Hello and welcome to my Jones Ultra Mountain Twin Review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Ultra Mountain Twin as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Ultra Mountain Twin a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 2021
Price: $599
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Stiff (9/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating Score: 85.4/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 20 men’s aggressive all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Ultra Mountain Twin’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Ultra Mountain Twin’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Aggressive All-Mountain |
Price: | $599 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm (3/4") |
Base: | Sintered 9900 |
Weight: | On the lighter side of normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (CM) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
154 | 251 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
156W | 259 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
157 | 254 | 130-180 | 59-82 |
159W | 261 | 140-190 | 64-86 |
160 | 257 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
162W | 263 | 150-200 | 67-91 |
163 | 260 | 160-210 | 73-95 |
165W | 267 | 170-220+ | 77-100+ |
* note that the sizes are slightly changed compared to the 2020 model
Who is the Ultra Mountain Twin Most Suited To?
The Ultra Mountain Twin is best suited to those who want a hard charging all-mountain board, that excels in big mountain freestyle for those who like to go big and for just charging the mountain hard.
It's better in powder than a lot of boards in this category - so if you want a hard charger, that's more freestyle focused than a freeride board, but still want decent powder float, the Ultra Mountain Twin might be the ideal fit.
Not for beginners or even intermediate riders, unless you're very strong/athletic. A more advanced level deck.
The Ultra Mountain Twin in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Ultra Mountain Twin is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 2021, 157cm (254mm waist width)
Date: March 4, 2020
Conditions: Sunny. Perfect vis.
On groomer really well groomed in parts and rutty and ice balls in others. Some medium spots and some hard and even icy spots.
Off groomer medium for the most part but with some harder spots. Relatively cold on hands and face but overall quite warm in sun.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: 20mm (0.75")
Width at Front Insert: 266mm (10.47")
Width at Back Insert: 267mm (10.51")
Note that the Ultra Mountain Twin shows 3 stance options. The measurements for those different options are in the tabs below. Note that the measurements above are reference stance but narrower.
- FREERIDE
- FREESTYLE
Stance width: 600mm (23.6″)
Stance Setback: 20mm (0.75")
Width at Front Insert: 268mm (10.55")
Width at Back Insert: 269mm (10.59")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Salomon Lo-Fi
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 2760grams (6lbs 1oz)
Weight per cm: 17.58 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of roughly 80 models that I've weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. So, a good bit lighter than average on the scales - and felt light on snow too.
Damp or Chattery?
Quite damp a good bit on the damp side of the scale.
Smooth or Snappy?
Just on the smooth side of the scale. Smoother than the regular MT.
Powder
Nothing to test in on the day, but based on specs, how the Mountain Twin rides powder, it would be really decent. Not a powder king or anything, but with a bit of setback, a slightly longer nose than tail, rocker in the tip and tail and it's contour base, it's going to float relatively easily.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Good on a carve. Just that little bit better than the regular MT - can go just a little harder.
Turning: Easier to turn than I remember from riding the 2019 model. Got to put in a little more energy than you do with the regular MT, but you also get a bit more back in return. And you don't have to like throw your whole body into it - it turns fairly easily, especially for its flex.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Not quite as maneuvereable at slower speeds as regular MT, as expected, but again, better than I remember the 2019 model being - I think that Contour base makes a difference there.
Skids: Can skid turns on it without too much consequence. Not something that makes skidding turns super easy, but not too punishing either.
Speed
Nice and stable at speed. This was the most notable difference between this and the regular MT. Just more stable and could bomb it a good bit faster without getting any speed wobbles.
Uneven Terrain
Crushed through crud a little better than regular MT and overall was good in crud.
Not quite as good as regular MT for bumpy terrain - just not quite as maneuverable at slower speeds - but also not bad. Was fine to take in the trees.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Pop: Good pop without being epic. But you do get good value for that pop with the board being so light - feels like it just hangs in the air a little longer. The pop is easy to access to for the most part - with a little more available when you load it up - not quite as easy to access as the MT as expected, but not far off. And you get a touch more back when you load it up.
Approach: A good mix of stable and maneuverable. Just a touch less maneuverable and a bit more stable than the regular MT
Landing: Nice and solid but also not unforgiving of bad landings either. A little less forgiving than the MT but a little more solid for landing bigger air too.
Side-hits: Fun for side hits. I think I slightly prefer the regular MT for side hits, but only very subtly.
Small jumps/Big Jumps: Big air is this boards forte! But still good for hitting medium and even small jumps too.
Switch
Good for riding switch and gets even better if you center it up. I gave it 3.5, based on being in the 20mm setback stance, but would be 4/5 in the center stance.
Butters
Easier to butter than I remember the 2019 model. Still not super buttery, but around 3.5/5 I would say.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING/TURNS | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 12/15 |
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 7/10 |
PIPE | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.4/100 |
The Mountain Twin is a stable feeling, lightweight board that is well suited to riding big freestyle. Definitely not for beginner freestyle, but if you're looking to go big, it's got you covered.
But mostly this is just a really versatile all-mountain board that can carve, bomb and really holds its own in powder, as well as being able to ride switch really well.
It's the do-it-all, one quiver board if you like your boards a little stiffer and more aggressive.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Ultra Mountain Twin, are ready to buy or want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
- US
- UK/EUROPE
If you want to see how the Ultra Mountain Twin compares to other men’s aggressive all-mountain snowboards or want to check out some other options in that category, check out the next link.
Hello, first thanks a lot for this very interesting review, I’m getting this board this winter then I really appreciated your comments and feeling about it.
If you would choose a size for yourself on this board, what would it be ? I feel like 157 might be a bit small regarding your height and weight, no ? Can it influence your feelings about its stiffness ? (looking less stiff (7.5/10) than announced from Jones, 9/10)
Hi Anthony
Thanks for your message.
Yes absolutely a boards flex will feel different depending on your weight/the size you go with. If I rode the 160 it would feel stiffer, than the 157 I rode, for sure. But not as much as going to 9/10, I wouldn’t think. Based on my experience of riding the exact same sized boards in different sizes, the difference in that kind of size would be a flex feel of around 1/2 or up to 1 at most. So, I suspect that I would feel the 160 at more like 8/10. Maybe 8.5, but I was kind of in between 7 and 7.5 for the 157, so I don’t think the 160 would feel more than 8/10.
In terms of the size I would actually get, I would actually get the 157. Jones’ weight recommendations put me exactly in the middle for the 160 and at the high end for the 157, but that’s only one thing I take into account for length. For one thing, the combination of the length and width of the 160 would feel too big for me. The 160 would be around 270mm at the inserts and 257mm at the waist, even at the narrower 560mm stance and a bit more than that if I was to ride it at the 600mm reference stance. I don’t tend to like boards that wide, unless they’re sized down. Even the 157 is on the wider side for my preference, but the combination of length and width is a good fit for me. I would typically ride an all-mountain board like this between 157 and 159. For the width, I like this on the smaller end of that spectrum.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for your reply, that is very interesting and helpful.
As I’m gonna go into deep pow with this board, on the FWQ, I went for a 163cm. I’ll let you know how this board will feel in pretty hard conditions, what we often have during competitions.
Always a big pleasure to read all the snowboard reviews here, hope you’ll continue!
You’re very welcome Anthony.
Would definitely be interested to hear how you get on. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Hi Nate,
I’m going to get the Ultra Mountain Twin but wondering if i can sneak into the 157 with M/L Rome targa bindings (sz 10.5 Boots), or if I should just go with the 158W.
Thanks!
Hi Trav
Thanks for your message.
In terms of 10.5s, I would be confident that you could get on the 157 Ultra Mountain Twin, especially if you’re riding it at the 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. It’s quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist width, so they should be wide enough for your boots, IMO.
In terms of the bindings, I don’t test Rome gear currently, so I’m not sure how long Rome’s base plates tend to be. When I look at the Targa, I only see size options of S/M and L/XL (other Rome bindings have different sizings – they’re sizing system is rather complicated!). With 10.5s, I would assume you’re on the L/XL (but of course maybe there is M/L but I’m just not seeing it). Unfortunately, I couldn’t say for sure whether they would fit on the 157 UMT. However, my instinct says they will. Their L/XL sizing looks to be from size 9 and up – if they made their bindings to fit size 9 boots, then I would imagine they wouldn’t be so long that they couldn’t fit on regular width boards, as most with size 9s wouldn’t be on wide boards.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, love your reviews!
Hopping for some advice on building my quiver. I’m 170cm (5’7) and approx 85-90kg (190-200lbs). I previously rode a DC Devin Pro ‘13, I love speed and enjoy everything from power (when I can get it), bombing it down the mountain with my skiing friends, hitting natural jumps and riding switch and some park here and there. I’m in Europe at the moment but will be returning to the Southern Hemisphere in the coming years so want something I can keep with some good traction for Aus/NZ conditions.
I recently purchased a 2019 Yes PYL 159 and a 2016 Yes Jackpot 154 for a two board quiver. I was hoping that between those two I would cover all bases but worried that the jackpot wouldn’t bomb fast enough and that the PYL isn’t great switch and thinking a board that is in between that can I can bomb with my skii friends and play a little bit too switch on the groomers etc when it’s not a powder day.
Has anyone got a jackpot/PYL and recommend keeping what I have or should I make use of the current sales and grab an all mountain board. Thinking something along the line of the Jones Ultra Mountain Twin or Capita Mercury or Any other recommendations to fill the gap if at all?
Hi Oscar
Thanks for your message.
I think the PYL & Jackpot make a good 2 board quiver. But yeah the Jackpot in the 154 probably isn’t going to be a bomber. But for those park days and hitting natural jumps, it’s a nice little board. I’ve found most YES boards to have good edge-hold in hard/icy conditions too – so you’re covered there. The PYL isn’t ideal for riding switch, but it’s certainly doable.
Something like the UMT would certainly be in between those in a couple of ways. It’s less directional and more switch suitable than the PYL, but certainly more bomb-worthy than the Jackpot. In terms of flex it’s not in between though. I would say that it’s stiffer than the PYL. But from what I can tell the DC Devun Pro (not a board I’ve ridden) looks like it’s pretty stiff – so if you’re used to that and like it, then the UMT would be a good option for bombing groomers and riding switch. I personally prefer something softer for more freestyle type riding, but some people like the stiffer boards like the UMT for riding freestyle too.
The Mercury is pretty much right in between the Jackpot and PYL, I would say. Less directional than the PYL, but more directional than the Jackpot – and in between the 2 flex-wise too. It’s a good all-rounder, IMO.
Hope this gives you a little more to go off for your decision. I have linked to the reviews for the PYL, Jackpot and Mercury, if you want to look in more detail what I thought of those.
Thanks for the advice!
Apologies for the delay in getting back, I’ve been going around in circles can can’t seem to pull the trigger on either the Yes Standard, Jones UMT/MT or Mercury. However, each time i go around I always end up at the UMT, (I think mainly as I can get my buttering and slow park days from the jackpot and powder from PYL).
I’m not sure if I should go for the 154 or the 157, would you be able to provide a recommendation at all? I’m 170cm (5’7), approx 90kg (200lbs) and 7.5uk/9.5 US boot.
Cheers,
Oscar
Hi Oscar
I would go 157 for UMT for your specs. And I think that would be a good compliment between your 159 PYL and 154 Jackpot. I think the 154 would be a little small for the kind of riding you’re likely to want to be doing with it.
Hope this helps
Hi, I’m 5’8 230lbs 10.5 boot,…,… debating between the 160 and 162. Looking for a recommendation?……Also, are Malavita’s ideal for this board? Thanks.
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tight call between those 2 sizes. You could certainly ride both, and the difference will be subtle but still noticeable. But I would be leaning towards the 162, assuming you are an advanced ride who likes to carve and bomb (which is what this board is great at). If you want to also get it in the park and ride a lot of trees, then I would be more leaning towards 160.
In terms of bindings, ideally I would pair the UMT with something stiffer than the Malavitas. The UMT is quite a stiff board. They do the job (that’s what I rode it on) but I would look at something with at least 7/10 flex and probably more like 8/10 flex. Check out the following for some good options.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate. Usually I ride ref stance but 60 is too wide. Noticed you went 56 on this review. Just wanted to know if you achieved that by moving each binding in one set of holes? And also if moving each binding in the same will preserved the designed setback? Thanks!
Hi Del
Thanks for your message.
Yeah exactly. I moved each binding in one set of holes (20cm each) and that achieved the 56cm stance width, without effecting the amount of setback. It means that you’re 20cm per foot more narrow on the effective edge but you’re still setback the same amount, if that makes sense. The UMT has a 20mm setback, and you still end up being 20mm back from the center of the effective edge, by adjusting the stance in that way.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate.
You’re very welcome Del. Hope you have an awesome season!
I’m not sure if my original comment posted.
Hi Mike
Please see my response to your previous comment above. My website isn’t informing people that comments have gone through but are under moderation. Something I’m looking into.
Hey Nate,
I’m having a tough time deciding between the Ultra Mountain Twin 164w and the regular Mountain Twin 164w. I’m 6’6″, weigh 205 lbs, and generally wear a US size 12 boot although my Adidas Tactical ADVs are a size 11. I have been riding a 159w Yes Basic for the past couple of seasons, but I’m looking for something slightly more freeride oriented and stiffer, while still being able to ride switch and butter. I occasionally go in the park but have a strong preference for tree runs and hitting natural features around the resort. I was leaning towards the UMT as I’m looking for something more hard charging, but I’m worried it will be too stiff and I’d prefer the playfulness of the regular mountain twin.
Any help is appreciated, thanks!
Hi Mike
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards the regular Mountain Twin for you. It’s still going to be a step up in flex compared to the Basic and a step up in general for carving, powder and speed and add to that the 5cm increase in length and it is going to be a very different ride to your current board. In terms of carving and speed, the UMT will be another step up again, but the regular Mountain Twin is, IMO, going to be better for buttering, in the park, hitting natural features and in the trees.
The UMT is really quite stiff – and for me that usually means, and was certainly the case, I found, with the UMT, that it’s not that easy to maneuver at slower speed. So, if you’re doing something quite technical in the trees, then I would personally prefer to have the softer Mountain Twin over the UMT. Also, personally I preferred the Mountain Twin for natural features. The UMT is really good on large jumps, so if you’re really sending it, there’s an advantage there, but I preferred the MT for smaller jumps and features, particularly when there was a bit of a tricky or tight approach to a feature.
I think the 164W is a good size for you, and I would be leaning towards the Mountain Twin, based on what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks for the response Nate, looks like I’ll likely end up with the regular mountain twin as tree runs and side hits are my favorite part of riding. My only other thought would be getting a 161w UMT to make the stiffness more manageable and gain some maneuverability for the trees. Any thoughts on going this route?
Thanks again for the help!
Hi Mike
That’s certainly an option and I like you’re thinking.
It’s tough to say what the better option would be. You’d certainly gain some maneuverability back and you’ve got that shorter length, which is easy to deal with in trees. The 164W Mountain Twin would still likely be more buttery and would still likely feel softer than the 161W UMT, though the difference in the feel of the flex would be less than comparing both boards in the 164W. I do like the sound of the width of the 161W UMT for size 11 Tactical ADVs for sure, which would also help add a bit of maneuverability, being a little narrower.
It’s hard to say for sure which would be better for you in that scenario, but hopefully this gives you a bit more to go off
Hi Nate,
Is it stiffer or the same stiffness as the slash ATV?
I have an atv and feels pretty aggressive I have to say…
Hi Rob
I’d say it’s about the same in terms of stiffness as the ATV, probably even a little stiffer than that. But the ATV is all camber and the UMT has some rocker sections tip and tail, which just eases up the aggressive feel just a little bit. But certainly still an aggressive feeling board. I would say as aggressive as the ATV. Maybe slightly stiffer, but in terms of overall feel very similar, IMO.