Hello and welcome to my Lib Tech Dynamo review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Dynamo as a mellow freeride snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Dynamo a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other mellow freeride snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Lib Tech Dynamo
Price: $579
Style: Mellow Freeride
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (6/10)
Rating Score: 83.7/100
Compared to other Men’s Mellow Freeride Boards
Of the 30 current model mellow freeride snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Dynamo ranked 23rd out of 30
Overview of the Dynamo’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Dynamo’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Freeride (softer, surfier freeride) |
Price: | $579 - BUYING OPTIONS |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Rocker but camber dominant - Lib Tech's "C3 Camber" |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 25mm |
Base: | Extruded (TNT) |
Weight: | A little heavier than normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
150 | 243 | 80+ | 35+ |
153 | 252 | 95+ | 45+ |
156 | 255 | 110+ | 50+ |
159 | 257 | 130+ | 60+ |
162 | 258 | 150+ | 70+ |
156W | 265 | 120+ | 55+ |
159W | 267 | 140+ | 65+ |
162W | 268 | 155+ | 75+ |
165W | 268 | 160+ | 73+ |
* note that the 165W is new as of the 2023 model
Who is the Dynamo Most Suited To?
The Dynamo is for anyone looking for a softer flexing, more easy going freeride option. Also great for those who like all-mountain rides, but just want something a little more directional.
Not for beginners, but great option for intermediate riders looking for a more freeride oriented board, but don't want to go too stiff/advanced.
The Dynamo in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Dynamo is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Lib Tech Dynamo 2021, 159cm (257mm waist width)
Date: February 18, 2020
Conditions: Sunny and perfect visibility.
Snow was firm underneath with soft on top on groomers. A little dust on crust off groomer but not majorly icy or anything.
Temp was quite warm in the sun. Supposed to be -1°C (30.2°F) with or without wind. Next to no wind. Felt about that in shade but warmer than that in sun.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: Setback 25mm
Width at Inserts: 265mm (10.4") at front insert and 265mm (10.4") at back insert*
*there is a slight taper and a bit of setback. Taper without setback, or a lot of taper usually gives a wider width at the front insert vs the back insert. Setback without taper usually gives a wider width at the back insert. In this case the little bit of taper offsets the setback and the width ends up the same at both inserts.
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Vans Aura
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 3080grams (6lb 12oz)
Weight per cm: 19.37 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of around 80 boards that I've weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. So, heavier than average, but didn't feel like a heavy board on snow, which is the main thing.
Damp or Chattery?
More on the damp side. Not ultra-damp, but damper than it is chattery.
Smooth or Snappy?
Slightly more snappy than smooth, but just a little to the snappy side of the middle of the scale.
Powder
Didn't have any really to test it in. But the specs and feel of the board suggest it would be a good board in powder. Not like an epic floater in super deep powder, but really good nonetheless.
It hasn't got a heap of taper, but there's some taper there - and whilst it's mostly camber, there is that subtle rocker in the middle of the board. And it's quite well setback - 25mm on effective edge and a good bit more in terms of the overall length of the board (longer nose than tail).
Carving & Turning
Carving: Good carver. Not epic in terms of big carves, but you can certainly lay a carve on it.
Turning: Really fun board for turning. Quite snappy but also quite an easy turner.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Nice and agile at slow speeds.
Skidded Turns: For a C3 camber board it was actually pretty easy to skid turns on. That quite easy going flex helps there, I guess.
Speed
Good at speed. Never going to be an out and out bomber with its flex, but stable enough at speed.
Uneven Terrain
Good in crud and good in terms of weaving through bumps. A really comfortable board for navigating when it's not smooth or straight.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Jumps
Had a lot of fun on this board with jumps. Which isn't always the case with Freeride boards.
Pop: It's not massive, but it's there. And what's there is really easy to access. It's an easy, fun pop.
Approach: A good balance between being stable and being nimble.
Landing: Decent. Not an out and out stomper but solid enough.
Side-hits: Fun for side hits.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Works for anything from small to large, with medium being the sweet spot.
Switch
Rides switch OK. Better than a lot of other freeride boards. It's got that in between freeride and all-mountain feel.
Spins
Good easy pop and getting the spin around was pretty easy. OK for landing/takeoff switch.
Butters
Decently buttery. Not super easy to butter, but certainly not hard to butter either.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 24/30 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
CARVING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SPEED | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 83.7/100 |
Overall, the Dynamo is a nice softer/more forgiving freeride option (or you could look at it like a more directional all-mountain ride), great for intermediate riders looking to get onto a more freeride oriented board or for more advanced riders who just prefer a softer deck, even when predominantly freeriding.
Great price for what you get too.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Dynamo, 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 mellow freeride snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Dynamo compares to other mellow freeride snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hey Nate,
Having GNU RC C3 for moving around groomers, park, switch, butters but outside any pow and Hovercraft 2.0 for freeride and pow charging I’d like to add Dynamo as all-mountain freeride (with freestyle flavour to it) where my RC lacks being a twin. Profile and flex match my needs and I’m thinking it’ll be good addition with potential to become daily driver. Seems like it’s stable with speed to the point, you can lay some decent carves on groomers and also have some fun spins/jumps/butters outside groomers and pow and even little bit of switch. In the middle of being smooth/snappy – perfect. Not too much directional but I’m hoping that won’t stop from searching and floating into pow. Sound like my cup of tea.
I was considering Lib Tech Rig but guess it seems to be not as nimble and freestyle’y with slower speed rather than Dynamo. Also max size of Rig is 160W where I’ll be looking more at 162W
Do you think Dynamo will fit well together with my current 2 boards. Also what would be Jones equivalent to Dynamo if I would be able to test ? Thanks
My current boards and stats:
6’1 93kg 12US
GNU RC C3 158W (normally Id go bigger but 158 compromise park riding well)
Jones Hovercraft 2.0 160
Hi Michal, thanks for your message.
I think something like the Dynamo would be a good addition to your quiver, particularly with your RC C3 being smaller. It would round out the quiver well as the daily driver, IMO. And should handle those unexpected days that spew powder while you’re riding. Not as good as Hovercraft for powder of course, but decent enough and certainly better than the RC C3, even size-for-size.
From Jones, I would say the Mind Expander and the Frontier would be the two closest equivalents. The Mind Expander is more directional and not going to be as good for switch, but could work. The Frontier probably the closer equivalent. Both still different, but would serve a similar purpose. The Mind Expander less freestyley though. The Mind Expander Twin (which is directional twin not true twin) is more freestyley. You could have a look into that one as well. Less directional than the Dynamo (and Frontier/Mind Expander).
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for reply Nate. I also think Dynamo would round out the quiver well going this direction.
On the other hand im concidering different approach and maybe instead of Dynamo I should focus more on freestyle, park and switch aspect than freeride with daily driver idea (which is probably more than 60 -70% of how and where I ride), therefore go with freestyle/all mountain twin as daily driver especially having Hovercraft which is very versatile deck and covers most of freeride aspects for me.
Yes Standard Uninc 162 (is this size ok for my stats ?) would be my choice. I can see there is quite a difference in flex rate and feel on snow on your review, I assume it’s cause of rockers in tip and tail is that correct ? If yes then that’s good cause it’s still stable enough between feet for speed and carving but also to butters well 👌
My question is how well does it handle powder, is it acceptable and doesn’t hold to go off groomers and explore ? I don’t do any backcountry etc
Or do you think there would be too much overlap with RC 158W (reminder – it is downsized), not very different in pow and I should go Dynamo way ? Wouldn’t like to go any lower than RC for all-mountain deck in terms of flex. Was considering Jones Mind Expander Twin but it might have little too soft flex. My mate strongly recommend Yes boards as we have similar ride styles. Appreciate 🙏
Just to add, I mentioned above that flex of Yes differs from its rating and feel, I was actually referring to Standard (not the Uninc) and I know it’s because its “modern camber” being bit flattened in middle. Kind of like Lib’s C3 I assume.
