Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60
  1. #21
    Advanced Snowatcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbs
    Posts
    1,109

    Post

    85kg and riding a 147? Caboose is going to bl00dy sink! On a rail, he might snap the damn thing in half...

    I am 69kg and ride a 157 - 161!

    Something I found a few days ago - I have no idea how reliable it is....
    http://www.snowboardlengthcalculator.com/

  2. #22
    Beginner Snowatcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not at the snow
    Posts
    47

    Post

    weight makes very little difference when choosing a snowboard. weight is very important when dialing in bindings on skis. but snowboard bindings dont release and hence weight means nothing to a snowboarder. foot size, length and riding style is what you need to consider.

    get a board thats wide enough for your foot size, there nothing thats worse than dragging your toes or heels. if you dont get this right you have wasted your money, a little overhang is okay but for those with size 11 or more you should be riding a board thats about 255mm wide, but better to be 260mm or more. most brands have "wide boards"

    choose a board that roughly comes up to your mouth/chin. then from that size consider what style you want to ride.
    powder = a bit longer board
    park = a bit shorter board
    rails/jib = a lot shorter board
    freeride/all mountain (most people) = stay with first measurement.

    shady your advice is not right, DTizl's suggestion is fine, for a 154 for caboose, a 147 might have issues when landing big jumps for someone 5"6 and 85kg but for rails it would be easier.

    kort its snow, its frozen, hehe, your not gunna sink into it and a shorter board would be stronger on rails than a longer board, longer board creates more leverage, eg, if you tried to snap two pieces of wood of same thickness, once is 5 cm long and the other 50cm long, the 50cm long one will break much easier.

  3. #23

    Post

    booter you are completely clueless my friend!

    weight has everything to do with board size. the board needs to support your WEIGHT. weight is much more of a consideration than height. if you disagree you dont know what you are talking about.

    are you a skier? have you ever gone riding in powder?

    and no his advice was not right. 85kg on a 147 is a complete and utter joke!

    caboose please dont listen to any of this crap. the very smallest you should go is a 154.

  4. #24
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    Originally posted by shady:
    caboose please dont listen to any of this crap. the very smallest you should go is a 154.
    shortest i will go would be 152

    i doubt i will ever hit rails

    just want to try a pure short jib board

    an instructor i had last season was heavier and taller than i was and was riding a 151

    he nailed ever bump, was very smooth rider
    Mad Respect

  5. #25
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    Originally posted by booter:
    weight makes very little difference when choosing a snowboard.
    i'll disagree to this

    you ride anything wet and fresh in Oz an you will want a longer board for weight

    even on a 155 i have come to a complete stop

    [size="1"][ 10.06.2008, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Caboose ][/size]
    Mad Respect

  6. #26
    Beginner Snowatcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not at the snow
    Posts
    47

    Post

    its about choosing the right board for what you intend to ride, read the posts better shady. DTzil suggested the 147 for park and rails, 154 for freeride. personally id recommend a 150 for him to play in the park. Go on shady then, explain why a board needs to support your weight? give us a reason?? im happy to debate with you but dont just rant, there are factors where weight makes a consideration, but there are far more important factors to choosing a snowboard.

    choosing a board by weight is a carry over from skiing, skiiers need to know their weight so you can tune their bindings so they release properly otherwise they will lose their skis or pop their knees. snowboard bindings dont release!! even for skiing other factors are more important than weight when choosing length of ski. caboose is 85kg and 5'6, he aint a sumo. height, ability and terrain is more important in determining what length of board or ski you should get.

    to start with height is the best guide though as it gives you a better idea for the dynamics of rider on board. look at a persons stance, smaller person smaller stance width, larger rider larger stance width. the smaller your stance width the harder it is to swing a board around (turning), wider makes it easier. the length the board that goes past your feet makes alot of difference to how easy or hard it is to turn your board. thats why most pros ride much shorter jib boards than their free ride boards. after that you factor in ability, terrain, personal preference and yeah if the person is really heavy for their height maybe a little longer, but 85kg and 5"6.... cmon.

    if cabooses feet fit the width of a 147 he cold use it as a very fun jib board, less length of board will make it far easier, will perform more like a skateboard which is what you want. like i said a 147 for his weight may have problems with landing big jumps, the shorter board would bog down more on the landings. it would also not be much good for free riding. choose the right board for what you plan to ride. as caboose has now said he wouldnt ride rails then hed go for a longer board, 52, 54, 56 lengths would all be fine, just consider what riding your gunna do caboose.

