Hello and welcome to my Capita Asymulator review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Asymulator as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Asymulator a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
DISCOTINUED BOARD: Note that the 2022 model was the last model of the Asymulator. Which is a shame because I really liked this board. Suffice to say this review has only been updated to the 2022 model.
Overall Rating
Board: Capita Asymulator
Price: $529
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Medium
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5/10)
Rating Score: 89.1/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Out of the 28 men’s all-mountain-freestyle snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Asymulator’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Asymulator’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All-Mountain-Freestyle |
Price: | $529 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | True Twin (Asymmetrical) |
Setback Stance: | Centered |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Really light |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
152 | 250 | 110-150 | 50-68 |
154 | 252 | 120-180 | 54-82 |
156 | 254 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
Who is the Asymulator Most Suited To?
The Asymulatoris great for anyone looking for an asym twin that's light, snappy and super nimble at slow speeds. Something that's playful for the most part, but can handle more aggressive riding when you want to.
Someone looking for a very versatile board, but who doesn't see much deep powder - or has a separate board for deeper powder.
Just a little on the stiff side for beginners, but anyone from low-intermediate can ride this board.
The Asymulator in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Asymulator is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Capita Asymulator 2020, 154cm (252mm waist width)
Date: March 27, 2019
Conditions: Mid firm snow mostly with some softer spots and some harder spots.
Perfect visibility and lots of sun (as I'm sure you can tell from the pic).
Relatively cold for late March but not ultra-cold.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 580mm (22.8″)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 262mm (10.32")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 185lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Vans Aura
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2560 grams (5lb 10oz)
Weight per cm: 16.62 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.45 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of 51 boards that I've weighed in 2019 and 2020 models. The Asymulator was one of the lightest boards I've ridden. And that translated to feel on snow too. It feels light in hand and light when riding.
Powder
I didn't get any to test it in properly, but based on specs and feel, this isn't a board made for powder, IMO. Like any board, it will ride in powder, but it will just be hard work keeping the nose afloat, especially in deeper snow.
If you're just going through small patches, then it's no biggie, you can make the effort, but if you're going to be in waist deep powder regularly, for any length of time, it's going to be fatiguing.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Fun board to carve. Certainly preferred shorter sharper carves but you could really get on the edge and let it ride. Not a bomber carver at high speeds, but decent all the same.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Super fast edge-to-edge when riding slow. Slightly preferred riding slow to fast, but could still handle a bit of speed.
Skids: Easy to skid turns on. Forgiving of skidded turns.
Dynamic or Smooth: Definitely a dynamic turner rather than a smooth one.
Speed
When really opening it out, it felt like it got a little wobbly, but could handle a certain amount of speed well. If I was on the 156 it would likely be better in this area, and perhaps I would go 156 for this board if I were to buy it. Though in saying that, the 154 does still have a good amount of effective edge and is wide enough.
Uneven Terrain
Not ultra damp. You feel the terrain on this board. But it is super nimble for going between bumps.
On crud you could certainly feel it - again not really a damp board - more snappy than damp, but it's an easy board to maneuver - so even though you felt it, it wasn't like horrible in cruddy conditions by any means.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
This board was super fun for jumps of all varieties.
Pop: Plenty of pop and that pop was all really easily accessible. Didn't have to load it up much at all, but you got plenty back for very little effort.
Approach: Nimble but also stable. Probably not ideal for massive jumps where you need a ton of speed, but the approach from anything from small to large is good.
Landing: Solid landings. Again, probably not so much for really massive jumps - but even on the 154, it felt solid enough and had a good landing platform - that would be more so again on the 156 for my specs.
Side-hits: Amazingly fun for side hits. It's poppy, light and super nimble for tricky approaches. Side-hits are one of my favorite things and the Asymulator didn't dissapoint at all.
Small jumps or Big Jumps: Anything from small to large it's good, but the sweet spot for this board is on medium jumps.
Switch
One word - perfection. As good as it gets for riding switch. I really like asym twins for switch riding and the Asymulator is no exception.
Spins
So good for spins. It's light, poppy, agile, great for landing and taking off switch and really easy to get the spin around. Pretty much an ideal spinner.
Jibbing
I'm not that strong a jibber, but I felt confident hitting jibs on this board. Yes there are better jibbing boards around, but for someone who hits them occasionally it's more than capable.
Butters
Nice and buttery. Not the most buttery I've ridden - and with a medium flex, I didn't expect it to be. But slightly more buttery than the average board with this flex, I would say.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
JUMPS | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SWITCH | 5.0 | 10/10 |
JIBBING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CARVING/TURNS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
POWDER | 2.5 | 5/10 |
SPEED | 3.0 | 6/10 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SPINS | 5.0 | 10/10 |
BUTTERING | 4.0 | 4/5 |
PIPE | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 89.1/100 |
Overall the Asymulator is a dynamic feeling, snappy, light poppy, playful jumping, spinning machine - that is pretty versatile outside of powder.
It's predominantly what I would describe as playful, but you could get more aggressive on it, when you wanted to.
I really like Asyms and the Asymulator is one of the better ones, if you're looking for a board with a nimble, snappy feel.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Asymulator, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other all-mountain-freestyle snowboard options, or if you want to see how the Asymulator compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Nate, love the reviews. I am 6’1 225 lbs and currently ride the WestMark Arbor Camber. I like it and hate it all at the same time. I ride in the East coast and it does not care about ice, which I love. With that said, it feels like a plank. It is heavy to me and it does not like to do long carves and butter is a smidge harder than what I want it to be. I am not sure where to go next. I want a really light board with the ability to butter, do side hits, carve well and handle the Ice Coast. I was looking at the Jones UMP and the Huck Knife but do not really know. Your thoughts?
