Hello and welcome to my list of what I consider the top freeride snowboards for the 2022/23 season.
Not that due to the number of freeride boards there are these days, we have 2 lists. This one and then another "mellow freeride" which is for softer flexing freeride boards (boards with a flex of 6.5/10 or less). This list is for stiffer, more aggressive boards with flex over 6.5.
As is tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com each board is given a score out of 100.
Some Quick Stats
Of the 35 Freeride boards I looked at:
O.k. let’s get straight into it!
FREERIDE BOARD #10
Board: Jones Hovercraft
- CA
Flex: Stiff (8/10)
Rating: 85.3/100
Starting off our list at #10, we have the Jones Hovercraft.
The Hovercraft is a veteran in the snowboard world now and whilst it's reputation screams powder - and don't doubt this board is awesome for powder - it's how it handles groomers and speed that surprised us the most.
Steep and deep is it's forte, but when the snow isn't falling, this thing more than holds its own on.
Score Breakdown for the Hovercraft
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 5.0 | 25/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
SWITCH | 1.0 | 1/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.3/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #9
Board: Nidecker Alpha APX
- CA
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 85.3/100
The Alpha APX has the remarkable ability to be both surfy when you want it to - and carve when you want to lock it into an edge.
It's a really versatile, high-end one board quiver for those who don't really have freestyle in their repertoire or have a separate board for freestyle.
Score Breakdown for the Alpha APX
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.3/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #8
Board: Capita Black Snowboard of Death
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 85.9/100
Next up we have the Capita Black Snowboard of Death (BSOD).
The BSOD is one of those boards that's hard to say if it's all-mountain or freeride. I've chosen to categorize it as a freeride board, but it's a freeride board with a very all-mountain feel.
But it's a better carver, better at speed and better in powder than the average all-mountain board, so it fits in - and, as a bonus, it's also a great jumper and better than average at riding switch compared to the average freeride board.
Score Breakdown for the BSOD
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.9/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #7
Board: Lib Tech Ejack Knife
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 85.9/100
In at #7 is the Lib Tech E-Jack Knife.
The Ejack Knife is a great freeride board - and also one that you can enjoy jumps on - and isn't bad riding switch for a freeride board.
So, if you're looking for something that's hard charging and freeride oriented but also a little more versatile, the Ejack Knife is worth checking out further.
Score Breakdown for the E-Jack Knife
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 3.5 | 7/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.9/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #6
Board: GNU Banked Country
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating: 85.9/100
*HARD/ICY SNOW OPTION
The Banked Country is a beast of a board. Super fun and rewarding when you put in the work.
It can bomb and carve trenches with the best of them. And has awesome grip in hard and icy conditions. And then when there's powder, it floats nice and easy too.
Score Breakdown for the Banked Country
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.9/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #5
Board: Rome Ravine Select
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Stiff (8.5/10)
Rating: 87.5/100
Our #5 board, the Ravine Select, is new to this list, as it's the first time we've been able to test it. And we're sure glad we did!
If you can find your limit on this board, then you've got to be one epic rider. It could take everything we could throw at it and more.
Score Breakdown for the Ravine Select
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.5 | 22.5/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
SWITCH | 2.0 | 2/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 87.5/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #4
Board: Burton Flight Attendant
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 87.5/100
In the #4 spot, we have Burton’s Flight Attendant.
The Flight Attendant has everything you want out of a freeride board. It floats beautifully in powder, carves hard and is fast and stable at high speeds.
It's also above average for jumping for a freeride board, so if you're looking to rock some freestyle off those natural hits, then the flight attendant is a good way to go. It's got a slightly more forgiving flex than a traditional stiff freeride board, without being so soft as to belong in the surfy freeride list.
Score Breakdown for the Flight Attendant
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.0 | 20/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 87.5/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #3
Board: Capita Kazu Kokubo Pro
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 88.0/100
The Kazu Kokubo Pro is an awesome option for anyone who wants to be jumping in the backcountry/sidecountry and loves to ride the trees, but at the same time can carve well on groomers, when the powder is tracked.
Surprisingly nimble at slower speeds, despite how good it is riding fast. And floats really nicely in powder.
Score Breakdown for the Kazu
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.5 | 22.5/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 4/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 88.0/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #2
Board: Jones Flagship
- CA
- UK/EU
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating: 90.2/100
The Flagship is predominantly a bomber and a powder floater. But at the same time, it's not something that feels like a tank when you try to ride it slow. It can still slash and be fairly nimble at slower speeds, particularly for how good it is riding fast.
A really versatile, powder first, freeride board.
Score Breakdown for the Flagship
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 5.0 | 25/25 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.2/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #1
Board: Yes Pick Your Line
- CA
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 90.8/100
*HARD/ICY SNOW OPTION
With equally good float in powder, speed and carving abilities the Pick Your Line can take whatever you throw at it in the backcountry or on the groomers. It has an uncanny ability to switch between hard snow and powder and still be great on both. This is down partly to the unique tapered underbite.
But besides all of that, the PYL has something that can't be described - that X factor that you just can't put words on.
The '23 PYL has softened up a bit from the '22 model and, against the trend of a vast majority of snowboards, has actually gone down in price. This is likely because they've have brought in the PYL Uninc for '23 and also because stiffer is typically always more expensive for snowboards.
Score Breakdown for the PYL
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 4.5 | 22.5/25 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
CARVING | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
TURNS/SLASHING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
CRUD/CHUNDER | 4.0 | 8/10 |
TREES/BUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.8/100 |
Over to You
Even though I’ve scored these boards and put them in order, what you consider to be the best of this list will depend on your preferences. And this isn't an exact science, but hopefully this gives you some options and perspective on some great freeride boards and what might suit you the best.
Thanks for reading and I hope this post has helped you find your perfect freeride board.
If you want to learn more about any of these boards or check out current prices/availability, check out the links at the top of each board description above.
Hey Nate
This site is amazing man. You’re a godsend to all of us!
I’m 6’1″. 220 lbs, size 11.5 boot. I used to ride a 162 Flight Attendant and a Burton Fish (can’t remember the size). I”m due to replace both boards. I’d say I’m an advanced rider but I’m getting up there in age (and injuries) so my waning health brings me back into the realm of intermediate/advanced sometimes.
I’d say I’m a freerider so I just purchased a YES PYL 164w based on your review. I chose a 162 previously as going a tiny bit short gives me extra control over the board. I assume that the 164w will be fine though. I’m pretty sure this will be perfect for my daily resort board.
I do occasionally go CAT skiing (why I had the Fish). I’d like a new proper powder board for this – something a bit longer to help stay on top. With my measurements I was consider the Capita Navigator at 167 however I just noticed that the Jones Flagship has a 5.0 rating in powder and comes in longer sizes also. I want to have a typical mellow freeride experience while maintaining the feeling of control and responsiveness in the board. What would you recommend for the second board? Or is there a third option?
Thanks in advance!
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
For the PYL, I think you should be good on the 164W. That size is just right for the PYL for your specs and how you describe your riding, IMO.
The Navigator 167 would certainly work as your powder board, if you’re looking to keep things mellow. The Flagship is, IMO, a little better in powder, but it’s not as mellow, so you’d have a more aggressive ride with it. If you’re only ever in powder with it, I think you’d be good. But if you’re looking to keep things more mellow when not necessarily in pow, then the Navigator might be the better option. You could also look at the Lib Tech BRD (comes in a 167W). Which is in between the Flagship and Navigator in terms of how mellow it is.
One other option that came up in my search was the Slash Vertical 167. It’s not a board I’ve ridden, so can’t say for sure how it rides, but on paper, it looks like something that could work.
Hope this helps
Just a follow up bud. I’ve been using Burton Step-ons for a while now…mainly bc i’m lazy lol. They’ve served me just fine before and I’ve used them on my old Fish. Do you think I should get a separate pair of boots and bindings for the Flagship in POW? Flux XVs? It’s not cost prohibitive…I’d only get them if it would make a significant difference in my use and experience on the board.
Hi Nick
I think the Step-Ons would match the Flagship fine, in my experience with them (depending on the Step On boots you have). So probably no need to get separate boots/bindings. The only thing would be that I can forsee Step Ons being a little annoying when trying to get them in if you have “step on” in any deeper powder at any point (e.g. hiking to a spot and then trying to step on in heavy pow. But if you’ve not had that issue in them before, they’re probably all good. If it’s the Ruler Step On, then they’re a little soft to be ideal for the Flagship, but would still work. If it’s Photon or Ion, I think you’re all good.
Hi Nate,
This is such a amazing website! After my last trip I totally regained the snowboard vibe again, so I have been reading quite a lot on here.
I have been riding for about 15 years. I am lean build and tall (6.7) with big feet. I weigh 95 kg/ 210 lbs. I currently have ThirtyTwo Prospect boots in size 14 and Burton Misson bindings.
I am in the market for something new, because my current board Libtech Skunkape 167W seems to have had its best time. I still like it a lot, but I find it a bit sluggish at times. I mostly ride groomers in Austria/ France and the occasional POW-opportunity. I like playful riding and tree runs, but also like to charge hard. I was leaning into Flagship , BSOD of PYL or E-jack knife. What size or which board do you recommend?
Hi Kajee
Thanks for your message.
All those boards would suit what you’re describing, IMO, but I would be leaning PYL or Flagship as I found them the best in trees, of the 4 you mentioned, but still can charge hard and good in powder. Given sizing (see below), the Flagship has a better size for you, IMO, so I’d be leaning that over the PYL.
Size-wise, I’d be looking at:
PYL: 164W (though this would be pushing it width-wise probably, even though it’s wide)
Flagship: 165W (169W wouldn’t be wrong either, if you wanted to go longer)
BSOD: 165W
E-jack: 162W – though I think this is a bit short for you and could also be borderline too narrow still, so size probably rules this one out, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
As it turns out, I think my profile is somewhere between aggressive all mountain freestyle, aggressive all mountain and freeride. But then maybe the Jones Twin Mountain Ultra is a a better choice than the Flagship? The Mega Merc also looks good, but way too small. Also I cannot find the 165W BSOD on stock any where.
I did see a Yes Typo 163W being offered for 374 euro.
Hi Kajee
You might find the Typo 163W a bit too soft for what you want. And also it’s not overly wide for a wide board, and with 14s, I wouldn’t be so sure of it.
But I think the Ultra Mountain Twin 165W would work well.
Hi Nate, thanks for putting out all this information.
I’m relatively new to free riding and I’m currently riding a GNU Beast 2016 which I’m loving it (for powder conditions mostly). I bought this board used and I’ve gave her quite some punishment so I’m starting to think of going for an upgrade. Do you have any suggestions for a similar board? Thanks in advance.
Matias
Hi Matias
Thanks for your message.
I’d say the most similar to the Beast now would be the GNU Banked Country. Not exactly the same or anything, but pretty similar.
Hope this helps
Nate,
I hope you’re shredding well out on the slopes and in the pow. Thanks for all the inputs and advice. Now, I need your advice.
I’m a relatively new snowboarder, but am a really fast leaner. I’m fearless and tend to get myself into trouble because I love to challenge myself so much. I’m already trying to go into heavier powder and trees. I currently ride a 2018-2019 Rossignol Angus. The Angus was the only board that was available at the resort I was at the time. Luckily it was an all mountain board and it worked for what I was getting into at the time, standard European green and blue groomers and some reds and a black. I also picked up an old CAPiTA Charlie Slasher off a local that I used to teach myself board repairs on. It had some pretty bad core shots (the metal edge teeth were exposed from one of the core shots) that I was able to repair. Then I ran down a black run after the repair. It worked just fine and I didn’t die.
All that aside, I’m an odd shaped dude. I’m a whopping 5’8”, above average muscularity, i weight approximately 190 lbs, though I’m trying to get down between 185 and 190, and finally, have boats for feet (size 12 – currently in a size 13 snowboarding boot – that’s all they had, but fit). I’ve been looking at both the Flagship 159 wide or a PYL 160 wide because of my big feet, heavy weight for my height and the fact that I want to start getting a little crazier both on the slopes (carving and hanging with my kids) and getting into some higher speed fun (European Reds/American Blues and some blacks), pow, and trees. I’m not looking at getting crazy riding switch or getting too big into park stuff right now. I enjoy venturing off the beaten path a little more than anything else. I’m sure my Angus will suite me just fine if I run across park snowboarding. I’m also military, stationed somewhere I can’t easily get a new board, and was just recently informed of an opportunity to get a hold of a new board that I might not get again any time soon nor before the next season.
As a result, I would really appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. Flagship or PYL and length of board given my body description?
Hi Louie
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of sizing, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 158. For freeride boards like this you can err a little on the longer side (because more of the length is outside the contact points vs something like an all-mountain board). As a newer snowboarder I would typically size down a little bit, but given how fast it sounds like you’ve progressed and given you’re above average strength by the sounds of it, I don’t think it’s necessary in this case. Long story short, I think 159W Flagship and 160W PYL would be good lengths.
The PYL 160W isn’t that wide for a wide board though and given that you’re in 13s, I would be concerned that you’d have issues with boot drag on it. So I would be leaning Flagship 159W for you.
Both boards would be suitable for what you’re describing for sure and in this case sizing is a good tie breaker with the Flagship 159W being wider and, IMO, a better width for your boots.
Not a board that I would typically recommend for a newer snowboard, mainly because of it’s stiffer flex, but given that you’re used to an Angus, which is a pretty stiff board too, and because it sounds like you’ve progressed quickly and are stronger than average, I think it will be fine for you. And definitely the kind of board that would suit the kind of riding you’re describing, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
You’re right, I’m kind of a newer snowboarder, but have been riding skate boards my entire life which helped me progress faster than normal. Plus I’m fearless. Maybe it’s me, but the Angus definitely doesn’t feel as stiff as it is said to be. I read somewhere that going a little longer 2-4cm for free riding is a strong suggestion. Thoughts on that? Again, many thanks for your insight. Really appreciate your knowledge.
Hi Louie
Yeah absolutely sizing up a little for freeriding is often a good idea (as I mention in this). I like to temper that a little bit if your freeriding involves trees though, as going too long can hinder tree performance. I think going 159W is already sizing up a little from what I would consider your “all-mountain” length, so I wouldn’t personally size up any more than that at this point.
Thanks a ton.
You’re very welcome Louie. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
You’ve got to get on the Family Tree line from Burton. I noticed you put a premium on versatility, and that is exactly what those decks do. They both have exceptional powder day effort (their primary focus), and excel as groomer carvers.
Hopefully you get a chance to hit a demo tent, as they will change your mind
Hi Pete
Thanks for your message. Have gotten on plenty of family tree boards, and will get on more this winter. Looking forward to checking out some of the new ones they’re bringing for their 23-24 line.
Hey Nate, loving the content and learning a lot from the website.
I’ve never been a park guy and I mostly like to cruise and carve. I was going to go with the YES PYL Uninc but I’m kind of torn now between that and the Standard Uninc. I’m pretty much primarily on groomers, so do you have a recommendation for me?
Hi Jay
Thanks for your message.
I think it depends on how much you like to bomb when you ride or not. One advantage of the PYL Uninc over the Standard Uninc, is for powder, but if you’re not really in deep powder, then the only other thing would be stability at speed. And that’s only talking relatively as the Standard Uninc is pretty stable at speed itself. But if you really needed something that was going to be super stable when riding really fast, then the PYL Uninc, I would say, has that over it. Note that I haven’t ridden the Uninc version of the PYL but from what I understand it’s stiffer and more aggressive than the PYL, so it’s going to be stiffer, more aggressive than the PYL.
Probably depends on how stiff you like you’re ride too – the PYL Uninc is going to be around 8/10 flex – so really quite stiff – vs around 6.5/10 flex that I felt the Standard Uninc at. Standard Uninc still a really good carver too. Though for high speed, big carves, the PYL Uninc is likely to be better. Given you use the word cruise, I think I’d be leaning Standard Uninc – it’s a little more mellow a ride. Now mellow isn’t a word I would use to describe it, but relatively speaking vs the PYL Uninc.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Mike,
Really great list, but i still need your help :))
I am torn between ravine select and yes optimistic. Most of the time i go on groomers for some high speed and fast carving and maybe a little bit of powder if there is some fresh powder next to the track… which would suit me better for that? Thanks a lot!!
Hey Linas
Thanks for your message.
Note that this is all with respect to 2023 models. The Optimistic changed quite a bit for the 2023 model.
Both good in powder, so that’s not a separator between them, IMO.
The Ravine Select is going to give you more stability at speed and better for big high speed carves. In terms of shorter/sharper carves, the Optimistic is a little better – a little better at slower speeds, IMO. I think those things are the biggest deciding factors between the two boards – whether you want to maximize stability at speed and big high speed carves (then Ravine Select) or whether you want something that’s still good at speed, but not as good but better for riding a little slower, more mellow, when you want to (Optimistic).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi thanks for the great reviews. I’m an advanced rider 20+ years and looking for something to better handle choppy snow and feel more locked in and stable. I was thinking it was the Yes PYL 165 and then upon further looking at specs it looks real darn close (at least in measurements) to my current daily driver the Lib Darker Series 161 and so I’m wondering if this is a mistake. I’ve been interested in both the Flagship and PYL as a new all around charger when its not a pow only day. I have an older Hovercraft for that.
My current issue with the Darker Series is its a fast board and just wants to go, doesn’t maneuver great at slow speeds, and I’m heavy and it gets going. This is fine I generally ride faster, it just seems that I’m overpowering the board at my current weight or it’s worn out I don’t know. I feel that it’s not as stable as I’d like through any crud or uneven snow and leaves me lacking confidence to ride at speed, which is what it wants/needs. When I first got the board I didn’t get this feeling. I was generally around 190lbs then as well. About 230 now.
Would you suggest the PYL or Flagship or even something else for an all around freeride relatively hard charging board for a heavier rider?
6’2” and 230ish lbs (pretty strong/muscular not a fatty) and riding Idaho (used to be Tahoe) resorts.
Thanks for any help!
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
I think part of it is probably the size. For your size, particularly being strong/muscular, and the type of riding your doing, 161 is too small. It would have been a good size when you first got it, but now it’s a little small, which will be at least half of the problem with it not feeling stable enough.
I found both the PYL and Flagship good when dealing with crud – and they’re both the kind of board that are good at speed, but they’re not completely unforgiving at slow speeds – you can still ride them slow without them feeling like tanks. So, I think they are a good match for what you’re describing. There are other options of course, but those 2 I think would both work, so don’t want to complicate the decision further.
But size-wise, I would say go 165 for the PYL and 164 or even 167 for the Flagship. Though going 167 will take away some of that slow speed performance. So I’d be leaning 164 but 167 certainly not out of range. But if you could also let me know your boot size so I can confirm those sizes are appropriate.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks. Yep, boots are size 10 Ride Insano’s.
I was also looking through your aggressive all-mountain category. Would that be a better board type for groomer days up to light powder? Open to other suggestions for sure, just had the PYL & Flagship on my radar.
As far as I can tell we don’t get super deep dumps here like is common in Tahoe, so still trying to figure it out.
Thanks!
Hi Tim
Thanks – with 10s, those sizes should work well.
Yeah, you could definitely look at something aggressive all-mountain, if you’re only getting light powder. Something like the Burton Custom X, Capita Mega Merc or Arbor Wasteland would certainly suit for riding fast but not be as manageable at slower speeds as the PYL or Flagship, IMO. If you wanted to temper it a little and have something a little more manageable at slower speeds, then something like the Aviator 2.0, Jones Ultra Mountain Twin or GNU 4×4 would be good bets. I haven’t looked at sizing for any of those to see if they all have appropriate sizing, but if there’s anything there that grabs you, I would be happy to give my opinion on specific sizing.
What’s your opinion of the K2 Alchemist? I’ve had a lot of people say that it’s a Ferrari on the slopes and will only be enjoyable to the most advanced. I was going to pair it with the Burton Genesis Bindings and the K2 Thraxis boots. I love to bomb the mountain as much as the next guy but I also like to ride slow and hang with my wife or jump/out of the trees
Hi Jimbo
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t had a chance to ride the Alchemist yet, so I couldn’t say from experience, but I’ve heard the same – that it’s a pretty demanding ride. Probably not going to be one that’s a lot of fun riding slowly – but again, can’t say from experience. If you did go Alchemist, ideally I’d go with stiffer bindings. The Thraxis would be a good match, but I’d try to go a little stiffer with the bindings for a board that’s supposed to as stiff as the Alchemist.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for the awesome reviews and advice in your comments!
I’m in analysis paralysis and need help. I’m set on a c3 profile board and want to have magne traction and am debating between lib tech ejack, lib tech TRS and gnu rcc3.
I’ve been riding the same camber board for 25 years. Just got burton step-on bindings and boots last year. I’m 5’9″, 180 lbs. I’m on the east coast so mostly groomed and often icy resort runs, occasional powder on snowy days…. I mostly carve and like a bit of speed but last year started riding switch occasionally, doing some spins and little jumps here and there and I’d like to explore these aspects a bit more. Keeps it fun while I snowboard with the kids and can’t go fast. Maybe do some small jumps in the snow park but the knees are not what they used to be…. So looking for a board that carves well but is also a bit playful.
Please let me know what you’d recommend between the 3 boards….or maybe something else entirely although I’m keen on that magne traction to fight the ice.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Tony
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning GNU RCC3 or TRS as they’re better than the Ejack for riding switch and little jumps and are more playful, IMO but are still decent for speed and carving. However, if you see more powder than I’m assuming the Ejack Knife is much better in powder than the other two, but you’re not going to notice that difference too much unless you’re in fairly deep powder. The other 2 will handle shallow powder fine.
I would probably lean TRS just because it should be a little better in powder than the RC C3. The RC C3 better for riding switch, IMO, but not much in it versus the TRS. The TRS is kind of in between the RC C3 and the Ejack Knife in a lot of ways – though is a little softer than the RC C3 – it’s closer to the RC C3, but just has that little bit of a setback stance to make it not fully twin.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks Nate. That does help a lot! Cheers!
You’re very welcome Tony. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the detailed reviews, I’m currently riding a neversummer west from 17/18 at 159. I’m 5’10” at 175 lbs with no snow gear and a size 10.5 boot. I love my west but I’m looking to add a board that is more powder focused and a bit stiffer. I’m currently looking at the Rome stalefish, Rome Ravine and the capita Kazu Kokubo Pro. I ride a bit of everything don’t really hit the park much anymore. But still hit natural kickers if I see them along the way. What are your thoughts on these boards to pair with the west? What sizes do you think would work best? I mainly ride in Idaho and the northwest if that helps. Thanks for your time and keep up the good work.
Ernesto Vidales
Hi Ernesto
Thanks for your message.
Note that we haven’t tested the Stalefish, so can’t comment from experience on that one.
The Ravine and Ravine Select are a little different, so just want to clarify on that, depending on which you go for. The main difference is that the Ravine is quite a bit softer flexing than the Ravine Select. Ravine more like a 6/10 flex and the Ravine Select more like 8.5/10. So, there’s quite a big difference there. The Ravine probably going to feel a little stiffer than your West (and certainly more powder oriented) but the flex difference will be subtle. With the Ravine Select, it will be very noticeable. The Kazu is what I felt as a 7/10 flex, so that should be quite noticeable too.
Both the Ravine Select and Kazu would pair well with the West. Both quite different boards. The Ravine Select would be a more pronounced contrast, certainly in terms of flex, but the Kazu is definitely different enough to be a good compliment to it as part of a quiver.
Size-wise, I’d be looking at the 160 Kazu. You could also ride the 157, but if this is going to be your more powder oriented board in your quiver, then going a bit bigger will give you better float in powder. Also, the 157 is borderline in terms of width with 10.5s.
For the Ravine Select, I’d look at the 158.
The Stalefish is a volume shifted board (short/wide), so you want to ride it in a shorter size. So probably the 152 for that one. Though 157 would be doable if you wanted even more powder float. You just might find it feels a bit big in terms of maneuverability.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate that does help, sorry I should have clarified I was talking about the ravine select. I would like something I can charge faster with in the powder and still have fun hitting natural features and just having a good time going in and out of trees if they’re around. I love the west but it’s more of my mellow board I can just be lazy with and Cruz around the mountain.
Hi Ernesto.
All good, thanks for the clarification. Between the Ravine Select and Kazu, the Ravine Select is going to be the stiffer, more aggressive option that’s going to give you a little more in terms of speed and deep high speed carves, but the Kazu, IMO a little better for hitting natural features and in trees.
Hey Nate,
first of all, thank you very much for this site, which is always my starting point when buying new gear.
I’m stuck in a bit of an analysis-paralysis, and i hope you can help me. I’m looking for a new freeride board and bindings.
I have been snowboarding vor 20 years. I ride in powder whenever i can, i love powder-tree-runs, and on slopes i love going fast as hell and to carve. I do small jumps, but i don’t ride park. I think most of the boards here would meet the criteria of beeing powder-friendly and good for carving – but i am looking for something which is not a tank when going through trees but still stable when going fast. Also, realisticaly, a lot of times there is no powder and i’m stuck on more or less bad slopes and i’m planning on not hating myself too much when this is the case.
I’m currently riding a Burton Flight Attendant in 159w. It’s an awesome board for going fast and straight powder-lines, but for anything else i found it to be too heavy and tank-like.
The boards on my shortlist are the Capita BSOD, the Capita Kazu Kokubo Pro, the Capita Mega Merc and the Yes PYL Uninc.
I’m planning to combine them with either the Rome Cleaver, the Flux xf or the Burton Cartel X.
Which combination of board-bindings would you recommend? If you have any recommendations outside of my shortlist, i’d also be courious to hear them.
Thank you in advance and greetings from germany,
Marius
Hi Marius
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would go either PYL or Kazu. They are better when it comes to quick turns in trees. The BSOD and Mega Merc can feel a little tank-like when being ridden slower. More so than the Flight Attendant, in my experience, so given what you’re describing, probably not what you’re after. The PYL and Kazu however, I found to be very good in trees and surprisingly good when riding slower for more technical tight trees, given how well they manage speed as well.
In terms of bindings, all of those options are good matches, IMO. The Cartel X and XF are what I felt at a 7/10 flex. The Cleaver I felt at more of an 8/10 flex. So, if you wanted them a little burlier, then the Cleaver is a good option. But the Cartel X and XF match well to both the PYL and Kazu, IMO, if you wanted to stick with a little more forgiving in terms of flex. Between the Cartel X and the XF, the Cartel X offers better shock absorption (which isn’t very good in the XF – it’s only downside, IMO) with the XF offering better response. In terms of turns/carving, the XF is my favorite binding. You can lay big carves in it and it can handle speed, but it’s also responsive at slower speeds. As mentioned shock absorption is it’s biggest downside, but awesome for turning/carving.
Hope this helps with your decision
And one more thing to clarify, when I say PYL, I mean the 2023 version. The 2022 version was a bit stiffer and not as good in trees, IMO.
Hey Nate,
thanks a lot for your quick and helpful response!
I was actually considering the PYL Uninc, which is probably more like the 2022 Version of the normal PYL. Do you have any experience with that board? And compared to the PYL and PYL Uninc, were would you sort in the Kazu in terms of stiffness?
Capita doesn’t offer a wide version of the Kazu. Do you think the 160 works with size 12 boots?
One more question: would you consider the Rome Katana as stiff as the xf/Cartel x or is it a bit softer?
Thank you in advance and sorry for the thousand questions, choosing new gear without being able to test it is really a pain in the a**.
Hey Marius
I didn’t get a chance to test the PYL Uninc, but on paper, it certainly seems like it’s more like the 2022 PYL – not exactly but close. A summary of differences below – some may be just the marketing alterations:
“Differences between PYL Uninc and PYL ’22: PYL 22 had triax + ash veneer with the uninc just triax | the PYL Uninc core is poplar/paulownia/chakra vs “weightless” on 22 model | 1-4-1 camrock on Uninc vs 1-4-2 on 22 model | | PH Sintered True on Uninc vs Sintered True on PYL 22″
Kazu to me is a very similar flex to the ’23 PYL. The Uninc a bit stiffer than both of those.
Unfortunately I think the 160 Kazu would be risky in terms of width with 12’s. You’d be looking at a back foot insert width of around 264mm, which would be risky for boot drag, IMO, with 12s, even with a lot of angle on the binding and low profile boots.
I felt the Katana at 7/10 in terms of flex, which is also how I felt the XF and Cartel X, so I’d say they’re the same or very similar.
Hey Nate,
i can’t reply to your last comment. I just wanted to say thanks a lot for your help and have a great season!
You’re very welcome Marius – hope you have a great season too!
Hey Nate,
sorry, i need to ask one more question as i realised i was wrong about my boot size. My boots are size 11, not 12. My bindings have a 12° angle. So based on your chart, the Kazu 160 could work – but i’d be a close call. I also need new boots, so i could go for low profile boots (i have the K2 Maysis at the moment). I’m afraid i don’t really have the chance of testing the board here… and Capita themself wrote that it works just fine even with size 12 boots (which i doubt).
What do you think?
Hi Marius
Yeah, would definitely be risky with a 12! With an 11, at those angles and a low profile boot, it’s doable though. I don’t think I’d be that comfortable with the Maysis though, as in my experience testing/measuring the Maysis it’s pretty bulky, but with a low profile boot and those angles, I think you’d probably get away with it.
Hi Nate!
I’ve been riding for 14 years and have only ever ridden Burton. I’ve ridden most of burtons line up from the Deuce to the custom X. My current daily driver is the deep thinker and I absolutely love it. I live in Salt Lake City and my home mountains are Brighton and Snowbird, so a lot of steeps, deep and sometimes some park (pretty much all jumps and barely any jibbing). I snagged a demo E Jack Knife about a month ago but obviously haven’t ridden it yet.
I’m looking to try something different and break away from burton a bit. I wouldn’t mind pulling the trigger on the YES PLY, Jones Flagship or Stratos. I’m 5’11 205lbs with size 11-11.5 boot. Do you think the 3 that I listed would be a good call, or would you recommend something else?
Thanks for your time!!
Hi Jake
Thanks for your message.
All 3 are good boards and for what you’re describing would work well, IMO (being better suited to the steep and deep more so than the park, but doable in the park, if you’re only really doing jumps). My preference would be for either PYL or Flagship over the Stratos. All will feel different to the Deep Thinker, but the E Jack Knife is what you’ll likely feel the most different, IMO.
Hi Nate,
love all the reviews, I’m gearing up this year and was curious if you’ll be reviewing the PYL Uninc and how you think it’ll perform.
I’m aiming to stay in the trees as much as possible but also live in the northeast so I’m expecting ice most of the season, the PYL struck my fancy, but so did the hybrid from surfy reviews. Any advice for someone coming from a 2011 flow quantum?
Much love
Hi Martin
Thanks for your message.
We didn’t test the PYL Uninc, so I couldn’t say for sure, but looking at specs, it’s probably quite similar to the ’22 PYL. The ’23 PYL is a little softer/more maneuverable than the ’22 model. Given that you like to ride trees, I would go ’23 PYL over the PYL Uninc. If you want to see our review on the ’22 PYL go to the bottom of the PYL review and there is a tab with “past seasons reviews for the PYL” click on the tab to open it. I don’t know much about the Flow Quantum but with some quick research it looks like it’s a park board – but a relatively stiff/aggressive one, by what I read. But either way, the PYL will feel very different. But yeah, I personally think the PYL will be better for you in trees than the PYL Uninc, so that’s the way I’d go.
Hope this helps
Thank you for the thoughtful advice, and yeah I’ve been on the quantum forever but my style definitely has left me wanting for a new board.
I’m 165lb and wearing 9.5 vans verse range editions (just came in, they’re sweet) I know typically for free riding you want to upsize a little bit on length, do you think the 159 would work well for keeping me floating while also not being too big for trees?
Also, I’m thinking of demoing a few boards before my final decision just to make sure whatever I choose feels right for me, if I were to buy my board through a demo program is there any other way I can support you and your website?
Hi Martin
Yeah, you can certainly size up a bit for a freeride board. Typically they have less effective edge versus overall length of the board, due to having quite a lot of nose outside the contact point (for better float in powder). So 159 would probably work for you, but if you could also let me know your height. Weight and boot size are definitely more important for sizing, but I still like to take height into account – it can act as leverage, so I do think it plays a part, even if weight is more important. And yeah, like you’ve alluded to, there are trade offs for going longer or shorter – with longer being better for the likes of float in powder and stability at speed and shorter helps with maneuverability among other things.
You can support the site here with half the proceeds going to POW.
Awesome, my height is about 6′
My quantum is a 155 I also have an _old_ Prior splitboard which measures closer to 158 and feels pretty good.
Hi Martin
Thanks for the extra info. Yeah, I think the 159 would work well for you. The 156 wouldn’t be wrong either, keeping in mind the trade offs we discussed. But I’d be leaning 159.
Aloha Nate!
Burton came out with the Cartographer Camber this season. Do you have any thoughts on it?
Thanks for providing great and legit views!
Hi Dano
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Cartographer, so can’t say from personal experience. But it looks to be kind of like a softer flexing, more mellow Flight Attendant, with less taper, a heavier core and slightly lower quality base. It’s not exactly that, but that’s probably the best way to describe it, looking at the specs. But yeah, having not ridden it, it’s hard to say for sure how it rides.
Hi Nate!
I am 5’11”,240 lbs and use a size 11 boot ( k2 maysis). I use Union atlas 18/19 bindings.
I’ve ridden for over 20 years and I’m based on the east coast so a lot of ice.
I just picked up a 2015 lib tech 162 hot knife to help with the ice and I love it. Wasn’t sure I would like the lib tech so I bought something used.Working on my switch and the board rewards you for pushing. It’s not an entry level boards.
It’s not great in the powder however .
We don’t get much out here but I want a second board for dump sessions.
I was considering a Yes pyl , lib tech e jack , lib tech dynamo, or gnu back country.
I was also looking at the volume shift options but I don’t know if going to be doing a lot of tree riding.
I mostly like bombing groomers.
What boards and sizes would you recommend to compliment the hot knife on powder days ?
Hi Ranran
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, the Hot Knife not great in powder, but a super fun board otherwise. I was a little gutted when they took this out of their lineup, though now that the TRS has C3 camber, it takes some of what the old Hot Knife had.
With regards to adding your powder board, I’d be leaning PYL, just because I think it’s the better option in powder. If going with a GNU/Lib Tech, I would be leaning either E Jack or GNU Banked Country – they’re at least as good as Dynamo in powder, but will be better for bombing groomers, IMO.
Size-wise, I’d be looking at:
– PYL: 164W
– Ejack: 162W
– Banked Country: 160W – though if you’re not having issues with the width on the 162 Hot Knife, you should be OK on the 162
– Dynamo: 162W
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
I almost pulled the trigger on the PYL but ultimately decided to try something totally new for me and bought a 2020 Orca( 159).
I still plan on ultimately adding the PYL but I wanted to see what all the hype on the Orca was about.
I plan on bringing out the Orca only when I have at least 6 inches of fresh snow so it will be treated as a true powder board.
What do you think of my 2 board quiver for the Ice coast?
Hi Ranran
I think the Orca compliments the Hot Knife really well – a very different board and very much oriented towards powder. For powder days, it will certainly out perform the Hot Knife, so I think you’ve got 2 boards that work well in different situations with very little overlap, so a good 2 board quiver, IMO. If you think of it at the time let me know how you get on with the Orca, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate!
Seasons over unfortunately but I managed to get some time on the Orca.
The board was surprisingly very good all-around.
Very damp.
I happened to find myself on icy groomers with mostly man made snow a lot and it bombed great with little chatter . I also thought the board was rather forgiving due to its hybrid rocker/camber shape. I used it to film my son a lot this year.
However, board really comes alive with even just a few inches of snow! I can see why it gets a lot of 1-board quiver talk!
Personally , I still prefer the C3 camber of my hot knife on most days . But, I would grab the orca if I sensed snow!
Hi Ranran
Thanks for the update. Always awesome to get feedback from other riders!
Hi Nate,
Thank you for your advice before for suggesting the Yes standard a year or 2 ago! Its been amazing! Perfect switch generally ok riding trees.
I am trying to get something that has a bigger nose because I always crash to the front as the head sinks with the Standard…I am 135 pounds is the PYL 156 good for me?
Regards,
Herrick
Hi Herrick
Thanks for your message.
156 probably too big, IMO, unfortunately. Going back and looking at previous messages to get your height and boot size, I would say around 151 would be your “standard all-mountain size” assuming a good width and a relatively advanced level. For a freeride board you can go a little longer, but 5cm is quite a lot and add to that the width being on the big side for your boots, overall, it feels too big, IMO.
Some other freeride options that have that directional hybrid rocker profile (assuming that’s what you’re looking at), but in a better size for you (IMO):
– Burton Flight Attendant 152
– Burton Skeleton Key 150 (for a more mellow, softer flexing option) – though you may be thinking a little longer. I’m guessing you have the 149 Standard, but correct me, if you have the 151.
– Capita Kazu Kokubo Pro 151
– Capita The Navigator 151 – on the smaller size if you’re looking to add length compared to your standard, given that it’s not that wide
– Jones Flagship 151 – or even 154 if you wanted to really add size
– Jones Hovercraft 152
– Salomon Super 8 151
Most of these are on or around your “all-mountain” size, but they’re also wide for your boots for the most part, so they’re still bigger for you, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thank you for you reply! I guess I won’t consider Burton because I had bad experience with the channel system with the process flying V. Or have they improved it so that it doesnt slide anymore?
Yes I am still using the standard 149 and using the setback inserts for powder today in Japan overall i think it is ok if the powder is light feels like flying but struggle a little bit when it gets heavier rideable but not as enjoyable. so I am wondering if its because my board is too short?
Have you heard of the brand moss?
Regards,
Herrick
Hi Herrick
I haven’t experienced that with the Channel, but I don’t know if they’ve changed it since your Flying V (what year was it?).
Length certainly adds float in powder – but other factors help too – the Standard is decent in powder, but it’s not as good as any of the boards mentioned in my previous reply in powder. So adding length would certainly help – and if you’re going to add a board to your quiver and keep the Standard, then I think adding a little length is a good way to go. I think the 149 is a great size for you in the Standard for all-round riding and you could ride it longer if powder was going to be the only thing you were doing, but ideally, I think I’d stick with the 149 for the Standard, but go longer in your second board. Around that 151/152, like the options I’ve listed in my previous reply.
I haven’t heard of Moss, sorry. So don’t know anything about them
Hi Nate!
Ignoring all other attributes…of the boards you’ve tested over the last couple of seasons what are your top 3 for flat out straight line bombing? I’m taking advanced rider, possibly with a screw (or two) loose!
Hi Brian
I would say:
– Burton Straight Chuter (which is like a freeride Custom X – so add Custom X to the list, except that I haven’t retested it within the last couple of seasons)
– Niche Maelstrom
– Capita BSOD
But honorable mentions to GNU Banked Country, Burton Deep Thinker, Capita Mega Merc and Arbor Wasteland Camber, YES Pick Your Line, Jones Stratos and I haven’t ridden the Ride Commissioner but if it’s anything like it’s predecessor the Timeless, it’s likely right up there.
Nate,
Could you compare the difference between the PYL and West Bound for handling tracked out Pow and Chunder Fields? How much better is the West Bound (if at all).
Thanks,
SG
Hi SG
Thanks for your message.
I would say that the West Bound is easier to correct if you get bucked around a little in it. The PYL is a little more “smashy” – i.e. smashes through a little better – and doesn’t get bucked around as easy, but a little harder to correct when you do get thrown off. I’d say their fairly even in terms of flat basing and just floating above it all. I rated the West Bound a little higher mostly because inevitably you get bucked around a little, so those corrections are often inevitable, unless you really commit to just bombing it over.
Hope that helps/makes sense.
Great thanks for the response. Great reviews.
SG
You’re very welcome SG. Thanks for visiting.
Hi Nate, My neighbour turned me onto your site and I’m loving the content. I’m riding a 2016 NS Ripsaw w/ Flux Bindings and am looking to add to the Quiver with a complimentary board to different conditions. I think the Ripsaw rides pretty well in the resort in powder (you may open up my eyes from there!). I’ve had lots of good heavy powder sessions in the Revelstoke North Bowl with it, although after reading your site I do need to see if there is a set-back on it.
The genesis of the NS board was primary riding in Revelstoke but now I find myself splitting 50 / 50 between Cypress / Whistler and Revelstoke, other interior mountains (Red etc.), plus hopefully again into the US. The Ripsaw has been great but isn’t exactly fun in choppy, icy conditions as happens in West Van / Whistler.
I’m 5’11, 195 – 205. Ride a mix of all the terrain the resorts have, but no parks and limited big air. Really looking for something that compliments the
The PYL seems like a great alternative. What else do you recommend? Also would appreciate your thoughts on where the Ripsaw would profile and if there are other alternatives for powder, or other non-icy conditions you’d point towards.
Thanks for your help!
Hi Steven
Thanks for your message.
I think the powder rating is tough, because any board is fun in powder really! OK, there are some that just drop their nose at the slightest lean onto your front foot that can be frustrating, but the Ripsaw is something that I would consider average. The newer Ripsaw is directional Twin, but in 2016 it was a true twin, so newer Ripsaw probably just a little better. I think one of the biggest things, is how effortless the board rides pow. Like how much do you have to really lean on your back foot on the board, versus just being able to relax and have the board float without having to really put in an effort to put your weight over your back foot.
If you’re looking for something that’s a step up in powder and for hard/icy conditions, then the PYL certainly fits that mold, IMO. And more forgiving in choppy conditions.
Going something like Flagship would also give you something more forgiving in choppy conditions, marginally better in icy conditions and another step up in terms of powder. Pretty effortless float in powder from the Flagship.
If you wanted to go even more forgiving (and softer flexing), you could also check out >>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards – which also has some more powder specialist boards in there. But if you want to keep that stiffer flex, but still gain a bit more forgiveness in uneven terrain, and gain some powder performance improvements, then the PYL and Flagship are worth looking at for sure.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate. That is super helpful. I guess taking a step back, what do you recommend between having a set-up for diverse variety of regions? Ultimately I’ll probably do 50/50 riding between coast and interior. Having something that is a serious upgrade on uneven terrain / ice seems like a no-brainer and the PYL would seem to be a great fit with your recommendation.
For the interior would i best served just alternating the PYL and old Ripsaw to see feel and preference or take it from there? The Endeavour Scout looks interesting on the surfy list (the jumps and switch options are low priority to me). It might be something that I need to test out a few different feel types from this list as well to see what would be good to round out the quiver.
For the PYL – what do you recommend on sizing in general. I’m a size 10 shoe and 5’ll?
Thanks for your help!
Hi Steve
Yeah, if you went PYL, you could certainly alternate in the interior and see what you’re preference is.
If you have the chance to test stuff out, then that’s definitely ideal. Particularly would give you a chance to see if you like something a little softer flexing for less ideal conditions – and then you would have that quiver of something softer flexing to with the stiffer ripsaw. The PYL is a similar flex to the Ripsaw – so you don’t get that difference there. You do get a lot of other differences – including better icy conditions, better powder and better in uneven terrain, IMO – but flex is about the same, from my experience. But some people like to have different flex for different conditions like that and others just don’t like softer flexing boards full stop (and others don’t like stiffer flexing full stop), so certainly advantageous if you can try some options out.
Size-wise for the PYL, I would go 162. I think that’s spot on for the PYL for your height/weight/boot size.
Hi Nate,
You do fantastic work, you’re previous All Mountain board reviews got me set up with a Slash Brainstorm (157), Flux DS bindings, and Adidas response ADV. It has been a fantastic set up that has gotten me from intermediate to an advanced rider. Now I’m looking for a more aggressive all mountain/freeride board (still planning to keep the current set up for easy fun riding). I’m mainly looking to bust hard aggressive carves on groomers and also hit the pow and trees. Not much of a park or big jump rider, maybe a few side hits, and dont ride switch often enough for it to matter. I was intrigued with the West Bound, sad to see it discontinued (tho I can still get my hands on one size 160). I see NS has come out with a triple camber board (Proto fr), what’s your thought on something like that? Would it be worth pursuing (I haven’t been able to find many reviews)? Or would it be best to stick with something known like the YES PYL? I’d be interested to hear your feedback or any other suggestions you have.
Specs: I’m 6ft, 170-175lbs, and an 11 boot. I’m thinking I’d be a 160 for most boards.
Thanks again for your great reviews
Cheers,
Anthony
Hi Anthony
Thanks for your message.
Firstly, in terms of length, I agree that something around 159/160 for a freeride board for your specs is a good way to go. If your riding didn’t involve trees, you could potentially even go a little longer, but given you ride trees, I think around that size is a good balance between stability at speed, whilst maintaining maneuverability in the trees.
In terms of width, you’re on the cuff between regular and wide for most boards – for most I would say wide with 11s, but it does come down to the specific board in that 10-11 range.
For the West Bound 160, I think it’s just a little too narrow, particularly if you’re looking to hit hard aggressive carves.
I haven’t yet ridden the Proto FR, but definitely hoping too this winter. But it’s probably also too narrow in the 160. You might get away with it, but with 11s and wanting aggressive carves, I think it’s risky.
The PYL is a great option – and size-wise, the 160W is pretty much ideal for 11s, IMO. It’s not super-wide for a wide board, but wider than a regular width board – and, IMO, perfect for that 10.5 to 11.5 boot size.
Definitely other options too, that would suit what you’re describing. But from the boards you’ve mentioned, I’d be leaning PYL, mostly because I think the size fits the best (and it’s an awesome deck!).
Hope this helps
Thanks for your input Nate. I’m a fan of NS but as you mentioned, they just dont seem to have the width needed and the wide boards dont seem ideal either.
I’m definitely intrigued by the PYL. I do have pretty low profile boots in the Adidas response Adv’s so the 260 width may be okay. I’ll definitely look more in to the PYL, but I’d be interested to see if you have any other suggestions?
Once again, thanks Nate, you’re reviews and knowledge are great
Anthony
Hi Anthony
I think the Jones Stratos 159 is worth looking at. It’s quite wide for a regular width board. Particularly if you’re riding it at it’s 600mm (23.6″) reference stance. 270mm at the back insert.
Burton Flight Attendant 159W as well. It’s a really good width for 11s, IMO and suits what you’re describing.
Capita BSOD 159. It’s borderline width-wise – 268mm at the back insert. So probably not quite wide enough, but otherwise would be a good option, IMO.
GNU Essential Service 2021/Mullair 159W. If you could find a 2021 Essential Service or 2020 Mullair (same board, different names), I think that would work really well. But the 2022 Essential Service is a very different board (kind of confusing, but yeah, for what you want, I’d be looking at the 2021).
Lib Tech Ejack Knife 159W: It’s 264mm at the waist, but only around 271mm at the rear insert (Lib Tech and GNU boards tend to not have as big a difference between waist and width at inserts).
I’d look at those and the PYL 160W.
Thanks for all your input Nate. I stayed up wayyyyy too late looking in to these and think I have it down to two, but really one. The Essential Service (i can get the 2021 in 159W) and the PYL (160W). It seems the Essential would be a better all around aggressive carver, but slightly worse in powder and likely to get more upset with churned up groomers late in the day. I think the PYL could be a perfect combo of hard carve-ability on groomers, float/maneuverability in pow, and more forgiving on late day groomers, giving it the edge for an all day daily driver. I will have to pair them with new bindings, perhaps the Flux XF or Union Falcor’s
I was also intrigued with the Lib Tech BRD (went down many rabbit holes while researching), but was worried with the flex, that it wouldn’t be all that much different than my Brainstorm in terms of hard carving. Whereas I think the PYL will compliment what I currently have more (if I want to have a lazy day, rip it with the Brainstorm).
You’re very welcome Anthony.
I think that’s good reasoning – and I think the PYL would be a great compliment to your Brainstorm.
If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to get it (whichever you ultimately choose) out on snow
Hi,
Im looking for a new freeride board for New Zealand conditions which are generally volcanic or bowly runs with natural halfpipes, hard snow, lumpy groomers, ice, slush and small powder days, My present board is an older High Society freeride empire 164 which has been great here and in europe, good in powder and lumpy snow and good to turn with. I weight about 95 kg, US 12 boot. My oresent binding angle is a positive +15 and rear +3 but have had more positve in the past. I cant do duck!
I ride mainly groomers, natural half pipes and bowls. Not switch unless absolutely necessary, dont ride park at all, do occasiona drops from banks.
Am considering a Korua Cafe Racer 164 or Otto 161 which have been recommended to me.
Also like the Yes PYL but think only available here in 160 which might be too small.
Other possibilties Never Summer westbound fusion ( though unsure if this is same as westbound), some lib techs, gnus, jones flagship or stratus.
I a more sedate rider, only bomb occasionally, and prefer turning which is a mix of skidded and carves but id like to improve my carving. intermediate plus rider 25 years experience but a few seasons with only a couple days.
What would u suggest?
Cheers
Adrian
Hi Adrian
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden anything Korua, so I can’t help you there, but I think the PYL would definitely work for your conditions and how you describe your riding, but with your specs and a size 12 boot, I would be going 164W. I think you’d find the 160W too short, particularly coming from a 164.
I haven’t heard of a Westbound “fusion” but my guess is that wherever you saw it it’s just been named that way because the board has Never Summer’s Fusion Rocker camber profile. Unless there’s limited edition model in New Zealand, then I imagine it’s just they way they’ve named it because of the camber profile. I think the Westbound could definitely work for you, given the camber profile will feel somewhat familiar coming from the High Society Empire (not a board I’ve ridden but from what I could find it looks like it has rocker between the feet and camber under the bindings, which is similar to the Westbound).
