. I don’t mind the look of some of the women’s board like the NS Raven 151 (237 width).
I picked up skiing really quickly when i first started out and even though I am a beginner I would hope that skiing so often throughout the season that I’ll get good enough to progress so I eat to make sure I have a board I can grow with. So if I went with the cobra or the raven would they still be fine?
Byron
Hey Byron
If you’re riding that much in the season you should definitely progress pretty quickly. But I still wouldn’t start out too long or it could slow your progression.
I think the NS Raven would be a good choice in terms of length and width. Normally I’d recommend a beginner go with something shorter to start out with but 151 should be fine for you since you will be doing so much in the season and sounds like you are confident of picking things up quickly. My only reservation with the Raven is that it is on the stiffer side – which means it will be harder to control. Normally I would recommend a beginner start out with a soft-medium flex. I think you will get away with a medium flex. So the Raven might be good.
The Raven is said to be the womens version of the Cobra so if you have no issues with riding the women’s version I think this will be a better fit width-wise for you. It’s going to be a steeper learning curve than on a beginner specific board but otherwise should be good.
Hope that helps and didn’t confuse you more! 🙂 – and hope you have an awesome season on Big White! I’m not far from there and will definitely get out there at least once this season.
Hi Nate,
You probably remember that I got fixed up with a 2016 Rome Tour, the Flux DS and the Burton Moto. The boots are size 8.5, and after reading this post, I put the boots into the bindings on the board and took some photos of the overhang.
Since I’ve yet to ride the board, I had it setup where I would feel comfortable learning to ride switch but also still feel semi-directional favoring a goofy config. The bindings are set at +15 and -8, I think. Rome doesn’t list the specs for the 2016 yet (that I can find), but the 2015 Tour has the following for a 156cm board:
Size 156
Overall Length 1560
Effective Edge 1220
Running Length 1160
Nose Length 200
Tail Length 200
Waist Width 252
Nose Width 292.8
Tail Width 292.8
Sidecut Depth 20.4
Sidecut Radius (m) 8.26
Nose Radius 450
Tip Height 43.7
Tail Radius 450
Tail Height 43.7
Camber Height -5
Design Stance (in/cm) 21″ / 53 cm
Stance Range (in) 19 1/2-24 1/4
Stance Range (cm) 49.5-61.5
Design Stance Location 20 bk
The waist width is outside your ideal range (244-250) although by 2mm. Do you have any thoughts on setback and binding angles based on these specs? Also, can I provide the photos to see if those are helpful?
Thanks,
John
Hi John
I think you will be fine if you are just 2mm outside those recommendations. I’ve sent you and email – you can reply to that email and attach the pics and I can take a look at them for you if you’d like.
Personally I usually just have my stance setback where the board says to have it setback – so in your case a 20mm setback. The reason for this is that the board was designed with this setback in mind – so the camber profile underneath is setup for this setback. If you haven’t already you can check out my stance set-up post for more.
That 20mm setback is not perfect for learning switch (ideally you would want to be centred) but definitely doable. If your focus is on learning switch then you could reduce the setback or centre the bindings for a while and see how it feels.
In terms of binding angles I think you are probably at +15/-9 – usually angles go in 3degree lots so I’d be surprised if it was -8. Small detail – I think +15/-9 is a good starting point for switch riding but also it’s a good idea to experiment. Ride that for a while and then change it up and see what you like the feel of best.
Hey John
My email has gone a bit screwy and won’t let me reply to emails, so thought I’d reply here until it’s working again.
As far as I can tell from the pictures you sent your overhang looks right on the money. You won’t have any issues with boot drag but it looks like you’ve got enough overhang (which would suggest that your feet are going pretty close from edge to edge) to have some good response.
Looks like you’re also well set up in terms of even overhang on both toe edge and heel edge. Great job!
Hi Nate!
Firstly, what an excellent post. So informative and for someone so oddly shaped as I (I’ll get onto that), this is SO helpful. So thank you!
