Fine to go a little bigger? - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2010, 12:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 509
Default Fine to go a little bigger?

Was looking to get a 156 turbo dream for my all mountain board, but I just found a 159 for 350 at a local store. That is over $100 less than the stores online. Would 159 be ok for a 5' 10" 170lb guy?
djsaad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-23-2010, 01:25 PM   #2 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

For all mountain, the Turbo dream 159 will be a terrific match for your weight, assuming that it will work for your foot size. The weight range is 130 to 210 on both the 156 and the 161, so the flex is identical and you are well centerred in the weight range for either. The width difference is inconsequential at less than 2 mm. The effectve edge differnce is actually just under 3 mm and the extra edge of the 159 will be a benefit at your weight for freeride. So the big remaining question is:

What is your foot size?
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 02:44 PM   #3 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 509
Default

10.5, I might have to get used to a little bigger angles since right now they are at 15 and -3
djsaad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 07:33 PM   #4 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsaad1 View Post
10.5, I might have to get used to a little bigger angles since right now they are at 15 and -3
You are spot on for the 159. Paired with a good park board and you have it all covered. The width on the 159 is 26.3 at the center insert. Your foot is 28.5 cm. At Zero degrees you would have 1.1 overhang heel and toe, so a little angle will do it. Depending on your foot, 15/7 degrees would put you at at about .6 cm/.9 of balanced barefoot overhang, which is a great fit.

Save the hundred clams, get the better fit, extra money for donuts and beer. Life is good
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 07:40 PM   #5 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 509
Default

I am a little confused on how you got 26.3 on the width. The k2 site shows the 159 turbo dream to be a 24.9 waist width. I thought they measured the waist width from the center insert? Am I wrong?

Also, thank you so much for your help!
djsaad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 07:45 PM   #6 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsaad1 View Post
I am a little confused on how you got 26.3 on the width. The k2 site shows the 159 turbo dream to be a 24.9 waist width. I thought they measured the waist width from the center insert? Am I wrong?
Yes, that is a common misconception. Waist is (most typically) measured at either the narrowest point or the midpoint.

The Boarder's Blog - Snowboard Width - Huh?

Here is a recent blog post that may help:

How wide of a snowboard do I need? Where is the width of a snowboard measured? What does width mean in terms of my boot size?

Let’s start by talking about measurements, because this is where a lot of the confusion arises. The most common width measurement that is provided by manufacturers is "waist". The waist is measured at the narrowest point near the middle of the board (usually). But like with all things in snowboarding, different brands measure different things. Some measure the midpoint between the tip and tail and call that "waist". Others simply provide a measurement they call, "width", but do not really specify what width they are referring to.

If that has you a bit confused, don't worry, because regardless of where these "waist" measurements are taken, they are not very useful for what they are typically used for. Most people think that this measurement is a good indicator of what foot size a board will handle. It is not, and for a simple reason: you do not stand at the waist, you stand at the inserts. A board's waist measurement is always less than the measurement at the inserts and often the difference is significant. Additionally, two boards with the same waist dimension, may have very different measurements at the inserts, depending on each board's sidecut. Measurement at the center insert is a much better way to compare boards for shoe size compatibility, but for some odd reason, manufacturers do not publish this info.

OK, so now we have told you why we think the commonly provided measurements are pretty silly, but what good does that do you? You still need to know how to figure out the correct width for your new board. Well, here comes. There are two easy steps to getting it right every time.

First, measure your bare foot. It is important that you do not try to use a boot size. It is also important that you measure in centimeters, because the board measurements that you will be comparing to will be in cm. Here is the method that we suggest:

Kick your heel (barefoot please, no socks) back against a wall. Mark the floor exactly at the tip of your toe (the one that sticks out furthest - which toe this is will vary by rider). Measure from the mark on the floor to the wall. That is your foot length and is the only measurement that you will want to use. Measure in centimeters if possible, but if not, take inches and multiply by 2.54 (example: an 11.25 inch foot x 2.54 = 28.57 centimeters).

Second, measure the board you are considering. This measurement is easy. It should be taken at the inserts. Try to measure at the inserts that you will be using to achieve your stance position. If you are unsure about this, simply measure at the center of the insert cluster (that will still be very close). Be sure to measure using the base of the board, not the deck. This is important because the sidewalls on many boards are angled in, and will therefore give you a smaller measurement on the deck than on the base. For our example's sake, let's say the measurement is 27.54 at the center insert.