    [size="1"][ 10.06.2008, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: booter ][/size]

  7. #27
    Beginner Snowatcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not at the snow
    Posts
    47

    Post

    at the end of the day there will be different opinions, caboose go to a demo day and ride a couple of boards, you said youve got a 155, well take out a 150/52 and then a 159/61 and see what you prefer for how you ride,

    its really the only way your gunna know. good luck.

  8. #28
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    i used to ride a 155, i ride a 159 now

    the smaller your stance width the harder it is to swing a board around (turning), wider makes it easier
    i'm not so sure about your reasoning on this

    as an alpine rider would have a very tight stance on a longer thinner board for extremely quick carving
    Mad Respect

  9. #29
    Donza
    Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by Caboose:
    i used to ride a 155, i ride a 159 now

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />the smaller your stance width the harder it is to swing a board around (turning), wider makes it easier
    i'm not so sure about your reasoning on this

    as an alpine rider would have a very tight stance on a longer thinner board for extremely quick carving
    </font>[/QUOTE]He is sort of right in a way. A wider stance makes it heaps easier to swing the board around during spins and also its much easier to ride (intiate turns) the sidecut during turns. It positions the feet in a better place realitive to the sidecut of the board
    Though for those railing carvers a 16 inch stance with 40 degree angles is the bomb.
    I think people get a bit confused about the whole weight vs size issue (ie saying it will snap on a rail). Its possible to have a 150 with exactly the same core properties and internal makeup as a 156.
    Look at something like the Nitro MFM 152. Its a downsized board in terms of length but is just as beefy as its larger brothers.

  10. #30
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    ok i thought he was talking about riding, not tricks
    Mad Respect

  11. #31
    Donza
    Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by Caboose:
    ok i thought he was talking about riding, not tricks
    It sort of does...back in the old days of riding when people first learnt to carve -Think Craig Kelly stances were narrower and angles severe. Those guys had the best styles when it came to carving though their spins looked a bit wack.
    Now fast forward early 90's to someone like Jamie Lynn. He had a much wider stance and took his freestyle approach to the backcountry. He basically developed a completely diffirent technique to turning- his wider stance made it easier for him to put the board on edge to use the sidecut. Whereas Craig kellys stance put more pressure in the centre of the board increasing the rate of turn without as much sidecut influence.
    Now fast forward to nowadays and virtually every instructor I see has a very much sidecut orientated turning style. Ie they just put the board on edge and let it do the work. This method is heaps easier with a wider stance.

  12. #32

    Post

    DTzil suggested the 147 for park and rails, 154 for freeride.
    you realise park also means tables, spines, hips? i'll say it again, 85kg on a 147 is stupidity. maybe you are playing around on 10ft kickers and wide flat boxes, but for any decent rider going into a 30+ foot table, you need more board for stability on both takeoff and landing.

    85kg on a 154 for freeriding, again i will disagree. freeriding means charging all over the mountain, RIDING POWDER. he would sink on a 154.

    Go on shady then, explain why a board needs to support your weight? give us a reason??
    weight determines downward force through the board. downward force determines flex. flex determines how the board will ride.

    again i ask, have you ever snowboarded on fresh powder? you need greater surface area to provide float. you need the board to support your weight otherwise you will sink!! ask anyone here who had ridden in japan or canada or anywhere overseas for that matter who weighs 85kg, could you easily ride a 154 in deep powder? you would need a bigger board TO SUPPORT YOUR WEIGHT.

    choosing a board by weight is a carry over from skiing, skiiers need to know their weight so you can tune their bindings so they release properly otherwise they will lose their skis or pop their knees. snowboard bindings dont release!!
    so what? this isnt skiing and it is irrelivant to bring it up. why do you think snowboard companies provide suggested weight ranges for particular board sizes??? yet they dont privide suggested heights??? its becuase it is an important factor in choosing a board size! are you trying to tell me that all those companies don't know what are they are talking about???

    if cabooses feet fit the width of a 147 he cold use it as a very fun jib board, less length of board will make it far easier, will perform more like a skateboard which is what you want.
    send him off a 20+ foot park jump and see how he goes....

    like i said a 147 for his weight may have problems with landing big jumps, the shorter board would bog down more on the landings.
    so why agree with the suggestion? park involves more than spinning onto boxes.

    as caboose has now said he wouldnt ride rails then hed go for a longer board, 52, 54, 56 lengths would all be fine, just consider what riding your gunna do caboose.
    and now you agree with what i said. surprise. even if he was riding rails, that suggestion is pefectly valid. if someone needs to downsize their park board by 7cm just to ride rails, they need to seriously improve their skills and not worry so much about the board.


    anything else?

