Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: How To Buy, Choose & Size The Perfect Snowboard For You Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Today 03:20 AM
Synathidy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
Hi Syn,

It is always weight and foot size .

At 27.5 cm foot, 130 lbs the top choice for you would be the 153 cm. Next up would be 151 cm, not 155. We want to makes sure you have barefoot overhang at normal stance angles. You are a new rider so your angles are not locked in yet. This is a pure play board. Adding length and stiffness is not advised. The 155 is better suited for guys of my size at 170 lbs. I have many days on this board and the DOA. If you want to stick with Capita and are looking for an all mountain play board then you might consider the DOA.

Torsional flex (twist) is managed primarily from intentional rider controlled body input. Most current boards are milled so that the area between the bindings allows rider controlled torsional twist to varying degrees. On a board that is overweighted for its design, unwanted torsional and longitudinal flex can occur on all areas of the board. The board will distort and will not offer its designed edge hold. Height is a negligible factor here as body position is not static in either height or position like a fixed lever. Body weight is intentionally positioned - with time - and is typically in line with the forces applied to the board.

STOKED!
Hrm... well okay. I appreciate your elaborated input (you really are a saint of snowboarding sizing). The more discussion of flex and its workings, the better, I say. I feel it's an easily misunderstood area for newer boarders of the snow.

In any case, I'll consider your tips as I move forward. I'll cease bombarding you with my impertinent questions... for now. ^_^
Yesterday 06:20 AM
Wiredsport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synathidy View Post
Yes, being a little more playful is a goal. I shall make the mountain my veritable plaything! As I just said though, I'm still wondering what specific board specifications lead you to suggest the 153 with such certainty. Is it the effective edge? It couldn't be my weight alone, since Capita publishes not weight ranges, unless you're estimating based on some more general weight range which isn't specific to this board... REVEAL TO ME YOUR SECRETS, MR. WIREDSPORT.

And again, what of torque's compounded effect for the freakishly tall? I'm loathe to dismiss the laws of physics. Weight must certainly be key, but torsional flexing is produced by torque, which is proportional to BOTH force due to gravity and the lever arm's length, the latter of which is obviously greater for someone with great height and very long legs (like myself).

Anyway, thanks for all of your sizing advice thus far. It has all been a helpful complement to my rigorous research (especially regarding boot sizing) and I thoroughly enjoy the discussion.
Hi Syn,

It is always weight and foot size .

At 27.5 cm foot, 130 lbs the top choice for you would be the 153 cm. Next up would be 151 cm, not 155. We want to makes sure you have barefoot overhang at normal stance angles. You are a new rider so your angles are not locked in yet. This is a pure play board. Adding length and stiffness is not advised. The 155 is better suited for guys of my size at 170 lbs. I have many days on this board and the DOA. If you want to stick with Capita and are looking for an all mountain play board then you might consider the DOA.

Torsional flex (twist) is managed primarily from intentional rider controlled body input. Most current boards are milled so that the area between the bindings allows rider controlled torsional twist to varying degrees. On a board that is overweighted for its design, unwanted torsional and longitudinal flex can occur on all areas of the board. The board will distort and will not offer its designed edge hold. Height is a negligible factor here as body position is not static in either height or position like a fixed lever. Body weight is intentionally positioned - with time - and is typically in line with the forces applied to the board.

STOKED!
04-26-2017 12:35 PM
Synathidy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
Hi Syn,

Yes, 153. I would not suggest upsizing a soft, flatrock board in an effort to get extra grip/stability. This is really a very specialized board and I would highly suggest that you size it to ride well for what it is rather than trying to glean extra performance in other areas that is really not available from this design.

If playful riding is your goal than this is a great choice. If you are looking for a do it all daily driver then i would suggest an alternate model.
Yes, being a little more playful is a goal. I shall make the mountain my veritable plaything! As I just said though, I'm still wondering what specific board specifications lead you to suggest the 153 with such certainty. Is it the effective edge? It couldn't be my weight alone, since Capita publishes not weight ranges, unless you're estimating based on some more general weight range which isn't specific to this board... REVEAL TO ME YOUR SECRETS, MR. WIREDSPORT.

And again, what of torque's compounded effect for the freakishly tall? I'm loathe to dismiss the laws of physics. Weight must certainly be key, but torsional flexing is produced by torque, which is proportional to BOTH force due to gravity and the lever arm's length, the latter of which is obviously greater for someone with great height and very long legs (like myself).