Still with us? You are almost done. You now have a way to compare foot size to board width where it matters, but how do you interpret this info to get the correct width? Well that depends a little on stance angle. If you ride a 0 degree stance, you will want your foot size to be the same as the width of the board at the inserts or up to 1 cm greater. If you ride at an angled stance, you will want to measure the board across at the angles that you will be riding. Again, you will want your foot to at least match this measurement or exceed it by up to 1 cm. So using our example above, this guy has a foot 28.57 cm that exceeds the board with at the inserts 27.54 cm by 1.03 cm at a zero degree angle. But, when he angles his feet to the 15 degree angles that he rides, voila, he has .10 cm of overhang for a perfect fit.

But wait a second. Are we saying that you should have overhang, even with bare feet? Yes. You will need overhang to be able to apply leverage to your edges and to get the most out of your board. 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch of boot overhang for both toe and heel is ideal, and will not create problematic toe or heel drag. Remember that boots typically add 1/2 at both the toe and heel to your foot measurement from above, due to padding, insulation and the outer boot materials. We do not suggest using the boot length to size boards though, as the extra padding etc, cannot be used well to create leverage, that has to come from your foot itself. We highly recommend that riders do not choose boards where their feet do not come to or exceed the real board width.

OK, that's all well and good, but where can you get the information on board width at the inserts if the manufacturers don't provide it? That's easy. Email the store that carries the board(s) that you are considering. Give them your foot length in cm (and your stance width and angles if you know them). They will be able to provide you with the width at the inserts that you will be using and can factor in your stance angle as well to get you the exact overhang that you will have with bare feet.

PS:

Once mounted, the best way to test is to put your (tightly laced) boots into your bindings and strap them in tightly. It is important that you have the heel pulled all the way back into the bindings heel cup or the test won’t help. On a carpeted floor place your board flat on its base. Kneel behind the heelside edge and lift that edge so that it rests on your knees and so that the toeside edge is angled down into the carpet. Now press down with both hands using firm pressure, one hand on each of the boots. This will compress the board's sidecut and simulate a turn on hard snow. You can change the angle of the board on your knees to become progressively steeper and you will be able to see at what angle you will start getting toe drag. You will want to repeat the test for your heelside as well. If you are not getting drag at normal turn and landing angles, then you are good to go.

PPS:

Also a note about boots: Boot design plays a big role in toe drag as does binding ramping and binding base height. Boots that have a solid bevel at the toe/heel drag less. Many freestyle boots push for more surface contact and reduce bevel. This helps with contact, but if you have a lot of overhang with those boots it hurts in terms of toe drag.

Now go ride!

Last edited by Wiredsport; 01-23-2010 at 07:48 PM.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 07:54 PM   #7 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 509
Default

Thank you that is really helpful. Also I have malamute boots that have a decent amount of bevel at the toe which seems good.

I just have one more question. I have the malamutes and was thinking about getting something more low profile like the f22 boots. Now I have not tried on the f22 yet but I am wondering how the low profile works. a 28.5 in a malamute should still be a 28.5 in a f22 right? The lenght shouldnt change. So does a low profile boot just mean that I will fit into a smaller boot, not that the boot itself is actually smaller?
djsaad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 08:23 PM   #8 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Wiredsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsaad1 View Post
Thank you that is really helpful. Also I have malamute boots that have a decent amount of bevel at the toe which seems good.

I just have one more question. I have the malamutes and was thinking about getting something more low profile like the f22 boots. Now I have not tried on the f22 yet but I am wondering how the low profile works. a 28.5 in a malamute should still be a 28.5 in a f22 right? The lenght shouldnt change. So does a low profile boot just mean that I will fit into a smaller boot, not that the boot itself is actually smaller?
Yeah, Salomon is really cryptic about that. We read, "Wear an 11 and wish you could get away with a size 10?" and said, what does that mean?

The answer is on their foot sizing chart, however, and like you would hope, this is not an "ours goes to 11" thing. All comparisons are eventually made to the cm size of your actual foot. In your case that is 28.5 cm. In all boots, the interior of the liner has to be sized to the actual foot dimension or they would not fit (or at least that is the goal). So in theory, you would order 28.5 in that boot (size 10.5). But (and it is a big but) that boot model runs a bit small above size 10, so you may want to bump up to 11 (measure your foot first, though).

The idea behind low profile and reduced dimension boots is to shave off as much extra material as possible without compromising durability, warmth or comfort. This will get you closer to the deck, and reduce toe/heel drag where posible. The truth is however, that most of the top boot manufacturers have been doing this for years. What is new is the special name (and in some instances, pushing it too far and sacrificing in other areas)

Last edited by Wiredsport; 01-23-2010 at 08:25 PM.
Wiredsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 08:45 PM   #9 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 509
Default

Thank you again for all your help, I really appreciate it.
djsaad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2010, 04:32 PM   #10 (permalink)
Member
 
tottelias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 41
Default

would not go for 159. im about the same length and almost same weight i rode 159 for a while now i ride 153 and its much better in all aspects it even better in the powder thern my 159
tottelias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums