Hello and welcome to my Jones Flagship review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Flagship as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Flagship a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Flagship
Price: $699 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Stiff (8/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating Score: 90.2/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 40 Men’s Freeride snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Flagship’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Flagship’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Freeride |
Price: | $699 - BUYING OPTIONS |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | Tapered Directional (12.5mm taper) |
Setback Stance: | No Setback on effective edge according to Jones, but you are definitely setback, overall. |
Base: | Sintered 9900 |
Weight: | Felt light |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
151 | 243 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
154 | 246 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
158 | 249 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
161 | 252 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
164 | 254 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
167 | 259 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
172 | 263 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
156W | 261 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
159W | 263 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
162W | 263 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
165W | 266 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
169W | 270 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
*the 156W is a new size for the 2024 model
Who is the Flagship Most Suited To?
The Flagship is a great freeride option that excels in powder, in the backcountry, for carving and for riding trees. If you like it steep and deep, this board is especially good.
Only for advanced to expert riders this one. Too stiff and technical for beginners and even intermediate riders. The high end of intermediate would be OK though - especially after the changes for the 2020 model.
The 2020 model is more agile at slower speeds, a little softer flexing, better in bumpy terrain and a little less aggressive vs the 2019 model. Not quite as stable at speed but still good in that area.
The Flagship in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Flagship is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Flagship 2020, 158cm (249mm waist width)
Date: March 14, 2019
Conditions: Overcast skies with about 75% visibility - not bad but not perfect vis.
Snow on groomers was medium with some softer spots. Some fresh snow off groomer - though some of it was a little crusty on top, but still rideable.
Cold around 20 degrees (-6 celcius) with wind chill. Around 30 (-1) without windchill.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Width at Inserts: 266mm (10.47") at front insert and 261mm (10.28")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 185lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Vans Aura
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2760g
Weight per cm: 17.47 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.45 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of 51 boards that I've weighed in 2019 and 2020 models. The Flagship is a light board on the scales and that translates onto snow as well (which isn't always the case) - it felt light on snow too.
Powder
This board was already sick in powder, but it might be even a little better now. It's got a bigger difference between tip and tail length, and it's gone from 1mm taper to 12.5mm of taper - so a big difference there.
It also has the 3D contoured base and plenty of rocker in the nose.
Whilst I didn't have a massive amount of powder to play with, what I did made this board feel like it would be a dream in the deep.
Carving & Turning
Carving: The Flagship didn't lose any of it's carving prowess with the new changes, IMO. It's still a great board for carving up the groomers.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: What did change is that this board has become way more maneuverable at slower speeds - it's still the kind of board that prefers to be ridden fast, but it's definitely much easier to ride it slower now than it used to be. I really appreciated this in the trees.
Skidded Turns: It's easier to skid turns than it used to be as well. Still not beginner easy to skid turns but a lot easier than before.
Speed
The Flagship did lose a bit of it's bomber feel with the new changes. It's not quite as well suited for just straight line bombing. But that said, it's still really good at it. Just not quite the missile that it was.
What was really noticeable was how well this board glides. Which is typical of Jones boards. It's not something that I tend to notice one way or the other with most boards, but with this the glide on flats/small uphills is really really good.
Uneven Terrain
The Flagship is great in uneven terrain now. That improved a lot. Over and around bumps it's better - that increase maneuverability really helps and a slightly mellowed flex.
It's much better in crud too - whether you want to just power through it - or dance over it.
Really enjoyed this board in the trees, which I hadn't in the past.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Overall, the Flagship has definitely improved for jumps over the older models.
Pop: I'm not sure there's necessarily more pop than before, but it's much easier to access. That plus feeling really light, made this board actually really good to ollie and pop off jumps.
Approach: Really stable on approach but also still agile enough.
Landing: Really solid landings but still with a bit of forgiveness.
Side-hits: Not ideal but better than older models - with that increased maneuverability and more easily accessible pop.
Small jumps/Big Jumps: Still better for medium to large jumps vs small jumps, despite being a bit more forgiving, but doable for small jumps too of course.
Switch
Didn't feel great riding switch. And no real surprise there - with how far you're setback on this board, and how much taper there is, it was never going to be something ideal for riding switch.
Spins
Not one for taking off and landing switch, but keep it to 360s, or multiples of, and it's actually pretty good. Good accessible pop and nice and light - and didn't feel overly stiff torsionally.
Jibbing
A little more suitable than it used to be, but still nah!
Butters
Not that easy to butter. Even though it's a little mellower than past models, still not that easy to butter.
Changes for the 2024 Model
As far as I can tell the 2024 model is the same as the 2023 model, even the graphic is the same. There is a new size though - the 156W.
Changes for the 2023 Model
As far as I can tell the 2023 model is the same as the 2022 model, apart from updated bioresin and a new graphic
Changes for the 2022 Model
As far as I can tell the 2022 model is the same as the 2021 model, bar the graphic
Changes for the 2021 Model
The 2021 model gets "float pack" inserts - which essentially is a couple of extra holes in the insert pack, to give you the option to setback further than you could on previous models.
Otherwise, the 2021 model is the same as the 2020 model, as far as I can tell, except for the graphic. No real surprise that it stays mostly the same for 2021, with all the changes it had for the 2020 model.
Changes for the 2020 Model
As mentioned throughout there have been quite a few changes for the 2020 Flagship vs the 2019 model. The major changes that I can see are:
- Taper increased from 1mm to 12.5mm
- Bigger difference in tip and tail length - e.g. on the 158 the tip was 29.2cm on the 2019 models, which is now 32.7cm. The tail has stayed the same at 18.7cm.
- Effective edge has decreased (to make way for that longer nose I guess) from 119.2cm on the 2019 model to 117.6cm on the 2020 model (using the 158 as an example).
- Updated core
- New flax/basalt stringers
- One new size - the 151
Changes for the 2019 Model
Most things about the 2019 model are the same as the 2018 model. The only real change was that they have made the core lighter. How much lighter I’m not sure, but it’s certainly not a heavy board – just on the lighter side of normal.
Changes for the 2018 Model
The 2017 model was quite different from the 2016 model (introduced spoon tech, was made in a different factory and was just a more forgiving and damper ride overall). But the 2018 model is very similar to the 2017 model.
Probably the only change as far as I can tell is that they’ve tweaked the core between the feet – with the intention of increasing torsional response (as they have done for the whole Jones line).
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 5.0 | 25/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.2/100 |
The Flagship changed quite a bit for the 2020 model vs past models and I really liked the changes. The 2021-2023 models are virtually the same as the 2020 model, except for the inclusion of the "float pack" inserts and a different graphic.
The 2020-2023 models just mellowed out that flex a little and added more taper (and maybe some of the other changes too) - and that made this board a slightly more forgiving board that performs a lot better in uneven terrain and is easier to manage at slower speeds.
Overall a more fun and more modern feeling board now.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in learning more about the Flagship, are ready to buy or want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to see how the Flagship compared to other freeride boards or want to check out some other options, check out the next link.
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Flagship is capable of.
Jones Flagship 2018 Review
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Flagship is capable of.
I rode the 162W which was a little wide for me. The 161 would be the best size for me for this board. But having the 162W made it even better for floating in pow than it would have been on the 161. But this board is made for pow and even on the narrower, slightly shorter version, it would have floated great.
Hey Nate, really appreciate you putting these reviews together. I’d like to get advice from you.
I am 180lbs and 6.03. I use Ride Jackson boots with 6 flex and US10 size. My prev board is Ride Algorithm 154, yeah it’s small for me, so I wanna upgrade my board. I’m looking for Jones Flagship.
There is no info about how to grade yourself in snowboard level. I think i am intermediate-advanced. I could go 60km/h on my Algorithm, a little carve (it was too small and didnt give me stability for good carving). I like powder and freeride, but mostly ride in groomers. Maybe I will go for very little jumps and butter. Definitely won’t do rails and difficult tricks.
I’m not into high speed (over 80km/h). Love riding in middle speed (30-60km/h)
Local stores recommended me 164 and 161 length. And curated recommended me K2 Passport, but I thinks its pretty similar to my Algorithm. I was thinking about Ride MtnPig also. I want to learn good carving and freeride.
What would you say about best for me size and my snowboarding level?
Thank for your answer!
Hi Temirlan, thanks for your messages. And apologies for the slow response (generally running behind, life/family and computer issues all contributing).
Size-wise, for the Flaghip, I would be leaning towards the 161. I think it would be a really good size for you. I think the 164 would be a bit much board for your weight, particularly when on groomers, which is where it sounds like you spend most of your time. If you were predominantly riding powder (we can all dream!), then you could go 164, but I think the 161 would be a better all round size for you.
The Passport is a bit more mellow than the Flagship and would work for what you’re describing. If you went for it in the 160, you’d definitely get more stability and ability to do bigger carves vs the 154 Algo, but it sounds like you’d be fine with the Flagship, from what I can tell. To get more of an idea of how we look at snowboarding levels, check out our snowboard skill levels post.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks a lot for the review. As for now I’m on Capita Kazu Kakubo Pro 157 2021/2022 (we’ve discussed this board earlier). I really like this board but looking for something better in speed stability (especially in uneven terrain), dampness and powder floating. However I want to keep the same level (or better) of low speed agility and jump landing stability (small and medium straight jumps).
So I’m wondering is Flagship right choice for me? I’m also thinking about Yes PYL 159, but the issues with topsheet and current design raise doubts.
I like to bomb resorts at high speed including uneven terrain and really like riding in deep powder including among trees. I’m 5’7 and 165 lbs, boot size US9.0.
Do I need Flagship 161 or even 158 will give me more stability vs Kazu 157?
Could you please give me your expert opinion on these questions?
Hi Kirill, good to hear from you again.
The Flagship would be a great option for what you’re looking for. The PYL would also give a bit more dampness than the Kazu, in my experience, but the Flagship a little damper again vs the PYL.
Size-wise, the 158 would be your best option, IMO, and will add stability and dampness vs the Kazu. Of course the 161 would add even more stability, but it’s going to be less agile, particularly at slower speeds. The 158 should give you some extra stability and dampness but should still feel good at slower speeds. It’s very likely, IMO, to strike the better balance between stability and agility than the 161 will for your specs.
Hope this helps
Thank you. I really appreciate your willingness to share your comprehensive experience and give advice.
Hey Nate,
I’ve narrowed down to the flagship, kazu kokubo and the golden orca. I’ve been in a 2008 K2 Jibpan so I wanted something different from that which I think the Kazu Kokubo is pretty similar. I’ve been riding the Jibpan for 15 years so I’d say I’m advanced
I was thinkin of getting a powder leaning board thats still good on the groomers. I’m usually off piste, in between trees, looking to take quick turns, going down chutes and hitting the features on the sides. From the Jibpan, I noticed the board likes to jump/chatter in really choppy snow when I’m pushing down the blacks. So I wanted a board to address this and see if there is a board that can take me to a higher top speed and feel stable compared to the jibpan. So ideally the next board would be different than the jibpan so I have two boards that are better for different conditions.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your messages. I also received your message on the Lib Tech Dynamo review, but will answer here.
Firstly, I wouldn’t say the Kazu is that similar to the Jibpan. I don’t have any experience with the Jibpan and I couldn’t find detailed specs on it, but it sounds like it’s a true twin board and very freestyle focused.
I think you’ve narrowed it down to 3 boards that would do a good job for you. But I would also consider the Orca as well as the Golden Orca as it is a quicker turner and better for side hits, IMO, vs the Golden Orca. It’s not as stable in choppy snow, but likely still more stable in choppy snow than your current board. So depending on whether you wanted to prioritize quicker turns (Orca) or speed/stability (Golden Orca). Note that our review of the Orca on the site is going to be updated as I just tested the 2025 model and it was really different to when I got it out previously. Note though, that I did find the Flagship pretty good in terms of quick turns in trees and for side-hits, etc, so I think that would be a really good choice, just wanted to give you all the options.
The Flagship would work, but if you wanted something a little better in terms of quick turns/trees and that’s a little softer, I would also consider the YES PYL and the GNU Banked Country. And if you wanted to check out any other options you could look at this list, if you haven’t already.
If you have any other questions about those boards or if you’d like any sizing opinion (and can provide your weight, height and boot size), I’d be happy to give my 2 cents.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, thanks for the reply for the orca, golden orca and the flagship. What size would you recommend? I was thinking of doing 157 in the Golden Orca (so I don’t have a 154 jib pan and a 153 GO)
The Golden Orca was going to be more of my powder board (also knowing this would you switch to a different board)
I’m 180 lbs, hoping to drop to 170lbs if that changes anything, 5’8”, riding with a 8.5 judge boot and a medium cartel x
Hey Nate, I actually pulled the trigger on a 157 golden orca but it looks like too much board for a 8.5 Judge boot and medium cartel x binding.
So here’s my next question between the flagship and the golden orca. What size would you put me in each board since I am a 180lbs (working towards that 170lbs), 5.8″.
I am really torn between the two boards because I assume on the flagship I am going longer which means stable at higher speeds but the shorter golden orca gives me the maneuverability in the trees. Ideally I’d want both and from what you said about the Orca and Golden orca I think the Golden orca is the choice but from your experience what would be the main difference between these two boards? Also, I am mainly buying this board because I’ve been getting into more powder
Hi Michael
In terms of powder, I would say that the Orca and Flagship are a little better for powder than the Golden Orca, but there’s really nothing in it.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158, but depending on the board, sizing down from that with 8.5s makes sense, IMO. For the Golden Orca or Orca, I would go 153 at most – and for the Orca, I’d probably not even go that long, as it’s wider than the Golden Orca. For the Flagship, I would be looking at the 158 or 154. I think the 154 would be your more pure all-mountain size, given your boot size. However, as it would be your powder focus board and as you can size up for a freeride board like Flagship (because it has a lot of it’s length in the nose, which will be mainly only felt in powder (and in terms of swing weight for spins, but that’s not what you’d be getting this board for), I would go 158 in this case.
I find that width affects agility as much, if not more, than length (makes it slower and harder to get leverage on the edges, when it’s wide for your feet). I find when boards are too wide for my feet, I feel a slight delay, when I’m looking to engage an edge. Now, in trees, that shorter length can definitely help, to reduce the chances of clipping your tail on a tree, but in terms of general agility, the extra width offsets the extra agility gained by being shorter. I would say I feel the Flagship as more maneuverable in general than the Golden Orca. And I would have previously said the same about the regular Orca, but having ridden the 2025 model, it’s the most agile of the 3 now, IMO.
The main difference between the Orca and Golden Orca is that the Orca is more agile, as mentioned, easier to initiate turns on and a little better for powder (size-for-size). The Golden Orca is a little more stable at speed, better for higher speed carves, and more stable in crud/chunder.
Hi-
Lots of great info here. Thank you.
I am 5’5”, 150lbs, 7 boot, 20” stance width, and currently riding a Flight Attendant 152. Love it, but just wanted better ice hold. The board size feels good to me, but I think I could do with a little longer effective edge.
I purchased the Flagship in 154, but debating if I should exchange it for 151. I want it to be a one board quiver. I am a resort rider that loves to carve and bomb, but also get into the trees. Given my stance width and height, would I be better suited for a 151?
Hi Pat, thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards sticking with the 154 in this case. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 153, so you really could go either way. As a freeride board, I’d say 154 for sure, but since it will be your one board quiver and you also like riding trees, the 151 wouldn’t be wrong and would work as well. Typically, even as a freeride board, I might be leaning 151 for you, given your boot size vs the width of the board. While the width isn’t super wide for your feet or anything, it is a little wider than optimal, so sizing down a little for that would be an option for sure. But in this case, I don’t think the 154 should feel too big, given the 152 Flight Attendant you’re riding is wider than it and the size feels good to you. And with the 154 having a 114.2cm effective edge, you would be very similar to the 152 FA’s effective edge of 114cm. If you were to go for the 151, then you’d be dropping down to a 111.8cm effective edge and it sounds like you’d prefer not to have less effective edge.
Because of the width difference (see comparison below), I’d say that the 154 Flagship should feel like a pretty similar size to the 152 Flight Attendant, and it sounds like you like the size of the Flight Attendant, so that’s the main reason I would err towards sticking with the 154. The 151 will likely feel smaller than the 152 FA.
Below: waist | back insert width (est.) | front insert width (est.) | tail width | tip width | effective edge
– Flight Attendant 152 – 250mm | 259.5mm | 259mm | 285.7mm | 295.7mm | 114cm
– Flagship 154 – 246mm | 254mm | 259mm | 278mm | 292mm | 114.2cm
– Flagship 151 – 243mm | 251mm | 256mm | 276mm | 290mm | 111.8cm
Estimations for width at inserts is based on a 20.5″ (520mm) stance width.
The reference stance width on the 151 would be better for you, at 520mm (20.5″) but you could ride the 154 at that stance width as well. I always ride the Flagship with a 22″ (560mm) stance, which is 40mm (1.6″) narrower than reference. Jones tends to have quite wide reference stances.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate! another great review! can you please tell me how the 2025 version of this board differs from the 2024? is it stiffer or less damp/more chattery?
Hi Meddy
I found the Flagship very much how I remembered it from the last time I rode it. And it was still plenty damp, IMO. No stiffer, IMO. I rode the 2025 a couple of weeks ago in not ideal conditions (which is actually great for testing!) – groomers were dust on crust (man made snow on hard park) with some icier patches and some softer pathces. Off groomers was crunchy/hard in some players and some shallow left over powder in other parts. Plenty of messy/rough snow too – and very little chatter in those areas or when charging on it.
According to Jones it’s a “carry forward” model too – which basically means, the same as the 2024 model but with a new graphic.
Hope this helps
Nate – I find your site to be amazing. Thank you for all you do. I am between a Flagship and PYL. I am 5’11” 190/195 lbs 8.5 us boot. Even riding for 25 years. Over 40. Based on east coast. So do a lot of days here with less than ideal conditions but usually get a few trips out west to chase powder and better conditions. Looking to have a versatile board to ride in all conditions. Do a lot of groomers with my family, love back bowls and when I have the opportunity, hit the trees if that’s where the better snow is. Never really in park but hit the lips and side jumps when I’m riding. Switch occasionally, never butter. I was between the 158 and 161 in flagship (site told me 164!) and would probably lean 159 for PYL. I typically go for the 159 size because, like you, I don’t like the feeling of the board being too large for me so err smaller and had some bad experiences. I don’t know if 158 too short in flagship but try to stay 160 or below, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Also, having trouble deciding between 2 boards. Flagship certainly has a unique look som love/some hate. PYL, I don’t love or hate. It’s just whatever to me. I have heard the Yes board and the PYL have some durability issues particularly with the top sheet. Jones boards are meant to be well made and durable. Lastly, both come with light and dark alternate bottoms. I have heard dark bottoms are preferred and wear better with tuning over time. That’s a lot but would so appreciate your help with the above. Sincere thanks in advance – Michael
Hey Michael
Thanks for your message. Can’t really go wrong with either, IMO, for what you’re describing. But some things that might help with your decision:
– PYL is better in hard/icy conditions, in my experience, but Flagship is still really good there, but if you’re looking to maximize icy edge-hold, the PYL has that, IMO.
– Hard to say which is better in trees. Found both to be good in there. If I had to say I’d say PYL.
– PYL over a little in terms of speed/carving, but really they’re very close there too – just re-tested the 2025 Flagship recently, and it really is a good carver and can handle a lot of speed, so again, not a huge amount in it.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160, and you can go a little longer for freeride boards. However, because of your boot size, I would err a little smaller. So, I think the sizes you prefer are right on, IMO. And I would go 158 Flagship and 159 PYL, if I was you. I am 6’0″, 180lbs and US9.5 boots and those are the sizes I really like the Flagship/PYL in. I could definitely ride the 161 Flagship and still enjoy it. But it feels good at speed and for carving in the 158, so while I could ride the 161, I wouldn’t like it as much (unless I was in deep powder – and then I would, but the 158 would still do really well in powder, and given I don’t get to ride powder that much, I’d still go 158, unless I was getting it as my specific powder board).
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate – this is awesome. Want to throw another board in the mix. Based on what I described , how do you feel about banked country for me? Leaning against flagship. I rode my friend’s PYL and liked it but he had really bad issues with the top sheet and how fragile the board was so he doesn’t even ride anymore. Not sure if this is common but has me looking elsewhere. Also, someone recommended the Jones Frontier to me as an underrated board that I should look into. Thanks again!
Hi Michael
Apologies for the slow response. Was already behind with a lot of gear to test, then had some family dramas. Hope my response isn’t too late.
You could go Frontier for what you’re describing for sure. It’s going to feel more mellow than any of the other options, but it’s certainly going to work for how you describe your riding. As would the Banked Country, IMO. It’s again a little more mellow, but not as mellow as the Frontier.
I haven’t owned a PYL, so can’t say how they go in terms of top sheet delaminating. It’s something I’ve heard too, but have typically only had demos. However, I have owned the Greats since 2019 and probably done 50 odd days on it and it’s still in good conditions. That’s my only long term experience, so it’s hard to say. They certainly have that reputation, but I haven’t seen it with my Greats.
But in saying that, the Banked Country and Frontier would both work for what you’re describing. Banked Country, I’d go 159. The Frontier you could go up to the 162. It’s something you can ride a little longer. The 159 would still work, but you may find it lacks stability at speed in that size.
Hi Nate, thanks for your website, I really appreciate the amount and detail of information here, I haven’t found that anywhere else.
After 15 years I’m going to buy a new board. My current board is Head Rush Ti, it’s still in production, but from spec it’s totally different board now. It’s 160 cm, 25.4 waist width, 120.5 effective edge, 2.5 cm setback, true camber with longer nose than tail. Don’t know how to measure it, but I think it’s quite stiff.