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
The Huck Knife could be a possibility. Decent edge hold in ice and fairly easy to butter. Another Salomon option is the Assassin. Salomon boards tend to be light so you would be good there.
The Jones Ultra Mountain Twin is harder to butter than the Westmark Camber, in my experience, so you’re probably not going to see any improvement in that respect. It is nice and light, but for what you’re describing, the regular Mountain Twin would be the better bet. As good as the Assassin in icy conditions or maybe a little better.
Not particularly light (but not heavy either) the YES Greats would fit what you’re describing well, apart from the lightness, with better icy edge hold than the other 2. The Never Summer Proto Synthesis and Lib Tech TRS would also work well – though again, not particularly light – normal weight.
So yeah, if the weight thing is a must, then I’d be looking at the Assassin or the Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps
Nate, thanks so much!! I am now down to the Yes Standard, Assassin, Yes the Greats… is the Yes brand lighter than the Arbor brands at all? Thanks for your help.
Hi Brian
On average, I would say YES are a touch lighter, but there’s not too much in it. It is somewhat model dependent as well. From around 18 Arbor models I’ve weighed, the average weight per cm was 18.78g/cm. For YES that number is 18.81g.cm (for 21 different models – some repeat models) – so on the scales basically the same when you average it out. However, I find on the scales doesn’t necessarily depict how a board feels on snow. And I find YES boards to feel a little lighter on snow versus Arbor boards, typically. But there’s not as much difference there as there would be for the Assassin or Mountain Twin.
Heya! 54 vs 56 for a 170lbs/ boot 8-8.5 US, resort natural features + groomers + trees freestyle intermediate trying to improve on ‘agility’ and carving and not so much speed (40-45mph is fast). Thank you!
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 154 for your specs and what you’re describing, but if you could also let me know your height to confirm. Weight and boot size are more important but I like to take height into account as well.
Also to note I’ve looked at the Lib Tech Terrain wrecker as well.
For all 3 options I would be looking at 154/156 size
Hi Chris
Thanks for your messages.
Any of those 3 options would work well to compliment the PYL as a more playful option in your quiver and would all suit how you describe you want to ride. However, I would be leaning Greats or Asymulator as their asym twins and the TW is directional twin, The TW will be better for powder, but not as good for switch – and since you already have your PYL for deep days, I think the Greats/Aymulator would be the better compliments. The TW would certainly still work though.
I think I would be the same as you in terms of leaning towards the Asymulator, just to go that little bit more playful – in terms of playfulness, the Greats and Asymulator are pretty close, but I would say the Asymlator is just a touch more playful.
Size-wise, for your specs, for those 3 boards, I would go:
– Greats: 154 – you could even go 151 if you wanted – it’s a board you can ride smaller, but I wouldn’t go 156, given what you want to use it for.
– Asymulator: you could go 156 for this one, but you could also go 154, and I think I’d be leaning 154. The 156 is still going to be considerably more playful than the PYL of course, but I think as part of your quiver the 154 makes the most sense
– TW: Same with this – you could go 157 for sure, but I’d also be leaning 154 as the best compliment to the quiver.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, Nate. My height is 5’11”, weight is 160. What size would you recommend for all-mountain freestyle?
Hi Ilya
Thanks for your message.
Tough choice. Typically probably 156, but with this board you could certainly go 154. But if you could let me know your boot size as well, that would be great.
You are absolutely right. It’s tough choice. I choose between 154 and 156 too. My shoe size is US8.
Hi Ilya
With US8’s I would go 154. It’s going to be on the wide side for 8s, so erring shorter is a good idea, IMO. Definitely 154 now, IMO.
Thank you very much, Nate. I bought it today. I am very happy. your reviews is the best that can be found on the internet. You are the best!
You’re very welcome Ilya. Hope it treats you well. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
I’ve always wanted a Capita and I just purchased this board and would really like to try out the Burton Step Ons with this. I bought the 154. I’m 5’8 175lbs and plan on buying the M Step On bindings with US10 Photons. Any issues with these bindings/boots set up? I plan to use +15/-15. Thanks for all your advice/reviews! They are unbelievably helpful in trying to navigate the endless options!
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
I don’t see any issues with having M step on bindings with Photon Step On boots on the 154 Asymulator. Certainly no compatibility issues there. The bindings and boots should be a good match, IMO.
Hi Nate,
I’ve been riding for 3-4 seasons now and I’m finally pulling the trigger on buying my first board. I’ve gone snowboarding about 20-25 times now and I have gravitated more towards park/freestyle riding. As far as my riding ability goes, I feel very comfortable riding on beginner and intermediate slopes and I can even ride on black diamonds. I’ve learned how to ride switch, ollie, butter and do front and backside 180s. The past 10 times that I went I mainly focused on learning how to do small to medium jumps, side jumps, and hit box jumps. I definitely have enjoyed learning park a lot more than riding all mountain and want to buy a board that is more park oriented but is still capable of riding all mountain when I want to. After doing my research I think I’m going to go with this board and just wanted to get your opinion if this board sounds good for my current riding level and riding style that I want to focus on (freestyle). If you have any other recommendation that would be better suited please let me know. I am 5’11, weigh 155lbs, and wear size 9.5 US normal Vans shoes. I’m still yet to get a snowboard boot but I think I’m going to go with the Adidas Samba ADV size 9 US since they run half a size big according to reviews I’ve seen or Vans HI-Standard Pro size 9.5 US depending on which one feels better for me.