Can’t go wrong with the Flagship, IMO, just note that it’s got more taper than the Empire. Something like the PYL or Westbound have a more subtle taper. The Stratos would certainly work too – I personally prefer the Flagship, but the Stratos does fit with what you’re describing. If you don’t mind a heavier feeling board, the Stratos could work. It’s got a little more taper than the others too.
Lib Tech/GNU options would give that rocker between the feet, if you were looking to keep that feel and are really good in hard snow conditions, so I think something there could work for you too. The GNU Essential Service/Mullair is not getting a 2022 model, but would be suitable if you could find an older model. The 2022 Essential Service from GNU is a different board – more of an all-mountain board than a freeride board (kept the name, but changed quite a lot and I wouldn’t consider it a freeride board anymore). The E-Jack Knife would certainly work.
GNU are bringing out a new board, the Banked Country, but it’s quite a beast and if you’re not really looking to bomb it much, then it might be a little more board than you’re looking for. I would be looking at the E-Jack Knife mostly, or you could also look at the BRD.
Hope this helps
Hello Sir – appreciate all the great reviews. I can get either Jones Flagship (2020) or Rossi XV (2021) on good offer currently and I’d like to pick one, so hoping you can tip the scales for me? My riding is all mountain, minimal freestyle (natural jumps), and no park. Not a bomber, but do enjoy some decent speed. I like the trees and would appreciate a board that’s not a tank at slower speeds (I enjoy cruising the groomers and only get powder sporadically). I place a high value on dampness as I’m old and often ride chopped up snow! Given these details, which would you suggest please?
Hi del
I would be looking at the Flagship, based on what you’re describing. If it was the 2019 or earlier Flagship, then it would have been a closer call between the 2, but the 2020 Flagship got better for riding slow and in the trees. Between those 2, I would say the Flagship better at slower speeds and for riding trees. But certainly still stable at speed, but not quite as much of a bomber as the XV.
If I had to choose dampness, I would say the XV is probably a little damper, but both are damp boards, so I wouldn’t be concerned about the dampness on the Flagship and based on everything else you’re describing, the Flagship is the better fit for you, IMO.
If you need any sizing opinions, I would be happy to give my 2 cents on that – I would just need your height, weight and boot size.
Hope this helps
Thank you sir!
You’re very welcome del
Hi Nate,
great information – thanks a lot!
When I read the description of Del in the last message that sounded just like me, so I think I will go for the Flagship.
Some more info: I am 55 years old, have been snowboarding for 30 years,
but usually just 1 week / year. Mostly off-piste, sometime woods, simple natural jumps.
Please some advice:
– better to take Carbon Flagship instead of “normal” Flagship?
– Flagship 2020 is ok or better to go for 2021?
– what size would you recommend: 187 cm, 92 kg, shoe size 11
– what bindings would you recommend?
Thanks so much, regards Andreas
Hi Andreas
I haven’t ridden the Carbon Flagship (now called Ultra Flasghip) but it looks like it’s very stiff. Personally I wouldn’t want to go as stiff as it’s rated if your in the woods sometimes – and generally speaking I wouldn’t go that stiff, unless I really just wanted to bomb and was doing a lot of big mountain bombing. Otherwise, I would go Flagship over Ultra Flagship, personally.
The 2021 model is very similar to the 2020 model. Only change I can tell is that they added “float pack inserts” so you can set back further. The 2020 model is quite different from the 2019 model, but if you’re looking between the 2020 and 2021, they are practically the same as far as I can tell.
Size-wise, I would say 162W would be just right for your specs.
In terms of bindings I would look at something at least 7/10 flex. Check out the following lists for some good options:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Really helpful answers – thanks a lot!
…. for the binding, I just order now your No1 recommendation, the “Union Falcor”!
For the flagship my last hesitation is between 162W and 164, esp. since I never had a wide board:
162W … certainly better for turning esp. in woods
Would 164 be more beautiful / more flow for surfing in deep snow?
Maybe also nicer for carving?
Thanks! Andreas
Hi Andreas
I think if you can get on the 164, I would, but the main reason that I went 162W is that you have size 11 boots. The 164 is borderline width-wise for 11s. If you’ve always ridden regular width boards and never had any issues with boot drag, then you’re probably going to be OK. But here are some things to consider:
– The Flagship 164 is roughly 267mm at the back insert and 272mm at the front insert. The front insert shouldn’t be an issue at all width-wise, especially given that you’re likely to have an angle of at least 15 degrees on your front binding. But the back insert is pushing it, particularly if you ride with quite a straight angle on your back foot. I usually try to go 270mm at inserts for 11s. That said, I do find that you can go narrower depending on a few things:
1. as discussed – binding angles. The more angle the more leeway and less likely to get boot drag.
2. Profile of your boots. Lower profile boots allow you to get on a narrower board (what boots are you riding?)
3. How deep you like to push your carves. The further up on edge you get on a carve the more likely it is that you’ll get boot drag. If you carve less aggressively there’s a smaller chance of boot drag.
And of course, you’re experience with boards will also determine this. If you’ve never had any issues on regular width boards, then you’re probably fine.
Also, whilst shorter boards are easier to maneuver, particularly in trees, if a board is too wide for your feet then it can be harder to maneuver – so whilst the shorter 162W has that shorter aspect, the wider will make it more difficult to go edge to edge IF you’re feet are too small for it. With 11s I would say they aren’t too small for it, so I think you would be fine. But if you can fit on the 164 width-wise, it won’t be any harder to maneuver in tight spots, IMO.
For surfing in deep snow, the extra width actually helps. Overall in terms of surface area the 162W probably has more surface area than the 164, so might actually float a little easier in deep snow. That said, the Flagship is very good in powder and both sizes will work well in that respect.
Great, really appreciate your advice!
Probably I found the solution: actually my shoes are 10 1/2, not 11, so the lovely 164 should be the right one.
Shoes are Vega Boa, some 6 years old, so if you have here also a top 5 list I might follow you also until the last mile (the boots)…
Thanks again Andreas
Hi Andreas
Yeah with 10.5s you should be fine width-wise on the 164, IMO.
For boots, I do have a top 5. I would say going with something between 7/10 flex to 9/10 flex. And try to get something low profile, to be even more sure that you’ll have no drag issues. I would check out the following list for options:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium to medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
Hello Nate,
Thanks for your detailed reviews!
Possibly I will ask a little annoying question for you, but nevertheless..
My height: 175 cm., weight: 64 kg., boot: 10.5 us. Boots: Deeluxe Deemon TF 2020, bindings: Union Strata 2019.
I am trying to decide between Rossignol XV 159 and 163. Mostly I want to use the board in a big mountain which often ends with trees, so I expect that it will be stable at high speed and manoeuvrable enough. Unfortunately, I do not have good rentals to test different models, so I have tried only Jones Flagship 158 from the same board family, and it was feeling a little too clumsy. Not sure, but I thought that it is because of unusual board size (usually I ride up to 155) or not very suitable bindings for freeride (I am going to replace them with Union Atlas after a couple of seasons).
I was ready to buy 159 size, but lots of comments about Rossi XV saying that it is better to get a bigger size. I am afraid that 163 will be too big and disobedient for my weight. So, I am looking forward for your help. 🙂
Hi Ignat
Thanks for your message.
It’s true that you can go bigger with the Rossignol XV and for a lot of freeride boards it’s often recommended to go bigger. However, going to 159 is already big for your specs, IMO. For a standard “all-mountain” size for your specs, I would be looking at around 153. So I definitely wouldn’t go as long as 163 (that thing will turn like a boat for you, I would imagine – which will be especially cumbersome in the trees). That would be way too big, IMO. Even 159 is probably too big, IMO, particularly if you found the 158 Flagship too big. If they had an XV 155 or 156, I think that would be a more ideal size.
A stiffer binding on a board like the Flagship or XV is certainly a good idea, but that won’t have as big an impact, IMO, as getting the wrong size will, given that the Strata isn’t way off in terms of being a flex match with something like the Flagship.
So yeah, if you’re to go XV definitely 159 and not 163, IMO.
Hope this helps
How would you choose between the Jones Flagship and YES PYL?
Mostly East Coast, so hard and sometimes icy, plus a trip west or Europe, 5-10″ 190 lbs. I like to go fast, never in the park.
Hi Jos
Thanks for your message.
It’s a very hard choice! Both are awesome boards and well suited to what you’re describing, IMO. Some things that might help (note that this is referring to 2020 Flagship and forward – the 2019 and previous Flagships were quite different):
– I found the PYL to be a little better on a carve and at speed, but they’re both pretty close there
– The Flagship a little better in powder, IMO.
– The PYL marginally better in icy conditions, IMO. The Flagship certainly not bad there though
If you’re still undecided, sizing can sometimes be a good tie breaker. What’s your boot size?
Hey Nate, I still can’t decide on a board. I currently ride a Burton Custom which I love. Just doesn’t have good edge hold in harder snow. I think I’ve narrowed it down between the Yes PYL and GNU ES. I think I would like the C3 profile since I love my custom. I am now also looking at the LIb Dynamo. I like the thought of a softer free ride board but am not sure how it will hold up at speed. How does carving on these C3 boards compare to the Yes PYL? I want something that I can ride fast and hard but not be forced to ride that way all the time. I do not ride park at all. I mostly end up riding groomers since powder is pretty non existent on the NE. I will make at least one trip a year out west. I am 5’8” 160 lbs 9.5 boot. Thanks for your help.
Hi Frank
Thanks for your message.
Not all C3 boards carve the same, but typically they’re pretty good for carving. Between the ES and PYL, I would say ES (pre 2022 model, which is quite different to the 2021 and earlier models), I would say that the ES is the better carver. Not a lot in it, as the PYL is still a good carver. But the PYL, IMO, is a better carver than the Dynamo – so it depends on other factors than just the camber profile. The Dynamo is decent at speed, but it’s not as stable at speed as the ES or PYL.
Both the ES and PYL you can ride them more casual. Both boards ride better slow than a lot of boards of a similar flex, IMO. But the Dynamo is easier to ride slow/casual still.
For the Dynamo, I’d say 156. For the PYL, it would be between the 156 and 159. I think around 156 is a good “all-mountain” length for you, but you can go a little longer with something like the PYL, so you could certainly ride the 159 too. Same deal with the ES – either 155 or 159. If you wanted to optimize speed and float in powder, then going 159 in either would be a good way to go. But if you wanted to go with something a little more maneuverable, better in trees and easier to ride slow, then the 155/156 would work well with those boards (and still be fine at speed and in powder, but just not to the same extent as the longer options. Also to note, that the 159s will feel a little stiffer than the 155/156 versions – so going with the shorter sizes would also give you a more mellow flex feel versus going with the longer options.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate. Thanks for sharing all this – this is super helpful info! Was hoping you could help me decide on a new board amongst the ones I’m considering. I’m 6’6″, 210 lbs, wear a 13 boot (Burton Ruler), and have been riding a 2012 164w Custom X for nearly 10 years now. I will say this past season was probably the first where I really feel like I was fully able to harness the full capabilities of the Custom X considering how stiff it is and that it’s a board that really likes to go fast and performs better at speed. I typically ride all mountain, don’t do park and don’t ride switch. I’m in the trees probably 20% of the time and the rest on runs.
The boards that I’m considering are (in order of preference at the moment): Jones Flagship 169W, Yes PYL 164W and Westbound 168W. Considering my height, I don’t think 168/169 would be too big but I wanted to get your take on those sizes in those boards in particular, and also how those boards would differ from the 2012 Custom X 164W. I also saw some of your responses that the PYL has a smaller effective edge and seems to be narrower than the other boards. Any additional advice you can give would be much apprecaited!
Hi Steven
Thanks for your messages.
In terms of those boards, I would say that the West Bound represents the biggest change to the Custom X, so would be the one that would take more getting used to. It’s a little more playful and a little softer flexing than the other 2 and also it has a hybrid rocker profile (rocker between the feet) as opposed to hybrid camber on the other 2. The other 2 would feel more similar to the Custom X’s full camber. That said, all 3 boards are quite different from the Custom X. They’re all a little more forgiving and a little softer flexing, IMO.
Size-wise, if you were to go PYL 164W you would be looking at a lot less effective edge versus the Custom X 164W, though the same would be the case if you were to go 165W in the Flagship. Width-wise, the PYL isn’t super wide for a wide board, but if you never had any issues on the Custom X 164W width-wise, then it shouldn’t be an issue. The following for reference, hopefully it’s helpful:
– 2012 Burton Custom X 164W: 128cm effective edge | estimated 272-273mm width at inserts
– 2021 YES PYL 164W: 123cm effective edge | around 273mm width at back insert and 276mm at front insert
– 2021 Jones Flagship 169W: 126.6cm effective edge | around 284mm width at back insert and 289mm at front insert
– 2021 Jones Flagship 165W: 123.4cm effective edge | around 278mm width at back insert and 283mm at front insert
– 2021 Never Summer West Bound 168X: 129cm effective edge | around 280mm width at back insert and 281mm at front insert
– 2021 Never Summer West Bound 165X: 126cm effective edge | around 277mm width at back insert and 278mm at front insert
So yeah I would be debating between the 169W and 165W for the Flagship and the 168X and 165X for the Westbound. I think both sizes would work. Given that you’re not doing any park, I think that helps with going longer, but it can be nice in trees to go a little shorter, so both sizes are in your range, IMO. For the PYL, the 164W is the only size that would be suitable. It’s certainly doable for your specs, IMO, but there is a 5cm reduction in effective edge compared to your Custom X (similar reduction also if you were to consider the 165W Flagship), so it’s whether or not that’s too much. You’d probably really like it in the trees, it’s just whether or not you’ll miss that effective edge when really opening out and bombing.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate! Your reviews are awesome and extremely helpful. Wanted your thoughts on a new board. I’m 6’6”, 210 lbs and ride size 13 boot (Burton Ruler). Been riding a 2012 Custom X 164W and it feels like this season was the first season where I feel like I really harnessed the full capability of the board but am looking for a newer board with new tech etc. I mostly ride all mountain so groomers, bowls and trees and am probably a 7/10 skill level. I ride a mix of Mammoth (which can get hard packed – my custom was slipping all over the place this past weekend despite fresh edge sharpening) and Colorado/Utah.
I’m considering the PYL (164W), Flagship (169W) and Westbound (168W) and wanted your thoughts on how those boards compare to my Custom X and also if the 169 flag and 168 west might be too big for me? Think I’m leaning currently in order: flagship, PYL (saw you mention they ride smaller than listed size), and West but was hoping for a little more color to help with my decision!
Hi Nate. I ride 154 2019 yes greats. I am looking into moving on to faster board that carves well and do some POW. what would you recommend between a Jones Flagship and Jones Stratos? I would like a board that will complement my yes greats and something I can ride for a long time. I am 180lb and 5’9”. I go west 7 days and east 7 days. I would like to know your recommendation of the board and the size. I don’t ever go to park. If you can share your reasoning that would be fantastic!
Hi Sung
I would go Flagship if I had the choice between the Flagship and Stratos. I found the Flagship was as good or better in almost every category and it just feels (and is) a good bit lighter. The only thing I think is better on the Stratos is stability at speed, but there’s not a big difference there. Both as good for carving, the Flagship a little better for regular turns, better in uneven terrain and better in powder. The Stratos is a good option if your budget is tighter, but if budget isn’t an issue I would go Flagship every time.
Size-wise, for you I would go 161.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate, would love your input! I am 6’1, 200 lbs. Currently on a 163 2018 XV Magtek which I love. However, I find that the size makes it tough to make turns in the trees and on steep terrain so I’m looking for a complement to it. I demo’d the Jones Flagship last week which I thought was solid but didn’t blow my mind. One of my buddies has been championing the Never Summer Swift, and I’ve been eyeballing their “West” Board. I’m not a buttering/park/jumps guy. Mostly like going fast, carving and playing in the trees. I’m in Northern California so while we sometimes get powder its a lot of Sierra Cement, which is why I love the Magna grip on the Magtek. Any insight on reccs would be amazing. Thanks!!
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the swift, so I couldn’t say there from experience, but on paper, and based on other similar Never Summer decks, I think it could be suitable, if you liked that much taper. It’s got 20mm of taper, so quite a bit. Sometimes that can make the back end wash out when laying down a big carve, but it is typically great in powder and trees. So as a compliment to the XV, I think it could work. If you’re looking to replace the XV, that’s the only thing to consider, is whether you want that much taper or not.
The West Bound has much more subtle taper. It’s still a very directional deck, but with a good bit less taper.
Some other options for boards that I found really good in trees, but still carved and bombed well – and good edge-hold/grip in hard/icy conditions – and with magnetraction or similar:
– GNU Essential Service
– YES PYL
And if you take out that magnetraction or similar, then the Kazu is also a good option.
Size-wise, from those I would say, given that you want to go a little smaller:
– Westbound 160
– GNU Essential Service 161
– PYL 162 or 160W
– Kazu 160
But if you could also let me know your boot size, to confirm that sizing.
Hope this helps
Dude this is amazing. Really appreciate the insight and thorough response!
My boot size is 10. Thanks! Why the longer size in the PYL? More rocker in the front?
Awesome, thanks! I am a size 10 Boot. What would you say main differences are b/w the NS and PYL? Guessing reason for the longer PYL is because it is further set back than the Westbound?
Thanks so much!
Hi Daniel
Reason why longer in the PYL is that it has less effective edge versus overall length. Essentially meaning there’s more length outside the contact points than there is on something like the Westbound. So it feels shorter than the overall length suggests versus something like the Westbound. You only really feel that extra length when in powder. The only question mark in terms of width would be the Essential Service 161 which is a narrower board. The others should be all good for 10s in regular width. The PYL would be doable in 160W for 10s, as it’s not that wide for a wide board, but I think I would be leaning 162.
The main differences between the West Bound and PYL:
– The PYL I found a little more stable at speed
– The West Bound I found a little better in uneven terrain
– The PYL marginally better for jumps
– The PYL a little better edge hold in hard/icy conditions, but the WB not bad there either.
Otherwise performance-wise quite similar. With a different feel, but overall performance-wise. The WB has a slightly looser feel but very subtly – it’s a marginally softer flexing too. And it feels a little damper.
Hey Nate! Could you help me with the sizing, please? I am going to purchase Burton FA. My specs: 84kg, 185cm, boot 10 US. I use Nitro El Mejor boot, it is 31 cm length (external sole), which is not low profile I suppose. I like fast ride, carving, a little jumps, don’t ride park and jubbing at all. Sometimes I ride off piste, and trees, but not really often on powder. Piste/off piste is 70/30.
What would you suggest me 162 or 159W? I am afraid that 162 will be too narrow for me?
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
Really good question. I think you’d probably be alright on the 162 width-wise. 31cm isn’t low profile for a 10, but it’s not super bulky or anything either. It’s in the middle. If you ride with a really straight back binding angle though, you might be pushing it width-wise. If you ride with some kind of angle there, then I think you’re probably fine on the 162 width-wise. And I think that’s a good length for you too.
The 159W isn’t necessarily too wide for you though. It’s not overly wide for a wide board, so it’s doable as well. And if you do ride with a straight back binding angle and are worried about the width, then the 159W would definitely work. I would go 159W if you did go wide though (as opposed to 162W).
Hope this helps
Good day, Nate! Thanks for the reply, it is really helpful! My binding angles are -9 back +21 front. What do you think about back angle? It is ok to 162 Burton FA width?
Hi Max
No guarantees, but I think you should be alright on the 162. I would be comfortable with that setup on the 162. But if you’re going to be euro carving or something like that, then you might want to go 159W. Otherwise, I’d say 162 should be fine width-wise.
Hey Nate, I have read and learned a lot from your page. It’s an awesome resource you put together. Thank you for all your hard work.
I have been considering the PYL for my next board. I am 6’5” 230lbs with a size 13 foot. I have been riding for about 20 years, but many of those seasons I only saw a couple days. If I am totally honest with myself I am a solid level 6 rider working to get to level 7 (minus switch riding and park aspects). I spend as much time as possible in the tree’s unless they are completely iced up and hard. Then I will bomb some groomers. I almost never go in the park.
Do you think the 164W YES PYL is a good option? I don’t mind a long board. I am on a 166 Burton Royale right now and learned on a 174 Burton Supermodel, so this would actually be my shortest board ever. My only concern might be the PYL being wide enough for my boots? Thanks in advance.
Hi Bryce
Thanks for your message.
I think the PYL 164W would certainly work for what you’re describing, and the length should work well for what you’re describing, IMO. The biggest concern, like you mention would be the width.
You’re probably looking at around 6.2cm of total overhang (assuming a straight binding angle you can take off a couple of mm if you ride with a bit of angle on your back foot) on the back foot, assuming an overall boot length of around 33.5cm (which is relatively low profile for a 13). Which is going to be around 3cm of overhang per edge depending on binding angles – and more if you’ve got bulkier boots. That’s more than ideal for sure. I try to keep to a max of 2.5cm over the edge, and on the toe edge, even try to be less than that, particularly if you like to really lean into your carves.
Apart from going for a wider board, you could try looking into binding risers, which raise your boots higher off the board, giving you more angle, thus reducing chances of boot drag. I don’t have any experience with these, so I can’t say how they feel or where to get them or anything like that. But if you wanted to fit on a narrower board that is one option.
If you did want to look at other boards, let me know and I can put together some similar-ish options that are wider.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I’ve been snowboarding about 10 years now and am looking to get my first free ride board. I do most of my skiing on the east, in the trees, and also do a trip out to the west every other year or so. I’m 5’9″ and 135-140 lbs, and am rocking size 9 Ride Lasso boots. I’m curious as to what sizes for my board I should be targeting? I know that free ride boards should be a little bit longer, but I’m not sure how long is too long. I currently ride a 155 Rome Factory Rocker.
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
IMO 155 is already on the long side for your specs, so I wouldn’t be looking to go longer than that, particularly if you’re riding trees a fair bit. I would say anything from 153-155 would be your best bet.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I figured you haven’t replied to enough people, so I’ll add to it! 🙂
I’m an experienced female rider, been snowboarding for 25+ years now. I’m looking for a new in-bounds board and I haven’t looked at them in 6+ years, sadly. I’m currently riding a 2014 Burton Feelgood Flying V in 155 as my daily driver. I love this board, it does everything I ask pretty well, but Burton no longer offers this board in 155, and I’m a bit heavier of a lady at 210lbs.
I have a Burton Flight Attendant split in 158 that I love for hard charging, powder, and plowing through chunder, but I have found that I can’t maneuver this tractor trailer through trees. So, I purchased a Jones Dreamcatcher split in 154, and that is now what I use for tree runs, and really I find myself grabbing this board most times, but it doesn’t have the stability I want at speed. I much prefer the stability of the FA on the downhill, but the Jones uphills SO. MUCH. BETTER. than the Burton, it’s like night and day.
Anyway, hopefully that gives you an idea of my preferences. In-bounds I find myself taking tree runs or bump runs to stay away from the Texans. I’ve been looking at the 2020+ Jones Flagship and I’m wondering if you may have some input. Should I stick with the 155 womens? Is this board going to feel much too stiff in comparison or perhaps due to my weight it will be just right? Is there another board that should be on my radar?
Thanks!
Hi Trish
Thanks for your message.
Can you let me know your boot size and your height. Weight definitely more important for board size (as well as boot size, ability and style of riding) but I still like to take height into account.
I think if you’re looking for something more stable at speed than the Dream Catcher but more maneuverable than the 158 FA, the 155 Women’s Flagship could be the ticket, but boot size is the main thing I want to check.
Awesome list Nate! I’m shocked you’ve replied to so many comments. Seriously well done.
I’m 5′-6″, 175 lb with Size 9 Boots. I’ve had an Atomic Firestarter 162cm board since 2006 but I haven’t ridden much since becoming a dad in 2014. Thinking about getting going again and upgrading to a modern board. I’ve loved the Firestarter for it’s stiffness and carving ability. I’m not much for the park. What would you recommend?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Dmitriy
Thanks for your message.
Based on what you’re describing, I would probably look at the Niche Maelstrom or the Rossignol XV or if you wanted to go even stiffer, something like the Jones Ultra Mind Expander (or Ultra Flagship – though that’s a pretty pricey option!), Burton Straight Chuter, Ride Commissioner or Never Summer East.
I haven’t ridden the Firestarter, or Atomic boards at all, so I couldn’t say for sure what might compare, but if you’re looking for stiff and freeride, those are what I’d look at.
Size-wise, I would probably come down a little from 162, unless you feel like that’s your size and don’t want to change. Personal preference certainly comes into it. But based on specs and how you like to ride, I would say 158-159. However, given that you’re used to riding a 162, I think you could up that to more like 159-161.
