Hello and welcome to my Ride Berzerker review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Berzerker as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Berzerker a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mountain snowboards.
NOTE: This review hasn’t been updated beyond the 2022 model. We haven’t tested it since the 2019 model and there have been some changes since then. We will update once we’ve had a chance to re-test it.
Overall Rating
Board: Ride Berzerker
Price: $549 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 79.2/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 16 men’s aggressive-all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
- The average score was 83.7/100
- The highest score was 91.0/100
- The lowest score was 78.1/100
- The average price was $586
- The Berzerker ranked 15th out of 16
Overview of the Berzerker’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Berzerker’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | Aggressive All-Mountain |
Price: | $549 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | Hybrid Camber (majority camber) |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 20mm |
Base: | Sintered (4000) |
Weight: | Normal |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
153 | 245 | 100 - 150 | 45-68 |
156 | 247 | 125 - 175 | 57-79 |
159 | 249 | 130 - 180 | 59-82 |
160W | 257 | 150 - 220+ | 68-100+ |
162 | 251 | 140 - 190 | 64-86 |
163W | 259 | 160 - 220+ | 73-100+ |
165 | 253 | 160 - 210 | 73-95 |
167W | 261 | 170 - 220+ | 77-100+ |
Who is the Berzerker Most Suited To?
The Berzerker is best for anyone who likes to ride fast and carve up the mountain and likes to hit powder when they can too.
Not for a beginner – way too stiff/aggressive for a beginner.
Not for freestyle riding either. This is a board for riding fast, carving and getting into deeper snow.The Berzerker in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Berzerker is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Ride Berzerker 2019, 162 (250mm waist)
Date: April 14, 2018
Conditions: With 27cm of fresh snow in the 24 hours prior there was plenty of fresh snow about. Visibility (at least the part of the mountain where I was riding) was great. There was a bit of wind (which was surprisingly cold for April) but only noticed it on the chair lift. It was around -8 degrees with wind chill.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 570mm (22.4”)
Stance Setback: 20mm (1”)
Width at Inserts: 256mm at front insert (10.08“) and 257mm (10.12”) at back insert.
The narrowest board I’ve ridden in a 162. But this was designed for Jake Blauvelt and he likes his board narrow, apparently.
Flex
Ride rate this as a “medium response” but it felt to me like it was stiffer than medium. I would say 7/10, or even bordering on a little stiffer than that on snow.
Powder
Felt pretty good in powder, and I had plenty to test it in on the day I rode it.
Not what I would call a super floater but decent. The rocker in the nose helps, and the 20mm setback also helps. But it is quite a narrow board. I rode the 162 and its only 250mm at the waist and only 256mm at the front insert and 257mm at the rear insert. It does get out to 300mm at the tip and tail, so it gets wider quickly after the inserts, but still overall less surface area than a lot because of that narrow-ness.
And its not super setback and there’s no taper, but the nose is longer than the tail. So overall, good, but not amazing in powder.
NOTE: The 2020 and onwards models now have 8mm of taper.
Carving & Turning
Carving is the Berzerker’s best asset (that and speed). The turn radius took a little to get used to but once I got what it was trying to do, it was a fun board to carve on.
Not overly catchy, but also not the easiest to skid turns on.
Edge to edge speed was pretty good, unless you were trying to ride slow. Agility and edge-to-edge speed at low speeds weren’t the greatest. This board prefers speed.
Speed
This board prefers to ride at speed and felt very stable at speed. At speed the edge-to edge speed was very good. Ride this board at speed and it it’s very fun ride.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Uneven Terrain
It was average in uneven terrain.
Jumps
Didn’t get a feel for this board on jumps – whether they were in the park or for natural hits.
For anything that required a slow-ish approach, it didn’t have the agility (if it was a relatively tricky approach to a side hit, for example). For the approach to bigger jumps, it was great and nice and stable but the landings didn’t feel as good – maybe because of the narrower nature of it.
It wasn’t devoid of pop, but felt like you needed to really give it some to get pop out of it. It felt a little heavy in the air, and that also made it a little more difficult to spin.
Switch
The camber is directional – basically all camber to the tail and a bit of rocker in the nose, after the inserts. So, it felt a little weird riding switch – having rocker in the tail but none in the nose. There’s also the setback and the longer nose vs tail.
It wasn’t impossible to ride switch, but did feel a bit weird (unsurprisingly).
Jibbing/Buttering
Not what this board was designed for at all, and not easy to either hit jibs with or to butter.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING/TURNS | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 9/15 |
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.0 | 6/10 |
PIPE | 3.0 | 6/10 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 79.2/100 |
The Berzerker was really fun to ride at times but was overall quite one-dimensional. Ride it fast and carve it up on good snow, or take it through some fresh powder – and you’ll wonder how anyone could consider this a below average board.
