Hello and welcome to my Jones Explorer review.
In this review, I will look at the Explorer as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard, though it is more forgiving than your average aggressive all mountain snowboard – more on that later.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Explorer a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mountain snowboards.
NOTE: The 2019 model was the last model of the Explorer (but the Jones Frontier is essentially the same board, with a different name)
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Explorer
Price: $449 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Aggressive All Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium (6/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Rating Score: 84.8/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All Mountain Boards
Out of the 16 men’s aggressive-all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
- The average score was 82.4/100
- The highest score was 91.6/100
- The lowest score was 77.5/100
- The average price was $610
- The Explorer ranked 6th out of 16
Overview of the Explorer’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Explorer’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
| Style | Aggresive-All-Mountain | Flex | Medium-Stiff (6.5 out of 10) |
| Ability Level | High End Intermediate to Expert | Feel | Stable |
| Weight | Normal | Turn Initiation | Medium-Fast |
| Camber Profile | Hybrid Camber | Shape | Directional |
| Stance Setback | Setback 20mm | Edge-hold | Hard snow |
| Price | $449 (USD) | Base | Sintered 7000 |
Sizing
| Size (Length) | 152 | 156 | 159 | 162 | 158W | 161W | 164W |
| Waist Width (mm) | 249 | 252 | 254 | 256 | 262 | 264 | 266 |
| Weight Range (lbs) | 110-160 | 120-170 | 140-190 | 160-210 | 140-190 | 150-200 | 170-220 |
| Weight Range (kgs) | 50-72 | 54-77 | 64-86 | 73-95 | 64-86 | 68-91 | 77-100 |
Who is the Explorer Most Suited to?
If you’re looking for a board that you can be aggressive on and that feels aggressive when you push it – but you also want it to be somewhat forgiving so you don’t have to be 100% on your game all of the time, then the Explorer might be well suited to you.
It’s something that you can take in the park too if that’s something that you want to be able to do from time to time without switching boards.
Whilst it’s more forgiving than most aggressive all mountain snowboards, it’s not for the beginner. A rider at the higher end of intermediate should be able to handle this board though.
It’s also better in powder than most aggressive all mountain rides, so if you’re looking for a little bit more in the pow, this could also be a great choice for you.
The Explorer in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Explorer is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Explorer 2018, 159cm (254mm waist width)
Date: March 8, 2017
Conditions: Good amount of fresh powder yet again (got a lot of that during the 2016-17 season). Conditions were medium speed wise – not too slow but not super quick either. Even though it was a weekday everything was a bit chundery on the groomers – a bit slack with the grooming that day. But off groomer was where the real fun was to be had, with all that fresh stuff!
Bindings angles: +15/-6
Stance width: 600mm (23.6“)
Powder
This board is better in powder than most aggressive all mountain boards that I test. This isn’t too surprising given the camber profile which has more rocker in it than most aggressive all mountain boards that I ride.
In fact, I had a hard time deciding whether to put this board in the all-mountain or the aggressive all mountain category because it sits right in between the two.
It also has a decent setback and a directional shape with a long nose. The stance is setback 20mm (0.75”) along the effective edge but with that longer nose (that’s not part of the effective edge) you are actually sitting more like 60mm (2.4”) back relative to the actual center of the board.
Carving & Turning
This board is fun to carve on and it feels like it wants to lock into a carve and bomb down – like you would expect from an aggressive all mountain board.
But you can also get away with skidding turns on this board too. So, it feels aggressive when you lock it in and charge down. But when you get lazy or if you need to make corrections it’s more forgiving of that.
Speed
This board is nice and stable at speed and it felt like it preferred to be riding at speed than riding slowly. I felt more comfortable riding this thing fast than slowing it down and playing around.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Uneven Terrain
This is more forgiving on uneven terrain than the Jones Flagship but not quite as much as the Jones Mountain Twin. In a lot of ways this board sits between those two.
With the right technique this board is fine in the chunder but it’s not the most forgiving.
Jumps
The Explorer is designed by Jones to be a Freeride board that’s also a freestyle board (kind of the definition of all-mountain in a lot of ways). I would say that it’s more leaned towards freeride overall.
But where it is pretty decent is for jumps. It’s stable on landings and it’s forgiving enough for approaches to side hits and approaches to jumps in the park. It’s good for larger jumps in the park.
If you were taking this into the park it would definitely be for the jump line rather than the jib line, IMO.
Switch
You can ride it switch. It’s a little easier than the Flagship (which I rode on the same day) but not quite as easy as the Mountain Twin. But if you’re a good switch rider and you’re used to riding switch on a directional setback board then this is definitely doable.
There is more rocker in the tail of the Explorer than you would normally see on an aggressive all mountain board and certainly more rocker in the tail than the Flagship – this helps to make riding and landing switch easier.
Edge-Hold
The Explorer has mellow magne-traction. That, plus the slightly stiffer than medium flex and the camber between the bindings, gives this board really decent edge-hold. Not going to be the grippiest in icy snow but will be decent and will be really good for hard snow. I’d say 4/5 for hard/icy snow.
Changes from the 2018 Model
As far as I can tell the 2019 model is the same as the 2018 model, except for the graphic.
Changes from the 2017 Model
As is the case with all Jones 2018 boards (or at least all of the boards that I tested) Jones have adjusted the core of the Explorer to affect the torsional flex between the bindings. This was to increase the responsiveness of their boards.
Other than that the 2018 model is essentially the same as the 2017 model.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | RATING (OUT OF 5) | CONTRIBUTION TO FINAL SCORE |
| Carving: | 4.0 | 20/25 |
| Speed: | 4.0 | 16/20 |
| Jumps: | 3.0 | 9/15 |
| Powder: | 4.0 | 12/15 |
| Uneven Terrain: | 4.0 | 8/10 |
| Pipe: | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Switch: | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| TOTAL after normalizing | 84.8/100 |
If you’re looking for the most aggressive all-mountain snowboard you can find, there are boards that are better suited.
But if you’re looking for an all-mountain board that is more aggressive than normal or an aggressive all mountain board that is more forgiving than normal and you want something that has good float in powder but can still ride switch and hit the jump line in the park, then the Explorer would be a great choice for you.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in learning more about the Explorer, are ready to buy or want to research current prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out other aggressive all mountain options or compare the Explorer to others, check out the next link.
Hi Nate,
Really appreciate your comprehensive review on this! I’ve been snowboarding for the past couple of years now and am finally pulling the trigger to buy something. I’ve been looking at the Jones explorer 158W. I’m 140lbs, 5’10, and wear a US 10 boot size. I’m looking for an all mountain board that I can basically take anywhere and just have a fun time with. Speed isn’t really that important to me. I kind of like messing around on some tiny jumps, trying to take little paths in the trees, and trying to take some interesting lines where possible. Would really appreciate your advice on if this would be the right board for me, or if not, what you might recommend. Cheers!
Hi Big Hoss
Thanks for your message.
I think the board would work for you but I definitely wouldn’t go 158W. First of all, at 140lbs, it’s too long. I would put your “standard all-mountain” length closer to 153. You may have been put on longer boards in the past, because a lot of rental places simply look at your height and go off that. Whilst I like to take height into account, weight is more important for sizing – and for your style of riding I wouldn’t size up. If you’re used to riding more around that 156-158 range, then you could maybe go up to 154/155, but ideally I would look more around the 153 range.
Secondly, with US10 boots you don’t need to go wide, especially not with this board, which is a little wider than the average regular width board. But even in general for a a US10, unless you have a really straight back binding angle (like 0-3 degrees) and have bulky boots and like to eurocarve, I generally wouldn’t go wide.
So, IMO, 158W is too long and too wide. I would be leaning more 152 if you were to get this board. It’s a much better length, IMO and even though the waist makes it look borderline for 10s, the width at inserts, even on the 152 will be around 263mm at the front insert and 266mm at the back insert. Which is plenty wide enough for 10s, IMO. I’m guessing because you’re mentioning the Explorer (and not the Frontier which this board is now called) that you’ve found a past season model, so you’ve probably got limited size options. But unless you can get it in 152, I would look at different board.
Depending on your level you could check out:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
Or:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Or if you didn’t really ride switch or feel the need to learn, you could also look at:
>>Top 10 Mellow Freeride Snowboards
Or if you wanted something a little more freestyle oriented and don’t really see any deep powder, you could also consider:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Happy to give you specific sizing opinions on a few boards, if you were able to narrow it down to 3-4 that catch your attention. Pay attention to the score breakdowns for the boards, to see if it has the specs you think might suit how you ride.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’ve read a ton of your reviews, thanks for all the info! I have been renting boards every season but finally ready to buy my own.
I’m an intermediate – advanced rider, 5″10, size 10, 200 lbs, and looking at either the Jones Mountain Twin, Jones Frontier, or Rossi One LF. My riding style is all mountain, I like to do a little bit of everything but not so much focused on riding switch or park. I would like a board that I could ride fast but also slow down and cruise too. I’m curious how similar each one is in terms of stiffness. Could you provide some info on each one as well as a size recommendation? Thanks.
1) Looking at 157 Jones Mountain Twin
2) Looking at 159 Jones Frontier
3) Looking at 156 or 159 Rossi One LF
Hey Big Guy
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise I would potentially look to go up to the 160 on the Mountain Twin and the 162 on the Frontier. For the Rossi One, I think the 159 would be fine. If you know you like to ride shorter boards, then the 157 MT, and 159 Frontier come into play, but otherwise I would be leaning towards 160/162, particularly if you’re not riding any park.
In terms of flex, they are all fairly similar. The Mountain Twin has also felt around a 6/10 to me and the Frontier (which used to be called the Explorer) around 6.5/10. Jones rates them 7/10 for Mountain Twin and 6/10 for Frontier, but I have always found the Frontier just a touch stiffer. The One LF is overall around a 6/10 too. It feels softer in the tip and tail vs the Mountain Twin and the Frontier, but it stiffens up through the center of the board.
For more details on each:
>>Jones Mountain Twin Review
>>Rossignol One LF Review
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate!
You’re very welcome. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, great website and great reviews! I am looking to buy the frontier and would like to ask for your advice on size. I am an indeterminate skier wanting to change to snowboarding (beginner). I am thinking either 152 or 156. I am 174cm, 68kg, boot size US 9. I ski mainly in Japan (smaller mountain), mainly groomers, no park. Condition varies, from heavy pow fall, freshly groom to uneven at end of day. For Japan smaller mountain and being a beginner snowboarder I should go with 152? But I read you said for this snowboard can go a bit longer that means 156? What you think? Thank you!
Hi Johnny
Thanks for your message.
I would say as a “standard” all-mountain length, that you’re looking at around 155 for your specs. As a beginner, I find it’s a good idea to take off 3-5cm, so that would put you more around 150-152. The Frontier is something that can be ridden longer, but I feel like 156 is getting just a little bit longer than ideal. At 152, you’re still at the higher end of that range. Also, being on a smaller mountain, going a little shorter can be a good idea too. The flip side is when you do get that powder, the 156 would be a better pow floater, but day to day when there’s no pow, I would be leaning 152. The other thing that makes me lean towards the 152, is that the Frontier isn’t what I would consider a beginner snowboard. So, going that little bit shorter will help to make it a more forgiving ride. The combination of going 156 and being a tricky board for a beginner, I think would make it less enjoyable to learn on. Just my opinion, but I would be going for 152, if I was in your shoes.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thank you so much. Your advice covered everything I need to know. I will follow your suggestion and go for 152. You are the best, much appreciated!
You’re very welcome Johnny. Happy riding!
Hi Nate……I cross posted on your One LF review but looks like my son is going after a Mountain Twin instead of my Explorer. You’ve helped me a great deal on dampness/shock absorbing gear (thank you), but I also wanted to ask about stance as it relates to shock absorbing (to refresh, I’m an older rider w/bad a bad knee). I see you rode this at ref stance (60) and ride mine at 56 (my historical width). I am very close to your specs height and weight and ride the 159. A friend noted that if I go wider it may force me to bend my knees more and that knee-bend might be the best shock absorbing gear of all? Do you agree? If so, do you see any residual concerns with going wider (assuming it’s comfortable)? Understand the board was designed around 60 ref width, so maybe I gain some advantage in handling and stability there? Lastly, do you find it easier to maintain a good stance going mirror duck? I generally ride 18/-9, but am not opposed to going mirror duck if you think it may help me maintain good stance mechanics (i.e. lower shock absorbing position). Thanks again for all you advice!
Hi dd
I think there’s probably something there with the wider stance in terms of shock absorption, because, like your friend noted, it does force you to bend your knees a bit more and gives a more stable platform. But I would experiment to see if you find it comfortable. I haven’t noticed anything in terms of a mirror duck in terms of shock absorption, but if again, you could try to see how you like the feel of it. I would say a wider stance gives you more stability for sure, but there’s also a trade off for maneuverability. A narrower stance allows more maneuverability, in my experience. So, I find there’s always a sweet spot on any board between enough stability and enough maneuverability, when it comes to stance width. So yeah, I’d certainly try going to reference stance and see how it feels.
