Hello and welcome to my Jones Twin Sister review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Twin Sister as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Twin Sister a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
For this season, I found someone to test women's gear, so this review is based on my tester's (Ash's) experience with the board, as well as my own experience with the men's equivalent (Jones Mountain Twin) of this board.
Board: Jones Twin Sister 2020
Price: $499
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium bordering on Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Rating Score: 87.2/100
Compared to other Women’s All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 18 women’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Twin Sister’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Twin Sister’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All-Mountain |
Price: | $499 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm (0.75") |
Base: | Sintered |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
139 | 238 | 90-140 | 41-63 |
143 | 240 | 100-150 | 45-68 |
146 | 242 | 100-150 | 45-68 |
149 | 242 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
152 | 245 | 110-160 | 49-73 |
155 | 247 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
Who is the Twin Sister Most Suited To?
The Twin Sister is great for anyone looking for a board that does a bit of everything. It's good at everything and very consistent across different terrain.
Ash described it as being a board she felt very in control of, even in the hard conditions that we had at night. Good control and great versatility.
Not for a beginner, but for anyone intermediate or up, who has a wide array of skills and wants one board to do everything on, then the Twin Sister should be on the list.
The Twin Sister in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Twin is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Twin Sister 2020, 149cm (242mm waist width)
Date: March 15, 2019
Conditions: The day started off quite soft and a little sticky, but by the evening time, as it cooled down, it started to harden up. The Twin Sister was the last board, and by the time Ash got on it, things had sped up considerably and was quite firm, with some icy patches in places.
Bindings angles: +15/-12
Stance width: 510mm (20.1″) - reference is 540mm (21.3")
Stance Setback: Setback 20mm
Width at Inserts: 255mm (10.04") at front insert and 258mm (10.16") - this is at reference stance, and was a little narrower than that at the 510mm stance that Ash rode on. But still quite wide for a women's board.
Weight: 2420g (5lbs, 5oz)
Weight per cm: 16.24g/cm
Average Weight per cm: 16.48 grams/cm*
*based on a very small sample size of 8 boards that I weighed.
Even though it was the lightest of the boards that Ash tested that day, she described it as the heaviest feeling board on snow. I find this can be the case a lot of the time, and weight feel on snow is significantly effected by other factors.
Rider Height: 5"6" (168cm)
Rider Weight: 130lbs (59kg)
Rider Boot Size: Women's US8.5 Ride Hera
Bindings Used: NOW Vetta, Small
Flex
In hand it felt a good notch stiffer than the Dream Catcher, but on snow Ash found the difference to be very little, but felt that the Twin Sister was marginally stiffer than the Dream Catcher.
My experience with the Mountain Twin (Twin Sister equivalent) and the Explorer (Dream Catcher equivalent) was similar. The Mountain Twin stiffer in hand, but on snow I actually found the Explorer just marginally stiffer, but very similar on snow flex.
Powder
No real powder to test in, but based on the specs and based on the Mountain Twin, which I have had in powder, it's likely to be very good in there, without being a specialist powder board of course.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Really nice on a carve and Ash felt it was the best of the 3 she rode that day (the other 2 being the Jones Dream Catcher and YES Emoticon).
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Not as nimble at slow speeds as the Dream Catcher or Emoticon, but not terrible. But preferred faster speeds overall.
Overall edge-to-edge speeds: Became more responsive/lively when riding faster
Smooth or snappy: More smooth than snappy
Speed
Felt very good at speed, and nice and stable. Preferred to be ridden with a little bit of speed.
Uneven Terrain
Not as easy to maneuver through or over uneven terrain as the Dream Catcher was for Ash, but not bad either.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Overall a good board for jumps.
Pop: Not heaps of pop and maybe a little harder to extract vs the likes of the YES Emoticon, but decent enough.
Approach: Really good approach - nice and stable.
Landing: Very solid and controlled landings.
Side-hits: Could be more nimble for trickier approaches and pop could be a little easier to extract, but overall fine for side-hits, without being amazing.
Small jumps: Good for smaller jumps.
Big jumps: Equally as good, and maybe even a little better for large jumps.
Switch
Felt pretty good riding switch. Not going to be perfect but overall pretty good for landing, riding and taking off switch.
