Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: What's up with Ride's wacky board sizing? 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)
04-13-2012 03:09 PM
scotty100
Quote:
Originally Posted by WasatchMan View Post
I wouldn't put much faith in their weight by size chart... It's also downsizing because of rockered tips most likely. What kind of riding are you looking to do first of all?

And no...ride boards are not built for the 'young demographic...'

example:
Thanks for the reply and for sharing that awesome vid. This is my first season learning and I've managed to progress to linking my turns on groomers/blue runs at squaw in tahoe. I doubt I'll be doing anything more than building on fundamentals next season or 2 so was looking for something in all mountain category probably medium-soft flex. Ride (and K2) looked like good options due to their rocker/flat tech etc. I've done a lot of reading and comparing other board makes and it seemed to me that Ride's specs were on the smaller side when it came to rider weight which makes selecting a board a little tricky (for me anyway). Guess I'm a little confused as to why they are on the smaller side. Apologies if that's a dumb beginner type question...
04-13-2012 02:18 AM
Sick-Pow Man, Jake is so fluid, and strong at once.

He also really got the best snow that year. travis and TAOF got skunked that year
04-13-2012 02:02 AM
cjcameron11 That would have to be one of the sickest riding clips I've seen, and i just bought that deck!!
04-13-2012 01:27 AM
WasatchMan I wouldn't put much faith in their weight by size chart... It's also downsizing because of rockered tips most likely. What kind of riding are you looking to do first of all?

And no...ride boards are not built for the 'young demographic...'

example:
04-13-2012 12:49 AM
scotty100
What's up with Ride's wacky board sizing?

I'm interested in buying a machete or an antic but notice the specs on these boards, in fact on all of Ride's boards, seem to be on the smaller side compared to most other companies. Is there a reason for this? It makes deciding which size to get quite difficult. For example, Ride specs its regular width boards on the lighter side of rider weight. The Machete 162 board, its longest length regular version, is spec'd at being appropriate for riders no heavier than 190lbs. That's probably at least 20-30lbs lighter than other board manufacturers who produce board lengths of 162/163...why is this? Are Ride's boards just lighter/less durable, built for dare I say it, the younger demographic?

Annoying somewhat, because I'm 6' and around 200lbs with boot size of either 10 or 11 and if I look at their machete spec sheet and go by weight to pick a board, they are suggesting a 157W (150-220lbs) would fit me better than their 162 regular (140-190lbs). That makes no sense to me at all...what's up with their wacky sizing?

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