Hello and welcome to my Jones Aviator 2.0 review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Aviator 2.0 as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Aviator 2.0 a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Aviator 2.0
Price: $599
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Stiff (8/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Stiff (8/10)
Rating Score: 85.3/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain Boards
Of the 18 current model aggressive all-mountain snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Aviator 2.0 ranked 9th out of 18
Overview of the Aviator 2.0’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Aviator 2.0’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Aggressive All-Mountain |
Price: | $599 - BUYING OPTIONS |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Chattery/Damp: |  |
Smooth/Snappy: |  |
Playful/Aggressive: |  |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm (0.75") |
Base: | Sintered (Jones' "Sintered 8000" base) |
Weight: | Felt a little heavier than normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (CM) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
150 | 245 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
154 | 249 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
156 | 251 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
157W | 261 | 160-210+ | 73-95+ |
158 | 253 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
159W | 263 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
162 | 256 | 160-210+ | 73-95+ |
163W | 266 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
* the 157W is a new size for the 2024 model
Who is the Aviator 2.0 Most Suited To?
The Aviator 2.0 is a great option for anyone wanting a stiffer aggressive board for bombing/carving down the mountain, but one that can also perform well on jumps and rides switch well.
It's not great for deep powder and not easy to butter or jib with, but for everything else, if you like to ride more aggressively, it's got you covered.
Not for beginners and even intermediate rider's might find it a bit much - though I think it would be fine for a higher end intermediate rider who was quite strong/athletic.
The Aviator 2.0 in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Aviator 2.0 is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Aviator 2.0 2022, 158cm (253mm waist width)
Date: January 13, 2022
Conditions: Visibility not 100% but not that bad either. Got a little worse for a while and then cleared up again.
Overcast and then raining then overcast again.
Temp was 4°C (39°F) - no wind chill, so rather warm - but dressed right for it and with no sun and that rain, it never felt too warm.
24hr snow: 0cm (0")
48hr snow: 0cm (0")
7 day snow: 28cm (11")
On groomer: Pretty good, well groomed, soft packed to start and got slushier throughout the day. Lots of rain last couple of days, and a little more today.
Off groomer: A little sketchy after all that rain. Some exposed things in places and a little crusty in places - and a little slushy in other places.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: 20mm (0.75")
Width at Inserts: 264mm (10.39") at front insert and 266mm (10.47") at back insert*
* with the 560mm (22") stance I rode it. At the 600mm (23.6") reference stance, it was 266mm (10.47") at front insert and 268mm (10.55") at back insert
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 185lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 3060grams (6lbs 12oz)
Weight per cm: 19.37 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.43 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 100 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021 *& 2022 models. The Aviator 2.0 was quite a bit heavier than average on the scales, but on snow it didn't feel much heavier than normal. Pretty close to normal.
Powder
We didn't have any on the day, but it's a full camber board, so no rocker to help out - and it's not super directional. The nose is 1cm (0.4") longer than the tail and there's a reference setback of 20mm (0.75") and a bit of a contour in the base but otherwise, there's not a lot helping it in powder.
Carving & Turning
Carving: So much fun to carve with this board. Once you get it up on edge, it really hums - has so much life and locks into a carve and holds it really well.
Turning: You've got to put in to get it out of this board, but when you do there's good spring out of a turn. But for the most part, this board prefers to be right up on edge and engaging in a carve.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Not super agile at slow speeds, overall this board feels best with a bit of speed under it. But it's not tank either.
Skids: It's not the most catchy board I've ridden - you can get away to skidding to a certain extent, but it's also not completely un-catchy and could punish you if you got too lazy.
Speed
Felt confident opening this board out and getting some good speed on it. It felt nice and stable and quite damp too. Not much chatter at all. Good glide too, typical of Jones boards. Didn't notice it to the same extent as their sintered 9000 bases, but still really good.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Smashes through crud like it's nothing. Doesn't really get bucked around at all.