Spins
Ash found the Twin Sister a little more difficult than the others on the day to get around, but still definitely spinable - and decent for landing/taking off switch too.
Jibbing
Doable without being ideal. An experienced jibber would have no problems, but could be a bit more maneuverable on approach and a bit softer flexing to be better, especially for those not that confident on jibs yet.
Butters
Less buttery than the Emoticon (not surprisingly!) and less so than the Dream Catcher too. But certainly can press the tip and tail - just not super easy.
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/TURNS | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SPEED | 4 | 12/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
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 | 87.2/100 |
Overall, the Twin Sister is a very good all-rounder - very consistent across styles of riding and in different terrain.
Ash found it to be the best carver, and have the most control out of the boards she rode that day. And couldn't find any real weaknesses with it. She also found it to be very smooth and held a great edge in harder conditions.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Twin Sister, or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other women's all-mountain snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Twin Sister compares to other all-mountain snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hello. I would like your help .i have chosen the twin sister but i m not sure what size its best for me 1.46 or 1.43
Im intermediate, 1.55 cm hight 48 kg and 6 boot size
I prefer to ride on piste, mid speed.
Hi Ralu
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think both of those are a bit too long. I think the 139 would be your best bet for the Twin Sister, especially given that it’s going to be on the wide side for your boots. But even if it wasn’t I think 139 would be the better size for you. The only reason to go longer than that, is if you’ve always ridden boards in the mid 140s. Then you could probably stretch to the 143. But based on specs alone, I would recommend the 139 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
first of all thanks for your (Ash’s) efforts you made in testing and detailed reporting of women’s boards! That is really helpful.
I am closed to go for the twin sister, but have some minor doubts due to my physical data :-). I am small (1,63m) but quite heavy (88kg), shoe size 40 (EU). Riding irregularly for abt. 20yrs, so intermediate I would say, preferably powder, but also fun slopes, like to ride switch and of course do common terrain (rarely icey). My current FTWO all mountain board has a length of 1,46m and I am fine with it, but to be honest never tried another one (beyond the ones I rented at my early beginnings).
To keep a long story short – I would like to go for the twin sister with the length of 1,46m as I am comfy with and used to it, but I am not sure if I am to heavy for this length and should better go for 1,49m at least. As I am out of the common size-hight-weight-range I know that I have to make compromises but would be glad to get feedback and hear your opinion.
Furthermore I would like to know whether the dream catcher might be the better choice due to my skills, preferred terrain and physical aspects or not.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Kerstin
Thanks for your message.
Generally speaking in terms of size, I would say more like 155 for your specs, as an advanced rider. As an intermediate rider, I would say more like 151-153. So typically I would recommend the 152 Twin Sister for you. However, given that you are used to riding a 146, over a long period of time, that should be taken into account as well. So, I would recommend going longer than the 146 for sure, but perhaps the 149 makes the most sense, given what you’ve been riding.
Between the Twin Sister and Dream Catcher – you would get a little more powder performance from the Dream Catcher, but the Twin Sister is better for riding switch. Both boards are fine at both of those things, but that might help you to decide between them. If you were going to go 149 for Twin Sister, then I would go 151 for the Dream Catcher. It’s a board that can be ridden a little longer.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
thanks a lot. I will consider to go for the 152cm Twin Sister.
You’re very welcome Kerstin.
Just to clarify, the 149 is an option too, if you preferred to stay shorter.
Hi Nate,
I am 5’5” (166 cm) and 113 lbs (51kg) without gears. I read your review for this Jones Twin Sister, I believe this will be my next board. I go to Jones website and see their size chart. It is annoying me that I am in the range of 90-140 lbs for 139cm board in Jones chart. I never ride board in such short, I have tried some boards in 141-145 cm. The next level in Jones is 143 cm for the riders in 100-150 lbs. I am kind of lower bound for 143 cm. Do you think 139 cm could be a good fit for me? I am an intermediate player, hoping Twin Sister can be all-in-one board, little bit carving, stable enough in fast, and easy for quick turn in tree and powder day.
Thanks,
Linda
Hi Linda
Thanks for your message.
The Twin Sister is a very good all rounder, so yeah, definitely an all-in-one board.
