The GNU Hyper is a fun, sharp turning, whipper that likes nothing more than to explore the woods, seek out powder and find whatever it can to get air off.
It's a surfy feeling ride, as opposed to feeling more locked-in, so if that's the kind of feel you're after, this board is definitely worth looking more into.
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.
Overall Rating
Board: GNU Hyper
Price: $629
Style: Mellow Freeride
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 88.8/100
Compared to other Men’s Mellow Freeride Boards
Of the 30 current model mellow freeride snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Hyper ranked 7th out of 30
Overview of the Hyper’S Specs
Check out the tables for the Hyper’s specs and available sizes.
STYLE:
mellow freeride
PRICE:
$629 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER
Hybrid Rocker - GNU's "C2X" camber profile
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Setback 38mm (1.5")
BASE:
Sintered- GNU's "Sintered Knife Cut Base"
weight:
FELT Normal
Camber Height:
3mm*
* but hard to get an accurate measurement on a hybrid rocker. Highest point of camber was a little towards the tail.
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+ |
159W | 267 | 140+ | 64+ |
160 | 256 | 140+ | 64+ |
Who is the Hyper Most Suited To?
The Hyper's ideal rider is someone who likes a more surfy feel, than a locked in one and wants a board that can turn quickly and easily, particularly when in trees. They need a board to be good in powder and want something that will also be fun to jump with, whether going for the occasional park lap - or finding natural hits or drops to get air off.
Would work as a one-board-quiver for the right rider and also as a compliment to a quiver paired with a more freestyle oriented board and/or a more powder specialized board.
Not what I'd recommend for a beginner as such, but really isn't a difficult board to ride, so anyone from intermediate, even lower intermediate, shouldn't have any issues riding it.
TEST/REVIEW DetailS FOR THE Hyper
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Hyper is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: GNU Hyper 2024, 157cm (253mm waist width)
Date: March 14, 2024
Powder
Felt really nice in the powder we had and glad that there was fresh snow around for when I had this board (as well as the Orca which I tested on the same day). It was still fairly shallow powder so not a true indicator of deep powder performance. However, the feel and specs suggest it should hold up decently well in powder.
It has some rocker in the profile, a longer nose than tail, 6mm of taper and a 1.5" (38mm) stance setback.
Carving
I found the Hyper to be more of a surfer than carve, but that said, it wasn't bad on a carve. It certainly had it's limits as to how fast a speed you could hold a carve at without it washing out, but for moderate speed carves it was really fun, particularly tighter radius carves. Didn't feel as natural for straighter, long carves.
This board is like a more directional version of my control board (Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker), in a lot of ways, but I felt it was a little better on a carve than my control board. Being a little more in the back seat probably helped - I do find more directional boards tend to feel better on a carve, all else being equal.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: Nice and easy to initiate turns with and it really likes to and is easy (and fun!) to slash turns on it.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Nice and quick edge-to-edge at slower speeds, with minimal effort needed. At slow to moderate things I felt I could turn this board all day without fatiguing.
Catchiness: Minimal to none.
Speed
It's not a speed demon. It's not something that you can open out and never find it's limit on. It will start becoming unstable at a certain speed. But I did feel it was just that little bit better than the Terrain Wrecker at speed. Again being a bit more backseat might help in that respect.
Versus the Orca, which I also rode that day, it was close, but I felt the Orca was just that touch bit more stable at speed. Not enough to be hugely significant. If I was to really zoom in on the ratings, I'd say Terrain Wrecker at a 3.2/5, the Hyper a 3.4/5 and the Orca a 3.6/5. But I'm not going there! So 3.5/5 it is.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: It's good without being great. It's not knocked about super easily, but it's also not super stable. It doesn't crash through it, but more kind of floats over it. And it's not that damp, so you do feel some chatter in there. But it's nice and easy to make adjustments where necessary - and it's not a complete rag doll in there or anything.
Trees/Bumps: This is one of the Hyper's best traits.