Hope this helps
Nate, I am 6-6, 230 lbs., size 14 boot, advanced intermediate looking for groomers and powder. Do you have a recommendation for a wide board that fits my needs?
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
With 14s and for your specs, I would look at the 166DF (DF standing for drag free) Never Summer Westbound. I think that would fit your specs and what you’re describing really well.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Was reading through other comments thinking I could figure out what I needed to know from others questions but since you seem happy to help so figured I would comment. I’ve rented boards in the past but looking to buy for the first time so I want to get something I can ride for hopefully the next 10 years. Last year in Crested Butte I rented a Burton Flight Attendant which rode great and I was considering purchasing but the Gnu Mullair from your descriptions also fits the profile of what I am looking for and is on sale at most online stores right now. I typically like riding fast and carving groomers and then occasionally riding through trees and some powder. Love riding back bowls and getting somewhat off the beaten path when I can.
My only hesitation is that you mentioned it is a narrow board. I am 5′ 11″ and 185 lbs with a 11 or 11.5 boot size depending on the brand. I am probably going to try out the Adidas boots from your reviews so the boot will not be as big. Would the Mullair work for me or should I try a different board and just spend the extra money so I can make sure I get something I will ride for years? I have seen they make 159 and 161 in W option so thinking that may work. If you have a recommendation on bindings and which Adidas boot would pair well I would appreciate that as well. This website is great and I appreciate the time you put in to it! Let me know if there’s more I can do to support the site as well! I assume purchasing from the links you post helps!
-Michael H.
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
The Mullair would definitely work for what you’re describing. Note that it is a different feeling board, because it’s hybrid rocker versus the hybrid camber on the Flight Attendant. With it being C3, it’s predominantly camber, so you don’t notice the rocker between the feet that much, but just to note that. It has all the qualities you’re looking for, for how you describe your riding, IMO.
Size-wise, I think the 161W would work really well for you. It’s not overly wide either. Often with 11s, it can be tricky because wides are sometimes too wide and regular too narrow. In this case with the wide versions still not being super wide, I think it’s a really good fit. The 159W is a possibility too, if you want something a little more agile, whilst sacrificing a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder – so between the sizes I think it depends whether you want to optimize speed and float or optimize riding in the trees. Each size will still be fine for the other, but that’s the debate between those sizes.
In terms of Adidas boots, I would personally pair the Mullair with the Acerra. I think that would be a really good match and match what you’re describing as well. The Tactical ADV and Response would work too, but I would be leaning Acerra.
And yeah, purchasing through the links is the best way to support the site, for sure, as it doesn’t cost you any extra.
Hope this helps
Have you ridden the Lib Tech BRD yet its supposed to be a great freeride board
Hi Matthew
Haven’t yet, but have had a few people asking about it, so definitely going to try to get my hands the 2022 this demo season. I don’t typically get boards until beginning of Feb at earliest, so it’s unlikely to be before then.
Hey, Nate. This info is so great, thank you. I haven’t been snowboarding since 2004. I hurt myself pretty badly in the army but have worked hard to get my body back in shape enough to get back on the mountain. I bought a 2020 Burton Deep Thinker (163 W), Maltavita EST bindings and Photon Boa boots. The boots were WAY too small but I hadn’t realized that the run small. I’m not tied to Burton, it’s just what I knew. I used to have a 160 Burton Floater and Nidecker Boots and Bindings. I’m 6’1 and 225, pretty solidly built. I’m looking for boots since the Photons didn’t fit. Would prefer to not spend more than $300, won’t be able to be on the mountain that often, and basically want comfort as the most important factor. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I would check out the following for some boot options:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
The first list is basically boots with a 6/10 or 7/10 flex and the second list 8/10 or stiffer. I would say the Photon are around a 7/10 flex, so if you were good with that flex, that’s a good place to start. For the setup you have I would personally go 7/10 or 8/10 in terms of flex, but softer boots do tend to be more comfortable and less expensive.
Price-wise, some good under $300 options:
– Salomon Dialogue (the non BOA versions are under $300)
– DC The Laced
– Vans Invado Pro
– Thirty Two Lashed
– Ride Anchor
– K2 Boundary
For sizing/fit, of course best if you can try on in person, but if that’s not possible, this might help:
Sizing Snowboard Boots: The Different Brands
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I am amazed on how you take your time and reply to every single comment. You’ve helped so many people and I think that’s just great!
I read through a ton of your posts and comments and I feel a bit overwhelmed by all the information since I haven’t kept up with what’s going on in the world of snowboards for a bunch of years now.
Maybe you can help me with my decision.
I’m looking for a new board and bindings and I haven’t kept up with all the brands or whatsoever. My last board was an All-Mountain from Salomon which I bought as a bundle about 10 years ago and rode it until it basically fell apart.
Now I’m not quite sure which direction I should go and if I’m better off going with a Freeride board or choose an All-Mountain again.
My rider level is advanced and I’m only riding in the Alps so some decent mountains. I’m just shy of 6’ with 155-160lbs and have a size 10 shoe. Size wise for the board I am thinking between 159 and 161.
My preferences when it comes to riding are the following: I love some good powder whenever possible and I like riding groomers with good speed and carving. Off-piste, trees and uneven terrain are great as well. I’m hitting smaller jumps whenever I see some, but no park at all and not a lot of switch either.
Since I’ve had my old board for about 10 years I don’t care about having the latest board just because it’s new and I’m more looking for the most bag for my buck and a board that will last and take whatever I throw at it.
What kind of board type do you think would suite me best? And are there any specific boards maybe also bindings you would recommend for my mentioned preferences?
Cheers,
Pascal
Hi Pascal
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I would be looking at a freeride board. I think that’s a pretty good size-range to look at too. But I would also consider boards at 158. But yeah definitely a freeride board, IMO, given what you’re describing.
I think anything from this list would do the job for sure, but if you’re really looking to maximize in terms of speed/carving/powder, then I would check out the score breakdowns and see which would be the best there. Or if you’re looking for a balance with being nimble in trees and uneven terrain, then check out the “turn” scores and uneven terrain too. I think any of the first 4 on this list should tick all those boxes.
In terms of bindings, I like to go at least the flex of the board. E.g. if the board is a 7/10 flex, then I would prefer to go with a 7/10 flex binding or an 8/10 flex binding. Flex-match or slightly over. So I would check out the following:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for answering all these questions. Just picked up a 2021 Burton Skeleton Key. I’m 5’8′ and about 140lbs. I kept debating between the 150 or 154. I finally settled on the 150 as I am close to the lower end of the weight range. As well as I was reading a review and the rider was 180lbs and tried the 154 and 158 and he liked the 154 better.
Thoughts?
Hi Kango
Thanks for your message.
I think the 150 is the way to go for you. The 154 isn’t way out of your range, but it’s a little big for your specs, IMO. However, if you could also let me know your boot size, then I could give a more informed opinion. But just based on height/weight, I think the 150 was the right choice.
Thanks Nate,
My boot size is a 8.5 Photon and went with medium Burton Genesis bindings.
Cheers
Hi Kango
Yeah, I think 150 for sure with your specs. I think you’re right on there. And the Medium Genesis with 8.5 Photon’s and the 150 SK should work well.
Hi Nate,
You’re a good man. You’ve helped so many people with some fantastic advice. I’ve spent a copious amount of time on your site over the last few days.
From all I’ve read, I’ve narrowed down my purchase to the Yes PYL or the Standard.
I’m 5’11, 190, sz 11, rider level 6. I primarily ride in Ontario on hills, not mountains in less than ideal snow, but hope to get an annual trip to Quebec or Vermont.
I’m too old for jumps etc., just looking to carve and cruise with some speed and have a ton of fun.
Could you help me select one of those two boards or recommend another?
Thanks again for all you do, happy holidays and happy riding this year,
Greg
Hi Greg
For what you’re describing, both would work for sure, but I’d probably be leaning PYL, if you’re not looking to do any jumps or ride switch or anything like that. Even in that case, the Standard is still an option, if you wanted a slightly more easy going/slightly softer ride. The PYL isn’t like ultra aggressive or anything but it’s a little stiffer/a little more board than the Standard, but a little better for carving and at speed than the Standard.
Size-wise, I think the 160W would be right on for your specs. For the Standard, it would be a weigh up between the 156 and 159. It’s a wider board, with the 156 being slightly wider at the inserts than the 160W in the PYL. The 159 Standard being a good bit wider. Even with 11s, it’s on the wider side, which is why I would consider sizing down to the 156, if you were to go Standard, but then you are loosing effective edge. That’s potentially another reason to err PYL, as I think the sizing works better for you.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate – Thanks for putting together these great reviews – very helpful!
I’ve been riding Burton Customs since the late 90’s (the “sunset” series) and love them. My most recent was a 156 Flying V – I enjoy the playfulness and float in pow, but found a noticeable difference in stability at high speeds compared to cambers.
I’m considering a Custom X Flying V this year for a little more stiffness with hybrid rocker benefits – I’m a powder snob and still prefer the Flying V overall. Would you recommend the Jones Flagship or Burton Custom X for a board that (priority 1) is great in deep pow and (priority 2) is stable on hard pack or high speeds?
Appreciate any recommendations you have!
Hi Nik
Thanks for your message.
Wasn’t sure if you meant Flagship versus Custom X camber or Flying V, so I’ll compare to both.
The Flagship better than both Custom Xs in deep pow for sure. The Custom X Flying V better than the Camber version in powder though. For powder, I score them the following:
– Flagship: 5/5
– Custom X Flying V: 3.5/5
– Custom X: 2.5/5
In terms of stability at high speeds, I would go Custom X (camber), then Flagship, then Custom X Flying. My scores there are:
– Custom X: 5/5
– Flagship: 4/5
– Custom X Flying V: 3.5/5
In terms of edge-hold in hard/icy conditions, I would say Flagship, then Custom X, then Custom X Flying V. But not a lot in it between the Flaghip and Custom X (camber).
So based on that and what you’re describing, I think the Flagship would be your best bet. However, if you were wanting to stick with your Customs, the Custom X Flying V does offer more stability at speed than the Custom Flying V. Going Flagship would give you something a little more different in your quiver though.
Hope this helps with your decision
Very helpful! I’m hesitant to switch from my tried-and-true Burtons (to which I’ve been very brand loyal 🙂 but it does sound like the Jones Flagship might be right up my alley. Thanks for taking time to write this up, Nate!
You’re very welcome Nik. Would be very curious to hear which way you go and what you think. If you think of it at the time, let me know which direction you go, and how you get on when you get it out on snow.
Hey Nate,
I’m an expert level snowboarder. I’ve been riding for the last 21 years, which includes competition slopestyle, but I’ve taken more of an interest in aggressive tree and mogul riding in the last decade. Imagine trying to navigate down moguls or a tree run as fast as possible, gapping some bumps if the opportunity arises. Do you have any recommendations for a snowboard that is VERY quick turning, responsive, and has crisp feedback to it?
Part of me thinks a softer board with some type of rocker would be optimal for surfing down moguls and trees, but I don’t want to lose the aggressiveness that comes with stiffer boards. Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Hi Dominic
Thanks for your message.
Not sure how stiff you ride in terms of slopestyle competition, but I imagine fairly stiff to be stomping some of those landings? In which case, something like a 7/10 flex might feel like going a little softer, but without loosing too much of that aggressiveness? But I could be wrong as to how stiff you’d ride for slopestyle competition.
The best boards I’ve found for trees/moguls from this list, in this kind of flex range, are the YES PYL, GNU Mullair & Capita Kazu. Not far off were the Jones Flagship (2020 and newer models), Never Summer Chairman, Never Summer Westbound, E-Jack Knife and Burton FA. So, I think one of PYL, Mullair & Kazu would be a good bet, depending on sizing.
Note though that this is coming from an advanced, but not expert and far from pro rider. These were my feel on these. Typically I prefer a slightly softer board for really quick edge to edge in trees, but those were up there with the softer boards I’ve preferred. It should also be noted that when I’m going through the trees, I’m likely going significantly slower than you are, by the sounds of it, and softer boards tend to be more maneuverable at slower speeds, but less crisp/precise at faster speeds and less aggressive. So, for me, going slower through the trees, I prefer something softer, largely due to the speed I’m cruising through at. For you, I think something a little stiffer would likely be a good bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, can you give me an advice! I wan’t to bye new board. The last one was Rossi XV magtek 2016, looking for same conditions, but I need some new emotions from the board! After your reviews my choice is on YES PYL, how do you compare it too XV, what is cons and pros! And I need a bit size advice, I am 188 cm, 94 kg, size of boots 10,5-11 on different brands! Which size will fit me best?
Hi Kantik
Thanks for your message.
Appropriate that you mention personality – as that’s one thing about the PYL vs the XV – it’s got more x-factor – just feels a little livelier.
Otherwise, it’s a little softer feeling than the XV and not quite as good for powder. It’s kind of on the all-mountain end of the freeride scale as opposed to the more fully fledged freeride feel of the XV. PYL better in trees/tight terrain, IMO and better for when you want to get a bit more casual on it and in uneven terrain and if you want to hit some jumps or natural hits on it.
Size-wise for the PYL, I would be weighing up between the 160W and 164W for you. It’s not super wide for a wide board, so I think it would work well in the wide sizes for 11s. If you’re looking for a more agile ride and a little more forgiving – i.e want to ride trees a lot etc, then I’d lean 160W, but if you prioritize hard carves/stability at speed/float in powder, then 164W would be the better choice.
Would depend on the size of XV you ride too, and whether you want to keep a similar size feel or feel like you wanted to go shorter or longer than ride on the XV.
Hope this helps
Thank’s for answer Nate, you really doing a great job for all of us!
My XV is 167 but not wide, I have Adidas boots 10,5. with reduced foot print, and have no problems with the toe drag with this complete, but sometimes I am thinking the wide one would be better for me! Actually I don’t want the board to be shorter in feelings. Not much powder days in my riding now, but I need speed and stability, will be PYL the proper choice? What do you think about board size once again?
Hi Kantik
Given the extra info I would say go 165 for the PYL.
With a 10.5 Adidas boot you should have no problem with the width on it. If you still really wanted to go wide, then 164W.
Note that you would still be dropping a little in length on the PYL 165 (or 164W) versus the 167 XV, both in overall length (of course :-)) but also in terms of effective edge (123cm on the PYL versus 127cm on the XV).
Do be you think, I will feel the reduce of the effective length? Is it big reduce on your opinion? I am inclined to 164w size right now, because it can be a problem if the boots will be without reduced print size. But I never rode a wide board, and have some doubts about it.
Hi Kantik
If you’re concerned about going wide, then I would go 165. If you haven’t ridden wide before and haven’t run into any drag issues, then I doubt the 165 PYL will be too narrow for you. Certainly with 10.5 Adidas boots, you shouldn’t have any issues. I’m guessing your thinking if you get new boots at some point that aren’t low profile you could run into problems. Personally I would go with the narrower board, if you’re not sure about wide boards and just make a note to look at Low Profile boots next time you need boots. There are a few brands that are lower profile, so you don’t just have to look at Adidas.
In terms of the effective edge, it’s enough of a difference that it will certainly be noticeable. How much that affects you is hard to say for sure, but I would say you would feel it. Not to say that you’ll necessarily not like the feel of that length/effective edge, but it’s certainly enough to be noticeable.
Hi Nate!
Thanks for your work, it really helps
!
I was thinking to buy the Jones Flagship and need some sizing advise.
I’m 170 cm, 61 kg and 42 boot size.
What’s your suggestion?
Hi Alessandro
Thanks for your message.
For your specs, I wouldn’t go longer than the 154. For an all-mountain board, I would be looking at around 150 for you, but you can go a little longer in a freeride board. You could also ride the 151, but I would be leaning towards the 154. Width-wise, you shouldn’t have any problems with the 154 – and even the 151 you’d probably get away with. The Flagship is wider at eh inserts than it looks at the waist. But if you were really worried about the 151 width-wise, that would be another reason to go 154.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate! I’m looking to add another board to the quiver that has great carving, speed, and turns. Right now I have the button custom Flying V and it’s just not doing it for me at high speeds. Im really liking the sound of the PYL, Flight Attendant, and GNU Mullair. The only issue is I wear a size 11 boot and I’m only 5’10 145lbs. It seems the only wide boards are Longer. What board and what size would you recommend for me, either out of the ones I mentioned or any other on this list? Thank!
Hi Taylor
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, definitely in freeride boards, the wides are typically only on the longer options – a lot of more freestyle focused boards more often have wides in lower sizes. Even as short as 153W. Length-wise, I would say something around 153-156 for you for a freeride board, given that you’re looking for speed/carving. It would also depend on what you’re used to riding (what size is your custom flying V?), but I’d say that’s a good range to look at.
Even though the Mullair 155 would be a good length for you, IMO, it’s going to be too narrow for 11s. The width at the back insert on the 155 will be roughly 254mm, which I wouldn’t personally be comfortable riding on 11s. The 156 FA and 156 PYL give a little more – 257mm at the back insert for both, but I still wouldn’t be comfortable at that with 11s.
There are definitely other options though – some boards don’t come in wides at smaller sizes, but they are naturally wider and could accommodate 11s. Some options:
– YES Hybrid – not quite as hard charging as the PYL, but close and still good for carving/speed – the 157 is really quite wide (277mm back insert, 283mm front insert) and with the combination of length and width, might feel a bit big. But they are now also doing a 153 for the 2021 model. Which is 273mm at the back insert, which is a really good width for you, IMO. The 153 is probably at the lower end of your range, given you want a hard charger, but definitely doable.
– Burton Skeleton Key – the same camber profile as the Flight Attendant, but a little softer (and obviously other things different). Again like PYL vs Hybrid, it’s not quite as hard charging, but still pretty hard charging. The 154 should be good width-wise, with a 266mm width at the back insert. Will depend a little on binding angles and the exact boots you have (some are more low profile than others). If you can give me those details that would help.
– YES the Y. Not a board I particularly liked personally, but the size would work – the 154 has a 271mm width at back insert.
– YES Optimistic – more beefed up version of the Y. The 154 has the same specs. Again, not my favorite YES board, but the specs work.
– Jones Stratos 156 – it will be roughly 268mm at the back insert, which is definitely doable.
– Salomon Super 8 154 – back insert roughly 268mm
Hopefully that gives you some options to look at. But yeah, if you could let me know the brand, model (and year if you know it) of your boots, your binding angles and the size of your Custom Flying V and we can narrow down from there.
Hey Nate!
Thanks for the extremely detailed reply. Right now I’m on 158 2019 board, however, it was my first board and I didn’t know what I was looking for and what width I needed. It is a bit narrow but not too bad. I’m looking to do it the right way this time so I don’t want to pick a length based off of that one, but more so pick a length that really makes since for my size and what I’m looking to do. My boots are 2019 Burton Motos. My binding are Burton cartels from the same year. Thanks again!
Hi Taylor
Thanks for your message.
With Burton Moto’s you get a pretty low profile boot, so that definitely helps width-wise, so I would be pretty comfortable with you on anything from around a 268mm width at inserts, depending on your back binding angle. For reference, the width at inserts on the Custom 158 is likely to be around 263mm (I haven’t measured that particular size, but based on measuring a different size). So only really the Skeleton Key from below would be pushing it – but you’d still be getting a little more width vs your current board.
And yeah, I think you can go a little shorter than that for your specs, so I’d go for something in that 153-156 range. I think the Hybrid works at the lower end of that range for you, in the 153, given that it’s a little wider than the other options there. Personally I would be going for something between the Hybrid 153, Stratos 156, if you want a bit more length, or the Super 8 154. The Y and Optimistic are certainly options specs-wise, and are stiffer – particularly the Optimistic – if you were wanting something stiffer, but just not options I would personally go for – and I’d be a little bit weary of going Optimistic, given it’s stiffness and your weight. It could feel too stiff, I suspect. And the Stratos is a little stiffer than the Hybrid and Super 8, if you were looking for something stiffer. Flex-wise, I would say:
Stratos: 7/10
Super 8: 6.5/10
Hybrid: 6/10
Your Cartels would match any of those boards well, IMO, particularly the Hybrid, but the boots are too soft for the setup ideally. Given your boots are quite new, I totally get that you probably don’t want to upgrade them yet, but when the time comes that you do want to/can upgrade them, I would go for something a little stiffer – like 6/10 – 8/10 flex, depending on the board you go for, particularly given you’re looking to up your carving/speed game.
In terms of matching your gear, the
Hey Nate! It’s insane how much goes into this so thanks so much for the responses. Based off the reviews, I was pretty set on the mullair, PYL, or flight attendant, but glad I waited for you response. The reviews I’m seeing one the hybrid dont look to great when it comes to speed and carving. Is that accurate? If so, I’m liking the look of the stratos and super 8. What boots would you recommend going with for those boards? Thanks again man.
Hi Taylor
I personally found the Hybrid really good for carving and speed. Not quite to the level of something like the Mullair, PYL or Flight Attendant, but not that far off either. Everyone rides differently, so it’s hard to say why others found that, but I thought it was really good in those areas. Perhaps sizing was an issue with them, not sure. If you want more on my personal experience with it you can check it out below:
>>YES Hybrid Review
But if you’re worried about that on the Hybrid, the Super 8 and Stratos would certainly work too.
Depending on how stiff you wanted to go with your boots, you could look at one of the following:
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
But I would be leaning to the first list there for you, because of your weight – something with a 6/10 or 7/10 flex.
Oh, and let me add, I was able to find last years model Super 8 in a 151 and a 157 for significantly cheaper. Is it worth spending the extra cash for the 154? That savings could really help me with the new boots 😂
Hi Taylor
I would personally get the size right and go 154. The 151 is going to be a bit small – and even if you got away with it in terms of length, you would be pushing it in terms of being too narrow. The 157 is getting on the too big side of things. For your weight, you would feel the 157 quite a bit stiffer than I think is going to be quite an effort to ride. I think the 154 is the sweet spot for you, for that board, personally. If you did go with one of those, I would sooner go 151 than 157 for you, but preferably the 154.
Thanks so much for all the help! After reading your review and a few more about the Yes Hybrid, it seems the first review I read about it not being a good carver is bogus. So I decided to go with the hybrid 154, paired with my Burton cartels, and picked up a pair of Adidas Tactical Lexicon Adv’s. I cannot wait to get back on the mountain. Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Taylor. Enjoy the setup and happy riding!
Hi
I am Snowboarding since 30 years. Intermediate-advanced. Actually 3 boards. I’m looking to buy only one all around board. Following my 10 years old in the trees (he goes so fast!). In quebec, hard moghul in trees is usual. And we always look for snow storm (powder!). And then i like to carve in the groom.
No jumps, no park, no jibs, no backside.
The board MUST negociate well the deep moghul between trees.
5’6’’, 150 pounds, feet 8
Does the jones flagstaff with the 3D shape could be great? Maybe to stiff…
Burton attendant?
Other? Thanks!
Hi Anthony
Thanks for your message.
I think the new Flagship could work for that – but only 2020 model and 2021 model I would consider. Was a lot less maneuverable in tight spaces in the 2019 and previous models. The Flight Attendant would also be suitable for what you’re describing.
I would also look at the YES PYL and GNU Mullair, if you’re looking for something around that 7/10 flex range, but is still maneuverable in tight spots. Another consideration in a similar flex range would be the Capita Kazu Kokubo.
If you wanted something a little softer, which I find can help when riding at slower speeds in tight spots – like mogully trees! – then something like the GNU Hyperkyarve or Lib Tech Dynamo could work well.
Sizing is going to be important too. If you go too long or too wide, that will really affect your ability to maneuver in tight spaces. So, there are some other options that would be good, but I’ve left out because I think they would be too wide (like the YES Hybrid, Burton Skeleton Key).
Since you’ve been riding so long, you probably have a size preference, so definitely go with what you feel comfortable with, but I would say something around 153, 154 in terms of length would be a good way to go. So for those options, I would be looking at:
Flagship: 154 (or even 151 if you wanted it even more nimble)
FA: 152
Hyperkyarve: 154
Dynamo: 153
PYL: 156 is shortest size, but might be too long
Mullair: 155 is shortest size
Kazu: 151
Would also be some options in all-mountain boards, but if you want to keep things more directional, which is probably a good idea given how you describe your riding, then I think these would be the best bets.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m amazed at your generosity replying to everyone on here. I’ll keep it short. I am 51, 5’10”, 190-200lbs, size US11 Vans boots and for the past 12 years I’ve been riding a Burton Supermodel 163 with Drake F60 bindings (probably should be in a museum at this point but they are made of steel and I love them) and I’ve been riding for 25+ years.
I live in interior BC with champagne powder and am happy on any run but spend most of my time these days dodging in and out of the trees following my 8 year old.
There are sales on just now and I can find:
Libtech EJack Knife 162
Never Summer West Bound 160, 163 and 158W
Gnu Mullair 161
I like to be able to do floaty powder in the trees, groomers, icy moghuls and steep trees but most of the time I am just cruising with my kids. I have a very dated but very aggressive riding posture.