Size-wise, I think the 143 is doable for you – I would say that something around 143, 144 is a good length for you, at an advanced level. Being an intermediate rider, you could go down to the 139. Certainly as a beginner I would say 139, but as an intermediate rider both would work – but given that you’re used to riding longer, that make the 143 more appealing.
However, it is a relatively wide board compared to a lot, so it might be a case that sizing down to 139 makes sense, depending on your boot size. If you can let me know your boot size, that would help to make a more accurate recommendation. If it’s quite wide for your boots, then that tends to affect quickness of turns, so that could be a good reason to size to the 139, depending on boot size.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, I am wearing Burton Felix size 7. I also take time to read your top 10 boards, and GNU Ladies Choice and Jones Dream Catcher are attractive. What are the boards sizes you recommend me for those three boards (Ladies Choice, Twin Sister and Dream Catcher)?
I am also looking the Burton Feelgood Flying V (read your review, not good in edge holding?). If I have to pick only one board for my ride, so really one board rules all cases (stable, handling mid-fast speed I don’t go super fast :-P, reverse foot, edge holding on ice I live eastern coast we have a lot of ice this year! and easy to butter) I know my question may be not reaslistic, but it is really appreciated if you could recommend me the one among of those four?
thanks,
Linda.
Hi Linda
For your boot size, I would probably size down to the 139 for the Twin Sister. For the Dream Catcher, which is also quite wide, I would go for the 142. Whilst it’s also quite wide, it’s also something that can be ridden a little longer, so I think the 142 would work. For the Ladies Choice, the 142.5 would be a good choice. It’s a narrower board and a good width for your boots, IMO.
The Feelgood Flying V not that good in hard/icy conditions, IMO, so given where you live, probably less appropriate. The rest are good in those conditions, IMO.
The Twin Sister & Dream Catcher are the better choices for powder and for stability at higher speeds. The Ladies Choice is better for buttering and for riding switch. I think the Ladies Choice is the better size for you. But it’s whether you can sacrifice a little in terms of speed and powder vs the other 2. It’s not bad in those areas, but not as good as the other 2. It’s also got a slightly looser feel. Not super loose by any means, but not as stable as the Twin Sister and Dream Catcher.
Hi Nate, thanks for your answer. I will follow your recommendation to go with GNU Ladies Choice. But what size should I pick 139.5 or 142.5? I read GNU size chart I should be in the range of weight for 139.5 cm but like you said it is a relatively narrower board with only 22.6cm waist width for 139.5 and 23.2cm for 142.5 board. Should I go with 139.5? I personally prefer shorter board specially this board is perfect for buttering and riding in the trees. The only concern now is the board length and waist. Do you think 139.5 board will cause any issue in waist width for my boots? Or you still believe the 142.5 is the better length for me? Thanks Linda
Hi Linda
If you think you want to ride something shorter, then the 139.5 would certainly work for your specs. As an overall all-mountain option, I think the 142.5 is probably the best size for you. But that was also based on a comment earlier where you were concerned about going less than 141 as you hadn’t ridden that short before ” I never ride board in such short, I have tried some boards in 141-145 cm”. But the 139.5 is certainly in your range. Just at the shorter end of your range, IMO. If you want to get the most out of trees and buttering, then the 139.5 is a perfectly valid option for you.
In terms of width, with size 7s, I think you should be fine width-wise on the 139.5cm. GNU boards do have a smaller difference between the waist width and the width at inserts (where your bindings/boots actually go), so that might make it a bit tighter. The width on the 142.5 would be a really good fit for your boots though, IMO.
Hi Nate, I found your post “How Important is Snowboard Width Sizing and How Do I Get it Right?” is very useful. I read all of them and found the chart you made “When Back Binding is at 15°” for women. For Ladies Choice, I believe I will use +15°/-15° stand, and for size 7, your chart shows “MIN AT 15° (MM)” is 219mm and “MAX AT 15° (MM)” is 229mm. The LC 139.5 cm has waist width 226mm, and 142.5 cm has the waist width 232mm. Should I say 142.5 will have too much overhang for me?
Hi Linda
GNU boards tend to have a smaller difference between the waist width and the width at inserts (where the bindings/boots will actually be on the board), so there’s a greater risk for too much overhang on the 139.5 Ladies Choice for that reason. You could possible squeeze it, but I think you would be safer width-wise on the 142.5. I don’t think the width on the 142.5 would have too much underhang for you.