Be there powder or be there none, this board will find trees a heck of a lot of fun.
Sorry, never been much of a poet! But you get my drift. This board is a star when weaving between things. It's effortlessly nimble.
Jumps
Really fun for jumps, which makes this a really good option for those who want a board that's good in powder, great in trees and that is still fun to hit the jump line with - and/or find natural hits between trees (or elsewhere).
Pop: The pop in this board was really easy to access and had an OK amount of total pop.
Approach: A nice mix of stability, to a point, and maneuverability.
Landing: Not a super stomper but stable enough and forgiving of errors. I'd say very similar to the Terrain Wrecker but a little less tail heavy friendly, but not a lot in it. More tail heavy friendly than the Orca.
Side-hits: Really fun. That easy pop, easy maneuverability made this board well suited to finding any kind of natural stuff to get air off.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Small-Medium jumps are its best suit. It can handle bigger but it feels best on small to medium.
Switch
Transitions were easy and fun. And it didn't feel too bad riding in switch either, despite having a fairly directional feel. Not quite as good as the Terrain Wrecker, for obvious reasons, but really not far off.
Spins
Setup and landing switch was decent, as mentioned above. And there was never any feeling of likelihood of catching an edge when setting up and landing. And if you under-rotated, I found I could finish the spin on the ground without catching.
It also didn't have a tendency to over-spin after landing. Maybe just a touch of it, if you're getting hyper rotational, but nothing significant.
Jibbing
Actually pretty decent. Not what this board is designed for, but felt pretty good. Easy maneuverability, easy pop, catch-minimal - all made it a board that I doesn't cause pause for hesitation when heading to the jib line.
Butters
Nice and easy to press tail and nose, without over-flexing. There's a difference in feel between the nose and tail, but it's fairly subtle.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Powder | 4 | 24/30 |
| Turns | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Trees | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
| Crud | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Jumps | 4 | 4/5 |
| Switch | 3 | 3/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 88.8/100 |
The Hyper excels at tight radius carves, quick edge-to-edge slashes/turns at low to moderate speeds and finding natural hits, or small to medium jumps in the park, to get air off.
It's a versatile board with a surfy feel. It's mostly at home in trees, but is versatile enough to be able to do most things and go most places. But with an overall more freeride, than freestyle, modus operandi (look at me, using flash words!).
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
To learn more about the Hyper, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
To check out some other mellow freeride snowboard options, or to see how the Hyper compares to others, check out our top rated mellow freeride snowboards by clicking the button below.
Hi Nate, I appreciate all of your reviews! That have helped shape a lot of gear finding for me. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on something. I have a GNU hyper and GNU RCC3, with Union Strata and Altra bindings, and Thirtytwo TM2 boots. How would you go about pairing these boards and bindings? Currently I have the the strata and hyper for trees/powder and RCC3 and altra for groomer bombing/carving and side hits. Any thoughts on what might be more optimal? Should the Altras be on the Hyper? Thanks!!
Hi Austin, thanks for your comment. I replied on the RC C3 review, if you want to go check it out there.
Hello Nate!
Sorry….but…
I posted a question on the Capita Mercury review… I think we can go ahead and ignore that one, or respond if you would like, but this will be more current lol….
After doing lots of research mainly split between your great resource The Good Ride and The Angry Snowboarder I have come to the conclusion that the Capita Mercury is probably not the board I am looking for. It has been a while since I have dove into Snowboard stuff and the amount of new information from my youth is quite overwhelming.
But I think I have come to the conclusion that the Capita Mercury is not the right board for me.
To repeat my specs just incase.
6ft tall, 153lbs, size 8.5-9 boot (depending on brand)
Skill level: low advanced rider (I have been doing it from a young age and used to teach lessons, but I am getting older and don’t go nearly as often as I would like)
I currently ride a Burton Air 157 which has been my staple for almost 20 years. It was a great board for my youth, and for teaching because it was so easy to ride switch and spin around with children everywhere hah.