The reason I describe it, is I quite enjoy it and I’m used to it.
I really like to ride in free terain in powder, but that’s not always possible, so I mostly ride groomers, or what they became on afternoons, carving if possible, as fast as possible. No parks, no tricks, no (big) jumps.
So I ended my search in Freeride category.
I ended with these finalists:
– Jones Flagship 156W or 158
– YES PYL 159 (can’t find smaller in shops)
– Nidecker Alpha APX 153 or 158
I’m not sure which to choose and mainly about size.
I’m 65 kg, 183 cm, foot 27 cm, boot 31.5 cm.
Could you please help me to choose? And if another suitable board comes to your mind, I’ll be happy for a tip.
Hi Pavel
Thanks for your message.
I think those would all be really good options, based on what you’re describing. Given that you’ve been used to riding a 160 for 15 years and sounds like you’re perfectly comfortable with it, I think the 158 Flagship, 159 PYL and 158 Alpha APX should all work well for you. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” closer to 154, but with freeride boards you can ride then a little longer – and given you’ve been riding a 160 for so long, I wouldn’t go smaller than that anyway, particularly given the effective edge you’ve been used to riding.
Width-wise, if you could let me know your boot size. With a 27 foot, I assume you mean that the 31.5cm is the outer boot’s length, rather than its mondopoint right? When you measured that outer boot length, was it from the very back to the very front of the boot or was it the sole on the underside? Just that the wide Flagship (if you were to go 156W) would be pretty wide for your feet but want to make sure you don’t get boot drag on the narrower 158/159 Flagship/PYL. If you could also let me know the brand and model of your boots, that might also help as well.
Hi Nate, thanks for reply.
My boots are Nidecker Triton, size US 11
The 31.5 cm is the most outer end-to-end length.
Yes, I’m concerned about the boot drag. I’ve measured my board’s underfoot widths, it’s 26.0/26.4 cm (front/rear), Flagship has 26.5/25.9 cm. So the Flagship is 0.5 narrower under rear foot. Not sure whether that could be a problem.
I’ve also found Jones Stratos 156 which is a bit wider (0.5 cm in waist). Not sure how it differs from Flagship. From your reviews I read Stratos could be better in speed, but worse in turning/agility. And maybe not so good in deep powder. Do I get it right? It’s a bit contradicting to me given that Flagship has sidecut radius 8.5 m, while Stratos has 7.2 m. What is Stratos better for?
Hi Pavel
Thanks for the extra info. I measured the Flagship 158 at 26.6/26.1, but I know that Jones measures it a little narrower. Either way it is still 3mm narrower than your board. Note that my measurements for the Flaghip are at a 22″ (560mm) stance width. In any case with 11s, it probably is too narrow. But with 27cm feet, you don’t want to go too wide either. Surprising that you ended up with US11 (mondopoint 29cm) boots with 27cm feet. Do you feel that they fit you well?
The Stratos could work. I found it to be quite a bit heavier feeling, stiffer and harder to turn at slower speeds. Yes, it has the tighter sidecut, but it also feels stiffer torsionally, which means it takes more effort to get it turning, which affects slower speed turning ease more, IMO, than sidecut. When you do get it turning, it can rip short/sharp turns, but it takes some effort – it prefers those shorter/sharper turns when you’re going a little quicker. Hope that explains it/makes sense. Width wise, you should be looking at around a 26.9cm front insert width and a 26.8cm back insert width (again assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width) on the 156 Stratos. So should be OK width-wise, particularly assuming you’ve not had drag issues on your current board. Again Jones are a little narrower on their measurements for this one – 26.8cm/26.6cm, but should still be fine, if you’re not getting drag on your current board (just to confirm that when you measured your current board, did you measure on the base of the board (metal edge to metal edge) or did you measure on the top sheet?).
I would say that the Flagship is a little better for powder, but the Stratos still really well suited to it. I found the Stratos to be a little more stable at speed than the Flagship. That’s the one area where I think it’s better.
Hey Nate, thanks for such a wonderful site.
After a good few years, I want to buy a new board. I already have new Burton IONs Step On and X Re:Flex Step on – so as I know, the stiffest step on combination of bindings and boots in Burton line. I’m looking for a board for aggressive riding on uneven snow, crud, chunder, but also grooming on a prepared slope. I love also powder, but on powder I ride a little less agressive. I don’t do freestyle. I was thinking about Flagship but also about Burtons Straight Chutter. From your reviews I see that these are very similar boards, but you rate the Flagship a bit better.
Would you be so kind, to tell me what the difference is between these boards and which one could be a better choice for me?
Hi Michal
Thanks for your message.
I would say that the Straight Chuter is the more aggressive of the two. If you know the Custom X, then the Straight Chuter could almost be described as a directional Custom X. It is a little mellowed out vs the Custom X, because of the taper and rocker in the nose, but I emphasize the “little” because it’s definitely not mellow. In terms of stability at speed, the Straight Chuter has it over the Flagship, IMO. In cruddy conditions, they are fairly equal I would say. The Flagship is easier to slash and performs better at slower speeds. Which, for me, made it better for trees too.
The Flagship also scores higher for powder – so that combined with better scores for slashing, trees, jumps and switch, gives it the overall edge. But in terms of speed, I’d put the Straight Chuter ahead of it. Crud the same and powder pretty close. With the Straight Chuter being more aggressive in nature, in my opinion, I think it would suit your purposes the best of the two. But that said, the Flagship certainly wouldn’t be wrong for the riding you’re describing.
Note that the Straight Chuter will be fine for slashing in powder and isn’t something you would have to ride aggressively in powder.
Also, if you ride slowly more than I’m assuming and/or rip trees more than I’m assuming, then you may be more drawn to the Flagship. If not, then I’d say Straight Chuter.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
(sorry: am not sure why but it’s not letting me reply to you to continue the thread, so am starting again…)
No worries for the delay; hope you had a good trip overseas (and got some good snow? ;-))
I did get the year of the Flagship based on the serial number: it was a 2019/2020 one, so I didn’t get it.
Thanks for the list of wider options! I researched each of them, looked at prices and in the end I’ve ordered a 22/23 Yes Hybrid 161, so am looking forward to trying that out. I’ve always had pretty stiff boards, so I’m a bit unsure about how I’ll deal with something softer, but I’ll never know unless I try. And for the price it’s worth taking a risk…
So on my everyday board (the Turbo Dream) I’ve been using Union Contact Pros (prob about 5yrs old), and I on my freeride board (the Dupraz) I have brand new Union Falcors.
Which of those bindings would you recommend putting on the Hybrid then please?
Thanks again!
Graeme
Hey Graeme
Congrats on the new board (always exciting!) and hope it treats you well. I would put the Falcors on. I feel the Contact Pros would be a little soft to drive the Hybrid properly. I would err a little too stiff rather than too soft personally. But if you find it a little twitchy feeling with the Falcor, which I don’t think you will tbh, then you could always try the contact pros on it. Hope you have a great season!
Thanks so much Nate…Falcors it is then!
Btw, have just got back from a week with a friend who swears by the new Nidecker Supermatics; she’s loving them. From your review it seems like they could work with the Hybrid too? (if so, I might look out for them in an end of season sale…)
Also, just for info, you were almost spot on for your guess as to the K2 Turbo Dream width at the back insert 😉 I measured it at 27.7cm, so there’s 1mm in it compared to The Hybrid, and looks like it’ll be ok for me. Looking forward to trying it out!
Thanks again for everything and have a great season too!
Graeme
Hi Graeme
Yeah, I would say the Supermatics should work well with the Hybrid. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get the Hybrid out on snow. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
Hi Nate,
You gave me some advice last year about an 162 Orca that was on sale; in the end I didn’t get it, so thanks for helping me make the right choice!
I have just seen a 2022/2023 Flagship 162w on sale here for a significant discount and it’s tempting me…a lot.
Daily driver has been a K2 Turbo Dream for about 7yrs now and have a Dupraz D1 6′ for deep powder days. The Dupraz surfboard shape is great for very heavy powder days, but don’t get so many of those here in France unfortunately and I find it very tough to turn in the trees. The Flagship won’t be as good/easy on the rare days it’s super deep (3ft plus of fresh), but I’m thinking for “usual” powder depth, general piste bombing and finding powder pockets in the trees, it could be a decent replacement for my 2 current boards?
I’m 6’3, 200 pounds, size 12 Ride Trident boots and my main concern is the overhang for my boots. Front angle is +15 and back angle -6 usually. Reading some of the previous comments, it seems like that “might” be ok, but “might” also be on the limit for drag if I carve too hard/am on too steep terrain?
Also, we’ve been getting more and more ice lately and have never felt confident when riding fast and hitting ice patches on the Turbo Dream. From what I’ve read, the Flagship should handle ice well….yes?
Thanks as always!
G
Hi Graeme
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flagship would work well for what you’re describing and is good in hard/icy conditions, in my experience. Certainly better than I felt the Turbo Dream was. Length-wise, I think the 162W would work well for how you want to ride it.
As you mention, the biggest concern is the width. From the Tridents I’ve measured, you’re looking at an outer boot measurement of around 33cm with 12s. With a back insert width of around 27.5cm (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width) on the Flagship 162W, you’d be looking at around a 5.5cm total overhang (or 2.75cm per edge). With a 6 degree angle you’d save around 2mm of overhang, so would bring that down to around 2.65cm per edge, which is still borderline, if you’re going to be carving pretty deep. However, if you ride with a wider stance width (as you might at 6’3″), you could bring that down some more. E.g. if you were to ride at the 23.6″ (600mm) reference stance of the Flagship 162W, then you could save around 4mm, which would bring you down to around 2.45cm per edge, which is getting more doable. Should be no issues on the front insert as it’s wider than the back insert and you have a larger angle on it. Note also, if you were to increase the setback a little, that would also help to get your back foot on a wider part of the board, so that would be another way to reduce the overhang a little bit.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for your insights Nate; seems I was right to worry about overhang…such a pity that for some brands their wide boards are still really not that wide.
Reading from your ratings, the Yes PYL would be a good option as a similar board. A few years ago I got a Yes Typo and loved the grip on it, but only rode it once because of the massive boot overhang I had 🙁
Are Yes another brand whose wides are really not that wide?
I can get hold of a “standard” PYL in 160w or 164w for a similar price…would either of them be better for overhang in terms of specs? I’ve seen also that the PYL UnInc is a wider board in general (ie there are no wide sizes, but overall it’s just generally wide?)…so would that in 159 or 161 be better?
Typically I try to limit to no more than 2cm of overhang if possible, but don’t want to have crazy binding angles or an uncomfortable stance just to be able to ride a board…
Thanks so much for the time and effort you put into responding to all of our questions…really appreciated!!
Cheers,
Graeme
Hi Graeme
The PYL is a little narrower again. The Flagship is a fairly typical wide-board width- though maybe a little on the narrow side for a 162 wide. The PYL a little narrower. The 164W more like 27.3cm at the back insert – so a little narrower than the Flagship 162W, which for a wide at that length, is pretty narrow for a wide. The 160W more like 268mm at the back insert, which is certainly narrow for a wide board.
We haven’t tested the PYL Uninc, so no experience with that. But according to YES, it’s only around 26.9cm at the back insert for the 161.
Some options I think would work well, include:
– Nidecker Alpha APX 162W (27.9cm at the back insert)
– YES Hybrid 161 (27.8cm at back insert)
– Never Summer Proto FR 162DF (DF stands for drag free – this will be around 29.3cm at the back insert (28.4cm waist), so seriously wide)
– Jones Stratos 161W (27.8cm at back insert) or 164W (27.9cm at back insert)
– GNU Banked Country 163W (27.6cm back insert)
– Lib Tech E-Jack Knife 162W (27.6cm back insert)
Note that this is all based on a roughly 22″ (560mm stance width) and all these figures are straight across, so with your 6 degree angle you can save a couple of mm of overhang.
Note that while we haven’t measured a Turbo Dream at the inserts (tested the 2017 model, but we weren’t measuring insert width then), I can’t imagine, based on measuring other K2 boards, that it would be much wider (I’d predict around 27.6cm) than any of these, at a 22″ stance width, so if you’ve had no issues with drag on that board, you should be OK. If you want to reference it, you could measure yours. To measure it, you should measure on the base side of the board (as opposed to top sheet) and measure from metal edge to metal edge. Measure it at a 22″ stance width to get a good comparison to the above.
Thanks Nate, I’m busy reading your reviews of those boards right now 🙂
Good idea to measure the Turbo Dream; I’ll do that this evening! If the width at the bindings is comparable, then I might just go for that Flagship to see how I get on with it.
One thing though: you indicate that the big board design changes happened for 2020 season…the shop are unable to tell me which year it is (definitely not 23/24 season) so I guess I just need to make sure it’s within the last 3 years or so to ensure it is the “new, improved” version of the board. Jones support has said if I provide them with the serial number they’ll be able to tell me the year, so am trying to get the serial number from the shop.
Like I said previously, I loved my one and only previous experience on a Yes board, so the Hybrid is right in the mix now too. Have found one for 75EUR cheaper than the Flagship too, which is nice 🙂
However, the flex is different between the two: you rate the Flagship at 7.5 and the Hybrid at 6. The bindings that I have are Union Falcors….I imagine they would be better suited to the Flagship, but could they work with the Hybrid too?
Thanks again!
Hi Graeme
Apologies for the slow response, was travelling overseas and haven’t had the chance to get to your message until now.
The Falcor are a better flex match to the Flagship, IMO, but they would work with the Hybrid as well. I wouldn’t go much stiffer for the Hybrid, but they are within range, IMO.
Hope you were able to find the year of the board. If not, if you’re able to send me a picture of the graphic, I will be able to tell you if it’s prior to when it got updated or not. Hope this helps and hasn’t come too late.
Your site is amazing; thank you for all the info. I’ve read the pertinent reviews and have pretty much settled on the Jones Flagship. I’ve also read almost all of its comments and your insightful replies, but I just can’t make up my mind about the size. I’m 6’1, 220lb, 11.5-12 boots. Live and ride in CO, confident on any black run, improving in trees and double blacks. I don’t ride switch, no park or jumps other than occasional side hits.
My current daily driver is an unlabeled special-edition NS from 2016 that was a gift so I don’t know for sure but I think it’s a 160W West deck. I like the surfy sort of feel to it but it’s time to up my game all around. I see using the Flagship as a daily bomber plus trees and bumps, and powder whenever, wherever, however deep I can get it.
My gut is to go with the 165W mainly for its better performance in powder, also for bombing and carving. But I also like the maneuverability of a shorter board. I’m starting to think I’ve been riding a board that’s way too short though, especially when I get bogged down in anything deeper than 6″ or so.
Is 3cm really that big of a difference agility-wise? The 162 seems too close to the 160, so as long as the 165 can still be whipped around some trees and moguls, I’ll have the ultimate powder gun when I need it and I’ll keep the 160 for surf days. What do you think? I really appreciate your opinion. Thank you.
Hi Zach
Thanks for your message. A couple of things to consider.
The Flagship is more setup for powder, so even in the same size as the West, it should float better in powder. And in terms of surface area, the 162W Flagship probably has a little more surface area than the 160X West (assuming yours is essentially a West). Not by much, but the combination of a touch more surface area in addition to being better setup for powder (taper, longer nose than tail, rockered tip, 3D contour base, etc), should make it noticeably better in powder vs the 160X West. 3cm can make quite a bit of difference to maneuverability, especially when it is all or predominantly added to the effective edge, as opposed to the overall length of the board.
On the other hand, a freeride board like the Flagship can be ridden longer, as freeride boards, including the Flagship tend to have a smaller effective edge-to-overall length ratio, because they typically have a big nose to help with float in powder. The extra length that exists outside the contact points doesn’t have as much affect on groomers as it does in deeper powder. For reference, the 160X West has an effective edge of 122cm and the Flagship 162W’s effective edge is 121cm. So even though it’s 2cm longer overall, it’s actually 1cm less in terms of effective edge. The 165W Flagship has an ee of 123.4cm, so whilst it would be a step up in terms of size, both in terms of overall length, surface area and ee vs the 160X West, it’s not as big a size increase as the 5cm of total length would suggest – except when in powder.
But it would still be a bigger feel on groomers and, again assuming it’s the 160X West, it’s going to also feel stiffer both overall and torsionally, so will likely feel like harder work in trees. But for your specs, it wouldn’t be undoable in trees or anything.
The 162W would be a noticeable improvement in powder, IMO, while also retaining probably close to the maneuverability of the 160X West. And some improved bombing/carving too.
The 165W would be a significant improvement in powder, IMO, but sacrifice a bit of maneuverability. Greater improvement in terms of stability for bombing as well.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163, so both are in range and should work well, but depends on what you want to optimize more.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you, Nate. The explanation of effective edge vs overall length was helpful. I’m going with the 165W. I’ll try to remember to let you know how it goes. Hopefully we both get some more snow this season…
You’re very welcome Zach. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season – and yes hoping for (and starting to get) more snow!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for everything you do for the community! I’ve learnt so much from your page.
I’m also looking at purchasing the Flagship in the New Year but feel a little confused on sizing. I’m about 87kg, 188cm, athletic build, using size 9.5(UK) Burton Ion step on boots with genesis bindings.
I’d say I’m an advanced intermediate looking at taking my riding to the next level. I love to carve and charge on piste with skier friends, but most of all find powder whenever conditions allow. (which can be sporadic in Europe)
The website suggests 162w or 164, while someone from the live chat suggested 161!
Any info you could share to help finalise my decision would be hugely appreciated.
All the best,
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161. You can go a little longer with freeride boards, particularly if you’re going to be riding a lot of powder and/or bombing fast most of the time and want to optimize more for powder. But in your case, given you don’t get powder that much and are a more intermediate level rider, I would be leaning 161. The biggest question mark would be whether the back insert width is wide enough for your boots.
With UK9.5 Ions I would predict that your boots to be around 30.8cm long and the back insert width (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width) of the Flagship 161 is going to be around 26.4cm. That leaves a predicted total overhang of around 4.4cm (or 2.2cm per boot). This is going to be fine in most cases, IMO and is an overhang I would be perfectly comfortable with. But if you end up with quite a straight back binding angle on it – e.g. 0-6 degrees – and are or want to start eurocarving, then it could be borderline width-wise. With a bit more angle on the back binding or if your carves aren’t going to be as extreme as eurocarves and I think you’ll be fine width-wise on it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your reply, that’s incredibly helpful to understand my boot length to back insert width!
I do actually tend to ride with a low angle on the back binding, but not quite at the euro carve level… yet.
I was reading through the comments below and saw the YES PYL is mentioned a fair bit. Just to throw a spanner in the works… would a 162 PYL be a better/alternative option for me?
Cheers!
Hi Alex
Yes, the PYL 162 would be a good alternative. They’re both great boards, IMO, and both would work well size-wise, IMO. The PYL 162 will be around 26.3cm at the back insert, so very similar width-wise. This is assuming a 22.4″ (570mm) stance width. If you ride with a wider width, you would be on a wider part of the board.
Hi Nate!
Thanks for the review. I could use a sizing recommendation on the flagship.
I have size 9 Nidecker Altai and a 9.5 burtons, and vary between 150-155lbs, and 5.9”. The flagship would primarily be for riding through moguls in steeper terrain with highly variable snow. My goals for the season is to 1) further develop picking lines to get through moguls & steeper technical terrain, 2) learn to jump off cliffs.
The Jones website suggests very different board size based on boot size 9.5 (161 or 156w) vs 9 (151 or 154). Given the options span a range of 10cm, I’m not sure of the right size for me. Giving my style of riding and goals, what sizing do you think would work for me? If forced to pick boot size, I’ll stick with my Altai size 9.
Hi Jake
Thanks for your message.
That is a massive variance for a half size! I would say 161 is too long for sure, for what you’re describing and your specs. And 151 is too short, IMO. The 156W is too wide and I think the combination of length and width would make it on the too big side for you, particularly if you’re riding a lot of moguls. I would be weighing up between the 158 and 154.
I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 156 for your specs. With a freeride board like the Flagship you can err a little longer (because more of the size is outside the contact points – like in a long freeride nose, than a more all-mountain or freestyle board), so the 158 comes into play. But I like to temper that a little bit if people like to ride a lot of trees and/or moguls. The longer 158 would give you a bit more stability landing cliff jumps, particularly if you’re going to be doing quite big ones. The 154 would give you a more agile ride, so I think it depends on which of those you’d rather optimize for.
In terms of width, the 154 could be pushing it in the 154 if you were riding with a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees) and liked to rail your carves quite deep, if you were in the 9.5s. I haven’t measured the Nidecker Altai, so there’s also a chance that they could be a similar outersole length to the Burton 9.5s, but the Nideckers I have measured haven’t been super bulky or anything, so they’re probably a little smaller in total length. You should be fine on the 158 and on the 154 you’d probably be fine depending on those things.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey,
just got his in a 159 w for a crazy discount.
im worried its not the right size for my style and big feet(size 13 vans infuse). I ride at baker on steep terrain, love to do road gaps and big drops. idk if 159w is enough board. Ive been on 163W the last 4 years. Im 6’1 180.
Hi Jaden
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161. For a more freeride oriented board like the Flaghip, you can ride it a bit longer (but don’t have too). But given that you’ve been riding 163W (and sounds like you didn’t find it too big?), I’d say the 159W might feel a little on the small side. It’s not tiny for your specs or anything though. If I had your sized feet, I’d go 159W for this board (6’0″, 180lbs) but I like to err a little smaller. Ideally, based on what you’re describing, the 162W might have been the better bet. But the 159W is unlikely to feel tiny or anything. What’s the 163W you’ve been riding?
Width-wise for 13s, it could be doable but would depend on a couple of things. The 159W is going to be around 275mm (measured at the inserts on the underside of the board) at the back insert (assuming a roughly 22″ stance width). With 13 Infuses, you’re looking at around 33.5cm in outer sole length. So that’s around 6cm (3cm per edge) of overhang on that back insert, if you were to ride it with a zero degree binding angle. That’s a little more overhang than I’d like to have. But with a 15 degree angle on the back binding I think you’d be fine – that would give around 1cm of leeway, so you’d be looking at around 2.5cm of overhang per edge. I’d be comfortable with that. But it also depends on how hard you like to carve. If you like really lay down your carves (e.g. eurocarving), then it may be a little too narrow. Also if you’ve had no issues on your current board and it’s a similar width, that’s another clue as to whether or not it will be wide enough. Again, if you could let me know the 163W you’ve been riding, that would help.
Thanks for the fast reply! im +15 -9. with a 22 stance and i was riding an arbor roundhouse 2007 163 W. Also not a huge carver excepts on really steep stuff.
Hi Jaden
Thanks for the extra info. With a 9 degree angle you’re looking at saving around 4mm, so probably around 5.6cm (2.8cm per edge). If you ride it at it’s 23.6″ reference stance, rather than the 22″ I rode it at, that would save you some as well – and would be more like 2.6cm per edge, at that stance width. It’s doable, if you’re not carving super deep. But it’s likely to be narrower at the back insert than the 163W Roundhouse. It’s not a board I’ve ridden or measured, so I couldn’t say for sure, but with a 268mm waist width and with Arbor boards typically being around 14mm wider at the inserts vs waist, it’s likely that it’s wider. Hope this gives you more to go off.
Hey Nate – I’m looking for some advice on the newer model of Flagship. I’m 6ft, 210lbs, wearing a 10.5 Burton Ion Boa boot. I’m torn between the 162W and the 164. I ride a mix of east coast (groomers and ice) and out west (Back bowls at Vail and Park city). Generally a mix of trees, mixed terrain, and powder when possible. I’m coming from an older Custom X Flying V in 162, and it’s been a great board, just looking for another option.
Bonus if you have a favorite binding to pair. I’m always partial to the easy choice of staying with jones bindings, but have also used old school Union FC’s and Burton ESTs.
Thanks for all you do!
Hey Andrew
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning the 164. It should be wide enough and I’d only go wide if you have to. It should be wider at the front insert vs the Custom X Flying V (even the latest one and the older models used to be narrower) and about the same at the back insert. So if you haven’t had any issues on the 162 Custom X Flying V, in terms of boot drag, then you shouldn’t with the 164 Flagship. And your looking at around 266mm back insert and 271mm front insert (based on a 22″ stance width, if your stance width is wider, then it will be a little wider than that) which is typically enough for 10.5s.
In terms of bindings, if you wanted to go Jones, the Mercury would work well. The Apollo would work too, if you wanted to go stiffer. From Union I’d look at the Atlas or Atlas Pro, or you could go Falcor and Burton you’d have to go with the Re:Flex model rather than EST (which won’t mount to the Flagship) – and the Custom X would be your best bet, IMO. Generally I would go with something with at least 7/10 flex and up to 9/10 flex for the Flagship. Some more options below:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! I was originally considering a Ultra Mind Expander, but based on your review, it looks like the flagship is a much more solid board.
I’m considering going with the Supermatics (based on your review). I’m always a little hesitant of speed bindings, but those seem sound and appear to be stiff enough. 10.5 is right at the top end of the large, which also makes me nervous. Any thoughts on that pairing?
Thanks for all that you do! For those of us that are far from any big shops or mountains, this is super helpful!
Hi Andrew
I have found the Supermatic to be the easiest in/out of all the speed entry bindings. I still personally prefer strap bindings and I quite like the ritual of strapping in after coming off the lift. But as far as speed entry goes, I prefer the Supermatic to others. I think they are pretty specific with sizing on them, so you should be good in the Large with 10.5s. If your 10.5s are really bulky, then maybe going to the XL would make more sense, but otherwise, I’d go L. What is the brand/model of your boots?
I’m 5’10 (178 cm) 185lb (85kg) and I wear a size 10 boot (DC Control atm, thinking of upgrading to DC Judge as I have wide feet). Is the 154 too short for my measurements? Currently riding as Salomon Super 8 157, but thinking I want to try a shorter board. I don’t do any park atm, just carving and bombing.
Hi Anthony
Thanks for your message. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at more like 159, so I think the 154 is certainly small for you. That doesn’t make it wrong. If it was a freestyle board and you were doing more freestyle stuff, then I would be more inclined to say that it would work well. But I would be leaning more towards the 158. Given that you feel like you want a smaller board the 154 wouldn’t be wrong. The Flaghsip is a bit stiffer than the Super 8, however, the flex is probably going to feel pretty similar if you were to go 154 Flagship vs 157 Super 8.
To note also, that the Flagship is probably going to feel smaller in the 158 than the Super 8 in the 157, IMO. The 158 Flagship and 157 Super 8 have basically the same effective edge but the Super 8 157 is significantly wider. Comparing waist width it’s 249mm on the 158 Flagship and 260mm on the 157 Super 8, which is quite significant. And at the inserts the difference is less, but the Flagship still noticeably narrower at 266mm front insert and 261mm back insert – the Super 8 157 on the other hand 270mm at the front and 269mm at the back. So I would imagine the Flagship, even in the 158 would feel smaller than your 157 Super 8, so it depends how much smaller you want to go. Given that you’re predominantly carving and bombing, I would be leaning 158 for you for the Flagship, but the 154 wouldn’t be wrong but just smaller than what I’d typically recommend for your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Yeah awesome stuff mate, it makes a lot of sense. Thanks as usual!
You’re very welcome Anthony. Thanks for stopping by
Hey Nate
I just spent my first full season (~30 days) on a 162W Mountain Twin and would call myself a solid/strong intermediate at this point. While I really like the MT and how I’ve progressed on it, I’m thinking about adding a board for next season that has more of a speed and carving focus. Performance in pow would be a plus too so I could take it on a trip to Japan next year. I’m not looking for a pure bomber (I definitely value decent maneuverability at slower speeds) but still looking for more stability at speed compared to what I have with the MT which is a tiny bit undersized for my weight (240lb). I also find the MT gets some chatter/bucking around a bit in bumpy terrain so I’m also looking for something a bit damper too. Would the Flagship fit the bill?
Since I can get a bit of a discount with Jones, I’ve also been looking at the Stratos, Frontier, ME, and even just sizing up the MT to 165W. I saw in the Stratos Review comments section you directed someone who was looking for similar things as me towards the Flagship so here I am. I’m not interested in freestyle or switch (I have the MT for that) and the Flagship seems to check the boxes for what I’m looking for in this next phase of progression.
I’m 6’ 2”, 240lb with US 12 Photons (Step ons). On Jones’ sizing chart this seems to slot me with the 169W, but I was thinking that by sizing a little smaller to 165W I could still get some maneuverability while still having decent stability at speed. Do you think the 165W works for what I’m looking for or should I really be looking at the 169W? I’m a little concerned about heel/toe drag on the back insert with the 165W.
Thanks again for your help! Your advice last year helped me have an awesome season!
Hey Terrence
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I think the Flagship would be a really good bet. You get more in terms of speed, dampness, carving and powder, which seem to be all the things you’re looking for.
Size-wise, I think you could do 169W if you wanted, it’s in range. But I would be leaning 165W, given you want to keep that maneuverability in there. In terms of width, the back insert on the 165W, assuming a roughly 560mm (22″) stance width, would be around 278mm. If you’re more like 600mm (23.6″) with your stance width, then you’d be more like 280mm-281mm at that back insert, which should be fine with Burton 12s, IMO. For reference, versus the MT it is likely around 276mm at the back insert (assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width) and more like 278mm-279mm with a 600mm (23.6″) stance width. So, assuming you haven’t been having issues on your Mountain Twin with drag, I’d say you’d be fine width-wise.
Hope this helps
Awesome — this is super helpful. Thanks so much, Nate! I do have a few quick follow up questions if you don’t mind:
-If I’m reading the Flagship specs sheet correctly, the reference stance on the 165W is 23.6” — so does that mean if I were to set up the bindings at reference stance, then the back insert width would be around the 280mm – 281mm you mentioned?
-How would the Flagship pair with my Step On Genesis bindings + Step On Photons? Does the stiffer flex of this board mean I should consider going to the stiffer Step On Ion boots or perhaps even consider going to a strap binding that’s stiffer + stiffer boots?
-After writing my first post I discovered the Jones Hovercraft which seems to be very similar but maybe just more powder specialized compared to the FS? I’m still leaning towards the Flagship but I was curious what your thoughts were on the key differences between the FS and the Hovercraft.
Thanks again!
Hi Terrence
Yes, if you were to setup on the reference stance, then should be around 280mm – 281mm at the back insert. You don’t have to go reference stance. I find that stance too wide for me personally, but you may like it, being taller.
I think the Flagship would pair pretty well with your current boot/binding setup. I find Step Ons, even the Genesis/Photon combo, to be mid-stiff. Around 6.5/10 to 7/10 flex. So they work. If you wanted to be really fussy, then ideally something a little stiffer, but I think that setup will work fine, if you didn’t want to have to get extra boots/bindings.
The Hovercraft would certainly also suit what you’re describing. And size-wise, the 164 would work well, IMO. Width wise, this time assuming a 580mm (22.8″ stance width) you’d be looking at around 279mm at the back insert, so I think you’d be good there. Main differences to Flagship, IMO:
– A touch softer flexing. Very subtly though.
– Feels heavier than the Flagship (and is heavier on the scales too, size-for-size)
– Found Flagship a little better for tighter turns in trees etc and a little better for jumping and switch but performance in terms of powder, speed & carving very similar
– Size-wise (165W vs 164), the Hovercraft is overall a little wider, has more effective edge (123.4cm on 165W Flagship and 128.9cm on 164 Hovercraft), so it will be likely to feel a little bigger
– Specs-wise the Hovercraft also has a straighter sidecut (10m on the 164 vs 9.4m on the 165W Flagship), Flagship comes with the slightly faster base, more traction tech on the Flagship (3.0 on Flagship vs 1.0 on the Hovercraft) and a few other little things different too
Hey Nate, really appreciate you putting these reviews together. I’m in the market for a new deck and the flagship and PYL are at the top of my list. I’m 6’1” 190-200 lbs, size 11 boot, and looking at the flagship size chart it kinda looks like I could go for the 162w or the 165w. I’ve typically ridden boards in the 164-165 range, but that’s mostly from the traditional camber days. Is the 162 long enough for when those deep days do happen here in CO? I am also wondering if the 164 flagship is wide enough at the inserts for my boot, and maybe that one is even a little on the long side. What do you think?
Hi B.C.
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162 but for a freeride board you can go a little longer – and given you’re used to riding in that 164-165 range, you could go longer than that. However, the wides are on the wider side for your boots, so overall I would be leaning 162W. With 11s you would typically need to go wide, but sometimes wide can be a little wider than ideal (not so wide that they’re not doable, but wider than optimal), so going 162, sizing up a bit for freeride board and what you’re to riding, then sizing back down for width, I think sits you pretty well on the 162W.
The 164 will be a little too narrow, IMO. Some 164s would be wide enough in the regular width but in this case, I think it would be borderline.
For the PYL, it’s not as wide, so you could go 164W in that case, if you wanted to go longer. The 160W would be doable if you wanted to err shorter, but given what you’re used to riding, I would be leaning 164W for that one.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, do you think the Jones Flagship will work with Ride Lasso boots? Or are they just too soft?
Cheers
Hi Knut
Thanks for your message.
I think it would work with Lassos. They’re the softest boots I would put on the Flagship. I felt the Lassos at around a 7/10 flex, maybe bordering on 6.5. If you were being fussy, I think something a little stiffer ideally – but I think they’re still in a doable flex range for the Flagship.
Hope this helps with your decision
What’s up Nate. You helped me with sizing on a snowboard, and your recommendation felt spot on so I’m back for more advice! I’m looking at the Flagship and/or Solution in a 161 or a 164. I’m 6’1 200lbs (with goals to get to 190lbs) and wear a 9.5 K2 boot. I’m wanting this to be a charger snowboard that is good at speed, can plow over chunder, good in technical steeps, and is good in trees and bumps. I’d be leaning towards the 164 (and that’s what Jones suggested to me) but my only concern is that it would be too wide? I can really feel when a snowboard is too wide… particularly at slower speeds it feels like I can’t control it the way I’d expect. Any advice? Thanks in advance!
Hi Caleb.
Welcome back.
It’s a close call and don’t think either size would be wrong. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 162, but with a freeride board like this you can ride a little longer. And certainly in terms of stability at speed, going 164 wouldn’t be a bad idea. But that said, the 164 will be on the wider side for your boots – nothing super wide, but looking at around 271mm at the front insert and 266mm at the back insert (assuming a stance width of around 22″). I’m the same and don’t like when a board is too wide. I think you’d definitely prefer the 161 in trees.
I like this board in 158, but I should really prefer it in the 161 (6’0″, 180lbs, US10 boots (sometimes 9.5 depending on brand)). So, if I was you I would be leaning 161. I think if you were confident of getting to 190lbs, that would make me more confident to go 161.
So yeah, my instinct is 161, particularly if you do get to 190lbs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, I am 5’10 and around 155 lbs. Would u recommend 154 or 158? thanks
Hi Wei
Thanks for your message. Could you please let me know your boot size – it helps to make a more informed opinion.
Hi Nate!
a question about jones flagship.
I measure 1.88. I weigh 83 kilos, I know my ideal measurement is 161.
But I doubt with the width. I use 44 ( e.u) . what do you think? 161 or 162w?
muchas gracias como siempre 🙂
Hi Javier
It would depend on a few things.
Firstly, EU44 can differ depending on the brand – some translate as a 28cm mondo and others a 28.5cm mondo, but in a comment on another post you mentioned that it was EU44 (US 10), so assuming it’s US10, then it should be a mondo 28cm.
With a mondo 28cm you should be good in most cases, but if it’s a bulky boot and you’re riding with a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees kind of thing), then it’s going to be borderline too narrow and the 162W is probably the safer bet. If you’re riding with lower profile boots and more angle on your back binding I would say you’d be fine on the 161 and that’s what I’d go with. If you could let me know your boots brand/model and you’re typical binding angles, that would be great.
thanks nate you are amazing.
My boots are nitro select tls 2021 u.s (11) , eu (44) . u.k ( 10) ,mp(29) .
the angles of my bindings are usually +12º and -9º
I think 161 is okey butI want your opinion.
Thank you¡¡¡¡¡
I don’t quite understand the nitro specs
Hi Javier
I’m not overly familiar with Nitro boots. Haven’t tested any so far. Though I do have a pair with me now, which I’ll be testing soon. I have a US10, which is a 42 2/3 Euro MP 28cm (or 280mm). With most brands 42 2/3 would be a mondo of 27 or 27.5, so they are sized a little differently by the looks. The model I have measured 3.6cm above mondo on the outsole (31.6cm for a 28 mondo), which is bulkier than normal (normal is around 3cm above mondo). So assuming your MP 29 is the same length above mondo, then it’s likely to be around 32.5cm. With the Flagship 161 being around 26.4cm at the back insert, you’d be looking at around a 6.1cm total overhang with a 0 degree angle. That would be more like 5.7cm overhang at 9 degrees. Which is around 2.85cm per edge. That’s pushing it, IMO, if you like to carve fairly deep.
The Nitros that I have with me are the Sentinel BOA. The Select TLS may not be as bulky (it can sometimes differ between models within a brand) but it’s pushing it. I think you’d be safer to go with the 162W. With that you’d be looking at around a 275mm back insert width on the 162W.
thanks for such a great job nate.
and thanks for your help always
You’re very welcome Javier. Hope you have an awesome season!
In the end I chose Jones Stratos 162. I found a good offer. It’s not exactly like the flagship but I think by measurements (25.8 in the middle) it suits me very well and it’s a great freeride allmountain board 🙂
Thank you!!!!
Hi Javier
Yeah, I think you should be all good on the 162 Stratos width-wise with your boots. Hope it treats you well. Happy riding!
Also, if you don’t mind, could you help out my son. Hes looking at the Nidecker Escape and Malibu Moon child (hard to find info). He’s 6’0 175 sz 11.5 and similar riding style to me with small jumps and a little more freestyle mixed in. Either of them fit or not fit. Thanks for your time.
Hi Derek
I know very little about moonchild snowboards unfortunately, so can’t say much there. Though it does look like its got a pretty aggressive taper, which he may not like when it comes to the freestyle stuff. I haven’t ridden the Nidecker escape but on paper it looks more suitable than the Malibu.
My NS Proto HD is starting to see some age so looking to upgrade. I’m 6’2 215 sz 11, use Nitro Phantom and my Proto is 157x. First off, would the Flagship be the right choice or should I look into one of the other Jones boards like Mind Expanders or Ultra MT? (Really kicked around Borealis Tundra). Currently like to ride trees and moguls alot so I like to be able to throw the board around and be able to do quick, fine tuning ankle turns. I also like screwing around and being playful on groomers. With this board I’d like to add the ability to charge and be more aggressive to my current riding. Lastly would the 159x be too short as I like to size down due to my riding style? I’m not good enough to have a board fight me and need it to do what it’s told if that makes sense!! But I do want to add some aggressiveness so don’t want to ruin that by going too short. Help is greatly appreciated
Hi Derek
For what you’re describing, the mind expander would be my instinct, because it’s more mellow, more playful and easier to throw around. That said, if you were to size to the 159W flagship, it would still be mellow enough. You would lose some ability to bomb as aggressively but will, imo, be something that you’d be able to bomb significantly more aggressively than your current board. The met less aggressive but I would size that to 162, and in that size, you should till feel it more capable of being more aggressive than your current board.
Hope this helps
Wow do I appreciate your reply and time you put into. It definitely helps. You are refer to regular Mind Expander correct and not twin? I’m not very good at switch (need to work at that) so don’t right it much. Another board that jumped onto my list was Arbor Satori. You planning a review of it anytime soon
Hey Derek
Yeah, I meant the regular ME, but the MET is a possibility if you were wanting to work on switch – it’s definitely better/easier for switch – and for buttering. Not as good in powder as the regular ME, but not terrible in powder or anything either. So would depend on how much powder performance you wanted. The Flagship isn’t amazing for switch, but it is better than the Mind Expander, IMO.
We haven’t tested the Satori yet, but it is a board I’ve wanted to get on, so am going to try to get it this winter, but if we did it’s likely not until February at the earliest and the review wouldn’t likely be out until April/May at the earliest.
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’0”, 185lbs with size 9.5 Burton Photon Step On’s.
Coming from a 162 Burton Royale (2008). Still in great shape but looking to get into the Jones Flagship.
I split my time boarding with my kids (6 and 8) and my buddies. More bombing and hard charging with the guys and slower manoeuvring with the kids. Because of this, I’m thinking of going with the 158 instead of the 161.
Am I safe to go with 158 length and width wise?
Hi Kelsey
Thanks for your message.
I think the more pure size for you in the Flagship would be the 161, but the 158 would still work. And should be wide enough, IMO. The 158 is around 26.1cm at the back insert. If you’re boots are an average length for a 9.5, then they’d be around 30.5cm long. Leaving a 4.4cm total overhang (2.2cm per edge), if you ride with a 0 degree back binding angle. That’s borderline, if you’re going to be ripping deep carves. But if you’re not really ripping anything too deep, then it would be fine – and with any kind of angle on the back binding like 6 degrees or more or lower profile boots and you should be fine. The front insert is wider and you’d have no issues there.
I’ve ridden this board twice in the 158 (with very similar specs to you). Once when it was quite different (2019 model) and again with it in it’s current form. And I really liked it in this size – even though for me, like you, the 161 would be the better size in theory. Would certainly give you more maneuverability in the 158 – with the trade off being a little less stability at speed and float in powder.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello Nate. I am a 145 lb and just shy of 5’-8” female. I use size 8 men’s boots.
I have just got a a ride zero 151 cm board and use it in the park. I have some regrets that if feels a bit soft and swively underfoot when hitting jumps or higher speeds. I don’t love it going fast on groomers since it feels unstable and does not edge very good for me. I like the halfpipe and jumps, however rails are really not my thing yet (I am not sure if they ever will be). Probably I got the wrong freestyle board but at the least need something else for non-park days. If you have any thoughts on freestyle boards, feel free to share those too. I might sell the ride zero and purchase a new park board for jumps and halfpipe.
My board I ride on non park days is out of commission now and I need a new one. I was looking at the K2 passport, but I don’t see you have a review, looking for something that would be good for free-riding. Curious about this flagship.
I like going fast in groomers, riding in trees, on steep terrain, working on drops (less than 10’ baby cliffs at the moment haha), and try to go all the pow days I can (mostly at Snowbird and Brighton). I also like riding switch, but don’t tend to do that so much on non-park pow days.
My old board was a hybrid camber, feels medium stiff, but I don’t know for sure, twin tip, symmetric. I rode in in all conditions and loved it, however I have no other point of reference. I think it is called a Nidecker Play. It was my first and only board prior to the ride zero purchase. It was easy to learn on and seemed pretty decent all around.
Wow, that is a lot, sorry. Now the questions.
(1) What size board do you recommend for me? What size flagship?
(2) What do you think of the K2 passport for free-ride or do you not know yet?
What board would you recommend as my second board for free-ride (Snowbird) days? Is the Flagship good?
