What size Heritage or Heritage X? - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 01:32 PM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,743
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Blog Entries: 6
What size Heritage or Heritage X?

Hey all - looking to upgrade this winter and replace a very old NS Legacy. I'm pretty much sold on the Heritage as something that fits my riding style but I need some help deciding what size to go for.

Since NS didn't make a 61w I think the regular width Heritage 162 would be a good fit, it's only .4cm narrower than the 59w, 1cm narrower than the 63w and about .7cm narrower than both my current boards.

I'm 6', about 205-210 pounds, size 11 boots. Both my decks right now are about 26.4cm wide and I'm comfortable on that, but i'm concerned about the sizes of the Heritage X. It comes in 59 and 63, which I think might be too short or too long.

Any advice?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
david_z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 02:16 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
B.Gilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Personally do not see any issues with size 11 boots on the 162 Heritage( 25.7 waist width).

The season is almost upon us!!!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
B.Gilly is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
little devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You could rock the 159 no prob. I'd go 159 if i were you.

"It's so hood to participate in a sport that costs thousands of dollars a year and the TechNine crew is just here to remind us of that" - Bakesale
little devil is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 05:38 PM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,743
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Blog Entries: 6
i know I think the 159 would probably be fine but i had a bad experience last season downsizing to a 157... leaning towards the regular wide 62 unless there's some fatties out there about my size who just rave about the 59w


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
david_z is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 06:39 PM
Veteran Member
 
Milo303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Regular 62

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. Thatís my religion." - Abraham Lincoln
Quote:
Moral of the story: If your going to rob people, wear a diaper.
Milo303 is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 10:48 PM
Senior Member
 
jpb3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: dubV
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just to confuse you more, I am 6'2" and 205-210, size 11 boot and currently ride a 165 Heritage from 2006. Its going to be replaced by the new Heritage, and I have been wavering back and forth between staying at 165 or going down to a 162. I ride mainly in Colorado or West Virginia so I need a board and length for both the deep and steep and the icy granular back east. I like the length of the 165 and rode a buddies 158 last season for two runs at Snowshoe and couldn't believe the difference 7 cm makes. It was a completely different board though, some type of Capita that I didn't really dig.

Though, the board I learned on a was a 172 Morrow of some sort with a pointy nose and a flat tail....this was in 1992 if that gives you any perspective.

I pretty sure I'm staying at 165 in the new Heritage.

Last edited by jpb3; 07-18-2010 at 10:51 PM.
jpb3 is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-18-2010, 10:50 PM
Veteran Member
 
Milo303's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You can go down slightly because of the new R/C shape. It will float in POW just as good as your 65 because of the elevated nose of the board.

It will feel a lot shorter then your 65 but it should float just as well.

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. Thatís my religion." - Abraham Lincoln
Quote:
Moral of the story: If your going to rob people, wear a diaper.
Milo303 is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-19-2010, 01:59 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Which heritages have you tried? I'm thinking about the 159x. I'm 173lbs size 11 coming off 164 camber. I'm worried 159 heritage x won't be as nice turning as the regular heritage, but am not sure if there is much difference between the 2 since I heard it has a deeper sidecut on 2011.
davenkaopua is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-19-2010, 09:23 AM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,743
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Blog Entries: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpb3 View Post
Just to confuse you more, I am 6'2" and 205-210, size 11 boot and currently ride a 165 Heritage from 2006. Its going to be replaced by the new Heritage, and I have been wavering back and forth between staying at 165 or going down to a 162. I ride mainly in Colorado or West Virginia so I need a board and length for both the deep and steep and the icy granular back east.
So we're about the same size, you're a little taller but same weight and boot size. I do about 80% of my riding on molehills in Michigan. If I'm lucky I get 5-7 days out west, and a few more random days at slightly larger "hills" in norther Michigan etc. So although your home mountains in WV are larger, I think we have kinda similar needs, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpb3 View Post
I like the length of the 165 and rode a buddies 158 last season for two runs at Snowshoe and couldn't believe the difference 7 cm makes. It was a completely different board though, some type of Capita that I didn't really dig.
I know! I rode a 157 Burton X8 that I got for cheap which I was going to use as my "park board". I took it out for three sessions and just couldn't get used to the way it rode so I had to sell it. So I'm hesitant to downsize very much at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpb3 View Post
Though, the board I learned on a was a 172 Morrow of some sort with a pointy nose and a flat tail....this was in 1992 if that gives you any perspective.
I learned on a 1995 K2 "Hardcore" 161. But I was about 25 pounds lighter back then...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
david_z is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old 07-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm wondering the same thing. This will be of no help, since I have yet to demo either board, but I'm leaning towards the regular 162.

I currently ride a 159 with a 26.0 waist. I'm 6'4, 200lbs and wear size 11 boots. The 26.0 waist is great - no hint of heel or toe drag - but it makes me think shaving .3 off the sides would be fine. On the flip side, adding .8 to the sides (Heritage X 163) seems like it would be overly wide.
mikez is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome