[Mammoth Lifty]

So I've noticed a trend on the forum about people asking what size board they should ride and everyone bases it off weight. I don't think that weight should be a big deciding factor in what size board you buy. It seems mostly about riding style and personal preference. I've seen guys that are 150 pounds ride 165's and guys 200 pounds ride 151's. What do you guys think? Is weight a huge deciding factor when you buy a new stick?

 

[cav0011]

For powder boards kinda. The purpose of weight is to provide a guideline. Also companies design boards for certain weights so they perform as intended. Having said that I tend to ride shorter boards

 

[linvillegorge]

Weight is a huge factor. You put a 200# guy on a 151 jib stick and he's just gonna be overpowering the shit out of it. On the flip side, you put a 135# hard charger on a 162 stiff ass plank and he's gonna have a real hard time maneuvering that stick in tight spots. Height is the overrated factor. Unless you're really short and heavy or really tall and skinny it doesn't play much of a role at all.

 

[SkullAndXbones]

i go with my riding style because i like to ride fast and i want that stability at high speeds so i'll always ride longer boards. i'll never buy a board under 164. my weight has fluctuated a lot over the years do to laziness, then deciding that i need to lose weight and going back and forth like that but my normal weight is about 170 and i'm 6'0".

 

[Nivek]

You can also find video's of people shooting themselves in the leg for fun. Doesn't mean that's how we all should have fun.

What happens as a person gets bigger. They exert more force on the board by gravity and usually strength. The things that change on a bigger board are surface area and usually stiffness. Surface area ensures that the greater friction from more downward force is overcome correctly, and the stiffer board behaves as designed under greater weight.

 

[radiomuse210]

I know people who ride short boards over the suggested weight limit and have known girls to ride longer, stiff boards (neni springs to mind - and whether this kind of board choice is advised, I don't know: but if they are stoked riding it, then that's what matters) - so I'm sort of on the fence. I personally stay within the weight guidelines of the board I'm riding - although I have developed a preference toward staying in the upper end of the weight range (ie shorter board but still within the weight range - and I'm only 100-105lbs, so pretty short to most folks). I'm looking at getting a board where I'm more in the middle of the weight range and something a touch stiffer just to expand my riding a bit.

I had a Burton Feelgood Flying V, which is described as a "happy medium" and that thing felt stiff to me - especially in the middle. Getting it to flex was a chore - and that was on the short end of my size range. So this year I'm riding a cm bigger than that, a notch or two softer, but with a longer effective edge (7.5cm). Then from there I might venture onto that other board I mentioned above: more mid-flex feel and a few cms bigger, if I feel the need for it. Based on my experiences, I think preference definitely comes into play as far as where you fall along the suggested weight scale. And sometimes even beyond that.

 

[KayZ]

Being one to ride one of the extremes (200 lbs, board is 156) I kinda agree.

The sizing charts are a general guide line of what to start your search with if youve never known anything about snowboards... so they serve that purpose.

 

[F1EA]

The problem is people think the weight references are straight directions or mandatory stuff. It's not. It's a reference.

So when a manufacturer says the board is mid-flex, good for pow float and edge hold... they are referring to a certain typical rider profile given by the weight range.

You can choose whatever size you want based on what you understand, but the manufacturer's weight and recommendations are the baseline.

There's no way a manufacturer will say this board is mid-flex and has a certain edge hold without referencing it to someone. A 100 lbs little asian girl will never get the board to feel even remotely similar to a 235 lbs football jock.

So yeah.... I use the manufacturer's weight ranges as a guide to size up or down or stick to the middle based on what i want the board to feel like.

 

[2hellnbak]

I think they both factor in to a point. If you weigh 140 lbs but your are 6'2" you aren't going to have fun on a 151. If you weigh 262 lbs but you are 5'4" and ride a 165 you won't have a good time.

A lot of this is also very dependent on your ability and the terrain you ride.