Bumps: As it's not super nimble at slow speeds it wasn't amazing weaving between bumps, but it wasn't terrible - and if you were able to keep a bit of speed up it performed better. Because of it's stiffness, it doesn't hug bumps super well when going over top, but it's fine, if you're using the right technique.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Had a lot of fun jumping with this board. It's got real good pop and that's no surprise, given the camber on this thing was 9.5mm off the ground (unweighted).
Pop: Not super easy to access, but also not super hard to access, but you've got to give a little. But boy does it give back, when load it up!
Approach: Super stable. Somewhat nimble, not super easy to adjust but not bad either
Landing: A stomper. Not ultra forgiving of errors, but when you get it right, you can really stomp it and it feels good.
Side-hits: Not amazing, because you do have to load that pop a bit and it's not super easy for trickier approaches, but for open easy to hit side-hits, it's a lot of fun.
Small jumps/Big Jumps: Biguns! But still good for small and medium as well.
Switch
It's pretty good riding switch. And that was not surprise, given it's not that directional.
Spins
When you've got the space to load up that pop it's a good board to spin - it's pretty good taking off and landing switch. A little heavier than normal does hold it back a little bit, and it's not as good for spinning off trickier to hit side-hits.
Butters
You've got to have some good strength to butter this one - it's not easy to butter, but it's not un butterable either. And the feeling nose and tail is pretty similar, so it's not weird in that way.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
SPEED | 4.0 | 20/25 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 12/15 |
POWDER | 2.5 | 7.5/15 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.3/100 |
The Aviator 2.0 is a beast, but it's a beast that's not ultra hard to tame or anything. You can push the envelope on it - and it certainly prefers to be ridden aggressively and fast and on edge, but it's not so unforgiving, that you'll be cursing it at the end of a long day.
It's not powder oriented and for the park it's very much a jump line board, IMO, but a good one for the jump line.
It's damp when you need it to be, but at the same time it's got enough snappiness to it as well.
All round really fun board and can't wait to get back out on it sometime.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Aviator 2.0, 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 aggressive all-mountain snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Aviator 2.0 compares to other aggressive all-mountain snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hey Nate, thanks for the awesome, as ever, review. I’m torn between getting a 159W and a 160 and would appreciate your view as you seem to have given a lot of good advice here. I’m 86kg, 180cm and ride in a US 10.5 boot. I will ride this as an aggressive all mountain board for bombing round the runs and the edges of the pistes and will have another board (yet to be bought) for powder.
Hi Tom, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 160, so length-wise either is going to be fine, IMO, so it really comes down to width. I tend to go by the rule of thumb that if you can get on a regular width, then do. With 10.5s, I’d say you’ll be good on the 160 width-wise, so that’s what I would go with, if I was you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks for the great review! Could you recommend a size for this me? I’m 5’11 and 160lbs with a US 9.5 boot size. Already have other boards for deep pow day and park, so this one will mainly focus on the everyday riding including different terrains, some small side hits, jumps, and some ground trick as well.
Hi Ben, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 158 but for this board for what you’re describing, I would go 156. The reason I’d size down a touch is because you don’t need it for powder and you’re looking to do some side-hits and ground tricks with it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Salut Nate
Je souhaite changer de planche pour la prochaine saison, j’ai un niveau intermédiaire et j’ai une Burton Seven depuis plusieurs années. Je mesure 5″6′ et je pèse 71kg, je porte des bottes US8.5. Quelle taille me correspondrait le plus 156 ou 154? Je recherche plutôt une planche polyvalente pour piste et moins exigeante que ma Burton. J’hésite entre la Moutain Twin et l’Aviator. Peux-tu me conseiller dans le choix de la planche STP? L’Aviator est-elle accessible pour un niveau intermédiaire – confirmé? Merci d’avance pour ta réponse
Hi Nguyen
I don’t speak French (or at least not very well!), so I google translated it. I will post the translation below for anyone else who wants to be able to read it. It seems to me to have translated it pretty well, so hopefully my reply will do a good job translating to French as well.