But I would like one that is more for to what I like to do.
I am now thinking between the following three boards in order of what I think would be best for me.
1.) GNU – Hyper (154 or 157)?
2.) Jones – Frontier (156)?
3.) Capita – Navigator (155)?
Any thoughts on those boards? and What size I would be best for? Any other suggestions. I should probably buy one soon so I stop reading about snowboards while I am working lol.
I am a little concerned that some of these boards won’t be enough for my skill level, but that could be unwarranted, but they are all ranked as “intermediate” type boards on EVO website.
I am not looking to really get any better, just re-hone the skills I’ve had over the years.
No plans to park, If I have a desire to do it at all I can put on my Burton.
Tree dodging, carving, quick turns, powder(but rarely find it on the east coast, but planning more trips)
I hope this might be a closer representation of what I am looking for.
Thanks a lot for any and all advice, I love your website.
Hi Logan
Thanks for your message. For what you’re describing, I think those boards would suit your riding style well. They are all boards that are suitable for intermediate riders, but that doesn’t mean they’re only for intermediate riders. Advanced riders with a particular style or preferences will suit these boards too. They are pretty easy going – so quite easy to ride, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy them as an advanced rider. I’ve enjoyed all 3 of them a lot. Now, just don’t expect them to bomb super fast without getting wobbly and don’t expect them to hold onto big carves at high speeds. They’re not mega bombers or high speed carvers. But they do, in my experience, carve well at slower to moderately fast speeds and are all nice quick turners and good in trees.
I would say the Hyper is the most risky for you, in terms of whether you’d like it or not. Having ridden a full camber board for so long, the Hyper is likely to feel the most different in terms of camber profile. The rocker between the feet can feel weird, if you’re used to camber there. While the Frontier and Navigator do have rocker sections, they are located towards the tip/tail and it’s camber through the rest of the board. This tends to feel closer to full camber. But you get the advantage of the rocker in the tip and tail for better slashing, powder and quicker, more catch-free turns. Usually at the cost of some carving performance. The Hyper, with rocker between the feet and camber under the feet and towards tip and tail (what I would term Hybrid Rocker), requires a slightly different approach and is a more different feeling coming from camber than it is to go from camber to Hybrid Camber. It might be the case that you really like it, but it’s the biggest risk in terms of not liking it, IMO. The Frontier and Navigator would be safer bets.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157. So I think the sizes you have there for the Frontier and Navigator are both right on, especially with your boot size. These are the kinds of boards you could upsize for (e.g. 159 Frontier and 158 Navigator) but because of their width vs your foot size, I would stick to the lengths you’ve got there (156/155). For the Hyper, I would go with the 157. It’s not as wide, so I wouldn’t size down to the 154.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate!
Thanks a lot for the response. I hadn’t really thought about the Hybrid Rocker thing on the GNU board.. How different is it?
As you said I have been really riding burton for about 25 years, and usually variations of their freestyle boards, even though I don’t do much freestyle.
Do the turns initiate that much differently? What else are the riding differences?
You have almost effectively scared me off of the Hyper, but I still like the “idea” of that board lol.
Something strange to note about my riding style… I am right handed, right footed, but ride Goofy, so technically my strong foot is in the front.
When I first learned at like age 10, the person who taught me was a Goofy rider so that’s how I learned first and just stuck with it. While I used to be able to ride switch much better in my youth (going regular), I have definitely been just sticking mainly to goofy riding lately since I am much more confident on advanced terrain riding that way. (I can still easily land in switch turn through it, etc, but I just prefer to stay normal most of the time).
One of the reasons I have been looking at more directional boards.
Do you have any other boards that you would suggest I look at?
Thanks again!
