Hello and welcome to my GNU RC C3 snowboard review.
In this review, I will take a look at the RC C3 as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the RC C3 a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: GNU Riders Choice C3
Price: $699
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Medium
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 90.4/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Out of the 33 men’s all-mountain-freestyle snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the RC C3's Specs
Check out the tables for the RC C3's specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN-FREESTYLE
PRICE:
$699 - BUYING OPTIONS
$699 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER
HYBRID ROCKer - GNU'S "C3" camber. Predominantly camber with only subtle rocker between the feet.
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
Sintered | GNU's "Sintered Knife Cut" Base
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
4.5mm*
* but hard to measure with a hybrid rocker profiles
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
154.5 | 252 | 130-200 | 59-91 |
157.5 | 255 | 135-220 | 61-100 |
159.5 | 256 | 145-250 | 66-113 |
158W | 268 | 140-240 | 64-109 |
162W | 268 | 145-250 | 66-113 |
Who is the RC C3 Best Suited To?
The RC C3 is best suited to someone looking for a semi-aggressive board - one you can ride aggressively, but don't have to - for doing a bit of everything. If you ride powder a lot and sometimes you get it deep, then you'll want a different board for that, but for everything else this board nails it.
Particularly good for jumps, sidehits and spins.
If you see hard/icy conditions a lot, then this board is even better suited.
Not for beginners. You'll want to be at least intermediate to ride this board.
Changes for 2024 model
The RC C3 got these new "3-D delightwood asym chip power platforms" which are raised sections at the inserts for the 2024 model. Not sure exactly what they're supposed to do, but I feel like it made the board a little damper.
The RC C3 in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the RC C3 is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: GNU RC C3, 2024, 157.5cm (255mm waist width)
Date: March 23, 2023
Conditions
Overcast with around 85-90% visibility. Snowed briefly and a little bit of overnight snow.
Temp -1°C (34°F) and -6°C (34°F) with wind in the morning and stayed the same through the day. Was a little windy in the morning - 20kph (12mph) SE but died down in the afternoon.
24hr snow: 5cm (2")
48hr snow: 0cm (0")
7 day snow: 0cm (0")
On groomer: Dust on hard. Still some harder spots in places. Inconsistent speed, with some of the fresh snow being a little wet/sticky.
Off groomer: Dust on crust but decent enough.
Set up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 22" (555mm)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 264mm (10.39")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Response ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 6lbs 13oz (3100 grams)
Weight per cm: 19.68 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.71 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. So the RC C3 is heavier than average on the scales, but felt normal on snow.
Powder
We had a little on the day and the RC C3 handled it fine, but based on feel and specs, it wouldn't be great in deeper powder.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Can lay down a really good carve on this, especially for a twin. Holds its edge even for higher speed carves. Not an epic carver, but still really good.
Ease of Turning/Slashing: Surprisingly easy to slash with this board and turn initiation was easier than expected as well, given the camber dominance. In fact, I found this easier to initiate turns on/slash than the C2X Rider's Choice, which was certainly surprising. I think part of it is that the torsional flex on the RC C3 felt like it was flexier than on the C2X Rider's Choice.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Really decent edge-to-edge at slower speeds. Again, I found it a little more nimble than the C2X Rider's Choice, surprisingly.
Catchiness: For all it's camber, felt very uncatchy. I mean it's not like consequence free or anything but really uncatchy - and again, surprisingly felt less so than the C2X Rider's Choice.
Speed
Was decently fast for a twin, and felt nice and stable at moderately high speeds. Not a bomber, but really decent.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Handled crud really well. Took quite a bit to knock it off its line.
Trees/Bumps: Really enjoyed this board weaving between trees and bumps. It's not lightning edge-to-edge but it's really decent. Wouldn't be as good in there if there was deeper powder though.
Jumps
So sick for jumps!
Pop: It's not effortless pop - you've got to put a little bit of energy in. But you don't have to throw your whole body into it or anything like that. And when you do put energy in, it gives back. Really good total pop.
Approach: Nice and stable for faster approaches, but has the ability to make adjustments and speed checks too. Just the right balance of stable and adjustable.
Landing: Stomper! Can really stomp those landings, but when you don't stomp them it's pretty forgiving of average landings too.
Side-hits: Really fun for side hits. You want to attach them relatively aggressively, but when you do, this board rips side hits.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Everything!
Switch
Really just perfect for switch. I tend to really like asym twins for riding switch and this was no exceptions. Transitions were pretty easy too.
Spins
Sick for spins! Easy to get spin around. Good for setting up and landing switch and good pop. Could be a bit lighter to be ideal, but that's being picky, as this thing was great to spin on.
Jibbing
Not ideal. But for stronger jibbers, it should be fine.
Butters
Tip and tail are a little stiffer than on the C2X Rider's Choice, but still presses without too much effort. But you've got to lean just a little more weight into the tip and tail to get them flexing.
