Hello and welcome to my GNU Riders Choice review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Rider's Choice as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Rider's Choice a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
NOTE: The 2026 model was the last version of the Rider's Choice. The review below hasn't been updated beyond the 2026 model, naturally. There was no direct replacement for the Rider's Choice and nothing similar that came in either. This was very surprising given how good the board was and how long it had been in GNU's line for.
Overall Rating
Board: GNU Rider's Choice
Price: $629
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Medium
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 88.3/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Of the 33 current model all-mountain-freestyle snowboards that we tested:
The average score was 84.3/100
The highest score was 95.6/100
The lowest score was 72.8/100
The average price was $608
❄️ The Rider's Choice ranked 3rd out of 33
Overview of the Rider's Choice's Specs
Check out the tables for the Rider's Choice's specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN-FREESTYLE
PRICE:
$629 - BUYING OPTIONS
$699 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER
HYBRID ROCKEr - GNU's "C2X"
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
Sintered | gNU's "Sintered Knife Cut" base
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
3mm*
* but hard to measure with a hybrid rocker profiles
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
151.5 | 251 | 90-180 | 41-82 |
154.5 | 252 | 120-200 | 54-90 |
157.5 | 255 | 130-210 | 59-95 |
159.5 | 256 | 135-230 | 61-104 |
161.5 | 258 | 140-240 | 64-108 |
155W | 265 | 130-210 | 59-95 |
158W | 268 | 130-220 | 59-100 |
162W | 268 | 140-250 | 64-112 |
Who is the Rider's Choice Best Suited To?
The Rider's Choice is most suited to anyone looking for a versatile one-board-quiver board that leans more freestyle than freeride and want something that can handle a bit of speed and aggressiveness. While I wouldn't call it super aggressive by any means, it's more burly than it was a few years back (2022 and prior models).
It's not for a beginner. You'll want to be at least intermediate to get the best out of this board.
Changes for 2024 model
The Rider's Choice 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 Rider's Choice in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Rider's Choice is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: GNU Rider's Choice 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" (550mm)
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
Weight: 6lbs 13oz (3080 grams)
Weight per cm: 19.56 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 Rider's Choice was a little heavier than normal on the scales, but felt normal on snow.
Powder
Didn't have super deep powder, but based on specs and feel it's got decent float for a twin. A bit of rocker in the profile helps with that.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Not out of this world carving, but can lay down a decent carve on this board.
Ease of Turning/Slashing: Pretty easy to initiate turns with but not effortless - you do need to lean into your turns a little to get them going.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: It wasn't lightning quick edge-to-edge but it's not sluggish either.
Catchniess: Not a catchy board overall but not completely catch free either.
Speed
This board is pretty fast for a twin and pretty stable at speed too. Not a bomber, but decent enough.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Handled crud really well. It's decently damp and takes quite a bit to buck it around.
Trees/Bumps: It's pretty normal in terms of edge-to-edge quickness, so it wasn't bad, but also nothing special, when it came to weaving between bumps and trees.
Jumps
A really fun board to hit jumps with. Not quite as fun as the RC C3, but still really decent.
Pop: There is some pop that's fairly easy access but most of it you have to put in some effort for. You don't have to throw your whole body into or anything, but you've got to put of energy to get the energy out. When you do, the total pop is really decent.
Approach: Good mix of stable and adjustable.
Landing: Really solid on landings and forgiving when you don't get it right.
Side-hits: Not quite in my top tier in terms of side hits but still really good.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Excels at any sized jump. Medium to large are its sweet spots.
Switch
Made for riding switch. Nothing like an asym for it, IMO. Transitions weren't effortless but they weren't hard either.
Spins
Really good for spins. Has the pop and energy and good for setting up and landing switch.
Jibbing
It's not my ideal jib board, but it's decent nonetheless.
Butters
Tip and tail are easy to press and you can lock them in nicely. Nice board to butter with.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Jumps | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Switch | 5 | 10/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Spins | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Butters | 4 | 8/10 |
| Jibbing | 3 | 3/5 |
| Crud etc | 4 | 4/5 |
| Trees | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Pow | 3 | 3/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 88.3/100 |
The Rider's Choice is a board that can do a bit of everything and do it well. You can take it anywhere and do anything. But it still has an overall more freestyle flavor.
For those who want an all-mountain-freestyle board that is just that little bit better in powder, this is a great choice.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Rider’s Choice, 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 Rider’s Choice compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hello and welcome to my GNU Riders Choice review.
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Riders Choice is capable of.
Hi Nate,
love your snowboard reviews!
Height: 184cm
Weight: 80kg
Boot Size: 27.5 / 42.5 EU (DEELUXE TEAM PRO Boot atv)
I’d like to go to Japan for one season and I want to buy my first board. I would say I am an advanced snowboarder. I want an All Mountain and want to learn freestyle. I’m thinking of the Riders Choice or the Capita Spring Break Resort Twin, but I’m not sure.
Which board or other would you recommend to me?
Thank you in advance!
Hi Teo, thanks for your message.
As an advanced rider, I would go with the Rider’s Choice. Both are good freestyle leaning all-rounders and for both their biggest downside is powder, but both neither are terrible for powder or anything. The main reason I’d be leaning Rider’s Choice in this case is that it gives you a little more ceiling in terms of speed and carving vs the Resort Twin and better for variable terrain (better when it gets icy and handles messy snow better too).
But also take into account that the kind of feel/personality you’re looking for. The Resort Twin is the easier riding, more playful option. I would take the Resort Twin over the Rider’s Choice if I wanted a more playful feel, was going to be riding in a lot of tight areas (quicker and less effort for quick tight turns at slower speeds) and I wasn’t going to carving too aggressively and didn’t tend to ride overly fast. That’s not to say that the Rider’s Choice requires an overly aggressive input to drive it or anything, but more so than the Resort Twin, which I found pretty playful.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate!
As usual, I don’t buy a board without your advice 😀
I’m torn between a T Rice Pro and a GNU Riders Choice. I’d like a board for both freeriding and piste riding, especially one that can ride switch.
They seem like practically the same boards… which one do you think is the biggest difference?
Could the GNU’s asymmetrical board make a difference?
Are there any other possible boards?
Thanks one more time.
Fabrizio
Hi Fabrizio
Thanks for your message. It’s a close call. Personally I would go Rider’s Choice. Just all round like it a little more. But the T Rice Pro would work for what you want for sure. GNU is bringing in a new board called the Upgrade for the ’26 line as well which could work – though not as good for switch. Other options that spring to mind include the YES Standard, Jones Mountain Twin, Slash ATV and Bataleon Goliath Plus.