Right. I’m from across the pond, so I’ll put US and UK measurements of boots and height and weight and so on (here in the UK we have a weird hybrid of imperial and metric – bizarre).
Me:
Height: 5′ 8″/173cm
Weight: About 82kg/180lbs (I’m pretty dense – but I’m going running every other day I promise)
Foot size: 11US/10UK
Stance: Goofy
Ability: Beginner going onto intermediate I guess (been snowboarding at my local dry slope twice a week for five months now – can do linked turns, ride a bit of switch and ollie)
Gear:
Board: 2015 Nitro Stance 153 – waist width: 246mm, tail/nose width: 289mm
Bindings: 2015 Nitro Zero Large
Boots: 2015 Vans Hi Standard in 11US/10UK
I was told by BOTH my local snowboard shops that you only really need a wide board when you get to about 12US/11UK, but my overhang looks way too much. It seems to be sitting at about 1.5″/30mm both sides. This is my first set up, and I want it to be perfect! I won’t be carving at all really, as my local slope is a dry one and I don’t know how often I’ll be able to get onto snow! I just don’t want to catch my boot or sacrifice turning ability.
If I stand on my board in bare feet, my toes and heels overhang by probably about 10mm each side and I also think my Vans boots are pretty bulky (although I love them and they’re super comfy for me). I think for some reason Nitro have made the Stance super narrow. It seems like the standard width for 153 boards is about 250-255mm. I wish everything could be standardised!
Cheers dude!
Giles
Hey Giles
Thanks for your message – really glad you found this helpful.
In my opinion size 11 US makes you borderline between wide (or probably more like mid-wide) and non-wide boards – so you can often go with both – but these are pretty broad definitions. So really your best fit would be a normal width board on the wider side of normal or a wide board on the narrower end! If that makes sense. That’s why I prefer to go by waist width than “narrow” “normal” and “wide”.
In my research boards with a 153 length will typically have a width of around 249 to 251 so you’re right this board is slightly narrower for it’s length than the average. I guess they try to make boards with varying specs to fit different shapes and sizes.
I agree that this is narrower than is ideal for your foot length and the overhang is greater than you would ideally want it. But if it’s not causing you any obvious issues I wouldn’t worry about it too much for now. If you are having issues with boot drag or confidence with hard turns because of it then boots with a low profile (reduced footprint) could be a solution or a new board. If you are having no issues at the moment I would stick with it until you are ready to upgrade boards.
You will probably want to increase the length of your board at some point as you progress – unless you are going to be riding mostly freestyle (in which case a 153-155cm board is probably right for your physical specs). If you are riding more of an all-mountain style then you might want to move up to a 157-159cm board. If you aren’t having any issues currently then I’d stick with your setup until you’re ready to upgrade.
I’m originally from New Zealand so I’m used to the metric system but living in Canada now and it’s also a pretty mixed system here! So I’m definitely used to both now.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions and keep up the good work with your progression!
Hi Nate,
great website you have and very informative article as well! It already helped me a great deal choosing a new board. I’m 143 lbs, 5’8”. My foot size is 24,5. Currently I’m riding a nitro misfit 155,6 which is about 24,6 cm wide (probably a smaller board would suit me better?). It’s a great board for carving and high speed shredding but I would love to ride something more playful and more easy to handle. I was looking at the Burton custom flying V (2015) 148. It has a board width of 24,5. Given the smaller size I would think it would be more easy going. I would greatly appreciate your expert opinion on this (or maybe you’ve some experience on this board as well?). Thanks much!
Hey Kris
Thanks for your message.
I have no personal experience with the Custom Flying V but it will definitely be more playful than the misfit. The misfit sounds like quite an aggressive ride from what I’ve heard and, like you say great for high speeds and carving. I think you’ve definitely got the right size for the misfit for the type of riding you’d do with it.
