The Jones Mountain Twin is the most reliably consistent board I know. Where I find the Standard the king of do-it-all boards, because it's a little more showy and shows more x-factor.
The Mountain Twin, on the other hand goes about its work with a devil-may-care attitude and an uncanny ability not to flinch, no matter what unexpected curve balls might be tossed its way.
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: $579
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium (6/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 89.2/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain Boards
Of the 32 current model all-mountain snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Mountain Twin ranked 5th out of 32
Overview of the Mountain Twin’ Specs
Check out the tables for the Mountain Twin’s specs and available sizes.
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN
PRICE:
$579 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID CAMBER
HYBRID Camber - Jones's "Camrock"
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Setback 10mm (0.4")
BASE:
Sintered | Jones's "Sintered 8000" base.
weight:
Felt normal
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
149 | 244 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
151 | 248 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
153W | 257 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
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+ |
Who is the Mountain Twin Most Suited To?
The Mountain Twin is best suited to... well everything really. OK, that's a cop out, but it truly is one of those boards that feels confidence inspiring pretty much anywhere doing anything.
For this reason it's best suited to riders with a versatile skillset, but want that one board quiver. Or it can be part of a quiver, best with a 3 board quiver, as that in-between board for days when you just want to have some variety - and you might have a powder specialist and a park specialist to compliment it.
It's not so easy to ride as to be beginner friendly - well not for most. There are always those riders who get on a board and can ride anything that will tell you that you can learn on anything (sometimes just naturally gifted, sometimes just forgetful in forgetting that they once struggles and sometimes just athletically strong/coordinated). But for most of us, this wouldn't be suitable for those just starting out. But it is fine for anyone at least at an intermediate level.
Mountain Twin DetailS
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mountain Twin is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Mountain Twin 2025, 157cm (254mm waist width)
Date: February 15, 2024
Powder
Nothing on the day, but from previous experience and specs, it's a board that goes pretty well in powder. Perfectly fine in shallow powder - and can hold its own in deeper powder - all be it with a bit of a back leg workout.
It has a couple of things going for it. Firstly, some rocker tip and tail, all be it relatively subtle, secondly a small setback stance and thirdly a slightly longer nose than tail. It also has a little bit of base contour, though again, pretty subtle.
Carving
The Mountain Twin felt good when carving. All types of radius of carves too. Tighter, slower carves, longer more drawn out carves. It wasn't a carving monster, but it was consistently good for various carving types. It did have it's limits in terms of high speed, low angle carves, but for how good it is in everything else, the carving aspect was impressive.
I was very close to giving it a 4 for carving for this reason, but because I give more weight to high speed carves in the scoring for carving, I settled on 3.5. If I was going to start giving scores with quarter scores (which I'm not, as tempting as it is!) it would be 3.75.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: It's not an effortless turner, but it's overall pretty easy to initiate turns on and you can slash it around.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Decently fast getting edge-to-edge at slower speeds, without too much effort, but not effortless.
Catchiness: Definitely not what I would call a catchy board by any means, but it's also not fully catch-free.
Speed
It's not an out-and-out bomber but it can handle a really decent amount of speed before starting to feel unstable. Like carving I felt it was bordering on a score of 4. But ultimately I think 3.5 is a little more accurate.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: It wasn't unmovable in crud, but for board of this flex and for a relatively easy to ride board, it was quite impressive with how well it held things together in crud. Took a fair bit to shake it. And when it did encounter terrain that could buck it of course, it still had the maneuverability to make the necessary corrections.
Trees/Bumps: There aren't any areas where the Mountain Twin isn't capable and weaving through trees and moguls and other obstacles and riding the bumps over undulating terrain was no exception. It felt really good in these scenarios and like in every other area just seemed to be unflappable in terms of the feel of the board.
If there was one word to describe this board, it would be consistent.
Jumps
And just like everywhere else, the Mountain Twin didn't fail to feel good taking to the skies (or rather a few feet off the ground... but still sky right?).
Pop: Not what I'd call oodles of pop buy decent enough and pretty easy to access, too.
Approach: Great mix of stability and maneuverability - as you'd expect from such a well balanced board. It can handle faster approaches that require stability to hold your line and trickier approaches that require more finesse and little adjustments to line or speed.
Landing: Ditto the approach. It's solid on bigger landings but it's not so solid that it's unforgiving of errors, when you get your landing a little off. And it's easy enough to speed check and maneuver, should you encounter any obstacles after your landing spot.
Side-hits: Like it is with everything else, it just works. It's not the board I'd go to if I wanted the most exciting, dynamic side-hit board I could find. I don't think of the Mountain-Twin underneath my feet when I'm dreaming of launching off epic side-hits, but you just can't fault it.
Enough pop, easy enough access to it and maneuverability that whilst not up there with the most agile, is plenty to access those trickier take off points. And it's solid yet forgiving enough for those not so flat landing zones.
Small jumps/Big jumps: I'm not sure it even knows the difference, such is how consistent it feels across all of them. OK, that's an exaggeration, but it really does feel like it evens out the extremes and just remains solid no matter what it faces. It can take on any size jump, IMO, depending on your own skill level and confidence/risk aversion (or lack thereof).
Switch
While often mistaken for a true twin (I mean with twin in the name I don't blame anyone) the Mountain Twin is a directional twin board with a nose slightly longer than it's tail and a small setback.
Nonetheless, it still feels really good riding switch - and because of where the inserts sit, it is a board you can center up on effective edge (you'll still have a little more nose than tail outside the contact points), and if you do, there really is very little difference in feel between riding in your normal direction and switch - even keeping the setback stance, there's not much difference.
Transitions aren't catch-free, but they're also nothing that requires any serious concentration.
Spins
Felt good on spins. It wasn't effortless to setup, you had to think about it, just a little bit, but with fairly easy to access pop and a great switch feel, allowing easy setups, landings and riding out switch (for 1s, 5s, etc).
That, and a nice balance between being able to correct an under spin on the snow, to an extent, but without a tendency to over spin, provide it with, like it does for basically everything, a nice middle-ground.
Jibbing
I personally like a nice soft flexing, easy going, easy turning, easy maneuvering, catch-free board for boxes, rails, etc. And while the Mountain Twin is relatively easy on those aspects, it's not enough for me to feel 100% confident on it - to try too much.
But I suck on jibs, really, considering I take almost every board I ride on them, so for the more jib-strong, the Mountain Twin should do fine.
Butters
The nose and tail don't flex at the slightest bend, but it's also not hard to get it pressing. And the nose and tail feel pretty symmetrical to press. It's got enough stiffness in the tail and nose that it would be very hard to over-flex it - and when you find that spot, you can lock in - but they're certainly not stiff enough to make you work too hard either.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| Factor | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Powder | 3 | 9/15 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 4 | 8/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Crud | 4 | 8/10 |
| Trees | 4 | 8/10 |
| Switch | 4 | 8/10 |
| Jumps | 4 | 8/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 4/5 |
| Butters | 4 | 4/5 |
| Rails | 3 | 3/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 89.2/100 |
The Mountain Twin is unflappable.
It's like that person that everyone knows that you can take into any situation and they just seem confident and relaxed, like they've been there a million times before. They seem to be unphased no matter what life throws at them.
Whether you're lapping the park, playing around casually on the groomers, buttering finding side-hits or weaving through trees. Whether you find yourself (accidentally most of the time!) in a mogul field, having to survive on a steep icy face or after a storm. The Mountain Twin seems to just take it all in its stride.
It does it without fanfare, as if any board can achieve the same, but deep down it has that quiet confidence to tackle anything you can throw at it.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
To learn more about the Mountain Twin, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below
To check out some other all-mountain snowboard options, or to see how the Mountain Twin compares to others, check out our top rated all-mountain snowboards by clicking the button below.
Hi Nate.
Firstly, just want to say how great your reviews are, they’re informative and really helpful.
Unfortunately, this is another sizing request.
I’m about to purchase a Jones Mountain twin 2025/2026.
I’m 5’8″ 77kg size 9 uk boots.
Very low intermediate rider.
Want to improve my overall riding doing bits of everything. Mainly ride European resorts greens blues reds. Like powder if it can be found. Want to improve switch. Like to mess about a bit buttering etc, maybe a couple of runs in the park but not much.
Firstly, do you feel the MT is a good option.
Secondly, sizing says I should go 157, will this still be a bit playful but give me stability to gain confidence going a bit quicker or should I go down to the 154 ?
For reference my current board is a 2016 Salomon assassin.
Any help appreciated.
Hi Andy, thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the Mountain Twin should work well for how you describe your riding.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 157, like you say. And that’s the size I’d go for you, given you want to do a bit of everything, but a little more leaning towards carving, cruising and powder over freestyle/park stuff. It should still have a bit of playfulness in that size for you, IMO. That’s not to say that the 154 would be wrong, and if I’m underestimating the amount of freestyle stuff you want to do, the 154 could be the better size.
One other thing to consider is whether you value maneuverability at slower speeds over stability at high speeds. If so, then the 154 might be the way to go for you. If you value them equally or value stability at speed more, I’d stick with the 157.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Always appreciate your reviews. Your reviews have been my primary source of intel as I shop for a new board. This will be the first board that I’ve owned. I’ve always ridding different boards that my friends have in their quiver. Typically 157s. I’m pretty set on the MT and have question about size. I’d consider myself a high intermediate – low advance rider. That said, I ride primarily groomers, some trees, some powder. No park though some side hits, etc. I’m 5’9.5, 172 lbs and wear a size 12 boot. I know I need a wide board for the size 12 and am conflicted on the 156w or the 159w on the MT. Do you have any guidance or recommendation?
Hi Greg, thanks for your message.
While I don’t think the 159W would be wrong for you, I would say the 156W is the most optimal size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Looking to upgrade my setup, and I’m pretty interested in the Jones Mountain Twin. I’m 6’2″ 205lbs, and wear a size 11 Burton Ion boot. What size board do you think would be best for me between the 160, 162W, and 163?
I’m still relatively new at snowboarding, with only 3-4 days in my first season, but I feel like I picked it up relatively quickly and feel like I’m at least at the low intermediate level. My current setup is a 156 arbor formula camber, and it made learning and progressing easy, but I definitely had issues maintaining speed, given my height/weight. I’m still trying to find my style of snowboarding and want a versatile board (and don’t see myself doing much park boarding anytime soon) that I can progress on and still feel is adequate even when I get more advanced.
Thanks!
Bas
Hi Bas, thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 160 in your case, though the 162W and 163 wouldn’t be wrong – if you went longer, I would go 163 over the 162W though.
Width-wise, you should be good on the 160, as its wide enough underfoot for size 11s, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 162/163, but the reason I would be erring to the 163 is because of your experience level. The 163 wouldn’t be wrong, but would be more challenging to control, especially in the beginner, especially coming from a 156.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi! I haven’t bought a new board in decades (just riding any beater I can find), so this site is super helpful. I ride east coast so lots of “loose granular,” with the occasional days with some freshies. Solid intermediate and have started getting into some trees. Not huge on park stuff. Main question is size. I’m 5’9 just over 200lbs. Size 10 Burton Ruler boots. Had been looking for a 158/159…but it seems for the MT my option is 157 or 160. Thoughts?
Bonus question…Jones Mercury FASE bindings yay or no? M or L?
Hi Neal, thanks for your message.
I would be leaning 160 for the MT for you. The 157 wouldn’t be wrong though and if you wanted something more playful feeling and to increase the maneuverability at slower speed at the sacrifice of stability at faster speeds and float in powder, then it would work for sure, IMO. But as an all-round size to balance all factors, I think the 160 would be your best bet.
I really like the FASE system, as far as quick entry systems go, it’s my new favorite. To be honest I find traditional straps fast enough for me, but I get that people are looking for faster and easier and if I was, then this is the system I would go with personally. Of all the FASE bindings I tried the Mercury was the one that felt the most different from their non-FASE counterparts, and while I prefer the regular Mercury over the FASE version, I still really liked the FASE version. In terms of flex, they should be a really good match to the Mountain Twin for you, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Love your site Nate. And so impressed that you take the time to reply to everyone!
I’ve been riding for 30+ years. 5′ 10″. 150 lbs. Looking for an all mountain board that feels more locked in and stable. Spending some time in the trees and on terrain. But a lot of open run/groomer riding. I’ve been on an older Capita NAS and it’s way to chattery and the tail tends to blow out on steeper more aggressive heal turns.
Looking at the Jones Mountain Twin as well as at Burton Custom. Would love to get your thoughts. Thanks again!
Hey Josh, thanks for your message.
The Mountain Twin can lock in. It has its limits in terms of the speed it can stay locked in at, but it can certainly handle moderately fast speeds. It’s also pretty easy to slash out the tail, when you want to, but not something that I find happens too easily, when you’re not wanting it (unless really bombing). I’d say the Custom is a little more locked-in, but not by a whole lot. If that’s your most important thing, then I’d be leaning Custom, but the Mountain Twin does give you a little more versatility in being a little better in powder. But if locking in carves is your main concern, I’d be leaning Custom.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I bought a Salomon Sight board a couple years ago after reading your review and looking to progress quickly – previously I was a skiier. The board was great to learn on but I’m starting to struggle on steeper hills since it’s so soft.
Looking to upgrade my board now for a 1 board quiver and I’m torn between the JMT 163 and the Yes Greats Uninc 156 (can’t find any Slash ATVs!). I like to ride aggressively and carve when the hill’s empty, mostly on groomers, don’t do much park but I do like to ride switch every now and then. Looking for a board that can last a while and go fast as I progress further.
Which would you suggest?
6′, 185lbs, size 9.5
Thanks for all the work you put into the site, it’s helped me progress so much!
Cheers,
Jon
Hi Jon, thanks for your message.
I’d be leaning towards the Greats in your case, mostly because I think it’s the better carver than the Mountain Twin. Both would work and both a step up from the Sight in terms of carving and stability at speed of course, but also both not so technical that they’d be hard work or too big a leap to go up to.
Even though it sounds like you’re favoring speed and carving, I still wouldn’t go as long as 163 on the Mountain Twin – the 160 would be a better bet, IMO. 156 for the Greats would be your best bet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you!
I’ve picked up a 156 Greats and can’t wait to ride this season.
Cheers,
Jon
You’re very welcome Jon – hope you have a great season and hope the Greats treat’s you well!
Hi Nate,
Thanks to your great review, I’m looking to get the MT as my first board. The only thing is I’m not sure what size to get it in. I’m 5′ 9″ 165lbs and I wear a size M US 11.5 (Burton Photon Step-Ons). Jones’ website suggest that I get either a 159W or 162W. Does this sound right? Thank you for your help!
Hi Caleb, thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t go that long, if I was you. Jones, IMO, does tend to suggest boards on the longer side than I typically would. I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 157. So while the 159W wouldn’t be way off or anything, I would go for the 156W. I think that’s going to be more optimal for you. Also, I went into Jones’ size finder and if I put in US11.0 boots, it says 156W or 159W, so the reason they don’t suggest the 156W is that they consider it too narrow for your boots. That’s the downside of an automated thing, is that it doesn’t account for any nuances – it just has a set figure (in this case 11.0 as the max for the 156W) and it’s set to never recommend the 156W if you have an 11.5 boot.
But given you have Burton Photon Step Ons (which are lower profile than average boots, in my experience), you should be fine on the 156W, IMO.
To throw some numbers out there. The Photon Step Ons I measured were 2.4cm longer than the mondo on the outersole (note that we measure the actual sole length and not from the longest part of the heel of the boot) – with an 11.5 that would mean a sole length of around 31.9cm. The back insert of the 156W Mountain Twin (I mention back insert as that’s where you’ll have either the same angle or a lesser angle than on your front foot and more angle gives you less overhang) is going to be around 27.3cm – meaning a total overhang of around 4.6cm (or 2.3cm per edge, assuming perfect boot centering). That’s an overhang amount I’ve ridden with frequently without issue. And that’s what it would be if you are riding with a 0 degree binding angle. Each 3 degrees of angle will give you a little more overhang reduction (note that it’s not linear, it increase more for every 3 degree increase – see figures below for an example – these may not be exactly the same for the Mountain Twin but will be in that ball park):
3° 0.36mm (0.04cm)
6° 1.6mm (0.16cm)
9° 3.54mm (0.35cm)
12° 6.36mm (0.64cm)
15° 9.6mm (0.96cm)
18° 14.12mm (1.41cm)
tldr; I think the 156W would be your best bet and you should be fine width-wise on it.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thank you so much for your very thorough response and taking the time out to compile this information! It’s very hard to find good information about which board widths work with which boot sizes so I really appreciate this info and will definitely comeback in the future to use this as a reference! I’m gonna go with the 156W per your recommendation! Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Caleb. Glad I could help. Enjoy the new board!
Hi Nate,
Thank you for that owsome review! 🙂
I am wandering about buying a moutain twin board for me.
I am 185cm(6″0) and 78kg, boot size 12 in US.
Currently and ride k2 fastplant 159W but it is not super easy to turn so I was thinking about buying something smaller for example 156W.
I checked the guide size in Jones webside and it reccomended me 159W or even 162W judging by me boot size I supposed.
I tested this winter some libtech boards in 156W and it was quite ok.
Jones Mountain Twin in 156W is only 25,9cm wide so maybe it is better to take 159W which is 26,1cm…?
What do you think about it?
Best regards,
Jarosław from Poland 😉
Hi Jaroslaw, thanks for your message.
While I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 160, which would point more to the 159W, there’s no reason why you couldn’t size down to the 156W. It’s not a super extreme size-down or anything and if you liked the 156Ws you tried, then it should be fine. Width-wise, the Mountain Twin is wider at the inserts than its waist width suggests. The 156W is going to be around 273mm at the back insert and 272mm at the front insert. The average difference is around 10mm difference between waist and inserts – so usually you would see those insert widths on boards with like 262/263 waists. And Lib Tech/GNU boards tend to actually have a smaller than average difference, so depending on what Lib Tech boards you rode, they may have had a 265mm waist, but quite likely were around 273mm at the inserts. If you know which Lib Tech boards you rode, I could give you a more precise answer, but chances are pretty good that if the 156W Lib Techs you rode were wide enough, then the 156W Mountain Twin should be wide enough.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
First of all, your site is really great and a sensational source of information. Thank you for all this
I would like to change boards, I am with a rossignol circuit 2013 in 160
I ride a lot of groomed trails, the edges trails and between two powder trails. a few jumps on the edges of the slopes with 180 or even 360 a lot of ride in switch (same ride as in normal) and little snowpark jump and do ollies or nollies on the slope 😁
I believe I have a confirmed level. I am 5’10 height and 209 lbs and size 10 US
I’m looking for the perfect board but I don’t know what size to take or if wide or not
Jones Mountain twin
Capita outerspace
Lib Jones Terrain wrecker or I don’t know, there are so many choices…
As for the bindings I was thinking of size L strata unions. I need your help 😁
Thanking you in advance
Hi Florian, thanks for your message.
My choice of those would be the Mountain Twin. The other 2 would suit how you describe your riding as well, but I would be leaning Mountain Twin of those. And you’re right, there are a lot of other options. I can give you more options, if you’d like, but the Mountain Twin is a good bet, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 161. For the Mountain Twin, the 160 would be a great size for you, IMO. And it’s easily wide enough for 10s, IMO, so you won’t have to go wide.
The Stratas are a good match to the MT (or any of those 3 boards). Size-wise, I would go M, unless your boots are particularly bulky. If not, then the M is likely the better fit. You’d be OK in the L, but the M more optimal, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thank you so much for all of this info dating back years now on the MT.
Currently at 190 lb, 5’8, and 10.5 boot, I am stuck between the 156W, 157, and 160. In early intermediate stages and really want to grow with this board, so don’t have a preference besides groomers and mostly east coast. Not sure if that affects the size suggestion, but interest on your thoughts. Thanks again
Hi, thanks for your message.
Generally speaking, I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 158. With the MT being a little wider than normal, you shouldn’t need to go wide with 10.5s, so I’d be weighing up the 157 and 160. Both are certainly in range for your specs, IMO, so neither would be wrong, as such. But you would be, subtly, optimizing maneuverability and freestyle performance with the 157 and subtly optimizing stability at speed and float in powder on the 160. I say subtly but it’s still a noticeable difference. This is not considering your ability level – so both would be suitable sizes, even at an advanced level, IMO. Personally if it was me with your specs, I’d go 157, but I know others who would prefer to err a little longer and go 160.
Bringing in the fact that you are early intermediate, I would be leaning 157. It will be, IMO, a better size for you now and still a size that you can grow with – will still be a suitable size when you are more advanced.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
first of all a huge compliment!!! Your site is absolutely stunning and helping me a lot when it comes to buying snowboards. Great stuff, really!
I’m looking for a new quiver killer and could get my hands on a Jones Mountain Twin. I’m not sure about sizing though.
Could you maybe help me out with that? Would really appreciate it!
I mostly ride groomers, like to go quick but not overly aggressive, finding side hits here and there and from time to time doing small kickers in the park. Powder only rarely.
Got 29 Mondo Boots (Rome Libertine in 44.5), 95kg (210 lbs) and 191cm.
I’m leaning towards the 162w version.
What do you think?
Thing that makes me a little sceptical is the weight range of the 162w, which is 91kg max according to Jones. Their support suggested the 165w, but that sounds like sacrificing a lot of the playfulness of the board.
How about the 163? Or would I get a problem with my boot size?
So I think it’s either the 162w or the 163. What do you think?
Best regards from Germany,
Robin
Hi Robin, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 164, so while I don’t think the 165W would be massively too big for you or anything, I would be leaning towards the 162W or 163 as well. With your boot size, I think the combination of the length and width of the 165W would make it a little on the big side of your range. So definitely doable, but for what you want, I think the 162W or 163 would be more optimal.
Looking at width, as to whether or not you’d get on the 163 without boot drag, I’d say you should be fine. It’s a pretty wide board for its regular widths and the width at inserts should be wide enough. I haven’t tested the Rome Libertine, so I don’t know what their footprint is like, but if they aren’t too bulky, you shouldn’t have any issues. If they are bulky, and you really like to carve deep and you ride with like a 0-3 degree back binding angle, then you may want to go to the 162W, but otherwise you should be fine on the 163.
The advantage of going to the 162W, is that it gives you a little more surface area, which would help with float in powder, but it would be at the cost of some maneuverability. Given you say you don’t see powder that often, I would be leaning 163W, but the 162W would still be a good size for you as well, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
I need advice… I’m looking for a playful do it all board.
I’m 44, been riding for 30 years, nowdays I’m mostly enjoying sidehits, small to medium park jumps, carving, slow buttering, riding slow with my kids, riding fast alone, powder when we get it… pretty much everything at every speed. I don’t mind if riding switch feels different. I want something playful and forgiving which can still go fast and carve.
I just tested a Jones Mountain Twin Pro and really didn’t like it. It felt fine at speed and in powder, but it was very unforgiving at low speeds/buttering, not playful enough for me. It was the 162W and it felt like i was riding a 165-168.
So I’m looking at either the regular Mountain Twin 162W, the Yes All Out 160W or 164W or the Yes Standard 162 which of these would you recommend?
Thanks!
Hi Danny, thanks for your message.
My pick would be the Standard, but the Mountain Twin a close second and definitely easier to butter and more forgiving than its big brother. We haven’t tested the All Out, so that could also work.
Size-wise between the Standard 162 and MT 162W, they should work out feeling similarly sized, depending on your physical characteristics. The Standard is wider – across everything – waist, inserts and tip/tail, so it’s overall a bigger board. But the MT does have a significantly longer effective edge. If you’re a bigger guy, with big feet, then it’s unlikely you’d notice too much difference in the width. But it could be noticeable if your lighter and you’re only borderline needing a wide board.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thank you for the detailed review! Im interested in the mountain twin for that 3d contour(have a greats 154 for ice). thinking about swapping my
157 shadowban out for the mountain twin. im looking for a faster turning experience similar to bataleons but not soo washy. would the 3d contour of the mountain twin make it a faster turner than the shadowban in the same size? any other difference in how the mountain twin will feel compared to the shadowban?
Hi Meddy, thanks for your message.
I would say the MT is a slightly faster turner than the Shadowban. Though to be fair, I only got the Shadowban in pretty slushy conditions, so it wasn’t as good a test as I would have liked. The 3D Contour on the MT felt pretty subtle to me, so you shouldn’t find it too washy.
Hey Nate, a belated thank you very much for taking the time. I really appreciate what you do. –Sanders.
You’re very welcome Sanders. Hope you have a great season!
Hey Nate,
I asked you about the Yes Standard and you gave me a good reply, which I appreciate. However, some things have changed and I might be able to get a bit better deal on the Mt. Twin. I have already been out this year and was reminded that other than small jumps park just isn’t really where I want to be this season. I do however enjoy playing with switch so I can work on 180s and side hits. Forgive me for asking just wanted to see your thoughts–I’m 6’5”, boots 11.5 and weight fluctuates between 200-205. I believe you thought my all mountain size would be 163 and Jones’s auto size picker say s163 or 165w. Just seeing if you agree, and again thank you so much for your time.
Hi Sanders, good to hear from you again. As you can tell I haven’t caught up much since last time!
Yeah, 163 is what I’d consider your best all mountain/do-it-all size. But I’d be weighing up between the 163 and 162W, rather than the 165W. And between the 163 and 162W, it’s a pretty close call. I’d be leaning 163 just because I like to go as narrow as possible without boot drag. But the 162W is a close second and if you want a little bit of extra insurance against boot drag, then it’s a good bet. IMO, the 163 is wide enough for 11.5s in most cases. If you were going to be riding with a straight back binding angle (e.g. 0-3 degrees), want to be getting your carves really deep and have bulkier boots, then you might be pushing it width-wise, in which case I’d look at the 162W instead. And in the case of the Mountain Twin, the 162W isn’t actually a heck of lot wider than the 163, so you certainly wouldn’t be going too wide with that option or anything. If you wanted that leeway to reduce the chances of boot drag further, then the 162W could be the safest option.
I do find it really interesting that the weight range recommendation changes from the 162W to the 163. The 162W has a little more surface area and its effective edge is only 2mm (0.2cm) shorter then the 163. If anything I would put the 162W in the slightly higher weight range, but really they should be in the same weight range, IMO. What’s even more interesting is that they have the 160 in the same weight range as the 162W! And the 162W is way closer in size to the 163 than it is to the 160. And Jones’ automated sizing thing will be taking into account that weight range – that’s the problem with it being automated like that – it lumps the 165W in with the 163, when the 162W is obviously closer. I really like Jones’ boards – not as big a fan of their sizing picker though. Anyway rant over, I promise!
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, Have you tested the new 2025 Mountain Twin Pro? I have been riding the regular MT but I’m mostly in the east and I find it not the best in icey conditions. I have ridden my brother’s Yes Greats and an Indoor Survival for reference and feel they all perform better in icey conditions. I do love everything else about the board though and was looking at something stiffer like the MT Pro or a Mega Merc (found a good price on last year’s model). Also something I realized – I was not riding the recommended size for the MT. I’m 150 lbs w boot size 10 US and have been on a 154. Jones recommends 156w or 157. I appreciate your advice!
Hi John, thanks for your message (and apologies for the delay in response – still catching up trying to get reviews etc published!)
Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to test the new Mountain Twin Pro. I don’t imagine it would be too different to the Ultra Mountain Twin it’s replacing, but there were enough changes to it that I couldn’t say that with a high degree of confidence. The MT Pro might give you a bit more in terms of hard/icy conditions, but I would suspect not as much as the Greats. The Greats is my go-to for icy conditions and I haven’t found a board that feels better than it for that. But if you wanted to go for a stiffer MT, then the MT Pro is likely to be similar in most ways, but that little bit stiffer. The stiffer torsional flex is likely to help a little in icy conditions, but I just wouldn’t expect it (or the Mega Merc) to be as good as the Greats.
Size-wise, I find that Jones does tend to recommend longer boards than most. I suspect the 154 is fine for you (and if you go MT Pro, you might appreciate that over one of the longer options, depending on your preference for either optimizing maneuverability or stability at speed – or somewhere in between). But if you could also let me know your height, that would be great. While weight and foot size are more important than height, IMO, I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor.
Hope this helps and didn’t come too late
Thanks so much! I’m 5’8”
Also would it be too much overlap to have the Greats and the MT Pro or Mega Merc? For fresh snow days and bombing down the mountain.
5’8″
Hi John
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” right at 154, so I think the 154 would be your best bet, personally.
I don’t think it would be too much overlap. The Greats would work as your board for hard/icy days and when you want to ride more all-mountain-freestyle (if you do side hits, butters, ground tricks, park or anything like that). And then when you want to bomb and for fresh snow days, you’d have the MT Pro/Mega Merc. I think they’re different enough to work in a quiver.
Hello Nate!
Im 1.78 cm and 91 kg (200 lbs), im atlethic gym..
I start snowboarding 3 year ago, this will be 4th
My board is Capita outerspace living 2020-2021 158cm, boots Burton Ruler size 10 1/2 US or 43 EU, bindings Nitro Phantom size L.
I really wanna move up this year and change it, im thinking to go with Jones MT or Jones Frontier or Jones Mind expander. Im kinda big guy and im not so into park or jump/turning fast stuff, im leaning more to freeride, s turns, carving experience.
Can you put me on the right track pls? im really confused about all this information on the internet about boards, seems all are doing fine but all are missing something. i really wanna feel a difference beetwen my old capita.
Hi Toni, thanks for your message.
Given that it doesn’t sound like you’re very interested in park or quick turning stuff, I would probably, assuming you’re at least at a solid intermediate level, go a little stiffer to get a bigger difference from the Outerspace Living. If Jones I would look at something like the Aviator 2.0, if you don’t need something that will give you really good float in deep powder. If you do want good powder float, then you could go to the Flagship or Hovercraft 2.0.
Let me know if you want to look at other brands or if you feel like you’re not quite at that solid intermediate kind of skill level.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, love your passion and your detailed website that is such a treasure trove for everyone.
Looking to get a MT as my first board – one that allows me to get into a bit of everything, usually more groom/pow than park. intermediate rider
Height: 172cm
Weight: 67kg
Boots: Burton Ion US 10
Bindings angle: Typically +15/-15
Am currently considering between 153W and 154, 156W for the MT. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
Hi Derrick, thanks for your message.
I would go 154. I put your “do-it-all” size right on 154 and the width should be all good for your boots. You’re looking at around 263mm front insert and 264mm back insert, which should be plenty of width for 10s with +15/-15 angles – and with Ions, which are quite low profile, it should be even more leeway. You’re looking at around 4cm of total overhang (or 2cm per edge) with no binding angle, which would be enough width to carve pretty deep. With a 15 degree angle, that changes to around 1.5cm per edge (assuming perfect boot centering), which would be plenty to do deep carves with. If you are going to be getting into deep carves, just make sure that you either have even boot centering or have a little less overhang on your toes.
The wide versions are likely to feel too wide for you, IMO, especially at your weight. They’d likely make your quick sharp turns feel slower and require quite a bit more effort, so would fatigue you more throughout the day.
TLDR; go for the 154!
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thank you for taking the time that most of us don’t have to test all the equipment for us!
I‘m interested in the JMT but I’m quite unsure about the size. I am 5’8” 170lbs and wear Burton Photons US10. I ride groomers some pow and don’t do any park. I want a 1-board-quiver that I can ride somewhat fast with my wife but be able to slow it down when my son is with us.
Thank you so much in advance!
Hi Philip, thanks for your message. And it’s my pleasure!
I would be looking at either the 154 or 157. Both would be a good width for your boots, IMO. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157 and given you’re not doing any park, I would be leaning 157. Based solely on height, you may have been recommended or rented shorter sizes than that in the past, either because it was long enough ago for height to be the main factor in determining board length or a rental place – which still often go just off height, because it’s quicker and easier. So, if you’ve been riding a long time and are used to a certain size, then the 154 might feel more comfortable – and it’s not too small for you or anything, IMO, but I think the 157 would be the more optimal size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the reply, I’m on track to lose weight and my goal is to go to about 155 lbs if I go down to that 155-160 range, do you think that the 157 would still be the optimal size?
Thanks again!
Hi Philip
If you were to get in that 155-160lb range, then I would be leaning 154 at that point. The 157 still wouldn’t be wrong, but I think the 154 would then become a little more optimal.
Hi Nate,
Thanks again for this great review! I am looking for a complete set (high-end beginner) and based on your reviews I already bought boots and bindings (Nidecker Rift EU 45 and Rome Vice bindings).
For the board I got really interested in the Jones Mountain Twin. Think it will also be in line with the boots and bindings looking at stiffness. I was only wondering which size you would recommend for me? Also considering I am not an intermediate/advanced rider yet. I am 190cm and ~85 kg and athletic. I was opting for the 162W, but based on several comments below maybe should go with the 159W.
What is your opinion?
Hi Ferdi
I agree that the Mountain Twin would be a good match for the Rift/Vice. Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161/162. However as a beginner, even as a high-end beginner, I would be leaning 159W for you. While it’s a little smaller than what might be your “pure” all mountain length, it’s not something that will ever feel tiny for you, so it’s not like you’d have to change it in 2 years or anything and if down the line you do want a bigger board for better stability at speed and float in powder, the 159W Mountain Twin would still be a good board to have in the quiver, if you didn’t want to sell it.
Hi Nate,
Great thanks for your swift reply again! Really appreciated. I will stick with the 159W. The waist width is 261mm and seems on the lower side comparing it to the size guides on your article. However, the width at inserts should be fine with my boot size I guess as they are both at around 274mm. Do you agree?
Hey Ferdi
Yes, the 159W should be all good width-wise for your boot size. And yeah, I would say the 159W will be around 273mm at the front insert and 274mm at the back insert, so should be all good. The 162W would be a little wider than that (~275mm front, ~276mm back), but width shouldn’t be an issue, IMO.
Hi Nate. I am 5′ 11”, US 10 boots size, 165/170 lb. Pretty solid intermediate to advanced rider from Argentina. Mostly hit groomed snow, moguls (bumps), unfortunately icy snow too, trees, and, whenever I get the chance, powder snow (this doesn’t happen very often). No park, only side jumps for now.
I am considering the purchase of Jones Mountain Twin. I was aiming for the 157, but currently out of stock. Only 156w and 159w available. Which one do yo think suits me better?
Other options in my mind (and stock available) are:
– Jones Frontier 158w (I originally discarded it since I like riding switch)
– Capita DOA (156, 157w, 158, 159w)
Thanks a lot in advance. Love your website, found it very helpful.
Hi Manuel, thanks for your message.
If you can’t get a 157, then I would go for the 156W. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158/159, but if the board is going to be wide for your feet, then I think the 159W would be too big with the combination of length/width. The 156W should work though. The 156W will still feel a little bigger than the 157, but more like a 159 regular width. The 157 is probably the best size for you, but the 156W should work. Of those boards, since you like riding switch (Mountain Twin better than Frontier for switch) and you’ll see icy conditions (Mountain Twin better than DOA in icy conditions, in my experience) – I would go Mountain Twin over the other two.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Great thanks for the helpful review!
I’ve just purchased a mountain twin 157 today (154 was out of stock). But now I’m a bit worried whether 157 may be too long…? Would much appreciate your suggestion! 🙂
My boot size: US 9
Height: 172cm
Weight: 174lbs
I am an intermediate snowboarder, this will be my 2nd board. I would primarily snowboard indoor and I bought this board for park purpose (only start to learn park recently, want to do some jumps).
Thank you for taking time and share with me your advices!
David
Hi David, thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157, so I don’t think it’s going to feel massive for you or anything. Given that you’re going to be indoors and predominantly for riding park, and given it’s a bit wider than average, I would likely have suggested going 154 for your particular purposes. So while I think the 154 was probably the more optimal size, in this case, I don’t think you’ll find the 157 to feel anything crazy big or anything.
Hope this helps
Nate,
Great thanks for taking time to reply to me! Your website is awesome and I’ve learnt so much from you.
2 additional questions on top:
1) My current board is Burton Process Purepop Camber, 155. Would you feel if I buy a Mountain Twin 154, it’ll be too similar to my current Process 155? I mean, if MT’s park capability (particularly jumps) is much stronger than Process, than it may be nice to have MT 154 for Park/Jumps, and Burton for grooms and ground tricks. But if MT 154 is going to be so similar to Process 155, i might as well keep MT 157 for outdoor and powder snowboarding, while Process 155 can be my primary indoor board. Any advice from you would be super helpful!
2) Another question is on binding. For my snowboarding purpose, would you recommend any good binding with MT? I saw you use Burton Malativa a lot, how do you like it? Or, would you rather suggest me to just pick the top ranked binding in your freeride, all mountain freeride, or all mountain categories’ posts?
Great thanks again for taking time to give me suggestions!!!
Love your website!
David
Hi David
1. I think I would use the 155 Purepop camber as your indoor board and keep the 157 MT for outdoor/powder. The MT makes more sense as an outdoor/powder board than the Process, IMO, so I’d do it that way around.
2. You could go Malavita. Those are my “control” bindings. In other words I use them on every board I test, so that I can more accurately compare the differences in boards (wouldn’t be able to accurately feel the differences if the bindings kept changing). But I do like them and they would work. Anything around a 6/10 to 7/10 flex is a good bet for the MT, IMO. So I would look at the All-Mountain and All-Mountain Freeride lists. Not necessarily the top picks, if you feel like another one might sound better to you. Compare the score breakdowns and if you want more details, the full reviews and see what sounds the best for what you want. But I would go with something around that 6/10 to 7/10 flex.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the insightful reviews.
I am going to buy a Mountain Twin but I’m not sure the best size for me. I ride mostly on east coast mountains. I plan to do more switch, flattricks and sidehits next season. I am 165cm and 66kg. I wear US7 boots. I think my foot is on the smaller side. Would a 151cm be too wide for me? Should I go down for 149?
Thank you!
Hi Oscar, thanks for your message.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 151, but for the Mountain Twin – and for most boards, I would size down a little from that because of boot size. So, I think the 149 would be a really good size for you for this board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m about to buy a new board. My style is more like doing a bit of everything. Height 5.4 Weight 143 pounds. Mostly, I play in Japan.
I like both Jones Mountain Twin & Capita Mercury.
What would be best suited me?
What size of the board would work best for me?
(Mountain Twin 149 or 151 / Capita Mercury 147 or 150)
Thank you very much
Top
Hi Top, thanks for your message.
Both are very good do-it-all boards. The Mercury takes a little more effort to ride – you have to be a little more aggressive with it to get the best out of it (but not to the extent of other really aggressive boards, but more so than the Mountain Twin). In return you get a board that is better at speed and higher speed carves. In comparison the Mountain Twin is more easy going and less effort to turn, particularly at slower speeds. Both have very few weaknesses and can do a bit of everything well. For your weight, I would probably be leaning Mountain Twin, because it doesn’t require as much force to perform well as the Mercury. But if you’re a more aggressive rider and particularly strong and athletic, then you could certainly still go Mercury.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 151, so purely on weight/height, I would go 151 MT or 150 for the Mercury. But if you could also let me know your boot size, that would be great. If the boards are on the wider side for your feet, then it would be a good idea to size down, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
First of all, love your page!
Thank you for your reply. It is definitely helping. Now I would go for Mountain Twin 151 😊
My boot size is 8.5 us.
Perhaps, my last question, when talking about weight to identify the size of the board, does it count the equipment (helmet / boot / and etc)?
Thank you very much.
Top
Hi Top
Weight is without equipment.
Given boot size, I think the 151 would still work well. It’s on the wider side for 8.5s, but nothing super wide or anything. You could go 149, if you wanted it more optimal for your boot size and if you wanted to prioritize agility, ease of ollies, butters, spins etc over float in powder and stability at speed. But I think the 151 is probably still your best all-round size.
Hi Nate,
It’s definitely helpful. I think I will go with 151.
Unfortunately, the 151 size is not available in online. I might have to wait for new mountain twin model 2025.
Cheers,
Top
You’re very welcome Top. Yeah, I would wait to get the best size. That’s something I wouldn’t compromise on, personally.
Hi
After much procrastination I have bitten the bullet and ordered a 160 MT.
Now thinking of updating my bindings, currently ride Burton Missons which are around about the 2011 model.
Boots are Thirty Two Lashed size US11. Skill level is mediumish intermediate. Ride predominantly piste.
What would you recommend binding wise?
Hi Kevin
Thanks for the update.
Generally speaking I would go with something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range for the Mountain Twin. As an intermediate rider I would typically err towards the 6/10 flex, but with your specs, you should be fine with the 7/10 flex bindings as well.
If you’re looking at doing any freestyle stuff (ollies, popping over rollers, butters, jibs etc), then I would pay attention to board feel. If you’re looking for decent chatter/shock absorption, then I would pay attention to that as well. Otherwise, something from either this list or this list, in that 6/10 to 7/10 flex range, would be a good bet, IMO.
Hope this helps
Cheers, any views on nidecker supermatics?
Hey Kevin
I liked the Supermatics. And I think they would match the MT well if you’re looking to make it a little more carvy. Not quite as good for slower speed riding as some other options would be though, IMO. As far as speed/easy entry bindings go, the Supermatics are one of the better ones. Not enough to convert me to them from strap bindings just yet, but if you’re looking for that speed/easy entry, particularly if you don’t want to have to buy specific boots, then the Supermatic are a really good option, IMO.
Hi Nate
I was all over the place trying to choose a new directional twin as this season I did 2 weeks on the K” Passport 159w which was very nice, but I felt I would like a twin option just to play around with. Been riding from age 35 (as originally from South Africa) and have done at least 18 weeks inb total of boardng. At 53 I still want to push myself, but that’s why I’m staying away from any of the ultra all mountain boards. Your reviews have been excellent and I think the Jones All Mountain Twin might be the answer. I amd 5’11”, 79kg (174punds) and wear 9.5(us) Burton Ruler boots with Nidecker Supermatic bindings in large.
Please can you advise me on the size board you would recoommend. I’m leaning 157 from reading your review and the comments that you have answered,
Much appreciated
Guy
Hi Guy
Thanks for your message. Yeah, I would go 157 for this board for you. The 160 isn’t out of range either, so wouldn’t be a wrong choice or anything. But if it was me, I would go 157 (I’m similar specs to you – 6’0″, 180lbs (81kg) and US9.5 boots).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
Thank you so much for taking the time and getting back to me. I have gone for the 157cm and now cannot wait to go back to Les Arcs, France for 2 weeks in Jan 2025.
Thanks again
Guy
You’re very welcome Guy. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great trip to Les Arcs in January!
Hi Nate,
I can only echo what others have already posted – thank you for providing so much easy to access and understand information. It has helped me narrow down a replacement for my ‘vintage’ 2006 Decade Ride 160 All Mountain board.
I’m looking for a board that is a good compromise of stable at speed, can put in tight turns at slower speeds for riding trees & weaving through the crowds on busy slopes and can handle the odd powder day. The Mountain Twin ticks all the right boxes, but I’m struggling finding the right size. Their online sizing tool suggests a 156W or 157 both with a max recommended weight of 82 kgs. Quite a bit shorter than my Decade and at 77 Kg I’m only a few donuts away from the max weight!
I’m 182cm tall, weigh 77Kg and have a 42 euro boot size.
Thanks in anticipation.
Hi Chris
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159. So you could go either way. However, with your boot size, I would go 157. It’s not going to be massive for EU42s, but still on the wider side, IMO, so sizing down a little makes sense in this case, IMO. I wouldn’t go 156W though. Since you’re used to riding a 160, I don’t think you’d have any troubles on the 160, but I would say the 157 is the better bet. In comparison to other brands Jones tends to have lower high-ends for their weight recommendations, so I wouldn’t worry too much about being close to the max weight – even if you chow down on a few more donuts in the next couple of years!
Again, the 160 wouldn’t be wrong, by any means, especially given you’re used to riding that size – but based on specs and riding style, I would be leaning 157. Also, I couldn’t find any detailed specs on the Ride Decade 160, so I’m not sure how wide it was. But good chance it would have been narrower (boards have trended to go a little wider in recent years).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Just a quick note to first say thanks for your reply. Including your reasoning was really helpful and made my decision very easy. I chose the 157 as you suggested, which I’m very happy with. So much easier to turn than my old Decade.
Secondly to feedback that my concerns over the length were misplaced. Comparing it to my old board I can see the effective edge is very similar and the difference in length is down to the very blunt nose and tail of the Jones board. If it had the same radius curve at each end as my old Decade I would say it would measure in at 159 cm which is just 1 cm short of the Decade. So very little difference.
BTW – you’re correct, the Decade is a little narrower.
Again, my thanks. You, sir, are a star! If I see you on the mountain, I’ll buy you a donut.
You’re very welcome Chris. And thanks for the update and the specs info comparison to the Decade. Good to know. I’ll be crossing my fingers to see you and get that donut!
Hello Nate,
Thanks for this super awesome site.
I am about to buy a new board and I am leaning more to Jones MT over Capita Mercury however I need some advice.
I am 186 cm(6’1) 70kg(154 lbs), boots size 28 CM (US 10). I have a dedicated board for park Capita Horrorscope 2017, 157cm(shorter size would be better however it was my beginner board which became park board) looking for something more all mountainy for groomers, jumps, side hits buttering etc, with occasional freeride. Based on what I read it seems like MT is a more playful board and Mercury loves to be ridden fast therefore I am leaning more to MT.
Jones size guide recommends 156w or 153w, however I am not sure if I do need a wide board so 154 or 157 standard size should be ok as well?
I would like to pair the board with Union Strata, since I own Union contact pro, ridden a lot and those bindings are immortal.
My question is if I should go for MT over Mercury based on my riding style or even different board? In case I would go with MT, which size of board would you recommend?
Many thanks.
Fridrich
Hi Fridrich
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would say that the Mercury is a board that prefers to be ridden a little faster and you have to be a little more aggressive with it to get the best out of it vs the MT, which you can be more casual with and it rides better at slower speeds than the Mercury, IMO. But their not worlds apart or anything. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the easiest ever to ride slow and the most playful ever (but completely hopeless at even moderately fast speeds) and 10 being the most aggressive board ever (and that sucks to ride slow), I would put the MT at around 5 and the Mercury more like 6-6.5, so it’s not what I would call ultra aggressive, but I think for what you’re describing, I would be leaning MT.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158, so I think the 157 should be just right as an all-round board. Given you have a dedicated park board, I would go 157. Given your style of riding, if it was going to be your one-board-quiver, I would consider the 154 too, and even with the Horrorscope in your quiver, it certainly wouldn’t be wrong, but I would be leaning 157. And I don’t think you’ll have any problems with it width-wise with 10s. I mean if you were eurocarving with a zero degree back binding angle with bulky boots, then yeah, maybe, but I think you’re good there. And you’d most likely be fine on the 154 as well. The 153W wouldn’t be wrong though – you don’t need to go wide, but it’s not super wide, so if you wanted to go shorter/wider, then it could work, but I would be inclined to go 154 over the 153W. And I think the 156W is touch too big, particularly for butters etc.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the great review!
I would like to ask if the combination of the Jones MT and a Flow NX2 Hybrid binding is a good combination in terms of flex and stability? I ride mostly on groomed slopes and only rarely some park or powder.
With a height of 178 cm and 75 kg with shoe size 10 US / 43 EUR, a board length of 157 cm should fit, right?
Thanks for your help!
Robin
Hi Robin
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of size, I think the 157 would be just right for you for the MT.
In terms of the binding combo, I would be leaning more towards the NX-2 TM from Flow. The NX-2 is a little stiffer than ideal for the MT, IMO. It could work, but I would look at something in the 6/10 to 7/10 flex range, ideally. The NX2 is rated 8/10 flex. We haven’t tested the NX2, so not sure how that feels in reality. But the NX2-TM is rated 7/10 flex and we found that’s exactly how they felt. So if they’re rating the NX2 to be stiffer, then likely it is. I don’t think it’s so stiff that it would be completely wrong for the MT, but I would be leaning towards something in that 6/10 to 7/10 range.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Yes that was very helpful, thank you. I really appreciate your work here – great page and advice!
I have one more question about the bindings:
Do you have a comparison between the softer Flow bindings Fenix Plus, Fuse and NX2 TM? Which one could you recommend or what are the significant differences? Unfortunately, I can’t find much information about the exact differences between the models.
Thank you!
Hi Robin
We haven’t tested the Fuse, so not sure about that one. But it’s supposed to be somewhere in between the Fenix-Plus and NX2-TM in terms of flex. We felt the NX2-TM at a 7/10 flex and the Fenix-Plus at a 5.5/10 flex. So if the Fuse is supposed to be in between, then it’s probably around a 6-6.5/10 flex, most likely.
In terms of performance, the main differences that I experienced were:
– The NX2-TM was better for higher speed carves, but the Fenix-Plus better for slow speed response.
– The NX2-TM was better for absorbing shock – likely, at least in part, down to the gel in the heel of the footbed
– I felt the Fenix-Plus had better board feel. That’s likely partly down to being softer flexing, but it also has the Nylon disc vs an Aluminum disc on the NX2-TM. I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine there’s a bit more give in the Nylon disc vs the Aluminum disc.
While the Fenix-Plus actually has what’s meant to be the better ankle strap, I didn’t notice any difference in terms of comfort.
Both would be good matches for the Mountain Twin, but I would say that the NX2-TM would be the better match, given how it sounds like you want to ride. If you were looking for more of a better board feel binding for a more freestyle focus, then the Fenix-Plus would likely be the better bet, but given that you value stability and are mostly on groomers, then I would go NX2-TM.
Hi Nate, firstly thank you for the reviews and info on your site – really helpful and insightful.
Was hoping to get your opinion on some side-by-sides including some Ride boards that you have not reviewed in detail (that I can find).
Current set-up – 2015/2016 Burton Process Off Axis 152 Camber
US Size 9 boot & weigh ~150lbs.
Burton Malavita EST Med Bindings
When I bought this ~8yrs ago I was 30 > 8 years changes a lot, albeit not in size/weight but certainly appetite for the park and have not been away as much in recent years (young family)! Had some Burton Ambush boots but have upgraded to Ions for this holiday with old having perished (this will likely change the feel of my set-up)…
I only get to ride a couple for weeks a year mostly in EU.
Would say I am a intermediate > can ride switch, have landed 3’s off sidehits but nothing fancy! Will not go near rails or any large jumps.
Unless I am lucky with snow, I will spend 95% of my time on groomers/piste and some of this with a young family. Enjoy riding switch and have a light play around (side-hits & butters) but want to up my carving game and looking for a board to help this! Other boards I have had > Ride DH & Bataleon Evil Twin.
I am thinking of an upgrade of Board and bindings…
Bindings > likely a move back to Union Force (the new model looks good) > these were the best bindings I can remember having. Also looking at the Cartels but find they are so easy to change I would be better off with less options.
Board>
I was thinking a board a little more All Mountain focussed than the Process > you might tell me that it is pointless changing but would appreciate any perspective and guidance on which board might fit to support carving improvement but remain OK switch, have some benefits in any fresh snow, and not too aggressive since I still want some forgiveness.
Thinking 154 in all of these for a little bit more stability than a 151
1. Jones Mountain Twin is standing out and your review obviously endorses this.
2. Burton Custom Camber – some other reviews seem to suggest there are now better options, as does yours but still up there in many…edge hold seems t get a bad rep
3. Ride Algorythm
4. Ride Shadowban
Mind is currently between the Ride Algorythm/Jones Mtn Twin.
Did you have any advice on the difference and benefits of each vs my Process because the Ride reviews are not as detailed on your site? Do you think I am in the right range with what I am doing on the board, or am I being naïve and a more directional board might help…
Any advice would be appreciated > even if it is to stay as is for now!!
Thanks
GB
Hi GB
Thanks for your message.
We haven’t tested the Algorythm or Shadowban yet – Ride/K2 boards have been harder to get hold of last couple of years, unfortunately.
Between the Mountain Twin and Custom, the Mountain Twin will be a bit more mellow and give you better powder performance, but the Custom will give you a bit more stability at speed and better carving ability, in my experience. If you’re OK with having to work a little harder in powder, then I’d be leaning Custom, if carving is going to be your main focus. They will both ride switch fine. The Mountain Twin will be a little easier to ride with the family, assuming that means you’d be riding slow and sometimes not really concentrating on what you’re doing but focusing on the kids?! So, that would be one thing I’d take into account. The Custom isn’t super catchy or anything that you have to be 100% focused all the time, like some boards, but it does require a little more focus than the MT, IMO.
For bindings, the Force would work with either of those – the new Force would be a better match to the MT than the Custom, IMO, but the Force Classic (which is likely to be more similar to what you’ve had in the past) would be a good match for both, IMO.
If you’d like my opinion on sizing, happy to give it, if you could just let me know your height. Weight and boot size are more important for sizing, IMO, but I still like to take height into account, for the leverage factor.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for coming back to me! Certainly be good to get your opinion on size…
I54lbs
Us Size 9
5 ft 8
MTN Twin was the board I was siding toward on reviews so thanks for your opinion. Do you think it will be a better carving board than my current Process?
Considering an upgrade in phases so might replace bindings first (siding toward new Force vs Cartels) and perhaps board next year since imagine I’ll either pick up a discount from this year or new options will be broadly similar.
Thanks again
Hi GB
I would say that the Mountain Twin is as good for carving as the Process Off Axis, but not better. Similar in terms of stability at speed as well. But better in powder. Assuming a size-for size comparison.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 154/155, so for the Mountain Twin, I would be looking at the 154. The 151 would be doable if you wanted to err shorter, but from what you’re describing, you’re looking for more stability, so I would go 154. Same for the Custom Camber.
Hi Nate,
Awesome – thanks for following up and that aligns with what I thought ref sizing. Over to me for the decision now!!
You’re very welcome GB. Hope you have a great rest of your season! If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with and how you get on, once you get a chance to get it out on snow.
Nate,
Thank you for all of your time, knowledge, and advice you provide for so many people on this site. I’ve spent hours reading reviews and it’s apparent you are extremely knowledgeable in everything snowboarding.
I would love your thoughts and recommendation on my next board. I have been riding a 2009 Burton Custom (162W) with Cartel bindings. Love this board and it’s treated me well. 4 years ago my toe strap broke at Revelstoke, I couldn’t find a replacement anywhere, so I bought a new pair of 2019 Cartel bindings. I didn’t realize Burton changed the channel system and my new bindings aren’t compatible with old board. I made it work for a day, but looking to get a new setup.
I’ve been looking at the Jones Mountain Twin, Never Summer Proto FR, and just sticking with another Burton Custom. I live in TN and used to ride alot…a couple times a month on the East Coast. We went out west or a cat trip in Canada once a year for 8 or 9 years. 2019 was the last time I’ve been on my board. Had kids and don’t get out like I used to. I’m going out to Jackson Hole this year and want to get a new set up, and my goal is to start taking my kids a few times a year.
I am definitely an all-mountain kind of guy. I love to ride powder (obviously), love to venture off into the trees as often as possible, love to get in bowls when the snow is good, I oddly enjoy riding moguls with the “ski” family, and really enjoy taking my time down the mountain and enjoying the ride. Not a speed demon and will occasionally stroll through the park with riding buddies.
Although I haven’t been on my board in 4 years, I would consider myself a good rider. I just don’t get to ride consistently…probably be a less than 10 days a year.
I love my Custom, but am definitely open to other options. I’ve been doing a lot of research on the Jones line, and love the mountain twin. My fear is going with a new board/brand and hating the feel/ride. I “think” a little more forgiveness in a board would suit me well, but I don’t want my set up to feel “sloppy”.
I would appreciate your recommendation and thoughts on what direction you would go if you were me. Also, I’ve been looking at the Jones Mercury or Orion bindings and the Union line as well. Pretty torn here as well if I went with the Mountain Twin. If I stick with a new Custom, I’ll keep my Cartels with the EST system.
I’m 6’4″ and 180 lbs. I’ve ridden the 162 w for years, but have considered going with a slightly shorter board, like the 159w on the Mountain Twin. I’m currently riding the K2 Maysis boot, size 14.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts and time! Really appreciate what you are doing here on Snowboarding Profiles!
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message.
My instinct, from what you’re describing is that you’d prefer the Mountain Twin to the Proto FR, if you weren’t to go back to another Custom. The Proto FR would give you more in terms of higher speed carves, stability at speed and in powder. But it’s not the kind of board that feels great, when you’re looking to take your time getting down – it prefers to be ridden fast – and is quite a bit of effort in the trees and moguls. If you were predominantly riding powder, charging and carving, then I think it would work well, but for what you’re describing, I think the Mountain Twin would be better.
Between the Mountain Twin and the Custom, you’d be looking at less stability at speed and less carving performance with the Mountain Twin, in my experience, but better in powder. If you were to go 159W in the Mountain Twin, you’d be cancelling out some of that powder advantage vs the 162W Custom. The Mountain Twin is a little softer flexing than the Custom, but they’re pretty close. The Proto FR is stiffer than both, in my experience. The Mountain Twin is more mellow overall – it’s a board you can be a bit more casual on, but the Custom I’ve never found to be something you have to ride aggressive all the time with, either.
Size-wise, I would put your typical all-mountain length at around 161/162, so I think the 162W of either the MT or Custom would be the best sizes, but that doesn’t make the 159W/158W wrong, if you wanted to opt shorter. Note that you’d likely feel the shorter versions, when compared to the longer sizes, to have less float in powder, less stability at speed and not quite as good on a big, higher speed carve. You’d gain in terms of maneuverability, ease of buttering, ease of pop/ollies, ease of spins.
In terms of bindings for the Mountain Twin, the Orion and Mercury would both be good matches. The Orion probably the more pure flex match, IMO, but the Mercury certainly still a match – and if you wanted to drive the board a little harder, they should work well.
Hope this helps with your decisions
First of all, forgive me for English is not my mother tongue. I have been paying attention to this website for many years.
My height is 177cm, 80kg, and shoes 260mm (US 8)
I now have Jones Tweaker 154. My style is to try more parks, mainly jumping. I hope to have better carving, jumping, landing, and gliding. After the heavy snow, I will use Jones Flagship, so the POW ability is not the first consideration.
I’m considering Jones Mountain Twin 154, but I surpass the weight of 77kg recommended by Jones. Will you recommend 157?
Salomon Huck Knife 153/156 is also a board I consider? Which length of my height and weight, you are more recommended to use in the park.
Or is SLAOMON Assassin 156 a better choice than the above two?
I look forward to your reply very much, I wish you a good day
Hi Zhaoze
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, for your height/weight specs, but with your boot size, I would size down from that. The 157 would be within range, but if you were going to be predominantly using it in the park, then you could certainly size down to 154, if it was your dedicated freestyle board. I wouldn’t worry too much about being over the weight recommendations. However, I would say the Tweaker is the more suitable freestyle board. But the Mountain Twin would give you better carving and glide.
The Huck Knife is a little more aggressive a ride vs the Tweaker and MT, but it’s a very good option as a park board. Again, if it was your do-it-all board, then I would say 156 for sure. But if it’s your dedicated park board, then you could go 153.
The Assassin would work as a dedicated park board, if you wanted something more mellow than the Huck Knife. It’s what I would call an all-mountain freestyle board, but would work. You could go 156 for a more all-round size. But you could also go 153 in the Assassin if it was as your more park dedicated board.
Hope this helps
Would a 159W be wide enough for Size 13 Vans Auras and Nidecker Supermatics? I’m 5’11 and 220lb. I usually run +15 – 6
Hi Jim
Thanks for your message.
Assuming a 22″ (560mm stance width) you’re likely looking at around 27.4cm at the back insert. I would predict your Aura 13s to be around 33.3cm on the outersole. With a 6 degree angle, you’re probably only saving around 2mm of overhang. So probably around 5.7cm of total overhang or 2.85cm per edge (assuming perfect boot centering). That’s a little more than ideal, but something you can probably get away with, if you’re not doing any deep carves. If you’re doing deep carves, then there’d be a risk of boot drag, IMO.
Hope this helps
hello,
i just wanted to know how you got the 56cm width, i got the 157 too but the reference width is 58 cm not 60 cm what you wrote, so how do i get to 56cm but keep the 20mm setback or do i have to go 54cm width to keep the setback at 20mm?
Hi Dennis
The reference width on the Mountain Twin is a little confusing, because they don’t technically mark it on the board. They mark the “freestyle” stance and the “freeride” stance.
The “freestyle” and “freeride” stances are both at a 580mm width. Neither are setback 20mm. The Freestyle stance is centered on effective edge and the Freeride stance is setback 40mm.
Setback is measured on effective edge, rather than the length of the board. The stated setback doesn’t take into account the length of the board outside the contact points. The nose on the Mountain Twin is a little longer than the tail, so even when you’re in the “freestyle” or “centered” stance, there will still be more distance to the nose from the front binding than there is to the tail from the back binding. The MT is a directional twin, rather than a true twin.
The reference stance that Jones refers to at 60cm is setup by having your front foot on the “freestyle” marker and your back foot on the “freeride” marker. This gives you the 20mm setback stance. That was too wide for me, so I shifted the front binding one hole back (i.e. “freeride” marker for the front binding) and the back binding one hole forward (i.e. “freestyle” stance on the back binding), to create a 560mm (22″) stance width, which I’m more comfortable with. But it still ends up with the setback as the 60cm stance.
If you wanted to go freeride, but instead of 58cm go to 56cm, you could do it with some bindings that allow more mirco stance width adjustability. But my Burton Malavita ReFlex bindings will only allow you to move one hole at a time. If you have bindings that can do more micro stance width adjustments, then just make sure you move the front binding back the same amount as you move the back binding forward.
Hope this helps/make sense.
Hi Nate – love what you’re doing here! I’m looking to get my first board. I’m 40, only ride piste (mostly with my littles) and no park. I’m a low intermediate rider and am looking at both the Yes Typo and Jones Mtn. Twin. I’m ~145lbs, 5′ 11″ and wear 10.5 boots. I’m looking for something that can easily handle those low speeds, does okay on flats, is easy(ish) in the trees, and does well enough for side hits. I’m on the east coast (Maine) so grip on ice is important. I’m not interested in speed, but a fun carve would be ideal too.
I’d love to hear your feedback on one over the other above boards (or any other board!). And secondly, I’d be grateful for your thoughts on sizing. Looks like 156W for the Typo and maybe 160 for the Jones (that feels long)?
Really appreciate it!
Hi Cory
Thanks for your message. For how you describe your riding, I would go Typo. It pretty much exactly matches what you’re wanting, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, so yeah, the 160 MT would be too long, IMO. I would typically say the 155 Typo was a little narrow for 10.5 boots, but depending on some things it may be doable. If not, the 156W would work.
If you could let me know a few things, I can give you my opinion on whether I think the 155 will be too narrow or wide enough.
1. the brand/model of your boots
2. your typical binding angles, if known
3. your typical stance width, if known
4. how deep you like to carve (if you’re carving really low, i.e. getting a high angle on the edges of the board, then you can’t have as much overhang as if you were doing less deep/less aggressive carves).
Hope this helps
Hey, Nate! I bought the Mountain Twin (after reading your review) past month and im totally loving it! I’m wondering what reference stance should I use, the freeride, freestyle, or the 60cm specs reference. I mostly ride black diamonds but im trying to get better at side hits and off piste riding. I dont plan to go in the park or ride switch much( although i would like to get better at switch but not now) for now im riding freeride reference but im worried that this stance is too far setback and ment for pow only and by doing so im not getting most of the camber as the bord has a twin flex and ment to be ridden more centered? Thanks
Hi Heron
Thanks for your message.
Thanks for your message. The freeride stance isn’t super setback, so you could stay in that stance if you wanted to. For sidehits, it would feel better being more centered but generally when you’re off piste and carving black diamonds and that kind of thing the setback stance should be fine. If you wanted to go to the reference stance (which isn’t quite centered, but less setback than the freeride stance) but don’t want to go as wide as 60cm you can do the same setback but with a narrower stance.
In terms of stance width, I would go with the stance width that you’re most comfortable with. If you’re note sure of the stance width you’re most comfortable with and haven’t experimented with it before, it’s a good idea to find that. The best starting point is to measure from the center of your knee to the ground and use that to start with. Then adjust it a little wider and a little narrower and see which feels best for you. I rode the Mountain Twin at the reference setback, but I narrowed the stance to 22″ (56cm), as that is my preferred stance width – 60cm feels too wide for me.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. I’m looking for bindings for my new Jonas Mountain Twin board. Generally, I ski on groomed slopes. I’m considering Jones Meteorite, Orion, Now Select, Union. What do you think about these bindings?
Hey Greg
Thanks for your message.
Of those, I would go either Orion or Select Pro. The Meteorite would also work, but the Orion/Select Pro slightly better flex matches, IMO. From Union, you could look at either the Strata, Force or Atlas. I would go Strata if you’re doing any buttering, ollies, side-hits etc. The Force if you’re not doing those things and aren’t really an aggressive rider and want something that feels more easy going and the Atlas if you want to ride a little faster/more aggressively.
Hope this helps
I left a query on this yesterday but it’s disappeared, did you get it?
Hi Kevin
Thanks for your messages. Got them, but quite behind in replying right now, as I’ve been travelling since Christmas.
The Mountain Twin is faster and has more glide in the base vs the Typo, IMO, so you would, IMO, certainly see some improvement on the flats. With the Mountain Twin being a sintered base and the Typo being “Sintruded” which is kind of between Extruded and Sintered, but more extruded than sintered, technically, it’s typically going to have less glide, and that’s the case here, in my experience. You have to be more onto it with waxing with a sintered base, but so long as you wax it every 5-7 full days on the mountain (if you’re riding hard/icy conditions, then err more on the 4-5 days and if not, then 5-7 days, depending on how good you want the performance is typically a good way to go), then you will, in my experience, get a better speed/glide experience.
While I would say the Typo is the slightly more forgiving/easier going ride, the Mountain Twin isn’t anything super challenging and can be ridden lazy, in my experience – and since you’ve ridden it, you probably found the same.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks, it was an older version of the Jones that I demo’d and the demo was in an indoor dome so not the fullest of tests. Hard one to call as doesn’t sound like there is that much between the boards other than the glide. My typo is a 158 and I wonder if that shorter length is a factor. If I changed to the Jones I guess I’d be looking at a 160?
Hey Kevin
Yeah, with your specs, I would go 160 for the Mountain Twin. That extra length would help with speed and glide – but the 158 isn’t super small for you or anything like that. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161. The Typo in 158 is narrower than I’d typically suggest for a US11 boot. You may not have had any boot drag issues with it, if you’re not carving super aggressively or anything, but could become an issue if you were to start carving deeper.
The 160 Mountain Twin is wider and I would be confident on that one with 11s – so you don’t need to go wide if you were to go Mountain Twin, IMO, but was probably better to go 159W with the Typo, given your boot size.
Hi Nate
Thanks you for all the detailed information that you provide for everybody.
I’m really considering getting the Mountain Twin but need help with sizing.
Height: 5’8”
Weight: 160
Shoes: Burton Step On Photon US 10
Thank you in advance!
Jesse
Hi Jesse
Thanks for your message. Both the 157 and 154 are possibilities. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 156.
Which you go with will depend on how you like to ride/want you want to optimize more. If you want to optimize a little more float in powder and stability at speed, then I’d be leaning 157. But if you value maneuverability over stability and/or want it to be better for ollies/butters/sidehits/trees and that kind of thing, then I would be leaning 154.
Hope this helps with your decision
I currently ride with a stance width of 55cm. Does the 157 have a stance width similar to that? My concern is that the 157 might have a stance width that is too wide and I will not be comfortable with.
Thanks for your reply!
Hi Jesse
It’s easy to setup the 157 with a 56cm stance width (which is what I rode it at). Depending on your bindings you could also ride it with a 55cm stance width (some bindings won’t allow you to adjust it that little, but some will).
Apologies if this has posted twice, not sure if i submitted it last time.
Looking for some recommendations on a potential new board, 50 year old male, approx 92kgs and 5’11” tall. Wear thirty two lashed boots in UK 10 (labelled as US 11). Currently ride a 2016/17 yes typo 158cm which does everything I want and is really easy going which suits my lazy intermediate style. I pretty much ride piste 99% of the time with no park and not even any buttering, just straight forward riding. My only criticism of the typo is it is I find it a little bit on the slow side, especially on the flats. Demo’d a mountain twin at same time as buying the typo and there wasn’t much in it, at the time I felt the typo would be slightly more forgiving but am now wondering if the mountain twin would be a better choice or will I not notice a massive difference?
Dunno if it’s too late to comment or ask a question. Looking for some recommendations on a new board, 50 year old male, approx 92kgs and 5’11” tall. Currently ride a 2016/17 yes typo which does everything I want and is really easy going which suits my lazy intermediate style. I pretty much ride piste 99% of the time. My only criticism of the typo is it is I find it a little bit on the slow side, especially on the flats. I’ve been looking at a mountain twin, would it be worth changing too?
Hi Nate,
Looking to get a new board this season (first new board in 10+ yrs)
I’m thinking of getting a Jones MT and just wanted to get your thoughts on sizing as I feel the size chart/recommendations on the Jones site look a bit off.
I’m 5’10”, 205ish lbs, 9.5 boot
Live in Vancouver (so Whistler riding mostly) – “All mountain” mostly just cruising around (not much park, if any would be mostly small or medium jumps…) but still want the ability for sidehits and some light butter/presses… also ride with the wife so need something that’s easy to “ride slow” with when needed and also perform okay on those lucky powder days and also getting thru some tree runs.
I’m thinking of going with the 160cm, does that seem right?
I also got new boots this season (Vans Infuse – sz 9.5) and am planning on pairing it with Roma Katana Bindings (Medium).
Would this setup be ideal? Or would you have other binding recommendations… I was also considering the Union Falcors, but was thinking those may be a bit stiff for my needs?
I was originally thinking of the Yes Standard, but reading some of your comments on that review page and although that board also sounded like a good option for my needs, I felt my weight/boot size wasn’t ideal for the standard’s sizing.
Hi Ricco
Thanks for your message.
I think the MT would work well for what you’re describing.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 160/161. So I think the 160 is your best bet. Jones tend to oversize, IMO. I’m guessing they recommended the 163? That would be going a little big for you, IMO, especially when taking into account the width/length combo of that size.
Vans Infuse, assuming they fit your feet well, and Katana would both be great matches to the Mountain Twin, IMO. And yeah, I wouldn’t go as stiff as the Falcor, especially given you’ll be riding slow at times.
I replied to your comment on the YES Standard review as well. But yeah, I think the Mountain Twin, because of sizing would be the better bet.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate – thanks for the response (on both pages) super helpful!
You’re correct that on the Jones website the sizing chart and “board finder” recommended a 163, which I felt was a bit off in comparison to a lot of other manufacturers recommendations – which usually put me around the 158-161cm range.
With your confirmation, I think I’m now decided on the 160 MT with the Katanas.
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Ricco. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get your new setup out on snow.
Which Union bindings will fit this board best?
Hi Peter
Personally I would put the Strata on it, but the Force, Force Classic and Atlas would even work. Or if you wanted mini-disc but stiffer the Falcor is still in range, but on the stiffer end of what I’d put on the MT. Or if you wanted to go a little softer then the Ultra would also work. So a lot of options, but I’d personally go Strata, because it’s a good flex match but also with good board feel, which I like to have. Best flex matches, IMO, are the Strata, Force, Force Classic and Atlas.
If I prefer more speed and edge to edge ride on groomers rather than low speed would you still choose Strata?
Size wise – I plan to get MT 156W (shoes US13 but low profile (IONs) . I am pretty sure I need L bindings but do you think they should fit the board fine? Have read your review that Unions have longer plate.
Best!
Thanks Nate for opinion . Would you still choose Strata even if my style is more edge to edge and high speed bombing on the groomers?
I am also more and more concerned about sizing . I wear US13 IONs, I am 170cm and weigh 70kg and still not sure if MT 156W or Yes Standard 156 will fit me fine regarding toe/heel drag issues :/ If I understand Standard will be a bit wider at bindings in comparison to MT right? What will be the difference between them? (for 156W/156)
Best
Hi Peter
If you want better performance at higher speed, then I would say go Atlas. Won’t be quite as good for lower speeds as the Strata or for freestyle stuff, but will be more optimal for when you’re riding fast. The Falcor also becomes an option, but I would be leaning Atlas for what you’re describing.
I think 156 is a good length for your height/weight. In terms of width, the following are width at inserts, MT 156W estimated based on the 157 measurements:
– MT 156W: 271mm at front insert and 272mm at back insert
– Standard 156: 273mm at front and back insert
This is assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width for both. So not a big difference in width.
With 13s, I would say this is on the narrower side for 13s. Based on my measurements on the Burton Ion, you would be looking at around 6cm of total overhang, which would be 3cm heel edge, 3cm toe edge, assuming perfect centering. This assumes a 0 degree back binding angle though. If you were to have a 15 degree back binding angle, then you’re looking more at 5cm total overhang – or more like 2.5cm per edge, which is really doable. Unless you’re really laying your carves deep, like eurocarving, I’d be pretty confident with 2.5cm overhang per edge. Note also that Ions have more toe bevel than the average boot, and that helps with reducing drag risk too. Personally I’d be confident with 2.5cm per edge of overhang. But 3cm per edge would be pushing it. Still possible if you’re not really carving deep, but it’s not something I would risk. Yeah and this is based on the Standard’s 273mm width at inserts, but same applies to MT really, with only 1mm of difference at the back insert.
So I think it depends on your binding angles in this case.
In terms of the Strata being too big for the 156W MT, couldn’t say for sure, as I haven’t measured the large, but I think you’d be OK, given that the underside of the baseplate should fit within the edges of the board. It’s possible that the top of the footbed might overhang slightly, but if it’s only slightly, then it shouldn’t be an issue – as in it should still be the tip of the boot that would make contact with the snow first. But again, no guarantees, having not measured the large. You should be all good with the Atlas.
Hi there Nate,
I would like to ask about sizing – I have Union Strala L bindings and Vans Hi Standard boots (11,5us 45EU) and I am not sure if this fits Jones MT 158w – regarding to jones spec, it should be okay but on the limit…Other wide snowboards (for ex.: terrain wrecker,yes std.,goliath+) have the same size of board almost 0,5cm wider… I have now K2 www 157w which is 0,3cm wider that MT 158w. I would like to avoid boot drag as much as possible… I don’t know why MT is not so wide as other boards..
Hi Stan
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I assume you mean the 159W, but if you mean the 156W, let me know. The MT is wider at the inserts than the waist width makes it look. Basing purely on waist width it looks narrower than the other boards you’ve mentioned, but where you’re feet actually go, you should be fine. For example, the MT 159W is around 273mm at the front insert and 274mm at the back insert. The Terrain Wrecker 156W might look wider with it’s 267mm waist width – but it’s still 274mm at the inserts. Goliath+ is a little wider – around 276mm at inserts for the 158W. The YES Standard is wider, because it’s wider at the inserts than the waist would suggest. So for the 159 (263mm waist) it’s going to be around 278mm. But that’s wider than the typical wide board. MT 159W is more typical. Your 157W K2 is likely to be around 273/274mm at inserts. Note that all these widths are assuming a stance width of around 22″.
We measure all the boards we test at the inserts, so if you want to know any it for any others and we have a review for it, you should be able to find the width at inserts in the review (you’ll just have to add the difference in waist width vs the size that we tested).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate –
Would this board be good for a Beginner level 4 progressing into level 1 intermediate? I’m new to snowboarding but grew up skating and surfing. My riding style is mostly piste but this season I want to get into more nimble turns in tree runs and start hitting some sides/natural terrain. What other boards should I consider? I’m 42 and an Army veteran so looking for something I don’t have to muscle around too much.
Hey Nathan
Thanks for your message.
I think it’s doable, but not ideal for that level. It’s very close and could be OK, particularly given you have the skating and surfing background. I think if you size it right it’s doable. You could also check out our Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards List, which was created for exactly your level – that high end beginner progressing into intermediate.
Hope this helps
I started to consider this board along with Yes Standard and am again torn about the size.
I am 179cm , my weight=70kg and my shoes are IONs Boa US 13 (EU 46) mondo on paper 31 .
You think 156W and 156 in Standard will be fine or on the edge…? I do not eurocarve but in general like high speed and fast edge-to-edge ride and my bindings are forward stance on the current board +18/+6 and waist width at the bindings is 26cm . Can’t find what is the waist width at bindings for Standard and MT in 156/156W
Best
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, I think 156 is the best bet for your specs. In terms of width, the following are the width at inserts of those sizes:
– Standard 156 (258mm waist): Width at inserts = 273mm, assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width.
– Mountain Twin 156W (259mm waist width): Width at front insert = 271mm, width at back insert = 272mm, again assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width.
If you currently have a board with a 260mm width at inserts and haven’t had any boot drag with it, then you should have no issues with the width of these boards. Note that the width here (as is the case with all other published width specs) is measured on the base of the board, rather than the top sheet.
Hope this helps
Hey there! I am 5’11, 180 pounds and ride with a size 10.5-11 boot. What size would be the best for me? I was thinking 157 or the 156W because I do not want to have a board that can’t fit my feet. I have Large Union strata bindings. Thanks so much!
Hi Joshua
Assuming a 22″ (560mm) stance width, I would be pretty confident with 10.5s on the Mountain Twin 157. You’re looking at around a 266mm on the front insert and 267mm on the back insert (with a 22″ stance width). With 11s, I think it would be pushing it. But you could be OK, depending on a couple of things. If you’re riding with low profile boots, have binding angles like +15/-15 kind of thing (something that has a good bit of angle on both boots) and aren’t like eurocarving or carving super deep or anything, then I think you would be fine. But it’s boderline for 11s, IMO. The 156W would be the safer bet for 11s. But with 10.5s I’d go 157.
Hope this helps with your decision
I just got my boots properly fit, and I now have a pair of size 10 boots that fit a lot better and have a lot less heel lift then my size 11s I had before. I just purchased the MT 157, but now I need to get new bindings to fit my boot size. I’m stuck between another pair of stratas or trying out the forces. I am not really looking to spend much time if any in the park on any rails or boxes and will maybe attempt to try some jumps next season. I am mainly looking to improve my carving and being able to tackle harder runs. I also really enjoy spending time in the trees. For these reasons I am thinking of going with the union forces. Any thoughts? My boots are the Salomon dialogue dual boa in a size 10, so I would purchase size medium union bindings. Thank you for your time!
Hi Joshua
Glad to hear you have gotten a good boot fit. Both the Strata and Force would certainly work on the MT – and yeah I would go Medium in whichever you choose.
Between them, the Strata is the better freestyle binding, with better board feel. But the for what you’re describing the Force would work well. In terms of the difference in feel I like to describe it like this: The Strata has a springier, sharper response feel to it, whereas the Force is a more even, consistent, smoother kind of feel. You can also see our reviews (note that I haven’t yet updated the Force to the new Force, but will be doing that today or tomorrow and I also retested the Strata last winter, so will be updating that one today or tomorrow as well) for more details.
Thanks for the help! Which binding do you feel would be a little less catchy edge to edge? There is nothing I hate more than catching an edge!
Hey Joshua
I haven’t noticed any difference between them in terms of catchiness.
Hi Nate thanks for all your help please help with correct size of this board for me
I am 1,8 meter
Weight 105-110kg
Boot size US 13
Hi Marc
Thanks for your message.
I think the 165W would be your best bet. If you wanted something smaller, more maneuverable, the 162W wouldn’t be out of range either, IMO, but I would be strongly leaning towards the 165W for your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Appreciate all your reviews and comments, super helpful in making informed choices!
I’m 5’9″, 80kg, size 10 US ride inferno boot, burton cartel binding. Ride west coast Canada – mountain, powder & lots of trees. Like a bit of site hits/ buttering but not a park rat. Last season I rode a skeleton key (154) for reference. Not so much back country now, much more resort ‘out of bounds’. I’m really tossing between 154 and 157. Can you help advise? Because I found the SK a good middle ground size with trees and powder Im feeling that would work again but would ne nice to have more insight! Im curious if you think that SK may be even too small (e.g. I should have been 156?).
Thanks!
Hey Jakob
Thanks for your message. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 158, so I’d say the 157 is the more pure size for you. That said, the 154 wouldn’t be wrong, particularly if you liked the SK in the 154. I think you could have ridden the SK in 158, but depending on the feel you prefer, the 154 might’ve been the better choice. Particularly given that you ride a lot of trees, the 154 certainly not wrong. And the same would go for the MT. While the 157 would be what I would consider your more typical size for that board, the 154 wouldn’t be wrong, if you’re wanting to get a more maneuverable feel (at the cost of a little float in powder and stability at speed).
Hope this helps with your decision.
Good feedback thanks, It does lean me toward to 157 size simply to get more all round expected performance. It may just be something I need to get used to maneuvering in trees… but it does feel coin tossy!
I also have the chance to buy a 156 Yes standard (22 model) at a nice price it seems like this is also a well sized alternative board and also vs the Standard 153?
I like the look of the Capita Mega Merc too, but the local shop only has 153 left.. to me this sounds a bit small now based on a few of the size recommendations and your feedback. Would you agree this is maybe isn’t a great choice vs the 157?
Thanks again.
Hey Jakob
Yeah, the Standard is a good (and similar) alternative to the MT, but yeah size-wise, it’s the same debate between the 156 vs 153 as it is with the 157 vs 154 MT. Standard in the 156 is pretty close equivalent to the 157 MT, IMO and same with the 153 vs MT 154.
The Mega Merc is a quite different to the other 2, IMO, being that it’s stiffer and more aggressive. Still a versatile ride, so not worlds apart, but it’s a stiffer, more aggressive ride, in my experience. Sizing to 153 in the case of the Mega Merc would be erring shorter than typical for you and a little shorter than if you were to go to the 153 Standard for example. But I think it’s still as doable as the others, if you’re considering going shorter – and being on the small side for you would mellow out some of its aggressiveness (if that’s what you were wanting to do. I think the 155 or 157 would be the better sizing options overall, but the 153 is doable.
You’re a legend Nate. Thanks for the input. Tough time picking between fun and fun!
You’re very welcome Jakob. Thanks for stopping by.
Hi Nate! And thanks for another awesome review 🙌🏾
I’m thinking about getting a board to mostly ride on powder but mainly in a playful/freestyle way. My park board is a Burton Paramount 155 and I love the snap and pop on it. I also have a jones Hovercraft for deep powder days but I feel like I need something in between, maybe more tending to pow but as I said, with a freestyle riding.
I’m 77 kg, 1,80 cm and 44,5-45 boot size, and I’m at an intermediate level, hitting red lines park (some jibbing but mostly jumps).
I feel this is a board that could match my need but how do you think this one would compare to the stratos (I believe I should take the 161w?) the aviator or the flagship? Which size would you recommend?
Thank you very much again and keep doing this, it’s just awesome work and it has helped me a lot 🙌🏾
Have a good day!
Hi Ricardo
Thanks for your message. I think the Mountain Twin would be a great middle ground between the Paramount and the Hovercraft. It’s something that’s definitely more freestyle and playful than the Hovercraft but better in powder than the Paramount. The Stratos and Flagship are more freeride and not as freestyle oriented as the Mountain Twin, and not what I would call playful. They’re better in powder than the Mountain Twin, but you’ve already got the Hovercraft for deeper days. For what you’re describing and as a better compliment to your quiver, I would go Mountain Twin.
Size-wise, I’d be looking at the 159W, assuming your boot size translates to a US11 or US11.5 (my brain works in US sizes 🙂 ). If you in fact have a US10.5 boot, then you could also get away with the 157 or 160. Given you’ll want to be riding powder quite a bit on this board, the 160 would probably be your best bet, if you weren’t going wide. But if you wanted to make things more freestyle/playful oriented, at the sacrifice of a little powder float, the 156W or 157 (depending on boot size) would also be suitable.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nice, that helps a lot, thanks Nate 😊 also, today I found a potential good deal on a Yes Hybrid 157 2023. Would you still go for the mountain twin? I read your review of the Hybrid and looks like a good option too ✌🏽
Hey Ricardo
Yeah, I think the Hybrid could work too. Not quite as playful or as freestyle oriented as the MT – but better for powder. I would still say that the Mountain Twin is a better middle ground between your other 2 boards, with the Hybrid being more similar to the Hovercraft.
Great! Thank you so much for the help Nate 🙌🏾
You’re very welcome Ricardo
Hey Nate ! i recently followed your advices and bought a 160cm Mountain Twins i wear 10.5 snowboardboots i will change them also soon for an other breand
but i am hesitating for the snowboard Bindings
between Union Strata Union Atlas Union force and also Jones Meteorite or Jones Mercury as i need a very versatile binding to suit the MT i mostly go on groomers at the mountain when i go on vacation and as there is also a small snowpark near my home i try also to discover freestyle a bit
i want it versatile easy to turn and reactive but also to feel the board i think i want the more polyvalent but axed with all mountain stuff with a bit of freestyle fantaisy ! what would you advice to me ? thanks in advance !
Hi Thomas
I think I would be leaning Union Strata. It’s got great board feel but is also good for carving. Just a good all-rounder and a good match to the Mountain Twin, IMO. The rest are all good flex matches to the Mountain Twin too and would all work for sure, so I don’t think you can make a bad choice, but I would be leaning Strata, because I think it will serve you best for the freestyle stuff.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello thank you a lot Nate for your fast answer yes you convinded to buy it and i just ordered Strata in L size
i ve a last question do you have some name models of Boa snowboard boots in a cool budget that would match perfectly with the Mountain twins 160 and the stratas ? my last pair was a salomon faction of maybe 2010 sized 10.5 (44,5 euro)
thanks again in advance !
Hi Thomas
Some good BOA boots that are lower cost and a good match to the MT:
– Salomon Dialogue Dual BOA
– DC Judge
– Ride Deadbolt Zonal
– K2 Orton
I would go with one of those (I’ve only looked at boots under $400), but you could also look at the 32 Lashed Double BOA and the Ride Lasso. Any cheaper than those in this flex range (6/10 to 7/10), and you’re probably looking at single boa boots.
Hi there Nate,
would you recommend Jones Meteorite (with surf setting) to pair with Jones MT? I like to ride all mountain style on the playful side with butters etc.. I read some reviews on Jones Mercury binding, which apperad as not good option, but I can’t find anything about Meteorite.. I was also thinking about Nitro Zero 2023 model) Any advice?:-)
Hi Stan
Thanks for your message.
I just got on the Meteorite for the first time last week. It’s definitely the softest of Jones’ bindings that I’ve tested (have tested all of the Apollo, Mercury, Orion and Meteorite now) – so the most playful overall. Also the easiest to butter with I found, so yeah I would go with that over the Mercury for the Riding style you’re describing. We haven’t tested the Nitro Zero, so I’m not sure about that one.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
Firstly, thank you for the reviews. Love this site!
I’m looking for feedback about the set-up and board size. I’m 187cm tall, 85 kg, feet size is 45. I ride with stance -12 (or -9) +16. I am an intermediate rider and like to do a little bit of everything – powder if I get the change, buttering, small jumps here and there (but not into parks). Mostly groomers though.
I am looking at Moiuntain Twin 160, Union Strata bindings and Burton Photon (or similar low-profile) boots. What do you think about 160 for board length, considering my boots will be size 45-46?
Happy to receive any other feedback about the planned set-up.
Rainer
Hi Rainer
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, I think the binding/boot combo is a good bet with the Mountain Twin.
In terms of 160 for your specs, the length should work well, IMO. In terms of width, it’s pushing it. Though EU sizing can really differ depending on the brand, so it really depends what size you get into. If it ends up being a US11 equivalent (which for Burton is the EU44), then I think you’ll be fine on the 160 with Photon’s, but if it’s the US11.5 equivalent, which I believe is the EU44.5 in Burton boots, then it’s borderline. Still doable, but might be a bit narrow, if you’re looking to get deep in your carves. If you’re riding with the reference stance width of 600mm (23.6″) then that helps make it more doable.
If you have to go to the EU45 Photon (US12) or longer, then I would go wide for sure. The 159W would be your best bet. And probably the safest bet for the Photon EU44.5 (US11.5) as well.
Hope this helps
Hey guys I’m currently looking for an upgrade to my Capita Outer Space Living 161w. I’m 5-8, 215-225lb boot size 10.5 vans aura OG, binding angles +18,-12. I learned to ride on the OSL and and am a pretty true all mtn rider. Groomed blue and black not bombing but do open it up occasionally, small -med jumps and side hits and an average carver, I’m definitely not laying them down or anything, some smaller park features. As a heavier guy with average height at best it can be a bit hard to size a board. Where do you suggest I land in size? I know my OSL is to wide for my boot and probably long for my height- I want to get it right this time. I now know the consequences of riding a board that’s to long and wide for me- what will be the consequences of being good in height and boot size but pretty far over the recommended weight? Four sizes I’m currently considering would be 156w 157 159w and 160. I feel a regular 158 or 159 would be PERFECT but unfortunately not an option.
Hi Corey
Thanks for your message.
IMO the biggest thing with being over weight recommendations is that you can overflex the board, making it feel softer than it would otherwise feel if you were within the weight recommendations.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 160, so whilst I don’t think the 161W OSL was necessarily too long, it probably felt a bit big because of length and width combined. With 10.5s there are some boards you’d likely want to go wide on, but for the Mountain Twin you won’t need to, IMO. The 160 is your best bet, IMO and I think it should be a really good size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I would like to start by a big thank you for all your reviews. It is quite difficult to choose what gear would fit the best and you are being super helpful on this
I am a 1m78 (5’10), 74 kgs (163 lbs) advanced rider looking for my two board quiver and wondering if you could share your opinion. I made my choice on the Jones Mountain Twin as my future all mountain board and still hesitate on the size I should pick. I ride with 9,5 Salomon launch boots and Union stratas (based on your review, I recently bought, tried these and I love them). The Mountain Twin looks like the most versatile and eco friendly option I can find, as I like to get some speed on groomers, butter, take some side hits, ollies, grabs and 180s, ride switch sometimes and lay down on carves
I would be slightly leaning on the 154 as the reference stance is closer to mine (I usually ride with a 54-55 cms stance)
Also looking for another more specialized board for pow days that I absolutely love, that can handle more speed and carve harder than the Jones Mountain Twin. I picked the 154 Jones Mind Expander, 153 Yes Hybrid and 153 Rome Stale fish as my potential favorites to do so. Even if I might go for an advanced oriented board, I still would prefer a not so unforgiving board to enjoy my 15-21 resort days a year with a fun turning experience.
What in your opinion would compliment the most my Jones Mountain Twin ? Would these 3 fit as daily drivers too ? And what would be your recommendation size wise for the Jones Mountain Twin between 154 and 157 ?
If you think about any other options, feel free !
Again thank you for what you bring to the snowboarding community
Cheers
Hi Julien
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157, so I would generally be leaning towards that size for the MT – and you can certainly ride it narrower than the reference stance (I tend to ride it with a 56cm stance). However, the 154 certainly isn’t out of range and given that you’re not going to need it for deep powder, as you’re looking for a powder board in your quiver, going 154 is a definite option. If it was going to be your one-board-quiver, I’d say 157, but as part of a 2 board quiver, I’d be slightly leaning 154.
Given you’re looking for a more mellow board for your powder board, I think the Mind Expander would work. Only thing is that you’re not, IMO, really getting anything extra in terms of speed/carving. Certainly getting better powder, but not so much speed/carving, in my experience. The Hybrid on the other hand, would give you a speed/carving boost, as well as powder, whilst still not being too unforgiving. It’s not as easy turning as the Mind Expander but still not overly aggressive either. We haven’t tested the Stale Fish, so not sure about that one. On paper it looks like it could be a good fit, but having not ridden it, can’t say much more than that about it.
Some others that comes to mind that could work for you:
– Burton Deep Thinker (whilst it doesn’t look overly mellow specs-wise and never used to be, I recently rode the 2024 model and it’s nice and turny and snappy compared to what it used to be)
– Never Summer Swift (also recently rode the 2024 model of this and was very impressed)
– Capita Navigator
– GNU Hyper
– Arbor Single
– Bataleon Cruiser
– Never Summer Harpoon
– GNU Gremlin
Hope this helps
It does help a lot Nate. So valuable !
I think I will go for the 2024 hybrid, which I like the graphics more, based on your recommendation, also still looking at some other options you shared
I have taken a look on the hybrid specs. As I understood according to your review, you rode this board set all the way back. How did it feel stance wise (I guess 58,4 cms) ? It sounds kind of big
Would you recommend the Jones Flagship or Hovercraft for powder, speed and carving as well ?
Hi Julien
I’m comfortable with that stance width. I’m good with anything from 530mm to around that 585mm (depending on the board) – anything wider than that and it feels too wide for me. But you don’t have to ride it at that – and I would go 153 Hybrid for you anyway (I rode the 157). The reference point on the 153, according to YES’ website, is still around that 585mm but I wouldn’t ride the 153 with that wide a stance width and there’s no reason why you’d have to either.
The Flagship and Hovercraft would definitely work for what you’re describing and both, IMO would give you a step up for powder, speed and carving vs the Mountain Twin. They’re both a little stiffer than the other options we’ve been looking at. But if that’s not an issue, I think those would work really well in a quiver with the MT. Size-wise, I would be looking at the 158 Flagship and the 156 Hovercraft, if you were going either of those.
Hi Nate!
Really appreciate all you provide to the snowboard community. I am a low level intermediate rider looking to get my next board and I’m torn between the MT and the Frontier. I’m just looking to cruise on the groomers, mostly blues but occasionally go off piste and very little park if any. Everything I read online seems to point to the Frontier being the easier turner and most entry level of Jones line but then everything I read on the MT says that is has a softer flex than the Frontier which would lead me to believe it’s the easier one to progress on.
I’m 5’9”, 150lbs, wear a size 9 and am trying to consider which of these two would be the better option to progress on and be a long term board for me – the MT in 154 or the Frontier in 156?
Thanks! Adam
Hi Adam
Thanks for your message.
I found the MT just as easy, if not easier to ride than the Frontier and it’s the more “dynamic” feeling board, if that makes sense. I a little livelier in the way it rides – a bit more spring out of turns, that kind of thing. Now, I’m not a lower intermediate rider, so I’m not the perfect judge as to what’s easier to ride, but from my feel, I would lean to MT. The Frontier is a little more suited to powder, so if you were planning to be in deep-ish powder a fair bit, then I might lean a little towards the Frontier. The MT isn’t bad in powder though, and really not much difference in shallower powder. Personally, even if I were a lower intermediate rider, I’d take the MT in most cases, unless I was wanting a bit more powder performance.
I like the 154 for the MT for your specs too. The 156 Frontier also a good choice and it’s the kind of board you can ride a little longer.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Absolutely helps, thanks Nate! I was definitely leaning towards the MT, especially for my long term board so appreciate your feedback!
You’re very welcome Adam. Happy riding!
Quick question for you Nate. I have a friend who has a 156w Jones Mountain Twin (this years). He’s offered to sell it to me for an almost nothing price. I’m considering it for myself or my son. At 175 lbs and a 10 or 9.5 boot is it too wide?
Hi Maxwell
Personally I wouldn’t go wide (and I’m a 9.5/10). I don’t tend to get on with wide boards unless I size down quite a bit in length. I’ve heard some with 10s that have less issue with wide boards than I do, but most I talk to tend not to like wide boards with this boot size. 156 would be sizing down a bit in length for you, IMO, so that does make it more doable, but personally (6’0″, 180lbs, size 9.5/10) I’d go 157 every day of the week for the MT.
Thank you!
You’re very welcome Maxwell. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for that beautiful snowboarding platform first of all. 🙂
Too much passion and effort..
After your review i’m thinking about getting jones MT.
My Specs:
Height: 170cm
Weight: changing between 68-72 kg (149 – 158 lbs)
Shoesize: 41 EU (US 8)
Equipment
Boots: Burton Photon Step on
Bindings: Burton Step on Genesis
What do you think about the compatibility of my gear with MT?
And if it is okay, what size shall i get?
(in the chart of Jones website, it says 151 seems ok but wanted to be sure)
I have 10-15 days in a year to ride.
Style:
Intermediate (comfortable in any piste of mountain when going down -except steep ice-)
Mostly groomers, if i have a chance i like try trees and pow.
POW is absolute fun but rarely catch them in my country.
Since i stick to groomers mostly, i would like to improve my carving too.
On the other hand, since i dont have many snowboard days in a year, having fun is more important . (i mean; not fighting with the board, ease of maneuver etc)
PS: I reached you before for the lib tech terrain wrecker.
I ordered it from abroad but had some problems with customs clearence.
So I will get refund… Now i’m planning to get MT 🙂
Thanks in advance,
You are the best!
Hi again Nate,
Depending on your response on TW review, i ordered 154!