Hope this helps out with some options, but the Rider’s Choice would be a good bet, IMO.
Hi Nate, I hope you have a nice winter this year. I’m buying the GNU Riders Choice 2023 C2x but can’t decide on the size. My height is 5.10, my weight is 165 lbs and my foot size is 9/9.5US.
I’m an intermediate level snowboarder. I don’t go into the park, but I often do small jumps, turns(180/360), butters and tricks on the piste. I also ride during a day, sometimes off-piste/pow and sometimes in fast slaloms and carvings. And I love doing all these things.
The seller, who have only asked for height, weight and foot number, wants to sell size 154.5, but I am stuck between size 157.5 and can’t decide. Your advice is very valuable to me, which size do you think is more suitable for me?
And another question: which bindings are suitable for gnu riders choice 2023 c2x and my profile. I can buy union and bent metal binding models in my country.
Hi Okazn, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157, which is closer to the 157.5 for sure, but as an intermediate rider you could size down a little, so the 154.5 is certainly doable. It’s a close call. You will likely prefer the 154.5 when you’re doing tricks and anything where you need tight maneuverability (e.g. trees). The 157.5 will be better for speed, carving and powder. Neither will suck at the other. But one will be more optimal for one set of things and the other will be more optimal for a different set of things, which is why it’s a close call. Neither would be a bad call – it comes down to whether you want to slightly more optimal for speed/powder/carving (in which case go for the 157.5) or more optimal for tricks/trees (in which case go for the 154.5).
For bindings, from Union the Force, Strata, Atlas and Falcor would all match to the board. For your level and weight, I would go Strata or Force. Between the 2 options the Force will give you a more even, consistent response and the Strata a more springy/energetic response. The Strata also has a better board feel for when doing ollies, butters etc, IMO.
We haven’t tested any Bent Metal in recent times, so can’t say for sure, but on paper, the Anvil and the Axtion look like the most suitable.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
Great review!
I have this board high on my short list and just found a pretty good deal for it (~30% off) available in sizes 151,5 and 157,5. I’m 5’8, 160lbs and am looking for a board mainly for resort (mostly blue and red piste), riding switch and the ocasional jump and butter. I’m fairly new to the sport but evolving quickly.
For my specs I guess a 154,5 would be ideal, but since it is currently unavailable would it be a compromise to go for the 151,5 or should I just wait for next years boards and get the 154,5 then at list? Money is not a problem, but like everyone I like a good deal.
Thanks!
Hi António
Thanks for your message. I think your best bet is to wait and get the 154.5. It would be just right size-wise for you, IMO. The 151.5 a little too small and the 157.5 a little too big. It’s worth waiting and paying more to get the most optimal size, IMO. If you really couldn’t wait, I would be leaning 151.5 over the 157.5, for what you’re describing, but really I would strongly suggest waiting to get the 154.5.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, that was really helpful! Do you think the Jones Mountain Twin is a good alternative to the RC? From reviews the MT seems to be more beginner friendly and a bit less stable at speeds, is that correct? The Jones 157 seems to be the right size for me but would really appreciate your input.
Thank you very much!
Hi António
Yeah, I would say the Mountain Twin is a little easier to ride than the RC, now. It would have been the other way around once upon a time, but the RC has become a bit more technical and the MT has become an easier ride, so they’ve kind of swapped in that sense now. I would say the MT is better in powder and the RC is better for jumps, spins, switch etc. Fairly close in terms of stability at speed, in my experience with them.
Size-wise, for the MT, I would say it’s a debate between the 154 and 157, but I’d be leaning 154 for you. But if you could also let me know your boot size, that would help to give a more informed opinion. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156, but depending on boot size, might be a better bet to size down from that, rather than up, given your fairly new to snowboarding. Also, the weight recommendations on the MT are on the low side for their lengths (and often the case with Jones boards), IMO.
Thanks! My euro boot size is 42,5 ˜ 43, so I guess about 9,5 ˜ 10 US.
Additionally I’ve read some criticism about the durability of some snowboard brands top sheets that delaminate and/or get severely damaged easily, sometimes right on 1st day of use, even from people saying they are very careful with the boards. This will be my 1st snowboard purchase and I won’t be riding that often (1 or 2 weeks / year) so quality of materials, finishing and durability are a major factor for me.
There are quite some complaints about Yes snowboards and I also read some about Lib Tech top sheets. Didn’t find anything on GNU nor Jones.
In your opinion, are these 2 boards a benchmark in terms of construction quality in the industry or are there better options, regardless of price?
Thanks!
Hi António
I think I would be leaning 154 for Mountain Twin. The 157 isn’t out of range either, but I’d be leaning 154. Your foot size is fine for both sizes – but I would still err towards sizing down rather than up, give you’re a newer rider.
I own a Jones board and haven’t had issues with the topsheet so far. I haven’t had it out that many days, but it seems fine so far. I don’t own a GNU currently, so have only ever ridden them for a day or so. I haven’t noticed issues in that time, but it’s hard to say for sure, having not had them over the longer term. I own a Lib Tech (Terrain Wrecker) and it hasn’t had any top sheet issues – I’ve done close to 100 days on it. One thing with some Lib Tech and GNU boards is that the metal edge doesn’t fully wrap around the board – there are sections on the tip and tail where it doesn’t have the metal edge (this is the case on the Terrain Wrecker). I tried looking at videos I did with the Rider’s Choice and notes I took, but I didn’t mention about it, so I’m not sure if that one has a full wrap edge or not. I have heard about YES as well in terms of their top sheets, but I also own a YES board and haven’t had those issues with it (have done a lot of days on it), so it hasn’t been an issue in my experience, but I have heard a few people mention it.
Hey Nate,
Love your reviews and insight!
Here’s my dilemma. Was wanting an RC up until I read your review of this years. I have a bit of experience with a 2021 in a 161.5 that a buddy has and have always loved the board, but ideally would’ve liked it sized down a bit. Just trying to decide if I should give it a shot or maybe move onto something else. I loved the stable, smooth damp feel of this board jn the previous iteration. How does a Proto synthesis compare directly to this? Or maybe i should be looking more at the Protoslinger. I ride mostly a small Prarie Hill all winter except a couple trips to the west a year so keeping things playful is key. I like to hit the small/medium jump line and I’m interested in maybe hitting simple boxes and rails in the future, as well I want to progress in switch. I currently ride an endeavor ranger but I really would prefer something more damp. Any suggestions? As stated before I’m looking at the RC, protoslinger, Proto synthesis, and am super curious about the Bataleon Whatever, but question it abolty in hard snow and its dampness. Any help or other suggestiions would be appreciated. BTW I’m 5’10” 200LBs. Size 10.5 Addidas boots and 50yrs old. If any of that makes a difference.