The Custom Flying V has a medium flex but it will probably feel softer than that for if you go with the 148. The Custom Flying V also has a reputation as an easy turner so it should definitely be a more easy going board. Definitely if you go with the 148 it will be a world of difference in terms of playfulness.
Hope this helps
Nate
Hi Nate,
thanks for sharing your opinion! Do you think the 148 will have a good width for my 24,5 cm feet?
Thanks again.
Regards,
Kris
Hi Kris
It’s on the wide side for your feet – but definitely doable. Without going into women’s boards you won’t find many boards too much narrower.
You could also check out the Lib Tech TRS – it comes in a 148 narrow size – with a waist width of 237. This is probably on the narrow end of the spectrum for you but should still be fine.
Hi Nate,
This website is awesome! I learned so much, I’m actually trying to purchase a board…I had a few questions regarding a snowboard I want to purchase. So I’m a female intermediate rider, and I’m looking to purchase a men’s snowboard – I really like the specs and the graphics and everything seems to be good – length/weight wise. However, I normally wear a size 7 womens shoe which is roughly like ~238/240mm and the board that I’m looking at has a waist width of 248mm and a tail/tip of 289mm. I think it might be okay but I am afraid this board will be slightly too wide…can you shed a bit of light?
Thank you!
A bit of background info:
I’m ~165/166cm, roughly 140-145lbs – mostly riding on groomers (Sierra Nevada region – Tahoe/Mammoth) anything from pow to icy snow…
Hi Heather – thanks for stopping by. I’m glad you like the site!
That is going to be quite a wide board for you. Unfortunately looking in the men’s section is going to be harder to find the right width though there are some options.
Can you let me know what the board you are looking at is – and also which length you are looking at?
I would put you on a length of around 149 to 151 with a 148 and 152 being fine too. Check out some of the boards mentioned in earlier comments on this post too. There are some men’s and women’s boards that would be a good fit there. Are you looking at a men’s board specifically or are you also looking at women’s boards – there are probably more options for you in the women’s line-up.
It sounds like you are looking for an all mountain board and something with some decent edge-hold for when the conditions get icy – and reasonable float in powder.
Some of the boards from earlier comments I mentioned that would be a good fit are:
Lib Tech TRS: Length: 148, Waist Width: 237 – this is a unisex board
Flow Canvas: Length: 148, Waist Width: 238 (women’s)
There are plenty of other women’s options and some men’s options that would be a good fit too.
Personally I wouldn’t go as wide as a 248mm for your foot size.
Hope this helps.
Let me know the board you are currently looking at what options you are open to and I can give you some more options.
Hi Heather – I have sent you an email with a list of recommended boards.
my dad got me a snow board its a 156 length wide 26 cm
my boot size is 11 10.5 ish
my weight is in the low 80 kg range
im 175 cm tall
ive ridden snow boards for a long time but never owend one
Hi Angus – congrats on getting a new snowboard! Having your own board will really help with your progression.
That width should be fine for you.
In terms of length can you let me know a couple more things.
What’s your riding style? If you’re not sure check out this post on riding styles.
What is the make and model of your snowboard?
Or you can check out this post on snowboard length.
Hope this helps
It was really good reading this, I have been doing a lot of research on the matter.
I have 24.5 cm bare feet but I am running 32 tm two’s which say they’re for 26cm feet (and they fit really well).
Im 5,11 and 170lbs.
I’m currently on a gnu street 152, it has a pretty wide waist of 250 but now I’m concerned it could be slightly too wide, my toe edge looks a little behind the board edge and I ride duck which may not help the situation.
I have seen the NS Evo, Capita Outdoor living and Capita NAS to be narrow is regards to waist.
However with NS, their sidecut has different contact points which are on different angles and that makes it hard to gage the width of the board at the inserts.
Hey Mark
Glad you found it helpful.
I wouldn’t be too concerned about the variable sidecut. It shouldn’t make too much difference to the width at inserts. The 244mm waist on the NS Evo 152 would be fine for you. The 250mm on your current board isn’t undoable but if you’re toe edge is inside the board then a narrower board would feel more responsive.
