Hello and welcome to my list of what I consider the top freeride snowboards for the 2020/21 season.
There has been a resurgence of directional/freeride boards recently, and there were just too many to have all in once category. So, this year I have split my freeride lists between this one, loosely termed "carvy freeride" and a new "surfy freeride list". This list is for freeride boards with a flex of 7/10 or more and the "surfy" list for flex less than 7/10.
The likes of the Skeleton Key & Hybrid that were on this list last year, will be on the Top 10 "Surfy Freeride" list, when I publish that.
As is tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com each board is given a score out of 100.
Some Quick Stats
Of the 36 Freeride boards I looked at:
O.k. let’s get straight into it!
FREERIDE BOARD #10=
Board: Capita Black Snowboard of Death
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 85.3/100
To start the list at #10= 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 to boot, it's also a great jumper and better than average at riding switch compared to the average freeride board.
Learn more about the Black Snowboard of Death in the video below
Score Breakdown for the BSOD
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.0 | 16/20 |
TURNING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
POWDER | 4.0 | 16/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.3/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #10=
Board: Lib Tech Ejack Knife
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 85.3/100
Next up we have 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.
Learn more about the E-Jack Knife in the video below
Score Breakdown for the E-Jack Knife
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 4.0 | 16/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.3/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #9
Board: Niche Maelstrom
- CANADA
Flex: Stiff (8/10)
Rating: 85.9/100
Another new freeride board for 2020 is from Niche - the Maelstrom.
Now this is a more traditional freeride board. It's a stiff, tough, hard charging beast. If you like you're riding aggressive and you want to be able to charge both groomers and powder and smash through crud, the Maelstrom should be on your radar.
Score Breakdown for the Maelstrom
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 3.5 | 7/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
JUMPS | 2.5 | 5/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 85.9/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #8
Board: Never Summer Chairman
- CANADA
Flex: Stiff (8/10)
Rating: 86.4/100
In at #8, we have the Never Summer Chairman.
This board is a bomber and made to charge the mountain hard, whether on the groomers or in the deep stuff.
It's stiff and has plenty of camber and loves to carve - loves to be railing that edge - but at the same time finds a way to float really well in powder. And it's not half bad on a jump - or riding switch, for a freeride board.
Learn more about the Chairman in the video below
This video is a couple of years old now – but the Chairman hasn’t really changed for a good few years, apart from the graphic.
Score Breakdown for the Chairman
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 4.0 | 16/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 6/10 |
SWITCH | 3.0 | 3/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 86.4/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #7
Board: GNU Essential Service
- CANADA
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating: 86.4/100
*HARD/ICY SNOW OPTION
The Essential Service (formerly called the Mullair) is 1 of 4 boards in this list that has rocker between the feet - though the Essential Service has GNUs C3 camber profile, which is pretty much all camber with just a touch of rocker between the feet.
Whilst this profile doesn't suit powder quite as well as something with rocker in the nose, the Essential Service floats surprisingly well in powder.
But where it really shines is on a carve. This board can really lay down a carve. But it's also something that you can actually maneuver quite easily at slower speeds and is very agile - so you can happily take this through the trees.
All this plus it's ability to bomb at speed, make this a great freeride option.
Learn more about the Essential Service (Mullair) in the video below
Score Breakdown for the Essential Service
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 5.0 | 20/20 |
TURNING | 4.5 | 9/10 |
POWDER | 4.0 | 16/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.0 | 9/15 |
JUMPS | 2.5 | 5/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 86.4/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #6
Board: Rossignol XV Magtek
- CANADA
Flex: Stiff (8/10)
Rating: 87.0/100
*HARD/ICY SNOW OPTION
Coming in at #6 is the impressive, ever reliable Rossi XV Magtek..
The XV Magtek is quite stiff so not for the faint-hearted!
That stiffness will bring with it some awesome responsiveness but will also be very unforgiving of errors.
This board is definitely a big mountain bomber that will float effortlessly over powder, cut straight through the choppiest conditions and grip even the hardest ice (due largely to its magne-traction edges). It is also super fast and super stable at high speeds.
Check out the video for more
Score Breakdown for the XV
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 5.0 | 20/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.0 | 9/15 |
JUMPS | 2.5 | 5/10 |
SWITCH | 2.0 | 2/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 87.0/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #5
Board: Capita Kazu Kokubo Pro
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 87.5/100
The 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.
Learn more about the Kazu in the video below
Score Breakdown for the Kazu
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.0 | 16/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.0 | 12/15 |
JUMPS | 4.0 | 8/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 87.5/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #4
Board: Burton Flight Attendant
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 88.0/100
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 without even the hint of even getting close to washing out and is super fast and super 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. This is more the trend these days, but the FA has been doing it for a long time now.
Check out the Video below for more on the Flight Attendant
Score Breakdown for the Flight Attendant
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 6/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 88.0/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #3
Board: Jones Flagship
- CANADA
- UK/EUROPE
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating: 88.6/100
The Flagship underwent a number of changes for the 2020 model - and retains those changes for the 2021 model. It's a changed board, but still keeps some of the same character from the 2019 and previous models.
It's not as hard a charger for straight line bombing as it was, IMO. But it's an improved board for trees, maneuverability and jumps but can still carve and bomb - and for powder, if anything floats even better.
It's a slightly more mellow flex and overall a slightly more mellow ride, but also super fun (even more so, in this rider's opinion) and still a charging freeride machine overall. It's more mellow than it was, but it's still not a mellow ride overall.
Check out this video for more on the Flagship
Score Breakdown for the Flagship
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.0 | 16/20 |
TURNING | 4.0 | 8/10 |
POWDER | 5.0 | 20/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.0 | 12/15 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 88.6/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #2
Board: Never Summer West Bound
- CANADA
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating: 90.2/100
And coming in the #2 spot, we have the Never Summer West Bound.
The Westbound is a great mid-stiff, super smooth/damp freeride crusher. This thing absorbs the bumps better than most - and all round has the balance just right between being hard charging and forgiving. It's more forgiving than you're average freeride board when you're riding it slow, but can bomb when you need it too.
It also achieves an allusive combination of being lively yet damp at the same time.
Learn more about the West Bound in the video below
Score Breakdown for the West Bound
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.5 | 9/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 16/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
JUMPS | 3.0 | 6/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 90.2/100 |
FREERIDE BOARD #1
Board: Yes Pick Your Line
- CANADA
Flex: Medium-Stiff (7.5/10)
Rating: 91.8/100
*HARD/ICY SNOW OPTION
The YES Pick Your Line is a hard charging, big mountain machine, that is also agile & maneuverable.
A well deserved taker of the # 1 spot in this list.
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 just made me a better rider.
My carves were better, I had more confidence bombing at speed, whether out in the open or through the trees (where it is surprisingly agile). That, and the fact it can handle all terrain well, makes this a very versatile and super-fun freeride deck.
Check out the Video below for some more info on the PYL
Score Breakdown for the PYL
RATING | SCORE WEIGHTING | |
|---|---|---|
CARVING | 4.5 | 18/20 |
TURNING | 4.5 | 9/10 |
POWDER | 4.5 | 18/20 |
SPEED | 4.5 | 18/20 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 4.0 | 12/15 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SWITCH | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 91.8/100 |
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.
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!
Hi Paul
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, you can’t really go wrong with either, IMO. You’ll definitely get better powder performance out of either of them – and still great for carving.
In terms of sizing, I think you’re on the right track. I would put you on around a 157 for all-mountain size (which is pretty much what you’re on) and, especially for riding powder, you can go a little longer for a freeride board. So something around 160 is probably a good size to look at for you.
The 159 Rossignol XV will actually have a slightly shorter effective edge than the 156 Man’s Board – just the way the nose is long and lifted (which makes for some awesome powder riding – but just so you know you’d be dropping just a little in terms of effective edge (117cm on the XV compared to 118.5cm on the 156 Man’s Board).
Same goes for the PYL if you went 159 for that board, but not quite by as much (118cm on the 159 vs 118.5cm on the Man’s board – so pretty close to the same effective edge – just more length in the nose for float in powder. There are other things that make it better in powder (like it’s setback stance, narrow sinky tail and wider floaty nose) but nose length is an important factor.
But you were looking at the 162 PYL – in that case you would be looking at an increase in effective edge, as well as overall length (120.5cm effective edge). This is getting on the longer side for you, but assuming you were still going to have your Man’s Board for non-powder days and would use this for powder days, then this length would be doable. However, if you were looking to replace your Man’s Board and just use this as your one board, then I would go the 159 (either for the XV or the PYL).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate!
First of all I would like to thank you for your effort maintaining this awesome page (bookmarked for good!) and helping us all posting our questions. Please don’t ever give it up!
I’m 180cm 90kg snowboarder, size 11 US Burton Driver X boots with ca. 14 years of experience . This isn’t as peachy as it would seem at the first glance. Because I live in PolandI can only do actual snowboarding in Italy / Austria for a week-two per season. Local conditions are just a waste of time.
For last 8yrs (i think) I’ve been riding K2 Illusion from 2007 (155cm) and I was pretty happy with it – the only problem is there are more holes than actual slide by now (marvellous Polish “grooming”…).
I enjoy speed (bombing?) and quick carving on freshly groomed snow – that’s my #1. To my disappointment that only last a few hours in popular resorts so I need a board that will perform well on uneven and even a bit icy terrain in the second half of the day. That’s 90% of my snowboarding business.
I do like to hit backcountry from time to time, but it’s not more than 10%.
I almost never go to park, and if i do i only do some jumping basic tricks.
I do switch from time to time because after rough day on the slope my right (front) leg’s Fibularis brevis hurts.
I am going to exchange my board (cpt. obvious) this season. This seemed as an easy task at first (i was just planning to drop in any burton store and buy “stiff” board), but after spending 2 days reading through your posts (and others comments) I discovered I hadn’t knew s**t.
After reading your rankings (Top 5 Freeride Snowboards, Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards & Top 6 Aggresive All Mountain Snowboards )
Based on your guide how to choose right length I came up with 162 +1-2cm for freeride for me, unfortunately almost none of the boards I found had length 164 and they ended up on 162 (some with 162W option).
I picked up a few options (rated top to bottom) and I would really love to hear your expert’s opinion:
* Burton Flight Attendant 162 – however you mentioned a few times is not as good on icy snow
* Burton Custom X 162 (a bit expensive though so I need a good reason to spend that much money for it :))
* CAPiTA Black Snowboard Of Death 162 or 164W (both are hard to find, so far I had no luck)
* Jones Explorer 162 (however it seems a bit too soft – flex 6 – for my riding style)
* GNU Billy Goat
* Yes Pick Your Line 162 (so far I couldn’t find it online)
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message!