Also, based on my athleticism, strength, riding style, and size I find am am suited for men’s board. Plus I like typically like the looks of them better. My first board was a men’s and it seemed ok. But let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for your help. Amazing website!
—Corin
Hi Corin
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I think the Flagship would be a really good option for you.
Generally speaking for length, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 151. As a strong/athletic person you could potentially go a little longer – and often it can be a good idea to size up for a freeride board (as more of the length tends to be outside the contact points in the tail). All that said, since you like to ride trees, I wouldn’t go too long. So I think the 151 in the Flagship would be your best bet. It’s the same size as your current board and I get the feeling you’d potentially like to longer for more stability, but the Flagship is going to give you more stability than the Zero even in the same size, so I would still lean 151.
Often I would say go for the women’s version, mostly because the width of the men’s is typically too wide – and sometimes taking into account the women’s version being a slightly softer flex, depending on the rider. However, in this case, if you were to go 151, I think the width would be good. And as an athletic rider who’s looking for something quite stiff, I think you’d be OK with the flex. That said, if you wanted to go a little longer in size, then I might look at the women’s version as you could bump up a little to the 152 and not go too wide. I think the 154 men’s version is a little too big overall, given you’re also jumping up the width. In fact I’d sooner go 155 Women’s Flagship than 154 Men’s Flagship for you. But I would be leaning 151 Men’s Flagship or 152 Women’s, if you wanted subtly more length.
I haven’t ridden the Passport yet unfortunately, so can’t say much there. Size-wise, the 151 is doable. It’s wider than the Flagship in the 151, so would overall be a bigger board. You could size down to the 149, to counter that extra width, but I think you’d be alright on the 151. But having not ridden it, can’t say what it’s like. And I do prefer the size of the Flagship for you, overall.
Hope this helps
Nate,
I have spent many hours educating my self by reading the info on you site. Thanks so much for your amazing contribution to helping people like me.
I am not sure what I will do since I like riding switch and not sure if I want to give that up even on snowbird days and think maybe I would be happier with a board in the all mountain freestyle category. But for now I will keep the Passport and Jones boards wrapped and think on if I will keep one of those or get something else. My daughter has the Nitro Team and likes that. Kinda slim pickings this time of year!
I will consider your helpful advice on sizing. I honestly did not even know with certainty what size board was good for me, with you input I at least know that now!
I have gotten pretty used to the Ride Zero currently so that will be ok for a while until I figure out what my second board should be. Even in a pow day I made it work and it was fun. 😀
If you do have any general thoughts on board category (even just confirming I was heading in the right direction with the K2, Jones or even the kazu), that would help.
I did try to fill out a form you had linked in another comment to help pick a board type, but I think that was form is being worked on currently.
Thanks for you help.
Hi Corin
If you still want to be able to ride switch fairly well but want it leaning a little more freeride, then I would go all-mountain. Like one of these or from this list. They give you a little bit of a directional ride but not so much that it affects switch too bad. The Zero is what I would call all-mountain-freestyle.
Thanks Nate. Side track info here.
I borrowed a yes The Greats is a 151 from a friend. It was amazing. It rode much different than the zero for me. I think I will sell the zero and get The Greats for my daily driver. I was riding at snowbird, steep terrain. There was a decent amount of powder one day and then left overs other days. It was good in the trees, good for switch and good for for side hits and spins. I don’t have experience with different boards, but IMO The Greats was amazing.
Thanks for the info and help.
Probably will keep the flagship as my second board too.
Hi Corin
You’re very welcome and thanks for the update. The Greats is a board I really like (and own) so I’m not surprised you had that experience with it. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate. I just ordered a 2023 Flagship today. I’m 5’8”, 150-155lbs. Ordered a 154cm, because thats what size my current Mountain Twin is. I love my MT, but I don’t do any park riding and talked myself into moving to the Flagship for better off piste performance. I currently ride Union Force size medium bindings with Vans Aura Pro size 9 boots. Question is, do you think I’d be fine moving the Force to the Flagship from the MT? Or should I look into getting some stiffer bindings.
Thanks for the help. Your reviews are what helped me build my current setup when I first started
Hi Kyle
I think you’re good on the 154. That’s the size I would have recommended for you.
In terms of bindings, I think the Force will work with the Flagship. They’re within a good range. If you wanted to be fussy, something a little stiffer would be more optimal, but they should do the job well. Same thing with boots. The Aura Pro will work. Optimally a little stiffer, but you should be good with that overall setup. When it does come time to change your boots, then I’d opt with something stiffer but not completely necessary to do so yet.
Hope this helps
Perfect! I’ll at least give them a shot with it. Thanks man!
You’re very welcome Kyle. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate
I’m trying to decide between the 162w and the 165w?
I’m 6’2 about 207 lbs with size 11 or 11.5 boots
I used to snowboard at a pretty high level but am just getting back into it this season after about 10 seasons skiing
I’ve got a line on burton driver x boots and union strata bindings
Think this will be a good setup for mostly powder free riding?
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Both sizes are a possibility. I would put it down to whether you want it to be leaning towards more optimal for trees and more technical riding where you need more maneuverability (in which case go 162W) or if you want it to be more optimal in terms of float in powder and stability at speed. The 162W is still going to be good at speed and in powder but just not as good. If you feel like you’re right in the middle of those things, I would go 162W.
The Driver X are a match – they’re on the stiffer side for it, but if you want stiff boots, they should work. The Strata are on the softer side for it though. Again, they’ll work, but I’d be leaning a little stiffer – at least 7/10 flex on the bindings, if you can. Some good options in the following:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Im 187cm (6’1) and I weight 80kg (176)lbs. Feet 43.5Eu, 10.5Us. What size do you think I should get? And what bindings would work well with the flagship board?
Thank you!
Hi Luca
Thanks for your message.
I think the 161 is probably your best bet. It should be wide enough that you don’t have to go wide, but just note that if you were riding in bulky boots, with a flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees) and like to get really deep in your carves, then it could be pushing it width-wise. In which case, I’d look at the 159W instead.
Hope this helps
Thanks alot Nate!
What bindings would you recommend? Would the burton cartel X work well with flagship?
Hi Luca
Yeah, the Cartel X Re:Flex would be a good match to the Flagship, IMO. Something in that 7/10 to 9/10 flex range would be best, IMO – which the Cartel X fits in.
Hi Nate,
I truly enjoy reading your reviews and appreciating your expertise. I just picked up a 151 flagship and am second guessing my decision. I am a very small guy, at 5’4, 128lbs, and boot size 7.5. I am on the lower end of the weight range for both 151 and 154 (120-170 lbs according to Jones). My main concern is my low weight may not handle a 154 well and as much as I love bombing down, I also enjoy weaving in and out of trees.
Could you let me know your opinion? This is going to my daily driver including going with family (wife and two young sons).
Hi Leo
Thanks for your message.
I would go 151 for you. I think the 154 is going to be a bit big. The 151 should be a really good size for you, IMO. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 148. But the Flagship you can ride a little longer. And the width is good for your boot size. The 154 is going too much too long, IMO, and it’s also adding width. Hands down 151, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much Nate. I will keep my 151 and am looking forward to riding it this coming season!
You’re very welcome Leo. Hope it treats you well and hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
After riding the flagship for this whole season, I’m really in love with this board. Yesterday I was able to clock myself at 49mph on this board and I was starting to wonder if I should be on a longer board for more stability and speed. I had a chance to pick up a K2 alchemist for 40% off and I couldn’t resist the deal. From the spec alone this board looks even more serious than the flagship. In your opinion, do you think there’ll be too much overlap between the two? Does it make sense for me to have both? Thanks.
Hi Leo
Thanks for your message and update.
I haven’t ridden the Alchemist, so couldn’t say for sure. But yeah, based on specs it looks to be a pretty serious board alright! Hard to say, having not ridden the Alchemist, but they are similar types of board. They won’t be the same to ride by any means. But they’re the kind of boards you’d use for the same purposes, so it’s likely that you would end up riding the one you enjoy more and may not end up riding the other one, unless you end up preferring one for icy conditions or one better for fast groomers and the other better for trees, or that sort of thing.
Leo, I’m on the smaller end of the wright range as well and got a woman’s flagship size 146. I’m 103 lbs. haven’t taken it out yet since Im waiting for some deep stuff. lmk how your riding goes, I’m curious and was also second guessing my weight. But 146 is the smallest flagship.
Hi Alana (and Nate),
The season finally came and I took the flagship on a 3-day trip with my sons.
Let me just say this, I never knew I could ride so fast in my life – this board really really wants to go fast. Nate’s review is 100% spot on. While this board is somewhat manuverable at slower speeds, it wants to go fast. When I carved hard, it held the carve well, however it prefers more smaller carves than large ones. I think it’s because the sidecut is a bit deep but that’s also what gives it the ability to turn decently at slower speeds.
One thing I have to note is that you have to know how to properly carve to ride this board. Since I went with my 6-year-old son, at times I had to wait for him and I would skid a turn or two to look behind and see if he was following me. This board does not prefer to skid turns and if you skid too much, you’ll catch an edge. It’s definitely not a board for an even an intermediate. After the first day, I realized I should not have taken this board to ride with my young son. I should have taken a softer and easier-to-control one such as my Gnu Space Case, since my son is still progressing in skiing.
I really love this board after two days of riding it and I was relieved that I could handle this board well. I probably could’ve handled the 154cm too but I agreed with Nate that 151cm fits me the best. I never felt once the board was too small. However, the men’s version, even at 151, would definitely be too big for you at 103 lbs. I think the 146 should fit you well, given that 151 worked for me and I’m also at the lower end of the recommended weight range.
There’s obviously not much powder at the beginning of the season, so I didn’t get to try the flagship in any powder. However it performed very well on groomers, and I have a K2 excavator 146 for powder days.
Thanks for your insights Leo. Much appreciated
Hey Nate, I’ve recently ordered a 158 and 161 flagship but don’t know if they’re too long. I’m 5’8” 150lbs with 10.5 32 TM3 boots. My boot size is what’s making this difficult. I typically ride around 155 but I knew my boots would drag. Jones recommended a 161 but it’s such a jump for me. I primarily ride powder and trees a lot. Would like something that’s pretty diverse but tight trees and powder are my primary concern. Any advice would be helpful. Maybe I’m just trying to make this board work but need something wider?
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain” length at around 154. Being a freeride board, you can go a little longer in this, but whether you want to go as long as 158, I’m not sure. And at 158 it’s borderline width-wise, as you know. I think the 161 is too long for your specs, personally. It’s probably wide enough, but too long, IMO.
In terms of the 158 width-wise, you’re looking at around a 261mm back binding insert, assuming a 22″ stance width (narrower stance width would mean the figure would be lower). The TM-3s are fairly low profile, but you’d still be looking at around a 31.2cm outsole on your boots. So that’s a total overhang of 5.1cm. If you’re riding with a flat back binding angle, that’s pretty borderline. If you’re riding with back binding angle something like -15, then you could be taking off roughly 1cm from that, which would be total overhang of 4.1cm (roughly 2cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering). That’s something I would be comfortable with – even a little more on that, unless you’re eurocarving. So a back binding angle of something at least 9 degrees and you’d probably get away with it. But that’s assuming you’re comfortable going 158. Given you ride a lot of trees, I think it’s erring a bit long.
Some alternative, if you wanted to go a little shorter but a little wider:
– Jones Stratos 156
– Jones Hovercraft 156
– Jones Mind Expander 154
– Burton Skeleton Key 154
– Arbor Crosscut Camber 154 (252 at waist, but wider at the inserts than you’d think)
The likes of the Mind Expander and Skeleton Key will be noticeably softer flexing than something like the Flagship (and Stratos and Hovercraft) but I would say those 2 would be the quickest edge to edge of that lot – and good in powder.
Hope this helps
That’s awesome and thanks for your help!! Since you have my specs I’ll pick your brain one more time. I ordered the Yes standard 153 for all mountain. Sizing seem ok? Also would like a more powder oriented board, is the Mind Expander redundant then or have a noticeably better float? Also want it to be good at speed in powder. Thanks again!
Hi Andrew
I think you’ve sized the Standard well. It will, IMO be a good width for your boots – and at a good length.
I don’t think the Mind Expander would be redundant. If you were to look at the Mind Expander Twin, it would be, IMO and wouldn’t compliment the Standard in a quiver. But the Mind Expander works in a quiver, if you’re looking to keep your powder board fairly mellow in terms of flex and camber. The Mind Expander is a noticeable step up in powder from the Standard, IMO and quite a different ride, especially given how directional it is. There’s the option to step up the 158 if it’s going to be part of a quiver. That would give you even better float – and more speed.
So yeah, I think they pair well in a quiver, so long as your not looking for your powder board to be stiffer than your all-mountain board. In this case, the Mind Expander will feel a little softer. Though if you did go with the 158, then it would feel similar in terms of flex.
Hi,
Your site has been very helpful for a Florida guy trying to figure out what gear to get. I’m 6’5″ 180 lbs. and 39 years old a/k/a a tall skinny dad. I’ve surfed my whole life and snowboarding is pretty natural for me. I really mostly like to carve and blow my tail out on steep sections. I hit some small jumps, but not too many. I don’t need to go crazy fast, but I do like to carve at speed. I like to ride the occasional half pipe too, but I’m only doing little baby airs and tail bashes. I’d say I’m an intermediate rider at best given my lack of regular mountain time.
I’ve ridden a Jones Mountain Twin 163 and really liked it, but I wondered if it was a bit too long? I ride mostly in Colorado. The Jones folks steered me towards Flagship 164. I’m debating between the 161 & 164 given my size. Honestly, I’m looking for the more user friendly size. This will be my only board.
What would you size recommendation be? Would you recommend a different board or am I on the right track?
Thanks!
Jay
Hi Jay
I think the Flagship could work for what you’re describing. Noting that it will be stiffer than the Mountain Twin and, IMO, less suitable for jumps and freestyle etc. But the Flaghship will give you better performance at speed, for carving and in powder. And it’s fine for jumps if you’re just doing some small jumps/sidehits and aren’t really spinning too much. If you’re not really going switch in the pipe, it should work OK in there too.
Size-wise, 164 would be the more traditional size for you, most likely. However, the 161 is definitely doable and will be an easier going ride. If you felt the 163 was too long for the MT, then I would be leaning 161 for Mountain Twin. I would put your “standard all-mountain size” at around 162. A freeride board like the Flagship can be ridden longer, which makes the 164 doable, but given how you describe your riding, the 161 would definitely work for your specs. But just to make sure it’s suitable, can you also let me know your boot size?
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. My shoe size is 10, but the last vans boots I wore were either a 9 or 9.5. I just measured and my feet are about 272 mm long.
Do you have a boot and binding recommendation to go along with this board for my riding style?
Thanks!
Hi Jay
Yeah with your foot size, I would be leaning 161 even more so. They’re a pretty standard length foot, but the 164 is on the wider side for your foot size, IMO, so wouldn’t hurt to size to the 161 to balance out that length/width.
I would look at something around that 7/10 flex for both boots and bindings. It’s a good flex match to the board and how you describe your riding. Some good options in the following:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Note as well, that fit for boots is the most important thing – with flex being the next consideration after fit. A couple of things about boot fitting:
>>How to Size Snowboard Boots
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Hi Nate! I am 5’9” 190-195lbs and a 10.5w boot. I have 2022 burton photon boa matched with 2022 union falcor large binding on a 2023 libtech golden orca 157 since the 2022 started to delaminate after my first trip and got a warranty replacement. I like bombing groomers, riding blues – double blacks, like going fast , riding steep and technical terrain and dipping in the trees some. Not a freestyle guy or ride switch but will do a cliff drop of small side hit here and there. Wondering if the flagship would work for my speedy style of riding? My golden orca has to always be on edge and seems to be more of a playful board and feels like it slows me down. The base on the golden orca feels slow even after a fresh wax. I like being able to get through slow sections and cat tracks if necessary and it’s a struggle. Could you recommend a size flagship for me? Looking at a 162W according to my specs on their website and I’d assume paired with my union falcors, it would be a nice setup? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks so much for your time and have a great day!
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
The Flagship in my experience has a nice fast base, so I would imagine that should be a noticeable improvement. I haven’t ridden the Golden Orca, so I can’t compare, but in my experience with the Flagship has one of the best glides with it’s base that I’ve tested. I think it would work for what you’re describing well.
Size-wise, I would put your “standard length” at around 159. The Flagship is a board you can ride longer though – and given you like to ride fast, I think sizing up from that makes sense. Also, since you’re on the 157 Golden Orca, which, when you take into account the width, is bigger than what a typical regular width 159 would be, and you don’t find that too big or anything, by what you’re describing, then going bigger also makes sense.
It’s just whether the 161 or the 162W is most appropriate.
With low profile 10.5s, like the Photon, the 161 is potentially doable if you were riding with a back binding angle of like 12-15 degrees. The back insert on the 161 is around 264mm. If you’re riding with a flatter back binding angle and/or like to carve really deep, then I’d be more inclined to go 162W.
Should pair well with the Falcor, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Thank you for your quick response. Yeah, the golden orca 157 is 26.5mm wide waist width, 162W flagship is 26.3 and 161 flagship is 25.2. I ride with 18 and -9 binding angles. This replacement golden orca 157 is brand new still with the stickers so I was tempted to sell it and get on a jones flagship. Looking at the 162W flagship since the 161 appears to be too narrow and not sure if I will have an issue with toe or heel drag? I appreciate all your help
Hi Ryan
Yeah, it’s touch and go for the 161 with a 10.5 at 9 degrees.
To put a number on it:
– The 10.5 Photon I would expect to be about 30.7cm on the outsole (the last Photon I measured, in a size 10, was 2.2cm longer than its mondo)
– With the 161 being around 264mm at the back insert (assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width – if you were to have a wider stance width, then that number would be a bit higher and with a lower stance width it would be a little lower) that leaves you with total overhang of around 4.3cm.
– With a 9 degree angle, I would expect that overhang to reduce by around 3-4mm. So reducing total overhang to around 3.9-4cm.
– Which would come to around 2cm of overhang per edge (assuming perfect boot centering)
– Note that Burton tends to have more toe bevel on their boots, so that allows for a bit more leeway too
Personally I would be comfortable with that kind of overhang, but not that whilst I like to get into a decent carve, I don’t carve super deep/aggressive. I’m not euro carving or anything like that. I think you’d be good, but if you do carve super deep/eurocarve, then that does add to the risk.
Thanks so much for your thorough breakdown. I really appreciate it. Have a great day Nate! Helped me make my decision. Cheers
You’re very welcome Ryan. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, I’m looking for advice on whether to try and cancel my order, I just bought the flagship 158, I’ve been riding for decades and this is the size I normally go with, but I’ve just noticed the sizing charts tell me I should be on a 161 considering I’m roughly 190 lbs and 5’11. Did I make a mistake??
I would appreciate some help, thanks!
Brandon
Hi Brandon
Thanks for your message.
The Flagship is a board you can ride longer but you don’t have to. I rode it in 158 and loved it (6’0″, 185lbs at the time I rode it). Technically I should probably ride the 161 in this board, but Jones’ weight recommendations are usually on the higher side. I personally really liked the 158 – though I do tend to err shorter rather than longer. I seldom enjoy a board longer than 160. So the 158 might be just fine for you. The 161 is probably the more “pure size” for you, but I wouldn’t say the 158 would be wrong at all. Though, if you could let me know your boot size as well, just to confirm. I like to take into account boot size for both length and width – since if a board is a little wide for your boots, you can afford to size down a bit.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, much appreciated. I’m a size 10. I thought I’d err on the side of caution and cancel my order, now I’m wondering if I made a mistake 😅. Oh well, your input is certainly valuable, I will purchase the flagship at some point!
You’re very welcome Brandon. Hope you have an awesome season, whichever board/size you end up on!
Hy Nate,
first of all really nice reviews! They give me a lot of information and helps a lot.
here is my request:
I was thinking of buying new freerideboard. Basically i’m looking for something for the days where the snow is falling really heavy (for one or more days). Everything is white and even the snowcats are overwhelmed with all the snow. These days are getting less and less unfortunately but we still have a few days here in Austria left. I’m talking about 50cm fresh snow (pow) or more.
I really love to ride on these days next to the official slopes (in the forest) or go really “deep” between the trees and then come back to the skilift. I already have a directional hybrid “all mountain” board (Ride MANIC) but i want something for these deep snow days because my all mountain board can’t handle them really well.
I also do Splitboarding were i use a Jones Solution with 164cm. I was completely shocked how great the 3D Base work and floats in pow. And this brings me to the Flagship. A solid board with great perfomance etc and a lovely 3D Base.
A was also thinking of buying a Stratos (because of a good price which i found on a retailer homepage) but i think the Flagship is more “my thing”. I don’t do freestyle and switch riding is just for fun on the slope and also not really important for me.
I am 175cm (5feet and 9inches) tall and 75kg (158lbs). My boot size is 42,5 (10).
What size would you recommend for the flagship? I prefer the 158 but the 161 for more deep days looks also great. What do you mean? Is the Flagship the best choice or do you have other recommendation for me (like the Bataleon Camel two, …)
For the binding i would go for the Union Falcor or Atlas Pro or Force.
Thanks in forward
Flo
Hi Flo
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flagship would treat you really well for these days. It’s essentially the solid version of the Solution. You could go Stratos too, but I would say the Flagship is a little better in powder – and it’s overall a better board, IMO. Size-wise, I would be leaning 158. If you thought you would only take it out on powder days or predominantly on powder days, then you could certainly go 161 as well. But if you’re not getting that many powder days, I think the 158 would be your best bet for days when you stay on the groomed trails. And I think after riding the Flagship, you’re likely to want to ride it over the Manic, even when there’s no powder. But again, the 161 would not be wrong, and if you’re used to 164 in your Solution, I don’t think it would be too much board for you, but I think the 158 would be the better “daily driver” size.
In terms of bindings, I would be leaning Atlas Pro or Falcor as I consider them a better match, flex-wise, for the Flagship. The Force would work, but a little too soft for the Flagship to be ideal, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for all the useful info and the time you take to answer !
I’m thinking about upgrading from my 2019 explorer 162.
I’m looking at the flagship 158 and was wondering if I could make it work with my size 11 burton photon boots + burton cartel L (angles +21 -6).
I’m 183cm tall and weigh 72kg. It seems that 158 and 161 flagship would be both possible but i’m afraid of being limited by my boot size. I’m hoping to get more maneuverability from the smaller 158 vs 161. Could you please let me know what you think ?
Thanks,
Thomas
Hi Thomas
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, the 158 works for your specs for sure. The 161 is doable length-wise, because it’s the kind of board you can ride a little longer but given you’re looking to get more maneuverability, the 158 is my instinct in terms of length.
Width-wise it is pushing it though. Here are some things to consider to help with your decision.
– I measured the Photon (size 10) at 2.2cm longer than mondo – whilst this isn’t always exactly the same size to size, it should be pretty close. So you’re looking at around 31.2cm or 312mm for your boot length. The 158 Flagship, at the back insert (which is what we’re concerned with here, because it’s the straighter binding angle and also the narrower insert on the Flagship) is around 261mm with a 22″ (560mm) stance width. You could a couple of mm if you were to ride with a wider stance – like the 23.6″ (600mm) reference stance that the Flagship has. So you’re looking at around 49-51mm or 4.9cm-5.1cm of overhang – roughly 2.5cm per edge. That’s doable, but certainly some risk of boot drag if you’re going to be carving deep.
– With your binding angles, 6 degrees doesn’t make a huge difference. I’ve found that the amount of extra leeway you get with binding angles goes up exponentially rather than linearly. So, the first 3 degrees makes very little difference, the next 3 degrees (up to 6 degrees) makes a little more difference – then each increase of 3 degrees makes more difference than the last. In one experiment I did the first 3 degrees reduced overhang by only 0.36mm. But 6 degrees reduced overhang by 1.6mm. Then at 9 degrees it was reduced by 3.54mm. So you start to really get savings the more you go up. So 6 degrees does make quite a difference compared to 3 degrees relative to the difference that 3 degrees makes to 0 (which is very little difference), but not as much as the difference would be from to 9 degrees – if that makes sense! In short you’re 6 degrees compared to zero will give you some leeway, but not huge amounts.
– Burton do have a good amount of toe bevel on them compared to the average boot, so that’s in your favor.
Long story short (and sorry that was a long story!), I think if you’re someone who likes to really carve elbow deep, like eurocarving, then I think it’s too narrow and you’d be better off on the 159W – which of course won’t be as meneuverable. If you’re carving isn’t super aggressive, you probably get away with it.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Amazingly detailed answer, thanks !
I like to carve as deep as I can but still far from what you would call eurocarving so 159 might work… Although I’m not sure I want to figure out once on the mountain that it was too close a call. I’ll think about it a bit more and your message will be very helpful.
If I was to chose between 159w and 161 which one do you think would be best for what I am looking for ? I’ve always been reluctant to go wide but numbers are not hugely different between flagship 159w and explorer 162 (waist : 26.30 vs 25.60 / backfoot 27.3 vs 27.09).
Thanks again,
Thomas
Hi Thomas
It’s a really close call between the 161 and 159W. The 159W will be on the wider side for your boot size. Not overly wide, but on the wider side of ideal. If there was like a 157W, then that would be a good bet. The 161 is on the longer side for your specs, but as I mentioned before with this board, you can ride it a little longer. But then that’s also the case with the Explorer/Frontier, so if you were wanting to go smaller, then you’re not really achieving that with the 161 versus the 162 Explorer. Also, you’re not guaranteed width-wise on the 161 either. I think if you were going to risk going with the narrower options, I’d risk it with the 158. The 161 would give you a little bit more width, so a little less chance of it being too narrow, but not by a huge amount. I think I would be leaning 159W, if you decided against the 158.
Hi Nate
I went with the 159W, as I didn’t want to take a gamble.
Good reason to go and try carving deeper 🙂
Thank you so much for the very helpful advice.
You’re very welcome Thomas. Hope the board treats you well!
Hi Nate
Looking for advice once again.
I’ve been more than happy with my 159w Flagship these past 2 seasons but I can’t manage to center my boots on the board with my large Cartels, even if I use the centering holes to push the boot all to way to the toeside edge.
I still get much more heel overhang and basically no toe overhang.
I am thinking about switching to Medium Cartels X (instead of L Cartels from 3-4 years ago) because I read it might help me center my 11 Photons better on the board. Apparently the boots are on the upper limit of the M Cartels but should work.
But then I am wondering if ending up with M bindings on a wide board would not cancel any benefits of the switch… Am I overthinking it ? What do you think ?
Thanks a lot for your always helpful replies !
Hey Thomas
Good to hear from you again. Going medium should help you to center your boots – and going Cartel X would give you a better flex-match for the Flagship. You would loose a little bit of leverage, with the shorter base plate of the Medium binding. But I don’t think it would cancel out the benefits entirely. I think you’d still see an improvement overall. Other options too, if you wanted to explore them, if you’re open to other binding brands. But if you wanted to stick with Burton, then the Cartel X Medium would be your best bet, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, good to hear !
I’m sticking with Burton for now because I can have a good deal on them so I’ll try the medium cartels X.
Cheers !
You’re very welcome Thomas. Hope they work well for you. Let me know how you get on with them.
Hi Nate
for fast resort freeriding , trees , drops , and off pist what would you recommend flagship or alchemist
Hi Boris
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Alchemist, unfortunately, so I couldn’t say which would be better. The Flagship would certainly be suitable though, IMO, for what you’re describing. Just can’t compare it to the Alchemist unfortunately.
Hi Nate,
Looking for some advice in choosing wide or regular size Flagship. I am 196cm and weigh 85kg. I have the K2 Thraxis boots in size 10.5 (US). What would you advice, the 159w or 158?
Hi Edwin
Thanks for your message.
With the Thraxis being a little more bulky than the average boot, I think the 158 is going to be a little too narrow. The 158 is around 26.1cm at the back insert and the Thraxis in the 10.5 would be around 31.7cm on the outsole. So you’d be looking at a 5.6cm total overhang (2.8cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering). That’s a little more than I’d be comfortable with. The 159W would be plenty wide enough, but bordering on too wide, IMO. But it is on the shorter side for your specs, so going a little shorter but wide, the 159W could work.
Length-wise for your specs I would put you at around 162 for your “standard all-mountain size”, so I’d be leaning more to the 161 or even 164 length-wise. The 164 you’d likley get away with width-wise, but still borderline, because of the bulkier boots. The 161 still probably a bit narrow. But sizing down from there to 159 but going wide could work.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for your considerations and prompt advice Nate, definitely very helpful. Understand your point on the length, but 159 is for my way of boarding the right choice I feel.
I have a ‘set’ offer with the Ride A-10 binding. I’m not sure whether I am completely comfortable with this combination, since these bindings are pretty stiff. So I just like to check my way of thinking: I guess 20% of my time I am kind of playing around at the sides of the piste, 40% will be on groomers and 40% powder. Especially for this 20% I am leaning to a somewhat softer binding, ‘compensating’ my bulky stiff boots and the stiffer FS compared to my previous rocker shape board. Curious to your thoughts on this and if you’d have any alternatives in mind. Thanks in advance!
Hi Edwin
Yeah, I feel like the A-10 would be a bit too stiff for what you’re describing. It’s doable on the Flagship, but only if you really want a really stiff binding on it. I wouldn’t go any softer than 7/10 in terms of flex, on the Flagship – you don’t want to go too soft or the binding want be able to drive the board hard enough. But I think something in that 7/10 to 8/10 range based on what you’re describing, would work well. Some options to look at below:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Thank you very much Nate!
You’re very welcome Edwin. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I’m stuck between the flagship and burton flight attendant (and would consider the Yes PYL since you’ve recommended it so highly or HTH). I’m used to riding a stiff camber board and like the stability at speed and a good carve. However, now that I have kids I occasionally find myself going a bit slower and having to maneuver around them. In those situations it appears from your review that the FA might be less forgiving (if I’m going slow and need to skid to a quick stop) and the flagship, though a bit stiffer, will offer a tiny bit more mobility in slow, crowded situations? If it’s a toss up, how do the HTH and PYL compare? Thanks!
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, in my experience, the Flagship is more maneuverable in those slower tighter spaces. The HTH would be the next best of those, IMO – then the PYL and FA pretty equal and still certainly not bad for stiffer freeride boards, but I’d say the Flagship would be best there. If you were to go back and compare the 2019 PYL and 2019 Flagship, then I’d say go PYL (it was a little softer back then and more maneuverable than it is now and the Flagship back then was less maneuverable – but assuming you’re looking at more recent models – I’d go Flagship.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate!
I tried the Flagship over the weekend and it was just as you described. I felt so comfortable on it I’m going to get the next size up. Snow was pretty hard with some icy patches and I felt in total control all over the mountain at all speeds.
Thanks again!
Hi Paul.
Thanks for your message and your feedback/insights.
Hi Nate,
First, just want to say that I very much enjoy your site…such helpful information to understand everything that’s available.
I am potentially looking into a new setup. I am about 5’10.5, 170lbs with size 10 boots (Ride Lasso BOA). I currently ride a 2017 Rome Reverb Rocker 158MW with Rome 390 Boss Bindings L/XL. I have no real issues with my current setup, but believe I could enjoy myself more with a new setup as I don’t do any park riding. I mostly bomb groomers, steep powder (when I can find it), and ride a lot in the trees. I’m generally lucky to ride in good conditions (about 7-10 days/year at Big Sky, Jackson Hole, Snowbird, Aspen), but also want a versatile board that can hold up to not as great conditions (icy, etc.)
Based on your write ups, I am leaning towards a Jones Flagship (158 or 161?), Yes Pick Your Line (159?), or potentially a Burton Flight attendant (size?), or something similar. Do you have any thoughts as to what would be a good choice for me? If the Flagship or PYL, what size would your recommend? Do you think I should also look into new bindings and if so, what would be your recommendation?
Thank you so much!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
All of those options should work well for the style you’re describing. The PYL will be the best in icy conditions, but the Flagship not far off. The FA not bad either, but a little down from the other 2. In powder, the Flagship, IMO, is the best option, but again the other 2 are good there too. The PYL/FA a little better in terms of carving and speed, but the Flagship still good there too. Long story short, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of them, but that might help to decide which you might think you’ll like the most.
Size-wise, I’d be looking at (note that I would put your “standard all-mountain” size at around 158 – for a freeride board like this you can go a little longer if you want – or stick to around that size, depending on how nimble you want it to be in the trees, versus how stable at speed – if nimble in trees in more important then err smaller – if stability at speed is more important err longer):
– PYL 159 – but you could also go 162
– Flagship 158 – but you cold also go 161
– FA: 159 – but you could also go 162
Hope this helps with your decision
Super helpful. Thank you so much, Nate!
You’re very welcome Chris. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Looking at the Flagship as an upgrade for a 10 year old board ive been riding.
Im 5’6, about 185 and have size 10.5 boots.
thoughts on sizing?
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
A tough one, but I would be leaning 159W, depending on how deep you want to be able to carve. I would be leaning 158, but that back insert might be a bit narrow at 261mm, with 10.5s. Particularly so if you were going to have a fairly straight angle on that back binding and wanted to carve deep. It’s pushing it, IMO. The 159W is quite wide for your boots, but if you’re going to be carving deep and/or have a straighter back binding angle, I think it’s worth going wider. If you like riding longer boards, the 161 comes into play, and it’s going to give you a bit more leeway on that back insert. Still borderline though.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi!
A continuation for David’s question: the weight charts for the Flagship are as following: 158 cm = 59-82 kg & 161 cm = 64-86 kg.
Would you recommend the shorter board even if my weight (172 lbs = 78 kg) is so close to the upper limit. And do you think I could rock the longer one if I wanted to? The weight chart by Jones would put me closer in the 161 one.
I’m the same height as him. Boot size is smaller, though, 8.5. I would be using it mostly for carving and riding powder in the woods.
Thank you for the very informative review!
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message
Firstly, I find Jones weight recommendations do tend to lean to longer boards than other brands. So, gotta take that into account. Also, whilst weight is the most important factor for sizing, it’s not the only factor. I like to take into account height. It’s the least important but I still like to take it into account (because of leverage). Boot size is really important (and not simply to make sure the board is wide enough that you don’t get toe drag, but also to make sure it’s not too wide – and if it is, to compensate by sizing down the length). Your style of riding also comes into play (e.g. if you like to really bomb, then a longer length will give you more stability at speed, smaller typically works better in trees etc).
So taking everything into account, for your specs, I would go 158 – even that’s sizing up a little from what I would consider your “all-mountain” length, but you can go a little longer with a freeride board. If I was you I wouldn’t go as long as 161, even if it puts you closer to the middle of the weight range recommendation.
Hope this helps
A huge thank you for the advice. I’ve found so much conflicting information regarding this on the internet, so I appreciate hearing it from somebody with experience and who has actually ridden the board.
I’m going with the 158 one. My previous board lasted for 10 years so I have high hopes for this one as well!
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope it treats you well and can be your next decade long board!
Hi Nate. Have been a loyal reader of your site – thank you. I have been on a 164 custom x wide with burton driver boots and base x est bindings. I loved the combo but my board is in bad shape after lots of rocks. I live in the trees and under the chairlift in the rocks and extreme terrain. Grew up in quebec with lots of ice and hard conditions and occasional amazing powder. I just bought the flagship (wanted the ultra but none in stock). would love your opinion on which bindings to pair with? I am thinking the union atlas FC. I would stick to my base x est but they require the burton channel unfortunately and i have decided to leave burton finally. Or maybe I should do Jones Apollo and stick with the jones brand?
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
I personally like the Atlas FC a little more than the Apollo, but both would match the Flagship, IMO. And sounds like they would suit your style. I don’t think there’s a bad choice between them, but I slightly prefer the Atlas FC.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. What would you say are the stiffest, lightest bindings with solid board feel. I think that’s what I would need. Unless you specifically think that would hurt knees / exhaust legs.
Hi Max
I don’t weigh every binding I test – sometimes don’t get a chance to, but of the stiffer bindings I’ve weighed (all weights are 1 binding with screws and discs included:
– Jones Apollo Large: 1020grams (this is a little unfair on them as they were the Large versus the Medium in the others, so would be lighter in medium)
– Atlas FC Medium: 920grams
– NOW O-Drive: 820grams
The only flux binding I’ve weighed is the Flux DS way back in the 2016 model – which was 900 grams. Stiffer bindings do tend to weigh more, so the XV might weigh more than that. That said, they do also focus on making the XV light, and that was 6 years ago, so they’ve likely gotten lighter. So, the XV may well be as light or lighter than the others. But based on the info I have the NOW O-Drive would be the lightest/stiffest option that I’ve tested. Board feel isn’t the best though, IMO, so the Atlas FC might be your best bet.
Hello! I am interested in Jonse flagship and yes pick your line, can you introduce them? My height is 188cm and my weight is 82kg, us10.5. What size do I need for the two? thanks
Hi Gilbert
Thanks for your message. And apologies for the slow reply – have been on family vacation and been on the road.
For the Flagship, I would be looking at the 161 for your specs. Should be wide enough for your boots too. Though the waist is 252mm which is borderline for 10.5s, the width at the front insert will be around 269mm and 264mm at the back insert. That said, if you have a very straight back binding angle (i.e. 0 degrees, 3 degrees, etc), and bulky boots, then it would be pushing it, in which case you would want to look at the 162W or even 159W if you wanted to err shorter. The 164 is also a possibility, if you were wanting to maximize stability at speed and float in powder, at the cost of maneuverability. Kind of depends on how you like to ride. But purely based on specs, I would be leaning 161 or 162W, depending on how comfortable you are width-wise getting on the narrower 161.
For the PYL, I’d say 160W or 162 are probably your best bet. You might get away with the 159 width-wise, but it’s pushing it. 263mm at the back insert. So it’s doable, but the 160W is probably the safer bet. The 162 is also a possibility, but I would be leaning 160W or 162, depending on how much width you think you’ll need (which will depend partly on how bulky your boots are and your binding angles.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you reply! If I go to various ski resorts in North America and can only bring one snowboard, which is better, Flagship or PYL?
Hi Gilbert
Really tough choice. So long as you didn’t want to spend heaps of time in the park, riding switch, buttering etc, then both are going to be good in various ski resorts. The PYL, IMO, is a little better in icy conditions and I prefer it for full speed and carving, but very close in those aspects really – and the Flagship I prefer in powder. But it’s such a close call and you can make a bad decision between them. If you think you’ll be hitting deep powder more than icy conditions, then I’d probably lean Flagship, if visa versa, then I’d go PYL. Also if you’re someone who likes to bomb a lot, then that could lean you the way of the PYL.
Thanks for your reply, I already have the answer, I will choose jones flagship. But I don’t want to widen it. Because that would lose flexibility in the woods. My bindings angle is 18. -9. Please suggest me a length that suits me best. thanks
Hi Gilbert
With your binding angles and the fact you have Ions which are nice and low profile, I don’t think you’ll have to go wide, so the 161 for the Flagship is just right, IMO.
Hey Nate,
I’m looking for some help with sizing a Flagship. I’m:
5’6″
135 ish lbs with gear
Size 8 step on Ions (small binding)
I’m not sure if I should go with the 151 or 154. I like to ride pretty fast all over to keep up with with my skier friends in Vermont but I also ride with some friends that are beginners-intermediate in NJ. I was leaning towards the 151 for manuverability at low speeds but I’m concerned about loosing a significant amount of top end speed. What do you think?
Thanks.
Hi Gil
Thanks for your message.
Given that it’s a freeride board, the 154 is a possibility. I wouldn’t go that long in an all-mountain or freestyle board for you though. I’d put your standard “all-mountain” length at around 150 for your specs (assuming an advanced level). So, I think you’re more pure size is the 151, but the 154 is doable because of the style of board. I think it depends on how much you’re going to be riding fast versus how often you’re going to be riding slower, with the beginner/intermediates and/or in trees. If you think it’s going to be about 50/50 or more often the latter, then I’d go 151. If it’s going to be predominantly riding fast and/or in deep powder, then the 154 certainly comes into play.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi,
I’m 5’8, 155lbs, size 10 boot. I ride out west about twice a year. Ride mostly the bowls and groomers, usually go with skiers so end up on some moguls and tree runs. I have a Jones Explorer 156, from 2017 I think which I was looking to upgrade. I have a few questions:
I was thinking 2021 Flagship at 158. Is it crazy to go to 154 to help with moguls/trees, would there be a difference?
Part of me wanted an Orca because of hype, I rode it at 150 and felt it was very slow gliding, had to unclip and skate a lot. Kind of slower on groomers. Is that expected or I got a bad board with bad wax? Also I saw a post above related to Orca vs Flagship, you seemed to say Flagship better for moguls / trees? More maneuverable?
Genesis X bindings OK with Flagship?
Thanks so much, amazing how much time you put into answering everyone’s questions.
Hi Umber
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flagship would be a great upgrade from the Explorer for the type of riding your describing.
Size-wise, I don’t think it’s too crazy to go 154 for your specs. In fact, if you’re looking for a similar size to the Explorer 156 – the 154 is essentially the equivalent size. The Explorer is a board that rides short for it’s size (effective edge on 154 Flagship same as 156 Explorer). You could still ride the 158 with your specs, but it would be on the long end of your range. The 154 would certainly help with trees and moguls. The 158 will be better for speed and powder, but with your specs, I think the 154 would be fine with stability and speed and powder. The biggest question mark on the 154 is the width. The back insert on the 154 is around 258mm (assuming a 22″ stance width).
I’ve ridden boards with that width with 10s and not had any issues, but I do typically ride with a 15 degree angle on my back foot. If you ride with a straighter back binding angle and really like to get deep on your carves, then there could be some risk of boot drag. So that’s the biggest thing to consider with the 154, IMO. Otherwise, I think the size would work for you.
Yeah, IMO, the Flaghip is easier to maneuver in tight spots (e.g. moguls/trees) and it glides better than most. When I do a glide test for most boards, it feels about the same, but there are the occasional board that either feels like it doesn’t glide well at all, and the occasional board that I really notice the extra glide. The Flagship (and a lot of Jones boards) glide really well. Note that I wax boards before testing, for a consistent reading.
I think the Genesis X (Re:Flex) would work well with the Flagship.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. Would love your opinion. I’m 6’1 200 and grew up in Quebec riding ice and woods and steep pitches in search of powder. I board two times per year now mostly with my wife (in Colorado or Jackson hole) and am definitely described as a hard charging rider going fast and flying thru anything in my way. Powders all I want but that’s hard to find. A straight shot pitch thru some trees with powder and something cool to clear / jump over sounds nice. I’m 33 and have weak legs and am not in good shape. I have a 2011 custom X and 2019 driver X and base x est. all very stiff. I was thinking hometown hero or a new custom x or the flight attendant and keeping the bindings and boots but I had a decent experience testing the flagship and am considering that as well and just getting new bindings. What do you think? And if I go Jones what bindings should I get? I am partial to stiffer. I’m not concerned about price. I ride so rarely at this stage I want it to be perfect. Also what size? I think my custom is a 164w but maybe that’s bigger than necessary
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
Given you like to bomb and prefer stiffer, I think the Hometown Hero you might find a little soft. Potentially even the Flight Attendant you might not find stiff enough. (though if I have it wrong that you don’t necessarily want the board stiff, like the boots and bindings). But given your love for powder (and I can’t blame you for that, nothing like fresh pow!), something a little better in powder than the Custom X is definitely worth considering. If you wanted a more directional version of the Custom X, with some rocker in the nose, then the Burton Straight Chuter would be your best bet. Only thing would be whether the 162 would be wide enough. Given that you’re riding a wide now. But if you could let me know your boot size, that would be help – and help for sizing others too.