Any advice is welcome.
Thanks,
Nick
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
Since you’re spending a bit of time in the trees, I would be leaning towards either Mullair or West Bound. I found both to be a little more agile in trees vs the Ejack Knife. The Ejack Knife certainly wasn’t bad in there, at all, but found the other 2 a little better.
Size-wise, the Mullair is quite narrow, and I would say too narrow for 11s. It’s 252mm at the waist, but only around 259mm at the inserts. I haven’t measured a Supermodel at the inserts, but I suspect the Supermodel would be closer to 264mm at the inserts. So yeah, I think the Mullair would be risking it in terms of being too narrow.
So, that would narrow it down to the West Bound for me, if you don’t have the option of the 161W Mullair.
The West Bound is wider overall, and I would say that the 160, for example would be around 266mm at the inserts, so you’re looking at something that’s going to be similar or slightly wider at the inserts vs your Supermodel. Assuming you’ve had no drag issues on the Supermodel, I think that would be a good width for you. As would the 163. In this case I don’t think you need to go wide, but if you have had drag issues with your Supermodel, then I would consider going wide.
Length-wise, assuming you don’t go wide, I would be leaning towards the 160 for you. If you did decide to go wide, then the 158X would work too, IMO. You’d be going shorter than ideal, IMO, but that extra width would counteract that, certainly in terms of powder anyway. But, assuming you haven’t had any issues with your Supermodel in terms of width, I would be leaning towards the West Bound in the 160.
Hope this helps with your decision
I’ve just moved back to the mainland after living in Hawaii for 16 years. With that said I would like to get a new board and curious about n what kind of board I used to have as far as what terrain etc it was good for. I bought it used back then and was the only board I used to ride. I’m a bit older now lol and anyways I like to mainly just go fast, carve a little switch and a small line jump but mostly carving/speed but can handle crappy icey snow. My old board is a Burton Asym 164. I was looking at the Flight Attendant. I’ve always loved Burton. I’m 6-3 190lbs
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
I think the Flight Attendant is a great option if you’re mostly looking at carving/speed. Assuming a relatively advanced level of riding.
Size-wise, I’d say 162 or 162W, depending on boot size. If you let me know your boot size, I can give you my opinion on whether you should go wide or not, if you’d like it.
It’s not bad in hard/icy conditions but there are better options for those types of conditions, if that was a really important aspect and you were wanting to maximize performance in that area. But if you’re set on Burton, then the Flight Attendant is a really good option, and so long as you keep the edges sharp, you should be good in those harder/icier conditions.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
Thanks for your ranking. I am considering to upgrade my boards. My local store now has big sal event for Rossignol. Just wondering I’m an I pick Jibsaw and XV as a combination that Jibsaw for jump buttering and groomer, and XV for carving and powder? I look at those two because I can have great edge hold on those boards plus the price is really attractive. Any other recommendations you have?
What size should I go for those two boards? I read the comments here saying that XV should go really a big size? I saw it will start from 159 should I go with a 163? For the Jibsaw should I go 155?
I’m 5’11” and 175lbs and wearing boots 8.5. Plus I think I’m an intermediate to advance rider.
Hi Tim
The XV and Jibsaw are both really good in hard/icy conditions, in my experience, so they’ve got you covered there. And I would say they compliment each other really well as part of a quiver.
Size-wise, anything freeride you can typically ride a little longer. Part of the reason is that there is usually a longer nose, so in a lot of cases a lot of that length is outside the contact points – and the other part is that a lot of people ride these kinds of boards solely for powder or charging hard. That said, for your specs, I would say 159 is the better size, if you want it to still be relatively versatile. 163 would be doable if you think you would be predominantly using it in powder and big open terrain, and not really going into trees with it, or anything that would require some tight turns.
For the Jibsaw, I think 155 is a good bet for you, regardless of which size you got the XV in.
For reference, the Jibsaw 155 and XV 159 have the same effective edge (117cm). So you can see that a lot of the length on the 159 XV is outside the effective edge (mostly in the nose).
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate,
I’ve been considering getting the Yes Standard for a while, but after reading your review of the PYL I’m second guessing myself haha. I would say that 90% of my time on the mountain is spent carving/speeding. I want something that can handle the occasional pow days, but it definitely has to be better on hard-packed/icy snow (I’m on the Canadian East Coast).
What I have been struggling with is that, although carving is my priority, I still want to have the option to practice my switch riding and do some small jumps whenever I feel like it. Which board would you say better fits my riding style? (I’m open to something other than YES also) On a somewhat related note, it is mentioned on the YES website that riders with 10-10.5 boot size should strongly consider wide boards, what’s your take on this?
Measurements / gear consideration:
Height: 6″1′
Weight: 190 lbs
Boots: Photons, 10.5
Bindings: Cartel
Hi Dominique
Thanks for your message.
I think, given that you give the figure 90% for speed/carving, that the PYL is probably your best bet – if you consider yourself an advanced rider – or at least bordering on advanced. The PYL is certainly not as good for switch as the Standard and not quite as good for jumps, but you can still certainly ride switch on it, and it’s not bad for jumps. I think because that’s only 10% of your time by the sounds of it, that the PYL is good enough in those areas and enough better in the other areas to make it the best option.
I think around that size 10 mark is the point where you start to consider wide boards – so in that sense I somewhat agree. Personally I don’t like wide boards and I ride 10s. But some people want that extra leeway in their 10s to be able to euro-carve. The picture becomes more muddy as you get up to 10.5s. Boot size is certainly important, in terms of the minimum width you can go. You don’t boot drag. In terms of boots, in theory you can go as wide as you like. But in terms of maximum width, it comes more down to your foot length. If a board is too wide for your foot, it becomes harder to put pressure on the edges and to initiate turns. For me, my longest foot is 27.3cm. I ride 10s, which have a mondo of 28cm. If you are riding 10.5s and your feet are 28.5cm, then I think wide is probably a good idea, because you shouldn’t have any issues with leverage. But if you have, like a lot of people, feet that are smaller than the mondo of the boot, then it’s less obvious. Probably with 28cm feet, you’re probably good, but if you’re riding 10.5s with 27.5cm feet for example, then there needs to be a balance of how wide you go, in terms of being wide enough for your boots but not too wide for your feet. Sorry that all got very long – but I hope it makes sense.
Long story short – Burton boots are relatively low profile, so I think you get away with a regular width board in those. However, if you like to euro carve, then I would consider going wide. If after all that you feel like you want to go wide, I would go 160W for the PYL. Otherwise, probably the 162. If you feel you like shorter boards, then the 159 is certainly within range for your specs, IMO. Note also that the 160W isn’t excessively wide. It’s narrow for a wide board, if that makes sense – so it’s a good middle ground that could work well for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
PYL it is then!
On a related note, what’s the best way to support you if we are buying from Canada? I don’t see any affiliate link when I click on the “Canada” tab for the PYL.
Thanks again for all your diligent work!
Hi Dominique
You’re very welcome. I don’t currently work with any Canadian retailers that stock YES boards, unfortunately, but I appreciate the gesture. Happy riding, and I hope you get on well with the PYL. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hello Nate, I’m in a similar position – I have the choice between a 2020 160w PYL or a 162w Jones Flagship, both heavily discounted. 90% on piste, 10% off. Think I know the answer… but which would you go with? I’m 186lbs without gear and 6ft.
Thanks so much for any steer you can give, simon
Oh… and us11.5 boots
Sorry – should also have added that whilst i want something I can point, I also need something forgiving enough on crowded, late season Euro slopes. From what I can see, both could cope but wondering whether 160w for the PYL is long enough. I’ll stop now!!
Hi Simon
Thanks for your messages.
It’s a tough call as both would certainly be a good match for what you’re looking to do. I would be leaning towards the PYL personally, largely because it’s something that I think goes better on groomers and since you mention 90% on piste. And because it’s one of my favorite boards to ride.
In terms of width, the PYL 160W isn’t that wide for a wide board. My estimate would be 267mm at the back insert and 270mm at the front insert. The Flagship 162W on the other hand (assuming you rode it at the 600mm reference stance) I would say would be 275mm at the back insert and 280mm front insert. So, a good bit wider. The 160W PYL would be pushing it being too narrow. It would be on the very narrow end for 11.5s and I think you probably only get away with it, depending on the make/model of your boot and your typical binding angles. If you could let me know that, that would be great. But also, if you’ve ridden regular boards and gotten away with it in the past, then that’s a good indicator that it’ll be wide enough. Still wider than a regular width board.
Length-wise, I think something between 160-162 is probably a good bet for your specs. Especially if you’re going to have to tackle crowded slopes at times, then going 160W on the PYL would be fine, IMO. The only question really is the width.
So yeah, I would go 160W PYL, if the width looks like it will be OK for you. Otherwise the 162W Flagship, which is still a really good option.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate,
Can’t see a way of replying to your post of yesterday so am replying to an earlier question of mine!
Thank you for your really helpful pointers. I’m really grateful.
I’m wearing Burton imperials US11.5 which I think shrink down to us10.5. My angles are -9, +12
I’m currently riding a Jones Mtn twin 161w. Ideally I wouldn’t go much wider than that.
I did ride a Flagship 165w but that felt WAAAY too big / wide. Presumably the 162w would be a bit slimmer?
Last question, I promise!
Hi Simon
For coparison, I would say the Mountain Twin 161W is roughly 272mm at the front insert and 273mm at the back insert. So you’re looking at going a little wider with the 162W Flagship. A little narrower if you went 160W PYL. The Flagship 162W would certainly be a little narrower than the 165W – narrower by roughly 3mm at the inserts. And certainly would feel smaller overall vs the 165W.
I would say Burton Imperial 11.5 more like an 11, than a 10.5, but still quite low profile and with those angles, I would say you should be fine width-wise on the 160W PYL. Can’t guarantee anything of course, but I think you’d probably be fine, and it sounds to me like you’re more inclined to go narrower than where you are than to go wider.
My instinct is saying 160W PYL
Hey Nate – I’ve been reading a lot of your reviews lately and really appreciate it. It’s time to buy my first board. I’m 5’9 156-158lbs and consider myself an advanced intermediate – intermediate technical skills but athletic/aggressive. I only ride 3-5X each year so really don’t get an opportunity to improve much but I enjoy going fast, carving hard, and hitting some powder when it’s available. I grew up skiing so going fast and laying on edge is my style. On steeper groomers I tend towards the sides where it’s thicker and even a bit choppy but still like hard quick turns. Love me some wide open bowls too.
I’ve only ever rented general all mountain boards so don’t have much to compare against but initially though I wanted an aggressive all mountain board so was considering the Assassin Pro, Burton Custom X, and Jones Ultra Mountain Twin. Once I started reading some of your freeride reviews though it seems like that might be better in line with what I’m looking for. I don’t do the park and don’t ride switch but I do get into the trees and bumps some so need a bit of maneuverability. I also ride gentle groomers with my wife sometimes and since my skill level is only moderate I’d like a little bit of forgiveness. I guess I’m asking for a lot of versatility but I still think there is something in these freeride boards for me – too many options actually. GNU Mullair, Burton Flight Attendant, and Yes PYL seemed to catch my eye the most but I’d love your opinion and recommendation on length.
Hi Joel
Thanks for your message.
For what you’re describing, I think you’re on the right track with those options. And I think some slightly more forgiving/less stiff freeride options are probably the way to go vs those aggressive all-mountain options. And I think the Mullair, FA & PYL would be good options, among these. I would also consider the Skeleton Key (if you wanted something a little softer again) or the Westbound, which is more forgiving again vs the PYL/FA/Mullair.
One more left-field option I would throw out there, is the Capita Kazu Kokubo (only reason I mention it is that I just rode the 2021 model the other day and had a blast on it). It’s great in the trees and also something that’s directional but slightly on the more forgiving side. Something else to consider, anyway.
Size-wise, I would say something around 156 is your best bet, give or take. For the boards mentioned, I would say:
PYL: 156
Westbound: 155
FA: 156
Mullair: 155
Skeleton Key: 154
Kazu: 154
But if you could also let me know your boot size, as that could change those sizes above potentially.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the quick reply! I currently wear a sz11 Salomon Dialogue boot -sole is about 13 inches long. I picked these up at least 5 years ago and the only thing I know about them is that they are super comfortable, although maybe 1/2 size too big now that they have packed down inside.
I think I’ll leave the Skeleton Key off my list. While I don’t intentionally ride switch, I do end up going the other direction from time to time in gullies through the trees and such so I think it’s too directional for me.
I really can’t find a lot to differentiate the PYL, FA, and Mullair. I think I’m leaning towards the FA or Mullair though. The FA sounds slightly more forgiving but you also note that the Mullair is agile and maneuverable at low speed and excels at carving – I’d say those are my 2 primary use cases. And it’s not as if the Mullair sucks in powder. What’s the “unever terrain” category trying to get at though?
Reading your full review of the Mullair though, this slightly concerns me – “Definitely not for the beginner, or even intermediate rider – you want to be a fairly advanced rider to ride this one”.
Hi Joel
Thanks for the extra info.
With 11s, all of these are pushing it in terms of being too narrow. Particularly the Mullair 155, which is quite a narrow board. But even the FA 156 and PYL 156 are quite narrow. Unfortunately for a lot of these boards, they don’t come in wide sizes until they get up to like 159, 160. If you think you’ll be OK on the narrower board and aren’t concerned about boot drag, their still options, but I would be hesitant, in terms of width on them.
I’m now liking the YES Hybrid for you. It comes in a 157 and is a wider board that will be plenty wide enough for your boots, IMO – and shorter than the wider options of the other 3.
That or, if you didn’t want to go quite as wide as that, something like the Capita Black Snowboard of Death 156 – which is a little wider, but not overly wide.
Between the FA & Mullair, I’d say they are both similarly forgiving. The Mullair is a little stiffer, but the FA has more of a camber dominant feel overall. Those too things kind of cancel out a little to make them similarly forgiving. In terms of ability, I would say the same for both in terms of not really being intermediate suitable boards. But if you’re a solid intermediate rider skill-wise – and that combined with being more aggressive and athletic, I think they would be within reach. My biggest concern with them for you would be sizing. The Black Snowboard of Death a similar sort of level I would say, with the Hybrid being a little easier ride.
But if you are worried about them being a little too advanced, and wanted to look at something a little more forgiving, then again, the Hybrid is an option, but if you didn’t want to go that wide, there’s something like the GNU Hyperkyarve (157) or Lib Tech Dynamo (156) – which are good freeride boards that are less aggressive and easier to ride, but still directional – and are just a little wider than the FA, Mullair & PYL, as well as being more forgiving. They’re closer in width to the FA, Mullair and PYL than they are to the Hybrid, but would give you a little more leeway width-wise. Both really good in trees, IMO too.
Hope this helps
PS: The uneven terrain category covers both bumpy terrain and crud. Like bumps you would find going through trees. This is usually a combination of how well it goes over those bumps and how easy it is to maneuver through them. And it also considers how the board rides in crud (i.e. messy groomers after they’ve been tracked all day).
Okay – As much as I like how the PYL and FA sound in terms of speed and carving ability, if they are too narrow and maybe a bit too stiff/aggressive for me, then I need to be honest with myself and look elsewhere. Looking at your review of the YES Hybrid I think that’s a good option. Maybe I’ll progress past it eventually but considering I’m coming from nothing but rental and a couple general all-mountain demo boards I still think the Hybrid will be a significant improvement. Thanks for all of your advice!
Binding suggestion to pair with the Hybrid?
Hi Joel.
In terms of bindings for the Hybrid, I would go with something around 6/10 or 7/10 flex ideally. Some good options below.
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Because of the extra width of the board, I would strongly consider Union, as they tend to have longer base plates, which will give you more leverage to the edges. The Falcor, Atlas or Strata would all be good matches to the Hybrid. But anything from the above, in that 6-7 flex range would work well, IMO.
Hey Nate, would appreciate your opinion on getting a new deck… I am an advanced all mountain rider that gets 40 to 50 days a year in Colorado. I am 5-9 165 lbs with an 8.5 boot . I mostly ride bumps and trees and am looking for a one quiver board towards that end (powder fast groomers and air secondary) …. was looking at yes pyl or is something a little softer ( yes globe not so basic) better in bumps…… looking for lightning quick turn
Hi Tony
Thanks for your message.
Typically I would say a little softer for bumps, because I personally prefer a softer board in that situation. I find that softer flex usually means quicker turns at slower speeds and when board’s get too stiff they don’t handle as well when riding slower. But I found the PYL surprisingly agile at slower speeds. So I think it’s definitely an option, particularly if you’re also looking to get something that’s also stable at speed when you look to open it out on fast groomers – and still good in powder.
Something like the YES Typo I would say is a little quicker turning (i.e. super quick turning) and other softer boards that really pivot quickly in tight spaces, but won’t give you as much at speed or in powder as something like the PYL. The GNU Mullair and Never Summer Westbound are others that are pretty good at slow speeds for their flex and can handle speed and powder well.
I haven’t ridden the Globe NSB, so I couldn’t say for sure, but YES actually rates the flex on it as stiffer than the PYL. But yeah, I’m not sure how it rides, as I haven’t ridden it yet.
The Skeleton Key also an option if you wanted to go softer. But keep in mind it’s also a little wider, so might be quite wide for 8.5s, you might want to size down a bit on it.
Size-wise, I would possibly look to go a touch shorter than usual to get things turning even quicker for bumps and trees, but not too short that you sacrifice too much stability at speed and powder float.
For those boards mentioned, in terms of sizing, I would look at:
– YES PYL 156
– GNU Mullair 155
– Never Summer Westbound 155
– Burton Skeleton Key 154
If you just wanted lightning quick and weren’t worried about how it was going to perform in powder or at speed, then I could look at some other options, but I think those would work really well for what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I’m 68 kg (150 lbs) and 183 cm (6 foot) and wear 9-9.5 boots. I’ve been snowboarding since i was 9 ( 21 now ) so I’m at the point where i feel comfortable on mostly every track. Two years ago I broke my foot pretty badly and I’ve taken a prolonged break from snowboarding ever since, but now I want to get back into it.But to have a brand new start I want a new set and don’t really know for what should i look, as my aptitudes have gone down a bit in the mean time but i want something that I can use even after I get my full range back.
Knowing that park and big jumps aren’t really my things and that i want a freerider that is versatile ( powder also carving groomers some off piste and all that at a high speed ) I thought about these:
-Capita Super DOA 154
-Endeavor Archetype 154
-Niche Maelstrom 154
-Yes PYL 156
-Nitro Squash 153
as for bindings -Now Drive( Skate-Tech sounds appealing )
and for boots -Burton DriverX
I mainly snowboard all around Europe so I encounter everything from icy zones to extreme moguls to mushy snow.
That being said I would really appreciate any kind of advice. If you have any other options for board, bindings and boots that you think could work for me that would mean the world.
Thank you,
Andrei
Hi Andrei
Thanks for your message.
Because you want something that’s good in powder and aren’t really focused on freestyle riding, then I would cross the SuperDOA off. It’s less freeride more freestyle (what I call aggressive all-mountain-freestyle) – I think you’ll find it lacking in powder vs the other options there.
The Nitro Squash I haven’t ridden, but the only thing is that it looks like it’s mostly camber, which might take away from powder performance a little. That said, it is tapered and directional, which will certainly help in powder, so it could be good there. Otherwise, can’t say much about that option.
The other 3 are certainly good options, IMO, though. Something in that 154-157 range is a good bet for you, IMO, so sizings there I think are good.
The Archetype is a little wider but as that’s on the shorter end of your range, IMO, that could work.
The Maelstrom is something you could possibly go up to 157 on, though the 154 works too. It’s a little narrower than the Archtype, but it’s certainly not too narrow for 9-9.5 boots, in the 154.
The 156 for the PYL is a good all-round size for your specs/what you’re describing, IMO.
In terms of bindings, if you’re looking at NOW, the Drive (and potentially even O-Drive if you wanted to go stiffer) would work. Some other good options:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
And yeah, if you’re wanting stiff in boots, then the Driver X is a good option too. Some other options:
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate,
Wow. This is an awesome set of comments. I’d love a recommendation, too!
I’m 6’4″ and 190 lbs. I currently ride a very stiff Rossignol Nomad 2 Wide 168cm from 1999. It’s camber profile. After a long break, I’ve been riding it 30+days per year over the last three seasons and have become an advanced rider. I love the thing, but it’s time to upgrade and don’t mind introducing new tech that may be different from my current board.
Most of my riding is on the US east coast, so it’s hard and often icy. I want something that can grip ice, but can also handle powder in case I get lucky or make a trip out west. I enjoy riding really fast, but would also like bit of maneuverability for trees, moguls or exploring. I’m not interested in tricks or parks, other than as a spectator.
From my poking around, I’ve come up with the Rossignol XV 174W (is that overkill?) or the Niche Maelstrom 166. I’d love your opinion or pros/cons on these. And if you have an alternate suggestion, I’d love that, too.
Thanks so much!
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Both boards certainly fit your criteria, IMO – being good in hard/icy conditions, but also being good for powder and at speed.
Size-wise, I think the 174X for the XV is probably overkill. I would stick to 168W with your specs, assuming you need a wide board, which I’m guessing you do? Particularly for trees, I think you’ll probably find the 174X too big.
The 166 for the Maelstrom is appropriate. Width wise, I would say it’s OK, depending on boot size.
Hope this helps with your decision
How does the Rossignol XV compare to the Yes PYL and Burton Flight Attendant?
Hi Jon
A few of the main differences, I would say:
– The XV I found a little stiffer than the PYL & Flight Attendant
– The XV a little better grip in hard/icy conditions. Though in saying that the PYL is very good there too, and the Flight Attendant not bad
– The flex is softer in the tail vs the nose, which gives it a different kind of feel (see my other reply for more on that)
– Not as good for jumps, IMO
Which do you prefer more? I am looking for an aggressive freeride board so was leaning towards the XV but curious what you think. My buddy has the FA and I like how it rides but don’t think it handles icy conditions well. The PYL seems great but more of an all mountain freeride style board, that is less aggressive and less freeride oriented compared to XV, but can manage a little park. I am looking for freeride aspects, such as speed, stability, powder, and carving, don’t really do park. Thanks.
Hi Jon
I prefer the PYL, but I like to have just that little bit of forgiveness, even in my more aggressive freeride board. So, given what you’re describing, I think the XV would be a great option – it is great in icy conditions and has all the attributes you’re looking for. For what you’re describing, I would be leaning towards the XV. Or something like the Niche Maelstrom or the 2019 or previous Jones Flagship.
Do you have a review of the Rossignol XV? I can’t seem to find a review of it on the site so curious if you have one or your thoughts on it, especially compared to the One LF. Thanks.
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
I never created a review for the XV. Haven’t ridden it in a while, but I would say the main differences vs the One LF are:
– It’s noticeably stiffer – rated 9/10, but I’d say more like 8/10 – just as with the One LF, rated 7/10, but more like 6/10 (IMO).
– It has more camber. The camber on the One LF extends only to around the middle of the inserts – whereas the camber on the XV extends beyond the inserts – with smaller rocker zones
– Is quite a bit more directional overall. The nose is a good bit longer than the tail, the nose is wider than the tail. The flex is directional. The nose and tail on the One are the same width and the nose is only slightly longer.
– The XV is a little different in it’s flex too, in that it has a stiffer nose compared to the tail. It’s stiff through the nose and waist, and then a little softer towards the tail. This is the opposite of a lot of boards with directional flex. Like the One which is stiffer in the tail and between the feet with a softer nose.
All of that makes it a more aggressive ride and a ride that requires a more advanced rider. But it gives you better carving, better float in powder and more stability at speed. It’s not as good as the One for riding switch or more freestyle elements.
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi Nate!
Took a bit, but I read through all of your comments. Thanks a lot for all of your insights man! They were helpful!
Little about me: I’m 25 y.o., 5’11” and 180 lbs with a size 11 Burton Moto boot. I also ride 15 in front and -12 in back (pertains to my question below regarding sizing).
I’ve been snowboarding for 13 years—all, remarkably and admittedly unintelligently—on my first board: an Option Jordan Mendenhall 149 cm (yes, 149 cm). Was a gift from my mom when I was 12 y.o., ran with it, have shredded double blacks at Jackson Hole, Snowbird, Park City, Vail, etc. using it and have loved its playfulness, agility, lightness, etc., so I’ve always postponed upgrading until now.
I’m in the market for an agile freeride board. I really enjoy carving while trying to keep my carves as tight and violent as possible. I don’t like to bomb a trail per sé, but I do appreciate stability at speed because I don’t like the chatter in my knees. Lastly, I do enjoy being able to make quick jump cuts on mogul-dominated trails, and I venture into the trees from time to time. Not a big park or trick guy.