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
The RC and Proto Synthesis are damper than the Proto Slinger and Whatever, IMO, so I think I’d be leaning one of those. The RC is more stable, smoother and more damp than it used to be, IMO, so those things wouldn’t be an issue for you. It’s just not as playful or snappy as it used to be, IMO. I recently rode the 2024 model and is the same deal as the 2023 model.
The Proto Synthesis is a similar feel to the RC. Not exactly the same personality but similar. I’d say just a touch softer flexing than the RC but not a lot in it.
Size-wise, I would be leaning 159.5 for the RC. For the Proto Synthesis I think the 161 is probably the best bet, but if you wanted to go smaller, the 158 could work too.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for the quick reply! I think I’ll give the RC a try. Out of curiosity how would the protoslinger or whatever compare to the Ranger? How would a pioneer measure up? Between the protosynthesiis and the RC witch would you say is the least catchy?
Hi Justin
They are both (RC and PS) stiffer and damper, better for carving, better for speed. Not as playful as Ranger for skidded turns and generally messing around. They’re really the same in terms of catchiness in my experience. Both not completely catch-free, but nothing ultra-catchy or anything either. I’d say slightly more likely to catch an edge vs the Ranger, but not really.
I slightly preferred the Pioneer to the Ranger. I didn’t find it really any better for carving/speed at least not high speed carves. But found it poppier and more dynamic overall. Maybe slightly damper, but not by heaps.
Thanks for your quick responses, your insight is greatly appreciated! Thank you!
You’re very welcome Justin. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, sorry to bug you again. Could you give me an idea of how the yes standard, nitro team gullwjng and slash brainstorm would compare to the RC and proto sythesis?
Hi Justin
I would say the Brainstorm is a little softer flexing and overall more playful. The Standard and Team Gullwing similar in terms of playful/aggressive, but a little better in powder vs the RC and PS, but not quite as good for switch or freestyle in general. I’ve linked to the respective reviews of those boards, if you wanted to check out more detailed comparisons between them.
Good day. You’ve helped answer a few of my questions and it’s very much appreciated. I doubt you will know this but if you could make an educated guess that would be helpful. I’m wondering what the width at the insert is for the Riders Choice 155 wide. I’m guessing it’s about 270mm. Thanks in advance.
Hi Paco
I haven’t measured the 155W specifically, but in my experience measuring boards in multiple sizes they tend to be the same difference between waist and inserts. The 157 is 263mm at the inserts with a 255mm waist width, so that 8mm difference is likely to be the same for the 155W, so you’d be looking at around 273mm.
Super helpful. Thank you
Hi Nate!
I’m a solid intermediate/borderline advanced rider.
Looking to improve my switch riding this season. A bit too old and creaky for jibs… but jumps/sidehits/rollers/small butters are all things I like to do. Not at an amazing level, but can do them, and looking to improve more.
Love the idea of a twin that can float on the slush (and rarely pow) here in SoCal.
Was wondering if the Rider’s Choice is good for these types of conditions. Or would something like a Mind Expander Twin, with its big rockered and 3D nose/tail, as well as some traction tech be better for this? Seems like both RC and MET are similar boards?
I quite liked the idea of a magnetraction board, as SoCal conditions can be very variable as it warms up.. ice in the morning, slush in the afternoon.
But after hearing you say the Rider’s Choice got more aggressive due to the new core and carbon.. not as sure anymore.
Currently ride a Jones Flagship for big mountain (Mammoth), but wanted something more fun for smaller (BigBear/SnowSummit) mountains. Open to suggestions!
200lbs, 10.5 Vans Infuse.
Thank you!
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
Rider’s Choice still not super aggressive or anything, but yeah got a bit stiffer/more aggressive than previous models. The MET would work for sure. Certainly a bit of a step up in terms of powder/slush over the RC. Not as good in icy situations but not bad either. Note that it’s not a true twin, even though it’s name suggests it. That said, it’s pretty good for riding switch. I would say check out the new Jones Tweaker, which is also decent in powder for a twin, but it’s not as good as other Jones in icy conditions, so it would be a question mark for those icy mornings.
But yeah, I think the MET is good enough in icy conditions, that it would work. And the RC is still an option. You could also consider the Salomon Assassin or YES Dicey – or even YES Typo, which I think would suit what you’re describing well.
Hope this helps
Thank you!
Appreciate the insight!
Small addendum, did you find the RC C3 a lot more aggressive? Would the new core+carbon make it an “aggressive all mtn freestyle” category?
I’ve never tried C3, but they don’t seem to have any early rise at the contact points right?
Anyways, looks like some snow sprinkles are starting at some mountain tops, looking forward to the season!
Hi Peter
The RC C3 is a little more aggressive, but I didn’t find it as much of a difference as you’d think. It’s still not enough that I would consider it aggressive all-mountain freestyle. But it’s borderline. It’s right on the fence between the two categories. Yeah, no early rise in tip and tail. It’s a little bit of rocker between the feet and then the rest camber. It’s not going to be as good in powder as any of the other options we discussed, so, based on what you’re looking for less suitable, IMO.
Hey Nate! What’s the difference between the RC and Finest, other than the asymmetric tips on the RC? On specs and technologies throughout GNU’s website they seem identical (C2x, stiffness, dimensions, wood types, asym, rider level, base, sidewalls) but your reviews for both were very different. Almost like the Finest is an RC for heavier, more powerful riders, or conversely like an RC could be considered a Finest for lighter riders. The 20% price differential is the most baffling, given the similarities. Any insights side by side?
Hey AMac
Yeah, it is strange – I thought they would feel more similar too, when riding, but didn’t. But I think the subtle differences do make the difference.
GNU do rate the Finest as stiffer in their flex graph – which I found to be true (I felt the RC at 5/10 flex and the Finest at 6/10 flex). And I think that’s probably the biggest difference on the face of it. And that likely comes down to the glassing, I would imagine. Whilst both mention triax/biax glassing, that doesn’t tell us the ratios of that. I would suspect that the Finest has a higher ratio of triax which gives it that stiffer feeling – and, in my experience riding it, a less snappy feeling too. The Finest felt like it was heavier to me as well. In the flex rating spec in their dimensions specs, the graph doesn’t really coincide with the numbers though, so I can see where you’re coming from – the 157.5 RC and 157 Finest are both considered 6/10 by GNU. But they didn’t feel that way to me. To me the graph they have is more accurate in terms of flex.
But other than flex, I’d say the main difference is contact length. The RC has a 119cm contact length on the 157.5 vs 116cm on the Finest. Whilst GNU doesn’t publish effective edge specs, the ratio of contact length to effective edge affects the ride quite a bit. This is a difference that’s often overlooked. That and the flex (probably down to the glassing) are what I would imagine are the main reasons for the differences.
They do have slightly different bases as well – and that, at a guess, is what accounts for a lot of the price difference. The type of base can have a really big impact on price.
Hi Nate,
Love this site every year!
Weight: 195
Height: 5’8”
Boot: Salomon Dialogue Size 10W
Bindings: Flux DS Large
I’m trying to decide between the RC 154.5 and the Greats 154.
I’m primarily an all mountain rider but I want to work on getting quicker around bumps and smoother in tight trees, therefore the shorter board choice. (I usually ride 156/157) I’m also on the east coast, so plenty of icy conditions, and the reason for narrowing it down to these two. I am not sure the pros and cons for either hybrid camber or rocker in the trees. Any suggestion on which board is better for getting around bumps and trees?
Also, the width on the RC 154.5 looks narrow for my boots/bindings but haven’t tried it out. I measured the over hang and while the bindings fit, the boots are a hair long. By all charts, my 10W should fit a 252 waist, unless I’m reading it wrong. Just not sure about going up to the 155wide with a 265 waist. That just seems to big for wanting quickness in the trees. But any suggestions would be great!
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message and apologies for the slower than usual reply – on a snowboarding tour right now, so a bit behind in answering.
Between those two boards, I think you’ll find the 154.5 RC a little quicker, more maneuverable in the trees. The Greats would certainly work and it’s not slouch in trees (I ride my 156 Greats in the trees all the time and really like it – 6’0″, 185lbs, size 10/9.5 boots). But I’d say the RC in that size would be a little more nimble. The narrower width and the camber profile both help there. The Greats is quite wide, even in the 154 – in fact, at the inserts, it’s a similar width to the 155W RC – and is actually a little wider at the tip and tail versus the 155W RC. Because of the narrower waist, though, it’s still quite nimble – and for your specs, sizing down to the 154 would certainly work.
The Hybrid Rocker profile on the RC does help with making quick turns. Plenty of hybrid cambers do make quick turns, don’t get me wrong, but on average the Hybrid rocker profile tends to be a quicker turner. That rocker in the middle acts as almost a pivot point. So that and the fact that it’s quite a bit narrower, and based on my experience with each board, I would say the RC 154.5 a little more nimble.
In terms of being too narrow, it’s borderline, but if you’re going to be riding it with +15/-15 angles or similar, you should be OK with 10s. It’s going to be around 259mm at the inserts. With 10s, I typically recommend not to go narrower than around 260mm at the inserts, to be on the safe side, even with +15/-15 angles, but in reality, I’ve ridden boards with narrower width than that in 10s without boot drag, so no guarantees, but you’ll likely be OK, depending on binding angles.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate question about the RC. Been riding a 2018 space case with k2 lien ATfor past few years, and a skate-banana before that. I love libtech gnu and am looking to get on to a new board this year. Worried that If I switch up manufacture it will be harder to adjust, but am open to it. Hit park all over the mountain and mainly the jump lines in the park it self. Would RC be even a step up to the space case or Should I go different route all together? And what would be best binding pair for say RC
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
I’d think the RC is the most similar to the Space Case – and quite similar in terms of the same camber profile, the assymmetry etc. They’re not the exact same dimensions or anything, so they’re certainly not identical, but quite similar.
You could also think about the RC C3 which is essentially the same except with a C3 camber profile (more camber dominant and less rocker). If you’re not really riding powder or rails/boxes etc, then it’s worth looking at. I think it would suit what you’re describing really well.
Sticking with what you know and like is certainly the safe bet and given that you like the Space Case, there is very little chance that you won’t like the RC or RC C3. But if you did want to check out other options, you could take a look at my list of >>my top All-Mountain-Freestyle snowboards.
The Lien AT work with those boards, IMO, so you could stick with those, if you’re still happy with them. If you’re looking for a change, then you could check out the following:
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
I felt the RC at a 5/10 flex and the RC C3 at a 6/10 flex. So for the RC C3, I’d probably go with something 6/10 flex or at the very least 5/10 flex. And the RC preferably 5/10 or 6/10 flex as well, but 4/10 doable.
Hope this helps
Hey looking into a new board for 21/22’ season. Really love GNU/libtech have been ridding an 18’ spacecase and a 14’ skate banana for the past few years. Would the RC be next best choice since space case is no more or what would be your best recommendation. Basically I’m having a hard time choosing a new board this year but maybe would jump ship to a new company. Mainly I ride “park” all over the mountain with the jumps line in the park itself. Just trying to figure out the best setup board/binding I could buy for the 21/22 season
Hey boss, 5’8 150 lbs just picked up the 151.5! Like to dabble in the park but also rip down runs. Should I exchange for 154.5? Thanks in advance
Hi Timothy
Thanks for your message.
Nah, for your specs and how you describe your riding, for this board, I think you’re good on the 151.5. The 154.5 would work too (particularly if you were going to be bombing runs a lot) but I would stick 151.5 as the better all-round size for you.
Thanks much! I also have a Yes. Dicey. Would you have went for a Huck knife or DOA instead of the RC?
Hi Timothy
If you already have a YES Dicey and use that mostly for park, then you could go 154.5 for RC, if you wanted to use it more for bombing.
Yeah, maybe something a little more aggressive like the Huck Knife or DOA as a compliment to the Dicey. The RC certainly isn’t the same board as the Dicey though. But yeah if you wanted Dicey mainly for park and something else more aggressive for the rest of the mountain, then you could have done that. But the RC is still more all-mountain than the Dicey is, IMO.
Hi Nate….
I have flight attendant 2020 and burton mystery flying V 2014 and looking for a new board .
I have 3 boards I’m looking at ….
Custom X camber or Flying V
Gnu raider choice
Paramont
Wish one do you prefer? And why.
I like to carve and have fun in the slope jump a little in the slope not in big jump
Hi Martin
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be looking at the Paramount or Rider’s Choice as a good compliment to the rest of your quiver and given that it sounds like you’re looking for a fun board. The Custom X is fun, but it’s the kind of board that you want to be on your game for the whole time and it’s something you’re probably wanting to bomb with most of the time. For jumps it’s better for bigger jumps too.