Anyway, thanks for all of your sizing advice thus far. It has all been a helpful complement to my rigorous research (especially regarding boot sizing) and I thoroughly enjoy the discussion.
04-26-2017 11:37 AM
Wiredsport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synathidy View Post
But you think the 153, huh? Is there a certain board spec(s) you use to make that suggestion? I just like to understand how to tell these things. One thing I'm wondering: could there be any benefit for me going up a couple cm to the 155 if I think the riding I do will be a bit more on the all-mountain side and relatively less (but still some) on the tricks/feestyle side? I've read of people choosing a slightly smaller size (for increased maneuverability and decreased swing weight) if their board will be used for almost all park, or a slightly larger size (for increased stability at speed, better edge hold) if they spend more time just riding down the mountain.
Hi Syn,

Yes, 153. I would not suggest upsizing a soft, flatrock board in an effort to get extra grip/stability. This is really a very specialized board and I would highly suggest that you size it to ride well for what it is rather than trying to glean extra performance in other areas that is really not available from this design.

If playful riding is your goal than this is a great choice. If you are looking for a do it all daily driver then i would suggest an alternate model.
04-25-2017 11:19 AM
Synathidy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
Next time you go in, don't take off your headphones. Just smile and nod . Sadly, this is still common.



The Horrorscope is a really playful board. Flatrock and soft(er) by any standard. 153 will be best for your specs. If you have a chance to demo some boards before you buy I would highly suggest that. The Horrorscope has a highly reduced contact length in comparison to your Quest and is nearly opposite the Quest in many ways. That is not a negative but you should know that you are going from near one end of the spectrum to near the other. There are other designs that would land you closer to the middle (if that is your goal).

STOKED!
Ah, yes, I understand. It would indeed be a big change from what I've got indeed. Although I'm not really overly attached to any one profile at this point. I liked the idea of a flat to rocker board because one thing I would like to change is having a bit of a looser board (I can't yet compare with anything, but I think my Sims is more on the stiffer, catchier, hard-to-turn side). I also just don't think I require that much stiffness in a board right now (if anything I think it may make my maneuvering more difficult since I'm still relatively new to snowboarding and such a lightweight).

A chance to demo boards could be nice, but it's also pretty much a total no-go where I live. It's a tiny town, and there isn't much here, let alone shops which keep any sort of decent stock of different models, types, and/or sizes of snowboards.

But you think the 153, huh? Is there a certain board spec(s) you use to make that suggestion? I just like to understand how to tell these things. One thing I'm wondering: could there be any benefit for me going up a couple cm to the 155 if I think the riding I do will be a bit more on the all-mountain side and relatively less (but still some) on the tricks/feestyle side? I've read of people choosing a slightly smaller size (for increased maneuverability and decreased swing weight) if their board will be used for almost all park, or a slightly larger size (for increased stability at speed, better edge hold) if they spend more time just riding down the mountain.

Also, I just thought of something: does anyone ever consider the torque they exert on their board due to their height when sizing a board for really tall or really short people? This would be a combination effect of height and weight since torque is a rotational force proportional to both force (from one's mass and gravity) and the lever arm length (one's height, in this case). I would think that, since I am on the much taller side for my weight, that when I lean into a turn my tall frame would exert more torque on the board's torsional flexing than, say, someone who's 6-9 inches shorter than me. But I dunno... The force vector contibuting to the torque I speak of would probably be pretty small relative to the force vector directly downward on the board (unless turning with extreme angles to ground). I may be over-analyzing snowboard selection and getting too nerdy here. :B
04-25-2017 08:12 AM
Wiredsport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synathidy View Post
One interesting thing: both snowboard-related shops I visited in my small town before buying this one suggested just sizing by length (the shoulder to nose range stand-up height rule), and flat out told me when I asked that weight wasn't a factor.
Next time you go in, don't take off your headphones. Just smile and nod . Sadly, this is still common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synathidy View Post
I've been leaning towards either the 153 or 155, but I have also considered the 157. Do you think the 157 would be oversized for me? It's a little difficult to judge with this one since Capita doesn't publish weight ranges. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think width will be an issue on any of these three sizes. I'm pretty certain my boot size going forward is going to always be either 9.5 or 10 (depending on the individual boot) and I believe either of those sizes would be okay for the widths of these boards (again, correct me if you have a differing insight).
The Horrorscope is a really playful board. Flatrock and soft(er) by any standard. 153 will be best for your specs. If you have a chance to demo some boards before you buy I would highly suggest that. The Horrorscope has a highly reduced contact length in comparison to your Quest and is nearly opposite the Quest in many ways. That is not a negative but you should know that you are going from near one end of the spectrum to near the other. There are other designs that would land you closer to the middle (if that is your goal).