Last week at Snowbird and Park City, I demoed the Burton FA (159W) and the T. Rice Lib Tech Pro HP (157). The FA felt a bit stiff for me and I didn’t feel as much control transitioning to toe-side as I normally do (albeit my stance was set back pretty far to account for the decent amount of powder and I’m used to a 149)… The T. Rice Pro HP didn’t handle the powder as well as I would have hoped, nor the moguls.
Do you have any suggestions for a board for me, and also a good size? Not married to any particular brand but intrigued by lib tech, yes, burton and jones…
Regarding sizing, I know my old board is significantly too small, but I am not sure if the FA felt a little too clunky because I got a 159W instead of just a 159? T’was definitely sturdy, but it didn’t seem as quick on my edge to edge transitions. I’ve heard good things about the ejack, but I’m also intrigued by the Yes boards; however, I’d like to demo before committing to a purchase and I can’t find anywhere that offers demoes for Yes boards unfortunately! Big shame.
Apologies for the essay and very much looking forward to your opinion. Thanks a ton, Nate!!
Hi Jared
Thanks for your message.
Since you’re so used to a shorter board (I had a mate who also rode his board he got as a 12 year old, into his 20s, so you’re not alone there!) then going a little shorter for your specs probably isn’t a bad idea, particularly given that you like tight, quick carves, moguls and trees. Certainly going longer than 149 is a good idea! But I would probably size down a little still, given those factors. When it comes to the FA, the 156 might have been the better option. Width wise too, going from what was a much narrower board to one that was both 10cm longer and a good bit wider, and likely a good bit stiffer, is a big (understatement) transition. With 11s, for most boards, I would recommend wide, but if you’ve gotten away with a 149 for this long, you might get away with regular width – and given you have those binding angles and low profile boots, that helps to get you on a regular width too. Most boards around that length are likely to be wider than your 149 at least.
Generally speaking size-wise, I would say around 159-161 for your specs. But given all the factors, I would probably size more to 156, 157.
I’ve never found the T Rice Pro a particularly quick board edge to edge for whatever reason, but a lot of Lib Tech/GNU boards are quick edge-to-edge so still definitely an option there. The T Rice Pro is more an exception, IMO, in terms of that factor for Lib boards. And it’s not a great powder board – it’s what I would term an aggressive all-mountain-freestyle board, rather than a Freeride board.
In terms of Lib Tech/GNU, if you wanted to go softer flexing but still wanted to go Freeride, you could look at the likes of the GNU Hyper Kyarve, GNU Antigravity or the Lib Tech Dynamo. The Ejack Knife is a really nice board and not ultra stiff either – but it’s as stiff as the Flight Attendant.
For Burton, again if you wanted to go a little softer, you could look at the likes of the Skeleton Key.
If you were OK going wider again, but going a little shorter from the 159W FA you tried, the YES Hybrid (157) could be a very good option for you too. The PYL a little stiffer, but a killer deck – if you were OK keeping that flex stiffer, but wanted to go shorter, then you could look at the 156, if you think you would be comfortable width-wise on it.
From Jones, the Frontier could be a good option. A little softer than the Flagship, if you didn’t want to go as stiff. It’s kind of in between all-mountain and freeride for me. So not a distinctly freeride board, but on the freeride end of the all-mountain spectrum. But the Flagship also works, if you’re wanting to keep things stiffer.
A lot more options from other brands too, but I could go on forever!
Hopefully this helps you to narrow down some options – let me know if you want to bounce any more ideas off me, or if you’ve narrowed down further but still can’t decide. Should give you a good list to demo, in any case.
Hey Nate, really appreciate the reviews!
I was hoping on a recommendation for a new board.
I would classify myself as a past advanced rider, but haven’t ridden as much lately and recently when I have I’ve been riding a lot with my wife who sticks to blues so I’m jumping into the trees a ton. Looking for a board that is great for the trees, does well in powder and can hold its own on hard or uneven snow when I get the chance to hit some more difficult double blacks and back country. Not hitting any jumps/rails/pipe. Currently riding a 155 Gnu Danny Kass fill in the blank series from 2006. I was leaning towards the YES hybrid, but am only 5’6’’ and 145 lbs With size 8.5 boots and am nervous the 157 is too big for me. My other thoughts are the YES PYL and Never Summer West Bound. Also playing with the Burton Flight Attendant, which I can currently get a good deal on (also getting a deal on Burton Cartel bindings to go with the new board). Any advice would be greatly appreciated for best board and best sizing. Thanks!
Hi JL
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would say Hybrid is a great option, expect of the size. Too long/wide for you, IMO. Generally size-wise, I would say something around 152 for your specs. But since you’re used to riding a 155, you could go a little longer – and often in freeride boards you can go a little longer too. That said, if you’re in the trees a lot, then going longer isn’t necessarily the best idea.
The PYL 156 is going a little smaller overall vs the 157 Hybrid, but it’s still on the big side, especially when you take into account the extra stiffness vs the Hybrid and vs the Danny Kass. Same could be said for the FA and West Bound, though I think the FA in 152 and West Bound in 153 would work, for sure. Getting that bit more stiffness vs the Danny Kass, but a little shorter too.
You could also look at the Skeleton Key vs the FA, which is a little softer, but also a little wider. The 150 may be a little short and the 154 maybe a little wide for that length for you. Sorry thinking out loud a little here!
Overall, I think the FA in the 152 or the West Bound in 153 would be your best bets and would work well for what you’re describing. The Cartels definitely work on the FA. I think for that size and for your weight, they would be a really good combo. I would personally go with slightly stiffer bindings on the FA, but I think at your weight and in that size, the Cartels would work well.
Hope this helps with your decision
Greetings,
I’m 6′ 2″, 220 lbs, and size 14 Burton MOTO Boa boots, although I’m probably a 13 in other boots. I’m intermediate, although not particularly skilled, and am looking to advance my riding. I mainly ride groomers, trees, and some resort powder: no interest in park. My bindings are set to +15/+5: I have a pair of XL Flow Fuses and Flow Alphas. I currently ride a 2012/’13 Burton Bullet 160 (V-rocker; waist 260 cm). I want something a little wider, longer and stiffer so I can feel stable while going faster and to improve my carving. Extra points for a directional board with some camber AND rocker (just to have some variation from my current board).
Hi Robbie
Thanks for your message.
Yeah definitely agree that something stiffer and with some more camber in there is a good idea to get where you’re wanting to go. Just looking at the specs of the Bullet, it looks like a very soft board and with that V rocker, it’s not something for riding fast for sure. However, I wouldn’t necessarily go too stiff if you still identify at that intermediate level. But going to at least a medium flex is a good idea.
Size-wise, I agree that going longer and wider is a good idea for you. I would say something around 162-164 would be a good length for you and add the stiffness and camber in and that will really help to give you a more stable ride.
– The Nitro Team Gullwing is a candidate, IMO. It’s quite wide in the 162W (270mm at the waist and around 280mm at the inserts)
– The YES Standard 162 is 268mm at the waist and roughly 280mm at the inserts as well)
These are both around a 6/10 flex.
If you wanted to go a little stiffer you could also look at the “Drag Free” sizes for Never Summer’s West Bound and Heritage boards. Looking at more like 7/10 in terms of flex, but are that bit wider again compared to most wide boards. The 160DF West Bound has a 284mm waist, and I would estimate around 294mm at the inserts, based on measuring a different size of the West Bound. That would certainly give you plenty width-wise.
The 164DF Heritage has a 285mm waist. I haven’t ridden or measured this board, so not sure what it is at the inserts, but based on other similar Never Summer boards, it’s likely to be around 293-295mm at the waist.
All these options have a mixture of camber and rocker. The least directional is the Standard, then the Gullwing, then the Heritage and the West Bound is the most directional option there. The West Bound is relatively easy going for it’s flex, so it’s within reach. The same is probably true of the Heritage. So even though they are on the stiffer side, they are doable for solid intermediate rider’s I would say.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Live your site. Hoping you could provide one more recommendation.
I’m an old school boarder (25+ years). All I know is Charging hard on directional camber. I’m 5’9”, 180 lbs, and I ride a 162 2003 Burton custom (the one with the awesome hologram!). It’s old, long, super directional, all camber, and it continue to rip on-piste, and through chunky off-piste (although admittedly isn’t the best in the deep). Regardless it’s basically the only board I’ve ridden since I bought it.
I ride all over the place. West coast, east coast, Alps. Generally hard charging, fast edge to edge, free ride, all over the mountain – groomers, chop, off-piste, trees, bowls, etc. pretty much always directional. NEVER any park, jibs, or other silliness… Sadly I’m too old for that.
I was thinking Burton FA, or GNU Mullair, because they are so well reviewed and from such well established brands.
I also considered the Jones Flagship, but reviews say the 2020 is softer, less directional free ride than it used to be.
The Yes PYL sounds awesome, but I’ve never heard of Yes before.
Given my old school profile, what would you recommend? Also, what size? Seems the trend these days is to go shorter. I assume technology has allowed that to happen (?).
Many thanks,
Hi Dan
Thanks for your message – and apologies for the slow response. A bit behind and trying to catch up after vacation.
Given that you’re used to camber, I think the Burton FA would work really well. Gives you predominantly camber, but with rocker in the nose for better float in powder than what you’re used to. I haven’t ridden a 2003 Custom, so I don’t know how it would compare in terms of flex, but in terms of camber, you’re still getting camber back to the tail, with just that rocker before the nose.
The Mullair is pretty close to camber, but with some subtle rocker between the feet. Whilst it’s very subtle, it is there and might take some getting used to. But otherwise, it’s also a good choice.
The Flagship is a little softer, but not by that much. It’s changed shape, but it’s not less directional. It’s actually more directional – it’s got more taper and there is a bigger difference in nose length vs tail length. But it has changed personality. It’s become better for trees and generally riding in tighter spaces but not as good for straight line bombing (IMO) as the previous models. It might be that getting used to the extra taper is the hardest thing. The FA has almost as much taper (10mm tapered vs the 12.5mm taper on the Flagship) but, IMO, you feel that taper a good bit less than you do on the Flagship.
YES is relatively new, but have been around 11 years now. Personally I love a lot of their boards – and the PYL is no exception. Now, I started out riding hybrid profiles, so I haven’t come into these boards used to riding only traditional camber, so taking that into account, I think the Burton FA would be the easiest transition for you to make. Not that the PYL is anything crazy – it’s still camber dominant, but it does have some subtle rocker in the tail – and then more so in the nose.
So yeah, I think the FA is your safest bet. But any of those boards would be great for what you’re describing – they would just need more adjustment to get used to them vs the FA.
Size-wise, for your specs, I would say something around 159 would be a good bet. You could go 160-162 as well if you wanted, given that you’re used to riding longer. And also with a lot of freeride boards that have a good bit of nose rocker, sometimes the effective edge is less than it would be on an all camber board, so that allows you to ride a little longer if you want to.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate,
Thanks so much for the quick response. Gave me the confirmation I wanted for the FA.
All the best!
You’re very welcome Dan. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Appreciate all the comments and feedback you offer.
Hoping you can help me out. I’m looking for a board that is strong in powder, carves hard on groomers and cuts through the ice / chunder effectively. Edge hold, stability, and control under top speed is important. I’ve been riding for 19 years, split my time between big mountain / CAT boarding and not so big hills that can get decently icy (Ontario).
5’9, 195lb, size 9.5 boot (Burton Ion’s). Generally ride a 156. Been on Burton traditionally, but looking elsewhere. Perhaps the Ultra Mind Expander or PYL, one of the Korua options or another suggestion?
Thanks,
Matt
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden any Korua boards, so I can’t comment there. But in terms of the Ultra Mind Expander – that is a beast of a board, IMO. Really stiff. It’s one of those boards that feels stiffer than it’s rating (some feel softer than they’re rating and some feel about on their rating). Jones rates it an 8/10 for flex but I would say more like a 9/10. One of the stiffer boards I’ve ridden. And it’s got some good camber. Nice on a carve – and definitely prefers to carve vs any other kind of turn. I wouldn’t say it’s like one of the nicest boards I’ve carved on, but it’s pretty good. In terms of speed though it’s super stable and damp. I didn’t get it in any powder unfortunately, but based on the Mind Expander (non-ultra version), it’s shape and the fact that there’s still a fair bit of rocker in the nose, I would say it would be very good in powder – but probably not as good as the regular Mind Expander, but certainly better than the regular mind expander for carves and speed. And edge hold. The edge hold is really good on the UME. But be warned it’s very stiff (or at least the one I rode was), so if you like things really stiff, then that’s a good thing, but if you prefer a bit of forgiveness in the flex, I would go PYL. I preferred PYL on a carve, but I like to have at least some flex in the board – the UME was a little dead-stiff for me. Size-wise, it’s the kind of board I would ride slightly shorter, but not heaps shorter. So, if you generally ride a 156, I would say go 154. Though do keep in mind, you’ll likely be dropping effective edge vs what you’re used to.
I haven’t published my review on the UME yet, so I just wanted to give you some info there. For more on the PYL check out my PYL Full Review here
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate
Love your review, it’s very helpful.
Wondering if you can give your opinion on something. I’m a one board guy that mostly rides off peiste (when there are conditions…), fast down groomers and rarely switch.
I mostly snowboard in Europe and can’t know the conditions, some weeks it’s deep snow and sometimes icy.
I am and experienced snowboarder (23 years).
I’m 1.8 m and 80kg with boot size 12(us).
I’m riding now on FA 159 2019 regular not wide….
At the shop I buy my gear they said it’s ok but everywhere else I see that I need the wide board – they didn’t have the wide …..
Do you think I should change for a wide board? Where would I feel the difference?
I thought about changing to either the Jones Flagship the Yes PYL or to stay with FA.
Which one of these boards and size would you suggest considering?
Cheers
Hi Ilan
Yeah I would say going wide is a safer bet. I’ve heard one or two people say they’re OK riding regular width boards with 12s, but they’re the exceptions. I’ve heard some with 11s or even 10.5s that have boot drag issues on regular width. It partly depends on your style of riding and partly on the boots you have. Lower profile boots give more leeway, but with 12s, I would go wide if I was you. Unless you know you’ve ridden regular width before without drag issues and/or if you’re kind of rider that doesn’t tend to get that high on their edges on carves. But being an experienced rider, I would say that you’ll want to go wide with 12s for sure.
Going too narrow, the biggest issues is potential boot drag. Going too wide has the issue of slower edge to edge transitions – the board feeling heavy and turning like a boat, because the rider can’t get much leverage on the edge of the board. However, this is only an issue if your feet are too small for the board. Going wide when your feet are close to the edges doesn’t generate this issue, so it’s only a downside if the board is too wide for your feet. And most wide boards, except the exceptionally wide are going to be an issue if you have size 12s, I wouldn’t imagine.
Between the FA, PYL and Flagship, they’re all really suited to what you’re describing, and you’re definitely in the right place on this list. I would say the Flagship and PYL are the best options for off piste, particularly if you’re riding through trees a bit. But the FA is still really good off piste just not quite as good, but a little better for charging and carving up the groomers than the Flagship, IMO. The PYL matches it though. Maybe ever so slightly not as good at speed/carving as the FA, but very close, IMO.
Size-wise, I would say 160W for PYL, 159W for FA, and 159W for Flagship. The PYL 160W and FA 159W aren’t actually all that wide anyway. Borderline for 12s really, so they would be, IMO, on the narrow end of your range, if you’re looking for something that’s just wide enough. For more leeway width-wise the Flagship is your better bet. But yeah FA 159 too narrow, IMO. Quite a risky option for boot drag for 12s.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate
Thank you very much for the answer it helped alot. I’ll probably change to the PYL or FA….
Cheers
You’re very welcom Ilan – hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Great site, thanks for sharing. I snowboard for 3, 1 week trips a year out west, one of which is cat/heliboarding. I am retiring my two boards this year, the burton custom x and burton barracuda with the burton cartels.
I am looking for a new two board quiver. As I fly to each destination, I was trying to keep it one set of bindings.
I am a freerider at heart: glades, side country, small hikes, and the edge of groomers at resorts. I currently have the burton flight attendant and 2020 Jones Flagship in plastic and can’t decide between the two. I find the Flight Attendant quite a bit heavier than the Flagship and am currently leaning to keep Flagship. I am looking for a pure powder day board for the annual catboarding trip and wanted your advice on a two board quiver with single binding setup.
Thanks
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message.
Between the FA and Flagship, I think I’m leaning towards Flagship too, based on what you’re describing. If it was the 2019 model, then I might have leaned the other way a little bit, but the new Flagship will fit what you’re describing really well. If you we’re doing more hard carving on groomers in addition to getting off the groomer, then the FA becomes more appealing the Flagship, just as it’s a better carver for aggressive carves. But for trees and uneven terrain I would take the 2020 Flagship over the FA. The FA is still good in those places too, but the new Flagship just feels really at home there.
In terms of a specialist powder board, first of all, I don’t ride them that much – it’s one category that I don’t really test, at least not extensively (just don’t have the time at the moment) – so this is just some general points – rather than detail of what board to go with. Powder boards come in a wide range of varieties these days – they can be stiffer, softer, longer, short/wide etc. So I think it will depend on the kind of powder board you want. Do you want a big long floater for open terrain powder, do you want a softer, surfier feel in powder or more of a driver? Do you want something short/wide that can help navigate through powder in trees. Some options, that I know of but haven’t necessarily ridden:
– Jones Mind Expander: Surfy, mid-flex, all-rocker profile option. It’s a little short-wide, but not one that you size down in length heaps by – Jones recommends 4-8cm shorter than your normal size. I would say closer to around that 4cm shorter than your normal size, especially if you’re going to be riding it exclusively in powder. This one I have ridden, but haven’t put up my review just yet.
– Jones Storm Chaser: A little stiffer, but still a surfy profile. It’s fully short wide. Jones recommends taking off 6-13cm from your normal length. Haven’t ridden it, but could be an option if you’re looking to go short/wide.
– YES 420: mid-flexing short/wide. Seriously wide. I would say take off 10-12cm for this one.
– Capita Spring Break Powder series – there are different options depending on the size you go for. Each size has it’s own personality, so those are worth checking out, and which one will depend on the feel you’re looking at going for
– Jones Lone Wolf – this is kind of the opposite of a short wide. Well it’s not narrow – it’s more regular width, but it’s something where it’s recommended to actually ride longer. Jones recommends 6-13cm longer! So, if you want to get that surface area mostly from extra length (it’s still got some width there too), then this is a good option. This is a more camber dominant, stiffer option. More of a driver.
Those are what I can think of now, but there are heaps of these kinds of boards out there. It’s just not an area that I’ve delved into a lot, so unfortunately I can’t give you as thorough a breakdown as I can for other categories of board. But hopefully that gives you a few options to further research.
Oh and bindings, I almost forgot. I think it would really depend on which kind of powder board you went for, but I think something from the following would work well on the Flagship or FA and would still work on a softer flexing powder board, should you go for a softer more surfy feeling option.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hello Nate,
I’m European (alps) and recently moved to the east coast, looking for a new board that handles well hard pack and icy conditions. I’m a directional freerider that tends to go pretty fast and does big mountain stuff as well as off tracks trees and such. I’ve already a PYL that I mostly use for backcountry, I’m looking for a more resort centered board that can handle icy conditions but can also go crazy on groomers and sidetracks.
I’m 6.1′, 165 lb and I wear a 10.5
I’m leaning towards three choices:
– Ejack Knife 162W
– Müllair 161W or 164W
– XV Magtek 163 or 164W
Thoughts?
Hi Mathieu
Thanks for your message.
In terms of being more resort oriented, the Ejack Knife is probably the more resort oriented, especially if you were going to be riding switch at all. They’re all good hard/icy conditions boards, IMO.
Size-wise, if it’s going to be your resort board, then I would size down a bit from what you’re used to and what you’re currently riding with your PYL. So I’d say Ejack Knife 162W or even 159W depending on what you’re riding with the PYL and for Mullair either 161W or even 159W. For those boards going wide makes sense. For the XV I would say 163 (it’s wider at the insets vs the waist compared to the other 2 boards, so I’d say it’s wide enough for 10.5s). But depending on the sizing of your PYL and what you’re used to riding, I think that could be getting on the long side. Especially if you’re going to spend a fair bit of time in the trees, and if it’s a relatively small resort, then sizing down has it’s benefits.
Whilst these are all certainly different the PYL, they’re in the same category (IMO), so I think getting that different size is going to give you a bigger difference.
Hope this helps
Thank you for the answer Nate. I’ll probably get the Ejack 162W then, the sick graphic will be a plus.
You’re very welcome Mathieu. Hope you have an awesome season this winter!
hello nate . now I’m going on a burton flight attendant so i want to know if there is a faster snowboard on your list ???
”
Hi Rico
I’ve found the Flight Attendant to be very good at speed. Note that my speed ratings aren’t just about how fast the board feels – it’s also about how stable the board feels at speed. In fact stability at speed is the main consideration I use as I consider that the most important thing. In terms of looking at just how fast a board rides, without taking into account stability at speed, I find that typically stiffer boards, longer boards and boards with more camber tend to ride faster, and it depends on the base too. For example, the Jones Flagship (and a lot of Jones boards) has the best “glide” of anything on this list. For gliding cat tracks, flats, traverses and that kind of thing, the Flagship is the “fastest” but it’s not as stable at speed as some of the others on the list.
Overall, I found the PYL, Chairman, Mullair, XV and Maelstrom all to be equals in terms of speed to the Flight Attendant but not better. Off hand some boards that are a little bit in terms of speed (overall including stability at speed) are the Burton Custom X, Endeavor Alpha (both Aggressive all-mountain boards, by my definition) and the Ride Timeless (freeride board but no 2020 model, though i suspect the Ride Commissioner is a similar beast in terms of speed).
How do you find the Flight Attendant at speed?
hello nati feel it fast and stable but i would be curious to try something faster but at least as stable, i was thinking to try jones flagship but i was puzzled why in your top it only occupies the 4th place, now i understood that it would not be enough stable at high speed. to choose custom x or alpha or ride?e ,
hello nate, thank you for the answer, I wanted to buy jones flagship but I did not understand why it only occupies the 4th place in your top and was only rated at 4 at speed, after reading your answer I understood that it is not very stable at high speeds, what would you choose between custom x and timeless ride? You asked me how I feel about the flight attendant, I felt it fast and stable but I would like to try something faster and at least as stable!
Hi Rico
The Flagship is still stable at speed. 4/10 is still a good score – but just a very small amount off from the FA – but not far behind. I didn’t mean to ensue that it wasn’t stable at speed, because it certainly is, just not quite to the same extent as the previous models. Note that the 2019 and previous Flagship’s I considered to be very stable at speed, it’s just the 2020 model that’s changed a bit. Also to get 4th place in this is list isn’t what I consider an “only”. 4th out of 39 freeride boards rated is awesome. Also, not everyone will want to go for number 1. Some people might rate certain factors as being more or less important, so looking at the score breakdowns to see what might suit you best is a good idea, not just going off the overall ranking.
I’m not sure that I would describe the Custom X or Ride Timeless as any faster than the FA – they’re just more stable at speed. And again, it’s a fine line. The FA is very stable at speed (IMO) – those other options are just a tad better – by my feel. I think if you’re looking at something that’s faster, in terms of glide/acceleration etc, but at least as stable at speed, I would look at the Jones Ultra Mountain Twin. It’s as fast as the Flagship, in terms of glide/acceleration, but just that little bit more stable at high speeds.
See also:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this helps
thank you very much for this very useful information, you are doing a great job with this site!
You’re very welcome Rico!
Hi Nate,
Great site, very useful!
I’m interested in the Rossignol XV. I’m 5’10.5″, 165 lbs no gear, and have size 10 boots. Been riding for 25 years and enjoy deep powder and steep fast lines in Colorado. Rossi’s chart would put me at a 159 but am leaning towards the 163 since I’ve been on 163+ boards most of my life. Any input on my choice would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
Looking solely at your specs, I would say 159 for sure. But personal preference definitely comes into it and what you’re used to also comes into it. So, if you’re used to 163, then that might be the better option for you – since you’ll be used to the stability and float you get from it. You’re always sacrificing maneuverability going bigger like that, but if that’s what you’re used to and happy on, then that certainly comes into it. The only thing would be if in the past you were riding considerably less stiff/less aggressive 163+s. In that case, then there might be an argument to size down to the 159, but if you’re used to stiffer/more aggressive boards like this in 163, and you like how they ride, then that’s probably the way to go.
Hey Nate, Love the website! loads of great info here. :o)
I’m looking at the PYL for a Japan trip next season and wondering what size would suit me in your opinion. I’m a bit of a powderhound at heart, intermediate to advanced level. 6’2″ and 210lb, size 11 boot. I like the trees on stormy days and groomers on sunny days with bit of side country in between. The YES website puts me on a 165. I see there’s a 164W available too. 162, 164W, 165… Thoughts?
Hi Bevan
Thanks for your message.