In terms of length, I think something around 162 is going to be a good length for you. It’s nice to add a bit of length on a freeride board, but the biggest reason to do it is for deep powder. As you say only 10% of your time is spent in the backcountry, then it’s not as advantageous to add that length. You get a bit more stability at speed with a bit of extra length as well, but at 162 and with the type of boar you’re looking at, you will should be getting something that’s plenty stable at speed. Another reason why 162, rather than 164, is probably a better option, is that you’re coming from a 155cm. Moving to a 162 will be an easier transition than 164.
In terms of width, with US11s, you’re kind of on the cuff between wide and regular. With Burton’s boots though (low profile) you could say you’re on about a 10.5 – so that gives you more leeway in terms of getting on a regular width board. If you ride with binding angles that have little to no angle on the back foot (e.g. 0 degrees, 3 degrees) then I would still go at least 258mm in terms of waist width. You can go narrower with more of an angle on the back foot.
~ Flight Attendant 162 (254mm waist) – ticks all the boxes (assuming you have a back binding angle of 9 degrees or more – otherwise might be too narrow – although the 2007 K2 Illusion 155 only has a 249mm waist and if you’ve been riding that with no issues, then the 162 Flight Attendant might be fine for you, even with a straight back foot). The only slight concern would be edge-hold in hard/icy conditions. But that’s not to say that it’s terrible. It’s just not as strong in that area as others on this list, like the YES PYL or Rossi XV. Proabably the least in this list – but still ok. I didn’t find it the best in icy patches, but in hard snow it was ok. I’d say pretty much as good as the Custom X in terms of edge-hold.
~ Custom X 162 (256mm)- stiffer than the Flight Attendant but also not as good in powder – it’s all camber (whereas the Flight Attendant has a rockered nose). And as you say you need a good reason to spend that much – if it was between the Custom X and Flight Attendant, I’d say go Flight Attendant for your purposes. The Custom X is probably slightly more “bomby” but the Flight Attendant is still a great carver and great at speed. And it’s got it over the Custom X in terms of powder (and price of course)
~ Capita BSOD 162 (259mm)- I’d stick with 162 here if you were to go with this one – and I’m not sure it comes in 164W (which year’s model are you looking at?). And the 162 should be wide enough anyway. Also note, that the 2018 BSOD is a changed board from the 2017 model. It’s more all-mountain – still freeride-ish but it’s swung in a more all-mountain direction. Probably the same concern in terms of hard/icy conditions as the Flight Attendant – i.e. not amazing in icy conditions. But that would be the only potential thing. Otherwise, a good option.
~ Jones Explorer 162 (256mm) – I found this a little stiffer than the 6/10 suggests – but not by that much – maybe 6.5/10 – so if that sounds too soft for you, which it probably is, especially if you’re donning Driver X boots – then that would be a reason to cross it off. Otherwise could definitely work.
~ GNU Billy Goat 162 (253mm waist) or 162 (262mm waist) – this could definitely work for you. The size would depend on binding angles – if you have a straight back foot, then the 162W. If you have like a 12 or 15 degree angle on the back binding then 162. Good edge hold in hard/icy conditions. Still not as good as the PYL, but probably all you will need. Like the Custom X, you sacrifice a little in powder compared to a freeride board like the FA, BSOD or PYL but it can still definitely ride powder and if you’re only looking at 10%, then it’s probably good enough there.
~ YES Pick Your Line 162 (255mm waist) – this is great in icy conditions, in my experience, and also just a great board all-round, IMO. The only real downside to this option is if you can’t find it!
Hope this helps with your decision.
Wow, thank you very much for such a prompt reply!
I will follow your advice and stick to 162/162W then.
Regarding Capita BSOD – you are right, I must have confused it with another board that had 164W option.
After reading your post I narrowed down my choices to:
1. YES PYL – so far i have only found it on blue-tomatoes. It seems YES is not known in Poland at all, i went through like 20+ shops and most of them don’t even have this brand (sigh).
2. FA – Burton is quite popular, so no issues finding it. Wanted to ask you though – this board features The Channel bindings. I know you can mount regulars (I have Burton Flow Re:Flex) but do they go well wich such combination? I’ve bought those bindings quite recently and intend to use them a few more seasons.
3. GNU Billy Goat – less popular than Burton, but I found it in a few shops.
Based on your comments it seems YES PYL would be best for me?
In case I cannot find it (keep fingers crossed) it seems Goat is next best option. Are there any major differences in models 2017 and 2018? I found the former in nice price.
Reading both reviews (Burton & GNU) it seems GNU performs a little better on icy snow (so good morning) and Burton on uneven terrain (late morning / afternoon) – correct?
Hi Peter
It sounds like the PYL isn’t that known in Europe, but yeah I’d say that it would probably be the best option, but the others are still good options, if you can’t find it.
In terms of fitting bindings to the Flight Attendant – as long as your bindings are channel compatible they will work fine with the board. Maybe not as good as EST bindings would, but still fine. I have Burton Re:Flex bindings that I use on a Burton board, and it works well.
2017 Billy Goat is pretty much the same as 2018 Billy Goat – there might be some subtle tweaks but nothing major as far as I can tell – so if you can get a 2017 model at a cheaper price, then that’s a good option.
Yeah, I’d say Billy Goat better in hard/icy conditions and Flight Attendant just slightly better in uneven chopped up snow – a little easier to handle in the late afternoon when everything’s chopped up.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I managed to find YES PYL (both amazon.de and blue-tomato for people looking for it).
I would like to again thank you for our comments and expert judgement – I am looking forward to test it soon 🙂
You’re very welcome Peter.
Glad you were able to find it and thanks for sharing where it’s available in Europe.
Let me know what you think of it once you’ve had a chance to ride it
Hey Nate,
Great site. I think it is fantastic that you are helping so many riders find a board that suits them well. Thank you for that.
I my case I am leaning towards a PYL but am a little unsure about the best size. I’m 5 ‘10.5″ and about 173 lbs. I’m rocking 10.5 Burton Imperials which are supposed to have a reduced footprint but I am not sure how much that matters. I usually ride Vail or Breck with the occasional Utah trip.
I guess my choices would be between 159 and 162. I am leaning towards 159 since I’m not a local and only get 2 or 3 trips a season so Powder is not guaranteed but trees are always fun. But I don’t know. One second I think 159 will be too short and/or narrow and the next that 162 is too long.
My current board is a 14/15 156 Arbor Coda rocker (Before that a 2011 158 NS SL ). The Coda is still a lot of fun but I’m looking for something that carves well and is a bit faster for some bombing fun that will still do well in trees and when I’m lucky enough to get powder. I’ll keep the Coda but would prefer my next board to be daily driver capable thus the PYL. I don’t have much experience with camber outside of the NS CRC but I’d love to give RCR a try.
Your thoughts?
– Jason
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
It’s a tough one between those two. I would put you on around a 159,160 for all-mountain riding for your specs. For freeriding, you can go all-mountain length or a little longer – so the 162 is definitely an option. If you were to going to be seeing powder/big mountain riding a lot, I would definitely be leaning towards the 162. But since it sounds like you won’t necessarily see powder all the time, and because shorter is better for trees, IMO, the 159 becomes a more tempting option.
I don’t think you’ll have any issues width-wise. I rode the PYL 159 with non-low-profile 10s. With low-profile 10.5s you should be fine. Also given that the 159 is wider overall than your 156 Coda 2015 and your 158 NS SL 2011, then, unless you’ve had any issues with those boards, I’d say width isn’t an issue.
So overall, I would be leaning towards 159, just – it just gives you a bit more all-round riding ability, IMO. It won’t be as good as the 162 when you do get those powder days – but it will still be great for riding powder, even in the 159 size – this board is great in powder even without adding size.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate.
I pulled the trigger on a 159 while I can still find one. Can’t wait to try it out.
– Jason
You’re very welcome Jason. Hope you enjoy your new deck! Let me know what you think once you’ve had a chance to ride it
hey Nate. i picked up a YES PYL last winter and really like it. (replaced my gnu riders choice).tested it out at whistler inbounds and some heli and cat sboarding too. I ride with a narrow stance. im 5’10” and about 215 lbs. To get my stance width i have to use the middle most holes. is that correct? because now i have no option of setting my stance back further at all if i wanted to.
also …my brother is looking into a jones flagship, hes wondering how it compares to the PYL
thanks
Hi Phil
Thanks for your message. Awesome that you’re digging the PYL (hard not to IMO!) – and sweet that you got to take it heli and cat too!
If by middle most holes you mean the holes closest to the center of the board, for both front and back binding, then that’s the narrowest stance you can possibly have on that board. If you were to move your back binding back towards the tail to increase the setback you would also be widening your stance. Let me know if I am understanding your question properly though. Also, if you could let me know what your stance width is and also which length PYL you’re riding, that would help too.
In terms of the Flagship compared to the PYL, I would say the following:
~ The Flagship has a little more when it comes to powder and speed, but I definitely preferred the PYL for carving
~ The PYL has a bit more taper in it, as in a wider nose compared to tail – e.g. for the 162, it has a 300.7mm tail and a 306.3mm tip. The Flagship on the other hand, has much less taper – in the 161 it has a 291mm tail and a 292mm tip (so just 1mm taper).
~ The Flagship is a narrower board. E.g. for the 161 Flagship the waist is 252mm with a 291mm tail and 292mm tip – compared with the PYL 162, which has a 255mm waist, and a 306mm tip and 300mm tail. Even the 164 in the Flagship is narrower than that 162 PYL – 254mm waist with a 294mm tail and 295mm tip.
~ The PYL is great in icy conditions, IMO. The Flagship also isn’t bad but I’d give the PYL 5/5 and the Flagship 4/5 in that respect
Whilst there are quite a few differences, they are more similar than they are different. They are both definitely freeride boards and excel in the same types of riding- but there are quite a few differences with how they achieve that. For example – both boards have a long noses that are rockered but the PYL has a wider nose for better float in powder. The Flagship on the other hand has a narrow nose, but incorporates “spoon” to make it float better in powder.
Hope this helps
By middle most i mean …. back foot holes im using the furthest to the front. And on the front holes im using the furthest back. Its the only way to get the stance width i want. But leaves no options for setting back more. Or even forward. Just doesnt seem to be where i should be mounting them. But pike i said. Only way i can get that narrow stance
Hi Phil
I wouldn’t worry too much about setting the PYL back further if I was you. It’s already setback 1″ (25mm) and that’s just on the effective edge (setbacks are always measured along the effective edge). So you’re actually setback further in terms of the board’s overall length – so essentially when you’re in deep powder, the setback is more than that 1″ suggests (longer nose than tail). If you are comfortable in your stance at that narrow point, then I wouldn’t be too concerned about not being able to setback further, unless you know that really like it – and if so, yeah you’d have to go wider to achieve that.