STOKED!
04-24-2017 12:53 PM
Synathidy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
Hi Syn,

I strongly suggest that you take the emphasis off of tip to tip length (i.e. 160 cm, 150 cm, etc.). Tip to tip length is a very poor indicator of how a board will perform and any calculator or system that produces a tip to tip size or size range should be avoided (this thread included). The only way to get a strong fit is to look at the design specs of specific models. What was the board designed for? What weight range? What foot size?

The original Sims Quest was a directional, cap construction, vertically laminated wood core board with a very uniform core thickness (common back then). It was quite stiff and had a long running length due to full conventional camber and relatively short raised tip and tail (for the day). You are correct that it is both longer (contact and edge) and stiffer than would be suggested for your specs.

If there are specific models that you are interested in we will all be stoked to help you find the best size for your specifics.
Don't worry about the tip-to-tail length thing; in all the browsing I've done I only look at weight range and width as sizing indicators. I did notice, however, that very few weight guides for specific boards sized me at a 160+ cm model, so that's what (along with its traditional camber effective edge) made me deduce my Sims might be a little too long. Effective edge is something I've started paying a little more attention to.

One interesting thing: both snowboard-related shops I visited in my small town before buying this one suggested just sizing by length (the shoulder to nose range stand-up height rule), and flat out told me when I asked that weight wasn't a factor. (I smugly kept to myself that I knew weight WAS a factor). I ended up getting the 160 I have just because of such a limited selection of used boards (I wanted a cheap introduction into snowboarding). But let's just say... I have little confidence in the competence of my local shops Hence why I'm now talking to a scientist of snowboarding such as yourself.

But anyway, thanks SO much for offering those details on my Quest! That's, like, the most anyone has been able to tell me about it. Very interesting info on the core thickness and stiffness, especially. Concerning new board browsing (if you have specific sizing suggestions), the one that I'm looking at most closely right now is the 2017 Capita Horrorscope. I am intrigued by its flat-to-rocker, medium-soft flex design. I would use it mostly for cruising down the mountain with moderate carving (maybe through a little powder, but there isn't that much here), and learning some little tricks next season (buttering, 180s, perhaps small jumps, etc., etc.). I wouldn't be doing any SUPER fast, hard carving or extreme freeriding (not any time soon, at least). The snow I would be encountering is mostly the dry, fluffy variety common to interior Alaska (I live in a subarctic desert - literally). Not much hardpack, and not very icy. Virtually NEVER slushy except in the 1-2 week brief spring.

I've been leaning towards either the 153 or 155, but I have also considered the 157. Do you think the 157 would be oversized for me? It's a little difficult to judge with this one since Capita doesn't publish weight ranges. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think width will be an issue on any of these three sizes. I'm pretty certain my boot size going forward is going to always be either 9.5 or 10 (depending on the individual boot) and I believe either of those sizes would be okay for the widths of these boards (again, correct me if you have a differing insight).
04-24-2017 08:02 AM
Wiredsport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synathidy View Post
Cool. I feel better about my perspective on boots now. I can assure you I will be trying out some smaller boots next season.

If I may, I'd also like to ask you about my snowboard: my board is a very old (others on this site estimated ~20 yrs) Sims Quest 160. I don't know too much about it other than that it seems to be a directional twin with traditional camber. I have no clue how its stiffness measures up to today's boards. I'm wondering about how appropriate the 160 cm length is for my very light weight of 130 lbs. Most every weight/board length guide I've found would recommend a shorter board for my weight. Unfortunately I don't think any such weight guide can be found for this old board. Any thoughts? I'm interested in all-mountain riding (mainly just riding down the mountain and maybe learning a few little tricks someday). Based on browsing new boards, my size seems to be around 150~155 cm for most models out there today, and I'm wondering if this big old clunky 160 could be making it more difficult for me to turn and maneuver.
Hi Syn,

I strongly suggest that you take the emphasis off of tip to tip length (i.e. 160 cm, 150 cm, etc.). Tip to tip length is a very poor indicator of how a board will perform and any calculator or system that produces a tip to tip size or size range should be avoided (this thread included). The only way to get a strong fit is to look at the design specs of specific models. What was the board designed for? What weight range? What foot size?