There is a balance between the two. When I picked out my Ultra Dream the suggested weight was something like 135 to 190 lbs. I weigh 180 ish depending on the year and time of year and how much beer I drink during said time of year. I picked this board based upon the fact I can ride deep powder with a centered stance on a jib board in a size 153, so I should be able to slay the pow on a 158 that's more all mountain/powder oriented. It will also be OK for groomers etc.

I factored in, that I have hiked the ridge at Loveland and had no real problem riding down the very same hill in deep powder on a 153 Artifact center stanced, and a 158 cambered board set back, a 153 K2 flatline board that was soft with a centered stance(cheap board), a 164 Burton Bullet (set back) and other boards I don't remember. I am right about 5' 11".

Like said, this is just a GENERAL way to figure out about what board you should ride. The real ticket aside from experience is going to a shop and talking to the guy selling snowboards, telling him what you are into and going from there.

There are too many factors to take in when it comes to board size. If you have a good shop available they will know what you should be standing on when you ride down the hill..

 

[SkullAndXbones]

I know people who ride short boards over the suggested weight limit and have known girls to ride longer, stiff boards (neni springs to mind - and whether this kind of board choice is advised, I don't know: but if they are stoked riding it, then that's what matters) - so I'm sort of on the fence. I personally stay within the weight guidelines of the board I'm riding - although I have developed a preference toward staying in the upper end of the weight range (ie shorter board but still within the weight range - and I'm only 100-105lbs, so pretty short to most folks). I'm looking at getting a board where I'm more in the middle of the weight range and something a touch stiffer just to expand my riding a bit.

I had a Burton Feelgood Flying V, which is described as a "happy medium" and that thing felt stiff to me - especially in the middle. Getting it to flex was a chore - and that was on the short end of my size range. So this year I'm riding a cm bigger than that, a notch or two softer, but with a longer effective edge (7.5cm). Then from there I might venture onto that other board I mentioned above: more mid-flex feel and a few cms bigger, if I feel the need for it. Based on my experiences, I think preference definitely comes into play as far as where you fall along the suggested weight scale. And sometimes even beyond that.

don't tip toe around it. dive right in. strap on a 170 and show that board who's boss.

 

[radiomuse210]

don't tip toe around it. dive right in. strap on a 170 and show that board who's boss.

:laugh: I can't imagine how I would even begin to handle a 170 board at my size. I immediately think of riding a plank of wood. It would be sluggish at turns due to lack of leverage (feet too small and not enough weight to flex) yet be able to hurdle me down the hill at break neck speeds. Especially since I've been hanging in the upper 130s with my board size (low 140s for my next board). Who knows - maybe if I had a ton of experience under my belt, I could get down the mountain without feeling totally out of control. And perhaps if I was used to riding boards longer for my weight. 170 is a beast for me though!

Or maybe with a few drinks in me.

 

[wrathfuldeity]

If the person is at an advanced-expert level...weight is BS
skillz is #1
style is #2
terrain & snow is #3
^these factors will determine the size and profile of the board.

If the person is at the intermediate-advanced level...weight is relevant
the board size and profile will be a factor.

If the person is at a beginner-intermediate level...weight is BS
they have no skillz
they have shit for style
they are at the mercy of the terrain and snow
the size and profile of the board will matter...but they will not know it...cause they think its the size of their nuteez that matter

 

[SkullAndXbones]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. that ends that debate

 

[Phedder]

When my first board died (factory defect, 158) I was left riding an old staff board for 2 weeks. 151 Burton, flat board, mid flex. I was 220 at the time and I still had a blast on that thing. Clocked myself at an average of 60km/h on one run, and dialed in all the basic grabs on it as well, 20-30 ft kickers. At 210lb I was riding 20-30cm of powder on a 156 Skate Banana, again having a blast. Are there better boards and sizes for doing those? Of course. Did that stop me enjoying myself, hell no!