Hey Nate,
Great site, been riding for 20 years and finally getting rid of my 2001 Forum board 157cm that’s not floating on the pow any longer since I’ve packed on some lbs! I’m going with the NS Chairman and was thinking between the 164 or the 161X. I’m 5’10” 195lbs with a size 10 Vans boot. Live in Colorado go mainly to Keystone. Thoughts between the two, and the length I’m thinking?
Thanks for the feedback
Jon
Hi Jon
Thanks for your message.
I would put you on around a 160, 161 generally, but with this type of board, you can go a little longer than that two.
However, in terms of width, I’d say that the 161X would be too wide. Even if you’re into euro carving and have a zero degree angle on the back, I’d say that something around 255mm, 256mm would be the minimum waist width for size 10s, so you’d want to go that or wider in that case, but I don’t think I’d want to go as wide as 266mm at the waist. And if you’re not into euro carving and/or have more of an an angle on your back foot, you would have the option of going narrower.
So if it was me I would be weighing up between the 160 (256mm waist) and the 164 (257mm waist). There are pros and cons for going with either.
~ The 164 would offer a little more stability at speed and of course, more float in powder.
~ The 160 would be more agile at slower speeds, better for trees (IMO) and better for more freestyle oriented stuff (though it sounds like you’re not really into freestyle, given that you’re looking at this board, so that’s probably not a factor)
I guess the other plus for going 160 is that it would be a smaller adjustment in terms of the change from your current 157.
Hope this gives you more info to go off for your decision.
Whatsup Nate ..looking for a free ride board since I’ve been jumping more into back country …I’m looking at the jones flagship at the moment ..I’m 6 foot 1 inch and weigh about 168 -170 lbs …what size do u recommend -and what boots and binding would you recommend …I would say I’m just under an advanced rider or maybe just making the advanced category .. a good amount of powder experience but looking to take more backcountry approach to snowboarding
Hi Glenn
Thanks for your message. Flagship is a great board for the backcountry, IMO. Depending on boot size, I would suggest either the 161 or 159W for the flagship. If you have size 10 or less, then the 161. If you have between size 10 and size 11, then we’ll need to look at binding angles. Anything above 11s, and the 159W is the goer – unless they’re like way above, then you’d need something wider – but up to 12s, the 159W should be fine.
In terms of boots and bindings – something with around an 8/10 flex is a good place to start. Personally I don’t like to ride boots and bindings that are softer than my board – can’t be too much stiffer either but preferably no softer. Something 7/10 in flex would be ok, but I wouldn’t go any softer than that. So, 7 and up. In which case, I would check out the following links to get some boot/binding ideas.
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings (8/10 flex and above)
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings (7/10 flex)
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots (8/10 and above flex)
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots (6/10 and 7/10 flex)
Hope this helps
Hey nate, great review thx! I currently ride a burton freebird splitboard 162cm 2011.Now i want a pure freeride board offpist for powder and all kind of other snow mostly hard deep snow or soft deepsnow, but never grommets. My boots are 44.5euro 12usa and the back boot is too big for the board and the snow on frontfrontside turns.
Which one would be the right size for me, 82kg 1,82cm height. Imo pyl or fa. TThe size width. Maybe one board that works good in conditions where the freebird sucks.
I have 10 years experience and consider myself advanced-expert. Thx for your help
Hi Bernhard
Thanks for your message.
I think the PYL would be a good choice for you. It’s great in powder, but it’s good in hard/icy conditions. So you’d have those conditions covered with the PYL as well (more so than the FA). I haven’t ridden the Freebird, so I couldn’t say what conditions it doesn’t ride well in – but it’s likely to be more similar to the FA, so the PYL would be a better compliment, IMO.
In terms of size for the PYL, I think the 160W would be a good size for you. It would give you a bit more width, which it sounds like you need (and I’m not surprised the Freebird is a bit narrow for 12s). And in terms of length, for a freeride board, something around 160-163 is what I’d usually recommend for you. And with the PYL being wider, then going on the shorter end of that range is fine, IMO. Even the 160W PYL, however, is going to be pushing it narrow for size 12s – especially if you have quite a straight back foot. It should be ok, but no guarantees. If you had binding angles of like +15/-15 then it would be fine, straighter angles would be cutting it tighter. But it is going to be a good bit wider than the Freebird 162 (255mm waist, 296mm tip, 289mm tail) vs the PYL 160W (260mm waist, 311mm tip and 306mm tail).
If you did end up going FA, I think the 162W would be the best size for you for that board.
Hope this helps
Cool thx so much for your reply Nate!
I will try that. I have salomon faction boa boots and i really like them they are really comfortable. Would you recommend the freeride bindings top 5 from your review for my setup or is there a binding that fits better the pyl setup you recommended?
Hi Bernhard
You’re very welcome.
I think anything from either that Top 5 Freeride bindings list or the following list, would work well with the PYL.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Usually I would say get some stiffer boots for your setup, but if you’re happy with the Faction’s then you could keep using them and see how it goes. That may or may not mean that you prefer softer bindings. If so, then that all-mountain-freeride list might be a better bet for bindings over the Freeride list. But I wouldn’t go softer than the bindings in the all-mountain-freeride list for the PYL.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I love your site. It is probably the most helpful site for choosing new boards around. I am in the process of trying to choose a new board. I have been riding for about 20 years, live out in Colorado and have the ability to board most days that are good powder days. I would say that I am probably in the advanced rider category or slightly below it. I currently have a 2013 Burton Custom Flying V. It has been an ok board and only the 3rd board I have ridden and owned since 1991. I really enjoy 3 types of riding. Trees, Groomers and Powder. I think I’d like a rather stiff board 7-9/10 that can really carve but has float for the powder. I am not a huge fan of the park but will occasionally hit some jumps but thats about the extend of it.
The three boards I have really been looking at are the Captia Black Snowboard of Death, the Solomon Assassin Pro, and the Jones Flagship. I really like the BSOD but understand it got rated a little lower by you. I am 5’6”, 180 and athletic. I am also planning on trying out the new Burton step on’s when they come back in stock. I am old school and have a tendency to over tighten my boots because I really like super responsive setups and will forgo comfort in order to have that responsiveness. Because of that I am a little unsure about the step on’s.
Any suggestions you could give would be greatly appreciated. I am curious about your opinion on the step on’s as well as your board recommendations.
Thanks for your time,
Brian P.
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
The BSOD was only 1 place off making this list. A good board for sure – but it has changed quite a lot for the 2018 model and unfortunately I didn’t get on the 2018 model. It’s become less freeride and more all-mountain. It’s still on the freeride end of all-mountain, but it’s kind of in the middle of the two categories now. I’d say it’s definitely still an option for the style of riding you’re describing.
The Assassin Pro is a killer deck – only thing is that it is a centered, true twin board. It won’t let you down for carving – but won’t be as good for powder as the BSOD and certainly not as good in powder as the Flagship.
But if you like riding powder switch and in your regular direction, then the Assassin Pro could work – but maybe the BSOD would still be a better option overall for what you’re describing. Certainly if you like to ride switch in powder, then the BSOD over the Flagship – but the Flagship over the BSOD if you don’y ride switch in powder.
Overall I’d say, between the Flagship and the BSDO (based on the changes made to the board):
1. The Flagship is a little better in powder (one direction powder) and at speed – but not by heaps
2. Both as good as each other for carving
3. BSOD easier for riding switch
4. BSOD better for jumps
5. From previous models of BSOD, I found it to be nicer to ride in crud and uneven terrain
Overall, I’d say that the BSOD is a more versatile board, but still has it’s strengths in powder, carving, speed – but the Flagship is more specialized towards carving, powder speed and sacrifices other areas to be better there.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your board decision.
I haven’t had the chance to try step ons, so I can’t give you any insight there unfortunately. If you didn’t go down the step on route, then I think something quite stiff for your boots/bindings sounds like it would suit your riding style and the fact that you like to tighten a lot for that responsiveness, if you are on some stiffer gear, then that will really help with that response and might even mean you don’t have to get so tight. Check out the links below for some stiff/responsive boot and binding options.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
>>My Top All Mountain (medium-stiff flex) Snowboard Boots
>>My Top 5 Freeride Boots
That’s not to say don’t go Step-On. Just that I can’t really say anything there. The thing that confuses me a little is that the Photon Step-On bundle says “medium” responsiveness on Burton’s website – whereas Burton’s Photon boots (non step-on) are stiffer/more responsive – so I’m not sure if that’s a typo on their part or if they’ve made the Photon Step-On bundle medium instead of stiff – I would have thought they would make it a stiffer option, given that they already have the Ruler as a medium option. Without having tested them, I’m not sure if the Photon Step Ons are actually more responsive or not. But if you go Step On you might want to look into that some more.
Hope this helps
Nate,
I appreciate all of your help. I am going to go with the 159 BSOD. I feel like it is probably the best for me. I will let you know when I am able to get some turns on it. I am still a bit torn on the binding set ups. I work overseas and won’t be home until February so I’ll see if the step ons are back in stock. If they are I’ll give them a shot. If not it just wasn’t meant to be. Thanks again for all of the help.
Brian P.
You’re very welcome Brian.
Would be great to hear what you think of the BSOD once you’ve had a chance to get some turns on it.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all of the help in the above article. I need help! I am looking to upgrade on my board …….I snowboard a few times a year, but live in the southeast. I lived in Oregon for a few years snowboarded quite often while there on the weekends. I no longer have any desire to hit the parks, really at all. I am 6’2, 215. I need a board that’s going to give me hopefully two things: speed and stability. I feel that my old board simply can not generate the speed I am looking for and stability at high speeds seems to waver a little! These days I want to simply bomb groomers and then really charge down back bowls etc….. Also, we will be hitting a lot of resort mountains in the future.
A few questions….. of this list is there one that would make more sense for a rider like me over the rest? I love the specs and what I read about the Yes Pick Your Line, but I also worry when I read the words “not for an intermediate rider” ????? I am intermediate rider looking for this type of board, but again I do not get out to the mountain like I used to…. today I am more so looking for stability and speed ….Need help on recommendations. thank you!
Hi Tucker
Thanks for your message.
In terms of getting good stability at speed, and still with a style of board that can float well in powder as well as bombing groomers, I think the follwoing would be good intermediate level options.
~ Capita Mercury
~ Jones Explorer
~ Jones Ultra Mountain Twin
~ Niche Story
These are all a little softer flexing and a bit more easy going in terms of camber profile for a more intermediate level. Not to say you couldn’t take a chance on one of these – but they are more difficult to ride – largely because there either quite stiff or quite technical in terms of camber profiles or both.
In terms of sizing, I think something around 164, 165 would be a good length for you. Though it would depend somewhat on what you’re riding now – as in what you’re used to. If you can let me know your current boards make/model and size, I can give a better recommendation. But moving up a little length wise will also add stability. Also if you can let me know you boot size and binding angles. If we’re able to go a little wider, then that can also help with stability.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, thanks again, this has been a great help and continues to help me narrow down my search! For as you know from the previous message, being in the south, I do not have any board shops to simply pop into and pick their brains for help on updating my board.
I really like the idea of the Jones Explorer after reading into the specs…. But would love to continue the conversation here with you as well. Again, I am in my 30s now and will be doing more resort boarding than anything else. Speed down the groomers while maintaining stability is important to me seeing that I do not get to ride and build the comfort on the snow I use to have! Typical day will be hitting the groomers in the morning with wife, kids, and friends and then a few of us heading off to the bowls and blacks during the afternoon! While with the family I like to bomb down the groomers, maybe sneak off into the tree line a little, but then still need the stability to hobble across the cat tracks as we get from one spot to another…….Also, no need what so ever for the park anymore!
I am currently riding a 162 Burton Seven, from 2006. 2016 Cartel bindings. The board just seems really worn and slow the last two seasons ….. Maybe I am just gettting worn down and slow lol !!!
Any further recommendations from here would be appreciated! Board and bindings ….. Price is not a problem here…. Just want the right thing for someone who doesn’t have much continued expertise in this area!
Thank you!
Hi Tucker
Thanks for the extra info.
I think the Jones Explorer would work well for you. Though it’s something you can take into the park, that’s not something that takes away from its other specs.
In terms of sizing, I’d say the 162 is probably your best bet, but it would also depend on your boot size and binding angles as to whether or not the 162 is wide enough. It might be the case that the 161W is a better size.
In terms of bindings, I think something from the following list would work well with the explorer and your style of riding.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
I’m 6’3” 265lbs size 13 Burton step on boot/binding. Thinking of upgrading from my 10 year old 165 ride board. I’m thinking I need the longest widest stiffest board out there. Any advice?
Hi Charlie
Thanks for your message.
Generally speaking I’d say something around a 168 to 169 would be a good length for you. But if you’re used to a 165, then you could definitely go anywhere from a 165 to 169.
In terms of width, with size 13s, I’d say you’d want something minimum 265mm waist width – and that would only be if you had binding angles that put your back foot on a good angle (e.g. +15/-15). If you have a straighter back foot, the more like 270+ is likely necessary. I have no experience with Step on boots/bindings so I don’t know if there would be anything going on there that would affect this, but I wouldn’t think so.
In terms of stiffness, it’s a good idea to go a bit stiffer when you’re quite a big guy, so it’s probably a good idea to go quite stiff – but it also depends on style – if you like to ride fast and carve, then stiff is good but if you like you’re ride a bit more playful then you can go a little softer.
Based on all this these could be some possibilities:
~ Ride Timeless 167 (275mm) – this is the stiffest board I’ve ridden and it’s a good length for you and width shouldn’t be a problem – probably the best option, I’m thinking, particularly if you have a relatively straight back foot in terms of your binding angles.
~ Jones Flagship 169W (270mm waist)
~ Never Summer Chairman 169 (267mm waist) or the 165 (also 267mm waist) – but I’d only go there if you have reasonable angles for your binding angles.
I think those would be great options.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Wow! Some great stuff here. As a reader and prospective buyer, your site, reviews and detailed advice is really good – thanks!
So, here’s my dilemma: I’ve done some extensive online research on boards and narrowed it down to these three – Jones Flagship, Burton Flight Attendant and Yes Pick Your line. All three seem great boards, lots of great reviews and offer similar, yet slightly different characteristics – and hence the dilemma…
Before I dive into it, let me set the context for my current ride: been riding a Custom X 156 (2009), Driver X boots, Cartel EST bindings (all 2009). I’m 5’6″, 145 lbs and like aggressive all mountain riding, with a focus on charging, both on groomers and off-piste – from wide open bowls to steep-ish chutes and also love darting in and out of tree-lined runs. I’d say I’m in the advanced category, enjoy speed and carving, but also really like popping off drops, hitting lips wherever I can. I also enjoy dropping into the park and hitting directional jumps occasionally (not really rails and not jibbing) – just like grabbing decent air… Essentially I like to enjoy everything the mountain offers, which IMHO is what its all about. Speed and stability on groomers and powder probably take priority and like quick edge-to-edge capability on both.
As you probably know better than me, is that the Custom X is very stiff, pretty narrow and is primarily for carving, high speed charging, holding edges. All great but I’d like my new board to do more. For one it doesn’t float vey well in powder, I have to push back really hard on my back leg, which tires quicker. Also I don’t think it handles uneven terrain well and and you really have to work it, or bomb straight over it as you say. It can leave you pretty whacked toward the end of the day. Also, I don’t think it handles jumps very well due to narrower gait and perhaps more bite on edges?
I’d like an all mountain freeride board that can handle all or most conditions really well, but still be very stable at high speed, great carving and great in powder with the ability to do hit drop-offs, weave through trees and just be an all round blast. I also really want that surfy feel! I think I’m looking for a slight step down in stiffness (e.g from 9, 10) to perhaps an 8, possibly 7, though I’m not sure how the latter would affect me?
I started of with the Jones Flagship 2018, which was my favorite at first, then after reading multiple reviews, got turned on the 2018 Flight Attendant (your #2 Freeride). Finally, along comes the 2018 Yes PYL (your #1 Freeride), which sounds really amazing. I’m really struggling as to which might work best for me. I’m wanting to want the Jones, (I live in Tahoe where Jeremy Jones is) but I cannot ignore the FA and PYL, based on yours and other reviews… Aaarrg! I noticed there isn’t a full review on the Jones Flagship from you so I’d be interested to hear any more thoughts around this board – good and/or not so
Lastly, I am really interested in the Burton step-on boots/binding combo – ready they add to that surfy feel and just love the convenience factor. Will go for the Photon boots for less flex, greater response.
Phew! a lot, but appreciated your considered response on what you think is the best.
Many thanks!
Gregg
Hi Gregg
Thanks for your message.
I think that the PYL or FA are probably going to be your best bets – these boards are all high-performance boards and I’d say you’d definitely enjoy riding any of them. The biggest thing you would see over the Custom X, is float in powder. All of these boards will be more effortless in the deep stuff.
The main reason I say PYL or FA is that you mention you want something that’s better in uneven terrain, and I just found that the PYL and FA were a bit better than the Flagship in that area and better than the Custom X.
In terms of jumps, I don’t think you’ll notice a big improvement compared to the Custom X – the PYL maybe just a touch, but they’re not made particularly for jumping. But for straight air you can definitely jump on them, and for popping off drops and that kind of thing they can do that too – I’d say the PYL just a little better in that area.
Sizing might be another factor to consider.
Ordinarily, I would put you on something around 153cm, as an all-mountain size and add a couple of cms to that for freeriding (which sounds like is your main stay). And since you’re already on a 156, and one with a lot of effective edge, I don’t think we should size down at all.
So for the Flagship, I would say that the 158 is the best length for you. But if you are looking at adding a touch of width compared to your 2009 Custom X, then this size won’t really do that – 249mm waist width, 289mm tail, 290mm tip. (Custom X 156 from 2009 = 248mm waist, 291mm tip and tail). And I would also be a little reluctant in adding more length, especially for those tree runs.
For the FA, I would say go for the 156. This would add a little width in the nose (with the tail being narrower than what you have and the waist the same as what you have). 248mm waist, 285mm tail, 295mm nose. You also drop a little in terms of effective edge compared to the Custom X (118cm vs 121cm) but that’s because of a longer, rockered nose, which helps with float in powder (as well as the wider nose and the narrower tail to help the nose float and the tail sink).
For the PYL, I’d still say 156 – even though there is another little drop in effective edge (116cm) – but you get some extra width in there compared with the FA and the Custom X. 250mm waist with a 294mm tail and a 300mm nose. You could just up to the 159 to get more effective edge (118cm) but then you’re getting a bit too long for your size, IMO – and I think the likes of tree runs would suffer – even if it did offer more float in powder – but I think you’re going to notice more effortless float just going with the 156 anyway, compared with your current board.
In terms of Flex, I’d say the FA is definitely the softest out of those. But still not that soft. I’d say 7/10 on snow flex feel. As for the PYL and Flagship, I’d say 8/10 on snow flex feel. I’d say those two would be similar in terms of how they feel to flex in the hand compared to the Custom X but on snow didn’t feel as stiff to me. But yeah, if you wanted to drop to that 7/10 flex and get a more noticeable drop in flex, then the FA would be the way to go – but to me the Flagship and PYL did feel softer than the Custom X to ride – even if just by a little bit.
Hope this gives you more info to go off for your decision.
Hi Nate,
Fantastic! Again, wow! This really does help, thank you. I think I’m leaning towards the PYL – seems to be the best all rounder, has some amazing attributes and I think sits right in the middle of the bunch – teeny bit wider, jumps a bit better and I think if I’m not mistaken, floats better than or at least as good as the FA? And with the sintered base, super fast.
I’ve heard it has a more surfy feel than the others, perhaps a bit closer to the Flagship. Would you agree?
Another quick question: will I notice much of a difference in railing the board to get carve turns, or would it be negligible, based on the lower effective edge with the PYL? I realize there is a compromise to get some of the other capabilities in but just would like to get as sense of by how much?
I’m assuming no issues with boot width for either PYL and FA? Planning on using Burton Step-on Photon boot, size 9.
Finally and let it be known that I will not hold you to this in any way, but what would you choose, if you were me, based on the relatively scant information I’ve provided you??!
Cheers Nate, you are awesome and have been so very helpful!
Gregg
Hi Gregg
You’re very welcome.
I think either one is going to suit you well – so PYL would be a good pick – yeah I’d say it floats just that bit better than the FA – but I’d say that the FA is a slightly better carver. And yeah the PYL is probably a little surfier, I’d say – though you can still get a surfy feel out of the FA in powder.
I’d say you will notice a little difference with the PYL with carved turns. That reduced effective edge is going to feel different. And the PYL has a little (all be it subtle) of rocker in the tail as well as the tip. In that sense the FA would be more similar to the Custom X for carving. It’s got camber all the way back to the tail and the only rocker is in the nose – and you don’t necessarily notice that rocker that much until you get on powder (then you definitely notice it!). So it has more of a camber board feel. But that said, the PYL is also predominantly camber where it matters. So, I think if you’re looking for Custom X with float, then the FA would be closer to that – all be it softer flexing.
