Hello and welcome to my GNU Hyper review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Hyper as a mellow freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Hyper a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other mellow freeride snowboards.
Note: From The 2022 model this board was renamed Hyper from Hyperkyarve but it's otherwise the same board, apart from the graphic.
Overall Rating
Board: GNU Hyper
Price: $629
Style: Mellow freeride
Flex Rating: Medium-Firm
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 86.5/100
Compared to other Men’s Mellow Freeride Boards
Out of the 33 men’s mellow freeride snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Hyper’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Hyper’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Mellow Freeride |
Price: | $629 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Rocker - GNU's "C2X" |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 38cm (1.5") |
Base: | Sintered Knife Cut |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
151 | 247 | 120+ | 54+ |
154 | 250 | 125+ | 57+ |
157 | 253 | 130+ | 59+ |
160 | 256 | 140+ | 64+ |
159W | 267 | 140+ | 64+ |
Who is the Hyper Most Suited To?
The Hyper is best suited to those looking for a surfier, slightly looser, slightly softer flex feeling freeride board. Those who ride directional, like to explore some off-groomer as well as on groomer - or small sidecountry/backcountry missions, but want something that is more easy going to ride than the typical stiff freeride board.
Not for beginners, but not far off. Low intermediate riders looking to explore new terrain would be fine on this board and anyone advanced that wants a surfier feeling/more easy going freeride option.
The Hyper in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Hyper is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: GNU Hyperkyarve 2021, 157cm (253mm waist width)
Date: February 20, 2020
Conditions: Beautiful sunny day with perfect visibility. Almost too hot!
Off groomer quite crunchy and icy and the steep run I test on was quite crunchy too, but on groomer was really nice - hard packed underneath but with some soft on top.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 555mm (21.9″)
Stance Setback: Setback 38mm (1.5")
Width at Inserts: 260mm (10.2") at front insert and 261mm (10.3") at back insert
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Salomon Lo-Fi
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2840 grams (6lb 4oz)
Weight per cm: 18.09 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of around 80 boards that I've weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. So just a little lighter than average, but pretty close to average.
Flex
Listed as medium-firm, but I got a very medium flex feel from it.
Damp or Chattery?
It's not super chattery but it's not ultra damp either. Right in the middle.
Smooth or Snappy?
Slightly more snappy than smooth, but close to middle of scale.
Powder
Didn't have any to test it on, but I would say it would be a fun ride on powder - surfy/slashy.
The specs suggest as much as well - good bit of rocker, some subtle taper and a good amount of setback on both effective edge and on the overall length of the board.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Not an epic carver, could feel it wanting to let go at points, but can still definitely lay out a carve on it.
Turning: Really fun board to turn on. And initiation of turns is fast and easy.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Nice and agile at slow speeds. Helps to make this a really fun baord in the trees.
Skidded Turns: Quite forgiving of skidded turns. Not quite beginner easy, but not far off.
Speed
Not an out and out bomber, but OK at speed. Can get a fair bit of speed before it starts to get that shaky feeling.
Uneven Terrain
You can get bounced around a little in crud compared to some boards that crush through it more, but it's not bad. And it's nice and agile for going between bumpy terrain and feels good going over top of bumps too. A fun board in trees for sure.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Better for jumps than I was expecting and better than most freeride boards.
Pop: Not ultra poppy, but there's enough there, and it's nice and easy to access.
Approach: Could get a little squirelly on faster approaches but nice and agile for trickier setups
Landing: Not a stomper but solid enough - and really forgiving of sketchy landings.
Side-hits: Really fun - nice and nimble for trickier approaches, and decent/easy pop.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Small to medium is best. Landing and approach not as suited to large
Switch
Not ideal but doable for sure, and not super weird.
Spins
Quite easy to get spin around. Landing and taking off switch not ideal but otherwise pretty good
Butters
Quite nice/easy to butter with. Different feeling off nose and tail, but otherwise quite buttery.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 24/30 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 12/15 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SPEED | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 86.5/100 |
Overall, the Hyper is a great option for those looking for an easy going, surfier freeride option. Someone who wants more of an all-mountain feel in terms of flex and a slightly looser feel overall, but still want something that's quite directional and something that's nice and agile and easy edge-to-edge for tighter areas/in trees.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Hyper, 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 freeride snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Hyper compares to other freeride snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hey Nate
What size would be better for me for an all mountain ride 157 or 154 l’m a size US 9 to 8.5 boot, 156 lbs and 6ft
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message. It’s a close call.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157. With US9 or 8.5 boots, there is some argument that you could size down a little bit, but the board isn’t super wide for that foot size or anything, so it would only be a little bit. So I don’t think the 157 is anything overly big for you or anything. At the same time, I don’t think the 154 is too small either. It’s within range. So, I think think it comes down to your style of riding. If you can give me more details about how you like to ride, that would really help.
Anything about your ability level and riding style – e.g. trees? powder? do you ride faster, more aggressive, or slower and like things more playful? Would you be using the board for anything freestyle, e.g. buttering, side hits, rails etc?
Hope this helps
friend first I want to congratulate you for your review
well I have a big doubt and I think you can help me
I’m 5’9 and 165 lb. I’m very concerned about buying the gnu hyper 157 or 154, I rode my last seasons of jones explorer 156 and it was perfect. Note: I always carry my airbag and probe, so I easily gain about 5 kg more of the backpack
I thought about a stratos 156 or gnu 157 hyper, which would you recommend more, I’m a rider who always likes to explore the backcountry, I have my jones mountain twin 157 splitboard too
and for the resort powder what do you recommend, I like to walk in tight trees too and a little swith
good and what binding do you recommend , I used a ds fux for years and they are lovely and light with the explorer
I look forward to your great feedback.
thank you very much
yours sincerely krish
Hey Krish
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157 in the Hyper is the most pure size for your specs – though if you could also let me know your boot size, that would help to make a better recommendation. The 154 is certainly not out of range, and if you’re looking for more maneuverability in trees, then that’s certainly an option. But yeah, if you could let me know your boot size, that will help.
Between the Stratos and the Hyper, I would be leaning Hyper if you’re going to be riding a lot of trees. It’s a more nimble board in there. The Stratos is harder work for tight, quick turns. But if you are looking for something stiffer and more stable than Explorer, then the Stratos is that. Note too that the Hyper will have a looser feel to it versus the Explorer and Mountain Twin, just to keep in mind. But based on what you’re describing, I think the Hyper would work well for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
thanks my friend I wear ion burton 9 boots, which binding do you recommend for hyper
I found a super promotion from hyper but I’m afraid I won’t like it, when you say it feels looser, how would I feel about it? does it not drive and will not give me security on big steep descents?
I love how the Explorer gives me confidence in vertical terrain
thank you friend
Hey Krish
I would say the 157 is your best bet with 9s. You could go 154, but if you’re worried about stability on steeps, then I’d be leaning 157. The looser feel is nice for slashing turns and quick edge-to-edge in tight trees, but yeah, will feel a little more wobbly at speed and edges won’t dig in as well on big carves. The Hyper isn’t bad in those areas, given how surfy you can get it to feel, but it’s not super stable when really opening out for speed or railing carves.
Bindings-wise, I’d be looking at something in that 5/10 to 7/10 flex range, ideally 6/10 to 7/10. For some good options check out:
>>Our Top 5 All-Mountain Bindings
>>Our Top 5 All-Mountain Freeride Bindings
I have 4 bindings in mind and see what you think
flux ds, flux xf, union falcor and union atlas
How could I reduce this feeling of lack of edge on my board a little?
I’m a rider who likes to rely on the edge of the board
but I’m a surfer too so I have more open and clean lines
thank you friend
or some Jones binding
what do you think?
Hi Krish
The DS would work, but I would be leaning towards one of the other 3, to give you a little more drive. If you’re not too concerned about shock absorption and want to maximize turning/carving, then I’d be leaning Flux XF. But the Falcor and Atlas would also be good choices. You could go with a Jones binding. The Orion or the Mercury would work well, IMO. Or the NOW Drive or NOW Select Pro. NOW and Jones bindings are very similar.
Hello good morning friend, thanks for the explanations about the board choices
Well, I have another question in mind, it’s for a friend who is very similar to me in weight and height and type of ride, but he also likes to play in the mountains but our focus is big lines and powder
He is thinking about buying the capita twin spring break, do you happen to know the board so you can give him a feed back?
I’m waiting kindly
krish
Hi Krish
Do you mean the Spring Break Powder Twin or the Spring Break Resort Twin (which is new for 2024)?
You can check out our review of the Powder Twin here. And I got on the Resort Twin over the winter too. The review for that is due to come out October 5th.
Hey Nate,
Hoping you can help me with a sizing decision. I’m a PNW rider spending lots of time at baker, crystal, and bachelor. Demo’d this board at baker and thought it was extremely fun, love the playfulness and think it would be great to send off of the heavy powder pillows and natural features we get out here. I’m trying to move up from my 9 year old 155cm ride machete rocker “old faithful” into a board that’s responsive and fun in pow. Will probably get a merc or some new quiver killer next year as old faithful has seen better days (and I need more camber).
That said, I plan on using this board on good condition days for sending side hits and doing some of the hike to terrain off lifts at crystal and baker. As a 5’9″ 160lb rider with size 8.5 boots, do you have any recommendation between size 154 and 157? Or is it just 3cm and I’m agonizing over the decision too much? 😅
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
3cm can make a pretty big difference, so it’s worth thinking about, IMO.
I would put your “standard all-mountain size” at around 157, but given your boot size, I would typically size down a bit from that, so I’d usually be leaning 154. However, if you wanted to get the extra powder float of the bigger size, the 157 could work best. Often size up a little for a freeride board. But ultimately, I think it depends if you’re in trees a lot or generally in more open terrain. If in trees a lot, I would go 154.
Hope this helps with your decision
Really cool review and your about my size so wondering if I should do the 157 as well or the 160. I’m 6ft 170lbs and a 10.5 boot with a +21 front and -9 binding angles. I learned on a setback 159w freeride board but it was always hard for me to control (it’s really fast and just above my ability and wears me out) so I switched recently to a 157.5 riders choice and it’s been a lot better for me but curious if I should have stayed with setback since I don’t do park. However it has been fun to spin around on and is way easier in the trees so thinking to start practicing switch on it in more spring packed snow (which was basically impossible on the old board). So as an add on to the RC but for days with deeper snow or I just want to surf on the rear foot should I go 157 or 160? GNU rep is recommending 160 but says I can go either way but then I see your my height and heavier and did 157. I’m just afraid of it getting away from me again and hard to manage in trees yet I also want it to be more my powder days board. Such a tough call.
He Jesse
Definitely seeing your dilemma here, as it is a close call. The 160 would give you better float in powder, but the 157 is going to be better in trees. If you weren’t riding that many trees, I would be leaning 160. The 160 would probably be the more “pure” size for my specs, but I do prefer to err a little shorter, so the 157 was my preferred choice. I also like to ride trees a lot, so that’s a big factor in my decision.
The 157 will still be better in powder than your 157.5 Rider’s Choice (RC) for sure, so you will get better powder performance regardless. And the 160 will likely, given that your freeride board was 159W, be better in trees. Without knowing anything else about your freeride board, it’s hard to say how much better. I found the Hyper to be nice and quick edge to edge, so I would imagine it would be better in trees than your old freeride board – but again hard to say without knowing what it was.
One other thing that should be mentioned, is that the 157 Hyper is on the narrower side for 10.5s, IMO. That said, it’s not a lot narrower than your RC (261mm at the back insert vs 263mm on the RC, assuming a roughly 22″ stance width). So, if you haven’t had any boot drag issues on that, then you’re unlikely to on the 157 Hyper either.
Assuming width is going to be OK, I would be weighing up between whether you want to favor quicker edge-to-edge or better float in powder, keeping in mind that even going 157 will be better than your RC in powder and going 160 is still likely to be more maneuverable than your previous 159W freeride board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the reply. I think I am going to go for the 160 after taking to the GNU rep some more they made a pretty good point that the tail length largely effects how fast the turning is and since the hyper is setback like my original freeride board but not a wide or camber I’ll still have the faster edge to edge and most of my length gain vs the RC will be in the nose so that will help float but still handle. My old board was a 2006 Salomon patrol so it was classic camber and stiff so it took a long time to learn on and is not a forgiving board but it had a ton of energy. I think my RC (2016 aspen edition) is a little narrower than the current but not by much and I don’t do huge euro carvs so the quicker edge to edge is more important to me.
Hi Jesse
Sound reasoning. 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.
Hi Nate!
I am 5’5 160lbs with size 10 boots. I am thinking 157 w/ it’s waist width would be good but I wanted your opinion as to whether I should size down to a 154. Also how did you find this magnetraction? Was it too grippy in softer snow?
Thanks!
Hi Stephen
Thanks for your message.
Typically I would say 154 for your specs. But it is borderline width-wise for 10s, IMO. And from a previous message, it sounds like you’re used to riding more traditional camber boards in 158 – and this board will feel shorter than a full camber board, so with that in mind, I would be leaning 157 for this one.
I found the magnetraction pretty subtle on the Hyper. I didn’t get it in overly soft conditions, but I don’t think it would be too grippy in softer snow.
Hope this helps
Thanks!
Hi Nate, thank you for building such a treasure of information.
I’m a low-mid intermediate, directional resort rider, primarily cruise groomers with occasional trees. Not looking for max speed, want a one-quiver board that turns well and can handle most conditions at leisurely pace.
It seems like the Gnu Hyper is the best fit (any other boards you’d recommend?)
I’m torn between the 154 and 157, my body size would suggest longer but boot size suggests shorter. Is it a situation of “can’t go wrong” or should I size down?
5’10”, 165lb, 8.5 step on Photon
Hi AC
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 157/158. The board is on the wide side for your boots – but it’s not a super wide board, so I wouldn’t say the 157 is wrong. But I would be leaning 154, partly because of your boot size and partly because you’re not looking to ride super fast and you’re riding trees occasionally. Again, the 157 wouldn’t be wrong, but I’d be leaning 154 in this particular case.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate – Loving your site!
The Hyper is on my short list for a Powder focused all over the mountain exploration board.
I am 5’10” 175 lbs (with no gear) and using a size 9.5 Lasso Pro or a size 10 Photon Step on boot.
Pretty much lower to middle intermediate skills. I am not into bombing, but exploring and surfing the groomers and especially in between the groomers (gullys and trees).
I am thinking about the 157 or 160. The waist width numbers have me leaning towards the 160. But I do not want to be dragged around the mountain by a board that may be too long…
Is the 160 overkill or just right?
Also I have a 156 Neversummer Harpoon – are these boards too similar?
THANKS!
Hi Matty
Thanks for your message.
Depending on your binding angles and how deep you like to carve, you may or may not be good on the 157 width wise. I had no issues with it, but I was riding with +15/-15 angles, which helps. The 157 is around 261mm at the back insert, which is typically good for 10s (and 9.5s). Since you have low profile 10s, I think either would work. But if you were riding a flat back binding angle (i.e. around 0-3 degrees) and like to carve deep, then it could be pushing it. I wouldn’t say the 160 is massive for you either. It’s on the bigger side, but it’s not out of range. I would put your “standard all-mountain” length at around 158/159, so I think you’d be OK on the 160, if you wanted to size-up a little.
The Harpoon and Hyper certainly have their own personalities, but in terms of the type of board, they are fairly similar. The Harpoon being a more volume shifted option. There are enough differences, but probably not 2 boards I’d have in the same quiver, to be honest.
Hope this helps
Thank you. Nate. I am very interested in the Hyper. I may purchase the 160 just to be certain of limiting toe drag in deeper snow. I would love the 157, but I am sure the 160 will be manageable.
So I was sick and missed all of last season. I still have not ridden the Harpoon.
Can you give me your opinions and details of how these boards ride and what their strengths are, compared to one another (Hyper and Harpoon). I may go with the Hyper and dump the Harpoon….
Thank you!
Hey Matty
These would be the main differences between Hyper and Harpoon, IMO:
– Shape-wise, they are quite different with the Harpoon being volume shifted (short/wide) – which gives a different feel off the bat. e.g. Harpoon at 156 vs Hyper 157 – Harpoon waist is 9mm wider, tail 8mm wider and nose 17mm wider. i.e. significantly wider overall. Size-wise, the 160 Hyper is a closer equivalent to the 156 Harpoon than the 157 is. In fact at a guess, if you ride them one after the other, I would say the Harpoon would feel a little bigger in the 156 vs the 160 Hyper
– The Harpoon has more taper (13mm) than the Hyper (5mm)
– I would say their flex is very similar, with the Harpoon being marginally stiffer, but I did ride the Harpoon in 156 and the Hyper in 157 – so being on the overall smaller Hyper, would have made it feel softer – so I’d say they’re a very similar flex
– Both have a looser, surfier feel to them, but I’d say the Hyper just a little more so overall than the Harpoon
– I found the Hyper easier to turn – again sizing may have influenced that somewhat, but even in the 160 Hyper, I think it would have been easier to turn than the 156 Harpoon
– Harpoon going to be better in powder overall. Just has the specs as a more powder oriented board. And I did get some powder to test the Harpoon in and it was really good. Didn’t test the Hyper in powder, but based on specs, it should be really decent, but not quite as suited to it as the Harpoon.
– I preferred the Hyper for jumps
– For trees, I would take the Hyper over the Harpoon, if there was no powder, but probably take the Harpoon over the Hyper on a powder day in the trees
– Pretty similar for speed and carving, IMO
Hi Nate,
I’m an intermediate snowboarder looking to buy my first board. I was looking into all mountain boards as I’m not sure yet what style of riding I’d prefer (freeride vs freestyle) though I think I’d probably spend most of my time outside the park. I spend most of my time riding in PNW conditions and enjoy exploring tree runs, twisting and turning around moguls, and trying to explore untouched terrain. I’m also looking forward to learning some simple tricks to try out.
My stats are 6ft, 175lbs, size 9 ride lassos. I don’t quite know what binding angle i’d like best and will likely be playing around with them next season.
I’ve been looking at a few of the snowboards from the 21/22 season that are available on sale right now and have two options for used demo boards ($300 for a 159 gnu essential service 2022 and $385 for 160 gnu hyper 2022) I liked that you mentioned the gnu hyper was pretty easy to turn which would be useful for the trees / moguls / emergencies. How would you advise me to pick between the two boards? I’m leaning towards the gnu hyper as a lighter and more fun / playful board that also has easier to access pop which might help me learn some tricks too but am unsure about the larger size.
Are there other suggestions that I should check out? The Season kin snowboard 2023 really caught my eye due to the yearly tune ups that they give and the discounted price i could get it for at $375 but there haven’t been many reviews of it so i was hesitant to go for such a board. The Jones mt twin and capita doa seem like popular options too but they’re sold out. I was also looking at things from Burton / Ride since they have huge sales at the moment. Briefly looked at the Burton flying V (process and custom, though custom only came in 162) and Ride zero.
Hi A
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would be leaning towards the Hyper, between that and the Essential Service. However, ideally it would be in a 157, IMO, given your specs, level and how you describe your riding. 160 isn’t way off or anything – it’s close, but just marginally too big, IMO.
I don’t test Season boards, so don’t say anything about the Kin, unfortunately.
Process Flying V could work. It’s an easy turner for sure. It’s a looser feeling board, like the Hyper Kyarve, but too even more of an extent I would say. But it’s also softer, so it’s even more playful. A little wobblier at speed versus the Hyper and not great for icy conditions. But a quick turner, good for jumps, particularly smaller jumps and better for riding switch. Decent for powder, but not as good as the Hyper. It’s more of a freestyle focused ride.
Custom Flying V is similar but stiffer – more like the Hyper in terms of flex – which makes it a bit better for speed and carving. But 162, IMO, would be too big for what you want.
I haven’t ridden the Zero – but I rode it’s predecessor, the Machete, and it was fine, but I wasn’t a huge fan. I think the Ride Wild Life would suit what you’re describing well – a really good intermediate, easy turning board, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the detailed response! I looked high and low for a GNU hyper that’s in 157 but unfortunately couldn’t find any that weren’t at full price. I did take a look at the wildlife and the process flying v.
To help make my decision, I want to understand how big a difference a 157 and 160 board would make. I read in some of your other posts that the difference shows itself in the effective edge and the sidecut radius. Now while I see a huge difference in the effective edge between the gnu hyper 157 and the gnu hyper 160, I was a little surprised to notice that the gnu hyper 160’s effective edge was lesser than both the wildlife 157’s and the process flying v 157’s. (1170 for gnu vs 1200+ for the other two). The sidecut radius though was 8.3 for the gnu vs 8.2 for the other two which was expected. Would the hyper 160 handle similarly to the wildlife 157 perhaps? Or is the sidecut more important than the effective edge? The reason I ask instead of simply buying the wildlife (great board btw, thanks for the suggestion!), I liked that the hyper would allow me to ride switch better than the wildlife. Not that it’s a crucial aspect, but as someone who would like to improve in all aspects of snowboarding, it may be nice to have.
Thanks,
A
Hi A
GNU (and Lib Tech) don’t publish effective edge, unfortunately. To make matters worse a lot of retailers publish their contact length (which they do publish) as if it’s their effective edge. Contact length and effective edge are two different things. It’s hard to say exactly what the actual effective edge of the Hyper is, but effective edge is always longer than contact length, so it will be longer than 1170. More on the difference here. I wish all snowboard companies would publish both contact length and effective edge, but not that many do. More are starting to do it, which is good to see, so hopefully that trend continues.
I would say that the Wildlife and Hyper are quite similar for riding switch, with the Wildlife actually been slightly easier for it. So, I wouldn’t worry too much about that being a factor in your decision.
In terms of difference between 157 and 160, 3cm makes a bigger difference than you’d think. As you’ve read, that extra length is felt more when it’s within the effective edge and less so outside the contact points. Another reason why 3cm can make more difference than you’d think is that boards tend to be wider overall when they get longer – so that combination of extra length (particularly the part that’s within the effective edge) and width makes a noticeable difference.
Thanks Nate, that was great to learn about effective edge vs contact length. I’ve just placed an order for the 157 wildlife and am pretty excited to try it out!
Do you have any recommendations for bindings for me? I’ve been looking at BM transfers / joints, Ride C6 / A6 and Union Str / Forces as mid flexing bindings. Am leaning towards the BM / Ride bindings. I also read rave reviews on the Burton Cartels Reflex, but they’re a bit pricier (no 4th of july sale on these unfortunately). I may wait to find a good used pair but I was wondering what your recommendations for me between the BM, Ride and Union bindings would be.
Thanks,
A
Hi A
I haven’t tested a lot of BM bindings, so I can’t say too much there. I did test the Transfers, but it was a while back. They were softer flexing than their rating at the time. If that still holds to be true, then I think the Transfer would be the better option, as the Joint looks to be softer and may end up being too soft. The Ride C-6 or A-6 would be suitable for sure. I didn’t find them anything game changing, but they’re all round pretty solid, especially for the price. So I think they’re a good option. The STR and Force are also really good options. Great bindings for their price and a good flex for the Wild Life, IMO.
Plenty of others in that flex range that would suit the Wildlife well, but those are really good lower cost options. The likes of the Cartel, Union Strata, Burton Genesis would work well but are more pricey (Cartel’s are reasonably priced, but if you can find those others on sale, then they’ll of course be cheaper).
Hi Nate. Looking at this board for a surfy, fun board to explore the entire resort with. Trees. powder, groomers. Size 10 boots, weight is 175, height 5’10”. Intermediate rider. Looking to have an additional option to my stiffer camber boards that are less forgiving, and more work (although they definitely have their purpose). Based on my size profile, can I get away with a 157? Only concern is boot drag with a size 10. Any suggestions? Thank you!
Hi Mr Matty
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I think your good on the 157. In terms of width, I had no issue riding it with 10s. But I did ride with +15/-15 angles. My boots weren’t low profile though (Salomon Lo Fi, which measured about average in terms of profile length). If you’re riding with quite a flat back binding angle, looking to carve deep and have bulky 10s, then it might be pushing it. But if you have low profile boots, I think you should be alright at any angles. If you’re riding with normal profile boots or bulkier boots, I think it will depend on how deep you carve and binding angles.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. My angles are +15 front / 0 or -3 back. I like the idea of 157 length better than the 160, but in deeper snow (where this profile will excel) I am worried about toe drag. Wearing Burton Photon Step-on boots in 10, and looking to get Ride Deadbolt or K2 Orton boots in 9.5 or 10, whatever fits. o you think sizing up to the 160 will take away the playfulness and agility of the board? Thank you.
Hi Mr. Matty
I don’t think going 160 will make it a tank or anything. It will still have some playfulness and agility with your specs. But it won’t be as playful or agile in the 160 as it is in the 157, naturally. So there is a trade off there. Toe drag is more likely in deeper snow, so I can certainly see your concern there. Photon Step Ons are low profile, so that helps your cause for sure. If you were to get into 9.5s on the Deadbolts, I think you’d be good on the 157 too. K2 boots tend to be a bit bulkier. I haven’t measured the Orton, so I don’t know about that specifically. But if you were going to go Orton, I would suspect you’d want to definitely be in the 9.5, if you wanted to ride the 157 with those binding angles.
Hey Nate, I am an east coast snowboarder but find myself trying to hit the mountain after storms and getting into the trees. Right now I have a ride wildlife 158 cm and looking to level up my board. That was my first board and I have definitely gotten much much better since purchasing that board three years ago. I do one big trip out west a year and last year in Steamboat we were almost exclusively backcountry/off trail. I’m thinking about getting the Gnu because I do like a bit of the surfy feel but will it also be able to handle the east coast?
Hi Chaz
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the Hyperkyarve should be able to handle the East Coast fine. It’s not as good in hard/icy conditions as a lot of other GNU/Lib Tech boards, but still decent. Better than the Wild Life would be, in my experience.
Hope this helps
Which size would you recommend for powder? We are pretty much the same size and weight. I am just a tiny little bit smaller and lighter. I rode the TRS for many years (including AK) in 159 and was super happy with it.
Hi Thomas
I really liked the Hyperkyarve in the 157, but 157 and 160 are certainly both options. The 160 will feel more like the TRS 159 in size, so if you’re looking for a similar feeling size and particularly if you’re looking to be riding mostly open terrain powder, then I’d be leaning 160. If you were going to be predominantly riding in the trees I would seriously consider going 157. Also, if you can let me know your boot size that would really help too.
Note that I’ve seen at one retailer that they have the 160 with a 262mm waist and a 308mm nose width and 299mm tail width but on the GNU website it shows as 256mm waist, 300mm tip and 295mm tail. Since I haven’t tested the 160, I don’t know for sure, but I’m 90% sure the website’s specs are correct, because they make more sense looking at the other sizes.