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: $649 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Stiff (8/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating Score: 88.6/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Out of the 36 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: | $649 |
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+ |
159W | 263 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
162W | 263 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
165W | 266 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
169W | 270 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
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 from the 2020 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 from the 2019 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 from the 2018 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 from the 2017 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 | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.0 | 16/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 5.0 | 20/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.0 | 12/15 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 88.6/100 |
The Flagship changed quite a bit for the 2020 model vs past models and I really liked the changes. The 2021 model is virtually the same as the 2020 model, except for the inclusion of the "float pack" inserts and a different graphic.
The 2020 and 2021 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.
Whilst the score, coincidentally is the same as the 2019 model - the individual factor ratings changed - with speed going down and uneven terrain and jumps both improving.
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.
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!