Hi Logan
All else being equal a board with rocker in the middle tends to be a little quicker to turn, particularly at slower speeds. That rocker point acts a sort of pivot. Also, all else being equal, Hybrid Rocker boards tend to have a looser feel, as opposed to a more stable or locked-in feel. But, the extent of this depends on how much of the length of the board the rocker section takes up and how pronounced that rocker is. For example, a board with a lot of rocker – taking up a long part of the camber profile and/or with more pronounced rocker, will feel looser than one that had only a short section of rocker and/or only being subtly rockered. So not all Hybrid Rockers are equal. In fact some Hybrid Cambers (where the camber isn’t overly pronounced or there are long pronounced rocker sections) can sometimes feel looser than Hybrid Camber boards with less or more subtle rocker. So there really is a range.
The Hyper has C2X, which has pretty subtle rocker but it’s still noticeable. So it’s not as loose/pivoty as some Hybrid Rocker boards, but the feeling is still there and is what I would call “semi-loose”. Some people love the feeling. Some don’t. I really like it but I also like full camber boards. I’ve ridden so many of all the different profiles, I’ve come to appreciate different things about each one.
I am the same! Right handed, like heavily right handed, my left is useless! and right footed (my left foot not as bad), but ride Goofy. And I was self-taught initially. I rode skateboards goofy as a kid. I’ve always felt more natural that way.
Some other options to look at. I’ve gone with options that are good for carving and trees and on the more mellow side vs some, but a little less mellow than the Hyper, Frontier and Navigator. Check out the reviews of them for more details to make sure I have my assumptions correct here. But if you are looking for more speed stability for bombing as well, we could look at stiffer options.
– Burton Deep Thinker – not full camber – but camber back to tail, with rocker only towards the nose. Will feel pretty similar to full camber, with a bit more forgiveness in the nose and noticeably better in powder. This is also directional. But it’s also not overly demanding and can turn pretty quick in the trees
– Never Summer Swift – this is a Hybrid Rocker, like the Hyper, but has a more stable feel than the Hyper, in my experience. Probably the best board I’ve ridden in trees. Would be a less familiar option than the Deep Thinker, but could work well for how you want to ride.
– Jones Mind Expander
– Burton Skeleton Key
– GNU Banked Country – this is technically Hybrid rocker, but you might as well call it traditional camber. The Rocker is very subtle.
Thanks again!
The trigger has been pulled.
I ended up buying the 156 Jones Frontier. got it on sale for $400 so not bad. I hope I made the right choice lol!
I took a long hard look at those you just suggested, came to the conclusion that the Banked Country might be a little too much board for half the time I was on it I actually was considering it along side the Hyper (which made the short list) and the Deep Thinker looked quite cool as well but felt ended up going with the Frontier, a little cheaper helps the bottom line since I am waiting for this sale Friday going to try to score some bindings/boots for a steep discount (hopefully)
Of course my boots and bindings are too soft for my ideal new set-up. I am basically going to get whatever I can find that is decent in the 6-7 Flex rating for both.
The ideal balance between price and quality I think is
Union Strata, Force, Force Classic or Ultra (whichever they have in medium on sale to be honest) and Salomon Dialogue Boots.
Sale is 40% off, so wish me luck!
Thanks again!
The hope is to be able to go to Valle Nevado in Chile in late July! Ever been?
You’re very welcome Logan. Glad you found it on a good discount. Any of those bindings would work well with it, IMO. And the Dialogue would be a good match too, assuming they fit your feet.
I have never been to Chile, so no I haven’t been to Valle Nevado, but would definitely love to go sometime!
Good evening I’m between this board and the bank country intermediate rider for resort/all mountain surfy feel for carving and hitting natural features. I’m 5’8 180 9.5 boot and stuck between the 157/160 on the bank country I was set on 159 but not sure for the hyper. I’m also not sure which would be better for an intermediate board to push me and help me progress but still enjoy that surfy speedy feeling. Thank you again
Hi Miles
Thanks for your message.