Excellent Nate, thank you and have a great rest of the season!
You too!
Hi Nate,
Not sure if you are still checking these comments but I was looking at getting the Jones Frontier (same thing as explorer) but I just don’t know what size I should get.
This will be my only board for a while and I lean slightly more towards a nimble freestyle type riding but I do like to carve also. I am in the midwest so the hills by me aren’t that big and so a lot of the runs aren’t real wide and can require some maneuverability.
I’m 5’8″ 163lbs Boot size 10
I’m between the 156 and the 159. Do you think the 156 would be able to still carve relatively well? Would the 159 still be able to make some quick turns? What you recommend I go with?
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
Based on your specs and what you’re describing, I think the 156 would be your best bet. The Explorer/Frontier is something that you can ride a little longer, but in your case, I would go with the 156, given that you’re on a smaller mountain. That’s the size I would typically recommend for your specs anyway. But with the Frontier it’s something you could consider going longer with, but I think in your case, your best bet is 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for such good reviews. I think you are spot on with your findings. I’ve tried both Frontier and Mountain Twin and too be honest. Quite stuck between them.
I have two groups of friends. One are more mellow and all different levels of skiing (mostly skiiers) so there is more time to play around and do fun stuff anf the other group are a mix of boarders and skiiers and they are more for speed and ofc goofing around but mostly speed.
Doing mostly groomers and sometimes some off-piste, but that isnt too far away from the piste. I do not really ride switch, but maybe something I should explore later on. Jumps are ok but not too high.
So you see my problem. I need one board that does it all as I only board 14 days a year. Do I go for the Frontier for the speed? Or the Mountain Twin for the playfulness. Both boards do not suck in the other compartment. So there is no bad choice in the end. Still… totally stuck haha.
When I tried both I noticed the Frontier was very good in the speed stuff but still was manouvred easy in turns. While the Mountain Twin from what I remember was very agile and still good in speed (I think) but also more easy in uneven terrain. Too bad I tried them a bit apart from each other which makes it harder to really compare. Also tried the UMT, but its too stiff for my taste.
Any suggestions that might help me making a choice?
Hi Bart
Thanks for your message and your take on these 2 boards.
From what you’re describing I agree that there isn’t a bad choice between them. In terms of uneven terrain, I though they were quite similar. I haven’t ridden them back to back either. But I take detailed notes every time I test a board, and I make comparisons between each board I ride and my control board. I would say you have to be a little more aggressive with your approach to uneven terrain with the Frontier, but when you are it handles it as well. You can be a little more casual in it with the MT.
I think if you were more into jumps and riding switch, then I’d say go MT. But if those aren’t too big a deal for you, then I’d go Frontier.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Yes you really did help me thanks a lot!
It will be the Frontier in a 164w (since Im 91 kg’s and size 12)
Your experience with the uneven terrain matches my own with both boards. And I do like to ride a bit more aggressive now at then. Switch is something I want to explore, but I think I can do that very safely on the Frontier as well.
So thank you for your site and expertise!
You’re very welcome Bart. Hope you have an awesome season!
And yeah, you can totally still ride the Frontier switch.
Hi Nate. I had decided to go for the 159 Jones Frontier but I am a little bit worried due to the effective edge. I am solid intermediate, 174 cm, 80kg and 10 us boots. What It is more important for me is stability at speed, good edge hold, and good in steep pistes. The 159 effective edge is 117 cm, which is similar to boards with much less lenght. The feeling would be the same? Or in terms of stability i will feel the board as others with more effective edge? Thanks a lot Nate!!
Hi Rubén
Effective edge certainly assists with stability at speed, when on edge, so I get your concern. For your specs/ability, I would say something around 156 to 158 is a good length generally speaking. Just looking at a few examples, the following boards and lengths I would recommend for you and their effective edges.
YES Standard 156 (116.3cm effective edge – it’s a wider board, so the 156 would be the best size for you for this board, IMO)
Jones Mountain Twin 157 (117cm effective edge)
Rossi One LF 156 (117cm effective edge)
Slash Brainstorm 157 (116cm effective edge)
So going a little longer with the Frontier, gives you the same effective edge as some of those boards in the sizes I would recommend for you.
However, if you are leaning towards going a little longer/getting a bit more in terms of effective edge, then there are certainly options. But I just wanted to point out that going 159 on the Frontier you are getting the effective edge of the sizes I would typically recommend for you in other boards. If you’re still concerned about it and want to look at some options with more effective edge, let me know, and I can dig up some options for you.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much Nate!! At the end I just want to be sure that the Jones Frontier 159 is gonna be stable when charging and good in steep pistes. If It is like this, independently of the effective edge, I will go for it. In any case, any suggestion will be more than wellcome. Thanks again for you explanations. They are really helpful. Your web is great. We do not have anything similar here in Spain!!!
Hi Rubén
I found the Frontier to be quite stable at speed, particularly when on edge. It’s certainly not the most stable I’ve ever ridden, but I give it 4/5 for stability at speed – and that’s really good, given it’s versatility. Unless you go for a much stiffer, more aggressive ride (which might not be suitable for a solid intermediate level) – you could get more stability, but also a board that’s harder in general to manage.
Hi Nate! It will be the Frontier, then. Thanks again for your great advise!!!
You’re very welcome Rubén. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate – thanks again for all your insight, very helpful! I have an Explorer and like it very much. The only drawback (for me as I’m over 55 w/an arthritic leading knee – ride regular) I’ve found is it’s not as damp as I’d like and by the end the day I feel the effects if the snow isn’t great. So my question is do you think something either stiffer or with a reverse directional flex might help on those chopped up snow days? I’ve ridden my son’s Rossi XV (both stiffer and reverse flex) and didn’t suffer the leading knee problems at days end but not sure if that was just luck or if there is something to the added stiffness and/or reverse flex helping my lead knee?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts Nate!
Hi dd
By reverse directional flex, do you mean softer in the middle and stiffer tip and tail?
To be honest, I’m not really sure if that would help in terms of an arthritic knee – not really something I’m well versed in. Completely just a thought I just had, but maybe that softer waist, makes turns easier on the knee – and maybe the stiffer tip and tail can crash through crud easier, but I’m really not sure – I find in some cases softer tip and tail can help crashing through the crud. It might just be that the XV is a damper board all-round. But it could be something to do with that flex pattern. I’m really not sure though, sorry. What’s the size of your Explorer? And the size of your sons XV?
Thank you for the quick reply Nate. My understanding is typical directional flex is softer nose, and then stiffens through tail. The XV is stiffer nose, and softens through the tail (hence the “reverse directional” tag). You are likely right that it’s simply a damper board altogether. I just thought that stiff nose might plow through chunder better, limiting the chatter and vibration under foot that reverberates up to my knee. I don’t think it’s the turning per se, as I find the Explorer easier to turn than the XV (Explorer feels torsionally softer, easier to twist). Both are 159’s. Thanks again – and could more shock absorbing boots and/or bindings help the Explorer if it is simply less damp? I was wearing/riding Northwave Legends and K2 Formulas on each.
Hi dd
I think more shock absorbing bindings would certainly help to an extent. How much so, is hard to tell for your particular situation, but would certainly make some difference. Boots too – depending on how good the Northwave Legends are in terms of shock absorption, that might be another area that could help. But I’m not sure as Northwave is a brand I’m not really familiar with.
The stiffer nose could help as well though. I think your theory does make sense – particularly if it’s the vibrations, rather than the twisting from turning, that’s causing the biggest issues.
Thank you sir! I appreciate your insight. I will look into some better shock absorbing bindings (looking at your reviews you seem to favor Now Bindings for their shock absorbing qualities, would the Drive’s work on the Explorer?). I believe you also praise Adidas and Thirty Two for same thing – I will look into those.
Hi dd. Yeah the Drive would work well on the Explorer, IMO. Burton and Union tend to be good too and certain models of other brands as well – but yeah NOW just that little step above, IMO. Boots-wise, yeah Adidas very good in that respect. 32, depends on the model, but some of these very good too. Vans also not bad there too and some K2s as well.
Hi Nate,
I planing going to start splitboarding this season. I am 190lbs 5’8, boot 10,5. I decided to go for Explorer split. It will be my only one split for a while, so want it to be most versitale and ridable in different conditions, I have a hard time to decide between 159 and 162 board. I ride Yes The Greats 158 as my daily groomer ride and have od Flagship 161 as well for offpiste. As I love Greats, I must say I found Flagship a little bit too demanding. Explorer 159 is at the limit of my weight, so 162 looks to be correct, but I am worried if I will not have same experience as with Flagship. Good ride claims 159 seems to be equivalent to Flagship 161. On the other hand, won’t 159 be too short for my weight and drawn in podwer? I understood it can be ridden longer reading your other feedbacks though. What do you think?
Cheers!
Michal
Hi Michal
Thanks for your message.
I’m guessing you have a 2018 or earlier model of the Greats, as you mention a 158 (and they changed the 158 to a 159 from 2019). In any case, the effective edge on the Greats is quite a lot. You’re looking at 123.3cm on the 2018 model 158. The 161 Flagship (pre 2020 model) has an effective edge of 122cm. Both significantly more than the Explorer in both 159 (117cm) and 162 (119.6cm).
The Flagship is also considerably stiffer than the Greats – and vs the Explorer. So even though the Greats has a greater effective edge, the Flagship at that flex and effective edge is a lot more board to handle. The Explorer is halfway between the flex of the Flagship and the Greats – or maybe slightly closer to the flex of the Greats.
You’ve also got to take into account the sidecut – on the Flagship 161 it’s 9.1m – which is quite a high number – meaning that it naturally wants to carve longer wider arcs down the hill – i.e. wants to go more straight down at speed with long arcing carves – more suited to big mountain riding. The Greats (2018 model 158) on the other hand has a 6.8/7.3m sidecut (different sidecuts for heel side and toe side due to asymmetry) which is a lot more “turny”, if that makes sense. It prefers shorter sharper turns and is easier to manager particularly when you’re riding smaller resorts and tighter terrain. The Explorer has a 7.5m sidecut (on the 159) or 7.9m (on the 162). This is closer to the Greats in that sense.
So, with all that said, IMO, the 162 Explorer is going to be significantly easier to handle than the 161 Flagship. It’s easier going in terms of flex, effective edge and sidecut. But you’re still going to get that surface area for float in the powder. My worry with the 159 for you, is that it won’t be enough effective edge and, like you mention, not going to float as well. You could certainly ride both, but I would be leaning towards 162 for you, for that particular board. Ordinarily, I would say more around 158-160 for your specs though. But for this particular board you could go longer.
I wouldn’t say there’s a direct comparison between sizes, but I would almost say the other way around – that the 162 Explorer is like the 158 Flagship (all be it a wider version of it – the Explorer is relatively wide in the regular widths – but I think it will suit your boot size well). But I agree where they say that the 159 is the equivalent to the 157 Mountain Twin/Ultra Mountain Twin, in terms of size (not in terms of ride though as they’re different boards).
Hope this helps with your decision
Fantastic response down to technical details. Highly appreciate you feedback and yes, it was very helpful!
Cheers!
Michal
You’re very welcome Michal. Hope you have an awesome season when winter rolls around!
Hi Nate!
After reading your and thegoodride reviews, I’ve shortlisted the YES Standart and Jones Explorer, with a priority for the Explorer (better in powder). I have been thinking about this boards for freeride, powder, all mountain and small jumps from natural obstacles. I don’t consider YES PYL because it too stiff like the rest of purely freeride boards
I am 6′, 165 lbs & sz 10.5. Stance 18/-6.
I’m having a hard time to decide on one of those options:
Explorer 158w
Explorer 159 (Narrow for me?)
Explorer 161W (too long for the forest?)
Standart 159
Hi Andrey
Thanks for your message.
For the Explorer (name changed to Frontier for the 2020 model, if you’re looking at 2020 models – but essentially the same board), I would be leaning towards the 159 for you. I think the 161W is getting too big. The combination of that length and width for your specs, and I think it would be too much board, especially in the trees. The 158W is an option, though if you don’t need to go wide I wouldn’t. With 10.5s, I would say you should be fine with a +18/-6 stance. The Explorer/Frontier is quite wide at the inserts vs the waist (at reference stance) – so you can treat it as a little wider than the waist width suggests. If you ride it on a stance that’s narrower than reference it won’t be as wide, but still wide enough, I would say.
For the Standard – for your specs, I think the 159 is probably a little bit on the big side, when you take length and width into account. For the Standard, I would say you would be better suited to the 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate! Thanks for all your work on this site!