If you were looking to go a little softer in the board, then the Flight Attendant (still not soft or anything, but more like 7/10 flex versus 9/10 on the Custom X (by my feel)) would work for what you’re describing for sure – and size-wise, the 162W would work well, IMO. Or possibly even 162, depending on boot size.
The Flagship would also work for what you’re describing, IMO. The Flagship (7.5/10 by my feel) is a little stiffer than the Flight Attendant but not as stiff as the Custom X (or Straight Chuter). Size-wise for the Flagship, I’d be looking at the 162W, most likely – though the 165W and maybe even 164 would work too, depending on boot size.
In terms of bindings for the Flagship, I’d look at the following, which should all be a good match for the Flagship and your propensity for stiffer bindings:
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m currently riding a 2016 Burton Flight Attendant. I’m looking for the same kind of board but with more grip and edge hold when I’m riding northeast hard/icy groomers but floats well when I travel in Utah or France. I’m leaning towards the Flagship and the LibTech BRD. Which one would you pick? I’m 5’8″ and 170lbs and size 9 Ride Insano boots ; what size would be best suited? Thank you!
Hi Charles
Thanks for your message.
Both would give you better edge hold in icy conditions, IMO, with the BRD giving you more than the Flagship.
The Flagship is better in powder, IMO, but both are really good there. I don’t think you’d be dropping anything for powder going from Flight Attendant to BRD, assuming similar size-wise. You’d gain a little in powder with the Flagship.
The BRD, by my feel is softer flexing than the Flagship. BRD I felt more at 6/10 flex (with a noticeably stiffer tail than nose – I’d say more like 7/10 in the tail and 5/10 in the nose and around 6/10 down the middle), compared to the Flagship at 7.5/10. I felt the Flight Attendant at 7/10. So, assuming similar sizing and that you get the same feel, the BRD will likely feel a little softer than your FA and the Flagship marginally stiffer than your FA. Depending on whether you think you’d want stiffer, softer or around the same, in terms of flex.
Size-wise, I would say:
Flaghsip: 158 – assuming no freestyle riding. 154 is an option, but unless you were riding a lot of freestyle and/or trees, then I’d probably be leaning 158.
BRD: 156 or 159 – tough call on this one. I think the 156, if you want to optimize maneuverability (especially if you’re in the trees a lot) and 159 if you want to optimize powder float and stability at speed
Also somewhat depends on what size you were riding with the Flight Attendant. If you were riding 156 FA and wanted to keep it relatively similar, then I think 158 Flagship is the closest equivalent size. For the BRD, the 156 is probably the closer equivalent size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the fast answers. It realy helped me pick my next board!
You’re very welcome Charles. If you think of it at the time let me know what you go with and how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, after reading your other reviews and the advices you gave in the comment sections, I finaly went for a PYL. It’s been awsome last season and a Perfect upgrade from my last Flight Attendant. It hold edge nicely in icy conditions and floated well at Revelstoke. Thanks for the great work and your website.
Hi Charles
Thanks for the update. Always great to hear followup feedback and insights. Awesome to hear that the PYL is treating you well. Makes me want to get back on that board again!
Hi Nate, I just bought the 172 2020 version of the FS. My measurements are:
Height: 6.3ft
Weight: 227lb
Size: 11
The length of my Nitro Capital TLS boots measure 12.6in and my feet are 10.8in so the shoes got a very big footprint..
I haven’t received the board yet but I’m a bit worried that this board isn’t wide enough considering how big the boots are. I usually have a 15+\~15 duck stance but I will probably go a bit straighter with the back stance on this board since I don’t plan riding switch with it. Do you think the 172 will fit or should I have gone for the 169w? This board is mainly going to be used for pow and tree runs, I got a 164w MT for the groomers. I used the MT for powder runs last season but my back leg cramped up due to the lack of floatation which is the main reason for the FS purchase.
Hi Lars
Thanks for your message.
I think you should be fine with the 172 width-wise with those boots. You’re looking at roughly 275mm (10.83″) on the back insert (280mm front insert) at a 22″ stance width. If you have a wider stance width that that it will be a little wider at the inserts than that. No guarantees of course, but I think you should be fine with that, even with straighter binding angles.
12.6″ (320mm) for an 11 isn’t really bulky, given it will have a mondo of 290 – so 30mm (1.2″) longer on the outsole versus the mondo . It’s not super low profile, but about the average based on all the boots I’ve measured. But yeah, it definitely sounds bulky comparing it to a 10.8″ (274mm) foot size. I’m surprised you had to go to the 11. I have a 271mm (10.67″) right foot and 273mm left foot (10.75″) and I usually get into a 10 for most brands. Some brands 10.5 and some 9.5. But I don’t test Nitro boots, so I’m not sure how I’d fit in those. But regardless, I think you should be OK width-wise on the 172. I mean if you’re going to be eurocarving and with a completely straight back binding angle, then it could be pushing it, but in most scenarios I think you should be OK.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanx for the feedback. That sounds reassuring, I don’t plan on eurocarving just yet at least not in the powder 😜
You articles are much appreciated, keep up the good work 👍🏼
You’re very welcome Lars. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate, I really appreaciate your review! I’ve been riding a 2013 Burton Custom X forever, but looking for a board that’s more floaty / fun in the pow and more responsive in tight trees. My ideal day is grabbing fast twisty powder lines, but bombing groomers when pow isn’t available. I like airs and drops but I usually don’t do miuch in the park. I was trying to decide between this and the Kazu Kokobu Pro. I basically buy a board every 5-10 years. Any thoughts?
Side note: As for bindings, will a stiff 8/10 binding be good for both bombing and tight trees? Is there a techy reason to upgrade over my 10-year old stiff bindings? Thanks again for all your help and info!
For the Flagship and Kazu, I think 8/10 would match the boards fine – and certainly work for both bombing and tight trees. I’d say 8/10 is a flex level that would prefer bombing over tight trees. 7/10 perhaps a little better balance between the 2, but it would also depend on your weight and strength. If you’re a heavier/stronger rider, then you can exert more force with less effort, so an 8/10 might be the most appropriate. If you’re a lighter rider, then probably 7/10 is a better match.
If you’re bindings still work fine, I would try them out on the new board to start with and if you think they could use a change after trying them, then yeah. Bindings have gotten a little lighter, I’d say and certainly strap tech, adjustability and dampening tech have gotten better. But I wouldn’t say you definitely have to part with 10 year old bindings if they’re still in good condition and you have no obvious issues with them.
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
You’ve narrowed it down to 2 great options, for what you’re describing, IMO.
The Flagship is a little better in powder, IMO, but both an improvement over the Custom X. The Kazu is a little more maneuverable in tight trees, but the Flagship is still good there – and again, I would say both an improvement in that area over the Custom X. Both would be a drop when it comes to really bombing at speed and for big carves over the Custom X, but they’re also certainly not bad for those things. But you would be taking a step down in those aspects.
I’d say the Flagship is mildly stiffer than the Kazu, but not much in it, IMO (7.5/10 verus 7/10), but both softer than the Custom X, by my feel.
Kazu I found a little better for jumps.
Sizing might make a difference too, depending on your specs.
Hope this helps
Hi Nante, what do you think about Burton Wave Tracer? It seems to be like Flagship or Kazu Kokobu Pro, but sadly there’s now detailed review on it. Are you planning to test it as well? Or maybe you already have some thoughts about this board? Thank you!
Hi Ivan
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t tested the Wave Tracer yet – can hopefully get on one this winter, if they’re going to be doing a 2023 model of it.
But just based on specs, it looks like it’s quite different to the Flagship and Kazu. It’s similar in some ways (like being a tapered directional board), but there are two big things that will make it quite different.
Firstly, the camber profile. It’s got Burton’s Flying V camber profile (rocker between the feet, then camber underfoot, then rocker again towards tip and tail), which is quite a loose, surfy feeling profile. The Kazu and Flagship are Hybrid camber (camber between and under the feet and rocker towards tip and tail). They have a much more stable, precise kind of feel, in comparison.
Secondly, the flex. The Wave Tracer looks to be more mid-flex, with the Flagship and Kazu more mid-stiff. Having not ridden the Wave Tracer it’s hard to say what the flex is in comparison in reality, but based on experience with other similar Burton boards, I’d say it’s softer flexing overall.
So the Wave Tracer is likely to be a looser, more surfy, more playful kind of ride versus something like the Flagship or Kazu.
Hope this helps
Nate, Thanks for such a detailed answer! That helps a lot
You’re very welcome Ivan. Happy riding!
Hi Jon, I have the same situation. Now I’m using Burton Custom and thinking of changing it to Flagship or Kazu Kokobu Pro. Have you decided? What’s your choice? I’m also considering third option, Burton Wave Tracer.
Hi Nate,
I bought the Jones 2021 flagship but am thinking of exchanging for the stratos and could use your opinion.
I’m an intermediate rider who rides variable conditions in Vermont and out west. I like a relatively playful board opposed to super stiff. I stay away from the terrain park, love powder when I can get it, love tree lines, mess around with side hits and am starting to flirt with drops. I’m not the fastest rider but like to have the capability/stability to straight line when I want to.
I’m basically concerned the flagship doesn’t have as good of quick turn ability as the stratos and therefore won’t be great in the trees/thrashing in general
I’m 27years old, 5’11 165lbs. And bought a 158cm flagship
What are your thoughts?
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
I actually found the Flagship slightly better in the trees than the Stratos, but both are actually pretty good for their flex, from my experience. And the Stratos feels just as stiff to me as the Flagship. Whilst Jones rates the Flagship 8/10 and the Stratos 7/10, I found the Flagship to feel slightly less than that – and the Stratos slightly more – to balance out at about the same flex (around 7.5/10).
The Stratos is a heavier board too – which maybe contributes somewhat to the board feel differences. I actually found the Stratos to be better in terms of stability at speed (and again some of that might be weight) but the Flagship more nimble at slower speeds.
I think you’re right on with the 158, size-wise.
Note that this is referring to 2020 Flagship and newer. The 2019 and previous models felt stiffer and more of a bomber and something that wasn’t as good for riding slow or in uneven terrain, but it got a big overhaul for the 2020 model which changed it quite a bit. If you bought a 2019 or previous Flagship, then it would be different. In that case, I would change to Stratos, but assuming you have a 2020 or 2021 Flagship, I think it’s the better option for, for what you’re describing.
It’s still quite a stiff board, but it’s mellowed out compared to what it used to be and much improved for slow speeds and uneven terrain than what it used to be.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I am an intermediate 6 level rider and owns a Jones MT already, which is plenty for what I need tbh. I plan to attend 4-5 weeks of snowboarding camps in Whistler BC next yr to advance my skills, so I am wanting to get a jones flagship while its on sale now.
Would it be a good complement for Jones MT? I want to use the MT for working on my switch riding and a small amount of freestyle and the flagship for better POW and carving. Else would the mind expander/hovercraft be better? Thanks!
Hi Ian
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flagship would be a nice compliment to the MT. It’s a very different board – stiffer, very directional and something you wouldn’t use for freestyle or switch, but a good step up for powder and carving. The Mind Expander not a great carver, IMO, so might not be that suitable. Great in pow, but not so good for carving. The Hovercraft (haven’t ridden it but based on specs and experience with other Jones boards) would potentially offer a bigger difference to the Flagship and would almost certainly be a good carver, great in powder and good at speed too.
So yeah, I think both the Flagship and Hovercraft would be a good compliment to your MT and work well for what you’re describing. Having not ridden the Hovercraft I couldn’t say from experience how it rides, but the Flagship is an awesome deck. One way to pick between the two, might be which has the best size option for you. I would be happy to give a sizing opinion. Would need your height, weight, boot size and the size of your MT.
Hope this helps
Hi,
I am 175lbs and 9‘5 (US10 Boots)
I can’t decide between the 164 and the 161.
The Flagship would mainly be used for bombing and just bombing. I also own a Korua Stealth 156, which is my carving board.
I see that you weight more than me and ride the 158. do you think the 164 will be too much, even for mainly bombing?
Hi Bob
Thanks for your message.
I could happily ride the 161 on this board, and if I was just bombing, I likely would. Don’t know that I’d go to 164 though personally. But it’s doable if you’re just bombing. Don’t think I’ve ever spent a day just bombing. But yeah, if that’s all your doing, then 164 would give you a more stable platform. Will just be sluggish trying to turn sharp, particularly when riding slowly. But if you’re really just bombing, then 164 probably the best bet.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, love the site!
I’m debating between the Flagship 161 and 164.
6’2 205 lbs sans-gear. 10.5 or 11 boot. I currently ride a YES Basic 161 and I’m looking for something a little more aggressive. I enjoy bombing down the mountain but also like to duck into the trees.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 164 for you for this board. But 161 is certainly doable. In terms of effective edge you’re looking at roughly the same from the 164 Flagship as on the 161 Basic (obviously two very different boards in other aspects, but if you didn’t want to go down in terms of effective edge that’s something to consider) – there’s more board outside the contact points on the Flagship, so you can go a little longer on it. But I wouldn’t say 161 is off limits. Some other things to consider:
– The 161 will be easier to maneuver in the trees and generally more forgiving and feel a little softer flexing versus the 164
– The 164 will feel more stable at speed, float better in powder and be better for big high-speed carves
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I am looking to upgrade from my Jones Frontier 156 to a Jones Flagship and was wondering if you could help me pick a size. I am 5′-10″ 150 pounds and am usually a 10 in shoes and my last pair of Burton snowboard boots were 10s. In my new Adidas Tactical ADVs I am a 9.5. I am mostly riding groomers on the east coast with a trip out west for a few days every year. I am looking to ride east coast groomers and also more powder and side country on the Flagship on my trips out west. I think if I had to choose between more maneuverability and speed/stability I would choose more maneuverability. I am leaning towards the 158 but after reading other peoples comments here and other places it looks like I could also squeak by on the 154 or 161. Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks!
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t go as long as 161, particularly given that you would choose more maneuverability over speed/stability. So, I would be debating between the 154 and 158. I would say you’re all-mountain size is around 155. For a freeride board like this you can ride longer, so 158 isn’t out of range. The 154 is certainly doable too (and with 9.5 Tactical ADVs would be wide enough, IMO), if you wanted to really maximize maneuverability it could be a good choice. The 154 would be the closest equivalent size to the 156 Frontier. Some other things to consider:
– The 154 will be easier to manage, more maneuverable and feel a little softer flexing and a little more playful
– The 158 will provide better float in powder and more stability at speed
Hope this helps
The only thing I worry about is I was a 10 in my old boots and now am a 9.5 in my new Adidas boots. Just worried about in the future if I got a different boot would a low profile 10 boot work? Or would it have to be a 9.5. Just wondering if sizing down for the extra maneuverability would be worth it. I guess you basically did that with the 158 tho and your size 10s?
Thanks for all of your help!
Hi Brian
Yeah, it would be a closer run thing with 10s on the 154. I was very comfortable with 10s on the 158, but the 154 is around 258mm at the back insert. So it’s borderline too narrow for a 10, IMO. Even a low profile one, particularly if you were to be riding with a relatively straight angle on the back foot. I have ridden boards with a 258mm width at inserts and haven’t had issues with low profile 10s on them, personally, but I ride with a 15 degree angle, typically, on the back foot.
Hi Nate
Your expert advice is much appreciated 🙂 Even reading your replies to other peoples questions is very helpful.
I currently own a Burton Custom Camber 2015 162W & Never Summer Proto Type Two 2019 158W. I’m not really into jumps (too old), I like to carve and also do a little off-piste.
I got the PT so I could learn switch and try out a different riding style, and it’s a great board, a lot of fun. But both of these boards are pretty bad in pow. So I was looking at the Jones flagship, so I could get into the pow and have more versatility.
I’m 185cm, 85kg and size 10.5 boots. I have Nitro TLS boots which are incorrectly labelled as US 11.5 (the EU size is correctly labelled as 44 2/3). I do have a little overhang on the PT with these boots, as they are quite large, but I never have drag. My bindings are Burton Genesis RE:Flex.
I was tempted by the Gnu Müllair 161W, which would be a good match in size (and it’s on sale), but I’m worried that it would be too similar to the Custom.
So I’m tossing up between the Flagship 162W or 161. I’m worried that the 162W might be too wide. I wanted to get a longer board than the PT, so 161 is the absolute minimum length. But I’m also worried the 161 might be too narrow, unless maybe I buy new boots. The 164 is unfortunately sold out, so that’s not an option. I like to make quick turns and agility is important for me, so I wouldn’t go bigger than 164.
Which board would you go for?
Thanks!
Skyler
Hi Skyler
Thanks for your message.
Typically with 10.5s, I would say go 161, and that’s probably the case here too. But I’m not familiar with Nitro boots and how bulky they tend to be.
The Flagship 161 is roughly 265mm at the back insert (roughly 270mm at front insert). With 10s, I find I am comfortable with anything 260mm+ at inserts and often ride boards 2-3mm narrower than that I haven’t had any boot drag issues. So with 10.5s, I would be comfortable with 265mm. I do tend to ride low profile boots and +15/-15 binding angles. But even with a straighter back binding angle I think it’s doable. Given you like to make quick turns, I would try to get on the 161, as the 162W will be quite wide for that boot size, IMO.
But that all depends really on how long the outersole is on the TLS boots, which I unfortunately don’t have any experience with.
For reference, the PT2 158X is roughly 271mm at the inserts (worked out from measuring a different size of that board), but you can double check that if you wanted to measure it. Measure at the center of your bindings on the base of the board from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge.
Some overhang is fine (and is actually good, IMO) but, of course, you don’t want too much that it causes drag.
161W Mullair is around 268mm at the back insert. Not much difference between the waist and the insert on that board. So I think that’s a good width too. I wouldn’t say it’s that similar to the Custom Camber. It’s better in powder. But it’s certainly not as good in powder as the Flagship, IMO. So, if you’re wanting that bigger contrast for powder float, which I’m guessing you do to round out your quiver, then the Flagship is certainly better there, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
Thanks for the advice! Very helpful.
You’re very welcome Skyler. Happy riding!
Hi Nate
I changed my mind.. I think I would be happier with the Flagship 164, because I want to really get into carving and powder with this board. I think the 164 would be a great compliment to the PT 158X and I want to go for something that’s noticably longer (or at least feels longer).
But they are sold out of the 164. So it’s down to the 161, 162W, 165W or 167. I think the 165W is going to be too wide, so we can probably eliminate that option.
I measured my Nitro boots. They are quite big, 31cm from toe to heel and I haven’t had any issues with the PT 158X, in terms of width.
What would you say about the Flagship 167? Would it be too long for me? At 85kg I should be OK weight wise, but I’m worried I would lose too much agility at 167. And going from the PT 158X to the 167 seems a bit extreme. I’m almost leaning towards Flagship 162W, as I could probably get away with it with my Nitro boots.
Thanks,
Skyler
Hi Skyler
I think the 164 would be fine for you, if you had it available, especially in something like the Flagship, which you can ride a little longer. But that’s probably the longest I would go, so I would be weary of the 167 feeling too big – especially where maneuverability is concerned.
The 162W is roughly 275mm at the back insert and 280mm at the front insert. So, it’s a good bit wider than the PT2 158X. But if you don’t mind that wider feel, then it’s probably OK. Note that with it being that much longer and being a little wider, that it’s certainly unlikely to feel as maneuverable as the PT2 158X or versus the 161 Flagship. You will gain in terms of powder float versus the 161 Flagship though, for sure. And a little more in terms of stability at speed. And it does give you more leeway in terms of really leaning into your carves without any risk of toe/heel drag. But the one thing to note, is that the leverage on the edges predominantly comes from your feet – so a longer bulkier boot won’t add to that leverage, at least not significantly, in my opinion. That’s not to say that it’s out of range width-wise, necessarily, but just something to consider.
Hi Nate
Excellent advice, as always.
I went for the 162W in the end, because I didn’t want to buy new boots, and also for better float on powder.
I was just standing on it and made some measurements. My back foot is OK, but my front foot has a lot of underhang. Around 12mm, to be precise. Do you think that’s too much? I could return it for the 161, if it’s the wrong size.
Thanks again,
Skyler
Hi Nate
Sorry, my last message was wrong. I just measured correctly and the front foot underhang is 7mm, not 12mm. So it’s quite wide at the front, but not as wide as I thought. Is 3mm of additional underhang too much?
Hi Skyler
If it’s 7mm total underhang (adding the underhang from your heel and your toe) and that’s measured on the base of the board against the metal edges (as opposed to on the top sheet), then that should be all good. 12mm would be a different story (would be bordering on being too wide). But assuming that’s measured on the back and it’s total underhang, I think you should be fine with that. Not ideal, but doable, particularly if you’ve gotten on with your wide PT2 in the past.
Nate
Great review. I have a sizing question for the Flagship. I’m 5’4, about 150 lbs., and wear size 7.5/8 boots. I mostly ride in the trees/powder/uneven terrain. I’m just curious whether I’m better suited to get a 154 or 151. I’ve ridden an old 154 NS Premier for over a decade. Was thinking about sizing down to 151 but was concerned I’d give up some float. Any thought/suggestions for me? Thanks in advance.