I’d say that you’ll be fine with the waist width with size 9s on either of those boards. Even if you ride with quite a straight back foot, I think you’ll be fine for width there.
If I were you, I think the safer bet would be FA, just because it’s a little more what your used to – although you would be taking a larger reduction in flex. The PYL would feel more different, but I’d say you’d get used to it relatively quickly. It’s hard for me to say because I ride so many different boards, I get used to them pretty quickly nowadays, but I don’t think it would feel too foreign after a while. So, it’s a tough choice.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for pointing out these subtle differences but can be noticeable on the ride. Also, good to know that the boots will be okay size-wise.
As you say, all great boards which makes it that much harder to settle on one, especially if you’re looking fo that one board in the quiver that needs to do it all.
Your information and feedback has been excellent. Can’t thank you enough. So, with that said, its certainly helped me get to the point where I make the final decision. I’m going to pull the trigger on the PYL – yes, I totally agree the FA is the safer bet, but I want to branch out more and try something a little bit more different – and I think the PYL will have that versatility, stability, surfy feel, as well as dictional jumping, great floating and better handling uneven snow, which happens a lot here.
For me, the just seems to hit the seat spot and I think I’ll get used to the feel pretty quick.
Thanks again, you’re the bomb!
Cheers
Gregg
You’re very welcome Gregg. Hope you enjoy the PYL as much as I do and that you have an awesome season on it!
Hi Nate!
Have you tried the burton skeleton key or the gnu mullair?
Best regards
Hi Eze
Unfortunately I haven’t tried those boards. I’d say that the Skeleton Key is more of a powder surfy kind of board, so I probably wouldn’t have it in this category (and I don’t really test that kind of board – just because I don’t have time and have to choose some categories to ignore).
The Mullair on the other hand is a board I’ve heard good things about and would categorize this as freeride. I’m very much hoping to get on a Mullair this season.
Sorry I couldn’t be more help
That’s ok, thank you very much for your response!
You’re very welcome. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey! I´m looking to buy a new snowboard and hope that you can help me out a bit with deciding. I would say that i´m an advanced rider that mainly rides piste/powder and rarely hit the park. I like to ride hard and fast and want a board that is a really great carver and floats great in the powder. But since I also like to play around with the board when cruising around the mountain i´m not looking for a super stiff board. My last 2 seasons i´ve riden the lib tech attack banana which i´ve enjoyed a lot but found it lacking a bit of control when going at higher speeds. Therefore i´m looking for a more hard charging board, but with a bit softer flex.
After reading a ton on your website i´ve gotten really interested in the Burton Flight Attendant and the Capita Bsod, would you say that these are boards that will fit me or you have something better to recommend?
Thanks!
Hi Kasper
Thanks for your message.
I think those two boards sound like they would be suitable for you. They’re still going to be stiffer than the Attack Banana, which I would say is around a 5/10 maybe 5.5/10 at most. The Flight Attendant (FA) and BSOD are going to be more like 7/10. So certainly not super stiff – but will be a little stiffer than what you have.
They’ll also be a lot more stable. The Attack Banana is quite a loose ride which doesn’t make it great for speed or carving – and being centered and true twin that doesn’t make it the best for powder – and also not ideal for carving/speed. So, you’ll definitely be getting a more stable ride, significantly better carving, better at speed and better float.
But if you didn’t want to go up to 7/10 flex, you could look at something like the Jones Explorer (6.5/10 flex), Capita Mercury (6.5/10) or Salomon Super 8 (6/10).
Or you could look at something all-mountain, like in the list below. You won’t quite get as much in terms of speed, powder, carving, but still more than the Attack Banana – but you’ll get a little more playfull-ness.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope that hasn’t given you too many options now! But yeah, I think if you’re happy with 7/10 flex, then both the FA and BSOD would be great options.
Nate,
Looking at a Jones Flagship just trying to dial the size. I am 5’10 and 190 pounds with size 11 us boots. Would the 161 be OK or should I go with the 162W. I haven’t ridden in a while as I have been surfing the world, but I am/was an advanced rider and leaning toward freeriding as my park/pipe days are behind me. Living in Australia we get varied snow conditions but mostly icy or spring like conditions but I will be traveling O/s with it as well. Any help on size would be greatly appreciated.
Dave
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
I think the 161 is probably going to be a bit narrow for 11s. If you ride +15/-15 or something with around a 15 degree angle on the back foot and with low profile boots you’ll probably be fine, but otherwise it’s going to be a bit narrow.
The 162W would be a safer bet, but it’s getting quite big in terms of width and length combined for your size. Some people do prefer longer but I felt the 162W Flaghship was a bit big for me (6’0 and 185lbs). But if you like that kind of length and if you’re quite athletic, then that size could work for you. The other option (if you have it available would be the 159W. It’s coming down in terms of size but 263mm is on the wider side for an 11, so that extra width means that you can afford to go a little shorter.
And if you have a straighter back foot, then that 263mm width will be a good width on either the 159W or 162W.
Hope this helps with your decision.
thanks nate 1
hello, I want to go from a mountain to a freeride, what to choose between yes pyl and burton attendant? what are the differences between them? thanks in advance for Rico’s reply
Hi Rico
This is what I would say are the main differences between the PYL and Flight Attendant (FA).
1. The PYL is stiffer than the FA. I’d say PYL 8 or even 8.5/10 for stiffness. The FA more like 7/10.
2. The PYL is better in hard/icy conditions than the FA
3. The FA was a little easier riding switch but that’s not something that either of these boards is particularly easy on
Otherwise, their performance is fairly similar. I would say the main thing is that the FA feels a little more forgiving and maybe more on the all-mountain end of freeride boards, where the PYL is more pure freeride – stiff and a real bomber – but both are great as freeride boards. The clincher between the two for me would be if you often ride in hard/icy conditions – then go for the PYL, otherwise, either one is a great choice.
Hope this helps
thank you for your response and appreciate the job you are doing here, it is very useful for us who are not professionals, but for the first time I will choose FA, would go with ion boa boots and genius genesis x? or do you recommend anything else?
Hi Rico
You’re very welcome.
I think the FA will go great with the Ion Boas. The Genesis would also work but I think that the Genesis X would be an even better match with the FA.
would be better burton diode ?
Hi Rico
If you can find Burton Diode’s they would be a good match with the Flight Attendant. Though they are getting a little stiffer again than the Genesis X – but if you think that you’d like something quite stiff, then the Diode’s could be a good option. They don’t make them anymore, but you might be able to find some past season models or find some second hand.
I’d say the Genesis X are around a 7/10 flex, and the Diodes would be more like an 8/10
Hi Nate,
I currently ride a 158 Jones Flagship and live in California. Most of my boarding is done at Mammoth or Squaw Valley with the annual trips to Utah and Whistler thrown in. I put about 20 days on my Flagship last season and love the board but feel that in uneven terrain/chopped up snow at the end of a powder day it can get cranky. I have Union Travis Rice Pro bindings on it and don’t know if I should get something like a Genesis X to absorb more of the shock. I’ve been doing some research and it seems like the Yes PYL is equally as stiff but does better with uneven snow conditions. Would you agree with that? It also seems like the Yes PYL offers a slightly better carve as well. I’m really leaning on purchasing a PYL and comparing that to the Flagship as I ride throughout the year. Can you recommend a size for me? I’m 5’8″, 140 pounds and wear an adidas tactical adv reduced footprint boot size 10.5 Not sure if the 156 will be fine given my foot size?
Additionally, I’m building my quiver and looking for a fun carvy powder board to add to the Flagship/PYL. Do you have any thoughts between the Yes Optimistic and Hovercraft? Thanks for your help.
Hi Murtuza
Thanks for your message.
I would agree that the PYL is a bit better in chopped up snow. I would say go for the 156. In some boots, I think it would be too narrow for 10.5s but Adidas have got a great reduced footprint and you should be all good with those boots. Also, the 156 PYL has a similar waist width to the 158 Flagship – so if you haven’t had any heel or toe drag issues on the Flagship, you won’t on the 156 PYL.
The Genesis X would definitely work with your setup. However, so do the Union T Rice and I’d say they have as good shock absorption on them or at least pretty close. I don’t think you’d improve the shock absorption going with Genesis X over the T Rice.
In terms of the Optimistic and Hovercraft – these are 2 boards I haven’t ridden. I haven’t ridden a lot of that type of board. I’m thinking of demoing more of that type this season, but unfortunately I can’t really compare them at this stage.
Hope this helps
Nate, first off – great site! Any advice for the upcoming 2017/18 gear would be appreciated. I’m looking at getting the Rossi XV. I guess there’s no change from 2016/17. I’m 6’2″ 193lbs with size 12 boot. Expert rider primarily in the trees, powder, steeps, occasional steep groomer for carves and never in the park. Debating between the extra size (168W) for more float or shorter (164W) for faster tree dodging. Based on Rossi weight scale either will work for me. First question – do you think I should go smaller or larger with the XV based on my specs? 2nd question – do you think I can ride the XV with the new 2017/18 Cartels? I like the idea of an all mountain binding that responds but isn’t overly locked in and twitchy. I think the Genesis is going to be too soft for my taste, but the Genesis X might be too stiff . If you think the Cartel isn’t responsive enough for the XV, I was thinking about checking out the new Union Falcors for 2017/18, but will need to wait for you to review those. Thanks again for any advice! Can’t wait to get back in the snow.
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message. I didn’t ride the 2018 Rossi XV but it’s supposed to be essentially the same as the 2017 model.
Since you like to shred the trees, I would say that the 164W would be the best size for you. I would say around a 163 to 164 for all-mountain riding – which you’d probably typically want to add a few centimetres to for free-riding but, then take those off again for the trees – and with that extra surface area you get with the wide version, the 164 should have ample float. I think you’ll appreciate the shorter length of the 164W for the trees more than you’d appreciate the extra length of the 168W outside of the trees.
I think you could definitely get away with it with the Cartels, but there are probably better options. The Genesis Xs aren’t as stiff as they’re made out to be – or at least they don’t feel that way when riding. I think these would be a good choice. Though obviously you are paying more compared with the Cartels.
I REALLY wanted to demo the 2018 Falcors over the spring but couldn’t find any to demo unfortunately. But if they are anywhere near what they sound like they are, they would be a great choice too. They are the replacement for the T.Rice bindings from 2017 but there are quite a few upgrades, including the highback and the weight savings. They sound so good, I’m considering buying them on a whim, just so I can demo them (if I do I’ll of course publish a review for them). But for now, I can’t say for sure, but I suspect they would work really well with the XV.
