Hello and welcome to my Jones Mind Expander review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Mind Expander as a mellow freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Mind Expander a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other mellow freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Mind Expander
Price: $599
Style: Mellow Freeride
Flex Rating: Medium (6/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 86.1/100
Compared to other Men’s Mellow Freeride Boards.
Of the 28 current model mellow freeride snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Mind Expander ranked 10th= out of 28
Overview of the Mind Expander’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Mind Expander's specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Mellow Freeride |
Price: | $599 - BUYING OPTIONS |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Smooth/Snappy: |  |
Dampness: |  |
Playful/Aggressive: |  |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Camber Jones' "Christenson Surf Camber Rocker" |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 0.75" (20mm) |
Base: | Sintered 8000 |
Weight: | Felt normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
142 | 240 | 90-140 | 41-63 |
146 | 248 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
150 | 252 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
154 | 256 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
158 | 260 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
162 | 264 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
166 | 268 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
* the 142 is a new size as of the 2025 model
Who is the Mind Expander Most Suited To?
The Mind Expander is best suited to anyone looking for a directional ride that floats really well in powder, but when there isn't powder around want a board that's pretty easy going to ride, but not super soft/playful or anything - and can still carve and handle moderate speeds. And it's got a really fun turning style on groomers.
Since getting camber, this is a pretty well rounded ride in terms of now being better on a carve and better at speed. It's still not a monster carver or a bomber - it's more of a cruiser, but it's better in those areas. And gets a bit more pop. But it's nothing that's going to be super good for anything freestyle.
Not for a beginner but fine for intermediate riders. Even lower-end intermediate's should be fine with this board. It's pretty accessible.
The Mind Expander in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mind Expander is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Mind Expander 2022, 154cm (256mm waist width)
Date: March 3, 2022
Conditions
Cloudy with some patches of blue at times. Really high cloud so visibility was all good.
Temperature was -2°C (28°F) degrees. No wind.
24hr snow: 4cm (1.5")
48hr snow: 23cm (9")
7 day snow: 64cm (25")
On groomer: Some icier sections in places but for the most part medium firmness with some softer areas. Fair bit of crud with not all that much groomed but some well groomed areas as well.
Off groomer: Some left over freshies! Untracked in places even. Mostly tracked but some nice untouched spots to explore.
Set Up
Bindings angles: 15/-15 (Nate) and +12/-9 (Fraser)
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: Setback 20mm (0.75")
Width at Inserts: 282mm (11.1") at front insert and 262mm (10.32")
Testers: Nate and Fraser
Fraser Specs: Height: 6'1" | Weight: 180lbs | Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical Lexicon ADV | Bindings Used: Fix Yale (M)
Nate Specs: Height: 6'0" | Weight: 180lbs | Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Tactical ADV | Bindings Used: Burton Malavita (M)
Weight: 3060grams (6lbs 12oz)
Weight per cm: 19.87 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.59 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 200 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 models. Certainly quite heavy on the scales (although taking into account it's wider than normal, it's not quite as heavy as it seems) - but on snow it felt really normal in terms of weight.
Changes for the 2023 Model
The 2023 Mind Expander changes to a directional hybrid rocker profile. It used to be an all rocker board. That addition of camber underfoot has helped this to be a more well rounded board - and IMO a more fun board.
Powder
Was nice to get some powder to test this board in. It wasn't anything epic, waist deep or anything like that, but enough to get a good feel for it. And it was really fun and easy in powder!
And no surprise, given the specs. It's got an aggressive taper, a really wide long nose and narrow short tail. Plus it's got rocker in the nose. Because it's got less rocker than its predecessor, not quite as good in powder as that, but still really freakin good!
Carving
It's not something that's going to treat you to the most epic high speed carves, but it's decent now. That introduction of some camber in the profile has helped this board to be a much better carver than it's predecessor.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: Really easy to initiate turns on and slash turns when you want to. Maybe not quite as easy as it was in the past with that full-rocker profile but still something that's pretty effortless to turn and slash on.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Really nice and nimble, particularly for how wide it is. But then we did size down to the 154, to account for that extra width.
Skidded Turns: Easy to skid turns. Didn't feel catchy - could confidently get a little lazy without too much fear of catching an edge.
Speed
It's still not a major bomber and starts to get a little squirrelly when you get up to fast speeds, but can handle moderately fast speeds well - and is more stable at speed than it used to be. So that camber has helped there too.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Can get a little bucked around but not too easily. But when it does, it's easy to make corrections.
Trees/Bumps: Nice and nimble for trees/bumps and that shorter tail helps prevent you hitting hooking your tail on trees.
Jumps
It's OK without being great.
Pop: Really easy to access the pop, but not a huge amount more available when you wind it up.
Approach: Gets a little wobbly when you open it out, but fine for slower approaches. Really easy to speed check/adjust when you need to though.
Landing: Not super solid, but not bad. Can't land too tail heavy but otherwise it's relatively forgiving of errors.
Side-hits: Fun for side hits. Easy access pop and nice and easy to maneuver on approach.
Small jumps/Big Jumps: Best for smaller jumps, but fine for medium.
Switch
It's easy to transition to/from switch but when there it feels a bitstrange. And no surprise given all that taper, and the short tail and directional everything.
Spins
Gotta put in the effort to whip that big nose around - and feels unbalanced when spinning. Setting up/landing switch isn't great either. So all round not great for spinning.
Butters
It's easy to press. But the tip and tail feel very different to each other, so it's not ideal.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Powder | 4.5 | 27/30 |
| Turns | 4 | 12/15 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Trees | 4 | 12/15 |
| Crud | 4 | 8/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Jumps | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
| Switch | 2 | 2/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 86.1/100 |
Overall, the Mind Expander is a really fun mellow freeride board, that allows you to have fun on groomers without being too demanding, when there's no powder.