I don’t always agree with sizing from brand’s websites, but in this case, I think the website has picked a good size for you, for this board. For some other boards I would go 162 for you. I’d put you somewhere 162-164, in general as an intermediate to advanced rider with the style you describe. But the PYL is something you can ride a little longer, so the 165 works for you, IMO.
That’s not to say that the 162 isn’t an option though. It would have some advantages over the 165 – like being a bit more nimble for the trees. But the 165 will give you more float in powder and better stability at speed.
Width-wise, I’d say you’d be fine on the 165 and shouldn’t need to go 164W, and I personally wouldn’t unless you really had to. If you’re riding with a really straight back binding angle, and have boots with a relatively large outersole, then you might be pushing it – but otherwise, the 165 should accommodate your boots fine. You’d probably get away with it width-wise on the 162 as well – but that would be pushing it a bit more. But depending, that could be fine too – if you were inkling towards the slightly shorter size.
Hope this gives you more info to go off for your decision
Hey, thanks heaps! I appreciate your advice. I’ll try hunt out a 165 as I’d want as much float as I can get in that deep Japow. If all I can find is a 162 I’ll relax and remember that’ll work fine too.
Cheers,
Bevan
P.S 165 is rare as hens teeth, after a quick google round locally
You’re very welcome Bevan. Hope you enjoy the Japow!
Nate, love your site. Best on web by far. Thanks for all the insights.
I’m 50 yo, 6’2”, 205 lbs, size 11 burton step on. Have been boarding about 25 years, was an early adopter!
Almost exclusively free ride, no park, not much switch, some small jumps. Mostly hang with pretty quick skiers so have to go reasonably hard to keep up. Double blue and single black runs predominantly, love powder and get off the groomed runs as much as i can. Rode a 162 burton FA at telluride early this year with step ons, loved the setup. Only small criticism was i found the FA topped out on steep groomed runs and didn’t love it in the trees, having said that could’ve been my lack of ability contributing as well. Board about 20-30 days a year, mostly japan and Utah/Colorado, sometimes NZ. Was going to go straight to buy a FA 162 but really intrigued by the yes YPL or maybe the Frontier (explorer). Any words of wisdom, and what sizes do you reckon i’d be looking at in these options. Have i missed anything?
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message.
I personally found the PYL better in the trees than the FA, so there’s a definite plus there. I love that board (hence why it’s number 1 here). But also really like the FA too, so both are great choices. But yeah, I found a little more in the trees with the PYL. Size-wise, I would go 162 for either the PYL or FA for you.
The Frontier is also an option but size-wise, it’s a board that’s better to go a little longer in, so the 165 is probably the better bet, IMO, for you for that one.
All 3 certainly suitable but if I had to pick I’d go PYL.
Hope this helps with your decision
Nate
Love the website.
Need some help with my next board.
Been riding for 15+ years, couple of trips per year. Good intermediate boarder. Regular, size 9.5 boot, 180 lb & 5ft11. Have stiff Salomon boots and responsive bindings.
If there’s powder I’m on that, if not then carving on piste. Don’t switch very often but should do more as it probably good for my technique. Don’t go on the jumps by choice but now my kids want to I will join them. No pipe, no rails.
Have recently had a Salomon Derby 2015/6 which was great fun bit unfortunately got stolen on my last trip. So had to rent a board which was a Burton Process Flying V-that was also good and much more satisfying than the Derby for carving the piste and more stable. (no powder sadly that week).
So not sure whether I need a Free Ride or All Mountain (possibly aggressive) for my next ride. What board would you recommend? Be interested in your thoughts.
Thanks
Adrian
Hi Adrian
Thanks for your message. Sucks that your board was stolen.
Since you’re going to be riding more with your kids and potentially spending more time on jumps, then an all-mountain board might be a good idea. Also, since you enjoyed the Process Flying V, you might like something all-mountain. Based on what you’re describing, you might want to go a little more aggressive than the Process Flying V, but that’s almost every all-mountain board (as the Process Flying V is quite playful, IMO). Depedning on how old/good your kids are might depend on how aggressive you wanted to go.
But I think you’d certainly benefit from a bit of camber for carving on piste vs the Derby – but since you like to get in powder, then you’ll still want something that can handle powder well too (which I would say the Derby was very good at?).
I would check out the following, which will pretty much all be a little more aggressive, without being overly aggressive, but should give you a little more for carving vs the Derby. Maybe not Derby for powder, but still decent for powder, most of them. But check the score breakdowns of each board for specifics, to see what you think would work best for you.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
You could still go Freeride, but I think based on what you’re describing that all-mountain would work best.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate
Will go for a All Mountain. Having just read of your review of the Process Flying V I will need something more aggressive as it did let go when pushed on the piste. Need to keep the kids in their place!
Think the Never Summer West or Jones Mountain Twin would suit. What size would you suggest. The boot is a 9.5 UK size.
Thanks
Adrian
Hi Adrian
For the West, I would be weighing up between the 159 and 157X for you. With a UK9.5, you’re kind of on the cuff between regular and wide. The 159 would be on the narrow side, but should still be fine, if you ride with angles like +15/-15 or similar and particularly if you have a low profile boot. If you like to ride with a straighter back binding angle, then I think the 157X would be a better bet. Whilst you drop a little in terms of effective edge on the 157X vs the 159, you actually gain a little in surface area (good for float in powder). I would estimate the 159 to be around 262mm at the inserts and the 157X to be around 269mm at the inserts. So, the 157X isn’t super-wide. Also vs the Salomon Derby you would be gaining effective edge regardless of which you went for.
For the Mountain Twin, the 157, 158X and 160 would all be options. The 157, at reference stance (which is quite wide at 600mm) is quite wide at the inserts compared to the waist, so I don’t think you’d have any problem width wise (266mm at inserts at reference stance – a little narrower if you ride it with a slightly narrower stance). But in saying that the 158W isn’t massively wide either (271mm at the inserts predicted) so that would be doable too. If you wanted to go longer you could also get away with the 160. I would be leaning towards the 157 though for this board for you though, but the other 2 certainly options.
Thank you Nate.
You’re very welcome Adrian. Happy riding!
Hi Nate
I decided to go for the West but there was no stock at the time and now they’ve discontinued that board it do you have other suggestions based on my request with the new season boards released. Mountain Twin or look at another options?
Also have you tried the Burton step on boards/bindings?
Thanks Adrian
Hi Adrian
Yeah, sucks they let the West go. When they first introduced the Westbound, I thought maybe that would be a replacement, but that’s a very different board (all be it one that I like, but it’s more of a freeride board).
Going back over our last conversation, since you liked the Process Flying V, but wanted something a little more aggressive, I think going Hybrid Rocker is still a good idea, to get a similar feel, but certainly something a little more is a good idea. I thought the West would be a great option based on that. I think the Nitro Team Gullwing would be the next best bet – and is on similar lines as the West. A Hybrid Rocker, but not as loose as a lot of Hybrid Rockers – you can check out my review of the Team Gullwing at the link below:
>>Nitro Team Gullwing
The Mountain Twin is certainly an option too, but it’s Hybrid Camber (camber between the feet and rocker towards tip and tail) and just going off your enjoyment from the Flying V, I would be leaning towards the Team Gullwing. Another option is the Lib Tech Terrain Wrecker – not one that I’ve ridden yet (but hopefully get on soon), but fits the bill based on specs and what others say about it.
I haven’t tried Step Ons yet. Was too busy on other gear last season to get on them, but hopefully can get on them this season, if time permits.
Thanks Nate
What size would you suggest for the Nitro and Lib Tech? Size 9.5 UK and 81kg.
Adrian
Hi Adrian
For the Team Gullwing it would be the same discussion points as we had with the West. Either 159 or 157W would be your best bets, IMO. If you had made a call on one or the other with the West, I would make the same call with the Team Gullwing.
For the Terrain Wrecker, I would say 157 or 160, depending on whether you preferred the idea of going a little shorter or a little longer. Even though they look wider than the West/Team Gullwing, you’ve got to be a little careful as Lib Tech boards tend to have a smaller difference between waist width and width at inserts vs the average. So, the 257mm waist on the Terrain Wrecker would like be around a 262, 263mm width at the inserts. Which would be similar to the 159 Team Gullwing. I think that kind of width is still doable for UK9.5, but it’s pushing it, and if you like to carve quite low (as in high on the edges), then it’s risking it. The 160 Terrain Wrecker gives you a little more leeway, but still looking at around 264, 265mm, which again, should be fine for UK9.5 but depends no your level of aggression with your carves, and on your binding angles and the profile of your boots, like we discussed with the West. The 156W is also a possibility, if you wanted that extra width and to size down just a little.
Hi Nate,
Love all the reviews, they’re a big help! I’m not sure if I should be looking for Freeride or All Mountain.
I get about 10-15 days a year in, and my time is split between riding chutes/trees/steep and bombing moguls with my skier friends, but still hit groomers when I’m with less experienced people. I never go in the park or ride switch, which makes me think I should look more towards Freeride than All Mountain. I like to go fast and aggressive. 6’3 230lbs and have been riding for 15 years or so.
I was looking at the Burton Custom X, but I’m not sure that it’s the best board for me. After reading through this list, and the aggressive all mountain, it seems the Pick Your Line or the Flight Attendant might be a better option. I’m replacing a 2016 Ride Highlife UL 163W. My current boots are Ride Insanos size 11.
Any thoughts on which I should lean toward and what size might make sense? I see the Flight Attendant 162W is still in stock along with the standard PYL 162. Appreciate any feedback!
Thanks,
Mark
Meant to add, another option would be the Flight Attendant 168, not sure what length I should go for.
Hi Mark
See my other reply
Hi Mark
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, based on what you’re describing, I would go freeride, for sure.
Length-wise, I would be looking at something around 165 to 167 for your specs for this kind of board.
Width-wise, you’re kind of on the cuff of wide and regular width – but since you have Insanos (which are quite low profile), I think you’ll be fine on regular width boards in this length range. Or you could go wide, to be really sure for big carves/euro carves – and in that case you could probably size down length a little.
For the PYL, I think the 165 would be your best bet. Unfortunately sounds like you don’t have that size option?
For the Flight Attendant the 162W could work – as your going wider, you could size down a little. The shorter length would mean a little less stability at speed, but a little more maneuverability at slower speeds. The wider platform should cancel out, at least to some extent, the reduction in length in terms of float in powder. The other option is the 168 Flight Attendant, if you wanted that narrower width, but longer length for stability at speed and big carves. Might not be as nimble or maneuverable at slower speeds though, but certainly a board you could handle based on what you’re describing.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks, that helps a lot!
I think I will end up with the Flight Attendant and just have to decide on size. As far as bindings go, I’m thinking Cartel EST will be a good option. I may be able to get a deal on the Genesis X EST, but only in medium. I’m thinking I really should get something in Large, rather than at the very end of the size range, unless you think that isn’t a problem.
Appreciate your input!
Hi Mark
Apologies for the late reply, have been demoing boards all weekend.
Yeah I would say that the Genesis X are probably the best match, but Cartels are also a good option. You would likely be fine in Mediums, but Large are the safer bet, since your not in Burton boots it’s harder to say how they would fit in mediums (Ride are low profile too, so likely fine, but no guarantees).
Hi nate! I speak with you 1 month ago paro. About a GNU carbon credit vs skate banana and my 173cm and 59kg and low force on legs, and vans infuse 9.5US. And finally recomend a gnu carbon credit 147. And for the moment all correct, i need more days to break in, but i like.
The new question, is for sell my rossi one lf 153 and buy a pow/going fast board. The big problem is my weight and sizing, the carbon credit 147 for now is like a all mountain, and good, when break in i think is more like real gnu carbon, more freestyle.
I see a lot and for sizing and flex, i see jones hovercraft and mind expander. For Hovercraft the men version 148 is 24.9 width and weight range 41-63 kg, the women version is similar, so men version is good, hovercraft use grip tech 2.0.
On mind expander is more dificult. Mens version 146 24.8 waist and 49-73kg, so to much hard for me. And womens version 150 is same waist and weight than 146 men, i think more felxier. 146 24..4 and 45-68kg, this weight ratio is similar than gnu carbon but the waist is like carbon credit 147. MInd exapnder use 1.0 grip tech (less icy grip/hard snow than hovercraft).
Jones flagship is to narrow waist on womens and is stiff.
The goal is a board for pow days and going fast days, easy on trees and easy jumps, a lot of hard snow and icy. Stable at speed and enjoy the ride. easy and catch free.
I see other brands but too large board for me or stiff.
I have a lot of chaos haha. thanks
Hi RST
Thanks for your message.
Note that I haven’t ridden the Mind Expander or Hovercraft, but this is what I think based on specs and what others say.
The Mind Expander 146 will be a much more easy going option than the Hovercraft 148. Even though the weight recommendations on the Hovercraft look more appealing to you, the Hovercraft is a stiffer board than the Mind Expander and a more aggressive camber profile. More stable at speed than the Mind Expander, but from what you’re describing, I think the Mind Expander would be a better option. The Hovercraft a little grippier in hard/icy conditions, I would say – but I don’t think there would be a huge difference.
The Mind Expander would fulfill powder, trees, easy jumps and easy and catch free more so than the Hovercraft. The Hovercraft better in terms of stability at speed (but you typically get that just by going stiffer).
Another option, that you might want to consider (a board that I currently have sitting next to me, that I’m going to be taking out tomorrow), is the Endeavor Scout. It’s a softer flexing board that’s oriented to that kind of riding and it comes in a 148cm with a 249cm waist width. I can give you more details of what I think of it, once I’ve had a chance to ride it tomorrow.
Hope this helps
Perfect I wait for the review, and the option mind expander men 146 vs 146 women? What you think? the weight recomndation is better, waist 24.4.
Hi RST
It’s a tough call. The men’s version would give you a bit more leeway in terms of width – though I’m not sure what the width is like at the inserts as I haven’t measured the Mind Expander yet. I wouldn’t worry too much about the weight recommendations. But yeah, if the width is OK, then no reason why you can’t go with the Women’s version. And potentially a little softer flexing.
Hi Nate
I’ve been snowboarding for 19 years and currently have a Jones UMT 164w, it has served me well. But lately I have (almost) decided to split it into two boards as the two last season here on the west coast of Norway has been fantastic, with a lot of powder from december to mid february and spring snow after that.
The great early season conditions have had us charging the back/side country, often steep and usally ending up in tight tree sestions that needs to be navigated. We are hitting drops and natural features.The last part of the season is more for in resort carving and freestyling. Hitting features and buttering around, a couple of runs in the park now and then (I’m don’t take parks too serious anymore as the responsible dad I am). The late season / no powder board should also serve as a Rad Dad board when teaching my two suns to shred.
My UMT is good in the powder for freeriding, but not great as my back leg ends up burning after some runs. For Rad Dading its a tad to agressive and stiff.
I’m curious if you can recomend me a quiver of two boards that suits my need? I’ve been looking at the NS Chairman + Proto Type Two, and Jones Flagship + Mountain Twin, but I’m open for any input
I’m a level 6-7 rider 92-98kg 191cm with size a 12US boot.
Cheers
Edvin
Hi Edvin
Thanks for your message.
Those combinations would certainly work.
Going Flagship/Mountain Twin, will give you the most familiar setup. The Flaghsip being a more powder/freeride oriented cousin of the UMT and the Mountain Twin the softer flexing, more forgiving twin brother of the UMT. And if you go 161W for your Mountain Twin, then that would make it that little bit more forgiving again. The 165W Flagship would be a good option, IMO. So 165W Flaghip with 161W Mountain Twin.
In a lot of ways the Proto Type Two (PT2) is more park/freestyle oriented than the Mountain Twin, so there is perhaps a bigger difference there, if you’re looking for a bigger contrast. Size-wise, again I would go 165X for the Chairman and 161X for the PT2. It would be more to get used to with this setup, since you’re used to a Jones/Hybrid rocker feel and you’d have to switch to a Never Summer/hybrid rocker feel.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot for your reply Nate.
I’m heading towards the Flagship 165w and All Mountain 161W because of the familiarity of these boards profile. I had not thought about that, I also spend like 40% of my time in the park, so this makes a lot of sense.
Thank you!
You’re very welcome Edvin. Hope you have an awesome season! If you think of it at the time, let me know what you go with, and how you get on.
I have been riding a K2 Eldorado 168 that is finally shot after MANY great years. Looking for something similar …. no rocker on this board which seems impossible to find these days
Hi Colin
Thanks for your message.
All camber boards are certainly less common these days, but there are still some out there.
Also looking at something that is directional and setback, like the Eldorado, and though I couldn’t find the flex of the Eldorado, I’m assuming it’s around mid-stiff in terms of flex, based on descriptions of the boards. The following would be the closest current boards to it, IMO.
~ Slash ATV
~ Burton Custom X
But if you’re willing to allow a little rocker in there, but still be predominantly camber, you could also look at:
~ GNU Billy Goat
~ Lib Tech Ejack Knife
~ Jones Aviator
To name a few.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great reviews as ever.
Currently, I am deciding between the Yes PYL and the Jones Flagship.
I am 5f 6 and weight 176 lb, currently riding a 2014 Burton Custom 156cm with Genesis X and K2 Maysis boots (US 9.5) I rode mostly in the Northeast with a lot of icy condition. I love carving, all mountain, and steep terrain. An intermediate to advanced rider. I love the graphic on Flagship but concerned with its ability in ice and the messy snow situation.
I would love to hear you thought about sizing and which board to get.
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Both are really good boards and both would work for your situation. However, I would be leaning towards the PYL for a couple of reasons.
1. It’s a little better in hard/icy conditions.
2. It’s a little better in messy snow
Size-wise, I think something around 156 is a good size for you, which makes the 156 PYL a good bet. If you went with the Flagship it would be between the 154 and 158. But the 154 is probably a little narrow for your boot size. So, I would say go 158 for the Flagship, which would certainly work, but the 156 PYL is what I would be leaning towards.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Appreciate the quick reply.
For my weight, should I be riding 159 for PYL?
Thanks
Jason
Hi Jason
You could certainly ride the 159 – and using weight alone, would be the one to pick. But I like to take everything into account and based on everything I would be leaning towards the 156 for you. But the PYL is something you can ride a little longer if you want to, so 159 wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I would be leaning towards 156 for you.
Hi Nate,
Finally, pull the trigger and got the 156 PYL.
It is seriously an easy and fun board to ride. It holds an edge well, good pop and easy to land.
It is a sweet board, very agile, stable and lively.
I am surprised how easy It rides comparing to my old custom, and it carves easily too.
It got more pop an easier to ride. It is unbelievable easy to ride.
Thanks for all your help
Hi Jason
Thanks for the update.
Great to hear your thoughts on the board and awesome that you’re having a great time on it!
Hi Nate, your site is great, keep it up!
Please tell me how you rate Lib Tech Orca?
PYL is hard to find in Eastern Europe.
What size would you recommend for me?
I am 178cm 84kg, boot Nike US 9
Thank’s in advance!
Best Regards!
Hi Mikele
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Orca, so I can’t rate it for you, unfortunately.
Size-wise, since it’s a short-wide and with size 9 boots, and your height and weight specs, I would go with the 153 for you.
Hope this helps
Thank’s mate for your fast answer, it helps 🙂
All the best in the New Year!
Cheers!
You’re very welcome Mikele. All the best to you as well, and hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, again me ?
I found PYL in Austria 🙂 what size would you recommend for me, 156 or 159?
Thank’s
Hi Mikele
Awesome that you were able to find it. For you I would go with the 159. Boots-wise, the 156 would be good, but the 159 is still good for 9s, and the 159 length is going to be better for you, IMO, so overall the better choice.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I managed to demo the flagship this week and I loved it. It’s definitely my kind of board for bombing groomers, potetinal powder. The problem was the board I demoed was a 159X, which was the only board they had and was a little bit too wide for me.
I’m in between the 161 and the 164cm. What would you suggest? I mentioned the 164 to the guy at the shop but he said he thought it was too big for me since it’s for ‘big guys’.. (he didn’t have any in stock)
My stats:
210-215lbs
US10 Adidas tacticals adv
6’2
Thanks,
Luke
Hi Luke
I would go 164 for your specs. I think it would be the best size for you for that board. However, if you felt like you liked the 159W (apart from the width), then the 161 could work. I wouldn’t say that the 164 is too big for you at all though. The 161 would be on the smaller side for you for that board. But that’s not to say it’s not doable, if you think you’d prefer a shorter board. But based on specs, the 164 would be the better size, IMO.
The 164 would be better for stability at speed and float in powder and better for long wide carves. You’d get a bit more maneuverability out of the 161, which would make it better for riding slower and in the trees, compared to the 164.
If you were to end up going with the 159 Funslinger for your freestyle board (as per your other comment on the freestyle boards list), then I would go 164 for sure. If you went with the 156 Funslinger, then maybe 161, though it also depends on the size of your all-mountain?
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Sat reading some of the questions that you’ve answered for different folks around the globe and must say how impressed I am at the thought and detail that you’ve put into people’s queries.
I’m a long time snowboarder (which is another way of saying I’m old !) For the past 25years or more having converted from skiing when I was in my twenties I’ve been hitting the slopes all over the Alps. I still ride mostly with these same friends who remained on planks…and my son, who does both. Never quite sure how good I am; we tend to cover a lot of ground and go pretty much everywhere on the mountain (on and off piste). Precious little phases me, but with work when I get back off vacation, I don’t tend to hit the Couliors much now ! Using your guide, there are aspects of Intermediate and Advanced that fit, but because I’m a sole boarder, I’ve never really had the opportunity to work in a group on skills that are suited to the park or the pipe….so have never mastered switch riding, butters and so-forth.
My absolute favourite is to ride the early runs of the day. Find a steep groomed piste and charge down one side of the piste doing fast turns within the width of a single ‘track’ that a piste-basher has left. As the day wears on, I cut off the side and mess about in rutted stuff and then cut back and blast through the crud. If it’s dumped, I also love to get properly off piste and feel the board float around under my feet – but when you only get out for a week or two, those days aren’t all that common…
I’m 5’11, need to lose a few pounds (~190lbs currently) and wear UK size 8.5 shoe. I ride a 160cm Burton Custom X that dates back to 2008 and have decided thatI’m overdue a change. Given the fact that I ride with a bunch of skiers, I’m also thinking about trying some Flow bindings and changing my boots up too.
I’m reading the Top-5 list and thinking PYL62. I love the idea of the Underbite side profile, which I read as giving a nice balance feel in the chop & powder without sacrificing your ability to carve hard on the groomed stuff ?
Would you tend to agree, or suggest one of the other based on the above ? Also , does the idea of using the Flow bindings sit well with such a choice (I get soooo tired of all the wisecracks about my mates having to wait for me that I really need to give them a try 🙂
Best, Nick.
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I think the PYL would be a great choice for you – and the 162 is the size I would recommend too.
Compared to the Custom X, I think you would drop a little in carving (but only because that board (at least the latest versions) is a carving demon) and stability at speed – but the PYL is very good in those areas, IMO, so only by a little bit. And you would gain considerably in terms of float in powder – and in general agility for tight spots and trees. So I think it would work well for you. Also better in Crud, in my experience.
I haven’t ridden Flow bindings for some time, but they certainly are fast to get into – can get them on, whilst still on the move off the lift, with a bit of practice. The other option is the new Burton Step Ons. I don’t currently test rear entry or step on bindings – just as I don’t have time and want to be able to test more brands of strap bindings without spreading myself too thin. But yeah if you’re looking for speed Flow & Burton Step On are worth looking more into.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you Nate – really appreciated – my mind is made up.
(I’m hoping that any impact on carving would be negligible, given the ‘vintage’ of my Custom X….particularly as the gains in other areas seem significant).
Have a great season.
You’re very welcome Nick. Hope you have a great season too!
Hey Nate,
I went all-in with the PYL62 and opted for new Burton Photon Step-Ons too. Cost me a pretty penny but think it will be a really good combo for my situation. They all arrived today and I spent this evening setting up.
One thing if I may though?
The stance width on the Custom X was 21.5”, whereas the reference stance on the PYL is 23.5”. The latter feels weird after so many years so I’m looking to narrow it down, to begin with at least.
So the setback ratio isn’t affected, I assume it’s just a question of bringing the front binding ‘back’ by a hole (or two) and then bringing the back binding ‘forward’ by the same amount. ? Is that correct ?
Nick.
Hi Nick
Congrats on your new setup!
Yeah, to keep the setback the same, it’s just as you say, bring the front and back bindings an equal distance towards the center of the board. If you we’re to bring each binding in one hole, that would be 20mm (3/4″) per binding, which should reduce your stance from 596mm (23.5″) to 556mm (21.9″).
Hope this helps
Nate,
I ride a freeride board you do not have on your list because its expensive and not sold that much here in the US. Its a Nidecker Ultralight 160. Not sure if you have any knowledge about it but if so would like know how you could compare it to the Yes PYL and Burton Flight Attendant in terms of your ratings in all areas.