You’re very welcome Andrey
Hey Nate,
Great site! Special thank you for keeping these comment sections alive!
Would really appreciate your help
I’m ~185 lbs / 84 kg and 6′ / 183 cm riding US10 ThirtyTwo TM-2 Length 304 mm
1. Do you think 159 jones explorer will work for me in terms of length/width and weight? 159 is up to 190lbs
2. Want to pair explorer with Union Baldface(really good deal). But cannot find much information on these bindings. Looks like it’s falcor baseplate and force highback(not sure though). I read your review on falcor and saw your comment above regarding Atlas vs Falcor for this board but what about Baldface? Could you share your opinion? Ankle strap on Atlas and Baldface looks similar
Thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Width-wise the 159 is likely spot on. Length-wise, usually I would say 159 is a really good size for you. With the Explorer the debate would be between that and the 162,for you, IMO. Main reason being that the explorer has less effective edge vs overall length than most boards – so it’s a board you can size up. Not to say that you have to. The 159 would still work for sure, but the 162 is also worth considering, in this case. Some things to think about:
The 162 will give you more float in powder, better stability at speed and generally better for bombing/carving.
The 159 will be more nimble, particularly at slower speeds, better in the trees, better for more freestyle oriented things.
I have to admit the Baldface is a model that completely alluded me (not in their catalog or on their website and the rep I get Union bindings off to test didn’t mention them) – I’m guessing their a limited special edition.
But yeah from what I could find out, it looks to have the Falcor baseplate (Stage 6 Duraflex CB) & bushings (Vaporlite 3.0). The ankle strap is a Hexgrip, which is actually found on the 2019 Union FC (similar in look to the Atlas’ ankle strap but a little different. Looks very similar (if not the same) to the Strap on the 2020 Ultra which I demoed season just gone, which was really nice (atlas strap also good though). The 2020 Falcor is also going to have this strap. They call it the Hex Direct Connect on the Ultra and Falcor 2020, but it looks the same as the Hexgrip from the 2019 FC. Long story short though, it’s a nice strap.
The highback is harder to figure out. I couldn’t find the name of it on the info I found. At first I thought it could be the 2019 Ultra Highback, but that’s a little wider at the top. Looking at it more closely, I think you’re right that it’s the solid version of the Force highback. In any case it looks like the highback has a 7/10 flex – which is a little less than what the Falcor is rated is – so overall maybe a touch softer flexing than the Falcor – given it has the same baseplate, and a slightly softer flexing highback. The Force’s highback is rated 6/10 – so I don’t know if they’ve got the rating wrong or if it is a different highback altogether. Apparently it’s called a Nylon ASYM S1 Team highback (just found that – though it doesn’t really help, as I can’t find it on any of the models!).
In any case, long story short (sorry sometimes I geek out a bit on gear, and the Baldface look like a really interesting binding). I would say that it’s a great choice for the Explorer, for sure, based on the specs. It’s closest to the Falcor – and is in fact even closer to the 2020 Falcor, which has the Hex strap. So it’s basically a 2020 Falcor, with a Force (I think?) solid highback.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the detailed response!!
More questions if you don’t mind.
Taking in account the baseplate most probably 6/10 and highback(if it’s force) 6/10 (i don’t think the rating on Union Binding Co is right) it feels like closer to Union strata. And most probably i can get strata for the same price with a good deal (maybe even less. Not much though). Which one would you choose Strata or baldface to pair with explorer (not counting price)? Also don’t you know on falcor baseplate there are two toe strap position on both side buckle side and the other one like on Atlas(Saw review saying just one side is adjustable) or just one side?
Thank you
Alex
Hi Alex
Really tough call between Baldface and Strata. I would almost be leaning towards Baldface, and only really because of that ankle strap. Otherwise it’s a tight call – Strata a nice binding too.
Not sure about that toe strap position – I actually own Falcor’s but don’t currently have them in front of me (on vacation at the moment). And don’t seem to have any notes about the toe strap position on it (I usually do note that particular thing but must’ve gotten lazy since I own them!). By memory, I think they do, but not 100% sure
Hey Nate,
I really appreciate the advise you’ve given everyone here. I’m set on the explorer to start my quiver but conflicted as far as size for a couple reasons. Firstly, I’m 5’10 150 without gear and a size 9.5 boot. I know that puts me pretty squarely in the 156 range, my only thought is that since i will be riding this board as my main board for years to come and will likely put on another 10-20 pounds over the coming years, I don’t want to outgrow the board. So, my question is what are your thoughts on sizing up to the 159 since this is more of a powder board anyways and my style is typically just fast and straight down the mountain?
Thanks again!
Hi Cody
Thanks for your message.
Usually I would say don’t go longer than 156 (and you could even potentially go a little shorter if you’re more of a beginner – but 156 would be good as a solid intermediate rider or up) for you. But in this case, it’s worth having a look at. The Explorer is one of those boards you can ride a little longer – mainly because it has less effective edge vs overall length compared to most boards. The effective edge on the 159 is more like the effective of something more typically around a 157 (for this style of board).
So, for this particular board, I think the 159 is doable. But I wouldn’t typically suggest to go longer out of expectation of putting on a bit of weight in the future, unless you think it’s going to be in the really near future.
The other thing to consider though, is that the Explorer (of Frontier as it will be named for the 2020 model, when it comes out) – is wider than it looks. At the inserts on the 156 Frontier 2020 I measured the width at front insert was 266mm and was 269mm at the back insert (at reference stance) – which is wide for a 252 waist. With the reference stance and waist width being a little wider on the 159, it’s probably closer to 272mm on that back insert – which is getting quite wide for 9.5s. That said, it is quite a wide reference stance – 600mm (23.6″) – so if you were to ride it narrower – e.g. 560mm (22″) – then it wouldn’t feel as wide – still on the wider side for 9.5s. So that wideness would be one reason to maybe stick with 156. But since you prefer to ride fast and straight, that’s another thing pulling towards going longer.
So, it’s a tough call. I don’t think there’s a terrible choice either way. The 156 is going to be absolutely fine for you right now. If you put on 20lbs in quick time, then the 159 probably becomes the better option, but the 156 would still be rideable, for sure. I rode the 156 Forntier (I’m 6’0″, 185lbs) and had a blast on it. That said, I’d probably still buy the 159, but I would be fine with the 156 too. On the other hand the 159 isn’t way off for right now, either, because of that shorter effective edge. I know that’s a lot of back and forth, but that’s because it’s a tough call on this one.
If I had to choose, I’d say go 156 – but hopefully this gives you more information to help with your decision.
Hey Nate.
Thanks for the response! I think I will end up going with the 156. I appreciate your analysis.
You’re very welcome Cody.
Excellent, thank you Nate.
HI Nate – had one more follow up question (maybe a dopey one on my part!) on the Explorer. Reference stance is @ 60, and I’m looking to bring it in to 56. To ensure I don’t impact the setback, is it as simple as moving each binding in one set of holes? (2cm each and 4cm total) Thanks
Hi dd
No such thing as a dopey question! But yeah, move both in one set of holes each from reference and you will maintain the setback stance – and would reduce your stance width to 56cm.
Hi Nate thanks for all your reviews. Which would you suggest between Explorer and Mountain twin for a beginnerish guy who’s boarded 6 seasons. I like to carve, sometimes go in tree areas, now and then switch and butter, do jumps here and there, not much jibbing but would like to try more in future. I think the explorer would more stable with more turn control and suit my level a lot more but wonder if being more directional will hold me back if I want to do more switch, butters and jumps as I progress. Terrain wise I get a variety of both icy parts and sometimes good levels of pow. I’m 175cm, 70kg.
Hi Simon
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards Mountain Twin, just because it’s just a little more versatile, and it sounds like you want to get into some park stuff and riding switch etc.
Size-wise, the 154 would be the best size for you, IMO. Assuming you have size 10 boots (US size 10) or less. With bigger boots than that you might need to consider the 155W.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate thanks for getting back..it’s incredible someone out there gives out all this advice. What are your thoughts between these two boards for someone who’s probably still at beginner level? While it’s important to future proof myself with a more versatile board, I’m also some time away from doing crazy park stuff. Do you think either of these boards is better at building all round confidence across a wide variety of terrain.
Thanks for your other comments on effective edge on these Jones boards. My store was sizing me at 152 explorer or 151 mountain twin but I’m probably a size up for each. (And yes I’m boot size 9).
Hi Simon
I find the Mountain Twin to be a very versatile board and very consistent across different terrain. The Explorer is too – but I find the Mountain Twin just that little bit more versatile. I would say both are intermediate and up boards, so if you felt you were a little under that intermediate level, there might be some better options. You could check out the following:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
Which is titled “intermediate” but are what I would consider great options for high-end beginner, going on intermediate. Not to say that the Mountain Twin or Explorer wouldn’t be suitable, but if you think you’re still beginner, then they might be a steeper learning curve.
Size-wise, I would say a good “advanced level all-mountain board” size for you would be around 155, 156. As a beginner going with something around 151-153 is probably a better bet, but as a high-end beginner to low-end intermediate, then I would adjust that range just a little bit to more like 152-154, just to get a board that lasted you a little longer through your progression. So 151 isn’t out of the picture for the Mountain Twin, if you wanted it to feel more easy going. But it might be something that you grow out of quicker than going 154. The Explorer is something that can be ridden a little longer – so the 152 and 156 are like the equivalents of the MT 151 and 154.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate got the mountain twin 154 thanks for being a great help!
You’re very welcome Simon. 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.
Hello Nate,
Thanks for the amazing review.
With my gear on, I am about 95 kilo/ 210 pounds and I really prefer shorter and stable boards rather than longer and narrow boards. So I was thinking about the Explorer 158W or 159. My shoe size is about an 11.
I have a question about sizes 158W and 159.
It says that both of these boards are meant for maximum weights up to 86 kilo/190 pounds. Due to the 158W being about 0.7 to 0.8 cm wider but 1 cm shorter than the 159, I would think that the 158W is able to carry more bodyweight than the 159 cm explorer. I would also think that the 158W might be more stable when going fast due to being a wider board.
From my experience wider snowboards are far more stable than narrow boards of approximately the same length and brand.
What do you think?
Thanks a million!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
Sizing usually takes into account weight without gear, so I suspect you would be closer to that limit anyway. But yeah, a wider board is more stable for sure – especially when your flat basing at speed. Personally I like to be at least a bit on the edge when driving really hard. I feel like I have more control, but overall certainly more width means more stability. When in powder, you’ll definitely notice that extra surface area too. And for landings off jumps you definitely notice that extra surface area too. So, with 11s, and if you prefer the feel of wider boards, then yeah I would go 158W over 159 for you. The 159 is on the narrower side for 11s anyway – doable on this particular board, but the narrowest you would want to go on 11s – and since it sounds like you prefer the idea of wider, the 158W sounds like the best bet for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate!
Greetings from London
You’re very welcome Daniel. Happy Riding!
Quick question, I’m looking for an all-mountain freeride focused deck that can still nail some jumps and carve at high speeds (also destroy chop). This looks promising, but at an advanced skill level do you think I’ll be let down by this board?
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think you’d be let down by this board – sounds like it would suit what you’re looking for. But if you wanted something a bit more advanced and/or aggressive, you could check the following:
The Explorer is in the first list below, but it’s the least aggressive in that list, and could just as easily have been in the non-aggressive all-mtn category, but I did find that it carved really well, and could handle speed well, and just put it in that aggressive category but it’s on the line.
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
Another really good option that’s not on those lists is the Capita Black Snowboard of Death, which is a great board, but is in that space between freeride and all-mountain.
Or something like the YES Pick Your Line or Lib Tech E Jack Knife, which are freeride boards that jump well too, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for the help 2 years ago on the Yes Basic! Looking for an upgrade now 🙂
I’m 6F 2, weigh 75-80kgs (variable), and using a size US 10 Ride lasso 280mm (upgraded, sized down and stiffen up from the Highline). i don’t do parks and probably never (started late, not a bouncy teen anymore lol) rarely switch. Stance on twin 15/-15. stance on directional 18/-3. Intermediate rider. confident in linking turns, mainly doing blue runs but also mess around off piste and black runs too.
I want to progress on doing better turns (priority no 1), go off piste, and maybe some trees (not priority), so all mountain free ride seems to fit the bit.
1) Looking for something stiffer than the Basic, directional twin and set back. on paper it doesn’t seem like there is much difference between a setback 158 Basic and a reference stance 159 Explorer (20mm set back minus roughly 10mm setback basic) but it seems like the explorer is actually 60mm set back from the nose tip from your review! which is good, otherwise it’ll be too similar to the Basic.
2) Main priority. Looking to progress on turns. Still flat basing a lot and still skidding a lot while trying to carve. The goal is to improve on edge to edge transition on flats and on turns even while going down straight, without skidding in between. Then the next goal is to try a proper long and low carving turns.
3) I mainly ride on hard pack / icy Australia and soft powder Japan. I already have a powder board for Japan, nice surfy ride but edge hold will probably suck in Australia for carves. So this board is mainly for Australia (priority) but i’ll probably use it when it’s not snowing in Japan.
4) Waist width issue. At 15/-15, 158 Basic seems fine to me. It has a 253mm waist width .At reference, the insert width is measured at 261mm and set back 262mm (it’s only got a pair of 2×5). But with a directional 18/-3 stance, there’s a bit of toe overhang for the back foot.
That’s about 3cm toe overhang (not including if you put the toe strap at the front instead of at the top)
Question:
1) Do you reckon the Explorer is a good fit for my needs or do you have another one in mind?
2) Does it hold well on hard snow/ ice compared to Basic?
3) Is it stable/damp on chunder ?
4) Reading your site, it seems like you’re obsessed with measurement 😉
Do you know what’s the width at insert for the Explorer? Please say you do!
You have this measurement for the Mountain Twin in your review but not the explorer :/
I’d like to have slightly more width than the Basic but not too much that it slows my learning curve on edge control. Something a wider than the Basic is desirable.
5) What size do you think is most suitable for me? 159, 162 or 161W? I don’t have the luxury to demo a bored first :/
6) Jones seems to recommend Now bindings for their boards. I have a Genesis and am looking for something a bit stiffer. (as you can see I’ve slowly gone up the stiffness with my boots first, then board/binding wants). I’m eyeing on Rome Katana or Now Drive. I like how Katana has a lot of adjustment option and has that D30 for dampness. Drive seems to fit Jones philosophy best but wondering if it’s too stiff for the Explorer. Stiffness of Jones Mercury/Now Pilot might be too similar with Genesis, but I could be wrong with the Katana too.
Sorry for the lengthy post!
Hi Wayne
Thanks for your message.
My opinions to your questions below:
1) From what you’re describing, I think the Explorer would be a great step up from the Basic and be something that will do what you’re looking for
2) Not quite as good in hard/icy conditions as the Basic, IMO, but good nonetheless. I would say 4/5 vs the Basic 4.5/5
3) It’s pretty damp and fine with chunder. It’s maybe not as easy as the Basic in those conditions, but certainly close
4) Unfortunately I didn’t measure the width at inserts on the Explorer (but I will for the 2020 Explorer replacement – the Frontier – which is pretty much the same board with a different name). But you want have any issues on the 159 or 162 width-wise, with size 10 Ride Lasso’s, IMO. Most Jones boards I have ridden are quite wide at the inserts. I don’t imagine the Explorer is much different – and if you go with the 262 (which I recommend as you can see below) – then you’ll definitely be getting more width than the Basic.
5) I think the 162 is your best bet. The Explorer is something you can ride a bit longer as it has less effective edge vs overall length compared to a lot of boards. So the 162 actually has a very similar effective edge as the 158 Basic. Since turning/carving is your priority, I don’t think you should be sizing down your effective edge, so I think 162. No need to go for a wide for this board, IMO. I think you would be adding a little too much width then.
6) I don’t currently test NOW bindings (though I am looking to get my hands on some soon, to demo some 2020 models). But specs-wise, the Drive looks a decent match to the Explorer. Certainly looks a good couple of notches stiffer than the Genesis. I don’t test Rome either unfortunately – so I also can’t say much about the Katana – but again, based on specs, it looks like it would be a good flex match for the Explorer anyway, and stiffer than the Genesis. For some other options check out the following:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
If you want some other suitable options as well, you could look at the following, too, if you’re want more effective edge without having to go as long:
– Never Summer West 159 (not that this is a hybrid rocker rather than hybrid camber (Basic and Explorer are both Hybrid Camber) – so if you’re looking for hybrid camber, then not this one, but otherwise a good option) – hard/icy = 4/5, IMO
– Rossi One LF 159 (hybrid camber) – hard/icy = 5/5, IMO
– Niche Story 159 (hybrid rocker like the West) – hard/icy = 5/5, IMO
– Capita Mercury 159 (hybrid camber) – hard/icy = 3.5/5, IMO
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, I have had the Explorer now for the past 2 seasons and I love it. After 2 seasons of riding, I just love making it down the mountain nice and smooth, taking small jumps off naturals. I was wondering what the progression / next step up board would be?
I don’t care for switch, I don’t do any park.
On mountains with flats, I am having sometimes a hard time making it all the way through the flat areas. Is there something like the explorer but with an upgraded faster base? Ultra Mountain Twin? Flagship?
Thanks for your time!
Hi Victor
Thanks for your message.
Going to the UMT or Flagship, might make a little difference (going from their Sintered 7000 to their Sintered 9900 base) – but to be honest, I haven’t noticed a huge difference between those in terms of glide. But it might help a little. I know you probably are, but just have to make sure – are you regularly giving the base a good hot wax? Have you tried different waxes. You might be able to extract some more glide that way.
But if you want to change your board anyway, you could look at something like the following, if you’re looking for a step up – and aren’t into riding switch/park.
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
But if you’re otherwise still enjoying the Explorer, I would try some different wax options and see how that goes first.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your reply! I dug deeper and it looks like Yes’s PYL might be a nice little upgrade.
I haven’t tried different waxes, but I did do a fresh hot wax before taking it out this season.
Thanks again for your time, and all your work on this site!
Hi Victor
You’re very welcome.
Depending on how often you’re riding, I find it’s a good idea to wax multiple times in a season. You could check out the following as an example of how much you might like to wax. But yeah the PYL is a sweet board, for sure!
>>How Often Should I be Waxing a Snowboard with a Sintered Base
For 5’8 165-170lbs, and a Size 10 boot (Burton Imperial) do you recommend a 156 or 159 for Yes’s Pick your line?
Thanks Nate!
Hi Victor
Usually I’d say around a 156, 157 for you, but with the PYL you can ride it a little longer, so both are certainly options for you. With 10s, the 156 might be getting a little too narrow – depending on the angle you like on your back binding. With quite a bit of angle you’d likely get away with it, but it’s on the narrower side for 10s, IMO. The width at inserts on the 159 is 260mm at the back insert – so would likely be 257mm on the 156, which is getting pretty narrow of 10s, even Burtons, which are low profile. I think you’d be fine with a reasonable angle on there.
With low profiles size 10s, I have ridden boards with 255mm on the back insert (at a 15 degree angle) without boot drag, so it’s doable, but the 159 would give you a bit more leeway in that sense.
So it’s a very close call, but this is the kind of board you can ride a little longer, so you could ride either. I would be leaning towards 159 for you. The pros of each:
1. 156 would be more maneuverable at slower speeds, better in trees and better for more freestyle type things like spins, sidehits etc
2. 159 would give more float in powder, more stability at speed, better for long arcing carves (IMO) and more leeway in terms of width.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’1 205 wearing a 10.5 Burton Ruler. Currently riding a YES Basic 161.
I’m looking around at boards and the Explorer caught my eye.
I’m really enjoying getting into the trees lately.
Would the Explorer be an upgrade for my goals? If so, what size would you recommend?
Love the site!
Thanks!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the Explorer would be an upgrade overall. Better carver, better at speed. Specifically in terms of trees, I think it would be a bit of give and take. I found the Basic to be very quick edge-to-edge and quite nimble at slow speeds. The Explorer isn’t slow edge-to-edge by any means but maybe not quite as quick there – and maybe not as nimble at slower speeds – certainly more responsive at faster speeds, but if you’re doing tight technical stuff in the trees, then you might be riding them relatively slow? But certainly when there’s powder in the trees, then the Explorer would be better in there, IMO. It floats better in powder.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 162. You could probably ride a little longer than that for this board, as it’s a board that can be ridden a little longer (you would actually be dropping effective edge from the 161 Basic) – but the only longer size is a wide, and I don’t think you need to go wide (and that would affect your edge-to-edge speed too, IMO). But going with that shorter size, does mean more maneuverability for the trees and if that’s your thing, then I think the 162 would work well, size-wise.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
How would you compare this to the Yes – Pick Your Line? Seem like similar boards to me.
Hi Sean
They certainly have some similarities, but quite a few differences too. The main differences being:
1. The PYL has a roughly 5mm taper (narrower tail than nose) whereas the Explorer has equal width nose and tail.
2. The PYL has a significantly longer nose and bigger difference between nose and tail length. Comparing the 159s of each board for example, the PYL 159 has a 340mm nose vs the 235mm nose on the Explorer. The tails are similar lengths (220mm on the PYL vs 215mm on the Explorer)
These first two things make the PYL more directional and more powder friendly overall than the Explorer. Though the explorer is powder friendly with a slightly bigger setback on effective edge and directional camber profile. It also has Jones’ spoontech.
3. Explorer has a 20mm setback along the effective edge – it’s 10mm on the PYL
4. The PYL has tapered underbite, which leads to the tapered shape – but the way the taper is done helps it to grip hard/icy snow better. The Explorer is also decent in hard/icy conditions with “traction tech” but I found the PYL just a little better.
5. They’re not worlds apart in terms of flex, but the PYL is a little stiffer – 7.5/10 by my feel vs 6.5/10 on the Explorer
6. Whilst both have relatively small amount of effective edge vs overall length, the Explorer is even more so in this direction – comparing the 159s again, the PYL has a 118cm effective edge vs 117cm on the Explorer.
Overall I would say that the PYL is a freeride board with a bit of an all-mountain flavor, and the Explorer is an all-mountain board with a bit of freeride flavor. But Explorer still closer to all-mountain than PYL and PYL closer to freeride than Explorer.
Those are the main things i can think of at the moment. But yeah, they’re not worlds apart, but different enough.
Was thinking the same thing Nate but wanted your thoughts. Thanks for the confirmation and enjoy the rest of the season.
You’re very welcome dd – happy riding!
Hi Nate. You’ve helped me a great deal with all your reviews and helpful answers to questions. Thank you ! So I picked up the Explorer and love it. Based on your reviews, it was between the Explorer and Rossi One. Found the Explorer in a 159 on sale and couldn’t pass it up (I’m 185-190, size 10.5). Now it just so happens a local shop has the One LF on a great sale. So my question is are the two boards too similar and overlap? Or is there a place for both for a mostly east coast rider who takes an annual trip West? No park or switch, older rider with dodgy knee. I really love the Explorer for its stability at speed how easy it turns, but curious if the Rossi would complement or overlap? Thanks in advance!
Hi dd
Thanks for the update – and awesome that you’re digging the Explorer!
Whilst they certainly aren’t exactly the same boards, I would personally consider them too similar to need both of them in a quiver. There would be a lot of overlap there, IMO.
Hi Nate!
I am a fairly experienced rider from Michigan that likes to go out west to the mountains every other year or so. I like to hit powder as much as possible along with some trees here and there. When those aren’t an option (or I am home in MI) I love to bomb hills. I think the Explorer and I seem like a fairly good match. (If you have a better suggestion feel free to throw it out there)
I currently ride a Burton Process Flying V 162cm at 5’8″ and 185-195lbs. I am not a huge fan of how big and almost sloppy the Process feels and am worried that if I get an Explorer at 162cm it will feel the same way so I’m thinking of going for the 159cm instead.
What are your thoughts?
Connor
Hi Connor
Thanks for your message.
I think the Explorer would be a great option for what you’re describing. If you don’t really do anything freestyle, then looking at a freeride board is also an option, if you were happy to go a little stiffer, but the Explorer is already a step up in terms of stiffness from the Process Flying V, so it’s probably a good amount stiffer, without going overly stiff. Another option could be the Capita Mercury.
Size-wise, I would say around 159 is a good size for you for an all-mountain kind of board, so I think the Process Flying V in the 162 is on the big side for you. The 159 would probably have been the better size for that board, IMO. But it’s quite a loose feeling board, so – for how you describe your riding – probably would have felt even less stable/more sloppy – but wouldn’t have felt as big. But I think the Explorer is a better board for what you’re describing, regardless of size.
Size-wise, with the Explorer though, it’s something you can ride a little longer – so the 162 isn’t a bad option for that board. The Explorer has less effective edge, compared to overall length vs a lot of boards (including the Process Flying V). The Process Flying V 162 has effective edge of 122.5cm vs the Explorer 162 with an effective edge (EE) of 119.6cm. So even sticking with the 162 will feel smaller to ride than the Process Flying V 162. Going 159 is still an option, but you would be dropping to 117cm of EE which would be a good 5cm drop from what you’re riding now.
I would be leaning towards 162 for you for the Explorer, but if you could also let me know your boot size, that would also help decide.
Hope this helps
Cheers Nate! I appreciate the help. This is a lot of awesome info.
I’m really not a freestyler – just ride switch every once in awhile to challenge myself. Out of curiosity what freeride board would you recommend? You got me looking and the YES PYL and Burton Flight attendant look pretty good too.
When looking at the Mercury or the Explorer I think the Explorer gets a slight edge to me for the better hold up in powder as you describe it.
My boot size is a 9.5.
That is crazy that the effective edge is that much smaller. If I am reading that right that same 162cm size would still have 3cm less effective edge than the process?
Hi Connor
Yeah I would stick with Explorer over Mercury in your case. a. powder-wise, which is something you’re obviously looking for and b. because it will be a better width for your boots. I was thinking 159 Mercury, but it’s a little wider, and the Explorer better for 9.5s, IMO.
But overall, I think exploring something like the PYL or Flight Attendant might work well for you. Not overly stiff for freeride boards, but still a little stiffer than the Explorer. And a good bit stiffer than the Process Flying V. So would take some adjustment from that, but once you got used to them, I think you would appreciate them for your style of riding. The Flight Attendant is what I would definitely consider an advanced level and up kind of board and although it’s something that you can slow down on and still enjoy, compared to a lot of freeride boards, it’s still not great for that. The PYL is better for slowing down – still prefers to ride fast, but one of the better freeride boards for slowing down, IMO. It’s also something that you can ride as a high-level very solid intermediate rider. It sounds like you’re pretty advanced, so I don’t think that will be an issue for you.
I like the 159 for either the FA or PYL for you, and I think they would both also be great widths for 9.5s.
Explorer 162 definitely still an option, but I would be leaning towards PYL 159, if you don’t mind sacrificing switch riding (not that you can’t – just that it’s far less suited to it than the Process Flying V and a little less suited than the Explorer).
Hope this gives you more to go off
Thanks Nate! (and sorry for the other comment in double, I thought it didn’t work).
It helps 🙂
Gabe
You’re very welcome Gabe. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate
Thank you for responding to all this requests for info.
Here is my case:
– man;
– 5,4 tall and 140 lbs
– quite experienced (15 years) but not very physical
– riding a burton supermodel 2011 (155) which is stable but does not have great edge hold on hard snow
– riding in French alps with often hard snow or icy conditions
– without being a speed demon, i like to go fast on slopes and go for powder as often as possible.
I’m afraid that the Explorer 156 lacks a bit of stiffness/stability but I’m definitely not familiar with modern shapes.
So, what do you think: 156 or 159?
Thanks a lot
Gabe
Hi Gabe
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I would usually say something around 150cm would be a good length. The Explorer is something that can be ridden a little longer, but I would still usually say 152 for the Explorer for your specs (and would be better for your boot size, which you mentioned in your other comment was a 7). But since you are used to a 155, you could ride the 156. But I wouldn’t go as long as 159 for you, at 140lbs.
I haven’t ridden the Supermodel but looking the specs, it looks like it was a 5/10 flex. The Explorer is a little stiffer than that. And from my experience has a very stable feel.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Maybe you can help me out too. I’m having a hard time to decide on one of those four options:
Mountain Twist 151
Mountain Twist 154
Explorer 152
Explorer 156
Actually, I lean towards the Explorer, but which size?
My specs: 171 cm (152 to my chin, 154 to my nose), 63 kg / 140 lbs, mondopoint 26 (I’ve got the K2 Maysis boot, US size 8.0)
My level is intermediate, I don’t have much experience yet, but (as I’m told) a good technique. I really like to carve, I’d like to try switch and a little buttering; maybe also powder. Less interested in the park or high jumps.
I ride in Germany and sometimes Austria. The ski areas nearby have nice slopes, but sometimes are steep and not too broad – and mostly swarming with skiers. So a certain “turnability” would be helpful.
Thanks!
Hi Antonia
Thanks for your message.
Both boards would work for what you’re describing, but I would actually be leaning towards Mountain Twin for you. But if you think you prefer the sound of the Explorer, that’s definitely a good option too.
Size-wise, for the Mountain Twin I would definitely go 151 for your specs. Sizing is mostly about weight and boot size, these days and not so much about height. The between chin and nose thing is how it use to be done but not really that relevant any more. Height is taken into account mostly for stance width.
For the Explorer I would go 152. A better size for your weight and boot size. Even though the Explorer is something that can be ridden a little longer than other boards, I still wouldn’t go as long as 156 for you. Going longer would also affect your “turnability” so that’s another reason for going 151/152. But even without that, I wouldn’t go any longer for you anyway.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! I just got the last 152 Exlorer I could find on the internet… 🙂
Hi Antonia
Good score! Let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
I am between the Explorer, Mountain Twin, and the Ride Machete. What would your suggestion be? I am an all mountain rider from the park to the back country.
Hi Patrick
Further to my other reply, I think the Mountain Twin would be a good bet, given that your ride everything from park to backcountry. The Machete is more freestyle oriented and wouldn’t be a great option for the backcountry. The Explorer is more freeride oriented and would be the best option in the backcountry of the 3 (IMO), but not as good for the park as the Machete or Mountain Twin, but still doable for the park. The Explorer would be my second choice after the Mountain Twin, but for what you’re describing, I think the Mountain Twin would be the best bet.
I am between the Jones Explorer and the Ride Marchete. Any insight or comparison on the two?
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
I would say that the main differences are:
1. The Machete is a twin shape with a centered reference stance vs the Explorer which has a setback of 20mm (setback along the effective edge) and a directional shape (longer nose than tail and has more rocker towards the nose compared to towards the tail). Just these differences make this two quite different boards, IMO.
2. Whilst both have a hybrid camber profile (camber between and under the feet and rocker towards tip and tail), the Explorer has more rocker, particularly in the nose.
3. Very similar flex-wise, but I’d say that the Explorer is just a touch stiffer.
Performance-wise, I would say the following:
1. The Explorer is much better in powder
2. The Explorer is a little better for speed and for carving
3. The Machete is better for riding switch
4. Similar for jumps, but the Machete better for spins, particularly 180s, where you need to either take off or land switch
Those are some of the main differences I can think of off the top of my head. I would consider the Machete an all-mountain-freestyle board, whereas the Explorer is more of an all-mountain, bordering on freeride, board.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
I’m 5 11 and around 165 lbs. I have 2015 Burton Malavita bindings Size Large, 2018 Adidas Tactical ADV boots size 11,5.
I don’t know if should take the 159w or 161w. I love going fast and carve hard but live deep pow and riding trees.
Do you think my old bindings will work with the Jones Explorer? Better choices binding wise?
Cheers
Martin
Hi Martin
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise for your specs, usually I would say something around 157, 158, which would make the 158W, the best bet. The Explorer is something you can ride in a longer size. So the 161W becomes an option.
The 161W would be better in deep powder, more stable at speed and better for long wide carves.
The 158W would be more maneuverable at slower speeds, and better for riding tight trees.
The Malavita would certainly work for the Explorer. Ideally, I think something with a 6/10 or 7/10 flex would work best, but the Malavita (5/10) is pretty close and also something that’s pretty versatile across a good flex range, because of the way they flex well with the board. So, since you already have them, I think they will work fine. If you really wanted to change them, you could check out the following, but I think you’ll be good sticking with the Malavitas.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate, I need some serious help. Need advice on a board and boot, live in Florida so no option to check out any local shops. I am 6’5 200 lbs, flux between 195-208. Feet are 30.5 and 31 cm’s. Looking for a boot with reduced footprint, most likely going to buy the Burton Ruler in a size 14.
For a board, I am looking for an all mountain board that carves well, is fun to throw around, easily maneuverable and has some fun pop for playing all over the mountain. Learned on and have been riding a 2009 Never Summer Heritage Lim Edition 163HW. Looking for something more lively with some pop. Ive currently narrowed down the search to the Jones Explorer 164w or 161W, or the Jones Mountain Twin 167W.
My concerns are the 167 is too long (too stiff and hard to turn), or the 161 is too narrow. Your advice would be highly appreciated, or if you have another recommendation.
Thank you!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, and since you’re used to 163, I think something around that is probably a good length for you. Though in saying that the effective edge on the Heritage is longer, compared to overall length, than the likes of the Explorer and Mountain Twin. But I still think the 167W might feel a little long, given that you’re wanting something that’s easy to throw around.
Width-wise with a 14 Ruler, I think something around 267mm waist width minimum is a good idea (assuming a reasonable amount of angle on the back foot). Also, if you never had any issues on the Heritage 163X, then I think that’s a fairly safe bet, something around there. So the Explorer 164W would certainly be an option. The 164W Mountain Twin might be pushing it for width, and certainly I think the 161W would be too narrow.
Length-wise I would go 164W for the Explorer as it’s the kind of board you can ride longer, rather than shorter, because of a small effective edge compared to overall length – so width and length-wise 164W for the Explorer, IMO.
Another good option would be the Nitro Team Gullwing 162W. I’d say it would be wide enough in the 162W (270mm at the waist) and that would be a good length for your specs/description of how you want to ride.
If you wanted to go Never Summer again, the 164X West would also work, IMO.
The YES Standard 162 would also be a great option, and certainly wide enough, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
A huge thank you to you Nate!! Went with the Jones Explorer 164W paired with Union Strata bindings. Hopefully these 14 Rulers fit, if they don’t….then back to the drawing board. Trip up to Breck and Keystone early January, stoked!!!! Merry Christmas!
You’re very welcome Matt. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with your setup, once you’ve had a chance to ride it in Jan. Have an awesome trip and Merry Christmas to you too!
Hi Nate, thanks a lot for your great reviews.
I can’t decide between the Explorer 164W and Flagship 163W from Jonas.
My preferred snowboarding terrain is Obertauern in Austria.
Often go on groomed snow, off piste powder if possible and sometimes hart or icy conditions. I love it to carve and to go switch but only in flat sections.
Unfortunately, I need to wear boots in size US13 from Burton in shrinkage style. I’m 1,85m tall with a weight of 83 kg.
My skill is between intermediate and advanced.
I really like carving, but we have often so much traffic on the slopes that I need to slow down my speed instantly. Therefore, the board has to work in fast and slower rides
What’s your recommendation in my case?
Greetings from Germany
Thanks in advance
Oliver
Hi Oliver
Thanks for your message.
Because of having to slow down in heavy traffic, and being at that intermediate-advanced level, I would say that the Explorer is your best bet. The Flagship could certainly work, but I would be leaning towards the Explorer in your case.
For the Explorer, I think the 164W would be the best size for you, and should be fine width-wise. Usually something closer to 161 in terms of length, for you is what I would recommend, but the Explorer is something that’s best ridden a little longer than normal. For the Flagship, I’d say that the 159W is probably the better size, but the 162W would be doable. The width is probably pushing it a little though on that.
Long-story short, I think the 164W Explorer would work well. The 161W is also a possibility but would be pushing it more, width-wise and would give less float and stability at speed than the 164W.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much for quick reply. I will follow your recommendation and I‘m sure it’s the best decision I can make.
Have a great winter season
Greetings from Hamburg
Oliver
You’re very welcome Oliver. Hope you have a great winter season too!
Hey there! Like many here I’m stuck between sizes. I’m 5’7 and 140-145lbs. I finally decided on the explorer over the MT to find that it only comes in 152 and 156. I ride in Jackson and was specifically looking for a one board kinda setup with a focus on powder and occasional switch. I have a 159 Rossi XV split, while my resort board is a 152 ride machete. I spend most my time in the trees and just kickin around. Unsure if the 156 would be responsive enough. Sucks that there isn’t a 153/154, which the MT seems to conveniently come in. Ideas on which size?
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
The Explorer is something you can ride a little longer, due it’s relatively short effective edge, compared to overall length. So, I think the 156 would work best for you for this board. Just to compare, the Explorer 156 has an effective edge of 1144mm, practically identical to that on the Mountain Twin (1146mm) and a reasonable amount less than the Machete 152 (1178mm). The 152 would certainly give you even more maneuverability for trees, but I think the 156 would work, and you would only notice the difference compared to 154, when in powder, IMO.
A little trickier to ride switch than the Mountain Twin, but still definitely doable and not be too much.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, I am choosing between 4 boards: Jones Explorer (158w or 161w), Capita Mercury (159), Yes PYL (160w) and Yes Standard (159). I am 6”0 205lbs, boot us11. I am mainly looking for charging groomers and occassionally going off piste (dont do park). I want a manouvrable board that will fit me well and be versatile (binding angles +15 -9). Also I ride cartel bindings. Which one do you think would be the best choice for me and which size. Thank you. Remi
Hi Remi
Thanks for your message.
You’ve created a great shortlist there as they will all do the job you’re looking for.
Size-wise I think you’re looking about right. I would usually say something around 161, 162 for you for an all-mountain board. Something like the YES Standard 159 is going to be on the wider side for 11s, but it’s designed to be so, and going 159 is a good length.