I didn’t get a chance to ride the Burton Seven when it was still around, so I couldn’t say for sure, having not ridden it to be able to compare it. But I would be leaning Mountain Twin, as it sounds like you want something less demanding and based on what I’ve seen on the Seven, I think the Aviator would be at least as demanding and likely more demanding. But again, that’s just a guess. But also because the Mountain Twin is better suited to intermediate riders than the Aviator, IMO. Whichever you go with, I wouldn’t go longer than the 154 for either board. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 154. With your boot size, you could size down a little from that. The 154 would still work, but if you wanted to keep things more agile/playful, then the 151 Mountain Twin would also work well, IMO. If you were to go Aviator, I would consider the 150 as well, given it’s a stiffer board. But I would be leaning Mountain Twin 154, in this case. But the Mountain Twin 151 would be a good bet too, depending on how agile/playful you want it versus how stable/good in powder you want it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Looking at this board for my quiver next season, I am 5″8′ 75kg and on US10 boots, is that okay to go for 157W as this is the only size left at a discount at my local store.
Hi Stephen, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 156, so I think it’s good length-wise for you. I wouldn’t personally go wide in this board with 10s though. I think the 156 would be the best size for you for this board, with the 158 being second choice. The 154 and 157W doable, but wouldn’t be my recommendation for you for this board. I would personally try to get something else in a better size, if it was me.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late).
Hi Nate,
I am looking for Aviator 2.0 for this season, I am 182cm height, 86kg weight, Burton boot size US9.5, so which size I should go for,158,160 or 162? is the 160 the new size for 24/25 season?
Hey Tony, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160, so I’d say that’s the most optimal all-round option for you. The 158 and 162 aren’t out of range or anything, and if you wanted to optimize it a little more for maneuverability, then you could go 158 or if you wanted to optimize it more for stability, then the 162 could work. Though the combination of width and length make the 162 a little on the big side, IMO, so I’d say only go for that if you think you’ll be predominantly riding fast and if you want to make it better in powder. It’s not overly wide or anything for 9.5s, but adding that width to the extra length makes it more borderline. I’d say go 160, unless you want to optimize a little more for maneuverability at the cost of a little stability, then go 158.
Hope this helps with your decision
I will pull the trigger on 160, thanks Nate!
You’re very welcome Tony. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great winter!
Hi Nate!
How would you compare this board with the GNU banked country?
Nice reviews as always!
Hey Rob.
I would say the Banked Country is a little more nimble, and so better in trees (especially when there’s powder) a little better in icy conditions and better in powder.
I found them pretty similar when it comes to speed, carving and crud but if I had to make a call between them, I’d say Aviator 2.0 for those aspects, but very little in it.
The Aviator I found to be a little stiffer, damper and rode switch better.
For jumps both good overall, but I’d say the Aviator 2.0 is better for bigger jumps, because it’s that little bit more stable on approach and you can really stomp your landings on that thing – and it’s got more overall pop. But the Banked Country has easier access pop and is easier to adjust for trickier approaches. I would take the Aviator 2.0 over the Banked Country for bigger air, but the Banked Country for side-hits and for those who are newer to jumps.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. Really enjoyed the review of this and I’m probably 90% on the buying route off the back of it. Am wondering if you could help me out with a few things though. Firstly I’m 77kg and uk8.5 boot. I’ve been riding 158s last few years and that was where I’d planned to head here but on the Jones site it looks like I cut across three weight sizes from 54, 56 and 58. Think the longer board may still be the best bet?
Secondly this will be my first full camber board. I’m currently on an Amplid with cruise camber. Am I in for a bit of a learning curve or is the Aviator less nuclear on the leg sweep front. The info on the jones site states it’s not catchy because of the 3d shaping but would be good to know what I’m in for.
I’ll be whacking either my Cartel X’s or 2023 Drives on. Whatever doesn’t go on here will live on the Hovercraft this will be complementing. Any views on which set up matches best?