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
It’s a close call between them for sure. I think I would be leaning 151. I think it’s a more pure size for your specs, but since you’re used to a 154, and the 154 is certainly still in range for a freeride board like this, it’s definitely an option. The 154 would definitely give more float in pow than the 151, but the 151 will give you more maneuverability in trees/bumps.
The Premier isn’t a board that I rode, but based on specs, my guess would be that the Flagship is better in powder in general. Taking away that surface area of 151 Flagship versus 154 Premier though, the 151 Flagship might be about the same, or potentially slightly less floaty – hard to say for sure, but I would say that the 154 Flagship would likely have better float than the 154 Premier, and sizing the Flagship to 151 wouldn’t loose as much float as going to a 151 Premier – again I haven’t ridden the Premier, so I couldn’t say for sure, but that would be my guestimate.
Hope this helps
Thanks.
Very much appreciated!
Jason
You’re very welcome Jason. Happy riding!
Nice review, but please learn the difference between lose and loose. It hurts my brain to keep reading that.
Hi Andre
Sorry! And thanks for pointing that out. I do know the difference, of course, but sometimes it slips out. I do often write about whether a board is “loose” feeling or stable or locked-in etc. So I’m writing the word often. But I will try to keep a better tab of those typos. I have corrected on this review now, so I hope that can ease your brain pain!
Hey Nate,
I need a sounding board on the binding situation I am in with the 2020 Jones Flagship. So the specs:
Me: 42 yes old, Male, 5′ 11.5″ height, size 11.5 Salomon Malamutes, weight 225lbs w/o gear. I am a left foot lead guy with bindings set at +22 deg front foot, and – 3 deg rear foot. I consider myself an Advanced to high advanced ability. I can ride blacks pretty well, but prefer fast blues and trees.
Board: Jones 161 Flagship, yup I know its to short for my weight/height, but I am using my weight as a cheater method to get around the stiff board issue, and I am loving the way the board rides compared to all I have ever ridden.
Riding style: Bomber, Carver, POW, and trees…never was very good at jumps, so I do small ones.
Bindings, this is the issue. I 3D printed 15mm risers for my bindings to get my feet off the board and to help with power transfer. I have ridden Burton Cartels most of my life, but tried Flow M9 bindings with this board, and I hate them. So I am binding shopping, and need some thought based on the following choices and my riding style/setup on this board.
The bindings I am considering:
Ride El Hefes, Ride C-8/A-8, C-10/A-10
Now Drive/Recon
Flux XV/XF
Rome Targas
I am trying to stay in the $300 range, but willing to go up for the right binding. I am not a perfect rider all the time, but I love it when the board reacts when I want/need it to. I can charge when needed, but also relaxed when with my kids as they are learning.
I am looking for something that will help me tame the board while still be kind to me.
Any thoughts/reflections would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
John
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the new Ride bindings yet, so I can’t say for sure on those, but for what you’re describing, I think I would be leaning C-8 or A-8, there.
For NOW I would be leaning Drive.
For Flux I would be leaning XF.
I don’t test Rome gear, so can’t really say anything about the Targa.
Just leaning towards that more more mid-stiff flex as opposed to stiff stiff, based on what you’re describing. Because you need some level of forgiveness for when you’re riding with your kids. And something like the Drive/XF will give you more response than something like the Cartels (based on my experience), but still having that little bit of forgiveness.
IMO the XF is a better all round binding than the Drive, but the one area where the Drive is considerably better than the XF is with shock absorption. You can see my reviews for both on site.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate! Thanks for the review! 🙂
I’m 175cm, 62kg and 9.5 US boot size. I decided to buy the Jones Flagship board, but I’m not sure which board length would be the best fit for me. What do you think?
Hi Hristijan
Thanks for your message.
For your specs for this board, I would go the 154. I think that’s spot on for your specs for this board. You could certainly ride a little shorter length for a freestyle kind of board, but for freeride and this board, 154 is spot on, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your message. 🙂
I wear size 9.5 Burton SLX boots and I worry about toe and heel drag. Do you think that with size 154 it will be okay?
Hi Hristijan
I wouldn’t be too concerned with boot drag with Burton 9.5s on this board. The Flagship is quite wide at the inserts versus the waist width, so it’s wider than it looks by just looking at the waist width. And Burton boots are quite low profile and have a good amount of toe bevel on them, so, IMO, I think you will be fine width-wise on the 154.
Hi Nate,
I am trying to decide between the Jones Flagship and Arbor Coda Camber. I have been riding an arbor element for the past 4 years and have pushed it past its limits looking for stability at speed and whilst carving. I never go into the park but if I do ill hit little jumps nothing major. Looking for an all mountain of some sort to fit my new intermediate/advanced riding. Powder performance isn’t a deal-breaker for me I belive the jones would handle it much better but if I have the opportunities I will ride it regardless. If you have other board suggestions I am open as well!
Best, Zach
Hi Zach
Thanks for your message.
They’re quite different boards. The Flagship more of a freeride board versus the Coda Camber being more all-mountain. The Coda Camber is directional twin with a centered stance versus the Flagship with a tapered directional shape and a setback stance. The Flagship is marginally stiffer and the Coda Camber has, as the name would suggest more camber.
Performance-wise, like you say, the Flagship is better in powder, by a good way, but in terms of carving/speed their both quite similar overall, albeit with a different feel. The Coda Camber better for jumps but the Flagship better in uneven terrain, IMO.
The Coda Camber is probably more in line with a high-end intermediate level versus the Flagship. However, in saying that I think the Flagship is doable for that level. Overall I’d say that I preferred the Flagship.
Hopefully that gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate!
I was deciding between the Flagship and the Orca. I mainly enjoy freeriding, trees, drops/jumps, chute, sidecountry and backcountry. Could you compare the boards for me? What would you say the strengths and weaknesses of the two boards are compared to each other? Thanks!
Hi Rich
Thanks for your message.
For powder, carving and riding at speed, both have pretty similar performance in those areas, IMO – a different feel, but overall perform as well as each other in those areas. However, I found the Flagship to be more maneuverable at slower speeds and better in uneven terrain. Also preferred it just slightly for jumps. So for those reasons, based on what you’re describing, I would go Flagship. It’s the board I preferred of the two. They are both definitely designed for the type of riding your describing, but I would be leaning Flagship personally.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Sadly I missed a deal for the Falcors so I got the Union Atlas for a really good price. I think the Atlas might be on the softer side for the Falsghip. Would the 9/10 stiffness of the Salomon Malamute compensate the bindings and get the right amount of response for the Flagship?
Im thinking about getting those Malamute as my second boots (next to my Salomon Dialogue).
Would that make sense?
Looking forward to your review of the Ride C-6‘s.
Regards,
Hendrik Weißenfels
Hi Hendrik
Yeah, I think Atlas on the softer side for the Flagship, but still definitely doable. I think going with stiffer boots like that would compensate to some extent. Not fully, because you’ve still got that softer link in between, but I think it would certainly help to compensate somewhat. The Atlas not going to need a whole lot of compensation on the Flagship, IMO, but certainly wouldn’t hurt to have stiffer boots on it.
Hi Nate!
great and accurate review as always!! I took Inspiration from this review and I bought exactly the same set up Flagship 2020 + Burton Malavita. I wanted to ask you, what´s your opinion about those bindings on the Flagship?
Because I looked at your Malavita review and I was afraid they were too soft for the Flagship, but then I saw them in a shop and I must say they seemed pretty solid to me!! So I bought them.
So my question is, what do you think about this combo you tested with? Would you say the Malavitas are Overall a good match for the Flagship?
Thanks!!
Rob
Hi Rob
Thanks for your message.
The Malavitas are my testing bindings, so I use them to test all the board’s I ride. They certainly worked with the Flagship, but ideally I would ride stiffer bindings on the Flagship. Definitely not wrong for it, but if you were being fussy, like I like to be, then I’d go a little stiffer. The Malavitas do have quite a stiff highback, which makes them seem stiffer than you think when trying to twist the highback or bend it back, but the baseplate isn’t that stiff, so the overall flex feel is more medium – to me anyway.
So yeah, they’re not wrong on the Flagship, but ideally I would personally go a little stiffer.
Hope this helps
Hi, thanks for all the great info over the years. I’m going to get the 2021 flagship. Looking at the 158 or 161. I am 5’11, 180lbs, and size 9.5 Salomon boots. I can’t decide which I would like. I currently ride a Jones mtn twin 157, and a frontier split at 159. Would the 161 feel too big? Want to find a happy medium between bombing powder, ripping groomers, and tight free ride turns in trees and natural features. Thank you.
Hi Nick
If you want to get a similar length feel (certainly a very different feel overall, but similar in terms of length) to your 159 Frontier and 157 MT, then the 158 is the way to go. If you’re looking to get a bigger feeling board, then go 161. Both are fine for your specs. I am similar specs to you and I really enjoyed the 158. I do prefer to go a little shorter as I do like to ride trees a lot and have that extra maneuverability, so I would personally go 158. Strictly looking at specs you’re probably fit closer to the 161, so that’s definitely an option. So it really depends if you value more maneuverability for those tight tree spots or if you value stability at speed/float in powder more – and if you think you’d prefer a similar feeling size to your other boards, or if you wanted to go a little longer.
Hope this helps
Thank you very much. I do love tree riding and having a little more manuerverability in the backcountry. Would I notice a huge difference on stability at speed and not as stable on carves with losing that extra effective edge? I ride jacksonhole a lot and it can get tight in certain spots but also many areas to bomb? And yes I will be looking at those shops. Thank you
Hi Nick
Definitely a noticeable difference to stability with that 3cm difference. But I wouldn’t say a huge difference. If you rode them back to back you would notice that difference though, for sure. But they’re not worlds apart or anything.
Hi, should I get the Jones Flagship for 450€ or the Ride Berzerker for 200€?
Both are new and the 2020 version. Is the extra price for the Flagship worth it?
Stability at higher speed and good edgehold on icy snow are important to me.
(I hope I didn’t post this two times, but the message didn’t show up)
Thanks in advance!
Hi Hendrik
Thanks for your message.
I did get your other message – and I’ve answered it on the Ride Berzerker review. You can check out my reply there.
Hi Nate- Thanks to you and your team for your dedication to the snowboarding community with great gear advice. I’m an advance level rider who loves to bomb. 95% of my riding is resort riding and 5% is side country. I love the steeps and I never hit the park. I do enjoy moguls, side hits and trees as well.
I do have another board for those tighter situations that you help me pick out (Salomon Assassin Pro 159cm 255 waist width) for days that I’m cursing the resort and enjoying riding switch. I’m looking to update my 164cm Flagship and I’m wondering if I should get the same size Flagship or should I go 162 wide or even 159 wide for my specs. I’m 5’9”, 190lbs, and 10.5 size foot. I wear the 32TM-twos that have good reduced sized foot print. Bombing and stability is the priority. Being nimble in trees on moguls would come next. This is my second Flagship at 164cm and never really caught a toe or heel during carves but you can see the wear and tear on the toe strap on the outside for toe side carves. I also own the Hoovercraft 160cm with a 264 waist since last season. The wider waist has been super fun to lean aggressively on carves hence that I’m now rethinking the to move to a wider Flagship plus on the Jones site I constantly see them suggesting wide boards for 10.5+ but I don’t think they’re using your width at inserts approach to sizing.
I’m having a tough time deciding if I should go wider width to improve the lean and feel/experience on a carve and a shorter to be a little bit more nimble. Will a shorter and wider board be as nibble as a longer and smaller waist board? 164 vs 162wide vs 159 wide… which one would suggest?
Hi Rick
Thanks for your message.
Very good questions.
Firstly, in terms of your question “Will a shorter and wider board be as nimble as a longer and smaller waist board?”. In my experience it depends on how short you go with it, but typically I find that a longer, narrower board tends to be more nimble. But that’s only to a certain point. In this case, I would predict that the 164 would be more nimble than the 162W for sure. But the 159W might be as nimble or potentially more nimble than the 164.
The Flagship is quite wide at the inserts vs the waist width, especially if you’re riding at the reference stance of 600mm (23.6″). The 2020 model even more so. I tend to ride Jones boards at 560mm stance, just because I prefer that to 600mm, but even at the narrower stance, you’re looking at something quite wide vs the waist. I would predict the following width at inserts for the 3 different sizes (estimated based on measuring the 158).
159W: 275mm on back insert, 280mm on front insert
162W: 275mm on back insert, 280mm on front insert
164: 266mm on back insert, 271mm on front insert
If you’re riding narrower, like 560mm, then I would take off roughly 2mm from each of those.
So for 10.5s, for hard carves, I think the 164 is wide enough, but it’s on the narrower end of wide enough, if that makes sense. If you’re really looking to get those carves low, then I can certainly see your reasoning to want to go a little wider. I think you get away with the 164 again, like you have been, but if you want that bit more, and if you’ve enjoyed having the extra width on the Hovercraft, then I think wide will work for you.
Whether it’s the 159W or 162W is a tough call, but I think I would be leaning towards the 162W, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, given that it has a long nose, and that a good amount of that length is outside the contact points, that going a little longer with this type of board makes sense. Comparing it to the Assassin Pro 159 for example, the 162W has an effective edge of 121cm and the 159W 118cm. The effective edge on the Assassin Pro is 120.5. So going up 3cm, you’re only actually going up by 0.5cm in effective edge. Secondly, I think the 162W is probably a better compliment in your quiver to the Assassin Pro 159. And if the bombing and stability is the main priority on this board, then I think going for the longer option is the way to go.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
These insights really help. Especially with the perceptive of the longer & narrow vs short & wide debate. I ride 578 stance so I took on 1mm off your 3 suggestions and I can see I have more than enough for my size of foot on a 164. So I’m going to stay at 164 and if I want lean more, I’ll jump on my Hoovercaraft. Thanks again for taking the time to help out Nate!
You’re very welcome Rick. Happy riding!
Hi Nate! Thanks for the awesome review 🙂
Sizing….6’0.5” x 165lbs x 10.5 US Burton Ions….161 or 164? What do you think? I ride everything, like to use the mountain like a park, love big carves but also slashing anything that looks like a wave (I surf a lot…) :):)
Hi Yannos
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the Flagship is something that I would use to ride the mountain like a park. I would go for something all-mountain-freestyle for that. But if you like to also ride powder, then all-mountain is probably the way to go. The Flagship is a very directional board that’s strengths lie mostly in carving, powder and speed. You would certainly be good for big carves on it, but whether you would find it wanting for side-hits, spins, riding switch etc is the thing I would consider.
Also, sizing-wise, going longer certainly helps with stability at speed, float in powder and big carves, but you’ve got to also weight that up with maneuverability for trees, side-hits etc, if you’re going to be using it for that, which usually means trying not to go too long. With the Flagship, it is something you can ride a bit longer, since it has a large nose – so the effective edge vs overall length isn’t that high.
If you are still set on the flagship, then I would be thinking more 161, or even 158, if you’re wanting it to be more freestyle oriented. But yeah, given you’re weighing up between 161 and 164, and what you’re describing, I would go 161.
Hope this helps with your decision
It might be a bit odd that I’m posting here but the women’s flagship review hasn’t been updated in a while. I have several questions about board choices and all.
Love my Yes Hel Yes 149 for going in between the trees and for powder. Last year I decided to get a 2019 women’s Flagship 152 since I was debating about getting the women’s Solution and I had tried the solid Dream Catcher and I didn’t like it.
Finally used the Flagship earlier this season and it’s like night and day difference with it in the trees. Maybe since it was just my first day but it is definitely harder to maneuver in the trees and the edge to edge transitions are slower. It was great going down a wide powder field.
Based on your review it looks like the new redesigned Flagship is better in the trees. Do you think it’s worth it to consider upgrading from 2019 to 2020 or to just keep it? Is it possible that I have to get use to the slightly longer board.
2020 solutions weren’t redesigned. Likely they will be redesigned for 2021. However I do really like the graphics for 2020 solutions. Is it worth it to consider waiting for the 2021 solution?
I have been debating if I should get the 152 or 156 women’s solution hence sizing up wiht 152 women’s flagship. I’m 164cm, 150lbs, size 6.5 feet. Which sizing would you recommend for a splitboard? Should I look at the 148 or is that too small?
Hi Undecided
The 2020 Flagship is a different beast to the 2019 model. It is better for riding in trees and better in uneven terrain. The 2019 and previous models were certainly more suited for point and shoot and really charging more in a wider/straight line kind of way. The 2020 is more maneuverable. It’s still quite a stiff board, which naturally makes it less maneuverable at slower speeds than a softer flexing board, but compared to the 2019 model, it’s much better in terms of being able to ride it slower, through tighter spaces.
Getting used to the size is part of it too for sure. Given that extra length, extra stiffness, and the more “bomby” nature of the 2019 Flagship vs the Hel Yes, it’s going to be more difficult to maneuver especially in tight spaces. The extra length does make it less maneuverable, particularly at slower spaces – and even size for size the 2019 Flagship would be less maneuverable to begin with vs the Hel Yes.
In terms of the Solution. If you want to get those same changes, then you’re right you would have to wait for the 2021 model. The 2020 didn’t change to match the 2020 Flagship, but will for the 2021 model. It depends what you want out of it. If you wanted something a little more maneuverable, then the 2021 would be worth waiting for.
I certainly wouldn’t go to 156 for the Solution, but the 152 might work. The 2020 Flagship/2021 Solution both have less effective edge compared to overall length than the previous models. So going 152 on the Solution would mean you would have less effective edge vs the 149 Hel Yes. So I would say you’d be fine at that length. I wouldn’t say the 149 Solution would be too small though. It’s an option too – but you would be dropping relatively significantly in terms of effective edge vs the 149 Hel Yes. But it’s certainly in range.
Between the 149 and 152 it’s a weigh up. With the 152 you’re going to get better float, particularly in deeper powder and more stability at speed. The 149 will sacrifice a little in those areas, but be more maneuverable at slower speeds. If you would be taking your Solution in trees a fair amount, then there would be more of an argument for the 149. However, if you were going to be mostly in open terrain and likely to see deeper powder on it, regularly, then the 152 becomes more appealing.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
i’m looking for a Freeride Snowboard with a very fast base. I sway between a Jones FS or a Burton FA. Which one glides better? Or do you know even faster Freeride Snowboards?
Hi Markus
Thanks for your message.
This is an easy one. Whilst the FA isn’t bad in this area, the Flagship is the best glider that I’ve ridden, I would say. Usually I don’t notice that much difference if it’s a well waxed, sintered base, but Jones boards, particularly those with the 9900 sintered bases noticeably glide more. So yeah, if that’s a big thing for you, then the Flagship for sure, IMO.
Hope this helps
Looking at this board or a Burton FA. Can’t really decide. Currently on an older never summer Premier T5 165 and feel like it’s time to upgrade. Like going fast. Stay mostly on trail and some chewed up stuff. Will hit the powder when it’s there but nothing too deep. Don’t go near the parks. Any recommendation between these two? Was also looking at the W versions but the waist I ride now is a 258 so not sure it makes a huge difference if I got regular or wide. Thanks. 6’1. 180lbs. 12 boot.
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would say the biggest differences are that the FA is a little better in terms of speed and carving and the Flagship better for powder. The Flagship is probably more suited to trees/tighter terrain, but the FA isn’t bad there either. Based on what you’re describing, I would say the FA is probably the most suited, given that you’re not often in deep powder (and the FA is very good in powder anyway). Both would work, for sure, but I would be leaning towards FA for you.
Size-wise, I think wide would be the best idea with 12s, but if you’re confident with regular width, you could go regular. But with your specs, I would say 162W for either the FA or Flagship. You’d be going a little wider than your current board, but a little shorter too. That’s the way I would go, if I was in your shoes.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate! Thanks a lot for the great review.
I’m thinking of buying the flagship as my first snowboard. Tough i can’t decide if i should get the 165W or the 169W.
So i weigh 220 pounds (around 100 kgs) and im 6’2. My foot size is 13 (46 EU).
I really like carving and want to also ride well in powder. I would say im an intermediate rider and I’m looking for a good board that can grab hard snow (since the conditions aren’t great where i live), that can hold an edge really well and also float in powder when i get the good conditions.
Though i would say maneuverability is pretty important for me aswell. I don’t want the board to feel too heavy below my feet on groomers.
So i was thinking that the 169W would be a good option with the 27 waist width (I don’t want a lot of toe and heel overhang) . However im a little sceptical that the board may feel kinda big since it’ll be wide and long at the same time (169W).
Do you think the 169W would be a good option for me? I know this depends on alot of factors but just in the “on paper view”, what would your suggestion be?
Do you think i would get some toe or heel overhang with the 165W option when im carving hard with 13 size boots? Would it be better just to go with the 169W for deeper carving?Would love to hear your take.
Thank you so much in advance mate, keep it up!
Ps. I’m looking in the Flagship as an intermediate because i want a board that is geared towards carving but can still do some skidded turns. Other boards that are geared towards carving are usually really stiff and not so well with skidded turns (as i researched through lots of reviews)
Plus this years new changes for the flagship made it really stand out for me as it got a little softer and the taper got more emphesized.
Also, my options are a little limited as my boot size is 13. Didnt want to go with the skunk ape as i really want a board that is more designed to carve and hold that edge well. The flagship having that mellow magnetraction was a big bonus for me too.
Hi Berkan
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I think the 165W is right on for you based on specs, ability and how you describe your riding. 169W is certainly doable, but on the long side. Going 169W would give you more float in powder and stability at speed, but not as good for maneuverability.