I’m still interested in Uninc full camber version.
Also considering if I’d go “Dynamo way” there’s also Yes PYL…and this board seems interesting too. What makes more sense for the all mountain in this quiver in your opinion ? Thank you
Hi Michal
Yeah, I thought you must have been talking about the regular Standard in your last message and was going to mention that. The regular Standard is a little better in powder, but the Standard Uninc can handle some powder, so long as it’s not too deep – but then you’d have the Hovercraft 2.0 for that. Given that you don’t want to go softer than the RC C3, I would be leaning Standard Uninc over Standard. I mean the Standard in 162 would likely be similar in flex and maybe a bit stiffer feeling vs the RC C3 in the 158W, but even so, I’d be leaning Standard Uninc if you don’t want to be similar flex to RC C3.
And the Standard Uninc would be different enough from the RC C3, IMO, particularly if you go with the 162. And the 162 would work for your specs. It’s not going to feel overly buttery in that size, IMO, and already it isn’t as buttery as the Standard. If you did want a little more powder and butterability, then the regular Standard in 162 is still an option, if you think the flex could work for you. And yeah, the Standard is softer tip and tail and stiffer through the middle in comparison. But it also has a softer torsional flex than the Standard Uninc.
Im going this way after all. I’m going to test both on Saturday. If Standard’s flex will be stiff enough for me (which I believe it will be at 162) I will go with it being more buttery plus bit better powder performance. If not then Uninc. Will update which I went for ! ✌️
Hey Michal, thanks for the update. Look forward to hearing how you get (got) on.
Hey Nate, thanks for giving us advice on these boards. In the past two days I’ve gone from golden orca vs mega merc, to super pig, then to flagship, then to proto pr. Now I’m not sure what board I want.
I’ve been currently riding the 2008 K2 Jibpan and it’s done well helping me play all over the mountain and keeping up. I’d say I’m an intermediate to advanced rider. If I had to choose the perfect day, it would be looking for powder and going in between trees while find natural features to jump off of. Then once your heading to the chairlift bombing down the run with tight turns. Now I’m very mindful within all of this you can find boards to highlight specific areas. But would you have a recommendation based on this and also maybe a few boards to let me know how that board would ride?
I’ve turned off of the golden orca because of the hype, but everything that reads on it, seems like it should be a board I get. I just hear that it’s overpriced for what it gives you.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message and apologies for the slower than usual response. Flat-out testing gear at the moment! I have answered on the comment you left on the Jones Flagship review.
Nate thanks for the great site. I am. 48 year old intermediate, 5′ 10″ 220 lbs 12 boots currently riding a 161 Lib Tech Cold Brew. I need a bit more. Don’t ride switch much at all, mostly cruising blacks and blues with side hits and smaller jumps. No park. I have a surfy style love to slash and skid the edges of runs. I need something that can handle hard, pack well, and is pretty nimble for the tighter. East Coast runs, and some crowds but something that can carve a little bit and handle, one big snowboarding trip a year for powder. I was looking the Dynamo 159w, Banked 160W, Jones mind expander 162 and the flagship 159w. These are all a bit shorter but doing that to be more nimble I like the mind expander a lot, but 162 is a bit long for around here. Is it pretty nimble? What do you think of these options? The dynamo seems to be a good fit and that’s good all around, would I be OK at 159 wide? The bank looks awesome. I’ve heard that it’s pretty stiff. I don’t want anything. I’ll work me too much. Getting lazy in my old age.
Hi Nathan
Thanks for your messages. I have also seen your messages on the Banked Country and Hyper reviews, but will answer all here.
Given you’re looking for something that’s a bit more, but not too much more, I would say the Banked Country and Flagship aren’t going to be as suitable. That said, the Banked Country did mellow out a bit for 2024 model, but still stiffer/more board than the likes of the Dynamo, Hyper and Mind Expander.
I know you didn’t mention Hyper here, but you asked about it on the Hyper review, so I’m bringing that in too as that is what I would be leaning towards, based on what you’re describing.
The Mind Expander is nice and nimble, in my experience, so I think you’d be fine in that respect. It’s not as surfy a feel as something like the Hyper – it’s good for slashing turns on, but not quite in the same way as something like the Hyper. But it would definitely work for what you’re describing and would likely be my number 2 choice, if you can’t get the Hyper.
Between the Hyper and Dynamo, they would both do the job, for sure, but the Hyper is a more dynamic board, IMO. It’s more nimble, more surfy and its got a fun easy-access pop to it. So does the Dynamo, but the Hyper just has a bit more life to it, in my experience. When reading your description above, it basically says “GNU Hyper”, in my head. And the 159W would be a good size. I think the sizes you have there are all suitable based on your specs, combined with your riding style and where you ride.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks, sorry for the multiple posts I did not think they went through on my phone. Thanks for the insight. I really like the look in the shape of the mind expander but not crazy about the length. Do you think it would be nimble enough for what I’m looking for? For the hyper that’s a volume shifted board I believe. I do like to carve will that have a problem with carving? Of the three which is the best carving board? Also, the one on the board I didn’t mention was the terrain wrecker, but I’m not sure if that would be enough of a step up from the cold brew and it looks like it’s a true twin.
Hi Nathan
All good, I’ve had issues with the comments not properly notifying people that they’ve been submitted. When I get a chance in the off season, I’m going to take a look (or get someone with better technical knowledge than me to take a look!) and see if I can get that fixed.
Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161. So that makes the 162 Mind Expander on the longer end, but because of how much of its length sits out side the contact points on the nose, it’s got less effective edge than you’d typically get in an all-mountain board. So that aspect of it, will make it feel smaller on hard pack than you’d feel a 162 with more effective edge – that nose will come into play in the powder mostly (apart from adding a bit of swing weight). However, that is offset a little bit, by how wide it is at the front inserts and nose. Which can make it feel bigger, with that extra width. However with size 12 feet and the fact that it’s way less wide in the tail (lots of taper), makes it still a good length for you, IMO. I did ride the 154 (6’0″, 180lbs, size 9.5 boots), and that’s on the small end for me, but with that extra width, I like to size down). So, yeah, I think it will still feel nimble in that length. But probably going to feel bigger overall than the Hyper or Dynamo 159W still.
The Hyper isn’t really volume shifted, IMO. The 160 has a 256mm waist which is pretty typical for a 160. And it’s width at inserts is less than you’d expect vs the waist width. The width at inserts of the 160 is only around 264mm at the back insert and 263mm at the front insert. The 159W around 275mm at back insert and 274mm front insert – which is a good width for 12s. Maybe you’re thinking of the Gremlin? Which is more volume shifted.
The Terrain Wrecker isn’t a true twin, but a directional twin. However, it is closer to a true twin than anything else you’re looking at. It has a centered stance on effective edge and is basically a twin between the contact points, but it’s got a longer nose than tail. However, based on what you’re describing, I think going more directional than the Terrain Wrecker makes more sense. And the Terrain Wrecker is very similar to a more twinned up version of the Hyper, in my experience – but the Hyper is a little better on a carve and better in powder, so for what you’re describing the Hyper is more suitable than the TW. You can get it in a 161W, which is closer to your best size, but given you want something that’s more mellow, I don’t think you’ll have any problem going down to a 159W.
The Hyper can carve. It does have its limits though. But it’s pretty good for moderately high speed longer carves and lower to moderate speed tight carves. At certain speeds it will wash out on a carve, particularly if you’re trying to carve with a tighter radius at higher speeds. The same could be said for the Mind Expander though, just maybe not quite to the same extent – but that extra taper does help it to wash out when carving hard at higher speeds. The Dynamo has more camber than the Hyper but I didn’t feel it was any better a carver vs the Hyper. It can maybe hold on to higher speed carves a little better, but I found it not as good for slower to moderate carves and just not the same spring – not as dynamic a feel to it. And the Hyper is better for slashes and quick turns.
I think all 3 would work, but I’d go 159W Hyper, 162 Mind Expander and 159W Dynamo in that order, if it was me. But I understand you want to size down a bit, so for you, the order might be different. But I’d still put the Hyper before the Dynamo.
I’m 6′ 180 lbs and size 11 boot. Advance rider. I’m debating between a dynamo 159 and 156W. I prefer good float in powder, quick maneuverability in trees and great stability at high speed in groomer. Which size do you recommend or is there a snowboard that suits me better than dynamo?
Hi Ron
Thanks for your message.
In terms of powder float, I’d say it’d be really similar. The 156W and the 159 probably have really similar surface area. When flat basing at speed, they’re probably also similar in terms of stability at speed, but when on edge, the 159 should be more stable, with its longer effective edge. In terms of maneuverability, it would likely be close again, because that size down to the 156 would help bring back some maneuverability that was lost with the extra width. But I’d say the 159 would still be slightly more maneuverable. Or at very least easier to get that quick maneuverability – taking less effort/energy to get that quick maneuverability. With an 11 boot though, the 159 is pushing it in terms of being too narrow. Depending on the profile of your boots, your stance width, your binding angles and how deep you like to carve. But there’s a definite risk of it being too narrow. Some boards with a 257mm waist would be all good for 11s, but in this case the width at inserts is less than you’d think for a 257mm waist.
With all that said, I think there are better boards for what you’re describing, especially given it sounds like you enjoy high speed on groomers. I would check out the following 2 lists and there should be boards there, IMO, that will fit your needs a little better. Compare the score breakdowns with the Dynamo.
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
>>Top 10 Mellow Freeride Snowboards
Because you’re looking for that balance between stability at high speeds but also quick maneuverability, I would probably be leaning towards one of the following:
– GNU Banked Country
– Jones Flagship
– YES PYL
– Burton Deep Thinker
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate,
Thanks for your detailed assessment and response. This really helps with making a decision.
This website is full of amazing insights on snowboarding and is almost addicting reading it :-).
Happy Boarding!
Thanks Ron! And you’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome rest of your season!
Hey Nate,
Love your reviews. I am stuck trying to decide between the dynamo, terrain wrecker, and the GNU rc c3.
I’m 5’9 and 165lbs 9.5 boot size M cartel bindings
I’ve been riding for 20 years but only have camber boards and have mostly been geared to park. I plan to keep my forum Youngblood 154 for that use
But I’m getting destroyed on that board when I go to mammoth or Utah. Tbh I don’t ride switch as often anymore and I want something that’s more all mountain but maybe leans more towards being able to handle some powder but doesn’t have to be a true powder board.
I like the C3 hybrid profile and honestly if the terrain wrecker had c3 I’d probably pick that one but I’m leaning more dynamo in a 156. I like the idea of the RC C3 as well but that seems to lean more park which isn’t what I think I’d want.
Any thoughts would be helpful on what you think would best suit the situation I’m describing. I’ve reads some comments that c2 is easier on the knees which at almost 40 sounds appealing. But again I’ve never ridden anything with rocker.
Hey Ryan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah with the RC C3 being an Asym True Twin, it’s more geared towards park/all-mountain-freestyle and not great in powder, IMO.
The Terrain Wrecker is a good all-rounder and decent in powder, so I think that would certainly work for what you’re describing. Would take more to get used to, given you’ve always ridden camber. Note that there are essentially 5 tiers of GNU/Lib Tech camber profiles, starting with the BTX (all rocker essentially), then going C2e, C2, C2X and C3 – with increasing amounts of camber and decreasing amounts of rocker as they go up. With the Terrain Wrecker being C2X, it has the second most amount of camber of their profiles. That said, it’s still noticeably more rocker than the C3. The C3 on some of their models essentially feels, and looks, just like traditional camber. Other C3s have a little more rocker, but the rocker is still pretty subtle. So even within their C3s, there is some variation.
The Dynamo could be a good choice. It’s more powder oriented in a few ways vs the Terrain Wrecker. It’s got the C3, so less rocker goes against it, in terms of powder, but it’s got a bigger setback, a longer nose and a little bit of taper in it, to help with powder float. And the C3 on this, from my experience, is the one that does have some subtle, but noticeable rocker in it. Putting it this way, if their C3 boards that were essentially trad camber were called C3X and the others C3e, for example, then the Dynamo would be a C3e. So still less rocker and more camber than the TW, but less than camber and more rocker than a full camber board.
So, I agree would be leaning Dynamo for what you’re after, but the Terrain Wrecker would certainly work, based on what you’re looking for. And I agree with going longer than your Forum – and the 156 for this would be a good bet. You could almost go 159, but if you’re not used to boards in that length, it might feel a bit too big.
Some others you could consider include:
– GNU Banked Country
– GNU 4 x 4
For what you’re describing and given you already have a park board, I would be leaning Banked Country myself – or 4 x 4, if you were looking to do at least some switch/park on the days you take this board out. But I’m not sure if you have those available to you. From the 3 you have mentioned, I would say probably Dynamo, but the Terrain Wrecker would work too.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate. I really need your advice. My height is 175 cm, weight 80 kg, boot size 285 mm. Which size should I choose or those dynamo? I guess 260mm waist width suits me well. Perhaps you can recommend me another snowboard? Union Atlas bindings, boots 32 tm-2
Hi Ilia
Thanks for your message.
Assuming you’re at a relatively advanced level, I would be leaning 159 for the Dynamo. Generally speaking I would put your “typical all-mountain length” right at 159. And with 10.5s, I think the 159 would be wide enough for you.
More on the width, if you were to be riding with a flatter back binding angle (e.g. 0-6 degrees) and were really laying over your carves (e.g. eurocarving), then it may be a bit narrow. But it’s around 265mm at the inserts (assuming a 560mm (22″) stance width), which is typically OK for 10.5s. So you don’t necessarily need to go as wide as a 260mm waist board. It depends on the board too – some boards with a 250mm waist could be as wide as 265mm at inserts (typically difference between waist and inserts would be 10mm, but some have a bigger difference and some have a smaller difference than that, so some boards might be like 255mm and look like they could be wide enough but end up being more like 260mm at inserts, if there’s a really small difference).
To give further detail on that, you’d be looking at around 31.1cm for your 10.5 Thirty Two Tm-2 (based on the ones I measured), so straight across (i.e. a binding angle of zero degrees), you’d be looking at a total overhang of around 4.6cm or 2.3cm for heel edge and 2.3cm for toe edge, assuming perfect boot centering. I would personally be comfortable with that kind of overhang, but if you’re eurocarving or the likes, then you might want less overhang. As you add angle to your bindings that overhang will decrease.
I can look for other boards to recommend, if you’d like, but if you could let me know about how you like to ride and your binding angles, that would help.
Anything about your riding style will help e.g. trees? powder? speed demon or more moderate speed? icy conditions often or not? jumps? sidehits? rails? butters? switch? carving aggressiveness? anything you can think of, will be helpful.
Going into my 2nd season, last year I went on a 152 Dancehaul and like it but want something more stable at speed/bombing. I have an extensive surf background (over 30 years) and like that style; directional, carving etc and not as concerned with park. I progressed a lot in one season and I’m looking at the Lib Dynamo or Jones Mind Expander… your thoughts?
Hi Anthony
Thanks for your message.
I would say both the Mind Expander and Dynamo are very similar in terms of stability at speed, but I preferred the Mind Expander overall, so that’s the way I’d be leaning between those two. Note that while both will, in my experience, give you more stability at speed vs the Dancehaul, they’re still not out and out bombers or anything. They will give more stability at speed, but not a boat load more, IMO. Depending on your specs and which size was going to be best for you, that stability at speed, may be more or less, depending on the size you go with. E.g. if you were best suited to the 158 Mind Expander, for example, then you would quite a lot more stability at speed vs the 152 Dancehaul, IMO. If you were best on the 154, it would be a more subtle increase in stability at speed.
I would be happy to give a sizing opinion, would just need your height, weight and boot size (or shoe size if you’re not sure of your boot size).
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate.
I`m curious if i went with the right board length. I`m 5’9″ 180lbs US 9.5 boots. Got myself 156W Dynamo.
I would consider myself a strong intermediate rider. Mostly riding groomers with small jump off natural features and side kicks. Also trying to learn aggressive deep carving.
Unfortunately 159W size was sold out. Now i`m wondering how big of a difference 3cm wold make.
Thank you in advance for your response!
Hi Constantine
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159. So you could go up to 159. But 156 isn’t super small for you or anything. For the more aggressive deep carving, going longer might have helped, but the slightly shorter size you should like for jumps, ollies, side hits etc.
The main thing though, is that I wouldn’t have gone wide, with US9.5 boots. So, I would have gone either 159 or 156, not 159W or 156W. I think I would be leaning 159. But the fact that you’ve gone wide and sized down, means it should be doable. Between the 159W and 156W, the 156W is the better option, IMO. The 159W, when combining length and width, would have been too big, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much, Nate for taking the time to answer. Appreciate that a lot!
I wish you a great season, man! Sher on 😀
You’re very welcome Constantine. Hope you have a great season too!
Hi nate. Help me choose between Union Atlas or Force 2024. I have a libtech dynamo 156 wide snowboard and 32 tm2 boots. Perhaps you can recommend some other option?
Hi Ilia
Thanks for your message. Both would work with the Dynamo, but personally I would go Atlas. They’re both a good flex match, IMO, but the Atlas is going to give you a bit more power for carving. The Force would work fine but I’d be leaning Atlas.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate.
You’re very welcome Ilia. Hope you have a great season.
What it do, Nate!
I’m looking at getting a new board for next year and have been mainly looking at the Dynamo (found one for a great deal), but I’m also considering the Banked Country, and K2 Passport.
Last year I finally got new bindings (Union Atlas) and boots (Ride Fuse). and wanted to get your thoughts on which board would be best for my ride style and set up, or if you had other suggestions.
I’d say I’m a fairly advanced, freeride-centric rider, and the lone snowboarder in a group of skiers. usually stick to fairly steep runs, tight trees, a bit of backcountry, side kickers, and deal with a fair amount of chop, as I am located in Washington. I’ve definitely been trying to find gear that is stiffer for more control in those tight spots, but also like having a bit of play for powder days or the days where we don’t feel like throwing ourselves off a cliff.
I’ve been riding a Sierra Crew snowboard since 2011 and don’t really have a great idea of how stiff of a board to get, what type of camber is best, differences between directional twins that are more directional or less, etc. But above all else I want to make sure I get a board that will pair well with my new boots/bindings.
Not sure if my body comp makes a difference here, but I’m 5′ 7″, 165lbs, and wear a size 9 (mens)
Thanks for creating such a great website, I definitely spend way too much time here during work hours.
Hey KP
Thanks for your message.
I would personally go with the Banked Country if I was in your shoes. That said, I haven’t ridden the Passport, but I really like the Banked Country and I think it would work really well for what you’re describing. The Dynamo would certainly work too, but if it was me I’d be leaning Banked Country.
Size-wise, I think the 155 and 159 are both options. Purely based on specs, I would say the 155 is probably your best bet, but it’s always a good idea to take into account what you’re used, being an experienced rider. So if you’re used to riding closer to 159, that’s within range too. For me, the 159 felt just right (6’0″, 180lbs, size 10s).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate! I’m thinking of picking up a Dynamo to ride and was wondering what board size would fit me the best. Im 5’9, 165lbs and wear US 11 boots, and was thinking of picking up a 156. Would this board be too narrow for me and should I look into the 156W? I’m an intermediate rider that primarily rides icy groomers (from Australia). Cheers!
Hi Jacky
Thanks for your message. I think the 156W would be your best bet. The 156 is risky in terms of being too narrow, IMO. The width at inserts of the 156 is around 263mm, which for 11s is pushing it, IMO. The 156W the safer bet.
If you weren’t going to be carving or were really mellow in the way you carved, had low profile boots and binding angles of +15/-15 then you’d probably get away with it, but all those things would need to be in your favor, IMO, and even if they were in your favor, it would restrict the option of experimenting with binding angles, starting to carve deeper etc, so I would go 156W if I was you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much! Going to pick up the 156W 🙂
You’re very welcome Jacky. Hope it treats you well!
Hey Nate,
I’m an intermediate snowboarder that mainly sticks to groomers but love a good powder day. I like a little speed but I really enjoy carving a mountain and having good control. I originally learned to board in the Midwest where hills are icy so good edge hold is a must for me. I tried the Libtech Dynamo this season and loved the edge hold but just curious if you’d recommend any other boards? Also bring 5’11 170lbs size 12 boot most boards have me at 159W. Can I get away with a regular board or should I stick with the wide?
Hi Darren
Thanks for your message.
I think the Dynamo is a good bet for you. It should do well for you in powder, when you get powder days, and like you say, good edge hold. Given that you’ve ridden it and liked it, I think it’s a good option. For what you’re describing, there are a ton of options, but if you wanted to check out some, you could look at the following to get some ideas:
>>Top 10 Mellow Freeride Snowboards
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards (stiffer, more aggressive options)
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
In terms of sizing, with 12s I would go wide every time. For the Dynamo the 159W is probably your best bet, given your riding style and specs. If you wanted to keep it more playful (but at the cost of some stability at speed and float in powder), the 156W is certainly not out of range either. Generally speaking I would put your typical length at around that 158W/159W mark.
Hope this helps
Stats: 5’9″, 170lbs, size 9 boots
Hey Nate,
I’m an advanced freeride boarder in CO with most of my riding being freestyle-oriented in steep woods, cliff drops, chutes and back bowls at resorts. I ride trees and chutes regardless if there’s a foot of fresh pow or if it’s heavily skied out. I currently have a Lib Tech Orca and BRD but my daily driver is the 150 Orca which I use for everything from 20′ cliff drops to floaty 180’s off tracked out side-hits. With that being said, the Orca is not exactly an ideal board to be riding switch/spinning off cliffs and side-hits so I am looking to add a more freestyle-oriented board to the quiver that can reliably stomp cliff drops into both powder and chunder, responsive weaving through tight trees, and steady ollieing off every natural feature I can find regardless if the approach is mad sketchy.
When I first started searching for a twin/slightly directional off-piste freestyle board, I was mainly looking at Capita Mercury & DOA & BSOD, Jones Mountain Twin, Lib Tech TRS & Dynamo & Golden Orca, GNU Banked Country, Salomon Assassin & Super 8, Bataleon Thunder Bolt, and Burton Freethinker (but really don’t want to go back to channel bindings (had them from 2012-2018 and really wasn’t a fan)).
What would you recommend for my style of riding considering I have other boards for when there’s 6″ or more of fresh pow? Between the TRS and Dynamo, the TRS seems like it has a better core & base, and only has a .5″ setback while the Dynamo has a full 1″ setback. Given that I have the Orca and BRD, I definitely don’t need anymore massively set-back powder boards but I’ve heard that the Dynamo has incredible stability on landings regardless of what you land in.
– After much deliberation I’ve come to the conclusion that the TRS, Dynamo or Mercury will be the most ideal freeride/all-mountain freestyle board that can hold up off-piste on cliff drops and tree runs but also be able to boost off every side-hit and catwalk with stability and hold up at 45+mph on groomers. IDRK anything compared to you though so would love to hear your thoughts!! Thanks again for all your incredible work!
Peace, Love, Shred
Hey Ryan
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning TRS. I think it can handle everything you’re looking to do and is the best compliment to your existing quiver. The Mercury handles speed a little better, in my experience, and is better in powder (but you don’t need that), but the TRS, IMO, is better for jumps/side hits and spins. Given what you have in your quiver, I think the TRS offers you the best for what you’re looking to do when you’re on this board. Not going to be the most stable board you’ve ridden, when you’re getting over 45MPH, but can handle around those speeds.
I’d be leaning 157, size-wise, for your specs, to give you something long enough to continue to be stable but not so long as to be too hard to throw around. If you were doing more casual freestyle stuff, I’d even consider the 154, but given the more aggressive riding you’re doing, I’d be leaning 157. Unless you’re used to a size considerably different (not including the Orca, given it’s designed to be ridden shorter), then might need to reassess that.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I found your website yesterday and I must have spent many hours in here since then! I love the way you are reviewing the boards.
I’m thinking of upgrading my board and I would like to ask your opinion. I learned to snowboard on a Capita Horoscope 2021. I spent a lot of time on the mountain last year so I could say that I’m in a descent level atm. I also surf so that helped a lot. I can decently carve, go relatively fast, small jumps and ride switch. However, the Horoscope has felt too sloppy at times and can’t hold the edge well when I carve at higher speeds. Therefore, I am thinking of upgrading my board to an All-Mountain type one. I’m thinking of the Dynamo, the Terrain Wrecker and the Kazu Kokubo. I am trying to upscale my level here so from what I have read the Dynamo would be a good transition. However, I would really love to hear your thoughts about these boards or any other board you think that would suit my need atm.
Thank you!
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I would say the Terrain Wrecker would be the easiest transition, being the softest flexing of the 3 and with the least amount of camber. Still definitely a good step up from the Horrorsceop but from what you’re describing, I think you could probably step it up to the Dynamo. The Kazu might be a little step too far. It’s not ultra stiff/aggressive or anything, but it’s more of a stretch. I’d be leaning TW or Dynamo – and probably Dynamo to give you a bit more of the precision you’re looking for.
Hope this helps with your decision
Many thanks for your reply Nate! I’ll go with the Dynamo then!
I’m just trying to figure out what is the right size for me. I’m 5’9, 165 and I would normally go for a 56 or 57. However, the Dynamo size and weight ranges are a bit weird. For example the 156 is recommended for 110+ and the 159 for 130+. Do you think a 159 would be better pick?
Hi Nick
I honestly wouldn’t put too much stock into their weight ranges. It’s not very helpful when you just have a minimum! I would go 156 for your specs/your riding.
I have ridden the dynamo over 200 days and can say it is the best all mountain board I have ever ridden. The slight rocker in this board makes the thing pop into the air with ease. The thing is a charger, made to go fast. It’s locked in. I ride in Colorado and is always my go to board no matter if I’m doing park, trees, open pow or even groomers. The c3 profile carves like a legend. On deep days I will loosen my bindings and just move them back on the pins maybe a half inch and it turns it into a powder destroyer. There is a reason the froth goblin rides this powder pony
This deck is pretty amazing in my eyes! I’m rolling this from a first gen skate banana 59. Don’t get me wrong I can muscle my old naner down to my elbows on hard turns. But from coming from first tech to c3, it’s where its at! I’m a camber guy lets face it, I made the old board work but this is a all mountain dream. I muscle turns and drive fast! It works at Jackson in deep and works good on any groom! Learn the deck and it will take you anywhere.
Hey Nate,
I am 6’1 and 180 with 10.5/11 boot size – I own 2020 Dynamo C3 for coming third season now. I am eyeing for 2020 Skate Banana (156?) as my second board to play around the mountain (not park specifically) but jumps/switch around mountain. Is Skate Banana a good fit or should I get something else? I would like to butter, have pop jumps through trails and some switches, perhaps some runs through trees.
Let me know – thanks a bunch!
Hi Chandler
Thanks for your message.
I think the Skate Banana would work well for what you’re describing. And size-wise, I think the 156 would work well for your use of it too. The only question mark with the 156 is whether it could be too narrow. It’s not as wide at the inserts as the waist width would suggest (the waist width on Lib Tech boards tends to sit right on a magnetraction bump, which makes the waist figure make it seem wider than it is). If you’re in 10.5 and you’re not going to be doing any deep carves or anything, then you should be all good. In an 11, it’s a closer call – but again, if you’re not going to be doing any deep carves, you might still get away with it – would depend on your binding angles and how low profile your boots are. If you could let me know those two things and also the size of your Dynamo (to make sure the 156 is a good way to go within the context of your whole quiver).
If you did want to explore other options you could also check this list out and here’s our Skate Banana review if you haven’t already seen it.
Hi Nate,
I’ve been reading all over your site and can’t decide on my next board! Hoping to get some recommendations. I currently ride a 2016 GNU Riders Choice 158W. I’m 5’11” 190lbs and just realized I’ve been running the wrong boot size over the last 20 years (way too big). My feet are 27cm so according to mondo should be about a 9-9.5 boot (I’ve been running 11-11.5). So this should open up some options on a slightly narrower board.
As for my riding style, I don’t hit the park at all, no side jumps, no switch, or any type of freestyle riding. I love powder, steep runs (which can get chunky and icy so ideally something that could plow through), groomers, and getting in the tight trees when there’s some fresh snow. I’d say I’m upper level intermediate to low level advanced.
I’ve been going back and forth and looking at the Gremlin, Banked Country, Warpig, Orca, Flagship, and now the Dynamo. Would love to get your opinion on sizing and which board would fit my style more. Thanks so much and love the site!
Hi Erik
Thanks for your message.
I think the Dynamo would work, but I’d be leaning Flagship for what you’re describing. The Banked Country could work but will be a little harder work in tight trees than the likes of the Dynamo and Flagship, IMO. The Gremlin could work too, but it’s a little trickier to size. I would say probably 155 for you, but might feel a little labored in tight trees – which is where I’d say go 152. But then you’re taking away it’s powder float and lacking that stability at speed that you might want from it. Still doable for sure, but I’d be leaning Flagship.
Size-wise for the Flagship it’s between the 158 and 161. 161 would of course give you better powder float and stability at speed with the 158 providing better maneuverability. To note, I would say you’d still get better powder float and stability at speed versus your 158W Rider’s Choice, despite your RC being wider. The Flagship is designed to float in powder a lot more so than the RC. With 9.5s and even in 10s, if you ended up in 10s, the 158 should be wide enough. With 10s, it would depend on the brand/model you got. A bulkier 10 with a flat back binding angle would be pushing it. But a lower profile 10 should be fine.
If you did go Dynamo, then I’d go 159. The 162 wouldn’t be completely wrong either, but I’d be leaning 159. For the Banked Country I’d go 159 too. Orca I would probably look at the 153 and Warpig, probably the 154.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I am looking to upgrade my current 2010 Rome Agent I’ve been on for years. I have been on full camber and love the pop out of turns. I demoed the 158 flagship in vail and loved it. How does the dynamo compare.. most my days will be east coast and feel a true free ride board may not be best bet (flagship). Flagship was a workout too, but nothing I couldn’t handle. How does it compare as well as ejack knife? Thanks! Is there another board I should look at and size? 5’9 170 size 9.5.
Hi Ad
Thanks for your message.
The Dynamo, in my experience, is softer flexing and a little more mellow than the Flagship. It’s not as good in powder or for carving or at speed or uneven terrain (crud bumps etc), but it’s not bad in any of those areas. I found it quite a bit softer flexing (6/10 versus 7.5/10 on the Flagship). It is pretty camber dominant, so it’s not super mellow or anything, but it’s fairly mellow. It is a little easier to ride switch. It’s got as much camber as the Flagship, I would say, but it’s in different areas. The Dynamo has rocker between the feet and otherwise cambered – it’s Lib Tech’s “C3” camber, which feels pretty camber dominant, but you can notice the rocker between the feet – and I felt the Dynamo was a more mellow version of C3 than others in their lineup. The Flagship has rocker tip and tail and camber between and under the feet – so that creates quite a different feel.
The Ejack Knife is a really nice board, IMO. It’s still a little softer than the Flagship, but pretty close (7/10 by my feel). In my experience, it’s better for caring and speed than the Dynamo and also better in icy conditions. The Dynamo is still really good in icy conditions, so there’s not a lot of difference, but the Ejack Knife that little bit better.
Size-wise, I think 158 is spot on for the Flagship for you. For the Dynamo I would be between the 156 and 159. It’s a close call. For the Ejack Knife, between the 157 and 159, but I’d be leaning 157.
Hope this helps with your decision
Awesome, it definitely does! I demo a Ejack Knife and it can rip! I come from multiple Rome boards, and impressed with the durability and camber profile. To help give me understanding, which boards would the dynamo and ejack knife compare too in the current Rome line? (I want something niddle edge to edge, yet can bomb down steeps, and yet butter the mountain away!) Thank you again!
Hi Ad
I’ve just started testing Rome boards this winter (2023 models), and haven’t had the chance to do a majority of their line, but have ridden a few now. Looking at the Rome line and based on specs, the National looks to be the closest to the Ejack Knife, but still not that similar. The Dynamo maybe to the Ravine. But so many differences, I don’t think you can compare them that closely.
Thanks so much for quick responses! I demoed ejack and like the pop but I’m used to Rome’s camber especially out of turns and very curious on your take on the new models!
Hi Ad
I really liked the Rome’s I tested. I have only done a few so far, but look forward to testing more. For those we tested this winter, the reviews will be coming out throughout the year. Keep your eyes posted for those for more details.
In addition Nate, my current board for the last 18-19 years has been a Ride Yukon 168, with Ride EX 2X series bindings of same vintage.
Thank you,
Brian
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
I would go Ejack Knife for what you’re describing. I think you’ll appreciate the step up in carving performance and stability at speed over the Dynamo – and the Ejack Knife still has some forgiveness to it – it’s not uber aggressive or unforgiving or anything.
Size-wise, I’d go 162W. Will take a bit of getting used to, sizing down from what you have, but once you’re used to it, I think you’ll really enjoy that board in that size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thank you for all the work you put in. I’m trying to decide between the Lib Tech Dynamo and EJack Knife. I ride mostly inbounds and enjoy carving on the groomers, seeking out some powder in the trees, and taking advantage of some side hits. No park and almost no reverse. I would classify my ability as Intermediate to Advanced for the type of boarding I do. Specs: 45 yrs old, 195#, 6’2”, size 13 boot.
Thank you in advance!!
-Brian
Hi Nate from Spain! Congratulations on your review!!!!
For 147 lbs, 5’6″ and foot 8.5 what size would you recommend in the Dynamo?
Hi Pablo
I would be weighing up between the 150 and 153. But would be leaning 150.
As a “standard all-mountain” size, assuming a relatively advanced level and a good width for your boots, I would say around 152.
The 153 would be on the big side for you, IMO, particularly when combing the width and length. Just the length, in a narrower width, I think would work, but the width makes it overall on the big side. That said, if you’re looking for stability at speed and float in powder and value that over maneuverability, this option would certainly work.
But if you wanted a more all round board, that would be more maneuverable at slower speeds and something you could do some freestyle stuff with too, if you wanted, then the 150 would be your best bet, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate!! Thank you very much, your recommendation is of great help. I have an advanced level and I like carving, speed and uneven terrain. I had considered 156 but after your recommendation I think I will decide on 153. How about?
Thanks a lot!!
Hi Pablo
Given your level and riding style and that you were considering going to 156, I think the 153 would be your best bet.
Thanks a lot. Have a great year 2022 !!!
You’re very welcome Pablo. Hope you have an awesome 2022 too!
Hi Nate,
I am an advanced beginner/low intermediate with maybe 2-3 years of solid experience, mainly on the East Coast. I’ve always rented but looking to buy my first board that will help me progress and I wouldn’t feel the need to replace for at least 2 years. I’m leaning towards the Dynamo but see conflicting things online about it being fine for intermediates vs only recommended for advanced riders. What do you think?
Also I’m 5’11, 150 lbs size 9/9.5 boots and I would get the Dynamo size 156.
Forgot to mention that the other option I’m considering is the Terrain Wrecker C2X in size 154 which seems more beginner/intermediate oriented. I saw on your review for the TW you said the Dynamo is better for carving which is what I’m mostly interested in – improving my turns and having better control while going faster, no park for me!
Hi Yash
Thanks for your message.
I found the Dynamo to be fairly mellow, but I’ve had others comment that it felt stiffer to them and not as mellow. So, I think it’s a riskier option – you might be OK, but it might be a bit much – I think probably higher-end intermediate for this board would be a safer bet.
The Terrain Wrecker, IMO, would work well for your ability level. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that it’s beginner friendly, but certainly low-end intermediate friendly in my experience. It’s not amazing at hard carves, but you can still do them – and for general turning it’s amazing. Really fun to turn on. I would be leaning Terrain Wrecker for you. It’s certainly not something you would outgrow too quickly. I use it as my control board currently.
Also for your specs, for the Dynamo, I’d say 156 is bordering on too big – I think that size would be fine for you, as a more advanced rider, but for now a little big. The combination of the size being on the longer end of your range and potentially being a bit of a stretch for your level, I’d be leaning 154 TW.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Do you know if they changed the flex for the 2022 model? I got the 159 and this thing is really stiff. Way stiffer then my PYL, Greats and Standard.
The board was really nice for sending cliffs, the landing gear was awesome but the float in lower angle pow was less then desirable. My standard floats way better.
I want to like this board, do you think this board will soften up with time as this was day 1 on the board. Not sure whether to trade it in and get something full camber with a rocker nose instead for better float.
511, 180lbs size 10. 10 years riding.
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
Really surprising you found this stiffer than the PYL. Not as surprised versus the Standard and Greats. I would say, by my feel, it’s very similar flex to the Standard and Greats. As far as I know the 2022 model should be identical to the 2021 model, which is why I didn’t retest the 2022 model. It’s not common, but every now and then a brand will change a board up without any mention of it or anything changing in the spec, so it is possible, but I am very surprised. I’ve found that Mervin boards do typically soften up quicker than average, with use. So, it will likely soften up more than you’ve experienced with your YES boards. I’ve had the Greats 2019 for a few seasons now and I swear it hasn’t softened up in the slightest.
As I was reading your comment (before I got to the end), I was going to ask your specs to see if it was a bit big for you, then that might explain it feeling stiffer. But the size is spot on for you, IMO.
Hard to say how much it will soften up over time, but as I mentioned I have found Mervin boards to soften up quicker/more than others. Also to note, when I rode this it would likely have had a handful of days on it already.
Another thing to note is that I had someone test the Dynamiss (women’s version) and she described it as stiffer than I felt it too. Not sure if hers had been ridden less than the Dynamo I rode had.
Hi Nate!
Thanks for the review, very helpful. I’m going with the Dynamo as my first board bought, but i have a sizing question: 208 lbs, 6ft (185 cm), Ride Lasso US 10.5 and wondering between size 162 and 159W. What i read and heard, i think i would love the stability on moguls and uneven terrain, but at the same time i’m afraid that it won’t be as maneuverable on low speeds as the shorter 159W. I’m not that much into park, more like casual all-mountain, but side jumping is always a great addition to everyday’s riding. Can you help me choose?
Hi Charles
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tight call between those 2 sizes, IMO, but I’d be leaning 162. The 162 is bang on length-wise for your specs and what you’re describing, IMO – and the width should be just right too. The 159W is a bit wide for 10s, but as you’d be sizing down the length it would still be an appropriate size for you, IMO. Lighter riders tend to struggle more with boards that are too wide for them (more effort to try to apply pressure to the edges when feet are too far inside the edges, as they can’t apply as much force), so I think you would be OK with going a little wider if you wanted to, particularly as you’d be sizing down.
However, I would say that the 159W and 162 would be very similar, based on my experience, in terms of maneuverability at slow speeds. I find boards that are too wide for me tend to take more effort and are slower to turn, so that kind of offsets the fact that it’s shorter. Taking into account that I’m 175lbs, so you’ve got a little weight on me, that wide effect may be less pronounced for you, so overall it’s certainly possible that you’d find the 159W a little more maneuverable at slow speeds, even if I personally wouldn’t. But I’d say the more pure size would be the 162, and it’s certainly wide enough for your boots, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate,
Thanks a lot! Definately going for 162! Much appreciate you answer and opinion! Thanks a lot!
You’re very welcome Charles. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hello Nate,
Much thanks for the reviews! Actually thanks to you (and the community) i happened to decide on my snowboard set: Lib Tech Dynamo and Union Atlas – I believe it’s gonna be a very fun set to ride in Europe 🙂
My only question is about the board(s) and the years: Is it a significant difference between the same model but different year? I mean i can lay my hands on Lib Tech Dynamo 2020 model with good price, but I’m wondering if i will not be missing some new features by getting the 2020 model instead of 2022 model. What do you recommend. Are there big differences between 2020 and 2022 board model? Thanks!
Greetings from Poland! 🙂
Hi Karol
Thanks for your message.
Some boards don’t get updated for several years. Some 2022 models will differ quite a bit from their 2020 counterpart, but some will be identical (apart from the graphic). In the case of the Dynamo, the 2022 model, as far as I can tell, is the same as the 2020 model, so you shouldn’t be missing anything if you get the 2020 model. The only real change that I can see is that the 2022 model has new sizes (150, 162W) compared to the 2020 model.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I have been looking at this board. I’m 5′ 10″ and around 190 lbs. I have a size 11 1/2 shoe. Would you think a 156W work for me? Also i’m more on the beginner to intermediate side. Been snowboarding a long time but have been on a 10 year hiatus from snowboarding. i’ve always owned lib tech boards back in the day. Grew up in the same as where the factory is. Getting back into this year.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Hi Devon
Thanks for your message.
I think 156W is on the shorter side for your specs, but it’s doable. And if you’re more high-end beginner/low intermediate, then it’s a size that would work for you, IMO. I guess the only thing to consider is how quickly you get back up to speed. If you were at a high-end intermediate bordering on advance level, then I’d say 159W would be the more appropriate size. Also depends on how you’ll be looking to ride. If you think you’ll want to be bombing/riding relatively aggressively in the near future, then you might find it feeling quite short quite quickly, but if you’re thinking you’ll be riding more playful/casual, then it’s a size that you can probably stick with as you progress – at least for a lot longer.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nate, love your write ups and have read pretty much everything on your site. I’ve been riding a Rome agent 155 for a while now. I’m 5’9”, 185 lbs, with a size 9 boot. I’d say I’m intermediate to advanced with 15+ years riding. I’ve spent my time in the park (almost never head there anymore) and now lean almost exclusively to bombing resorts on the east coast with a 5 day trip annually in search of some powder. The board I’m looking towards now will be my only board and I’m leaning towards a 159 dynamo. Really don’t care much for butterability and figure the 159 would add some stability. Thinking of pairing it with the union atlas and 3XD boot. What are your thoughts on this setup and anything else you would recommend? T.rice pro also looks tempting.
Again, really value your thorough reviews.
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message.
I think the Dynamo would make a really good daily driver, if you’re not really riding park. And for your specs and riding style, I think 159 is just right.
Should match well with the Atlas and 3XD, IMO, too.
Certainly there are a lot of options for what you’re describing, but if you’ve got your eye on the Dynamo, I think it would work well and the overall setup works, IMO.
Not a fan of the T.Rice Pro personally. Some people like it, but I prefer a board that can turn a little sharper than the T Rice Pro does. Also the T Rice Pro is a little more freestyle focused than the Dynamo, and I think you’ll get better powder performance from the Dynamo – and overall a better board, from my experience/opinion. T Rice pro seems to be an acquired taste – and one that I’ve never acquired the taste for.
Hi Nate,
Very nice review, thanks
I am 6’2″ 200lbs US11
Considering the waist width i am close to size 159
But considering the stance width you advised, better to go for 159W
159W 267cm waist width isnt too much for US11 size? Kindly need your recommendation
Hi Isot
Thanks for your message.
Great question – can be tricky with 11s (and 10.5s) for sure. I think the 159 is probably going to be too narrow for 11s, unfortunately. The 159W is on the wider side for 11s, but it’s still doable for sure. With a width at inserts of around 275mm, I don’t think it’s too wide. With 10s, I like to ride anything up to 265mm at the inserts – and in some cases wider is fine too, depending on the board. Waist width itself, does contribute as well, but width at inserts is a more telling measurement, IMO, as that’s where your feet are providing the leverage. With feet around 1cm longer than mine, I think the width of the 159W should be fine. Especially given that it’s a little shorter, IMO, than what I’d typically recommend for your height/weight specs. Typically I would say more like 162. So with the 159W being shorter, even if it’s on the wider side, that shorter length will make it more maneuverable.
If you were to try to risk the regular width, I would probably look at the 162. Even though it only gives you a very subtle increase in width, I think it’s a better length for you, if you’re going to go with that regular width. But I would only risk the 162 if a. you ride with +15/15 angles or similar b. have low profile boots and c. don’t carve really deep (e.g. eurovarving). If all 3 of those are true, then I think you could get away with the regular width, but I would make it the 162, rather than 159. Otherwise, 159W.
Hope this helps
Well, thank you very much!
For my size, Libtech website also offers 162 or 159w, but not 159.
Even if i reduced my weight, 159 does not show up.
I think this board has an exceptional lower insert/waist width ratio.
Will go with 159W ! Thanks
You’re very welcome Isot. Hope you have an awesome season this upcoming winter!
Hi Nate,
I was on the all mountain page, but thought I should move the discussion over here. After reading through the list of options, I narrowed my choices to the MT 157, Dynamo 156 and Dynamo 159. From your review here, the Dynamo sounds great – the fun turns / somewhat flexible freeride. At 165 pounds (5′-10″, 9.5 boot), just not sure if I want 156 and 159. I am inclined to pull the trigger on 156, but there’s that voice in my head: get the MT, 157, get the Dynamo 159… seems I am at the win/win/win point of overthinking my decision.
Hi Garrett
I think the 159 Dynamo is in your range. I think 156 is probably the most accurate size, but 159 certainly doable. Some differences you’ll feel between those two sizes.
– The 159 will be more stable at speed and float better in powder
– The 156 will be more maneuverable at slow speeds and in tighter spots (and easier to butter, and better for freestyle in general, but from your previous comments it sounds like those things are all but out of repertoire?)
I think I would still be leaning 156, just because I think it’s the best balance between width and length for your specs. But the 159 certainly isn’t wrong and if you were looking to optimize stability, then it would certainly work. MT always a solid choice too and 157 def the size I’d go for you.
