If I'm 5'11, is a 164cm board too big?

[david_z]

Originally Posted by coltsfan2009

Im about 205-210 and I am probably just going down mountains/powder. I am not going to go to any parks or halfpipes or anything like that.

Also, which one would be better for me? the 164/26.2 or the 160/26? I am leaning towards the smaller one, but is it too narrow?

the 160 is gonna be alright, you won't notice the .2cm difference, size 14s you're gonna have to duck your stance pretty good no matter what board you get. My friend wears 13s and he rides some sort of Rossignol deck, it's a "wide" but I don't know the exact measures. My Legacy has waist of 26.5 if I remember correctly. I'm only size 11 but there's practically no overhang on a 0/0 stance on either of my boards.

164 is a lot of board to handle, like others have said, unless you're only cruising and riding pow. if that's the case, I might go with the 164.

[linvillegorge]

I recommend looking for some low volume boots. I know my Salomon F22s are at least a full size in overall footprint smaller than comparable boots - i.e. my 9.5 has the footprint of most 8.5s.

Like david z said, you're going to have issues with toe and/or heel drag with just about any board. Low volume boots would really help - much more so than the 0.2cm of width the longer board has, that's nothing.

[bryantp]

Here's some info on board sizing and width. The second link explains why.