Hello and welcome to my Jones Hovercraft 2.0 snowboard review.
In this review I will take a look at the Hovercraft 2.0 as a Freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Hovercraft 2.0 a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and also see how it compares with other Freeride snowboards.
As the name suggests, the Hovercraft 2.0 is an evolution of the original Hovercraft, just as the Aviator received the 2.0 designation a couple of years back. Read on to see what we thought of the new Hovercraft 2.0.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Hovercraft 2.0 2024
Price: $599 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Freeride
Flex Rating: Mid-Stiff
Flex Feel: Mid-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 86.4/100
Compared to other Men’s Freeride Boards
Of the 35 current model freeride snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Hovercraft 2.0 ranked 9th out of 35
Overview of the Hovercraft 2.0’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Hovercraft 2.0’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
FREERIDE
PRICE:
$599 - BUYING OPTIONS
$599 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID ROCKER
DIRECTIONAL HYBRID CAMBER - Jones' "Directional Rocker" profile.
SHAPE:
setback stance:
SETBACK 0.8" (20mm)
BASE:
Sintered | Jones's "Sintered 8000"
weight:
Felt LIGHTER THAN normal
Camber Height:
5mm
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
144 | 251 | 90-140 | 41-63 |
148 | 255 | 90-140 | 41-63 |
152 | 259 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
156 | 263 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
160 | 267 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
164 | 271 | 170-220 | 77-100 |
* since the Hovercraft 2.0 replaced both the Hovercraft and Women's Hovercraft, they have more extensive sizing to fit more riders.
Who is the Hovercraft 2.0 Most Suited To?
The Hovercraft 2.0 is best suited to someone looking for a board that is optimal in powder. But while you could happily use this as a dedicated powder board, it's so good on groomers and in trees (even if there wasn't powder there) that it could also be a one-board-quiver, depending on your style.
I mean, if you like to hit rails in the park, do spins, butters and ride switch a lot, then it's not for (or at least it's not for you as a one-board-quiver). But if you seek powder when it's there and when it's not like to cruise the groomers, pop in the trees and hit the occasional side-hit or drop, and you want something that's stable enough for a bit of speed, but don't want anything super aggressive, and you don't do anything freestyle, then it could be a great one-board-quiver.
Not for beginners. It's not ultra-stiff or ultra aggressive or anything like that but still too much for beginner and even low intermediate riders would likely struggle.
THE Hovercraft 2.0 IN MORE DETAIL
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Hovercraft 2.0 is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Hovercraft 2.0 2024, 156 (263mm waist width)
Date: April 12, 2023
Conditions:
Plenty of sunshine and prefect visibility.
Temperature was around -3°C (27°F) - and -8°C (18°F) with wind chill. Though felt warmer than that. In the afternoon was -1°C (30°F) and the same with wind chill.
Morning wind 5kph (mph) northerly, afternoon also 5kph (3mph) but WSW.
24hr snow: 5" (13cm)
48hr snow: 6" (16cm)
7 day snow: 32" (82cm)
On groomer: Choppy in a lot of spots, flat and smooth in others. Hard pack with some soft on top.
Off groomer: Freshies! Largely tracked but some good untouched spots too. Nice soft, light powder too.
Set Up
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 22.8″ (580mm)
Stance Setback: Setback 20mm (0.8")
Width at Front Insert: 11" (279mm)
Width at Back Insert: 10.8" (274mm)
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Response ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita, M
Weight: 7lbs 5oz (3,310grams)
Weight per cm: 21.22 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.71 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. The Hovercraft has the biggest difference to actual weight and weight feel than I've experienced before. On the scales it's rather heavy (though the extra width is part of the reason for its higher grams/cm) but on snow it feels nice and light. Note also that Jones lists the weight of it at 6lbs 6oz (2900grams). So I may have got a particular heavy one to test. If that's the case, then at its listed weight it must feel super light.