Because 151 sounded little bit smaller to me 🙂
I hope i didnt go wrong 🙂
Thanks!
Hi Oguz
I think the MT should work well for what you’re describing.
Size-wise, as I mentioned on the TW review, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 155, but that it makes sense to size down a little from that with most boards, because of width. The 151 MT would have been doable – and a little more of a playful, easier option for your specs. But the 154 isn’t wrong or anything. It’s still within a good range. Just at the bigger end of your range, IMO, because of the combination of length and width.
Hey Nate – thanks a lot for everything you do here in regards to content, has been an incredible resource as I level up in boarding.
I’m a level 5 ish rider looking to get my first board and found a pretty cheap deal on an 2015 MT but wantt to know if it would be a tad bit too small for my specs.
5’8″ 155 lbs US size 9 boot
Also, is there any meaningful difference in a board that old compared to the more recent reviews on this board?
Thanks again!
Realized I didn’t even mention the specs! the MT I’m looking at is 151. I know I’m probably more of a fit for 154, but seeing this deal and that it would be a first board to get a sense of what style I like, would it work?
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think it could work. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” closer to 154/155, so it is a little on the shorter side for you. But as a progressing rider, erring a little shorter can work well. But it would somewhat depend on the style of riding you erring towards, if you’ve already developed a sense of how you ride or would like to ride. If you know you like to ride fast – and if you get to ride deeper powder fairly regularly, then the 151 might feel a bit small. But if you’re getting into trees and some more freestyle stuff, or think you’d want to, then the 151 would work well, IMO.
The 2015 model was quite different to what it is today. It changed quite a bit for the 2021 model. And had changes prior to that. I didn’t ride the 2015 model so can’t say for sure how different to the current one is to that, but it’s different enough from when I rode the 2017 model. And the 2017 model does have some differences to the 2015 model as well. If you scroll to the bottom of this review, there’s a tab at the bottom that you can click on for past reviews, where you can check out my experiences with the ’17 and ’19 models.
In a nutshell the older models were a little less playful, a little less easy going. A little better for speed but a little more of a challenge to ride compared to the newer models. Still wasn’t the kind of board that was for only advanced riders though. Changes have been relatively subtle but still noticeable. The older MTs would have been what I would call “solid intermediate and up” boards, with the new ones now also an option for lower intermediate riders to be able to ride also.
Hope this helps
Hello i would be really interested by this snowboard for its polyvalent and all mountains skills
I am 185cm tall (6,069554) and between 191 and 207 for the weigh
for my foot 10,5 or 11 max depending of the brand
i ve a intermediate low level (i can handle blue or red at the ressort) but new beginner freestyle a bit (jibbing and little jumps)
i will use it at the ressort and also a bit @ snowpark
my old board was a Flow merc 163w and i found it not playfull and too heavy
i am hesitating between 160 size or 162w
do you think this board would be a good choice for me ?
and which size would you suggest me according to these parameters !
thanks really for your help !
Hi Thomas
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162 (based on an in between weight of 200lbs), however as a lower intermediate rider and given you’re looking for something a little more playful, I think you could size down a little from that.
The 160 Mountain Twin is quite wide for a regular board too and would, IMO, be all good if you were in 10.5s. In 11s it should be good in most cases too, IMO. If you’re riding with a 22″ (560mm) stance width you would be looking at around 270mm at the back insert and 269mm at the front insert. If you were to ride it a the 23.6″ (600mm) reference stance, then you’d be looking at more like 272mm back insert and 271mm front insert. Even at the 22″ stance, I would be comfortable with that width with 11s in most cases. However, if you had bulky 11s and rode with quite a straight back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees), and you liked to carve deep, then you’d be pushing it. In most other scenarios I think you’d be fine.
So, I would be leaning 160, assuming you think you’ll be OK width-wise, based on your boots profile and binding angles.
Hope this helps with your decision
hello Nate thank you for your fast answer and advices I realised finally my other boots were also 10.5 and not 11 as i thought !
so i think it will be ok for the 160 !
Hi Thomas
With 10.5s I would personally be very comfortable with the width on the 160.
Hi,
thanks for this great review, I am going to buy one.
I have a K2 Broadcast 159 already and my specs are
1.79m height, 80kg weight and 8.5 boot.
Would you recommend the mountain twin in 154 or 157?
Best regards,
Jan
Hi Jan
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 159/160. However with 8.5s, I would size down from that a bit. I think the 157 would be sizing down enough though, so that’s what I’d be leaning towards. I don’t think the 154 would be wrong though – and depending on how you’re planning on using it, could be the better choice. If you think you’ll use it for tight trees a lot and/or with more of a freestyle focus, and not going to ride super fast on it or ride deep powder or anything, then I’d prob go 154, especially given you have your 159 Broadcast which would take care of your bombing days and powder days.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot for the detailed response.
Makes perfect sense.
Thanks for that detailed response.
To be honest I am also considering the lib tech terrain wrecker and the yes basic uninc. For the lib tech terrain wrecker the size recommendation would probably be similar but the yes basic uninc is only availabe in 158 or 152.
Would you have a tip there as well?
Which of those 3 would you recommend the most?
Hi Jan
I think it depends on how you’re going to be using the board. The TW (and MT) would be better for powder, but the Basic Uninc RDM better than TW for speed, carving, riding switch. Both good for jumps, having their own strengths and weaknesses with the way they hit jump and types of jumps. The TW easier to butter. The TW a bit quicker edge to edge and easier to turn. Overall you’ve got to ride the Basic Uninc a little more aggressively (not ultra aggressive but a little more aggressive than the average board) to get the best out of it versus the TW which is more playful – but doesn’t handle things as well when pushing harder. The MT is kind of in between the two in terms of playful/aggressive and in terms of speed and carving too. It’s more like the TW for switch and in between for buttering.
Size-wise for the Basic Uninc, it’s tricky though. The 158 wouldn’t be wrong, but depending on how you wanted to ride it, sizing down a bit to potentially better compliment your quiver could be a consideration. However, I wouldn’t go as small as 152 for your specs, so I’d go 158, if you were to go Basic Uninc.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for that explanation. I really appreciate your detailed feedback.
This sounds as if the MT would probably the best choice for me.
Thank you 🙂
Best regards
Jan
You’re very welcome Jan. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I’m reaching out, once again for intels. Based on your advices I bought a JMT paired with a pair of Union Atlas in 2020.
I was very happy with the board especially with its versatility, its speed and its grip (I loved carving on that thing).
Unfortunately, I hit some rocks during an out of bound adventure and it might be beyond repair (fingers crossed).
I’m looking for something that might fill the spot in case the shop couldn’t save it.
I’ve heard that the newer models (from 21 and onward) are more soft(ish) and I don’t know about the spoon tech.
If I were to get a new board, taking in consideration I love the way my JMT 20 rides, would you tell me to take the newer model or maybe another all moutain / all mountain freestyle ? (the Yes Greats?). At this point the price is not relevant (being under 650 €).
Thanks in advance for your input.
Julien
Hi Julien
Thanks for your message.
If they can’t save your MT (but hopefully it’s salvageable!), I would probably be leaning YES Greats, if you’re not too worried about the reduction in powder performance (not drastically but a little) or the YES Standard, if you want to keep the powder up. I really like the new MT, but it is mellower than the older models. The ONE LF is another option that’s a more similar ride to the 2020 MT, IMO.
For the Standard and Greats, particularly the Greats, the sizing can be a little different, so that’s something to think about if you can’t salvage your MT.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your answer.
I’m not that interested in powder performance as I now have a board more pow oriented (Lib Orca). For this board I am really focusing on carving, side hits and riding ice even if we never know when the snow gods will throw an unexpected pow day at us.
Apart from the powder skills what would you say is the main difference between the Greats and the Standard?
About the sizing, which size would you recommend for a 80kg men with size 10 Adidas Tactical ADV (coming from a 157 JMT).
Thank you
Hi Julien
Main differences between Standard and Greats:
– I prefer the Greats a little more for carving
– Prefer the Greats a little more for switch
– Prefer the Greats a little more for jumps/sidehits
– Both really good in icy conditions, IMO, but if I had to choose, I’d say Greats is a little better.
– Standard for powder but that’s not a concern
So I think for your quiver and what you want it for, I’d be leaning Greats – or you could look at the Standard Uninc (full camber version of the Standard). But I think the Greats would be a good bet.
Size-wise, I would be looking at the 156 for the Greats, though the 154 is a possibility. I have pretty similar specs to you and I own the 156 and really like it for everything. I have ridden the 154 though and it feels bigger than a typical 154, and I liked it in that size. I’d still choose my 156 over it though. But if you wanted it to be more freestyle oriented the 154 wouldn’t be wrong. The 156 a little better for carving/speed, IMO. I like and tend to ride the JMT in a 157 as well. The 156 Greats feels a touch bigger than 157 JMT, but not by much. Like a 158 MT would feel size-wise, at a guess.
Hi Nate, thanks for your answers and your time.
I picked up my MT at the shop today. They did a pretty good job with it.
It still looks like sh*t but it should be able to ride until the end of the season. I’ll put some more epoxy on the top sheet maybe.
Anyway I am grateful for your advices and will keep them in mind if the MT were to give up on me.
Thanks.
Julien
You’re very welcome Julien. Glad to hear your MT will live to slash for a little longer.
Hi Nate.
First I want to thank you for all the information you put together here. It’s extremely helpful !!
I am an intermediate rider (level 5 based on your criteria) , 170 cm tall, 61 kg, 41.5 shoe size (EU) and so far I learned using the Arbor Foundation (152). I am planning to get a new snowboard to progress and using it in the next years. So far my options are:
– YES Standard – only the 153 is available
– Jones Mtn Twin – both 151 or 154 are available
– Arbor Element Rocker 153
– Jones Frontier only 156 available.
As riding style, I’m an all-mountain rider, mainly groomers so far but I want to learn pow, off-piste, get better at carving and riding with more speed.
As I am limited with the above options, can you help me decide what is best for me ?
Thanks a lot. Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 151, so I would be heavily leaning the Mountain Twin 151. The Standard is not only a little long for you, IMO, but it’s also wider than it looks, so overall it’s too big, IMO. The Element Rocker in 153 is more doable. The Frontier in 156 is too big, IMO – even though it’s a board that can be ridden a little longer, it’s still too big in the 156 for you, IMO.
The Mountain Twin would be a really good step up from the Foundation, IMO, without it being beyond your level or anything, and that has the best size for you, IMO, in the 151, so that’s what I’d go with.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot Nate. I will go with the Mountain Twin 151 🙂
You’re very welcome Alex. Hope you have an awesome season!
Ho Nate,
Thanks for your reviews, I really appreciate.
I’m upper intermediate rider and my specs are: weight 85 kg, height 177 cm and boot size 10.5/11 (43,5/44 EU size).
Do you think 159w could fit for me or 160 Is Better?
I’d appreciate any feedback.
Thanks
Bye
Luca
I go mainly on grommers with some side hits and Easy Tricks and occasionally off piste.
I have a rocker board now which is playful but i found too loose when i carve in a moderate Speed or in hard snow.
I think also Nitro Team gullwing could fit for me but i believe Is more playful and less stabile than this MTN.
Hi Luca
Thanks for your message.
Assuming 10.5 boots, I would go 160. This board is a little wider than typical in it’s regular width sizes, so you don’t need to go wide with 10.5s – and I think 160 is spot on. With 11s, there’s a good chance you’ll be OK on the 160 as well – and I would recommend it if you think you’ll be OK width-wise. It would depend on the profile of the boot (low profile or bulky), binding angles and how aggressive (deep) you like to carve. But in a lot of scenarios, you should be OK width-wise on the 160. 159W wouldn’t be wrong and in certain scenarios (e.g. bulky boots, flat back binding angle, aggressive deep carving) it will be the better choice.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate. I need help…
In my shop, they have only Jones MT 157. I am 187cm, 79kg and Euro 44 boots size (11US). Would I be ok with this one?
My heel to knee is 57. Not sure if I can go 60cm stance?
I ride Burton Photon,
Looking for trying different angles depending on what in a day on mountain.
Hi Nikola
Thanks for your message.
I think the length could definitely work for you. The 160 is probably the more pure length for you for this board, but the 157 definitely works length-wise and would be what I would choose if I had your specs.
The biggest question mark is the width. It’s narrower than I’d normally recommend for 11s. Again, if you went 160, I would be more confident. But assuming a 22″ (56cm) stance width or thereabouts, it’s borderline. With Photon’s which are quite low profile and something like +15/-15 angles, I would personally be fairly confident with that. But if you like to get really deep in your carves (e.g. eurocarving), then probably too narrow. If you’re carving isn’t super deep and you’re not going to be riding with any binding angles that are super flat, then you could get away with it. But it’s a close call.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thank you very much for all the reviews, top lists and the overview of what makes you a beginner, intermediate, advanced or expert rider.
I’m looking for an upgrade for my 2017 Burton Ripcord (150) that i used to learn on. I consider myself to be an intermediate on my way to level 6 (if not already there). I mostly do piste and offpiste, barely any park.
I like speeding down groomers, doing side-hits and if lucky with the weather ride some fresh powder offpiste. Since my friends prefer to be offpiste as much as possible I’m looking for a board that performs just as well onpiste as it does offpiste. I was considering the Burton Flight Attendant or Skeleton Key, but I’m afraid to not be advanced enough to ride them.
The 151 Mountain Twin reads just like the right board for me, but I’m curious about your opinion of what boards might suit me well and what length I should pick for my go-to all-mountain board.
As far as my specs go:
Height: 171cm
Weight: 62kg
Shoesize: 41 EU
Thx alot in advance!
Sandro
Hi Sandro
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of sizing, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” right on 151, assuming a good width, so depending on the board.
The Mountain Twin should work really well for what you’re describing, IMO. The Skeleton Key could work as well though – if you were going to go with one of the Burton options, that’s what I would go with over the Flight Attendant, as it’s a more forgiving ride. Still a little more of a challenging ride than the MT, IMO, just because of how camber dominant it is (does have some rocker in the nose though) but it’s softer flex mellows it out a bit. Given your level, I think you’d be able to work with it fine. It’s not something I would recommend for a lower intermediate rider, but if you’re closer to level 6, then I think you should be fine, with a bit of an adjustment period after being used to the Ripcord.
Size-wise for each:
MT: 151 is a possibility. It’s on the slightly bigger side for you, IMO, because it’s going to be on the wide side for your boots. I would size down to the 149 in this case. But the 151 wouldn’t be wrong, IMO.
Skeleton Key: 150 – though this is going to be wide for your boots too. But still doable in the 150.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, appreciate your reviews. I am from New York and ride east coast mountains more often than west coast, so basically I have to deal with more hardpack/icy conditions.
I currently have a NS Protoslinger which I like a lot. However I feel like I need a second board in my quiver as the Protoslinger’s grip on ice isn’t that great and I have slipped a couple of times on ice patches when conditions aren’t ideal. My question for you: is the Jones Mountain Twin worth getting as a second board to deal with icy conditions, or do you think it is too similar to the Protoslinger to make a noticeable difference? Willing to sacrifice some of the playfulness-softness for better hold-grip in east coast conditions but not looking for a pure speed demon or an aggressive bomber. (Also as someone who is 5’5″ 135-145lbs, size recommendation for this board?)
Thank you!
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
I think I would go with something better in icy conditions. The Mountain Twin is good in icy conditions and you might see a slight improvement there, but given that you’re looking for something specifically good in icy conditions, I think there are better options. In terms of the 2 boards, I think they’re different enough that they work together in a quiver, but in terms of how much better the MT would be in icy conditions, I think you can get a bigger contrast.
I would look at the YES Standard, YES Greats, YES Typo (if you want something more playful) – I have found YES boards to be very good in icy conditions. Or something from GNU/Lib Tech. The Rider’s Choice, TRS, Terrain Wrecker, something like that could work well.
Niche boards are also very good in icy conditions. Something like the Wraith, if you want something more playful/freestyle like the Proto Slinger – or the Aether or Story could work. They’re a little stiffer/less playful than the likes of the MT or Standard though, IMO.
In terms of sizing, if you could let me know your boot size as well.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, thank you for your response, super helpful! Appreciate it.
For boots I am a size 8. Thanks!
Hi David
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 151.
Depending on the width of the particular board, it could be a good idea to size down. E.g. for the YES Standard, which is a wider board I would size-down to the 149. The combination of the length/width of the 151 is a little on the big side, IMO.
For the Mountain Twin, the 151 could work. It’s a little narrower than the Standard 151 (even though they have the same waist width, the Standard is wider at the inserts and at tip and tail) but the 149 would still be an option, particularly if you valued maneuverability at slower speeds over stability at higher speeds.
If you were able to narrow it down to your preferred 2-3 choices, would be happy to give my specific sizing opinion for each board.
Hi Nate,
Please, if you can help me with my decision.
I have around 15 days of riding experience, let’s say i’m beginner to intermediate driver, i don’t like to drive crazily fast, but sometimes i try to get higher speeds.
I want a stable board that’s manoeuvrable when going fast or slow, also I want to try jumps and tricks, and occasionally i’d try to go in to the deep snow.
But let’s say i mostly ride on track with my friends cruising around.
I’m 193 cm tall and have around 95 kg. Let’s say athletic.
There is an option for me of getting Jones Mountain Twin in size 165 W.
Is this a good size and a good snowboard for me ?
Also, if you think this is a suitable snowboard for me, you can also suggest a bindings for it.
Thanks Nate !
Branimir
Hi Branimir
Thanks for your message.
If you’re like a low intermediate (level 5 according to this), then I think it’s doable. And the size, again assuming you’re at least a level 5, should work too for your specs, and if you’re athletic, though if you could let me know your boot size to confirm that sizing is appropriate, that would be great.
Hey Nate,
It’s me again and after all the reading here I’m pretty much sold on this board! Now I just need to know the most suitable size for my situation.
Height/Weight: 184cm/78~83 kg (yeah, wide variation)
Current board: 2020 Capita OSL 158 / 25.3″ waist
Current boot: Burton Ruler US11/UK10/29cm (wide)
Current bindings: Union Contact Pro (L)
Current boot overhang (based on 0~15° stance angles):
Toe side: 1.2~1.4 cm / 80~81° angle
Heel side: 2.7~3.2 cm / 70~73° angle
Level: Intermediate 5-6
Preference: a bit of everything but currently leaning a bit towards high speed carving
I’m intending to keep my Burton Rulers for now and hoping change to a pair of Nidecker Supermatic (L) bindings.
According to Jones’ website I should be going either
1. 159W / 26.1″ waist
2. 162W / 26.3″ waist
In the likely event wide sizes are unavailable, I may have to settle for one of the following:
3. 157 / 25.4″ waist
4. 160 / 25.7″ waist
Another consideration is I’ve discovered I currently tend to prefer a stance width of 54~56cm (my “natural” stance width is 50cm measured from ground to knee cap). However, all the above sizes come with a reference stance width of 60 cm, and Jones recommends my ideal stance width to be within an inch of the board’s reference stance.
If this is the case, should I even be looking at a shorter board size like 156W / 25.9″ waist?
With the information (I hope it’s not information overload!), I’d appreciate if you could recommend the most suitable size(s) I should be looking at in my case. If I can’t find the Jones MT size I want, I will probably use your recommended size/width on other available board options.
I really hope to nail the right size this time as I intend this to be my main all-mountain board to stick with for my progress throughout my intermediate stage.
Thank you so much.
Hi Phil
Thanks for your message.
I typically ride Jones boards that have a 60cm reference stance width at 56cm. 60cm feels too wide for me and very few snowboards have a reference stance that wide, particularly in that length range, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much. Riding with a 56cm stance width on their 60cm reference stance boards is all good, IMO.
Size-wise, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 160cm. With 11s, and with Rulers, which are pretty low profile, I think you’ll be fine. The regular width MTs are a little wider than average, even at a 56cm stance width. Even wider at their 60cm reference stance. But you should be looking at around 270mm back insert width on the 160 and around 269mm front insert width. With 11 Rulers you should be all good on that. Sizing shorter than that is doable though – so you could length-wise go to the 157. Width-wise, it’s more borderline though. If you were at the 60cm width, then it would be all good. At a 56cm stance width it’s borderline. With 15 degree angles and your low profile boots though it’s doable.
That’s not to say that the 159W would be too wide, so that’s definitely an option as well. The 162W is too big for you, IMO. Especially when combining length and width.
The 156W is doable as well, but given you’re leaning towards high speed carving, I would be erring longer.
I would go 160 for you as a first choice. Then 159W as second choice and then 157 as third choice, if you think you’d be OK with the width.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks as always for your very helpful advice.
I am all set to go out and shop for the board next week but the results of a scan from a (non-snowboard-related) fall last month just revealed I’ve dislocated my knee.
So there goes my season before it even started 🙁
Should be looking at a MT 2023/24 if specs remain the same …
Hey Phil
Sorry to hear that! Hoping you’ll come back stronger than ever for the 23/24 season. When you’re ready to buy drop me a note and I can let you know if the specs have changed or not for the 23/24 MT.
Hi Nate, Any size & board recs for me: 52yrs old, been riding over 20 years, intermediate-advanced. Looking for all mt board btwn Jones All Mt Twin or YES Standard. Loving easier rides and fun trails these days, but still enjoy more challenging runs, trees and powder.
6’1″
10.5 shoe size
190 lbs
THANKS!
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
Not a wrong choice you could make between them for what you’re describing, IMO. But I would go Mountain Twin, just because I think the sizing is going to work best. I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 160, which would put you on 159 Standard or 160 Mountain Twin. However the 159 Standard is pretty wide for your boot size, so I would be leaning 160 MT. If you’re used to riding shorter boards than that or simply want to try something smaller, the 157 MT and 156 Standard are within range as well and possibilities. If you did want to size shorter like that, then it’s a harder decision as both sizes would work there. But if you want to stick to something around that 160/161 range, then I’d go MT.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m 183 cm tall, 91 kg weight with Burton boots 44,5. Could you advice me best JMT size for me? Should I take 159W, 160 or 162W?
Regards, Andrew
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message. For your boot size, I would go wide. Between the 159W and 162W, it would depend. Both are in range. The 162W is the more “pure” size for your specs, IMO. But the 159W is doable depending on your ability level and riding style. If you can tell me a bit more about your riding style (e.g. do you like to ride fast or more moderate? trees? park? hard carves? powder? etc – anything you can tell me about how you like to ride) and ability level, then it will be easier to say which I think will be the better size for you.
Hope this helps
Thank you, I’m rather advanced rider, But I’m riding mostly on groomers and I’m not a slowest on the slope;-). Sometimes a bit backcountry, Not a freestyle rider at all.
Hi Andrzej
If you’re predominantly riding fast and aren’t really riding slow/playful or slashing around. And if you’re not really riding in places where you need shorter sharper turns at slower speeds (e.g. in trees), then I’d go 162W. If you are doing more of that, then the 159W would work. This board is a little wider than average, so the 159W is a possibility – even though it would be sizing down a little in terms of length. If you were in an 11 boot (44.5 Burton is equivalent to an 11.5 – gotta convert it in my head to US sizes) you’d probably be good on the 160, depending on binding angles. But with an 11.5 it would be pushing it.
Difficult choice… 44,5 according to the Jones table is the upper limit for 160 (41,5 – 44,5) and lower limit for 162W (44,5+). I ride at +15/-15 angles. I checked on a JMT 160 board that with this setting the tip of the shoe protrudes about 1.5 cm beyond the edge of the board. So, in your opinion is it enough or over the limit?
Hi Andrzej
If it’s 1.5cm on both edges, then you should be fine, IMO. I would be confident with anything less than a 2cm overhang – and even up to 2.5cm overhang, depending on how deep you like to carve. But yeah with 1.5cm I would be very confident with that level of overhang myself.
Thank you. I checked one more time setting exactly the same on both sides. So, finaly boots overhang about 2 cm on both sides. Hope it will be OK on snow;-)
Hi Andrzej
You’re very welcome. I don’t think you should experience any issues with that amount of overhang. Hope you have an awesome season!
You’ve sold me on the MT!
I’m 6′, 160lbs plus or minus 5lbs, size 10 Vans Aura Pros
Can’t decide between a 154 or 157! Do a little bit of everything here in Colorado. Rip groomers, carve, side hits, some trees, pow when we have it, very little park.
Keep going back and forth between the two!
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
I get your dilemma! It’s a close call between them. I would be leaning 157 but 154 wouldn’t be wrong for you, IMO. For sidehits and trees, I think you’d appreciate the 154, but for stability at speed, carves and pow, you would be better with the 157. But the 157 is still going to do well in trees, sidehits, maneuverability in general – it’s not like it’s going to be a tank in that size for you or anything. But that’s the trade off between between the 2 sizes.
So yeah, I’d be leaning 157, but 154 wouldn’t be wrong.
Hope that somewhat helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
thank you for the great content!
Could you give me some advice for a new board, please?
I’m 6’1 ft, 165 lb and pretty athletic. I have quite big feet (Burton Ruler in US11.5 or 12).
I mostly ride groomers, but like to hit any small bump or sidehit and if conditions are good, like to go into the deeper stuff beside the piste. No park, but I like buttering on the flats. I’m about a 5.5 on your ability scale.
I have been riding a 2012 Nitro Team Camber 161 for the last 10 years, which I really like, but which also feels very stiff (but I have very little to compare it against).
I am thinking about supplementing/replacing this with something a bit more soft and playful, better for buttering and (hopefully) improving my carving.
My current favorite is the Jones MT and the Yes Typo.
The Yes Standard sounds also interesting, but is not so easy to get where I live and is not available in wide.
Would the MT be too similar to my current board? Would the Typo be too much of a step down?
Also I’m confused about the MT sizing: 156W, 157 or 159W might all work for me.
Are there other alternatives?
Thank you!
Matthias
Hi Matthias
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of sizing, I would put your “standard all-mountain” length at around 159. Even though 161 isn’t that much longer, you’ll be surprised how much difference 2cm can make. A board that’s a little big for your weight, will naturally feel stiffer. It’s nothing like crazy big for you or anything but that will contribute to the feeling of stiffness.
The likes of the MT and Standard, I felt at a similar flex to the Nitro Team Camber (all be it that the oldest Team I’ve tested was a 2021 model – so the flex might have changed quite a bit since the 2012 model. But as a more recent model comparison, I felt the MT, Standard and Team Camber all at a 6/10 flex. Being full camber the Team does feel more aggressive than the other 2 – and it isn’t as easy to press/butter it. So a similar overall flex, but stiffer in the tip and tail than something like the Standard/MT. This is comparing these 3 boards in the 156 Standard, 157 Mountain Twin and 157 Team Camber. I mention this just to say that these aren’t likely to feel super soft compared to your current board (but again, the 2021 Team might be softer than the 2012 – though since you’ve had it for 10 years, it should have softened up a bit) – but they should be easier to press/butter. And will feel a little more playful too.
If you were replacing, then the Standard and Mountain Twin would be good options as do-it-all replacements, IMO. But if you were going to keep the Team and pair it with something else, then the likes of the Typo would be the better bet, to give you more contrast. This I felt at around 4.5/10 flex. It’s super buttery and quite playful. It’s not as good at speed or for carving as the other 2, but it’s definitely softer, more playful, more buttery.
Size-wise, for the MT, the 157 is too narrow, IMO, for your boot size. It’s got a bit of extra width vs a typical regular in that length, but still not wide enough for 11.5s or 12s, particularly if you want to get deeper in your carves. So, it’s between the 156W and 159W. If you were to use this board as a compliment to your Team, then I’d go 156W, to give more of a contrast (a smaller board, all else being equal, will feel more playful, softer flexing and easier to butter). If it’s a replacement then you could still go 156W, but I’d be leaning 159W. The Standard is basically a wide board, even though it’s sizes aren’t wide, so the same thing goes there. As a compliment I would be leaning 156 – as a replacement I would go 159.
The Typo, I would go 158.
Hope this helps
This helps a ton, thank you so much!
You’re very welcome Matthias. Hope you have a great season!
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,
Thanks for the reply. Was actually looking at your levels again and i got confused as i had checked a while ago.
Im actually a level 5 and going into level 6. I want this board to last me a while, so it would be good even as i progress more. Since last year Im boarindg around 40-45 days per season.
Hi John
Thanks for the correction. In that case, then the Mountain Twin should be right on for you. And that makes more sense too – it sounded like you were higher than a 4, based on what you were describing.
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
So, I’m getting close to the end of the research and pulling the trigger.
Got in contact with YES and Rome, seems the Katana won’t fit the back inserts. I won’t risk it. Thank you fot the heads-up.
On everything we discussed, pulling the trigger on the Yes Standard Uninc 156 + Union Atlas Large. I have the Adidas lexicon ADV 10,5. I`m assuming no drag issues and going down the size will still fit my specs correctly. Did I miss anything?
Comparing to my actual MT, I’ll loose a bit stability and float. BUT won`t be major. I should have the shattering solved and add maneuverability for sizing down.
Can’t thank you enough.
I’ll let you know once i have everything tested.
Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
Good to know re Katana on the slam backs.
Yeah with 10.5 Tactical ADVs I’d be very surprised if you had any drag issues on the 156 Standard Uninc.
Look forward to hearing how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Nate, any issues you’ve encountered with the Union Atlas’s new “forward lean adjuster”?
Read it wouldn’t lock and could “spin by itself” when riding.
Best,
Hey Daniel
I didn’t encounter that problem. I did note that the forward lean adjuster was different and then noted “Highback lean was on a lot of lean – I moved it to the least amount of lean. Was fairly easy using that dial adjuster – though on one it took a bit to get it moving, but once it started moving it was pretty easy”. But I had no problem with it not locking or spinning by itself.
Hi Nate, thank you for the insihgts.
For everything I read, I’m really leaning towards the K2 Excavator. It seems a light on feet, agile, floating board that could work on several powder conditions. Nevertheless, always good to have a backup option if i can’t find it. The Transition Finder seems to have a very similar proposal, BUT a little bit less forgiving than the excavator.
Considering I’m 1,82m tall, 85 kg and I have a Standard Uninc 156 and really like it’s sizing specs:
1- If i was to go with Transition Finder I’d size it 157cm
2- About the excavator, I could go 150, 154 or 158… I think 150 would be too short. I can’t decide between the other two…
What are your thoughts?
Best,
Daniel
Hi Daniel
I think the 154 would be a good bet (assuming your boot size is still 10.5), given the Excavator is a wider board and how you describe that you want it agile. I think the 150 is too short and wouldn’t float well enough in powder for what you want. And the 158 is likely to feel bigger than your Standard Uninc – and while it would be the best powder floater option, you may find that it’s not as agile as you’d like. So I’d be leaning 154 in this case.
Hi Nate, how’s everything?
First of all, I pulled the trigger in the Yes Standard Uninc 156 + Union Atlas. Honestly you couldn’t have helped me any better. I was really stoked with it and all the JMT problems were solved. The Yes Standard Uninc was a lot more stable and solid than the JMT and the lower size helped me a lot with maneuverability. It really is on the more aggressive side but still, i can ride really mellow when i want to and is so solid at high speeds. Very easy to pop and hit side jumps. I struggled a little on the powder, BUT didn’t try the back inserts yet. One thing is that I have a feeling the top sheet isn’t very resistant, in the first couple of days i had a few chips on the top sheet. Heard of anything like that?
At this time I’m here to ask your help with my second board, a board that is more freeride/powder oriented. This board should be able to complete my 2 board quiver. On my trips i will only be able to take one binding with me that should suit both boards. I’ve done my homework and have some boards in mind, what are your thoughts? How do you think these boards will complete the yes standard uninc and fit with union atlas bindings?
Korua shapes transition finder
Jones Ultra Mind Expander
Yes PYL Uninc
Libtech Orca
K2 Excavator
Once again can’t thank you enough. Best,
Daniel.
Hi Daniel
Good to hear from you again.
I haven’t ridden the Korua Shapes Transition Finder or the K2 Excavator or PYL Uninc, so can’t say much about them, but everything there would be a good compliment to the Standard Uninc, IMO and all look very capable in powder.
In terms of matching with the Atlas, the Excavator and Transition Finder (based on their flex rating) should pair well with the Atlas, as should the Orca. For the PYL Uninc, I think the Atlas would work too. If being really fussy, it could take a slightly stiffer binding. But it should definitely work. And this is on the assumption that the 8/10 flex rating is about right. I found the Ultra Mind Expander to be quite stiff, like 9/10 stiff, so I think this would be the least suitable in terms of matching with the Atlas. From Jones, some better matches, IMO, would be the Flagship and Hovercraft.