Between the Rider’s Choice and the Paramount, it depends on the feel you want out of it. The Paramount is all camber, but it’s softer flexing (similar flex to the Rider’s Choice, IMO, but a good bit softer than the Flight Attendant and particularly the Custom X). It’s really good for carving and has some really good pop. It’s a more aggressive ride than something like the Rider’s Choice (RC). The RC is more playful. Paramount certainly not as aggressive as something like the Custom X, but in comparison to RC.
So yeah, if you’re looking for something really playful, the RC I think is the way to go – and I’d say it represents the biggest difference to the rest of your quiver, but the Paramount is definitely different to the others you have too. It’s probably a similar flex to the Mystery Flying V (based on specs as that’s not a board I’ve actually ridden), but it’s all camber. If you wanted something still really good for carving and a little more on the aggressive side, but still with some playfullness, then I’d go Paramount.
Hope this helps with your decision
RC 2 or RC3 ? and wide or not ,have size 11.5 US
Hi Martin
RC C3 if you want to get the most pop, better carving and better at speed versus the RC (C2X version). The C2X if you want it to be a little more playful, slightly quicker edge-to-edge at slower speeds and a little better in powder.
With US11.5 boots, I would go wide for sure. The RC C3 will have wide sizes in the 2022 model, but doesn’t for the 2022 model.
Hi Nate,
I search for an all mountain freestyle board : I liked the huck knife and loved the playful aspect of it, its flex for butters, and poppy aspect. But I want to be able to go a bit in the powder and carve.
I can’t decide between the Salomon Assassin, GNU riders choice and Twin mountain 2021.
Is the Twin mountain as playful, easy to butter and pop as the others? Is the GNU heel turn so much better?
Which one of the 3 do you advise for someone that really likes the freestyle/joyful part?
Hi Cedric
Thanks for your message.
I would say the Mountain Twin is as easy to butter as the other 2 and similarly playful. I’d say Rider’s Choice 1/2 step more playful than the other 2. It’s not quite as poppy and overall not quite as good for jumps, spins etc. The Mountain Twin is a little better in powder than the other 2 though. In terms of carving, like proper carving as opposed to turns, the MT and Assassin are about equals, IMO, with the Rider’s Choice 1/2 step down.
If you were going to keep the Huck Knife and sometimes use that for park etc, then I would go Mountain Twin – as it’s the best compliment to the Huck Knife – and you would get more out of it in terms of powder. But if you’re looking to replace the Huck Knife, then I would be leaning Assassin or Rider’s Choice, given that you’re leaning more freestyle by the sounds of it.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much!!
You’re so caring for your members. Keep up the good work.
I just bought the Assassin 🙂
PS: the seller who appeared to really know what he talked about, said exactly the same things as you!
You’re very welcome Cédric. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate. I am 5’8 and 160 pound, wearing burton 10. I think my size should be 154,5 but the store only have 151,7 and 157,5 left. I am intermediate advance rider who like to jump and butter but also riding groom and uneven terrain. I ride a Salomon time machine 156 now and find it a little long. Do you think I can go 151,5 or is it too small ?? I can also buy last year model at 154 but I would prefer this year model
Thanks
Hi Sebastien
Thanks for your message.
I think the 154.5 is the best size for your specs and how you describe your riding. If it was me, I would buy last year’s 154.5 rather than this years 151.5. If you were predominantly riding in the park and nothing too big in terms of jumps, then I would say 151.5 would be fine, but for what you’re describing, I would rather go 154.5 in last year’s than 151.5 in this years.
As far as I know the 2020 model is identical to the 2021 model, apart from the graphic, so you wouldn’t be loosing anything going with last year’s model. Note that some sites don’t add the .5 to sizing, so last year’s model that you’re looking at might say 154 on some sites, but it was the same 154.5 size as this years.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, I just read your reviews of this board with c3 camber and wondering if it is a better choices for me. In order of importance for me :
1-jump in park and side hits
2-stability ( I’m in eastern Canada so hard snow )
3-uneven terrain, trees and groomers
4- buttery
Don’t really have the chance to ride powder
I would like to gain stability and more agility in trees compare to my Salomon time machine 2015
I also have a look on the niche crux in 153 or 156 ?
I will keep my burton Malavita with the new board
Thanks again for your help
Seb
Hi Sébastien
The RC C3 could certainly be an option. It’s a little more stable at speed, a little better for carving and more poppy. I found it a little less buttery than the Rider’s Choice and not as good in powder. So yeah, if you want something a little more stable and a little more aggressive, then it’s certainly an option. I slightly preferred the C2X version in uneven terrain as well. Since you’re not that concerned about powder, I think it’s down to whether you want to sacrifice a little in terms of uneven terrain and buttering to gain in pop, carving and stability.
The Crux is an option too. Again, you’re looking at dropping a little in terms of uneven terrain and butterability, but better for speed and carving. Size-wise, I think probably the 153. The 156 is certainly doable for you, but I think given your style of riding, I would be leaning 153. Note that the Crux only has subtle magnetraction. It’s still good in icy conditions, but not quite as good as the RC C3, IMO.
Malavita (assuming it’s the Re:Flex model) will be a good match, IMO to the Crux, RC C3 and Rider’s Choice.
Hi, i have a Signal OG flat/wide board 155 , and i am around 187lbs and 180cm tall. O feel kt a little stiff the board though might be is too new and has not brea-in yet. I would like to focus more on medium/ red jumps to get confidence and then also for jibbing or flat tricks … you think is a good boars or shifting to other would help me advance faster ? Thanks
Hi Tomas
I haven’t ridden the Signal OG, so I couldn’t say for sure. From what I’ve read there are mixed reviews about it being softer and some finding it stiffer. It’s true that boards do break in and tend to be stiffer when you first buy them. And different boards do this to varying degrees. It could be the case that the Signal OG breaks in quite a lot after a while which might explain the mixed takes on its stiffness. Perhaps those who have found it stiff reviewed it after riding a new model and those who found it softer rode a broken in version. But that’s all just guess work as I haven’t ridden it. Certainly for what you’re describing there, going with something a bit softer isn’t a bad idea. If you were looking to replace the Signal OG, you could check out the following:
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Is there anything new or upgrades on the 2021 version over the older version?
Hi Dylan
Thanks for your message.
As far as I can tell the 2021 Rider’s Choice and the 2020 Rider’s Choice are exactly the same board, except for the graphic.
Hi Nate,
Currently lookin to buy my first board. Had a couple hand-me-downs, most recent of which is a 2014 GNU Carbon Credit for the last 3 seasons. I hit everything from the park to Jackson Hole powder-moguls and was pretty stoked with how it handled, actually. I’m in between the Rider’s Choice and the Niche Aether cuz I really loved hybrid camber and wanna stick with it, but I don’t want to compromise anywhere- park or around the mountain. Which board would you go with, and are both gonna be better everywhere than the Carbon Credit?
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
Since you really like the Carbon Credit, I would go Rider’s Choice. It will be the most similar feel to the Carbon Credit but a boost in performance. Doesn’t feel exactly the same for sure (it’s a little stiffer and has more camber – and different shape etc, but will feel more similar than the Aether. Though the Aether does have that Hybrid Rocker profile, it almost feels more like a hybrid camber, to me). And the Rider’s Choice, IMO, feels just that little bit better in powder.
Vs the Carbon Credit, the Rider’s Choice will give you a bit more stability at speed and be better for carving (still not an out and out bomber, but certainly more so than the Carbon Credit). It’s also going to give you more pop and a more stable landing platform. The Carbon Credit probably a little better for jibs, for me personally, but I like softer flexing for a jib board for sure, and the Carbon Credit just a little more buttery. But I would say the difference you would notice for speed, carving and jumps will be significantly more noticeable than the small decreases you might get in butterability and jibbing.
Similar for the Aether – the Aether better for speed, carving and jumps. But the difference not as big for jumps and bigger for carving/speed (as in the Aether a little better than Rider’s Choice for more aggressive carves and speed but not as good as RC for jumps). And the decrease in jibbing would be more noticeable too, IMO – i.e. the Aether not quite as good a jibber as the RC.
Hope this helps with your decision
100% does, thank you so much. Definitely gonna go with the RC proably with Union Falcors.
Thanks again-
Michael
You’re very welcome Michael. Happy riding on your new setup!
Nate —
Been reading all your info and advise on the site, really helpful stuff.
I’ve been riding for probably 15 years now once or twice a season, and believe it or not never owned a board. Most of my riding is on the east coast. Last season I did some test driving and got on a riders choice and really liked how it felt. Would like your advise on the right size and also whether you have another board that I should consider before pulling the trigger on a riders choice. I consider myself an intermediate/ advanced rider. I don’t hangout in the park much but do like hitting smaller jumps where I can find them. I’m 6’3, about 205 with a 11 boot. Thanks again!
Hi Travis
Thanks for your message.
I think the Rider’s Choice could work for you. It’s good in hard/icy conditions, which is always a good thing on the East Coast. A great option for riding the resort and finding natural hits (and going into the park if you want to but don’t have to). If you’re looking at doing more off piste, or if you see powder a bit, there could be better choices, but assuming you’re predominantly in the resort, I think it’s a good choice for you.
Size-wise, I would be weighing up the 161.5 and 162W for your specs. The decision between the 2 will depend on how aggressively you like to carve. If you like to really rail your carves, then I would go 162W. If you ride a little more chilled and don’t get that high on your edges, then you might appreciate the slightly better maneuverability you get from the narrower 161.5.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate. That’s super helpful. Last question… Any advise on a binding that would pair well with this board? I have the k2 Maysis boot.
Hi Travis
I would pair the Rider’s Choice with a 5/10 or 6/10 in terms of flex. And I would look at something with decent board feel too. Something from the following would be a good place to start:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
That second list the bindings are mostly too soft, but the Malavita Re:Flex is an option from there.
Thanks man!
You’re very welcome Travis. Happy riding!
Hi Nate!
I am new on snowboard ( Ride 15 days this winter ) And I have rented many boards these days. But i really liked riding Capita Outerspace Living and GNU Riders Choice. But on hard snow in ice patches Outerspace failed and i looked for a board which has better edge hold and i found Yes Typo as similar specs but with a nice edge hold. But in our country no chance to rent Typo so if i decide on this i will buy from abroad.
And i had chance to rent Riders Choice (154.5 cm) only in fresh snow and found it is really great except on the steep slopes during skid turns it pops me a lot like a cha cha cha feeling. Dont like it but i dont have the knowledge yet to determine it is because of the flex or dimension of board or because of the messy fresh saturday snow or because of my ability :).
I really like to ride a bit fast and skid turns rather than carving and i am pushing myself hard on steep slopes gradually. Until now i also started to do some switches, 360s, and i want to do butters, jumps and sometimes enter into powder in future. Dont like carving too much and dont like the catchy feeling on flat surfaces.
I want to buy my own board now and i am between on these two board ( GNU Riders Choice and Yes Typo ) So which one you prefer to me or any other suggestions?
And i will really appreciate if you help for the size either. I am 5’10” (1.77cm) and 183 lbs(83kg)
GNU Riders Choice 154.5 or 157.5
Yes Typo 155 or 158
And also forgot to tell Yes Basic is one of the option that i am looking for. Actually i really liked the playfullness of Outerspace Living but looking for something with better edge hold in hard snow. Thanks a lot advance! Have a great day Nate! 🙂
Hi Memingo
Thanks for your messages.
I would say the Rider’s Choice, Typo and Basic are all around that playfullness of the OSL but with better edge hold. With the Basic probably being a little more playful and the Rider’s Choice perhaps slightly less playful, but pretty close, in my experience.
The Typo is a little more buttery than the Riders Choice (and the OSL) and just a little softer, though very close in terms of flex. They’re all, IMO, pretty easy to skid turns on. In terms of that cha cha cha feeling you got, I would say if you’re skidding on messy snow, that’s going to happen to some extent. Some boards might deal with it better than others, but it’s not something I noticed particularly with the Rider’s Choice.
I would say if you preferred the OSL, except for in harder conditions, then the Typo is potentially closer to it (but with better edge hold) vs the Rider’s Choice. But it’s certainly not the same. It has a different feel to it for sure. But you do get a more similar camber profile. The Typo, Rider’s Choice and OSL all pretty similar in powder, IMO, with the Basic being not quite as good. None of them really excel in powder, but are OK.
For switch the Rider’s Choice, then OSL & Basic followed by the Typo, but the Typo is still really good for riding switch. Just with that very subtle setback, it’s not quite exactly the same going either way.
Size-wise for the Rider’s Choice, I would say go 157.5 for your specs, and 158 for the Typo.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to improve my spins and as I recently learned to a 360 on flat ground but never on a jump (big goal for this season). I’m an intermediate rider who can enjoys hitting jibs. I currently ride a 153cm 2017 GNU space case and I’m 5’10 165lbs and wear a size 9.5 boots (adidas tactical).
I’m looking to go for the Riders choice in the 151.5 size but worried it would be too small. Will the waist accommodate my boots?
I enjoy doing butters but the sharper radius on the space case feels weird to me. It looks like the Riders choice is slightly more rounded even though it’s an Asym, can you confirm this?
Thanks for taking the time to read this Nick!
Karl
Hi Karl
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, with 9.5 Tacticals, I don’t think you’ll have any issues on the 151.5cm Rider’s Choice in terms of width. In terms of length, it’s certainly sizing down quite a bit for your specs, IMO. Since you’re used to a 153, it’s not a big step (and has the same contact length as the 153 Space Case, so you probably won’t feel a whole lot of difference there). But yeah, in that size I would be wanting to use it predominantly for jumps, spins, jibbing – as going that short you are compromising on stability at speed and float in powder. But certainly if you were comfortable with the 153 Space Case and are predominantly riding freestyle, then that length can work.
I didn’t get a weird feel on the Space Case, and I found the Riders Choice to be relatively similar, in that sense, so if you get that from the Space Case, you may feel the same from the Rider’s Choice. The Sidecut is similar on both. Going from Space Case 153 to Rider’s Choice 151.5 isn’t a massive difference in boards, IMO. They are certainly a little different, but not a subtle difference.
Hope this helps with your decision
Ciao Nate,
I’m an intermediate rider who owns a Burton Uninc 2009 157cm..and for me it’s time to change. I am 175 for 70 Kg , Size 10 of boots.
One time I tried a 151cm board and it was super funny.
I’d like to buy an all mountain freestyle that can allow me to improve also in 180, jumps and some tricks. It happens that I go in the park but mainly I go on resorts and I like to jump whenever I can. I go a lot with friends that are skiers, so I need also some kind of speed.
I definitely want to try rocker or hybrid camber.
I was struggling about the following boards :
– Gnu Riders Choice (152)
– Never Summer Prototype 2 (152)
– LibTech Skate Banana (152)
Thanks a lot
Giacomo
Hi Giacomo
Thanks for your message.
I think sizing there looks pretty good for your specs, given that you’re looking to improve 180s, jumps and tricks. I would say typically around 155, assuming a relatively advanced level, but sizing down a bit is a good idea if those things are your main focus. And given that you enjoyed the 151 that you rode. You do sacrifice a little in terms of stability at speed when going faster, so that needs to be taken into account as well.
The Skate Banana is the most playful, softest flexing of the 3 there and then the Rider’s Choice, then the PT2, IMO. But the PT2 and Rider’s Choice are close in terms of playfulness/aggressiveness.
Because you want the board to handle some amount of speed, I would be leaning towards the PT2 or Rider’s Choice. The PT2 being a slight step above in terms of speed and the Skate Banana a step down from the Rider’s Choice. For spins and butters, the PT2 and Rider’s Choice are fairly similar, IMO, with the Rider’s Choice a little better for jumps, but both awesome jumping boards so very little in it there. If you sometimes hit powder, the Rider’s Choice is better there, IMO, vs the PT2.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks a lot for your help!
One more thing, if I’d buy a Gnu Rider’s choice, which kind of improvement I will see compared to my current Burton Uninc?
Hi Giacomo
I never rode the Un-inc, so I can’t give you much in terms of comparison, but based on what I could find out about it, I would say you’ll be getting something a little stiffer, but not by a massive amount (probably when you first ride the Rider’s Choice it will feel a good bit stiffer, but it will break in fairly quickly and feel just a touch stiffer, at a guess).
Because you’re sizing down and because the Rider’s Choice is a fast turner and nimble anyway, I would guess that you’re going to get a more nimble ride. Potentially snappier/poppier, but really hard to say having not ridden the Un-inc.
Stability at speed might be less for going shorter, but might be improved by being slightly stiffer – so might cancel out. But again, this is something that I would be more confident of predicting had I ridden the Un-inc.
I’m guessing the Rider’s Choice might be a bit more buttery, mostly because of the size difference, but offset somewhat by being a little stiffer. But overall flex doesn’t always translate into butterability, and again I don’t know how the Un-inc butters.
I would guess that it will be an improvement for 180s and jumps, just because it’s a great jumping/spinning board – and in that size will help too.
But yeah, for most things I would need to have ridden the Un-inc to really give you a proper comparison
Thanks Again Nate!
What I can say is that Uninc is mainly a park board, I bought the 157cm because it was on sale and the board itself is not so stiff, but it’s hard to bend it for me!
I’ll definitely go for a shorter board anyway..it will be more fun!
Ciao
You’re very welcome Giacomo.
Hope you have a great season! If you think of it at the time, let me know which you go with and how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it on snow.
Hi Nate!
I´m looking for an all mountain/all mountain freestyle board able to be used in powder, speed and carvings, but it might be a good option for some freestyle and jumps as well. I´m also looking for a board to help me improve my skills.
I was thinking about GNU Riders Choice or Endeavor Pioneer. What would you say about them?
I wear a size 11US and I’m 6.1 ft (188cm) and my weight is around 180 lbs. Which size would you recommend me?
Thank you in advance!
Thomas
Hi Thomas
Thanks for your message.
I think the Rider’s Choice would work, but it’s certainly more oriented to the freestyle side of things. It is a little better for powder than a lot of all-mountain freestyle decks (still not amazing but decent). It’s not really a bomber though – like for speed and carving. Again it’s decent but not outstanding.
For the Pioneer I’d say similar in terms of speed/carving – maybe a touch down from the Rider’s Choice in terms of powder though. Still OK, but not great, IMO.
Both good choices, but if you were looking for something with a little more in terms of speed/carving, but still wanted some decent powder float, whilst still being freestyle oriented, then I would check out the Salomon Assassin, Endeavor Clout, YES Standard & YES Jackpot.
Also check out:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But yeah, those 2 would do a good job for sure, but just some other options, if you’re looking for more in terms of speed/carving.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
I´m a Brazilian intermediate rider who travel once or two a year for some resort.
I´m looking for an all mountain board able to be used in powder, speed and carvings, but it might be a good option for some freestyle and jumps as well. I´m also looking for a board to help me improve my skills.
I was thinking about GNU Riders Choice, Capita Mercury or Capita DOA. What would you say about them?
I wear a size 10US and I’m 5.9 ft (180cm) and my weight is around 176 lbs. Which size would you recommend me?
Thank you in advance!
Cassiano
Hi Cassiano
Thanks for your message.
I would say out of those 3 that the DOA is the least suitable for powder, and since you mentioned powder, I would cross that off the list. Not that you can’t ride it in powder, but it’s just going to be more effort in powder to keep that nose afloat.
Between the Rider’s Choice and the Mercury. The Mercury is a little better in powder, better for carving and speed too. It’s also a little more aggressive than the Rider’s Choice and a little more advanced, but still certainly suitable for a solid intermediate rider. So yeah for powder, carving & speed I’d go for that over the Rider’s Choice. The Rider’s Choice, however, is better for jumps/freestyle riding, better for riding switch, and a little more playful and a little more maneuverable at slower speeds.