I’m smack bang between intermediate and advanced on your scales. Hoping this is the board that progresses me to the next level.
Thanks and take care
Hey Alan, thanks for your message.
I probably wouldn’t go as low as the 154, so I’d say it’s best to go 156 or 158. Given you’re used to 158s, that’s probably your best bet, but if you could also let me know your height, that would help. While height is less important than weight and foot size, IMO, I still like to take it into account for the leverage factor.
I didn’t find the Aviator 2.0 overly catchy, so I don’t think you’ll be in for too much of a shock there or anything. I mean, it’s not catch-free or anything, but it’s not something that’s prone to catching an edge or anything, in my experience.
I would probably put the Drives on this and the Cartel X on the Hovercraft. Though both would go well on either board. But the Drives should give you better carving performance, in my opinion, and this board is great on carves, so giving it as much in that area makes sense, IMO. However, if you were going to be doing things like ollies, side-hits, butters etc on this board as well, and not on the Hovercraft, then you could go the other way around, to get the better board feel of the Cartel X on the Aviator. But if carving/speed is going to be your main focus on the Aviator, then I’d go Drive.
Hope this helps
That does help, Nate. Hugely. Not least it gives me a bit of confidence that this will be a good step up for me progression wise.
I’m 5’10 (which I think is about 178cm without my socks on) so pretty average weight, shoe size, height etc.
Thanks again. And thanks for this fab resource of a site too
Reading your response it looks like as I’m not a park rider this and the Hovercraft 2.0 will cover me for just about everything?
Hey Alan
Yeah, if you’re not a park rider, they should cover you really well, IMO. And I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, so I don’t think you should be good with that size, particularly as you’re used to that size as well.
Hi Nate, thanks for your detailed useful reviews. I’m buying this board. Sizing please with 177cm, 75 kg, 9.5US Vans Infuse, advanced rider (30 years riding).
I have the Yes. Standard 156 for all mountain which I ride centered, 54.6 width. -3 +15. I like the standard. Carves well. Is stable with its width, medium fast turner. I can bomb with some chatter and I can Jump in the park paired with no select pros. Also I can butter it with ease.
But in steep terrain I have to put a lot of effort to keep the edge from washing out if i want to carve pencil lines, pushing my hnee inwards and leaning forward. Doable but my legs burn.
I eant the aviator to help carving black slopes. A faster turn initiation. Bomb with more stability and still being able to hit the ocasional park lap at the bottom of the mountain. I have other pow boards (hybrid and pyl uninc) so pow is not required for the aviator. I may add I ride in Sweden with hard snow an ice many times so edge hold is required, like with the standard.
Which size would you recommend in the Aviator 2.0?
Also, within Now Drive Pros, Select Pros and Katanas which binding would you use with the Aviator 2.0?
Many thanks in advance.
Hi Javier, thanks for your message.
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
Firstly, I would personally put the Drive Pros with the Aviator.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158. For the Aviator I would go 158 for you. The 156 is a good bet for the Standard being wider, but with the Aviator’s width and the fact you’re wanting it for better stability and carving, I wouldn’t ride it shorter. Yes, it will be more stable than the Standard, even in the 156, but I still think the 158 would be your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you very much for your time.
You are a reliable answerer! That gives this site 5 stars always.
I tried the 156 with the drives pros. Yes, the drive pros are a really good match.
To be honest I will not buy it after trying it out. It was a beast howling and with mega pop and that was fun, passing everybody on the slopes and flying with sidehits.
But for me IMO the Standard gives me both worlds, the casual and the aggressive while the Aviator 2.0 had only one gear, aggressive. I didn’t feel it was a catchy board at all, I was buttering and confident on fast edge-to-edge transitions, but the Aviator requires intention and being on your game all the time (at least for me) or you will pay.
Hi Javier
Reliably slow at the moment unfortunately! Though fortunately I am getting tons of gear to test. Yeah, it does require a more aggressive approach and not as good when you want to get a bit more casual on it.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to get a new board and have my eye on the Aviator 2.0. I currently ride a Salomon Sight, which was my first board.
I’m looking for something which can carry some more speed, carve well and generally give me a bit more edge than my current board.
I’m interested in the Aviator 2.0 and the Nidecker Blade/Blade Plus. I get a decent discount on Nidecker and Jones which is why they are my preference. However, are there any better boards that I am ignoring when trying to move from a decent beginner board to something that will allow me to carry more speed and carve?
Arbor Shiloh for instance?
Hey Tom
Thanks for your message. The Aviator 2.0 and Blade/Blade Plus (haven’t ridden the Blade/Blade Plus but based on specs would be a big step up) are a big step up from the Sight, IMO. If you feel you’ve reached an advanced level of riding, then these would work for you. They’d certainly give you more carving and speed performance, in a big way, IMO. But will also be much more challenging to ride. The Shiloh would be an easier step up, but still a noticeable step up, IMO and would still give you a good stability/carve boost.
But if you wanted to go with Jones/Nidecker and wouldn’t consider your self an advanced rider (or particularly strong/athletic solid intermediate rider), then you could look at something like the Nidecker Escape or the Jones Mountain Twin or Mind Expander (or Mind Expander Twin, depending on how directional you wanted to go).
Hope this helps
Hello,
I can not choose..
Nidecker Alpha APX or Jones Aviator 2.0,
I am 188 cm tall and 88 kg weight,
for powder I chose Yes 420,
I want to take a universal board for every day for a hard track when the snow is broken up by mounds or a broken track,
for speed and sometimes fly into powder through a small forest.
It seemed to me that I needed a stiffer board, the Aviator 2.0 is stiffer, but I like the Neidecker a lot more in appearance – look like better for me )))
I won’t jump to much, I’ll skate more quickly.
Will Neidecker suit me or will Aviator be better?
thanks for the help.
Hi Art
Thanks for your message.
I would personally choose the Aviator, given you already have a board for powder days, but if you still want good powder performance for your every day board, then the Alpha APX would be a good choice. And it works well on groomers. One big difference between them is that Alpha APX has a much smoother ride feel vs the Aviator, which is more snappy. The Aviator isn’t super snappy or anything, it’s got some smoothness to it, but it’s much more snappy and less smooth than the Alpha APX. I typically prefer a snappier board, unless I’m looking to just cruise or surf, but if you like a smooth feel, then the Alpha APX might be better for you.
And I like to jump with whatever board I’m on, which does have me favoring the Aviator a bit more too. I would say the Aviator, as well as being better for jumps/sidehits, is a little better for carving vs the Alpha APX, but the APX certainly better in powder and a little better at speed too. For the likes of messy snow etc, they are pretty comparable, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
thank you very much, I took Neidecker, I’m happy as an elephant))))
exceeded my expectations.
You’re very welcome Art. Glad to hear you’re happy with the board. Hope you have a great rest of your season!
Hi Nate
I just bought this board and am looking for some bindings that go well with it.
I dont have a big budget but there is some room.
Was looking at the union STR’s but feel like they are to flexible for this board
Do you have some recomendations?
Hi Koen
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, the STR are great value-for-money, but I would try to go a little stiffer for the Aviator 2.0. Stiffer bindings do tend to be pricier on average, so may not be able to get something for the price of the STR, but I’ve outlined some options below that are lower cost bindings in and around that 7/10 flex range.
– Salomon District Pro
– Arbor Cypress
Those are both 7/10 flex and less than the price of any in our top >>Top 10 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings but still quite a bit more than the STR. If you could find a past season model of one of those in your size, you should be able to get a good price. But if not and that’s still too pricey for you, you could also look at the following, which are a 6/10 flex. Not as good a flex-match, but a better flex match than the STR.