Hope this helps
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!
Hi Marvin
Yeah the UMT is noticeably stiffer and not something I would recommend for an intermediate rider. I think the UMT of old wasn’t that much different (first model of UMT I rode was 2019 model so I couldn’t say for sure) but certainly 2019 UMT vs 2019 MT, the difference is noticeable and I would only recommend the UMT for advanced riders and those that aren’t that concerned about being able to slow it down and play around with it. It’s a board that prefers to be ridden fast all the time.
The MT is still a good board for an advanced level rider, depending on style, so it’s not something that you’re likely to grow out of, unless your style becomes one of only really wanting to bomb hard all the time.
Hope this helps
This helps alot Nate. It gives me the confirmation I was looking for, just wanted to be fully sure I’ll make the right decision.
Thanks again and can’t wait to hit the slopes!
Cheers from The Netherlands!
You’re very welcome Marvin. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get your new board out on snow. Happy riding!
Hey Nate,
Thank you for taking the time for all of these in-depth responses on sizing / board decisions — a huge resource for everyone and much appreciated.
I’m 5’6″ 135 lbs wearing size 8.5 thirtytwo Binary Boas and large K2 Liens with a rather narrow stance of 19.5″ and angles of (15,-6). I’m planning on taking this board all mountain up in Tahoe pretty equally — steeps, trees, powder, groomers, park. Currently riding a Rossi One Magtek 153 which I love for its stability, speed, and mashed potatoes around, but find quite heavy and a bit stiff making buttering, jumping, and park a bit tougher (feels like I really have to muscle it) as I start to explore those aspects more.
Considering the 151 Mountain Twin and the 152 Explorer. What are your thoughts on sizing? I’m concerned a bit about boot size, especially if I slide everything back for powder days.
Thanks again!
Hi Kevin
Thanks for your message.
I would say that the Mountain Twin is a very similar flex to the Rossignol One. But, IMO, you would be better on something more like 150 for length. And you could even go a little shorter than that for freestyle stuff. So, I think at 153, the One LF probably feels stiffer than it should. Going 151 will help there, even if only by a little bit, as it’s not a huge size down. The One LF is a slightly heavier than normal board. Of the boards I have weighed, the average is roughly 18.23 grams per cm. The One LF I weighed (2018 model) was 19.5 grams per cm. I haven’t weighed the Mountain Twin specifically but the average weight of the Jones boards I have weighed was 17.96 grams per cm. So for a 152cm (very roughly speaking) that would be the difference of around 230grams (0.5 pounds), which is noticeable. So, you would likely be getting something a little lighter, and since you would be going from 153 to 151, it’s more likely to be more like a 271g (0.6 pound) difference. This is only roughly speaking, but you would likely feel the difference in weight.
So, I think going 151 Mountain Twin would certainly be an improvement for you in terms of stiffness and weight and would make buttering, jumps and freestyle in general a little easier, without sacrificing too much in terms of stability at speed and float in powder. But you wouldn’t be getting something that’s going to be super buttery in comparison, IMO.
I would go Mountain Twin over Explorer for your purposes, mainly because it’s a little more freestyle focused, and it sounds like you want to start progressing in that area.
I wouldn’t have any concerns with width, with 8.5s on the 151 Mountain Twin. It’s a good width for 8.5s, at any binding angles, IMO. And when you shift back for powder days, your back foot will be on a wider part of the board. Your front foot will shift to a narrower part, but that’s on a greater angle, so that gives you more leeway, and with 8.5s I don’t think that will be an issue at all.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m interested in jones Mountain twin.
I’m 5’10”,78kg weight and 11,5 boots (thyrtytwo)
I’m between 155w and 158w
What size do you reccomand me?
I’ve a good deal in 155w…
Thanks!
Matteo
Hi Matteo
Thanks for your message.
I think the 158W would be the best size for your for this board. If you’re more of an intermediate rider, then the 155W becomes an option, but I would be leaning towards 158W for you. The other thing is that the 158W should be fine for your boots – assuming you ride this board at the reference stance width (600mm). The reference stance width on the 155W is narrower, and could be pushing it too narrow at the inserts for 11.5s. If you ride +15/-15 angles, then I think you can get away with the 155W width-wise, but anything else might be pushing it. For the 158W, width-wise, if you wanted to narrow the stance up a bit, then it might be a good idea to keep to a reasonable amount of angle on the back binding.
So yeah, in short, I think the 158W, but 155W possible if more beginner/intermediate level – and the width is the biggest concern depending on the stance width/binding angles you want to ride with.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi nate,
how are you?
quick question I have 11 size boots, and Im looking at the 157 or 158 wide mountain twin,
what do you think? the 157 should be good or I need a wide board.
thanks
Julian
Hi Julian
Thanks for your message.
Assuming you were to ride at the reference stance, and with +15/-15 binding angles or similar (i.e. a reasonable angle on your back foot), and the footprint of your boots isn’t too long (what brand boots do you have?), then I think you would get on the 157. In most other scenarios, I think the 158W would be the better call.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey mate,
I’ve decided on either the JMT or JUMT, just tossing up which size to get. I’m 165cm tall, currently 174kg (plan is to lose a kilo or two!). US9.5 boot. So I feel I’m a bit in between the 151 and 154 when it comes to weight vs short ass height. 157 will be too long
I’m upgrading from a Burton Easy Livin 2005 152 and I don’t find this at all short, but I want something a bit stiffer now that the experience is up. I’d say I’m intermediate-advanced.
I live in Australia so a lot of hard pack, but about to go to japan, also lots of off piste and trees, and want a board to do it all. I’ve boarded NZ and Canada too.
What would you recommend??
Cheers,
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
For a do-it-all board for intermediate to advanced level, I would usually say go Mountain Twin over UMT. The main reason is that the UMT is quite stiff, and quite unforgiving at slower speeds. So, it’s a little more specialized, IMO, towards hard charging, carving and powder, and less suitable, for most people for any kind of slowing down and playing around and for riding in the park. Also in trees, I find having a board too stiff can make it hard to maneuver especially if you’re having to navigate quite slow and tight trees. But if you’re a really athletic rider, then that extra flex won’t bother you as much (and will help with stability at speed especially).
But overall, for a bit of everything and varying terrain/conditions, I would say Mountain Twin, personally.
Size-wise, I would be leaning towards 151 for you. The 154 is certainly doable though and there are pros and cons to both. The 151 should be OK width-wise as long as you don’t ride with a completely straight back binding angle and/or have really long profile boots.
Pros for 154 is that it would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed.
Pros for 151 is that it will be more maneuverable at slower speeds, better for trees and better for freestyle. Also, if you were to loose a couple of kgs, it would become an even better option, IMO.
This is assuming currently 74kg. If you meant 174lbs (79kg), then I would say go 154, depending on how much weight you were planning on dropping.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
I finally decided to go for this board but I want to change my complete setup as the shoes are not that good and I can’t even fix them as well as I would wish, because the bindings are too big. Well… I am not sure if the straps are too long or the shoes changed shape in the past 12 years that much :-D.
Anyway what would be your suggestion for shoes and bindings with this board? I am mostly just riding, carving with some jumping as I am going down the slope, but not that much park, though sometimes as well. I am 182 cm, 71 kg, with shoes 9-9.5 so I am thinking 157 would be the right size for me.
I really hate tying the shoe laces on boots so I would like some quick lacing system. The boa system from Burton really caught my eye despite the price but I hope it will last me several seasons … to match it, the Cartels look pretty well rated with reasonable attributes to me. I know I have to try it out first, but I’d like your input to know what to look out for as I’ve been riding almost only one set since my 15 :-D.
Thank you for any help,
Tom
Hi Tomas
Thanks for your messages.
I think the Mountain Twin will work well for what you’re describing. Size-wise, I agree that the 157 is a good size for you – you’ve done all the hard work for me! Definitely stay with regular width, you won’t need wide.
A lot of brands use the Boa system, so you don’t necessarily have to go Burton – but they do make nice boots, IMO. Going Double Boa is a good idea, because it gives you more adjustability. For the Mountain Twin, I would look at something with around a 6/10 flex or 7/10 flex for boots, though 5/10 would work too. Same goes for bindings in terms of flex. The following lists should give you some good options for boots and bindings.
>>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
If you did want to go Burton, some good BOA options in that flex range:
~ Burton Ruler Boa (5/10 flex) – the cheapest option from Burton that’s double Boa.
~ Burton Swath Boa (5/10 flex) – more expensive but nice boot
~ Burton Ion Boa (7/10 flex) – one of the more expensive boots you can buy!
Some other really good options in double Boa at a more reasonable price:
~ Vans Aura Pro – 5/10 flex
~ ThirtyTwo Lashed Double Boa – 6/10 flex
~ Adidas Response – 6/10 flex (a little more pricey than the Aura Pro and Lashed though)
~ K2 Maysis – 7/10 flex
Or there’s the Ride 92 (6/10 flex) but that’s also quite pricey.
Then of course there are speed lace options too.
You can also check out:
>>My Top Freestyle (medium flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
The Cartels fit the MT very well, IMO, and are a great binding, especially for the price. You can’t really go wrong with the Cartel (of course make sure you get the Re:Flex model as the EST model won’t fit on the MT).
Some other binding options:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hey Nate Im on the market for a mountain twin just not sure size would be best…
Im 5’9 70kg boot size (10.5)
My current board is 155W salomon huck knife which has 26 waist width.
I like more playful boards, to carve, buttering, jumps and ocassionaly pow and trees.
Im in between 154 or 155W…. Just thought the 154 with 25 waist might have too much overhang or Im overthinking it….
Thanks in advance
Hi Digue
Thanks for your message.
With Burton 10.5s, and if you have angles like +15/-15 or similar i.e. something with a reasonable amount of angle on the back binding, then I think you would get away with the 154. With many other scenarios I think it would be too narrow. With the DC T Rice, that was actually one of the smaller footprints of the DC boots that I’ve measured (size 10 in the 2018 model and size 9 in the 2019 model), so you might get away with it in them too, depending on the model and whether models before 2018 & 2019 had a longer footprint. The 155W would give you more leeway and give you more ability to get aggressive on your carves, but the 154, assuming you didn’t get any boot drag would be more maneuverable and quicker edge to edge.
To give some perspective to the width of the 155W MT and 154 MT. The Huck Knife 155W I measured was 267mm at the inserts (measured on the base of the board, not the top sheet), vs the 260mm waist (which is a typical difference between waist and inserts for the Salomon boards I’ve measued). The 155W Mountain Twin is likely to have around 270mm width at the inserts, and the 154 Mountain Twin likely to be around 262mm at the inserts (haven’t measured those sizes, this is based on measuring the 157). Length wise, I think the 154 or 155W would be better lengths for you than the 157, IMO.
Safe bet would be to go 155W, but depending on binding angles, you might be able to get on the 154 OK, if you think you would prefer narrower.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate first of all thank you so much for the great content on the site and the amount of effort you put into giving the feedback and through explanations….
Im looking to get a Jones Mountain Twin but not sure about the size….
5’9″ about 70kg foot size (DC travis 10.5 and an Ion 11 next season will try 10.5 feels big now all packed up by has the shrinkage tech).
My current board is a Salmon huck knife 155W (26 waist width) used to ride Burton 57′ felt a bit too slow for turning initiation and wide for my taste
Been riding for 6 years, love going fast, carving, playing on groomers, buttering and occasional powder, trees… Want a board thats is agressive and manuveable…
So Im thinkin 154 or 155W.
But 154 is 25 waist wise would it work with 10.5 boot size?
I even contemplated 157 but prefer smaller end.
Hi Nate,
Awesome reviews! After a lot of research and consulting, I’ve decided to purchase the Jones Mountain Twin. I’m torn between the 158 w and 161 w.
I’m an all mountain intermediate rider who takes the occasional lap through the park (depending on which buddies I’m with). My ideal day consists of groomers, tree runs, hitting side hits and natural features and of course powder when we have it!
I’m 6’ tall and weigh 205 lbs. I’m coming from a 157 w Rome garage rocker. My natural instinct pushes me towards to 158w since I’m used to the 157. I’m worried I will notice a big difference jumping to the 161w in length. My concern is less control in trees. However when I look at the charts my shoe size and weight suggest the 161w. How important are those weight charts and do you think I’m ok on the 158w or would you recommend the 161w?
Thanks a ton for your time
-Patrick
Hi Patrick
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I wouldn’t say that the 158W is too short, particularly considering your an intermediate rider, who likes side-hits, occasional park and likes to get in the trees. And on top of that, since you’re used to a 157. The 161W isn’t too long for you either, but I would actually be leaning towards the 158 for you, based on how you like to ride and what you’ve been used to riding. I look at the weight recommendations but I see them as just guidelines, not hard and fast rules. I like to take other factors into account, and taking all the factors into account, I would be leaning towards 158, length-wise. The main thing, IMO, with going under on the weight recommendations is that the board will likely feel a little softer than what the flex rating is. Since you’re not miles over, it won’t make a huge difference but the 158 will feel softer than the 161 for you.
Width-wise, can you let me know your boot size. Then I can take a better look at whether or not the width on the 158W is OK.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, that’s a huge help. I forgot to mention my boot size, a very important detail.
I wear a size 12 in Vans High Standard Pro.
Might that change your recommendation?
Thanks again
Hi Patrick
Thanks for the extra info.
With 12s, the 158W might be pushing it for width. With +15/-15 bindings angles, and since you have Vans (low profile) boots, you might just get away with it but no guarantees. With straighter angles it would be more risky. But the Mountain Twin is relatively wide at the inserts compared to the waist, largely because of quite a wide reference stance (600mm/23.6″), so that makes it a possibility, even though the waist width is narrower than I would usually recommend for 12s.
The 161W would be a safer bet for 12s, would give you a bit more leeway.
Thanks Nate! I’m now considering the Nitro Team Gullwing in a 159w. It seems comparable to the MT and may ease my worries about jumping from 157 to 161 as it’s right in between. I read your review on the Gullwing. Can you provide any extra insight comparing the two and knowing my riding style would you recommend one over the other? Also is the 159w Gullwing wide enough for my size 12?
Many thanks
Hi Patrick
I like the size of the 159W Team Gullwing for you – and yeah definitely wide enough for 12s, IMO.
It’s pretty comparable to the Mountain Twin. A good consistent, do-it-all kind of board. The main difference I would say is that the Mountain Twin is a hybrid camber (camber between and under the feet with rocker towards the tip and tail), whereas the Team Gullwing is hybrid rocker (rocker between the feet – camber underfoot and towards tip and tail). The main difference in feel, from my experience, is a slightly looser feel underfoot. In the case of the Team Gullwing, it’s only subtly on the looser side, but a slightly looser feel than the Mountain Twin. This is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you like the feel of.
I think both would work well for how you describe your riding style. But the Gullwing 159W would be the best size option, IMO, so that’s what I would go with.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. I’m having trouble finding the Nitro 159 in stock. I’m also considering the Niche story in a 159. Other than the different profile (rocker between the feet) is there any other major differences compared to the MT. Do you think the Story in 159 would be a better option over the MT 158w based off my sizes and riding style?
Thanks!
Hi Patrick
Only thing with the Story is that it’s not as wide as it looks. Niche boards tend to have a magnetraction bump right at the waist, which makes the width seem wider than it is. I haven’t measured the Story but measuring the Niche Aether 156 (which has a 258mm waist width), the width at the inserts at reference was only 260mm. The Story looks like it’s the same. Story might not necessarily be just 264mm at the insert, but don’t think it would be too much more than that. Which, IMO, is going to be too narrow for 12s.
The main difference compared to the MT is the Hybrid Rocker profile, like the Team Gullwing has. But it also has that quite aggressive magnetraction on it, helping it to be a very good board for hard/icy conditions. The other thing that makes it a bit different is that it has a slightly more directional feel. The MT and TG both have directional twin shapes (basically twins, except a slightly longer nose than tail, and small setback stance). The Story has the slightly longer nose, but also there is a little bit of taper (wider nose than tail) and the flex is directional as well.
The Never Summer West X, 160X would be a good one to look at as well, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I am torn between the Explorer and Mountain Twin based on the sizes available to me at the moment.
Explorer 158W, 161W
MT 158W, 160, 161W
I am 6′ 200lbs (give or take depending on the day) and have just downsized to a US10.5 Ride Lasso. I am coming off of a 2016 Salomon Assassin 158, which I enjoy but feels it lacks pop.
I have a big ol’ boat (2010 163 Rossi Experience) for super deep days so I am looking for a daily driver for Breck/Keystone groomers, side hits, trees, side country, with baby park laps thrown in between. I typically only intentionally ride switch when riding away from front and back ones. I have been riding for 23 years anywhere from 10 days to 80 days a season.
I am leaning towards the Explorer 158W because it sounds like its playful, poppy, floats well, with good maneuverability in the trees, and easier too press. My main concern is how wide it is and even more so for the 161W. Hence the reason I am looking at the MT in the sizes I mentioned.
Any insight you have would be grateful and probably help my productivity at work, as I’ve been obsessing over this for a few days now!
Hi Ritchie
Thanks for your message.
For the Explorer, out of those sizes, I would prefer to see you on the 161W, length-wise, but like you are, I would be concerned that it’s too wide for you. I think the 162 would actually be the best size for you for that board, both length and width-wise, I think that would be a great size. But it sounds like you don’t have it available.
For the Mountain Twin, I think the 160 is a great size for you. Width wise, it’s on the narrow end (if you ride with a straight back binding angle) but shouldn’t be too narrow to cause issues. If you do really get low in a carve and have a really straight back binding angle, then it could be borderline, but even then it’s probably fine. All other scenarios, I would be confident that it’s OK width wise. And the Mountain Twin in the 160, is really similar width and effective edge wise to the 162 Explorer – so a really comparable size.
So, from the options you have there, I would probably go for the MT 160.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Need a little advice.
I’m thinking About buying the mountain twin as my first board after always renting.
Have about 4 weeks experience in the mountains but i had years of skateboard experience in my 10 to 20’s. Now i’m 31.
I would say i’m on zn intermediate level of snowboarding now.
Looking for an allmountainboard that i can evolve myself in.
Is the mtn twin this kind of board.
Also had an offer for the custom x fv but i think this board is not gonna be as good as the mtn twin?
Also what size should i take.
Wheigt: 76kg
Height: 1m85
Boots: Burton concord boa siae 10,5.
Already a big thnx.
Hi Jef
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mountain Twin would be a great option for what you’re describing. It’s a great intermediate to advanced board that can do a bit of everything, so you can definitely evolve with it – and as long as you’re already at that intermediate level, you should be fine with it. The Custom X Flying V is quite a stiff board and even though the FV profile is quite forgiving, it’s still stiffer than what I would go with for you at this stage.
Size-wise, I would be weighing up between the 157 and 158W. If you ride with binding angles around +15/-15 or similar, then I think you’ll be fine to fit, width-wise, on the 157. But if you’re not sure of your binding angles, or think you’ll want to experiment in the future (or get into really deep carving/euro carving), then the 158W gives you more leeway, width-wise. Going narrower allows for easier turn initiation/maneuverability (as you can get more leverage on the edges) but also increases the chances of boot drag, if you like to really get low on your carves and/or like to ride with a straighter back binding angle.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hello Nate
Thanks for the review, can’t decide bw the 157 or 160… Mainly riding groomers and pow, 5’11 177 to 180lbs and size US10. Still want to be able to do some tricks here and there (grabs and 360, no huge spins) but never going to the park or pipe.
In your opinion, 157 or 160?
Thanks a lot 🙂
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
Tight call between those 2 sizes. I personally prefer the 157, but I tend to err on the shorter side a little (I’m 6’0″, 185lbs, US10s). I would be using it in the park as well, though.
I’d say there isn’t a bad choice. I would personally be leaning towards 157, with your specs, but a lot of people would go 160 with your specs too. If you consider yourself quite an advanced rider, and you don’t do tricks that much, then 160 might be the better call (better in powder, more stability at speed, better for long wide carves, 157 more agile at slower speeds, better for trees, better for tricks). But if you would clarify yourself as more intermediate level, and/or you do tricks more often than I’m assuming, then 157 might be better. If I was predominantly going to be carving/riding powder, then I would probably go 160, but I like to mix it up (and hit every side-hit I can find) which makes me prefer the 157.
Not a very definitive answer I know! But hopefully this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate, thanks a lot for your answer. I kept digging and I think I want something with more personality and camber. I rode Custom for years in 158 and also have a flagship 161 (been riding since 1994 30-40 days a year). So I think I will go with the Lib Tech Ejack 159 for charging on groomers and take my Flagship in deep and steep lines. Like the fact that it’s a 159, kind of my ideal size I guess.
Hi David
You’re very welcome. That sounds like a good call to me. Ejack Knife is a fun board – and a different feel/personality from going with 2 boards of the same brand. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with the Ejack Knife, once you’ve had a chance to get it on snow. Hope you have an awesome season!
Thanks ?
I’ll let you know how I feel about it after a couple of weeks with it
Have a great season too!
David
Hey Nate,
Spent a couple of days on the Ejack 159, I’m having lots of fun on this board. Took 2 or 3 runs to get used to the little rocker bw the feet at high speed (coming from a classic camber tradition), but once I did, what a blast! Super quick, stiff and still playful, bombing and throwing 360 all over the place, definitely my go to board. Was a bit worried about the TNT base but with a good waxing it’s not an issue at all. The 159 is the perfect size for me I guess, happy that I went with this one. Coupled it with Nitro team bindings and Burton ION boots, super versatile setup 👌🏼
Hi David
Thanks for the update. Awesome that you’re loving your E-Jack Knife. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review – really good stuff!
Wanted to get your opinion on the mountain twin vs the Capita DOA (and maybe the Jones explorer) and also which would be a better binding to pair this with – looking at the Union Atlas/Force/Strata.
In terms of riding am more of an intermediate to advanced. Mostly looking at groomers and a bit of off piste with the occasional jump/side hit off natural features. I’ve tried the DOA and like how it rides as a “stiffer” twin but given I’m not much of a park rider and mostly board in areas with more powder, I’m thinking the Jones might be a better option?
I’m 160 and 58kg with a 7.5 (US size) boot
Cheers
Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Since you ride off-piste/powder sometimes, I would be leaning towards the Mountain Twin over the DOA. The Explorer also an option, but since you’re mostly groomers and do some jumps/side hits, I would be leaning towards Mountain Twin.
Bindings-wise, I would go with the Strata for the Mountain Twin personally. The Atlas and Force would also work, but I prefer the extra board feel of the Strata with the mini-disc. I would go Strata, then Atlas, then Force for Mountain Twin.
Size-wise, the 151 would be your best size. I would say even to go a little shorter, but that’s the shortest it comes in. If you were to go DOA, then the 148 would be a good size for you, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate appreciate the advice. Do you think the 151 MT would be much harder to maneuver? Slightly concerned with tree runs or steep terrain
Hi Paul
I think there wouldn’t be too much difference between them in that sense. The Mountain Twin is 3cm longer overall, but only 1cm longer in terms of effective edge. There’s just a bit more board beyond the contact points (which is part of what helps it to be better in powder). It also has a mildly tighter sidecut. It has a wider waist, but is overall a similar width. I think it would likely be slightly less maneuverable but only very subtly, and if you’ve got powder in the trees, I think you would get on better with the MT. The other thing, if you weren’t worried about the idea of riding a women’s board would be to look at the Twin Sister in the 149 (which is very similar to the Mountain Twin but with different sizings. But totally get if you didn’t want to go that way.
Finally, you could also look at the Capita Outerspace Living in the 150. It’s a little better in powder than the DOA and narrower overall than both the 148 DOA and 151 MT. It’s got an effective edge right in the middle of the 2. And a great intermediate level board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m 44, 6ft 2, 220lbs (but working hard on losing weight), UK size 10 and have been riding for 25+ years (skiing for my sins as well). I get away for just one trip a year at the moment with my mates. Happy with this for now as we go to our snowdome a lot as well and when we’re in the mountains we maximise time on the snow. When away I like to be in the powder all the time whenever it’s there, also powder runs in the trees, groomers are fine for getting around, hitting the lips on the side of the groomers, maybe a lap through the boardercross course and park. Surfing down the mountain sometimes full on, sometimes lazy. I’m wanting to butter more this year and also go bigger with 180’s and maybe actually land a decent 360 or two. I was originally thinking of the Jones Explorer but then found a mountain twin on offer in various lengths, would this be better suited to me in your opinion if so what lengths/widths. As a side, it’s something I would take to the snowdome as well if I could,
Current board is a 2004(ish) Burton Custom X 164, it’s hard work now and I’m desperate for a new one.
Cheers for your time.
Pete
Hi Pete
Thanks for your message.
Sounds like you do a bit of everything, which, IMO, makes the Mountain Twin a very good option. It’s one of those boards that can do a bit of everything and is very consistent across conditions, in my experience. I admit I’ve never ridden a snowdome (never lived close to one), so I’m not sure about in there, but given that the Mountain Twin is consistent everywhere else, I’d say it would be fine in there too.
And certainly more easy going than the Custom X.
Size-wise, I’d be weighing up between 164W and 161W. The 164W would give you more float in powder and be more stable at speed, but the 161W would offer more agility for the trees and be better for the likes of 180s, 360s and other freestyle stuff. Even at your current weight the 161W is still an option and if you dropped a bit, then I would lean even more towards that. Just to throw another option in the mix, the 162 is also a possibility. With UK10s, it’s borderline, but if you ride with angles like +15/-15 or similar and have lower profile boots, you should be able to get on that width-wise. That said, the 161W would have more float for powder than the 162, IMO, and give you more options in terms of binding angles – and give you more leeway in terms of overhang. Being narrower would make it a little more agile and being longer a bit more stable at speed (on edge). But there isn’t a massive width difference, so between the 2, I would be leaning towards the 161W, if you didn’t go 164W.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Pete
Thanks for your message.
Sounds like you do a bit of everything, which, IMO, makes the Mountain Twin a very good option. It’s one of those boards that can do a bit of everything and is very consistent across conditions, in my experience. I admit I’ve never ridden a snowdome (never lived close to one), so I’m not sure about in there, but given that the Mountain Twin is consistent everywhere else, I’d say it would be fine in there too.
And certainly more easy going than the Custom X.
Size-wise, I’d be weighing up between 164W and 161W. The 164W would give you more float in powder and be more stable at speed, but the 161W would offer more agility for the trees and be better for the likes of 180s, 360s and other freestyle stuff. Even at your current weight the 161W is still an option and if you dropped a bit, then I would lean even more towards that. Just to throw another option in the mix, the 162 is also a possibility. With UK10s, it’s borderline, but if you ride with angles like +15/-15 or similar and have lower profile boots, you should be able to get on that width-wise. That said, the 161W would have more float for powder than the 162, IMO, and give you more options in terms of binding angles – and give you more leeway in terms of overhang. Being narrower would make it a little more agile and being longer a bit more stable at speed (on edge). But there isn’t a massive width difference, so between the 2, I would be leaning towards the 161W, if you didn’t go 164W.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for the detailed reply Nate. I’ve looked about and I can see the 162 and 160 on offer and in my price range. Unfortunately the 161w and 164w all seem to come up just outside my budget. So is it worth a shot on those? I take it the 160 would be undersized for me? Re the width, I’ve checked my boots and they are the Burton Driver x so are pretty decent with a low profile, would these fit with a wider range of binding angles or still pretty much the angles you mentioned above?
Cheers
Hi Pete
Yeah at this point I think the 160 would be a little undersized for you. I’d rather see you on the 161W or 162. Width-wise with the 162 (or 160), the fact that you have Burton boots, certainly gives you a little more leeway. Might get away with a completely straight back foot in that case on it. But it’s a little borderline. Assuming you ride the reference stance on the Mountain Twin though, I think you should probably be OK on that. The width at the inserts at the reference point on the 162 are likely around 26.9cm (based on the width on the inserts on the 157 Mountain Twin). With your boots probably being around 31.5cm long at a guess, and with a reasonable bevel, being Burton boots, that would leave around 4.6cm of overhang, straight across the board (remembering that this is measuring the edge on the base of the board, not the top sheet). So with good boot centering that would leave around 2.3cm of overhang per boot, which I’ve never had issues with personally, when I’ve been around that. And if you were to get a little less than that on the toe and a little more on the heel, that would also work (e.g. if it ended up 2.5cm on the heel and 2.1cm on the toe (more overhang on the heel vs toe is better, IMO, since toe drag is more likely).
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks again Nate, ordered the 162 this morning 🙂
You’re very welcome Pete. Hope you have an awesome season and enjoy your new deck!
Hi Nate,
thanks for all your information. I’m currently looking for a Jones Mountain twin. I want something playfull on lower speeds for jumping around and butter, do some off piste / backcountry snowboarding and and board for speed / carving on groomers. Is the mountain twin the right board for this or do i need a more allmountain / freestyle board?
Im 1,86m, 80 kg (176lbs), bootsize 11.
thanks in advance for your reaction.
Hi Muns
Thanks for your message.
Assuming you’re a relatively advanced rider, I think this board would be a really good option for what you’re describing. I think all-mountain is the way to go (rather than all-mountain-freestyle), given that you do some off piste stuff.
Size-wise, based on your specs and how your describe your riding, I think the 158W would be a great size for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Agreed
Hi nate great review. I am looking at getting a mountain twin but not sure on which size to get 151 or 154. I weigh 65kg and have size 8 boots. I am upgrading from a 153 soloman sight.
I like going fast and high speed carving and also hitting side hits and small jumps all over the mountain. I am from NZ and there is 1 mountain twin left in size 154 on sale, or I can wait for the 2020 models to come out and pay full price. Will the 154 be too stiff for me or should I wait to get a 2020 151? I will be pairing with now pilot bindings.
Thanks
Phil
Hi Phil
Thanks for your message.
For your weight and boot size, I would be leaning towards the 151. But if you could also let me know your height. Even though weight and boot size are the most important factors, I like to take everything into account.
Hi Nate
My height is 170cm.
Thanks
Phil
Hi Phil
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah, I would go 151. 154 is doable for you, but I think 151 would be the better size.
Hey, thank you so much for this great review! Since you’re so kind, maybe you could help me choose too ? 🙂
I am an experienced rider, started in 1996. 1.78cm x 80kg (with the intention of losing wright in 2019!).
My last board was a dominant 160. The shop guy today said he was appalled that I rode on that for 8 years or so. He suggested the mountain twin 158.
I like my carvings, but also buttering and jobbing (presses and little 180/360 on the slope). Don’t care for the park that much anymore (pushing 40s).
I hesitate between this board and the Bataleon global warmer 157. Can’t find many people who understand board as you, so I hope you can help me pick!
Thanks
Ben
Hi Ben
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mountain Twin would work for what you’re describing. And something around 157-159 would be a good length range to look at. For the Mountain Twin, I would be looking at either the 157 or the 158W, depending on your boot size.
I don’t currently test Bataleon gear, so I can’t say much about the Global Warmer, but just based on specs, I’m wondering if it might be too soft for the carving/speed side of things. If you were predominantly going to be riding freestyle around the mountain, and not worried about riding at speed, then it would be a more appealing option, but like I say I haven’t ridden it, so I couldn’t say for sure.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, merry christmas!
I am really torn between a few boards at the moment: the mountain twin, slash brainstorm, and possibly the jones explorer (154 for the first two, and maybe a tad longer for the explorer?)
So a few things about myself- im 5’9 roughly 150 lbs without equipment and have been snowboarding at least one trip a year for roughly 9 years or so and would consider myself intermediate-advanced. I am very comfortable on almost everything except hard snow on super steep areas and I tend to avoid moguls, but otherwise, the best way I could describe my riding style is that I love to make the mountain my playground. I will occasionally cruise through the park and hit a few small/medium kickers but I don’t really hit rails or jib, my style is way more cruising around the mountain finding natural features to jump off (just starting to get comfortable with 180s and 360s) and pow stashes to lay into. I am from Florida and have been surfing my whole life so I really enjoy having aspects of my surfing translate to the mountain so I do enjoy carves and throwing the tail around. I am trying to get better at riding switch but for the most part, I tend to ride regular.
My current board is a 153 gnu carbon credit so I’m curious to see what board would be better for me to move on to? I would probably keep the gnu to mess around on here and there if conditions aren’t the best, so my new board would likely be my “daily driver” but also compliment the gnu in a way. I def want a board that can handle powder well for the trips that I luck out and get good snowfall (I always travel out west) and i’m really trying to put more emphasis on my style and carving techniques as well.
Any input/advice would be really appreciated! Thanks and have a great day/holidays!
-Stephen
Hi Stephen
Thanks for your message.
All 3 would certainly be good for what you’re describing and compliment the Carbon Credit well, IMO. I would be leaning slightly towards the Mountain Twin and Explorer, just because they would be a slightly bigger contrast to the Carbon credit, as they have a bit more camber than the Brainstorm – but in saying that, the Brainstorm is certainly different enough to compliment the CC.
Size-wise, I would say:
Mountain Twin: 154
Explorer: 156
Brainstorm: 154
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate, I appreciate the response. I have been drawn to the brainstorm for some reason since I first saw it and watched a few vids on it but seems like the MT is the best bet for me and as you said, I probably can’t go wrong with any of those three. Have a good day!
Hey Stephen
Yeah absolutely, all 3 would work well. So, if you really wanted the Brainstorm, certainly wouldn’t be a bad choice. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate
Just come across your site and reviews – so far its been super helpful! I started snowboarding three years ago and for two seasons have been using an Arbor Whiskey, 153. I’m 5’7, boot 10 (UK), weight moves often between 85-90Kg. The board turns quickly and from my limited understanding I think I would say its good over anything a run offers. I found it a little hard to learn to carve and have not yet got the hang of it. I can switch a lower speeds, faster speeds tend to end in snow eating rather than boarding 🙂
I’m wanting on more board and i won’t ever be the park type person but would like to learn some basic tricks to do across a the mountain over time.
After reading your review I feel that maybe the whiskey is that board but the Jones Mountain Twin would go nicely with it but more for powder days (on run), not super speeds but longer turns and more relxed riding with stability – something I feel whiskey is not geared for,
Can you advise me on these two boards or perhaps another to complement the whiskey – I have steered towards looking at lib tech, jones, arbor and never summer boards but can’t narrow my choice down.
I want a two board system to kill the mountain on (or myself 🙂 ) as I learn more and more….
I MTB and hike lots, so defo geared towards All mountain Freeride with some style 😉
Also, my partner is learning this season and I want to know if the Salomon Oh yeah board was a good place to start her on. Camber boards with flex are naturally slower than rockers/cambers that are stiff?
Sorry for a HUGE post and question set….
Best, merry xmas
Nick (& Michelle)
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mountain Twin could be a good compliment to your Whiskey. It’s different enough to be a compliment but still not so technical or stiff that it would be too big a step up. It’s a good all-rounder, that leans slightly towards freeride, and I think it would suit what you’re describing well.
Length-wise, I think something between 155 and 157 would be a good length for you, assuming around an intermediate level (if I have assessed that correctly?).
Width-wise, with a UK10, you’re on the cusp and would be wide for some boards and regular for others.
For the Mountain Twin, you might get on the 157 fine, assuming a reasonably angled back binding angle and relatively low profile boots. Though if you haven’t had any issues on the 153 Whiskey, then you should be fine on the 157 Mountain Twin. That said, it’s possible that boot drag has been effecting your carving (as well as a board that is shorter than ideal for you, for carving). And also, as you get more into carving and more up on edge, that narrower width, becomes more of an issue. But the 157 Mountain Twin does give you more width than the Whiskey 153.
The 155W and 158W are also options too, if you wanted to be sure of not getting boot drag. And both of those aren’t really wide, so they would be a good width for UK10s, IMO.
Between going 155W and 158W, the 155W will be more maneuverable at slower speeds, better for learning tricks and better for trees. The 158W will be more stable at speed, have better float in powder and be better for long wide carves. The 155W (and the 157) will be an easier transition from your current board, but the 158W (and 157) will be more different, if you were wanting a bigger contrast for your quiver.
The Salomon Oh Yeah is a good choice for a beginner, IMO. It’s a park focused board, so if she doesn’t get into riding the park, then it might be something she’ll want to upgrade fairly quickly after she gets started. Or if she gets into the park it would be a good one to hold onto as a park board. For more women’s beginner options, check out:
>>My Top 10 Women’s Beginner Snowboards
Softer flexing boards are certainly slower. But boards with a lot of camber tend to be faster. Rocker tends to be slower. The Oh Yeah is mostly flat with a very small amount of camber and then some rocker, so isn’t too camber dominant.
Merry xmas to you too! Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate
I’m struggling among 154 and 157, but at least thanks to Your review, I’m sure that I’d like Jones Mountain Twin.
I’m 176 cm tall and 67kg weight, shoe about 9-9,5 (not wide definitely). 6 years on board, a lot of runinng (quite strong legs).
I ride powder while available, if not – track. No jumping at all yet, no switch yet. Just pure powder fun. not a real racer as well – just plain fun.
Which size would You recommend?
Regards and greeting from Poland
Hi Maciek
Thanks for your message.
I would go with the 154 for you. Even without any jumping or switch riding, I think it’s the better option. The 157 would be better in powder, but for everything else it wouldn’t be as good for your specs, IMO. And the 154 will be fine in powder for your specs. In my opinion the 154 is a great size for you for this board.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank You very much for Your advise. I’ll go that way.
You’re very welcome Maciek. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I’m 185cm, 73kg.
I currently own a Photon Boa size 11.5 (US)
1. What size of the Mountain Twin should I go for 157? 158W?
2. What bindings would you recommend to pair it with?
Cheers.
Hi Assaf
Thanks for your message.
In terms of length, assuming a relatively advanced level of riding, something around 157, 158 would be a good way to go.
In terms of width, with 11.5s, you’ll need to go wide, so the 158W is your best bet, IMO.
I would go with something around 6/10 in terms of flex, give or take. Check out the following for some good options:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
hi Nate
I am 179cm height and 75kg weight. My boots are size US 11
You think its a good choice the 160cm board length?
Hi Michail
Assuming you ride with reasonable angles on your bindings, then I think the 160 would be wide enough. But if you ride with a really straight back foot, it might end up being a little narrow. Based on measuring the 157, the Mountain Twin is wider at the inserts, compared to the waist, than the average board (assuming you ride it at the reference stance), so that gives you a bit more leeway. But with a really straight back foot, I think you would still be pushing it.
The 158W would also be a really good size for you, IMO, and would be less risky in terms of width.
Hope this helps
thanks for your tips Nate! i just picked up the 160 length and the with looks good. When you say “reasonable angles ” and “straight back foot” what do you mean?
my binding angles are +15 at the Front and -9 at the back foot
Hi Michail
Sorry, I realize that “reasonable angles” could be interpreted a couple of ways. Basically by that I mean that there is a reasonable amount of angle, as opposed to being straight across the board. Nothing wrong with having straight angles, if that’s your preference, but it gives a bit more leeway in terms of width, when there’s more angle. -9 on the back foot should be enough on the 160, depending on profiles of boots. Sounds like the width looks good though, from what you’re saying, so you shouldn’t have issues there.
Hope this explains it
Yes bro thanks for the advices, 160 flows well with size 11 boots and i think the same would be t 158W. My bindings angles are now at +15 on the front and -3 on the back.
You think the 158W or 161W would be better for freeride?
Hi Michail
Thanks for the follow up.
The 161W would give more float in powder and be more stable at speed. And better for long wide carves (IMO) so in that since better for freeride. But there’s also a trade-off with going longer. You get something that’s less maneuverable at slower speeds, not as nice in trees, and just a bit heavier for throwing around. For your specs, I would say that the 158W is the better size overall. The 161W not undoable, and would give you some advantages as mentioned, but I would lean towards the 158W over the 161W for you. Sounds like the 160 is going well for you though?
Hi Nate. I am 190lbs with size 10.5 k2 thraxis boots and large malavitas. Donyou thi knI should get 157 or 158w jones mountain twin?
Hey ShrED
Thanks for your message.
Width-wise I’d usually say go 157. The Mountain Twin is quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist width (assuming you go reference stance), so you get a bit more leeway there. But K2 boots do tend to run a little longer than average, so there’s a case to go 158W there. But if you have binding angles something like +15/-15, then I think you should still be able to get away with 157. But if you ride with anything straigher on the back foot than that, then I would say go 158W.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
you have a really nice site here. Wished I would have found earlier. 🙂 I will buy a new board and new bindings this season and I need your help.
Some facts about me:
Male
6f
200 lbs
K2 Darko in Size US 11.5 / EUR 45
Days on snow per season: 20
Location: Austria and Germany
What I am doing on the mountain:
When there is fresh snow you find me in the backcountry until there is no new snow left. So sometimes the whole day. With backcountry I don’t speak about crazy T-Rice-style backcountry but usually the area you can reach with a max 5-10 min hike/ride from the ski-area. I also like the powder fields within the ski-area.
So when all the fresh snow is gone or there was none you find me on the groomers. My riding style there is relaxed. I go down every slop but not in a bombing/shooting style but rather a surfy style. I like to carve and put my hand in the snow. When there are some natural hits I like to jump over them but rather do a nice grab than a crazy spin. I am not really into switch and I don’t do rails (I have my Wakeboard for that). I don’t say no to butter the nose/tail here and there but it’s not so important.
Coming to the point:
After spending some hours on your website it seems like a classical All Mountain Board would be the best fit for me right? I was first looking at the YES-PYL and although I am an experienced rider it might be not the right board for my relaxed style. In your All Mountain category the Jones Mountain Twin and the Yes Standard caught my eye.
Do you think one of those would be the right pick for me or are there maybe others which fit even better? I think I would rather take the board that has the edge in powder. If both are equal than carving/edge hold would be the second criteria to use. From an optic point of view the Mountain Twin is a real beauty. Would be also nice if you could give me tips on the size and which binding to use with them.
Thanks a lot and keep up the good work. Rarely see such informative websites as this one.
Best Regards from Europe
Dan
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
I agree that from what you’re describing, that an all-mountain board would be the way to go. Whilst the PYL isn’t the most aggressive of freeride boards out there, it’s still on the aggressive side, as freeride boards tend to be. It would certainly work but since you’re style is more relaxed on the groomers, then something like the Standard or Mountain Twin would be better options, IMO.
In terms of powder, I would say that the Mountain Twin is a little better overall. The Standard probably just as good when you put it in the slam back inserts. If you were willing to switch back and forth from slam backs depending on the fresh powder, then it would do just as well (or if you were happy to leave it in slam backs, even on groomers).
The Standard a little better carver, in my books. It’s just got a bit more spring out of a carve. Also a better jumper too, IMO.
The Slash Brainstorm would also be another good option. As would the Rossi One (although not as good for jumps).
You could also be a contender for something like the Jones Mind Expander. I can’t recommend or not recommend it because I haven’t had a chance to ride it yet. But it’s supposed to be an all-mountain board that’s powder focused.
Bindings
In terms of bindings, I would look at the following lists for some good bindings to match these types of boards:
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Just note that if you plan on getting the Standard and plan on using the slam back inserts, that any Union binding that uses a mini disc (Strata, Falcor, Ultra) won’t be able to mount to the slam backs (will otherwise be fine mounting to the board but just on the slam back inserts). You will need something that is compatible with a 4 x 4 insert pattern to work on the slam backs.
Sizing
I would say that the following sizes would suit you best for the boards mentioned:
YES Standard: 162 – though you could also ride the 159 for sure. And it could suit your style. The only thing is that you would get more float in powder on the 162. The 159 would feel more nimble, more playful
Jones Mountain Twin: 161W
Slash Brainstorm: 163W (again you’d probably be OK on the 159W but might be pushing it too narrow for your boots.
Rossignol One LF: 161W
Jones Mind Expander: Would be between the 158 and 162. Probably leaning towards 162. Not one that I’ve ridden so I’m not sure how narrow it would be at the rear insert, as it tapers back. So I’m not sure if the 158 would be suitable width-wise but the 162 should be, I would say.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Thank you so much Nate! After spending 3 hours consuming every bit of information on the Jones Mind Expander I know that this is my board. I will use it with a pair of Union Strada.
Regarding size: The 158 is 26 wide as is my current board (Arbor Westmark Rocker 157mw). I ride it +18 -6 and boots fit perfectly. You think with the expander it might be too narrow at the back inserts?
Found this information on the Jones Website:
The Mind Expander 150 cm is for lighter, smaller riders and the 158 cm is made for heavy, taller riders who normally ride a 164-168 cm freeride board or riders with big feet.
So according to this description the 158 would be my size. Wouldn’t have a problem going 162 if necessary. More float in pow and more edge on groomers right?
Cheers!
Dan
Hi Dan
Firstly, I think the Strata would be a good match for the Mind Expander (based on the Mind Expander’s specs).
And I would be leaning towards 158. Width-wise should be fine. Usually on a tapered board like this, the width at inserts is a little narrower on the tail, but not by much because they are also usually setback. It also depends on the taper. If it’s a small taper and setback, then the width at the rear insert can sometimes be wider. But the Mind Expander has a centered stance (centered along the effective edge – though still of course setback on the overall length of the board). And it has quite a large taper. Those things make me suspect that it will be narrower than the Westmark Rocker 157MW at the rear insert. But different sidecuts lead to different width at insert measurements relative to the waist width, so I couldn’t say for sure.
I think you’d probably still be OK, but can’t say for sure as it’s not something I’ve ridden or measured.
Ok that makes sense. We have some good shops here so I will just bring my boots and test it out.
Thanks for the great help and I wish you an awesome season!
Best Regards
Dan
Good idea. And you’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome season too!
Hello,
I am seriously thinking about buying this board.
I am 1.91 cm tall and weigh about 94 kg (shoe size 12.5). I have been snowboarding for around 3 years on a Burton Clash 160w. It is very easy to turn on this one, but I have difficulties holding the edge and it does not feel stable at all when I go faster.
I would like to step up my game with a more stable and edgier board (with some room for forgiveness). I do some small jumps and I am practicing switching (but most of the time we just go down the mountain, through all sorts of conditions).
Regarding size, I am looking at the 164w. Also, the Never Summer Proto Type board looks like a good option for me.
Could you please advise on the board and the best size for me?
Many thanks,
David
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
No surprise that you’re finding the Clash less suitable as you progress and that you’re having more issues at speed and holding an edge. A good beginner board, but something you certainly need to upgrade from at some stage.
The Mountain Twin will certainly give you more edge-hold and stability at speed, and should suit you well from what you’re describing. I agree that the 164W would be the best size for you.
The Proto Type Two would also work. Just note that it won’t be as good in deeper fresh powder as the Mountain Twin, but it will be better for riding switch and, IMO, better for jumps. But yeah, if you do tend to ride a bit in fresh powder, then I would go for the Mountain Twin.
Size-wise for the Proto Type Two, it’s the kind of board you can size down for (it has a lot of effective edge, compared to overall length – e.g. the 161X has a little more effective edge than the 164W Mountain Twin), so you could go 161X for this one and that’s what I would recommend if you were using it for all-mountain-freesyle and not really getting into powder. But if you are going to see a bit of powder, then the 164X would be better for that, but in that case I would go with the 164W Mountain Twin.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Excellent review, thanks.
Ive just bought the 155w 2018 twin, wasnt sure between the 157 or 155w, my specs are,
Height 6’0.
Weight 160lbs/72kg with no gear on.
Boots 9.5uk
Stance front +15, back -9 setback.
Riding style, originally wanted to buy the flagship for powdays but decided on the twin because everyday I ride will involve groomers at least 30-40% of the day.
Powder, not really a point and shoot guy, i like to huck off and hit natural features, lots of 180’s and switch landings and a lot of tight trees. I also like to practice my bigger rotations etc on pow days sometimes because of the forgiving landings, hence the twin choice.
Groomers, also no specific style but do like to play around, side hits etc, like to gun it as well and race down sometimes with some carving.
Park, i have a 152 ride kink for park days but if I was to bring in the jones it wouldnt be anything extreme, small/medium kickers, not much rails and maybe the odd box, again, if i plan a park day ill bring the park setup. Mainly bought the Jones for the off piste/pow days.
Just wondering was the 155w a better choice over the 157, i tend to prefer a smaller board in general which is why i chose the 155w, just got it last week so can swap it for the 157 if you think that would be better.
Thanks
Hi Ronan
Thanks for your message.
Both sizes would be appropriate (I think you’d just fit on the 157 width-wise with 10.5s and +15/-9 angles) but I’m leaning towards 155W.
You do get that extra effective edge on the 157, which would be good for carving and stability at speed, but by what you’re describing as your style, I think the benefits of the 155W would be more pertinent for you.
The 155W would be great for trees, side-hits etc. Would also give you a slightly more stable landing platform for any natural features, 180s etc – and better in terms of 180s in general (I prefer shorter boards for spins personally anyway). Even though I don’t know the exact surface area measurements, I suspect the 155W would have a little more surface area overall – though it’s not ultra-wide so probably only by a little bit. But that would also make it a little more floaty or at least the equal of the 157 in terms of float.
So, both would certainly work, but I would be leaning towards the 155W – also, then you definitely won’t have any width issues – and since it’s not super wide, it shouldn’t be too wide either. But if you bomb/carve more than I’m thinking, then there’s an argument to go 157, but based on what you’re describing, I think the 155W would be the slightly better choice.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate,
Trying to decide between the 160 and 162 mountain twin. Im 5’10 and about 225-230. Size 10 boot. Ice coast rider whos looking for a daily driver that can handle park laps, charging, powder if we get it, and trees. What are your thoughts between the two sizes? Thanks.
Hi Tyler
Good question. I would say for your specs, for an all-mountain size, generally something around a 162 would be a good bet, assuming you’re at a relatively advanced level of riding. However, given that you also want it for the trees and for the park, the 160 would definitely work for you too.
Generally speaking I would say, to a subtle but still noticeable level, that:
1. The 162 will float better in powder
2. The 162 will be more stable at speed
3. The 162 will be better for open wide arcing carves
4. The 160 will be better in trees
5. The 160 will be better in the park.
Also note, that the 162 Mountain Twin has the same tip and tail length as the 160. So that extra 2cm is all in the effective edge, so that will make it more noticeable.
So, in short, both would work but it depends on what you want to sacrifice a little bit of.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Most of my riding is done in PA so pretty small resorts without alot of wide open runs. Get to Vermont a few times a year and love hitting the steep runs. Would like to get out west next year. Do you think the 160 would be the better bet since most of my riding is small Pa mountains? Just want something that can handle the steeper stuff too when I get out there. Thanks for the insight. Currently riding a 2015 trs 159, and also have a k2 simple pleasures 156 waiting to get on the mountain.
Hi Tyler
Given that you ride small resorts mostly, then that does lean things more towards 160, IMO.
Do you plan on keeping the TRS? If so, then you could use that as your park board, the Simple Pleasures as your trees/surfy powder board (if you have days where you choose to do mostly those things) and have the Mountain Twin as your everything else/daily driver and to use for the bigger resorts when you get to them. If so, then the 162 might be the better bet. Won’t be as good in the park, trees, slower shorter runs etc but still use-able in there.
If you were planning on getting rid of the TRS, then maybe the 160 would be the better option overall.
Thanks for helping me think it all through man! I will be keeping the TRS so the 162 might be the best option. My body can’t handle a lot of park anymore as I get older, so I’m trying to lean away from that. I’m sure the 162 will handle mellow park laps like some jumps with grabs and simple 50/50 and board slides if I need it to. Thanks again for the words of wisdom!
You’re very welcome Tyler. Hope you have an awesome season this winter!
Hi nate, i am thinking about the 167w. i like to freeride and don’t ride park. i am 6’2″, 265 lbs and size 12 boot. would the 167w be able to handle my size? coming from a traditional camber board, i have been nervous about how these newer boards will ride. also, how would you compare this wide board to others like: lib tech skunk ape? or anything else that may work for me. i’m open to suggestions. thanks
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
I think the 167W would be a good size for you. I think it would be able to handle your size. However, if you don’t ride any park and you’re a relatively advanced level rider, then you might also want to consider a freeride board. Check out the following for some options:
>> My Top 5 Freeride Snowboards
But if you’re more of an intermediate level rider, then something like the Mountain Twin or other “all-mountain” boards would work best. Some other options are below:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hybrid camber profiles, like on the Mountain Twin definitely feel different to traditional camber, and there’s always an adjustment period, but once you get used to it, I think you’ll enjoy it – especially if you like to ride powder. If you don’t see powder that much/don’t ride it, then an aggressive all-mountain might be more your thing:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Moving from traditional camber to a hybrid option, the easiest transition would be hybrid camber (camber between and under the feet, with rocker towards tip and tail) – like the Mountain Twin has. Going hybrid rocker is a bigger change as you have rocker between the feet, which makes for a more different feel compared to traditional camber.
With size 12 boots, I don’t think you need to look at wide specific boards, like the Skunk Ape. You’ll need to go wide for sure, but you don’t need to go ultra wide. The following is my take on width sizing:
>>Snowboard Width Sizing
Hope this all makes sense, and helps with your decision.
I am an advanced level rider. i like riding switch, carving, getting a little air and love riding powder. i just gave up on park, cause i’m getting older and prefer not to get hurt. i have always ridden full camber, but i am game to try something different. my main focus right now is eliminating the toe, heel drag i have. that alone will make carving more fun. thanks for the suggestions.
You’re very welcome Aaron.
Hopefully you find something in there that will be a good match. Let me know if you’re getting closer and want to discuss further. Since you like riding switch, then something like the Mountain Twin (as opposed to a freeride board) might be a good option. You could also look at the Ultra Mountain Twin (though it doesn’t come in a 167W)
Hi Nate,
Love the reviews and really appreciate all the information you have posted.
I have recently looked at the 2019 JMT and is seriously considering purchasing one. I stand about 173cm and weight about 67kg without gear and about 73-75kg with gear (as I usually carry a backpack). Im a US 10 on a Burton Moto as well.
Given that, what size board would you recommend for the JMT? I don’t do park and is mainly using it for riding both on groomed and the occasional powder if there is.
Also, I’m looking to purchase the Burton Genesis 2018 as well. Would M be a right fit for me?
Cheers Nate.
Hi Derrick
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of the Genesis, the M would be the best size for you with Moto 10s, IMO.
Length for you for the JMT, I would be weighing up between the 154 and the 157. Ordinarily for your specs, I would say go with the 154, for sure. But since you ride with a bit of extra weight and since you don’t ride any park, then the 157 comes into play. The 154 is still an option but the 157 might be the better choice. If you’re an advanced rider then I would say go with the 157. If you more at an intermediate level then the 154 might be better.
Also to consider:
~ The 157 will be more stable at speed, better on long arcing carves and better in powder.
~ The 154 will be more maneuverable at slower speeds, and better for more freestyle aspects (though it sounds like that’s not your thing). Better in trees too, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the great information Nate. What would you consider intermediate or advanced level? I generally ride regular and very rarely (because I can’t) go into switch. I’m comfortable going down blue runs and can carve pretty well on blue runs. Black diamonds are fine for me, just that I find myself slowing down a lot.
And just for added information, I own a GNU Carbon Credit 2014 in a 153W and a Burton Cartels in L because I used to ride on a bigger shoe. Based off that, which would you recommend if I’m looking for a final end game board?
Hi Derrick
Based on your description I would say your a solid to high-end intermediate rider.
I think the Mountain Twin is going to be a really good board for you, the only thing is going to be the size. If you’re thinking this is the last board you’ll ever buy kind of thing and you want something that’s going to be stable at speed and float well in powder, and you don’t think you’ll really get into riding park or freestyle, then I think the 157 is the best bet. But otherwise I think you’ll enjoy the 154 more right now – and it will be better if you want to start trying some freestyle stuff at any point.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hey Nate..
Ive been riding for over 20 years although i only ride a week or 2 per year nowdays in French Alps, also started going to the indoor snow domes in the U.K with my kids who have just learnt to snowboard…my freestyle abilities are sketchy and dont spend too much time in the park on big kickers anymore only small ones.
I still love to butter and ride switch at speed on the groomers.. also still love to pop off natural hits and tweak it out.
My problem is this.. i have been riding a 2004 Custom X 164 for the last 10 years.. i want something more playful and forgiving for buttering, ollies etc for when i am cruising with the kids down mellow green runs or when indoors at home in the snow dome, but still need to be stable at high speed when i am hitting steep stuff going really fast when i get some downtime with my skier mates in the afternoons! Also hitting the powder if we get a dump.
How stiff is my old Custom X compared to todays “stiff” boards?
It was always poor in the powder but awsome when carving at full speed and had loads of pop! I even manage to butter on it but unless going fast when buttering it will put u on your face!
Like i say i do want something more forgiving and playful..i definitely want some rocker in the tips..I really like the sound of the Mountain twin or lib tech TRS , but will they be too soft for me? Do i need the ultra mountain twin or maybe the Aviator, or are they just as stiff as my old Custom X ???
I have my eye on a mountain twin 162
TRS 162 or…. Jones Aviator 160 wide/Ultra mountain twin 161.
Or do i need something else?
I am 6.4
Weight 82kg
Size uk 11/us 12 never rode a wide board in the past and never had issues wi toe drag..the old custom x measures 253 at the waist.
Also..boards seem to shorter now. Im surprised im looking at boards less than 164 but there doesnt seem to be many out there..we used to go by height but seems to be down to weight nowdays?
Your advice would be really apreciated..please help cos its doing my head in:)
Dan.
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message.
Starting with size, yeah more about weight than height these days – but height still comes into it, IMO – mainly because of stance widths. I’d say something around 163, 164 would be a good length for you, assuming an advanced level, which it sounds like you are. However, going a little shorter isn’t a bad idea, if you’re looking for something more playful. But as you still want stability at speed, then I wouldn’t go too much shorter. And since you’re used to 164, then that comes into it as well. If you’ve been riding that a long time, then going too much shorter would be a big adjustment.
In terms of width, I would certainly usually recommend a wide for US12s, but if you’re comfortable sticking with a regular width and if you’ve had no issues on the 164 Custom X, then that shouldn’t be a problem.
I’m not sure about the stiffness of 2004 Custom X, I don’t have any experience with that particular board (before my time demoing gear). But I have heard that boards were typically stiffer back then, and since the Custom X of recent times is still rather stiff (at least compared to a lot of other boards), then I imagine the 2004 Custom X is really up there in terms of stiffness.
With the boards you’ve mentioned these are what I would consider their flex feel:
>>Custom X (current): 9/10
>>Jones Ultra Mountain Twin: 8/10, but maybe even closer to 9/10 – in the 2019 model, earlier models not quite as stiff
>>Mountain Twin: 6/10 – 2019 model maybe closer to 6.5/10
>>Aviator: 7/10 (review coming)
>>TRS: 5/10
I’ve linked to the reviews for each above as well if you want to check out more details.
The TRS certainly the softest and going to be the most playful/freestyle oriented there. And the least stable at speed, IMO.
The Ultra Mountain Twin not going to be much softer than what you have. Quite stiff (or at least the 2019 model is – the 2019 model is the first time I’ve ridden it).
I think the Aviator and the Mountain Twin are going to be the best options for you, from what you’re describing. And between those, I think Mountain Twin. The Aviator is a little more aggressive in terms of the camber profile and a little stiffer – so it would be less of a difference to what you currently have (though still certainly more playful and not as stiff, but less of a difference than the Mountain Twin would be). Which would mean an easier adjustment. But the Mountain Twin is a very versatile board and is going to be better in powder than the Aviator, IMO. And still holds up well at speed. It’s going to certainly feel a lot softer and more playful than what you’re currently riding, but it’s not super soft/super playful in the scheme of things – it’s still something that leans towards the freeride side of “do-it-all” in my experience – so it can handle carving, speed, powder etc well – but you can also butter on it, good for jumps, riding switch etc too. But isn’t too soft/playful for you, which I think it sounds like you’re trying to avoid.
Given that you want to stick to regular width, I would say the 162 would be the best size for you for the Mountain Twin.
For the other boards, these are the sizes I would go with, if you were to choose one of them:
>>UMT: 162
>>TRS: 162
>>Aviator: 162 or 164
The other thing if you wanted to go as playful as the TRS (which on the scale of things still isn’t a noodle or anything – there are much more loose/playful boards out there – but is the most playful of the boards you mentioned) but kept your Custom X for charging days. But it sounds like you want one board, that can do multiple things in the same day?
Anyway, hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great review, I’ve bought it last week (2018 model) but I’ve noticed HUGE discolorations on day one use of this board. 2 very dark lines have developed in the centre of the board, top to tail. They’re totally ruining the artwork! I don’t think this is normal as have used countless boards before without any issues. Have you or anyone else had this too?
Thanks!
George
Hi George
I haven’t noticed this with the Mountain Twin. The demo I rode didn’t have this issue – and it had already been ridden a few days by the time I got on it – so I agree, I don’t think is normal. I’ve also never experienced this with any other board. I would contact Jones about this – and see what they say.
Thanks Nate!
I’ve uploaded 2 pics of it here. Wish I’d taken a photo before I used it but they weren’t there before. Strange…..
View Pics
Hi George
That is very strange. I mean there are some subtle lines that run up that graphic but they don’t look like that. And as you say, they weren’t there when you first board the board. Very strange. I would be interested to hear what Jones say about it.
No answer from Jones? Saw these lines too…
Hi Nate!
I m, 1.77 m 76-78 kg (5,8; 168-172), 11 boots (11US Ion), intermediate level
I ride piste and out of piste, groomers, powder, freeride, no park or pipe
Could you give me a recommendation of what would best suit me?
MOUNTAIN TWIN 155W or ultra MOUNTAIN TWIN 168W?
thanks!
Hi Sergy
Thanks for your message.
The 158W would be the best size for you, IMO. You might even get on the 157 if you have binding angles like +15/-15 (i.e. a reasonable angle on the back binding) and that would be a good size too – and with angles like that and with Burton boots (lower profile than the average boot), I’d say you’d be ok. But otherwise the 158W – and you could still definitely ride that, even with +15/-15 angles, but just that you would be pushing the 157 being too narrow on anything with a straighter back binding angle, if that makes sense. I think definitely the 158W over the 155W for you (I’m assuming the 168W was a typo and you meant 158W).
Hope this helps
Thanks Nat, it was very helpfull! Оf course the 168W was a typo and I meant 158W!
I bought 158w (I have binding angles near -6/+21)!
How do you think: may i use it for backcountry or freeride tours or is it better to buy specialized freerideboard for this purpose (for example flagship оr RossiXV)?
Hi Sergy
Yeah for backcountry tours good to have something more designed for that kind of thing (like a freeride board as you mentioned) – you could ride the Mountain Twin out there for sure, but you would get more out of a board that’s more designed for that kind of thing.
Hi Nate.
I’m a big bloke, 6’4″ or 6’5″ and around 100kg. Despite that I’ve been managing to do well with rental boards, but Im at the point where I really want my own set up tailored for me. I’ve been looking at an all mountain board, I’m not huge into parks though I don’t mind trying the occasional rails, but I prefer to find natural jumps and just cruise around buttering and every now and again going for a bit of a charge. I do want to take advantage of powder days when they are on, though, and I’m strongly considering a helitour on my next trip.
So far I’ve got 32 lashed (crab grab) boots in a size 14 (US) and paired them with Burton mission bindings. Large feet obviously reduced my options for boot choice, and I’ll obviously need a wide board. I guess I have a few questions;
1. Due to my size I’ve eyed off the 164w mountain twin as a top pick. I’m just wondering whether the leverage that my weight/height produces can affect the how stiff the board feels when I’m actually riding it? For example, if I’m looking for a 6/10 stiffness feel, would I instead look for a 7/10 rated stiffness and expect my weight/height to change how it feels during a ride?
2. I’ve heard the 2018 model is slightly stiffer than the 2017, and I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on how that affects the ‘playfulness’ of the board. The official statement is that it’s torsional stiffness but certain reviews have said it feels stiffer overall than the 2017, and I dont really have a chance to demo the board before I buy it.
3. Any general advice regarding board selection with a size 14 boot would be fantastic, even if it’s just an ‘avoid these features/style’ list?
4. If you don’t think the mountain twin would suit someone of my size, do you have any other suggestions?
I know it’s a lot of questions in a single comment, and even if youanswer just one of them I’d be really appreciative.
Cheers,
Raphael
Hi Raphael
Thanks for your message.