The Capita Outdoor Living and the NAS would also have suitable waist widths.
I assume you do mostly freestyle riding having the 152cm length? And as you currently ride the GNU street. Otherwise I would look to get a slightly longer board too. For your height and weight I would have you on a 160 for all mountain riding and closer to a 154-156 for freestyle but if you prefer that shorter board then that’s fine too.
If you did want to go up a bit in length the Capita NAS would still be good waist width wise in the 156 (waist 245) and the Capita Outdoor Living 154 (248 waist).
But if you were wanting to stick to around the 152 size all 3 of those you mentioned would be fine waist width wise. But keep in mind that they all have different camber profiles so will feel a bit different underfoot. Your current board is rocker, the Evo has a hybrid rocker the Outdoor living a flat and the NAS a camber. Also the NAS has a stiffer flex than the other boards and may not be that good for freestyle riding.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions. Happy to help.
Yea I have been riding the street a lil bit around the mountain which has prompted me to look at a longer board.
I just think with my feet already struggling to fit the 250mm waisted board it may be hard to find a longer board that has a waist width suitable to my foot size.
I did read the street series rode longer and because the waist is 250mm and the board is 152cm I guess thats why.
I thought id have to go right down to say, a low 240mm waisted board for my feet to fit suitably however if you think think I could potentially rock a 248 waisted board it opens my options up quite a bit.
I don’t like the NAS being directional and camber so that has put me off a lil bit, the Capita indoor survival and ourdoor living 154’s are both 248ers which could be my go, I saw the GNU riders choice 154.5 was also 248mm in the waist so I think I could have some thinking to do.
I really like what you’re doing on this website, I plan on getting some Burton Genesis bindings just because of your review, you seem really honest and passionate. It’s quite rare.
Cheers
Mark
Hey Mark
Thanks for the compliments – really appreciate it.
I think because you fit well into your 32’s that have a 26cm mondo-print then you should definitely be fine on the 248mm. It’s probably the end of your range but should be sweet and this does open up more options in a slightly longer board, as you say.
I think the Rider’s Choice could be a great option too.
Hi Nate
Came across y’alls website and it’s been very helpful. I’ve been snowboarding for awhile and decided to finally get my own set up. Being from Texas, demos are tough, especially for NS boards. Could you help with board sizing/setup recommendations please?
My data:
height 5’6″
Wt ~155lbs
Feet 26cm length
Boot US 8
Intermediate skill
Angles: Typically +15 to 18/-6
All-mountain with some freestyle: Mostly groomed and powder/trees; Park is mostly jumps occasional Jibs .
Binding: Burton Genesis size medium
I decided on the Never summer snowtrooper. After speaking with others and googling around I’ve gotten recs. for board lengths of 152, 154 or 156. I think 152 and 154 are more in line with your recs for width. Weight wise I think 154 sounds right but 152 seems to be more in line with width. What do you think with respect to board choice, and what about board size?
Thx in advance
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for visiting.
First of all great choice in bindings! I just rated the Burton Genesis as being the top all-mountain bindings in 2015.
I think the snowtrooper would be great for your purposes. Really good all mountain board that will do great in the park too.
I would go with the 154. It suits your height/weight well and though the width isn’t spot on at 250mm it is still fine. I wouldn’t go any wider than that though. The 156 would be a tad too wide – and the 154 is a better length for you anyway so I think that’s definitely the best choice.
You can also check out some more options in my top 10 2015 all mountain snowboards list but I do think the Snowtrooper 154 is a good choice for you.
Awesome .. thanks Nate.
Speaking of the Burton genesis. What do you think of the genesis for women (obviously in small size). I presume the escapade is the women’s equivalent?? But would the genesis be a good binding for my gal??
Thx
Mike
Hey Mike
I would go for the specific women’s binding over the Genesis. The reason is that women’s bindings are designed to better fit a women’s feet/calves (the good ones do anyway!). The highback on the Genesis is likely too high for your gal so might cause calf-bite.
Your spot on – the Escapade is the women’s equivalent. I would definitely go for that over the Genesis for your gal.
I found the Escapade at backcountry.com on sale at the moment – being in Texas you would get free shipping on that too I think. The one at that link is the Re:Flex version (for most binding mounting systems) – if you need the EST version (for boards with Burton’s Channel binding mounting system) try this one.
Hope this helps, thanks again for visiting.
Nate
This is the highlight of your website! Really, really awesome article (especially the “extra reading”).
I was wondering, when you say “draw a diagram”, what exactly do you mean?
Technical drawing? On paper? On CAD?
Analytical formulae? (equation that computes Width at any point; given Waist width and Sidecut radius)
~
Keep up the awesome work!
Hey – thanks for stopping by.
Glad you like it and the extra reading.
Pretty much using an analytical formulae like you say and then punching those figures into publisher (amazing what you can do with excel and publisher!). Wish I had CAD software but too expensive.
Forgot to include my binding angles, which I generally keep around +12, -3. I think my stance width is about 17.5 or 18 inches.
Thanks,
Pauline
Hi Pauline – I have emailed you my thoughts and board recommendations. If you have any other questions feel free to email me or leave another comment here.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to buy a new snowboard but my options are limited due to my small sized feet. I’ve been doing tons of research on different boards and recording their spec’s in an Excel spreadsheet that I could email to you if it’d be helpful. I was able to get some manufacturers to provide the width measurements at the center binding insert but for the others I’m left only knowing the waist width. I’m also paying particular attention to running/contact length and sidecut measurement.
Perhaps you can give me some board recommendations. About me….
Height: 4’11
Weight: Between 102-110 lbs
Barefoot measurement: 22.23 cm
Boots: US 6 Women 32 Lashed (I may size down to a 5.5 in the future)
Board: 134 K2 Kandi (kid’s board) with rocker/flat/rocker profile.
I’d consider myself an intermediate rider, comfortable on blues and starting to ride some easier blacks in Colorado. Looking for an all-mountain board with a soft enough flex for my size for easy turn initiation but something with better edge hold that my current board, which is washing out on me in turns when riding hard pack or icy groomers. I’d also like a board that I can learn to butter on, etc…
Since I live in Florida I don’t get the opportunity to demo boards as I’d like to compare the different camber profiles. I know that I don’t want a full rocker as it feels too loose and I’ve never tried a positive camber board. Any help you can provide would be GREATLY appreciated! Let me know if you’d like me to email you my Excel file with all the board spec’s if that would help you out. And if not here’s a few of them that I’m interested in. Also open to additional suggestions. Thanks a million! Your site is seriously the absolute BEST on the web. Awesome job!
Stepchild The Pony 143
Yes Emoticon 143
Rossignol Tesla 136 or 139
Rossignol Frenemy 144
Rossignol Gala 142
Nitro Desire 138 or 142
Never Summer Infinity 142
Never Summer Onyx 140
Never Summer Pandora 141
Rome Romp 141
Rome Lo-Fi Rocker 143
K2 Bright Lite 139
Thanks so much,
Pauline
If you need anything else from me just let me know 🙂
Hey Pauline – thanks for visiting the site and thanks for your question. I have saved your email and will be in touch later this evening.
For those of us men unlucky enough to have small feet (24.5mm) and normal weight (170 lbs), what happens to the overall board area if we get a narrow waisted board? I assume we are going to seriously compromise off piste performance.
Hi Michael – it definitely does make it harder and the options are less. So you’ve got to look a bit harder but there are options. In terms of off piste if you go with something designed for the backcountry (off piste) then you should be o.k. as long as it is suitable for your weight – I wouldn’t be too concerned with the overall width profile of the board – it’s designed to handle a certain weighted boarder in the backcountry.
Though it might be that you need to compromise a little bit on the ideal waist width to fit in the right weight category for a freeride board- but hopefully not too much.
The Jones Flagship 154 could be an option for you. Waist width 246 and weight range 120 to 170lbs.
Thanks for the response. I have generally always tried to get a board with my weight centered in the board weight range. How important do you think that is? I’d love a Flagship, but I typically would have gotten a longer board for the float.
Hi Michael. I guess ideally you would want to be somewhere close to the middle of that range if possible (especially if you think your weight will fluctuate) but I think as long as you are within that range you should be o.k.
In your case (smaller feet, freerider, normal weight) I guess it’s a case of finding the right middle ground in terms of weight, width of board and length. I.e. it may be a case of sacrificing a little bit on each factor to get a good balance.
i.e. if your ideal waist width range is around 238 – 244 then you may need to go slightly wider – say up to 246. And then say your ideal length for a freeride board is 156 then maybe going a couple of cms shorter to accommodate the waist width. Can you let me know your height and I will do some more research of potential boards for you. But yeah I would try to find the happy medium. I wouldn’t try to get the perfect length if it means getting a waist width that is way off and similarly I wouldn’t go for the perfect waist width and get length way off.
I think for the flagship the 249 WW on the 158 might be pushing it a little bit too much but I’ll draw up a model of it and get back to you. If you could send me your height that would help with my recommendations.
I’m 5’10″/170/24.5 feet. I’m currently on a 158 Custom Flying V w/small cartels. I alpine skied for around 17 years, then telemarked for about 20 years. I adopted snowboarding pretty much full time a couple years ago. (I had enough days snowboarding here and there over the years that I was well past the painful part.) I love the playfulness of snowboarding (switch, 180s, surfy) and would like to be able to do 360s and play a little in the park, but my adventures are much more all mountain. I was most happy tele skiing serious steeps so that is where my mind is at even though I’m not quite there on a snowboard. Right now I’m stuck on the East Coast, but that will change in the next year or two and I will be back out West. I am ultimately willing to have a quiver with at least a true pow board when I go back west so I don’t need the quiver-killer unicorn! Thanks for the help!
Hey Michael
I agree if you are doing both backcountry and freestyle riding then having two specialist boards in your quiver is a better way to go rather than trying to find a do-it-all board. Let me know if you want any suggestions for your freestyle board. That might be a little easier to find something to suit.
Hmmmm that does make it tricky given you are quite tall. I would say your ideal length for freeriding would be around 160cm (for all mountain around 158cm) and for freestyle around 155cm. Freeride boards of that length are tricky to find for the kind of waist width that would be ideal for you. I think 158cms is probably a good compromise length-wise to try to get something in a smaller waist width.
I did up a diagram of the flagship 158 (waist width 249 side-cut 8.5m) and whilst this is slightly inside the 5mm maximum underhang it is only slightly so (based on the assumption that your back foot would have a fairly straight angle on it). It might mean that you have to work a little harder for your turns – but coming from your 254cm waist width 8m sidecut board it would actually be an improvement and that way you wouldn’t have to compromise too much on length. The 158 also puts you more in the middle of the weight range.
If you are looking to stick with Burton then the Family Tree Flight Attendant 156 might be a good bet – it’s a couple of cms down but has a 248 waist width (7.4m sidecut so probably evens out to about the same at the inserts as the Flagship with a 249). Weight range 135-175. Actually after drawing up the diagram it looks like it’s probably a little bit narrower at the inserts.
Both of those boards I think would be an improvement in terms of a freeride/powder board over the Custom Flying V and both have great reps – I think you’d just need to make a call on whether to compromise more on length or width. If I had to choose I’d go with the Flagship 158 – just because there isn’t a huge difference waist width-wise but there is a reasonable difference length-wise. I’m sure there are other options out there too. These looked like the best two options from what I saw.