Hope this helps – bring on the winter!
Thanks Nate. I’m currently on a 167 Nidecker Megalight and it tears through the trees so the 164 should be even quicker. I am riding with Driver X boots which should be a good match with the XV and whichever binding I end up buying. Keep me posted when you get on those Falcor’s as they might be the right match for this combo. I’m interested on the new ankle strap that Union has this coming year on the higher end 2018’s like the Falcor. The ankle strap support was the original reason I was leaning towards Burton and disliked about Union. If the new Union ankle strap has the same feel of Burton, I might be back to Union. Thanks again!
You’re welcome Ryan.
Driver X def a good match with that XV. Will definitely let you know if I get on the Falcor.
thanks Nate! i have 9.5 boot
Hi Nate
Great job with the reviews, I found a lot of useful informatons!
I’m a small guy, 65kg (143 lbs) and 1,70m (5’7″). I ride about 99% of the time the Alps’ backcountry. I’d love to ride powder everyday but unfortunately I often encounter hard pack and icy conditions. I take the lifts probably two or three times per year. This season I’ve been riding lots of steep faces, couloirs.. and I want to get more into it. I currently ride a 153 Salomon Assassin which is too soft (flex 5) for what and how I ride. That’s why I’d like to get a new deck. I’m looking for a board good for steeps, stable at high speeds and with good edgehold in hard conditions. I’m not a freestyle oriented guy, I just like to hit natural features and do some jumps when possible. I was thinking about the XV Magtek but I’m a bit concerned about it being too stiff since I’m not a big guy. I guess it’s going to take time but that’s ok. I just want to know if at one point I’ll be able to be on top of it and not let it ride me instead. Hope you understand what I mean. Would the Jones Flagship be better? What are your thoughts about it?
Thanks
Hi Alessandro
I definitely understand what you mean. If the board is too big and too stiff it can definitely take you for a ride instead of you being in control!
Anything board in this category will take a bit to get used to compared to your assassin – and it definitely sounds like you get that, so that’s good. But once you do get used to one of these boards you will definitely get more out of them for how and where you like to ride.
I would say that in terms of something that’s good in hard conditions, the XV Magtek, the YES PYL and the Flagship are your best options from this list.
I wouldn’t say that the XV Mag would necessarily be too stiff for you – but I think their smallest size would be too long. That extra length in combination with the stiffness will make it a very challenging board for you to ride – and maybe not something you would get used to or at least not for a long time and even then it would likely not be optimal for you. So, even though it’s a good idea to go longer for a freeride board, I think the 159cm is just that bit too long, especially when combined with the extra stiffness.
So, for that reason I think the Flagship would be a better bet for. It comes in a 154cm and I think that would be a better size for you. I think anything from a 153cm to a 156cm would be a good range to look at.
I think the YES Pick Your Line would also be a great option and the 156cm would be a good size for you in that board.
The Never Summer 25 would also be a good option and is also good in hard conditions. The 155cm would be the best size for you, in my opinion. But that’s if you can find one. They aren’t making this model for 2018. But if you can find the 2017 version of it, that would work too.
One thing – just to make sure those sizes are ok width-wise – what is your boot size? Just want to make sure that those boards won’t be too narrow for you.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the quick response Nate, I have 9.5 boot.
Thanks Nate! I have 9.5 boot. I first thought the 159 could be ok looking at the sizing chart, also because Rossignol says to go with a bigger size than what one’s normally used to ride. Are these boards (XV Magtek, PYL, Flagship) still manoeuvrable at slower speed or they “get angry” want to be ridden fast all the time? Which one of these is more forgiving or easy to ride compared to each other? Could they be a do it all board? Could you explain to me what makes a board do well on uneven terrain?
Hi Alessandro
Apologies for the slow reply. I have been away for the weekend and off line.
I think with US9.5 boots you should be fine on those lengths that I recommended. They’re on the narrow size but still within range for 9.5 boots.
Yeah, definitely for freeride going with a bigger size is a good way to go. I just think that going up to 159cm would be going a little bit too big. Some people like to go really long but if you don’t know if you’re one of those people then I wouldn’t go that long until you’ve tried a board that long. Personally, if I was your size I wouldn’t go as long as that. I would go up to 156cm for sure and maybe up to 157cm but prob not any longer than that, personally.
These are the kinds of boards that do really like to go fast. I find them more tricky at slower speeds – you can still manage them, but they’re not that fun for slowing down and playing around on. I would say from this list probably the 25, the Flight Attendant and the PYL are the most forgiving but they’re still not the most forgiving boards – they’re all quite stiff and made for advanced riders for sure.
I wouldn’t class any of these as a do-it-all board. They’re not as specialized as something like a powder board, which tend to be really surfy, and often not that good for carving or on hard pack. But these boards are made to be good carvers, good in powder and good on hard pack. But to be do-it-all boards, they would have to also be good at slowing down, messing around and good at tricks and riding the park.
If you’re looking for a more do-it-all kind of board, check out the link below to see if an all-mountain board might be more your thing.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
I’m not entirely sure what exactly makes a board do well on uneven terrain – but some just tend to feel easier to ride and nicer to ride in uneven terrain. But I would say that a softer flex certainly helps, and some rocker in the profile helps too.
Hope this helps
Hi mate, I currently ride a Rossi jones experience 163 (2010) that I really like and it is in very good condition. The only negative , the board is really hard work in moguls or very uneven terrain. Not sure if it is due length or flex.
I am 5’10 and 186pounds without gear.
Do you think that a Flagship would be a good upgrade or will feel very similar, did technology and shape changed that much compare with the Roosi.
Would you go flagship 161 or 164?
Thanks
Hi Diego
I don’t have any experience with the Rossi Jones Experience so I can’t make any comparisons but I can give you my opinion on the Flagship.
I would say that it’s a little bit better than average in uneven terrain – it’s not great but it’s not horrible. It’s improved from what it used to be though.
In terms of length, I personally find moguls and uneven terrain to be easier to tackle on a shorter board. So if you were to go with the Flagship, then I would choose the 161 over the 164.
But I can’ really say whether or not the Flagship would be better than the Rossi Jones Experience in moguls/uneven terrain.
Hope this helps somewhat
Hi Nate, thanks for your fast response, do you think that I will notice the difference in pow going down to 161? I ride Japan and Utah.
Is it a better idea to keep the Rossi and get a hovercraft? Again struggling with size, for my weight sounds like 160, but the width is a concern and the 156 could me small…or one board quiver and go flagship
Hi Diego
More length does increase float in powder – or more accurately more surface area does – but the Flagship has awesome float in powder anyway (because of the long, scooped rockered nose, the setback in the stance and the directional shape) that you won’t see any decrease in powder performance going to a 161 Flagship. In fact, depending on the specs of the Rossi Jones Experience you might even see an increase in powder performance.
The Jones Hovercraft is also definitely a great one for powder and could be an option to match up with your current board. The sizing for the Hovercraft is a bit different to most boards. It’s set up with a wide waist width and you would typically choose a shorter length. The idea behind these boards is that you can ride a shorter board but you still have that surface area for riding powder.
I’m not sure what your boot size is but the 160cm would definitely not be too short for you, given how this board is designed. But it’s possible you could even go down to 156cm with this style of board. Though the 160cm would be better for powder for you.
Thanks Nate, I have 9.5 boot. Do you think that the Hovercraft 156 would do or better 160? What would be advantage of going shorter?
Have you tested the mind expander? Looks like it could do the trick…
I am still not sure if I should replace the Rossi with the flagship or keep it and get a pow board.
Sounds like the Rossi is really good in pow, but how much more fun will a specific pow board be?
Sorry to keep spinning…really appreciate your input
Cheers
Hi Diego
I think I would go 156cm if you went for the Hovercraft. For a couple of reasons. One, if you are going to use it to compliment your existing board, then having a bigger range in that length gives you more variety. Two, I think it will give you more agility – and that would help you through those moguls, uneven terrain etc. which is the main reason you are looking at it right.
The main advantages of going shorter are to get more agility (particularly good for trees and moguls), quicker edge to edge, easier to spin and to butter (usually). You loose a little in terms of stability at speed and float in powder but I wouldn’t worry about the latter on the Hovercraft as it’s designed for powder and also has that extra width to make u p for it.
I would say you get a little more out of a specific pow board but usually the reason you would get one is as a second board that you use for powder days – and have another board that you would use in the resort. But, in your case I think it’s more about getting something that performs better in moguls/uneven terrain but is still good in powder right?
Also based on boot side of 12, recommended waist width for me is 163, does that mean that I can’t ride the Yes. Pick Your lines boards. I plan on buying the Burton X boot and Burton X base for my bindings.
Sorry this might be repetitive but base on your post, my recommended length is 164,
Hey Mike, thanks for your awesome post! I think my style is more of a freerider. So I weigh 220 pounds, I’m almost 6′( actually 5′ 11 3/4″ ) I wear size 12, my stance is between 23 and 24 and my angles are duck 15, 15. So through you post I was able to decided on the Burton X for my first boot (they have size 12 thank God), the Burton X base (large) for my bindings (quick question is it okay that the Burton X base’s high back is not adjustable or is it?) and now I want to decide on a board. With my specs based on another post of yours My length and weight should be 164. I looked at the Pick your lines, that max weight goes to 210, does that mean that I can’t get this board as it doesn’t match my weight?
Hey Nate,
Sorry for the typo on your name. Can you recommend a snowboard for me based on the specs I gave? I might also go with the Genesis X bindings as a cost reduction.
Thanks.
Hi Rasheed
Apologies for the late reply. Just had a full on weekend demoing snowboard gear and then took Monday off for my fiancée’s birthday.
Firstly, I think that the Genesis X would be a good option. You might get a little more out of the X Base but they are very expensive. The Genesis X are very nice bindings (actually just rode them again over the weekend) and for the price savings I think it’s worth it. The Genesis X is a little softer flexing than the X Base but not by heaps. They’re are still reasonably stiff (around 7 to 7.5/10, I would say).
In terms of length for snowboard, I would say anything around that 164cm mark would be good for you but you can be a little bit flexible on that and give or take a couple of centimeters.
In terms of weight recommendations, I wouldn’t be too concerned about them. I would take them into consideration but if you are over the recommendations by not that much, I wouldn’t write that board off.
However, in the case of the Pick Your Line, I would be more concerned about the width. I think the only size for the PYL that would be ok width-wise would be the 160W – but I think that would be too short (and only just wide enough) for you. The 165cm does have a 258mm waist and you would be close to fitting on that, because you are going with Burton boots (good reduced footprint tech) but you would be cutting it close I would say.