For the PYL, the 160W is a good size too. I think you would be pushing it too narrow on the 162 – and the PYL is stiffer than the others in this list, so going slightly shorter for this board too, will add back maneuverability. It’s already quite a maneuverable board for it’s stiffness, so I think this is also a good option and a good size.
For the Explorer you’ll definitely want to look at the 161W rather than the 158W, IMO. The Explorer is something you want to ride a little longer. It has less effective edge compared to overall length than the average board.
The Mercury in the 159. This will likely be your narrowest option (it’s 266mm at the rear insert – PYL likely to be (based on measuring the 159) around 267mm at the rear insert, the Standard around 275mm at the rear insert (based on measuring the 156), I didn’t measure the Explorer at the inserts but it would be at least 270mm at the rear insert and likely a bit more based on other Jones boards. I mention rear inserts, because that’s where your smallest binding angle is). But I think the 159 is still a good size, because it has quite a lot of effective edge for its length (1201mm – vs 1190mm (160W PYL), 1188 (159 Standard) and 1186 (161W Explorer). You could certainly ride the 161 as well, but the 159 would certainly work.
In terms of performance, for the factors that are likely to concern you the most, based on what you’re describing:
PYL:
Speed = 4.5/5
Powder = 4.5/5
Carving = 4.5/5
Standard
Speed = 4/5
Powder = 3.5/5
Carving = 4/5
Mercury
Speed = 4/5
Powder = 3.5/5
Carving = 4/5
Explorer
Speed = 4/5
Powder = 4/5
Carving = 4/5
But if you want to see how they perform in other areas, check out the reviews for them, I have reviews for each of these boards.
Oh yeah, and Cartels would work best with Standard, Explorer and Mercury, IMO, but they would still work with the PYL.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m trying to decide between the Explorer 161W and 164W. I’m 39 and have been snowboarding for 20 years. I would consider myself an high intermediate to low advanced rider. Don’t spend any time in the park but like riding the entire mountain. These days I’m mostly just doing mellow groomers with my kids. Live in Northern California so most days are in Tahoe with some trips to Colorado/Utah. I’m coming from a 2006 NS Legacy 166W full camber board which just feel like a plank at slower speeds. For reference, the Legacy is mid-stiff with a 269mm waist width and 9.4m sidecut. I want something that will be more fun, less edgy, and less work to turn when I’m cruising with my kids but can still bomb and has decent float in powder. I’m not very good at riding switch and want to get better at riding backwards with this board. I’m 6’4″ and 188lbs which is within the weight range for both boards. Been riding in 12.5 size boots forever but realized my actual foot size is more like 11.5 so I downsized to 11.5 Nitro Team boots year.
I’ve purchased the 164W but wondering if the 161W might be the better size for me. What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim
For your specs, you could ride either, IMO. But there will be pros and cons to both.
The Explorer is going to be better to ride at slower speeds and less edgy, compared to your 166W Legacy (not I board I’ve ridden but based on specs), regardless of the size that you go with but the 161W will be even more friendly at slower speeds (easier to maneuver), and be quicker edge-to-edge and more playful all round.
The 164W will float better in powder, be more stable at speed, and be better for wide/long carves.
Note that the Explorer is likely better (per length) in powder than the Legacy, IMO. So, you’ll likely get better powder performance from the 164W Explorer compared to 166W Legacy. You might drop a little for the Explorer 161W, but prob not as much as you would expect given the overall size difference (both a little narrower and shorter by 5cm).
You’ll likely drop a little in terms of speed in both sizes, IMO. But the Explorer is still a good board at speed, so I don’t think it will be a huge difference, at least not down to the 164W.
Without having ridden the Legacy, I couldn’t say any of this for sure, but that’s what I would expect.
The 161W is probably slightly better in terms of width for 11.5s, but the 164W still perfectly suitable for 11.5s.
The 161W would of course be a bigger adjustment from what you’re used to.
I hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate. Very helpful.
I just measured the base width of the 164W at the inserts with my binding angles set at +15/-6:
Front: 27.94cm
Rear: 28.26cm
My foot measures 28.73cm so width looks good based on your recommendation of even to 1cm of foot overhang.
I read in the comments above and elsewhere that the Explorer rides shorter than its length due to its long nose and shorter effective edge. That seems like another reason to stick with the 164W.
I actually found an old Never Summer catalog online and my 166 Legacy has an effective edge of 1290mm compared to 1212mm on the 164W Explorer. So even though the Explorer is only 2cm shorter in length its effective edge is almost 8cm shorter which seems like a pretty massive difference!
At this point, I’m thinking I’m gonna keep the 164W. Should be a huge improvement over the Legacy and I can’t wait for some snow in Tahoe so I can get a chance to ride it.
As for bindings, do you think Union Atlas is a good choice for the Explorer? I really wanted to try Now bindings but I can get a good deal on Atlas right now and I have a wider stance and would like something canted.
Hi Tim
Overall, I agree it does sound like the 164W will be the best bet.
In terms of bindings, the Atlas would match well with the Explorer, IMO. It’s a good flex match and a good bindings. Personally I would go Falcor over the Atlas, from Union, but the Atlas is still a good binding and the Falcor is more expensive.
Hi Nate,
I still haven’t pulled the trigger on the explorer yet but I had couple more questions.
From all the reviews I’ve read on your site and others’, it seems the Explorer is about the best in powder from the all-mountain category of boards. Do you think this is true or is there another board(s) that you feel is/are better in powder from any all-mountain category?
Also, do you think the explorer or a similar board would perform well (relatively) in moguls or really tracked in tight tree runs or other similar terrain that can be not super snowboard-friendly? You know – when you drop into some trees looking for fresh but are disappointed to realize you need to maneuver your way through a maze of totally packed, narrow, U-shaped channels, if that makes sense. What type of boards do best in those type terrains?
Thanks,
Michael
Hi Michael
In that type of terrain, I think agility at slower speeds is good to have. And for that, being not too stiff helps, as does something that’s shorter. So, I think to strike a good balance for other factors, flex shouldn’t be too soft either. So something between a 5 and 7 for you. And going for the shorter Explorer helps there too. Also being quick edge to edge at faster speeds, if you’re travelling through there quite quickly helps too.
So, I think the Explorer would fit the bill well. I wouldn’t say that it’s lightning quick edge-to-edge but it’s medium-fast – and it’s not too stiff or too soft. And yeah it’s certainly one of the better all-mountain style boards in powder, IMO. There are some others that would match it, but can’t think of any that would beat it. You could check out the following to see if there’s anything you feel could work better, but I think the Explorer would be a good option for what you’re describing.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
It would be way easier with universal definitions and all the info for sure! It’s weird that Jones puts running length on the website and effective edge in the catalog – and then has the same figure for both. Either way, it supports going with the Explorer 159 (at least I think I’m understanding that right) since I’m already used to and happy with the longer effective edge of the PT 2.
I’m stoked to get the new board 😀
Thanks for your help and all the great info. Hope you have a great season too!
Hi Mark
Yeah, that supports going with the longer option, when there’s less effective edge involved. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Thanks Nate, this is super helpful!
I hadn’t thought about the effective edge dimension, that’s an excellent point. I checked out your explanation on effective edge. Really informative. The Jones website only gives info on running length, which is 117 for the 159 Explorer. The Yes website has the effective edge for the 157 PT 2 down as 122. I was locked in on total length and weight ratings, but this has really helped refine the sizing comparisons.
This makes me a lot more confident that I can go with the 159 Explorer for the stability at speed and float in powder and still be able to handle it in trees and other tight spots (also probably means I could have gone with a 154 for the PT 2 – lol). I even checked the side cut and at 7.5 m the 159 Explorer is pretty comparable to my PT 2. I’m going to pull the trigger – thanks man!
Mark
Hi Mark
You’re very welcome.
It’s a bit confusing with all the terms going around. Jones’ website shows running length, but their catalog shows effective edge (but they’re the same figures). Other brands use running length to mean contact length and have a separate effective edge figure. Would be great to have universal definitions and have every brand show both Contact Length and Effective Edge, but got to work with what we get!
Hope you enjoy your new board and have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the great info! I tried posting this yesterday but I don’t think it went through. My apologies if this is a repeat.
I’m an advanced rider (level 6) for free ride, including powder, and intermediate (level 5) for freestyle riding – switch, jumps, butters etc. I’ve got a Never Summer Proto Type 2 157. It’s a super fun board that I’m looking to complement with more of a free ride type board for powder days and bombing groomers. I was thinking of either the Flagship or the Explorer, but have decided to go with the Explorer since most of my riding is at resorts right now and I think the softer flex is a better fit for where I’m at with my riding right now and will perform better on the chopped up lumps and bumps at the end of the day at the resort.
I’m 5’7″, 160 lbs and wear size 10 boots. Would you recommend the 156 or 159 Explorer (or as a wild card the 154 Flagship)? The weight range for the 156 is 120-170, but the 159 jumps to 140-190. I’m looking for more of the free ride characteristics so I’m tempted by the 159, but I like to ride trees so I still want it to be maneuverable.
Thanks for sharing the benefits of your experience. Cheers!
Mark
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
Ordinarily for your specs, I would say go for the 156 but I am leaning towards the 159 for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the Explorer is the type of board that you can ride longer, as it’s got quite a short effective edge compared to length. Secondly, since the Proto Type Two has a long effective edge compared to length, going for the 156 you would be dropping a lot of effective edge.
The 156 would certainly be a tighter turner for trees, but I think the 159 should be fine there. Also, you mentioned stablility at speed in your first comment and going 159 would help with that over the 156. The 156 would already be better in powder than the 157 Proto Type Two, but the 159 better again.
If you went Flagship, the 154 is probably too narrow for your boots, so I would say you’d need to go 158 if you were to go Flagship. The Flaghip is fine to ride in resorts, but the Explorer is perhaps more suitable, particularly if you ride in smaller resorts.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Your reviews are a wealth of information, thanks much! I’m considering between the Jones Explorer and the Flagship, and I was wondering if you could give me some guidance. I’m looking for a stable at speed board that’s good in powder that’s also resort friendly to complement my Never Summer Proto Type 2, which is a 157. I’d classify my riding as advanced (level 6) for most skills, but intermediate (4-5) for switch, butters and jumps. I’m 5’8″, 165 lbs with size 10 boots. Almost all of my riding is at resorts and i get in 10-20 days per year.
I like the stability of the Flagship, but I wonder how that stiffness will affect maneuverability in tight quarters and ride on chopped up crud that can build up by the end of the day at a resort (I’ve also got the PT 2 for that kind of stuff and it handles it well). On the flip side I wonder how much more stable the Explorer would be at speed than the PT 2.
Any suggestions on which board would be the better fit for my riding and what size to go for? At 165 (plus gear) I’m at the top end of the weight range for the 154 Flagship and the 156 Explorer, middle of the weight range for the 158 Flagship and lower end of the range for the 159 Explorer.
Thanks for sharing the benefits of your experience!
Mark
Hi Nate,
I am 5′ 10″ 180 lbs or just under (with no gear or clothes on ha ha) and I wear size 10 snowboard boots. I just wanted to get your take on the ideal size Jones Explorer for me.
Thanks for your advice.
Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 is going to be the best size for you for this board. The 162 is also a possibility. With some boards, with your specs (assuming a relatively advanced level of riding) I would say 157 to 159. But the Jones Explorer is something that can be ridden a little longer, so for this board, more like 159-161 would be a good range to look at, IMO. So, for this particular board, I think you could ride the 162 if you really wanted to go longer, but overall, I think the 159 would be the best size. But to note a couple of things quickly
1. The 159 will be more maneuverable at slower speeds, better in trees and better at freestyle stuff (spins, jibs, butters etc).
2. The 162 will float better in powder, be more stable at speed and more suited to longer/wider carves.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the response. Yes, it helps. The problem is, I’m so torn because I want the best of all those attributes you mention between the 2 lengths at the end of your response…ha ha! Can’t have everything I guess. Yeah, I have been going back and forth in my mind between the 162 and 159. I am 20 lbs above the bottom of the recommended range (160-210 lbs) for the 162 and 10 pounds below the top of the recommended range (140-190 lbs) for the 159 – if that makes sense. I don’t know if a snowboard company’s recommended rider weight range would usually mean with gear or no gear.
Thanks,
Michael
Hi Michael
From the companies that I’ve asked they’ve always said that their weight recommendations are without gear and I think Jones was one of the ones that I directly asked. So I would go on the without gear weight. If in doubt I would go 159 for you.
Thanks Nate! knowing that about the weight question helps. And the fact that I find myself in trees pretty often has me feeling better about the 159 as well.
Regards,
Michael
You’re very welcome Michael. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate,
I’m just shy of 6’0, 180 lbs, and 11.5 K2 Maysis boot. I was thinking about getting the 159 cm Jones Explorer. My concern is that it will be too narrow. What do you think?