The torsional flex felt softer in the RC C3, but the tip and tail were a little stiffer.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
JUMPS | 5.0 | 20/20 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SWITCH | 5.0 | 10/10 |
SPEED | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SPINS | 4.5 | 9/10 |
BUTTERS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JIBBING | 3.0 | 3/5 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 4/5 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
POWDER | 2.0 | 2/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.4/100 |
The RC C3 is a really lively, fun board with plenty of spring and pop and just super fun to ride - whether cruising the groomers, laying down carves, venturing into trees or its biggest asset - hitting jumps and side hits - the RC C3 is a super fun board.
Apart from powder, this board rips everything and is a great option for those that ride hard/icy conditions.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the RC C3, 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 compare how the RC C3 compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hey Nate,
This is super helpful, and I’m going to get one! I have been riding the Burton Process Flying V(2016-2017) 159cm for a while, and my boot size is 9.5 with height 5’10 and weight 160lbs. And I’m debating between 157.5 and 154 for this RCC3.
Thoughts?
Hi Kong
Thanks for your message.
Both would be doable. I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 157, which makes the 157.5 the closest. But the 154 wouldn’t be wrong.
If you are going to be using it for quite a bit of freestyle and/or tree riding or generally favor maneuverability over stability, then I would be leaning 154.
If you want it to be more of an all-rounder, with a bit more stability at speed and better float in powder, then I would go 157.5.
Both will be wide enough for your boots, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Very helpful, thanks Nate! Really appreciate the insights, and please keep up the great work!
You’re very welcome Kong. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate!
I am considering to buy the C3 R3 board. Currently i am riding a GNU Money 156 size. I am 180cm and 90kg for the moment with some 10.5 Thirty Two TM2 boots and Union Strata bindings.
My biggest Dilema now is if I should get the 154.5 or the 157.5 board. I am more freestyle oriented in day-to-day riding. What do you think?
Thank you,
Constantin
Hi Constantin
Thanks for your message. I would go 157.5 for you, even with a more freestyle oriented riding style. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161, so the 157.5 would be a good size down already, to make it more freestyle oriented.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much, Nate! This is super helpful.
You’re very welcome Constantin. Hope you have a great season!
Awesome review. I wanted to ask, will 158W be good size for someone 6’0, 147 lbs, 12US boot size?
Hi OC
Thanks for your message. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155. So it’s on the big side for you, IMO. Doable, but I think there are more optimal options you could get in a 154W, 155W, 156W, something like that.
Hope this helps
Thank you! Do you think these 3 cm would make a big difference? I have opportunity to get this snowboard for very good price in comparison and considering whether I should go for it or get something else.
Hi OC
In my experience 3cm makes more difference than you’d think. If all of that 3cm was outside of the contact points and not part of the effective edge, then it wouldn’t make a lot of difference, until you got into powder, but when there’s a lot of that difference in the effective edge, it’s pretty noticeable. Also when you take into account surface area, you’re getting quite a bit more, particularly in a wide board.
If you did go for this in the 158W just note that it would likely feel stiffer to you, at your weight, than I found the 157.5. And it would likely be harder to initiate turns on, slower edge-to-edge, more effort to butter, more effort to ollie and spin. In comparison it would feel quite a bit heavier than the feel I got from the 157.5, not just because the 158W will be heavier anyway, with the extra material in it, but also relative to your weight. It would also be more stable at speed than I found the 157.5 and float better in powder. But, for your specs, I think the downsides would outweigh the benefits. I would personally look at something else in a shorter length, but if you do go for it, just to note those things.
Thanks again! Do you think GNU Riders choice 155w or YES Greats 156 would be a better choice?
Hi OC
I am partial to the Greats, but both are really good boards. Size-wise, though, I think the 155W Riders Choice is the slightly better size for you. The 156 Greats is still, even though not technically called a wide board, a bit wider overall than the 155W Rider’s Choice. It has a narrower waist, but they are about the same at the inserts and the Greats is wider at the tip/tail. For me the Rider’s Choice 157.5 is the closest equivalent size to the Greats 156. But this is partly because I have US9.5 boots (27.3cm feet) and the Greats is wide for me. Because you have 12s that difference isn’t going to be as big, so I certainly wouldn’t say that the 156 Greats is going to feel as big as the 158W Riders Choice. It will feel smaller than that, IMO. But, to put a number on it, I would say that it would feel like a 156W Riders Choice.
However, now that we’re essentially talking just 1cm, it’s not going to make a huge difference, so the 156 Greats is within a good range, IMO. The 155W RC also a really good choice though, IMO, and just a touch better in terms of sizing.
I wondering if you rode the Lib Off Ramp and the difference between the Rcc3 and Off ramp besides asym. Is one poppier ? more playful? Carves better?