You could try it and risk the 165cm PYL – or you could go with one of the following:
– Burton Flight Attendant 162W (264mm waist)
– Never Summer Twenty Five 163W (265mm waist)
– Jones Flagship 165W (266mm waist) – or even 162W (263mm waist) if you wanted something a little shorter
– Rossignol XV 164W (264mm waist)
Those would be my top suggestions as per my top 5 freeride snowboards post.
Let me know if you want more options. I can give you some suggestions outside of this lot if you want.
Hope this helps
Thanks alot Nate for the response,
I decided over the weekend after I posted to get the Ride Trident Boots as I feel like I will end up being more of an aggressive all mountain rider. Also thanks for your advice on the bindings as I think I will go with the Burton Genesis X. Do you recommend getting reflex as it give me more options on different boards over the EST? The problem is I can’t find the Ride Trident Boots in size 12 online anywhere as well as the Burton Genesis X in large. Any thoughts on where I can find them or do I have to wait until the 2017/18 versions come out?
The more I read your post on the aggressive all mountain boards, the more I feel like I fit there and might end up going with one of the boards you listed as your top six.
I just want to say thanks again, your website is incredibly informative!
-SHEED
You’re very welcome!
I just did a bit of a search at the stores I usually use and I couldn’t find Trident 12s or Genesis X Large either unfortunately – so you might have to wait until the 2017/18 gear comes out. The only Trident 12s I found was in a European store.
In terms of going for the Re:Flex model – I think this is a good idea. Unless you are going to get a Burton board. If you do end up getting a Burton board before you get bindings, then you could go with the EST model – but the EST models won’t fit on any other brand – so if you don’t go with a Burton board or if you buy the bindings before the board and aren’t sure which you will go with, then get the Re:Flex model.
Hey Nate,
thanks again for your input and your efforts!
Really appreciate it! You’re not just the guy saying/replying “don’t overthink it”.
I think we have a similar technical & detailed approach to snowboarding gear. 🙂
I had to open up a new comment as I couldn’t reply to the original comment.
Just a quick feedback to your post:
The boots are brand new. The issue with the 28.5cm is that they using the same footbed from 27 – 28.5. And this footbed is actually only long enough for my 28cm foot (the 29cm actually has a footbed until 31.5cm!! and that means the liner and the boot shell is actually not a real 29cm …)
So it feels already strange if you’re not 100% in the heel pocket and if so it still the feeling that the footbet ends right unter your toe (you can feel it) and actually touches the front of the liner. That itself would not be the huge problem and would definitely fixable through heat bolding.
But my big toe is basically already compressing the front of the liner and I really touch the outer shell of the boot itself while standing up and walking – which feels very uncomfortable. I’m fine while really bending my knees in a low riding stance. But when I think of crushing my big to on the outer shell every time I go hard on the backside edge then this would definitely suck … I’ll try it out with the heat molding next couple of days … in the end I have nothing to loose.
Alternative would be some other boots with a better fit – in the end a 28.5cm MP size still varies a lot (too much for my taste) from brand to brand and boot to boot. Maybe some better size reduction tech will also help with the other problems.
I was also relly surprised that the Ls doesn’t even fit a (mid)wide board. That’s why I got actually my frist wide board ever. And it’s just by a few mm on each side. I thought it is a no brainer that the L will fit without issues on a wide board and it will have the perfect edge to edge size.
For my taste the M binding is a nearly too perfect fit for the 28.5cm boot but it would definitely create a superb response.
But in my opinion the closer the bindings to the topsheet edges the better the edge to edge performance. And the M bindings are a little to small for the wide board. I didn’t want to go down that road but I’ll check out the vertical disc and gas pedal adjustments and see if I get the M bindings closer to the edges. As I wrote: For the Ls there is no room for any adjustments and I’m most concernd about the real 1mm overhang over the !actual edge! on the heel side of the back foot.
Do you have any experiences there? It might hinder the edge to really build up grip – especially on ice or icy conditions and then I’m basically landing hard on my butt … what do you think? Do you have any experience yourself with such a slight overhang of the bindings over the real edge?
Hehe, same thinking/experience here. But it’s not basically – at least not in my case – that you get lower on the frontside edge. But usually some drag on the backside edge is better as falling on yout butt most often is more “comfortable” as ramming your head into the snow or even worse on ice. 😉
Yeah, all the angles are really well! But I don’t think they’re usually measured on a flat floor.^^
And it’s not wonder the angles are still good because of the massive nose. But if I put my weight on it and the edge into the snow & ice those angles will change quite a bit to the worse I guess. And especially on the backfoot with the tapered, softer, rocker-based tail.
But honestly: I never measured them with the board under my feet in the snow … I’m just concerned that the board/setup in the end doesn’t perform like I have in mind/wish for.
What would you prefer yourself? (I know – you mentoned it a couple of times that with Union to prefer the Ms)
Rather a perfect boot -> binding fit for the overall response with more space to the toe and heel topsheet edges?
(As I said: I’ve to try to vertical disk & gas pedal setup to maybe get a better fit with the Ms even if it costs some flexiblity in terms of stance width)
Or a bigger binding with some room for the boots but a perfect topheet edge to edge fit of the bindings?
(If there wouldn’t be the real edge overhand on the back foot I proably would have gone for the bigger ones for better edge to edge performance)
Thanks & best regards,
Bo
Hey Bo
Since your boots are brand new, I think that they will pack out a bit as you ride – and heat molding them will likely help too. Obviously you don’t want that toe crushing feeling, even temporarily but that might come right. You’re right that there isn’t really a universal fit in terms of mondoprint and this varies across brands so you could find it’s different in a different brand. But if you did go for a boot with good reduced footrpint that will certainly make a difference and even if you ended up in a 29.0 Mondoprint you would likely have a shorter outersole compared with the 28.5 Malamutes (Salomon don’t have great reduced footprint tech). If you were thinking of swapping boots Adidas, Burton and Ride have the best reduced footprint tech – of all the brands that I know.
The overhang of the bindings over the heel edge isn’t ideal but if it’s only 1mm you might get away with it – ideally you wouldn’t have that at all but I have ridden like that before with no issues.
I think the angles in that angulation guide take into account that they will be reduced once your on the snow. Because you’re right, they will certainly change as your board is pushed into snow.
I prefer Union Ms – but I have a US10 boot and I don’t typically ride boards that are more than 258mm in waist width. I think ideally you want that edge to edge fit for your bindings – but I don’t always get it, but it’s not a huge deal, if they’re a couple of mms in from the topsheet edge. I usually try to get them to the toe edge and if they are going to be inside the edge at all, it would be on the heel edge. That’s how I would usually set up anyway.
Hey Nate,
thanks for the feedback.
That’s also what I’m thinking but I’m not sure if I could gain the ca. 5mm through really extending the heel poket while molding. Let’s see … went twice to the shop … 2x times no luck (timing issues, etc.). I’ll try it a 3rd time tomorrow …
Yeah, the angulation guide is superb and really easy. I could have slapped myself yesterday.
As an engineer I should have come up with somthing simliar and more precise method than what I did initally.^^ So according to that guide I only reach angles around 60° – 65° degress. Barely enough but certainly not what I had in mind especially when going for a wide board to have that extra freedome in terms of angles.
I get the Ls with vertical alignment to the topsheet heel edge. It’s just ca. 1mm overhang over the topsheet edge when I take ONLY the baseplate into account without disk cover respectively gaspedal. So far so good. But if you can remember the Union’s gaspedal it’s really not on top of the baseplate but rather an extension as the gaspadel edge actually contacts the topsheet. When I attach the gaspedal on the smallest setting possible I have an 2mm overhang of the outer gaspedal edge over the REAL EDGE. Which really concerns me …
With the Ms centering them through vertical alinment I have a distance of 10mm to the topsheet edge on each side. Doable but far away from perfect. What do you think?
On the toe side the gaspadel edge actually reaches then the topsheet edge on the smallest setting. If I exentd the gaspedal settings to the middle position then it is acually a perfect alignment to the real edge.
What would you do / prefer?
Thanks again,
Bo
Hi Bo
In terms of the gaspedal, I wouldn’t be afraid to extend that out as far as it can go – that’s what it’s there for – to allow for a longer boot to fit in there better. If you find that with the Gas Pedal fully extended on the Ms you can get it to go to the top sheet edges – including the gaspedal not just the baseplates, then that’s the size I would go with, even if it means moving the heel edge back slightly. If you find it difficult to get the bindings centered with this you can also adjust the heel cup for better boot centering and you can also turn the binding disc so that’s it’s vertical. This gives a few more options for centering the bindings (but also reduces the stance width options). You’ve probably tried everything but just wanting to make sure there aren’t more options left. Also check out the video below, in case there are some more tips in there.
Setting Up Union bindings
I agree that, given how you like to carve low, that 60-65 degrees is probably less than what you were looking for. I would have been happier to see 70 degrees there. And I thought you would be able to achieve that on the width of that board.
I have had a couple of people mention how long the outersole is on their Salomon boots – so I wonder if that’s part of the issue. I guess with some of the other companies really focusing on getting their footprint less and less, Salomon’s obviously haven’t gotten longer – but comparatively to the others they appear longer now.
Hey Nate,
Love this website and all the hard work you’ve put into it. I’ve decided after many times of renting a board that it’s time to buy one. The problem is the more research I do the more and more I change my mind, so I’ve decided to ask the expert.
I’m 6’1, 200lbs with size 12 feet and my skill level would be intermediate to advanced. I mainly go snowboarding in Japan, love the powder and carving but want a board that is going to allow me to do hits off the natural terrain easily as well.
Unfortunately financially I can only justify buying one board at the moment so I’m going to need something that is not too specialized in one area. The Burton FA and Jones Flagship both seem like potentially good fits but I’m worried that they may be too specialized. Thoughts on this? Any other boards that you think may be an option? Thanks for your help!
Hi Alex
I find freeride boards like the FA and Flagship are a little bit specialized but not hugely so. They are good in powder and on the groomers. They are good for carving and speed but not necessarily as good for jumps and switch as other boards. They tend to be reasonably aggressive and not the kind of thing you can really ride slow or play around with doing ground tricks or that kind of thing.
You can certainly do hits off natural terrain on freeride boards – really stable for landings – but the approach can sometimes be more difficult unless you’re really confident on a board like this.
You could also look at an all-mountain board which is a bit more versatile – see link below.
>>My Top 10 All-Mountain Snowboards
I would say that either an all-mountain or a freeride board – probably leaning towards all-mountain. But I probably go with one of these 2 or you would be sacrificing something in the powder (the other good type of board in powder is a powder board but they are quite specialized for powder riding).
You loose a little bit for powder riding and carving with an all-mountain over a freeride board but you usually gain in switch & jumps.