I've got a 157 traditional camber board for park next year and a 161 Highlife for charging, haven't ridden either yet but I'm sure they'll both be a blast to ride as well.

People over analyse way too much, keep it simple and find the joy!

 

[jtg]

If you understand the physics of how a snowboard makes a turn, it's pretty clear that weight has everything to do with determining size for a given snowboard. Just because some people ride well outside the recommended ranges does not mean they are changing the forces applied to the board.

 

[ItchEtrigR]

It's just a guideline, but I feel it's important.

Is it something set in stone? No.

Will it effect the ride? Sure.

Can you ride something your out of range for? I do all the time.

Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.

 

[neni]

Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.

Define properly sized :hairy:


Of course weight is an important variable, you can't neglect physics... but as wrong it is to say weight is BS, it is also wrong to say it's the only determining factor. It's simply only one - important, tho not the only - factor, as wrath indicated nicely

Mixture of skill level, riding style n purpose (terrain, snow conditions, personal preference), weight - then loooong gap - and then height (only matters for the extremes as mentioned by linville). Charts just can give limited dimensions and should be taken as what they are - references. Not more, not less.

Really think that this calculator is useful cos it covers more than only the height/weight variable otherwise used in charts SnowLifts.com - Snowboard Size Length Calculator

(BTW: radio, if you check that calculator, you'd see that my boards are "properly sized" . Recommended: all mtn 154, BC 157. I ride all mtn 153/6, BC 156/8. Nothing extraordinary there. The long ones you may have seen in other posts were just demos not available in my preferred size).

 

[chomps1211]

If the person is at an advanced-expert level...weight is BS
skillz is #1
style is #2
terrain & snow is #3
^these factors will determine the size and profile of the board.

If the person is at the intermediate-advanced level...weight is relevant
the board size and profile will be a factor.

If the person is at a beginner-intermediate level...weight is BS
they have no skillz
they have shit for style
they are at the mercy of the terrain and snow
the size and profile of the board will matter...but they will not know it...cause they think its the size of their nuteez that matter

^^^THIS^^^

If you understand the physics of how a snowboard makes a turn, it's pretty clear that weight has everything to do with determining size for a given snowboard. Just because some people ride well outside the recommended ranges does not mean they are changing the forces applied to the board.

It's just a guideline, but I feel it's important.

Is it something set in stone? No.

Will it effect the ride? Sure.

Can you ride something your out of range for? I do all the time.

Are you better off with something properly sized? No doubt about it.

I find myself wondering,… What do you suppose the "Proper" weight range is for THESE boards???? :laugh:

/thread :hairy:

 

[Wiredsport]

I've seen guys that are 150 pounds ride 165's and guys 200 pounds ride 151's. What do you guys think? Is weight a huge deciding factor when you buy a new stick?

Hi,

The issue here is not that weight is being (correctly) used to select a specific board but rather that tip to tip length is (incorrectly) being considered as a valuable indicator of performance.

There are 165 cm (for example) big mountain boards that are designed for 150 lb riders and there are ultra short freestyle boards that are designed for heavier riders.

Every board designer uses weight and foot size as the basis for any given size in the model they are designing. The dimensions and construction elements that are used will center on an actual/hypothetical rider's specs.

There is a weight range in which a board will perform well in regards to its designed use (typically 40 -50 lbs or 20 to 25 lbs above or below the "design" rider).

Can you ride a board outside of that range? Absolutely. You can slide down a snowy hill on anything The Signal guys prove that every third Thursday.

But...for riders that are looking for an intuitive, consistent riding experience in a normal range of conditions and want a board to perform up to the full potential of its design, they will want to stay as close to centered in the given weight range as possible.

 

[radiomuse210]

^^^THIS^^^





I find myself wondering,… What do you suppose the "Proper" weight range is for THESE boards???? :laugh:

/thread :hairy:

I watch this every time someone posts it. Probably my fave ETT.