Hi Jared
Thanks for your message. Yes, rode the Off Ramp last winter (review still to come). It’s quite similar to how the Box Knife was (but not exactly). Compared to the RC C3, I would say:
– The RC C3 I found a touch stiffer, but note that I rode the Off Ramp in the 154, so I think in equivalent sizes they would be a very similar flex – they were already quite similar
– Overall I found the Off Ramp very similar in terms of playful/aggressive. While it did feel a little softer flexing feel (which usually means more playful) it had more camber. While they are both C3, Lib Tech’s C3s are not all equal. The Off Ramp was indistinguishable from traditional camber and had 11mm of camber in the middle, which is a lot! A big bow of camber. The RC C3 was more obvious that there was a rocker section in the middle, certainly not to the same extent as a C2X profile but you could actually see a subtle rocker section in the middle which you couldn’t on the Off Ramp (and a couple of others that I’ve ridden). There is typically some subtle variation between each model, even of the same board, when it comes to camber, but not enough to even come close to accounting for that difference, I wouldn’t say. I would say that in the same size as one another (smaller boards tend to be more playful, all else being equal) the RC C3 would be a touch more playful.
– I found the Off Ramp had a little more pop. Subtly more, but that’s saying something, as the RC C3 is nice and poppy, in my experience. I’d say that’s largely down to that big bow of camber in the Off Ramp. That’s not the only thing that will affect pop, but it’s one of the big things that affects pop, I would say.
– In terms of carving I found them very similar. But in a longer size, the Off Ramp may have been able to rail carves a little harder.
– In terms of slower speed turns and slashing, I found the RC C3 better. And a longer Off Ramp would make it harder for slower speed/slashing, so the RC C3 would get even better for that, I would say.
– Similar to butter, but again, because of sizing, this might be a little different. Shorter boards are typically easier to butter, so the RC C3 might end up being a little better if it was 157 Off Ramp vs 157.5 RC C3. But would still remain fairly close.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Thanks for the detailed comparison. I would go 158w Rcc3 or 157w off ramp . Still can’t decide . May have to flip a coin . I typically ride pretty fast and aggressive so I’m not over worried about slow speed turning. So it sounds like there vary similar for pop and buttering . Are they similar in effort to generate pop and ease of buttering? Or did one of them take more effort? I see you you have the Rcc3 ranked pretty high and the Off ramp not even ranked. I assume you personally preferred the Rcc3?
Hi Jared
Yeah, I preferred the RCC3 overall, but the Off Ramp (scored 85.4/100) was just one off making the top 10 all-mtn-freestyle list. It came in 11th. So it still scored well and a board I liked. I do like the board to be able to still fun when slow, so that comes into it for me (and the scoring system) and I liked the RC C3 a little more in choppy snow and for riding switch. But not heaps in it. The other thing is that I found the RC C3 felt a bit lighter, so a bit easier to throw around. On the scales they actually weighed in very similarly, but on snow the Off Ramp felt a little heavier.
I thought I’d mentioned about effort for pop in my last reply, but looking back, I can’t see it there! I would say they are very similar in terms of effort it takes to get them to pop. But I’d say the RC C3 was marginally easier, but really not much in it. In terms of buttering, I would say the Off Ramp was a little easier to butter, took slightly less effort. But that’s typically the case with shorter boards, so I think that would even out with similarly sized boards.
Hi Nate. First of all, love your site! So helpful, and so on point. I have a size question for you if you have time. I’m 5’9, 170-175 lbs, and wear 8.5 boots. I’ve been riding a 158 Burton Custom X, riding out west on trips. But I moved to NC last year, so I’ll be riding a lot more frequently and at places like Sugar and Beech, so icier conditions. I would say I’m an intermediate all-mountain rider who rides some in the park and would like do more in the park. I think I would like to pick up the RC C3, and I’m thinking I’ll get the 154.5, given I have the 158 Custom X. I’ve never ridden a board that short, but from the Gnu sizing chart it looks like that would be a good fit for me. But I’ve been riding 158, so I’m kinda leaning to the 157.5 just because of my comfort zone. Any thoughts on which would be better? Sidenote: I’m thinking of also getting a 156 Yes Standard now that I’ll be riding every week, and the Standard seems like a nice add for the icy conditions.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Hi Blake
Thanks for your message.
I think both the 154.5 and 157.5 would work. The 157.5 is probably a more pure size for your weight/height, and you’re used to a stiffer, burlier, Custom X 158, so I don’t think you’d have any problems with the 157.5 feeling too big.
But there’s an argument to be made for the 154.5. Firstly, the 157.5 is quite wide for 8.5s, IMO, and even the 154.5 is on the wider side for 8.5s (certainly not too wide, but on the wider end of a good range). So sizing down for width makes some sense. For reference: If your Custom X is a 2017 or earlier model, then it’s overall a narrower board, but if it’s 2018 or older, then it’s going to be a similar width to the RC C3.
Another reason to consider the 154.5 RC is for freestyle purposes, since you plan on getting more into that side of things. Also if you’re riding smaller hills, then it can be better to have a smaller board, as you won’t be opening out and bombing as much – and you’ll want to make the most of smaller runs, which often means doing more side hits, trees etc, where a smaller board can also be better. And finally, if you’re still planning on using the Custom X for bombing days or more big mountain excursions, then having that size difference in your quiver is also a good thing to have.
So, in short, both sizes could work for you, depending on how you wanted it to work for you.