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I think this board would definitely suit what you’re describing. And as long as your a solid intermediate rider, which it sounds like you are, I think you would be fine with this board. There are softer freestyle boards that would be easier for leaning park, but since you’ve already started out there and since you want something that will also ride the rest of the mountain, I think something like this is a really good option.
Size-wise, I would say 154 for this board for your specs as an all-round ride. If you really wanted to have it predominantly park focused and happy to sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed, big carves and float in pow, the 152 could work too. For what you’re describing, combined with your specs, I think the 156 would be too big overall.
Plenty of other options for what you’re describing too, of course, but the Asymulator is a sick board and if you’ve got your eye on it already, no need to complicate things bringing other options in as I think it’s a really good fit for you.
Hope this helps
Yeah I would probably use it for 90% park and 10% all mountain. Thus, I think I would want to go with the 152 but I’m just concerned if my boot size will be fine for the 152. My regular shoe size is 9.5 US and like I had mentioned previously I mainly want to get the Adidas Samba ADV to reduce the footprint and size down to a 9 since it runs half a size bigger. Or if I end up going with the Vans Hi-Standard pro and getting the 9.5 US would I be fine on the 152? Thanks for the response!
Hi David
If you’re riding with +15/-15 angles or similar (and a mirror duck stance is typically recommended for an asym board) I don’t think you’d have an issue with the width of the 152 on either the Samba 9 or Hi Standard Pro 9.5. The width at inserts on the 152 is around 260mm. I’ve never had any issues even with 10s on boards with 260mm, in terms of boot drag. With 9.5s (and Vans are low profile too) or 9s, I can’t see you having any issues width-wise on the 152. Of course there’s never any guarantee, but I’d be confident that width will be good – in fact a very good width for your boot size, IMO.
Hey Nate, would the Union Contact Pro be a good set of bindings to match with this board if I mainly plan on using it for park?
Hi David
Yeah, I think the Contact Pro would work well for this board for the park. Particularly if you’re sizing specifically for the park, with the 152. Will be less suitable if you’re wanting to bomb and carve hard on the mountain, but for playful park riding, I think the Contact Pro should match really well if you go 152 Asymulator. For more check out my recently updated Contact Pro review
Hey
I’m looking at getting 154 or 156.
Any pros and cons for all mountain?
I’m 78kg 1.77cm and size 9.
Would 156 be better for all mountain than 154? Would be doing a few small jumps and mostly cruising but that’s about it.
What do you think?
Thank you
Hi Larry
Thanks for your message.
And I can see your debate here, because it’s a tight call between those two sizes for you, IMO. Typically I would say 156 for sure, given that you’re mostly riding it all-mountain. And I think I’m still leaning 156. I would say you could ride up to 158 for an all-mountain board, so length-wise, the 156 is the more pure choice. However, a couple of things make the 154 doable. Firstly, the Asymulator has quite a lot of effective edge for its length (not much length past the contact points), which means you can ride it a little shorter. The 156 still works in that respect though. The second things is that with size 9 boots, the 156 isn’t too wide, but it’s on the wider end of a good range for you. Sizing down to 154, the width would still be on the wider end of an ideal range, but with the slightly shorter length, it would help to balance out that width.
With all that said, however, I think I would still be leaning 156. I don’t think the 154 would be a wrong choice – as it probably would be for a lot of other all-mountain boards, and if you were riding more freestyle in the mix, then I’d probably lean to 154, but in this case I think 156 is still your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, great site! Looking into buying an Asymulator, trying to decide between the 154 and 156. I’m 6′, ~160 lbs, size 10.5 boot (Burton Kendo), size M binding (also Burton). My current daily driver is a Capita DOA 158, seems like the ideal size for my size and riding style, no complaints/issues. More of an all mountain rider, I ride the park on occasion due to limited terrain (mid Atlantic) but mostly for the jumps. Thanks!
Hi Will
Thanks for your message.
Given your specs and riding style, I would say 156 is the best size for you for this board.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, gonna set this up with some Union Strata’s.
Hi William
This board should work really well with Strata’s IMO. A good match
Hello Nate! Would the Union Stratas pair well with this board? I would use size medium on a 156. If not are there any other bindings that you recommend? Thanks!!
Hi Billy
Thanks for your message.
Strata would be a great match to this board, IMO. And the M would be the right size for the 156 too. I haven’t ridden those 2 together, but having ridden the Strata and the Asymulator separately, I’d say they would be a really good pairing.
Hope this helps
I’m really struggling to decide between the Asymulator and the Mercury. Or The Greats….
I’m 6’1″ 180lbs size 10 boot, been riding for 30 years. Spent 15 years on real camber boards so I don’t understand when people say modern boards are catchy or hooky. Spend most of my time trying to treat the whole mountain as a high speed natural park – need super fast edge to edge transition, love laying trenches, popping off rollers, ripping tight trees, basic butters and doing surf carves on banks and side hits.
