Torn between 165 and 168...Vote Please - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
View Poll Results: 165 or 168?
165 29 96.67%
168 1 3.33%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2012, 12:20 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default Torn between 165 and 168...Vote Please

I'm having a hard time deciding between a 165 and a 168 size board. The board will mostly be meant for freeride allmountain style riding (no park/pipe). My weight is 210lbs and I'm 6'1" with a size 11 boot. Skill level (being modest) I would consider myself intermediate. I'd like your honest opinions because the sales guys are eager to push the last of their inventories on me. Some have 165 and others only have 168 so you feel my dilemma.

I'm looking at a freeride board but don't want to get into the details of manufacturer too much. I'd like to try and consider just the length only here..if that's possible. haha

What would you choose/suggest? 165 or 168?

Oh...i've also checked with all the calculators too but wanted your rider experiences.
samalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-13-2012, 12:52 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SnowMotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 224
Default

no reason for you to ride a board that long. I would demo a 159 or 160 and see what you think. Im 61-230lbs size 11 boot and i ride 157 for everything, but even smaller for park......calculators HA thats a joke right?

Last edited by SnowMotion; 03-13-2012 at 12:55 PM.
SnowMotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 12:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Sick-Pow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,314
Default

Depends on location and riding style.

East coast, smaller hills, smaller board is fine.

West, anything goes.
Sick-Pow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 01:22 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Thanks for the votes and responses. I admit I'm a bit of a tool and clueless sometimes when it comes to this shtuff since I havent' bought new gear in years and don't keep up on the latest. That's what forums are for. Thanks guys!

I'm on the west coast/Pacific NW. Hood/Bachelor areas
samalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 01:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,445
Blog Entries: 5
Default

I'm about your size, inch shorter but same weight and boot size. I wouldn't ride anything bigger than a 165 and even that length I don't think I'd really want to ride. I think both of these are probably too long for you unless you're riding powder all the time. I wouldn't go bigger than the 65 no matter what, but if I were you I'd try to stay around 161.
david_z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 01:28 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

I forgot to add that your help is already steering me (i feel) in the right direction. Thanks!!!
samalama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2012, 02:09 PM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Sick-Pow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,314
Default

RIding all that heavy pow, a 165 will be fun.

Try to demo some boards. Try a bunch of sizes, with waists that fit your foot and weight.

Try a NUG too.
Sick-Pow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 01:24 PM   #8 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
extra0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 624
Default

I'm about the same size as OP (little lighter) and I would only even consider 165 cm+ if I was consistently riding 4 ft+ deep powder. I ride a 163 fine in depths up to about 5 ft...pretty sure anything longer would exponentially affect agility in the lower depths.
extra0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 01:28 PM   #9 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 31
Default

My opinion is to stay as short as you can get away with. More manuverability. For example: I plan on having two boards a 154 true twin for groomers and park and a 156-157 set back for powder.
sobrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2012, 03:03 PM   #10 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
WasatchMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,033
Default

If I were you I wouldn't go bigger than a 162/163

168 is HUGE unless you're in 50"+ of powder
WasatchMan 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 11:38 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