Hello and welcome to my Jones Mountain Twin Review.
In this review I will take a look at the Mountain Twin as an all mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Mountain Twin a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Mountain Twin 2020
Price: $499 (USD recommended retail)
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 89.5/100
Compared to other Men’s All Mountain Boards
Out of the 34 men’s all mountain snowboards that I rated:
- The average score was 81.8/100
- The highest score was 92.0/100
- The lowest score was 66.7/100
- The average price was $495 (USD)
- The Mountain Twin ranked 3rd out of 34
Overview of the Mountain Twin’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Mountain Twin’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All Mountain |
Price: | $499 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
151 | 248 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
154 | 250 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
155W | 258 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
157 | 253 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
158W | 258 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
160 | 256 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
161W | 260 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
162 | 256 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
164W | 262 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
167W | 268 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
Who is the Mountain Twin Most Suited To?
Anyone who wants just one snowboard but they want to be able to do a bit of everything on it and ride it anywhere on the mountain. This is the definition of an all mountain snowboard and the Mountain Twin is one of the best at doing just that.
So if you want to ride powder, hard pack, soft pack, open bowls, narrow chutes and if you want to ride at speed, carve, jump, jib, ride switch and even ride in the pipe – then the Mountain has you covered.
It’s not going to be the boss at all of those things – as one board can’t be the boss at everything. But it will be above average at most things and that’s something that few boards can achieve. So if you only want to have one board but you’re the kind of rider that wants to do everything and go everywhere, then this is one of the best for that, in my opinion.
Not the ideal beginner board – but great for anyone intermediate and above.
The Mountain Twin in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mountain Twin is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Mountain Twin 2019, 157cm (253 mm waist width)
Date: Sunday April 15th, 2018
Conditions: There was a little bit of fresh snow in the morning but just a few centimeters. There was still some left over fresh snow from the previous couple of days but not as much there as there was the day before.
Quite cold in the morning, especially for April, but warmed up in the afternoon as the sun came out.
Visibility was variable in the morning for the first couple of laps but cleared out pretty quickly with the sun coming out late morning.
There were a couple of harder spots but mostly pretty soft/medium all round.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 600mm (23.6“)
Stance Setback: 20mm
Width at Inserts: 265mm front binding, 266mm back binding – quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist
The Mountain Twin is rated as 7/10 in terms of flex but to me it felt more like it was a 6/10 for flex. All brands have a different way of rating this but to me it was a 6/10 or maybe pushing 6.5/10.
Powder
The Mountain Twin points and shoots like a boss over powder. It floats really well and I felt really confident just going for it over slush and powder. Very little fear of sinking the nose – which made the Mountain Twin super fun in the conditions I had.
It has a 20mm setback stance, just a little bit more nose than tail and has rocker in the profile toward the tip and tail – all of which helps with that powder float.
Carving and Turning
You can hold a really good carve on the Mountain Twin. And it’s got good edge hold too – on the hard spots that I encountered, it felt really stable with good edge grip with little fear of washing out.
Was also pretty fast edge-to-edge and going through narrow chutes and through trees it felt responsive.
Fairly easy to skid a turn on, when you need to. Not easy like a beginner board but certainly easy for a mid-flexing board.
Speed
The Mountain Twin and it glided well on flats and uphills, no problem.
Also it felt stable at speed, which is really where the speed rating is most important. It’s very stable feeling overall and with minimal chatter.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Uneven Terrain
Like everything with this board, it was pretty good over the bumpy stuff. It was really consistent over all types of terrain.
Jumps
This board is fun for jumps. It feels stable on landings and has decent pop for ollies over rollers and popping off lips.
The board has camber between the feet which extends out beyond the inserts – then it has rocker at the tip and tail. That camber underfoot really helps with the pop and for stability on landings.
I wouldn’t say it’s the most snappy/poppy board that I’ve ridden, but it’s definitely got some pop there, and it’s relatively easily accessible pop – i.e. you don’t have to put too much into it to get the pop out.
Switch
The Mountain Twin is a directional twin shape – with a slightly longer nose than tail – and the stance is set back 20cm along the effective edge.
In spite of this, it still felt relatively easy to ride switch and was easy to transition in and out of switch. It doesn’t feel like a true twin with a centered stance – but you can definitely ride it backwards comfortably.
Jibbing/Buttering
It’s not a jibbing master by any means – but you can take it through the occasional lap through the park and hit some jibs with it. It won’t perform like a board made for jibbing but you can do it if that’s something you like to do from time to time.
It doesn’t butter super-easy but you can butter with it for sure.
Pipe
I didn’t take it into a pipe but it’s got enough stiffness and good enough edge hold to be really decent in the pipe – and the shape, whilst not perfect for the pipe, is definitely doable for the pipe too.
Changes from the 2019 Model
The 2020 model looks to be essentially the same as the 2019 model.
Changes from 2018 Model
The 2019 Model is essentially the same board as the 2018 model as far as I can tell, apart from the new graphic. There is one new size for the 2019 model – the 167W.
Changes from 2017 Model
The core of the 2018 model has been changed and this is supposed to increase torsional response between the feet. It also uses a new ECO-Plastic topsheet in place of the film topsheets they used for the 2017 model.
The 2017 model saw a new core introduced – which was designed to add more pop. That same core was kept for the 2018 model but with a bit of tweak for the torsional flex (as mentioned above).
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 12/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SPINS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
BUTTERS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
JIBBING | 3.0 | 3/5 |
PIPE | 4.0 | 4/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 89.5/100 |
This board can do everything! It’s billed to do so and it lives up to that billing.
Great float in powder, good stability at speed, carved well, held an edge well, was good over bumps, was easy to ride switch (despite the 20mm setback) and was nice and maneuverable.
Was good down narrow chutes, through trees, in wide open terrain it was fun to let it carve. It was nice over jumps both for the approach, good pop and stable on landings. Was pretty good with jibs and spins too. There was nothing this board couldn’t do. Had heaps of fun on this board.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in the Mountain Twin check out the links below for more info and for current prices and availability.
- US
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
If you want to check out some other all-mountain options or see how the Mountain Twin compares to others, check out the next link.
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
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.