Have a solid amount of time on the following over the last few years:
NS Funslinger 159 – daily driver but looking for something more aggressive
NS Proto 161 – brother’s board but like the faster response and pop over the FS
Yes Jackpot 158 – one of the most generic boring boards I’ve ever ridden
Ride Superpig 154 – like the stable feel (but only with the stance shifted all the way back) but way too slow edge to edge and can’t find the pop sweet spot
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
I think all 3 would be appropriate and all would give you something more aggressive than the Funslinger. But I would be leaning Asymulator, largely because you want something quick edge to edge and that is the quickest of the 3 here. The Greats, in my experience is the next quickest edge-to-edge, then the Mercury. If you were riding a lot of powder and quite deep powder, then the Mercury would be more appealing over the other 2, but for what you’re describing, I would be leaning Asymulator.
The only real question mark there is the size. The longest option is the 156. Which I think is doable for you – and will really help in terms of that edge-to-edge speed. But compared to something like the NS Proto 161 it’s not going to feel as stable at speed. For everything else it should be fine though. Particularly in the trees.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate. Figure 156 for the Asym has to be at least a little more stable at high speed than my FS and high speed stability was never my biggest issue with the FS. Even if the Asym just gives me more pop and a harder rebound when doing tight fast turns, that’s a win. If my FS could carve in hard pack as hard as it does when the snow is a little softer, that’s kind of what I want.
This also gets much easier since the Mercury is sold out and there’s a bunch of the Asym 156 available.
Hi Tom
Yeah, I would say it would be subtly more stable at speed, even versus the longer 159 FS. So if that’s not an issue, I think you get away with the 156. 156 is what I would ride in this board, even if there was a longer size available.
Hi! Awesome review!
I’m 6’2 195 lbs and size 11.5.
I have the Adidas Tactical ADV boots and Strata bindings
At 6’2 I definitely ride a wider than average stance
Do you think this board would be too narrow?
Hi Joshua
Thanks for your message.
The 156 is going to be on the small side for you length-wise anyway, but if you like your board smaller or looking to use it as like a more playful freestyle option, then it could certainly work in that length.
In terms of width, I think you could almost get away with it, with a wide stance, given you have the Tactical ADVS. The Tactical ADVs I tested/have with me measure 1.8cm longer than their mondo (which is one of the lowest profile boots going around for sure). In 11.5s, that would mean roughly 31.3cm (313mm) long on the outersole. The width at inserts on the 156 Asymulator is roughly 264mm at reference stance. But going a little wider would give you a bit more width – let’s say roughly 266mm. That would mean total overhang of roughly 4.7cm (or say 2.4cm heel edge and 2.3cm toe edge, depending on how you can center your boots). With your binding angles, if you ride it with something like +15/-15, I would be quite comfortable with that kind of overhang.
However, I’m guessing you have the Large Strata? The Strata has quite a long footbed/baseplate. I haven’t measured the Large Strata but the Medium is longer than any other medium I’ve measured – and longer than a lot of Large too. The Medium measures 26.2cm on the top of the footbed and 24.2cm on the bottom of the baseplate (quite a bit of angle down to the baseplate). With the large I would guess something like 28cm on the top of the footbed and 26cm on the bottom of the baseplate (roughly – based on the difference in size between the medium Force and large Force). It may be slightly different to that, that’s just a guess. So that would be my biggest concern – binding overhang, rather than boot overhang. Since the binding is lower to the snow. You might get away with it, but that would be my biggest worry.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for the indepth response. I truly appreciate the effort and it definitely helps.
How much would you consider too much binding overhang?
Also, would you consider this board worth the risk or hassle trying to make it work? (I am looking for a very nimble, playful type of board. Not trying to be the fastest on the mountain). Because this board seems to be getting RAVE reviews
Hi Joshua
It is a sick board. But it’s not the only sick all-mountain-freestyle board out there. There are other options, if it’s getting too hard to make it work.
Ideally don’t want to have any binding overhang when it comes to the baseplate, or at least as little as possible. The top of the footbed, because it’s higher off the board, can have a little overhang, but I wouldn’t want more than a few millimeters on either edge. If you’re not going to be really railing your carves you could get away with a little more than that.
Hi Nate,
I am very interested in buying the Asymulator. Do you think I would get away with the 156 with my US 11 Burton Driver X since they are number one on your low-profile-boot-list?
Cheers!
Dan
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
Just for clarity, the Driver X are first position in that list because they are the stiffest their, rather than necessarily being the most low profile – that list is in order of flex (3 boots chosen from 4 different flex ranges, and then shown from softest to stiffest), but that said, they, of course, have to be low profile to make the list and have to score highly to make the list too – but just wanted to clarify that being #1 on that list doesn’t make them the lowest profile. But they are Driver X are very low profile. I measured them at just 2.2cm longer on the outersole than their mondoprint, which is one of the more low profile boots going around (I have measured lower but not many) and the fact they have quite a bit of boot bevel on the toe, makes them more low profile too – so they are very low profile.
Anyway! To answer your question.
The Asymulator 156 is likely to be around 264, 265mm at the inserts. With your boots being likely around 31.2cm, that leaves around 4.7cm of total overhang. Let’s say 2.5 heel and 2.2 toe. Those numbers assume o degree angles on one of the bindings, so they will be less if you’re riding something like +15/-15, which is recommended on asym board like the Asymulator. Personally I would be comfortable with that level of overhang, especially with that extra little bit of toe bevel. It’s a close call still – and if you like to get really aggressively low on your carves, then it might still be pushing, but it’s something I would be comfortable riding personally.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for the long answer. My plan would be to set the bindings up at +15 / – 15 since I would like to get the board mainly to improve my switch riding (Twin, Asym). For deep carves I will use my 159 Nitro Dropout (great board, highly recommendable). So yeah I think I will keep my eyes open on black friday and see if I can find a good deal on it. Maybe a last season model or even the Spring Break Twin which should be basically the same board.