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
IMO the 159 will be too narrow for your boots. It would be very risky in terms of getting drag. I think you would be better off with the 158W or 161W.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for the review. In terms of bindings, which one(s) would you recommend for this board? I assume one would want the stiffness of the binding to match the stiffness of the board for best pairing.
Hi Sebastien
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, matching flex is a really good idea. Don’t necessarily have to be exact but I like to be close. So, for the Explorer I would want something either 6/10 or 7/10. Maybe up to 8/10. And if I’m not going to match, then I prefer to go on the stiffer side, compared to the board rather than softer. E.g. if the board is 6/10, I would prefer to go 7/10 for the bindings, rather than 5/10, though anything 5-7/10 would work, if that makes sense.
Check out the following for some 6/10 and 7/10 flexing bindings.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for advice Nate!
Think I will try the Custom166W……………..
You’re very welcome Rob. Let me know how you get on (if you think of it) after you get a chance to ride it
Hi Nate,
Nice review. I’m looking for a new one board option to take to Japan this winter and the Explorer is top of my list at the mo. Split my time equally between riding groomers, searching for POW and riding through the trees and into the easier off piste stuff. Want to venture further afield this year. I’m 6’1, 85kg, size 13 (US) and intermediate.
Last year I spent a week riding the Slash Braistorm 163w, it was pretty good especially through the trees but just felt a little uncomfortable and had to hold back when wanting to turn and carve more aggressively. How do you think the two boards compare, will the Explorer allow me to be that bit more aggressive, while still remaining agile through the trees? The 164w Explorer has a slightly shorter effective edge than the 163w Brainstorm, do I need to take this into consideration?
Based on Jones sizeing I’m right in the middle of the 161w and 164w, what do you think?
Cheers C
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message and apologies for the slow response (currently preparing for the imminent arrival of the birth of my son!)
From my experience – and I haven’t ridden those two boards directly after each other or anything, but I felt the Explorer was a slightly better carver than the Brainstorm. Not like worlds apart but I rate the Brainstorm 3.5/5 for carving and the Explorer 4/5. I would say pretty similar in terms of agility, maybe the Brainstorm just that little bit more agile, that little bit softer flexing too, but again, not much in it.
Size-wise, ordinarily I would say that something 161 would be a better length for your specs and the type of riding your describing, but the Explorer is one of those boards that is a good idea to go a little longer on, so in the case of the Explorer I would say 164W. As you say, the Effective Edge is shorter on this board relative to length compared to most.
And yeah Effective Edge certainly effects carving for sure. So you’re dropping a little effective compared to the Brainstorm 163W so that’s certainly something to consider, but I think the 164W Explorer would still be a little better on a carve, just a little more aggressive than the 163W Brainstorm. I couldn’t say for sure, without having directly compared them, but that would be my prediction.
Hope this helps with your decision
Cheers for the advice Nate, much appreciated and congrats on the expected new arrival.
C
Thanks Chris! And you’re very welcome.
Sorry forgot, one last question. Based on what I’ve mentioned above are there any other board options you would suggest?
Thanks again C
Hi Chris
You could look at something like the YES Standard, which I would say is a better carver than the Brainstorm and just as good in powder, IF it’s in the slam back inserts. So, if you don’t have a problem with re-mounting the bindings for powder days, I think that would work well for what you’re describing. I’d say the 162 for you. But you could probably also get on the 159. The 159 would be a better board in the trees, but the 162 better in deep powder and better for carves and bombing.
Another option, if you’re quite an advanced rider, would be to look at something like a freeride board – if you don’t really ride switch or do any freestyle stuff. The one thing is that they’re not necessarily the best for riding slowly/casually, so if you like to do that from time to time, then something more all-mountain (like the Explorer/Standard) would be better.
Check out this list:
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
I’d say that anything here is going to satisfy you in terms of carving/powder needs. Probably the better options for trees, IMO, are the YES PYL and Never Summer Chairman. Or you could also look at the GNU Mullair. If you’re considering any of those and want any opinions on size, let me know.
Hey Nate,
Thanks lots for the further suggestions. I would say I’m a pretty mid level intermediate rider, which why I haven’t looked at full aggressive freeride boards and would probably steer away from the higher level boards. Level wise I was happy on the Brainstorm, so when looking for a bit more float and carve, I was drawn to the Explorer as a pretty safe move in that direction.
Yes I’ve looked closely at the Standard in the past, I felt that the old style 161w pre 2018 was possible on the narrow side for a 13 boot and was put off by the shorter length of new version 159. I’ve never been on anything less than 161 and really enjoyed it, I know that could be miss placed preconceptions, but when you’re buying without the chance to demo it sticks in your head. So yes the new 162 could work. It’s probably a greater risk buying cold than the Explorer, but I can also see it could be an amazing board if it worked. I’ve heard it’s a bit more sluggish on the turn and the stance width on the slam backs is quite narrow, I have pretty long legs and like a wide stance. Most importantly I’m not sure about the slam backs working in Japan, one of the amazing things about the place is that you go from groomers, into the tree line and then into 1m+ of POW and back again all in the same run and almost every day. So changeing the binding set up during runs wouldn’t really work and I’d prob be on the slam backs permanently, which with the one setting is a bit of a sizing risk.
What do you think, legitimate concerns, or am I just talking myself out of trying something different? Do you think the Explorer is a solid board compared to your other suggestions, or would you really push the Standard?
Cheers again C
Hi Chris
Yeah, I agree the Explorer is the safer choice. The Standard a bit more of a risk. Though you could certainly still ride the Standard setback on groomers. It would just be the days where there was no powder, that you might want to center up. In terms of the width in the slam backs, I haven’t personally had any issues (but I ride 10s!) but it would be the front foot that would get narrow – and the back foot would actually be moving to a wider part of the board. And, in terms of angles your front foot is typically on at least a 15 degree angles (which gives you a bit more leeway in terms of width) – but I’m not sure how narrow it would get for 13s.
So yeah, Explorer safer choice. I love the Standard but the width thing isn’t an issue for me, and I don’t ride in Japan, unfortunately!!
Hi Nate,
Great stuff on your website!
I’m doubting between Explorer Rossi one or arbor Bryan camber and maybe even the Burton Custom
210lbs shoe size 11 6ft4
Looking for a stable board at fast speed +50mph and big jump, sometimes in the park. If I can take
The board in the pow
Too would be a plus of
Course
Thanks
For your advice!!!
Hi Rob
Thanks for your message.
I would say that each of those 4 would be about the same in terms of stability at speed, and they’re all pretty good when it comes to that in my opinion.
The Rossi One and the Explorer would be the better options for powder, IMO.
For Jumps, the Custom would be the best of those 4.
For stability at speed (and float in powder), if you wanted a step up, you could go to a stiffer more freeride oriented option (check out some options at the link below). Though I do find that they’re not necessarily the best for jumps, typically. Although for big jumps, particularly with just straight air, I find that’s fine.
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
I’d say some of the better jumping freeride boards would be the GNU Mullair and the YES PYL.
But yeah, out of those 4, I would say go Explorer if powder is more important than jumps for you, and Custom if jumps are more important than powder.
Size is another consideration.
I would say that you’d want to go at least 164cm, for your specs and given that you like to bomb. Something around 165, 166 would be good. Though personal preference does come into sizing too, so if you know that you like something shorter that’s fine too – but that’s the length I would recommend.
In terms of width, with 11s, I would say at least 261mm at the waist, if you ride with a straight back foot (i.e. 0-3 degrees) and you could go as narrow as 254mm at the waist if you ride with a more duck stance (e.g. +15/-15). Add a couple of mms if you like to carve deep and take off a couple off mm if you have low profile boots (e.g. recent Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans).
Hope this helps
Nice recommendations Nate that really helps!
I really like the Rossi, however you think the 165W is too wide for me?
The Burton Custom I like also because the size is perfect however I wonder about the edge hold? I am used to camber boards so normally for me it is good but nowadays much hype about the mag tech etc.
Since you ride the Rossi yourself is it poppy?
Thanks again
Hi Rob
The Rossi One might be bordering on being too wide for you. If you ride with a straight back foot, in terms of your binding angles, then I think it’s probably fine. But if you ride with more of an angle on your back foot, then it’s getting on the wide side.
Compared to something like the Rossi One, I’d say that the Custom doesn’t have as good an edge hold in hard/icy conditions. But just as good in medium snow and softer snow. But the Rossi is one of the better boards for edgehold in hard conditions.
The one thing with One, is that there is less pop than I would prefer. It’s not completely dead, but it’s not hugely poppy either. I think it’s down to the fact that the camber between the feet ends under the feet – like halfway under the bindings and that’s where the rocker starts. I think if the camber extended just to the outside of the bindings a little bit, then there’d be a bit more pop accessible. So yeah, that is one down side. But I still have heaps of fun with it on jumps, but just lacking a little in terms of pop.
Hi Nate!
I’m 174 cm, 75 kg without gear, 11 US boots (ion). I already have an all mountain board (jones UMT 158w). The board is great, thank you for your advice!!! And now I decided to by my first splitboard for backcountry tours. I need a board for different types of snow an terrain (from powder to hard or even icy snow; trees and tight areas, large open faces…). Can’t make a choice between Solution (flagship) (159w) and explorer split (158w, 161w or may be 162?). Need your advice, which board will suit me better!
Hi Sergy
Awesome to hear you’re enjoying the UMT!
Split boards are outside of my area of knowledge, so I couldn’t say for sure there – but based on the non-split versions of those (Flagship and Explorer), I would say that the Flagship would be the best option for backcountry tours, overall. And the 159W would be the best size for you, IMO.
The Explorer however would be an easier board to handle if you are at a more intermediate level. If you went Explorer, I would say 161W (it’s a board you can ride a little longer) – but if you really wanted more agility for the trees, then the 158W would be a snappier ride in the trees but wouldn’t have as much stability at speed or float in powder. The 162 would be really close to doable for size 11 Ions with -6/+21 angles but that would be the narrowest I would ride for your boots/angles, so there would be some risk that it would be too narrow.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Been reading through a few of your posts and found the info you’re posting up really helpful.
I have 3 weeks boarding experience under my belt but would consider myself an intermediate 4 on the skills list you posted up. Looking to make my first board purchase and like the look of what I’ve been reading about the Jones Explorer but am open to suggestions if you have any advice.
Last trip was to Niseko in Japan for 2 weeks and we covered every red run on all 4 resorts. The only black run I attempted was Ni-Kabe as it was part of the run on the way home but in week 2 I was pretty happy to link some turns and get to the bottom without a stack on this run.
Next trip is in Feb 2019 for another 2 weeks at Niseko and after looking at your progression guide have an idea of what I want to work on, just need a board to ride. Won’t be venturing off piste just yet, but definitely want to mix things up.
Also if you have recommendations for board size and bindings that would be awesome. Been reading a little about the new Jones bindings but haven’t seen them hit the market yet.
I’m 168cm, weigh 76kg (but hoping to drop 6kg or so before we head over) and foot size is 26.3cm (size 9-9.5 boot).
Cheers,
Mick
Hey Mick
Thanks for your message.
The Explorer is a great all round board, IMO. Probably a little more advanced than what I would normally recommend for someone just 3 weeks in. However, it sounds like you’re progressing pretty fast. Even so, that would be my biggest concern. I would say that if you’re quite athletic, then go for it, if not, then something a little more on the easy going side might be a better idea. The Explorer isn’t overly aggressive – it’s kind of on the cuff of aggressive and more cruisey (IMO) but it’s also not the most cruisey either.
Size-wise, I’d usually say, with your specs and at an intermediate level, something around a 153, 154 – but for the Explorer it’s the kind of board you ride a little longer, so the 156 would be the best size for you, IMO. For this board, I think the 152 would be a little on the short side for you. For some other boards 152 might be ok but for the Explorer I’d say 156.
You can check out the following for some other great do-it-all kind of boards, if you’re not sure about the Explorer.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
From that list, for you, I’d say the Rossi One (153) or the Never Summer West (154) would be the best choices, if you didn’t go Explorer.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply, gave me some good options to look at.
Looking at the top 10 list you linked I think I’m down to the Never Summer West and Jones Explorer (still leaning towards the Explorer, but I see they are selling out of sizes quickly and may not have an option with the limited shopping avenues here in Australia). Reading a few reviews and comparing boards it looks like the West is better for uneven terrain, switch and jumps (1 review did say it had a slightly unstable feel to it on the snow) while the Explorer is better for powder and speed? Probably not going to do much jibbing or hit the pipe anytime soon but am interested in improving my switch and buttering, although I’m wondering if after a few seasons if I want to really focus on this I’m better off buying a 2nd board specifically suited to doing this.