How it Differs to old Hovercraft
1. New shape. You can visually see the different shape, particularly in the swallow tail.
2. New reclaimed core.
3. New size 144 (which helps to make it unisex) all other sizes are same as before
4. Waist width wider (e.g. 25.5cm on new 148, was 24.9cm on old 148)
5. Contact length a little longer on new model (e.g. on 148 is 94.1cm vs 93.6cm on old model).
6. Effective edge also slightly longer (e.g. 116.1cm on new 148, was 115.6cm on old.
7. Longer sidcut (e.g. 8.4m on new 148, was 7.9m on old 148).
8. Tip length and tail length changes (e.g. new 148 has 39.2cm tip and 14.7cm tail, was 38.9cm and 15.5cm on the old 148).
9. Tip and tail width changes (e.g. new 148 is 30.2cm tip width and 28.5cm tail width, was 29.6cm and 28.4cm on old 148).
10. More taper - 17mm of taper now, where it was 11.5mm of taper on the old model.
11. Now made from recycled boards.
So lots of changes!
Powder
Felt amazing in powder! We didn't have it waist deep or anything but there some good pockets and it felt so good floating over on this board.
And that's no surprise given it's specs. Directional camber profile, with rocker in the nose, 17mm of taper, longer nose than tail, a contoured (spoon bevel) in the nose and 3D channels in the tail.
Carving
Was really decent on a carve, particularly for how much taper it has. Not quite as carvy as the old Hovercraft was, but still decent.
Turning
Ease of Turns/Slashing: While it wasn't quite as good for carves as old model, it was definitely better for slashes and easier/quicker to turn (despite being wider than the old model).
Maneuverability at slow speeds (nimbleness): Really decently quick edge-to-edge at slower speeds. More so than the older model and, given it's width, better than expected.
Catchiness: Didn't feel catchy to me. A little more mellow feeling and more forgiving of errors than the old hovercraft (which wasn't super catchy or anything either).
Speed
Decently fast and really decently stable at speed. Good glide too.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Handled messy snow well. It's quite damp, but not super damp, but I think the spoon bevel in the nose helps here - as well as the rocker towards the nose.
Trees/Bumps: So good, especially when there's powder in trees. But that edge-to-edge quickness really helps too.
Jumps
Got better for jumps vs the old Hovercraft, IMO. Was really fun on drops and hits in trees.
Pop: Not oodles of pop but not bad. And relatively easy to access.
Approach: A good mix of stable while also easy to make line corrections and speed check.
Landing: It's decent on landings when you get it right, but there's not a lot of room for error if you land too tail heavy - not much tail there. This is the weakest part of this board for jumps, IMO.
Side-hits: Fun for side-hits and drops. Not so much for spinning off side-hits though - and, again, when landing you don't want to get too tail heavy.
Small jumps/Big jumps: While it's stable enough for bigger jumps, the landing gear doesn't inspire heaps of confidence. If you get it wrong on a bigger jump, there are bigger consequences. So for the park, it's better for smaller jumps, IMO. But if you're hitting jumps into powder, then you can go bigger with less fear - and because of how well it floats in can handle powder landings well.
Switch
It feels weird riding switch. Like, really weird. Definitely not what it's designed for. I mean, you can. I did. But it's feels weird and definitely not suited to it. There's very little tail going on and the swallow tail and rocker and spoon bevel in the nose, which is now behind you. I could go on, but you get the picture!
Butters
Not easy to press nose or tail. The nose presses OK flex-wise, but it feels far away and long and awkward. The tail doesn't press much and feels small and yeah, not a good butterer, but again, definitely not what it's designed for.
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 | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
SWITCH | 1.0 | 1/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 86.4/100 |
I had a blast on the Hovercraft 2.0 and wanted more time on it!
Personally I preferred it to the old Hovercraft but there could be some that don't. I found that it's not quite as good for carving as the old Hovercraft but got better for trees, tighter turns, slow speed riding in general, slashing and jumps. And even though the old Hovercraft was awesome in powder, I think this has gotten even better.