But for anything else, it wasn’t as fun.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Berzerker, are ready to buy or want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
If you want to see how the Berzerker 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 would like your opinion on the matter. I’m interested in berzerker but I’m hesitating between size 163w/165 + binding unionAtlasPro/burtonCartelX:REf + boots: 32tm-2xlt heelgason US11.
I currently also have jones frontier2021 (162cm+unionAtlas L) and everything without problem with 32boots
18/-3, 57,5cm
Thx for Answear
Hi Marek, thanks for your message.
While the 165 Berzerker (253mm waist width) may not look to be much narrower than the 162 Frontier (256mm WW), when just looking at the waist width, when we look deeper at the inserts width (which is important as that’s where your boots are going to be), then the difference becomes bigger:
– Frontier 161 (around 270mm front inserts and 272mm back insert)
– Berzerker 165 (around 260mm front insert and 259mm back insert)
These are based on my measurements and assume a roughly 22″ (56cm) stance width. Jones measure the Jones at 268mm at the front and 271mm at the back insert, so a little narrower, but even accounting for some measurement differences, you’re looking at at least 10mm difference at the back insert – where you have a 3 degree angle. With 11s, I think you’d be risking boot drag with the 165, even with the slightly wider stance width.
The 163W Berzerker is likely really similar in terms of width-at-inserts, to the 161 Frontier.
Hope this helps with your decision
hello finally i get berzerker 163w (23/24 model) + burton cartel X , boot us 11. it looks like fit well with comparison my others snowboard
– Berzerker 163w width ( 269mm front insert and 267mm back insert)
if it helps someone in the future
Hi Marek, thanks for the update and I hope the new setup works well for you and hope you have a great winter!
Hey Nate!
I have bought an used Berzerker 159 2019, rode it once and absolutely fallen in love with the way it feels on the slopes. Although I have a problem that is absolutely ruining my hopes for using this board – width. I have mondo 28.5 feet and with used gear I currently own (31 mondo shoes) it’s impossible for me to feel comfortable on the board as my current shoes overhang a lot.
Therefore I have decided to buy myself a whole new setup. My question would be what to aim for in regards to sizing? Knowing that Berzerker is on the narrower side of the spectrum I’m on the edge between 163W and 167W. I really wouldn’t like to end up in a situation where I have a lot of overhang or underhang. I’d like to teach myself to eurocarve on it, ride a bit of powder, have a lot of speed and ability to do occasional jumps. I’m 193cm, 110kg with ~60cm stance.
Do you perhaps have any other suggestions as to what I could also consider? Do you think reducing the boot itself to, for example Burton Ruler Boa® Wide 44.5, would be enough?
Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated!
Also, happy new year 🙂
Hi Matthew
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 166 for your height/weight specs. So 167W would be the best bet, based on that. However, given you really liked the 159, and given that (even though your boots are bigger), your foot size is on the smaller side for the 167W, IMO (and its your feet that ultimately supply most of the leverage), I would go 163W.
The 163W is still going to feel quite different to how you felt the 159. You will likely feel the 163W a little stiffer, slower edge-to-edge, more stable at speed, with better float in powder. Harder to butter and ollie, etc, if you’re doing anything like that.
The Ruler BOA 44.5 EU45 would still be too big width-wise, IMO, for the Berzerker 159.
Hope this helps
This board has 8mm of taper..im bot sure the review is accurate.
Hi Bs180
Good spotting. The 2020 and 2021 models do have 8mm of taper. The last time I rode this board was the 2019 model, and it didn’t have taper then. The details notes are for the 2019 demo I rode. I will make a note to update it. Thanks for pointing it out.
Hi Nate
I am 6’2″, quite heavy 242 lbs and Boot size US12. Primarily prefer to carve and learning soft carving (“funcarving”). Had an old Rossignol board with 255 waist and my boots seem to be protruding too far being set at 30 and 20 degs. Do you think a Berzerker Wide 167 would be a good choice?
Hi Vlad
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think the 167W would be the best size for this board for you. The only concern would still be width, with even the wide versions of this board being quite narrow. Width at inserts isn’t that much more than the waist width in the case of this board. Without knowing the width at inserts of your old Rossi, it’s hard to say how much wider this would be.
Hope this helps
Should I go with the RIDE Berzerker 2020 in 160W for 200€ or with the Jones Flagship in 162W for 455€?
I’m 6’4, weight 170lbs with US 11 boots.
Mainly I go fast on the track and go into powder when I get the chance. A good edge-hold is kinda important to me, because sometimes I go snowboarding out of season where the snow is a bit icy.