I’ve just noticed that the Flagship comes in “women’s” sizes too. Essentially the same board as far as I can tell just with some different waist widths. The longest is 156cms but it’s a closer fit waist width wise – 245mm. The design is pretty much the same as in the mens sizes but just comes in red rather than blue.
I have recently reviewed the Flight Attendant if you want to check out the review here.
I hope this has helped!
No so bad being on the East this season – not seeing much snow on the west!
Nate
My foot size is us 13 and i want to order a burton cloudsplitter but its width is 250mm should I buy it
Hi Omar
With size 13 boots a 250mm waist width will be too narrow on the cloudsplitter. You would have too much overhang and get toe and heel drag issues on a board that narrow. I would suggest a minimum of 265mm for a size 13 boot.
Hi,
This is the best post I have read on this subject. Width at the Inserts is a hidden dimension that those of us with small feet need to know. I’ve felt that my boards were ‘slow’ and delayed and only now realizing why. I’d love your input on board recommendation. Here are my specs:
Male
age: 46
Weight: 135lbs
Height: 5’4″
Actual foot size: 25cm
Boot: size 7 (32 TM-two, 32 Lashed)
Stance: 20″ wide
Stance angles: +15 front / -12 rear (Left foot forward)
Level: Intermediate
location: Central New York, USA, hardpack, icy
Type of riding: groomers
Current board: Ride Antic 151 waist width 24.6, Last board K2 believer 151 Waist width 24.7. Previous board was Rome Anthem 146 waist width of 23.8. But I realized the Anthem was way to stiff for me, which negated the narrow width.
I am athletic but not a super aggressive rider, so think I need something with a little flex and easier torsionally twist. I want to be able to turn quickly and turn on a dime with the goal of riding glades and moguls.
Some boards I’ve been considering are Ride Farah 148, Prior Slaylock, Prior brandywine, Option Bella 148 (old stock if I can find it), Option Kendra Starr, Flow Canvas 148, Capita Jess Kimura, K2 Lunatiqu 149, Arbor Push 148, Capita birds of a Feather , Lamar Whisper 149…
I talked with custom builder Donek and they suggest their Phoenix with waist width of 23.3, and tuned with a little more flex. I do not know what side cut.
Any suggestions of current boards or old stock boards would be very welcome. Thanks so much for an informative and well thought out post.
Hey thanks for reading and I’m glad you found it helpful.
It’s definitely harder to find the right board when you fit outside what’s “normal” – manufacturers just don’t make as much gear for those ranges. Just economics I guess. But there are definitely options out there without having to go custom.
I think you’re definitely looking at the right length range there. I’d say based on your weight/height that a 148 to 150cm board would be ideal and a 147 or 151 would be o.k. too depending on your personal preference.
In terms of waist width I would say you want something between a 238 and 244. I would say you wouldn’t have to go as low as a 233 – however if they were making a custom board they would make sure it would be right for your size – probably with a relatively steep sidecut. But if you go with a pre-manufactured one you definitely shouldn’t need to go that low.
I would suggest the following:
Lib Tech TRS: Length: 148, Waist Width: 237 Flex: Medium (5/10). Supposed to be good in icy and hard snow conditions and a good all round board with no real weaknesses. The only downside is that it’s not the cheapest at RRP: $559. But I reckon this would be ideal – I had a quick check on a couple of sites and couldn’t find a strore with a 148 in stock but you have more luck if you look a little harder.
NS Cobra – pushing it length wise (WW 244 but length 153) NS Proto has a 244 with a 152 length. If you were happy going longer in length these two Never Summer boards do have a good rep.
Salomon Sabotage – WW = 245 so on the edge of your WW however I did just notice on the Salomon website that they have a Recommended boot size! Not something I’ve come across before and never seen it on a Salomon board either so must be a new thing – promising though. They recommend a mondoprint of 235 to 265 – so if you are to believe their recommendations then your 250 mondoprint foot (250 mondo = 25cm) should be just right. Whilst they call this a freestyle board I would definitely class it a freestyle-all-mountain. It has a medium flex and should have good edge hold in hard snow. It’s cheaper than the Lib Tech board too. You should find it here and here. I had a quick look but they may be out of your size!