Thanks a lot for the feedback and keep rockin!
Dan
You’re very welcome Dan. Yeah Twin Break and Asymulator very similar. Not exact but very similar – and same specs in terms of length/width.
Ah Nate! I forgot. I am using the Union Strata in size Large. I heard it’s the longest Binding from Union. You think this might become a problem when using the 156 Asym?
Best Regards
Daniel
Hi Dan
Yeah, the Strata does have a long base plate. I haven’t measured the large version, but the medium measures around 262mm on the top of the footbed and 242mm on the base of the base plate.
Someone did measure the Union Force Large for me, which was 263mm long, but the medium Force is 245mm long (on top of footbed and bottom of baseplate, there’s no real angle down from the top of the footbed to the bottom of the Baseplate on the Force). If the difference is the same between Medium and Large Strata’s, then the top of the footbed of the Strata L is likely around 280mm and 260mm on the base of the baseplate. But certainly not certain that the difference between the Strata M and Strata L is the same as the difference between the Force M and L. You could measure your Strata to see.
In any case, I think it’s very likely you’ll have some binding overhang on the Asymulator 156. The overhang will be slightly raised off the board, as the baseplate itself should fit on, but it might be pushing it a little with the amount of overhang. You might get away with it, but it’s borderline for sure.
Good Morning Nate,
yeah I think we might pushing it a bit too hard here. Haha. Well let’s see. I have my Dropout as a daily driver/carver and my Mind Expander for powder so this board should really be for improving switch, small mountains/a bit of park. Therefore I am looking for an asym + twin. Found two more which would fit the bill. Gnu Headspace in 152 wide or the YES Greats. As I can see from your review you really like the YES. Do you think the 151 would work here with my Strata L + Driver X US 11?
Cheers!
Dan
Hey Dan
The 151 Greats is wide for a 151, but not going to be massively wider than the 156 Asymulator. I would say around 266-267mm at the inserts. So a little wider there, but not massively so. I would say Greats 154 is a closer equivalent to the 156 Asymulator. And that should be around 270-271mm at the inserts which would give you that little bit more leeway. If you were looking 156 in the Asymulator I would probably look 154 in the Greats.
I haven’t ridden the Headspace, but based on similar GNU boards, the width at inserts isn’t that much more than the waist width – so even though the 152W is a wide, I would suspect the width at inserts is only around 266mm, 267mm, based on other similar GNU boards. Again, gives a little more leeway than the Asymulator 156, but not much. The 155W is a closer equivalent to the 156 Asymulator, IMO – and would give you more around that 270-271mm width at inserts.
If you did want to go for the shorter options, I think you’d be fine boot-wise, but question marks over the binding overhang. Not to say it wouldn’t work, but certainly question marks.
Some other Asym options would be:
– GNU Riders Choice 155W – should be wide enough, likely around that 270, 271mm mark as well
– Never Summer Proto Slinger 154X – a little softer flexing, but if you were OK with that. Not hugely wider than the Asymulator 156 though – around 268mm at inserts I would say
Hi Nate,
cool! Thanks a lot for all the great advice. I spend some more time looking at your other recommendations and when hitting the GNU Website I found the GNU Finest which looks pretty good to me for what I want to do with this board (learning Switch and dome some minor park stuff). Twin, Asym, Soft, Rocker between the feet ( so a little bit more forgiving than camber) and they have it in 155 wide. I think this could be it!
Hi Dan
Yes, I did miss the Finest. Good catch. Definitely an option worth considering. I personally preferred the Rider’s Choice, but definitely an option.
Cool! I think Riders Choice or Finest it is. Depending on the deal I can get. To me they seem very similar. What gives the RC the lead based on your experience?
Hi Dan
I just found the RC a little snappier and livelier feeling over the Finest, which felt a little smoother/damper. I prefer a snappier feeling out of an all-mountain-freestyle board personally, so that was a big part of it. I would say the Finest felt a little stiffer to me too. GNU rates the 157.5 RC at 6/10 and the 157 Finest at 6/10. I felt the Finest at around that 6/10, but the RC more like 5/10. For more detail check out my Finest review and RC review, but yeah that was the biggest thing for me.
Hi Nate,
alright! That makes sense. Thanks a lot for the great advice. I will see what deals Black Friday has to offer and then make a purchase via your aff-links if possible.
All the best
Daniel
You’re very welcome Dan. And thanks for considering the links, much appreciated. Hope you find a good deal and have an awesome season. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
It’s me again!
I was able to ride my new Jones Flagship 162W in a ski hall and from what i can tell it rides really stable at higher speeds (the ski hall is 640 meters long), but it’s not that maneuverable at slower speeds. But that’s what I thought, therefore I’m really happy with my board 🙂
I am thinking about getting a Park board that would complement the flagship. Therefore I do not need any powder performance and it doesn’t have to be that stable at higher speed. Because of that I might also size down.
The Capita Asymulator 154 looks really promising and visually appealing to me, but width might be a real problem even for a park board (US11 with 32cm length).
The Capita DOA 155W would fit by Boot size, but it’s stiffer and a bit all mountain, which might overlap with the flagships purpose?!
What do you think? And do you have any other boards in mind that would complement my flagship?
Thanks for your help! 🙂
Hi Hendrik
Awesome that you’ve had a chance to test it and thanks for the feedback.