I heard so many good things about the Flagship, but the price of the Berzerker sounds so much better (I could get it for that price, because the store throws everything out because it got insolvent).
Kind Regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
Thanks for your message.
I think the size for the Berzerker is a better fit for you. For your weight and boot size, it’s a good size. The 162W Flagship is getting a bit big for you, IMO, given the combination of length and width.
In terms of stability at speed they’re both as good as each other, IMO. The 162W Flagship maybe just a touch better, being bigger.
But the Flagship better edge-hold in icy conditions, IMO, and better in powder too. And overall a board I prefer over the Berzerker.
Whether or not that’s worth the extra price to you, is something that’s personal to you. I can’t really judge there. For some people 255€ isn’t that much and to others it’s a lot. It’s a very subjective thing.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your answer!
Would the Jones Flagship 159W fit me better than the 162W version?
I could get both for the same price. The width should be exactly the same, but the length is sized down. On an other forum the 162W was recommanded to me, because my intention is to go fast, but maybe the 159W is still good enough for that and I might have better control when driving through trees.
Or do you think that the width of the Flagship is going to be too wide and that might result in less potential force on the edges?
It’s a really close run. I was about to buy the Flagship 162W, but now I am overthinking this decision.
Kinds regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
I don’t think 162 is necessarily too long for you, just the combination of width and length is overall a little too big, IMO. Size 11 boots are in that grey area between regular and wide. Usually wide, but some regular width boards that are a little wider can sometimes work – and some wide boards are sometimes too wide to be ideal. On the face of it with the Flagship 162W it doesn’t look that wide – and in some cases that waist width (263mm) might mean an overall good width for 11s. Some boards have a width at the inserts that’s only different from the waist by a few millimeters. The Flagship however has quite a big difference to the waist width, particularly if you ride it at the reference stance. The 162W width at inserts would be roughly 280mm at the front insert and roughly 275mm at the back insert. It’s not undoable with 11s, but it’s on the wider side. At a shorter length, I think it’s doable, but it’s combination of the width and length, that would make me hesitate.
I think the 159, which in this case is the same width (usually even in wide boards, a shorter wide board is also a little narrower, but not in this case), would work. It’s still on the wider side, but that shorter length will help to bring back some agility – and yeah, like you say will help when riding trees. But yeah, being on the wider side, it does make it less efficient in terms of applying pressure to the edges, but I think you get away with it, if you go to that shorter size. And for your weight, the 159 certainly isn’t small. For your height, it’s not an issue either, as it already has a wide reference stance (600mm). I would be more inclined to go 159W for you, but note that it will have less stability at speed versus the 162W, for sure, but you do want to get that balance right between stability at speed and agility. I mean you could get on the 169W and have the ultimate stability at speed, but you’d have a lot of trouble turning it! Not that the 162W wouldn’t work, but my instinct says the 159W would be the better balance between stability at speed and agility.
For reference the 160w Berzerker would be roughly 265mm at the inserts.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for you detailed answer, I really appreciate that!
So your guess it that the width of the 160W Berzerker would fit me the best. When the Bezerker has roughtly has a width of 265mm at the inserts, might the Flagship in size 161 with 25,2mm waist width might fit too? Because the insert width should be around 265mm, when the 162W with 26,3mm waist width has a insert width around 275-280mm. The 164 would even have 25,4mm waist width, but the length would clearly be oversized, I guess.
It’s a hard decision for me. I tend to longer boards, as nearly all of my friends are skiing and they are chasing the higher speed and I don’t want to hang behind. Also I have read that you can run the Flagship a bit longer as the effective edge of 1210mm(62W) is nearly the same as for example the effective edge of the 1203mm of the 160W berzerker. But I am afraid that I might regret it later, as it is an expensive board. I’m switching from a Ride Warpig (L\154) as it was too wide (270mm waist width and the edge hold felt way better when I had a backpack\extra weight on).
What are your thoughts? Btw the 170lbs are without any equipment and my intention is to gain weight, even tho that doesn’t work as good as intented.
Kind Regards,
Hendrik
Ah, one more thing. I use the Salomon Dialogue Focus Boa Snowboard Boots 2020 in US11, which are supposed to have a small footprint. Maybe that would reduce the chance of toe/heel drag with a thinner board.
Hi Hendrik
Great point about the 161 Flagship, in terms of width. I was so focused on comparing the other sizes, I didn’t think of that. I think that’s definitely doable, especially given you have low profile boots. Note that that width is assuming reference stance of 600mm. I find 600mm to be quite wide, but at your height you probably ride a stance like that anyway? So yeah, that would give you that extra length without going too wide, I think that’s a good option. 164, IMO, might be getting a bit too long, given your weight. Weight recommendations from brands (at least the ones I’ve asked about and Jones is one of those) are based on weight without gear. But if you always rode with a backpack, you could take that into account.