And it maintains the same level of stability at speed, IMO. It also feels lighter, despite actually been slightly heavier on the scales on the model I weighed.
If your mainstays are powder & trees but you also want something that's decent on groomers and has a not-too-aggressive but not-too-mellow-either feel, then the Hovercraft 2.0 is well worth putting on your shortlist. And would do just as well as a dedicated powder board in your quiver.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
Check out the links below for more info on the Hovercraft 2.0, where to buy or if you are researching prices or available sizes.
If your keen to check out some other Freeride options or to see how the Hovercraft 2.0 compares to other freeride decks check out the link below.
Hey Nate,
I’m going to japan and austria for powder hunting this winter and i really want an extra board that is more dedicated to deep powder and freeriding.
I own a Korua TF 157, so i would love to get a board with more swallowtail and maybe something that i can size down on.
I’m 5’10” size 9 boots and 160-165 lbs.
Style wise I’m into deep carves on groomers and more of a surfy style in powder.
I’ve been looking at Jones Hovercraft 2.0, Jones Storm chaser, K2 Excavator and Korua Dart, bur i’m open to anything. Can you help guide me in the right direction?
Hi Patrick, thanks for your message.
Both the Hovercraft and Storm Chaser (we haven’t tested the Excavator or Dart, so they might also work – and on paper they look like they would be suitable, but we don’t have any experience with how they ride) would be good options for what you want, but I would be leaning Storm Chaser. Firstly, because it’s the biggest contrast to the board you already have – and it’s especially so as it’s the one you can size down the most on. But not just that, I actually found it to be really quite good to carve with. So you’d still be able to carve up the groomers, for when you have to do some parts of the day on groomers on powder days. That’s not to say that the Hovercraft isn’t a good carver, as it’s still pretty decent as well. But I found the Storm Chaser a little better for carves (we don’t have a full review published for it yet – still in the works – but you can get a brief description here – it’s at #8 – or you can use the quick navigation tab.
I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 157 – and that’s what you’re riding. You can size down a lot for the Storm Chaser, given how wide it is, so I would go to the 147 in this case. I rode the 152 (6’0″, 180lbs, size 9.5 boots) and it definitely never felt small. I also don’t think it would feel oversized for you in the 152 or anything, but I think the 147 is probably more optimal for you. It’s designed to be ridden 6-10cm shorter than your normal size. I think there’s a range, because it really depends on your boot size as to how much you want to size down. You’ve got average sized boots, so it’s not like you have to size down the full 10cm, but it also doesn’t mean you can’t. To me with the 152, I really felt like it was more like a 160 in terms of the way it held on to carves. Of course when you go that short, there’s always going to be a limit in terms of stability at speed on groomers, because you’re lacking that effective edge, so that should be noted, if you’re planning to ride super fast on it on groomers, but otherwise I think it would be a good bet in the 147 for you. The 152 also being a possibility.
For context I rode and felt good on the Hovercraft in the 156, and I wouldn’t go shorter than that for it (or longer). For you I feel like the 152 Hovercraft would be a little on the small side and the 156 a bit on the big side. 152 doable and that’s what I’d look at for you, if you went with that. But I think the Storm Chaser 147 – or if you wanted it even better in powder and better for high speeds, then the 152 – would be the better bet.
The Never Summer Swift would also be worth looking at or if you wanted to go really stiff, the Storm Wolf.
There’s probably something I’m leaving out, but one of those will treat you well for what you want out of the board, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, great review!
I’m looking for a floaty and nimble, directional freeride board (wanna try Jones), primarily for powder and tree runs in Whistler. I got some Nitro all-mtn/freestyle boards, really need a quiver board now. Stuck between a few options:
152 Hovercraft, 154 Flagship, 150/154 Mind Expander, and 153/156 Stratos.
I’m 5’10” (177 cm), 160 lbs (73 kg), boot size US 8.5, advanced level. My all-mtn boards are typically sized around 154/155. Which option and what size do you recommend the most among these?