The Hyper would be the more intermediate suited board, IMO. But if you’re a higher end intermediate rider (more level 6 than 5 according to this), then the new Banked Country is doable and would be the one that would push you more. But the Hyper is the more surfy feeling option. The Banked Country isn’t what I would call locked in. It’s fairly easy to release from the edge once you’re in a carve, if you want to, but you can lock it in and has a more locked in, carvy feel than the Hyper. This is all with respect to the latest Banked Country. Previous models I found were stiffer and less forgiving and more advanced/expert only.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, so it’s a close call. In some ways the Hyper 157 is the closer equivalent to the 159 Banked Country – 2cm shorter in terms of overall length, but 1cm contact length (unfortunately GNU doesn’t show effective edge as well), 253mm waist (254 on the 159 BC) and 297/293 tip/tail (296/294 on the BC) – so overall shorter, but very similar width-wise and a slightly longer contact length. But the BC is stiffer, so it’s a little “more board” to handle, so the 160 in the Hyper, while being bigger than the 1cm overall length would suggest (3cm more contact length and a bit wider), being the softer board, it’s something that would be easier to handle in that longer length than it would be if it was stiffer. So, going 160 would give you that bit more surface area for powder, while still being fine on groomers, just not quite as agile, easy to pop off side-hits , etc. as the 157 would be. But also a bit more stable at speed in the 160.
Long story short, the 160 would give you better float in powder/stability at speed and the 157 better maneuverability and easier pop.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much for the quick response, I would say I’m at a 5.5 hahaha. It’s been hectic trying to go back and forth figuring out this setup. I know I want to pair the union ultra’s for the mini disc. But, I just wonder if I end up choosing the BC over the hyper or vice versa will it be the wrong choice. Is c2x compared to c3 that dramatic? I hadn’t ridden in awhile a couple of years 5+ jumped on a capita doa and by the 4 run already got the hang of the board wasn’t a fan of it in uneven terrain or ice and while at speed felt uneven. Before that it had been a handful of years and I was given a yes jackpot which I hadn’t ridden for 10+ yrs before that. I plan to now be consistently going on two snowboard trips a year for an average of 12-15 days. I surf, kite board etc regularly back home. Thanks again
That helps out tremendously I would say a 5.5 hahaha. As I’m always trying to progress and push myself. I was planning on pairing the board with the union ultras for the mini disc. The whole c2 and c3 confuses me I understand the concepts but don’t understand if progressing on one would be that more extreme than the other. If I end up going with the BC would I in theory still be able to ride it and enjoy it I guess. Not much of a park person going to be riding all around the resort maybe back bowls or try them with the right people. Speed if important and turning but where I feel the board is engaged under my feet where I can get into a more squated position to really throw my weight into my turns.
Hi Miles
Based on all that, I think you could handle the BC. But I wouldn’t pair it with the Ultra. If you’re set on going with the Ultra, then I would pair it with the Hyper – they would go well together. For the BC, I would go stiffer – probably to the Falcor but even the Strata would work a little better than the Ultra on the BC, IMO (both Strata and Falcor both also have the mini-disc as well).
C2X and C3 are noticeably different. But even within C3 there are differences. I have found some C3 to be basically traditional camber, and you really couldn’t tell there was a small rocker section in the middle and on other C3, you could notice the rocker section. But all C2X’s have more noticeably rocker than any of the C3s. The Banked Country 2024 was basically traditional camber, but it was 6mm of camber, which I would say is about average/medium camber. Some other GNU/Lib Tech I’ve measured have 10-11mm of camber. So yeah, you would feel a pronounced difference between that and the C2X on the Hyper, IMO.
Last but not least do I play it safe and just maybe go with the terrain wrecker over the hyper and BC I’m feeling maybe the BC is more than I’m bargaining for from what I keep reading.
Also reevaluating my number probably a 4.5 on your scale and not a 5.5 so “beginner intermediate”
I ended up going with the 157 sir, I also saw the RC C2 or c3 might look into that down the line as I progress in to a more solid intermediate level 6 on your scale. Thank you again for your help hope I made the right call with the 157 and not going to the 160. I figured I would be spending more time on the groomers, trees, natural features than pure powder. Appreciate all your help
You’re very welcome Miles. Hope it goes well for you – and yeah, if you’re more 4.5, then I think it was a good choice over the BC. Happy riding!