Yeah Capita Asymulator might be pushing it width-wise, even if you’re not planning on doing any hard-carving. Hard to say for sure if you get away with it or not, but it’s certainly a riskier prospect. I measured the 154 at 262mm at the inserts. But yeah, I definitely think sizing down for your park board is a really good idea. r
Depending on what you’re looking for, there are lots of options you could take for park boards. If you want something super playful, soft flexing, medium flexing, more aggressive/poppy etc. Depends if you’ll be hitting jibs a lot of mostly jumps etc. I would check out the following for some options. The first list is what I would consider more purely park boards. The next 2 lists are all-mountain-freestyle. The second being more aggressive options.
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
You can also check the score breakdowns in those to get a better idea of strengths and weaknesses and what might suit your purposes the most.
Let me know if you want to bounce any ideas of any of those off me.
Hi Nate,
Thanks I will check them out, even tho I have been looking though these lists already (great work btw).
Do you think I might get away with the Capita Asymulator when I have a ich 15+/15- stance? Maybe the 156 might be better, but it would make it less nimble.
What do you think?
Hi Hendrik
The 156 would give you a little more leeway, but not a lot more. Around 264mm at the inserts. Add a little bit more if you were to ride with a wider stance than I did, which you potentially might, being 6’4? So maybe like 266-267mm. With 32cm length boots, you’re looking at about a 5.4cm total overhang directly across. Reduce that a bit for the 15 degree angles and if you’re not going to be doing any big carves on it, I think you get away with it. Increase your stance width on the 154 and you could be looking at around 5.6cm total overhang, less what you get for the 15 angle. Could also be doable, if you’re not going to be carving too deep. It’s going to be on the narrower side for sure, but I think doable, with those angles assuming you’re not going to be doing hard carves. I think the 156 would work for you size-wise. Certainly the 154 will be a little more nimble, but I don’t think you’d have any problems with the 156 being nimble enough – particularly at that width.
Hi Nate
On the Jones flagship I was riding the Reference Stance (60cm) and it felt natural for me. The asymulator would be my park board, therefore I would have thought about going narrower (maybe 58cm as you did) or should I go wider on my flagship for more stability?
Yeah I’m 6‘4 tall.
Okay, I think I would go with the 156 then, even tho I found the 154 for a cheaper price, but I’m kinda scared of the width.
What binding would you recommend for the width of this board? The union force would be too long I guess. Might the Union Contact Pro work for that? They are also a bit softer which might add to the park setup.
Also, will there be a Review of the „Capita the equalizer“ anytime soon? Maybe there is hope for my girlfriend as she might switch from skiing to snowboarding.
Hi Hendrik
If you feel comfortable on the reference stance on the Flagship, I would say to stick with that. But then again, there’s no harm in experimenting to see what you like. I actually typically prefer a slightly wider stance for my freestyle oriented boards versus freeride boards. But you could certainly go a little narrower, if that’s what you’re comfortable with.
In terms of bindings, the Force may fit on the 156 – but it’s pushing it. The last Contact Pro Medium that I tested was 23.5cm (on the underside of the baseplate). Assuming a similar difference between M and L, I would suspect that the L is roughly 25.5cm. But someone did send me a measurement of the L once and said it was 26cm. Can’t vouch for their accuracy though. So you’ll probably be alright size-wise with the Contact Pro. Certainly if you’re looking for something softer, then that would work, I think (4/10 flex by my feel for the Contact Pro). The Strata would be a really good match – but definitely going to be too long in the L. Certainly others from other brands you could look at too, if you wanted to go a little stiffer and get a good fit with the L. But if you wanted to go softer I think the Contact Pro would work (making assumptions about the baseplate length).
Yes, convert her! Lol
Don’t have a review for the Equalizer coming out anytime soon. But for some reference, the Equalizer is kind of like a softer flexing version of the Capita Black Snowboard of Death. Not exactly, but quite similar.
Hi Nate,
It’s a hard decision, but I guess I’ll go for the Capita DOA 155W which is also listed in one of your top 10 lists.
Now I’m curious whether I could use my Union Force bindings (stiffness 6/10) for both boards. Or should I go with something stiffer for my Jones Flagship and something softer for my „park DOA“?
The Flagship will be my main board, so I’m willing to spend more on that board, but I would like to keep it as cheap as possible.
Do you have two bindings in mind that wouldn’t cost too much? If not I’ll go and research some more.
Thanks, we‘ll see if we can catch the equalizer for a good price on Black Friday!
Regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
For the DOA, I think the Force would be a really good match. Ideally a little stiffer for the Flagship. I think you’d get away with the Force on the Flagship, but ideally something a little stiffer. Something from one of the following would work well, IMO:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
In terms of price, going stiffer does mean more expensive too, unfortunately – it’s the case with boards, bindings and boots. Stiffer = more dollars. But of those in those lists, the least expensive option is the Arbor Cypress. After that it’s the Flux XF. You could also look into the Cartel X. I haven’t ridden it yet, but on paper, it looks like it would be a good match to the Flagship and cheaper than some of the others on those lists.
Another cheaper option that’s not on the lists is the Flux CO. It’s not something I’ve ridden yet, so I can’t vouch for them or how stiff they are in reality, but on paper they would be suitable, at least in terms of flex.
Actually on that second list, there’s nothing under $400, so if you’re looking to keep it as cheap as possible, then yeah I’d look at the Flux XF (or potentially CO), the Arbor Cypress and the Burton Cartel X.
Hi Nate,
Thanks! I will look into them all.
The Union Force bindings have a Rating of of 6/10.
All of the bindings from the „Top 5 All-Mountain Freeride“-list have a flex rating 7/10. Do you think the 1 point difference will make a noticeable difference while riding?
That’s good to hear, that I can keep my Union force bindings for the DOA, even tho I’m a little afraid of them being too hard for freestyle.
Regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
Personally I notice the difference. But I do ride a lot of different bindings each year and I’m paying attention to how they feel and the differences between them. I wouldn’t say it’s going to be a difference that knocks your socks off, but still a subtly noticeable difference.
Hey Nate,
Thanks again for your answer!
So I am deciding between the following bindings:
1. Rome Targa (225€)
2. Union Falcor (210€)
3. Ride Capo (160€)
4. Salomon Quantum (290€)
I have only heard positive things about the Rome Targa, but you seem to have no review on them. Did you test them out? They are kinda ugly tho.
You praised the Union Falcor and I like my force, but they are not so stiff.
The Ride Capo is not so expensive, but weren’t so pleased with them in your review.
And I don’t know what to think about the shadowfit technology of the Salomon Quantum, some people seems to actually hate that.
What Bindung would your recommend of those? I tend to go with the Rome Targa at the Moment.
Hi Hendrik
I haven’t tested the Rome Targa unfortunately. Don’t currently test any Rome gear.
The biggest thing I disliked about the Capo was that they just didn’t let you feel the board. Made the board feel a bit dead. Like an unbending plank. I really like good board feel and that was the biggest thing I disliked about them.
I really like Salomon bindings typically and I really like the Quantum, personally.
Big fan of the Falcor – and bought a pair of my own. Certainly stiffer than the Force, but they’re certainly not oppressively stiff, IMO. And great board feel.
With the Falcor at that price, that’s what I would personally go with, but like I say I haven’t tested the Targa, so they could certainly work too.
Hi Nate,
Thanks again!
The Union Falcor cost 225€ now, but that’s still decent I think.
One last thing:
What do you think about the Ride C-10 for 279€? I know you didn’t test them yet, but should I take the risk or should I just go with the Falcor or Targas?
Hi Hendrik
Sounds like a decent price, but having not tested them, I have no idea how they perform. The other thing is that the C-10 are their stiffest in their range. Supposed to be 10/10 flex, so super stiff. Not sure how stiff they are in reality, but they might feel too stiff for you. I get the impression you still don’t want to go ultra stiff, right?
Hi Nate!
I could get them now for 259€, even better. But I’m kinda, because tere are not reviews out yet.
I don’t know about the stiffness. I haven’t rode stiffer bindings than 6/10 yet, so I’m kinda clueless about what binding flex would fit perfectly to the flagship.
But a 10 flex would at least be a huge difference to Union Force, so a second binding would make more sense to me.
Do you think 10 would be too much?
What disadvantages would I get when it’s too stiff?
Hi Hendrik
No doubt that is a good price for bindings that stiff. Typically stiffer bindings are more expensive and that’s good value for sure, if you were looking for something that stiff. But it’s a question of whether you would like something that stiff or not. Could certainly work with a board like the Flagship, but personally I would go with something more 7/10 to 8/10 flex. But without having tried the new Ride bindings I have no idea how they feel. They could feel more like an 8. That said, I would ride something like a Union Atlas FC or a Flux XV (which I rate at like 9/10 flex) on the Flagship. But those bindings also have decent board feel, which I really value. The Ride bindings I’ve ridden in the past haven’t had great board feel, but again, I haven’t ridden their new ones, so that could have changed.
Some disadvantages of being too stiff, is that it can affect maneuverability at slower speeds and often less comfortable, though not necessarily. Some pros are they’re typically really good when you’re really bombing hard and laying into big carves at speed.
Certainly for bigger guys who are putting a good amount of force into those bindings, just with the extra weight, stiffer bindings are a good idea – and in reality those bindings don’t feel as stiff to them as they would a lighter guy – but I would be hesitant to go too stiff for lighter riders.
Hi Nate,
The Ride C-series is supposed to be a little less stiff than the A-series.
Therefore I hope that the binding will be around 8 or 9 flex.
Yeah, I have read that you didn’t like the board feel on the Ride bindings, but it seems like they really tried to fix this issue.
I think I’ll try my luck and buy these. My intention is to really bomb with my skiier friends. The Capita DOA will be my board for lower speed. Also, would you go for 155W or 157W. I will mainly use it for park, but sometimes I’ll go all mountain with it. (I’m 175lbs and 6’5)
Hi Hendrik
Let me know how you get on with the C-10. I’m hoping to get on some of their new bindings this winter, but would love to hear your take on them too.
I think both the 155W and 157W would work, but given that you would be using it predominantly for park and you already have another board in a bigger size for bombing etc, then I would lean towards the 155W.
Hi Nate!
I wasn’t able to try out the new Ride C-10, but I will send them back and buy other bindings (thinking about the Union Falcor or Flux XV).
There are different reasons to that. First one of the ankle straps seem to be 0,5mm too wide and they do not fit properly, but I would get them replaced tho. But the plastic discs are wiggling a bit, the toe strap doesn’t tighten properly till the and and the highback feels kinda cheap compared to Unions quality. Overall the build quality doesn’t feel that great. Additionally I have read that the ankle strap isn’t that supportive which results in less response.