1. Yeah more weight on a board will make it feel softer. I don’t think it would be too much the case with the 164W Mountain Twin (MT) since it is rated for up to 100kg+ but to some extent it might feel a little softer. If you were way over the weight recommendations, then it would likely have a more significant affect on flex, but in this case I don’t think it would be majorly – at most, change the feel to a 5.
2. Yeah the extra stiffness is torsionally and is typically felt between the feet. I don’t think this affects the playfullness too much – the tip and tail are the same as far as I can tell – and that’s mostly what would affect things like butters.
3. For size 14s, it’s a tough one, because there aren’t a huge amount of options out there. IMO, the 164W MT will still be too narrow for 14s. There’s just going to be a lot of overhang there. I mean if you don’t do any like deep carving you might get away with it, but for size 14s, something with at least a 270mm waist is probably a safer option – and even then, I think you’re best to stick to binding angles like +15/-15. In terms of length, I think something around that 167 mark is a good option assuming you’re an advanced rider. If you’d consider yourself more intermediate, then going around 164, 165 is a good idea. And also, since you do like to ride a little more playful, then something a little shorter won’t hurt – just not too much shorter because you still want some powder performance. So 164-167 depending on ability/preference, IMO.
4. Some options that would work for you, based on specs (these aren’t boards I’ve tried as they’re too wide for me to test, but they’re all-mountain and are made for bigger guys – especially in terms of bigger boots):
~ Lib Tech Skunk Ape: 165W (268mm waist) – still pushing it with being a little narrow, but should be ok so long as you’re not someone who does really deep carves and with binding angles with a reasonable angle on the back foot.
~ Nitro Magnum: 163W (270mm waist) or 167W (272mm waist)
~ Batalleon Stallion: 164W (268mm waist) or 167W (275mm waist)
Hope this helps and gives you some more options.
Great information, really appreciate your suggestions. The stallion was also on my short-list since it was designed with wide in mind. Maybe I’ll take a closer look at it.
Thanks again.
You’re very welcome Raphael
Hi Nate!
First of all: Great reviews! Really helps people who might not know everything about snowboarding, a lot.
I read a bunch of your reviews and I have ended up between two boards I would like. The Capita DOA and the Jones Mountain twin.
I have been snowboarding 3 times, and think it’s time for me to get my own board.
All my friends are skiing, and mostly on the piste, sometimes off. This means that I probably won’t spend a lot of time in the park, but I would still like a board where I can enjoy natural jumps, butters, and basic tricks. Just a board that I can progress my skills on, and still keeping up with my skiing friends.
Now to my question: Which of those 2 boards do you think would be most suitable for me? (I do all the black pistes without too much trouble)
All the best, Fabian
Hi Fabian
I think the Mountain Twin would definitely be your best option in this case. You can definitely still do jumps and ride freestyle but it’s going to be more versatile all round than the DOA and suit your needs better, IMO. Also, the DOA is a relatively aggressive/unforgiving ride and I think the Mountain Twin would be more suitable for your skill level.
Hope this helps and if you’d like my opinion on the best size for you, if you can let me know your height, weight and boot size, I would be happy to give you my size opinion
Is the 2018 version is stiffer than the 2017 and will be less playfull/easy to butter and switch (less freestyle abilities) and tend more to the powder freeride than both freestyle and freeride?
Hi Avi
I’d say that if the 2018 version is stiffer it’s stiffer in terms of it’s torsional flex and probably most of that more towards the center of the board – and shouldn’t effect it’s butterability. I would say, generally speaking that this board is probably slightly on the freeride side of things – but only just – it’s still something that you can ride freestyle on – and something that’s a great board in terms of being able to do a bit of everything well.
Hi there Nate,
I’m 6.1, 178lbs (no gear) and US12. I’m intermediate, and mainly ride groomers and some off-piste between the slopes. I need good edge-hold on ice since that’s what I frequently encounter where I board in Switzerland.
Do you recommend the Mountain Twin 161W or the 164W considering my boot size? I prefer a slightly mellower ride to an overly aggressive one. How does the MT compare to the Brainstorm and Explorer in that department?
Thx!
Thanks again, makes sense.
By the way, have you ever tested Northwave or Deeluxe boots? Northwave Decade and Deeluxe Deemon seem to be nice miid-stiff boots while not being pricey.
Hi Vlad
Unfortunately, I haven’t had the chance to test anything from Northwave or Deeluxe
Hi again Nate,
Wow, thank you for such wide replies.
Probably will stick to brainstorm, hope will not be too long.
BTW, Jones on their website states that 161w is for 11.5 size Max – is that true?
As per bindings & boots, I look at Nitro Team – everyone says they’re midstiff.
With them
With them I think now of binary boa, are they on stiffer side than lashed boa?
Oh, one more thing – I how is brainstorm’s sidecut bump (I could not feel it on 163w BTW) compared to mountain twin’s magnatraction in terms of grip? You rode them both so It’d be a really valuable insight.
Hi Vlad
Even though the Brainstorm doesn’t have magne-traction I found it’s edge-hold in hard conditions to be as good as the Mountain Twin’s.
can this sidecut bump be absent on wide version? Cause I could never detect it.
Hi Vlad
The Brainstorm has a “progressive sidecut” so there are variable sidecuts along the way – but it’s very subtle changes. It’s not like magne-traction that actually have noticeable bumps along the sidecut. The wide version isn’t different in that respect to the regular width versions. It’s just that you don’t notice the changes in sidecut radius – whether on the wide or regular widths.
You’re very welcome Vlad.
I would say that you could squeeze onto the 161W with 12s but it would depend on binding angles, stance width, the profile of your boots etc. So, I can see why Jones would have 11.5 as the max.
I don’t demo Nitro gear, so I couldn’t say for sure, but the Teams are certainly rated mid-stiff.
I would say that the Binary Boas are slightly stiffer than the Lashed – not by heaps. But yeah by a little bit – maybe more like 5/10.
Aha, I see.
I currently ride Burton AMB 2012, all websites say that they’re also medium stiff, but in practice Lashed Boa & Binary Boa feel much stiffer.
Have you tried K2 maysis btw?
Hi Vlad
I’m not sure about 2012 AMBs – but I would say that last season’s AMBs were medium flex (and most websites I look at think the same) – a similar flex to the Binary Boa, I would say. But boots soften up overtime – so if you’ve had the AMBs since 2012, they will now be a lot softer than they were when they were new. So it’s no surprise that they feel softer than a new pair of Binary Boas.
K2 Maysis definitely mid-stiff – 7/10 for stiffness, I would say.
Thank you for all your replies!
Never thought I’d get much more useful info on gear from internet comments than from local gear shops:)
BTW, just curious, do you know whether weight recommendations in snowboard specs mean rider’s weight with gear (boots, jacket, abs backpack) or without?
Hi Vlad
You’re very welcome.
The weight recommendations are typically for your weight without gear on. That way it’s easier to determine where you fit (so that you don’t have to weight yourself with all your gear on).
Hi Nate,
Thanks for very inormative reviews!
Choosing between 2 #3 boards from your top.
The choice is both the model and size.
1. Jones Mountain twin 161w
2. Slash Brainstorm 163w
I like to ride everywhere from pists to powder and am just curious whether 161w Jones will be drowning in pow or slash will be uncontrollable on speed by my weight.
I am 6 ft 3, 192 lbs (192 cm, 87 kg) with 12 US (30 cm) feet.
Any advice?
Hi Vlad
I think you’d get away with the 161W Mountain Twin. But I think the 163W Brainstorm is the better size for you. Otherwise, these boards are reasonably similar and I think the choice is really down to the better size – which I think is the 163W Brainstorm.
Either will work but that would be my choice.
Hope this helps.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the reply! I was not sure how your commenting system works so I posted same stuff in multple articles, sorry for that.
I’ve seen you advising 161w for guys of comparable weight, so thast’s why I was anxious that Slash will be worse in agility,carving & hardpack.
My ideal world was to get a new mountain twin 161w & a used 163w flagship from 2012 for ~$220 for powder, but I think it would not be worth as Slash will be universal.
Hi Vlad
I think if you were going to have a 163W Flagship, then the 161W would be a better size for the Mountain Twin – but if you’re just going to have one board i.e. the Brainstorm, then 163W is the best size for you.
Also, how do you think, would stiffness of 32 Lashed Boa be enough for Slash?
I have them available locally for a killer price of $130, whilst other considerable options are twice as much (K2 Maysis $275, 32 Binary Boa $265)
Can stiffer bindings compensate a softer boot?
Hi Vlad
I guess you could say that a stiffer binding can somewhat compensate for a softer boot – but not entirely. You will get a stiffer feel from a mid-stiff binding paired with a mid flexing boot than you would from a mid flex binding and a mid flex binding – but it still won’t feel the same as a mid-stiff boot and mid-stiff binding – if that makes sense.
And I certainly wouldn’t go with a super stiff binding to try and bring the overall stiffness up – If you were going to go with a mid-stiff binding, mid-flex board and a mid-flexing boot, I think that can work for sure – but I wouldn’t pair mid-stiff board and boots with a super-stiff binding, if that makes sense?
I would consider the Lashed Boa on the softer side of medium – but not really soft enough to be medium soft – I’d say they’re around 4.5/10 for stiffness (if 1 was the softest and 10 the stiffest). I’d say that the Brainstorm is around a 5.5/10 in terms of flex.
I think ideally, your boots would be slightly stiffer, but since they’re not too far off they would work – and for $130 that’s a great price. Also, I assume those are the Lashed Boas from 2017 which means they only have a single Boa. The 2018 models have been upgraded to a double Boa. That double boa would just give you that bit more in terms of being able to independently tighten the upper and lower sections separately for a more customized fit – and I do find that often double boas are better for heel hold. But $130 for those boots is still a really good price, so if price is really important, then they’re not a bad option but not the ideal option either.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the quick response! I own a pair of Nitro Anthem TLS (2010). Not too sure if this is a low profile boot?
They look pretty big in real life 🙂
Hey Ruben
I’m not that familiar with Nitro boots but from what I’ve heard they aren’t the lowest profile. Not the biggest outersole either, but 2010/11 model probably does have quite a big outersole. So yeah, unfortunately I probably wouldn’t risk the 258mm waist on 12s of those boots.
Hi Nate,
I’m looking into buying the ultra mountain twin. You think the 157wide would be wide enough for my 12 boots? (board doesn’t seem be very wide, looking at the specs. More like midwide)
I weigh 148 lbs (67kg) and am 6.13 feet tall (187) cm, so don’t really want to go to the 161 wide, given my wieght.
Best,
Ruben
Hi Ruben
Yeah, unfortunately they aren’t overly wide. 158W (258mm waist) probably too narrow for size 12s – although you’d probably get away with it if you have low profile boots. Do you own boots? If so, what brand/year are they?
I agree that going to 161 would be going a bit long for your specs.
I think you’ll be ok on the 158W if you have low profile boots – but if not then I wouldn’t risk it.
Thanks for the quick response. I own my own boots: Nitro Anthem TLS (2010-2011). Not too sure if they are low profile boots. And no budget for new shoes + new board unfortunately.
Nitro Anthem at evo
Hi Nate,
Do you think I could fit on a 160 with size 11.5 boots?
I am 185lbs and 6′ so I thought that would be a good size for me.
Thanks!
Hi Jarod
I think the 160 would be a little bit too narrow for 11.5s. I wouldn’t risk it. But I think the 161W would be the ideal size for you, both in terms of length and width.
Hi Nate
I write again because I don t know if I post it correctly.
I m from Argentina , 1.75 m 78 kg , 12 of boots ,good intermediate level , rides between 15 to 20 days each year ( more than 10 years ), I am 47 years old in good sport shape .Now I m riding a Process camber with malavitas and ruler boots ( about 50 days of use) .
But I ve got the oportunity of buy a jones mountain twin 158w in a sale at a really good price , As I read in all the reviwes these is an awesome board.What I usually ride is powder , groomers , piste , out of piste and practically no park or pipe.
I wonder if these board will suit me ,Thanks again
Hi Diego
Thanks for your message.
I think that size would be just right for you. If you said you liked to ride the park a lot, then I’d say go smaller but from what you describe, I think this will be the perfect length for you.
It’s also a good all round board that should suit you well, in terms of riding powder and on the groomers – and is also suitable for an intermediate level.
My only concern would be the width, which is bordering on being too narrow. However, since you have Burton Rulers (which have good reduced footprint tech) I think you should be ok with the width.
Just to clarify a couple of things to give you a more accurate answer:
1. This is based on US size 12. If it’s in a different sizing let me know.
2. What is the length of the Process Camber you are riding? What you are used to can also influence sizing choice.
Hope this answers your questions
Thanks Nate the process is 154 but I felt it a bit short , my last board was a custom restricted ,the one with fruits , and I felt it 156 and more confortable , and the one before was a custom camber wide 158 or 157 , I don t remenber well.
My boots are 12 us .What do you think about malavita reflex with the jones mountain twin .
Again thens for your time and answers
Hi Diego
Thanks for your response. I think that the 158W Mountain Twin should be fine. It’s a bit longer than the 154 Process and 156 Custom. But if the 154 feels too short then longer is good – and also, the Mountain Twin has rocker in the profile whereas the Process is full camber – so the Mountain Twin will have a shorter feel on snow than a camber board – so I think the 158 in the Mouintain Twin should be a good size.
The Malavitas should work well with the Mountain Twin assuming they are re:flex as the EST model won’t fit on them…. oh just saw that you said reflex – so should be all good!
Thanks a lot Nate !!!!!
You’re very welcome!
Hi Nate
I m 1,76 m 78 kg and wear 12 in boots . I can buy a Jones Mountain Twin 2016 158w on sale. I ride in Argentina, powder , groomers , piste and out of piste, sometimes icy .I ve got 45 years in good shape for sports and I m a good intermediate rider.I ve buy these year malavita reflex )my other board is a process camber and my boots are ruler, with 50 60 days of use15 days each year. .what do you think these board could fit me , because I read excellent reviews of it.First I was thinking in buy a Burton Custom Camber but speaking with a friend he told me this board is excellent.Thans
Hey Nate…I am an advanced intermediate/expert rider. I do most of my riding in the backcountry riding pow. I am 6′-0″ and 175lbs and I wear a size 11US Northwave Decade SL boot.
I am considering purchasing the 2017 162cm Jones Ultra Mountain Twin and wanted your opinion vs getting a 161W.
Hi Bill
I think either one would work for you. I’m not that familiar with Northwave boots so I’m not sure what their outersole length is like – whether they are low profile at all – but I think the 256mm waist would be enough for you on the 162cm in terms of width, unless the Northwave boots have a massive outersole. The extra width of the 161W would give you a bit more surface area for powder – though the 162 is slightly longer so that surface area wouldn’t be too far different.
If it was me and I had size 11s and I was riding mostly pow on it, then I’d probably say 161W because you probably will be getting a bit of extra surface area overall. I don’t like my board to be too wide but I would be happy with the 260mm on the 161W if I had size 11s. If I was riding it more on groomers, then the narrower 162 would probably be my choice. But for you I would go for the 161W. But like I say you fit in that space where both would actually work for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
thanks again for the fast answer, I finally decided to keep the board and unwrapped it today – looks gorgeous! Can’t wait to try it out but I’ll probably have to wait until next season. Maybe I can catch a ride to Austria over Easter or so, but it’s more likely I’ll have to take a look at your “storing the board for the summer” post next…
By the way, given it’s a board from last season, would you recommend having it waxed before I use it or can I still rely on the factory treatment?
Ah, and one thing I forgot to mention, that angles table from the Donek website was pretty helpful for me, so I’d say that’s a good resource! You may be right that it could overcomplicate the matter if you add it to your board width article – but maybe in a “further reading” section or so..?
Do you have an article on board/core construction by the way? I started wondering because this 2016 Mountain Twin has what seems like a semi-transparent top sheet graphic and underneath you can see the laminated wood of the board’s core shine through – but shouldn’t there be layers of fibreglass and stuff in between core and top sheet that would obstruct the view? Here’s a good detail picture: Jones Mountain Twin Pic
Cheers,
Felix
Thanks Felix. Yeah I think I might include that in the “further reading” section of that post. I might even write a new “advanced width sizing” post and refer to it from there.
Check out my post below on whether or not you need to wax a new board. Sometimes yeah, sometimes not necessary.
>>Should I Wax a New Snowboard
I haven’t written an article on core construction yet but it’s something on the list to investigate and write a post on. I imagine that it’s either that the fibreglass between the topsheet and the woodcore is see through or they in some way have a wood grain veneer on the fibreglass. If yo ulook at the flagship the whole top sheet is that wood grain look. I know the Mountain Twin has the Triax Fiberglass over the core but not sure if it’s see through or what the story is there.
Hey Nate,
great website and it’s incredible how you keep up with people’s questions here! The comment sections have already helped me a lot so far but still I’d love to ask one question for my personal setup.
I’m 184cm/6ft but only 72kg/160lbs (without gear). I’m an all mountain playful type of rider, I love those powder runs in between groomers and through the trees, little kickers, going switch on piste or practicing some carving one day and some buttering the next. Not a lot of either park or back country, but you never know.
It seems like the Mountain Twin could be the right board for me and I could get a nice deal on a 155 wide from 2016. I thought it might match my weight and overall preferences, but would you rather recommend the 158 wide? (I rode a Yes Basic 159 wide last season and it felt a bit too long/heavy – but then again I’m a skateboarder so snowboards always tend to feel bulky to me.)
Now, I guess the critical part for both the 155w and the 158w would be boot size – I’m wearing 2016 Nitro Anthem boots in US12.5/MP30.5 and both boards seem to be just 25.8cm wide at the waist so I don’t expect them to differ much around the inserts? Does the boot size rule them out altogether or do you think I could make it work? My stance is a typical +/-15 and my bindings are Union Contacts.
Hi Felix
I think that the 155W certainly isn’t a bad length for you – and I think you could go for that over the 158W – especially if you found the 159W of the YES Basic too long. But I would be concerned that the width would be too narrow for your boots unfortunately. The fact that you have a +15/-15 stance is in your favor because neither of your bindings are too straight across the board – but I still think you would be pushing it.
Another option – for a similar board and also something that would suit your riding style would be the Never Summer West – there is a 157W which has a 261mm waist. I think something between 262mm and 268mm would be best. But I think that 261mm you should get away with with +15/-15 angles (and also that’s the width on the YES Basic 159W – so if you didn’t have any drag issues on that, that would also be a good indicator).
But of course, you have the deal on the Mountain Twin – you might get away with it but I think you’d be cutting it pretty tight – especially when you’re really up on edge.
Hope this gives you more to go off and helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
thanks for the great reply! I had a look at the Never Summer West – the size looks good but it’s a hybrid rocker and I tried that once on a Nitro Blacklight and didn’t fancy it too much. It may be a whole different feeling on the West but those also seem very expensive, at least in Europe.
But I got my hands on that 2016 Mountain Twin 155w in the meantime – I can still return it so I very carefully mounted my bindings and boots with the shrink wrap still on, just to get a better idea of the toe and heel overhang. It looks like I could get down to around 2.7 cm on both toe and heel side. My bindings have sort of a fat gas pedal and EVA padding, and the shoes are curved around the heel, so maybe I could get away with it..? Or would this prevent anything that remotely resembles a carve?
I made a bit of an effort and uploaded four or five pictures with measurements and angles, if you want to have a quick look and let me know your thoughts, that would be super cool. Here’s the link: View Pics
If there’s any way I can contribute in return, let me know… this site has been really helpful so far!
Hey Felix
Thanks for the images. That makes it really helpful.
There’s certainly more overhang than is ideal – but the bevel on the boots and the gas pedal certainly help.
Something that’s a little bit more advanced than I haven’t included in my width post (because typically people don’t have these measurements – is using this angulation guide:
Angulation Guide
You could also watch this video:
Snowboard Width Video
If you’re someone who really gets up on their edges and gets really low on a carve, then a 70 degree angle would be something you’d probably want to look at. If you were to get your bindings back a bit so that the overhang was more even toe and heel (and I even like to have slightly more heel than toe overhang if I’m cutting it close, because usually you can’t get as low on that heel edge) then you could get that toe side angle closer to 70 degrees. It would take the heel side angle under 60 degrees though, which wouldn’t be ideal.
In your case I don’t think I would want the heel side overhanging more than the toe side – just because the fat gas pedal is helping with that toe side angle and you don’t want that angle to go too far down on the heel. But based on looking at the pictures you could get away with going a little bit further back on the heel edge but only so far so that it would be even 2.7cm each side. You might get away with this width, depending on how low you carve, but it’s your call.
If you are happy with 65 degree angle at tow and 60 degree angle at heel, then I think it will be fine. But if you think you’ll want that extra angle if you think you’ll be really up on those edges, then you might need something a little bit wider.
If I was able to use those pics you put up and put up a post related to it on the site, that would be an awesome contribution. I’d really appreciate that.
Hey Nate,
thanks for the reply! Of course, if you want to use any of the pictures for a post, go ahead – I’ve added some more, see below.
I tried to further tweak and center the stance, so I’m now at around 2.7 cm overhang for both toe and heel. One issue with my measurements from yesterday was that I measured the angle starting from the top corner of the board rather than its actual bottom edge. I didn’t find a better way to do it with that triangle, so today I made paper cut outs with different angles and repeated the whole process. Here’s a second album with pictures: View Pics
So this more centered overhang gives me angles of approximately 64 degrees on toe side and 63 degrees on heel side according to the new measurement (I may shave off some of that outersole profile once the boot is out of warranty).
Good point about having a little more angle on the toe vs the heel side though – I think the same goes for me, I don’t get as low into a carve on the heel. I could probably shift the result to 67° toe / 60° heel or so if I wanted a little more “legroom” for the toes, but I think reaching 70° on either side could mean making too much of a sacrifice on the other. That being said, I’ve just learned carving wider turns a while back and probably won’t go crazy low on those edges any time soon.
=> So for now, I think I’m leaning towards keeping the board. Besides my main issue discussed above, below is my train of thought, I hope that there isn’t too much nonsense in there 🙂 Maybe there are some counter arguments that I didn’t think of.
– Going with the 155w over the 158w could make buttering the board a little easier (something I was a slightly sceptical about given its 7/10 stiffness rating)
– I’m still well within the weight range for the 155w after putting on boots, helmet, backpack etc (around 77kg/170lbs with gear, board is recommend for 59-82kg)
– I don’t know how the length affects carves though (radius? stability? initiation?)
– Stance width (58cm centered / 60cm reference) seems to match with my height (184cm)
– Going for a shorter board (and one that’s somewhat narrow, admittedly) keeps the board’s weight in check (by the way, this one weighs in at around 3240g/7.14lbs)
– Float in powder should still be fine given it’s a mid-wide and has great reviews for pow.
– The fact it’s somewhat narrow for my feet could at least have the advantage of making it feel faster edge-to-edge (but I’m just guessing here).
– I like the graphics and the company seems worth supporting.
– I got it for a good price and it’s already in my hands.
Cheers,
Felix
Hey Felix
Thanks for letting me use those images. Nice work on the new images – good thinking with using the paper cutouts!
I think I’m also leaning towards leaning towards keeping it too.
I think that even up of the bindings and the new measurements look like you should be ok. I also agree that going as far as 70 degrees on the front would sacrifice too much on the back. You could go a little bit more back to heel edge and, like you say get something like 66 to 67 on the toe – but I wouldn’t go anymore than that.
If you’re not someone who’s going to be going crazy on any euro carves anytime soon, then I think those degrees should be fine.
In my opinion:
– The 155W will be easier to butter than the 158W
– You are definitely fine weight-wise on the 155W
– I slightly prefer a longer board for carving but there’s a weigh up for other pros/cons of the sizes
– Stance width should be fine. I’m 183cm and like a 580mm stance but when I ride Jones boards I tend to go with reference stance which is usually 600mm for the sizes I ride and I like that stance on Jones boards
– Yeah the shorter board will be slightly lighter – probably not a huge difference and not something I would base my decision on – but a small plus there
– I think the float in powder will be absolutely fine for your weight – the 158W would have more float, there’s just more surface area there but the 155W will have suitable float
– The narrowness will allow you to get really good leverage on the edges which helps with edge-to-edge speed. Though that leverage ultimately comes from the feet and I don’t know that there would be much advantage for the feet going over the edges than they do going right to the edge. But you will certainly be getting maximum leverage I would say – so you’ll be getting it as fast as it can get to
Hope this helps and let me know what you go with.
Hey nate. Alittle above the beginner side and was looking at the twin mountain. I want a board that I can have for the next 5-6 years. Live on the east coast so mostly resort riding except once a year. Have a pair of 10.5us thirty two lashed and burton mission bindings. I’m 5’11 and around and bounce up and down between 205 to 215. It’s a toss up between the 160 and the 162. What would be your recommendation.
Thanks Nik
Hi Nik
I think that the 160 would be the best size for you. I think it is the best balance for your height/weight and ability level and for where you ride most of the time. The width on that board should be just right for your boots too.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great review and interesting reading the comments above. I am looking at getting the mountain twin and have recently bought Burton Cartel bindings and Burton AMB boots. (Hoping these will be good reading your reviews)
I wanted a new all mountain board as we tend to do it all. We like playing on the runs jumping off of kickers and love the pow, I have a little go in the parks but mainly pow and groomed runs mucking about as we go.
My last board was a Ride mountain 159 wide, I am 6ft 2, 190 pounds and boot size us13.
I was going to get the 161w as needed the extra width for the boots, but measuring it against the Ride it measures 2.5cm longer (assume the ride had more lift at the nose and tail? ) As I like playing around I am thinking should I maybe go for the 158w instead?
I am used to my old 159 board and thinking if the 161 will be noticeably longer or should it be ok? Sorry for so many questions but want to get it right before I take to the slopes
So do you think I should go for 158w or stick with the 161w and would I notice the extra legnth?
Cheers pal
Tim
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
I think the 161W would be the best size for you. You will notice that length when compared to the Mountain Twin 158W but I don’t think you’ll notice it compared to the 159 Ride Mountain. The main reason for this is that the Ride Mountain was a seriously wide board. I’m not actually that familiar with it but doing some quick research it looks like the 159 Ride Mountain has a 273mm waist width. The fact that the 161W is going to be considerably narrower at 260mm waist width, will make it feel considerably more nimble.
Also it looks like the Ride Mountain was more of a freeride board as opposed to an all-mountain board – so the Mountain Twin will feel more playful generally speaking. This is based on the limited info I could find on the Ride Mountain. Assuming it is more of a freeride board that would also explain why it might have more nose lift – perhaps not more tail lift but the nose may certainly have been lifted more if it’s a freeride board.
So I don’t think it will feel noticeably longer – just because that narrowness will negate that. The only thing might be with spins – but again, I suspect that the Mountain Twin is generally speaking easier to spin than the Ride Mountain.
The only thing that concerns me is if the 161W isn’t wide enough. Because you have Burton boots (which have good outersole reduction), you can certainly get away with going narrower. Burton size 13s are probably like some boots are as a size 12. Even so 260mm would be the narrowest I would go for in terms of width. I think you’ll get away with it – but it’s cutting it fine, no guarantees. It sounds like you have access to the board in a local shop? (based on how you mentioned you measured it against the Ride Mountain) – if so then checking the width in person might help to determine if it’s going to be wide enough. You can check out the post below to get an idea on checking the width.
>>Snowboard Width Sizing
But I definitely concur with the board choice – it’s a great board for do-it-all, which it sounds like you do – consistent across conditions and across styles.
Hope this helps
Note: This is all based on what I found about the Ride Mountain having a 273mm waist width. If you want to measure this yourself to be sure you should measure at the narrowest point of the board and measure on the base of the board, as opposed to the top sheet (where the width is narrower – waist widths are measured on the underside).
Hi Nate
Thanks very much for your comments, very useful, I have the 161w and all set up so think I will get away with it.
Appreciate the feedback and quick response
Very kind of you
Best wishes
Tim
You’re very welcome Tim.
Hope your new board goes well – would be great to hear how it goes once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hi sir thanks for all the great info. I recently purchased the mountain twin 158 wide. I am torn in if bought the right size. I am 5’10, 180 lbs, and have a 10.5 size addidas adv boot. Is this a good size for me or would the 157 be better? I can easily return if neeed.
Hi Nick
I think the 158W (258mm waist) is a good size for you. Since you have Adidas boots (and especially if they’re 2017 Adidas boots – great reduced footprint) then I think you could get on the 157cm (253mm) no problem. But the 258mm isn’t too wide for you. If you want to really optimize that leverage on the edges for edge-to-edge speed, then the 157cm will be better for that. The 157 will feel more nimble because it’s narrower and slightly shorter.
But the 158W will have the advantage of being more stable at speed and with more stability on landings and will have slightly better float in powder due to more surface area.
I think both sizes would be suitable so your decision will have to weigh up which of those things are more important to you.
Hope this helps
Thanks so much! Another thing I forgot to mention is my new union Danny kass bindings cover the entire width of the 158w so if I went to a 157 they would definitely over lap. Would this be an issue? I’ve never had bindings that are this big
You’re welcome Nick.
Hmmm in that case then I would lean more towards the 158W. Preferably you don’t want any binding overhang. Boot overhang is fine as long as it’s not excessive (and actually a good thing – if your boots weren’t overhanging at all your feet would be too far inside the edges of the snowboard and you’d have lost leverage) but binding overhang is preferable to avoid. A tiny bit would be ok – and you definitely do want your bindings to be as close to the edge as possible without going over – that will help to maximize your leverage too.
Have you contracted the toe ramp to it’s shortest position? If so, then it might pay to stick with the 158W. If it can go in a bit still then you might get them on the 157 without overhang.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
So I was in between the 154 and 157cm mountain twin. I’m 5’8″ and 140 lbs. I wear 10.5 Burton ambush boots but I heard they do a pretty good job sizing down the outside of the boot. I don’t really have a preference in riding style, more of just a little bit of everything on the mountain but not tons in the park though I do like hitting kickers. Could you give me a recommendation of what would best suit me?
thanks!
Hi Edgar
Thanks for your message. Based on your height/weight, the weight recommendations from Jones and do everything style, I think the 154cm would be the best size for you. And I think the waist width of 250mm on that size will be good for your boot size too since you have reduced outersole tech (Burton are good for that).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks, that was actually super helpful. Unfortunately I can only find the board in a 157 now. Do you think I would be oversizing it if I decided to buy it in a 157? I’m bummed I can’t find it smaller but I don’t know if it would be that big of a difference going up in size. Thanks!
Hi Edgar
Unfortunately I do think the 154cm would be a much better fit for you. I just think you would enjoy that length more than the 157cm.
3cms doesn’t sound like much but can make a noticeable difference. You do get some advantages for going longer (better float in powder, more stability at speed) but I think the disadvantages (slower edge-to-edge, feeling stiffer than the flex rating, less nimble, harder for spins, more catchy) in your case would outweigh that.
I don’t think you’d hate the 157cm but I think that you would like the 154cm a good bit more.
Hi.
Well board has arrived and looking great. Glad I went for the 158w I think as my toes and heels just and no more go over edge so I think it’s a good fit size wise. I does look a bit fatter than my trs but that’s to be expected. My question is the board has a 60cms reference stance with a 2cms set back. If I was wanting to center the stance I had read it was a good idea to leave the rear binding where it is and just move the front one forward. My prob is if I do that it will make my stance width huge. Can I just center it with say a 60cm stance width. Will that affect how the board rides seeing as it is a directional twin. Thanks again. Stu.
Hey Stuart
Awesome that your new board has arrived! Love that feeling! And sounds like a great fit width-wise.
I haven’t ridden the Mountain Twin centered but from what I hear it is one of those boards that you can ride centered without noticing anything unwanted. But I can see where you’re coming from that you don’t want to go to a 62cm stance width.
I am the same height as you at 6’0″ and I really prefer a 58cm stance width usually – though it does depend on the board I am riding – sometimes it’s more suitable to go wider or narrower than that. But I’ve never gone as wide as 62cm. But that’s not to say that you can’t do it or that it wouldn’t feel comfortable – but I can definitely see your reservations there.
The other thing that confuses me about the advice that you’ve read about moving your front foot forward is that the specs sheet I have in front of me (from Jones) says reference stance for the 158W is 60cm and centered reference stance is 58cm. That suggests to me that you would actually move the back foot towards the center, right?