Thanks
Hi Alden
Thanks for your message.
I don’t currently test Nidecker boards – and haven’t tested the Ultralight. So unfortunately can’t offer any insight there.
Hello Nate,
5′-10.5″
Thanks again!
You’re very welcome Bruno.
Yeah I would say 162 for Mountain Twin would be your best bet and 159 for the Standard. Those are the sizes I would go for with your specs.
Hello Nate,
Some of the most useful reviews are found here!
I have skied all my life. I tend to be an aggressive skier where I prefer to give 100% for a few hours and then quit for the day. On skis I prefer steep runs and short quick turns. I had bought a used snowboard over 10 years ago and would take it out 2X per year, take it for a run and then swap back to “controllable” skis. I have started to take snowboarding more seriously last year with that same snowboard and this year I would like “get into it” with proper equipment. According to your guide, I would rate myself an Intermediate Level 5 snowboarder. I snowboard in Eastern Canada where powder is rare, ice/hard snow frequent.
Profile: I definitely will not be doing snowparks and never will be “switching”.
Hopefully/Eventually: Good Carving, Steep hills, proper handling of uneven terrain.
I studied your “Freeride selection” and paid a particular attention to snowboards that are good in “hard/icy” snow. You gave good reviews for ‘Yes Pick Your Line” and the “Rossignol XV Magtek”. But in both these cases you suggest the boards are intended for more advanced snowboarders. Can we equate the “stiffness” of the board to the level of the snowboarder or is it a little more complicated than that? More importantly, will these boards geared for advanced riders have a negative impact on my progress? I weight about 200Lbs, and wear size 11 boots.
Thanks!
Hi Bruno
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t say that flex is everything for ability but it is a significant factor. Softer boards can also be more advanced, but typically stiff boards are usually always more advanced regardless of other factors. One of the other major contributors to ability level is the camber profile. If there is a lot of camber and quite pronounced camber, then that tends to make the board more difficult to ride (but has it’s advantages of course). Freeride boards tend to have rocker in the profile, because it’s good for powder, but they usually have a lot of camber and any rocker is typically mostly towards the nose. So as well as being stiff this type of board is also usually more technical in terms of camber as well.
That said, if you were to go for anything here, then I would go PYL over the Rossignol XV. It is a little more easy going and more intermediate suitable. It would still be a steeper learning curve for an intermediate rider, IMO, but doable – and the better option than the XV for an intermediate, IMO.
I’m a strong believer that going too advanced too soon can have a negative impact on progress. Going slightly above your level I think is fine, but if you go too far above, then I think it’s detrimental. It’s just trying to decide if something like the PYL is too far ahead or not. Since you’re an experienced skier that might help?
I think you’d probably be fine on the PYL but if you’re unsure, then I would check out the boards at the list below, which are more easy going:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
They’re also made to be boards that you can ride all sorts of styles on – switch, park, powder, groomers etc but you don’t have to use them for everything.
Or, since you don’t tend to see much powder, you could check out:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Some in that list will be too advanced but something like the Jones Explorer or Capita Mercury could work.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Thanks for the quick Reply Nate.
A bit after I pressed the “send” button on my post to you (it is always the way), I had second thoughts, and they concur to yours. I don’t need misery on the hill, and will get a board that fits my skill level (not my desired skill level). So a standard “All-Mountain” board it will be! Looking at your preferred All-Mountain boards I could go for the Yes Standard (great hold on hard snow/ice). The Never Summer West would be a Wide board for me, so I am thinking perhaps the Jones Twin Mountain 162 with a waist size of 256mm, close to the limit for my boot size, but should be OK if I get your suggested Adidas Tactical ADV (if they fit me properly), with their small footprint. Will probably get a Burton binding with good shock absorption to complete the kit (perhaps Burton Mission). I have a bad knee so vibration absorption is a definite plus for me.
Once again, for me “Snowboarding Profiles” IS the reference as for snowboarding information. Thanks from all the snowboarding community!
Hi Bruno
Just realized i had linked you to the all-mountain bindings post instead! Fixed now. You found your way there anyway!
Yeah the Mountain Twin 162 will likely be around 268mm at the inserts (based on measurements from other sizes), whereas the 162 West is likely to be around 264mm at the inserts (based on measurements from other sizes), so the Mountain Twin would give you a little more leeway width-wise. And yeah in something low profile like an Adidas boots (and the Tactical ADV would be a great match for these boards, IMO) you should be fine width-wise on that.
For the YES Standard the 159 is likely to be the best size. It’s something that I like to size down a bit for as it’s wider. But if you could also let me know your height (weight and boot size are the main factors but I like to take everything into account) I can give a more accurate size opinion. But yeah, if 162 for the Mountain Twin and West, then I would go 159 for the Standard.
Burton do tend to have great shock absorption so that’s a good way to go.
Hi Nate
Nice work.
I’m thinking about getting a new board, and your review has got the PYL on my radar.
Although I only get out for around two or three weeks a season, usually this will be backcountry and slackcountry so PYL sounds like the right tool.
I currently have Burtons 14/15 Baraccuda 157 and 15/16 Nug 146
Weighting in at about 170lbs and 5ft6 high it looks like it’s either the 156 or 159 PYL.
I’ve always erred on the shorter side if board lengths and so wonder do you think that the extra length of the 159 will be the best bet.
Thanks
Hi Fletcher
Thanks for your message.
The PYL is something you can go longer on, so that does put the 159 in range. But the 156 is certainly an option too.
If you typically spend most of your backcountry/slackcountry time in open terrain, then you might appreciate the extra length of the 159, to maximize float and stability at speed. But if you tend to be in the trees a lot, then it might be better to go 156 for improved maneuverability.
The other thing to consider is boot size. If the board is a little wide for your boots, then going with the shorter length can help to compensate for lost maneuverability through the added width. If you can let me know your boot size and the type of terrain you typically encounter then I could make a more definite recommendation.
Hope this helps
Nate,
Thanks for the detailed reviews!
I’m looking to buy a new board this season, I ride at Mt. Bachelor in Oregon I’m 5’9″ 195bs ,boot size 9.5-10 usually ride at +15/+3 on my 163cm 2014 Burton Custom. I’m looking for a board that is great in powder, good for bombing groomed and will handle the crud well, I don’t do parks or pipe. I’ve had my eye on the Jones Flagship but am at the higher end of the weight limit on the 161cm, wondering if the 162W would be a better fit for me ,both for powder floatage and handle my weight a bit better, with the stiffer board I think the 164cm would be a bit too much. I also have been looking at the Yes PYL 162cm( it seems to have the closest specs to my current board), The Jones Explorer 162cm, Burton Fight Attendant 162cm. I have been riding 20+ years and this will be my go to board in powder/soft snow/spring conditions so not quite my daily driver but plan on using in all conditions from time to time. Thanks for any insight on the Jones Flagship question or any other recommendations on boards that would be a better fit for my situations. Cheers!
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
Personally I wouldn’t go wide with 9.5 to 10 boots for this board. And even though you’re at the weight limit, I still think the 161 would be a good size for you. I take brands weight recommendations as guidelines but not hard and fast rules. If anything it might mean that the flex feels slightly less than the 8/10 – so maybe more like the flex of the PYL. The PYL and FA are also good options, and I agree the 162 for both would work well. For the FA the only thing is if you get icy conditions a lot. If so, then I’d say go PYL.
I rode the 2019 Flagship in a 158 in the spring and I liked that despite being 5lbs over the max for that board (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots). I’d also be happy to ride the 161, but the 158 worked for me and I think the 161 would work best for you (compared to the 162W and 164).
Hope this helps with your decision
Lots of detail in the thread, so I will be brief. I am looking for a new freeride board: demoed the Flight Attendant and loved the quick edge to edge, but I prefer a better icy edge hold. Demoed the Rossi XV and liked it, but missed the quick edge to edge from the FA and found it a smidge too stiff, but I could do trees fine with both. Is the PYL the holy grail of quick edge to edge, good traction in icy conditions, and not ram-rod stiff flex? Or would you mention another from your list? Also, at 6’0 and 190, I generally like smaller boards to navigate trees, but I understand that freeride boards go longer – am I a 159 or 161? Finally, I have Burton Co2s, Genesis X and Diodes and Flux XF and DS bindings – which would pair best on the freeride board you would recommend? Thanks!
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Yeah absolutely I would say that the PYL is that combination of quick edge-to-edge, good edge hold in icy conditions and not crazy stiff. I really enjoyed it in the trees.
Size-wise, I personally really liked the 159 (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots) but I also like to go a little smaller and I could definitely ride the 162. I think overall, the 162 would be your best bet. The PTL does have a shorter effective edge (compared to overall length, per size) than a lot of boards, so you can afford to go a little longer than you normally would. But that’s not saying you couldn’t ride the 159, I just think the 162 might be a better option. What sizes do you normally ride? What sizes did you ride the FA and XV in? What you’re used to can also be a factor.
In terms of bindings, I would personally go for the Flux XF for the PYL. I think they would be the best match. But the Genesis X and Diodes would also work well. The Co2s might be even slightly too stiff? I haven’t ridden them before but I hear they were pretty stiff. The DS would be a bit too soft to be ideal for it, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Lovely reviews man! Thanks! Have you ever tried the Bataleon “the one”? It’s seems like an interesting approach to freeride. Would love to know your thoughts on it
Hi Morris
Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I haven’t ridden The One – or any other Bataleon boards. Not a brand that I currently test, but hope to in the future (the 2020 models if possible). But as of now I can’t be much help there, unfortunately.
Hey Nate,
I am curious just to talk to someone who is able to ride a wide variety of boards, unfortunately I don’t get the chance to test out too many new boards before buying them. I went through a several year stint of buying pawnshop boards of all shapes and sizes and thrashing them. None of them were particularly new and last year I decided to try out some new technology. I ride really fast and aggressive, My preference is chutes and pillow lines, but I really just love to be out on the mountain. I like to catch air and throw down when I get a chance but most of my local terrain is steep hard fall lines. I bought a GNU Mullair that was on sale its a 155 and I am 5’11 and 190 lbs. I had always rode bigger boards and I found the mullair to be a little squirly perhaps due to it being a bit short for my weight and aggressive style. I am amazed at the boards ability to rise up out of the snow when you bury it deep off an air it just finds its way to the surface. I am not sure about the tail on it, it is snubed and round and that is perhaps what I found squirly about it. It rolls over very quickly edge to edge which is nice but it isn’t as stable at balls to the wall open throttle speed. Unfortunately I had an incident with a stump and its days are numbered as it is separating at the front nose edge. So I will be looking for a new rip stick this year and I was wondering if you had anything that you are stoked on for a guy who likes to do a bit of everything but values stability at high speeds and is always looking for steeper and deeper terrain. Thanks
Cody
Hey Cody
Thanks for your message.
I think the biggest issue with your Mullair is the length. I found the Mullair to be a very good board at speed.
For your specs and your propensity for bombing, I would be looking at at least 161. And even a couple more CMs on that, given your aggressive style of riding. If you’re used to considerably shorter than that, then you could drop a couple of CMs, but 155 definitely too short, IMO. In my experience length has a significant effect on stability at speed. Shorter boards are also typically faster edge-to-edge, so I’m not surprised you found that. For the Mullair, I’d say the 161 would be your best size and at very least the 159. So, I’d say the length has a lot to do with it.
I would say that the Mullair, from what I felt from it, was the equal to most of the boards on this list in terms of speed. With the exception of the Flagship and maybe the Rossi XV. If you like your boards super-stiff – like old school stiff, then the Ride Timeless is the stiffest, most stable at speed board I’ve ridden. Too stiff for my liking, but that’s worth exploring with an aggressive style like yours.
Hope this gives you something more to go off
Hi Nate,
Firstly, thanks for all the work you do with this site. Like most i find the info you provide to be pretty invaluable.
Just like everyone else i’m looking for some advice. I currently can’t decide between the Jones Flagship and Yes PYL. I was originally leaning towards the flagship but the more i’ve read about the PYL the more i’ve started to lean towards that. I consider myself high intermediate and really looking to go to that next level. I’m based in New Zealand where the snow in the resorts is usually pretty hard pack with regular icy patches. Do get some powder but it’s still not the best quality. My current board is a GNU Space Case (which i love) but i’ve been finding myself exploring the backcountry a lot more lately and it’s not to great at that. I’ll mainly be using this board when conditions are good off piste, really trying to improve my carving and when i just feel like bombing some groomers. I won’t be taking it in the park, riding switch or buttering with it. When conditions aren’t great or i’m just looking to have some fun playing in the park i’ll still be using the Space Case. I’ve also got a trip to Canada lined up next year which includes resort riding and a powder tour so needs to cover that well to (I won’t be taking the Space Case). What do you think would be a better option?
I’m also a bit unsure on sizing. I’ve got a bit of a stocky build, i’m only a shorty at 170cm with small feet (8 US) but am a bit heavier at 92kg (currently – looking to lose a few kegs). My Space Case is a 150 which works well for me and while i know a freeride board needs to be bigger, looking at the Flagship recommended sizes i’d be looking at a 164-166 for my weight but am a little concerned my small feet and lack of height might have trouble controlling a board this big in tight squeezes. The PYL seems more like it’d be around a 159 which seems more reasonable. What do you think?
Lastly could you make a suggestion on a good binding pairing. I’m currently using a Cartel Limited binding but think this might be a bit to soft for these boards – though would like to not spend money on new bindings if you think the Cartels will cut it.
I know that’s a bit to ask but your thoughts would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Nathan
Hi Nathan
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing both the Flagship and the PYL would be good options, IMO. I would go PYL personally, it’s one of my favorite boards, and also I find it better in the trees, which you will encounter when you come to Canada. But you can’t go wrong with either of those for what you’re describing, IMO. And if one or the other is a better size, then that also comes into it.
In terms of sizing, I agree that 164-166 is too long for you. Whilst weight is probably the most important factor, I like to take boot size and height into account as well to get the best size.
I think that the 159 would be the best size for the PYL for you, though it’s on the wide size for your boots.
For the Flagship, I think the 158 would be your best size. And I think it’s a much better width – pretty similar to the width on the 150 Space Case.
Overall, I think the Flagship 158 would be your best bet, as it’s a better fit size-wise, IMO.
Going from a 150 to 158 (and with a bit of extra stiffness) will take some getting used to, but for the type of riding you’ll be doing on it, I think you’ll appreciate that extra length, once you get used to it – and then you still have your 150 Space Case for park etc.
In terms of the Cartel’s, I would say they would be just enough for these boards. Ideally, something a little stiffer flexing, but they will work, IMO. I haven’t ridden the Cartel Limited’s (don’t think they’ve made them for a while) but from what I know they had a more responsive base plate (used the old Diode’s base plate). So they are likely a little better of a match, than regular Cartels. But I couldn’t say for sure.
If you did decide to change bindings, something from one of the following, would be a good bet.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Hey,
Hopefully you still get around to answer these comments!
I’ve been researching boards for a while and end up flipping between the good ride and your site and I think I’m narrowing my choices down.
I’m 182lbs, 6’3″, size 11US Boot.
At the moment I’m riding a Burton custom flying V 20011, that’s done me well with the amount I’ve thrown at it, but it’s time for an upgrade!
I’m probably advanced 6 based on your ratings, but generally find myself hunting out the most difficult runs in resort (double black diamond in US, unlisted black – EU) unless there is powder then I’m in the back country immediately, or hunting out stashes of powder and tree runs I don’t hit the park often or ride switch, although I’m trying to hit more natural features but I spend a lot of my time riding with skiers who charge.
I want that silver bullet of a board that can take anything it throws at it. Handles Powder well but can still manage a decent carve and deal with icey conditions. All that with my size 11 boots..
What would you recommend?
Cheers,
Steve
Hi Steve
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I think the Pick Your Line (PYL) would be a great option. It’s just whether there’s a good size for you or not (more on that below).
Another good option, in terms of powder, carving and handling hard/icy conditions is the Rossignol XV. Though having something that’s also good for the natural features you’re hitting, then, IMO, the PYL is better. But there’s also the Mullair, which I think would be a great choice. The Chairman and Flagship are also decent in terms of hard/icy conditions, just not quite so good as the PYL, Mullair and XV.
I think for what you’re describing, I would go for, in order:
1. PYL
2. Mullair
3. XV
4. Chairman
5. Flagship
But a size that suits you best might mean something other than PYL could be better.
In terms of length, I would say that something around 163 is a good size for you. So for the PYL that would be the 162 – though the PYL is one of those boards that you can ride a little longer, so the 165 is also an option. Going 165 would give you more float in powder and more stability at speed but wouldn’t be as good in trees and for the natural features, IMO.
But in terms of width, with 11s, the 162 could be too narrow and even the 165 could be too narrow depending on binding angles and boots. With 11s I would usually recommend going no narrower than 254mm at the waist if you ride with a decent angles on your back foot (e.g. if you ride +15/-15 angles) but if you ride with a very straight back foot (e.g. 0-3 degrees), then I wouldn’t go narrower than around 261mm. Add a couple of mms if you like to carve deep and take off a couple off mm if you have low profile boots (e.g. recent Adidas, Burton, Ride and Vans).
So depending on boot profile and binding angles that could rule out the PYL.
But personal preference also comes into sizing. So, if you know you like something a little shorter than that – or if the Custom Flying V you’re riding is quite a bit shorter and that’s what you’re used to, then something like the 160W could come into play – or like the 161W Mullair could be a good choice too.
Hope this helps
Super helpful. Appreciate the quick reply!
I usually ride +12/-12 or +15/-15 so your width suggestions are useful. I’m actually looking at new boots and am leaning towards the Adidas Acerra ADV which seem to have a fairly small footprint.
YES PYL and Jones Flagship were 2 that I was looking at, but I’ll check the others out as well….sound like I need to go test some boards 🙂
Again, thanks for the detailed reply!
Cheers,
Steve
Hi Steve
You’re very welcome!
Yeah being able to test them out is definitely worthwhile if you have the opportunity. But yeah, with those angles and Adidas boots, you should be all good for the regular widths, IMO.
Quick question now the end of season sales have come round…
Not a huge amount seems to have changed with boards over the past couple of years, with next season’s boards on the horizon are you expecting to see a step change in board tech that would suggest it’s a better idea to wait for next season’s stuff, or do you think changes will be minimal, so pick up this season yes PYL?
Hi Steve
Apologies for the slow response – have been out a lot testing gear the past few days.
It really depends on the particular board. Some boards have changed a fair bit for next season – others no change at all. The PYL, as far as I can tell, is the same board for 2020 as it was for 2019. So, if you can pick up a good deal on the 2019 model (assuming you can get it in an appropriate size for you), then go for it!
Hey Nate,
Trying to decide between the Never Summer Chairman and the Flight attendant. Can you give me the negative points of each. I am intermediate skill, ride a few times a year on various conditions (from powder to ice). Which would work better?
Hi James
Thanks for your message.
I’d say that the Chairman is a little better in icy conditions than the FA but the FA better in powder than the Chairman (though it’s still good there for sure).
I wouldn’t consider either intermediate boards though – I’d say more like advanced to expert kinds of boards. But if you’re a solid intermediate rider and you’re quite athletic/strong, then they would be doable. Neither are the stiffest most unforgiving boards, for freeride boards, but they are still relatively stiff and relatively technical in terms of their camber profiles – so you want to have a solid technique down to get the best of them.
I would say, for you, if I had to choose between them, that I’d go for the Chairman, just because of the added edge-hold over the FA in icy conditions. But otherwise, there’s very little in it.
Hope this helps
Hi, thanks for the feedback! My binding set-up keeps my back foot fairly straight (+18/-3). So I should be okay there. What’s tiring is not turning the XV while cruising, I find that if I let my legs relax too much while riding a groomer straight and fast for example, it’ll want to turn on its own! Not a big deal for a small portion of my riding time as I love riding my XV everywhere else! I appreciate the response and look forward to reading your future reviews, thanks again for the advice!
You’re very welcome Ken.
Yeah width shouldn’t be too much of an issue in that case
Wow, great reviews! I’m in the market for a new board and wanted to get your thoughts. I’m 5’11”, 195 lbs with a size 9.5 boot. I spend 15-20 days up in Mammoth, CA and another 5-10 days in Utah (PC or Snowbird) and Colorado (Vail or Aspen). I currently ride a 2016 Rossignol XV Magtek, 163 cm. I love this board, it’s fast/stable and super quick edge to edge and I feel comfortable bombing steeps (50-60% of what I do), going into trees (10-15%), riding bumps (10-15%) or cruising with my kids or friends (20-30%). I generally start with advanced runs (i.e. blacks or double blacks) and then hang back and cruise with friends. I never go into the park and only occasionally ride switch. I’ll hit jumps on the mountain but not in the park. I will say that when I’m cruising, the XV can be a bit tiring as it can have a mind of it’s own if you are not somewhat engaged. I’m wondering if the Yes PYL or Jones Flagship might be a good next deck for me to try? Curious to get your opinion on board and length? Thanks!
Hi Ken
Thanks for your message.
I find it’s typically the case with any freeride board, that you’ve got to be dialled-in and they really want to ride fast and precise. I don’t know that anything else in a freeride board would be any less tiring when you’re trying to just cruise and do something easy going. That’s my experience anyway. Great for bombing and for riding powder and getting the most out of your board – but you’ve got to put in to get it out with freeride boards.
I think something around that 162, 163 mark is a good length for your specs for this kind of board, so I don’t think you’re going too long or anything like that.
The only other thing that might make a difference is the width. On 9.5s the width of the 163 Rossi XV might be getting a bit wide, particularly if you’re riding with binding angles with a reasonable angle on the back foot (e.g. if you were riding like +15/-15 or +18/-9 or something like that). If you’re riding with a straighter back foot, I don’t think it would be too much of an issue. But if you do feel like maybe it is a little wide (which would certainly contribute to it feeling tiring) then the Flagship would be your best bet from this list. The others on this list wouldn’t be noticeably narrower (some wider) overall in suitable lengths.
The Flagship 161, if you were happy to go a little shorter or the 164, if you wanted to go a bit longer would both be narrower options than the XV.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Great work yer doing.
I rip Whistler and I’ve been fortunate enough to ride both the PYL and Flagship (and a pair of Skunkapes). I found that the PYL’s underbite was tricky to negotiate with my riding style in Kybers or on chunder but once I got to dropping cornices into open bowls it blew every other board out of the water. But that underbite. Tough to dial it. I found that I kept going over the handlebars as the core wasn’t stiff enough in the nose to handle my 240lbs of moose-meat. My wife experienced the same with the Hel Yes. It took her a couple of seasons to get the hang of it but now she’s not giving it up for the world.
But the Flagship (169W). That board changed my riding completely for the better. It just wants to charge so damn hard. I gave up a small amount of performance in the open bowls but honestly, the gains in the trees and on chunder were worth it. The magnetraction dug into any turn I initiated and I could transfer from edge to edge with a thought. I never doubted this thing in the air and it’s landing gear is phenomenal. Side note: I ripped the core apart with a torsional failure after 1 season so bad that the base ripped lengthways from V-stringer to V-stringer. Jones was kind enough to warranty it but I’m still on my old trusty Skunkape while I wait.
I think your choices are on point but I wanted to say that at this level of construction and tech, any of these boards are gonna perform exceptionally well. I think it comes down to the rider, terrain, riding-style, and skill level.
I’ll keep checking in for next season. Have a ripper season, man.
Hey Squatchie
Thanks for your message. Appreciate the input and your insights. Yeah, totally, with the level of construction and tech they’re at at the moment, there are a lot of great freeride boards available – these were just my favorites, and you’re right riding style, terrain, skill level all come into it for sure.
Hope you get your replacement Flagship back soon and the rest of your season is awesome too!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the detailed quick response. I plan on keeping my Man’s Board and not replacing it as I enjoy the aggressive all mountain boards but obviously they aren’t a 10/10 in powder. If I was doing nothing but steep powder runs I think the 162 PYL would be the choice but it sounds like the XV 159 will be more fun in the trees with the shorter effective edge and still be able to handle steep powder runs well and possibly my go to board or will the 162 PYL be better in the trees. Of the two powder boards, which one will handle the end of day, leg burning, tracked out powder runs better?
Hi Paul
Yeah, I would say the shorter Rossi XV (159) in the trees vs the 162 PYL, would probably say 159 PYL over 159 PYL, but between the 159 XV and 162 PYL, I’d say XV.
I like the PYL a little better than the XV for tracked out powder – but I wouldn’t say there was too much in it.
Nate,
Thanks for the reviews. I currently ride the Man’s Board 156 and love it’s style of ride, fast and aggressive. However, I find myself wanting a powder board this season. I’m debating between a 159 Magtek XV and Yes PYL 162. Mostly West Coast riding and advanced. 5’7” 175 lbs. I’m assuming I can’t go wrong with either. Any thoughts?
Thanks!