Hello and welcome to my Jones Ultra Mountain Twin review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Ultra Mountain Twin (UMT) as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the UMT 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 2020
Price: $599 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Stiff (9/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Stiff (8/10)
Rating Score: 84.8/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 19 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 (3.5/5) |
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 | 250 | 120-170 | 54-77 |
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+ |
Who is the Ultra Mountain Twin Most Suited To?
The Ultra Mountain Twin is best suited to those that want to bomb the mountain most of the time. It’s not really one for slowing down and playing around with, from my experience – it prefers things at speed. And whilst it certainly doesn’t have a super-aggressive camber profile – it is rather stiff, which is where it gets most of its aggressiveness from.
But that extra rocker in the camber profile does help this to be a pretty good board for powder, where some aggressive all-mountain boards can be not as good in that area.
Definitely too stiff for a beginner and even too stiff for intermediate riders, unless you’re very athletic – and too stiff if you want a board to ride slow and play around with a lot.
Some will like it in the park but for me it was good on big straight airs, but not as good down the jib line or for spins.
The Ultra Mountain Twin in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the UMT is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Jones Ultra Mountain Twin 2019, 157 (253mm waist)
Date: March 13, 2018
Conditions: Overcast plus a little rain, getting a bit heavier around 2:30 in the afternoon but not too bad. Wet snow higher up the mountain. Visibility all good though. Slushy snow in patches.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22”) – reference is 600mm (23.5”) and whilst I would usually ride reference, I felt like riding narrower than 600mm that day.
Stance Setback: 20mm (3/4”)
Width at Inserts: 265mm at the tail, 268mm at the nose (quite wide in comparison to the 253mm waist)
Weight: 2740grams (6lb, 0.65oz)
Weight per cm: 17.45grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.20grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of 24 boards that I weighed
Powder
Didn’t have any real powder to test on but, based on the slush, the specs, and how the Mountain Twin (non-Ultra) rides in powder, this thing is pretty good in the deep stuff – it’s not Flagship good, but pretty good none-the-less.
Carving & Turning
This was a great board to carve on and especially liked to carve at speed. You could really lock an edge in and keep it there.
Skidded turns not as easy. You could get away with them to an extent (the camber profile isn’t overly aggressive – it’s like the Mountain Twin) but that stiffness makes it a little trickier.
Edge-to-edge it’s not lightning fast, but pretty fast – I’d say 3.5/5.
Not the ultimate tree board but definitely something you can take in the trees.
Speed
This thing can bomb! – it feels super stable when riding fast. It definitely feels at its best when putting some speed on it. Great glide on flats too.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Uneven Terrain
It felt ok on uneven terrain. It’s about middle of the road there, IMO.
Jumps
When it comes to jumps on this thing, bigger is better. Really good for big straight airs – stable on approach and stable on landing and has good pop.
Takes a little to extract that pop – for ollies and the like – but once you put in the effort it will give back spring.
I didn’t find it as nice for smaller jumps/small side hits or for doing spins – but I personally prefer something a little softer flexing for that sort of thing. You can definitely spin it, but not as easy to spin as the Mountain Twin, IMO.
Switch
Good riding switch. It’s not setback that far and the tail is the same width as the nose. In terms of length, the tail is shorter by 2cm compared with the nose, but still felt fine riding switch – as long as your switch game is reasonably dialled.
Jibs/Butters
Some might be ok jibbing/buttering/pressing with this board, but I personally found it quite difficult – not impossible but not easy either, IMO.
Changes from the 2019 Model
The 2020 model is virtually the same as the 2019 model, with a new graphic. There have been a couple of tweaks, but no significant changes.
Changes from the 2018 Model
It got stiffer.
The 2019 model is the first chance I’ve had to get on the Ultra Mountain Twin so I can’t say how much stiffer it feels compared to the 2018 model but Jones rated the 2018 model 7/10 for flex and rate the 2019 model 9/10 for flex.
In 2018 they rated the Mountain Twin (non-ultra) 7/10 and still rate it 7/10. From what I heard about the 2018 model is that it was stiffer than the regular Mountain Twin. So, some of that increase in their flex rating might be just to better reflect the difference between the Mountain Twin and the Ultra Mountain Twin. Either way the UMT is a good bit stiffer, in my experience than the MT.
It also has Traction Tech 2.0 in place of the “Mellow Magnetration” that the 2018 model had but I suspect this is just a change in terms.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING/TURNS | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.0 | 6/10 |
PIPE | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 84.8/100 |
Overall, this board is really fun and great for those that like their board stiff and fast but still want to hit jumps and ride switch. It can ride anywhere on the mountain but for my tastes favors the groomers and the backcountry/sidecountry over the park – though it is mean (in a good way!) on big jumps.
The Camber profile isn’t overly aggressive but the stiffness makes this board one that, I felt, liked to ride fast much more than it did slow.
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.
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.
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.