I’ve heard about how well the Mind Expander handles powder and tight turns, but there’s no 152 for ME, will the 150 have enough float, or will the 154 be not agile? Similarly, would the 152 Hovercraft feel less nimble in the tree?
Many thanks!
Hey Charlie, thanks for your message.
Firstly, I would say the Mind Expander is the most nimble of those, followed by the Hovercraft, followed by the Flagship, then Stratos.
Given you want nimble, I would be leaning either Hovercraft or Mind Expander. The Flagship/Stratos aren’t un-nimble, but not as nimble as the other 2.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157, but with your boot size I would typically size down a little from that – so with your all-mtn boards I think you’re right on there. With the wider options, sizing down a bit more is a good idea. Which is where the 154 in the Mind Expander feels a little big. It’s not far off, but I rode the 154 (6’0″, 180lbs, US9.5 boots) and really liked it in that size, as did one of our other testers who has similar specs to me, and we’d both go for the 154 in this board. So, I suspect it would be better for you in a slightly smaller size. As you mention, there’s no 152, which I think would work well.
The 150 could work though, and if you were to go with the Mind Expander, that’s the size I would be leaning towards. Wouldn’t have as good a float in powder, of course – it would still work in powder, but there would be a trade-off to have it more nimble. But I still think this size would be better overall.
I found the Hovercraft 2.0 (I rode the 156) surprisingly nimble. Not quite as nimble as the Mind Expander, but really not that far off. In the 152 I think it would be at least as nimble, if not a little more than the 154 ME – and should float at least as well, if not better. Given I rode the Hovercraft 2.0 in the 156 and my go-to all-mountain size is around 157/158, I feel like this is the best option for you. Won’t be quite as nimble as the 150 ME, so if you wanted to sacrifice some float for more maneuverability, then you could go that way. But I think the 152 Hovercraft is going to feel the next most nimble, but give you better powder float. The 154 ME wouldn’t be wrong either, but I’d be leaning 152 Hovercraft 2.0, in this case.
Note that the above applies to the Hovercraft 2.0. The predecessor to that, if you’re looking at an older model (2023 model or earlier) that one isn’t as nimble, in our experience.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your reply! How does the agility and float of the Lib Tech Orca compare to the Hovercraft 2.0 152? If I go with the Orca, which size would work best for me?
Hi Charlie
If you’d asked that before I re-tested the Orca in the 2025 model, I would have said that the Agility of the Hovercraft is better than that of the Orca. However, the re-test of the Orca surprised me and it was a lot more agile than I remember it. I would say more agile than the Hovercraft 2.0. That said, I rode the Hovercraft 2.0 in the 156 and the Orca in the 153. The Orca is quite a bit wider than the Hovercraft 2.0 (the 153 Orca is wider than the 156 Hovercraft 2.0 (not just at the waist) – so it’s something I prefer to ride smaller.
Size-for-size – i.e. if you were to compare the 153 Orca to the 152 Hovercraft, they would be comparable in powder, IMO. And probably the Orca a little better. But it wouldn’t be appropriate to size that way with these two boards, so sizing appropriately, I would say the Hovercraft 2.0 has just got it over the Orca. I would say the 156 Hovercraft 2.0, which is what I would still ride that board in, is better for powder than the 152 Orca, which is the size I would ride that in.
Size-wise, for you, I would look at the 150 for the Orca. And even consider the 147.
Hi Nate,
Great review as always
Decided to get the Craft for freeride, off piste and powder. It’ll be my first directional board. As daily driver got GNU RC C3 158W for groomers and park.
I understand that with my stays for best float I should go with 164 but I’m little afraid that it could be little too much to handle on groomers and not nimble with slower speed on resort where I’m hanging around the most unfortunately. I’m usually little downsizing my boards for a bit of more playfulness and maneuverability.
Heard you can downsize this board a bit.
Do you think I could get away with 160 Craft and will it still have effortless float on pow or better go big with 164 ?