That’s kind of a bummer, but that gives me an excuse to wait for the Black Friday sale…
I am excited to see you opinion on these, but for me they didn’t feel ride even tho I didn’t ride them.
Kind Regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
Thanks for your insight. Very interesting and really appreciate your input.
I have a pair of the C-6 on their way. Will see how they go.
yeah the asymulator definitely a bit stiffer, i would say it is is what capita says at 6.5. greats id say is about 5.5 same with the 156 i used to own.
Asymultaor 156 1235 effective is quite long even for bigger boards. i prefer the stability of the camber profile and the sidecut of the asymulator but the specs of the 154 greats is more my size. must try the 154 asymulator as it could be better for my weight but honestly the 156 is a blast. i can still press it it just takes a bit of muscle.
next up salomon dancehaul which sounds pretty awesome too
Thanks Tim. That’s some awesome info and great to hear your experience and insights with those boards.
Hi Nate,
I’m interested in the Capita Asymulator but I can’t decide which size to get – I’m 5’9.5″, 72 kg, UK shoe size 10, looking at mixing park with a bit of all mountain.
Can you advise me whether I should go for the 52 or 54? It looks like it has a pretty long effective edge from the stats so wondering if i should downsize to the 52. However I’m running US10.5 Adidas Tactical ADV boots, which albeit do have a reduced footprint, but still I worry about booting out on a 52.. any advice welcome!!
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Whilst the Asymulator does have that longer effective edge, I still think the 154 is better for your specs, even if you’re going to be in the park more than the mountain. Even just on length alone, I would say 154.
In terms of width, I would say that none of them would be suitable with a typical UK10, but given that you’re in a 10.5 ADV, I think the 154 should be fine width-wise. Even though there’s not a huge difference in width between the 152 and 154, the 154 does give you that little bit of leeway in terms of width over the 152. Though I think that’s just a bonus in this case, as I think the 154 is the better length regardless.
Hope this helps
Thanks man, I’ll go with the 54. Keep up the good work!
You’re very welcome Alex. Happy riding (when you get a chance!)
Hey Nate (and Alex),
Firstly, thanks for the review, Nate. It was both your’s and Angry Snowboarder’s review that convinced me to get the Asymulator as my next all-mountain (picked it up on sale too!)
I usually ride a 156, and I’m the same weight, height, and 10.5 boot size as Alex. After learning about the longer effective edge I ended up picking up the 154 instead.
Felt a bit uneasy getting a smaller board size at first but it sounds like it was the right option.
Hi Adam
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think the 156 would have necessarily been wrong for you, but I think the 154 is probably the best length for you for this board. As you have mentioned – that extra effective edge versus overall length allows you to ride this one shorter. The only thing would be width, with 10.5s. Assuming you’re going to ride with +15/-15 binding angles or similar (duck stance recommended for an asym board anyway) and you’re 10.5s aren’t too bulky, I think you’ll be alright though. What’s the brand/model of your boots?
Thanks Nate, that’s really helpful info, I actually didn’t know about the duck angle for asyms…
A 155-157 board worked out to be the optimal length for my specs, but since I ride Australian resorts, some shops here have suggested downsizing even further (ie. anything above 151). And as I mentioned, a few YouTubers seem to say the same thing about the length of this board.
The bindings are where I got caught out. I bought a new pair of Burton Step Ons to go with the board, and those bindings are larger than your average binding. Originally I bought the size US 11 boot, which come with large bindings, but I’ve never owned size 11 in anything! I’m going to swap them if possible for 10.5 boots that come with medium bindings, which should hopefully resolve some of my concern there.
My current 156 is narrower than this board and can comfortably cater for my 10.5’s so I’m optimistic!
Hi Adam
Yeah, if you’re typically 155-157, then I think 154 is good for this board – and if you’re riding smaller resorts, then going shorter is often a good idea, if you’re not really ever opening out and bombing for any prolonged periods.
In terms of width, if your 156 is narrower and you’ve never had issues there, then that’s a good indication you should be good width-wise.
Hi Nate,
This is the preferred choice for this season here in NZ, just about the specs, your right it’s quite long effective edge for the size. Do you think I should be looking at the 154 or 156? Width wise I’m thinking I need a 156 with my 10.5us tacticals?
I’m 6ft 170lbs
Cheers nate
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156 would be your best bet, both for length and width. With Tactical ADVs you would probably get away with the 154 width-wise, but the 156 gives you a bit more leeway – and it’s the better length anyway, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
thanks nate, hopefully there will be a demo available this season before i buy. most likely go 156 but if a 154 is ok i might go that. .
Many thanks nate, hope you enjoying the season
You’re very welcome Tim. Hope you can find one to demo and have a great season when it starts for you!
hi nate, just had a day on the 156 2021. awesome board. def my fave of the asyms. better than my greats 54 imo. i probaly could have gone 54 but the 56 is still pretty nimble and i get a lil extra width. def a bit stiffer than i thought it would be but not crazy. stiff between feet, lil softer on the tips. Best carving twin, awesome on jumps and rails. great edge hold. just gotta press a bit harder for the butters.best asym sidecut. hope they do a 154 wide next year
Hi Tim
Thanks for the feedback – always good to hear.
Did you find it stiffer than the Greats? I found them both fairly similar overall, with the Greats just a hair stiffer, but sounds like maybe you found it the other way around? Though I did have the Asymulator 154 vs Greats 156, and you’re the other way around, so that would definitely make a difference to flex feel and feel for buttering.