5’10” 220lbs sz12 boot rider currently riding a Cold Brew 161cm in east coast blues and blacks. I am a solid intermediate. Would the 159W be enough of a step up for me. What something with a bit more pop but not too much. I like the Mg traction for ICE days but this and the terrain wrecker are the only mild steps up boards in the line up 159-161 in my boot size range.
Hi
Thanks for your message. Please see my response to message on the Lib Tech Dynamo review.
Silly question but how was the pop on an ollie? Is this board a little soggy or is it just predictable and average? I currently ride a 158 lobster creamer which is similar to the bataleon whatever but without the center carbon rods, so a little softer in the middle. This makes the pop really soggy and not very predictable. I don’t think I could clear a slow sign with it but I like the maneuverability of soft boards for playing around and exploring in tight trees/approaches. The hyper seems like it fits the bill but the C2X is something new to me and makes me hesitant. My Coda rocker was easy to ride but it was boring and lacked snap unless you really got on to the tail and kicked hard. Does the C2X profile have some snap with that camber under the back foot and a mid stiffness? Enough to be predictable?
Any Chance of a Salomon Highpath review?
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t say it was soggy. I found it to have a bit of snap but not huge amounts, but I found it fairly predictable. I wouldn’t say it was the most predictable ever, but doesn’t feel like a rocker board. Kind of as you’d expect, it feels in between rocker and camber. It’s got that easy edge-to-edge feel of rocker, but does have some snap when ollying and a bit more spring out of turns.
We have a Highpath review in the works, which will be published later this month.
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
I am an advanced rider I want the board for an all mtn freeride with a bit of freestyle ness to it, Mainly just want it to feel nice in the air not really going to put it on rails too often and mostly for pow and going fast on the groomers but still want to be able to touch the jump line here and there on the way down and maybe a couple of pow butters and side hits as well.
Hey Ben
Thanks for your message. Certainly for pow butters, jumps, pow, side-hits it will have you covered, IMO. The only question mark depends on how much speed we’re talking about. The Hyper isn’t bad at speed, but it’s not a bomber either. If you’re really bombing it, there’s a chance you could find it lacking a little in stability at speed. It’s good up to a certain speed, but it’s not an out and out bomber or anything. That would be my only question mark. It’s got a slightly looser, more playful feel overall.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Yeah, when I bomb I usually go mid to high 50s to low 60s, so I thought the 157 might be the way to go as I do like to go fast I just had that concern about the recommended boot size as I’m not a 9.5, But since you’re saying it’s not the most stable deck I’m probably going to get the 157 as I ride a couple of decks that are 157 and are similar in size, Thank you so much for your help.
You’re very welcome Ben. 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.
Hey Nate
I just relized that my boots size is actually an 8 to an 8.5 does that make any real difference with me getting the 157, I’ve ridden on decks that are similar just at the time I had a boot size of 9 on, I was ridding the Salmon Sick Stick and the K2 Passport both in 157 and they didn’t feel big and felt perfect for all mtn but idk since I’m sizing my boot down to most likely an 8 I just wanted to make sure to get the right size
Hi Ben
In terms of a board being too narrow, then it’s the boot size that matters. However, when it comes to the board being too wide, then it’s ultimately the foot size that matters. It’s the feet where most of the leverage is coming from. So unless your feet have shrunk, it shouldn’t matter too much that your boot will be smaller.
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.
So I forgot to follow up. Ok I got the 160 and rode it for most of the season last year with all the deep powder days we had. What an absolute fun board. Really helped me progress last season in the trees and hoping for another great season this year.
Hi Jesse.
Thanks for the update and the insights. Great to hear that you’re really enjoying the board!
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.