And when you do get a powder day, it comes into its own and really shines.
Really enjoyed this board with a bit of camber in the profile. Gave it more liveliness and punch.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Mind Expander, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other freeride snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Mind Expander compares to other freeride snowboards, then check out the link at the button below.
H Nate,
I’m 155lbs, 5’8″, size 8. What size should I been looking into?
Thanks!
Hi Eddy
For you, I would go with the 150. I would put your typical all-mountain size at 155, but you’ll want to size this one down, IMO. 146 would be getting a bit too small, I would say, and the 154 too big overall, taking width into account. The 150 should be just right for you, IMO.
Why do you ride a board like this in duck stance?
Hi Kevin, great question and definitely understand why you’d ask it.
If I owned this board and was taking it out normally, I wouldn’t ride it duck. However, I aim to get as consistent a baseline as I can so I can the most accurate feel between boards as I can. So I ride all boards in a season with the same stance. Up until testing the ’26 models this was always +15/-15 (for reasons I want bore you with, unless you’re really curious, then I’m happy to let you know). I changed that last winter to a +18/-9 stance, so it was a more in between stance for both directional-oriented boards and twin etc.
Hi Nate,
I am looking for some direction on what size Mind Expander to buy.
I am 5’6″, 63kg and wear size 9 Burton Rulers. I am using Nidecker Supermatic bindings and have a fairly narrow stance width of 19″ with angles of 21, 0.
Earlier this year I had a trip to Japan and was riding a 154 Gentemstick Mantaray, which I bought as a powder board for the trip. I really like the Mantaray but it is quite stiff (Gentemstick rates it 16/20) and I found it a little hard to do quick turns with. I have a surfing background and am only interested in doing some mellow carving on groomers, learn to get into the trees and looking for natural features to do surfy turns on.
I am leaning toward the 150 Mind Expander but after reading your article on board width, I am a little worried that the 150 might be a bit narrow at the rear inserts. I have thought of setting my back foot angle a little more positive, so that might help? I don’t want to mess with my stance angles too much however, as I like my stance to feel similar to the way I surf, so it feels more natural.
The other option I was considering was the Salomon Dancehaul 147, which has a waist width of 255. The Mantaray I have been riding has a waist width of 158.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Derek.
Hi Derek, thanks for your message.
I’d say you should be OK with the 150 Mind Expander with a zero back angle and 19″ stance. More angles on your bindings help, but it’s accumulative, rather than linear, so you’re not looking at much, if you were to put on 3-6 degrees (table below as an example – could defer depending on the board, but this is an example to illustrate how its accumulative).
Binding ° overhang savings
3° 0.36mm (0.04cm)
6° 1.6mm (0.16cm)
9° 3.54mm (0.35cm)
12° 6.36mm (0.64cm)
15° 9.6mm (0.96cm)
18° 14.12mm (1.41cm)
And I don’t think you’d need to change your stance anyway. You should be looking at around a 258mm back insert width on the 150, with a 22″ (560mm) stance width. With a 19″ (480mm) stance, you’re likely looking at around 253mm to 254mm. Based on my experience with Ruler’s and other Burton boots, I would predict an outsole length of around 296mm (note that we measure the actual sole length and not from the longest part of the heel of the boot). That would give you total boot overhang of 4.2 to 4.3cm. Or roughly 2.1cm per edge, which I would be comfortable with personally. Ideally less than 2cm per edge, but I’ve never had issues with 4.5cm total overhang.
The Dancehaul would be a good bet though and the 147 would give you a bit more leeway width-wise, if you were still worried about it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate,
I have learnt a lot from your website and appreciate your input.
I’ll let you know which way I go and how it works for me when I get on snow!
Regards,
Derek
You’re very welcome Derek. Look forward to hearing what you go with and how you get on when taking it out for a spin!
Hi Nate,
I am looking for a new board and came across the Jones Mind Expander. Thanks for the insightful review!
It fits “almost perfectly” with what I am looking for in a board. However, since I ride in Europe where there isn’t much powder available (you either have to hike or get lucky), I was considering the Mind Expander Twin as an alternative.
Since powder is relatively rare, I mostly cruise on groomers, work on improving my buttering, and occasionally ride between trees or explore the backcountry if there’s enough snow. I thought the Twin could also be a good option. I love riding powder and don’t want to miss the opportunity to enjoy it when conditions allow.
Does the Mind Expander Twin, when you set the bindings back, offer (almost) the same performance in powder/backcountry as the standard Mind Expander? My idea would be to ride centered most of the time, but if I’m lucky enough to find powder, adjust the stance to a setback position. Does the Twin even need to be set back for powder riding in that case?
Alternatively, would you recommend sticking with the regular Mind Expander and just getting used to its “unique” feel when riding switch?
Rider Information:
Ability Level: Advanced
Weight: 90–100 kg
Boots: Ride Insano 2025, 30.0 Mondo Point
Bindings: Planning to buy a completely new setup. I’m considering the Jones Orion, Union Strata, Union Atlas, or Bataleon Blaster AW. Do you have any recommendations?
Thnaks in advance and thanks for the nice reviews!
Best regards,
Antony
Hi Antony, thanks for your message.
I think the Mind Expander Twin (MET) would work for what you’re describing and in this case I’d be leaning towards that over the regular Mind Expander (ME).
The MET is directional twin, rather than true twin. In this case what makes it directional twin is that the nose is a little longer than the tail. So that will help with powder – plus it does have a good amount of rocker – it’s a more rocker dominant hybrid camber, as opposed to be being camber dominant, so that also helps. And it also has Jones’ 3D Contour in the base – the 3.0 version, the same as what the regular Mind Expander has (though I think the ME’s 3D Contour is more directional, but they have the same degree of contour, I beleive) has.
It’s never going to float as well as the regular Mind Expander, IMO, even if you set it right back. The difference in the nose and tail of the ME (both in terms of length and width). The nose is 20cm longer on the ME (vs 1cm longer on the MET) and it’s 20mm wider (taper) where the MET’s nose and tail are the same width. Setting it back would certainly improve its float though, so you could definitely do that to make it a bit easier on your back leg.
I would say in fairly shallow powder – anything up to like 6″ (15cm), I wouldn’t personally bother setting it back. It should be good enough for that level. But any deeper than that, then I would set it back.
All the bindings you’ve mentioned would work with the MET, IMO and are all bindings I really like, so you couldn’t make a bad choice there, IMO. But a couple of things to consider. The Orion, Strata and BlasterAW are the better flex matches to the MET, IMO. The Atlas isn’t out of range though. If you wanted a more precise feel and an ability to drive the board a little harder, then it could definitely work. The Orion, Strata and Blaster AW will provide a more surfy feel in comparison. For the MET, I would likely go with the surfier feel, because it’s not an overly aggressive board and lots of fun to get playful with.
There are other things to consider as well, like how shock absorbing you want them to be, how much board feel you want, ankle support etc. And if you need it broken down further I can do that for you or you can check out the reviews – don’t yet have a review up for the BlasterAW, but if you check out our top rated all-mountain bindings list here, you can see how we rated it for different factors. Not as detailed as the full review (that should be coming soon) but something to go off to compare.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate! I have a deep thinker 157. would there be too much overlap between this board and the deep thinker? or would it be a nice addition to the quiver?
Hi Meddy, thanks for your message.
There’s quite a bit of overlap, IMO. If you had a big quiver or depending on what you wanted out of your quiver, they could go in the same quiver, but wouldn’t be ideal in a quiver of 2, if you have a wide variety in your style. The Mind Expander gives you a bit more of a playful ride and is better in powder. Not as good for speed/carving and not as good for jumps as the DT, IMO. You could use the DT as your daily driver and then the ME for powder days or days when you wanted to ride a bit more chill, but I find the DT is mellow enough to handle more chill riding and while not as good as the ME in powder, it’s still decent. But yeah, if you were looking for a powder day board and wanted it to be a little more chill on groomers, then it would work for sure, but they wouldn’t be a typical 2 board quiver, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
I’m 5″11 85kg and wear a 10.5 boot im looking at this board for an upcoming trip to Canada I would call myself a intermediate 5 bordering on 6 in your scale would like to no some sizing suggestions and how this compares to the flagship, stratos and hovercraft 2.0 as I can get good deals ATM on the 2025 models and which you think i will be best suited to using it mainly for trees and powder bust some groomers as well i will also be taking my never summer snow trooper for days when the snow isn’t turning it on thanks and keep up the good reviews
Hi Blake, thanks for your message.
For the Mind Expander I would go 158. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160, but with the extra width and the fact you want to be in trees, I would go down a little but with 10.5s, you don’t need to go down too much. And should still have a good amount of surface area for powder float.
Vs the Flagship, Stratos and Hovercraft, the Mind Expander is the best option for your level, IMO. Because you want to trees a fair bit, I would go Hovercraft before the other 2, if you wanted to step it up. But I think the Mind Expander is your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for that Nate
You’re very welcome Blake
Hey Nate. Do you know the Width at the inserts on the 162 mind expander?
Hey James
Likely to be around 290mm at front insert and 270mm at the back insert, assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width. With a 600mm (23.6″) stance width, probably more like 292mm at front and 272mm at back.
Hi Nate,
Great website. Helps a lot with the decision to buy a new board. Im looking for a new board to use mostly in pow, but then trees once the fresh is gone. Also want it to be easy to turn, and able to hold is edge. I had a Hybrid. Loved the hybrid as found it was really progressive with the turning, and it pointed right where I wanted it to go. So had good confidence in tight trees. But it fell apart in 3 weeks with the edges delaminating at the heel side undercut. So now Im thinking of a ME or Skeleton key. Which one of these two would you recommend for what im wanting?
I ride double blacks for steep stuff, but would say my technique will be advanced, not expert.
Do you have any info on which board would be able to handle abuse the best? If I had hit a rock or something, I would have just got another hybrid…..
Appreciate your guidance
Hey Brett
Thanks for your message and apologies for the slower than usual response. Flat-out testing gear at the moment!
For what you’re describing, I would go Mind Expander. The Skeleton Key would definitely work. Sucks that your Hybrid had those issues, but yeah, if you liked the Hybrid I would go Mind Expander. In terms of which would be able to handle the abuse the best, I’m not sure, as I’ve only had the ME and SK for short periods of time to test them, so I’m not sure about their longer term durability. I haven’t heard anyone say anything about delaminating on either Jones or Burton boards – and the Jones and Burton boards I own haven’t ever had that issue. I haven’t had that issue with my YES Greats, but I have heard others who have had that issue with YES boards in the past.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I continue with my madness of trying some more boards 🙂
I was thinking about purchasing this mind expander..
I have 2 questions
1- my measurements are 1.88 cm, I weigh 84 kilos and my boot size is 44, or 44.5… I know that my ideal size would be 162, but it is also correct for my boot size with the 26, 4 cm wide?
2´- I would like to know if this mind expander is similar to the bateleon the one. (great board) I don’t know if you have tried it but I think they have several characteristics in common like that 3d nose.
Thank you very much as always
Hi Javier
We haven’t tested the Bataleon One specifically but I find that Bataleon’s 3BT feels quite different to Jones spoon bevel (3D contour). But more similar that a flat base for sure. And they look like they’d be a similar flex, though having not ridden The One, it’s hard to say for sure. They do both have a tapered shape, but the Mind Expander has quite a bit more taper. So there’s certainly some similarities, but also not super similar I wouldn’t say.
Size-wise, I think sizing down to the 158 on this board could work, depending on how you want it to ride. But the 162 is in range as well. While the Mind Expander is quite wide at the waist, it’s not super wide at the back insert – back insert of the 162 is likely to be around 270mm. Front insert is considerably wider though – more like 290mm on the 162! It’s the biggest back to front insert difference I’ve ever measured. I’d say because of the prodigious taper but only a subtle setback. So I think you could ride the 162 but you could definitely also size down to the 158 if you wanted something shorter and more agile. Myself and one of my other testers rode the 154 and both really liked it in that size (we both weigh around 81kg but with US9.5 boots and he’s 185cm and I’m 183cm). So going to the 158, rather than the 162 would be more the equivalent size of what we rode, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off.
Thanks Nate. You are very kind as always.
I have the option of getting the 162 at a very good price (320 euros) although after your advice I am not sure…
thank you very much as always
You’re very welcome Javier. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you decide in the end and how you get on, once you get a chance to get it out on snow.
Of course, if I try it I’ll tell you, it’s the least I can do for you.
thanks
sorry nate, one last question, have you tried the jones stormwolf? Would you agree that 158 would be my measurement? I have the option of getting it in that size.
thank you 🙂
Hi Javier
Haven’t tested the Storm Wolf, unfortunately, so couldn’t say for sure. Based on specs, it looks like it would be a little stiffer than the Mind Expander, so probably a little more aggressive. But I think 158 would still be a good equivalent to the 158 Mind Expander, size-wise. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at more like 161, but if you wanted to mellow it out a bit, and because even though it’s nothing crazy wide for your boots or anything, it’s still on the wider side, so I think you’d be OK sizing down on it. Again, having not tested it, I’m not sure what the width is like at inserts. It looks to have a narrower nose than the Mind Expander, but a wider tail (less taper). So it’s a debate between the 162 and 158, but if you wanted to keep it a little more mellow, then the 158 is in range, IMO. Again, this is only based on what I’ve heard and specs, having not ridden it yet.
Hi Nate, counting the days until the winter season returns in Europe.
Are you going to review jones storm wolf?
I’m looking forward to knowing your feelings.
thank you¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
Hi Javier, good to hear from you again.
Yes, I got on the Storm Wolf 2025 in the winter! I will have a review coming out in the next couple of months.
great nate thanks I’m looking forward to reading it. How have you fallen in love? Is it correct to reduce the size by 3 cm, right? thank you :)))
Hey Javier. It’s stiffer than I typically like, but if you like it stiff, you’ll like this board. Not sure how they rate it mid-stiff, as it was the stiffest 2025 model I rode and the stiffest I’ve ridden for a couple of years. I found it really damp and really smooth and could lay into any kind of carve and it’s super stable and fun at speed. Didn’t have super deep powder to test it in, but it felt great in the shallow stuff I got it in – and the specs suggest it would be really good in powder. It’s a board that needs to be ridden aggressively, but when you do, it can handle a lot. Not fun trying to ride it casual/slow, but real fun at speed.
Yeah, I would size down a bit for this board. From what I can see of our previous conversations you’re a size 11 boot and around 161 in length. For you for this board, I’d be looking at the 158.
thank you ¡¡ I´ll tell you
When I try the Stormwolf I will comment on my impression when you do the review.
If I can ride a gnu mullair I hope I can ride the stormwolf 🙂
thanks ¡¡¡¡¡
Hi Javier, would be great to get your impressions on the Stormwolf. Looking forward to hearing about it.
In the case of the ravine would think the 155 would perform well in deep powder. I was leaning towards the 158 but Im right at the bottom of the weight range for the 158.
On paper I thought it might be similar to the burton custom and I’ve had a 158 flying v that I liked in nz heavy powder.
Cheers,
Chris.
Hey Chris
I would say it’s got a similar-ish feel to the Custom Camber on groomers, but certainly not the same. But a very different feel to the Custom Flying V, IMO. Though more similar to the Custom Flying V in terms of powder. In terms of float for the 155, I think you’d get decent float from for your specs. Of course, the 158 would float better, but as a daily driver, I think the 155 would be your better bet. The Ravine is also a little wider than the average “regular” width board, so I’d be more inclined to size down a touch on it.
I think Im leaning more towards the ravine 155. I checked out a 152 and put it against a goliath plus 156, the volume seemed very similar so a 155 should be plenty like you said.
On a side note the goliath plus looked amazing, super light.
Thanks for all the advice.
Chris.
You’re very welcome Chris. Have a good one.
My other thought was to get the new hovercraft in a solid or a flagship 161, but I as mentioned I already have the split versions. Although the hovercraft had an upgrade.
Chris.
Hey Chris
Yeah it’s a close call. If it was going to be your daily driver, I would be leaning 154 for sure. I think for this board with your specs, that would be the best bet as your all-rounder, if you were riding one board. I’m heaver than your are (similar height and boot size) and found the 154 really fun to ride. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157 and with the extra width, sizing down to the 154 makes the most sense, IMO. However, given that you’ll be looking to use it in powder a fair bit and you have other boards for other things, the 158 becomes more appealing for that extra float. And whilst the 158 is on the big side for you as an all-mountain board, it’s not massive, especially given the other boards in your quiver. I’ve ridden this board (all be it when it was a full rocker profile) in a 158 and it didn’t feel too big to me or anything.
I think 154 is the more “pure” all-mountain size for you, but given the different variables in this case, I would be leaning 158.
I really liked the new Hovercraft 2.0. It feels a bit more snappy, a little more mellow overall and lighter on snow. Now, it didn’t weight any lighter on the scales but just felt lighter when riding. Whether or not it will feel any different for you in terms of sinking the tail on heel side turns is hard to say. I got it in a little shallow powder and it felt good to me, but still hard to say how you’ll find it.
Depending on your model of the Solution, the Flagship is likely to feel very similar (being essentially the same board with one split). If you think you want a solid version that feels the same, then it could work, but if not then I’d go with one of the others. If it’s an older solution, then it might be quite different – the Flagship changed quite a bit from the 2020 model and on. Though from memory I think the Solution didn’t get the changes until the 2021 model (but double check that).
Hey Nate.
Thanks for the thoughts. I think I will probably go with the 154 as it may end up as a go to board.
Ive no doubt the 158 would work but it does sound like a lot of board up front.
I would definitely pick it over the hovercraft 1.0 I think, but the 2.0 does look fun. I will have a read of your review.
My 161 solution is a 2022. Ive only ridden it one time but found it had quite a long feel to it. Not that thats a bad thing.
Thanks again. Your the man.
Chris.
Hey Nate.
Thanks for your help with my ions.
Im looking for a freeride/ powder board for nz and japan.
Im 5’10, 73kg and boots us 9-9.5 ions.
Im trying to decide between the 154 and 158. Leaning towards the 154 but worried it might be a bit small for deep pow. Jones recommend a 150-154 for size 9 boots in my weight and 154-158 for size 9.5.
I just wonder how much of a jump in terms of turn ability a 158 will be? I also wonder how much nose chatter i would get with the shape.
My daily is a yes standard 156. So the surface area on a 154 will be slightly smaller. The standard feels perfect for me in pow and piste riding.
I also have a hovercraft 156 split and a 161 solution. The hovercraft feels about right in deep powder although I do find the tail a bit hard to sink when doing heelside turns in deep pow.
My other pow board is a burton barracuda 161 which I suspect is similar in volume to the 158 ME. It never felt like too much board to me.
The other boards Im thinking about are the rome ravine 155 or 158 (not sure if its pow specific enough or stiff enough) and the k2 excavator 154.
On paper the excavator sounds like a fairly big board but k2 dont seem to recommend downszing too much.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Chris.
Hi Nate, I’m torn between the Mind Expander vs. the Capita Navigator. What are some of the differences or these 2 boards are just very similar. I’ve planned a trip to Japan this Christmas and will only be bringing one board with me on the trip. Which board would be most suitable for Japan conditions? Cheers!
Hey Danny
Thanks for your message. Both are more similar than they are different for sure. Both mid-flexing, directional freeride boards and both you’d typically get for the same kind of riding. In terms of in Japanese conditions, assuming that means good powder!, I don’t think you could go wrong with either, both would do really well in those conditions, IMO.
Some differences:
– The Navigator is lighter (typical of Capita)
– I found the Mind Expander a little better in harder/icier conditions
Outside of that though, there’s not a lot to choose between them. Sizing might be the tie breaker ultimately, as one or the other might have more optimal sizing for you. Would be happy to give sizing suggestions, if you were looking for them. Would just need your height, weight and boot size.
I’m 5’10, 160lbs and US8 boot. Much appreciated Nate.
Thanks Danny
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157 for your height/weight specs, but with your boot size, I’d typically size down a little from that. For the boards in question, the Navigator would work best in the 155 for you, IMO. The Mindexpander is overall a little wider, so I’d size down a little more – though going as low as 150 might be too far, and given it has less effective edge than the Navigator, I think I’d go 154. For reference, I have included the width specs below (in mm).
Nav ME
Waist 252 256
Front Insert 263 282
Back Insert 261 262
Nose 301 300
Tail 290 280
Thanks Nate, I think I’ll be settling on the Navigator 155. But I noticed that the camber profile will be changed on the 24 model from Alpine v1 to Resort V2. Will this drastically change how the board rides? Not sure if I should get the 24 model or the older model.
Hi Danny
I got on the ’24 Navigator and did notice some difference. It’s mostly the same board, but the ’24 is a little more playful feeling and a little quicker turning at slow speeds, I found. It’s just a touch more mellow (was already mellow, but a bit more again) – but not quite as good at speed as it was. Still nothing terrible at speed, but not quite as stable at faster speeds.
Would you say the 24 Navigator will have even worse edge-hold in hard or icy conditions compared to previous models?
Hi Danny
I didn’t have any hard/icy conditions on the day I took it out, so it’s hard to say for sure. It’s possible, but I don’t think it would be noticeably worse.
Hi Nate,
Looking for some sizing advice on the new mind expander. I’m 92kg without gear, 10.5 boot, bout 187cm tall. Seems I’m in-between the 158 and 162, considering this for one board quiver what size should I be looking at? Consider myself a low intermediate rider. Also have you ridden a Burton skeleton key? Thoughts on skeleton key vs mind expander?
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 162, but as a lower end intermediate and given the width of the board, I would size down a bit from that, so for the Mind Expander, I’d be looking more at the 158. It’s probably a little on the smaller side for your specs, and you are a little in between, but I think you’re closer to the 158 than the 162, given your level and the width of the board.
The Skeleton Key is a little less suitable for a lower intermediate level than the Mind Expander, IMO, but if you wanted you could check out our review here (note we retested the 2024 model but the review hasn’t been updated for that yet – should be updated sometime in September, but not much has changed with it).
Hope this helps
Thanks for the advice Nate. Much appreciated!
You’re very welcome Matt. Thanks for stopping by.
An intermediate looking for the first broad.
Would like to explore the resort area, medium carve, side hit and also floating in powder.
Not interested in park at this moment.
I am 168cm, 57kg, us7 shoe.
My binding is Union strata.
I have do lot of research, and now considering capita mercury 150, K2 Passport 151, Jones Stratos 153, Jones Mind Expender 150, and bataleon goilath 153.
What will you recommend?
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Passport, so can’t say for sure, but based on specs possible that it’s a little bit too much for intermediate looking at first board. But hard to say for sure having not ridden it. The Stratos, IMO, is probably going to be too much board for what you’re looking to do and for your level. The Mercury is borderline too. For a solid intermediate rider it should be fine, but if you are more a lower intermediate, then it might be challenging too.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 148/149 for your specs, so they’re all on the bigger size, but I know the pickings are a lot more slim in sizes smaller than 150. I don’t think going up to 150 is going to pose too much of a problem and you’re probably used to boards in that 150+ size I’m guessing as that’s probably what you’ve been given when renting? The Mind Expander in 150 is on the big side because of it’s width vs your foot size. That said, I think it’s doable (particularly because the back foot width isn’t super wide), but on the bigger side. But if you’re used to boards 150+, then it should be fine. That’s the one that I would be leaning towards for what you describe and from those size options. The Goliath, IMO, is a really good intermediate board and would be a good fit for what your’re describing (allbeit not as good in powder as the Mind Expander) but I prefer the size of the Mind Expander 150 for you vs the Goliath in the 153.
Hope this helps with your decision
hi Nate! I found good deals on a new Jones Mind Expander and a last season Never Summer Harpoon. I’m looking for a one-board quiver for resort riding: cruising groomers with skiers, carving, chasing powder, some speed here and there. Not into park but would like to learn to ride the mountain as a park as you say.
Any big differences to highlight between these two sticks? Thanks brother.
Hi Yough
Thanks for your message.
Main differences I would say:
– Harpoon slightly on the surfier/looser side in comparison to a more “stable” feel on the Mind Expander
– Found the Mind Expander a little quicker turning
– Harpoon a little better for jumps and for switch (probably because the Harpoon is less tapered (13mm taper vs 20mm taper on the Mind Expander)
– Even though Harpoon rated a 5/10 flex and Mind Expander a 6/10 flex, I found the Harpoon to be more like 6/10 and the ME more like 5.5/10. Flex ratings across brands isn’t consistent, unfortunately.
– Size-wise with the Harpoon being wider overall, size-for size, I would look to ride the Harpoon a little shorter than you’d ride the ME. E.g. if 152 Harpoon, then 154 ME. If 156 Harpoon, then 158 ME, etc.
They’re both really comparable for carving, powder and speed, IMO, so neither would be better than the other in those aspects, IMO. I would be just leaning Harpoon, just because I think it will be a little better in terms of the freestyle stuff you want to do around the mountain. But neither would be a bad choice and it’s a close call between them.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, thanks for your reviews, super helpful!
I’m currently riding a 18/19 mountain twin and looking for an upgrade.
Ideally looking for something that is a better carver, has more pop, better at speed and better in powder (is that too much to ask)?!!
Ideally I am looking to stay in the Jones family but I’m not sure what the best choice is? I’ve been thinking the stratos or mind expander (maybe the mind expander twin)?
Or… The other way I was looking was maybe the Yes greats and keep the mountain twin for the powder days and slam the binding back?
. What do you think?
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think you’d be really getting anything more in terms of carving, speed and pop with the Mind Expander or Mind Expander Twin. Not worse either though – and you would get the extra powder. But since you also want to increase carving & speed performance, I would be leaning Stratos or Flagship – and between those two my choice would be Flagship.
Going Greats and then setting back your MT would be an option if you wanted to have 2 boards. You’d get better carving, IMO, and a touch more pop. Note that the Greats isn’t ultra poppy or anything but should get little more than the 18/19 MT, IMO. MT setback still not going to be as good as something like the Stratos/Flaship/Mind Exapnder in powder, but it would make it better in powder than not setting it back. I think this solution would work best, if you were looking to keep your quiver both in the mid-flex range. But if you were wanting to add a stiffer board, then the Stratos or Flagship would be the better bets – particularly if you were also looking for a bigger speed and powder performance boost.
Hope this helps with your decision
I bought the Salomon Sight last year based on your top beginner boards and I have to say it was awesome and the perfect choice. I am into my second season this year and I am riding 3-4 days per week and I am a solid intermediate and I feel the board is starting to hold me back and was looking to upgrade.
I only ride in one direction, no interest in switch or park, and spend all my time on groomers (blues & greens).
My plan was to upgrade to a mellow freeride board for remainder of this season and the next season and upgrade to a more stiff freeride (7/10 flex) in my fourth season. Would the Mind Expander work for this? I do frequently run into harder snow on some of my days but rarely run into a lot of ice and when I do I just dial back my riding on my current Salomon Sight.
Can this be used as a daily and a stepping stone to progress into a more stiffer freeride? Please advise.
Hi Andy
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I reckon the Mind Expander should work well for what you’re describing, given you’re not doing any park or switch. And it works fine in hard snow, in my experience. It’s a step up from the Sight, but it’s not too big a step, so I think it should work, assuming you size it well.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the response!!! It was very helpful.
Just want to update this for anyone else reading.
Went from 2022 156 Salomon Sight to a 2023 154 Mind Expander (Weight: 166lbs Height: 5’10) and switched to a posi posi stance (+18 +3) from my regular posi neg (+15 -3)
The change to a mind expander was a massive difference! First thing I noticed was that it was a lot more damp than the Salomon Sight meaning when I went over rutted out terrain I wasn’t getting bucked around and I couldn’t feel it in my legs as much, it was just smooth.
Second thing was I was a lot more confident at speed, now granted I am not a speed demon but the Salomon Sight felt sketchy after a certain speed. The Mind Expander is perfect for the speed that I go at which is a good cruising speed, again not a speed demon for bombing runs which I have no interest in.
Turning on this board is a lot of fun, quick turns and long drawn out turns are a blast and they feel a lot different than the Sight. This perfectly suits my riding style as a cruiser that can do some different styles of turns. I also didn’t notice much of a loss of edge to edge coming from the Sight, I had assumed it being a wider board I would feel the width a lot more which I personally didn’t or if I did it was negligible.
As far as riding this in variable snow conditions the grip is perfect, when it is icy terrain I find I do have to dial it back as it’s no ice ripper but me being on the west coast I don’t experience too much ice and the small patches of ice I do run into can be handled by this board. I suspect if you run into a lot of icy conditions I would probably look for another board it’s definitely not confidence inspiring on ice.
Finally, I was on the mountain on a POW day where we had over 30cm fall in one day. It was like being in nirvana and this board just comes alive.
In summary this is a fantastic upgrade from a beginner board provided you have no interest in riding switch, park and you don’t run into icy conditions on a regular basis.
I love this board!!!
Hi Andy
Thanks for the update and your insights. Always greatly appreciated. Awesome to hear the Mind Expander is working well for you!
Hey Nate! Thanks for all your in depth reviews for this and every season! I am looking at the ME and need a second option on sizing. I am 5’6 167lbs and have Cartel Bindings and size 10 Burton Ruler boots.
I do not see a ton of powder at home but I want to be ready when I do, plus I plan to travel more in the next few years. So IMO would the 154 or 157 be better for me? I ride a 158 in more standard camber boards.
Thanks!
Hi Stephen
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 154 for you. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 156 and with this board being a little wider than typical overall (back insert is pretty standard width, with the amount of taper but overall width a little wider), I would size down a little bit, which puts you on the 154, IMO.
Given that you’re used to riding 158s, the 158 is doable, but it is wider, so the overall size is going to be bigger than what you’re used to still. That would of course give you more surface area for powder and if you were going to be using it predominantly for powder days, then that would lean me more towards 158. As a daily driver for everything, I would say 154 still though. But if you wanted that little extra for powder and were willing to sacrifice a bit of maneuverability for that, then the 158 is certainly doable.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate!
Hi Nate, thanks for your review.
I am 188cm tall and 80kgs naked weight. ride lasso boot size US 10, and will be getting the Rome Katana M/L. I don’t do parks or tricks. mainly groomers, trees , off piste and pow hunting. will be getting this for Japan. Was thinking of a pure powder board but there is still so much groomer runs between powder riding. plus i don’t feel like carrying more than one board. I’ve got the 159 Frontier and really like the handling on groomers and the grip on hard snow.
Having trouble deciding between a 158 or a 154. Jones rep reckon I should pick the 158 ME or the 161 flagship as an upgrade from frontier. flagship seems too narrow for my bootsize and seeems to be more an open road board.
Your specs is not that far from me except for 0.5 boot size. I didn’t really like how my 158 archetype feels on groomers and the back foot washes out quite a bit for me, I didn’t feel confident going fast, a pity given the base is super fast. you didn’t seem to have that trouble on your review, despite acknowledging it’s a potential problem. not sure if my issue is because the backfoot width insert was too narrow (but ME is bigger with traction 2.0, no qualms there) , or what.
I think i’ve asked about the frontier last time, thanks for the help, love the board. Just looking for something with more powder perfomance that doesn’t compromise groomers and trees. we can’t have it all, i know, but we can dream about it, lol.
if only snowboard is something we can try first before buying, sigh. cheers mate!
Hey Wayne
I would be leaning 158 for the Mind Expander, though it’s a close call. The 154 would give you more maneuverability for trees, but the 158 is the more pure size – and will help with powder float. Given that this is going to predominantly be your powder board, all be it still looking for decent groomer performance, I would be erring longer. The 154 wouldn’t be wrong though and I really enjoyed the 154.
It does have a pretty aggressive taper (20mm) so you could find the tail a little washy, like you did on the Archetype, that would be my only real concern with this board for you, given your experience on the Archetype. It doesn’t quite have as much taper as Archetype, but still a lot.
The Flagship in the 161 I don’t think would be too narrow for you though. It’s certainly narrower at the back insert, like the Mind Expander is but the 161 is around 264mm at the back insert (assuming around a 22″ stance width), which is wider than the 154 Mind Expander is at the back insert (262mm). Taper is still significant on the Flagship (13mm) but as much as the ME or the Archetype (26-30mm depending on size). Flagship isn’t as easy to navigate in trees as Mind Expander, IMO, but it’s not as open road as it seems. I found it better in trees than I thought it would be – and better than it used to be, after it changed shape for the 2020 model.
I would be leaning Mind Expander 158, with the biggest question mark being the taper/short tail (which will really help in powder and trees, but it’s whether you find it too washy on groomers or not).
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate! is Stratos a good option or is it too much of a board for me ?
I was kinda hoping ME would be a better turning experience than archetype . Hmm
Should I get the M/L katana or L/XL? Thanks!
Hi Wayne
It may well be a better turning experience for you than the Archetype, but it’s hard to say, given that it does have an aggressive taper, like the Archetype.
The Stratos could work. It’s definitely stiffer, more aggressive than the ME. And IMO a little more so again than the Flagship. But if you’re an advanced rider or at least very high intermedaite, then I think it’s doable. I’d personally go Flagship over Stratos though.
For the Katana I would go M/L with Lasso 10s. The L/XL would likely work too, but I think the M/L would be the slightly better fit.
I have a stratos… I was wanting a board that would be great for powder days in trees and and specifically when the powder turns to chunder. I love my stratos and its a great board for groomers days and as a one quiver board when traveling but I find i need to change my stance midway through a big powder day because I get bucked around a lot once the powder changes as the day goes on. Wondering if the mind expander would possibly be that board for me… also if it is, should i go for last years model with the old rocker or this years model with the change to camber?
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
I actually found the Stratos was pretty good at crushing through crud/chunder. I found it damper than the Mind Expander. However, I did find the Mind Expander was better in terms of making corrections when getting bucked around. The Stratos in comparison I found was more difficult to maneuver when it did get bucked around, but when committing to just crushing through it, I found the Stratos was actually pretty good. It’s got a bit of extra weight and it’s quite stiff which I find typically helps with crushing that messy snow. But yeah, when it comes to trying to finesse it more, then the Mind Expander is better, then.
Between the all rocker Mind Expander and the new one – the new one is a better all-rounder, IMO, but not as good in powder. You can see more on my review of the old rocker Mind Expander if you scroll to the bottom of this review and click on the tab labelled “PAST REVIEWS OF THE MIND EXPANDER”
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
You gave me excellent advice on my last snowboard purchase.
I was wondering for the mind expander 21/22 model, do you recommend the 154 or 158?
I’m 6’1, 170-175lbs, size 10.5US boot. I’ll be mainly using this board for trees on deep powder days.
Would my size 10.5 boot fit the 154, as I see the mind expander back half of the board is a little narrow? And I also read somewhere that the 158 is not much slower turning through trees in deep pow than the 154?
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Yeah the Mind Expander is narrower at the back insert than the waist width would suggest. So the 154 would be borderline with a 10.5. If you were riding a low profile boot and had a decent amount of angle on that back binding, you’d probably get away with it, but otherwise it would be risky. And in any case I think the 158 would work well for you. The 154 would feel noticeably quicker turning in tight spots, when things are harder, but in powder, that difference will certainly be less noticeable – and that extra surface area will help with float.
I’m guessing you’ve already realized this as you’ve mentioned you’re specifically looking at the 21/22 model but just to make sure – the 22/23 model is a bit different to previous models, with some camber now in the profile. If you scroll to the bottom of this review, you can see my review on a previous model by clicking on the tab at the bottom “PAST REVIEWS OF THE MIND EXPANDER”.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thank you for your reply and amazing tips as always. I’ll probably go with the 158 now.
Yes, I’m going for their 21/22 for the more rocker profile and better performance in powder, over the more camber design on the new ME.
Cheers,
Alex
You’re very welcome Alex. Hope you have an awesome season!
hi Nate,
what size would you recommend as a pure deep powder board for 175cm 70kg and US9 boot? 154 or 158?
Own a Kazu in 157cm for steep and technical. Would like to add mind expander for surfy and playfulness.
Thanks!
Hi Zhou
Thanks for your message.
If it’s going to be purely for deep powder, I would be leaning 158. If it was going to be your do-it-all everyday board, then I’d say 154, mostly because of the width, I’d be sizing down a bit to the 154. But if you’re looking to maximize powder float and be using it purely for powder days, I’d go bigger – and the extra width isn’t going to effect you as much when you’re in powder, in terms of turning, and the extra width and length will really help with float.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Awesome! Ordered both and also the Ultra version in both length. I think I will keep the 158cm since I came from a Korua Apollo 156, wanna have similar float but something softer and with a tail. For everything else than deep pow I will ride my Mega Merc or Kazu Pro 🙂
Cheers!
You’re very welcome Zhou.
Yeah you’ll likely definitely want to keep the regular version, of you’re looking for softer and more surfy. The Ultra Mind Expander isn’t surfy or at all soft. It’s quite stiff.
Hey Nate! As usual thank you for the reviews. Have you ever tried to ride a board like this with a positive stance?
Hi Jordan
Thanks for your message.
I have ridden boards like this with a forward stance, and I would ride this board with more of a forward stance if I owned it. I rode it with the +15/-15 for consistency with how I ride my control board, but yeah, I would likely ride it with a forward stance if I was riding it all the time.
Hi Nate,
I’m considering this as my dedicated powder board, I don’t get too many really deep days, and I ride trees a lot. What size would you recommend 154 or 158? I’m 178lbs, 5.10, boot size 10. Thanks in advance!
Hi Simon
Thanks for your message.
Definitely the sizes I would be debating for your specs too. Because you mention that you ride trees a lot and that you don’t get a lot of deep pow days, I would be leaning towards the 154. If you hadn’t mentioned that, I probably would have asked because it does make an important difference. If you were riding open terrain powder more so than trees, then I would be leaning more towards 158. But yeah, given your riding preferences/circumstances, I would lean towards the 154 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you, Nate. Your advice is much appreciated.
You’re very welcome Simon. Thanks for visiting the site and happy riding, the next chance you get to ride!
Great board. I bought this last season for powder riding and it didn’t disappoint. I weight 230 lbs, 6′ tall and wear size 12 boot. I found myself grabbing this a lot more than my yes greats and that is saying a lot!
Hi Rasheed
Definitely saying a lot! Appreciate the input.
Stay safe and happy riding – next time you get a chance!
Thanks, you too! I forgot to mention that the board is pretty narrow for waist width so I went with the 166 to avoid toe drag especially for the back foot. Thanks for your amazing reviews!
Hi
I have a size us11 boot. What size should I be riding ?
I’m 185lbs and 6’1ft tall.
Hi Shaun
Thanks for your message.
With your height/weight and and an 11 boot, I would be leaning 158 – though there are some question marks on width at the back insert on that (more below). The 162 is a possibility, but bordering on too big, IMO. I would put your “standard” length at around 161 and even though the 162 is closer to that, it’s pretty wide overall, making it ride bigger than 162, IMO. If you were going to be predominantly riding in powder and riding fast, then the 162 would certainly be doable though. But for maneuverability’s sake, if you’re looking to do any tight turns at slower speeds, it may feel quite big in the 162.
I say the 158 could be borderline width-wise, because of how much narrower it is at the back insert versus the front insert. I measured the back insert at 262mm on the 154 and 282mm at the front insert – which is a huge difference – and the back insert isn’t that much wider in comparison to the waist of the board. The width at the back insert on the 158, assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width, would be around 266mm. This is borderline for 11s, IMO. It’s doable if you have low profile boots and ride with a fair bit of angle on your back foot. If you’re riding a pretty flat back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees) and/or have bulkier boots and like to carve, then I think it would be risky width-wise.
Hope this helps with your decision