In its 60cm setback stance you would have 48cm between the tail of the board and the center of the back binding and 50cm between the nose of the board and the center of the front binding. By moving the front binding forward 2cm you would then have 48cm at each end and 62cm between the bindings. If you move the back binding one spot towards the center that should give you 50cm between the center of the back binding to the tail and 50cm between the front binding and the nose of the board with a 58cm stance.
I think that the stance width that you are more comfortable with would be the best option when centering on this board. But either way – to make a long story short! – I think you should experiment. Try it out both ways and see which you feel most comfortable with – that will be the surest way to know.
Let me know how you get on
Hi.
I tend to agree with u. I don’t think it’s gonna be that much wider that it will make a significant difference plus as u said to Francesco the added overall width will help with float in pow especially with me only going for a 158. I’m sure I’m over thinking all this, I mean I’m not expert rider anyway, I simply want to cruise about the hill having fun. Cheers once again. Stu
Hi Nate,
Reading ur advise to Francesco above has now got me worried I’ve bought a wide board when not necessary. It’s too late now I guess. As I said before my dialogues have a huge footprint and on my trs with its 253 waist I did have more over hang than u recommend in ur buying advise, so felet on order to have optimum foot positioning the wide was best. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Would the 5mm waist increase and subsequent overall increase in width make a significant difference.
Stu
Ps sure u thought that was the end of hearing from me. Haha.
Hi Stuart
It will make a difference but not make or break. And the 158W has a 258mm waist – so it’s more of a mid-wide than a wide. The 161W has a 260mm waist.
I ride size 10s and one of my current boards has a 258mm waist – and it’s fine. But I do find if I go any wider than that, that I start to really feel it. There just seems to be a point just beyond that that starts to feel sluggish.
In your case I was concerned about the large footprint and the 158W is really a compromise between being too narrow and being too wide. I think you’ll be fine on that width. You might have been fine on the 253mm too – but it would have been cutting it fine and I was concerned with the issues that you had on your TRS.
Hey Nate!
I’m 6’4 and carry around 194 lbs.
I wear US 10s meaning i’m borderline between the wider boards and the standard ones according to Jones sizing guide.
I own the k2 maysis boots and are really struggling to chose between the ultra mnt twin 161w and the 160/162(depending on more pow vs more park).
What’s your take?
Thanks a lot!
F
Hi Francesco
Don’t go wide. I have US 10s and you definitely don’t need to go wide. I’ve never had any trouble with anything over 249mm waist – but I find when the waist starts getting out to that 260mm mark that the board really starts to feel heavy and slow from edge-to-edge.
So I’d say definitely 160 or 162 and, like you say, the difference is going to be whether you want something a little more freestyle oriented or more freeride oriented. Typically speaking (and the differences will be subtle) the shorter length will be easier for spins, a little bit more maneuverable, and easier for riding switch and the longer length will have better float in powder and be more stable at speed – but these differences will of course be reasonably subtle.
But yeah with a 256mm waist width, they are going to be a good width and the 260mm waist width on the 161W is going to be too wide for you, IMO.
Hope this helps
Nate that was more than helpful, it actually got me all the way to the shop ready to get the 162!
But I then realized that I had mistaken UK 10 with US 10, and that my K2 Maysis are actually US 11… I know..:)
Do you think this tips the balance towards the 161W?
Thanks so much!!
Puravida,
F
Ah, in that case you are on that borderline point.
I think you would still squeeze onto the regular widths in this case – but you would be cutting it tighter – and the 260mm waist on the 161W would certainly be suitable and probably the safer bet. I still wouldn’t say completely no to the 160 or 162 but the 161W will be playing it safer – and it will mean you wouldn’t have to choose between the 160 and 162 anymore :-).
Also if you were leaning towards the 162, then the 161W will have a similar surface area to that because of the increase in width – so, on balance, I think the 161W is the better choice now.
It’s all done and tested man you are a legend thanks!
Just to give back a little i’ll tell you that I took the board out for a ride and it truly is hard to believe.
I was used to more ‘dedicated’ boards and I felt disoriented at first, this board does not suggest any specific use for itself.
But it didn’t took me long to understand that this was because I had nothing less than pure freedom strapped to my feet.
I do still have a wish for next here:
Jeremy, how about just a slightly more extended camber?
But this is because I love speed, It would draw back the board’s user-friendliness a little, so yea, that’s me being selfish:)
Puravida!
Hey Francesco
Thanks for letting me know your experience. You’re not the first to ask for more camber – but yeah then it would change the character of it for sure.
Hi.
Right this is the last set of questions I promise.
Managed to find a real good price on jones mountain twin 157. Have been measuring my foot and used your guide and feel that at a UK size 9 I should be OK with a regular width board. My trs has about a 2cms over hang and according to ur info that should be OK. Your info says that 253 waist is the upper limit for size 9 shoe (u.s. 9.5) so I’m thinking I should be OK. The last question is a 157 board shouldn’t be too small for me. As I’ve said my trs is the same its just I’m a bit heavier than I was when I got it. How would flex be on this length board. Prob more flexible and so more buttery and playful. Thanks again for taking the time to help a neurotic purchaser. Stu
Hi Stuart
I completely understand the need to get the right gear.
Typically speaking I would say that the UK9.0 would be fine on a 253mm waisted board. But in your case I was concerned that you were getting drag on your TRS. Are you sure it’s UK9.0 – earlier you said UK10.0 – just want to make sure.
Anyway, if you are confident that the width will be fine on the 157, then that will be fine. And yeah, you’re on the money in terms of flex there. You would be on the upper end of the weight recommendations which will make the board flex more than if you were on the lower end or if you went for a longer board. So the flex will probably feel slightly softer – and that will make it more buttery and playful like you say.
Hi,
I am a uk 9 (foot measures 28cms). Think my prob is the dialogue boots have a huge footprint so make the overhang bigger than on reg size 9 boots.
I have eventually found a 158w mountain twin at a reasonable price so am stuck between that and typo 159w. The Jones will be stiffer and so more responsive but prob not as forgiving at lower speeds and not as easy buttering. I’m also slightly concerned I’m right at the top and maybe over the suggested weight limit. The typo I’m concerned it might be too wide (261 waist) and that it might be too soft. That’s great for buttering and messing around at low speed but not so good if I’m wanting to ride more aggressively. My instinct is to go with the Jones, would u agree. All the research I’ve been doing lately though suggests I should be buying a 160 board but I’m not sure I want one that big especially for spins etc. God with all ur advise I should be paying u. Haha. Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart
Yeah – the Dialogues are known for their big footprint unfortunately.
My instinct is saying Mountain Twin too and my instinct is also saying 158W rather than 160. I think that it will give you the best balance of what you’re looking for. 160 would definitely not be a bad choice and would likely be the better size if you didn’t want to spin and butter but I think overall the Mountain Twin at 158W would be the best balance I think.
Hi.
Great, thanks for all the advise and will let u know how I get on with the board. I really appreciate u taking the time to help. Thanks.
Stuart.
Hi Stuart
You’re very welcome. Look forward to hearing how you get on.
God I think I’m turning into a pain in the neck. I was checking my trs today with my cartel medium bindings and salomon dialogue boots (they r actually UK 9). There was a 3.5 cms overhang on to and heel. I had read that those boots have one of the largest footprints. So I think in the end a wide board is necessary, so am prob going with 159w typo. Does that sound sensible to u. Thanks once again for taking time to help. I really appreciate it. And ur site too has soo much useful info. Have recommended it to.numerous pals. Stu
Hi Stu
Sorry I missed this comment before. As per my last comment, I think the 159W Typo would be a great choice for you.
Thanks for the recommendations. Appreciate it!
Hi sorry found yes typo 159w at really good price (£150 cheaper than mountain twin 158w) just concerned it’s too wide 261mm at waist as compared to 256 for 160 mountain twin or 258 for 158w mountain twin. I’m sure I’m over thinking all this. Thanks. Stu
Hey Stu
It’s a good idea to get your gear right for you so I wouldn’t say you’re over thinking it. But in saying that, I don’t think that the Typo 159W will be too wide for you at the 261mm waist width. I think that width would suit you fine.
Hi.
Think ur content is great and really informative. Have utilised it many times.
Desperately need some advise.
I’m in need of a new board, my 2011 lib tech trs is broken. Been looking at 3 boards mainly and can’t decide and hoped u might be able to advise. I’m 6ft, about 80kg, and had been riding a 157. I’m now thinking more 159 or 160 in either jones mountain twin, ultra mountain twin or explorer. I ride resort most of the time but will occassionally ride park (not good tho). I take on powder when poss and occassionally ride switch. Like to jump a bit but mostly just cruising about. I’d say I was intermediate to advanced but now I’m older (43) I’m not so interested in bombing around and really pushing it, more into just riding around messing about, hitting wee natural jumps, buttering etc but when pow is around I will go for it. My first choice of board is either the ultra mountain or explorer. The ultra tho I’m concerned it’s too aggressive and stiff more my more mellow riding style but would be good for when I want to ride harder, and the explorer I’m concerned won’t ride switch too good or won’t be quite as aggressive when I want to hit the steep pow. Any advise is welcome. Thanks.
Stu.
Hi Stuart
I actually think that the Mountain Twin (non-ultra) might be your better bet. Just that it’s a bit more playful in general than the Ultra and it’s going to perform a little better riding switch – the Explorer has a camber profile that’s a bit setback and won’t feel as natural riding switch – you can definitely do it but I think the Mountain Twin would be better.
I think all round the Mountain Twin would be the best balance for you. I think the Ultra might be a bit too aggressive for what you’re describing, particularly if you were to size up to the 160cm. I think if you were to go to 160cm, then the Mountain Twin will work best – and you’ll get the same performance in the powder. You’ll definitely notice a step in powder performance on the Mountain Twin compared to the TRS – even if you didn’t size up, the Mountain Twin is more suited for powder than the TRS.
So, in short, I think the Mountain Twin will be a more easy going ride for when you’re on the groomers – but it will handle the powder as well as the Ultra and the Explorer and will be the best of the 3 in park, IMO, for when you do go in there – though it won’t be as good as the TRS 157cm in the park – so there will be a trade off there – but you’ll definitely get an increase in powder and speed performance with the Mountain Twin compared to the TRS.
One more thing – can let me know your boot size? – just to make sure that the 158W isn’t the better size for you.
Hope this helps
Hi.
Thanks so much for taking time to reply and help me out.
My boot size is uk 10.
I had considered the 158w as when I do the foot placement thing u suggest on my old board my toes and heel overhangs about 1cm on my trs. (I think its waist width is 253mm). When my boots are on board there is a bit of overhang and sometimes get a bit of toe and heel drag.
So u suggest the mountain twin. It has the same flex rating as the ultra though so would it not be just as stiff, and the explorer is that bit softer and so imagine more forgiving and playful. The explorer also won a good wood award this yr unlike either of the mountain twins so that too makes me lean towards it (but then it’s only one review). Would the mountain twin be OK for buttering as I’m hoping to improve that side of things. I also have looked at slash brainstorm but unfortunately can’t find it in stock anywhere here in UK. If there were any other boards u thought might fit what I’m after as I said before very open to suggestions. Thanks once again.
Hi Stuart
I know the Mountain Twin has a flex rating of a 7/10 but to me that would be overstating it. It’s more of a medium flex. I would say 6/10. I’d say Explorer 5/10, Mountain Twin 6/10 and Ultra Mountain Twin 7/10 – IMO.
For UK 10s I would suggest the 158W if you were to go with the Mountain Twin. It’s only actually slightly wider than the 160 regular – but it would be a safer bet width-wise. Also, I think it would be easier to butter with in the slightly shorter size. In terms of buttering, it’s reasonably easy to butter. Obviously there are some boards out there that are more made for that and would be easier – but as far as a do-it-all board goes, the Mountain Twin is pretty easy.
That’s all of course not to say that the explorer would be a bad choice – it is a good board. I just think on balance, for you, I’d go Mountain Twin. One other thing, is that the Explorer is a little quicker edge-to-edge than the Mountain Twin – if that’s a thing.
Yeah Brainstorm was very popular everywhere this year so it’s sold out pretty much everywhere I know.
If you want to check out some other options and haven’t already, check out the link below.
~ My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hi.
Thanks once again for advise. Think I should go with ur recommendation of jones mountain twin, my only prob now is the only 158w I can find is £100 more expensive than 160 so leaning towards it due to costs. Would I notice a big difference in size going from 157 to 160. Obviously it would run faster but spins and buttering would be harder. Would it be noticeably harder. I can find an ultra 158w at a good price but do u feel it wouldn’t really suit what I’m after. Also have found a yes typo at a good price in 158 but its upper weight limit is 80kg. God such tough decisions. Any last advise.
Thanks again. Stu
Hi Stuart
I think you would notice the difference going up to the 160 – and you pretty much hit the key differences – better for speed but so much for spins and buttering – it would also float better in powder. Also I find longer boards harder for riding switch.
I actually think that the YES Typo could be a good option for you based on what you’re describing you want (and I wouldn’t worry about being at the upper limit for the 158 – I generally take those recommendations into account a little bit but they aren’t the be all and end all – for example, I would go for the 158 in the Typo and I’m roughly 82-84kg and 6″0), It’s a pretty easy going board and good for riding switch, butters etc but would give you a little bit more in terms of speed and powder over the TRS. Not as much as the Mountain Twin but it’s more on the softer flexing, more easy going side than the Mountain Twin. It’s what I’d say is an all-mountain board that has freestyle tendencies – without actually being an all-mountain-freestyle board (like the TRS) – if that makes sense.
So it would fall, in terms of style and feel, somewhere in between the TRS and the Mountain Twin.
The 158 Typo has a 253mm waist. That’s going to be cutting it tight for being too narrow – especially if you say that you’re getting some drag on your TRS. The other option would be the 159W if that was available.
That’s not to say that the 160 Mountain Twin is too long. But it’s just that it will perform better as some aspects and not as well at others than if you went 158W.
Hope this gives you something more to go off
Thanks Nate. Much appreciated. Now i just need to find a good deal on a mountain twin!!!!!
You’re very welcome Ishan – hope you find a good deal!
Hi Nate, Awesome review
Im an mid level intermediate rider 5ft 11 inches tall and 76 kg. I really like the jones mountain twin. Boots are a US 10.
Two things mate, first, what would be a good size for me? I was thinking 157. I ride mainly on groomers trying to improve my carving but after a while i want to try a bit of everything esp pow and some buttering. Bit too old for the park now!
Second. Is this board only for advanced riders? Or can an intermediate progress on it? Iv only ever been on rentals and this will be my first board. I can link turns easily on most slopes but am only just learning to carve properly using the sidecut instead of skid turning. Would this be a good board to progress on? My second choice is the yes typo.
Id appreaciate your views mate.
Thanks
Hi Ishan
I think this board would be the perfect next step for you. Definitely not advanced only. This is a great board to progress through that intermediate level up into advanced level.
YES Typo would do a similar job but the Mountain Twin will do a better job in powder.
In terms of sizing, I’d say that the 157 would be the best size for you based on height/weight, ability and your style. It’s also a great width for your boot size.
Hey Nate,
Buying my first board and I am strongly considering the jones mountain twin. I live in the northeast to give you a reference on snow conditions and will rarely go off groomers. I have read your posts about beginner boards, and even though this is a much stiffer board and sintered base it is a camrock profile… I am 6’1″ 210lb with a 10.5 boot. Would I be ok buying a size smaller based on weight recommendations? That way it will have more flex and i wont have to worry about buying a new board anytime soon? I am willing to sacrifice quickness of learning for a board I can still learn on but also have for years to come.
thanks! Mark
Hi Mark
Although the Mountain Twin isn’t ideal for beginners it’s also not a bad first board. You could definitely get boards much more difficult to learn on.
And also, like you say, if you’re over the weight recommendations it will feel softer than it’s stated flex. It would be a steeper, possibly slower learning curve than some other boards that are ideal to learn on but it sounds like you’re willing to sacrifice that.
I think the best size for you as a beginner on this board would be the 160. This will also be a size that you can stick with for a good while. The other option would be the 161W (which isn’t actually too much wider than the 160 regular width – though I still think the width on the 160 would be better).
Hey Nate,
Great review, new to actual snowboard set up and bought the Jones Mountain Twin after demo’ing it for severa says with some Union Force Bindings. Excuse my ignorance, how do I know which side of the board is the nose and which is the tail since there is a setback built into the board. (I’m a regular stance)
Hi Sean
That’s a fair question – and you want to get it right, particularly when there’s a setback on the board.
I actually wrote a post about this which you can check out at the link below.
~ How to Tell Nose From Tail On a Snowboard
Hope this will answer your question
I decided to go with the Outerspace Living. One last question and I’ll stop bugging you. I’m trying to decide between the Union Forces or Contact Pros to go with this. Which do you suggest unless you have a better option in mind?
Hi Jon
It’s a tough call between them. I’d say that the Force’s have a bit more response – a bit quicker from edge to edge and have a medium flex bordering on medium stiff. The Contact Pros will have better board feel and be better for buttering. They have a medium-soft flex. The Outerspace Living has a medium flex.
I’d personally go with the Contact Pros but it really depends on what you value more – that board feel or response.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. I appreciate all of your help.
Nice review. What binding do you think pairs well with this board? Specifically for quick turn initiation through trees and good stability in backbowls and fast groomers? I hit small jumps now and then, but no park stuff. From your pick a binding section, it sounds like I want either an all-mtn binding on the stiff side, or free ride on the softer side (maybe 7 or 8 stiffness). I’ve been considering Flux XF, Rome Targa, and Union T-Rice. I don’t think you’ve reviewed those last 2, any thoughts? The ride el-hefe looks good too, and although they are kind of pricey, I would consider them if you thought they were a really good match for my riding style description.
Thanks,
Ryan
Hi Ryan
I’ve actually now created an “All-Mountain-Freeride” bindings post. This is a top 5 of those bindings that are medium-stiff in flex, which sounds like what you are after. Check out the link below for that list.
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Snowboards
You’ll see that the T-Rices are in that list.
In general I think this board is versatile enough that it would go well with any Medium or Medium-Stiff bindings. I think for what you’re describing, the El Hefe would work or anything in that link above.
Thanks for the reply. That’s a good list and the type of binding I was referring to. Since you rate the TRice highly, sounds like those are a good fit. I read some of your other comments where you thought something like the Burton Cartel is a better overall fit for this board. Do you think the TRice will give me significantly better edge turning and more stability in backbowls/trees/steep groomers vs the Cartel, or is the Cartel good enough in those areas while being a better overall fit for this board?
Hi Ryan
I think the Cartel is a good fit for this board, but the T Rice would also work well. The Cartel is a good flex match. The T Rice is a little stiffer than the Cartel and it will provide a little bit more response than the Cartels would – but they’re still butterable.
I think they would make the turning from edge to edge a little quicker than the Cartels – but with that extra stiffness there’s also less forgiveness, so you’d want to be an advanced to expert rider. For an intermediate rider the Cartels would work better. But it sounds like you are on the more advanced end so I think the T Rice would be a good pick for you.
Thanks for your response. I was leaning more towards the Proto but I found a deal on the Twin so I’m torn. Does the Twin’s slightly stiffer profile make it harder to butter and play around on, or is it still descent for that type of riding?
Hi Jon
I find that the Mountain Twin is pretty easy to play around with. It’s a good all rounder. But not quite as good for that as the Proto is, IMO. I would say that the Mountain Twin is neither on the playful side nor the aggressive side – it’s in the middle.
Gotcha. Have you ridden the Capita Outerspace Living? I’ve read that it’s similar to the Mountain Twin but a little softer and maybe a little more playful. Reviews state it has a ton of pop which I like.
Hi Jon
I haven’t ridden the Outerspace Living, but I think that would definitely be an option for what you’re describing based on the specs and what I’ve read. Capita is one of that brands that I’ve never gone wrong with. All of their boards that I have written I’ve always really enjoyed.
I just read your review on the Capita DOA and now I’m considering that. Do you think that would be a better choice than the Outerspace Living?
I guess my biggest issue is deciding on what type of board profile I want. I currently have a never summer so I know how they ride and that’s why I’m drawn to the Proto. I haven’t ridden a Rocker/camber/rocker profile so that’s what draws me towards Capita and Jones. Do you have a preference between the two camber profiles and do you think the Proto is worth the extra money?
Sorry to keep going back and forth on you. I appreciate all of your insight.
Hi Jon.
The DOA is practically a traditional camber profile, with just a slight bit of rocker and flat areas towards the tip and tail. It’s technically a hybrid camber (rocker/camber/rocker) but it’s pretty close to being full camber. The DOA is a more aggressive ride than the Outerspace Living which would be a more playful ride in comparison.
I don’t have a personal preference between the two profiles. They both have a different kind of feeling but I like both. Also depending on the amount of camber and the amount of rocker gives a different feel – so one hybrid camber profile can have a different feel to a board with a different ratio-ed hybrid camber profile, if that makes sense.
If you’re budget is low, then something like the Outerspace Living is great value for money. You would get something extra for the Proto Type Two, IMO but you are paying a good bit more for it.
If you feel like you would like something that is more aggressive with more camber, like the DOA, then that is amazing value for money in my opinion.
Hope this gives you more to go on.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all of your helpful reviews.
I’m looking for an all-mountain freestyle board to replace my 2011 Ride Machete. I’ve narrowed it down to the Jones Mountain Twin and the Never Summer Proto Type Two.
My only concern with the Jones is it will be to stiff for my liking because the Machete is a litter to stiff for me (6/10). I also have the NS Evo as my park board so I’m looking for something a tad stiffer and more stable I can use everywhere. I like to hit natural features and want something playful for when I’m riding with my wife but stable enough I can charge with my buddies.
Any thoughts between the two or any other recommendations?
Hi Jon
I’d say that the Proto Type Two would be a great option for what you’re describing. I’d say that the Mountain Twin is slightly softer flexing than the Machete but not by much. The Proto Type Two is softer again from the Mountain Twin but still a little stiffer than the evo. I’d say Mountain Twin 6/10, Proto Type Two 5/10 and evo 4/10 in terms of flex.
The Proto Type Two will also give you more stability than the evo and is definitely something that you can play around with but can also charge when you want to – so to me this sounds ideal for what you’re after.
You can also check out my review of the Proto Type Two if you haven’t already. See link below.
~ Never Summer Proto Type Two Review
Hi Nate,
thank you for your review, I am in between the slash brainstorm and the mountain twin. I am a intermediate rider, just started going in POW and some easy free styling like buttering, small jumps etc… I want to progress into the park but nothing to crazy.
I am 5’9, 180 lbs, have a size 12 Burton Invader (very comfortable but not sure if they are good for me???) and the 2016 Burton Cartels.
Which board and sizing would you recommend for me?
Thank you
btw I am open for any suggestions on boots bindings and board. Just want to get a good set up for me.
Hi Patrick
The Brainstorm and the Mountain Twin are quite similar rides in terms of performance and feel – not the same but quite similar and both would be suitable for what you are describing. I think to decide between them, the best idea is to decide which one has the size that is best for you.
If you were to go Brainstorm I’d say the 159W is the most suitable size.
If you were to go Mountain Twin I’d say that the 158W would be the most suitable size.
The Mountain Twin 158W has a 258mm waist width and the Brain Storm 159W has a 259mm waist width. The Mountain Twin 158W has a slightly deeper side cut, so the width at the inserts is going to be about the same on both boards. Both boards have the same effective edge (1180mm) so in terms of feel, they probably feel similar in length. Though I’d say that the 158 would be the slightly better length for you overall.
So even with sizing it’s pretty tough to pick between the 2 of them!
Both will be on the narrow side in terms of width for size 12s but you should be fine if you stick to boots with a low profile (Adidas, Burton and Ride are the best brands for low profile boots). I’d say only just the Mountain Twin over the Brainstorm but you really can’t go wrong with either.
In terms of your bindings, the Cartels are a great match for either board and you can definitely stick with those bindings.
In terms of boots – the Invaders are probably a little bit too soft flexing to be ideal. They are a medium-soft and you really would want more of a medium flex.
You can check out the two lists below for some boot options. The 1st list is labelled freestyle but they’re also good for all mountain riding – and good for intermediate riding. The 2nd list I’d almost say are all-mountain-freeride. A bit more advanced and more for hard charging and less so for park riding unless you’re wanting to hit the really big features. So i’d say the boots in the first list are good options for you. Like I say, Burton Ride or Adidas probably your best bet to get low profile boots.
So the Burton AMB or the Adidas ZX500 are probably your best bets and the AMBs would be the safest bet for you if you already know that Burton boots fit well and are comfortable for you. Other Burton options of a similar ilk would be the Burton Imperial and Burton Almighty.
~ My Top 5 Freestyle/All-Mountain Snowboard Boots
~ My Top 5 All-Mountain/Freeride Snowboard Boots
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
that is very helpful information. I actually was hoping you would recommend the mountain twin… I love the graphics:) I will go ahead and order the 158W and cant’t wait to test it.
I’m still not sure about the boots but that gives me a good starting point. I guess the best would be to actually find a store and try them on. Its just tough as I love in Hong Kong and don’t really have much choice to try snowboard boots.
Thank you very much, I appreciate you taking your time.
Hi Patrick
Glad that I could help!
Yeah, it’s always best to try boots on in person if you can but it’s not always possible. If you are buying online try to find somewhere that has a return policy that allows you to return if the boots don’t fit properly. You can also check out my snowboard boot fit post if you’d like – a lot of it is for trying on in-person but should also help for when you try on the boots if you get them sent, to know if you need to return them or not, and might help with choosing your size before buying.
~ How to size snowboard boots
Hope this helps
What binding would you recommend for this board? I’m looking for abother complete setup and am 99% on this board. I’m a size 10 boot and currently catching my toes/heels that chase significant drag in powder. What setup would you recommend to mitigate this issue? Any and all advice greatly appreciated!
Hi Brian
I’d recommend anything from the list at the following link for bindings for the Mountain Twin:
>>My Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
Depending on the size you end up getting, I don’t forsee any problems with heel and toe drag on the mountain twin with size 10s. My assumption is that you are referring to US size 10s.
If you can let me know your height and weight (or the size you were thinking of) I can recommend a size for you and also suggest whether or not the width should be an issue. Also if you can let me know the board you are riding at the moment and/or the width of it that would be good to.
With a size 10 (which is what I have) I wouldn’t go wide. Personally I don’t like the feel of wide boards. My only thought is that your current board is too narrow.
One thing you can definitely do, if you are also getting new boots, is to go for low profile boots. If you haven’t heard of them before, it basically means that the outersole is smaller than it would be on a regular profile boot. Typically speaking Adidas, Burton and Ride produce the lowest profile boots. You can check out my Top 12 Low Profile Boots post at the link below too (warning though that I am yet to update this for the 2016-17 season at time of writing but it’s on my long list of things to do!).
>>Top 12 Low Profile Boots
Hope this helps. Let me know if you want a size recommendation or if you have already decided on a size and I can more accurately predict if you should encounter any toe/heel drag issues. Also if you could let me know your current board that would be great too.
Hi Nate,
what bindings would you suggest for this board, I have Burton Mission 2008 but I don’t know if I can mount them on it. do you know?
Best regards
Hi Marco
If you have the EST version of the Mission 2008 they won’t fit but if you have the non-EST version then they should fit no problem. If you’re not sure what type they are send me a pic of a birds eye view of the bindings and the disc and I can let you know what version you have.
I think the Burton Missions will work well with this board. If the bindings you have are still in good condition and don’t need replacing then they will work fine with the Mountain Twin.
Hi nate, I doubled checked and my mission 2008 bindings are not the EST version, they fit on the mountain twin. Since I am very intrested on freeride and powder I have read that it is possibile to set back bindings, would you be so kind to tell me how? if I attach the right bind as set back (I suppose I must use the last four holes) should I attach the left bind on the last 4 holes as well? Do you have any suggestion on this matter?
Hi Marco
Yes you can set your bindings back – but the Mountain Twin already has a 20mm (3/4″) setback. So if you setup your bindings in the reference stance (the middle holes) on the mountain twin you will already be setback.
If you did want to setback further, then both bindings should move back – unless you wanted to narrow your stance. But to keep the same stance width, then you should move both bindings back the same amount. If you did want to move them back further than the setback that’s built in, you don’t necessarily have to set them back as far as they go either – you could just move them back a little bit.
If you want to learn more about your stance setup check out the article below.
~ Snowboard Stance Setup
Hi, I am an intermediate rider, 5’6 and about 175-180 lbs when loaded with gear. I mostly ride east coast all mountain and enjoy the trees/powder when we get those days. What size would you recommend I go with in the Mountain Twin, also worth mentioning is I am a size 9 boot…I know, I am good eater;-)
Hi Mario
I think the 157 would be the best size for you. If you were more on the freestyle side of all-mountain riding then the 154 but I’d say you should go with the 157. The width on that will be fine for a size 9 boot too.
Hey Nate!
Another soul looking into picking up a mountain twin. Looking for your opinion! I mainly love to carve & charge on groomers, while searching out fresh when I can. I’ve got a 25.6cm foot in an 8.5 boot. I’ve been looking at the 157 JMT, but I wasn’t sure about the measurements at the inserts being right with my feet, what do you think?
Hi Blake
I’d say it’s bordering on being too wide for your feet – but if we can get a balance between length and width, then if it’s a little bit shorter than your ideal length, then a be a little wide isn’t too big a deal. But I’d really have to know your height/weight to recommend the right length. It might be the case that the 154 is a better choice – but depending on your specs, the 157 could work.
Hey, how big of a difference is this board from its 2016 version? Is it notably better?
Hey Ben
There’s not too much difference between the 2016 and 2017 versions. They’ve made some tweaks but nothing major. If you can get the 2016 version for cheaper I think it’s worth going for. The 2017 might be that slight bit improved but hard to say without riding them one after the other. I don’t think it would be that noticeable the difference. So if you want to save some cash, no reason why you couldn’t get the 2016 model.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was planning to do. Could you recommend a size? I am 172lb, 5’9, and have a size 11U.S.(yes, big) boot. I also definitely prefer hitting the backcountry and pow. Oh and I’m still but a youngster and will need some growing space.
I more than appreciate the help, thanks!
You’re very welcome. I’d say go with the 158W. It’s one of the wide versions but it’s more of a mid-wide and would be ideal for your boot size.
The length 158 is possible a little longer than I’d normally recommend for you but will give you some room to grow into it and it’s not too far above what I’d recommend. Also having it a bit longer will help when you’re in the pow.
Nate – thank you again.!
S
Nate
A very helpful review!
I’m in the market for a Mtn Twin but am struggling to choose between the 160 and 162. I am just over 6foot , 85kg (without snow gear / boots).
I mainly ride groomers – definitely no park / pipe etc – I’m too old for all that!
I’d appreciate any thoughts you have.
Simon
Hi Simon
I think either one would be suitable. If you were going to be doing a lot of backcountry riding/riding in a lot of deep powder, then I’d say definitely the 162.
Since you mostly ride groomers it’s a bit of a toss up between the 2.
The 162 will give you a little bit more in terms of speed and stability at speed and better float in powder.
The 160 will be slightly easier to turn and maneuver and just all round be a little bit more easy going.
These differences will be fairly subtle because there isn’t a huge difference in the lengths – but they will be noticeable.
I have similar specs to you (6″0 and 82kg) and personally I preferred the 157 – but that for me was perfect because I liked taking it into the park and generally doing some freestyle type stuff on the groomers to. For you I would say that the 157 is too short because you don’t want to ride the park at all so you’ll want the benefits of the longer size.
It’s just a weight up between the 160 and the 162. If you lie to ride fast and think you’ll be seeing a reasonable amount of powder then go 162. If you prefer your ride a bit more easy going and don’t foresee too many powder days, then go 160.
Hope this helps.
That’s great! Thanks Nate – I really appreciate you taking the time.
Simon
Nate,
Sorry – another question has just occurred to me!
Would a 160cm ultra mountain twin give a bit of extra stability at high speed but still give me the better manoeuvrability of the shorter board length?
Simon
Hi Simon
I haven’t ridden the Ultra Mountain Twin but in theory and from what I’ve heard you do get a touch more stability at speed, more spring out of turns and a bit quicker from edge to edge. So I’d say most likely you would be getting that extra stability but without sacrificing on the maneuverability.
Like I say, I haven’t ridden the Ultra version so I don’t know by how much this would be the case and you’d have to weigh up if it’s worth the jump in price.