– Union Strata
– Union Force Classic
And one more option would be the Salomon Alibi Pro. It’s not a binding that we’ve tested, so can’t say how good it is or how stiff it actually is, but it looks, based on specs, to be quite stiff and if that’s true, then it’s probably the cheapest stiffer binding that I am aware of (of the brands we test). But again, having not tested it, it may not be as stiff as they say or might be even stiffer than what you’re looking for.
Hope this gives you good options to consider
Hi Nate,
I recently outgrew my whole snowboard set up. Got the Jones Aviator 2.0 which I’m stoked about. My whole life I’ve ridden flow bindings but decided to get out of that due to the fact that they chewed up my old boots and had to be constantly adjusted. I just got the Burton Kendos for my new pair. Trying to settle on a bindings set up. What would you recommend for this fast/responsive board? I’m currently looking at the Burton Cartel Re/flex and Union strata. Any recommendations. Thanks.
Hi Jonathan
I would go a little stiffer than the Cartel or Strata on the Aviator 2.0. I’d be looking at going at least 7/10 flex. If you wanted something similar to Strata but stiffer, then the Falcor would be a good bet. Or if you wanted something similar to the Cartel but stiffer, then the Cartel X would be a good bet. Also check out our top all-mountain-freeride bindings picks here. Or if you wanted to go stiffer still, then you could also check out our freeride bindings list.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate, my weight is 74kg, my height is 178cm, and my shoe size is 9.5us. Would you choose 156 or 154? Also, do you have any recommendation for the binding? I like carving and jumping
Hi Roy
Thanks for your message.
I would go 156. I think that’s your best size for this board. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157. So you could also go 158, but I would be more inclined to go 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you for your suggestion, I have already got the new board of 156.
You’re very welcome Roy. Hope it treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hey Nate! Trying to decide between this and the Standard in a 159/w specifically for spring corn season in the PNW. Will be riding steep volcanos and with long mellow tree line run outs back to the car. So it needs to handle well on really steep open fields and also be maneuverable enough to get through low angle trees. Curious if you have any thoughts on which one would be better? I kinda like the width of the Standard underfoot, since I’m a 29.5 foot (185 lbs.). But I’m wondering if full camber might be the better option for the terrain. Thanks for any insight.
Hi BWR
Thanks for your message. For steep open terrain at speed, I would be erring Aviator but for tighter turns at slower speeds I would be leaning Standard. But given that it’s low angle trees I think the Aviator will be fine in there, so I would be leaning towards that. The 159W will be wide enough for your feet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I would like your advice about better size between 158 and 162…
I’m 1.80 height and 91Kg weight, I would go on the 162.
In your opinion will I lose more manovrability ?
I love the speed and some fresh snow, of course would like to put some “tricks” in every slope… which one do you recommend?
Thanks…
Hi Mattew
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 161, so I think the 162 is the best bet. Shorter boards are typically more agile, all else being equal, so you’ll inevitably lose maneuverability on the 162 versus the 158. But for your specs, it shouldn’t be like a tank or anything. Should be maneuverable enough. However, if you could let me know your boot size. Depending on your boot size, it could make sense to size down a little to the 158.
Hi Nate,
Just wanted to add something to what you experienced with the Aviator 2.0. I think there can be a fair bit of variance in the weight of the wood and amount of camber when the boards come out of the press. I own a 158cm (same as the review board) and it is 2.82kg or 17.84g per cm and has about 6.5mm of camber rise in the centre. I know someone who has a 159W and it is 2.98kg with 8mm of camber.
On my best days I wouldn’t be described as anything above an athletic intermediate rider and I don’t find my 2.0 to be as difficult to butter or pop as some people have found. I’m pretty sure this is because I’ve snagged a lighter and less cambered board. I’ve owned multiple Jones boards and it’s been my experience that the heavier ones have been harder to muscle around.
For reference, my quiver has included:
2020 UMT 160cm – 2930g
2020 Aviator 158cm – 2825g
2019 Aviator 162cm – 2980g
2018 Aviator 158W – 3010g
2015 MT 161W – 3040g
The 2018 Aviator 158W, at 3.01kg, was hard work for me in some instances and definitely more aggressive than the above 2020 UMT. I’m thinking the 2.0 you rode might have been an unusually heavy / stiff one.