Stats:
205lbs (93kg) 6’2 12US flex 6 boots
will pair with Union Force bindings
Many thanks
Hey Michal
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162/163 and while it’s pretty typical to size up a bit for your freeride board, which would suggest the 164, as you’ve mentioned, but in this case I think the 160 would work well. While with size 12 boots you don’t necessarily need to size down for width, this is wider than even a typical wide board. E.g. it will be wider than your RC C3 158W in either the 160 or 164. While the RC C3 is 1mm wider at the waist, the Hovercraft is wider at the inserts (283mm front insert, 278mm back insert (though Jones’s own figures for that are 281/276 – but still wider than the RC C3 overall) vs 277mm/277mm on the 158W RC C3).
But more so, because you’ll be using it on groomers often and not just in powder, the Hovercraft has quite a bit of effective edge vs overall length for a freeride board. The 160 has a 125.7cm effective edge. Comparing that, for example, to another freeride board, the Jones Flagship, we can look at the 159W and it has a 118cm effective edge, or even go up to the 164W, which is still less effective edge, with 122.6cm. With all else being equal, a board with more effective edge will feel longer. Unfortunately we can’t compare effective edge to the RC C3, because GNU only publishes contact length (which is a different measurement) and not effective edge.
But long story short, you would still get a noticeable powder advantage over the RC C3, but still be something that will be good on groomers and still pretty agile, with the 160 Hovercraft, IMO. Whereas the 164 might feel a little big on the groomers. If you were going to be using this board only for powder or predominantly in powder, then the 164 would probably be the best bet, but given you’ll be in the resort with it more often than not, I would be leaning 160.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for reply Nate. Great explanation very informative.
I’ll be also considering 3rd board to quiver, little softer party/carving board like Dancehaul or Stranda Biru.
Together with RC I think it’ll be good pair and will cover all my resort/park needs.
It sums up that I could treat the Craft as strictly freeride, off piste and straight lining pow charger (usually ride heavy snow Alps open bowls etc) – as it meant to be so I could go with 164. I guess it’d make sense to go this way.
Lastly I must admit that I estimated my weight little too optimistic and there’s extra 15lbs on top…
Anyway I have a good picture now what to aim for
Thanks a lot for help
You’re very welcome Michal.
Yeah, if you do it that way with your quiver, and taking into account the extra 15lbs, I think the 164 then does make sense.
Happy riding!
Hey, great reviews. So this thing will be fine in the trees even if the snow is not great (slushy/icy). Replacing my skeleton key 158, this board seems pretty interesting. Ideally it would be my daily until I find something complementary.
Hey D
Thanks for your message. Yeah, in my experience, I think it would still be good in less than ideal conditions in trees. Not as good as it is in there with powder of course, but would still work well, IMO.
Hi Nate! Is there any way you could elaborate on the carving experience with the 2.0 vs. the original?
Hi Stephen
Thanks for your message. Yes, I can. That definition was pretty brief! I have a lot of reviews to get through, so I didn’t elaborate enough on it. Hopefully, this explains it better:
The Hovercraft 2.0 doesn’t feel as locked in on a carve and this isn’t super noticeable at slower to moderate speeds vs the old Hovercraft. The 2.0 is still really fun for those slow/moderate speed carves and I’d say is actually better for tighter carves at slower speeds vs the old one. But when it comes to higher speeds carves, when you want to be able to lock the edge in and have it stay locked in through the carve, without any kind of washing out or skidding it’s not as good. It tends to “let go” more easily when you’re trying to really rail a high speed carve.
Hope that explains it better
That makes a lot of sense! Thanks and thank you for taking the time to answer. How would you compare the 2.0 and old Hovercraft to the newer Mind Expander in terms of carving?
As always thanks!
Hi Stephen
The Mind Expander is even better for tighter carves at slower speeds than the Hovercraft 2.0. It’s decent enough on moderately fast carves too, but the 2.0 is a little better for moderately fast carves, in my experience – and carve shape tends to want to be a little longer vs the Mind Expander vs short/sharp. But not as long as the original Hovercraft.
As always thank you!
You’re very welcome Stephen. Happy riding!