Hi Nate,
I could get the 164 for 100€ less than the 161. I’m thinking about going with that, because has more width an might work better with my feet. Also the specs are nearly the same with the 162W (Same Sidecut Radius, less wide, but 16mm longer).
Will that be a mistake?
I think I would be fine with riding with a backpack most of the time, but not always tho.
Regards,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik
Overall I think the 161 is a better size for you. Definitely get the money thing, but 100€ spread out over the number of years you would own a board like this for getting what I thought was the better size would be the way I would go personally. But I can definitely understand 100€ in the short term can be a pinch.
Not that the 164 wouldn’t be doable, but it’s getting quite long for your weight, IMO. Wearing a backpack would help a little, I suppose, but still would be leaning 161 for you. Keep in mind also that the 164 will feel stiffer/heavier than how I felt the board.
Hey Nate, do you know how it compares to a 2018/2019 Jones Flagship?
Hey Mark
Thanks for your message.
Vs the 18/19 Flagship, I would say the Berzerker has a bit more of a “locked-in” feel. I would say that the Berzerker is a little softer flexing but not by a whole lot.
As good a carver, but I found the 18/19 a little better in terms of stability at speed, and better for riding powder. The Berzerker I found about the same for uneven terrain vs 18/19 Flagship (though not versus the 19/20 Flagship which has improved a lot in that area, IMO) and was a little more suited to riding switch.
The Flagship I found to be better in harder snow conditions.
Those are the main things, I would say – but if you want to look into it further you can also check out my Flagship Review – scroll to the bottom and click on the “past reviews for the flagship” tab.
Hope this helps
Hi,
I am 1.71cm height ,73kg weight and i wear us 9 size boots. I think it’s 159 or 156 length. Can you give me an advice please?
Hi Yuriy
Thanks for your message.
Length-wise, I think the 156 would be best for you.
Width-wise, the Berzerker is a narrow board. So, there’s a question mark there for 9s, on the 156. But, depending on your binding angles you should be OK. If you ride with a really straight back foot, and like to get really deep into your carves, then it might be getting a bit narrow. But if you ride with a bit of angle on your back foot and have low profile boots and/or have more moderate carves, then I think the 156 would be fine width wise and that’s the size I would go with.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Yuriy
I have just undergone a transfer of the website to a new host, and I get an email notification of the following comment you added to the Jones Flagship Review. I think it somehow got lost in the transition, so I will answer it here and hopefully you will receive notification of this. Your comment was:
Hi, I am 1.71cm height ,73kg weight and i wear us 9 size boots. I think it’s 158 or 154 length. Can you give me an advice please?
It’s a tough call between the 154 and 156 for the Flagship for you. Very close between them. The 246mm waist on the 154 Flagship isn’t really a concern like it might be on the Berzerker. The width at inserts compared to waist on the Flagship is more compared to the Berzerker, so you get a bit more leeway there, and I think it would probably be wide enough. The 158 would give you more leeway width-wise. The other thing about going 158, is that, for this type of board, it can be a good idea to go a little longer, if you’re going to be riding it in a lot of deep powder (to get more float) and riding fast (for more stability). The 154 will have it’s advantages though – like being more agile at slower speeds, better in trees.
If I had to choose, I’d say go 158. But 154 wouldn’t be a wrong choice either, depending on what you value more.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Yuriy
I have just undergone a transfer of the website to a new host, and I get an email notification of the following of your reply. I think it somehow got lost in the transition, so I will answer it here and hopefully you will receive notification of this. Your comment was:
Thank you!
Unfortunately, I only have 159 for sale:((
My binding angles is 15/15
I choose between Jones Flagship(154/158) or Ride Berzker(159)
Speed, build quality, carving is important to me. (Mountain 80%, Powder-20%)
I would go for the 158 Flagship (as per my other reply) – after that I would go 154 Flagship. If Berzerker, then 156 (which unfortunately you don’t have).
Hope this helps
Thank you!
You’re very welcome Yuriy. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Is it true that the jones is poor build quality, especially base/the bottom of your board?
Hi Yuriy
I don’t own a Jones board, so I haven’t had the chance to test them for durability, so I couldn’t say.
None of the Jones boards that I’ve demoed (which have sometimes been ridden a fair bit before I get on them) have shown signs of poor build quality though – neither on the base or anywhere else. They feel and look quality to me. But like I say, I haven’t had a Jones board long enough to determine anything about their durability/build quality.