Size-wise: I’m going to go off the 180cm figure that you gave me for height. 180cm is actually more like 5’11” but correct me if you’re actually 5’9″ (which would be around 175cm). Doesn’t make too much difference anyway, but just to clarify. at 180cm and 176lbs, as an intermediate and from what you’re describing, I would say to look at something around 158cm. For the Rider’s Choice, that would be the 157.5cm and for the Mercury that would be the 157.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m almost sold on the GNU rider’s choice for this season. I’m an intermediate level rider that owns a 156 skatebanana (2016) and wants something a little bit different that provides more versatility. I ride mostly on resort but I like to hit every jump I see.
I wear a size 9US and I’m 5 ft 9.6″ (177cm) and my weight is around 188 lbs. Which size would you recommend me?
Thank you in advance, keep up the amazing work!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157.5 would be the best option for you. It’s a good length for your specs, taking into account how you describe your riding – and the width should work too. By waist width it sounds like it’s on the wide side for 9s, but it’s actually not that much wider at the inserts (260mm) than it is at the waist (255mm), so I think it should work well both length and width-wise for you.
Thank you for the reply Nate,
I’m also considering the yes standard in 156 size, but i’m a little bit worried about the width.
The capita mercury (157) is also a consideration.
Which board would you recommend me knowing that I come from a skate banana (a very forgiving board)?
Hi Alex
I really like the Standard in the 156. But my specs are different enough – 6’0″, 185lbs, US10 boots – that it might feel a little wide/big overall for you.
The Mercury 157 isn’t as wide as it sounds with that 257mm waist. I measured the 159 (which has a waist of 259mm) and it was 265mm at the inserts, so the 157 is likely to be around 263mm at the inserts. Still on the wider side for 9s, but not to the same extent as the Standard. For reference, width at inserts:
GUN Rider’s Choice 157.5: 260mm
YES Standard 156: 270mm
Capita Mercury 157: 263mm
With 9s, width-wise, the Rider’s Choice is the best option. After that I would go Mercury. I think the Standard is going to be too wide.
The Mercury is going to be the stiffest, most aggressive option from the 3 – it’s going to be, IMO, the biggest contrast vs the Skate Banana. The Rider’s Choice the closest to the Skate Banana (but still quite different) and the Standard in between. Flex-wise, I felt these boards at:
Rider’s Choice: 5/10
Standard: 6/10
Mercury: 6.5/10
Skate Banana: 4/10
If you’re looking for something that’s a really big contrast to what you have then that’s the Mercury. But if you want something that’s a bit more, and different enough, from the Skate Banana, but not going miles away from it, then the Rider’s Choice fits the bill better.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the answer! I’m totally sold on the rider’s choice since it’s a more realistic progression. Also width-wise seem to fit better for my 9 size.
I’ll let you know about the new board,
Thanks again, cheers from Spain!
You’re very welcome Alex. Hope you enjoy your new gear and have a great season! Look forward to hearing how it goes for you
hi nate , is it good for butter?
Hi Rico
Thanks for your message.
Yeah it’s good for butters, IMO. Not like a super-soft board is for buttering but I found it was a good board to butter with.
This board handles great in powder. One day in slush doesnt do its actual capabilities justice. I rode a riders choice for 2 years with over 130+ days on it at Mt. Baker Washington, one of the top 10 snowiest places in the lower 48 and it handles excellent in deep pow conditions.
Hi Travis
Thanks for your message. Appreciate your input on how this board rides in powder. I’ve since ridden it in more powder (2019 model) and I agree it can handle it fine. But I still wouldn’t compare it to something that’s more setup for powder – like something that’s setback with taper and a big nose. But I definitely agree it’s not garbage in powder (and to be honest almost any board can be fun in powder – it’s powder after all!) – but just compared to others that are more set up for it, it doesn’t ride float as effortlessly (in my experience). But certainly better than the average centered twin. But everyone gets a different feel and have different boards to compare their experiences with.
Hello Nate
I’m a 6’1 180 early intermediate rider and am having a tough time deciding on a first board. I think I like the versatility of the gnu riders choice or the capita outerspace living. I haven’t locked in on where I like to ride, but I know I want something that is solid in all condition because I like to explore. Between these 2 what would you choose? Also if you have a better suggestion other than these 2 please feel free to comment. Trying to stay at or below $450. Thanks man!
Hi Anthony
I think both of these would be good choices. The Outerspace Living probably ever so slightly more versatile, but not much in it, the Rider’s Choice is also a very versatile board. A couple of differences between them.
1. The Rider’s Choice is asym (heel edge is different to toe edge). I like how asym boards ride, but they’re not for everyone.
2. The Rider’s Choice has rocker between the feet, and camber to tip and tail whereas the OL has camber between the feet and rocker tip to tail. Overall the RC is a little looser feeling, but not super-loose. The OL is slightly more stable feeling.
3. RC is better in hard/icy conditions, IMO, if you ride those a lot.
There are of course other differences, but those are the main ones off the top of my head.
In terms of size, the 158 for Outerspace Living is probably a good size for you and the 157.5 for the Rider’s Choice – assuming you don’t need a wide (which will depend on your boot size and binding angles).
Hope this gives you more info for your decision
tks nate
hello nate ,are the differences between gnu riders choice 2017 and 2018 ???
Hi Rico
As far as I can tell there are no major difference between the 2017 and 2018 models for the Rider’s Choice. Maybe some tweaks, but nothing noticeable (apart from the Graphic of course!). They changed the name of the camber profile from C2 BTX to just C2 – but they changed most of the names of their camber profiles for the 2018 models – but the camber profile is still the same.
Hey Nate I love reading your recommendations it helps out a lot. I have a question on best Burton boots to match up with my RC 155W and Malavita bindings. I wear an 11.5 and was looking at the Ruler, Swath or Photon all boa versions. I’m not hitting to much park just slow cruising with my kids working on my switch, butters and side kickers. What are your thoughts?
Hi Jimmy
Thanks for your message.
I would go with the Swath Boas. Really nice boots and a really good flex match for the board – and for the type of riding your describing. I think the Photon BOA bordering on too stiff for what you’re describing. The Ruler BOA a good match too, IMO. And a really good boot for the price, if you wanted to save some cash. Just not quite as comfortable or as high quality as the Swath (IMO) – and can’t say for sure, but my guess would be that the Swath Boa would be a longer lasting boot, so could work out as good or better from a financial perspective.
Hope this helps