The Venture Zelix is also an option WW 240 length 149. Medium flex. Didn’t have any luck finding this either but if you look around you should be able to find something.
In terms of the boards you mentioned, I confess to not being very familiar with Prior or Option snowboards. I think the Flow Canvas sounds like a good fit – WW238 in the 148 length. It is technically a women’s board but I don’t see that being a problem and the graphics are pretty neutral looking.
Same deal with the Capita Birds of Feather – 148 (WW238) also a women’s board – but quite a flowery design. Again if that’s not a problem for you then this is another option.
It’s always harder to find at those sizes but definitely some quality options and definitely worth putting in the effor to get the size right.
Hope this has been helpful and all the best for your search.
Had never really though of the snowboard width. Great Article and very informative, thanks!
Hi Steve – yeah really important to get snowboard width right – glad I could help!
Hey Nate
Great artical.
A question, My boot size is 10.5. My board is a regular size of 250mm. So my boot size fits perfect (I think).
Its just my binding, I bought the union contact pro L/Xl. These also have a little overhang. Is that a problemen?
Greetings,
Jurgen.
Hey Jurgen
Ideally there wouldn’t be overhang from the bindings but as long as it’s only a little bit I wouldn’t think it’ll be a problem. How much do they overhang?
In terms of your boot size they should fit the bindings well. Union L/XL are designed for size 10.5 boots and up. You’re boots would also work with Union M/L bindings which are for sizes 8.0 to 11.0.
Hope this helps.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the analysis!
I need your opinion on this..
Boot Size 11, Board waist 27, If there is no overhang with Contact Pro XL and M/L
which of the 2 should i be picking?
Greets!
jimmy
Hi Jimmy
I’d go with the L/XL for you. Because of the width of your board the L/XL will do a better job at getting close to the edges. We want the boots to be overhanging (somewhat) but we want the bindings to go as close to the edges as they can, without overhanging – or at least with very little overhang, if any.
Your boot size would be fine on both the M/L and the L/XL but I think the L/XL will be better on your board.
Note: Union’s sizes have changed to S, M & L for the 2016-17 models. But if you’re looking at previous year’s model’s they’ll be sized S/M, M/L and L/XL. If you’re looking at 2017 models, then I would recommend the L size (which is essentially the same as the old L/XL but renamed).
You are awesome man,
Thanks for quick reply!
Hope we ride together someday!
peace from Greece
jim
You’re very welcome!
Always keen to ride. If you’re ever in Whistler or Vancouver send me a message.
Hey Nate,
Holy shit this is a good article and i think i got my stuff sorted because of how informative it is but if you can do me a solid and give me your expert opinion on my issue i’d be forever grateful!
I am investing in new gear this season and I just got my 45eu, 11.5us size boots(DC Travis Rice).
For my ride i’m eyeing the Never Summer Proto Type Two 160, it is 254mm at the waist and i ride +15 -15.
Previously i rode a Burton Bullet 160w which is 260mm at the waist but i rode it ghetto with 46.5eu/13us boots(it was a second hand and the only thing i could afford) and Cartel XL bindings. I have ridden this combination for 6 years now without any issues
According to your article i am 6mm off my recommended board waist with the Never Summer Proto Type Two 160 but if i understood your article correctly it shouldn’t be a big issue.
So whats your take on it?
Thanks in advance,
Krste.
P.S: I give you my snowboarding blessing: May the wind always be at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the snow be powdery.
Hi Krste
Thanks for the blessing and same to you!
I’d say you’d be fine on the 160 Proto Type Two with 11.5 DC Travis Rices. It will be on the narrow end of the scale and there’s no guarantees – but if you found no issue on the 160W bullet with US13 boots, then you should be fine on the Proto 160 with your new boots.
Hope this helps and that you have an awesome season!