Keep the reviews coming mate, your work is appreciated.
Mike
Hi Mike
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. And yeah, you’re definitely right that weight’s (and camber) certainly do vary – it’s something that is unavoidable really with wood cores. Wider boards will always be heavier too – with that extra surface area. Which is why I’d love to be able to a grams/surface area thing, rather than g/cm, but not everyone publishes surface area, so it’s not practical (and not something that’s easy to work out on a shape like a snowboard, without like engineering software or something like that). Width also plays a part in how much you have to muscle a board as well. A wider board will always be more difficult to turn on, all else being equal, relative to a narrower counterpart – if you don’t have big feet. Felt more particularly for lighter riders and less athletic riders, but the width of your 158W 2018 Aviator would have certainly played a part with it being more hard work, as well as the weight – I would say more so than the weight, but the weight would certainly have been a factor.
Thanks for your comments – love geeking out on this stuff!
Hi Nate.
I would appreciate your recommendation on a size for this board for me.
5’11″/200lbs./Size 8.5 Burton Photons
Looking to carve and charge with this board, but I also like to spin.
The 162 leans toward the charging/carving, but the 158 leans toward spinning and maneuverability.
I am concerned about the above average weight of this board making spins and maneuvers a bit onerous.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Hi Nicholas
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain” size at 161, which would lend more towards the 162, however, because of your boot size, I would err smaller. If it was me, I’d go to the 158. The 162 would give you more for charging but my instinct says the balance between charging and spins/maneuverability would be better on the 158 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Advice much appreciated.
I got to ride the 162.
As you suspected, I didn’t like it as much as I had hoped.
My desire to spin and be a bit more freestyle-minded made the length and weight of the 162 feel unwieldy.
I’ll be looking to get the 158.
Thanks!
Your very welcome Nicholas. And good you were able to get a chance to try it in the 162. Hope the 158 works well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with it.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the unbiased and informative reviews!
I am trying to decide between the Jones Aviator 2 158 and the Mountain Twin 160. I want a board that will help me easily progress and will always be relevant no matter the level. I want to improve my carving skills and focus on aggressive riding. The relative softens of the Mountain Twin does not look promising for the direction I’m headed. The problem is that my experience level is between 5-6 on your scale and I am afraid that the Aviator will be too much of a board for me. On the other side I am currently riding a very old and stiff true camber board Burton Jussi 159 which on paper looks very similar to the Aviator 2 and I cannot say that it has hampered my progress. In short – the MT is better for my current level, however, I am afraid that I will outgrow it in 1-2 years; the Aviator 2 (although similar to my current board) is perfect for the direction that I am headed (carving, speed), but I am afraid that it might discourage me trying new things. Any advice?
Hi P
Thanks for your message.
Certainly if you were going to look at trying new things, like butters, jibs, that kind of thing – and wanted an easier going, more all-rounder type of ride, then I’d look at the MT, but if you’re really looking to focus on carving and aggressive riding – and given that you’re coming from a stiffer camber board – then the Aviator 2.0 would make more sense. Given the board you’re coming from, I don’t think you’ll have trouble riding it and certainly for bombing and carving, I don’t think it would suit you well. If you see yourself getting into more freestyle aspects, then it is going to be harder to progress on in that area – takes a bit of muscle to butter and harder for learning switch etc. It is great on jumps and has plenty of pop – but again, it’s a little harder to start out with for something like jumps. So, I guess it depends on whether you think you’d want to start doing things like that and how important that is to you versus carving progression.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the message! Yes, certainly bombing and carving are top priorities, as well as going a bit of piste and jumping off small natural features. In terms of freestyle I will limit myself to switch and eventually butter as we do not have a lot of “parks” around here.
Hi P
Then, yeah, I think I would be leaning Aviator 2.0 for you, given how you want to ride.