Width-wise, the 169W would give you more leeway with 13s, and I think there’s some risk for boot drag on both sizes, particularly if you ride with a relatively straight back binding angle. I would estimate the width at inserts for each size to be as follows (based on measuring a different size):
– 165W: 278mm at the back insert (reference stance) and 283mm at the front insert
– 169W: 282mm at the back and 287mm at the front
Assuming 33cm long boots, you would have about a total overhang of 5.2cm on the back foot on the 165W, with a completely straight binding angle. So roughly 2.6cm overhang per edge. That’s something I would be comfortable with, particularly with a little angle on the back binding, but it’s in the range for potential boot drag for really low carves.
So yeah, if it was me, I would go 165W, as that’s the better length and doable width-wise, IMO. But it depends on how much you want to mitigate the risk for boot drag.
If you wanted to go really wide, and with a good carver, the West Bound 160DF (drag free) could be worth considering. Certainly wide enough. You would be sizing down in terms of length, but it’s seriously wide (also a good carver with good edge hold, IMO).
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Wow, thanks a lot with the great reply , this was incredibly helpful. One last thing. Do you think I would be able to lay some fast carvs and have fun with the Jones FG 165W with 29,5-30 cm long feet (just checked). No euro carvs or nothing. Just a guy who likes to carv. I can’t exactly tell how much 2,5 cm of overhang for each side would be.
Again Nate, thank you so much for taking the time writing an amazing reply, and I definately am going to consider the Westbound DF if you think the jones may be a little too narrow for me.
And what are your thoughts on the Nitro Magnum. Couldn’t see any reviews on it actually but on paper looks like a good option aswell.
Hi Berkan
I haven’t ridden the Magnum, but it is a wider board. I would be looking at the 163W for you, if went with that. But yeah can’t really say that much about it having not ridden it. And not sure what the width at inserts is like compared to the waist. Based on other Nitro boards I’ve measured, I would guess it’s around 280mm at the inserts. But that’s very much just a guess.
Hi Berkan
It’s really hard to tell if you will have any drag issues or not. I never have with that kind of overhang, but I’ve heard others complain about boot drag for lesser overhang (though I suspect they were euro carving). I would personally be OK with that kind of overhang, but no guarantees for sure. What’s the make/model/year of your boots. That could make a difference too. And what binding angles do you typically ride?
Hey Nate, sorry for my lil-delayed response! So I usually rent boards since in my country it’s basically impossible to find a wide board for sale (I’ll be ordering one from abroad this summer). I’ll probably get a boot with shrinkage tech (Maybe the Burton Ion’s) and I usually ride +15/-15.
Hi Berkan
With those binding angles and a low profile boot like Burton, I think you should be fine on the 165W Flagship. No guarantees of course, but I would be confident with that setup personally.
Thanks a lot Nate! I think i definately would be.
Just rode a 2018 159 e-jack knife this weekend. I just loved the board by the way, felt so locked in and the faster I went the better it just felt and it was an amazing carver. Had a TON of fun! Especially after renting shitty boards the whole time (not suited for my size and old boards), the difference was like night and day.
So, first I got 12 size burton boots and there was basically no overhang (I got the stance pretty wide with +/- 15 binding angles).
However the size 12 boots was a little small for me and started to give my front toes pain after 2-3 hours of wearing them (thought it was doable when I first wore them)
So the next day, I went with my usual size 13 boots on the same board and it didn’t give me any problems.
So I definately think the 165W would be more than okay untill I’ll be able to carve extremely deep which won’t happen soon.
So anyway, just wanted to talk about my experience and looking at it, your advice seems perfect. Thank you a lot for the answers man, appreciate it greatly! Love the website and hope you keep it up as it is !! This was a great help
You’re very welcome Berkan and thanks for the extra info there. Hope you have a great season!
Yo Nate! Great info here and Happy New Year!!
I’m 6’1″ & 240lb figure 250 loaded up with camelback etc., 10.5 boot.
According to the Jones specs the 169W is the shortest board for my weight…that seems crazy long…
I currently ride a 2009 Burton Vapor 162 and love it. I just demo’d a 2020 Flagship that was a 165W and it felt really long…any insight on what’s behind these weight ratings? I feel like the 164 standard width would be most ideal for me but have concerns about the weight recommendations.
Any insight would be appreciated.
HI Beau1k
Thanks for your message and happy new year!
I do like to take brand’s weight recommendations into account, but for me that’s just one piece of information to consider when looking at sizing. Just taking height and weight into account, I would say something around 166, assuming an advanced level, is about right, but that’s certainly not set in stone. Taking into account your riding style, what you’re used to riding and personal preference are all factors too. Since you’re used to a 162 and that’s something you feel comfortable on, coming down from that 166 isn’t a bad idea.
Another thing to take into consideration is that the Burton Vapor had more effective edge per overall length than the Flagship, so going a little longer in the Flagship vs the Vapor is also not a bad idea.
Then taking width into consideration, I think with this board you would probably be better off on the regular width. With 10.5s is often an in between size and depends on the board, but with the Flagship, the width at the inserts is wider in comparison to the waist width vs a lot of boards, which gives you a bit more leeway to get on the regular width. And if you were fine on your regular width Vapor, then I don’t see any reason to go wide. Certainly going 169W is going a little big, IMO – for the combination of width and length. So, I would personally, with your specs and board history, be weighing between the 164 and 167.
I think part of the 165W feeling long for you would have been the width as well – so the 167 might actually feel like less board overall for you. But given what you’re used to and the feeling you got from the 165W, I would be leaning 164, and I don’t think that’s overly short for you at all – it’s not far off the 166 that I would put you on just based on height and weight.
One more thing to consider is how you ride. If you like to bomb straight lines down the mountain, ride plenty of deep powder etc, then going a little longer might be a good idea. But if you also like to be able to maneuver through tighter spots as well – like through trees etc, then taking a little size off helps.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi there,
recently purchased this board. which bindings would you recommend with this board that are reasonably price,
Thanks,
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. A bit behind and trying to catch up after vacation.
I would say you want to go for something at least 7/10 in terms of flex. Typically stiffer bindings are more pricey than softer bindings, but there are some reasonably priced options that I think would work really well with the Flagship. Just don’t expect them to be ultra low price – that’s just the nature of stiffer bindings. But the following are lower priced options, that are still really good bindings, that are in that 7/10, 8/10 flex range.
– Flux XF
– Arbor Cypress
– Flux TT (the lowest price option I know of in this flex range)
– Salomon Alibi (the next cheapest to the Flux TT)
– Salomon Alibi Pro (this one is more like 8/10 flex, the rest above more like 7/10 flex)
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nick, thanks for the review!
Currently debating between this board and a yes pyl. I mostly ride trees/slack country, so I really need a board that is very nimble and can turn quickly. Based on what I’ve read, the pyl might have a slight advantage in this area, but I really hate the graphic this year (I know, I know, a bad reason to base purchase).
Is there enough difference between how these two boards ride to matter? Obviously if the ply blows away the FS in trees, then I’ll deal with the not so good graphic… but if very similar, well I think the nicer looking board would win for me. What do you think?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Steve
If you were looking at the 2019 model Flagship, then I would say definitely the PYL over the Flagship in trees. But the 2020 Flagship is a much improved board in trees, IMO – so there’s very little in it now in that area. So, I think you would go well with either in terms of trees. But if you’re looking at the 2019 Flagship, then go PYL, IMO.
Another thing to consider is sizing down a little, to help make it more nimble/quicker turns.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the very fast reply!
I am in fact looking at the 2020 model boards. Also, I weigh ~185lbs with size 11 boots and was thinking to go on the smaller end of the spectrum since this will be mostly a tree board. Since I have a bigger boot, I was thinking either 160W for the PYL (1190mm edge) or 159W FS (1180mm edge). Do you think either will be too short given my stats? If not, do you think the FS and PYL differences in ride performance and nimbleness are pretty small overall (with steep trees in mind)?
Sorry if I’m asking the same question again, I just want to make sure I’m going in the right direction before I pull the trigger! I’m leaning toward this years FS simply because I love the look and hear they made big improvements (plus I cant find last years pyl for sale anywhere, and this years graphic is pretty bad IMO), but worry as I’ve read reviews in the past calling the FS a plank that doesn’t like to turn, and that is still kinda stuck in my head. Last thing I want is to make a big purchase only find out I made a mistake on my first tight tree run 🙂
Cheers!
Hi Steve
The biggest difference with the 2020 Flagship is it’s turning ability and it’s a seriously better board in the trees for sure. That was the biggest thing I noticed with it. I rode the 2019 FS & PYL back to back and the PYL was streets ahead at that point for trees, but I didn’t ride the 2020 PYL, so I haven’t ridden it back to back, but based on my notes and scoring system, there wouldn’t be a whole lot in it between them now for trees. I did ride the Flagship against the Frontier (formerly Explorer) and I found the Flagship more nimble than the Frontier. The old Flagship certainly wasn’t as nimble as the old Explorer. That said, if I had to pick, I’d say Pick Your Line, just that little bit quicker edge-to-edge. But that will also depend on sizing.
I rode the 159 PYL (2019) & the 158 Flagship (2019 & 2020). Flagship 158 has a 249mm waist but isn’t as narrow as it sounds. The width at inserts is 266mm at the front insert and 261mm at the back insert (and that was riding at a 560mm (22″) stance. The reference stance on the Flagship is 600mm (23.6″), where it would be wider again but that’s wider than I like to ride – and probably if you’re riding trees and want that extra maneuverability, then coming in a little (depending on your height) from that 23.6″ stance might be worth at least trying to see what you like better. The PYL 159 has a waist of 253mm and is 260mm at the back insert and 263mm at the front insert (tapered boards tend to be wider at the front insert, even when they’re setback). For reference I am 185lbs, 6’0″ and wear size 10 boots.
With 11s, it’s probably getting a little narrow on those, but I wanted to give you more info of what I rode on. I certainly don’t think 160W and 159W would be too long, given your weight and that you want to ride in trees. But if you could also let me know your height that would be great. Even though weight and boot size are the most important factor for sizing, I still take height into account.
The 160W PYL is likely to be around 267mm at the back insert and 270mm at the front insert. That’s going to be a really good width for 11s, IMO. Wide enough but not so wide that it’s too wide (which can lead to slower edge to edge transitions).
The 159W Flagship is likely to be around 275mm at the back insert and 280mm at the front insert (going at a 22″ stance). This is getting on the wider side. Not ultra wide, but on the wider end for 11s. I’m usually happy with anything up to 265mm with 10s – which would translate to 275mm for 11s. I can go a little wider if there’s a narrower waist, but with a wide waist and more than around 265mm I start to feel the board get a bit sluggish.
That’s probably way more info than you bargained for, or wanted, but hopefully it gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Mate
Could u recomend what size i should buy.? About 80kg and boot size 8,5.
Hi Jakub.
Thanks for your message. Can you also let me know your height. Whilst weight and boot size are the most important sizing factors, I also take height into account.
Cheers for quick reply
I am 178cm.i am thinking abou 161 board
Hi Jakub
Generally speaking for an all-mountain board, assuming you’re relatively advanced rider (which I assume you are if you’re looking at the Flagship), then I would say around 159. Being a freeride board, given that you’re going to use it charge, hit powder etc, then I think the 161 is your best bet. If you were going to be doing a lot in the trees and wanted a bit more maneuverability, then you could also ride the 158. For your boot size, I like the 158, but depending on how you ride, I think the 161 is the better length/width combo. But yeah like I say if you’re wanting more maneuverability/short sharp turns kind of thing, then 158 a definite option, but if you’re looking to get that float and stability at speed, then 161 would be your best bet.
Hope this helps
Hey man, hoping to get your thoughts. I’m looking at a Flagship. Here’s my story. I’m advanced/expert level rider but haven’t bought a board in a few years. I grew up in Utah and my main thing is bombing the hill as fast as possible, sending it off natural hits. Pretty much never ride park. Most recently, the Salomon Powder Snake has been my go-to board when there’s fresh snow, and a K2 parkstar for the other days. Never summer SL was a favorite back in the day too. Here’s the catch. I’m 6’3” with very long legs so I like a really wide stance. But I only weigh 165-170 pounds. In the past, high-end boards long enough to work with my stance and give me some float were often too stiff for me because of my light weight and tossed me around too much and made it hard in the rough. Boards like the Powder Snake, lower end but still sintered, are usually softer and work well. Anyway, I’ve moved to Oregon and I’m looking for a board to use exclusively in the side and backcountry. There will be some powder, but it’ll usually be heavy, sometimes slushy or mashed potatoes, maybe even hard. My question is, would a Flagship 166 end up being too stiff for me on that sort of terrain. I don’t expect to ride it on rough terrain often, but steep and fast. Everything else about the board seems perfect. I want something that does well in the occasional powder but especially handles steep fast lines and holds an edge on hard snow when called for. But I don’t want to get worked over by a board that is too stiff. Anything other boards you’d recommend? I also wear a size 12 boot but I’ve always felt fine with a waist of at least 25 my wide stance helps reduce toe drag.
Thanks for any advice.
Hi Brigham
Thanks for your message. Please see my reply to your other comment for more details.
Specifically for the Flagship, I feel like this is going to be a little too stiff, to be ideal for what you’re describing. It’s not the stiffest I’ve ridden but it’s on the stiffer side for sure. I would say 8/10 stiffness. Some of the boards I mentioned in my other comment are probably better for what you’re describing, in terms of being softer flexing.
Another option I didn’t mention in that post was the YES Hybrid. It’s a shorter/wider version of the YES PYL, and is softer flexing too. YES rate it 7/10 flex, but I felt it more like 6/10 flex. The longest size is 161, which might be smaller than what you’re used to. But it’s also relatively wide. Even though you were saying that you don’t have issues on regular width boards, even with 12s because of your wide stance, that extra width would allow you to go a little shorter. However, that’s only if you wanted to go that way. If you want to stick to narrower and longer, check out some of the options on the other reply. Note that I was considering wider options in that post, but if you’re confident with narrower boards, then you could look at different sizings of those.
The PYL is another option (possibly 165, or 162), though it’s possibly a little stiffer than ideal for what you want. I’d say 7.5/10 or maybe even closer to 7/10. A little softer than the Flagship anyway.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much. Sorry for doubling up, I accidentally closed my window and couldn’t figure out where I made that other comment.
All good – and you’re very welcome
Hi, quick question: I’m thinking about buying the Jones Flagship 161, seems to be a great board. I wear shoes US 10. Do you think the regular 161 is ok or do I need a wide board? Thanks!
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
With US10s you shouldn’t have any issues with the 161. I rode the 158 with US10s and had no issues on that (all be it with +15/-15 binding angles and low profile boots).
The 158 measured 263mm at the rear insert and 260mm at the front insert, which in my experience is always enough. The 161 is likely to be more like 265mm at the rear insert and 262mm at the front insert – so a bit more leeway. Note that this is for the 2019 model and the same measurements differ for the 2020 model which had a couple of changes (one of them being more taper).
The only thing would be if you had longer profile boots, rode with a very straight angle on your back foot, and liked to get really low on your carves (like Eurocarves), then you would have less width to work with, but even then you might be OK. The other thing to note is that the reference stance on the Flagship is quite wide (600mm). With a narrower stance you would be setting up on a narrower part of the board, so that would take off a couple of mm.
But yeah, in most scenarios, you should be good on the 161.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi!
Thank you for rating and review!
Really useful information.
But why this board doesn’t cover Icy Snow option?
As I know it has Magne-Traction grip, is should deal with Icy Snow.
Hi Artem
Thanks for your message.
The Flagship is pretty good in icy snow. The rating there isn’t to say that it can’t deal with icy snow, it’s meant as an indicator as to how well it will deal with hard/icy conditions. I’ve found others that deal with it better, so the Flagship doesn’t get full marks for this. But it is still really good there, and that Traction Tech certainly helps. It’s also good to note that the Traction Tech is relatively subtle on the 2019 Flagship (what Jones describes as Traction Tech 2.0). The 2020 model is going to have more Traction Tech (Traction 3.0) – and that is partly (IMO) because that model has a lot more taper, so that extra traction tech helps to compensate for a potentially more washy tail.
It might help to think of this as more like it getting a score of 4/5 for hard/icy conditions, and not that it can’t ride in icy conditions.
Hope this explains it
Thank you for expanded explanation!
Is it possible to perform butter tricks on such stiff board?
Hi Artem
You can if you’re really adept at butter tricks, but certainly not easy to do on this board. Not made for that in my opinion, and even if you’re an expert at butter tricks, it will be doable but not easy – and not as fun as a lot of other boards. Typically boards of this flex won’t be good for buttering.
Hey Nate,
So I’ve been demoing the flagship some more and I think it’s a great board however it’s not as damp as I would like. I can feel every vibration when hitting speed especially on the morning groomed slopes. Amazing in soft snow and powder but I would be kidding myself that I see this all the time…
Is there a board that is similar to the flagship but is more damp at high speeds and doesn’t feel like I’m going to snap my knees?
I tried my buddies GNU Mullair and that is very stable at high speeds but I think I prefer having camber between the bindings than rocker.
Thanks for your help Nate.
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
Note that I found the Flagship to be very stable at speed, so this might not help that much if you found it not to be. I don’t find it great in uneven terrain, but at speed I found I could really bomb on it. But you could check out something like the YES Pick Your Line or Burton Flight Attendant, both of which I found were better in uneven terrain (and are both camber between/under the bindings, like the Flagship.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate for your wisdom. I’m extremely grateful for your help so far.
I think I might pull the trigger on the GNU mullair as I played with It again and actually had lots of fun while also giving me the extra confidence since I wasn’t feeling the micro vibrations underfoot.
I get the feeling the yes PYL might be similar in terms of dampness as I was under the impression the flagship was slightly more stable than the PYL at speeds.
I also tried the burton Custom x and boy does that thing rip. Incredibly stable but I know it’s not a freeride board. I just wish there was a board that had the flagship characteristics but the dampness of the custom x / mullair.
I was also looking at the funslinger as my play around board but luckily I also had a demo on this and I didn’t really enjoy it.
I had an old school Yes the greats which I had to give up since it was on its final legs. So I think I’m leaning more towards this bit I’ve seen they have had a bit of a revamp with the sizing etc. This will be my all mountain freestyle. I’m between the 156/159.
I’m 210lbs with 9.5uk Adidas adv tacticals.
I will most likely be getting the mullair at 161W since this was the one I had demoed but unfortunately the only one they had. I could really get some deep carves without the thought of wiping out.
If I get the 161W mullair for my freeride/back country
156 yes greats for my all mountain freestyle? Or 159 based on my weight?
156 funslinger I thought I was going to break 🙂
Hi Luke
I would say that the Flight Attendant is the closest thing to the Custom X in a freeride form. But if you’re digging the Mullair, then that’s a safe bet. That rocker between the feet on the C3 camber is so subtle, it’s practically all-camber, I’ve found. Size-wise, I think 161 is good for length. It’s whether it would be worth going 161 (which you’d probably fit on with UK9.5 Tactical ADVs) or 161W but like you say, you’re really have no concerns about boot drag and going 161W gives you more leeway on those deeper carves. Also, it’s not massively wide for a wide board either, which works for you, IMO.
For the Greats:
The Funslinger is a softer board, and narrower – so going 156 on the Greats, would be a sturdier feeling experience for sure, IMO. Also the Greats 156 has a bit more in terms of effective edge vs the Funslinger 156. Still in the 156, the Greats would feel quite soft flexing for you, IMO. It would certainly be a more playful Greats, than if you were to go 159.
The 159 would be a little wider even than the 161W, I would predict. Based on measuring different sizes of the 2 boards, I would say that the Mullair 161W, would be roughly 270mm at the inserts, whereas the 159 Greats would be roughly 276mm at the inserts. The 156 Greats is 273mm at the inserts (reference stance) from my measurements (measuring on the base, metal edge to metal edge).
So, I think 156 would be doable for you for the new Greats, but just know that it would be a softer more playful version than what the 159 would feel like. But it should feel, IMO, more sturdy than the Funslinger in the 156. The 159 would still be one you could play around with, it’s still not as much board as the Mullair.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nick!
Just got this board in 162w length on a crazy discount.
However I am 87kg and started doubting if it will be too short for mny 87 – 90 kg. What is your weight?
Hi Vlad
Thanks for your message.
I was roughly 84kg when i rode this board. The width was too wide for me on the 162W but th length was doable. I’ve since ridden the 2019 model in the 158 and I liked that size. Though I’d say the 161 would be the best fit for me (for what I would be using this board for).
I think 162 should be fine for your weight. It would be more about your boot size, whether they’re suitable for the width. If you could let me know your boot size and also your height too, that would help to make a more informed recommendation
Hi,
It’s 12 US feet (30 cm) and 192 cm
Hi Vlad
Thanks for the extra info.
The width should definitely be good for you, wide is the way to go for your boot size.
In terms of the length, overall, I think it’s good. You could have also ridden the 165W with your specs (particularly if you’re an advanced rider and mostly ride fast and spend a fair bit of time in powder), but the 162W will work with your specs too, IMO.
Hi Nate,
Just bought this board in 162W. I’m looking to pair some bindings with it but I’m hearing the APOLLO high back is quite high and quite stiff. Thoughts on a good bonding to pair? I’m off to Japan in a few weeks and super excited. Thanks Justin
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t tried any of the Jones bindings yet, so I’m not sure first hand about the stiffness/height of the high back on the Apollos.
If you were wanting something not too stiff, but stiff enough for the Flagship (I wouldn’t go too soft, as per my previous reply), then something on this list would be a good bet for you:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope you have an awesome trip to Japan!