I am mindful though that I don’t want a board too advanced for my skill level as you and others have said this will hamper progression rather than promote it. I did a full day private lesson day 1 of my week trip to Cadrona in NZ, and then spent 2 weeks a few months later at Niseko with my now wife Kat who has been boarding for years. I feel that doing the private lesson, then being able to board with Kat watching her style and riding her line really made a huge difference to my skill level. I can link my turns on green and red(blue) runs easily and smoothly at slow and fast speeds. I did get a bit squirelly from time to time but it was usually late in the day from fatigue/lazy riding stance, and maybe a little to do with the hire board sizing (146 Rossignol District). I can ride switch if I need to and find myself facing the wrong way down the hill, but it doesn’t feel as natural as riding goofy and I usually switch back pretty quick. I ventured into the edge of the tree lines a little and we had a variety of snow conditions from powder to hard groomed after a few blue bird days in a row. I really only attempted 1 black run (which included moguls) but after snowflaking it and doing single turns in week 1 was pretty happy to link my turns and get to the bottom of the run without stacking it in week 2. If you think the West and Explorer are a bit advanced and you have advice on boards better suited to my level I am open to suggestions.
Kat has purchased a Jones Dream Catcher and the plan for our next trip to Niseko in Feb 2019 is to spend a day or 2 finding our feet on the snow again and getting a little familiar with our new boards before booking in for a private lesson together to get the most out of our boards and time over there.
Hey
I wouldn’t say that the West was too advanced – definitely intermediate suitable, IMO. It is a slightly looser feel to something like the Explorer, which is a stable feel and that’s mostly due to having a rocker between the feet in the camber profile. But I wouldn’t say it’s super loose. Best way I can think of to describe it is with these graphs.
Explorer
West
If that makes sense.
The West, IMO, is more butterable and I agree that it’s a better jumper and better in unevern terrain but the Explorer a little better in powder and a little more stable at speed (really good at speed as the West isn’t bad at all at speed, IMO). Overall the West is more freestyle oriented (but still squarely a do-it-all) where the Explorer is more freeride oriented – but still not a pure freeride board.
Sounds like a good plan to me, getting used to the boards, then getting a lesson – can never have too many lessons, IMO! I still go for at least one private lesson every season.
Hi Nate,
Follow up message, still a few days left here at Niseko but just wanted to say thanks for the above advice, I am really loving the Jones Explorer and my wife is equally enjoying the Dreamcatcher.
Rereading your review of the Explorer now that I have ridden it is spot on, so many experiences that are mirrored in your comments above.
I’ve been recommending your reviews to friends looking for new boards and I’ll definitely be back when I start looking for a board to start learning tricks on.
Cheers for a good honest accurate review.
Mick.
Hi Michael
You’re very welcome and thanks for the update. Awesome that you’re loving the Explorer. Enjoy your next few days in Niseko!
Dear Nate,
I’m very hesitant about what size to choose. I’m 180cm / 80Kg (No Gear) / 11,5 US (Nike Vapen)
I’m mostly ride groomers in good snow conditions and sometimes pow, speed is not my main target, I want sometimes easy, playful and forginving
Here are my choice list:
Jones Explorer 161w
Jones Mountain Twin 158w
What do you think ?
Thanks you for all you reviews, they help me a lot to choose my new board 🙂 (sorry for my poor english, I’m french)
Hope to read you soon
Rgds
Luan
Hi Luan
Thanks for your message.
I think the 158W Mountain Twin would be the more playful of the 2 options there. But I would be worried that it’s not wide enough for 11.5s, especially Nike Vapens, which aren’t supposed to have had that good a reduced footprint on them. If you ride with +15/-15 angles and you don’t do any big carving, then you might just get away with it, but it’s pushing it.
If you had the option of the 158W Explorer, then I think that would be your best option. But sounds like you only have the 161W Explorer and 158W Mountain Twin as options. Is that correct?
Hi Nate,
thanks for your response, effectively, I have to choose between 161W Explorer or 158W MT. What do you think ?
Cheers
Luan
Do you thing 161w Explorer is too long for me ?
Hi Luan
I don’t think 161 is way too long for you, but on the longer end of your range – especially since you are looking for something easy, playful and forgiving (smaller boards are typically more playful and forgiving).
But since I think the 161W Explorer is going to be the best for your boot size, it’s going to be the best option. The other thing, is that the Explorer is a board that rides short for its size, so that’s in your favor. When comparing the effective edge of the 158W Mountain Twin and 161W Explorer – the 161W Explorer is actually only slightly longer in terms of effective edge (1186mm effective edge on Explorer vs 1180mm on MT, so very very close).
So, considering all the Factors, the 161W Explorer is your best option out of those 2, IMO.
Dear Nate,
I’m an advanced, one-board-quiver rider looking for an affordable board that allows me to enjoy the groomers while continuing to improve my powder game. After reading your and others’ reviews, I’ve shortlisted the Ride Wildlife and Jones Explorer, with a stronger priority for the latter.
As most writing here, I’m not fully sure about the best dimensions for me. My boot size is 12 (Burton Imperial), so I assume that at my angles (+15°, 0°) I should go for a wide board; considering my weight and height (155 lbs, 6′), though, would you recommend the 158W or the 161W?
Congratulations for the great reviews and website, and thanks for your insight.
Juan
Hi Juan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah with 12s and a straight back foot like that, definitely will need to go wide.
In terms of length, I think the 158W would be the best size for your height and weight.
With 12s and a straight back foot like that I would usually be a bit concerned that even in the wides for this board would be too narrow, but since you have Burton boots (which are one of the better boots in the industry in terms of a reduced outersole) I think you will be fine width-wise on the 158W.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate, I have been thinking about this board for a while as an all-purpose board for groomers, the occasional backcountry & powder, don’t really do park very much. I am 6′, 175 lbs & sz 10.5 Adidas Response ADV boot (currently, just for an idea of my footprint) is the 159 okay? I carve pretty deep, thanks.
Hi Travis
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be fine in terms of length for you.
Width-wise, I think it would depend on your binding angles. If you have something with a reasonable angle on the back foot (e.g. 9-15 degrees) , then you should be fine with the width, especially with low profile boots. If you have a straighter back binding angle (e.g. 0 – 6 degrees), then it would be risking it being too narrow. You might still get away with it, but it would be a risk.
This is taking into account that you like to carve pretty deep.
Hope this helps
Thanks! nah Im usually riding pretty straight backed, around 4 degrees. should I go for a larger or Wide model? Thanks.
Hi Travis
Yeah, I think you’re safer going for the 158W. You might still be ok on the 159 but it would be a risk, especially given that you like to carve deep. I think the 158W would be a better choice for you, given your binding angles, specs and style.
Thanks man
No worries – hope you have an awesome rest of your season!
Hey Nate,
I’m also having doubts between the explorer and the mountain twin 2018 one.
Which one would be more versatile, more easy to play and butter(if its easy at all? cause 6-7/10 is kindly stiff isnt?)
Hi Aviad.
For the Mountain Twin, I feel like it’s rated a bit high in terms of flex. Not as much as with the YES boards (as per my other reply to you) but just a little. I’d say it’s more 6/10 than 7/10.
However, I also felt like, on snow, the Explorer felt a little stiffer than the Mountain Twin (even though it is rated softer) – sometimes this is the case – even if it’s rated stiffer and might even feel mildly stiffer when flexing it in hand – it can sometimes feel different when riding on snow.
In terms of buttering, it’s not like buttering a soft freestyle or jib board, but you can still definitely butter this board. The tip and tail are a bit softer and there’s plenty of rocker in there, which make it easier to butter. If you’re just learning butters, then there are easier boards to learn this on – but if you’ve got a bit of experience there then it shouldn’t be a problem to butter – and if you’re looking for one board that can ride a bit of everything, then going for a really soft board is going to sacrifice in other areas, such as stability at speed and for carving and edge-hold.
Hope this helps
It helps yea!
So even so the 2018 model ia stiffer it still a great all mountain board for freeride/freestyle right?
I understood that it is stiffer edge to edge and not tip to tail, so mabie its even better.
Hi Aviad
Yeah, still one of those boards that’s really good at doing a bit of everything quite well – both freestyle and freeride.
Yeah as I understand it it’s the torsional flex (edge to edge) rather than longitudinal (tip to tail) that Jones played with. So that shouldn’t affect the butterability.
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed review. Question:
I am an intermediate rider (background in skiing) I stick to groomers mainly, but will be venturing into more difficult terrain as I progress. I am looking at this board and the Jones Mountain Twin. Would you recommend one over the other, or maybe a completely different board? And what size would you recommend. Wide or no need for wide?
Stats:
Height:. 6’2″
Weight: 180
Boot: Salomon Dialogue size 11
Hi Beau
The Mountain Twin is a more easy going ride (easier to ride at slower speeds) and is probably more intermediate friendly but if you’re a high end intermediate rider, then this is a doable board for you – and you’ll get a bit more in terms of speed and for carving but the Mountain twin is decent in those areas anyway. The Mountain Twin is a little more versatile, in terms of things like switch and jumps – but again, the Explorer is not bad in those areas either.
In terms of size, I’d say around the 160cm mark in terms of length.
In terms of width, you’re kind of on the cuff with 11s and it would really come down to binding angles as to whether you’d need to go wide or not. If you ride with something like a +15/-15, then I’d say go with regular width.
Mountain Twin: 160 (256mm waist)
Explorer: 159 (254mm waist)
But if you ride with quite a straight back foot (e.g. 3 degrees, 6 degrees) then you should probably go wide, and then.
Mountain Twin: 161W (260mm waist)
Explorer: 161W (264mm waist)
Hope this helps and let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks for the quick reply, Nate. Much appreciated! I was at my local shop checking out those boards and the Mountain Twin felt noticeably stiffer when compared to the Explorer. Does this not really translate to the on snow feel of the board?
Hi Beau
Yeah that was the funny thing about these boards. The Mountain Twin is rated 7/10 and the Explorer 6/10. And in hand that’s probably accurate, as you say – but on snow, it was the other way around (to me anyway). But I didn’t ride these two side by side – but to me the Mountain Twin felt more like 6 on snow and the Explorer, maybe not 7/10 but just a touch stiffer than the Mountain Twin (6.5/10).
I would say that the Mountain Twin is a little stiffer tip and tail than the Explorer and softer in the middle and the Explorer feels softer in the tip and tail than it does in the middle – so maybe that is part of the reason for the difference in feel in hand and on snow?
Hi Nate,
Great review. I have several questions regarding this board, but first some stats
Heigh: 5’10”, Weight: 172lbs (no clothes), Boot: 8.5, Expert. Terrain: Whistler, Jackson Hole, Chamonix, Big Sky, etc. Big Mountain riding + side-country (resorts), all boards 159-160cm long
Current setup: Jones Mountain Twin Ltd (2013) + Burton Cartel
I have Jones Mountain Twin Limited (~ 2013) and although it kept me safe in some catchy situations (Chamonix, Whistler), board feels pretty dead and not lively at all. I’m looking for a board that can handle great, and challenging conditions as well (backcountry, side-country, resort in PM) (we don’t always ride perfect powder). It’d be great if board is also a bit more playful. Jones Explorer 2018 (159 cm or 157cm?) seems to hit the spot (by looking at the shape and reading reviews), however, I always rode boards that have more tech so am a bit concern how this board will perform.
Initially I thought to go with new Ultra Mountain Twin (hoping is a bit different than older Ltd), but looking to change things a bit. Thoughts?
Bindings: Leanings towards Now Drive or maybe Union Travis?
To add extra question: Shall I re-consider LibTech E-Jack?
Thanks again and looking forward to your comments.
Hi Uros
For what you’re describing, I think that the Explorer would suit you well. I would go for the 159 based on your specs and how you describe you’re riding preferences.
I haven’t ridden the E-Jack, but it also sounds like the kind of board that could do what you want it to – all be it probably a little more aggressive and less playful than the Explorer. And also a good bit pricier. Explorer is really reasonably priced for what you get. Keeping in mind that I haven’t ridden the E-Jack I would predict that the Explorer would perform marginally better in powder, the E-Jack a slightly better carver and the E-Jack a little more aggressive.
In terms of bindings, I think the Union T Rice would be a great match. I haven’t tested the NOW Drive (only now bindings I’ve ridden are the IPOs) so I can’t really comment there.
Some other good matched could be the Flux XF or basically anything from the list at the following link.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! Appreciate your comment.
I’m not worried about price difference if buying one-board quiver. Initially, I was looking at Carbon Flagship, but feel that would be an overkill considering sometimes I just want to relax and have a great time.
Best,
Uros
You’re very welcome.
Yeah, if you’re wanting something that can be a little bit playful at times, then the carbon Flagship probably isn’t going to afford that, unfortunately.