  13. #33
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    the point of the smaller board is to have something softer in flex for noodles, butters & little jumps - something fun to muck around on

    my 159 i have now is pretty flexy, but i still seem to have trouble flexying it enough to do nose presses etc

    i am hoping with a smaller board with a softer flex i can improve my noodles

    i'm also looking to muck around with a wider stance

    my boards have all been tight/stiff directional all mountain boards.

    [size="1"][ 10.06.2008, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Caboose ][/size]
    Mad Respect

  14. #34
    snowman
    Guest

    Post

    widen the stance and go smaller , i ride two boards 158 for general around mountain and 156 dominant in the park love it , im 180cm tall and 94kg its a awesome board

  15. #35
    Extreme Snowatcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Shire in Sydney
    Posts
    6,303

    Post

    do you reckon 2cm does all that much difference snowman
    Mad Respect

  16. #36
    Donza
    Guest

    Post

    Yeah true that. I still think people ride way too overcooked (eg long and stiff) in Australia.
    I have so much more fun on shorter boards...I mean how often do we get powder?
    All of the crew I ride with ride boards from 150 -153.

  17. #37
    snowman
    Guest

    Post

    i notice the difference in the park tried the 154 bit short for my weight and i still got to ride to the park etc...

  18. #38

    Post

    Originally posted by Caboose:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by booter:
    weight makes very little difference when choosing a snowboard.
    i'll disagree to this

    you ride anything wet and fresh in Oz an you will want a longer board for weight

    even on a 155 i have come to a complete stop
    </font>[/QUOTE]Try pointing it downhill

    *Queue photo of SA's* [img]graemlins/big_laugh.gif[/img]
    *insert witty comment here*

  19. #39
    SA
    Guest

    Post

    You rang?







    [img]graemlins/outtahere.gif[/img]

  20. #40
    Beginner Snowatcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    not at the snow
    Posts
    47

    Post

    i said jib board shady, theres a difference between a jib board and a park board. jib boards arent made for jumps or park really. I said 147 would be fine for jib and said hed want longer if he wanted to jump (park riding). your making points against things i didnt say!!?? you say i agree with you when i said a 52,54,56, but you repeatedly said that 54 was far too short. i dont understand your logic? do you?


    ----------
    weight determines downward force through the board. downward force determines flex. flex determines how the board will ride.
    -----

    boards come with a huge variety of flex patterns and stiffness ratings, all of which behave differently, your weight determines how much flex you will get from your board depending on its construction. SHAPE, MATERIALS and FLEX determine how a board will ride.

    ----------
    again i ask, have you ever snowboarded on fresh powder? you need greater surface area to provide float. you need the board to support your weight otherwise you will sink!! ask anyone here who had ridden in japan or canada or anywhere overseas for that matter who weighs 85kg, could you easily ride a 154 in deep powder? you would need a bigger board TO SUPPORT YOUR WEIGHT.
    ----------


    fine, yes i have boarded all over canada, NZ, france, italy and australia. yes i have had many powder days, and cause your asking your question i will answer it, i am 87kg (just weighed myself) and 5"9 and in january i spent 10 days in chamonix riding a 156 (fun board i bought for aus conditions). had plenty of fun off piste in the powder, with some good falls on some days , 20-30cm. didnt bog down once, but i know how to ride pow. thought i would, but i definately did NOT need a bigger board. took a normal board (as opposed to powder board) as i wanted to play in the park as well, was a good decision in the end.

    but anyhows read my posts, i said you need a bigger than normal board for powder, your right greater surface area does provide better float, thank you for qualifying what i said from the start. and freeriding does not mean RIDING POWDER, it means riding everything which does include powder, but lets face it, most of the time that means groomers and hard pack, unless caboose is going to spend all his time in japan he is unlikely to be riding much of your "deep powder". why would you suggest he rides a board that is suited to something he is unlikely to be doing (riding deep pow). and he has not once said he wants to ride "deep powder". and lets qualify your deep powder term cause deep powder would have to be what, 30/40cm or more? anything less would be just normal snowfall (well not in oz i spose). how often is he gunna ride that?

    did some googleling for "what length board should i ride". funny, half the sites say use your height and riding style, the others say use manufactuers recommended weight guides. so i did, one from backcountry.com (major US retailer - gets their stats from manufacturers) it said i should be riding a 165 (for freestyle ???) and if i wanted to free ride a 168, and for deep pow a 172. i double checked this with a burton one (that first appeared in 2003) and it said the same just down 1-2cm. for caboose it said he should be riding a 166 length board (all mountain). how about it caboose, sound like the kind of board you wanna ride??

    we all get it shady, bigger board for powder, everybody knows this, but your telling this guy to buy a board that will suit "deep powder" when he obviously doesnt want that. good advice mate.

    [size="1"][ 11.06.2008, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: booter ][/size]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •