Hello and welcome to my Jones Mountain Twin review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Mountain Twin as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Mountain Twin a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Mountain Twin
Price: $549
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 90.2/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 38 men’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Mountain Twin’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Mountain Twin’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All Mountain |
Price: | $549 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm |
Base: | Sintered 8000 |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
151 | 248 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
154 | 251 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
156W | 259 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
157 | 254 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
159W | 261 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
160 | 257 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
162W | 263 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
163 | 260 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
165W | 267 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
168W | 269 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
* note that the sizes changed slightly between the 2020 and 2021 models. 2022 remains the same as the 2021 model.
Who is the Mountain Twin Most Suited To?
The 2021 model underwent a few changes (see below for details on those changes) and, IMO, it's overall an improvement on the 2020 and previous models. It's not quite as good at speed, but improved in uneven terrain and is more buttery and more maneuverable in tight spots.
Overall, it keeps it's utility value - being on of the best do-it-all options going around. No weaknesses at all, IMO, for any style or any terrain.
Not a specialist in any area, but if you're the kind of rider that likes to do a bit of everything, everywhere and want just the one board to do it, there aren't many better at that, than the Mountain Twin.
Not quite a beginner board, but would be fine for a low-end intermediate rider.
The Mountain Twin in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mountain Twin is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Mountain Twin 2021, 157cm (254mm waist width)
Date: March 4, 2020
Conditions: Sunny. Perfect vis.
On groomer really well groomed in parts and rutty and ice balls in others. Some medium spots and some hard and even icy spots.
Off groomer medium for the most part but with some harder spots. Relatively cold on hands and face but overall quite warm in sun.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: 20mm (0.75")
Width at Front Insert: 266mm (10.47")
Width at Back Insert: 267mm (10.51")
Note that the Mountain Twin shows 3 stance options. The measurements for those different options are in the tabs below. Note that the measurements above are reference stance but narrower.
- FREERIDE
- FREESTYLE
Stance width: 600mm (23.6″)
Stance Setback: 20mm (0.75")
Width at Front Insert: 268mm (10.55")
Width at Back Insert: 269mm (10.59")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Salomon Lo-Fi
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2720grams (5lbs 15.9oz)
Weight per cm: 17.32 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of roughly 80 models that I've weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. So, a good bit lighter than average on the scales - and felt really light on snow too.
Powder
There wasn't a lot of powder on the day I rode it, but I've ridden previous models in powder and it would be at least as good as those and probably a little better, with the new spoon base.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Good on a carve. Not a monster carver, but a decent carver.
Turning: Felt really light and snappy to turn. A fun board to slash around.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Significantly more maneuverable at slower speed vs previous models.
Skidded Turns: Pretty easy to skid turns on. It was never hard to skid turns on, but I would say the 2021 model is a bit easier than previous models.
Speed
Good stability at speed without being a real bomber. Just a little less in terms of stability at speed vs previous models.
Still has a really good glide on that base - and might've even got a little better with the new 8000 base.
Uneven Terrain
Nice and maneuverable and nice to ride in trees. Has improved in that sense vs the previous models.
Absorbs chatter quite well too, particularly for how light it is.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Just a nice easy to pop board that feels light and easy to get airborne on.
Pop: Not monster pop but decent. And because it felt so light, you get max value for the pop. Just feels like it floats mid air so easy. Easy to access pop too.
Approach: A really nice mix of maneuverable but stable
Landing: Solid on landings. Not a stomper stomper, but solid enough.
Side-hits: Really fun for sidehits and better than previous models, IMO. Nice and maneuverable and easy to pop.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Good for everything but medium is the sweet spot.
Switch
Good to ride switch, even with a 20mm setback. Even better if you center up, which is really easy to do on this board.
Spins
Nice to spin on. It's light, easy to pop and pretty good taking off and landing switch too, especially if you center it up.
Jibbing
Not bad jibbing on it either. Like I said, doesn't really have any weak points.
Butters
Good butterability. And this is something else that's improved compared to previous models, IMO.
Changes from the 2021 model
The 2022 model, as far as I can tell is the same as the 2021 model, except with a new graphic.
Changes from the 2020 model
The 2021 model has a few changes, which changed the feel of the ride a little. A brief summary of those changes:
- New Sintered 8000 base (replacing the Sintered 7000 base)
- New Contour Base 2.0 (was a flat base previously): This curves the edges up a little
- Slightly wider overall, but very subtly - 1mm at the waist and 2mm at the contact points
- Effective edge looks to have increased
- A new core by the looks of it
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPEED | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPINS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
BUTTERS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
JIBBING | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.2/100 |
This board just stays so consistent no matter what the terrain. And no matter how you like to ride it can accommodate it.
If you're looking for something to specialize in any particular style or terrain, it's not that, but if you want to have just one board and have a versatile style and hit a lot of varied terrain, the Mountain Twin, IMO, is one of the best for that purpose.
And, IMO, the 2021 model is another step up from previous models.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in the Mountain Twin check out the links below for more info and for current prices and availability.
If you want to check out some other all-mountain options or see how the Mountain Twin compares to others, check out the next link.
Hello and welcome to my Jones Mountain Twin Review.
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mountain Twin is capable of.
Jones Mountain Twin 2017 Review
Hi,
Im 169cm tall and US 7.5 boot size and 74-75kg when riding with all my gear and after breakfast. I like to go into trees and attack sidehits and cruise at medium speed while sometimes going faster (65+km/h) I would say im a level 4 on your scale and progressing to level 5. Learning to ride switch,butters and 180s. I rarely hit the park as im not there yet in terms of skill. Is the mountain twin 2023 in length 154cm good for me, found a pretty good deal on a B grade at like 30% off full price. I have always rented up till now and was always given soft/shitty boards. Have my own boots (burton photon boa 2022) and also bought union force binding which i got at 40% discount. Price was too good and i didnt want to pay 250-300+ for bindings.
Thanks!
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Typically for a level 4 bordering 5, I’d say it’s just a little more board than I’d recommend, but based on how you describe your riding, I think it’s something you should be able to handle. The 154 is the best size for you, IMO and the Photon and Force are a good match to the board as well, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
You helped me out a lot with my Flagship 151 decision and it rode great when I took it out for a 3-day trip with my 6-year-old son. That trip also made me realize that I need a less aggressive board to ride with my son because the Flagship is really a board that loves going fast and not slow, and it’ll probably be 2-3 more years before my son is good enough to keep up with me on the Flagship.
I just snatched a 149cm Mountain Twin at 20% off, and before getting the Flagship I was riding a 2014 Gnu Space Case 150cm. In your opinion, how would the Mountain Twin compare to the Space Case? I know they are different designs (hybrid camber vs. hybrid rocker). Do you think the MT can be as playful and forgiving as the Space Case? My intention for using the MT is to go slower with my son than the Flagship, and ride some switches and attack side-hits (which would naturally make myself slower) so he can keep up with me.
Hey Leo
I think the Mountain Twin should work well for that. It’s certainly a more forgiving ride than the Flagship and is more natural for slashing/skidding turns. I would say it’s pretty close in terms of playfulness to the Space Case. Note that the 2020 and earlier Mountain Twins weren’t as playful, so as long as you’re not looking at those it should be similarly playful, IMO/experience.
Hi Nate,
Thank you very much for the confirmation. Yes I picked up the new 2023 Mountain Twin which according to your reviews, are more forgiving and playful, so I should be happy with it. I could’ve kept riding my old Space Case but it’s getting pretty old and beat up by now, and has gotten noticeably softer over time, so that’s why I decided to grab a Mountain Twin to replace it (especially after the 3-day trip with my son where he kept complaining that he couldn’t keep up with me on the Flag ship!).
Hi Nate,
I am also interested in the Mountain Twin in 162 w. Alternatives Yes Standard in 162 or the Bataleon Goliath 161w.
192cm tall, 85kg, shoe size 45 1/3 Nitro Team TLS
Bindings I have: Union Falcor 22 and Burton Cartel
Do the lengths match my specs and are the other boards similar?
Thanks
Hi Raphael
Thanks for your message.
I think all those sizes are a good bet for your specs.
Both the Falcor and Cartel could work on any of those boards. I would say the Cartel is the more pure flex match, but if you wanted to drive the board a little harder, the Falcors would work too. They’re not so stiff that they’d over powder those boards, IMO.
I wouldn’t say the boards feel the same to ride, but they are similar. And in terms of what you’d use them for they’re all very similar in that respect. All all-mountain boards that you can use to do a bit of everything and all very similar flex.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for this great review. I hope you can give me some advice on the correct size for the Mountain Twin. I am 1.70m / 79 kg / 9.5US men Burton SLX boot. intermediate level riding mostly pistes, sometimes powder and rarely off piste. I currently have a 2019 Ultra Mountain Twin 160 which was adviced by the shop at that time as I was 83 kg. As my legs are relatively short the reference stance is too wide, I put both boots one position to the middle which is still probably too wide as it doesn’t feel right. In hindsight this might not be the best match for my skill level, build and use. I am considering replacing it with the regular Mountain Twin and then a smaller size. Which size would you recommend? I noticed you set your stance narrower on the mountain twin what is the effect of this?
Thanks, Jeroen
Hi Jeroen
Thanks for your message.
Based on what you’re describing, I think the Mountain Twin is probably the better bet for you versus the UMT. And size-wise, I think 157 is spot on for your specs for the MT, so I’d size to that. I’d put your “standard all-mountain length” at 157/158, so 157 is just right and, IMO, 160 is a bit too big.
Most Jones boards tend to have a wide reference stance. Not sure why. But yeah, I typically narrow my stance on them. Narrowing your stance from reference means you have more tip and tail outside your feet and you’re on a slightly different part of the camber profile. In the case of the MT it doesn’t really change that much in terms of camber profile around the inserts – so I don’t think that makes a big difference. And the reference stance is wide compared to most boards of that length, so you’re not really getting a different or weird experience in terms of how much board is outside your feet anyway, so the difference in terms of where you’re setup on the board is at worst neutral and at best could actually be better. And just in general changing your stance from reference by like 40mm or around that isn’t going to make a big difference, in terms of where you are on the board. But in terms of how comfortable you feel, it can make a big difference. So I wouldn’t worry too much about being away from reference – how comfortable the stance feels for you is more important, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks a lot for this extensive answer! I was actually considering a 156W or even 154 because of the narrower reference stance then the 157 but I felt I was to heavy for the 154 maxing it even more flexy and not a big enough boot for the 156W so I was pretty stuck. Am I right on that? Your views give another perspective, especially about the stance width. Thanks again and greeting from The Netherlands.
Hi Jeroen
Yeah with your boots I wouldn’t go wide. And I think the 154 is a little too small. Doable if you wanted it to be more playful and easier to throw around, but would be at the sacrifice of stability at speed and float in powder. I would go 157 for your specs.
Hi Nate, awesome review as always!
I’m looking for a good quiver of one board and my research brings me always to the MT. I’m really interested in the MT but need help with sizing. I’m 73 kg, 173 and wear size 10.5 US boots.
Thanks for all the amazing research!
Nathan
Hi Nathan
Thanks for your message.
The MT is a really good all-rounder, so it’s always a good bet for a do-it-all one-quiver board, IMO.
Size-wise, I would be leaning either 156W or 157, depending on a couple of things. The 154 is even a possibility, but might be a pushing it width wise.
With 10.5s, you should be good on the 157, but might depend on your boots and binding angles. They are around 267mm at the back insert with a 22″ stance width, which is typically enough for 10.5s. But if you had really bulky boots and a flat back binding angle, it could be pushing it, in which case going 156W would be the safer bet.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 156 for your specs, so you could go to the 154 – it wouldn’t be sizing down by that much, so it’s also an option. It does cut things tighter width-wise though – you’d be looking at a 264mm back insert width. Again, with a bit of angle on your back binding and a not too bulky boot, you would likely get away with it (if you’re not eurocarving or anything) but it’s a closer call.
If you could let me know your binding angles, if known, and the make/model of your boots and then I can give a more informed sizing opinion.
Hi Nate
I ride +15/-12 and my boots are Salomon HiFis 2021 model. I don’t do any park and stick mostly to groomers and occasionally go for a pow run.
What about size for the Yes standard as well… both boards are on my radar.
Thanks you so much for your help!
Hi Nathan
I think you’d be fine on the 154 width-wise, if you like the idea of going shorter. The 157 also should be fine width-wise, so I would go with that over the 156W in this case. The Hi-Fis aren’t super low profile, but not super bulky either, in my experience. And with those angles I think you should be safe.
For the YES Standard, it’s between the 153 and 156. Because the Standard is a little wider than the MT, I would be leaning 153, but the 156 would be doable as well. The 153 would give you more maneuverability – with the 156 more stability at speed and better float in powder.
This clears weather I need a wide board or not l. Thanks so much for your help!
You’re very welcome Nathan. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Following your reviews for a long time and really appreciate your advice.
I’m about to order my first board and I’ve narrowed it down on the availability of the shops around, to a Jones Mountain Twin. I’m a low intermediate, interested in riding mostly on resort/groomers, occasional pow, and interested in something that is stable and carves well. I might be trying to learn tricks in the future, but stayed away for the couple of seasons I’ve been riding so far.
I’m struggling to decide on the right size for the board and bindings.
I’m 36, 78kg, 181cm.
I wear Adidas Tactical adv 10US
Thinking about buying the Union Strata in size M (will it be too small for my shoe size?)
And I can’t decide which board will be a better size, 157 or 160?
I would really appreciate your advice,
Alex
Hi Alex
I think the 157 is spot on for your specs for this board. I’d go with the 157 for sure. And the Strata M will fit the Tactical ADV 10 just fine – and is the best size for that boot in that size, IMO – and the best size for the 157 MT too, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’m hearing the new version of the board is softer and aimed at more of a park now.
I was super tempted with this board, but am having second thoughts now. Do you have any info?
If it hasn’t changed that much, which size would you recommend? I’m around 71kg and wear an EU 42.
Thanks for the great site, I love your reviews and score breakdowns.
Hi Gareth
As far as I know the 2023 model is the same as the 2022 and 2021 models. On paper, that’s not to say that it hasn’t changed subtly but they didn’t publish any changes for it. But I didn’t re-test the 2023 model (I only re-test if there are changes to boards – not enough time to re-test everything every year). So no guarantees it hasn’t changed, but as far as I know it’s the same. The 2021 model did change quite a bit compared to the 2020 model though. And I would say it became subtly softer and at the same time became a more easy going ride because of the 3D contour base it got. But that 3D contour base certainly didn’t make it more park oriented, IMO. And overall, I would still very consider it a do-it-all kind of board. It’s something that’s decent in the park, but certainly not park specialized. It’s also decent in powder but not powder specialized. It’s decent at speed/carving the groomers etc, but it’s certainly not an out and out bomber etc, you get the picture. It does everything pretty well, without being exceptional at anything in particular. Certainly not what I would call a park board.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. I reached out to support and this is what they had to say:
“The boards flex has been changed a little, it’s true. However, it’s not a super significant change, which made the board a little more playful but will not significantly change the way you ride”
So it seems it is subtly softer. What are your thoughts on this, still a top 3 all mountain board?
Does it make any real difference if you aren’t a pro and pushing the board to its limits in a specific area?
I’m after something that I’ll hardly use in a park, but want it to be nimble and kinda playful, stress free ride, with some carving thrown in too. I’m not one for straight lining top to bottom.
Hi Gareth
For what you’re describing there “I’m after something that I’ll hardly use in a park, but want it to be nimble and kinda playful, stress free ride, with some carving thrown in too. I’m not one for straight lining top to bottom” I think the Mountain Twin will suit you well. Flex certainly does make a difference, but stiffer is certainly not always better. It’s not really a case of if it’s stiffer that you simply won’t notice any difference if you’re not pushing it to its limits, it’s a case that you probably won’t like it, if you’re not riding it aggressively. A stiffer board is typically not fun to cruise on – it’s something that demands that you ride it fast and aggressively or it’s just not that much fun. Stiffer is usually more expensive, but doesn’t always mean better. It depends on your riding style and for what you describe, I think mid-flex is a good way to go. And having the 3D contour and the rocker in the tip and tail make the Mountain Twin more playful too. But it’s still not something that’s ultra playful – it’s what I would consider to be in between playful and aggressive.
Hi Nate,
I’m torn between the Jones Mountain Twin and the Frontier. I currently on a 15 year old board, so anything will be an upgrade. I ride mostly resort/groomed trails with the occasional off-piste excursion. I mostly carve and just cruise down the mountain, not too fast, but not too slow either. I like to hit the occasional small kicker, side hit or roller, but nothing big (I’m old). I’m comfortable riding switch a bit, but not for long periods of time (not down the whole mountain). Looking for something that is stable. I primarily ride in the local Southern California Mountains (man made / hard pack conditions). I’m 5’7″ 200lbs with a size 9 foot. Which of these two boards and what size would you recommend?
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think you could go wrong with either of them for what you’re describing, but I would be leaning Mountain Twin, just because I find it’s a more dynamic ride. If you weren’t doing any switch or sidehits and were riding quite a bit of powder, then I’d probably lean more Frontier. But given you’re predominantly on groomers and do like the occasional side hit and ride switch occasionally, then I’m thinking Mountain Twin.
Size-wise, the 160 MT is probably your best bet, though the 157 is still doable, if you wanted something shorter for a more maneuverable, easier to pop/butter ride but slightly less stable at speed/less float in powder ride.
If you did decide to go Frontier, then it would be the same argument but between the 162 and 159. You can ride the Frontier a little longer. IMO the 159 Frontier is the size equivalent to the 157 MT and 162 Frontier size equivalent to the 160 MT.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome, thanks for your input!
You’re very welcome Tim. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate – I think I posted pretty much the same question last year under a different board but cannot find it now so I’ll ask again (+ ask some extra stuff): I’ve been riding for>10 years the DC MLF Iikka 154 with Burton Jeremy Jones boots and Mission bindings. I will upgrade asap because the boots and bindings have broken down completely and i think 10+ years is enough for the board. I’d say I’m an advanced rider, 5’6 – 140lbs, going fast on groomers (top speed around 95-100kmh) and as fast as I can on double blacks, pow whenever available, and hitting the occasional sidehits/parks (<25% of the time). Don't go switch or carve much. Now my questions:
1. I want to stick to Burton bindings/boots so I'm thinking Malavita (alternative would be Genesis) and Swath (alternative would be Photon). My Jeremy Jones had a flex of 5 which i really like. Which combo would you go with? Also, about the sizing, my current ones are 10.5 but I can only find size 11 now, is 0.5 size too much of a difference? Also, do I need to go with L bindings for size 11?
2. About the board, my choices are (ranked): 1. Jones MT, 2. Yes Greats, 3. Lib TRS 4. Yes Standard, 5. Burton Custom. I like traditional camber but wouldn't exclude a hybrid. Which one would you suggest for my riding style/ability? My current board had a 6.5 flex rating I think (i'm always confused if thats a universal rating or its assigned subjectively from each brand) but it has probably dropped a point or 1.5 by now. Size wise, should I do 154-155 like my old board or bigger? Also do I need a wide given my size 10.5-11 boots? Does my choice of boots/bindings pair well with the board(s) you suggest?
Thank you
Hi HT
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, flex ratings aren’t universal unfortunately – and are just what the brand assigns it. However, on all our reviews we give what we think it feels like. This is determined by comparing to our control setups, which is assigned a certain flex and going from there (plus experience with riding 100s of different boards). So in that sense try to make our flex ratings universal between brands. Never going to be 100% accurate, but we do our best to test as accurately as possible.
Given you like speed, going stiffer is a good idea, but that should be tempered with your weight. Lighter riders will feel the flex more so than a heavier rider, so I think sticking around that 6/10 to 6.5/10 range is a good bet.
By my feel, the boards you’ve listed have flex:
TRS: 5.5/10
Greats: 6/10
Mountain Twin: 6/10
Standard: 6/10
Standard Uninc: 6.5/10
Custom: 6.5/10
I’ve added Standard Uninc in there as it’s essentially a traditional camber version of the Standard (and a touch stiffer).
The Custom Camber and Standard Uninc are the best in terms of stability at speed, IMO. With the Standard close behind and then the rest not too far behind again. The Mountain Twin and Standard are the best in powder of the lot, IMO. Anything here will handle shallower powder fine, but not as well when it gets deeper.
For park, they’re all capable, depending on what you want to do. The likes of the TRS and Greats are better when it comes to jibs than the rest, but they’re all capable on jumps and sidehits, IMO.
So given you like to ride fast – I’d be leaning Custom or Standard Uninc, – or Standard if you wanted to get a little extra float in powder.
Size-wise, I would typically say go closer to 151 for your specs, but given that you’re used to riding a 154, something around 154 would be a good bet, but I wouldn’t go longer than that. For the Greats, I would go 151. That’s a board you can size down for. And it’s wider so shouldn’t be an issue width-wise, even in the 154. For the Standard/Standard Uninc, I’d look at the 153 – and again, you wouldn’t have to worry about with on that one, IMO, being a wider board as well. For the Mountain Twin, I think you get away with the 154, assuming you get 10.5s, but it’s a little borderline – with 11s, it would be quite risky. For the TRS I think the 154 would be borderline even in 10.5s (not as wide at the inserts as the others – less of a difference between waist and width at inserts). And anything else would be too big, IMO. For the Custom Camber I think the 154W would be your best bet.
In terms of sizing boots, 1/2 size can make a big difference, so if 10.5 is your best size, I would try to get 10.5s, 11s will likely pack out to be too big. The Swath are what I would call 5/10 flex – the Photon more like 6.5/10. I think the Photon would be the better match for the boards, but the Swath works if you want to keep the flex a little softer in the boots. The Malavita works with all those boards and should feel similar in flex to the Mission. They’re a touch stiffer, IMO, than the current Missions, but the Missions were a little stiffer previously, so your model is probably similar to the current Malavita, in terms of stiffness. The Genesis also work. A touch softer than the Malavita, IMO, but still doable – a better match with the softer boards in the list vs the stiffer ones.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for the detailed answer Nate – really appreciate it. What about edge to edge speed? Does any of these boards excel at it (or any other you would suggest not in the list)? Thanks again
Hi HT
I wouldn’t say there’s a big difference in edge-to-edge speed between them. Also, edge-to-edge speed also differs between boards, depending on how fast your riding them. Some boards are really quick edge-to-edge when you’ve got some speed under them, but aren’t as quick edge-to-edge at slower speeds. In the case of these boards, they’re all fairly good at slower speeds in terms of edge-to-edge quickness and decent at speed too, which is typically the case with mid-flexing boards.
If I had to say, I’d say the TRS and Mountain Twin have a little step up on the others in terms of slower speed edge-to-edge quickness, but there’s not much in it. And the Custom is probably the quickest edge-to-edge when riding faster. But again, very little in it – and harder to notice the difference when riding faster too.
Hi Nate, sorry to bother you again. On my 154 the Freeride reference stance indicates a 20mm setback. When you highlighted the Freeride stance u indicated it was 40mm setback. The 40mm setback are you refering that binding holes already has a 20mm setback + the 20mm setback indicated on the reference stance = a total of 40mm setback? Cheers!
Hi Danny
Yeah technically the Freeride stance is a 20mm setback and reference a 10mm setback (with the freestyle stance being a 0mm setback (or centered stance).
In the freeride stance (on the 157), it’s 51cm to the nose and 46cm to the tail. A total of 5cm (50mm) difference. 10mm of that difference is because the nose is 10mm longer than the tail (outside the contact points). So the difference between the contact points is 40mm. But that’s technically halved when calculating setback – so technically yes, sorry about that, it is 20mm setback. Centered (on the 157) it’s 49cm to the nose and 48cm to the tail, but between the contact points it’s even.
Note, just so these numbers aren’t confusing, that these are both with a 58cm stance width. Then these numbers only add up to 155cm, but this was on a 157cm board. This is because the full length of the board takes into account the curve on the tip and tail and my measurements here were a straight line.
So for the reference setback, it’s technically a 10mm setback on effective edge. 49cm to nose, 46cm to tail but 10mm of that is the longer nose, so between the contact points the difference is 20mm (so technically a 10mm setback after halving that number. Note these numbers will differ on yours because it’s a 154.
But hope that explains it.
Hi Nate, I’m thinking of buying a mountain twin or a burton process camber. Do you think they are similar and comparable boards? If so, in which areas do one excel over the other. The only reason I’m hesitating on the mountain twin is that I have a pair of genesis EST bindings and would need to purchase a new set of bindings if I got the mountain twin. In addition I’m 5’10 155lbs US8.5 boots, would the 154 or 157 mountain twin be more sutiable for mostly groomers. Cheers!
Hi Danny
They are similar-ish, but certainly not the same. Differences include:
– Mountain Twin a little stiffer, but not heaps in it (6/10 vs 5/10, by my feel)
– I would say the Mountain Twin has a “stable” feel. Versus a “semi-locked in” feel on the Burton Process
– Mountain Twin a little better in icy conditions, IMO
– Mountain Twin better in powder
– Process a little more pop, a little more snap overall, the Mountain Twin a little smoother
– Pretty similar in overall performance (though slightly differ in feel) for carving, speed and jumps
Size-wise, I’d be looking at the 154 for the Mountain Twin. I think that size is spot on for you. For the Process, the 155 would be your best bet, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks so much for the detailed response, definitely helps!
Hi Nate, I just purchased the MT 2023. There seems to be several reference stance options and I’m not sure which one to use. For resort riding (carving/cruising) should I be using the freestyle or freeride reference stance to setup my bindings?
Hi Danny
For carving cruising I would either setup on the Freeride (40mm setback) stance or go with what I would consider the traditional reference stance on this board.
To get that traditional reference stance (20mm setback): They don’t explicitly mark the reference stance on the board but if you setup in freeride at the back and freestyle for the front then you get that traditional reference stance. Or you can achieve the same reference stance setback (i.e. 20mm) by going freestyle at back and freeride at front, if you think you’d prefer a narrower stance width. Though for your height, I think the 22″ (560mm) reference stance should be good – though it never hurts to experiment with that.
Not if you were to setup freeride (or freestyle) stance, I think the stance width on the 154 should be 540mm (21.3″) and if you setup freeride at the back and freestyle at the front it will be 560mm (22″) and if you setup freestyle at the back and freeride at the front, then you would be looking at a 520mm (20.5″) stance width.
Hi Nate, this clears up a lot of confusion. I think I’ll be going with the free ride reference stance, and play with the width adjustments on my bindings. Another question I have is if I want to narrow my stance with my binding width adjustments, do I move the front and back bindings in to the center equally or do I just move my front binding in to the center and leave the back binding on the reference holes? Cheers!
Hi Danny
It depends on if you want to keep the same setback stance or happy to change it. If you were to just move your front binding to the center, then you would be increasing the setback stance. If you want to go with a narrower stance but keep the same amount of setback, then you would move both bindings towards the center by the same amount.
Hello Nate
Great review about the Jones mountain twin. Which size would you recommend for me please? 183cm(6’0″)/80kg(175pounds)/12us Size boots
Hi Pavel
Assuming you’re at a relatively advanced level of riding, I think the 159W would be your best bet. But also depends on your riding style. If you like to incorporate a fair bit of freestyle stuff like butters, jibs etc and if you value maneuverability over stability at speed – or if you’re more of an intermediate rider, then the 156W might be more appropriate.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First, thanks for the reviews, priceless information.
Second, a question regarding MT sizing:
I’m 5.9″, between 70 and 75 kg, boots size 9 (Burton ION, Step Ons). Currently riding Yes Greats, 154cm… I’m an intermediate rider at best, and a bit older at that ( 57 this year). My Yes board feels great most of the time, but I wanted something ‘less technical’ sometimes, if you know what I mean, and something that could handle powder better…
I have an option to get 2021 MT at 157cm… Is this too long for me? I tried to find one last year, but it was too late, and all I could find were bigger sizes…
Appreciate your advice!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157 should work fine for you. I would put your “standard length” right on 157. The Greats should be sized down a little bit, IMO, unless you have bigger feet, but with 9s, I think you were right to go with the 154. Although with the Greats, you could even have gone 151. The 154 would also be a possibility for the Mountain Twin for you, given you’re not at an advanced level. But the 157 is certainly doable for you, particularly if you’re not intending on doing any tricks.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Looking for a new ride and I keep coming back to the MT. I’m in NC so lots of hard pack/ice groomers for most of the year, some soft stuff at the end. I ride with my friends (fast) and kids (slow), no parks, but do like to spin, butter, and ride switch but I seem to be slowing down as I age… I’m 46, 6’2, 230lb with size 13 burton step ons. Currently on a 13 year old Ride Fleetwood 157W. I’ve been looking at the MT, terrain wreckers, skunk ape, and burton custom. Really just looking for new tech benefits and something fun to ride, do it all, better in the hard/ice, what ya think?
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards the Mountain Twin. It’s really versatile and can give you that good balance between slow and fast and just can do everything – and really consistent across conditions. The other 2 would work for sure, but I’d be leaning MT. Size-wise, I’d look to size up from what you’re currently riding. I think the 162W would be a good bet. You could certainly ride the 165W, but given you’re coming from a 157 I think the 162W would be a better bet. And will give you a good balance of being fast enough, but also easy to ride slow, when you’re with your kids.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Currently ride an ‘18 Flagship + Now Drive bindings. Quite a straight line charger…and honestly, maybe a little too much board for me. (Level 6 according to your skill chart).
So looking to find a mellower, board that can do some slow speed slashing and just cruise with the kids, and improving switch riding.
This board checks all the boxes. But I came across a deal on the Mind Expander Twin as well… Your recent Jones preview says there’s a full review coming. But wanted to see if you could give your 2c on the 2 boards, and if they’re significantly different.
Is the ME Twin much more mellow and “fun”/surfy than the MT? I know it’s slightly softer, and has a tighter sidecut for small turns… but I’ve read that it may not be that stable in firmer conditions.
I’m mainly SoCal, so will see some PoW… but lots of firm conditions and slush too.
Finally, if I go with either the ME Twin or Mountain Twin… would the Now Drive bindings be too stiff in your opinion?
I think I can get the soft bushings to soften up the ride… but don’t have much experience with softer highbacks and how that can affect the ride.
I don’t intend to do lots of park (mainly sidehits and small jumps)… but if I get the ME Twin/MT, will maybe try some butters too.
Thanks!
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
I did find the Mind Expander Twin a little softer than the MT, but not by a massive amount. I felt it at around 5.5/10, where I felt the MT at more like 6/10, so not a huge difference, but a touch softer.
In terms of stability in hard/icy conditions, I found it’s edge hold to be pretty good. It’s not up there with the best in icy conditions but it’s not bad. Similar to the MT I would say. In terms of stability at speed overall, it’s not a bomber, but it’s not bad either. Again fairly similar to the MT in that respect.
In a lot of ways it’s quite similar to the MT – buttering, switch, carving. But it’s not the same feel. It’s a little bit smoother/less snappy and it’s got more of that short/wide feel versus the MT. I like to ride the MT at 157, whereas the ME Twin I rode at 154, which felt like the right size to me. It’s got a little bit of a delayed feeling for edge to edge transitions when at slower speeds, which I find typical of wider boards, but that will also depend on your foot size. It’s not physically difficult to get it to transition edges at slower speeds, like stiffer boards can be or anything but just that little bit of a delayed feeling.
I think both could certainly work for you, but which you go with might depend on sizing. I’m happy to give my opinion on sizing, would just need your weight, height and boot size.
Hope this helps
Perfect.
Your descriptions pretty much confirmed what I was looking for in the MindExpander Twin.
Wasn’t looking for a full-on freestyle board. So a smooth all-mtn cruiser that can butter and spin sounds like a perfect complementary board.
Got the ME Twin in the 158. (200lbs, 10.5 boots, 6”1).
Will look for some 5-6 flexing bindings now 😉
Hi Luke
That’s the size I would have recommended for you, so I think it should suit you well.
For some good options for bindings that will match check out this list.
Hope it treats you well!
Hello Nate!
I would much appreciate it if you help me figure out what snowboard to pick a snowboard for a gift.
So, I’m choosing between Jones Mountain Twin and Mind Expander (and also open to other options:) ).
The rider is 5.10″ and about 120 weight, boot size 8 (that’s why I’m confused about MindExpander, it seems too wide)
Mostly rides powder and groomers (lake Tahoe area if this matters).
And I’m struggling to choose 😀
Thank you for your help in advance!
Hi Nadya
Thanks for your message.
The Mind Expander is a wider board, but doesn’t rule it out. With a wider board, you can size down in length to compensate for that extra width. For their weight, I would already have them at around a 149/150 in terms of length, so with a boot size of 8, I would probably go 146 if you did go Mind Expander. Note that a lot of people start out sizing to their height (probably mostly because a lot of rental places still just go off height), but weight (and boot size) is more important for sizing. That said, if they’re used to riding something a lot longer than that, then it could feel quite small. Depending on what they’re used to riding, they might prefer to go 150.
For the Mountain Twin, I would go 151. It’s a little on the bigger side, but again, because of their height, there’s a good chance they’re used to that, so I think the 151 would likely be a good size for them.
Between the boards, the Mountain Twin, IMO, is better on groomers, but the Mind Expander better in powder. So I think it would depend on how much powder they actually ride. Both are really nice boards – and the MT is still good in powder and the ME is still good on groomers, so there’s not a bad decision between them. I think either one would work, but if you wanted other options you could also check out:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards
The first list for more of an all-rounder board – and the second list for more of a powder focused board. Be sure to check the score breakdowns to make sure they’ll have the desired characteristics – particularly with the surfy freeride list, which is quite eclectic and some boards in there are more powder specialist.
Hope this helps
Thanks for this review. I got back into riding about 2 seasons ago after about a 20 year hiatus. My last board that got me through my teens and early twenties, with a few trips to Whistler from Ontario was Ride Yukon 164cm. That board was stiff IMO. Getting back into at almost 40 years old, a close friend recommended Rossi boards for their edge technology, and I ended up with a great deal on a leftover 2020 Rossi One LF 161W. For reference I’m about 210lb with gear, 6’2″ or so, and I’d say I’m a solid carver/rider, probably a middle of the road intermediate rider but am reacquainting myself with the sport as I mentioned. I wear a Size 12 Ride Deadbolt boot and am running GNU Psych bindings, as my local hill is a bump and I wanted speed entry bindings. Over the last year and a bit, I have been super impressed with my entire setup, it’s all great. But this season we finally took a family trip east to Quebec, and rode some “real” ski hills, and although the One LF performed admirably, it took a lot more body english than I expected for it to handle the variations in snow conditions from groomer to POW and everything in between. It felt “chattery” during the initiation of a carve in the rough, but once into the turn was great. My friend is an avid rider and when I asked him about potenitally looking at end of season sales for a board for bigger mountain trips, he recommended a Jones MT as a possibility. I have found 165W for 20% off, and am wondering what your thoughts are in terms of providing some stability in deeper snow in comparison to my 161W One LF, without losing the other characteristics that make the One such a great board. Am I just looking to waste money? I was hesitant about going smaller than my old 164 yukon, but the sales person assured me the 161W would be fine for my size and riding location, which is absolutely is. It’s also fine anywhere on groomers and great on ice. But when we travel and actually find some deeper snow, it leaves me feeling a touch less stable than I’d like. Look forward to your thoughts on this one, specially if you have different recommendations besides the MT. Thanks
Hi Sean
Thanks for your message.
I agree you sized the One right for your situation and overall is a good size for you. But going from a stiffer board and going smaller, albeit from 20 years ago, you could go longer. The One is good for powder, but it’s certainly not a powder specialist. But the MT isn’t any more powder oriented. That said, the 165W would give you more stability in powder because of it’s size – so it’s certainly an option. But if you wanted to go with something more powder oriented, there are other options that would be a better compliment to your One, for your quiver, IMO.
If you wanted to stick with a relatively mid-flex kind of board, then I would check out some options from this list.
But if you wanted to go a little stiffer – which, from what you’re describing, you might want to for your second, more big mountain, board – then this list is worth checking out.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the recommendations. I actually found a great deal on a Jones Flagship 165W and went with that. Should be here this week, just in time to put into summer storage! I think it will be a great quiver addition, keep the smaller, more flexible Rossi for local and the Flagship for trips to actual mountains or wherever I’m going to experience deeper snow overall. Do you recommend swapping bindings back and forth or is there a less expensive, traditional binding that would match well with the new Flagship?
Hi Sean
That sounds like a really good quiver to me – and you should get noticeably more stability at speed and better float in powder. And I agree that using the Rossi on the smaller hill and Flaghship for bigger mountain stuff should work beautifully.
In terms of bindings, ideally I would go with a stiffer binding on the Flagship. The Pysch should be doable on it, if you wanted to swap over and save money, so you could definitely do that, but optimally something stiffer for the Flagship. I haven’t tested the Pysch, but looks to be a really good flex match for the One. Unfortunately stiffer bindings tend to be more expensive as a rule, but you could look at something like the Salomon Alibi Pro which is one of the cheapest stiffer bindings around. Or if you wanted something more mid-stiff (7/10) – still stiffer than the Psych, but not as stiff as other bindings, then something like the Flux XF or Arbor Cypress are really good options with a less expensive price tag.
Thanks for the great review. It helped steer me toward this board. I do have a question about the different stance option on this board. Your review mentions reference, freestyle, and free ride options. When I look at the insert packs on mine, I see the freestyle and free ride marks on both front and rear insert packs. Both have the same stance width. I don’t see a “reference stance” that is 20mm wider than the other two. Is the reference stance achieved by using the free ride mark for the rear foot and the freestyle mark for the front foot?
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
You got it. They don’t explicitly mark the reference stance on the board – they do in the specs for the board, but don’t label it on the board (I guess it would get a bit congested with the freeride and freestyle markings). But yeah, freeride at the back and freestyle for the front is reference. Or you can achieve the same reference stance setback (i.e. 20mm) by going freestyle at back and freeride at front. If you like the idea of the 20mm setback, but find the idea of the 600mm stance width being too wide, then this is a good way to get that 20mm setback but with a 560mm (20″) setback – which is how I rode it, as I find 600mm too wide.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I am looking for a all-mountain board/binding setup that I can grow with. currently I would say I am somewhere in-between beginner and intermediate, and would say my style is all-mountain. I am 5’9, 195lbs and wear a 10.5 boot. from reading reviews on a few different websites the boards I am looking at most are the Jones Mountain Twin, Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker, and the Neversummer Snowtrooper. thanks for any advice/guidance you can give.
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
In terms of those 3, I would say the Snowtrooper is the easiest ride, followed by the TW, then the MT. But even the MT is still intermediate suitable for sure. It’s a little bit more for a step up and would be a steeper learning curve for that high-end beginner/low end intermediate level. Doable but just expect it to be a little more of a challenge to begin with. The TW and Snowtrooper, IMO and well suited to what you’re describing (and make my top intermediate boards list – which is specifically aimed at what you’re describing).
Size-wise, I would say your “standard all-mountain length” is around 160, but as a beginner/intermediate rider, taking a bit of size off makes sense. With 10.5s, it’s going to depend on the board whether you need to go wide or not.
– ST: 157X – you might get away with the 159 being wide enough – depends on a few things, but I think for this board the safer bet is to go wide
– TW: 157 – think you will get away with 10.5s on this. If you had bulky 10.5s a back binding angle of like 0 to 3 degrees or something quite flat like that and liked to carve really deep, then it might be too narrow, but otherwise, I think it will be fine.
– MT: 157 – this is wide enough for 10.5s, IMO, no need to go wide
You could bump up to the 160 on the MT and TW, but I would be leaning 157.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply that is a ton of help. sizing even after reading your basics on picking a size were still a bit confusing to me. my guess for size was a little off lol. I looked at my current board which is a no name board I’ve had for a long time but its only seen about 15 or so days on the mountain, I looked to see what my stance was, its currently 15/0 what would your recommend for a back stance, should I slowly scale up ? I think I’m going to try and get the TW 157 this year for next season. I recently bought some thirty-two tm-2 wide’s. what binding do your recommend for this set up. Thanks again for your input and for all the work you have done on this site its an amazing resource.
Hi Paul
In terms of binding angles, I would experiment to see what feels best to you. But IU wouldn’t slowly scale up – rather I would try out more exaggerated differences to get a clearer picture of what you like. I would try initially comparing the +15/0 that you’re used to, to a +15/-15 and see how you like it. If you prefer the +15/-15, then you could keep it at that or experiment further – e.g. try a +12/-12 or a slightly less duck stance like +18/-12 or something. If you prefer the +15/0 over the +15/-15, then you could try going +18/-6 or something like and see how it feels, if you still preferred the +15/0 after that you could try +18/+3 or something like that.
Bindings for your setup and suitable for your level, I would go with something 5/10 to 6/10 flex. Something from the following should work well with the TW:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
Okay so I recently learned that I’m oversized on my boots for snowboarding. I wear a normal 10.5 but according to my mondo size I’m a 9 so I’m going to re order boots for that size. Does this Change your recommendations for board size with this new boot size thanks again man.
Hi Paul
For the TW and MT, I would still go 157. But with 9s, I wouldn’t go wide on the Snowtrooper – I’d say go 159. But 156 is also an option if you want to keep things really playful/easy going.
Note also that mondo isn’t perfect and each boot fits differently. My Mondo would be put me in a 9.5 every time (my right foot is 27cm but my left is 27.3cm. Whilst I’m a 9.5 for a coulpe of brands, I’m typically a 10 in most brands – and can even get away with a 10.5 in some brands. So, just be a little careful going directly with mondo. In terms of how brands differ – here’s a post with what I experience for a number of different brands. If you’re unable to try on, you can use that post as a guide, but it doesn’t guarantee that it’ll be the same for you as feet can be strange. Another option, if you’re ordering online is to order a couple of different sizes and send back the one that doesn’t fit as well (double checking return policies, but most will let you do this).
Hi Nate,
Just bought the 156W board, 73kg, 180cm, 10.5.
What is the reference stance?
Got only the freestyle and freeride marked on my board, both are 560mm with a 20mm setback at the freeride.
As an all mountain “have fun no switch” guy, will you recommend the freeride over the freestyle stance?
What are the differences accept that beter float at freeride stance?
Regards,
Eran.
Hi Eran
Thanks for your message.
Reference stance is setup with the front binding on the “freestyle” marking and the back binding on the “freeride” marking. And this gives you a 20mm setback and would be a 580mm stance width. The freeride stance should give you a 40mm setback. If your not riding switch or anything freestyle, then I’d go either reference or freeride. Freeride, like you say helps with float in powder, with the extra powder. Some people also prefer a bit of setback for carving. You could try both to see what you prefer – it might be that you prefer the one that has the stance width you prefer the most.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate.
One more question please.
I own the Burtom Genesis bindings and I considering to replace it with Burton Malavita for more “all mountain have fun” filling…
What will you recommend?
Switch to Malavita or staying with the Genesis?
Regards,
Eran.
Hi Eran
The Malavita has a slightly stiffer highback than the Genesis, but similar flex in the base plate. I would say that the Genesis is slightly softer flexing overall, but they’re quite close. You could change to Malavita and it will go well with the MT, IMO, but the Genesis also go well, and I don’t think you’d notice a huge difference in them, so might not be worth the cost to do it.
Thanks
Can or would you recommend of some other binding from another company to the MT?
Hi Eran
The Union Strata would work really well, IMO. The Union Force too, if you were willing to sacrifice on board feel. The K2 Lien AT is another option. Or if you wanted to go a little stiffer, you could also certainly ride this board with a 7/10 flex binding, but given that you’re looking to err more playful and aggressive, by the sounds of it, one of those would work well – or the Burton Cartel or keep the Genesis.
Hi Nate,
This will definitely be my board, I have no doubts.
I’m 1.90, 85kg EU43.5, what’s the best size for me 160; 162W; 163…?
Thanks
Hi Nuno
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think you need to go wide with your boot size. So I would be between the 160 and 163. Both would work, but I would be leaning 160 if you want to do a bit of everything on it – park/freestyle, trees, groomers, powder etc etc – as a good all-round size. But if you wanted it predominantly for powder, speed and carving, then I’d be leaning 163.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks for this awesome site!
I am about to buy the Jones MT in size 154 and I wanted to make sure that my boot size is fine with it:
Vans Hi Standard Pro euro43 (us10). I measured the sole and it is exactly 30cm from edge to edge.
I ride with my bindings at +12/-12.
My weight is around 69kg / 150lbs Height 178cm
The center width of the 154 JMT is 25,1cm
Will I be fine?
Apart from this, what board from Capita do you think that matches the Jones Mountain Twin in playfulness? I’ve looked at the Mercury a lot but everyone says its more of an agressive ride and that you need speed to enjoy it, and since I want a more playful and relaxed ride, hitting every single side hit, doing 180’s and 360’s in the mountain, and cruising regular and switch equally during the day, it seems that the Jones MT is what I want: a pro board with top components that still feels playful and damped if I go slow or just cruise with my 4 year old doughter.
Thanks in advance for your advise.
Hi Tommy
Thanks for your message.
IMO you should be fine width-wise on the 154 MT. That waist is typically fine for 10s with those binding angles, in my experience – and the MT is a little wider at the inserts than you’d expect for the waist width, so you should be all good. The 154 is roughly 264mm at the back insert and 263mm at the front insert. With a 30cm boot and those angles, you should have plenty of width, IMO.
And yeah for your specs, I think the 154 is the right size.
From Capita, the Mercury is a little more aggressive – it’s not ultra aggressive, but it’s more so than the MT and prefers speed over riding slow, IMO.
The OSL is more playful and would likely be more suited to what you’re describing – but it’s kind of the other side of the MT – as in the MT in the middle of the Mercury and OSL. For what you’re describing, assuming you don’t need it for deep powder, I would look at the Asymulator from Capita.
Hope this helps
Thank you. I finally got the Jones. Never had any Jones experience so I hope these are high quality boards… In terms of style of board it seems to tick all the boxes but I won’t know it until I try it (this weekend probably).
Good advise from your site, being the number 2 of the “all mountain boards” is reassuring.
Hi Tommy
Thanks for the update. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you get a chance to ride it.
Thanks for the great review, Nate! I’m ready to pull the trigger on the MT but I’m wavering between sizes. I’m 5’9″, 169 lbs, size 10 Burton Ruler boot, and would consider myself an intermediate rider. I’m primarily looking for groomers, trees, and powder. I’m using the Union Force for bindings.
I’m wavering between the 154 and 157. It seems like it may ultimately come down to personal preference but I’d love to get your input. Thanks!
Hi Bryce
Please see my reply to your other message below.
Thanks for the great review, Nate! I’m ready to pull the trigger on the MT but am debating size. I’m 5’9, 169 lbs, Sz 10 Burton Ruler boot. I’m looking for mostly groomers, trees, and powder. Would you advise the 154 or 157? Thanks for your help!
Hi Bryce
Thanks for your message.
I think you could ride either size – and I definitely get your hesitation as to which to go with. I would be leaning 157 for you, but 154 wouldn’t be completely wrong. For bombing groomers, carving and powder, I think you’d like the 157 more. The 154 would be a little better for trees, but the 157 isn’t going to feel big or anything in the trees. I think if you were going to be also riding a reasonable amount of freestyle stuff (butters, jibs, jumps, spins sidehits etc), then it could be a different decision, but for what you’re describing, I’d be leaning 157.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, can you please help me decide on a Mountain Twin snowboard size? I am 186 cm, 78 kg, 42,5 EU size boot, intermediate skill. I will mostly ride groomers, with a hint of a side pow. I sometimes ride switch, and/or goof around learning small tricks (but I don’t go to parks – so nothing serious). When I ride, I mostly ride fast. I come from 160 cm stiff camber, and I am looking forward to have more relaxed/playful ride which I believe this board will provide, but I still want to feel stable and confident when going faster or over icy patches. I am torn between staying on 160 or going 157? Thank you in advance for your feedback!
Hi Mario
Thanks for your message.
Both could work for you, but given that you mostly ride fast and that you’re used to a 160 stiff camber board, I would be leaning 160. You’ll already be going more playful than a stiff camber board, even in the same size – and given you want to keep things fairly stable and fast, I’d be leaning 160. 157 wouldn’t be wrong for you, but my instinct in this case says go 160.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Greetings from Slovakia. For the last week I have been absorbing tons of information on your site every evening as I’m planning to buy whole gear including board, binding, boots and your site gave me great overview and narrowed my selection, so I want to say thank you and show my appreciation, keep it up, you are the best.
Although, I’m still deciding between 2 boards and their size, either JMT 20/22 or Capita Mercury 21/22. I’m 183cm / 6ft, 93-95kg / 205-210lb athletic build, 27.5cm foot size using mirrored duck stance +15/-15, intermediate, riding mainly groomers, but also side paths. I’m planning to learn some tricks, jumps, ride a bit playful. It’s going to be one board for everything.
Which board do you think would suit me the best and what size?
Also, what binding would be the best? I saw your top list and I assume those are standard bindings. Do you prefer standard over “Step On”?
Regarding boots, I’m looking for some with Boa lancing system.
Thank you very much in advance for your time and response.
Tomas
Hi Tomas
Thanks for your message.
Given that you want it to be a bit playful, I would look at the Mountain Twin – it’s going to be easier to learn jumps, tricks etc on, IMO – and all round I think it suits how you describe your riding best. Size-wise, I would go 160 for your specs and how you want to ride.
Yeah those bindings are all regular strap in bindings. I prefer them over Step Ons and other options. I can definitely see the appeal of Step Ons and rear entry and the likes, but I really don’t mind spending a little bit of time strapping in at the top – I kind of like the ritual of it. And whilst the step ons and rear entry have gotten a lot better, I still prefer the feel of standard strap in bindings (the good ones anyway!) personally.
For boots and bindings, I would be looking at something around 6/10 flex to 7/10 flex to match the board and given how you describe your style, I would be leaning to 6/10 flex. For boots, something from here and bindings something from here would be a good bet, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Hope you are well. I have ended up with the MT 160 + Union Strata + DC Control Boots with double BOA (there was a good sale for boots) and finally tested it last weekend. It was like I would have been riding with this setup for some time, pretty easy, stable and playful, exactly what I wanted. Too bad the season is almost over here, but can’t wait for the next one.
Thank you very much for your articles and suggestions. I’m happy that I found this site, it really helped me to choose the right setup and got me more into snowboarding.
All the best
Tomas
You’re very welcome Tomas. And awesome that you got on well with your setup. Happy riding (hopefully you can get some more time out there before your season ends)!
Hello
I should buy a Jones Mountain twin, but I’m completely confused about the size.
I am 1.85 tall, 77kg and take a 10us.
I like to ride the whole mountain, from powder snow to high speeds on the track and a few triks on the track and in the park.
Could you help me choose the size please.
Thanks so much.
Hello
Hi Umberto
Thanks for your message.
I would be weighing up between the 157 and 160 for you. Both would work. Some thing to keep in mind:
– The 157 would be more nimble at slower speeds, more playful in general and better for tricks
– The 160 would give you more stability at speed and more float in powder and better for high speed, big carves
So it depends on what you want to optimize the most.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for an amazing resource. Like most of the writers here, unfortunately I have a problem with making the final decision on the choice of board, so I would like to ask you for advice. I’m 6 ft tall, 200 lbs weight, boot size US11 (44) Burton. Do you think what would be better for me as my new daily resort board (in European resorts) if I mainly drive on groomers, but also sometimes in uneven terrain, rather avoiding the park: MT 159W or MT 160? Or maybe Gnu Raides Choice or Niche Aether Chroma? In which size? Thanks in advance for your answer, Mark.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
I think the MT would work well for what you’re describing. The other 2 would work as well, but the MT is going to be better in powder than them. The Aether and Rider’s Choice are better for riding switch and in the park, IMO, but if you’re not really doing any of that (and the MT isn’t bad at those things either), then I’d be leaning MT for what you’re describing.
Size-wise, I would go 160 if you can get away with the width. With Burton boots, I think you should be good. But if you have a really straight back binding angle and like to carve really deep (e.g. eurocarving), then I would go 159W. Otherwise, I’d go 160.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
first of all thank you for this awesome site. So much awesome reviews and information. This year I would like to buy full new set up as I was riding very old burton snowboard last seasons and finally saved up some money for new gear. I am looking for Jones Mountain twin. I would say I am intermediate rider, I like to ride in slopes as well as going side paths with nature jumps etc… I would as well like to try learning some park riding. Few times I go for powder and trees. I live in europe so mostly going to Austria, Italy… Do you think Jones mountain twin would be a good option for me?
As well not sure about sizing I am about 188cm and my weight is very volatile bcs of my main sport. However I could say its minimum 80 – 90kg maximum. I will by buying new boots as well my size is 44.5 EU.
Thank you once again for any suggestion looking forward getting new gear and going to mountains.
Hi Jan
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing I think the Mountain Twin (MT) would work well. It’s very versatile and consistent across various different terrain, IMO.
Size-wise, I would go 159W for your specs. This is based on 85kg weight. If you were more consistently 90kg, then I would give the 162W serious consideration.
Hope this helps and let me know if you’d like any binding/boot suggestions to match the MT.
Thank you Nate, I will go with 159W luckily its only size they have at the moment in shop in my city. Do you think the MT would be the best option for me based on my experience and riding style? I was thinking about UNION strata and the Adidas Tactical only based on your reviews. If you have any better suggestion which boots/bindings go better with MT that would be awesome.
Thank you for your time and help
Hi Jan
Yeah, I think the Mountain Twin would work really well for what you’re describing. Both the Strata and Tactical ADV are well suited to the Mountain Twin and should work well with your style, IMO. So I think that would make for a great combo.
Hi Nate
Thank you for such an amazing and in depth review.
I am really interested in the Jones MT but I´m not sure about sizing. I´m 5´8″ I weigh 77 kg and wear size US 10.5 Salomon Hi Fi boots. I own a NS Proto Type 2 in 155w and for the JMT I´m undecided between the 156w or the 157. I am just concerned that I could have some toe or heel drag in steeper terrain.
Thanks again and greetings from Switzerland
Giezel
I wrote 2 times thinking that the first comment was not sent… Sorry about that.
Hi Giezel
All good and thanks for your messages.
Can definitely see your debate between those sizes. The Hi-Fi aren’t the lowest profile boots going around. With lower profile boots, I’d say 157 for sure, with the Hi-Fis, it’s a close call. If you could le me know a couple of extra things.
1. Do you know the binding angles you use?
2. What is your typical stance width?
More angle on your bindings allows you to go narrower and a wider stance width puts you on a wider part of the board, so those things could make the difference between going 157 or 156W. E.g. if you were riding with a zero degree back binding angle and had a narrower stance width, then 157 might be too narrow and you’d be better going 156W.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
With the Proto Type 2 I have my angles at +15 -15, because its a true twin. My stand width right now is 21.5 inches, but with a more directional board like the MT I would probably close the angle of my back binding a little to something like -12 or -9.
Hope this helps and thanks for the fast
Hi Giezel
The MT 157 is around 267mm at the back insert, with a 22″ stance, which I would certainly be confident with 10.5s with a 15 degree angle. Even with a -9 angle, I think you should be fine. The average profile boot is around 3cm larger than mondo. So with a 28.5 Mondo boot (US10.5), you would be looking at around 31.5cm for the boot. That would leave you with around 4.8cm of total overhang (roughly 2.4cm of overhang on toe and heel, with perfect centering – so just under an inch on each side) with a zero degree angle. With the 9 degree angle, that would be less. So I think it’s doable. I haven’t measured the Hi-Fi, but the Lo-Fi I measured was around 2.9cm longer than mondo – so assuming the Hi-Fi is similar it’s not as bulky as a lot of other Salomon boots.
So, I think you could get on the 157, but that doesn’t make the 156W wrong – and if you wanted that extra width (e.g. if you wanted to start eurocarving or that kind of thing – or wanted to experiment with a straighter back binding angle) then it’s still certainly an option. Also if you haven’t had any issues with the 155W (I personally don’t like boards that are too wide, but some people are fine with it) and liked that, then 156W could work too.
Hi Nate
Thanks for your awesome and in depth reviews. I’m really interested in the jones MT, I’ve been riding for 7 years, started the first to seasons with a Völkl Snowboard (I’m in Switzerland) for beginners and Progressed really fast. I then got a good deal on a NS Proto Type 2 and love it but I’m looking for something with a better float in powder.
What size Jones MT would you recommend? I’m about 5’8”, weight 78 kg and ride with a pair of Salomon Hi Fi boots size US 10.5
Thanks for your in depth work and greetings from Switzerland!
Giezel
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the great review. I have decided to get the Mountain Twin but I’m kinda stuck on what size I should buy. I’m 5’8.5 and 155lbs and have 10.5 to 11 size boots currently looking for new ones!
Looking forward to your apply.
Thanks
Hi Austin
Thanks for your message.
I think the 156W would be the best bet for you assuming a relatively advanced level – like high intermediate. The 154 would also be a doable size, and would be better if you were a low intermediate. But borderline in terms of whether it’s wide enough for your boots. If you were in low profile 10.5s and rode with +15/-15 binding angles or similar, you’d likely be good, but in 11s or with a straighter back binding angle in 10.5s or bulky 10.5s kind of thing, then it’s pushing it in terms of being too narrow. So yeah, I think 156W is your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First, you’re website and reviews are awesome and very helpful. You had helped me find some good options for me to look at before the start of the season, so thank you. However I’m not quite satisfied with the board I chose. So I’m looking to possibility go with a different option.
This will be my third year snowboarding, and as far as my ability level I am comfortable with turns, carving, riding black diamonds but have only experimented with getting in the air, hitting jumps and side hits and want to get comfortable doing spins and butters and also learn switch.
Last year I rode the lib Tech e Jack Knife 154. A bit aggressive for only a second year rider, but being 5’11” 190lbs and 10.5 boot the smaller sized board allowed me to handle it well. By the end of the first day I would pretty comfortable on it. I liked pretty much everything about it I just wanted a bit of a bigger board and something I could learn jumps/side hits, spins and also switch.
I ended up going with the Capita Mercury 159 for this year. After a few days on the mountain with it I’m not a 100% stoked on it. As far as carving and bombing, its a blast. When it comes to setting up for a jump it feels less stable, turning and navigating around things also feels less precise and reactive. I feel as though the e Jack Knife did better at both of those things. Not sure if it is the size difference in the boards or the nature of them. Needless to say I’m looking to downsize slightly, and for something that has more of those e Jack Knife characteristics while allowing me to learn the new things I want to.
Capita DOA
Capita BSOD
Jones MT
Jones UMT
Rossignol One
These are the boards I’m looking at. If you could let me know what you think or have any suggestions that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Hi Reed
Thanks for your message.
Given that you’re looking for something that you want to get more comfortable doing spins, butters, sidehits, jumps etc, I would be leaning Jones MT or Rossi One. You’d be sacrificing a little when it comes to carving and bombing – particularly if you size down – but you should notice them being easier to butter, easier to navigate at slower speeds.
The DOA, despite being more freestyle oriented isn’t as easy to butter, in my experience as the likes of the MT and One. The BSOD is stiffer, and in my experience as difficult to navigate tight spaces as the Mercury – and less buttery and less suitable for the more freestyle aspects you want to learn, IMO.
The UMT is also a stiffer board – and harder to butter and harder to navigate in tighter spaces than something like the MT or One.
Size-wise, given you want to size down a bit, the MT would be good in the 157. The Rossi One, I think I’d still go 159 for that board. You could go down to 156, but a. it’s pushing it being too narrow for your boots and b. it’s an easier going board than the Mercury and the E Jack Knife, so I don’t think you’ll have issues with the 159 feeling too big. If you’re concerned about that though, then the 157 MT is probably your best bet.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thank you for your response. The MT seems like a pretty versatile and likable board. I have heard lots of good things. But I’ve also heard that it’s a bit playful too. If I had to choose between playful and precise I think I’d go precise. I feel like the e jack was pretty precise and responsive turning even in the icy northeast conditions up here which I liked about it. It seemed to track well going into jumps too whereas the Mercury seemed like it was drifting. Should I consider just getting an e jack 157 or something similar? The buttering is becoming less and less important to me and I’m feel like I’m more concerned with being able to have better responsiveness and edge control.
What about the Aviator 2.0? Have you had a chance to ride it? I saw it in the store the other day and it seemed in between the MT and UMT as far as flex, pretty much the same as the e jack. Would that be a good option? Do you have any other suggestions?
Thanks
Hi Reed
Yeah going Ejack Knife in 157 is definitely an option given your experience with it – and particularly if you’re leaning more precise than playful and not too worried about butters anymore.
I recently rode the Aviator 2.0 – and really liked it. But I’d say it’s actually a little stiffer than UMT, despite how Jones rates them. Not by much – very similar – but marginally. The Aviator 2.0 isn’t as good in powder as the UMT, but it’s better for carving and better at speed. It’s a little harder to butter than the UMT. It’s a beast – more of a beast than the E Jack, IMO. And even more so than the UMT.
Great review. Thanks!
You’re very welcome Sergio. Thanks for visiting the site!
Hey Nate! First of all, I must say that this is the first time looking for a board when using your reviews, and you are doing INCREDIBLE work! So thank you on behalf of the snowboarding community 🙂
I’m 155lbs(70kg~), 175cm, riding 9.5US RIDE Jackson boots. Looking to progress into my second board. I’m an all-mountain rider, mainly groomers, pow near the groomers/trees when available, just starting to work harder on my switch game which is pretty shit.. Want to get better at buttering and hitting side hits. A mild carver, not very aggressive, tending to skid steeper black pistes.
Right now I’m riding a GNU carbon credit 2016 hynrid rocker, which is really nice and catch free but missing a lot of stability and doesn’t help me a lot when exiting a carve.
Considering the details above, I thought about buying the Jones MT, as it can do it all board and kinda forgiving. I’m torn between the 151cm to the 154cm version, leaning towards the 154cm.
Do you think the MT is a good choice for me? can you think about better alternatives?
Many thanks, Nitzan ❤️
Hi Nitzan
Thanks for your message.
I think the 154 should work well for what you’re describing – and certainly give you a step up in terms of stability and carving versus the Carbon Credit, without it being too aggressive. You can still butter it and ride it slow/casual when you want to. I think it would be a good step up. It’s not the only option, but it would definitely be one I would recommend for what you’re describing – so to avoid complicating things, I won’t offer any other suggestions for now, because I think it will work really well for you.
Size-wise, the 154 should be just right for your specs, IMO. The 151 would be a bit small – and the 157 a little big. 154 spot on, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Crap, I just typed out a whole question about this board being a compliment to my Yes Greats….but forgot to list my height as 5’11 and weight as ~180, but likely gaining a few pounds in the near future (probably 185-190 max)
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
You’ll definitely see a lift in terms of powder performance going to the MT – and in that 6-14″ range should do a good job. The Greats does tend to sink it’s nose when it’s anything more than a few inches. I wouldn’t say the MT is a better carver than the Greats though. Wouldn’t say you get a ton more pop either. I’d say similar pop. The MT is pretty light though and I find that does help to boost it a bit further with less effort, but the actual pop out of the board is similar, IMO.
Size-wise, at your current weight, I would definitely be leaning 159W. Even at 185-190 the 159W would be fine (I’m assuming you need a wide board) if you were going to use it as your daily driver. If you were going to use it as your powder board, then 162W, particularly at the heavier weight would be a good bet. Given you do spins off sidehits, the 159W for the most part sounds like your best bet. I think I’d only go to 162W if you were going to be replacing the Orca with it, as your powder board.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Great reviews! You helped me pick out my last board – a Yes Greats 156cm.
I am trying to find a board I can take out in moderate powder (between 6-14″) since the Greats does tend to struggle there. I’m also hoping for something that might carve a bit better. I have an Orca for the days where it gets super deep, although I might give this board a try in the super deep since I hate not being able to ride switch really at all in the Orca.
I think I have narrowed it down to the MT, but I’m debating between a 159W and a 162W. I do a lot of spins off side hits, but since it’s a more powder focused board I’m wondering if I should go bigger.
I’m also wondering pop on this board versus the Yes Greats — I am kind of thinking the MT might become my primary board if it has better pop. This makes me lean towards 159W.
Thanks again for all the awesome reviews!
Maybe also JMT 156W will be OK if I would like for ride on groomers and also uneven terrain with my 90 kg, 183 cm, boots 11 US ? Looking forward your reply, Andrzej
Hi Andrzej
Thanks for your messages. Answered your original one below, but a little more, after your follow up comments.
Mountain Twin (MT) does have a slightly longer effective edge than the average all-mountain board – but it’s not way longer than the average board. The Standard has a shorter than average effective edge (EE), so comparing those 2, makes the MT seem like it has a much bigger effective edge than it looks. Looking at a few other examples – Rossi One 159 (122cm EE), Slash Brainstorm 160 (120cm EE), Capita Mercury 159 (122.3cm EE). The Rossi One and Capita Mercury have essentially the same effective edge relative to overall length.
As per my last message, I would be leaning 159W for MT and 159 for Standard. However, if you wanted to err smaller, the 156W MT and 156 Standard would certainly work. For your specs, you would likely feel them a little softer flexing in those sizes than I did – and a little smaller overall, given your boot size as well (I’m 183cm, ~80kg, size 10 or 9.5). They would both be wide enough for your boots in those sizes. The 160 MT borderline, depending on factors, the 157MT even more borderline. Going 156 Standard and 156W Mountain Twin would also likely feel a little more maneuverable at slow speeds but less stable at higher speeds and have less float in powder. But certainly doable, if you want to err shorter.
Dear Nate,
I have read reviews which show that JMT 160 gives the impression of a very long board, because of the long edge effective in comparison with other boards of similar size, e.g. 123.4 cm JMT 160 cm vs 118.8 cm in the case of YES Standard 159. Is it true ? In this case, is it not a good idea to downsize the board? But I’m affraid if JMT 157 will be to narrow. I’m riding with +18/ -18 angles or +15/-15. At my 90 kg, 183 cm, boots 11 US board YES Standard 156 will be OK if I would like to try more uneven terrain? Will it be more manuverable? How about holding on the edge during faster ride on groomers? Maybe you could suggest a different board, more suitable for my specification and purposes. Looking forwward your reply, Andrzej
Hi Nate, thanks for the great review. Could you please advise the correct board size? 183 cm, 90 kg, Burton Imperial US11 boots, Malavita bindings L size. rather advanced rider 54 years old. I am considering a size of 157, 159W or 160, for riding mainly on the slope, occasionally outside. Which size do you think will be the best? Could Capita Mercury or YES Standard possibly be a good choice? What size? Thanks for the answer. Greetings from Poland.
Hi Andrzej
Thanks for your message.
I would go 159W for the MT for your specs. With 11s, I’d go wide, even low profile boots like the Imperial. You’d likely be able to get on the 160 width-wise, but only if you were happy with going reference stance of 600mm (23.6″), which is quite wide. In that case, you could definitely look at the 160. The 157 is likely too narrow. It’s doable length-wise, if you’re looking for something more maneuverable and less stable at higher speeds. So, kind of depends how you ride, but I’d be leaning 160 over 157, if you were going to attempt regular widths – both for it’s length and width. But I think the 159W is your best bet.
For the Standard, I’d probably go 159. It’s already wide, so no worries with the width.
For the Mercury, it would be between the 158W and 160W, but I’d be leaning 158W. Both lengths work, but at that width, which is on the wider side for 11s, sizing to the smaller size makes the most sense, IMO. The 159 is just a little too narrow. Not far off being wide enough though. If you were riding with +15/-15 binding angles or similar, or a wide stance width and aren’t doing any super deep carves, you might get away with it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, many thanks for your advice. Actually I’m riding with +15/-15 angles or even +18/-18 with reference stance 600 mm. So, I will cancel order for shorter and narrower board and try to find MT 160 or 159W or Standard 159. Thank you one more time.
You’re very welcome Andrzej. Happy riding!
One more question. Don’t I have to worry about exceeding the weight of the rider defined for the board by about 5-6 kg?
is it not a significant overload?
Hi Andrzej
I wouldn’t worry too much about the weight recommendations. I like to take them into account for sure. But they vary quite a bit between brands. And Jones typically has quite a low high end of the range weight recommendation. i.e. the weight at the top of the range for each size is lower than what is typical for other brands. For the 159W Mountain Twin it has an 86kg top of the range, but that’s pretty conservative, IMO. And the 160 is 91kg at the top of the range of their recommendations. Some brands even have higher weight ranges for wide boards, and might even give a higher weight range to a 159W to a 160. So yeah, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
So, what’s the key if both sizes, 160 and 159W seems to be ok? How to choose and which size?
Hi Andrzej
If it was me with your specs, I’d be going 160. I think it will end up being a really good width for 11s. I personally really feel it if a board is too wide for me. In your case with 11s, the 160, particularly with a 600mm stance width (but even with a stance width as narrow as 560mm you’d probably be fine), I think the 160 is the perfect width. The 159W is on the wider side for 11s, IMO – and it would only be sizing down 1cm to counter that extra width. Some aren’t as fussy about width – and I think particularly the stronger and bigger you are the less that the extra width affects you, so with a bit of weight on me, you might not notice the extra width as much. And if you consider yourself quite strong/athletic you may not notice as much either. But for me, I’d go 160 for sure.
Hi Nate
First of all thanks a lot for the effort you put into your website. I enjoy the reviews very much!
Currently I am stuck deciding between buying a Stratos or a Mountain Twin, for fun & easy all mountain groomer riding + some pow (but no park) – maybe you can give me an advise?
I am an intermediate rider on a K2 Raygun which I ride for about 10 years now. I would like to get a new board with more performance and to progress my riding. My stats: 175 lbs, 5‘10, boot size 10,5.
I figured out my options could be:
1. Get a Stratos for the deeper days and keep my old Raygun for early season and groomer-only days, or
2. Get the Mountain Twin and replace the Raygun completely with the MT. Question is if the MT has good enough powder performance?
3. Maybe third option could be to get the Frontier…?
Thanks for your thoughts on this, as I am really overwhelmed by all the internet info…
Hi Marc
Thanks for your message.
Given that you say fun and easy all-mountain riding, I would be steering away from the Stratos. It’s a more aggressive board. It would be the best of the options for powder, but otherwise don’t think it would fit what you’re describing.
The MT is decent in powder, so I think you’d be OK with it in powder, but if you wanted a little extra for powder, the Frontier is a good bet – and is easier going than the Stratos for sure. Given you’re not riding any park, I would be leaning Frontier for you.
In terms of sizing, based on a combination of specs and how you describe your riding, I would be looking at:
MT: 157
Frontier: 159
You can ride the Frontier a little longer – it rides short for it’s size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Awesome site. I bought my first board after reading your review of the Yes Basic a few years ago and have enjoyed riding it a lot. I’m looking to add the Mountain Twin and unsure if I should go 157 or 160. I’m 5’10”, 198lbs, size 9.5 photons and I ride mainly groomers, high beginner/low intermediate level. What size would you recommend for the MT?
Thanks,
Kenny
Hi Kenny
Thanks for your message.
If you were an advanced or expert rider, with a need for speed or you rode plenty of deep powder, then I’d say 160. But as a high beginner/low intermediate, I’d be leaning 157, particularly with 9.5s. Whilst the 157 isn’t too wide for 9.5s by any stretch, it is on the wider side and wider than it looks, so I would be leaning 157, given everything you’re describing. But if you could also let me know the size of your Basic, that would be great. If you’re going to be keeping both boards, then having a think about how they compliment each other in your quiver is worth thinking about.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate, great advice. I got the 157 (last one at my shop) and rode it for the first time today – such a fun board! Very easy to turn and control, but still relatively stable as speed picks up. I’ll be riding this one for awhile.
That’s awesome Kenny! Great to hear. And thanks for the update and the feedback.
Nate:
I have reached out before but lost the thread. Currently riding a jones flagship 161. I will keep it for big mountain powder, but need a better all rounder as a daily driver
57 years old
Size 9
165 pounds
Very strong intermediate rider
Riding blue mountain in Ontario (icy), sun peaks and Banff this year. Generally cruise blue / black groomers with wife who is on ski’s. Occasional switch and trees.
Have read plenty of your advice comments and I have 2 contenders
Mountain twin 157
Yes standard 153
Would appreciate your opinion so I can pull the trigger.
Kevin
Toronto
Hi Kevin
Thanks for your message.
I would say something around 158 is a good standard “all-mountain” size for you. But with a board like the Standard, which is wider, sizing down makes sense. The Mountain Twin is not quite as wide, but still on the wider side, so something you could size down a little with as well, though the 157 would certainly work. As the 156 would work with the Standard too. Going to 153 for the Standard would give you an easier to maneuver ride at the sacrifice of a little stability at speed and float in powder. Powder’s probably not a big thing though, given you have your Flagship for that. The Standard is a little better in icy conditions, IMO, but the Mountain Twin is good there too.
So I think it comes down to how much stability at speed you want. If you still want to be able to ride fast and that stability at speed is more important than maneuverability, then I’d go 157 MT. If that maneuverability is more important and you’re not going to be really bombing, then I’d go 153 Standard.
And I found our previous conversation on this post, if you wanted to look at that thread again.
Hope this helps
You are super organized 👍
Stability wins. I Will pursue the 157 MT and hope omicron doesn’t derail the winter for any of us 🇨🇦
Thank you again
You’re very welcome Kevin.
Hope the 157MT treats you well and fingers tightly crossed that winter goes uninterrupted!
Hi nate
Thanks for all of your helpful reviews.
I want to get a All mountain for this winter, which after much research I found Jones mountain twin is one of the best options I can get. But when I read the review of Jones’s own site, some people gave a little rating to the low quality and said that after few day’s riding: sheet opened , blades rust,… .I live in Iran and I do not have access to Jones main company. That’s why I have to get a board that has a good quality, which has worked for me for several years. Do you know that Mountain Twin 2022 has improved in terms of quality? Or would you suggest another board like Capita Mercury or Yas standard?
My Binding is union strata medium size
My weight: 73 kg
Height: 180 cm
Boot size: 10.5 us
Thanks a lot!
Hi Amirali
Thanks for your message. I can’t say much about the durability of the Mountain Twin. Unless I own them (I don’t own the Mountain Twin), I typically only have boards anywhere from 1 day to 2 weeks. So, I haven’t had the Mountain Twin in my possession for long enough to experience these issues. That said, I have ridden demo Mountain Twins that have been well used before I’ve had them and haven’t seen any major issues. And the most recent Mountain Twin (2021 model) I tested looked and felt of good quality. But beyond that I can’t give anymore based on experience.
The Strata is a very good match to the Mountain Twin, IMO.
Size-wise, if you do decide to go Mountain Twin, I would say go either 157. With 10.5s, you can sometimes be on the cuff between wide and regular widths, but in the case of the Mountain Twin, the 157 should be wide enough for 10.5s – in fact a really good width for 10.5s, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi,
I am replacing a 15 year old rocker style 163W before I go out to Breckenridge. I am 6’1” 225, intermediate rider. I like to ride powder and trees, not much jumping and no parks. I like to slash on groomers, ride it like a wakeboard if that makes sense. I live on the east coast so it is mostly ice and groomed (ice). I was going to get another rocker board, but the reviews are making me look at these camber boards. What size do you recommend, and would this be a step up over an Arbor Whiskey?
Thank for the review
Hi Bill
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think this would be a step up from the Whiskey. Given how you like to ride, I wouldn’t go for anything full camber. But the Mountain Twin isn’t. It’s camber through the middle and under the feet, but rockers towards the tip and tail- and also has some edge bevel on the tip and tail too. It’s a board you can still definitely get slashy with, in my experience. But should give you a bit more at speed, a bit more on a carve and probably a little more edge hold in icy conditions. Not quite as slashy/surfy as the Whiskey, but also not super locked-in, like a lot of full camber (or mostly camber) boards tend to be.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate, this is very helpful. What size would you recommend? I was thinking of pairing this with Mercury bindings, is it a good pairing?
Hi Bill
I’d say probably 165W. But depending on your boot size, the 163 could be an option. And even the 162W is within range, if you wanted to err shorter. Given that you’re used to a 163W, the 162W is definitely doable and if you’re on smaller hills, then sizing down isn’t a bad idea. Some things to consider between the 162W and 165W.
– The 162W will be more agile and you’d likely prefer it in the trees
– The 165W will give you easier float in powder
So it kind of depends on which of those (which you mentioned as being important) you would prefer to optimize.
But if you could also let me know your boot size, that would help as well.
I think the Mercury should pair well with the Mountain Twin. They’re in a good flex range and they’re nice bindings. The biggest downside for me with the Mercury was for buttering and ollies and such, but if you’re not doing any of those things, then I think the Mercury should work well for you and this board.
Nate,
Thank you this is helpful. I would like to just powder ride, but that is the exception most of the time. I wear 11W Salomon Stnapse boots. Buttering and Ollie’s are not how
I ride. Thanks again for the help and recommendations.
Hi Bill
Thanks for the extra info. Wouldn’t it be great to have powder all the time!
With 11s, with this board, I would actually go 163 – or 162W if you’re really worried about the width. The width at inserts on the 163 is going to be around 273mm (assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width – if you go on the reference stance of this board, it will be wider than that), which is a good width for 11s, IMO. Unless you’re riding a completely flat back binding angle and eurocarving, I think you should be fine with the width of the 163 – it’s wider than some wide boards. The Synapse, from my experience, are quite bulky (the one’s I measured were 4cm larger than their mondo), so if you do ride with a flat back binding angle and are eurocarving, then it’s probably too narrow. In which case, I’d go 162W. Again, 165W doable, but getting quite wide for your feet, so I’d be leaning 162W or 163 depending.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review
I am currently trying to decide between a 158 or 160 Jones MT (6’3″ 190 lbs) and the Aviator 2.0 (not sure what size yet for that one). I am on my high school race team so I need a board that can handle quick turns and hold an edge at high speed in potentially choppy conditions, but when I’m not with the team I like to ride a decent amount of park (maybe 25-30%) and powder when we have fresh snow. So I want something focused on carving but that won’t perform horribly in the park or in deep snow.
On another note – I need new bindings too that are responsive without being complete garbage in the park.
Thanks,
Austin
Hi Austin
Thanks for your message.
Aviator 2.0 will be the better carver and better for high speeds, so likely better for your racing. But the Mountain Twin better for the park, for sure – and better in deep snow, IMO. Though for deep snow, there isn’t going to be a massive difference.
In terms of sizing, can you let me know your boot size. That would help in making the best sizing recommendation.
Thanks for the quick reply! I wear a size 14.
Hi Austin
With 14s, I’d be looking at the 159W for the Aviator 2.0 and either the 159W for the MT or the 162W, depending on what you wanted to optimize for the most (i.e. longer if you want better float in powder, stability at speed and better for big arcing carves and shorter if you wanted better maneuverability at slow speeds, better in the park, better for butters etc.)
With 14s you definitely need to go wide, IMO, even if you’ve got a lot of angle on your bindings, low profile boots etc, still go wide, IMO.
hey nate
im really debating between this and the jones stratos. i would consider myself a intermediate rider with 5 years of boarding. Currently have a burton process flying v from 2014 and thinking of upgrading.
I’m 5’6 150 pounds with boot size 9- 9.5 depending on brand and fit. which board will best fit my need if like to carve, hit small jumps and no park.
Hi Antonio
Thanks for your message.
The Mountain Twin is better for more intermediate rider’s, IMO. The Stratos is more advanced. A good bit stiffer than the MT and quite a bit heavier too. Heavy is not always bad, but I find lighter riders tend not to not get on that well with heavy boards. So, yeah, I would be go MT for you. The Stratos is better for big high speed carves for sure, but I think the MT will be enough for you in that respect – and it’s better for jumps, easier to maneuver, particularly in tighter spots – and suits your specs and level better, IMO.
Size-wise, I’d go 151 for your specs and what you’re describing. The 154 is doable, but the 151 would be optimal, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
hey nate thanks for the response! it absolutely does help with my decision! Im also thinking of upgrading my bindings and boots. im leaning towards the union atlas and adidas tacitical adv. what bindings do you believe best suit this board.
great job on the reviews btw
Hi Antonio
The Atlas/Tactical ADV would be a good match for the MT, IMO. Lots of other options too, but if you’re leaning towards that, then that definitely works.
I’d say anything around a 6/10 flex to 7/10 flex in terms of bindings works. So the Atlas fits that nicely. If you did want other options you could also check out my top 5 All Mountain bindings or my top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride bindings
Hi Nate. Awesome website and love the advice that you give. I’m looking for a new board. I’m 6 foot and 190 pounds and an advanced rider that typically rides the whole mountain except the park. Trees, groomers, powder and like to hit natural jumps along the runs. If there’s no new snow we just bomb it down on the groomers. I was thinking about the Capita Mercury in a 161 or the Jones Mountain Twin in a 160. What are your thoughts and do you recommend any other boards? My new board will be a do it all board. Thinking about getting a powder board but that would be next year if I do. Currently riding a 2015 LibTech TRS in a 159 and it’s very chattery at high speeds and I have lost confidence with it.
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I think I would be leaning Mercury for you. You would be getting a step up in terms of stability at high speeds on the Mountain Twin (MT) versus the TRS, IMO, but the Mercury would be giving a little more in that regard, from my experience. But without being anything crazy in terms of stiffness or anything – it’s still a do-it-all board, IMO. Given what you’re describing I’d be leaning Mercury, but the MT would certainly still give you a better experience at speed, IMO, versus the TRS.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the response Nate. Forgot to add that I live and ride in Colorado.
Hi Joe
I think you’d be fine riding the Mercury (or MT) in Colorado conditions.
Thanks again Nate.
You’re very welcome Joe. Happy riding!
hi Nate, i would ask you about jones MT (2021) +union atlas (2021)
I do not know the right decision what size to choose 157/160 ?
I’m 1,85M tall, weighting 86 kg, 11 US
driving style: off track as on trackc 😀
because I found a lot of information here, so I turn to you, keep going, ,,thumb up”
Hi Marco
Thanks for your message.
I would go 160 for your specs. 157 doable if you were predominantly riding freestyle and/or trees, but as a do-it-all size, I’d be leaning 160. Also 157 bordering on too narrow for 11s. If you were to ride the 157 with a 600mm (23.6″) stance (which is reference on the Mountain Twin), and with +15/-15 angles or similar, then I think you’d get away with it with 11s. But otherwise, it’s risking being too narrow. The 160 should be wide enough for 11s though. Although if you’re like eurocarving, have a straight back bindings angle (like zero degrees, 3 degrees or something like that), then even the 160 could be pushing it too narrow. In that case the 159W would be your better option.
Mountain Twin/Atlas should work well together, IMO.
Size-wise for the Atlas, I would go Large with 11s. The M has a chance of being too small, particularly if you don’t have low profile boots. And the L should fit fine on the 160 – and even the 157 is probably OK too – particularly if you were to be riding it at reference.
Hope this helps
yes lot of but, is there one more option vs frontier 159/162
stance 560
angles +18/-9 someting like that
NIDECKER AERO
ty one more time
Hi Marco
If you go Frontier, then I would go 162. It’s a board you can ride longer. The 162 Frontier will feel very similar size-wise, to the MT, IMO.
Haven’t tested any Nidecker boots yet, so not sure of their profile. But with those binding angles, with 11s, I think you should be alright on the 160 MT – particularly if you’re not doing anything crazy like eurocarving. The 157 might be pushing it at that stance width though. The Frontier is also quite wide at the inserts versus the waist, so you should be all good with the 162 with a 560mm stance.
Hi! Thank you for informative reviews!
I bought the Jones Mountain Twin 154 deck and I’m now stuck with the bindings and boots. I already bought the Cartel X:s but I’m having second thoughts about those, mainly because of the adjustment issues (free return).
My other options are Union Stratas and Now Pilots (and why not the regular Cartels or Atlas’ as well).
I ride everything: 20% park (medium hits and jibbing), 40% groomers, 40% pow, off-piste and side hits. I’d like to have my set to be ‘playful all mountain board’; hard carving board with buttering abilities! 😀
I’m also getting boots tested in few days; Vans OG’s, Burton Rulers, Salomon Launches and Thirtytwo TM-2s.
Questions:
– Why do you prefer Stratas over Pilots?
– What are the pros and cons in previously mentioned options with Mountain Twin?
– Would one of those boots fit better than the others?
I am:
height 5 foot 7 (174 cm)
weight 152 pounds (69 kg)
shoe size US 8-8,5
Thanks in advance!
Hi J
Thanks for your message.
What issues are you having with adjustability with the Cartel X? If it’s the stance width adjustability (which isn’t great with Burton Re:Flex bindings), then the Cartel will have the same issues.
I prefer the Strata over the Pilot, predominantly because of the board feel, but also because I like the straps on the Strata better. But yeah the main thing is board feel. I don’t feel like I can butter or really get that same feel for presses or that kind of thing from NOW bindings. In terms of response and everything the Pilot is fine and would be a good match to the Mountain Twin, IMO, and the shock absorption/dampening is next level, but I really like to have that better board feel. Since you mention “buttering abilities” I think you’d appreciate that board feel too.
All of the Strata, Pilot, Cartel and Atlas would match well with the MT, IMO. The Atlas on the stiffer side for it, but still in a good flex-range for it. The Atlas not as good for board feel as the Strata, though, IMO, still better than the Pilot. The Cartel/Cartel X also have good board feel.
I think the Vans OGs (whether Hi-Standard OG or Aura OG) would be a little too soft for the MT. The Ruler and Launch should be fine – if you were being really fussy, you could go a little stiffer, but they certainly work. The TM-2s are a good flex match to the MT, IMO. But fit is most important. If the TM-2s don’t fit well and one of the others does, then go with one of the others – fit trumps everything.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate
I really enjoyed the website and all the information it offers. I have decided to get the Mountain Twin but I’m kinda stuck on what size I should buy. I’m 5’8 171lbs and have 9 to 9.5 size boots currently looking for new ones!
Looking forward to your apply.
Thanks
Hi Cole
Thanks for your message.
I would be debating between the 154 and 157 for you, which I’m sure are the sizes you’ve been considering. Both would certainly work, it just kind of depends on how you like to ride and what factors you want to optimize more than others.
If you tend to like to bomb, find powder and generally rail your carves and ride relatively aggressively down the mountain, then I’d go 157 for sure.
If you prefer to ride a little more casual, incorporate lots of side hits, some park, butter tricks and that kind of thing, and a lot of tree riding, then I’d be more leaning towards the 154. If you’re more of an intermediate versus advanced rider, the 154 will also be a little more friendly to ride.
Another thing to consider is strength. If you’re quite strong/athletic, then the 157 might be more favorable. If not, then the 154 will take less effort to ride, to turn etc.
Keep in mind, all these things are on a relatively subtle level, but that 3cm will make some difference.
So yeah, basically, the 157 will be subtly, but noticeably, more stable at speed, float better in powder and be better for big carves.
The 154 will be easier to butter, ollie, spin, more nimble at slower speeds and in general easier to throw around.
Both sizes are in your range, but which one kind of depends on what you value more from those things.
Hope this helps
Hi nate
First of all, thanks for all the work you’re putting in here.
I was looking to buy the 2022 MT for this years season. I’m around 180 cm tall, weigh around 73 kg and have a size 11 us burton boot (shaun white)
I chose the size 157 MT according to the weight and height the things I like (jumping short and relatively long, Carving,switch,powder, …) and in the chart size MT 157 that the boot is 11 US it’s OK. a lot of union Strata has a very good review on the sites and I want to set it with MT. But the problem is that my boot is 11 US and it is not the same size with the Strata M size. I emailed Anion and told him the problem and they gave me an awesome answer, says ( With select Burton boots this might be possible, We cannot guarantee that it will fit )
Many say it’s okay. You have a lot of experience, what suggestion do you give me, do I have to change the size of the binding and the board ? The interesting thing about the size of this board is that the MT 157 with ( Waist Width: 25,4 )size they support S / M binding. and MT 160 with ( Board Waist Width: 25.7 mm )size of this M / L binding. That means only 3 mm are different,
thanks
Hi Amirali
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, just so it’s clear, Jones’ recommended binding sizes are based on Jones bindings. There isn’t a universal binding size and one brands M might be good fit, and another brand’s L might be better, so unless you’re going with Jones bindings, those recommendations aren’t that useful.
In terms of length, I think 157 is a great length for your specs. In terms of width, with 11s, it’s borderline, depending on a couple of things. The MT is a slightly wider than normal board, so you can get away with bigger boots than you could on a regular 157. But it’s certainly still not a wide board. If you’re riding with a reasonable binding angle on your back binding (e.g. if you ride +15/-15 or similar), then I think you should be fine on the 157 with 11s, given that you have Burton boots (which are lower profile than the average boot). If you’re going to ride on the reference stance of 600mm (23.6″), then that gives you more leeway too. But if you’re riding a narrower stance, have a straighter back binding angle and like to really rail your carves, then it could be pushing it too narrow.
The Union Strata have quite a long baseplate on them, compared to the average binding, so the L might be a little big for the MT. But I couldn’t say for sure, because I’ve only ever measured the M. My prediction is that the L Strata would be around 275mm in terms of the footbed length and around 258mm in terms of the bottom of the base plate. So the baseplate is likely to fit width-wise, no problem, but there would be some footbed overhang. Hard to say if that overhang would be enough to cause drag.
In terms of fitting your 11s into M Stratas (which would be the best solution, as the M would be a great fit on the 157), my instinct is that you can probably get in there, but certainly no guarantees. I haven’t had an 11 in M Union bindings, so I couldn’t say for sure. With 10s, I find that I’m either on the 2nd to last or third to last toe strap hole, depending on which binding. I’ve had larger profile 10s in Union Ms and been on the last toe strap hole. Being low profile, you might be able to get the Burton 11s in but I think you would have the toe strap maxed out – and no guarantee you’ll be able to center the toe strap properly. The only other area that might be touch and go is the width of the heel cup and how the width of the boots fit. Some burton boots are wider at the heel of the boot than others – e.g. the Swath is rather wide in the heel. But other models less so.
So, I can’t really give you more certainly than Union gave you. I think you’ll probably get away with it, but certainly no guarantee.
Hope this helps
Love all of the reviews you put out and it’s made things so much easier for me living as far as I do from any snowboard shops. I wanted to get your opinion on sizing as your reviews have already sold me on the Jones MT. I’m 5 foot 9, size 10 Doube Boa Dialogue Wide boots, and 165-170 pounds trying to decide between 156w, 157, 159w, and 160 for the 2022 model. I never hit the park and have been on the mountain a total of about 40 days. I rode this board in a 157 and loved it, bought a 2021 used and then gave it away to my little cousin so he could get deeper into his boarding journey. I can’t say I’m carving hard but I am trying to learn that and hitting small jumps at the resort but stability at speed is more important to me as I find myself bailing to a stop on steeps often. Most likely that’s fear and not the board but maybe the stability might help with that. Anyways, please help me decide on a size as I’ve been in analysis paralysis based on my boot size and not knowing if my back foot will drag. I’m riding a +15/-15 mainly because thats how you did it in your review but I could change that in the future as I grow into my own. With that in mind would my size 10 boot be an issue in a 157 if the back foot was ever straight? If so, whats my next best bet?
Hi Ray
Thanks for your message.
For you I’d go 157 for sure. I think it’s spot on for your specs. And, IMO, shouldn’t have any issue with boot drag, even with a straight back foot. Even if you ride this board at a narrower stance like 22″ (like I did) it’s still 267mm at the back insert. I don’t think you’ll have any issues with boot drag. If you’re still concerned about it in the future, make sure when you change your boots (which you will have to eventually, they don’t last forever, unfortunately!), just make sure not to go with boots that have too bulky an outer sole.
Kudos for giving away your board to your cousin!
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great review, I found it very helpful. Im looking at picking up a Mountain Twin 20/21 during the sales. There is a 159W or a 162W.
Im 6 foot 1, 86kg, with a pair of UK11.5 burton phantom boots.
I mainly stick to red and black runs but like to have a play in the park or off piste.
Which board would you recommend?
Hi Cian
Thanks for your message. And it’s a tough call – can definitely see why your debating between them. Both sizes could definitely work.
If you like to really bomb, carve aggressively and see regular deep powder, and ride on a relatively big mountain most of the time, then I’d go 162W for sure.
If you prefer to ride a little more casually, ride trees a lot and like to do little freestyle things on the piste as well as in the park, and you typically ride a smaller resort, then I’d go 159W.
I know that doesn’t really help if your in between! But I would be erring 159W if you prefer to ride a little more playful versus aggressive – it will be better for you for riding in the park and better for tighter spots off piste, like in the trees. Will still be fine in powder, but won’t float quite as well as the bigger 162W. If park is a very small part of your repertoire and your off piste is more often big bowls where you can open out and bomb and you prefer to ride fast on the groomers, then I would be erring 162W.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Hi Nate,
Great advice. Thank you for the quick feedback.
Ill probably go for the 162W. Powder and speed is probably a slightly higher priority.
All the best
Cian
You’re very welcome Cian. Hope you have an awesome season this upcoming winter!
Hi Nate,
I was looking to buy the 2022 MT for this years season. I’m around 6 ft tall, weigh around 165 and have a size 11 boot. I am an intermediate rider and mainly ride on the east coast and do a little bit of everything from groomers to venturing into park. What size do you think would work and do you think the MT would pair well with the Union Stratas?
Hi Tommmy
Thanks for your message.
First of all, I think the Strata’s are an awesome match for the MT, so I’d highly recommend that combo.
In terms of sizing, based on your specs and how you describe your riding, I think 156W would be ideal. 157 just risking it being slightly too narrow, though you might get away with it. There would be no risk in terms of boot drag on the 156W – and I think that’s a really good length for what you’re describing. The 154 could work length-wise, if you were riding a lot of park, but would be too narrow, IMO. But I think 156 is a better all-round length for you anyway, to do a bit of everything on.
Hope this helps
If I were a size 10.5 shoe would you recommend the 157?
Hi Tommy
Most likely I think you’d get away with it on a 10.5, but it would depend on a couple of things. If you had a bulky (non low-profile) boot and a back binding angle that was pretty flat (like 0 degrees or 3 degrees or something), then you’d likely still want to go 156W. If you rode low profile or average 10.5s with a bit more angle on the back binding, then yeah, I think you’d be good with the 10.5s on the 157.
Hi Nate,
I’m 1,81M tall, weighting 84 kg, 11 US Burton Swath.
Thanks for such usefull information on your website. It’s been really helpfull.
I was here last year, and you helped me a lot. Unfortunatelly because of COVID issues, I wasn’t able to travel in 2021 and buy the chosen board.
Catching up: the most suitable for me, would be an all-mountain board since I can travel all the way from south america to japan for snowboarding (all possible snow conditions), depending on my availability per year. Last time we talked I had decided to buy the MT, and this decision stands. I put on some weight this year, what would be the best size for me? Should I go 159W? Considering the new MT 2022, any major changes?
On the bindings, because of my boot size (11 US), I think I’d have to go Large for Unions or Medium for Burtons. Whats the best fit for the MT in my situation? Been lost on Strata; Genesis; Force; Atlas; Cartel… I’d like the best fit for this board considering my size/boot/weight.
Thank you for this enciclopedia you have built. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Good to hear from you again.
No major changes from 2021 MT to 2022 MT. And yeah with the little bit of extra weight, I think the 159W makes the most sense now. It was a possibility even before (we were weighing up between 156W and 159W). I would be leaning 159W now.
For bindings, I would go Large for Burton – just to give you a bit more leverage on the edges (longer base plate on the Large). And yeah Large for Union too. Anything of Strata, Force, Atlas and Cartel would work well on this board, IMO. The Genesis maybe marginally too soft, but would still work too. I know that doesn’t narrow it down that much! In order I would go Strata, Cartel, Atlas, Force, Genesis.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thanks for all the help.
You remember my message from last year? That`’s awesome!!!
Definetly I’ll go with the 159W and large bindings. I thought the same thing about the genesis based on your review (5/10 stiffness), could be soft.
Still on the bindings, do you think stance adjustability on burton vs. union could be the decision point on my pick between the 2 brands?? That would narrow my search a little bit more…
Another doubt on equipment: I’ll need a travel bag for the snowboard, will need to check-in the board everytime I travel. Thought on Dakine Low Roller or Burton Wheelie… any thoughts on that? Any other bag i should be looking at? (sorry I know this is not on your website)
Once again, thank you so much. Cheers from Brazil. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
I had to look up the last year’s comments as a refresher!
Both Burton and Union bindings are quality, IMO, so yeah, if you need something to narrow down your selection, then stance adjustability is a one way to narrow it down.
I’ve only owned a couple of bags, and haven’t used the Dakine Low Roller. I currently have the Burton Wheelie Gig bag and it’s been great. No problems with it at all and seems to be nice and durable (I often have upwards of 7-8 boards in it and has handled that load fine).
Thank you for for everything. I’ll keep you updated.
Best, Daniel!
You’re very welcome Daniel. Looking forward to hearing what you go with and how you get on once you get a chance to ride it.
Hi Nate,
If I was to pick a Yes Standard (your best ranking overall for All Mnt):
– What size should I be looking at? 159?
– Is Union Strata, B. Cartel, U. Atlas (size Large) binding still a good option?
When riding, what’s the difference between these three boards? Jones Mountain Twin, Capita Mercury, Yes Standard?
Once again, thank you. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Probably 159. The Standard 159 is a little wider than the MT 159W. For reference for width at inserts, assuming a stance width on both of around 22″, rather than assuming reference stance:
MT: 273mm back insert, 274mm front insert
Standard: 276mm at inserts
So it’s not a huge difference, but isn’t nothing. The Standard 159 is also wider at the contact points, so overall, you’re looking at a wider overall board. But I probably wouldn’t go shorter than 159 for you. If you wore 10s, then I’d say you could size down to the 156, but I think 159 is still best for the Standard for you.
Difference between MT, Mercury and Standard. Some things:
– I’d say the Mercury is a little stiffer. Not by heaps, but Mercury to me is 6.5/10 with MT and Standard more like 6/10.
– In order, the Mercury is the most aggressive, followed by the Standard, followed by the MT. But not a massive difference between each. i.e. the Mercury isn’t super aggressive and the MT super playful, but that’s the order I would put them in for that.
– The Mercury is the best carver, but the MT is the easiest turning board and fastest edge-to-edge of the 3, the Standard in between for both.
– The MT best on uneven terrain, IMO, followed by the Standard and Mercury
– I preferred the MT and Standard for jumps over the Mercury, but the Mercury still fine for jumps – but better for bigger jumps, than smaller jumps and sidehits, IMO
– MT and Standard easier to butter than the Mercury
Hope that gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, hope this finds you well.
I’m here to get back to you on my purchase. I went with the MT 159W. We played really safe and I’m happy about it, it worked so well. Didn’t get the chance to try powder yet (bad snow conditions in Zermatt), but It felt awesome. A little less maneuverable, but we knew about it when choosing the size. Other than that I felt that at high speeds going straight down, It can get a little “bumpy” because of the flex. Not a major issue yet… Will try it better on 2023, had only 8 days of testing this season.
The bindings are GREAT I went with the Burton cartels, and they really are awesome. The fit with the board/boots were perfect. Nevertheless they are so simple yet, so efficient and solid. It’s a binding you can make no mistake…
I bought the Burton wheelie gig, great pick, worked on the plane really nice. The best thing were the “straps” outside the bag that apply pressure on whatever is inside. It turns the bag into one solid piece to drop off. Easy to carry, easy to drop-off, zero damage, high quality materials.
One thing I’m not happy about is my set of boots. The Burton Swath feel soft (and rather loose at some point?), and because of that they are demanding too much effort from my calf. My only way out was to tighten the boots the hardest I could, but whenever I did that, after 15 min riding my blood wouldn’t go around and I wouldn’t feel my feet, and my calf would hurt so much from lack of blood circulation. I had only 2 choices I get pain from low blood circulation or from extra effort…
With that in mind, what pair of boot would you recommend? The goal is the same, something that I’m able of doing anything, taking anywhere… riding all mountain.
Keep in mind that today I wear Burton Swath Double boa on size 11. Other models I maybe go 10,5 (?). How will that behave on MT 159W + Large Burton Cartels?
1- maybe I should play safe and go Burton Ion Double Boa? Same size?
2- Should I try something different like Vans Infuse?
What size should I be looking at?
I’ll be in Geneva in a couple of weeks and wanted to buy them there…. idk if i’ll have time to try many models.
Thank you once again. Cheers from Brazil!
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Thanks for the update.
I think it’s likely that 10.5 will fit you better, from what you’re describing with the boots. Going a little stiffer won’t hurt either. But I’d still stick around that 6/10 to 7/10 flex (the Swath by my feel are more like 5/10 flex). But I think the sizing/fit is the biggest issue here. In terms of the board, with 10.5s, particularly if you got low profile 10.5s, you could ride a regular width MT – like the 160. However, going with the smaller boot isn’t going to affect how it feels to ride. A large majority of the leverage you are applying to the edges of the board are coming from your feet, rather than the boots. Your feet will be the same size, so you’re leverage won’t decrease anything significant, IMO. In fact with a better fitting boot, you’ll likely get better leverage. So, if you fit better in a 10.5, then that’s the best bet.
You could try something like Vans Infuse for sure. The Ion Boa would work too. But the most important thing is getting that fit correct, so if you are able to try some on, then that’s really advantegeous. Going in knowing which models you want to try and narrowing it down to just a few will help save time. So I would narrow it down to 3-5 boots from as many different brands as you can, so you can see which brand/boot fits the best. I would try multiple brands because all brands fit a little bit different. For some good options to look into in that 6/10 to 7/10 flex range check out:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Hi Nate,
Just got a new Adidas Lexicon Adv size US 10,5. Got the chance to try them before. I was afraid i was with bigger boots, so I ordered 3 sizes
(US 10,5; US 10; US 9,5) and this is definetly the best fit. I was carried away on reviews about this boot, so many compliments. Other than that, everyone saying they fit half a size smaller than true fit, what made me think: maybe my Burton Swaths (US 11) weren’t too big…. they were too soft and/or the BOA’s were loosening all the time… neverltheless, got stiffer boots with laces. Problem should be solved.
Now, does my board and bindings still fit? Should I go lower on sizes? Should I change the board?
Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Thanks for the update and glad to hear you’ve found boots that sound like they fit you better. Hope they work well for you on snow.
You could change sizes now, if you wanted to. The 160 and even the 157 are now options. But you could also stay 159W if you are comfortable with it. As I said, the leverage comes from your feet, so you haven’t lost any leverage by going with a smaller boot. So the 159W isn’t going to feel any wider with your new boots or anything. However, with the smaller boots, you now have the option of going narrower. So if you did want to improve the maneuverability and ease of riding, then you could. If you wanted to keep it the most similar feeling in terms of stability at speed, float in powder and the likes, then going 160 is your best bet. It will of course feel the most similar to the 159W length-wise. 157 is within range as well, but you will notice a drop in terms of stability at speed and float in powder. But you’d get even more maneuverability. I would be leaning 160, if you decided to change, because you’d still get a maneuverability boost, IMO, from the 159W, but without loosing anything in terms of the stability at speed that you experienced with the 159W. The 159W still probably floats better in powder subtly, because it will still have more surface area than the 160. But it should only be a subtle difference there.
Hi Nate,
I’ve been overthinking the situation and struggling on what to do. I’ll share it with you:
Since my tryout with the MT 159W, I’ve had this feeling of a little bit “loose” board when riding at higher speeds. The board’s nose shook-up at speed. Despite that, the board is a little on the bigger side and i got a little bit less maneuvrability than i wished (of course, we knew that would happen from beggining). The purpose of going a little bit on the bigger side was because of powder.
On the other hand, my new boot profile seems A LOT smaller than then old swaths, when I compare them. Witch brings me a lot more options regarding board WW, now. I ride +12/-3.
I guess there is no way out of this, I need two boards: a powder board and an all mtn maneuverable board. A quiver of 2 would attend me a lot better and my guess is that I won’t have a lot more trouble when traveling with an additional board on my bag.
So, I’m thinking I should have two boards. All mountain exept powder focused + a specific powder board. In this sense, I should substitute my MT 159W for a smaller board.
Q1 – What WW should I be looking at now regarding the new boot profile and sizing?
Q2 – witch board should I pick to replace MT 159W? Remember I thought it was a bit loose on the nose… Should i pick a smaller MT? 157? Can I find something more “solid” or may I say “stiffer”? I don’t need pipes, I don’t need park. Still something I can go around the world on resorts and backcountry on every type of snow and that I can get some side hits and a LITTLE playfull.
Q3 – What binding should i use now? It should be something that can attend both boards. I guess burton cartel can handle both, but should i size it down now beacuse of the boots? I have the Large one…
Q4 – let’s not talk about powder board just yet, but yes. I’ll need to find a powder board in the future.
What are your thoughts on that?
Thank you. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
A two board quiver does often make more sense.
Given you feel the Mountain Twin can feel a bit loose for you at higher speeds, I think it makes sense to go with something else rather than changing the size. Part of that looseness might be partly from the spoon base as well, so we’ll look at options that doesn’t have that (but could look at something with spoon again for your powder board, when you get there).
In terms of what waist width to go with, it’s difficult to put a number on a waist width specifically because there is a quite a bit of variance between waist width and width at inserts, so it’s better to look at specific boards. But the Tactical ADV 10.5s will likely be fine on most regular width boards, so you shouldn’t need to go wide with your next board.
A couple of boards that immediately come to mind are the YES Standard Uninc, Salomon Assassin Pro and Rome Stale Crewzer. None of which are going to be as good in powder as the Mountain Twin but all should give you a bit more stability at speed. They’re all a little stiffer, but not super stiff and provide some playfulness still.
The Standard Uninc is a little wider than normal, and given it’s not going to be your powder board, I would size down to the 156.
For the Assassin Pro, I’d look at the 159 and the Stale Crewzer, the 158. Though if you really wanted to add maneuverability you could look at those in a 156. However, you would be negating some of that stability at speed that you’re looking for, if you did that. So I’d be leaning Assassin Pro 159 and Stale Crewzwer 158.
Upon extra searching, the Capita Mercury, GNU 4×4, Burton Custom, Nitro Team (camber version) and Burton Freethinker (2023 specifically, as it’s got a different flex/feel now) would also work.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the support. A couple of additional questions:
1- Burton custom you mean the camber version of flying v?
2- Have you heard of the K2 manifest? Seems to fit the profile…
I’ll get down to research and get back to you when I narrow down.
THANK YOU. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Yeah the Custom Camber. If you found the Mountain Twin a little looser at higher speeds, you’d feel that worse on the Custom Flying V.
You can check out my Manifest review here.
Hi Nate, hope this finds you well.
After my research these seem to be the best fit for what I want. I should look for a board with at least 256 of WW to avoid any possible drag issues.
Yes Standard Uninc – I’m definitely looking at the 156 (WW 258). This board seems stiffer than the MT. Still it’s not that stiff and seems to perform quite well in any snow conditions. Despite it’s size, I could still backstance it and use it in powder. Stability seems not to be an issue AND it’s a board I can both bomb or ride mellow. Although a higher stiffness, the middle flexing point seems to give it good maneuverability.
Salomon Assassin Pro – Seems that won’t perform well on icy conditions. I can’t bet on having powder every time I travel. Despite that, I’d have to go 159 and lose maneuverability when compared to 156.
Burton Custom Camber – I’m assuming on WW analysis I’d have to size it UP. 158W or 162. Besides that it doesn’t seem to perform well in icy conditions.
Nitro Team – 157W. Seems like a good option number 2. Will deliver everything well but riding in icy conditions. Also it seems to miss a WOW factor.
Considering I choose the Yes, questions:
How is full camber going to be different from the camrocker I have today?
Any issues because It’s a recently released product or should it be a safe purchase?
What binding should I get for this board? At what sizes? I recently sold my cartels.
Any other thoughts?
Thank you once again. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
I wouldn’t say any of the Assassin Pro, Custom or Team Camber are bad in icy conditions. But they aren’t as good as the Standard Uninc, IMO. But yeah in terms of sizing and everything, I think the Standard Uninc is a good bet.
The full camber differs in that it will give you a bit more of a locked in feeling. If you were a less experienced rider and had poor technique it could also feel a little catchy. But with solid technique this isn’t an issue. I had no catchy feeling issues with any of these boards. All else being equal full camber won’t float in powder as well as camrock. All else being equal gives you more stability at speed, more pop and allows you to carve better.
I’d say no issues with it being a new product. The Standard (non-uninc) has been around for a long time now – and it’s essentially a slightly stiffer, full camber version of that board. Also, previously YES had a board called the Ghost, which was also essentially a full camber Standard. The new Standard Uninc is a little different from the old Ghost, but very similar.
In terms of bindings, I would look at something around 6/10 to 7/10 to drive the Standard Uninc. You could go up to 8/10 flex, but to get that balance between charging and still being able to ride it more mellow, I wouldn’t go that stiff. I’d be leaning towards something around 7/10 flex. Some great options in the following:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
But if you did want to go a little softer, then something here (noting that some of these are softer than 6/10):
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
If you narrow those down to 2-3 preferred choices would be happy to suggest the best size for those.
Hi Nate, how’s everything?
On my ongoing research, I decided i will go with Yes Standard Uninc 156. Going down to 156 seems to be the best call. From the reviews, the board should also perform well in powder using the backstance (although I’m still going to for a 2 board quiver).
Because of stock availability by the time I travel, I’m strugling with a good number 2 option. I was looking after The Assassin Pro, but I’m really excited in sizing down a little bit. Between Assassin Pro 159 and Nitro Team 157W, what are your thoughts?
Binding:
Narrowed down to 2 options:
Union Atlas or Rome Katanas, I’m guessing I should go Large for both. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts between these 2 and the combination with the board? Although I’ll have a 2 board quiver (powder + standard uninc), I will carry only one binding. This decision should fit both…
Thank you, as always. Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
I’m doing well thanks for asking, hope you are too.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the Assassin Pro and Team for if you can’t get the Standard Uninc right – and not to be your powder board right? In which case I think they would both be suitable. Size-wise, the 157W Team could definitely work. I would put you at roughly 159/160 for your specs, but sizing down a little is fine if you want to, particularly if you’ll end up having a separate powder board in your quiver. For the Assassin Pro, I think the 159 is probably too narrow and you’d need to go 158W to get it wide enough.
In terms of bindings, those are both good bets. They’re both around that 7/10 flex, which is a good match to any of those boards and should suit most powder boards that you look at. I mean if you decide to go with something really stiff, then maybe not, but for most, those bindings should be good. You can’t really make a wrong call between them, but the one question mark with the Katana would be whether or not you could actually use the slam back inserts (if you ended up getting the Standard Uninc) because it uses a mini-disc. It is a slightly bigger mini-disc than a typical mini-disc though, and it is supposed to be 4 x 4 compatible, so it might work. I’d be leaning Katana, if you can confirm it will work with the Slam Backs, but the Atlas is a very good choice too, IMO.
Hi Nate,
I have been reading most of the comments on these 2 boards MT 2022 and Salomon Assasin 2022 as I am a first-timer to get a board and not sure which is best for me. All the comments are awesome and concise by the way.
I am 66kg 176cm and I owned a Burton ruler BOA US 8 and Salomon Triggers Bindings Size M. I am a level 5 and hope to progress my skills years ahead. I am planning to keep this board as long as I could. Size-wise I am thinking of 154 for MT and 153 if going for Assasin. Not too sure how the stance works. Your advice will be much appreciated. Thanks
Hi Wayne
Thanks for your messages (I got the other one too, but it didn’t have any extra info in it, so I deleted it for tidiness).
Both boards are highly recommendable for do-it-all boards and there isn’t a wrong choice between them, IMO. A couple of things to note, in case it helps with your decision.
– The MT is a little better in powder
– The Assassin is a little better for riding switch (though if you ride the MT in it’s centered stance, there’s really nothing in it)
– The Assassin is a little better for jumps and spins – overall it’s a little more freestyle focused than the MT
– The MT is a little stiffer. There’s not a big difference, but I’d say Assassin 5/10 and MT 6/10
As a level 5 rider, both are perfectly suitable.
Size-wise, I think you’re spot on with 154/153.
When you say “not to sure how the stance works” can you elaborate? Are you referring to stance width?
Thanks, Nate, for your quick response. That definitely helps!
I couldn’t see the first post, therefore, putting in the second one, sorry for the confusion if it did.
Yes, what would be the stance width for both boards?
Also, I am from Australia and particularly they are recommending a slightly smaller board compared to what we might recommend to someone traveling overseas. Is that true?
Hi Wayne
If you’re riding a smaller resort, then it’s often a good idea to go a little smaller, since you don’t really get the chance to really open out and bomb – or at least not for long – and one of the advantages of going longer is that you gain stability at speed. Also a longer board is better in powder, so if you’re not getting that much powder, then there’s less advantage to adding length. Not sure how big the resorts are in Australia or how much fresh snow you’ll see. Advantages of going smaller is that it’s easier to maneuver in tighter spaces and easier to do freestyle stuff.
In terms of stance width, the reference stance on the 154 Mountain Twin is 560mm (22″) and reference on the Assassin 153 is 550mm (21.7″). So they’re pretty similar. You don’t have to go reference though. If you prefer a stance slightly narrower or slightly wider than those, you could adjust it. I typically try not to go more than 40mm wider or narrower, but at your height I can’t see you needing to go any narrower than 520mm or any wider than 590mm. 520mm would be quite a narrow stance for your height and 590mm would be a rather wide stance.
Thank you Nate for your detailed advice as always! Really appreciate your expertise
You’re very welcome Wayne. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate
I am looking for all mountain board that can do everything I am intermediate rider I ride before on the Bataleon Eviltwin but it’s feel unstable on speed and carve
I was thinking on the Jones MT or capita mercury or doa or Salomon assassin what you would recommend?
And what size I need
I am 78kg ( but plan to be 72-73kg)
I am 176 cm
And boots size 41
Thanks
Hi Sagiv
Thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I think something around 156/157 would be a good bet.
I haven’t ridden the Evil Twin, so I can’t compare how that feels at speed, but it sounds like it’s more of a park deck, so likely you’ll get better stability at speed on the likes of the MT and Mercury. The DOA is more freestyle focused – not very good in powder, IMO, if you’re looking for something that can also ride powder well. The Assassin also a little more freestyle focused, but better in powder, IMO, than something like the DOA. I’d say you’d get more for carving/speed on any of those, but it’s hard to say without having ridden the Evil Twin.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Btw you got Instagram page?
Hey – yep – https://www.instagram.com/snowridernate/
Hey Nate: Great website and reviews! I currently ride a 2018 Jones Explorer 161W and was thinking about moving to 2021 Mountain Twin. I am 6’ 200lbs and have size 11 Burton Photon boots with Step On bindings (which I LOVE). My set up is 15+/15-. I’d say I am an intermediate/advanced rider. Like all mountain mostly with no park. Been riding 10-15 days a year for 20 yrs. I ride with skiers who like to bomb, but I’d like to get better in the trees and switch, hence why I am looking at the MT. Can you tell me what the difference is between the Explorer and the MT and if you would recommend the change? Also, if I move to the MT, will I lose stability at speed or maneuverability in powder? And, if I make the switch, what size MT would you recommend? Thanks! Ted
Hi Ted
Thanks for your message.
In terms of stability at speed, I’d say you do lose just a little on the MT versus the Explorer/Frontier, but not a huge amount. For the 2021 MT, I would say you gain maneuverability in general and for trees when no powder, I’d say it would be better in there than the Frontier. The 2020 and prior MTs, maybe not so much, but definitely if you’re looking at 2021 model, IMO. It’s lighter too, so it’s easier to throw around. In powder, I don’t think you lose any maneuverability in powder. The Frontier floats a little easier in powder – but the MT isn’t bad in that area – and though I didn’t get the 2021 MT in much powder, I’d say you’d be fine there – and it should be a little better than previous models now with it having the spoon base. And yeah better for riding switch.
So, I think the biggest thing for you would be whether it’s worth the sacrifice in stability at speed (and a little in terms of float in powder) for a gain in maneuverability at slower speeds and riding in trees in general and better switch riding.
Size-wise, if you’re looking for a similar size feel to your 161W Explorer, then I would say 159W Mountain Twin. But there is an argument to go 160 or 162W as well.
Width-wise, with Burton 11s and +15/-15 binding angles, the 160 might be doable, depending on what stance width you’d use. The 160 MT at the inserts should be around 271mm at the front insert and 272mm at the back insert at reference stance (600mm/23.6″). At a 560mm/22″ stance, you’re looking at more like 269mm front insert and 270mm back insert, which is doable as well, depending on how deep you like to carve. If you like to carve quite deep, then it might be pushing it at the narrower stance, and the 160 altogether, if you like to really rail your carves. But it’s doable if you don’t necessarily carve super aggressively, and wanted to get on something narrower (which would also help in trees).
Hope this helps
Nate thanks for the quick reply and the help. A couple of follow ups:
1. I am more of a slider and do not carve aggressively. Also, my stance is pretty wide (like only one hole left on the outside of both bindings). I have always been on a wide board (3 NS Legacies then the Explorer), so I am anxious to try the 160. Will the 160 give me better stability at speed than the 159W? Should I consider the 163?
2. MT is sold out on all of your links. End of season so I can wait for the 2022 models. Do you expect any change from the 2021?
Again, thanks for your help!
Hi Ted
Can totally get your apprehension if you’re used to going wide. In this particular case, with this particular board, the fact that you’re riding Burton boots and +15/-15 angles and don’t carve too aggressive aly and have a wide stance, I think you’d be fine width-wise on the 160.
The 160 would provide marginally more stability at speed versus the 159W when on edge – not a whole lot more though. If you were flat basing it, then the 159W probably gives a bit more stability and a bit more stability on landings from jumps, but when edging at speed, the 160 will be marginally more stable. The 163 would definitely give more in terms of stability at speed – and would probably even give more than your 161W Explorer. But going 163 in MT will feel quite a bit bigger than the 161W Explorer, in terms of the extra effective edge you’ll be getting. It’s only 2cm longer overall, but it’s 7.2cm longer in terms of effective edge. And the gains you would get in the trees would be mitigated. It would be narrower than the 161W Explorer, but not by a whole lot. That would bring back some maneuverability, being a little narrower, but being longer, it would probably even out. Would still be better for riding switch, but if you wanted those gains in the trees, I think the 160 would be the better bet.
The 2022 model looks to be identical to the 2021 model, so no issues there.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Great! Thanks Nate. You’re the best!
You’re very welcome Ted. Thanks for visiting the site!
Hey, Nate! First of all, thanks for all the work you’re putting in here! I’m using most of your reviews/ratings to put together my first snowboard setup.
Little background. I’m 5’7″ 160lbs. Athletic build. Size 9 boot. High level beginner, MAYBE low level intermediate, but I’m wanting to get something that I won’t progress out of anytime soon and I’m already tired of renting. I’m looking at the Jones MT (154cm), YES. Typo (152cm), or Lib Tech Cold Brew (153cm). More likely the MT or the Typo, but I’m trying to keep my options open. I looked at the Capita Mercury, but I think it might be a little beyond my skill level right now.
I don’t plan on doing any park riding right now. Just wanting something I can grow on all over the mountain. I’ve gotten relatively comfortable carving on steeper (blue) slopes, but haven’t started bombing down them or progressed to advanced/expert runs yet.
I plan on pairing the board with the Union Strata bindings and either the Adidas Tactical ADV or the Vans Infuse boots if I decide I really want the BOA.
I had a buddy about the same skill level as I am demo the MT recently, and he loved it. So, that’s kind of the direction I’m leaning, but the Typo seems like it might be a little easier to progress on. Any advice or recommendation you can make for a guy putting together his first board purchase?
Sorry for rambling. Thanks in advance!
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
I think you’re on the right track for sure. Those options are boards that strike a good balance between being easy enough to progress on (not being so far beyond your current skill level that you’ll struggle to get better on them) but that will still work well when you’re more advanced and that you can continue to improve on. I agree that the Mercury is just a step too far.
I would say that the Typo is a little easier to progress on, but the MT is something that will take you a little further. So there’s a little bit of a trade off there. I don’t think the MT would be far enough beyond what you’re describing, that it will stunt your progress though. And the Typo still not something you’re going to grow out of super quick or anything either.
Strata and Tactical ADV are a great match and a good way to go, IMO. Or the Infuse, but if you went Infuse, you’d most likely want to keep the tongue stiffeners out, at least to start with, or they are quite stiff with them in.
Size-wise, I’d say 154 is a great size for the MT. I would be leaning 155 for the Typo for you. You could definitely, as a high end beginner, ride the 152, but I would be leaning 155 if you went Typo as it’s a size that will serve you for longer – and being athletic, I don’t think you’d have any issues with that size. I would say around 156 is your advanced level, all-mountain size, so 155 isn’t taking that much off as a beginner, but taking into account how long you want to keep the board and being athletic I would lean to the 155 rather than 152 for you.
Hope this helps
Thanks! I appreciate the insight on the board size too. I’ll definitely go 155 if I end up getting the Typo.
Keep doing what you do. Love the site!
You’re very welcome Kyle. And thanks for visiting. Happy riding!
Hey Nate, following up from a few months ago. I never really found a sale I liked on the Typo or MT, so now I’m at the point of just waiting for the 2022’s to ship.
I ended up getting a pair of 2021 Union Force bindings, because I found I price I couldn’t pass up. $200 new in box, and since this is my first setup, I couldn’t justify the extra $100 for the Strata. I also think I’ve settled on the Vans Auro Pro boots. I like the double boa.
Anyway, couple of questions. Am I still on the right track? And do you have an idea of when you might have reviews up for the 2022 boards? Early September again?
I may wait until you get those up to see if there are any super noticeable upgrades between the Typo or MT or even if something else new pops in.
Thanks!
Hi Kyle
Those boots and bindings are a good match for the Typo or MT, IMO, so all good there.
Both the Typo and MT 2022s are, as far as I can tell, identical to their 2021 models, apart from the graphic, so the updates to those reviews will just reflect the new graphics and comparison stats. They will be updated in 2022, but nothing substantial will change with them.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate! Love the site and thank you for being so helpful and insightful. Seriously – don’t know of other reviewers that really take the time to reply to so many comments and in depth as well.
Anyway, I’m looking at upgrading my setup from what I learned and progressed on – 2016 YES Basic 152, Union Flite Pros, & Vans Hi Standard sz9. I’m probably intermediate level and looking for something more stable, stiff, and responsive compared to my old. I like charging groomers, carving, and deep carving. Also side kicks, small kickers, jumps and would like something to take off piste. Pretty much no park and if I do it’s no rails, boxes, jibs. Not much switch going on but looking for something that could handle it if ever. Same with butters. I do like casually cruising and playing around the runs as well.
I’m choosing between the Mountain Twin or the Frontier. It sounds like I’m leaning more towards freeride and maybe the Frontier is best to pair with my Basic, but the MT seems to come very well reviewed and recommended, and really like the thought of having that one board quiver with the MT. Of course, always open to any other recommendations to take a look at.
Also, thoughts on pairing it with either Union Strata, Falcor or Flux XF? Already grabbed a pair of Adidas Acerra as I found them on sale.
Thanks!!!
Hi Erik
Thanks for your message.
I think the Frontier would be the better compliment in the quiver if you were going to keep the Basic. It’s more directional, more on the freeride end of the spectrum. But that said, the MT is still quite different to the Basic, and does offer a more well rounded option. If you were going to replace the Basic and not ride it anymore, then I think MT would be a good choice, particularly if you’re doing a fair bit of side hits and the likes.
In terms of bindings, I would say the Strata are probably the most natural setup with the MT, but the Falcor and XF certainly aren’t wrong for it. And if you’re looking to really maximize the carving aspect of the MT, then I think they would be a good choice. You’ll get a little more of a playful feel out of the Strata (still not ultra playful/soft like something like the Flite Pro) and just a little better for maneuverability at slower speeds. But the Falcor and XF will give you the ability to carve deeper and harder particularly when riding faster. And they’re not so stiff for the MT that they’ll make it twitchy, IMO. If you went stiffer than that, then you would risk making it twitchy but I’d say you want find that with those 2.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, here Tony Choper from Switzerland. I’ve been looking for a board for some time and I think MT seems a good option. I’m 175cm and 68kg (+-2kg) and 40.5EU size boot. I have around 30 days of experience. I can ride pretty much everything but still struggling when going too steep. I like to play on the slopes and when it is possible, go on the sides to catch some pow. Always trying to get side hits and learning 180/360 (that’s what I am focusing on the most). Somedays I would like to be able to handle some speed when riding with friends, but not so important. I think 151 cm would be the best, but maybe it limits my ability to go faster or in powder, and if I take the 154, maybe it limits my spins and freestyle. Could you throw some light and give me your opinion? Finally, for the bindings, which flex level would you suggest me?
Hi Tony
Thanks for your message.
Typically I would say 154 for the MT with your specs – as a do it all size. But given your boot size, I would be leaning 151. You certainly could still ride the 154, but I think you’ll find the 151 more maneuverable and easier to throw around. It will sacrifice a little in terms of speed and float in powder, for sure, so do keep that in mind, but my instinct is 151 for you, but 154 certainly not wrong either.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for the fast answer. I think I will have to go for the 154 since no more 151 available.
What do you think about the bindings? NOW BRIGADE M is my option now, but could you give me your opinion and maybe suggest a better alternative?
Hi Tony
My apologies about the bindings, I answered that part in my head, but forgot to write it out!
I would go for something around 6/10 in terms of flex, for the bindings. I think the Brigade would work, but ideally I would go just a little stiffer. Something with a 6/10 flex from the following list would work well, IMO.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
The Brigade wouldn’t be wrong, but ideally I would go just a touch stiffer.
Dear Nate,
Thank you for a work you are doing here! You really helping people all over the world Already bought one board following your recommendations. First board is freeride + powder directional board (Salomon super 8)
Now it’s time to buy second board. Want to ride switch + like small / medium jumps. No jibbing. Would like second board to be pretty fast as well.
My weight 202LBS / boot 11.5.
Considering: CAPITA DOA / YES STANDART / JONES MT
Afraid that MT 158W is a little bit below my weight scale (140-190 lbs) Do you think this +12/15 lbs will be problem?
If yes, should I consider Yes standard 159? But afraid that this one will be to wide as for twin tip and my second board.
What is you opinions on above?
Thanks again!
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
The Jones MT is quite wide at the inserts versus the waist, just like the Standard is, so width-wise the 159W MT and the 159 Standard are very similar. I don’t think 159W is too short, given that it’s going to be your second board and you want to ride more freestyle on it. There will be sacrifice in terms of stability at speed for going shorter than that. So that would be the biggest thing to consider if going to that size.
The DOA is the best, IMO, of those 3 riding switch, but the MT (particularly in the centered stance) and Standard are good too.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
first I want to say I learned so much about snowboarding from your website and I am embarrassed to admit that after 17 years of riding snowboard this is the first time I sat and read everything I need to know about snowboards, equipment etc. And your website is like a small encyclopaedia of snowboarding.
After riding the same snowboard for more than a decade (Rossignol Legion) I decided to buy new equipment as I saved some money. I bought Burton Ruler Boa boots (man’s size US 10) and now I am deciding on the snowboard and bindings. I enjoy riding mostly on groomed tracks and I guess I am intermediate level 6. After reading a lot of reviews I thought Jones Mountain Twin would be a good match for me together with Union Strata bindings. The only thing I am not sure about is the size of the board and bindings. As I am a girl with big feet, there is limited number of women snowboard options, so I started looking into men snowboard models. I am 173 cm tall (5′ 8”), 65kg and wear men’s US size 10 boots. So I thought that maybe 156W Jones Mountain Twin would be ok size for me with Medium Strata bindings. I would appreciate any advice as I am currently completely lost with overwhelming amount of information from all the reviews. If maybe you have a better suggestion for the choice of snowboard, please suggest 🙂
P.S. I am sorry for the long comment and my English as it is not my native language 🙂
All best,
Lea
Hi Lea
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mountain Twin would work for what you’re describing, but size-wise, I think the 156W would be much too big for your specs.
Length-wise, I would be looking at something 149-151 for your specs. So for the Mountain Twin that would be the 151.
Of course, if you’re used to riding longer than that and don’t want to change length-wise, then that’s fine too. But I would go to 154, rather than 156W.
Width-wise, with Burton 10s, it’s borderline whether it’s wide enough. But I think you could get away with it, depending on a couple of things. Firstly, what are your binding angles? If you ride with something like +15/-15 or similar, then that gives you more leeway width-wise. If you ride with a straighter back binding angle, then sometimes you need to go wider. Secondly, it depends on how “deep” you carve. i.e. if you really lean into your carves, like get really high up on your edges, then there’s more risk for toe/heel drag. But if you’re not that aggressive with your carves, then you can go narrower.
Burton boots are pretty low profile, so that certainly helps too. And also, the Mountain Twin is relatively wide at the inserts compared to the waist, so depending on stance width, it’s a little wider than it looks. E.g. if you were to ride it at a 22″ (560mm) stance, the 151 is likely around 260mm. I am comfortable (I ride US10 boots too) riding anything with a 260mm width at inserts. If you ride with a narrower stance than that, then the width will be narrower though.
After taking all that into account, if you don’t think the 151 will be wide enough, let me know and I can look for something appropriate that’s a little wider, but still in a shorter length. If you’re more inclined to go a little longer, then the 154 Mountain Twin, IMO, should be wide enough for your boots.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thank you so much for detailed answer and your help. I wouldn’t go for a longer board if I don’t have to, so 151 would be great length-wise. My binding angles are +21/+6, my stance width is 550mm and I am not too aggressive with my carves. I guess that based on all of that, it would be okay for me to go with 151 Mountain Twin. As I live in a country where we have only two shops which sell snowboards (they have only Burton, Nidecker and Nitro), if I don’t manage to get the Jones board, is there maybe a Burton or Nitro board that you would suggest to get instead (maybe Burton Custom Flying V or Nitro Team Gullwing)?
Thank you,
Lea
Hi Lea
Yeah I would be comfortable with those details going 151 Mountain Twin width-wise. It’s on the narrow end of your range, and no guarantees, but I think you should be all good. And the advantage on being on the narrower end of your range, is that you should have really good leverage on the edges.
Some options from Burton and Nitro:
– Burton Custom Flying V 150 – it’s a little narrower at the inserts than the Mountain Twin 151, but still might be doable width-wise
– Burton Process Flying V/Process Camber 152 – not really much wider than the Custom Flying V and I think the Custom Flying V is a better length and better board for you
The Team Gullwing 152 would probably be pushing it – thinking it’s going to be too narrow. And anything longer is getting too long, IMO.
The Nitro SMP 152 might be doable though, if you had that available. I think it would be fine width-wise. The only real question mark there is flex. It’s not a board I’ve ridden, but it’s rated at 7/10 for flex. Which might be stiffer than what you’re looking for. The Nitro Team Camber is also rated at 7/10 and I found it more of a 6/10, but I’m not sure how the SMP translates.
Nate, thank you so much for your help and all the comments and advices 🙂 You helped me so much. I hope I will manage to get the Jones Mountain Twin and test it next month on the snow. If not, I will look into the other options.
Thanks again!
All best,
Lea
You’re very welcome Lea. If you think of it at the time let me know what you end up going with and how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I wanted to reply after your last comment, but there wasn’t a reply button, so I am replying here. After a lot of searching I managed to find and get Jones Mountain Twin 151! I must say it wasn’t easy because in Europe only few shops had it in this size. I also bought Union Strata M with it.
And last week I spent 7 days on the slopes with it and I can just say I love it! It is definitely the perfect board for me. I rode it mostly on groomed tracks and some powder, and I enjoyed how it turns and carves. Also, the size was ideal with my stance and boot size.
Thanks again for all your help and suggestions, your reviews and comments helped me find exactly what I was looking for 🙂
All best,
Lea
Hi Lea
Awesome to hear that you managed to find the MT 151 and that you’re getting on so well with it!
Hi Nate,
I’m looking to get a new board and wanted to thank you for all your great in-depth reviews, they really helped me learn about snowboards types/specs and lead to a decision. I’ve had the same board(k2 playback 158) for the last 8 years and just started my job out of college so I’m looking at getting a new board setup as I can now afford one. I’m looking at getting an all-mountain board as I like to do pretty much everything, but I would say that I do more freestyle/ park/ jumps. I had a question regarding the size board I should get. I am tall and skinny at 6’3 152 lbs. I am planning on getting the Jones Mountain Twin with large Union Stratas bindings and size 11.5 boots. I am looking at getting Soloman Dialogue Focus Boas for boots as I have narrow feet but will be trying some on first to confirm the fit. What size board do you think I should get? I was thinking 156w as I’m in the middle of the weight range(130-180lbs) for that board, but do you think that would be too short for my height? Also do you think that board, bindings, boot combo would work well together overall?
Thanks!
Hi Nathan
Thanks for your message.
Can’t fault anything in that setup, including sizing. The Strata would be a great match to the Mountain Twin and the Dialogue Boa a great match too (assuming it fits you well).
In terms of length of board, I do like to take height into account, but weight, boot size, riding style and ability are all more important, IMO. And taking all that into account, I think 156W is spot on.
You made my job easy on this one!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the quick response! I tried on boots and my size was a little smaller than I expected. I ended up getting the 2021 Salomon Dialouges in size 10.5. I am looking at getting the board and bindings now but am reconsidering the sizes. Do you think I should stick with the 156w with large strata bindings? Or would it be a better fit to do a 157 board with medium stratas as I’ve read that they have a lengthier base plate? My stance angles are +15/-9 for reference.
Thanks!
Hi Nathan
With 10.5 Salomon Dialogues (which are quite low profile for 2020 and later models) I would be quite comfortable fitting on the 157. The Mountain Twin is a little wider at the inserts versus waist on average – and, IMO, should be well wide enough for 10.5s. So yeah, I would change to 157 if I was you.
In terms of the Medium Stratas, I would say you shouldn’t have too many issues fitting 10.5 Dialogues in there. No guarantees, because I haven’t actually tried that combination, but based on what I have fit in the Medium Stratas before (bulky 10s), I would say you’d be fine. And for the 157, I would go with Medium Strata’s as they do, like you say, have quite a long base plate.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the great review. I’m 6’5, 215 lbs and wear a size 11 boot and am thinking of getting the 165w. Would 267mm width be too wide for a size 11 boot? Also the jones weight chart says 162w and 163 is recommended at a max weight of 200, how much does that matter. Thanks!
Hi Henry
Thanks for your message.
I think 165 is spot on length-wise for your specs, assuming an advanced level of riding. But the 165W is going to be quite wide for 11s, so not ideal, IMO. The Mountain Twin is quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist width, particularly if you’re riding it at reference stance or wider – and at 6’5, I’m guessing you wouldn’t be riding with a narrower stance than that. So, the 163 is going to be plenty wide enough for you, IMO, and I think it’s a better overall size. It’s still good length-wise and a much better width, IMO.
Jones weight recommendations go to 210lbs on the 163, but I wouldn’t worry too much about that. I think there are a lot of factors to consider other than just weight. But if you’re someone who predominantly just wants to bomb the mountain, then maybe you want to go a little longer, but if you’re more of an all-round rider and want to also be able to slow it down and play around sometimes and not just straight lining it most of the time, if you’re riding trees etc, then I think 163 is a size that works for your specs.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thank you for all of the awesome reviews!
I’m trying to decide between the 151 and 154 mountain twin and was wondering what you would recommend for my stats and riding style. I like to bomb runs (groomers and uneven), hit jumps, and take a few laps around the park (although I am still novice with park features, this is an area I’d like to improve). For reference, I will be pairing this board with my Union Force bindings.
I think I’m leaning towards the 154 for the added stability, but also want it to be playful enough to grow as a park rider (also, I can’t find any 151 MT’s in stock anywhere at the moment). I’ve also considered the 153 Mercury, but I think I will like the forgiveness of the Mercury. Let me know what you think, any advice is appreciated!
My Stats:
Height: 5’7”
Weight: 135 lb
Show: 9
-John
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Probably not the answer you want, given you can’t find one right now, but I think the 151 is spot on for your specs and how you describe your riding. The 154 would give you more stability but overall I think it’s a little on the big side – and I think you’ll notice that in the park, in particular. And for your specs, I think the 151 will be stable enough – and is a better all-round size for doing everything.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the info. The amount of posts I’ve read from you is concerning lol. Question on sizing for JMT. I am 173 lbs and have size 11. I ordered the 157 out of preference and the fact that the sizes up were not as available. Now I’m a little concerned over the width. Do you think 157 is fine for size 11? Is there any boots you recommend for this board that have a lower profile that will make this fine. Or am I overthinking lol
Thanks
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
This is one board you might get away with the regular size with an 11. But would depend on a few factors.
a. How hard you carve. If you like to really lean into your carves, then you may need to go wider
b. binding angles – if you have binding angles like +15/-15 kind of thing, then that gives you a bit more leeway. If you ride with a straighter back foot, then it’s less doable
c. stance width. At reference stance (600mm) it’s wider than where I rode it (560mm) so that would give you more leeway too
d. low profile boots. Low profile boots would certainly help to make this more doable – and I think you get away with it with low profile boots, depending on the other factors here
The lowest profile boots I’ve measured/ridden are Adidas – the Tactical ADV or Response ADV would both be great matches to the MT. However, fit is really important with boots, so I would still go fit first, then consider low profile. Burton & Vans are the next best in terms of low profile that I’ve tested. Within brands this can differ a little by model, but for the most part these 3 brands are the lowest I’ve come across but there are also boots within other brands that have some lower profile options in their line. I would check out the following for good matches for the MT, and check out the “reduced footprint” score for each one.
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Thanks so much for the info man. It’s been a few years because of injury and I have grown since then also so not sure on everything. Id say nothing crazy with carving just an intermediate middle of the road type rider. Assuming the adidas fit + a L binding at the reference stance with straight back foot. Would this work? I saw a 159W but thought that may be a bit big for my size, ability, and riding (northeast resort with a bit of freestyle and 1 trip out west per year)
Hi Ryan
Yeah with all those things in play, I think you should be able to squeeze onto the 157 fine. Also if you’re trying on Adidas boots, try the 10.5 as well, as I find – and others I’ve talked to as well – that I can fit an Adidas boot half a size down from other boots – so that would give you even more leeway if you were able to. I still think you’d be OK in the Adidas 11 (so long as it’s not the Superstar, which isn’t as low profile as the others) though.
You were spot on! I fit in the 10.5s and got the Response instead. super pumped. Looking at the Union Force or Strata to finish off.. would you say one is more suited towards what I’m looking for? Force have a good deal where I am and readily available in size and color I’m looking for.
Thanks again and Happy holidays to you!
Hi Ryan
If you were doing a lot of freestyle stuff, then I would definitely be looking at Strata, just because they give more board feel and just have more of a spring to them. If you’re not really doing freestyle stuff, then there’s less of a difference. You could still go Strata, but the Force would definitely be a good match too.
Happy holidays!
Hi Nate,
Unfortunately USPS seems to have lost my board. Now I can’t find any JMTs with my size anywhere to purchase with the refund. Do you have any recommendations for boards of very similar features/specs? And what size would be preferable? Thanks for the help.
Hi Ryan
That’s a real bummer man. And a real hassle. But thankfully there are quite a few boards that are similar enough to the Mountain Twin. I would consider the:
– YES Standard 156
– Nitro Team Gullwing 157 (or potentially 159)
– Slash Brainstorm 157
– Rossignol One LF 159 (or maybe 156)
Off the top of my head, those are the closest matches to the JMT, IMO. Or you could look at the 159 Jones Frontier. It’s a little more freeride oriented than the others here but not too dissimilar.
Hi and thank you Nate for your hard work with making everyone’s winters amazing. With a 20mm setback stance, what is the best way to centre the stance on side cut? Would you move both front and back bindings one insert towards the tip from the reference stance? Is the the reference stance 20mm setback from the tip or is it already centred on the side cut? Thank you
Hi Rick
Thanks for your message.
The reference stance on the Mountain Twin is 20mm setback on the effective edge. The nose is 10mm longer than the tail. So to center on the effective edge you need to either move the front binding 20mm towards the nose OR the back binding towards the center (which would also be towards the nose. So that would be EITHER the back binding OR the front binding moving towards the tip. If you were to move the front binding that would be making your stance wider than the reference by 20mm and if you move the back binding then it narrows your stance by 20mm compared to reference.
The Mountain Twin actually has those stances marked on the board, which is handy. The centered stance is called the Freestyle stance. And then there’s also a freeride stance marked out, which gives you more setback. So there’s a freestyle, freeride and reference.
Put another way – in the reference stance it’s 49cm from the center of the front binding to the tip and 46cm center of the back binding to the tail (the extra 10cm is because the nose is longer than the tail).
When in freestyle stance, it’s 49cm from the center of the front binding to the tip and 48cm center of the back binding to the tail. This has you centered on the effective edge. In this particular case it’s moving the back binding closer to the center of the board. So in this case the stance width changes from 600mm to 580mm.
Hope this makes sense/helps
Hello Nate!
I want to clarify if I understood you correctly.
Is the sidecut centered on Freestyle stance and +1cm of the longer nose is out of contact points?
Does it create a twin freestyle stance when riding a flat base? Does a longer nose work when the snowboard is on edge?
Hi Valentin
Yes, 1cm longer nose is outside the contact points. It doesn’t really come into play either when flat basing or when on edge – when on firm snow. It’s outside the contact point. It’s only when you’re in deeper snow, that the extra length in the nose comes into play. For the most part. The extra volume in the nose does still create a little more weight in the nose – and the overall weight/volume of the board isn’t completely centered, but it’s very subtle. Essentially, in firm snow, you’re practically in a twin, centered stance if you’re on the freestyle (centered on effective edge) stance.
Hope this makes sense and answers your question
Yes, it is clear!
Thank you for the answer and your time!
You’re very welcome Valentin. Thanks for visiting!
Hi Nate,
Your reviews are sick and super helpful!
I’m having a bit of an issue picking a new board this season. I ride mainly in Vermont. I like to bomb and carve, slash the sides and pop off rollers. I’m in the trees when the snow is good and go in the park for a lap or two, mostly hitting jumps. I’m 5’6″ 170lbs size 8.5 Ion… I bought a 21 Mercury 153- I got it based on the specs even though I’m a wee it over the weight rec. However, after seeing it in person I’m thinking I may need a little more board for what I want to do. The MT is an obvious alternate choice, but from all the reviews I’ve seen it seems like I’d be sacrificing the carving aspect. Also, the specs of the 53 Mercury and the 54 MT are very similar, what do you think the main differences would be? And finally, given my riding style and specs, do think I’d be better of on a 53 or 55 Mercury or the 54 MT? I’m also open to other options.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Hi Josh
Thanks for your message.
Purely based on height/weight and how you describe your riding, I think the 155 Mercury is probably the best length for you. But taking into account your boot size, I would actually go 153. Even the 153 is going to be a little wider than ideal, but with sizing down a couple of centimeters, it balances that out and ends up being a good size, IMO. The MT 154, same deal – possibly 1-2cm short, but being just slightly wider than ideal, I think that’s a good size.
The Mercury is a better carver/bomber than the MT, IMO, but they’re not worlds apart. The MT, IMO, a little better in the park and sidehits and in the trees, but again not worlds apart.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey, Nate!
Thanks for the super useful site. I finally bought my own board this spring, but now I’m having second thoughts; hope you can help me out.
About me: I’m a level 5 per your ability ratings. I rode a little in my twenties, but moved away from the snow. Now I’m in my early 40s and back where I can hit the slopes, which I did a few times last winter. I’m a mellow boarder, mainly I just like to go down groomers at a decently fast (but not break-neck) speed. No interest whatsoever in the park. I see myself mainly carving and maybe getting into a little buttering and the occasional side hit or smaller jump but nothing big. I don’t ride a lot of switch, and don’t have a ton of access to powder.
5 ft 11, 200lbs, size 11 Burton Imperials.
Anyway, here’s my problem. I picked up a Jones Frontier 159 (and some Union Atlas Mediums) at end-of-season prices in the spring. From the reviews I read, I thought this would be a good combo, and sized the board down a little given my relative inexperience and in the hopes of losing weight (still working on that part). But your review of the Mountain Twin has me wondering if this might be a better option for me. The board is still in the shrink wrap, and if I wanted to I could exchange it and get the new Mountain Twin for about $100 difference without much hassle. What are your thoughts? Would the 2021 Mountain Twin 160 or 163 be better suited to me than the Frontier 159? And if so, should I swap out the Atlas bindings for a pair of Strata?
Thanks again for all the help. Best,
Jeff
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your message.
I think if you’re looking at the 2021 Mountain Twin, then yeah I think that’s potentially a little more suited. The 2020 and earlier Mountain Twins aren’t as easy going. The 2021 model is more mellow than previous iterations. I would say that the 2020 Frontier and the 2020 Mountain Twin are similar in terms of how mellow they are, but the 2021 Mountain Twin is more mellow than the 2020 or 2021 Frontier.
Size-wise, I think the 160 Mountain Twin would be a great size for you. For the Frontier, I would say that the 162 might have been a better bet, mainly because it’s the kind of board you can ride a little longer. It’s a board that feels shorter than its overall length suggests. 159 certainly still doable, but I would have leant towards the 162 for you for the Frontier. I think the 163 Mountain Twin would be a little big based on a combo of your specs and how you describe your riding.
In terms of the type of board, I don’t think the Frontier is wrong for you. The way you describe your riding it’s certainly a match, but so to is the Mountain Twin. In terms of butters, the Mountain Twin is a little easier to butter and will be better, IMO, for those side-hits and small jumps. The Frontier a little more stable at speed and a little better float in powder.
The Atlas works for both boards, but so to does the Strata. The Strata is subtly a better match for the Mountain Twin, IMO, but very little in it and both are a very good match.
Hope this helps
Thanks, Nate! Super helpful.
I have the 2021 Mountain Twin 160 on order! Got it through one of your click thru links.
Any other way I can support the site?
Jeff
You’re very welcome Jeff.
Thanks for using the link! That’s more than enough to support the site and I appreciate it. Thanks for visiting and I hope the MT treats you well and you have an awesome season!
Hi, Nate,
Figured I’d give you an update. I picked up the MT, and eventually decided to go with the Strata as well. Finally got out a few weekends ago (low snow year here) and had a blast. I got a ton of compliments on the board’s top sheet, which is sweet, but the thing really shined on the slopes. It did everything I wanted, and I’m super happy. Fast enough that I was passing everyone on the flats, but playful and maneuverable enough that I could negotiate the crowded slopes and do a few small hits and butters (which is about all my skills allow so far). Looking forward to getting out again next weekend.
Thanks again!
Hi Jeff
Thanks for the update and the feedback. Awesome to hear it’s going well for you. Happy riding!
Hey Nate, first thank you for all youre Great content!
i want to buy the 2021 mountain twin and i’m not sure about the size.
I weigh 75kg and i am 180cm tall. I have adidas accera adv in size US11 (outer length of the boots 31cm) – very reduced footprint.
does the 154cm or the 157cm fit better?
I go for all mountain and some park and Freestyle stuff.
Thank you so much and Cheers from Germany!
Dennis
Hi Dennis
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157 is the best length for you. I would be debating between the 156W and 157. With some size 11s, it might be a debate between the 156W and 159W, but with Tactical ADVs it definitely gives you leeway to go narrower. The 156W wouldn’t be super wide for you, but because of the fact that you have low profile boots and the fact that the Mountain Twin is quite wide at the inserts versus the waist width, I would be leaning towards the 157 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! I Go with the 157cm.
Cheers
Dennis
You’re very welcome Dennis. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
First of all I’m discover your blog and it’s really excellent regarding the sellers I will share it.
I’m looking to buy my first Jones and I’m hesitating between Frontier, MT, Ultra MT, Aviator, other ? I’m riding with experts skiers, we never go on park but I’d like making jumps, switch at low speed, when we slowdown the tempo. I’d like carving, speed on blue and red slopes not on blacks and of course powder on the edge of the slopes because deep powder it’s 1 or 2 days every 2 years :-(.
My bigger issue is my legs, because of an accident I have lost power so I need to find a board who don’t kill me after one day, of course I can go harder if necessary but not 7 days in a row.
My first choice is MT or ultra MT because but I think the Aviator it’s not tolerant and fun a low speed and probably tiring with the power camber and without the 3D spoon.
I think the frontier is not enough good for speed.
For the MT, can I slide back a little the fix to have something for directional and buy rigid bindings?
Thank you in advance
Ju
[1m98 tall, 90kg, 12 us foot]
Yes ghost? Capita?
Hi Ju
Thanks for your messages.
For your legs the MT and Frontier are going to be the best options. The Frontier is still pretty good at speed – IMO a little better at speed than the Mountain Twin is. The Mountain Twin (in the 2021 model certainly) is the easiest board to maneuver of the 4 you’ve mentioned, but the Frontier is not far off in that sense. The UMT will give you more at speed, but also a little harder on the legs.
The Mountain Twin you can set it back for sure. There’s even a “freeride” reference stance marked on the board, which sets you back 40mm on the effective edge (same thing on the UMT). In the “more details” section of this review, I have the measurements for the different suggested stances in tabs – for “reference” “freeride” and “freestyle”. It’s not a bad board in powder, even in the normal reference stance (setback 20mm) but you’d get a little more out of it for powder in the “freeride” stance.
Based on what you’re describing, I would be leaning towards the Mountain Twin for you, if you want to make the easiest on your legs and still have something that can handle a little speed. If you wanted it a little harder on your legs, but get more out of it speed-wise, then I’d go UMT. The Frontier is a good in between option. The Aviator probably less suitable for what you’re describing, IMO.
In terms of the YES Ghost, it’s probably not the most suitable for what you’re describing. It’s what I would call an aggressive all-mountain freestyle board and I don’t think it’s really going to suit what you’re describing. If you were to go YES, I would go for the Standard for what you’re describing.
From Capita, the Outerspace Living would probably be suitable, in terms of being easy on the legs, but still being OK at speed. It’s not quite as good in powder as something like the Standard or MT, but it’s OK. I think the Mercury would probably be too hard work for your legs.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thx for your comments,
Have you already test the Jones Stratos?
Thx
Hi Ju
Yes I’ve tested the Stratos. Review due to be published later this month. But just briefly, the Stratos, IMO, will be harder on the legs than something like the Mountain Twin or Frontier. It’s a little stiffer and just takes a bit more effort to ride.
Nate,
So I’m 5’11”-6’ range from 230-240 pounds and wear a size 12 boot. I’m looking to pick up a Mountain Twin. I’m between the 162W and the 165W. Of those two what would you recommend?
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message.
I think both sizes would work, but depends on how you want to use the board and on your skill level.
I.e. if you’re an advanced rider who predominantly likes to bomb and carve, with maybe some freestyle stuff thrown in there from time to time, and particularly if you ride a lot of powder too, then I would be looking at 165W
If you’re more of an intermediate rider and/or you prefer to ride slower, ride a lot of tree and/or ride quite a bit of freestyle, then I would be more inclined to look at the 162W.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for all your reviews. Im ready to pull the trigger on a new board for this coming season but I’m a bit stuck deciding between a few you have on this list. Jones mountain twin, Capita Mercury and the Yes standard are the ones that look good to me. I’m looking for a board that will charge fast and lay a good carve. Bomb on groomers and be fun and surfy in the powder. Be able to slash around, playfull and buttery. Good pop for side hits and jumps through the park. Not going supper huge just want good stability when getting in the air and landing. I’m 5’10 and 155LBS. Size 10 boot. Out of these boards what sizes do you recommend for me? And what board stands out as the best match for me?
What bindings do you recommend would be best for this setup. I noticed your riding the malavita’s , and have recommend the cartel’s also. Thoughts on these or other brands?
Lastly, do you have some good boot recommendations?
Thanks so much
Hi Alexander
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tough call between those – the Mercury will be a little better in terms of bombing/hard carves, but the Mountain Twin and Standard better for side-hits/park jumps and more playful/buttery. Also note that the 2021 Mountain Twin is more buttery than the previous versions, IMO – just to note, in case you’re looking at past season models. But I would probably be leaning towards the Mountain Twin or Standard overall for you – my instinct based on what you’re describing.
Size-wise:
Mountain Twin – it’s a weigh up between the 157 and 154. I would be leaning 154 for your weight. But the 157 would be doable. 157 would offer better float in powder and more stability at speed, with the 154 being more agile, more buttery and better for freestyle stuff.
Standard – I would be looking at either 153 or 156 – again the same applies when going longer and shorter. With the Standard being a wider board, I would be more inclined to lean towards the 153 for you, but the 156 doable.
Mercury – 155
In terms of bindings. I would be looking at something between 5/10 – 7/10 flex for these boards – leaning more towards 6/10, 7/10. Both the Malavita and Cartel would work with any of these boards. Would be leaning slightly Cartel, but both would do a good job, IMO. For more options check out:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
In terms of boots, same thing – look for something around 6/10, 7/10 in terms of flex. Some good options in the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Thanks allot man this really helps narrow things down. The MT definitely seems to be a great option for me. I spoke with Jones and their recommendation was the 157 for me also. Most likely will go for that. Not too concerned, just hoping it won’t be too much board. But like you said, I for sure want the pow float and stability at spead. so that seems like the best fit. Do you mind explaining why your slightly learning cartel over the Malavita for me? Thanks again. This site is rad, your doing great work .here.
Hey Alexander
Leaning slightly towards Cartel, mostly because it’s just a little stiffer/more responsive. I feel the Malavita at around a 5.5/10 overall and the Cartel 6/10. So not a huge difference but a little. The Cartel has a softer highback than the Malavita but a stiffer baseplate. Overall the Cartel is more all-mountain/freeride focused and the Malavita more freestyle focused. You’re doing a bit of everything by the sounds of it, so there isn’t really a wrong choice there – and the Malavita works very well with those boards (that’s what I tested them on) – but if I had to pick one or the other for you, I’d just be leaning Cartel, but Malavita definitely wouldn’t be a wrong choice.
What Are your thoughts on this years Cartel vs Cartel X For The MT? Would you recommend one over the other? Thanks again!
Hi Alexander
I haven’t had a chance to test the Cartel X, so I’m not sure how stiff it’s supposed to be. If it’s similar in flex to the outgoing Genesis X, then it would certainly work with the MT. However, I think I would still probably go regular Cartel with the MT. Just a slightly better flex match, IMO, for the board and for your style.
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot for the review and especially for Set Up Advice section. Great infos there.
I could get the MT 2019 version for really good deal here in Germany. I’m riding 50% switch and I’m currently on a true twin but want a bit more float in powder. All the specs seem to fit except the 60cm reference stance which is 4cm bigger than the stance width I feel comfortable with. Will this be an issue? I searched a lot for some infos on how it affects your ride when the stance is narrower than the reference stance but only found infos about the pros and cons of narrow vs wide stance in general.
Looking forward to your opinion on this.
Dominik
Hi Dominik
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t worry about riding the Mountain Twin with a 56cm stance. That’s how I rode the 2021 model (review to updated soon) and preferred that stance – as I’m more comfortable with a stance between 55cm and 58cm. In this I would be happy to ride it 4cm different to the reference stance.
Your stance width can affect how the ride feels. Just because you’re on a different section on the camber and the width of the board where your feet are is slightly different depending on stance – and you’ve got more or less nose and tail too. But in most cases you are better off going with the stance width you feel comfortable on – and in particular with the Mountain Twin, I don’t think it affects the feel of the ride in terms of your position on the camber profile – at least not noticeably. Personally I typically ride Jones boards narrower than their reference stance as a lot of them are at around that 60cm. And I prefer to ride them on that narrower stance overall.
So yeah, in short, you will be fine riding the MT on a 56cm stance.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
very impressed by your quick response! 🙂
Didn’t think I would be so lucky that you tested the new MT exactly with my 56cm stance width on a board with 60cm reference stance. So thanks a lot for sharing your experience! This helps a lot.
You’re very welcome Dominik. Thanks for visiting!
Hi Nate,
don’t know if you got my last message. So I just wanted to say thanks again for sharing your experience with a narrower stance width. Helped me a lot!
Hi Nate,
I have been reading through your comments and I dont know how you manage to answer so many. I just have a quick one i hope you can help me with.
I just got my first set of boots and they are size 10.5US but i think they are a large 10.5 as i usually take an 11, this seems to put me right in the range of whether to get a wide size board or not. I was thinking of the 157 or 158W? I was looking at getting this mountain twin after doing a bit too much research as there are so many possibilities. I am 39, 6 feet tall and weigh 76kgs. I am at an intermediate level now i don’t go super fast yet but have enjoyed starting to ride switch and like a board i can turn easily with. This will be my first board after finally getting off rentals.
Thanks for your time mate.
Hi Simon
Thanks for your message.
I think you’re definitely looking at the right lengths for your specs/experience, the question, like you say, is whether to go wide or regular width. Which is always a tough one with boots of that size. But in this particular case I would be leaning towards the 157. The Mountain Twin is relatively wide at the inserts compared to its waist width, so it’s a little wider than it looks, so it makes it a good width for 10.5s, IMO.
A couple of things to consider though. 1. Can you let me know the brand, model and year of your boots. Some boots are lower profile than others. If they have a big outersole profile on them, then that might mean going for the wide, depending on other factors 2. Do you know what binding angles you ride? With more of an angle on your bindings you get more leeway in terms of being able to go a little narrower. 3. Do you ride aggressively – not just in terms of speed, but in terms of carving really deep (think euro carving) or do you plan to in the near future? If so, then it might mean, depending on the other factors, leaning more towards the 158W.
So yeah, my instinct is to go 157, but if you can let me know those other things, I can give a more accurate opinion.
Hope this helps
Hi! Thanks for the review! After shredding ten years with a pretty stiff camber board its time for a new one. Although im really not into freestyle very much I’d like to get a bit mor into it… I read a lot of reviews and now i have two favourites: The Jones MT and The Capita Mercury. Important for me is, that i can still push the board to high speed and carving but get a bit more playfulness do practise some side hits/jumps which i really haven’t much in the last years. Which of the two would you recommend? In the review of angrysnowboarder he sais that the 2020 MT is softer than the 2019. Is that right? btw I’m 184cm an 78kg, now riding a 159 board… Thanks!!!
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
I didn’t ride the 2020 MT, so I’m not sure how it compared to the 2019. I did ride the 2021 and that does feel like a more playful ride than the 2019. Maybe a little softer, but also the 2021 got Jones’ 3D Contour base, which I think also makes it feel more playful. For the most part I did prefer the 2021 MT to the 2019, but probably the one area it’s slightly down for is for speed. But the 2020 MT is very similar to the 2019 model, which is why I didn’t get on it. But it could potentially have been a little softer, but not a lot more different about it.
I would say the MT is more playful than the Mercury overall, even in the older models, but not a huge amount of difference, if you’re comparing 2019 or 2020 models. The Mercury a little better for carving though, vs either model, IMO.
I’d stick to around that 159 size, I think that’s a good fit for your specs. Assuming you want a regular width (what’s your boot size) that would put you on either the 157 or 160 for Mountain Twin and 157 or 159 for Mercury. Will partly depend on boot size, which to lean towards, but generally speaking I would lean shorter, if you want more maneuverabilty, playfullness and a better ride in the trees, and lean longer, if you want to prioritize more stability at speed and float in powder.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I like your reviews !
After a lot of research for an all mountain board there are 3 models that I like
Program: tracks, freeride (small), side hits, I do not practice park and I want a board that holds speed well and stable
Level : level intermediate
My weight : 167lbs
– Nitro team camber 157
– Jones mountain twin 157
– Jones frontier 156 or 159
Please what is your opinion?
Hi PM
Thanks for your message.
A good list narrowed down there for what you’re describing and I don’t think you would be making a bad choice on any of them. I would probably be looking Mountain Twin over the Frontier, mainly because you mention side hits, and the Mountain Twin is better there – and otherwise they are fairly similar. The Frontier a little more for carving and powder, but not by much. Otherwise, I’d be looking at the MT, unless you’re looking to get a bit more in powder.
If you’re looking for a bit more in terms of carving and speed, then the Team Camber is probably the pick of the 3. But you would sacrifice powder performance. But it’s also really good for side-hits and has a bit more pop than the other 2. But yeah, you would have to work a little hard in powder. If you weren’t too worried about powder or didn’t see much powder, then I would probably say go for the Team ,based on what you’re describing, but if you want some decent powder performance too, then I think the MT is the best balance of the 3.
If you did go Frontier and you’re looking at the other 2 in 157, then I would go 159 for that. It’s something you can ride a little longer.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I’m stuck between these options:
1) T.Rice Pro HP vs Mountain Twin
2) If it’s the Mountain Twin, then 2020 vs 2021 (new spoon shape)
I’m a mid-level intermediate, considering the Mountain Twin but thinking on the T.Rice Pro Hp too.
This will be sort of my first purchase of board as I’ve been using a second-hand YES Basic previously. I’m 5ft 9 (176cm) and 172lbs (77kgs) and my boot size is 9.
My style of riding would be 90% groomers, powders, venturing off-piste and maybe 5% freestyle and 5% park (have not been to the park before).
Even though the MT 2021 spoon shape supposedly helps to initiate the turn easier than 2020, but does it take longer to engage and enter the turn due to the contact points being lifted.
Could you share your thoughts on pros and cons of the 2020 vs 2021.
Thank you!
Hi Daryl
Thanks for your message.
I would personally go Mountain Twin over T.Rice Pro – just because I really like the Mountain Twin and have never been a fan of the T Rice Pro, personally. If it was between the Lib Tech TRS and Mountain Twin, then that would be a tougher comparison for me. Also, as a mid-intermediate rider, I think the MT would be the better bet over the T Rice Pro.
Between the 2020 and 2021 Mountain Twin, I really liked the 2021. It’s certainly a different feeling board to the 2020. Overall, it feels lighter and more playful. Still a stable feeling board, but slightly looser feeling than the 2020. The 2020 was never overly playful, so it’s still not ultra playful or anything, but just more so than it was – and easier to butter.
Certainly advantages in powder with the spoon base too. I felt edge to edge speed was quicker when riding at slower speeds. But didn’t take away from how it felt carving though, IMO. At speed, it’s just a touch less stable vs the 2020. That’s probably the one area it’s a little down, but otherwise I really liked/preferred the 2021. But I do prefer a light/snappy feeling board vs a smoother/damper board. In saying that it’s actually quite damp for how light it feels.
Another reason that I’d go Mountain Twin over T Rice Pro, is that it’s more versatile, IMO, and more oriented towards your 90% groomer/powder/off-pite to 10% freestyle split.
Would this be instead of the Harpoon or in addition to the Harpoon?
Hi Nate!
Thanks again for your lightning reply! Really appreciate it!
Understood on MT over T.Rice Pro. I was also leaning towards the MT just having some doubts.
As for the MT version. I’ll then go for the 2021 over the 2020. Sorry didn’t catch the Carving part, but judging by how the 3D spoon is there, the edge activation is slightly later compared to 2020? Making carving a little slower than 2020?
Yeah I’m still deliberating if I should get both MT and Harpoon or just 1 over the other. Since the price point isn’t extremely far as of now. Can I ask for advise here on Harpoon vs MT for my level and on…
Thanks again!!!
Hi Daryl
I felt the 2021 MT carved as well as it’s 2020 counterpart (or at least 2019, as I didn’t ride the 2020 model – but the 2019 and 2020 models were the same).
In terms of Harpoon vs the MT in terms of level, both would be appropriate for your level. Some things to consider – the Harpoon is wider and more directional. The Mountain Twin is more of an all-rounder. What I would call an all mountain or “do-it-all” board. The Harpoon is what I would call a freeride board – not as good in terms of freestyle, riding switch etc.
If you were going both, then the MT would be good for using on your more freestyle days, more casually just riding the groomers etc. Then the Harpoon for when there’s powder.
Hi Nate!
I see. Thank you so much for your professional pointers and advises. I will lean towards the MT instead of Harpoon then.
Now I just need to figure a way to off-load my pre-ordered 2021 Orca haha. I don’t think I want to learn towards the harpoon as of now as I think there’s definitely beneficial in using the MT to learn switch (better than harpoon) so I can become a better rider.
Thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome Daryl. Stay safe!
Hi I’m torn between the jones mountain twin and Salomon assassin. Or let me know if there is another board worth checking.
I’m 185lbs, size 12 boots, 6’1”. Been riding for 15 years and can handle any terrain. Looking for something that can handle all mountain, aggressive, fast riding and remain stable at high speed but also can handle the park. I spend 10-20% time in the park but would like to progress to bigger there.
Any ideas would be very helpful for which board and what size. Thanks!!!
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Both are really nice boards, IMO, and would fit what you’re wanting. I wouldn’t say either was overly aggressive, but neither are overly playful either, they’re in between in that sense.
The Mountain Twin is a little better for powder, and in terms of stability at speed, with the Assassin better for jumps, spins and a little more buttery. So depending on what your priorities are.
Given that you like to ride aggressive, I would also look at the Assassin Pro. It gives you more in terms of carving and speed vs the Assassin, but still really good for the park, IMO. If you don’t really see that much powder, then I would also check out the following, which I think would suit your style well, if you wanted more options:
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
Hoping for some advice!
I was going to purchase the Mtn Twin but demoed the Salomon Super 8 and fell in love. For the type of riding (groomers, backcountry, carving) it really suited me. I have those bases covered with the Super 8, and for my main squeezes (Breck and Keystone hard ice weekends normally…except this season lol) I use it as my daily driver.
But with sales on I’m now looking for my 2nd board in my quiver. 65% park, 35% all mountain/harder ice days on groomers. Basically something that compliments the Super 8 with a park focus. I like the Mtn Twin, but I’ve also tried the Rossi Jibsaw and really liked that, especially with the magnetraction.
So my questions are:
1) Considering the above, what would you choose & why?
2) I’m a size 8 & 195lb – what size would you go for, that can straddle the park/all mountain usage? If I was just going for all mtn I’d usually go for a 157, but would you size down or go w 157?
3) Things I want to get better at – switch, jumps, jibs, butters, carving groomers, which is the better board?
Thank you!
Hi Derek
Thanks for the update.
The Jibsaw is a more freestyle oriented board – but it can ride the mountain too. I think it would be a bigger contrast to your Super 8, so probably fits better in the quiver, IMO.
The Jibsaw is a little more buttery and better for switch & jibbing too, IMO. Also a little better in icy conditions – though the Mountain Twin is not bad there.
The Mountain Twin is better for speed, carving and powder, IMO, but given that you’re looking at 65% park, I would be leaning towards the Jibsaw.
Size-wise, I would go 155 for the Jibsaw, if you’re going 157 for the Super 8. But if you go 160 for the Super 8, then I would say 157. If you go Mountain Twin, same thing. If you go 157 Super 8, then I’d go 154 Mountain Twin, but if you go 160 Super 8, then I’d go 157 Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I have a couple of Qs if you don’t mind!
I’m a mid-level intermediate heavily considering the Jones Mountain Twin. It’ll be my first “decent” board as I’ve had the last couple of holidays on a beginner board. I’m 5ft 7 (175cm) and 12st 11lbs (81kgs) and my boot size is 9 (Nike Vapens). I’ll mostly be riding groomers and powder – possibly a venture off-piste, but more than likely not.
Basically I’m wondering if you can give me a bit of steer as to;
A – Is this a board that I’ll be able to enjoy at my skill level? If not, are there any others you can recommend?
B – What size should I be looking at for my stats? I was considering the 157?
C – Will this size be OK for a size 9/10 boot so I don’t experience any drag?
Thanks in advance
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the Mountain Twin would suit what you’re describing and should be fine for your level. If you wanted to explore more similar options, you could look at:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But I think the Mountain Twin is a really good option, so if you didn’t want to spend more time looking, I think it would work well.
Size-wise, I think you’re right on with the 157. That’s the size I would recommend for your specs/ability/how you describe your riding.
Shouldn’t be any issues width-wise. Not sure if you mean a UK9 or a US9, but even if a UK9 (US10 equivalent), I don’t think you’ll have any issues with drag on the 157 Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello ! I will need a little help on this one ! I need a board for park and groomers and some powder ( 10 to 36 cm ) 2 feet max in Sweden we dont have that big damps ! On the park i dont do rails no more ! Only medium jumps ands side hits ! A lot ice around here on the grooms most of the sesson , I’m 175 cm 75 kg , experience rider ! Wants a mountain twin 2021 model and don’t not exact what size ! 154 or 157 ? What size do you recommend ???
Hi Arturo
Thanks for your message.
The Mountain Twin is a great option for what you’re describing, IMO.
Size-wise, for you, I would go with the 157. It’s a close call and I can definitely see why you’re considering both. Both would definitely work, but I think since you’re an experience rider and you want something that’s good in powder and on groomers (presumably wanting to ride relatively fast on groomers?) I think the 157 would be best – and still work for the park too, especially given that you’re not hitting any jibs.
The only thing is how aggressive you ride. If you’re more of a casual rider on the groomers – i.e. don’t ride that fast – and very rarely see powder, then I would be leaning towards 154, but otherwise 157, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I was wondering if you could talk about the differences in performance between the Mountain twin and the mercury (why you ranked the mercury one above the mountain twin). Last I had the mercury and loved the waist with, I found myself laying over deep euro carves pretty easily. Can the mountain twin euro carve decently ?
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
I’m not a big euro carver, so it’s not something that I’ve directly tested on these boards, so I can’t really give you much there. But in terms of having the width to do it, the Mountain Twin is as wide as the Mercury at the inserts, size for size.
For example, looking at the 157 Mercury and 157 Mountain Twin, the width at inserts are as follows (the Mercury 157 is estimated based on measuring the 159 version, the Mountain Twin is actual measurement):
MT: 265mm at front insert, 266mm at back insert
Mercury: 263mm at front insert, 264mm at back insert
That’s assuming you were riding at the reference stances. For reference I rode the Mercury 159 (which is 265mm at front insert and 266mm at back insert) at 595mm (23.4″) and the MT 157 at 600mm (23.6“) – so really similar in terms of stance widths.
So, in terms of width, if you were worried about the Mountain Twin being too narrow for euro carves, it’s actually really similar width-wise, size-for-size, as the Mercury, when you look at the width at inserts.
In terms of carving in general, I preferred the Mercury. It’s just a feel thing. Both are good, but the Mercury just that touch better on a carve, IMO.
Hope this helps
Nate,
Genesis or Genesis X on the mountain twin? Thanks!!!
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
Tough call, but if you’re looking to get the most out of the board in terms of carving, then I think the Genesis X is what I would put on there. If you were looking for a slightly more easy going feel, then the Genesis is a good option, but if I had to choose I’d go Genesis X for the Mountain Twin.
I can get a great deal on 2020 Cartels, would they be able to drive this board decently?
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I reckon the Cartels on the Mountain Twin is a really good match. If you can get a deal on them, I think that’s a wise call.
Hi Nate, Thanks for your awesome reviews 🙂
I have a bit of paralysis through analysis and was hoping for a bit of help.
I have been riding 20ish years and I used to bomb is everywhere but with wife and kids on blue and black runs I am off to the sides looking for some fun 🙂
I have been looking at the burton custom, the Ejack knife, the mountain twin and the mercury 161cm, I am 185cm and 100kg and have been riding an old Burton camber 167 and a now a Jones flagship 161 but I think the effective edge is too small and so when I need the grip it washes out.
So I live in New Zealand and where we board its hard pack through winter to spring soft and we board half and half of each. I guess I would like grip now that the flagship hasn’t given it to me, so which do you think a 164w mountain twin vs the 161 mercury? I like both but just stuffed up with the flagship so worried about getting it wrong,
we are going to mammoth in 6 weeks time so any advice where in the US I should buy it.
thanks so much for you time
cheers,
Doug
Hi Doug
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of length, I would say something around 164 is a good length for you. That’s probably what I would have recommended for the Flagship. I think it would be a better size for your specs – especially coming from a 167. On that basis, and the fact that you feel the effective edge is too small on your 161 Flagship, I would be leaning towards the Mountain Twin 164W over the Mercury 161. However, wouldn’t want to go too wide, if you don’t need to. If you can let me know your boot size also, that would be great.
In terms of the Custom, I would say probably 162 or 162W, depending on boot size. And for the Ejack Knife also between 162 or 162W.
Between all the options, I would say the Ejack Knife, followed by the Mountain Twin, followed by the Mercury, followed by the Custom, in terms of edge-hold in hard/icy conditions.
If you’re finding side-hits etc (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by finding fun off to the sides? Having no trees to ride in NZ), then I would say that the Custom is the best for that, followed by the Mountain Twin, then Mercury, then Ejack Knife. But you can certainly still rock side-hits on the Ejack Knife, but that’s the order I would put them in for that.
In terms of powder, hard carves and stability at speed, the Ejack Knife is the better option overall, but all of those options are decent in all those areas. I can break it down further if you’d like, or you can check out the reviews for each on the website for more details there.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks Nate, I forgot about boot size, I wear a size 11 boot which is why I was thinking of the wide versions of these boards, thanks for your take on the boards I think that the mercury is off the menu and the Ejack knife as well.
What I cant quite work out is if the custom is out vs the twin if you could tell me the positives and whats better between them as I do not really understand the difference apart from magna traction they seem similar.
thanks for taking the time its really helpful,
Cheers,
Doug
Hi Doug
Yeah probably best to look at the wides. 11s are usually best matched with wides, but sometimes you can get on a regular board, depending on a few things. Firstly how deep/aggressive you carve. If you’re more casual and don’t really get deep on carves, then you can get on a narrower board. Secondly, with greater binding angles, that gives more leeway to go narrower – so if you ride something like +15/-15, then that allows you to go narrower. Thirdly, it depends on your boots. Some boots are more low profile than others. I would say you’d want a combination of at least 2 of those things to fit on the regular 162 Custom. With the Mountain Twin only thing with going 162 is that you’re not getting as much of an increase in effective edge vs the 161 Flagship. Still some increase but more subtle. So 164W might still be the goer, regardless.
There are quite a few differences between the Mountain Twin and Custom, in addition to better edge grip in hard/icy conditions, some of the major differences are:
– The Custom is full camber, whereas the Mountain Twin is camber between and under the feet but has rocker tip and tail
– They’re fairly similar flex, but I would say that the Custom is just a touch stiffer 6.5/10 vs 6/10 – so pretty close
– The Custom has more effective edge vs overall length – so going Custom 162 would give you a good bit more effective edge vs your Flagship 161. The 164W MT would be a good bit more too, but to the extent of the Custom
– I found the Mountain Twin to be better in powder (3.5/5) vs the Custom (2.5/5)
– I found the Custom to be a better carver (4/5) vs the MT (3.5/5)
– Both similar for stability at speed (4/5)
– Overall both fairly similar for jumps (4/5) but the Custom Camber more pop
I’d say those are the main things. For more details, check out:
>>Burton Custom Camber Review
>>Jones Mountain Twin Review
Hi Nate,
I bought a 160 mountain twin (I backflipped from the Assassin/Typo).
I’m 93kg, 180cm and US9.5 boot.
Low intermediate wanting to do a bit of everything on the mountain (except pipe) and hopefully drop the low soon.
I’m just looking at bindings. I’ve checked out yours and others’ top picks and checked availability here in oz, and got my google docs spreadsheet going but it’s still pretty hard to pull the trigger on one.
From what I’ve read, I think a 6ish stiffness would suit to match the MT so the Strata and Cartel would be good and the Force would be fine.
Would you add any others from the list below (or alternatively strike any from the list)?
The F is flex (I think I got most of them from your site but let me know if I’ve got any wrong). S is season/year (just in case not obvious)
Flux TT s19 $220 (F6?)
Rome Crux s20 $260 (F5)
Flux DS s18 $295 (F5)
Burton Cartel s19 $300 (F6)
Union Force s19 $325 (F6)
Now Pilot s19 $340 (F5)
Flux DS s19 $350 (F5)
Union Strata s19 $360 (F6)
Burton Genesis s19 $385 (F5)
Also, with the mini disc, would this put extra force on the board and possibly damage the board more so than a normal disc? I only ask as I read a random forum somewhere and it mentioned this as a possibility. I suspect I would have seen this in a lot more places if it were true, but thought I’d mention regardless.
Any help would be grand.
Cheers,
Mart
Hi Mart
Yeah something around that 6/10 flex is a good way to go for the MT, IMO.
The TT is more like 7/10, IMO. I don’t test Rome, so not sure about the Crux. The Pilot, I would say more like 6/10. Everything else there looks right.
Personally, I would be leaning towards the Cartel or Strata for the MT. Or the Force.
I haven’t experienced or heard anything like that with the mini-disc. Not to say that it’s not a possibility, but I haven’t heard anything about it.
Thanks again
Hi Nate,
what is your choice for all-mtn board with a little FS? no park, no powder but quite a lot of switch ride and carving (want to have a good and easy edge-to-edge initiation) nice for buttering and flat tricks. Jones mtn twin vs NS proto type 2 vs Salomon assassin? or maybe any other suggestion? on the plus if the board is as narrow as possible (size 150-152)
many thanks
Hi Piotr
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I would be looking at the Proto Type Two or Assassin, given that you don’t ride powder. They are both better for riding switch, buttering and flat tricks and freestyle in general than the Mountain Twin, IMO.
Given that you’re looking at something 150-152, then for the Assassin it would be the 150 (247mm waist) and for the PT2 it would be the 152 (248mm waist).
I would estimate the width at inserts for those two boards in those sizes, to be:
– Assassin 150: 255mm
– PT2 152: 255mm
So, yeah basically about the same width at inserts, roughly, so width-wise they are pretty close.
The Mountain twin would be more like 259mm at the inserts for the 151. But I think the Assassin & PT2 are better options for what you’re describing anyway.
Some other good options, if you wanted to check them out:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
But the Assassin & PT2 would both be great options for what you’re describing, IMO.
Hope this helps
It’s the best answer I could get! really appreciated 🙂
btw. first of all I was focused on capita asymulator but rejected because of wider width, it’s 250mm, not sure what it would be at inserts? do you think I will notice the difference in width between asymulator and assassin & pt2?
It’s the best answer I could get! really appreciated 🙂
First of all I was focused on capita:
1. outerspace because it has it has the best width but I guess it’s not quite my kind of board?
2. asymulator but rejected because of wider width, it’s 250mm, not sure what it would be at inserts? do you think I will notice the difference in width between asymulator and assassin & pt2?
I think I’ve almost decided on assassin, thanks to you 🙂
but have some doubts about the size, read opinions that I should go for one size up with this board? so then it will be 152? if so, maybe the better choice is assassin pro in 150, which is a little stiffer?
I’am 5,6 and 154 lbs, boot size us 7 so the narrowest width possible is essential..
and really the last thing: what salomon bindings do you recommend with assassin? size S or M? I have salomon hi fi boots
Hi Peter
Thanks for the extra info.
1. The OSL isn’t as “dynamic” as the Assassin/PT2 or Asymulator, but it would certainly suit what you’re describing. It’s a very solid all-mountain-freestyle board. Just not quite as snappy/dynamic, if that makes sense, so that’s certainly an option. But if you’re wanting something more lively, then one of the other options.
2. The Asymulator is a little wider. At inserts, I would estimate the width at inserts to be around 262mm. That’s getting pretty wide for 7s. For your specs, I think around 150-152 is a good bet for an all-mountain-freestyle board, so the length of the 152 is good, IMO, but with the extra width, I think the overall size is on the big side for you. Otherwise would be a very good option.
For the Assassin, I wouldn’t size up for it. IMO not a board you size up for. It’s got a good amount of effective edge per overall length. That’s not to say that the 153 is a bad choice, I think it’s in your range for sure. But with the extra width of the 153, combined with being at the upper end of length, again, I think it’s getting on the big side overall in combination of width and length. I would go 150 for you, for the Assassin. I think that would be a good size.
If you wanted the extra bite of the Assassin Pro, then that’s certainly an option, assuming you’re a relatively advanced rider. It’s not quite as easy to butter as the Assassin, but it’s still something you can certainly butter with. It’s a killer deck though, so if you’re OK with the extra stiffness, it’s certainly an option. If you want something more playful and buttery, then the Assassin 150 is the goer. But if you’re willing to sacrifice a little buttering/playfulness for more stability at speed and bigger carves, then the Assassin Pro is a good option.
In terms of Salomon bindings S or M, you could go both. I used to always test L Salomon bindings (US10 boots), but my recent tests for Salomon were on Ms, and they fit really well. With 10s, I’m on the cusp between M & L, and I think I preferred the M. Since you’re on the cusp between the S and M, then maybe the S on that basis. Since you’re in Salomon boots, I don’t imagine there will be any issues with fit, given that Salomon rate their S up to size 7 and that’s assumably based on their boots. With different boots, I’d say safe bet would be M, but since you have Salomon boots, I would be leaning S. The only consideration for going M would be to get more leverage to the edges of the board with a longer base plate. But the risk there would be if the M is too long for some of the boards you’re looking at, with some risk of binding overhang.
In terms of models, for the Assassin, I would be leaning towards the Hologram. For the Assassin Pro, perhaps the Highlander to better match the extra stiffness. But the Hologram would work on the Assassin Pro too, if you didn’t want to go too stiff with your bindings.
So i would like go with assassin but still afraid with the width at inserts…
my second choice is outerspace, mainly because it’s the narrowest one, i thhink it’s softer and according to the capita size chart I should pick 152? then should be more stable and better in carving than 150, am I right?
ps. advanced skills, so far for many years my loved board is signal omni 150 🙂
again thank you very much
Hi Peter
The OSL is certainly softer than the Assassin Pro, but pretty similar to the Assassin. In terms of size, you could definitely go 152 in the OSL, given it’s narrower width. I would estimate the 152 to be around 251, 252mm at the inserts. And yeah, you would get more out of it in terms of being more stable at speed and for carving (and a little more float in powder).
it’s me again, really for the last time 🙂
I found endeavor b.o.d at good price, according to tech it’s similar narrow to OSL, i can pick between 149 and 152, have any thougts about this one?
assassin 150 vs osl 152 or b.o.d.?
Hi Peter
Yeah, I would say that the BOD is a little more camber dominant than the OSL, but still quite similar in terms of camber profile. Just that there’s less rocker going on there. It’s a little more of an aggressive feel vs the OSL. If you haven’t already check out more details on my review.
Width-wise, I would predict the 149 to be around 255mm at inserts and around 256mm on the 152. So pretty similar to the width of the Assassin 150.
Hi Nate,
I think I have finally settled on the Mountain Twin. Was also looking at the Burton Custom Camber. I consider myself intermediate, I am comfortable on the blues and single blacks at a decent speed. No park for me though. Just not getting into the trees so quick turning is important. I also need to be able to slow everything down when I am with my wife. She is just starting out. I plan on pairing the MT with L Cartels and Burton Photons, size 11 or maybe 11.5. I am 6’1l and 185 lbs. I am leaning towards the 158W or should I go longer?
Hi Josh
Thanks for your message.
I think the 158W is the best bet. You’re instincts there are what I would have had. You could certainly ride the 161W too, but given that you’re getting into trees and need to ride slow sometimes, I think the 158W will work best for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the quick response. Do you think I will have enough float in pow with the 158W? I pulled the trigger on the 158 today and now I am having second thoughts. Maybe I should go with the 161W. How much of a difference are the 2 boards in the trees?
Thanks for all the help.
Josh
Hi Josh
The 161W would give more float of course – any board with more surface area – all else being equal – will float better. But it’s about getting a balance between all the factors. I think the 158W will still float well for your weight and is overall better for other things. Being wider overall, helps with surface area when it comes to float too, so I don’t think you’ll have float issues there. You can always get better float going longer, but there comes a point where that detracts from other riding. In the trees I think you’ll definitely appreciate the 158W over the 161W. It will be more maneuverable. 3cm isn’t a massive amount, but a noticeable difference for sure. I have tested boards in different sizes just 2cm apart, and noticed that difference in terms of maneuverability, all be it subtle – but more so than the sacrifice in powder float.
If it were me, I would stick with the 158
Thanks for the detailed response Nate. I will stick with the 158W.
You’re very welcome Josh. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate,
I’m looking to upgrade my board this season, coming from my first board which was a 2018 Burton Ripcord in 157 (WW of 253 mm). I”d estimate I’m an intermediate/upper intermediate rider and I want to carve harder and at some point learn eurocarving. My priorities are carving > going fast > powder >> jumps >> other park stuff. This will be my only board and I need to be able to ride it every day for a week when I’m on vacation, which is why I’m not leaning towards a very aggressive boards like the Jones Flagship.
I’m 6 feet tall, weigh around 180 lbs incl. gear and wear size 11.5 boots (Salomon Titans. Mondo: 29.5 cm) at +15°/-15°. Boot length is 32.5 cm, foot length is 27.0 cm. I know, pretty short for my boots, right? But I checked it multiple times over the last couple of days and am confident in the accuracy of the numbers. I also don’t feel like my boots are way too long when I wear them, I have maybe a centimeter of air in front of my toes, if not less.
Boardwise I’m currently looking at the the 164W Jones Mountain Twin and the 161 cm Capita Mercury. From what I’ve seen, heard and read, I’d prefer the Mercury because I feel like it is a bit more advanced/aggressive/fast (admittedly I also think it looks way cooler but it’s not just that haha). However, I’m afraid the Merc will be too narrow for me and that I’ll end up not being able to carve as aggressively/deep as I want in a year or two.
The specs of the two boards:
Mercury 161
WW: 261mm
Width at bindings: ~267-268mm (extrapolated from your data)
Mountain Twin 164W
WW: 262mm
Width at bindings: ~274-275 mm (also estimated based on your review’s numbers – may be inaccurate because I am extrapolating from the normal to the wide board)
You mentioned in your width guide that ideally, the overhang should not be above 40 mm. Well, my boots at 15° are around 31.5 cm long. With the MT 164W, I would therefore get around 315-275=40mm overhang which would be fine, right? For the Mercury, I’d get around 315-268 = 47 mm overhang… Which sounds significantly worse. Especially because my focus is fast carving on groomers – I’d rather have a board that’s a bit on the wide/long side than one that’s too narrow.
What’s your opinion on this? Should I just go for the Mountain Twin? I’m sure it’s a huge upgrade either way and I’ll definitely be happy with it… I just have a little bit of a board crush on the Mercury.
On the other hand… Should I get new boots? You mentioned somewhere that the difference of boot length and foot length should be around 3 cm – for me that difference is 32.5-27.0 = 5.5 cm. Maybe I should just get new boots and save a centimeter or two there and then I wont have to worry about my board width that much anymore…
Either way, thank you for this website! It has been immensely helpful over the last few days/weeks.
Best regards from Austria
Philipp
Hi Philipp
Thanks for your message.
First thing, is with boots. Whilst the idea of mondo-print (which essentially says that you feet in centimeters should fit in a boot of the same sized mondo. So for a 27cm foot, that would be a size 9) is rarely accurate in my experience and what I’ve heard from others (e.g. I have a 27.3cm foot and I fit best in 10s for most brands and 10.5s for some. Can never get in a 9.5). However, I think you could certainly size your boots down – not just on the basis of a 27cm foot – but for the fact that you say you have about 1cm of space between your toes and the end of the boot. For proper boot fitting your toes should just brush the end of the boot when standing up straight. 1cm is essentially a full size, so I think you would be better off in a 10.5, potentially even a 10.
Oh yeah and to clarify, the difference between the “stated mondo” of the boot and the length of the outer boot is typically around 3cm. A little less for low profile boots and a little more for some boots. Since mondo rarely matches what your foot will actually fit, the difference between foot size and boot length is usually more accurately 3.5cm to 4cm. But still a good bit less than what you have currently.
Length-wise, I wouldn’t go as long as 164 for your specs though. Weight recommendations are usually based on your weight without gear, for starters – so I’m guessing your closer to 170lbs without gear. Would that be close? In that case, I wouldn’t go longer than 160, maybe 161 for you. Even at 180lbs, probably no more than 162. Unless you were getting a board that was solely for freeriding, were at an advanced level and a board that had a long nose on it (and where you get a lot that length outside of the contacts points). But going with something like the Mountain Twin, I wouldn’t go longer than 161 for you. Given that you see Eurocarving in your future, want to go on the long end of the scale by the sounds of it, then I would say 161W for the Mountain Twin.
If you do end up changing boots and get in a 10 or 10.5, then I would see no issue with the width of the Mercury 161.
For a lot of riders, a total overhang of 47mm wouldn’t concern me that much. In fact I often ride with that kind of total overhang without issues. But just with the fact that you’re looking to Eurocarve, then it is cutting it a bit tight. But if you can knock a size of your boot size, which I think you should be able to, then that would put the 161 Mercury in a good range.
And yeah both definitely a good upgrade from the Ripcord for sure – and will certainly take some getting used to after riding the Ripcord (particularly if your sizing up too), but once you’ve got through that transition, you’ll appreciate the step up.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate,
I looked at both the MT and the Merc today and I pulled the trigger on the Mercury! The width difference seemed very minor (I measured it at around 4-5 mm) and in the end this is just the board that I like more. The clerk said that I should think about upgrading my boots and bindings to match the stiffness of my new board, so I will probably get shorter boots as well in the next few weeks. Still have to read up on different options.
Thanks a lot for your detailed reply!
Philipp
You’re very welcome Philipp. Congrats on your new board!
Let me know if you have any questions re boots and bindings.
Hey Nate,
I tried on a few different boots and today I purchased the Adidas Response in size 10. You were right, size 10 fits me well! I also got the Union Strata bindings.
I’ll be heading to the mountains this Saturday and I’m stoked!
Cheers!
Hi Philipp
Awesome that you have your setup sorted! Have an awesome ride and let me know how you get on with your new setup
Hi Nate,
How did you mount the mini-disk bindings to obtain a good symmetry? The reference stance for this board is designed for a 4×4 pattern. I am riding this board and I have it set on the 3rd+4th row both nose and tail.
What is your thought?
Many thanks!
Mihai
Hi Mihai
Thanks for your message.
I rode this board with Burton Malavitas, so not with a mini-disc. But when I do setup with a mini-disc, I try to get as close to reference as I can – or as close to the stance width I’m looking for as I can. If it’s going to affect setback at all, I usually give it slightly more setback, rather than slightly less. You can usually get pretty close, so I’ve never had any issue with mounting with minidiscs. Which rows you set it up on will depend on whether you want to go a little narrower or a little wider than the reference stance width, and how that affects your setback. Off the top of my head, I’m guessing the 3rd/4th rows would give you something slightly wider than reference – but I don’t have a Jones board with me at the moment, so that’s just a guess. But yeah, I would do some measurements and make sure it’s how you want it to be – but I’ve never had any issues being slightly off reference.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First of all, compliments for this outstanding snowboard advice all over your site. I’m looking for a complete new gear after 8 years of riding on my beginnerboard.
Some info about me:
Always been riding on my Nitro beginnerboard which felt quite stiff to me, just like the rest of my gear. Every year I’ve been on the groomers or powder. Tried the park two years back and dislocated my shoulder. It was still fun but mainly trying to improve my switch, try some buttering and do some sidejumps this year. I consider myself an intermediate rider and also like to go down the piste with much speed.
– 182 cm/5’9(?)
– 82 kg/181lbs
– 43,5 EU/10 US boot size
I did countless hours of reading and comparing and ordered the following to try on:
– Jones Mountain Twin 157 and 160
– Union Strata bindings
– Burton Ion 2020 Double BOA
– Burton M Ion 2019 Speedlacing (pricewise)
I’m still not sure about a few things:
– The size of my snowboard
– The shock absorption of the Ion’s
– The speed of the MT (is it still stable at high speed?)
– The combination of my gear altogether (stiffness etc?)
I’m very curious about your thoughts on all this, it would be great if you would share some!
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Bas
Hi Bas
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, size-wise, for your specs (182cm is around 5’11” to 6’0″ by the way), and given that you’re an intermediate rider, I think the 157 Mountain Twin would be your best bet. The 160 would give you more stability at speed (and more float in powder) but overall I think the 157 will suit better – it’s going to be more maneuverable, feel less stiff and be better for learning buttering, switch, jumps etc.
The Mountain Twin isn’t going to feel soft, if you found your beginner board stiff (assuming you got an appropriate beginner board, which would usually be soft flexing), but it should provide a good bit more stability at speed. I have always found the Mountain Twin to be good at speed. It’s not an absolute bomber, but pretty good nonetheless. And usually if you want to get something that’s even more stable you’ve got to ride something longer or something quite a bit stiffer, but then you loose out in other areas, so I think the MT is a good mix for you, from what you’re describing.
What is the name of your current Nitro board? Just so I can get an idea of how the MT might compare to it.
The Strata are a great match for the Mountain Twin, IMO, so that’s a great combo.
The Ion are on the stiffer side, so if you’re not looking to go overly stiff, then they might be a little too stiff, to be ideal. Not way off in terms of your overall setup, but if you’re not wanting to go too stiff, you might find them a touch too stiff. I would say they’re about a 7.5/10 stiffness. You’re probably better off, ideally, going for something with around a 6/10 flex for that setup and from what you’re describing. I wouldn’t worry too much about the shock absorption. They’re not great, but there’s not nothing there – and the Strata’s have plenty of shock absorption, so I think that combination, in terms of shock absorption would be fine.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate!
I really appreciate your website and very good Informations. First of all, I am sorry for my not so good English, as I am from Austria. After many hours of research, I’ve decided to buy Jones Mountain Twin or Rossignol One LF. I want some all-mountain, do it all board. I like to ride everywhere, and I’ve found, both of these should be stable at high speeds. My question is, which one would you recommend, as they both seems to be very similar. I have a possibility to get them both for a very similar price, as there are some pretty good sales here. I am intermediate rider and like to pick up some speed. I like both really the same so it is very hard to pick up one. I am just afraid, that you’ve wrote Rossi One is a little bit heavier. Is it really that bad? And does Jones perform the same way at high speeds as Rossi?
I have 185cm (6’1″), 76kg (so about 167lbs) and 9.5 UK Boots (so 10 or 10.5US, as I’ve found some convertions a little bit different). Would you think, 159 board would be good for me?
Do you recommend also some good bindings for these boards? Which size of bindings would be good for me?
I would really appreciate, if you could give an answer, it would be a big help for me. Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Michael
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
Yeah both perform quite similarly, but aren’t the same board. But for what you’re describing, you can’t make a bad choice between them – they are both good choices. The main differences, I would say are:
1. The camber profile is similar (camber between the feet and rocker towards tip and tail – aka Hybrid Camber) but they are sligthly different. The rocker sections on the One LF start at around the middle of the inserts, whereas the rocker sections on the Mountain Twin start outside the inserts (closer to the tip and tail). So essentially the rocker sections are larger on the One LF vs the Mountain Twin. This makes the One a little better in powder, but not as poppy for jumps/ollies.
2. The One LF is a little more buttery – perhaps again in part to do with having more rocker tip and tail
3. The One LF is a little heavier yes, but on snow it doesn’t feel heavy, which is the main thing.
At high speeds, both are the equal of each other, in my experience.
Size-wise, I think the 159 for the Rossi One would be your best bet there. For the Mountain Twin, it’s a weigh up between the 157 and 160. Since you like to ride fast, the 160 might be more appealing for you. But if you were doing some more freestyle stuff with it a lot, and riding tress a lot, then the 157 might become more appealing, but just based on what you’re describing, I think probably 160. The width on all of those options should be a good fit for your boots.
In terms of bindings, I would check out the following:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
The first list for an all-round experience with the board and the second list if you want to drive the board a bit harder/more aggressively.
In terms of size for your bindings it will depend on the brand – check out >>Snowboard Binding Sizing for more on binding sizing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
thank you very much for your nice response! Then I think I will go with the Rossi, it looks like an ideal board for me. My last board was from a rental and it was 162w, I think it was 26cm in the waist. But it think the boots from rental were a little bigger even though it was my size. They also have Rossi in 161w, so I was a little bit confused on which size should I really get. But I will believe you and the sizing charts as well and go with 159, because the rental stuffs are quite different.
I like the Union Strata bindings, but I’ve found, Union Force should be pretty good as well, what is your opinion on Force?
Thanks so much for your big help.
Best Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael
You’re very welcome.
The Force are solid all-round bindings. Probably the biggest difference between them and the Strata, is that the Strata has the mini-disc, which gives more board feel, but the Force don’t have bad board feel by any means. And they’re just as responsive. A good option that matches the Rossi One well – and at a good price for the performance you get, too, IMO.
Great, thank you very much. I think I will go with Force as there is some pretty good discount on them. Thank you and wisch you all the best. Your site is very helpful.
You’re very welcome Michael. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate
I left a post on one of your other pages, but I’m curious to know if you’ve seen anything about the 2020 Jones Mountain Twin. I found this link here:
>>Jones Mountain Twin 2020 Absolute Snow
Is this the same board as the one you’re reviewing on this page?
Thanks
Tom
Hi Tom
As per my other response, as far as I know nothing has changed for the 2020 model vs the 2019 model. However the specs in the catalog are showing equal tip and tail lengths (whereas previously the tip has always been 1cm longer than the tail). Not sure if that’s a typo or not, since they haven’t indicated a change. But even if that’s changed, I think it’s otherwise the same board.
Hi Nate…
I have the 2018 Jones Mountain Twin. I love it in powder with the reference stance. Just floats! I tried to center it out, but it just felt a little off. I read in your review that it doesn’t feel like a true twin when you center out the stance. What was the feeling that you felt on the board?? How did you center out the board, from the contact points or from the nose and tail.
Hi Toni
Thanks for your message.
To center it, you definitely want to center between contact points (centered on the effective edge). If you center it from nose to tail you would actually be a little “set forward” on effective edge, which isn’t recommended and could certainly feel weird. To center it on effective edge, move the tail binding 2cm (one set of holes) towards the waist of the board.
Also, what I meant when I said “doesn’t feel like a true twin with a centered stance” was that it doesn’t feel like a board that has a centered stance and is a true twin. I didn’t center the board when I rode it. But I can definitely understand the confusion of that sentence! Centered it should feel pretty close to a true twin – except when you’re in powder.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
You seem to be a fountain of knowledge when it comes to helping people figure out the best board & size. I am hoping you can spare a bit of advice for me as well. From your review I am after a Jones Mountain Twin to replace my really old (~10 seasons, it has served me well) 157 Option Signature board but can’t decide between the 154 and 157 sizes. I am 178, 75kg and US9. Most of the riding I do is on hard park with the odd ‘powder’ day in New Zealand. I enjoy heading all over the mountain with the odd bit of park. Any advice to help me make a decision on size would be appreciated.
Cheers, Grant
Hi Grant
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tough call between the 154 and 157 and I can see your dilemma there. The 154 would be a better size for your boots, IMO, though the 157 certainly fine for 9s, but the 154 would give you just that little bit more leverage on the edges. I think it would also be a great size for your specs in the park, for spins and in trees (though I’m guessing you won’t see many of these unless you travel right?). The 154 also more nimble at slower speeds.
The 157 would certainly give you more stability at speed, more float in powder and better for big, long arcing carves vs the 154.
I think 157 is probably the better suited size overall to your specs (with the exception of your boots just slightly in favor of the 154) but there would certainly be some advantages of going 154 too.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate – your website and Q&A is awesome. Thanks so much for taking the time to put together this content. I’ve rented boards for the last 4-5 years and am finally looking to get an all-mountain board that will work well on groomers (in both soft and hard snow), tree runs and some back country. I’m 6’0, 155 pounds and have a pair of US 11 Burton Photons.
I’m an intermediate rider that sticks to mostly blue (sometimes blacks without moguls) on groomers and have started to dabble in powder and tree runs the last 3-4 trips I’ve been on. I don’t spend any time in the park and don’t really plan to (other occasionally going off very small jumps). I like boards that have a good edge hold/stability while carving but also value the ability to turn a little quicker during tree runs.
On my last trip I borrowed my friend’s 156 Rossignol Onemag and really enjoyed riding it in pretty good snow/some powder. I orginally thought it would be way too short but found it very enjoyable. I started looking into boards after that trip and have narrowed it down to either Jones Mountain Twin or the Rossignol Onemag (i guess LF now). From everything I’ve read it sounds like the Mountain Twin maybe a good board for me to continue to grow on, but I can only find it available in the 157 and 158W.
What size would you recommend for me? Alternatively, looks like the Rossignol LF is widely available in different sizes. Would you recommend I go with LF (or maybe another board) instead of the Mountain Twin and what sizes? Thanks so much for your help!
Hi Ayman
Thanks for your message.
I think you’re on the right track in terms of what you’re describing. I think an all-mountain board will work well – and the likes of the Mountain Twin and One LF are very consistent across different conditions, so you can’t go wrong with either of those, IMO.
Size-wise, I think something between 156 and 158 would be a good bet for you. Size is more about weight than height these days.
Since you’re on 11s, you’re kind of on the cuff of regular width and wide, depending on the board. Since you have Burton boots which are pretty low profile, you’ve got a bit more leeway to get on regular width. I would be confident you could get on the 156 Rossi One LF and Jones MT 157 with your boots, if you’re riding with a bit of angle on your back binding. E.g. if you ride with angles like +15/-15 or similar. If you ride with a straighter back binding angle, then I think the wide versions would be a better bet.
The predicted measurements at the inserts for these boards are (back insert):
– Rossi One LF 156: 263mm (estimated)
– Rossi One LF 157W: 275mm (estimated)
– Rossi One LF 159: 265mm (measured)
– Mountain Twin 157: 266mm (measured)
– Mountain Twin 158W: 271mm (estimated)
But yeah, you could go with either one of these boards, IMO, for what you’re describing. If you know that you enjoyed the Onemag (which is pretty much unchanged since the 2017 model), then that’s certainly a safe bet.
You could also check out the following if you wanted more options:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, you’re a legend!
I ended up going with the Yes Greats 159 (the new 2020 version) – largely influenced by your review (and I got a good price). Will get a very powder specific quiver board down the track.
I’m now looking at boots / bindings. Would Union Atlas or Burton Genesis work well with the Greats, with Burton Swath boots? Or would you recommend something else (bear in mind I do not want anything too stiff – would prefer to err on the ‘comfort’ side as I’m not getting any younger…).
Have you tried the Burton Step-ons?
Cheers, Tom
Hi Tom
Awesome you have a new board. And the Greats is great! (pun intended)
I think the Genesis would work well and the Swath. The Atlas would work too, but are a little stiffer, and since you’re saying you’re not looking to go too stiff, maybe not as suitable. I also don’t find their board feel is as good as something like the Genesis. By my feel the Greats is around a 5/10 flex (after purchasing it, the un-ridden production model felt stiffer than that at first vs the Demo models (which were already broken in) that I had ridden – but after breaking it in, it’s feeling more like the 5/10 flex, maybe 5.5/10, that I felt off the demo models). The Genesis is 5/10 flex by my feel and the Swath is also 5/10 flex by my feel. The Atlas is more 7/10 flex by my feel.
From Union I would match to the Union Strata, personally.
For more options, check out:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Personally I wouldn’t go softer than 5/10 flex for boots and bindings and wouldn’t go stiffer than 7/10 flex, for the Greats.
Hope this helps
G’day Nate,
This is a great thread! Unfortunately I, like others, seem to be suffering from the curse of choice…
I’m approx. 6’2″, 205 – 210 lbs (athletic), with boot size 43 – 44 EUR (depending on the maker), and 39yo.
I’m an intermediate to advanced rider (still progressing) – I will generally have a go at everything the mountain provide from playing around on the groomers with my kids (side hits, spins, some switch and buttering); the odd lap through the park (mainly smaller kickers and slashing walls (no jibbing); and when the snow is good, back country / off piste and through the trees. I also love going fast and carving.
Over the past few years I have simply been renting boards – mainly twins (which have been a bit of a mixed bag) and have decided to bite the bullet and get my own.
I’m looking for a solid ‘one board quiver’ that I can travel with to a variety of different locations and conditions (predominantly the French/Austrian Alps; New Zealand/Australia; and Japan). An All-mountain board and is easy to jump, can float in pow, carve and handle speed and is relatively easy to skid out (forgiving).
When not snowboarding, I spend a lot of time surfing / kitesurfing, which is naturally leaning me towards Jones Snowboards – and directional or directional twins…
I am currently looking at the following boards (and sizes):
– Jones Mountain Twin and Jones Explorer 162 or 164W (I’m concerned that the 162 is too narrow and the 164W is too wide);
– Burton Skeleton Key 162; and
– Capita Mercury 161.
Any suggestions, recommendations or alternatives would be greatly appreciated! Also, let me know if I could/should be considering smaller sizes of these boards?
Many thanks in advance, Tom
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
Definitely sounds like an all-mountain is what you want, so you’re on the right track, IMO.
Size-wise, I would say anything between 161 and 164 is a good range to look at – so again, I think you’re on the right track there too.
I haven’t ridden the Skeleton Key – but based on the camber, and other Burton boards with that same camber profile, I don’t think it would be that easy to skid turns on. So, for the sake of crossing something off the list, that could be a reason to cross that off.
The Mountain Twin, Explorer and Mercury certainly fit what you’re describing though, IMO.
For the Mountain Twin, the 162 would be a great size – and assuming your 43-44 translates into roughly a 10 or 10.5 US (my brain thinks in US sizes), then you shouldn’t have any issues with width there – and I personally wouldn’t go wide if I was you.
For the Explorer, it’s something that I would recommend to ride a little longer. You could get away with the 162, but preferably a little longer. The only longer size though is the 164W, which I think would be too wide.
The Mercury 161 is a good size, IMO. And it’s not as wide as it looks. Though it has a 261mm waist, the width at inserts is likely to be around 268mm (based on measuring a different size) – which should be fine. The Mountain Twin 162 will have a similar width at inserts, even though it’s narrower at the waist.
If you haven’t already, also check out, the following for more options:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But I think the MT 162 or Mercury 161 would both be good choices for you.
Hope this helps
Many thanks Nate, that’s very helpful. I’m definitely moving toward the Capita Mercury.
One more question, how do you find the Burton Flight Attendant? Is this a board that is for advanced/expert riders, or should I consider throwing this into the mix too (162 or 168)? I have heard that it is a board that suits heavier/bigger riders…
Hi Tom
Yeah I would say that the Flight Attendant is really more for advanced and up. A little stiffer than the Mercury/Explorer/Mountain Twin – not by heaps – but that in combination with a more aggressive camber profile, makes it a trickier ride – and something that’s not as forgiving and not as skid friendly.
Thanks again Nate. Fortuitously, my local SB store is currently offering a good deal on the new 2020 Yes Standard. Following your review, I am now having a close look at this as an option.
With my weight (205 – 210 lbs) and boot size (US 10 -10.5), would I be ok on the 159 Standard, or should I go for the 162?
Hi Tom
For the Standard, I think the 159 would work well for you. It’s a little wider than the likes of the 162 Mountain Twin and 161 Mercury – 275mm at the inserts at reference stance predicted (based on measuring a different size). Which is quite wide for 10s/10.5, but since you would be sizing down by going for the 159, that would be a good overall size, IMO. You would be dropping quite a bit in terms of effective edge on the 159 vs going with something like the 161 Mercury or 162 Mountain Twin (118.8cm on the Standard vs 121.7cm on the Mercury 161 and 121.4cm on the 162 MT). But going 162 Standard (121.3cm effective edge) – you would be looking at 280mm at the inserts, which is getting really wide for your boots, IMO, if you’re going to also be going with that length.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’ve bought the mountain twin W158 and paired it with Union Force bindings size M.
I’ve mounted the bindings by myself and would like to verify with you if it all sounds ok..
Stance width ± 57cm (shoulder width is ± 52, but prefer wider stance)
Angles -18 +9 (I’m goofy, prefer slight duck stance)
Setback is approx 2-2.5cm
Boots vs board edge: overhang toe/heel of boots max. 2-2.1cm both sides. < no issue in terms of drag while carving?
I'm also planning to buy new boots as my old Nitro's are to flexy and has a quite big footprint, so hopefully I can reduce the overhang with new boots with less footprint.
Does the Vans Infuse you own have a small footprint, comparable with Adidas Tactical?
Thanks once again!
Hi Marvin
Thanks for the update.
In my opinion, that amount of overhang should be just fine. Vans Infuse are low profile. The average boot (from what I’ve measured) is roughly 3cm larger than the stated “mondo” of the boot. The Vans Infuse (measuring a size 10 with 28cm Mondo) is 30.3cm long – so only 2.3cm longer than Mondo (which is 3/4 of a size). The Adidas Tactical ADV is the most reduced boot I’ve seen. From my measurements it was only 1.7cm above the Mondo. I don’t currently test Nitro gear, so I’m not sure what the footpring on those is like, but if you feel it has a big footpring, then you’re likely to save a little on both of those boots. But I don’t think you’ll have any issues with your current overhang either.
In terms of setback stance, just note that the stated setback stance of a board, is based on setback along the effective edge. Not sure how you measured your setback, but if you’re measuring the setback by measuring the center of the front binding to the tip of the nose and center of back binding to tip of tail – there will be a 2cm difference on the Mountain Twin, even when centered as the nose is 2cm longer than the tail. So, if that’s how you measured the setback, then with 2-2.5cm, you are likely centered or close to centered. But if that’s not how you measured it, then ignore that!
Hope this helps
Exactly how it is! Thanks mate!
You’re very welcome Marvin. Happy riding!
Hey nate dog, warren g here, lake tahoe area rider. Your site is legit and super helpful! I’ve been riding since 1998, 43 y/o 6,2 215 pounds with gear on, would like to go back to riding around 205 ( easier on the knees landing in the flats and ripping pow). Boots are 32 lashed 11.5 and I rock 15front -15back angles. I would say im an expert pretty comfortable on any intermediate jumps and would like to step to the bigger lines in the park. Can also spin 3’s working on 5’s pretty easy in pow and on smaller-medium park hits. Im also almost as good switch in the pow with the right board. Also jib a bit but mostly board slides and 50-50s. Also really like steezy buttery spins in the pow. I’ve rode a lot of full camber boards and when I got my 2011 rossi one mag tech 163cm that is 25.8 wide I was super stoked on its float in pow compared to traditional camber. I have been searching for a little shorter (less swing weight) board that could still handle my weight and be stable on bigger park hits. I tried a rome graft 157, and a gnu metal guru 159 but thought the moustache rocker( camber rocker camber) was too loose and unstable when going really fast on bigger jumps. I tried the Rossi one lf 161 wide that was 26.6 wide and it felt kinda slow edge to edge and required a little more effort to get back on edge which was kinda sketchy after landing a spin or buttering but was a good carver and once on edge it was stable. After lurking here I purchased the jones MT 160 that is 25.6 or maybe 25.4 wide, its actually wider at inserts than my old Onemag. Have not had any trouble with toe drag maybe I don’t carve really low on really steep groomers. Im stoked on it and use it for park. Its stable on bigger jumps.
Unfortunately I broke my old one mag163 at the inserts; first the top sheet started to crack across then the whole thing went. Ive been riding the MT 160 on these really deep light pow days we have been having (in tahoe)and feel a little undergunned. Also im having to set it so far back to get enough nose float that its not fun switch although it is really maneuverable, surfy ,fun and is easier to spin than the old onemag 163. I do feel like having to keep so much weight back is hard on my back leg/knee. One reason im good at riding switch is I tore my meniscus back in the day coming up short on a table top and its starting to swell after too much pow?!?! wth!. So now I need another more pow specific board that will be better switch in the pow. I would like to have another do everything board that I can use for the pow or if I break the MT 160. I was looking at the one lf but don’t see a longer narrower option or maybe try something like the Yes standard or try a new volume shifted board like the Yes 20/20. I think I would like a board with maximum rocker at the tip and tail and camber or flat between the feet. And something in the 162-165 range with around a 26.0 width. What would you suggest? My bad for the run-on sentences and improper punctuation. I went to public school.
Hi Warren
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden it, but the YES 20/20 is supposed to be one of the better powder twins. So if you’re looking to ride powder in both directions, then that could be a goer. It’s really wide, but it’s also one that you would ride a lot shorter than your normal size. For you, I’d say the 154 would be a good bet. And you get that agility back by going shorter – and also that swing weight. Still not likely to be a super powder floater in one direction – as you’re going to be centered on it, no taper, etc, but for something that’s going to ride powder well in both directions, I imagine it’s up there – that’s basically what it’s designed to do. And I’d say it would be great to spin.
Some other more traditional shaped options for riding powder switch, and the sizes that I think would suit you well:
– YES Standard 159 – still going to be wider – I would say around 275mm at the inserts (based on measuring a different size) than the MT 160 (which I would predict to be around 269mm at the inserts) but still a bit narrower than the 161W One LF (which I measured at 280mm at the inserts). I think this width would work for you, at that length.
– Capita Outerspace Living – 159W (264mm waist) – pretty good in pow for a twin (and the same going both ways) – predicted width at inserts 273mm (based on measuring a different size)
– Salomon Assassin 162 (258mm waist – predicted width at inserts – 266mm) – or if you think that’s going to be too narrow – and wanted to go shorter, there’s the 158W (263mm waist – 271mm predicted insert width). Or you could look at the Salomon Assassin Pro of the same sizes, if you wanted something stiffer.
Hope this helps and gives you some options.
I will definitely let you know soon!
Bye!
Hi Nate,
First of all, great advise you give, thumbs up!
I’m about to buy a Jones Mountain Twin, but I want to be fully sure about choosing the right size.
I’m an intermediate rider and I like riding groomers, side hits, powder, bit carving, and hit some speed occasionally.
(Having 6 years experience with only a freestyle rocker board).
I’m 5,9 ft, 194 lbs and wear size US 10.5 (EU 44) boots.
I was thinking between size 160 or 158W.
What would you advise in my case?
Many thanks in advance for your help!!
Hi Marvin
Thanks for your message.
Both those sizes would certainly work for you, but I would be leaning towards 158W. The 160 is marginally a better width for 10.5s, IMO. However, they aren’t that far apart width-wise and both are within a good range, width-wise, IMO. The length of the 158 is more what I would be going for for you though. Even though the weight recommendations are closer on the 160. I think as an intermediate rider, and doing side-hits, that the 158 is slightly better. Not much in it though. The 158 will have similar powder float qualities I would say with that extra bit of width and the slightly smaller length cancelling each other out there. The 160 a little better option for speed, but overall, I would be leaning 158.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
The local snowboard specialist has got the 158W available (160 is out of stock).
With your advise I will go for the wide.
However,
I was also considering the Ultra MT, but as I’m an intermediate boarder I’m not so confident it will suit me. (Too stiff?)
Some reviews say the Ultra is still an easy and forgiving board, but many writes it’s only suitable for advanced/expert riders.
Reason for considering is that I want to enjoy a new board for the long term, say for the next 6+ years.
Do you know or expect the differences between the UMT vs MT is really that big?
Thanks again Nate for your feedback, means alot and it’s much appreciated!