Thanks again. I’m convinced. I’m going for the Dynamo 156!
You’re very welcome Garrett. Hope it treats you well. Happy riding!
Hey Nate, Thanks for your review.
What size would you recommend for a rider that’s 160lbs, 5’11”? The 156cm?
I see that you were riding the 159, did you happen to try the 156 as well?
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I only tested the 159. It felt just right for me in that size and that’s the size I would buy if I was to buy the board. But for your specs, I would be leaning 156. The 159 wouldn’t be wrong for you either, and it’s certainly an option if you were wanting to err longer, but I would be leaning 156 for your specs.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nat
How’d the 159 fit for your height weight? I’m similar Specs debating between the 159w and 156w for a Kootenay daily driver.
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the 159 was spot on for me for this board. I wouldn’t ride it any shorter. For like a big mountain, open terrain powder day, I’d be happy to have the 162, but as a daily driver, I would go 159 personally. If you have bigger feet and need wide and your otherwise similar specs to me, then I would go 159W over 156W.
Hope this helps
How would this board compare to custom x?
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
Really quite different to the Custom X, IMO. Some differences (though not all):
– It’s noticeably softer flexing than the Custom X (I felt this at 5.5/10 and the Custom X at 9/10)
– It’s no where near as aggressive. Even though it has C3 Camber, it’s quite easy riding. The Custom X is ride fast, hell for leather kind of board, IMO, this is more easy going
– The Dynamo is better in powder, better for riding at slower speeds and better for smaller jumps, sidehits, that kind of thing
– The Custom X is better for carving hard and bombing fast.
They really are quite different, from my experience with them
Hi I’d loke to buy this board, could you tell me wich size would be better for me. Im 6’0″ 183lbs and 12 size boots. I cant decide about 156w or 159w. for all mountain and park too. Thx
Hi Jeremy
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I think the 159W would be a really good size. Just right, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate!
I learnt a lot on your website, great work there!
I’m an intermediate rider, 5’7’’, 60kg, 25.2cm foot, currently wear size 7 burton imperial boots.
I’m riding a 150mm Capita outerspace living thanks to your review, I really love the board. Now I’m looking for a new board as a complimentary to it. Something better in carving/speed, steeper slope and powder sometimes, I’m currently looking at the yes standard, lib tech dynamo, burton hometown hero, capita navigator. These are the ones I can find that seems stiffer and relatively narrow since I have a smaller feet. Do you have any advice on these boards? Thank you!
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, the YES Standard, as much as I love that board, is probably one to cross off the list. Partly because it’s not as narrow as it looks based on it’s waist width specs – even in the 149 it’s likely around 257mm at the inserts, which isn’t hugely wide, but certainly wider than the OSL in 150 and that coupled with the fact, that the 151 might be the better length, for your freeride board and the fact that the Standard isn’t that directional/freeride oriented. I think the combination of those things make it less ideal. I think you’d be fine riding the 149, but overall, maybe not the best choice as a compliment to the OSL in your quiver, IMO.
The 150 Dynamo: It’s not any longer than your OSL. But it is more directional and more powder and directional oriented. The width is good for your feet (around 251mm at inserts), IMO, which makes this an attractive option. The biggest downside is that it’s not that much stiffer than your OSL and doesn’t really give you more in terms of carving/speed. Certainly more for powder, but pretty similar for carving/speed as OSL, IMO. Doable though if you wanted a more subtle compliment to your quiver.
Capita Navigator: I think this would be a good compliment to the OSL. Just subtly stiffer than the OSL, but certainly more in terms of powder and downhill abilities. Again, pretty similar for carving as OSL, but a little more in terms of speed, and very powder oriented. Sizing-wise, I would be looking into the 151 for this board for you. The width is going to be on the wider side still – around 254mm at the back insert, so doable, IMO, but still a little on the wider side. But I think it’s a doable size for you.
The Hometown Hero would be a great compliment to your quiver, IMO. Giving you more for speed, carving and powder and being a good step up in terms of stiffness. I think this would compliment the OSL well. The only question here is the size. The 148 is probably your best size, but then you would be sizing down from your OSL, and preferably you want to stay about the same size or slightly longer for your freeride board. The 152 would be a good length, IMO, but it’s getting pretty wide for your boots. Probably around 258mm at the inserts. I would probably go 148 if you were going to go Hometown Hero, as I think the length and width combo of the 152 makes it just a little big.
I think you should also take a good look at the Burton Family Tree Sensei. This board was made for smaller feet. The 151 I think would be a really good size for you, and the width would be really good. Around 250mm at the inserts. I measured the 156 at the inserts (I didn’t ride it as it’s too narrow for me) at 252mm at inserts, so that 250mm is a guess based on that. I think this would be a really good size for you and a really good compliment to the OSL – and should give you more in terms of carving, speed and powder. Again, I didn’t ride it, so I couldn’t say for sure, but on paper, I think this would be a really good option for you.
Hope this helps
Wow! Thank you so much for the great details! I will definitely check out the tree Sensei. I stumble upon the Flight Attendant the other day at Sports Basement, they are running a 20% off, look closer I found the 152 has a 244mm waist, would that be a potential fit? Although I heard it’s a pretty advanced board so that’s another concern. Thanks again for your answer, huge help on my decisions.
Hi Jason
I think the 152 Flight Attendant (FA) would work for you in terms of size, both length and width. The 152 FA likely to be around 252-253mm at the inserts. It is a more advanced board, but it’s borderline high-end intermediate. Not for a low intermediate, but if you’re close to being up to that advanced level, I think it’s doable. Not really any more advanced than the Hometown Hero though, IMO. And probably not really more than the Sensei either. Just a touch stiffer I think, but not much in it all.
Thank you for the help, really saved me a lot of headaches! I was able to get the FA at a very good price. Really interested in the Sensei, but it would be $300 more than the FA in my area.
You’re very welcome Jason. Hope the FA treats you well. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Ah sorry, and another board I forgot to mention is Jones flagship 2021, 151, waist at 24.3
Hi Jason
Similar to the FA, the Flagship is a slightly more advanced board, but it’s not so advanced that it’s undoable for a high-end intermediate rider, IMO. But I think again you’d want to be at that really solid intermediate level. The Flagship has quite a big difference between the back insert and front insert – there’s quite a bit of taper in the board. Taking into account the narrower reference stance on the 151, compared to the 158 that I rode, I would estimate the width at inserts at the reference stance of 540mm, to be around 251mm at the back insert and 256mm at the front insert. So, I think the size is doable, if you think you are good with the level of board and the stiffness. It’s another little step stiffer than the FA. Though it’s also less camber dominant than the FA, so that mellows it out a bit.
Thank you for your informations. I wanna ask you another question, I rode DOA for last 3 season. I wanna dive in powder and carving more then last seasons. On the other hand side i’m a huge camber fan, i dont wanna give up from Camber profile? What do you think ist it a good choise?
Hi Ugur
Yeah, I think it’s a good compromise based on what you’re describing. You’ll get better powder performance versus the DOA for sure, IMO, but you’re not going too far from camber. The Dynamo has Lib Techs C3 Camber, which does have some rocker between the feet, but that is a very short section of rocker, and it’s very subtle – feels closer to a full camber board, than a Hybrid Rocker board, IMO. You still do notice that little bit of rocker (or at least I do, but I’m paying attention to these things very closely) but it’s subtle. So yeah, I think it could work well, in terms of giving you more in powder, but still having a good bit of camber to work with.
Hi Nate, I would like to buy this board for this season. Can i combine it with Union Strata ? Do you suggest any other Union binding ?
Hi Ugur
Thanks for your message.
Yes, I think this board would work well with the Union Strata. You could also ride it with the Force, Atlas or even Falcor (if you wanted a harder driving binding). But I think the Strata would be a very good match.