Hope this helps
And in terms of size I would say something wide for sure with size 12s. Try to get something that has at least a 260mm waist width.
And for length, there’s a bit of a range but I’d say something around 163cm to 164cm if you’re going freeride and more like 161cm to 163cm for all-mountain. If you want something a little bit easier for side hits, then aim for the lower end of that range – and if you want extra float in powder and more stability at speed, then aim at the higher end. Though since you are going wide, I think that you will have sufficient surface area for powder at the lower end. So I’d say something around 161cm for all-mountain and 162-163cm for freeride.
Hope that made sense (did a bit of thinking out loud there 🙂
Thanks so much for your help Nate. Sounds like any of the top 3 All mountain boards you’ve reviewed would be appropriate with their ability to handle powder very well. I’m probably leaning towards the Jones All Mountain Twin since it comes in a 161W.
Hi Alex. I think the Mountain Twin in the 161W would be a good choice.
Hi Nate,
first off:
Thanks a lot for your awesome & detailed reviews! They’re far better than most snowboarding mag reviews.
Your reviews already helped me a lot to narrow down on a decision but I fear that I need some addtional help from you.
First to myslef respectively my rdiing profile:
Height: 6’0″ / 183cm
Weight: 190lbs / 86kg
Experience: 10+ yeats
Level: Advanced
Angles: Front: +15° to +21°
Back: +5° to -10°
Style: – Hard carving, speed & clear lines on piste
– powder(hard to find most of the time) & tree lines off piste whenever I can
– little jumps (mostly of natural kickers)
– switch & some freestyle sometimes (not often) for fun
Setup so far:
Binding: Union T-Rice 2016/2017 – L/XL
Boots: Salomon Malamute 10.5 US / 28.5cm Mondopoint
What’s still missing is the board:
Originally I was looking for a LibTech/Mervin board as their boards where recommended to me instead of a “old fashioned” Burtom Custom X (which I have been “checking out” for year). I was interested in the C2 BTX – or by now the X2C BTX or C3 BTX – and magne traction technology as I like a stiffer, more agressive board for hard carving. And a stiffer, mostly camber board with a little rocker (for some forgiveness + better powder performance) and the magne traction for edge hold sounded awesome for my on piste as well as my off piste activities.
So I was more looking in the agressive all mountain or an agressive all mountain freestyle board. At least until I read something more about the current freetide boards out there (including your reviews). The allrounder talents, the relative stiffness, the abilities in powder and the overall performance (also quick edge to edge for carving) of the reviewed boards got me interested. I mean I’m not the real backcountry hill climbing or heli boarding kind of guy. And in the Austrian Alps there are definitely more often hard/icy snow conditions than there is powder. So I take any “powder” or off piste line which I can get. But this is mostly hard packed, not fresh powder around the tree lines.
My thoughts so far:
I would have tended to the Never Summer Twenty Five (X – wide) at it sounded the best at “being good at everything”.
But as it is a limited edition is not discounted at all and therefore way more expensive than the competitors on the list. ARGH …
I was also interested in the Rossignol XV Magtek due to it’s performance (quick edge to edge) and edge hold as well as they available wide models.
But I’m not sure if it is too stiff for the everday conditions. Also the quite massive setback as well as the truly directional shape let me doubt that this is a real “one for all board”.
The YES PYL sounds awesome, but maybe a bit too agressive for everday use? Too stiff and unforgiving, too slow turning for shitty end of days conditions?!?
The flight attendant sounds also good – but I don’t know if I should be a fane of the EST binding system … doesn’t come with 2x screws less stability and with 4x?!
Jones Flagship … not sure about that one. I haven’t had any experience with Jones boards before and also didn’t hear about them much.
So I’m still as undecided as I ever have been about which board or even which board type to select.
At the beginning I looked into the LibTech TRS HP or even better the Swiss Knife which seems to have the perfect balance but unfortunately there is no wide size available ( please see below).
I hope you can help me out here at least a little bit more. Especially after reading through “half of my life’s story”.^^
But besides the actual board decision I still have another problem:
The long discussion about the size (length & width) of the board. I made bad experiences with too narrow boards with my relatively big feet.
There isn’t anything more annyoing & dangerous than to drag your backfoot’s heel/toe along in the snow while trying t carve hard & low.
But I like also the quick edge to edge performance of narrower boards as well as the quick turn initiation of shorter boards – especially in narrow tree lines.
But I still want to float well in powder and have the stability at speed. Do you get my problem …?
So I was going to get a wide board this time for sure and wanted to stay below 160cm. But I’m not so sure about it anymore reading more about the freeride boards. With some addtional width and lenght already build in for the better loat in powder I’m not sure if I can ride a regular board from 159cm to 162cm?!
So basically my questions to you are:
– which board & size would you recommend to me given my height, weight, boot size and riding style out of your top five freeride boards?
– what would you say about the recommended size (width & length) of each of the top 5 freeride boards on your list given my preferences?
– do you think I need to go with a wide board with a 10.5/11(max) boot and a X/XL union binding to be able to lay in hard & low carves and worrying about my heels/toes?
– are there any alternative recommendations out of the (agressive) all mountain board section you can give me?
– could you maybe compare your experiences with some mostly camber, C2/XC2/C3 BTX and magne traction boards to the ones of the top 5 freeride boards on your list?
THANKS A TON & cheers,
Bo
P.S.: I’m really sorry about the extensive text & the shit load of questions I have for you. 😉
Hi Bo
Thanks for your message – I’ll try to answer all of your questions as well as I can.
First of all, in terms of width, it becomes a better idea to go a little bit wider if you are really getting low on your carves. For a 10.5 boot I would often not recommend something wide – but in your case, I think it would be a good option. But if you can get something that’s not too wide, then you should get a better balance between being wide enough to make sure you aren’t getting that dreaded drag but narrow enough to still get decent edge-to-edge speed. I think something between 260mm and 264mm would be a good range in terms of waist width sizes, to look at. This isn’t completely accurate because each board is different but I think this would be a good range to look at.
Then, in terms of length, I think you can size down a little bit – that extra width in the wide options will give you more surface area, which will help with float in powder – and sizing down a bit will bring back some of that edge-to-edge quickness and make things a little easier in the trees.
So whilst, I might normally say to go with something around a 163-164 for a freeride board for your specs, I think you could drop down closer to 160.
So, in terms of the boards on this list I would say that the following sizes would be the best choices for you:
PYL: 160W
Flight Attendant: 162W
Twenty Five: 159W
Flagship: 159W
Rossignol XV: Not really an appropriate size, IMO.
I would probably say that the PYL or the Twenty Five would be your best picks from this list based on everything you’ve said – with the Flgaship a close second. I think that the Flight Attendant would also be suitable but won’t be as good in the harder/icy conditions that you say you experience regularly.
I think that one of the biggest differences between these more freeride profiles compared to more camber dominant ones is the extra rocker in there – and the biggest difference that makes is in terms of float in powder. A lot of freeride boards (not all) have the rocker predominantly (and sometimes completely) in the nose. So in terms of the camber profile over the rest of the board, it can feel very similar to aggressive all mountain type boards, in harder conditions but that nose just really helps in deep powder – and can help it be a little bit more catch-free too, on the groomers.
But really an aggressive all mountain board will still float reasonably well, especially if the powder isn’t that deep or if it isn’t that soft.
If you haven’t already checked out my aggressive all mountain and aggressive all mountain freestyle lists you can check them out at the links below. If you were willing to sacrifice a little bit in powder, then these could also be options for you.
Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Aggressive All Mountain Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps and answers some of your questions
Hey Nate,
You’re just awesome.
thank you so much for your response & insight.
Unfortunately I haven’t decided yet.
In terms of waist width I wanted to go minimum with 258mm, sweet spot 260mm.
So that tip/tail are at least 300mm wide which is hard to reach in case of a tapered tail (which is generally also a bad thing for carving) on a regular board.
The only decent deal I’d get for a NS 25 would be a 163W.
Which I imagine is just a little too long and too wide for that agility and quick edge to edge peformance which I’m looking for. But your’re more than welcome to correct me in case I’m wrong here. 😉
Otherwise I’d have to order in the US which would add enough shipping & customs costs to it that it would be more or less the same as the offers in Europe.
I’m still looking at the PYL … but I’m still not sure if it is a little bit too stiff and agressive.
I mean if you experience a great deal of also bumpy groomers, slush, etc. – so the usual “crappy mid/end of the day consitions” which I unfortunately experience a lot.
Is there anything addtional you can say to clear my doubts?^^
The Flagship … hmm. It’s not (yet) in my mindset. I don’t know why.
Probably because I basically haven’t heard anything of Jones boards before.
Other than that I started to look a little bit more in your (agressive) all mountain reviews and list. As I said, nothing decided yet. And as I look at more and more boards it isn’t making my decision any easier.
But the likes as GNU Billy Goat, NS West/Ripsaw, Slash ATV/Brainstorm, Arobor A-Frame (haven’t checked the available sizes yet) sound also interesting/awesome to me.
Cheers & thanks again,
Bo
Hi Bo
You’re very welcome.
All the sizes that I recommended in my last comment have tail widths over 300mm.
Yeah I think the 163W in the Twenty Five is getting a little bit big in terms of the combination of width and length. A 163 with a narrower width would be ok but with that width, I think it would be overall a bit too beefy.
I actually think that the PYL might be the best option. I would say that it’s better than something like the GNU Billy Goat or Burton Custom X or most aggressive all mountain boards when it comes to bumpy end of day groomers – with perhaps the ATV as the exception. It’s flex is quite stiff in hand but the on snow feel it feels softer than its flex suggests. Again, to me this board felt, when riding, not as stiff as a lot of aggressive all mountain boards. Because aggressive all mountain boards are usually all camber or predominantly camber, that tends to make them feel stiffer than their rating. Whereas a board with a lot of rocker will feel softer than its rating on snow. Take the Burton Custom X Flying V and the Custom X (camber) for example. Both feel like an 8/10 flex when bending by hand but the Custom X Flying V feels more like a 7/10 on snow and the Custom X more like an 8.5/10 or even 9/10 on snow.
I’d say that the PYL feels more like an 8/10 on snow.
The other reason I would suggest the PYL is that it is really nice to carve. YES says the reason for this is the tapered underbite (which is the way they taper it) – see the video above for more of an explanation. I don’t know whether their explanation is the reason it carves well – but it did feel really nice to carve to me, whatever the reason.
If you went with something like the Brainstorm or the NS West they would certainly be equal or slightly better in that bumpy terrain but would lag those freeride options in terms of carving and powder and would lag the aggressive all mountain options in terms of carving.
Anyway, hope this gives you more info to go off