The Standard is a rather wide board. IMO, the 156 is probably too big overall, just because of how wide it is. The length would be all good if it was narrower. If you did go Standard, I’d be leaning 153. I know that probably sounds short – and if you didn’t want to drop that much effective edge it might not work, but with 8.5s, I wouldn’t personally go 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much Nate! That is super helpful. I think I have not been paying enough attention to board width. You’ve given me a lot to think about. Thanks again for your time, and keep up the great work! We all appreciate it.
You’re very welcome Blake. Thanks for visiting the site!
Hi Nate, would you mind expanding a bit on what makes this board not so good on jibs? You’re not the only one stating that it’s not a star jib board and I’m wondering if it has more to do with the flex pattern and C3 camber or just the general assumption that magnetraction isn’t as good on rails/boxes (which isn’t necessarily the case IME).
My main all-mtn freestyle board is an Assassin (which jibs quite well for my needs) and I’m wondering if there would be a lot of overlap with this board performance-wise. I know it’s a very different board (magnetraction, asym, etc) but I’m quite curious about it.
I’m mostly a big-air guy but I’m on a smaller mountain and I do a lot of rails and boxes nonetheless.
Thanks for your input, it’s highly appreciated.
Hi Philon
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, largely the flex and camber. I prefer a more playful, softer board to hit jibs on personally. I don’t think magnetraction stops a board from being good on jibs necessarily – mostly the flex and more aggressive nature of this board – it’s not hyper aggressive by any means, but personally I prefer something really easy to setup and throw around and something that just flexes really easily on rails etc. Personally I found the Assassin a little easier to jib with than this – not hugely but by a little bit.
I wouldn’t say it was un-jibbable or anything though – it’s not something that had me in cold sweats approaching a jib or anything.
I would say there’s a fair bit of overlap between this and the Assassin, but they’re certainly not the same board.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much for your insight. I rode 3 days on a Headspace last season. I would’ve liked it but it was too soft for me so I sold it. I quite enjoyed the asym aspect of it though. Since the HS and the RCC3 seem to be close relative except for the flex (as far as I can tell) I’m quite intrigued. I’ve always been a fan of camber boards for jibs/rails if that means anything (yes, I’m old).
I just wouldn’t want to end-up with two boards that fill the exact same niche on my small hill.
Decisions decisions… thanks again.
You’re very welcome Philon
Whilst there certainly are some other differences, I wouldn’t say it’s too far off to describe the RC C3 as a stiffer Headspace. Not exactly, but it’s a pretty close description.
Thanks again. I’m starting to think that it might have been a great board for the “old me” who was riding bigger mountains (and a lot of pipe). Your assistance is highly appreciated. Cheers!
Hi Nate,
Was hoping you might be able to help me choose between the GNU RC C3 and the Yes Greats.
Both boards scored great in your write up but I can’t decide which one to go for.
I only get to ride for a week a year usually in Italy. Snow is normally fairly hard packed, not much powder sadly. I love to ride all the mountain and look for little side hits. I like to try and press and butter too. Friends I go with ski so I also enjoy charging down the groomers. I can’t ride switched but am fairly decent going regular, comfortable on most black runs.
So I guess I’m looking for an all mountain playful board that is still good at speed. I do also like to hit the beginner features in the park but I do have a Lib Tech box scratcher for that.
Hi James
I did reply to your comment previously, but it might have been harder to see, as you had replied to Stanley’s comment below. I have copied and pasted my previous response below:
So yeah, if you could let me know your specs, that would help to see if we can use sizing as a tie breaker. And the other thing to consider (as you hadn’t mentioned the Box Scratcher in your other comment) is whether you want something more different to the Box Scratcher (YES Greats) or quite different but not quite as different (RC C3). The RC C3 is a really different board to the Box Scratcher of course, but has some personality traits in common, just being from the same brand. It is definitely different enough to have the 2 boards in the same quiver, for sure, and some people like to have that somewhat constant in any otherwise different board and some like to have something completely different.
Hi Nate,
Sorry, yes I missed your first reply so really appreciate you taking the time to reply again.
So I’m 5’11”, a size 10 (US) Adidas response boot and around 210lbs.
At the moment I’m leaning towards the Greats as I think it might be easier to butter?
However the hesitation is mainly down to wanting / needing something that will really hold its edge well on firm/icy snow and I love how the magna traction seems to do that on my box scratcher….
Hi James
All good!
Yeah I would say the Greats is marginally easier to butter. Not much in it though, they’re fairly close in that respect.
In terms of edge hold in hard/icy conditions, I wouldn’t be too concerned about the Greats. In my experience with the Greats, I have found it to hold an edge in hard/icy conditions as well as magnetraction boards, in some cases better. So in that respect I wouldn’t have any issues going with Greats over RC C3. I would say both hold an edge just as well in those conditions, in my experience.
Size-wise, for your specs, I would typically say around 162 for an all-mountain board, but you can certainly go a little shorter for all-mountain-freestyle boards like these – particularly with the Greats which is quite wide. For the RC C3, it would be 157.5, as that’s the longest regular width they have, but it’s borderline too small, given that you want to also be able to charge. The equivalent to that size in the Greats would be the 156, IMO. But 156 is getting quite short for your specs, particularly if you’re wanting to also bomb with it. So I would be leaning 159 for the Greats. That would be quite wide for your boot size, but you would be sizing down a little from what I would consider your all-mountain size. There is quite a difference in overall size from the 159 Greats to the 157.5 RC C3 though.
Going with the smaller size (157.5 RC C3 or 156 Greats) would give a more playful, easier to butter/press, easier to seek out side-hits, but it will lack in terms of stability at speed compared to something like the 159 Greats. So, I guess it’s what you want to maximize the most. Also, it somewhat depends on what you’re used to. If you’re used to riding a certain size, that should be taken into account too. Also, what size is your Box Scratcher? Getting some contrast to your existing board is often a good idea, to balance your quiver too.
Thanks for the response Nate.
Good to know the Yes boards edge hold is comparable to the GNU.
My Box Scratcher is a 154 and has been my one board quiver since 2016.
I think I would go for either 156 yes or 157.5 C3 as hitting side hits and trying to butter definitely still take priority over speed an I am guessing both these boards even in the shorter sizes will be much better at speed than my box scratcher.
So currently still leaning towards the Greats 🙂
Hi James
Yeah definitely both boards in those sizes will be better at speed versus 154 Box Scratcher, for sure.
Hi Nate,
Def considering getting this knowing that 2022 58 wide is far too wide.
Is it definitely 263 at reference point compared to the Rc c2 you have at 260?
Sorry to ask but I can get a good deal online for the Rc3 and an extra 3mm would be nice 🙂
Cheers
Tim
Hi Tim
This is the more accurate measurement. When I last rode the Rider’s Choice (C2X) it was at a demo day and I had a less accurate tape measure. I think they are the same width at inserts, but I would say that this is the more accurate measurement – as I was able to measure it at home and with a more accurate tape measure. So I would go off the 263mm of this one. I hope to get a Rider’s Choice 2022 to test soon and I am pretty confident it will be 263mm at the inserts, assuming they haven’t changed any dimensions.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, squeezed trigger. Have a few boards to try out this season! Looking forward to this, the hometown hero 56w, basic rdm 56w, dancehaul 52, kazu 57 and finally the capita indoor survival 56 2022. Probably getting a bit out of hand!
You’re very welcome Tim.
Your obsession sounds like it rivals my own!
Gnu RC C3, Gnu RC, or Capita Mercury. Which is generally better for being quick and nimble through trees, hitting jumps, stomping landings, and riding fast? Thanks in advance, idk where else to find an answer to this.
Hi Louis
Thanks for your message.
I would say the Mercury is the better option for riding fast, followed by the RC C3, then the RC.
For nimbleness in trees, I would go RC, then RC C3, then Mercury.
For jumps I would go RC C3, then RC, then Mercury.
So I think the best balance of all those things for you would be RC C3.
Hope this helps
Nate, thanks for your response. I commented again under the name Lou before seeing your response so just ignore that.
Do you think a 10.5 boot would be too much for this board? I’m 5’8″ 175 so I’d buy a 154.5.
Also, I’ve been looking at the DOA, Lib Tech TRS, Mercury, and Ride Algorithm. Do you think any of these boards could out do the RC C3 in what I want/ need?
thanks, Lou
Hi Lou
I’d say it’s borderline. The 154.5 is likely around 260mm at the inserts. I am typically comfortable with anything down to 260mm with 10s. But with 10.5s, that would be more like 265mm. I haven’t ridden boards as narrow as 256mm at the waist, and didn’t notice any issues, but haven’t ridden anything narrower than that. So, I think it’s somewhat risky in terms of width. The 157.5 would give you that little bit more leeway width-wise. Still borderline at 263mm at the inserts, but I would be more confident on that one with 10.5s.
I haven’t ridden the Algorhythm yet, but the TRS (particularly the 2021 model which is now C3 camber) and the DOA would be suitable. IMO they wouldn’t outdo the RC C3, though the TRS C3 is close. The 157W would give you more leeway width-wise (whilst still not being ultra wide – I’d say around 267mm at the inserts, which would be a very good width for 10.5s, IMO. The 157 and 154 are around 260mm at the inserts, the same as the RC C3 154.5. For the DOA, you’ve got a 155W option which would be good width and length-wise. Again not ultra wide for a wide board.
you’re the man, thank you!
You’re very welcome Lou. Happy Riding!
Great review. I’m 6’2, 160lbs, size 11. Would the 157.5 be too short and narrow? In the past I’ve ridden 160-161 cm boards. Not sure if I should wait for a longer version of the rc c3…. I ride a duck stance +/- 12 and love riding switch and carving. Usually your best option for fun on the east coast…
Hi DK
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I think the only thing would be getting used to it, given that you’re used to riding longer boards. For your specs, though, I think the 157.5 is a really good size.
Width is the biggest concern. It’s pretty narrow for 11s, running at 263mm at the inserts, even with +12/-12 angles and even if you had low profile boots. If you’re boots are low profile and you don’t carve super deep, then I think you get away with it width-wise, but if you like to really lean into your carves, then probably best to go with something a little wider.
Hopefully, they do more sizes for the 2022 model.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Nice site! Good job, really!
My level is about intermediate and I am pretty light guy. I usually ride on resorts, so it mostly groomed (often icy, hard packed) terrain. I prefer carving, catch the sidehits and riding switch. I am looking for the board to progress in these technics.
Is, in your opinion, RC C3 is perfect choice for me or there is something better alternatives.
Could you also recommend some bindings for my case. I am currently thinking about Union Atlas but not sure that is perfect flex for my goals.
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
If you’re a solid intermediate rider, then I think the RC C3 would be a great choice for what you’re describing. It’s good in hard/icy conditions, good for carving and awesome for side hits and riding switch. Get it in the right size and I think it’s a board that could suit you really well.
If you wanted more options, check out:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
I think the Atlas would work really well with this board – as would the Strata, if you’re looking at Union. If you want any other recommendations let me know, but I’d have no problem pairing this with the Atlas. The reason I mention the Strata, is that it provides a little better board feel, which is nice if you’re doing freestyle stuff, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks!
The priority for me is carving. If I understand you correct, the Strata is softer and serves better for freestyle but if I prefer carving, the Atlas would be little bit better for me?
Size-wise: I would take 154.5 board and I have 10s boots ( hope it will feet well)
Could you help me with the union binding size. on the official site I can see that M(7-10) and L (10+).
I will try to find local shop with the Union binding but not sure that we have one… I know that you also have 10 US boot size, probably you could help me, M or L?
Hi Alex
Yeah, the Atlas gives just that little bit more on a deep/hard carve vs the Strata and just a fraction stiffer. But the Strata is still good on a carve and still a good match for the RC C3, but yeah if you wanted to just get that little bit more out of a carve – it’s a subtle difference but there is a slight difference there.
I think you should be fine on the 154.5 in terms of width. It should be around 260mm at the inserts, which is a width I am always comfortable with. Assuming you’re riding with binding angles something like +15/-15 (which is usually recommended for an asym board like this) and you’re boots aren’t too bulky, then should be all good.
In terms of binding sizing, you should be able to get into a medium on most 10s. I found with the Salomon Lo-Fi size 10, that I maxed out the toe strap (but a good fit when I did have it on the longest setting) but that’s quite a bulky boot. My old test boots were Vans Aura size 10 and they were nowhere near maxing out the straps (think I could have got an Aura 11 into the mediums!) but they’re more low profile. But even if your boots are quite bulky, I think you’ll be fine with the medium. If you’re going Strata particularly I wouldn’t go large, because the base plate could be too long for the board at that width. It’s a longer base plate. You might get away with the Atlas Large, but I would still go medium, in this case – and the Atlas has an extendable gas pedal, so you can dial it out to fit your boot/board better.
Hey Nate,
im looking to get a new all mountain board and might need help choosing. My priorities: Edge Hold for ice, fun carver, and wide enough at the inserts (preferably about 270 mm or more, i like my eurocarves) and since you measure the insert width youre probably the best to ask:)
Im willing to sacrifice some butter and switch capabilities for these priorities (but should still be somewhat doable, as i like to do 180s)
In the park id only do 50/50 or jumps.
And powder isnt too important either.
Im 185 lbs, have 10.5 boots (about 32.5 cm in length id say) and am advenced ( but intermediate freestyle)
Im sorry thats quite a lot to take in, but are there any good options that come to mind?
Hi Adrian
Since you like to Eurocarve, I would be going for a board that really likes to carve. The RC C3 is decent there for sure, but I would look at:
– Niche Crux
– YES Ghost
– Salomon Assassin Pro
– Nitro Team (Camber)
You could also go for some stiffer options, but since you still want some butterability, these are what I’d look at. They’re also good for riding switch (not great in powder, but that sounds like a low priority for you) and good edge hold in icy conditions. But let me know if you’re not against going stiff, and I can suggest some others.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply!
Those seem like good options. The ghost seems like a great option, but i dont really dig the graphics haha (maybe 2022 will be better)
Out of curiosity, what would you recommend if i was willling to go a bit stiffer?
Hi Adrian
Don’t know for sure, but looks like YES are dropping (according to their catalog) the Ghost for 2022 (which is a real shame as it is a great board).
Some good options for stiffer options, if you’re willing to sacrifice some butterability:
Never Summer Ripsaw 7.5/10 flex
Ride Helix 6.5/10 flex
Ride Burnout 7/10 flex
Burton Freethinker 7/10 flex
Never Summer Proto Ultra 7.5/10 flex
Salomon Huck Knife Pro 6.5/10 flex
Hey Nate- Thanks for the reviews. Would size 11, 32 tm2s work with the 157.5? I’ve got the c2x version in wide and it’s plenty wide. This board in c3 sounds rad. I ride 15 & 15 binding angles.
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
With 11s, it’s getting pretty narrow. I measured the 157.5 as 263mm at the inserts. With 10s, that’s perfectly comfortable for me, but for 11s, you’ve got to add on roughly 1cm, depending on the boot profile. So that would be the equivalent of me on a 253mm width at inserts board. I haven’t ridden anything that narrow, so I don’t know for sure if that would be too narrow for me. I have ridden a board as narrow as 256mm at the inserts and I didn’t experience any drag, but it would also depend on how aggressively you carve. I’m not someone who gets super aggressive on carves – also not super casual, but moderately aggressive – no euro carving or anything.
For perspective, the 32 TM2s that I measured (in a size 10) were 2.6cm longer than the mondo. If the 11s are similar, then I would guess you’re boots are roughly 31.6cm long. That would mean a total 5.3cm of overhand, if you were to have your boots straight across – that might reduce to around 5cm, or maybe slightly less with 15/15 angles. So roughly 2.5cm overhang on both heel and toe edge. That’s about the maximum I would go for overhang (and if I could I would probably actually set that up 3cm on heel and 2cm on toe). But that’s all assuming your boots are that length.
So, I would say it’s doable, but no guarantees, of course. It’s on the very limit. And would also largely depend on how low you like to carve.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. I measured my boots and they’re 32cm on the total footprint so I will probably be looking for something wider. Much appreciated.
You’re very welcome John. Let me know if you want to bounce off ideas on any other options
Hey Nate,
How would you compare this to the Mercury? I know the Mercury is a directional board and isn’t asym, and of course no magnetraction, but it’s continuously at the top of everyone’s list for all-mountain freestyle boards. I was leaning towards going Mercury but with the Riders Choice having a C3 option, it may be too good to pass up. I’m on the East Coast and am a solid intermediate rider, spending my time on groomers and side hits. Thanks!
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
Quite different feeling boards. The RC C3 is a snappier feeling ride, the Mercury smoother feeling. The RC C3 is a little softer flexing in feel. They’re not worlds apart in that department, but a little bit so. And like you say, the Mercury is more directional. Not ultra directional, but a little directional. Better for riding powder vs the RC C3 for sure, and overall a smoother feel and a little better at speed and on big carves, IMO. But for jumps/spins/sidehits, riding switch I would take the RC C3 over the Mercury. So, I’d say it depends on what you want out of your board. The Mercury is a board that’s first and foremost carve, bomb, and decent in powder, with some freestyle aftertaste. Vs the RC C3, which is more freestyle first and foremost, with a penchant for being able to take that freestyle over the whole mountain and still good when you just want to bomb and carve, but not great in powder.
So yeah, very different boards – both really good in their own right, IMO, but which is best for you really depends, IMO, on the subtleties of your own style.
Hope this helps
Great review Nate, took your advice and brought the Burton Skeleton key and I love it.
I’m considering replacing my beginner board so I can end up with a 2-board quiver. SK for power days and maybe GNU RC for other days. I’m basically looking for a board that is good for all mountain while I can also make progress on switch, buttering and jumps, not a huge fan of pure park but maybe someday in the future. I slightly prefer the C3 version since I just want a board with different top sheet color than my SK (shamelessly). Do you think this would the right board for me or is there any other board that you would recommend?
I’m 6’2, around 188lb, size US9.5-US10. Do you think the 157.5 might be a little smaller for me?
Thanks!
Hi Stanley
Thanks for your message and glad to hear the SK is going well.
I think the RC C3 could work for what you’re describing for sure and a good compliment to the SK in the quiver. Not great in powder, but of course that’s what you’ve got the SK for.
I know you want that different top sheet, but I would certainly consider the Rider’s Choice (C2X) as well. And other similar boards, depending on what you’re looking for. The main reason, I’m thinking that, is that you mention buttering. The C2X RC is a little more buttery and a little better for jibbing – not that you’ll be jibbing that much by the sounds of it, but for buttering it’s worth considering. Or something similar. But if you want that something a little more aggressive, that carves a little better and can handle a little more speed, just down a little in terms of butterability and jibbing, but just as sick for jumps and riding switch, then I think the RC C3 is a great choice to compliment the SK. Certainly if you like the camber feel of the SK, then that’s another thing that might point to the RC C3.
Size-wise, I think the 157.5 would be a good size. That’s on the smaller size for you (the SK is wider, so going a little shorter to 158 is a good match, IMO). The RC C3 is narrower (a good width for your boots), so if it was going to be your do-it-all board, then you could go a little longer with your specs, but given the type of board it is (all-mountain-freestyle) and the type of riding you’ll be doing on it, I think that size is just right – same thing if you were to go RC C2X.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the reply. Yeah I can definitely see how C2X RC could be a nice fit for my purpose. So my priority for this board would be all mountain riding > freestyle > powder since I have SK for pow days. I don’t ride switch most of the time but I want one of my board to be capable of when I want to progress my switch and other tricks. Sometime I even think a directional board like Capita Mercury would suit my needs. What do you think would be a better fit for my 2-board quiver? I’m open to any other suggestions too given that I’m only familiar to a few snowboards.
Good to know that the 157.5 size is good for me too!
Hi Stanley
I think going All-Mountain-Freestyle is a good way to go for your purposes, since you have the SK. Not like you can’t ride powder with them at all, just they are little harder work, but I think with the SK and having a 2 board quiver, and given that you want to ride all-mountain with your second board, then something all-mountain-freestyle is definitely a good way to go. If you were thinking of doing more freestyle/park with your second board, then you could go with a more specialized freestyle/park board, but for what you’re describing, I think all-mountain-freestyle is the right match with your SK.
I would check out the following, depending on how aggressive you want to be with your second board:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hi Nate,
Great site mate, very informative.
So I’m stuck between 2 boards…. the GNU RC C3 or the Yes Greats Uninc. I only get to the mountains, France or Italy, for 1 week a year so need a good do everything board. I like to ride the mountain runs looking for side hits and also enjoy trying to butter and press. I am not good at riding switch but would like to try and improve. I am very comfortable laying down some speed on the groomers and enjoy racing friends who ski to the bottom of a black. Which of these 2 boards would you go for?
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
That’s a really really tough choice! Both are awesome boards and suit what you’re describing really well. So for starters, I don’t think there’s a wrong choice there at all. It might be that sizing is the best way to decide between them. I would be happy to give a sizing opinion if you wanted – would just need your height, weight and boot size. Sometimes there’s a size that makes more sense in one board or the other that can help to use as a tiebreaker.
Really excited about this board and this is the first review I know of. Thanks, Nate.
I’ve been thinking about this or the rocker version to ride instead of my Never Summer Proto Type 2 this coming season.
I’m really struggling to decide between the two versions though. On one hand I like the sound of something more jump focused, even though they both get a 5 it sounds like this is the case, and better at carving but on the other hand having the extra versatility to butter, jib, or ride powder sounds good, ie, more all mountain.
My other boards are a Yes PYL 159 and Capita Scott Stevens 155…writing that makes me think I should go more focused [camber] but when I’m doubtful about the conditions or want to ride everything it’s nice to be able to grab something more versatile…I’m stuck. Any advice?
Also what size would you recommend? I’m 178 cm, 82/3 kg, and size 9 US Adidas. I measured my feet from heel to longest toe and I think they’re 265 mm and I ride 15:15 on a twin. Saw your new charts, just want to make sure I’ve understood them correctly.
Hi Rick
Thanks for your message.
In terms of complementing your current quiver, I think both versions of the Rider’s Choice would be a nice in between between both those boards, but I would be leaning C3 in terms of the best balance for the quiver overall. Mostly because the Scott Steven Pro is a really buttery, jib focused board and the PYL already really good for powder. Those are the 3 main benefits of going for the C2X model over the C3, IMO, and you have those covered in your other 2 boards. And whilst you do have speed and carving covered in the PYL, those aren’t the best qualities in the Scott Stevens, IMO, so you would be getting a decent increase in those on the C3 vs C2X.
The C2X is a little more forgiving in uneven terrain, which might be the most compelling argument to go with that model, but in saying that, the C3 isn’t horrible in that kind of terrain by any means. The C2X is more versatile in a lot of ways, as you say, but overall for your quiver I think the C3 would be the slightly better compliment. I don’t think you could go wrong with either – and both offer a board that’s different to both of the other boards in your quiver – and like you say, both give you a more capable jumping board. Both get 5/5 because they are both really awesome to jumps with, but they have some different qualities for jumping. The C3 model just has a touch more pop and for landings it’s more of a really stomp it kind of landing. The C2X is a little more forgiving of errors on landings and you can still stomp the landing for sure (and still great pop) but just not quite to the same extent. So, if you’re a confident jumper already, then I’d probably be just leaning towards the C3 and if you’re still getting your confidence/working on jumps, then the C2X is the better bet for jumps. But these are subtle differences as both, IMO are so fun to jump with.
Size-wise, I would say to go for the 157.5cm, for your specs, for this kind of board, irrespective of the other boards in your quiver. And a nice bonus that that happens to fall right between your other boards, in terms of size.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks, Nate. Think you’re right, especially because I realised I don’t ride my Scott Stevens enough because the PT2 is such a good all-rounder.
What would you recommend binding-wise from Union? Need one pair to cover the PYL and RC.
Hi Rick
To cover those two boards, I would be looking at either the Falcor, Atlas or Strata. Or if you wanted to save some cash, even the Force would work. The Falcor would be better on the PYL and the Strata better on the RC, IMO. So it depends what you want to maximize (the Atlas in the middle of those two, but without the mini-disc, so board feel not quite as good). The Falcor would definitely still work on the RC, but would just drive it a little harder and the Strata still works with the PYL, just wouldn’t drive it quite as hard as the Strata. I would be leaning towards the Falcor personally, but if you want things feeling a little softer, then the Strata would definitely work. If you’re not too concerned about the board feel, the Atlas is a very solid choice between those 2 (and the board feel is still fine, just not quite as good as the other 2). The advantage of the Atlas as well is that it’s more adjustable than the other 2.