The original Sims Quest was a directional, cap construction, vertically laminated wood core board with a very uniform core thickness (common back then). It was quite stiff and had a long running length due to full conventional camber and relatively short raised tip and tail (for the day). You are correct that it is both longer (contact and edge) and stiffer than would be suggested for your specs.

If there are specific models that you are interested in we will all be stoked to help you find the best size for your specifics.
04-23-2017 08:50 PM
Fielding You completely left out the single most important factor: graphics. I really don't care if the board is camber or rocker as long as it has either some cool skull heads or a hot bikini chick graphic on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jed View Post
Intro:

So you've decided to buy a snowboard. Awesome! The following guide will break down how to pick the perfect snowboard that's right for you and the type of terrain you ride.

Video guide:



Text guide:

How to choose a snowboard

To choose a snowboard, youíll need to decide on 5 main areas: Size, Flex, Width, Shape & Camber. Donít worry if you donít understand these words, Iíll explain each term, as well as tell you which areas work best for what.

Remember that as you get more experienced, personal preference will play a bigger role in what youíll prefer, these are only starting points. There are no set rules on what you have to snowboard with.

Part 1: Snowboard Sizing

Everyone buying a snowboard always gives their height and weight and asks what size they need. Itís not that simple. How flexible or strong a board is, will change the recommended weight for that boardís size.

For example: A 154 cm snowboard might usually have a recommended weight of about 65 kg, but if this particular snowboard is really flexible and built with lighter but weaker materials, the snowboard might instead have a recommended weight of about 60kg.

Also: Never a snowboard based on height. Rarely ever does height play a big role in the size of snowboard you need. This is a common mistake that even many experienced snowboarders will make.

Always aim to pick your size based mainly on your weight and what you want to ride.

Picking a snowboard size based on weight

Below is a list of some very rough weight ranges and their matching snowboard sizes. Remember that certain snowboards may be built slightly weaker or stronger, which will alter their weight range.

If youíd like a more exact weight range for a particular snowboard, you can ask any good snowboard store for a copy of the recommended specifications given to them by the snowboard brand.

Alternatively, you can email the company directly and they should be able to give you the exact recommend weight range for their snowboards.

Rough weight ranges and recommend snowboard sizes

100 to 120 lbs (45 to 54.5 kg) = 140 to 145 cm
120 to 130 lbs (55 to 59 kg) = 140 to 150 cm
130 to 140 lbs (59 to 63.5 kg) = 145 to 150 cm
140 to 150 lbs (63.5 to 68 kg) = 145 to 155 cm
150 to 160 lbs (69 to 72.5 kg) = 150 to 155 cm
160 to 170 lbs (72.5 to 77 kg) = 150 to 160 cm
170 to 180 lbs (77 to 81.5 kg) = 155 to 160 cm
180 to 190 lbs (81.5 to 86 kg) = 155 to 165 cm
190 to 200 lbs (86 to 91 kg) = 160 to 170 cm
200 to 250 lbs (91 to 113 kg) = 165 to 180 cm
250+ lbs (113+ kg) = 180 to 190 cm
....
04-23-2017 05:06 PM
Synathidy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiredsport View Post
Hi Syn,

Yes, those are larger than we would like to see. Your foot is smaller than that insert. When we get you down to your Mondo size your foot will overhang the insert by ~ 1 cm. That is typical. 27.5 cm is a size 9.5 in snowboard boots.

STOKED!
Cool. I feel better about my perspective on boots now. I can assure you I will be trying out some smaller boots next season.

If I may, I'd also like to ask you about my snowboard: my board is a very old (others on this site estimated ~20 yrs) Sims Quest 160. I don't know too much about it other than that it seems to be a directional twin with traditional camber. I have no clue how its stiffness measures up to today's boards. I'm wondering about how appropriate the 160 cm length is for my very light weight of 130 lbs. Most every weight/board length guide I've found would recommend a shorter board for my weight. Unfortunately I don't think any such weight guide can be found for this old board. Any thoughts? I'm interested in all-mountain riding (mainly just riding down the mountain and maybe learning a few little tricks someday). Based on browsing new boards, my size seems to be around 150~155 cm for most models out there today, and I'm wondering if this big old clunky 160 could be making it more difficult for me to turn and maneuver.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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